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