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 30th 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 7th 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 9th 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 1st. 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 11th 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 3rd, 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 3rd 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 3rd 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 20th, 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 9th.
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 5th. 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