BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
May 25, 2021
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, May 25, 2021, in Room
1028 of the Seminole County Services Building at Sanford, Florida, the usual
place of meeting of said Board.
Present:
Chairman Lee Constantine (District 3)
Vice Chairman Amy
Lockhart (District 4)
Commissioner Robert Dallari (District 1)
Commissioner Jay Zembower (District 2)
Commissioner Andria Herr (District 5)
County Manager
Nicole Guillet
Senior Assistant County Attorney Desmond
Morrell
Clerk of Court and Comptroller Grant Maloy
Deputy
Clerks Terri Porter and Chariti Colon
OPENING CEREMONIES
Father John Bluett,
St. Stephen’s Catholic Church, Winter Springs, gave the invocation and led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
The
Commissioners expressed their respect and admiration for Father John, and
talked about his retirement.
EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT UPDATE
Alan
Harris, Office of Emergency Management, addressed the Board to give a brief
update in connection with their plans for demobilization of emergency
operations in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic. The board members relayed stories and
expressed appreciation and thanks to his team and all county staff and their
families.
AWARDS
AND PRESENTATIONS
Agenda
Item #1 – 2021-2717
Motion by Commissioner Herr, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to
adopt a Proclamation affirming May 31 as Memorial Day in Seminole County.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted
AYE.
Agenda Item #2 – 2021-2701
Motion by Commissioner
Zembower, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to adopt a Proclamation recognizing
Chief Petty Officer Philip Walters, U.S. Navy, as Veteran of the Month for May,
2021.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted
AYE.
Agenda Item #3 – 2021-2715
Motion by Commissioner
Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Lockhart, to approve and authorize the
Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2021-R-66 recognizing Susan L. Hughes, Seminole County Fire Department,
upon her retirement.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted
AYE.
Agenda Item #4 – 2021-2716
Motion by Commissioner
Lockhart, seconded by Commissioner Herr, to approve and authorize the Chairman
to execute appropriate Resolution #2021-R-67 recognizing Tish Callahan-Smith,
Emergency Management Division, upon her retirement.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted
AYE.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
County Manager Nicole Guillet
announced staff is pulling Item #9 in connection with the release of
maintenance bonds and that will be brought back at a later date.
With regard to public participation,
Bill Hyde addressed the Board stating he is the Admin for LakeHayes.org, which
is a new organization to be advocates for Oak Manor and Kew Gardens. He spoke in opposition to Consent Agenda Item
#16, Lake Hayes Sidewalk, stating this is not a good idea and it is poorly
designed. He then talked about the budget
for the sidewalk and the penny sales tax money.
Chairman Constantine noted he will pull the item and they will discuss
it at that time.
No one else spoke in regard to the
Consent Agenda, and public input was closed. Speaker Request Form was received and filed.
Commissioner Herr requested they
pull Item #22, Rolling
Hills Community Park Design Agreement, for separate discussion.
Commissioner
Dallari noted he supports Item #10, Transit Bus Transfer Agreement with LYNX,
but would like to pull it in order to comment.
Chairman Constantine noted he also wanted to comment on Item #10. Commissioner
Dallari explained that Item #10 is for the Fire Department for a donated bus
for training purposes from LYNX. He said
since this is for training, and he would like to see a standing order for buses
from LYNX and the School Board that once they approve this, it should be
ongoing. Chairman Constantine stated he
talked to Mr. Harrison, the director of LYNX, recently. He noted they are putting out surplus all the
time, and he said he would announce that before any buses go on the surplus
list, if anyone wants one, they are to ask.
And that is the Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority’s
process. They will donate a bus to any
government entity that is part of the CFRTA that requests it; he does not know
about the School Board.
Commissioner Lockhart stated she
knows the School Board regularly gives buses for the training center to utilize
and she does not know that they come to the Commission. She asked if the agreement was put on the
agenda at the request of LYNX or at their own organization’s request. Ms. Guillet replied that it appears to have
been prepared by LYNX, but they can look into it. It may be that FTA requires an MOU because
there was federal funding associated with it, so it may be required to transfer
an asset, but they will double-check on that.
Chairman Constantine remarked that
he knows one of the Turtle Top buses was for the Transportation Disadvantaged,
and they might be wonderful for Rescue Mission if they ask.
Commissioner Zembower said he sees
value in this being on the public agenda so people understand what their
firefighters are actually doing in their training. He opined that the public does not understand
how good of a training center they have in their Fire Division.
Motion by Commissioner
Zembower, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to approve the following:
Community
Services
Business
Office
5. Approve and accept the Neighborhood Stabilization
Program Snapshot/Report, pursuant to Seminole County Resolution No. 2013-R-61,
and the HOME Program Activity Report, pursuant to Seminole County Resolution No
2015-R-51 for the month of April 2021. (2021-2730)
Development Services
Planning & Development
6. Authorize release of Maintenance Bond #SUR0053386 for
streets, curbs and storm drains, in the amount of $405,574.44 for Riverbend at
Cameron Heights subdivision; D.R. Horton, Applicant. (2021-2691)
7. Approve the plat for the Riverside Oaks Phase 2
subdivision containing twenty-eight (28) lots on 6.17 acres zoned PD (Planned Development), located on the north side of Celery Avenue, approximately one-half
mile west of Cameron Avenue; Toll Southeast LP Company, Inc.,
Applicant. (2021-2697)
8. Approve the plat for the Avila subdivision
containing three (3) lots on 17.68 acres zoned PD (Planned Development), located on the north side of West. SR
426, one-fourth mile east of SR 417; Geri
Robinson, Applicant.
(2021-2698)
Environmental Services
Business Office
9. Pulled from the agenda the request to approve the release of two Cash Maintenance Bonds with Escrow Agreements and four original Maintenance Bonds for water & sewer facilities as follows: (1) The Reserve at Interlachen in the amount of #3,524.40; (2) Epic Retail Phase 2 in the amount of $1,076; (3) #9911193, Axios in the amount of $2,340; (4) #3018616, Wexham Court in the amount of $31,830.15; (5) #LAIFSU737071, Waters Edge at Hawks Crest in the amount of $44,673.70; (6) #SU1156089, Meadows at Hawks Crest in the amount of $34,452.56, and (7) #54-225976, Oviedo Commerce Center in the amount of $4,990.60. (2021-2676)
Fire Department
Business Office
10. Approve and
authorize the Chairman to execute a Transit Bus Transfer Agreement with Central
Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX). (2021-2718)
Leisure Services
Greenways and Natural Lands
11. Approve
and authorize the Chairman to execute the Wetlands Mitigation Agreement with
LJF Acquisitions, LLC as part of the Environmental Permit relating to
Mitigation for Spring Hammock Preserve Improvements Project at a cost of
$20,000. (2021-2700)
Public Works
Engineering
12. Approve
and authorize the Chairman to execute a Purchase Agreement related to property
needed for installation of a mast arm signal pole for the SR 426/CR 419
Widening Project (1,008.88 ± SF) between Nelson & Company, Inc. and
Seminole County for $13,000, as full settlement of all attorney’s fees and
other claims for compensation from which Seminole County might be obligated to
pay relating to the property. (2021-2706)
13. Approve
and authorize the Chairman to execute the Second Amendment to Lease Agreement between
Brio, LLC and Seminole County. The lease
is set to expire on December 31, 2024 with an option to renew for an additional
three-year term. The annual rent
increase is $17,866.20 for a total of $35,742.00. (2021-2694)
Resource
Management
Budget
14. Approve
and authorize the Chairman to execute a Special Use Authorization Agreement
with the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) for part of the
Lake Jesup Shoreline Restoration Project. (2021-2699)
15. Approve
and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2021-R-68 implementing
Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #21-056 in the Court
Support Technology Fee (Art V) Fund to transfer $11,871 of operating budget for the procurement of a
replacement server. (2021-2692)
16. Pulled from the agenda for discussion.
17. Approve
and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate
Resolution #2021-R-70 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #21-059 in
the amount of $600,000 through the 2014 Infrastructure Sales Tax Fund reserves
for the Whitcomb Drainage Improvement Project (CIP# 02107099). (2021-2731)
18. Approve
and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2021-R-71 implementing
Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #21-060 in the amount of $83,368 in the 2014 Infrastructure
Sales Tax Fund reserves for the Spring Valley Farm Outfall Project (CIP#
01907066). (2021-2704)
19. Approve and
authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2021-R-72 implementing
Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #21-061 in the General Fund to transfer $247,618
from reserves for the reimbursement of parking lot damages from Hurricane Irma
to Seminole State College. (2021-2703)
20. Approve
submission of a Grant Application to the U.S. Department of Transportation,
Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Grant
Program, requesting up to $25,000,000 for the reconstruction of SR 426/CR 419
project; and execute appropriate Resolution #2021-R-73 implementing Budget
Amendment Request (BAR) #21-063 through the 2014 Infrastructure Sales Tax Fund
in the amount of $37,500; and authorize the County Manager to execute all
documents associated with the RAISE Grant.
(2021-2712)
Purchasing and
Contracts
21. Award IFB-604066-21/CAR - Term Contract
for Granular Activated Carbon Supply Reactivation Services to Calgon Carbon
Corporation, Moon Township, PA, and authorize the Purchasing and Contracts
Division to execute the Agreement. The
estimated cost of the Agreement is $660,000.
(2021-2670)
22. Pulled from the agenda for discussion.
23. Award RFP-604093-21/LNF - Term Contract
for Data Collection Services to Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants,
Inc., Maitland; and authorize the Purchasing and Contracts Division to execute
the agreement. The estimated annual
usage for this project is $90,000.
(2021-2693)
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.
Consent Agenda Item #16 – (2021-2695)
Lake Hayes Sidewalk Project Budget Amendment
Resolution
Chairman
Constantine indicated they would like someone from staff to answer Mr. Hyde’s
questions regarding this item. Jean
Jreij, Public Works Director, addressed the Board to explain the construction
costs for the sidewalk are at $233,000, which is the bid from the
contractor. They spent about $65,000 for
design. They originally were planning to
do the design inhouse, but they were unable to do that because of the unavailability
of staff. Some of the funding is for
unforeseen circumstances, but it does not mean they have to use it, and there
is also some contingency because construction costs are going up.
Commissioner
Zembower asked about the crosswalk, and Mr. Jreij advised it will not have
flashing yellow lights; it will be a sign only, and they had to avoid a large drainage
ditch.
Commissioner
Dallari stated the original budget was $113,000 for 2021, and now the cost has
almost doubled. Mr. Jreij explained originally
it was about $178,000 and they were planning to do the design inhouse and spend
some money for the consulting. But the
construction costs have increased tremendously.
They put this out to bid and they did not receive even one
response. Contractors were not bidding
because it was such a small project and because of the higher construction
costs and the shortage of manpower.
Commissioner
Dallari said right now they are splitting the project on the south side and
crossing over mid-block to the north side.
He asked why they wouldn’t keep it all on the north side and use the
existing crossing. Mr. Jreij advised it
is due to a large ditch in that area and if they stayed on the north side, they
would have to get an easement on the private property that exists there.
Commissioner
Lockhart stated she heard Mr. Hyde say that there was landscaping that was
going to be impacted on some private residences. Mr. Jreij noted that all the property
impacted is in the right-of-way; they are not encroaching on any private
property. He also mentioned that no trees
will be impacted. He added they had sent
45 notices to the residents and held a virtual meeting. There were about 4 or 5 residents that had
questions about the impact to their property and those have been resolved by
staff speaking to them.
There
was a brief discussion about grouping sidewalk projects together. Commissioner Lockhart asked that Mr. Jreij
categorize the list of projects that he said he will provide as sidewalk
projects that will be done individually versus sidewalk projects that are
programmed.
Commissioner
Dallari noted this project is on the list of the penny sales tax projects and
they can’t just remove it, but there are other needs for sidewalks, i.e. around
schools. He thought maybe they should be
removing the projects that are not truly needed right now because of the higher
construction costs. He wondered if
anyone had looked at this from that perspective. Mr. Jreij advised they first had to revisit
those on the penny sales tax list. The
most important criteria they look at is whether the sidewalks are close to
schools, within one or two miles. The
Board can delete this project if they want to, but it is an infill project to
close the gap between two walkways that do not connect now.
Commissioner
Dallari stated he knows there are safety issues on this street, and he would
like to continue this to have staff ensure that they have the appropriate
amount of funding for the sidewalks around schools. Mr. Jreij noted they do not have an inventory
for the entire county for sidewalks near schools, but they can compile that in
about six months’ time. Commissioner
Zembower suggested they adopt a sidewalk policy once and for all, be done with
it, give it to staff and let them get it done, because they continue to discuss
this over and over, and all they are doing is consuming staff time. Commissioner Lockhart said she thought they
had already given staff direction to come up with a way to run all of these
sidewalk projects through a process. Ms.
Guillet responded that they do have a public notice process depending upon the
degree of the size of the project and they are doing that. Commissioner Lockhart thought they had talked
about how staff was going to analyze and prioritize because they had referenced
a study that was done by a consulting firm that had different rankings and
ratings and weights. She asked if staff
was still utilizing that study for the projects that are being put out now, or
did those projects get programmed. She
asked if these, that they are seeing come before them now, are the ones that
they were doing inhouse trying to respond to the Board requesting that they get
projects out, or are these some that have been programmed and gone through this
new analysis. Mr. Jreij responded they
are both.
Mr. Jreij further explained they
have some from the referendum and some of them are requests from
residents. Commissioner Lockhart asked
that he provide them with a copy of that newly updated, prioritized list. Mr. Guillet clarified for the public that
there are two different sets of sidewalk projects that are paid for out of the
sales tax. There are specifically
enumerated projects on the list, and English Estates was one of them, and this
is one of them that is specifically identified on the sales tax referendum
list. Then there is a separate pot of
money for pedestrian safety projects, etc., and that is where this analysis of,
“Are they in the ATKINS analysis for sidewalks, has it been requested by a
neighborhood, is there an issue at a school?”
That is where the prioritization that was developed in concert with
Jacobs comes in and those are unnamed projects that are funded through the
sales tax, and many of them are included in the 2040 Transportation Plan that
the Board has approved. She commented
that Mr. Jreij is correct in that it is fluid, and they will be happy to get
the latest update to them on how they have been prioritized.
Commissioner Zembower talked about
whether they want a walkable community or not, and if they do or they don’t,
what is the criteria for filling in those areas that don’t have sidewalks. Commissioner Dallari stated he believes they
need a walkable community and that if there is a missing gap, that they should
be filling that in. He wants to make
sure they are filling in the gaps around elementary schools first so they can ensure
there is enough funding to put the sidewalks in where they are needed
most.
Commissioner Herr wondered if there
is a question about the availability of funding. She noted she appreciated Mr. Hyde’s comments
about the budget, but they are in a period of time now that is probably going
to last for a while, where costs are going up on all sorts of things including
construction. They haven’t even talked
about the notion of pay scales going up, and that is probably not contemplated
in this yet. She asked whether there is
a fear in the budget that they are not going to be able to put sidewalks around
elementary schools, and therefore should delay this one project in order to
facilitate that. Mr. Jreij said in the
Land Development Code, they are required to put a sidewalk on both sides of the
street in any development, and they are required to put a sidewalk along an
existing street along the property line, from property line to property
line. If you look at the penny tax, they
are broken into divisions which are major streets, minor streets, and so
on. They don’t have any issues with the
funding between now and 2040 when the penny tax program ends. Beyond that, if they still have the penny
tax, they will continue the program. If
they don’t, they will have to come up with a different type of funding, but now
they try to prioritize for what they think is a more crucial area, whether it
is for stormwater, sidewalks or turn lanes in connection with safety.
Commissioner Herr said she would
support continuing this, but not for six months because it will just come back
and cost more. So
if the notion is that they would continue it to facilitate conversation between
the local residents and their team that may not have already happened to get to
a design that is acceptable, that is all good.
She stated it seems to her that they have a plan, they just occasionally
don’t like the plan and don’t want to stick to the plan, and she agrees that
they continue to “twist the tails” of staff around the idea that this little
piece does not match what the notion should be.
She opined they either need to revisit the plan and give it leeway to
accommodate this, or they need to revisit the plan and then stick to that plan,
if that is a possibility.
Commissioner Lockhart remarked in
regard to whether they want a walkable community or not, she doesn’t believe it
is an all-yes or all-no answer. She
thinks there are some communities, especially older communities, where
retrofitting sidewalks into them is not appropriate. But until and unless they start having those
conversations with the community, it is their money and their neighborhood, and
she does not know that this Board can necessarily say, “Sidewalks for all or
sidewalks for none.” She thinks they
have got to look at each one. She is
also okay with delaying if that is what the District Commissioner would like to
do for a period of time to have more conversation. She is going to rely on the County Manager
and her team to get them criteria that the Board can agree on, so they know
that every time these sidewalk projects are making their way through the
process that that is the criteria they are looking at when they prioritize
them. She has not seen the emails where
that has been given to them, but she would like to get those.
Commissioner
Dallari indicated he had every intention of approving this, but when he asked
about the funding of sidewalks around elementary schools, he was concerned
because they don’t know if the penny sales tax will be renewed. In fact, renewing that sales tax will be a
big effort and not easy. He wants to
ensure students can get to and from their schools if they have to walk. Commissioner Lockhart asked that they expand
that to include all schools because there are many middle and high school
students who walk as well. Chairman
Constantine noted then that they agree this needs to be researched more by
staff.
Ms. Guillet asked for
clarification. She said in regard to
this specific project, this is an enumerated project on the sales tax list, and
they have already expended $65,000 on design.
There are some projects that are on the 2014 sales tax list and they
assume, maybe incorrectly, that those were the priority projects. They were enumerated and included in the
resolution establishing the sales tax that were priority and specifically named
in that resolution. She asked whether
they should stop making that assumption and hold off on moving forward with the
remaining projects. It does not sound
like there are a lot left from a sidewalk standpoint, but should they wait and
not do anything else on the other enumerated sidewalk projects on that
list. Chairman Constantine noted if any
of the commissioners, when looking at the sidewalks on the list in their own
districts, have any problem at all with them, he would like them to inform
staff. Commissioner Lockhart noted that
they will need the list first.
Commissioner Herr pointed out the
issue does not typically come up from one of the commissioners. The issue comes up when the community says,
“Whoa!” She asked if all of the projects
have been socialized within the neighborhoods and if they have the
feedback. Ms. Guillet responded they
probably have not. Commissioner Herr
said then the citizens have not yet been engaged. Commissioner Dallari expressed his issue here
is with costs of construction going up exponentially and they can see that in
this project alone. He wants to make
sure that sidewalks are constructed at the schools to provide a safe path.
Mr. Jreij asked in order to provide
that data for around the schools, should he be looking at a one-mile radius or
two miles. Commissioner Zembower stated
he has to believe there is some kind of study of best practices in and around
educational institutions, some kind of engineering criteria or study. Maybe they should start there. But he noted if there were not enough
sidewalks around their schools that their phones would be burning up, and he has
not had one call about that. He has had
calls from parents wanting sidewalks elsewhere to get their children off the
road and calls that citizens don’t want a sidewalk somewhere.
Motion by Commissioner
Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Lockhart, to continue to June 22, 2021 at
1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, the request to approve a
Resolution implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #21-058 in the amount of
$168,640 in the 2014 Infrastructure Sales Tax Fund reserves for the Lake Hayes
Sidewalk Project (CIP# 01785254).
Under discussion, Commissioner Herr
stated she does not want to lose sight of the question posed by the Public
Works Director which was really pointed.
She said she appreciates that there are probably best practices, but
that does not actually mean that they will listen to those. So what number do they want him to look at, a
half mile, one mile, or two miles.
Commissioner Dallari said he would refer to the school busing
process. Commissioner Herr noted the
students walk if it is less than two miles.
Mr. Jreij commented he appreciates the clarification.
Chairman Constantine recalled at
one point for any of the sidewalks on the list, they asked that staff reach out
to the neighborhoods to start dialogue as soon as possible so they will know if
there is any objection or concern. He then
asked that the County Manager have staff talk with Mr. Hyde to alleviate any of
his concerns.
Ms. Guillet inquired as to what the
Board is asking for within the next 30 days in order to help them with their
decision-making. Commissioner Dallari
advised he would like to have a cursory review as to whether there are adequate
sidewalks for children that are required to walk for middle and elementary
schools. Ms. Guillet pointed out that
Mr. Jreij had stated that could not be done within 30 days. Mr. Jreij reiterated it would be more like
six months to look at two miles around all of the schools. Chairman Constantine commented he thinks if
they ask the School Board, they may be able to get an answer from them faster
than 60 days.
Commissioner Dallari said he has no
problem to amend his motion on that, but he thinks if they ask the School
Board, they will know where the problems lie.
Chairman Constantine wondered how long the contract lasts if they are
going to postpone this because he does not want them to have to come back and
rebid. Mr. Jreij responded it is
normally between 60 or 90 days, and they have already had it at least 60 days,
because the last time they brought it to the Board for funding, they asked them
to go back and talk to the community, and they had already received the bid by
that time.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted
AYE.
Consent Agenda Item #22 – (2021-2696)
Rolling Hills
Community Park Design Agreement
Commissioner Herr explained that she
asked this to be pulled for separate discussion so that she can abstain from
voting. One of the subcontractors is a
client of her employer, Hylant. (Form 8B, Memorandum of Voting Conflict,
received and filed).
Commissioner Dallari commended staff
for their due diligence in doing this project.
He thinks they have done a phenomenal job in their recommendations and
he has also seen the video that was submitted.
He would love to get a copy to Commissioner Henley (retired) so that he
can see it. He noted that Chairman
Constantine was one of his high school students and the Chairman stated he
could get that to him.
Commissioner
Dallari noted on page 223 of the packet under Phase I, there is a note that
states the following:
“The Consulting Firm/Team selected shall also coordinate with the
design of the traffic calming improvements for the road adjacent to the project
that may affect the design or location of the trail.” He would like to see that expanded to include
the road as well as drainage and lighting because the road in total would need
to be coordinated, not just the traffic calming devices for the trail.
Motion by Commissioner
Zembower to approve the ranking list and authorize staff to negotiate rates in
accordance with the Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act; and authorize the
Purchasing and Contracts Division to execute an agreement for PS-3533-21/TAD -
Rolling Hills Community Park Design; Estimated Term Usage is $1,300,000.
Motion by Commissioner
Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Zembower to add a friendly amendment to include his suggestion that the road as well
as drainage and lighting be included, not just the traffic calming devices for
the trail.
Districts 1, 2, 3, and 4 voted AYE to the friendly
amendment.
District 5 abstained.
Motion
passes 4 to 0.
Districts 1, 2, 3, and 4 voted AYE to the main
motion.
District 5 abstained.
Motion
passes 4 to 0.
CONSTITUTIONAL
OFFICER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Clerk & Comptroller’s Office - Item #24 – 2021-2702
Motion by Commissioner
Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Lockhart, to approve Expenditure Approval
Lists dated April 13, 27, and May 4, 2021; Payroll Approval Lists dated April
15 and 29, 2021; and BCC Official Minutes dated March 9, 23, and April 13, and
21 (Special Session), 2021. Listing of
"Received and Filed" documents is for information only.
With regard to public
participation, no one spoke in support or opposition, and public input was
closed.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.
Clerk & Comptroller’s “Received and
Filed” Documents
1. Executive Orders #2021-017, #2021-018, #2021-019, and #2021-021 extending the Declared Local State of Emergency for COVID-19.
2. Executive Order #2021-020 regarding COVID-19 and the use of Social Distancing/Face Coverings.
3. Public Officer Oath for Daniel P. Priest, Seminole County Contractor Examiner Board.
4. Special Counsel Services Agreement for Restitution and Reimbursement of County Funds received in an Illegal or Improper Manner resulting in Unjust Enrichment or Fraud with Foley & Lardner, LLP.
5. Symetra Contract #16-011528-000 for Stop-Loss Insurance: Policyholder Acceptance and COVID-19 Specific Deductible Step-Down Endorsement; as approved by the BCC on December 8, 2020.
6. ESG Subrecipient Agreement with Recovery House of Central Florida, Inc. for Program Year 2020-2021 under the One-Year Action Plan (2019-2020) approved by the BCC on July 13, 2019.
7. CDBG Program Subrecipient Agreement with Kids House of Seminole, Inc. for Program Year 2020-2021 under the One-Year Action Plan (2020-2021) approved by the BCC on February 23, 2021.
8. ESG-CV Subrecipient Agreement with Recovery House of Central Florida, Inc. for Program Year 2020-2022 under the One-Year Action Plan (2019-2020) approved by the BCC on March 9, 2021.
9. ESG-CV Subrecipient Agreement with Seminole County Victims’ Rights Coalition, Inc. for Program Year 2020-2022 under the One-Year Action Plan (2019-2020) approved by the BCC on March 9, 2021. (The Fourth Amendment to the One-Year Action Plan is in connection with COVID-19 additional funding made available by HUD.)
10. First Amendment to the Home Program Agreement with Habitat for Humanity of Seminole County and Greater Apopka, Inc. for 3861 French Avenue, Sanford. The French Avenue project falls under the 2019-2020 One-Year Action Plan approved by the BCC on July 23, 2019.
11. CDBG Program Subrecipient Agreements (7) for Program Year 2020-2021 under the Five-Year Consolidated Plan (2020-2024), and the One-Year Action Plan (2020-2021) approved by the BCC on February 23, 2021, with the following organizations: Recovery House of Central Florida, Inc.; The Christian Sharing Center, Inc.; Lighthouse Central Florida, Inc.; United Cerebral Palsy of Central Florida, Inc.; Seniors First, Inc.; Kathleen Anderson Comprehensive Work Center, Inc. d/b/a Inspire of Central Florida (under Public Facilities/Improvements); and Kathleen Anderson Comprehensive Work Center, Inc. d/b/a Inspire of Central Florida (under Public Services).
12. Reimbursement Agreement between the City of Altamonte Springs and Seminole County relating to the Altamonte Springs COVID-19 Predictive Model Program in connection with COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater.
13. Bill of Sale in acceptance of the Water and Wastewater Systems for the project known as Hideaway Cove Phase 3.
14. Bill of Sale in acceptance of the Reclaimed Water, Potable Water, and Wastewater Systems for the project known as Enclave at Alafaya.
15. Addendum #1 to Development Order #20-20500035, Tuskaloma Townhomes PD f/k/a Alta Seminole PD; Aloma Seminole Property, Inc. and Orlando Tusk, LLC.
16. Development Order #21-30000022, Jose Perez, 5301 Pineview Way.
17. CORRECTED Development Orders #20-30000060, Michael Boffeli, Lot 74 Lincoln Street and #20-30000061, Lot 73 Lincoln Street.
18. Development Orders #21-30000006, Srijib Chatterjee & Ranjana Dhar, 464 Bottlebrush Loop; #21-30000007, Steven & Patricia Steward, 2460 Hunterfield Road; #21-30000008, David Rickey, 360 Redwing Way; #21-30000009, Jose Elias, 128 Vagabond Way; #21-30000010, Brian & Julie Schuette, 1592 Lake Markham Road; #21-30000012, Imad Nasnas and Grace Nasnas, 1325 Ballentyne Place; #21-30000013, Bernadette Sostillio, 1240 Winston Road; and #20-30000014, Edward & Nilda Price, 250 Twelve League Circle; and #21-30000044, Irwin & Ruth Shiller, 5525 Misty Wood Court.
19. Maintenance Bond #42BSBCG2630 (Streets, Curbs, Storm Drains) in the amount of $30,068.61 for Galileo School for the Gifted.
20. Performance Bond #0236322 (Roads, Streets, Drainage) in the amount of $18,808.65 for Vintage Lake Mary.
21. Performance Bond #107378838 (Roads, Streets, Drainage) in the amount of $95,067.15 for Sanford Station.
22. Performance Bond #SEHNSU0794464 (Roads, Streets, Drainage) in the amount of $33,889.80 for Winter Springs Marketplace.
23. Maintenance Bond #SUR0060735 (Water, Reuse and Sewer Facilities) in the amount of $19,962.40 for Hideaway Cove Phase 3.
24. Maintenance Bond #3480387 (Water and Sewer Facilities) in the amount of $14,755.00 for Enclave at Alafaya.
25. Tourist Tax Funding Agreement with Florida Diamond Sports Management for the Boombah Mother’s Day Bash.
26. Tourist Tax Funding Agreement with the District Board of Trustees of Seminole State College of Florida for the FCSAA State/NJCAA Region 8 Softball Tournament.
27. Tourist Tax Funding Agreement with Perfect Game Youth Florida, Inc. for the Sanford Invitational.
28. Tourist Tax Funding Agreement with USSSA Central Florida Fast Pitch LLC for the Bownet Frenzy B Championships.
29. Pet Rescue Cooperative Services Agreement with Sunshine Airedales of Florida.
30. Parks Contract for Services with Nelson Marchione, Steven Jay Davis, and Charity Walker.
31. Amdmt #2 to W.O. #61 to PS-0009-15 w/ATKINS North America, Inc.
32. Amdmt #9 to W.O. #2 to PS-0426-16 w/England-Thims & Miller, Inc.
33. C.O. #1 to W.O. #26 to CC-0559-15 w/Central Florida Environmental Corp.
34. Closeout to W.O. #27 to CC-0559-15 w/Southland Construction, Inc.
35. C.O. #1 to W.O. #28 to CC-0559-15 w/CFE Corporation.
36. W.O. #13 to RFP-0672-15 w/The Colinas Group, Inc.
37. W.O.s #32, #33, #34, and #35 to PS-1320-17 w/Southeastern Surveying and Mapping Corp.
38. W.O. #35 to PS-1320-17 w/Wood Environmental & Infrastructure.
39. Amdmt #1 to W.O. #16 to PS-1474-17 w/S2L, Inc.
40. W.O. #19 to PS-1474-17 w/S2L, Inc.
41. W.O.s #16 and #17 to PS-1522-17 w/Tierra, Inc.
42. W.O.s #16 and #17 to PS-1529-17 w/Iteris, Inc.
43. Amdmt #1 to W.O. #14 to PS-1709-18 w/CDM Smith, Inc.
44. Amdmt #1 to W.O. #4 to PS-1802-18 w/Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
45. Amdmt #1 to W.O. #5 to RFP-1932-18 w/Renaissance Planning Group, Inc.
46. Amdmt #2 to W.O. #3 to PS-1946-18 w/Environmental Science Associates Corp.
47. W.O. #22 to PS-1998-18 w/E. Sciences, Inc.
48. Amdmt #2 to W.O. #2 to PS-2101-18 w/HDR Engineering, Inc.
49. W.O. #3 to PS-2101-18 w/HDR Engineering, Inc.
50. C.O. #8 to CC-2352-19 w/COMANCO Construction Corp.
51. C.O. #14 to CC-2466-19 w/Morrissette Electric, Inc.
52. Amdmt #4 to W.O. #6 to PS-2468-19 w/ CPH, Inc.
53. Closeout to CC-2696-19 w/Linton Enterprises, Inc.
54. Amdmt #1 to W.O. #1 to PS-2717-19 w/Project Management Advisors, Inc.
55. W.O.s #6 and #7 to PS-2826-20 w/Pegasus Engineering, LLC.
56. W.O. #8 to PS-2826-20 w/ATKINS North America, Inc.
57. Closeout to CC-3037-20 w/Chinchor Electric, Inc.
58. Closeout to CC-3052-20 w/Bearing Point Construction, Inc.
59. PS-3253-20, Engineering Services for Trail Projects, w/Horizon Engineering Group, Inc.; CPH, Inc.; and England-Thims & Miller, Inc. (Ranking List approved by the BCC on October 27, 2020.)
60. PS-3505-21, Big Econlockhatchee and Little Econlockhatchee Drainage Basin Study, w/Inwood Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Ranking List approved by the BCC on March 23, 2021.)
61. Ninth Amdmt to PS-9742-14 w/Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.
62. Amdmt #1 to W.O. #9 to PS-9742-14 w/Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.
63. Third Amdmt to IFB-602958-17 w/Continental Battery Company.
64. First Amdmt to IFB-603725-20 w/TechnicalRescue.com, Inc.
65. First Amdmt to IFB-603725-20 w/Ten-8 Fire Equipment, Inc.
66. First Amdmt to RFP-603939-20 w/WSP USA, Inc.
67. IFB-604046-20, Term Contract for Door and Frame Repair, w/DH Pace Company, Inc. d/b/a DH Pace Door Services.
REGULAR
AGENDA
Agenda Item #25 – 2021-2667
Code Enforcement Lien – 3760 Jessup Avenue
Stanley F. Thompson, Applicant
Patt Hughes, Planning and Development, addressed the Board to present the request as outlined in the agenda memorandum. It was determined that the Applicant was not present because he lives out of state.
With regard to public participation, no one spoke in support or opposition, and public input was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Zembower, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to approve a reduction to the Code Enforcement Board lien of $2,300 for Case #04-31-CEB, under the Code Enforcement Lien Amnesty Program, to the reduced administrative costs of $250, on the property located at 3760 Jessup Ave., Sanford, Parcel #09-20-31-501-0200-0180, and require this reduced amount to be paid within 30 days, or the lien will revert to the original amount of $2,300; and authorize the Chairman to execute the Release of Lien upon payment in full; Stanley F Thompson Applicant.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.
Agenda Item #26 – 2021-2669 -
Code Enforcement Lien – 3210 Lincoln
Street
Michael D. Boffeli,
Applicant
Ms. Hughes presented the request as
outlined in the agenda memorandum.
With regard to public participation, no one spoke in support or opposition, and public input was closed.
Steve Coover, Hutchison Mamele & Coover, P.A., on behalf of the Applicant, addressed the Board to advise that Mr. Boffeli and his son own Boffeli Construction. They bought two lots in Midway and both have full-time jobs, but their construction business allows them to have a second income. They got caught on this one; the title company missed it, but the bank’s lawyer found it. They have a construction loan lined up, and the Applicant is kind of stuck with an $80,000 lien on two properties that are in compliance where he plans to build affordable housing. Mr. Coover asked that the Commission waive the lien so Mr. Boffeli can close on the loan and build two houses in Midway. He noted he is happy to answer any questions and thanked staff saying they were very helpful.
Chairman Constantine asked what the partial waiver entails that they are asking for. Ms. Hughes explained that per Florida State Statutes, when they place a lien on a property, it affects any other property owned by that person, so therefore the one property got attached to the “liened” property. Commissioner Herr noted that that property has since changed hands.
Motion by Commissioner
Herr, seconded by Commissioner Lockhart, to approve the request for the Release
of Lien for the property located on Lincoln St., Sanford, Parcel #33-19-31-300-0730-0000,
that was attached due to a Code Enforcement Special Magistrate lien of $81,800
for Case #15-08-CESM located at 3210 Lincoln St., Sanford, Parcel #33-19-31-300-0700-0000
(maintaining the lien against the property located at 3210 Lincoln Street,
Sanford); Michael D. Boffeli, Applicant.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.
COUNTY INVESTMENT ADVISOR REPORT
Scott
McIntyre, Managing Director of Hilltop Securities, attended remotely and addressed
the Board to present the Investment Advisor’s Report (received and filed).
Motion by Commissioner Zembower, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to
adopt the recommendations of the Board’s Financial Advisor based on the report
submitted today, ratify all investment actions taken since the last Board
meeting, and recommend for the Clerk to implement said Board recommendations.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.
COUNTY
ATTORNEY BRIEFING
Desmond Morrell, Senior Assistant County Attorney, addressed the Board to introduce their summer intern, Mr. Jodiceson Woody who is here from FSU Law (Florida State University). He stated Mr. Woody will be finishing up next summer with his J.D. and also a Master’s in Public Administration, with a concentration in Emergency Management and Homeland Security. The Board welcomed Mr. Woody, and Chairman Constantine congratulated FSU fans on having a new president.
--------
Commissioner Zembower asked when they would be doing the Business Spotlight again and Ms. Guillet responded they would be reinstating that as soon as they can.
--------
Chairman Constantine recessed the
meeting at 11:40 a.m.; reconvening
at 1:30 p.m. with all Commissioners and all other Officials, with the exception
of Deputy Clerk Terri Porter who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Chariti Colón,
who were present at the Opening Session.
PROOFS OF
PUBLICATION
Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Zembower,
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.
-------
All Districts submitted ex parte
communications at this time for Item #29, River’s Edge Large Scale FLU & PD
Rezone.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS – QUASI-JUDICIAL
Agenda Item #27 – 2021-2668
Pine Level Unnamed Alley Right-of-Way
Vacate
Seminole County Community Services,
Applicant
Mary Moskowitz,
Planning and Development, addressed the Board to present the request as
outlined in the agenda memorandum. Ms.
Moskowitz added that as part of the vacate resolution, a 7-foot utility
easement will be placed over the subject vacate.
With regard to public participation, Aretha Riggins, neighbor to the
vacant lot, inquired if the lot will be for sale once it is vacated. Ms. Moskowitz responded the property will be
going back to Seminole County and will not be sold. Commissioner Lockhart clarified with Ms.
Riggins that she was asking about a Habitat for Humanity house being built on
the lot, and Ms. Riggins also inquired how long the lot will be vacant. Allison Thall, Community Services Director,
advised Habitat for Humanity approached the County, and they are going to be
constructing a single-family home for a very low-income family. Once the vacate is approved, the lot will be
annexed into the City of Sanford. Once the
restrictive-use covenants and mortgages are all filed, the County will deed the
lot over to Habitat and Habitat will begin construction. Ms. Thall stated she believes this project
will be underway easily within the next 60 to 90 days.
Public Comment Form not received.
No one else spoke in support or opposition, and public input was
closed.
Paul Chipok, Deputy County Attorney, advised Environmental Services
requested to keep the drainage and utility easement on the property. However, through the doctrine of merger, you
can't grant an easement to yourself because then it would just merge into the
property and the easement would not exist.
In order to maintain the drainage easement on the property, the
resolution reflects they are vacating the access rights to the property but
retaining the drainage and utility easement across that section of
alleyway. Chairman Constantine inquired
if there was anything special that needed to be put in the motion, and Mr.
Chipok responded there was not and they could adopt as recommended by staff.
Motion by Commissioner Herr, seconded by Commissioner
Lockhart, to adopt appropriate Resolution #2021-R-74 vacating and abandoning an
uncut portion of an unnamed right-of-way as recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 37,
in the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida; Seminole County Community
Services, Applicant; as described in the proof of publication.
Districts 1, 2, 3,
4, and 5 voted AYE.
Agenda Item #28 – 2021-2679
S.R. 46 Right-of-Way Vacate
Susan & Robert Parcells, Applicants
Ms. Moskowitz
addressed the Board to present the request as outlined in the agenda memorandum
With regard to public participation, no one spoke in support or
opposition, and public input was closed.
Motion
by Commissioner Herr, seconded by Commissioner Zembower, to adopt appropriate Resolution #2021-R-75 vacating and
abandoning an uncut portion of S.R. 46, lying in Section 26, Township 19 south,
and Range 30 east, of Seminole County, Florida, for property located at 2301 W.
1st Street, Sanford; Susan & Robert Parcells, Applicants; as described in
the proof of publication.
Districts 1, 2, 3,
4, and 5 voted AYE.
Agenda Item #29 – 2021-2677 - TRANSMITTAL
River’s Edge Large Scale FLU & PD
Rezone
American Development & Construction,
Inc., Applicant
Ms. Moskowitz
addressed the Board to present the request as outlined in the agenda
memorandum. Bill Pigozzi,
Applicant, addressed the Board and advised the subdivision is about one quarter
mile from the river. This community will
have the same lot size as Sterling Meadows, which is to the south, and Cameron
Heights, which is to the west. The
density will be approximately 3.2 units per acre. There will be no docks allowed, and the
wetlands will be in a conservation easement dedicated to the County and the St.
Johns River Water Management District.
There is a .17 impact, less than a quarter of an acre, to the
wetlands. Based on the construction
drawings being submitted, it's exactly 8,039 square feet, which is the
equivalency of about one lot. They did make an effort to secure additional lots but elected not to
move forward with that.
Commissioner Zembower inquired if they would be willing to adopt the
FWC Bear Awareness Program into the HOA documents, Mr. Pigozzi
responded he has no objection to that and supports it. Commissioner Zembower inquired if they are
able to ensure the lift station will be outside the floodplain area. Kim Fischer, Cycorp
Engineering, Inc., responded they have to put the lift station at the top of
the wet well, and they have to put it at a minimum of a foot above the proposed
100-year floodplain zone.
Commissioner Zembower requested clarification on what will ultimately
happen with the existing structures. Ms.
Fischer explained there are two existing homes that have a driveway from Lake
Mary Boulevard and there's a mobile home and some barns in the back that are
rented to someone who takes care of the cattle and horses. The two existing brick-and-mortar homes will
remain as long as the owner is still living.
Once the property owner Mr. Bergmann passes, they will then have rights
to purchase that piece which would become Phase 2. It would be five lots that would then be part
of the subdivision that is being proposed.
Commissioner Zembower confirmed with Ms. Fischer that Phase 1 will be 63
units and Phase 2 will be five units for a total of 68 units. Ms. Fischer added the two existing will still
function as they are. Once Mr. Bergmann
passes, they can become part of the HOA.
They will be getting rid of all the barns and mobile homes in that
portion.
Commissioner Dallari inquired what will happen to the dock once they
take over the Phase 2 property. Mr. Pigozzi responded they would look to dedicate it to the St.
Johns River Water Management District and the County. Commissioner Dallari inquired of Mr. Chipok
if there is anything that can be done to assure that once the Phase 2 property
is obtained that it will be turned over to St. Johns or another entity. Mr. Chipok advised the dock is addressed in
the supplemental handout with the revised DO under Subsection S and that
condition could be added. Chairman
Constantine confirmed with Mr. Pigozzi he would have
no objection adding that to the development order.
With regard to public participation, the following spoke in opposition
and addressed concerns of outdated floodplain maps, lift stations, conservation
areas, wetlands, wildlife, Florida native landscaping, a cattle-dipping vat
located on the property, river contamination, and environmentally sensitive
land: Cindy Haller, Natalia Rodriguez, Wafa Esposito, and Mark Hoffmann.
Commissioner Zembower clarified for the public that Seminole County
does not control the flood maps. That is
the function of FEMA, and they are continuously being updated across the
country. The County can only rely upon
what FEMA provides, which is the 2007 map.
Gabrielle Milch spoke in support and suggested the following
conditions: water conservation,
Florida-friendly and native landscaping, and education for people who will
potentially live in a floodplain.
Commissioner Lockhart inquired about when they said the number of
homes that were in the floodplain at the floodplain meeting Ms. Milch attended
if they delineated the difference between the finished floor level of the house
being in the floodplain or a portion of the property being in the floodplain. Ms. Milch explained the meeting was about the
floodplain ordinance and the update of the five-year plan, and it didn't have
the specific details about finished floor elevation on it.
Bill White, Development Review Engineering, responded to Commissioner
Lockhart's question and advised he didn't have an answer in relation to the
number. However, as far as development
moving forward, they do not allow development within the final floodplain. If there is property that is currently in the
floodplain and is developed, any portion of the buildable area of that would
not be in the floodplain. If there is a
portion of a lot that ends up in the floodplain, it will become a conservation
easement. Commissioner Lockhart stated
she pulled up the overlay of the FEMA floodplains, and she wanted to see where
this is lining up. Part of her property
is in a FEMA-designated floodplain, but the finished floor level of her house
is not. Those are two very different
conversations, and that's why she wanted clarification. Mr. White advised he will try to find out
that answer and email her.
No one else spoke in support or opposition, and public input was
closed.
Public Comment Forms received.
Ms. Fischer explained when they do post-development, none of the
houses will be in the 100-year flood zone.
They have to submit a CLOMAR to FEMA to remove those, and the way they
remove those is volumetrically. Seminole
County's local ordinance sets how far above the finished floor they go, which
is 1.0. None of the homebuilders are going
to want the homebuyers to have flood insurance because it's expensive, so they
won't have any houses in the floodplain.
She commented in regards to Commissioner Lockhart's inquiry that most
likely it is going to be number of properties, not buildings.
Commissioner Zembower inquired if the Applicant is willing to vacate,
dismantle, and remove the dock when they acquire the Phase 2 property so the
dock and structure is completely out of that wetland area as it exists today. Mr. Pigozzi
responded they are not taking title to it, and he can't make a commitment for
Mr. Bergmann's property. Commissioner
Zembower confirmed with Mr. Pigozzi that today they
are asking for development rights or entitlements to Phase 1 and Phase 2, and
Phase 2 is Mr. Bergmann's current residence that the dock and walkway is tied
to. Commissioner Zembower inquired of
Mr. Chipok if that can be put in as a condition of the development order. Mr. Chipok stated at the time that Phase 2
kicks in, the property will be coming over to the developer so they can put
that condition in there. Mr. Pigozzi stated the easement is going to St. Johns River
Water Management District. He would like
to be clear the Board is asking for something that he can't give because he
doesn't have title to it. St. Johns will
ultimately have title to it, and they will have to get the permit to remove it
if that’s what they want to do.
Alan Harris, Office of Emergency Management, explained even though Mr.
White is the floodplain manager, the Office of Emergency Management is
responsible for the development of the Floodplain Management Plan. Commissioner Lockhart's question related to
the number of parcels, and that is part of the Floodplain Management Plan to
indicate how many parcels are in the floodplain. That doesn't necessarily mean the structures
themselves are laying inside the floodplain.
Many were built after the ordinance requiring the 1 foot above base
level elevation, but that needs to be included in the Floodplain Management
Plan. The Floodplain Management Plan is
a group of individuals from various departments and entities that come up with
the strategy for how to deal with the floodplain. They did have a public meeting a week ago,
and they will bring forward a new Floodplain Management Plan to the Board on
June 8th. This is part of the community
rating system with the Floodplain Management Plan and having a strategy like
this. It offers points into the community
rating system which decreases the National Flood Insurance Program premiums for
the individuals and Seminole County.
Right now, they are at a Class 6 which means that every flood insurance
holder is 20% discount.
Mr. Chipok, reminded this is a transmittal hearing. If it does pass and move forward, it will go
to Department of Economic Opportunity and then come back for a final vote, so
the exact language on the dock and the usage doesn't have to be buttoned up
today. Conceptually, staff needs to know
where the Board wants to go so they can work out the final language for the final
public hearing. He confirmed with
Commissioner Zembower the gist of what they want is to vacate and remove the
dock prior to proceeding with the Phase 2 development.
Chairman Constantine reopened the public hearing for public
participation to allow Callie Adams to speak via telephone in opposition. No one else spoke in support or opposition,
and public input was closed. Public
Comment Form not received.
Chairman Constantine stated when this comes back from transmittal, he
would like the following conditions added:
remove and vacate the dock once it is being controlled; additional trees
and buffer to the south; HOA documents require bear awareness including signs,
native landscaping, and Florida-friendly native landscaping; no development in
any wetlands in that area.
Commissioner Herr stated she wanted to come back to the arsenic-laced
cattle-dipping vat. That doesn't
necessarily need to be in the development order, but she doesn't want the
County to lose sight of that.
Commissioner Zembower confirmed with Ms. Fischer that the environmental
study will address any cattle-dipping vat locations.
Commissioner Zembower stated he has some concerns regarding Phase 2
and the dock. He inquired of the
Applicant if Phase 2 is or is not locked in.
Ms. Fischer explained they had to include it in the PD because they are
carving out the property on that. She
clarified they are not impacting actual wetlands but mostly buffer. Sami El-Behiri,
Applicant, advised Mr. Bergmann owns two houses and is not intending to sell
them at this point, so they are not going to develop Phase 2 at this
point. They are going to develop only
Phase 1, and they don't have any access to the dock or the walkway.
Motion
by Commissioner Zembower, seconded by Commissioner Herr, to approve transmittal of the proposed Ordinance
enacting a Large Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment from Suburban Estates and
Planned Development to Planned Development to State and regional review
agencies, and, subject to final approval and adoption of the Large Scale Future
Land Use Amendment Ordinance, adopt the associated Ordinance enacting a Rezone
from A-1 (Agriculture) and PD (Planned Development) to PD (Planned
Development); and approve the associated Development Order and Master
Development Plan for approximately 134.67 acres, located on the east side of
East Lake Mary Boulevard, approximately ½ mile north of S.R. 46 with the following additional conditions: a maximum of 65 units, include the FWC Bear
Awareness Program in the HOA, vacate and remove the walkway and the dock with
permitting from St. Johns River Water Management District, and include at least
50% native landscape in the development of the project; American
Development & Construction, Applicant; as described in the proof of
publication.
Commissioner Herr
clarified with Commissioner Zembower the buffer to the south was purposefully
omitted from the motion. Commissioner
Dallari inquired if the intent is to increase any of the buffers or increase
the lot sizes by reducing the number of units.
Commissioner Zembower explained he is concerned with what's going to
happen with Phase 2 and whether or not it ever happens. Phase 2 was proposed for five units and an
impact to about 250 square feet of wetlands.
He thinks this will help mitigate that as well as some additional
buffering. When it comes back for the
final hearing, they will have an idea where that is. Ms. Fischer clarified they are not actually
contiguous to Sterling Meadows to the south.
There is a major ditch to the south of them, and then to the south of
the ditch is a commercial piece.
Chairman Constantine inquired if that would preclude them from still
saving trees on the south side of the property.
Ms. Fischer responded they are probably going to add to that existing
ditch. They have left a 10-foot drainage
easement in that area so the County can have maintenance to that ditch, which
is what she thinks staff is going to prefer since it's a major ditch. There are trees along the ditch and then the
commercial piece which is also heavily treed, and that is what is next to
Sterling Meadows, not this project.
Commissioner
Lockhart inquired from staff's perspective what the concern would be if Phase 2
doesn't happen. Rebecca Hammock,
Development Services Director, responded Condition S of the Development Order
addresses the dock. The condition does
state if it remains in private ownership and isn't developed in Phase 2, then
it would just stay with the current owner or his heirs. Therefore, staff would not have any concern
over the boardwalk or dock if Phase 2 is not developed.
Chairman
Constantine stated he did not hear in the motion there being no development in
the wetlands. He inquired if that is
something that could be added to the motion.
Commissioner Zembower responded he would be happy to take a friendly
amendment and consider it. Chairman
Constantine stated he believes if they are going to be successful with Florida-friendly
landscaping it needs 100%, so he would ask for those two friendly
amendments: Native landscaping and no
development in the wetlands.
Commissioner Dallari stated he would make that motion. Chairman Constantine called for a second to
the motion, without response, whereupon the motion died for lack of same.
Chairman Constantine inquired if no development in the wetlands would be
accepted as a friendly amendment.
Motion
by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Herr, to add a friendly amendment to include no development in the wetlands.
Districts 1, 2, 3,
4, and 5 voted AYE to the friendly
amendment.
Districts 1, 2, 3,
4, and 5 voted AYE to the main motion.
-------
Chairman
Constantine recessed the meeting at 3:09 p.m., reconvening at 3:22 p.m.
COUNTY
MANAGER’S REPORT
Ms. Guillet
distributed an Emergency Rental Assistance Program, Program Status (received
and filed) and advised they are at almost 50% for the program. She requested if anyone had any questions, to
contact her.
Ms. Guillet
provided an update on the American Rescue Plan.
An interim rule of 151 pages was issued about two weeks ago, and it is
still being analyzed by staff and other entities. Because it is an interim rule, it could
change. One of the most significant
elements of it is the covered period which begins March 3rd of this year and
runs through December 31, 2024, and the expenses have to be incurred by
2024. Under the CARES Act, the Treasury
was interpreting "incurred" to mean spent. However, the Treasury has a different
interpretation with respect to this legislation, and their interpretation now
is that "incurred" means committed, so the funds have to be committed
by December 31, 2024, and they will have until December 31, 2026, to actually
expend the dollars. This will allow an
opportunity to take more time and understand how to leverage those additional
programs and get the most out of this money.
There was a notice
issued on broadband grants available through the federal government that will
open up in August. They have not issued
any guidance on that yet. The Jobs Bill
should have some significant money that may cover some of the water and sewer
projects that could also be covered by the American Rescue Plan. Staff is still refining and will get with the
Commissioners as they have a better idea of what these moneys can be expended
on. They are looking at using some of
those dollars for the website and upgrading some of the virtual services. With respect to broadband, they have talked
to the State Department of Economic Opportunity, and they still don't know what
the State is going to do with their allocation of dollars that can be used for
broadband. They did advise that several
counties are hiring consultants to help assess what their broadband needs
are. They sent some sample RFPs and
identified which ones were better in which counties. Ms. Guillet noted staff may be coming before
the Board in the very near future to either piggyback on one of those contracts
or to issue a procurement so they can get somebody who can help the County
understand what the broadband needs are.
Ms. Guillet
reported she has also been meeting with the Cities. There seems to be agreement across the
management teams that there will be a consistent set of individual and business
incentive programs, if that's something the BCC wants to pursue, similar to
what was done under the CARES Act. This
bill, just like the CARES Act legislation, specifies small business incentives
and assistance. The concept they're
talking about with the Cities is doing something similar to what was done under
the CARES Act where the amount of the grant award would be based on the size of
the business. The businesses would be
provided a list of eligible expenditures, and they would have to certify the
funds were used for those expenditures.
There seems to be a desire on the part of the Cities that the County
administer the program. The Cities would
allocate however much money they want for that kind of assistance within their
jurisdiction. There would also be an
administrative fee associated to help offset some of the County's
administrative costs.
Ms. Guillet stated
they will need to submit an initial plan in July, and then submit a quarterly
report in August. At the next meeting,
staff will probably bring forward a draft refinement of what was originally
talked about. Ms. Guillet requested the
Commissioners continue to share their ideas.
Commissioner Herr requested the Board be provided with the document that
was originally socialized in a meeting with a red line. Ms. Guillet responded they are working on
that right now, and they will provide it before the next meeting. Commissioner Herr inquired what the current
amount of expected expenditures is. Ms.
Guillet explained they are down maybe 50 million right off the top. The broadband might be able to be shifted to
this grant program, and the water and sewer projects might be able to be
shifted to the Jobs Program. They will
be looking at how they can leverage funding in the various available programs.
COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S REPORT
No report.
FUTURE
AGENDA ITEMS
Public Comment on Items Not Related to the
Agenda
Bill Hyde extended
an invitation, in observance of Memorial Day, to attend the Oviedo Cemetery
from now until June 4th from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The Florida Fallen Memorial will be there,
which has 403 crosses representing Floridians who have died in military service
to the country since 9/11. These crosses
have names, military branch, rank, hometown, casualty date, age, photographs,
and awards. There are also 13 large
crosses representing conflicts in American history. American Legion Post 243 will be there to
"stand in watch" and welcome any visitors.
-------
Phil Kaprow,
Economic Development Committee Chair for the Oviedo-Winter Springs Chamber of
Commerce, addressed the Board to speak about challenges facing small
businesses. Due to the ongoing
individual assistance and unemployment benefits, there is a problem getting
people to come to work, which is hurting small businesses. Mr. Kaprow suggested there are ways the
County can possibly help, for example, by reimbursing small businesses if they
incentivize employees. He requested the
Commission take up this issue at their earliest convenience.
-------
Wafa Esposito addressed the Board to discuss floodplains,
meetings, and Florida native landscaping.
-------
Speaker Request
Forms received from Messrs. Hyde and Kaprow only.
DISTRICT
REPORTS
District
2
Commissioner
Zembower reported on events and meetings, Zoo attendance, and airport passenger
counts.
-------
The Commissioner
thanked the Sheriff’s Office for their assistance with an issue happening at
camp facilities where people are staying overnight and/or long term and not
paying the appropriate fees.
District
4
Commissioner
Lockhart reported an update from the Public Schools Facility Planning
Commission (PSFPC) meeting regarding the School Concurrency ILA. There was a Planning Technical Advisory
Committee (PTAC) meeting and then a little bit of time for some socialization
of what the PTAC did with the School Board's recommendation. A PSFPC meeting was scheduled, and the PSFPC
voted six to three to bring the School Board's language back to all of the
respective boards. Because of an order
of process, it was requested that the BCC take it up first. On June 1st, the School Board will be taking
up the two different motions that were made regarding Sections 11 and 12 of the
ILA. The Commissioner reminded the
information regarding the proposed language and those motions were emailed to
all of the Commissioners.
Commissioner
Lockhart stated she was going to ask the County Manager to "carry the
mantle" to make sure all of the parts and pieces are put together to make
this work. It is critical there is some
movement on this, and she is concerned they will be stuck with the current
Interlocal Agreement (ILA) if everyone takes their ball and just goes home with
it.
Commissioner
Lockhart pointed out they have a phenomenal staff who have worked very hard and
diligently to get all of the technical pieces together. However, she thinks staff has done it in
"hot potato" fashion because they have watched the conversations of
this Board and have felt a little bit hand-tied. Therefore, she is going to ask the County
Manager to own it moving forward because they need some creative legalese
thinking. The Commissioner added Mr.
Chipok had some great suggestions in a follow-up meeting. However, at this point, without having the
BCC reviewing Sections 11 and 12 and what the School Board is proposing,
there's no movement forward.
Commissioner
Zembower advised he listened to the recording of the entire PSFPC meeting, and
it seems there was an acute awareness discussed of where does the circle end of
all these different boards that have to weigh.
He thinks from a mechanics perspective, they need to find a way to
shorten the process. Commissioner
Lockhart responded the process and the mechanics are that for the last two
years technical staff and attorneys of all of those agencies have been meeting
and have been doing the work for that process, and then it was to be brought to
all of the boards thinking that they had already created a document that was,
for the most part, agreeable to all of the participants. However, what was agreeable has now
changed.
Commissioner
Zembower stated this Board took action and gave
direction to the liaison. The motion
that was made was to move forward with what was being discussed or presented at
the PSFPC meeting. The liaison decided
to vote to move that forward, and he is somewhat disappointed because the Board
gave direction of what their position was.
He thinks it might have been better handled by saying, I have direction
from my Board and this is what I've been given direction to do. Instead, it was voted to move it along, which
is going to lengthen the process. The
Commissioner commented if he has to make a decision on
behalf of the BCC at any other appointed-board meeting that would involve any
financial or any commitment, he is not going to vote on something that the BCC
has not approved. He will defer and tell
the other board he needs to get direction from the BCC.
Commissioner
Lockhart responded there was an expectation that staff was going to talk to
every Commissioner about the School Board's language and bring it back in some fashion. That email with that information did not come
out, and everyone got the information and got the School Board language Monday
before the last BCC meeting. She had no
opportunity to get direction from the BCC before the PSFPC meeting. At the PSFPC meeting, she was very upfront
about the fact that the BCC had proposed language, and the motion that was made
clearly was not the BCC's language. When
you listen to all of the rationale for why the School Board has concerns when
they made their alternative proposal, it didn't seem to her that it would help
to come to an agreement to just say she can't participate because she doesn't
have direction from the BCC. The only
way to get the School Board's proposal back to the BCC for review was to
advance it so that it could be discussed.
To just say no doesn't help get to an agreement. Even if she hadn't voted, the motion passed
anyway so they would still be looking at the School Board's language.
Commissioner
Lockhart opined there is a dynamic at play where staff feels uncomfortable
having this conversation with each Commissioner because it has become so
contentious. They need to let staff know
that it's safe to have this conversation.
Instead of pointing fingers and being mad at her because she didn't do
what three of the Commissioners wanted, the community deserves for the seven
cities, the School Board, and the County to be able to have an agreement. The Commissioner inquired how many counties
in the state have concurrency and interlocal agreements. Mr. Chipok responded he would say at least
half of the 67 counties. Commissioner
Lockhart stated she is perplexed why 30 or more other communities can figure
this out and they are having trouble.
She wants to get the conversation back on track, and she wants to look
for a solution.
Commissioner
Dallari expressed when he sits on regional boards, he has told those regional
people that in order for him to make a vote he has to get authority from the
BCC because he represents the BCC and the will of the BCC. In regards to the ILA, the BCC had a
discussion and gave direction. He thinks
it's important they act as a board as one voice, and that one voice is by the
majority. He hopes there was dialogue at
the PSFPC about why the BCC made that vote and how that vote took place. Commissioner Lockhart responded she doesn't
fully understand and couldn't explain why the majority of the BCC voted the way
they did. She is still at a loss for
some of the reasons why, and she can't explain why some of the Commissioners
voted the way they did.
Commissioner
Lockhart stated she hears what they are saying about representing the BCC. However, when they are in a meeting and
information is being shared, she would hope that they would be allowed the
opportunity to pivot. She would be upset
if they had new information or clarification revealed at a meeting and they
didn't use their critical-thinking skills to say something is important and
their board needs to have the opportunity to hear that so they are going to
support bringing it back to them. That
is what she did. She used her
independent judgment to evaluate the conversation and the information that was
shared to bring it back to the BCC. It
was not a final decision. It was an
opportunity to discuss the proposal. She
made a judgment call that it was in the best interest of this community for the
BCC to have the discussion and entertain the School Board's concerns.
Commissioner Herr
suggested they have lost sight of the mission which is to create a community in
which children get educated in schools that are close to their homes,
redistricting doesn't have to happen as often as it may, developers get to
develop reasonably within the community, and they continue to have the highest
education standards they have had in the past, which is the single greatest
economic driver in the community. It's
the reason why people want to live here.
They need to put the pin in the balloon, let the air out of it, and
start respecting each other and the process.
The fact that staff had worked for two years on this was lost on the
decision-making body, and she felt bad for the entire team that did it. They need to collaborate to come to the best
possible outcome for kids to get a great education and for the community to
continue to grow responsibility.
Chairman
Constantine reminded there was an incredible amount of discussion on this
particular topic. It was proposed that
88% had to either support or object something before it came in, which was a
vote of three to two. However, the full
vote was five to zero. Commissioner
Lockhart responded the School Board does not have a problem with the 88% for
the majority of the agreement. The two
pieces that they want to have unanimity is in the topics in Sections 11 and 12,
which have to do with school concurrency and the rezoning or redistricting of
students between schools. They want to
drill down into what the BCC proposed and see if it can be modified.
Commissioner
Lockhart explained there is a lot more that goes into selecting where children
go to school than just geographic location.
There is a very difficult balancing act with socioeconomic status which
ties directly to the consent decree.
Unless local governments want to get involved in micromanaging how the
School Board somehow manages that balancing act, she thinks part of the School
Board's concern is that they are the ones who are federally and state
statutorily responsible for assigning students to schools, and she thinks it's
worth hearing those concerns which is why she voted to bring it back to the
BCC.
Chairman
Constantine stated he thinks there's an understanding they should not get
involved in the rezoning of schools.
That is not their job and should not be.
He doesn't have a problem in finding a way to put everybody else out of
the rezoning business. He would like to
find a way to move forward and find an answer to this problem. The problem right now is they are at an
impasse.
Commissioner
Lockhart advised the School Board has a meeting/work session June 1st, and
School Board staff is going to walk through all of the details and see if
there's an opportunity for there to be some changes in some language in 11 and
12 that might make it a meeting in the middle, because some of that language,
depending on which attorney you listen to, could argue that it does put the
Cities and the County in the position of directing potential rezoning and
student attendance. They need to see if
there's some way they can figure out what that language is and say what needs to
be said in a different way. They owe it
to the community to figure out how to make this work. She doesn't think it's unfixable. She thinks they just need to spend a little
less time thinking about things from their perspective and think about things from
the opposite entity's perspective and understand where they're coming from and
vice versa.
Commissioner Herr
requested clarification on what they are doing next in the process. Ms. Guillet stated she wasn't aware of the
concern about the local governments doing something that is going to force the
School Board to rezone. She thinks
understanding the basis of that concern is really important. She suggests that County staff and School
Board staff try to zero in on that and for the County to explain what the
concerns are about regulating land uses and the obligations and
responsibilities that local governments have with respect to that. Ms. Guillet advised staff needs
direction. They need to know if the
decision has been made based on the Board's last action or if they want to see
if there is some way to address the issues.
Commissioner Herr stated
from her perspective, there's no confusion as to what they want to happen. They don't like the current ILA because it's
unanimous, so they want that changed.
They don't like that the current ILA has the ability to zigzag kids all
over the district because it's contiguous to the entire county. The school district has reason to change it
based on legislation that's happened that made the current document outdated,
so they at least need to fix that. Maybe
striving for perfection is going to get in the way of progress, and they should
all acknowledge that and start to make movement. She thinks staff would want a commitment at
this stage that once the Board has given direction, they don't come up with a
new issue to address after it goes through this whole process and it comes back
here. And she would ask that from staff
as well, that they can't come up with new stuff. It would be beneficial for her personally to
understand how they had one of the entities do a complete 180 on their
decision-making. She would like to
understand that better, and she will be reaching out to them to figure that
out.
Commissioner
Zembower stated his issues are with the unanimous issue on those two
topics. He has no problem with
concurrency. He thinks there's confusion
between all of the partners. First and
foremost, concurrency is a land use tool.
Land use is controlled by the legislative branches of government, which
would be the City Councils and the County Commission, and not the School
Board. They have had a history of
working well with the School Board for what's in the best interest. However, they must also look to the
future. In perpetuity, one of the bodies
of the agreement could change drastically that could impact the overall
intended goal of the decision-makers and the partners from when it was
originated. There has to be clear
understanding that they are binding future boards. All he is trying to point out to all of the
players is who enters into any kind of contract or agreement into
perpetuity. It makes no sense
whatsoever.
Chairman
Constantine stated he does hear some agreement.
Understanding their responsibility, they don't want to have any part to
do with rezoning of schools; and they don't want the School Board having
control over zoning, over land use, and comp plan. He would be happy for staff to work with
School Board staff to find a way that this agreement does not put the School
Board in a situation where they're dictating land use and the County and the
Cities are dictating rezoning of schools.
He inquired of Ms. Guillet if that is something that can be worked on
with the School Board's staff, and Ms. Guillet responded they can work on
it.
Commissioner Herr
inquired of Mr. Chipok if the agreement is perpetual by virtue of statute. Mr. Chipok responded the nature of it is,
yes. The issue is do they want
concurrency or not. If they want
concurrency, then they need to have the agreement. The agreement the way it reads now is that
all of the entities agree the County and the Cities have to revise and have
their Comprehensive Plans and their land development regulations consistent to
support that concurrency on a districtwide basis. The School Board's job under the agreement is
to implement that concurrency and tell kids which school they're going to. Any modifications to the agreement at this
point in time take a unanimous decision of everyone to modify the
agreement. In the future, if the BCC
decides they do not want concurrency, then they would approach the rest of the
players in the ILA and try to amend it within the body of the ILA; or failing
that, then they would proceed to other action which could be going to court to
say they think it's an illegal agreement because they are perpetually bound and
they want out of concurrency. Within the
structure of this particular agreement, yes, they are perpetually bound; but
there is a way out of this agreement if they determine they do not want to
support concurrency anymore.
Commissioner Herr
inquired who is responsible for bringing it to closure, and Mr. Chipok
responded all nine parties because all nine parties have to sign it. Commissioner Herr inquired who the lead
agency is, and Mr. Chipok responded there is no lead agency. He explained the School Board was the
protagonist in bringing this particular set of amendments forward because of
the statutory changes that occurred over time.
Commissioner Herr commented this is where she gets confused about
wanting concurrency but not wanting perpetual.
Commissioner
Dallari requested confirmation that concurrency is a land use issue. Mr. Chipok responded it's a land use issue in
that they are setting levels of service, and they have control over those
levels of service for everything but schools and maybe utilities. Commissioner Dallari confirmed with Mr.
Chipok that concurrency is also in the Comp Plan. Mr. Chipok explained the way schools are
implemented is the County sets the rules and portions of the Comprehensive Plan
and Land Development to be consistent with what is in the ILA, but the
implementation of that concurrency falls within the School Board because it is
districtwide. All of the seven Cities
and the County interplay, and the School Board is tasked under the ILA with
implementing that concurrency to make sure that the students are properly
assigned and that the levels of service which are communally set by each one of
the nine entities and are reflected in each one of their comprehensive plans
are properly implemented.
Ms. Guillet
clarified when they talk about implementation, the School Board manages the
capacity. Just like the County manages
the capacity at a water plant, the School Board manages the capacity in this
infrastructure system that is the school system. How they manage that infrastructure is
important because it impacts the BCC's ability to regulate land. How this Board manages land and land
development approval is important to the School Board because it impacts how
they're able to manage capacity, so they are interrelated. At the end of the day, concurrency is a
growth management tool, and it is a growth management tool that under the
statute is instituted at the discretion of the local governments.
Commissioner
Zembower stated concurrency is a legislative decision, plain and simple. If the legislative body does not decide they
want concurrency, then they have no need to deploy the School Board to manage
that. The Commissioner inquired if there
is anything in the statute that says the agreement has to be perpetual with no
expiration. Mr. Chipok responded it does
not, but the 2007 agreement is perpetual at this point. Commissioner Zembower confirmed with Mr.
Chipok that the legislature decided to do away with mandatory concurrency since
2007 and it is now voluntary. The
Commissioner confirmed with Mr. Chipok per the statute, the vehicle to
accommodate concurrency is an interlocal agreement, but nowhere in the
statutory language does it state the duration.
Commissioner Zembower inquired if they adopted the interlocal agreement,
regardless of what it says, could a future elective body with a passing vote
say they're going to do away with concurrency and it's done. Mr. Chipok responded that would be the
genesis of the decision, but implementation may be a little bit more
complicated.
Commissioner Zembower
stated he is not against concurrency, but he thinks there's a misunderstanding
of what concurrency is and what tool it is.
It is a tool of land use. The
legislative bodies have to decide whether they want concurrency or not. There is nothing in the statute that says
they have to have it into perpetuity which is why he has said since the
beginning he has concern with an agreement into perpetuity. He has no desire to tell the School Board how
to district or redistrict or run the schools.
The BCC's job is to decide whether they want concurrency and the land
use thereof, and he thinks the School Board doesn't completely understand the
land use aspect of that and how decisions that they make or some future boards
could make with redistricting and school operations could impact the land use
side indirectly, even though they're not the ones having a hearing to make
those decisions. The Commissioner stated
he would like the County Attorney's Office to put in writing where they stand
with binding future boards in perpetuity with this agreement or any other
agreement.
Chairman
Constantine recessed the meeting at 4:57 p.m., reconvening at 5:06 p.m.
Commissioner
Lockhart stated the reason why the School Board has come back is because the
BCC put in the 88%. From the School
Board's perspective, if the BCC hadn't done that, it wouldn't need to come
back. Moving forward, she would like
staff to meet with School Board staff, including an attorney from each team, to
look at the statutory language and the language that is in 11, 12, and 15. She wants each agency to identify the actual
language in those sections that supports their respective narrative that
there's an issue. She wants the School
Board to point out, highlight, underline, italicize, however and explain what
the language is in 11 and 12 that is giving them heartburn specifically; and
she wants the County to point out where the language is that makes them think
that they are somehow ceding over land use issues to the School Board. She wants the actual language identified by
the attorneys and explained. After they
get together and talk it through, she wants them to come back and report to the
BCC up on the screen the language and talk the Commissioners through it. The Commissioner pointed out that currently
on the bottom of page 8 or 9 was where the currently proposed language is that
brings back this agreement through the PSFPC automatically every three years or
something to that effect, and any one of the entities has the ability to take
the agreement back at any time. She
knows there's the perpetuity question, and she would like that question
answered in writing as well.
Ms. Guillet
requested clarification because not all of the issues are legal issues. There are some practical application issues
that should also be considered.
Commissioner Lockhart stated she has yet to have a staff member who is a
practical technician in this field tell her that they believe there's language
in there that would cede over land use and planning issues to the School Board
so she was assuming that's because there's some sort of legal jargon. So if there is
someone from staff who believes that there's language that does that, she wants
them to point it out as well. She keeps
hearing there's the jargon that's out there that people are saying it's going
to do that, but no one has pointed it out and explained what the language is
and how that abdicates the County's responsibility or authority over land use
and planning. Conversely, she is going
to ask the School Board to do the same thing and show her where in the language
they are saying that somehow the eight entities could band together and force
the School Board to rezone schools. She
wants both positions defended and explained and pointed out via the language
how that happens.
Ms. Guillet
commented there is a potential for future issues should circumstances
change. She thinks that, in part, drives
this idea they should be able to change the agreement and there shouldn't be
any one entity that says when 88% of the people agree, so she thinks that's
something the Board should look at as well.
Right now, the technical approach and the way the Concurrency Service
Areas (CSA) are proposed to be configured makes sense, but things could change
in the future; and being able to pivot from a local government standpoint is
important. She would like to be able to
identify some of those, and there may be issues on the School Board side that
they need to be able to pivot as well.
She thinks the proposal for the configuration of the CSAs, which align
with the attendance zones that the School Board has control over, is a very
reasonable and appropriate approach today.
An example of why the Board should be concerned about things in the
future is there could be a different composition of the School Board who could
decide they want to do something with those attendance zones that is very
impactful to local governments and their ability to regulate land. Commissioner Lockhart expressed that
statement is what she wants to have pointed out in writing. That's what she is asking for because she
keeps hearing that narrative but she's not seeing it. Ms. Guillet responded she knows where it is
so they can point it out. It's because
the School Board has the final, ultimate authority over attendance zones. She's not saying that they shouldn't, but
their ultimate control over that can impact CSAs. She wants the Board to know it's not
necessarily the configuration or the proposed technical elements of how
concurrency would be managed today but the ability to change it, and it’s not
the proposed management technique of today but the possibility of what could
happen in the future.
Commissioner
Lockhart stated the things that are being pointed out that the County Manager
is saying she has concerns over should have been pointed out over the course of
the last 18 months to two years while staff was working on this. They are now hearing that there are these
concerns, but the team has had this on their plates for more than two
years. If there was concern, it should
have been brought up back when they started.
Ms. Guillet explained some of these issues are a function of this issue
of perpetual agreements and unanimous approval, which are issues that were
raised by the BCC, so that's some of the thinking behind that.
Commissioner
Zembower stated it all comes down to trust.
He has no problem trusting the School Board today. He has no interest in the BCC, through any
agreement, dictating to the School Board how they do capacity, when they do redistricting, none of that.
However, you don't have to look far around the country to find areas
that because there is not capacity and you have a school board unwilling to
have the hard conversation of redistricting with the parents that then, by
default, impacts somebody's property rights to develop. That has always been his angst with the
perpetuity question. As long as they’re
all playing fine in the sandbox, it's a nonissue. But as soon as they have a turn with a
different body who has a different outlook and wants to construe the four
corners of that document for its literal means, they are in trouble. He doesn't think there's language in the
document that staff can point to that says the School Board dictates land use,
no different than it says any legislative body in this county dictates school
capacity or concurrency. He thinks a lot
are getting lost in the literal words of the document of what could occur
should they not have willing partners at the table.
Chairman
Constantine stated he thinks they have consensus on direction which is for
staff will get with School Board staff to try and see if they can come up with
some suggestions to get off of this impasse.
At the same time, they want some information about where it shows the
concerns of how this could happen in the future. And the two issues are unanimous other than
local government with land use, the School Board with rezoning, unanimous, and
perpetuity. The Chairman inquired if Ms.
Guillet understood what the direction was, and she responded yes.
District
5
Commissioner Herr
advised with regard to the Orange Boulevard Area Study survey questions, she
has asked if they can include a question when people are speaking before the
Board and when being surveyed that asks whether they live in the impacted area,
because there is a considerable amount of concern from the residents that live
in the impacted area that the loudest voices are from outside of the impacted
area and often across the county. The
Commissioner stated it will help her to understand the perspective that
somebody is coming from when providing input.
District
1
Commissioner
Dallari reported on an upcoming agreement with SunRail and Brightline. Brightline wants to use the SunRail corridor
and will be the link from the Orlando airport to SunRail.
District
3
Chairman
Constantine reported on events and meetings.
CHAIRMAN’S
REPORT
Chairman
Constantine advised there is a request from Harvest Time International for a
letter of support on medical services.
The Chairman inquired if there were any objections to sending the letter
and no objections were voiced.
--------
Chairman
Constantine stated there has been a request from Emory Green for a joint
meeting for Midway. He requested
Commissioner Herr, District Commissioner, take the lead on that and advise the
Board if she wants to have that meeting or not.
--------
The Chairman
briefly discussed the three preemption legislative bills the Florida
Association of Counties chose, which are 403, Home-Based Businesses; 896, Solar
Farms; and 268, Local Occupational Licensing.
--------
Commissioner
Lockhart read a public comment email from Ashley Morisette,
who was not able to stay for the entirety of the meeting, regarding the need
for pedestrian and bicycle facilities on Longwood Lake Mary Road due to the
increase of new businesses at the Oaks at Lake Mary Plaza. Email received and filed.
COMMUNICATIONS
AND/OR REPORTS
The following was
received and filed:
1. Letter dated May 13, 2021 from the members of the City of Oviedo City Council to the BCC Chairman re: the proposed Seminole County Mobility Fee Ordinance and development of a combined Mobility Plan and Mobility Fee. cc: Seminole County BCC members, County Manager, and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
2. Letter dated March 4, 2021 from Johnathan B. Paul, Principal, Nue Urban Concepts, to Debra Pierre, Planning Manager, City of Oviedo, re: Scope of Service for the development of a Mobility Plan and Mobility Fee for the City of Oviedo.
3. Letter dated May 20, 2021 from Commissioner Jay Zembower to Grant Review Panel, the Florida Division of Cultural Affairs, re: Support for a grant application submitted by the Central Florida Zoo and Botanical Gardens. cc: Central Florida Zoo & Botanical Gardens.
--------
There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman
declared the meeting adjourned at 5:39 p.m., this same date.
ATTEST:_____________________________Clerk___________________________Chairman
tp/cc