--------- [music] [music] >> This is getting time to get quiet and it's freaking us out just so you know. >> So we're we're saying amongst ourselves it must be because Commissioner Zimba is not here. >> [laughter] >> I don't think that is it. Well, it is
9:30 exactly so welcome to the June 23rd Board of County Commission meeting and I am calling this meeting to order. If you would please silence all of your equipment. That would be awesome. We are going to start off with an invocation and leading
the pledge from Pastor Blackshear who is a member of the East Altamont community and has been a huge supporter for Rosenwald and we appreciate you and we thank you for being here as well. >> Thank you for the invite and I know this is not protocol but this is the best
County Commission in the state of Florida. >> Let's make it protocol. >> Amen. >> Thank you. >> Let let us pray. Father, we thank you and we bless you for another opportunity to come together to do the people's business. Lord, I pray for this commission that has always led with
integrity and honesty and truth. Lord, that you would bless them, that you would bless our chairman, that our chairlady as she leads this commission with balance, that you would bless each and every one of these commissioners in the decisions they're making today. Father, that they realize that people lie in the balance of what they do. That
it is a weighty responsibility. We thank you for such a great commission. We thank you for those that serve on this commission. We thank you for their work, their history. We thank you for their purpose, Lord. And we ask you, God, I ask you especially Sometimes with
public servants, we don't realize that they have lives and families. They have people in their lives that are affected by some of the things they deal with. Lord, they have loved ones that are sick. They have children that are in college. Lord, as they do the people's business, I ask
today that you would handle their business. Lord, the forgotten business of these commissioners, that you would handle their business. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen. Amen. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Pastor. >> Pastor, you are why we love Seminole
County. >> [snorts] >> We have two proclamations this morning. The first one will be read by Commissioner Lockhart and it is Code Enforcement Officers Appreciation Day. And we see you all there and we appreciate you very much.
Commissioner Lockhart. >> Commissioners, it is truly my honor to move the following proclamation of the Seminole County Board of County Commissioners proclaiming June 1st through 7th, 2026 as Code Enforcement Officers Appreciation Week in Seminole County, Florida.
Whereas, Code Enforcement Officers provide for the safety, health, and welfare of the citizens of Seminole County through the enforcement of local building, housing, and land use codes. And whereas, these professionals are dedicated to protecting the environment and the natural beauty of our county by
ensuring responsible property maintenance and compliance. And whereas, since Seminole County assumed full responsibility for Code Enforcement operations in October 2025, the program has enhanced service delivery through improved responsiveness, greater
consistency in enforcement practices, strengthened customer service, and increased coordination with residents and community stakeholders. And whereas, in less than 1 year, this dedicated team, which includes five Code Enforcement Officers, one supervisor,
one manager, and two clerks, performed more than 2,500 inspections and achieved a compliance rating exceeding 75% demonstrating their commitment to voluntary compliance, neighborhood preservation, and exceptional public service.
And whereas, through their tireless efforts, Code Enforcement Officers help to prevent blight, maintain high property values, and improve the overall quality of life for all residents. And whereas, the Seminole County Board of County Commissioners recognizes the vital role these individuals play in
community development and public service, often working in challenging conditions to ensure a safer community. And whereas, the Florida Association of Code Enforcement has designated this first full week of June to highlight the importance of the profession. Now,
therefore, be it proclaimed that we, the Board of County Commissioners of Seminole County, do hereby proclaim June 1st through 7th, 2026 as Code Enforcement Officers Appreciation Week in Seminole County and encourage all citizens to recognize and express their
appreciation for the dedication and service of our code enforcement professionals. Adopted this 23rd day of June, 2026. >> Second. >> We have a first and two seconds. All those in favor? >> Aye. >> Opposed? Hearing none, passes unanimously.
>> [applause] >> We have the division manager, John Martin, and I would love for you to say a few words about the team. I think. There we go. Spontaneous applause from the team. >> Cuz everything in that proclamation is correct.
Really is so much better. I apologize now for being a little choked up. >> That's awesome. >> But being able to come to Florida's natural choice and deliver a code enforcement division that's professional, that's community
focused, that met each one of your goals has been a lifelong honor. And it's my privilege to serve the citizens of this wonderful county. And I can't take any of the credit for it because [clears throat] my team, if you guys would please stand
up in the back of the room. >> [applause] >> These folks make it easy for me to look this good. So, I thank each one of you for your trust, for this opportunity, and I assure you that we're only going to continue to get better. So, thank you very much. >> Thank you so much. Thank you. WE
APPRECIATE YOU ALL. [applause] I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SAW IT, BUT GOT a little standing O from your team as you were walking back. Just let's get that on the record as well. The next proclamation proclaiming July 2026 as Parks and Recreation Month in Seminole County will be read by
Commissioner Dallari. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. And we all have so much to be >> leave yet. We're going to take pictures. Don't leave yet. Don't leave yet. You've not been sprung from the asylum. >> They They have code enforcement to take
care of. >> I'm sorry, Commissioner Dallari. >> That's quite all right, and it's totally understandable. And I'm glad that they're sticking around to get the photos. But what I wanted to say, Madam Chair, was that we all have so much to be thankful here in Seminole County, not just code enforcement, our entire staff. And Seminole County is truly a wonderful
place to live, work, and play. In fact, you know, during the pandemic in the past, so many people from other parts of the state actually came here because our county was not just open, but to enjoy our leisure and our parks
and our trails and our trailheads. And I'm very honored to uh read this proclamation into the record and proclaim uh National Park and Recreation Month here in Seminole County. So, the proclamation of the Seminole County Board of County Commissioners proclaiming
July 2026 as National Park and Recreation Month in Seminole County, Florida. Whereas parks and recreation are an integral part of the community throughout this country, including Seminole County. And whereas parks and recreation provides facilities for sports, outdoor
activities, and unstructured play, improving physical and mental health of county residents of all ages. And where where and whereas parks increase economic prosperity, enhances property value, boost tourism, supports
businesses, and reduce crime. And whereas parks, trails, wilderness areas protects our precious precious precious, excuse me, resources and promotes environmental stewardship in Florida's natural choice. And whereas Seminole County provides
residents with more than 40 parks, trailheads, wilderness areas encompassing more than 7,600 acres. And whereas Seminole County parks and recreational staff, volunteers, and partners work tirelessly to ensure safe,
clean, accessible, and fun spaces for all to enjoy. And whereas the US House of Representatives has designated July as Park and Recreation Month. And whereas Park and Recreation Month serves an opportunity to celebrate and raise the awareness of the valuable
benefit of providing our parks, trails, and natural lands in Seminole County. Now therefore be it proclaimed that we, the Board of County Commissioners of Seminole County, Florida, do hereby proclaim July 2026 as National Park and Recreation Month in Seminole County, Florida, and invite all residents and
visitors to explore and enjoy our beautiful parks, greenway, and award-winning trail system. Adopted this 23rd day of July 2020 June 2026. >> Second. >> Motion and two seconds. All those in favor? >> Aye.
>> Opposed? Hearing none, motion passes unanimously. >> [applause] >> We have Director Rick Durr here. Rick, would you like to say a few words? >> Good morning, Commissioners. Um again, uh Rick Durr, Parks and Recreation Director for Seminole County.
I am finding myself without words, which is rare. Um I can't thank you enough for the recognition for um not just our park system, but the support that we continue to enjoy from both our residents and from the commission. And none of that
would be possible without the hard work that's done by our staff on a daily basis, uh, often times in the evenings and on the weekends. Um, that's the part of the business of of serving our community. And again, I I am so proud of that particular group, uh, and uh, I'm very proud to be here in
Seminole County. Where are y'all? Come on. >> Wave. Oh, come on. Stand up. STAND UP. >> [applause] [applause] >> SO, THANK YOU AGAIN. APPRECIATE IT. >> YOU'RE WELCOME. MUCH APPRECIATED. And now, if we have code enforcement come down and meet us on the floor, commissioners, will you meet me down for
pictures. >> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Mhm. >> So, Chairman Herr and I did a ribbon cutting for a section of trail yesterday with a group [snorts] of folks and it was warm. It was It was actually
oppressive. And and I just said to Rick Herr, I said, you know, we ought to remind Congress that not every state is enjoyable outdoors in July. And perhaps they should change it up in one year do parks and recreation month in November so that we can all actually be outside and enjoy our
parks for National Parks and Recreation Month. >> And actually the picture in the front in the newspaper today, nice picture. >> Very nice picture. >> It was great. Great team. Great job. >> Thank you. >> Well done. Well, equally interesting,
we have Scott McIntyre here for our uh our investment report. >> Seat of our chair. >> Mr. McIntyre, we appreciate you being here. >> Thank you for allowing me to be here. It's good to see you all. And I kind of feel like this is Groundhog Day because it feels a lot
like what I've said the last couple of times I've been in front of you because a lot feels like it's close to changing and then it doesn't quite get there. So, obviously right now events in the Middle East continue to to drive the financial markets. I wouldn't look at stocks
today. It's pretty brutal, but from the standpoint of investing, obviously we're more interested in the bond market and yields are rising and the reason yields are rising is because inflation is rising. And you know, the big question is what the Fed is going to do. Are they going to cut rates? Are they going to raise
rates? And that's really unclear right now as it should be. But the reality is it's going to be much later this year before anything happens at all. So, from the standpoint of the portfolio, that means that the earnings are going to stay pretty close to where they're at, which is good. Obviously,
you need investment earnings. Um And and we have been quite conservative over the course of the last three or four months. Um the you're sort of stepping out of the way of the market. Again, yields have been rising and rising and rising, and I I I
expect they're probably pretty close to the top right now, but I'm not sure that we really want to step in. Liquidity is is something that's very important. So, uh just kind of keep that in mind. Um the the labor market improved quite a bit since the last time we were here.
Not only did we get a really good uh number in in May for nonfarm payrolls, but we got a great big upward revision, which is pretty rare. So, all of a sudden the labor market looks puzzlingly good. Um the economy is doing well, but really it has all to do with
AI infrastructure buildout, which is just absolutely enormous. Um the rest of the economy not quite as solid, if if you would. But again, the Fed is going to be on hold until December. This is That red line is quarter-over-quarter annualized GDP, so
you can see the last two quarters um have been 0.6 and or 0.5 and and 1.6, which is pretty pretty sluggish economic growth. Obviously, we're in the second quarter. If the Fed were to raise rates to slow inflation, they would be slowing
down the economy, deliberately trying to slow economic growth to be able to get inflation in check. And we're really not in a position where the Fed can do that, regardless of whether or not the Fed is is giving that message. I certainly don't think that rate hikes are in the
picture for this this year, and and not next year, either, just because the economy is is weak. >> [snorts] >> This is just a real quick look at what all of a sudden has happened in terms of of nonfarm payrolls, three straight months. Um
big revisions made those previous months look bigger. Before that, it was it was pretty anemic growth. I'm really of the impression, frankly, I haven't talked to a lot of kids who are getting out of school right now that the job market is not this good. So, um I'm not sure. This might be a bit of an
aberration, but but nevertheless, um again, one of the reasons the Fed would cut rates is if the labor market was weak, and it's not weak either. So, no cuts, no interest rate increases. This is This is I'm not going to go through what's over there in the writing
on the the left-hand side, but what I do want you to pay attention to is the the gray portion of the bar, which represents the portion that energy is is pushing up headline inflation. So, it's all energy at this point. If you take away the increase in oil and
gas prices, then inflation is generally under control. This is the two-year Treasury note yield. I show this to you guys all the time. It has risen and risen and risen this year, and again, that has to do with inflation being higher.
Um you know, honestly, if there were a memorandum of understanding, if there were a peace deal, if there were a ceasefire, if there were relative calm and stability in the Middle East, um energy prices would move lower, but not dramatically lower. Um so, I think
that inflation is going to be with us for a while, and as a result, I think rates are going to be similar to where we are. Um now having said that, you know the drill. I I I scratched through the last several meetings so you can start to see the path of of interest rates, Treasuries in particular.
One thing to focus on is those overnight pool rates. Um the majority of the liquidity is at uh Florida Prime, which is again, the Federated managed uh used to be the state pool, lowest fee structure, highest yielding. Um so, there is a fair
amount of money that is sitting there from Seminole County. That's not going anywhere. If anything, that yield on those pools will increase a little bit as we go toward the end of the year. It will only fall with the Fed decides to cut rates, which again, I don't think it's going to happen. So again,
think what we're I'm going to dash over here and and so the portfolio, the overnight rate is 350 to 375. The portfolio is yielding about 398, 399. Um, the the securities that are maturing right now, interestingly enough, for yields below where the market is. So
when those are reinvested, they'll be a reinvested at higher yields, which will boost the portfolio hopefully back up to 4%. So um, that is a that is a I'm I could be happier if we held on to all our money until rates were higher and jumped in, but but that wasn't the case.
Um, back up a step here. Well, let me go forward. This is a quick look at the um, the what it's yielding versus its benchmark. So you're the red dots. Um, and then back over here. So maturing investments, as I said before, the um,
two-year note right now is is above 4%. Securities are maturing at 388, 392. They'll be reinvested back above 4%. Um, talking to the folks in the clerk's office, talking about your cash flows, talking about your spending, which is
some of the I guess construction spending that that was a little bit slow was starting to speed up a little bit. So the the the spending is is uh, back on track for lack of a better way to put it. Um, which means a lot of the securities that are maturing are used um, right now
to to fund operations. Uh, and again, one of the discussions I've had with the clerk's office is allowing for more liquidity because right now things are very uncertain and again, I'm really not sure when the situation is going to change. So uh, some of the maturities that will not be
used will be put into Florida Prime and the only thing we're asking for here is to reinvest essentially what is the early July palm term maturity rolling off at 388 what I assume will be 415 to 420.
So um a very limited ask here and as I mentioned before this isn't us just mailing it in. This is whenever you've got a lot of uncertainty and it looks like yields are going to stay stay elevated you you increase your liquidity and of course at the same time there's spending needs that are happening as of
this time of the year. So no normally uh Chairman if you could sort of help me with the motion >> Happy to do that. >> I'm sure. >> Commissioners >> I'd like to make a motion to implement the recommendations of our financial advisor based on the report submitted today and recommend the clerk to implement said board recommendations.
>> Second. >> We have a first and a second any discussion? Hearing none all in favor? >> I. >> I. >> Opposed? Hearing none opposed it passes unanimously. Thank you Scott for your >> Okay, good to see all of you. >> Thank you too. >> Safe travels. [clears throat] >> Thank you.
>> That brings us to the consent agenda portion of the program. I'll ask um Ms. Dreger do we have any public comment forms? >> Yes, ma'am. >> All right, well then I'll turn it over to our attorney to give us instruction on public comment. >> Thank you Chairman. Florida law provides
that members of the public shall be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard on propositions before the Board of County Commissioners except when the Board is acting on emergency or ministerial matters or conducting a meeting exempt from the requirements of the Sunshine Law. Individuals shall be permitted 3 minutes each for public
comment or 6 minutes when the individual is an official representative of a formal association or group. The Chairman may modify the maximum time for public comment at her sole discretion when appropriate. Public comments and quasi judicial or other public hearing items will occur during the Board's
consideration of those items this afternoon. Public comments on pending procurement matters or on non-agenda items shall not be permitted at this time. Members of the public desiring to make public comment must fill out a speaker form and present the form to staff. Forms are available in the lobby.
Chairman. >> Thank you. All right, we'll hear public comment now. There is one speaker, Carrie Dries, speaking in opposition to agenda item number 10. >> [clears throat] >> Come on up. When you get here, if you would give
your name and address for the record, that would be great. That microphone right there. And we'll start a timer. You can see the timer up here. So >> Sure can. Thank you. Um my name is Carrie Dries. I live at 4848 Gabriella Lane in Oviedo, which leads me to speak
on the item item agenda item number 10. Um good morning. Thank you for having public comment. I can't usually come to meetings as I'm a public school teacher and [clears throat] these take place obviously during the work day. Um I'm not speaking in true full opposition to the development. I'm actually super
grateful that this person who purchased the land um almost 14 acres only wants to put four homes on it, so I'm grateful. Um the property on which I live has been in and the property next door has been in our family since the '80s. Um so we've obviously seen this
area um grow in quite a way. Um so I'm really just asking that the board would take these things under advisement when approving this um development. Um I know this will go through. It's just there's a quite a pattern in our area of just knocking down every single tree
that's there, which causes extreme drainage issues to the whole community, not just that homeowner. Someone just put in a property behind us, knocked down everything, and then doesn't understand why their yard is a pond. Because trees are sponges, y'all. So um
I just would hope that that owner, I don't know if they're here, would take that under advisement. And when um the entrance is being put in, um every single pine tree that's there not be taken down. Um as we all agree, this is what makes Seminole County the natural choice, and what's beautiful is
not just us living here, but all the wildlife that we have as well. Um we just desperately need a drainage study. Um Gabriella Lane goes up to It's Tuscawilla and then Brooks Lane. And Redbug, it's just this little rural enclave of um a square, and Brooks Lane
acts almost as a dam. So, our little square, nothing can drain out of that. So, um we need some kind of outfall drainage to the creek um to Bear Creek. Um and I'm I support that this person bought this land. They can put on it what they would like. Um but again,
with increased development, we've had a lot of displaced wildlife, much fewer trees, and as I said already, drainage issues. Um bears with no place to go killed two of my backyard goats this past fall. Um we have a family of coyotes that live in
our back area in this proposed area. Um I would hate for them not to have anywhere to go and then continue to kill people's pets and things like that. So, really all I'm requesting is that a drainage study is done, um and that the owner be discouraged from knocking down every single tree and then not
understanding why there's no drainage. Um our septics and drain fields fill every hurricane season. Um the water's super sat- the land is super saturated. So, that is all. I appreciate you. >> We appreciate you being here, and we appreciate you teaching our kids.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. All right, Commissioners, that brings us to That was it, right? >> Yes. >> That brings us [snorts] to the consent agenda, item four, 4A through 17. >> Madam >> County Manager and Deputy County Manager, anything to pull
today? >> Nothing to pull, just noting that there was an addition to the agenda on Friday, item 4A, which was distributed to your offices. Commissioners, anything to pull? No, I'll look for a motion. >> Yes, Madam Chair.
With the understanding that our development department will, you know, take into consideration the young lady's comments which were well taken, I would move constitutional officer consent agenda number four, special
addition 4A, and the county manager consent agenda items five through 17. >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? >> Aye.
>> Any opposed? Hearing none opposed, it passes unanimously. Thank you. That brings us to item 18, the regular agenda. And this is Mr. Joe Akalla, Information Technology Director.
Joe, welcome to the podium. >> Thank you. All right, we're here to talk about admin code information security and artificial intelligence. There we go. All right, so here today again, as mentioned, we're to discuss
the 26.5 or information security policy as part of the admin code admin code, excuse me. Summarize the updates that we recently were made and really discuss section D which was the largest section that we had in there regarding some guidelines around artificial intelligence.
So, what did we change? So, really remove some of the outdated language that was that was in there. Obviously, as technology changes, terminology changes, and so forth. So, we wanted to try and remove some of the outdated language that was in there. We additionally clarified the role of the CIO and Information Security
Division Manager. One's more policy-based while the other is more uh operational execution based. Uh we also reference the state statute uh which is uh 28 282.3185 if I remember correctly regarding um
security training. Um that's part of the state mandates that uh all all employees must be security trained. We have to track that, report that, and so forth. So we wanted to make sure that that was captured in there. And then finally as I mentioned updating uh the policy to include some artificial intelligence guidelines which is a
section D uh that we incorporated. So what all this section D? So section D uh really discusses only utilizing AI approved platforms. We did not list specific technologies or platforms because again this can change uh on a
moment's notice. So we just want we put language in there to say only use approved platforms. Most importantly here, review and approve all content created by AI. We want to make sure that we we it's well known AI can make mistakes, it can
hallucinate as it's as it's termed. Um so we want to make sure the human is involved in that loop to capture that, review it, and make sure it is accurate before uh before publishing any of it. Also we asked for uh reviewing of contracts. Obviously you heard during
the budget um presentations many of the departments were discussing AI being involved in their applications and platforms that they're acquiring. Here as part of our vendor risk management we also look at how our data is utilized um in those vendor platforms and really more importantly making sure
that they are securing it um and ensuring that our data is secured in their platforms. Uh the next area we we discussed in the in the policy was uh AI to be used responsibly and not to public uh not to harm the public or county. Pretty self-evident in that aspect.
Uh and finally we talked about appropriate controls to be implemented to protect our data. Um this again this is to ensure the safety and security availability, confidentiality, confidentiality, and integrity of our of our data. And then finally, we specifically
identified a couple of of unacceptable uses such as social security numbers, credit card information, any PII or HIPAA. Don't put that stuff in there. Seems to be pretty self-explanatory, but again, if it's not in black and white, we wanted to make sure we explicitly
spelled that out. >> [clears throat] >> So, with that, that concludes my presentation and we have a recommendation for you. >> Thank you. Commissioners, any discussion? >> Nope. >> I would just say thank you for bringing this forward. I think it's it's
will not surprise me if at some point in the near or not so near future, we wind up making amendments. I hope that you and our team will feel like you can bring those to us when you need to because this is such a rapidly changing world in this sphere that we're we're
experiencing now. So, thank you for the work and look forward to more to come. >> Yes, thank you. >> I think the only thing that I would add before >> [clears throat] >> someone makes the motion is that the I think because all of this is so new and because the language is rapidly
rapidly changing, uh what needs to happen with this is a really extensive training program that includes your team involved in every single department in every single role and making sure that the messaging is
consistent as it goes through the organization. Otherwise, we will have misinterpretations and misunderstanding and then the potential of an error. So, training for this is really important. Um and I speak to that from personal personal knowledge in the commercial
universe is is folks not understanding it as well as they think they understand it. With that, Commissioners, I'll look for a motion. >> Motion to approve as presented. >> Second. >> I have a first and a second, any further discussion? All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Hearing none, passes
unanimously. Thank you for your work on this. Brings us to Oh, I Any public comment? >> No, ma'am. >> Thank you. Item 19. Uh this is a resolution delegating temporary authority to the building
official and the development services director to establish fees uh to become compliant with House Bill 803, and we have Mr. Rhodes here. >> Thank you, Madam Chairman. Um and good morning, Commissioners. Uh briefly this morning, uh as you all
know, uh legislature uh went through their session and passed a number of bills related to development services, development services fees, and other activities. Um House Bill 803 uh passed, and it provided us with a number of things uh
to be concerned with. Um one of which was our our fees. And so, the resolution we're presenting to you here today and asking your consideration for addresses the fees, in particular the the the deadline uh specifically associated with uh the
adjustment of building permit fees, which is July the 1st. Um the general legislative direction, as you all probably are aware, uh has been to require fees more and more to reflect our actual costs,
and that is continuing. That's uh that's also uh evident in another bill that uh we may talk about at another point in time, uh House Bill 399, um which is doing the same thing to development fees, planning fees, things like that, as it's doing to building
fees, but they have a different uh they have a a different effective date for for those fees. And then in general, there are also, um, as you all know, again, a lot of state mandates for, um, permit applications, turn around
times, processing times, penalties associated with all the all of those things. And so, uh, we're continuing to kind of look, uh, at at the long-range nature of of a lot of this legislative, um, win, let's say, uh, to try to make sure that we account
for it in a way that, uh, we don't have to keep coming back over and over again. Um, House Bill 803 and its committee substitute for committee substitute, but 803, uh, amends five different chapters of Florida Statutes, provides for some exemptions from permit requirements, uh,
which, um, are also going to be problematic for us in some respects. It does prohibit fees from being based off of value of projects, and provides the fees cannot exceed the actual cost that we incur as a county to provide those services. Also
requires local governments to create a registration system for private providers, uh, private provider inspections and plan reviews are becoming more and more prevalent across the state as demand for, uh, housing and and and speed and a lot of other things,
um, again, continues to put pressure on us all. Um, it also sets a minimum reduction of fees in the statute for, um, for when private providers are are utilized by developers, uh, or builders.
And again, it set an effective date, uh, which is problematic for us, uh, of July 1st for most of these changes. As you all know, I I think the governor signed the bill in in early May, um, and so it has not left us with a whole lot of time to
make the adjustments that we like to see made, um, for the long term in response to this and and to other needs that we've got. Um, this is an excerpt from the bill um and and just indicates a specific amendment uh there underlined at the bottom. Inspection fees may not be based
on the total cost of a project and may not exceed the actual inspection cost incurred by the local enforcement agency. Note that it says may not exceed uh the legislature doesn't mind if it's less, of course. Um, which isn't very helpful for us, but at any rate the um
the upshot of this is we we we know that we need to uh conduct a fee study and we are working with our purchasing division manager. Uh we're looking to piggyback uh just about every local government in the state is having to go through right now uh something like we are and respond in
in a similar way. Uh we're a little bit ahead of the game, I think, with the resolution that we're presenting, but we all are are being forced into looking at our our fees across the board and so uh we're hopefully hoping we're able to piggyback on on a couple of those existing contracts out there and get
something underway in the next month or so. Um uh as you all know, the previous fee study uh that the county did was in 2018. Uh did not result in any changes. We had a lot of recommendations, but we it it did not result in any changes to our
fees. Most of our fees have not changed since 2008, so very important that we do this study, very important that we look at those actual costs and and program that into our new Accela platform as as that comes online um as well as uh kind of do the deep dive and and figure out
how much it's really costing us to provide all of these services. Uh and again the fee study is not going to just address building permit fees. It will also get into the rest of development permit fees, whether it's a subdivision plat or a variance or or what have you. So, it's going to it's going to cover a
lot of ground and it'll be a lot to a lot for you all to to be thinking about in the future. Um so, actually what we're requesting today is to approve and authorize the chairman to execute a resolution authorizing the building official and development services director to adjust permitting and development fees to be consistent
with the requirements of state statute. >> Thank you very much, commissioners. Any comments? Mr. Constantine. We're all looking at you. >> Okay. >> [laughter] >> You know, I mean, yes, we want to do this. We should be doing this.
Um and and I think all of us want and and we've said this before many times, you know, in all in all areas, we want to make sure we have the actual costs. But it would be remiss of me if I didn't say also that this is once again, you
know, Tallahassee telling us one size fits all and they got mad at some somebody got mad at somebody because they raised the fees somewhere else and ran up to Tallahassee and said they're ought to be the law and therefore, you know, now we have one size fits all for
everybody in the state. >> With that, I'll be looking for a motion. >> Move approval of the request. >> Second. All right, any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Hearing none, it passes unanimously. Thank you for your work on
this and keep us ahead of the pack. >> Absolutely. Thank you. >> It's like getting your order in at a restaurant before the 30-person party gets their order in. >> Yes. >> And it's probably good business for the
fee study people. All right. Well, was there any public comment on that? >> [laughter] >> That's good cuz we're ready for our next item. And this brings us to a work session on stormwater and I see our
Toney Loar standing here ready to go with a team behind her that's ready to step in at a moment's notice. Thank you. >> Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Commissioners for having us here today. Uh my name, as the Chairman said, is Tonya Alore. I'm the Public Works uh Director here at Seminole County.
Uh the presentation that we have before you today, uh we mentioned this back in January and February when Joe LaPasso was given all the updates on our basin studies, and we told you then that our next step was to take all the projects that were identified and evaluated as
part of the basin studies and uh put them all together into a stormwater master plan. Uh we consider this stormwater master plan that we are going to present to you today as a living document of the 106
um projects that have been identified, only eight are in various stages of project development under our third gen uh funding. Uh we do need this master plan for us to continue to go after funding, um whether
that be federal funding, state funding, or just funding with our partners. So, this is a very important document for us in this county, as I've mentioned in the past, has been very successful in getting uh additional funding for these drainage projects. Uh the rest of the projects have not
have been ranked, but have not been funded, and that is up to you. So, at various points uh in the future, we will come back to you uh to move these other projects forward as funding is identified. Uh so, with that, I'm going
to turn the presentation over to Joe LaPasso, our Assistant County Engineer, and we also have Ricky Lee here from Jacobs to present uh the the presentation. Thank you. >> Thank you, Tonya. I am Joe LaPasso, Assistant County Engineer, um and I am
here today to present on the updated stormwater master plan. There we go. Thank Oh, thank you. Uh, the purpose of this presentation is to update the Board of County Commissioners on the finalization of the updated stormwater master plan and to request the BCC accept the updated stormwater master
plan into service. Today's agenda will go over the project background, current status, and requested action. The background of this project is that its purpose was to update the stormwater master plan from 2018. The updated stormwater master plan contains all the new project concepts from the new basin
studies approved in early 2026. It also includes project concepts from the various nutrient studies. It provides project prioritization using the same evaluation criteria as the basin studies, but on a countywide basis. And it creates a technical framework for future policy-making decisions regarding
flooding protection and water quality. >> Wait, now we don't have a quorum. >> He's still here. >> I'm not going nowhere. >> Okay. >> I'm still here. We're good for years. I'm good. >> Good to know. >> Uh, the current status >> we do have a quorum. Bob is just off
camera. >> The current status of the project is county staff have >> I'll come back down. >> Thank you. Oh, now we have big quorum. Big quorum. Joe, we'll stop wiggling around if you
keep going. >> Okay. >> How about >> The No, no, it's no problem. Uh, current status of the project is county staff and consultants have concluded the countywide project concept rankings and the draft updated stormwater master plan is prepared and ready to enter service. At this point, I'll turn it over to Mr.
Lee to continue the presentation. >> Thank you, Mr. LoFasso. Thank you, uh, Commissioners. My name is Ricky Lee with Jacobs Engineering. Um, and we'll talk about the storm- stormwater master plan update. Um, and we'll do an overview of our approach,
um, including the criteria and the various steps so as we go through. All right, our goal as Mr. Foss has said is to update the previous 2018 Stormwater Master Plan. And this one we mostly worked on the
eight basin studies that were previously completed with the county as well as several nutrient projects. And these projects were located in unincorporated Seminole County. And obviously, you know, water doesn't care about jurisdiction, but you know,
we focus on those areas and and we take a look at where there is opportunity for partnerships. The eight basin studies listed here Midway, Lake Harney, Little Wekiva, Big Wekiva, Yankee Lake, Lake Monroe, Big
Little Econ, and the East County basins including Lake Jessup, Howell Creek, Soldiers Creek, Gee Creek, Little Lake Howell, as well as nutrient studies which focus mostly on water quality listed there.
The seven steps that we took for this update data collection, project screening, evaluation criteria, site assessments, benefit scoring, cost assessments, and then finally project prioritization.
Mostly for the data collection, we worked with the county consultants who were working on the basin updates and got their information and put them together in our GIS database and use that for project screening. We
met several times with the county staff over the years on on the various criteria. And those criteria are listed here in this chart including flood protection,
water quality, ease of implementation, operations and maintenance, alternative funding, potential benefits from water augmentation, and community enhancement. And we'll go over, you know, how some of those features were
decided on and, you know, what the that looks like. But these are the same criteria that were used in the basin studies, so we try to be consistent with our approach. And as you can see in the chart, there's flood protection is 35% and water quality at 25%, which were the
top two factors. This is also, you know, this will be in the report, but you know, just breaks down a little bit more all the different aspects that we used in our analysis. This is a map of
basically the flood plains in Seminole County. As you know, there is quite a few used for our flood protection metric. Evaluation criteria of water quality. We work with our environmental environmental
protection team at the county and looked at the BMAPs, the basin management action plans, and decided on which were high priority, especially the ones on the west side of the county where there are more outstanding springs and things like that
where which has you know, downstream effects. So we work together with the county to develop that. And also upstream basins if they're upstream of a, you know, river then obviously, you know, we would try to give them more credit for benefits upstream so that downstream effects are
lessened. Easement implementation and O&M. We looked at maintenance records, you know, over the years of flooding complaints and things like that, as well as different opportunities such as public
right-of-way, public parks, and things like that, and different different areas that, you know, we could make it easier to implement construction. Water augmentation, this is a map of the water recharge areas in Seminole County
where, you know, there is a special criteria from St. Johns where these areas help replenish the aquifer more. And so, you see the dark blue, those are important areas where it's better for water augmentation so that it's more of
a one water approach, right? When when we do our projects. And and those projects in those areas had certain points. Community enhancement, mostly for like areas where there is parks and trails and things like that. So, you know, parks and recreation [clears throat]
month. So, projects that would help to enhance living conditions in those areas were also given points. And so, we took all those different criteria and there was a waiting factor applied using GIS.
And then resulted in a total benefit score for the benefit scoring. And once we had all the benefit scores, we also took into consideration the cost. We took a normalized cost based on the most expensive project and compared it to that project's cost and applied a
factor to the benefit score to get the overall benefit cost ratio. And that's how the prioritization was used for this plan where it was most cost-effective and also most advantageous. So, that's how
they are ranked. And and and so, that's how we have our project prioritization list. There are as Ms. Tody said, over 106 projects. 85 of
them are strictly flooding projects, but there's also water quality benefits with with the flooding projects, of course. And then there's 21 strictly water quality projects as mentioned previously with those lake lake nutrient studies. Uh for a total of 328
million in in projects. So. And also as a part of this study, we created project sheets for the staff to use where we summarize information from the studies so that's easy for the for
staff for for future, you know, project studies and you know, whatever next phase there is, you know, where there's information about the project, nearby parcels, just uh and also cost assessment as well.
Just a lot of information that will be helpful for the for the county in the future for the next steps. And so activities to date as we discussed, the data collection, uh project screening, evaluation criteria, site assessments, benefit scoring, cost
assessments, and project prioritization has been completed and in draft form. And yeah. >> And with all that being said, we would have a recommended action that the board approve for acceptance into service the
updated stormwater master plan as recommended by staff. And with that, we conclude this presentation and we're ready for any questions. >> Thank you. Do we have any public comment? >> No, ma'am. >> All right. Commissioners, any discussion? >> She wants to go first, Commissioner?
>> I don't need to go first. >> Go ahead, Bob. >> Just trying to be polite. >> That's very nice of you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh As you said in your presentation, water does not know jurisdiction. I get that. We all know that. And we also know that
there's limited dollars to do all the things that need to be done. But yet the public always looks at, you know, where they live and that's their biggest investment or one of their biggest investments and they want to make sure that they are working with us and we're working for
them to protect their biggest investment. Uh you also said that uh this is for the unincorporated part of the county not this any of the seven cities. So, my questions are around that issue. Uh what dialogue or conversation we've
had with the seven cities because one of one of concerned about is the downstream effect. Uh if and when it does go into a city because water does flow in certain directions, that if the cities are not prepared or we're not working with the
cities, we could flood areas. And so, how do we prevent that from happening number one? Number two, when you talk about benefit cost ratio, if the cities are partnering with us, we get the biggest bang for the buck, which will change the benefit cost ratio, which would also potentially
change your priority list if a city is partnering with us. Can you discuss that first and I have a couple more questions, but that's basically where I'm going to go and I have two more questions after that. >> Sure. So, uh you're exactly correct. Those are all very important points. During the basin studies, uh we did
discuss with the cities the various projects which we would have those downstream effects. So, for example, the Little Lake Howell project in November, uh which is our number three on the list, we had a discussion in November of 2024 with the city of Winter Springs because in order to implement that project, well, our piece of it for the
unincorporated section was small, to get that from Little Lake Howell to the final discharge point would essentially cross through the entire breadth of the city and would require them to upsize the pipes. So, we met with them, we met with their consultants and they were very eager to continue this discussion as as we progress through the basin
study, through the stormwater master plan. And so, they said when we had gotten to essentially this point, we're ready to start, you know, putting things in onto the list, that they would want to come back and have that further discussion with us. And other projects similarly, we know there with Castleberry for example for the
Forestbrook project which also requires coordination with DOT because we'll have crossings under 434 to make that an implementable project. So, we have had those discussions with them. They are logged in the basin study for which the project is contained. And yes, so the and the funding question
as well, the the ranking, you know, that those seven criteria that we had it wouldn't affect that but it would obviously affect the speed at which we can implement a given project if we were to get more funding partners on board that were able to cooperate with us and advance those projects. >> So, what I'd like to see if the board
would agree is that in your analysis or your spreadsheet that there's something in that spreadsheet that actually identifies if there is a downstream effect with a city and that we need to make sure that we're coordinating cuz at some point these dollar figures are
so high that we don't know what year we're going to implementing this. So, hopefully we'll all get this done within the next year but that's impossible. So, over the years people do change and we want I'd like to make sure that as this master plan has
been updated that we identify in the master plan the downstream effect and that the partnership is needed so that it doesn't get lost. Those are my concerns. >> No, we can definitely make sure that that's noted in the plan.
>> Commissioner Lockhart. >> I think Commissioner Loizides had two more questions. >> No, that was it. >> Okay. >> But thank you. >> Okay. Um I want to ask a couple of questions that may wind up being a little bit of a rabbit trail if you're okay with that, Chairman.
It's relevant. They are relevant. >> yes, go for it. >> Okay. So, looking at your evaluation criteria sheet, water augmentation uh 18. Um >> You want to switch back? >> the
the issue of recharge areas and and I picked up in in the um in the fine print in the bottom where it says um stormwater can provide benefits to the county's water supply by integrating into their water management approach.
This integration is done in three ways: providing a source for groundwater recharge, water for landscape irrigation, and direct augmentation of stressed wetlands and lakes. Okay. There can be um
work things working at cross-purposes here when we are talking about augmentation of water to stressed wetlands and lakes. If that stormwater is not being treated in some fashion, then we are creating water quality problems. And now we're in an NPDES TMDL
issue. So, how are we suggesting that people who live on lakes or water bodies irrigate from those lakes because we're saying that this is going This is helping to provide water for landscape irrigation. Walk me through the prioritization of a citizen
who has stormwater that is flowing across their property into their backyard or somewhere near their property where there is water. Um we're saying as the county we want these to be water recharge areas. This is a good thing. Can be used for irrigation,
stressed wetlands, lakes. How do I as a resident, as a property owner in that environment respond to that intent? >> You want to take that? >> Try to um help respond. Um in terms of
um you know, these stormwater projects, right? For example, when they are um providing um flooding benefit, okay? That's the number one uh item. Um regarding uh stressed wetlands and lakes that are possibly nearby, right? For example, there's been development
and maybe they're not getting that um, replenishment. Um, typically, um, you know, those stormwater would have to be treated before, you know, it gets, you know, left out, you know, the discharged into said wetland um, as part of uh, St. Johns River Water
Management District ERP requirements. And so, any project that, you know, we we implement, you know, will have to follow, you know, DEP and uh, St. Johns requirements of water quality, especially. So, hopefully, uh, you know, obviously with
with these projects, you know, whether it's um, upsizing pipes or, you know, having new stormwater ponds for places that don't have treatment already. Usually, I think they usually would have it, you know, right? Like, for example, downstream of that neighborhood, there's
usually a pond or something like that that would get to the pond better. And then also, from from that area, after it has the pollution abatement um, you know, mechanisms, then it would be able to discharge um,
cleaner water into these lakes um, or recharge the groundwater. Or um, for landscape irrigation, that was more for like, for example, golf courses that have already these systems in place and they can use their ponds um, you know, to
kind of like stormwater harvesting um, that St. Johns has been promoting uh, recently. So, as a citizen, I think the number one thing is flooding, you know, the flooding effects. And also, obviously, uh, to once they have these
projects uh, you know, permitted, they will need to meet those uh, >> [clears throat] >> water quality, especially the new statewide stormwater quality regulations. Um, and so, that will provide cleaner water for our wetlands and aquifers and things like that, so.
>> I think um I loved hearing that all of the storm water that is being dumped into our lakes and streams is supposed to be treated. Um I am here to tell you it is not. >> Where's our code enforcement folks next year? >> Yeah. So, I
I Well, so this leads me to my second question, which is we have had um stormwater master plans in this county for decades. There have been subdivision retrofit projects identified that were
supposed to help with the discharge of that untreated stormwater into our lakes and streams, and those projects have not been completed. Um it's been over 25, maybe 30 years some of them have been identified. I'm looking to the back row
cuz there's someone who was here back in the day when those were identified. So, how [clears throat] in in your evaluation criteria, how many of those previously identified subdivision retrofit projects that were supposed to fix
um water quality and quantity issues in these older neighborhoods, um how many of those were evaluated and did they make it into the criteria? Was there a weighting established for those projects? >> Um I can't tell you exactly how many
were from the previous ones. We can take a look into that. Um regarding the weighting, I do not believe that, you know, that was part of the you know, uh criteria, but um we can take a look closer and um get you get you that answer. Yeah. >> Okay. I just think it's incredibly
important that, you know, one of the things that local government government in particular gets accused of is you do studies, you spend all this money on studies, and then you put them on the shelf, and you don't do what it is that the study tells you we're supposed to do. And we have decades of histories of
that specifically related to stormwater in this county. And so while I know needs change and evolve and priorities change, I think there are some some antiquated neighborhoods in this county who have been waiting literally for decades
and have been um acting as the county's retention ponds for years without any type of remediation and I think we need to acknowledge that and at least look at that. Um the other thing that I want to ask
about on slide 24. Also in the really fine print. >> Yeah, this is yeah. This is this is a outdated version. I do apologize. We've been updating them, but uh we've been waiting for the final >> Well, I don't know that what I'm pointing out is necessarily outdated. >> Oh, sure. Sure. >> Okay. So, down in the bottom
>> Yes. >> where it says uh you have all the different criteria likelihood of right of way acquisition requirement. >> Yes. >> Both of these in this example say unlikely. So, how did we determine whether likelihood of right of way acquisition
is likely, unlikely, how many other variations of that you know, what's the what's the scale and how did you decide that these were unlikely? >> Uh >> As an example. >> Yeah, so we we put that in there
for to help do with the county staff cuz obviously you know, that's a huge time constraint and also budget constraint. We took a look at the available right of way for example, if the project is just within a lake or something like that that has
county right of way. If it had to do with private property and other things like that, then yes, that would be more higher likely. And if it was like, for example, public road, for example,
county streets and things like that or DOT, for example, you know, it's less likely. There's also consideration if there was like wetland impacts as well. So, if there's like wetland involved, as you can see, there's there's something
there, you know, there is potential for you know, uh right-of-way, you know, issues with that, you know, with wetland mitigation. So, um >> I hope that when our team looks at these sheets, they don't see the word unlikely
and skip over it. >> Yes, we could probably better word that. Yeah, so that they can say, "Hey, even though it might be unlikely, there still is likelihood, you know." >> Right. Well, I I'll I'll speak to that. Again, the the two
top criterion were, of course, the water quality and the flood mitigation. So, just because we need to acquire right-of-way for something or that it's likely we need to acquire right-of-way for something, doesn't mean we're necessarily going to not do it. So, I think that that's something to say is
that, again, it's one of seven criteria. We had to assign some kind of a a metric to it because we don't have, let's say, complete site survey, right? We don't know to the millimeter what we may or may not need in terms of the land, but we just wanted to say, "Hey, you know, just so everyone knows, we will likely
have a land acquisition component and that will involve time and effort." But it's not something that's a a deal breaker for us. We will we will proceed. We have proceeded with projects. I mean, you talked about historical one that's been on there. Midway community has been on there forever. And we went after that
thing regardless of the massive effort to a required to acquire that right-of-way. So, I'll say that yes, it may say likely or unlikely, but that doesn't mean a yes or a no to that project. >> Okay. That's very, very good news. Thank you for clarifying that. That's Those are all the questions I
have for now. >> Any further questions, Commissioners? >> Madam Chair. >> Yes. >> Um you might want to use has challenges um as opposed to unlikely or something. >> Sure, sure.
>> But I just would you know, my Environmental Steward Commission has already said everything. And I don't have to say much of anything except an overall big picture. And that is
we don't have the funding to do this. >> All of it. >> And let's be realistic. [clears throat] That is what is the is the elephant in the room. And that is what we have to address ultimately. I've had long discussions
with the County Manager. I'm sure many of you have also. That this is something that is coming. I am not you know um I'm not suggesting the horror story that happened in the past when none of us except for Bob was
here. But I am >> So you're saying it's my fault? >> No, [snorts] I'm saying that you had to put up with it. But I am saying we have to bite the bullet and start looking at real opportunities to pay for these things because there's so many aspects to this. The
water quality is extremely important as is the flooding. And if we do not take care we we cannot as Commissioner Lockhart suggested, we cannot continue to let water flow into our lakes freely
from the streets. And that's what's happening. And I see it every day. We all see it every day every single I live on a lake and it makes me sick to my stomach. And we've got to do something about it. Thank you very much. >> Commissioner Joiner
>> that I guess I will make a motion. >> Mr. Delari had his hand up. >> Okay, I'm sorry. >> I'd like to make the motion, Madam Chair, if that's okay. >> I'd like to I'd like to do a few a few clarifying comments before you do that. >> Absolutely. >> Uh I may be reading this wrong, but I think
on your project sheets, it is the likelihood of requiring right away, not the unlikelihood that we can't get it. >> Correct. >> So, I just want to get that on the record. Get that Get that >> It is not a comment. >> It's scoring happens earlier. Okay.
>> Yes. >> I think there were two additional requests that were added, and that is that older neighborhoods and older studies are somehow taken into consideration for those that have been waiting the longest. And then the second request was to add somewhere in the
documentation whether city involvement is needed, appreciated, or required is what I heard in that commentary. So, you figure out how to do that. And with that, uh Commissioner Delari, would you like to make a motion? >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I was going to go along those same lines. I'd like to
make the motion to approve and accept into service the updated stormwater master plan as presented here today and to address the comments that were made by this board at this time. >> Second. >> We have a first and a second.
Any other discussion? Okay, she's just raising her hand by herself. I thought you were I thought you were I'm sorry. Uh all those in favor? >> Aye. >> Opposed? Hearing none. Passes unanimously. Thank you, gentlemen. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Thank you. >> Joe, always a good job.
>> Thank you, ma'am. >> We appreciate it. I uh Is there any other further public comment? >> No, ma'am. >> Can we keep going? >> That's quite I didn't think >> We cannot. There are rules. We cannot, [laughter] but we can all find We can
all find productive work in our offices to do that doesn't occupy staff and take them away from the productive work that they need to do while we're all in this building. So, with that we are adjourned until the afternoon session. Part: 2
[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> for everyone >> It is 1:30. >> So I told myself to my screen. >> It is 1:30. I'm going to call this meeting to order. >> You're welcome to the afternoon session
of our BOCC June 23rd, 2026 meeting. Thank you everyone for being here. Uh we are going to I'll look for proof of publication. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> Aye.
>> Passes unanimously. Anybody have any ex parte communication to share with >> Yes, I do. >> None. >> So Commissioner Constantine has already done it electronically. Commissioner Delarie is doing it on paper.
>> I I received a phone call from a a couple of citizens on the Rosenwald project. Those were I believe submitted electronically. >> And I have none to submit. The first item on our agenda is the Rosenwald Community Center rezone. This will be presented by Annie Sinoway, our
principal planner. And we appreciate you being here. This is our second public hearing. >> Excuse me, Chairman. Would you like to read Would you like me to read the rules for quasi-judicial hearing? >> I certainly would not like to read the rules. I don't even know that I want to follow the rules, but if you read them,
we will all follow them. How about that? >> [laughter] >> I will read them. >> We cannot keep her together. >> We do have one quasi-judicial hearing, so I will and it is this one, so I will read it. >> Awesome. You'd read them now. Thank you. >> While the board welcomes comments from all persons with an interest in these
proceedings, Florida law requires that the board's decision in quasi-judicial actions be supported by competent, substantial evidence presented to the board during the hearings on the applications. Competent, substantial evidence is such evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. There must be a
factual basis in the record to support opinion testimony from both expert and non-expert witnesses. Persons presenting testimony may rely on factual information that they present, on information presented by county staff, information the applicant presented, or
on factual information included in the county staff report to support their testimony. All persons who present written materials to the board for consideration must ensure that a copy of such materials is provided to the clerk for inclusion in the board's record of the proceedings and the official
minutes. Chairman. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. And I was kidding in the for the record category. Ms. Sinoway, please proceed. >> Uh yes, ma'am. Uh good afternoon, Annie Sillaway with Development Services. Um this request uh that is being presented
today is for a rezone from R-1 single-family dwelling and R-2 one- and two-family dwelling to PLI public lands and institutions. The rezone is to allow for the development of a public park and community center. Subject property has a
public quasi-public future land use designation, which permits a maximum floor area ratio of 0.65. This designation is intended to identify locations suitable for a range of public and quasi-public uses, including but not limited to public and private recreation
facilities, educational institutions, and libraries. And since this is a second reading, I'm just going to go ahead with the request. The Board of County Commissioners met on May 12th, 2026, and voted unanimously to adopt the ordinance rezoning a property
from R-1 single-family dwelling and R-2 one- and two-family dwelling to PLI public lands and institutions on approximately 12.96 acres located on the north side of Merritt Street and approximately 0.25 miles east of Ronald Reagan Boulevard upon the first reading.
Staff requests the Board of County Commissioners adopt upon the second reading of an ordinance rezoning a property from R-1 and R-2 to PLI on approximately 12.96 acres located on the north side of Merritt Street and approximately 0.25 miles east of Ronald
Reagan Boulevard, and that concludes my presentation. >> Thank you very much. Is there any public comment on this, Mr. Reagan? >> No, ma'am. >> There is not. With that, I will go to the district commissioner. >> Yes. >> Well, I want to thank you all um on behalf of the community for all the support in this project and continuing
to see it come to fruition. And so, with that, I would like to make a motion to approve the rezone as presented. >> Second. >> Second. >> We have a motion and two seconds. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor? >> Aye.
>> Opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. >> Our next item is the public hearing legislative the land development code amendment. This will be Maya Athanas, principal planner. Thank you. >> Hi, good afternoon.
For the record, Maya Athanas, principal planner, planning and development division. And I am here today to present the land development code amendment. This is an ordinance and I'm sorry, this is the first reading of two readings for this item. Um this is an ordinance amending
chapter two, chapter five, chapter 20, chapter 30, chapter 35, chapter 70, and chapter 90 of the Seminole County Land Development Code. So, just some quick background on this. The last major update that we did to the
land development code was in January of 2024. That was a significant reorganization of the zoning chapter. So, since then we have identified some other things that we need to um clean up. Most of those are outlined on the
last four slides of this presentation and are fairly minor. Um but in addition, we're also proposing some updates related to compliance with state regulations, application and variance trends, streamlining of processes, housing
needs, and updates required by the comprehensive plan. And just a quick note, a majority of these topics have been discussed at previous work sessions. Um so, this presentation is going to highlight the major updates. So, first up we took a look at um
updates for compliance with state regulations. We are proposing to update the separation requirements for alcoholic beverage establishments. This is not required for us to do by the state, so we're doing it voluntarily because we think that it makes sense for the infill
projects that we've been seeing as of recent. So, we're proposing to remove the separation altogether from churches, residential, and like establishments and decrease the separation to schools by
500 ft down to 500 ft. Additionally, we are recommending to remove the requirement for Seminole County to track the communication tower master plans. It's not something that we do now and we're not required to do it.
The next category is application and variance trends. We did take a look at our accessory dwelling unit regulations. As of right now, all residential properties can do they can have a accessory dwelling unit up to 35% of the
gross floor area of the main home or up to 45% through an administrative adjustment. We do see a good number of those administrative adjustments come through and they do usually get approved. So, what we're recommending is just to go to 50%
because we also allow up to 50% for accessory structures. So, instead of 35% or 45% or 50, we're suggesting to make it 50% across the board and keeping it at that 1,100 sq
ft. Um I apologize. We're also recommending up to 1,600 sq ft for accessory dwelling units in our agricultural [snorts] zoning districts when they are greater than 3 acres.
All right, the next topic is streamlining processes. Uh number of these updates are again shown in the last few slides for um general and additional updates. The major one here is updates to our plan development regulations. We are
recommending that we clarify the permitted uses for plan developments in the higher intensity airport future land use designation. So, we did take a look at what is allowed in that future land use designation as well as the joint
planning agreement with the city of Sanford and the Sanford Airport. We took their recommendations into account and compiled the list that's in the ordinance. One note [clears throat] I would like to make is that what you we are also going
to add mixed-use projects to that list of permitted uses. That is not in the ordinance that's before you today. Um unfortunately, it just for some reason wasn't in there. So, we are going to need to add that before the final version that you'll see in July at the adoption hearing for the second reading.
We're also recommending a general reorganization of this section and to add the following greater benefits for PDs as an option. Um undergrounding of utilities, water star practices, dark sky lighting, and substantial native plantings.
The next few slides that we'll go over are related to housing needs. So, this slide is about the density bonus for affordable housing. In our comprehensive plan, all of our residential land use designations allow a density bonus for affordable housing.
So, we are not recommending to change that. So, we are not recommending any changes to the allowable density. What we're looking at here is establishing the ratio for how many affordable units need to be provided to get that bonus.
So, I have two examples on the slide here, but there are other options for it depending on if the project is doing very low-income or low-income units or if they're doing rental or ownership units.
So, for example, if there's a project with the low-density residential future land use designation and they are providing one one affordable unit, they would get two additional market rate units. And that would, you know, be the ratio for the
the density. I will say that the recommendations for this program are based on a market study that we conducted with Kimley-Horn last year, which took into account housing quantity and the overall needs for housing in the county. And we did work with community
development to determine the process and how we're going to implement this when and if this gets approved so that if we do have any projects that would like to use this program, we have a straightforward and an easy path for them to follow. These projects would be required to do
an affordability agreement with the county, which would be approved at a public hearing, and that would outline how long those units need to be affordable for and how those would be tracked. Another update that we are recommending to
in the housing needs category is the alternative design standards option. So, what you see on the screen on the left is what you would expect today with a standard subdivision using the standard size lot widths and lot sizes with no open space requirement. Um what you see
on the right is what we would be proposing through this alternative design standards. This would be optional and voluntary for projects to do. They would be able to have slightly smaller lots in exchange for the um for an open space requirement.
The important thing to note here is we're not proposing change in density again, so they would still be limited to >> [clears throat] >> whatever the density is that they um are entitled to through their future land use designation. We are not really recommending significant changes here. So, for
example, in the R1AA zoning district, the standard size lot width is 90 ft. We would allow them to go down to 70 ft in exchange for that 20% open space. So on and so forth. This would only apply to
the R1, R1B, R1A, and R1AA zoning districts. We selected those because those are the zoning districts that have the most um land left available for future development. One last thing to note on this is that
because of the reduced lot sizes and lot widths, we do recommend decreasing the setbacks for some of these zoning districts so that we're not seeing a huge influx of variances. We do see a good number of variances now for setbacks, so we feel like this would
also decrease some of the staff time that goes into reviewing those. But we again wouldn't be talking significant changes. It would maybe be from 10 ft on the side down to 7 and 1/2 ft. Something along those lines.
The last topic for the housing needs category is missing middle. I do want to preface this that we have been anticipating these changes that you see on the screen here pretty much since right after we adopted missing middle about 2 years ago. So, these are not significant changes and
don't take into account any changes that may be discussed right now. So, what we're proposing is to change the terminology from a final development plan to a conceptual plan at time of rezone. We think that's a more appropriate type of plan for them to
present at that stage in the process. And then we would also like to add a option for the development services director to waive some of the connectivity requirements when feasibility for that connectivity is super limited based on wetlands,
water bodies, or other types of barriers. And then like I said, the last few slides are the additional updates that have been discussed at previous work sessions, as well as the updates to the definitions. I would like to mention that top one that's highlighted because
it is not in the version of the ordinance you have before you, but we do anticipate it to be in the final version at the adoption hearing on July 14th, which is to add vocational schools as a permitted use in the C3 zoning district.
Um and with that, that concludes my presentation. Staff requests the board approve the first reading of the proposed ordinance to amend the Seminole County Land Development Code as per the following motion. Thank you. >> Does anybody have any questions for staff at this point?
>> I'd like to hear from the department first. >> Can I Chairman, can I just make a couple notations? >> Absolutely. >> Um so, there's a couple additional amendments that staff is asking for. I don't know that you caught both of them cuz they were in the presentation. So, I
just want to make sure we have those placed on the record and it's and and everybody knows what we're doing. Um the first one is a revision um to add language to 38.5.2.B And that is in the HIP AP. We took the
uses, as you know, there was a list of uses which is allowed in this zoning category um in the comp plan, which is strange to have a list of uses in the comp plan. So, they're being moved over to the land development code, so it's easier access for people to just see them all there.
Um, it also allows for mixed use in this, uh, category. So, we just added in, uh, we we want to add in a provision that allows for multi-family units, such as commit condominiums, apartments, townhomes, and um, above store flat
housing units that they're permitted in mixed use development only, and that if you're going to engage in these multi-family uses is limited to 20% of the total net buildable area of any development and 49% of the maximum total floor area for the development. So, that
just ensures that it's not only multi-family residential, but it has to be mixed use and putting the threshold in there, which is mixed use is already permitted in this, under the comp plan in this, um, portion of the code, and then the
change to the, um, use table 5.2 to allow for vocational schools with with within the C3 zoning category. >> Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Lockhart. >> And was that only for HIP Airport or was that for HIP TI and other HIPs as well? >> It was just for HIP Airport.
>> Is there a reason why we wouldn't consider that in the other HIPs? >> Um, >> So, um, HIP TI does already allow the same thing for the mixed use residential, and in HIP TI it would be limited to 49% of the floor area for the project, which is what we would be
proposing for this as well. >> I think the question was about the vocational schools. >> No. No. >> the HIP. >> Okay, thank you. >> Um, I'm just what I'm looking for is consistency. So, are now all of our HIP zonings consistent with one another or is there something where there is a
one-off where someone thinks that because it's in HIP TI it also is HIP Airport and or or are there still are there still caveats in one of them that is not in another? >> Well, they do have different lists of uses based on the designation. The target industry uses are different from
the airport supportive uses. There are some overlaps, but they would both allow the residential mixed-use component. >> With the same percentages? >> Yes, the the difference would be in HIP Airport, it would be limited to 20% of
the net buildable area that is not in the HIP TI. >> So, they're not the same. >> They are not exactly the same, no. >> And we should note too for the record that you could only have these multi-family uses that are in HIP AP but
outside of the airport noise zones. So, there's not many properties that this is going to apply to. Um it's very very limited. >> Yeah, they have they do have different intents. So, the the target industry we would be more encouraging of some
residential components because of the target industry employment generating uses, whereas with the airport, we're really looking for those airport supportive uses and residential people. >> Yes. Yes, but not >> employees at the airport.
I don't know. I I >> You you I mean, if you would like to give direction as far as I would like to better under >> to better understand why we picked the numbers we picked. What why is it that we think that that's the magic number for that particular zoning and and yet we didn't pick a different
number. I just want to understand the methodology behind it before I say, "Yeah, that's great. I think that makes sense." when at some point in time a developer will come as we may have later on today and say, "Why is this allowable here and not
here?" And I need to know why. I need to understand why we made the decision that we made. And if there's a good solid reason for it, I can support it. But I I I think I'm leaning more toward consistency unless there is a really drastic reason for it to be different.
That being said, I may be only one of four people who feels that way and it is a completely a moot point. So. [laughter] Do Do you want to attempt to explain that? Now I see a conversation going on back there that may or may not pertain to this. >> Um I will give a little bit more context
for the HIP Airport. Um as you know, the comprehensive plan was also updated in 2024. The old comp plan um only allowed up to 10% of the entire future land use for HIP Airport to be
residential uses. So, we actually would be increasing that allowance up to the 20% for each site. So, it is a little bit more lenient than it was in the past. So, that's you know, that was the compromise we were trying to make with it, but we can always discuss it more if
we feel like, you know, we have some other ideas for it. >> Dagmar Thank you. >> Dagmar Segarra, deputy director for development services. The other consideration, that's one of the ones that I was going to mention, but the other consideration is the fact
of the actual uses in the HIP A TI in the AP. The TI allows uses more of offices and techno and technology, which you have a greater dense population in regards to employment. The The airport
uses are more into industrial and manufacturing of uses, which typically are uses that would require a certain amount of employees, but not as greater as the office and technological uses. That's why the percentages are slightly
different. But if the direction of the board is to have it the same because of consistency, we can definitely do that. We just didn't want to take too much of the space that it is a designated for the airport users as we don't have a lot of land in that area
for this type of uses to be dedicated for residential. >> Mr. Constantine. >> Just a question. Um didn't we want to avoid residential around the airport? So, what's the logic in increasing it? >> My recollection is some people wanted to
reduce it and some people thought it would be good to increase it. Maybe there was a difference of opinion at the time. >> Which Which is exactly which is exactly what [clears throat] has been done is there the staff as always is threading the needle. >> Okay. I I
>> tiny little hole that we create up here. >> I We've We've discussed density in various places. I don't recall us and maybe we did, but I don't recall us disagreeing on um
residential at the airport. We understood that there was necessity, but we also knew you know, we're quite or know we're going to be causing a problem by having more dense more residential around the airport. Um you know, we're
we're inviting people to move there and then they'll call up and complain about the noise of the airport. >> [laughter] >> It doesn't I don't know. It doesn't to me I I I would not I would want to avoid that problem. >> I would I would tell you that from my
perspective, I think we have fewer and fewer opportunities every year to create economic development in this county and the airport is our largest one and I would like to see housing elsewhere. So, putting some housing out there to accommodate the workforce out there, but increasing it beyond what has
been recommended by the staff is I I don't have an interest in it. >> And And Madam Chair, if I could add one thing, we [clears throat] did the same thing with the HPT I over at International, and what has been the ongoing battle >> Yeah.
>> is that more people want residential, and we are losing and losing more opportunity. Now, we understand, you know, conditions of the market and everything, but again, I would suggest we, you know, we like you said, we limit the amount of
residential at the airport. >> Mr. Galardi. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I would agree that with the limited space that we have around the airport, it should be more industrial and commercial and not residential. So, whatever we can do to promote that, I think would be advantageous, especially
with what we're doing there with the indoor sports complex and potentially other venues in that area. I think it more leads itself to commercial industrial and not residential, as what I think some of the comments we had here. But, I'd also like to ask the question about density bonuses, and
we've had some issues with it in the past about how it affects existing housing elements from the cost perspective, and about the neighborhoods, and I don't see anything yet how it addresses that. And because what we're doing is
one-size-fits-all about density bonuses, and it should be in key areas and not just blanket across the entire county. I think because unless there's another way to look at it that there's been some neighborhoods where people have looked at it, and now we have room full of people,
and we look at it and like, okay, this affecting the neighborhood. There is uh not enough road capacity. There is less, you know, infrastructure, and yet by doing it, we're giving them the right to do that. >> I think that's a really good question. >> I'd like to have staff address it.
>> Okay, absolutely. If I understand the the question correctly, um when a project comes in for any kind of development, as you know, we do verify that they have the ability for um >> [clears throat] >> retention and access. And if they cannot
meet those standards with the density bonus, they would not be able to do the density bonus. >> But yeah, we've seen a project one or two that's people that made it to here or P&Z and there was density bonuses they were looking for X amount and all of a sudden
we voted it down and it shouldn't have been there cuz no one talked about how much the rate was going to be and the fair market value and how it was going to depreciate the neighborhood. I'd like to have the information on that. >> Okay. I have one more question and then we'll
go to public comment and I think it's on page 1398. Uh which is titled housing needs alternative design standards. And I think in the presentation, I heard you say that we are not increasing the density. But if you look at one of those pictures
compared to the other, there is an increase in density at least by my read. >> Okay, yes, I do understand that. So, let me clarify. We would not be increasing the maximum allowable density. So, it would still be limited to whatever the future land use designation is. The
difference between the densities here is I mean what they were able to fit on the site. But in this um example, they both would have been allowed to do up to four units an acre. So, I mean, as you can see, even with the alternative design standards, this
hypothetical project still didn't get close to the four units an acre. >> Thank you for the clarification. I just really wanted it clarified. Commissioners >> Can I go ahead? Commissioner Costanzo Thank you. Um the the changes are it's on page four
for my turn. Uh when we were have when I was having the um uh the staff uh discussions earlier I this was not something that we discussed and it was concerned looking at it.
Yeah, I understand that it cannot be when we're talking about accessory accessory dwellings. >> Mhm. >> In one case we're changing it from 35% or 1,000 square feet and we're going to 50% or 1,100 square feet, whatever is
less. It just seems like 50% is is, you know, it seems like arbitrary based upon you wanted to make everything 50%. That was the way you said it. Um but it
yeah, this was accessory dwelling and it's not pro- potential primary dwelling units. The concern I have and and quite question it could be up to 1,000 or 1,100 but it can't be more than one. Is that correct? So, we're not going to have two or three
small houses >> Right. It would still only be one. >> Uh only one. The second question is and what I'm concerned about mostly is we still haven't figured out the question of
you know, of ownership. Ongoing ownership. We had a lot of discussion about that in the past where who buys it who puts it in. We're talking about primary owner and we were talking about, you know, like the
mother-in-law, if you will. >> Residency meaning. >> Yes. >> Meaning that the owner resides in the main dwelling or the lower dwelling. >> Correct. And we still haven't decided that and it is not in here. And I don't know if it's judicious to go ahead and start changing this without coming up with
that answer first because that was the main question that that all of us had concern about. It's not a big change saying that it's 50% or 100 1,100, but it still sounds like a
larger than just an accessory dwelling when you when you put it at 50%. So, I have concerns about that. >> Well, I I believe it's up to It's the lesser of. >> Yes, that's correct. >> And so, the clarification is a clarification by today's standards. We
still have the open issue of residency of the owner. >> Well, I can clarify that today. As of today in the code now, we do require that the owner live on the site in one of the two units. Yes, and this was discussed at a
previous meeting when we talked about accessory uses and the direction from the board was to maintain it at the status quo. So, the staff did not touch that provision in the code. >> And and that's great. I think what we were concerned about and what we hadn't
had an answer for is what happens when they leave. >> When who leaves? >> When the primary resident sells the house and ongoing ownership of that property and how it's used. >> When the primary owner sells it to a
REIT or to a landlord that intends to rent out both. >> and you have a vacation home there instead of. And and this was this was, you know, we had some debates about that. Uh and I just wanted to throw that
out again cuz we still have to resolve that. I have another question and >> So, before we move on to that, can you answer that? >> Sure. Um so, you know, we cannot prohibit vacation homes. That's been preempted by the state.
Um the requirement for the ownership to be you know, the use of the accessory structure, you know, to be have an owner on the property and not be rented out. That is an existing requirement in the
code, as you know, but as we've talked about before, it's very difficult from an enforcement standpoint to make sure that that continues to occur. Um we talked about, you know, we can try. We can try to have code enforcement, you
know, look at it, check rental sites, things like that. Um but without, you know, looking at the deed and IDing the people that live there, you know, that is going to be a challenge from an enforcement standpoint. >> Commissioner Lockhart.
>> Um I have that exact scenario in my district and um it is very difficult and um it is very, very difficult to to follow and and I feel bad for staff that has been tasked with trying to keep up with that.
Um tenants, you know, there's a lot of transiency. Um it it is not an easy thing. So, and it really, I think, only becomes a problem when someone behaves badly, right? If everybody is behaving and they're good neighbors, then really no
one cares if the people if the owners are on site or if it's a relative of an owner or what have you. Um I do think we need to be very careful that we are not um overstepping our bounds as local government and the rights of private property owners to use their properties
as they see fit. Um if if I have my mother living in an accessory dwelling unit and I have to move out of town for some reason for a period of time, does that put me out of compliance? Um I think that the owner occupying one of
those structures is very hard to keep track of. Do you do it by voter registration? Do you do it by where your mail is being delivered? I mean, maybe I still [clears throat] have my mail delivered to my main house and I'm you know, I took a job out of state for a while. I
don't I just think we're we're we need to be very careful, although it's good intention, that we're not micromanaging people's lives and doing something unintentionally um prohibited for families. >> Mr. >> Commissioner, I agree. Okay? I don't
want I'm not I do [clears throat] not want to micromanage. But we are giving an additional um to private property rights an additional opportunity that they did not have before when we when we add the um accel
the auxiliary dwelling unit. The concern in your scenario you just said I don't have any problem with it. Okay, what I have a problem with is when that person who has built that, mother-in-law lived there, father-in-law lived there, whoever lived there,
and then they sell the whole property, somebody comes in and then it becomes two separate rental units in a neighborhood. And it would I understand that that is a
problem. I mean a problem in enforcement, but it also is a problem for the citizens that already are living there. And that was what I was we did have a good debate about it, a discussion. We were all
concerned about it and one of the tasks that we made is how do we do a better job in controlling that? And all I was saying is I still haven't heard a way to control that or at least
minimize the concern that we'd be having. And I I I I do see this as an opportunity that in the real estate market, great idea, buy a house. Now you got two rental units. Buy a piece of property, you got two rental units. And if I'm
their neighbor, I'm going to have a problem with that. And so that person's private property rights are now being, you know, violated, if you will. So that was the concern I had on that one. And I'm just
I was trying to point out that that is still an ongoing concern that I have. And I would love to see if any innovative ideas, creative ideas that we could do to to minimize that ongoing problem. Because once we do we
have done it, but as we go along, this is going to become as Chairman said, some it's going to become very smart and start doing and buying them up. In fact, they're doing it now, just not here so much. All the other the only other thing that
I had is when we discussed the compliance with state regulations on page my page three, we talked about minimizing it to 500 ft. Um not to say that I'm against it, but we
never really discussed removing it from churches. And I just wanted to bring that up. We said 500 ft instead of 1,000 ft. But [clears throat] in this one, it's removing any
any distance from a church. >> So I disagree with you. >> To make it consistent with statute. >> Well, we talked about it because we have instances where in strip malls, there are churches moving into large spaces, and then we have Okay. restaurants, and
so the setback is doesn't exist, and we've seen that occur numerous times. So, state statute doesn't require any setback. We're trying to navigate these kind of new situations where our open land is becoming less and less
available, and this was one of the ways staff was trying to do that. >> They They said you answered the question for me. I was I was just concerned that we were causing, you know, now all of a sudden somebody's going to be coming in here and complaining that we're doing it cuz I do remember, you know, the 1,000 ft we
all agreed that was too too much. Um and but I don't ever remember saying removing it completely. If we did, fine, and and your example makes all the sense in the world. >> So, the problem still exists that if you have a freestanding church that's not in a shopping center, you will have
somebody coming in with a problem. So, that maybe that's a takeaway for uh future language, but um I I want to >> Considering the two office changes, yes. >> Yes. Um I do want to go back to the accessory dwelling uh discussion and say that that
somewhere between those two discussions is where I lie. Um I do think that the neighbor's property rights are and I know you think the same thing are equal to the property owner's property rights. >> Look at the reason. >> Um >> [clears throat]
>> I think there is value to us having regulation that says that there should be an owner-occupied operation when you're renting out the accessory unit. If for no other reason is to prevent a
national firm that is looking for these opportunities that doesn't want to violate a local ordinance, they will go somewhere else. And I'm good with that. >> Yeah. >> And where we see these problems crop up primarily is in any
town that's got water. Uh so, if you go to the East Coast or the West Coast, this is a problem in all of those localities and and it changes a neighborhood. The residents typically end up leaving and it becomes a rental community and that's an entirely
different thing from an infrastructure requirement perspective, from a law enforcement perspective, [snorts] from a drain on local infrastructure perspective, it's a whole different thing. Um so that is my perspective. Mr. Rhodes, did
you have a comment? >> Just um chairman and commissioners to add and again for the record, Mike Rhodes, director of development services. We have had conversations with the county manager's office and the county attorney's office with regards to how we're managing vacation rentals and we
do expect, we hope to be able to bring some amendments to our current ordinance and processes to try to make that a little bit better and more effective than it has been. We hope to bring this back to you later on this year. So, just stay tuned for that, but we've
heard the we've heard the concerns loud and clear and we intend on trying to correct some of those. >> And the and the chairman articulated it very well. It it and the more the more that we are becoming the place that people want to live the more this is going to happen to us
and therefore we we've got to be proactive in this. Yeah. >> All right, are we ready for public comment board? Public comment, Ms. Draeger. >> There are two speakers, Jim Haddaway and Dave Axel.
>> Mr. Haddaway. I think there are three speakers now. >> Three speakers. >> Somebody went >> Madam chair and members of the commission, thank you for your time and good afternoon. I'm here before you in my capacity as chair of the Seminole County Development Advisory Board. We
are a private organization made up of professionals who live and work in Seminole County serving the real estate and development community. We are We are lawyers, we are brokers, we are planners, engineers, contractors.
And and as part of our work, we have worked with your staff who are truly the gold standard for this region. They have allowed us, as they've allowed other stakeholders, to participate in the creating and drafting and sculpting of this as it comes along. And the bottom line is we love it. We we very much like
it. We think it serves our community well. We recommend that you approve it. We are especially fond of what you've just been discussing on on the components that address affordable housing. We think this is truly innovative, something we've not seen before. It is
market-driven. And we've This is something we've we've looked at proposals going back to the Kemp Commission that that that existed during the first Bush presidency. And this is something truly new. And I I think Commissioner DeLara, you you
raised interesting concerns. It certainly seems to address just new development, but it's better than what's out there now. And just Just just thank you for your time and we recommend your approval. And and if you have questions, happy to answer them, but otherwise thank you for your time. >> Thank you very much for being here and
for your service. Next speaker. >> Dave Axel. >> Hello. My name is Dave Axel with Axel Real Estate, 1757 West Broadway Street in Oviedo. I stand in front of you today with, I think, a relatively modest request for a
change in the alternative design standards section. I represent the owner of 66 gross acres at the northwest corner of Celery and Cameron. That is right now proposed for development by Pulte Homes who has it under contract.
When we attended a pre-app in December of 2025, we were made aware that there were alternative design standards. The understanding we had at that time, and my understanding from looking at the record, is part of the reasoning for these standards, as you saw in the
staff presentation, was under current lot criteria, it's not possible to achieve or get close to the allowable land use density. Uh, the pattern of development along this road has been gated subdivisions with typically 50-ft lots, and that's
what we're proposing with a mix of 60s around the perimeter, which would achieve a density of roughly three units an acre. The property is bounded on the north by wetlands, on the south and east by roads that would be connected to, and on the west
by a gated subdivision. There's also a gated subdivision across Celery. So, I'm just requesting that in section 3573.1, C1, which states under connectivity,
projects using these standards shall not be gated, be stricken. In this section, there's still requirement for connectivity. So, if connectivity is possible, it'll still happen. Uh, in this particular case, it's not
possible, and I don't want the client forced to go through, or the county forced to go through, a PUD process to achieve the same density than what would otherwise be possible uh, with this alternative standard. So, that's my
request, and I'm here for any questions if the board has any of me. Thank you. >> Thank you. And last is Allison Yurko. >> I have a map I'm going to be referring to. You can put that up. A couple of handouts for the clerk if
you can pass this on. >> [clears throat] >> Please give your name and address for the record and you have 3 minutes. >> Yes, Allison Yurko, PO Box 2286 Winter Park, Florida 32790. Um, you may recognize my name. My family owns an 8 and 1/2 acre parcel near the
corner of Orange Boulevard and State Road 46. We're here today not to talk about the litigation that's been filed against us, but rather to thank the staff for working with us in connection with tweaking the ordinance to ensure that the vested rights determination
that we had received in 2022 with related to the baseline density of 13 density units per acre, um, is is recognized and I, um, did just want to point out for the record that we have property that is in a highly urban area. It's on a four-lane, um, six-lane
arterial uh, in the front. It's been assembled with the corner piece there for a total of 11 and 1/2 acres. There's a limited access highway in the back. Utilities are available there and it has no ecological or hydrological connection
to the Wekiva River. As you can see on here, it's over 3 miles from the Wekiva River, very close to I-4 and the 417. Um, there's pictures in your packet, too, that outline that, um, that we're at a signalized intersection there with convenience stores at two corners. Um,
we are in the Wekiva River Protection Area at the outermost perimeter there and the Wekiva Study Area. That is legally significant. My dad got uh, a comp plan amendment in 1995. We've been paying taxes on this property since 1995
as a commercial use. The, um, statute does allow the highest density and intensity in the Wekiva River River Protection Area to be furthest away from the river. And, um, the project that that we are looking at
with the consolidation at the corner there is is consistent with the recommendation that was made by your staff in 2022. They actually told us to consolidate with the corner, and they were supportive of a discretionary future land use amendment
that would have allowed more than the 13 density units per acre. That's obviously not necessary now in light of live local, but I just point that out so you have a little bit of history and background. And I also just wanted to make it clear this is a taxable parcel. If you look at the Veridian project about a mile away,
that's returning 8 to 900,000 dollars a year in tax revenue to the county. About 300,000 of that is to the general fund. >> Mr. you're running out of time. Please get to the ordinance. >> Yeah, so so I we support the ordinance and we thank the staff and
to the extent that in your packet if you want to look at use of funds to clean up septic tanks near the river or provide revenue for Seminole forever, that would with all due respect seem to be potentially better use of revenue here. And we've over the years
had people living in the woods on our property, and we're very committed to seeing an affordable housing project go there. Thank you very much, and we do support the ordinance. Thanks. >> Thank you. I'm going to turn it to Ms. Borchardt now for the question with
regard to connectivity and gated neighborhoods. >> So currently that section of the code, this is in the additional use standards that um Maya referenced earlier in her presentation, it requires that it prohibits gating of these projects that
are using the alternative standards. I believe what Mr. Axel is requesting is this be removed. Um he also and I'm and I don't want to speak for him but at one point he sent an email that said
that maybe it we prohibit gates but we say unless you can establish connectivity per a further subsection down which says hey if you can't connect because there's some type of obstacle such as a wetland such as a canal or
something like that you know if you can't connect then then you're not required to connect to the neighborhood but you you are required to connect if you can. Um so it's up to the board as to what they want to do with this suggestion because
this is um has already because the change that's being asked for I guess is not substantive if you still required gates and that's what was noticed in the ordinance and and and it's proper I don't think it would need to go back
through as with the other two amendments that staff is requesting I don't think it needs to go back through to the planning and zoning commission. Um so the board has an option here as what they want to do. They can strike the prohibition and um say well no
you're allowed to gate these communities or you can say no you have to you have to gate unless you can't connect or you can leave it the same. It's up to the board. You may want to ask for staff's insight on this as to why they you know put this together in
these standards. I think that would provide much more insight than I can than I can do. >> Maya would you mind giving us insight? >> Yeah so I know we've had some previous discussions on the gating requirements and it seemed like at some of the work
sessions um there was direction to decrease gated projects where it makes sense. So when we were drafting the language for these alternative design standards which are voluntary they're not a requirement for anybody to go through this process.
We did draft it to prohibit gating. However, if the will of the board is to allow some leniency on that, there is already the clause that allows the development services director to waive the connectivity. There [snorts] could be a nice compromise [clears throat] in the middle of allowing
the director to waive the gating requirement as well if that was how you wanted to move forward. >> So, this this one happens to be in my district. I think we're all going to learn things about our new code every time something comes into your district. And
it doesn't make sense to force connectivity when connectivity can't happen. And from my perspective, gating is okay if you can't have connectivity. They were related in my mind. Obviously, you can't have connectivity through a gated neighborhood. But if the
neighborhood can't be gated can't have create connectivity and the surrounding areas are gated neighborhoods are gated, it doesn't make sense to limit this property to a different restriction. So, I actually would be in favor of
giving staff the leeway at the point that the the programs come through your review to make intelligent decisions around when it makes sense you have to do it and when it doesn't make sense you don't have to do it. So, I would love your input. Yes,
Commissioner Lockhart. >> The missing middle code allows I'm saying I'm confirm or deny what I'm about to say. >> Sure. >> I'm I'm telling you what I think I know, but I may be wrong. Um the missing middle code allows the
development services director to waive things such as the gating provision and the connectivity provision, correct? >> That is correct. I do not believe that the missing middle prohibits the gating. I I don't know that 100% but it does
have the same language as what's proposed here to allow waving the connectivity portion. Yes. >> Okay. Because I think this is where my consistency brain kicked in for a couple of items in this agenda is that if we allow it for the missing middle, why
would we not allow [clears throat] it in this instance as well and just again have there be some consistency so that when a developer is coming in and they are looking at their Chinese menu of options available, they don't have to go well this one has
this and that one has that and this one has the let's just provide some relief where we can so that there's consistency and flexibility is is my thought process. >> I would have no problem leaving the director having option.
>> Mr. Constantine. >> Under the circumstances of you know not being able to have connectivity, I think that's case but just walking in I don't want to gate it or I want to gate it. I don't think that that's you know legitimate
but if there's circumstances that avoid the connectivity to allow gating I wouldn't have a problem. >> All right, have we given all of the input that we can possibly give and we're ready to make a board action. So
board further discussion or a motion. >> So the question that I have before we move on Madam Chair, there's been a lot of comments up here about what we like, what we don't like, when will they be addressed? >> It's the roads. >> I think that was a question to you. >> To somebody.
>> What? Commissioner, I don't know that I heard clear direction on on specifically what you want to changed in the ordinance aside from the conversation we just had. >> items and we haven't made any decisions on any particular changes. >> ready to take direction.
So, let me ask the question hypothetically. I think I think we are I'm reading the room probably inaccurately, but I'm doing the best I can. Uh reading the room thinking that we are ready to pass this as it stands today
knowing that there was further input that was uh given from the dais today. One with regards to the gates and the connectivity, which we think we can already do. Um the other was with regard to managing accessory dwellings and rentals and all
of the stuff that goes along with that. Um and there was one other that I don't think I recall, but uh what at what point would those come back to us and what's the form for that happening? >> So, right now your um
second reading is scheduled for July the 14th. Assuming the the changes as proposed are um not not too problematic with regards to our legal requirements and for
advertising and all that good stuff, then it's possible we could get those prepared and presented to you on the 14th. I'd defer to Nissa and to Kate uh as far as the the legal sufficiency goes, but um it sounds like they're all
within within the framework of of what we're what we have going now and we should be able to keep it on track. It's it's obviously of of of concern for us to try to get it back before you in a in a in a similar state a largely similar state uh
for the July 14th hearing so that we can get these things passed. There's been a lot of folks as you all know waiting for the changes. So, um >> I I probably can In my mind, here's how I see it. There were three specific There were two amendments requested by staff, which I
went through earlier. And then what I heard is consensus from the board as far as what Mr. Axel brought up and not requiring um requiring gates, but having the development services director be able to waive that requirement under certain circumstances. Those three
changes we can make happen before July 1 and show you what they are specifically. Um July 14th, I'm sorry, the second the second reading. The other three things that I heard and I think Commissioner Constantine's going to have to help me with one of them, but one of them was
regarding the ownership requirement. Um it sounds to me like that require that requires a little more um what I heard from you is you want some more teeth in it or maybe not, but maybe you just want to talk about it more and want some more input. [laughter] So um
that will not be ready by July 14th, as you can imagine, but we can bring that back uh with more information. The other thing uh was from Commissioner Constantine talked about the accessory dwelling units, but I think you're okay with the increase, but it's more of the ownership that we just talked about. So
you have to verify that with with me. >> it is is the uh ownership. It is the residency. The real concern is um that was both given by the chairman and myself about you know what happens next basically.
What they do now, fine, but what happens when you know, the owner is >> Right. >> It's gone. >> Enforcement's the key point, right? >> Okay, so those two >> So the 1,100 or less, I'm fine with >> Okay, so that's okay. And then the third one was Commissioner Delari and his
>> conversation. >> density bonuses in existing neighborhoods. >> Right. He had a concern about density bonuses in existing neighborhoods. This um density bonus program that's been proposed was initially provided by Kimley-Horn did a study and said, hey
this is how you can get here to make it more of a a viable density bonus program and allow for actual affording affordable housing units to the threshold set forth as proposed.
This is how you do it and then staff took that and put together the framework based on that study from Kimley Horn. Now that's the only one I'm struggling with as far as I if there any changes to that section depending on on how we
I'm not sure and and maybe staff can help me how we prevent that from impacting existing affordable housing units. I don't I don't know how we do that other than to apply it now going forward so we can get more affordable housing units
which I thought was the goal um but if you could help me just kind of zero in on what more you need from us on that that would that would be helpful so we know what to bring back. >> some existing neighborhoods that had some small vacant piece of property two three
acres and people want to do density bonuses to get above the LDL LDR density and that's caused some problems. >> So you mean like as far as setbacks and having more dense pieces in a large in neighborhood where the lot size is
bigger. >> We do there's nothing in there that talks about value of the homes and people concerned that their value is going to be going down based on the affordable housing aspect of it. >> And I think I think we're referencing the >> Yes. >> latest one that came through in
Commissioner Constant's district. >> that's exactly what I'm talking about. >> What I Ma- Madam Chair if I can the the concern is that all of us had cuz it was a 5-0 vote was that you know the missing middle had
more teeth into it that called directly for affordable housing and not for just increased density. And it was something that I think was very clear to the staff and they said that they would bring that back. It's just not included in this
amount of amendments. Is that not correct? >> Yes, sir. We have that >> So, what you're trying to >> Yes, sir. That's true, but they have not said that on the record here today. >> Yeah, and that's why I'm >> We've had that conversation at that meeting. And so, I'm just trying to connect the dots and if they can't do that this time, that's fine. But with
there has to be some expectation when that's come >> And that was what I was getting to, Commissioner, that he would say that that that is that they're working on that. >> So, let me let [snorts] me take the meeting back. I think Naysa was answering the question and got to the last point and that was the last point.
So, I'll give it back to you. >> That's correct. That was the last point and as far as the status of the missing middle staff is looking into that, we are preparing um some thresholds that are going to be put in the application so we can address that now and have the proper review for what's in the code. We
are working on that now. Um and that and if we do find that any changes need to come back on the missing middle, we will bring them back. I just want everybody to make sure they understand, too, that we are still operating under Senate Bill 180. So, all
the changes that we have here today are more permissive, are not uh more restrict more restrictive or burdensome and that So, we just need to be careful, you know, with ultimate changes to missing middle, whatever they are, that we are not
violating Senate Bill 180, but that expires in October of next year. So, those are kind of the time frames that we're working with. >> Unless we have a heart. >> All right. So, I think we I think yes. I So, I think we pray for good weather. I I we have answered all
of the questions, so I'll bring it back to the board for a motion. >> Um motion to approve the land development code amendments as presented by staff with the caveats of the three items that were just identified to
be brought back with the modifications at our next meeting in July 14th. Is that an acceptable >> Yeah, if you could just say the next meeting um of the Board of County Commissioners at 1:00 p.m. 1:30 p.m. or soon thereafter.
>> July 14th at 1:30 p.m. or soon thereafter. >> You met the statutory requirement for the second meeting. Thank you. >> Second. >> a second to the statutorily required statement that Thank you. We have a first and a second. Any further discussion?
All those in favor? >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? No, passes unanimously. Thank you for all of your hard work on this. >> Thank you guys. >> Oh, and by the way, thank you for all your future hard work on this. All right.
That takes us to the county attorney's report. >> Thank you, Chairman. I have three items to discuss with you this afternoon. Two are litigation items I need direction on and the third is a follow-up item. Um I'm going to start with uh the county's litigation with Benchmark
Construction Company and Liberty Mutual. Uh this is related to the Country Club Heights sewer and water main replacement project. We are in litigation with these parties for just about a year now. Uh recently we received a proposal for settlement from Liberty. Uh this is a
statutory procedure by which they file, you know, a motion in court or notice in court that they're offering to settle with the county for X amount of dollars. Their offer was for $1.4 million. Um Um this starts the clock ticking. You have
so many days to either approve or reject the offer. Um because of the abbreviated time frame, uh it was my desire to have just a high-level discussion here at at this meeting instead of trying to schedule a closed session. Um it's staff's opinion that this offer uh falls
far short of the county's current damages. And also, it only would resolve the litigation with Liberty as the surety. And so, the litigation would re would remain with the other parties, including the construction company. So, staff and the county attorney's office
and our outside counsel are all recommending that the board reject this offer. >> Madam Chair. >> Move to Move to accept the recommendation of staff and the county attorney. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> Aye. >> Opposed? Hearing none, passes
unanimously. >> [snorts] >> Thank you. My next item has to do with uh a request for reimbursement that the county submitted to FEMA for work that was performed on Delion Street following Hurricane Ian in 2022. Um basically, my non-engineer
description is that the road completely washed out after the hurricane. Major repairs were required. Major expenses were incurred. Last week or the week before, FEMA uh denied in its totality the county's request for reimbursement. And so, the office of management and
budget has uh indicated that they would recommend appealing this decision. It's a federal administrative appeal procedure. Um so, because of the formality of the the process, I just felt like I needed the board's consent before we filed this appeal. There It's
a two-tier appeal process. So, this would be the first appeal. >> Madam Chair. >> Commissioner Delaruy. >> I'd like to make a motion to accept the recommendation of the two-tier process and allow staff to appeal the decision of FEMA and move forward and keep us updated.
>> Second. Can I ask a clarifying question? >> Sure. >> If for whatever reason we needed to file the second appeal, can I get your consent >> both of them. >> Thank you. That's what I wanted to clarify. Thank you. >> So, both of the motion are has it has included both
second or approves? All right. All those in favor? >> I. >> I. >> Opposed? Hearing none, passed unanimously. >> Thank you. Uh my final item is follow-up from a discussion after the last board meeting we had a member of the public at the end of the meeting um talk about
data center moratoriums that were being uh implemented in neighboring jurisdictions. Uh there was a brief discussion and Commissioner Lockhart posed the question, could we in Sumter County even do a moratorium? And at the time I expressed a little bit of reservation because of Senate Bill 180, because of just the restrictions it puts
on the county uh on things like moratorium and other land use regulations. Um so, the county attorney's office researched the issue and um just as an as an aside, legislation that was adopted this year goes into effect on July 1st where the legislature said,
"Hey local governments, that data centers, they're up your alley." And so, under your land use regulation authority and your comprehensive planning authority, you get to deal with these large load customers like data centers. And you're a large load customer if you use a certain amount of electricity and
utilities every month. So, the the definition expressly includes data centers. So, you you do generally have the ability to regulate data centers under your land development regulation authority and comp planning authority. Um but the short answer to the question that Commissioner Lockhart
posed is that Senate Bill 180 does not prohibit you from implementing a moratorium. However, you don't just implement a moratorium. You have to build the the groundwork to support the need for it. So, if that was something the county wanted to pursue, I'd recommend that there be significant
amount of research put in by staff to see if there's even a need for this. You know, do we have Do we have these uses in our county? Do we have regulations on the book that need modifications or updating? Um is to establish do we need this? So, if that's
what the board wanted, I think that it would be appropriate to direct the county manager to have staff start this process to see if it's even warranted. >> Commissioners, I am I would be more than happy to say yes, we should direct the county manager to determine whether or
not this is needed. We can't be the county that doesn't do this and therefore the landing spot. >> Madam Chair, can I Is there an alternative to that? Cuz the only land that we have that would be a large enough to do this would be in the
rural boundary. From what I understand. Am I wrong about that? >> I see it. >> Well, I So, that's not how I see it, either. I think there's a lot of land out at the airport. And I would also tell you that
the land requirement for a data center today may not be the land requirement for a data center a year from now. This is moving very quickly. >> Then I will accept that. I was just trying to think that Was there another way to do it? Like >> I think that's >> not [clears throat]
put it like say you cannot, you know, zone, put in zoning that you can't put one in. >> think that would be part of the analysis that needs to take place at this time. >> Then I I certainly >> Commissioner Lockhart.
>> So, years ago, before you were here, and um I'm going to throw it back to solar panels on International Parkway. We had a lot of discussion about the fact that our code did not
really help us to say no. Um we and we started talking about this is just solar panels today. What What could there possibly be tomorrow? And um I believe the board at the time gave
direction for staff to come back with some type of language or some discussion around what types of utilities do we want to manage care or um not manage put guardrails around
um how many solar panels are too many solar panels, right? And I that never came back to us. I think we've had quite a quite a bit of transition in staff and of course some other things have taken our attention, but this would be a great time to not only do the research on the
data centers, but also look at the what's next. What is the utility? What is the um the solar power, whatever thing that might be coming our way that people might want to place in our county that we could do something that's more
comprehensive and covers a broader spectrum of items for us so that we're not playing whack-a-mole if possible. >> Commissioner Gilroy. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Instead of diving into the deep end of doing this
big massive study cuz it's going to be a big effort. Uh there may be ways of doing this in tiers just as Commissioner Lockard talked about. I think that's what you're talking about and taking the first step to see is there really a need to do this
before we dive into it. And uh you know, where could they potentially go at this point? >> I don't think that's what I heard you say. Just maybe clarification. >> Well, I think the >> No. >> Well, I think the study tells us if we need to do it. >> Right. That's right.
>> Right. And so I think that'll be part of your staff analysis or whatever company if we do have to hire go out for RFP to hire someone to do the analysis for us. I I think there's so much we don't know that we need to press pause while we're
figuring out what's going on. What are the actual parameters and and what do we have? So, if it Yes, data centers should be the primary concern, but I think there are other layers that we might want to add
on to that in addition. But but I I I feel like if there is nothing other than a moratorium to allow us to press pause so that we can do that research, then that's what we need to do. >> Well, and I think that would be part of the research. >> Chairman, I think there's like two
levels of research. The first is, you know, directing staff to take a look at our code and see what our regulations are. If one of these came in today, what they would be. And if, you know, depending on what that answer is, that's going to give you the ability to say, "Okay, we need a moratorium um because
we don't or we don't have sufficient regulations." Whatever the answer is there, but that's kind of the preliminary analysis to put the moratorium in place. We need to do that. It's, you know, and then with the intent of having more study done looking at our code,
specific provisions, that that aspect of it. Um and then coming back with some code changes if necessary um when we're allowed to again and then you guys voting on that. So, it's kind of a two-tiered process. The first
is just identifying, do we need this? And that's I think what your direction to staff should be. Do we need this? What is our code saying now? And then um and then if they come we come back and say, "Yeah, [clears throat] we we have some stuff we need to work on. Here's language for a moratorium." Then you can move forward with it. And then the the
deeper analysis will occur after that and and any potential drafts of code changes. >> Thank Thank explaining it better than I did. >> Commissioner Lockhart, so I'm going to sound for a minute like I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth and I assure you I am not. At least that is not my intention.
I think we also have to be careful that we are not hindering um business development and and where there is an opportunity for economic development that does not negatively impact our citizens and our environment. We
need to We need to figure out how we can be a part of that. Um so far we haven't heard that there are data centers that can be positive in a community. I think we've only heard the negatives, but as the technology evolves and and as, you know,
I I don't want us to be, quote, closed for business, but we need to be open for business that does not negatively impact our community. So how, again, threading the needle um from my perspective, I don't >> Well, moratoriums are required by their nature to be very specific and very
specific in what you are doing. So they can't be broad swaths and especially under Senate Bill 180, you're restricted from doing moratoriums if it's going to pro um inhibit the ability for someone to rebuild or repair or, you know, their building upgrade their building, their
existing building. So, you know, it will be specific if we do get to that point, we can specifically tailor it to address some of those concerns so that we're only really doing what's necessary to make sure that we're protecting the county of any potential impacts that may
come through our land development code regulations. >> So you have enough direction to So I'll I'll rephrase this to say we're going to do what Nace said. >> Yeah. >> Sounds good. >> Fair. Sounds good. >> Yep. >> Patricia, yeah. >> Yes. >> Yes, I think so. >> for no hurricanes and pray for no
hurricanes. Yeah, and and pray for no hurricanes. >> Yes. >> All right. >> And that concludes my report. >> All right. County Manager. >> I have nothing, Madam Chair. Thank you. >> Terrific. I do the next item on the agenda is a board appointment for the
District 5 Parks and Preservation Committee. Gentleman by the name of Robert Young was recommended to me by Rick Doran team. His term will be from 11 of 26 to 1231 of 27. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Have a first and a second. All those in
favor? >> Aye. >> Opposed? Hearing none, passes unanimously. And that takes us to Commissioner Constantine's District report. >> Thank you very much. And before I start, I just wanted to say if anybody has anything on theirs that needed um
a vote or discussion, let me know because after this I I beg your indulgence, I'm going to have to leave to get to the uh executive committee uh for the thousand for
Florida Association of Counties. But um the few things that I have, number one, I think all of you have heard, but I just wanted to on the record um Orange County voted not to do um the McCollough Road project, um which I think all of us are
rather happy about. Um at on the 18th, the uh Manufacturers Association awards was done at the Florida uh hotel. Commissioner Delorean and I attended along with our staff, and we
Seminole County um won numerous awards in that event. Uh also, the Value Adjustment Board will be meeting on the 30th of June. Um and I don't have to tell you that Red Hot and Boom and
our 250th anniversary is coming up. I do want to tell you though that we um received new cougar cubs at the zoo. >> Cougar cubs. >> That is fantastic. >> pretty cool.
>> And that's it. Thank you very much. >> I thought he said cups. >> I thought he said cups, too, and I did not know what that meant. So, I >> Well, I assumed we had a lot We were doing brews around the zoo with cups with cougar >> sorry. >> patter >> Cougar cubs are coming
>> babies >> from the north and they're coming to We've received them and they are in quarantine like they do with everything else, but they will be a great addition to the zoo. >> Even better than cups.
>> Yeah, that's better than cups. >> And that concludes your report? >> That concludes that. >> So, I'm going to take an indulgence right now before Commissioner Constantine leaves and say that the airport has announced that Bermuda air service is moving from MCO to the
Sanford Airport on Halloween, so you can now go to Bermuda directly and they will eventually be opening up flights to Belize. >> Great. >> Glad he had him to know that before he left. >> Great news. >> Yeah, it is great news. >> All right, that takes us to you,
Commissioner Lockhart. >> I um I don't remember There's a lot on this report, and so I'm not sure if it's because we haven't met in a while or I've just been super busy. Um So, I'm going to skip over quite a few of these things in in the interest of
time. Um I did want to point out that on June 3rd, the Florida Division of Emergency Management um Florida Disaster Foundation hosted an event um as a part of their conference bringing local elected officials together to meet with FEMA agency and state elected officials
and um members of their that division um to to better collaborate and build relationships before the storm, whatever that storm may be. And it's a a brand new initiative. They've not done this in the past. I think it was very well received.
And so I want to give a special shout-out to Kevin Guthrie, um who is um the Secretary of Emergency Management uh for the state of Florida. He's done an exceptional job. And I know Alan Harris um is works They work seamlessly
together. And I did probably overstep my bounds and came close to threatening the Secretary that he was not allowed to poach Alan Harris. So, I just wanted to get that on the record. It was a It was a great event. Thank them very much for hosting that. Um participated in the Legacy Square wall
raising that Habitat for Humanity put on their newest project in Commissioner Hurst's district. Unfortunately, you I know you were out of town. You couldn't be there. I was honored to fill in your your shoes. Um Very well attended. Great to see our
Community Services staff, the private sector, nonprofits, just everyone coming together. Fantastic use of that those $1.4 million of ARPA funds that we designated to be to continue to be reinvested into affordable housing opportunities. It
Some of the families who will be receiving houses uh who will be working their tails off to receive houses, by the way. They are not given to them. They work very hard um to to earn these houses. We're there, and it was wonderful to to see that happen. Uh Commissioner Delarie and I attended
along with uh members of our staff, uh Ms. Alori and others, uh the FDOT groundbreaking for the I-4 truck stop project. That's something, of course, our board has been talking about for years. And it was fantastic to have members of the
current uh administration from DC here as a part of that project, the infra for the hundreds of millions of dollars of infra grant funds that are being dedicated to the Central Florida corridor, the I-4 corridor for truck stop additional parking spots. One of the
comments that was made to me by a community member recently though, they are concerned that it is going to bring more traffic to the surface roads. Although they don't live in the immediate area and so any type of communication, community focus that we
can do to help talk about where the ons and offs of these trucks will be and what that traffic impact may or may not be would be really helpful. I know it mostly impacts Commissioner Hurst's district, but will definitely be a much safer environment for everyone
on I-4 when these truck stops are are completed. And um That's it. That's all I'm going to say for today. Thank you. >> All right, Commissioner DeLaney. >> Oh, no, I lied. No, I I I wrote it on the back and so I
didn't see it. Okay, you have popcorn in front of you. And they're all cute little themed popcorn. This one is a white cheddar go-getter. Um this popcorn is a result of a fundraiser for the Bronner House Museum. Um for
those of you who don't know, the Bronner House is a piece of it's it's a it's a home um that is attached to the Evergreen Cemetery in Casselberry. Um the Bronner family donated acres of land back in 1890 to allow for a black cemetery. Um
so there are uh but that was back of course when blacks and whites could not be buried in the same cemeteries. And so they they dedicated I believe it was 16 acres specifically for black slaves in the community to be buried. And so this um is a grassroots community effort to
help raise money to preserve the cemetery, to uh improve the museum, and um combine um American history and local history so that the community is aware of how far back our roots grow and how far we've come. So, if you all ever are
interested in supporting the Broner House Museum, I encourage you to do so. >> Terrific. >> Thank you. Uh we did go to the truck stop ribbon ribbon cutting. Uh there was an individual that actually started that movement about the truck
stops. Uh and I know that uh Commissioner Constatine knew him very well. Dominic uh Selfy, Judge Selfy, that's what it was. >> That's correct. >> He was a judge. I don't remember what years he was a judge, but I think it was in the '90s. Uh and he's been working on that for
many, many years. >> I can tell you that because Mrs. Herr, the first Mrs. Herr, my mother-in-law, was his clerk. >> Okay. Didn't know that either. But okay, since he's been working on this for 30-plus years and uh he's no longer with
us, and I wanted to thank his uh his legacy that uh his dream of actually moving those truck stops out of the Longwood area is finally coming to fruition. So, I want to thank Dominic for all his hard
work, even though he's no longer with us. Uh Commissioner Constatine and I did go to the Manufacturers uh President's Dinner and we do have three companies here in Seminole County that could get uh awards. There's only three awards and it was Osceola,
Seminole, and Orange County. And out of the three awards that are available for Central Florida, Seminole County and the Manufacturers won all three. Uh the small business was uh Herrning Manufacturing, middle business was uh
JST Power, and the large manufacturer was Lumen. And so, it's pretty special to have three manufacturers to sweep all three awards for the Seminole County area in such a large area. The one thing I
did want to bring to our attention is Luminis is trying to get a permit through the city of Altamonte. Not the city of Sanford, excuse me, city of Sanford. And they've been trying for quite some time. I'm hoping that their permit will come through because if it doesn't come through soon, they're going to lose
several contracts and several millions of dollars worth of revenue. Staff has contacted Sanford quite a few times. I've actually contacted Sanford once and uh
I'm hoping and I actually texted them this morning the status on their permit. They do not or I did not get a response yet. So, I'm assuming that the permit has not come in yet. But, I'd like to ask staff when they when they do talk about the JPA to talk about
wait time and responses to permits because it is becoming a problem in and around Seminole County with those businesses in Sanford. >> Commissioner, if I may, County Manager Darren Gray has a meeting with the city manager, Norton Bonaparte,
in about a week. So, I will share that for part of their discussion. >> did talk to the president of Luminis at the Manufacturers Dinner dinner that night and the business if he doesn't produce it by a certain date will be
going to California. Just FYI, and it's in the millions of dollars. I did go to the Sanford Airport work session and the tour. That was last week. And I also went to the summit for Florida for Better
Transportation. Senator Secretary Perdue was there. He gave a wonderful presentation about working with local government and in the environment today. And it was very uplifting to see uh, Secretary Perdue and
quite a phenomenal speaker, and he is all excited about Scout. That's and and I I know July 4th is right around the corner. Wish everyone a happy, safe July 4th, and we'll see each other back in second meeting in
July. End of my report. >> All right. I will be extremely brief. I don't know that we've ever said this out loud, but congratulations to our own fire department. Out of 80 submissions nationwide, the community paramedicine program has been named the program of
the year at the Atrium Health Mobile Integrated Health and Community Paramedicine Conference in Chicago. >> Wow, that's pretty cool. >> Very cool. >> Pretty, pretty cool. Pretty, pretty cool. And I won't go into all the details about the program, but we have
250 people enrolled in it, and that [snorts] is 250 people that are a lot less likely to have to dawn the doors of an emergency room because of the services are brought right to their home. Um, I appreciate you going and covering for me at the Habitat wall raising. I
would have been there. I was out of town visiting Lake Butler, Florida, which is an amazing place uh, that I have never been to before for business. And yesterday, uh, Commissioner Lock- Lockhart and I did attend the Celery Avenue Trail ribbon cutting ceremony
right out front of our building, and this is the the next portion of the trail to create connectivity that eventually will all connect to Volusia County. You'll be able to walk from Sanford to Volusia County should you ever have the desire to do so, which Bob, that may be you cuz I don't see the
rest of us doing that. Um, tapping out on that. And that does conclude my report. It is time for public comment. So, I just want to tell you you guys didn't get to see it, but I said it's time for public comment, and they went, yes, it is.
>> [laughter] >> Come on up, gentlemen. The speaker is Mr. John Murphy. Who's after Mr. John Murphy? >> No more speakers after that. >> Oh, I think we do have two coming up, so >> Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name
is John Murphy. I live at 2060 Hunterfield Road in English Estates. And I'm here today to express my concerns as a professional and the concerns of the HOA, but I'm not speaking for the president who's sitting back there.
On the Oxford Road sidewalk stormwater improvement project, which has fallen fallen fallen way behind schedule. As of today, we have 120
some days left on a 500-day project. To date, nothing has been completed on this project. The contractor has not completed one item of work. And it's very disturbing.
The other disturbing thing is that the representative from Seminole County, it's your project and it's your money, has been negligent in re- attending the public the I beg your pardon, project meetings that have been Today was number 52
and I believe he was on the phone, but I'm not sure. And so, it appears to the residents, to myself and to others, that you kind of let go of this project. It's an old neighborhood that needs developed. It was developed starting in 1959
and the infrastructure is shot. And so, it's being restored, but it doesn't look like there's a whole lot of backing from the the One thing I observed today was uh the contractor is to provide a safe walking
zone from South Boulevard, which is at the English Estates Elementary School to Dommerich Road. No such thing exists. He parks his equipment. He parks He dumps dirt on the lawns. The place is is a disaster area.
But today, this morning, 9:30, there was a gentleman walking his dog on Oxford Road because the sidewalk or any area to protect him was not available. I have a
whole list of items that I will send to Commissioner Lockhart. That It's just general concerns, but I think some of you're up for re-election and this may go against you that this project has gone to heck in a handbasket. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Sir, did you turn in a form? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay, we do need you to fill out a form. You're there and you're standing there, so we want to hear from you, but we need you to turn in a form. >> Okay. >> Name and address for the record. >> My name
is Mark Harden. My address is 2460 Markham Road. I'm in Commissioner Lockhart's district as this HOA is. And my concern is the same that Mr. Murphy was speaking of. He is advisor to the HOA
on this project. And it is the Oxford Road sidewalk and drainage improvement project set number 02107094. So there's 557 properties in our uh corporate boundary where this project's
located in the southwest unincorporated Seminole County. And the purpose of my here along with uh um my other two uh gentlemen is to urgently request that the county exercise more control over the
contractor Merkon Construction Company who is responsible for this project in our community to resolve several ongoing problems. I'm going to state these in summary and I'll give a copy of this to you uh Commissioner Lockhart.
First of all, there's no production schedule. There's no milestones. Not one has been met. There's insufficient manpower to finish on a timely basis. There's use and destruction of private property for construction equipment
and material storage. There's incorrectly installed slot drains. They're too high to drain. So, they got to be taken out again and redone. Um there's storm drains that are closed for months awaiting
completion causing local flooding making passage difficult after rainfall on our streets. I just went through this two Saturdays ago at night in the middle of the torrential downpour. I thought I was going to get flooded out myself.
There's garbage consisting chicken bones, toilet paper, wrappers, etc. and destruction debris of various kinds in the right of way throughout this project. There's poor maintenance of traffic when we do have that. And even so, still people will come in opposite
directions on a one-way uh road. Um there's a lack of knowledge of buried gas gas lines in this neighborhood that needed relocation identified early in the year.
And nothing has happened on that. There's lack of access for school children to get to and from school during the school year. So, our once beautiful community looks like a war zone that uh Mr. uh DeLeary has been in
uh a few years ago. And he's seen that uh >> Two years ago. >> it was a very nice community and uh >> I've been there a time or two myself. >> Yeah. And as you have, too, Commissioner DeLeary. I mean, Lockhart. And so, I'm here again to urge
uh urgently for the county to look into this and provide some oversight. Thank you for your time. >> We appreciate you coming in. Are you about to raise your hand? Yes. Um Commissioner Lockhart's going to make a comment, but I also see our
director of public works is walking up. Uh Ms. Tony O'Loughry. And she is going to more than likely Are do you Are you wanting to take the microphone or you wanting to speak to the individuals? >> Oh, I can do both, okay, Madam Chair. >> appreciate you doing that.
>> Yes. Um yes, uh Tony O'Loughry, public works director. Um I will have to rebut some of the things that uh we've heard today. Um our contractor, well, yes, uh the we do have a gas line, uh TICO, that has um
has delayed in the removal, but hasn't stopped the work. Today, we've got three crews out there. Uh we have somewhere between three or four crews out there. So, saying work Nothing has been done is is is not a correct uh statement. Um I have
personally talked to TICO about um getting uh that um gas line removed. And And you know, sometimes during design, we do miss uh utilities. Uh there's a lot of utilities out there. Um and we try to get every one of them,
but with construction projects, there are some uh utilities that are missed. Um I did speak to TICO. They are working with their contractor to move that up quicker. Uh the other thing that we have done uh prior to school letting out, uh we had
to limit the amount of time that our construction crews be beyond there to make sure that the kids can get to school, that we were not hampering that to school and home from school. Uh we have just given since school has uh ended for the summer, given our
contractors additional time of about 4 and 1/2 hours to work on the job. I did check with our construction manager. Uh our contractor uh schedule is to provide these services by the end of the year. Uh we are still
as of right now on track to do that. Uh we cannot provide means and methods, as you know, to our contractor. Um if they want to put more crews out there, if they fall behind, that's their prerogative to do so. As of right now, our construction folks are saying we are
on time. Now, I would love to get the uh itemized list and we can address those uh points, bullet points. I know uh Mr. Murphy goes to every one of the progress reports to say we don't have a representative on that is inaccurate as
well. I take exception to that. Um but I would be more than happy to work with Mr. Murphy and the HOA to address their other concerns. >> Thank you, too. >> Thank you very much. Uh Commissioner Lockhart. >> Yeah. Um as soon as our office was notified of
these concerns and and we were provided pictures, um I actually took took a tour. I didn't necessarily let anybody know that I was going. Um sometimes that's not the most productive thing to do. Um but I saw what you're referencing and it was completely unacceptable.
Um our office immediately reached out to staff. Of course, no one reports to us but the county manager and the county attorney. So um our staff was my staff in my office was kind enough to reach out to public works and make sure that all of the coordination that was
necessary was occurring. I I am I have seen firsthand how horrible the conditions are and anything that we need to do as a county to make sure that our contractor is in compliance is what we will do. >> And I'll I'll round out the conversation by just speaking on behalf of all of us.
This project I came on to this board in 2020 and this project has been talked about as a priority from that time on and I know it was talked about for years beforehand and the amount of work that led up to
the mess that you're living in now has been significant. And and I realize that what you're living through is not optimal but there has been a significant amount of work and a significant amount of investment to get us to this day. It is unfortunate [clears throat]
that the construction project is leaving the taste in the mouth of the residents that it is but to think that we don't care about this project is the furthest thing from from reality. We do. We don't live in it every day. We will we will admit that. But we appreciate you
bringing it to our attention. I think our staff has heard loud and clear and I will tell you that Miss Saluri is one of the best in the industry and I would suspect that the contractors will work very nicely with her to accommodate the needs of our citizens. So we appreciate
you being here. >> Thank you for your patience. >> Thank you very much, guys. >> Any other comments? >> No, ma'am. >> That concludes public comment. Anything for the good of the order? Commissioner Constantine's about ready to leap out of his chair. >> [laughter] >> All right.
Meeting adjourned. >> [music] [music] >> Mhm.