Sanford staff seek assessment as Semino County presses shift from JPA to ISBA

Eileen Henson, Sanford’s planning director, told the City Commission on June 8 that Semino County has asked the city to consider an interlocal service boundary agreement (ISBA) under Chapter 171 of the Florida statutes in addition to the existing joint planning agreement (JPA).

Henson framed the ISBA as a potential step beyond planning coordination: whereas the 2015 JPA established a framework for coordinated land use and annexation, the ISBA could formalize who provides services—fire and EMS, water and wastewater, road ownership and maintenance, parks and trails, stormwater, airport compatibility and other duties—after planning decisions are made. She warned that the ISBA “introduces some possible major new obligations for the city with no clearly defined operational and fiscal benefit at this time” and urged a sequenced, capacity-based approach before negotiating terms.

County representatives at the meeting said the ISBA is meant to supplement—not replace—the JPA and urged the city to consider a phased approach that targets the highest pain points first. A county speaker referenced past success using ISBAs and said the goal is to provide clearer service responsibility where citizens currently receive inconsistent maintenance or service.

City staff and commissioners identified key unknowns: potential long-term operational costs, capital replacement needs, impacts to utility rates, risks shifted to the city by changes in service boundaries, and recent state-level limits on local revenue flexibility that could constrain Sanford’s ability to absorb new obligations. Henson noted the city adopted a retroactive extension of the JPA through Oct. 15, 2026, to avoid service gaps while discussions continue.

The commission asked staff to narrow the scope of negotiations and not to proceed without a technical analysis. Commissioners and staff settled on a next step: city and county staff will identify two or three high-priority, geographically or functionally concentrated items to evaluate (for example, drainage or a particular corridor), and Sanford staff will perform a service capacity analysis, infrastructure condition assessment and fiscal-impact modeling for those items. The commission directed staff to return with findings and a recommended path for engagement.

Why this matters: an ISBA can shift long-term fiscal and operational responsibilities between governments. Sanford’s planning staff emphasized that proceeding without clear capacity or funding commitments could create unfunded obligations, service delays, or the need to accelerate capital spending.

What’s next: staff will form a joint technical working group with county counterparts, scope two to three priority items for an initial ISBA evaluation, and report the findings back to the commission for direction. No formal action or vote was taken at the work session.