BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA

APRIL 25, 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, April 25, 2017, in Room 1028 of the SEMINOLE COUNTY SERVICES BUILDING at SANFORD, FLORIDA, the usual place of meeting of said Board.

Present:

Chairman John Horan (District 2)

Vice Chairman Brenda Carey (District 5)

Commissioner Robert Dallari (District 1)

Commissioner Lee Constantine (District 3)

Commissioner Carlton Henley (District 4)

Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Grant Maloy

County Manager Nicole Guillet

County Attorney Bryant Applegate

Deputy Clerk Jane Spencer

Reverend Tom Eggebrecht, Ascension Lutheran Church, Casselberry, gave the Invocation. Commissioner Constantine led the Pledge of Allegiance.

BUSINESS SPOTLIGHT

The Business Spotlight video for The Smart Baking Company was presented.

AWARDS & PRESENTATIONS

Agenda Item #1 – 2016-565

Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to adopt a Proclamation declaring April 29, 2017 as “Beta Sigma Phi Founders Day.”

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

LuJo Karkovice, Beta Sigma Phi, addressed the Board to accept the Proclamation and express her appreciation.

-------

Agenda Item #2 – 2016-584

Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to adopt a County Recognition of National Services encouraging residents to recognize the positive impact of national service in the county and thanking those who serve. Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Kelly Pisciotta, Habitat for Humanity of Seminole County and Greater Apopka, addressed the Board to accept the County Recognition and expressed her appreciation for all of the Board’s support.

-------

Agenda Item #3 – A-3502-17

Lui Damiani, Executive Director of Victim Service Center of Central Florida, addressed the Board to present a brief video about the history of “Denim Day.”

Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to adopt a Proclamation declaring Wednesday, April 26, 2017 as “Denim Day.”

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

Commissioners Dallari and Carey advised that they will be wearing jeans tomorrow. Commissioner Carey stated that since they just adopted this Proclamation, she assumes that if any of Ms. Guillet’s staff wear jeans tomorrow, she will understand why. Ms. Guillet replied that the Board just made it so.

Mr. Damiani accepted the Proclamation and stated their mission at the Victim Service Center is to provide services and resources to victims of violent crime, sexual assault, and other types of traumatic circumstances. He described the variety of services that the Center provides and explained that "Denim Day" is part of their educational campaign every year. He stated that joining Seminole County in proclaiming "Denim Day" tomorrow will be Orange County, the City of Orlando, Osceola County, City of Kissimmee, the Central Florida Partnership, and about 40 other businesses. There will be thousands and thousands of employees tomorrow wearing jeans in the middle of the week and generating a dialogue about the erroneous attitudes behind sexual assault and how they can make a difference and stop the violence. Mr. Damiani described how they have asked businesses to light their buildings and structures in teal, because teal is the universal color of sexual assault awareness. The town will be ablaze in teal tomorrow and everyone will be wearing denim. He expressed his appreciation for the Board's support. At Commissioner Dallari's request, Mr. Damiani stated his organization can be contacted on the web at victimservicecenter.org. They also have a 24/7 hotline at 407‑500‑HEAL which will be picked up by the third ring by a Master's level counselor.

Grant Maloy, Clerk of the Court and Comptroller, informed Mr. Damiani that if he has any material that he would like to put in the Clerk's Injunction Office at the Court House, he has been inviting service organizations to do that. Mr. Damiani replied that he will be sure that they get some materials and brochures over there.

-------

Agenda Item #4 – A-3536-17

Jeff Triplett, Mayor of the City of Sanford, addressed the Board to state he is here today to review what Sanford is currently developing. Mayor Triplett advised that they have had one reading at the Commission and are getting ready to go for the second. He wanted to review this information with the Board to ensure that they are aware of exactly what is transpiring because it is a significant part of the downtown corridor and also because it is the CRA, which the County is involved in.

Mayor Triplett began a PowerPoint presentation (included in Agenda Memorandum) entitled “Downtown/Waterfront Catalyst Site” and reviewed the Timeline from 2014 to 2017. He referred to a letter from the Urban Land Institute (included in Agenda Memorandum) and advised that the letter contained key points that they integrated into the development agreement. With regard to the Community Design Workshop, Mayor Triplett stated that over 100 people showed up, along with the developers and staff, to help with the design to make sure that it was going to work with the downtown corridor. He noted there were also a lot of people from outside the downtown corridor present for that workshop.

With regard to Project Overview, Mayor Triplett displayed a map depicting the city‑owned parcels and advised that Sanford is structured to work with the developer on development of those parcels. He displayed a photo of what the Development Site looks like today and a rendering of the Proposed Development. He reviewed the Development Program regarding non‑residential, residential and parking. He emphasized that this project truly is the urban style that they have been trying to get in the downtown corridor and pointed out that Sanford changed several of its ordinances to incorporate this urban lifestyle of what they see coming into the downtown corridor. A short video depicting the project was played.

Mayor Triplett stated the developers have come into the city and are integrating what is there historically into their new part. The developers have decided to put the whole project under the S codes, which are the historical preservation codes. He stated he would never have suggested to any developer to do that but the developer offered. He added that is a huge piece of what and who they are in downtown. With regard to the Development Agreement, Mayor Triplett explained that from the City Commission's standpoint, the question was how do they hold the developers accountable to make sure this gets done and make sure they don't have any issues in the future with the development. He believes they have put together a great agreement with a lot of the people that have been involved in it. He then reviewed the six bullet points on the Development Agreement slide.

Regarding the Development Working Timeline, Mayor Triplett discussed the site work that the City has to do to get the site ready and stated that hopefully within six months the developer will actually begin their site work with the geotechnical work. He noted that all of the area at the marina was basically filled with muck when they extended the land‑based portion of it so they have extensive geotechnical professionals looking at that to make sure that stabilization of the property is available for the rise of the units. He explained that in Years 2 through 5, the developer has the opportunity to purchase the different parcels. It is within a time frame of five years for the completion for the developer to actually get the incentives that are within the package.

Mayor Triplett discussed the Impacts on the City's Strategic Priorities. He pointed out the project will unify the downtown. He stated one of the biggest issues with the CRA is connecting First Street to the waterfront. This will be a huge opportunity to do this through the parcels that the City owns. It revitalizes the disadvantaged community and the blighted community, which is what the CRA was created for. Mayor Triplett discussed the Project's Impacts on the County's Vision 2020 and the Anticipated Economic Impacts for the City of Sanford and Seminole County regarding construction, operation and stabilization, and taxes. Mayor Triplett introduced John Jones, Project Manager with S&ME, and offered to answer any questions.

Commissioner Carey stated she is very familiar with the development and attended the very first community meeting that they held. She has watched this as it has developed and is really happy that the City has worked out a plan that they think will really serve the downtown. From the Board's standpoint, her biggest concern was the impact that the project will have on the downtown courthouse. Commissioner Carey reported that the County has started their base study to determine what the needs are of this community. She advised it really doesn't make any sense for any government building in her opinion to be on the waterfront. She believes the conversations between the City Manager and the County Manager need to continue to happen. Although it may be the last piece of the development, the parking lot next to the courthouse where everybody parks to go to the courthouse is something the County needs to be prepared for when the time comes. She would like to see a very detailed phasing plan on when that happens so they are not all caught flat‑footed on that.

Mayor Triplett commented that one of the biggest things that has come out of this discussion has been parking. Obviously, they are losing some spots. They are currently working through where they will put the parking, where the right space is. A lot of people talk about parking garages. He advised they have looked at parking on the south side of the courthouse. If the courthouse is moved, then maybe that is not the right spot. They are doing a parking study right now that will identify where the best spot for that will be. It is all about the timing of it. He doesn't want to put the cart before the horse. With regard to parking, it is about $25,000 per spot to build a garage; and they don't want to do that at this time. He distributed a handout (copy received and filed) regarding a proposed parking garage. Commissioner Carey stated she has seen some of those proposals. She agreed that they don't want to put a parking garage in a location because they think they are trying to accommodate for something today when they know that won't be there tomorrow. They have a courthouse that is “long in the tooth” and has some energy efficiency challenges.

Mayor Triplett agreed there are efficiency issues in the courthouse. He stated they have talked with the developers as to what may be the best use for that building in the long run. There are educational systems that they could bring to downtown and use that building. Maybe the building should just be knocked down because of the efficiency side of it.

Commissioner Dallari thanked the mayor for his presentation. Mayor Triplett stated the County is a huge partner in this and they could not do this without the County. They would not have been able to do this without the extension that was granted to the CRA. Commissioner Dallari commended Mayor Triplett for not just promoting the downtown core but actually assisting it in redevelopment and/or developing. He pointed out that even though the County participates in the CRA, the CRA is Sanford's decision; the County gave that authority to Sanford when they signed the TIF over.

With regard to the Performance Based Incentives, Commissioner Dallari wondered how they were going to keep the developer accountable and added that he would like to have more information about that. He mentioned that he had some dialogue about a year ago with the developer. He would like to understand more about the revenue that is going to be coming back, not just to the County but to the community. He noted they are seeing that the County will be generating $941,000 annually and wondered if that is guaranteed. Mayor Triplett stated it is guaranteed if the development goes through.

Commissioner Dallari wondered what will happen if Senate Bill 1774 passes and reiterated that he wants to know more about the numbers and how that will work and how the performance incentives will work because he does not have any of that information yet. Mayor Triplett explained that within the development agreement, for them to get the incentive of 50% TIF rebate, they have to develop it. Right now these properties are not on the tax rolls. There is no income coming from them. They have to have all of their engineering in place and approvals in place before they are even allowed to purchase the property, which means within six months they would start the development process. He pointed out that they are allowed to do it in phases but the development agreement runs out when the CRA runs out. They are not allowed to receive any incentives once the CRA is completed. He explained how the developer, when he builds it out and pays the tax bill a year later, will get the TIF rebate.

Commissioner Dallari reiterated that he would like to see some of the information and data analysis that has been presented to the City. The Board has not seen any of that. Mayor Triplett replied they can provide that. Ms. Guillet addressed the Mayor and explained that she has had several of the Commissioners ask her to outline what the incentive package is. There have been some news reports on it, but she does not have the information and does not want to give the Commissioners misinformation based on what she has read in the press. She asked if there is something that he can do today or whether he can provide a quick term sheet, one page, so everyone has the right information. Commissioner Carey agreed that a fact sheet would be great. Commissioner Dallari wondered who will take care of all of the streetscape once the CRA stops. Mayor Triplett replied that it would be the City. Commissioner Dallari requested that Mayor Triplett provide the fact sheet, the performance‑based incentives outline, and the development order. Mayor Triplett agreed to provide that information. Chairman Horan stated that understanding the incentives and how much of the County's money is involved in it is basically what they need to know.

Commissioner Henley remarked that this is an impressive proposal and he would love to see it come in as projected but pointed out that is a long way down the road. He noted there are quite a number of incentives mentioned but without a dollar value, and he requested more information regarding those incentives. He asked what the value is of the three parcels that the City will be using for this development. Mayor Triplett stated the appraised value is $2.376 million.

Commissioner Henley next asked what Sanford's commitment and the CRA's commitment toward the project are. Mayor Triplett replied that Sanford has committed up to $4 million for geotechnical soil stabilization; that is to get the site prepared for the development. Sanford has waived a million dollars in building permit fees, so they are basically doing the permitting without collecting the fees. They waived $500,000 in review fees. If everything goes as planned for the rebate through 2025, the County rebate would be about $560,000. They would collect $560,000 to be rebated back to them if it is done within the five years. With regard to the CRA, the City of Sanford is lending the CRA $5.2 million to do the streetscapes, landscapes, and underground, which is all within the CRA plan; it is the tie‑in. All the City is doing is putting it out in advance rather than waiting for the nine years to collect the money and doing it at the end. He added that would be over a course of time. Obviously they are not going to do the streetscapes and then have heavy equipment go through the development. He reiterated that Sanford has set money aside to lend to the CRA for that side of it.

Commissioner Henley stated that he was trying to look at the total commitment of Sanford and the CRA combined. If he understands correctly, there is a buy‑back provision in the agreement when Sanford could buy back. He questioned whether that buy‑back comes inclusive of all of the advanced payments and so forth with the developers. He wondered if so, what would the buy‑back estimate be compared to what the original commitment is.

Mayor Triplett advised that the developer cannot even buy the property from Sanford until it has basically been permitted and is ready to go. He noted that Sanford would have to prepare that site for anybody to come in and develop, not just them. He suggested that if the developers walk away tomorrow, this is still an agreement that he would place in front of anybody if it is the right developer. That site cannot be developed as it sits right now. He doesn't know if that is a million dollars to get the site ready or $6 million. That is why the level is capped. Sanford would basically tell the developer that they can't buy the properties if they are not ready to go. Commissioner Henley reiterated that it is an impressive proposal and has a five‑year build‑out plan. He asked what the projected length of time to recover Sanford's total investment is in this. Mayor Triplett stated it would be three‑and‑a‑half years for the recoup.

Commissioner Constantine commented that this is certainly a game changer for downtown Sanford. He agreed with Commissioner Henley that the project is impressive and also thinks that the five years is probably a very aggressive time schedule that hopefully will be met. He stated they will look forward to seeing the continuing information, the financials, and incentives and wished Mayor Triplett the best of luck because this certainly would be something that all of Seminole County would be very proud of.

With regard to the Brownfield incentives, Commissioner Carey asked whether Sanford is getting any assistance or has applied for any of the Brownfield grant assistance that they can apply for through the Feds. Mayor Triplett replied they have not, that it really just gives them the opportunity to give the rebates and be able to take it on a fast track down the path that they have gone. Commissioner Carey suggested they may want to look into that.

Commissioner Dallari asked when the five‑year timetable starts. Mayor Triplett replied that it basically starts now for all intents and purposes. It will probably be 12 months before they get all the permits and everything done that the City needs to do. He clarified that when he says a five‑year timetable, the developer really wants to get started now because the sooner they get to completion is when they start making their money and their rebates, which runs out when the CRA runs out. He added that the City had to have a start and stop date so they are saying within five years which is what makes the numbers work for all of them. He added that he would say it starts May 8, which is the second reading.

Mr. Maloy referred to the site work that is going to occur and explained that obviously a concern of his is parking. All of the Clerk's employees park in that lot; jurors, especially on Mondays, park there. Mr. Maloy asked if they are going to fence off that parking lot when they start to do the site work that Mayor Triplett spoke about. He wondered when the parking lot is going to go away. Mayor Triplett stated they are looking at 18 months for that parking lot to be closed. Commissioner Carey emphasized that they need to see the phasing plans so they have a better idea about that. Mayor Triplett advised he will get all of that information to the County. He stated they will not leave the Clerk without parking. He discussed the various lots that might be available and stressed that they will make sure there is parking available while they are developing. He stated they don't plan on leaving the County and Clerk in the dark and admitted there had been some miscommunication in the past. He remarked that the City Manager and the County Manager have talked weekly about how this is going to happen, when it is going to happen, where it is going to happen, and how it is going to go down. With regard to the parking lot that is just east of the courthouse that is currently being worked on, Mayor Triplett stated they are restructuring that parking lot, but it will be open for the St. Johns River Art Festival, which is the first of next month, so it is a very short time frame of getting that site work done. He reiterated that they will make sure that parking is available as they go down this path.

Commissioner Dallari stated that since parking is going to be a commodity, not just for the development but for the retail, he wondered if there are any talks about shuttle service to the SunRail station. Mayor Triplett advised that they have had those talks. Right now they run a shuttle that runs around that whole corridor, that whole loop. He suggested that may be an option they can look at. They have looked at purchasing a trolley in the past to make that run and didn't pull the trigger on it because there wouldn't have been enough riders. With regards to looking at available parking, he stated they have already worked out a deal on Sanford Avenue with the supermarket owner, which provides an additional 36 parking spots. They are doing a deal just behind the Wayne Densch Center, which will provide an additional 20 parking spots. They are looking at different areas to get surface parking as they run through this whole program and are also working with the developer. The City Manager is working with a fourth party on some permanent parking that will be within the available area.

Chairman Horan advised that the information that Mayor Triplett is going to provide regarding the incentives will be very helpful to the Board. Mayor Triplett confirmed that he will get the information out to the Commissioners and advised if there are any further questions, don't hesitate to reach out to him.

-------

Agenda Item #5 – A-3414-17

Grant Maloy, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller, introduced Dan O’Keefe, Moore Stephens Lovelace, and Jenny Spencer, County Finance Director. Mr. O’Keefe addressed the Board to present the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the year ended September 30, 2017. He displayed a PowerPoint presentation (copy included in Agenda Memorandum) and began by reviewing the Required Communications. He next reviewed Services and Deliverables relating to an Unmodified Opinion on the Financial Statement and Auditor’s Report on Compliance and Internal Control. He noted there were no internal control findings and nothing related to compliance that has a direct and material impact on the financial statement.

Mr. O’Keefe discussed the Auditor’s Management Letter and the Independent Accountant’s Report. He then reviewed Auditor Responsibilities and Management Responsibilities. With regard to Internal Controls, Mr. O’Keefe stated they do consider the County’s Internal Controls but don’t actually render an opinion on Internal Controls. If they did that, the audit would take quite a bit longer. He pointed out they are factored in in the test work when they are performing tests of key elements of the financial statements.

Mr. O’Keefe discussed Compliance and advised that compliance is a big issue in a county of this size. The financial statements are riddled with different compliance requirements. They have to perform special tests to determine what some of the significant compliance areas are and how they are going to test them. He added that Federal and State financial assistance requires a separate set of testing criteria and they performed those and did not have any issues.

Regarding Communications of Significant Matters, Mr. O’Keefe explained there were no audit adjustments made during the course of the audit. There were no unreported or unadjusted differences. They had no disagreements with management. As far as they know, management did not receive opinions from other accountants. He then reviewed Risk-Based Audit Approach, Management Representations, Assigned Individuals, and the Audit Schedule. With regard to New Accounting Standards, he reported that next year there will be the other post-employment benefit, the final piece, which is going to require the liability that you see in the financials now to be 100% reported and not just brought in and amortized over a period of time. There will be new disclosures. Mr. O’Keefe stated in the County’s case, they do not pay true OPEB costs. They have what is called the implicit rate, which is a differential between premiums that you might pay with a younger population versus having older retirees in the population.

Mr. O’Keefe reviewed the General Fund (Pages 22 and 26) chart and stated the big thing in the General Fund this year is the fact that the Unassigned Fund Balance, which is in essence the Reserves, got up to 25.9%. He knows the Board has always had an unofficial goal of about 20%, so in looking at it now, it is over 25%, which is very healthy. With regard to the General Fund Budget (pages 88 and 89) chart, Mr. O’Keefe stated that revenues came in in line. The operating expenditures were under budget. He noted that some of this may be projects that got pushed over into the next year. Overall, from a budgetary compliance standpoint, it is very favorable.

Mr. O’Keefe discussed the Enterprise Funds and advised that these funds have always been healthy. In looking at the Solid Waste fund, the unrestricted net position in that fund is about $29.1 million; and of that amount, there is about 92% in cash and investments. With the Water & Sewer Fund, the unrestricted net position is $38.6 million, which represents about 71% in cash and investments. He added those are two very strong, healthy funds.

Commissioner Dallari stated he knows they all follow this in great detail but the average person watching may not follow all of the details. He requested that Mr. O'Keefe sum everything up for the general population. Mr. O'Keefe summarized that from a fiscal standpoint, the County is very healthy. From a budgetary standpoint, the County is well in compliance based on what they promised they were going to spend their money on. He noted that every year he is asked to compare counties. The problem is this report generally comes out to the public before a lot of the other counties’ reports, and he doesn't have those resources to pull in. He thinks it is probably a good time to do it this year, and over the summer he will do that for the County and send each one of the Commissioners a copy. They really haven't done that in a while and it probably will really answer a lot of the questions regarding how the County compares to other counties. He sees the other counties and can say he thinks Seminole County is doing very well compared to other counties but he knows the Commissioners would probably like to see that. With regard to the other counties, Commissioner Dallari stated he would love to see how their unrestricted reserves compare and how they balance and how their Enterprise Funds are structured. He believes that would be great for the citizens of the county to see.

Commissioner Carey referred to the General Fund Budget (pages 88 and 89) chart and asked about the Ending Fund Balance. She asked Mr. O'Keefe to explain those numbers. Mr. O'Keefe replied that when you get into the report, it looks a little strange. When he was pulling the actual numbers, he was pulling them from what is actually in the financial document. The bottom line with regard to the expenditures and transfers out is they underspent. Revenues came in on target and the fund balance is positive. Upon inquiry by Chairman Horan, Mr. O'Keefe referred to the Net Change in Fund Balance and advised that balance was $300,000. He explained that the County had originally budgeted to actually eat into some of the reserves. The reason that did not happen is revenues came in pretty strong and they underspent the budget. He pointed out that that typically happens with the County's budget; they have never overspent the budget.

Commissioner Dallari stated that Mr. O'Keefe's efforts and the County Manager and her entire staff’s efforts are right on point. The Board budgets and staff does not spend the budget. He pointed out that the County staff working with the Clerk did a great job and he thanked Jenny Spencer. He remarked that it shows annually when they start to look at the numbers how strong financially the County is. He thanked all of the County employees as well as the Clerk's staff. Mr. O'Keefe added that the officers are a big part of this process. If they don't get the information from the officers, Ms. Spencer doesn't have the information so she can prepare this final comprehensive report. The officers that changed this year were very, very helpful in getting the information that was needed to close out their audits to the Clerk’s Office before they left office. That was critical to the timing.

Chairman Horan stated he has sung Ms. Spencer's praises before in previous years, and the Clerk's Office does a great job in getting the information. County staff does a great job in getting information to the Clerk's Office. He pointed out it is a financial report that is very understandable and it continues to be every year. He congratulated the Clerk's Office and the County's directors as well on the great job that they did.

Mr. Maloy reported that for 34 years in a row the Clerk's Office has gotten the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. He noted they have submitted that and believes it will be 35 years. He added that the County is in good fiscal shape and it is a good partnership.

Chairman Horan recessed the meeting at 10:50 a.m., reconvening it at 10:55 a.m.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

Nicole Guillet, County Manager, stated they are going to pull Item #6, Scope of Services and Interlocal Agreement between Seminole County, Orange County, Osceola County, Volusia County, and the City of Orlando relating to Cost Sharing to obtain Consultant Services for the SunRail transition, and Item #20, Budget Amendment Request #17-043 to reprioritize the Capital Budget to establish the Sanlando Park Public Address System Project, and will bring those items back to the Board at a later date.

Commissioner Carey suggested that because of the number of citizens that wish to address the Board regarding Item #13, Approval of Alternative A of the Lake Monroe Trail Loop, it should be pulled for a separate discussion.

Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to authorize and approve the following:

County Manager’s Office

Business Office

6. Pulled from the Agenda the request to approve the Scope of Services and Interlocal Agreement between Seminole County, Orange County, Osceola County, County of Volusia, and the City of Orlando relating to Cost Sharing to Obtain Consultant Services for the SunRail Transition. (A-3421-17)

7. Approve travel and mileage reimbursement to Commissioner Lee Constantine for miscellaneous travel from January 18, 2017, through April 6, 2017. (A-3529-17)

Emergency Management Division

8. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2017-R-72 renaming Meadow Oak Lane to Oak Hollow Lane. (A-3188-17)

Community Services

Community Assistance Division

9. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the renewal of the Seminole County Housing Inspection Services Agreement to provide Housing Quality Standard (HQS); Uniformed Property Condition Surveys (UPCS); and Habitability Standard Inspections services on a Fixed Fee basis. (A-3434-17)

Community Development Division

10. Approve and accept the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Snapshot/Report pursuant to Seminole County Resolution #2013‑R‑61. (A-3484-17)

11. Approve the authority for Community Development staff to submit the Substantial Amendment and required attachments to the 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 One‑Year Action Plans to the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD). (A-3475-17)

Development Services

Planning & Development Division

12. Adopt appropriate Resolution #2017-R-73 vacating and abandoning a portion of a platted 7.5-foot Utility Easement on Lot 30, Country Lane, as recorded in the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida in Plat Book 28, Pages 77‑78, more particularly known as 1638 Lawndale Circle; Shelia Justen, Applicant. (A-3464-17)

Public Works

Engineering Division

13. At Commissioner Carey’s request, this item was pulled for a separate discussion.

14. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute an Interlocal Cost Share Agreement between Seminole County and City of Winter Springs relating to the Cross Seminole Trail missing link in the amount of $11,100. (A-3463-17)

15. Adopt appropriate Resolution #2017-R-74 approving the release of mineral rights and declaring surplus of property owned by Seminole County directly adjacent to and westerly of Property Tax I.D. #26‑19‑30‑5AE‑5000‑0000; and authorize the Chairman to execute a County Deed and a Contract for Sale and Purchase of Land in the amount of $16,200. (A-3438-17)

Fleet/Facilities Division

16. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the Fifth Amendment to Seminole County Health Department and Community Services Lease with Pyensa LLC. (A-3459-17)

Traffic Engineering Division

17. Approve and authorize Chairman to execute the Traffic Signal Maintenance Agreement between Drake Midtown, LLC and Seminole County. (A-3485-17)

18. Approve and authorize Chairman to execute the Preliminary Engineering Agreement between CSX Transportation, Inc. and Seminole County to install preemption at Osprey Trail and State Road 419; DOT#621384B; RRMP AU‑776.83. (A-3514-17)

Resource Management

Budget & Fiscal Management Division

19. Approve partnering with Aspire Health Partners to submit a grant application to the Florida Department of Children and Families requesting $1,200,000 over a three-year period through the Criminal Justice, Mental Health, and Substance Abuse Reinvestment Implementation and Expansion Grant to designate the County Public Safety Coordinating Council as the planning council for the grant; and authorize the County Manager to execute the application and supporting documents as required. (A-3418-17)

20. Pulled from the Agenda the request to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute Resolution implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #17‑043 through the General Fund to reprioritize Capital Budget in the amount of $19,767 to establish the Sanlando Park Public Address System Project and return $5,210 to the General Fund Reserves. (A-3361-17)

21. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2017-R-75 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #17‑049 through the 2014 Infrastructure Sales Tax Fund to appropriate budget of $97,740 from reserves to establish the SR 434 @ Tarry Town Trail Mast Arm project; CIP 01785515. (A-3474-17)

22. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2017-R-76 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #17‑050 in the amount of $250,000 through the Worker's Compensation Fund reserves to provide additional funding for Workers Compensation claims. (A-3488-17)

Internal Support Services Division

23. Approve and authorize the Chairman to approve the settlement of an open workers' compensation Petition for Benefits by a former Firefighter related to a 2003 work‑related injury (Claim# 285538) in the amount of $92,000, inclusive of attorney's fees. (A-3486-17)

Purchasing & Contracts Division

24. Award RFP‑602742‑16/TLR, Term Contract for Veterinary Services for Animal Sterilization to Spay N Save Animal Clinic, Longwood, for the estimated annual amount of $65,000; and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute the Agreement. (A-3466-17)

25. Award RFP‑1210‑17/RTB, Contractor Services Agreement for Replacement of Small Water and Reuse Water Meters to National Metering Services, Kearny, New Jersey; and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute one (1) Master Services Agreement. The Estimated Annual Usage is $1,500,000. (A-3417-17)

26. Award RFP‑602769‑17/TLR, Parks and Events Concessionaire Agreements (5) for Mobile Concessions for Seminole County Parks to Yum Yum Pops, LLC, Winter Park; Fun‑N‑Sun Treats, LLC, Sanford; Richard F. Sears d/b/a The Jazzy Dog Cafe, Altamonte Springs; Sunny Dogs & More, LLC, Maitland; and TPG Smoothie, Inc. d/b/a Smoothie King, Bradenton; and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute the Agreements. (A-3478-17)

27. Award RFP‑602766‑17/TLR, Term Contract for Aquatic Maintenance Services to Chuck Robinson Concrete and Bob Cat Service, Pierson; and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute the Agreement. The estimated annual usage for this contract is $300,000 ‑ $500,000. (A-3403-17)

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

-------

Consent Agenda Item #13 - A-3468-17

David Martin, Public Works Engineering Division, addressed the Board to present the request to approve and authorize Alternative A, which means the Final Design of the Lake Monroe Trail Loop from Sanford's Riverwalk will be constructed along the east side of Mellonville Avenue to the north side of Celery Avenue and continuing along this north side of Celery Avenue to State Road 415. Kurt Luman and Matt Cushman with CPH introduced themselves.

At Commissioner Carey’s request, Mr. Luman displayed the aerial map (copy in Agenda Memorandum) depicting the three options that were presented to the Board several weeks ago and pointed out each option on the map. Commissioner Carey confirmed with Mr. Luman that the recommendation today is for Alternative A, which is along Mellonville Avenue. Mr. Luman stated that is their recommendation and it is based on the public participation on December 1, 2016. The overwhelming majority of the questionnaires that they received were for Alternative A as well as their engineering analysis.

Sara Jacobson, 1203 East Seminole Boulevard, addressed the Board and stated that out of consideration of the Board’s time, if the Board is going to vote for Alternative A, she does not need to take their time. If they are not going to vote for Alternative A, then she would like to share her thoughts. Commissioner Carey asked Ms. Jacobson whether she supports Alternative A if the project is approved. Ms. Jacobson stated she does not think anyone is happy to have their properties altered to accommodate the bike path. Therefore, she is not taking a position that she supports Alternative A; but she does believe it is the lesser of the evils of the Alternatives A, B, and C. She is here to oppose Alternative B if that is the Board’s choice.

Josilen Grover, 207 S. Mellonville Avenue, addressed the Board to state she lives across the street and has a lot of questions about this project. Ms. Grover explained that one of her biggest issues is not knowing how anything is going to look because this will directly impact her property. At the December meeting that happened, for a lot of them it felt like a 100% smoke‑and‑mirrors type of thing. She advised that they brought to the attention of the County that their properties were being flagged on Mellonville. It was unnerving and they didn't know what was going on. Ms. Grover stated that at the December meeting, it was really clear that Alternatives B and C were not super vetted. If those options were really vetted, she would love to see that information.

Ms. Grover emphasized that the citizens weren't presented with how the path would actually look, how it will impact the driveways. They had a lot of questions about safety for both pedestrians and for themselves as property owners who will need to pull out of what is now an extended bike path. She talked about how professional cyclists (who will be moving pretty quickly), pedestrians, and regular cyclists will be on the same pathway. There are a litany of questions and not a lot of answers that are coming. She stated she has emailed Eunice Kaye and Mr. Martin, who were supposed to respond and did not. She pointed out that the residents all submitted questions on the questionnaires from the December meeting and none of them got called back or received answers to any of those questions. It feels like there is not a lot of transparency. The Board is going to vote and the citizens do not even know what the path is going to look like or what the implications are. She stated she would like to know in other areas in Central Florida what paths run directly in front of people's homes, even within 20 feet of their front door. She discussed potential issues with parking, since they have very small front yards, and safety issues with cars that speed.

Ms. Grover questioned what will happen to the property values, what will happen to all of the trees, what happens to the trash, who maintains the trail. She reiterated there are so many questions and zero answers to any of them. She advised that she is not opposed to a trail and making improvements but she is opposed to not feeling informed about what is happening, especially when it concerns her property and the property of other people who have lived on the block for decades.

Raul Leal, 401 South Mellonville Avenue, addressed the Board to state he has lived in the area for nearly 20 years. Mr. Leal asked why there is going to be a trail on Mellonville and not by the lake front, as they were supposed to. He stated he asked this question at the December meeting, and nobody seemed to know the answer. He will have no privacy now in his house. The trail will bring liability to his front door. He stated he is not against it but it will affect him tremendously.

Abigail Leal, 401 South Mellonville Avenue, addressed the Board to state she is very disappointed with the way that this project has been brought to the affected people in the area. Ms. Leal remarked that they had the meeting on December 1 where the people who were affected voiced many, many concerns. Unfortunately, they had no answers for any of the concerns. She explained that they asked some questions and the County was supposed to meet with the citizens and bring back some answers. She stressed they haven't heard anything.

Ms. Leal stated she sent a letter to Art and he never answered her questions. She discussed sending a letter to Commissioner Carey to set up a meeting. When she went to the meeting, the secretary couldn't find the letter so Commissioner Carey didn't know why she was there. She noted that she hasn't seen any project that goes through so many driveways in front of the main established neighborhood and doesn't believe it makes any sense.

Ms. Leal asked whether the trail is for walkers or bikers because if it is for walkers and for bikers, it is dangerous because bikers go very fast and the walkers with the kids go very slow. Ms. Leal reiterated that none of those answers have been provided. She asked where is the mail going to go and how will they access their property. Those are things that are coming in the long run. She questioned why this project is not providing a safe way for the walkers so they can walk by the lake front and enjoy nature and not need to deal with a Sanford neighborhood and all of the driveways. She did some research and did not find any other project that was doing the same thing. She noted that Commissioner Carey referred to a trail in Longwood but it just goes through a church, not in front of an established neighborhood.

Jim Clark, 114 Shirley Avenue, addressed the Board to state some people are angry about the bike trail and are united in thinking that they have not been treated with respect. They understood at the December meeting that there would be another meeting before it ever came to the Board. They understood that if they filled out their papers at the December meeting and requested that someone contact them, someone would. No one ever did. No other meeting was ever held. The lack of respect and the follow through was disappointing. Mr. Clark explained that there are numerous driveways on Mellonville that people would have to cross. There are also houses on Celery that once the bike trail is put in, it will be probably 10 feet away from their front doors. He pointed out that he bikes the trail in Volusia County, Seminole County, Orange County, and in the west part of Florida. He has never seen anything like Mellonville that would have so many driveways. He has never seen any place where the trail is going within 10 feet of somebody’s front door. He stated that he knows it is difficult for people, especially those who live there. He added that he will go out tomorrow and bike in Volusia County on the north side of the lake and there is nothing that comes that close to residences and with that many interruptions.

Stan Jones, 148 North Elliott Avenue, addressed the Board to state he is just going to piggyback off of Sara Jacobson. Mr. Jones stated if Alternative A is going to be approved, then he has nothing to say. If Alternative B or C is going to be approved, he would like to be able to respond later. Chairman Horan confirmed with Mr. Jones that he supports Alternative A.

Carol Learned, 103 North Mellonville Avenue, addressed the Board to state she lives right across the street. She thanked the Board for listening to the concerned neighbors. She echoes all of her neighbors' comments. Ms. Learned advised that she was here one year ago and shared with the Board her concerns about how this whole group had surveyors on their properties without even advising that they were coming. They had people out in their lawns measuring their trees on their own personal property without even coming to the door and knocking. She stressed that this is the way this whole thing appears to have been run. Ms. Learned stated they were told they would be updated and letters would be sent. They heard nothing until they got the letter in the mail stating that the Board is going to be deciding on it this morning.

Ms. Learned questioned who would be liable for any injuries to any biker coming at a high velocity or to any one of the neighbors that live on Mellonville as they leave and enter their driveways. She has lived here for 22 years and has seen close calls, even with people pulling out of their driveways, with people walking their children in little strollers, and with little kids on bicycles. She thinks about people texting and driving quickly around the bikes; it is a challenge. Sometimes when she is driving along Mellonville, she slows and waits at her driveway because someone is coming on a bike. She tries to gauge how long it will take them to reach her driveway before she should turn in. She sits on Mellonville waiting for them to pass to make sure that everyone is safe. When she thinks of an actual bike trail, she fears she might be out on Mellonville for five to ten minutes waiting for it to clear.

Ms. Learned stated she is not opposed to a bike trail but is wondering what could be done as an option. As she looked at the pictures from this morning's presentation of Heritage Park, she noticed that they actually have a bike lane in downtown Sanford in these proposed plans. She wondered if it is possible that they could have a bike lane and move the curb in and do the bike lane along Mellonville so everyone would be more visible. Ms. Learned concluded by stating she certainly wouldn't like to see that bike trail running so close to her front door.

Chairman Horan requested that staff address some of the questions that were raised by some of the speakers.

Mr. Martin stated that anybody that contacted him by mail, phone, or walk‑in, he has been glad to talk to them. He has talked to many of the residents out there but they might have missed one in responding. He reiterated that he has responded to everybody and he is sure that the consultants have responded to everybody. He is not saying that he got 100% but he is sure they got close to 99%.

Commissioner Carey asked if there was supposed to be a follow‑up meeting from the December community meeting. Mr. Martin advised that they discussed a follow‑up meeting. They thought they were going to be contacted by the residents after the meeting. He noted that might have been his error in not following up with them. He stated that they provided their phone numbers for anybody to call and let them know if they wanted to have a meeting. They were under the impression that the residents would call them. Their phone numbers and email addresses have been in every correspondence they have had with the residents out there.

Commissioner Carey remarked that she believes they had a good sizable community meeting and there were a lot of questions posed there. Typically when that happens, there is some kind of follow‑up meeting or some kind of follow‑up correspondence. She stated she is really disappointed to hear from the residents that that didn't happen. That should have happened. Staff should at least answer their questions. Commissioner Carey stated she knows there were questionnaires, information sent in, a lot of discussion. She has talked to a number of residents out there. She believes the residents have got some valid questions that need to be answered. Commissioner Carey explained that first of all, a lot of people think that their front yards are their personal front yards when in fact they are right‑of‑ways. That is the situation here in some of this. Regarding how it is going to look, there were no visuals. Typically they have some type of visual exhibits when there are community presentations because the residents are not engineers.

Commissioner Carey noted that Mellonville is a scenic road. She has had questions about the trees and how they are going to address the trees. She understands Alternative A was, in the professionals’ opinion, the best choice. It was the choice of most all the people that she heard from and the people that did attend the community meeting. Obviously, the people that are impacted by Alternative A aren't happy about it, but the majority of them, 87%, supported the recommendation of Alternative A, so she does not have an issue with that. She reiterated that she is disappointed that these questions weren't answered and that there are so many questions still about what it will look like and what the safety plan is.

Commissioner Constantine stated he shares Commissioner Carey's concern. He remarked that at the December 1 meeting, he is sure staff received information regarding the names, addresses, and emails of the residents. Then to say to the Board that you are waiting for them to get back to you, that to him does not cut it. He emphasized that it is the County's responsibility to get back to the residents, especially when there was an insinuation that there was going to be a second meeting. He noted that after the work session, he shared the belief that Alternative A was the best alternative for this. He wants to see the bike trails expanded and this is a good expansion, but he thinks these folks deserve answers and should have received those answers prior to this coming back to the Board, especially when it comes to safety.

Commissioner Dallari stated he will not repeat what his fellow Commissioners said but he will say that transparency and safety are the two most important things that they always need to talk about. If, in the December community meeting, there was any tone that there would be a follow‑up meeting or follow‑up information, he thinks that they owe it to the citizens to do that. He encouraged the Board to ask staff to have another community meeting to ensure that everyone's questions could potentially be answered. They may not be answered but could potentially be answered; what the trail is going to look like, how far the trail will be from people's homes, safety issues. All the concerns that were expressed here today should be done in a public community meeting, not here for three minutes, and they should try to address their concerns. He reiterated that he encourages the Board to ask staff to have an additional community meeting to address any of these concerns or discuss the different alternatives and why they are recommending Alternative A.

Commissioner Carey stated she agrees with everything that was said here. She remarked that she definitely thinks that some follow‑up is a requirement. Since that has not occurred, she believes they should continue this item until such time that it has happened. Hopefully, that will prompt staff to act quickly so this can get back before the Commission. She stated in the workshop, staff and the consultants went through the process of the three alternatives and explained to the Board why they made the recommendation they did. They have not explained that to the public. There are questions as to what it is going to look like, what is going to happen to the trees, and what happens regarding safety. All of those things should have been followed up on.

Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to continue the request to approve and authorize Alternative A, which means the Final Design of the Lake Monroe Trail Loop from Sanford's Riverwalk will be constructed along the east side of Mellonville Avenue to the north side of Celery Avenue and continuing along this north side of Celery Avenue to State Road 415, until the second community meeting has occurred.

Under discussion, Chairman Horan stated he would like to add that it is incumbent upon the County to reach out to the neighborhood once more and answer some of the questions. It is a unique situation in that they are putting, as they have put in other areas of the county, a trail that is going to be in front of houses that will interact with traffic that will be coming into driveways. He reiterated that he believes that it is incumbent upon the County to make sure the public understands who polices the trail, who makes sure the trash is picked up, what the mechanics of the mail being picked up are, and what the mechanics of the garbage being picked up are. That way there is more acceptance of the alternatives since not one of these alternatives is perfect.

Commissioner Dallari encouraged staff to produce any graphics at that time for the residents to best understand how the trail will function and/or look and also how the construction will take place.

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

CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER’S CONSENT AGENDA

Clerk and Comptroller’s Office

Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to approve and authorize the following:

28. Approve Expenditure Approval List dated April 3, 2017; Payroll Approval List dated April 6, 2017; and the BCC Official Minutes dated February 28 and March 14, 2017; (A-3515-17)

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

-------

The Board noted, for information only, the following Clerk and Comptroller’s “Received and Filed”:

1. Performance Bond #K09594280 for Off-Site Road Improvements in the amount of $153,357.67 for the project known as Griffin Park.

2. Maintenance Bond #1039659 for Work in Public Streets/Right-of-Way in the amount of $403,775.20 for the project known as Griffin Park (Town Center R/W).

3. Developer’s Commitment Agreement #16-20500050 for Brookmore Estates Phase II; Pulte Homes and Bonita Brinker.

4. Letter dated April 3, 2017, from Judy Eckenroth, Tax Deed Clerk, to the Board of County Commissioners re: Tax Certificate for Lands Available for Taxes Listing, Tax Deed Sale of March 30, 2017, Parcel ID #25-19-30-5AG-0713-0020.

5. Conditional Utility Agreement for Water, Wastewater or Reclaimed Water Services with BCL Properties, LLC, for the project known as Advanced Eye Care.

6. Fully Executed Agreement between the Florida Department of State, Division of Elections, and the Supervisor of Elections, on behalf of Seminole County, for HAVA Funds, dated March 14, 2017.

7. First Amendment to CDBG Subrecipient Agreement with Midway-Canaan Community Water Association, Inc. for Program Years 2009-2010, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015, and 2015-2016; as approved by the BCC on August 9, 2016.

8. Home Program Agreement with Habitat for Humanity of Seminole County and Greater Apopka, Florida, Inc. for Magnolia Place; as approved by the BCC on August 9, 2016.

9. Tourist Tax Funding Agreement for PG Youth Florida Spring Series with Perfect Game Youth Florida, Inc.

10. Tourist Tax Funding Agreement for 2017 Praise The King event with Nations Baseball of Greater Orlando, Inc.

11. Florida Public Service Commission Order #PSC-17-0114-TRF-EI, Order Approving Revenue Requirement for the Hines Chillers Uprate Project by Duke Energy Florida, LLC, Docket #170030-EI, issued March 28, 2017.

12. Florida Public Service Commission Order #PSC-17-0115-TRF-EI, Order Granting Approval of a New Optional Pilot LED Streetlight Tariff by Florida Power & Light Company, Docket #160245-EI, issued March 28, 2017.

13. Work Order #26 to PS-0009-15 with Atkins North America, Inc.

14. Closeout to CC-0266-15 with Masci General Contractor.

15. Work Order #16 to RFP-0336-15 with Site Secure, LLC, A Miller Electric Company.

16. Change Order #3 to CC-0573-15 with L7 Construction, Inc.

17. Change Order #4 to Work Order #1 to CC-0559-15 with Prime Construction Group, Inc.

18. Work Order #2 to RFP-0672-15 with The Colinas Group, Inc.

19. Change Order #1 to CC-0846-16 with L7 Construction, Inc.

20. Notice to Proceed for CC-1062-16 with Preferred Materials, Inc.

21. CC-1204-17 with Tyrell Enterprises, LLC.

22. CC-1252-17 with Linton Enterprises, Inc.

23. Work Order #53 to PS-8047-12 with Universal Engineering Sciences.

24. Change Order #1 to Work Order #24 to CC-9192-13 with M&J Enterprises International, Inc.

25. Work Order #25 to CC-9192-13 with Corinthian Builders, Inc.

26. Work Order #19 to PS-9738-14 with E Sciences, Inc.

27. Amendment #1 to Work Order #3 to PS-9742-14 with CH2M Hill Engineers, Inc.

28. Amendment #2 to Work Order #1 to RFP-9948-14 with CH2M Hill Engineers, Inc.

29. Amendment #1 to Work Order #1 to PS-9983-15 with Atkins North America, Inc.

30. Tenth Amendment to RFP-600933-10 with Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc.

31. Fifteenth Amendment to RFP-601461-12 with Florida Cleaning Systems, Inc.

32. First Amendment to RFP-601967-14 with Pinel & Carpenter, Inc.

33. Fifth Amendment to IFB-602048-14 with Design Lab, Inc.

34. Fifth Amendment to RFP-602065-14 with Vitil Solutions, Inc.

35. Third Amendment to IFB-602588-16 with Space Coast Fire & Safety, Inc.

36. Performance Bond #024070640 for Contract #RFP-602697-16 with BrightView Landscape Services, Inc.

37. IFB-602768-17 with Dade Paper & Bag Company, and Supplyworks.

38. IFB-602784-17 with Hawkins Water Treatment Group, Inc. d/b/a Hawkins, Inc.

39. BID-602802-17 Term Contract with Toter, LLC.

40. Memorandum dated April 3, 2017 from Kim Ornberg, P.E., Watershed Management Division Manager, to Nicole Guillet, County Manager, regarding Work Order #3 to PS-8146-12 re: Lake Jesup PLRG/TMDL Model Review & Development Oversight; E Sciences.

41. Bids as follows:

RFQ-602797-17 with Smithson Electric, Inc.;

RFP-602742-16 with Spay N Save Animal Clinic;

CC-1204-17 with Tyrell Enterprises, LLC; BSE Construction Group; Linton Enterprises, Inc.; Glen Holt Aluminum, LLC;

CC-1252-17 with Linton Enterprises, Inc.; Corinthian Builders, Inc.;

RFP-602697-16 with Duval Landscape Maintenance; BrightView Landscape Services, Inc.;

IFB-602813-17 with Brownie’s Septic & Plumbing; Pat Lynch Construction, LLC;

IFB-602814-17 with Yang Inc. d/b/a Semco Electric Company; Thomas North;

IFB-602815-17 with Aire Tech Mechanical Services, Inc.; Climate Control Mechanical Services; and

RFP-602769-17 with Richard F. Sears; Caroline Desormoux; Fun-N-Sun Treats, LLC; TPG Smoothie Inc.; Sunny Dogs and More, LLC.

-------

REGULAR AGENDA

Agenda Item #29 - A-3377-17

Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to approve the Special Event Permit for the Orlando Philharmonic Orchestra Concert at 400 Woodbridge Road, within the Springs Association recreation area, to be held May 6, 2017, with rain-out day on May 7, 2017, subject to staff’s recommended conditions of approval; Carl Rendek, Orlando Philharmonic Orchestra, Inc., Applicant.

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

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

-------

The Board recessed the meeting at 11:30 a.m., with all Commissioners and all other Officials, with the exception of Clerk of Court Grant Maloy who was absent, and Deputy Clerk Jane Spencer who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Terri Porter, who were present at the Opening Session.

PROOFS OF PUBLICATION

Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to authorize the filing of the proofs of publication for this meeting's scheduled public hearings into the Official Record.

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

PUBLIC HEARINGS

FY 2016/2017 MID-YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT RESOLUTION

Agenda Item #30 – PH-2016-578

Proof of publication calling for a public hearing to consider adoption of a Resolution implementing the Mid-Year Budget Adjustments for Fiscal Year 2016/2017, as authorized by Section 129.06 F.S., and Section 22.5(I)(3) of the Seminole County Administrative Code, amending the Budget as previously adopted by Resolution #2016-R-156 and providing an effective date, received and filed.

Cecilia Monti, Budget & Fiscal Management Division, addressed the Board to present the mid-year budget amendment. She explained the amendment to the FY 2016/17 budget is to true-up what they had projected and budgeted as the beginning fund balance for the current fiscal year to the actual amounts available on October 1, 2016. Countywide the current amount budgeted as the beginning fund balance is $422 million; the actual available at the closing of the books on September 30, 2016 was approximately $424 million, thus the mid-year adjustment to the beginning fund balances of $2.4 million. In addition, there is a net increase in other adjustments of approximately $99,000 consisting primarily of interfund transfers required to close out and clean up residual balances. The County’s total revised reserves after the $2 million increase are $228.4 million. Included in the backup to the agenda is a mid-year adjustment summary by fund providing a recap of each fund’s adjustment to the beginning fund balance and what the fund’s adjusted reserve or contingency budget will be, and a column indicating other than reserves or contingency budgets being adjusted.

With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to Item #30, and public input was closed.

Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to adopt appropriate Resolution #2017-R-77 implementing the Mid-Year Budget Adjustments for Fiscal Year 2016/2017, as authorized by Section 129.06 F.S., and Section 22.5(I)(3) of the Seminole County Administrative Code, amending the Budget as previously adopted by Resolution #2016-R-156, and providing an effective date, as described in the proof of publication.

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

ESTATES AT WELLINGTON PD REZONE/Jim Mehta

Agenda Item #32 – PH-2016-539

Continuation of a public hearing from March 28, 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 advise staff is requesting an indefinite continuance of the item.

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 indefinitely 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.

THE STATION AT ALAFAYA ROOMING APARTMENTS

f/k/a THE RETREAT - LSFLU AMENDMENT & PD REZONE

Jason Doornbos, Landmark Properties

Agenda Item #31 – A-3443-17

Proof of publication calling for a public hearing to consider adoption of a Large Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment from Industrial Commercial and High Density Residential to Planned Development, and a Rezone from M-1A (Light Industrial), C-2 (Retail Commercial), and R-3 (Multi-Family Dwelling) to PD (Planned Development) for 187 rooming apartments (750 bedrooms) for student housing on approximately 33.8 acres, located on the east side of Alafaya Trail (SR 434) and on the north side of Park Road, John Doornbos, Landmark Properties, received and filed.

Rebecca Hammock, Planning & Development Division, addressed the Board to present the item as outlined in the Agenda Memorandum. She advised the subject property is located within the Econlockhatchee River Corridor Protection Zone (ERCPZ) and would be required to comply with all development regulations mandated by the ERCPZ, which includes additional stormwater retention water quality requirements. On February 17, the Board voted unanimously to transmit the proposed Large Scale Land Use Map Amendment and the associated Planned Development Rezone to the Department of Economic Opportunity and the other state agencies. These agencies reviewed the request and had no objections.

Ms. Hammock stated that two additional Development Order conditions have been added since transmittal that include Conditions X and Y to help address security concerns. Condition X requires a four-foot high decorative metal fence along Park Road and the internal entrance road for the proposed development. Condition Y requires that the management company provide private security on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. She additionally clarified Condition N within the Development Order regarding the daily shuttle to UCF. The shuttle will be provided during the fall and spring semesters only. County staff will add clarification language in the D.O. prior to recording if it is approved.

Ms. Hammock added the proposed project supports the objectives in connection with open space and buffering. She also noted sound buffering and lighting restrictions conditioned by the Development Order.

Ms. Hammock further advised that staff finds the request to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code, and compatible with the trend of development in the area as detailed in the staff report included in the Agenda Memorandum. Staff recommends approval of the request with the changes as described. She submitted additional correspondence (received and filed) both in support and in opposition to the project.

Commissioners Dallari, Henley, Carey, Constantine and Chairman Horan submitted ex parte communications (received and filed) into the record and noted the meetings each had regarding this project. It was also expressed that decisions will be based upon the evidence received at these public hearings.

Randy Morris, on behalf of the Applicant, addressed the Board and stated this is a de novo hearing from the last hearing and noted that Commissioner Henley was not in attendance for that meeting, so some of this will be repeated. Mr. Morris listed some of the experts that will be speaking today including Kathy Hattaway, AICP with Poulos & Bennett; Marion Almy, RPA, and Christine Newman, RPA with Archaeological Consultants, Inc.; John Miklos with Bio-Tech Consulting; Kok Wan Mah, PE, PTOE and Fabricio Ponce, PE with VHB’s Orlando Transportation Group; and Charlie Madden, P.E. and Chad Moorhead, P.E. with Madden, Moorhead & Stokes, Inc. Biographies or resumes for each were received and filed.

Mr. Morris also submitted a letter from the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, regarding acceptance of the Cultural Resource Assessment Survey (both received and filed). He indicated the name of the project has been changed from The Retreat at Orlando II property to The Station at Alafaya. In addition, he submitted for the record an acceptance letter of the Transmittal and report from the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; and VHB Engineering’s Transportation Evaluation Technical Document, Traffic Impact Study and a Memorandum regarding the right-turn-only egress lane. Mr. Morris noted that the study was done during regular school hours last year; it was not done during off-peak hours. He further submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Justification Report dated November 8, 2016, the Facility Capacity Impact Assessment relative to Seminole County, an Environmental Assessment by Bio-Tech Consulting, the School Concurrency Letter of No Impact from SCPS, the Dimensions of Parking (Recommended Parking Ratios Report) by the Urban Land Institute and the National Parking Association, Landmark Properties’ Parking Utilization Memorandum, the Boundary & Topographic Survey from Leading Edge Land Services, and the final submittal by Madden, Moorhead & Stokes of the Master Development Plan. All reports and documents listed above were received and filed.

Mr. Morris stated relative to the Development Order which was discussed with County staff and the District Commissioner, the adjustments that were made include Condition N that deals with the daily service of a shuttle. He noted when they first went to the P&Z, they had been unable to get access to the bus system for UCF, even though they are right on the route, because they said that particular route was overused. They have subsequently said they will accommodate them if they are approved and will then enter into a contract with them. Also Condition X was added which deals with fencing along Park Road. He noted they want to put the fence along Park Road, but not along the entranceway because it defeats the purpose of a walkable community if you are putting a fence up and blocking people from getting to the units once you have pulled onto the property.

Commissioner Carey noted for the record in regard to the daily shuttle that it would be available during the fall and spring semesters but not during the summer.

Mr. Morris thanked the neighbors for attending a community meeting they held at The Retreat which was built by Landmark Properties so they could see what these facilities look like.

Charlie Madden, with Madden, Moorhead & Stokes, addressed the Board and distributed renderings entitled Landmark Properties, The Station, Orlando, Florida, prepared by Williams & Associates (received and filed). Mr. Madden displayed the first exhibit which depicts the initial plan they showed the community at the first meeting held at The Retreat. He mentioned the general plan has not changed but will point out the changes made after meeting with the community. Initially they had a 50-foot landscape buffer and a 25-foot building setback which are the minimum code requirements in the Land Development Code.

The second rendering was displayed and Mr. Madden stated this follow-up plan came out of the second meeting with the neighbors. They were asking for a 25-foot undisturbed buffer and a 6-foot fence. They also did not want to change the existing masonry walls that are on the property line. In addition, they requested that the fence be placed on the inside of the 25-foot buffer and not on the common property line and that they put in a 75-foot building setback as well. On the third rendering, Mr. Madden pointed out that one additional thing that happened after the second generation rendering was the neighbors expressed concern about two entrances into the community. One of those entrances was close to Hunt Lane, so they requested it be moved. So, that entrance was moved on the third generation rendering.

Mr. Madden showed Existing & Proposed Planting Within 25’ Buffer Plan View. He noted the existing and proposed trees. Additionally, he said they agreed there would be no balconies for any of the buildings facing east, so even if someone was looking out of a window on the third floor, with the existing vegetation and the 25-foot buffer, there is a visual block. He added the neighbors wanted to agree on a specific fence. The rendering of a six-foot high, faux brick wall by SimTek included in the packet was displayed.

Mr. Madden then showed the rendering of what it will look like when driving down Park Road with the entrance road and a landscaped island. He explained they do not want to put a fence along the entrance road so people can parallel park and be able to walk to their units.

The Industrial Use Scenario – Planting Within 25’ Buffer Plan View exhibit was shown. Mr. Madden pointed out that this property is zoned industrial and commercial, so they did this exhibit to show that someone could build an industrial building 25 feet from the property line under the existing zoning. He opined that would be much less desirable than what they are proposing. He redisplayed Rendering #3 and discussed the wetlands that will be in permanent conservation, which are over six acres. He added the 550-foot line is over eight acres and that will be permanently protected under the Econ River Rule. Therefore, about 15 acres of the 33 will remain in its natural state. Mr. Morris added that they have committed there will be no boardwalks built now or in the future and they will put signage in the areas along the 550-foot zone showing that it is an environmental protection area. Also, they plan to have a right-turn only out of the entrance onto Park Road because there is no purpose for a left turn whatsoever.

Mr. Morris stated on January 30^th they received a letter from Ralf Brookes, the attorney for Lee Day and one other individual. The letter offered a “settlement” to add a 125-foot conservation buffer behind Mr. Days’ property and his neighbor’s property. Mr. Morris said they rejected that offer because they have already extended the buffers to the maximum extent.

Mr. Madden advised there is an existing path that goes to the pond for maintenance and there will be a berm around that pond. The only place that pedestrians would be allowed to walk would be down that path and around the retention pond, and he noted the St. Johns will require conservation area signs. Mr. Morris said they will work with the Sierra Club if there is additional language they would like to see on those signs.

Kathy Hattaway, Planner with Poulos & Bennett, addressed the Board to review how the application today is consistent with both state statutes and the County’s local policies and regulations with regard to the adoption of a comprehensive plan amendment. Ms. Bennett expounded upon those statutes, policies, requirements, compatibility, and the criteria that are met for the project. She advised that her research and analysis has concluded that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment (1) is consistent with the state statute governing comprehensive plan amendments, (2) is consistent with the Seminole County comprehensive plan policies governing comprehensive plan amendments, (3) is consistent with the Seminole County comprehensive plan policies governing development in the Econlockhatchee protection area, and (4) is a use that is compatible with the adjacent land uses. Ms. Hattaway submitted a County staff report, Summary Information for Retreat at Orlando II Large Scale Land Use Amendment, and a Future Land Use chart from the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan, Compatible Transitional Land Uses (both documents received and filed).

Mr. Morris noted the current zoning is for commercial or industrial and high-density residential. The property is not currently built out and it would never have to come back to the Board in a public hearing if the project were to be completely built out as industrial. He opined that usage would bring the total traffic count higher than the usage that this project proposes. Also, with the down-zone of this property, they would eliminate industrial use which is a non-conforming use with the Econ Protection Act. They are getting rid of commercial, which is also not compatible. He discussed support of the project from Deborah Shaffer of Chuluota, who has been a protector of the Econ. Mr. Morris submitted a letter (received and filed) from Landmark Properties to CWS Communities, L.P. d/b/a Palm Valley in connection with a commitment to an agreement regarding payment to CWS Communities, LP for the cost of replacing a gate, installation of a privacy fence, and an associated survey if the subject project is approved. In addition, a letter (received and filed) from CWS Communities LP d/b/a Palm Valley addressed to Chairman John Horan, Seminole County BCC, in support was submitted for the record. Mr. Morris also mentioned support by R. J. Mueller in regard to McCulloch Road who also advocates protection of the Econ.

John Miklos, Bio-Tech Consulting, addressed the Board and discussed the work they did on the site and their conclusions including surveys and wildlife species. They delineated the wetland and did a number of wildlife surveys consistent with FWC criteria. He displayed maps from the Agenda Memorandum while discussing the wetlands, the 550-foot setback, and the upland areas. He pointed out three specific locations of historic development within the 550-foot setback including a retention pond associated with some of the road construction historically, a cell tower, and a portion of the industrial development that occurred prior to the ordinance. He stated the current site plan proposes no development within the 550-foot setback. Besides the 550-foot setback on the Econ, he pointed out one area of wetland that extends just beyond the 550 limit, and in that area they will adhere to the additional 50 feet habitat protection zone buffer, so there will be no encroachments into any of the wetland areas. In regard to the wildlife surveys, he advised they found in excess of 70 gopher tortoise burrows on the property, and they estimated using the Offenberg Franze conversion criteria which is approximately a 60.4% occupancy rate. He noted this survey is not currently valid because FWC requires it be no more than 90 days old; therefore, they will conduct an updated survey to submit with the relocation application. In May or June, they would relocate the tortoises off the entire site prior to any demolition activities. They will then do an updated survey prior to actual site construction to ensure no tortoises have migrated back onto the property or were dumped on the property. If any additional burrows are found in the fall of 2017’s survey, an additional relocation effort will be conducted.

Mr. Miklos stated the final site plan would be processed through the SJRWMD (St. Johns River Water Management District) and meet all stormwater criteria and setback requirements of the Econ ordinance. He noted the entire area will be posted with conservation signage. Mr. Morris noted the report is included in the Agenda Memorandum.

Mr. Morris indicated that Andrew Costas with Landmark Properties is in attendance to answer any questions. He added that Mr. Costas is the developer, manager and applicant. He remarked that Landmark Properties is one of the 20 largest student housing developers in the country with a high-end product. He displayed a map of the United States (received and filed) depicting the locations in the various states where Landmark operates and a listing (received and filed) of the projects developed, the university served, the year built, and the number of beds for each. He added Landmark has won awards as the top student housing developer in the country.

Commissioner Henley stated he feels one thing that is missing from the presentation is the developer’s Code of Conduct for the student residents. He reminded that years ago, they would have standing-room only with people complaining about the behavior of students in off-campus, private housing. He noted that the late night parties did not stop until UCF took control of the building because they could kick them out of school if they didn’t behave, and it then stopped immediately. Mr. Morris confirmed with Ms. Hammock in the Planning Division that the Code of Conduct had been emailed to the commissioners. He stated the Code of Conduct is very extensive and he summarized the rules and regulations contained therein. He added they offer a unit to a Seminole County Sheriff or one of the private municipalities to live on site. He further discussed that the students must have a guarantor, who is normally a parent. Commissioner Henley commented that this type of behavior can be discouraged but opined that one or two people would have a difficult time monitoring all the activities because of the number of streets and buildings. Mr. Morris responded that each resident is given a number to call in order to reach a staff member and most of the complaints actually come from students themselves. He noted the cooperation between the UCF Police Department, the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office and Orange County in terms of enforcement. There was discussion regarding different aspects of the Code of Conduct.

Commissioner Dallari confirmed with Mr. Morris that they would be willing to include in the Development Order the signage of the conservation area. He noted Mr. Morris also stated that no boardwalk would be put in the conservation area. Mr. Morris clarified that is except for the levitation of the existing path and the pond area. Commissioner Dallari stated he would like to have those two items included in the Development Order. In addition, Commissioner Dallari said he would like staff to review Mr. Morris’ comments about the right-turn only at egress.

Chairman Horan recessed the meeting at 2:40 p.m.; reconvening at 2:48 p.m.

Mr. Morris stated that Seminole County has several student housing projects. He advised he was informed by a Sheriff’s Deputy in attendance today that if a violation has occurred, the Sheriff’s Department can write a referral to UCF Administration about the behavior of that student and the violation that occurred. UCF can take action on the student’s status based upon that referral.

Tonya Tolson, 3448 Kayla Circle, addressed the Board stating she is president of the East Pointe HOA. Ms. Tolson read a statement (received and filed) into the record indicating that East Pointe HOA members remain in strong opposition to the proposed rezone and future land use change for the proposed development.

Maria Soto, 3490 Hunt Lane, addressed the Board to state she was unable to speak at prior meetings because they were “pushed so far” and she opined it seems convenient to the applicant. She noted she has sent numerous emails and has not heard from anyone except Ms. Hammock in the Planning Division. She resides in Fox Run and they only have three streets in that neighborhood. They get their water from Palm Valley, which is well water, and she expressed her concern with the issues they would have.

Lee Day, 3441 Hunt Lane, addressed the Board stating the Board has all seen the letter from his attorney, Ralf Brookes (received and filed). Mr. Day also submitted copies of emails (received and filed) and stated they show that Mr. Madden intentionally tried to separate their community by having a small representative group of dissenting neighbors who wanted to cooperate with the developer. He further submitted an article (received and filed) written by Scott Maxwell of the Orlando Sentinel regarding John Miklos, board chairman of the SJRWMD. He stated it does not appear that social concerns are of any interest to the commissioners. He feels there is influence peddling going on between elected officials and Mr. Miklos.

County Attorney Bryant Applegate reminded the Board that they are to base their decision on the evidence presented and not on any unproven scandalous allegations.

Mr. Day claimed that Bio-Tech Consulting has had violations of the State’s gopher tortoise permitting rules. Chairman Horan again asked that Mr. Day stick to facts regarding the proposed development. Mr. Day stated the plan was transmitted to Tallahassee based off an environmental survey which is highly controversial and because of the nature of the survey, they cannot make a determination today; it must be continued to another month while it is investigated, and FWC is investigating.

Mr. Day said he wanted to tell the Board about the college students in his neighborhood. He noted he had to call the police on his next door neighbor seven times and he has had a restraining order against him. He has contacted UCF and he has gone through their referral program. He has also contacted their parents. He said they are worried about this highly unpopular development with these rich, corrupt developers and they have a commission that is not listening to them or advocating for the people who put them in office. He added they would like to see single-family homes come into that area. Finally, Mr. Day expressed that it is unfair that the developer gets an hour and fifteen minutes to present and he only gets three minutes.

Commissioner Carey remarked for the public that the professional team selected by a developer includes licensed engineers and professionals. She said this Board relies on the information they provide and their licenses are on the line when they give a set of plans or a report. In addition, the law requires them to do that and they rely on those professionals just like they rely on their professionals at Seminole County.

Dave Bas, 3424 Kayla Circle, addressed the Board and advised he was honored to meet with Commissioner Dallari who spent about 40 minutes with him. He expressed his concern about crime because crime is up by 75% around UCF. He noted that The Marquee apartment complex has been one of the worst. He opined they have a relatively safe community at East Pointe, Fox Run, and Walden Chase. There are children from these communities that meet for the bus in the morning only feet from where this proposed development would be. He’s concerned about the impact on the dozens of children that live in these communities. He added they also have seniors and people with special needs that reside there. He mentioned family members in law enforcement and some that are first responders and feels they are already taxed. He said another concern is they are going to put 750 or more cars on a road that is only 20 feet wide. He has lived there for 18 years and that road has had no infrastructure improvements whatsoever and it is crumbling. He submitted pictures of flooding that has occurred there that he sees all the time, and the road bed is dilapidated from flooding.

Mr. Bas stated he went to Lyman High School, Seminole State and UCF, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know what goes on in college dorms and apartments. He concluded they need someone to stand up for the residents instead of the developer.

Katrina Shadix, 995 Oklahoma Street, addressed the Board and stated she thinks it would be great to tear down the old ugly buildings that exist now and replace them with new energy efficient buildings; however, cutting down one tree or encroaching on even one foot into the existing forest is unacceptable. She added she would not want college apartments being built in such close proximity to her. She said she lives on the south side of Black Hammock and a couple of years ago, the forest across the street from her home was destroyed and turned into a sand lot. The wildlife disappeared or was killed as they tried to cross the road surrounding the lot. Her air conditioning filters turned black within a week. Her allergies became unbearable, and the noise pollution is still going on. She expressed she would not wish this on her worst enemy, let alone on the people that live there now.

Ms. Shadix asked in regard to the proposed development whether an environmental impact study had been performed by an independent agency not affiliated with the developer, and whether the Army Corps of Engineers had been consulted on the development being that the river is classified as a navigable waterway. She also asked if the “cost of sprawl” calculator has been used for this development. She explained it is a Sierra Club calculator that can be used online. In regard to the gopher tortoises, she said she is curious as to where they would be relocated because it is required that each tortoise be allotted one acre for relocation.

Ms. Shadix noted in closing that she would like to see a compromise which would be building single-family homes or very high-priced apartments or condos not intended for students, improving the area and bringing more business to the area without cutting down one tree or infringing upon one foot of the existing forest.

Mr. Morris distributed a copy of the Rules and Regulations (received and filed) for residents of the proposed development as discussed prior to public comment. He responded to Commissioner Henley’s earlier question by explaining that when you sign the lease, there is a box to check that says the resident has received the Rules and Regulations. He just spoke to a Landmark representative who is present who said they would be happy to add a line that states the resident has received and read the Rules and Regulations.

Commissioner Dallari noted in the Rules under 10(c) and 14(a), it talks about how complaints will be dealt with. Mr. Morris discussed different violations and the fines that would be given. He also discussed “three strikes you are out” which will be determined by their own policy.

Mr. Morris said regarding the very few public comments, the Board did not hear any expert testimony at all about any one of the issues before them today.

Mr. Morris submitted a U.S. Department of Justice Bulletin entitled Criminal Victimization, revised September 29, 2015 (received and filed). He stated some sensational crime reports had been mentioned and included in handouts, so he is submitting this report into the record. He talked about the statistics provided in the bulletin which refute the concerns about crime and noted there has been nothing presented about crime in neighborhoods adjacent to student housing because there is nothing on that that they could find. Mr. Morris said their concern lies in the safety of the students themselves and they are doing everything they can to ensure that.

Mr. Morris referred to the letter from Attorney Ralf Brookes he mentioned previously. He asked Kathy Hattaway, Poulos & Bennett, to comment on that letter. Ms. Hattaway stated that Mr. Brookes’ letter addresses several of the Future Land Use policies and conservation element policies that she talked about and referred to in her presentation, so she feels that has already been covered sufficiently. She noted there are two additional items she wanted to respond to. In regard to FLU 2.14 known as CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design), she advised that this is reviewed by County staff through the site plan review process. She has reviewed all the staff comments that relate to CPTED, and in terms of the basic principles of CPTED, there are four. Natural surveillance is one, see and be seen, which is the idea that there will be less crime when the presence of residents and guests is obvious. Another one is natural access control, which is walkways, fences, lighting, signage, and things of that nature. She noted in this project, there is one main entrance which funnels all of the visitors and residents to that entrance, so that is using environmental design to funnel people into a certain area and limit the access points within the community. The three-foot landscape buffers required by Code are of the appropriate size that discourages criminal activity; no one can hide behind that. The last point is called the broken window theory, and Ms. Hattaway explained that this has to do with a facility being allowed to decline. She noted they heard today that the owner and manager of this facility would not allow that to happen and therefore, would discourage criminal activity that is supported by those types of run-down facilities.

Ms. Hattaway noted that Mr. Brookes in his letter makes a comment that the parking reduction request is not a hardship. A variance request that is based on a hardship goes before the P&Z. She explained there are two specific sections of the Code that allow for a parking adjustment by the Board of County Commissioners and one is Section 30.451(f)(2). She read that section aloud and explained this is the section of the Code being used in regard to parking and not the hardship for the request. She added there is another section, Section 5.19, an administrative adjustment that would allow for the same amount of parking reduction solely under the Board’s purview.

John Miklos, Bio-Tech Consulting, noted there was a question as to where the gopher tortoises would be relocated to, and he advised there are a number of Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission approved recipient sites around the state. In order to get a relocation permit, they are required to have an agreement or reservation letter with one of those recipient sites. That will be part of the permit process.

Mr. Miklos stated in terms of an independent environmental review, when they submit an application to the SJRWMD, their staff would review the project that will also trigger a review from the FWC as well as the Army Corps of Engineers. In addition to that, they will be filing a jurisdictional termination with the Army Corps of Engineers in the next month or so.

In regard to the comment about the project being detrimental to the Econ, Mr. Miklos pointed out when the legislative action occurred in the late 80s to put the Econ task force together, the idea was to find a path forward to ensure protection of the Econ and its tributaries. The buffers defined in that ordinance, which came out of that working group, subsequently became the water management district rule; and a Seminole County and Orange County ordinance is designed specifically to protect the river. On top of that, it was also noted that the Econ is an OFW (Outstanding Florida Waters), and Mr. Miklos advised the river is also an impaired water body. The stormwater criterion, the discharge to those types of systems, is 50% additional stormwater treatment than required by a normal development of that type. The current facility has very limited stormwater, so redevelopment will actually allow less nutrients into the river.

Mr. Miklos said in regard to a comment about a law enforcement investigation, FWC is required to respond to any call that could be a violation, so law enforcement has been on site three times to date and there have not been any findings. He advised he would forward the law enforcement officer’s report to staff so they can follow up and verify that.

Mr. Miklos mentioned a comment that was made about violations by his firm, and he stated that FWC does not authorize companies to be tortoise operatives or agents; they authorize individuals, so technically his firm has none. However, his lead wildlife scientist, who has been with the firm for more than 20 years, has two, and they are clerical errors. He wants the record to show that he is in good standing with FWC.

Mr. Morris reported that Commissioner Henley had questioned him during the earlier break about the traffic aisles. Mr. Morris advised they are 450 feet to 550 feet in length. He said if there would be internal speeding problems, they can add speed bumps or speed restraining mechanisms. He noted it is not free flowing, there are stop signs throughout.

Mr. Morris concluded the rebuttal by stating they have submitted substantial evidence and County staff has reviewed all of the evidence. He said they respectfully ask the Board to approve the proposed project. He asked that they note the changes discussed including their request with respect to fencing, that it be put in along Park only and not be on the entrance because it will hurt the pedestrian management. He added they should also note the conditions that Commissioner Dallari raised earlier.

Commissioner Dallari stated there are two issues that have not been addressed that were mentioned by the public. One was in regard to Alafaya Trail being at capacity and the other was regarding the turning movements coming out of Park onto SR 434 and having to make a U-turn.

Kok Wan Mah, VHB Transportation Group, addressed the Board to respond. He advised with respect to SR 434/Alafaya Trail, the capacities that they used in their traffic study came directly from the County’s concurrency management system which showed that there was still available capacity on that stretch of SR 434 north of McCulloch Road. Based on the available capacity there, they used the existing daily counts for SR 434 in their traffic study.

Mr. Mah advised they conducted a total of three traffic studies for this project. The first was submitted on November 7^th which looked at the trip generation that would be generated by this site in comparison to the trip generation for the allowable uses for the existing zoning. They found that the proposed trip generation would be less than what would be allowed by the existing zoning. The second traffic study was submitted to the County on December 9^th where they looked at the movement of traffic that would exit right onto SR 434 northbound and then U-turn at the first median opening. Mr. Morris asked him to clarify when the data was collected to which Mr. Mah responded that the data was collected on December 1^st. They did contact UCF to ensure that classes were still in session on that date and they were. Mr. Mah continued stating that study showed there were a total of 48 U-turns during the a.m. peak hour and 47 during the p.m. peak hour. Also, at no point were there more than three vehicles queued up at the U-turn location. Operations at both the Park Avenue and SR 434 intersection as well as at the U-turn had acceptable levels of service.

Commissioner Carey recounted that a member of the public had voiced concern about some of the subdivisions getting their water from Palm Valley. She confirmed with Mr. Morris that Seminole County will be providing the water and utilities for this project. Mr. Morris advised they have been told by the neighbors that the current water capacity that is supplied by Palm Valley is very weak in terms of the pressurization. He explained it is a contractual situation that the County has with a district; there are actually districts that represent water and sewer to residents. That is a district that Palm Valley controls and the proposed project would be on County water and sewer, so it would not affect the water pressure or the quality. Mr. Morris noted that Palm Valley has their own internal financing that depends upon their rate base, so unfortunately they cannot provide these neighborhoods access to County water.

With regard to public participation, no one else in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to Item #31, and public input was closed.

Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.

Commissioner Dallari stated he understands the Applicant is providing a fence around Park Road and they are asking that the entrance road not have any. He questioned whether there would be any fences in between the buildings. Mr. Madden replied there are none proposed there because when they turn in, similar to The Retreat, residents can parallel park there and they want people to be able to walk through to their unit.

Commissioner Carey confirmed with Mr. Morris they are proposing a four-foot aluminum fence along Park Road but none along the entrance road, that there is a gate at the end of that road, and a SimTek “wall” between the property and the subdivision to the east.

Commissioner Dallari added that from his understanding the Applicant is agreeing to signage for the conservation area and that will be in the D.O. Also in the D.O., there will be no boardwalk in the conservation area but there will be a walking path around the existing retention pond. Mr. Morris clarified that it will be an improved walking path from what is currently there. Commissioner Dallari then confirmed they are also asking to remove the fence from the entrance road which was Item X on the D.O., and he concurs with that change.

Commissioner Dallari asked that staff ensure there are no issues with the “right-turn-only” exit from an engineering standpoint. Commissioner Carey wondered if there is no issue with making a left turn from an engineering standpoint why they would force everybody to go right. Mr. Morris advised they offered that just to show how the movements would work but they can do it at final engineering. Commissioner Carey reiterated her inquiry and pointed out if you have a clear left and right and you can make a left turn because you are going left, then why would they want them to turn right and go down and then U-turn. Mr. Madden explained there is not an engineering reason. Mr. Morris added they suggested this because there is no purpose for people to make a left turn because there is no commercial activity but they are happy to withdraw that. Commissioner Dallari suggested they have staff review it to see if there is a need.

Commissioner Dallari wanted to note that also in the D.O. is the on-site security for Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights.

Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to adopt Ordinance #2017-14 enacting a Large Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment from Industrial Commercial and High Density Residential to Planned Development, to adopt the associated Ordinance #2017-15 enacting a Rezone from M-1A (Light Industrial), C-2 (Retail Commercial), and R-3 (Multi-Family Dwelling) to PD (Planned Development), and approve the associated Development Order and Master Development Plan, for 187 rooming apartments (750 bedrooms) for student housing on approximately 33.8 acres, located on the east side of Alafaya Trail (SR 434) and on the north side of Park Road (Z2016-051)(2016-FLUM-LS.04), as described in the proof of publication, as presented with changes to the Development Order that the developer has agreed to; Jason Doornbos, Landmark Properties, Applicant.

Under discussion, Commissioner Constantine asked whether this includes a mandatory bus shuttle to and from UCF. Commissioner Dallari advised it is included in the D.O.

Commissioner Constantine stated he does not think they need to have the pool open for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and to maybe close the pool around 2:00 a.m. Commissioner Dallari agreed to this as a friendly amendment.

In regard to Mr. Day’s comment about the time allotted to speak regarding projects compared with the time given to the developer to present, Commissioner Constantine stated the developer has the responsibility to set the playing field and present the project, and he wanted to tell the citizens that the commissioners do hear them. He stated he has not seen a project in a long time that has this many conditions. He thinks this proposal is more beneficial to that area than any other type of project in this high-density residential, commercial and industrial zoning. It is essentially less than eight units an acre with security and protection of conservation areas. He said he is in full support and based on the circumstances feels this is a much better situation for the long-term protection of the environment, the Econ and the wildlife.

Commissioner Henley said in regard to the same comment about it being unfair that the developer gets that much time to present, the developer has the job of presenting in detail, and also the Board does not have a limit on how many individuals can speak in opposition which balances out that time factor in the long run if there are that many people that are concerned and want to speak. Commissioner Carey added while the public only gets three minutes to speak or six if they are representing a group, they do have the right to correspond with the commissioners. She added that it takes a lot of time to read all the emails and information that is sent to their offices and noted she received five emails with backup from Mr. Day.

Commissioner Carey stated there is a friendly amendment on the table and she, as the seconder, agrees.

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

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

Meloney Lung, Assistant County Manager, addressed the Board to present the Legislative Update (received and filed). She advised as a follow-up from discussion at the April 11^th meeting, a resolution in support of HB 451 (regarding a ban on fracturing) was mailed to the Legislature. In regard to the five Appropriations bills they are watching, there has been no movement and they are still in place. Also, the “preemption” bills (HB 17/SB 1158) have had no movement.

Ms. Lung advised that the Utilities (Cell towers) Creates the “Advanced Wireless Infrastructure Deployment Act” (SB 596/HB 687) has moved but they have made a lot of changes. They can no longer hang the cell tower devices on an electrical pole or a traffic signal; however, they can be put on telephone poles. DOT, The Villages and the Barrier Islands are now exempt, and they went from $15 per year to $150 per year. She said she attached a research document by FAC (received and filed) which shows what the loss in revenue would be.

Commissioner Dallari noted then that any existing telephone pole has the ability to be a cell tower. Ms. Guillet added if it is in the public right-of-way, and Ms. Lung reiterated the exceptions to that. Ms. Lung advised it will be placed on the Special Order calendar later this week.

Ms. Lung stated the Community Redevelopment Agencies bill (HB 13) has been placed on the calendar for the third reading tomorrow, and is moving as well.

Commissioner Constantine noted that on the Senate side, it was killed in committee, which means there is no vehicle to go with it. So that is dead for this year. Ms. Lung stated it is the same for HB 9 (Florida Tourism Industry Marketing Corporation) because there is no Senate companion bill.

In regard to SJR 76/HB 21 which extended the 10% assessment limitation on non-homesteaded property that is due to expire, Ms. Lung stated they are moving forward. They have substituted it for SB 76 and she believes it is up for the third reading tomorrow, and it looks like it will go back on the ballot.

SJR 1774/HJR 7105 regarding an additional $25,000 exemption for homesteaded properties continued to move until this morning, Ms. Lung said. She advised she attached another document provided by FAC (received and filed) that shows the calculations of lost revenue for all Florida counties. Commissioner Constantine mentioned as the commissioners are aware, this is a give-and-take with Appropriations; they don’t even have the allocations yet. He advised SJR 1774 is in a subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee; it still has to go through not only that subcommittee, but Appropriations, and he said he cannot imagine that a bill of that nature would just be released from the full Appropriations committee. He added he believes that today or tomorrow is the last day for committees, so with the Senate holding back support of that based upon the other things that they are disagreeing on with the House, he is very hopeful that it will at least die this year.

Ms. Lung reported the House and the Senate are very far apart on the gambling bill (SB 8), and it doesn’t impact Seminole County at the moment. She advised their lobbyist and the County Attorney’s Office are watching to make sure that there are no changes they are unaware of in the last minute changes.

In regard to the budget, Ms. Lung said attached to her report are copies of memos from Senator Negron and Speaker Corcoran to their respective staffs (received and filed). As of this morning she heard they were very far apart, but she said by lunchtime today, they might even get this done. Ms. Guillet asked where their appropriations are in that. Ms. Lung replied they are still the same; the three water appropriations have not been put in the budget but the CAD for $1 million is in the House and Senate, and the Juvenile Detention Center (DJJ) is for $2 million and that is in the Senate budget but not in the House.

County Attorney Bryant Applegate left the meeting at this time.

ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDA

Lisa Behr, 1111 Adams Street, addressed the Board and stated on April 5, 2017 they received a notification from the City of Longwood (cover letter and annexation agreement received and filed) with intentions of installing sewer down their streets which would require annexation, and the residents are very much opposed to that. She advised the City plans to begin this project in June, and this is the first notification they received regarding this. She read a statement which included their request of support by county leaders to intervene on behalf of the residents to postpone the project until such time as the City changes it’s Code, Section 90-38, requiring annexation and has additional federal grant monies awarded to ensure the “no-cost-to-you” commitments they have made. She discussed the late notification and lack of town hall meetings. She pointed out areas of contradiction and misleading information in the notice from the City. One item mentioned by Ms. Behr is from paragraph five of the letter which calls out that Seminole County Code 270.1 is the reason the residents would have to connect to the sewer system, but she said in actuality, it is City Code 90-38 that would supersede this, so the City is basically saying that the County will force them to annex. Commissioner Dallari noted that he was not aware of that. Ms. Behr added the City fully contradicts itself in the same paragraph which reads, “In addition, the City of Longwood will require you to sign an agreement to annex into the City voluntarily.” She stated there is nothing voluntary about Code 90-38.

Ms. Behr stated the residents (about 100 homes) do not want to be annexed into the city in exchange for the sewer. They have not asked for this but she said Mayor Durso would lead them to believe so. They don’t want to pay their taxes or be held to their codes or their ordinances. She added that having to be complicit with city codes on this short notice could create financial hardship and disruption for people needing to make changes in order to meet the Code. She noted the City of Longwood has verbally claimed that the residents have requested this project, but that is not true. Ms. Behr stated a Longwood Commission meeting was held on February 11, 2016, and residents attended to discuss an impending installation of a sewer line for a new subdivision, Peninsula at Island Lakes. The purpose was to find out what was happening with the installation for those 11 homes. She explained they inquired at that time whether they would be allowed to tie in. They were told the City would get back to them if they had an interest, but the City never did. They were, however, asked to write down their names, which may be why Mayor Durso thinks they are agreeing to this project. At that time, Mayor Durso stated that tying into the sewer line from the City would not require annexation; and Ms. Behr stated apparently he is not familiar with City Code 90-38.

Ms. Behr advised that in June of 2016, the City of Longwood was awarded a grant for $1.7 million towards this project by the St. Johns River Water Management District and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. They were told there would be a neighborhood meeting scheduled in October of 2016 to discuss this, but it was never scheduled. Commissioner Dallari confirmed with Ms. Behr that the meeting never took place.

Ms. Behr further detailed the schedule for the sewer project and stated there are surveyors out there now doing work. The City has since scheduled a meeting for May 3^rd, and Ms. Behr said they are asking that someone from the county attend on their behalf.

Chairman Horan asked exactly where this was in Longwood. James Ireland, 950 Hobson Street, addressed the Board to answer the Chairman’s question. He advised they are located in District 4, north of North Street and Seminole Avenue. Commissioner Carey added it is on the east side of Palm Springs between SR 434 and North Street.

Commissioner Dallari stated the City had not informed them of this yet. Commissioner Carey pointed out a developer has a right to annex their property into a city for utilities before they have sold it, and many times as people come and develop an area, the developers sign an agreement saying when they become contiguous, that they will annex because they are asking for utilities. If you are saying you don’t want the utility if it requires you to annex into the city, she understands that. She noted her question is how are they putting these utilities in county roads, how can they do that without the County’s knowledge. Ms. Guillet stated she learned about this today. She understands that there is a community meeting scheduled for May 3^rd and that Longwood is aware that there are some citizen concerns. She advised they would be happy to have someone from county staff attend that meeting so they can better understand what the intent is. She believes this started out with good intentions. Ms. Behr opined that many people felt the City’s letter was threatening and it talked about fines.

Mr. Behr read aloud Longwood’s Code of Ordinances, Section 90-38 (received and filed). Commissioner Carey noted the Code reads, “if they request,” so if it is their service area and the residents have requested the service, then they would be required to annex. It might be that they are trying to get them to come into the city so that the Peninsula at Island Lakes development becomes contiguous and that they haven’t created an enclave in that scenario.

Commissioner Constantine noted that cities cannot annex you without your permission. He believes this would be made very clear in the May 3^rd meeting. Extensive discussion ensued regarding provisions in the Seminole County Code, annexation, and surcharges. Chairman Horan said that apparently the City of Longwood has planned for quite some period of time to put utilities in county roadways. Ms. Guillet said it is very possible that staff was talking; they have a good relationship with the City of Longwood. She added county staff will participate in the meetings to understand what the issues are and the concerns of the county residents. She believes if they sit down and talk with the City, they can get to the bottom of this and address everyone’s concerns.

Commissioner Carey opined as to how she believes this started with the developer making application for utilities, but she would like to have the opportunity to read the entire notice. She added she also would like to make sure staff is at the meeting and then sends a memo to the Board letting them know and probably to the public who would like to know. Ms. Guillet said she will reach out to the city manager this afternoon.

Jim Ireland advised the City of Longwood’s survey crews have already been out there for a couple of weeks. He noted his home is only a year old and he did not receive the notice from Longwood. He spoke to several city officials including the Mayor and asked them to explain what the City was proposing. He reiterated their request for the County to represent their residents at the meeting with the City. He noted his wife went to 65 homes and spoke to the residents, and the consensus is that they need more information. They are not totally objecting that they may want this someday, but all stated they did not want to annex into the City of Longwood.

Commissioner Dallari asked Mr. Behr to give county staff her contact information.

Earl Adams, 1011 Alberta Street, addressed the Board to advise he sent his packet of information to an attorney and they are researching to see whether or not they can hold the City of Longwood’s “feet to the fire” since they said they can connect without annexing and only pay a 25% surcharge. Commissioner Constantine stated that they can, and Commissioner Dallari stated state statute allows that. Ms. Guillet added only if they are contiguous.

Gary Anderson, 1010 Alberta Street, addressed the Board stating his concern is that the millage rate they are paying right now to Seminole County he thinks is 2.3299, and he is pretty sure it is going to go to 5.5 after talking to someone about this. Right now they have their services through Seminole County at that millage rate and it would double his fees from $297 to $701 per year. Mr. Anderson said he spoke to a utilities employee and asked how they determine what to charge and they advised it is going to be by the intake of water into the home. Mr. Anderson stated he is presently on Altamonte Springs water, and he waters his lawn through that same water. Unfortunately, Altamonte Springs utilities cannot separate it through a different meter so his rate will be much higher because the intake is what they will base the charge on. He said he also asked how many residences have wells in their community of about 100 homes, and was told they estimate around 50%. Mr. Anderson then asked how those with wells will be charged, and they said they are working on that right now. His concern is that many people are made to believe that based upon the letter that they actually need to go ahead and sign onto this, which in fact he is pretty sure you don’t have to. He said he believes they haven’t held any meetings because they are trying to push this through by getting the majority of people together to actually sign on for this, and if they do, they will get the $4 million grant. If they get that grant, they will go ahead regardless of how the majority of the residents actually feel.

Rick Kimbel, 1140 Alberta Street, addressed the Board to express his concern about the fact that they are “cherry picking” the area. He asked what is different from his runoff and their runoff two blocks over. He opined it doesn’t make any sense. If they were going to do the whole area from North Street in, it would make a big difference, but they are only selecting certain streets and certain areas because they are all adjacent to the Peninsula at Island Lakes development where they are running the sewer line through.

Katrina Shadix, who spoke previously, distributed “bear aware” drinking straws to the Board. Ms. Shadix stated she has a laundry list of requests she is hoping the Board will consider adding to a future agenda. To save paper and time, she said she will email supporting articles, templates, scientific data and pictures of destruction to wildlife, waterways and natural lands relating to these requests.

Ms. Shadix noted that by 2050, plastic pollution will outweigh fish in the ocean. She said she represents thousands of Seminole County voters requesting bans on plastic straws, plastic bags and Styrofoam. She thanked the Board for passing the strongest fertilizer ordinance in the state, and mentioned that Orange County is having a meeting tomorrow morning to consider a fertilizer ordinance. She advised that FWC decided just last week to not have a bear hunt for two years, and within two hours of that, the Black Bear Habitat Restoration Act passed in its first Senate committee hearing. She is continuing to work with the FWC on getting bear-wise curriculum into county schools as well as the bear-proof trash can project. She added she is also working with FWC Commissioner Priddy to raise poaching fines and increase the penalty for killing a bear from a misdemeanor to a felony.

Ms. Shadix stated a couple of weeks ago, a six-year old, female bear was shot, killed, and dragged by a four-wheeler through the Bookertown neighborhood and dumped like a bag of trash at the neighborhood park, just west of Sanford. She spoke with an FWC bear biologist that was on the scene two nights after the shooting happened, and she also went to Bookertown the next day and spoke with residents. She collected over 300 signatures on Saturday at Lake Eola’s Earth Day events. All of these parties mentioned they feel that Bookertown needs bear-proof trash cans but the residents there cannot afford the cans. She is asking that Seminole County pay for and provide cans to Bookertown. There are at least three bears still living in the area and the shooter has not been arrested. She feels he will kill again if they don’t get the bear-proof trash cans in there to eliminate the main bear attractants. She is aware that the County will be getting more money from FWC even though the Black Bear Habitat Restoration Act did not pass the Senate fully; the FWC agreed to $500,000 more for bear-proof trash cans. She advised her organization is going to try and raise the money to get the cans for Bookertown if the County is not willing to pay for them, but she is hoping that they will. The people in Bookertown said they love the bears and the female never harmed anyone, and they know exactly who the shooter is. She suggested they may be able to do a retrofitting project in that area for their garbage cans; however, the cans must be of a certain substance to do that.

Commissioner Constantine stated the Board has already approved free cans for those below the poverty line. Commissioner Carey announced there is a Bookertown cleanup on Saturday. She just talked to staff in Solid Waste and the hauler about providing recycle bins for them also because there is not a lot of recycling going on out there. She cautioned just because you outfit a community with bear-proof garbage cans, that does not mean the bears leave; they actually don’t. They still traverse through the neighborhoods because their habitat kind of stays the same, but they just go through because there is no food source there anymore. They have experienced that in her neighborhood.

In Mr. Applegate’s absence, Deputy County Attorney Lynn Porter-Carlton entered the meeting at this time.

DISTRICT REPORTS

District 5

Commissioner Carey detailed that the Bookertown community cleanup is this Saturday at 9:00 a.m. They will be meeting at 4640 Richard Allen Street for anyone that would like to volunteer.

-------

Commissioner Carey reported that at lunch today, they had a wrap-up meeting for the 2017 Boy Scouts event, and they raised a little over $221,000. There are over 2,100 scouts in Seminole County and their discussion was about looking for their next leadership team. They are looking for people who are interested in participating on the leadership team for next year’s event that would help them to host tables and find sponsors. She noted that all of the money raised here stays in Seminole County to provide scholarships for scouting opportunities for children that would otherwise not have that.

District 3

Commissioner Constantine advised that at the oversight board meeting for Lynx on the 20^th, Mr. Johnson presented the preliminary budget for next year. Their staff was looking at an increase in fares for the first time in a long time. It did not meet with a lot of excitement by the members and there will be a lot of discussion going forward on that particular issue.

-------

Commissioner Constantine reported that at the Historic Commission meeting, Mr. Epps stated that he was going to bring up the buggy issue again on the 9^th. Commissioner Constantine addressed the County Manager stating maybe they can try to come to some resolution one way or another at that time.

-------

Commissioner Constantine reported that he and Commissioner Horan attended the MPO Alliance and he thinks the Alliance is making some real movement on the I-4 rest area issue. The DOT has recognized that they do need to do a long-term study of that particular area for about six months. Chairman Horan added the DOT has gone out with an RFP for a scope of work, and one of the first things in the scope is an inventory of all the available truck facilities in the area. So it is moving forward and the DOT has taken ownership of that.

-------

Commissioner Constantine indicated another homeowners association, Springs Landing, is receiving 160 bear-proof trash cans this Friday, so that is another 100% support by an HOA.

District 2

Chairman Horan advised there has been a lot of interest and communication with the Winter Springs City Commission about Jetta Point. If the Rolling Hills deal goes through, they are interested in what the County will do with that property. The Chairman said if they do something with the property, they would have to go through the normal procedures to surplus it and so forth.

CHAIRMAN’S REPORT

Chairman Horan remarked he has signed the fourth successive burn ban order today. The commissioners discussed the need for rain.

-------

Chairman Horan said he had asked the County Attorney to look at the way the appointments went for the Charter Review last time, and it looks like the only substantive changes that need to be made are that District 2 used to appoint a representative from Lake Mary, but District 2 no longer has any portion of Lake Mary, and District 4 used to appoint a representative to Casselberry. He suggested that District 2 appoint a Casselberry representative and District 4 appoint a Lake Mary representative.

-------

Chairman Horan gave a “shout out” to EMS, Fire personnel and the ambulance crew who saved the life of Debra Bridges in Longwood on April 5^th. He added another great “shout out” to the County Manager and her Environmental Services staff for their great work and emergency support when UCF’s central energy plants went down and it was mission critical.

-------

The Chairman stated he attended a meeting by the elected leaders of the CoC (Continuum of Care on Homelessness). There were representatives from Orange County, the City of Orlando, Seminole County, the City of Sanford, Osceola County, and the City of Kissimmee. The decision was made that they are not going to pursue a separate governmental entity and there was a wide ranging discussion about what role the Commission on Homelessness will play in the entire homelessness issue. They thought there were just too many impediments to try to get some kind of a governmental structure in place. That will lead to some other decisions they will probably have to make down the road.

-------

Chairman Horan reported they received an Arts & Culture Industry Economic Impact from United Arts; there have been $3.4 million generated by arts and cultural organizations and their audiences in direct economic activity.

-------

Chairman Horan attended the Orlando Economic Partnership meeting in Lake County last week. As the Board is aware, Chairman Horan stated the Orlando Chamber of Commerce and the Metro Orlando EDC have merged. The new entity is called the Orlando Economic Partnership. He noted job creation this year is robust in the region, and based upon the projects in the pipeline, they project they may get over 5,000 new jobs in the region that find their way through the former EDC, now the Orlando Economic Partnership. He opined it is pretty amazing when you consider what is going on in Tallahassee and the headwinds because the site selectors are getting the idea certainly through the media that Florida may not be open for business. He added he thinks the global economic development organization here in the region is doing a great job.

COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR REPORTS

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

1. Letter dated March 24, 2017, from Andrew Thomas, Board Chair, Homeless Services Network, to Chairman Horan re: newly adopted bylaws.

2. Letter dated March 31, 2017, from Roderick Henderson, Business Manager, The Foundation for Seminole County Public Schools, to the Board of County Commissioners re: Appreciation of the $1,392 donation for Midway Safe Harbor program.

3. Letter dated March 31, 2017, from Roderick Henderson, Business Manager, The Foundation for Seminole County Public Schools, to the Board of County Commissioners re: Appreciation of the $2,693.79 donation.

4. Copy of a letter dated April 4, 2017, from Gary Rudolph, Associate Director, Department of Utilities & Energy Services, University of Central Florida, to Nicole Guillet re: Emergency Wastewater Support.

5. Letter dated April 11, 2017, from James Stansbury, Chief, Bureau of Community Planning and Growth, Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, to Chairman Horan re: completed review of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment for Seminole County (Amendment No. 17-1ESR).

6. Letter dated April 12, 2017, from Traci Houchin, Deputy City Clerk, City of Sanford, to Board of County Commissioners re: Notice for Ordinance 4404 annexing property between Central Florida Greenway and Sophia Marie Cove.

7. Letter dated April 12, 2017, from Traci Houchin, Deputy City Clerk, City of Sanford, to Board of County Commissioners re: Notice for Ordinance 4405 annexing property between North Way and Andrews Road and between Cypress Avenue and Sanford Avenue.

8. Notice of Public Hearing to Consider a Variance received April 21, 2017, from the City of Sanford, scheduled May 4, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., City Hall, for property at 623 and 635 Trestle Point.

District 4

Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to appoint Marty Chan to the Contractor Examiners Board for a one-year term ending January 2018.

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

-------

There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m., this same date.

ATTEST:______________________Clerk_____________________Chairman

js/tp