HomeMy WebLinkAboutSection 11 - Capital Improvements ST. LUCIE COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT
Prepared by:
St. Lucie County
Board of County Commissioners
St. Lucie County
Department of Community Development
January 9, 1990 Capital ImprovemenLs
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 1
OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 2
ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL FACILITY NEEDS . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 6
FISCAL ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 16
Financial History and Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . Z1 - 16
Revenue Sources of St. Lucie County . . . . . . . . . 11 - 17
Millage Rates, Property Values and Projections
Through Tax Year 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 21
Major Revenue Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 23
Gas Tax and Impact Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 26
Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 29
Projection of Debt Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 33
Major Outstanding Debts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 35
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 38
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 71
Schedule of Capital Improvements, Including
General Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 71
Costs and Revenues by Type of Public Facility 11 - 86
APPENDICES
A, Concurrency Implementation
B, Public Facilities Requirements: Non-Mandatory Facilities
C, Sanitary Landfill Enterprise Fund
D, Capital Projects Operating Cost Impact
E, St. Lucie County School Board Capital Improvement
Program, Fiscal Year 1989-90 To 1994-95
F, Revenue Forecasts
i
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 St. Lucie County Millage Rates, 1982 to 1988 11 - 19
2 Comparison of Major Sources of Intergovernmental
Revenues FY ' 89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 19
3 St. Lucie County Sources of Revenue 11 - 19
4 St. Lucie County Major Sources of Revenue
for General Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 24
5 St. Lucie County Sources of Revenue for Bond
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 27
6 General Government Expenses . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 31
7 St. Lucie County: Public Safety, Law
Enforcement, Corrections . . . . . . . . . 11 - 31
8 St. Lucie County Comparison Expenditures 11 - 31
9 St. Lucie County Distribution of Current Debt
~ as of 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 36
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Summary of Repair/Replacement, Existing Deficiency
and Future Need Costs, by Type of Public
Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 7
2 Revenues for St. Lucie County Actual 1980 Through
1988 Estimates 1989 Through 2015 11 - 20
3 St. Lucie County Millage Rates, Values and
Projections Through 2014 . . . . . . . . . 11 - 22
4 St. Lucie County Non-Ad Valorem Revenue History
and Projection Through 2015 . . . . . . . . 11 - 25
5 Road Tax Collections for St. Lucie County 1980
Through 1988 with Projections Through
2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 28
6 Expenditures for St. Lucie County Actual 1980
Through 1988 Estimates 1989 Through 2015. . 11 - 32
7 Analysis of Funds Available for St. Lucie County
Operations and Debt Service . . . . . . . . 11 - 34
$ Current Major Debts of St. Lucie County Board
of County Commissioners . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 37
ii
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of the St.
Lucie County Comprehensive Plan is to identify the need and
program the provision of facilities which are required to
maintain the quality of life o~ its citizens. This is done
through ensuring the availability of the facilities at the time
they are needed. The result of the process followed in
developing the CIE is a demonstration that a reasonable,
measurable, affordable plan to reduce, eliminate, or prevent
facility deficiencies within a specified time has been developed.
For purposes of this element, a capital improvement is a
substantial facility (land, building or major equipment) that
costs at least $25,000, which may be paid for or contracted for
in phases, and which is required to meet adopted level of service
standards. The Capital Improvements Element was developed to
fulfill the requirements of Rule 9J-5.016 of the Florida Admini-
strative Code.
The CIE summarizes the capital facilities identified in other
Comprehensive Plan elements as needed to correct existing
deficiencies in meeting level of service standards while
providing for future needs. Deficiencies were determined by
comparing the current facilities to a proposed level of service
based on demand, such as a certain number of acres of parks per
1,Q00 persons. In a case such as this, provision of an
insufficient number of acres results in a deficiency. Too few
facilities in any particular functional area resulted in a
deficiency.
The CIE considers the cost of reducing, eliminating, or
preventing deficiencies as well as the ability of the County to
pay that cost. As with most communities in this time of growing
populations and shrinking dollars, the County's initial analysis
showed that demand for facilities outstripped the County's
ability to provide them. The achievement of a financially
feasible plan reguired re-examination of levels of service,
increased levels of current funding sources, identification of
new funding sources, use of cost reduction measures, and
ultimately a combination of these actions.
The sections of this element build on each other in a logical
progression and consist of:
an overview of capital needs, fiscal resources and
local government practices concerning provision of
capital improvements;
January 9, 1990 11 - 1 Capital Improvements
analysis of capital facility needs and the
County's fiscal ability to provide adequate
capital improvemer~ts, based on historic and projected
revenue and expenditure patterns;
goals, objectives, and ~olicies to guide decision-
making about cagital facilities, specific mechanisms
are provided to monitor progress and allow for periodic
corrections, and to provide for consistency among
Comprehensive Plan elements; and
an implementation strategy, including a five-year
schedule of capital improvements and an outline of how
the financing needs will be met.
OVERVIEW
Needs through 1995 were derived by several processes. First,
those Comprehensive Plan elements dealing with facilities
identified facility improvements needed to meet the demands of
both existing and future development. Second, capital projects
already planned for the County were considered needed in order to
maintain existing levels of service and to correct existing
deficiencies. Third, existing deficiencies also were identified
by comparing current inventories of various facility types to the
level of service standards proposed to be adopted. '
Future deficiencies occur when population growth triggers the
need for facilities in order to maintain level of service. An
iterative process was used to refine level of service standards,
costs, and other factors to arrive at a list of needs which the
County can afford with available revenue sources. Needs beyond
1995 will be addressed during annual reviews and updates of the
Capital Improvements Element.
The three primary areas of capital needs which were identified by
this balancing process were transportation (primarily road, port,
and airport improvements), recreation and open space (park
facilities) and solid waste needs as identified by Solid Waste
Division staff. Road transportation needs were derived from FDOT
transportation improvement programs, MPO data, and local
knowledge and were adjusted to fit funding availability. Port
and aviation needs were determined from the port master plan
prepared by Post, Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan (1989) and the
airport master plan prepared by Greiner Engineering in 1984. The
status of port and airport projects and their costs were obtained
from the Port and Airport Authority staff. Recreation and open
space needs were arrived at by comparing existing facilities to
proposed level of service standards, which also were adjusted
according to availability of funds.
However, a number of localized projects recognized as needs by
the County have been included in the Capital Improvement Program.
Additionally, several studies are planned in various functional
Januarv 9, 1990 11 - 2 Capital Improvemen~s
areas during the planning period which are expected to generate
recommendations for additional capital facilities. These needs
will be addressed in future updates ef thi.s element.
How Capital Improvement Costs Were Estimated: Preliminary costs
were developed in the areas of transportation, recreation and
open space, and solid waste, as well as for the few known
projects in the drainage sub-element. Transportation costs were
derived from local historical cost data, from FDOT unit costs,
and from cost estimates from various planning documents.
Recreation and open space costs were developed from information
supplied by the Florida Department of Natural Resources and from
recreat~on consultants active in St. Lucie County. Solid waste
disposal costs were derived from discussions with the Assistant
County Administrator - Budget, and Solid Waste Division staff
based on historical capital and operating data and known
expansion needs. Drainage costs were obtained from the Public
Works Department.
It should be noted that the County currently does not provide
sewer, water, drainage, significant mass transit, or solid waste
collection services. Therefore, needs and costs for these
functional areas are not addressed in this element except for a
few identified drainage projects. However, the County recently
has become interested in pursuing County-wide utility acquisition
and operation. Further in this element it is provided that the
County will prepare a Drainage Master Plan, a Potable Water
Master Plan, and a Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. Therefore, future
updates of the CIE will be directed toward identification of
costs and funds as part of the development of a utilities capital
program.
Port facilities were costed by using estimates available in the
port master plan, with land acquisition costs added. Aviation
improvements were valued as presented in the airport master plan.
However, port and airport project lists and costs were updated by
the Port and Airport Authority in order to make projections as
accurate as possible.
Costs for the facilities for which levels of service are optional
under Rule 9J-5 were estimated by the Assistant County
Administrator - Budget and the administering department.
List of Needs: Al1 needs fall into one of two categories. One
category reflects existing needs, or the shortfall currently
experienced in light of desired levels of service. The second
involves those further needs which are over and above the first
group to meet identified deficiencies between 1990 and 1995. The
specific list of needs is provided as the Schedule of
Improvements found in the Implementation Strategy Section.
Adequacy of Public Education and Health Systems: Both the public
education dis~rict and the health system are County-wide;
however, the County itself does not have direct fiscal
responsibility for these systems. The County has enacted an
January 9, 1990 11 - 3 Capital Improvements
Educational Facilities Impact Fee in an effort to help the school
district provide schools needed by growth. There are 22 public
schools currently, with eignt more planned which, when built,
will meet the County's projected needs through 1995. Existing
and new schools will be located in existing infrastructure
service areas or designated expansion areas. (For further
details, see Appendix D.) The St. Lucie County Public Health
Unit recently has opened a branch center in the South County, in
the Village Green Shopping Center. Discussions are underway in
regard to purchasing land for a permanent center in South County.
The funding for this project would be through HRS, in cooperation
with the County. No significant expansion of the public health
system is contemplated through 1995. Therefore, these systems
may be considered to be adequately served by appropriate
infrastructure.
Local Policies and Practices
St. Lucie County does not provide all services or have fir.ancial
responsibility for all facilities development in the County. The
following paragraphs summarize the different responsible parties.
County Policies and Practices: St. Lucie County historically has
not prepared a 5-year Schedule of Capital Improvements for all
capital needs. Transportation improvements are scheduled, but
appropriations for recreation improvements have been decided on
an annual basis according to the requests of the Parks and
Recreation Director and historically were supplemented by federal
revenue sharing funds, which are no longer available. The Port
and Airport Authority has a multi-year improvement program, but
no other major capital improvements associated with identified
deficiencies are regularly scheduled. The Board recently
approved the issuance of bond anticipation notes to fund capital
improvements for jail expansion, courts, and other public
buildings. Work is continuing on additional capital facilities
programming. An overview of the methods used by the County to
fund capital improvements is described in the section of this
element entitled "Fiscal Analysis".
The County does not currently provide sewage collection,
treatment, or disposal, nor does it provide potable water
services to its residents. These services are provided by public
utilities or private developers. St. Lucie County is currently
exploring the possibility of providing such facilities and has
proposed within this element funds to undertake County-wide
master plans for sewage collection and potable water. The County
is proposing to conduct a County-wide drainage master plan which
will define its role in providing this service. Solid waste
collection is provided by private contract haulers and disposal
facilities are provided by the County funded through user fees.
Currently, mass transit services are unavailable within the
County and there are no current plans to provide such facilities.
Historically not having developed a separate capital improvements
program, there has not been a formalized system of tying
January 9, 1990 11 - 4 Capital Improvements
identified needs to the support of efficient land development
through timing and location. This is a situation which will
undergo significant change with the adoption of this plan
including the goals, objectives and policies within this element
which provide the criteria upon which capital improvement
priorities are to be determined. The Land Use Element which
represents a portrayal of the future physical fabric of this
community in turn becomes the guide by which facility needs are
scheduled for construction. As an example, the Traffic
Circulation Element is shaped to serve the land use needs
identified in the Land Use Element and in turn provides a portion
of the overall project listing found in this element. The
resulting road pattern serves the uses of land in location and in
timing as phased in this element in a manner that puts individual
facilities in place concurrent with the uses of land which
generate the facilities need.
Existing Levels of Service: Through the process of adopting this
Comprehensive Plan, certain levels of service will be adopted by
the County. Until this time, the County has observed levels of
service provided by such agencies as FDOT and FDER.
Other Agencies' Policies and Practices: The Board of County
Commissioners serves as the ex-officio governing board of three
dependent districts: the St. Lucie County Mosquito Control
District, the St. Lucie County Port and Airport Authority and the
Erosion Control District. On October l, 1986, the Board assumed
financial oversight responsibility for the St. Lucie County
Historical Society. Only the Port and Airport Authority engages
in activities affecting location and timing of infrastructure
services and, as discussed previously, is generally funded
through State and Federal grants and user fees. Expansion or
improvement of port and airport facilities is governed by their
respective master plans and the availability of funds.
There are other public entities located within the County, for
which the County has no financial oversight responsibility. The
major entities are listed below:
- St. Lucie County District School Board (discussed
previously);
- St. Lucie County - Ft. Pierce Fire District;
- City of Ft. Pierce;
- Indian River Community College;
- City of Port St. Lucie;
- St. Lucie County Health Department (discussed
previously);
- Ft. Pierce Farms Water Cont~ol District;
January 9, 1990 11 - 5 Capitai Improvements
- St. Lucie County Law Library Association;
- Elements of Judicial System;
- Office of the Medical Examiner - 19th Judicial District
of Florida;
- South Florida Water Management District.
The extension and timing of services provided by these agencies
generally is governed by the availability of funds.
T~~o major State agencies influence the location and timing of
certain capital projects in St. Lucie County: the Florida
Department of Transportation and the South Florida Water
Management District. The Florida Department of Transportation
maintains a multi-year transportation improvement program, which
is updated annually in coordination with the St. Lucie County
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The Florida Department
of Transportation does not fund road projects in coastal high
hazard areas unless they are necessary for emergency evacuation
and are included in local comprehensive plans. Since the MPO and
County Community Development Department share staff, the working
relationship is close and will permit constant monitoring of the
effect of Department of Transportation proposals on the location
and timing of development.
South Florida Water Managemen~ District issues permits for the
consumptive use of water, well construction, and surface water
management. Permits are issued only after public testimony is
received at board meetings and public hearings. The District is
conducting a feasibility study on a reservoir in the western
portion of St. Lucie County. The County works closely with the
District's designated staff liaison on local issues affecting the
timing and location of development.
ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL FACILITY NEEDS
As required by Rule 9J-5.016(2)(b), a general analysis is
provided below of the fiscal implications of the existing
deficiencies and future needs for each type of public facility.
Table 11-1 summarizes the cost breakdown among repairing or
replacing existing facilities, remedying existing
deficiencies, and meeting future needs for each type of capital
facility.
Relative priority of need among facility types has been indicated
through the extent of improvements included in this section. At
this time the County is able to fund more facilities than are
needed merely to satisfy level of service requirements for
existing population, as indicated by the presence in this section
of non-LOS related road improvements and public facilities for
which Chapter 163, F.S., and Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., do not require
adoption of levels of service. As ~ong as it can afford to do
so, the County intends to take advantage of varicus revenue
January 9, 1990 11 - 6 Capital Improvements
TABLE 11-1
A SUMMARY OF REPAIR/REPLACEMENT, EXISTING DEFICIENCY
and FUTURE NEED COSTS, BY TYPE OF PUBLIC FACILITY
(In Thousands of Dollars}
Repair/ Existing Future
Replacement Deficiency Need Other
Aviation 5675 37828 25797 364 *
Corrections 2575 7375
Drainage 567 618 500 410 *
Government Bldgs. 1483 6500 15100
Libraries 3347 5871 2783
Mosquito Control 704
Parks & Recreation 818 2646 2797
Ports ' 3350 12749
Roads:County (LOS) 625 21353 23863
Roads:Other County 7177 1574 3999 6050
(Non-LOS)
Sanitary Sewer 250 *
Solid Waste 5100 6750 23600 200 *
Potable Water 250 *
TOTALS 25496 89065 118563 7524
* Plans, reports, and studies
Includes studies, County portion of MSBU's, resurfacing,
sidewalks, and traffic signalization and lighting
NOTE: When a particular improvement meets more than one category
of need, amounts were divided equally among the
categories.
.7an~iar~~ ~ 1~~n 1 1 - 7 ('ani i-al Tmnrnvomon~c
sources earmarked for specific purposes to repair and improve
existing facilities. This factor also limits the usefulness of
theoretical priorities among types of facilities as long as the
County can afford to meet all identifie~ needs.
At such time as the revenue sources of the County are not
sufficient to fund all identified capital facility needs,
relative priority among facility types will be determined through
the setting of levels of service in the various elements of this
Comprehensive Plan. Non-LOS related facilities will have a lower
priority than facilities for which levels of service are adopted.
The timing and location of capital improvements to public
facilities as outlined in this element supports the Future Land
Use Element and specifically Objective 1.1.4. This objective
states that future development shall be directed to areas where
provision of faciiities can be ensured. A policy under this
objective delineates an Urban Service Boundary, and another
policy allows for amendment of the boundary every two years. The
list of capital facility needs includes only items that directly
serve the needs of the population within this boundary.
The Urban Service Boundary corresponds to the densities and
intensities shown on the Future Land Use Map. These densities
and intensities have determined the projects shown as
attributable to future needs in the Schedule of Capital
Improvements.
The capital facility needs identified in the various elements, as
well as other needs known to the County, are described briefly
below. Cost and scheduling of each improvement is shown in the
Schedule of Capital Improvements. Revenue source for each type
of capital facility is shown on the chart entitled "Projected
Costs and Revenues". Facility needs are identified below, along
with appropriate information regarding location, service area,
purpose, and general characteristics of each improvement.
Aviation
Each project is located at St. Lucie County International Airport
and serves the entire County. The several major types of
projects are grouped below. The location of facilities is shown
in the Ports Aviation and Related Facilities Element, Figure 4-6.
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS. These include construction of an access road
between the Fairground property to be acquired and the terminal,
repair of the access road to fixed base operator facilities, and
construction of a north/south access road.
RUNWAY, TAXIWAY, AND APRON IMPROVEMENTS. These include apron
repair, construction of two new taxiways, extension of runways
14-32 and 9-27, resurfacing and st.rengthening of a taxiway,
construction of apron and taxiway areas for the Sheriff's hangar,
and construction of a taxi~ay in the T-hangar area.
January 9, 1990 11 - 8 Capital Improvements
NAVIGATIONAL AND INFORMATIONAL AIDS. These include improvements
to the systems shown as AWOS, PAPI, ar.d TVOR in the Schedule of
Capital Improvements, and to the tower and beacon.
SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS. The project list include a CFR (crash fire
rescue) facility and vehicle, an emergency generator, fire
protection line for runway 14-32, and clearing of the sight line
to improve visibility from the tower.
STUDIES AND SURVEYS. These include preparation of Development of
Regional Impact applications for the industrial area and terminal
building, updating of the master plan, updating of the Part 150
noise study, and updating of Exhibit A, the airport survey.
LAND ACQUISITION. The present airport master plan, scheduled for
revision during the current fiscal year, points up land
acquisition needs for airport development, airport expansion,
clear zone areas, and the fairgrounds adjacent to the airport.
SITE IMPROVEMENTS. Drainage improvement and perimeter fencing
are programmed, as well as a new terminal building.
Corrections
Corrections facilities are not pertinent to concurrency
management, but they have been incorporated into this Capital
Improvements Element for local information and to demonstrate the
County's commitment to providing the necessary facilities to meet
the needs of an increasing population.
St. Lucie County has been under court order to reduce
overcrowding in the jail system since the early 80's. A new
facility has been constructed and occupied in 1987 but with gain
time eliminated and the increase in arrests, the jail is
approaching overcrowded conditions again. The first step in
further expansion is to build an additional 100 to 150 beds
primarily for juveniles and females. Also the construction of an
infirmary will reduce medical costs ta the County. Finally, the
administrative area of the jail was not designed to house the
staff of the jail, required activities for rehabilitation,
consultation and treatment. The programmed pods in years 1991
and 1993 are based on the last two years growth in the jail
population.
Drainage
The County does not yet provide significant drainage facilities,
but is planning to become much more active in the next five-year
period, using a stormwater utility as a revenue source. The
creation of such a utility requires a vote of the Board of County
Commissioners. The first drainage projects are described in the
Drainage Sub-element and briefly below.
DREDGING. The FY90 dredging item is the Ten-Mile Creek project
described in the Drainage Sub-element of tnis Comprehensive Plan.
January 9, 1990 11 - 9 Capital Improvements
The location of the projects for future years are as yet
unspecified.
ENGINEERING STUDIES. This item provides for in-depth analysis of
surface water and groundwater qisality and quantity at particular
problem areas.
EQUIPMENT. As explained in the Overview, only major pieces of
equipment are included in the Schedule.
LAND ACQUISITION. Land will be needed in the future for
diversion canals, outfall canals, reservoirs, and oxbows or
widening of existing car.als. The amounts included in the
S~hedule at this time consist of a budget of $750,000 for the
acquisition of 25 to 30 acres at the confluence of the Five-Mile
and Ten-P~ile Creeks, and purchase of right-of-way for secondary
canal systems.
MASTER PLAN STUDY. As discussed in the Drainage Sub-elemezt, the
County has had minimal involvement in providing stormwater
conveyance systems in the past. Population growth and increased
awareness of groundwater and surface water quantity and quality
issues are causing the County to become increasingly active in
drainage and aquifer recharge issues. A major study, followed by
basin and sub-basin studies, is needed. These studies will
provide information on which to base decisions about the roles
and programs of the County, the local water management districts,
and South Florida Water Management District in the years to come.
Government Buildings
Government buildings will not be taken into account for
concurrency purposes, but the County's planned expenditures for
new buildings are of local interest and are related to the
County's capacity to support new development. The projects shown
in the Schedule of Capital Improvements indicate that the County
has considered future growth needs by planning for a South County
Center and by purchasing land to allow the expansion of the
existing County Administration and Civic Center property in Ft.
Pierce.
Since government buildings are not described in any other element
of the Comprehensive Plan, the rationale behind each project is
explained below, in the order in which the projects occur in the
Schedule of Capital Improvements.
25TH STREET PROPERTY. This parcel of land is adjacent to the
County Administration and Civic Center, which will need to be
expanded at some future date. The property is owned by the City
of Fort Pierce and this property is part of an agreement which
includes the County trading the land where the main library sits
for this parcel.
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ROOF REPLACEMENT AND INTERIOR RENOVATION.
The original administration building was built in the late 70's
January 9, 1990 11 - 10 Capital Improvements
and the roof has been a source of problems for a number of years.
The roof has been patched in numerous ~laces but these measures
were short term at best. The entire roof needs to be redesigned
and replaced. The interier of the facility needs to be remodeled
for two basic reasons: 1) the current configuration does not
utilize the space as effici.ent as pcssible and 2) the present
materials and fire protection systems need to be upgraded to the
current building codes.
COURTHOUSE EXPANSION. The St. Lucie County Courthouse was built
in the early 60's and has been outgrown for several years. The
expansion will provide ten courtrooms, jury rooms, hearing rooms,
law library and judges chambers. A three story parking garage
will be constructed as well to provide parking in the area.
EMPIRE CENTER (STATE ATTORNEY BUILDING). Under State law, the
County must provide office space for certain State offices in
connection with the court system. This building was origina~ly
rented, but the cost of renting the complex was expensive and the
purchase of the building will save taxpayers money. The
Nineteenth Circuit consists of four counties and the main office
for the State Attorney is located in St. Lucie County. Therefore
a prorated share of the cost of the building is reimbursed from
the other three counties in the form of a monthly rent amount.
HEALTH DEPARTMENT BUILDING. Currently, the St. Lucie County
Health department has two locations in St. Lucie County. The
main facility is located in Fort Pierce and about two years aao,
a south branch was establish in Port St. Lucie. The branch is
located in a rented storefront and the Health Director is
planning on purchasing land and constructing a full service
branch in central south Port St. Lucie.
JUVENILE HOME REPAIR. St. Lucie County operates a youth hall
that is mainly utilized by HRS to place dependent youths in a
space place until they are placed in foster homes, returned to
parents or moved into the State system. The children are
generally not delinquent but they must be controlled in such a
manner as to protect them. The building is in excess of fifteen
years old and the demand for this type of facility is increasing;
therefore, it is felt that the building will need a new roof and
expanded in the near future.
PURCHASING WAREHOUSE ROOF. The County's central purchasir.g
department is located in a retired fire station and the entire
building will need the roof replaced within the next few years.
Even if the building was discontinued as a warehouse, the
structure is sound and it would need to be maintained for future
uses.
REPLACE FUELS TANKS. The County operates its own service station
to dispense fuel to all county vehicles. The fuel tanks have
been brought into DER compliance within the last eighteen months,
but the total replacement of tanks is required by 1991.
January 9, 1990 11 - 11 Capital Improvements
ROAD & BRIDGE COMPOUND. The County now occupies a site for the
County Road Compound which alsa includes the automobile service
station, building mainter.ance opera-tions, the Sheriff's garage,
the county nursery and mosquito control operations. The site
cannot be expanded due to it's locat~on and the County does own
land west of Fort Pierce which is centrally located and large
enough to house all these operations plus central purchasing and
warehouses.
ROAD DEPARTMENT RENOVATION. The current site will need to be
operated for the next three to four years. The facilities need
to remodeled enough to provide protection to the eguipment and
make working conditions reasonable until the new site is
completed.
SHERIFF ADMINISTRATION. The County is presently renting four
locations for the Sheriff's administrative offices plus providing
space in four other facilities scattered throughout the County.
The construction of one administration building will unite the
Sheriff's staff and locate the administration building adjacent
to the jail. Currently the jail is about six to eight miles from
any of the administrative offices.
SHERIFF HANGAR ROOF. The Sheriff is provided with a hangar at
the St. Lucie County International Airport which was purchased in
the industrial park. The building is several years old and will
require a new roof in 1991.
SOUTH COUNTY ANNEX. Currently the County is renting storefronts
in the Port St. Lucie area to provide services to the citizens in
this growing area. To eliminate the rent expense, the purchase
of a 40,000 square foot building has been agreed upon to be
completed in 1990. The building will house the Clerk of Court,
two courtrooms, sheriff, property appraiser, tax collector,
supervisor of elections and other service oriented county
offices.
MAIN WAREHOUSE. In order to purchase some items in volume, a
main warehouse needs to be constructed to provide storage space.
This facility would one of the first buildings to be completed on
the new compound.
Libraries
The library projects included in the Schedule of Capital
Improvements consist of these items:
BOOKS. Book needs system-wide were calculated accordir.g to a
formula shown in Appendix B.
HEADQUARTERS: Midway Road. A centrally located new headquarters
building of approximately 50,000 square feet is planned to serve
the whole county.
MORNINGSIDE BOULEVARD BRANCH. A new branch library is needed in
January 9, 1990 11 - 12 Capital Improvements
the southern portion of the Ci~y of Port St. Lucie to serve the
rapidly growing population in that vicinity.
RENOVATE PORT ST. LUCIE BRANCH LIBRARY. This existing branch is
located near Prima Vista and Airoso Boulevards.
REPLACE BOOKMOBILE. The bookmobile extends services county-wide.
REPLACE COMPUTER SYSTEM. This replacement would serve the entire
system.
ZORA NEALE HURSTON BRANCH. This proposed new branch library at
Avenue D and 29th Street i~ the City cf F~. Pierce would serve
the surrounding population. A state grant application is pending
at this time.
Mosquito Control
Renovation of the Mosquito Control Compound, a 4460 square foot
facility on Will Fee Road, is needed within the next five years.
New construction of a 1000 square foot equipment and vehicle
maintenance building on the site also is programmed.
Repairs and renovation of the three mosquito impoundment areas
serving the County also are included. In the Schedule of Capital
Improvements, these impoundment areas are designated as Island,
HI, and Mainland. '
Other capital expenditures shown in the Schedule involve
replacements or additions of major equipment.
Parks and Recreation
The Recreation and Open Space Element now contains data and
analysis on recreation needs and supports fully the parks and
recreation projects in this Element. This narrative is shown in
the staff response to the first objection of that element.
Ports
A description of each project, all of which are physically
located in the Port area as described in the Port Master Plan, is
as follows:
CORPS PROJECT. As explained in the Port Master Plan, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers has prepared a project for deepening and
widening the entrance channel and interior channel, deepening the
turning basin, and creating an access channel north of the
existing terminal area. The federal government will pay 75% of
the cost, with the County bearing the remainder.
CRUISE FACILITY. Included within this item are $300,000 for a
terminal faciiity and $1,246,000 for bulkhead over a two-year
period. Smaller associated costs consist of $84,000 for apron,
517,000 for garking, and $20,000 for land development.
January 9, 1990 11 - 13 Capital Improvements
Additional expenditures of 5897,000 for FY 96 and FY 97 have been
identified in the Port Master Plan.
LAND ACQUISITION.
As explained in the Port Master Plan, the County must acquire
several parcels in order to implement the plan.
PHASE I CARGO FACILITIES. Phase I is the development of the site
on Figure 4-6 shown as A-1 to include 700 feet of marginal wharf,
a roll-on/roll-off platform, 20 acres of backland storage, an
office, and a gate. The capacity of this phase will be 200,000
TPY. Costs within the time period shown in the Schedule of
Capital Improvements include $1,946,000 for bulkhead, $336,000
for apron, $700,000 in dredging, $250,000 in associated road
construction, and $50,000 in land development costs.
Potable Water
As detailed in the Potable Water Sub-element, the County does not
provide any potable water facilities. However, a master plan
study has been programmed to meet the ongoing needs of
comprehensive planning and to provide guidance in the acquisition
and/or construction of potable water facilities. Plan amendments
are expected as a result of the study, but the County will
provide potable water capital facilities only to the extent that
offsetting user fees can be imposed.
Roads
This element describes road, bridge, and intersection
improvements that are necessary to meet adopted level of service
standards, as well as other improvements that consist of
necessary repairs and expansion projects to meet existing and
future needs. Those that relate to maintaining a level of
service standard are listed separately in the Schedule of Capital
Improvements.
Since these lists correspond directly to Table 2-6 in the Traffic
Circulation Element, the general location, purpose, and
characteristics of the improvement have not been repeated here.
Sanitary Sewer
As explained in detail in the Sanitary Sewer Sub-element of this
plan, the County does not own any sanitary sewer facilities.
However, a master plan study has been programmed to meet the need
for comprehensive planning and to provide information needed for
making decisions about acquiring and/or constructing sewer
systems. Based on the study, plan amendments will be proposed.
Like potable water facilities, sanitary sewer facilities will be
provided by the County only to the extent that user charges
support. The net effect of the addition of County-owned water
and sewer facilities on the financial feasibility of the Capital
Improvements Element should be zero.
January 9, 1990 11 - 14 Capital Improvements
Solid Waste
The County currently operates only a solid waste disposal
facility. Therefore, all items listed under the capital
facilities needs pertain to the County's one active landfill on
Glades Cut-off Road near the Florida Turnpike, with the exception
of an item labeled Airport Closure. This item refers to closing
a previous landfill site near the St. Lucie County International
Airport. The service area for all sclid waste improvements is
the entire County.
Some of these types of public facilit~es, including corrections,
courthouse, administrative buildings, libraries, and mosquito
control, are included in this element for public information and
are not required by Rule 9J-5. However, the current level of
service provided by each type of facility is included in this
element as useful local information. These levels of service do
not pertain to concurrency management requirements.
The derivation of these levels of service is explained in
Appendix B of this element. As population increases occur, these
levels of service will be locally useful benchmarks in tracking
improvements in or degradation of level of service.
January 9, 1990 11 - 15 Cap~tal Improvements
FISCAL ANALYSIS
FINANCIAL HISTORY AND FORECAST
The history and forecast of the financial status of St.
Lucie County spans a period from 1980 through 2015. The history
was extracted from the annual audit reports which are presented
each year as provided by State Statute. The forecast was
developed by using the history of the County's land valuations
and trends of other revenues received from other sources. The
expenses were derived by using the historical data and predicting
the completion time of projects now in process.
The data presented is based on a constant growth factor that
may not be effected by minor fluctuations in the economy of the
area. St. Lucie County depends greatly on the agriculture and
construction industries for creating a solid economic
environment. As the County grows, this may not always be the
situation.
It is anticipated that the next two to three years will be
very hard years to keep the millage rate below the ten mill cap.
A number of projects will be reaching completion within the next
eighteen to twenty-four months that will require additional
staffing and equipment. The growth in land valuation is the key
to keeping the millage rates at the current level. Table 6 shows
a debt capacity of $42 million for the County in 1990. Within
this amount, approximately $33 million is strictly for road
construction. The balance of the amount could be for general
capital projects, or $9 million. The level of expenditures have
been controlled by the maximum amount millage which the Board of
County Commissioners are able to levy. It will be noted that at
no time does the aggregate millage rate ever exceed nine mills.
This is due to the State's inclusion of the Ft. Pierce Fire
Board's millage into the cap. St. Lucie County will have to
depend very heavily on the increase in land valuation and other
sources of revenue to provide the citizens with the required
infrastructure. .
January 9, 1990 11 - 16 Capital Improvements
REVENUES SOURCES OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY
St. Lucie County depends upon a number of sources for funding its
operations. Table 11-2 provides a breakdown of this funding
indicating amounts by source. It provides both a historical view
of what actually happened back through 1980, as well as annual
projections through the year 2015. The following paragraphs
provide specific information relat~d to each of the funding
sources listed in Table 11-2:
(1) TAXES, AD VALOREM: St. Lucie County will collect $35
million in ad valorem taxes during the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1989. This amount represents 6.75 mills for
operating and .50 mills for voted debt. Unique to St. Lucie
County is the fact that the County has a separate Fire Control
District which levies its own millage. The State does not
recognize the Fire Board to be a unique taxing district;
therefore, the millage levied by this body is added to the
County's total operating millage which increases the total County
millage to 8.00 mills. The Fire Board has the ability to levy up
to 3.00 mills. This effectively limits the Board of County
Commissioners to a maximum levy of 7.00 mills.
• (2) LICENSES AND PERMITS: These sources of revenues are
• continually being reviewed by the County. The fees which produce
the largest volume of revenue are the fees and permits charged
for new construction. The County also receives funds from
Occupational Licenses collected by the Tax Collector.
(3) ~INTER-GOVERNMENTAL: The largest source of revenue other
than ad valorem taxes is inter-governmental revenues. The two
largest sources are the One-Half Cent Sales Tax and State Revenue
Sharing. The balance of revenues received consists of Race Track
Tax, Insurance Agent Fees, Beverage Licenses and County Gas Tax.
The remaining gas taxes are not included in this column due to
the fact that those taxes are used primarily for capital
expansion. (NOTE: In 1986, the drop in revenue was caused by a
$2.0 million allocation of One-Half Cent Sales Tax collections to
road construction.)
(4) CHARGES FOR SERVICES: Primarily, this revenue is derived
from the sale of items, user fees at recreational areas and
library related fees.
(5) FINES AND FORFEITURES: This source of revenue continues to
grow each year with the increase of the population and traffic.
The fir.e collection, which is the duty of the Clerk of Court,
generates the majority of the revenue. The balance of the
revenue is bond forfeitures collected by the Sheriff and Clerk of
Court.
January 9, 1990 11 - 17 Capital Improvements
(6) INTEREST AND MI$CELLA~EOUS: The St. Lucie County Finance
Department invests surplus funds for the Board of County
Commissioners. This has beer~ an unpredictable source of revenue
due to the economic changes in interast rates. The balance of
the revenue is mostly from the concession sales and donations
made to the County to improve public ~reas (i.e. recreation,
library books, etc.).
(7) TOTALS: The total of all revenues used for operating
expenses of St. Lucie County is sho~n in Figure 3.
January 9, 1990 11 - 18 Capital Improvements
Figure u (1)
ST. LLCIE C~lk1iY 1;ILlf~ ~.,TE~
1~2 TO 1~EE3
TR}( YEAR
1qB2 , „iB5,d;n u~Nu. ~.v;~nt>~Gk. 6.27'6
1Q83 ~u;e~ ur.,"~, 6.68~'S ~FT. P1ER~
1964 ~IJ'If'~',~~6,'ii~ 6. `~6 FI1~ DIS7.
- ~ HOS(~J I7a
1Q85 u. ~ ~'a:~ 7. 220.? CON7ROL
• ~ PORT C
1996 ~h+l J.t,:rii i! ~''r...~"`--x.._....~.._'~~.~~`.'-~,`~:~,;
J 8.1558 RI ci"'r ORT
1?87 ;~,,..,~!~u,,,.:: ~ ~'~~10.557 "-'E~~'FI~ &
~ ,,,,,,,,,,:.:~...T,~.-..,..,--~-,,,,•,~•,~•. F~~I711~
1988 p~~m±.qtl , h'hi . x~~'.~ 8. E57 L, Ct~AI
FU1~
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4 10 ! 1 HILLS
Figure # (2)
CDMPARISDN OF MAJOR ~S DF INTER-
GOVE~t~]JTAL REl'Q.UES FY'89
(~E TRRCK 2.5'<
~.200 ~fIL 27.9i STATE REV.
• ~ 51.94 Mll
. ~
~ n~lr~r,,,
VFti~`~ „"h~,I~~
- r1,~qi r~
~~.,.~~~i%~~, '
r
i
a R rc!,~
, ~!~~d~ ~
'r~ • . • .
.f7~' 3. Z/, ~T}~ R~/.
.I1Jtft;',..,i
~NE-F9~LF 48.6i :r"~r~~" :.2 MIL
53.4 MIL ~~~~"u
~ r~
- ~•"L"~•t' i7.4% RCf'~ TRXES
~1.2 MIL
Figure # (3)
ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOURCES OF REVENUE
TAXES 64.2~
~ ~ ^ Fi~ ~ 'ui"''~
, ~
pl II' ~
~ ,i~ ~ ' ' f
i
~ n n u yN
i ~ , ~
4 r~ry~a,
~ , 7 ~ ~ -
~ ~
69~ „11 h Sc~~\~
~ i ~ . •
~ ~ ~ ~ p? ~
"~~~'I~ ~ , O. 3i ZNTii-1ISC.
~uh~H ~ ~.~-..v
~d ;
;
'
i ~~~~~:~~v r„~
;
~ !i~
Y ~~i~\~.:, c -
~~'r.`~:\~~ •"~``x.;';;'-
"`c.\\~...~
\~~~\\\`~~~w
~
s~ S 4. 6 i F Z N E S
L ; CENSES 1 . 5i '~~'.-U;\
6 . 2i S~R~~ . CNG .
INT=R-GJV_ 13_ 2i
January 9, 1990 11 - 19 Capital Improvements
REVENUES FOR ST. LUCI~ COUNTY ACTUAL 19 rHROUGH 1988 ESTIMATES 1989 THROUGH 2O15
~ FISCAL ~1) ~2) ~3) ~4) ~5) ~6) ~7)
~ YCAR TAXES LICGNSGS & INTER- CNARGGS FQR FI1~GS ~ INTEREST b TOTALS
p~ GND PERMITS GOVERNMGNTAL SERVICGS FORFIETURES MISCEL,LANEOUS
~i '
4 292 020 ~1 616 997 593,888 1,043,20) 15,466,869
19a0 7,667,586 253,171 , , , ,
~ ~ jg l g~ 927 ~g39 rt 374, 194 * 4, 846, 7E14 ~t 2, 153, 028 797,064 ~t 1, 180, 808 ~t 1E3, 279, 718
19d2 12,596,521 ~t 269,910 ~ 3,930,961 1,870,296 ~t 828,739 ~t 1,491,137 20,987,564
~ 1983 13,046,115'~t 481,375 ~ 4,455,310 " 1,944,247 A 959,669 * 1,620,)28 ~t 22,SQ7,445
`D ~ 9pt, 15, 726, 270 ~t 353, 013 ~t 4, £160, 901 ~ 2, 1f34, 582 883, 019 ~ 2, 228, 183 ~ 26, 235, 968
~ 21 410 ~ 2 408 714 ~t 1,048,177 ~ 1,718,229 ~t 30,234,343
1985 19,485,393 354,419 't 5, 9, , ~
1986 ?.5,185,916 rt 381,811 ~t 3,773,981 ` 2,996,249 933,133 ~t 2,199,999 35,471,089
43, 390, 24~.
1987 30, 6fi5, 757 ~f 4 19, 72~ ~ 4, 95£1, 036 ~t 3, 1J 1, 079 ~ 1, 372, 69~ ^ 2, 822, 955
19n4 35,350,009 ~ 518,40a ~t 5,~91,951 ~ 3,986,341 1,664,361 ~t 3,3.74,978 SG,686,049
1989 37,813,102 ~t 525,000 ~t 6,966,394 ~t 2,424,000 ~t 1,928,000 3,609,322 53,265,819
fqgp 42,533,38~ ~t 588,000 ~ 7,082,811 2,714,880 i~ 2,120,800 14 4~)71~885 ~t 66~866~886
1991 48, 536, 694 ~t 646, 000 >t 7, G 13, 4.77 't 2, 986, 3bEi 2, 311, 672 , , , ~ ~
1992 52,793,312,~t 711,480 ~t II,1~5,652 ~t 3,285,-005 ~t 2,519,)22 ~t 5,344,511 ~ 72,839,6d2
~ 199~ 57,301,644 rt 7f32,628 8,f302,610 rt 3,613,505 2,746,4~8 n 5,932,407 ~t 79,1°5,293
199~~ 62, 097, 729 ~ f360, 891 ~t 9, 467, QEl9 ~ 3, 974, f156 2, 993, 682 6, 525, 648 a5, 920, 69b
i ,
1995 6S; 9G0, 916 ~t 9~~G, 980 ~t 10, 185, 305 ' 4, 571, 084 3, 263, l lc, rt 178, 212 " 92, 085,
N 1996 G9,935,436 ~ 1,041,678 ~t 10,95n,9~~ 't 4,936,771 ~t 3,556,794 ~t 7,896,034 -t 98,325,690
0
1997 74,088,858 rt 1,145,84b ~t 11,793,352 5,331,113 3,8~6,905 rt 8,685,637 lt 104,922,31
1998 ~8,409,126 rt 1,2b0,430 ~t 12,693,230 't 5,758,250 ~ 4,225,827 rt 9,554,201 ~ 111,901,06~i
~999 82,329,SII2 ~ 1,386,473 ~t 13,Gb3,793 ~t 6,210,910 ~t 4,606,151 ~t 10,509,621 lt 118,~14,
2000 86,446,062 ~ 1,525,121 rt 14,741,.722 rt b,716,422 5,020,705 rt 11,560,583 -t 12b,010,615
2001 90,768,365 ft 1,677,633 ~ 15,906,010 ~t 7,253,73G 5,472,568 -t 12,~16,641 133,794,953
2002 95,306,783 ~t 1,845,396 17, 163, 576 7,f334,035 5,965,099 * 13,988,305 -t 142, 103, 195
n 2003 100,012,122 rt 2,029,935 if3,521,£396 0,4G0,75fl ~i 6,501,958 >t 15,387,136 ~t 150,971,8Qb
w
2004 105,075,~28 ~t 2,232,429 ~ 19,9a9,042 * 9,137,618 7,Oa7,135 st 16,618,107 ~t 160,140,55
~ 2005 110,329,515 ~t 2,456,222 21,5)3,735 ~t 9,a6II,628 7,724,9)7 -t 17,947,555 ~r 169,900,632
~ 2006 115,445,990 ~t 2,701,b4~~ ~t 23,2a5,395 10,658,118 it 8,420,225 -t 19,383,360 180,294,932
2007 122,217,520 ~t 2,972,029 * 25,1~~~,197 ~t 11,510,)68 9,178,045 ~t 20,934,028 ~t 191,946,586
~ 2008 128,939,4fl3 3,269,231 ~t 27,131,130 ~t 12,431,629 10,004,069 22,608,751 ~t 204,384,293
~ 2U09 135,3t36,457 ~t 3,596,155 29,779,117 13,674,792 10,904,435 24,417,451 ~ 217,758,40f3
~ 2010 1G2,832,713 3,955,770 't 32,148,162 ~t 15,042,271 ~t 11,885,834 rt 26,859,196 232,723,946
~ 2011 150,6fif1,512 ~t 4,351,347 ~ 34,707,024 16,546,49E3 12,455,559 ~t 29,00~,931 248,256,8~3
c~D 2012 158, 222, 937 ~t 4, 786, ~+82 37, 4]0, 917 ~t 1~, 201, 144 14, 121, 560 i1 31, 328, 566 ~t 264, 131 , 610
~ 2013 166,134,084 ~t 5,265,130 ~ 40,456,2)0 ~t 20,02'1,263 15,392,500 ~t 33,834,851 281,104,099
`t ,r ) 643 ~t 43 6b0 833 22, 023, 389 ~t 16, 77), 825 36, 541, 634 299, 256, 1 19
2014 114,440,788 5, 91, , ~
2015 183,162,828 i~ 6,254,974 ~~~7,16~,777 " 23,785,2G0 18,287,829 rt 39,464,970 318,119,640
TABLE 11-2
MILLAGE RATES, PROPERTY VALUES AND PROJECTIONS THROUGH TAX YEAR
2014
Ad valorem taxes have been and will continue to be the most
significant source of funding for St. Lucie County. Table 11-3
provides a description of how actual taxes levied are derived
from the ad valorem tax base. Similar to the earlier table in
this section, it provides not only a historical perspective of
this tax source back to the year 1980, it also includes annual
projections through the year 2015. The following paragraphs
provide specific informaticn related to each of the column
headings found on Table 11-3:
(1) TAX YEAR: The tax roll that is completed each year is the
basis of the values used for the subsequent budget year.
(Example: Tax Year 1988 is basis for budget year beginning
October 1988 and ending September 1989, or budget year 1989.)
(2) JUST VALUE (193.011, F. S.): This column is the total
property value of the County including publicly owned, non-profit
exempted, railroad exemption, homestead exemption, etc.
(3) TAXABLE VALUE: Net taxable value used to calculate the levy
of ad valcrem taxes.
(4) VALUE OF ONE MILL: Column (3) divided by $1,000.
(5) PER CENT INCREASE: Calculated per cent of increase over
previous tax year.
(6) TOTAL CALCULATIONS: Total ad valorem tax levy for operating
and capital expansions.
(7) ANNUAL MILLAGE: Calculated annual aggregate millage
excluding the Ft. Pierce Fire District.
(8) DEBT SERVICE: Amount of the voted debt service needed to
make annual payments.
(9) GRAND TOTAL COLLECTIONS: Total amount of ad valorem taxes
to be collected for all County operating expenses, capital outlay
and debt service.
(10) GRAND TOTAL MILLAGE: Calculated millage to produce the
total collections.
January 9, 1990 11 - 21 Capital Improvements
ST. LUCIE COUNTY MILLAGE RATES, VALUES AND PRQJECTIONS THROUGH 2G14
~5~ ~6~ (g) (9) (10)
~ ~z~ (3)
~
~ 7~qX JUST ~'~~LUG TAXAIILE VALUE Ot~ PGR CENT TOTAL ANt1UAL DEBT GR. TOTAL GR.TOTA
v yEnR (193.U11,F.S.) VALUE ONG PIILL INCRGASG COLLGCTIONS PIILLAGE SERVICE COLLECTIONS MILLACE
1
v t,,4382 150,578 7,667,586 4.4918
~ 19i9 2,267,824,757 1,707,004,857 1,707,005 7,517,008
19E30 3,1~+3,0~~9,023 2,300,802,183 2,300,a02 3t,,p% 8,766,067 4.717) 161,772 8,927,839 3.8803
~ 19t31 ~,~~82,939,434 2,521,586;744 2,521,587 9.6% 12,553,92~) 5.0430 42,592 12,596,521 ~:5493
p 19g2 3,805,~71,934 2,86),734,704 2,fi67,735 13.7% 13,000,223 4.6~16 45,892 13,046,1
~
19g} ~~,380,027,153 3,083,530,363 3,Ofi3,530 7.5% 14,SII3,990 4.8358 1,137,280 15,726,27(1 5.1U01
q~l 3~pg7,f3t30 26.4% 1~,624,233 4.6275 1,861,160 19,485,393 4.9990
196~~ 5,594,86), ~O1 3,897,879,
1985 6,139,977,852 4,194,714,452 4,194,714 7•6% 23,360,816 5.4403 1,825;100 25,185,916 6,0 4
198G 6,426,995,97~ 4,416,000,387 4,416,000 5.3% 28,596,913 6.3846 2,088,844 30,6G5,757 6.9488
lqp~ 6~pr,2,~31,70Q 4,720,251,100 4,720,252 6,9% 33,045,339 6.7570 2,304,670 35,350,009 ~.4890
813 102 7.2653
~<,c~~ 7,415,091,2£17 5,204,587,227 5,204,587 .10.3% 35,596,232 6.7570 2,216,870 37, ,
19g9 ~,955,583,333 5,568,908,333 5,56f3,40t3 7.0% 40,402,557 7.2550 2,130,830 42,533,387 ~•6~77
958,732 7.0% 46,399,476 7.7868 2,137,218 48,536,694 8.1455
1990 8,512,~~74,166 5,958,731,916 5,
~ 1991 9,023,222,616 6,316,255,831 6,316,256 6.0% 50,000,720 7.9162 2,792,592 52,793,312 8.3583
i 1992 9,SG4,615,973 '6,695,231,181 6,695,231 6.0% 55,211,576 8.2464 2,09b,06II 57,307,644 8.5595
097 lb3 62 097 729 8.7499
N 1993 10,13f1,492,931 7,096,945,Q52 7,096,945 6.0% 60,000,5G6 8.4544 2, , ~ ~
t~ 1994 10,746,802,507 7,522,761,755 7,522,7b2 6.0% 63,839,998 8.4862 2,100,91a 65,940,916 8.~655
1995 11,391,610,658 7,974,127,460 7,974,127 6.0% 67,819,123 8.5049 2,11~,3i3 64,935,436 8,7703
1996 12,075,107,29~ 8,452,575,1Ua 8'45~'~30 6.0% 77,284,431 8.6258 1,124,095 7II,409,82b 8.7513
1997 12,799,613,735 8,~~9,729,61~ 8,95 , .
199~3 13,5G7,590,55~ 9,497,313,391 9,497,313 6.0% 81,194,387 8.549.2 1,135,195 82,329,582 8.668)
1999 1~~,381,645,992 10,067,152,195 10,067,152 6.0% 85,312,064 8.4~43 1,133,998 86,446,062 8.5869
2000 15,244,5~~4,752 10,671,181,326 10,671,1fi1 6.0% f39,673,437 8.4033 1,094,928 90,768,365 8.5059
pn, 2001 16,159,217,437 11,311,452,206 11,311,452 6.0% 94,205,370 8.3283 1,101,413 95,306,783 8.4257
2pp2 17,120,770,~~83 11,990,139,338 11,990,134 6.0% 98,4G1,619 8•_2536 1,110,503 100,072,12~ 8.3462
~ 12,709,548 6.0% 103,959,183 8.1796 1,116,545 105,075,728 8.2675
200J 1n,15G,49G,712 12,709,5~7,699 110,329,515 8.1895
~ 2004 19,245,a~b,515 13,472,120,561 13,4~2,121 6.0% 110,J29,515 f3.1a95
115,845,990 8.11?2
H 2O0~ 20,~a00,639,706 14,280,447,794 14,2E30,448 6.0% 115,845,990 8.1122 122,217,520 II.0739
,d 2006 21,624,b78,U8f1 15,137,2~4,662 15,137,275 6.0% 122,217,520 8.0739 128,939,483 8.0359
r~ 2~~7 22,922~15g,774 16,045,511,142 16,045,511 6.0% 128,939,483 8.0359 135,386,457 7.9601
~ 200f) 2~~,297,~~~a,300 17,OOf3,241,810 17,008,242 6.0% 135,3II6,457 7.9601 142,832,71] 7.9225
C
~ ?.U09 25,755,337,5~JII Ia,028,736,319 1a,024,7~6 • G.C% 142,n32,713 ~•92 5 150 688 512 7.7391
m 2010 27,b15,764,606 19,G71,035,224 19,471,OJ5 8.0% 150,688,512 7.7391 158,222,937 ~.5241
2Utl 30,0~+1,025,774 21,028,718,042 21,~28~718 f3.0% 158,222,9.37 7.5241 16b 134 084 7.3151
~ 2012 32,4~,c,,307,836 22 711 O15 486 22,711,015 f3.0% 166,134,084 7.3151 17c,~440,788 7.1119
, , ,
2013 35,0~9,852,463 24,527,896,724 24,527,897 8.0% 174,440,788 7.llCt 183 162 828 6.91~~4
201~, ~7,£~~•3,0~~0,6f,0 26,490,128,462 26,490,12fl 8.0% 183,162,828 6.91~+ , ~
TABLE 11-3 ~
MAJOR REVENUE SOURCES
The County has a number of major revenue sources that are derived
outside of any direct tax levies or fees that it collects. Table
11-4 provides a breakdown of the monies included within this
category. It also provides a historical insight as to the impact
of these monies upon County operations as well as provides a
projection of th~ amounts that might be anticipated from these
sources through the life of this plan. The following paragraphs
provide a general description of these funding sources:
(1) STATE REVENUE SHARING: The State distributes a portion of
the intangible personal property taxes, and one cent of the
cigarette tax to the Counties each year. Up until 1987, only
$187,010 was guaranteed that could be used to pledge as a source
of revenue to repay debt of the County. A second guaranteed
amount of $618,973 has now been established by the State to
increase the debt capacity. This still leaves more than half of
the receipts that cannot be pledged for debt service.
(2) RACE TRACK TAX: This is a guaranteed amount established by
Florida Statute for counties that do not generate enough tax
through para-mutual betting taxes. It is unlikely that St. Lucie
County will receive more than this amount for a number of years.
(3) FINES & FORFEITURES: The County receives a portion of the
fines and bond forfeitures that are collected by the Clerk of the
Circuit Court and the Sheriff.
(4) ONE-HALF CENT SALES TAX: This tax is the largest source of
a single non-ad valorem tax for St. Lucie County. The entire
amount can be used for debt service and the potential for growth
is good. In 1983, the tax was established to give relief to the
property owners and after a number of y~ars, the restrictions on
the millage increases have gradually decreased. Presently, there
are no restrictions on the use of the revenue and its
relationship with the County millage.
(5) TOTAL MAJOR REVENUES: A total of the major revenue sources
is shown in Figure 4 on the next page.
January 9, 1990 11 - 23 Capital Improvements
Figure ~ (4)
ST. LUCIE COUNTY MAJOR SOURCES OF
REVENU~ FOR GE?aERRL USES
RACE TRRL:K 1.0~
TA~: 25.9~ STRTE REV_
FINES & 28_ 7J r~`;rt~
~ SHFIRING
FOP.F I ETUPE ~ ~c~:~: ~ ~
`~1 j
,l.~~.
:
: : ~ .
~•~~.~.~~~•~•:•C~-~.
ti : ~ ~ i~•~ t : ~
~ \,i'i'~
~
\,1 ~•\\'i\
?\_~:~~•i'~t ~ ~~•i~'~.~2 . ~
~,,;~1\~~~; ~~;~=,~'~~'1`,~ ~ 1`x~~~ xx~~x xx~~X:
t•\\~ i.~(~,i C~..i)~C~.~?<<~.i X<...i X~v~/ x-
~.,^,>+C~ .~r~"~~ ~k ~,~i~k <:.~i~ x x
^ i~ i~. r. i
~`~ix~5-~'~~
~k~-~
~~K~
~~`~2~
~X~Z=
~;~K~
~ - ~ ~ ~
Z x
~
Z ~~Z ~
.
y
.
~.~,.~~x~:.,~x
44_ 4~ ONE-HA LF
CENT SRLES
January 9, 1990 11 - 24 Capital Improvements
ST. LUCIE COUNTY NON-AD VALOREM REVENUE ~iISTORY AND PROJECTION THROUGH 2O15
~ c
ca ~1~ (2) (3) (4) ~S)
~ fISCA'L STATE % RACE FINGS % ONE-F{ALF % TOTAL
p~i YEAR [tCVENUE INC/ TRACK 6 fORFIETURES INC/ CENT INC/ MAJOR
~ END S}{ARING -DEC TAX -DCC SALL'S 1'AX -DEC REVENUES
~
~fl 1,4)1,384
~ 1980 676,571 200,925 593,888
1981 901,7~0 33.3% 200,925 797,064 34.2% 1,899,709
~ 1,842,844
19p2 813,180 -9.8% 200,925 82b,7S9 4.0%
0 1983 844,380 3.8% 200,925 959,669 15.8% 1,G93,620 3,498,59~+
19p4 1,379,362 63.4% 200,925 a83,019 -8.0% 1,998,570 33.8% 4,461,876
1985 1,292,011 -6.3% 200,925 1,048,177 18.7% 1,959,382 -2.0% 4,500,495
1986 1,539,607 19.2% 200,925 933,133 -11,0% 2,45~~,1~7 25.3% 5,127,842
1987 1,841,469 19.6% ~ 200,925 1,J72,G93 4).1% 2,641,256 7.6% 6,056,343
19d~ 1,924,082 4.5% 200,925 1,664,3G1 21.2% 3,063,318 16.0% 6,852,686
1989 1,940,680 0.9% 200,925 1,~428,~00 15.8% 3,385,490 10.5% 7,455,095
1990 2,173,562 12,0% 200,925 2,I20,800 10.b% 3,)91,749 12.0% 8,287,035
199t 2,347,447 8.0% 200,925 2,311,672 9.0% 4,095,089 8.0% 8,955,132
~ 1992 2,535,242 8.0% 200,925 2,519,~22 9.0% 4,422,696 8.G% 9,b78,586
i 1993 2,73.8,062 8.0% 200,925 2,746,498 9.0% 4,~76,511 8.0! 10,461,996
N 19g4 2,957,107 8.0% 200,925 2,993,682 9.0% 5,158,632 8.0% 11,310,34b
~ 1995 3,193,675 8,0% 200,925 3,263,114 9.0% 5,571,323 8.0% 12,229,037
1996 3,449,169 8.0% 200,925 3,556,794 9.0% 6,01~,029 8.0% 13,223,917
199~ 3,725,103 8.0% 200,925 3,8)6,905 9.0% 6,498,391 8.OX 14,301,32G
199a ~~,023,111 8.0% 200,925 4,225,a27 9.0% 7,018,262 8.0% 15,468,125
1999 4,344,960 8.0% 200,.925 4,606,151 9.0% 7,579,723 8.0% 16,731,759
2000 4,692,556 F3.0% 200,925 5,020,705 9.0% 8,186,101 8.0% 18,100,288
n 2001 5,067,961 8.0% 200,925 5,472,568 9.0% 8,840,989 8.0% 19,582,444
~ 2002 5,473,398 8,0% 200,925 5,965,099 9.0% 9,548,269 8.0% 21,187,691
2003 5,911,270 8.0% 200,925 6,501,958 9.0% 10,312,130 8.0% 22,926,283
`t 2004 6,384,1)1 8.0% 200,925 7,Oa7,1.35 9.0% 11,1~7,100 8.0% 24,809,331
w
2005 6,a94,905 8.0% 200,925 7,72G,977 9•0% 12,028,068 a.0% 26,848,8 S
r+ 2006 7,446,497 8.0% 200,925 8,420,225 9.0% 12,990~,314 8.0% 29,057,961
~ 2007 S,OG2,217 8.0% 200,925 9,178,U45 9.0% 14,029,539 8.0% 31,~~50,726
~ 2008 8,6II5,595 8.0% 200,925 10,004,069 9.0% 15,151,902 8.0% 34,042,~~91
~ 2009 9,554,154 10.0% 200,925 10,904,435 9.0% 16,6b7,092 10.0% 37,326,607
~ 2010 10,318,486 8.0% 200,925 li,f3tf5,f334 9.0% 18,000,460 8.0% 40,405,705
~ 2011 11,143,965 8.0/ 200,,925 12,955,559 9.0% 19,440,497 8.0% 43,740,946
c~t 2012 12,0~5,482 8.0% 200,925 14,121,560 9.0% 20,995,~3G 8.0% 4),353,703
N 2013 12,998,321 8.0% 200,925 15,392,SU0 9.0% 22,675,395 8.0% 51,26),141
20t4 14,038,187 8.0% 200,925 16,7)7,825 9.0% 24,489,427 8.0% 55,506,364
2015 15,161,242 8.0% 200,925 18,287,~29 9.0% 26,448,581 8.0% b0,098,5)7
TABLE 11-4
GAS TAX AND IMPACT FEES
Roads represent the single largest infrastructure investment made
by St. Lucie County and based upon the information contained
within the Capital Improvements Element, that will remain true.
There are a number of revenues derived from motor fuel taxes, as
well as impact fees that are tied directly to this system. Table
11-5 provides a breakdown of these funding sources and amounts
giving again a historical perspective as well as an indication of
what can be anticipated through the year 2015, which is the time
horizon of this plan. The following paragraphs provide a
description of each of these funding sources as listed in Table
11-5:
(1) COUNTY GAS TAX: Presently, this source of revenue is being
used to maintain the road system of the County. An additional
one cent can be levied through voter approval, which has not been
sought from the citizens to date.
(2), (3) AND (4) CONSTITUTIONAL GAS TAX: Distribution of this
gas tax is done in two parts, a 20~ and 80a portion. Several
counties have pledged one of these portions to bond repayment.
St. Lucie County has an outstanding bond issue for road
construction completed several years ago, being paid off through
this gas tax. The debt will be retired in 1992. This will
increase the amount available of funds for future construction by
approximately $250,000 per year.
(5) LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX: The State has given authority to the
County to levy up to six cents a gallon on gasoline sold in the
County. The proceeds of the tax is distributed to the two cities
and the County, based on a formula agreed on in an interlocal
agreement.
(6) IMPACT FEES: Similar to many counties, St. Lucie County has
established road impact fees on new construction. The growth of
this source of revenue is unpredictable because the economy of
the State and Nation affects the construction industry easily.
This revenue cannot be used to pledge for repayment of debt
because of it not being a constant source of funds.
(7) TOTAL GAS TAXES ~ IMPACT FEES: The total of all revenue
sources that are required to be used for road construction and
maintenance is shown in Figure 5 on the next page.
January 9, 1990 11 - 26 Capital Improvements
Figure # (5)
ST. LUC I E CQUt~TY
SOURCES OF RE1,~E~lUE FDR ~[7AI7 CONSTRUCT LaN
CONSTITUT_ 3~_lr
GAS TAX
- _ 1 i 4 . i 1 CC]UN T 5'
_ GAS T'A~
~~Y=~=~~~:~:::~=~--~11 , II~~
l
,
_ -
. .
~ _
LDCAL ?PT. 30.6i - = 23.2~ IMPAGT FEE
GRS TAk ~ -
''~"--~•r-.
~ - =
January 9, 1990 11 - 27 Capital Improvements
~
~ ROAD TAX COLLECTIGNS FOR ST. LUCI~ COUNTY 1980 THROUGIi 1988 WITH PROJECTIONS T~IROUGH 2O15
~
w
FISCAL (1) (2) (3) (4) (S). (5) (7)
Y~AR COUNTY % CONSTITUT % CONSI'I'UT % 'fOTAL % LOCAL % IMPACT % TOTAL
Et.D CEN'I' INC/ GAS TAX INC/ GAS TAX INC/ COtiSTITUT INC/ OPTION 1NC/ FEES 1NC/ GAS
C,~S T~X -DEC 20% -DEC 80% -DEC CAS TAX -DEC CAS TAX -DEC -DI:C TAXES
N ~
~
`D 1990 57a,5a5 217,812 933,000 1,150,812 1,725,397
~ 1991 604,994 5.3% 208,124 -~~,4% 94G,500 1.~~% 1,154,fi24 0.3% 1,)59,618
I~82 55],II9~~ -8.4% 236,861 13.8% 1,015,0~0 13.6% 1,311,861 1~.6% 1,865-,755
198J 701,30J 27.7% 237,877 0.4% 2,214,997 106.0% 2,452,f3)4 87.0% ~,160,177
198~~ 580,600 -17,9% 219,448 -7,7% 810,116 -G3.~~% 1,029,564 -58.0% 1,610,164
1985 58f3,250 1.3% 216,914 -1.2% 846,112 4.4% 1,063,026 3.3% 1,o51,2J5
1986 540,258 -8.2% 223,409 3.0'!. 774,643 -8.4% 99A,052 -6.1% 1,041,888 ?,580,199
1997 537,35) -0.5% 337,302 51,0% 804,036 3.8% 1,141,338 ~14,4% 1,310,901 2,J76,9)6 128.1% 5,426,572
1988 608,686 13.3% 274,353 -18,7% 893,442 l1.1% 1,167,~94 2.3% 2,051,514 49.6% 2,Jt,8,712 -0.3% 6,196,)0)
1989 653,521 7.4/ 353,000 28,7% 938,114 S.0% 1,291,114 10.6% 1,652,486 -9.7Z 2,342,399 1.0% b,18~),520
~ 1990 6G7,965 2.2% 370,650 S,0% 985,019 S.0% 1,J55,669 5.0% 1,945,110 5.0% 2,416,323 1.0% 6,385,06)
i 1991 701,363 5.0% ~ 389,183 5.0% 1,034,2)0 5.0% 1,423,453 S.0% 2,042,366 5.0% 2,440,486 1.0% 6,60),668
1992 736,431 S,0% 408,642 5.0% 1,085,984 S,0'!. 1,494,G25 5.0% 2,144,484 S.0% 2,G64,891 1.0% 6,840,4J2
~ 1491 773,252 5.0% 429,074 5.07 1,35),480 25.0% 1,7fi6,553 19.5% 2,251,~08 5.0% 2,489,540 1.0% ),J01,054
199~~ 811,915 5.0% 450,527 S.0% 1,415,354 5.0% 1,875,881 5.0'I. 2,364,294 5.07. 2,514,436 1.0% 7,566,525
1995 852,511 S.0% ~4~3,054 S.0% 1,496,621 5.0% 1,969,675 S.0% 2,G82,508 5.0% 2,539,580 1.0% 7,844,214
1996 895,136 5.0% 496,706 S.0% 1,571,452 S.0% 2,068,159 S.0% 2,606,63~i S.0% 2,564,976 1.0% 8,134,905
I997 939,893 5.0% 521,542 S.0% 1,650,025 5.0% 2,171,561 S.0% 2,736,9G6 5.0% 2,590,625 1.0% 8,439,051
199a 986,8a8 5.0% 547,619 5.0~ 1,)J2,526 S.0% 2,280,145 S.0% 2,87~,fi14 S.0% 2,616,532 1.0% 8,757,379
1999 I,U3G,232 S.0% 575,000 5,0~ 1,819,153 5.0% 2,394,152 S.0% 3,017,504 5.0% 2,642,697 1.0% 9,090,586
~ 2000 1,119,tJ1 8.0% 62:,000 8,0% 1,964,685 f3.0% 2,585,685 8.0% 3,168,380 5.0% 2,6fi9,124 1.0% 9,542,J19
~ 2001 1,208,661 8.0% 670,680 8.0% 2,121,860 0.0% 2,792,539 t3.0% 3,326,799 5.0% 2,695,815 1,0% 10,02J,815
~ 2002 1,305,354 8,0% 724 J34 8.0% 2 291 608 8.0% 3 O15 943 8.0% 3 493 139 S.0% 2 722 773 1.0% 10 537 209
E-'~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~
~ 200) 1,409,7a~ 8.0% 7ti2,281 8,0% 2,47~~,93) 8.0% 3,257,218 8.0% ~,667,)96 5.0% 2,750,001 1.0% 11,084,]9)
~ :u04 1,522,565 8.0% 844,863 8,0% 2,672,932 ,8.0% ~,517,795 8.0% 3,851,185 S.0% 2,771,501 I.C,'/. 11,669,0:~)
H 2oCS 1,6~~4,370 8.0% 912,452 8,0% 2,886,767 8.0% 3,)99,219 8.0%" 4,043,745 S.0% 2,805,2)6 1.0% 12,292,610
~ 20oG 1,775,920 8.0% 985,449 8,0% 3,11~,708 8.0% 4,IOJ,157 8.0% 4,245,9J2 S.0% 2,833,329 1.0% 12,958,33)
~ 200) 1,917,494 8.0% 1,064,285 8,0% 3,367,125 E3.~% G,431,409 8.0% 4,458,228 5.0% 2,fi61,662 1.0% 13,669,29J
~i
O 2005 2,011,47J II.0% 1,149,427 8,0% ~,GJG,495 0.0% 4,785,')22 A.0% 4,681,140 5.0% 2,890,2)9 l.U;: 14,428,7)4
C 2009 2,2J7,I~~D 8.0% 1 241 381 8,0% 3 927 414 f1.0% 5 tGEi 796 ~.0% 4 915 197 5.0% 2 919 182 1.0% 15 240,J22
(p r i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r . ~
~ 2010 2,41b,120 8.0% 1,340,692 8.0% 4,241,607 0.0% 5,582,299 a.0% 5,160,957 5.0% 2,948,373 1.0% 16,10),7a9
ro 2011 2,609 ~~09 a.0% 1 447 94) f3,0% 4 580 9J6 f1.0% 6 02t1 f1t13 (1.0% 5 419 005 S.0% 2 977 85) 1.0% 1),0~5, IS~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ , ~ ~ ,
~012 1,81a,IG2 8.0% 1,563,78J 8,0% 4,947,411 8,0% G,511,194 f3.0% 5,689,955 5.Q% 3,OO7,G36 1.0% 18,026,946
~ 2013 ~,04],GtS 8.0% 1,6Ei8,886, 8,0% 5,343•;204 8.0~ 7,0]2,089 f3.0% 5,974,452 5.0% 3,037,712 1.0% 19,087,869
2014 ~,2p7,10a 8.0% 1,823,997 8,0% 5,7)0,660 0.0% 7,594,65) 8.0% 6,273,175 5.0% 3,068,089 1,0% 20,22),025
2015 ~,550,012 8.0% 1,969,916 8.0% 6,232,313 f3.0% 8,202,229 8,0% 6,586,834 5,0% J,098,~70 1.0% 21,~J~,905
TABLE 11-5
EXPENDITURES
The previous discussion reviewed the various funding or income
sources currently utilized by St. Lucie County. This section
discusses how those monies are allocated to meet the County's
needs. The expenses are provided in Table 11-6 from a historical
perspective back to 1980 and have been projected through the life
of this plan. The following paragraphs provide a general
discussion of the expenditure categories provided in Table 11-6:
(1) GENERAL GOVERNMENT: The expenses accumulated in this column
are for the legislative, administrative, legal, financial,
comprehensive planning and general maintenance functions. Due to
the additional facilities to be constructed during the next few
years, the need for additional staffing will increase the cost of
operating. Maintenance of existing facilities will continue to
be necessary in order to keep areas clean, safe and up to current
building codes.
(2) PUBLIC SAFETY: The majority of the expenses in this
category are for financial support of the St. Lucie County
Sheriff's operations, including the Correctional System. Other
activities in this category are for the Youth Hall, Central
Communications (911), Emergency Management, Building Inspections
and Code Enforcement.
(3) PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT: The main activity of expense in this
category is St. Lucie County's cooperative effort with IFAS ta
supply technical agricultural support to this industry. The
department also provides training to citizens with regard to
gardening, nutrition and 4-H programs.
(4) TRANSPORTATION: St. Lucie County is responsible for two
forms of transportation at this time, which are roads and the
airport. This calumn includes the personnel and general
maintenance costs of these functions, but not the cost of
construction and expansion of such facilities.
(5) ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT: The Board of County Commissioners
have been supporting the St. Lucie County Growth Opportunity Team
with funding to help attract clean industry to the area. This
organization is a branch of the Chamber of Commerce.
(6) HUMAN SERVICES: The County is required to participate in
Medicaid and Medicare programs with the State and Federal
governments. The County has provided a hospital indigent program
for a number of years and recently with the Health Care
Responsibility Act and State/County Share Program, the potential
for increased expenses is possible. The County also funds the St.
Lucie County Health Department, Indian River Community Mentai
Health Clinic and various non-profit organizations that provide
help to the indigent, elderly, abused and animal control.
January 9, 1990 11 - 29 Capital Improvements
(7) CULTURE/RECREATION: St. Lucie County operates a number of
beach accesses, recreational areas, a civic center and sports
complexes throughout the County. The expenses in this column are
for staff, maintenance and general operating costs of the
facilities. A number of the activities have user fees and as the
expansion of certain facilities occur, this practice may be
expanded.
(8) DEBT SERVICE: Presently, St. Luci~ County has three voted
debt issues being retired: Erosion Control, Beach Land
Acquisition and Jail Construction. All of these issues will be
retired by 2003. This column does not include the Lakewood Park
Municipal Service Benefit Unit Assessment Bonds.
(9) CAPITAL OUTLAY: This column represents the cost of
equipment replacement and additions, minor expansion of
facilities and furnishing for buildings.
(10) TOTALS: This is the total of all operating expenses, debt
service and capital items that are used in the normal operations
and maintenance of facilities. This does not include any major
building or facility construction.
January 9, 1990 11 - 30 Capital Improvements
Figure n ( 6)
GENF~2RL GOVERMiF~~IT E?tPEh~ES
AIS'{INISIF?RTIQN, LE~AL, FIt~A}~If1L, Figure 7)
~ t`f~ INIEN~t~E, P LflMI Il~, ZQN ING
MILLIati CF ~OLLA~~
14 s7. U.C I E CQNiY
a.e~ic ~rr. ~w~ o~a~r~z
Ci127C7I0tiG
1~ ,II,IIIl~~~L ( 30HIL_IOH C~ DaLLf~S
(~IY. EkP.
10 25 ~PUBIIC ,.~t ~
SHFETY.
B 2n
u
6 15 .,,ws`
1
3~8 w~~~a~~ b~
~ io .
~ ~
*"~~~,~~~~.~g-~~~
5 r7~.nnan,~o.-..~,.g,~,~...,~.~.
z O ~a " ~ ~ I~~~~w.~~',~ +.~~N . ~ r'~'~
~ , ' 80 82 84 ~ 88 SO 92 94
80 fll 82 83 84 85 86 87 8B 8° gl 83 es a~ 85 si 93
HIIDt~T Y~FR
Figure # (8)
ST_ LUCIE COUNTY COMPAPZSON
EXPENDiTURES
TP.F?NSPORT.
s~ _ o M I L GEN' L-GOV _
,C.~~'X~x j~~ ~ 13 . 1 N I L
~~\••.f
=,-r,:_ „ "~l;'~1,:~;;; :~F'.~;
E~.~ t\t` 1XaXi~
~ ~~I ~'~yw~
• \
~t• L~ _'..:'J
,f;
;
,;,1 • ;i, :t::_~~'`""~ ; '
<:.;.~;ti,~: - w '
F:~=: .~~1,~;,1~X .r~,
~~-~:1~~`••~~~ ll` `l`:~ 14 ~
{:l:? ' ~:l`:t%~\
PUB . SAFETY ;.:~;,1;;:;
s18. 1 MI L CAPZTAL
s3.2 HIL
D EBT
~i~•`~v~ sZ. 6 MI L
~ -'~~~RECREfaTION
HUMAN ScR`J ~6 M I L
ENVIR s4_2
1Q8~
January 9, 1990 11 - 31 Capital Improvements
, EXPENDITURES FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY ACTUAL 1980 THROUGH 1988 ESTIMATES 1989 THROUGH 2O15
i
~ flSCnl. (1) (2) (J) (4) (51 (7) (8) (9) (10)
l
~ Yf.nR GGNERnL PU111.IC PIfYSICAL TRANSPORTA'fION CCONOhIIC 11UNAN . CULTURE/ DEBT CAPITAL TOTALS
' ~~iD GOVE(tNHENT SA~ETY ENVIRO`1[HT GNV1RONf;NT SF.fiVICES RECREATION SERVICE OUTLAY
~~,~p ~,pr„~~~~ ~,72~~,92~ 19A,11b 1,5/~8,7/~5 ~S,J72 1,1E1h,93S ` 1,407,18H 155,402 922,255 11,52),161
~ 1')91 4,190~9J2 " 4~58/~~22~ ^ 25/~~904 ^ l~)5),701 ^ J0~95G 1~519~102 ^ 2~412~059 ^ 155~9~~ 1~040~129 ° 15~954,020
~ ~002 r.,9/,~,,~~~5 n S,/~q1,010 ^ 44),480 ^ 2,1)6,788 ^ 44,509 ^ 1~700,/~6J ^ 2,~+90,558 n 155,420 1,60),6]2 * 19,051,915
~ 1~8J S,J~~1,902 6,205,110 ^ JSO,Ol2 ^ 2,14),916 ^ /~9,52) ^ 1,009,7~5 2,682,149~ * 42b,J69 508,715 ^ 19,51),561
190:, G,21a,004 ~ 6,984,715 ^ JJJ,740 ^ 2,t9J,411 ^ D1,507 ^ 1,9~~J,06J 2,8)9,JSS ^ 1,09~,281 1,342,172 ^ 2J,074,109
1485 ),025,2GG ~ 7,89S,40J ^ 904,689 ^ J,67G,G)1 ~ 59,2GJ ^ 2,?98,265 ^ ~,~SG,786 ^ 1,974,]16 1,726,219 ^ 18,917,291
19~3G 8,697,ISG ~ 10,69~~,J0~~ ^ 229,928 ^ 4,258,)JO ^ 67,795 ^ 2,J81,148 3,549,J24 ~ 1,816,619 2,865,~41 ^~4,556,OaS
I^9; 10,]20,75J. ~ 1~,966,40J " ~J2,142 ~ J,)8G,595 ^ 77,S17 ^ 2,91G,686 ^ 4,159,554 ~ 2,784,140 2,)77,6~J ^ 40,624,42]
1990 12,657,J95 ^ 16,789,SSG " 459,4g2 ^ ~~,SJ4,205 ^ 100,212 ^ ~,179,179 ^ 4~82),148 ^ 2,117,617 J,871,048 ^ 48,549,854
I~~fl9 tJ,105,6~~1 1fi,OG7,)JS ^ 608,909 ^ 4,97~~,150 ^ ISL,OG2 ^ J,4G5,296 ^ 6,J49,645 ^ 2,)74,945 J,242,J]2 ^ 57,))4,eJS
1990 1~~,416,205 19,]32,/~)G ^ 6~9~4)8 ^ 5~571,048 ^ 158~G15 ^ ~,811,825 ^ ),111,602 ~,~20,108 J~404,491 ^ SJ,)65,809
1991 IG,290,J12 ^ 21,265,724 * 6J1,410 G,195,2tl~~ ^ 1G'~,718 ^ 4,2)1, MG ' 7,964,993 ^ 3,9~5,091 J,5)4,715 ^ 6~,)98,J82
1992 18,2/~5~1/i9 ^ 22~754~J7.5 " ~11h~9A1 ^ G~924~81~ ^ 1~1,599 ~ 4~G54~2Jf1 ^ 8~920~194 ~ J~202~10~ J~75~~451 ^ 69~J41,457
~ 199) 20,252,I1G ~ 24,7~~1,128 ^ 740,2J0 ^ ),611,29i~ ^ 194,J10 ^ 5,119,GG2 ~ 9,991,289 ^ 2,915,96J ~,941,12J ^ 75,119,115
199~~ 22,271,327 ^ 2G,781,8/~0 rt ))),241 * 8,~)9,02J ^ 207,911 ~ S,GJ1,629 ^ 11,190,244 r 2,879~468 4,1~8,190 ^ A2,262,86~~
~ 1~95 2),II)6,)~~0 ^ 28,G5G,SG9 * EilG,l04 * 9,049,~45 ^ 222,465 ^ 5,91J,210 ^ 11,9)J,S~~1 * 2,854,61J 4,Ju5,089 ^ 8),667,696
I??G 25,505,)12 ^ )0,662,529 ^ 856,907 ^ 9,))J,Z9J ^ 2~9,0~8 ^ G,208,8)1 ^ 12,811,710 ^ 2,818,671 4,562,J4) ^ 4J,4J7,6)5
~J 1'~~J 27,290~,G8~~ ~ 32,808,906 ^ 899,15~ ^ l0,SS5,15G ^ 254,700 ^ 6,519,J14 ~ 1J,708,530 ^ l,)81,345 4,790,460 ^ 48,608,850
V I99g 29,201,(1J2 ^ J5,105,529 ^ 944,742 * 11,J99,SG9 ^ 2)2,524 ^ G,045,~80 ^ 14,668,121 * 1,J48,020 5,029,4~?) ^ 105,21a,812
1999 )1,245,10~~ ^ 37,SG2,916 ^ 991,919 ^ 12,311,5J~~ ^ 29t,606 ^ 7,187,544 rt 15,694,896 ~ 1,1)),998 5,281,482 ^ Ill,)01,060
I000 )J,4)2,2G1 ^ ~~0,192,121 ^ 1,041,S7A ^ 1J,29G,45J ^ J12,019 ^ 7,546,921 ^ 16,79J,5J4 ^ 1,094,a28 5,545,SS6 ^ 114,)55,580
200I 35,7)2,519 ' 4),UOS,18J " 1,09J,657 ^ I~~,JG0,174 ~ JJ3,860 ^ 7,924,1G7 ^ 1),969,097 ^ 1,101,41J 5,822,8J4 ~ 12),)8J,594
1UU2 ~8,1)~~,59G ^ 4G,O1G,108 ^ 1,I48,~40 ^ 15,508,981 ^ J51,230 ^ 8,720,4p0 ^ 19,226,92) ^ 1,110,S0J 6,llJ,9~6 ^ 1J6,019,223
200) ~.0,955,957 ^ 49,2)1,J21 ^ 1,205,757 ^ 16,749,)06 ^ ~82,2J7 B,])G,504 20,572,80) ^ 1,116,S4S 6,419,675 ^ 1~5,)76,S10
2~U~~ ~~J,822,8]4 ~ 52,68J,9~J ^ 1,26G,044 ~ 18,089,GBJ ^ 408,99) " 9,17~,J)0 ~ 22,Oi2,90G * 6,740,659 ^ 15~,198,421
2005 ~~G,n°~,~~7G ^ 56,J11,004 ^ i,J29,J47 ^ 19,5J6,058 ^ 4J7,62J ^ 9,6)1,996 2~,55~,80) * ),077,691 ~ 164,829,606
n t00G '~~'.I)2,GU9 ^ GO,J1),eJS " 1,~9S,814 ~ 21,099,80G ^ ~~GA,256 ^ 10,11~,596 ^ 25,202,5)4 ^ 7,4~1,57b ^ 1)6,202,266
~ 200i 5~,G84,905 ° 64,540,084 ^ 1,4GS,605 ^ 22,787,791 ^ SOI,OJ~~ ^ 10,619,276 " 26,966,754 R ),80J,155 ^ 188,)68,603
LJ
N• 2Cn9 5~,~~~~2,R~~9 ^ 69,05),890 ^ 1,5J8,885 ^ 1~~,610,ti14 ^ 5~6,101 ^ 11,1:,0,2J9 ^ 29,854,a26 * 8,19),~IJ ^ 201,J84,52)
~ 2~09 GI,~G3,0~,0 h 7J,891,942 ^ 1,615,429 ^ 26,5)7,G7~ ^ 5]),G34 rt 11,10),751 ^~0,814,2~6 ~ ~8,60Z,9)8 ^ 215,104,999
w 2010 6S,76G,~18 79,064,]78 " 1,69G,621 ^ 2B,)OG,05J GIJ,7~t3 12,293,1)9 ^ J],0)5,4~) ^ 9,0)J,127 ^ 2)0,209,857
1--' n t * 4 4,7BJ ^ 246,150,Q80
2~1i 70,1G9,9G0 ~ 84,590,80h ^ 1,)01,452 ^ J1,002,S~tf ~ 656,~54 12,907,79G J5,)+7,91] 9, 8
~ 'p12 7~~,592,157 " 89,6)4,81) ^ 1,870,324 ~ J],172,115 f~b,li9 IJ,SSJ,III6 ^ ~),G68,188 ^ 9,939,07? " 260,98),J)0
2U1] 79,OG7,G87 ' 95,055,J07 ^ 1,9G4,050 ^ ~5,49~~,805 " 7J7,92D ^ 1~~,230,~45 " ~9,716,913 ^ 10,456,9)4 ^ 2)6,]24,512
~ , ~ e 4r,2 ^ 782 204 !4 942 J81 ^ 42 099 9]0 * 10,9)9,822 ^ 291,416,c12
F~ 101~ aJ,e11,~~,8 ^ 100,)SD 625 ^ 2 062 25J ]7,919, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 2015 !]0,9~,0,~~5) ^ Il)G,I!O~~,142 ^ 2,165,J6G ~t 40,6J~,00) ~ 829,i~G 15,689,507 ^ 44,b23,926 * 11,528,814 ~ J11,121,J~6
C
N
~
ro TABLr 11-6
~
~t
~
PROJECTION OF DEBT CAPACITY
One of the ways in which capital needs are provided is through
debt. The primary rationale for becoming obligated for such
facilities through indebtedness is that it spreads the cost of
the facility over its useful life and thus is indeed paid for by
those who are there to use it. St. Lucie County has historically
used debt for providing capital facilities and it is guite likely
to do so in the future. A key factor in determining how debt can
be factored into the provision of necessary infrastructure is to
examine the County's capacity to handle debt. Table 11-7 on the
next page provides a projection beginning in 1990 through the
year 2015 of the County's capacity for debt. The following
paragraphs provide a general description of each of the revenue
sources identified in Table 11-7 which can be directly obligated
to the retirement of debt:
(1) GENERAL BONDABLE REVENUES: This column is the total of
revenues which can be used as collateral to issue bonds for the
County. The main sources are the State Revenue Sharing, Half-
Cent Sales Tax, Race Track Tax and Fines & Forfeitures. Refer to
Table 1 for more information about these revenues.
(2) BONDABLE GAS TAX: Table 11-5 includes additional
information on the types of gas taxes available for road
construction.
(3) TOTAL PROJECTED NON-CAPITAL REVENUES: Revenue.s that cannot
be readily used for debt service, including ad valorem taxes,
which cannot be used for this purpose without a referendum.
(4) TOTAL PROJECTED NON-CAPITAL EXPENSES: Projected expenditures
for operating expenses and annual capital expenses for equipment
and minor expansion of facilities.
(5) TOTAL AVAILABLE FOR INFRASTRUCTURE: Funds remaining after
normal operating expenses are satisfied.
(6) TOTAL CURRENT DEBT OBLIGATIONS: Refer to Table 11-7 on the
next page for further information about the current County debts.
(7) UNDEDICATED FUNDS AVAILABLE: Balance of funds projected to
be available for debt service.
(8) DEBT CAPACITY: Maximum amount of debt that can be incurred
based on the total undedicated funds available.
January 9, 1990 11 - 33 Capital Improvements
~
~ ANALYSIS C1F FUNDS AVAII.ABLE FOR ST. LUCIE COUNT'Y Of'CnATIONS AND DEBT SERVICE
~
G
~ (1) (z) (3) (~a) ~5) (6) (7) (8)
C t'ISCAL GENERAL nONDAIILE TOTAL TO'fAL TOTAL TOTAL U?7DEDICATED DEBT
~p YEAR BONDABLE GAS TAXES PROJECTED PROJECCGD AVAILABLE CURRENT DEBT FUNDS CAPACITY
' END REVENUES NON-CAPITAL NON-CAI'iTAL FOR CAPITAL OBLIGATIONS AVAILAIILE
REVENUES EXPENSES (1+2+3)-(4) (5~-(b~
~
~
~ 1990 8,535,646 3,379,303 50,059,174 54,445,701 7,528,423 3,320,108 4,208,315 42,100,000
1991 9,223,786 3,548,268 56,941,746 60,463,284 9,250,517 3,935,097 5,315,420 53,200,000
1992 9,968,943 3,725,682 62,13h,308 66,139,349 9,689,584 3,202,103 6,487,481 64,900,000
1993 10,775,855 4,346,359 67,636,184 72,203,152 10,555,247 2,915,963 7,639,284 76,400,000
1994 11,649,657 4,563,677 73,459,123 79,383,396 10,289,062 2,879,468 ~,409,594 74,100,000
1995 12,595,908 4,~91,861 78,637,192 84,813,Ot33 11,211,878 2,854,613 8,357,265 83,600,000
1996 13,620,634 5,031,454 83,809,919 90,619~,004 11,84~,003 2,818,671 9,024,332 90,200,000
1997 14,730,364 5,283,02) 89,252,053 96,827,505 12,43~,940 1,781,345 10,656,595 106,600,000
1998 15,932,169 5,547,178 94,982,007 1~3,4G6,791 12,994,563 1,748,020 11,2G6,543 112,500,000
1999 17,233,712 5,824,537 100,444,586 110,567,062 12,935,773 1,133,998 11,8G1,775 118,000,000
N
2000 1II,643,296 6,290,500 106,248,187 118,160,652 13,021,332 1,094,928 11,926,404 119,300,0 ~
~ 2001 20 169 917 6 793,740 112 416 375 126 282 181 13 097 851 1 101 413 11 996 438 120 QUt) 000
, , , , , ~ ~ , ~ , , , , , ,
~ 20U2 21,823,322 7,337,239 118,974,519 134,968,720 13,166,360 1,110,503 12,055,857 120,600,OU0
2003 23,614,072 7 924 219 125 949 951 144 259,964 13 228 277 1 116 545 12 111 732 121 100 OOU
~ ~ , , , , , , ~ , , ~ ~
2004 25,553,611 8,558,156 133,064,382 154,198,420 12,977,730 12,971,730 129,800,000
2005 27,654,341 9,242,809 140,601,920 164,829,606 12,669,464 12,669,464 126,700,000
2006 29,929,700 9,982,233 148,589,312 176,202,266 12,298,979 12,298,979 123,000,000
2007 32,394,2~~8 10,7~0,812 157,634,344 188,368,603 12,44a,801 12,440,801 124,400,000
2008 35,063,~65 11,643,277 167,249,094 201,384,522 12,571,614 12,571,614 125,700,000
2009 38,4~~G,405 12,574,739 177,074,855 215,309,898 12,786,100 12,786,100 127,900,000
2010 al 617 87) 13 580 718 188 6fi9 949 230 208 E357 13 679 6f37 13 679 687 136 800 000
~ , ~ , ~ ~ , ~ , , , , ~ ,
~ 2011 45,U53,175 14,667,176 200,594,288 246,150,080 14,164,559 14,164,559 141,600,000
2012 48 774 315 15 840 550 212 539 133 2G0 987 369 16 166 628 16 166 628 161 700 000
r1- , , , ~ , ~ , ~ ~ , , , , ~
~ 2013 52 805 156 l~ 107 )94 225 255 328 276 724 511 18 443 766 18,443 766 184 400 000
~ ~ , , , , , , , , , , , ,
2014 57,1~1,555 18,476,417 238,797,460 293,416,411 21,029,Q20 21,029,020 210,300,000
~ 2015 61,901,534 19,95~~,530 252,668,033 311,121,346 23,402,752 23,402,752 234,000,000
~
`i
~ TABLE 11-7
C
D '
~
~
~
-t-
n
MAJOR OUTSTANDING DEBTS
In order to provide needed capital facilities, the County in the
past has utilized bonded indebtedness as a funding mechanism. In
order to complete this discussion of revenues, expenditures and
capacity for debt, it is important to know the nature of existing
debt. Table 11-8 provides a breakdown of the various current bond
issue obligations of the County by annual payment and interest
costs. The following paragraphs provide a general description of
each of the obligations identified in Table 11-8:
(1) EROSION BONDS, VOTED DEBT: In 1968, the citizens of St.
Lucie County voted to issue $650,000 in bonds to renourish the
beach. The levy is allocated in four zones each year, which was
originally intended to tax the citizens that would benefit the
most from the renourishment. The issue will be retired in 1999.
(2) BEACH LAND ACQUISITION BONDS, VOTED DEBT: In 1981, the
citizens of St. Lucie County voted to issue $10,000,000 in bonds
to purchase and develop beach property for public use. To date,
approximately $19 million worth of property has been purchased
through cooperative efforts with the City of Ft. Pierce and the
State of Florida. This issue will be retired in 2003.
(3) JAIL CONSTRUCTION BONDS, VOTED DEBT: In 1986, the citizens
of St. Lucie County were given a choice of three options to
construct a new correctional facility: additional sales tax,
general obligations bonds and raise ad valorem taxes. The County
was under court order to construct a new facility; therefore, a
choice of whether to fund the project was not available, but,
rather of how to fund the project. As a result of this, the
referendum ballot included the one-cent discretionary sales tax
and a general obligation bond issue. As a result of the
campaign, both issues were approved which ultimately reduced the
need to issue all the bonds approved. The one-cent sales tax
produced approximately $5 million in the one year. This issue
will be retired in 1996.
(4) AIRPORT PROPERTY ACQUISITION BONDS, REVENUE BONDS: The St.
Lucie County Port and Airport Authority was required to purchase
land and buildings with access to the airport in order to
preserve the ability to receive funding from the FAA. This issue
will be retired in 1991.
(5) ROAD CONSTRUCTION BONDS, REVENUE BONDS: These bonds were
issued using the Constitutional Gas tax as the source of revenue.
Additional information is included in Table 11-7. This issue
will be retired in 1992.
January 9, 1990 11 - 35 Capital Improvements
(6) LAKEWOOD PARK ASSESSMENT BONDS: In 1988, the Board of
County Commissioners created a Municipal Service Benefit Unit to
pave the roadways and establish a water management system in the
Lakewood Park Development. The bonds were issued in 1989 and
will be retired with special assessments on the property of the
area in 1998.
(7) TOTAL CURRENT DEBT: The total of all major debts of St.
Lucie County is shown in Figure 9.
Figure # (9)
ST. LUCIE COUNTY DLSTRIBUTION OF CURRENT
DEBT AS OF 1q89
BEAGH 48.4:
516_2 MIL
1.~~ ER~SION
- ~ . 47 M I L
:
~ , , ~ ~ s
:s__-..:::~~'-.~
>>~1; ~11;,~ °
~
; ;1, ; :
;1~~
\i
\l~ ~ ~l,
~ ~ . . ~ ~ , x:-=.-••=_
_ .
" 2 L. O~ LAKE W ~ ~ D
J A I L 23 . 8 . : ~ = .
S7 . 9 M I L -~.~'s~,~~ - - ~ . Q } ; I L
RI P,PORT ~ 2. 4~ 2. 9~ ROAII
~_85 MIL ~.98 MIL
TOTAL DEBT s33_4 MILLLON
January 9, 1990 11 - 35 Capital Improvements
ti
w
~
~
w
n
~C
~
~ CURRENC ~JAJOR DEDTS OF 5T, LUCIE COUNTY DOARD OF COUNTY COt1HISSIONERS
~
~ (1) ~2) (t~) ~S) (6)
O
ffi05I0N RONUS Of:AC11 DOIIDS JAIL ~ONDS AIRf (?RT UONDS ROAD BONDS LAKEUOOD PARX BONDS TO A.
VOTED DfI1T VOTED DF.DT VOTED DEDT AF,VI:tlUE BONDS REVENUE BGNDS ASSESSNENT BONDS CURRENT
PftINCI(',11. INTERf•.ST PRIt7CIPAL INTfI~P:ST PRINCIPAI. INTERGST PRINCIPAL INTEREST PRI1dCIPAL INTEREST PRINCIPAL INTEREST DEBT
250 200 000 G4,115 2,J7~,945
i9~9 ~5,000 18,210 280,000 1GJ,880 G15,000 37J,490 55, ,
I;~~i~ 25,000 16,960 J10,000 1J8,805 650,000 J41,20~ 55,250 210,000 ~J,915 575,000 J63,975 J,J20,108
i~~'~~ 70,000 I5,)10 J~~0,000 111,180 685,000 ]05,452 650,000 55,250 220,000 2~,205 S)5,000 324,~00 ],9J5,091
i9g2 )0,000 14,210 J)5,OU0 680,79~ 7~0,000 2G6,OG,5 2J5,000 11,9~5 575,000 284,050 ),202,10)
575,000 243,800 2,915,96)
199J ~0,000 12,G80 415,000 647,218 )70,00(1 z22~2~5 S]5,000 103,SSp 2,8J9,468
~qqi, ~~~ppp 11,150 ~~55,000 610,24~ 820,Ot1U 174,525 515,000 16~,J00 2,854,61]
~ SU5 000 569 44~ 075,U00 122,250
F_, ~nn5 JS,000 9,G20 , ~ 5)5,000 122,4)5 2,8t8,6)1
~nn~, ]S,OUtI 7,t3UU 555,000 524~115 9J5,000 G4,2~~ 575,000 81,650 1,781,J45
~ i~,,~7 JS,r)q~ 5,900 '610,000 4)],)15
41Q OJS 575,000 40,825 1,748,020
I99A ~~0,000 4,1G0 G70,000 , I,IJJ,998
~ 1999 r~0,000 2,0~0 715,000 35G,918 ~~p4a,9~8
?O~~ 805,000 289,928 I,lOl,4 U
lnnl 885,000 216,41J 1,110,SOJ
,~~~~2 975,000 1~5,503 1,116,545
1,070,000 46,545
TABLE 11-8
c~
W
b
I~•
ri'
W
N
H
~
b
~
~
C
(D
~
(D
~ '
rt
~
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES
GOAL 11.1: TO PROVIDE PUBLIC FACILITIES NECESSARY TO
ACHIEVE AND MAINTAIN ADOPTED LEVEL OF SERVICE
STANDARDS CONCURRENT WITH DEMAND THROUGH
FISCALLY SOUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAMMING AND BUDGETING.
NEEDS DELINEATION
Objective 11.1.1: Utilize a process which defines types of
public facilities, establishes standards for
level of service for each type of public
facility, and determines what capital
improvements are needed in order to achieve
and maintain standards (as well as to repair
or replace existing public facilities).
Policy 11.1.1.1: Public facilities means the capital
improvements and systems of each of the
following: arterial and collector roads, mass
transit, stormwater management, potable
water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, parks and
recreation, libraries, jails, courthouse
facilities, administrative facilities,
mosquito control, Port of Ft. Pierce, St.
Lucie County International Airport, public
education and public health facilities and
shall include land, structures, the initial
furnishings and equipment, design,
permitting, and construction costs. Other
"capital" costs, such as motor vehicles and
motorized equipment, computers and office
equipment, office furnishings, and small
tools are considered in the County's annual
budget, but such items are not "public
facilities" for the purposes of this
Comprehensive Plan, or the issuance of
development orders.
Policy 11.1.1.2: The County shall establish standards for
levels of service for four categories of
public facilities, as follows:
A. Category A Publir. Facilities means
arterial and coll~ctor roads, mass
transit, stormwater ;~anagement, potable
water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, and
parks and recreation facilities owned or
operated by St. Lucie County, all of
January 9, 1990 11 - 38 Capital Improvements
which are addressed in other elements of
this Comprehensive Plan.
B. Category B Public Facilities means
libraries, corrections, courthouse,
administration, mosquito control, Port
of Ft. Pierce, and St. Lucie County
International Airport as owned, operated
or developed by St. Lucie County.
Category B Public Facilities are not
used for concurrency purposes as
provided for in the Concurrency
Management Sy~tem.
C. Category C Public Facilities means
arterial and collector roads, mass
transit, stormwater management, potable
water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, and
parks and recreation facilities owned or
operated by Federal, State and municipal
governments, independent districts, and
private organizations, all of which
are addressed in other elements of
this Comprehensive Plan.
D. Category D Public Facilities means
public health and public education
facilities owned or operated by Federal,
State, and municipal ~ governments,
independent districts, and private
organizations. Category D Public
Facilities are not used for concurrency
purposes as provided for in the
Concurrency Management System.
Policy 11.1.1.3: The quantity of public facilities necessary
to eliminate existing deficiencies and to
meet the needs of future growth shall be
determined for every type of public facility
by the following calculation: Q=(S x D) -
E.
Where:
Q is the quantity of public facility needed,
S is the standard for level of service,
D is the demand, such as the population, and
E is the inventory of existing facilities.
The calculation will be used for existing
demand in order to determine existing
deficiencies. The calculation will be used
for projected demand in order to determine
needs of future growth. The estimates of
projected demand will account for demand that
is likely to occur from previously issued
January 9, 1990 11 - 39 Capital Improvements
development ~rders as well as future growth.
Public facilities to serve demand from
previously issued development orders shall
be included in "D" (3emand) in the preceding
calculation.
Policy 11.1.1.4: The public facility formula will be used fcr
current demand in order to determine existing
deficiencies. The public facility formula
will be used for projected demand in or~er to
determine needs of future growth. The
estimates of projected demand will account
for demand that is likely to occur from
previously issued development orders as well
as future growth.
Policy 11.1.1.5: Demand that is likely to occur from
previously issued development orders will be
addressed by the County "reserving" capacity
of public facilities for development orders
that were issued by the County prior to the
adoption of this Comprehensive Plan and that
are determined to have vested rights for
purposes of the concurrency management
system. The conditions that are necessary to
establish vested rights and reserve capacity
will be detailed in the land development
regulations to be adopted by August 1, 1990.
The County intends to require persons with
legitimate and substantial vested rights to
continue development in good faith in order
to reserve capacity of public facilities.
The County will not reserve capacity of
public facilities for previously issued
development orders that do not have vested
rights for purposes of concurrency manage-
ment, and/or which do not continue
development in good faith.
Policy 11.1.1.6: There are three circumstances in which the
standards for levels of service are not the
exclusive determinant of need for a public
facility:
A. Calculated needs for public facilities
in coastal high hazard areas are subject
to all limits and conditions in the
Conservation and Coastal Management and
Future Land Use Elements of this Plan
(see Policy 11.1.5.1).
B. Replacement of obsolete or worn out
facilities, and repair, remodeling and
renovation, will be determined by the
January 9, 1990 11 - 40 Capital Improvements
Board of County Commissioners upon the
recommendation of the County
Rdministrator.
C. Public facilities that provide levels of
service in excess of the standards
adopted in this Plan may be constructed
or acquired at any time as long as 1)
and 2) are met and one of the conditions
3) through 6) are met:
1) the facility does not make
financially infeasible any public
, facility of the same type that is
needed to achieve or maintain the
standards for levels of service
adopted in this Plan,
2) the facility does not contradict,
limit or alter the achievement of
the overall goals, objectives and
policies of this Plan,
3) the excess capacity is an integral
part of a capital improvement that
is needed to achieve or maintain
standards for levels of service,
4) the excess capacity provides
economies of scale making it less
expensive than a comparable amount
of capacity if acquired at a later
date,
5) the asset acquired is land that is
environmentally sensitive, or
designated by the County as
necessary for conservation,
recreation or protection of high
hazard coastal areas,
6) the excess capacity is part of a
capital project financed by general
obligation bonds approved by
referendum or revenue bon~s.
Policy 11.1.1.7: Any public facility that is determined to be
needed as a result of any of the three
factors listed in Policy 11.1.1.6 shall be
included in the regular Schedule of Capital
Improvements contained in this Capital
Improvements Element. All capital
improvements projects for such public
facilities shall be approved in the same
manner as the projects that are identified
January 9, 1990 11 - 41 Capital Improvements
according to the public facility formula
descri.bed in Policy 11.1.1.3.
Policy 11.1.1.8: The determination of location of improvements
to expand public facilities will take into
consideration the projected growth patterns
as i3entified in the County's annual
population projections. Where applicable,
public facility improvements will be
coordinated with the capital facility plans
of any other governmental entity providing
public facilities within St. Lucie County.
Policy 11.1.1.9: All public facility improvem~nts that are
based on achieving and maintaining a standard
for levels of service adopted in this
Comprehensive Plan are included in the
financially feasible Schedule of Capital
Improvements contained in this Capital
Improvements Element. The relative
priorities among types of public facilities
(i.e., roads, drainage, aviation, etc.) are
established by adjusting the standards for
levels of service and the available revenues
until the resulting public facilities needs
became financially feasible.
Legal restrictions on the use of many revenue
sources limit the extent to which types of
facilities may be prioritized because they do
not compete for the same revenues. During
each annual prioritization process, no
further prioritization among types of public
facilities is necessary because all projects
in the Schedule of Capital Improvements are
financially feasible, programmed for
improvement, and will be completed according
to the Schedule. Each year, however,
prioritization among types of facilities is
redetermined by reaffirming or revising
standards for level of service within the
constraints of available restricted revenues.
Policy 11.1.1.10: The following public facility improvements
within a facility type are to be considered
in the following order of priority, as
determined by the Board of County
Commissioners:
A. Replacement of obsolete or worn out
facilities, including repair, remodeling
and renovation of facilities that
contribute to achieving and/or
maintaining levels of service.
January 9, 1990 11 - 42 Capital Improvements
B. New facilities that reduce or eliminate
existing deficiencies in levels of
service.
C. New public facilities, and improvements
to existing public facilities, that
eliminate public hazards not otherwise
eliminated by improvements prioritized
according to Subsections a or b, above.
D. New or expanded facilities that provide
the adopted levels of service for new
developmer.t and redevelopment during the
next five fiscal years, as updated by
the annual review of this Capital
Improvements Element. St. Lucie County
may acquire land or right-of-way in
advance of the need to develop a
facility for new development. The
location of facilities constructed
pursuant to this Subsection shall
conform to the Future Land Use Element,
and specific project locations shall
serve projected growth areas within the
allowable land use categories.
E. Improvements to existing facilities, and
• new facilities that significantly reduce
the operating cost of achieving and/or
maintaining levels of service.
F. New facilities that exceed the adopted
levels of service for new growth during
the next five fiscal years by either:
1) providing excess public facility
capacity that may be needed by
future growth beyond the next five
fiscal years, or
2) providing higher quality public
facilities than are contemplated in
the County's normal design criteria
for such facilities.
G. Facilities not described in Subsections
A through E, above, but which the County
is obligated to complete, provided that
such obligation is evidenced by a
written agreement the County executed
prior to July 31, 1990.
H. All facilities scheduled for
construction or improvement in
accordance with this Policy shall be
January 9, 1990 11 - 43 Capital Improvements
evaluated to identify any plans of State
agencies or the South Florida Water
Management District that affect, or will
be affected by, the proposed capital
improvement.
I. Project evaluation may also involve
additional criteria that are unique to
each type of public facility, as
described in other elements of this
Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 11.1.1.11: In the event that the planned capacity of
public facilities is insufficient to serve
all applicants for development orders, the
Board of County Commissioners will schedule
capital improvements to serve developments in
the following order of priority:
A. previously approved orders permitting
new development,
B, new orders permitting redevelopment, and
C. new orders permitting new developments.
Policy 11.1.1.12: The standards for levels of service for
Category A Public Facilities, County Roads
(arterial and collector), shall be as
indicated below on the basis of peak hour,
peak season traffic volume:
A. Level of Service "E" on the following
roads or segments of roads through the
end of the fiscal year (FY) indicated
and Level of Service "D" or better
thereafter:
YEAR IMPROVEMENT
ROADWAY SEGMENT PROGRAMMED (FY)
Port St. Lucie Blvd. Midport - Floresta 89-90
W. Midway Road US #1 - Oleander 91-92
W. Midway Road Oleander - 25th St. 91-92
Prima Vista Blvd. US #1 - Rio Mar Drive 89-90
Prima Vista Blvd. Naranja - Airoso Blvd. 89-90
Floresta Drive PSL Blvd - Prima Vista 91-92
B. On all other roads for which the County
has jurisdictional, maintenance or
operational responsibility, St. Lucie
County will adopt the following peak
season, peak hour levels of service:
local roads LOS D
January 9, 1990 11 - 44 Capital Improvements
collectors LOS D
minor urban arterial LOS E*
minor rural arterial LOS D
major urban arterial LOS E*
major rural arterial LOS D
major State urban arterial LOS D
limited access urban facility LOS D
limited access non-urban facility LOS C
constrained facility maintain*
backlogged facility maintain & improve*
* Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Transporta-
tion Systems Management (TSM) measures will be imple-
mented to improve traffic flow conditions without adding
two or more lanes.
C. Level of Service "C/D peak hour peak
season" on all other County arterial and
collector roads.
Policy 11.1.1.13: When any County arterial or collector road or
segment of such a road is determined to be
.operating one level of service below its
adopted standard, the County shall exercise
one of the following options:
a. Enter into a contract that will result
in the addition of capacity to the
facility within six months of the
determination that the facility is
operating below its level of service
standard, and delay issuance of develop-
ment orders until the contract has been
executed;
b. Enter into an enforceable development
agreement that specifies that new
development will provide for the
upgraded facility;
c. Amend the plan to lower the level of
service at the next opportunity; or
d. Not issue any development permits in the
impacted area. The purpose of providing
for the temporary operation below the
adopted level of service is to provide a
reasonable period of time to restore the
level of service through appropriate
improvements to roads that are forecast
to operate at the adopted level of
service, but which may unexpectedly
operate at a lower level of service.
Al1 development orders issued pursuant
to this policy shall be conditioned on
January 9, 1990 11 - 45 Capital Improvements
the attainment of the adopted level of
service. However, this policy shall
not impair the County's right to refuse
to issue a development order pursuant to
this policy if the Board of County
Ccmmissioners determines that the
resultant lower level of service caused
by the proposed development order would
constitute a threat to public health or
safety.
Policy 11.1.1.14: The standards for levels of service for
Category A Public Facilities, Mass Transit,
shall be as follows:
No mass transit service.
When mass transit service becomes feasible
and prior to its becoming available in the
County, the level of service will be set by
plan amendment.
Policy 11.1.1.15: The standards for levels of service for
Category A Public Facilities, County
Stormwater Management Systems and other major
stormwater conveyance systems, shall be the
10 year/1 day storm event.
When the level of service standard is
established for drainage subsequent to the
completion of the County-wide Stormwater
Master Plan (as indicated in Policy
6C.1.1.1), the LOS standard shall include
performance standards for water quality and
flood control. Local and state regulations
specifying stormwater quality standards shall
be incorporated by reference as part of the
drainage LOS standard to measure performance
of systems which are designed to remove
pollutants from run-off. Regulations
specifying ambient water quality standards
shall be referenced to protect and prevent
further degradation of surface and ground-
water by run-off from stormwater facilities.
Policy 11.1.1.16: The standard for level of service for
Category A Public Facilities, County Water
Systems, shall be 88 gallons per capita per
day.
Policy 11.1.1.17: The level of service standard for those areas
of the unincorporated County served by
sanitary sewer systems owned by Ft. Pierce
Utilities Authority shall be 130 gallons
per capita per day.
January 9, 1990 11 - 46 Capital Improvements
Policy 11.1.1.18: The s~andards for level of service for
Category A Public Facilities, County Solid
Waste, shall be as follows:
A. 8.77 pounds of solid waste per capita
County-wide per day at the landfill.
B. Two years of permitted landfill disposal
capacity at present fill rates.
C. Eight years of landfill raw land
capacity at present fill rates.
Policy 11.1.1.19: The standards for level of service for
Category A Public Facilities, County Parks
and Recreation, shall be as follows:
A. Regional/metropolitan = 5 acres per
1,000 population County-wide.
B. Community park land = 5 acres per
1,000 population in the unincorporated
area.
C. Neighborhood park land =.5 acres per
1,000 population in the unincorporated
area.
D. Recreation facilities (i.e., buildings
and improvements) are included in the
cost of park land.
Policy 11.1.1.20: The standards for community parks will be
applied in increments of 10 acre parks. The
standards for neighborhood parks will be
applied in increments of 5 acres.
Policy 11.1.1.21: The standards for level of service for
Category B Public Facilities, Libraries,
shall be as follows:
.525 square feet of library per capita; and,
1.45 books per capita.
Policy 11.1.1.22: The standards for level of service for
Category B Public Facilities, Corrections,
shall be as follows:
0.00485 beds per capita.
Policy 11.1.1.23: The standard for level of service for
Category B Public Facilities, Courthouse,
shall be as follows:
.839 square feet per capita
January 9, 1990 11 - 47 Capital Improvements
Policy 11.1.1.24: The standard for level of service for
Category B Public Facilities, Administrative
and Maintenance, shall be as follows:
1.253 square feet per capita
Policy 11.1.1.25: The standard for level of service for
Category B Public Facilities, Mosquito
Control, shall be as follows: A specific
level of service has not been determined, but
specific capital improvements have been
included within the capital needs listing in
order that the listing be comprehensive.
Policy 11.1.1.26: A specific standard for level of service for
Category B Public Facilities, Airport, has
not been determined. The capital improvement
projects included within the capital
facilities needs listing are shown in order
that the listing be comprehensive. All
airport related capital improvement needs
listed are as identified within the aviation
portions of this plan.
Policy 11.1.1.27: A specific standard for level of service for
Category B Public Facilities, Port of Ft.
Pierce, has not been determined. The capital
improvement projects included within the
capital facilities needs listing are shown in
order that the listing be comprehensive. All
port-related capital improvement needs listed
are as identified within the port master plan
portions of this plan.
Policy 11.1.1.28: As part of the adoption of land development
regulations, which shall occur by August 1,
1990, the County shall require new develop-
ment to meet level of service standards for
on-site improvements, including local
streets, water and sewer connection lines,
stormwater management facilities, and open
space.
Policy 11.1.1.29: The standards for peak season, peak hour
level of service for Category C Public
Facilities, Federal and State Roads, shall be
as follows:
A. In coordination with FDOT, the following
facilities shall be classified as back-
logged facilities and shall increase no
more than five (5) percent in peak
season, peak hour traffic volume through
the end of the fiscal year (FY)
January 9, 1990 11 - 48 Capital Improvements
indicated for improvement, and then be
maintained at level of service "D" peak
season, peak hour or better thereafter:
ROADWAY SEGMENT YEAR IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAMMED (FY)
Port St.Lucie Blvd. Floresta Dr. - F1. Turnpike 92-93
SR 70 I-95 - South US #1 90-91
North US #1 Orange Ave. - No. A-1-A None
South US #1 Orange Ave - Edwards Rd. None
South US #1 Edwards Rd. - Midway Rd. None
South US #1 M~dway Rd. - Prima Vista Bvd. None
South US #1 Prima Vista Blvd - PSL Blvd. None
South 25th Street Virginia Ave. - Edwards Rd. None
SR 713 Orange Ave. - Indrio Rd. None
B. Level of Service "C" peak season, peak
hour for limited access facilities in
rural areas.
C. Level of Service "D" peak season, peak
hour for all other rural and urban
Federal and State arterial and collector
roads.
Policy 11.1.1.30: The standards for level of service for
Category C Public Facilities, Municipal
Streets, shall be as follows:
For Ft. Pierce, Level of Service "D" (City of
Ft. Pierce Revised Comprehensive Plan,
Traffic Circulation Element, June, 1989, p.
24, Policy 1-2).
For Port St. Lucie, Level of Service "B"
(City of Port St. Lucie Comprehensive Plan,
Traffic Circulation Element, June, 1989, pp.
2-18 - 2-19, Policy 2.1.2.7).
For St. Lucie Village, Level of Service "C"
(Town of St. Lucie Village Comprehensive
Plan, Traffic Circulation Element, October,
1989, p. 2-7, Policy 2.1.1.1).
Policy 11.1.1.31: The standards for level of service for
Category C Public Facilities, Municipal
Stormwater Management, shall be the 10 year/
1 day storm event. When municipal plans
adopt a level of service, this element shall
be amended to adopt the level of service for
each municipality.
Policy 11.1.1.32: The standards for level of service for
Category C Public Facilities, Municipal Water
January 9, 1990 11 - 49 Capital Improvements
Systems, shall be as follows: 170 gallons
per capita per day for areas of the unincor-
porated County served by Ft. Pierce Utilities
Authority.
Policy 11.1.1.33: The standards for level of service for
Category C Public Facilities, Private Water
Systems, shall be as follows: 88 gallons per
capita per day.
Policy 11.1.1.34: The standards for level of service for
sanitary sewer systems other than those owned
by Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority shall be
100 gallons per day per capita; upon
completion of the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan,
any necessary change in the level of service
standard will be made through a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment.
Policy 11.1.1.35: The standards for level of service for
Category C Public Facilities, Municipal
Parks, shall be as follows:
For Ft. Pierce:
Fishing (non-boat) piers,
walks 10,000 pop./800
Picnicking 25,000 pop./acre
Tennis 7,500 pop./court
Baseball/Softball 6,000 pop./field
Multi-Use Field 15,000 pop./field
Handball/Racquetball 10,000 pop./court
Basketball 5,000 pop./court
Shuffleboard 10,000 pop./court
Recreational Trail 14,000 pop./mile
Boat Ramp 7,000 pop./ramp
Swimming (Pool) 15,000 pop./pool
Golf (18-hole golf
course) 65,200 pop./course
Swimming (Non-Pool)
Saltwater Needs 100,000 pop./mi.
January 9, 1990 11 - 50 Capital Improvements
(Revised Comprehensive Plan: Recreation and
Open Space Element, City of Ft. Pierce
Department of D~velopment, June 1989, pp. 26-
31, and Policy 1.1, p. 36)
For Port St. Lucie:
Neighborhood parks 2.46 acres/1,000 pop.
Community parks 1.20 acres/1,000 pop.
Regional parks 4.78 acres/1,000 pap.
(Recreation and Open Space Element, City of
Port St. Lucie, June 1989, p. 7-15)
For St. Lucie Village:
3.50 acres per 1,000 persons
(Comprehensive Plan, Town of St. Lucie
Village, Capital Improvements Element,
October 1989, p. 9-14, Policy 9.1.4.2)
January 9, 1990 11 - 51 Capital Improvements
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Objective 11.1.2: Provide needed public facilities that are
within the ability of the County to fund the
facilities from County revenues, develop-
ment's proportionate share contributions and
grants or gifts from other sources.
Policy 11.1.2.1: The estimated costs of all needed capital
improvements shall not exceed conservative
estimates of revenues from sources that are
available to the County pursuant to or not
precluded by current statutes, and which have
not been rejected by referendum, if a
referendum is required to enact a source of
revenue.
Policy 11.1.2.2: Existing development shall pay for some or
all of the capital improvements that reduce
or eliminate existing deficiencies, some or
all of the replacement of obsolete or worn
out facilities, and may pay a portion of the
cost of capital improvements needed by future
development and they may take the form of
user fees, special assessments and taxes.
Policy 11.1.2.3: The County will allocate the costs of new
public facilities on the basis of the
benefits received by existing and future
residents so t~at current residents will not
subsidize an urban sprawl pattern of new
development.
Policy 11.1.2.4: A. Future development
Future development shall pay for 100$ of the
capital improvements needed to address the
impact of such development. Future
development's proportion of the cost of
capital improvements needed to address the
impact of such development shall be
determined, in part, by the County's impact
fee ordinances and supporting studies, which
shall include credits for other payments by
future development. Impact fees, enterprise
fund user charges, connection fees, and other
user fees paid by new development shall be
reviewed every two years to assure that
provision of capital improvements needed to
address the impact of future development will
not increase ad valorem tax rates. Upon
completion of construction, "future" develop-
ment becomes "present" development, and shall
contribute to paying the costs of the
January 9, 1990 11 - 52 Capital Improvements
replacement of obsolete or worn out
facilities as described in subsection B
below.
Future development's payments may take the
form of, but are not limited to, voluntary
contributions for the benefit of any public
facility, impact fees, capacity fees,
dedications of land, provision of public
facilities, and future payments of user fees,
special assessments and taxes. Future
development shall not pay impact fees for the
portion of any capital improvements that
reduces or eliminates existing deficiencies.
B. Existing development
Existing development shall pay for the
facility improvements that reduce or
eliminate existing deficiencies, and some or
all of the replacement of obsolete or worn
out facilities.
Existing development's payments may take the
form of user fees, special assessments, and
taxes.
Policy 11.1.2.5: Both existing and future development may have
part of their costs paid by grants,
entitlements or provision of public
facilities from other levels of government
and independent districts.
Policy 11.1.2.6: Capital improvements may be financed, and
debt shall be managed as follows:
A. Public facilities financed by County
enterprise funds (i.e., automated
services, potable water, sanitary sewer
and solid waste) shall be financed by:
1) Debt to be repaid by user fees and
charges for enterprise services, or
2) Current assets (i.e., reserves,
surpluses and current revenue), or
3) A combination of debt and current
assets.
B. The financing of the capital cost of
public facilities with non-enterprise
funds (i.e., roads, stormwater
management and parks) shall be from
current revenue, equity or debt, or a
January 9, 1990 11 - 53 Capital Improvements
combination of current revenue, equity
and debt, whichever may be most cost
effective and consistent with prudent
asset and liability management, given
the useful life of the assets to be
financed and efficient use of the
County's debt capacity.
C. All development orders issued by the
County which require public facilities
that will be financed by debt shall be
conditioned on the issuance of the debt,
or tr.e substitution of a comparable
amount of non-debt revenues.
Policy 11.1.2.7: The County shall not provide a public
facility, nor shall it accept the provision
of a public facility by others, if the County
is unable to pay for the subsequent annual
operating and maintenance costs of the
facility.
Policy 11.1.2.8: By December 31, 1991, schedule a public
hearing on a possible stormwater utility fee.
Policy 11.1.2.9: If the Board of County Commissioners
determines after holding a public hearing on
creating a stormwater utility that such a
utility is desirable, the Board shall adopt
an ordinance creating the utility and setting
rates.
Policy 11.1.2.10: In the event that sources of revenue listed
under the heading "Costs and Revenues by Type
of Public Facility" of this Element require
voter approval in a local referendum that has
not been held, or a referendum is held and
is unsuccessful, this Comprehensive Plan will
be amended to include one or more new
revenue sources.
Alternatively, this Comprehensive Plan may be
amended to adjust for the lack of revenues,
in any of the following ways:
1. Reduce the standard for levels of
service for one or more public
facilities.
2. Increase the use of other sources of
revenue.
3. Decrease the cost, and therefore the
quality, of some types of public
facilities while retaining the quantity
January 9, 1990 11 - 54 Capital Improvements
of the facilities that is inherent in
the standard for levels of service.
4. A combination of the above alternatives.
Policy 11.1.2.11: All development orders issued by the County
which require Category A public facilities
that will be financed by sources of revenue
which require voter approval in a local
referendum that is yet to be held shall be
conditioned on the referendum being approved,
or the substitution of other sources of
revenue to ensure that facilities are
provided concurrent with need.
Policy 11.1.2.12: Recognizing that future funding opportunities
may be less or greater than originally
anticipated and that overall the County will
operate within a constrained financial
setting, the first priority for alloc,ation of
monies for capital purposes is for the
maintenance of the County's present
facilities so as to ensure proper protection
of the investments in such facilities.
January 9, 1990 11 - 55 Capital Improvements
PROVISION OF NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS
Objective 11.1.3: Within the County's financial capability,
provide needed capital improvements for
repair or replacement of obsolete or worn out
facilities, eliminating existing
deficiencies, and meeting the needs of future
development and redevelopment caused by
previously issued and new development orders.
Policy 11.1.3.1: The County shall provide, or arrange for
others to provide, the public facilities
listed in the Schedule of Capital
Improvements of this Capital Improvements
Element.
Policy 11.1.3.2: Pursuant to Section 163.3187, Florida
Statutes, the Schedule of Capital
Improvements may be amended two times during
any calendar year, and as allowed for
emergencies, developments of regional impact,
and certain small scale development
activities.
Policy 11.1.3.3: The mandatory semi-annual report to the
Department of Community Affairs concerning
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan due to
emergencies, developments of regional impact,
and selected small developments shall report
on changes, if any, to adopted goals,
objectives, and policies in the Capital
Improvements Element.
Policy 11.1.3.4: Pursuant to Section 163.3177, Florida
Statutes, the Schedule of Capital
Improvements may be adjusted by ordinance not
deemed to be an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan for corrections, updates,
and modifications concerning costs; revenue
sources; acceptance of facilities pursuant to
dedications which are consistent with the
plan; or the date of construction of any
facility enumerated in the Schedule of
Capital Improvements.
Policy 11.1.3.5: The County shall adopt a capital budget as
part of the annual budgeting process that
includes all the capital improvements
projects listed in the Schedule of Capital
Improvements for expenditure during the
appropriate fiscal year, except that the
County may omit from its annual budget any
capital improvements for which a binding
agreement has been executed with another
January 9, 1990 11 - 56 Capital Improvements
party to provide the same project in the same
fiscal year. The County may also include in
the capital appropriations of its annual
budget additional public facility projects
that conform to Policy 11.1.1.10.E.
Policy 11.1.3.6: The impacts of development on public
facilities within St. Lucie County are found
to occur at the same time as development
authorized by a final development order. The
Board defines final development order as a
building permit, conditional use approval,
Board of Adjustment approval, or any other
development order which has an immediate and
continuing impact upon the infrastructure.
The County shall determine, prior to the
issuance of final development orders, whether
or not there is sufficient capacity of
Category A and Category C public facilities
to meet the standards for levels of service
for existing population and the proposed
development concurrent with the proposed
development.
Policy 11.1.3.7: A preliminary development order is defined as
a DRI Development approval, zoning approval,
' preliminary plat approval, preliminary
development plan approval, Plan amendment
approval, preliminary Planned Unit
Development approval, or any other
development order other than a final
development order and for which there are not
found to be any impacts of development.
Policy 11.1.3.8: The standards for levels of service of
Category A and Category C public facilities
shall be applied to the issuance of
development orders on the following
geographical basis:
A. Public facilities which serve the entire
County shall achieve and maintain the
standard for levels of service on a
County-wide basis. No development order
shall be issued in any part of
unincorporated St. Lucie County if the
standard for levels of service is not
achieved and maintained throughout the
County for the following public
facilities:
1) Solid Waste
2) Regional Parks
B. Public facilities which serve less than
January 9, 1990 11 - 57 Capital Improvements
the entire County shall achieve and
maintain the standard for levels of
service within their assigned service
area as defined by the Board of County
Commissioners. No development order
shall be issued in an assigned service
area or impact area if the standards for
levels of service are not achieved
throughout the assigned service area or
impact area for the following public
facilities:
1) Arterial and Collector Roads:
In order to achieve and maintain
the level of service standards as
adopted in the Traffic Circulation
Element, developments shall address
the mitigation of all potential
project impacts on the roadway
network in their traffic circula-
tion plans.
2) Stormwater Management Systems:
Drainage Sub-Basin
3) Potable Water Systems:
Treatment Plant Service Area
4) Sanitary Sewer Systems:
Treatment Plant Service Area
5) District Parks and Recreational
Facilities:
Planning Area
6) Neighborhood Parks and Recreational
Facilities:
(a) Planning Area or applicable
area of service for
significant impact.
(b) Project boundaries, for
projects providing neighbor-
hood park(s) sufficient, at a
minimum, to meet project
demand.
January 9, 1990 11 - 58 Capital Improvements
COORDINATING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT
Objective 11.1.4: Coordinate land use decisions and available
or projected fiscal resources with a schedule
of capital improvements that maintains
adopted level of service standards and meets
existing and future facility needs.
Policy 11.1.4.1: All Category A public facility capital
improvements shall be consistent with the
goals, objectives and policies of the
appropriate elements of this Comprehensive
Plan.
Policy 11.1.4.2: The County shall integrate its land use
planning and decisions with its plans for
public facility capital improvements by using
the policies listed in this section of the
Capital Improvements Element. The location
of, and level of service provided by projects
in the Schedule of Capital Improvements shall
maintain adopted standards for levels of
service for existing and future development
in a manner and location consistent with the
Future Land Use Element of this Comprehensive
Plan. Individual land use decisions shall be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
the ability of the County to provide and
maintain level of service.
Policy 11.1.4.3: The County shall amend its land development
regulations to provide for a system of review
of various applications for development
orders which applications, if granted, would
impact the levels of service of Category A
and Category C public facilities. Such
system of review shall assure that no final
development order shall be issued which
results in a reduction in the levels of
service identified in Policies 11.1.1.12
through 11.1.1.35. The land development
regulations shall address the following, at a
minimum, in determining whether a development
order can be issued.
A. Review of Applications for Final
Development Orders. No final
development order shall be issued by the
County after July 31, 1990, or such
earlier date as may be adopted by the
Board of County Commissioners, unless
there shall be sufficient capacity of
Category A and Category C public
facilities to meet the standards for
January 9, 1990 11 - 59 Capital Improvements
levels of service for the existing
development and for the proposed
development according to the following
deadlines:
1; Prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the following public
facilities:
(a) Potable water.
(b) Sanitary sewer.
(c) Solid waste.
2) Prior to the issuance of the
building permit, assurance as ~o
the completion for the following
public facilities within the next
twelve months must be provided:
(a) Arterial and collector roads.
(b) Parks and recreation.
(c) Storm water management.
B. Review of Applications for Preliminary
Development Orders. The capacity of
Category A and Category C public
facilities shall be determined for
preliminary development orders according
to one of the following:
1) The applicant may request a
determination of such capacity as
part of the review and approval of
the preliminary development order
provided that:
(a) The determination that such
capacity is available shall
apply only to specific uses,
densities, and intensities
based on information provided
by the applicant, and included
in the development order, and
(b) The determination that such
capacity is available shall be
valid for development that is
completed within a period:
(1) not to exceed two years,
or
(2) any period of time
acceptable to the County
and the applicant,
January 9, 1990 11 - 60 Capital Improvements
provided that the period
of time is explicitly set
forth in a binding
development agreement as
authorized by Fl~rida
Statutes, and the appli-
cant provides one or more
of the following
assurances, acceptable to
the County in form and
amount, to guarantee the
applicant's pro rata
share of the County's
financial obligation for
public facilities which
are constructed by the
County for the benefit of
the subject property:
[a] performance bond,
[b] irrevocable letter
of credit,
[c] prepayment of impact
fees,
[d] prepayment of capa-
city (i.e., prepay-
~ ment of capacity
connection charges),
or
[e] formation of a
Community Develop-
ment District pur-
suant to Chapter
190, Florida
Statutes.
(c) Whenever an applicant's pro
rata share of a public
facility is less than the full
cost of the facility, the
County shall do one of the
following:
(1) contract with the
applicant for the full
cost of the ~acility,
including terms regarding
reimbursement of the
applicant for costs in
excess of the applicant's
pro rata share, or
(2) obtain assurances similar
to those in subsection
(b)[2] from other
January 9, 1990 11 - 61 Capital Improvements
sources, or
(3) amend this Comprehensive
~ Plan to modify the
adopted standard for the
level of service so as to
reduce the required
facility to egual the
applicant's needs.
(d) Pursuant to a and b, above, no
further determination of
capacity for the subject
property as required by Policy
11.1.3.6 shall be required
prior to the expiration of the
determination of capacity for
the preliminary development
order, except that any change
in the density, intensity or
land use that requires
additional public facilities
or capacity is subject to
review and approval or denial
by the County. The determina-
tion of capacity for the pre-
liminary development order
• shall be considered a reserva-
tion of capacity until the end
of the time periods specified
in Policy 11.1.4.3.(B)(1)(b)
above, or until the County is
notified in writing by the
applicant that the project
will not be undertaken during
those time perioas and that
the applicant voluntarily
yields the reserved capacity.
Public facility capacity that
is determined to be available
pursuant to this subsection
shall be reserved on behalf of
the preliminary development
order in such a manner as to
prevent the overuse or over
commitment of the same public
facility capacity.
2) Notwithstanding the procedures
outlined in Policy 11.1.4.3.(B)(1),
all approvals at the preliminary
development order stage shall
include a condition that the final
development order containing a
specific plan for development,
January 9, 1990 11 - 62 Capital Improvements
including the densities and
intensit.ies of development, will
not be issued unless public
services and facilities exist or
are assured to be available to meet
or exceed the level of service
standards concurrent with the
impacts of development.
3) The applicant may elect to request
approval of a preliminary
development order without a
deter~ination of capacity of
Category A and Category C public
facilities provided that any such
order is issued subject to
requirements in the applicable land
development regulation or to
specific conditions contained in
the preliminary development order
that:
(a) Final development orders for
the subject property are
subject to a determination of
capacity of Category A and
~ Category C public facilities,
as required by Policy
11.1.3.6, and
(b) No rights to obtain final
development orders, nor any
other rights to develop the
subject property have been
granted or implied by the
County's approval of the
preliminary development order
without determining the
capacity of public facilities.
(c) Applicants for development
orders may offer to provide
public facilities at the
applicant's own expense in
order to ensure sufficient
capacity of Category A and
Category C public facilities,
as determined according to
Paragraphs a and b, above.
Development orders may be
issued subject to the
provision of public facilities
by the applicant subject to
both of the following
requirements:
January 9, 1990 11 - 63 Capital Improvements
(1) The County and the
applicant enter into an
enforceable development
agreement which shall
provide, at a minimum, a
schedule for construction
of the public facilities
and mechanisms for
monitoring to insure that
the public facilities are
completed concurrent with
the impacts of th~
development, or the
development will not be
allowed to proceed.
(2) The public facilities are
contained in the Schedule
of Capital Improvements
of the Comprehensive
Plan.
(d) If public facilities are
provided at an applicant's own
expense, as allowed in sub-
paragraph (c) above, the
facility shall not be provided
later than the fiscal year for
which that facility was
programmed in the Schedule of
Capital Improvements.
Policy 11.1.4.4: Impact fee ordinances shall require the same
standard for the level of service as is
required by Policies 11.1.1.12 through
11.1.1.35.
Policy 11.1.4.5: The annual budget shall include in its
capital appropriations all projects in the
Schedule of Capital Improvements that are
planned for expenditure during the next
fiscal year.
Policy 11.1.4.6: The County's annual multi-year Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) shall be prepared
in conjunction with the annual review and
update of the Capital Improvements Element.
The CIP shall contain all of the projects
listed in the Schedule of Capital
Improvements of the updated version of the
Capital Improvements Element.
Policy 11.1.4.7: The Capital Improvements Element shall be
reviewed and updated annually. Beginning in
January 9, 1990 11 - 64 Capital Improvements
April of each year, the element shall be
updated in conjunction with the County's
budget process and the release of the
official population estimates and projections
by the Bureau of Economic and Business
Research (BEBR) of the University of Florida.
The update shall include:
A. Revision of population projections to
reflect both the official projections
from B.E.B.R. and formally adopted local
estimates prepared by the Community
Development Department,
B. Update of inventory of public
facilities,
C. Update of costs of public facilities,
D. Update of Public Facilities Requirements
analysis (actual levels of service
compared to adopted standards),
E. Update of revenue forecasts,
F. Revision and development of capital
improvement projects for the next five
fiscal years,
G. Update of analysis of financial
capacity, and
H. Update of analysis of any pending public
education and public health facility
impacts on infrastructure.
Policy 11.1.4.8: The County shall establish and maintain a
Concurrency Implementation and Monitoring
System. The System shall consist of the
following components:
A. Annual report on the capacity and levels
of service of public facilities compared
to the standards for levels of service
adopted in Policies 11.1.1.12 through
11.1.1.35. This report will function as
a pubiic information source to summarize
the actual capacity of public
facilities, and forecast the capacity of
public facilities for each of the five
succeeding fiscal years. The forecast
shall be based on the most recently
updated Schedule of Capital Improvements
in this Capital Improvements Element.
The annual report shall also summarize
January 9, 1990 11 - 65 Capital Improvements
and forecast capacities and levels of
service for comparison to the standards
adopted in Policies 11.1.1.12 through
11.1.1.35, but such portion of the
annual report shall be for information
purposes only and shall not pertain to
the issuance of development orders by
the County.
B. Public Facility Capacity Review. The
County shall use the procedures
specified in Policy 11.1.4.3, above, to
enforce the requirements of Policies
11.1.3.6 through 11.1.3.8, and to
assure that public facilities and
services needed to support development
are available concurrent with the
impacts of such developments. A
separate record shall be maintained
during each fiscal year to indicate the
cumulative impacts of all development
orders approved during the fiscal year-
to-date on the capacity of public
facilities as set forth in the most
recent annual report on capacity and
levels of service of public facilities.
The land development regulations of the
County shall provide that applications
for development orders that are denied
because of insufficient capacity of
public facilities may be resubmitted
after a time period to be specified in
the land development regulations. Such
time period is in lieu of, and not in
addition to, other minimum waiting
periods imposed on applications for
development orders that are denied for
reasons other than lack of capacity of
public facilities. Land development
regulations shall require that
development commence within a specified
time after a development order is
issued, or the development order shall
expire, subject to reasonable extensions
of time based on criteria included in
the regulations. The land development
regulations also shall provide for the
County to reserve capacity for approved
final development orders for a specified
period of time.
C. Review of Changes in Planned Capacity of
Public Facilities. The County shall
review each amendment to this Capital
Improvement Element, in particular any
January 9, 1990 11 - 66 Capital Improvements
changes in standards for levels of
service and changes in the Schedule of
Capital Improvements, in order to
enforce the requirements of Policy
11.1.3.5.
D. Concurrency Implementation Strategies.
The County shall annually review the
concurrency implementation policies that
are incorporated in this Capital
Improvements Element:
(1) Standards for levels of service are
phased to reflect the County's
financial ability to increase
public facility capacity, and
resulting levels of service, from
year to year. Standards for levels
of service are phased to specific
fiscal years in order to provide
clear, unambiguous standards for
issuance of development orders.
(See Policies 11.1.1.12 through
11.1.1.35.)
(2) Standards for levels of service are
applied within appropriate
geographical areas of the County.
Standards for County-wide public
facilities are applied to
development orders based on levels
of service throughout the County.
Standards for public facilities
that serve less than the entire
County are applied to development
orders on the basis of levels of
service within assigned service
areas. (See Policy 11.1.3.8.)
(3) Standards for levels of service are
applied according to the timing of
the impacts of development on
public facilities. Final
development orders, which impact
public facilities in a matter of
months, are issued subject to the
availability of water, sewer, and
solid waste facilities prior to the
issuance of the building permit,
and other public facilities (i.e.,
roads, parks, and drainage) must be
available within twelve months of
the issuance of the building
permit. Preliminary development
orders can be issued subject to
January 9, 1990 11 - 67 Capital Improvements
public facility capacity, but the
capacity determination expires in
two years. As an alternative, the
determination of public facility
capacity for preliminary develop-
ment orders can be waived with an
agreement that a capacity
determination must be made prior to
issuance of any final development
order for the subject property.
Such a waiver specifically
precludes the acquisition of rights
to a final development order as a
result of the issuance of the
preliminary development order.
(See Policies 11.1.3.6 and
11.1.3.7.)
(4) Levels of service are compared to
adopted standards on an annual
basis. Annual monitoring is used,
rather than case-by-case monitor-
ing, for the following reasons: a)
annual monitoring corresponds to
annual expenditures for capital
improvements during the County's
fiscal year; b) annual monitoring
covers seasonal variations in
levels of service; and c) case-by-
case monitoring would require
applicants for development orders
or the County to conduct costly,
time-consuming research which would
often be partially redundant of
prior research, or involve
disparate methodologies and produce
inconsistent results.
(5) Public facility capital improve-
ments are prioritized among
competing applications for the same
amount of facility capacity
according to the criteria in Policy
11.1.1.10. If any applications have
to be deferred to a future fiscal
year because of insufficient
capacity of public facilities
during the current fiscal year, the
applications to be deferred will be
selected on the basis of rational
criteria as determined by the Board
of County Commissioners.
Policy 11.1.4.9: The required five-year evaluation and
appraisal report shall address the
January 9, 1990 11 - 68 Capital Improvements
implementation of the goals, objectives, and
policies of the Capital Improvements Element.
The monitoring proce~ures necessary to enable
the completion of the five-year evaluation
include:
A. Review of Annual Reports of the
Concurrency Implementation and Monitor-
ing System.
B. Review of Semiannual Reports to DCA
concerning amendments to the Com-
prehensive Plan.
C. Review of Annual Updates of this Capital
Improvements Element, including updated
supporting documents.
January 9, 1990 11 - 69 Capital Improvements
COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS
Objective 11.1.5: The County shall protect the coastline and
avoid loss of life and property in coastal
areas by minimizing land development and
public facilities in coastal high hazard
areas.
Policy 11.1.5.1: Publicly funded infrastructure shall not be
constructed within the Coastal High Hazard
Area unless the expenditure is for:
A. Restoration or enhancement of natural
resources or public access;
B. Land application of treated effluent
disposal (irrigation) on public and
private open spaces;
C. Flood-proofing water and sanitary
sewerage facilities;
D. The development or improvement of a
facility which will serve a crucial need
by ameliorating the evacuation time of
residents of the County;
E. Reconstruction of seawalls that are
essential to the protection of existing
public facilities or infrastructure;
F. The retrofitting of stormwater
management facilities for water quality
enhancement of stormwater runoff; or
G. Port facilities.
January 9, 1990 11 - 70 Capital Improvements
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
Schedule of Capital Improvements, Including General Location
The Schedule of Capital Improvements on the following pages will
repair or replace obsolete or worn out facilities, eliminate
existing deficiencies, and make available adequate facilities for
future growth through September 30, 1995. On the Schedule of
Capital Improvements, a column has been included which has been
labelled "designation". After each project listed, a number 1,
2, or 3 has been placed or a combination of those three numbers.
A"1" indicates the repair or replacement of an existing
facility. A"2" indicates a facility being provided in order to
meet an existing deficiency. A"3" indicates a facility
necessary to meet growth needs. In a few cases, particularly
those for studies of various kinds, a N.A. has been shown. The
following listing represents the Schedule of Capital Improvements
which constitutes the Capital Improvements Program. The projects
are listed according to the type of public facility.
The estimated cost of each project during each of the next six
fiscal years is shown in thousands of dollars (000), and the
total six-year cost is also shown. Any costs incurred before or
after the six-year schedule are omitted from the project total.
All cost data is in current dollars; no inflation factor has been
applied because the costs will be revised as part of the annual
review and update of the Capital Improvements Element.
All projects contained in this Schedule of Capital Improvements
are consistent with the other elements of this Comprehensive
Plan. Consistency is determined and maintained by calculating
that the total capacities of planned projects and existing
facilities achieve or exceed the capacity of facilities that are
required by the adopted standards for levels of service using the
formula found in Policy 11.1.1.3.
January 9, 1990 11 - 71 Capital Improvements
SCHEDOLE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
FAC PROJECT DESIG FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 TOTAL
A AVIATION
A
A ACCESS RD:FAIRGRD-TERMINAL 3 178 178
A AIRCRAFT APRONS 1 2990 1778 4768
A AWOS 1 35
A CONST,MARK,LGT T/W:14-32/9-2? 3 248 248
A CFR FACILITY 2 180 180
A CFR VEHICLE 2 246 246
A CONST,MARK~LGT T/W A-3 3 91 91
A DRI:9L-27R/INDUSTRIAL AREA N/A 80 80
A DRI:TERMINAL BUILDING N/A 64 64
A EMERGENCY GENERATOR 1 246 246
A D(TEND R/W 14-32 & T/W B 2 500 500
A EXTEND,MARK,LIGHT R/W 9-27 2 2176 2176
A FBO ACCESS RoAD 1 338 338
A FIRE PROTECTION LINE:R/W 14-32 2 622 622
A IMPROVE/REHAB DRAINAGE 1 46 46
A LAND AC~:AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 2 6333 6~~~
A LAND AC~:AIRPORT EXPANSION 2 4100 2800 4500 11400
A I.AND ACQ:FAIRGROUNDS 2 800 800
A LAND ACQ: CLEAR ZONE 2 13800 13800
A "~STER PLAN N/A 100 100
A ~1 TERMINAL BUILDING 3 25000 25000
A cvORTH/SOUTH ACCESS ROAD 2 437 437
A PAPI:R/W 14;REHAB TOWER/BEACON 1 72 72
A PART 150 N/A 100 1Q0
A PERIMETER FENCING 2 440 4~4
A RESURFACE:T/W D TO R/W 9-27 1 151 151
A SHERIFF'S HANGER:APRON & T/W 2 302 302
A SIGHT LINE CLEARING 1 i° 19
A STRENGTHEN,MARK T/W:R/W 9-2? 2 392 392
A T-HANGER T/W ~ 20~ 2~~
A TVOR 3 280 280
A UPDATE EXHIBIT A N/A 20 20
A
A AVIATION TOTAL
27183 6676 3422 5928 231 26224 696b4
January 9, 1990 11 - 72 Capital ImprovemAnts
FAC PROJECT DESIG FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 TOTAL
C CORRECTIONS
C
C CORRECTIONAL POD 3 2400 2400 4800
C INFRM,POD,SUPRT SERV,MTN,F~XP 2,3 5150 5150
C
C CORRECTIONS TOTAL
5150 2400 2400 9950
January 9, 1990 11 - 73 Capital Improvements
FAC YROJECT DESIG FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 TOTAL
D DRAINAGE
D
D DREDGING 1,2 75 40 20 20 40 40 235
D ENGINEERING STUDIES N/A 5Q 6D !10
D EOUIPMENT 1 50 60 70 80 90 100 450
D LAND ACQUISITION 2,3 150 150 150 180 180 190 1000
D MASTER PLAN STUDY N/A 300 300
D
D DRAINAGE TOTAL
575 250 290 280 310 390 2095
January 9, 1990 11 - 74 Capital Improvements
FAC PROJECT DESIG FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 TOTAL
G GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS
G
G 25TH ST. PROPERTY(FINISH:1989) 3 2000 2000
G ADM BLDG:ROOF/INTERIOR 1 350 800 1150
G COURTHOUSE EXPANSION 2,3 9500 9500
G EMPIRE CENTER(FINISH IN 1989) 2.3 3500 3500
G HEALTH DEPT BLDG. 3 500 500
G JUVENILE HOME: REPAIR 1 30
G PURCHASING WARSHOUSE:ROOF 1 60 60
G REPLACE FUEL TANK 1 110 110
G ROAD & BRIDGE COMPOUND 3 500 500
G ROAD DEPT RENOVATION 1 28 28
G SHERIFF ADMINISTRATION 3 2500 2500
G SHERIFF HANGER: ROOF i ?5 75
G SOUTH COUNTY ANNEX 3 3100 3100
G WAREHOUSE: MAIN 1 30 30
G
G GOVERNMENT BLDG TOTAL
18450 3633 500 500 23083
January 9, 1990 11 - 75 Capital Improvements
FAC YROJECT DESIG F'Y90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 TOTAL
L LIBRARY
L
L BOOKS 1,2,3 302 932 366 1527 442 487 4056
L HEAD~UARTERS:MIDWAY RD. 1,2.3 4291 4291
L MORNINGSIDE BLVD. BRANCH 2 2660 2660
L RENOVATE PORT ST.LUCIE 1 65 65
L REPLACE BOOKMOBILE i 100 100
L REPLACE COMPUTER SYSTEM 1 400 400
L ZORA NEALE HURSTON BRHCH 2 429 429
L
L LIBRARY TOTAL
367 4421 366 5818 542 487 120Q1
January 9, 1990 11 - 76 Capital Improvements
FAC PROJECT DESIG FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 TOTAL
M MOSQUITO CONTROL
M
M BOOM MOWER & TRACTOR 1 40 40
M DROP CNTR TANDEM AXLE LOWBOY 1 25 25
M EQUIP/VEH MAINT BLDG i $0 80
M H.IS.RENOVATE/REPAIR i !5 35 50
M HYDRAULIC E?{CAVATOR i 110 110
M ISLAND:RENOVATE/REPAIR 1 10 10
M MAINLAND:RENOVATE/REPAIR 1 35 35
M RENOVATE COMPOUND 1 3? 37
M REPLACE BULLDOZER 1 50 50
M REPLACE DUMP TRUCKS 1 55 60 115
M REPLACE 5EMI-TRACTOR 1 55 55
M RPLACE SERVICE TRUCK 1 25 ~ 25
M REPLACE WHEELED BACKHOE 1 72 72
M
M MOSQUITO CONTROL TOTAL
267 120 132 50 135 704
January 9, 1990 11 - 77 Capital Improvements
FAC rROJECT DESIG FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 TOTAL
PT PORTS
PT
FT CORPS PROJECT 2,3 6?40 6700
PT CRUISE FACILITY 3 350 1317 166?
PT LAND AC~UISITION 3 4350 4350
PT PHASE I CARGO TERMINAL FAC 3 950 2332 100 3382
PT
PT PORTS TOTAL
11050 950 2682 141? 16099
January 9, 1990 11 - 78 Capital Improvements
FAC PROJEGT DESIG FY90 F'Y91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 TOTAL
P PARKS AND RECREATION
P
P IND RIVER-HANDICAP RSTROOMS 1 30 30
P IND RIVER:EXP CRAFT ROOM 1 100 100
P IND RIVER PK CQMM CNTR 2 125 125
P IND RIVER PK:REN/REP 1 25 15 40
P INDRIO SCH BATHRMS/SHLTR 1,2 30 30
P LAgEW00D:RESTR00MS 2 35 35
P LA%EWOOD:LIGHT 2 TENNIS CT 2 40 40
P LAKEWOOD:CONI~IECT FEE N/A 20 20
P LAWNWOOD:FIELD 4-LIGHTS 2 60 60
P LAWNWOOD:MULTI-USE BLDG 2,3 - 1000 1600 2600
P LAWNWOOD:REN IRRIGATION 1 50 50
P LAWNWOOD:CON 4 TEIdNIS CTS 2 40 40
P LAWNWOOD:LIGHT FIELD 3 2 50 50
P LAWNWOOD:SOFTBALL FIELD 2 121 121
P LAWNWOOD:PAVE PARKING 1 50 50
P LINCOLN PARK GYMNASIUM 3 250 250
P LINCOLN:COMM CNTR ROOF/AC 3 30 30
P S.CO NEIGHBORHOOD PK 1 3 90 90
P S CO NEIGHBORHOOD PK 2 3 107 107
P ''~CO NEIGHBORHOOD PK 3 144 144
P iRADISE PK:CONNECT FEES N/A 15 15
P PEPPER BCH:SEWER RENOVATE 1 150 150
P S BCH:BOARDWALK RENOVATION 1 100 100
P S CAUSEWAY IS. RESTROOMS 2 35 35
P S.CAUSEWAY IS ROOF REP 1 18 18
P S CASUEWAY MULTI-USE BLDG 3 101 101
P S CAUSEWAY BOAT RAMP 1,2 100 100
P~ SLC CIVIC CNTR:REN/REPAIR 1 25 135 160
P MUSEUM FIRE PROTECTION 1 20 20
P QUADRAPLDC SOFTBALL FIELD 2,3 500 1000 1500
P PORT ST LUCIE SCH/NEIGH PK 2,3 50 50
P
P PARKS & RECREATION TOTAL
691 2070 2786 225 285 204 6261
January 9, 1990 11 - 79 Capital Improvements
FAC PROJECT DESIG FY90 FY91 F'Y92 FY93 FY94 FY95 TUTAL
RC ROADS:COUNTY CLOS)
RC
RC E PRIMA VIS3'A:LENNARD-S US1 2,3 325 975 1300
RC EDWARDS:S US1-25TH 2,3 2730 2730
RC LENNARD:PALMER XWY-BUCHANAN 2,3 255 330 585
RC LENbIARD:PSL BLVD-WALTON 2,3 1800 1800
RC LENNARD:WALTON-PALMER X-WAY 2,3 525 3100 3625
RC N 25TH ST:N USi-IND 3RD AVE 2,3 520 520
RC N JENKINS:ORANGE-ANGLE 2~3 1060 1060
RC PALMER XWY:S USi-LENNARD 2,3 275 625 900
RC E PSL BLVD"S USi-LENNARD 3 150 450 600
RC W PRMA VSTA:S US1-RIO MAR 2,3 1650 1650
RC W PRMA VSTA:RIO MAR-NARNJA 2,3 4000 4000
RC W PRMA VSTA:NARNJA-AIROSO 2,3 1250 1250
RC MIDWAY & S USi INTERSECTION 2,3 1000 1000
RC W MIDWAY & SELVITZ INTRSECTION 2,3 500 504
RC EDWARDS & SELVITZ INTERSECTION 2.3 650 650
RC FLORESTA & AIROSO INTERSECTION 2,3 ~30 ~3d
RC FLORESTA & FRIMA VISTA INT 2,3 530 530
RC FLORESTA & PSL BLVD INT 2,3 780 780
RC ST JAMES(S 25TH)~ AIROSO 2,3 ~00 340
RC ^RANGE & ANGLE INTERSECTION 2,3 330 ~~0
RC tIDGE #944008(FLORESTA) 2,3 270 270
RC S 25TH:EDWARDS-PSL CITY LIMITS 2.3 3~3 4760 5~63
RC S 25TH:PSL CITY LMTS-PRIMA VSTA 2,3 350 5748 6098
RC S JENKINS:EDWARDS-W MIDWY 2,3 100 2590 2690
RC W MIDWAY:USi-OLEANDER 2.3 850 850
RC W MIDWAY:OLEANDER-25TH 1.2,3 25 100 1750 1875
RC W MIDWAY:25TH-TURNPIKE 2,3 25 200 225
RC W MIDWAY:TURNPIKE-I 95 2.3 25 500 1900 2425
RC WALTON:VILLAGE GRN-GRN RV PKY 3 155 1750 1905
RC
RC ROADS:COUNTY TOTAL
10493 5990 7895 7960 8173 4830 45841
January 9, 1990 11 - 80 Capital Improvements
FAC PROJECT DESIG FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 TOTAL
ROC ROADS:OTHER COUNTY(NON-LOS)
ROC ALT BRIDGE STUDY:ST LUCIE RV N/A 200 200
ROC BRIDGE #940032(ORANGE)REPLACE~ ! 20 260 280
ROC BRIDGE #940033CORANGE>REPLACE 1 20 200 220
ROC BRIDGE #940034(ORANGE>REPLACE 1 20 200 22Q
ROC BRIDGE #94007?tORANGE>REPLACE 1 200 200
ROC E MIDWAY:USi-SILVER OAK 2,3 ~00 3d0
ROC HOWARD:BUCANNAN-SEAGRAPE 1 175 175
ROC INDRIO:TAYLOR DAIRY-EMERSON 3 2~ ~s
ROC INTERSECTIONS (TBA) 1 700 600 600 600 600 3100
ROC MISC CULVERT/BRIDGE R&R 1 280 130 170 280 300 1160
ROC MSBU'S:TBA (CO PORTION) N/A 600 300 300 300 300 1800
ROC MSBU:LAKEWOOD PK(CO PORTION) N/A 5Q0 500 1000
ROC OLEANDER:EDWARDS-BELL 1,2,3 2570 2570
ROC OLEANDER:EDWARDS-KITTERMAN 1,2.3 200 1500 1700
R0~ KITTERMAN:OLEANDER-LENNARD 1 25 25
ROC RESURFACING N/A 800 400 400 400 400 2400
ROC SIDEWALKS N/A 150 50 50 50 50 350
ROC ST LUCIE BLVD:USi-SHINN RD 3 400 500 500 500 500 2400
ROC TRAFFIC SIGNAL/LIGHTING N/A 100 50 50 50 50 300
ROC TUMBLIN KLING:USi-SUNRISE 1 375 375
ROC
ROt ,ADS:OTHER COUNTY TOTAL
175 4105 2750 2550 3900 5320 1880Q
January 9, 1990 11 - 81 Capital Improvements
FAC PROJECT DESIG FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 TOTAL
S SANITARY SEWER
S
S MASTER PLAN N/A 250 250
S
S SANITARY SEWER TOTAL
250 250
January 9, 1990 11 - 82 Capital Improvements
FAC PROJECT DESIG FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 TOTAL
SW SOLID WASTE
SW
SW 936 PAYLOADER 2 225 225
SW AIRPORT CLOSURE 1 3500 3500
SW CCIMPACTOR 2 400 400
SW DOZER 2 275 275
SW GLADES SITE:PHASE II ~ III 2,3 200 4000 4000 8200
SW RECYCLING CENTER 2,3 3500 3500
SG1 REPLACE DOZERS 1 200 200
SW REPLACE 5000 GAL TANK 1 100 id0
SW REPLACE 900 GAL TANK 1 50 50
SW REPLACE COMPACTOR 1 375 37S ?54
SW REPLACE SCRAPER PAN 1 250 250 500
SW SCRAPER PAN 3 250 250
SW SITE PURCHASE 3 6000 6000 12Q00
SW WTE FEASIBILITY STUDY N/A 200 240
SW WTE/LANDFILL DEV/CONST 3 1500 1500 2500 5500
SW
SW SOLID WASTE TOTAL
13625 4625 1025Q 2100 2150 2900 35650
January 9, 1990 11 - 83 Capital Improvements
FAC PROJECT DESIG FY90 FY91 FY92 FY9~ FY94 FY95 TOTAL
W POTABLE WATER
W
W MASTER PLAN STUDY N/A 250 250
W
W POTABLE WATER TOTAL
250 250
January 9, 1990 11 - 84 Capital Improvements
FAC PROJECT DESIG F'Y90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 TOTAL
77476~ 34540* 39691~ 28761* 18273~ 41907~ 240648~
January 9, 1990 11 - 85 Capital Improvements
COSTS AND REVENUES BY TYPE OF PUBLIC FACILITY
In the list below, each type of public facility is identified and
the major costs and funding sources are summarized. This Capital
Improvements Element is fully funded by revenue sources that are
currently available to the County under law. As a result, this
element is financially feasible as required by 9J-5 F.A.C. No
portion of the Schedule of Capital Improvements is "unfunded"
provided that all sources remain available and are utilized by
the County.
The costs given below are the "total" costs from the preceding
Schedule of Capital Improvements. The projects as listed in the
preceding scheduling will achieve and maintain the level of
service standards adopted as a part of the element. As a result,
the level of service standards are fully funded, and the County
will be able to issue development orders based on the concurrency
implementation system described in the goals, objectives, and
policies of this element and further described in Appendix A.
All costs are shown in thousands (000) of dollars.
January 9, 1990 11 - 86 Capital Improvements
~ ST. LUCZE COUNTY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT
PROJECTED COSTS & REVENUES
FY90 - FY95
JANUARY 2, 1990
LEVEL OF SERVICE FACILITIES WHICH APPLY TO CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT
,
PROJECT REVENUE
0 C
TRANSPORTATION:
LEVEL OF SERVICE PROJECTS: 45.74
NON-LEVEL OF SERVICE PR4JECTS: 19.30
TOTAL 65.04
IDENTIFIED REVENUES:
GAS TAX REVENUE BONDS 37.5?
GAS TAY FUNDS AVAIL. (E}~CLUDING DEBT PAY.) 7.43
1MPACT FEE ESTIMATES ?0.09
TOTAL 65.04
.~LANCE •0 . 0 0
PARI;S & RECREATION :
LEVEL OF SERVICE PROJECTS: U.00
NON-LEVEL OF SERVICE PROJECTS: 6.26
TOTAL 6.26
IDENTIFZED REVENUES:
LOCAL AD VALOREM TAYES ~•~6
TOTAL 6.26
BALANCE 0.00
MP,SS TRANSIT:
LEVEL OF SERVICE PROJECTS: 0.00
TOTAL 0.00
DENTIFIED REVENUES: 0.00 0.00
BALANCE 0.00
January 9, 1990 11 - 87 Capital Improvements
PROJECT REVENUE
COST SOURCE
SOLID WASTE:
LEVEL OF SERVICE PROJECTS: ~9•~~
~ -LEVEL OF SERVICE PROJECTS: 6.45
TOTAL 35.65
IDENTIFIED REVENUES:
OTILITY FEES ~~•6~
TOTAL 35.65
BALANCE 0.00
DRAINAGE:
LEVEL OF SERVICE PRUJECTS: 0.00
NON-LEVEL Or SERVICE PROJECTS: 2.10
TOTAL 2.10
IDENTIFIED REVENUES:
UTILITY FEES ?.10
TOTAL 2.10
BALANCE 0.00
POTABLE WATER:
LEVEL OF SERVICE PROJECTS: 0.00
~ON-LEVEL OF SERVICE PRC)JECTS: 0.25
TOTAL 0.25
IDENTIFIED REVENUES:
r~~rlr.ITY ~EES 0.25
TOTAL 0.25
BALANCE 0.00
SAi~TITARY SE4~'ER:
LEVEL OF SERVICE PROJECTS: 0.00
iv0?~-LEVEL OF SERVICE PROJECTS: ~•~5
TOTAL 0.25
IDENTIFIED REVENUES:
~LITY FEES 0.25
TOTAL 0.25
BALANCE 0.00
January 9, 1990 11 - 88 Capital Improvements
LEVEL Or SERVICE FACILITIES WHICH DO NOT APPLY TO CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT
BUT ARE REQUIRED PER FLORIDA STATUTE AND OR TO MEET ADDITIONAL STANDARDS
A OPT D I~ THE P AN
PROJECT REVENUE
COST SOURCE
GOVERNMENT BLILDINGS:
LE~~EL OF SERVICE PROJECTS: 19.10
NON-LE~'~'L OF SER~'ICE F'ROJECTS : 3. 98
TOTAL 23.08
IDENTIFIED REVENUES:
BONDS ?0.50
STATE FUI~~DS ( HE~LTf-l BLDG ) Q. ti0
LOCAL ~D V~LOREM TAYES 1.98
TOTAL 23.08
BALANCE 0.00
LIBRARIES: ~
LEVEL OF SERVICE PROJECTS: 11.44
'~`'N-LEVEL OF SERVICE PROJECTS: 0.56
l~TAL 12.00
IDENTIFIED REVENUES:
BONDS 6.~1
GRAA'TS iFED~RAL) 1.02
LOCAL AD V~LOREM TAYES 3.11
SCHUOL BOARD PAFTICIPATION 1.U0
PROCEEDS FROM SALE OF ^1AIN LIBRARY 0.56
TOTAL 12.00
BALANCE 0.00
CORRECTIONS :
LEVEL OF SERVICE PROJECTS: 9.95
NOI~-LE~~EL OF SERVICE PROJECTS: O.QO
TOTAL 9•95
IDENTIFIED REVENUES:
BoNDS 9.95
r~L 9.95
BALANCE 0.00
January 9, 1990 11 - 89 Capital Improvements
OTHER CAPITAL EACILTIES WHICH DO NOT APPLY TO CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT
' PROJECT REVENUE
AVIATION:
PF:UJ ECT CUST : G 9. G 6
TOTAL 69.66
IDENTIFIED REVENUES:
FAA t 7 ~ o~ 6' . 7 Q
FDOT (5~) ~'~48
LOCAL TAXES 3'~8
69.56
TOTAL '
BALANCE 0.00
PORTS:
PROJECT COST: 16.10
16.10
TOTAL
IDENTIFIED REVENUES:
'EDERAL CORPS (75%) 5.03
~,ROSIOI~ CONTROL 1.20
USER FEES
16.10
TOTAL ~
BALANCE 0.00
MOSQUITO CONTROL :
PROJECT COST: 0.70
0.70
TOTAL
IDENTIFIED REVENUES:
STATE - HRS(FS 388) 0.54
LOCAL AD VALOREM TA~ES 0.16
~ 0.70
TOTAL
BALANCE 0.00
TOTALS $241.04 $241.04
January 9, 1990 11 - 90 Capital Improvements
SUMMARY OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS VS. REVENUE SOURCES
TOTAL REVENUES SOURCES $241.04
TOTAL COST OF PROJECTS $241.04
OVER/(SHORT) $0.00
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES TO MEET PROJECTED EXPENSES
STORMWATER UTILITY FEES $2.10
BONDS $40.00
January 9, 1990 11 - 91 Capital Improvements
APPENDIX A
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT
CONCURRENCY IMPLEMENTATION
January 9, 1990 Capital Improvements
INTRODUCTION
A central focus of the comprehensive planning processing mandated
by the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Develop-
ment Regulation Act, Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, is
the so-called "concurrency" requirement. The Secretary of the
Department of Community Affairs has stated that "the concurrency
requirement is the teeth of the 1985 Growth Management Act; it
distinguishes growth management from mere planning".
The statutory concurrency requirements direct local governments,
in their comprehensive plans, to establish acceptable levels of
service for public facilities and to adopt standards to ensure
the availability of adequate public facilities [5163.3177(3)
(a)3, Florida Statutes (1987)]. Moreover, local governments are
required to adopt land development regulations to implement the
adopted comprehensive plans. Specifically, those regulations
must:
Provide that public facilities and services meet or exceed
the standards established in the capital improvements
element required by 5163.3177 and are available when needed
for the development, or that development orders and permits
are conditioned on the availability of these public
facilities and services necessary to serve the proposed
development. Not later than one year after its due date
established by the State land planning agency's rule for
submission of local comprehensive plans pursuant to
5163.3167(2), a local government shall not issue a
development order or permit which results in a reduction in
the level of services for the affected public facilities
below the level of services provided in the comprehensive
plan of the local government. [5163.3202(2)(g), F.S. (1987)
(emphasis supplied)]
In adopting these statutory requirements, the Legislature
observed that adoption and maintenance of acceptable levels of
service for public facilities is necessary to "preserve, promote,
protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good
order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire
prevention, and general welfare" and to "facilitate the adequate
and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage,
schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other
requirements and services..." [5163.3161(3), Florida Statutes
(1987)]. Furthermore, the statutory requirements are deemed to
be the "minimum requirements necessary to accomplish the stated
intent, purposes and objectives of [the] act". [S164.3161(7),
F.S. (1987) (emphasis supplied)].
The concurrency requirement is applicable to seven types of
public facilities: potable water; sanitary sewer; solid waste;
drainage; traffic circulation, mass transit, and recreation
facilities. The requirement is applicable to all such facilities
January 9, 1990 11 - A- 1 Capital Improvements
within a local government's jurisdiction, whether or not such
facilities are owned and/or operated by the local government.
The Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs has
recognized that the concurrency requirement must be applied in a
reasonable manner so as to avoid results which are unworkable or
unintended by the Legislature. To satisfy the statutory findings
and requirements as set forth above, and in light of Secretary
Pelham's recognition that the concurrency requirement must be
applied reasonably in order to achieve the intended results, the
County has devised a concurrency implementation and monitoring
system. Various aspects of this system are described by the
goals, objectives, and policies included within the various
elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this Appendix
is to generally describe, in one location, the concurrency
implementation and monitoring system utilized in the Plan.
Inasmuch as the description contained herein does not describe
each and every goal, objective, or policy relating to concurrency
and may be more generalized than the plan's goals, objectives,
and policies, to the extent of any inconsistency the goals,
objectives, and policies shall govern actions taken by the
County.
CONCURRENCY IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING SYSTEM
A. Objectives and Policies. Chapter 9J-5.016(3)(c), Florida
Administrative Code, requires 1'ocal governments to address
programs and activities for, inter alia, eliminating
existing public facility capacity deficits, considering
locational needs based on projected growth patterns,
accommodating new development and redevelopment facility
demands, considering financial feasibility, and establishing
level of service standards for public facilities. The
Comprehensive Plan accomplished this by:
(1) Adopting level of service standards which have been
developed to meet local conditions and which do not
necessarily reflect level of service standards
recommended by other governmental agencies or
professional organizations. In adopting standards for
levels of service, the County has, to the maximum
extent feasible as determined by the Board of County
Commissioners, made the County's standards consistent
with the State Comprehensive Plan and the regional
policy plan. Any County standard that differs from
State or regional plans is, in the judgement of the
Board of County Commissioners, the maximum extent to
which such standard can be made consistent with State
and regional plans.
(2) Adopting level of service standards that are phased to
correlate to specific fiscal years in order to reflect
current levels of service as well as the County's
financial ability to eliminate deficiencies and
increase public facility capacity over time.
January 9, 1990 11 - A- 2 Capital Improvements
~ (3) Applying adopted level of service standards within
appropriate, identified, geographical areas of the
County. Standards for some types of public facilities
are applied to development orders based on the level of
service throughout the County. Standards for other
types of public facilities are applied to development
orders on the basis of levels of service within
appropriate geographical areas as identified within the
Capital Improvements Element and the relevant
functional element.
(4) Specifying in Policy 11.1.1.13 that if a road or road
segment is found to be operating below the adopted
level of service, the County must enter into a contract
that will result in additional capacity, enter into a
development agreement whereby a developer adds
capacity, amend the plan to adopt a lower level of
service, or stop issuing development orders in the
impacted area.
(5) Permitting temporary deviations from the adopted levels
of service for drainage, traffic circulation, and
recreation facilities by permitting final development
orders to be issued if adequate capacity for such
public facilities will be available within twelve
months of the issuance of a building permit. Water,
sewer, and solid waste facilities are held to a higher
standard because of their affect on health: they must
be available before the issuance of a building permit.
(6) Recognizing the County's ability to withhold issuance
of development orders which might otherwise be issuable
under the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan if the
County determines that a permitted deviation from the
adopted level of service poses a threat to the health
or safety of the community.
(7) Establishing a five-year schedule of capital
improvements which is 100 percent financed by revenue
sources available to the local government under current
law and which is designed to achieve the adopted level
of service standards based on the growth projections
included within the Comprehensive Plan.
(8) Providing that, in making a determination of whether
sufficient capacity of public facilities will be
available to serve the impacts of a proposed
development, the County shall take into consideration
the difference in the timing of the actual impacts of
development caused by different types of development
orders. Final development orders (such as building
permits) generally impact public facilities within a
matter of months, and are issued based on the
availability of public facilities either at the same
time as or within twelve months of the issuance of the
January 9, 1990 11 - A- 3 Capital Improvements
building permit, as described above. Preliminary
development orders (such as site plan approvals,
rezonings, and developments of regional impact) have
less immediate impacts on public facilities, and the
determination of the availability of public facilities
can be deferred until the issuance of a final
development order if the applicant acknowledges that no
rights to develop the subject property have been
acquired as a result of receiving a preliminary
development order.
B. Monitoring. The Comprehensive Plan requires the County to
establish a system to monitor, on an annual basis, the
actual levels of service and capacity of public facilities,
and to forecast anticipated capacity for the five succeeding
fiscal years. (This monitoring report will provide prima
facie evidence of the availability of public facilities for
the current fiscal year and will, therefore, guide the
County in the issuance of development orders.) Annual
monitoring was chosen because it:
(1) Corresponds to annual capital expenditures based on the
County's fiscal year;
(2) Adequately accounts for seasonal variations in levels
of service; and
(3) Is cost effective and will utilize a consistent
methodology.
In addition to the annual monitoring, the County is required
to develop a mechanism to consider, in connection with the
issuance of development orders, the cumulative impacts of
development orders previously issued during the year since
the most recent annual monitoring.
C. Implementation. To implement the statutory concurrency
provisions quoted above, Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administra-
tive Code, requires local governments to adopt policies and
implementation strategies to assure that public facilities
and services which meet the adopted level of service
standards are available concurrent with the impacts of
development, and that no development order will be issued
which results in a reduction in the levels of service below
the adopted standards. [9J-5.016(3)(c)6 and (4)(b), F.A.C.]
To achieve these mandates in a reasonable manner, the Com-
prehensive Plan directs the County to adopt land development
regulations which:
(1) Provide for the review of applications for those types
of development orders which would impact the adopted
levels of service.
~ 't ~a/'1 1'1 _ n _ d ('ani i-al Tmnrnvcmcntc
(2) Assure that no development order will be issued which
results in a reduction of the level of service below
that permitted by the Comprehensive Plan.
(3) Provide that for purposes of determining whether
sufficient capacity of public facilities will be
available concurrent with the impacts of permitted
development, the review of applications for preliminary
development orders shall provide that the preliminary
development order shall be conditioned upon and subject
to findings of adequate public facility capacity prior
to the issuance of any final development order for the
subject property.
(4) Provide for a review of applications for final
development orders to assure that no final order or
permit will be issued by the County unless there will
be sufficient capacity of public facilities to meet the
adopted level of service standards at the time of
issuance of the building permit in the case of water,
sewer, and solid waste facilities, and in the twelve
month period following the issuance of the building
permit for roads, parks and drainage.
(5) Provide for prioritization of competing applications
for public facility capacity as follows:
a. previously approved development orders permitting
new development;
b. new development orders permitting redevelopment;
c. new development orders permitting new development.
(6) Provide for deferral or re-review of applications, in
the event of inadequate public facility capacity, on
the basis of rational criteria.
(7) Provide that development shall commence within a
specified reasonable period of time after issuance of a
development order or that the development order shall
expire, and provide criteria for reasonable extensions
of time.
(8) Allow a developer to provide the necessary public
facilities at the developer's own expense, provided
that the public facilities are consistent with the
Schedule of Capital Improvements in the Comprehensive
Plan and that the County and the developer enter into
an enforceable development agreement which shall
provide, at a minimum, a schedule for construction of
the necessary public facilities and mechanisms for
monitoring so that the public facilities will be
available concurrent with the impacts of the
January 9, 1990 11 - A- 5 Capital Improvements
development or the development will not be allowed to
proceed.
CONCLUSION
The concurrency implementation and monitoring system described
above is designed to satisfy the requirements of the law in a
manner which is reasonable in application and administration, as
well as in effect. The concurrency system will be subject to the
annual review and refinement in the same manner as the Capital
Improvements Element.
January 9, 1990 11 - A- 6 Capital Improvements
APPENDIX B
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT
PUBLIC FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS
NON-MANDATORY FACILITIES
January 9, 1990 Capital Improvements
LI6RARY BUILDINGS
LEUEL OF SERVICE STANOARD = 0.525 SQ FT/CAPIA
ST. LUCIE COUKTY
POPU[ATION SQ FEET SQ FEET SQ FEET SURPLUS/ VALUE OR
FISCAL CO-WIDE REQUIRED PL~NED AVAILASLE (DEFICIENCY) COST AT
YEAR PERt~(FNT 0.525/CAP 580.00
88/89 143,134 75,145 29,000 (46,145) (3,691,628)
89/~0 151,700 79,642 0 29,000 (50,642) (4,051~400)
90/91 158,600 83,265 36,Q00 65,000 <18,265) <1,46i,20D)
91/92 165,500 86,888 0 65,000 (21,888) <1,751,000)
92193 172,400 90,510 50,000 115,000 24,450 1,959,200
S3/94 l79,300 94,132 0 I15,000 20,868 1,669,400
94/95 IS5,200 97,755 • 0 115,000 17,245 1,379,600
2000 ~ 218,900 114,922 115,000 73 6,200
2010 290,100 152,302 I15,000 (37,302) (2,584,200)
TIME POPULATION SQ FEET St2 FEET SQ FEET SURPLUS/ tJr1LUE OR
PERIOD REQUIRED Pt.A^d~(ED AVAIlA6LE (OEFICIENCY) `CDST AT
0.525/CAP :E0.00
PRESINT TO ~
9/30/90 151,700 79,642 0 29,000 (50,642) (4,051,400)
5 YEAR GR04lT'N
10/90 - 9/95: 34,500 18,112 86,000 86,000 67,888 5;431,000
5-YFAR SUBTOTAI: 186,20~ 97,755 86,000 1I5,000 f7,245 I,379,600
~l0 5-YEAR GRCd~H:
10/90 - 9/00: 32,700 17,158 ~ 0 (17,163) (I,373,400)
TOTAL:9/30/2000 218,900 114,922 S6,000 I15,000 78 6,200
January 9, 1990 11 - B- 1 C~pital I~r~rovement~
~ LIBRARY COILECTIOP~
tEVEI OF SERVICE STANDAR~ = 1.45 BOOKS/CAPITA
ST IUCIE COl~1TY
POPULATION BOOKS BOOKS • BOOKS SURPLUS/ VRLUE OR
FISCAL CO-WIDE REQUIRED PLAPdJED RIJAIIABLE (DEFICIENLY) COST AT
YEAR PEf~-fANFNT I.45/CAP 525.00
88/89 143,134 207,544 155,000 (52,544) (l,3I3,607)
89/90 ~ 151,700 219,965 12,086 167,086 <52,879) (1,321,975)
90/91 158,600 229,970 37,295 204,351 (25~SS9) (639,725)
91/92 165,500 239,975 14,624 219,D05 (20,97U) (524,250)
92193 I72,400 249,580 6I,086 280,OS1 30,111 752,775
93/94 179,300 259,985 17,695 297,786 37,801 945,025
S4/95 186,200 269,590 19,465 317,251 47,26i 1,18I,525
2000 218,900 3I7,405 317,251 (I54) <3,850)
2010 2~0,100 420,645 317,251 (103,354) (2,534,850)
TIME POPUTATIGN BOOKS BOOKS BOOY,S SURPLUS/ ~ALllE OR
PERIOD REQUIRED PLF~AIED AVAILABLE (DEFICIENCY> CDST AT
1.45/CAP $25.00
PRESINT TO ~
9/30/90 151,700 219,965 12,086 167,U86 (52,879) (1,321,975) '
5 YEAR GROWTH
10/90 - 9/95: 34,500 50,025 ISO,1G5 150,165 100,140 2,503,500
5-YEAR SUS70TAL: 186,200 269,990 162,251 3I7,25i 47,261 1,181,525
2ND 5-YEAR GRCXJT'H:
10/90 - S/00: 32,700 47,415 0 0 t47,415) (I,135,375)
TOTAL:9/30/2D00 216,500 317,405 162,251 317,251 (154) (3,850)
January 9, 1990 11 - B- 2 Capital Impr~~em?n+s
CORRECTIONS
LEVEL OF SE~JICE STANDARD = 0.00485 BEDS/CAPI7A
ST. LUCIE COLrtTY
POPULATION BEDS SEDS BEOS SURPLUS/ VAIUE OR
FISCAL CO~JIDE REQUIRED Pl.AN~IED AVAIlABLE (OEFICIENCY) COST AT
YEAR PERMANEM .00485/CP 520,000
88/89 • 143,134 694 642 ' (52> (1,043,598>
89/9D 15I,700 736 22 664 <72) (1,434,900)
90/91 158,600 769 120 784 IS 2SS,S00
91/92 165,500 803 0 784 (19) (373,500)
92/93 172,400 S36 120 904 68 1,357,200
93/94 179,300 870 0 904 . 34 687,90D
94/95 186,200 903 ~ 0 904 1 18,600
2000 218,900 1,D62 904 (!58) (3,153,300)
2010 290,IU0 1,407 S04 (503) (t0,O5S,7~0)
TIME POFULATION B~DS 6EDS BEDS SURPLUS/ I~ALUE OR
PERI00 REQUIRED PLArS1ED AtlaILAELE (DEFICIENCY) COST AT
O.OD485 $20,OOJ
PR~SINT TO
9/30/90 151,700 736 22 6b4 (72) (1,434,900)
5 YEAR 6ROlJTFi
!0/90 - 9/95: 34,500 167 240 240 73 1,453,500
5-YEAR SUBTOTAL: _ 186,200 903 262 904 1 18,600
2ND S-YEAR GRQIJTH:
10/90 - 9/00: 32,700 159 0 ..0 (159) _(3,171,SOU)
TOTAl:9/3~/200~ 218,500 1,062 262 S04 (158) (3,153,~00)
Itd~TE POP. PROJECTIONS: 63S (1SS0), 779 (1995>,548 (2000).
NOTE: 1990 IXPAN~ I GJ ASSIMES CLOS I NG OF Dt~1TC~..,°~ JA I L( 98 EEDS )
January 9, 1990 11 - B- 3 Capital ~~iprovements
GOVERMIINT BUILDINGS: JUDICIAL
LEVEL OF SEF~VICE STANDARD = 0.839 SQ FT/CAPIA
ST. LUCIE COtNTY
POPU(ATION SQ FEET SQ FEET SQ FEE( SURPLUS/ VALUE OR
FISCAL CO~JIDE REQUIRED PLAPNED RVAILABLE (DEFICIFNCY) CDST AT
YEAR PERMANEM 0.839/CAP 5100.00
88/89 ~ 143,134 120,089 131,184 • 11,095 1,109,457
89/90 lSI,700 127,276 17,520 148,704 21,428 2,142,770
90/41 158,600 133,065 30~000 .178,704 45,639 4,563,860
91/S2 165,500 138,E54 0~ 178,704 39,850 3,984,950
92/S3 172,400 144,644 ~ .I78,704 34,06Q 3,406,040
93/94 179,300 150,433 5,000 1°3,704 33,271 3,327,130
94/95 186,200 I56,222 0 .1&3,704 27,482 2,748,220
2000 218,900 183,657 183,704 47 4,69t7
2010 290,100 243,394 183,704 (59,690) <S,S68,990)
TIME POPULATICN SQ FEET SQ FEET SQ EEET SURPLUS/ VAIUE OR
PERIOD REQUIRED PLAt~IVED AVAILABLE (OEFICIENCY) Ct~ST AT ~
0.839/CAP 5100.00
FRESFNT TO
9/30/90 151,700• 127,276 17,520 148,704 21,428 2,142,770
5 YFAR GRO(JTH .
IO/90 - 9/95: 34,500 28,946 35,000 35,000 6.,054 605,450
5-YEAR SUBTOTAL: 186,200~ 156,222 52,520 183,704 27,482 2,748,220
:ND 5-YEAR 6ROWTN:
10/90 - 9!00: 32,700 27,435 0 d.-. (27,435) 12,743,530)
TOTA~:9/30/200~ 218,Y00 1fi3,657 52,520 183,704 47 4,650
January 9, 1990 11 - B- 4 Capital Improvements
GOVERMIENT BUIL~INGS: ACfi1INISTRAT[VE/rtAIhfi'EW~NCE
LEVEL OF SEh'~IICE STAt~10AR0 = 1.253 SQ FT/CAPITA
ST. IUCIE COUKTY
POPULATICN SQ FEE( SQ FEET ~il FEET SURPLUS/ VALUE OR
FISCAL CO-WIDE REQUIRED PLArNEO AVAILABLE <DFFICIENCY? COST AT
YEAR PERM~VFNT 1.253/CAP SS0.00
86/89 . 143,134 179,347 220,018 40,671 3,253,658
89/9D iSI,700 190,08D 27,437 247,455 57,375 4,589,992
90/91 158,600 198,726 0 247,455 48,729 3,898,336
91/92 165,500 207,371 15,0~00 262,455 55,084 4,406,680
92/S3 I72,400 216,017 12,000 274,455 58,438 , 4,675,024
93/94 179,300 224,663 U 274,455 49,792 3,953,369
S4/95 IS6,200 233,309 0 2i4,455 41,146 3,291,712
2000 21E,900 274,282 274,455 173 13,864
2010 290,100 363,495 274,455 (S9,D40) (7,123,224)
TIME POPULATION SQ FEET SQ FEET SQ FEET SURPLUS/ l},aLUc OR
PERIOD REQUIRED PLAMlED AVAILABLE (OEFICIQdCY) COST AT
1.253/CAP $80.00
PRESENT TO
S/30/90 151,700 190,OS0 27,437 247,455 57,375 4,589,992
5 YEAR GROWTH
10/90 - 9/95: 34,500 43,228 27,000 27,000 (16,228) <1;298,28U)
5-YEAR SUBTOTAl.: iS6,200 233,309 54~437 274,455 41,146 3,29I,712 ~
2N0 5-YEAR GROWTH:
lU/~0 - 9/00: 32,700 40,973 0 0 (40,973) (3,277,S48)
TOTA(.:9/30/200U 21S,i00 274,232 59,437 274,455 173 13,$64
,~anL~.a~y A, 1990 11 - B-~ Capita~ Imprcver~Pn+s
APPENDIX C
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT
SANITARY LANDFILL ENTERPRISE FUND
January 9, 1990 Capital Improvements
APPENDIX C
SANITARY LANDFILL ENTERPRISE FUND
In January 1986, St. Lucie County initiated tipping fees for the
use of the sanitary landfill. The decision to convert the
landfill from a County department to an enterprise fund was due
to the increased usage of the facility by persons from
surrounding counties, plus the increasing cost of construction
and operation. During the first nine months of operation, the
landfill collected $1,287,442 at a rate of $15.00 a ton for
garbage. The next twelve months ending on September of 1987, the
collections increased to $1,987,453. Faced with the need to
expand the facility, the Board increased the tipping fee to
$26.00 a ton, and during the last year ending September 1988, a
total of $3,629,664 was collected. An engineering firm has been
recently hired to review the current tipping fee structure and a
possible increase may be recommended.
The increases in the flow of waste materials continue to
grow each year. As the population of the County increases, this
trend will continue. The operating cost of the landfill has been
approximately $1,000,000 a year. In 1987, a loan was taken out
to finance the construction of Phase II and closure of Phase I.
The payments on the loan are approximately $1,500,000 a year for
three years. In the thirty-sixth month, the loan can be paid in
' full or a new rate negotiated and continued for another year.
January 9, 1990 11 - C- 1 Capital Improvements
Figure # (1)
ST. LUCIE COUHTY ~
T07AL TOti1{AGE OF UAStE FLOW INiO LAt{DFILL 1936 ?0 1989
86-a? 87-4~ ' i 88-89 i
HONiH WASTE UAS2E INC/(DEC) Wr~SiE ING(DEC)
YONNAGE iONHAGE PRIOR YR. TOt{riAGE PRIOR 4R.
CI. 18,352.8 12,469.8 28.45x 16,518.8 32.4ri.
~ OU. 8,944.8 11,3T1.B 27.14i i7,285.0 52.0L
EC. 11,156.9 13,618.8 22.07i 17,777.8 38.54x
Ahl. 11,529.8 12,748.8 18.58i 17,651.8 39.SSi
EH. 18,728.9 13,889.8 22.0 L'. 15,22S.8 16.34i
AR. 12,673.8 14,4Q6.8 14.3 L 18,864.8 2~.7B~i.
PR. i1,b28.0 i7,515.~ 58.73i 22,769.5 30.88i
Y 18,788.8 13,321.8 23.S1i 17,317.3 38.88i
Uti. 11,156.8 1T,517.8 57.62i 22,?Tl.l 36.8Bx
L. 8,923.8 15,485.8 72.64i 28,826.5 38.~0i
UG. 18,987.0 16,209.~ 48.2bi 21,175.7 38.08i
EP. 11,851.8 14,587.8 32.88i 18,963.1 38.08i
IOTAL 129,899.8 172,487.0 33.39x 225,547.2 31.22i
Figure # (2)
ST . LUC I E C~Ut~1TY SAt~! I TRR~ LANDF I L L
TONS OF GARBRGE PEP. MONTH
OCTOBER 86 PROJECTED THF2U SEPTEMBER 8~
TaNS
~~000
21000 IIIIIIIIIIIIII TDNS OF
WRSTE I I
18000
15000 .
12000
SU00
b000
~000
C~
OCT86 RPR87 OCTF?? APR88 OCT8° APR8R
JAN°? J U L87 J Rf-1B8 JUL~B ~ JAf~B~ J UL89
;lanuary 9, 1990 11 - C- 2 Capital Improvements
MONTHLY TONNAGE OF SO.LID WASTE DEPOSITED AT ST. LUCIE COUNTY LANDFILL 1987 -1989
MONTHLY MONTHLY MONTHLY
MONTH GARBAGE % CONSTRUCT. % TIRES 7. TOTAL %
TONNAGE IN/-DE TONNAGE IN/-DE TONNAGE TN/-DE TONNAGE IN/-DE
10/86 8,465.7 1,865.8 20.8 10,352.3
11/86 7,666.9 -9.4% 1,263.0 -32.3% 14.7 -29.3% 8;944.6 -13.6%
12/86 9,484.4 23.7% 1,655.9 31.1% 16.6 12.9% 11,156.9 24.7%
O1/87 9,329.0 -1.6% 2,178.6 31.6% 21.G 30.1% 11,529.2 3.3%
02/87 8,849.5 -5.17. 1,834.4 -15.8% 44.9 107.9% 10,728.8 -6.9%
03/87 10,355.4 17.0% 2,277,4 24.1% 41.1 -8.5% 12,673.9 18.1%
04/87 9,328.3 -9.9~ 2,221.2 -2.5% 71.0 72.7% 11,620.5 -8.3%
OS/87 8,803.7 -5.6% 1,837.9 -17.3% 139.0 95.8% 10,780.6 -7.2%
06/87 9,076.4 3.1% 1,952.3 6.2% 127.7 -8.1% 11,156.4 3.5%
07/87 6,556.3 -27.8% 2,290.3 1~.3% 76.6 -40.07. 8,923.2 -20.0%
08/87 8,460.0 29.0% 2,417.6 5.6% 109.5 43.OY. 10,987.1 23.1%
09/87 8,540.G 1.0% 2,402.7 -O.G% 108.5 -0.9% 11,051.8 0.6%
TOTAL 104,916.2 24,197.1 792.0 129,905.3
% % % %
MONTH GARFIAGE IN/-DE CONSTRUCT. IN/-DE TIRES IN/-DE TOTAL ZN/-DE
TONNAGE PRIOR YR TONNAGE PRIOR ~'R TONNAGE PRIOR YR TONNAGE PRIOR YR
10/87 10,150.9 19.9% 2,198.8 17.8% 119.8 476.0% 12,469.5 20.5%
11/87 9,525.2 24.3% 1,734.9 37.4% 107.4 634.0% 11,371.0 27.1i
12/87 11,474.4 21.0% 2,035.9 22.9% 107.7 548.8% 13,618.0 22.1%
O1/88 11,026.9 18.2% 1,620.9 -25.6% 92.8 329.5% 12,740.6 10.5%
02/88 11,871.2 34.1% 1,137.7 -38.0% 80.1 78.5% 13,089.0 22.0%
03/88 13,101.0 26.5% 1,307.7 -42.b% 77.7 89.1'l. 14,486.3 14.3%
04/88 15,902.4 70.5% 1,471.9 -33.7% 141.7 99.6% 17,515.9 50.7%
OS/88 11,655.8 32.4% 1,594.4 -13.2% 71.3 -48.7% 13,321.4 23.6%
06/S8 15,270.7 68.2% 2,105.7 7.9'I. 141.4 10.7% 17,517.8 57.0%
07/88 12,900.4 96.8% 2,432.1 6.2% 72.6 -5.3% 15,405.0 72.b%
08/88 13,678.3 61.7% 2,562.9 6.0% 47.8 -56.3% 16,289.0 48.3%
09/88 12,323.3 44.3% 2,218.9 -7.6% 45.0 -58.6% 14,587.2 32.0%
TOTAL 148,353.4 41.9% 22,421.6 -7.3'I. 1,105.8 39.6% 172,410.8 32.7%
10/88 13,799.2 35.9% 2,658.9 20.9% b0.7 -49.4% 16,518.8 32.5%
11/88 1~,365.1 50.8% Z,S74.3 65.7% 46.6 -56.8% 17,285.9 52.0%
12/88 14,621.4 27.4% 3,141.4 54.3% 14.3 -86.7;: 17,777.1 42.6%
O1/89 14,161.3 28.4% 3,465.8 113.8% 24.2 -74.0% 17,651.2 55.2%
02/8° '_2,?42.2 7,.3:'. 2,474.1 117.5'1. 11.7 -55.4% 15,228.0 11.8i:
03/89 14,964,0 14.2'/. 3,075.1 135.2% 25.6 -67.1% 18,064.7 41.8%
04/89~" 18,800.8 18.2% 3,927.7 166.9% 41.0 -71.1% 22,769.5 74.0%
05/89'~ 14,298.9 22.;% 2,987.2 57.4% 31.2 -56.3% 17,317.3 19.5%
06/89"~ 18,802.9 23.1% 3,928.2 86.5% 41.0 -71.0% 22,772.1 30.0%
07/89` 16,535.9 28.2% 3,454.6 42.0% .36.0 -50.3% 20,026.5 50.3~:
OS/89~~ 17,484.8 27.8% 3,652.8 42.5% 38.1 -20.3% 21,175.7 20.9%
09/89` 15,657.8 27.1% 3,271.1 47.4'/. 34.1 -24.1% 18,963.1 23.1%
TOTAL 156,234.1 1261.5% 38,911.3 1C18.3% 404.5 745.7% 225,549.9 1284.7'C
i~ ESTI~IATE
~a.:uui~ ~ 1990 1= - C: - 3 Capit3l I:np.r~~vements _
APPENDZX D
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT
CAPITAL PROJECTS OPERATING COST IMPACT
January 9, 1990 Capital Improvements
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT
OPERATING COST IMPACT
(IN THOUSANDS)
FACILITY TYPE 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95
Government Bldgs. 542 819 819 879 879
Corrections 565 765 765 965 965
Airport 100
Library 519 519 1078 1078
Parks & Recreation 217 217 226 375
Total 1107 2320 2320 3148 3397
Includes 35 additional positions through 1994/95
Includes 35 additional positions through 1994/95
Includes 66.5 additional positions through 1994/95
Includes 9 additional positions through 1994/95
January 9, 1990 11 - D- 1 Capital Improvements
APPENDIX E
ANALYSIS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FISCAL YEAR 1989-90 TO 1994-95
January 9, 1990 Capital Improvements
INTRODUCTION
The St. Lucie County School Board provides for public education
within the County including incorporated and unincorporated
areas. The School Board has no regulatory authority over land
use; however, it does influence land use and public facility
decisions through the siting of schools. The responsibility of
St. Lucie County under the Growth Management Act is to review the
School Board's Capital Improvement Program to determine consist-
ency with the Comprehensive Plan and the impact on the County's
level of service standards. In addition, this is pursuant to
Rule 9J-5.016(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, (F.A.C.) which
reads "The geographic service area and location of major system
components for the public education and public health systems
with the local government's jurisdiction shall be identified."
Also, 9J-5.016(2)(d) requires the County to determine "the impact
of new or improved public educational and public health care
systems and facilities on the provision of infrastructure". The
purpose of this appendix is to analyze the School Board's Capital
Improvement's impact upon the County's infrastructure.
PROCEDURE
Data Collection
The following steps were used to accumulate the data for this
section:
a. Existing schools were inventoried; school sites and
service areas were located on maps.
b. School Board land holdings were inventoried and
proposed acquisitions were noted.
c. The School Board Capital Improvement Program was
reviewed to determine impacts on the infrastructure of
the County.
Note: This analysis only includes public education
facilities. There are no local public_ health
facilities within St. Lucie County.
January 9, 1990 11 - E- 1 Capital Improvements
ANALYSIS
The location of existing schools, future schools, and capital
improvements were reviewed to determine the impact on the level
of service standards established by St. Lucie County for the
following facilities: Roads, Sanitary Sewers, Potable Water,
Solid Waste, Drainage, and Parks and Recreation.
Facilities Inventory
Table 1 provides a listing of all existing schools within the St.
Lucie County School District. Since the fall of 1982, the
District has brought five new schools into its system, or almost
one new school a year. At the time of this writing, the District
had an additional senior high school (targeted to open August,
1989), an exceptional education center, and an additional
elementary school under construction.
Inventory of Available Sites
The following listing identifies sites that the School Board owns
that are available for future use:
Adjacent to westwood High School (65 acres)
Adj-acent to Windmill Point Elementary (74 acres)
School farm at Campbell Road (640 acres)
Concerning potential uses of the above parcels, a portion of the
Westwood property will be needed for expansion of the Anglewood
Education Center, but the balance is uncommitted. While the
Windmill Point acreage is sufficient in size to locate both a
middle and a high school, the District has agreed to trade 30
acres of this property to the General Development Corporation for
other school sites. The remaining acreage will house either a
middle or high school. A five year plan for the school farm has
been prepared. Use of this property as a school site is not
anticipated during this period.
In addition to sites already owned by the District, the School
Board has entered agreements with developers of two residential
projects that are subject to review under Chap. 380, Florida
Statute, as developments of regional impact. As a part of the
review process, Thomas J. White Development Corporation (St.
Lucie West) and General Development Corporation (Sharrett) were
required to reach agreement with the Board on the donation for
future school use of various properties.
January 9, 1990 11 - E- 2 Capital Improvements
TABLE l. EXISTING SCHOOL INVENTORY, 1989 .
12/1/87 12/1/87 Enrollment
Operational Number of Special
Name of Facility Capacity* Portables Regular Education Total
Elementary:
1 Chester A. Moore 687 4 595 0 595
2 Fairlawn 691 4 650 40 690
3 Floresta - 772 2 833 0 833
4 Frances K. Sweet 714 4 615 5 620
5 Ft. Pierce 1,002 3 960 0 960
6 Garden City 1,102 3 1,037 0 1,037
7 Lakewood Park 772 5 745 11 756 ,
8 Lawnwood 580 7 396 250 646
9 Morningside 772 2 872 0 872
10 Port St. Lucie 772 8 945 0 945
11 St. Lucie 920 1 742 116 858
12 Village Green 775 0 786 9 795
13 White City 462 5 469 0 469 ;
14 Windmill Point 775 5 870 0 870 ;
15 Bayshore Elementary 775 0 - - - ~
~
Middle:
16 Dan McCarty 1,122 11 1,129 18 1,147
17 Lincoln Park** 600 0 565 88 653
18 Northport 1,136 7 1,010 46 1,056
Senior High: . -
19 Ft. Pierce Central 2,152 21 2,416 48 2,464
20 Lincoln Park** 400 0 283 0 283
21 Ft. Pierce Westwood 1,927 15 1,773 14 1,787
Exceptional Education
Centers:
22 Anglewood 60 ~ 0 0 31 31
23 Means Court 72 0 0 65 65
24 St. Lucie 45 0 0 23 23
* Exclusive of portables. The figures overstate capacities in some
schools to the extent special programs require reduced class
size.
Lincoln Park Rcademy is a magnet secondary school that will
contain grades 7-12 at the time full enrollment is attained in
1989. Capacity has been separated into middle and senior grade
levels for analysis purposes.
Sources: School Board of St. Lucie County, Enrollment Tracking System
data, December 1, 1987; St. Lucie County School District.
January 9, 1990 11 - E- 3 Capital Improvements
~ . "~y ~1
~;.ry ,ny~~1 o r ~~.;~~.>~'"'-,~1s4~~
. ~ ~eC~ .,AWA' m ~U2L @Y~ ~ Lf.d4f1 0
~i ~ ~ 1~~1 .~si~ 'V~
~
~ R J 9 E a 4 0 ~E
e_ ~ I
- -t ~ ~ .
i ; '--r n a ~ 1 L7 '
~
! ~ 1 r, i ~ I , " ~ 1 d ; ..,1
~~'F l._I I r ~y _ \ e ,r-.~ „~,,~j / ~ ~
,~A lo;n ~ ~iZl *
I' I , [ > p
~ i - - ~ ~ - -a V ~ -
; ~
_ -e ~ ~ ~Y 3~'~
^f ~o
~ . . ,
/ ,1~, I ~ I I ~ , ~ , c ~ ~ \ -
, ~ ~~o ~ c~ ~a. " ^ ? ~ o~ .,'o
-^-1 1 I 1 ` -~---1={ --f-~ V' - , ~ _ - ~'o
~ ~ 7 ` ~ ~
1 I..~`'~'. ~ ~614 ° ie ~ .
I , ie ~ i _ 0. P ~
1-' ~ l J - t~;,,
~1~l~,~o } -
I J -10 tl r 1i. IL.2~' 11 9 )G~.t v]i' •,D~ ~
~ ~1' ~ n J -
v ~ ~ . .
C ~ ~ ;
. ~ ~ ~ ,
~
~ ~ , ~ 1
_ , ~ , , o, y
I ~ t
~ ~`)O' _ _ly. Jii _GUt1• ~.I]E~ ~i,l J r`'J~_.19 7E )y I14, t] ~r~
_ 'L. . F~. Q S1.~lUC V ~ ?i•
.~r
ar i
~'l~~~'!' , i. ~ \
, ~ ~ i r ~ . ' ' L ~ ' 1-- l ~ _ ~ ; `oi ~ ~ r: t U ~ i'. ~ ~
~ . I~I ~I ' I~~ . ~tiS7"'{ ~I V~ ~on~ ~~crACc
_ ~ :ic t ~ ~ ~ ' ~ 1 .LLL~1r l . ,44„~'i .YD.~-...' o c~rw^^"".~ ~ c
, ~li' ` ~ . i ~ ' ~ i l A 2 0 ~ - 4 . \p -
lil i 'I I ~ G ~
~ ~ , j ~
~ ' 'c . 7, 17 , _L • .~jP. ^ 1 ~ ` ~
_ 1 ..~Ii ~~-~a ~ .J-. . I.~^ ' ~ J~ 1 N 1 ? _ .,`_•,j1 •
_ a ~ ` ~ f~l_ t; ~ • ~,~~''e .
1 z~ !a..~-~- - rr' ti - eo :~s
~ 8~~~. ~ _ I~L F. 17 i
'.1_ ~ . • ~ ~ ~ ^ / v,j~
~ ' ~:f T-!-1 ' i 1 ( J 1 ~ ~ ' ' ~ `2
~ :T < (y,1, :i ~'G c
~ ~ ~ ~ a f i~. B u~^ -L~'I ~4Y i] ~ ~ ° ~ I ' ~ 1 5 i~ ' b~
r I 4:~^ ^ 7J s
- ~ ~ ~~1~ I t1~. ry{~ 'y ~ 4ti `Z 11 _ _ ~
- ~I ~~I 411~r~~`''ulI ~ I! X~L~ ~ 0~da ~ S ,~I~ s
- 1 9 L~ I ~ ~~II y 7)' n i 7n _ c~ ~ I 77~ f) / ~ ~i:.~ 1~
~ . I . ea _ ~ d: „ .,S " _ '~-j~ ;9 ~ , ~
~ ' i-i=, ° I: _49 - { _ _ ~'„~,-1I1~~ "ii°~~' .l•-
. ~ 'i ~ I 7e f-~ , lS 1x` ~r I ~
~ ~o
I~ I~ t9 ~ ,~t{ t! J0~ ~39r;. / I~IIj~ r tf~ 25 0
~ ~ 1 ^ ~ ~ p~ ~ )
.7 `•'f~ ~ III y,~ ~ 9
.~'1C. ,l} S ~ . ~ _ ~ £ _I~_ O
_ . } ~ . ~ ~ ~i
~ lo . ~ . . ~
r r E
. ~ i r r ` - - k ~ ~ '
~ . > , ~~~I . 1 {~T'~~ I y _7~ ) i) ~ ,I~p, )6 1 11
` ~ ]7' I'~~ ,o n ~.I , 7 ~ / \/f I ~
~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~
~ S
~ / ~ ~ "-l ~ d i~~,;
f , , _ j ~ ~ ~w ~ , ~
~ . . - ~`~y~~ ~i YIM1~ ii~712 .///.e'%r~ _ '~`,--~~~~,"1 a i l e ~y~~
;j ~ i~., ~ o~ 3 ' ~~a.~.
- ~ ,r~ _r• i ~ - r- i ,,.,~II. ~ T - S H i i ~ 3 ~ ~ ' ~ - -
~ _ ~ .t,!j~. ; i. , a I ` S H S H a/ ~ l. 1 ~
4 ~-~.~r.. !C'~ 1. ' ~S'ont ~ 2 I. T .~~~9 I ' e ~ \ ~
. ' I'~~ o:• f A : q'GA~ip, r ~..1 y0 A ( o\
~ _ r , I Y j C ~ ~ . ~ : ~ )n.y n \ 1
. - .-L{..:i : I1'~... ~~'e i~ i] ~ ~ i~ 1~57 F...~~ L---~~ ~ ~ tJ. ie ~ I\
_ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~b o~ B ~ ~ L ,Z~. ~ ~ , ~
_ ` I ' 9 ~ _ q _ ~t
r'.
1 ~ ~.L . 1~. / ~ ' I S
` ~ - _
~ .:'~~\I ~ CI e~ ' S' i ~ ~j .'~I , u' ~°f . • . ~
t \ r;L 7 x1 / 3] ~ I 1~ ~~j`~~. U I)\ G~I ~ f PO ~~z]
. 1 ~~ti, r~ ~ -lf~W nl f i, ` . \
- ~~r ,~r - 1 0 ~ y~~j k- t ~ 0~ , ~
~ /'I .^~;r~ \`~10`V 21 /xe x~ ' _i9 / 3xn~.~:.LtS~.. -JOA..: ~ xr
- - - ~Z , ~ p S ~ ~F ( .r ~
` ! ~ :r - ' ~i. _r~.~ 22 \
- ~ C' ~ ~o •o g S ~ ~ a L~ °oi ^ n
-.~~a~r'i- ~ :e~S/~~v ~f~~~, \)n~ ~ . ~s i s.,: ~ ~ n e ; i ii
' r_~' ~a . 3 '
/ j .G~ 'L l ; s 1'2 ~ ~
~ ~ I i 9 J -----f,-
i ~ ` _ `
~ ° ~ ' LJ/,/ ~ ',y'.i; ~f o/ s ~ ~ ° i
` ` ' . 4- ~ I.~' \ 1 1 9,ti. p I •I //~`Ct' ~
.I~ ~ ~ ' ; (J _ - - --I- ~ 9 ~ _ Ce;^.
r~ . ' ~_r~ '~I ~ ~ ~
`.t~ . p 1 i% i 11 i7 ~'7, l 1 0. ~ N~ 9 10 II 17
.S~S ~_T_ 1 I~~ ~ / 1 1 ~ / /
_ ~ ~ _ / f~ ' ~ ~1~~ ' ' ~ r~ • $ 1 8 / ~ ~
r m o ~ _r , y" ~ o ` ` ' ~ R 4 I ' c y_. '
~ t~,~i ie~ i C~i~~ n n 1 fi ' hu~. w u~ ~
, ~1 ~ r U ° \ ~ ~ ~ ~ P 0 R T S T: L U C I - / ~.,i., / , ~ ~l'.
i ~ ~ \
~ ` ~ i r. ~ ~
~F ~ ` O ~i ii~ =x ~ i
' G~i' t ~~C.~ `i~ C u ~ iF l ~ ~ l(ll~~~0/ .
tis'~ O~ l 2 1 ~ ~ 4 ~ ? t: S T. L U C I F U N T y
, ~ _ _
u I o; i o~. a~~ ~ i u 1 z r~~
5/
-5,1~, t~ ~~~o ,•~r.~ ~S~`I - , ; ~a ~5~,~ EXISTZNG & PC~TENTIAL
~ _ ~ G 0, p ` ~ ,Y ~ 1 5
. ~ - - ~i ~ ~ _ i '
Y~i-- ~~~~.~~f--~~ - . _ .
F I- I 1'\~ ' 1 2 ~ ,v..~ii ,o;;,, .liS'~
~I Y j ^1 ; J]J \ ~~0 ~ ~ )!Q 1 J ~ _ \ 1L•J._ 6 '
_ , ;
, SCHOOL SITES
_ -
=:1~_~~~~-~ _ ~ _'t?~ ~l/G~
l~ -?L!G?/vy ?.//.~1~~ 1 h , . i~///r~
..V.• R 39 E ~ ~y R 40
- FEBRUARY 1988
~ ~t'" POTENTIAL
~ ' E\IS'PING
~ 1-20 See Table 4 A Westwood Pr.operty
~ 21 Bnyahore Elementnry B School Fnrm
w
a 22 New High School C Windmill Point Property
S St. Lucie West Sitee
SH Sharret Sitee
T To~rino Park~vay
Othere See Table 12
. _ . _ _ .._,n„_ _ _ _
- _ , _ _ _ - -
St. Lucie County School Board Capital Improvement Program
The School Board's Capital Improvement Program reflects the
assessment of need to provide for the school population. The
program's main objectives are to accommodate growth through
expansion of existing facilities or building schools. It also
plans for the maintenance and preservation of existing
facilities.
St. Lucie County is estimating an enrollment increase of
approximately 1,000 school children per year over the next five
(5) years. The largest increase is occurring within the
elementary school age population. The Capital Improvement
Program reflects a response to the need, by planning for five (5)
elementary schools to be constructed within the five (5) year
time frame.
The middle schools are also adequate and will need some improve-
ments and two new schools to accommodate the elementary children
as they move into the middle school category.
The existing high schools, with the addition of the Port St.
Lucie High School, will meet the needs of the high school
population within the five (5) year time frame. Another high
school may need to be built around 2005.
The facility needs outlined above, when compared to the
District's funding limitations and the number of new students
projected annually at each grade level, yield the following
schedule of capital outlays for construction through 1994-1995:
TABLE 2. FACILITY NEEDS
Year* Type of Facility Cost**
1989-1990 Middle $11,550,000
1989-1990 Elementary 4,200,000
1990-1991 Elementary 4,410,000
1991-1992 Elementary 4,631,000
1992-1993 Elementary 4,863,000
1993-1994 Middle 14,741,000
1994-1995 Elementary 5,106,000
TOTAL $56,501,000
* Stated as of projected start date for construction
Stated in current dollars, based upon 1987 construction cost
estimates and an annual 5 percent rate of inflation
This proposed schedule is based upon existing information, and
must be reviewed and revised as necessary to accommodate changing
conditions and future events.
January 9, 1990 11 - E- 4 Capital Improvements
The Educational Facilities Impact Fees will allow the school
district to pay for that portion of new schools which has been
unfunded by State and local taxation. Assuming that the level of
funding from the State and local sources remains constant and
that the impact fee remains in place, the portion of the school
district's capital plan that is "unfunded" should be relatively
small. The school district believes that this unfunded amount
can be addressed through bonds, lease purchase plans, or other
options. In any event, the school district capital plan shows no
unfunded expenditures through 1993.
The St. Lucie County School District inventory of existing
facilities was taken into consideration in determining the level
of service for existing Category A and C Public Facilities. Also
taken into consideration were the three facilities under
construction at the time of this writing (June, 1989). However,
as the District constructs additional new facilities, it needs to
do so in close cooperation with St. Lucie County to ensure that
such construction is in compliance with this Comprehensive Plan.
The critical factor in this concern is to ensure that the
concurrency requirements as outlined in this Capital Improvements
Element are maintained.
January 9, 1990 11 - E- 5 Capital Improvements
TABLE 3. 1995 SCHOOL CAPACITY ANALYSIS
School District of St. Lucie County, Florida
1g87 Capacity
Operational 1995 Projected Surplus/
Type of Facility Capacity Student Population (Deficiency)
Elementary
1 Bayshore 775
2 C.A. Moore 687
3 Fairlawn 691
4 F.K. Sweet 714
5 Floresta 772
6 Ft. Pierce 1,002
7 Garden City 1,102
8 Lakewood Park 772
9 Lawnwood 580
10 Morningside 772
11 Port St. Lucie 772
12 St. Lucie 920
13 Village Green 775
14 White City 462
15 Windmill Point 775
TOTAL 11,571 16,000 (4,429)
Middle
Dan McCarty 1,122
Lincoln Park Academy* 600
Northport 1,136
TOTAL 2,858 4,840 (1,982)
Senior
Ft. Pierce Central 2,152
Lincoln Park Academy* 400
Westwood 1,927
New Senior* 1,929
TOTAL 6,408 5,710 698
Exceptional Education
Centers
Anglewood 60
Means Court 45
St. Lucie School 45
TOTAL 177 171** 6
* Lincoln Park Academy is a magnet school that will contain
grades 7 through 12 at the time full enrollment is attained
January 9, 1990 11 - E- 6 Capital Improvements
in 1989. Capacity has been separated into middle and senior
grade levels for analysis purposes.
Assumes the number of exceptional education students
requiring separate facilities in 1995 will remain
proportion-ally the same as December 1, 1987 enrollment.
Source: Planning Services, December 1987; St. Lucie County
School District.
January 9, 1990 11 - E- 7 Capital Improvements
~ '1t1t3_t ; 9.
I'(T]JI•~1T7) W11V~I) [TL'L(.,l'(Y N31~ ~Y~L IA(3[.G ('N?7'114T. R17JL•i~IL'S, 1~1-1~5
Q'1PT7r"~i. RE,Z7Q~E 3XIJ~~ (AVAII~1[3f1:)* [I~INXU [7Y".~TIY I~J~'`*
i~I~l QI~.~iR.
~ (71PI7AI. MfII~E 237 I[7~~5 t3TD H~CI7I~ (L6d~ LC2~v (~YdZY-fZTb~F1RD ZpTAI,*** LG9Q2IPrIQV FY~LNI •fL7I'AI
-Sf3 - $ ll8. 500 $ `00, 000 $4.000.000 $1, 500.00() - $5.ll8, 000 F5E ~#-,er $3, 000, 000
F~tir.x~; 700,000
Ela~aty site 300,000
C~C site
~~i ti~r~s 1, 500, 000 $ 5, 500, 000
(`.any-fon~atd 6~, 000
~89 $ E~L3, 000 3, 420, 000 - - $ 628, 000 4, 661, 000 F1em-d-a?_y sdnol 4, 000, 00()
Mir.kile s~nol ll, 550, 000
I~rcx~atiLxss l, 000, 000 $16, 550, 000
c~t~fon.ard ( $ll, 8£i9, 000 )
~9U 6£35, 000 7,125, 000 • 3, 800, 000 - - ( ll, 889, 000 ) 279.000 Ela~rtaLy s~nol 4, 200, 000
F~~ratir.xts 1, OSO, 000 $ 5, 250, 000
c~a~-fonatrl 5,529,000)
91. 82,OC0 7,410,000 2,500,000 - - (5,529,000) 4,463,000 Ele~tary sd~r~cil 4,410,000
~.~t5cns 1,103,000 $ 5,513,OOU
Carry-f.oi~rd ( $ l, O50 , 000 )
92 - 7, G~. 000 - - - (1, OSO, 000 ) 6, 645, 000 F1an~tary sd~nc,l 4, 631, 0~0
F~rn,ratia~s 1,158, 000
CC~CC site
aoq~issi.tirns 2,000,()00 $ 7,739,000
c~-ry
foic.tu~l ( $ 1,144, 000 )
93 430,000 7,9~40,000 - - - (1,14~,000) 7,266,000 Ela~taiy sdnol 4,863,000
F~-~Yxratiais 1, 216, 000 $ 6, 079, 000
94 531,000 8,.'_6,5,000 8,300,000 - - 1,187,(b0 18,283,000 Middle s.3~oo1 14,741.000
I~n,ratirns 1, 2TJ, 000 $16, 018, 000
~ - 7, 831, 000 - - - 2, 775, 000 10, 096, 000 F1an~taty ~r.bl 5,106, 000
F~waticxts 1, 341, 000 $ 6, 447, 000
I?r1u~s cnly tlbee ca~aital finds tl ~t are Lr~oatmit~ed ar~d tl~refore auailable to firr~r~ raa ~~ci 1? t; r-~,
Anticig3tod aaistn.r_tia~ aQr3 ne~cy ~tirri a~st-s for 1~E38-1989 h~ baa-? inflatod bi' S~va~ Pes' Yc~ar to ~e ocsts ~n sab~.~t years.
Statc~d ~n auz~t cbllats.
APPENDIX F
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT
REVENUE FORECASTS
January 9, 1990 Capital Improvements
FA~. REVENUE TYPE F'Y90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 TOTAL
A AVIATION
A
A FED.AVIATION ADM.C90~) 24465 6008 3080 5335 208 23602 62698
A FDOT C5~) 1359 334 171 296 12 1311 3483
A *AVIATION TOTAL
25824 6342 3251 5631 220 24913 66181
C CORRECTIOHS
C
C BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES 5150 5150
C CORRECTIONS TOTAL
5150 5150
D DRAINAGE
D
D UTILITY FEES 575 250 290 280 310 390 2095
D *DRAINAGE TOTAL
575 250 290 280 310 390 2095
G GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS
G
G BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES 18100 18100
G STATE CHEALTH BLDG.) 500 500
G *GOVERNMENT BLDG.TOTAL ~
18100 500 18600
L LIBRARIES
L
L BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES 1000 1000
L GRANTS 210 400 610
L BOOK BUDGET 200 200 200 200 200 200 1200
L SCHOOL BD.CONTRIBUTION 1000 1000
L MAIN LIBRARY SALE 564 564
L *LIBRARY TOTAL
410 2164 200 1200 2Q0 200 4374
M MOSQUITO CONTROL
M
M STATE HRS CF.S.388) 90 90 90 90 90 90 540
M' *MOSQUITO CONTROL TOTAL
90 90 90 90 90 90 540
P PARKS & RECREATION
P
P *PARKS & RECREATION TOTAL
PT PORTS
P1
PT FEDERAL: CORP(75~) 5025 5025
PT EROSION CONTROL 1200 1200
PT USER FEES 4825 950 2682 1417 9$74
January 9, 1990 11 - F- 1 Capital Improvements
FAC. REVENUE TYPE FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 T~TAL
PT *PORTS TOTAL
11050 950 2682 1417 16099
RC ROADS: COUNTY
RC
RC GONSTITUTIONAL GAS TAX(80~> 980 1029 1080 1350 1418 1439 7296
RC LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX (90~) 2328 2444 2566 2695 2830 2971 15834
RC IMPACT FEES 1775 3592 3625 3663 3700 3735 20090
RC *COUNTY ROADS TOTAL
5083 7065 ?271 ?708 7948 8145 43220
S SANITARY SEWER
S
S UTILITY FEES 250 250
S *SANITARY SEWER TOTAL
250 250
SW SOLID WASTE
SW
SW UTILITY FEES 13625 4625 10250 2100 2150 2900 35650
SW *SOLID WASTE TOTAL
13625 4625 10250 2100 2150 2900 35650
W POTABLE WATER
w
W UTILITY FEES 250 250
W *POTABLE WATER TOTAL
250 250
Z NON-RESTRICTED
Z
Z REV.NOT COMMITTED TO OPER.EX 149? 2469 3498 4066 3658 4418 19606
Z *NON-RESTRICTED TOTAL
1497 2469 3498 4066 3656 4418 19606
70354* 23255* 36650* 22025* 17258* 424~3* 212015
January 9, 1990 11 - F- 2 Capital Improvements