HomeMy WebLinkAboutSection 10 - Intergovernmental Coordination ST. LUCI E COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT
Prepared by:
St. Lucie County
Board of County Commissioners
St. Lucie County
Department of Community Development
January 9, 1990 INTERGOVrRNMENTAL
I NTERGOVERNMENTA.i~ COORDI NATI ON ELEMENT
TABLE OF CO~.TTENTS
I NTRODUCTI ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 1
I NVENTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 1
St. Lucie County Public School System 10 - 4
South Florida Water Management District 10 - 4
St. Lucie County/Ft. Pierce Fir~ District 10 - 4
St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District 10 - 5
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council 10 - 5
St. Lucie Metropolitan Planning Organization 10 - 5
Other Governmental Agencies . . , . . . . . . . . . 10 - 6
HURRI CANE EVACUATI ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 6
Evacuation Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 6
Evacuation Network and Critical Links 10 - 7
GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 7
ANALYSI S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 7
COMPREHENSIVE REGIONAL POLICY PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 7
GOALS, OBJECTI VES, AND POLI CI ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 9
APPENDI X
A, Anal ys i s Works heets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 13
LIST OF TABLES
Table Paae
10 - 1 Existing and Proposed Links,
St. Lucie County . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 2
i
ST_ L~CI L COIIAITY
INTSRG~~RN~A7T~ COORDINATION
INTRODIICTION
The purpose of the Interc~overnmental Coordination Element, as
identified by Chapter 1b3, F. S. and Fla. Admin. Code Rule 9J-
5.015, is to "identify and resolve incompatible goals,
objectives, and policies, and development proposed in
comprehensive plans and to determine and responcl to the needs
for coordination processes and procedures with adjacent local,
regional, and state agencies." St. Lucie County believes that a
well-developed communication network among all applicable public
and quasi-public entities will enhance the long-range growth and
prosperity of the County.
St. Lucie County is governed by an elected Board of five
Commissioners with an appointed County Administrator. There ara
three (3) independent municipalities within the County: Ft.
Pierce, Port St. Lucie, and St. Lucie Village. Each of these
municipalities has a strong council form of government. The
cities of Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie include an elected
mayoral position in the composition of their council. St. Lucie
Village appoints a mayoral position from the elected councilmen
(aldermen). The cities of Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie each
have an appointed City Manager.
Ft. Pierce, the County seat, had a 1980 Census population of
33, 802, Port St. Lucie, 14, 690, St. Lucie Village, 593 with the
remainder of the County at 38,097. Between 1980 and April 1,
1987, the population of the unincorporated areas of the County
increased from 38,097 to 52,880 (Source: St. Lucie County) which
was an increase of 37.2%. However, the population for the County
as a whole increased 47.3% over the 1980 figures during this same
period. The primary influence on that growth rate was the City
of Port St. Lucie, increasing by over 150% of its 1980 population
to a total of 37, 176 (April 1, 1987). Ft. Pierce indicated a 14%
incr~ase to 38,463 and St. Lucie Village a 10% decrease, to 532.
This rate of rapid growth makes it essential that close
cooperation be maintained among the incorporated municipalities.
and the unincorporated County, as well as with surrounding
governments.
I NVSl+d'~'ORY
There are numerous independent governmental agencies which affect
the quality of life ?n St. Lucie County. Table 10-1 provides
an identification of all the public ar_d quasi-public entities
with which either the County does, or needs to coordinate.
Table 10-1 also indicates a relationship of the various
components of the Comprehensive Plan with each appropriate
agency.
January 9, 1990 10 - 1 Intergovernmental
TABLE :0-!
~X:STiNG AyD ?ROPOSED COOP,DINAi?ON L?4KS
Sm, LUCiE COU:iTv
COM?RE4ENSI'1E P~AN ELEMEYTS
COORDINATIhG ENTI'"Y I,A4D US~ TRAP CIR MASS ~~AN ~OUSI9C INFflAS~R CONSERV CQAS'fAL REC POFTIAV CIE
MUN:CIPRLITY
FT, oIERC? X X X X % X % X X X
~OflT ST. I,UCIE X X X X X X X % X X
ST. LUCI~ VIGbAGp X X X X X X K X X X
~CJAC2NT COUNTY
:NDIAN RI9ER X X X X X
OK~E~905B° X X X
MART:N X X X X X
fl~GiONAL
TCRPC X X X X X X ~ X X X
5r"~'MD X X X X % X X X
;'R~ASURE CCAST COG X X X X X X X X X
MAdIhB R650URCES X X X
^OUNCIL
LOCAL
SLC SCd00?, 9CA~D X X X X X X X
FP/SGC PIRE DIST X X X X X
.wi05QU?^,'0 CO~±TRG~ Di~T X X X
!?OUSIHC AUTNG~:TY X
!1~C ~ % ~
PORT/AIRPORT AJT90RITY X X ~ X X X
?P ?ARMS WCD X X X
NS~RnCD X X X
~",'Ai ~
~OT X X X X X
DER X X % X X
~CA X X ~ X Y X X X ~
p,y~ g X X X X
~;es z x ~ ~
~~~ME AND PRESNWAT?R ~ X ^
PTJH COMM?JJION
~;gg ; X X X X X X :s
?'.,A~ )E?T~ Cr S~Ai? X X
~i'l, OP ~?ST06iCAL
~~SOU2CeS
?r~A. DIV, OF °OR~STRv X X X ~
lEP'T., OF ~Gt~,Ci1GiDR;,
~D C,~NSUM~~ S3'IC.
January 9, i990 10 - 2 Intergovernmental
TABGE ;0-1. ICONT'D)
EXI5TI9G AND PROPOSED ~OORDINAiION LINKS
Sm, LUC:~ CQUYTY
C~M?~ENENSIU~ fLAN ELEMENiS
CCO~DIAATINC ?NTI!Y ~AND USE TRAF CI9 yASS TRAN HOUSI4G INcRASTR CONSER9 COASTAL REC PORT/AV CIE
FEDE~AL
~PA % X X X
SCS X X X
USACOE X X X X
?~A %
F9WA %
7MTA X X
UTIL?TIES
?PUA X X
GDU X X
SO 6pLL X X
PP~L X X
SLCW~SA X
January 9, 1990 10 - 3 Intergovernmental
The following paragraphs provide a brief description of the
various agencies, authorities, ~oards and organizations that St.
Lucie County must coordinate with on a frequent or daily basis.
St_ Lucie County Public Sc~ool Syste~
The St. Lucie County Public School System is an autonomous board
established under Chapter 230, Florida Statutes. The district
school system is controlled by an elected five (5) member School
Board supported with an appointed superintendent. Each School
Board member represents th~ specific district in which they live,
however, they are elected through the at-large voting practice.
Traditionally the School Board and its stafft and the elected
county officials and their staff, along with those of the various
municipalities have worked closely in facility and project
planning. Examples of these coordinated efforts include the
implementation of voluntary school impact assessment for new
residential developments in the early 1980's, the location of new
school sites in the most rapidly growing areas of the community
and the development of a County-wide mandatory School Impact Fee
Ordinance (1988).
South Florida ~ater Management District
In 1949, the Florida Legislature created the Central and Southern
Florida Flood Control District, whose charge, among other
activities, was to regulate the problem of seasonal flooding from
a regional perspective. In 1976, the Florida Legislature
consolidated the various drainage and flood control districts
throughout the State into five. St. Lucie County, then a member
of the Central and Southern, became a part of the South Florida
Water Management District. In addition to the traditional
charges given to the District, the District has been given joint
responsibility {with DER) for water quality programs effecting
all aspects of community development.
Primary coordinating efforts with St. Lucie County are in regard
to stormwater management and water quality issues. It is
expected that within the planning period of this Comprehensive
Plan the areas of wellfield protection, aquifer recharge and
water withdrawals/reserve quantities will become equally as
important.
St. Lucie County/Ft_ Pierce Fire District
The St. Lucie County/Ft. Pierce Fire District was established by
special act of the Florida Legislature in 1959. This district
provides full-time fire and emergency medical services for all of
St. Lucie County. The Fire District currently operates 13
stations located throughout the County.
January 9, 1990 10 - 4 Intergovernmental
The Fire District is governed by a seven (7) member Board
comprised of two members from the Board of County Commissioners,
the Ft. Pierce City Commission, and the Port St. Lucie City
Council. Since the Fire District is a special taxing district,
empowered to levy taxes, there is also one (1) at-large member
who is appointed to the Fire Board by the Governor.
In addition to the required coordination for taxing purposes, the
Fire Marshal's Office provides fire protection and building
inspection related services to the County and municipalities.
St_ Lucie County ~osquito Control District
The St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District is an autonomous
agency created by the Florida Legislature in 1927. The District
is controlled by the Board of County Commissioners acting as the
Mosquito Control Board. The District serves the area from the
Atlantic Ocean to approximately 10 miles west of the coast.
The function of the St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District is
to manage the mosquito population in St. Lucie County. To
fulfill this function, the District is funded by a special tax
district within the County's 10 mill cap and funds from the
State.
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) was created
in October, 1976, through an interlocal agreement pursuant to
Chapter 186, Florida Statutes. The Council's principal goal is
to assure that future growth within the Indian River, St. Lucie,
Martin, and Palm Beach County Region occurs in a manner
consistent with state and regional planning objectives and that a
high quality of life will be achieved for all the regional
citizens. Toward accomplishing this goal, the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council maintains a forum for identifying, as
well as promoting, public understanding of local and regional
issues and problems. To promote the implementation of plans and
programs which address regional issues and problems, the Council
acts as a regional information clearinghouse and
intergovernmental data source, conducts research for the purpose
of developing and maintaining regional goals, obj ectives, and
policies, and assists in the implementation of a number of local,
state, and federal programs.
St_ Lucie Metropolitan Planning Organization
In 1983, a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Interlocal
Agreement was executed between St. Lucie County, the cities of
Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie, and the Florida Department of
Transportation. The authority and responsibility of the MPO is
for the management of a continuing, cooperative, and
January 9, 1990 10 - 5 Intergovernmental
comprehensive transportation planning process and the programming
of transportation improvements for the St. Lucie County urbanized
area.
The MPO is composed of nine voting members: five St. Lucie
County Commissioners; two Port St. Lucie City Councilmen; and
two Ft. Pierce City Commissioners.
Other Governmental Agencies
In addition to the governmental agencies described above, there
are City, County, State, and Federal agencies with which the
County coordinates and cooperates on matters of mutual interest
and concern. Table 10-1 contains listings of the various
local, regional, state, and federal agencies interacting with St.
Lucie County.
HIIRRI C~3AIE EV~CII~TI OAI
(for a more detailed discussion of Hurricane Evacuation, see the
Coastal Management Element)
A new bridge between the barrier island and mainland near Walton
Road has been identified in the needs analysis for the year 2015
in the Traffic Circulation Element. Fiscal constraints may
prohibit construction of such a bridge to a coastal barrier
resource unit. Therefore it would be premature to plan for more
than a study to determine the economic, environmental impact, and
justification statements to be completed by 2000.
The Jensen Beach Bridge in hiartin County has been an essential
part of the traffic circulation system for the southern portion
of St. Luci e Cour_ty' s s outh i s 1 and. As noted i n the BIAS
(Rimley-Horn, 1986), development in this portion of the south
island will not be allowed beyond the commencement level without
either the construction of the Walton Road Bridge or impravements
to structures in Martin County. However, since most of the
undeveloped land in this portion of the island can be developed
at the commencement level and, in fact, is mostly developed to
date, greater dependence on the Martin County structures is not
anticipated.
$vacuation Times
If the northbound Florida Turnpike traffic uses 3 of the 4 lanes
out of Southeast Florida and the Treasure Coast Region instead of
the normal 2 of 4 lanes, the high evacuation time of 22.5 hours
can be reduced to 16.25 hours.
January 9, 1990 10 - 6 Intergovernmental
Evacuation Network and Critical Links
Of the 10 critical links identified in the Coastal Management
Element, 5 are identified in the County's approved 5-year Traffic
Improvement Plan (TIP) or h~ve been improved.
For 2015, all of the critical links have been identified in the
needs analysis of the Tra=fic Circulation Element, as well as
an additional bridge over the Indian River Lagoon.
GROF~7TH AND DI~VRLOPI~ENT
The three adjoining counties have predominantly agriculture uses
adjacent to St. Lucie County's agriculture borders and, to the
best of our knowledge, they are not proposing any changes. The
City of Ft. Pierce is not proposing any changes and currently
their boundaries are adjacent to the more urbanized areas of the
unincorporated County. The City of Port St. Lucie is not
proposing any changes in their land use and they have commercial
and residential uses adjacent to St. Lucie County's boundaries.
St. Lucie Village is, for the most part, a residential community,
and they are not proposing any changes. While the expansion of
the services and/or facilities at the St. Lucie County
International Airport, if it should occur, could affect the
Village, the task force being established in Policy 10. 1.4. 3 of
this element will deal with these issues as they arise.
The St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan has been written in such
a manner that it is compatible with the Treasure Coast Regional
Policy Plan. No specific needs for additional coordination with
the Council have been identi~ied due to the direction provided
for growth and development in the Future Land Use Element or
other elements of this Plan.
ANALYSI S
In addition to the matrix representations provided in Table 10-1,
an analysis of these local and regional coordinating entities
is provided in Appendix A of this element. This analysis
examines St. Lucie County's relationship with those entities with
which it currently coordinates. The analysis also looks at
which issues or problems the two entities most often coordinate
on, the method of coordination, the effectiveness of this
coordination, and any perceived deficiencies in this system of
coordi nati on.
COI~PREHEi?dSITTE REGIONAL POLICY PLAN
The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's Reginnal
Comprehensive Policy Plan addresses the provision of public
services and facilities on topics ranging from "Improving Student
January 9, 1990 10 - 7 Intergovernmental
Performance" to "Expanding Agricultural Opportunities". The plan
focuses on 25 goals as they have been identified in the
comprehensive plan for the entire State. The regional plan
furthers these goals with 75 policy clusters. The policy
clusters identify specific issues within the Treasure Coast
Region in relationship to the overall State goal. The Regional
Comprehensive Policy Plan:
1. provides background on each issue;
2. lists significant resources applicable to the specific
issue that are available within the region;
3. identifies the agsncies and organizations that are
directly involved; and
4. specifies the regional goal, the corresponding
policies, and the measures by which the effectiveness
or success of the policy will be compared.
The intergovernmental coordination cluster of the Regional
Comprehensive Policy Plan seeks to elimin~te unnecessary
duplication of programs and activities. Significant coordi nation
currently takes place between St. Lucie County and Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council in the form of Developments of Regional
Impact (DRI) reviews and local comprehensive plan reviews.
January 9, 1990 10 - 8 Intergovernmer_tal
GOALS, OBJ$CTIVES, AND POLICILS
GOAL 10_ 1: ESTABI,ISH gFFECTIQS COO~2DINgTION MEASIIRES
AIKONG ALL PSRTI i~lRNT PIIBLI C AND QII~SI -PIIBLI C
ENTI~ES SO TO BSST ~iZNTAIN ST_ LIICIL
COIINTY' S QIIALI TY OF LI FE AND EFFI CI ENT IISE OF
RESODRCSS.
OBJI3CTIVS 10_ 1. 1: By August, 1990, in conjunction with the
adoption of the rem,;red Land Development
Regulations, St. Lucie County sha11 formally
establish specific means of coordination with
adjacent municipalities; with local, state,
and federal agencies who have permitting and
regulating authority; and with quasi-gublic
entities which provide services but lack
regulatory authority in St. Lucie County.
Policy 10. 1. 1. 1: Notify in writing the cities of Ft. Pierce,
Port St. Lucie, and St. Lucie Village of all
applications for rezoning and land use
amendments which are contiguous to their
borders or within an area of planned
annexation.
Policy 10. 1. 1. 2: Through the development review process,
coordinate all ,development in the
unincorporated County with local governments
that are adjacent to or will be impacted by
the development.
Policy 10. 1. 1. 3: Request in writing, including the general
nature and purpose, to the state regulatory
agencies that they create liaisons between
themselves and the County; the County
will work with local offices of these
agencies when they exist.
Policy 10. 1. 1. 4: Charge the County Administrator with the
responsibility for developing and enforcing
an effective intergovernmental coordination
program for St. Lucie County.
Pol i cy 10. 1. 1. 5: Reques t i n wri ti ng that the Treas ure Coas t
Council of Governments provide a regular
formal forum in which to deal with issues
uni que to Marti n, St. Luci e, I ndi an Ri ver,
and Okeechobee Counties.
Policy 10. 1. 1. 6: Request in writing that the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council play a more
active role on issues betwesn member
January 9, 1990 10 - 9 Intergovernmental
_ _ _ _
counties and between federal and state
agencies and St. Lucie County.
Policy 10.1.1.7: Encourage cooperative education programs
between the County and regulatory agencies to
inform the public and development community
about applicable laws and regulations. This
could be accomplished by including brief
informational pamphlets in utility bills or
other means of widespread general
circulation.
Policy 10. 1. 1. 8: Formally raquest in writing that Ft. Pierce,
Port St. Lucie and St. LuciQ Village
designate their anticipated future annexation
areas, inform the County as to the nature of
such plans and provide further notification
in the event there is change to these plans.
Policy 10. 1. 1. 9: Review transportation service volumes and
levels of service as they relate to state
roads and coordinate with the FDOT relative
to state level of service standards.
OBJECTIVS 10.1.2= The County shall coordinate the establishment
or revi.sion of level of service standards for
public facilities with any state, regional or
local entitg having operational and
mai.ntenance responsibility for such
facilities; and coordinate on the provi.sion
of public facility improvements with the
capital facility plans of any other
governmental entity providing public
facilities within St_ Lncie County.
Policy 10.1.2.1: Concurrency Management procedures, as
outlined in the Capital Improvements Element,
will be implemented by August 1, 1990, to
ensure that required services will be
available when needed.
Policy 10. 1. 2. 2: Establish a Planning Forum, to meet at least
quarterly, to coordinate programs of
infrastructure development and improvement
between the County and the municipalities so
that adopted levels of service can be
maintained throughout the entire County.
Pol i cy 10. 1. 2. 3: Us e the Treas ure Coas t Regi onal Pl anni ng
Council for informal mediation when conflicts
with other local governments do not appear as
if they would be otherwise resolved.
January 9, 1990 10 - 10 Intergovernmental
_ _
OBJECTIVE 10. 1_ 3: By ~ugust, 1990, the Director of Community
Development shall be appointed to coordinate
County activi.ties with the comprehensive
plans of adj acent municipalities, St_ Lucie
County, the adjacent counties, and other
un:i.ts of local government such as the School
Board providing services but not having
regulatory authoxity over the use of land.
Policy 10. 1. 3. 1: File a written request with each adj acent
municipality and County to receive and review
copies of all proposed plan or rszoning
amendments for areas adjacent to St. Lucie
County boundaries.
Policy 10. 1. 3. 2: Request liaisons regarding proposed plan or
rezoning amendments from the St. Lucie County
School Board, South Florida Water Management
District, Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council, Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority,
General Development Utility, Florida Power
and Light, and adjacent local governments.
Policy 10. 1. 3. 3: In conjunction with other affected parties,
evaluate existing interlocal agreements when
the Capital Improvements Element is
undergoing annual review to determine if
current funding is proportional to services
rendered.
Policy 10. 1. 3. 4: Coordinate closely with the School Board on
the location of future school locations in
relation to the projected population and land.
us e.
OBSSCTIVE 10_ 1. 4: By ~ugust, 1990, the County, through the
County ~dministrator, shall establish an
intergovernmental coordination process to
ensure full consideration is given to the
impacts of developments proposed in the
County Comprehensive Plan. on other
governmental entities.
Policy 10.1.4.1: Support the development and adoption of
interlocal agreements with the affected
municipalities to coordinate the management
of the St. Lucie River, Intracoastal
Waterway, Indian River Lagoon, and Savannas.
Policy 1Q.1.4.2: Continue to work with the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council to identify
regional issues and to assist in the periodic
updating of the Comprehensive Regional Policy
Pl an.
January 9, 1990 10 - 11 Intergovernmental
Policy 10. 1. 4. 3: The Port and Airport Authority shall
establish a task force, that will deal with
land use compatibility issues should there be
an expansion of the function, operation and
geographic area of the airport. The task
force will include representatives of St.
Lucie Village, the City of Fort Pierce, St.
Lucie Countv, the Port and Airport
Authority, Florida Department of
Transportation, Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council and the Federal Aviation
Administration.
Obj ective 10. 1. 5: The Port and ~iirport Authority shall review
port activities in coordination with the
Comprehensive Plan of Ft_ Pierce.
Policy 10. 1. 5. 1: The Board of County Commissioners, sitting as
the St. Lucie County Port and Airport
Authority, shall coordinate with the City of
Ft. Pierce and other governmental entities to
resolve problems related, but not limited, to
transportation, development and land use,
natural and man-m~de hazards and disasters,
and protection of natural resources.
Policy 10. 1. 5.2: The Board of County Commissioners, sitting as
the St. Lucie County Port and Airport
Authority, shall provide notice to the City
of Ft. Pierce, with time for the City to
respond, on any Port and Airport Authority
activities related to the port that require
amendment to the Port Master Plan and/or
which require permitting by the City.
Policy 10. 1. 5. 3: All Port and Airport Authority activities
related to the port shall be consistent with
the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan.
January 9, 1990 10 - 12 Intergovernmer.tal
_ _ .
APPENDI% A
AN~ILYSI S TAiOR~SHEETS
January 9, 1990 10 - 13 Intergovernmental
ANgLYSIS ~ORKSHE$T
Coortiinating Agency: City of Ft. Pierce
Participating Sntities:
St. Lucie County
City of Ft. Pierce
$xi.sting Issues or Problems:
- Adjacent Land Uses - Beach Access
- Beach Renourishment - Provision of Social Services
- Extension of Services - Traffic Flow
- Downtown Redevelopment - Annexation
- Port Development - Wellfield Protection
- Administration and Collection of Impact Fees
Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): All Elements
Exi s ti ng l~iethod of Coorcli nati on:
Three formally authorized forums exist for the review of matters
of local concern, the MPO, Treasure Coast Council of Governments
' and Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. The fault with
these bodies is that they do not include, as regular members, the
entire elected bodies of the two jurisdictions. No other formal
mechanism currently exists. At the department level, informal
coordination regularly takes place. Interlocal agreements exist
between the City and County concerning the MPO, the
administration of impact fees, Wellfield Protection and for the
provision of recreation facilities. Oceasionally, the City and
County Commissions hold joint meetings to review and form
combined decisions on matters of mutual interest.
The Port and Airport ~uthority will establish a task force to
deal with land use compatibility issues should there be an
expansion of the function, operation and geographic area of the
airport. This task force will include representatives of St.
Lucie Village, the City of Ft. Pierce, St. Lucie County, the Port
and Airport Authority, the Florida Department of Transportation,
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, and the Federal
Avi ati on Admi ni s trati on.
Nature of Rel ati ons hip { i_ e_ ~uthority
Aside from the three formal points of exchange, no duly
authorized forum exists that would permit scheduled interaction
January 9, 1990 10 - 14 Intergovernmental
between the two elected bodies. Informal staff communication
exists for the purpose of informational exchanges as directed.
y
Office with Primary Responsibility:
Differs by issue.
gffectiveness of Coordination Aiechauisms:
Generally, staff coordination between the City and County is
adequate. However, this measure may differ by issue and office.
Deficiencies and Needs:
Existing administrative coordination is generally satisfactory.
However, a lack of formal meetings or channels of communication
can result in occasional conflicting goals and objectives.
Additional Coordinating $ntities:
FPUA, MPO, TCRPC, Treasure Coast Council of Governments, SLC-FP
Fire District, Erosion Control Board, Port/Airport Authority,
FDOT, and Mosquito Control District.
Recommendations:
Closer coordination is needed on all issues between the City and
County, especially concerning matters of annexation, utility
service, and the Port of Ft. Pierce. Explore the formal
inclusion of administrative representatives to the St. Lucie
Development Review Committee and establish a system of
coordinated input for issues of local concern.
Policy Reference: 10. 1. 1. 1; 10. 1. 1. 2; 10. l. 1. 4; 10. 1. 1. 5;
10. 1. l. 8; 10. 1.2. 1; 10. 1. 2. 2; 10. 1. 3. 1;
10. 1.3.2; 10. 1. 3. 3; 10. 1. 4. 1, 10. 1.4. 3.
January 9, 1990 10 - 15 Intergovernmental
AN~I~YSI S WORRSHEET
Coordinating Agency: City of Port St. Lucie
Participating Sntities:
St. Lucie County
City of Port St. Lucie
E~isting Issues or Problems:
- Adjacent Land Uses - Administration and
- Traffic Flow Collection of Impact Fees
- Extension of Services - Annexation
- Provision of Social Services - Wellfield Protection
Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): All Elements
Egi.sting Method of Coordination:
Three formally authorized forums exist for the review of matters
of local concern, the MPO, Treasure Coast Council of Governments
and Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. The fault with
these bodies is that they do not include, as regular members, the
entire elected bodies of the two jurisdictions. No other formal
mechanism currently exists. At the department level, informal
coordination regularly takes place. Interlocal agreements exist
between the City and County concerning the MPO, the
administration of impact fees, Wellfield Protection.
Occasionally, the City and County Commissions hold joint meetings
to review and form combined decisions on matters of mutual
community interest.
Nature of Relationship (i_ e. Authority):
Aside from the three formal points of exchange, no duly
authorized forum exists that would permit scheduled interaction
between the two elected bodies. Informal staff communication
exists for the purpose of informational exchange as directed.
Office with Primary Responsibility:
Differs by issue.
January 9, 1990 10 - 16 Intergovernmental
$ffectiveness of Coordination Mechani.snes:
Generally, coordination between the City and County is adequate.
However, this measure may differ by issue and office.
Deficiencies and I~eeds:
Existing administrative coordination is generally satisfactory.
However, a lack of formal meetings or channels of communication
can result in occasional conflicting goals and objectives.
Additional Coordinating Entities:
GDU, FPUA, FPL, MPO, TCRPC, Treasure Coast Council of
Governments, SLC-FP Fire District, FDOT, and Mosquito Control
District
Recommendations:
Closer coordination is needed on all issues between the City ~nd
County, especially concerning matters of annexation, utility
service, and roadway improvement. Explore the formal inclusion
of administrative representatives to the St. Lucie Development
Review Committee and establish a system of coordinated input for
issues of local concern.
Policy Reference: 10. 1. 1. 1; 10. 1. 1. 2; 10. 1. 1. 4; 10. 1. 1. 5;
10. 1. 1. 8; 10. 1. 2. 1; 10. 1.2. 2; 10. 1. 3. 1;
10. 1. 3. 2; 10. 1. 3. 3; 10. 1. 4. 1.
January 9, 1990 10 - 17 Intergovernmental
ANAT•YSI S La~ORKS~IL~ET
Coordinating Agency: St. Lucie Village
Participating Entities:
St. Lucie County
St. Lucie Village
Existing Issues or Problems:
- Adjacent Land Uses - Annexation
- Provision of Public Services - Airport Expansion
- Wellfield Protection
- Administration and Collection of Impact Fees
Affected Comprehensive Plan Elements(s): All Elements
Existing ~iethod of Coordination:
Extensive coordination is non-existent. Village does not have
any full time administr~tive staff support.
The Port and Airport Authority will establish a task force ta
deal with land use compatibility issues should there be an
expansion of the function, operation and geographic area of the
airport. This task force will include representatives of St.
Lucie Village, the City of Ft. Pierce, St. Lucie County, the Port
and Airport Authority, the Florida Department of Transportation,
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, and the Federal
Avi ati on Admi ni s trati on.
Nature of Rel ati ons hip ( i. e. guthori ty j:
A very limited relationship exists due to the non-existence of
any St. Lucie Village administrative staff. Primary contact with
the Village is conducted through the part time Village Attorney.
Village does participate in County-wide impact fee programs.
Office with Primary Responsibility:
Department of Community Development and County Attorney
Lffectiveness of Coordination ~Iechanisms:
Limited, due to the lack of administrative structure. This
hampers addressing joint problems in a timely manner.
January 9, 1990 10 - 18 Intergovernmental
Deficiencies and Needs:
Existing administrative coordination is generally satisfactory
given conditions unique to the situation. However, a lack of
formal meetings or channels of communication can result in
occasional conflicting goals «nd objectives.
~dditional Coordinating Sntities:
TCRPC, St. Lucie Port and Airport Authority, SLC-FP Fire District
Recommendations:
Closer coordination is needed on all issues between the City and
County, especially concerning matters of annexation, utility
service, and roadway improvement. Explore the formal inclusion
of administrative representatives to the St. Lucie Development
Review Committee and establish a system of coordinated input for
issues of local concern.
Policy Reference: 10. 1. l. 1; 10. 1. 1. 2; 10. 1. 1. 4; 10. 1. 1. 5;
10. 1. 1.8; 10. 1.2. 1; 10. 1. 2. 2; 10. 1. 3. 1;
10. 1. 3.2; 10. 1. 3. 3; 10. 1.4. 1; 10. 1.4. 3.
January 9, 1990 10 - 19 Intergovernmental
~Id~LYS3 S T~ORRSHEET
Coordinating Agency: Indian River County
Participating Enti.ties:
Indian River County
St. Lucie County
Existing Issues or Problems:
- Adjacent Land Uses - Sanitary Sewer
- Coastal/Environmental Issues - Potable Water
- Transportation - Stormwater
- Solid Waste
Affected Comp=ehensive Plan Element(s):
Future Land Use Conservation
Coastal Management Infrastructure
Traffic Circulation
Ex.isfia..ng Method of Coordination:
Formal forums of coordination include the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council and Treasure Coast Council of Governments.
Limited administrative coordination, as the issue warrants.
Nature of Relationship (i_ e_ Authority):
Li mi ted
Office with Primary Responsibility:
Department of Community Development and County Attorney
Effectiveness of Coordi.nation 1Kechanisms:
Current methods of coordination meet current needs, however, they
do not lend themselves to providing effective solutions to common
problems facing each community.
January 9, 1990 10 - 20 Intergovernmental
Deficiencies and Needs:
A more formalized method of coordination is needed in order to
ensure the compatibility of each County's land use and
environmental issues.
gdditional Coordinating l3ntities:
TCRPC and Treasure Coast Council of Governments
Recommendations:
Regular and standard lines of communication and coordination need
to be established and maintained. An expansion of the Treasure
Coast Council of Governments could possibly serve this function.
Policy References: 10. 1. 1. 2; 10. 1. 1. 4; 10. 1. 1. 5; 10. 1. 3. 1;
10. 1. 4. 1.
January 9, 1990 10 - 21 Intergovernmental
ArIALYSI S AORRSH~ST
Coordinating Agency: Martin County
Participating Entities:
Martin County
St. Lucie County
Existing Issues or Prablems:
- Transportation - Stormwater
- Adjacent Land Uses - Sanitary Sewer
- Coastal/Conservation issues - Potable Water
- Solid Waste
Affected Comprehensive Plan Eleffient(s):
Future Land Use Conservation
Traffic Circulation Coastal Management
Mass Transit Infrastructure
Ezi s ti ng ~Iethod of Coordi nati on:
Formal forums of coordination include the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council and Treasure Coast Council of Governments.
There is limited administrative coordination, as the issue
warrants. Occasional joint meetings of the County Commissioners
take place in order to deal with matters of mutual community
concern.
Nature of Relationship (i. e. Authority):
Limited
Office with Primary Responsibility:
County Administrator, County Attorney, Department of Community
Development, and Department of Public Works
Effectiveness of Coordination l~iechanisms:
Current methods of coordination meet current needs; however, they
do not lend themselves to providing effective solutions to common
problems facing each community.
January 9, 1990 10 - 22 Intergovernmental
Deficiencies and Needs:
A more formalized method of coordination is needed in order to
ensure the compatibility of each County's land use and
environmental issues.
~dditi onal Coordinating Sntities :
FDOT, TCRPC, Treasure Coast Council of Governments, and SFWMD
Recommendations:
Regular and standard lines of communication and coordination need
to be established and maintained. An expansion of the Treasure
Coast Council of Governments could possibly serve this function.
Policy References: 10. 1. 1. 2; 10. 1. 1. 4; 10. 1. 1. 5; 10. l. 3. 1;
10. 1. 4. 1.
January 9, 1990 10 - 23 Intergovernmental
~N~LYSI S [~ORRSHEET
Coordinating Agency: Okeechobee County
Participating I3ntities:
Okeechobee County
St. Lucie County
Okeechobee Fire Department
St. Lucie County Sheriff's Department
OkeechobEe County Sheriff's ~epartment
St. Lucie County - Ft. Pierce Fire District
F.~isting Issues or Problems:
- Adjacent Land Uses
- Emergency Service Response
Affected Comprehensive Plan $lement(s):
Future Land Use Conservation
Traffic Circulation
$zisting Aiethod of Coordination:
The only formal forum of coordination is the newly established
Treasure Coast Council of Governments. However, both the St.
Lucie County Sheriff's Department and the Fire District have
interlocal agreements with Okeechobee County authorities to
provide first response emergency service to the extreme western
portions of the County, the Bluefield Road area, due to distances
from Ft. Pierce.
Nature of Rel ati ons hip ( i_ e_ Authority
The relationship is limited, except for an interlocal agreement
between Okeechobee and St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office and Fire
District.
Office with Primary Responsibility:
Sheriff and Fire District (active)
Department of Community Development, County Attorney, and County
Administrator (inactive)
January 9, 1990 10 - 24 Intergovernmental
Effectivenes:.c of Coordination ~echanisms:
Coordination is adequate to meet present need, but in the future,
coordination on land use, transportation, and conservation issues
may become necessary.
Deficiencies and Needs:
A more formalized method of coordination is needed in order to
ensure the compatibility of each County's land use and
environmental issues. An expansion of the Treasure Coast Council
of Governments could possibly serve this function.
Additional Coordinating Entities:
SFWMD and Treasure Coast Council of Governments
Recommendations:
Regular and standard lines of communication and coordination need
to be established and maintained. Ex-officio membership to
the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council may be one avenue
open to greater communication.
Policy References: 10. 1. 1. 2; 10. 1. 1. 4; 10. 1. 1. 5; 10. 1. 3. 1;
10. 1. 4. 1.
January 9, 1990 10 - 25 Intergovernmental
ANALYSI S ~ORRSHi~E~
Coordinating ~gency: Marine Resources Council
Participating Entities:
Marine Resources Council
St. Lucie County
Ezi. s ti ng I s s ues or Probl ems :
- Stormwater
- Indian River Lagoon
- Watershed Action Committees Issues
Affected Comprehensive Plan Blement(s):
Coastal Management Infrastructure
Conservation Future Land Use
Ezisting P~ethod of Coordination:
The Marine Resource Council is an independent organization that
strives toward providing coordination among all the
municipalities bordering the Indian River Lagoon. The Council
provides a forum where individuals, special interest groups,
governmental officials and educational entities may discuss and
attempt to address through recommended policy issues of regional
impact to the Lagoon system.
Nature of Relationship (i_ e_ ~uthority):
The Council is an advisory forum.
Office with Primary Responsibility:
Department of Community Development, County Attornsy, and Board
of County Commissioners
gffectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms:
The Council sufficiently fulfills its purpose.
Deficiencies and i+Ieeds:
No deficiencies are found in the present system.
January 9, 1990 10 - 26 Intergovernmental
~dditional Coordinating Entities:
SFWMD
Recommendations:
Existing levels of coordination have been determined to be
sufficient.
Policy References: 10. 1. 1. 3; 10. 1. 1. 4; 10. 1. 1. 6; 10. 1. 1. 7;
10. 1. 4. 1.
January 9, 1990 10 - 27 Intergovernmental
~iLYSIS WORR~HSET
Coordinating ggenCy: St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District
Participating Entities:
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
City of Ft. Pierce
City of Port St. Lucie
St. Lucie Village
St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District
Department of Environmental Regulations
Department of Natural Resources
8zisting Issues or Problems:
- Mosquito Control Activities
- Effects of Mosquito Impoundments on the Indian River Lagoon
~fected Comprehensive Plan Element(s):
Conservation Capital Improvements
Coastal Management Future Land Use
Ezisting l~ethod of Coordination:
The Mosquito Control Board is comprised of the five St. Lucie
County Commissioners.
Nature o f Rel ati ons hi p( i_ e_ ~uthori ty
The Mosquito Control Board is comprised of the five St. Lucie
County Commissioners.
Office with Primary Responsibility:
County Administrator and County Attorney
Effectiveness of Coordination P~echani.sms:
Existing methods of coordination are found to be sufficient.
Deficiencies and Needs:
No deficiencies are noted at the present time.
January 9, 1990 10 - 2E Intergovern~nental
Additional Coordinating Entities:
None
Recommendations:
Existing levels of coordination have been determined to be
sufficient.
Policy References: 10. 1. 1. 5; 10. 1. 3. 3.
January 9, 1990 10 - 29 Intergovernmental
AN~LYSI S T~i~RRSHB$T
Coordinating Agency: St. Lucie County - Ft. Pierce Fire
District
Participating $ntities:
St. Lucie County
City of Ft. Pierce
City of Port St. Lucie
St. Luci e Vi 11 age
Existi~.xg Issues or Problems:
- Maintenance of adequate levels of emergency response service
for the community.
Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s):
Infrastructure Ports and Aviation
Land Use Capital Improvements
Traffic Circulation
ggisting I~Iethod of Coordination:
Two County Commissioners are members of the Fire District Board
of Directors. A representative of the Fire District is a member
of the Development Review Committee. Through this
representation, the Fire District is kept apprised of current
development and construction activities within the County.
Nature of Rel ati ons hip { i. e. Authority
The Fire District is a semi-autonomous authority. The Board is
empowered to levy a special tax to support its operations.
Membership on the Fire Board by representatives of the County
Commission provides budgetary input to the operation of the
Department.
Office with Primary Responsibility:
County Administrator and Department of Community Development
$ffectiveness of Coordination ~echani.sms:
Existing methods of coordination are found to be sufficient.
January 9, 1990 10 - 30 Intergovernmental
Deficiencies and Needs:
The fire district requires the expansion of infrastructure so to
be able to provide the services to yrowth areas (i.e., water
supply, roads).
~dditional Coordinating Entities:
State Department of Forestry
Recommendations:
Existing levels of coordination have been determined to be
sufficient.
Policy References: 10. 1. 1. 4; 10. 1. 2. 1.
January 9, 1990 10 - 31 Intergovernmental
ANALYSI S ~i10RRSHEET
Coordinating Agency: St. Lucie County School Board
Participating Entities:
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
St. Lucie County School Board
St. Lucie County Library Board
Eg.i.sting Issues or Problems:
- Multi-use of School Facilities - School Busing Zones
- Program Funding - Location of New Facilities
- Land Us e
- Administration and Collection of School Impact Fees
Affected Comprehensive Plan $lement(s):
Future Land Use Housing
. Coastal Management Mass Transit
Infrastructure Traffic Circulation
Recreation and Open Space
$g.i.sting I~ethod of Coordination:
Forums for the formal coordination of issues effecting the two
political bodies are limited to the Metropolitan Planning
Organization - Technical Advisory Committee. Informal lines of.
communication exist between administrative staffs. Special joint
meetings of the County Commission and School Board may be
scheduled for issues of mutual community concern. When
necessary, specific interlocal agreements may be entered into
between the two bodies.
Nature of Relationship (i. e_ Authority):
No formal relationship exists betwee;~ the two bodies. Contacts
between Boards are generally limited with the exception of
specific purpose programs.
Office with Primary Responsibility:
Department of Community Development, Department of Recreation and
Parks, and Library Board
January 9, 1990 10 - 32 Intergovernmental
Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms:
Existing methods of coordination are found to be sufficient.
Deficiencies and Needs:
No deficiencies or needs have been i.dentified at the present
time.
~dditional Coordinating $ntities:
None
Recommendations:
Existing levels of coordination have been determined to meet
current needs.
Policy References: 10. 1. 1. 4; 10. 1. 2. 1; 10. 1. 3. 2; 10. 1. 3. 4.
January 9, 1990 10 - 33 Intergovernmental
AATALYSI S T~OR~.SHB$T
Coordinatin+g Agency: St. Lucie Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO)
Participating Entities:
St. Lucie County
City of Ft. Pierce
City of Port St. Lucie
Esisting Issues or Problems:
- Transportation
- Capital Improvements Programs
Affected Comprehensive Plan $le~ent(s):
Mass Transit Future Land Use
Capital Improvements Traffic Circulation
Egisting ~iethod of Coordination:
MPO membership 7ointly determines how federal and state
transportation dollars are to be spent locally.
Nature of Relationship (i. e. Authority):
The County has no authority to require that roadway improvements
off of the County Road System be made except to recommend changes.
through their representative members of the MPO.
Office with Prima.ry Responsibility:
Department of Community Development
$ffectiveness of Coordination I~echanisms:
Through the current system, the County has coordinate~ a11
transportation decisions.
Deficiencies and Needs:
The eYisting system is found to be generally sufficient.
January 9, 1990 10 - 34 Intergovernmental
Additional Coordina~ting Ea~tita~s:
FDOT, FHWA, and TCRPC
Recommendations:
Existing levels of coordination have been determined to be
sufficient
Policq References: 10. 1. 1. 9; 10. 1. 2. 1; 10. 1. 2. 2.
January 9, 1990 10 - 35 Intergovernmental
ANALYSI S W~R~.SHEET
Coordinating Agency: Housing Author~ty of the City of Ft. Pierce
Particigating Entities:
St. Lucie County
City of Ft. Pierce
City of Port St. Lucie
Ez:i.sting Issues or Problems:
- Very Low to Moderate Income Housing
Affected Coffiprehensive Plan Eleffient(s):
Housing Future Land Use
Capital Improvements
Exi s ti ng ~iethod of Coordi nati on:
The Board of County Commissioners has assisted the housing
authority in locating a small amount of public housing and
Section 8 housing ~nits in the unincorporated area.
Nature of Relationship (i. e_ Authority):
There is no formal representation of the County Commissioners on
the Housing Authority.
Office with Primary Responsibility:
County Administrator, County Attorney, and Department of
Community Development
Effectiveness of Coordination l~echanisms:
The Hous i ng Authori ty has no j uri s di cti or. i n the uni ncorporated
County. The Authority's effectiveness in the County would
benefit from having their jurisdictional boundaries expanded.
Deficiencies and Needs:
Housing for very low to moderate income persons needs to be
addressed on a county-wide basis, Also, more data are needed to
define the housing problem in the County.
January 9, 1990 10 - 36 Intergovernmental
Additional Coordinating En.tities:
DCA, TCRPC, HUD, and St. Lucie County Housing Finance Authority
Recommendations:
Investigate the advantages and disadvantages of having the
Housing Authority of Ft. Pierce expand its operation to include
unincorporated areas of the County. The County shall establish a
housing data base and a county-wide Housing Task Force to
investigate the need for affordable housing for various income
groups in the County.
Policy References: 10. 1. 1. 4.
January 9, 1990 10 - 37 Intergovernmental
ANALYSIS ~ORKSHE~T
Coordina.ting Agency: Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
(TCRPC)
Participa~ting Sntities:
Palm Beach County (including municipalities)
Martin County (including municipalities)
St. Lucie County (including municipalities)
Indian River County (including municipalities)
Existing Issues or Problems:
- Developments of Regional Impact - Environmental
- Intergovernmental Coordination Review - Comprehensive Plans
gffected Comprehensive Plan. Element(s): All Elements
$Ylsting Method of Coordination:
As a participant with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council, two County Commissioners sit as voting members of the
Council. Among the duties the Council is charged with are the
primary review of all Developments of Regional Impact and the
review and monitoring of all local government comprehensive plans
for consistency with the goals, objectives, and polices of the
Regional Comprehensive Plan. The Council also provides mediation
services between units of local government when necessary.
The Port and Airport Authority will establish a task force to
deal with land use compatibility issues should there be an
expansion of the function, operation and geographic area of the
airport. This task force will include representatives of St.
Lucie Village, the City of Ft. Pierce, St. Lucie County, the Port
and Airport Authority, the Florida Department of Transportation,
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, and the Federal
Aviation Administration.
Nature of Relationshi}~ (i. e. ~uthority):
The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council was created in 1976
pursuant to Chapter 186, Florida Statute. Membership on the
Council is as stipulated in this Chapter and currently includes
one additional representative from St. Lucie County other than
the two County Commissioners.
January 9, 1990 10 - 38 Intergovernmental
Office with Priffiary Responsibility:
Department of Community Development.
Effectiveness of Coordination i~echanisms:
The existing level of coordination has been determined to meet
current needs.
Deficiencies and Needs:
None noteworthy.
Additional Coordinating Sntities:
Al1 municipalities in the above mentioned counties.
Recommendations:
St. Lucie County should maintain an active role in the Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council, taking full advantage of the
forum it provides for the exchange of information in the
resolution of issues of regional concern.
Policy References: 10. 1. 1. 5; 10. 1. 1. 6; 10. 1. 2. 3; 10. 1. 3. 2;
10. 1. 4. 2; 10. 1. 4. 3.
January 9, 1990 10 - 39 Intergovernmental
~ALYSI S Ta70RK~HERT
Coordina.ting Agency: Treasure Coast Council of Governments
Participating Entities:
St. Lucie County (including cities)
Martin County (including cities)
Indian River County (including cities )
Okeechobee County (including cities)
Ezisting Issues or Problems:
- Transportation - Solid waste/Infrastructure
- Land Use - Economic Development
Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): All Elements
$~.isting lyiethod of Coordination:
Established pursuant to Chapter 163.02, Florida Statutes, this
Council provides a forum for the expression and review of issues
that are of a more local concern than would otherwise be reviewed
at the Regi onal Pl anni ng C~ouncil 1 evel .
Nature of Relations3lip (i_ e. ~uthority):
This Council is purely an advisory body. No regulatory authority
has been empowered to this Council.
Office with Primary Responsibility:
County Administrator and County Attorney
Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms:
Limited due to the informality of the Council' s meetings ar_d
internal structure.
Deficiencies and Needs:
Limited effectiveness could be overcome through using the Council
as the coordinating entity for quad-county/quad-community
proj ects.
January 9, 1990 10 - 40 Intergovernmental
Additional Coordina.ting gntiti.es:
None
Recommendations:
The Council could be of even more benefit on a sub-regional basis
if it could take the lead in establishing and maintaining regular
and standard lines of communication between local governments.
Policy References: 10. 1. l. 5; 10. 1. 1. 6.
January 9, 1990 10 - 41 Intergovernmental
~LYSIS WOR~SH~$T
Coordinating Agency: South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)
Participating Entities: (Local Only)
St. Lucie County
City of Ft. Pierce
City of Port St. Lucie
St. Lucie Village
E~.sting Issues or Problems:
- Drainage and Stormwater Management Permitting
- Implementation of SWIM Bill (and its effect on the Indian River
Lagoon/St. Lucie River estuary network)
- Water Quality/Quantity
- Wetland/Upland Protection (including inland isolated wetlands)
Affected Comprehensive Plan $lement{s):
Infrastructure Future Land Use
Port and Aviation Conservation
Capital Improvements Coastal Management
Recreation and Open Space Traffic Circulation
Ex.i.sting I~Iethod of Coorciination:
Local Government Assistance Program
- Data Documentation Manual
- Liaison by staff
- Permitting through District
Nature of Rel ati ons hip { i_ e_ Authority
- Participates in the Review of all Developments of Regional
Impact
- Reviews/permits stormwater management facilities for any
development greater than 10 acres
Office with Primary Responsibility:
Department of Community Development and Department of Public
Works
January 9, 1990 10 - 42 Intergovernmental
Effectiveness of Coordina~ti.oxi Mechanisms:
Coordination/communication between the County and SFWMD has been
greatly improved since the District has provided a full-time
liaison.
Deficiencies and Needs:
Existing methods of coordination are found to be sufficient.
Additional Coordinatinq Entities:
ACOE and DER - jurisdictional wetlands
Recommendations:
Existing methods of coordination have been determined to be
sufficient.
Policy References: 10. 1. 1. 3; 10. 1. 1. 4; 10. 1. 1. 6; 10. 1. 1. 7;
10. 1. 3. 2; 10. 1. 4. 1.
January 9, 1990 10 - 43 Intergovernmental
ANAT•~SI S WOi~
i~ET
Coordinating Agency: U.S. Soil Conservation Service
Participating Enicities:
St. Lucie County
Soil Conservation Service
Ezisting Issues or Problems:
- Soil Stabilization
- Agricultural Best Management Practices
- Protection/Erosion Control of St. Lucie River Shoreline
Affected Coffiprehensive Plan $lement(s);
Infrastructure Coastal Management
Conservation Future Land Use
$xi s ti ng i~ethod of Coordi nati on:
The Soil Conservation Service is a federal entity associated with
the Department of Agriculture. Coordination with the County is
i nf ormal and i nf requent. '
Nature of Rel ati ons hi.p ( i. e. Authority
The existing relationship is adequate.
Office with Primary Responsibility
Department of Community Development and Agricultural Extension
Services
$ffectiveness of Coorc~ination 2itechanisms:
Existing methods of coordination are found to be sufficient.
Deficiencies and Needs:
No deficiencies are notad at present.
January 9, 1990 10 - 44 Intergovernmentai
Additional Coordinating $ntities:
SFWMD, Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, DER, Drainage
Districts and DNR
Recommendations:
Existing levels of coordination have been found to be sufficient
to meet current needs.
Policy References: 10. 1. 1. 3; 10. 1. 1. 4; 10. l. 1. 6; 10. 1. 1. 7.
January 9, 1990 10 - 45 Intergovernmental
~N~LYSI u WORKS~I}3ST
Coordinating Agency: Florida Department of Health
Reha~ilitative Services (HRS)
Participating Entities:
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
I~i s ti ng I s s ues or Probl ems :
- Hazardous Waste - Social Service Issues
- Groundwater Contamination - Septic Permits
- Wellfield Protection
Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s):
Infrastructure Future Land Use
Conservation Housing
Ezisting Method. of Coordination:
Very informal coordination exists between HRS and St. Lucie
County. What coordination does take place is primarily between
the County Department of Community Development, and the HRS
Environmental Health Unit.
Nature of Rel ati ons hip ( i_ e. Authori ty
This is an advisory relationship.
Office with Primary Responsibility:
Department of Community Development
Effectiveness of Coordination Mechani.sms:
Present coordination efforts have been determined to be
sufficient at the pressnt time.
Deficiencies and Needs:
No clear channels of communication exist between St. Lucie County
and HRS.
January 9, 1990 10 - 46 Intergovarnmental
Additional Coordinating $ntities:
DER
Recoffimendati ons :
A cooperative education program needs to be undertaken. This
should focus on informing the public about household hazardous
wastes, proper disposal methods and less environmentally harmful
substitutes for these products. In addition, the County should
develop methods of coordination for review and comment on social
issues requiring special permitting from the Department.
Policy References: 10. 1. 1. 3; 10. 1. 1. 4; 10. 1. 1. 6; 10. 1. 1. 7.
January 9, 1990 10 - 47 Intergovernmental
~Lysx s T~oRxSxB$T
Coordinating Agency Florid.a Game and Freshwater Fish Commission
Participating $ntities
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission
Eai. s ti ng I s s ues or Probl ems
Protection of Endangered Species
Affected Comprehensive Plan Slement(s)
Coastal Management Port and Aviation
Conservation Future Land Use
Ezi.sting I~ethod of Coordination:
Infrequent, informal staff communications for the purpose of
exchanging information.
Nature o~ Relationship (i. e_ Authority):
_ The Game and Freshwater Fish Commission conducts a periodic
survey to determine endangered or threatened species. However,
the County is not actively involved in this.
Office with Primary Responsibility:
Department of Community Development
Effectiveness of Coordination 2iechanisms:
The existing methods of coordination are found to be sufficient
in meeting the present needs.
Deficiencies and Needs:
No deficiencies are presently found in the metnods of
coordi nati on.
January 9, 1990 10 - 48 Intergovernmental
Additional Coordinating Entities:
DER and US Fish & Wildlife
Recommendations:
Existing levels of coordination have been determined sufficient
to meet present needs.
Policg References: 10. 1. 1. 3; 10. l. 1. 4; 10. 1. 1. 6; 10. 1. 1. 7.
January 9, 1990 10 - 49 Intergovernmental
ANALYSI S WOlaRSHEBT
Coordinating ggency: Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation (DER)
Participating Entities:
St. Luci2 County Board of County Commissioners
Department of Environmental Regulation
i3xisting Issues or Problems:
- Mangrove Protection - Dredge & Fill
- Solid Waste Disposal - Hazardous Waste
- Sewage Disposal - Potable & Nonpotable Water
- Wellfield Protection
- Wetlands Encroachments {Tidal & Non-tidal)
- Water Quality (Tidal & Non-tidal)
Affected Comprehensive Plan Eleffient(s):
Coastal Management Infrastructure
Future Land Use Conservation
Ports and Aviation
Existing i~iethod of Coordination:
Coordination between DER and St. Lucie County is generally
informal, limited to administrative contacts.
Nature of Relationship (i. e. Authority};
This is an advisory relationship, assisting in the implementation
of State and local regulations.
Office with Primary Responsibility:
Department of Community Development and Department of Public
Works
Sffectiveness of Coordination Hechanisms:
Existing methods of coordination are found to be generally
sufficient in meeting present needs.
January 9, 1990 10 - 50 Intergovernmental
Deficiencies and Needs:
None noted.
Additional Coordi.na.ting $ntities:
Army Corps of Engineers, U. S. Wildlife Service, EPA, SFWMD, HRS,
Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority, Florida Game and Freshwater Fish
Commission and DNR
Recommendations:
A cooperative education and public relations program informing
the public of environmental regulations and programs would be
beneficial. In addition, a local government liaison, such as
provided by SFWMD, might be beneficial in reducing unnecessary
delays.
Policy References: 10. 1. 1. 3; 10. 1. 1. 4; 10. 1. 1. 6; 10. 1. 1. 7;
10. 1. 4. 1.
January 9, 1990 10 - 51 Intergovernmental
gNALYSI S i~ORRSHSBT
Coordinating Agency: Florida Department of Natural Resources
(DNR)
Participating Sntities:
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
Department of Natural Resources
Sxisting Issues or Problems:
- Beach Access - Spoil Islands
- Savannas Preserve - Parks & Recreational Land
- Beach Renourishment - Aquatic Preserves
- Indian River Lagoon - Endangered/Threatened Species
- Port Dredging - Mosquito Impoundments (3)
- Coastal Spills
~ffected Comprehensive Plan Blement(s):
Coastal Management Ports and Aviation
Conservation Future Land Use
Recreation and Open Space
Rxi sting ~iethod of Coordination:
Informal coordination on the staff level exists with the local
office for the purpose of exchanging information.
Nature of Relationship (i. e_ Authority):
DNR has permitting/protection responsibility for the areas of the
I ndi an River Lagoon, St. Luci e River, Savannas State Pres erve,
coastal zone development, beach restoration and upland habitat
areas throughout the County.
Office with Primary Responsibility:
Department of Community Development
Effectiveness of Coordination ~Iechanisms:
Existing methods of coordination are found to be generally
sufficient in meeting present needs.
January 9, 1990 10 - 52 Intergovernmental
Deficiencies and Needs:
None noted.
Additional C~~rdinating gntities:
Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, Marine Resource Council, U. S.
Wildlife Service, Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission and
DER
Recommendations:
To enhance local communications DNR should establish a 1oca1
government liaison using the program piloted by SFWMD as an
example.
Policy References: 10. 1. 1. 3; 10. 1. 1. 4; 10. 1. 1. 6; 10. 1. 1. 7;
10. 1. 4. l.
January 9, 1990 10 - 53 Intergovernmental
A~AT•YSIS WORRSHEET
Coordinating ~gency: Florida Department of Community Affairs
(DCA)
Participating Entities:
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
Department of Community Affairs
Egi.sti_ng Issues or Problems:
- Update of Comprehensive Plan
- Areas of Critical State Concerns
- Developments of Regional Impact
- Community Development
Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): All Elements
$zisting ltiethod of Coordination:
The County is required to coordinate its Comprehensive Plan,
development regulations, and DRI's with DCA.
Nature of Relationship (i. e_ 1~uthority):
DCA has review and approval authority over the County's
Comprehensive Plan and DRI' s. The DCA' s attention to local
affairs seems to be lacking.
Office with Primary Responsibility:
Department of Community Development
Sffectiveness of Coordination ~Iechanisffis:
Methods of coordination between the County and DCA need
improvement. One problem is the physical distance between the
County and Tallahassee which can cause a misunderstanding of
local needs and issues.
Deficiencies and Needs:
There is need for greater understanding of local concerns. DCA
needs to be more responsive to the local government structure and
issues.
January 9, 1990 10 - 54 Intergovernmental
~dditional Coordinating Entities:
TCRPC and all adjacent municipalities and counties
Recommendations:
DCA should establish a local government liaison using the program
piloted by SFWMD as an example.
Policy References: 10. 1. 1. 3; 10. 1. 1. 4; 10. 1. 1. 6; 10. 1. 1. 7.
January 9, 1990 10 - 55 Intergovernmer_tal
AN~LYSIS ~ORRSHg$T
Coordinating ~gency: Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
Participating Sntities:
St. Lucie County Board of County Comm~ssioners
Department of Transportation
g~;sting Issues or Problems:
- Improvement of the Transportation Network
- High Speed Rail - Airport Expansion
- Bureau of Aviation - Port Expansion
Affected Comprehensive Plan Blement(s):
Port and Aviation Mass Transit
Future Land Use Capital Improvements
Traffic Circulation
Ezi s ti ng Aiethod of Coordi nati on:
FDOT maintains staff liaison:
- Through MPO and Department of Community Development for
transportation planning;
- Through Public Works Department for construction and design;
- Through the St. Lucie Port and Airport Authority for issues
pertaining to them.
The Port and Airport Authority will establish a task force to,
deal with land use compatibility issues should there be an
expansion of the function, operation and geographic area of the
airport. This task force will include representatives of St.
Lucie Village, the City of Ft. Pierce, St. Lucie County, the Port
and Airport Authority, the Florida Department of Transportation,
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, and the Federal
Aviation Administration.
Nature of Relationship (i. e_ Authority):
FDOT has authority over MPO and is responsible for the primary
transportation facilities in the County.
Office with Primary Responsibility:
Department of Community Dev2lopmer_t, Department of Public ''~Torks
and St. Luci e biPO
January 9, 1990 10 - 56 Intergovernmental
Effectiveness of Coordination Mechani.sms:
Coordination is found to be lacking at times due to FDOT
unresponsiveness to local issues. Coordination is hampered by
the lack of a local FDOT planning office.
Deficiencies and Needs:
The allocation of funds for improvements and the timing of
construction is unresponsive to local needs. There is a need for
a local FDOT planning office.
Ac~ditional Coor.dinating Entities:
MPO
Recommendations:
Improved communication and open a local FDOT planning office.
Policy References: 10. 1. 1. 3; 10. 1. 1. 4; 10. 1. 1. 6; 10. 1. 1. 7;
10. 1. 1. 9; 10. 1. 4. 3.
January 9, 1990 10 - 57 Intergovernmental
~I.YSI S AORRS~iELT
Coorciinating ggency: Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority (FPUA)
Participating Entities:
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
City of Ft. Pierce
Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority
B~isting Issues or Problems:
- Expansion of Water and Sewer System
Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s):
Future Land Use
Infrastructure
g~; s ti ng l~ethod of Coordi nati on:
Informal coordination exists between FPUA and St. Lucie County.
Existing coordination is primarily between the County Public
Works Department and FPUA prior to County construction projects.
Nature of Relationship (i. e_ ~uthority):
No formal relationship exists between the two entities. Review
and permitting procedures handled on project by project basis.
Office with Primary Responsibility:
Department of Public ~Aorks
13ffectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms:
Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at the present
time.
Deficiencies and I~deeds:
No serious deficiencies are found at the present in coordination
between St. Luc~ e County and FPUA.
January 9, 1990 10 - 58 Intergovernmental
Additional Coordinating Entities:
City of Ft. Pierce
Recommendations:
Existing levels of coordination have besn found to be sufficient.
However, consideration needs to be given to the inclusion of the
FPUA in the County's Development Review Committee in order to
minimize any long term utility/development conflicts.
Policy References: 10. 1. 1. 3; 10. 1. 1. 4; 10. 1. 3. 2.
January 9, 1990 10 - 59 Intergovernmental
ANgLYSIS AORRSHEET
Coordina.ting Agenc~: Bureau of Economic and Business Research
(BEBR), University of Florida, Population
Program
Participating l3ntities:
St. Lucie County Board Of County Commissioners
Bureau of Business & Economic Research
Bzisting Issues or Problems:
- Population Growth and Projection
- Land Use
Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s): All Elements
I3xisting Aiethod of Coordin.ation:
The County receives publications from BEBR on population
proj ections.
Nature of Relationship (i. e. Authority):
BEBR publishes official state population figures for Florida.
St. Lucie County has been approved by the DCA to use the high
population figures in the Comprehensive Plan Update.
Office with Primary Responsibility:
Department of Community Development
Effectiveness of Coordination I?sechanisms:
Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at the present
time.
Deficiencies and Needs:
No deficiencies are found at the present in coordination between
St. Lucie County and BEBR.
January 9, 1990 10 - 60 Intergovernmental
Additional Coordinating $ntities:
State of Florida
Recommendations:
Existing coordination is found to be sufficient.
Policy References: No Specific Policy References
January 9, 1990 10 - 61 Intergovernmental
AN~LYSI S ~ORRSII33ET
Coordinating Agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Participating Entities:
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
Environmental Protection Agency
Egi.sting Issues or Problems:
- Land Us e
- Environmental
Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s):
Future Land Use Coastal Management
Conservation Port and Aviation
. Exi.sting l~ethod of Coordination:
The County complies with all the state environmental regulations
which in turn comply with all the federal regulations.
Nature of Relationship (i_ e. Authority):
Regulatory as charged by the Congress of the United States.
Office raith Primary Responsibility:
Department of Community Development
Effectiveness of Coordination ~iechani.sms:
Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at the present
time.
Deficiencies and Needs:
No deficiencies are found at the present time in the indirect
coordination between St. Lucie County and EPA.
Additional Coordinating Entities:
HRS and DER
January 9, 1990 10 - 62 Intergovernmental
Recommendations:
Existing methods of coordination have been found to meet current
needs. Expand as needed.
Policy References: 10. 1. 1. 3; 10. 1. 1. 4; 10. 1. 1. 6; 10. 1. 1. 7.
January 9, 1990 10 - 63 Intergovernmental
AN~LYSI S bTORRSHEET
Coordinating ~gency: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)
Participating Bntities:
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
US Army Corp of Engineers
Rxi sting Issues or Problems:
- Environmental
Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s):
Infrastructure Coastal Management
Conservation Port and Aviation
E~isting Method of Coordination:
Informal coordination exists between the ACOE and St. Lucie
County. Existing coordination is primarily between the
Department of Community Development and the ACOE concerning
dredge/fill and dock permits.
Nature o f Rel ati ons hip ( i_ e. Authori ty )
Regulatory as charged by the Congress of the United States.
Office with Primary Responsibility:
Department of Community Development
Effectiveness of Coordination Aiechanisms:
Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at the present
time.
Deficiencies and Needs:
No deficiencies are found at the present in coordination between
St. Lucie County and USACOE.
January 9, 1990 10 - 64 Intergovernmental
Additional Coordinating Entities:
DER, DNR, EPA and SFWMD
Recommendations:
Existing coordi nation is found to be. sufficient.
Policy References: 10. 1. 1. 3; 10. 1. 1. 4; 10. 1. 1. 6; 10. 1. 1. 7;
10. 1. 4. 1.
January 9, 1990 10 - 65 Intergovernmental
ANALYSI S T~'~RRSHEET
Coordinating Agency_ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Participating Entities:
St. Lucie Metropolitan Planning Organization
Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Ezi. s ti ng I s s ues or Probl ems :
- Transportation
Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s):
Traffic Circulation
Mass Transit
$xi.sting Method of Coordina.tion:
Administrative/regulatory, through the Metropolitan Planning
Organization.
i~Iature of Relationship (i. e. Authority):
This is a regulatory relationship.
Office with Primary Responsibility:
Department of Community Development and MPO
Effectiveness of Coordination 1~Iechanisms=
Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at the present
time.
Deficiencies and Needs:
None noted.
Additional Coordinating Entities:
FDOT, UMTA and St. Lucie County
January 9, 1990 10 - 66 Intergovernmental
Recommendations:
Maintain existing levels of contact.
Policy References: 10. 1. 1. 3; 10. 1. 1. 4; 10. 1. 1. 6.
January 9, 1990 10 - 67 Intergovernmental
~YSZ s TaiORKSHEST
Coorriinating ggency: Urban Mass Transportation Administration
(UMTA1
Participating Entities:
St. Lucie Metropolitan Planning Organization
Urban Mass Transportation Administration
Existing Issues or Proble~s:
- Transportation Disadvantaged - Transportation
- Alternate Transportation Modes
Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s):
Traffic Circulation
Mass Transit
Sxisting i=Iethod of Coordination:
Administrative/regulatory, through the Metropolitan Planning
Organi z ati on.
Nature of Relationship {i. e. Authority):
This is an advisory/regulatory relationship.
Office with Primary Responsibility:
Department of Community Development and MPO
Effectiveness of Coordination 1?iechanisms:
Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at the present
time.
Deficiencies and Needs:
None noted.
Addi ti onal Coordinati ng Entiti es :
FDOT, FHWA, TCRPC and St. Lucie County
January 9, 1990 10 - 68 Intergovernmental
Recommendations:
Maintain existing levels of contact.
Policy References: 10. 1. l. 3; 10. 1. 1. 4; 10. l. 1. 6.
January 9, 1990 10 - b9 Intergovernmental
~LYSIS WORKSHEET
Coordinating Agency: South~rn Bell Telephone
Participating Entities:
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
Southern Bell Telephone
Egisting Issues or Proble~s:
- Population Growth
- Providing Services
Affected Comprehensive Pla.n $lement(s):
Future Land Use Infrastructure
Traffic Circulation
Ezisting Method of Coordination:
Very informal coordination exits between Southern Bell and St.
Lucie County. Existing contacts are primarily with the Public
Works Department concerning County construction projects and
telephone line locations.
Nature of Relationship (i. e. Authority):
Thi s i s an i nf ormal rel ati ons hip.
Office with Primary Responsibility:
Department of Public Works
$ffectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms:
Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at the present
time.
Deficiencies and Needs:
No deficiencies are found at the present time in coordination
between St. Lucie County and Southern Bell.
January 9, 1990 10 - 70 Intergovernmental
Additional Coordinating Entities:
None
Recommendations:
Existing coordination is found to be sufficient.
Policy References: 10. l. 1. 3; 10. 1. 1. 4; 10. 1. 1. 7; 10. 1. 3. 2.
January 9, 1990 10 - 71 Intergovernmental
AN~LYSIS WORRSHEBT
Coordinating Agency: Florida Power and Light (FP&L)
Participating Entities:
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
Florida Power & Light
Rzisting Zssues or Problems:
- Population Growth
- Providing Services
Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s):
Future Land Use Infrastructure
Traffic Circulation
Egi.sting ~ethod of Coordination_
Informal coordination exits between FP&L and St. Lucie County.
Existing points of contact are found between the Departments of
Public Works and Community Development.
Nature of Relationship (i_ e. ~uthority):
This is an informal relationship.
Office with Primary Responsibility:
Department of Community Development and Department of Public
Works
$ffectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms:
Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at the present
ti me.
Deficiencies and Needs:
No deficiencies are found at the present time in coordination
between St. Lucie County and FP&L.
January 9, 1990 10 - 72 Intergovernmental
Additional Coordinating Entitie~:
None
Recommendations:
Existing coordination is found to be sufficient.
Policy References: 10. 1. 1. 3; 10. 1. 1. 4; 10. 1. l. 7; 10. l. 3. 2.
January 9, 1990 10 - 73 Intergovernmental
~ysls ~oRxsxE$T
Coordina.ting Agency: St. Lucie County Water and Sewer Authority
(SLCW&SA) -
Participating Bntities:
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
St. Lucie County Water and Sewer Authority
Ezisting Issues or Problems:
- Population Growth - Regulation of Utility
- Providing Services Companies
Affected Comprehensive Plan Slement(s):
Infrastructure
Future Land Use
$zisting Method of Coordination:
The Water and Sewer Authority is a body charged with reviewing
and approving the rates that may be charged by non-public utility
operations. The Board of County Commissioners acts as an appeal
Board to the authority in matters that need further review.
Nature of Rel ati onship { i. e. Authority
The authority is a semi-autonomous body, with appointment to it
made by the Board of County Commissioners.
Office with Pri~aary Responsibility:
County Admini.strator and County Attorney
$ffectiveness of Coordina.tion Mechanisms:
Existing methods of coordination are found to be sufficient.
Deficiencies and Needs:
None.
January 9, 1990 10 - 74 Intergovernmental
Additional Coordina.ting $ntities:
HRS and DER
Recommendations:
Existing coordination is found to be sufficient.
Policy References: No Specific Policy References
January 9, 1990 10 - 75 Intergovernmental
AN~LYSIS ~ORRSAEgT
Coordinating Agency: St. Lucie County Port and Airport Authority
Participating Entities:
St. Lucie County Port and Airport Authority
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
Exi.sti ng I s sues or Problems :
- Airport Expansion
- Port Expansion
Affected Coffiprehensive Plan Element(s):
Future Land use Coastal Management
Infrastructure Conservation
Port and Aviation
Ezisting ~ethod of Coordination:
r
The five County Commissioners sit as the Port and Airport
- Authority.
. The Port and Airport Authority will establish a task force to
deal with land use compatibility issues should there be an
expansion of the function, operation and geographic area of the
airport. This task force will include representatives of St.
Lucie Village, the City of Ft. Pierce, St. Lucie County, the Port
and Airport Authority, the Florida Department of Transportation,
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, and the Federal
Aviation Administration.
Nature of Relationship (i. e_ Authority):
The Port and Airport Authority is a regulatory authority.
Office ~rith Primary Responsibility:
Board of County Commissioners
Effectiveness of Coordination 24echanisms:
Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at the present
time.
January 9, 1990 10 - 76 Intergovernmental
Deficiencies and Needs:
No deficiencies are found at the present time.
~dditional Coordinating Bntities:
FDOT, FAA, DCA, U. S. Customs, USACOE, DER and Coast Guard
Recommendations:
Existing coordination is found to be sufficient.
Policy References= 10. 1. 4. 3.
January 9, 1990 10 - 77 Intergovernmental
ANALYSI S TaIORRSHEET
Coordinating Agency: Ft. Pierce Farms Water Control District
(FP Farms WCD)
Participating Entities:
Ft. Pierce Farms Water Control District
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
Sgisting Issues or Problems:
- Drainage - Water Conservation
- Land Use - Irrigation ~
Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s):
Future Land Use Conservation
Infrastructure
Egi s ti ng i~ethod of Coordi nati on:
Most activities are coordinated through the Department of Public
Works . ~
Nature of Relationship (i. e. Authority):
The Ft. Pierce Farms Water Control District is a taxing body that
is concerned with drainage, conservation of water and control of
water levels to provide water for irrigation of lands within the
District. The District is primarily an agricultural purpose
district that, because of development activities, is converting
into a more urban drainage district.
Office with Primary Responsibility:
Department of Public Works
gffectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms:
Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at the present
time.
Deficiencies and Needs:
No daficiencies are noted at the present time.
January 9, 1990 10 - 78 Intergovernmental
Additional Coordinating Entities:
SFWMD and North St. Lucie River Water Control District
Recommendations=
Existing coordination is found to be sufficient.
Policy References: 10. 1. 4. 1.
January 9, 1990 10 - 79 Intergovernmental
~N~LYSI S F~10RRSHER.T
Coordinating ~gency_ North St. Lucie River Water Control District
(NSLRWCD)
Participating $ntities:
North St. Lucie River Water Control District
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
Ezi. s ti ng I s s ues or Probl ems :
- Drainage - Water Conservation
- Land Use - Irrigation
Affected Coffiprehensive Plan. $leffient(s):
Future Land Use Conservation
I nf ras tructure
Eg.isting ~ethod of Coorriination:
Most activities are coordinated through the Department of Public
Works .
Nature of Rel ati onship ( i. e. Authority
The North St. Lucie River Water Management District is a taxing
t~ body that is concerned with drainage, conservation of water and
control of water levels to provide water for irrigation of lands
within the District. The District is primarily an agricultural
purpose district that, because of development activities, is
converting into a more urban drainage district.
Office with Primary Responsibility:
Department of Public Works
Effectiveness of Coordination Aiechani.sms:
Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at the present
time.
Deficiencies and Needs=
No deficiencies are noted at the present time.
January 9, 1990 10 - 80 Intergovernmental
Additional Coordina.ting Entities:
SFWMD and Ft. Pierce Farms Water Control District
Recommendations:
Existing coordination is found to be sufficient.
Policy References: 10. 1. 4. 1.
January 9, 1990 10 - 81 Intergovernmen~al
1~AI~LYSI S WORRSHEET
Coordinating ~gency_ General Davelopment Utilities (GDU)
Participati.ng Entities:
General Development Utilities
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
City of Port St. Lucie
Sgisting Issues or Problems:
- Expansion of Water and Sewer System
Affected Comprehensive Plan E3ement(s):
Future Land Use
I nf ras tructure
gx;sting Method of Coordination:
Informal coordination exists between GDU and St. Lucie County.
Existing coordination is primarily between the County Public
Works Department and GDU prior to County construction projects.
Nature of Rel ati ons hip ( i. e. Authority
No formal relationship exists between the two entities. Review
and permitting procedures handled on project by project basis.
Office with Primary Responsibility_
Department of Public Works
Effectiveness of Coordination Alechanisms:
Coordination efforts are found to be sufficient at the present
time.
Deficiencies and Needs:
No serious deficiencies are found at the present in coordination
between St. Lucie County and GDU.
January 9, 1990 10 - 82 Intergovernmental
Additional Coordinating Entities:
St. Lucie County Water & Sewer Authority
Recommendations:
Existing levels of coordination have been found to be suffici.ent.
However, consideration need be given to the inclusion of the GDU.
in the County's Development Review Committee in order to minimize
any long term utility/development conflicts
Policy Iteferences: 10. l. 1. 3; 10. 1. 1. 4; 10. 1. 1. 7; 10. 1. 3. 2.
January 9, 1990 10 - 83 Intergovernmental
AD~LYSIS ~ORRSHE$T
Coordinating ~gency: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Participating $ntities:
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
Port and Airport Authority
$xisti.ng Issues or Problems:
Airport Operations
~fected Comprehensive Plan Element(s):
Port and Aviation
Ezisting Piethod of Coordination.
Formal. coordination exists between the FAA and the Port and
~ Airport Authority.
. The Port and Airport Authority will establish a task force to
deal with land use compatibility issues should there be an
expansion of the function, operation and geographic area of the
airport. This task force will include representatives of St.
Lucie Village, the City of Ft. Pierce, St. Lucie County, the Port
and Airport Authority, the Florida Department of Transportation,
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, and the Federal
Avi ati on Admi ni s trati on.
Nature of Relationship (i. e. ~uthority):
This is a formal relationship with the FAA supervising airport
operations.
Office with Primary Responsibility:
Ai rport
Effectiveness of Coordination ~iechani.sms:
Existing methods of coordination are found to be sufficient.
January 9, 1990 10 - 84 Intergovernmental
Deficiencies and Needs:
None noted.
Additional Coordinating S~ntities=
FDOT
Recomrnendations:
Existing coordination is found to be sufficient.
Policy References: 10. 1. 4. 3.
January 9, 1990 10 - 85 Intergovernmental
ANALYSIS WORRSHEET
Coordinating Agency: Florida Department of State, Division of
Historical Resources
Participating $ntities:
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources
Existing Issues or Problems:
- Protection of Historical Resources
Affected Comprehensive Plan Lleffient(s~:
Future Land Use Conservation
Housing
Ezisting Method of Coordination:
The Division of Historical Resources provides planning and
technical assistance, assists local communities with their
historic preservation efforts by helping them identify, evaluate
and maintain or mitigate damage to significant historical
resources. Projects with any state or federal involvement (CDBG,
airports, DRI' s, etc. ) must be submitted for review to determine
the effects the projects may have on significant historical
resources.
Nature of Relationship (i_ e_ ~uthority):
This is an advisory relationship.
Office with Primary Responsibility:
Department of Community Development
gffectiveness of Coordination ~echanis~s:
Existing methods of coordination are found to be generally
sufficient in meeting present needs.
Deficiencies and Needs:
None noted.
January 9, 1990 10 - 86 Intergovernmental
Additional Coordinating 8ntities:
None.
Recommendations:
Existing coordination is found to be sufficient.
Policy Reference: 10. 1. 1. 3; 10. 1. 1. 4; 10. 1. 1. 6; 10. l. 1. 7.
January 9, 1990 10 - 87 Intergovernmental
~YSZS WORKSHEgT
Coordina.ting Agency: Florida Division of Forestry, Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services
Participating Entities:
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
Fla. Div.of Forestry, Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Ezi.s ting I s sues or Probl ems :
Conservatien Land Use
Wildland Fire Protection
Affected Comprehensive Plan Element(s):
Future Land Use Coastal Management
Conservation Recreation & Open Space
Exi s ti ng idlethod of Coordi nati on_
St. Lucie County contracts annually with the Florida Division of
Forestry, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for the
assistance of a professional urban forester as well as wildland
fire protection. A small portion of the urban forester's salary
is paid by the cities of Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie and St.
Lucie County. The County Agriculture Extension office provides
office space for the urban forester.
Nature of Relationship (i_ e_ ~uthority):
This is an advisory relationship. The urban forester is
available to assist all residents of St. Lucie County.
Office with Priffiary Responsibility:
Department of Community Development
Sffectiveness of Coordina.tion ~echanisms:
Existing methods of coordination are found to be sufficient in
meeting present needs.
January 9, 1990 10 - 88 Intergovernmental
Deficiencies and Needs:
None noted.
Additional Coordinating Sntities:
City of Ft. Pierce and the City of Port St. Lucie
Recommendations:
Existing coordination is found to be sufficient.
Policy Reference: 10. 1. 1. 4; 10. 1. 1. 6; 10. 1. 1. 7.
January 9, 1990 10 - 89 Intergovernmental