BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
AUGUST 27, 2013
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, August 27, 2013,
in Room 1028 of the SEMINOLE COUNTY
SERVICES BUILDING at SANFORD,
FLORIDA, the usual place of meeting of said Board.
Present:
Chairman
Robert Dallari (District 1)
Vice
Chairman John Horan (District 2)
Commissioner
Lee Constantine (District 3)
Commissioner
Carlton Henley (District 4)
Commissioner
Brenda Carey (District 5)
Clerk
of Circuit Court Maryanne Morse
County
Manager Jim Hartmann
County
Attorney Bryant Applegate
Deputy
Clerk Jane Spencer
Dr. Dwayne Mercer, First Baptist Church, Oviedo, gave
the Invocation.
Commissioner
Henley led the Pledge of Allegiance.
-------
Chairman Dallari announced that
SGTV will be providing a Spotlight on Seminole County Business video. Commissioner Carey stated she believes this
is a great idea and hopes they will have a video at every meeting.
Seminole Business Spotlight - Symantec Corporation video was presented.
Chairman Dallari thanked staff and stated it would be advantageous if they could spotlight a company in the upcoming meetings.
AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
Ryan
Cunningham, Kittelson and Associates, addressed the Board to present the SR 46
Corridor Safety Study presentation. Mr.
Cunningham discussed the Study Corridor and the Study Purpose. He explained the Study Goal and Study Process. With regard to Historical Crash Analysis, Mr.
Cunningham reviewed the Crash reports obtained from Seminole County and the
Florida Department of Transportation graph; Crash Trends, Contributing Factors;
and the 2007 to 2011 Roadway Departure Crashes chart.
Mr.
Cunningham displayed and discussed several Corridor Crash Maps. He explained how the corridor was separated
into segments and intersections for location-specific analysis. He reviewed Potential Safety Countermeasures,
Crash Prediction Scenarios, Existing Scenario Crash Prediction, Future "No
Build" Scenario Crash Prediction, and the Countermeasure Evaluation by
Benefit, Cost and Priority. He displayed
the Countermeasure Evaluation chart regarding Mullet Lake Park Road to Avenue C
and explained how they use the Cost per Crash Reduced number to help organize
the countermeasures into three tiers.
Mr.
Cunningham noted that the "Build" Scenario - Tier I Benefit/Cost
Analysis slide contains a sample of four different locations while the report
presents the information for the corridor as a whole. By having a group of countermeasures, a project
crash modification factor, and a location, they can come up with a project
benefit for each location. They looked
at that for the corridor as a whole and summed those up. When they summed those up, they put together
a summary table of Tier I, Tier II and Tier III projects. Mr. Cunningham reviewed the Project Benefits
slide and pointed out that the Benefits/Cost ratio continues to go down as the
cost of the improvements goes up. Mr.
Cunningham concluded his presentation by detailing three Recommendations.
Commissioner
Carey stated that when they looked at widening Markham Woods Road, they did an
analysis and determined the real issue was mostly rear-end accidents because of
left-hand turn movement. By doing left
turn lanes, they have hardly had any accidents on Markham Woods Road since; and
they saved enough money in one section to do it for the entire section of road. She believes the Tier I approach is great and
they can continue to evaluate and see if it is working.
Commissioner
Horan stated the Tier I investment and the return on it actually could have a
caterwauling effect in the sense this particular study is laid against an
overall study that is being done right now concerning the widening and the
general improvement of all of State Road 46 out to I-95. This study wanted to focus surgically on how
they leverage the cost of safety improvements rather than just the movement of
traffic and the connectivity of the even-numbered roads up and down the
state. He believes this study graphically
shows that not only do you have a great return on investment for a relevantly
small investment in safety improvement but also you could postpone indefinitely
the need for spending an enormous amount of money for the total cost of
widening State Road 46. Commissioner
Horan stated this was a great study and he hopes FDOT (Florida Department of
Transportation) takes a very careful look at it and understands that at the
local level, they are the ones that have to take a look at what those
particular dollars mean in terms of public safety.
Commissioner
Carey stated that she knows the limits of this study only went to SR 426. She has requested several times that FDOT
look at that section of SR 46 that goes underwater when they have a tropical
storm. She stated there were some minor
improvements and stabilization when the road went underwater. She requested that Brett Blackadar, County
Engineer, address the issue of whether FDOT is doing anything with some of the
money that is saved to do some improvements so they don't have that issue in
the future.
Brett
Blackadar, County Engineer, addressed the Board to explain when FDOT did resurfacing
in the area, they did raise the road to above the level where the waters were
for Tropical Storm Fay. If that same
event happened, it would not overtop the road now. He went on to point out that if there was a
widening project in the future that went all of the way to Brevard County, they
would be reconstructing that entire bridge in that area and raising it up. Until then, there are not any plans to do an
interim bridge. Tropical Storm Fay was
the highest water they had recorded in that area as long as FDOT has been
keeping records and was an unusual event.
He believes the road is about eight inches higher now.
At the
request of Chairman Dallari, Mr. Cunningham discussed the recommendations that
came out of the quasi-study that was done by the community of Geneva.
Chairman
Dallari confirmed with Mr. Blackadar that the next step is the PD&E (Project
Development and Environmental) study.
Discussion ensued with regard to the PD&E study. Upon further inquiry by Chairman Dallari, Mr.
Blackadar explained they are looking at a timeframe for a public hearing. He stated this study is kind of a side study
to look at the interim. The PD&E
study still has to address the long-term needs.
He advised they have made a recommendation, which is in the MetroPlan
draft priority list, of two tiers to the project (interim safety improvements
and long-term widening) so when the traffic volume does justify it down the
road, they can relook at the widening.
The PD&E study will make similar recommendations of Phase I and
Phase II.
Chairman
Dallari pointed out that in order to get to I-95, you have to go into another
county. The other county has to have the
will to do this as well. If they just
take it to the county line, there is a bottleneck. Chairman Dallari stated he believes it makes
a lot of sense to do Tier I and then to re-evaluate. To him, to widen the road at this time
doesn't make sense from the information that he has seen. He believes if you are going to widen the
road, it needs to be coordinated with other surrounding counties so there is
not a bottleneck at the county line.
Commissioner
Horan suggested with regard to the PD&E study, that if they structure it in
such a way that you have a very concrete cost benefit analysis (as this study
that is focused on safety shows), even though they may be focusing on a totally
different type of goal and objective, he believes it is a much more useful public
policy document for the Board. He
suggested to Mr. Blackadar that when he is talking to these people, he hopes he
expresses those concerns as well. Mr.
Blackadar explained that they are doing the PD&E study by FHWA standards
because they want the project to be available for federal funds through
MetroPlan and there are certain requirements that they have to follow to
present that.
Chairman
Dallari stated this study needs to be presented to the people doing the
PD&E and they need to understand that Tier I is really where the low lying
fruit is.
Shad Smith,
Assistant County Engineer, addressed the Board to state that the PD&E study
is being done by URS, and they are including the Safety study as part of
that. He explained there will be two
different steps or phases of the PD&E and the first is the safety
improvements. The future volumes will be
the next step when it is warranted.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Dick Creedon, 1172 Apache Drive,
addressed the Board to advise the community in Geneva totally supports all of
the recommendations in Tier I and Tier II of the Safety study. He stated they adamantly oppose at this time anything
in Tier III, especially the widening of the road. He requested a modification in Tier II and
described a very sharp dangerous turn eastbound on SR 46 at Cochran Road. Mr. Creedon requested that the County
consider acquiring a small piece of the triangular section of land at the
northwest corner of Cochran Road and SR 46 so the turn would be more easily
negotiated. He added when and if it
comes to the point the road might be considered to be widened all of the way to
I-95 that they use a model of what was done on the Wekiva Parkway, where the
three counties came together and had the Memorandum of Understanding, so they
will not end up with something that would be truncated and just hanging out
like the end of a limb for many years.
Chairman Dallari requested that Mr.
Blackadar take note of Mr. Creedon’s two comments, the one about the sharp turn
and the other one about the MOU.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Jim Hartmann, County Manager, addressed the
Board to advise that under the Consent Agenda he is pulling Item #16, Renewal of Non‑Exclusive
Franchise Agreement for Commercial Solid Waste Collection Service with
Progressive Waste Solutions of FL. With
regard to the Regular Agenda, he is pulling Item #35, Jobs
Growth Incentive (JGI) Funding Agreement with IZON, LLC.
Chairman Dallari stated he has no problem
with Item 27, Supplemental Amendment Number 1 to a Locally Funded Agreement with FDOT,
but he wants to be sure the item comes back to the Board for the ownership
issue. Brett Blackadar, County Engineer,
explained that the action by the Board today authorizes the Locally Funded
Agreement with FDOT to go to the limits and they would start discussions with
the property owners. The County is not
actually purchasing the property yet. He
stated if the property is purchased, they can talk to FDOT who will purchase
the property in either their name or the County’s name. The ownership discussion and what they use
the property for can be down the road after the intersection permits are
done. Chairman Dallari advised he is
requesting this be brought back at a later date after ownership has been
established. He believes since the
County is paying for it, it should be in their name.
Motion by
Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to authorize and approve
the following:
County Manager’s Office
Business Office
2. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
Service Agreements, as shown on page _______, for the following Civil Traffic
Hearing Officers for Year 2013/2014: Christopher Morrison, Charles J. Cino, John
A. Pascucci and Ava Tunstall, effective the date of execution by the County and
remaining in effect until September 30, 2014, unless terminated as set forth in
the Agreement.
Community Services
Business Office
3. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
the Ninth Renewal, Amendment and Restatement, as shown on page _______, of
County of Volusia Interlocal Agreement for Provision of Medical Examiner
Services for Seminole County.
4. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
the Satisfactions of Second Mortgage, as shown on page _______, for the
following households assisted under the County's SHIP/HOME Home Ownership
Assistance Program and the Foreclosure Prevention Program: Milton Blanco; Eileen Brunelle; John H. and
Janice L. Bryant; Agnes Caquias; Sharon A. Clark; Rafela Cortez and Secundido
Camacho, Angela A. Curcio, Sheryl Ann Glover; Rajko Kojic and Nada Kojic, Doris
I. Baity Mullins, Catherine M. Schiraldi, Ronnie Smith and Cynthia Smith,
Curtis Watson and Jacalyn Watson, Irene Williams, and Earl Jack Williams, Jr.
and Charles Collier.
Community Development Division
5. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Rental Property Donation and Acceptance
Agreement, as shown on page _______, between Seminole County and Mount Olive
Missionary Baptist Church to provide an additional residential rental property
for expanding services to Low Income and Moderate Income residents.
6. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
two Certification Forms, as shown on page _______, for the State Housing
Initiatives Partnership Program (SHIP) Annual Performance Report (APR).
7. Approve and authorize the Director of
Community Services to execute regulatory required HOME Agreements between
qualified first time homebuyers and Seminole County when using HOME Investment
Partnership Program grant funds.
Development Services
Planning & Development
Division
8. Adopt
appropriate Resolution #2013-R-214, as shown on page _______, vacating and
abandoning the East 7.00 feet of the West 14.00 foot platted Utility Easement
on Lot 2, Block I, Lynnwood Revision, according to the plat thereof, as
recorded in Plat Book 16, Pages 32 though 33, of the Public Records of Seminole
County, Florida, more particularly known as 1074 Martex Drive; Audrey Mason
& Ann Hasty.
Environmental Services
Solid Waste Management Division
9. Approve
and authorize the Chairman to execute a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity, as shown on page _______, for Comfort House, Inc., effective from
October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014.
10. Approve
and authorize the Chairman to execute a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity, as shown on page _______, for Conex Recycling Corporation, effective
from October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014.
11. Approve
and authorize the Chairman to execute a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity, as shown on page _______, for GLE Scrap Metal‑Florida, Inc., effective
from October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014.
12. Approve
and authorize the Chairman to execute a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity, as shown on page _______, for Keller Outdoor, Inc., effective from
October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014.
13. Approve
and authorize the Chairman to execute a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity, as shown on page _______, for SP Recycling Southeast, LLC, effective
from October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014.
14. Approve
and authorize the Chairman to execute a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity, as shown on page _______, for USA Services Of Florida, Inc.,
effective from October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014.
15. Approve
and authorize the Chairman to execute a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity, as shown on page _______, for Perma‑Fix of Florida, effective
from August 27, 2013 through September 30, 2014.
16. Pulled
from the agenda request for renewal of Non‑Exclusive Franchise
Agreement for Commercial Solid Waste Collection Service with Progressive Waste
Solutions of FL, Inc., from October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2014.
17. Renewal
of Non‑Exclusive Franchise Agreement for Commercial Solid Waste
Collection Service with WCA of Florida, LLC, from October 1, 2013 to September
30, 2014.
18. Renewal
of Non‑Exclusive Franchise Agreement for Commercial Solid Waste
Collection Service with Waste Management Inc. of Florida, from October 1, 2013
to September 30, 2014.
19. Adopt
appropriate Resolution #2013-R-215, as shown on page _______, amending Section
18.5 of the Seminole County Administrative Code to remove the names of private
companies that provide residential solid waste collection service; providing an
effective date.
Leisure
Services
Greenways
& Natural Lands Division
20. Approve
and authorize the Chairman to execute the first amendment, as shown on page
_______, to the Agreement between Seminole County and the City of Sanford
relating to contribution of Boater Improvement funds to support design and
permitting for transient slip construction and improvement of the Sanford
Marina entered into on December 13, 2011. This amendment requests the
completion date be extended to December 12, 2013.
Tourism
Development Division
21. Approve
and authorize the Chairman to execute an Agreement, as shown on page _______,
with Orlando Sanford International, Inc. and Central Florida Zoological
Society, Inc. in the amount of $2,500 per year for a period of three years for
the sponsorship of the Avigator Space at the Orlando Sanford International
Airport.
Public Works
Engineering Division
22. Adopt
appropriate Resolution #2013-R-216, as shown on page _______, and authorize the
Chairman to execute an Aesthetic, Lighting, Hardscape, Mast Arms and Fire
Suppression System Agreement, as shown on page _______, between the State of
Florida, Department of Transportation, and Seminole County for the Ultimate
Interstate 4 Project; FDOT ‑ FM#s 242484‑6, 242592‑2‑52‑01
and 242592‑3‑52‑01.
23. Adopt
appropriate Resolution #2013-R-217, as shown on page _______, and authorize the
Chairman to execute an Off System Construction and Maintenance Agreement, as
shown on page _______, between the State of Florida, Department of
Transportation, and Seminole County in conjunction with the reconstruction of
State Road 400 (Interstate 4) from the Orange County Line to one mile
north/east of State Road 434; FDOT ‑ FM#s 242484‑6, 242592‑2‑52‑01
and 242592‑3‑52‑01.
24. Approve
and authorize the release of a Right-of-Way Utilization Permit Maintenance Bond
#3339601 in the amount of $4,141.50 submitted for roadway improvements to
Douglas Avenue and Commerce Park in conjunction with the Silver Springs Square
Project.
25. Approve
and authorize the release of a Private Road Maintenance Bond #584350S in the
amount of $27,082 submitted for road and drainage infrastructure in conjunction
with the Bella Tuscany Project.
26. Approve
and authorize the release of a Private Road Maintenance Bond #58673038 in the
amount of $188,922.28 submitted for roads and drainage infrastructure in
conjunction with the Preserve at Eagle Lake Project.
27. Adopt
appropriate Resolution #2013-R-218, as shown on page _______, and authorize the
Chairman to execute Supplemental Amendment Number 1 to a Locally Funded
Agreement with the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, to add the
acquisition of right-of-way for the construction of intersection improvements
at State Road 434 and Ronald Reagan Boulevard (County Road 427); FDOT ‑
Financial Management Number 240233‑(4/5)‑(4B/41/43)‑01).
Resource Management
Business Office
28. Approve and authorize the
Chairman to execute First Amendment, as shown on page _______, increasing the Provider
Service Agreement with Colonial Counseling Associates, Inc. from $120,960 to
$163,834 to cover the costs of providing additional services in support of the
FY 2012‑13 Adult Drug Treatment Court Expansion and Enhancement Grant.
Purchasing & Contracts Division
29. Revise Award of IFB‑601738‑13/GMG,
Term Contract, as shown on page _______, for Roadway Markings, Striping and
Brick Texture Surfacing to Fausnight Stripe and Line, Inc., Longwood, and
Oglesby Construction, Inc., Sanford; and authorize the Purchasing and Contracts
Division to execute the Agreements.
30. Award IFB‑601770‑13/GMG,
Term Contract, as shown on page _______, for Liquid Chemical Feed Systems
Repair, Maintenance, Support, and Installation Services to Odyssey
Manufacturing Co., Tampa for an estimated total annual amount of $426,500; and
authorize the Purchasing and Contracts Division to execute the Agreement.
31. Award RFP‑601745‑13/TLR,
Term Contract, as shown on page _______, for Pest Control Services to Apex Pest
Control, Inc., Orlando in the amount of $33,696 annually, and authorize the
Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute the agreement.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER’S CONSENT
AGENDA
Motion by Commissioner Carey,
seconded by Commissioner Henley, to approve and authorize the following:
Clerk’s
Office
32. Expenditure Approval Lists, as shown on page _______, dated
July 22 and 29, 2013; and Payroll Approval List, as shown on page _______, dated
August 1, 2013; and approval of the BCC Official Minutes dated July 23, 2013; and
noting, for information only, the following Clerk’s “received and filed”:
1. Amendment
#1, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #8 to PS-1666-07.
2. Amendment
#2, as shown on page _______, to RFP-601461-12.
3. Recovery
House Lease, as shown on page _______, for property located at 591 Lake Minnie
Drive per Purchase Agreement approval on June 11, 2013.
4. Work Order
#4, as shown on page _______, to CC-8199-12.
5. Title
Opinion, as shown on page _______, for replat of Elm Acres.
6. Conditional
Utility Agreement, as shown on page _______, for Potable and Reclaimed Water
Service with The Shtark Investment Group LLC for the project known as Savta
Reserve.
7. Amendment
#1, as shown on page _______, to PS-7333-12.
8. Work Order
#18, as shown on page _______, to PS-5438-10.
9. BOA
Development Order #13-30000028, as shown on page _______, Craig & Connie
Chuhaloff variance.
10. Work Order #3, as
shown on page _______, to PS-7643-12.
11. Amendment #1, as shown
on page _______, to RFP-CS01-12.
12. Work Order #19, as
shown on page _______, to CC-5075-10.
13. Work Orders #33, #34,
#35, #36 and #37, as shown on page _______, to RFP-8312-12.
14. Performance Bond #SBA
851255, as shown on page _______, in the amount of $186,478.20, Surety Bond and
Power of Attorney for Contract CC-8548-13 (Approved by BCC on 6/25/13).
15. Amendment #1, as shown
on page _______, to RFP-7423-13.
16. Work Orders #5 and #6,
as shown on page _______, to CC-8199-12.
17. Order Acknowledging
Transfer to Government Authority and Cancelling Water and Wastewater Certificates
before the Florida Public Service Commission regarding Docket #130050-WS.
18. Performance Bond
#1020598, as shown on page _______, in the amount of $39,545 for the project
known as Versailles.
19. Amendment #2, as shown
on page _______, to Work Order #2 to PS-5473-10.
20. Memorandum, as shown
on page _______, to Jim Hartmann, County Manager, from Gloria Eby through Alan
Wheeler and Kim Ornberg, Public Works, regarding Unauthorized Commitment for
restoration project in Lake Jesup.
21. M-8817-13 Basic
Agreement, as shown on page _______, Paul J. Ford Company.
22. Closeout, as shown on
page _______, for CC-8003-12.
23. Amendment #4, as shown
on page _______, to Work Order #3 to RFQ-5888-10.
24. Work Order #7, as
shown on page _______, to CC-8199-12.
25. Work Order #20, as
shown on page _______, to CC-5075-10.
26. Developers Commitment
Agreement, as shown on page _______, for L&L Acres.
27. Amendment #3, as shown
on page _______, to Work Order #68 to PS-1529-06.
28. Amendment #1, as shown
on page _______, to Work Order #102 to PS-5120-02.
29. Amendment #1, as shown
on page _______, to Work Order #101 to PS-5120-02.
30. Amendment #1, as shown
on page _______, to Work Order #100 to PS-5120-02.
31. Amendment #1, as shown
on page _______, to Work Order #99 to PS-5120-02.
32. Amendment #1, as shown
on page _______, to Work Order #98 to PS-5120-02.
33. Amendment #1, as shown
on page _______, to Work Order #97 to PS-5120-02.
34. Amendment #1, as shown
on page _______, to Work Order #95 to PS-5120-02.
35. Amendment #1, as shown
on page _______, to Work Order #94 to PS-5120-02.
36. Tennis Developmental
Instructor Agreement, as shown on page _______, Hien Nguyen.
37. RFP-601734-13 Term
Contract, as shown on page _______, Accomtec.
38. Work Order #6, as
shown on page _______, to RFP-CS01-12.
39. Closeout, as shown on
page _______, for CC-8255-13.
40. Bids as follows: RFP-601711-13; RFP-601690-13 plus CD;
IFB-601778-13; IFB-601770-13; and PS-8595-13.
Districts 1, 2, 3,
4 and 5 voted AYE.
REGULAR
AGENDA
Tom Tomerlin, Interim Economic Development Director,
addressed the Board to present the request to approve the Jobs Growth Incentive
(JGI) Funding Agreement with Florida Marking Products, LLC, and an Interlocal
Agreement with the City of Longwood addressing the City’s contribution to the
JGI incentive. Mr. Tomerlin pointed out
that Florida Marking Products will be growing 25 new jobs into the community in
addition to the 15 existing jobs. He
explained that the job growth incentive award of $50,000 will be split evenly
with the City of Longwood. The City of
Longwood approved the Interlocal Agreement to fund their $25,000 part on July
15, 2013.
Mr. Tomerlin introduced Kevin Bennett, Director of
Florida Marking Products.
Motion
by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve Jobs Growth
Incentive (JGI) Funding Agreement, as shown on page _______, with Florida
Marking Products, LLC, providing an incentive in the amount of $50,000 for the
creation of 25 jobs; and an Interlocal Agreement, as shown on page _______,
with the City of Longwood addressing the City’s contribution to the JGI
incentive ($25,000).
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Mr. Tomerlin presented the request to approve the Jobs
Growth Incentive (JGI) Funding Agreement with American Builders Supply, Inc.
and the Interlocal Agreement between Seminole County and the City of Sanford,
addressing the City’s contribution to the JGI incentive. He explained that American Builders currently
employs 291 people and are poised to grow 103 new jobs to man a truss manufacturing
facility on airport property that they will lease from Orlando-Sanford
International Airport. He explained that
the job growth incentive award of $206,000 will be split evenly with the City
of Sanford and that the City of Sanford approved this item at their regular
Board meeting last night. American
Builders Supply is estimated to make a capital expenditure into the community
of about $2.9 million in support of this project. Discussion ensued with regard to the $2.9
million capital expenditure.
Commissioner Carey stated that after the economic
downturn, the Board encouraged staff to work with existing businesses to try and
encourage them to not only stay in the community but to grow their
businesses. She believes this is a
perfect example of that.
Mr. Tomerlin introduced Shaun Heelan, Chief
Financial Officer for American Builders Supply.
Motion
by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to approve Jobs Growth
Incentive (JGI) Funding Agreement, as shown on page _______, between Seminole
County and American Builders Supply, Inc., providing a total incentive in the
amount of $206,000 for the creation of 103 jobs; and the Interlocal Agreement,
as shown on page _______, between Seminole County and the City of Sanford,
addressing the City’s contribution to the JGI incentive ($103,000).
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Chairman Dallari announced that Item #35, Request to
approve the Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI) Funding Agreement with IZON, LLC, and
an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lake Mary addressing the City’s
contribution to the JGI incentive was pulled
from the agenda.
-------
Chairman Dallari
recessed the meeting at 10:15 a.m., reconvening at 1:30 p.m., with all
Commissioners and all other Officials, with the exception of Deputy Clerk Jane
Spencer, who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Eva Roach, who were present at the
Opening Session.
PROOFS OF
PUBLICATION
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded
by Commissioner Henley to authorize the filing of the proofs of publication for
this meeting's scheduled public hearings into the Official Record.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
ORDINANCE
REVISING RURAL AREA BOUNDARY LINE
Proof of publication,
as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider an
Ordinance revising the Rural Area Boundary Line as established in the Seminole
County Home Rule Charter, affecting 4.51+/- acres; and associated Agreement
between Seminole County, City of Winter Springs, and American Land Investments
of Central Florida, LLC, received and filed.
Nicole
Guillet, Development Services Director, addressed the Board to advise this
request is related to the Mermel property (4.51 acres) which is the subject of
the proposed ordinance. She advised the
rural area boundary was established by referendum in 2004. She said she spoke to several people to try
to determine the basis for the actual boundary lines, but there is nothing in
the history that clearly explains how the boundary line was established. This particular piece of property is within
the boundary. Ms. Guillet displayed the
Home Rule Charter language and the ballot language (both received and filed)
establishing the rural area. She reviewed
the Board’s authority to move the boundary line. There were no criteria established in either
the ballot language or the Charter Amendment establishing under what
circumstances they could move the line.
The rural line north of the Mermel property was moved by the Board in
2006 and that was the result of a lawsuit settlement.
Ms. Guillet stated the Mermel
property is 4.5 acres and is surrounded by city properties that could be
developed at a higher-intensity use. An
industrial warehouse is located north of this property, and the adjacent
property is a much higher-intensity use than is expected within the rural
area. The other surrounding uses within
the cities are higher-intensity residential uses. She explained the purpose of moving this
property out of the rural boundary.
Ms. Guillet displayed and reviewed
the subdivision layout (received and filed) showing the subdivision being
within the City of Winter Springs and the City of Oviedo. The City of Winter Springs considered the
first reading of the annexation ordinance to annex the subject parcel in July
and will consider the second reading in September. She described the subdivision and advised the
proposed use for this property is retention open space with no vertical
construction. The tri-party agreement
contains clause that specifically prohibits the use of the 4.5 acres as part of
the density calculation. It has no
impact of adding additional lots and it doesn’t give them any additional
density if the property is moved out of the rural area to be incorporated into
the subdivision. The allowable density
is about 3.5 units per acre; and at 2.5 units per acre, they are significantly
below where they would be permitted to develop in the cities of Oviedo and
Winter Springs. They could take this
piece of property off the table and accommodate their retention and recreation
elsewhere on the site in order to accomplish the same yield of lots. They would have to reduce the lot size and it
would be a smaller-lot subdivision than what is proposed now if they moved the
retention off this site.
Ms.
Guillet displayed and reviewed a list of Permitted Uses (received and filed) on
this site if the property stays in the rural area. She referred to the tri-party agreement and
stated there is not a lot of guidance of how to deal with moving the rural
line. Ms. Guillet stated she took a look
at this property so she could understand what value it adds to the rural area,
why it would be important to keep it in the rural area, and any special
circumstances that would have a bearing on the Board’s decision regarding
moving the line. She displayed an aerial
view (provided in the backup) of the Mermel property and explained why she
feels the rural boundary was configured in a way that it wraps around the city
limits of Winter Springs. The property
owner has agreed to some significant limitations on this property through the
tri-party agreement. She reviewed the
limitations as outlined in the agenda memorandum. The property owner has also committed to
recording restrictive covenants in addition to the agreement that would
incorporate the limitations.
Ms. Guillet stated under the
tri-party agreement, the property owner and the City of Winter Springs have
also committed to assign land use and zoning designations consistent with those
restrictions. The County’s obligation
under that agreement is to consider moving the rural boundary line. She stated the City of Winter Springs
approved the tri-party agreement on August 26, 2013, and the City of Oviedo
approved the Preliminary Subdivision Plan (PSP) on August 5, 2013. She said based on the circumstances that she
discussed with the Board, the surrounding uses, the configuration of this
property in relationship to the rural area, and the restrictions agreed upon
for this site, staff is recommending approval of the tri-party agreement as
well as the ordinance removing this parcel of land from the rural area.
At the
request of Chairman Dallari, Ms. Guillet reviewed the list of
restrictions. She explained how the deed
restrictions are going to be handled if the agreement and ordinance are
approved.
Upon
inquiry by Chairman Dallari, Ms. Guillet advised there were no criteria when
the rural area was amended in 2006. She
stated she understands that that was accomplished to settle a lawsuit. She stated she doesn’t think it will set a
precedent in the sense that if the line is moved the Board will be obligated to
grant any other request to move it. The
most significant set of circumstances in this case are the restrictions, the
proximity of this to urban development, the configuration and the value of this
piece of property to the rural area.
Upon
further inquiry by Chairman Dallari, Ms. Guillet explained that if the Board
elected to move the line under these circumstances, they would be giving
significant guidance with regard to any future requests for movement of the
line.
Chairman
Dallari stated he feels it is interesting to see that they are finally putting
together criteria of what would happen if the line is considered to be moved.
Upon
inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Ms. Guillet displayed and reviewed a breakdown
(Site Data Sheet) of the overall density and the lot sizes in Oviedo and Winter
Springs. Commissioner Carey stated she
has said for years that they have the rural line and nobody has thought about
transitioning from four units per acre to one per three acres or even one to
one. She said it was clear to her that
in reading the ballot language, the voters recognized that there may be a
requirement for change in circumstances.
She stated she feels that ponds and the like enhance the rural
area.
Ms.
Guillet displayed an informational section (received and filed) of the Charter
Amendment Ballot issue that discusses creating a process for the Board to consider
revisions to the boundary line.
Dwight
Saathoff, American Land Investments of Central Florida, addressed the Board to
provide a little background of the Southern Oaks project. He displayed an aerial map (received and
filed) of the site and stated the site is approximately one mile from SR 417
and adjacent to SR 434 and is surrounded by urban-style development except for
the 4.5-acre rural parcel. The balance
is within the city boundaries and zoned for at least 3.5 units per acre. He explained how he measures density and how
they got where they are today with this project. He displayed copies of photographs (received
and filed) showing the heavy vegetation from the street. He said he has no intention of touching the
vegetation along the street and the 3½- to 4-acre lake that he is planning to
construct behind the vegetation will start about 20 feet from the edge of the
street. He added he doesn’t expect that
there will be a lot of difference in visibility or view of the property from
what is seen in the pictures. This
parcel is not adjacent to a rural homestead and will not be impacted by someone
living in the rural area. There are no
wetlands on the property. The studies
that were submitted to the cities reflect that there are no threatened or
endangered species on this property.
Mr.
Saathoff stated this property does not lie in an area of archeological
potential, it is not in a cone of influence that affects the drinking well, and
it is not in the environmentally sensitive lands overlay. This property is serviceable by central water
and sewer. This property is neither in
the preservation/managed lands area nor in the Geneva freshwater lens. They are not in a high recharge area or in
the Econ Protection Area. He reviewed
some background regarding how they came about purchasing this property and how
it got in the rural area. He stated he
believes he has the right to use the property in a fashion that is consistent
with the current County Future Land Use, which is R-3. He reviewed the allowable uses and what can
be built on the property. Mr. Saathoff
displayed and reviewed the aerial map and discussed the designations in the
rural area. He displayed an aerial map
(received and filed) showing single family homes near the Black Hammock reserve. He discussed the deed restrictions and stated
that of the 10 to 15 current uses, they are restricting down to just two or
three uses. The use of this rural piece
will end up being less intense and less impactful than many of the people
living in the rural area. He said he
feels that this will be a high-end project and the houses will be around
$500,000 or $600,000. He added he has
redesigned the parking spaces near the tot lot to take them out of the rural
piece of the property. If the City of Winter
Springs will allow them to use pervious material for any parking that might be
along the edge or inside the rural piece, they will use it.
Paul
Partyka, 292 Solaris Wharf Street, addressed the Board to speak in favor of
revising the rural boundary line. He
said he is a former mayor and commissioner of Winter Springs and the President
of the Oviedo/Winter Springs Chamber of Commerce. It was a matter of time that that exit on SR
434 would instigate and start to be the catalyst for future development. The Black Hammock rural area is a fine
community with Class A schools. What the
citizens are looking for is quality development that is compatible with the
area. It has to be where they can use
the countryside to take care of the nature aspects of the area. They want a wonderful community that is going
to be an asset to the entire area, a magnet for future people to move in. He asked the Board to approve the project,
but make sure it is done properly.
Marc
Zipper, 297 Chiswell Place, addressed the Board to state he has lived in
Seminole County for almost 30 years and he is in complete support of the
project. He said he feels that the
people living around the area will be very happy with the end result.
The names
of David Buckmaster, Heather Fatz, Robert Skubial, Diana Skubial, Mark
Ricketts, Linda Landau, Keith Landau, and Phyllis Rose were called to speak in
favor of the project and it was determined that they were not in
attendance.
Sandra
Schantini, John Shantini, Vince Woile, Heather Woile, Julie Webb, Donald E.
Downs, and Teresa Downs addressed the Board to state they are in support of the
project.
The names of Matthew Tafoya, David
Shook, Larry Scherer, Christopher Fiorenza, and Meussa Beyer were called to
speak in favor of the project and it was determined that they were not in
attendance.
Jerry Hardesty, 3016 Harbour
Landing Way, addressed the Board to state he has lived in the area for 62 years
and he has seen a lot of changes during this time. He said he is interested in what is going on
in this county. He added he has looked
at this project and believes the developer is trying to build something that
will be good for the future.
John
Daloise, 2020 Citrus Cove Dr., addressed the Board to state he strongly
supports this project as this is the type of project he wants in his
community. He asked the Board to approve
the project.
Gary
Singer, 205 Spring Lake Hills Drive, addressed the Board to speak in support of
this project. He urges the Board to
support this project as well as the tri-party agreement. The project doesn’t have any negative impacts
and he urges the Board to approve same.
Jeffrey
Gindi, 550 Lake Markham Road, addressed the Board to state he is in support of
the project. He said he feels the Board
has a responsibility to provide this kind of housing and development because
there will be a demand for these types of homes as companies in Lake Mary will
be adding thousands of jobs in this area.
Fred
Lonsdale, 1025 Wellington Court, addressed the Board to state he has been a
Seminole County resident for over 30 years and he is in support of the project
as long as things are done according to commitments made today.
Chairman
Dallari recessed the meeting at 2:30 p.m., reconvening at 2:37 p.m.
Michael
Presutti, 980 Elm St., addressed the Board to state the rural boundary was
established so there would be no more development. He said he has heard today is that there are
two reasons to avoid the rural boundary and those are out of necessity and the
other is out of change of circumstances.
He said he has not heard anything at all based upon on those
reasons. There is no indication that
those have changed since the rural boundary was established. He said this project will be built with or
without the change of the rural boundary.
A precedent should never be established because there is a purpose for
that. The Board’s purpose is to make
sure that everything goes according to plan.
The purpose of the Rural Boundary is to keep from having any more urban
sprawl going on in the area. If the
rural boundary is changed, it will cause all kinds of problems in the
future.
Richard
Groskey, 2465 Stone Street, addressed the Board to speak in opposition to the
request. He discussed the developers
growing in Altamonte Springs, getting away from the development by moving to
Black Hammock, why build more when the County has thousands of buildings that
are empty, and to stalemate the development until the economy picks up.
Angie
Williams, 1320 Hammock St., addressed the Board to state she lives in the Black
Hammock area and has lived there for 25 years.
She stated she voted in 2004 for the rural boundaries as there was a
purpose to keep it rural. There is something
special about this place and they need to keep it that way.
Edward
Brancaccio, 1610 Barr St., addressed the Board to state he also lives in the
Black Hammock. He stated he believes
that it will set a precedent if the developer is given this property and it
will balloon out.
Lisa
Zembower, 127 Big Oak Bend, addressed the Board to read a letter (not received
and filed) on behalf of her husband, William J. Zembower, Chuluota Community
Association, speaking in opposition to the project.
Don
Kiolbasa, 600 Pine Grand Ave., addressed the Board to state his feelings on this
are mixed. He stated his conclusion is
why would they need 4½ acres for retention, tot lot and parking along the side
of the road. He added he has neighbors
that have to wait 20 minutes to get across SR 434 and he would like to know how
much more they are going to add to that road.
He asked the Board to protect residents and not help the developers.
Greg
Gammage, 2300 Orange St., did not speak but is in opposition.
Nancy
Harmon, 752 Pioneer Way, addressed the Board to state she agrees that this is a
good opportunity for the County to establish a process that would, in the
future, be able to allow them to make decisions of this nature regarding the
rural boundary. She stated she feels
that a precedent is set if the County creates a process changing the rural
boundary to allow the developer to make a part of the land non-rural for the
benefit of the community. She said there
is a lot of benefit being in the rural environment and it keeps their community
balanced. She added she doesn’t
understand why this property is being requested to be taken out of the rural
boundary when everything that they are asking to do is based upon what is
allowed in the rural boundary. She said
she is having a problem understanding why this property has to be taken out of
the rural boundary.
Deborah
Schafer, 1740 Brumley Road, addressed the Board to state they have fought for
the rural boundary for 18 years. She
read a quote from the newspaper that was made by a commissioner. She displayed a site plan (received and filed)
and stated a boundary is now in place after a long, drawn-out process and there
is nothing flawed about the rural boundary.
When all of this was trying to be developed, the residents tried to get
more in the rural boundary in the 2006 amendment. She pointed out on the site plan the location
of the pond and reviewed the proposed development. She added she doesn’t think any of the
residents are against property rights in the rural boundary. She concluded that she doesn’t believe that
the voters didn’t understand the necessity to move the rural boundary. She asked the Board to vote no.
Paul
Ozolnieks, 1450 Florida Ave., addressed the Board to state he doesn’t
understand what part of “no” that the developers don’t understand. He stated they do not need development in the
Black Hammock area. He referred to the
type of animals that are in the Black Hammock area and stated they will not
have them if this development goes through.
Simon
Laming, 2901 Elm St., addressed the Board to speak in opposition to changing
the rural zoning.
Wanda
Laming, 2901 Elm St., addressed the Board to speak in opposition to the
project. She stated her main concern is
the traffic in the area and the impact it will have.
William
Turman, 1310 Hammock St., addressed the Board to state Winter Springs is going
to do whatever they want with the property.
He referred to the subdivision site plan and stated the real issue is
whether the blue portion on the map retains the rural boundary or is given to
Winter Springs through annexation or the Rural Boundary is removed. He said he is against the project as he feels
they are setting a precedent. He added
all they are talking about is removing the natural areas and developing subdivisions. The real issue is whether they can build this
subdivision in the yellow portion on the map and still retain that property
within the rural area and still do what they want to do. He displayed a Future Land Use map showing
the rural boundary area and stated it was amended in 2010 and it is totally
different from what is being discussed.
Carol
Patenaude, 966 Florida Ave., addressed the Board to state the issue she has is
what’s inside the rural boundary (retention pond and tot lot). She said she believes that under the rural
boundary charter, the boundary remains in place unless there is necessity to
move that boundary. The developer is
requesting that a retention pond be placed in that area so they can keep the
number of houses that they intend to build in Southern Oaks and she is not sure
if she understands how that benefits the residents. She said a precedent will be set and
cautioned that erosion starts with a little trickle and then it continues and continues
until a river is raging through. She
stated approving this request will not serve the interest of the residents and
she urged the Board to vote no.
Lori
Hildmeyer, 3585 Canal St., addressed the Board to state that she is not in
support of the request.
Don
Peterson, 3585 Canal St., addressed the Board to display a large aerial map
(received and filed) showing properties abutting the Urban Rural Boundary. He stated he is here to ask the Board to not
change the rules to benefit one person or a group. He said this is not about one tiny piece of
the rural boundary, it is about the whole rural boundary. He discussed four properties and the property
to the north within the rural boundary.
The residents are not against the development but against changing the
rural boundary. He made comments
relative to whether or not the surrounding areas are going to be developed with
retention ponds put on the rural side, how changing the rules will affect the
density in Southern Oaks, a letter from the County Manager stating certain uses
are not allowed, the ordinance and tri-party agreement only affecting their
specific site, and transition taking place outside the boundary. He submitted a Petition, as shown on page
_______, from area residents who do not want the rural boundary changed. He asked the Board to vote no on this as it
is the right thing to do for the rural constituents. Mr. Peterson explained the boundary line
meanders because people opted out or opted in, but very few of them opted out. He said he would like to know what the change
is that is so important that mandates moving the boundary.
Roberto
Gaier, 2220 Orange St., addressed the Board to state he represents the Black
Hammock Association and he is here to voice the concerns of the residents in
the rural area. He stated he is here to
provide additional guidance and wisdom to the elected officials. The rural boundary is here to stay and it is
as sacred as the boundary of the County line and the U.S.A. borders. Changes to the rural boundary can only be
done in the interest and benefit of all the citizens of Seminole County. Changes for the sole benefit of a very few or
private entities are not admissible and are intolerable. Lifting the line of the rural area will just
create a slew of problems and consequences with ripple effects, and it will
open the flood gates of unimaginable destruction and consequences. The residents that voted to be in the rural
boundary like that lifestyle.
Fabiana
Zollo, 2170 Elm St., addressed the Board to express her concern about this
small tract of land in the rural boundary being deemed outside the
boundary. She stated over 60% of the
residents voted for the rural boundary and they will be upset that the Board
did not abide by their vote.
Victoria
Dubia, 1650 Barr St., addressed the Board to state she just settled in the
rural area believing that it was protected and the boundaries would not
change. She asked the Board to not
change boundary as a precedent will be set.
Gary Vest,
President of Seminole Woods Community Association, addressed the Board to speak
against changing the rural boundary. He
said he represents approximately 256 homeowners of 5-acre parcels or larger in
Seminole Woods. He stated he doesn’t have
a problem with the development, but he feels the Board does not need to change
the boundary. He added any change made
to the rural boundary will a have dramatic precedent effect in the future.
Daniel
Levitt, 1000 Rich Point Cove, addressed the Board to state he is in favor of
leaving the rural area the way it is.
Kevin
Bernard, 209 Chestnut Ridge St., addressed the Board to state if the Board
votes in favor of the applicant, then they need to be prepared to change the
slogan of Seminole County as he feels that a price of $500,000 to $600,000
homes is not a natural choice.
No one
else spoke in support or in opposition.
Speaker
Request and Written Comment Forms were received and filed.
Randy
Morris, 756 Keeling Pike, addressed the Board to explain how he got involved
and to discuss the motivation for requesting the change in the boundary. He stated the applicant to put six to eight
houses on the Mermel property and it was changed by the applicant to use the
property appropriately in a way which he thought would work within the rural boundary. He stated the applicant, nor the City of
Winter Springs, concur with Ms. Guillet’s letter to the City that objected
using the property as part of the Planned Unit Development (PUD). This property will annex into the City of
Winter Springs in two weeks. When this
property is annexed, the applicant will go forward with the Preliminary Site
Plan (PSP) approval. The only way it
will be stopped is with a lawsuit. Every
use going into the new plan, after meeting with staff and residents, has been
taken out that is objectionable and not permitted in the rural area now. If this goes to court, it will become a very
difficult legal argument in relation to the zoning uses. The applicant has worked for over two months
with staff to come up with an interlocal agreement that would set a precedent
in the future. The tri-party agreement
would move the boundary under certain conditions that goes with the title of
the land and it cannot be undone. This
property will be used for the purposes that it can be used for right now.
Mr. Morris
stated if the applicant moves the pond in the current PD, it will lower the
valuation of the houses, the community will be radically changed, and it won’t
be a Class A development. This type of
development is going to add to the tax base and not take away from it. There were 19 public hearings held with the
Cities of Oviedo and Winter Springs and the votes have mostly been unanimous in
both jurisdictions.
Upon
inquiry by Commissioner Horan, Mr. Morris explained why they need to annex this
into Winter Springs.
Upon
inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Bryant Applegate, County Attorney, explained why
the property can’t be left in the rural boundary with the applicant using it as
a retention pond.
Ms.
Guillet informed Commissioner Carey that staff’s starting point was to try to
protect the integrity of the rural area.
In relation to the overall project, which is a two-unit- per-acre
residential subdivision, the retention pond and tot lot are components of that
and are not permitted individual separate uses.
They are a component of the overarching residential use, and a
two-unit-per-acre residential subdivision wouldn’t be consistent with the rural
designation. Ms. Guillet stated that the
Charter Amendment doesn’t establish a boundary that can never be moved, but
vests the authority over land-use approvals with the BCC, whether it is in a
city or in unincorporated Seminole County.
Staff’s concern is if the Board interprets the rural area and the Rural
Land Use Designations to permit a retention pond and a tot lot that would
accommodate a two-unit- per-acre subdivision, they would be corrupting the
rural designations and creating a more damaging precedent.
Upon
inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Ms. Guillet advised that staff feels that they
will be protecting the rural boundary integrity by taking this piece of
property out and putting on deed restrictions.
Mr. Applegate stated he and Ms. Guillet determined that the best way to
protect the integrity of the rural area was to ensure that this development was
considered as a whole and not piece it out.
He added he feels that this is an incredible agreement to protect the
rural area. Ms. Guillet added regulating
the use of this land has to be reasonable and fair in the least restrictive
means. This is compatible with the rural
area under this proposal.
Mr. Morris
stated they have tried to present a very rational compromise that goes with the
land that defends the rural boundary rather than any other option.
Commissioner
Henley asked staff if they felt that the conditions placed in the agreement
will protect the rural boundary more than not changing it. Ms. Guillet explained why she feels the
agreement will protect the boundary.
Ms.
Guillet explained for Chairman Dallari why staff feels this is unique.
Commissioner
Henley stated the County always faces the threat of being sued over
decisions. He stated if it is true that
this is a unique situation that will probably never be duplicated, he fails to
see how that is going to strengthen them on a situation that is not similar to
this. Mr. Morris explained what action
would be taken if the applicant is stopped from going forward.
Commissioner
Henley stated he feels that some of the restrictions are good, but it seems to
him that if the Board approves this, they will weaken their position. The more something is done, the easier it
becomes. He said he is afraid that they
are watching the beginning of a demise of the rural area and he hopes that is
not true. When the Board first discussed
the rural area boundary, representatives from Winter Springs and Oviedo had
concerns with the statement that would allow the BCC to change the boundary if
it was in the benefit of the public.
Both cities are now asking that it be changed. Commissioner Henley explained that the
language was placed in the ballot so that if it became necessary for the good
of the people to change the boundary, the BCC could make that adjustment
without having to pay for another referendum.
He said he appreciates the efforts the applicant has made in trying to
come up with something that is acceptable.
It is not the responsibility of the BCC to make all the businessmen
profitable. He stated it concerns him
that the Board may be weakening themselves more by agreeing to the second
change than if they send a message that this Board is not going to voluntarily
change that line unless it benefits the citizens and he fails to see how it
benefits them. He added he feels the
Board is obligated to defend the decision of the voters.
Commissioner
Horan stated he feels it is important that people understand, strategically and
tactically, what they are trying to do within the law and within the
Charter. He read Section 5.2c of the
Charter and stated based on that language, he can understand staff’s
interpretation. He said he feels that
the position would be different if a municipality was trying to take that
provision and parley it into an annexation of 400 acres, connecting it to four
acres. He added he agrees with the
strategy that is being proposed. He said
he feels this is a good solution to the problem and he will be voting for
approval of the agreement and ordinance.
Chairman
Dallari stated he takes the rural boundary extremely serious and he has every
intention of protecting it. He said if
the Board votes against this project, they will have a short-term win as this
is extremely unique. He added his
concern is if the Board denies this, they will have to go to court and sue the
City of Winter Springs. He said he
believes they will lose as he doesn’t feel that the Judge is going to see that
this is going to be in conflict. In
looking at the geographic boundary of the road, it does make sense that it
should be squared off. The rural area
does have retention ponds, but because that pond is associated with that
development, it has to have the same density as the whole development. Therefore, they are putting the rural area in
jeopardy by not allowing this pond to be outside that rural area.
Commissioner
Carey stated she does think that this is a unique situation and what staff has
proposed is a reasonable solution. She
said she doesn’t want to do something that is going to cause them to open up
the whole boundary for discussion as that could potentially happen. She added she feels that by taking staff’s recommendations,
putting deed restrictions on it, by not allowing this piece of property to be
used for the density calculation, and everything else that everyone has agreed
to in the agreement is a reasonable solution.
This is a reasonable way to allow this project and not end up in a
lawsuit. Therefore, she will be
supporting the request.
Commissioner
Henley stated he feels that Mr. Saathoff is right that the easy land is gone
and that is why all eyes are on the rural area because that is where the opportunities
are. He said whether or not the Board is
concerned about a lawsuit, eventually it is going to get there one way or the
other. He added perhaps the Board’s
intent in the beginning was wrong when they put the language in that allows
them to change it, if necessary, in the future.
It might have been better protected if they left that out to where it
would take a referendum to change it.
Commissioner
Constantine stated he was a citizen in 2004 when he voted for the rural
boundary. He stated he feels the
developer is going to do the best job he can to make the best project he
can. The question is what will they gain
by moving the boundary. He said he
personally feels that moving the rural boundary will do nothing for the county
or the citizens. He added he feels the
developer will put together a quality project that they can be proud of, but it
doesn’t help them in moving the rural boundary.
Therefore, he will be voting against the project.
Motion by Commissioner Horan,
seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Agreement, as shown on page
________, between Seminole County, City of Winter Springs and American Land
Investments of Central Florida, LLC, related to the Mermel property, as
described in the proof of publication, American Land Investments of Central
Florida, LLC.
Districts
1, 2 and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioners
Constantine and Henley voted NAY.
- - -
Motion by Commissioner Horan,
seconded by Commissioner Carey to adopt Ordinance #2013-25, as shown on page
________, revising the Rural Area Boundary Line as established in the Seminole
County Home Rule Charter, affecting 4.51+/- acres, as described in the proof of
publication, American Land Investments of Central Florida, LLC.
Districts 1,
2 and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioners
Constantine and Henley voted NAY.
-------
Chairman
Dallari recessed the meeting at 4:16 p.m., reconvening at 4:26 p.m., with Clerk
of Court Maryanne Morse entering late.
FLORIDA
AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATE
Continuation
of a public hearing to consider request to vacate and abandon a portion of the
public right-of-way known as Florida Avenue; approximately 1/8 mile north of SR
434 and west of DeLeon Street, as described in the proof of publication, as
shown on page ________, Dwight Saathoff.
Brian
Walker, Development Services, addressed the Board to advise the subject
right-of-way is not needed for public access and the proposed vacate will not
hinder access to adjacent properties.
The applicable utility companies and staff have no objections to the
request.
Maryanne
Morse, Clerk of Court, reentered the meeting at this time.
Mr. Walker stated staff recommends approval
of the request to vacate.
Dwight
Saathoff, applicant, stated they applied for this request in August and staff
asked them to make a donation of five feet of right-of-way along the boundary
of DeLeon Street. Those deeds have been
executed and recorded. The 25 foot
right-of-way was created in 1910 and a railroad may have used it at one
time. The railroad is no longer there
and the right-of-way goes in the back of Barrington Estates HOA. Roughly half of the right-of-way is wetland
along the western side as well as 50% of the area in question.
Commissioner
Horan confirmed with Mr. Saathoff that the easement is approximately 4,200
square feet, the ditch is supposed to provide flood control for the benefit of
the Black Hammock area, and over half of the vacate area is within the
jurisdiction of Winter Springs.
Don
Peterson, 3585 Canal Street, stated he doesn’t see any benefit of flood
drainage on that canal that will help Black Hammock. He stated he found out that the actual
measurement of the Florida Avenue extension is 1,274 feet long and has a
50-foot width with two 20-foot swales equaling a 90-foot right-of-way. He stated the right-of-way used to be the
Atlantic Coastline railroad and discussed the track requiring 50 feet of bed
with two swales, some of the rails still being in the ground, the extension for
future use as a road and not for utilities, the wetlands in the area, and the
developer needing this road to make his subdivision work so he can sell it to a
builder for top dollar.
Mr. Peterson stated giving this
right-of-way to the developer will allow slope for the retention pond on the
south side and this will allow the developer to make five premium lakefront
lots. Increasing the lot depth by 20 or
so feet will allow the developer to place 1.5 houses on the road. He explained there is already a traffic
problem at SR 434 and DeLeon and it is fixable now, but it won’t be later. A traffic signal is not the answer, but
changing the layout of DeLeon and Hammock Lane and SR 434 is an answer. A drawing on poster board showing the change
of the layout was received and filed. He
stated using the Florida Avenue extension as a road is the perfect
solution. The Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) and the City of Winter Springs liked that idea. He added as more and more development occurs
to the east, more traffic will be coming to the intersection. He submitted a Petition, as shown on page
______, from citizens opposing the vacate request. He displayed another poster board (received
and filed) showing a drawing of the layout of Florida Avenue extension going to
SR 434. He concluded that there are no
wetlands at the end of Florida Avenue to the west. He asked the Board to not give the road away
for free.
Upon
inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Mr. Peterson advised he has a document from the
County stating that the right-of-way is 50 feet and he can provide it to the
Board. Commissioner Carey stated the
survey indicates that the right-of-way is 25 feet. If this vacate goes forward, they will be
vacating 25 feet.
Upon
inquiry by Commissioners Henley and Carey, Brett Blackadar, County Engineer,
addressed the Board to advise staff has discussed the layout with the City of
Winter Springs. The County doesn’t own
the property south of Florida Avenue and there would have to be a taking of
private property to make that connection.
Significant wetland mitigation would have to occur. Staff had discussions with the City of Winter
Springs and FDOT, and most likely FDOT would not approve another connection on
SR 434. A lot of hurdles would have to
be made to make that connection happen.
Upon
inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Blackadar advised the one thing that the
City of Winter Springs is working on with FDOT is a traffic signal at
DeLeon. That would probably be justified
in the future. Putting in another
connection may hinder the chances of getting a signal at DeLeon.
Roberto
Gaier, 2220 Orange Street, recommended postponing this item so it can be looked
into thoroughly. He stated he feels the
Board is giving away a piece of land worth in excess of $600,000. He asked that the Board not give the property
away but to price it fairly so they can give back to the citizens the money
they deserve.
Lisa
Zembower, 127 Big Oak Bend, read a letter that deals with vacating the
easement.
Carol Patenaude,
966 Florida Ave., displayed a map (received and filed) showing the Florida
Avenue extension. She stated she doesn’t
condone giving away something that belongs to the citizens without full
consideration. She asked the Board to
leave the right-of-way open.
Upon
inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Ms. Guillet advised she understands that there
might be a perception that this is part of the right-of-way for the Florida
Scenic Trail because there is an old map indicating this is part of that
system. She indicated that the current
alignment for the Florida Scenic Trail is south of this particular vacate, and
representatives from DEP said that the southern route, not the one that runs
along Florida Avenue, is the preferred route.
They have abandoned the concept of using smaller loops for an existing
concept that would take it out of this right-of-way. At one time, it was considered to be part of
the system but is no longer in DEP’s plan for the Florida Scenic Trail.
Upon
inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Ms. Guillet advised that staff confirmed with
DEP that they have no interest in this piece of property if it is vacated.
Nancy Harmon, 752 Pioneer Way,
stated her taxes and the value of her house goes up every year. If the County wants the developer to have
this land, then they should pay for it.
She said she has no problem with the applicant having a development, but
she resents the fact that the Board would give away property that is a value to
them and not to her.
Melanie
Freire, 3063 Freedom Trail, addressed the Board to read a letter that she wrote
into the record. She requested that this
item be continued as she doesn’t feel the Board has accurate information to
make an informed decision at this time.
She said she has seen a traffic report that was paid for by the
developer. This area is going to be
profoundly impacted by the Southern Oaks development. She added Florida Avenue is very dangerous
when turning left from Hammock Lane onto SR 434 at certain times of the
day. She said she is trying to get the
UCF Civil Engineering Department to donate a traffic study of this area that
the developer has not studied.
No one
else spoke in support or in opposition.
Speaker
Request and Written Comments Forms were received and filed.
Randy
Morris stated it is 25 feet of right-of-way.
The applicant has done surveys, title work and legal-description
work.
Upon
inquiry by Mr. Morris, Mr. Applegate advised the title work and survey are
clear and staff has reviewed them.
Mr. Morris
displayed and reviewed a site plan (received and filed) showing the dry
area. He stated a traffic study was done
and was reviewed by FDOT, the Cities of Winter Springs and Oviedo as well as
the County. He displayed and reviewed a
Traffic Crash Summary (received and filed) for SR 434/Hammock Lane; Hammock
Lane/DeLeon Street, and Florida Avenue/DeLeon Street. He submitted and reviewed the Florida
National Scenic Trail Routing Analysis Overview and an aerial map showing the
Daily Traffic Volumes on Florida Avenue-DeLeon Street. This is a standard request and the applicant
will not gain anything on this. He
stated the purpose of the vacate request is to close off the subdivision. He said he spoke to the past president of the
Florida Trail Association and the engineer who did the study for the Cross
Florida Trail. He referenced a 2004
document on the County website that shows an alternate proposal that was never
accepted. It was rejected by the
consultant and the State as they were doing the Florida Scenic Trail. The Florida Scenic Trail became the Cross
Seminole Trail to the south. They would
never build parallel trails within ¼ of a mile of each other. The overlay for the Cross Seminole Trail
became the Cross Florida Trail as well as the Florida Scenic Trail and it runs
all the way through the county until it becomes a natural scenic trail.
Commissioner
Henley stated there have been several presentations by the trails organization
to MetroPlan and there is a lot going on dealing with the connectivity of all
the trails. The Governor vetoed the
proposal for funding them. He stated he
feels that if they vacate property, it is generally around 25 feet to 30 feet
and it is divided between two adjoining land owners.
Upon
inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Morris advised there are a lot of trees and
vegetation on both sides of Florida Avenue and it is half wetlands. He said they will not be disturbing any of
that. He stated there will be one lot on
the upland and the rest would be backyards.
Upon
further inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Saathaff advised both cities have
strict tree ordinances and they will be in full compliance with them. Mr. Morris stated the property is less than ½
an acre and they will be using a small portion of it for one lot. Mr. Saathoff stated they are also granting
the County a drainage easement. He added
this is not surplus property and nothing is being given away.
At the
request of Chairman Dallari, Ms. Guillet reviewed the memo from DEP relating to
the trail. She also addressed the issue
of the County selling rights-of-way and owning property fee simple.
Commissioner
Carey commented that the County vacates rights-of-way and utility easements all
the time in order to benefit the citizens.
An e-mail
from Richard Durr relating to the Florida Trail was received and filed.
Motion by Commissioner Horan,
seconded by Commissioner Carey to adopt appropriate Resolution #2013-R-219, as
shown on page ________, vacating and abandoning a portion of the public
right-of-way known as Florida Avenue; approximately 1/8 mile north of SR 434
and west of DeLeon Street, as described in the proof of publication, Dwight
Saathoff.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Ex parte
communications from Commissioner Carey for Items #36, Revising the Rural
Boundary Line, and #37, Florida Avenue vacate, were received and filed.
BOA
APPEAL/Meritage Homes
Proof of
publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to
consider an Appeal of the Board of Adjustment’s (BOA) decision to deny the
request for a (1) side- yard (east) setback variance from 6 feet to 5 feet and
(2) a side yard (west) setback variance from 6 feet to 5 feet, for a
single-family home in the PD (Planned Development) district for property
located on the north side of Bella Vista Circle; approximately 200 feet west of
the intersection of Roma Lane and Sand Lake Road, and particularly known as
1108 Bella Vista Circle, Meritage Homes, received and filed.
Jeff
Hopper, Development Services, addressed the Board to present the request as
outlined in the agenda memorandum. He
stated the BOA denied the request based on information presented at the
hearing. He reviewed some background
regarding the variance request. Staff
recommends that the BCC uphold the BOA’s decision to deny the request.
Joseph
Antequino, appellant, addressed the Board to explain why he is here today and
why this request is so important to his family.
He displayed and reviewed a plot plan (received and filed) of the
proposed construction. He said this
variance will allow his family to comfortably park their cars, protect them
from the rain and elements, and allow them to have visitors without having them
park on the street. He added he believes
that this will increase the property value of his home. He said he spoke to some of the residents in
the community and the first thing they talked about was drainage issues. He talked about all single-family homes in
the community having larger footprints than his. Mr. Antequino discussed traffic issues. He affirmed that there will be no further
variance requests sought by Meritage Homes.
He explained the reason why he feels the variance failed at the BOA
hearing. He read a letter from Jeff
Bissey speaking in favor of the request.
An e-mail from Jeff Bissey speaking in support was received and
filed. He submitted a Petition, as shown
on page _______, from area residents supporting the variance. Maps showing the proposed site and the
neighborhood were received and filed.
Tracy
Reid-Thompson, 1631 Stargazer Terrace, addressed the Board to state she
represents Meritage Homes. She stated
she has seen the appellant go through a lot of challenges and it is her desire
to close this community out quickly. She
requested the Board approve the variance.
Lynn
Kuschmann, 104 S. Interlachen Ave., addressed the Board to discuss the amount
of time she spent with the appellant to find property for them. She stated as a Realtor, she feels that it
would be better to have a car enclosure than a driveway at the side of the
house. This home is a higher-end
property and is consistent with other homes in the area. She discussed the different things that the
Antequino family has gone through. She
requested the Board consider approving the variance request.
Tally
Helman, 1116 Bella Vista Circle, addressed the Board to state he lives on the
eastern side of Lot 82. He stated he
opposes overturning the decision regarding the variance as he believes that no
other homes have been allotted this variance.
He spoke with regard to the constant drainage issues in this area and
Mr. Bissey speaking to him about what was going on with the variance.
Edward
Pineiro, 1123 Bella Vista Circle, addressed the Board to point out that the
house fits on the lot without the garage, no other house in the area requiring
variances, drainage issues in the area are due to the swale, this variance
could set a precedent, everyone in the neighborhood has abided by the setbacks,
and there is no sinkhole near the residence but unstable soil. He stated he is totally against the request.
Jill
Ogden, 1120 Bella Vista Circle, addressed the Board to state that generally,
the two priorities in selecting a home are the location and the features of the
home. She stated she is almost certain
that every family that picked Bella Vista to live in picked the location
because of the school district and probably had to compromise on some
features.
No one
else spoke in support or in opposition.
Speaker
Request Forms were received and filed.
Mr.
Antequino displayed the plan and reviewed what a tandem garage is. He addressed the drainage issues, the
footprints of other homes and the sinkhole issue.
Upon
inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Ms. Reid-Thompson advised this lot is not 100%
covered in pavers. She stated when this
home is built the pavers will be removed and grass will replace them.
Upon
inquiry by Chairman Dallari, Ms. Guillet advised this is the first time she is
aware of drainage issues in the area.
Chairman Dallari requested staff to check into that issue at a later
date.
Upon
inquiry by Commissioner Horan, Ms. Guillet advised the setback requirement
varies from zoning district to zoning district.
She stated this is a PD and the setback standards are set as negotiated
zoning criteria. The comparable
straight-zoning district is R-1A and the side yard setbacks are 7½ feet.
District
Commissioner Constantine stated he feels this is not about drainage but about
the applicant not satisfying all six criteria under Section 30.43 of the Land
Development Code (LDC).
Motion by Commissioner Constantine,
seconded by Commissioner Henley to uphold the BOA’s decision thereby, denying
the request for a (1) side-yard (east) setback variance from 6 feet to 5 feet
and (2) a side-yard (west) setback variance from 6 feet to 5 feet, for a
single-family home in the PD (Planned Development) district for property
located on the north side of Bella Vista Circle; approximately 200 feet west of
the intersection of Roma Lane and Sand Lake Road, and particularly known as
1108 Bella Vista Circle, as described in the proof of publication, Meritage
Homes; Decision on Appeal, as shown on page ________.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
CHAIRMAN’S
REPORT
Chairman
Dallari stated a financial fitness seminar was held on August 16, 2013 and he
would like to thank the employees for putting that together.
-------
Chairman
Dallari stated he was asked by the Central Florida Sports Commission to write a
letter of support for an application to bring in the NCAA (National Collegiate
Athletic Association) Championship.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded
by Commissioner Horan to authorize the Chairman to execute a Letter, as shown
on page ______, to the National Collegiate Athletic Association supporting the
Central Florida Sports Commission’s efforts in bringing the NCAA Division II
& III Men’s and Women’s Tennis National Championships to Seminole County.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Chairman
Dallari stated he received a request from Earnest Products to go after the tax
credit program for PACE.
Nicole
Guillet stated Earnest Products is asking the County to send a letter to
Congressman John Mica supporting their desire to utilize a new market tax
credit program.
Commissioner
Carey stated when it was presented to the County to adopt the language that
would allow people to utilize the PACE program, the County Attorney’s
recommendation was that the County not adopt that. It is a federal program that already exists,
but the County would need to adopt it to allow people to be able to utilize the
program. She said she doesn’t understand
why the County would write a letter of support to Congressman Mica if they are
not going to adopt it.
Chairman
Dallari requested that Ms. Guillet and the County Attorney’s Office review this
further and bring it back at a later date.
Commissioner
Horan stated there are two programs, one is the State program and the other is
a Federal PACE program. He said he
believes the one the County is being asked to opine on is the State program.
-------
Chairman
Dallari stated he believes the County will potentially be looking at some bonds
in the next couple of months. He stated
the investment banking team (Citigroup, Fifth Third, JP Morgan, Luke Capital,
and Raymond James) have changed quite a bit and he would like to bring that
back possibly putting it out to bid again.
Commissioner
Carey stated the County trusts people to give them good financial advice and as
people move around, they do not have a relationship with several of them.
Chairman
Dallari requested the County Manager bring that back to the Board.
Mr.
Hartmann stated the Board selected the teams for the current bond issue and
they have been working on creating bond documents.
COMMUNICATIONS
AND/OR REPORTS
The
following Communications and/or Reports were received and filed:
1.
Letter
with attachment dated August 12, 2013, from Blanche Sherman, LYNX, to Chairman
Robert Dallari RE: LYNX Quarterly Reports – as of June 30, 2013.
2.
Copy of
letter with attachment dated August 15, 2013, from Cathy Galavis, Department of
Revenue, to David Johnson, Seminole County Property Appraiser’s Office, RE:
Changes to the Property Appraiser’s budget. (C: BCC, County Manager, Resource
Management)
3.
Letter
with attachment dated August 16, 2013, from Erin O’Donnell, City of Altamonte
Springs, to Chairman Robert Dallari RE: Annexation of property into the City of
Altamonte Springs located at 740 Orange Avenue. (C: BCC, County Manager,
Development Services)
4.
Letter
with attachment dated August 16, 2013, from Erin O’Donnell, City of Altamonte
Springs, to Chairman Robert Dallari RE: Annexation of properties into the City
of Altamonte Springs located at 671 Hillview Drive and 685 Gateway Drive. (C:
BCC, County Manager, Development Services)
DISTRICT
COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS
Commissioner
Henley stated he and staff are still discussing water issues at Myrtle Lake as
they haven’t been able to meet the criteria.
They have been discussing this issue with the City of Longwood and the
City is willing to provide it if they annex into the city. Everyone does not totally support the
annexation.
-------
Commissioner
Henley stated he has met with a group of citizens from Winwood near Merritt
Street and they are desirous of trying to improve their neighborhood,
particularly the location to the SunRail Station. He said he discussed with citizens about
doing a CRA and he told them that he felt it was a little premature for them to
come to the Board. He added they have
been meeting with the Central Florida Regional Planning Council (CFRPC) and
they have helped the residents a great deal.
-------
Commissioner
Carey stated she submitted all of her ex parte communications into the record
for this afternoon’s public hearings.
-------
Commissioner
Carey stated a woman came into her office indicating that she had been trying
to obtain a mortgage modification. She
said the lady received first-time home buyer assistance to buy her home. The lady has been trying for six months to
obtain a sign-off from Community Services staff saying they would subordinate
the County’s position, and it was finally elevated to a supervisor after six
months. She stated it has just been
sitting there for the past six months as the County’s policy isn’t clear if
they can or cannot subordinate on a mortgage modification. If someone is doing a mortgage modification
and they are not taking any cash out of their home, and it is putting them in a
better situation to stay in the home and not be foreclosed on, then there
should not be an issue with the County subordinating the first-time homebuyer
loan. She said she found out a lot of
people have gone through this process.
The woman has a medical hardship and she is now in a situation where the
mortgage company is saying that this has been going on for over a year, and now
she has to either reapply or they are going to foreclose on her home. Commissioner Carey said she has asked Mr.
Applegate to intervene. She added if the
County needs to clarify their policy, then that needs to be done
immediately. Chairman Dallari requested
that this issue be placed on the next agenda if the policy needs to be changed.
-------
Commissioner
Carey stated she attended the Florida Association of Counties (FAC) Board of
Directors Strategic Planning session last week and this is the update to their
Five-Year Plan. She complimented John
Streitmatter for doing an excellent. She
added Mr. Strietmatter will continue to work with the Strategic Planning
Committee to finalize the next Five-Year Plan.
The goal is to have a one-page Strategic Plan completed by June 2014 and
to be voted on by the FAC Board of Directors at their annual meeting. She stated many of the counties have asked
about FAC taking a position in federal focus.
There are a lot of unfunded mandates that have come from the Federal
Government. She added FAC has discussed
this and she feels that what will come out of the committee is that FAC would
be a legislative advocate on the Federal level and pick up to three issues that
would affect the counties throughout the State and to coordinate outreach at
the national level through the Governor’s office. Brian DeLoach is currently the President of
FAC and is going to be running for the National Association of Counties Second
Vice President next year. They have
requested that one commissioner from each county consider attending the NACo
Conference to support that. She said the
swing states in those elections on a national level are Florida, California,
Texas and New York.
-------
Commissioner
Carey stated there are a number FAC Enterprise Programs and she would like
staff to take a hard look at these programs.
She said she believes the counties that are participating in them are
seeing great savings by utilizing some of these programs. She said she would like staff to review that
further.
Upon
inquiry by Chairman Dallari, Commissioner Carey advised she can provide the
Board members a list of the Enterprise Programs.
-------
Commissioner
Carey stated there has been a lot of discussion relating to the impact of the
Florida Retirement System (FRS) Program on the County’s budget. She stated Senator Webster is planning to
bring up the FRS reform during the upcoming session. She reviewed some of the interesting facts of
the retirement system. She said the one
interesting thing is an employee has five months to make their selection and if
they do not choose a selection, they default into the Pension Plan. She added she believes the default should be
in the Investment Plan rather the Pension Plan.
She said it is interesting to know that approximately 54% of the new
employees that are part of the FRS never make a choice and they automatically
default into the Pension Plan, 25% choose to go into the Investment Plan, and
21% choose to go into the Pension Plan.
The FRS Pension Plan is one of the most solvent in the country. She suggested that the Cities, School Board
and the County look at teaming up as a small group of representatives to go to
Tallahassee to discuss the community issues at the same time.
-------
Commissioner
Carey stated starting October 1, 2013, a statewide Walk for Wellness
Program will be promoted through the Florida Department of Health and the
ultimate goal is to walk 2,000 miles.
She said she has asked for additional information on that and she will
provide that to everyone in the County.
-------
Commissioner
Constantine reported that FAC believes one of the issues that will create the
biggest stir is medical marijuana.
-------
Commissioner
Constantine informed the Board that CALNO is meeting at the airport on
September 4.
-------
Commissioner
Constantine stated Charity Challenge earned $220,000 and the one thing that had
never occurred before was the teams and sponsors were allowed to tell them where
they wanted the money to go. A great
deal of the money went to the North Seminole charities such as the faith-based
African American Organizations.
COUNTY
MANAGER’S REPORT
At the
request of Mr. Hartmann, Ms. Guillet stated she doesn’t believe the new market
tax credit program is akin to the PACE program.
This program targets investment- and low-income census tracts and they
get a credit back over a seven-year period.
Earnest Products is just outside of the census tract and is asking
Congressman Mica’s office to support their waiver.
Commissioner
Carey stated she would like more information on this. Ms. Guillet stated she will bring it back in
two weeks.
COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S REPORT
No Report.
ITEMS FOR
FUTURE AGENDA
Michelle
Burnett, 510 Hwy 466, addressed the Board to introduce herself as the Community
Service Representative for Florida Governmental Utility Authority (FGUA) and
explained how they can maybe partner with Public Works and the utilities and
what she is doing in other counties. She
discussed the FGUA acquiring 71 water and wastewater systems across twelve
Florida counties, being governed by interlocal agreements among member
governments, that it is a unique public authority, what the FGUA Board is
comprised of, and how they work closely with local governments and private
utility owners. She said her role is to
create relations with government bodies, community forums and the public,
explained her availability to make educational presentations.
Upon inquiry
by Chairman Dallari, Ms. Burnett advised she will contact the Board members to
provide them with her information. She
stated she will be working with other counties in conjunction with the Outreach
Program.
-------
There being no further business to
come before the Board, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 6:28
p.m., this same date.
ATTEST:______________________Clerk____________________Chairman
js/er