BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA

November 9, 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, November 9, 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

Deputy County Attorney Lynn Porter-Carlton

Deputy Clerks Kyla Farrell, Terri Porter, and Chariti Colon

OPENING CEREMONIES

Tom Weichart, Church at the Well, Sanford, gave the invocation. Veterans in the audience led the Pledge of Allegiance.

BOARD REORGANIZATION

Agenda Item #1 – 2021-3040

Commissioner Dallari stated he believes the Board reorganization should always be at the end of the meeting because to appoint a new Chair, and that Chair to take over at the beginning of the meeting, is not fair to the present Chair or future Chair. He understands that the agenda is set, and he has no problem voting on it today as it is stated; but in the future, he’d like to move it towards the end of the meeting. He believes whoever is Chair and Vice Chair, should take the position after the meeting is over. The Chairman agreed. Commissioner Zembower noted he thinks that would be a smoother transition and would be supportive.

Deputy County Attorney Lynn Porter-Carlton stated because their Operating Polices and Procedures requires the reorganization be in the morning session, they would need to make a motion to waive that requirement.

Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Zembower, to waive that requirement, put it into the afternoon, but they can vote on it this morning, and then bring back to permanently change it.

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

The gavel was surrendered to Deputy County Attorney Lynn Porter-Carlton to act as temporary Chairman to the BCC. Ms. Porter-Carlton opened the floor for nominations for the Chairman of the BCC.

Commissioner Constantine nominated Commissioner Dallari for Chairman of the BCC for 2021/2022. Ms. Porter-Carlton asked if there were any other nominations; hearing none, she asked for a motion to close the nominations.

Motion by Commissioner Lockhart, seconded by Commissioner Herr, to close the nominations for Chairman of the BCC for 2021/2022.

There was no call for a vote.

Ms. Porter-Carlton stated at this time the Board will vote on the nomination of Commissioner Dallari to be the new Chairman of the BCC.

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

Ms. Porter-Carlton announced Commissioner Dallari is now the newly elected Chairman of the BCC (effective at the close of this meeting). She passed the gavel to Chairman Constantine who opened the floor to nominations for Vice Chairman.

Commissioner Lockhart nominated Commissioner Herr for Vice Chairman.

Commissioner Zembower nominated Chairman Constantine for Vice Chairman.

Chairman Constantine asked for a motion to close nominations.

Motion by Commissioner Dallari to close nominations. Chairman Constantine asked if there were any objections, hearing none he asked for a vote on nominating Commissioner Herr for Vice Chairman.

Districts 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Chairman Constantine asked for all in favor of nominating Chairman Constantine for Vice Chairman.

Districts 1, 2, and 3 voted AYE.

Commissioner Constantine stated it’s 3 to 2; and with that, the Board has elected the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the BCC.

STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Agenda Item #2 – 2021-3045

Chairman Constantine stated they have to affirm the Standards of Conduct for the Seminole County Commissioners, and asked if there was any discussion regarding those standards.

Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Herr, to approve the Standards of Conduct for the Seminole County Commissioners.

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

AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS

Agenda Item #3 – 2021-3051

The Business Spotlight video for Pemberton LLC was presented.

POINT OF BUSINESS

Chairman Constantine announced all of the documents for today’s meeting have his name on them for execution and not the name of the newly elected Chairman (effective at the close of today’s meeting). He asked for a motion to authorize Chairman Constantine to execute all documents pertaining to today’s agenda items.

Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Lockhart, to approve and authorize Chairman Constantine to execute all documents pertaining to today’s agenda items.

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

AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS CONTINUED

Agenda Item #4 – 2021-3047

Motion by Chairman Constantine seconded by Commissioner Zembower, to adopt a Proclamation proclaiming November 11^th as Veteran’s Day in Seminole County, Florida.

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

Agenda Item #5 – 2021-3044

Jack A. Butler, FCCMA District III Director, presented a Certificate of Recognition. He advised the Florida City & County Management Association (FCCMA) celebrates the 30th anniversary of the County’s recognition by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) under the Commission/Manager form of government. The certificate was awarded on November 9, 2021.

CONSENT AGENDA

Commissioner Dallari requested Agenda Item #23, Single Source Agreement SS-604153-21/TKH - Medical Director Services, be pulled for a separate discussion.

Commissioner Herr requested Agenda Item #19, EMS Trust Grant Resolution & Application; and Sheriff’s Office Agenda Items #29, funding to various support organizations; #30, Jail Kitchen Renovation project; and #31, purchase commitments not completed and funding a portion of the upgrade to the Digital Evidence System, be pulled for separate discussions.

Commissioner Zembower asked for support to move Agenda Item #16, Sipes Avenue and Pine Way Maintenance map, to the afternoon in front of Agenda Item #38, Palmetto Pointe Rezone. He advised the two are somewhat related. Chairman Constantine noted that was also requested by the citizens.

Motion by Commissioner Zembower, seconded by Commissioner Herr, to move Agenda Item #16 to the afternoon portion of today’s meeting to be heard before Agenda Item #38.

Ms. Porter-Carlton requested the Board pull Agenda Item #6, Purchase Agreement for acquisition of Deer Run and Wekiva Golf Course, for a separate discussion.

Chairman Constantine advised they need to vote on the last motion to move Agenda Item #16 to the afternoon.

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

Commissioner Lockhart requested Agenda Item #22, SS-604177-21/TLR - Deferred Compensation Services Agreement, be pulled for a separate discussion.

Chairman Constantine asked if Deputy County Manager Joe Abel was able to contact the Wekiva Homeowners Association regarding today’s agenda item, and Mr. Abel answered yes. They understand the requested action before the Board today.

Motion by Commissioner Zembower, seconded by Commissioner Lockhart, to approve Consent Agenda Items #7 through #26, with the exception of Agenda Items #16, which was moved to the afternoon meeting, and #6, #19, #22, and #23, which were pulled for separate discussions.

With regard to public participation, Tisia Byrd was on Zoom requesting to speak, but the microphone on her end appeared to be muted. No one spoke in support or opposition, and public input was closed.

County Manager’s Office

Business Office

6. Pulled for a separate discussion.

Tourism Development

7. Approve and authorize the Chairman to adopt appropriate Resolution #2021-R-154 providing tournament personnel the ability to utilize golf carts on a specific segment of Lake Markham and South Sylvan Lake Roads for the Elite Clubs National League (ECNL) Girls' Tournament on January 7-9, 2022, and the ECNL Boys' Tournament on January 22-24, 2022. (2021-3022)

Development Services

Building

8. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Satisfaction of Lien in the amount of $453.26 associated with the property located at 734 Cherokee Circle, Sanford, and filed against Michael S. Rosen, Heir. (2021-2998)

Planning and Development

9. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the FY 2021/2022 Service Funding Agreement by and between Seminole County and Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX). (2021-3069)

10. Authorize release of Maintenance Bond, Project #18-00700011, for paving and drainage improvements in the amount of $2,132.10 for Taco Bell Longwood; Bravo Foods, LLC. (2021-3013)

11. Authorize the Chairman to execute the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board Case #07-09-CEB at 617 Plum Lane, Altamonte Springs, Tax Parcel #07-21-30-503-0000-0720, owned by Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC. (2021-2984)

12. Authorize the Chairman to execute the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board Case #11-84-CEB at 617 Plum Lane, Altamonte Springs, Tax Parcel #07-21-30-503-0000-0720, owned by Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC. (2021-2985)

Public Works

Engineering

13. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the Seminole County and City of Altamonte Springs Interlocal Utility Relocation Agreement for the Northwestern Avenue Bridge replacement over the Little Wekiva River. (2021-3027)

14. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Seminole County and City of Altamonte Springs Interlocal Utility Relocation Agreement for the Wymore Road Improvements Project. (2021-3030)

15. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Purchase Agreement related to Parcel #103 for early acquisition of property needed for the Orange Boulevard Improvement Project (2,152 ± SF) between Terry J. Willcox and E. Diane Willcox and Seminole County for $26,000.00, as full settlement of all claims for compensation from which Seminole County might be obligated to pay relating to the parcel. (2021-3033)

16. This item was moved to the afternoon session to be heard before Agenda Item #38.

Facilities

17. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the Reflections of Hidden Lake Community Services Department Lease with maturity date of September 30, 2024. The annual rent increase is $55,020.71 for a total of $221,748.84. (2021-3031)

18. Approve and authorize the Final Renewal and Third Amendment to Seminole State College Public Safety Training Center Lease with maturity date of January 27, 2052. The annual rent remains at $1.00. (2021-3037)

Resource Management

Budget

19. Pulled for a separate discussion.

20. Adopt and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2021-R-157 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #21-097 through the 2014 Infrastructure Sales Tax Fund in the amount of $873,000.00 to break out and establish five new trail projects from the existing Trails Parent Project. (2021-3032)

21. Adopt and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2021-R-158 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #21-098 through various funds totaling $2,108,980.00 to appropriate unanticipated revenues, transfer from reserves, and reallocate expenditure budgets to facilitate the FY2020/2021 year-end closeout process. (2021-3038)

Purchasing and Contracts

22. Pulled for a separate discussion.

23. Pulled for a separate discussion.

24. Waive the procurement process and authorize Single Source procurement SS-604246-21/TLR - Management and Operations of the Wekiva Golf Club to SSS Down To Earth OPCO II LLC, dba Down to Earth, 7887 Safeguard Circle, Valley View, Ohio 44125; and authorize the Purchasing and Contracts Division to execute the Agreement. (2021-3046)

25. Award CC-3776-21/RTB - I-4 Trail Overpass Repair to M&J Construction Company of Pinellas County, Inc., of Tarpon Springs, FL in the amount of $1,109,759.00; and authorize the Purchasing and Contracts Division to execute the Agreement. (2021-2841)

26. Award CC-3793-21/RTB - EE Williamson Road Trail Connection & Intersection Improvements at Rangeline Road to Hubbard Construction Company of Winter Park, in the amount of $7,975,430.26; authorize the Purchasing and Contracts Division to execute the Agreement; and adopt appropriate Resolution 2021-R-159 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #21-096 to transfer $3,751,246.00 from 2014 Infrastructure Sales Tax Fund reserves to fund the procurement. (2021-3021)

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

Consent Agenda Item #6 – 2021-3048

Ms. Porter-Carlton advised this item was a placeholder. They do not have a signed contract back from the sellers; however, they did provide comments yesterday regarding the proposed contract that had been sent to them. She incorporated many of those requests into the document; however, there were some significant changes that, in the opinion of the County Attorney’s Office, is not in the County’s best interest. The County Manager’s Office wanted direction from the Board on some of the things they would want included in the contract.

Ms. Porter-Carlton stated the primary issue has to do with the price to include in the contract, which up until now, the discussion has been $14 million. The County Manager’s Office is waiting for comments from FDEP on some environmental issues related to the Wekiva Golf Course. Yesterday Mr. Abel sent the Board a memo with an update on that. The comments came in from the seller’s attorneys several hours after that and conflicted with that. She wants the Board to be fully informed and for her office to have direction from the Board on how they wish staff to proceed with the contract.

Chairman Constantine asked if it is correct that they have to close, at the seller’s request, by the end of the year. Ms. Porter-Carlton replied the seller’s have responded to that effect. Initially their attorneys told her that they were not aware of that, but a few days ago she received a communication stating that is what the sellers want.

Commissioner Dallari stated since Ms. Porter-Carlton mentioned Mr. Abel’s involvement, he would like to hear from him at this time. Commissioner Zembower advised he wants to make sure that they understand what the MOU was of this whole deal. He understands the concern of the County Attorney’s Office because it is their job to make sure that the Board is going down the right path and protect them in all things. He reminded that the MOU was an as-is sale. The County was given about a year, unobstructed, to do their own due diligence, which means they were able to walk, talk, taste, look, smell, drill, test, Phase 1, Phase 2, survey, whatever else they wanted to do; and as many know, going back about four or five months ago when things weren’t going on the timeline that the MOU memorialized, they were told then by the seller that they needed to move forward or they were pulling their offer to the County to move forward with the development that they wanted to do on their properties. Staff reacted and moved forward.

Mr. Abel addressed the Board and explained the conversations that have gone back and forth have always been that the sell price is $14 million. They have done appraisals on the property assuming highest and best use, the appraisers for the two properties combined came back at $14,800,000. As they went through the due diligence, they did a Phase 1 and Phase 2 environmental study. Phase 2 came back with some remediation efforts that would need to be addressed. The initial estimates were about $460,000, and that was for considering everything that needed to be done. He did receive some information yesterday afternoon back from FDEP saying that the remediation on the golf course would not be necessary at this time, but they did want the County to clean up the areas around the maintenance area, which staff had known would most likely be the case. He can say from past experience that they found nothing unusual or extraordinary in Phase 1 or Phase 2 that would not be expected on any golf course. He did have a conversation with the attorneys noting the $460,000 estimate. He reached out to the sellers, and they indicated that they were not interested in any discount on the $14 million that had already been agreed to, but they would be interested in partnering on anything that was immediate that needed to be done. Mr. Abel opined that did not need to be in the contract because it was ongoing, they didn’t know, and the purchase price was not going to change.

Commissioner Dallari asked Mr. Abel if his recommendation is to move forward with the contract. Mr. Abel answered based on the commitment that they have and the due diligence that they’ve done, they should absolutely move forward. The attorney’s concerns should be enumerated so that the Board can discuss those; but as far as the remediation efforts, the price of the contract, and staff doing the due diligence, they have done all of it in accordance with what the expectation was on both the seller and purchaser.

Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Lockhart, to approve the item as presented today.

Under discussion, Chairman Constantine stated he is concerned. He has had a discussion as late as yesterday with the development interest, and they indicated that they would be willing to pay half of the environmental, which he thinks is extremely important that they have in the contract so both sides know exactly what they’re doing. He asked if there was a way to get it into the contract. Ms. Porter-Carlton stated she had proposed language to accomplish that but the problem was Mr. Abel didn’t yet have a response from FDEP. She appreciates his comments this morning because that’s the first she’s been told that, so it’s great that they have a response now from FDEP because as of just a couple of days ago, they didn’t expect it for another two weeks. Her concern was entering into a contract at a set price with the protections for the sellers that they seek to include, the Board would not be able to have any liability on the part of the sellers for any share of the remediation costs. Mr. Abel stated they still do not have a confirmed price. Chairman Constantine stated the seller’s representatives understood that, but they also know what the potential price is; and they were willing to accept to pay for half of the remediation. He thinks it’s very important for the taxpayers that they try to get that language into the contract. Discussion ensued.

Commissioner Zembower asked if the motioner would accept an amendment based on Chairman Constantine’s concern to put a provision in the contract regarding the seller paying for 50% of the remediation. Commissioner Dallari, as the motioner, asked what Mr. Abel means when he says the seller is willing to participate on what is required for the sale because there’s things that may not be required for the sale. Mr. Abel replied that is correct. He added the remediation out on the golf course is not necessary at this time. The only thing that is necessary at this time is the area around the maintenance area. They have an estimated price, but they haven’t confirmed the detail of that price yet. That is something they will need to take immediate action on, and those would be the items that he would want to seek further clarification and then approach for participation from the owners. They have verbally committed through their representative to do that; however, the language that they sent to staff for the contract did not include that.

Commissioner Dallari stated he will amend his motion with a caveat of what needs to be done for the sale of the property. He asked Mr. Abel if he understood his amendment, and Mr. Abel replied he did. Mr. Abel stated he thinks that would be the only thing that the seller would accept if they accept that as part of the purchase price. He reminded that when the Board bought Rolling Hills, they bought it without including the remediation efforts in the purchase price because they were doing an MSBU with the community, and they committed to doing that. They are making no commitment or request to them for Deer Run for any remediation efforts that would be done there. In the dealings for both of the purchases, Rolling Hills or Deer Run and Wekiva, they did not include remediation efforts in the purchase price. Chairman Constantine agreed that they didn’t but stated it should be in the contract concerning the remediation as part of their agreement to pay for half of it because it will save the taxpayers.

Commissioner Dallari advised his motion is a caveat of what Mr. Abel is saying. It is only for what is required for the sale of the property. They are not doing a cleanup of the entire piece of property, and the price is just a percentage. Commissioner Zembower clarified it is what is required and mandated to be done for the sale. Commissioner Dallari replied that is what he is trying to say.

Commissioner Zembower discussed how this contract came to be. He stated if Commissioner Dallari is willing to make that amendment of what is required and mandate it to be done during the sale, then he will support that. Chairman Constantine asked if that is a second to Commissioner Dallari’s amended motion, and Commissioner Zembower answered yes.

Commissioner Dallari stated if there are any issues with this, to let them know because if they have to call a special meeting to come back and get it done, then they need to be doing that. Mr. Abel asked if it is a deal breaker if they aren’t interested in having that in the contract or are there other considerations in lieu of that. His thought is they should go in with their eyes wide open. Discussion ensued. Ms. Porter-Carlton pointed out the people Chairman Constantine and Mr. Abel have been dealing with are the seller’s representatives and not the attorneys for the sellers. Several hours after those conversations took place, their attorneys sent in language for the contract that conflicted and in fact was the opposite of what they are discussing. Another issue she would like the Board to be aware of is the original contract that was prepared and sent to them had the $14 million purchase price, subsequently is when the environmental analysis issue arose and Mr. Abel thought that he was not going to have comments back in time for today’s meeting. The appraisal value was based on the property being clean with no contamination whatsoever.

Commissioner Zembower stated he’s read the MOU and asked where it says it’s represented to be clean and free of any issues at all. Ms. Porter-Carlton answered it is the appraisal which the County Manager’s Office was basing the purchase price. Discussion ensued.

Commissioner Lockhart announced they have a motion and a second that’s been modified and a lot of discussion. She’d like to call the question. Chairman stated the question has been called, that is a nondebatable. He asked for all in favor of calling the question to vote aye.

Districts 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Districts 1, 2, and 3 voted NAY.

Chairman Constantine stated in his discussions as well as Mr. Abel’s and the County Manager’s, the seller was willing to participate at a 50/50 level. He does not see that as being a deal breaker with the motion that they have in front of them. If something comes up and they reject it, they can call a special meeting. There is no one that wants to put this deal in any jeopardy. He believes the motion is appropriate, and Mr. Abel needs to know if there is a glitch so they can call a special meeting if they need to do that.

Ms. Guillet stated regarding the improvements that are necessary for the sale, Mr. Abel mentioned the contamination by the maintenance shed is what he’s concerned about; and it impacts the septic field. Connecting to sewer is something that staff would have recommended anyway, but that’s not part of the cost of the required remediation. She wanted to make sure everybody was clear on that, and the Board understood.

Commissioner Herr stated it’s one thing when an owner’s representative says something, and another thing when the owner’s lawyer says something. She realizes that the lawyers are not there to negotiate, but this is so connected that she doesn’t think it was an accident that the contract came in the way that it came in. They are talking about $250,000 on a $14 million spend and a citizen’s commitment to get this done. From her perspective while they’re sort of wiggling around to get to the $250,000, they have the potential of putting something much greater at risk; and she believes that is also what Commissioner Zembower has been trying to say. She’d rather not put this sale at risk. They had an offer, an MOU; and the contract came in aligned with the MOU. She is prepared to move forward.

Commissioner Dallari asked if she is suggesting removing the last amendment, and Commissioner Herr stated she is.

Chairman Constantine pointed out that in Florida, it is the law that the seller has to clean up the property before the purchase. They did not want to do that, but they agreed to participate. He isn’t going to vote against the two golf courses because he is as dedicated to this as possible, but he doesn’t see any risk in requesting them to abide by their word. The Chairman reminded they have a motion before them with an amendment.

Commissioner Dallari announced he would like to withdraw the amendment and go back to his original motion, and Commissioner Zembower, as the seconder to the amendment, agreed.

Chairman Constantine stated they are back to the original motion to approve the item as presented today, and asked if there was any further discussion. Ms. Porter-Carlton thanked the Board for providing direction.

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

Consent Agenda Item #19 – 2021-3025

Motion by Commissioner Herr, seconded by Commissioner Zembower, to adopt and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2021-R-156; and approve submittal of the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Trust Grant Application in the amount of $58,188.00 from the State of Florida Department of Health to be used for the purchase of three EMS Simulation Manikins for the County; and authorize the County Manager to execute all documents associated with the grant.

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

Consent Agenda Item #22 – 2021-2753

Regarding deferred compensation services, Commissioner Lockhart stated her question relates to some communication she’s had from some retirees. She asked if staff could address those concerns. Lorie Bailey Brown, Resource Management Director, addressed the Board and advised the contention is with the guaranteed minimum interest rate which is basically the interest rate that is earned on the savings account within the plan. It’s currently at 3.5%, and they knew going into these negotiations with Nationwide that that would have to be negotiated down. They had approached staff in the last Amendment about negotiating them down, and staff actually had agreed to that but never executed those. The Advisory Committee discussed options for stepping down, and they’ve negotiated a .12% quarterly step-down over 12 quarters which would bring that guaranteed minimum down to just over 3% at the end of 2022. Staff feels that is the best they can negotiate in stepping down the guaranteed minimum. As the market improves, it is possible that they can earn above the guaranteed minimum, but Nationwide simply isn’t with their clients guaranteeing a minimum above what the State requires and above the market.

Commissioner Dallari noted he had the same concern. He thinks there are three other items that are equally important. By them negotiating this, they went from a 9 bsp transaction to a 4 bsp transaction, which is a savings right there. There are also two other categories that people can actually put their money in; one is income guaranteed, and that can be as long as they want, as well as the principal protection caveat. So they are taking away some things because of the market and guaranteeing a lower minimum based on the market rate, but they are doing other things to overcompensate for it; and that’s why he thinks this is a good plan.

Commissioner Herr asked if Nationwide is the only provider. Ms. Bailey Brown answered no and pointed out this item is waiving procurement. She explained going into this when staff knew the Nationwide agreement would end in January of 2022, they began negotiations early and looked at the market when they talked to Nationwide; but the internal decision, and what the Advisory Committee discussed as well, is that the benefits of staying with the same provider outweigh changing to experience maybe a temporary savings. Commissioner Herr replied Nationwide isn’t the only provider in the marketplace; Nationwide is the only provider that the County offers. She asked if it is possible to offer more than one, and Ms. Bailey Brown answered it is. Commissioner Herr asked if there was a reason they weren’t doing that. Ms. Bailey Brown responded they haven’t done that so far; they haven’t delved into it, but it is something they could consider. From an Advisory Committee standpoint, they feel like there are many offerings available within Nationwide; and they always experience great service.

Commissioner Herr stated her perspective is that they move forward with this item as presented today, but she would like the Committee to evaluate the opportunity to offer competition within the offerings since this is so important to retirees. And quite frankly, if they had another vendor that was doing the same thing, this would feel better than it does. In general, for these types of awards, giving people choices within the vendors is usually not a bad thing.

Commissioner Lockhart advised she thinks the point of the entire market experiencing this is really what she wanted to make sure that staff is able to bring to light because she doesn’t think that this is intentionally isolated to the County’s retirees or to Nationwide. Ms. Bailey Brown announced David Bazzel with Nationwide Retirement Solutions is present. Mr. Bazzel addressed the Board and stated this is a national event that is occurring across the board, and many other providers went through this back in 2010/2011. Based on the market conditions, Nationwide took a different stance to try to hold firm on the rates as long as feasible. The state of Florida was actually one of the last states Nationwide moved to make adjustments to, and there’s only a handful of counties that are working through those final adjustments. As mentioned, he had talked to staff about this on the previous contract; it was just never fully executed so they opted to just continue to maintain it versus going back through and making adjustments knowing that they would handle it at this point in time.

Commissioner Dallari noted the portfolio that they have, which includes the BCC and the five Constitutional Officers, that value is what encourages the deal; and Mr. Bazzel agreed. Commissioner Dallari stated by bringing in other companies and people splitting off to other programs, they’re actually devaluing that portfolio so their negotiations will be devalued at that point; and Mr. Bazzel responded that is correct. Commissioner Herr stated she suspects the County is large enough in total value that even when they segment it, they’d still be pretty valuable; Mr. Bazzel replied that is also correct.

Motion by Commissioner Lockhart, seconded by Commissioner Zembower, to award SS-604177-21/TLR - Deferred Compensation Services Agreement to Nationwide Retirement Solutions (NRS); and authorize the Purchasing and Contracts Division Manager to execute the agreement.

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

Consent Agenda Item #23 – 2021-2690

Commissioner Dallari stated he would like to ask the Fire Chief some questions. Fire Chief Otto Drozd addressed the Board. At Commissioner Dallari’s request, Chief Drozd discussed the County’s ISO rating and CAAS accreditation. Commissioner Dallari commented the County’s Fire Department is truly second-to-none nationwide. He stated the next level, from what he can see in this item’s agreement, is QA and QI which will better position the County to make sure that the quality control and training is there; and that is why he will support this item.

Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Zembower, to award Single Source Agreement SS-604153-21/TKH - Medical Director Services to Todd M. Husty, DO PA, Oviedo, at the fixed fee amount of $469,695.88 annually; and authorize the Purchasing and Contracts Division to execute the agreement.

Under discussion, Commissioner Herr asked what the overall increase in the contract is, and Chief Drozd answered it is an overall increase of 70%. Commissioner Herr inquired with a 70% increase in the contract, even though it is an expansion of services, wouldn’t it be typical for the County to take it out to market. Chief Drozd replied he thinks with all contracts, taking it out to market is an option. Commissioner Herr stated some things she has learned through her experience and multiple conversations about this particular contract is that the ask for the expansion of services wasn’t initiated by the County; it was initiated by the contractor. Outside of her role at the County, she sees municipal bid requests on a regular basis; and there are a significant number of them going out to market for Medical Director. They have lived with their Medical Director through a very hard time for the past two years with the pandemic, and for that they should be immensely grateful for the work that was done. The vendor deserves to be paid for that work. In the County’s instance, they didn’t go extra-contractual and make sure that Dr. Husty was paid for that work. The issue that she struggles with is that expanding services and issuing a five-year deal doesn’t seem to be the right thing to do. She would be willing to go ahead and approve this item with the notion that they take it out to market to just double check on behalf of the taxpayers that they have the best program and the best deal in place. Given all of the work that’s been done over the years, and the status that the County has today, she suspects that they’ll be back approving a contract with the current vendor; but she would like to know that for sure.

Commissioner Lockhart asked for the increase in the actual services from what the prior agreement had. Chief Drozd answered there are three different levels of increases and reviewed Cost Reasonableness included in the agenda memorandum. He pointed out there is a 4% increase in Base Services with Insurance, a 25% increase in Expanded Scope, and a 42% increase in QA/QI Position. The base of the contract only goes up by 4%. Commissioner Lockhart stated their current Medical Director has done a phenomenal job with their firefighter/EMTs, and she knows they respect and value his leadership tremendously. She isn’t questioning the work that has been provided, but it is a significant increase and expansion of scope. She would be interested in making a motion that would retain the existing scope and go out for the additional items. The Commissioner believes that the vision that this Board has talked about with community paramedicine and improving health outcomes across this county is very important and something that they want to continue to pursue. In her mind she thinks that may be separate, but it could be together; there’s nothing that says that they have to be together. She would like to spend more time understanding what exactly that’s going to look like from a community-outreach/community-health outcome conversation.

Commissioner Herr asked if the current contract has an escalator in it; and Chief Drozd answered the current contract as it sits today had a yearly escalator of 3%, but the new contract does not. Commissioner Herr noted this is going up by 4%, so beyond the current escalator in the agreement, if they renew the current agreement, it goes up by 3% automatically and gets close to where it is. Commissioner Lockhart stated in light of what has occurred in the community over the last 20 months, there were roles and responsibilities that were added to this contract that the vendor was not compensated for. That was not right or fair, and they need to make it right; but she doesn’t think that expanding the contract without going to bid is the way to make it right. She thinks they need to make that whole and fix that separate and apart from this contract, and she feels like maybe this is an attempt to do that. She wants it to be a super clean delineation of the reason for the funds.

Commissioner Zembower stated he agrees there are a significant number of municipalities looking for these services right now, but that is problematic. When they have a winning team, the last thing they want to do is make their key players free agents. There has been no indication to him that there is any reason why they would want to change the key players of their public service. He advised he will be supporting the motion.

Commissioner Dallari reiterated that the real increase is the additional services of QA and QI. He believes that is important, and that is their next step. If they approve just the base contract and then put out to bid the QA and QI, they will buckle against each other; it wouldn’t work. They need to have the same team doing both because they may have to change things and work with the other side of the equation, so it needs to be one team.

Commissioner Herr stated to clarify it had been asked and answered that the additional increase is all related to QA and QI, but she sees on the chart (included in the agenda memorandum) that roughly $68,000 of the expanded scope is not QA and QI. She asked if the Fire Chief could comment on that. Chief Drozd explained the chart she is referring to really looks at what has been the actual role of the Medical Director within the community. While the current contract says he’s the Medical Director for the EMS system, he has truly added countywide responsibilities over the last several years and in his day-to-day functions. Commissioner Herr asked whether or not it is anticipated that these are billed hourly so that if they don’t use Emergency Management to the tune of an estimated 160 hours, those charges would not come through the contract or is it simply a retainer. Chief Drozd answered it is a retainer. Commissioner Herr stated she isn’t sure what they do with that if it doesn’t happen because some of it is anticipation of and possibly not going to happen. She added QA and QI is often done by external organizations in the medical field. They are expanding the current relationship to do QA and QI on the current program, and that is very interesting. They may want to think about that. She isn’t trying to dismantle the team, she’s trying to make sure they have the best team by market standard. They haven’t looked at this in a very long time, and there are new competitors in this field including local and state universities. It would be interesting to know what’s out there.

Chairman Constantine stated he believes this contract is for three years with a two-year extension at the Board’s prerogative. Some of the comments that were made by Commissioner Herr may be something they want to consider when the contract comes up to be renewed, but he also believes what the other Commissioners have said. He thinks the job that they have had in the past 20 months has been remarkable, and they all have priorities that they want to expand; but he thinks it’s proper that they stay along this course at this time.

Districts 1, 2, and 3 voted AYE.

Districts 4 and 5 voted NAY.

Motion passed 3-2.

-------

Chairman Constantine recessed the meeting at 11:14 a.m., reconvening at 11:22 a.m.

COUNTY ATTORNEY’S CONSENT AGENDA

Item #27 was heard in the afternoon session. (2021-3026)

CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS’ CONSENT AGENDA

Clerk & Comptroller’s Office

Item #28 – 2021-3036

Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Zembower, to approve Expenditure Approval Lists dated October 12 and 19, 2021; and Payroll Approval List dated October 14, 2021; and the BCC Official Minutes dated September 28, 2021.

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

Clerk & Comptroller’s “Received and Filed” Documents

Sheriff’s Office

Item #29 – 2021-3042

Commissioner Herr announced she will be abstaining from this vote due to a conflict of interest and the appropriate paperwork will be filed (Form 8B was received and filed).

Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Zembower, to appropriate $145,000.00 from Local Law Enforcement Trust Fund to provide funding to various support organizations within the community and $53,500.00 from Federal Law Enforcement Trust Fund for law enforcement equipment for Fiscal Year 2021/22.

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

Item passes 4-0 with one abstention.

Item #30 – 2021-3039

Commissioner Herr announced she will be abstaining from this vote due to a conflict of interest and the appropriate paperwork will be filed (Form 8B was received and filed).

Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Zembower, to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2021-R-162 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #21-099 through the General Fund in the amount of $275,000.00 to allocate additional funding for the Jail - Kitchen Renovation Project.

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

Item passes 4-0 with one abstention.

Item #31 – 2021-3041

Commissioner Herr announced she will be abstaining from this vote due to a conflict of interest and the appropriate paperwork will be filed (Form 8B was received and filed).

Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Zembower, to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2021-R-163 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #22-003 through General Fund Reserves in the amount of $2,825,000.00 to appropriate from the Sheriff’s Office FY2020/2021 General Fund Budget closeout: (1) $1,825,000.00 in purchase commitments not completed due to supply chain impacts and (2) $1,000,000.00 to fund a portion of the upgrade to Digital Evidence System.

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

Item passes 4-0 with one abstention.

Consent Agenda Add-on Item #43 – 2021-3057

Ms. Guillet announced Consent Agenda add-on Item #43.

Motion by Commissioner Lockhart, seconded by Commissioner Zembower, to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2021-R-160 implementing the Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #22-004 in the Municipal Services Benefit Unit Fund to appropriate budget of $93,500.00 from reserves for Lake Linden Lake Management Municipal Services Benefit Unit (MSBU) Phase 1 (Capital) project (02218005).

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

REGULAR AGENDA

Agenda Item #32 – 2021-2986

Festival del Bacalaito Special Event Permit/Alex Torres

Mary Robinson, Planning and Development, presented the item as outlined in the agenda memorandum and noted staff recommends approval. Ms. Robinson stated Applicant Alex Torres is present. Mr. Torres addressed the Board and noted he’s looking forward to this event.

Motion by Commissioner Herr, seconded by Commissioner Zembower, to approve the Festival del Bacalaito Special Event Permit for December 4 through December 5, 2021, located at 440 Hickman Drive, Sanford, subject to staff’s recommendations included in the Special Event Permit.

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.

COUNTY MANAGER AND STAFF BRIEFINGS

Agenda Item #33 – 2021-3024

Winwood Community (Rosenwald) Master Plan Study Update

Rebecca Hammock, Development Services Director, addressed the Board and introduced David Nelson with Renaissance Planning who will be providing a brief presentation on the Rosenwald site redevelopment. Mr. Nelson reviewed the presentation included in the agenda memorandum.

Commissioner Lockhart stated prior to members of the Board providing feedback, she’d like to hear from the members of the community first because their opinions and thoughts are primary.

With regard to public participation, Morgan Voke spoke in partial support; Cora Snead spoke in support as long as the history of the community is included into the development somehow; no one else spoke in support or opposition, and public input was closed.

In response to Mr. Voke’s comments, Mr. Nelson stated he has expanded the radius of notice to pretty much the whole community, so there will be five, six, seven times as many notices going out for the next community meeting.

Commissioner Lockhart stated her initial thought is that they need to hear from the community as to which buildings are the most significant to them to be preserved. She thinks that needs to be first and foremost determined. Putting numbers on buildings is one thing, understanding what those buildings are and what they represent is something else. She certainly agrees in theory with some of Mr. Voke’s sentiments that the housing component is nice; there are some folks that definitely want the elderly to be able to age in place; she is not interested, nor does she feel the community is interested, in making this another housing development. The primary focus of the County purchasing the property from the School Board was for it to be a resource for the community and to support them. The existing community center that is there doesn’t get to be used by the community as it was originally intended, and that also has to be part of the conversation because they do have an asset that’s right down the street.

Commissioner Zembower stated in front of them is an opportunity to do something very well and very elegant for the Winwood community; and this is deserving of some historic value. He would be very much interested in working with the community and District Commissioner to find a path to preserve the historical values that are in the community and throughout the entire southern part of the United States. He would also be willing to have discussion on what the rest of that site may look like and what the community really desires. They’ve heard from the community, and he thinks there is a need for a community center and a housing component to keep the elderly folks in their community with their families as they age. He will be supportive of Commissioner Lockhart.

Commissioner Dallari commented he thinks the history of any community is not important, it’s critical. As they move forward, that history needs to be protected, enhanced, and celebrated. The branding of that community needs to be looked at because outside of the Winwood community, other people may not be aware of it. He isn’t talking about rebranding the community, he’s talking about helping the branding of it to celebrate what it is. He doesn’t want to pick which buildings should go or stay because he doesn’t know what should fit there. The community should help. He believes allowing people to age in place is critical, and there needs to be a museum, classrooms, and an education facility. The County is opening a brand-new fire station by Winwood, and staff should be inviting the entire community to the ribbon cutting of Fire Station #11. There also needs to be some technology incorporated in the design, and he wants Mr. Nelson to let the Board know what that cutting-edge technology is.

Commissioner Herr stated she thinks what she’s heard today is that notices are going out using the postcard list, and they’re going out as broadly as possible for all of the meetings that come up in the future. She believes they do need to preserve history, although preserving all of those buildings may not be the path that she would take. Those buildings have been built over a series of years, and some are worthy of preservation and some may not be; so she would be open to that concept. She added having a community center that has open access is critical. The modern concept she would not be supportive of because she thinks it does away with history, and she thinks they do that too much in Florida in general. She doesn’t know how they do senior housing without doing apartments of some sort; but she does support senior housing in a number that’s large enough to support the community, but not any larger than that. She would like to see some sort of job creation/job promotion, and she believes the idea was mentioned in the option of putting in a culinary institute.

Chairman Constantine discussed how he has worked very closely with this community over the years. This is something that is very near and dear to him. Like the others that have commented, the Chairman stated it is extremely important that they keep a component of culture, historic perspective, and the heritage of that community. Many people don’t realize, to make themselves independent, the community took the City of Altamonte Springs to federal court and won. That was the first time that that had ever happened in the deep south. This is an extremely important community. He does believe that there should be some sort of museum component. He loves the idea of the atrium and the docks because he loves the idea of passive-recreation opportunities. He also very strongly believes there has to be a senior component because the need for senior housing is something that was specifically indicated in the East Altamonte study. There also needs to be a historic perspective around the buildings that can be saved and used. There has to be room for periodic healthcare from the Health Department, education/workforce opportunities and programs, potential afterschool programs and childcare opportunities, and some sort of substation for the Sheriff’s Office. He agrees with Commissioner Herr that they shouldn’t be totally modern, and he wants to put as many senior housing facilities as can be justified in a private development.

Commissioner Lockhart advised that a lot of what the Commissioners commented on had already been brought to the table in terms of community conversations among providers. Before COVID-19, Rick Durr, Leisure Services, was chairing a committee of people from across the county that were providers from 15-20 different agencies including the college, the Health Department, the School District, many non-profit providers, Parks and Recreation, and UF/IFAS. Everyone was so incredibly excited to be able to serve this community; and they all wanted to help provide their area of expertise, some of them came with financial resources as well.

Commissioner Lockhart stated she would like, if the Board is amenable, to ask that that committee be reconvened under Mr. Durr’s leadership and that the work that was already started not have been in vain because there were a lot of great things that were coming out of that. The Board supported that request. Commissioner Lockhart explained all of those conversations were predicated on a plan that was developed by the community called the “We Care Plan.” The primary focus needs to be, what does that community see that they need for themselves and how can the County support them in that rather than the County swooping in and telling them what they think they need. That is not what this needs to be about. The Commissioner thanked the Board for their support.

Chairman Constantine confirmed with Mr. Nelson that he received the direction he needed including reconstituting the committee Commissioner Lockhart discussed. Commissioner Zembower asked if it is possible to request a timeline on when they will start having the community meetings again. Mr. Durr addressed the Board and answered in terms of reconvening a group of folks like this, they’re getting into the holiday season so they could probably get everyone’s focused attention after the first of the year. He has shared the information that came from those pre-COVID meetings, so the team has that information. He’d be happy to have some additional coordination meetings, share that information, and participate in the next round of community meetings. Commissioner Zembower asked if Mr. Durr could provide the BCC with periodic updates, and Mr. Durr answered certainly.

Mr. Nelson thanked the Board for the direction and advised he will move forward to start getting ready for community meetings. He stated from the comments today, it sounds like his direction is to present a number of options at the meetings, and let the community comment on those.

Agenda Item #34 – 2021-3050

ARPA Update

This item was heard in the afternoon session.

Agenda Item #35 – 2021-3049

Policy for Single Use Plastics at County Facilities

Mr. Durr stated at the October 12 BCC meeting, there was direction given to bring back information regarding the use of single-use plastics, specifically at County concession facilities including the Boombah Sports Complex concession operations by the Hilton, as well as the concessionaire at the softball complex and Boombah Soldiers Creek. Mr. Durr noted since the last time they had this discussion, a number of the single-use plastic items have already been phased out of service. As it stands now at the Boombah Sports Complex, they do not have any regular single-use plastics currently in use; however, because of some supply-chain issues, they’ve had to use whatever they can find to supply the operation. At the softball complex and Boombah Soldiers Creek, they are down to a couple of items including the nacho boat and forks. Staff has already had a conversation with that concessionaire regarding more ecofriendly options, and they are very amenable to that. In both cases, it is important to note that there has been no effect to the overall pricing at the facility based upon the change or elimination of the use of some of these items. That being said, staff has provided some options if the Board did want to proceed with some kind of policy regarding the future use of them that they could implement through future concessionaire contracts.

Commissioner Lockhart advised what has been presented by Mr. Durr doesn’t match what has been presented in writing in the Resolution included in the agenda memorandum. In writing it bans these items on County property and their disbursement on County property, not relative to any sports facilities; although those sports facilities would be included, the draft Resolution is certainly much broader than what Mr. Durr has just stated. Mr. Durr replied these are just different options the Board has.

Commissioner Herr stated her comment last time this item came up was that the free market is a wonderful thing, and they should let it take place. Mr. Durr’s report actually validates that it’s working; consumers are demanding it and the suppliers are responding to it without interacting with County staff. She will be voting NAY to adopt a Resolution for this.

Commissioner Zembower stated as a County, they should set an example on some of the things they do and undertake. He will be supporting this request.

Commissioner Dallari stated Mr. Durr talked about sports complexes but the draft Resolution in the agenda memorandum talks about all County properties. He asked Mr. Durr to explain that. Mr. Durr answered it’s just an option. They looked at all County concession operations because there are some additional operations that aren’t part of Leisure Services. Commissioner Dallari asked if they are talking about all vending and concession areas, and Mr. Durr answered that is correct. Mr. Durr added if needed, they could amend it, they could be more specific in the language and tighten it up. They have to bring the Resolution back to the Board for approval either way. Commissioner Dallari asked what additional costs Mr. Durr anticipates this would have to the County. Mr. Durr replied so far with the concessionaries that they’re running, there is no change in cost.

Commissioner Lockhart read into the record the draft Resolution where it specifically states the prohibition of use of single-use products and plastic bags on County property. She stated what is written doesn’t have anything to do with vendors or concession stands. According to how the draft is written, it’s prohibiting the use of single-use products on County property. She doesn’t think that is the Board’s intent. Ms. Guillet stated it’s a little clearer in the policy, and the policy is what the Board would actually be adopting. Commissioner Zembower asked the Deputy County Attorney to provide her opinion. Ms. Porter-Carlton replied the “whereas” is very broad. If they want to limit it to other than all County properties, then it would just require an amendment to the definition of County property that’s on Exhibit A in the agenda material. In her opinion, she would change the wording of the “whereas” clause. Commissioner Lockhart pointed out it also states “the use of,” and they need to make sure that they’re adopting something that they are all very clear on what it’s meaning. If they are prohibiting the use of something, that means someone who comes onto County property with a Styrofoam cup and plastic straw is prohibited from using it on County property. They need to make sure they’re really careful about what they’re adopting. Chairman Constantine stated he agrees. His intent was to be as inspirational and aspirational as possible, and clearly limit the waste that the County is creating at their venues and make a statement on protecting the environment. He would like to reduce the County’s footprint on the environment from their venues. Discussion ensued.

Chairman Constantine asked if Mr. Durr got the direction to clean the language up in the draft Resolution, and Mr. Durr answered yes.

Commissioner Lockhart stated the intent is well-meaning, but she thinks they are creating a much bigger problem with what is in front of them today than what it may be able to be in the future. Chairman Constantine commented that staff has stated they can handle this, and he is not going to micromanage them.

Ms. Guillet advised single-use products are defined as Styrofoam, plastic straws, and plastic stirrers.

With regard to public participation, Katrina Shadix submitted a Written Comment Form in support; no one else spoke in support or opposition, and public input was closed.

Commissioner Dallari stated he has no problem supporting the Board moving forward with the Resolution as long as it’s for the vending and concession areas. He would like that clearly defined. Chairman Constantine agreed.

Motion to approve by Commissioner Zembower, seconded by Commissioner Dallari.

Under discussion, Commissioner Lockhart asked what he was moving to approve. Ms. Porter-Carlton advised she will work with staff. Her recommendation was that the Resolution be made consistent with the wording in the proposed amended Code revision because to Commissioner Lockhart’s point, the “whereas” clause is much broader than what the Board is discussing today.

Chairman Constantine asked if Commissioner Zembower’s motion was with the changes that the Board has directed staff and Ms. Porter-Carlton to do, and Commissioner Zembower answered it is. Chairman Constantine asked if there was a second, and Commissioner Dallari advised there is. Commissioner Dallari added that staff is bringing it back so the Board can formally adopt it.

Districts 1, 2, and 3 voted AYE.

Districts 4 and 5 voted NAY.

Motion passes 3-2.

-------

Due to the time, the Board decided to start the afternoon session at 1:45 p.m. to give staff time for lunch.

-------

Chairman Constantine recessed the meeting at 12:20 p.m., reconvening at 1:47 p.m., with all Commissioners and all other Officials, with the exception of Deputy Clerk Kyla Farrell who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Terri Porter, who were present at the Opening Session.

COUNTY ATTORNEY’S CONSENT AGENDA

Item #27 - #2021-3026 – Agenda Item number not sequential

Orange County Housing Finance Authority Multifamily

Housing Revenue Bonds Series – Somerset Landings Apartments

Chairman Constantine noted the Board was unable to hear Item #27 in the morning meeting and will start with that this afternoon.

Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to approve appropriate Resolution #2021-R-161, and approve, solely for the limited purposes of Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the issuance by the Orange County Housing Finance Authority (the "Authority") of not exceeding $13,400,000 of its Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds Series [To Be Designated] (Somerset Landings Apartments) for the principal purposes of making a loan or loans to Somerset Landings, Ltd. (the "Borrower") to finance or reimburse the Borrower for the costs of acquiring, constructing and equipping the Project (as such term is defined in the attached Resolution), fund certain reserves, capitalize interest, if applicable, and to pay certain expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of the Bonds, which is located in the County, and owned by Somerset Landings Ltd.; and providing an effective date.

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

COUNTY MANAGER AND STAFF BRIEFINGS

Chairman Constantine announced this is Nicole Guillet’s last BCC meeting as the County Manager and that she will be going to take a position at the Orlando Sanford International Airport. He mentioned that they all owe her a great deal of gratitude and thanks, and then presented Ms. Guillet with a bouquet of flowers. Ms. Guillet stated it has been the biggest honor of her life to serve this County and thanked everyone.

Item #34 – 2021-3050

American Rescue Plan Update

Ms. Guillet stated that Tricia Johnson, Deputy County Manager, will be taking over the reins of this project. She noted it is a very important and great project for the County. She reminded the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) was enacted in March of 2021 and it directed a little over $91 million to Seminole County, and the cities within the county also received money directly, which is a different dynamic than what they saw with the CARES Act. The School Board is also getting money, so in total, the Seminole County community will receive over $288 million in ARPA funding. She displayed and presented the ARPA slide presentation (included in the agenda memorandum).

Ms. Guillet remarked they had touched on the participation of the cities briefly and will get into a little more detail about the municipal participation. In addition to the County getting money with this round of assistance, the cities are also getting funding directly, which was not the case with the CARES Act; they administered that for the entire county. They talked early on with the seven cities about how they can leverage all the money that is coming to the County to use it as efficiently as possible and to make sure they are not duplicating services, and to get the money out in a way that they get the most bang for their buck. So, they met several times along with County staff and they identified some areas where they specifically asked the cities to participate.

One was the Sheriff’s Mental Health Initiative, and they asked the cities to contribute collectively $3 million to that $9 million program. She explained they also asked them to supplement the million dollars that the County had committed to the County Mental Health Initiatives by asking them to provide $1 million. And they asked them to help underwrite the $400,000 that the County had committed to direct assistance to non-profits and then asked for an additional $500,000 to put into the bucket for homelessness diversion efforts. Since the County had started under the CARES Act program administering direct assistance to individuals and direct assistance to small businesses, they had an infrastructure in place to provide that assistance, they offered to let the cities come in under the County’s program. This is because the County’s dollars under the ARPA program were only going to go to individuals who lived in unincorporated Seminole County or businesses located there. Rather than creating eight different programs in the county, they thought it would make sense for them all to just throw in and just administer those funds through the County’s program. She added they also have some partnerships with Seminole State College they thought would be a good fit for the cities as well; they would benefit and the residents would benefit from that. So they talked about participation in those programs.

Ms. Guillet stated that as the Board is aware, they are doing a Broadband Coverage Study which will cover all of Seminole County, and they were going to pay for the unincorporated portion and any city that wanted to participate could, instead of doing their own study, be a part of that and just pay their pro rata share.

Ms. Guillet explained they talked about all of those and got varying participation from some of the Cities and she will get into that further as they get into the report. The total funding that the municipalities received is about $105 million, which was a little more than they anticipated the cities would be receiving. She referred to Page 8 of the presentation which shows that the distribution of funds fell out in comparison to population. They ran into some challenges as they were trying to apportion the dollars, because the total amount of money that the cities got was not divided proportionately based on population. There was an interesting calculus that they used and it took into account some other entitlements that the cities got, so although the City of Sanford is the largest city, they did not get the most amount of money; they were actually about the fourth or fifth ranked in getting money. So, they tried to make it fair and the cities were very cognizant of that.

Ms. Guillet stated when they were trying to figure out how you would apportion the money, they did it based on the funding allocation rather than population, so that Sanford was not disadvantaged. She thinks it was a great accommodation on the part of the Cities.

Ms. Guillet pointed out they have gotten five cities that the City Managers have prepared a program to propose to their boards. They have all chosen different programs to participate in, but Altamonte Springs in total is proposing to do joint funding on $1.4 million in various programs. The City of Casselberry is at $992,000, the City of Longwood is at $507,402, the City of Oviedo is at $1.24 million, and the City of Sanford is at $579,000. She added they can see in the presentation that there are a variety of different programs to participate in. It is over $4 million from the cities that will be combined in with the County’s efforts on these programs and she thinks that is pretty significant. A little over $3 million of that is in joint programs, and about $1 million is for individual assistance or other direct assistance to their residents through the County’s programs.

Chairman Dallari questioned if they had it in writing that certain cities were not participating or is this presentation it. Ms. Guillet answered the five cities are included but they have heard that the City of Winter Springs intends to participate in some of the programs. She does not think they will know that until January. The City of Lake Mary has some significant needs on their own. She thinks that city may participate in the Broadband Study. All of this still needs to go to the individual city boards. Chairman Dallari stated he wants to make sure they give them every opportunity and are documenting everything in writing. Ms. Guillet said they can do that.

Ms. Guillet presented the information on the Sheriff’s Mental Health Initiatives and her recommendation would be to cover the shortfall on that, whatever it ends up being. She congratulated the cities because it was a very unique initiative and opined she does not think you would see any other county in the state, much less in the nation, that has the kind of joint participation and leveraging that they are attempting to do here in the county, so she is really very excited about this. She then reviewed the remainder of the presentation.

Commissioner Herr requested that from the Requested Action slide, they take each bullet point individually, discuss it, vote on it, and move on to the next. Ms. Guillet requested approval on the following: Additional Allocation for the Sheriff’s Mental Health Initiative; Adjustment on the County Allocation for Non-Profit Assistance; Additional Allocation for Rescue Outreach Mission; Allocation for Warley Park; Additional Community Parks Allocations; and Restructuring of Revenue Replacement.

Commissioner Dallari wondered if there was anything they wanted to add to the list of recommended allocations. Commissioner Zembower stated he had forwarded a letter to the Commissioners about a request for $2.5 million from the Boys and Girls Clubs of Central Florida for the Oviedo area. The request is for land and building improvements. The letter documents the impact from COVID and how many additional young lives they have had to facilitate during this and will continue to facilitate as the pandemic has impacted those families. He noted the Boys and Girls Club is a relatively new thing in the Oviedo area. He is asking for support from his fellow Commissioners on that $2.5 million.

Commissioner Lockhart mentioned she thought they had a process in place for non-profits to apply for these funds, and she would like to continue with that process regardless of the organization. She thinks it keeps it fair and clean. She is not comfortable with throwing out names and organizations from the dais without backup or agreements. Rescue Outreach Mission (ROM) is an example; the County has made a large commitment to them but they have been made to bare all in that agreement. With these funds comes transparency and accountability and commitment, and she is not saying that the Boys and Girls Club would not do that, but she is not interested in giving any organization those types of funds without an associated, transparent conversation and legal agreement. Commissioner Dallari said that it goes to say that with Commissioner Zembower’s recommendation, those agreements would have to happen. Commissioner Zembower added it would be his anticipation that staff would adhere to the ARPA requirements and that their legal counsel would oversee that to make sure that it is done appropriately. He is not asking them to write blank checks or checks that cannot be supported. To Commissioner Lockhart’s point, he has every expectation that they will follow the federal guidelines before they do anything for any organization, which he thinks they have already done up to this point.

Commissioner Herr stated she thinks using ROM as an analogy is a good one. The agreements did come after the fact, after great consternation, but in addition to that, there was also a requirement of submitting financial documents, staffing documents, business plans, sitting on their boards, etc. That situation may be a tad different, but this one is not that different. Additionally, she has the concern that they are not looking at this holistically because the Boys and Girls Club was the first to get a letter into the office, they are looking at that and what is next. What happens at the end when one comes in and they think that that is the one they should have supported, and if they had just taken 10% off of every other one, they could have done this one. So there has to be a process by which non-profits come before the Commission that is a little more succinct than this. She added if they are doing round robin from the dais, she would want to table it and come back at the next meeting prepared to do round robin from the dais. That was not an expectation she came to this meeting with.

Commissioner Dallari expressed he has no problem continuing this because he has one he would like to bring forward as well. They were not asked to do that but he actually emailed the request to the County Manager when he received it yesterday. The request was from Allie’s Hope for mental health where they are doing work with all the schools. He noted it was depicted there was excess money in the mental health bucket and what better way to address the issues that are happening in the schools and or COVID or the pandemic to help their students. He thinks it is a great way to leverage money with an organization, and he has no problem asking them to provide all the proper documentation and wherewithal that needs to happen to make sure that it is above board.

Commissioner Herr indicated she thinks the bullet points that Ms. Guillet brought forward do not need to be continued because they came prepared for that. There needs to be a process built by the team by which the submission happens, the required paperwork happens, and then it comes to the Board, as opposed to coming to the meeting with their wish list. She does not think that would create the best outcome for any of the non-profits and most of all, the people that are being served by the non-profits.

Ms. Guillet opined the process is a good idea, but noted that neither the Boys and Girls Club nor the Allie’s Hope proposal would fall into the direct assistance to non-profits because the limit is $25,000. There is not a process right now for the mental health request, and there is a bucket of money there. There is money for community facilities. She noted the difficulty in setting up a process is do they want to set a limit; do they just want to have proposals come in. But Commissioner Herr is correct, there is no process for those other categories. They have some specific processes for the smaller non-profit assistance and for the individual assistance and small business assistance, but for these other undesignated categories such as mental health and community facilities, there is not a process in place.

Commissioner Lockhart suggested they have the process discussion and have staff come back to them absent from the name of an organization. She thinks they need to, as best they can, not only keep the politics out of this, but also the politicking. ROM is their only emergency homeless shelter in the community other than SafeHouse of Seminole, and that is for domestic violence abuse. They have lots and lots of non-profits that serve families and children in this community, and she is not saying that the Boys and Girls Club isn’t a lovely one, but this needs to be not just about what her favorite or another board member’s favorite is; they need staff to come back with a process that would be best for the community, maybe a ranking system, a point system or whatever it is they think would be best. She would like to hear those ideas.

Chairman Constantine said there clearly needs to be a process and no one has objected to that. He thinks it is important that they fall within the categories that they have discussed. All of them have said there are a number of great organizations in this community that could do it. He is prepared to ask for money for the Sharing Center, which he thinks has done a great deal of work for the homeless and other aspects of their community which he thinks is also something and, quite frankly, the only organization that allows children with their mothers when it comes to human trafficking which is in our county. He was not looking at $2.5 million, but is talking about $250,000 to $500,000 and in talking to the County Manager, that was doable within the context of the money they have. So, he would like to get the process in place and would like to get it done quickly.

Commissioner Dallari said he thinks that for the additional allocation recommended by the County Manager that they need to wait until they vet it all then. He has no problem going through whatever process the Board wants to go through, but listed on the recommendations, it states “additional,” and he thinks they need to vet it all at one time. They have a program, but any revised allocation numbers should be vetted and brought back. Chairman Constantine clarified that Commissioner Dallari is suggesting that all the recommendations listed be placed within the context of the process they are putting together. Commissioner Dallari agreed that is what they are talking about and he is fine with that.

Commissioner Herr disagreed stating they have already done the due diligence and the work on all of these initiatives and she thinks she hears that Commissioner Dallari is saying that he would delay the work on the Sheriff’s Mental Health Initiative and others. She clarified that these additional allocations were adjusted allocations from what they already approved based on going back to the cities. These are not additional allocations. This is them living up to the word that they put out there initially. They said, “This is the number we are going to do, and we are going to go to the cities and ask for their participation, and if we don’t get the cities to participate, we are going to backstop the number we said we were going to do.” They did that with ROM and they did that with the Sheriff’s Office.

Chairman Dallari mentioned that waiting another month to do this, if there is enough money there for them to operate all these organizations, he does not see a reason to rush it.

Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Zembower, to continue the recommended additional allocations as presented and have staff vet all of the additional organizations including Boys and Girls Club, Allie’s Hope, Lifeboat, and Sharing Center, and bring those back to the Board.

Under discussion, Commissioner Zembower stated he wants some clarity on what the expectation his fellow Commissioners have on the entities, or for that matter any entity, that may come forward either from this Board or from the general public or those entities themselves. Is there somehow a different process they want to adopt now for these others that is not the process that has been utilized for these entities. So he needs some clarification there, whether they want to go through the same process, are they going to come up with a new process, just so there is clarity before he is ready to vote on a motion.

Commissioner Lockhart responded from her perspective in providing clarity, the Sheriff’s Office Mental Health Initiative, something they are already very committed to, has been vetted. She does not see any reason to delay that. The adjustment of the allocation of Non-Profit Assistance nearly moves it out of one bucket into another bucket. It is not designating it to a particular outcome. It is an allocation. Ms. Guillet added she is actually suggesting they take money away from that one. Commissioner Lockhart continued saying in regard to the additional allocation for Rescue Outreach Mission, again, that is an organization that they have been neck deep in for quite some time, and she does not see the need for any additional review because staff has been so intimately involved. The allocation for Warley Park is brand new, so she would think that that would go into the other new bucket that they are talking about, and the Community Parks allocations are the County’s parks and their project, so she does not know how much more they would need to delve into that. Finally, the restructuring of the Revenue Replacement is also not allocating it to a particular entity. She is asking to have a process for the outside organizations that are coming for funds where they need to have some good, deep conversations, and staff needs to have the opportunity to really understand what it is they are going to be doing with the funds. She is not thinking that staff is going to come up with a process, come up with a scoring mechanism, and then in a month have it all done and ready to go to allocate. She did not have that in mind.

Commissioner Herr stated if you just look at it from the bigger picture, they have had discussions on this dais that went in detail around mental health and around Rescue Outreach Mission, around the parks, etc. They have not had a discussion on the dais about Warley Park. They have had the notification that there has been an ask. And now there are items that are coming up from the dais. She thinks those new items deserve to have the opportunity to go through a vetting process. She is suggesting that it would be easier on staff if that vetting process did not consist of them beating their brains out for their favorite project. They have to do better than that as a governing entity. To make it objective, there should be some submission requirements, need requirements, etc. She does not think it has to be overly complicated and she does not think it has to delay it that long. She sees no reason to hold the current programs hostage because they do not want to, from the dais, approve programs that, from her perspective, have not been vetted.

Chairman Constantine concurred that the vetting process should not be a long-term process. They know the needs of the community and staff can take these suggestions and additional requests and vet them in a relatively reasonable amount of time, however, he agrees with Commissioner Lockhart that they could do the Sheriff’s Mental Health Initiative, they could do the additional Community Parks allocation, and they could do the restructuring of the Revenue Replacement today. He does feel, since the Rescue Mission is a new ask, that that should be put in the bucket with the others that have come forth, both the Warley Park and all the non-profit assistance. That would be the recommendation that he would make.

Commissioner Herr noted that Rescue Outreach Mission is not a new ask. Ms. Guillet explained that part of it is new and part of it is not. The initial ROM proposal was $2 million from the County and $.5 million from the cities. And then there was the $350,000 that had already been approved. Commissioner Herr confirmed that is $2.85 million. Ms. Guillet advised the new part of it is the additional $175,000 which would take the two-year agreement and make it a three-year agreement consistent with the other money. The other question is whether the Board wants to make up the shortfall, because the cities have committed to $370,000. She said that the cities did not want all of their money to go just to ROM; it is an unsevered contribution to homelessness diversion, with the understanding that a portion of that should go to ROM and they do think that that it is a worthy investment. They did not want to try to figure out how much would go to ROM and how much would go to other homelessness diversions. They just thought they would contribute to the bucket and let the County figure out how they want to distribute it.

Commissioner Herr asked what was it that they approved previously for ROM. Ms. Guillet responded they voted for $350,000 initially, then $2 million with the understanding that they were asking the cities to contribute $.5 million. Chairman Constantine confirmed that they had approved that already. Ms. Guillet said the additional question today is whether they want to make up the shortfall, because they did not get to the additional $500,000 from the cities, and then there is an additional $175,000 ask for the two-year agreement to go to a three-year agreement, which will not be a separate agreement now; it is all going to be one. It was her expectation that the County could make up the difference. Commissioner Herr agreed that that has been communicated.

Commissioner Herr concurred that the $175,000 is a new ask and if they want to delay anything, they can delay the $175,000 to be added to the agreement with ROM after the fact. Commissioner Dallari clarified he was only suggesting to delay the new money and that he is not opposed to the $175,000.

Commissioner Zembower said he just wants to know the process for vetting this. Are they going to use the process that has already been in place for the non-profits that has been utilized that gets them here today or are they advocating they are going to come with a new process. He has heard ranking; they don’t want to rank; they don’t want to get too complicated. If they are going to treat them differently than the others, that is all he cares to know, that is his first question. From the aspect of the Sheriff’s Mental Health, he is prepared to move forward on that today. As far as the county allocation for the Non-Profit Assistance, he is happy to move ahead on. Rescue Outreach Mission has been going on for four years and this is not part of COVID or ARPA; it just happened lately. They have been trying to stand this up on its feet for now going on four years. This County and its citizens have allocated monies long before COVID monies and long before ARPA monies, and they are still not there. Because of that, he will be prepared to move forward today with the current ask with a very affirmative, “That is it.” He is done throwing money at this process; he is done throwing money at this project. Either stand on their own feet, or the citizens of this county need to not continue to spend good money after bad. But he does want to know what the process is. Is it going to be what they already have in place or is staff going to come up with a new process.

Ms. Guillet responded that she will use the Sheriff and ROM as examples of how it might work, because those are the two big significant non-county programs. When they started the ARPA process, she went to the Sheriff’s Office in anticipation that they would want to partner somehow and asked if they have something they think they might want so they could get out in front of it. They submitted a proposal and staff vetted that against what they had available from a funding standpoint and how it fit into the rescue plan. Because while there is a lot of flexibility in the rescue plan and the recovery dollars, there are some guidelines and there are some things that anybody using the money, including the County, has to comply with. It was a review of the proposal and then a report back to the Board about the funding that they have.

Ms. Guillet continued stating they went through that process and they sort of did a similar thing with ROM. They knew there was a need with ROM. They reviewed the proposal. Commissioners Herr and Lockhart are correct; they asked for a lot of information really wanting to understand how this fit it. This one was a little bit easier because homelessness is a specific category that is identified in the recovery plan, but there was not ranking, there was no, “You meet x, y and z, and you get the money.” It was an assessment of what the need was in the community, how this would address the need and did it quality for recovery funding. She suggested that, in connection with the proposals that they have heard about today, the Boys and Girls Club, Lifeboat, Sharing Center, and all the ones that have been brought up, they could all conceivably fit into the recovery fund, but there are questions that need to be asked and things that need to be verified and reviewed.

Ms. Guillet advised the $2.5 million ask from Boys and Girls Club would really fall into the community facility bucket rather than the mental health bucket or some other non-profit bucket. These are large asks from non-profits that don’t fit into the non-profit program. That is designed to address very specific needs that were addressed during CARES. She suggested if there is a consensus that these are things they would like staff to look at, then vet them the same way they vetted the other two, ROM and the Sheriff’s Office, and not with any real specific program or ranking, but just to say here are our findings and this is how it would help the community and here is what money is available. In the meantime, if there are other non-profits or programs that might want to submit similar substantial projects that would be outside of that smaller non-profit program, maybe now is the time to do it. And maybe in January, they could come back and report on the ones that they know about today and anything else that might come up. She thinks developing a structured process might be difficult because the proposals that are coming in are so different.

Commissioner Dallari amended his motion to approve the items and then follow the process that the County Manager suggested and bring that back to the Board in January on the projects that they have been talking about. Chairman Constantine confirmed that Commissioner Dallari is referring to the six bullets on page 31 of the presentation. Commissioner Zembower as the seconder agreed.

Commissioner Herr requested that the Commissioner take the first bullet as a separate item because it involves the Sheriff’s Office.

Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Zembower to approve the additional allocation for the Sheriff’s Mental Health Initiative.

Commissioner Herr advised she will be abstaining from the vote because she has a conflict of interest with her employer and the Sheriff’s Office. (Form 8B, Memorandum of Voting Conflict, received and filed.)

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

District 5 abstained.

Commissioner Dallari reamended his first motion to approve the (1) Adjustment on the County Allocation for Non-Profit Assistance; (2) Additional Allocation for Rescue Outreach Mission; (3) Allocation for Warley Park; (4) Additional Community Parks Allocations; and (5) Restructuring of Revenue Replacement and ask county staff to review any additional items and bring it back to the board in January. Commissioner Zembower as the seconder agreed.

Commissioner Lockhart stated she would like to remove the Allocation for Warley Park from the above motion since it has not been through the vetting process and the Board members have already acknowledged that. Chairman Constantine asked if that was a motion to which Commissioner Lockhart agreed and Commissioner Herr seconded.

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

Chairman Constantine stated they have Chairman Dallari’s reamended motion to approve all four of the remaining allocations and questioned if that motion includes the additional $175,000 for Rescue Outreach Mission. Commissioner Dallari indicated that should be vetted and come back to the Board.

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

District 2 voted NAY.

Chairman Constantine clarified the additional requests should be brought back in January along with any others that want to get into the queue.

--------

Motion by Commissioner Zembower, seconded by Commissioner Lockhart, to replace the thermostat in the Chambers.

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

--------

Chairman Constantine recessed the meeting at 3:00 p.m.; reconvening at 3:05 p.m. with all Commissioners and all other Officials, with the exception of Commissioners Dallari and Zembower, who were present at the Opening Session.

PROOFS OF PUBLICATION

Motion by Commissioner Lockhart, seconded by Commissioner Herr, to authorize the filing of the proofs of publication for this meeting’s scheduled public hearings into the Official Record.

Districts 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.

Motion passed 3 to 0.

--------

Commissioners Dallari and Zembower re-entered the meeting at this time.

--------

All Commissioners submitted ex parte communications into the record.

--------

Commissioner Herr requested they move Item #42 to the beginning of the afternoon agenda for ministerial purposes.

PUBLIC HEARINGS - LEGISLATIVE

Agenda Item #42 – 2021-3023 - Agenda Item number not sequential

Proposed Brownfield Designation:

1980 Cameron Avenue, Sanford

Gui Cunha, Office of Economic Development and Tourism, addressed the Board and presented the request as outlined in the agenda memorandum.

Michael Sznapstajler, Cobb Cole on behalf of the Applicant, addressed the Board and recognized Chairman Constantine saying they would not have a Brownfield program if it were not for the work he did in the Legislature 25 years ago, and he thanked county staff for being great to work with. He then presented a slide presentation to show how the Applicant meets the criteria (included 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 advance this item to a second public hearing (as required by F.S. 125.66 and F.S. 376.80) on December 14, 2021, and allow staff to amend the time to a time appropriate for the hearing, to consider adoption of a resolution designating 1980 Cameron Avenue, Sanford, Florida, as a Brownfield Area for the purpose of environmental rehabilitation and economic development; as described in the proof of publication.

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

Agenda Item #36 – 2021-2991

Resolution to Amend Point of Closure on

Raymond Avenue Public Right-of-Way/GSL Holdings, LLC

Chairman Constantine advised that the Planning and Zoning Commission did not take up the rezoning due to the fact that they felt that the first decision as to whether to open the uncut portion should be done first, so that other issue will go back to the Planning board and will not be decided today. So, they are only hearing Item #36, but he will also acknowledge that for those that just put down to speak for Item #37, since they may not have known that, he will also give them the chance to speak.

Joy Giles, Planning and Development, addressed the Board and presented the request as outlined in the agenda memorandum. She noted staff has no objection to approving a resolution to adjust the point of closure on Raymond Avenue and no objection to the proposed closure of Alpine Street and Ridgewood Street, and staff recommends adoption of the resolution as presented.

Commissioner Zembower questioned whether this ask is to completely open Raymond Avenue its full length or to just adjust it to a little further than what it previously was. Ms. Giles advised the request is to open only a portion of Raymond Avenue to a point approximately 150 feet north of Ridgewood Street. Commissioner Zembower then asked how much further that is, and Ms. Giles replied it is approximately 700 feet. Commissioner Zembower clarified that they are being requested to open up Raymond Avenue another 700 feet further than it currently is, but not fully connecting it to the other end of Raymond Avenue, so it would not be a completely passed through street. Commissioner Herr noted that it would fall short of Oakhurst.

Becky Wilson, Lowndes Law Firm on behalf of the Applicant, GSL Holdings, addressed the Board stating GSL is the contract purchaser for the subject piece of property. She then made a presentation (received and filed).

Commissioner Zembower asked who would own the property on which the proposed gates would sit. Ms. Wilson responded the gates would be within County right-of-way and they would have a maintenance agreement with the HOA, and the County said they would be required to maintain them. Commissioner Zembower then asked if Ms. Wilson was aware of anywhere else in the county where they put gates in the county right-of-way for this purpose. Ms. Wilson said she would defer to staff to answer that question.

Chairman Dallari questioned if they considered Olive Avenue or Baker. Ms. Wilson noted that would be coming from the north and advised that neighborhood also does not want the connection. Ms. Wilson advised after conferring with staff that the right-of-way available to the north is only 25 feet, and they need larger right-of-way, and Raymond has 60 feet right now.

In regard to public comment, Chairman Constantine advised that he has Written Comment Forms from Ed Nunez who is in favor of making Raymond Avenue the throughway, and from Rochelle Kobelsky and Jared Pittman, who are opposed. He also noted that Kevin Musante did not note whether he was in support or opposition and it was determined that he had left the meeting. Greg Bretz spoke in support of opening up Raymond. Commissioner Herr confirmed with Mr. Bretz that there is a good portion of this between the time you would come out of this subdivision, either down Oakhurst or Sheppard, where there are no sidewalks.

The following spoke in opposition: Craig Cattafi, Lynn Singletary, Debra Laney, and David Larson. Commissioner Lockhart asked about the park Mr. Larson mentioned. Mr. Larson explained the park is located in the closed-off portion of Raymond. With the County’s permission, the residents have been maintaining that and they put a sidewalk in at their expense. There is a fence across the front of it and it does have irrigation. They have maintained it for 26 years and their community has used that property to walk through to get to the mall on the sidewalk as well as everybody to the south of there.

Those speaking in opposition continued as follows: Tom Yelcho, Sean Cassell, Dr. Debra Bauer. Commissioner Herr stated the proposed plan is to go down the road that is not Alpine, Ridgewood or Oakhurst. The proposed plan is to have gates there that are only open for use of emergency and that has been debated by the citizens and she heard them loud and clear. It is not to be open for through traffic from either this or the current subdivision that is already on Raymond. She was confused by Dr. Bauer’s request. Dr. Bauer stated one thing she does not think has been clarified is that Alpine and Ridgewood are already connected, they are not dead-ended currently. There is a portion of Raymond Avenue that connects them so that they can go down one road and traffic is heavy. She thinks if they have those currently proposed dead-ends, whether they are T-shaped or hammerhead, those roads are going to be paved and they would be opening up a Pandora’s Box. She wondered why they would need two emergency access gates. Commissioner Lockhart wondered which option, option 1 which is opening Raymond, or option 2, going down Oakhurst and Ridgewood, are the least impactful to students. Dr. Bauer responded that Oakhurst and Sheppard would have the least impacts as it is currently proposed now.

Opposition speakers continued with the following: Gary Bannon, Steve Shard, Vaughn Barnett, James Carey, Winfield Adams, Mary Ann Cunningham, Laura Haslach, and Mr. Kim Reif.

David Krais spoke in support of opening Raymond Avenue followed by Dawn Kintigh, Maria Fernandez-Pittman, Nick Anderson, Janice Beckwith, Mack Alan Cope, Keith Ledford, Raymer Maguire P.A., Jeff Singletary, Rev. Tom Lyberg, and Al Stimac, who spoke in opposition.

No one else spoke in support or opposition, and public input was closed. Speaker Comment Forms were received and filed; Written Comment Forms from Curtis Koon, James Johnson, and Katrina Shadix in opposition were received and filed.

An Arborist’s Report by Phillip G. Muscato was received and filed.

In rebuttal, Ms. Wilson read aloud from the 1992 and 1996 Resolutions and meeting minutes included in the agenda memorandum. She stated there were several statements made that they are creating cut-through traffic and they are opening this all the way to the north, and that is not true. They are dedicating an additional 30 feet of right-of-way. The request and the resolution before them today only opens up Raymond to their southern property boundary; it goes no further. The concern about cut-through is what they are trying to address with the gates. She addressed access for emergency services, gates versus dead ends, sidewalks and roads.

In response to Commissioner Herr’s question, Ms. Giles advised there are no sidewalks down Raymond, but there may be a small portion of sidewalk at Hillcrest with the Raymond Oaks subdivision. Commissioner Herr said presuming there are no sidewalks, would they be required to put them in. Ms. Giles responded if the opening of Raymond Avenue is approved, the developer would be required to put a sidewalk in on the portion that they improve from the portion that is being opened to the entrance of the new development.

Commissioner Lockhart requested staff talk about the park and what the ramifications would be. Ms. Guillet stated it appears that the park is in the Raymond Avenue right-of-way. Commissioner Lockhart then said what happens when they have a county-owned piece of property that has been improved by the residents, with maybe the County’s blessing. Ms. Guillet replied that she is not saying there was no communication, but staff cannot confirm there was, and Leisure Services staff is not aware of any. Commissioner Lockhart mentioned they have unopened rights-of-way all over the county where people start to use it as their own space and then they find that there will be a road going through it at some point in time, and so this is frustrating but not an unusual circumstance for county right-of-way that is unopened to be utilized by neighbors, only to find out that it is owned by the County. She asked the attorney if there are any legal ramifications of that as they continue to have this conversation to let them know.

Commissioner Dallari asked if there was any right-of-way utilization permit given out in the past couple of decades. Ms. Guillet answered that a right-of-way utilization permit probably would not have been sufficient. Commissioner Dallari indicated he would like to know if there are any documents in the archives or public records of that because to the chagrin of most people, when the County maintains private property for “x” amount of years, it becomes public. His question for staff is if there is public property that has been maintained by the citizens, can it revert to them.

Commissioner Zembower wondered where in this county, if at all, have they permitted or authorized private gates to be put in the public right-of-way off-site, off the property of the property owner. Jean Jreij, Public Works Director and County Engineer, addressed the Board to advise when they brought the question to the attorneys as to whether they could put the gate in the right-of-way, their response was that they could. Commissioner Zembower reiterated where have they ever done that in this county, and Mr. Jreij was not aware of any specific locations. Commissioner Herr remarked that they exist in Sanford in the back subdivisions.

Commissioner Zembower then addressed the Fire Chief saying now that they learned that they have all these great accolades of the only one in the State of Florida, in any way shape or form does this proposal to open Raymond or not open Raymond, does it in any way shape or form impact their ISO rating once this development has been built, number one. And number two, what is best practice, his opinion, as to what Chief Drozd would like to see happen. Otto Drozd, Seminole County Fire Chief, addressed the Board to answer that from narrowly construing the issue from an emergency response perspective, he would love to have them open, because that gives them access from Station #12 off of Douglas, which would give them quicker response time. Right now, the access is from Station #11. Mr. Drozd responded in connection with the ISO rating that they are now an ISO Class I and quicker response time improves their score, but their rating cannot get better than it is now.

Commissioner Herr pointed out that a comment was made by one of the citizens that one station services it, but she heard Chief Drozd say that he would switch station service if the road is opened. Chief Drozd explained that she is correct because the Computer Aided Dispatch System (CAD) always recommends the closest unit response. It would be a much quicker response time. Commissioner Herr asked if the alternative is that Raymond stays closed and that either Sheppard or Oakhurst is opened, does that create any concerns. Chief Drozd answered that right now, the response time to that property would be about an eight minutes of drive time, and that would be significantly reduced because it would be less than two miles of drive time.

Commissioner Zembower discussed with Mr. Jreij the impacts to driveways of widening Oakhurst and Sheppard and the effect an additional 50 cars would have on the roads.

Joe Abel, Deputy County Manager, addressed the Board to advise the piece of property the citizens are calling a park is not in the parks inventory of Seminole County Leisure Services. They do, however, from time to time, when Public Works has right-of-way that is not being used as a roadway or something, they will have it on the inventory listed as a park. Rosen Park is an example because a portion of that park is in county right-of-way, but there is nothing in the inventory that shows it as a park nor has the County done anything to improve anything in that area to make it a park. Ms. Guillet indicated that staff would research and let them know.

Chairman Constantine noted that this falls in his district. He stated he is looking at this from a different perspective. He is not looking at this as to what is going to happen to the new development, because it doesn’t exist yet. They will decide about the zoning from A1 to PD at a future meeting. In 1996, the Board gave their word to the residents that this 700 feet would not be broken through. And they heard about the 25 feet in 1992, but this is close to the length of a football field. He has walked it and it is an amenity for everyone. They are calling the area a park, but it is not a park. It is a tranquil area where people can walk through, with trees. No one has made any great improvements there. He has also driven down Oakhurst, Alpine, Ridgewood and Sheppard, and there is no question that there are concerns there too. But that is not the decision they are having to make today. The decision they are making today is whether or not, before a development is approved, they are going against the word that a previous Commission made unanimously 25 years ago. He has nothing against this project but he believes the citizens expect them to abide by their word, which was they would not open up Raymond again after they opened up that 25 feet. He believes they will be able to find, when this project comes back, the improvements they need to make on Oakhurst, Sheppard, but not to use that and open up Raymond. He said he feels that is wrong.

Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Zembower, to deny the request to approve a Resolution to amend the point of closure of a public right-of-way known as Raymond Avenue, to a point approximately 150 feet north of Ridgewood Street, as recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 76, and recorded in Plat Book 51, Pages 52 & 53, of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida, and close a portion of Alpine Street and Ridgewood Street lying east of Raymond Avenue as recorded in West Altamonte Heights, Plat Book 10, Page 76, of Seminole County, Florida, for property located approximately one-fourth mile west of the intersection of Virginia Avenue and Sheppard Street; Green Slate Land Development, Applicant; as described in the proof of publication.

Under discussion, Commissioner Herr stated full disclosure, she is a former Sanlando resident for many years and they have family property on Sheppard Street. If the project goes through and they are going to force it down one of the other streets because they have an obligation to them too, it will change the entire dynamic of Sheppard and Oakhurst. And Oakhurst does shoot out to North Street, which creates a thoroughfare on that street that is probably somewhat untenable. So, her perspective will be that they will have to shoot those vehicles out through multiple locations, and there will have to be sidewalks on those streets. This is a walking neighborhood. From her perspective, you can sidewalk Raymond and get them over the road to the school more efficiently than you can do all of that. She is just going on the record that she thinks the property owner does have property rights and it is consistent with the surrounding area to develop it, and if they go down this path and do not open Raymond, she wants to make sure that everyone understands that they are putting the people that are going to live there at an eight-minute response time as opposed to a two-minute response time. She also does not want to put kids down the street with a sidewalk and a road that is untenable.

Chairman Constantine expressed that he has talked to many neighbors on those two roads and it is the County’s obligation as it is the Developer’s, if they are going to develop this property, they need to improve those roads and take the proper considerations and concerns of those neighbors when they are working on the development of this property. Commissioner Herr followed up saying she does not believe it is the Developer’s responsibility to improve multiple roads because the Developer is only responsible for improving the area in front of the development. She wants to be clear on what they are saying and will look to the attorney for advice on this. Commissioner Zembower questioned if they are now talking about the development or are they talking about Raymond. Chairman Constantine stated they are not supposed to and they are only talking about Raymond, but the subject has been brought up.

Commissioner Lockhart stated she fully understands Chairman Constantine’s perspective and she fully understands the thought process of making a commitment and people living in an area with an expectation, but they also know that things do change. This is an infill piece of property, and she knows they don’t want to talk about the property, but the only reason they are talking about the road is because they are talking about the property. When the concept of opening Raymond came to her, it made good sense to her for the reasons that were already stated by staff and by some citizens who spoke in support of opening Raymond. It seems to be the path of least resistance; it impacts the fewest number of people; it improves response time; all of the rationale of why that makes sense to her made sense at that time. She was very surprised to hear there were so many people in opposition who were living on these side streets, because the next logical conclusion is that they are not going down Raymond, they will have to go down one of those other streets. So to Commissioner Herr’s point, if this is not the path that is taken, those cars are going down another street. She is not one that thinks that every street has to be brought up to county standard particularly in older, established neighborhoods. The one that she lives in is one of them, and maintaining the character of this neighborhood is very important regardless of what access point is utilized. “Yes” to sidewalk safety, but kids have been growing up in this neighborhood for years without sidewalks, and if it means that they have to talk about coming off that or maybe not having the roads be as wide as they might like in order to maintain the character of the neighborhood, she is open to that discussion. She just hopes that the residents here today realize what the other consequence of their request is.

Chairman Constantine remarked that with all this discussion, if this motion passes, there is no great solution here for Oakhurst or Sheppard and they have got to be cognizant of the fact that they have to protect those citizens too. He thinks they will have to look at some innovative approaches if this project goes forward. So, he thinks staff has heard their concerns.

Districts 1, 2, and 3 voted AYE.

Districts 4 and 5 voted NAY.

Motion passed 3 to 2 to deny.

Agenda Item #37 – 2021-2975 (Pulled by staff)

Hiddenwoods Reserve PD Rezone

Green Slate Land Development, Applicant

Chairman Constantine advised during Item #36 that this item had been pulled by staff and will be heard at the December 14, 2021 BCC meeting.

--------

Chairman Constantine recessed the meeting at 5:44 p.m.; reconvening at 5:58 p.m. Deputy Clerk Terri Porter was replaced by Deputy Clerk Chariti Colon.

CONSENT AGENDA (Continued)

Agenda Item #16 – 2021-3007 – Agenda Item number not sequential

Sipes Avenue and Pine Way Maintenance Map

Chairman Constantine announced this item was continued from the morning session so it could be heard before Item #38, Palmetto Pointe Rezone. Mr. Jreij advised this item was continued from the last BCC meeting to allow residents to ask questions, and a letter was sent to the residents. Nothing has changed since the last meeting.

Commissioner Zembower verified with Ms. Porter-Carlton the maps that have been forwarded to them, the surveys that have been done, and the consultant work that has been done has identified the right-of-way along Sipes.

With regard to public participation in opposition, the following spoke and addressed concerns of the taking of right-of-way and the relation of this item to Item #38: John Spolski, Cindy Haller, George Sellery (document received and filed), Joseph Humphreys (document received and filed), Linda Barker (document received and filed), Nancy Harmon, Attorney Brent Spain (documents received and filed), and Katrina Shadix.

Attorney Steven Coover, on behalf of the Applicant for Item #38, spoke in support and advised his client is planning to bring utilities down the road, and they would like to know where the County’s right-of-way is.

No one else spoke in support or opposition and public input was closed.

Public comment forms received and filed.

Commissioner Dallari inquired from a legal standpoint what constitutes regular maintenance. Deputy County Attorney David Shields responded according to case law from the Fourth DCA, the test is not whether the maintenance is proper or frequent or thorough or open and obvious. The test is whether the maintenance was appropriate to the circumstances. If so, the statutory test is met. The County maintains roads to a standard that is appropriate to keep the road safe and open to the traveling public.

Upon inquiry of Commissioner Dallari, Jimmy Beach, Roads and Stormwater Division Manager, advised he looked at the maintenance records for the past ten years. The bulk of maintenance is routine and is not done through a work order. He advised the ditch was cleaned in May 2011 and February 2020. They do flat ground mowing, which is the shoulder, eight times a year; and they mow the ditch four times a year. They did ditch mowing in-house in July 2012, January 2013, October 2013, February 2015, June 2015, October 2015, March 2016. From then on, it went to contract mowing. They treated the ditch with herbicide in January 2010, December 2012, June 2013, August 2013, April 2014, January 2015, July 2015, and April 2016. Mr. Beach advised if the Board would like him to review it, there was additional maintenance.

Commissioner Zembower stated public comment has been this is a taking by the County. He requested staff explain why this is not a taking or eminent domain proceeding. Mr. Shields responded this is not a taking. The statute is not supposed to change the status quo; it is supposed to confirm the status quo. The statute was adopted in 2003. At that time, the County already had this road. It was being maintained when the statute went into effect and granted the County title of the road. It gave the owners a year from the effective date of the statute to challenge that in court, and no one ever did. Mr. Beach only went back a decade in the maintenance; but to the extent they have records, they could go back further. It is his understanding the County started maintaining the road as a dirt road 100 years ago and then it was paved by the County at some point. What they are trying to do here is confirm the status quo. Ms. Guillet clarified with Mr. Shields this is not about taking ownership of the road; it's about documenting ownership. Mr. Shields added they have title to the road but don't have a boundary in the public records.

Commissioner Herr asked if the developer is who asked for this to be done. Mr. Jreij explained the development was approved in 2014. A few months ago, the developer came back to develop. Staff looked at the record and discovered they never continued from 2014 and made the maintenance map, so they decided to go ahead and do it. As a condition of approval of the development in 2014, the developer is to improve Sipes. Commissioner Herr inquired if this paves the way to improve Sipes to the degree that it allows for ingress and egress for the development. The timing seems as though there is an attempt to create an opportunity to have the ingress and egress go down Sipes, which is the most logical route. Mr. Shields advised he doesn't have knowledge about the development part of this. However, without a boundary to the road, it is hard to figure out if there is any room within that boundary to expand the road or improve the road. Ms. Guillet stated even though the development went dormant in 2014, the development is imminent and necessitates the need to know where the right-of-way is. It's something the County can't even give direction as to where the right-of-way is until that is clearly established. It is a consequence of the development occurring now, although not something requested by the developer. It is a need to identify where those boundaries are in order to make appropriate comments and reaction to the development.

Commissioner Dallari inquired if, per the statute, public purpose has to be shown. Mr. Shields read into the record Florida Statute Section 95.361(2) as follows: "In those instances where a road has been constructed by a nongovernmental entity, or where the road was not constructed by the entity currently maintaining it, or where it cannot be determined who constructed the road, and when such road has been regularly maintained or repaired for the immediate past seven years by a county. . . such road shall be deemed dedicated to the public to the extent of the width that actually has been maintained." Mr. Shields explained the element of public purpose does not appear in the statute, but it is implied. Maintaining a road is a public purpose, and a road serves as a public purpose.

Motion by Commissioner Zembower, seconded by Commissioner Lockhart, to adopt and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2021-R-155 accepting a Maintenance Map for portions of Sipes Avenue and Pine Way from East Lake Mary Boulevard, south and west to Brisson Avenue; and directing this map to be recorded in the Public Records of Seminole County.

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

PUBLIC HEARINGS – QUASI-JUDICIAL (Continued)

Agenda Item #38 – 2021-0026 (Continued from September 14, 2021)

Palmetto Pointe Rezone

Ms. Giles addressed the Board and presented the request as outlined in the agenda memorandum. Attorney Steve Coover, Hutchison, Mamele & Coover, on behalf of the Applicant addressed the Board and advised they agree with staff’s recommendations, conditions, and recommended route. They will be putting utilities in the Pine Way right-of-way and improving Sipes within the boundaries of the maintenance map approved in Item #16. They will not be required to acquire any additional right-of-way.

With regard to public participation, Pastor Ron Williams and Pastor Jonathan Williams spoke in support.

The following spoke in opposition and also requested the Board uphold the original development order, the density, the originally approved size of the homes, and an egress from Sipes to Lake Mary Boulevard: Nancy Harmon, Linda Barker, Cindy Haller (document received and filed), Joseph Humphreys (document received and filed), Katrina Shadix (document received and filed), George Sellery, Joanne Droz, John Spolski, and Attorney Brent Spain.

In response to public comment, Commissioner Lockhart inquired if this project will affect the Midway Drainage Basin. Mr. Jreij responded it will not; it is part of the Lake Jesup Drainage Basin. Ms. Guillet added the Midway Basin Study has been completed and they are moving on with the design and construction of that project. RFPs for the design work will probably come before the Board in January.

Upon request of Commissioner Zembower, Ms. Hammock advised the developer would be required to improve the road with the development and Public Works is requiring right-of-way dedication on Sipes if the Board approves access on Sipes. She clarified based on the fact that staff's preferred access is Sipes, staff is only supporting two of the omissions from the original development order, and that is the reduction in house size and the change from the masonry wall along the entire perimeter of the property to the wall on the frontage and the wall on the remainder perimeter. In the 2014 BCC minutes, what Former Commissioner Morris committed to as a voluntary condition was the fence around the property and the wall along the frontage; but when the actual development order was recorded, it didn't specifically state that, it just said a wall along the property because that's how the motion was stated.

Commissioner Zembower confirmed with Ms. Hammock the density has not changed from the 2014 approval. Ms. Hammock added they are not proposing to change the lot size, and it has to conform to R1A zoning as well as the setback. They are just requesting to reduce the house size to 1,500, which is larger than the 1,100 that R1A allows. Commissioner Herr stated with the reduced house size, it could still be a two-story home, which would leave more land for drainage because there's less square footage. Ms. Hammock advised that was correct because it's a 35-foot maximum building height. She added she does not know what the price range of these homes are going to be, but one of the recommendations to try to provide more missing middle housing and more affordable housing is allowing smaller house sizes.

No one else spoke in support or opposition and public input was closed.

Public comment forms received and filed.

In rebuttal, Mr. Coover clarified when he said they would adhere to all conditions, he had spoken to staff before the meeting and had discussed they were just going to do sidewalks adjacent to the site, but staff pointed out that it needs to be clarified in the write-up because it says Sipes, it doesn't say adjacent to the site. The engineers have agreed that there is not adequate right-of-way to do sidewalk all the way up, so their commitment is to do sidewalk adjacent to their property and all other conditions. The development order doesn't say anything about it. With respect to the development order, the only change they are asking for is minimum house size (F), which is a market issue. They have no objection to taking out the alternative on Pine Way. He also explained his understanding is that the utility issue is with the City of Sanford and not the County. His understanding in dealing with Sanford is they are going to be doing the utilities on Pine Way.

Commissioner Zembower inquired why staff is recommending 1,500 square feet. Ms. Giles responded they are recommending that because the minimum house size requirement for that zoning district is 1,100 square feet.

Chairman Constantine recessed the meeting at 7:57 p.m., reconvening at 8:05 p.m.

Commissioner Dallari confirmed with Mr. Jreij the only reason why Sipes works is because they have to do curb and gutter, which is a pipe, and they are going to be required to curb and gutter all of Sipes Road now. The Commissioner inquired why they can't put in a sidewalk going all the way up to Lake Mary Boulevard. Mr. Jreij responded they can. Normally they require sidewalk around the property line, from property line to property line; but if the Board wants it extended all the way to Lake Mary, there is enough right-of-way to do that.

Commissioner Dallari stated at the 2014 public hearing for this project, one of the selling factors of this development order was the minimum square footage of the homes. He doesn't understand why they are doing this because that was the original commitment that was made. Ms. Giles responded staff doesn't have an issue with the smaller homes based on the R-1A zoning minimum house size. That is something the Board can impose upon the development order at this time.

Commissioner Zembower inquired if the drainage is better for a 1,500 square foot home on the same size lot versus a 2,100 square foot home or if it is negligible. Mr. Jreij explained if there is more land with less water coming, runoff would be less. The more green area there is, the runoff and drainage is going to go to the retention pond. They are required to provide for storage for water quality and to also maintain the runoff rate between 25 years, 24-hour storm.

Commissioner Zembower inquired what a previous commission can bind the current commission to and what can the current commission bind a future commission to. Ms. Porter-Carlton responded in the context of a development order, if an applicant comes in and requests a modification of a development order, it is the Board's decision to make. The development order does run with the land and is recorded. There are commitments made, but if an applicant requests a modification of it, that is something the Board can consider and choose whether or not to approve.

Commissioner Herr confirmed with Ms. Giles they are asking for smaller square footage and the density will not change. Board discussion ensued regarding square footage and density.

Motion by Commissioner Zembower, seconded by Commissioner Lockhart, to adopt an Ordinance enacting a Rezone from R-1A (Single-Family Dwelling) to R-1A (Single-Family Dwelling); and approve the associated Development Order for a single-family residential subdivision on approximately 39.29 acres, located on the east side of Sipes Avenue, approximately ¼ mile south of E. Lake Mary Boulevard with the following conditions: Maximum net density of 2.95 units net buildable acre; maximum building height of 35 feet; minimum lot size of 75 feet by 120 feet or 9,000 square feet; minimum width at the building line, 75 feet; minimum house size of 2,000 square feet; all building setbacks will comply with R-1A; a minimum of 15% open space; the development will provide an 18,000 square foot active park as part of the required open space calculation; the development will provide a masonry wall along Sipes with the others remaining opaque fence around the remaining perimeter, which was north, south, and east; the developer will provide a pedestrian circulation system within the development, sidewalks along Sipes to Lake Mary Boulevard; all costs for drainage and roadway will be borne by the developer for improvements on Sipes; Palmetto Avenue Baptist Church Inc., Applicant.

Under discussion, Chairman Constantine confirmed with Commissioner Zembower the only changes in the motion from the previous development order is 2,100 to 2,000 as far as square footage, that the sidewalk has to go all along Sipes, the drainage is paid by developer, and the wall with the opaque fence around. Commissioner Herr confirmed with Commissioner Zembower Items N and O remain in the development order. Commissioner Lockhart confirmed with Commissioner Zembower the requirement for a homeowners association also remains. Commissioner Zembower clarified Item L is out. Discussion ensued regarding minimum square footage and missing middle housing.

Districts 1 and 2, voted AYE.

Districts 3, 4, and 5 voted NAY.

Motion fails 3 to 2.

Motion by Commissioner Zembower, seconded by Commissioner Lockhart, to adopt Ordinance #2021-41 enacting a Rezone from R-1A (Single-Family Dwelling) to R-1A (Single-Family Dwelling); and approve the associated Development Order for a single-family residential subdivision on approximately 39.29 acres, located on the east side of Sipes Avenue, approximately ¼ mile south of E. Lake Mary Boulevard with the following conditions: Maximum net density of 2.95 units net buildable acre; maximum building height of 35 feet; minimum lot size of 75 feet by 120 feet or 9,000 square feet; minimum width at the building line, 75 feet; minimum house size of 1,800 square feet; all building setbacks will comply with R-1A; a minimum of 15% open space; the development will provide an 18,000 square foot active park as part of the required open space calculation; the development will provide a masonry wall along Sipes with the others remaining opaque fence around the remaining perimeter, which was north, south, and east; the developer will provide a pedestrian circulation system within the development, sidewalks along Sipes to Lake Mary Boulevard; all costs for drainage and roadway will be borne by the developer for improvements on Sipes;; Palmetto Avenue Baptist Church Inc., Applicant.

Districts 2, 4, and 5 voted AYE.

Districts 1 and 3 voted NAY.

Motion passes 3 to 2.

Chairman Constantine recessed the meeting at 8:35 p.m., reconvening at 8:44 p.m.

Agenda Item #39 – 2021-3020

Beasley Reserve (f/k/a Estates at Lake Hayes) PD Rezone

Annie Sillaway, Planning and Development, addressed the Board and presented the request as outlined in the agenda memorandum. Chad Moorhead, Madden, Moorhead & Stokes, on behalf of the Applicant addressed the Board and advised they agree with staff's conditions and recommendation. They have coordinated with the community over the last several months and have been asked for there to be a sign posted for no left turn coming out of the subdivision onto Beasley. The residents on Lake Hayes have requested the subdivision name be changed from Estates at Lake Hayes, so they have come up with new a name and have run it through 911. Beasley Reserve will be the new name of the subdivision.

With regard to public participation, Diane Grove and Katrina Shadix spoke in opposition and addressed concerns of drainage, flooding, the integrity and quality of the lake, wildlife, and tree preservation. No one else spoke in support or opposition and public input was closed.

In rebuttal to public comment, Mr. Moorhead advised they do not anticipate having a wetlands impact. They might have a pipe or a mitered-in section that goes into the wetlands; but as of right now, they are not planning on doing any of that. As far as drainage along Lake Drive, they will only have three lots on Lake Drive that drain that way. They are also required to have a retention swale on the front yard. Commissioner Dallari confirmed with Mr. Moorhead they are staying out of the wetlands, there is a buffer around the wetlands, there is no lake access, and they will be holding all their drainage. Mr. Moorhead added their outfall will be to the northwest except for the three lots that front Lake Drive.

Chairman Constantine confirmed with Mr. Moorhead that he would be open to sitting and discussing the project as he goes through the site plan and other development interests with anybody that contacts him. Mr. Moorhead added to the west side of this particular site, there is an existing nursery. This is an infill site. He will always answer phone calls and discuss projects. Chairman Constantine inquired if Mr. Moorhead would commit to doing an animal survey. Mr. Moorhead responded they are required to do one for gopher tortoises. The reason they don't do a lot of them early on, particularly with gopher tortoises, is they have to be redone within so many days if there are gopher tortoises.

Commissioner Herr inquired about tree preservation. Mr. Moorhead explained they are in the process of getting a tree survey. Because they are expensive, developers like to know they have a project before they invest that money. Commissioner Herr confirmed with Mr. Moorhead they will preserve as many trees as they possibly can. Ms. Sillaway advised there is a condition in the development order that states the developer will be required at the time of final development plan to provide a tree survey to show how he is preserving the trees on site. He's also showing it in a conceptional plan along the north and eastern portion of the development. Commissioner Herr stated providing a tree survey and preserving the trees may be two different things. The goal is to preserve the trees, and she just wants to be clear. Ms. Sillaway stated the goal is to preserve the trees. Chairman Constantine confirmed with Mr. Moorhead that he understood.

Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Lockhart, to adopt Ordinance #2021-42 enacting a Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) and R-1AA (Single-Family Dwelling to PD (Planned Development); and approve the associated Development Order and Master Plan for a forty-one (41) lot single-family residential subdivision on 21.64 acres, subject to access from Lake Drive, located on the south side of Beasley Road west of Alafaya Trail with the additional requirements, per the developer’s request, of no left turn at the exit of the subdivision onto Beasley Road; and renaming the subdivision from Estates at Lake Hayes to Beasley Reserve; DLC Orange Blvd, LLC, Applicant; as described in the proof of publication.

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

PUBLIC HEARINGS – LEGISLATIVE (Continued)

Agenda Item #40 – 2021-0035 - TRANSMITTAL

Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments:

Net Buildable Acres

Mary Moskowitz, Planning and Development, addressed the Board and presented the request as outlined in the agenda memorandum.

With regard to public participation, George Sellery spoke in support. Tom Ball and Troy Drinkwater from the development community spoke in support but addressed concerns of the vesting time period. Katrina Shadix submitted a Written Comment Form in support. No one else spoke and public input was closed.

Public comment forms received and filed.

Commissioner Lockhart inquired what would be a reasonable recommendation from staff for vesting. Ms. Moskowitz responded the current proposal is any development that is being submitted from now until the ordinance is adopted would be vested. Ms. Guillet suggested to go with this language but add additional language that is similar to what was done in the impact fee ordinances which would be to add the provision of a valid contract for sale prior to the adoption. Staff anticipates the adoption will occur probably at the end of January, which would give people who have contracts some assurances that they are going to fall under the old definition. Chairman Constantine stated he thinks they need to have a definite time. He does not want contracts that continue to pay for extensions getting part of this. Commissioner Lockhart inquired if Ms. Guillet’s recommendation is consistent with all of the other types of vesting that has been done. Ms. Guillet explained with impact fees, they typically have from either 12 months or 18 months to come in and pull building permits. She suggested they could add they would have the opportunity to utilize this for 12 months if they have a valid contract prior to the passing of the adoption so it would then not be perpetual.

Commissioner Lockhart inquired of Mr. Ball and Mr. Drinkwater if Ms. Guillet's recommendation would address their vesting concerns. Upon Commissioner Lockhart’s request, Ms. Guillet clarified her recommendation. Ms. Guillet explained it is anticipated the proposed revision of the definition would be adopted by the Board at the end of January since it has to first to be transmitted to the State. The suggested additional language is any property owner that has a valid Development Order, an application in process, or a contract for purchase prior to the adoption would be able to apply for vesting. They would then have 12 months to move the development forward using the old definition. Mr. Ball and Mr. Drinkwater confirmed the recommendation addressed their concerns.

Motion by Commissioner Lockhart, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to transmit the proposed Ordinance enacting a Comprehensive Plan text amendment to the Introduction Element, revising the definition of Net Buildable Acres and allowing for a vesting period that would be a year from the adoption with a contract for purchase at the date of the adoption; and creating a separate Property Rights Element of the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with mandates set forth in Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes; as described in the proof of publication.

Ms. Moskowitz requested clarification on the motion that the vesting period would be submittal of an application within the 12-month period. Commissioners Lockhart and Dallari confirmed that was correct.

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

Agenda Item #41 – 2021-3070

Redistricting Ordinance

Meloney Koontz, Assistant County Manager, addressed the Board and presented the request as outlined in the agenda memorandum.

With regard to public participation, John Horvath spoke in support. No one else spoke and public input was closed.

Public comment form received and filed.

Motion by Commissioner Zembower, seconded by Commissioner Lockhart, to adopt Ordinance #2021-43 establishing the new County Commission Districts; as described in the proofs of publication (3).

The legal description for the boundaries of the Board of County Commissioner Districts is as follows:

Exhibit 2

Legal Description

Seminole County Board of County Commissioner Districts

Districts 1 through 5 within this description are located in Seminole County, Florida. The calls within this description are based on individual plats and deeds to which the district boundaries are coincident and are not part of a uniform basis of bearings throughout.

District 1:

Begin in Section 33, Township 20 South, Range 33 East, at the intersection of the threads of the St John's River and Econlockhatchee River, also being on the Easterly boundary of Seminole County, per Florida Statutes Chapter 6511, No. 91, the "Creation of Seminole County"; run Southeasterly along said county boundary and the thread of the St. John's River to the South line of Section 35, Township 21 South Range 33 East and the South boundary of said Seminole County; Thence West along said South boundary of Seminole County, being the Township line between Townships 21 South and 22 South, to a point of intersection with the centerline of Tangerine Avenue, being in Section 35, Township 21 South, Range 30 East.

Thence run Northerly along the centerline of Tangerine Avenue to the centerline of Howell Branch Road; Westerly along the centerline of Howell Branch Road to the east line of Lot 3 of Lake Ann Shores Plat Book 12 Page 5 of the Public Records of Seminole County Florida; Thence Northerly along the east line of said Lot 3 to the Northeast corner of said Lot 3; Thence Westerly along the North line of Lake Ann Shores to the Northwest corner of Lot 1 of said Plat; Thence Westerly 14.5 feet; Thence Northerly 11.8 feet to the South line of the North 911.46 feet of the East ½ of the Southwest ¼ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 27, Township 21 South, Range 30 East; Thence along said South line Westerly 310.8 feet to the West line of the West 150 feet of said East 1/2; Thence along said West line Northerly 905.15 feet to the South line of Lake Ann Estates Unit One as recorded in Plat Book 15 Page 8 of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida; Thence Westerly along the South line of said Lake Ann Estates Westerly to the centerline of Lake Ann Lane; Thence North along the centerline of Lake Ann Lane to the Southwest corner of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 27; Thence Easterly along the South line of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 to the Southeast corner of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 27; Thence Northerly along the East line of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 to the Northeast corner of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4; Thence Westerly to the Northwest corner of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4; Thence Northerly along the West line of the Northwest 1/4 to the Northwest corner of said Section 27; Thence continue Northerly along the West line of Section 22, Township 21 South, Range 30 East to the South line of the North 3/4 of the of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 22; Thence East 110 feet to the West line of the East 220 feet of the West 330 feet of said Southwest 1/4; Thence Northerly along said west line to the South right of way line of Red Bug Lake Road; Thence Westerly to the extension of the centerline of Eagle Circle to a point with the intersection of Little Eagle Court; Thence Northwesterly to the Southeast corner of Tract A of Deer Run Unit 5 as recorded in Plat Book 26, Pages 33 and 34 of the Public Record of Seminole County, Florida; Thence run along platted subdivision boundaries, all as recorded in the Official Records of Seminole County, Florida, the following courses; West along the South line of said Deer Run Unit 5 to the Southwest corner of same plat.

Thence North along the West lines of Deer Run Unit 5, Plat Book 26 Pages 33 & 34, then Deer Run Unit 1, Plat Book 20 Pages 92 & 93, then Sterling Park Unit 1, Plat Book 16 Page 93, to the Northwest corner of said Sterling Park Unit 1; Southeasterly along the Southerly line of Camelot Unit 2, Plat Book 16, Pages 95 & 96 to the Southeast corner of same plat; North along the East lines of said Camelot Unit 2 and Camelot Unit 3, Plat Book 20, Pages 88 & 89 to the Northeast corner of said Camelot Unit 3, also being the North 1/4 corner of Section 15, Township 21 South, Range 30 East, and the end of the above referenced courses along said subdivision boundaries.

Thence leaving the platted subdivision boundaries, run North along the West line of the East 1/2 of Section 10, Township 21 South, Range 30 East to the centerline of Lake Drive; Southeasterly along the centerline of Lake Drive, becoming East Lake Drive, to a point of intersection with a line described as: from the Northeast corner of Government Lot 1, Section 14, Township 21 South, Range 30 East, run N85°58'10"W 2018.80 feet; thence run N30°29'12"E to the centerline of East Lake Drive and the endpoint of the described line; Continuing from said point of intersection , run S30°29'12"W to a point 2018.80 feet N85°58'10"W of the Northeast corner of said Government Lot 1; being the North line of Deer Run Unit 15, Plat Book 34, Page 56, as recorded in the Official Records of Seminole County, Florida; Thence run Southeasterly along the Northerly line of said Deer Run Unit 15 to the Northwest Corner of Tract B, same plat; S00°49'00"E along the West line of said Tract B to the Southwest corner of said Tract B; continue S00°49'00"E along the Southerly extension of the West line of said Tract B to the centerline of Eagle Boulevard; Easterly along the centerline of Eagle Boulevard to the centerline of Dodd Road;

Thence Southeasterly and Southerly along the centerline of Dodd Road to the centerline of Red Bug Lake Road; Easterly along the centerline of Red Bug Lake Road to the centerline of Slavia Road; Easterly along the centerline of Salvia Road to the centerline of north bound State Road 417; Northeasterly along the centerline of north bound State Road 417 to the centerline of Winter Spring Boulevard; Easterly along the centerline of Winter Spring Boulevard to the centerline of West Broadway Street; Northerly, Easterly, then Southeasterly along said centerline of West Broadway Street; becoming East Broadway Street, then becoming West County Road 419, to a point of intersection with the South line of Section 13, Township 21 South, Range 31 East; East along the South line of said Section 13 to the thread of the Econlockhatchee River; Northerly and Easterly along the thread of the Econlockhatchee River to a point of intersection with the thread of the St John's River, located in Section 33, Township 20 South, Range 33 East, being the Easterly boundary of Seminole County and the Point of Beginning of District 1.

District 2:

Begin in Section 33, Township 20 South, Range 33 East, at the intersection of the threads of the St. John's River and Econlockhatchee River, also being on the Eastern boundary of Seminole County, per Florida Statues Chapter 6511, No. 91, the "Creation of Seminole County", run thence Westerly and Southwesterly along the thread of the Econlockhatchee River to its point of intersection with the South line of Section 13, Township 21 South, Range 31 East; Thence West along the South line of said Section 13 to a point of intersection with the centerline of West County Road 419; Thence Westerly along the centerline of West County Road 419 then becoming East Broadway Street; Thence Northwesterly, Westerly and Southerly along the centerline of East Broadway Street, becoming West Broadway Street to the intersection with the centerline of Winter Springs Boulevard; Thence Westerly along the centerline of Winter Springs Boulevard to its intersection with the centerline of the north bound State Road 417; Thence Southerly along the centerline of the north bound State Road 417 to its intersection of Slavia Road.

Thence Westerly along the centerline of said Slavia Road to its intersection with the centerline of Red Bug Lake Road; Thence Westerly along the centerline of said Red Bug Lake Road to its intersection with the centerline of Dodd Road; Thence Northerly and Northwesterly along the centerline of Dodd Road to its intersection with the centerline of Eagle Boulevard.

Thence Westerly along the centerline of Eagle Boulevard to the Southerly extension of the West line of Tract B of Deer Run Unit 15, Plat Book 34, Page 56 of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida; Thence N00"49'00"W to the Southwest corner of said Tract B; Thence continue N00"49'00"W along the West line of said Tract B to the Northwest corner of said Tract B; Thence N85"58'10"W 167.15 feet along the north line of said Deer Run Unit 15; Thence N30"29'12"E to the centerline of Lake Drive; Thence Northwesterly along the centerline of Lake Drive to the West line of the East 1/2 of Section 10, Township 21 South, Range 30 East; Thence South along said West line of the East 1/2 to the Northeast corner of Camelot Unit 3, Plat Book 20 Pages 88 & 89 of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida, and the North 1/4 corner of Section 15, Township 21 South, Range 30 East.

Thence South along the East line of said Camelot Unit 3 and Camelot Unit 2, Plat Book 16, Pages 95 & 96 of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida to the South East corner of said Camelot Unit 2; Thence Northwesterly along the Southerly line of Camelot Unit 2 to the Northwest corner of Sterling Park Unit 1, Plat Book 16, Page 93; Thence South along the West lines of said Sterling Park Unit one, then Deer Run Unit 1, Plat Book 20, Pages 92 & 93, then Deer Run Unit 5, Plat Book 26, Pages 33 & 34 of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida, to the Southwest corner of said Deer Run Unit 5; Thence East along the South line of said Deer Run Unit 5 also being the North line of a 100.00 foot wide Florida Power Corporation Easement to the intersection with Little Eagle Court; Thence Southeasterly to the centerline of Eagle Circle; Thence Southwesterly and Southerly along the centerline of Eagle Circle to the intersection with the centerline of Red Bug Lake Road in Section 22, Township 21 South, Range 30 East; Thence West along the centerline of Red Bug Lake Road to its intersection with the centerline of State Road 436; Thence Northwesterly along the centerline of State Road 436 to its intersection with the centerline of North Oxford Road; Thence northerly and northeasterly along the centerline of North Oxford Road as it becomes South Sunset Drive to its intersection with the centerline of Button Road; Thence Easterly along the centerline of Button Road to its intersection with the centerline of Seminola Boulevard; Thence Northerly along the centerline of Seminola Boulevard to its intersection with the centerline of South U.S. Highway 17-92; Thence along the centerline of U.S. Highway 17-92 to its intersection with the centerline of East Lake Mary Boulevard in Section 14, Township 20 South, Range 30 East. Thence easterly along the centerline of said East Lake Mary Boulevard to a point that is N17"E 145 feet from the Northwest corner of Lot 45 of the Plat of Sanford Celery Delta as recorded in Plat Book 1 Pages 75 and 76 of the Public Records of Seminole County Florida; Thence Southeasterly 146 feet to a point on the north line of said Lot 45 that is Easterly 87 feet of said Northwest corner of lot 45; Thence along the north line of lots 45 and 46 to the East line of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4; Thence North along the East line of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Said Section 10 to a point 152.00 feet South of the Northwest corner of Lot 10; Thence East to a point on a line 787 feet West of and 152.00 feet South of the Southeast corner of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 10; Thence North 152.00 feet to a point on the North line of Lot 10 of the Plat of Sanford Celery Delta, Plat Book 1 Pages 75 and 76 of the Public Records of Seminole County Florida.

Thence West along said North line to a point 179.51 feet East of the Northwest corner of said Lot 10; Thence N26"51'29"E, 611.65 feet; S65"02'13"E, 97.67 feet; North, 551.37 feet; S54"16'E, 1502.56 feet; N06°E, 1432.30 feet; N33"05'E, 447.30 feet; N42"46'16"E 89.94 feet; S82"11'10"W, 895.86 feet to a point on the extension of the centerline of Richmond Avenue near its intersection with Moores Station Road; Thence North along the centerline of Richmond through Brown's Subdivision of Beck Hammock, Plat Book 1, Page 83 of the Public Records of Seminole County Florida to its intersection with the centerline of East State Road 46; Thence West along the centerline of East State Road 46 to the intersection of the centerline of State Road 415; Thence Northerly along the centerline of said State Road 415 to its intersection with the thread of the St John's River being the North and East boundary of Seminole County, per Florida Statutes Chapter 6511 No. 91, the "Creation of Seminole County"; Thence Southeasterly along the thread of said St John's River to its intersection with the mouth of Lake Jesup; Thence continue Southeasterly and Southerly along the thread of St John's River through Lake Harney to its intersection with the thread of the Econlockhatchee River in Section 33, Township 20 South, Range 33 East and the Point of Beginning of District 2.

District 3:

Begin in Section 16, Township 20 South, Range 29 East at the intersection of the threads of the Wekiva River and Little Wekiva River, said point being on the Westerly boundary of Seminole County, per Florida Statutes Chapter 6511 No. 91, the "Creation of Seminole County", run Southeasterly and Southerly along the thread of the Little Wekiva River, to the intersection of the thread of the river and the North line of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 34, Township 20 South, Range 29 East; Thence Easterly along the Northline of said section to the Northeast corner of the East 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 34.

Thence Southerly to the centerline of Ibis Road; Thence Easterly along the Centerline of Ibis Road becoming E.E. Williamson Road to the intersection with centerline of Rangeland Road; Thence Southerly along the centerline of Rangeland Road to the intersection with the centerline of State Road 434; Thence Westerly along the centerline of State Road 434 to the intersection with centerline of Palm Springs Drive; Thence Southerly along the centerline of Palm Springs Drive to the intersection with the centerline of State Road 436; Thence Easterly along the centerline of State Road 436 to intersection with the centerline of Maitland Avenue.

Thence Southerly along the centerline of Maitland Avenue to the South line of Seminole County as described in Florida Statutes Chapter 6511 No. 91, the "Creation of Seminole County"; Thence along said South line also being the South line of Sections 19 through 24 of Township 21 South Range 29 East to the Southwest corner of Section 19, Township 21 South, Range 29 East; Thence Northerly along the Westerly boundary of Seminole County, also being the Range line between Ranges 28 & 29 East, to the intersection of said Range line and the thread of the Wekiva River; Thence Northeasterly along the thread of said Wekiva River to its intersection with the thread of the Little Wekiva River also being the Point of Beginning of District 3.

District 4:

Begin at the Southwest corner of Section 33, Township 21 South, Range 30 East, also being a point on the Southerly boundary of Seminole County, per Florida Statues Chapter 6511, No. 91, the "Creation of Seminole County", Thence run North along the county boundary, also being the West line of Sections 28 & 33 of said Township 21 South, Range 30 East, to the Southeast corner of Section 20, Township 21 South, Range 30 East; Thence West along the South lines of Section 19 & 20, of Township 21 South, Range 30 East to the Southwest corner of said Section 19; Thence North long the range line between Ranges 29 & 30 to the Southeast corner of Section 24, Township 21 South Range 29 East.

Thence West along the South line of said Section 24 to the centerline of Maitland Avenue; Thence Northerly along the centerline of Maitland Avenue to the intersection with the centerline of State Road 436; Thence Westerly along the centerline of State Road 436 to the intersection with the centerline of Palm Springs Drive; Thence Northerly along the centerline of Palm Springs Drive to the intersection with the centerline of State Road 434; Thence Easterly along the centerline of State Road 434 to the centerline of Rangeland Road; Thence Northerly along the centerline of Rangeland Road to the centerline of E.E. Williamson Road; Thence Westerly along the centerline of E.E. Williamson Road to the centerline of West Bound Interstate 4 in Section 25, Township 20 South, Range 29 East; Thence Northeasterly along the centerline of West Bound Interstate 4 to centerline of West 25th Street also known as H.E. Thomas Jr. Parkway; Thence Easterly along West 25th Street to the intersection with the centerline of South Bound State Road 417.

Thence Southeasterly along the centerline of the South Bound State Road 417 to the East line of Section 03 Township 20 South Range 30 East; Thence South along the East line of said Section 3 to the Northeast corner of Tract B of the Plat of Egrets Landing Plat Book 54, Pages 96 to 99 of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida; Thence along the Southeasterly and Easterly boundary of said Egrets Landing the following courses: S00°01'22"E, 853.82 feet; S59°58'38"W, 790.60 feet; N89°57'30"W, 1233.82 feet; S29°54'53"E, 601.56 feet; S60°06'21"W, 1056.12 Feet; the Westerly most corner of Lot 23 of the Plat of Ramblewood, Plat Book 23 Pages 7 & 8 of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida.

Thence leaving said Egrets Landing, along the Southerly and Westerly boundary of said Ramblewood to following courses: S29°09'54"E, 458.46 feet; S00°44'31"W, 316.05 feet; S89°15'28"E, 550.69 feet to the Northerly most point of Tract B Reserve at Lock Lake, Plat Book 76, Pages 27 to 38 of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida; Thence leaving said Ramblewood, along the Easterly and Northerly boundary of said Reserve at Lock Lake the following courses: S81°25'52"E, 417.39 feet; South, 260.00 feet; East, 250.00 feet; South, 415.00 feet; S89°11'07"E 375.00 feet to the Northeast corner of Tract C; Thence S00°48'56"W, 813.29 feet to the Southeast corner of Tract A of said Reserve at Lock Lake.

Thence Southeasterly along the South line of Tract G of Hidden Lake Unit 1 A Revised Plat, as recorded in Plat Book 17, Pages 99 and 100 of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida, 192 feet to the extension of the centerline of Art Lane; Thence Southerly along the centerline of Art Lane 582 feet; Thence S65°E 989.12 feet to the Westerly line of Block B of said Hidden Lake Unit 1; Thence S65°E along the Westerly line of Block B and its extension to the intersection with the centerline of West Lake Mary Boulevard;

Thence Easterly along the centerline of West Lake Mary Boulevard to the intersection with U.S. Highway 17-92 in Section 11, Township 20 South, Range 30 East; Thence Southwesterly along the centerline of U.S. Highway 17-92 to the intersection of the centerline of Seminola Boulevard; Thence Southerly along the centerline of Seminola Boulevard to the intersection with the centerline of Button Road; Thence Westerly along the centerline of Button Road to its intersection with the centerline of North Sunset Drive; Thence South along the centerline of North Sunset Drive and its continuation of North Oxford Road to the intersection with the centerline of State Road 436; Thence Southeasterly along the centerline of State Road 436 to the centerline of Red Bug Lake Road.

Thence Easterly along the centerline of Red Bug Lake Road to the West line of the East 110.00 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21, Township 21 South, Range 30 East; Thence South along the West line of said East 110.00 feet to the South line of the North 3/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 21; Thence West along said South line of the North 3/4 of the Southeast 1/4, 110.00 feet to the East line of said Section 21; Thence South along the East line of Sections 21 to the Northeast corner of Section 28, Township 21 South, Range 30 East; Thence Southerly along the East line of said Section 28 to the Northwest corner of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 27, Township 21 South, Range 30 East; Thence Easterly along the North line of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 to the Northeast corner of said Quarter Quarter; Thence Southerly along the East line of said Quarter Quarter to the Southeast corner of said Quarter Quarter; Thence Westerly along the South line of said Quarter Quarter to the West line of Section 27, Township 21 South, Range 30 East and its intersection with the centerline of Lake Anne Lane; Thence Southerly along the Centerline of Lake Ann Lane to the extension of the South line of Lake Anne Estates Unit One, as recorded in Plat Book 15 Page 8; Thence Easterly along said South line to the West line of the East 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Said Section 27; Thence South 911.46 feet to the South line of the North 911.46 feet of said East 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4; Thence Easterly 310.8 feet along said South line; Thence Southerly 11.8 feet to the prolongation of the North line of Lake Ann Estates Shores as recorded in Plat Book 12, Page 5 of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida; Thence easterly along said prolongation of said line to the Northwest corner of Lot 1 of said Plat;

Thence Easterly to the Northeast corner of Lot 3 of Lake Ann Shores; Thence Southerly along the East boundary of said Lot 3 and its prolongation to the Centerline of Howell Branch Road.

Thence East along the centerline of Howell Branch Road to the intersection with the centerline of Tangerine Avenue; Thence South along the centerline of Tangerine Avenue to the South boundary of Seminole County per Florida Statues Chapter 6511, No. 91, the "Creation of Seminole County'' and the Township line between Townships 21 South and 22 South; Thence along the South line of Sections 33, 34 & 35 of said Township 21 South, Range 30 East to the Southwest corner of said Section 33 said corner being the Point of Beginning of District 4.

District 5:

Begin in Section 16, Township 20 South, Range 29 East at the intersection of the threads of the Wekiva River and Little Wekiva River, also being the Westerly boundary of Seminole County, per Florida Statutes Chapter 6511 No. 91, the "Creation of Seminole County", run along the Westerly and Northerly boundary of the county the following courses: Northerly along the thread of the Wekiva River to a point of intersection with the thread of the St. John's River, being in Section 36, Township 18 South, Range 29 East; Southeasterly and Easterly along the thread of the St. John's River to and through Lake Monroe, returning to the thread of the St. John's River in Section 16, Township 19 South, Range 31 East.

Southerly and Southeasterly along said thread to its intersection with Monroe Canal, aka Woodruff Creek; continue Easterly, then Southeasterly, along said thread East of the un-surveyed Part of Section 27, Township 19 South, Range 31 East, to its intersection with the centerline of State Road 415; Thence Southerly along the centerline of State Road 415 to the centerline of East State Road 46; Thence Easterly along the centerline of East State Road 46 to the centerline of Richmond Avenue; Thence Southerly along the centerline of Richmond Avenue, through Brown's Subdivision of Beck Hammock, Plat Book 1 page 83 of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida, continuing along said centerline to a point near its intersection with Moores Station Road being 612.37 feet North of the South 1/4 corner of Section 03,Township 20 South, Range 31 East.

Thence run N82°ll'l0"E, 895.86 feet; S42°46'16"W, 89.94 feet; S33°05'W, 447.30 feet; S06°W, 1432.30 feet; N54°l6'W, 1502.56 feet; South 551.37 feet; N65°2'13"W, 97.67 feet; S26°51'29"W to a point on the North line of Lot 10 of Sanford Celery Delta, Plat Book 1 Pages 75 and 76 of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida, said point being 179.51 feet Easterly of the Northwest corner of said Lot 10; Thence East to a point 787 feet west of the Southeast corner of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10, Township 20 South, Range 31 East; Thence South 152.00 feet; Thence West to a point on the West line of Lot 10, 152.00 feet south of the Northwest corner of said Lot 10; Thence South along the East line of the West 1/4 of Said Section 10 to the north line of Lots 45 and 46; Thence Westerly along the north line of said Lots 45 and 46 to a point that is 87 feet Easterly of the Northwest corner of said Lot 45; Thence Northwesterly 146 feet to a point that is N17°E and 145 feet from the Northwest corner of Lot 45 said point being on the centerline of East Lake Mary Boulevard; Thence Westerly along the centerline of East Lake Mary Boulevard, becoming West Lake Mary Boulevard at the point of intersection with North U.S. Highway 17-92, being in Section 14, Township 20 South, Range 30 East; Thence continue Westerly along the centerline of West Lake Mary Boulevard, to its intersection with the Southerly extension of the Westerly line of Block B, Hidden Lake Unit lA Revised Plat, Plat Book 17 Pages 99 & 100, as recorded in Public Records of Seminole County, Florida; Thence N09°56'30"W along said Southerly extension of said Westerly line, to the Southerly most point of said Block B;

Thence continue N09°56'30"W along the Westerly line of said Block B 690.6 feet; Thence N65°W 989.12 feet to the centerline of Art Lane; Thence North along the centerline to its intersection with the South line of Tract G of said Hidden Lake Unit lA Revised Plat, Plat Book 17 Pages 99 & 100; Thence Northwesterly along said South line of Tract G to the Southeast corner of Tract A Reserve at Lock Lake, Plat Book 76, Pages 27 to 38 as recorded in the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida; Thence run along the Easterly and Northerly boundary of said Reserve at Lock Lake to following Courses: N00°48'56"E, 813.29 feet to the Northeast corner of Tract C; N89°11'07"W 375.00 feet; North 415.00 feet; West 250.00 feet; North 260.00 feet.

N8l°25'52"W, 417.39 feet to the Northerly most point of Tract B, also being the Southerly boundary of Ramblewood, Plat Book 23, Pages 7 & 8 of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida; Thence leaving said Reserve, run along the Southerly and Westerly boundary of said Ramblewood the following courses: N89°15'28"W, 550.69 feet; N00°44'31"E, 316.05 feet; N29°09'54"W, 458.46 feet to the Westerly most corner Lot 23, also being the Southerly boundary of Egrets Landing, Plat Book 54, Pages 96 to 99 of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida; Thence leaving Ramblewood, run along the Southeasterly and Easterly boundary of said Egrets Landing the following courses: N60°06'21"E, 1056.12 feet; N29°54'53"W, 601.56 feet; S89°57'30"E, 1233.82 feet; N59°58'38"E, 790.60 feet; N00°01'22"W, 853.82 feet to the Northeast corner of Tract B, also being the East line of Section 03, Township 20 South, Range 30 East, and the end of said Egrets Landing; Thence continue North along the East line of Section 3, Township 20 South, Range 30 East to the centerline of South Bound State Road 417.

Thence Northwesterly along the centerline of southbound State Road 417 to the centerline of West 25^th Street, also known as H.E. Thomas Jr. Parkway; Thence West along the centerline of West 25th Street to the centerline of west bound Interstate 4, being in Section 6, Township 20 South Range 30 East; Thence Southwesterly along the centerline of west bound Interstate 4 to the centerline of E.E. Williamson Road; thence West along the centerline of E.E. Williamson Road, becoming Ibis Road to the endpoint of said right of way; Thence North to the Northeast corner of the East 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 34, Township 20 South, Range 29 East; Thence Westerly along the North line of said Northwest ¼ of Section 34 to the thread of the Little Wekiva River; Thence Northerly and Northwesterly along the thread of the Little Wekiva River to the point of intersection with the thread of the Wekiva River in Section 16, Township 20 South, Range 29 East, being the Point of Beginning of District 5.

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

COUNTY MANAGER’S REPORT

Ms. Guillet stated she had no report but wanted to thank everyone during her time as County Manager.

COUNTY ATTORNEY’S REPORT

Agenda Item #35 – 2021-3049

Policy for Single Use Plastics at County Facilities (CONT’D)

Ms. Porter-Carlton stated earlier today, the Board requested staff come back on Item #35, and she has spoken with Assistant County Attorney Melissa Hernandez and Mr. Durr. Unfortunately, the County computer system has been down all day and didn't come back up until 7:45 p.m., so what she would like to do is tell them what the new wording will be and when the support staff comes in, in the morning, the document will be typed up and given to the Chairman for signature.

She reminded Commissioner Lockhart's concern was with one of the whereas clauses which was very broad and broader than what Mr. Durr had discussed in his presentation. Ms. Porter-Carlton's recommendation was to make it consistent with the proposed change to the Administrative Code, so the language in that whereas would be changed to say "Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners finds it is in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens and visitors in Seminole County to create a policy that prohibits the sale or disbursement of single-use products and plastic bags by contracted vendors on County property and encourages the use of reusable materials." That takes out the word "use" which made it incredibly broad and it limits it to contracted vendors.

Similarly, in the proposed amendment to the Administrative Code, her recommendation was to take out the phrase "by staff." What they are really concerned about is sale or disbursement by contracted vendors of the County, so by taking that out, it makes it consistent. The phrase "county staff" comes out twice in the Admin Code, and then it will be consistent with what the Board desired.

Chairman Constantine confirmed with Mr. Durr he concurred.

Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Zembower, to adopt appropriate Resolution #2021-R-165 amending the Seminole County Administrative Code by creating a new Section 3.65 (Single-Use Products Policy on County Property); and providing for an effective date.

Districts 1, 2, and 3 voted AYE.

Districts 4 and 5 voted NAY.

Motion passes 3 to 2.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

None.

Public Comment on Items Not Related to the Agenda

Andre Klass addressed the Board and stated he had a public safety concern. On Saturday he attended a community function held at Wilson Landing Park, and he believes the entranceway to the park does not meet county standard and poses a significant safety hazard to motorists and attendees entering and leaving the county park. The road that goes to the parking lot is only the width of a single vehicle even though that's the main thoroughfare where traffic is entering and exiting the property. On numerous occasions, he witnessed a large number of conflicts which nearly led to accidents, including himself where he was approaching a blind corner and suddenly there was a car zooming around the corner and having to go off the road to avoid running into him. Mr. Klass requested Leisure Services and any appropriate Public Works investigate this shortcoming in the design of the park and remedy it for the safety of all the members of the community who would be attending in the future. Chairman Constantine requested Mr. Jreij get with Mr. Klass to address his concerns.

-------

Katrina Shadix addressed single-use plastics. She also stated she previously requested a ban of the spraying of deadly pesticides. If the Board does not want to do a ban, there are "no spray" signs that could be posted. It's a simple solution that saves wildlife. She is also requesting the County enter a Joint Participation Agreement with the University of Central Florida, Orange County, and the Department of Transportation to address the issue of wildlife being killed on McCulloch Road. Documents Ms. Shadix distributed in relation to her requests were received and filed.

DISTRICT REPORTS

District 5

Commissioner Herr submitted a check to the County for $500,000 from Seminole County Port Authority.

-------

The Commissioner reported Rescue Outreach Mission hired an executive director, the contract was signed, and the new director is actively working.

District 2

Commissioner Zembower reported on the events and meetings he has attended.

-------

The Commissioner suggested they all review the AdventHealth partnership that has just come out with the Sheriff's Office so they all understand it since they have talked about giving ARPA money there and what that means. There is going to be a request to find some accommodations for this so if staff could give some kind of information on buildings that may be needed and if there is room at Five Points.

District 4

No report.

District 1

Commissioner Dallari reported south of Orlando on I-4 there is going to be an express lane from Kirkman down past S.R. 536 that DOT is moving forward with. There will also be ramp improvements at the Beachline and Apopka-Vineland Road at the 535 interchange. In Seminole County, there will be improvements on some ramps.

District 3/CHAIRMAN’S REPORT

Chairman Constantine reported on meetings he has attended and announced upcoming events.

-------

The Chairman requested an update on the search for the new County Manager. Ms. Porter-Carlton responded the RFP for the executive search firms for County Manager went out on Friday, October 29^th, and proposals are due November 17^th.

-------

The Chairman reminded everyone annual ethics training will be held at 8:00 a.m. on December 7^th.

COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR REPORTS

There were no communications or reports submitted.

--------

There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 9:53 p.m., this same date.

ATTEST:_____________________________Clerk___________________________Chairman

kf/tp/cc