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.


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.


The Business Spotlight video for Gittess Orthodontics was presented.


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 a_!1_sked _%_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_%_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 r_$%1_eviewed _%_Ridership by _%_Mode and explained why ridership goes down when gas prices go down. _%_He discussed _%_SunRail _%_Connectivity and _%_Vision 2030 _%_Plan_%1_ 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_%1_'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 wont be able to lose an electronic bus pass.

Chairman _%_Horan asked if _%_Lynx has ironed out the communication prob_,21_lems regarding the move to _%_m_,21_anaged _%_c_,21_are. _%_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).


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 e_,2_xplained after hearing _,1_feed_,1_back _,1_at the _,1__%_March 14, 2017, _%_BCC meeting, staff has revised the_%_ a_,1_ward _,1_pay_,1_out _,1_schedule_,1_ _,1_. _%_For both the _%__,1_d_%_emolition proposal and the d_%_emolition and utilities proposal, the 20% up-front payment has been _-*2_removed _-,1_so _--1_as _-.1_not _-/1_to _-01_put _-11_tax_-21_p_-31_ayer dollars at _-41_risk_-51_. _-61__%_The ad valorem taxe_-61_s _"_paid _-71_on the _-81_project prop_-91__-:1_erty as _-;1_re_-<2_flected _->1_in the _-?2_total _-A4_2016 _#_r_-A4_eal _#_e_-A4_state _#_a_-A4_d _#_v_-A4_alorem_-E1_ _#_t_-E1_axes pro_-F2_posed _-H1_by the _-I1_Seminole County _-J1__#_Tax _-K2__#_Collector _-M1_shall _-N1_serve _-O1_as the initial base year for _-P1_a_-Q1_ward _-R1_pay_-S1_out _-T2_purposes_-V1_. _-W1_Upon _-X1_payment _-Y1_of the ad valorem taxe_-Y1_s _-Z1_due _-[1_on the _-\1_proj_-]1__-^1_ect property, _%_Five _%_Points, _%_LLC, may request an award_%_ payout which is the equivalent of five times the amount _-p1_of the _-q1_in_-r1_crease _-s1_i_-s1_n the _-t2_total _-v1__#_r_-v1_eal _#_e_-v1_state _#_a_-v1_d _#_v_-v1_alorem taxes paid on the project property over that which was paid the prior year. _-2_ Addition_-1_ally, _-1_the _-1_in_-1_crease must be attributed _-1_to the _-3_assessed _-1_val_-1_ue _-2_of the new vertical construction associated_-2__-1_ with the _-1_pro_-1__-1__-1_ject.

_%__-1_Ms. _%_Setzer stated_-2__-1_ 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. _-1_This _-2_phased_-1_ award payout _-1_will _-1_be _-1_based on a five year return _-1_on _-1_in_-2_vestment_-1_ _-1_and payment _-1_shall _-1_not _-1_exceed _-1_the maximum pay_-1_out _-1_a_-3_ward_-1_. _%_The formul_-1_a set forth may _-1_be _-1_re_-2_peated _-1_for _-1_up _-1_to _-1__-1_five years _-1_or _-2_until _-2_maximum award payout is reached, whichever occurs first._-1__-1__-1__-1_ _-1_I_-1_n _-1_f_-1_ive _-1_years if _-1_the _-4_entire_-1_ty _-1_of the award is not reached, _%_Five _%_Points, _%_LLC, will _-1_forfeit _-1_the_-1_ balance_-1_.

_%_Ms. _%_Setzer expressed_-1_ this _-1_payment _-1_schedule _-1_safe_-1__-3_guards taxpayer _-2_dollars _-1_by ensuring grant payout is _-1_not _.!3_executed _.$1_without _.%1_guarantee _.&1_of _.'2_actual _.)2_vertical _.+1_construction_.,1_. _#_Because _.-1_the _..1_public benefits stemming from the pro_./2_posed _.11_re_.21_development _.31_activities _.41_would _.51_be the _.62_vertical _.81_construction_.91_, staff recommends that if the _.:1_C_.;1_R_.<1_A _.=1_awards grant funding for _.>2_demolition _.@2_costs_.B1_, utility _.C2_costs_.E1_, or _.F1_both_.G1_, that _.H1_the_.I1_ a_.J1_ward _.K1_payment be connected to the realization _.L1_of _.M1_such _.N2_benefit_.P1_. _.Q1__%_Ms. _%_Setzer stated staff _.R1_believes _.S1_that _.T1_the_.U2_ demolition _.W1_of _.X2_the existing _.Z2_structures _.\1_on _.]1_site _.^1_provides a clear public benefit through the reduction of blight along the corridor. _.h2_ Addition_.j1_ally, _.k1_the _.l1_d_.l1_emolition activities will _.m3_con_.p1_trib_.q1_ute _.r1_to the accomplishment of the longer range site_.s1__.t1_ redevelopment goals. As _.u1_such_.v1_, staff _.w1_rec_.w1_ommends that _.x1_the_.y1_ C_.z1_R_.{1_A _.|1_a_.}1_ward _.~4_100% _.1_of the _.1_site _.2_demolition _.2_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 _%_A_.2_greement.

_.1__.1__.1__.1__.1__.1__%_Rocky _%_Harrelson, 225 _%_Carolina _%_Way, _.1_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 _.1__%_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 _%_A_.1_pplicant will go on with the development wh_.1_ether or not they receive the $2 million that is being requested._/2_ _%_He suggested other ways the _%_County could use _%_CRA money and discussed affordable housing._%__1J1_ _1J1__%_Chairman _%_Horan n_1J1_oted the _1R2_money _1T1_that _1U1_is _1V3_utilized _1Y1_for the _1Z1_C_1[1_R_1\1_A _1]1_has _1^1_to _1_1_come _1`1_from _1a1_tax _1b1_in_1c1_c_1d1__1d1_rement increases and the trust fund _1d1_that is_1d1_ in the _%_CRA, so _1e1_the _%_County _1f2_ca_1f2_n't _1h1_use _1i1_t_1i1_hat money _1j1_outside of _1k1_the_1l1_ C_1m1_R_1n1_A_1o1_.

_1p1__%__1q1_ Doreen _%_Freeman, 705 _%_Mellonville _%_Avenue,_1r1__1s1__1t1__1u2__1w1__1x2__1z1__1{1__1|1__1}1__1~2_ addressed the _%_Board and explained she would like to remind the _%_Board that_%_ _%_t_1~2_he _%_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 A_1~2_Applicant has gone vertical and there is incremental value of that._21_ If _21_five _21_years _21_from _21_now _21_nothing _21_is _21_built_21_ out there, _21_the _%_Applicant _21_doe_21_sn't _21_receive _21_any _22_money_21_. _21__%_Ms. _%_Freeman asked if t_21_he money is_21__21__21__21_ going _21_to be _23_allocated _23_before _21_they _21_do _21_th_21_e development_21_. _21__%_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. _21_

_3}1__31_ With regard to public participation, no one else in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to Agenda Item #3_31_ and public input was closed.

Speaker Request Forms we_31_re received and filed.

Commissioner _%_Carey _%__31__31_r_31__31_eminded that the _31_unanimous r_31_ecommendation _31_of the _31_R_31_P_31_A _31_board _31__31__31__31__%_was _31_for _35_$1_31_,380,000 because _31_the _32_application_31__31_ _31__31__31__31__31__31__31__31__31__32_does allow _31_for_31__31_ utilities to be _31_in_32_cluded _31_in that. _31__31__31__32__31__31__31_Chairm_31_an _%_Horan _31_d_31_iscussed an email he received from the _%_Applicant, _%_Syd _%_Levy, and requested more information on that. _%_Randy _%_Morris, _31_323 _31__#_West _32__#_Trotters _31__#_Drive_31_,_4R1__4S1_ _%_consultant for the _%_Applicant, addressed the Board and s_4S1_tated the _%_Board has a Development _%_Order for this project so t_4S1_hey know what can be built and what can't be built in a general sense. _%_He explained about _4T1_two _4U1_years _4V1_ago _4W1_whe_4X1_n _4Y1_the _%_Applicant was _4Z1__4[2_making _4]2_application_4_1__4`1__4a1__4y1__4z2__4|1__4}1__4~1__41__41_, they _41_were negotiat_42__41_ing the _41_D_41__41_evelopment _%_Order and working with staff_42_. _%_Staff approach_41_ed _41__42_the _%_Applicant regarding _41__41__#_Spine _41__#_Road. _%_At _41_the _41_same _41_time _41_t_41_he _%_Applicant was _41_coming _41_forward, _41_D_41_O_41_T _41_was _41_coming _41_forward _41_with the widening of _%_U_41_._%_S. 17-92 to six lanes. _41_ _%_T_41_he _%_Applicant _41_had _41_a _41_light _41_and _41_a _42_signal _41_on _%_U._%_S. 17-92 in _41__41__41_one _41_location_41__41_, and DOT and the _41__#_Count_41_y _42_wanted _41_him to _41_move_41_ that_41_ location_41_, which t_41_he _%_Applicant did not have to do. _%_Mr. _%_Morris stated they _41_chose _41_to _41_move _41_t_41_he road _41_to _42_accommodate _41_the_41_ _#_Count_41_y_41_'s _41_new _42_entrance _41_with the _42_widening_41_ _41_because the _%_County was losing an entrance at _%_Five _%_Points._5)1_

_5*1_ _%_Mr. _%_Morris explained _"_in _5+2_addition_5-1_al _5.2_discussions _501_with the _511__%_C_521_ounty in r_521_egard to _%_Spine _%_Road, _531_it was _542_established _561_that _571_th_581__591__5:2__5<1__5=1_e _%_County wanted t_5=1_he _%_Applicant to run _5>1_that _5?1_route_5@1__5G1_ to _%_Hester _%_Avenue to connect with t_5G1_he _%_Five _%_Points entrance at _%_U._%_S. 17-92 going over to _%_Hester _%_Avenue on _%_Ronald _%_Reagan _%_Boulevard, which t_5G1_he _%_Applicant was under no obligation to do. _5`1__%_That_5a4_ _5e1_connection would e_5f1_lo_5i1__5i1_ngate the _5j1_original road _5k1_by _5l3_almost 50%_5q1_. _#_To _51_make _51_the_51_ connection under engineering principles required by the _#_County, it _51_cut_53_ right _51_next _51_to the _51_wet_51_lands_51_. _#_So _51_t_51_he _%_Applicant _53_approached _51_the _51__#_Count_51_y _51_and a_51_sked if the _%_County would participate in building the road if it was built where the _%_County wanted it. _51_ _#_At the time, i_51_t was estimated to c_51_ost $1.8 million_51_ to _51_build _51_a _51_two-_51__51_lane _51_road _51_to _51__#_Count_51_y _52_standard_51_._51__52__51__51__52__51_ _51__%_Consequently, the _%_Applicant _52_entered _51_into _51_an _51_a_51_greement _51_with the _51__#_Count_51_y_51_ _51_in which the_51_ _#_Count_51_y _51_would _51_fund _51_up _51_to _53_50% _6!1_of the _6"1_cost_6#2_, capped _6%1_at _6&3_$900,000. Upon _631_the _644_engineering _681_being _691_done_6:1_, the_6;1_ field _6<1_re_6=1_search _6>1_being done, the_6?1_ mock roads being done, work with _%_St. _%_Johns, and work with the environmentalists, the estimated cost in the field went through the roof. _%__6?1_Mr. _%_Morris continued, the _%_Applicant then brought in _6`1_another _6a3_engineer _6d1_to _6e1_val_6f1_ue _6g1_engineer the engineers work_6h1__6i1__6j1__6k1__6l1_ trying to figure out a way to get the_6l1_ cost down and they have not been successful. _6{1_So _6|1_now _6}1_t_6}1_he _%_Applicant has to _6~1_look _61_at _61_it from _61_a _61_pure _61__61_checkbook _62_issue_61_, and figure out if they _61__61_go _61_forward _61_with an _61_a_61_greement _61_with _61_the_61_ _#_Count_61_y _62_that is capped _61_at _63_$900,000 or put it where it was originally planned _61_at _61_a _61_much _61_low_61_er _61_cost _61_and _61_save_62_ money_61_. _61_

_%_Mr. _%_Morris stated these _61_are _61_two _62_different _63_issues_61_._61_ _61__%_Thi_62_s application is _61_the_62_ largest _61_re_61_development _61_in the _62_history _61_of _61_Seminole County_61_ and _61_the_62_ largest _61_redevelopment in _61_terms of _%_U._%_S. 17-92, a_61_nd is exactly why the _%_CRA was setup. _7$1_The _7%1_road _7&1_is _7'1_a _7(2_different _7*2_application _7,1_that _7-1__7.1_they a_7/2_greed _711_to _723_over a year and a half ago with t_723_he _%_County._751__761__771__781__791__7:1_ _7;1_However_7<2_, money _7>1_is _7?2_fungible _7A1_and _7B1_bills _7C1_are _7D2_really _7F1__7G1_fungible _7H1_in _7I1_terms _7J1_of _7K1_cost_7L1_. _7M1__%_Mr. _%_Morris explained _7N1_Mr. _7O1_Lev_7P4__7T3_y approached _7W1_him and said_%__7e1_ he can't see _71_building the _71_road _71_without _71_th_71_e grant _74_being _73_approve_71_d for the full amount that is being requested ($1,380,039_71__78__71_). _71__%_He expressed that _"_the _71__#_Count_71_y _71__71_will _71_have _73_expenses _7 1_if _71_the _%_Applicant doesn't_71_ _71_build _71_the _71_road_71__71_ because the _71__#_Count_71_y _71_ha_71_s made _72_decisions _71_with the community to _71_p_72_ut a signal _71_in _71_at _71__%_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 _71_t_71_he _%_Applicant doesn't_71_ _71_build _71_the_71_ road_71_.

_%_Mr. _%_Morris stated the _%_Board_71_ has _8!1_done _8"1_a _8#1_lot_8$1_ of _8%1_C_8&1_R_8'1_A _8(3_applications _8+1_in the _8,1_past_8-1__8.1__8/1_ and staff _801_has told the _%_Applicant that this is the most _812_thorough _832_application _852_they_871_ have seen_881_. _%_The _%_Applicant has_891_ had _8:1_David _8;6_Johnson_8A1_, _%_Seminole _%_County Property_#_Proper _8B3__#_Appraiser_8E1__8F1_, re_8G1_view _8H1_the application and assist with _8I1_some_8J1__8K1__8L1_ of the estimates_8M1__8N1_ in terms of what the projections would be.

_%_Mr. _%_Morris thanked _%_Deputy _%_County _%_Manager _%_Bruce _%_McMenemy for the diligent work he did in _8\1_terms _8]1_of _8^3_negotiating _8a1__8b1__8c1__8d1__8e1_a _8f1_pay_8g1_out _8h1_schedule _8i1_which _8r1_is _8s3_a _8v2_guarante_8x1_e that construction _8y1_must _8z2_occur_8|1_ and _8}2_tax dollars _81_will _81_not _81_be _81_at _81_risk _81_because the _%_County will hav_%_e a return on investment. _%_He clarified the return on investment is four years_%_, which is one of the most rapid paybacks on anything t_81_hat the _%_County has done_%_ with the _%_CRA. _%_He reiterated_%_ _82_it_82_ is guaranteed _81_or _81_the _%_Applicant will not_81_will not collect _81_the_82_ money_81_.

_81_ _%_Mr. _%_Morris stated he has discussed this issue with_%_ the _%_Board individually and on the public record. _%_He mentioned _81_clients _81_don't _81_always _82_follow _81_con_81_sult_81_ant_81__81_s advice, and he has advised the _%_Applicant he should build the road at the _%_County's preferred location_9!5_ but it is the _%_Applicant's c_9!5_heckbook.

_%_C_9'1_ommissioner _%_Carey _9(1__#__%_expressed she can see w_%_here _9h1_Mr. _9i1_Le_9j1__9k1_vy is coming _9l1__9m1_from_9n1_ and _#__9o1_he is _9p1_the _9q1_only _9r1_one _9s1_that _9t1_has _9u1_any _9v1_s_9w1__9w1_kin in the _9x1_game_9y1_. _%_She stated he has owned that piece of land_9z1__9{1__9|2__9~1__91__91_ for _91_a _91_long _91_time_91_ and _91_has been a good steward of it. _%_He was _91_very _95_creative _91_in _91__93__91__92__91__92_making _91_the _91_land _91_work _9 1_for _91_him_91_, and _91_he_91_ is _91_doing _92_exactly _91_what _91_the _91_C_91_R_91_A _91_was _91_set _91_up _91_to do_91_, making application_91__94__91__92__91_ for things that _91_are _93_allowed _91_under the _91_C_91_R_91_A_91_. _92__%_She noted it is _91_the _92_largest _92_catalyst _92_project _91_that _91_t_91_he _%_County has _91_done _91_and _91_will _91_ever _91_do _91_because _91__91_there isn't _91_any _91_land _91_of _91_that _91_size _91_with _91_this _91_opportunity _91_on _91_it_91__91_ left in _%_Seminole _%_County. _%_She reiterated that _%__91__91_she can _91_understand _91_why _91__%_Mr. _%_Levy _94_wouldn't _91_develop _91_the _91_road _91_if _91_he_91__91_ is not _92_getting _91_any _91_support_91_ from the _91__#_Count_91_y_91_.

_%_Commissioner _%_Carey e_91_xpl_91_ained _91_if _:!1_the _%_County _:"1_want_:#1_s someone _:$1_to _:%1_build _:&1_a _:'1_road_:(1_, they _:)1_part_:*1__:+1_ner _:,1__:-1_with different people _:.1__:/1_to _:01_come _:11_in _:21_where they are going to do something; and _:31_if the _%_County _:41_want_:51_s it _:61_to be _:74_bigger_:;1_, _:<2_at a different _:>1_intersection or a different configuration_:?1__:@1__:A1__:B1__:C1__:D2_, the _%_County makes _:F1_a _:G1_con_:H1_trib_:I1_ution _:J1_toward _:K1_the _:L1_construction _:M1_of _:N1_that _:O1_in _:P1_order to _:Q1__:R1_best _:S2_benefit _:U1_the _:V2_public_:X1_. _#_If the _%_County is spending public dollars and _:Y1_they _:Z1_have _:[1_to _:\1__:]1__:^1_do _:_1_it _:`1_o_:a1_n their _:b1_own_:c1_, th_:d1_en it costs more money than if _:e2_they _:g1_had part_:h2_ner_:j1_ed with _:k1_a _:l1_private _:m1_individual_:n1_. _%_She opined that _:o1__:p1__:q1_there _:r1_are _:s1_a _:t1_lot _:u1_of _:v1_great _:w1__:x1_merits _:y1_about _:z1_th_:{1_e C_:|1_R_:}1_A _:~2_application _:~2_and noted that she is _:2_pleased _:1_with the _:1_pay_:1_out _:1_option _:1_that_:1_ has _:1_been _:3_negotiated _:1_by _:1__:1__%_Mr. _%_Mc_:1_Menemy and _:1_staff _:1_with the _:2__%_A_:2_pplicant_:1_.

C_:1__:1_hairman _%_Horan stated_:1__:1__:1__:1_ there _:2_is basically _:1__:1_no _:1_risk _:1_on _:1__:1_behalf _:1_of the _:1__#_Count_:1_y _:1_because _:1_the_:2_ verticality and the verification _:1_has _:1_to _:2_occur _:1_before _:1_any _:1_of the _:2_money _:1_is _:1_paid_:1__:1_, and _%_Ms. _%_Guillet responded that is correct. Mr. _%_Morris_%_ _:1__:1__:1__:1__:1__:1__:1__:1__:1__:1__:1_explained_%_ he and Mr. _%_Levy _:1__:1__%_had _:1_a _:1_conversation _:1_with _:1__%_Commissioner _:1_Con_:1_s_:1__:1_tantine where _:1__%_Mr. _%_Morris was _:2_drilled _:1__:2__:1__:1_o_:1_n the _:2_issue _:1_of the _:1_road_:1_way; and_:1_; and _:1_Mr. _:1_Lev_:1__:1_y _:1_committed to building the roadway _:1_if _:1_he _:1_gets _:1_the_:1_ $1.3_:1__:4_8 million, even though it's at risk _:1_t_;*1__;*1_o him.

Chairman _%_Horan pointed out that these are two separate issues. _%_Mr. _%_Morris stated the roadway development agreement _#__;\1_ex_;]1_pires _;^1_at _;_1_the _;`1_end _;a1_of _;b1_the_;b1_ _;c1_year_;d1_. _;e1__;f1__;g2__%__;g2_Part of the construction has _;i2_started _;k1__;l1__;m1__;n1_on the _;o1_road_;p1_way_;q1_ but _;r2_it is _;t1_at _;u1_a _;v2_southern _;x1_location _;y1_where the _;z2_preferred _;|1_route_;}1_ would _;~1_be _;1_if _;1_they _;2_didn't _;1_buil_;1_d the_;1_ road_;1_way. _%_Chairman _%_Horan_;1_ _;1_explained_#_ that is_;1_ _;1_an _;2_incent_;1_ive _;1_a_;1_greement_;1_, a _;2__%__;1__;1__;1__;1__;2_public-private partnership based upon_;1_ the _;1__#_Count_;1_y_;1_'s _;1_contribution for what _;1_will _;1__; 2_essentially _;1_be a _;2_public_;2_-private _;1_purpose road_;1_. _%__#_The_;1_ risk _;1_is on the developer whether the risks go up or down._;1_ _;3_ With _;1_regard _;1_to the _;1__%_CRA grant_;1_, _;1_tha_;1_t _;1_is _;1_a _;1_grant _;1_program_;1_. _;1_The _;1_grants are _;1_not _;2_fixed _;1_to _;1_completing a particular improvement. _;2_The _;1_grant _;1_is _;3_limited _;1_to _;1_c_;1_ertain _;3_parameters _;1_und_;1_er _;1__#__;1__;1__;1_t_;1_he _%_County's requirements under the _%_CRA. _%_He noted_<!1_ whether _<"1_the_<#1_ cost _<$1_of _<%1_what _<&1_a_<&1_ _<'1_grant _<(1_is _<)2_given _<+1_for _<,2_goes _<.1_up _</1_or _<02_goes _<21_down_<31_, _<42_that is _<61_what _<71_the_<81_ grant _<91_is,_<:1__<;1_ one way or t_<;1_he other. _%_Mr. _%_Morris agreed and added the developer has _%_to provide receipts to _<E1__<F1__%_County _<G1_staff_<H1__<H1_ that _<I1_they _<J1_re_<K1_view _<L2_regarding _<N1_the _<O1_work _<R1__<R1_that gets done. _<S1__%_Ms. _%_Guillet _<Y1__<Z1_stated i_%_t _%_is _<[1_a not_<\1_-to_<]1_-exceed _<^1_re_<_1_im_<`2_bursement_<b1_ so _<c2_it's _<e2_based _<g1_on _<h1_cost_<i1_. _%_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_<j1_ for the project, and then _%_the _%_County has to accept the receipts. _%_It is t_%_he s_%_ame way_<j1_ on the road project;_<j1_ the _%_County will inspect the road t_<j1_hat has _<1_to be _<1_built_<1_ _<1_to _<1__%_C_<1_ounty _<2_standard _<1_and _<1_then _<1_the _%_County _<2_eventually takes it over._< 1__<1__<1__<1__<1__<1_

Chairman _%_Horan stated_%__<2__<1__<1__<1__<1__<1__<1__<2__<1_ these are grants that are not only _<1__<1_requirement_<1_s of the _<1__<1__%_CR_<1_A_<1_, but they are conditioned _<2_based _<1_upon _<1_what _<1_is _<1_going _<1_to _<1_happen _<3_to the _<1_development _<1_itself_<1_. _%_He reiterated that_<1_ what_<1_ever _<1_the_<1_ grant _<1_is_<2_, it is _<1_going _<1_to be _<2_conditioned _<1_upon the _<2_verticality _<1_of the _<1_development _<1_and _<1_paid _<1_in _<1__<1_proportion _<1_to the _<1_in_<1_crease _<1_in the _<4_ad valorem _="1_tax_=#1_ation, _=$1_which _=%1_is the _=&1_whole _='1_idea _=(1_of the _=)1_C_=*1_R_=+1_A_=,2_. _#_It's _=.1_tax_=/1_-increment financing. _=51_ _=61__%_He expressed his concern is with the numbers. _=G1__%_M_=H1_r. _%_Morris _=I1_reminded the _%_Board that the original_#__=J1__=K1_ _=L1_application was _=M1_for _=N5_$2.4 million _=S1_just for the _=T1_sheer _=U1_scope _=V1_and _=W1_size_=X1__=Y1_ of the project. Staff had _=Z3_advised _=]1_him _=^1_that _=_1_the _%_Board was_=`1_ not _=a1_too _=b1__=c1__=d1__=e1_enamored with paying_=f1_ _=g3_for landscaping _=j1_and entrance features, _=k1__=l1_so _=m1_he _=n3_revised _=q1_down_=r1_ward_=s1_. _=t2__%_He pointed out the _%_Board has _=v2_given _=x1_grants _=y1_of significant size and _=z1_great_={1_er _=|1_than _=}1_the staff _=~1_recommendation here for _=1_fa_=1__=1_r less _=1_in the _=1_past_=1_; so _=1_he _=1_think_=1_s by _=1_proportionality,_=1__=1_ _=1_rel_=1_ative _=1_to _=1_the size _=1_of the _=2_project,_=1_ this _=1_is _=2_actually _=1_a _=2_minimum _=1_request _=1_and one _=1_that the _%_Applicant has _=1_cut _=1_by _=3_50%_=1__=1_.

Commissioner _%_Carey_=1_ _=1_explained u_#_nder _=1_t_=1_he _=2_typical _=1_rules _=1_for these grants, they _=1_could _=1_be _=1_entitled to 20% of the payout right now because the _=2__=2_demolition work _=1_is _=1_already _=1_done_=1_. _=1__%_B_=1_ut staff has_=1__=1__=1__=1__=1__=1__=2__=2_ _=1_re_=1_negotiate_=2_d _=1_this _=1_so that there _=1_is _=1_no _=1_pay_=1_out _=1_until _=1__=1_their whole infrastructure i_=1_s in a_=1_nd they go vertical. _%__#_They are applying for things that are allowed under t_=1_he grant. _%_She discussed how successful _%_CRA redevelopment projects _%_l_=1_ike _%_Altamonte _%_Springs and _%_Casselberry provided the utilities and how it _%_i_%_s not uncommon for _%_CRAs to provide those things which is why t_=1_he application allows for it.

Commissioner _%_Dallari_>w1_ _>x1_asked what happens to the application if the road isn't built. _>1__%_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 f_>1_or that road _%_being constructed_>1__>1__>2__>2_, which i_>2_s _>3_what the application predicated _>1_on_>1_ and that is_>2__#_ _>1_the _>1_plan _>1_that _>1_was _>3_submitted_>1_. _%_She explained _>1__>1__>1__>1__>1_because staff hasn't discussed it, she is not sure what not _>2_building _>1_that _>1_road _>1_does _>1_to the _>1_over_>1_all _>2_project_>1_. _>1_So _>1_the _%_Board _>1_would _>1_be _>3_approving _>1_a _>1_grant _>1_that _>1_would _>1_involve _>1_a _>1_modification _>1_to the _>1__#_Development _>1__#_Plan _>1_if _>1_they _>2_didn't _>1_build the road.

C_%_ommissioner _%_Carey_?k1_ _?l1_stated_#_ _?m1_th_?n1_e road is not part of the _%_Development _%_Order. _%_She_%_ specifically asked staff about it and they came back_?o1_ _?y1_and _?z1_said _?{1_tha_?{1_t the _?|1_road _?}1_a_?~3_greement_?1__?1__?1_ _?1_is _?1_outside _?1__?1_even _?1_of _?1_the_?3_ approved _?1_D_?1__?1_evelopment _%_Order. _#_The _%_Applicant c_?1_ould develop tomorrow based _?1_on the _?2__#_Development _#_Order _?1_that they _?1_have, _?1_and _?1_they have _?1_no _?1__? 1_obligation _?1_to do the _?1_ro_?1_ad other _?1_than _?1_the_?1_ a_?1_greement _?1_that t_?1_he _%_County has _?1_t_?1_o _?2_assist _?1_in _?2_funding _?1_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 _?3_allows _?1_for _?2_certain _?2_requests _?1_that _?1_they _?1_have _?3_requested_?1_. _?2_There is _?1_n_?1_othing _?1_that _?1_would _?1_keep _@!1_t_@!1_he _%_County _@"1_from _@#2_putting _@%1_in the _@&1_motion _@'1_that _@(1_the _@)1_road _@*1_would _@+1_have _@,1_to be _@-1_a _@.1_part _@/1_of _@01_the approval. _%_Ms. _%_Guillet_@11__@21_ responded if the _%_Board_%_ approves_@21_ the grant based on the _@;2_application, _@=1_since the_@=1_ _@>1_road _@?1_is _@@2_contem_@B2_plated _@D1_as _@E1_part _@F1_of the _@G1_ap_@H1_plication,_@J1_ they _@K2_wouldn't _@M1_have _@N1_to _@O1_make _@P1_a_@Q1_n affirmative motion _@R1_to that effect_@X1_.

Mr. _%_Morris _@Z1__@[2_stated_@]2__@_1__@`1__@a1__@b2__@d1__@e1__@f1__@g1__%__@h1__@i1__@j1__@k1__@l1__@m1__@n1__@o1_ the _%_Applicant has a legal right to change _@p1_the site _@q1_plan _@r1_at any time. _#_The_@s1_ grant _@t1_is _@u1_not _@v2_tied _@x1_directly to the _@y1_site _@z1_plan_@{1_,_@{1_ the_%_ site plan is _@|1_a _@}1_rend_@~1_ering_@1__@1_. _@2__%__%_He reiterated the _%_Applicant _#_h_@1_as_@1_ a right _@1_to _@1_put _@1_th_@1_e road _@1_pretty much wherever he wants to put it. _%_Ms. _%_Guillet_@1__@1_ explained_%__@2__@2__@1__@1__@1__@1__@1_ the _@1_grant _@1_a_@1_greement _@3_references _@1_the _@1_proj_@1_e_@1_ct_@1__@1_. The _@2_project _@1_is _@1_what _@1_is _@2_contem_@2_plated _@1_in the _@1_grant _@2_application _@1_which _@3_demonstrates _@1_that _@1_the_@1__@1_ road _@1_will _@1_be _@2_constructed_@1_, so _@1_everything _@1__@1_is _@2_tied _A!1_to the _A"2_project not _A%1_the _A&2__#_Development _#_Order_A/1_. _#__A01_The _A11_grant _A22_application _A42_contem_A61_plates _A71_construction _A81_of _A91_that _A:1_road_A;1_. _A<1_So _A=1_if _A>1_the _A?1__#_Board _A@1_wants _AA1_to _AB1_re_AC1_lease _AD1_t_AD1_he _%_Applicant _AE1_from _AF1_construction _AG1_of _AH1_that_AI1_ road_AJ1_, they _AK1_need _AL1_to _AM1_make _AN1__AO1_a _AP1_note _AQ1_of _AR1_that _AS1_in their motion because _AT2_it's _AV2_different _AX1_than the grant application.

Mr. _%_Morris_AY1_ _%_clarified_AZ1__A[1__A\1__A]2_ there_A_1_ is no _A`1_requirement _Aa1_for _Ab1_t_Ab1_he _%_Applicant _Ac1_to _Ad1_accept _Ae1_the _Af1_grant_Ag2_, and it is actually a risk to do the grant._Ai1__Aj1__Ak1__Al1__Am1__An1__Ao1__Ap1_ _Aq2__A1_The _A2_issue _A1_of not building the road is _A 1_a _A2_financial _A2_issue _A1_for the _A1_develop_A1_er _A1_and _A1__A1_one _A1_that _A1_h_A1_e is _A1_not _A2_required _A1_to do, _A1_nor _A2_is he required _A1_to _A1_take _A1_the_A1_ grant _A2_money _A1__A1_even if _%_the _%_County _A1_give_A1_s _A1_the_A1_ grant _A2_money_A1__A1_. _%_Ms. _%_Guillet_A1__A1_ agreed. _%_She explained_#_ _A1_if t_A1_he developer _A1_e_A1_nter_A1_s into _A1_the _A1_grant _A1_a_A1_greement,_A3_ he is required to construct the project consistent _A1_with _A1_what _A1__A1_he in_A2_cluded _A1_in _A1_the _A1_grant _A2_application_A1_, which _A1_in_A1_cludes _A1_the_A1_ road_A1_. _%_She reiterated the developer is_#_ _A1__A1_under no_A1_ obligation to take the grant money and is not obligated at that point to _A1_build _A1_the _A1_road_A1_. _A1_But _A1_the_B!1_ grant _B"1_appl_B#1_ication, _B$1_as _B%2_it's _B'1_been _B(2_presented_B*1_ to the _B+1__#_Board _B,1_and _B-2_as the grant agreement that they are considering _B/2_contem_B11_plates, _B21_in_B31_cludes _B41_construction _B51_of the _B61_road_B71_ as _B81_a_B92_greed _B;1_upon _B<1_in the _B=1_cost-_B>1_share _B?1_a_B@1_greement_BA1_. _%_S_BJ1_o what was represented in the grant application and _BK1_what _BL1_is _BM1_in_BN4_cluded _BR1_as _BS1_an _BT3_attachment _BW2_and an element of the grant agreement contem_BY1_plates _BZ1_construction _B[1_of _B\1_that _B]1_road_B^1_. _B_1__%_Mr. _%_Morris _B`1__Ba1__%_a_Bv1__Bv1_sked if _Bw1_the _%_developer _Bx1_sign_By1_s the_Bz1_ grant _B{1_a_B|1_greement_B}1_, is he_B~1_ _B2_required _B1_to _B1_build _B1_the _B1_road_B1_. _%_Ms. _%_Guillet_B1__B1_ answered if he wants _#__B1__B1_to _B1_collect _B1_the_B1_ a_B1_ward_B1_, he has to comply. _%_Mr. _%_Morris confirm_B1_ed with _%_Ms. _%_Guillet that_%_ the developer is_B1__B1__#__B1__#__B2_ _B1_not _B4_required _B1_by _B2_signing _B1_the_B1_ grant _B1_a_B1_greement_B1_;_B1_ but if h_B1_e wants to collect any money, then _B1_h_B1_e _B1_would _B1_have _B1_to _B1_per_B1_form _B1_under the _B2_conditions _B2__%_M_B2_s. _%_Guillet stated_B2__B1_. Commissioner _%_Carey noted there _%_a_B1__%_re people that the _%_County has awarded grants to_B1__B2__B1_ _B1__B1_who _B1__B1_see _B1_all _B1_that _B1_they _B1_have _B1_to go _B1_thr_B1_ough to _B1_collect _B1_the_B2_ money _B1_a_B1_nd do _B1_not _B1_come _B1_and _B2_collect_B1_ the _B2_money_B1__B1_.

_%_Syd _%_Levy, 530 _%_Manor _%_Road, _%_Applicant,_B1_ addressed the _%_Board to state he sent an e-mail to the Board to _C71_explain _C81_what _C93_h_C93_is _C<1_position _C=1_i_C=1_s._C?1__C?1_ _#_W_C@2_hen h_C@2_e originally looked _CB1_at _CC1_the_CD1_ road _CE1_for _CF5_$2_CK1_ million, it was _CL1_fine_CM1_ and he decided they_CN1_ would_CO1__CP1_ _CQ1_build _CR1_the_CS1_ road_CT1_. _CU2__%_Mr. _%_Levy explained it has _CW1_cost _CX5_$450_C]1_,000 for the _C^1_wet_C_1_land _C`2_exchange_Cb1__Cc2_,_#_ it_Ce1_ is going _Cf1_to _Cg1_cost _Ch1_for the _Ci1_lights_Cj1__Cj1_. T_"_TThe _Ck1_retaining walls are going to cost over $1.5 million _Cl1_because _Cm2_it_Co1_ is so _Cp1_close _Cq1_to the _Cr1_wetlands_Cs2__Cu1__Cv1__Cw1__Cx1__Cy1__Cz1__C{2__C}1_, and the lift station is_C~1_ just over $1 million_C1_. _#_So _C2__C1_to build the road, it is going _C1_to _C 1_cost _C1_over _C1__C1__C1_$4 million_C1__C1__C1__C1__C1_. _C1__%_Mr. _%_Levy stated he _C1_was _C2_planning _C1_on _C1_going _C1_a_C1_head _C1_with the _C1_road _C1__C1_if h_C1_e received the full grant._%_ _%_ He think_C1_s the_C1_ road _C1_is _C1_something _C1_that the_C1_ _#_Count_C1_y _C1_wants_C2_ _C2_beca_C2_use it is _C1_nice _C1_to _C1_have _C1_the _C1_road _C2_joining _D!1__%_CR 427 and _D"1_going _D#1_into _D$1_the_D%1_ _#_Count_D&1_y_D'1_'s _D(2_property_D*1_, and that is a good thing. _%_But _D21_whe_D32_n h_D32_e is _D52_spending _D72_dollars _D91_that _D:2__D<1_he has _D=1_to _D>1_account _D?1_for _D@1_and _DA1_come _DB1_up _DC1_with the _DD3_financing_DG1_, there _DH1_is _DI1_no _DJ1_val_DK1_ue _DL1_in_DM1_ _DN2_putting _DP5_$4 million _DU1_extra _DV1_into _DW1_that _DX1_road _DY1_if _DZ4_h_DZ4_e's _D^1_only _D_2_getting _Da1_a _Db2_little _Dd1_bit _De1_of help from the _Df1__#_Count_Dg1_y_Dh1_. _Di1__Di1__%_Mr. _%_Levy discussed a similar situation w_Di1_ith the _D2_Windsor _D1__#_Square_D1_/_#_Park _D1__#_Square _D2_project_D1_ across from _%_Ronald _%_Reagan _%_Boulevard. He expressed he doesn't _%_see how he can financially afford to put the road in.

M_Ea1__Ea1_s. _%_Guillet stated she _Eb1_understand_Ec1_s where _Ed1_Mr. _Ee1_Le_Ef1__Eg1_vy is _Eh1_coming _Ei1_from_Ej1_. _Ek1__%_She expl_Ek1_ained _El1__Em1__En1_there _Eo1_was _Ep1_some _Eq1_concern _Er1_with _Es1_respect _Et1_to _Eu2_funding _Ew1_the utilities bec_Ex1__Ey3__E|1__E}1__E~1__E1_ause it is speculative _E2_funding _E3_that _E2_serve_E2_s _E1_a _E1_private _E1_develop_E1_ment and _E4_it is _E1_not _E1_something _E2_t_E1_he _%_County has done in the past like _E2_public _E4_infrastructure _E2_projects _E1_in_E2_cluding _E1_roads_E1_. _%_She suggested instead of funding the additional money for utilities, the _%_Board _#__E1__E1_may _E1_want _E1_to _E1_consider _E2_pro_E2_viding _E1_that _E2_funding _E1_to _E2_supplement _E1_the cost, or _E1_under_E1_write _E1_the _E1_cost_E1_, of the _E1_road_E1_. _E1_Then _E1_the _%_County _E1_would _E1_be _E2_getting _E2_demolition_E1_, which _E1_is _E2_truly removal of blight_E1__E1__E1_ and _E2_clearly _E1_a _E1_C_E1_R_E1_A _E1_ob_E1_ject_E1_ive_E1_, and _E2_they would also be contributing to the construction of the public _E4_infrastructure _E1_proj_E1__E1__E1_ect, which _E1_is the _E1_road_E1_way_E1_. _E1__%_T_E1_he _%_Board _E1_could _E1_shift _E1_that _F!2_funding _F#1_that _F$1_the_F%2_ _%_Applicant has requested _F'1_for the _F(1_utilities _F)1_to _F*2_actually _F,1_help _F-1_under_F.1_write _F/1_the_F01_ cost _F11_of the _F21_road _F31_because _F41__F51_it has _F61_come _F71_in _F86_significantly _F>1_high_F?1_er _F@1_than they originally contemplated, and _FA1_then _FB2_the _%_County is _FD2_paying _FF1_for _FG4_actual public infrastructure _FK1_that will belong to the public at the end of the project.

Mr. _%_Morris stated for_%_ clarification regarding the utility _FO2_issue, _FQ1_t_F1_his _F1_is _F2_an incentivized idea to bring development to _%_U._%_S. 17-92. _#_Developers _F1_ask _F1_i_F1_f there is _F3_capacity _F1_for _F2_water _F1_and _F1_s_F1_ewer and _F1__F 1_is _F3_it _F1_site _F2_ready_F1_. _F2__%_This proposal makes it_%_ site ready and _F2_putting _F2_the utilities _F1_in_F1__F1_ at the _F1_same _F1_time _F1_as _F1_the _F1_road _F1_actually has _F1_cost _F2_savings_F1_. _F1__%_He pointed out they went with _F1_Seminole County _F1__%_u_F1__F1_tilities a_F1_nd those_F1__F1_ 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 _Gh1_the _Gi1_grant _Gj1_does _Gk2_allow _Gm1_for special site specific_Gn1__Go1__Gp1_ _Gq3_needs _Gt1_and _Gu1_if t_Gv3__Gv3_hose funds were allocated _Gy1__G{1_to the _G|1_road, _G}1_which _G~1_is _G1_twice _G1_as _G1_much _G1_as _G1_they _G1_thought _G1_it was _G1_going _G1_to be, _G1_then _G1_all _G1_of the _G1_as_G1__G1_sets for _G1_that _G1_portion _G1_of _G1_it _G1_become _G2_property _G1_of the _G2_public_G1_. _%_Mr. _%_Morris responded he thinks it is a great idea and has no_%__G1_ preference. _%_Commissioner _%_Dallari_%_ _G1_asked if that changes_%_ the _G2_application_G1_, and _%_Ms. _%_Guillet answered no._%__G1__G1__G1_ _%_She added_#_ they _G1_would _G1_be _G2_developing _G1_the_G2_ project _G1_as _G1_submitted in the _G1_grant _G2_application_G1_. _G1_The _G1_final _G1_result_G1_, the_G1_ ultimate development, would be consistent with the grant application. _%_Commissioner _%_Carey n_G1_oted 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_G1_, and _G1_they _G1__G1_would _G1_still have _G1_to go _G2_vertical _G1_before _G1_the_G1_ pay_G1_out _G1_would _G2_occur_G1_. _G1__%_Mr. _%_Morris_G1_ _G1_stated_#_ in addition to the utilities, t_H'1_hey are also _H(3_dedicating _H+1_the _H,2_water _H.1_and _H/1_sewer lines to the _%_County so it will become _%_County property.

Chair_Hq1__Hr1_man _%_Ho_Hr1_ran stated _%__"_the _Hs1_notion _Ht1_that_Hu1_ _Hv1_the _%_County would _Hw1_be _Hx2_giving _Hz1_a _H{1_grant _H|1_for _H}1_u_H~2_tility infra_H2_structure _H1_or roadway infrastructure that _H3_eventually _H1_b_H1__H1_ecomes ownership of the _%_County is _H3_certainly _H1_more _H1__H2_palatable _H1_than _H2_demolition_H1_. _H1__%_Commissioner _%_Carey _H1__H1_responded_%_ _H1_the_H4_ demolition _H1_e_H1_lim_H1_inates _H 1_the _H5_blight_H1_, 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_H1__H1__H1__H1__H1__H1_ and _H1_pro_H1_vide _H1_grants _H1_where _H1_the _%_County_H1__H1_ _H1_get_H1_s a _H1_return _H1_on _H1_in_H2_vestment_H1_. Ms. _%_Guil_%__H1__H1_let _%__H4_m_H1_entioned some _H1_of the _H1_concern _H1_about_H1__H2_ funding the utilities is that the utilities _H1_be_H3_nefit _H1_this specific development_H1_. _H1_The _H1_road _H1_will _H1_be _H2_avail_H1_able _H1_to everyone in the public to utilize and _H1_it will _H1_be _H1_a_H1_ benefit _H1_to _H1_not _H1_only _H1_people _H1_who _I!1_are _I"3_utilizing _I%1_that _I&1_particular property but that are accessing the government center_I-1_. _#_So _I.2_directing _I01_the _I12_funding _I31_toward _I41_the _I51_road_I61_way _I71_may _I83_alleviate _I;1__I<1_some _I=1_of the _%_Board's concerns _I>1__I?1__I@3__IC1__ID1_with_IE1__IF1_ respect to _IG1_develop_IH2_ment specific benefit versus _IJ1_general _IK2_public _IM2_benefit_IO1_.

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 _I1__#_s_I1__I1_tated he has spoken _I1_w_I1_ith the _I2__#_Applicant _I1__I2_regarding _I1_the_I1_ _I1__%_developer pro_I2_viding _I1_a market-_I1_rate _I1_product_I1_. _I1__I2__I2__%_His _%__I1__I2_issue _I1_is _I2_if the market _I1_rate _I1_bears it, then let the market be_I1_ar it. _%__I1_Commissioner _%_Dallari opined the _I2_issue _I1_about _I1_the_I1_ road_I1_ _I1_is _I1__I1_another _I2_issue _I3_al_I1_together_I1_, so he isn't giving that any thought._I2__I1__I2__I1__I1__J!1__J"1_ _J#1__%_But he does have issues with the_J$1_ _J%2_demolition _J'1_and_J(1__J)1_ the utilities. _%_He also has to give some thought to _%_Ms. _%_Guillet's suggestion of d_J)1_irecting the funding towards the roadway instead of the utilities.

Commissioner _%_Constantine agreed_%_ _Jq1_that _Jr1_the_Js1_ road _Jt1_and _Ju1_the_Jv1_ C_Jw1_R_Jx1_A _Jy1_are _Jz2_separate _J|3_issues_J5_._J1_ _#_A _J1_road _J1_is _J1_going _J1_to be _J1_built _J1_for _J1_that _J2_project _J1_one _J1_way _J1_or the _J1_other_J1_, but he believes_J1__J1_ _J1_the_J1_ best _J1_location _J1_for _J1_that _J1_road _J5_eventually _J1_will _J1_be _J1_found _J1_to be _J1_where _J1_t_J1_he _%_County has _J3_suggested_J1_. _J1__J1__J1__%_He stated the _%_Board should not_J1_ _J1_be _J2_discussing _J1_the _J1_road _J1_whe_J2_n t_J2_hey are _J2_talking _J1_about _J1_the _J1_C_J1_R_J1_A_J1_._J1__J1__J1__J1__J1__J1__J1__J1__J1__#__J1_ _%_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._K1_ _%_C_K1_ommissioner _%_Constantine stated the _%_County can_K1__K1__K1__K1_ look _K1_at _K1__K1__K1__K2__K1__K1_what _K3_is _K2_dilapidated _K1_and what _K1_will _K1_help _K1_in _K4_bringing _K1_forth _K2_addition_K3_al _K1_development _K1_along _K1_the_K2_ entire _K1_ro_K1_ute, not _K1_just _K1_at _K1_the_K1_ location, and that _K1__K1_wil_K1_l be _K1_the_K1_ removal_K3_ _K1_of the _K2_debris_K1_. _K1__%_He agreed_K1__K1_ _L!1_with _L"1__L#1_the _L$1_recommendation _L%1_of staff and the _L&1_development _L'1_of the _L(1_cri_L)2_teria _L+1_that _L,1_they _L-1_did_L.1_.

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 _Lp1_stated _"_the reason _%_he is not _Lq2_supporting _Ls1_the _Lt1_motion _Lu1_is because _Lv1__Lw1_he do_Lx1_es not know _Ly1__Lz1_the _L{1_product _L|1_that the _%_County is getting._L}1__L~1_ _L1_Commissioner _%_Constantine opined_%_ staff _L1_came _L1_up _L1_with _L 1_a _L1_reasonable _L1_recommendation_L1_ _L1_and _L2_that's _L1_why _L1_h_L1_e _L1_was _L3_suggesting _L1_that_L1_. _L1__%_He pointed out that _L2_until _L1_the _L1_tax _L1_valuation_L1_ _L2_goes _L1_up_L2_, that is _L1_all _L2_the developer is _L1_going _L1_to _L1_get_L1_. _L1__%_Commissioner _%_Dallari_L1_ _L1_reiterated _#_if _L2_it is _L1_what _L1_the market _L1__L1__L1_bea_L1_rs, _L1_then _L1_let _L1_the_L1_ market bear it_L1__L1__L1__L1_. _%_Commissioner _%_Carey_L1__L1_ _L1_explained the developer isn't going_L1__L3__L1__L2__L1_ _L1_to _L1_know _L1__L2__L1_the_M!1_ exact product _M"2_that_M$1_ ends up getting built_M%1__M&1__M'2_ until _M)1_the_M*1_y are a little close_M+1__M,1_r to _M-1_going _M.1_ver_M/1__M01_tical. _M11__#_The_M21_ market studies that are done _M31__M41__M52__M71_will_M81__M91__M:1_ show how many bedroom apartments are needed, rent factors, and what the _MJ1_people _MK1_in the _ML2_demograph_MN1_ic _MO1_can _MP2_afford _MR1_to _MS1_pay_MT1_. _MU1_Every _MV1_development_MW1_ that _MX2_occurs _MZ1_in _M[1__%_S_M\1__M\1_eminole _#_Count_M]1__M^1_y is _M_1__M`1__Ma1__Mb1__Mc1__Md1__Me1__Mf1_market driven at a market-_Mg1_driv_Mh1_en _Mi1_rate,_Mj1_ _Mk1_other_Ml1_wise _Mm1_developers _Mn1_would_Mo1__Mp1_n't put _Mq1_their _Mr2_money _Mt1_in_Mu1__Mv1_ and build. _%_She opined all projects_Mw1__Mx1__My1_ _Mz1_start_M{1_ that _M|1_way _M}1_and _M~1_as _M2_thin_M1_gs change_M1_ and _M1_things develop_M1__M1__M1__M2__M1__M1_, the_M1__M1__M1_ market will _M2_dictate_M1_ what _M2_goes _M1_in_M1_.

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.

D_N1_iscussion ensued regarding w_N1_hen the i_%_item should come back to the _%_Board. Chairman _%_Horan _%_stated _%__%__N1_the _%_Board needs some _N2_certain_N1_ty _N1_as _N1_to _N1_what _N1_this _N2_project _N1_is _N1_going _N1_to _N1_look_N3_ _N1_like, _N1_what _N1_is _N2_actually _N1_going _N1_to be _N3_built _N1_and _N1_whe_N1_n it _N1_is _N1_going _N1_to be _N1_b_N1__N1_uilt. _N1__%_He added the _%_Board needs_O(1_ more _O)2_certain_O+1_ty _O,1_from the _O-2_developer _O/1_as _O01_to _O11_exactly what _O21_the _O31_develop_O41__O51_er is _O61_going _O71_to go _O81_forward _O91_with _O:2_regardless _O<1_of _O=1_what _O>1_the_O?1__O?1_ _#_Board _O@1_grants_OA1__OB1_ at this particular time. Commissioner _%_Carey_OC1_ explained t_%_here is a _OD1__OE1__OF1__OG2__#_Development _#_Order _OI1_that _OJ1_out_OK1_lines _OL1_what _%__%_the project is going to look like;_OL1_ _OM1_and _ON2__OV1_this early in the game, the developer is not in a position to _OW1_say _OX2_exactly _OZ1_what _O[1_is _O\1_going _O]1_to _O^1_happen _O_1_which is why the _%_Development _%_Order is as flexible as it is_Oq1_. _%__%__%_The _%_Development _%_Order_Or1__Os1__Ot1__Ou1__Ov1_ _Ow1_does _Ox1__Oy1_not call _Oz1_for the _O{1_road _O|1_to be _O}1_built _O~1_from _O2__%_U._%_S. 17-92 _O1_to _O1__#_Hest_O1_er _O1_Avenue_O1_. _O1__%_Chairman _%_Horan responded t_%_hat is another clarification that the _%_Board needs.

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

Commissioner _%_Carey noted she_O1__O1__O1_ _O1_would _O1_like _O1_to _O1_see _O1_that _O1_this _%_Item come_O1_s back _O1_soon_O1_er _O2_verses _O2_later_O1__O2_ because it is _O1_only _O1_fair _O1_to the _O2_developer _O 1_for _O1_th_O1_e _#_Board _O1_to _O1__O1__O1__O1__O1_vote _O1__O1_one _O1_way _O1_or the _O1_other _O1_so _O1_the developer can _O2_move on _O1_with _O1__O1_what _O2_they_O1_ are doing_O1_. _O1__%__%_Commissioner _%_Henley agreed._%_ _P'1_ _%_Commissioner _%_Carey stated_%_ _P?1_staff _P@1_was _PA1_not _PB2_recommending _PD1_the _PE1_$1.3 million when the Technical Advisory C_PN2_Committee _PP3_approved _PS1_it _PT1_or _PU1_when the _PV1_R_PW1_P_PX1_A _PY3_approved _P\1_it_P]1_, but the _%_Board doesn't_P^1__P_1__P`1_ always _Pa1_take _Pb1_a _Pc1_staff _Pd1_recommendatio_Pe1__Pf1_n. _%_Commissioner _%_Constantine noted it is_%_ fair to the citizens that t_Pf1_he _%_Board gets it right, not just to the developer.

Commissioner Dallaris 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, 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 Managers 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 Officials 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 Officials 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 Attorneys 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 _QV1_a_QW2_mendments, _QY1_which have gone through a number of iterations, severely _Qi1_im_Qj1_pact _Qk1_the _Ql1__#_Clerk_Qm1_'s _Qn1_ability _Qo1_to _Qp2_carry out _Qs1_his _Qt3_constitutional _Qw1_and _Qx2_statutory _Qz1_ob_Q{2_ligations _Q}1_in _Q~1_light _Q1_of the _Q2_sweeping _Q2_changes _Q1_con_Q2_tained _Q1_there_Q1_in_Q1_. _Q1_It is_Q1__Q1_ _Q1_the_Q1_ con_Q1_clusion _Q1_of _Q1_these _Q3_remarks _Q1_that _Q1_the_Q1_ pro_Q1_pose_Q1_d amendment_Q1__Q2_ _Q1_be _Q3_opposed because _Q1__Q1_at _Q1_best _Q1_it will _Q2_interfere _Q1_and _Q1_at _Q1_worst it will _Q3_pre_Q1_vent _Q1_the _Q1__#_Clerk _Q1_from _Q1__Q2_fulfilling _Q1_his _Q1_legal _Q1_responsibilities _Q2_owed _Q1_to the _Q1_Seminole County _Q4_electorate _Q1_who _Q1__Q2_placed _Q1_him _Q1_in _Q1_office_Q1_. _Q1__%_He pointed out the _Q1_Seminole County _Q1__#_Ad_Q1_ministrative _Q1__#_Code _Q1_does _Q1_not _Q2_apply _Q1_to the _Q1__#_Clerk_Q1_, so _Q1_th_Q1_e amendments_Q2__Q1_ being _Q2_discussed _Q1_with _Q1_regard _Q1_to _Q4_3.33_Q1__Q2_5 wouldn't _Q2_apply _Q1_to the _Q1__#_Clerk; _Q2_pursuant _Q1_to _Q1__%_Section _Q3_2.2(_Q1_E)(_Q1_2) _Q1_of _R!1_the _R"1_Seminole County _R#1__#_Home _R$1__#_Rule _R%1__#_Chart_R&1_er_R'1__R(1__R01_, by its own specific terms does _R11_not _R22_apply _R41_to _R51_e_R62_lected C_R81_Con_R92_stitution_R;1_al O_R<2_Officers_R>1_. _R?1__R@1__RA1__%_Mr. _%_Wright stated he _RB1_deem_RC1_s it _RD1_necessary _RE1_to _RF1_comment _RG2_regarding _RI1_the amendments _RJ1_because _RK1_of the _RL2_language _RN1_and the _RO3_issues _RR1_that _RS1_are _RT2_addressed _RV1_there_RW1_in_RX1_. _RY1__RZ2_Article _R\1_8 _R]1_of the _R^1_Florida _R_1__#_Con_R`2_stitution, Section _Rb1__Rc1_1(d), _Rd3_acknowledges _Rg1_and _Rh2_recognizes C_Rj1_Count_Rk1_y O_Rl3_ffic_Ro1_ers_Rp1_, the _Rq1__#_Clerk _Rr2_specifically_Rt1_, as _Ru1_a _Rv1__#_Con_Rw2_stitution_Ry1_al _Rz1__#_Officer_R{1_. _R|1_Section _R}2_28._R1__R1_33 _R1_of _R1_the _R1_Florida _R2__#_Statute_R1_s states, _R1__#_"The _R1__#_Clerk _R1_of the _R2__#_Circuit _R1__#_Court _R1_shall _R1_in_R1_vest _R1__#_Count_R1_y _R1_funds _R1_in _R1_excess _R1_of _R1_those _R2_required _R1_to _R1_meet _R1_ex_R2_pens_R1_es as _R 1_pro_R2_vided _R1_in _R1__R6_218.415 _R1_Florida _R2__#_Statute_R1__R1_s."

In regard to_R2__R1__R1__R1__R1_ _R4_218._R1_415_R1__R1__R1_, _%_Mr. _%_Wright explained_R1__R1_ _R1_that _R1__R1__R1_is what _R2_vests _R1_th_R3_e _#_Commission _R1_with _R1_the _R1_authority _R1_to _R1_establish _R1_an _R1_in_R2_vestment _R2_policy _R1_or _R1_in_R2_vestment _R1_plan _R1_for _R1_the _R1__#_Count_R1_y_R1_. _R1_The _R1__#_Commission _R2_establishes _R1_the _R3_investment _R2_policy _R1_in _R1_a _R2_manner _R3_consistent _R1_with S_R2_SSections _R1_1 _R1_thr_R1_ough 15 _R1_of _R2_21_R1__R1__R2_8.415_S!1__S"1__S#1_, and _S$1_the _S%1__#_Clerk _S&2_carries _S(1_that _S)1_out_S*1_. _S+1__S,1__%_He added some _S-1_of _S.1_those _S/1_sub_S02_sections _S21__S31__S41__#__S51__S61__S72__S91_deal _S:1_with _S;1_in_S<2_vestment _S>1_ob_S?1__S?1_ject_S@1_ive_SA1_, per_SB1_form_SC1_ance _SD1_ob_SE1_ject_SF1_ive, _SG1_per_SH1_form_SI1_ance _SJ2_measurement_SL1_, eth_SM1_ical _SN1_stand_SO1__SP1_ards and _SQ1_so _SR1_forth_SS1_. _ST2__SV1__SW1__SX1__SY1__SZ1__S[1__S\1__%_The Seminole County _S]1__#_Home _S^1__#_Rule _S_1__#_Chart_S`1_er _Sa2_establishes _Sc1_under _Sd1__#_Section _Se3_3.1 _Sh1_the _Si2_duties _Sk1_of the _Sl3__#_Constitutional _So2__#_Officers _Sq1_shall _Sr1_not _Ss1_be _St1_alt_Su1_ered _Sv1_by _Sw1_the _Sx1__#_Home _Sy1__#_Rule _Sz1__#_Chart_S{1_er_S|1_;_S|1_ and _S}1__S~1_as _S1__S2_mentioned _S3_earlier, _S1__#_Section _S3_2._%_2(_S3_E) expressly_S1__S2_ _S1_states _S1_the_S1_ _%_Admin_S1_istrative _S1__#_Code _S1_shall _S1_not _S2_apply _S1_to the _S1_e_S2_lected _S1__#_Con_S2_stitution_S1_al _S 2__#_Officers_S1_, in _S1_this _S1_case_S1_, _S1_the _S1__#_Clerk_S1_.

_S3__%_Mr. _%_Wright pointed_#_ out_S1_ _S1_the _S1_pro_S2_posed _S3_amendment _S1_with _S1_regard _S1_to _S3_3.3_S1_5_S1_ _S1_does _S1_state _S1_an _S2_interest _S1_in _S3_appointing _S1__S1__S1_a _#_Count_S1_y _S1__#_In_S2_vestment _S3__#_Advisor _S1_who _S1_would _S2_essentially _S1_be _S2_carrying _S1_out _S1_the _S1_powe_S1_er_S2_s, duties _S1_and _S2_functions _S1_in _S1_some _S1_regard _S1_of _S1_the _S1__#_Clerk_S1_. _S1_This _S1_is _S2_essentially _S1_an _S3_amendment _S1_which _S1_is _S2_existential _S1_in _S2_it_S1_s terms_S1_. _S1_There _S1_is _S2_language _S1_within _S1_the _T!7_amendment where_T(1_ the _T41_term _T51_"Clerk_T61_" is _T71_strick_T81_en _T91_and the _T:1_term _T;1__#_"Count_T<1_y _T=1__#_In_T>2_vestment _T@3__#_Advisor_TC1_" is _TD1_in_TE2_serted_TG1_. _%_Mr. _%_Wright opined _TH1__"_nothing _TI1_could _TJ1_be _TK1_more _TL2_clearly _TN2_existential_TP1_. Chairman _%_Horan_TR1_ _TS1__#__TV1_asked if the _T[1__#_Clerk _T\1_were _T]1_to _T^2_appoint _T`1_his _Ta1_own _Tb1__#_In_Tc2_vestment _Te3__#_Advisor_Th2_, would _Tj1_he _Tk1_be _Tl1_doing _Tm1_the_Tn1_ same _To1_thing_Tp1_._Tp1_ _%_Mr. _%_Wright answered no. _%_He explained _Tu1_the _Tv1_terms _Tw1_of _Tx1_the _Ty2_language _T{1_a_T|2_mending _T~3_3._T1_35 seek _T1_to _T1_require _T1_the _T1__#_Clerk _T1__T1__T1__T1_to _T2_follow _T1_the _T2_directives _T1_of the _T1_pro_T2_posed _T1__#_Count_T1_y _T1__#_In_T2_vestment _T3__#_Advisor_T1_ which _T1_is _T1_quite _T 2_different _T1_than _T1_the _T1__#_Clerk _T1_himself _T3_appointing _T1_an _T1__#_In_T2_vestment _T3__#_Advisor _T1_from _T1_who_T1_m he _T2_takes _T1_direction,_T2_ _T1_comments _T1_and _T2_input_T1_. _T3__#__T2_That is _T1_precisely what _T1_the_T1_ _#_Clerk _T1_wants _T1_to do_T1__T1__#__T1_. Chairman _%_Horan opined that is what _%__#_the _%_Clerk has done. _%_Mr. _%_Wright responded there have been efforts taken to retain _%_PFM _%_Asset _%_Management, _%_LLC_T1_. _%_However, _T1__T1_P_T1_F_T1_M _T1_has _U!1_not _U"1_been _U#1_paid_U$1_ _U&1_by the _%_Clerk and _U'1__%_P_U(1__U)1__U*1_FM has _U+1_not _U,3_engaged _U/1_in _U01_any _U11_in_U22_vestment_U42_ advising at this point. _%_Mr. _%_Wright noted_U61__U72_ _%_Steven _U93_Alexand_U<1_er, _%_PFM, is present and will_U=1__U>1_ _U?1_be _U@2_addressing _UG1_specific _UH1_points _UI1_with _UJ1_regard _UK1_to _UL1_that _UM1_contract, _UN3_and_UQ1_ _US3_the_US3_ issues _UV1_that _UW1_have _UX1_been _UY2_raised _U[1_by the_U[1_ _%_Commission with regard to that contract will _U\1_be _U]1_able _U^1_to be _U_2_specifically _Ua2_addressed _Uc1__Ud1_in terms _Ue1_of _Uf1_how _Ug2_fees _Ui1_are _Uj1_paid.

Commissioner _%_Carey_Ux1_ _Uy2_stated the _%_Board is amending_%_ the _%_County's _%_Administrative _%_Code w_Uy2_hich says "the _%_Clerk" _U1_because _U1_in _U1_19_U1_95 _U1_the _U1_B_U1_C_U1_C _U2_passed _U1_a _U2__#_Resolution _U3_delegating _U1_their _U1_authority _U1_to do _U1_the _U1_in_U2_vestments _U1_to the _U 1__#_Clerk_U1_. _U1_The _U1__#_Clerk _U2_didn't _U1_have the _U1_authority _U1_to do _U1_the _U1_in_U2_vestments _U1_prior _U1_to _U1_the _U1_B_U1_C_U1_C _U2_taking _U1_this _U1_action _U1_in _U1_1995_U1_. _U1_In _U1_1995_U1_, t_U1_he _%_County _U1_had _U1_a _U4_$195,000,000 _U3_portfolio_U1_ _U1_and a _%_Clerk that _U1_held _U1_a _U2__#_Series _U1_7 _U4_license. S_U1_he explained she spoke_%__U2__U1_ to some of the _U2__#_Commissioners _U1_who voted on the 1995 _%_Resolution and they stated_V"1__V$1_ b_V$1_ecause of _V%1_the_V&1_ _#_Clerk_V'1_'s experience and her holding a _%_S_V'1_eries 7 license, the_%_y felt she was _V(1_more _V)1_e_V*2_quipped _V,1_a_VI1_nd _VJ1_a _VK2_better _VM1_option _VN1_than _VO1_the_VP1_ B_VQ1_C_VR1_C_V^1_. _Vh1__%_The _%_County's _Vi1__%_Admin_Vj1__Vk1_istrative _#_Code _Vl1_says _Vm1__#_Clerk _Vn1_today _Vo1_because _Vp1_the_Vq1_ B_Vr1_C_Vs1_C _Vt3_delegated _Vw1_that _Vx1_authority _Vy1_to the _Vz1__#_Clerk_V{1_. _V|1__V}1__V~2__V1__V1__V1__V1_ _%_Mr. _%_Wright stated that is _V1_the _V1_law _V1_and_V1_ the _V1__#_Clerk_V1_'s _V3_interpretation _V1_of the _V1_law _V1_that _V1_the_V1_ authority _V1_by _V1_which _V1_he _V2_seeks _V3_to _V1_act _V1_is _V 1_in _V1_fact _V1_from the _V1_Florida _V2__#_Constitution _V1_and _V1__#_Section _V4_28.33 _V1_of _V1_Florida _V2__#_Statutes_V1_. _%_Commissioner _%_Carey asked if that was the case, w_V1_hy would the _%_County _%_Commission have to pass a _%_Resolution_V1_. Mr. _%_Wright answered _%_the _V1__#_Commission _V1_is _V3_entitled _V1_to do _V1_anything _V3_consistent _V1_with the _V1_Florida _V2__#_Constitution _V1_and _V1_Florida _V2__#_Statutes_V1_ and that_V2_ determination _V1_was _V3_completely _V3_consistent_V1__V1_ 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_V1__V2__V1__V1_ asked if _%_Mr. _%_Wright agrees that the _%_County has_V1__#__V1__V1__V1__W!1__W"1__W#1_ the _W$2_statutory _W&1_authority _W'1_to _W(1_a_W)1_dopt _W*1_an _W+3__#_Investment _W.2__#_Policy, and_W01_. _%_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 a_%_nd to have _Wo1_dis_Wp1_cretion _Wq1_within _Wr1_the _Ws1_con_Wt1_text _Wu1_of those items _W1_to _W1_make _W1_those _W1_in_W2_vestments _W1_at the direction and _W1_in _W1_a _W2_manner _W2_that's _W3_consistent _W1_with the _W1__#_In_W2_vestment _W2__#_Policy_W1_. _W2__%__%_He stated_%_ the _W1__#_Clerk_W1_'s _W2_interest _W1_is _W1_to _W1_get _W1_all _W3_of the _W1_prop_W1_er _W1_in_W2_vestment _W2_input _W1_that _W1_he can_W1__W1__%_.

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 _W1_pro_X!2_vided _X#1_to the _X$2__%_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_XA1__X01__X11__X21__X31__X41__X51__X61__X71__X81__X92__X;1__X<1__X=1__X>1__X?1__X@1__XA1_, _%_Mr. _%_Londot; and _XB1_that _XC1_opinion _XD2_specifically _XF2_lays _XH1_out _XI1_the _XJ1_legal _XK1_frame_XL1_work _XM1_by _XN1_which _XO1_the _XP1__#_Clerk _XQ1_is _XR1_ad_XS2_vancing _XU1_this _XV2_opposition _XX1_to the _XY2_language_X[1__X\1_. _X\1__%_Chairman _%_Horan _X]1_responded _X^1__X_1__X`1__Xa1__Xb1_that opinion says that _Xc1_t_Xc1_he _Xd3_Supreme Court _Xg1_decision_Xh1_ is _Xy1_no _Xz1_long_X{1_er _X|1_val_X}1_id_X~1_ because _X1_it was _X2_based _X1_on _X1_a _X2__#_Statute _X1_that _X1_was _X2_changed _X1_and _X1_re_X2_numbered_X1__X1_, thus standing for_X1_ the _X2_proposition _X1_that _X1_anytime _X1_the L_X3_Legislature _X1_wants _X1_to invalidate a _%_Supreme _%_Court decision _X2_based _X1_upon _X1_a _X2__"_statute_X1_, all _X1_they _X1_need _X1_to do _X1_is _X1_put _X1_the_X1_ same _X2_language _X1_into a different position and _X1_re_X1_number _X1__X1__X1_it._X1_ Mr._X1__X1__X1_ _%_Wright expressed he does not agree_X1__X1__X1__X1_ _X1_and the _X1__#_Clerk _X1_does _X1_not _X1_a_X1_gree _X1_with the _X3_interpretation _X3_of the _X1__%_Alachua _%_County_X1__X1__X1__X1_ v. _%_Powers, _%_Florida_%_ Supreme _%_Court opinion _X2_from 1977_X1_.

Mr. _%_Applegate _%_a_Y;1_sked if the _%_Clerk has signed a contract with _%_PFM. Mr. _%_Wright _YI1_answered yes and explained the contract is presently being amended to address some concerns _Yl1_which _Ym1__Yn1__Yo1_have _Yp1_been _Yq2_raised _Ys1_by _Yt1_th_Yu1_e _#_Commission_Yv1_. _Yw1__%_He stated _Y1__Y1__%_PF_Y1__#_M _Y1_has _Y1_over _Y1_40 _Y1_years _Y1_of experience _Y1_in _Y1_ass_Y1__Y1_et man_Y 2_agement_Y1_ _Y1_and manages over _Y1__Y1_$100 _Y2_billion _Y1_in _Y1_ass_Y1_ets_Y1_. _Y1_The _Y1_a_Y2_men_Y2_dments _Y1_that _Y1_are _Y1_being _Y1_pro_Y2_posed _Y1_would _Y1_have _Y1_their _Y2_fees _Y1_paid _Y1_from _Y3_budgeted _Y1_funds_Y1__Y3_ and they _Y1_address _Y1_concerns _Y2_raised _Y1_with _Y1_regard _Y1_to _Y1_Mr. _Y1_Ma_Y1__Y1_loy_Y1_'s alleged _Y1_lack _Y1_of _Y1_in_Y2_vestment _Y3_expertise_Y1_. _Y1__%_Mr. _%_Wright pointed out the _%_Clerk _Y2_recognizes _Y1_that and he _Y1_wants _Y1_to _Y1_get _Y2_input _Y1_from _Y1_the _Y1_best _Y1_possible _Y1_source_Y1_, and _Y3__%_PFM _Y1_would _Y2_appear _Y1_to be _Y1_a _Y2_qualified, _Y1_sol_Y1_i_Y1__Y1_d and reasonable _Y1_one _Y1_to do _Y1_that _Y1_with _Y1_great _Y1_experience _Y1_in _Z!1_in_Z"2_vestment _Z$1_direction _Z%1_for _Z&2_public _Z(2_entities _Z*1_such _Z+1_as _Z,1_Seminole County_Z-1_. _Z.1__%_He affirmed _"_the _Z/1__#_Clerk _Z01_wants to _Z11_work _Z21_with the _Z31__#_Commission_Z41_.

Commissioner _%_Carey_Z61_ _Z72_s_ZT1_tated, as she_ZU1_ _ZV1_reads _ZW1_the _ZX1_law_ZY1_, the _ZZ1__#_Clerk _Z[1_does _Z\1_not _Z]1_have the _Z^1_authority _Z_1_to _Z`2_allocate _Zb1_B_Zc1_C_Zd1_C _Ze2_dollars_Zg1_._Zm1_ _#_That _Zn2_lies _Zp2_solely _Zr1_with the _Zs1_B_Zt1_C_Zu1_C_Zv1_. _Z1__Z1__Z1__%_I_%_f the _Z1__%_Commission is the _Z3_governing _Z2_body_Z1_ _Z1_and _Z1__Z1_t_Z1_he _%_Commission has the _Z3_fiduciary responsibility to the public_Z1_ to _Z1_deal _Z1_with _Z2_public _Z1_funds _Z1_and _Z1_to _Z1_say _Z1_how _Z1_those _Z1_funds would_Z1__Z1_ be _Z1_ex_Z2_pended_Z1_, 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 _Z1__Z1_the funding_Z2_ _Z1_source _Z1_of the fees_Z2_fees _Z1_. _%_Commissioner _%_Carey _%_s_Z1_tated the _%_Clerk c_Z1__Z1__Z1_an't _Z1_sign _Z1_a _[!1_contract _["1_to _[#2_obligate _[%1_the_[&1_ _#_Count_['1_y _[(1__#_Commission _[)1_funds_[*1_. _%_There_[41_ are two _[51_sets _[61_of _[72_money _[91__[:1__[;1__[<1__[=2__[?1__[@1_that the _%_Clerk has control over. _#_One _[A1_is the _[B2__#_Clerk_[D2_'s money_[F1_, the _[G2_fees _[I1_and _[J1_fines _[K1_that he h_[K1_olds as _%_Clerk of the _%_Court which are his _[L1_responsibility _[M2__[O1_by the _[P1_Florida _[Q2_Statute_[S1_s, and the other is the _[T1_B_[U1_C_[V1_C _[W2_dollars _[Y1_which _[Z1_are _[[2__[]1_the _[^1_responsibility _[_1_of _[`1_the_[`1_ _[a1__%_BCC._[h1_ _[i1__%_She explained _#__[j1_if _[k1_the_[l2_ _%_Board didn't _[n1_have _[o1_to _[p2_delegate _[r1_the_[r1_ _[s1_authority to have allowed the Clerk to have done the investment on _[|1_their _[}2_behalf _[1_in _[1_1995, _[1_the Board _[2_wouldn't _[1_have _[2_passed _[1_a _[2__#_Resolution _[1_to do _[1_that_[1_. _[1__[1__#_The word _%_Clerk is being_%_ stricken because _[1_the way it is now, until the policy is amended, _[1_it is _[1_still _[3_delegated _[1_to the _[1__#_Clerk _[2_based _[1_on the _[2_1995 _[2_resolution_[1_. Mr. _%_Wright_[1_ _%__[1__[1_stated that is one of the sources, but that it not the sole source. _%_He added it is _[1_not _[1_the_[1_ case _[1_under _[2_existing _[1_Florida _[3__#_Constitutional _[1_and _[2__#_Statutory _[1_law _[1_that _[1_the_[1_ _[1__#_Commission _[1_has _[1_the _[1_ability _[1_to _[1_cre_[1_ate _[1_a _[1__#_Count_[1_y _[1__#_In_[2_vestment_[3_ _#_Advisor _[2_which will essentially function as a de fact_[1_o _[1__#_Clerk _[1_in the _[1_discretionary in_[2_vesting _[1_of _[1_the _[1_funds _[1__[1_under _[1_which _[1_the _\!1__#_Clerk _\"1_is _\#4_given _\'1_discretion _\(1_to _\)1_in_\*1_vest _\+3_in _\.2_accord _\01_with the _\11__#_In_\22_vestment _\44__#_Policy _\82_established _\:1__\;2_under the S_#_S_\;2_tatute _\=1_by _\>1_this _\?1__#_Commission_\@1_. _\A1__%_Mr. W

Mr. Wright explained a _\1_clear _\2_reading _\1_of _%_Statute 218.415 in the _\3__%_P_\3_reamble _\1_states_\1_, _#_"In_\1_vest_\1_m_\1__\1_ent activity by _\1_a _\2_unit_\1_ of _\1_local _\1_government _\1__\1_must be _\3_consistent _\1_with _\1_a _\1_written _\1_in_\2_vestment _\1_plan _\1_a_\2_dopted _\1_by the _\3_governing _\2_body._\1_> He advised _%_He c_\1__\2__\1_that isn't referencing _\1_the _\1_same _\2_entity_\1__\1__\2_.

_\1__%_Commissioner _%_Henley left the meeting at this time.

_%_Mr. _%_Wright continued, _"_the _\2_unit _\1_of _\1_local _\1_government _\1_is _\1_the_\1_ _#_Clerk_\1_. _\1_The _\3_governing _\2_body _\1_is _\1_th_\1_e _#_Commission_\1_. _\1_So _\1_investment activity_\1__\2__\1_ _\1_by _\1_a _\2_unit _\1_of _\1_local _\1_government_\1_, _\1_the _\1__#_Clerk_\1_, _\1_must _\1_be _\3_consistent _\1_with _\1_a _\1_written _\1__\2_investment _\1_plan _\1_a_\2_dopted_\1__\3_ by the governing _]!2_body_]#1_. _]$2__]&1__%_C_%_hairman _%_Horan asked if_%_ unit of _%_local government is defined by the Statute. _%_Mr. _%_Wright answered _"_it does _]=1__]>1_not _]?2_specifically _]A1_de_]B1_fine _]C1_uni_]D1_t _]E1_of _]F1_local _]G1_government _]H1_but _]I1_he _]J1_pointed _]K1_out, _]L1_for example, in 218.415(13),_]U1_ _]V1_the _]W2__#_s_]W2_tatutory _]Y2_language _][1_further _]\1_supports _]]1_this _]^1_clear _]_3_interpretation _]b1_of the _]c1_two _]d1_enti_]e1_ties _]f1_with _]g2_reference _]i1_to "_]j1__#_the _]k2_unit_]m1_ of _]n1_local _]o1_government_]p3_'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 _]1_an _]1_ad_]1_ver_]2_sarial _]1_position_]1_. _]1__%_He suggested that the _%_Board let _%_Mr. _%_Wright finish his presentation and then h_]1_ear staff's presentation, and _%_Commissioner _%_Dallari agreed.

Mr. _%_Wright _%__]1_stated, as further support, pursuant to _%_Art_]1_i_]1_cle 5, _%_Section 16 of the _%_Fl_]1__]1_orida _%_Constitution, _%_the _]1__#_Clerk _]1_is the _]3_ex offic_]1_io_]1_ _]1__#_Clerk _]2_of the _%_BCC, also _%_auditor_]2_, recorder_]2_ and custod_]1_ian _]1_of _]1_all of the _]1__#_Count_]1_y _]1_funds_]1_. _]1_As _]1_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, "_]1_[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 _]1__]1__]1__]2__]1__]3__^#1__^$1__^%2__^'1__^(1__^)1__^*2__^,3__^/1__^01__^11__^21__^31__^41__^51__^63__^93__^<1__^=1__^>1__^?1__^@1__^A1__^B1__^C1__^D1__^E1__^F1__^G1__^H1__^I1__^J1__^K1__^L1__^M1__^N4__^R1__^S2__^U1__^V2__^X1__^Y1__^Z1__^[1__^\1__^]1__^^2__^`1__^a1__^b1__^c1__^d2__^f1__^g1__^h3__^k1__^l1__^m1__^n1__^o1__^p1__^q1__^r1_to carry that out and _^s1_it can _^t1_only _^u1_be _^v1_alt_^w1_ered _^x1_by _^y1__#_Count_^z1_y _^{1__#_Chart_^|1_er _^}1_or _^~1_special _^1_law _^3_approve_^1__^3_d by a vote _^1_of _^1_those _^1_people _^1_who _^1_e_^2_lected _^1_him _^1_in the _^1_first _^1_place_^1_.

In _^4_closing_^1_, _^1__%_Mr. _%_Wright quoted _%_Ronald _%_Reagan, "_^1__^1_Ive _^1_always _^1_believed _^1_that _^1_a _^1_lot _^1_of the _^1_troubles _^1_of the _^1_world _^1_could _^1_dis_^2_appear _^2_if we were talking to each other instead _^1_of _^1_about _^1_each _^3_other_^1_." _%_He added _%_it is the interest of the _%_Clerk for _^1_everybody _^1_to _^1_work _^1_together _^1_on _^1_this _^1_to _^1_prop_^2_erly _^1__^1__^1_invest and _^1_make _^1_the _^1_prop_^1_er _^2_decisions _^1_under _^1_the _^1_law _^1_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. _^1_ _^1__%_He reviewed his qualifications and noted h__|1_e __}1_would __~1_be __2_very helpful__1___1___1_ in working with the __1_investment__1___2___2_ policy __1___1_to make __1_sure __1_that the __1_policy is governing under the three major objectives: safety, liquidity and yield. __1_ _%_H__1_e opined one of the reasons the__1_ _#_Clerk __1_selected _%_PFM__1___1_ i__1_s beca__1_use they manage __2_public __1_funds, __1_and __1_only __2_public __1_funds, __1_throughout __1_the__2_ entire __1_nation__1_ and have been for 40 years.

__2___1___1___1___3___1___1___1___1_ _%_Mr. _%_Alexander explained _%_how the fees are applied to the __1_over__1_all __3_portfolio__1_. __1_There __1_was __1_an __3_analysis __3_presentation __1_that__1_ _%_P__1_FM __1_pro__2_vided __1_in a meeting with the __1__#_Clerk, __1___1___1___1___1___2___1___1__#___1___1__%_Chairman, an__1_d a few others that __1_gave __1__`!1_some _`"1_ideas _`#1_and _`$1_recommen_`%1__`&1__`'1__`(2__`*3_dations about the investment policies _`-1_and procedures that _`.1_would _`/1_help _`01_the _`11__#_Count_`21_y _`31_move_`41__`51_ forward in _`61_a _`71_very positive and pro_`81_fession_`91_al _`:1_way_`;1_. _`<1_In _`=1_doing _`>1_the _`?3_analysis_`B2_, it is _`D1_always _`E1_very important _`F1_to _`G1_look _`H1_at _`I1__`J1_a cash_`K1_-flow _`L3_analysis _`O1_to _`P1_determine what assets make _`Q1_sense _`R1_to stay short, to pay for obligations, to make sure _`W2_payroll _`Y1_is _`Z2_taken _`\1_care _`]1_of _`^1_and _`_1_other _``3_bills _`c1_necessary_`d1_. _%_The analysis then shows what assets can be_`e1__`f1__`g1__`h1__`i2_ invested _`k1_longer_`l1_ _`m1_term _`n1_to _`o1_take _`p1_advantage _`s1_of _`t2_better _`v2_interest _`x1_rates _`y1_and _`z1_better securities. The analysis_`}3_ _`2_shows _`1_bi_`2_furcation _`1__`1_between liquidity funds and_%__`2_ cor_`2_e portfolio. _%_Mr. _%_Alexander emphasized _`1__`1_his _`2_fees _`2_apply _`1_only to the cor_`1_e portfolio, not _`1_to the _`2_total _`1_ass_`1_ets_`1_. _`1__%_PF_`1_M does _`1_not _`1_charge _`1_any _`2_asset _`2_fees _`1_for _`1_C_`1_D_`1_s, bank _`4_balances_`1_, any_`1__`1__`2__`1_ type of pools_`1_, any other type of investment pools that the _%_Clerk can enter into himself, so _`1_there _`1_is _`1_no _`1_over_`2_lapping _`1_in _`2_fees_`1_. _%_Th_`1_e_`2_ fees _`1_are _`2__`1_basically half _`1__`1_of _`1_the _`1_amount _`1__`1_that _`2_the _%_Board has _`1_been _`2_discussing and has been_`1_ _`2_hearing _`1_in _`1_other _`1_parts _`1_of the _`1_count_`3_y_`1_. _%__`1_Mr. _%_Alexander concluded his presentation and made himself available for questions from the _%_Board.

_%_Commissioner _%_Carey _%_confirmed with _%_Mr. _%_Alexander that _a#1_in the _a$1_contract _a%1__a&1_he _a'2_signed _a)1_with the _a*1__#_Clerk_a+1_, his _a,2_fees _a.1_are _a/1_10 _a02_basis _a21_points _a31_for the _a41_first _a51_$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_%_ _%__aU2__aW1_that _aX1_it _aY1_isn't _aZ1_of the _a[2_entire _a]2_$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_a_1_ further modifications to that report so h_a_1_e is still trying to streamline it as much as possible _a1_as _a1_he go_a1_es through _a1_the _a1_preliminary _a1_cash_a1_-flow _a3_analysis_a1_.

Commissioner _%_Carey_a1__a1_ 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. _%_H_a1_e _%_e_a1_xpressed, from what he has heard, _%_t_a1_hey are 3 basis points on all assets_%_ and there was a fixed fee of $150,000_%_. _%_Commissioner _%_Carey noted she will_a1_ have that clarified but she w_%_anted to confirm _%_PFM's fees so everybody c_a1_ould understand what the fees are. _%_Chairman _%_Horan confirmed with _a1__%_Mr. _%_Alexander that he has not been retained by _%_Seminole _%_Co_a1_unty.

_%_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. _bv1__%__%_S_b1__b1_he stated she _b1_stand_b1_s be_b1_hind _b1_Mr. _b1__%_Maloy _b1__b1__b1__b1_who _b1_has _b1_and _b1_will _b1_continue _b1_to _b1_serve _b1_the _b2_public _b1_as _b1_he _b1_was _b1_e_b2_lected _b1_to do _b1_and _b1__b1__b1_hope_b1_s that _b1_the _%_Board does _b1_the _c!1_same_c"1_.

_c#1_ _%_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,_c#1_ 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_"_the mimi. _c#1__%_Commissioner _%_Carey directed him to the graph provided by _%_PFM and explained _%_t_c#1_here is about $250 million invested at any given time. _%_Chairman _%_Horan explained how_%_ t_c#1_he _%_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. _%_H_e_1__e_1_e stated he is opposed to the _%_Board _ek2_taking _em1_th_en1__eo1_e _ep1_authority _eq1_a_er1_way _es1_from the _et1__#_Clerk_eu1__ev1__#__ew1__ex1__ey1_ and doesn't _e1_think _e2_using _e1_bad _e2_decisions _e1_made in the past to _e1__e1_justify bad _e2_decisions _e1_made _e1__e1__e1__e1__e1__e2__e1_today _e1_is _e1_a _e1_very _e1_good _e1_idea_e1_.

_%_H. _%_Alexander _%_Duncan, _%_P.O. _%_Box 620092, addressed the _%_Board and s_e1_tated the _%_Board is talking about putting $500 million in the hands of a private company _f1_without _f1_Mr. _f2__#_Maloy _f4_having _f1_over_f1_sight _f1_of _f1_it_f1__f1_, _"_a private_g31_ _g41_company _g51_making decisions that _g61__g72_the citizens _g91_e_g:2_lected _g<1_the _%_Board to make._g=1_ _%_He discussed_%_ private developers and local developments. _%_He _%_advised he is opposed to this.

_h1__h1__h1__h1__h1_ _%_Steve _%_Edmonds, 1022 _%_Vannessa _%_Drive, addressed the _%_Board and stated in 1995_h1_ when the _%_BCC decided to reconcile with the _%_State _h2__#_Constitution, _h1_he was finishing his political science degree. _h1_ _%_He explained there was a discussion in his class that _h1_was _h3_predicated _h1_around _h1_the _h1_fact _h1_that _h1_government_h1_s in _h1__h2_the system _h1_of _h2_federal_h3__h1_ism have _h1_to _h1_ad_h1_here _h1_to the _h5_different levels of government_h1_, and _h1_there _h1__h1_are _h2_things _h1_that _h2_supersede _h1_local _h1_governments. _h2_That_h1_ is the _h1_whole _h1_idea _h1_of the _i!1__#_Supremacy _#_Clause and the _%_U.S. _i"2__#_Constitution_i$1_, and _i%4_that_i)1_ is the _i*1_whole _i+1_idea _i,1_of the State of _i-1_Florida _i.1__#_having _i13_a _i42__#_Constitution_i61_ _i81_. _i91_ _#_One _i:1_of the _i;1_con_i<2_clusions _i>1_of _i?1_that _i@1_discussion _iA1_was _iB1_that _iC1_it was _iD2_probably _iF1_a _iG2_pretty _iI1_good _iJ1_idea _iK1_that _iL1_the _iM1_B_iN1_C_iO1_C _iP1_made _iQ1_that _iR2__#_Resolution _iT1_to _iU1_give_iV1_ the _iY3__"_constitutional _i\1_authority _i]1_back _i^1_to _i_1_the _i`1__#_Clerk. _ia1__ib1__#__ic1_ _%_He discussed how _i2_checks _i1_and _i2_balances _i1_are _i3_extremely _i1_important _i1_and why_i2_why _i1__i1_there is _i1_a _i3__#_Constitutional _i1__#_Officer _i1_that _i1__i1_is e_i1_lect_i1_ed to _i1_check _i1_the _i1_pow_i1_er _i1_of _i1_t_i1_he _i1_B_i1_C_i1_C_i2_. _%_H_i1__i1_e stated he _i1__i2_is strongly _i1_in _i2_opposition _i1_to what _%_h_i1_e sees as a usurping of the people's power into a consolidation of power into the_i1_ _%_Board. Commissioner _%_Carey stated _%_Chapter 218 of the Florida Statutes talks about _jV2_financial _jX1_mat_jY1_t_jY1_ers _jZ1_per_j[2_taining _j]1_to _j^1_po_j_1_lit_j`1_ical _ja1_sub_jb1_di_je1__je1_visions_jf1_ a_%_nd confirmed with Mr. Edmonds that _jg1_Seminole County _jh1_is _ji1_a _jj1_po_jk1_lit_jl1_ical _jm1__jn1_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 o_jn1_pined that _%_Article 8 of the _%_Florida _%_Constitution supersedes _%_Chapter 218.

Bruce _%_McMenemy, _%_Deputy _%_County _%_Manager, _kz1_a_k1_ddressed the _%_Board to state _k1_the _k1_idea _k1_of _k2_changing _k1_this _k2_policy _k2__k2_developed _k1_back _k1_i_k1_n _k1__#_February _k1_of _k2_2016_k1_. _k1_The _k1_reason _k1_for _k1_the _k1_thought _k1_that _k3_the _%_County _k1_may need to change_k1__k1__k1__k1_ its_k2_its policy _k1_was _k1_the _k1__#_Clerk_k2_, _%_Maryanne _%_Morse, was not going_%_ to stay in office _k2_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_%_A discussion was had at a work session in _%_March of 2016 _l#1_t_l$2_o talk_l&1_ about _l'1_what _l(1__l)1_the _%_County was _l*1_going _l+1_to do _l,1_going _l-1_forward _l.1_in _l/1_regard _l01_to _l11__#_In_l22_vestment _l42__#_Policy _l63_investments_l91_. Mr. _l:1__%_McMenemy explained _"_thr_l;1_ough that _l<1_process_l=1_, _l>2_he _l@2_reached _lB1_out _lC1_to the _lD1__#_Clerk _lE1__lF1__lG1__lH1__lI1__lJ1__lK1_multiple times _lL1_to _lM1_discuss _lN1__lO1_it._lP1_ _%_H_l\1_e had_l]1__l^1_ _l_1_a _l`2_meeting _lb1_with the _lc1__#_Clerk_ld1__le2__lg1__lh1__li1_ and she _lj1_was _lk1_not _ll2_open _ln1_to _lo1_any _lp1_discussion _lq1_about _lr1_how _ls1_the _lt2_policy _lv1_could _lw1_be _lx2_changed _lz1_in _l{1_ord_l|1_er _l}1_to _l~1_have professional financial advice. _l1__l1__l1__l1__l1_Mr. _l2__#_Maloy _l3_attended _l1_at _l1_least _l1_four _l1_meet_l1_ings_l1_, some _l1_of _l1_which _l1_included_l2__l1_ _l1__%__l1_Ms. _%_Morse, where _l1_they _l2_discussed _l2_changing _l1_the _l 2_policy _l1_to _l1_have _l1_a _l2__#_Financial _l3__#_Advisor;_l1_;;; _l1_Mr. _l2_A_l1_pplegate _l3_attended _l1_at _l1_least _l1_two _l1__l2__l1__l2_meetings_l1_ to _l1_discuss _l4_potential _l2_changes;_l1_ _l1_and the _l1__#_Chair_l1_man_l1_ attended_l1_ _l1_two _l1_meet_l1_ings _l1_where _l1_t_l1_he _%_County _l2_attempted _l1_to _l1_have _l1_a _l1_discussion_l1_.

_%_Mr. _%_McMenemy stated t_l1_his l2_policy _l2__l2_changes _l1_very _l2_little_l1_. _l1_Today _l1_the _l1__#_Clerk _l1_is the _l2_custod_l1_ian _l1_of _l5_$452 _l1_million._l1__#__m!1__m"2__m$1__m%1_ _m&1_If _m'1_this _m(2_policy _m*1_is _m+2_changed, _m-1__m.2__m01_the _%_Clerk will _m11_still _m21_be _m31_the_m42_ custod_m61_ian_m71__m81_ of $452 million. _%_T_m91_he _%_County doesn't _m:1_take _m;1_any _m<2_money _m>1_a_m?1_way _m@1_from _mA1_the Clerk_mB1_ _mC1_so he _mD1_still _mE1_holds _mF1_all the _mG2_dollars_mI1_. _mJ1_The _mK1_only _mL2_difference _mN1_is _mO1_back _mP1_when _%_Ms. _%_Morse did the_mQ1__mR1__mS1__mT1__mU1__mV2_ investment _mX2_policy_mZ1_, she _mo2__mq1_made _mr1_investment _ms2_decisions _mu1_on _mv1_her _mw1_own _mx1_with _my1_no _mz1_real _m{1_in_m|1_p_m}1_ut from _m~1_anyone_m1_. _m1__%_He opined there _#__m1__m 1_should be _m1_some _m1_kind _m1_of _m1_pro_m1_fession_m1_al _m1_advice _m1_and _m1_discussion _m1_as _m1_to _m1_where _m1__m3_taxpayer _m2_dollars _m1_are _m4_invested_m1_, _m1_why_m1_, _m1_does _m1__m1_it make _m1_sense, _m1_and _m1_are _m1_they _m1_secure_m1_. _m2__m1__%_He explained _"_the _m1_pro_m2_posal _m2_that_m1_ is in _m1_front _m1_of _m1_the _%_Board _m1_pro_m1_vides _m1_more _m2_checks _m1_and _m2_balances,_m1_ not _m1_less_m1_. _m2__n;1__%_He pointed out he doesn't think there has ever been a _nD1_discussion _nE1_about _nF3_investments _nI1_and _nJ1__#_Count_nK1_y _nL1_money_nM1__nN1_ _nP1_in _nQ1_a _nR2_public _nT2_hearing; _nV1_and _nW2__n]1_if _n^1_the_n^1_ _n_2_policy _na2_changes_nc2_, t_nc2_hey will _ne1_h_nf1_ave to do _ng1_that _nh1__ni1_because _nj1_the_nk1_ way _nl2__nn1_the policy is written, _no1_the_np2_ _#_Financial _nr3__#_Advisor _nu1_will _nv1_make _nw1_recommendation_nx2__nz1_s to _n{1_the_n|1_ _#_Board _n}1_at _n~1_a _n2_public _n2_meeting _n1__n1__n1_for _n1_discussion_n1_. _n1__%_Mr. _%_McMenemy stated the _%_Clerk_n2__#_ _n1_h_n1_as the_n1_the _n1_ability _n1_to _n1_voice _n1_his _n1_concerns_n1_ at the public meeting just _n1_like _n2_members _n1_of the _n2_public _n1_have the _n1_ability _n1_to _n1_make _n1_their concerns _n1_know_n1__n1_n. It _n1_pro_n1_vides _n1__n1_for _n1_great_n1_er _n2_transparency, _n1_not _n1_less_n1_.

Mr. _%_McMenemy discussed one _n1_particular _n1_year _n1_where _n1_the _%_County _n1_had _n1_a _n1_very _n1_large _o!1_multi_o"2_-million _o$1_dollar write-down of the value of the securities. _oI1__%_He reiterated _"_this _oJ1_pro_oK2_posal _oM1_is _oN2_absolutely _oP1_tran_oQ1_sparent _oR1_and _oS1_it _oT1_ben_oU1_efits _oV1_the _oW1_tax_oX1_payer_oY1__o`1_. _oa1__%_He explained _"_the _o3__#_Board _o1_can't _o1_spend _o2_money _o1_that the _o1__#_Clerk_o1_ is not approving. T_%__%_This is having a p_%_professional recommendation as to how _o1_the _o2_money _o1_is _o1_going _o1_to be _o3_utilized _o1_and _o1_invested and discussed in a public forum such as this.

N_o1__o1_icole _%_Guillet, _%_County _%_Manager, stated _o1_this _o2_policy _o1_does _o1_not _o1_pro_o1_pose _o2_vesting _o1_decision _o2_making _o1_with _o1_respect _o1_to _o3_investments _o1__o1_in a _o1_third _o1_part_o1_y_o1_,_o1__o1_ _"_it _o1_ve_o1_sts that _o1_d_o2_ecision making _o1_with the _o2_entity _p!1_that _p"1_has _p#1_the _p$1_authority _p%1_to do _p&1_so_p'2_, which is t_p)1_he _p*1_B_p+1_C_p,1_C_p-1_. _%_There _p.1_will _p/1_not _p01_be _p11_a _p21_private _p31_third _p41_part_p51_y _p62_making _p83_investment _p;2_decisions_p=1_. _#_They _p>1_will _p?1_be _p@2_making _pB2_recommendations _pD1_and _pE1_pro_pF2_viding _pH1_advice to the _%_BCC_pI1__pJ1_._pR2_ _%_She noted t_pY1_he _%_Board _pZ2__p\1__p]1_will _p^1_be _p_2_acting _pa1_on _pb1_those _pc2_recommend_pe1__pf2_ations in a public _ph2_forum_pj1__pk1_ which is not _pl1_how _pm1_in_pn2_vestment _pp2_decisions _pr1_are _ps1_made _pt1_today_pu1_, they _pv1_are _pw1_made _px2_privately _pz1_by the _p{1__#_Clerk_p|1_. _%_M_p1__p1_s. _%_Guillet reiterated this _p3__p1_does _p1_not _p1_im_p1_pact the _p1__#_Clerk_p1_'_p2_s custod_p1_ial responsibilities. _p1__#_He _p 1_still _p1_has _p2_custody _p1_of the _p2_dollars_p1_, and _p1__#_Section _p1_L _p1_of _p1_this _p1_policy_p1__p1__p2_ emphasizes _p1_his _p1_role _p1_as _p2_custod_p1_ian _p1_of these dollars.

_%_ Ms. Guillet commented_%__#_ on the idea that _"_this _p1_was _p1_done _p2_privately _p1_without _p1_any _p3_consultation _p1_with the _p1__#_Clerk_p1_. _p2__%_She expressed _p1_there _p1_were _p1_at _p1_least _p1_three _p1_meet_p1_ings _p1_in the last three months that _p1_included_p1__p1_ _p1_Mr. _p2__#_Maloy_p1_,_q'1_ and there _q(1_are _q)2_changes _q+3_included _q.1_in _q/1_this _q02_policy _q21_that _q31__q41__q52_were based _q71_on _q81_his _q93_suggestions_q<1_.

B_qd1_ryant_%_ _%_Applegate, _%_County _%_Attorney, stated _%_t_qj1_he _q|1_B_q}1_C_q~1_C _q1_has _q1_the _q1_authority _q1_to _q1_make _q1_the _q3_investment_q2_ decisions _q1_and _q1_t_q2__q2_he _%_County's audit_q1__q1_or is _q1_to _q2_execute _q1_those _q2_decisions_q1__q1_._q1_ _q1__%_T_q1__q1_h_q1_e _%_County ex_q1_pects _q1_t_q1_he _%_Clerk to _q1_continue _q1__q1_doing the _q2_custod_q1_ial _q2_duties and audit duties _q1_under _q1_the _q2__#_Statutes. _%_Mr. _%_Applegate explained_%__q1_ he _q1_pro_q4_vided _q1_counsel _q1_to the _q1__#_Clerk_q1_'s _q1__q1__%_Office as to his legal opinion, and he _r$1_wants _r%1_to go _r&1_over _r'1_and _r(1__r)2_clarify _r+1_some _r,1_points_r-1_. _r.1__r42__#_Articles _r61_5 and 8 _r71_of _r81_the Florida _r92__#_Constitution_r;2_,_r?1__r?1_ _r@1__rA1__rB1__rC1__rD1__rE1__rF1__rG1__#_Chapt_rH1_er_rI1__rJ1_ _rK2_28 _rM1_of the _%_Florida _%_Statutes,_rM1__rM1_ and _%_Chapters 125, 218, and _rN1__#_Section _rO3_3.1 _rR1_of _rS1_Seminole County _rT1__#_Chart_rU1_er _rV1_all have one thing in common;_rV1_ which is nowhere _rX1_in those provisions does _rY1_it _rZ1_say _r[1_that the_#_ Clerk _r\1_has _r]3_the sole _r`1_authority _ra1_to _rb2_invest _rd1_money held_re1_ _rf1_in _rg1_trust _rh1_by the _ri1_B_rj1_C_rk1_C_rl1_. What _%__rt1__#_Article _r1_8_r1_ of _%_Florida _r2__#_Constitution_r4_,_r4_ Chapters 28, _%_125, _%_218,_r4_ and _%_Section 2.2 of the _%_Charter_r1_ _r1_have _r1_in _r2_common is _r1_that _r1_the _r1_B_r1_C_r1_C _r1_has _r1_the _r 1_clear _r2_statutory _r1_authority _r1_and _r1_home _r1_rule _r1_authority _r1_to _r1_make _r3_investment _r2_decisions_r1_. _r1__%_He pointed out the _%_Clerk and the _%_County_r1_ _r1_a_r1_gree _r1_that _r1_the _r1_B_r1_C_r1_C _r1_has _r1_the _r3_investment _r1_authority _r1_to _r1_develop _r1_a _r2_policy_r1_. _r1_If the _r2_policy _r1__r3__r1_consisted of _r1_one _r2_sentence_r1_, that the _r1__#_Board _r1__r1_wants the _r2_surplus _r1_funds _r1_to be _r1_in_r2_vested _r1_in _r1_"treasury note _r1_X_r1_," the _r1__#_Clerk _r1_has _r1_to do _r1_that;_r1_ _r1_and _r1_they _r1_a_r1_gree _r1_because _r1_they _r1_recognize _r1_that _r1_th_r1_e _#_Board _r1__r1__s!1__s"1_has that authority.

_s&1_ _%_Mr. _%_Applegate agreed that the _%_Administrative _%_Code does not apply to the _%_Clerk,_s&1_ it is _sC1_a _sD1_B_sE1_C_sF1_C _sG2_policy. _%_He reiterated the policy doesn't take away custodial duties from the _%_Clerk. _sI1__s1_ _%_Under h_s1__#_home r_s1__#_rule a_s1__#_authority _s1_and the s_s2__#_statutes_s1_, the _s1__#_Clerk _s1_is _s2_a custod_s1_ian_s1_. _%_In regard to _%_Alachua _%_County v. _%_Powers, _%_Mr. _%_Applegate read an opinion of the _s1_Florida _s5_Supreme Court_s1_,, _%_, _#_"The _%_Board stipulates that the trial court properly ruled that investments of surplus may be made upon approval by the _%_County _%_Commission by _s1__s1_a_s1_doption _s1_of a_s1_n _s4_appropriate _s2_resolution._s1_ T_s1__"_hus_s1_, there _s2_appears _s1_to be_s1_ no _s1_con_s1_flict _s1_with _s2_the holding of _s1_the _s1__#_Court _s1_be_s1_low _s1_that _s1_the_s1_ Board_s1_oaa _s1_ma_s1_y b_s4_y appropriate _s4_resolution _s2_desig_t"1_nate _t#1_the _t$3_investment _t'1_place _t(1_of _t)1_sur_t*1_plus _t+1_funds _t,1_and _t-2_the _%_Clerk is required _t/1_to _t02_carry out _t31_the_t41_ b_#_bboards _t62_directive_t81_._t91_ They _t:1_go _t;1_on _t<1_to _t=1_say, _t>1__#_"On the _t?1_other _t@1_hand_tA1_, the boards of county commissioners_tB1_ _tE1_have _tF1_long _tG1_had the _tH1_authority _tI1_to _tJ1_pro_tK1_vide, _tL1_by _tM2_resolution, for _tO1_the_tP3_ investment _tS1_of _tT1_any _tU2_surplus _tW2_public _tY1_funds _tZ1_in _t[1_their _t\1_control _t]1_or _t^1_possession_t_1_._t`1_"

_%_Mr. _%_Applegate discussed _%_Leon _%_County and how their _%_board adopted _t1_an _t3_investment _t2_policy _t1_to _t 2_govern _t1_the _t2_investment of surplus _t1_funds _t1_of the _t1_c_#_ount_t1_y_t1_. _t1__%_He pointed out that _#_Le_t1_on_t1_ _#_Count_t1_y _t1_has _t1_an _t3_investment _t2_committee_t1_ _t1__t1__t3__t1__t1_and described the duties of that _%_committee. Mr_%__%_. _%_Applegate stated in regard to the term unit of local government, it is correct that the_u1_ _#_Clerk _u1_is a _u2_unit _u1_of _u1_local _u1_government _u1_in _u1_the definition in _%_Chapter 218._u1__u2__u1_ _%_H_u1_owever, _u2_unit _u1_of _u1_local _u1_government _u1_also _u2_includes _u1_th_u1_e_u1__u1_ _u1_B_u1_C_u1_C_u1_. Every time _u1_Section _u1_28_u1_.33 _%_Florida _%_Statutes mentions "the _%_Clerk shall," it goes on to say, "pursuant to the policy established by the governing body." The_%_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 _wE1_through _wF1_all _wG1_of _wH1__%_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 _w1_as _w1_if _w1_that _w1_is _w1_somehow _w1_a _w1_grant _w1_of _w1_pow_w1_er_w1_ or a grant of _w1_sole _w1_authority_w1__w1_. _w1__%__w2__w1__w1__w1__w1_He explained _"_in _w1_no _w1__w1__w1_c_%_ounty is the _w1__#_Clerk _w1_in _w1_control _w1_of the _w3_investments_w1_. _w1__%_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 _x;1_a _x<2_custod_x>1_ian _x?1_is _x@1_not _xA1__xB1_synonymous _xD1_with being the _#_Chief _#_Investment _#_Officer and _xE1_it _xF1_never _xG1_has _xH1_been_xI1_.

_xJ1_ _%_Mr. _%_Wilkes told a story about _xf1_the _xg1__%_O_xh1_range _xi1__#_Count_xj1_y_xk1__xl1_ _#_s_xl1_ewer & _"_water_%__xm1_ _xn2_system _xp2_back in the early 70s and how _xp2_the _%_County _%_Commission w_xp2_anted to take control of the customer billing function, which _%_the _x1__#_Clerk _x1_to the _x1__#_Board _x1_had _x1_been _x1_op_x2_erating _x1_and performing_x1_perofrming_x1_. _x1__#_A _x1_dis_x1_pute _x1_e_x1_rupt_x1_ed _x1_ _x1_and _x1_the _%_Board and _%_Clerk ended up in court. _%_The judge _%__%_stated the _%_Clerk is _y71_the _y81_cust_y92_odian _y;2_and does not _yF1_get _yG1_to _yH1_control _yI1_the _yJ2_billing_yL1_. _yM2__%_The billing _yO1_function is _yP1_not _yQ1__yR1_synonymous _yT1_with _yU1_being _yV1_the _yW2_custod_yY1_ian_yZ1_.

Mr. _%_Wilkes stated that _%_i_y2_n 1995, the Seminole County _%_Board members_y1__y1__y1__y1__y1__y3__y1__y1__y2__y1__y1__y1__y1_ spent a _y1_lot_y3_ of _y1_time _y2_making _y1_sure _y1_that they _y1_were _y2_thinking _y1_their _y1_way _y1_through_y3_ the _#_Investment _y2__#_Policy _y1__y1__y1__y1__y1__y1__y1__y1_because 1995 had _y1_a _y1_lot _y1_of _y1_sig_y1_nificance _y1__y1_in _y1_Florida _y3_with _y1_regard _y1_to _y3_investment _y3_policies_y1_. _y1_ _%_He discussed a_z%1_ _%_Clerk in _%_Escambia _%_County and their involvement with _%_high_z&1_-risk _z'1_de_z(1_riv_z)1_atives_z*1_. _z+1__%__z3_Mr. _%_Wilkes stated the_z3_ L_"_Legislature _z2_made a major sweeping _z1_revision_z1_ of the investment policies in 1995 _z2_and that is _z1_where _z1__#_Section _z2_21_z1_8.415_z1__z3_ _z2_came from. _%_That _z2_is when _z1_th_z1_e _#_Board _z1__z1__z1_came _z1_up _z1_with _z1_a _z1_rather _z1_de_z2_tailed _z3__#_Investment _z2__#_Policy _z1_and _z1_ex_z2_pressly _z3_delegated _z1_the investment authority to the _z1__#_Clerk _z1_beca_z1_use _z1_the_z1_ _#_Board _z1_then _z2_decided _{!1_the_{"1_ _#_Clerk _{#1_had the _{$3_expertise _{'1_to do _{(1_it_{)1_.

With _{?1_regard _{@1_to _{A2_policy, _%_Mr. _%_Wilkes explained _{C2_there_{E1_ is a _{F3_very _{I1_strong _{J2_policy _{L1_that _{M1__"_clerks _{M1_in any _{N1_count_{O1_y _{P2_in _%_Florida _{R1_should _{S1_not _{T1_be _{U1_in_{V2_vesting _{X2_public _{Z2_money_{\1__{]1_ on their _{^1_own _{_1_without _{`1_control _{a1_and _{b1_over_{c1_sight _{d1_by the _{e1__#_Board. He opined_{f1_ _{g2__{i1_if _{j1_any _{k1_clerk_{l1_ _{m2_tries _{o1_to _{p2_assert _{r1_that the _{s2_title _{u1_of _{v2_custod_{x1_ian _{y1_is _{z1__{{1_synonymous _{}1_with also being the _{~1__#_Chief _{3__#_Investment _{1__#_Officer, they will get _{1__{1__{1__{1__{1_shut _{1_down _{1_in _{1_court_{1_. _{1__%_Mr. _%_Wilkes_%_ _%_believe_{1_s that _{2_the _%_Board is _{1_in _{1_a _{1_very _{1_strong _{1_position _{1_and _{1__{1_not only _{1_has the _{1_law _{2_behind _{1_them _{1_but _{2_also some histor_{1_ical _{1_precedent _{1_and a very strong public policy that says t_{2__{1__{2_hey are _{1_doing _{2_exactly _{1_what _{1_needs _{1_to be _{1_done _{1_for the _{2_public_{1_.

G_%_rant _%_Maloy, _%_Clerk of _%__%__%_Court and _%_Comptroller, stated _{1_this _{2_policy _{1_ha_{1_s _{2_changed_{1__{1_ several times. _{1__%_It _{1_originally _{2_started _{1_off_{2__{1_ with _{1_a _{1_third_{1_-part_{1_y I_{3_IInvestment _{1__{1__{3_Advisor directing_{1_ _{1_his _{1_d_{1_ay-to_{1_-d_{1_ay op_{2_erations_{1_. _{1__%__%_Mr. _%_Maloy pointed out when he brought those concerns to_%_ the _%_Board, everybody _{1_was _{1_in _{1_a_{1_greement_{1_ that it was _{2_worded _{1_wrong_{1__{1_ so that got thrown out. Then _{1__{1_staff came _{1_out _{1_with _{1_another _{1_one_{1_. _{1__%_Today's policy is _{1_the _{1_third _|!1_version_|"1_. _|#1__%_Mr. _%_Maloy explained he has been trying to meet with the_%_ _%_Board. _%_He has asked for work sessions. _%_He has had _|G1_meet_|H1_ings _|I2_canceled_|K1_. _%_It seems just about _%_the _|L1_only _|M2_communication _|O1__%_he has received from _%_Mr. _%_McMenemy are _|P2_public _|R3_records _|U1_request_|V1_s for _|W1_information _|X1_to _|Y2_prepare _|[1_for _|\1_a _|]1_lawsuit_|^1_ _|`1__|a1_. _|b1__%_Mr. _%_Maloy stated he has_|o2__|q2_ reached _|s1_out _|t2_several _|v1_times_|w2_. _%_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_|1__|1__|1_ that _|3_presentation _|1_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_|2__|1__|1__|1__|1_ set_|1_s the _|2_policy_|1_,_|1_ but _|1_t_|1_he _%_Clerk _|1__|1__|1_carries out the _|1_day-_|1__|1_to-_|1__|1_day _|2_execution _|1_of _|1_that _|2_policy_|1_;_|1_ t_%_he _%_Board doesn't _%__|1__|1__|1_send _|1_the _%_Clerk _|1_a specific _|1_ord_|1_er_|1__|2_, 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_%_ _}"1_been _}#2_virtually _}%1_no _}&1_discussion _}'1_of _}(1_that_})1_. _}*1__%_Mr. _%_Maloy stated they haven't really discussed a_}+1__},2__}.1__}/1__}01__}11__}21_ _}31_good _}43_portfolio_}71__}82_, but they keep discussing control. _%_He pointed out he is_}:3_ _}=1_fine _}>1_with _}?1__}@2_the _%_Board setting _}B1_a _}C2_policy_}E1_ and thinks that is the_}F1__}G2__}I1_ _}J1_responsibility _}K1_of _}L1_the _}M1__#_Board_}N1_. _%_They set the criteria and _}O1_tell _}P1_the _%_Clerk _}Q1_what _}R1_to _}S1_in_}T3_vest _}W1_in_}X1_, how _}Y1_long_}Z1_, and the_}[1_ dur_}\1_ation_}]1__}^1_; and th_#_at_}f1_ is what c_}g1__#_clerk_}h1_s _}i1_do _}j1_around _}k1_the_}l1_ state _}m1_of _}n1__%_Florida.

Mr. _%_Maloy explained what he is proposing is nothing that is_%_ _}y1_out _}z1_of _}{1_line _}|2_of what other c_%_cclerks are doing. Palm Beach _}~1__%_County_}1_ _}1_has _}1_an _}1__}1_in-house _}3_investment _}1_staff and they _}1_have _}1_over _}1__}2_$1 billion _}2_of investments. _%_That_}1__}3__}2__}1_ is within _}1_the_}1_ purview _}1_of _}1_that c_}1__#_clerk_}1_. _}1__%_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_#_ _}1_somebody _}1_has _}1_to be _}1_in _}1_charge _}1__}1_of the _}1_day_}1_-to_}1_-day _}3_executions_}1_. _}1__#_When the policy _}1_changed _}1_the _}1_second _}1_time_}1_, it _}2_basically _}1_said_}1_ the _}1_con_}1_sult_}1_ant _}1_would _}1_tell _}1_the _}1__#_Board _}1_then _}1_to _}1_direct the _%_Clerk_}1__}1_; and _}1__%_Mr. _%_Maloy noted that has flaws as well because sometimes the _%_Board only meets once a month. _%_T_}1_oday's version of the policy says, _~!1_"_#_In _~"1_rare _~#1_instances_~$2_ _~&1_in _~'1_which _~(2_financial _~*4_market _~.2_conditions _~01_are extraordinarily _~11__~21__~31_volatile_~71_ an_~=3_d investment _~@4_decisions _~D1_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 _~g2_giving _~i1_the _~j1__#_Chair_~k1_man _~l1_the authority _~m1_to _~n1_make _~o3_a unilateral investment _~r2_decision_~t1_. _~u1_ _%_Mr. _%_Maloy expressed that is a dangerous policy and it is a bad idea.

Mr. _%_Maloy stated he is_%_ all for improving th_~1__~3_e composition of the portfolio_~1__~2__~1_; but _~1_when _~1_he _~1_went to make some directions on that, he received a_%__~1__~1_ _~1_cease _~1_and _~1_de_~1_s_~1_ist _~2_letter _~1_from _%_Mr. _%_Wilkes_~1__~1_. _%_Mr. _%_Maloy explained he has_%__~1__~1__~1_ been _~ 2_trying _~1_to _~1_change_~3_ some of the investments _~1_around, keeping them safe_~1_, following all of the _~1_current _~3_investment _~2_polic_~1_ies and _~1_im_~1_prove _~1_the _~1_return _~1_on _~3_investment,_~1_ _~1_but he _~2_basically _~1_was _~1_shut _~1_down _~1_on _~1_that_~1_. _%_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 t_%_he letter from _~1__%_Mr. _~1__~1__%_Lo_~1_ndot from the _%_Florida _%_Association of _~1__#_Clerks _~2_and _%_Comptrollers and noted it basically _~1_re_~1_flects _~1_his _~1_opinion _~1_that _~1_this _~2_policy _~1_would _~1__~1__~1_put _~1_him _~1_in the position of _~1_being _~1_a _~2_rubber _~1_stamp_~1_. _%_He reiterated it would get rid _~1__~1__~1__~1_of the _~2_checks _~1_and _~2_balances_~1_. Mr. _%_Applegate stated if the _%_Board asks t_~1_he _%_Clerk to invest in something that is illegal, the _%_Clerk_%_, as _%_Custodian, has the authority to not follow their direction._t1_

Regarding _#_


_x1_coop_y1_eration_z1_, _%_Mr. _%_Applegate described the _1_first _1_time _1_h_1_e _1_was _1_brought _1_into _1_a _2_meeting_1_ _1_with Mr. Maloy, _%_Maryanne _%_Morse, and lawyers. He noted that _1__%__1_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_u1_ and _v1_in_w3_corporated _z1_some _{1_of the _|2_changes _~1_that the Clerk_1_the C has_1_ _3_suggested._1_ _%_He then described a previous_#_ meeting that the _%_Chairman participated in. Staff thought t_1_hey_1_ were _1_going _1_to_1_ _1_talk _3_about _2_recommend_1_ations with the _%_Clerk, but _3_they _1_found _1_out _1_the _%_Clerk had _1_hire_1_d _3__%_PFM _1_ev_1_en _1_though _1_the _1__#_Board_3_ previously _3_approved _2_using _2_its F_2_FFinancial_1_ Ad_2_visor _1_under _1_the _1_contract _3_approved_1_ _1__1__1_b_1_y 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_ s_61_tated _71__81__91__:2_the direction _<1_of the _=1__#_Board_>1_ _?1_was _@1_to _A1_try to reach _B1_a _C2_consensual_E1__F1_ a_G1_greement_H1_. _%_Staff_#_ _I2_tried _K1_hard _L1_to reach a consensual agreement, but they _M2_couldn't _O1_reach _P1_it_Q1_.

With regard to public participation, no one else in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to Agenda Item #15_31_ and public input was closed.

Speaker Request Forms and Written Comment Forms we_31_re received and filed.

_%_Commissioner _%_Henley_i1__j1__k1__l1_ stated he would _1_hate _1_to _1_think _1_this _2_issue _1_is _3_going _1_to _2_divide _1_Seminole County _1_when _1_everyone _1_need_1_s to be _2_working _1_together_1_. _1__2__%_He e_2_xplained he is in favor of _"_checks _1_and _2_balances_2__1__1__1__1__1_, and the check and balance is on the _%_BCC. _1_There _1_is _1_no _1_over_1_sight_1_ of the _1__#_Clerk and _1_ and he _1_can _(1__)1__*1__+1__,1__-1_decide _.1_what he_/1_he _01_wants _11_to do _21_with _31_$500 million_41__51__62__82_ of the citizens m_82_oney without_:1_ _;1_any _<4_input from anybody_@1_ if _A1_he _B1_chooses _G1_. _H1_He pHe pointed out that every action the BCC takes _N1_has _O1_to follow the _%_Sunshine _%_Law and discussed the benefits of that. _1__1__%__%_Commissioner _%_Henley opined this is not a power grab_#_ because the _%_Board _h1_already _i1_has _j1_the _k1_pow_l1_er_m1_. _n1_What _o2_t_o2_he _%_Board is _q2_trying _s1_to _t1_work_u1__v1_ out _w1_is _x1_how _y1_to _z1_share _{1_that _|1_pow_}1_er _~1_with the _1__#_Clerk_1_'s _1__#_Office _1_in _1_a _2_fairly amenable_2_amen _1_way_1_. _1__1__#_As _1_far _1_as _1_the _3__#_Investment _3__#_Advisor _1_that _1_the_1_ _#_Board _1_has _2_hired_1_, _1_he _1_has _1_to _1_report _ 1_to the _1__#_Board_1_, not the _%_Clerk. _#_The _%_Board's_1__1__1__1__1__1__1_ _1_action, _2_based _1_on _1_t_1_he _%_Investment _%_Advisor's _1_recommend_1_ations, is _1_what_1_ is forwarded_1__1_ _1_to the _1__#_Clerk_1_. 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 _1_a_1_gree _1_upon the _2_wording _1_of the _2_policy_1_, the _1_problem _2_goes _1_a_1_wa_1__1__1__2_y and that_1_ is what _1_has _1_to _1_happen_1__1__1_. _1__%_C_1_ommissioner _%_Henley reiterated there is no checks and balances on the _%_Clerk but there is on the _%_Board. _.1__%_He noted if they get the final wording worked out, this policy will _<1_show _>1_that _?1_this _@1_is _A1_a _B1_joint _C1_effort_D1__J1_. _%_Commissioner _%_Henley_#_ stressed the _%_Board and the _%_Clerk need to work together to resolve this. _%_ Commissioner _%_Carey _1_noted _"_this _1_has _1_been _3_revised _2_several _1_times _1__%__1__1__1_part_1_ly in_1__1__1__1__1_ response to some of the great ideas that came out of the _1_P_ 1_F_1_M _3_presentation _1_and _1_also _3_in _1_re_1_sponse _1_to _1_some _1_of the _2_questions _1_that _1_were _2_asked _1_about _2_the wording of the policy, such as_#_ _1__1__%_N(_%_7). _%_She stated she does not necessarily agree with _%_N(7) _3__1__1__1_where it says that the _%_Chairman will _1_have the _1_authority_1_. _1__%_She thinks _%_N(7) and _%_O(13) need to be looked at. _%_Commissioner _%_Carey explained _%_O_1_(13) was the policy when the _%_Clerk was in charge of the investment_1__1__3__1__1__1__1__1__1__1__1__1__1__3__1__1__1__2__1__1__1__1__!1__"1__#3_ _&1_by _'1_virtue that was given to the _%_Clerk from the_*1_ _%_Board,_#__+1__,1__#_ _-1_and _.1_she does not_/1__01__11__%_ think _%_i_11_t got worded _21__31__42__61_prop_72_erly_@1_.

_A1_From _B1_a _C1_prac_D1_ti_E1__F2_cal matter, _%_Commissioner _%_Carey stated she thinks_H1__I1__J2_ the _%_Board is _L1_within _M1__N2_their purview _P1_to adopt a _#_Finance _#_Policy that _Q3_allows _T1_the _%_Board _U1_to _V1_hire _W1_a _X1_pro_Y1_fession_Z1__[1_al. _%_Whether it is the _%_Board hiring a professional or the _\1__#_Clerk _]2_hiring __1_a _`1_pro_a1_fession_b1__c1_al, 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 i_c1_n agreement with _%_Commissioner _%_Henley.

C_1__1_ommissioner _%_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. _1_ _1__1__%_She stated the r_1_eport 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 _"_thin_1_gs that staff can _1_clean _1_up _1_in _1_this _2_policy _1_before _2__"2_she is ready _$1_to _%1_vote _&1_on _'1_it_(1_;_)3__)3_ _%_N(7) and _%_O(13). A_,1_side _-1_from _.1_that, she supports the _%_agenda item_/1__01__11_; _21_but _31_from _41_a _51_prac_61_tic_71_al _81_stand_91_point_:1_, she thinks_;1__<1_ it would _=1_be _>1_in the _?1_best _@2_interest _B1_of the _C2_public _E1_if _F1_the _G1_process _H1_of _I2_hiring _K1__L2_a _#_Financial _N1__O3__#_Investment _R5__#_Advisor _W1_was _X1_done _Y1_by _Z1_a _[2_committee _]1_that _^3_included _a4_representation _e1_from the _f1__#_Clerk_g1_'s _h1__#_Office _i1_as _j1_well _k1_as _l1_the _m1_B_n1_C_o1_C_p1_. _q1__%_Commissioner _%_Carey pointed out that they have_r1_n't _s1_seen _t1_all of the _u1_people that are_v1__w1__x1__y1__z1__{1_ _|1_ex_}1_perts _~1_in th_1_is field_1__1_ and she think_1__1__2__2__1__1__1__2__1__1__1__1__1_s the_1_y could _1_come _1_up _1_with _1_something _1_that _1_would _1_be _1_in the _1_best _2_interest _1_of _1_all _2_concerned_1_. _1__%_She explained if the _%_Board is_2_ _2_making _1_a _2_recommendation _2_ba_1_sed off _1_of the _2__#_Financial _3__#_Advisor_1__1_ for _1_the _1__#_Clerk _1_to _2_carry _1_out_1_, there _1_needs _1_to be _1_some _1_trust _1_from the _1__#_Clerk_1_'s _1_per_1_spect_1_ive _1_in the _1_person _2_that t_2_he _%_Board has _2_selected_1__2__1__1__1__1__1_. _%_A_1_ good way to handle it would be to have the _%_Clerk involved in selecting the _%_Financial _%_Advisor.

Commissioner _%_Carey stated the _%_Board_+1_ start_,2_ed talking _.1_about _/1_this _01_item last _11__#_February_21_ when _%_Ms. _%_Morse announced_31__41__51__61__72_ that _91_she _:1_was _;1_going _<1_to _=1_re_>1_tire_?1_. _@1__A1_ _%_The _%_County_%_ _B2_selected _D1_an _E3__#_Investment _H3__#_Advisor _K2_based _M1_on the _N1_fact _O1_that t_O1_hey _P1_already _Q1_had _R1_a _S1_contract _T1_in _U1_place _V1_that _W1_would _X2_allow _Z3_t_Z3_hem _]1_to do _^1_that __1_and _`1_have an expert to a_a1__b1__c1__d1__e1__f2_dvise _h1_t_i1__i1_he _%_Board. _j1__%_She referenced _%_Item #19 on today's agenda and pointed out the _%_Investment _%_Advisor is recommending where_%_ the _%_Board should _2__2_allocate_1__1__1__1__1_ money_1_. _1__%_Commissioner _%_Carey opined that having this _1_in _1_a _ 2_public _2_forum _1_every _1_quart_1_er _1_is _1_a _1_health_1_y _1_thing _1_for _1_t_1_he _1_community _1_and _1__1_believes _1_that this _2_policy _2__2_brings _1_e_1_verything to the _2_forefront _1_so _1_everybody _1_will _1_know _1_what _1_is _1_going _1_on _1_with the _2_money_1__1_, where the money is, and _1_how _2_it's _1_being _1_invested.

Commissioner _%_Carey reiterated she has an issue with _%_N(7) and _%_O(13) and thinks _1__1_there _1_are _1_a _2_couple _1_of _1_other _2_things _1_that they can _1_clean _1_up_1_. _1__%_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._%_ _21_ _%_She explained the _%_Clerk_31_ _41_does _51_have _61_his _71_own _81_set _91_of _:2_money _<1_that _=1_he_>1__?1_ has to_@1_ _A2_invest _C1_and _D1_he _E1_will _F3_want _I1_a _J2__#_Financial _L3__#_Advisor_O1_; but _P1_if _Q1_he_R1_'s _S2_involved _U1_in the _V1_process _W1_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_%_Comm stated_%_ _"_times _1_have _2_changed, and the _%_County's portfolio is no longer $190 million,_2_ 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 _2_the changes that she has identified today. _%_She added she would like to see the policy adopted and suggested _F1_an _G1__%_R_H1__I1__J1_FP go _K1_out _L1_to _M1_secure _N1_a _O1_pro_P1_fession_Q1_al _R3__#_Investment _U3__#_Advisor _X1_and that the _Y1__#_Clerk _Z1_be _[1_a part _\1_of _]1_that _^1_process __5_of the _d1_selection _e1_and _f2_recommendatio_h1_n to the_h1_ _%_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 _1__%_Item #19. She thinks that will have a sig_1__1_nificant _1_im_1_pact _1_on the _3_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. _1_

_%_Commissioner _%_Henley left the meeting at this time.

In regard to _%_O(13) which _%__3_references _1_the_2_ _#_Assist_1_ant _1__#_Finance_1__1__1_ _#_Director and _#_Finance _#_Director, Ms. Guillet explained _"__1__1__2__1__2__2_those are positions _1_that are within the _1__#_Clerk_1_'s _1__#_Office_1_. _%_Staff _%_left that provision in there because _1_they _1_an_2_ticipate _1_that the _%_Clerk will be man_2_aging _1_the _1_day_1_-to_1_-day _3_investment _1_activity _!1_so _"1_that his _#1_staff _$1_will _%1_need to be _&1_able _'1__(1__)1_to be _*3_engaged_-1_ a_-1_nd _C1_re_D2_view _F1_the _G2_invest_I1_ments_c1_. _d1__%_Commissioner _%_Carey responded that s_d1_he has an issue that _%_if the _#_Clerk _s1_is _t1_not _u2_avail_w1_able_x1_, the _y1__#_Fi_z1_nance _{2__#_Director _}1_is _~1_not _1_available, and the _#_Assistant _#_Finance _#_Director is not available, _1__1__1__2__1__1__1__1__1__2__1_it gets down to the _1__#_Re_1_view _2__#_Super_2_visor _2_making _1_the _1_decision_1_. _%_She suggested_ 1_ if the _1__#_Clerk _1_is _1_not _2_avail_1_able _1_or the _1__#_Finance _#_Director_1__2_ _1_is _1_not _2_avail_3_able_2_, surely _1_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._1_ _%_S_d1__d1_he stated she would _e1_like _f1__g1_to see the responsibility be _n1_with _o1_the _p1__#_Clerk_q1_, the _r1__#_Finance _%_Director, or _#_Assistant _#_Finance _#_Director_s1__t1__u2__w1__x1__y1__z1__{1_ _|1_and _}1_not _~1_see it get _1_down _1_to _1_a _2_super_2_visor_1__1_ 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 _*3_and wonders_%_wonder 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 _1_is _1_not _1_a _1_pow_1_er _1_grab,_ 1_ this _1_is _1_pro_2_moting _1_more _2_openness and _1_more _2_checks _1_and _2_balances,_1__1_ so he thinks it is the right move. _1_ _%_With regard to O(14), he discussed all of the staff positions in_%_ that section_%_that sec 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_1_ to the one the _%_Board received from _%_SunTrust. _(1__%_He pointed out that they are arguing over the same thing and he wants them to work together. _1__%_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 a_%_nd _%_Agenda _%_Item #19 today and then come back and make changes if they need to.

_x1__x1__%_Commissioner _%_Carey_y1_ _z1_asked staff if they could revise_{1__|1__}1__~1__1_ _1_some _1_of the _2_language _2_that _%_she mentioned_1_ including striking the language in _%_N(7) that _1_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 _1__1__1_stated _"_there needs _1_to be _1_more _1_transparency and_1__1_ _2_opined they are _1_not _2_trying _1_to _1_take _1_anything _1_a_1_way _1_from _%_the _1__#_Clerk_1_. _1__%_He discussed_%_ Fiscal Year 2013 and noted that was a write-down of $1.9 million,_1_ 2014 was the write-down of $624,000,_1_ 2015 was the write-down of $244,000,_1__1_ 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-_1_to-_1_month_1_; 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 Clerks Office and to the prior Clerk, t_1_here 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 talk_1_ing about _1_it _1_every _1_quart_1_er _1_in _1_a _2_public _1_for_1_um _1_with the _1__#_Clerk _3_certainly _4_makes _1__1_it more _1_account_1_able_1_ to the public.

Chairman _%_Horan_1_ _2__%_stated he has _1_been _3_interested _1_in _3_this _1_topic ever _1_since _1_h_2__2_e started _2_r_2_eceiving _1_reports _1_from the _%_Clerk's _%_Office_1__1__1_ _1_and _1_h_1_e _2_didn't _3_get _1_any _1_information _1_as _1_to _1_what_1__2_ investments _1_were _1_being _1_made, _1_and _1_then _1_h_4__4_e learned _1_that h_1__1_e had _1_nothing _1_to do _1_with _1_it _1_which _1_he found _1_rather _3_interesting_1_. _%_He explained that is_1__%__2_ _1__3_really what generated _1_the _1_notion _1_that _1_the _3_governing _1__1_body, _1_which _1_is the _1_B_1_C_1_C, _!1_should _"1_be _#2_involved _%1__&2_in setting _(1_the _)3_investment _,2_policy_.1_,_.1_ _"_the _/1__#_Clerk _01_should _11_be _22_involved _41_in _53_executing _81__91_it, and _:1_t_:1_hey _;1_should _<1_be _=2_working _?1_together _@1_with _A3_regard_D1_ to _E1_that_F1_.

_%_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, t_F1_hey _s3__v1__w1_could _x1__y1_modify _z1_that _{1_part _|1_today _}1__~1__1__1_and discuss _1_the_1_ other _1_aspects later._1__%_ Commissioner _%_Carey responded the _%_Board_%_ can change the policy at any _%_Board meeting_1__1_; and _1__1_once _1_they _1__1_hire a _1_new _3__#_Investment _3__#_Advisor_2_, 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 _%__11_could _21_modify _31_the _43_portfolio _71_comp_81_osition _91_and _:3__#_Investment _=2__#_Policy_?1__@1_ and address other _A3_issues _D2_later_F1_. _%_He stated he_G1_ _H1_would _I1_like to take _J2_issue _L3_on _O3__%_O(13)_R1_ and _%_O(14). _%_It says "the _%_Clerk has the authority," but _S1__T1_i_Z1__Z1_n F_[1_, _]1__]1_staff in_^2_serted _`1_"when _a3_implementing _d1_the _e1__f1__%_Board's _g3_investment _j2_decision_l1_s." _%_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 t_1_hat is what staff is going to work on and they already have it marked up._U1_; and


Clerks 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 Clerks 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 Attorneys 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 & Lights 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.


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 Advisors 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.


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.



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 todays 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.



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.




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 markets 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.


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 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 Cerenzios service on the Parks and Preservation Advisory Committee; and to adopt appropriate Resolution #2017-R-53 in appreciation of Marty Chans 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 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.


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.