HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 12.05.2017T. ®lI
COUNTY
F LORI D A
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, December 5, 2017
6:00 PM
St. Lucie County Commission Chambers
2300 Virginia Avenue
3rd Floor of Roger Poitras Building
Fort Pierce, FL 34982
BOARD MEMBERS
District No. 4, Chair
FRANNIE HUTCHINSON
District No. 2, Vice -Chairman
TOD MOWERY
District No. 1
CHRIS DZADOVSKY
District No. 3
LINDA BARTZ
District No. 5
CATHY TOWNSEND
Mission Statement
To provide service, infrastructure and leadership necessary to advance a safe and sustainable community,
maintain a high quality of life, and protect the natural environment for all our citizens
Generated 1214120171:17 PM
Regular Meeting Tuesday, December 5, 2017 6:00 PM
WELCOME
All meetings are televised.
All meetings provided with wireless internet access for public convenience.
Please turn off all cell phones and pagers prior to entering the commission chambers.
Please mute the volume on all laptops and PDAs while in use in the commission chambers.
GENERAL RULES AND PROCEDURES —Attached is the agenda, which will determine the order of business conducted at today's Board
meeting.
INVOCATION -PLEDGE — To bring order and decorum to its meeting, the Board begins its meetings with an invocation followed by the
Pledge of Allegiance. Participation is voluntary.
CONSENT AGENDA — These items are considered routine and are enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of
these items unless a Commissioner so requests.
REGULAR AGENDA — Proclamations, Presentations, Public Hearings, and Department requests are items, which the Commission will
discuss individually, usually in the order listed on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS — These items are usually heard on the first Tuesdays at 6 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. However, if a
public hearing is scheduled for a meeting on the third Tuesday, which begins at 9 a.m., then public hearings will be heard at 9
a.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. These time designations are intended to indicate that an item will not be addressed prior
to the listed time. The Chair will open each public hearing and asks anyone wishing to speak to come forward, one at a time.
Comments will be limited to five minutes, and must be pertinent to the agenda item being considered by the Board.
As a general rule, when issues are scheduled before the Commission under department request or public hearing, the order
of presentation is: (1) County staff presents the details of the Board item (2) Commissioners comment (3) if a public hearing, the
Chair will ask for public comment, (4) further discussion and action by the Board.
ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION — Please state your name and address, speaking clearly into the microphone. If you have backup
material, please have eight copies ready for distribution.
NON -AGENDA ITEMS — These items are presented by an individual Commissioner or staff as necessary at the conclusion of the
printed agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENT — Time is allotted at the beginning of each meeting for general public comment. Please limit comments to three
minutes. Comments may pertain to any matter related to the Board's duties as the County's governing body. General comments in
support or opposition to candidates for public office are not pertinent to the Board's duties.
DECORUM — Please be respectful of others' opinions.
MEETINGS — All Board meetings are open to the public and are held on the first Tuesdays of each month at 6 p.m. and on the third
Tuesdays at 9 a.m., unless otherwise advertised. Meetings are held in the County Commission Chambers in the Roger Poitras
Administration Annex at 2300 Virginia Ave., Fort Pierce, Fla. 34982. The Board schedules additional workshops throughout the year
necessary to accomplish their goals and commitments. Notice is provided of these workshops. Anyone with a disability requiring
accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Manager at 772-462-1777 or TDD
772-462-1428 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.
2 1 P a g e
Regular Meeting Tuesday, December 5, 2017 6:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Board of County Commissioners minutes for the meeting of Tuesday, November 21, 2017
B. Board of County Commissioners minutes for the meeting of Tuesday, November 21, 2017
5. PROCLAMATIONS APPROVAL
There are no items scheduled.
6. PUBLIC COMMENT
(excluding Public Hearing items)
7. PRESENTATIONS
A. Cooperative Extension: Annual Christmas Remembrance — Sue Munyan and the 4-H Clubs will
make their annual Christmas Remembrance Presentation to the Board.
8. CONSENT AGENDA
A. WARRANTS
1. Warrant Lists 7 & 8
B. ADMINISTRATION
1. Resolution - Watershed and Lagoon Life Education
Staff recommends the Board acceptance of the reimbursement of $10,000.00, approval
of the attached budget resolution, and authorization for the Chair to sign documents as
approved by the County Attorney.
2. Local Arts Agency Consulting Services - Brevard Cultural Alliance Development of a Local
Arts Agency for St Lucie, County
3 1 P a g e
Regular Meeting Tuesday, December 5, 2017 6:00 PM
Staff recommends the Board approve the contract and authorize the County Attorney to
execute same.
3. Letters to Congressional Delegation on Tax Reform
Staff recommends the letters to be signed by the Chair and to be delivered to our
Federal Congressional Delegation.
C. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1. Revocable License Agreement - River Park - 758 Altura Street - Parcel ID 3419-515-0112-
000-4 - Fence in Drainage/Utility Easement
Staff recommends that the Board approve the revocable license agreement, authorize
the Chair to sign the agreement and direct Mr. and Mrs. Canoy to record the agreement
in the public records of St. Lucie County, Florida.
2. Resolution - City Electric Supply Company Qualified Target Industry and Job Growth
Incentive Grant Agreement
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the Qualified Target Industry resolution,
approve the Job Growth Incentive Grant Agreement, and authorize the Chair to sign the
resolution and the agreement.
D. COMMUNITY SERVICES
1. Resolution - Modification of Community Services Block Grant (CSBG)
Staff recommends approval of budget resolution to recognize funds carried forward
from prior fiscal year and Board approval of the FY17 Community Services Block Grant
modification (17SB-OD-12-00-01-123) and resolution and authorization for the Chair to
sign documents as approved by the County Attorney.
2. Resolution - Hurricane Loss Mitigation Program (HLMP)
Staff recommends Board approval of the budget resolution to recognize funds carried
forward from FY17, and authorization for the Chair to sign documents as approved by
County Attorney.
E. COURT ADMINISTRATION
There are no items scheduled.
F. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
There are no items scheduled.
G. FACILITIES
There are no items scheduled.
4 1 P a g e
Regular Meeting Tuesday, December 5, 2017 6:00 PM
H. HUMAN RESOURCES
There are no items scheduled.
I. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
There are no items scheduled.
J. LIBRARY SERVICES
1. Memorandum of Understanding - Rupert J. Smith Law Library
Staff recommends Board approval of the budget resolution and authorization for the
Chair to sign documents as approved by the County Attorney.
K. MOSQUITO CONTROL & COASTAL MGMT. SERVICES
There are no items scheduled.
L. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET
There are no items scheduled.
M. PARKS & RECREATION
1. St. Lucie County Parks and Beach Access Mobile Food Vendor Pilot Program
Staff recommends Board approval of the proposed St. Lucie County Parks and Beach
Access Food Truck Pilot Program, a draft of guidelines are attached, and authorization
for the Chair to sign documents as approved by the County Attorney.
2. Baseball Field Warning Track Repair at First Data Field - Bid #18-012 Add -On
Staff recommends Board approval to award Bid No. 18-012 to JSM Services, Inc. of Ft.
Myers, FL, the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the amount of $110,333.86,
and authorize the Chairman to sign documents as approved by the County Attorney.
N. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
There are no items scheduled.
O. PUBLIC SAFETY
1. Resolution - Emergency Medical Services Grant (EMS)
Staff recommends Board approval of the Resolution for the EMS grant in the amount of
$48,223.00 and authorization for the Chair to sign documents as approved by the
County Attorney.
P. PUBLIC WORKS
5 1 P a g e
Regular Meeting Tuesday, December 5, 2017 6:00 PM
1. Kings Highway and Indrio Road Intersection Improvements - First Amendment to the
Contract with Dickerson Florida, Inc.
Staff recommends Board approval of the First Amendment to the contract with
Dickerson Florida, Inc. to change tracking of the contract time from Working Days to
Calendar Days. Authorization for the Chair to sign documents as approved by the
County Attorney.
2. Phase I and Phase II Cortez Boulevard and South 25th Street - Final Acceptance
Staff recommends Board approval of the final acceptance of the off -site improvements,
termination of the Maintenance Agreement and release surety in the amount of
$171,629.75 ($126,934.20 for Phase I and $44,695.55 for Phase II).
Q. SHERIFF'S OFFICE
1. Budget Amendment for Debt Proceeds and Capital Outlay
Staff recommends that the Board approve the Sheriff's request to reduce debt proceeds
and capital outlay by $2,177,633.00.
R. SOLID WASTE
There are no items scheduled.
S. SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
There are no items scheduled.
T. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION
There are no items scheduled.
U. UTILITIES
There are no items scheduled.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1. Ordinance - Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
This is the first of two public hearings. Staff recommends the Board approve a second
hearing on December 19, 2017 to hear the proposed draft ordinance.
B. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
1. Hillbilly Lot Rezoning
6 1 P a g e
Regular Meeting Tuesday, December 5, 2017 6:00 PM
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning from AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1
du/ac) to RS-4 (Residential, Single -Family - 4 du/ac) zoning district.
10. REGULAR AGENDA
A. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1. South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Environmental Resources Permit
Modification No. 13-05321-P - All Aboard Florida - Litigation Update
Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to not appeal the SFWMD Final Order.
11. ANNOUNCEMENTS
A. The Board of County Commissioners monthly Informal meeting on Tuesday, December 12, 2017
has been CANCELLED.
B. There will be a Special BOCC meeting held to discuss the Port of Fort Pierce on Tuesday,
December 12, 2017 at 6pm in the Commission Chambers of the Roger Poitras Administration
Annex located at 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, FL.
C. The Board of County Commissioners will hold a Regular meeting on Tuesday, December 19,
2017 at 9am in the Commission Chambers of the Roger Poitras Administration Annex located at
2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, FL.
D. County offices will be closed on Friday, December 22, 2017 and Monday, December 25, 2017 in
observance of Christmas.
12. MOTION TO ADJOURN
7 1 P a g e
4.A
S■TkaL■(di 1 E
COUNTY
F L o R I D A
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Regular Meeting
November 21, 2017 Convened: 9:04 AM
Adjourned: 9:19 AM
1.
2
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 9:04 AM by District No. 1, Chairman Chris Dzadovsky
Attendee Name
Title tatus A d
District No. 1, Chairman Present 9:00 AM
District No. 2, Vice -Chairman Present 9:00 AM
District No. 3 Present 9:00 AM
Chris Dzadovsky
Tod Mowery
Linda Bartz
Frannie Hutchinson
District No. 4
Present
9:00 AM
Cathy Townsend
District No. 5
Present
9:00 AM
Joseph E. Smith
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Present
9:00 AM
Howard Tipton
Administrator
Present
9:00 AM
Daniel S. McIntyre
County Attorney
Present
9:00 AM
Don West
Public Works Director
Present
9:00 AM
Leslie Olson
Director, Planning & Development Services
Present
9:00 AM
Ron Roberts
Director of Public Utilities
Present
9:00 AM
Alice Sennott
Record Clerk
Present
9:00 AM
Brittany Jones
Record Clerk
Present
9:00 AM
Kelly Phelan
Executive Assistant to the County Administrator
Present
9:00 AM
Katrina Slay
Agenda Coordinator
Present 9:00 AM
3.
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Generated 11122120174:36 PM Packet Pg. 8
4.A
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, November 21, 2017
9:00 AM
4.
S.
Q
7.
s1
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Board of County Commissioners minutes for the meeting of Tuesday, November 07, 2017
A motion was made to approve the minutes for the meeting of Tuesday, November 07, 2017 and it
carried unanimously.
RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tod Mowery, District No. 2, Vice -Chairman
SECONDER: Cathy Townsend, District No. 5
AYES: Dzadovsky, Mowery, Bartz, Hutchinson, Townsend
PROCLAMATIONS APPROVAL
There are no items scheduled.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Chairman Dzadovsky opened the meeting for public comment at this time. There being no one wishing to
appear before the Board, Chairman Dzadovsky closed public comment.
PRESENTATIONS
There are no items scheduled.
CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman Dzadovsky pulled item C.3 and C.4 for comment.
Chairman Dzadovsky singled out item 8.C.3 (S2 Yachts d/b/a Pursuit Boats) for comment, highlighting the
County's proactive efforts to promote expansion and retention of local businesses. Peter Jones, Business
Navigator with St. Lucie County Planning & Development Services, spoke about the positive partnership
between the County and Pursuit Boats which enabled them to grow in St. Lucie County. Peter Tesch, Executive
Director of the Economic Development Council, highlighted the job creation and capital investments in St. Lucie
County over last 18 months and the EDC's goal to expand industry in St. Lucie County. Bruce Thompson, CEO of
Pursuit Boats, thanked the County Board and staff for their partnership in their expansion project.
Chairman Dzadovsky noted that he was abstaining from voting because his son-in-law and step -daughter do
work for Pursuit Boats.
Regarding item 8.C.4 (Permission to Advertise Floodplain Model Ordinance), Chairman Dzadovsky asked the
Board to consider a special workshop on that item to look at the County's 25-year, 3-day storms as a component
of its comprehensive plan because he thought the current plan was inadequate. The Board agreed to discuss it
further.
2 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 9
4.A
Regular Meeting Tuesday, November 21, 2017 9:00 AM
There were no other comments or questions on the consent agenda. A motion was made to adopt the consent
agenda and it carried unanimously.
RESULT: ADOPTED [4 TO 01
MOVER: Cathy Townsend, District No. 5
SECONDER: Linda Bartz, District No. 3
AYES: Tod Mowery, Linda Bartz, Frannie Hutchinson, Cathy Townsend
ABSTAIN: Chris Dzadovsky
A. WARRANTS
1. Warrant Lists 5 & 6
B. ADMINISTRATION
There are no items scheduled.
C. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1. Hosted Application Service and License Agreement between the Substance Awareness Center of
Indian River County and St. Lucie County.
2. All Aboard Florida - Payment of Legal Defense Invoice through All Aboard Legal Defense Fund
3. S2 Yachts, Inc., d/b/a Pursuit Boats - Job Growth Incentive Grant (JGIG ) Agreement
4. Permission to Advertise - Floodplain Model Ordinance - Repeal & Replace Ordinance No. 11-031
5. Resolution - Approving Facilities Use Agreement with WIRA Christmas Kids, Inc.
D. COMMUNITY SERVICES
There are no items scheduled.
E. COURT ADMINISTRATION
There are no items scheduled.
F. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
There are no items scheduled.
G. FACILITIES
There are no items scheduled.
H. HUMAN RESOURCES
There are no items scheduled.
3 1 Packet Pg. 10
4.A
Regular Meeting Tuesday, November 21, 2017 9:00 AM
I. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
There are no items scheduled.
J. LIBRARY SERVICES
K.
L.
A
�l
There are no items scheduled.
MOSQUITO CONTROL & COASTAL MGMT. SERVICES
There are no items scheduled.
w
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET D
_z
There are no items scheduled. LL
LL
PARKS & RECREATION Q
O
1. Award of Bid No. 18-005 Pepper Park Riverside Park "aka" Wildcat Cove Parking Lot a-
Improvements a
Q
2. Fairgrounds Electric Panel Upgrades Phases II & III Bid Award Q
0
0
3. Incorrect Placement of
ti
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES N
There are no items scheduled.
O. PUBLIC SAFETY
There are no items scheduled.
P. PUBLIC WORKS
1. North 2nd Street Change Order No. 31 with Mancil's Tractor Service, Inc.
2. Resolution - Fisherman's Wharf - JPA Bulkhead Dredging Construction
3. Midway Road Widening (Selvitz Road to S. 25th Street) - Ardaman & Associates Fourth
Amendment to Work Authorization No. 29
Q. SHERIFF'S OFFICE
There are no items scheduled.
R. SOLID WASTE
There are no items scheduled.
4 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 11
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, November 21, 2017
9:00 AM
4.A
S. SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
There are no items scheduled.
T. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION
There are no items scheduled.
U. UTILITIES
There are no items scheduled.
w
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS z
M
U-
There are no items scheduled. 0
J
Q
10. REGULAR AGENDA °�
a
a
a
There are no items scheduled.
11. ANNOUNCEMENTS
A. County offices will be closed on Thursday, November 23, 2017 and Friday, November 24, 2017 in
observance of Thanksgiving.
B. There will be a Special Joint meeting between St. Lucie County and the City of Port St. Lucie to discuss
and plan matters of mutual interest, on Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 2:30 p.m. in the Commission
Chambers of the Roger Poitras Administration Annex located at 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, FL.
C. The Board of County Commissioners will hold a Regular meeting on Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 6
p.m. in the Commission Chambers of the Roger Poitras Administration Annex located at 2300 Virginia
Avenue, Fort Pierce, FL.
D. The Board of County Commissioners monthly Informal meeting on Tuesday, December 12, 2017 has
been CANCELLED.
E. The Board of County Commissioners will hold a Regular meeting on Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 9
a.m. in the Commission Chambers of the Roger Poitras Administration Annex located at 2300 Virginia
Avenue, Fort Pierce, FL.
12. MOTION TO ADJOURN
There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
Please Note: Final minutes are recorded in the official minute books that are filed with the Clerk of the Circuit
Court and available for inspection upon request.
5 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 12
4.6
S■TkaL■(di 1 E
COUNTY
F L o R I D A
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Reorganization Meeting
November 21, 2017 Convened: 9:24 AM
Adjourned: 9:54 AM
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 9:24 AM by District No. 1, Chairman Chris Dzadovsky
Attendee Name
Chris Dzadovsky
Title *atus Arrived
District No. 1, Chairman Present 9:00 AM
District No. 2, Vice -Chairman Present 9:00 AM
District No. 3 Present 9:00 AM
District No. 4 Present 9:00 AM
Tod Mowery
Linda Bartz
Frannie Hutchinson
Cathy Townsend
District No. 5
Present
9:00 AM
Joseph E. Smith
Clerk of Circuit Court
Present
9:00 AM
Howard Tipton
Administrator
Present
9:00 AM
Daniel S. McIntyre
County Attorney
Present
9:00 AM
Don West
Public Works Director
Present
9:00 AM
Leslie Olson
Director, Planning & Development Services
Present
9:00 AM
Ron Roberts
Director of Public Utilities
Present
9:00 AM
Alice Sennott
Record Clerk
Present
9:00 AM
Brtittany Jones
Record Clerk
Present
9:00 AM
Kelly Phelan
Executive Assistant to the County Administrator
Present
9:00 AM
Katrina Slay
Agenda Coordinator
Present
9:00 AM
U)
W
Z
U-
O
J
Q
O
W
a
a
Q
Generated 11122120172:55 PM Packet Pg. 13
Reorganization Meeting Tuesday, November 21, 2017
9:01 AM
4.13
2. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Chairman Dzadovsky opened the meeting for public comment at this time. There being no one wishing to
appear before the Board, Chairman Dzadovsky closed public comment.
3. REGULAR AGENDA
A. REORGANIZATION
1. Elect the Chair of the Board
Mr. Joseph E. Smith, Clerk of the Circuit Court presided and called for nominations for the
Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. A motion was made to nominate Frannie
Hutchinson as Chair. The nomination was seconded and upon roll call, the motion carried
unanimously.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Cathy Townsend, District No. 5
SECONDER: Tod Mowery, District No. 2, Vice -Chairman
AYES: Dzadovsky, Mowery, Bartz, Hutchinson, Townsend
2. Elect the Vice -Chair of the Board
Chairman Hutchinson presided and called for nominations for the Vice -Chair of the Board of
County Commissioners. A motion was made to nominate Commissioner Mowery. The
nomination was seconded and upon roll call, the motion carried unanimously.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Cathy Townsend, District No. 5
SECONDER: Chris Dzadovsky, District No. 1, Chairman
AYES: Dzadovsky, Mowery, Bartz, Hutchinson, Townsend
RECESS AS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Chairman Hutchinson recessed the Board of County Commissioners meeting.
6
w
D
Z
9
LL
O
J
Q
O
a
a
Q
2 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 14
Reorganization Meeting Tuesday, November 21, 2017
9:01 AM
4.13
SPECIAL MEETINGS TO ELECT THE CHAIR AND VICE -CHAIR OF THE MOSQUITO, EROSION,
SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL BOARDS WILL BE HELD AT THIS TIME:
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD
The Environmental Control District convened, elected a Chair and Vice -Chair, and adjourned. Refer to
the minutes of the Environmental Control District reorganization meeting for November 21, 2017.
EROSION DISTRICT
The Erosion District convened, elected a Chair and Vice -Chair, and adjourned. Refer to the minutes of
the Erosion District reorganization meeting for November 21, 2017. in
w
MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT z
The Mosquito Control District convened, elected a Chair and Vice -Chair, and adjourned. Refer to the 2
LL
minutes of the Mosquito Control District reorganization meeting for November 21, 2017. O
J
Q
SUSTAINABILITY DISTRICT 0
O
The Sustainability District convened, elected a Chair and Vice -Chair, and adjourned. Refer to the a-
minutes of the Sustainability District reorganization meeting for November 21, 2017. Q
RECONVENE AS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Chairman Hutchinson reconvened the Board of County Commissioners annual reorganization meeting.
B. ANNUAL REORGANIZATION APPOINTMENTS
1. Commission Appointments to Boards and Committees for 2017/2018
A motion was made to approve the following appointments made by the Chair:
• Tod Mowery to the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors
• Tod Mowery to the Public Safety Coordinating Council
• Linda Bartz to the Roundtable of St. Lucie County Inc.
• Frannie Hutchinson to the St. Lucie County Insurance Committee
• Chris Dzadovsky to the Tourist Development Council
• Frannie Hutchinson to the Treasure Coast Workforce Consortium
The motion was seconded and upon roll call, the motion carried unanimously.
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tod Mowery, District No. 2, Vice -Chairman
SECONDER: Cathy Townsend, District No. 5
AYES: Dzadovsky, Mowery, Bartz, Hutchinson, Townsend
3 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 15
4.13
Reorganization Meeting Tuesday, November 21, 2017 9:01 AM
2. Appointments by the Chair for Commissioners to Serve on Boards & Committees for
One -Year Terms.
A motion was made to approve the following appointments made by the Chair to serve on
boards and committees for one-year terms:
Board or Committee
Commissioner Appointee
19th Judicial Circuit Conflict Committee
Frannie Hutchinson
Blueway Advisory Committee
Chris Dzadovsky
Children's Services Council
Linda Bartz
Council On Aging
Linda Bartz
County Coalition for Responsible Management of Lake
Okeechobee and St. Lucie & Caloosahatchee Estuaries
Frannie Hutchinson
Chris Dzadovsky - Alternate
Friends of the St. Lucie County Library
Linda Bartz
Indian River Lagoon Council Board of Directors
Chris Dzadovsky
Indian River Lagoon Scenic Highway Treasure Coast Corridor
Management Entity
Linda Bartz
Frannie Hutchinson- Alternate
Land Acquisition Selection Committee
Chris Dzadovsky
Law Library Board of Trustees
Linda Bartz
Transportation Planning Organization
Chris Dzadovsky
Linda Bartz
Frannie Hutchinson
Cathy Townsend
Tod Mowery - Alternate
Regional Transit Organization (Ad Hoc)
Frannie Hutchinson
Linda Bartz - Alternate
Property & Homeowners Associations
Cathy Townsend
St. Lucie County Fire District
Linda Bartz
Chris Dzadovsky
Treasure Coast Community Action Agency Tripartite Board
Natalie Tenneson for Linda Bartz
Treasure Coast Education Research Development Authority
Cathy Townsend
Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board
Cathy Townsend
Treasure Coast Council of Local Governments
Tod Mowery
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
Tod Mowery
Cathy Townsend
Chris Dzadovsky —Alternate
Linda Bartz - Alternate
Value Adjustment Board
Tod Mowery
Cathy Townsend
Chris Dzadovsky —Alternate
Frannie Hutchinson - Alternate
Workforce Development Board of the Treasure Coast
Cathy Townsend
V
w
D
z
e_
O
J
O
a
a
Q
4 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 16
4.13
Reorganization Meeting Tuesday, November 21, 2017 9:01 AM
The motion was seconded and upon roll call, the motion carried unanimously.
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Chris Dzadovsky, District No. 1, Chairman
SECONDER: Tod Mowery, District No. 2, Vice -Chairman
AYES: Dzadovsky, Mowery, Bartz, Hutchinson, Townsend
3. Commissioner Chris Dzadovsky's Committee Appointments
A motion was made to approve Commissioner Dzadovsky's committee appointments and upon
roll call it carried unanimously.
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tod Mowery, District No. 2, Vice -Chairman
SECONDER: Linda Bartz, District No. 3
AYES: Dzadovsky, Mowery, Bartz, Hutchinson, Townsend
4. Commissioner Tod Mowery's Committee Appointments
A motion was made to approve Commissioner Mowery's committee appointments and upon roll
call it carried unanimously.
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Chris Dzadovsky, District No. 1, Chairman
SECONDER: Cathy Townsend, District No. 5
AYES: Dzadovsky, Mowery, Bartz, Hutchinson, Townsend
S. Commissioner Linda Bartz' Committee Appointments
A motion was made to approve Commissioner Bartz's committee appointments and upon roll
call it carried unanimously.
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tod Mowery, District No. 2, Vice -Chairman
SECONDER: Cathy Townsend, District No. 5
AYES: Dzadovsky, Mowery, Bartz, Hutchinson, Townsend
6. Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson's Committee Appointments
A motion was made to approve Chairman Hutchinson's committee appointments and upon roll
call it carried unanimously.
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Cathy Townsend, District No. 5
SECONDER: Linda Bartz, District No. 3
AYES: Dzadovsky, Mowery, Bartz, Hutchinson, Townsend
w
F_
D
z
2
LL
O
J
Q
O
W
a
a
Q
5 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 17
Reorganization Meeting Tuesday, November 21, 2017
9:01 AM
4.6
7. Commissioner Cathy Townsend's Committee Appointments
A motion was made to approve Commissioner Townsend's committee appointments and upon
roll call it carried unanimously.
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tod Mowery, District No. 2, Vice -Chairman
SECONDER: Linda Bartz, District No. 3
AYES: Dzadovsky, Mowery, Bartz, Hutchinson, Townsend
8. Commissioners At -Large Appointment to the Code Enforcement Board w
Using a ballot, Board members each voted for two applicants to fill the two vacant seats on the Z
Code Enforcement Board. By a majority of votes, Ray Hoffman and Randy Murdock were
appointed to the Code Enforcement Board. U_
O
J
9. Commissioners At -Large Appointment to the Contractor's Examining Board j
O
Using a ballot, Board members each voted for two applicants to fill the two vacant seats on the a
Contractor's Examining Board. Doug Davis and Fred Rohrbough were appointed by unanimous Q
vote.
10. Commissioners At -Large Appointment to the Historical Commission
Using a ballot, Board members each voted for one applicant to fill the vacant seat on the
Historical Commission. The first vote resulted in a tie. On the second vote, Bety Jo Stark was
appointed to the Historical Commission by a majority of votes.
11. Commissioners At -Large Appointment to the Library Advisory Board
Using a ballot, Board members each voted for one applicant to fill the vacant seat on the Library
Advisory Board. By a majority of votes, Michael Millstone was appointed to the Library Advisory
Board.
4. CLOSING DISCUSSION
Clerk Smith introduced Brittany Jones as the Board's new Recording Secretary and thanked Alice Sennott for her
work filling in the past few months.
Chairman Hutchinson thanked Clerk Smith for being present at the meeting and helping with the reorganization.
She then recognized Commissioner Dzadovsky for his work as Chairman this past year and, along with the Board,
presented him with a gift. Commissioner Dzadovsky expressed his thanks and gratitude.
5. MOTION TO ADJOURN
There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
Please Note: Final minutes are recorded in the official minute books that are filed with the Clerk of the Circuit
Court and available for inspection upon request.
6 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 18
11/17/17
FZABWARR
FUND TITLE
001
001466
001467
001468
001512
001575
001576
001580
001585
001586
001587
001588
101
101001
101002
102
102001
102116
102301
105
107
107001
107002
107003
107006
129
130
130121
130123
130226
140
140001
140141
140376
140382
140396
160
183
183004
184001
185017
187
189111
189112
189113
189203
190
310001
ST. LUCIE COUNTY - BOARD
WARRANT LIST #7.- 10-NOV-2017 TO 17-NOV-2017
FUND SUMMARY
General Fund
Residential Construction Mitigation
FCTD Planning Grant FY17/18
EMPA FY18
Neighborhood Stabilization Program
Metropolitan Planning / Sec 5305d
Support Services for Veterans
Section 112/MPO/FHWA Plan FY16/17
CSBG 2017
Conti.nuuYn of Care Family
Continuum of Care Chronic
Continuum of Care Family Veterans
Transportation Trust Fund
Transportation Trust Interlocals
Transportation Trust/80o Constitut
Unincorporated Services Fund
Drainage Maintenance MSTU
IRL-Paradise Park Phase5-System4
FDEP-Paradise Pk Ph5 Sy4 Retro
Library Special Grants Fund
Fine & Forfeiture Fund
Fine & Forfeiture Fund -Wireless Sur
Fine & Forfeiture Fund-E911 Surchar
Fine & Forfeiture Fund-800 Mhz Oper
F&F Fund -Court Related Technology
Parks MSTU Fund
SLC Public Transit MSTU
FTA 5307 FY 2014
FTA 5307 2015 Transit System
FCTD Mobility Enhancement Grant
Airport Fund
Port Fund
FAA - Master Plan & ALP Project
FDOT New Port Ent 2nd street Imp
FDOT Design & Construct Runway
FDOT - Master Plan & ALP Project
Plan Maintenance RAD Fund
Ct Administrator-19th Judicial Cir
Ct Admin.- Teen Court
Artificial Reef Program
FHFA SHIP 2016/2017
Boating Improvement Projects
Home Consortium FY 2015
USDA Housing Preservation Grant
Home Consortium 2016
Hardest Hit fund Advisor Services
Sports Complex Fund
Impact Fees -Library
EXPENSES
985,124.59
0.00
0.00
5,623.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,416.87
416.32
6,631.00
8,245.00
11,615.80
15,701.71
16.68
8,520.00
3,985.30
10,154.96
96.57
0.00
5,000.00
241,594.98
32,168.20
0.00
790.25
59,433.48
145,153.61
7,205.80
0.00
0.00
3,066.32
16,689.81
0.00
11,324.88
106,587.70
10,620.00
1,258.32
11,640.26
1,847.82
1,548.45
53.90
3,511.18
51.72
903.00
0.00
122.10
0.00
26,506.54
69,964.89
PAGE
PAYROLL
604,609.95
286:12
307.91
0.00
1,413.74
1,769.97
1,515.09
11,924.05
3,466.91
146.83
230.63
230.62
127,240.69
1,480.00
0.00
65,351.48
15,786.96
0.00
5,450.31
0.00
184,913.16
3,048.84
1,134.83
0.00
10,744.06
0.00
2,855.26
4,155.20
1,711.20
0.00
15,055.96
3,573.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3,548.47
5,022.41
3,202.15
1,938.40
2,143.20
0.00
0.00
171.92
1,341.69
41.73
21,863.10
0.00
N
H
Z
a
Packet Pg. 19
8.A.1
11/17/17
ST. LUCIE COUNTY - BOARD
PAGE 2
FZABWARR WARRANT LIST #7.- 10-NOV-2017
TO 17-NOV-2017
FUND SUMMARY
FUND
TITLE
EXPENSES
PAYROLL
316
County Capital
2,840.41
0.00
321
Capital Imp Rev Bonds 2015
134,347.38
0.00
324200
FDOT - Airport Expansion MRO
14,621.50
0.00
363
Non -Ad Valorem Debt Project Fund
675,910.43
0.00
401
Sanitary Landfill Fund
731,663.94
97,544.02
418
Golf Course Fund
8,567.23
20,159.05
471
Water & Sewer District Operations
2,625.48
16,229.14
479
Water & Sewer Dist. -Cap Facilities
28,513.50
0.00
491
Building Code Fund
3,163.38
42,613.70
505
Health Insurance Fund
407,357.82
0.00
505001
Risk Management Fund
1,100,149.74
3,814.93
505002
Health Insurance Administration
0.00
3,896.17
611
Tourist Development Trust-Adv Fund
18,019.48
5,584.32
625
Law Library
1,350.19
0.00
655
Insurance Agency Fund
86,188.90
0.00
801
Bank Fund
49,960.45
0.00
GRAND TOTAL:
5,079,871.42
1,297,517.77
Packet Pg. 20
11/22/17
FZABWARR
FUND TITLE
001
101
102
102001
104003
107
107005
107006
113
114
116
117
119
123
127
128
129
130
136
138
140
160
170
182
183
183004
183006
189111
190
216
310001
310002
316
324801
363
382
401
418
491
505
505001
611
625
801
ST. LUCIE COUNTY - BOARD
WARRANT LIST #8.- 18-NOV-2017 TO 22-NOV-2017
FUND SUMMARY
General Fund
Transportation Trust Fund
Unincorporated Services Fund
Drainage Maintenance MSTU
Hurricane Frances Donations
Fine & Forfeiture Fund
F&F Fund -Legal Aid
F&F Fund -Court Related Technology
Harmony Heights 3 Fund
Harmony Heights 4 Fund
Sunland Gardens Fund
Sunrise Park Fund
Holiday Pines Fund
Queens Cove Lighting Dist#13 Fund
Pine Hollow Street Lighting MSTU
Kings Hwy Industrial Park Lighting
Parks MSTU Fund
SLC Public Transit MSTU
Monte Carlo Lighting MSTU#4 Fund
Palm Lake Gardens MSTU Fund
Airport Fund
Plan Maintenance RAD Fund
Court Facilities Fund
Environmental Land Acquisition Fund
Ct Administrator-19th Judicial Cir
Ct Admin.- Teen Court
Guardian Ad Litem Fund
Home Consortium FY 2015
Sports Complex Fund
County Capital I&S
Impact Fees -Library
Impact Fees -Parks
County Capital
FIND -Fisherman's Wharf Bulkhead Des
Non -Ad Valorem Debt Project Fund
Environmental Land Capital Fund
Sanitary Landfill Fund
Golf Course Fund
Building Code Fund
Health Insurance Fund
Risk Management Fund
Tourist Development Trust-Adv Fund
Law Library
Bank Fund
GRAND TOTAL
EXPENSES
218,840.84
63,128.21
4,243.99
19,495.87
1,000.00
266,523.55
9,719.50
8,222.37
253.60
618.46
679.03
155.22
929.78
428.57
548.21
684.37
1,863.00
4,053.11
2,508.14
345.01
2,743.88
1, 040.52
492,000.00
158.44
1,114.98
49.72
340.00
417.00
66,870.23
1,202.00
590.46
18,372.06
32,861.00
13,100.00
578,360.43
13.39
21,987.86
14,239.06
4,582.90
954,788.46
18,738.17
9,771.72
16,136.56
627.32
2,854,346.99
PAGE
PAYROLL
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
796.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Packet Pg. 21
8.B.1
ITEM NO. RES-2017-266
TO:
SUBMITTED BY:
DATE
AGENDA REQUEST
Board of County Commissioners
Ed Skvarch, Interim Director
Cooperative Extension
Resolution - Watershed and Lagoon Life Education
12/05/2017
*CONSENT
AGENDA\ADMINISTRATION
BACKGROUND:
St. Lucie County Extension will be providing education through a Watershed and Lagoon Life Education
Program in partnership and within the City of Ft. Pierce
PREVIOUS ACTION:
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
$10,000 as a reimbursement for OF/IFAS extension providing education through a Watershed and Lagoon
Life Education Program within the City of Ft. Pierce. Funding will be made available in account 001-3715-
552000-300.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board acceptance of the reimbursement of $10,000.00, approval of the attached
budget resolution, and authorization for the Chair to sign documents as approved by the County Attorney.
COMMISSION ACTION:
Packet Pg. 22
8.B.1
Coordination/Signatures
Flon ') r" ;h R . 1) 1 # I v
4" 014AA -
Ed Skvarch, Interim Director 11/28/2017
D-
anielS.orney 12/1/2017 Jenni Hi I, Interim ffic of ale and B dget Direct it/2912on
rk 5 er ee `Dep C o u n t-y"Ad ministrato 12/1/2017
Updated: 12/1/2017 8:47 AM by Katrina Slay Page 2
Packet Pg. 23
RESOLUTION
8.B.1.a
WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners for St
Lucie County, certain funds not anticipated at the time of adoption of the budget have become available
from the City of Fort Pierce, in the amount of $10,000, for the Watershed and Lagoon Life Education
Program.
WHEREAS, Section 129.06 (d), Florida Statutes, requires the Board of County Commissioners to adopt a
resolution to appropriate and expend such funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County,
Florida, in meeting assembled this 5th day of December, 2017 pursuant to Section 129.06 (d), Florida
Statutes that such funds are hereby appropriated for the fiscal year 2017-2018, and the County's budget is
hereby amended as follows:
REVENUE
001-3715-369930-300 Reimbursements $10,000
APPROPRIATIONS
001-3715-552000-300 Buildings $10,000
After motion and second the vote on this resolution was as follows:
Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson, Chair XXX
Commissioner Tod Mowery, Vice Chairman XXX
Commissioner Linda Bartz XXX
Commissioner Chris Dzadovsky XXX
Commissioner Cathy Townsend XXX
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED THIS 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
CHAIR
APPROVED AS TO CORRECTNESS
AND FORM:
COUNTY ATTORNEY
m
c
m
E
z
U
a
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 24
8.B.2
ITEM NO. (ID # 4833)
TO:
PRESENTED BY:
SUBMITTED BY:
cl miprT-
BACKGROUND:
AGENDA REQUEST
Board of County Commissioners
Mark Satterlee, Deputy County Administrator
Administration
DATE
12/05/2017
*CONSENT
AGENDA\ADMINISTRATION
Local Arts Agency Consulting Services - Brevard Cultural Alliance
Development of a Local Arts Agency for St Lucie, County
This item is to approve a contract for $150,000.00 with Dr. Neil Levine and staff of the Brevard Cultural
Alliance to continue in the re-establishment of a Local Arts Agency for St. Lucie County. A Local Arts
Agency (LAA) is a private community organization or local government agency that supports cultural
organizations, provides services to artists or arts organizations, and/or presents arts programming to the
public. The last St Lucie County LAA, the Arts & Cultural Alliance disbanded in 2016. Since then, Dr. Levine
has been working with county staff and local stakeholders to identify the path to a new LAA. Dr. Levine
has focused on the economic impact that a vibrant and well supported LAA brings to the County. Two
stakeholders workshops have taken place both led by Dr. Levine. Through the workshops and his
continued involvement, Dr. Levine has developed a thorough understanding of the breadth and depth of
arts and culture that exist in St Lucie County. His experience in building similar organizations here in the
US and abroad demonstrate he can help rebuild the LAA in St Lucie County. Attached is Dr. Levine's
proposal detailing the step-by-step list of services he will provide. Funds are available in the fiscal year
2017/2018 budget for the purpose of reestablishing the LAA. Funds are also available in the Arts in Public
Places Trust Fund that may also be used.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funding of $150,000 is available in account 001-1900-549990-100 and $73,584 is available in Arts in Public
Places Trust Fund in account 665-9910-599300-800.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board approve the contract and authorize the County Attorney to execute same.
lfue ►] "WifR1.119P►I_Ts"191 F
Packet Pg. 25
Coordination/Signatures
ianie/s.WMc'lntyre,nt, orney 12/1/2017 Tenn Hi I, Interim ffic of and B dget Direct ll/29/2017
7"��O XZ-,.f
rk 5 er ee, I[le P'uK County -Amin sstrato 12/1/2017
Updated: 11/29/2017 11:24 AM by Katrina Slay Page 2
Packet Pg. 26
8.B.2.a
CONTRACT FOR CONSULTING/PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Contract is made as of the day of , 2017 by and between ST. LUCIE
COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as the "County",
and Brevard Cultural Alliance, Inc., a Florida not for profit corporation, hereinafter referred to
as "Consultant".
WHEREAS, the County desires to obtain consultant services with Brevard Cultural
Alliance, Inc., to work with key stakeholders towards the building of a sustainable local arts agency
for St. Lucie County; and,
WHEREAS, the Consultant is willing and able to render services for the scope of services
set forth in the Scope of Work "Consulting Services for the development of a sustainable local
arts agency for St. Lucie County" attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment "A", and
for the compensation set forth herein and on the terms hereinafter set forth; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, in consideration of the mutual covenants,
agreements, terms, and condition contained herein, do agree as follows:
SERVICES
The Consultant's responsibility under this Contract is to provide professional/consultation
services in the area of building of a sustainable local arts agency for St. Lucie County. The
consultation work to be performed is detailed in "Attachment A."
2. TERM
The Consultant shall be available to commence services on this contract commencing on
December 1, 2017. The terms of this contract shall continue through and including September
31, 2018. The term of this Contract may be extended upon the prior written mutual agreement
of the parties.
3. COMPENSATION
The Consultant shall be compensated for all services satisfactorily completed in a total
amount not to exceed one hundred fifty thousand and 00/100 dollars ($150,000.00) annually,
including reimbursable expenses. All invoices presented to the County for payment shall be on a
Request for Payment form approved by the County.
4. GENERAL CONDITIONS
A. It is understood and agreed that the Consultant's services under this Contract do
not include participation, whatsoever, in any litigation. Should such services be
required, a supplemental agreement may be negotiated between the County and
the Consultant describing the services desired and providing a basis for
compensation to the Consultant.
S:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\Brevard Cultural Alliance - 17
Packet Pg. 27
8.B.2.a
B. Upon the Consultant's written request, the County will furnish or cause to be
furnished such reports, studies, instruments, documents, and other information as
the Consultant and County mutually deem necessary; and the Consultant may rely
upon same in performing the services required under this Contract.
C. Upon completion of the project, but before Final Payment is made, the Consultant
shall participate in completing a Consultant Evaluation Form. No request for final
payment shall be considered proper and complete until this evaluation process is
completed by the Consultant and the County.
5. TRUTH -IN -NEGOTIATION CERTIFICATE
Execution of this Contract by Consultant shall act as the execution of as truth -in -
negotiation certificate stating that wage rates and other factual unit costs supporting the
compensation of this Contract are accurate, complete and current at the time of execution of the
Contract. The original Contract rates and any additions thereto shall be adjusted to exclude any
significant sums by which County determines the Contract rate(s) was increased due to
inaccurate, incomplete, or non -current wage rates and other factual unit costs. All such rate
adjustments shall be made within one year following the end of this Contract.
6. DEFAULT/TERMINATION
A. FOR CAUSE
If either party fails to fulfill its obligations under this Contract in a timely and proper
manner, the other party shall have the right to terminate this Contract by giving written notice of
any deficiency and by allowing the party in default seven (7) calendar days to correct the
deficiency. If the defaulting party fails to correct the deficiency within this time, this Contract shall
terminate at the expiration of the seven (7) calendar day time period.
With regard to the Consultant, the following items shall be considered a default
under this Contract:
(1) If the Consultant should be adjudged bankrupt, or if he, or it, should make
a general assignment for the benefit of his, or its, creditors, or if a receiver should be
appointed on account of his, or its, insolvency.
(2) If the Consultant should persistently or repeatedly refuse or fail, except in
cases for which an extension of time is provided, to provide the services contemplated by
this Contract.
(3) If the Consultant disregards laws, ordinances, or the instructions of the
Project Manager or otherwise is guilty of a substantial violation of the provisions of the
Contract.
In the event of termination, the Consultant shall only be entitled to receive payment for
work satisfactorily completed prior to the termination date.
B. WITHOUT CAUSE
2
S:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\Brevard Cultural Alliance - 17
Packet Pg. 28
8.B.2.a
Either party may terminate the Contract without cause at any time upon sixty (60) calendar
days prior written notice to the other party. In the event of termination, the County shall
compensate the Consultant for all authorized work satisfactorily performed through the
termination date.
7. SUBCONSULTANTS AND SUBCONTRACTORS
In the event the Consultant requires the services of any subconsultant, subcontractor or
professional associate in connection with the services to be provided under this Contract,
Consultant shall secure the written approval of County Project Manager before engaging such
subconsultant, subcontractor or professional associate.
If a subconsultant fails to perform or make progress, as required by this Contract, and it is
necessary to replace the subconsultant to complete the work in a timely fashion, the
CONSULTANT shall promptly do so, subject to acceptance of the new subconsultant by the
COUNTY. The substitution of a subcontractor shall not be adequate cause to excuse a delay in
the performance any portion of this contract as set forth in the Scope of Work.
The Consultant, its subconsultants, agents, servants, or employees agree to be bound by
the Terms and Conditions of this Contract and its agreement with the subconsultant for work to
be performed for the COUNTY the Consultant must incorporate the terms of this contract.
8. FEDERAL AND STATE TAX
The COUNTY is exempt from payment of Florida State Sales and Use Taxes.
The COUNTY will sign an exemption certificate submitted by the CONSULTANT. The
CONSULTANT shall not be exempted from paying sales tax to its suppliers for materials used to
fulfill contractual obligations with the COUNTY, nor is the CONSULTANT authorized to use the
COUNTY's Tax Exemption Number in securing such materials.
The CONSULTANT shall be responsible for payment of its own and its share of its
employees' payroll, payroll taxes, and benefits with respect to this Contract.
9. INSURANCE
The Consultant shall procure and maintain during the life of this Contract insurance of the
types and subject to the limits set forth below. The Consultant shall also provide the County with
evidence of this insurance in the form of Certificates of Insurance which shall be subject to the
County's approval for adequacy. The County shall be an Additional Insured on policies of
Commercial General Liability, and Commercial Auto Liability with respect to all claims arising out
of the work performed under this Contract. The County shall be an additional insured and shall
receive the same notification rights that are provided to the first named insured as respects
cancellation and nonrenewal. THIS ENDORSEMENT MUST BE INSERTED ONTO THE
CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE. If sub -contractors are used by the Consultant, it shall be the
responsibility of the Consultant to ensure that all its sub -contractors comply with all the insurance
requirements contained herein relating to such sub -contractors.
Except as otherwise stated, the amounts and types of insurance shall conform to the
following minimum requirements:
3
S:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\Brevard Cultural Alliance - 17
Packet Pg. 29
8.B.2.a
A. WORKERS' COMPENSATION
The Consultant shall provide and maintain during the life of this Contract, at his, its or their
own expense, Workers' Compensation insurance coverage to apply for all employees for Florida
statutory limits. Coverage B, Employers Liability, shall be written for a minimum liability at
$500,000.00 per occurrence.
B. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
The Consultant shall provide and maintain during the life of this Contract, at his, its or their
own expense, Commercial General Liability insurance on an occurrence basis for a minimum
combined single limit of $1,000,000.00 per occurrence; $2,000,000.00 general aggregate for
claims of bodily injury including death, property damage and personal injury. Contractual Liability
coverage shall be included.
C. COMMERCIAL AUTO LIABILITY
The Consultant shall provide and maintain during the life of this Contract, at his, its or their
own expense, Business Commercial Auto Liability for claims of bodily injury and property damage
for minimum limits of $1,000,000.00 combined single limit.
D. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY
The Consultant shall provide and maintain during the life of this Contract, at his, its or their
own expense, Professional Liability insurance on a claims made basis for a minimum of
$1,000,000.00 coverage.
E. OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS
The General Liability and Auto Liability policies shall contain or be endorsed to contain,
the following provisions:
1. The County, its Officers, Officials, Employees, Agents, and Volunteers are
to be covered as additional insureds for any and all liability arising out of the Consultant's
performance of this Contract, or out of automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by
the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on scope of protection
offered to the County, its Officers, Officials, Employee, Agents and Volunteers.
2. The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as
respects the County, its Officers, Officials, Employees, Agents and Volunteers for
Consultant's activities. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the County, its
Officers, Officials, Employees, Agents, or Volunteers shall be in excess of the Consultant's
insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policy shall not
effect coverage provided to the County, its Officers, Officials, Employees, Agents, or
Volunteers.
4. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against
whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of insurer's
liability.
10. INDEMNIFICATION
4
S:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\Brevard Cultural Alliance - 17
Packet Pg. 30
8.B.2.a
The Consultant covenants and agrees at all times to save, hold, and keep harmless the
County, its Officials, Employees, and Agents, and indemnify the County, its Officials,
Employees, and Agents, against any and all claims, including but not limited to any claims under
Chapter 218, Florida Statutes (Florida Prompt Payment Act), demands, penalties, judgments,
court costs, reasonable attorney's fees for personal injury and loss of property to the extent arising
out of or in any way connected or arising out of the Consultant's negligence, recklessness or
intentional wrongful conduct in the performance of this Contract. The Consultant hereby
acknowledges that the payments made under this Contract include specific consideration for the
indemnification herein provided.
It is the specific intent of the parties hereto that the foregoing indemnification complies
with Section 725.06, Florida Statutes (Chapter 725).
The Consultant, without exemption, shall indemnify and hold harmless, the COUNTY, its
employees, representatives and elected officials from liability of any nature or kind, including cost
and expenses for or on account of any copyrighted, patented, or unpatented invention, process,
or item manufactured by the Consultant. Further, if such a claim is made, or is pending, the
Consultant may, at its option and expense, procure for the COUNTY the right to use, replace, or
modify the item to render it non -infringing. If none of the alternatives are reasonably available,
the COUNTY agrees to return the article on request to the Consultant and receive reimbursement.
If the Consultant used any design, device or materials covered by letters, patent or copyright, it is
mutually agreed and understood, without exception, that the Contract prices shall include all
royalties or cost arising from the use of such design, device or materials in any way involved in
the work.
11. ASSIGNMENT
The County and Consultant each binds itself and its successors, legal representatives,
and assigns to the other party to this Contract and to the partners, successors, legal
representatives, and permitted assigns of such other party, in respect to all covenants of this
Contract; and, neither the County nor the Consultant will assign or transfer its rights and
obligations in this Contract without the written consent of the other. Nothing herein shall be
construed as creating any personal liability on the part of any officer or agent of any public body
which may be a party hereto.
The Consultant agrees that the persons named in the scope of work shall provide services
as described therein. The services of the person(s) so named are a substantial inducement and
material consideration for this Contract. In the event such persons can no longer provide the
services required by this Contract, the Consultant shall immediately notify the County in writing
and the County may elect to terminate this Contract without any liability to the Consultant for
unfinished work product. The County may elect to compensate the Consultant for unfinished
work product, provided it is in a form that is sufficiently documented and organized to provide for
subsequent utilization in completion of the work product.
12. PUBLIC RECORDS
The Consultant shall allow public access to all documents, papers, letters, or other
material subject to the provisions of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, and made or received by the
Consultant in conjunction with this Contract. Specifically, the Contractor shall:
a. Keep and maintain public records that ordinarily and necessarily would be required
by the County in order to perform the service.
5
S:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\Brevard Cultural Alliance - 17
Packet Pg. 31
8.B.2.a
b. Provide the public with access to public records on the same terms and conditions
that the County would provide the records and at a cost that does not exceed the cost provided
in state law or as otherwise provided by law.
C. Ensure that public records that are exempt or confidential and exempt from public
records disclosure requirements are not disclosed except as authorized by law.
d. Meet all requirements for retaining public records and transfer, at no cost, to the
County, all public records in possession of the contractor upon termination of the contract and
destroy any duplicate public records that are exempt or confidential and exempt from public
records disclosure requirements. All records stored electronically must be provided to the
County in a format that is compatible with the information technology systems of the County.
13. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The Consultant represents that it presently has no interest and shall acquire no interest,
either direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of services
required hereunder, as provided for in Section 112.311, Florida Statutes. The Consultant further
represents that no person having any interest shall be employed for said performance.
The Consultant shall promptly notify the County in writing by certified mail of all potential
conflicts of interest prohibited by existing state law for any prospective business association,
interest or other circumstance which may influence or appear to influence the Consultant's
judgment or quality of services being provided hereunder. Such written notification shall identify
the prospective business association, interest or circumstance, the nature of work that the
Consultant may undertake and request an opinion of the County as to whether the association,
interest or circumstance would, in the opinion of the County, constitute a conflict of interest if
entered into by the Consultant. The County agrees to notify the Consultant of its opinion by
certified mail within thirty (30) days of receipt of notification by the Consultant. If, in the opinion
of the County, the prospective business association, interest or circumstance would not constitute
a conflict of interest by the Consultant, the County shall so state in the notification and the
Consultant shall, at his/her option, enter into said association, interest or circumstance and it shall
be deemed not in conflict of interest with respect to services provided to the County by the
Consultant under the terms of this Contract.
14. EXCUSABLE DELAYS (FORCE MAJEURE)
Neither party shall be liable to the other for failure to perform its obligations hereunder if
and to the extent that such failure to perform results from causes beyond its reasonable control
(financial difficulty shall not be considered a cause beyond a party's control), all of which causes
herein are called Force Majeure_, including, but without being limited to, strikes, lockouts, or
other industrial disturbances; fires; unusual climatic conditions; acts of God; acts of a public
enemy; or inability to obtain transportation or necessary materials in the open market. Provided,
however, that market conditions, labor conditions, construction industry price trends and similar
matters which normally impact on the bidding process shall not be considered a Force Majeure.
The party unable to perform as a result of force majeure promptly shall notify the other of the
beginning and ending of each such period, and County shall compensate Consultant at the rates
set forth herein, for the services performed by Consultant hereunder, up to the date of the
beginning of such period. If any period of force majeure continues for thirty (30) days or more,
either party shall have the right to terminate this Contract upon ten (10) days prior written notice
to the other party.
15. PLEDGE OF CREDIT, ARREARS
6
S:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\Brevard Cultural Alliance - 17
Packet Pg. 32
8.B.2.a
The CONSULTANT shall not pledge the COUNTY's credit or make it a guarantor of
payment of surety for any contract, debt, obligation, judgment, lien, or any form of indebtedness.
The CONSULTANT further warrants and represents that it has no obligation or
indebtedness that would impair its ability to fulfill the terms of this Contract.
16. DISCLOSURE AND OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
All original sketches, tracings, drawings, computations, details, design calculations, and
other documents and plans that result from the Consultant's services under this Contract are and
remain the property of the County as instruments of service. The Consultant shall furnish copies
to the County upon completion of such documents.
The County shall, at no additional expense, be furnished one (1) set of reproducible copies
of any maps and/or drawings prepared for it by the Consultant. Consultant shall likewise submit
copies of all field notes, calculation sheets and computer discs to the County.
17. INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT RELATIONSHIP
The relationship of the Consultant to the County will be solely that of a consultant. The
Consultant is an independent contractor and is not an employee or agent of the County. Nothing
in this Contract shall be interpreted to establish any relationship other than that of an independent
contractor, between the County and the Consultant, its employees, agents, subcontractors, or
assigns, during or after the performance of this Contract. The Consultant will provide the
professional and technical services required for the successful completion of this Contract in
accordance with practices generally acceptable within the industry and good ethical standards.
18. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS
In the event of any dispute concerning the terms and conditions of this Contract or in the
event of any action by any party to this Contract to judicially interpret or enforce this Contract or
any provision hereof, or in any dispute arising in any manner from this Contract, the prevailing
party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable costs, fees and expenses, including but not
limited to, witness fees, expert fees, consultant fees, attorney, paralegal and legal
assistant fees, costs and expenses and other professional fees, costs and expenses, whether
suit be brought or not, and whether any settlement shall be entered in any declaratory action, at
trial or on appeal.
19. VERIFICATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS
The Consultant agrees that it shall bear the responsibility for verifying the employment
status, under the Immigration Reform and Control act of 1986, of all persons it employs in the
performance of this Contract.
20. PROHIBITION AGAINST CONTINGENT FEES
The Consultant warrants that it has not employed or retained any company or person,
other than a bonafide employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this Contract,
and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any persons, company, corporation, individual or firm,
other than a bonafide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee, commission,
7
S:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\Brevard Cultural Alliance - 17
Packet Pg. 33
8.B.2.a
percentage, gift or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award of making
this Contract.
21. AUDIT
The Consultant agrees that the County or any of its duly authorized representatives shall,
until the expiration of three years after expenditure of funds under this Contract, have access to
and the right to examine any directly pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of the
Consultant involving transactions related to this Contract. The Consultant agrees that
payment(s) made under this Contract shall be subject to reduction for amounts charged thereto
which are found on the basis of audit examination not to constitute allowable costs under this
Contract. The Consultant shall refund by check payable to the County the amount of such
reduction of payments. All required records shall be maintained until an audit is completed and
all questions arising therefrom are resolved, or three years after completion of the project and
issuance of the final certificate, whichever is sooner.
22. NON DISCRIMINATION
The Consultant covenants and agrees that the Consultant shall not discriminate against
any employee or applicant for employment to be employed in the performance of the Contract
with respect to hiring, tenure, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, or any matter directly
or indirectly related to employment because of age, sex or physical handicaps (except where
based on a bonafide occupational qualification); or because of marital status, race, color, religion,
national origin or ancestry.
23. ENFORCEMENT COSTS
It is understood and agreed that the Consultant's services under this Contract do not
include any participation, whatsoever, in any litigation. Should such services be required, a
supplemental agreement may be negotiated between the County and the Consultant describing
the services desired and providing a basis for compensation to the Consultant.
24. AUTHORITY TO PRACTICE
The County represents that it is a political subdivision of the State of Florida with the
authority to engage the professional service described in Attachment "A" and to accept the
obligation for payment for the services.
The County and Consultant each binds itself and its successors, legal representatives,
and assigns to the other party to this Contract and to the partners, successors, legal
representatives, and assigns of such other party, in respect to all covenants of this Contract; and,
neither the County nor the Consultant will assign or transfer their interest in this Contract without
the written consent of the other. Nothing herein shall be construed as creating any personal
liability on the party of any officer or agent of any public body which may be a party hereto.
The Consultant hereby represents and warrants that it has and will continue to maintain
all licenses and approvals required to conduct its business, and that it will at all times conduct its
business activities in a reputable manner. Proof of such licenses and approvals shall be
submitted to the COUNTY's representative on an annual basis.
25. SEVERABILITY
If any term or provision of this Contract, or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances shall, to any extent, be held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this
8
S:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\Brevard Cultural Alliance - 17
Packet Pg. 34
8.B.2.a
Contract, or the application of such terms or provisions to persons or circumstances other than
those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected, and every other term
provision of this Contract shall be deemed valid and enforceable to the extent permitted by law.
26. COMPLETE CONTRACT
This Contract states the entire understanding between the parties and supersedes any
written or oral representations, statements, negotiations, or agreements to the contrary. The
Consultant recognizes that any representations, statements or negotiations made by the County
staff do not suffice to legally bind the County in a contractual relationship unless they have been
reduced to writing, authorized, and signed by an authorized County representative. This
Contract shall bind the parties, their assigns, and successors in interest.
27. AMENDMENT
This Contract may be amended only with the written approval and agreement of the
parties.
28. MODIFICATIONS OF WORK
The County reserves the right to make changes in Scope of Work, including alterations,
reductions therein or additions thereto. Upon receipt by the Consultant of the County's
notification of a contemplated change, the Consultant shall, in writing:
1. Provide a detailed estimate for the increase or decrease in cost due to the
contemplated change,
2. Notify the County of any estimated change in the completion date, and
3. Advise the County if the contemplated change shall effect the Consultant's ability
to meet the completion dates or schedules of this Contract.
If the County so instructs in writing, the Consultant shall suspend work on that portion of
the Scope of Work affected by a contemplated change, pending the County's decision to proceed
with the change.
If the County elects to make the change, the County shall initiate a Contract Amendment
and the Consultant shall not commence work on any such change until such written Amendment
is signed by the authorized representative for the County.
29. NOTICE
All notices, requests, consents, and other communications required or permitted under
this Contract shall be in writing and shall be (as elected by the person giving such notice) hand
delivered by messenger or courier service, telecommunicated, or mailed by registered or certified
mail (postage prepaid) return receipt requested, addressed to:
As To County:
St. Lucie County Administrator
Administration Annex
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, FL 34982
With a Copy To:
St. Lucie County Attorney
Administration Annex
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, FL 34982
Gi
S:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\Brevard Cultural Alliance - 17
Packet Pg. 35
8.B.2.a
As To Consultant:
Brevard Cultural Alliance, Inc.
Neil Levine
2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, C-307
Viera, FL 32940
or to such other address as any party may designate by notice complying with the terms of this
Section. Each such notice shall be deemed delivered (a) on the date delivered if by personal
delivery, (b) on the date upon which the return receipt is signed or delivery is refused or the notice
is designated by the postal authorities as not deliverable, as the case may be, if mailed.
30. CAPTIONS AND PARAGRAPH HEADINGS
Captions and paragraph headings contained in this Contract are for convenience and
reference only and in no way define, describe, extend or limit the scope and intent of this Contract,
nor the intent of any provisions hereof.
31. WAIVER
No waiver by the County of any provision of this Contract shall be deemed to be a waiver
of any other provisions hereof or of any subsequent breach by of the same, or any other provision
or the enforcement thereof. County's consent to of or approval of any act by Consultant requiring
consent or approval shall not be deemed to render unnecessary the obtaining of County's consent
to or approval of any subsequent act by Consultant requiring consent or approval, whether or not
similar to the act so consented or approved.
32. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
The Consultant, its employees, subcontractors or assigns, shall comply with all applicable
federal, state, and local laws and regulations relating to the performance of this Contract. The
County undertakes no duty to ensure such compliance, but will attempt to advise Consultant,
upon request, as to any such laws of which it has present knowledge.
33. INTERPRETATION; VENUE
This Contract constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the
subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior verbal or written agreements between the parties
with respect thereto. This Contract may only be amended by written document, properly
authorized, executed and delivered by both parties hereto. This Contract shall be interpreted as
a whole unit and section headings are for convenience only. All interpretations shall be governed
by the laws of the State of Florida. In the event it is necessary for either party to initiate legal
action regarding this Contract, venue shall be in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit for St. Lucie
County, Florida, for claims under state law and the Southern District of Florida for any claims
which are justiciable in Federal Court.
10
S:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\Brevard Cultural Alliance - 17
Packet Pg. 36
34. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
8.B.2.a
Any disputes relating to interpretation of the terms of this Contact or a question of fact or
arising under this Contract shall be resolved through good faith efforts upon the part of the
Contractor and the County or its Project Manager. At all times, the Contractor shall carry on the
work and maintain its progress schedule in accordance with the requirements of the Contract and
the determination of the County or its representatives, pending resolution of the dispute. Any
dispute which is not resolved by mutual agreement shall be decided by the County Administrator
who shall reduce the decision to writing. The decision of the County shall be final and conclusive
unless determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be fraudulent, capricious, arbitrary, so
grossly erroneous as to necessarily imply bad faith, or not be supported by substantial evidence.
35. MEDIATION
Prior to initiating any litigation concerning this Contract, the parties agree to submit the
disputed issue or issues to a mediator for non -binding mediation. The parties shall agree on a
mediator chosen from a list of certified mediators available from the Clerk of Court for St. Lucie
County. The fee of the mediator shall be shared equally by the parties. To the extent allowed by
law, the mediation process shall be confidential and the results of the mediation or any testimony
or argument introduced at the mediation shall not be admissible as evidence in any subsequent
proceeding concerning the disputed issue. In the event that mediation is unsuccessful, either
party may bring an action to enforce its rights in a Florida court of appropriate venue and
jurisdiction.
36. ANTITRUST ASSIGNMENT
The Contractor and the County and the State of Florida recognize that in actual economic
practice, overcharges resulting from antitrust violations are in fact usually borne by the State of
Florida and local governments. Therefore, the Contractor assigns to the State of Florida and the
County any and all claims for such overcharges as to goods, materials or services purchased in
connection with the Contract.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have accepted, made and executed this
Contract in counterparts each of which shall be treated as an original upon the terms and
conditions above stated.
ATTEST:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
CHAIRMAN
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNESS:
COUNTY ATTORNEY
11
S:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\Brevard Cultural Alliance - 17
Packet Pg. 37
8.B.2.a
WITNESSES:
BREVARD CULTURAL ALLIANCE, INC.
BY:
PRINT NAME:
TITLE:
12
S:\ATTY\AGREEMNT\Brevard Cultural Alliance - 17
Packet Pg. 38
8.B.2.b
The mission of Brevard Cultural Alliance is to
build a vibrant and dynamic arts and cultural
sector integral to Brevard County's quality of life.
BRE\ A
CULTURAL
ALLIANCE
http://www.artsbrevard.org/
Consultation Services for the
development of a sustainable loca
arts agency for St Lucie County
November, 2017
Submitted to:
Mark Satterlee, Deputy County Administrator
2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida 34982
Copied to:
Board of Directors, the Arts and Cultural Alliance of St. Lucie, Inc.
C/o. 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida 34982
From: Neil Levine
Executive Director,
Brevard Cultural Alliance,
2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, C-307,
Viera, FL 32940
y:\st lucie\agreements\proposal 11-6-17.docx http://www.artsbrevard.org/
Packet Pg. 39
8.B.2.b
Name of entity submitting proposal: Brevard Cultural Alliance
Business Address: 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way C-307,
Viera, FL 32940
Phone: (321) 690-6817
Fax: (321) 690-6818
Years in business: 41
FEID Number: 51-0179099
Member[s] of BCA staff assigned:
Name and Job Title: Neil Levine, Executive Director
Email: neil.levine@artsbrevard.org
Name and Job Title:
Assisted by:
Name and Job Title:
Name and Job Title:
Kathy Engerran, Deputy Director
Email: kathy.engerran@artsbrevard.org
Lynne Brezina, Art Services Manager
Email: Iynne.brezina@artsbrevard.org
Pablo Remonsellez, Arts in Education Manager
Email: Pablo.remonsellez@artsbrevard.org
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to St Lucie County's aspiration to build
a sustainable Local Arts Agency for your communities.
y:\st lucie\agreements\proposal 11-6-17.docx http://www.artsbrevard.org/
a+
a
Packet Pg. 40
8.B.2.b
AIMS AND SCOPE OF WORK SUMMARIZED;
Acting in the capacity of consultants Brevard Cultural Alliance [BCA] will
work, with key stakeholders, towards the building of a sustainable local
arts agency for St Lucie County [LAA], the mission of which will be;
"To better position the arts and cultural sector as a significant
contributor to the vibrancy, education and economic wellbeing of
St Lucie County".
The vision of the LAA will be that; "stakeholders, partners and county
residents will be proud to be associated with this professional organization
representing the arts and cultural sector in St Lucie County".
The vision will extend to;
"Engaging and involving local creative practitioners and
communities and encouraging further participation, knowledge
sharing and co -design of cultural places and initiatives".
BCA will act in the capacity of consultants in the facilitation of a
sustainable LAA which has lasting and positive impact on communities.
This is a significant undertaking, and the outcome will be realized
incrementally over a three year span. BCA will act in the capacity of
consultants to facilitate the mission and vision as above and those
incremental steps are set out in this agreement.
A preliminary step will be the formation of a Founding Board of Directors.
This Board will be responsible for establishing organizational bylaws,
governance, overall strategic direction and fiduciary oversight. This Board
will comprise business and community leaders. It is also anticipated that
the Board of County Commissioners will recognize and appoint this
organization as the sole designated county LAA in St Lucie county and as
the recipient of the specialty arts license plate revenues.
It is anticipated that BCA, as consultants, will facilitate the following
overarching strategic goals;
➢ Convene a Board fit for purpose.
➢ Provide a nexus for partnerships that support the mission.
y:\st Jude\agreements\proposal 11-6-17.docx http://www.artsbrevard.org/
Packet Pg. 41
8.B.2.b
➢ Ensure key stakeholders receive comprehensive and timely reportage.
➢ Work with constituents to develop a coherent branded cultural offering.
➢ Market St Lucie's cultural venues and events, creating the perception of
critical mass, and driving towards cultural destination.
➢ Work to ensure the arts are part of student's educational experiences.
➢ Measure the sectors economic contribution, devising tools for advocacy
➢ Work towards a strategy that builds and sustains the LAA and the sector
y:\st Jude\agreements\proposal 11-6-17.docx http://www.artsbrevard.org/
Packet Pg. 42
8.B.2.b
CONSULTATION SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A LOCAL ARTS
AGENCY FOR ST LUCIE COUNTY
The County of St Lucie will retain the services of Brevard Cultural Alliance
[BCA] in the capacity of consultants to provide the services referred to in
this agreement. BCA will provide vision, leadership and execution and will
invite community and business leaders to participate as BCA leads on the
formation of a productive and sustainable LAA and facilitates the
following key activities during the first of a three year consultancy.
EDUCATION
We shall initiate a working partnership with St Lucie public schools to
explore artist residency and curriculum enhancing opportunities through
arts programs.
In order to use the arts to enhance students educational experience an
evaluation of available infrastructure and resources for school programs
will be undertaken.
Appropriate artists will be recruited and they will be invited to attend a
familiarization trip to Brevard County.
We shall devise and deliver a pilot program as the base line for the
partnership with St Lucie county public schools.
ONLINE INITIATIVES, BRANDING, MARKETING AND PARTNERS:
We shall develop branding for the new LAA and build a comprehensive
inclusive and interactive transactional website, responding to the needs
of our constituents.
This will be an optimized website which includes the capacity to deliver
analytics for reportage.
There will be a phased periodic redesign of the website, to reinforce the
brand, and we shall both commission and embrace our constituent's
creative content to distribute as digital assets, on all available platforms.
We will build an online virtual gallery for the sale of local artists work and
will devise a procedure to manage sales for those participating artists.
We shall implement CRM software and will build and update an
associated database.
y:\st Jude\agreements\proposal 11-6-17.docx http://www.artsbrevard.org/
Packet Pg. 43
8.B.2.b
We will build SLC and the LAA profile by engaging online platforms and
print media - as available and appropriate - working towards positive
media relationships
We'll build sustainable partnerships through community outreach -
engaging through public meetings and one on one personal meetings,
and will collaborate with partner cities.
OPERATIONAL
We will devise and deliver a series of capacity building workshops for
members of the LAA and the cultural community at large.
We will acquire grant finding software and provide access for members
and will provide technical assistance for our members to enhance their
grant writing abilities.
We will, upon receipt of member information, devise and deliver serial
eblasts, promoting artists work and events.
We will devise and deliver an ongoing marketing campaign. We'll seek to
partner with other agencies, such as TDC and EDC, to promote artists,
cultural venues and events, St Lucie County & the LAA
We will undertake to deliver timely, comprehensive and appropriate
reportage to all our partners
We will assist with Board succession planning
FUNDING
We will write and submit applications to available funding streams [e.g. FL
Division of Cultural Affairs general operating grant]
We will work to grow membership and will establish a network of funding
[and in -kind] partners
OVERSIGHT
We will assist in convening a 'founding' Board of Directors for The Arts &
Cultural Alliance of St. Lucie, Inc., which will be comprised of business and
community leaders.
We will work with a Governance Committee and will assist in devising
appropriate bylaws for adoption and ratification by the Board of Directors
- thus guaranteeing oversight
y:\st Jude\agreements\proposal 11-6-17.docx http://www.artsbrevard.org/
Packet Pg. 44
8.B.2.b
During the first year the Board will convene a Nominating Committee
which will prepare a slate of nominees for the ongoing Board. At the first
Annual Meeting the `Founders Board' will be dissolved and the slate of
Officers and Directors will be elected as the LAA's Board of Directors,
subject to term limits.
We will work towards convening an industry advisory group
CONSULTATION AND WORK GROUPS;
We will work with the communities of St Lucie County to identify benefits
that add value and respond to their particular needs - as appropriate
and wherever feasible.
We will work with the County administration and will partner city
administrations in engaging the arts and cultural sector to agreed mutual
outcomes.
YEAR 1 OVERARCHING GOALS
1. Establish the perception of the LAA as, once again, viable.
2. Convene a `founding' Board of Directors
3. Recruit membership and partnerships
4. Begin building a coherent offer to position St Lucie as a cultural
destination
Year 1, ACTIVITIES
Reactivate dormant 501 [c]3 organization - legal & financial
Set up office & communications
Recruit and appoint a full time manager based in St Lucie
Implement an operational framework
Establish bylaws and governance for the organization
y:\st Jude\agreements\proposal 11-6-17.docx http://www.artsbrevard.org/
Packet Pg. 45
8.B.2.b
Conduct series of public meetings - to engender trust in the "new"
organization
Recruit participant sector members
Explore partnerships with business and community leaders
Explore partnerships with cities within the County
Complete Detailed Asset Mapping exercise
Determine "who are we targeting" - branding, phase 1
Commission a coherent brand for all communications and media
platforms
Agree constituent needs for a broad based sector marketing campaign
Engage with local media - build relationships
Build interactive, transactional website with virtual gallery
Optimized website - include analytics
Align website & webmail with SLC IT hosting requirements
Acquire CRM software and begin building database
Deliver public workshops/meetings to explain benefits
Deliver capacity building workshops [Continuing Professional
Development]
Acquire grant search software, begin searches & make available to
members
Engage with SLC public schools and educators
Evaluate/Recruit/Train artists in residence for pilot program
Devise an arts -in -education program responding to curriculum
Deliver a "pilot arts -in -education program" at a public school
Evaluate and convene membership for advisory committee [APPAC]
Explore potential for an Arts District
Establish as a member of Florida Cultural Alliance & Americans for the Arts
Begin positioning St Lucie LAA at state level
Prepare and submit funding grants
y:\st Jude\agreements\proposal 11-6-17.docx http://www.artsbrevard.org/
Packet Pg. 46
8.B.2.b
Subject to sector -wide consensus building and county -wide partnership
development we will target as constituents and partners;
➢ Artists, arts organizations, galleries & event producers
➢ Board of Directors
➢ Community Leaders
➢ Educators
➢ Funding Partners - grantors
➢ Funding Partners - local business leaders
➢ Government; County, City, and State
➢ Government Agencies [TDC, EDC]
➢ Members of the Public [participants, consumers]
➢ Students and Parents
➢ Public Schools
SCALE OF FEES, BENEFITS AND UNDERTAKINGS;
The consultancy fees for this first year, which concludes September 31 st,
2018, will be $150,000 - to be invoiced in equal installments upon the full
execution of this agreement.
The county of St Lucie will provide appropriate office space, telephony,
internet access and IT support for the LAA and will provide appropriate
space, as available, for LAA convened public meetings, all the foregoing
for the sum of one dollar [$1 ] per year.
The St Lucie Board of County Commissioners will appoint the LAA as the
sole designated county LAA in the county of St Lucie and will designate
the LAA as the recipient of the specialty arts license plate revenues.
y:\st Jude\agreements\proposal 11-6-17.docx http://www.artsbrevard.org/
Packet Pg. 47
8.B.2.b
BCA'S CONSULTATION TEAM:
Neil Levine, Executive Director.
Consultation Leader, Strategic Development, County and City Liaison:
A director/strategist with over 35 years of extensive management experience
directing complex multi -faceted organizations within the cultural industries in the
private and commercial sectors both here in the U.S. and overseas. He's enjoyed
a successful track record in the planning, production, administration and
operational activities of arts and cultural organizations at all scales.
His most recent commercial sector position was Vice President of a New York
headquartered multi -national corporation - sales revenues in excess of $600M
In the public sector his most recent work before relocating to Florida was in the
U.K. where he delivered a multi -million dollar capital program in west London,
which completely refurbished a major city theatre and a town hall used as a
music venue. Most interestingly, Neil headed up the Arts Programs for the City of
Glasgow during the nineties when that city repositioned itself from being
perceived as Scotland's failing second city to that of successful European
capital - now widely accepted as a case study in the regeneration and
repositioning of a city through arts and cultural initiatives.
Levine has presented lectures on 'Technology and the Arts', in Cambridge, U.K.,
and lectured on 'Arts at the Heart of Regeneration' for the British Urban
Regeneration Association and Levine is also a visiting lecturer at De Montfort
University in the UK. In recognition of his work he's has been elected a Fellow of
the Royal Society for the Arts and also elected as a Fellow of the Chartered
Management Institute.
Kathy Engerran, BCA Deputy Director. Consultation Co -Leader:
Kathy has served as the Director of Program Services for the Arts Council of
Hillsborough County, where she administered the grants programs for
organizations and individual artists and coordinated publications and outreach
activities.
y:\st Jude\agreements\proposal 11-6-17.docx http://www.artsbrevard.org/
Packet Pg. 48
8.B.2.b
For 12 years prior, she served as Information Specialist for the Florida Division of
Cultural Affairs. Engerran received a BS in Communications from Florida State
University.
Pablo Remonsellez, Education and Community Arts
Pablo was born and raised in Santiago, Chile, and holds a Bachelor's degree in
Communications and Graphic Design from Mayor University of Santiago. He has
extensive training in the area of visual arts, working as an assistant professor at his
alma mater and also working as a curriculum coordinator and consultant for five
years at the Santiago Metropolitan Park.
He currently serves as the Education & Community Arts Manager with BCA,
managing the artists' residency programs and other community partnerships
Lynne Brezina, Art Services Manager
Lynne has coordinated BCA's Art in Public Places temporary installation
exhibition program for the past 15 years. This temporary installation program
ensures that the area's visual artists have the opportunity to display and sell their
artwork through art exhibitions throughout the County.
She works with well over 300 individual artists and with many galleries and artists
collectives - the program currently comprises around 2,500 pieces of work.
Lynne also provides technical assistance to member artists and creates web
pages for on BCA's web site, incorporating samples of their work and
biographical information. Lynne also writes and publishes regular eblasts to
promote artist members work.
y:\st Jude\agreements\proposal 11-6-17.docx http://www.artsbrevard.org/
Packet Pg. 49
8.B.2.b
CURRENT REGISTRATION OF St LUCIE LOCAL ARTS AGENCY
Thank you for submitting your payment to Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations. This email will serve as
confirmation that your payment was received by our office. Your filing will be posted on our website http://www.sunbiz.org in the
order received. The transaction information is listed below:
Receipt Number: 3710407697
Transaction Date/Time: 09/06/2017 03:49 PM
Card Number: XXXX XXXX XXXX 0153
Card Type: VI
Approval Code: 93945G
Payment Amount: $61.25
Tracking Number: CC2423508743
Document Number: N09000010263
THE ARTS &CULTURAL ALLIANCE OF ST. LUCIE, INC. Registered entity No.N09000010263
CORPORATIONS
y atiW1 .15f FjMcarFR&g1*ItrBd AgLLM Name
%FP�C! DNA FR.� •=irLP770^
T-f -.-MS L 0in-A i ALL-LE iar S- -.!_E *a:
rilno L^114w-mahm
DGc+..rMi YWntrr
h�frllOOG�C3E'
FEMN YrrrtM
;r_i iim 10
D.If ril.p
iS:i•7004
LaN
rL
Srshw
iMf
L 1LSD!
/{NENEOD �GRL•TJ.�C.63VR
E. E� FAA
yFn-&2—
Lti EI{ac Cw
Pry iUW Adfli"
=]YL 4'yr��•
fi Ike. r� sKc
RWp.a PFWI W:71i
fit!!
nx
ffy
Lf+� hM+l
N nn lj-� 9&'a5}"t
' ## tba qf] 76�d '
Ka LAdcbm
EryFm [pry
23t6 tplr� +.e
Tot D v
L&.F*. W
2mvemof
15 Fh : L 1G.-r
AnnlHk FZEDWU
R&OMVMW
FAW bmw
7CIi
7�: i.:ht
;plp
7'�67G14
.'..vvv.artsbrevarcI.org/
Packet Pg. 50
TO:
SUBMITTED BY:
8.B.3
ITEM NO. (ID # 4884)
DATE: 12/05/2017
AGENDA REQUEST
Board of County Commissioners
Nicole Fogarty, Legislative Affairs Manager
Administration
Letters to Congressional Delegation on Tax Reform
*CONSENT
AGENDA\ADMINISTRATION
BACKGROUND:
Recently, Congress has developed a Tax Reform plan which contains the removal of tax exemption on
state and local bonds. In February 2017, the Board approved their 2017 Federal Legislative Program which
states their opposition to legislation that would threaten the tax exemption on state and local bonds. St.
Lucie County's Legislative Affairs has drafted letters to our Federal Congressional Delegation requesting
their consideration on opposing this portion of the tax reform.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the letters to be signed by the Chair and to be delivered to our Federal Congressional
Delegation.
COMMISSION ACTION:
Packet Pg. 51
Coordination/Signatures
' 'ianie/S. McIntyre, C my ttorney 12/1/2017
rk 5 er ee, 6e PW c o u n i'Y-Ad ministrato 12/1/2017
Updated: 11/28/2017 12:20 PM by Katrina Slay Page 2
Packet Pg. 52
I1 Jim'
"I0We'll�!� l ! `�.
FRANNIE HUTCHINSON
CHAIRWOMAN
DISTRICT 4
TOD MOWERY
VICE-CHAIRMAN
DISTRICT 2
CHRIS DZADOVSKY
DISTRICT 1
LINDA BARTZ
DISTRICT 3
CATHY TOWNSEND
DISTRICT 5
HOWARD N. TIPTON
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
DAN MCINTYRE
COUNTY ATTORNEY
PHONE
(772) 462-6406
TDD
(772) 462-1 428
E-MAIL
F O GARTY N@ ST LU C I E C O.O R G
WEBSITE
WWW.STLUCIECO.GOV
COMMISSIONER, CHAIR
DISTRICT 4
November 22, 2017
The Honorable Bill Nelson
United States Senate
716 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Nelson:
On behalf of St. Lucie County, Florida, I urge you to consider the impact of potential
changes to the tax code on local governments and our citizens as the Senate moves
forward with tax reform. Changes to the federal tax code that simply shift the burden to
local governments and our residents does not better serve our citizens.
Local governments have long used the advanced refunding of municipal bonds in order
to save money for our local taxpayers. The ability to use this tool to save our taxpayers
money is vital to the County. Both the House and Senate bills would eliminate the ability
of local governments to use this financing option, impeding our ability to be good
stewards of taxpayer dollars.
Additionally, we are pleased to see that the Senate is committed to preserving private
activity bonds. Private activity bonds are an essential tool for the creation of affordable
housing and the financing of vital infrastructure projects. In St. Lucie County, we would
like to preserve this financing mechanism, particularly for improvements at the Port of
Ft. Pierce.
St. Lucie County is the spring training home for the New York Mets. The County would
like to preserve our ability to use tax exempt municipal bonds to finance improvements
to this publicly owned stadium however, this ability is eliminated in the House bill. As
you are aware, spring training has a significant economic impact on the State of Florida
and the ability to finance improvements through tax exempt municipal bonds and
through the use of private activity bonds are vital to ensuring the continued economic
benefit to the local and state economy.
We urge you to support the ability of taxpayers to deduct state and local taxes. Although
Florida does not have a personal income tax, our residents are currently able to deduct
property and sales tax. In Florida, 22% of filers use the SALT deduction, with an
average deduction of over $7,000.
We look forward to continuing to work with you to best serve our shared constituents.
Sincerely,
Frannie Hutchinson
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners, Chair
District 4
ST. LUCIJ Packet Pg. 53
I1 Jim'
"I0We'll�!� l ! `�.
FRANNIE HUTCHINSON
CHAIRWOMAN
DISTRICT 4
TOD MOWERY
VICE-CHAIRMAN
DISTRICT 2
CHRIS DZADOVSKY
DISTRICT 1
LINDA BARTZ
DISTRICT 3
CATHY TOWNSEND
DISTRICT 5
HOWARD N. TIPTON
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
DAN MCINTYRE
COUNTY ATTORNEY
PHONE
(772) 462-6406
TDD
(772) 462-1 428
E-MAIL
F O GARTY N@ ST LU C I E C O.O R G
WEBSITE
WWW.STLUCIECO.GOV
COMMISSIONER, CHAIR
DISTRICT 4
November 22, 2017
The Honorable Marco Rubio
United States Senate
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Rubio:
On behalf of St. Lucie County, Florida, I urge you to consider the impact of potential
changes to the tax code on local governments and our citizens as the Senate moves
forward with tax reform. Changes to the federal tax code that simply shift the burden to
local governments and our residents does not better serve our citizens.
Local governments have long used the advanced refunding of municipal bonds in order
to save money for our local taxpayers. The ability to use this tool to save our taxpayers
money is vital to the County. Both the House and Senate bills would eliminate the ability
of local governments to use this financing option, impeding our ability to be good
stewards of taxpayer dollars.
Additionally, we are pleased to see that the Senate is committed to preserving private
activity bonds. Private activity bonds are an essential tool for the creation of affordable
housing and the financing of vital infrastructure projects. In St. Lucie County, we would
like to preserve this financing mechanism, particularly for improvements at the Port of
Ft. Pierce.
St. Lucie County is the spring training home for the New York Mets. The County would
like to preserve our ability to use tax exempt municipal bonds to finance improvements
to this publicly owned stadium however, this ability is eliminated in the House bill. As
you are aware, spring training has a significant economic impact on the State of Florida
and the ability to finance improvements through tax exempt municipal bonds and
through the use of private activity bonds are vital to ensuring the continued economic
benefit to the local and state economy.
We urge you to support the ability of taxpayers to deduct state and local taxes. Although
Florida does not have a personal income tax, our residents are currently able to deduct
property and sales tax. In Florida, 22% of filers use the SALT deduction, with an
average deduction of over $7,000.
We look forward to continuing to work with you to best serve our shared constituents.
Sincerely,
Frannie Hutchinson
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners, Chair
District 4
ST. LUCIJ Packet Pg. 54
8.C.1
ITEM NO. (ID # 4854)
TO:
PRESENTED BY:
SUBMITTED BY:
cl miprT-
BACKGROUND:
AGENDA REQUEST
Board of County Commissioners
JoAnn Riley, Property Acquisitions Manager
Property Acquisition Division
DATE
12/05/2017
*CONSENT AGENDA\COUNTY
ATTORNEY
Revocable License Agreement - River Park - 758 Altura Street - Parcel ID
3419-515-0112-000-4 - Fence in Drainage/Utility Easement
Mr. and Mrs. Canoy are requesting a Revocable License Agreement for a fence that would encroach into
the Drainage/Utility Easement on the sides and rear of their property. The fence will be a 4' chain -link
fence. They are aware if the fence needs to be removed or relocated it will be at their expense.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board approve the revocable license agreement, authorize the Chair to sign
the agreement and direct Mr. and Mrs. Canoy to record the agreement in the public records of St. Lucie
County, Florida.
COMMISSION ACTION:
Coordination/Signatures
ianieYS. McIntyre, tAlktorney 12/1/2017
Packet Pg. 55
8.C.1.a
October 25, 2011
To: Janet LiCausi
PrOperty ACQUi5i.'t1.0f Agent
2300 Virginia Avenue
Ft. Pierce, FL 34982
772--462-1725
772-462-1440 fax
licausij@stlucieco.org
Ms. LiCausi,
I would like to request for a Revocable License to put up a fence on
the easement portion of my property located at:
758 Altura St.
Port Saint Lucie, FL 34592
The fence is a standard galvanized chain -link with a height of 4 feet.
Sincerely,
Chet Canoy
758 Altura St.
Port St. Lucie, FL 34952
(772) 807-2376
chet_canoy@hotmail.com
a
Packet Pg. 56
8.C.1.b
A BOUNDARY AND RECORD SURVEY FOR CHET T. CANOY AND THERESA C. CANOY
Boun d ory Survey
601 Note: All Bearings & Distances
o{ Pc�e� Are As Per Plot Unless
sage / e�ti
O� e
r eel Ed9° / �s�o�B t ,1o1
Sb Je�e�a'
d/ oP
ADDRESS: 758 Altura Street
Part St. Lucie, Florida
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 6, Block 24, RIVER PARK UNIT 3, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in
Plat Book 10, Page 80, of the Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida.
r+�o�inrn �rn.
CHET T. CANOY AND THERESA C. CANOY;
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ITS SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS;
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK
QQ = Found 518" Iron Rod (No Cap)
/ �; 05
Po�gt
l'le \eoPale
Pa10ef
NOTE: Water Service
a
CERTIFICATE: This is to certifythat this SKETCH OF SURVEY, of the hereon ae�iCs gsesox �h s enttR® ro ►a Altura
ASSUMED vows or
described ro ert , is a andcorrect to the best of m knowledge and belief, 562B2'00"W for the centeAlne of Altura Street;
P P y Y g sAID Bau�ra sv miarr�Cu 1RTs rM eI1T or RECORD
contains no visible a aahments, unless shown, and meets the Minimum Technical
Standards set to,Chapter 17--0 F.A.C. by the Florida Board of Land X
Surveyors purse vto
Section' 2.027, Florida Statutes.
EViSIDNS
NOTE: NOT VALID UNLESS
SURVVEYOD WITH R SRAL..AN MBossEn
PHILIP W. LANGBEHNThis SURVEY prepared from
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR & MAPPER legal description supplied
STATE OF FLORIDA REGISTRATION No. 315E by client. PRO,FECT NAME: Canoy
H.e)Uq( 1BI9H-HM Ui( .
SCALE
FIELD
SHEET
FIELD BOOK & PAGE
10556 South Federal Highway
1" = 30'
NL/SS
1
File /
P.O. BOX 698 SENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA 34958
DATE OF
DRAWN PCF
OF
WORK ORDER NO.
(772) 398 — 8166
FIELD SURVEY
1 18683
FAX (772) 337 — 7404
71712003
CHECKED PWL
r
Packet Pg. 57
Sr
758 Altura Street
a—Llp
Fork Sr.
SE PRIMA VISTA BLVD
O!�
♦ij t�ef
\ P Ate
NSA PRIMA VISTA BLVD
UWS IMER
St. l ucie County makes no warranty, represemaa0q M ®Ver�ntl' es to 4he carMnt, eeG uence, accuracy, nmeilneae, a compkelenen of anyd the geotlais InfognaEim provitletl herein.
me reatler anaem nd rery on Ina tlam pro.;tlea Herein tar ary realm, sc- rwie 9quney espncWY diaciaims any rep*eaegtatlw�s and waRanaes, �wlutlina. wiuw„I IiIation, tha impratl 0 0.015 0.03 0.96 9.09 0 12
mern�ea d meanadaniiny a'w mneea ter a pare�tar pary+gse- st. facia county anauaseame ne eatlaayrw: i. nnr arrore, gm�eeienG, gri,reccureaea m Ina Miles.
informatign prgNtl9tl ro4AMiegq N nuw caWad, or I. Any tleclaim made or action taken ra nd taken by any person In reilenga upmi any information or Aata fumishetl hereuntler-
Packet Pg. 58
8.C.1.d
This instrument prepared by:
Janet LiCausi
under the direction of
Daniel S. McIntyre, County Attorney
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, FL 34982
REVOCABLE LICENSE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered this day of 2017, by and between r
a
ST. LUCIE COUNTY a political subdivision of the State of Florida, (the County) and CHET and THERESA c0
CANDY, whose address is 758 Altura Street, Port St. Lucie, FL 34952 (the Owners).
a�
WHEREAS, the Owners own 758 Altura Street in Port St. Lucie a)
L
Parcel ID 3419-515-0112-000/4 Q
a�
WHEREAS, the Owners are requesting to install a 4ft chain -link fence across the rear and sides of
their property in the drainage/utility easement. As Shown on Exhibit "A". J
2
WHEREAS, the County is willing to permit the Owners to use the drainage/utility easement for their 0
0
fence and maintenance along the fence and not to go past the utility poles, subject to the terms and
conditions set forth in this Revocable License Agreement.
LO
00
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein, the parties agree as
w
c
follows: E
0
1. The County agrees to grant the Owners a Revocable License Agreement for the purpose of (D,
Q
installing and maintaining fencing in the County's drainage/utility easement, as indicated on the N
c
a�
attached map and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A".
J
2. The sole purpose of this Revocable License Agreement is to allow the Owners to install fencing 72
and maintain the area around the fence in the drainage/utility easement along the sides and rear of 0
a�
their house not past the utility poles. It shall not extend to the construction and/or installation of any
-d
r
additional structures or utilities.
06
3. Pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement, the County authorizes the
E
Owners to install the fence and maintain the area along the fence at the location identified in Exhibit
r
»A»
r
1
Packet Pg. 59
8.C.1.d
4. The Owners shall install the fence in accordance with Standard Specification for Public works
Construction in St. Lucie County. The fence shall not interfere with the use of the drainage or utility Y
easement of the County or other Utility Services that may be using said easements. Any damage to the
a
easements shall be repaired by the Owners.
5. This Revocable License Agreement shall be binding on future successor and assignees of the
a�
r
U)
Owners provided the Owners give adequate notice to the County pursuant to Paragraph twelve (12) of
r
this Agreement.
co
6. The County shall have the right, at the sole discretion of the County Engineer to terminate this
r
Agreement with or without cause and require removal of the fence at the Owner's sole expense upon
c
E
thirty (30) days written notice to the Owners. The County Engineer may, in lieu of termination, request
a)
aD
a
that the Owners perform certain alterations to the fence and location in the drainage/utility easement
0
mentioned in Exhibit "A" at the Owner's sole expense. However, if such alterations are not performed
aD
to the satisfaction of the County Engineer, the County shall be entitled to exercise its right to terminate
aD
this Agreement.
>>�
o:
7. Upon the expiration of this Revocable License Agreement, or the revocation of this Revocable
License Agreement, whichever occurs first, the Owners shall be responsible for the removal of the fence
LO
v
and restoration of the easement and/or property as directed by the County Engineer, consistent with
w
E
the specifications of the County in force at such time.
L
8. The term of this Revocable License Agreement shall begin on the date first above written and
0
shall remain in effect unless otherwise revoked or abandoned as provided herein.
9. Owners agrees to relocate the referenced fence, at any time and at no cost to the County, if
J
a)
necessary for the maintenance or improvements of the easement and or County property.
o
10. The fence on the County's property shall be in accordance with all applicable codes and
W
permitting regulations of the County and shall be maintained solely at the expense of the Owners. Any
-6
r
U
maintenance activity will be subject to the written approval of the County Engineer.
11. The Owners agree to allow County employees access to the location of the fence for County
aD
E
purposes as determined by the County Engineer.
Q
2
Packet Pg. 60
8.C.1.d
12. All notices, request and other communications dealing directly or indirectly with this
license shall be in writing and shall be (as elected by the person giving such notice) hand delivered by
messenger or carrier service, telecommunicated, or mailed by registered or certified mail (postage
prepaid) return receipt requested, address to:
As to County:
County Engineer
2300 Virginia Avenue, 2nd Floor
Fort Pierce, FL 34982
County Attorney
2300 Virginia Avenue, 3rd Floor
Fort Pierce, FL 34982
As to Owners:
Mr. & Mrs. Chet Canoy
758 Altura Street
Port St. Lucie, FL 34952
or to such other address as any party may designate by notice complying with the terms of this section.
Each such notice shall be deemed delivered (a) on the date delivered if by personal delivery, (b) on the
date upon which the return receipt is signed or delivery is refused or the notice is designated by the
postal authorities as not deliverable, as the case may be, if mailed.
13. As consideration for the County granting this Revocable License Agreement the Owners agree
to indemnify and hold the County harmless from and against all claims, liability, demands, damages,
expenses, fees, fines, penalties, suits, proceedings, actions and costs of actions, including reasonable
attorneys fees of any kind or nature arising or in any way connected with the use, occupation,
management, or control of the above property by County or its' agents, servants, employees, patrons,
or invitees, or resulting in injury to persons or property, or loss of life or property of any kind or nature
whatsoever, sustained during Owner's use of the property.
14. The Owners shall pay to record this Revocable License Agreement in the Official Records of St.
Lucie County, Florida. The Owners shall pay any document excise taxes and the cost of recording this
Revocable License Agreement.
3
Packet Pg. 61
8.C.1.d
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the Clay and year above
first written.
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DEPUTY CLERK
CHAIRMAN
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNESS:
COUNTY ATTORNEY
WITNESSES:
c
T. CANOY
L
Q
N
J
THERO C. CANOY
STATE OF o
COUNTY OF
m
e:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 134-I- day of ��� 2017, by CHET
r
.p U
& THERESA CANOY who produced j� r�MV4&4 (type of identification) and who did take an oath. 00
c
WITNESS my hand and official seal, this 1 day of 2017, m
E
t
�n r
fYL r
Q
My commission expires: N TARY 51GNATURE
4 , ...........
Y'JOANN M. RILEY
Commission # GG 154939
Expires December 13, 2Q20
• ,4�FIN1•, Banded Tixa Troy Fain {n8U w"
Packet Pg. 62
A BOUNDARY AND RECORD
AND THERESA C. CANOY
8.C.1.d
M
Block 24
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Boundory Survey
�I
of qo
Edge / �I
� See s t
00/
ADDRESS: 758 Altura Street
Port St. Lucie, Florida
Notes All Bearings & Dlstonces
Are As Per Plat Unless
Noted Otherwise.
Lot 6, Block 24, RIVER PARK UNIT 3, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded In
Plot Book 10, Page 80. of the Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida,
CERTIFIED TO:
CHET T. CANOY AND THERESA C. CANDY;
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ITS SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS;
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK
O = Found 518" Iron Rod (No Cap)
NOTE: Water Service
CERTMCATE: This In to certify that this SKETCH OF SURVEY, of the hereon
yd � See M�ShTOM W
dssartbad ProP�y, is s and correct to the beet of my knowledge and belief,
ym summ m �Rmai spa 'tart MAT or now
conleiru no rlWhla unless shown, and masts the 1Urdmum Technical
Steaderds set fo Chapter 17-8 FA.C. "the Florida Board of Land
_ X
Surveyors 31% to Sec 027, norwo. Statutes.
IRMSIGNS
NOTE; NOT VALID UNLESS
SEALED ■TEN AS EKBOSSED
SURVEYOR'S SEAL
PB13dP 1►: LANOBEHtt Thin SURVEY PraPm'ed from
PROFESSIONAL LINO SURVEYOR & MAPFER 1pai dssoriPtfon suPplie
STATE OF FLORIDA REGUrMATION NO. $� & br cUent.
PROJE
EXHIBIT
ILAN � IBIE� INC.
SCALE
FIELD
10558 South Federal Highway
1" = 30
NLI
P.O. BOX 098 78NMW REACH, FLORIDA 34958
DATE OF
DRAWN
PCF
(772) 395 - 8188
FIELD SURVEY
FAX (772) 337 — 7404
7/7/2003
CHECKED
PWL
Q
r1
Packet Pg. 63
8.C.2
ITEM NO. RES-2017-267
J
COUNTY
` R I ID A AGENDA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
PRESENTED BY:
SUBMITTED BY:
CIIRIFrT-
BACKGROUND:
Heather Young, Asst. County Attorney
County Attorney
DATE: 12/05/2017
*CONSENT AGENDA\COUNTY
ATTORNEY
Resolution - City Electric Supply Company Qualified Target Industry and Job
Growth Incentive Grant Agreement
Pursuant to Section 125.045, Florida Statutes the County has broad power to expend public funds to
attract and retain business enterprises. County and City of Port St. Lucie staff, along with the staff of the
Economic Development Council, have been working with City Electric Supply Company ("CES") to facilitate
the expansion of its existing business in St. Lucie County. CES is one of St. Lucie County's Targeted
Industries and been a leader in the electrical supply industry in St. Lucie County for over 30 years.
CES has identified vacant land in the Tradition Commerce Park for potential expansion. The expansion will
include over 400,000 square feet of new industrial space and result in the creation of 50 new jobs at an
average hourly wage in excess of the County's average hourly wage ($16.82 per hour).
The attached resolution requests that CES be approved as a Qualified Target Industry Business pursuant
to Section 288.106, Florida Statutes, which will enable it to receive a tax refund from the State of Florida,
in recognition of the expansion of its business as a major economic driver on the Treasure Coast. The
resolution also provides for local financial support in the amount of $50,000.00 as required by Section
288.106.
A proposed Job Growth Incentive Grant Agreement is also attached. Pursuant to the agreement, CES
agrees to create fifty (50) new jobs with an average hourly wage of seventeen and 37/100 dollars ($17.37)
over a five year period. Subject to continued compliance with the terms of the Agreement, CES will be
eligible for a Job Growth Incentive Grant in an amount up to ninety-seven thousand five hundred and
00/100 dollars ($97,500.00) to be paid out over a five year period beginning January 1, 2019.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
On October 17, 2017, the Board adopted Resolution No. 2017- 242 setting forth certain economic
development incentives offered to City Electric Supply Company.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Packet Pg. 64
8.C.2
The $97,500 for the Job Growth Incentive Grant Agreement, which includes $50,000 for Qualified
Targeted Intustry is available in the Job Growth Investment Grant account 001-5215-582000-500.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the Qualified Target Industry resolution, approve the Job Growth
Incentive Grant Agreement, and authorize the Chair to sign the resolution and the agreement.
COMMISSION ACTION:
Coordination/Signatures
L ).Pd
Alli
Danie s. McIntyre, Co my ttorney 11/27/2017
updated: 11/28/2017 8:45 AM by Jennifer Hill Page 2
Packet Pg. 65
8.C.2.a
RESOLUTION NUMBER 2017-XX
A RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, RECOMMENDING CITY ELECTRIC
SUPPLY COMPANY BE APPROVED AS A QUALIFIED TARGET
INDUSTRY BUSINESS PURSUANT TO SECTION 288.106, FLORIDA
STATUTES; AFFIRMING THIS IS A MANUFACTURING PROJECT;
REQUESTING A WAIVER OF THE AVERAGE WAGE REQUIREMENT
OF SECTION 288.106(4)(b)1.a, FLORIDA STATUTES; PROVIDING
FOR LOCAL FINANCIAL SUPPORT IN THE FORM OF CASH; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, City Electric Supply Company is an electrical manufacturing business located in St.
Lucie County with over thirty (30) years in the industry and an employment base of 222 employees, and
WHEREAS, City Electric Supply Company is seeking to expand operations with a new facility -
at Tradition Commerce Park in Port St. Lucie. This facility will encompass 400,000 square feet of space
and employ an additional 50 new employees at an average wage of at least $36,129.00. The company's
expansion will increase its existing contributions to the community with additional direct and indirect
effects to our small businesses; additional ad valorem taxes to the County; and job creation for County
residents; and,
WHEREAS, City Electric Supply Company plans to expand operations with a new facility,
retaining 222 employees and the creation of 50 new jobs in St. Lucie County; and,
WHEREAS, City Electric Supply Company has been identified as a Target Industry Business;
and,
WHEREAS, City Electric Supply Company intends to locate in a facility at Tradition Commerce
Park in Port St. Lucie; and,
WHEREAS, as a manufacturing project, City Electric Supply Company is eligible to receive a
waiver of the average wage requirement as authorized by Section 288.106(4)(b)1.b, Florida Statutes;
and,
WHEREAS, City Electric Supply Company will commit to pay an average annual wage of at least
$36,129.00 which is 100% of the St. Lucie County average wage; and,
WHEREAS, City Electric Supply Company hereby acknowledges that local financial support of
20% of the total tax refund is required under the provisions of Section. 288.106, Florida Statutes,
governing the State's Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie
County, Florida, as follows:
A. The Board hereby recommends City Electric Supply Company be approved as a Qualified
Target Industry Business pursuant to Section 288.106, Florida Statutes.
B. The Board hereby recommends City Electric Supply Company be approved as a Qualified
Target Industry Business pursuant to Section. 288.106, Florida Statutes. The Board requests
Packet Pg. 66
8.C.2.a
a waiver of the average wage requirement of Section 288.106(4)(b)1.a, Florida Statutes,
because the manufacturing industry is a major economic driver in the Treasure Coast region.
The economic significance of manufacturing in the Port St. Lucie MSA is over 6,200 private
sector jobs and over 350 firms. The Port St. Lucie MSA currently has an unemployment rate
of 4.0%with a high percentage of entry level talent for this industry. The waiver will allow the
company to move forward with the hiring of 50 new employees and provide customized and
proprietary training.
C. A cash commitment of local financial support for the Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund
Program exists for City Electric Supply Company in the amount of $50,000.00. This amount
will be made available in accordance with the guidelines set forth by the Department of
Economic Opportunity with the stipulation that these funds are intended to represent local
financial support pursuant to Section 288.106, Florida Statutes.
D. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
After motion and second, the vote on the resolution was asfollows:
Chairman Chris Dzadovsky
XX
Vice Chairman Tod Mowery
XX
Commissioner Linda Bartz
XX
Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson
XX
Commissioner Cathy Townsend
XX
PASSED DULY ADOPTED on this XX day of December, 2017.
ATTEST:
Deputy Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNESS
2
County Attorney
Packet Pg. 67
8.C.2.b
JGIG 17-005
ST. LUCIE COUNTY JOB GROWTH INVESTMENT
GRANT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the 5t" day of December, 2017 by and between ST. LUCIE
COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, by and through its Board of County
Commissioners, hereinafter referred to as the "COUNTY", and CITY ELECTRIC SUPPLY
COMPANY, a corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, hereinafter referred
to as the "COMPANY", whose Federal I.D. number is 592279498
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the COUNTY to stimulate economic growth in St. Lucie
County, by either attracting new businesses to St. Lucie County or by encouraging the
expansion of existing businesses within St. Lucie County; and,
WHEREAS, the creation of new employment opportunities for residents of St. Lucie
County and the increased tax revenues resulting from such business expansion or relocation
within St. Lucie County is beneficial to the local economy; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that offering a Job
Growth Investment Grant encourages either businesses to expand or new businesses to enter
St. Lucie County and thereby create new employment opportunities for the residents of St
Lucie County; and,
WHEREAS, St. Lucie County, through its Board of County Commissioners, has created
a Job Growth Investment Grant; and,
WHEREAS, the COMPANY will expand its existing business in St. Lucie County and
thereby create certain new employment opportunities having a specific wage level or higher in
St. Lucie County in accordance with the Job Growth Investment Grant criteria if the COUNTY
provides to the COMPANY a Job Growth Investment Grant; and,
WHEREAS, the COMPANY has been determined to be eligible to receive a Job Growth
Investment Grant by the COUNTY'S Job Growth Investment Grant Review Committee; and,
i
Packet Pg. 68
8.C.2.b
WHEREAS, the COMPANY acknowledges that this Agreement shall be based upon the
COMPANY'S obtainment of the performance requirements as outlined in this Agreement; and,
WHEREAS, the COUNTY finds and declares that it is in the public interest to award a
Job Growth Investment Grant to COMPANY pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants hereinafter
contained, the parties do agree as follows:
1. Definitions. As used in this Agreement, the following terms shall mean:
a. "Annual Average Hourly Wage" - Includes the hourly cost of wages, bonuses,
and commissions but does not include benefits. The Top two Executive salaries
as defined in this Agreement shall not be included in the average wage
calculations.
b. "Base Period for Hourly Wage level and Job Creation" - As set forth in the State
of Florida Employer's Quarterly Report (RT-6A) for the quarter preceding the
Grant application.
C. "Default" - Failure to comply with the terms of the Agreement.
d. "Effective Date" — First day of the month following the issuance of the certificate
of occupancy for a manufacturing facility.
e. "Employer's Quarterly Report FormRT-6" - COMPANY's State of Florida
Employer's Quarterly Report Form RT-6A provided to COUNTY in conjunction
with the execution of this Agreement, and thereafter as required pursuant to this
Agreement.
f. "Expansion of an existing business" - A business establishing 10 or more jobs to
employ 10 or more new full-time employees in the County. These jobs must
represent a net increase in employment at the site/facility and be not less than a
10 percent increase.
g. "Full-time Equivalent Job" - Shall be calculated by total payroll hours per year
divided by 52 weeks and then, divided by 35 hours.
h. "JGIG" - Shall mean Job Growth Investment Grant.
"New Business" - A business establishing 10 or more jobs to employ 10 or more
full-time employees in the County within the term of the Grant provided that such
business first begins operations on a site in the County clearly separate from any
other operation owned by the same business.
Research Firm — A company that employs 50% or more of their workforce in the
development of new products, refinement of existing products, testing of
2
Packet Pg. 69
8.C.2.b
products, development of new scientific information and others to be defined.
k. "St. Lucie County Average Hourly Wage" — At least 107% of the average annual
hourly wage per job in St. Lucie County, as determined by State of Florida
Department of Labor, Workforce Development Board or Enterprise Florida, Inc.
2. Waae Level Commitment.
As a condition precedent to and as consideration for obtaining JGIG funds from the
COUNTY, the COMPANY agrees to pay an average hourly wage of not less than $-
17.37 per hour annually for those new jobs which are eligible for Grant hereunder. This
per hour wage will be adjusted on the third and six anniversary of the Effective Date of
this Agreement for wage rate inflation based upon the difference in the date of the
Agreement and the Consumer Price Index three years and then six years from the
Effective Date of the Agreement.
The percentage change (in wage rate) will be added to the target wage rate in the
Agreement. The COMPANY shall provide written verification satisfactory to the
COUNTY that the average hourly wage of the new jobs meets the average rate of
$17.37 per hour in the first three years of the Agreement and adjusted as defined above
in year three and year six.
The first report provided by the COMPANY will be the State of Florida Employer's
Quarterly Report (Form RT6) including hours worked per month, total number of
employees, gross wages paid in the quarter and a total of hours and wages for the Top
Executive wages for the quarter previous to the JGIG Application Date. These Top
Executives are defined as the wages for the two (2) highest paid employees on a wage
basis. The COMPANY will provide the hours and wage dollars for these Top Two (2)
Executives for each reporting period. Each quarter after the approval of the JGIG the
COMPANY must provide this information to the COUNTY when filing the Employer's
Quarterly Report (Form RT6). The first report after the Effective Date may include only a
partial quarter due to the approval timing. The base period or the adjusted base period
at three (3) years or six (6) years will be subtracted from the current twelve (12) month
report to equal net growth of hours and wages. The net wages will be divided by the net
hours for the average hourly wage rate to compare to the adjusted targeted minimum
hourly wage level.
The COMPANY'S failure to maintain its hourly wage level commitment for any year will
result in the forfeiture of the Grant amount for that year. Such forfeiture will not preclude
the COMPANY'S receipt of scheduled Grant amounts for subsequent years in which it is
able to maintain its hourly wage level commitment.
3. Job Creation Commitment.
As a condition precedent to, and as consideration for obtaining JGIG funds from the
COUNTY, the COMPANY agrees to create a minimum of 50 new Full -Time Equivalent
Jobs in St. Lucie County over the term of this Agreement as more specifically set forth
on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. These new jobs will be phased
in on the following schedule;
3
Packet Pg. 70
8.C.2.b
Year One after Effective Date a minimum of 10 jobs,
Year Two after Effective Date a minimum of 10 jobs,
Year Three after Effective Date a minimum of 10 jobs,
Year Four after Effective Date a minimum of 10 jobs,
Year Five after Effective Date a minimum of 10 jobs.
To obtain the Grant amount for jobs created, the annual calculation of jobs created must
meet or exceed the minimum job levels and meet the hourly wage requirements.
The annual calculation of the incremental jobs will be determined by taking the Base
Period quarterly reported hours and dividing by 455 (35 hours x 52 weeks x .25 of year)
to arrive at a full time employee count. The same calculation for the current year shall be
made by taking the reported annual hours divided by 1820 (35 hours x 52 weeks) to
arrive at a full time employee count. The Base Period employee count shall be
subtracted from the current employee count then comparing to the minimum jobs
committed by the COMPANY to create.
If the company does not achieve the job creation goal stated within the Job Growth
Investment Grant, but has achieved a minimum of 85% of the job creation commitment
for the period, the JGIG amount will be recalculated for the scheduled year. The County
will recalculate the Grant amount based on the actual job levels obtained, and pay the
annual amount as calculated reduced by 50%. The COMPANY'S failure to achieve a
minimum job creation of 85% of the job creation commitment for any one year will result
in the forfeiture of the entire Grant amount it was scheduled to receive for that year and
such funds shall not be available in a subsequent year of the Grant. The COMPANY'S
failure to receive funds in any year it fails to meet or maintain its job creation
commitment shall not be grounds for an extension of the established payment schedule.
4. Term: Termination.
This Agreement shall be effective upon the date of execution of this contract by both
parties hereto, and shall automatically terminate ten (10) years after the Effective Date
unless terminated earlier by the County because of a default by the COMPANY provided
however, provisions of this contract shall survive the termination of the contract.
5. Grant Eligibility; Payment Schedule.
a. Eligibility Determination; Payment. The initial eligibility determination for
payment of the JGIG shall be made on the first anniversary of the Effective Date
of this Agreement. Subsequent eligibility determinations shall be made at each
subsequent anniversary of the Effective Date of this Agreement.
Payment of JGIG Funds shall be made as follows: All Grants with an Effective
Date between October 1st and March 31 st will be paid by May 15th after the
successful completion and submission of the required documentation each year.
All Grants with an Effective Date between April 1st and September 30th will be
paid by November 15th after the successful completion and submission of the
required documentation each year.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, should the date for filing the last annual
Employer's Quarterly Report (Form RT6), not coincide with the date that an
eligibility determination is made; the COMPANY shall have the right to file a
0
Packet Pg. 71
8.C.2.b
L
7
report, in a form substantially similar to an Employer's Quarterly Report in a form
acceptable to the COUNTY for payment.
b. Subject to continued compliance with the requirements of Paragraph 2 and 3 of
this Agreement, the COMPANY is eligible for a Job Growth Investment Grant
(hereinafter a "Grant") of an amount up to $97,500 which Grant shall be payable
as follows:
(1) Qualified Targeted Industry Tax Refund Local Financial Match:
Year 1 - $10,000
Year 2 - $10,000
Year 3 - $10,000
Year 4 - $10,000
Year 5 - $10,000
TOTAL $50,000
(2) Job Growth Investment Grant:
Year 1 - $9,500
Year 2 $9,500
Year 3 - $9,500
Year 4 - $9,500
Year 5 - $9,500
TOTAL $47,500
This 5 year payout period will begin January 1, 2019, and continue on January 1
of each year thereafter through the 5 year payment payout based on payout
schedule noted in paragraph 5 section b. The COUNTY shall pay $1,950 per
Full -Time Equivalent Job.
Relocation Commitment.
The parties acknowledge and agree that the JGIG incentive agreement was an
inducement to have the COMPANY expand or relocate to St. Lucie County. This means
that the COMPANY made the decision to expand or relocate after considering the JGIG
package. As a condition precedent to, and as consideration for obtaining JGIG funds
from COUNTY, the COMPANY agrees to locate or expand its business operations
to/within St. Lucie County for a period of at least 5 years after the last scheduled-JGIG
payment. Should the Company relocate before the agreed number of years, all grant
dollars paid to the Company shall be paid back to the County within a 120 day period.
Annual Job Status.
The COMPANY must provide the COUNTY with the Employer's Quarterly Report RT6 of
its business operations within St. Lucie County on the State form RT6 as amended. The
COMPANY shall provide the reports at the same time it provides the State of Florida
with the reports. With prior approval of the COUNTY, the COMPANY may submit a
form substantially similar to the annual Employer's Quarterly Report (Form RT6)
provided that information necessary to meet the requirements of this grant award is
provided in a form acceptable to the COUNTY the alternative form must be notarized
and signed on Company letterhead.
5
Packet Pg. 72
8.C.2.b
8. Grant Restriction.
The JGIG funds available under this Agreement as referenced in paragraph 5 will be
provided only for reimbursement of expenses associated with the physical move,
relocation and/or expansion of the COMPANY to St. Lucie County including but not
limited to corporate or COMPANY relocation expenses, infrastructure costs, leasehold
improvements, real property improvements, site development, and manufacturing
equipment for the new and/or expanded facility, COMPANY sponsored child day care
facilities, rent for COMPANY facilities, lease buyouts, training expenses and other
expenses approved by the Job Growth Investment Grant Committee.
9. Default: Termination.
In the event the COMPANY defaults in the performance of its guarantees and
commitments as provided for in this Agreement, the COUNTY may, at its option,
terminate this Agreement.
10. Indemnification.
For the sum of ten ($10.00) dollars consideration, receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, the COMPANY shall indemnify and save harmless and defend the
COUNTY, its servants, and employees from and against any and all claims, liabilities,
losses, and/or cause of action which may arise from any negligent act or omission of the
COMPANY, its agents, servants, or employees in the performance of services under
this Agreement.
11. Forum; Venue.
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida. Any and all legal
action necessary to enforce the Agreement will be held in St. Lucie County or the
Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida. No remedy herein conferred
upon any party is intended to be exclusive of any other remedy, and each and every
such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given
hereunder or now or hereafter existing by law or in equity or by statute or otherwise. No
single or partial exercise by any party of any right, power, or remedy hereunder shall
preclude any other or further exercise thereof.
12. Lobbyist Certification.
The COMPANY warrants that it has not employed or retained any company or person,
other than a bona fide employee working solely for the COMPANY to solicit or secure
this Agreement and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any person, company,
corporation, individual, or firm, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the
COMPANY, any fee, commission, percentage, gift, or any other consideration
contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement.
13. No Discrimination Certification.
The COMPANY warrants and represents that all of its employees are treated equally
during employment without regard to race, color, religion, disability, sex, age, national
origin, ancestry, marital status, or sexual orientation.
A
Packet Pg. 73
8.C.2.b
14
15
Attorneys' Fees.
If any legal action or other proceeding is brought for the enforcement of this Agreement,
or because of an alleged dispute, breach, default or misrepresentation in connection
with any provisions of this Agreement, the successful or prevailing party or parties shall
be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees, court costs and all expenses (including
taxes) even if not taxable as court costs (including, without limitation, all such fees, costs
and expenses incident to appeals), incurred in that action or proceeding, in addition to
any other relief to which such party or parties may be entitled.
Enforceability.
If any term or provision of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances shall, to any extent, be held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of
this Agreement, or the application of such terms or provision, to persons or
circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be
affected, and every other term and provision of this Agreement shall be deemed valid
and enforceable to the extent permitted by law. The COMPANY'S failure to maintain its
job creation commitment or salary level commitment for any one year will result in the
forfeiture of the Grant amount it was scheduled to receive for that year; however, such
forfeiture will not preclude the COMPANY'S receipt of scheduled Grant amounts for
those subsequent years in which it is able to maintain its job creation and salary level
commitment.
16. Assignment.
The COMPANY shall not assign this Agreement to any other persons or firm without first
obtaining COUNTY'S written approval.
17. Conflict of Interest.
im
The COMPANY represents that it presently has no interest and shall acquire no interest,
either direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of
services required herein, as provided for in Section 112.311, Florida Statutes. The
COMPANY further represents that no person having any interest shall be employed for
said performance.
Notices.
All notices required in this Agreement shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt
requested and if sent to the COUNTY shall be mailed to:
To County:
St. Lucie County Administrator
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, FL 34982
7
With copy to:
St. Lucie County Attorney
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, FL 34982
Packet Pg. 74
8.C.2.b
To Company:
City Electric Supply, Co.
660 NW Peacock Blvd.
Port St. Lucie, FL 34986
19. Entire Agreement.
The COUNTY and the COMPANY agree that this Agreement sets forth the entire
Agreement between the parties, and that there are no promises or understandings other
than those stated herein. None of the provisions, terms and conditions contained in this
Agreement may be added to, modified, superseded or otherwise altered, except by
written instrument executed by the parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has
made and executed this Agreement on behalf of the COUNTY and COMPANY has hereunto
sets its hand the day and year above written.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST: ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
Deputy Clerk Chair
ATTEST:
Secretary
(Corporate Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNESS:
County Attorney
CITY ELECTRIC SUPPLY, CO.
BY:
President
Date
Packet Pg. 75
8.C.2.b
Exhibit A
To the Job Growth Investment Grant Agreement
between St. Lucie County and
City Electric Supply Company
Target:
Industry Category eligible for application. Qualified companies are listed on the Target
Industry List attached — circle the qualified industry. Attachment Exhibit A — 1
Application Section Criteria:
X Expansion
New Business
Relocation
Employment Commitment:
50 of net new jobs (number)
of net new jobs (number)
of net new jobs (number)
COMPANY is receiving this grant based upon its representation that it will bring the
following employment opportunities to St. Lucie County:
272
Total number of employees (new and existing) expected during term of
grant
50
New, full time employees (eligible for grant application) expected during
term of grant
90%
% of County residents
$17.37
Average hourly wage of all employees to be employed by company
$17.37
Current average hourly wage in St. Lucie County (per QTI
approval/2016 Enterprise Florida Wage report)
$38,000,000
Capital Investment Amount (Building improvements, equipment etc.)
IV. Grant Amount:
Grant award calculation not to exceed $1,500,000 including bonuses
$75,000
Base Grant Amount $1,500 X number of new jobs eligible for grant
Bonus computations:
$15,000 50-99 total new jobs (20% bonus)
100-199 total new jobs (30% bonus)
200+ total new jobs (35% bonus)
9
Packet Pg. 76
8.C.2.b
$3,750 90% or more local hires — St. Lucie County Residents (5% bonus)
-- Average salary for applicant's jobs will be 125% of St. Lucie County
average salary (15% bonus)
-- Average salary for applicant's jobs will be 150% of St. Lucie County
average salary (30% bonus)
Research Firm (30% bonus)
$3,750 Use of local contractors for construction activity* (5% bonus)
$22,500 Total Bonuses
$97,500 Total Grant (base amount + total bonuses)
Local contractors are those contractors who are licensed in St. Lucie County and have an
office located in St. Lucie County.
10
Packet Pg. 77
8.C.2.b
ExhibitA- 1
St. Lucie County Targeted Industries List
MANUFACTURING FACILITIES
Appliance Component Manufacturing
Aquaculture
Aviation & Aerospace Manufacturing
Boat and Allied Products Mfg.
Chemical Manufacturing
Computer & Electronic Component Mfg.
Computer & Electronic Product Mfg.
Electrical Equipment Manufacturing
Electromedical Apparatus Mfg.
Fiber Optic Cable Manufacturing
Food & Beverage Products Manufacturing
Instruments for Measuring & Testing Elec.
Laser Manufacturing
Lens Manufacturing
Machinery Manufacturing
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Power Distrib., Generation & Technology
Printing & Related Support Activities
Software Reproducing
Surgical & Medical Instrument Mfg.
Transportation Equipment Manufacturing
Wood & Paper Product Manufacturing
FINANCE & INSURANCE SERVICES
Funds, Trust & Other Financial Vehicles
INFORMATION INDUSTRIES
Data Processing Services
Film, Video/Electronic Media Production
Information Services & Data Processing
Music Publishing
Satellite Communications
Software Publishing
Telecommunications
11
CLEAN ENERGY
Biomass Energy and Biofuels
Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technologies
Ocean Energy
Other Renewables
Solar Energy
PROFESSIONAL, SCIENTIFIC &
TECHNICAL SERVICES
Bio-Medical & Bio-Science
Computer Programming/Software
Computer System Design
Management, Scientific & Tech Services
Nano Technology
Professional, Scientific & Technical
Research & Development
Scientific & Technical Consulting Svc
Simulation Training
Testing Laboratories
MANAGEMENT & DISTRIBUTION
Distribution Centers
Management Services
National, International & Regional Hdqtrs
ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT
SERVICES
Technical Support
Other industries may be considered by the
Board of County Commissioners if the
company can improve the quality of life
within the community by creating new jobs
and/or high wage jobs.
Packet Pg. 78
8.C.2.b
Exhibit B
To the Job Growth Investment Grant
Agreement between St. Lucie County and
City Electric Supply Company
Company Identification and Information
Application Code Number
Effective Date
Company Description Electrical Manufacturer
Board Approval
Date
Local mailing address of company/
location of new business Tradition Commerce Park
12
Packet Pg. 79
8.D.1
ITEM NO. RES-2017-268
J
COUNTY
` R I ID A AGENDA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
PRESENTED BY:
SUBMITTED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Renee Scott, Human Services Manager
Human Services Division
DATE: 12/05/2017
*CONSENT
AGENDA\COMMUNITY
SERVICES
Resolution - Modification of Community Services Block Grant (CSBG)
The Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) annually provides additional mid -year funding for
the Community Services Block Grant. St. Lucie County is the award recipient for the Treasure Coast
Community Action Agency, encompassing Martin, Okeechobee and St. Lucie Counties. Funds are used to
assist residents in overcoming barriers to self-sufficiency, including childcare, nutrition support,
transportation, medical care, education and interventions for independent living.
The initial allocation for FY17 was $517,059. The modification increases the agreement total to $904,290
and extends the period of agreement until September 30, 2020. The increased funds include a return of
prior year unspent dollars and an estimated amount for 2018. Each County receives the prior year carry
forward funds and a State indicated portion of the new funds, less 10% administrative costs for St. Lucie
County. The State set percentages for each County are Martin 27%, Okeechobee 13% and St. Lucie 60%.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
12/20/2016- Board approved the FY17 CSBG allocation, resolution and sub -recipient agreements.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The FY 18 budget for the Community Services Block Grant FY17 (CSBG) fund needs to be modified to
include additional funds in the amount of $565,249, which includes $178,018 from FY 2017 that need to
be carried forward and $387,231 in new grant funds. Funds will be deposited into account string 001585-
6420-331691-600.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of budget resolution to recognize funds carried forward from prior fiscal year
and Board approval of the FY17 Community Services Block Grant modification (17SB-OD-12-00-01-123)
and resolution and authorization for the Chair to sign documents as approved by the County Attorney.
Packet Pg. 80
8.D.1
COMMISSION ACTION:
Coordination/Signatures
if) ax��O A"
I a Wesloskl, Housing Manager 1/17 17
anie . McIntyre, CAtorney 11/22/2017
7,,� /,/, Z(T1Kx �
rk S er ee, Dep County ministrato 11/28/2017
0', 4t �
Jenn Interim ffic of r and B dget Direct 11/20/2017
Updated: 12/1/2017 8:51 AM by Katrina Slay
Page 2
Packet Pg. 81
8.D.1.a
DocuSign Envelope ID: 911A944D-FFB8-4A27-9444-DF1ADC5E7FFD
MODIFICATION NUMBER [1] OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
FFY 2017 COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT (CSBG) PROGRAM AND
ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CFDA Number: 93.569 Agreement Number: 17SB-OD-12-00-01-123
FEDERALLY FUNDED SUBGRANT AGREEMENT
THIS MODIFICATION Number [1] is entered into between the State of Florida, Department of Economic
Opportunity, with headquarters in Tallahassee, Florida, hereinafter referred to as "DEO," and St Lucie County, Florida,
hereinafter referred to as "Subrecipient" (each individually a "Party" and collectively "the Parties").
WHEREAS, DEO and Subrecipient have entered into Agreement Number 17SB-OD-12-00-01-123, in which DEO
awarded Subrecipient Five Hundred Seventeen Thousand Fifty -Nine Dollars and Zero Cents ($517,059.00) in Community
Service Block Grant (CSBG) funds ("the Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, Paragraph (4)(b) of the Agreement provides that "[m]odifications to this Agreement must be in writing,
on DEO-approved forms, as applicable, and duly signed by the Parties"; and
WHEREAS, CSBG Federal Fiscal Year 2016 carryover and Federal Fiscal Year 2017 funds are available to increase
the amount of funding granted to Subrecipient.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises of the Parties contained herein, the Parties agree as
follows:
1. Paragraph (3) PERIOD OF AGREEMENT is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
"This Agreement period will begin on October 1, 2016, and will end on September 30, 2020, unless terminated
earlier in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph (13) of this Agreement. For avoidance of all doubt,
notwithstanding anything else herein, including, but not limited to Exhibit 1-A, FUNDING SOURCES. and
Attachment I, SUBRECIPIENT INFORMATION: the subaward period of performance starts October 1, 2016 and
ends September 30, 2020."
2. Subparagraph (18)(a), FUNDING/CONSIDERATION. is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following:
"(a) This is a cost -reimbursement agreement. DEO awards Subrecipient Nine Hundred Four Thousand Two
Hundred Ninety Dollars and Zero Cents ($904,290.00), subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, availability
of funds and appropriate budget authority; however, Subrecipient may incur costs and submit for reimbursement only up
to the Total (Revised) Funds Released dollar amount listed in Subrecipient's most recently DEO-issued Notice of Fund
Availability (NFA). Each such NFA, and any attachments thereto, duly issued to Subrecipient by DEO, including, but not
limited to its special terms, conditions, and instructions, is incorporated into the Agreement by reference."
3. Attachment J, Budget Summary, is hereby deleted in its entirety.
Page 1
Packet Pg. 82
DocuSign Envelope ID: 911A944D-FFB8-4A27-9444-DFIADC5E7FFD
4. Attachment A, Scope of Work, Section E, PROGRAM TASKS & REQUIREMENTS,, subparagraph (10) is hereby
deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
"(10) Pursuant to the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 (WIOA), Public Law 113-128 (29 U.S.C.,
§§ 3101-3344), Subrecipient, in carrying out employment and training activities, as defined in section 3 of the WIOA, and
pursuant to section 676(b)(5) of the Community Services Block Grant Act, is a required partner and must integrate these
programs into the CareerSource Florida, Inc., "One -Stop" delivery system. Each partner program administered by
Subrecipient in the one -stop center will contribute to infrastructure costs at a rate negotiated and agreed upon by and
between Subrecipient and the CareerSource Florida, Inc., local workforce development board(s) in its service area through
the establishment of a memorandum of understanding in compliance with title 29 U.S.C. section 3151 of the WIOA and
corresponding federal regulations and guidance."
5. To the extent there is any conflict between the provisions of this Modification, including any attachments and
exhibits thereto, and the provisions of the Agreement, including any attachments and exhibits thereto, the provisions of
this Modification shall supersede and control.
6. All provisions of the Agreement, including any attachments or exhibits thereto, not amended by or in conflict with
this Modification, remain in full force and effect.
The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.
Page 2
Packet Pg. 83
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9l lA944D-FFB8-4A27-9444-DF1ADC5E7FFD
8.D.1.a
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
FEDERALLY FUNDED SUBGRANT AGREEMENT
SIGNATURE PAGE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, by signature below, the Parties agree to abide by the terms, conditions and
provisions of the Agreement, as modified. This Modification shall be effective on the date on which the last Party signed
the Agreement, whichever is latest.
SUBRECIPIENT
ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
(Signature)
(Print/Type Name and Title Here)
Date:
59-6000835
Federal Identification Number
072215403
DUNS Number
17SB-OD-12-00-01-123
Agreement Number'
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
By:
Debbie Smiley, Bureau Chief
Bureau of Economic Self -Sufficiency
Date:
Approved as to form and legal
sufficiency, subject only to full and
proper execution by the Parties.
Office of the General Counsel
Department of Economic Opportunity
By:
Approved Date: _
Page 3
Q
Packet Pg. 84
8.D.1.b
FY17 CSBG Breakdown
FY17 CSBG
% by County
Original Dollars by
County
Modification
Carryforward
2018 Estimated
Amount
Total Amount to expend for
FY17 Modification
Martin County
27%
$ 125,645
$ 17,981
$ 81,292
$ 224,919
Okeechobee County
13%
$ 60,496
$ 14,339
$ 39,141
$ 113,976
St. Lucie County
60%
$ 279,212
$ 20,373
$ 180,650
$ 480,235
St. Lucie Oversight
$ 51,706
$ -
$ 33,454
$ 85,160
Totals
100%
$ 517,059
$ 52,694
$ 334,537
$ 904,290
ti
O
W
N
O
N
v)
w
N
C
3
U-
0
�a
U
�a
0
L
0
3
0
M
m
L
m
c
0
U
LO
ti
0
N
0
O
r
C
d
E
t
V
r�
Q
Packet Pg. 85
RESOLUTION
8.D.1.c
WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners for St
Lucie County, certain funds not anticipated at the time of adoption of the budget have become available
from the Department of Health & Human Services in the amount of $565,249, as funding for the Community
Services Block Grant.
WHEREAS, Section 129.06 (d), Florida Statutes, requires the Board of County Commissioners to adopt a
resolution to appropriate and expend such funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County,
Florida, in meeting assembled this 5th day of December, 2017 pursuant to Section 129.06 (d), Florida
Statutes that such funds are hereby appropriated for the fiscal year 2017-2018, and the County's budget is
hereby amended as follows:
REVENUE
001585-6420-331691-600 Dept of Health & Human Services
APPROPRIATIONS
001585-6420-583000-600 Other Grants & Aids
After motion and second the vote on this resolution was as follows:
Commissioner Chris Dzadovsky, Chairman
Commissioner Tod Mowery, Vice Chairman
Commissioner Linda Bartz
Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson
Commissioner Cathy Townsend
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED THIS 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017.
ATTEST:
$565,249
$565,249
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
CHAIR
APPROVED AS TO CORRECTNESS
AND FORM:
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Packet Pg. 86
8.D.2
ITEM NO. RES-2017-269
AGENDA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
DATE: 12/05/2017
*CONSENT
AGENDA\COMMUNITY
SERVICES
PRESENTED BY: Diana Wesloski, Housing Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Housing Services Division
SUBJECT: Resolution - Hurricane Loss Mitigation Program (HLMP)
BACKGROUND:
During the roll over process of the FY17 budget, $5,481 in grant funding was inadvertently not carried
over to the FY18 budget.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
June 6, 2017-The Board approved the contract between the Florida Division of Emergency Management
(FDEM) and St. Lucie County and the budget resolution.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
$5,481 in grant funds from FY 2017 need to be carried forward into FY 2018. No financial match is
required by the County. Funds will be deposited into the Hurricane Loss Mitigation account string
(001466-5420-334693-500).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Board approval of the budget resolution to recognize funds carried forward from FY17,
and authorization for the Chair to sign documents as approved by County Attorney.
COMMISSION ACTION:
Packet Pg. 87
Coordination/Signatures
i a Wesloski, Housing Manager 1/15 17
4aniieA..McIntyre, C my ttorney 11/22/2017
rk 5 er ee 1 ep C o u n t-y-Ad ministrato 11/28/2017
Updated: 12/1/2017 8:51 AM by Katrina Slay Page 2
Packet Pg. 88
RESOLUTION
8.D.2.a
WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners for St
Lucie County, certain funds not anticipated at the time of adoption of the budget have become available
from the State of Florida Division of Emergency Management in the form of a grant in the amount of $5,481,
as funding for the Hurricane Loss Mitigation Program (HLMP)
WHEREAS, Section 129.06 (d), Florida Statutes, requires the Board of County Commissioners to adopt a
resolution to appropriate and expend such funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County,
Florida, in meeting assembled this 5th day of December, 2017 pursuant to Section 129.06 (d), Florida
Statutes that such funds are hereby appropriated for the fiscal year 2017-2018, and the County's budget is
hereby amended as follows:
REVENUE
001466-5420-334693-500 FL Division of Emergency Mgmt. $5,481
APPROPRIATIONS
001466-5420-549605-500 Rehab Expenditures $5,481
After motion and second the vote on this resolution was as follows:
Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson, Chairman XXX
Commissioner Tod Mowery, Vice Chairman XXX
Commissioner Linda Bartz XXX
Commissioner Chris Dzadovsky XXX
Commissioner Cathy Townsend XXX
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED THIS 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017.
ATTEST:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
CHAIR
APPROVED AS TO CORRECTNESS
AND FORM:
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Packet Pg. 89
8.J.1
ITEM NO. RES-2017-270
J
COUNTY
` R I ID A AGENDA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
PRESENTED BY:
SUBMITTED BY:
CIIRIFrT-
BACKGROUND:
Susan Jacob, Library Manager
Library Services Department
DATE: 12/05/2017
*CONSENT AGENDA\LIBRARY
SERVICES
Memorandum of Understanding - Rupert J. Smith Law Library
In August, 2013, the County purchased an almost 21,000 square foot former City of Port St. Lucie Police
substation with the intention to renovate this well constructed building into a large Public Library Branch.
Located at 2950 Rosser Boulevard the building is situated in the densely populated Southwest quadrant of
the County and will include a branch of the Rupert J. Smith Law Library. On November 22, 2016, the
branch Library known as the Rosser Boulevard Branch was renamed the Paula A. Lewis Library.
On February 17, 2015, St. Lucie County entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the
Rupert J. Smith Law Library. The Law Library will be responsible for costs not to exceed $55,000 to build
out approximately 800 square feet of space set aside for their use. Under the terms of the MOU, $30,000
is the first payment and this payment was made to the County in 2015. The renovation of the Paula A.
Lewis Branch has been completed and the library opened to the public on October 24, 2017. The Rupert
Smith Law Library has made the second and final payment of $25,000.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
February 17, 2015 -The Board approved a MOU-C15-02-069 regarding the Rosser Boulevard Branch
Library and the Rupert J. Smith Law Library
July 24, 2015- The Board approved Budget Resolution RES-2015-114 establishing a budget for the initial
$30,000 payment for the Law Library's build out of the Rosser property.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
At the time the FY18 budget was adopted, the exact amount of the final payment from the Rupert J. Smith
Law Library for their completed build out at the Paula A. Lewis Library had not been determined;
therefore, a budget needs to be established to expend these funds at the Lewis Branch. Per the MOU, the
Rupert J. Smith Law Library will now pay the County a final $25,000 in compensation for funds expended
on the buildout. Funding will be made available in the SLC Rosser Branch Library Account (001-7110-
337940-137608) and will be used to complete the project.
Packet Pg. 90
8.J.1
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Board approval of the budget resolution and authorization for the Chair to sign
documents as approved by the County Attorney.
COMMISSION ACTION:
Coordination/Signatures
,d s A ZI Am OZI
IV or
Susan Jacob, Library Man 11/15/2017
11J20J2017anie SWMclntyre,nt,orney 11/22/2017 TInterim fiof d dget Direcr a
7, " V" /" Z (4 � �
t•k S er ee, 6e6u county ministrato 11/28/2017
Updated: 12/1/2017 8:53 AM by Katrina Slay Page 2
Packet Pg. 91
O
C J 5 - Da Dm9
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING reg ding the Rosser Boulevard Branch
Library, is made and entered into this 7 day of i 201Ay and between ST.
LUCIE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida hereinafter referred to as the
"County"), and RUPERT J. SMITH LAW LIBRARY a Florida nonprofit corporation, (hereinafter
referred to as the "Law Library").
WITNESSESTH:
WHEREAS, the County is renovating a former police substation at 2950 Rosser Blvd. (the
"Site") to a full service public library; and,
WHEREAS, the Law Library is a special district charged with providing law library services
to the legal community and general population of St. Lucie County and surrounding areas; and,
WHEREAS, the County and the Law Library wish to share the Site for a branch law library;
and,
WHEREAS, the parties desire to outline the expectations, duties and responsibilities for
sharing the Site.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties of this Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") agree as
follows:
1. Purpose. The purpose of this MOU is to establish the parties' expectations,
duties and responsibilities with regard to the renovation and use of the Site as a full service public
library and a law library. The parties shall enter into a Facilities Use Agreement prior to the Law
Library occupying the Area defined herein.
2. Law Library Location Within Site. The parties will mutually agree on an
approximately 800 square foot area within the Site which will serve as the law library ("Area").
3. The Law Library's Responsibilities.
• The Law Library will be responsible for all costs associated with furnishing
the Area.
• The Law Library will work with the County and the County's design team
to design the Area consistent with the overall Site design theme.
• The Area will be accessible to the general public when the Area is staffed
by Law Library staff.
Page 1 of 5
Packet Pg. 92
8.J.1.a
• The Area will be accessible to registered attorneys 24 hours per day, 7 days
per week. Attorneys will not have access to the Site outside of the Area
when the Site is closed to the general public.
• To accommodate the Law Library's need for unfiltered internet, the Law
Library will install a dedicated internet cable/data line exclusively for Law
Library's use. The Law Library will be responsible for the cost of this line.
The Law Library will work with the County's design team to coordinate the
installation of internet cable/data lines.
• The Law Library will be responsible for its own Wi-Fi, including access
points, router and bandwidth. This would need to be password protected.
• The Law Library will staff the Area based on the Site's operating hours,
demand and financial resources. The Law Library's initial goal is to staff the
Area approximately a minimum of twenty (20) hours per week.
• The Law Library will provide some training to Site staff so that they might
be of assistance to law library patrons during public library hours.
• The Law Library will pay no rent for the Area.
• The Law Library will be responsible for the actual cost of building out the
Area up to a maximum of fifty-five thousand dollars ($55,000.00) based on
a design mutually agreed to by the parties. All Area build out costs in excess
of $55,000.00, if any, shall be the County's responsibility. The Law Library
may enhance the build out, with the County's prior written agreement, at
the Law Library's expense.
• The Law Library shall pay the County thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00)
prior to July 1, 2015 which shall be used for the cost of building out the
Area. If the renovation project does not move forward within twelve (12)
months of the date of this MOU, then the County shall return the
$30,000.00 to the Law Library, without interest, within thirty (30) days of
the Law Library's written request to return the money.
• At the time the Site receives a certificate of occupancy or is otherwise
available for occupancy and use, the Law Library shall pay the County the
additional monies due for the actual cost of the Area build out within thirty
(30) days of receiving notice from the County that the Site is available for
use and the amount due. In no event shall the additional monies due the
County exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00).
• In the event the County terminates this MOU pursuant to Section 5 within
five (5) years of the date of this MOU, then the County shall reimburse the
Law Library a pro rata share of the Area's actual build out costs. The pro
rata share shall be determined by dividing the Area's actual build out costs
by sixty (60) months and then multiplying that amount by the number of
months remaining in the initial 5 year period.
Page 2 of 5
Packet Pg. 93
8.J.1.a
4. County Responsibilities.
• The County will provide full access to the Site Wi-Fi if requested by the Law
Library.
• The County will provide the Law Library with up to four VOIP telephone
lines and dedicated phone numbers.
• The County will provide the Law Library with approximately 800 square
feet at the Site which will be dedicated for law library use and which will
be controlled and managed by the Law Library in cooperation and
coordination with the County. The Area will have afterhours doorway
access so that registered attorneys will have 24 hours per day, 7 days per
week access to the Area using a key card provided by Law Library . The
Area will have 24 hours per day, 7 days per week access to a handicap
accessible unisex bathroom. In addition to the Law Library space, the Law
Library will have access to a joint use conference room and during Law
Library operating hours the Law Library shall have exclusive use of the
conference room. In exchange for and in consideration of the Law Library
providing branch law library services, the County will pay for all Site utilities
(water, sewer, electric and trash pickup), security camera maintenance,
and general housekeeping services.
5. Term and Termination. This MOU will continue until terminated by either party.
Either party may terminate this MOU by giving the other party at least six (6) months prior written
notice of the party's intent to terminate as of a date certain. Upon the termination, all furnishings
purchased by the Law Library will remain the Law Library's property and may be disposed of by
the Law Library as it sees fit. Upon the termination, neither party will be responsible to the other
party for any costs associated with Site or Area build out.
6. Notices. All notices, requests, consents and other communications required or
permitted under this Memorandum of Understanding shall be in writing (including telex and
telegraphic communication) and shall be (as elected by the person giving such notice) hand
delivered by messenger or courier service, telecommunicated, or mailed (airmail if international)
by registered or certified mail (postage prepaid), return receipt requested, addressed to:
As to County:
St. Lucie County Administrator
2300 Virginia Avenue
Administration Annex
Fort Pierce, FL 34982
With a copy to:
St. Lucie County Attorney
2300 Virginia Avenue
Administration Annex
Fort Pierce, FL 34982
Page 3 of 5
Packet Pg. 94
8.J.1.a
As to RSLL:
Rupert J. Smith Law Library
Of St. Lucie County
102 Courthouse Addition
218 Second Street
Fort Pierce, FL 34950
Nora J. Everlove
Everlove & Associates
412 65t" St. N.
St. Petersburg, FL 33710
or to such other address as any party may designate by notice complying with the terms of this
Section. Each such notice shall be deemed delivered (a) on the date delivered if by personal
delivery, (b) on the date telecommunicated if by telegraph, (c) on the date of transmission with
confirmed answer bank if by telex, and (d) on the date upon which the return receipt is signed or
delivery is refused or the notice is designated by the postal authorities as not deliverable, as the
case may be, if mailed. Whenever any party hereto is required to give its approval or
disapproval to any matter contained herein, such approval or disapproval shall be given within
twenty (20) days from receipt of written requests for approval or approval shall be deemed to be
granted.
7. Governing Law and Venue. The validity and interpretation of this Memorandum
of Understanding and the legal relations between the parties hereto shall be governed by the
laws of the State of Florida. In the event it is necessary for either party to initiate legal action
regarding this Memorandum of Understanding, venue shall be in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit
in and for St. Lucie County, Florida, for claims under state law and the Southern District of Florida
for any claims, which are justiciable in federal court.
8. Entire Agreement. Unless otherwise specified, this Memorandum of
Understanding embodies the entire understanding between the parties, and any prior or
contemporaneous representations, either oral or written, are hereby superseded. No
amendments or changes to this Memorandum of Understanding shall be effective unless made
in writing and signed by an authorized representative of each party.
Page 4 of 5
Packet Pg. 95
8.J.1.a
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands and seals as of the day and
year first above written.
Q
Deputy Clerk
Revised 02/16/2015
s:\atty\agreemnt\Rupert J Smith Library -Rosser
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY. FLORIDA
BY:
Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
COF�R�CTNEA: ,
BY:
Countv Attorn
RUPERT J. SMITH INN LIBRARY
OF ST. LUCIE Y
BY:
Page 5 of 5
Signature
Packet Pg. 96
RESOLUTION
8.J.1.b
WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners for St
Lucie County, certain funds not anticipated at the time of adoption of the budget have become available
from the Law Library in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding, in the amount of $25,000 for the
Rosser Library build out.
WHEREAS, Section 129.06 (d), Florida Statutes, requires the Board of County Commissioners to adopt a
resolution to appropriate and expend such funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County,
Florida, in meeting assembled this 5th day of December, 2017 pursuant to Section 129.06 (d), Florida
Statutes that such funds are hereby appropriated for the fiscal year 2017-2018, and the County's budget is
hereby amended as follows:
REVENUE
001-7110-337940-137608 Other Local Grants $25,000
APPROPRIATIONS
001-7110-562000-137608 Buildings $25,000
After motion and second the vote on this resolution was as follows:
Commissioner Chris Dzadovsky, Chairman XXX
Commissioner Tod Mowery, Vice Chairman XXX
Commissioner Linda Bartz XXX
Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson XXX
Commissioner Cathy Townsend XXX
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED THIS 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017.
ATTEST:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
CHAIR
APPROVED AS TO CORRECTNESS
AND FORM:
COUNTY ATTORNEY
r
7
00
c
W
E
U
ca
Q
Packet Pg. 97
8.M.1
ITEM NO. (ID # 4770)
TO:
PRESENTED BY:
SUBMITTED BY:
ci irtirrT-
BACKGROUND:
AGENDA REQUEST
Board of County Commissioners
Matt Baum, Parks & Special Facilities Manager
Parks & Special Facilities Division
DATE
12/05/2017
*CONSENT AGENDA\PARKS,
RECREATION & FACILITIES
St. Lucie County Parks and Beach Access Mobile Food Vendor Pilot
Program
Several requests have been made by various food truck vendors seeking permission to provide food
concession. The Planning and Development Services Department approved the PDS order 17-001 WDA
2201751098 on February 10, 2017 to allow mobile food vendors an accessory use to parks within the
institutional (1) zoning district that permits the County to allow mobile food vendors to provide this
service to the guests at our Park locations. Therefore, the Parks and Recreation Department would like to
offer this Mobile Food Vendor Pilot Program as an opportunity for vendors to service our community
while collecting the valuable data that this pilot program will provide the County. This data will help the
County make informed decisions in the future when considering this type of service on a more permanent
basis.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There will be a positive financial impact. All revenues collected will be entered into The Parks and
Recreation point of sale system and recorded in the corresponding fund and program number under
concessions line item# xxx-xxxx-369910-xxxx.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Board approval of the proposed St. Lucie County Parks and Beach Access Food Truck
Pilot Program, a draft of guidelines are attached, and authorization for the Chair to sign documents as
approved by the County Attorney.
COMMISSION ACTION:
Packet Pg. 98
8.M.1
Coordination/Signatures
e�ArY3.lr�f
Edward Matthews, Par s & ecreati n Director 11/27/2017
4anieA..McIntyre, C my ttorney 11/27/2017
rk 5 er ee' ep County ministrato 11/27/2017
Updated: 12/1/2017 8:48 AM by Katrina Slay Page 2
Packet Pg. 99
8.M.1.a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
PDS ORDER 17-011
WDA 2201751098
AN ORDER GRANTING APPROVAL TO ALLOW MOBILE FOOD
VENDORS AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO PARKS WITHIN THE
IINSTITUTIONAL (1) ZONING DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the St. Lucie County Planning and Development Services Director has reviewed the
request to allow mobile food vendors as defined in Land Development Code, Section 7.10.01 —
Mobile Food Vendors as an accessory use to Parks in the Institutional (1) zoning district and made
the following determinations:
1. On August 1, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida,
adopted the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and has adopted amendments to
the Land Development Code through certain ordinances.
2. On May 15, 2012, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida,
adopted Ordinance 12-003 granting the Planning and Development Services Director the
authority to make the determination after full analysis of all potential impacts that a
proposed use is in compliance with the provisions of the Land Development Code and the
St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan.
3. The determination to allow a mobile food vendors as an accessory use to Parks within the
Institutional (1) zoning district is consistent with the general purpose, goals, and objectives of
the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development Code and Ordinance 12-
003, and is in the best interest of the health, safety and public welfare of the citizens of St.
Lucie County, Florida.
4. The proposed amendment will not have an undue adverse effect on adjacent property, the
character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, parking, utility facilities, or other matters
affecting the public health, safety, and general welfare on Parks within the Institutional (1)
zoning district.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED: by the Planning and Development Services Director of
St. Lucie County, Florida:
Mobile food vendors have been determined to be consistent with similar accessory uses in the
Institutional (1) zoning district, and, as such, is determined to be permitted as an accessory use to
Parks in this zoning district.
PART A. SEVERABILITY
If this Order or any provision thereof shall be held to be inapplicable to any person, property, or
circumstances, such holding shall not affect its applicability to any other person, property or
circumstances.
WDA 220175109 PDS 17-011
February 10, 2017 Page 1 of 2
Packet Pg. 100
8.M.1.a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PART B. APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE
This Order shall only constitute approval of mobile food vendors as an accessory use to Parks that
are zoned I (institutional) in the unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County.
PART C. FILING WITH THE CLERK OF COURT
This order shall be recorded in the Public Records of St. Lucie County.
ORDER effective the 10th day of February, 2017.
W DA 220175109
February 10, 2017
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
:yd
Leslie Olson, AICP, Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND CORRECTNESS:
County Attorney
PDS 17-011
Page 2 of 2
Packet Pg. 101
YP1JKA_�) & JKtk_,JL to 11UtN
- DEPARTMENT
St. Lucie County Parks Mobile Food Vendor Pilot Program Authorization
Requirements:
1. Provide a Florida State Food Vending license
2. Provide a certificate of insurances for general liability, auto liability workers comp, if applies.
3. Provide a copy of your business tax license in applicable areas (County and/or City)
4. Provide a copy of solicitor's permit, if required by local law enforcement.
5. Provide all; licenses, certifications or authorizations required by city, state or federal regulations
Rules and Restrictions:
1. No alcohol allowed
2. Must park and set up in approved location at each park and move if asked by SLC Parks Staff,
Police or Fire and Rescue.
3. Must provide trash receptacles, empty and remove from property site.
4. Must keep area neat, clean and orderly.
5. Must display all necessary licenses and County Parks Mobile Food Vending Authorization.
6. Vending privileges may be revoked if vendor does not adhere to rules and regulations.
7. Must be 100% self-contained and operated food truck or trailer.
8. No use of utilities will be permitted.
9. May only operate during posted park hours, sunrise to sunset if not posted.
10. Must remove food truck or trailer and all equipment including trash receptacles within one hour
after closing.
11. St. Lucie County reserves the right to cancel, revoke or revise this authorization at any time for
any reason.
12. County Parks Management will determine which vendors are approved for each location and
any scheduling decisions based on a first come, first serve basis.
13. Multiple vendors may or may not be approved for the same location(s) based on available space
and selections of products offered.
Costs:
Application Fee $50 If approved, an annual fee of $200 per site is due before an authorization will be
issued.
Locations: 1. Waveland Beach
2. Pepper Park Beach Park
3. Savannas Campground
6. Other (Other sites as approved by the Parks & Recreation Dept.)
00
c
W
E
U
ca
a
Packet Pg. 102
ITEM NO. (ID # 4876)
J
COUNTY
` R I ID A AGENDA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
PRESENTED BY:
SUBMITTED BY:
CIIRIFrT-
BACKGROUND:
DATE: 12/05/2017
*CONSENT AGENDA\PARKS &
RECREATION
Willie Redden, Regional Parks and Stadium Manager
Regional Parks & Stadiums Division
Baseball Field Warning Track Repair at First Data Field - Bid #18-012
On November 21, 2017 at 3:00pm, submittals to Bid No. 18-012 were opened. Two submittals were
received; 122 companies were notified and 11 bid documents were distributed.
Staff is requesting the Board's approval to award the bid to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder,
JSM Services, Inc. of Ft. Myers, FL, in the amount of $110,333.86 for the project.
Sufficient funds of $110,333.86 are available in the Sports Complex Improvements Fund, account string
#362-7210-563000-107607, to complete the field repairs.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Sufficient funds of $110,333.86 are available in the Sports Complex Improvement Fund, account string
#362-7210-563000-107607, for the baseball field warning track repair at First Data Field.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Board approval to award Bid No. 18-012 to JSM Services, Inc. of Ft. Myers, FL, the
lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the amount of $110,333.86, and authorize the Chairman to
sign documents as approved by the County Attorney.
COMMISSION ACTION:
Packet Pg. 103
8.M.2
Coordination/Signatures
e�ArY3.lr�f
Edward Matthews, Par s & ecreati n Director 11/27/2017
0A k� tc)
4anieA..McIntyre, C my ttorney 11/27/2017 JInterim 6fficl of and BMW Direct 11 27 01017
rk 5 er ee 1 ep C o u n t-y-Ad ministrato 11/28/2017
Updated: 12/4/2017 1:15 PM by Katrina Slay Page 2
Packet Pg. 104
8.M.2.a
BOARD OF
COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
PURCHASING
DEPARTMENT
TABULATION SHEET — BID #18-012
Baseball Field Warning Track Repair at First Data Field
OPENED: NOVEMBER 21, 2017 AT 3:00 PM
Two (2) submittals were received for subject proposal:
JSM Services, Inc.
Ft. Myers,FL
SCGfields, LLC
Brecksville, OH
Amount
Amount
Total Lump Sum
$ 110,333.86
$ 174,900.00
Number of companies notified*: 122
Number of bid documents distributed: 11
Number of bids received 2
*per demandstar.com
Packet Pg. 105
JJAA -)0 V 1CC' -) -IJ1C _
BID FORM
Board of County Commissioners
St. Lucie County, Florida
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, FL 34982
BID No.18-012
Baseball Field Warning Track Repair at First Data Field
have received the documents title . I have
also received addendum number through VL and have included their provisions in my bid. 1
have examined both the bid docu ents and the construction site and submit the following bid in
which I agree:
1. To hold my bid open until an agreement has been executed between St. Lucie County
and accepted Bidder, or until 90 days after bids are opened, whichever is longer.
2. Regarding the Disposition of Bid Security: to accept the provisions of the Instructions
to the Bidders.
3. To enter into and execute a Contract on the basis of this bid, if this bid is accepted
4. To accomplish the work included in, and in accordance with, the Contract Documents,
if this bid is accepted.
5_ To start work within ten (10) calendar days from the date of the Notice -to -Proceed,
according to the provisions of the contract, if this bid is accepted.
6. Regarding Compensation for the proposed work: if this bid is accepted, I will construct
this project on a lump sum price basis as reflected in the Bid Form.
7. The County intends to have a Project Manager overseeing and inspecting this project.
If the County should incur extra costs from this firm due to having to extend the
contract time, the County will involve liquidated damages in the amount of $200.00 per
calendar day.
13
Packet Pg. 106
BID FORM
BIDDER: FDATE: Q/—zo—a
BID No.: 18-012 m
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Baseball Field Warning Track Repair at First Data Field
ITEM TOTAL AMOUNT
TOTAL BID (Lump Sum) $ 11 V) 3 3-1 S(p
NOTE: It is the intent of the owner to award only one (1) contract for work bid in this advertisement. The award
will be made to the lowest responsive, responsible and qualified bidder based on the total sum amount bid for the
11 Base Sid.
The contractor should field verify the actual site conditions prior to time of bidding and
before submitting the bid proposal. The contractor should read the special conditions and
the requirements for insurance before submitting a bid proposal. The contractor should
verify all work to be included in the construction contract upon notice of anticipated award.
have attached the required 5% Bid Security to this Bid.
�1 S P rV I c,.t_ r J C F��
(Nam of iBjdder)
7,W
I
rized Signairrt
t eJ
t a 44-
(Title)
l .1 �r
(Mailing Address)
F L3 Ds
(City, State, zip
(4yq 7W
(Federal ID No. or SS No.)
14
Packet Pg. 107
(JIVO U-4 V I4c1
8.M.2.a
REFERENCES
Contractor shall furnish the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of a minimum of four (4)
firms or government organizations for which the Contractor is currently furnishing, or has
m
furnished, similar Major League Baseball Field Renovations services.
Company/Gov Name:
m i -
Address:
/LJf
�
L_
Contact Person:'
Telephone Number:
�7
lcJ
a
E-mail Address:
' f ()Y
i
Company/Gov Name:
�
6
c
h c
Address:
�o
R
m
ii
Contact Person
/ /
0
�
Telephone Number:
a�
m
E-mail Address:
m
Company/Gov Name:
AAIMA ONA-6
c
a
Address:
700 /Z
E
`o
�0056 ISL
c
m
Contact Person:
c
Telephone Number:
�0 2 -
ca
m
E-mail Address:
t
r
Company/Gov Name:
Address:
3 I)u
H
r4
�_
m
e7
Contact Person:
a i
Telephone Number:
t! ,Z%9 7 - 3 (1)3
is
E-mail Address:
N
r
This form must be completed and returned with bid submittal_ Failure to submit
c
E
form will deem bid non -responsive.
r
a
15
Packet Pg. 108
8.M.2.a
SECTION 00300
BID BOND
KNOW ALL MEN THESE PRESENTS, THAT WE JSM Services, Inc.
as Principal, and Great American Insurance Company _ as surety, are firmly
bound unto the Board of County Commissioners, St. Lucie County, Florida, hereinafter called
the Owner in the sum of Five Percent of Amount Bid dollars
($ 5% ) being 5% of the attached maximum bid amount
of O- _ AjndZ6�941 14re 1r6/IIlf a/7.-/ 9(/ky0
(s-t I c .3 33 ) the payment of which sum well and truly to be
made, the said Principal and the said surety, bind ourselves, our heirs, executors,
administrators, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.
Whereas the Principal has submitted a bid for
Baseball Field Warning Track Repair at First Data Field, Bid No. 18-012 based on the plans and the contract
documents prepared by the St. Lucie County Purchasing Department.
NOW, THEREFORE, if the Owner shall accept the bid of the Principal and the Principal shall
enter into a contract with the owner in accordance with the terms of such bid, and give such 100%
Bond as specified in the Contract Documents with good and sufficient surety for the faithful
performance of such Contract and for the prompt payment of labor and materials furnished in the
prosecution thereof, or in the event the Principal falls to enter such contract and give such bond
or bonds, if the Principal shall pay to the owner the difference not exceeding the penalty hereof
between the amount specified in said bid and such larger amount for which the Owner may in
good faith contract with another party to perform the work covered by said bid, then this obligation
shall be null and void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect.
Signed and sealed this 15th day of
November , 20 17
FOR CORPORATE BIDDERS:
zq/1 J <�Q�
Sef r ary)
JSM Services, Inc.
By
Title
Surety
By
WITNESS:
Typed
Rita Lazarides Name
Address
24
(Prii ip` l) (Seal)
Great American Insurance Company
(Surety)
t I —
AttorMfg-In-Fac
Kevin Wojtowicz, Attorney -in -Fact & FL Licensed Agent
1000 Central Avenue, Suite 200
St. Petersburg, FL 33705
Packet Pg. 109
8.M.2.a
FOR NON -CORPORATE
BIDDERS:
WITNESS:
WITNESS:
(principal) (Seal)
By
Title
Surety
By
(Attorney-ln-Fact)
Typed
Name
Address
IMPORTANT — Surety companies executing bonds must appear on the Treasury Department's
most current list (Circular 570 as amended) and be authorized to transact business in the state
where the project is located.
25
Packet Pg. 110
8.M.2.a
GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY@
Administrative Office: 301 E 4TH STREET • CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202 • 513-369-5000 • FAX 513-723-2740
The number of persons authorized by
this power of attorney is not more than TWO
No.o 18486
POWER OF ATTORNEY
KNOW ALL MEN BV THESE PRESENTS: 'that the GREATAMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation organized and existing tender
and by virtue of the laws of the State of Ohio, does hereby nominate, constitute and appoint the person or persons named below, each individually if more than
one is named, its true and lawftil attorney -in -fact, for it and in its name, place and stead to execute on behalf of the said Company, as surety, any and all bonds,
undertakings and contracts of suretyship, or other written obligations in the nature thereof, provided that the liability of the said Company on any such bond,
undertaking or contract of suretyship executed under this authority shall not exceed the limit stated below.
Name Address Limit of Power
KEVIN WOJTOWICZ BOTH OF BOTH
JOHN R. NEU ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA $100,000,000
This Power of Attorney revokes all previous powers issued on behalf of the attomey(s)-in-fact named above,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY has caused these presents to be signed and attested by its appropriate
officers and its corporate seal hereunto affixed this 5TH day of MARCH , 2016
Attest GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY
All.
5nsu,�
Assistant Secretary Dtvisiona! Senior ice President
STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF HAMIL`I'ON - ss: aAVEo C. KITCHIN (877-377-2405)
On this 5TH day of MARCH 2O16 before me personally appeared DAVID C. KITCHIN, to me
known, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he resides in Cincinnati, Ohio, that he is a Divisional Senior Vice President of the Bond Division of Great
American Insurance Company, the Company described in and which executed the above instrument; that he knows the seal of the said Company; that the seal
affixed to the said instrument is such corporate seal; that it was so affixed by authority of his office under the By -Laws of said Company, and that he signed his
name thereto by like authority.
�xlRl NabryNk1� �/br.
Wcoam W IV'M
This Power ofAttorney is granted by authority of the following resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors ofGreatAmerican Insurance Company
by unanimous written consent dated June 9, 2008.
RESOLVED: That the Divisional President, the several Divisional Senior (lice Presidents, Divisional Vice Presidents and Divisonal Assistant Vice
Presidents, or any one of them, be and hereby is authorized, from time to time, to appoint one or more Attorneys -in -Fact to execute on behalf of the Company,
as surety, any and all bonds, undertakings and contracts ofsuretyship, or other written obligations in the nature thereof,• to prescribe their respective duties and
the respective limits of their authority; and to revoke any such appointment at any time.
RESOLVED FURTHER: That the Company seal and the signature of any of the aforesaid officers and any Secretary or Assistant Secretary of the
Company may be affixed by facsimile to any power of altorney or ceri ficate of either given for the execution of any bond, undertaking, contract of suretyship,
or other written obligation in the nature thereof, such signature and seal when so used being hereby adopted by the Company as the original signature of such
officer and the original seal of the Company, to be vglid and binding upon the Company iuith the same farce and effect as though manually affixed.
CERTIFICATION
1, STEPHEN C. BERAHA, Assistant Secretary ofGreatAmerican Insurance Company, do hereby certify that the foregoing Power of Attorney and
the Resolutions of the Board of Directors of June 9, 2008 have not been revoked and are now in fill force and effect.
Signed and sealed this 1 V 4-h
day of NQvc in btr ( I
4�-- et�
Assistant Secretary
m
r.
Q
51029AF t06115)
Packet Pg. 111
8.M.2.a
SECTION 00250
PUBLIC ENTITY CRIME AFFIDAVIT
Any person submitting a quote, bid or proposal in response to this invitation must execute
the enclosed form PUR. 7069, SWORN STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 287.133 (3)(A)
FLORIDA STATUTES, ON PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES, including proper check(s), in the
space(s) provided, and enclose it with his quote, bid or proposal. If you are submitting a
quote, bid, or proposal on behalf of dealers or suppliers who will ship commodities and
receive payment from the resulting contract, it is your responsibility to see that copy (s)
of the form are executed by them and are included in your quote, bid or proposal.
Corrections to the form will not be allowed after the quote, bid or proposal opening time
and date. Failure to complete this form in every detail and submit it with your quote, bid
or proposal may result in immediate disqualification of your bid or proposal.
The 1988 Florida Legislature passed Senate Bill 458 creating Sec. 287, 132-133, Florida
Statutes, effective 7-1-89. Sec. 287.132 (3)(d), Florida Statutes requires the Florida
Department of General Services to maintain and make available to other political entities
a "convicted vendor" list consisting of persons and affiliates who are disqualified from
public contracting and purchasing process because they have been found guilty of a
public entity crime. A public entity crime is described by Sec. 287.133, Florida Statute as
a violation of any State or Federal law by a person with respect to and directly related to
the transaction of business with any public entity in Florida or with an agency or political
subdivision of any other state or with the United States, including, but not limited to, any
bid or contract for goods or services to be provided to any public entity or with an agency
or political subdivision and involving antitrust, fraud, theft, bribery, collusion, racketeering,
conspiracy, or material misrepresentation.
a
0
By law no public entity shall accept any bid from, award any contract to, or transact any
business in excess of the threshold amount provided in Section 287.017, Florida Statute o
for category two (currently $10,000) with any person or affiliate on the convicted vendor
list for a period of 36 months from the date that person or affiliate was placed on the
convicted vendor list unless that person or affiliate has been removed from the list 0°
pursuant to Section 287.133 (3)(f), Florida Statute.
a�
a�
Therefore, prior to entering into a contract (formal contract or purchase order) in excess n .
of the threshold amount of $10,000 to provide goods or services to St. Lucie County Board o
of County Commissioners, a person shall file a sworn statement with St. Lucie County.
The attached statement or affidavit will be the form to be utilized and must be properly
signed in the presence of a notary public or other officer authorized to administer oaths
and properly executed.
The inclusion of the sworn statement or affidavit shall be submitted concurrently with your
bid documents. Non -inclusion of this document may necessitate rejection of your bid.
17
Packet Pg. 112
8.M.2.a
SWORN STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 287.133 3 (A).
FLORIDA STATUTES ON PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES
THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER
OFFICER AUTHORIZED TO ADMINISTER OATHS.
t. This sworn statement is submitted with Bid, for the (Baseball Field Warning Track
Repair at First Data Field) project located in Fort Pierce, Florida.
2. This sworn statement is submitted by��fvwesrjoc-
,
name of entity submitting sworn statement)
whose business address is (61 /�% Homi/Ar„7 it Ff T/
and (if applicable) its Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN) is
�c 9 -3y Jq 7W1
3. My name is 14nd my relationship to the entity
named above is _ oe.5 1
4. 1 understand that a "public entity crime" as defined in Paragraph 287.133 (1)(g), Florida
Statutes, means a violation of any state or federal law by a person with respect to and
directly related to the transaction of business with any public entity or with an agency or
political subdivision of any other state or with the United States, including but not limited
to, any bid or contract for goods or services to be provided to any public entity or an agency
or political subdivision of any other state or of the United States and involving antitrust,
fraud, theft, bribery, collusion, racketeering, conspiracy, or material misrepresentation.
5. 1 understand that "convicted" or "conviction" as defined in Paragraph 287.133 (1)(b)
Florida Statutes means a finding of guilt or a conviction of a public entity crime, with or
without an adjudication of guilt, in any federal or state trial court of record relating to
charges brought by indictment or information after July 1, 1989, as a result of a jury verdict,
nonjury trial, or entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere.
6. 1 understand that an "affiliate" as defined in Paragraph 287.133 (1)(a), Florida Statutes
means:
1. A predecessor or successor of a person convicted of a public entity crime, or
2. An entity under the control of any natural person who is active in the management
of the entity and who has been convicted of a public entity crime. The term
"affiliate" includes those officers, directors, executives, partners, shareholders,
employees, members, and agents who are active in the management of an
affiliate. The ownership by one person of shares constituting a controlling interest
in another person, or a pooling of equipment or income among persons when not
for fair market value under an arm's length agreement, shall be a prima facie case
that one person controls another person. A person who knowingly enters into a
joint venture with a person who has been convicted of a public entity crime in
Florida during the preceding 36 months shall be considered an affiliate.
7. 1 understand that a "person" as defined in Paragraph 287.133 (1)(e), FLORIDA
STATUTES, means any natural person or entity organized under the laws of any state or
of the United States with the legal power to enter into a binding contract and which bids
or applies to bid on contracts for the provision of goods or services let by a public entity,
or which otherwise transacts or applies to transact business with a public entity.
18
Packet Pg. 113
LI JJVI lJ L-1 V !". -y - ,- .
The term "person" includes those officers, directors, executives, partners, shareholders, 8•M.2.a
employees, members, and agents who are active in management of any entity.
Based on information and belief, the statement that I have marked below is true in relation to the
entity submitting this sworn statement. (Please indicate which statement applies.)
Neither the entity submitting this sworn statement, nor any officers, directors, executives,
partners, shareholders, employees, members or agents who are active in management of
the entity, nor any affiliate of the entity have been charged with and convicted of a public
entity crime subsequent to July 1, 1989.
The entity submitting this sworn statement, or one or more of the officers, directors,
executives, partners, shareholders, employees, members, or agents who are active in
management of the entity, or an affiliate of the entity has been charged with and convicted
of a public entity crime subsequent to July 1, 1989, AND, (Please indicate which additional
statement applies.)
There has been a proceeding concerning the conviction before a hearing officer of the
State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings. The final order entered by the
hearing officer did not place the person or affiliate on the convicted vendor list. (Please
attach a copy of the final order.)
The person or affiliate was placed on the convicted vendor list. There has been a
subsequent proceeding before a hearing officer of the State of Florida, Division of
Administrative Hearings. The final order entered by the hearing officer determined that it
was in the public interest to remove the person or affiliate from the convicted vendor list.
(Please attach a copy of the final order.)
The person
describe any acti
�- /1-L,/<*
r affiliate has not been placed on the convicted vendor list. (Please
iken by or pending with the Department of General Services.)
JS/LA 3erv,'V6, -ZNc- (PI-)
E OF 10reCOUNTY OF
AV - !� , 2-o(-7
Date
f� lls�arr�� h
�1
PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority,
V • S �r . , r �� 5 c , �5 Sere rc,� I�►
(Name of individu signing)
who, after first being sworn by me, affixed his/her signature in the space provided above on
the —._A day of moVe0N W,
Zot A
NOTARY PUBL]dj
20 1-4
My Commission expires: Iv 9 24 t
KATHLEEN A JOHNSON
COMM!$$lON # FF208197
V
EXPIRES March 10, 2019
BONDED THROUGH
RLi INSURANCE [pMPANy
This form must be completed and returned with bid submittal.
19
Packet Pg. 114
J J/ V ( — - 1 v 11. , 1 + `-per . ) L_ _
8.M.2.a
SECTION 00270
BIDDER'S QUALIFICATIONS STATEMENT
BID No. 18-012
Baseball Field Warning Track Repair at First Data Field
THE UNDERSIGNED GUARANTEES THE TRUTH AND ACCURACY OF ALL STATEMENTS
AND ANSWERS HEREIN CONTAINED:
BIDDER'S GENERAL INFORMATION:
Bidder shall furnish the following information. Failure to comply with this requirement will render Bid
non -responsive and may cause its rejection. Additional sheets shall be attached as required.
1. Bidder's Name, Principal Address, Phone and Fax Number:
ism
(olNl 1fnn br
2. Number of years as a Contractor in this type of work:
�_o +
3. Names and titles of all officers, partners or individuals doing business under trade name:
James Atm.
Please provide proof of State Certification and/or State Registration by attaching copies of
State Certifications. State Registrations shall also be accompanied by proof of St. Lucie
County Certificates) of Competency by attaching copies of County Certificate(s) Possession
of either a State Certification or County Competency card must be attained prior to bid
submittal.
4. The business is a: Sale Proprietorship I I Partnership I Corporation V
I
Name, address, and telephone number of surety company and agent who will provide the
6. What is the last project of this nature that you have completed?
20
Packet Pg. 115
7. Have you ever failed to complete work awarded to you. If so, when, where and why? 8•M.2.a
8. Have you personally inspected the proposed WORK and do you have a complete plan for its
performance?
Yes
9. List three SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS completed within the past five years.
10. List three SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS currently under construction
11"111111LIr — 1
frW y oAh -- e� Ira �h rd e� o va ?�'l
The BIDDER acknowledges and understands th"e infor tion contained in response to this
Qualification's Statement shall be relied upon by COUNTY in awarding the contract and such
information is warranted by BIDDER to be true. The discovery of any omission or misstatement
that materially affects the BIDDER'S qualifications to perform under the contract shall cause the
COUNTY to reject the Bid, and if after the award, to cancel and terminate the award and/or
contract.
The BIDDER also acknowledges that all information listed above may be checked by the
COUNTY and authorizes all entities or persons listed above to answer any and all questions_
BIDDER hereby indemnifies the COUNTY and persons or entities listed above and hold them
harmless from any claim arising from such authorization or the exercise thereof, including the
dissemination of information requested above.
5AA f-ot��iqn e) cro
Date 1111,0I!`)
This form must be completed and returned with bid submittal.
m
a�
ii
ca
0
L
LL
CU
L
)
U-
a�
m
co
00
c
0
a
E
L
.0
c
•m
0
N
M
00
r
c
a)
E
M
U
0
r
a
21
Packet Pg. 116
(JJIL,l Ji, / L11 C-C.ar a. f ) L_
8.M.2.a
61ZIAIIs] ►91111W:%]
CONFIRMATION OF DRUG -FREE WORKPLACE
IDENTICAL TIE BIDS: Preference shall be given to businesses with drug -free workplace
programs. Whenever two or more bids, which are equal with respect to price, quantity, and
service, are received by the State or by any political subdivision for the procurement of
commodities or contractual services, a bid received from a business that certifies that it has
implemented a drug -free workplace program shall be given preference in the award process.
Established procedures for processing tie bids will be followed if none of the tied vendors have a
drug -free workplace program (Florida Statutes Section 287.087 Florida Statutes). In order to
have a drug -free workplace program, a business shall:
In order to have a drug -free workplace program, a business shall:
1. Publish a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution,
dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the workplace and
specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violations of such prohibitions_
2. Inform employees about the dangers of drug abuse in the workplace, the business's policy of
maintaining a drug -free workplace, any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and
employee assistance programs, and the penalties that may be imposed upon employees for
drug abuse violations.
3. Give each employee engaged in providing the commodities or Contractual services that are
under Bid a copy of the statement specified in subsection (1).
4. In the statement specified in subsection (1), notify the employee that, as a condition of working
on the commodities or Contractual services that are under bid, the employee will abide by the
terms of the statement and will notify the employer of any conviction of, or plea of guilty or
nolo contenders to, any violation of Chapter 893 Florida Statutes or of any controlled
substance law of the United States or any State, for a violation occurring in the workplace no
later than five (5) days after the conviction.
5. Impose a sanction on, or require the satisfactory participation in a drug abuse assistance or
rehabilitation program if such is available in the employee's community by, any employee who
is so convicted.
6. Make a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug -free workplace through implementation
of this section.
A signed copy of your Drug -Free Workplace Policy must be attached to this signed copy and
submitted with the Bid Documents.
m
As the person authorized to sign the statement, I certify that this firm complies fully with the above
requirements.
on ractor's Si nature c
SM Servi(f.S/ Inc• (Fy,)
This form must be completed and returned with bid submittal_ .
m
E
R
r
a
22
Packet Pg. 117
SECTION 00290
J_)A1 Jar Ui cPjU
8.M.2.a
NON -COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF IWAOrOU
• ��,s 'Tj being first duly sworn, deposes and says
that: �
1. BIDDER a S'41 SQasthe
o W ,q�.c Ra�-
(Owner,
, Officer, Representative or Agent)
2. BIDDER is fully informed respecting the preparation and contents of the attached Bid and of
all pertinent circumstances respecting such Bid;
3. Such Bid is genuine and is not a collusive or sham Bid;
4. Neither the said BIDDER nor any of its officers, partners, owners, agents, representative,
employees or parties in interest, including this affidavit, have in any way colluded, conspired,
connived or agreed, directly or indirectly, with any other BIDDER, firm or person to submit a
collusive or sham Bid in connection with the Contract for which the attached Bid has been
submitted; or to refrain from bidding in connection with such Contract; or have in any manner,
directly or indirectly, sought by agreement or collusion, or communications, or conference with
any BIDDER, firm, or person to fix the price or prices in the attached Bid or any other BIDDER,
or to fix any overhead, profit, or cost element of the Bid Price or the Bid Price of any other
BIDDER, or to secure through any collusion, conspiracy, connivance, or unlawful agreement
any advantage against the COUNTY, or any person interested in the proposed Contract;
5. The price of items quoted in the attached Bid are fair and proper and are not tainted by
collusion, conspiracy, connivance, or unlawful agreement on the part of the BIDDER or any
other of its agents, representatives, owners, employ es or rtie i interest.
By
J3 .5ery ' es,,�rlc.
Sworn to and subscribed before me on this 0� d of �%yen 20 1-7 by
56V `�� who W's personally known to me or who �] has presented
the following type of identification:
KATHLEEN A 10HN5ON
NO?ARY cF
COMMISSION # FF208197
O p
EXPIRES March 10, 2019
STAHt
TE
STATE OF
FLOAIDA
BONDED THROUGH
REI INSURANCE COMPANY
Signature of Nota Public, State of Florida
Notary seal (stamped in black ink)
OR
Printed, typed or stamped name of Notary
and Commission Number
This form must be completed and returned with bid submittal.
23
Packet Pg. 118
a
�M
8.M.2.a
Packet Pg. 119
8.M.2.a
Packet Pg. 119
I Packet Pg. 120 1
8.0.1
ITEM NO. RES-2017-271
J
COUNTY
` R I ID A AGENDA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
PRESENTED BY:
SUBMITTED BY:
CIIRIFrT-
BACKGROUND:
Ron Parrish, Public Safety Director
Public Safety
DATE: 12/05/2017
*CONSENT AGENDA\PUBLIC
SAFETY
Resolution - Emergency Medical Services Grant (EMS)
The St. Lucie County Fire District has completed an application for the annual Emergency Medical Services
(EMS) grant from the Florida Department of Health. The application was approved by the Board of
Commissioners for the St. Lucie County Fire District on October 1, 2017. The District anticipates receiving
up to $48,223. Section 4 of the grant application calls for a resolution from the Board of County
Commissioners certifying the monies from the EMS grant will improve and expand the County's pre -
hospital EMS system and the grant monies will not be used to supplant existing Fire District EMS budget
allocations.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
With this pass -through grant, there is no financial impact to St. Lucie County. Adequate funding for this
yearly grant has already been budgeted and is available for the Fire District (#104-2610-581060-2950
Grant and Donations Fund - Ambluance and Rescue Service - Emergency Medical Service - HRS - Fire
District)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Board approval of the Resolution for the EMS grant in the amount of $48,223.00 and
authorization for the Chair to sign documents as approved by the County Attorney.
COMMISSION ACTION:
Packet Pg. 121
8.0.1
Coordination/Signatures
-QA,% AVU Qry jmw
%3% oq Xoq S OE4.E 0090t -
Ron Parrish, Public Safety Director 11/8/2017
4aniieA..McIntyre, C my ttorney 11/13/2017
A)
Ho and Tipton, Count Administrato 11/30/2017
updated: 12/1/2017 8:49 AM by Katrina Slay Page 2
Packet Pg. 122
8.0.1.a
orI A
HEALTH
EMS COUNTY GRANT APPLICATION
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Emergency Medical Services Program
Complete all items
ID. Code The State EMS Program will assign the ID Code - leave this blank C60
1. County Name: St. Lucie County
Business Address: 2300 Vir inia Avenue
Ft Pierce, FL 34982
Telephone: 772-462-1400
Federal Tax ID Number Nine Digit Number): VF 596000835
2. Certification: (The applicant signatory who has authority to sign contracts, grants, and other legal
documents for the county) I certify that all information and data in this EMS county grant application and
its attachments are true and correct. My signature acknowledges and assures that the county shall
comply fully with the conditions outlined in the Florida EMS County Grant Application.
Signature: Date:
Printed Name:
Position Title: Chairman, BOCC
3. Contact Person: (The individual with direct knowledge of the project on a day-to-day basis and has
responsibility for the implementation of the grant activities. This person is authorized to sign project
reports and may request project changes. The signer and the contact person may be the same.)
Name: Brian Blizzard
Position Title: Assistant Fire Chief
Address: 5160 NW Milner Drive
Port St. Lucie, Florida 34983
772-621-3336 772-621-3596
E-mail Address: bblizzard slcfd.or
4. Resolution: Attach a resolution from the Board of County Commissioners certifying the grant funds
will improve and expand the county pre -hospital EMS system and will not be used to supplant current
levels of county expenditures. We cannot process for funds without a current resolution.
5. Budget: Complete a budget page(s) for each organization to which you shall provide funds.
List the organization(s) below. (Use additional pages if necessary)
St. Lucie County Fire District
DH 1684, December 2008 64J-1.015, F.A.C.
1
r
Q
Packet Pg. 123
8.O.1.a
BUDGET PAGE
A. Salaries and Benefits:
For each position title, provide the amount of salary per hour, FICA per
hour, other fringe benefits, and the total number of hours.
NIA
Amount
TOTAL Salaries =
$ 0.00
TOTAL FICA & Other Benefits =
Total Salaries & Benefits =
$ 0.00
B. Expenses: These are travel costs and the usual; ordinary, and incidental expenditures by an
agency, such as, commodities and supplies of a consumable nature excluding expenditures classified as
NIA
vital outlay see next category).
List the item and, if applicable, the quantity Amount
Total Expenses = $ 0.001
C. Vehicles, equipment, and other operating capital outlay means equipment, fixtures, and other
tangible personal property of a non consumable and non expendable nature with a normal expected life
of one (1) year or more.
List the item and, if applicable, the quantity
Amount
Video Laryngoscopes (24)
$30,644
EMS Backpacks (21)
$6,300
CO Detectors (4)
$900
LED Traffic Cones
$3,700
Safety Vests (387)
$6,779
Total Vehicles & Equipment =
$ 0.00
Grand Total =
$ 48,223.00
Lin ! vo•t, veuumoer cwa
Q
Packet Pg. 124
8.0.1.a
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS) GRANT SECTION
REQUEST FOR GRANT FUND DISTRIBUTION
In accordance with the provisions of section 401.113(2) (a), Florida Statutes, the undersigned hereby requests
an EMS grant fund distribution for the improvement and expansion of pre -hospital EMS.
agency name, address, and federal ID number must be in the state MyFloddaMarketPlace (MFMP)
:m. Ask a finance person who does business with the state for your organization to provide these.
Name of Agency: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
Mailing Address: 2300 Virginia Avenue
Ft. Pierce, FL 34982
Federal Identification number: 596000836
Authorized County Official:
Signature
Date
Chairman BOCC
Type or Print Name and Title
Sign and return this page with your application to:
Florida Department of Health
Emergency Medical Services Section, Grants
4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-22
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1722
Do not write below this line. For use by State Emergency Medical Services Program
Grant Amount for State to Pay: $ Grant ID: Code: C60
Approved By:
Signature of State EMS Grant Officer Date
State Fiscal Year: 2017 - 2018
Organization Code E.O. OCA Object Code Category
64-61-70-30-000 05 SF005 750000 059998
Federal Tax ID: V F
Grant Beginning Date:
Grant Ending Date:
DH 1767P, December 2008 64J-1.015, F.A.C.
3
r
Q
Packet Pg. 125
8.0.1.a
ST. LUCIE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
Administration
AGENDA REQUEST
DATE: October 1, 2017
TO: Board of Fire Commissioners
FROM: Assistant Chief Brian Blizzaro(e
SUBJECT: 2017-18 EMS County Grant
34�coulYr�
x�x
Background: We are in receipt of the application for the 2017-18 Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
County Grant from the Florida Department of Health. Our grant award is $48,223 and is to be utilized to
enhance our EMS systems. Through the collective efforts of Administration, Operations and the Training
Division, several projects have been developed that adhere to the requirements of the grant.
Attached is a copy of the grant application for submission to the St. Lucie County Fire District Board of
Fire Commissioners. Once approved, it will be presented to the St. Lucie County Board of County
Commissioners for their acceptance and final submission to the Florida Department of Health.
Previous actions: This is an annual grant award.
Recommendation: Staff recommends moving forward with the grant application process.
Board Action: Approved —X� Disapproved Revised
Coordination:
Administration X Attorney Finance Fire Chief X
Operations X IT Purchasing X
"Our Family Serving Yours"
5160 NW Milner Drive, Port St. Lucie, Florida 34983-3392
Telephone: (772) 621-3400
www.slcfd.or
ti
N
ti
0
N
N
w
c
IVI^
vC/
G
W
ti
is
r
0
W
E
U
a
r
r
a
Packet Pg. 126
8.0.1.a
2017/18 Florida Department of Health, County EMS Grant
Explanation of Proposed Expenditures
Project: Video Laryngoscopes (Quantity 24)
Vendor: King Vision
Cost: $30,544
Need: The new video laryngoscope uses a high definition
resolution picture of the oral anatomy to facilitate a
difficult intubation. The video blade utilizes a high
resolution camera that produces an optimized high
definition viewing area, causing airway structures to be
clearly visible and oral anatomy to stand out. This device
will facilitate difficult intubation scenarios and enable
our responders to achieve increased proficiency.
Project: LED Emergency Traffic Cones
Vendor: Traffic Safety Store
Cost: $3,700
Need: Emergency workers are at considerable risk when
performing EMS operations on road ways. Providing advance
warnings to motorists that EMS workers are working an
incident in the area will reduce the risk to our personnel.
LED Emergency Traffic Cones identify emergency scenes
during the day and at night, providing greater responder
safety during EMS responses to a motor vehicle crash. The
cones have an LED light with flash and safety modes that
store and deploy easily. The cones provide greater
visibility and meet the most recent standards for emergency
responders on the highway.
Project: EMS Backpacks (Quantity 21)
Vendor: STAT Pack
Cost: $6,300
Need: The EMS back pack will allow for a more effective
method to contain and transport emergency medical
medications and supplies. Wearing the EMS backpack will
free up the responders hands and evenly distribute the
weight which will decrease the chance for injury.
Packet Pg. 127
8.0.1.a
Project: CO Detectors (Quantity 4)
Vendor: Scott Safety
Cost: $900
Need: After Hurricanes Matthew and Irma impacted our
response area over the last year, one of the challenges our
EMS responders encountered was attending to patients who
have been overcome by carbon monoxide from portable
generators, typically in an enclosed area. In these
frequent situations, having a small, personal CO gas
monitor will reduce the risk of exposure to our responders
and ensure expedient extrication of victims to a safe
environment for continued treatment.
Project: Safety Vests (Quantity 387)
Vendor: TBD
Cost: $6,779
Need: Reflective, high visibility safety vests improve
the responder's ability to be seen and lower the risk of a
driver to lose focus while driving around an emergency
scene. Safety vests will be to the highest ANSI compliance
level with increased visibility in daytime and low light
conditions, thereby increasing responder overall safety on
a motor vehicle crash.
Packet Pg. 128
8.O.1.a
St. Lucie County Eire District
2017 EMS County Grant Budget
Item
Vendor
Quantity
Project Total
Video Laryngoscopes
King Vision
24
$30,544
Emergency Cones
Traffic Safety Store
X
$3,700
EMS Backpacks
STAT Packs
21
$6,300
Safety Vests
TBD
387
$6,779
CO Detectors
Scott Safety
4
$900
Grant TOTAL
$48,223
Note: Project totals are rounded up to the next dollar amount when not exact compared to price per
item.
a+
Q
Packet Pg. 129
8.0.1.b
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BUREAU OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES, 2017-18 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES COUNTY
GRANT APPLICATION AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE AND SUBMIT THE APPLICATION
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made the
following determinations:
1. Pursuant to Section 401.345, Florida Statutes, the State of Florida has established
an Emergency Medical Services Trust Fund consisting in part of a portion of each fine for every
municipal and county moving violation and driving under the influence conviction.
2. Under Section 401.113, Florida Statutes, a portion of the funds deposited into the
Emergency Medical Services Trust Fund by St. Lucie County from July 1, 2017 through and
including June 30, 2018, and remaining funds from the 2017-2018 award, plus any interest
earned will be used to fund pre -hospital emergency medical services in St. Lucie County.
3. The Board of County Commissioners may disburse funds dispensed to the County ``
under Section 401.113, Florida Statutes, to the St. Lucie County Fire District as a licensed
emergency service provider operating in St. Lucie County. ti
r
O
N
4. The St. Lucie County Fire District has certified that the request is for an U)
w
improvement or expansion of its pre -hospital emergency medical services.
5. Prior to any disbursements of funds from the Emergency Medical Trust Fund, the
St. Lucie County Fire District will extend the Interlocal Agreement with St. Lucie County to ensure
that the request will be funded and permitting the County to audit the use of funds disbursed
under the grant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie
County, Florida:
1. The attached Application for Funding County Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
Award is incorporated herein and made a part thereof.
2. The Board of County Commissioners certifies that the attached application is for
an improvement or expansion of the pre -hospital emergency medical services system in St. Lucie
County and that the funds requested will not be used to supplant the existing County emergency
medical services budget allocation.
Packet Pg. 130
8.0.1.b
3. The St. Lucie County Fire District Fire Administrative Officer is hereby designated
the "Authorized Contact Person" pursuant to the requirements of the Application.
4. The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, or the Vice Chairman in the
absence of the Chairman, is authorized to submit the application and a copy of this resolution to
the Department of Health, Bureau of Office of Emergency Medical Services.
After motion and second, the vote on this Resolution was as follows:
Commissioner Chris Dzadovsky, Chairman XXX
Commissioner Tod Mowery, Vice Chairman XXX
Commissioner Linda Bartz XXX
Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson XXX
Commissioner Cathy Townsend XXX
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 5T" day of December 2017.
Fit a9:1415
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
Deputy Clerk Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNESS:
BY:
County Attorney
r
ti
N
0
N
N
W
u
Packet Pg. 131
8.P.1
ITEM NO. (ID # 4843)
TO:
PRESENTED BY:
SUBMITTED BY:
cl miprT-
BACKGROUND:
AGENDA REQUEST
Board of County Commissioners
Kimberly Graham, County Engineer
Engineering
DATE
12/05/2017
*CONSENT AGENDA\PUBLIC
WORKS
Kings Highway and Indrio Road Intersection Improvements - First
Amendment to the Contract with Dickerson Florida, Inc.
Kings Highway will be expanded to a four -lane divided highway with dual lefts and single right turning
movements and designated bicycle lanes. Indrio Road will be improved immediately west and east of the
intersection to accept the improvement to Kings Highway with dual through lanes, single left and right
turning movements and designated bicycle lanes. For pedestrians, the project includes a 12-foot wide
shared use path along the west side of Kings Highway south of Indrio Road. The north side of Indrio Road
will also receive a 12-foot wide shared use path past the Lakewood Park Elementary School. Six-foot wide
sidewalks will be constructed on the east side of Kings Highway and south side of Indrio Road. The project
also entails the relocation of the Ft. Pierce Farms Water Control District (FPFWCD) Canal No. 4 and
construction of a 9-foot by 6-foot reinforced concrete box culvert.
Attached is the First Amendment to the contract (C17-04-366) with Dickerson Florida, Inc. In order to
simplify tracking of contract time and to be consistent with FDOT procedures, C&T, the County's CEI for
the project, requested that the County change the tracking from Work Days to Calendar Days. There is no
financial impact associated with the Amendment.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
May 17, 2016 - Board acceptance of Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) #424143-2-54-01/02 with Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) in the amount of $8,955,401.00 for Kings Highway & Indrio Road
Construction.
February 21, 2017 - Board approved budget resolution to accept funding in the amount of $8,955,401.00
from FDOT joint participation agreement #424143-2-54-01/02 for Kings Highway at Indrio Road
Improvements.
April 18, 2017 - Board approval to award the bid to Dickerson Florida, Inc. in the amount of
$17,812,205.95 for Kings Highway and Indrio Road Intersection Improvements and increase the project
budget an additional $331,943.00 from Impact Fee Reserves.
Packet Pg. 132
8.P.1
May 2, 2017 - Board approval of the short-listed firms for RFQ No. 17-020 and permission to conduct
discussions/presentations with the short-listed firms; conduct contract negotiations with the successful
short-listed firm. and award contract to the successful short-listed firm.
July 5, 2017 - Board approval of the contract with Culpepper & Terpening Inc. (C&T) for Construction
Engineering Inspection (CEI) services for the Kings Highway and Indrio Road Intersection Improvements
project in the amount of $1,868,216.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Board approval of the First Amendment to the contract with Dickerson Florida, Inc. to
change tracking of the contract time from Working Days to Calendar Days. Authorization for the Chair to
sign documents as approved by the County Attorney.
COMMISSION ACTION:
Coordination/Signatures
Can Wept, Public Works Director 017
Danie 5. McIntyre, C my ttorney 11/22/2017
rk S er ee, Dep County'A ministrato 11/28/2017
Updated: 12/1/2017 8:50 AM by Katrina Slay A Page 2
Packet Pg. 133
8.P.1.a
C17-04-366
FIRST AMENDMENT TO APRIL 18, 2017 CONTRACT
BETWEEN ST. LUCIE COUNTY
AND DICKERSON FLORIDA, INC.
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT, is made and entered into this day of 2017,
by and between ST. LUCIE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, (the "County') and
DICKERSON FLORIDA, INC. or his, its or their successors, executors, administrators, and assigns (the
"Contractor")
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2017, the parties entered into a contract to provide for the construction
of the improvements to Kings Highway at the intersection of Indrio Road; and,
WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the contract to revise the time of performance section to
transition from "working days" to "calendar days" pursuant to the letter from Culpepper & Terpening,
Inc., dated October 24, 2017, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and extend the completion date to include
approved weather days.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promise contained herein, the parties agree to
amend the Contract as follows:
Paragraph 6. TIME OF PERFORMANCE/DELAYS AD EXTENSION OF TIME shall be amended to read
as follows:
6. TIME OF PERFORMANCE/DELAYS AND EXTENSION OF TIME
The Contractor shall begin work within 10 (ten) calendar days after the signing, execution
and delivery of the written notice to proceed. Contractor agrees to complete 74 (seventy-four)
working days on or before October 1, 2017. Beginning on October 1, 2017, the Contractor shall
guarantee substantial completion on or before 522 (five hundred twenty-two) calendar days.
Additionally, the Contractor shall guarantee total completion of the Contract on or before 95
(ninety-five) calendar days from the date of substantial completion.
Commencement of the Work by the Contractor shall be deemed a waiver of this notice.
The Work shall be conducted in such a manner and with sufficient labor, materials, tools, and
equipment necessary to complete the Work within the time limit set forth in the Contract. In the
event the construction schedule as set forth in the Contract documents is changed, the Contractor
shall notify the County, in writing, of the change in schedule. Such schedule change shall not,
however, extend the time for completion unless approved by the County in writing.
In the sole opinion of the County, should the organization of the Contractor, or its
management, or the manner of carrying on the Work be manifestly incompetent, or inadequate
to do the Work specified within the stated time, then the County shall have the right to take
charge of the Work and finish it and provide the labor, materials and equipment necessary to
complete the Work as planned within the required time and to charge the cost of all such Work
against the Contractor and his, or its Surety shall be held responsible therefore. The Contractor
Packet Pg. 134
8.P.1.a
C17-04-366
fully understands and agrees that the County shall not pay for any obligation incurred or
expenditure made by the Contractor prior to the effective date of the notice to proceed described
above, unless the County authorizes such payment in writing.
As the Contractor's sole and exclusive remedy for delay, the County may grant an
extension of the contract time, when a critical item of Work is delayed by any factors
contemplated or not contemplated at the time of the bid. Such extension of time may be allowed
for delays occurring during the contract time period or authorized extension of the contract time.
All claims for extension of time shall be made in writing to the County. Claims for delay due to
inclement weather (i.e., beyond the 10 year mean average) shall be made by the 10th day of the
month following the month of the delay. All other claims shall be made no more than twenty (20)
days after the commencement of the delay. Claims made beyond these time limits shall be null
and void. Requests for extension of time shall be fully documented and shall include copies of
daily logs, letters, shipping orders, delivery tickets, and other supporting information. In case of
a continuing cause of delay only one (1) claim is necessary. Normal working weeks are based on
a five (5) day week. All authorized extensions of time shall only be done by Change Order.
2. Except as amended herein, all other terms and conditions of the Contract shall remain in full force
and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have accepted, made and executed this Agreement
upon the terms and conditions above stated.
ATTEST:
DEPUTY CLERK
WITNESSES:
(1)
(2)
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
CHAIRMAN
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
COUNTY ATTORNEY
DICKERSON FLORIDA, INC.
BY:
PRINT NAME:
TITLE:
2
Packet Pg. 135
8.P.1.a
GULPEPPER & TERPENING, INC
CUN5ULTiNG ENGINEERS LAND 5U-VE10-5
October 24, 2017
Via Email: haltermng,stlu(&ogov
Original via Hand Delivery
Mr. Michael Halter, P.E.
St. Lucie County Engineering
2300 Virginia Avenue
2nd Floor Annex, Room 229
Ft. Pierce, FL 34982-5652
RE: Indrio Rd/Kings Hwy — St. Lucie County Project No. 05-34
FDOT Project No. 42414325401
Change Contract Time from Work Days to Calendar Days
Dear Mr. Halter:
Sender's Email: mdimitriouit_ct-eng.com
C&T Project No.: 16-070
The Contract Time for this project is currently based on Working Days. In order to simplify tracking of Contract
Time and to be consistent with FDOT procedures, it is requested that the County issue an amendment to change
tracking of Contract Time from Working Days to Calendar Days. The Contractor, FDOT and CEI have requested
this change.
The change to utilizing Calendar Days will be retroactive to October 1, 2017. The Contract originally had 420
Working Days and Substantial Completion date of February 15, 2019. Based on the addition of 5 originally
scheduled Work Days that became identified as Non -Work Days, and 9 weather days, October 1, 2017 shall be
identified as Working Day 74 and Calendar Day 112.
The revised Substantial Completion date as of October 1, 2017, is March 7, 2019. This is the result of adding 5 days
for Working Days that were not worked (7/3/17, 9/7/17, 9/8/17/,9/11/17,9/12/17), and 9 weather days
(7/31/17, 9/6/17, 9/9/17, 9/10/17, 9/13/17, 9/14/17, 9/15/17, 9/16/17, 9/17/17). This results in a total of 634
Calendar Days from June 12, 2017 to March 7, 2019.
Beginning October 1, 2017, weather days will be added in accordance with FDOT specifications, while days will be
added only for days that work does not take place during the allowable County 5-day work week. In accordance
with the Contract, allowable work days shall remain Monday through Friday on non- County holidays, from 8 AM
to 5 PM.
Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
CULPEPPER ERPENING, INC.
Marcelo imitriou, P.E.
Director of Construction Services
Packet Pg. 136
8.P.2
ITEM NO. (ID # 4856)
J
COUNTY
` R I ID A AGENDA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
PRESENTED BY:
SUBMITTED BY:
CIIRIFrT-
BACKGROUND:
Kimberly Graham, County Engineer
Engineering
DATE: 12/05/2017
*CONSENT AGENDA\PUBLIC
WORKS
Phase I and Phase II Cortez Boulevard and South 25th Street - Final
Acceptance
Cortez Multi -Family Townhomes was approved by the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
and was developed by Cortez Townhomes, LLC. This project is located approximately 750 feet east of
South 25th Street on the south side of Cortez Boulevard. The project consists of 93 multi -family units
located within 12 buildings. Conditions 2 and 3 of Resolution 06-236 required that the developer
construct road improvements for Cortez Boulevard and signalize the intersection of South 251h Street and
Cortez Boulevard. The development was annexed into the City of Ft. Pierce on April 2, 2007.
The developer hired Culpepper and Terpening, Inc. to prepare the plans for the required off -site
improvements. The project was developed in two phases. The improvements included drainage, paving,
sidewalks on the east side of Cortez Boulevard and the full signalization of the intersection with South 251h
Street.
On November 9, 2017 County staff performed a site inspection to determined if any maintenance
concerns needed to be addressed.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
October 3, 2006 - Applicant was granted major site plan approval (Resolution 06-026).
October 20, 2009 - Board approved the Road Improvement Agreement for Phase 1 (C09-10-475).
March 22, 2011 - Board approved the Road Improvement Agreement for Phase 11 (C11-03-068).
August 16, 2011 - Board approved First Amendment to Road Improvement Agreement for Phase 1 (C09-
10-475).
May 17, 2016 - Board approved the conditional acceptance of the off -site improvements and
Maintenance Agreement and release surety in the amount of $1,328,651.87 (retain $126,934.20 for
maintenance) for Phase 1 and $253,274.82 (retain $44,695.55 for maintenance) for Phase 11.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
Packet Pg. 137
8.P.2
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Board approval of the final acceptance of the off -site improvements, termination of
the Maintenance Agreement and release surety in the amount of $171,629.75 ($126,934.20 for Phase I
and $44,695.55 for Phase II).
COMMISSION ACTION:
Coordination/Signatures
Con West, Public Works Director 2 017
iaWiel& McIntyre, C my ttorney 11/22/2017
"C_ Z,//. I-,f z ( I � � /
rk 5 er ee, D e 6 uK C o u n 1�y"Ad nninistrato 11/28/2017
Updated: 11/17/2017 11:47 AM by Linda Buchanan A Page 2
Packet Pg. 138
8.Q.1
ITEM NO. (ID # 4864)
TO:
PRESENTED BY:
SUBMITTED BY:
cl miprT-
BACKGROUND:
AGENDA REQUEST
Board of County Commissioners
Toby Long, Director
Sheriff's Office
DATE
12/05/2017
*CONSENT AGENDA\SHERIFF'S
OFFICE
Budget Amendment for Debt Proceeds and Capital Outlay
During fiscal year 2016-2017, the Sheriff entered into an agreement to purchase 115 pursuit vehicles from
Bartow Ford and to finance that purchase through Harbor Community Bank. Due to production delays and
Hurricane Irma, only 52 of the vehicles were received prior to the year-end. No funds are being requested.
This is only designed to reflect what actually took place.
As the year, progresses the Sheriff will do an additional budget amendment for the current fiscal year to
reflect debt proceeds and capital outlay for the remaining vehicles.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
On March 7, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners approved a budget amendment for the capital
lease of 115 Sheriff's Office pursuit vehicles.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board approve the Sheriff's request to reduce debt proceeds and capital
outlay by $2,177,633.00.
COMMISSION ACTION:
Packet Pg. 139
8.Q.1
Coordination/Signatures
n J. s ara, Sheriff 11/16/2017
0A
4anieA. McIntyre, C my ttorney 11/22/2017 JInterim MiA of and B dget Direct 11 17 01017
Updated: 12/1/2017 8:52 AM by Katrina Slay Page 2
Packet Pg. 140
y R
ter'
I , ?,o- r i f f 0
KEN J.MASCARA
4700 West Midway Road, Fort Pierce, Florida 34981
0-
E `( -11
November 16, 2017
The Honorable Chris Dzadovsky, Chair
St. Lucie County Sheriffs Office
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, FL 32982
Dear Chairman Dzadovsky,
@1
Member National Sheriffs' Associat
Member Florida Sheriffs'Associat
Telephone:
(772) 461-7300 ® Fax: (772) 489-5
Attached is a request for a Budget Amendment for Debt Proceeds and Capital Outlay.
Thank you in advance for your assistance. Please contact our Director of Finance Toby Long at
462-3220 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Attachment
Packet Pg. 141
8.Q.1.a
,v t.
KEN d. ASCARA
4700 West Midway Road, Fort Pierce, Florida 34981
Member National Sheriffs' Associat
Member Florida Sheriffs' Associat
Telephone: (772) 461-7300 ® Fax: (772) 489-5
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Sheriff Ken J. Mascara, St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office
DATE: November 16, 2017
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment for Debt Proceeds and Capital Outlay
ITEM NO: ID# 4864
Background:
During fiscal year 2016-2017, the Sheriff entered into an agreement to purchase 115 pursuit
vehicles from Bartow Ford and to finance that purchase through Harbor Community Bank. Due to
production delays and Hurricane Irma, only 52 of the vehicles were received prior to the year-end.
No funds are being requested. This is only designed to reflect what actually took place.
As the year, progresses the Sheriff will do an additional budget amendment for the current fiscal
year to reflect debt proceeds and capital outlay for the remaining vehicles.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the Sheriffs request to reduce debt proceeds and capital outlay by
$2,177,633.00.
Packet Pg. 142
9.A.1
ITEM NO. (ID # 4727)
J
COUNTY
` R I ID A AGENDA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
PRESENTED BY:
SUBMITTED BY:
CIIRIFrT-
BACKGROUND:
Katherine Barbieri, Asst. County Attorney
County Attorney
Ordinance - Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
DATE: 12/05/2017
*PUBLIC HEARINGS\COUNTY
ATTORNEY
The Florida Right to Medical Marijuana Initiative, Amendment 2 was on the November 4, 2014
ballot in the State of Florida as a constitutional amendment. On May 16, 2017, the Board of County
Commissioners approved Ordinance No. 17-005 which allowed medical marijuana dispensaries as a
permitted use in CG, commercial general zoning district and created supplemental standards. During the
June 2017 special session the Florida Legislature enrolled Senate Bill 8-A regulating medical marijuana.
Section 381.986 (11) Florida Statutes provides, "Regulation of cultivation, processing, and delivery of
marijuana by medical marijuana treatment centers is preempted to the state except as provided in this
subsection...", Subsection (11)2.(c) provides, "a county or municipality may not enact ordinances for
permitting or for determining the location of dispensing facilities which are more restrictive than its
ordinances permitting or determining the locations for pharmacies licensed under chapter 465." Under
current state law, a county may either (1) ban medical marijuana treatment center dispensing facilities
from being located within the boundaries of that county or (2) allow those facilities under the same
regulations as apply to licensed pharmacies. Attached is a chart showing what action has been taken by
the surrounding local government. The proposed ordinance attached to this memorandum repeals
Ordinance No. 17-005 and provides for the same location criteria as apply to licensed pharmacies.
Attached is a GIS map showing all permitted locations for pharmacies.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
On October 17, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners authorized Permission to Advertise a proposed
ordinance regulating zoning districts for medical marijuana dispensaries for public hearing before the
Local Planning Agency and two (2) public hearings before the Board of County Commissioners. On
November 16, 2017, the Local Planning Agency (LPA) unanimously voted to pass the ordinance unto the
Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation that the Board approve the ordinance.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
RECOMMENDATION:
Packet Pg. 143
9.A.1
This is the first of two public hearings. Staff recommends the Board approve a second hearing on
December 19, 2017 to hear the proposed draft ordinance.
COMMISSION ACTION:
Coordination/Signatures
b—anieYS. McIntyre, c my ttorney 12/1/2017
updated: 12/1/2017 9:25 AM by Susan Bellamy Page 2
Packet Pg. 144
9.A.1.a
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA
December 5, 2017
NOTICE OF A PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE
The St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
proposes to consider the adoption of the following by
ordinance:
ORDINANCE 17-XXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ST. LUCIE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING
THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE TO ADDRESS MEDICAL MARIJUANA
DISPENSARIES; BY AMENDING SECTION 3.01.03
ZONING DISTRICTS ALLOWING LOW THC AND
MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES AS A
PERMITTED USE IN CG, COMMERCIAL GENERAL
ZONING DISTRICTS AND CN, COMMERCIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS, SEVERABILITY AND APPLICABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT
OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION AND
CODIFICATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE;
APPLICANT: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
PURPOSE: St. Lucie County is initiating an amendment to its Land
Development Code to address medical marijuana dispensaries;
by amending section 3.01.03 zoning districts allowing low
THC and medical marijuana dispensaries as a permitted use in
CG, commercial general zoning districts and CN, commercial
neighborhood
LOCATION: Unincorporated St. Lucie County
The FIRST PUBLIC HEARING on this item will be held in the
Commission Chambers, Roger Poitras Annex, 3rd Floor, St. Lucie
County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce,
Florida on Tuesday. December 5. 2017 beginning at 6:00 pm or
as soon thereafter as possible.
All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard.
Written comments received in advance of the public hearing
will also be considered. Written comments to the Board of
County Commissioners should be received by the Planning and
Development Services Department - Planning Division at least 3
days prior to the scheduled hearing. The petition file is available
for review at the Planning and Development Services Department
- Planning offices located at 2300 Virginia Avenue, 2nd Floor, Fort
Pierce, Florida during regular business hours. Please call (772)
462-2822 or TDD (772) 462-1428 if you have any questions or
require additional information about this petition.
The St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners has the
power to review and grant any applications within their area of
responsibility.
The proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners are
electronically recorded. PURSUANT TO SECTION 286.0105,
FLORIDA STATUTES, if a person decides to appeal any decision
made by the Board of County Commissioners with respect to any
matter considered at a meeting or hearing, he or she will need
a record of the proceedings. For such purpose, he or she may
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,
which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which
the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the
proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn
in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity
to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing
upon request. If it becomes necessary, a public hearing may be
continued from time to time to a date -certain.
Anyone with a disability requiring accommodations to attend this
meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Risk Manager at
least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (772)462-1546
orT.D.D. (772)462-1428.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
/S/ CHRIS DZADOVSKY, CHAIRMAN
November 18, 2017 ND-1777565
❑ PROOF O.K. BY: ❑ O.K. WITH CORRECTIONS BY:
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY • SUBMIT CORRECTIONS ONLINE
ADVERTISER: ST LUCIE COUNTY ATTORNEY PROOF CREATED AT: 10/3/2017 2:06 PM
SALESPERSON: Linda Klein PROOF DUE: - NEXT RUN DATE: 11/18/17
PUBLICATION: TR-DAILY SIZE: 2 col X 10 in
TR- 1777565 .INDD
Packet Pg. 145
9.A.1.b
CHAPTER 2017-232
Senate Bill No. 8-A
An act relating to medical use of marijuana; providing legislative intent;
amending s. 212.08, F.S.; providing an exemption from the state tax on
sales, use, and other transactions for marijuana and marijuana delivery
devices used for medical purposes; amending s. 381.986, F.S.; providing,
revising, and deleting definitions; providing qualifying medical conditions
for a patient to be eligible to receive marijuana or a marijuana delivery
device; providing requirements for designating a qualified physician or
medical director; providing criteria for certification of a patient for medical
marijuana treatment by a qualified physician; providing for certain
patients registered with the medical marijuana use registry to be deemed
qualified; requiring the Department of Health to monitor physician
registration and certifications in the medical marijuana use registry;
requiring the Board of Medicine and the Board of Osteopathic Medicine to
create a physician certification pattern review panel; providing rulemak-
ing authority to the department and the boards; requiring the department
to establish a medical marijuana use registry; specifying entities and
persons who have access to the registry; providing requirements for
registration of, and maintenance of registered status by, qualified patients
and caregivers; providing criteria for nonresidents to prove residency for
registration as a qualified patient; defining the term "seasonal resident";
authorizing the department to suspend or revoke the registration of a
patient or caregiver under certain circumstances; providing requirements
for the issuance of medical marijuana use registry identification cards;
requiring the department to issue licenses to a certain number of medical
marijuana treatment centers; providing for license renewal and revoca-
tion; providing conditions for change of ownership; providing for con-
tinuance of certain entities authorized to dispense low-THC cannabis,
medical cannabis, and cannabis delivery devices; requiring a medical
marijuana treatment center to comply with certain standards in the
production and distribution of edibles; requiring the department to
establish, maintain, and control a computer seed -to -sale marijuana
tracking system; requiring background screening of owners, officers,
board members, and managers of medical marijuana treatment centers;
requiring the department to establish protocols and procedures for
operation, conduct periodic inspections, and restrict location of medical
marijuana treatment centers; providing a limit on county and municipal
permit fees; authorizing counties and municipalities to determine the
location of medical marijuana treatment centers by ordinance under
certain conditions; providing penalties; authorizing the department to
impose sanctions on persons or entities engaging in unlicensed activities;
providing that a person is not exempt from prosecution for certain offenses
and is not relieved from certain requirements of law under certain
circumstances; providing for certain school personnel to possess marijua-
na pursuant to certain established policies and procedures; providing that
N
�L
w
_
d
a
G
M
c
M
3
�L
ca
d
d
V
c
ca
c
'a
O
ti
N
ti
m
(D
c
a)
T
Q
of
c
m
E
Q
1
CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined ar
Packet Pg. 146
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 201 9•A.1.b
certain research institutions may possess, test, transport, and dispose of
marijuana subject to certain conditions; providing applicability; amending
ss. 458.331 and 459.015, F.S.; providing additional acts by a physician or
an osteopathic physician which constitute grounds for denial of a license or
disciplinary action to which penalties apply; creating s. 381.988, F.S.;
providing for the establishment of medical marijuana testing laboratories;
requiring the Department of Health, in collaboration with the Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the Department of Environ-
mental Protection, to develop certification standards and rules; providing
limitations on the acquisition and distribution of marijuana by a testing
laboratory; providing an exception for transfer of marijuana under certain
conditions; requiring a testing laboratory to use a department -selected
computer tracking system; providing grounds for disciplinary and
administrative action; authorizing the department to refuse to issue or
renew, or suspend or revoke, a testing laboratory license; creating s.
381.989, F.S.; defining terms; directing the department and the Depart-
ment of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to institute public education
campaigns relating to cannabis and marijuana and impaired driving;
requiring evaluations of public education campaigns; authorizing the
department and the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to
contract with vendors to implement and evaluate the campaigns; amend-
ing ss. 385.211, 499.0295, and 893.02, F.S.; conforming provisions to
changes made by the act; creating s. 1004.4351, F.S.; providing a short
title; providing legislative findings; defining terms; establishing the
Coalition for Medical Marijuana Research and Education within the H.
Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Inc.; providing a
purpose for the coalition; establishing the Medical Marijuana Research
and Education Board to direct the operations of the coalition; providing for
the appointment of board members; providing for terms of office,
reimbursement for certain expenses, and meetings of the board; authoriz-
ing the board to appoint a coalition director; prescribing the duties of the
coalition director; requiring the board to advise specified entities and
officials regarding medical marijuana research and education in this
state; requiring the board to annually adopt a Medical Marijuana
Research and Education Plan; providing requirements for the plan;
requiring the board to issue an annual report to the Governor and the
Legislature by a specified date; requiring the Department of Health to
submit reports to the board containing specified data; specifying respon-
sibilities of the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Inc.;
amending s. 1004.441, F.S.; revising definition; amending s. 1006.062,
F.S.; requiring district school boards to adopt policies and procedures for
access to medical marijuana by qualified patients who are students;
providing emergency rulemaking authority; providing for venue for a
cause of action against the department; providing for defense against
certain causes of action; directing the Department of Law Enforcement to
develop training for law enforcement officers and agencies; amending s.
385.212, F.S.; renaming the department's Office of Compassionate Use;
providing severability; providing a directive to the Division of Law
2
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are a
Packet Pg. 147
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2 9•A.1.b
Revision and Information; providing appropriations; providing an effec-
tive date.
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
Section 1. Legislative intent. —It is the intent of the Legislature to
implement s. 29, Article X of the State Constitution by creating a unified
regulatory structure. If s. 29, Article X of the State Constitution is amended
--
or a constitutional amendment related to cannabis or marijuana is adopted,
N
m
this act shall expire 6 months after the effective date of such amendment.
w
_
Section 2. Present paragraph (1) of subsection (2) of section 212.08,
Q,
Florida Statutes, is redesignated as paragraph (m), and a new paragraph (1)
G
is added to that subsection, to read:
c�
c
212.08 Sales, rental, use, consumption, distribution, and storage tax;
M
specified exemptions. —The sale at retail, the rental, the use, the consump-
tion, the distribution, and the storage to be used or consumed in this state of
the following are hereby specifically exempt from the tax imposed by this
4
chapter.
2
d
(2) EXEMPTIONS; MEDICAL.—
(1) Marijuana and marijuana delivery devices, as defined in s. 381.986,
are exempt from the taxes imposed under this chapter.
Section 3. Section 381.986, Florida Statutes, is amended to read:
O
(Substantial rewording of section. See
s. 381.986, F.S., for present text.)
N
381.986 Medical use of marijuana.—
_
m
(1) DEFINITIONS. —As used in this section, the term:
43
M
c
(a) "Caregiver" means a resident of this state who has agreed to assist
with a qualified patient's medical use of marijuana, has a caregiver
y
identification card, and meets the requirements of subsection (6).
(b) "Chronic nonmalignant pain" means pain that is caused by a
qualifying medical condition or that originates from a qualifying medical
condition and persists beyond the usual course of that qualifying medical
condition.
(c) "Close relative" means a spouse, parent, sibling, grandparent, child,
Q
or grandchild, whether related by whole or half blood, by marriage, or by
adoption.
(d) "Edibles" means commercially produced food items made with
marijuana oil, but no other form of marijuana, that are produced and
dispensed by a medical marijuana treatment center.
3
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined an?
Packet Pg. 148
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 201 9•A.1.b
(e) "Low-THC cannabis" means a plant of the genus Cannabis, the dried
flowers of which contain 0.8 percent or less of tetrahydrocannabinol and
more than 10 percent of cannabidiol weight for weight; the seeds thereof; the
resin extracted from any part of such plant; or any compound, manufacture,
salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant or its seeds or resin
that is dispensed from a medical marijuana treatment center.
(D "Marijuana" means all parts of any plant of the genus Cannabis,
whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part )
of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or
preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin, including low-THC cannabis,
which are dispensed from a medical marijuana treatment center for medical a
use by a qualified patient.
0
(g) "Marijuana delivery device" means an object used, intended for use, c
or designed for use in preparing, storing, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise 3
introducing marijuana into the human body, and which is dispensed from a `c
medical marijuana treatment center for medical use by a qualified patient. 2
(h) "Marijuana testing laboratory" means a facility that collects and V
analyzes marijuana samples from a medical marijuana treatment center
and has been certified by the department pursuant to s. 381.988.
(i) "Medical director" means a person who holds an active, unrestricted c
license as an allopathic physician under chapter 458 or osteopathic co
physician under chapter 459 and is in compliance with the requirements
of paragraph (3)(c).
O
(i) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, use, delivery,
N
transfer, or administration of marijuana authorized by a physician
1�
certification. The term does not include:
..
1. Possession, use, or administration of marijuana that was not
m
purchased or acquired from a medical marijuana treatment center.
c
2. Possession, use, or administration of marijuana in a form for smoking,
y
in the form of commerciallyproducedfood items other than edibles, or of
marijuana seeds or flower, except for flower in a sealed, tamper -proof
r
receptacle for vapina.
Q
of
3. Use or administration of any form or amount of marijuana in a
manner that is inconsistent with the qualified physician's directions or
E
physician certification.
4. Transfer of marijuana to a person other than the qualified patient for
Q
whom it was authorized or the qualified patient's caregiver on behalf of the
qualified patient.
5. Use or administration of marijuana in the following locations:
a. On any form of public transportation, except for low-THC cannabis.
CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined are a
Packet Pg. 149
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2 9•A.1.b
b. In any public place, except for low-THC cannabis.
c. In a qualified patient's place of employment, except when permitted by
his or her employer.
d. In a state correctional institution, as defined in s. 944.02, or a
correctional institution, as defined in s. 944.241.
e. On the grounds of a preschool, primary school, or secondary school,
m
except as provided in s. 1006.062.
L
N
f. In a school bus, a vehicle, an aircraft, or a motorboat, except for low-
THC cannabis.
a
N_
(k) "Physician certification" means a qualified physician's authorization
G
for a qualified patient to receive marijuana and a marijuana delivery device
from a medical marijuana treatment center.
•L
(1) "Qualified patient" means a resident of this state who has been added
2
to the medical marijuana use registry by a qualified physician to receive
marijuana or a marijuana delivery device for a medical use and who has a
m
:a
qualified patient identification card.
d
2
(m) "Qualified physician" means a person who holds an active, unrest-
ricted license as an allopathic physician under chapter 458 or as an
osteopathic physician under chapter 459 and is in compliance with the
physician education requirements of subsection (3).
O
(n) "Smoking" means burning or igniting a substance and inhaling the
smoke.
N
I-
(o) "Terminal condition" means a progressive disease or medical or
surgical condition that causes significant functional impairment, is not
m
considered by a treating physician to be reversible without the administra-
tion of life -sustaining procedures, and will result in death within 1 year after
c
diagnosis if the condition runs its normal course.
y
(2) QUALIFYING MEDICAL CONDITIONS. —A patient must be diag=
nosed with at least one of the following conditions to qualify to receive
Q
marijuana or a marijuana delivery device:
(a) Cancer.
c
m
E
(b) Epilepsy.
c) Glaucoma. Q
d) Positive status for human immunodeficiencv virus.
(e) Acauired immune deficiencv svndrome.
(f) Post -traumatic stress disorder.
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined ar
Packet Pg. 150
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 201 9•A.1.b
g) Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
h) Crohn's disease.
i) Parkinson's disease.
D Multiple sclerosis.
(k) Medical conditions of the same kind or class as or comparable to those W
enumerated in paragraphs (a)-(i). L
(1) A terminal condition diagnosed by a physician other than the
qualified physician issuing the physician certification. 0-
(in) Chronic nonmalignant pain.
�a
(3) QUALIFIED PHYSICIANS AND MEDICAL DIRECTORS. —
(a) Before being approved as a qualified physician, as defined in 2
paragraph (1)(m), and before each license renewal, a physician must FU
successfully complete a 2-hour course and subsequent examination offered a
by the Florida Medical Association or the Florida Osteopathic Medical
Association which encompass the requirements of this section and any rules
adopted hereunder. The course and examination shall be administered at
least annually and may be offered in a distance learning format, including
an electronic, online format that is available upon request. The price of the 5
course may not exceed $500. A physician who has met the physician
education reauirements of former s. 381.986(4). Florida Statutes 2016.
before the effective date of this section, shall be deemed to be in compliance N
with this paragraph from the effective date of this act until 90 days after the
course and examination required by this Darazraph become available.
(b) A qualified physician may not be employed by, or have any direct or m
indirect economic interest in, a medical marijuana treatment center or M
marijuana testing laboratory.
(c) Before beine emDloved as a medical director. as defined in DaraaraDh
(1)(i), and before each license renewal, a medical director must successfully r
complete a 2-hour course and subsequent examination offered by the Florida Q
o�
Medical Association or the Florida Osteopathic Medical Association which
encompass the requirements of this section and any rules adopted here-
under. The course and examination shall be administered at least annuallv M
and may be offered in a distance learning format, including an electronic,
online format that is available upon request. The price of the course may not Q
exceed $500.
(4) PHYSICIAN CERTIFICATION.
(a) A qualified physician may issue a physician certification only if the
qualified physician:
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are a
Packet Pg. 151
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2 9•A.1.b
1. Conducted a physical examination while physically present in the
same room as the patient and a full assessment of the medical history of the
patient.
2. Diagnosed the patient with at least one qualifying medical condition.
3. Determined that the medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh
the potential health risks for the patient, and such determination must be
documented in the patient's medical record. If a patient is younger than 18
years of age, a second physician must concur with this determination, and
such concurrence must be documented in the patient's medical record.
4. Determined whether the patient is pregnant and documented such
determination in the patient's medical record. A physician may not issue a
physician certification, except for low-THC cannabis, to a patient who is
pregnant.
5. Reviewed the patient's controlled drug prescription history in the
prescription drug monitoring program database established pursuant to s.
893.055.
6. Reviews the medical marijuana use registry and confirmed that the
patient does not have an active physician certification from another
qualified physician.
7. Registers as the issuer of the physician certification for the named
qualified patient on the medical marijuana use registry in an electronic
manner determined by the department, and:
a. Enters into the registry the contents of the physician certification,
including the patient's qualifying condition and the dosage not to exceed the
daily dose amount determined by the department, the amount and forms of
marijuana authorized for the patient, and any types of marijuana delivery
devices needed by the patient for the medical use of marijuana.
b. Updates the registry within 7 days after any change is made to the
original physician certification to reflect such change.
c. Deactivates the registration of the qualified patient and the patient's
caregiver when the physician no longer recommends the medical use of
marijuana for the patient.
8. Obtains the voluntary and informed written consent of the patient for
medical use of marijuana each time the qualified physician issues a
physician certification for the patient, which shall be maintained in the
patient's medical record. The patient, or the patient's parent or legal
guardian if the patient is a minor, must sign the informed consent
acknowledging that the qualified physician has sufficiently explained its
content. The qualified physician must use a standardized informed consent
form adopted in rule by the Board of Medicine and the Board of Osteopathic
Medicine, which must include, at a minimum, information related to:
2
d
c
c�
c
L
Q
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined an?
Packet Pg. 152
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 201 9•A.1.b
a. The Federal Government's classification of marijuana as a Schedule I
controlled substance.
b. The approval and oversight status of marijuana by the Food and Drug
Administration.
c. The current state of research on the efficacv of mariivana to treat the
qualifying conditions set forth in this section.
d. The potential for addiction.
L
e. The potential effect that marijuana may have on a patient's coordina-
tion, motor skills, and cognition, including a warning against operating
0-
heavy machinery, operating a motor vehicle, or engaging in activities that
p
require a person to be alert or respond quickly.
c
�a
f. The potential side effects of marijuana use.
•L
g. The risks, benefits, and drug interactions of marijuana.
h. That the patient's de -identified health information contained in the
2
physician certification and medical marijuana use registry may be used for
m
research purposes.
(b) If a qualified physician issues a physician certification for a qualified
c
patient diagnosed with a qualifying medical condition pursuant to para-
c
graph (2)(k), the physician must submit the following to the applicable board
S
within 14 days after issuing the physician certification:
1. Documentation supporting the qualified physician's opinion that the
N
medical condition is of the same kind or class as the conditions in paragraphs
r-
2 a-'.
..
2. Documentation that establishes the efficacy of marijuana as treat-
m
ment for the condition.
c
3. Documentation supporting the qualified physician's opinion that the
y
benefits of medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the potential
health risks for the patient.
r
Q
4. Any other documentation as required by board rule.
of
The department must submit such documentation to the Coalition for
c
E
Medical Marijuana Research and Education established pursuant to s.
1004.4351.
Q
(c) A qualified physician may not issue a physician certification for more
than three 70-day supply limits of marijuana. The department shall
auantifv by rule a dailv dose amount with eauivalent dose amounts for
each allowable form of marijuana dispensed by a medical marijuana
treatment center. The department shall use the daily dose amount to
calculate a 70-day supply.
CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined are a
Packet Pg. 153
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2 9•A.1.b
1. A qualified physician may request an exception to the daily dose
amount limit. The request shall be made electronically on a form adopted by
the department in rule and must include, at a minimum:
a. The qualified patient's qualifying medical condition.
b. The dosage and route of administration that was insufficient to
provide relief to the qualified patient.
c. A description of how the patient will benefit from an increased
amount.
d. The minimum daily dose amount of marijuana that would be sufficient
for the treatment of the qualified patient's qualifying medical condition.
2. A qualified physician must provide the qualified patient's records
jWon the request of the department.
3. The department shall approve or disapprove the request within 14
days after receipt of the complete documentation required by this paragraph.
The request shall be deemed approved if the department fails to act within
this time period.
(d) A qualified physician must evaluate an existing qualified patient at
least once every 30 weeks before issuing a new physician certification. A
physician must:
1. Determine if the patient still meets the requirements to be issued a
physician certification under paragraph (a).
2. Identify and document in the qualified patient's medical records
whether the qualified patient experienced either of the following related to
the medical use of marijuana:
a. An adverse drug interaction with any prescription or nonprescription
medication; or
b. A reduction in the use of, or dependence on, other types of controlled
substances as defined in s. 893.02.
3. Submit a report with the findings required pursuant to subparagraph
2. to the department. The department shall submit such reports to the
Coalition for Medical Marijuana Research and Education established
pursuant to s. 1004.4351.
(e) An active order for low-THC cannabis or medical cannabis issued
pursuant to former s. 381.986, Florida Statutes 2016, and registered with
the compassionate use registry before the effective date of this section, is
deemed a physician certification, and all patients possessing such orders are
deemed qualified patients until the department begins issuing medical
marijuana use registry identification cards.
2
d
c
c�
c
L
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined an?
Packet Pg. 154
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 201 9•A.1.b
(f) The department shall monitor physician registration in the medical
marijuana use registry and the issuance of physician certifications for
practices that could facilitate unlawful diversion or misuse of marijuana or a
marijuana delivery device and shall take disciplinary action as appropriate.
(g) The Board of Medicine and the Board of Osteopathic Medicine shall
jointly create a physician certification pattern review panel that shall review
all physician certifications submitted to the medical marijuana use registry.
The panel shall track and report the number of physician certifications and 44)
the qualifying medical conditions, dosage, supply amount, and form of
marijuana certified. The panel shall report the data both by individual c
qualified physician and in the aggregate, by county, and statewide. The 0-
physician certification pattern review panel shall, beginning January 1,
2018, submit an annual report of its findings and recommendations to the
Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
•L
(h) The department, the Board of Medicine, and the Board of Osteopathic
Medicine may adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 to
implement this subsection. `2
a
m
(5) MEDICAL MARIJUANA USE REGISTRY. —
(a) The department shall create and maintain a secure, electronic, and
a)
online medical marijuana use registry for physicians, patients, and
caregivers as provided under this section. The medical marijuana use
c
registry must be accessible to law enforcement agencies, qualified physi-
0
cians, and medical marijuana treatment centers to verify the authorization
of a qualified patient or a caregiver to possess marijuana or a marijuana
ti
delivery device and record the marijuana or marijuana delivery device
v
dispensed. The medical marijuana use registry must also be accessible to
_
practitioners licensed to prescribe prescription drugs to ensure proper care
op
for patients before medications that may interact with the medical use of
+;
marijuana are prescribed. The medical marijuana use registry must prevent
c
an active registration of a qualified patient by multiple physicians.
(b) The department shall determine whether an individual is a resident
of this state for the purpose of registration of qualified patients and
T
Q
caregivers in the medical marijuana use registry. To prove residences
of
1. An adult resident must provide the department with a copy of his or
c
E
her valid Florida driver license issued under s. 322.18 or a copy of a valid
Florida identification card issued under s. 322.051.
Q
2. An adult seasonal resident who cannot meet the requirements of
subparagraph 1. may provide the department with a copy of two of the
following that show proof of residential address:
a. A deed, mortgage, monthly mortgage statement, mortgage payment
booklet or residential rental or lease agreement.
10
CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined are a
Packet Pg. 155
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2 9•A.1.b
b. One proof of residential address from the seasonal resident's parent,
step-parent, legal guardian or other person with whom the seasonal resident
resides and a statement from the person with whom the seasonal resident
resides statina that the seasonal resident does reside with him or her.
c. A utility hookup or work order dated within 60 days before registration
in the medical use registrv.
d. A utility bill, not more than 2 months old.
•L
e. Mail from a financial institution, including checking, savings, or N
investment account statements, not more than 2 months old.
a
f. Mail from a federal, state, county, or municipal gavemment agency, p5
not more than 2 months old.
c
�a
g. Any other documentation that provides proof of residential address as
determined by department rule.
3. A minor must provide the department with a certified copy of a birth
certificate or a current record of registration from a Florida K-12 school and 2
must have a parent or legal guardian who meets the requirements of m
subparagraph 1. ?
For the purposes of this paragraph, the term "seasonal resident" means any
CD
c
person who temporarily resides in this state for a period of at least 31
consecutive days in each calendar year, maintains a temporary residence in
c
this state, returns to the state or jurisdiction of his or her residence at least
p
one time during each calendar year, and is registered to vote or pays income
tax in another state or jurisdiction.
N
(c) The department may suspend or revoke the registration of a qualified
patient or caregiver if the qualified patient or caregiver:
m
1. Provides misleading, incorrect, false, or fraudulent information to the
department;
d
2. Obtains a supply of marijuana in an amount greater than the amount
b
authorized by the physician certification;
r
Q
3. Falsifies, alters, or otherwise modifies an identification card;
c
4. Fails to timely notify the department of any changes to his or her
E
qualified patient status; or
5. Violates the requirements of this section or any rule adopted under
Q
this section.
(d) The department shall immediately suspend the registration of a
qualified patient charged with a violation of chapter 893 until final
disposition of any alleged offense. Thereafter, the department may extend
the suspension, revoke the registration, or reinstate the registration.
11
CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined an?
Packet Pg. 156
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 201 9•A.1.b
e) The department shall immediatelv suspend the registration of an
caregiver charged with a violation of chapter 893 until final disposition of
any alleged offense. The department shall revoke a caregiver registration if
the caregiver does not meet the requirements of subparagraph (6)(b)6.
(f) The department may revoke the registration of a qualified patient or
caregiver who cultivates marijuana or who acquires, possesses, or delivers
marijuana from any person or entity other than a medical marijuana
N
treatment center.
)
�L
(g) The department shall revoke the registration of a qualified patient,
R
c
and the patient's associated caregiver, upon notification that the patient no
a
longer meets the criteria of a qualified patient.
0
(h) The department may adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and
=
120.54 to implement this subsection.
�a
•L
(6) CAREGIVERS. —
(a) The department must register an individual as a caregiver on the
2
medical marijuana use registry and issue a caregiver identification card if an
individual designated by a qualified patient meets all of the requirements of
this subsection and department rule.
a)
c
(b) A caregiver must:
1. Not be a qualified physician and not be employed by or have an
0
economic interest in a medical marijuana treatment center or a marijuana
testing laboratory.
ti
2. Be 21 years of age or older and a resident of this state.
..
3. Agree in writing to assist with the qualified patient's medical use of
m
marijuana.
m
c
4. Be registered in the medical marijuana use registry as a caregiver for
d
y
no more than one qualified patient, except as provided in this paragraph.
5. Successfully complete a caregiver certification course developed and
T
CID
administered by the department or its designee, which must be renewed
biennially. The price of the course may not exceed $100.
m
E
6. Pass a background screening pursuant to subsection (9), unless the
m
patient is a close relative of the caregiver.
Q
(c) A qualified patient may designate no more than one caregiver to
assist with the qualified patient's medical use of marijuana, unless:
1. The qualified patient is a minor and the designated caregivers are
parents or legal guardians of the qualified patient;
12
CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined are a
Packet Pg. 157
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2 9•A.1.b
2. The aualified Datient is an adult who has an intellectual or develoD-
mental disability that prevents the patient from being able to protect or care
for himself or herself without assistance or supervision and the designated
caregivers are the parents or legal guardians of the qualified patient; or
3. The qualified patient is admitted to a hospice program.
(d) A caregiver may be registered in the medical marijuana use registry
as a designated caregiver for no more than one qualified patient, unless:
in
44)
1. The caregiver is a parent or legal guardian of more than one minor
•L
who is a qualified patient;
a
y
2. The caregiver is a parent or legal guardian of more than one adult who
0
is a qualified patient and who has an intellectual or developmental disability
that prevents the patient from being able to protect or care for himself or
herself without assistance or supervision; or
3. All qualified patients the caregiver has agreed to assist are admitted
to a hospice program and have requested the assistance of that caregiver
.2
with the medical use of marijuana; the caregiver is an employee of the
m
hospice; and the caregiver provides personal care or other services directly to
clients of the hospice in the scope of that employment.
d
c
(e) A caregiver may not receive compensation, other than actual
expenses incurred, for any services provided to the qualified patient.
c
L
O
(f) If a qualified patient is younger than 18 years of age, only a caregiver
may purchase or administer marijuana for medical use by the qualified
N
patient. The qualified patient may not purchase marijuana.
(g) A caregiver must be in immediate possession of his or her medical
m
marijuana use registry identification card at all times when in possession of
m
marijuana or a marijuana delivery device and must present his or her
medical marijuana use registry identification card upon the request of a law
c
y
enforcement officer.
(h) The department may adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and
r
120.54 to implement this subsection.
(7) IDENTIFICATION CARDS.—
c
(a) The department shall issue medical marijuana use registry identi-
J-
too
fication cards for qualified patients and caregivers who are residents of this
Q
state, which must be renewed annually. The identification cards must be
resistant to counterfeiting and tampering and must include, at a minimum,
the following:
1. The name, address, and date of birth of the qualified patient or
caregiver.
13
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined ar
Packet Pg. 158
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 201 9•A.1.b
2. A full -face. passport-tvpe. color Ahotoerabh of the aualified patient or
caregiver taken within the 90 days immediately_ preceding registration or
the Florida driver license or Florida identification card photograph of the
qualified patient or caregiver obtained directly from the Department of
Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.
3. Identification as a qualified patient or a caregiver.
4. The unique numeric identifier used for the qualified patient in the
medical marijuana use registry.
5. For a caregiver, the name and unique numeric identifier of the
caregiver and the qualified patient or patients that the caregiver is assisting.
y
0
6. The expiration date of the identification card.
�a
(b) The department must receive written consent from a qualified
patient's parent or legal guardian before it may issue an identification
card to a qualified patient who is a minor.
(c) The department shall adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and
120.54 establishing procedures for the issuance, renewal, suspension,
d
replacement, surrender, and revocation of medical marijuana use registry
identification cards pursuant to this section and shall begin issuing qualified
patient identification cards by October 3, 2017.
c
(d) Applications for identification cards must be submitted on a form
prescribed by the department. The department may charge a reasonable fee
O
associated with the issuance, replacement, and renewal of identification
ti
cards. The department shall allocate $10 of the identification card fee to the
N
Division of Research at Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University for
v
the purpose of educating minorities about marijuana for medical use and the
—
impact of the unlawful use of marijuana on minority communities. The
m
department shall contract with a third -party vendor to issue identification
cards. The vendor selected by the department must have experience
c
performing similar functions for other state agencies.
y
(e) A qualified patient or caregiver shall return his or her identification
�
T
card to the department within 5 business days after revocation.
Q
of
(8) MEDICAL MARIJUANA TREATMENT CENTERS. —
(a) The department shall license medical marijuana treatment centers to
ensure reasonable statewide accessibility and availability as necessary for
c�a
qualified patients registered in the medical marijuana use registry and who
Q
are issued a physician certification under this section.
1. As soon as practicable, but no later than July 3, 2017, the department
shall license as a medical marijuana treatment center any entity that holds
an active, unrestricted license to cultivate, process, transport, and dispense
low-THC cannabis, medical cannabis, and cannabis delivery devices, under
14
CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined are a
Packet Pg. 159
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2 9•A.1.b
former s. 381.986, Florida Statutes 2016, before July 1, 2017, and which
meets the requirements of this section. In addition to the authority granted
under this section, these entities are authorized to dispense low-THC
cannabis, medical cannabis, and cannabis delivery devices ordered pursuant
to former s. 381.986, Florida Statutes 2016, which were entered into the
compassionate use registry before July 1, 2017, and are authorized to begin
dispensing marijuana under this section on July 3, 2017. The department
may grant variances from the representations made in such an entity's
original application for approval under former s. 381.986, Florida Statutes
2014, pursuant to paragraph (e).
2. The department shall license as medical marijuana treatment centers
10 applicants that meet the requirements of this section, under the following
parameters:
a. As soon as practicable, but no later than August 1, 2017, the
department shall license any applicant whose application was reviewed,
evaluated, and scored by the department and which was denied a dispensing
organization license by the department under former s. 381.986, Florida
Statutes 2014; which had one or more administrative or judicial challenges
pending as of January1, 2017, or had a final ranking within one point of the
highest final ranking in its region under former s. 381.986, Florida Statutes
2014; which meets the requirements of this section; and which provides
documentation to the department that it has the existing infrastructure and
technical and technological ability to begin cultivating marijuana within 30
days after registration as a medical marijuana treatment center.
b. As soon as practicable, but no later than October 3, 2017, the
department shall license one applicant that is a recognized class member
of Pi
g&rd v. Glickman, 185 F.R.D. 82 (D.D.C. 1999), or In Re Black Farmers
Litig_, 856 F. Supp. 2d 1(D.D.C. 2011) and is a member of the Black Farmers
and Agriculturalists Association -Florida Chapter. An applicant licensed
under this sub -subparagraph is exempt from the requirements of subpar-
agraphs (b)1. and (b)2.
c. As soon as practicable, but no later than October 3, 2017, the
department shall license applicants that meet the requirements of this
section in sufficient numbers to result in 10 total licenses issued under this
subparagraph, while accounting for the number of licenses issued under sub -
subparagraphs a. and b.
3. For up to two of the licenses issued under subparagraph 2., the
department shall give preference to applicants that demonstrate in their
applications that they own one or more facilities that are, or were, used for
the canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing of citrus fruit or citrus
molasses and will use or convert the facility or facilities for the processing of
marijuana.
4. Within 6 months after the registration of 100,000 active qualified
patients in the medical marijuana use registry, the department shall license
2
d
c
ca
c
L
i
15
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined ar
Packet Pg. 160
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 201 9•A.1.b
four additional medical marijuana treatment centers that meet the
requirements of this section. Thereafter, the department shall license four
medical marijuana treatment centers within 6 months after the registration
of each additional 100,000 active qualified patients in the medical marijuana
use registry that meet the requirements of this section.
5. Dispensing facilities are subject to the following requirements:
a. A medical marijuana treatment center may not establish or operate
aNi
more than a statewide maximum of 25 dispensing facilities, unless the
medical marijuana use registry reaches a total of 100,000 active registered
qualified patients. When the medical marijuana use registry reaches
a
100,000 active registered qualified patients, and then upon each further
instance of the total active registered qualified patients increasing by
100,000, the statewide maximum number of dispensing facilities that each
licensed medical marijuana treatment center may establish and operate
increases by five.
b. A medical marijuana treatment center may not establish more than
the maximum number of dispensing facilities allowed in each of the
FU
Northwest, Northeast, Central, Southwest, and Southeast Regions. The
department shall determine a medical marijuana treatment center's
maximum number of dispensing facilities allowed in each region by
calculating the percentage of the total statewide population contained
within that region and multiplying that percentage by the medical
c�
c
marijuana treatment center's statewide maximum number of dispensing
o
facilities established under sub -subparagraph a., rounded to the nearest
whole number. The department shall ensure that such rounding does not
N
cause a medical marijuana treatment center's total number of statewide
dispensing facilities to exceed its statewide maximum. The department shall
initially calculate the maximum number of dispensing facilities allowed in
each region for each medical marijuana treatment center using county
m
population estimates from the Florida Estimates of Population 2016, as
m
published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research, and shall
perform recalculations following the official release of county population
y
data resulting from each United States Decennial Census. For the purposes
-q
of this subparagraph:
(I) The Northwest Region consists of Bay, Calhoun, Escambia, Franklin,
Q
of
Gadsden, Gulf, Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty, Madison,
Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Taylor, Wakulla, Walton, and Washington Counties.
(II) The Northeast Region consists of Alachua, Baker, Bradford, Clay,
Q
Columbia, Dixie, Duval, Flagler, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, Levy,
Marion, Nassau, Putnam, St. Johns, Suwannee, and Union Counties.
(III) The Central Region consists of Brevard, Citrus, Hardee, Hernando,
Indian River, Lake, Orange, Osceola, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Seminole, St.
Lucie, Sumter, and Volusia Counties.
16
CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined are a
Packet Pg. 161
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2 9•A.1.b
(IV) The Southwest Region consists of Charlotte, Collier, DeSoto,
Glades, Hendry, Highlands, Hillsborough, Lee, Manatee, Okeechobee, and
Sarasota Counties.
(V) The Southeast Region consists of Broward, Miami -Dade, Martin,
Monroe, and Palm Beach Counties.
c. If a medical marijuana treatment center establishes a number of
dispensing facilities within a region that is less than the number allowed for
that region under sub -subparagraph b., the medical marijuana treatment
center may sell one or more of its unused dispensing facility slots to other
licensed medical marijuana treatment centers. For each dispensing facility
slot that a medical marijuana treatment center sells, that medical
marijuana treatment center's statewide maximum number of dispensing
facilities, as determined under sub -subparagraph a., is reduced by one. The
statewide maximum number of dispensing facilities for a medical marijuana
treatment center that purchases an unused dispensing facility slot is
increased by one per slot purchased. Additionally, the sale of a dispensing
facility slot shall reduce the seller's regional maximum and increase the
purchaser's regional maximum number of dispensing facilities, as deter-
mined in sub -subparagraph b., by one for that region. For any slot purchased
under this sub -subparagraph, the regional restriction applied to that slot's
location under sub -subparagraph b. before the purchase shall remain in
effect following the purchase. A medical marijuana treatment center that
sells or purchases a dispensing facility slot must notify the department
within 3 days of sale.
d. This subparagraph shall expire on April 1, 2020.
If this subparagraph or its application to any person or circumstance is held
invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of this
act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application,
and to this end, the provisions of this subparagraph are severable.
(b) An applicant for licensure as a medical marijuana treatment center
shall apply to the department on a form prescribed by the department and
adopted in rule. The department shall adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1)
and 120.54 establishing a procedure for the issuance and biennial renewal of
licenses, including initial application and biennial renewal fees sufficient to
cover the costs of implementing and administering this section, and
establishing supplemental licensure fees for payment beginning May 1,
2018, sufficient to cover the costs of administering ss. 381.989 and
1004.4351. The department shall identify applicants with strong diversity
plans reflecting this state's commitment to diversity and implement training
programs and other educational programs to enable minority persons and
minority business enterprises, as defined in s. 288.703, and veteran business
enterprises, as defined in s. 295.187, to compete for medical marijuana
treatment center licensure and contracts. Subject to the requirements in
subparagraphs (a)2.-4., the department shall issue a license to an applicant
if the applicant meets the requirements of this section and pays the initial
2
17
CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined ar
Packet Pg. 162
d
c
ca
c
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 201 9•A.1.b
application fee. The department shall renew the licensure of a medical
marijuana treatment center biennially if the licensee meets the require-
ments of this section and pays the biennial renewal fee. An individual may
not be an applicant, owner, officer, board member, or manager on more than
one application for licensure as a medical marijuana treatment center. An
individual or entity may not be awarded more than one license as a medical
marijuana treatment center. An applicant for licensure as a medical
marijuana treatment center must demonstrate:
1. That, for the 5 consecutive years before submitting the application,
the applicant has been registered to do business in in the state.
2. Possession of a valid certificate of registration issued by the Depart-
ment of Agriculture and Consumer Services pursuant to s. 581.131.
3. The technical and technological ability to cultivate and produce
marijuana, including, but not limited to, low-THC cannabis.
4. The ability to secure the premises, resources, and personnel necessary
to operate as a medical marijuana treatment center.
5. The ability to maintain accountability of all raw materials, finished
products, and any byproducts to prevent diversion or unlawful access to or
possession of these substances.
6. An infrastructure reasonably located to dispense marijuana to
registered qualified patients statewide or regionally as determined by the
department.
7. The financial ability to maintain operations for the duration of the 2-
year approval cycle, including the provision of certified financial statements
to the department.
a. Upon approval, the applicant must post a $5 million performance bond
issued by an authorized surety insurance company rated in one of the three
highest rating categories by a nationally recognized rating service. However,
a medical marijuana treatment center serving at least 1,000 qualified
patients is only required to maintain a $2 million performance bond.
b. In lieu of the performance bond required under sub -subparagraph a.,
the applicant may provide an irrevocable letter of credit payable to the
department or provide cash to the department. If provided with cash under
this sub -subparagraph, the department shall deposit the cash in the Grants
and Donations Trust Fund within the Department of Health, subject to the
same conditions as the bond regarding requirements for the applicant to
forfeit ownership of the funds. If the funds deposited under this sub -
subparagraph generate interest, the amount of that interest shall be used by
the department for the administration of this section.
8. That all owners, officers, board members, and managers have passed a
background screening pursuant to subsection (9).
2
Q
18
CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined are a
Packet Pg. 163
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2 9•A.1.b
9. The employment of a medical director to supervise the activities of the
medical marijuana treatment center.
10. A diversity plan that promotes and ensures the involvement of
minority_ persons and minority business enterprises, as defined in s. 288.703,
or veteran business enterprises, as defined in s. 295.187, in ownership,
management, and employment. An applicant for licensure renewal must
show the effectiveness of the diversity plan by including the following with
his or her application for renewal:
a. Representation of minority persons and veterans in the medical
marijuana treatment center's workforce;
b. Efforts to recruit minority persons and veterans for employment; and
c. A record of contracts for services with minority business enterprises
and veteran business enterprises.
(c) A medical marijuana treatment center may not make a wholesale
purchase of marijuana from, or a distribution of marijuana to, another
medical marijuana treatment center, unless the medical marijuana treat-
ment center seeking to make a wholesale purchase of marijuana submits
proof of harvest failure to the department.
(d) The department shall establish, maintain, and control a computer
software tracking system that traces marijuana from seed to sale and allows
real-time, 24-hour access by the department to data from all medical
marijuana treatment centers and marijuana testing laboratories. The
tracking system must allow for integration of other seed -to -sale systems
and, at a minimum, include notification of when marijuana seeds are
planted, when marijuana plants are harvested and destroyed, and when
marijuana is transported, sold, stolen, diverted, or lost. Each medical
marijuana treatment center shall use the seed -to -sale tracking system
established by the department or integrate its own seed -to -sale tracking
system with the seed -to -sale tracking system established by the department.
Each medical marijuana treatment center may use its own seed -to -sale
system until the department establishes a seed -to -sale tracking system. The
department may contract with a vendor to establish the seed -to -sale
tracking system. The vendor selected by the department may not have a
contractual relationship with the department to perform any services
pursuant to this section other than the seed -to -sale tracking system. The
vendor may not have a direct or indirect financial interest in a medical
marijuana treatment center or a marijuana testing laboratory.
(e) A licensed medical marijuana treatment center shall cultivate,
process, transport, and dispense marijuana for medical use. A licensed
medical marijuana treatment center may not contract for services directly
related to the cultivation, processing, and dispensing of marijuana or
marijuana delivery devices, except that a medical marijuana treatment
center licensed pursuant to subparagraph (a)1. may contract with a single
N
m
•L
M
w
c
d
a
0
M
c
M
Z
.r
M
13
(D
2
d
c
ca
c
L
i
Q
19
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined ar
Packet Pg. 164
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 201 9•A.1.b
entity for the cultivation, processing, transporting, and dispensing of
marijuana and marijuana delivery devices. A licensed medical marijuana
treatment center must, at all times, maintain compliance with the criteria
demonstrated and representations made in the initial application and the
criteria established in this subsection. Upon request, the department may
grant a medical mariivana treatment center a variance from the represen-
tations made in the initial application. Consideration of such a request shall
be based upon the individual facts and circumstances surrounding the
request. A variance may not be granted unless the requesting medical L
marijuana treatment center can demonstrate to the department that it has a N
proposed alternative to the specific representation made in its application
which fulfills the same or a similar purpose as the specific representation in y
a way that the department can reasonably determine will not be a lower p
standard than the specific representation in the application. A variance maX
not be granted from the requirements in subparagraph 2. and subpara-
graphs (b)1. and 2. .L
�a
1. A licensed medical marijuana treatment center may transfer owner-
ship to an individual or entity who meets the requirements of this section. A
publicly traded corporation or publicly traded company that meets the
requirements of this section is not precluded from ownership of a medical
marijuana treatment center. To accommodate a change in ownership
a. The licensed medical marijuana treatment center shall notify the coo
department in writing at least 60 days before the anticipated date of the c
change of ownership
O
b. The individual or entity applying for initial licensure due to a change ti
N
of ownership must submit an application that must be received by the
department at least 60 days before the date of change of ownership
c. Upon receipt of an application for a license, the department shall m
examine the application and, within 30 days after receipt, notify the M
applicant in writing of any apparent errors or omissions and request any
additional information required. y
d. Requested information omitted from an application for licensure must r
be filed with the department within 21 days after the department's request Q
of
for omitted information or the application shall be deemed incomplete and
shall be withdrawn from further consideration and the fees shall be
forfeited.
Within 30 days after the receipt of a complete application, the department Q
shall approve or deny the application.
2. A medical marijuana treatment center, and any individual or entity
who directly or indirectly owns, controls, or holds with power to vote 5
percent or more of the voting shares of a medical marijuana treatment
center, may not acquire direct or indirect ownership or control of any voting
20
CODING: Words striel£en are deletions; words underlined are a
Packet Pg. 165
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2 9•A.1.b
shares or other form of ownership of any other medical marijuana treatment
center.
3. A medical marijuana treatment center may not enter into any form of
profit-sharing arrangement with the property owner or lessor of any of its
facilities where cultivation, processing, storing, or dispensing of marijuana
and mariivana delivery devices occurs.
4. All employees of a medical marijuana treatment center must be 21
years of age or older and have passed a background screening pursuant to L
subsection (9). c
d
5. Each medical marijuana treatment center must adopt and enforce N
policies and procedures to ensure employees and volunteers receive training G
on the legal requirements to dispense marijuana to qualified patients.
6. When growing marijuana, a medical marijuana treatment center:
a. May use pesticides determined by the department, after consultation
with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, to be safely
applied to plants intended for human consumption, but may not use
pesticides designated as restricted -use pesticides pursuant to s. 487.042.
b. Must grow marijuana within an enclosed structure and in a room
separate from anv other Dlant.
c. Must inspect seeds and growing plants for plant pests that endanger
or threaten the horticultural and agricultural interests of the state in
accordance with chapter 581 and anv rules adopted thereunder.
d. Must perform fumigation or treatment of plants, or remove and
destroy infested or infected plants, in accordance with chapter 581 and any
rules adoDted thereunder.
7. Each medical marijuana treatment center must produce and make
available for purchase at least one low-THC cannabis product.
8. A medical marijuana treatment center that produces edibles must
hold a permit to operate as a food establishment pursuant to chapter 500, the
Florida Food Safety Act, and must comply with all the requirements for food
establishments pursuant to chapter 500 and any rules adopted thereunder.
Edibles may not contain more than 200 milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol
and a single serving portion of an edible may not exceed 10 milligrams of
tetrahydrocannabinol. Edibles may have a potency variance of no greater
than 15 percent. Edibles may not be attractive to children; be manufactured
in the shape of humans, cartoons, or animals; be manufactured in a form
that bears any reasonable resemblance to products available for consump-
tion as commercially available candy; or contain any color additives. To
discourage consumption of edibles by children, the department shall
determine by rule any shapes, forms, and ingredients allowed and prohibited
for edibles. Medical marijuana treatment centers may not begin processing
M
Z
°i
ea
V
(D
2
d
c
ca
c
Q
21
CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined an?
Packet Pg. 166
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 201 9•A.1.b
or dispensing edibles until after the effective date of the rule. The
department shall also adopt sanitation rules providing the standards and
requirements for the storage, display, or dispensing of edibles.
9. Within 12 months after licensure, a medical marijuana treatment
center must demonstrate to the department that all of its processing
facilities have passed a Food Safety Good Manufacturing Practices, such as
Global Food Safety Initiative or equivalent, inspection by a nationally
accredited certifying body. A medical marijuana treatment center must
immediately stop processing at any facility which fails to pass this inspection
until it demonstrates to the department that such facility has met this
requirement.
10. When processing marijuana, a medical marijuana treatment center
must:
a. Process the marijuana within an enclosed structure and in a room
separate from other plants or products.
b. Comply with department rules when processing marijuana with
hydrocarbon solvents or other solvents or gases exhibiting potential toxicity
to humans. The department shall determine by rule the requirements for
medical marijuana treatment centers to use such solvents or gases
exhibiting potential toxicity to humans.
c. Comply with federal and state laws and regulations and department
rules for solid and liquid wastes. The department shall determine b, rule
procedures for the storage, handling, transportation, management, and
disposal of solid and liquid waste generated during marijuana production
and processing. The Department of Environmental Protection shall assist
the department in developing such rules.
d. Test the processed marijuana using a medical marijuana testing
laboratory before it is dispensed. Results must be verified and signed by two
medical marijuana treatment center employees. Before dispensing, the
medical marijuana treatment center must determine that the test results
indicate that low-THC cannabis meets the definition of low-THC cannabis.
the concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol meets the potency requirements
of this section, the labeling of the concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol and
cannabidiol is accurate, and all marijuana is safe for human consumption
and free from contaminants that are unsafe for human consumption. The
department shall determine by rule which contaminants must be tested for
and the maximum levels of each contaminant which are safe for human
consumption. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall
assist the department in developing the testing requirements for contami-
nants that are unsafe for human consumption in edibles. The department
shall also determine by rule the procedures for the treatment of marijuana
that fails to meet the testing requirements of this section, s. 381.988, or
department rule. The department may select a random sample from edibles
available for purchase in a dispensing facility which shall be tested by the
2
Q
22
CODING: Words striel£en are deletions; words underlined are a
Packet Pg. 167
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2 9•A.1.b
department to determine that the edible meets the potency requirements of
this section, is safe for human consumption, and the labeling of the
tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol concentration is accurate. A medical
marijuana treatment center may not require payment from the department
for the sample. A medical marijuana treatment center must recall edibles,
including all edibles made from the same batch of marijuana, which fail to
meet the potency requirements of this section, which are unsafe for human
consumption, or for which the labeling of the tetrahydrocannabinol and
w
cannabidiol concentration is inaccurate. The medical marijuana treatment
.�
center must retain records of all testing and samples of each homogenous
w
batch of marijuana for at least 9 months. The medical marijuana treatment
center must contract with a marijuana testing laboratory to perform audits
d
Q-
on the medical marijuana treatment center's standard operating procedures.
A
testing records, and samples and provide the results to the department to
M
confirm that the marijuana or low-THC cannabis meets the requirements of
r-
this section and that the marijuana or low-THC cannabis is safe for human
M
consumption. A medical marijuana treatment center shall reserve two
M
processed samples from each batch and retain such samples for at least 9
2
months for the purpose of such audits. A medical marijuana treatment
center may use a laboratory that has not been certified by the department
under s. 381.988 until such time as at least one laboratory holds the required
m
certification, but in no event later than July1, 2018.
e. Package the marijuana in compliance with the United States Poison
d
c
Prevention Packaging Act of 1970, 15 U.S.C. ss. 1471 et seq.
£ Package the marijuana in a receptacle that has a firmly affixed and
0`
legible label stating the following information:
ti
N
(I) The marijuana or low-THC cannabis meets the requirements of sub -
subparagraph d.
..
(II) The name of the medical marijuana treatment center from which the
m
marijuana originates.
m
M
c
(III) The batch number and harvest number from which the marijuana
vn
originates and the date dispensed.
(IV) The name of the physician who issued the physician certification.
T
Q
of
(V) The name of the patient.
E
(VI) The product name, if applicable, and dosage form, including
concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol. The product name
may not contain wording commonly associated with products marketed by or
Q
to children.
(VII) The recommended dose.
(VIII) A warning that it is illegal to transfer medical marijuana to
another person.
23
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined an?
Packet Pg. 168
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 201 9•A.1.b
IX) A mariivana universal svmbol developed by the department.
11. The medical marijuana treatment center shall include in each
package a patient package insert with information on the specific product
dispensed related to:
a. Clinical pharmacology.
b. Indications and use.
in
m
•L
c. Dosage and administration.
N
d. Dosage forms and strengths.
c
a
y
e. Contraindications.
c
f. Warnings and precautions.
•L
g. Adverse reactions.
12. Each edible shall be individually sealed in plain, opaque wrapping
marked only with the marijuana universal symbol. Where practical, each
edible shall be marked with the marijuana universal symbol. In addition to
the packaging and labeling requirements in subparagraphs 10. and 11.,
edible receptacles must be plain, opaque, and white without depictions of the
product or images other than the medical marijuana treatment center's
department -approved logo and the marijuana universal symbol. The
5
receptacle must also include a list all of the edible's ingredients, storage
instructions, an expiration date, a legible and prominent warning to keep
away from children and pets, and a warning that the edible has not been
N
produced or inspected pursuant to federal food safety laws.
13. When dispensing marijuana or a marijuana delivery device, a
=_
medical marijuana treatment center:
m
m
a. May dispense any active, valid order for low-THC cannabis, medical
cannabis and cannabis delivery devices issued pursuant to former s.
y
381.986, Florida Statutes 2016, which was entered into the medical
b
marijuana use registry before July 1, 2017.
r
Q
b. May not dispense more than a 70-day supply of marijuana to a
of
qualified patient or caregiver.
m
E
c. Must have the medical marijuana treatment center's employee who
dispenses the marijuana or a marijuana delivery device enter into the
medical marijuana use registry his or her name or unique employee
Q
identifier.
d. Must verify that the qualified patient and the caregiver, if applicable,
each has an active registration in the medical marijuana use registry and an
active and valid medical marijuana use registry identification card, the
amount and type of marijuana dispensed matches the physician certification
24
CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined are a
Packet Pg. 169
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2 9•A.1.b
in the medical marijuana use registry for that qualified patient, and the
physician certification has not alreadv been filled.
e. May not dispense marijuana to a qualified patient who is younger than
18 years of age. If the qualified patient is younger than 18 years of age,
mariivana may only be dispensed to the aualified patient's caregiver.
f. Mav not dispense or sell anv other tvne of cannabis. alcohol. or illicit
drug -related product, including pipes, bongs, or wrapping papers, other than 40i
a marijuana delivery device required for the medical use of marijuana and
which is specified in a physician certification. c
m
a
g. Must, upon dispensing the marijuana or marijuana delivery device, y
record in the registry the date, time, quantity, and form of marijuana
dispensed; the type of marijuana delivery device dispensed; and the name
and medical marijuana use reeistry identification number of the aualified
patient or caregiver to whom the marijuana delivery device was dispensed.
h. Must ensure that patient records are not visible to anyone other than
the qualified patient, his or her caregiver, and authorized medical marijuana 2
treatment center employees.
(f) To ensure the safety and security of premises where the cultivation,
processing, storing, or dispensing of marijuana occurs, and to maintain c
adequate controls against the diversion, theft, and loss of marijuana or c
marijuana delivery devices, a medical marijuana treatment center shall:
O
La. Maintain a fully operational security alarm system that secures all ti
entry points and perimeter windows and is equipped with motion detectors; ti
pressure switches; and duress, panic, and hold-up alarms; and
b. Maintain a video surveillance system that records continuously 24 @
hours a day and meets the following criteria: a;
(I) Cameras are fixed in a place that allows for the clear identification of y
persons and activities in controlled areas of the premises. Controlled areas
include grow rooms, processing rooms, storage rooms, disposal rooms or
T
areas, and point -of -sale rooms. Q
of
(II) Cameras are fixed in entrances and exits to the premises, which shall
record from both indoor and outdoor, or ingress and egress, vantage points.
(III) Recorded images must clearly and accurately display the time and
date. Q
(IV) Retain video surveillance recordings for at least 45 days or longer
upon the request of a law enforcement agency.
2. Ensure that the medical marijuana treatment center's outdoor
premises have sufficient lighting from dusk until dawn.
25
CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined an?
Packet Pg. 170
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 201 9•A.1.b
3. Ensure that the indoor premises where dispensing occurs includes a
waiting area with sufficient space and seating to accommodate qualified
patients and caregivers and at least one private consultation area that is
isolated from the waiting area and area where dispensing occurs. A medical
marijuana treatment center may not display_ products or dispense marijuana
or marijuana delivery devices in the waiting area.
4. Not dispense from its premises marijuana or a marijuana delivery
device between the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m., but may perform all other
N
d
operations and deliver marijuana to qualified patients 24 hours a day.
N
c
5. Store marijuana in a secured, locked room or a vault.
a
y
6. Require at least two of its employees, or two employees of a security
agency with whom it contracts, to be on the premises at all times where
c
cultivation, processing, or storing of marijuana occurs.
•L
7. Require each employee or contractor to wear a photo identification
f°
badge at all times while on the premises.
8. Require each visitor to wear a visitor pass at all times while on the
a
_premises.
m
9. Implement an alcohol and drug -free workplace policy.
c�
10. Report to local law enforcement within 24 hours after the medical
5
marijuana treatment center is notified or becomes aware of the theft,
diversion, or loss of marijuana.
O
(g) To ensure the safe transport of marijuana and marijuana delivery
ti
devices to medical marijuana treatment centers, marijuana testing Tabora-
--
tories, or qualified patients, a medical marijuana treatment center must:
_
m
1. Maintain a marijuana transportation manifest in any vehicle trans-
porting marijuana. The marijuana transportation manifest must be gener-
d
ated from a medical marijuana treatment center's seed -to -sale tracking
(n
system and include the:
a. Departure date and approximate time of departure.
T
Q
of
b. Name, location address, and license number of the originating medical
marijuana treatment center.
E
c. Name and address of the recipient of the delivery.
Q
d. Quantity and form of any marijuana or marijuana delivery device
being transported.
e. Arrival date and estimated time of arrival.
f. Delivery vehicle make and model and license plate number.
26
CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined are a
Packet Pg. 171
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2 9•A.1.b
g. Name and signature of the medical marijuana treatment center
employees delivering the product.
(I) A copy of the marijuana transportation manifest must be provided to
each individual, medical marijuana treatment center, or marijuana testing
laboratory that receives a delivery. The individual, or a representative of the
center or laboratory, must sign a copy of the marijuana transportation
manifest acknowledging receipt.
N
(II) An individual transporting marijuana or a marijuana delivery device
must present a copy of the relevant marijuana transportation manifest and
his or her employee identification card to a law enforcement officer upon a
request.
(III) Medical marijuana treatment centers and marijuana testing
laboratories must retain copies of all marijuana transportation manifests 0
for at least 3 years. `r
2
2. Ensure only vehicles in good working order are used to transport @
marijuana. 2
�a
m
3. Lock marijuana and marijuana delivery devices in a separate 2
compartment or container within the vehicle.
4. Require employees to have possession of their employee identification c
card at all times when transporting marijuana or marijuana delivery :a
devices. 0
5. Require at least two persons to be in a vehicle transporting marijuana N
or marijuana delivery devices, and require at least one person to remain in
the vehicle while the marijuana or marijuana delivery device is being
delivered. m
m
6. Provide specific safety and security training to employees transport-
ing or delivering marijuana and marijuana delivery devices.
(h) A medical marijuana treatment center may not engage in advertising
that is visible to members of the public from any street, sidewalk, park, or Q
other public place, except:
c
1. The dispensing location of a medical marijuana treatment center may E
have a sign that is affixed to the outside or hanging in the window of the M
premises which identifies the dispensary by the licensee's business name, a
department -approved trade name, or a department -approved logo. A Q
medical marijuana treatment center's trade name and logo may not contain
wording or images commonly associated with marketing targeted toward
children or which promote recreational use of marijuana.
2. A medical marijuana treatment center may engage in Internet
advertising and marketing under the following conditions:
27
CODING: Words c+��rie ^^ are deletions; words underlined an?
Packet Pg. 172
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 201 9•A.1.b
a. All advertisements must be approved by the department.
b. An advertisement may not have any content that specifically targets
individuals under the age of 18, including cartoon characters or similar
images.
c. An advertisement may not be an unsolicited pop-up advertisement.
d. Opt -in marketing must include an easy and permanent opt -out
feature.
(i) Each medical marijuana treatment center that dispenses marijuana
and marijuana delivery devices shall make available to the public on its
website:
1. Each marijuana and low-THC product available for purchase,
including the form, strain of marijuana from which it was extracted,
cannabidiol content, tetrahydrocannabinol content, dose unit, total number
of doses available, and the ratio of cannabidiol to tetrahydrocannabinol for
each product.
2. The price for a 30-day, 50-day, and 70-day supply at a standard dose
for each marijuana and low-THC product available for purchase.
3. The price for each marijuana delivery device available for purchase.
4. If applicable, any discount policies and eligibility criteria for such
discounts.
(i) Medical marijuana treatment centers are the sole source from which a
qualified patient may legally obtain marijuana.
(k) The department may adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and
120.54 to implement this subsection.
(9) BACKGROUND SCREENING. —An individual required to undergo
a background screening pursuant to this section must pass a level 2
background screening as provided under chapter 435, which, in addition to
the disqualifying offenses provided in s. 435.04, shall exclude an individual
who has an arrest awaiting final disposition for, has been found guilty of,
regardless of adjudication, or has entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty
to an offense under chapter 837, chapter 895, or chapter 896 or similar law of
another jurisdiction.
(a) Such individual must submit a full set of fingerprints to the
department or to a vendor, entity, or agency authorized by s. 943.053(13).
The department, vendor, entity, or agency shall forward the fingerprints to
the Department of Law Enforcement for state processing, and the Depart-
ment of Law Enforcement shall forward the fingerprints to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation for national processing.
2
Q
28
CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined are a
Packet Pg. 173
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2 9•A.1.b
(b) Fees for state and federal fingerprint processing and retention shall
be borne by the individual. The state cost for fingerprint processing shall be
as provided in s. 943.053(3)(e) for records provided to persons or entities
other than those specified as exceptions therein.
(c) Fingerprints submitted to the Department of Law Enforcement
pursuant to this subsection shall be retained by the Department of Law
Enforcement as provided in s. 943.05(2)(g) and (h) and, when the Depart-
ment of Law Enforcement begins participation in the program, enrolled in
w
m
the Federal Bureau of Investigation's national retained print arrest
notification program. Any arrest record identified shall be reported to the
c
department.
Q-
T
(10) MEDICAL MARIJUANA TREATMENT CENTER INSPECTIONS;
G
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS.—
c
ea
(a) The department shall conduct announced or unannounced inspec-
tions of medical marijuana treatment centers to determine compliance with
this section or rules adopted pursuant to this section.
(b) The department shall inspect a medical marijuana treatment center
upon receiving a complaint or notice that the medical marijuana treatment
2
center has dispensed marijuana containing mold, bacteria, or other
contaminant that may cause or has caused an adverse effect to human
c
health or the environment.
co
c
(c) The department shall conduct at least a biennial inspection of each
medical marijuana treatment center to evaluate the medical marijuana
treatment center's records, personnel, equipment, processes, security
N
measures, sanitation practices, and quality assurance practices.
I-
(d) The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the
=_
department shall enter into an interagency agreement to ensure cooperation
m
and coordination in the performance of their obligations under this section
and their respective regulatory and authorizing laws. The department, the
d
Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, and the Department of
cn
Law Enforcement may enter into interagency agreements for the purposes
b
specified in this subsection or subsection (7).
r
Q
(e) The department shall publish a list of all approved medical
marijuana treatment centers, medical directors, and qualified physicians
m
on its website.
E
(f) The department may impose reasonable fines not to exceed $10,000
on a medical marijuana treatment center for any of the following violations:
Q
1. Violating this section or department rule.
2. Failing to maintain qualifications for approval.
3. Endangering the health, safety, or security of a qualified patient.
29
CODING: Words striei£en are deletions; words underlined an?
Packet Pg. 174
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 201 9•A.1.b
4. Imr)roberly disclosinL- bersonal and confidential information of the
qualified patient.
5. Attempting to procure medical marijuana treatment center approval
by bribery, fraudulent misrepresentation, or extortion.
6. Being convicted or found guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty or nolo
contenders to, regardless of adjudication, a crime in any jurisdiction which
directly relates to the business of a medical marijuana treatment center.
ai
7. Making or filing a report or record that the medical marijuana
•L
treatment center knows to be false.
a
y
8. Willfully failing to maintain a record required by this section or
o
department rule.
c
�a
9. Willfully impeding or obstructing an employee or agent of the
:L
department in the furtherance of his or her official duties.
f°
10. Engaging in fraud or deceit, negligence, incompetence, or misconduct
c�i
in the business practices of a medical marijuana treatment center.
11. Making misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent representations in or
related to the business practices of a medical marijuana treatment center.
c�
12. Having a license or the authority to engage in any regulated
c
profession, occupation, or business that is related to the business practices
�
of a medical marijuana treatment center suspended, revoked, or otherwise
acted against by the licensing authority of any jurisdiction, including its
N
agencies or subdivisions, for a violation that would constitute a violation
under Florida law.
..
13. Violating a lawful order of the department or an agency of the state,
m
or failing to comply with a lawfully issued subpoena of the department or an
c
agency of the state.
y
(g) The department may suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew a medical
marijuana treatment center license if the medical marijuana treatment
Q
center commits any of the violations in paragraph (f).
a;
(h) The department may adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and
c
120.54 to implement this subsection.
(11) PREEMPTION. —Regulation of cultivation, processing, and deliv-
ery of marijuana by medical marijuana treatment centers is preempted to
the state except as provided in this subsection.
(a) A medical marijuana treatment center cultivating or processing
facility may not be located within 500 feet of the real property that comprises
a public or private elementary school, middle school, or secondary school.
30
CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined are a
Packet Pg. 175
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2 9•A.1.b
(b)1. A county or municipality may, by ordinance, ban medical mar-
ijuana treatment center dispensing facilities from being located within the
boundaries of that county or municipality. A county or municipality that
does not ban dispensing facilities under this subparagraph may not place
specific limits, by ordinance, on the number of dispensing facilities that may
locate within that county or municipality.
2. A municipality may determine by ordinance the criteria for the
N
location of, and other permitting requirements that do not conflict with state
.2
law or department rule for, medical marijuana treatment center dispensing
N
facilities located within the boundaries of that municipality. A county may
r-
determine by ordinance the criteria for the location of, and other permitting
0-
requirements that do not conflict with state law or department rule for, all
o
such dispensing facilities located within the unincorporated areas of that
county. Except as provided in paragraph (c), a county or municipality may
not enact ordinances for permitting or for determining the location of
•;
dispensing facilities which are more restrictive than its ordinances permit-
cu
ting or determining the locations for pharmacies licensed under chapter 465.
A municipality or county may not charge a medical marijuana treatment
center a license or permit fee in an amount greater than the fee charged by
such municipality or county to pharmacies. A dispensing facility location
2
approved by a municipality or county pursuant to former s. 381.986(8)(b),
'
Florida Statutes 2016, is not subject to the location requirements of this
subsection.
co
c
(c) A medical marijuana treatment center dispensing facility may not be
located within 500 feet of the real property that comprises a public or private
elementary school, middle school, or secondary school unless the county or
N
municipality approves the location through a formal proceeding open to the
I'-
public at which the county or municipality determines that the location
promotes the public health, safe, and general welfare of the community,
m
(d) This subsection does not prohibit any local jurisdiction from ensuring
m
m
medical marijuana treatment center facilities comply with the Florida
Building Code, the Florida Fire Prevention Code, or any local amendments
y
to the Florida Building Code or the Florida Fire Prevention Code.
(12) PENALTIES,
T
Q
o�
(a) A qualified physician commits a misdemeanor of the first degree,
c
punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, if the qualified physician
issues a physician certification for the medical use of marijuana for a patient
without a reasonable belief that the patient is suffering from a qualifying
Q
medical condition.
(b) A person who fraudulently represents that he or she has a qualifying
medical condition to a qualified physician for the purpose of being issued a
physician certification commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punish-
able as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
31
CODING: Words striei£en are deletions; words underlined an?
Packet Pg. 176
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 201 9•A.1.b
(c) A qualified patient who uses marijuana, not including low-THC
cannabis, or a caregiver who administers marijuana, not including low-THC
cannabis, in plain view of or in a place open to the general public; in a school
bus, a vehicle, an aircraft, or a boat; or on the grounds of a school except as
provided in s. 1006.062, commits a misdemeanor of the first degree,
punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
d) A aualified patient or caregiver who cultivates mariivana or who
purchases or acquires marijuana from any person or entity other than a
m
medical marijuana treatment center violates s. 893.13 and is subject to the
penalties provided therein.
m
(e)1. A qualified patient or caregiver in possession of marijuana or a
y
marijuana delivery device who fails or refuses to present his or her
marijuana use registry identification card upon the request of a law
c
enforcement officer commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punish-
able as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, unless it can be determined
through the medical marijuana use registry that the person is authorized to
be in possession of that marijuana or marijuana delivery device.
2. A person charged with a violation of this paragraph may not be
convicted if, before or at the time of his or her court or hearing appearance,
the person produces in court or to the clerk of the court in which the charge is
pending a medical marijuana use registry identification card issued to him
or her which is valid at the time of his or her arrest. The clerk of the court is
authorized to dismiss such case at any time before the defendant's
appearance in court. The clerk of the court may assess a fee of $5 for
0
dismissing the case under this paragraph.
N
(f) A caregiver who violates any of the applicable provisions of this
v
section or applicable department rules, for the first offense, commits a
misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s.
op
775.083 and, for a second or subsequent offense, commits a misdemeanor of
+)
the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
c
d
(g) A qualified physician who issues a physician certification for
y
marijuana or a marijuana delivery device and receives compensation from
a medical marijuana treatment center related to the issuance of a physician
Q
certification for marijuana or a marijuana delivery device is subject to
a;
disciplinary action under the applicable practice act and s. 456.072(1)(n).
(h) A person transporting marijuana or marijuana delivery devices on
behalf of a medical marijuana treatment center or marijuana testing
to
laboratory who fails or refuses to present a transportation manifest upon
Q
the request of a law enforcement officer commits a misdemeanor of the
second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(i) Persons and entities conducting activities authorized and governed by
this section and s. 381.988 are subject to ss. 456.053, 456.054, and 817.505,
as applicable.
32
CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined are a
Packet Pg. 177
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2 9•A.1.b
(i) A person or entity that cultivates, processes, distributes, sells, or
dispenses marijuana, as defined in s. 29(b)(4), Art. X of the State
Constitution, and is not licensed as a medical marijuana treatment center
violates s. 893.13 and is subject to the penalties provided therein.
(k) A person who manufactures, distributes, sells gives, or possesses
with the intent to manufacture, distribute, sell, or give marijuana or a
marijuana delivery device that he or she holds out to have originated from a
licensed medical marijuana treatment center but that is counterfeit commits
a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083,
or s. 775.084. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term "counterfeit"
means marijuana; a marijuana delivery device; or a marijuana or marijuana
delivery device container, seal, or label which, without authorization, bears
the trademark, trade name, or other identifying mark, imprint, or device, or
any likeness thereof, of a licensed medical marijuana treatment center and
which thereby falsely purports or is represented to be the product of, or to
have been distributed by, that licensed medical marijuana treatment
facility.
(1) Any person who possesses or manufactures a blank, forged, stolen,
fictitious, fraudulent, counterfeit, or otherwise unlawfully issued medical
marijuana use registry identification card commits a felony of the third
degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(13) UNLICENSED ACTIVITY. —
(a) If the department has probable cause to believe that a person or
entity that is not registered or licensed with the department has violated
this section, s. 381.988, or any rule adopted pursuant to this section, the
department may issue and deliver to such person or entity a notice to cease
and desist from such violation. The department also may issue and deliver a
notice to cease and desist to any person or entity who aids and abets such
unlicensed activity. The issuance of a notice to cease and desist does not
constitute agency action for which a hearing under s. 120.569 or s. 120.57
may be sought. For the purpose of enforcing a cease and desist order, the
department may file a proceeding in the name of the state seeking issuance
of an injunction or a writ of mandamus against any person or entity who
violates any provisions of such order.
(b) In addition to the remedies under paragraph (a), the department may
impose by citation an administrative penalty not to exceed $5,000 per
incident. The citation shall be issued to the subject and must contain the
subject's name and any other information the department determines to be
necessary to identify the subject, a brief factual statement, the sections of
the law allegedly violated, and the penalty imposed. If the subject does not
dispute the matter in the citation with the department within 30 days after
the citation is served, the citation shall become a final order of the
department. The department may adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1)
and 120.54 to implement this section. Each day that the unlicensed activity
continues after issuance of a notice to cease and desist constitutes a separate
2
d
V
c
c�
c
L
r1
��J
33
CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined ar
Packet Pg. 178
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 201 9•A.1.b
violation. The department shall be entitled to recover the costs of
investigation and prosecution in addition to the fine levied pursuant to
the citation. Service of a citation may be made by personal service or by mail
to the subject at the subject's last known address or place of practice. If the
department is required to seek enforcement of the cease and desist or agency
order, it shall be entitled to collect attorney fees and costs.
(c) In addition to or in lieu of any other administrative remedy, the
department may seek the imposition of a civil penalty through the circuit
court for any violation for which the department may issue a notice to cease
and desist. The civil penalty shall be no less than $5,000 and no more than
$10,000 for each offense. The court may also award to the prevailing party
court costs and reasonable attorney fees and, in the event the department
prevails, may also award reasonable costs of investigation and prosecution.
(d) In addition to the other remedies provided in this section, the
department or any state attorney may bring an action for an injunction to
restrain any unlicensed activity or to enjoin the future operation or
maintenance of the unlicensed activity or the performance of any service
in violation of this section.
(e) The department must notify local law enforcement of such unlicensed
activity for a determination of any criminal violation of chapter 893.
(14) EXCEPTIONS TO OTHER LAWS. —
(a) Notwithstanding s. 893.13, s. 893.135, s. 893.147, or any other
provision of law, but subject to the requirements of this section, a qualified
patient and the qualified patient's caregiver may purchase from a medical
marijuana treatment center for the patient's medical use a marijuana
delivery device and up to the amount of marijuana authorized in the
physician certification, but may not possess more than a 70-day supply of
marijuana at any given time and all marijuana purchased must remain in its
original packaging.
(b) Notwithstanding s. 893.13, s. 893.135, s. 893.147, or any other
provision of law, but subject to the requirements of this section, an approved
medical marijuana treatment center and its owners, managers, and
employees may manufacture, possess, sell, deliver, distribute, dispense,
and lawfully dispose of marijuana or a marijuana delivery device as provided
in this section, s. 381.988, and by department rule. For the purposes of this
subsection, the terms "manufacture," "possession," "deliver," "distribute
and "dispense" have the same meanings as provided in s. 893.02.
(c) Notwithstanding s. 893.13, s. 893.135, s. 893.147, or any other
provision of law, but subject to the requirements of this section, a certified
marijuana testing laboratory, including an employee of a certified marijuana
testing laboratory acting within the scope of his or her employment, may
acquire, possess, test, transport, and lawfully dispose of marijuana as
provided in this section, in s. 381.988, and by department rule.
2
Q
34
CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined are a
Packet Pg. 179
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2 9•A.1.b
(d) A licensed medical marijuana treatment center and its owners,
managers, and employees are not subject to licensure or regulation under
chapter 465 or chapter 499 for manufacturing, possessing, selling, deliver-
ing, distributing, dispensing, or lawfully disposing of marijuana or a
marijuana deliver device, as provided in this section, s. 381.988, and by
department rule.
(e) This subsection does not exempt a person from prosecution for a
criminal offense related to impairment or intoxication resulting from the
L
medical use of marijuana or relieve a person from any requirement under
N
law to submit to a breath, blood, urine, or other test to detect the presence of
a controlled substance.
y
_�
B
(f) Notwithstanding s. 893.13, s. 893.135, s. 893.147, or any other
c
provision of law, but subject to the requirements of this section and
pursuant to policies and procedures established pursuant to s. 1006.62(8),
:L
school personnel may possess marijuana that is obtained for medical use
f°
pursuant to this section by a student who is a qualified patient.
(g) Notwithstanding s. 893.13, s. 893.135, s. 893.147, or any other
provision of law, but subject to the requirements of this section, a research
2
institute established by a public postsecondary educational institution, such
as the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Inc., established
under s. 1004.43, or a state university that has achieved the preeminent
state research university designation under s. 1001.7065 may possess, test,
transport, and lawfully dispose of marijuana for research purposes as
O
provided by this section.
ti
N
ti
(15) APPLICABILITY. —This section does not limit the ability of an
V
employer to establish, continue, or enforce a drug -free workplace program or
=_
policy. This section does not require an employer to accommodate the
m
medical use of marijuana in any workplace or any employee working while
under the influence of marijuana. This section does not create a cause of
r-
action against an employer for wrongful discharge or discrimination.
d
y
Marijuana, as defined in this section, is not reimbursable under chapter 440.
(16) FINES AND FEES. —Fines and fees collected by the department
T
Q
under this section shall be deposited in the Grants and Donations Trust
ID
Fund within the Department of Health.
E
Section 4. Paragraph (uu) is added to subsection (1) of section 458.331,
M
t
Florida Statutes, to read:
Q
458.331 Grounds for disciplinary action; action by the board and
department.—
(1) The following acts constitute grounds for denial of a license or
disciplinary action, as specified in s. 456.072(2):
35
CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined ar
Packet Pg. 180
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 201 9•A.1.b
(uu) Issuing a physician certification, as defined in s. 381.986, in a
manner out of compliance with the requirements of that section and rules
adopted thereunder.
Section 5. Paragraph (ww) is added to subsection (1) of section 459.015,
Florida Statutes, to read:
459.015 Grounds for disciplinary action; action by the board and
department.-
2
(1) The following acts constitute grounds for denial of a license or
U)
disciplinary action, as specified in s. 456.072(2):
a
(ww) Issuing a physician certification, as defined in s. 381.986, in a
y
p
manner not in compliance with the requirements of that section and rules
adopted thereunder.
�a
Section 6. Section 381.988, Florida Statutes, is created to read:
381.988 Medical marijuana testing laboratories; marijuana tests con-
ducted by a certified laboratory.—
a
m
(1) A person or entity seeking to be a certified marijuana testing
laboratory must:
d
c
(a) Not be owned or controlled by a medical marijuana treatment center.
(b) Submit a completed application accompanied by an application fee,
0`
as established by department rule.
N
(c) Submit proof of an accreditation or a certification approved by the
department issued by an accreditation or a certification organization
..
approved by the department. The department shall adopt by rule a list of
m
approved laboratory accreditations or certifications and accreditation or
°:
certification organizations.
m
c
d
(d) Require all owners and managers to submit to and pass a level 2
y
background screening pursuant to s. 435.04 and shall deny certification if
the person or entity has been found guilty of, or has entered a plea of guilty or
Q
nolo contendere to, regardless of adjudication, any offense listed in chapter
a;
837, chapter 895, or chapter 896 or similar law of another jurisdiction.
1. Such owners and managers must submit a full set of fingerprints to
the department or to a vendor, entity, or agency authorized by s. 943.053(13).
The department, vendor, entity, or agency shall forward the fingerprints to
Q
the Department of Law Enforcement for state processing, and the Depart-
ment of Law Enforcement shall forward the fingerprints to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation for national processing
2. Fees for state and federal fingerprint processing and retention shall be
borne by such owners or managers. The state cost for fingerprint processing
36
CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined are a
Packet Pg. 181
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2 9•A.1.b
shall be as provided in s. 943.053(3)(e) for records provided to persons or
entities other than those specified as exceptions therein.
3. Fingerprints submitted to the Department of Law Enforcement
pursuant to this paragraph shall be retained by the Department of Law
Enforcement as provided in s. 943.05(2)(g) and (h) and, when the Depart-
ment of Law Enforcement begins participation in the program, enrolled in
the Federal Bureau of Investigation's national retained print arrest w
notification program. Any arrest record identified shall be reported to the m
department. c`v
w
(e) Demonstrate to the department the capability of meeting the Q.
standards for certification required by this subsection, and the testing N
requirements of s. 381.986 and this section and rules adopted thereunder. G
M
r-
(2) The department shall adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and
120.54 establishing a procedure for initial certification and biennial renewal,
including initial application and biennial renewal fees sufficient to cover the
costs of administering this certification program. The department shall
renew the certification biennially if the laboratory meets the requirements of 2
this section and pays the biennial renewal fee. d
2
(3) The department shall adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and
120.54 establishing the standards for certification of marijuana testing
laboratories under this section. The Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services and the Department of Environmental Protection
'a
shall assist the department in developing the rule, which must include,
p
but is not limited to:
ti
N
(a) Security standards.
I
(b) Minimum standards for personnel.
m
(c) Sample collection method and process standards.
(d) Proficiency testing for tetrahydrocannabinol potency, concentration
r-
v�
of cannabidiol, and contaminants unsafe for human consumption, as
determined by department rule.
r
Q
(e) Reporting content, format, and frequency.
m
(f) Audits and onsite inspections.
E
(g) Quality assurance.
Q
(h) Equipment and methodology.
(i) Chain of custody.
(i) Any other standard the department deems necessary to ensure the
health and safety of the public.
37
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined ar
Packet Pg. 182
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 201 9•A.1.b
(4) A marijuana testing laboratory may acquire marijuana only from a
medical marijuana treatment center. A marijuana testing laboratory is
prohibited from selling, distributing, or transferring marijuana received
from a marijuana treatment center, except that a marijuana testing
laboratory may transfer a sample to another marijuana testing laboratory
in this state.
5) A mariivana testina laboratory must properly disDOse of all samples
it receives, unless transferred to another marijuana testing laboratory, after
0
all necessary tests have been conducted and any required period of storage
has elapsed, as established by department rule.
m
(6) A marijuana testing laboratory shall use the computer software
y_
tracking system selected by the department under s. 381.986.
c
(7) The following acts constitute grounds for which disciplinary action
3
specified in subsection (8) may be taken against a certified marijuana testing
:L
laboratory:
f°
(a) Permitting unauthorized persons to perform technical procedures or
issue reports.
m
(b) Demonstrating incompetence or making consistent errors in the
performance of testing or erroneous reporting.
c
c�
(c) Performing a test and rendering a report thereon to a person or entity
c
not authorized by law to receive such services.
(d) Failing to file any report required under this section or s. 381.986 or
ti
the rules adopted thereunder.
ti
(e) Reporting a test result if the test was not performed.
—
m
(f) Failing to correct deficiencies within the time required by the
a;
department.
c
(g) Violating or aiding and abetting in the violation of any provision of s.
d
y
381.986 or this section or any rules adopted thereunder.
T
(8) The department may refuse to issue or renew, or may suspend or
revoke, the certification of a marijuana testing laboratory that is found to be
c
in violation of this section or any rules adopted hereunder. The department
°'
may impose fines for violations of this section or rules adopted thereunder,
M
based on a schedule adopted in rule. In determining the administrative
to
action to be imposed for a violation, the department must consider the
Q
following factors:
(a) The severity of the violation, including the probability of death or
serious harm to the health or safety of any person that may result or has
resulted; the severity or potential harm; and the extent to which s. 381.986
or this section were violated.
38
CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined are a
Packet Pg. 183
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2 9•A.1.b
(b) The actions taken by the marijuana testing laboratory to correct the
violation or to remedy the complaint.
(c) Anv previous violation by the marijuana testinLy laboratorv.
d) The financial benefit to the marijuana testin-a laboratory of commit-
ting or continuing the violation.
(9) The department may adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 0
120.54 to implement this section.
c
(10) Fees collected by the department under this section shall be a
deposited in the Grants and Donations Trust Fund within the Department y
of Health.
c
Section 7. Section 381.989, Florida Statutes, is created to read:
•L
381.989 Public education campaigns.—
(1) DEFINITIONS. —As used in this section, the term: 2
m
(a) "Cannabis" has the same meaning as in s. 893.02.
(b) "Department" means the Department of Health.
c�
(c) "Marijuana" has the same meaning as in s. 381.986.
L
(2) STATEWIDE CANNABIS AND MARIJUANA EDUCATION AND
ILLICIT USE PREVENTION CAMPAIGN.—
N
ti
(a) The department shall implement a statewide cannabis and mar-
v
iivana education and illicit use prevention campaign to publicize accurate
information regarding:
m
m
1. The legal requirements for licit use and possession of marijuana in
m
this state.
y
2. Safe use of marijuana, including_ preventing access by persons other
r
than qualified patients as defined in s. 381.986, particularly children.
Q
CD
3. The short-term and long-term health effects of cannabis and mar-
c
ijuana use, particularly on minors and young adults.
4. Other cannabis -related and marijuana -related education determined
Q
by the department to be necessary to the public health and safety.
(b) The department shall provide educational materials regarding the
eligibility for medical use of marijuana by individuals diagnosed with a
terminal condition to individuals that provide palliative care or hospice
services.
39
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined an?
Packet Pg. 184
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 201 9•A.1.b
(c) The department may use television messaging, radio broadcasts,
print media, digital strategies, social media, and any other form of
messaging deemed necessary and appropriate by the department to
implement the campaign. The department may work with school districts,
community organizations, and businesses and business organizations and
other entities to provide training and programming.
(d) The department may contract with one or more vendors to implement
N
the campaign.
)
•L
(e) The department shall contract with an independent entity to conduct
annual evaluations of the campaign. The evaluations shall assess the reach
a
and impact of the campaign, success in educating the citizens of the state
regarding the legal parameters for marijuana use, success in preventing
illicit access by adults and youth, and success in preventing negative health
impacts from the legalization of marijuana. The first year of the program,
.21
the evaluator shall conduct surveys to establish baseline data on youth and
adult cannabis use, the attitudes of youth and the general public toward
cannabis and marijuana, and any other data deemed necessary for long-term
analysis. By January 31 of each year, the department shall submit to the
Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives the annual evaluation of the campaign.
d
(3) STATEWIDE IMPAIRED DRIVING EDUCATION CAMPAIGN. —
(a) The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles shall
implement a statewide impaired driving education campaign to raise
0
awareness and prevent marijuana -related and cannabis -related impaired
�.
driving and may contract with one or more vendors to implement the
ti
campaign. The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles may use
television messaging, radio broadcasts, print media, digital strategies, social
=
media, and any other form of messaging deemed necessary and appropriate
m
by the department to implement the campaign.
a
(b) At a minimum, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor
c
vn
Vehicles or a contracted vendor shall establish baseline data on the number
of marijuana -related citations for driving under the influence, marijuana-
r
related traffic arrests, marijuana -related traffic accidents, and marijuana-
Q
related traffic fatalities, and shall track these measures annually thereafter.
The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles or a contracted
vendor shall annually evaluate and compile a report on the efficacy of the
campaign based on those measures and other measures established by the
Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. By January 31 of each
Q
year, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles shall submit
the report on the evaluation of the campaign to the Governor, the President
of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Section 8. Subsection (1) of section 385.211, Florida Statutes, is amended
to read:
40
CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined are a
Packet Pg. 185
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2 9•A.1.b
385.211 Refractory and intractable epilepsy treatment and research at
recognized medical centers.—
(1) As used in this section, the term "low-THC cannabis" means "low-
THC cannabis" as defined in s. 381.986 that is dispensed only from a
dispensing organization as defined in former s. 381.986, Florida Statutes
2016. or a medical marijuana treatment center as defined in s. 381.986.
Section 9. Paragraphs (b) through (e) of subsection (2) of section 2
499.0295, Florida Statutes, are redesignated as paragraphs (a) through y
(d), respectively, and present paragraphs (a) and (c) of that subsection, and d
subsection (3) of that section are amended, to read: Q-
A
499.0295 Experimental treatments for terminal conditions.— o
c
M
(2) As used in this section, the term:
•L
M
"Dispezxax=zg-vrgz`kiiizzation" mean 's air-vrgunrz-atio,• ,e by the 2Depar�of Healft���� under s. 381.986(5) to cultivate, rocesstinnspar
anddisp�v-TRIG eannabis medic�c bi��deannab a =a
deviees.
(W(e) "Investigational drug, biological product, or device" means:
c
a drug, biological product, or device that has successfully completed c
phase 1 of a clinical trial but has not been approved for general use by the 7E
United States Food and Drug Administration and remains under investiga- O
tion in a clinical trial approved by the United States Food and Drug N
Administrations �
2. Medieal eannabis that is manufaetured and sold by a dispensin
M
(3) Upon the request of an eligible patient, a manufacturer may —pea
a physie s order pursuant to s. 381.986,adisp s e ation m -y: W
(a) Make its investigational drug, biological product, or device available
under this section. Q
of
(b) Provide an investigational drug, biological product, or devices
eannabis delivery deviee-as definedis. 381.986 to an eligible patient
without receiving compensation.
(c) Require an eligible patient to pay the costs of, or the costs associated Q
with, the manufacture of the investigational drug, biological product, or
device, or eannabis delivery deviee as defined in s. 3,81.9 .
Section 10. Subsection (3) of section 893.02, Florida Statutes, is amended
to read:
41
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined ar
Packet Pg. 186
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 201 9•A.1.b
893.02 Definitions. —The following words and phrases as used in this
chapter shall have the following meanings, unless the context otherwise
requires:
(3) "Cannabis" means all parts of any plant of the genus Cannabis,
whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part
of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or
preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin. The term does not include
"marijuana "low THC cannabis," as defined in s. 381.986, if manufactured,
�
possessed, sold, purchased, delivered, distributed, or dispensed, in con-
formance with s. 381.986.
c
Section 11. Section 1004.4351, Florida Statutes, is created to read:
m
0
1004.4351 Medical marijuana research and education.—
�a
(1) SHORT TITLE. —This section shall be known and may be cited as the
"Medical Marijuana Research and Education Act."
(2) LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS. —The Legislature finds that:
(a) The present state of knowledge concerning the use of marijuana to
alleviate pain and treat illnesses is limited because permission to perform
clinical studies on marijuana is difficult to obtain, with access to research-
d
grade marijuana so restricted that little or no unbiased studies have been
c
performed.
c
(b) Under the State Constitution, marijuana is available for the
0
treatment of certain debilitating medical conditions.
ti
N
(c) Additional clinical studies are needed to ensure that the residents of
this state obtain the correct dosing, formulation, route, modality, frequency,
quantity, and quality of marijuana for specific illnesses.
m
(d) An effective medical marijuana research and education program
would mobilize the scientific, educational, and medical resources that
presently exist in this state to determine the appropriate and best use of
y
marijuana to treat illness.
(3) DEFINITIONS. —As used in this section, the term:
T
Q
of
(a) "Board" means the Medical Marijuana Research and Education
Board.
E
(b) "Coalition" means the Coalition for Medical Marijuana Research and
Education.
Q
(c) "Marijuana" has the same meaning as provided in s. 29, Art. X of the
State Constitution.
(4) COALITION FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA RESEARCH AND
EDUCATION.-
42
CODING: Words striel£en are deletions; words underlined are a
Packet Pg. 187
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2 9•A.1.b
(a) There is established within the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and
Research Institute, Inc., the Coalition for Medical Marijuana Research and
Education. The purpose of the coalition is to conduct rigorous scientific
research, provide education, disseminate research, and guide policy for the
adoption of a statewide policy on ordering and dosing practices for the
medical use of marijuana. The coalition shall be physically located at the H.
Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Inc.
(b) The Medical Marijuana Research and Education Board is established
aNi
to direct the operations of the coalition. The board shall be composed of seven
N
members appointed by the chief executive officer of the H. Lee Moffitt
c
Cancer Center and Research Institute, Inc. Board members must have
0-
experience in a variety of scientific and medical fields, including, but not
limited to, oncology, neurology, psychology, pediatrics, nutrition, and
addiction. Members shall be appointed to 4-year terms and may be
reappointed to serve additional terms. The chair shall be elected by the
.;
board from among its members to serve a 2-year term. The board shall meet
at least semiannually at the call of the chair or, in his or her absence or
incapacity, the vice chair. Four members constitute a quorum. A majority
vote of the members present is required for all actions of the board. The
board may prescribe, amend, and repeal a charter governing the manner in
which it conducts its business. A board member shall serve without
compensation but is entitled to be reimbursed for travel expenses by the
coalition or the organization he or she represents in accordance with s.
112.061.
S
L
(c) The coalition shall be administered by a coalition director, who shall
O
be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the board. The coalition director
shall, subject to the approval of the board:
N
r-
1. Propose a budget for the coalition.
_
m
2. Foster the collaboration of scientists, researchers, and other appro-
+;
priate personnel in accordance with the coalition's charter.
c
d
3. Identify and prioritize the research to be conducted by the coalition.
4. Prepare the Medical Marijuana Research and Education Plan for
Q
submission to the board.
of
5. Apply for grants to obtain funding for research conducted by the
c
E
coalition.
6. Perform other duties as determined by the board.
Q
(d) The board shall advise the Board of Governors, the State Surgeon
General, the Governor, and the Legislature with respect to medical
marijuana research and education in this state. The board shall explore
methods of implementing and enforcing medical marijuana laws in relation
to cancer control, research, treatment, and education.
43
CODING: Words striei£en are deletions; words underlined an?
Packet Pg. 188
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 201 9•A.1.b
(e) The board shall annually adopt a plan for medical marijuana
research, known as the "Medical Marijuana Research and Education
Plan," which must be in accordance with state law and coordinate with
existing programs in this state. The plan must include recommendations for
the coordination and integration of medical, pharmacological, nursing,
paramedical, community, and other resources connected with the treatment
of debilitating medical conditions; research related to the treatment of such
medical conditions; and education.
m
(f) By February 15 of each year, the board shall issue a report to the
Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives on research projects, community outreach initiatives, and
m
0-
future plans for the coalition.
p
(g) Beginning January 15, 2018, and quarterly thereafter, the Depart-
ment of Health shall submit to the board a data set that includes, for each
patient registered in the medical marijuana use registry, the patient's
qualifying medical condition and the daily dose amount and forms of
marijuana certified for the patient.
(5) RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE H. LEE MOFFITT CANCER CEN-
TER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC.—The H. Lee Moffitt Cancer
Center and Research Institute, Inc., shall allocate staff and provide
information and assistance, as the coalition's budget permits, to assist the
board in fulfilling its responsibilities.
S
'a
L
Section 12. Subsection (1) of section 1004.441, Florida Statutes, is
amended to read:
ti
N
ti
1004.441 Refractory and intractable epilepsy treatment and research.
v
(1) As used in this section, the term "low-THC cannabis" means "low-
m
THC cannabis" as defined in s. 381.986 that is dispensed only from a
dispensing organization as defined in former s. 381.986, Florida Statutes
2016, or a medical marijuana treatment center as defined in s. 381.986.
y
Section 13. Subsection (8) is added to section 1006.062, Florida Statutes,
r
to read:
Q
o�
1006.062 Administration of medication and provision of medical services
by district school board personnel.—
(8) Each district school board shall adopt a policy and a procedure for
Q
allowing a student who is a qualified patient, as defined in s. 381.986, to use
marijuana obtained pursuant to that section. Such policy and procedure
shall ensure access b, the qualified patient; identify how the marijuana will
be received, accounted for, and stored; and establish processes to prevent
access by other students and school personnel whose access would be
unnecessary for the implementation of the policy.
44
CODING: Words striel£en are deletions; words underlined are a
Packet Pg. 189
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2 9•A.1.b
Section 14. Department of Health, authority to adopt rules, cause of
action.—
(1) EMERGENCY RULEMAKING.—
(a) The Department of Health and the applicable boards shall adopt
emergency rules pursuant to s. 120.54(4), Florida Statutes, and this section
necessary to implement ss. 381.986 and 381.988, Florida Statutes. If an
emergency rule adopted under this section is held to be unconstitutional or
m
an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, and becomes void, the
'M'
department or the applicable boards may adopt an emergency rule pursuant
c
to this section to replace the rule that has become void. If the emergency rule
Q.
adopted to replace the void emergency rule is also held to be unconstitutional
y
or an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority and becomes void,
o
the department and the applicable boards must follow the nonemergency
r-
rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedures Act to replace the
rule that has become void.
m
(b) For emergency rules adopted under this section, the department and
the applicable boards need not make the findings required by s. 120.54(4)(a),
Florida Statutes. Emergency rules adopted under this section are exempt
from ss. 120.54(3)(b) and 120.541, Florida Statutes. The department and the
applicable boards shall meet the procedural requirements in s. 120.54(a),
Florida Statutes, if the department or the applicable boards have, before the
effective date of this act, held any public workshops or hearings on the
subject matter of the emergency rules adopted under this subsection.
Challenges to emergency rules adopted under this subsection are subject
to the time schedules provided in s. 120.56(5), Florida Statutes.
N
ti
v
(c) Emergency rules adopted under this section are exempt from s.
120.54(4)(c), Florida Statutes, and shall remain in effect until replaced by
rules adopted under the nonemergency rulemaking procedures of the
m
Administrative Procedures Act. By January 1, 2018, the department and
c
the applicable boards shall initiate nonemergency rulemaking pursuant to
the Administrative Procedures Act to replace all emergency rules adopted
y
under this section by publishing a notice of rule development in the Florida
b
Administrative Register. Except as provided in paragraph (a), after January
Q
1, 2018, the department and applicable boards may not adopt rules pursuant
of
to the emergency rulemaking procedures provided in this section.
m
E
(2) CAUSE OF ACTION. —
(a) As used in s. 29(d)(3), Article X of the State Constitution, the term:
Q
1. "Issue regulations" means the filing by the department of a rule or
emergency rule for adoption with the Department of State.
2. "Judicial relief' means an action for declaratory judgment pursuant to
chapter 86, Florida Statutes.
45
CODING: Words c+��rie ^^ are deletions; words underlined ar
Packet Pg. 190
9•A.1.b
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 201
(b) The venue for actions brought against the department pursuant to s.
29(d)(3), Article X of the State Constitution shall be in the circuit court in
and for Leon County.
(c) If the department is not issuing patient and caregiver identification
cards or licensing medical marijuana treatment centers by October 3, 2017,
the following shall be a defense to a cause of action brought under s. 29(d)(3),
Article X of the State Constitution:
N
m
1. The department is unable to issue patient and caregiver identification
cards or license medical marijuana treatment centers due to litigation
challenging a rule as an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority or
a
unconstitutional.
0
2. The department is unable to issue patient or caregiver identification
r-
cards or license medical marijuana treatment centers due to a rule being
2
held as an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority or unconstitu-
tional.
Section 15. Department of Law Enforcement; training related to medical
2
use of marijuana. —The Department of Law Enforcement shall develop a 4-
hour online initial training course, and a 2-hour online continuing education
course, which shall be made available for use by all law enforcement
d
agencies in this state. Such training shall cover the legal parameters of
c
marijuana -related activities governed by ss. 381.986 and 381.988, Florida
c
Statutes, relating to criminal laws governing marijuana.
O
Section 16. Section 385.212, Florida Statutes, is amended to read:
N
385.212 Powers and duties of the Department of Health; Office of
v
Medical Marijuana Compassion Use.—
_
(1) The Department of Health shall establish an Office of Medical,
m
Marijuana Compassiona Use under the direction of the Deputy State
c
Health Officer.
y
(2) The Office of Medical Marijuana Compassion^+^ Use may enhance
access to investigational new drugs for Florida patients through approved
Q
clinical treatment plans or studies. The Office of Medical Marijuana
Compassion Use may:
c
m
E
(a) Create a network of state universities and medical centers recognized
pursuant to s. 381.925.
Q
(b) Make any necessary application to the United States Food and Drug
Administration or a pharmaceutical manufacturer to facilitate enhanced
access to medical eempassiona use of marijuana for Florida patients.
(c) Enter into any agreements necessary to facilitate enhanced access to
medical use of marijuana for Florida patients.
46
CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined are a
Packet Pg. 191
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2 9•A.1.b
(3) The department may adopt rules necessary to implement this
section.
(4) The Office of Medical Marijuana Use shall administer and enforce s.
381.986.
Section 17. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or
circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or
applications of this act which can be given effect without the invalid
40i
provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are
'
severable.
c
m
a
Section 18. The Division of Law Revision and Information is directed to
2
replace the phrase "the effective date of this act" wherever it occurs in this
act with the date the act becomes a law.
_
�a
Section 19. (1) For the 2017-2018 fiscal year, 55 full-time equivalent
positions, with associated salary rate of 2,198,860, are authorized and the
sums of $3.5 million in nonrecurring funds from the General Revenue Fund
and $4,055,292 in recurring funds and $1,238,148 in nonrecurring funds
2
a
from the Grants and Donations Trust Fund are appropriated to the
Department of Health for the purpose of implementing the requirements
of this act. Of the funds appropriated, $3,158,572 in recurring funds and
$1,238,148 in nonrecurring funds from the Grants and Donations Trust
Fund and 27 full-time equivalent positions shall be placed in reserve. The
c�
S
Department of Health is authorized to submit budget amendments
o
requesting the release of funds being held in reserve pursuant to chapter
216, Florida Statutes contingent upon need and demonstration of fee
N
collections to support the budget authority_
N
(2) For the 2017-2018 fiscal year, the sum of $500,000 in nonrecurring
=
funds from the General Revenue Fund is appropriated to the Department of
m
Health to implement the statewide cannabis and marijuana education and
illicit use prevention campaign established under s. 381.989, Florida
Statutes.
y
(3) For the 2017-2018 fiscal year, the sum of $5 million in nonrecurring
r
funds from the Highway Safety Operating Trust Fund are appropriated to
Q
the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to implement the
statewide impaired driving education campaign established under s.
381.989, Florida Statutes.
(4) For the 2017-2018 fiscal year, the sum of $100,000 in recurring funds
Q
from the Highway Safety Operating Trust Fund is appropriated to the
Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles for the purpose of
training additional law enforcement officers as drug recognition experts.
(5) For the 2017-2018 fiscal year, the sum of $750,000 in nonrecurring
funds from the General Revenue Fund is provided for the Coalition for
47
CODING: Words striei£en are deletions; words underlined ar
Packet Pg. 192
Ch. 2017-232 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 201 9•A.1.b
Medicinal Cannabis Research and Education at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer
Center and Research Institute, Inc., to conduct medical cannabis research.
Section 20. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law.
Approved by the Governor June 23, 2017.
Filed in Office Secretary of State June 23, 2017.
48
CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined are a
Packet Pg. 193
9.A.1.c
Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
Governmental Entity
Entity's Decision
Date
Indian River County
Prohibited Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
8/15/2017
Martin County
*as of 9120117 - nothing new adopted*
Banning Marijuana Treatment Center
Dispensing Facilities is in the best interest of
the public and the community since the City
is prohibited from having more stringent
regulations. The draft ordinance went before
City of Vero Beach
the P&Z Board on 9/21/17 and passed with a
11/20/2017
3-0 vote and for the first reading before the
City Council on October 17, 2017. On
November 20, 2017, the City Council adopted
an ordinance banning medical marijuana
dispensaries.
Held a Medical Marijuana Workshop on
City of Fort Pierce
August 24, 2017. As of 11/20/17, no decision
made at this time.
To ensure the City is in compliance with the
amended statute and based
upon the recommendation of City staff,
medical marijuana dispensing facilitates,
like pharmacies, should be allowed in the
City of Port St. Lucie
General Commercial Zoning District (CG)
8/14/17
as a permitted use and Service Commercial
Zoning District (CS) as a special
exception while medical marijuana
dispensing organizations should be allowed in
the Industrial Zoning District (IN). Council
Agenda Item 10i, Meeting date July 24, 2017
The Orange County Planning and Zoning
Commission had recommended the County
Commission ban the dispensaries, since the
Orange County
State says the County can't regulate their
11/14/2017
Iocation.The Orange County Commission
voted against banning medical marijuana
dispensaries for unincorporated areas.
County Commissioners have decided to hold
Citrus County
off on allowing medical marijuana
11/14/2017
dispensaries in the County, over uncertainties
in the Legislature and the courts.
M
3
0
M
M
r
a
Packet Pg. 194
9.A.1.d
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2017 - 1:30 PM
CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
PRESENT: Chairwoman, Honey Minuse; Vice Chairwoman, Linda Hillman; and Alternate
Member #2, Ken Daige Also Present: Planning and Development Director, Mr. Tim McGarry;
Assistant City Attorney, Kira Honse, and Deputy City Clerk, Sherri Philo
Excused Absences: Dr. Val Zudans, Lawrence Lauffer and Richard Cahoy
Mrs. Minuse took a moment to recognize Mr. John Kim, Board member, who passed away this
week. She stated that Mr. Kim was very engaged in the community. He was a wonderful, bright,
energetic young man who added a lot to the Board's discussions. He had a very promising life ahead
of him. Their heart goes out to his family. She asked for a moment of silence at this time to honor
his memory.
I. PRELIMINARY MATTERS
A) Agenda Additions and/or Deletions
None
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A) Regular Meeting — August 21, 2017
Mrs. Hillman referred to page 2 of the August 21, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board meeting
minutes. She noted that the second sentence in the first paragraph states "he questioned" and it
should state "she questioned."
Mrs. Hillman made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 17, 2017 Planning and
Zoning Board meeting as amended. Mr. Daige seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Jay Kramer said that he is trying to get caught up on City events. He appreciated the three (3)
members for attending today's meeting.
IV. PUBLIC HEARING
[Legislative]
A. An Ordinance of the City of Vero Beach, Florida, Amending
Provisions of Chapter 63, Off -Street Parking and Loading
Requirements; Providing for Conflict and Severability; Providing for
Codification; and Providing for an Effective Date.
The Chairwoman read the Ordinance by title only.
Mr. Tim McGarry, Planning and Development Director, went over staff s report with the
1 09/21/17 P&Z I Packet Pg. 195
9.A.1.d
Board members (attached to the original minutes). Based on staff s findings, staff
recommends Planning and Zoning Board approval of the draft Ordinance for transmittal
to the City Council for favorable action.
Mrs. Minuse said the proposed Ordinance reflects what the Board has previously
discussed.
Mr. Daige agreed. He referred to page two (2) of staff s report, where it states,
"Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. " He asked what is the date of the Plan they
are working from.
Mr. McGarry said it is the 1992 Comprehensive Plan, which is the Plan currently in
place.
At this time, a brief discussion took place regarding the Comprehensive Plan.
The Chairwoman opened and closed the public hearing at 1:53 p.m., with no one wishing
to speak.
Mrs. Hillman made a motion to approve the Ordinance amending provision of
Chapter 65, Off -Street Parking and Loading Requirements as presented by staff.
Mr. Daige seconded the motion and it passed 3-0 with Mr. Daige voting yes, Mrs.
Hillman yes, and Ms. Minuse yes.
Legislative]
B. An Ordinance of the City of Vero Beach, Florida, Amending Chapter
34: Offenses — Miscellaneous and Chapter 62: Nonresidential
Districts Relating to Medical Marijuana Treatment Center
Dispensing Facilities; Providing for Conflict and Severability;
Providing for Codification; and Providing for an Effective Date.
The Chairwoman read the Ordinance by title only.
Mr. McGarry went over staff s report with the Board members (attached to the original
minutes). Staff recommends Planning and Zoning Board approval of the draft Ordinance
for transmittal to the City Council for favorable action.
Mr. McGarry noted that a permit has not yet been pulled for the one (1) site that was
previously approved for a Medical Marijuana Treatment Center. He said they are close
to the permitting being terminated.
Mrs. Minuse asked what happens if the permit expires and they still want to open the
business.
Mr. McGarry said they would not be allowed. He explained that they are protected as
long as they have a valid permit. He said they were allowed six (6) months to pull a
building permit and then they would have two (2) years to complete the project.
Mrs. Minuse said the Ordinance does not always reference the full name, which is
Medical Marijuana Treatment Center Dispensing Facility. She referred to the seventh
line of the title of the Ordinance where it states ` prohibiting marijuana treatment center
2 09/21/17 P&Z I Packet Pg. 196
dispensing facilities " stating the word "medical " should be listed.
9.A.1.d
Staff agreed. They will amend the Ordinance to ensure the full name is listed throughout
the Ordinance.
The Chairwoman opened and closed the public hearing at 2:04 p.m., with no one wishing
to be heard.
Mrs. Hillman made a motion to approve the Ordinance with the changes made.
Mr. Daige seconded the motion and it passed 3-0 with Mr. Daige voting yes, Mrs.
Hillman yes, and Mrs. Minuse yes.
V. PLANNING DEPARTMENT MATTERS
Mr. McGarry reported that amendment to the Telecommunication Ordinance will be coming before
the Board at their next meeting.
Mr. McGarry reported that he will be working on changes to the proposed Comprehensive Plan with
the City Manager and the Mayor.
At this time, discussion took place regarding the recent City Council meeting on the Comprehensive
Plan and the process for submittal of the Plan.
VI. BOARD MEMBERS' MATTERS
None
VIL ADJOURNMENT
Today's meeting adjourned at 2:23 p.m.
/sp
3 09/21/17 P&Z I Packet Pg. 197
9.A.1.e
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE U
a�
TO: James R. O'Connor
City Manager
c
a
FROM: Timothy J. McGarry, AIC o
Director of Planning and e pment ti
N
n
DATE: October 3, 2017
SUBJECT: First Reading of an Ordinance Banning
Medical Marijuana Treatment Center
Dispensing Facilities
Overview
The staff requests that the above referenced attached draft Ordinance be placed on the City
Council's October 17, 2017, meeting for First Reading. The draft Ordinance is in response to a
recent bill passed by the Florida Legislature in the most recent session.
The attached staff report to the Planning and Zoning Board provides the background on the
proposed draft Ordinance. The draft was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on
September 21, 2017, for submittal to and favorable consideration by the City Council.
SWOT Analysis
Strength:
• The Ordinance would prohibit medical marijuana treatment center dispensing
facilities locating throughout the City where pharmacies may be located, thereby
protecting sensitive and residential uses from potential adverse impacts.
Weakness:
• The Ordinance does not regulate the location and operating of cultivation and
processing of medical marijuana which is pre-empted by the State law.
Opportunities:
• The banning of medical marijuana treatment center dispensing facilities allows
some opportunity for protecting public health, safety, and welfare that may not be q
adequately addressed in existing and future State legislation and regulations.
d
E
r
r
a
Packet Pg. 198
9.A.1.e
James R. O'Connor
Medical Marijuana Facilities
October 3, 2017 — Page 2
Threats:
• The State Legislature may further pre-empt or severely restrict local governments
from regulating medical marijuana treatment center dispensing facilities through a
its zoning and land use powers.
0
• If the Ordinance is not adopted, the City is opening up to medical marijuana N
treatment center dispensing facilities locating throughout the City's commercial
districts and downtown.
Recommendation
The staff recommends that the draft Ordinance be scheduled and advertised for two public
hearings.
TJM/tf
Attachments
El
Packet Pg. 199
9.A.1.e
ORDINANCE NO. 2017-
a�
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF VERO BEACH,
FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 34: OFFENSES —
MISCELLANEOUS AND CHAPTER 62:
NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS RELATING TO
MEDICAL MARIJUANA TREATMENT CENTER o
DISPENSING FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT ti
AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; r-
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Vero Beach, in anticipation of implementation of the
compassionate use of marijuana, adopted an ordinance establishing a conditional use for
establishments offering medical marijuana; and
WHEREAS, the City of Vero Beach, in anticipation of the approval of an amendment to
the Florida Constitution expanding the use of medical marijuana, amended its ordinances to
match the proposed constitutional amendment; and
WHEREAS, the ordinances adopted created a conditional use for retail locations for
dispensing medical marijuana and placed various conditions on the development; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Legislature, during 2017 Special Session A, adopted a bill that
preempts local government regulation of medical marijuana treatment center dispensing
facilities, and limits local governments to either banning dispensing facilities or treating them as
pharmacies are treated under land development regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Vero Beach Land Development Regulations does not have a special
designation for pharmacies and treats them as any other retail establishment; and
WHEREAS, the City of Vero Beach believes that medical marijuana treatment center
dispensing facilities should be more regulated than as allowed by the legislature; and
WHEREAS, the City of Vero Beach believes that banning marijuana treatment center
dispensing facilities is in the best interest of the public and community since the City is
prohibited from having more stringent regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that adoption of the amendment provided for in this
Ordinance serves a municipal purpose, is in the best interest of the public, and is consistent with 5
the standards provided in subsections 65.22(i)(1) and (3) of the Code of the City of Vero Beach,
d
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, THAT:
r
r
Page 1 of 4 a
CODING: Words s#ieken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
NADRAFT DOCUMENTSAgenda Items\Marijauna Ordinance\2017 8 24 ord prohibit med mar kch (2).docx
Packet Pg. 200771
9.A.1.e
Section 1. Adoption of "WHEREAS" Clauses._ U
a�
The foregoing "WHEREAS" clauses are hereby adopted and incorporated herein as forming the
legislative findings, purpose and intent of this Ordinance.
Section 2. Amendment of Chapter 60 with the creation of Section 60.17 — Medical
Mariivana Treatment Center Dispensing Facilities. o
ti
Section 60.17 of the City code is created as follows: r-
a�
Sec. 60.17. — Medical Marijuana Treatment Center Dispensing Facilities. c
It shall be unlawful to operate a Medical Marijuana Treatment Center, as defined in
Chapter 60. — Appendix. Definitions. Any Medical Marijuana Treatment Center dispensing
facility with a development order dated prior to July 1, 2017, may continue to develop and
operate under that development order. Any conditions in the development order which conflict
with Section 381.986, Florida Statutes are stricken.
Section 3. Amendment of Chapter 62, Article XV with the repealing of Section 62 481 and
Sections 62.651 through 62.654.
Sections 62.48.1 and 62.651 through 62.654 are hereby repealed in their entirety.
Section 4. Conflict and Severability.
In the event any provision of this Ordinance conflicts with any other provision of this
Code or any other ordinance or resolution of the City of Vero Beach on the subject matter of this
Ordinance, the more strict provision shall apply and supersede. If any provision of this
Ordinance is held to be invalid, unconstitutional, or unenforceable for any reason by a court of
competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of
this Ordinance, which shall be deemed separate, distinct, and independent provisions enforceable
to the fullest extent possible.
Section 5. Codification.
The provisions of this Ordinance shall be codified in the Code of the city of Vero Beach,
Florida.
Section 6. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall become effective upon final adoption by the City Council
El
Page 2 of 4 a
CODING: Words stt ieken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
NADRAFT DOCUMENWAgenda Items\Marijaua Ordinance\2017 8 24 ord prohibit med mar kch (2).docx packet Pg. 2 1
9.A.1.e
.a
This Ordinance was read for the first time on the day of
a�
2017, and was advertised on the _ day of , 2017, as being scheduled for a
c
public hearing to be held on the day of , 2017 and was advertised on o
the _ day of , 2017, as being scheduled for a second public hearing to be
held on the on the day of , 2017, at the conclusion of which hearing it
c
�o
was moved for adoption by Councilmember seconded by
Councilmember
ATTEST:
and adopted by the following vote:
Mayor Laura Moss
Vice -Mayor Harry Howell III
Councilmember Richard Winger
Councilmember Lange Sykes
Councilmember Anthony W. Young
Tammy K. Bursick
City Clerk
[SEAL]
Approved as to form and legal
sufficiency:
Wayne R. Coment
City Attorney
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
CITY OF VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
Laura Moss
Mayor
Approved as conforming to municipal
policy:
James R. O'Connor
City Manager
Page 3 of 4
CODING: Words st-rielien are deletions; words underlined are additions.
El
NADRAFT DOCUMENTMAgenda Items\Marijauna Ordinance\2017 8 24 ord prohibit med mar kch (2).docx
Packet Pg. 202
9.A.1.e
Approved as to technical requirements:
Timot y J. MCG t . AICP c
Director, Planning & Development
0
ti
N
n
El
Page 4 of 4 a
CODING: Words str-ielien are deletions; words underlined are additions.
NADRAFT DOCUMENTSWgenda ItemAMarijauna Ordinance\2017 8 24 ord prohibit med mar kch (2).docx
Packet Pg. 203
9.A.1.e
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE 2
TO: Chairwoman Honey Minuse and Planning and
Zoning Board Members
a
FROM: Timothy J. McGarry, AICP o
Director of Planning and lopment N
DATE: August 31, 2017 0
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Proposed Ordinance Amending Various
Provisions of the Land Development Regulations Related
to the Banning of Marijuana Treatment Centers
Overview
The staff has prepared the attached draft Ordinance amending the Code to ban medical marijuana
treatment center dispensing facilities from locating within the city limits. This draft ordinance is
in response of a bill passed by the Florida Legislature earlier this year.
Background
The recent legislation passed by the Florida Legislature establishes two options for local
governments regarding the location of medical marijuana treatment center dispensing facilities.
Under the first option, the City may regulate the location of these facilities as long as such
regulations don't conflict with state. law or administrative rule making and are not more
restrictive than those governing the location of pharmacies.
The other option is that the local government may ban medical marijuana treatment center
dispensing facilities. Under the City's current Land Development Regulations, pharmacies are
treated as "General Retail and Services" and "Restricted Sales and Services." One or both of
these uses are allowed in all commercial, downtown, industrial zoning districts.
The three options available to the City in response to this legislation are:
Do nothing: This option is unacceptable as it would leave the City open to the >
applications to establish medical marijuana treatment center dispensing center c
facilities anywhere pharmacies are located. Furthermore, it was very clear in
adopting the current regulations that the City Council wanted to limit the location a�
of medical marijuana treatment center dispensing facilities to the industrial area of
the City. Therefore, this option was considered unacceptable.
a�
Regulate Medical Marijuana Treatment Center Dispensing Facilities: The City's E
Land Development Regulations would have to be amended to establish new
location criteria for pharmacies and medical marijuana treatment center a
Packet Pg. 2 47
9.A.1.e
Planning and Zoning Board
Marijuana Treatment Centers
August 31, 2017 — Page 2
dispensing facilities. In the staff s opinion, it would nearly be impossible to craft
regulations that would achieve the City's intent to relegate the location of medical
marijuana treatment center facilities to a focused area without adversely
impacting the location of pharmacies.
Ban Medical Marijuana Treatment Center Dispensing Facilities: The only viable
option left was to amend the Land Development Regulations to ban the facilities.
The proposed Ordinance bans any medical marijuana treatment center dispensing
facilities and provides for the vesting of the sole medical marijuana treatment
center dispensing facility approved by the City.
Staff Review and Analysis
The staff reviewed the proposed text amendment to the Land Development Regulations based on
the standards outlined in Section 65.22(i)(1) and (3) of the City of Vero Beach Code. The staff s
analysis and findings are as follows:
Justi zcation for the Amendment. As discussed in the Background section of this report,
the only viable and practicable option to address the new State law is to ban medical marijuana
treatment dispensing facilities from locating in the City of Vero Beach. Therefore, the staff finds
the text amendment to be justified and warranted pursuant to Section 65.22(i)(1).
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Objective 3 of the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan states: "The City shall establish and maintain land useldevelopment
regulations that will reduce and prevent land uses that are inconsistent with community
character and incompatible. with adjacent development. The banning of medical marijuana
treatment dispensing facilities necessitated by the State legislation meets this aforementioned
objective set out in the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the staff finds the draft Ordinance meets
the requirements for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Section 65.22(i)(3).
Consistency with Land Development Regulations. The proposed Ordinance provides
protection to the City's commercial districts and neighborhoods by banning new medical
marijuana treatment dispensing facilities while vesting the existing facility approved earlier this
year. Therefore, the staff finds the proposed Ordinance consistent with the Land Development
Regulations pursuant to Section 65.22(i)(3).
Recommendation
The staff recommends Planning and Zoning Board approval of the draft ordinance for transmittal
to the City Council for favorable consideration.
EI
TJM/tf
Attachments
N:IDRAFT DOCUMENTS\Agenda ItemsWarijauna Ordinance\inarijuana-ban-ph-pzb-9-17-17cw.docx Packet Pg. 205
9.A.1.e
Board members (attached to the original minutes). Based on staff s findings, staff
recommends Planning and Zoning Board approval of the draft Ordinance for transmittal
to the City Council for favorable action.
Mrs. Minuse said the proposed Ordinance reflects what the Board has previously
discussed.
Mr. Daige agreed. He referred to page two (2) of staff's report, where it states,
"Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. " He asked what is the date of the Plan they
are working from.
Mr. McGarry said it is the 1992 Comprehensive Plan, which is the Plan currently in
place.
At this time, a brief discussion took place regarding the Comprehensive Plan.
The Chairwoman opened and closed the public hearing at 1:53 p.m., with no one wishing
to speak.
Mrs. Hillman made a motion to approve the Ordinance amending provision of
Chapter 65, Off -Street Parking and Loading Requirements as presented by staff.
Mr. Daige seconded the motion and it passed 3-0 with Mr. Daige voting yes, Mrs.
Hillman yes, and Ms. Minuse yes.
Legislative]
B. An Ordinance of the City of Vero Beach, Florida, Amending Chapter
34: Offenses — Miscellaneous and Chapter 62: Nonresidential
Districts Relating to Medical Marijuana Treatment Center
Dispensing Facilities; Providing for Conflict and Severability;
Providing for Codification; and Providing for an Effective Date.
The Chairwoman read the Ordinance by title only.
Mr. McGarry went over staffs report with the Board members (attached to the original
minutes). Staff recommends Planning and Zoning Board approval of the draft Ordinance
for transmittal to the City Council for favorable action.
Mr. McGarry noted that a permit has not yet been pulled for the one (1) site that was
previously approved for a Medical Marijuana Treatment Center. He said they are close
to the permitting being terminated.
Mrs. Minuse asked what happens if the permit expires and they still want to open the
business.
EI
Mr. McGarry said they would not be allowed. He explained that they are protected as
long as they have a valid permit. He said they were allowed six (6) months to pull a
building permit and then they would have two (2) years to complete the project.
Mrs. Minuse said the Ordinance does not always reference the full name, which is
Medical Marijuana Treatment Center Dispensing Facility. She referred to the seventh
line of the title of the Ordinance where it states "prohibiting marijuana treatment center
Packet Pg. 206
2 09/21/17 P&Z
dispensing facilities" stating the word "medical" should be listed.
9.A.1.e
Staff agreed. They will amend the Ordinance to ensure the full name is listed throughout
the Ordinance.
The Chairwoman opened and closed the public hearing at 2:04 p.m., with no one wishing
to be heard.
Mrs. Hillman made a motion to approve the Ordinance with the changes made.
Mr. Daige seconded the motion and it passed 3-0 with Mr. Daige voting yes, Mrs.
Hillman yes, and Mrs. Minuse yes.
V. PLANNING DEPARTMENT MATTERS
Mr. McGarry reported that amendment to the Telecommunication Ordinance will be coming before
the Board at their next meeting.
Mr. McGarry reported that he will be working on changes to the proposed Comprehensive Plan with
the City Manager and the Mayor.
At this time, discussion took place regarding the recent City Council meeting on the Comprehensive
Plan and the process for submittal of the Plan.
VI. BOARD MEMBERS' MATTERS
None
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Today's meeting adjourned at 2:23 p.m.
/sp
El
Packet Pg. 207
3 09121/17 P&Z
9.A.1.f
Orange County unanimously approves
medical marijuana dispensaries
By: Tony Marino
November 14, 2017 10:34 PM
Orange County, Fla. - The Orange County Commission voted against banning medical
marijuana dispensaries Tuesday evening for unincorporated areas.
Florida voters approved the use of medical marijuana during last year's election. But state
lawmakers have implemented rules that prevent Orange County from determining where
marijuana dispensaries can be located and how many of them can be built in the county.
Each board members cited several reasons why they voted 'yes' to allowing medical marijuana
dispensaries. "With these numbers in my hand," said Vice Mayor Victoria Siplin, District 6. "I
have to go with what particularly my voters voted for, regardless of what Tallahassee has done to
us."
In June, the state imposed a set of rules for dispensaries that gave local governments two
choices: Allow dispensaries to set up shop anywhere pharmacies can open, or ban them
altogether. The zoning rules were part of the ongoing debate in Orange County leading up to
Tuesday's vote
"You can show up at this hearing, you can stand up and speak and you can change the course of
history," Orange County Mayor Teresa Jacobs said. "And that's what we saw happen here."
The Orange County Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended the county
commission ban the dispensaries, since the state says the county can't regulate their location.
#BREAKING Orange County Commissioners vote to approve medical marijuana dispensaries.
Continuing coverage WFTV pic.twitter.com/yIAsy927Qh
Ken Tyndall (@KenTyndallWFTV) November 14, 2017
Packet Pg. 208
Pot moratorium stays in place I Local News I chronicleonline.com http://www.chronicleonline.com/news/local/pot-moratori�
9.A.1.g
Nov 15 2017
http://www.chronicleonline.com/news/local/pot-moratorium-stays-in-place/article_c20d8dOe-c9a5-11 e7-
b 8 5f-239f8 d 013906. htm I
Pot moratorium stays in place
Uncertainties in Legislature causing concern
Mike Wright Nov 14, 2017 Updated 16 hrs ago
With medical marijuana is legal in many states across the country and Amendment 2 passing in 2016, local Buy Now
leaders across Florida are having to decide what role they want marijuana to play in their communities
and economies.
Special to the Chronicle
INVERNESS — County commissioners have decided to hold off on allowing medical marijuana
dispensaries in the county, over uncertainties in the Legislature and the courts.
Here are the particulars from Tuesdays board meeting:
• A six-month moratorium set to end in mid January remains in place. The moratorium prohibits the
county from processing any applications for dispensaries, which are also called medical marijuana
treatment centers.
• The board is expected to extend the moratorium another six months. Commissioners couldn't do that
Tuesday because the moratorium wasn't on the agenda.
• Anticipating voter support of medical marijuana, the board in 2016 set up rules for dispensaries,
including that they be 1,000 feet away from schools and parks.
• The Legislature said local governments can't treat dispensaries any differently from pharmacies. The
only restriction it allows is 500 feet from a school.
• The county placed a moratorium on dispensary applications until it could come up with a new ordinance
that includes pharmacies and marijuana treatment centers in various zoning classifications. That new
ordinance was up for discussion Tuesday.
• Commissioners said they expect the Legislature to tweak the law some more. And they also noted
there's a lawsuit pending from advocates of medical marijuana because the state law doesn't allow the
smokable form of marijuana.
• They said it made better sense to hold off setting regulations than to put something in place now that
the Legislature could change.
1 of 2
lkl
Packet Pg. 209
Pot moratorium stays in place I Local News I chronicleonline.com http://www.chronicleonline.com/news/local/pot-moratori
9.A.1.g
• Citrus County is part of a 14-county district that can have a maximum 132 dispensaries. Four counties
have banned them and three others are thinking about it, The maximum number of dispensaries
doesn't change no matter how many counties are involved. If, say, Alachua County is the only county in
the district to allow dispensaries, then all 132 can be located there.
• The closest medical marijuana dispensaries are in Gainesville, Tampa and Lady Lake.
MIKE WRIGHT
Senior reporter
2 of 2 Packet Pg. 210
9.A.1.h
e 9
Medical Marijuana Dispensary
Permitted Use Study MAP
■
AIAg
500 foot buffers were constructed around Schools
K -12, both Public and Private.
All CG and CN Zoned Parcels lying outside school
_❑
——
buffers were extracted for analysis. There are
■ � 1 e �aoRa `�A
v �
•
a total of 992 parcels in SLC where pharmacies
are allowed as a permitted use.
\ Q CG Zoned Parcels - 798
V Q CN Zoned Parcels - 194
■ CG (Commercial General) Zoning
o
CN (Commercial Neighborhood) Zoning
�.
5 LI. aI°a ✓,
I�Schools w/ 500ft Buffers
9� AIA
yo' AIA
■ $ AIA
oK��eRa - ■
/ �✓ � ^� AIA
om J ■ yp,ap F
AWL
V
■
�y -1-Rd
� � 1
ga
■ .A • 1
• \ ,00vns� ai ° °pie °e------------
a
1 a
Q
CM
C
O
O
L
0
U
Z
U
6)
c
N
a
ai
c
a�
E
U
M
Y
Q
Map updated July 3, 2017
0 1.5 3
■
i
Miles
Packet Pg. 211
9.A.1.i
ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
P & Z Regular Meeting
November 16, 2017 Convened; 6:00 PM
Adjourned: 6:19 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM by Chairman William O'Dell
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Invocation
Mr. Hopkins
Attendee Name
Title
Status Arrived
William O'Dell
Chairman
Present
James Clasby
Vice Chairman
Absent
Edward Lounds
Board Member
Present
Craig Mundt
Board Member
Present
William Smith
Board Member
Present
Kara Wood
Board Member
Present
Bobby Hopkins
At -Large Board Member
Present
Robert Lowe
At -Large Board Member
Present
James Taylor
At -Large Board Member
Present
Marty Sanders
Ex-Officio Board Member
Present
D. Announcements
None
E. Disclosure(s)
None
r
0
L
v,
m
c
N
IL
U
J
r
d
as
c
a�
E
z
U
Q
Generated 111271201711:23 AM
Packet Pg. 212
9.A.1.i
P & Z Regular Meeting Thursday, November 16, 2017
2. MINUTES
3.
None
4.
6:00 PM
A. St. Lucie County Planning & Zoning Commission minutes for the meeting of Thursday, October
19, 2017
RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Robert Lowe, At -Large Board Member
SECONDER: James Taylor, At -Large Board Member
AYES: O'Dell, Lounds, Mundt, Smith, Wood, Hopkins, Lowe, Taylor
ABSENT: James Clasby
PUBLIC COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. FPL Interstate Solar Energy Center - Conditional Use Permit
Josh Long, Planner for Gunster Law Firm asked for a continuance for this agenda item due to an
alternative tree mitigation feasibility issue. Either December 21st or January 18th would be
sufficient.
It was asked why this came up now instead of before and Planning Director, Leslie Olson
explained along with Marvin Sanders of the St. Lucie County School Board that it was a recent
issue.
Public Hearing open
Hoyt Murphy had no objection to the continuance
Public Hearing closed
RESULT: CONTINUED [6 TO 21 Next:
12/21/2017 6:00 PM
MOVER: Kara Wood, Board Member
SECONDER: James Taylor, At -Large Board Member
AYES: O'Dell, Lounds, Smith, Wood, Hopkins, Taylor
NAYS: Craig Mundt, Robert Lowe
ABSENT: James Clasby
B. Ordinance 17-XXX for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
Katherine Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney stated the Florida Right to Medical Marijuana
Initiative, Amendment 2 was on the November 4, 2014 ballot in the State of Florida as a
constitutional amendment. On May 16, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners approved
Ordinance No. 17-005 which allowed medical marijuana dispensaries as a permitted use in CG,
commercial general zoning district and created supplemental standards. During the June 2017
2 1 P'i,C,
Packet Pg. 213
9.A.1.i
P & Z Regular Meeting Thursday, November 16, 2017 6:00 PM
special session the Florida Statutes provides, "Regulation of cultivation, processing and delivery
provided in this subsection...", Subsection (11)2.(c) provides, "a county or municipality may not
enact ordinances for permitting or for determining the locations for pharmacies licensed under
chapter 465." Under current law, a county may either (1) ban medical marijuana treatment
center dispensing facilities from being located within the boundaries of that county or (2) allow
those facilities under the same regulations as apply to licensed pharmacies. The current
proposed ordinance repeals Ordinance No. 17-005 and provides for the same location criteria
as apply to licensed pharmacies. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission
forward the draft ordinance to the Board of County Commissions with a recommendation of
approval.
Public Hearing open
No one spoke
Public Hearing closed
There were no questions for staff; unanimous approval.
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Edward Lounds, Board Member
SECONDER: James Taylor, At -Large Board Member
AYES: O'Dell, Lounds, Mundt, Smith, Wood, Hopkins, Lowe, Taylor
ABSENT: James Clasby
5. WORKSHOPS
A. There are no items scheduled.
A. There are no scheduled items.
7. ADJOURN
There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
Please Note: Final minutes are recorded in the official minute books that are filed with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court and available for inspection upon request.
31 Page
Packet Pg. 214
9.A.1.j
ORDINANCE 17-XXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ST. LUCIE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AMENDING THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO
ADDRESS MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES; BY AMENDING SECTION
3.01.03 ZONING DISTRICTS ALLOWING LOW THC AND MEDICAL
MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES AS A PERMITTED USE IN CG, COMMERCIAL
GENERAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND CN, COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD;
PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, SEVERABILITY AND
APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE;
PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION AND CODIFICATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE;
WHEREAS, the voters of the State of Florida were presented a Constitutional amendment question on the
November 4, 2016 general election ballot that approved by over 60% of the votes, legalized marijuana for medical
purposes; and,
Whereas, the Legislature during a special session provided that medical marijuana dispensaries are to be
able to locate where pharmacies licensed under chapter 465.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners (`Board") has determined that is in the best interests of the
citizenry and general public to regulate the location of medical marijuana dispensaries; and,
WHEREAS, the Board has the responsibility and authority to determine which zoning categories and which
land use categories are the best suited for specific purposes, such as the establishment of medical marijuana
dispensaries; and,
WHEREAS, this ordinance is enacted in the interest of the public health, peace, safety, and general welfare
of the citizens and inhabitants of St. Lucie County, Florida, pursuant to Article Vill, Section 1 (f), Florida Constitution
and Section 125.01, Florida Statutes.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
PART A.
THE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS TO THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CAUSING THE CODE
TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
CHAPTER III ZONING DISTRICTS
3.01.03. Zoning Districts
A. - P. NO CHANGE
Q. CN, Commercial Neighborhood
2. Permitted Uses
a. — h. NO CHANGE
i. — Low THC and medical marijuana dispensing facility
b. The facility may not be located within 500 feet of the real property that comprises a public or private
elementary school, middle school, or secondary school.
R. NO CHANGE
S. CG, Commercial General
2. Permitted Uses
a. —xx. NO CHANGE
yy. — Low THC and Medical Marijuana dispensing facility s bjeet to the regUiFements f seetien "^ "
1
Packet Pg. 215
9.A.1.j
b. The facility may not be located within 500 feet of the real property that comprises a public or private
school. middle school' or secondary school.
CHAPTER VII DEVELOPMENT DESIGN AND IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS
7.00.00 GENERAL PROVISIONS
C
w
a
Packet Pg. 216
9.A.1.j
PART B. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS.
Special acts of the Florida legislature applicable only to unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County,
County ordinances and County resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict with this ordinance are hereby superseded
by this ordinance to the extent of such conflict.
PART C. SEVERABILITY.
If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason held or declared to be unconstitutional,
inoperative, or void, such holding shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance. If this ordinance or any
provision thereof shall be held to be inapplicable to any person, property, or circumstance, such holding shall not
affect its applicability to any other person, property, or circumstance.
PART D. APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE.
This ordinance shall be applicable in the unincorporated area of St. Lucie County.
PART E. CODIFICATION.
3
Packet Pg. 217
9.A.1.j
It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners, and it is hereby ordained that the
provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of the County of St. Lucie, Florida; that
the Sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or re -lettered to accomplish such intentions; and that the word
"Ordinance" shall be changed to "Section' or other appropriate word.
PART F. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
The Clerk is hereby directed forthwith to send a certified copy of this ordinance to the Bureau of
Administrative Code and Laws, Department of State, The Capitol, Tallahassee, Florida 32304.
PART G. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall be effective upon filing with the Department of State.
PART H. ADOPTION.
After motion and second, the vote on this ordinance was as follows:
Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson, Chair XXX
Commissioner Tod Mowery, Vice Chairman XXX
Commissioner Linda Bartz XXX
Commissioner Chris Dzadovsky XXX
Commissioner Cathy Townsend XXX
ATTEST:
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this day of
Deputy Clerk
4
2017.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNESS:
BY:
County Attorney
a
Packet Pg. 218
9.B.1
ITEM NO. RES-2017-272
TO:
PRESENTED BY:
AGENDA REQUEST
Board of County Commissioners
Bethany Grubbs, Planner
SUBMITTED BY: Planning Division
SUBJECT: Hillbilly Lot Rezoning
BACKGROUND:
DATE: 12/05/2017
*PUBLIC HEARINGS\PLANNING
& DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
QUASI-JUDICIAL
The subject undeveloped property consists of 0.56 acres and is located within the Jay Gardens
subdivision, which was originally platted in 1957 (Plat Book 10, Page 70) with lot sizes averaging 75 feet in
width. County records indicate that as of 1972 the parcel was zoned R-1C, Residential Single -Family.
During that period, the R-1C zoning district required a minimum lot width of 75 feet, with a minimum land
size of 10,000 square feet. With the adoption of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code in 1984, the
County rezoned the Jay Gardens subdivision to AR-1, a district that required one -acre lots. Since then,
parcels have been sold and subdivided in a manner that has not maintained the one -acre size, creating
nonconforming lots. Several property owners have sought and received a change in zoning to the RS-4
(Residential, Single-family - 4 du/acre) zoning district to allow for the construction of a single family home.
The applicant is seeking a change in zoning to allow for the building of a residential dwelling unit. While
the parcel is a legal, nonconforming lot of record, and a residential structure can be constructed as the
parcel stands, the applicant has expressed a desire to construct the dwelling unit in accordance with the
setbacks of the RS-4 zoning district. The proposed residential, single-family zoning district, in which the
applicant is seeking, is found on the parcel to the south. This parcel is under the same ownership as the
petition site. The rezoning to RS-4 will continue the existing zoning patterns that have occurred within the
neighborhood and will satisfy the requirements of the Land Development Code for this zoning district.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
October 19, 2017, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the
request for a rezoning to the Board of County Commissioners.
The item was scheduled to be heard at the November 19 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Due
to an advertising error, the public hearing was open and continued to date certain December 5, 2017.
There were no comments at the November 19 meeting.
N/A
Packet Pg. 219
9.B.1
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning from AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/ac) to RS-4
(Residential, Single -Family - 4 du/ac) zoning district.
COMMISSION ACTION:
Coordination/Signatures
Wil Director Planning a Development Services 11/20/2017
Danie 5. McIntyre, C my ttorney 11/22/2017
Mark 5 ter ee, Dept County H ministrato 11/28/2017
Updated: 11/20/2017 1:56 PM by Bonnie Landry Page 2
Packet Pg. 220
I 9.B.1.a I
Board of County Commissioners
Hearing Date:
Tuesday Hillbilly Lot
December 5, 2017 Amendment to the Official Zoning Atlas
Applicant
Richard Michalak
3340 SE Federal Hwy #256
Stuart, FL 34997
File Number
RZ 620175155
Proiect Location
TBD Jay Gardens Lane
Existina Zoning
AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential -
1 du/ac)
Proposed Zoning
RS-4 (Residential, Single-
Family-4 du/ac)
Proiect Manaaer
Bethany Grubbs
Planner
(772) 462-1687
grubbsb@stlucieco.org
Staff Recommendation
Approval
RZ-620175155
HillbillyLot Owners Mailing List
LRIPPLFCREEICL
r
<:
o
�Aenv
Ax_
caROENs w
i
z
� A LL4I CSI11-1 -
ORANCEAVE
_F7
50Oft N otification Area N
0 250 500 750 1 000
® Suble[i Parcel
0 Parcels In 500fl Notification Area Feel
Project Location: Jay Gardens Lane, approximately 500 feet north of
Orange Avenue
Proiect Description
The applicant has requested a
change in zoning from the AR-1
(Agricultural, Residential-1 du/ac)
Zoning District to the RS-4
(Residential, Single-Family-4 du/ac)
Zoning District for a 0.56 acre parcel
located at Jay Gardens Lane. The
lot is currently a legal non-
conforming lot of record. The
purpose of the request is to allow a
single family homestead, subject to
the minimum lot size and
dimensional requirements of the
RS-4 zoning district.
Background
The subject property is currently an
undeveloped, non -conforming lot of
record. The applicant also owns the
contiguous parcel immediately to the
south, which is currently zoned RS-4.
The property will be serviced via
onsite well and septic system upon
Health Department Approval.
Previous Action
The Planning & Zoning Commission
met on October 19, 2017 and
recommended unanimous approval
of this request to the Board of
County Commissioners.
Notice Requirements
Public hearing notice was placed in
the St. Lucie News Tribune, letters
sent to property owners within 500
feet of the subject property and a
sign placed on the property. No writ-
ten objections were received from
adjacent property owners.
Further details are found in the
attached memorandum.
9.B.1.b
IP
COUNTY
}
F
L
O R[
D A
Planning and Development
Services Department
STAFF REPORT
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Leslie Olson, AICP, Planning & Development Services Director
Bonnie C. Landry, AICP, Planning Manager
FROM: Bethany Grubbs, Planner
DATE: December 5, 2017
SUBJECT: Hillbilly Lot — TBD Jay Gardens Lane
BACKGROUND
The subject undeveloped property consists of 0.56 acres and is located within the Jay
Gardens subdivision, which was originally platted in 1957 (Plat Book 10, Page 70)
with lots sizes averaging 75 feet in width. County records indicate that as of 1972 the
parcel was zoned R-1 C, Residential Single -Family. During that period, the R-1 C
zoning district required a minimum lot width of 75 feet, with a minimum land size of
10,000 square feet. With the adoption of the St. Lucie County Land Development
Code in 1984, the County rezoned the Jay Gardens subdivision to AR-1, a district that
required one -acre lots. Since then, parcels have been sold and subdivided in a
manner that has not maintained the one -acre size, creating nonconforming lots.
Several property owners have sought and received a change in zoning to the RS-4
(Residential, Single-family — 4 du/acre) zoning district to allow for the construction of
a single family home.
The applicant is seeking a change in zoning to allow for the building of a residential
dwelling unit. While the parcel is a legal, nonconforming lot of record, and a residential
structure can be constructed as the parcel stands, the applicant has expressed a
desire to construct the dwelling unit in accordance with the setbacks of the RS-4
zoning district. The proposed residential, single-family zoning district, in which the
applicant is seeking, is found on the parcel to the south. This parcel is under the same
ownership as the petition site. The rezoning to RS-4 will continue the existing zoning
patterns that have occurred within the neighborhood and will satisfy the requirements
of the Land Development Code for this zoning district.
Packet Pg. 222
9.B.1.b
Hillbilly Lot Rezoning
RZ 620175155
December 5, 2017
Page 2
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Richard Michalak
3340 S.E. Federal Hwy, #256
Stuart, FL 34997
Agent: None
Property Owner: Richard Michalak
3340 S.E. Federal Hwy, #256
Stuart, FL 34997
Request: Change in zoning from AR - 1 (Agricultural, Residential — 1 du/acre) to RS
- 4 (Residential, Single Family — 4 du/acre)-
Purpose: The proposed zoning change is to allow for future development of a
single family residence.
Location: Jay Gardens Lane, approximately 200 feet east of Laidback Way and 500
feet north of Orange Avenue.
Tax I D: 2311-601-0093-000-4
Parcel Size: 0.56 acres
Existing Use: Vacant Lot
Future Land Use: RU (Residential Urban)
Zoning: AR - 1 (Agricultural, Residential — 1 du/acre)
Proposed Zoning: RS - 4 (Residential, Single Family — 4 du/acre)
Urban Services Boundary: Inside
a�
c
0
N
N
0
J
21
Z
x
N
ti
N
ti
O
N
Cn
W
0
a
a�
U)
r
m
0j
r-
W
E
U
2
r
a
Packet Pg. 223
9.B.1.b
Hillbilly Lot Rezoning
RZ 620175155
December 5, 2017
Page 3
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Location
Future Land Use
Zoning
Existing Land Use
Subject Property
Existing: RU (Residential
Existing: AR-1 (Agricultural,
Vacant
Urban — 5 du/ac)
Residential — 1 du/ac)
Proposed: RS-4
(Residential, Single Family
— 4 du/ac
Adjacent
North
RU (Residential, Urban —
AR-1 (Agricultural,
Non -Residential Farm
Parcels
5 du/ac)
Residential — 1 du/ac)
Building
South
RU (Residential, Urban —
RS-4 (Residential, Single
Single Family
5 du/ac)
Family — 4 du/ac)
Residence
East
RU (Residential, Urban —
AR-1 (Agricultural,
Single Family
5 du/ac)
Residential — 1 du/ac)
Residence
West
RU (Residential, Urban —
AR-1 (Agricultural,
Multi -Family Duplexes
5 du/ac)
Residential — 1 du/ac)
developed in the early
1980's
****************************************************************
STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03
ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
In reviewing this application, the Board of County Commissioners shall consider and make
the following determinations:
Whether the proposed rezoning is in conflict with any applicable portions of the St.
Lucie County Land Development Code;
The proposed change in zoning will not be in conflict with the County's Land Development
Code and has met the standards of review for changes to the Official Zoning Atlas in Section
11.06.03. The proposed zoning district is consistent with Section 11.09.02(A), Table 11-1
Land Use Category/Zoning District compatibility chart, and the site meets the dimensional
requirements set forth in Section 7.04.00 and Table 7-10 for the RS-4 Zoning District.
The dimensional requirements set forth in Section 7.04.00 and Table 7-10 are shown below
for both the existing AR-1 Zoning District and the proposed RS-4 Zoning District. The
proposed parcel meets the minimum dimensional standards for lots in the proposed RS-4
Zoning District. If approved, the change in zoning will allow the applicant to seek approval for
development of the proposed single-family dwelling utilizing the minimum dimensional
requirements set forth below.
Packet Pg. 224
9.B.1.b
Hillbilly Lot Rezoning
RZ 620175155
December 5, 2017
Page 4
Comparison of the Dimensional Requirements by Zoning District from Table 7-10 LDC
AR-1 Zoning District
Minimum
RS-4 Zoning District
Minimum
Subject Parcel
Lot Size
43,560 square feet
10,000 square feet
12,400 square feet
Lot Width
150 feet
100 feet
105 feet
Road Frontage
30 feet
60 feet
230 feet
Front Setback
50 feet
25 feet
N/A
Rear Setback
30 feet
20 feet
N/A
Side Setback
20 feet
20 feet
N/A
Building Height
35 feet
40 feet
N/A
Lot Coverage by Bldg.
20 %
30 %
N/A
2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie
County Comprehensive Plan;
The proposed rezoning from AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential — 1 du/acre) to RS-4 (Residential,
Single Family — 4 du/ac) is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed
change in zoning to RS-4 is compatible with the property's Future Land Use Designation of
RU as per Comprehensive Plan Table 1-3, Land Use Designation / Zoning Compatibility
Chart. The subject parcel exceeds the required lot size of 10,000 square feet for a buildable
lot on the RS-4 zoning district.
The proposed change in zoning is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan
directives that apply to the proposed change in zoning:
• Objective 1.1.5 - In coordination with the other elements of this plan, future development
within the Urban Service Area shall be directed to areas where urban and community
services/facilities can be provided in the most efficient and compact manner so as to
discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl.
The subject property is located within the Urban Service Area.
• Objective 1.1.1: Maintain the Future Land Use Map land with the following use
designations to portray the future development patterns of St. Lucie County.
The Residential Urban land use cateaory allows for a maximum residential densitv of 5
du/ac. The aaalicant is aroaosina 1 dwellina unit on a 0.56 acre lot with a densitv of 2
dwelling units per acre.
• Table 1-3 Land Use Designation/Zoning Compatibility Matrix
The RS-4, Residential, Single -Family— 4 du/ac zoning district is compatible with the RU,
Residential Urban land use.
3. Whether and the extent to which the proposed zoning is inconsistent with the existing
and proposed land uses;
The proposed zoning change from AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential — 1 du/acre) to RS-4
(Residential, Single Family — 4 du/acre) is consistent with the existing and proposed land
uses. As stated above, the RS-4 zoning district is compatible with the RU Future Land Use
designation as per both the Land Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan. There
0
N
♦Y
0
J
Z
x
N
ti
N
ti
r
0
N
vn
w
W
Packet Pg. 225
9.B.1.b
Hillbilly Lot Rezoning
RZ 620175155
December 5, 2017
Page 5
have been several parcels within the Jay Gardens Subdivision rezoned to RS-4 in order for
the properties to be developed in conformance with the Land Development Code.
4. Whether there have been changed conditions that require an amendment;
No change in conditions has occurred to require the amendment.
5. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on
public facilities, and whether or to the extent to which the proposed amendment would
exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation
facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, solid waste, mass
transit, and emergency medical facilities;
The proposed request is not expected to result in excessive demands on public facilities.
Prior to the issuance of any final development order, the developer must demonstrate that all
public facilities are available to serve the parcel and obtain a Certificate of Capacity. The
applicant has signed the required Concurrency Deferral Affidavit recognizing this provision.
Potable Water and Wastewater Treatment
The subject parcel and other lots within the Jay Gardens subdivision are not served by public
water or sewer. At the time a building permit is requested the applicant will be required to
provide documentation that the County's Health Department has approved a well and septic
on the property or that water and sewer lines are being extended to the parcel and service will
be provided by the Ft. Pierce Utility Authority.
The subject property is within the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority's service area for potable water
and wastewater. Existing water lines are located along the north side of Orange Avenue.
Water is available if the owner would like to connect at their expense. Gravity sewer is not
available. The subject property is over a half of an acre; therefore, the applicant may install a
well and septic tank on the property in compliance with Florida Administrative Code 64E-6 -
Standards for onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems. The use of well and septic
system are proposed for the development of the property.
Transportation Impacts
The petition site has frontage on Jay Gardens Lane, an unmaintained dirt road. Access to the
site is from Orange Avenue. The impacted roadway is operating at an acceptable level -of -
service (LOS) "B." The trips generated by the proposed single family home can be estimated
by applying the generation rates found in the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip
Generation Manual, 7th Edition. Using the ITE Land Use Codes 210 "Single -Family Detached
Housing" a single-family home generates an estimated 9.20 trips per day. A traffic impact
report was not prepared for this petition since the proposed traffic impacts are considered de
minimis and will not create a deficient roadway.
Packet Pg. 226
9.B.1.b
Hillbilly Lot Rezoning
RZ 620175155
December 5, 2017
Page 6
6. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant
adverse impacts on the natural environment;
The proposed rezoning is not anticipated to result in adverse environmental impacts.
Environmental impacts for this subject property will be assessed once a specific site design
is submitted. At that time, ERD will conduct further review to ensure compliance with the Land
Development Code during the site plan and/or building permit review process.
7. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would adversely affect the
property values in the area;
There is no evidence that the proposed rezoning will adversely affect the property values in
the area. A change in zoning from AR-1 (Agricultural Residential — 1 du/acre) to RS-4
(Residential, Single -Family — 4 du/acre) is consistent with residential uses to the south, east
and west and will benefit neighborhood property values overall.
8. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in an orderly
and logical development pattern specifically identifying any negative effects of such
patterns;
Based upon the land use analysis provided in this memorandum, the proposed rezoning from
AR-1 to RS-4 will result in an orderly and logical development pattern, continuing with the
established residential development pattern that is found on the adjacent parcels to the south
and east, and west. The applicant also owns the parcel directly to the south, which is currently
zoned RS-4 (Residential, Single -Family — 4 du/acre). The applicant is proposing to seek unity
of title approval of the two parcels if rezoning is approved.
9. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is
in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Code;
The proposed amendment is not in conflict with the public interest and is in harmony with the
purpose and intent of this code.
10. Any other matters that may be deemed appropriate by the Planning and Zoning
Commission or the Board of County Commissioners, in review and consideration of
the proposed amendment.
The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners may raise
other matters regarding this proposed amendment to the Official Zoning Atlas.
CONCLUSION
Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms to the standards of review
as set forth in Section 11.06.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is
consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive
Plan.
Packet Pg. 227
9.B.1.b
Hillbilly Lot Rezoning
RZ 620175155
December 5, 2017
Page 7
RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds that this petition meets the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.06.03 of
the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that
the Board of County Commissioners to approve this petition.
Packet Pg. 228
I 9.B.1.c I
Hillbilly Lot EDZ
RZ-620175155 0
z
0
G�
CRANGEAVE
❑ J
ry J
LU
ry m
w d
N �
v PICCS RD
ry
Cn
N Y
L] ❑
� ry
CD w
Cn J_
H
z
w
A ---1 0
Subject parcel
0
Y
Z
5T LUCIE BLVD
1
n
n
Cn
z
Y
z
w
U)
00
t
19
11 N
L (�
V
a
Packet Pg. 229
Hillbilly Lot
RZ-620175155
I 9.B.1.c I
it
No
ti
N
ti
O
N
CO
W
W
500ft Notification Area _ N
CD Subject Property Aerial Flown: 2016
Map Date- August 1 packet Pg. 230
RZ-620175155
HillbillyL O t Owners Mailing List
s�
G� ♦ CRIPPLE CREEK LN o
�� ♦ At ♦ J
O . �.
MOCO LN
� N
� • N
■ ti
� ■ O
■ ■ N
W
■ ■ Z W
� Q ■ z.
■ ■ E, M
TM-\
■ Y ■ q lC
■ U ■ U
Q ■ 0
■ m G
■ 0
■ < \—T
JAY GARDENS LN
J V
• a J
• I� Q
� z
Q, m
• MILLWOOD DR
t
ORANGE AVE
a
■ ■ 7 500ft Notification Area
0 250 500 750 1,000
® Subject Parcel _
Parcels in 500ft Notification Area Feet Map prepPacket P 231
are g'
Pu
►_►:al
Hillbilly Lot
RZ-620175155
•
•
♦
R
■
f
f
f
■
■
■
■
■
`)
.
■
m
■
o
�
J
w
■
w
s
■
500ft Notification Area
® Subject Property
RM-5
RS-4
CRIPPLE CREEK LN
R5-4' +
•# z_
♦ v
z
-1
I 9.B.1.c I
Zoning
r I,IOCO LN aNi
0
J
R.
No
W N
z
zOf Q
ti
O N
r W
I �
RS 4
M
r_
0
JAY GARDENS LN
0
J
AR-1 ► U
�q
�¢ m
z ai
r
� q c
¢ E
R5-4 •� AR-1
40 MILLWD D DR
100 200 300 400
Feet
Zoning Codes N
AR-1 -Agricultural Residential (1 dulac)
RM-5 - Residential Multi Family (5 dulac)
RS-4 -Residential Single Family
Packet Pg. 232
RU
RU
RU
RU
RU
RU
9.B.1.c
P/F
I
RU
PIF
CRIPPLE CREEK LN
RU
RU
RU
RU
RU
RU
TRURU
RU
RU
RU
RU
RU
RU
RU
RU
RU
RU
RU
RU
RU
RU
RU
RU
RU
RU
RU RU
RU
MOCO LN
RU
RU
RU
RU
I
0
w
z
z
RU
RU
RO
�
U
RU
RU
RU
RU
RU RU 1-4 RU RU a RU
J
Q
z
RU RU RU RU ¢ RU aRURU
U
MILLWOOD DR --,/
ROW ORANGE AVE
RU
Packet Pg. 233
9.B.l.d
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 7, 8, 9 AND 10, BLOCK 6, JAY GARDENS — FORT PIERCE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 10,
PAGE 70, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
SYMBOLOGY
q,
CENTERLINE
EA
TELEPHONE UTILITY
ELECTRIC BOX
VALVE
SANITARY MANHOLE
CONCRETE
CABLE TV JUNCTION BOX
rTI
AREA LIGHTING
WATER METER
6' WOOD PENCE
4' WIRE FENCE
ASPHALT
71)
WOOD POWER POLE
DIRT ROAD
OVERHEAD UTILITY
Q=
MAILBOX
VICINITY MAP
Florida!x Tu,,,f
ABBREVIATIONS
(C) CALCULATED
(M) MEASURED
(P)
PLAT DATA
6&G
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER
CH.B
CHORD BEARING
CH,D
CHORD DISTANCE
Cm
CONCRETE MONUMENT
A
DELTA ANGLE
D.E.
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
FFE
FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION
IRC
IRON ROD & CAP
L
ARC LENGTH
L,E.
LANDSCAPE EASEMENT
LB
LICENSED BUSINESS
M&D
MAG & DISC
N/D NAIL AND DISK
NAVD NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM
NGVD NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM
NR NON RADIAL
ORB OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK
P.U.E. PRIVATE UTILITY EASEMENT
PC POINT OF CURVATURE
PG PAGE
PI POINT OF INTERSECTION
PLS PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
POB POINT OF BEGINNING
POC POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
POT POINT OF TERMINUS
PRM PERMANENT REFERENCE MONUMENT
PT POINT OF TANGENCY
R RADIUS
R/W RIGHT OF WAY
WV WATER VALVE
Treasure Coast
International
Luck-;
Airport and Fort Pierce
Business Park trilpt State PD6
kv Angl(
.—PROJECT (E-13)
AREA
Forl Pierce
ll,lorth
is
10's
Fort Pierce
A, r2,1 Fort Pierce
.;truth
Iml
NOTES
I THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR
AND MAPPER.
2. ANY REVISIONS MADE TO THIS DOCUMENT OR ASSOCIATED REPORTS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE UNDERSIGNED WILL
VOID THE SEAL WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED HEREON.
3. NO ABSTRACT WAS MADE BY THE UNDERSIGNED TO VERIFY ACTUAL LEGAL OWNERSHIP, RIGHTS —OF —WAY, EASEMENTS OR OTHER
BURDENS ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OTHER THAN THOSE FURNISHED BY THE CLIENT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE. DESCRIPTION
SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON INFORMATION RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3423, PAGE 2733, ST. LUCIE COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
4. SUBJECT PROPERTY CONTAINS 0.79 ACRES, MORE OR LESS (34,328.99 SQUARE FEET).
5. THE LAST DATE OF FIELD WORK WAS APRIL 20, 2017.
6. REVISIONS SHOWN HEREON DO NOT REPRESENT A "FIELD SURVEY UPDATE" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
7. THE NORTH LINE OF THE SUBJECT TRACT, THE SAME BEING THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 10 BLOCK 6, IS ASSUMED TO BEAR
N89*50'29"E; ALL OTHER BEARINGS SHOWN ARE RELATIVE THERETO.
8, UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, UTILITY SERVICES, FOUNDATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS WERE NOT LOCATED AS A PART OF THIS SURVEY.
9, IMPROVEMENTS, OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN HEREON, WERE NOT LOCATED AS PART OF THIS SURVEY.
10. IN SOME INSTANCES, GRAPHIC REPRESENTATIONS AND SYMBOLS SHOWN HAVE BEEN EXAGGERATED TO MORE CLEARLY ILLUSTRATE
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR LOT LINES. THE DIMENSIONS SHOWN SHALL CONTROL THE
LOCATION, OF THE IMPROVEMENTS, OVER THE SCALED POSITIONS.
11. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN AN AREA HAVING A ZONE DESIGNATION "X", BASED ON FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP No.
12111CO160 J, DATED FEBRUARY 16, 2012.
12. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE REFERENCED TO NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88).
13. ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNITED STATES STANDARD, USING IN FEET
GRAPHIC SCALE
20 0 10 20 40
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 20 ft.
CERTIFICATION
THIS BOUNDARY SURVEY AND MAP REPRESENTS AN ACTUAL ON THE GROUND SURVEY PERFORMED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT
SUPERVISION. THIS MAP AND SURVEY IS ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. THIS MAP AND SURVEY COMPLIES
WITH THE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE AS CODIFIED IN CHAPTER 472, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND IN CHAPTER 5J-17 OF THE FLORIDA
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.
P. CHAD MAXWELL, FLORIDA( REGISTRATION #7070
PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR AND MAPPER
01:2191-7
( SIGNATURE DATE
80.0,
FOUND Y2"
IRON PIPE
P4
LOT 32, BLOCK 6
JAY GARDENS — FORT PIERCE
(PB. 10, PG. 70)
LOT 11, BLOCK 6
JAY GARDENS — FORT PIERCE
(PB. 10, PG. 70)
N89-50'29"E (P)
FOUND V IRC PSM 2791 BASIS OF BEARINGS
4
105.94' (P) 0.3'N, 0. VW N89050'29"E 105.00'
S89050'29"W 104.61' 0.6,
E- E-
Z Z
pq
LOT 33, BLOCK 6 w wLOT 10, BLOCK 6
JAY GARDENS — FORT PIERCE
LOT 9, BLOCK 6
LOT 34 PT ()(-v 6
JAY GARDENS FORT PIERCE
(PB. 10, PG. 70)
O
CD
106.05' (P)
105' (P)
m
0
Z
z
LOT 35, BLOCK 6
JAY GARDENS FORT PIERCE
(PB. 10, PG. 70)
E-
106.10' (P)
LOT 36, BLOCK 6
JAY GARDENS FORT PIERCE
(PB. 10, PG, 70)
cu
106.15' (P)
z
Cn
LOT 37, BLOCK 6
JAY GARDENS FORT PIERCE 0.6
(PB. 10, PG. 70) FOUND V IRC
E- 1
ILLEGIBLE
cp
FOUND V IRC
PSM 2791
0 6 �
O
Z
C6 Irl
=
`-woo
E-
0 �-q
1-4-101
0-v
LOT 8, BLOCK 6
FOUND V IRC
PSM 2791
0.3'N, 0.2'E
105' (P)
60.0'
LOT 7, BLOCK 6
FOUND
(�IRON
PIPE
0.2'N, 0. VW
L = 30.66' (P)
L 30.65'
4.
2
R 85.00
FOUND (2)
A = 20039'47"
IRON RODS w.
A = 20040'49" (P)
NO ID
017'S
�."R`
0
69°��'������
WEST
AVENITE PER PLAT
A
% FOUND
AKA
Y, LANE'-
A GARDENS:
IRON ROD NO ID
(60'..RIGHT—QF WAY
L = 58.58'
R = 85.00'
LOT 6, BLOCK 6 y
39*29'18
JAY GARDENS — FORT PIERCE
(P)
(PB. 10, PG. 70)
------------ - - - ----
O
0
SNOISlAaZI
Z
CO
zw
pq
pz,
a>-(
�
E-
pq
.14
C6
z
co
0
Z
aC12
0
cli
z
-4
S.4 PO
z
0
E
s
6 s
Z CO
o (�
M
CO
-j 0
u-
x C\j
E
co
CO
cn
0 co-
W 0
C\j
0 LO
Cr E
0
aU co
ON
0 16
0-
U)
0 ci
V 3:
x
0) E
co �i
co
0
W
0
..........
7T7.77
A
I Packet Pg. 234 1
of County Commissioners
ee tncr rme:
6:00 PM (or soon thereafter )
Location:
BOCC Chambers
SLC Administration Annex, 2300
Virginia Avenue
Applicant
Richard Michalak
3340 SE Federal Hwy, 9256
Stuart, FL 34997
Project Name
Hillbilly Lot Rezoning
Project Location
TBD Jay Gardens Lane, Approximately
500 feet north of Orange Avenue and
east of Laidback Way
Future Land Use
RU (Residential, Urban
Existing Zoning
AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential-1 du/
ac)
Proposed Zoning
RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family-4
d ulac)
Staff's Recommendation
Approval
HI )
RZbMIi555
Location
Public Hearing Notice
Tuesday, December 5, 2017
Notice of Proposed Amendment to the Official Zoning
Atlas (Rezoning) for Richard Michalak
RZ-620175155
HillbillyLot Owners MaUing List
F
CRIPPCE'rREEN "
'An CQ.t1J
`r
g
�IQy
•S
JAY GME LN
z�
laC CkE'OR
CRANf�'AVE-"""
T-T
:••;5W}[Notr000PArea N
0 250 500 756 1 000 -
®Subject Parcel
0 Parcels In 500M NutRatlon Area Feel
You are receiving this notice because you
are a property owner within 500 feet of the
proposed petition.
Proiect Description
The applicant, Richard Michalak is
requesting an Amendment to the Official Zon-
ing Atlas from AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential —
1) to RS-4 (Residential, Single -Family —4) for
approximately 0.56 acres of land located on
the west side of Jay Gardens Lane, about 500
feet north of Orange Avenue.
Background
The subject property is currently undeveloped
and single family homes exist to the east,
west, and south. The property to the south is
also owned by the applicant and is currently
zoned RS-4.
The purpose of the request is to allow a single
family homestead, subject to the minimum lot
size and dimensional requirements of the RS-
4 zoning district. The property will be serviced
via onsite well and septic system upon Health
Department Approval.
Planninq and Zoning Commission
Recommendation
The Planning & Zoning Commission met on
October 19, 2017 and recommended
unanimous approval of this request to the
Board of County Commissioners (BOCC).
The BOCC has the power to review and take
final action on any applications within their
area of responsibility.
All interested persons will be given an
opportunity to be heard. Written comments to
the BOCC should be received by the Pan-
ning and Development Services Department
(PDS), Planning Division at least 3 days prior
to the scheduled hearing. Further details
are available in the PDS Department,
Planning Division please contact:
Staff
Bethany Grubbs, Planner
Phone
772-462-1687
Email
GrubbsB@stlucieco.org
Mail
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, Florida 34982
Anyone with a disability requiring accommo-
dations to attend this meeting may contact
the SLC Community Risk Manager at least
48 hours in advance at 772.462.1546 or TDD
772.462.1428
Date Mailed: November 20, 2017
Packet Pg. 235
9.B.1.e
ParcellD
CuOiLastName
CuO1FIrstNeme
0021.astName
CuO2FirstName
CuOStreetl
CUOStreet2 CuOCIty
CuOState CuOPostal
2311-601-0059-000.4
Goodin
Kelly
1015 Cardinal PI
Fort Pierce
FL
34945
2311-601-0006-G00-8
Hall III
Robert G
Hall
Kayla M
101 S Cardinal PL
Fort Pierce
FL
34945
2311-601-0096-000-2
Westberry
Joseph R
Westberry
Lesha 5
105 S Cardinal PI
Fort Pierce
FL
34945
2311-601-0122-000-7
Gorman Properties of SLC LLC
1209 Delaware AVE
Fart Pierce
FL
34950-4049
2311-601-0096-000-5
Seabean Properties LLC
140 Blue Grotto Dr
Fort Pierce
FL
34945
/,411-d11-U1JU1-UUU-b
N5LK
14666 Orange AVE
Fort Pierce
FL
34945
2311-601-0123-000-4
Bastek
Frank
Bastek
Mary
18031 Biscayne Blvd Apt 402
N Miami Beach
FL
33160
2311-601-0113-000-1
Parker
Joseph A
Parker
Elisa A
202 Laidback WAY
Fort Pierce
FL
34945-3409
2311-601-0103-000-8
Erickson
Ashley
251 Cardinal PL
Fort Pierce
FL
34945-3406
2311-601-0099-000-6
Lotito
Anthony
Lotito
Diane
280rth Ave
Passaic
NJ
7055
2311-601-0004-000-4
Barajas
Mario A
295 Gokchoff Rd
Fart Pierce
FL
34945
2311-601-0112-000-4
Stephens
Randall A
Stephens
Betty A
298 Laidback Way
Fort Pierce
FL
34945
2310-141-0003-020-9
Broome
David E
350 Dickson DR
Fort Pierce
FL
34982
2311-601-0093-000-4
Michalak
Richard
4275 SE Federal HWY
Stuart
FL
34997
2311.601-0097-000-2
Peters
Jahn L
Peters
Janice L
7123 Oleander Ave
Fort Pierce
FL
34952
2311-601-0003-000-7
Barajas
Mario A
7405 Penny Ln
Fart Pierce
FL
34951
2311-601-0054-000-9
Williams
RobertV
Williams
DanaA
8690 Jay Gardens Ln
Fort Pierce
FL
34945
2311-601-0062-000-8
Williams
Robert V
Williams
Dana A
8690 W Avenue B
Fort Pierce
FL
34945
2311-602-0002-000-3
Logsdon
Tyler D
Logsdon
Raeann 5
8701 Moto LN
Fort Pierce
FL
34945
2311-601-0052-000-5
Williams
RobertV
Williams
Dana
8710 Jay Gardens Ln
Fort Pierce
FL
34945
2311-601-0089-000-3
Sparks
Michell R
Sparks
Shawn C
8711 Jay Gardens Ln
Fort Pierce
FL
34945
2311-601-0069-000-0
Snyder
Kevin
9155 Moco LN
Fort Pierce
FL
34945-3491
2311-601-0107-ODO-6
Watts
Kevin
8775 Cripple Creek LN
Fort Pierce
FL
34945
2311-601-0091-000-0
Richards
David E
8801 Jay Gardens Ln
Fort Pierce
FL
34945
S
2311-601-GlOMOD-0
Elliott
James J
8825 Cripple Creek Ln
Fort Pierce
FL
34945
2311.601-0001-000-3
Smith
Kenneth A
Smith
Charlie M
8886 Millwood Dr
Fort Pierce
FL
34945
Q
2310-141-0003-010-6
Zampaio
Adalberto
Zampaio
Laura
8920 Orange AVE
Fort Pierce
FL
34945
N
2310-141-0003-000-3
Hamilton
John
8930 Orange Ave
Fort Pierce
FL
34945
r+
O
J
2
N
ti
N
ti
O
N
Ch
W
IX
Packet Pg. 236
6A E MON DAY, MOVE MBE R 20.2017 1 TREASURE COAST NEWSPAPERS ..
9.B.1.e
ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF
;.
..
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA
`
December 5, 2017
NOTICE Or PROPOSED AMENDMENTTO tIE OFFIC ZONING ATIAs
TM SL LucN County Bpnb el Cp W epmmlr.bn•n srop m epn.id.r rM .d.Pn of rM
Iplowme 6Y P..olutbn.
-
RESOLUTgN
Senate candidate Roy Moore has strong supper[ YY'ANo hie party in Alabama, bat
not in wash'ngton, where he's seeking ajob. Down the street tram the U.S.
Cali tot, officals at the white House are trying to avoid taking sides. or, NI,
P.,-LLA50e/.IP
White
tightrope on
Trump officials ++on't
denounce. Senate
candidate or liis accusers
Delwvan Shck
WASHINGTON - While house aides
-a lim3ed to walk a tightrope Sunday
when it rnmes to Alabama Senutern-
i O.t,Roy Moore. highlighting their
s about seut07 misconduct al-
IN.117
against him hot srripping
Short of joint ng fellow Republicans
who haveralhd for:Noom to wi[hdmw
from the rare.
white House budget director Mick
Mulvaney said he believes the nine
,N men whtl have Cnnle forward to ae-
. se Moore of inappropriate conduct
assault a credible," but he
stopped short urvolderr ing Moore.
"Thr'. AlegatinriR ate very aeri Cils,
and they should betaken very serious
Iv; Muivoney said on NBI "Meet the
Press:"'Bin LiTtmAtely these are Hp to
the voters I. the state."
While House legislative affairs di-
rector Marc Short said President Don-
ald Trump also thinks the accusers are
C Cedib]f.
'"If he did not believe that the. —
errs accusations were credible, he
wind he down carripuigning for Roy
Moore. lie has not done that,' Short
said oil ABC's "This Wtck." "He has
concerns about the accusations,but he
's also camerrted that these accusa-
tions are 36 years old. Roy Moore has
been in public service for ders l.., end
the aceusatlons did not arise until a
mooch before election:
Repolihean leaders, including Sen-
ate Majority Lend- Mitch MCGorinell,
R-KY., have called far Moore to drop cut
of the race. tort Tnnnp has not. The
president. however, has seized on alle-
gations last week iris t Sen- AI Franken,
D-Minn.. inepir"fodately kissed and
graced a Los Angeles radio hos[-
"I think one orthe signill,"I differ-
ences there... isthat Prankenadulrts it,
House aides walk
Roy Moore
and Roy Moore denies it,' Mulvaney
aid. 'So I do think that puts them in
two difl'erent categories"
The Franken revelations fueled fur-
ther calls for action on Capitol Hill,
where the Senate passed a resolution
two weeks ago requlring senators and
[heir staff to take training to pre -at
sexual harassment.
In the House, Reps. Barbara Com-
stock, R-v ., and Jackie Speter. D-
Calif., are leading a push for reforms.
Rep. Debbie Dingell, ➢-Mich., said
Sundav that she never intended to
here a "xAte.TOu moment"w-hen she re-
Ycaied Friday that a "prominent per-
son had tried to pit hie hand up her
skirt and that she had been subject to
wooled ncivancca fnon a IAS, It -
tor decedes ago.
"I got a 101 of,lgly earntnents- after
the revelations, she said oln';Meet the
Press;-" But ahe said she has also been
contacted by young women with sind-
I., stories.
-I don't know a woman that doesri t
have a story in all pluces across the
Lountry,' Dingell sa id.
She called for w men and men
across the country to come together to
fix the culture.
"Let's really make Ihis A watershed
mo
ment," Dingell said
Comstock said she believes Moore
should drop out of the Aialwma race.
`For that matter, AI Franken Ism g0
hit the dour with him," she said,
Franken issued an alntlogy after the
model turned radio host, Leeanrt
TWeeden, went public Thursday, end
lie said he would cooperate with a SEn-
ate Fthks Committee Investigation of
the incident.
Maze has denied the allegations
that he made inappropriate advances
on teenager, and has refused to le —
the race. Polls show that since his ac-
re forward, first inthe wash-
Ingtan POET a few weeks ago, his sup-
port has ctatered. and he is note tied
with Democratic candidate ➢ong
Jones, accordingto the RealClewPolir
I- avemge.
Your Income Specialist
Seek - B.adr • Mumd FFnd,
I r • H[Ae � LTr Insuance
AHDERSON WEtLTH MANAaEMBNT
T'-'f Iris latl[�Wca 9lyd. Salk A2Q
97138-0404
Senn, Iadrm li—tbw,lysoo
.. ]d9a
xaa,Andamnw/d.wm
BpO Ande[ron.51115 _ .n:a4+iLaWrFw:WNmn.
Corner
LakewoodaPark
Large Cheese Pizza;
$ 99 Monday Special
onba tarp z legation.
-- - - -- Doe .edT.keputnnly'Iffie-
nLakewood cT LakewooPark
423620
dr?6 zo"Sneel Sala 7luopike Feeder Ad
Vero B-1, Lakrwevd Part
$624276 466-7H4
taro
NO
FDNING gISr RIOT rp laE R641RESq ENML. SIN4LE-FAMILY-e D` I LONmOa STRICT 1.1
A PARCEL LOCATED IN Sr, WCIE COUNT', rLORIDA
AFPLICMT, R.—eMchal.E
FILE NUMBER: N-1r5155
LEGAL DESCRIPTION. JAycI ENS—ERCEDLKaLUTb S-aANert{aSpACIIDpYrai-
1naR
LaCAnON 1BO Jrr GaraerA L.re. mrm plOnrga Awnue. eppmmm.my w; hot..0
or IDIsis aWar
PonnsE To .law hr Mu. tlerebpm.m pre smgl.-tarots nsM.rc.
Lw
.gym r 'P
low
� ? r
Ca{JC NFA.,-an M: k.m wa M MB m n,e cbmnieebn Gnampe¢. RPd•r Poi!ms Anrrr,. sm rapt
sr Lcd�n �Pnry Aam:,btmfb. SL*sN.23X",IaAvFm .F-Pw�ce. Aced, pn I...asr. D.-Irb.r
5, 2otr IrrL w o W e.se em-o. ns soon manarar ea ppNI
All nMree[ee perea,rw M yn.n a. ppm MMy le to MW. wi— unman¢ nee'reM'n ebanee pt
sa goose r.enna..a eNa Iw caT.wnn wnM� cpmm.n¢ Ip uta ap.m orconmY commn•wrem .ro,dd
b nuw.bWth. Panrwp ere 0.•emPm.Ti srrvce.OepMmPPf. Pbmr,p —DMI.MIT1 Lrnr
mtM — Wtl M.rrq. .1 p.uton as a M•�eIF brmhew at qa Penury nM O.wbpm.n! Genius
onpanm•m peen »centl a[ xaoe v�rsx,a A.n"va. zro rm.,, Fan F.mn. Fre,ba ar+L+p mawv ev.ron
none P1eue can pry aaz-za2z or roc pTa aaz-raze d ro. rw. nm noa.v.�. a, noun adtldbw
'ebrm.eon.
The SL Luca Cpanry Beaty pi County Cpmm'.rb[am MstM Pa«nr w re"iev aiq gnat any wpiwrare
wrtNn meo-aae pl nspereit:ry.
The prpceedmga of [M B.Nd V C—N Camma.on.n .n .actmncay mc.:dea. P1IRIUAM 1p
S.etun tea.pms. FbrHe 9utNua. as panpn tl.clde. m.Pp.N urrpxisemm�a• nytrie a.a,a.TGaunry
ccmmw.NT.n won mrpaam.mm.tmrcorad.r.d a[ a m.er�ns orno.mp, m
P. p�pe.•amp,. For.Pcn porno... M onM mwr reea m.N,an m.t avaro.em yam of m. pro a n�a,�:
a matl...1 V ncpN IncYid.s nw Iniim Ind eM wid.m-. [avn wl,ch a,. app•J a m b Rssnn. upon
m. NNwsi pf wry partym Da pmcMbIss hdnbwa maMYirM audiga Madrq.A J. r Mrparn'
n the pmcard�q w b. ann¢d an pypnrmnaym cmueum've ury iMridN nstllY�'V duirq aMenrp
open r.a,a.[. a a tb.�mrP mrs.,ay. a pvtEc M.mR,TaT. a cpntimr.a rmm sm. m time u mnr an
raca...y m. urew.rm�..
Arry.re Mna�ar.+H �euw.;cp accvm„wdanon,-Trst .1r-1 rMWcen1 T VDa[. Lucw county
Arl Mar�i.peral Nes{ k,ty�ipnl l•8I rolls pmr A mr m.eaip a1 tSrxl d62.1515 or TD.D. IrrA x6z-tug
MY qu•Nwre annul Ir¢ naecae mar M ate„ea m St lwr pcuTry PyTrxrg Dw'abT a[ Ivry nR-xnz2.
STARa OrOI LUMNIss10NERa
ST CHNS CUusrry, C,AAfl
ISl CNP18620.DOYa KV CwVRMAu
t
,e
SMART SHOPPERS START WITH OUR
THANKSGIVING
Ii
EARLY .a's EDITION
We are your go -to source for everything
you need for the Holiday Season.
Our Biggest Edition of the Year Includes:
• Black Friday steals and deals
• Unique gift ideas
• Retail store info and hours
• Things to do for the holidays and morel
Availabla at your focal stores:
Wednesday, November 22
Packet Pg. 237
I 9.B.1.e I
N ic
OT
E OF PU
B�xIC
Petit on of Richard Michalak for an amendm
ent to the official zoning atlas
for a rezoning from A�-��Agrigultural, Residential �
tial p 1 du, ac) to RS-4
Mesildential, single- fi 6)11y - 4 du,'! c zoning `�
�� ng d�,,frrct.
The first Public Hearing, for this item i'I
s �o be held before the Planning and Zoning
Commission on ThursdaY,' 0-tobot 2'617 at 6.00 p.m. or
Possible in the Commissio. �,tlaml, ; as soon therafters
o i,;, I��. ger Poitras Annex, 3rd Floor, St, Lucie
County Administration Builrj,jg, 2300 Virgi is Avenue, Fort Pierce Ft„
The second Public Hear for ois �� p � '
inI ; L ,# � ' ,ta bp before the Board of County
Commissioners on Tueso- y,' m, or as soon thereafter
as po sible in the Commiss cw rhoinbers,''Roger Poitras Annex 3rd Floor St.
Lucie �1,ounty Administration Boding, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Copies of the petition are available at the front desk in the Planning and Development's
Services Department, County Administration Building 2300 Virginia 'Avenue, Fort Pierc ,
If you have any questions }5please call the Planning Division 772-460-
'
. ��. ■A -
Packet Pg. 238
- " ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
-- --r FINAL REPORT
TO: Bethany Grubbs, Planning & Development Services Department
THROUGH: Ben Balcer, Environmental Regulations Manager
Amy Griffin, Environmental Resources Director
FROM: Aimee Cooper, Environmental Planner
DATE: June 29, 2017
SUBJECT: Hillbilly Lot (Jay Gardens) Rezoning
RZ-620175155
Background
The Environmental Resources Department (ERD) is in receipt of the June 19, 2017 date -stamped submittal from
Planning and Development Services. The applicant has requested approval to rezone three (3) lots, all of which are
currently zoned Agricultural, Residential — 1 (AR-1), to Residential, Single -Family — 4 (RS-4), with the intent to
construct a single-family residence. The three (3) lots, totaling 0.57 acres, are adjacent to each other and are located
on Marie Rd. in Jay Gardens Subdivision located just north of Orange Avenue. Presently, the lots contain dense
tree coverage consisting of multiple native trees and invasive Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius).
Findings
The proposed rezoning is not anticipated to result in adverse environmental impacts. Environmental impacts for this
subject property will be assessed once a specific site design is submitted. ERD will conduct further review to ensure
compliance with the Land Development Code during the site plan and/or building permit review process.
Recommendation
ERD supports approval of the rezoning. Please contact Aimee Cooper at 772-462-6440 if you have any questions
ST. LUCIE V !.e-'Imo' �--
Packet Pg. 240
9.B.1.g
RESOLUTION 2017-XXX
File No.: RZ 620175155
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
ST. LUCIE COUNTY FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL
ZONING ATLAS FROM THE AR-1 (AGRICULTURAL, RESIDENTIAL —
1 DU/AC) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE RS-4 (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-
FAMILY — 4 DU/AC) ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, based on
the testimony and evidence, including but not limited to the staff report, has made the
following determinations:
1. Richard Michalak petitioned for an amendment to the Official Zoning Atlas to
change the zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential — 1 du/ac) Zoning
District to the RS-4 (Residential, Single -Family — 4 du/ac) Zoning District in St.
Lucie County, Florida, for the property legally described in Paragraph "A" and
depicted on the attached map as Exhibit "A".
2. Planning and Development Services staff has performed the required land use
analysis for this application, which can be found in the Planning and
Development Services staff report dated October 19, 2017, entitled Hillbilly Lot
Rezoning.
3. On October 19, 2017, the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission
held a public hearing on the petition, after publishing notice in the St. Lucie News
Tribune at least 10 days prior to the hearing and notifying by mail all owners of
property within 500 feet of the subject property, recommended that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the amendment to the Official Zoning Atlas from
the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential — 1 du/ac) Zoning District to the RS-4
(Residential, Single -Family — 4 du/ac) Zoning District.
4. On December 5, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County
held a public hearing of which due notice was published in the St. Lucie News
Tribune and notifying by mail all owners of property within 500 feet of the subject
property.
5. The proposed change in zoning satisfies the requirements of Section 11.06.03 of
the St. Lucie County Land Development Code as outlined in the Planning and
Zoning Commission staff report dated October 19, 2017 and is consistent with
the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan.
6. The proposed change in zoning is consistent with the existing and proposed uses
in the surrounding area.
Resolution No. 2017-XXX File No.: RZ 620175155
Page 1 December 5, 2017
Packet Pg. 241
9.B.1.g
7. A Concurrency Deferral Affidavit, a copy which is attached to this Resolution as
Exhibit "B" was signed by the applicant on the
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of St.
Lucie County, Florida:
A. The proposed amendment to the Official Zoning Atlas from the AR-1
(Agricultural, Residential — 1 du/ac) Zoning District to the RS-4 (Residential,
Single -Family — 4 du/ac) Zoning District for the property owned by Richard
Michalak and described below is hereby approved.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
JAY GARDENS -FT PIERCE BLK 6 LOTS 8,9 AND 10 (0.57 AC) (OR 3785-
1039)
SITE ACERAGE
PARCEL ID NUMBER
0.56 acres (more or less)
2311-601-0093-000-4
B. The St. Lucie County Planning and Development Services Director is hereby
authorized and directed to cause the notation of this resolution to be made on the
Official Zoning Atlas of St. Lucie County, Florida, and to make notation of
reference to the date of adoption of this Resolution.
C. This Resolution shall be recorded in the Public Records.
After motion and second, the vote on this Resolution was as follows:
Chris Dzadovsky, Chairman XX
Tod Mowery, Vice -Chairman XX
Commissioner Linda Bartz XX
Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson XX
Commissioner Cathy Townsend XX
Resolution No. 2017-XXX
Page 2
File No.: RZ 620175155
December 5, 2017
Packet Pg. 242
9.B.1.g
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 5th day of December, 2017.
DEPUTY CLERK
Resolution No. 2017-XXX
Page 3
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLOIRDA
Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND CORRECTNESS:
COUNTY ATTORNEY
File No.: RZ 620175155
December 5, 2017
Packet Pg. 243
9.B.1.g
Exhibit A
Site Location Map
Hillbilly Lot
ST LUCIE BLVD
RZ-620175155
0
z
=
0
z
sG2sy2
O
�
T
F
LU
w
Y
RSTgT
F
SST
9S
Subject parcel
ORANGEAVE
4
K
m
It
Y
LL
\-T
L
LU
N
d
C¢J , PICO RD
O
Cn
z
11
Q
a 0
>
z
LU
�
Q
= O
S
~
2i
2
CO
C7
Ul
Y
N O
z
Y
off
CD
OfZ
LU
z
W
Cf)
Resolution No. 2017-XXX
Page 4
File No.: RZ 620175155
December 5, 2017
O
N
as
r
O
J
21
2
N
N
0
N
LU
C
O
3
O
N
d
L
r
ao
E
a
Packet Pg. 244
9.B.1.g
Exhibit B
Concurrency Deferral Affidavit
St. Lucie County
11 Concurrency Deferral Affidavit
d
I.- 1,/Jl J )c , residing or doing business at 3SYU S, C- L Or
Name reet
3 9 7 , _T72 27; -II YC
Gity State Zip Phone
have applied for a /.4 7a.,'-P d 1 w ., a from St. Lucie County, Florida,
Type of Developmeni Wer
for the following project:_ j�y lll� `1¢
. Name of Proposed Development
I do hereby affirm that in connection with my application for the above project, I have elected to
defer the certificate of capacity and reservation of capacity in public facilities for the above
Property until a later time, but no later than the application for a final development order for the
same property.
T understand and acknowledge that the above listed property will be subject to the certificate of
capacity before any final development order can be issued, and that St. Lucie County can make
no guarantee that adequate public facilities will be available when I apply for the final
development order.
I further acknowledge that according to Section 5.08,01 of the St. Lucie County Land
Development Code, no final development approval can be granted until capacity in those
facilities is available at that time. The issuance of a preliminary development order without a
certificate of capacity creates no vested or other rights to develop the subject property.
Signed -Date: 12� •-'%i %
Applicant
STATE OF FLORCDA
COUNTY OF M yA r f% f f
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Y+h day of (!)n f0 fj,VL . 20—!J, by
—LC;—LA L.AiL who is personally known to me or who has produced f= Le r I bA-
D e WC, C, as identification.
J-
�a�clu�rlFG �i �A2�1C,IArw.a
Si of N,, a or Print Name of Notary
GU d 1 l 8 5 Commission Number (Seal) MARGUEAITF l 6ARA6100
�Koury pui✓IR - SIMe digrAa
. iammlulptrGG <11185}
hVI*, Feb 9. k2r
Nmratl IFrou�n x,tm,l Nolry �ryr
Page I of I
Revised: April 1, 2009
Resolution No. 2017-XXX
Page 5
File No.: RZ 620175155
December 5, 2017
Packet Pg. 245
9.B.1.h
E. AR-1 AGRICULTURAL, RESIDENTIAL - 1.
1. Purpose. The purpose of this district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for single-
family dwellings at a maximum density of one (1) dwelling unit per gross acre, together with such
other uses as may be necessary for and compatible with very low density rural residential
surroundings. The number in "( )" following each identified use corresponds to the SIC Code
reference described in Section 3.01.02(B). The number 999 applies to a use not defined under
the SIC Code but may be further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this Code.
2. Permitted Uses:
a. Family day care homes. (999)
b. Family residential homes provided that such homes shall not be located within a radius of
one thousand (1,000) feet of another existing such family residential home and provided that
the sponsoring agency or Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) notifies
the Board of County Commissioners at the time of home occupancy that the home is licensed
by HRS. (999)
c. Single-family detached dwellings. (999)
3. Lot Size Requirements. Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Table 1 in Section
7.04.00.
4. Dimensional Regulations. Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Table 1 in
Section 7.04.00.
5. Off -Street Parking Requirements. Off-street parking requirements shall be in accordance with
Section 7.06.00.
6. Conditional Uses:
a. Crop services. (072)
b. Family residential homes located within a radius of one thousand (1,000) feet of another
such family residential home. (999)
c. Industrial wastewater disposal. (999)
d. Kennels - completely enclosed. (0752)
e. Landscaping and horticultural services. (078)
f. Retail:
(1) Fruits and vegetables. (543)
g. Riding stables. (7999)
h. Veterinary services. (074)
i. Telecommunication towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23. (999)
7. Accessory Uses. Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00, and include
the following:
a. Agriculture (farms and ranches accessory to single-family detached dwelling). (01/02)
b. Animals, subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.03. (999)
c. Guest house subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.04. (999)
d. Mobile home subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.05. (999)
e. Retail and wholesale trade - subordinate to the primary authorized use or activity.
f. Solar energy systems, subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.28.
Page 1
Packet Pg. 246
9.B.1.h
3.01.03. - Zoning Districts.
J. RS-4 RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY- 4.
1. Purpose. The purpose of this district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for single-
family dwellings at a maximum density of four (4) dwelling units per gross acre, together with such
other uses as may be necessary for and compatible with low density residential surroundings.
The number in "( )" following each identified use corresponds to the SIC Code reference
described in Section 3.01.02(B). The number 999 applies to a use not defined under the SIC
Code but may be further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this Code.
2. Permitted Uses:
a. Family day care homes. (999)
b. Family residential homes provided that such homes shall not be located within a radius of
one thousand (1,000) feet of another existing such family residential home and provided that
the sponsoring agency or Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) notifies
the Board of County Commissioners at the time of home occupancy that the home is licensed
by HRS. (999)
c. Single-family detached dwellings. (999)
3. Lot Size Requirements. Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00.
4. Dimensional Regulations. Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00.
5. Off -Street Parking Requirements. Off-street parking requirements shall be in accordance with
Section 7.06.00.
6. Conditional Uses:
a. Family residential homes located within a radius of one thousand (1,000) feet of another
such family residential home. (999)
b. Telecommunication towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23. (999)
7. Accessory Uses. Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00.
a. Solar energy systems, subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.28.
Page 1
Packet Pg. 247
9.B.1.i
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
Planning & Development Services Department
Planning Division
2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, FL 34982
Office: 772-462-2822 — Fax: 772-462-1581
http://www.stlucieco.org/planning/planning.htm
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
A pre -application conference is recommended prior to main application submittal.
Please contact the Planning Division to schedule an appointment.
Submittal Tvae rcheck each that aanlies
Site Plan Rtkioninq 3
❑ Major Site Plan it Rezoning (straight rezoning)
❑ Minor Site Plan ❑ Rezoning (includes PUD/PNRD/PMUD)
❑ Major Adjustment to Major Site Plan ❑ Rezoning with Plan Amendment
❑ Major Adjustment to Minor Site Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment a
❑ Major Adjustment to PUD/PNRD/PMUD ❑ Future Land Use Map Change
❑ Minor Adjustment to Major Site Plan ❑ Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment
❑ Minor Adjustment to Minor Site Plan
❑ Minor Adjustment to PUD/PNRD/PMUD
Planned Development
❑ Planned Town or Village (PTV)
❑ Planned Country Subdivision (PCS)
❑ Planned Retail Workplace (PRW)
❑ Prelim. Planned Unit Develop. (PUD)
❑ Prelim. Planned Mixed Use Develop. (PMUD)
❑ Prelim. Planned Non -Res. Develop. (PNRD)
❑ Final Planned Unit Develop. (PUD)
❑ Final Planned Mixed Use Develop. (PMUD)
❑ Final Planned Non -Res. Develop. (PNRD)
Conditional Use'
❑ Conditional Use
❑ Major Adjustment to a Conditional Use
❑ Minor Adjustment to a Conditional Use
Variance 2
❑ Administrative Variance
❑ Variance
❑ Variance to Coastal Setback Line
Other
❑ Administrative Relief
❑ Class A Mobile Home s
❑ Developer Agreement (Submit per LDC
11.08.03)
❑ Power Generation Plants
❑ Extension to Development Order
❑ Historical Designation/Change 6
❑ Land Development Code Text Amendment 7
❑ Plat
❑ Post Development Order Change
❑ Re -Submittal # 8
❑ Shoreline Variance
❑ Stewardships — Sending/Receiving
❑ Telecom Tower (Submit per LDC 7.10.23)
❑ Transfer of Development Rights
❑ Waiver to LDC/Comp. Plan Requirements 9
❑ Appeal of Decision by Administrative Official10
❑ Eminent Domain Waiver"
Application Supplement Packaaes
1. Conditional Use 6. Historical Designation/Change 10. Appeal of Decision by
2. Variance 7. LDC Text Amendment Administrative Official
3. Rezoning / Zoning Atlas Amend. 8. Re- Submittal 11. Eminent Domain Waiver
4. Comp. Plan Amendments 9. Waiver to LDC/Comp. Plan
5. Class A Mobile Home Requirements
Refer to Fee Schedule for applicable fees.
All required materials must be included at the time of submittal along with the
appropriate non-refundable fee(s).
a
Page 1 of 6
Revised May 6, 2013
Packet Pg. 248
9.B.1.i
FEE CALCULATION WORKSHEET
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS — Planning Division
Application Type:
Supplemental Application Package No.:
(Please provide separate fee calculation worksheet for each application type)
❑ BASE REVIEW FEE: $ (A)
❑ CONCURRENCY FEE: $ (B)
❑ ERD REVIEW FEE: $ (C)
❑ UTILITIES $
❑ PER ACREAGE CHARGE: $ (D)
❑ RESUBMITTAL FEE: (if applicable) $ (E)
❑ OTHER $
SUBTOTAL OF BASIC FEES: $
❑ PRE -APPLICATION MEETING FEE: (F) $( ) deduction
Receipt No. of Payment:
Date of Pre App:
BALANCE OF FEES DUE: $
SEPARATE CHECK FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY — Ordinance No. 06-047; amending Chapter 5.11.01
of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code
❑ $950.00 — Methodology Meeting (H) (If Applicable)
• Additional fees will be due if a 3rd party traffic study review is needed. These services will be invoiced to
applicant upon receipt of quote of services from 3rd party.
• Please note: For all projects requiring public notice, you will be invoiced by St. Lucie County Planning
Division. Refer to "Public Procedures".
• Other fees may be applicable by other external reviewing agencies; i.e. Fire District and proof of payment
will be required prior to project approval. Pre -Application Meeting Request
Applicant Name
Signature of applicant
(For office use only)
INTAKE REVIEWER -'SIGNATURE DATE
VERIFIED BY - SIGNATURE DATE
File #: Receipt #: Targeted Industry:
Page 2 of 6
Revised March 15, 2016
Packet Pg. 249
9.B.1.i
Submittal Requirements
The following checklist is provided as a reminder.
Please see applicable code sections for more detailed submittal requirements.
All Submittals MUST be in complete folded and collated sets.
All pplications must include the following:
Application, completed in black ink, with property owner signature(s) and notary seal (1 original and 11
copies)
kegal
Aerial Photograph - property outlined (available from Property Appraiser's office
roperty Deed
description, in MS Word format, of subject property
Property Tax Map - property outlined (electronic copy not required)
❑ Survey (24x36)
❑ 2 CDs of all documents submitted - with files named according to the Required Naming List. (attached)
❑ Concurrency Deferral Affidavit; or
Description and analysis of the impact of the development on public facilities in accordance with the
methodologies acceptable to the County (LDC Section 5.08.02). This will require a Transportation
Assessment or a full Traffic Impact Report, if applicable.
Site Plan and Planned Development Applications must also include:
,,Z Site Plan 24"x36" at a scale of 1"=50' (12 copies- folded, not rolled)
❑ Boundary Survey (24x36) - Signed and Sealed (12 originals)
❑ Topographic Survey (24x36) - Signed and Sealed (12 originals)
❑ Landscape Plan - Signed and Sealed (12 originals)
❑ Traffic Impact Report (TIR) (4 copies) if:
o 50+ residential units
o Development on N. or S. Hutchinson Island
o Non-residential (see LDC Section 11.02.09(4))
❑ Environmental Impact Report (4 copies) if:(See LDC Section 11.02.09(5))
o The property is ten acres or greater
o The property, regardless of size, contains a wetland;
o The property is identified on the "Native Habitat Inventory for SLC";
o The proposed development is located in whole, or part, within the One Hundred Year Flood Plain;
o Development on N. or S. Hutchinson Island
Development Order Extension Applications only require the following: Q
❑ Letter of justification - submitted at least 2 weeks prior to expiration. (LDC 11.02.06) -
❑ Updated Traffic Analysis if applicable (4 copies) m
❑ Approved Resolution or GM Order
a�
Final Plats only require 2 CDs (follow specifications above) & 4 copies of the following: E
❑ Main Application and back up material
❑ Approved Site Plan and copy of approved Development Order a
❑ Plat - Include extra copies of Plat for applicable conditions of approval (3 Original Mylars Needed for
Recording)
*Please note: Only a surveyor, attorney, or title agent is authorized to provide a legal description. The legal
description provided on the property appraiser's website is not valid for our purposes. The legal description
you provide us will be used in all future documentation. If it is incorrect, it may invalidate the results of any
hearing(s).
Page 3 of 6
Revised March 15, 2016
Packet Pg. 250
9.B.1.i
Project Information
Project Name: 1 `
Site address: TIP ICL,
Parcel ID Number(s):
,M/ - 6O /- 6b 7,3 - 6
Legal Description: (Attach additional sheets if necessary — also must be provided in MS Word format on CD)
-a�
Property location — Section/Township/Range: 1/ / ?S-V A 9
Property size —acres: ,,-S � Squ e footage.
Future Land Use Designation: 915i
Zoning District: dRV
Description of project: (Attach additional sheets if necessary)
Ck_%vJe_
Type of construction (check all applicable boxes):
❑ Commercial Total Square Footage: Existing
❑ Industrial Total Square Footage: Existing
❑ Residential No. of residential units: Existing
No. of subdivided lots: Existing
❑ Other Please specify:
Number and size of out parcels (if applicable):
Page 4 of 6
Revised March 15, 2016
Proposed:
Proposed:
Proposed:
Proposed:
Packet Pg. 251
9.B.1.i
SPECIAL NOTICE
(PLEASE READ BEFORE SIGNING ACKNOWLEDGMENTS BELOW)
Submission of this application does not constitute the granting of approval. All appropriate requirements must
be met prior to this project being presented for approval to the appropriate authority. St. Lucie County reserves
the right to request additional information to ensure a complete review of this project.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Applicant Information (Property Developer): Agent Information:
Business Na )me: �1 Business Name:
Name: ie-K /J t �/i c� .� Name: ��t,
Address: 1511 I` M..Ji' �25" Address:
(Please use an address that can accept overnight (Please use an address that can accept overnight
packages) packages)
Phone: 777 — a,9-4- `iYo Phone: X7.2 - 6.9-Y- l I `/D
Fax: Fax:
Email AZ-ttcdo t5m,.o r ,iL , C" Emai1: s P Vt L ® (�o It
Please note: both applicant and agent will receive all official correspondence on this project.
Property Owner Information
This application and any application supplement will not be considered complete without the notarized
signature of all property owners of record, which shall serve as an acknowledgment of the submittal of this
application for approval. The property owner's signature below shall also serve as authorization for the above
applicant or agent to act on behalf of said property owner.
Property Owner Signature Property Owner Name (Printed)
Mailing Address: 4j%S— %YAK Phone: -77J -,2,V -/ �'410
If more than one owner, please submit additional
S-tU,IO" ; 1'L. 3 z1-,F;7Z pages
STATE OF r , COUNTY OFrri
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of �,) U Rt 20 _
by Rt&CA ( (1 who is personally known to me or who has produced
��- as identification.
W-Q rtvxq- �0, S C, V,
Signature of Notary Type or Print Name of Notary
���+'y'P�+�� PETRONA PASCUAleomr�lission Number (Seal)
,terWZkV�o ary u c a loridaCommission FF 995ft6My Comm. Expires May 24, 2020
��f�`,'
ill
+++++�+��� Bonded through National Notary Assn.
Revised March 15, 2016
ar
c
.E
0
N
d
0
J
21
x
N
r`
N
ti
O
N
(1)
w
W
a
Packet Pg. 252
9.B.1.i
Required Document Naming List
* All electronically submitted documents must be formatted and named according to the list
below. If your submittal includes a document not on the list, the document name shall clearly
reflect the content of the submitted document.
Document
Document
Format
Required Name on CD
Aerial Photograph
PDF
Aerial. df
Application
PDF
Application.pdf
Approval Order
PDF
ApprovalOrder.pdf
Architectural Elevations
PDF
ArchElev. df
Boundary / Topographic Survey
PDF
BoundaryTopo.pdf
Drainage / Stormwater Plan
PDF
Draina ePln.pdf
Easements
PDF
Easements.pdf
Environmental Impact Report
PDF or Word
EIR.pdf or EIR.doc
Existing Condition Plan
PDF
Existin Cond.pdf
Flood Plain
PDF or Word
Flood.pdf or Flood. Doc
Landscape Plan
PDF
Landsca e. df
Legal Description
Word
Le al.doc
Lighting Plan
PDF
Lighting.pdf
Mitigation Plan
PDF
Miti ation. df
Mobile Home Plans
PDF or Word
MobileHome.pdf or MobileHome.doc
Paving Plan
PDF
Paving.pdf
Permit (External)
PDF
Permit.pdf
Plat
PDF
Plat.pdf or Plat.doc
Property Deed
PDF
Deed. pdf
Site Plan
PDF
SitePlan.pdf
Traffic Impact Report
PDF or Word
TIR.pdf or TIR.doc
Tree Survey
PDF
Tree. df
Turtle Protection
PDF or Word
Turtle.pdf or Turtle.doc
Utility Plan
PDF
Utiliity.pdf
Vegetation Removal Application
PDF
Ve etation. df
c
0
N
m
oc
0
J
x
N
I -
Cm
0
N
Cn
w
c
m
E
a�
Q.
a
Cn
z
3
c
0
0
Q
a
Q
00
as
c
m
E
Q
Page 6 of 6
Revised March 15, 2016
Packet Pg. 253
9.B.1.i
Supplement 3
Rezoning/Amendment to the Official Zoning Atlas Application Supplement
Refer to St Lucie County Land Development Code (LDC) Section 11.06.00 for details
Current Zoning: fiP-t
Proposed Zoning: KS`f
Current Future Land Use: 9-5`
Acreage of the area to be rezoned: J
1. If you are requesting an amendment to the Official Zoning Atlas of St. Lucie County,
state whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any portions of the LDC.
hfp l 'c.u\� t 1 Jw
; ..� -kk, 3
f`
tit t � 4N_ L U t-
2. Please give a
rezoning: 4/#
statement describing any changed conditions that would justify a
3. Please state why there is a need for the proposed rezoning:
�ed4LPse (.� -ia e�leLv�e ��iS "ice � 5ti3ZC _�'w`��y ` eSideh��C
4. Please state whether and how the proposed rezoning is consistent with the St. Lucie
County Comprehensive Plan:
:JJ �-kG.���.t ✓�" L� CI ''�- C GJ.t`�"� � GFt'� �1�-I�.�J�� t✓-� �� �
5. Please give a statement outlining the extent to which the proposed amendment:
A) Is compatible with existing land uses;
LA,1 -10 be, c' on s,sf'�� � � t
Page 1 of 2
Revised: May 27, 2010
Packet Pg. 254
9.B.1.i
Supplement 3
B) Affects the capacities of public facilities, including but not limited to transportation,
sewage, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, solid waste, mass transit, and
emergency medical service-, C
C) Affects the natural environment; (If no adverse impacts expected, please state why.)
1 O
r
O
J
D) Will result in an orderly and logical development pattern; 1 -
S --tv, to hS`! rt- w�1� {hem be canscstw w��6. _
1 c� N
ti
� D N
ti
O
E) Will adversely affect the property values in the area; J �� f4k,� vh
IMFrO��+� f � I�� sub IL/ 5 ws pf��zfe�, �wt �s W
G�CK/ cc �d i✓L l q,,iL_JV-14,) 4
✓ ✓ C
N
E
6. Please explain the applicant's interest in the subject property; a
3
7. Please include such other information or documentation that may be deemed necessary C
or appropriate to a full and proper consideration and disposition of this particular 2
.Q
application. Q
r
m
O�
a+
C
N
E
t
Please Note: This Rezoning Application Supplement will not be considered complete a
without the Development Application, complete with notarized signatures of all land a
owners, giving their consent to the filing of this application and supplement.
Applicant or Agent Name (Printed) Signature
Page 2 of 2
Revised: May 27, 2010
Packet Pg. 255
9.B.1.j
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
Name: Richard Michalak
INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY:
Name: Billie Ray Nease
Address: 168 Capron Street
Sebastian, Florida 32958
RETURN DEED TO:
Name: Richard Michalak
Address: 4275 Federal Hwy
Stuart, Florida 34997
Title Order #
JOSEPH E. SMITH. CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
SAINT LUCIE COUNTY
FILE = .:1 OSS09 09 04:2015 at 04:3G RM
OR BOOK. 3755 PAGE 1039 - 1041 Doc Tvoe DEED
RECORDING: S27.00
D DOC STAMP COLLECTION: S70.00
(Above reserved for official use only)
SEND TAX STATEMENTS TO:
Name: Richard Michalak
Address: 4275 Federal Hwy
Stuart, Florida 34997
Tax Parcel/APN # 2311-601-0092-
000/7
Escrow # ---
QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR FLORIDA
STATE OF FLO A
COUNTY OF
DATE: 09/02/2015
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT, for and in consideration of the sum of
$10000.00, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by Grantor(s), Billie
Ray Nease, Ellen M. Nease, ("Grantors") hereby quitclaim to Richard Michalak,
("Grantee") and Grantee's heirs and assigns forever, all of Grantors' right, title, interest, and
claim, and subject to all easements, encumbrances, protective covenants, rights -of -way, mineral
rights, and other conditions and restrictions, if any, in or to the following descri ed real estate
(the "Property") located at ,� , , .. „ . Florida
Legal Description: Lot 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block 6, JAY GARDENS - FORT PIERCE, according
to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book10, page 70, Public Records of St. Lucie County,
Florida
Q
Packet Pg. 256
9.B.1.j
Grantor 1: Billie Ray Nease
Marital Status: Married
Address: 168 Caprona Street
Sebastian, Florida 32958
Grantor 2: Ellen M. Nease
Marital Status: Married
Address: 168 Caprona Street
Sebastian, Florida 32958
Grantee 1: Richard Michalak
Marital Status: Single
Address: 4275 Federal Hwy
Stuart, Florida 34997
Grantor 1's Spouse Name: Ellen M. Nease
Address: 168 Caprona Street
Sebastian, Florida 32958
Grantor 2's Spouse Name: Billie Ray Nease
Address: 168 Caprona Street
Sebastian, Florida 32958
Vesting Information / Property Interest: Sole Owner
Signatures
Grantors signed, sealed, and delivered this Quit Claim Deed to Grantee on L21 l
(date).
t (o uth ut)
rint Name: r '
Grantor 2 (or authorized agent)
Print Name: C I tf1 _ ^�£'
Grantor 1's Spouse (or authorized agent)
I,N) +11G i�V_ 66&wledgingreceipt
of sufficient consideration, hereby waive and
release 1 my rights, title, and interest, if any,
i e perty rante
nt Name:
Gram r Ts Spouse (or authorized agent)
I, E I L VW ��knowledging receipt
of sufficient consideration, hereby waive and
release all my rights, title, and interest, if any,
in the above Property unto Grantee(s).
Print Naml� r� (
Witnesses
On this the day 20 �� , the foregoing instrument was sworn to and
acknowledged before me by 21 1))e g w, &JtAg+ rA - i=1 Je4 �5 e., , known or
proven to me to be the persons whose nafnes are subscribed to within the instrument. I further
swear that I am unrelated to the parties 'gning th' ocument by bloo and hold no interest in
the transaction.
Q
Packet Pg. 257
9.B.1.j
FIRST WI SS
X/ _ -
Dated:
Print Name: RBECCA D. FAIR
Address:
r
r�
Notary Public
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
SECOND WITNESS
Date
Print Name-
A-
Add . e�s.
On this the Z day ofb"Vy��10111
20�, the foregoing instrument was sworn to and
acknowledged before mbj tJO-A:,t-, a d Olen M. t`ieA5c, , known or
proven to me to be the person(s) whose iiame(s) mare subscribed to within
TARA COMMERFORD
WITNESS m hand and official seal. *:
Y r Commiss'wn FF 157793
Ad Expires September 6, 2018
PRINT°&- m11t� t l� [Affix seal]' .. N^�•� n.v T. F:n...+�• eats
SIG _ ' My Commission Expires:
NOT UBLIC
Signer's identity verified in the following manner:
roduced Identification -or- " ❑ Personally Known
s Licensee
Oth .
a�
c
0
N
d
0
J
Q
Packet Pg. 258
10.A.1
ITEM NO. (ID # 4818)
TO:
PRESENTED BY:
SUBMITTED BY:
cl miprT-
BACKGROUND:
AGENDA REQUEST
Board of County Commissioners
Daniel S. McIntyre, County Attorney
County Attorney
DATE
12/05/2017
*REGULAR AGENDA\COUNTY
ATTORNEY
South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Environmental
Resources Permit Modification No. 13-05321-P - All Aboard Florida -
Litigation Update
On June 17, 2014, the Board adopted Resolution No. 14-091 opposing the plans proposed by All Aboard
Florida (AAF). A copy of the Board's resolution is attached. As indicated in the Resolution, the Board was
and is concerned about the significant public health, safety, and welfare concerns resulting from the AAF
plan. As the Board is aware, St. Lucie County has focused its efforts on making sure that any negative
effects of the proposed AAF project are eliminated in two main areas (1) vehicular/pedestrian safety at
crossings and (2) environmental impacts including impacts to water quality and wetlands. As a result of
those concerns, the Board engaged experts and provided comments to the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) both as part of the Environmental Impact Statement process and otherwise. The
County's efforts (along with the efforts of other local governments) resulted in the following safety
improvements to the AAF as outlined in a memorandum dated September 6, 2016 from the County's
Public Works Director, a copy of which is attached:
Quad gates were recommended at 13 County crossing locations in the Triad Safety Report, but
quad gates were shown at only 4 crossings on the original 90% Plans, and an acceptable
alternative design using 2 or 3 gates with long medians was shown at 2 other crossing locations.
AAF added 4 Quad gates to two additional crossings and long medians to two more crossings when
it issued the 100% Plan.
Vehicle Presence Detection (VPD) is remote sensing technology that alerts the train operator when
a vehicle is stuck between the gates and is in the path of the approaching train. VPD was not
included at any crossings on the original 90% Plans, but was shown at 13 County crossings on the
100% Plans. The Triad Safety Report recommended VPD for 15 crossing locations.
Remote Health Monitoring (RHM) is a software technology that alerts the train control network
when a crossing signal is not operating properly or is non-functional. This safety feature was
recommended in the Triad Safety Report for all crossings, but was not shown on the 90% Plans.
Packet Pg. 259
10.A.1
VPD was included in the 100% Plans for all 13 County crossings. The Train Control system also
provides "Positive Train Control", a safety feature that prevents train collisions between freight
trains and passenger trains that share the same track.
Challenge to South Florida Water Management District Environmental Resources Permit Modification
On August 19, 2016, the South Florida Water Management District ("District") issued Environmental
Resources Permit Modification No. 13-05231-P to All Aboard Florida Operations, LLC and Florida East
Coast Railway, LLC. The Environmental Resource Permit authorized construction and operation of a
Stormwater management system to serve railway facilities known as All Aboard Florida North South Rail
Corridor Segment D09 which is located in Palm Beach, Martin and St. Lucie Counties. The railway facilities
are part of a 235 mile intercity passenger railroad system proposed by All Aboard Florida ("AAF") that will
connect Orlando, Florida and Miami, Florida with intermediate stops in Fort Lauderdale and West Palm
Beach.
During the permit review process St. Lucie County staff along with Martin County staff provided technical
review comments to the District. Martin County and St. Lucie Counties also utilized the firms of Oertel,
Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. and Passarella & Associates, Inc. to assist in the technical review of the
proposed permit. The review indicated that AAF did not demonstrate that water quantity, quality, and
ecological adverse impacts will not occur, and did not satisfy the public interest test, as required by the
Florida Statutes and District rules.
A letter dated July 20, 2016 to the District from Segundo J. Fernandez, Esq. included the reviews and
assessments of the counties' staff and consultants. Unfortunately the District permit did not fully address
these comments so that from a County staff and consultant perspective the District should not have
issued the permit.
The Martin County Board of County Commissioners authorized the filing of a request for administrative
review of the District's agency action and agreed to pay half of the costs of a consolidated administrative
proceeding.
On September 6, 2016, the Board authorized the filing of a request for an administrative proceeding on
the AAF Environmental Resource Permit as recommended by the County's special counsel. The Board
also approved sharing the costs of the proceeding with Martin County. The County filed the request for
an administrative proceeding on September 14, 2016.
After the filing of the request, the Counties attempted to obtain an early resolution of AAF's claim that
most of the AAF project is exempt from permitting. Unfortunately the attempt at early resolution of the
exemption issue was not successful. Interestingly, after the Counties filed the request for an
administrative proceeding and during the course of discovery, AAF modified its plans to address some of
the Counties' concerns as identified by the County's Public Works staff as follows:
Based upon the modified 100% Plans, 9 of the 13 County crossings have Quad gates shown, and 3
crossings have 2 long arm gates at the unimproved roads (Wilcox, Michigan and Riverview). The
long gates extend over both gates of the unimproved roadway.
Chamberlain Boulevard has 3 gates with a certain median divider. This is an acceptable alternative
for Quad gates.
updated: 11/20/2017 11:51 AM by Stephanie Bush Page 2
Packet Pg. 260
10.A.1
Sidewalks with pedestrian safety gates have been added to the Harbor Branch University Crossing
location. This is a safety improvement.
Sidewalks with pedestrian safety gates have been added to the Chamberlain Boulevard Crossing
location. This is a safety improvement.
Quad gates have been added to the Tarmac Road Crossing as requested. This is the entrance road
to the St. Lucie Village Marina. This is a safety improvement.
Quad gates have been added to the Fisherman's Wharf Crossing as requested. This is the entrance
road to the Port of Fort Pierce. This is a safety improvement.
The substandard median divider has been removed from Midway Road Crossing and Quad gates
have been added. This is a better design for safety.
The substandard median divider has been removed from Walton Road Crossing and Quad gates
have been added. This is a better design for safety.
10' wide concrete multiuse paths with pedestrian safety gates have been added to the Midway
Road Crossing location. This is a safety improvement.
10' wide concrete multiuse paths with pedestrian safety gates have been added to the Walton
Road Crossing location. This is a safety improvement.
In addition, AAF has revised the Crossing Plans so that most of the proposed improvements are now
positioned within the railroad right-of-way.
According to the County's railroad consultant Triad Railroad Consulting, LLC, preliminary estimates of the
value of the safety improvements added by AAF in St. Lucie (after receipt of the 90% plans and including
the crossing plan modifications referenced above) is a range of $2,760,000.00 to $3,962,000.00. There
are, of course, intangible benefits from the added safety improvements (i.e. avoidance of injuries/deaths)
that cannot be quantified. The benefit achieved in the litigation were summarized by a PowerPoint
presentation by the County's Public Works Director that was presented to the Board on October 3, 2017.
A copy of the presentation is attached, which includes the following environmental benefits obtained:
Detention swales and stormwater treatment is proposed to treat the new triple track sections
along the Savannas State Preserve.
Outfall control structures were added to the detention swale system and were required to be
constructed of materials that have been hardened to withstand the erosive properties of water,
and swale slopes were flattened to improve stability.
Initially, no skimmers were provided to prevent the discharge of oils and grease from being
discharged from the stormwater system. Skimmers are now proposed for each of the discharge
locations.
Initially, no baffles were provided for discharges from the top of the water column. Without the
baffles in place, the water discharged would have had higher concentration of total suspended
solids. Baffles are now provided for each of the discharge locations.
updated: 11/20/2017 11:51 AM by Stephanie Bush Page 3
Packet Pg. 261
10.A.1
The Emergency Access Way (unimproved maintenance road) was reduced from 13 miles to 2.7
miles within St. Lucie County. This was a reduction of 12.5 acres of semi -impervious surface area.
Work proposed outside of the FEC right-of-way was eliminated from the plans.
Wetlands and surface waters not shown on the plans were identified by the County's Team. This
resulted in additional environmental mitigation that will be provided by the AAF Project.
Shallow swales and dry detention areas are proposed at several crossing locations to prevent
flooding on Old Dixie Highway.
On September 29, 2017 the Administrative Law Judge issued his Recommended Order (copy attached)
recommending that the Environmental Resource Permit be issued. The next step in the process involves
review by the SFWMD of the Exceptions to the Recommended Order jointly filed by St. Lucie County and
Martin County on October 16 and the Recommended Order. The SFWMD issued a Final Order on
November 16, 2017 adopting the Recommended Order. Any of the parties has the right to appeal the
District's Final Order to the District Court of Appeal by December 16, 2017.
nkriiccinn
Both Martin County and St. Lucie County have the right to appeal this decision. From a County staff
perspective, appealing the SFWMD Final Order would not be a prudent use of the County's resources.
Even if the "best case" scenario where the County wins every issue on appeal, all of the issues can be
addressed by AAF by amending the plans. As indicated above, County staff believes that substantial
improvements to the original AAF plans have been achieved as a result of the County's involvement in the
Environmental Impact Statement process and the administrative litigation on the proposed
Environmental Resource Permit. County staff does not believe that further litigation will significantly
enhance the improvements already achieved.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
On June 17, 2014, the Board adopted Resolution No. 14-091 opposing the All Aboard Florida Project as
then constituted. On September 6, 2016, the Board authorized the filing of a request for administrative
proceeding on the All Aboard Florida Environmental Resource Permit as recommended by the County
special counsel.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to not appeal the SFWMD Final Order.
COMMISSION ACTION:
Updated: 11/20/2017 11:51 AM by Stephanie Bush Page 4
Packet Pg. 262
10.A.1
Coordination/Signatures
Danie S. McIntyre, county ttorney 11/22/2017
Updated: 11/20/2017 11:51 AM by Stephanie Bush Page 5
Packet Pg. 263
10.A.1.a
RESOLUTION NO. 14-091
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA,
ACKNOWLEDGING AND IDENTIFYING SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE
CONCERNS RESULTING FROM THE "ALL ABOARD FLORIDA" PLAN; URGING LOCAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL OFFICIALS TO ASSIST ST. LUCIE COUNTY IN MITIGATING SAID CONCERNS; OPPOSING
THE AAF PLAN AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made the
following determinations:
1. Florida East Coast Industries ("FECI") is developing a privately owned, operated and
maintained high-speed passenger rail service named All Aboard Florida ("AAF") that will
travel between Miami and Orlando with stops in Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach.
2. It is understood that the passenger rail service is being proposed to be funded by a
Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF") program loan of up to potentially
$1.5 billion from the Federal Rail Administration, an agency of the United States federal
government.
3. It is understood that the State of Florida is proposing to spend $215 million for a new rail
station at the Orlando International Airport which will benefit AAF.
4: Instead of being a passenger rail service provided by a private company using solely private
resources, it appears that a significant portion of the financial burden of this passenger rail
service is actually going to be borne by the taxpayers through assistance from the federal,
state and local governments, but is not required to receive approval from local or state
governments.
5. St. Lucie County requests that any donor agency, including the Federal Rail Administration
and any other federal agency and the State of Florida and its agencies require AAF to pay
forthe costs of AAF, including quiet zones and corridor improvements, and that there shall
be no governmental assistance, be it in the form of loans, infrastructure or right of way at
less than market rates, as such support would put the risk of the private passenger rail
service on the taxpayers. cn
6. The AAF plan is to run 16 daily round-trip high-speed passenger trains along the existing 00
Florida East Coast ("FEC") railroad corridor at speeds up to 110 miles per hour (mph), oo
resulting in daily gate closings, as well as all other grade crossings along the FEC railroad r
corridor in addition to current gate closings for existing freight trains. o
7. St. Lucie County law enforcement and fire rescue.personnel and equipment, cross the FEC
railroad corridor to provide service to St. Lucie County residents.
8. Additional grade crossing closures and blockages will hinder the emergency service
providers from being able to make timely responses to emergency calls or transport
medical patients located on either side of the FEC railroad corridor, comprising the health,
safety and welfare of the citizens of St. Lucie County.
9. The significant risks posed to public safety response times and land mobility, and the
overall quality of life for those who live in and visit St. Lucie County is a genuine threat to
the public health, safety and welfare, balanced by no mitigating benefit, such as service.
Packet Pg. 264
10.A.1.a
10. St. Lucie County desires to bring these issues to the attention of neighboring local
governments, as well as state and federal officials, and urges all such officials to take steps
to help mitigate these risks.
11. The St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners support the FRA report for the AAF
project dated March 20, 2014 by Frank Frey, General Engineer, which expresses many of
the safety concerns shared by our residents and elected officials.
12. These issues should be given full consideration in preparation for the forthcoming
Environmental Impact Statement and specifically consider the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requirements, as well as Executive Order 12898 {DOT Order
561.02(a)), Environmental Justice (EJ).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie
County, Florida:
1. This Board urges any donating agency, including the Federal Rail Administration and anyZZ
other federal agency and the State of Florida and its agencies, to require AAF to pay for the w
costs of AAF including quiet zones and corridor improvements and that there shall be no
governmental assistance, be it in the form of loans, infrastructure or right-of-way at less n
than market rates. Any such support would put the risk of the passenger rail service on the
taxpayers. a
2: St. Lucie County hereby calls on all of its neighboring local officials, as well as officials of the a
State of Florida and federal officials to take all steps possible in order to mitigate the threat c
to the overall safety and well-being of all who live, work and visit St. Lucie County and its
neighboring communities, by prevailing upon FECl/AAF to:
• Divert or decrease the number of freight trains along the FEC railroad corridor;
• Limit the volume of all railroad traffic (both freight and passenger) per hour during
peak times; L
0
• Reschedule freight trains to run at night; U_
• Install "sealed corridor" grade crossing safety equipment;
• Install infrastructure and equipment necessary for quiet zones; cn°
• Restore grade crossings to include repaving and restriping the roadway; and co
• Provide access to real time train monitoring by St. Lucie County Fire District v
dispatchers.
• Require inspections of all high speed rail crossings. o
• Provide written agreement that the County's current leases with FEC for such uses r
as parking, sidewalks and landscaping will not be negatively impacted nor will lease 6
z
payments be increased due to the enhanced crossings or other All Aboard o
requirements.
• Reimburse St. Lucie County for all costs incurred relocating its utility lines due to N
construction of the All Aboard Florida project.
• Allow rails with trails facilities in key locations to implement the East Coast is
Greenway connection through St. Lucie County. Q
• Provide St. Lucie County environmental and economic impact studies which o
describe the positive and negative effects of All Aboard rail traffic on St. Lucie
Packet Pg. 265
10.A.1.a
County's water quality, air quality, commerce, property values, all sources of tax
revenues, real. estate sales, economic development and tourism.
• Provide all railway crossings located within St. Lucie County with Pedestrian
Crossings and other necessary safety measures in accordance with applicable
Federal, State, or Industry requirements.
3. For the reasons stated above, this Board opposes the AAF plan as currently proposed.
4. The County Administrator is hereby directed to provide copies of this resolution to the
Cities of Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie, and to the Town of St. Lucie Village, St. Lucie County
Fire District, the State of Florida and the United States Department of Transportation,
Federal Railroad Administration.
5. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
After motion and second, the vote on this resolution was as follows:
Frannie Hutchinson, Chair
AYE
Paula Lewis, Vice -Chair
AYE
Chris Dzadovsky, Commissioner
AYE
Tod Mowery, Commissioner
AYE
Kim Johnson, Commissioner
AYE
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 171h day of June 2014.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST:WLUCIELINTY, FL A
Deputy Clerk Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNE�S:
BY:
County Attor
Packet Pg. 266
10.A.1.b
OWNLrIAM
ATTORNEYS:
OEPTEL,
TIMOTHY P. A N
.� � �7�
F1J3ERO.NkT
M. CHRISTOPHL•R BRYANT
LR BR
L1N rLEZ�
C.AMHowCLEVELAND
AO
-
�'i',j1�'1��T�1���TsON, P.A.
�1
SENNETH .FERNANDIZ
KENNL•TH C. OERTIdL
TIMO TMY J. PERRY
MAILING ADDRESS: POST OF7.7CE BOX 1110 I TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32302-1110
OI77CES: 2060 DELTA WAY I TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32303
PHONE: 850-521-0700 IFAx: 850.521-0720 I www.oHIr.COM
MEMORANDUM
Confidential and Privileged Attorney Work -Product
TO: Daniel McIntyre
FROM: Segundo J. Fernandez
Timothy P. AtkinsoCg"'�
SUBJ: All Aboard Florida
DATE: September 1, 2016
The firm of Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant and Atkinson has been retained by St. Lucie
County, since February, 2015, to advise the County on the environmental, safety
and economic impacts of the All Aboard Florida (AAF) project. We have also been
working with Martin County on the same issues, since October, 2015.
Under our representation, St. ' Lucie County has submitted comments, technical
analyses, and critical assessments to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),
the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), and the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD). With regard to the safety issues, the FRA has in
substantial measure required the crossings safety features St: Lucie County
advocated, over the objections of AAF. Rail safety has always been one of the
highest priorities of the County to protect its residents. Additional advocacy to
enhance what has already been required continues to this day.
The USACOE has likewise met with St. Lucie consultants and staff, and has taken a
a measured approach in its processing of the AAF permit application while it o
requests and evaluates additional information from AAF, as has been urged by the E
County.
r
a
Packet Pg. 267
10.A.1.b
Memorandum on AAF
September 1, 2016
Page 2
The County's most intensive efforts in 2016 have focused on the SFWMD
processing- of the AAF Environmental Resource Permit by the District. St. Lucie
County has repeatedly submitted comments to the SFWMD, which have been well
received, and have led to several Requests for Additional Information. AAF has
not addressed the majority of comments and objections, and has failed to the
District specific details supporting any claim of "exemption" from permitting for
virtually all road crossings in Martin and St. Lucie Counties.
Because this is a linear project, an evaluation of the cumulative impacts of
proposed construction and use has not been properly assessed; the project has been,
in the opinion of our staff and consultants, improperly segmented, by omission of
design information along the railroad ROW, the road crossings, the river and creek
crossings, and impacts on adjacent roadways, wetlands, and other resources as
required by the Florida Statutes and District Rules. Based on the information (often
erroneous and not ground-truthed) submitted, our technical staff and consultants
assert that:
• There is no reasonable assurance that state water quality standards and
thresholds will not be violated
• There is no reasonable assurance that off -site impacts, including
flooding, will not occur
• There is no reasonable assurance that endangered, threatened, or listed
species will not be adversely affected
• There has been impermissible segmentation of the project which
hinders and obstructs an adequate assessment of the project's impacts
• There incomplete and erroneous data provided on wetlands and other
natural resources
• There is a lack of information about the design features and
components needed to adequately assess water quality and quantity
impacts
Packet Pg. 268
10.A.1.b
Memorandum on AAF
September 1, 2016
Page 3
• The lack of information presented in the AAF application results in a
failure to adequately address the public interest test of the statutes and
rules.
The "bullets" above are a preliminary assessment, and subject to expansion and
refinement through the discovery process and motion practice before an
independent judge of the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings.
In our opinion, issuance of the permit as drafted fails to protect the substantial
interests of St. Lucie County from the immediate and real adverse impacts of the
project. It is our position that the permit application should have been denied as
"incomplete." If a permit were to be issued, it is our position that AAF be strictly
held to all of the applicable standards, and that all impacts be evaluated in a single
proceeding that looks at direct, cumulative and sequential manner — not in the
segmented and fractional manner in which it has been processed.
Based on the above, we recommend that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize the filing of a request for administrative proceeding on the AAF
Environmental Resource Permit, and that the costs be shared equally with Martin
County, Florida.
If the Board authorizes the filing of an administrative proceeding as recommended,
our objective would be that the permit be denied, or, if it is to be issued, that St.
Lucie County's substantial interests be protected by strict compliance with Florida
Statues and Rules.
Packet Pg. 269
10.A.1.c
TO: Daniel McIntyre, County Attorney
FROM: Donald West, Public Works Director
DATE: September 6, 2016
SUBJECT: All Aboard Florida Safety Improvements
Based upon Staff review of the All Aboard Florida (AAF) 100% crossing plans, the safety features have
been increased at most of the high speed crossing locations. Many features that were not shown on the
90% crossing plans, and were recommended in the Triad Railroad Consultants Safety Report, are now
included in the 100% Plans.
Quad gates were recommended at 13 crossing locations in the Triad Safety Report, and quad gates are
shown at 6 crossings on the 100% Plans. An alternative design using 2 or 3 gates with long medians is
shown at 4 crossing locations in the 100% Plans. This design is acceptable in lieu of the quad gates,
according to the Triad Safety Report. A total of 10 out of 15 crossings meet the recommendations of the
Triad Safety Report, based upon review of the 100% Plans.
Vehicle Presence Detection (VPD) is a remote sensing technology that alerts the train operator when a
vehicle is stuck between the gates and is in the path of the approaching train. VPD was included at 13
crossings on the 100% Plans, but was not shown on the 90% Plans. The Triad Safety Report recommend
VPD for 15 crossing locations.
Remote Health Monitoring (RHM) is a software technology that alerts the train control network when a
crossing signal is not operating properly or is non-functional. This safety feature was recommended in
the Triad Safety Report for all crossings, but was not shown on the 90% Plans. Based upon analysis and
discussions with the Federal Railroad administration (FRA), we now have clarity on this feature. Remote
Health Monitoring is included in the Train Control Software System that AAF proposes to utilize for the
entire AAF Project. The Train Control Software will provide Remote Health Monitoring at all crossings
along the route. The Train Control software also provides "Positive Train Control", a safety feature that
prevents train collisions between freight trains and passenger trains that share the same track.
According to AAF, the 100% Plans meet the FRA's Highway -Rail Grade Crossing Guidelines for High -
Speed Passenger Rail (see attached letter from AAF dated April 4, 2016). Likewise, FRA acknowledges
the 100% Plans complies with the grade crossing mitigation requirements in FRA's Final Environmental
Impact Statement (see attached e-mail message from FRA dated March 15, 2016).
We are encouraged to see that most of the recommended safety elements have been included in the AAF
100% Plans within the North -South Rail Corridor in St. Lucie County. However, there are additional q
safety concerns that remain to be addressed that lie outside of the Railroad right-of-way, and will be
discussed in our September 15th meeting with AAF and FRA.
Q
ST. LUCK
Packet Pg. 270
r
Q
Packet Pg. 271
10.A.1.c
2855 Le .1eune Road 4th door
Coral Gables, FL 33134
T: 305.5202300, allaboardflorida,com
April 4, 2016
Don West
Director, Public Works
St. Lucie County
2300 Virginia Avenue
Port Pierce, FL 34982
Dear Mr. West:
I am pleased to share the attached plan set containing the 100 percent designs for final review for
the All Aboard Florida project within St. Lucie County. These plans represent the culmination of
a thorough design exercise, which began with your staff during the Florida Department of
Transportation Grade Crossing Diagnostic Process in 2014 and culminated with AAF's receipt of
plans approval from the Federal Railroad Administration last week. These plans meet the Federal
Railroad Administration's (FRA) Highway -Rail Grade Crossing Guidelines for High -Speed
Passenger Rail and all applicable FDOT standards and regulations.
In this package, you will find:
• Email from FRA noting Final Environmental Impact Statement compliance on final 100
percent plans
• Summary of Grade Crossing Warning Devices for Quiet Zone Analysis (i.e. which safety
enhancements will be constructed at each grade crossing)
• 100 percent design plans:
o Crossing Layouts
o Roadway Plans
o Signing & Pavement Marking Plans
o Signalization Plans
o Utility Plans
Please take this early opportunity to review the plans. Our team will reach out to you soon to
schedule an in -person meeting to gather your feedback. When the construction contract is awarded,
our contractor will submit to your department for Maintenance of Traffic permits for all crossings
with temporary construction impacts, and Right -of -Way permits for all construction that is outside
of the railroad right-of-way, as shown on these plans.
As we have previously stated, we remain committed to working with your staff and the community.
Thank you for your department's participation in the grade crossing design process. We look
forward to your continued engagement.
Thank you, Q
o
m
E
z
Adrian Share, P.E.
Executive Vice President, Rail Infrastructure Q
Packet Pg. 272
10.A.1.c
From: Frank.Frey2dot.gou [mailto:Frank.Frey dot.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 3:05 PM
To: Share, Adrian
Cc: ronaid.riedot.Rov; 'amie.rennert dot. ov; patrick.warren@�da_tgov
Subject: Re: HIS Status of AAF Plans for Palm Beach, Martin and St. Lucie counties
Dear Mr. Share —
In response to your request, this email notification is the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA)
confirmation that the grade crossing design plans All Aboard Florida (AAF) submitted on March 9, 2016,
to this office for the Florida counties of Palm Beach, Martin and St. Lucie complies with the grade
crossing mitigation requirements in FRA's Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). In addition, FRA
will send AAF a letter acknowledging AAF's compliance with the FEIS. In the interim, please provide the
respective counties, including officials at the Florida Department of Transportation, the March 9, 2016
plans AAF submitted to FRA for those counties' review. Once the municipalities have concluded their
review, FRA will be available to those stakeholder counties and AAF to help fine-tune the crossing layout
for AAF's final 100% design that is still consistent with the FEIS.
We look forward to finalizing the review of the remaining grade crossing locations in Indian
River and Brevard counties.
Respectfully,
Frank A. Frey, Gen. Engineer-HSR
Federal Railroad Administration I U.S. DOT
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
RRS-23 1 W33-447
Washington, DC 20590
(202)493-0130
cell (202) 738-2195
a+
a
Packet Pg. 273
10.A.1.d
S��■ . L ■■IIE��
CE)U N- Y
F LORI D 7a -"4100
Z� h (D) a Td F (D) r � Lo a
ram(d cran(�,�nffg
October, 2017
Packet Pg. 274
.
CE)U N- Y
F LORI D 7a -"4100
10.A.1.d
COUNIFY
F L 0 R 1 D A
Federal Railroad Administration Safety Strategies
• Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) developed "sealed corridor" safety strategies
for trains traveling at speeds greater than 80 mph.
• The All Aboard Florida high speed passenger train is designed to travel at speeds up
to 110 mph through St. Lucie County.
• Four Quadrant Gates that block all lanes of travel are recommended by FRA at
highway -rail grade crossings.
• Vehicle presence detection (VPD) is recommended at all Quad Gate crossings to
prevent trapped motor vehicles.
• Remote Health Monitoring (RHM) is recommended at all high speed crossings to
detect signal gate malfunctions.
Packet Pg. 276
5MJrl0 r0 MI MI
._ `V
0 � r' Q 5 2Q
w
PROP R'xR' WWI
EfSI�LSN�TEi? JUb Ah0 4j — — — —
EXIST. ARRAY UME
.PI
EXISr. CAOSSING
rI A■l2
iTD BF I IACFDs lu PRRO�P[vPHICtE
Nv0 eHQti�vTsAND2l 41
M
�I• fir. *YM .�� ■�■ �w' b r�J N .�. .rr ii .19 .1. .ri ■r. -
Ars No
PRGP, MAIM TRACK 11-4 FAMIGN)" 1
[►
T
PROP v W4
4
fXlSr. CROSSING
C RC-ALIGNCD mAIN TRACK]
n
+�
DrrrrrOR
{5EE NOTE 41
rn
o` CC
�.
GATE +]
(TO BE AEPLACED
a
w
J
2�
ARt) AL LOLA I t IJ11
AND 41
IStt ROILS t, l
PROP, Fxlr
FP DROP
GATE 014
RFMAINJ
(SEL• NOTE T)
NOTt .71
_
01DW
1
Lxlal. RK WIV L[NE
Typical 4 Quad Gate Crossing
IM
Packet Pg. 277
10.A.1.d
COUNIFY
F L 0 R 1 D A
All Aboard Florida Proposed Safety Improvements
• Triple Track was relocated from St. Lucie Village area. Triple Track is now proposed
between Midway Road and Savannah Road.
• Quad Gates were recommended at all 13 County crossing locations by the safety
experts.
• 9 of the 13 County crossings have Quad Gates proposed.
• 3 crossings have 2 long arm gates at the unimproved roads (Wilcox, Michigan, and
Riverview).
• Chamberlain Blvd. has 3 Gates with a center median divider. This is an acceptable
alternative for Quad Gates.
Packet Pg. 278
10.A.1.d
COUNIFY
F L 0 R 1 D A
All Aboard Florida Proposed Safety Improvements
• Vehicle presence detection (VPD) will be installed at all 13 county crossings.
• Remote health monitoring (RHM) will be provided at all 13 county crossings.
• Sidewalks with Pedestrian gates are proposed at 3 locations:
• Harbor Branch University crossing
• Chamberlain Blvd. crossing
• Fisherman's Wharf crossing
• 10' wide multi -use paths with Pedestrian Gates are proposed at 2 locations:
• Midway Road crossing
• Walton Road crossing
* It is unclear who will pay for the installation of sidewalks and multi -paths?
Packet Pg. 279
SOUTH TO M41A14f
10.A.1.d
• k
® o
}f, Fear
J
CmHLfVFR #1 exist, RA ff 4w UNC,
r5L Not J: 8r 0
Jb Jf15 t. t:A05SJ'Hfi - ... .. ■.+ .ldrfr• FTSfR OAFFC , _ �+
6AFJ` 11 PULL BOX
. r ■.a ..� {.a ■.M �•M ■..... - fC
rm OFf MFF�IJ7fJTFJ] ••� ••• .0v
� f6Y 17TfifAS �? •a ..■ ..■ +•ti��.■ ..• ..� .•n +-
REMOVFROHF f. fR Harr ��
F 01
MT ATE r4 4)
r5ir:4 9u a
PA4f. fFiOF.S IUA1f t:ATF. *.IF ' P10F. Pt!]ESf Ri'RA {iATE IFtl N
r'CC 4075 a AIVP 10) (SEE fWY1 4 8 AN12 ;Vj E8r57 4' X it 31GNAL +-
-4 PIMP. VFH;CIP EHCLRfMA%OSURF 8f! AM+p GC �
o-i FRf5ClV5f iff} fi, U
h b o ! aETE£TOR +,�� (SEE NOTE 3 AND 4) + 0
NE * rsfs Nara 2) ti
Im
P o
�A�k TRACK �l Q.
FXIAT. MAM TRACK f y
PAV. MAIN ?_WK 1 fn
LL
Q
Fx+cT C'RJSS)Hf UATE 83 ~
+fl' +TJ} Rf AJ<J QCArPD) r
11
PROP. vefflUrr A J� J {
Prtl'SEffSe 17
rSEFFTI4OTE X C
V111L
PR4P- rFa rolfif1J■TAP ) Pr1�a d06 5VLO Nv1 L s 0 A#V rO f r. r"A ss�
q� �ss ar q
Ml m' MOTE- 1)
c
aD
E
— —^ -- r -- -- um. RRRi1Yuw —
U
l4
w
w
Q
Typical Crossin With Sidewalk GatesPacket Pg. 280
10.A.1.d
IIE��
COC.INTY
F L D R 1 D 7aCountv Prt,
osed Safety Improvements
• Traffic signals will be installed at several railroad crossing locations along Old Dixie Highway
near St. Lucie Village:
1.
Wilcox
Road
2.
Michigan Street
3.
Rouse Road
4.
Torpey Road
5. Milton Road
6. Chamberlain Blvd
7. St. Lucie Lane
• The signals will protect motorists and school buses from potential collisions as they wait at
the railroad crossings.
• The traffic signals are estimated to cost $586,345 including design and construction.
Packet Pg. 281
O
All Aboard Florida Stormwater Improvements
• Detention swales and stormwater treatment is proposed to treat the new triple track
sections along the Savannas State Preserve.
• Outfall control structures were added to the detention swale system, and swale slopes were
flattened to improve stability.
• The Emergency Access Way (unimproved maintenance road) was reduced from 13 miles to
2.7 miles within St. Lucie County. This was a reduction of 12.5 acres of semi -impervious
surface area.
• Work proposed outside of the FEC right-of-way was eliminated from the plans.
• Wetlands and surface waters not shown on the plans were identified by the County's Team.
This resulted in additional environmental mitigation that will be provided by the AAF Project.
• Shallow swales and dry detention areas are proposed at several crossing locations to prevent
flooding on Old Dixie Highway.
Packet Pg. 282
10.A.1.d
COUNIFY
F L 0 R 1 D A
All Aboard Florida Revised Plans
• Based upon the most recent AAF design plans, Triad Railroad Consulting estimates
the additional safety improvements included after all of our combined efforts
represents a range of value = $ 21760,000 - $ 31962,000.
• There are also environmental benefits added to the Project design that lessen the
impacts to existing wetlands and lessen the impacts of water quality degradation, as
a result of the SFWMD Administrative Hearing Process.
• Final
revised
plans will
result in a safer and better Project for the Residents of St.
Lucie
County.
A
better
understanding
of
the
Project design
and
construction
methodology was achieved by all Parties involved.
Packet Pg. 283
10.A.1.e
STATE OF FLORIDA
w
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
C
r
c
m
E
MARTIN COUNTY AND ST. LUCIE
0
aM
M
COUNTY,
M
2
Petitioners,
L
and
-a
L
TOWN OF ST. LUCIE VILLAGE,
U.
s
0
Intervenor,
y
00
VS. Case Nos. 16-5718
00
S
17-2566
ALL ABOARD FLORIDA - OPERATIONS,
N
LLC; FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY,
LLC; AND SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
of
cL
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,
E
m
Respondents.
L
E
L
0
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The final hearing in this case was held on May 30 to
June 2, 2017, in West Palm Beach; on June 8 and 9 in Tallahassee;
and on June 12 through 15, 2017, in West Palm Beach, before
Bram D.E. Canter, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of
Administrative Hearings ("DOAH").
Packet Pg. 284
10.A.1.e
APPEARANCES
For Petitioners Martin County and St. Lucie County:
Segundo J. Fernandez, Esquire
Timothy P. Atkinson, Esquire
Timothy J. Perry, Esquire
Sidney C. Bigham, Esquire
Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A.
Post Office Box 1110
Tallahassee, Florida 32303
For Intervenor Town of St. Lucie Village:
Richard V. Neill, Jr., Esquire
Neill, Griffin, Tierney, Neill & Marquis
Post Office Box 1270
Fort Pierce, Florida 34954
For Respondents All Aboard Florida - Operations, LLC and
Florida East Coast Railway, LLC:
Eugene E. Stearns, Esquire
Matthew W. Buttrick Esquire
Cecilia Duran Simmons, Esquire
Stearns, Weaver, Miller, Weissler
Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A.
150 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
Miami, Florida 33130
Jeffrey A. Collier, Esquire
Stearns, Weaver, Miller, Weissler,
Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A.
401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2200
Tampa, Florida 33602
For Respondent South Florida Water Management District:
Bridgette Nicole Thornton, Esquire
Julia Gilcher Lomonico, Esquire
South Florida Water Management District
3301 Gun Club Road
West Palm Beach, Florida 33406
oil
Packet Pg. 285
10.A.1.e
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The issues to be determined in these consolidated cases are
whether All Aboard Florida - Operations, LLC ("the Applicant"),
and Florida East Coast Railway, LLC ("FECR"), are entitled to an
Environmental Resource Permit Modification authorizing the
construction of a stormwater management system and related
activities to serve railway facilities, and a verification of
exemption for work to be done at 23 roadway crossings
(collectively referred to as "the project").
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On August 19, 2016, the South Florida Water Management
District ("District") gave notice of its intent to grant
Environmental Resource Permit Modification No. 13-05321-P ("the
ERP Modification"). The original ERP authorized the construction
and operation of a stormwater management system and bridge
modifications within the portion of the FECR corridor between
Miami and West Palm Beach. The ERP Modification authorizes the
construction and operation of a stormwater management system and
certain culvert and bridge modifications within Segment D09,
which extends from West Palm Beach to the northern border of
St. Lucie County.
On March 31, 2017, the District issued a separate notice of
its intent to issue a Verification of Exemption to the Applicant
�L
N
r
c
m
E
m
a�
M
c
M
L
M
M
0
U.
s
0
00
00
for improvements to 23 roadway crossings within Segment D09 ("the
Q
2017 Exemption").
T
d
E
t
a
3
Packet Pg. 286
10.A.1.e
Martin County and St. Lucie County jointly filed petitions w
C
challenging the ERP Modification and the 2017 Exemption. The two
E
cases were consolidated. The Town of St. Lucie Village was a)
M
c
granted leave to intervene in opposition to the challenged agency 2
L
actions. M
M
At the final hearing, Petitioners presented the testimony of 2
L
Andrew Woodruff, an expert in wetlands and environmental, U.
wildlife, and biological assessments; Catherine Riiska, M.S., c°n
00
P.W.S., an expert in ecology and county planning; Janet M. o
Iq
Peterson, P.G., an expert in geology and site contamination
assessment and remediation; Jonathan T. Ricketts, P.E., an expert
in stormwater engineering; Patrick Dayan, P.E., an expert in
professional and civil engineering; Michael O'Brien, P.S.M., an
expert in surveying; Kenneth R. Craig, P.E., an expert in
navigable channel maintenance; Richard T. Creech, P.E., P.S.M.,
an expert in civil engineering and surveying; George A. Gavalla,
an expert in rail safety; Ronald Parish, an expert in emergency
services planning and public safety administration; and Daniel
Wouters, an expert in emergency services planning and public
safety administration. Petitioners also presented the deposition
testimony of Douglas Rogers, Chris Vandello, and Rob Rossmanith.
Petitioners' Exhibits 1a3, 1b, 1c, 1d, 2c1, 2c22, 2c29, 3t, 5a,
5b, 5c, 5h, 7f, 8n, 8t, 9b, 10x, 16aa, 16bb, 16gg, 17c, 17d, 17e,
17f, 17s, 19a, 40, 57, 60-73, and 78 were admitted into evidence.
Q
0
T
d
E
t
a
4
Packet Pg. 287
10.A.1.e
Intervenor Town of St. Lucie Village presented the testimony w
C
of William G. Theiss. Intervenor's Exhibits 3k and 3m were c
m
E
admitted into evidence.
a�
M
c
The Applicant presented the testimony of Adrian Share, P.E.; 2
L
Bruce H. McArthur, P.E., an expert in stormwater engineering; M
M
W. Michael Dennis, Ph.D., an expert in ecology; Shannon McMorrow, �
L
O
an expert in ecology; and Jeremy Paris, an expert in ecology. • U.
The testimony of Mr. Paris was presented by deposition. The c°n
00
Applicant's Exhibits 6-30, 35-40, 70, 74, 75, 128, 140, 156, and 00
157 were admitted into evidence. r
The District presented the testimony of Barbara Conmy, an
expert in wetland ecology; Trisha Stone, an expert in wetland
ecology; and Jesse Markle, an expert in stormwater engineering
District Exhibits 1, 2, and 4 were admitted into evidence.
Joint Exhibits 1 through 25 were also admitted into evidence
and official recognition was taken of sections 120.569, 120.57,
163.3161(3), 163.3177(6)(d), and chapters 373 and 403, Florida
Statutes; Florida Administrative Code Chapters 40E-4 and 62-4;
Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-302, 62-303, 62-304, 62-330,
62-345, 62-520, 62-550, and 62-777; and the ERP Applicant's
Handbook, Volumes I and II.
The 17-volume Transcript of the final hearing was filed with
DOAH. The parties submitted proposed recommended orders which
were considered in preparing this Recommended Order.
Q
0
T
d
E
t
a
5
Packet Pg. 288
10.A.1.e
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Parties
1. Petitioners Martin County and St. Lucie County are
political subdivisions of the State of Florida. Petitioners have
substantial interests that could be affected by the District's
proposed authorizations.
2. Intervenor Town of St. Lucie Village is a political
subdivision of the State of Florida. Intervenor has substantial
interests that could be affected by the District's proposed
authorizations.
3. The Applicant, All Aboard Florida - Operations, LLC, is a
Delaware limited liability company based in Miami. All Aboard
Florida is part of a group of corporate entities formed for the
principal purpose of developing and operating express passenger
train service in Florida.
4. Co -applicant Florida East Coast Railway, LLC, is a
Florida limited liability company based in Jacksonville. FECR
owns the existing railway corridor the passenger train service
will use between Miami and Cocoa.
5. South Florida Water Management District is a regional
agency granted powers and assigned duties under chapter 373,
part IV, Florida Statutes, including powers and duties related to
the regulation of construction activities in wetlands. The
proposed activities are within the boundaries of the District.
�L
N
r
c
m
E
m
a�
M
c
M
L
M
M
0
U.
s
0
00
00
a
0
Packet Pg. 289
10.A.1.e
Background w
0
6. The objective of the All Aboard Florida Project is to
E
establish express passenger train service connecting four large a)
M
c
urban areas: Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, and
L
Orlando. M
M
7. Most of the passenger service route, including the 2
L
portion which will pass through Martin County and St. Lucie U.
County, will use an existing railroad right-of-way used since the c°n
00
late 1800s. o
Iq
8. The FECR rail corridor runs along Florida's east coast
from Miami to Jacksonville. It supported passenger and freight
operations on shared double mainline tracks from 1895 to 1968.
The passenger service was terminated in 1968 and portions of the
double track and certain bridge structures were removed. The
freight service continued and remains in operation today.
9. The passenger service will use the FECR right-of-way
from Miami to Cocoa and then turn west on a new segment to be
constructed from Cocoa to Orlando. The railway corridor will be
operated as a joint facility, with passenger and freight trains
sharing the double mainline tracks.
10. The Applicant is upgrading the portion of the corridor
between Miami and Cocoa by, among other things, replacing
existing railroad ties and tracks, reinstalling double mainline
tracks, and improving grade crossings. The Applicant is also
Q
installing Positive Train Control systems which provide
c
d
integrated command and control of passenger and freight train E
z
c�
a
7
Packet Pg. 290
10.A.1.e
movements and allow the trains to be directed and stopped w
0
remotely or automatically in the event of operator error or
E
disability, or an obstruction on the track.
M
c
11. The All Aboard Florida Project is being developed in
L
two phases, Phase I extends from Miami to West Palm Beach, and M
M
Phase II from West Palm Beach to Orlando. This proceeding 2
L
involves a segment within Phase II, known as Segment D09, which s
runs from just north of West Palm Beach to the northern boundary y
00
of St. Lucie County. oo
12. The railway corridor in Segment D09 passes through `-
Jonathan Dickinson State Park in Martin County and the Savannas
Preserve State Park, parts of which are in both Martin County and
St. Lucie County. Surface waters within these state parks are
Outstanding Florida Waters ("OFWs"). The railway in Segment D09
also passes over the St. Lucie River using a bridge that can be
opened to allow boats to pass.
13. The Applicant plans to run 16 round trips per day
between Miami and Orlando, which is about one train an hour in
each direction, starting early in the morning and continuing to
mid -evening.
14. In 2013, the District issued the Applicant an exemption
under section 373.406(6), which exempts activities having only
minimal or insignificant adverse impacts on water resources. The
2013 exemption covers proposed work in approximately 48 of the 65
Q
miles which make up Segment D09, and includes replacement of
c
d
existing tracks and re-establishment of a second set of mainline E
c�
a
8
Packet Pg. 291
10.A.1.e
tracks where they were historically located. The 2013 exemption w
C
covers all but 24 of the roadway crossings within Segment D09
E
where work is to be done in connection with the All Aboard a)
M
c
Florida Project.
L
15. In 2015, the District issued the Applicant a general M
M
permit under rule 62-330.401, which authorizes activities that 2
0
LL
are expected to cause minimal adverse impacts to water resources, s
for the installation of fiber optic cable along the rail bed y
CO
within Segment D09. oo
16. The 2013 exemption and 2015 general permit were not `-
challenged and became final agency action.
The Proposed Agency Actions
17. The ERP Modification covers work to be done in
approximately 17 of the 65 miles which make up Segment D09. The
work will consist primarily of replacing existing tracks,
installing new tracks, making curve modifications in some
locations to accommodate faster trains, culvert modifications,
and work on some fixed bridge crossings over non -navigable
waters.
18. The 2017 Exemption at issue in this proceeding covers
improvements to 23 of the 24 roadway crossings that were not
covered by the 2013 exemption. Proposed improvements at
Southeast Florida Street in Stuart will be permitted separately.
The improvements covered by the 2017 Exemption include upgrading
Q
existing safety gates and signals; installing curbs, guardrails,
c
a�
E
z
c�
a
9
Packet Pg. 292
10.A.1.e
and sidewalks; resurfacing some existing paved surfaces; and w
0
adding some new paving.
E
19. Petitioners argue that, because the District's staff a)
M
c
report for the ERP Modification states that the ERP does not
L
cover work at roadway crossings, track work at roadway crossings M
M
has not been authorized. However, the staff report was referring 2
L
to the roadway improvements that are described in the 2017 s
Exemption. The proposed track work at the roadway crossings was y
00
described in the ERP application and was reviewed and authorized oo
by the District in the ERP Modification.
"Segmentation"
20. Petitioners claim it was improper for the District to
separately review and authorize the proposed activities covered
by the 2013 exemption, the 2015 general permit, the ERP
Modification, and the 2017 Exemption. Petitioners contend that,
as a consequence of this "segmentation" of the project, the
District approved "roads to nowhere," by which Petitioners mean
that these activities do not have independent functionality.
21. Petitioners' argument is based on section 1.5.2 of the
Applicant's Handbook, Volume 1,1/ which states that applications
to construct phases of a project can only be considered when each
phase can be constructed, operated, and maintained totally
independent of future phases. However, the activities authorized
by the four agency actions are not phases of a project. They are
Q
all parts of Phase II of the All Aboard Florida Project, which is
c
d
the passenger railway from West Palm Beach to Orlando. E
c�
a
10
Packet Pg. 293
10.A.1.e
22. Section 1.5.2 is not interpreted or applied by the
District as a prohibition against separate review and approval of
related activities when they qualify under the District's rules
for exemptions, general permits, and ERPs.
23. Much of Phase II is outside the District's geographic
boundaries and, therefore, beyond its regulatory jurisdiction.
The District can only review and regulate a portion of Phase II.
The District is unable to review this portion as a stand-alone
railway project that can function independently from other
project parts.
The Proposed Stormwater Management System
24. Where the Applicant is replacing existing tracks or re-
establishing a second set of tracks, it will be laying new ties,
ballast, and rail on previously -compacted earth. In those areas,
no stormwater management modifications were required by the
District.
25. The Applicant's new proposed stormwater management
system will be located in a five -mile area of the corridor where
an existing siding will be shifted outward and used as a third
track. In this area, swales with hardened weir discharge
structures and skimmers will be installed to provide stormwater
treatment beyond what currently exists. The weir discharge
structures will serve to prevent erosion at discharge points.
The skimmers will serve to capture any floating oils or refuse.
26. Because the FECR right-of-way is not wide enough in some
three -track areas to also accommodate swales, the proposed
�L
N
r
c
m
E
m
a�
M
c
M
L
M
M
�L
LL
s
0
00
oo
a
11
Packet Pg. 294
10.A.1.e
stormwater management system was oversized in other locations to w
C
provide compensating volume. The District determined that this
E
solution was an accepted engineering practice for linear systems a)
M
c
such as railroads.
L
27. Petitioners argue that the Applicant's proposed M
M
stormwater management system is deficient because some of the 2
L
proposed swales do not meet the definition of "swale" in s
section 403.803(14) as having side slopes equal to or greater y
CO
than three feet horizontal to one foot vertical (3:1). oo
28. The statute first defines a swale to include a manmade
trench which has "a top width -to -depth ratio of the cross-section
equal to or greater than 6:1." The swales used in the proposed
stormwater management system meet this description.
29. Petitioners showed that the plans for one of the 46
proposed swales included some construction outside the FECR
right-of-way. In response, the Applicant submitted revised plan
sheets to remove the swale at issue.
The Emergency Access Way
30. The ERP application includes proposed modifications to
portions of an existing unpaved emergency access way which runs
along the tracks in some areas. The access way is a private dirt
road for railroad -related vehicles and is sometimes used for
maintenance activities.
31. At the final hearing, Petitioners identified an
Q
inconsistency between an application document which summarizes
c
a�
the extent of proposed new access way construction and the E
c�
a
12
Packet Pg. 295
10.A.1.e
individual plan sheets that depict the construction. The w
0
Applicant resolved the inconsistency by correcting the
E
construction summary document.
M
c
32. Petitioners also identified an individual plan sheet
L
showing proposed access way modifications to occur outside of the M
M
FECR right-of-way. This second issue was resolved by eliminating 2
L
LL
any proposed work outside the right-of-way. s
33. Petitioners believe the proposed work on the access way y
00
was not fully described and reviewed because Petitioners believe CO
the access way will be made continuous. However, the access way
is not continuous currently and the Applicant is not proposing to
make it continuous. No District rule requires the access way
segments to be connected as a condition for approval of the ERP.
Water Quantity Impacts
34. An applicant for an ERP must provide reasonable
assurance that the construction, operation, and maintenance of a
proposed project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to
receiving waters and adjacent lands, adverse flooding to on -site
or off -site property, or adverse impacts to existing surface
water storage and conveyance capabilities.
35. The District's design criterion to meet this requirement
for water quantity management is a demonstration that the
proposed stormwater system will capture the additional runoff
caused during a 25-year/3-day storm event. The Applicant's
Q
0
proposed stormwater system meets or exceeds this requirement.
c
a�
E
z
c�
a
13
Packet Pg. 296
10.A.1.e
36. Petitioners argue that the Applicant failed to provide w
C
reasonable assurance because the ERP application materials did
E
not include a calculation of the discharge rates and velocities a)
M
c
for water discharging from the swales during the design storm.
L
37. The ERP application contains the information required to M
M
calculate the discharge rates and velocities and the Applicant's 2
0
stormwater expert, Bruce McArthur, performed the calculations and s
testified at the final hearing that in the areas where there will y
CO
be discharges, the discharge rates and velocities would be oo
AN and would not cause adverse impacts. The District's
stormwater expert, Jesse Markle, shared this opinion.
38. Petitioners argue that this information should have been
provided to the District in the permit application, but this is a
de novo proceeding where new evidence to establish reasonable
assurances can be presented. Petitioners did not show that
Mr. McArthur is wrong.
39. Petitioners failed to prove that the proposed project
will cause adverse water quantity impacts, flooding, or adverse
impacts to surface water storage and conveyance capabilities.
Water Quality Impacts
40. To obtain an ERP, an applicant must provide reasonable
assurance that the construction, operation, and maintenance of a
regulated project will not adversely affect the quality of
receiving waters, such that state water quality standards would
Q
be violated.
c
a�
E
z
c�
a
14
Packet Pg. 297
10.A.1.e
41. The District's design criteria for water quality
required the Applicant to show that its proposed stormwater
system will capture at least 0.5 inches of runoff over the
developed area. To be conservative, the Applicant designed its
proposed system to capture 1.0 inch of runoff in most areas.
42. Under District rules, if a stormwater system will
directly discharge to impaired waters or OFWs, an additional
50 percent of water quality treatment volume is required. The
proposed stormwater system will not directly discharge to either
impaired waters or OFWs.
43. In some locations, there is the potential for stormwater
discharged from the proposed stormwater system to reach OFWs by
overland flow, after the stormwater has been treated for water
quality purposes. The Applicant designed its proposed stormwater
system to provide at least an additional 50 percent of water
quality treatment volume in areas where this potential exists.
44. To ensure that the proposed construction activities do
not degrade adjacent wetlands, other surface waters, or off -site
areas due to erosion and sedimentation, the Applicant prepared an
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Temporary silt fences and
turbidity barriers will be installed and maintained around the
limits of the construction.
45. The District's design criteria for water quality do not
require an analysis of individual contaminants that can be
contained in stormwater, except in circumstances that do not
apply to this project. Compliance with the design criteria
�L
N
r
c
m
E
m
a�
M
c
M
L
M
M
�L
LL
s
0
00
oo
a
15
Packet Pg. 298
10.A.1.e
creates a presumption that water quality standards for all w
0
potential contaminants are met. See Applicant's Handbook, V. II,
E
§ 4.1.1.
M
c
46. Although not required, the Applicant provided a loading
L
analysis for the proposed swales which could potentially M
M
discharge overland to impaired waters or OFWs. The analysis 2
L
compared pre- and post -development conditions and showed there s
would be a net reduction in pollutant loading. y
CO
47. Petitioners believe the pollutant loading analysis was CO
inadequate because it did not specifically test for arsenic and
petroleum hydrocarbons. However, the analysis was not required
and adequate treatment is presumed. Petitioners did not conduct
their own analysis to show that water quality standards would be
violated.
48. Petitioners' expert, Patrick Dayan, believes the
compaction of previously undisturbed soils in the emergency
access way would increase stormwater runoff. However, he did not
calculate the difference between pre- and post -construction
infiltration rates at any particular location. His opinion on
this point was not persuasive.
49. Petitioners failed to prove that the proposed project
will generate stormwater that will adversely affect the quality
of receiving waters such that state water quality standards would
be violated. The preponderance of the evidence shows the project
Q
complies with District design criteria and will not cause water
c
a�
quality violations. E
c�
a
16
Packet Pg. 299
10.A.1.e
Soil and Sediment Contamination w
0
50. Petitioners argue that the ERP Modification does not
E
account for the disturbance of existing contaminants in soils and a)
M
c
sediments that could be carried outside of the right-of-way and
L
into OFWs. Petitioners' argument is based on investigations by M
M
their geologist, Janet Peterson, who collected soil, sediment, .a
0
and surface water samples at 13 sites along the FECR rail s
corridor in the vicinity of OFWs, or surface waters that y
CO
eventually flow into OFWs. oo
51. During her sampling visits, Ms. Peterson saw no visual `--
evidence of an oil spill, fluid leak, or other release of
hazardous materials.
52. Ms. Peterson compared her soil sample results to the
Residential Direct Exposure Soil Cleanup Target Levels ("SCTLs")
established in rule 62-777. The SCTLs are the levels at which
toxicity becomes a human health concern and the residential SCTLs
assume soil ingestion of 200 mg/day for children, and 100 mg/day
for adults, 350 days a year, for 30 years.
53. Some of the soil sampling results showed exceedances of
SCTLs, but the SCTLs are not applicable here because none of the
sample sites are locations where children or adults would be
expected to ingest soil at such levels for such lengths of time.
Petitioners did not show that the contaminants are likely to
migrate to locations where such exposure would occur.
Q
54. Ms. Peterson compared her soil sample results to the
c
a�
Marine Surface Water Leachability SCTLs, but she did not develop E
c�
a
17
Packet Pg. 300
10.A.1.e
site -specific leachability -based SCTLs using DEP's approved w
C
methodology. Nor did she show that the proposed project will
E
cause the soils to leach the contaminants. 0)
M
c
55. Ms. Peterson collected sediment samples from shorelines,
L
but not where construction activities are proposed. She compared M
M
her sediment sample results to the Florida Department of 2
L
U.
Environmental Protection's ("DEP") Sediment Quality Assessment s
0
Guidelines ("SQAGs"). These guidelines are not water quality cn
CO
standards. Any exceedance of these guidelines requires further 00
analysis to determine potential water quality impacts.
Ms. Peterson did not conduct the analysis.
56. Ms. Peterson acknowledged that there are numerous
sources for these pollutants at or near her sample sites, such as
high -traffic roads, vehicular bridges, commercial and industrial
facilities, boatyards, and golf courses. She did not establish
baselines or controls.
57. Ms. Peterson collected surface water samples at seven
sites, some of which were located outside the FECR right-of-way.
The results showed levels of phosphorous and nitrogen above the
criteria for nutrients at some locations. Phosphorous, nitrogen,
and the other nutrients are prevalent in the waters of Martin
County and St. Lucie County and come from many sources.
58. Petitioners' evidence focused on existing conditions and
not expected impacts of the proposed project. The evidence was
Q
insufficient to prove the proposed project will cause or
c
d
contribute to water quality violations. E
c�
a
18
Packet Pg. 301
10.A.1.e
Functions Provided by Wetlands and Other Surface Waters w
0
59. An applicant for an ERP must provide reasonable
E
assurance that a proposed project will not adversely impact the a)
M
c
value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed
L
species by wetlands and other surface waters. M
M
60. Petitioners claim the Applicant and District should not 2
L
U.
have relied on Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification s
System ("FLUCCS") maps to identify and characterize wetlands and y
CO
other habitat areas because the maps are too general and 00
inaccurate. However, the FLUCCS maps were not used by the
Applicant or District to evaluate impacts to wetlands or other
habitats.
61. The Applicant began its evaluation of impacts to
wetlands and other habitat areas by field -flagging and surveying
the wetland and surface water boundaries in the project area
using a GPS device with sub -meter accuracy. It then digitized
the GPS delineations and overlaid them with the limits of
construction to evaluate anticipated direct impacts to wetlands
and other surface waters. The District then verified the
delineations and assessments in the field.
62. The Applicant and District determined that there are a
total of 4.71 acres of wetlands within the FECR right-of-way,
including tidal mangroves, freshwater marsh, and wet prairie.
They also determined the proposed project will directly impact
Q
0.35 acres of wetlands, consisting of 0.09 acres of freshwater
c
d
marsh and 0.26 acres of mangroves. E
c�
a
19
Packet Pg. 302
10.A.1.e
63. Petitioners contend that the Applicant failed to account w
0
for all of the project's wetland impacts, based on the wetland
E
delineations made by their wetland expert, Andrew Woodruff. Most a)
M
c
of the impacts that Mr. Woodruff believes were not accounted for
L
are small, between 0.01 and 0.05 acres. The largest one is M
M
0.20 acres. 2
�L
64. The Applicant's delineations are more reliable than s
Mr. Woodruff's because the methodology employed by the Applicant CO
CO
had greater precision. It is more likely to be accurate. CO
65. Petitioners argue that the 2013 exemption and the 2015 `-
general permit did not authorize work in wetlands and, therefore,
the impacts they cause must be evaluated in this ERP
Modification. However, Petitioners did not prove that there are
unaccounted-for wetland impacts associated with those
authorizations.
66. Any impacts associated with best management practices
for erosion control, such as the installation of silt fences,
would be temporary. The District does not include such temporary
minor impacts in its direct, secondary, or cumulative impacts
analyses.
67. Most of the wetlands that would be directly impacted by
the ERP Modification are degraded due to past hydrologic
alterations and soil disturbances from the original construction
Q
and historical use of the FECR railway corridor, and infestation
c
d
by exotic plant species. Most of these wetlands are also E
c�
a
20
Packet Pg. 303
10.A.1.e
adjacent to disturbed uplands within or near the rail corridor. w
C
The functional values of most of the wetlands that would be c
m
E
affected have been reduced by these disturbances. 0)
M
c
68. The Applicant provided reasonable assurance that the
L
project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided M
M
to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other 2
L
LL
surface waters. s
0
Secondary Impacts cn
CO
69. Section 10.2.7 of the Applicant's Handbook requires an oo
applicant to provide reasonable assurance that the secondary
impacts from construction, alteration, and intended or reasonably
expected uses of a proposed activity (a) will not cause or
contribute to violations of water quality standards or adverse
impacts to the functions of wetlands or other surface waters;
(b) will not adversely impact the ecological value of uplands for
bald eagles, and aquatic or wetland -dependent listed animal
species for nesting or denning by these species; (c) will not
cause impacts to significant historical or archaeological
resources; and (d) additional phases for which plans have been
submitted, and closely linked projects regulated under
chapter 373, part IV, will not cause water quality violations or
adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or other surface
waters.
70. The proposed work will be entirely within the limits of
Q
the existing railway corridor where secondary impacts to wetlands
c
a�
and other surface waters caused by noise, vibration, E
z
c�
a
21
Packet Pg. 304
10.A.1.e
fragmentation of habitats, and barriers to wildlife have existed w
0
for decades. The preponderance of the evidence shows that any
E
increase in these kinds of impacts would be insignificant and a)
M
c
would not reduce the current functions being provided.
L
71. Because the affected wetlands are not preferred habitat M
M
for wetland -dependent, endangered, or threatened wildlife 2
0
species, or species of special concern, and no such species were s
observed in the area, no adverse impacts to these species are y
CO
expected to occur. oo
72. Petitioners contend that adverse impacts will occur to c
N
the gopher tortoise, scrub jay, and prickly apple cactus. These N
are not aquatic or wetland -dependent species. However, the
preponderance of the evidence shows any increase in impacts to
these species would be insignificant.
73. When the train bridges are closed, boats with masts or
other components that make them too tall to pass under the train
bridges must wait for the bridge to open before continuing.
Petitioners contend that the current "stacking" of boats waiting
for the bridges to open would worsen and would adversely impact
seagrass beds and the West Indian Manatee.
74. However, it was not shown that seagrass beds are in the
areas where the boats are stacking. The available manatee
mortality data does not show a link between boat stacking and
boat collisions with manatees. Mr. Woodruff's opinion about
Q
increased injuries to manatees caused by increased boat stacking
c
a�
was speculative and unpersuasive. E
c�
a
22
Packet Pg. 305
10.A.1.e
75. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the adverse w
C
effects on both listed and non -listed wildlife species, caused by
E
faster and more numerous trains would be insignificant. a)
M
c
76. The activities associated with the 2013 exemption and
L
the 2015 general permit for fiber optic cable were based on M
M
determinations that the activities would have minimal or 2
L
LL
insignificant adverse impacts on water resources. These s
determinations are not subject to challenge in this proceeding. y
CO
77. The Applicant provided reasonable assurance that the oo
secondary impacts of the project will not cause or contribute to
violations of water quality standards, adversely impact the
functions of wetlands or other surface waters, adversely impact
the ecological value of uplands for use by listed animal species,
or cause impacts to significant historical or archaeological
resources.
Elimination and Reduction of Impacts
78. Under section 10.2.1.1 of the Applicant's Handbook, if a
proposed activity will result in adverse impacts to wetlands and
other surface waters, the applicant for an ERP must implement
practicable design modifications to eliminate or reduce the
impacts, subject to certain exceptions that will be discussed
below.
79. Petitioners argue that this rule requires the Applicant
and District to evaluate the practicability of alternative routes
Q
through the region, routes other than the existing railway
c
d
corridor in Segment D09. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, E
c�
a
23
Packet Pg. 306
10.A.1.e
that argument is rejected. The evaluation of project w
C
modifications to avoid impacts was appropriately confined to the
E
railway corridor in Segment D09.
M
c
80. The Applicant implemented practicable design
L
modifications in the project area to reduce or eliminate impacts M
M
to wetlands and other surface waters. Those modifications 2
L
LL
included the shifting of track alignments, the elimination of s
certain third -track segments, and the elimination of some y
CO
proposed access way modifications. V.-
81. However, the project qualified under both "opt out"
criteria in section 10.2.1.2 of the Applicant's Handbook so that
design modifications to reduce or eliminate impacts were not
required: (1) The ecological value of the functions provided by
the area of wetland or surface water to be adversely affected is
low, and the proposed mitigation will provide greater long-term
ecological value; and (2) the applicant proposes mitigation that
implements all or part of a plan that provides regional
ecological value and provides greater long-term ecological value.
Mitigation
82. The Applicant proposes to mitigate for impacts to
wetlands by purchasing mitigation credits from four District -
approved mitigation banks: the Bluefield Ranch, Bear Point,
Loxahatchee, and F.P.L. Everglades Mitigation Banks. Each is a
regional off -site mitigation area which implements a detailed
Q
0
management plan and provides regional long-term ecological value.
c
a�
E
z
c�
a
24
Packet Pg. 307
10.A.1.e
83. The number of mitigation credits needed to offset loss w
0
of function from impacts to wetlands was calculated using the
E
Modified Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure ("'MWRAP") or Wetland a)
M
c
Assessment Technique for Environmental Review ("WATER"), as M
L
prescribed in the state permit for each mitigation bank. M
M
Applying these methods, the Applicant is required to purchase 2
L
0.21 mitigation credits. s
84. The Applicant proposed to mitigate the adverse impacts y
CO
to freshwater marsh wetlands by purchasing 0.01 freshwater CO
herbaceous credits from the Bluefield Ranch Mitigation Bank, and
0.06 freshwater herbaceous credits from the Loxahatchee
Mitigation Bank. The adverse impacts to tidal mangrove wetlands
would be mitigated by purchasing 0.12 saltwater credits from the
Bear Point Mitigation Bank, and 0.02 saltwater credits from the
F.P.L. Everglades Mitigation Bank.
85. The Applicant committed to purchase an additional
0.29 freshwater herbaceous credits from the Bluefield Ranch
Mitigation Bank, for a total of 0.50 mitigation credits.
86. The proposed mitigation implements a plan that will
provide greater long-term ecological value than is provided by
the wetlands that will be impacted.
87. The Applicant proved by a preponderance of the evidence
that the project complies with the District's mitigation
requirements.
Q
0
T
d
E
t
a
25
Packet Pg. 308
10.A.1.e
Cumulative Impacts
88. To obtain an ERP, an applicant must provide reasonable
assurance that a regulated activity will not result in
unacceptable cumulative impacts to water resources. This
assurance can be provided by proposing to fully mitigate the
impacts within the same basin. However, when an applicant
proposes mitigation in another drainage basin, the applicant must
demonstrate that the regulated activity will not cause
unacceptable cumulative impacts.
89. The proposed project will adversely impact 0.02 acres of
freshwater marsh wetlands and 0.21 acres of tidal mangrove
wetlands in the St. Lucie River basin. The impacts to the
freshwater marshes must be mitigated out -of -basin because there
are no mitigation banks in the basin which offer freshwater
herbaceous mitigation credits.
90. The proposed project will adversely impact 0.07 acres of
the freshwater marshes and 0.05 acres of the mangrove wetlands in
the Loxahatchee River basin. Those impacts must also be
mitigated out -of -basin because there are no mitigation banks in
the Loxahatchee River basin.
91. Because some of the Applicant's proposed mitigation must
be provided out -of -basin, the ERP application included a
cumulative impact analysis. The analysis evaluated whether the
�L
N
r
c
m
E
m
a�
M
c
M
L
M
M
�L
U.
s
0
CO
T-
oo
proposed project, when considered in conjunction with other
Q
possible development within the St. Lucie River and Loxahatchee
c
a�
E
z
c�
a
26
Packet Pg. 309
10.A.1.e
River drainage basins, would result in unacceptable cumulative w
0
impacts considering each basin as a whole.
E
92. There are approximately 10,068 acres of freshwater 0)
M
c
marshes within the St. Lucie basin, of which an estimated
L
4,929 acres are not preserved and would be at risk of potential M
M
future development. The proposed project will adversely impact 2
L
0.02 of those acres, which is only 0.0004 percent of the total U.
0
at -risk acreage. cn
CO
93. There are about 34,000 acres of freshwater marshes CO
within the Loxahatchee River basin, of which an estimated
7,463 acres are at risk of future development, and approximately
564 acres of tidal mangrove wetlands, of which an estimated
75 acres are at risk of future development. The project will
adversely impact 0.07 acres of the freshwater marshes
(0.0009 percent), and 0.05 acres of the tidal mangrove wetlands
(0.0667 percent).
94. Petitioners contend the Applicant's analysis did not
account for impacts from proposed activities authorized in the
2013 and 2015 general permit. However, Petitioners failed to
prove there are unaccounted-for wetland impacts.
95. The preponderance of the evidence supports the
District's determination that the proposed project will not cause
unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface
waters. Q
0
T
d
E
t
a
27
Packet Pg. 310
10.A.1.e
Public Interest w
C
96. When an applicant seeks authorization for a regulated
E
activity in, on, or over wetlands or surface waters, it must 0)
M
c
provide reasonable assurance that the activity will not be
L
contrary to the public interest, or if the activity is within or M
M
significantly degrades an OFW, is clearly in the public interest, a
0
as determined by balancing the following criteria set forth in s
0
0
section 373.414 (1) (a) : CO
00
(1) Whether the activities will adversely oo
affect the public health, safety, or welfare
or the property of others; c
(2) Whether the activities will adversely
affect the conservation of fish and wildlife,
including endangered or threatened species,
or their habitats;
(3) Whether the activities will adversely
affect navigation or the flow of water or
cause harmful erosion or shoaling;
(4) Whether the activities will adversely
affect the fishing or recreational values or
marine productivity in the vicinity of the
activity;
(5) Whether the activities will be of a
temporary or permanent nature;
(6) Whether the activities will adversely
affect or will enhance significant historical
and archaeological resources; and
(7) The current condition and relative value 5
of functions being performed by areas
affected by the proposed activities.
97. The proposed work is not within an OFW, but entirely c
T
within the FECR corridor. The potential for overland flow and E
z
c�
Q
28
Packet Pg. 311
10.A.1.e
indirect impacts to OFWs is addressed by additional treatment of w
0
the stormwater prior to discharge. The proposed project would
m
E
m
not significantly degrade an OFW. Therefore, the applicable
c
M
inquiry is whether the project is contrary to the public
L
M
interest. 3:
M
Factor 1: Public Safety, Safety, and Welfare `o
LL
s
98. Petitioners contend that the proposed project will
0
adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare by impacting CO
oo
water quantity, water quality, and certain non -environmental 7T
matters such as emergency response times, traffic congestion, and
potential train collisions with pedestrians and vehicles.
99. Potential environmental impacts have been addressed
above and, by a preponderance of the evidence, the District and
the Applicant showed that such impacts would be insignificant or
would be mitigated.
100. As to the potential for non -environmental impacts
associated with train operations, it is explained in the
Conclusions of Law that the public interest test does not include
consideration of non -environmental factors other than those
expressly articulated in the statute, such as navigation and
preservation of historical or archaeological resources. However,
because evidence of non -environmental impacts was admitted at the
final hearing, the issues raised by Petitioners will be briefly "
d
addressed below. Q
0
T
d
E
t
a
29
Packet Pg. 312
10.A.1.e
101. The regulatory agency with specific responsibility for
railroad safety is the Federal Railroad Administration ("FRA").
The FRA reviewed the safety features associated with the proposed
passenger train operations, and approved them.
102. Public safety will be enhanced at roadway crossings
because of the proposed improvements and the use of modern
technology in monitoring and managing the movement of trains.
103. Petitioners contend that the addition of the passenger
rail service will impede emergency response times in Martin
County and St. Lucie County due to more frequent roadway
closures. However, freight trains currently impede emergency
response times due to their length and slow speed. The passenger
trains will be much shorter in length and faster so that roadway
crossing closures for passing passenger trains will be much
shorter than for freight trains. The ERP Modification and 2017
Exemption do not affect freight train operations. The
preponderance of the evidence shows that passenger rail service
is unlikely to cause a material increase in the occurrence of
circumstances where an emergency responder is impeded by a train
The current problem must be addressed through changes in freight
train operations.
104. Petitioners also contend that the passenger rail
service will interfere with hurricane evacuation. The persuasive
evidence does not support that contention. Train service would
cease when a hurricane is approaching.
�L
N
r
c
m
E
m
a�
M
c
M
L
M
M
�L
U.
s
0
00
00
a
30
Packet Pg. 313
10.A.1.e
105. Petitioners contend the trains will have to be "staged" w
C
on either side of the two moveable bridges while other trains
E
cross, thereby blocking road intersections. However, this was a a)
M
c
matter of speculation. The Applicant does not propose or want to
L
stage trains at the bridges. M
M
106. Petitioners contend that the project will cause hazards 2
L
U.
to boaters on the St. Lucie River because there will be more
s
times when the train bridge will be closed to allow the passage y
CO
of passenger trains. Although there were many statistics oo
presented about the number of boats affected, the evidence was
largely anecdotal with respect to the current hazard associated
with boaters waiting for the passage of freight trains and
speculative as to the expected increase in the hazard if shorter
and faster passenger trains are added.
Factor 2: Conservation of Fish and Wildlife
107. As previously found, the proposed activities will not
adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including
threatened or endangered species. The preponderance of the
evidence shows the project will have only insignificant adverse
impacts on water resources and wildlife.
Factor 3: Navigation of the Flow of Water
108. Petitioners claim the project will hinder navigation on
the St. Lucie and Loxahatchee Rivers because of the increase in "
d
bridge closures if passenger trains are added. The U.S. Coast q
0
T
Guard is the agency with clear authority to regulate the opening
E
z
c�
a
31
Packet Pg. 314
10.A.1.e
and closing of moveable train bridges over navigable waters in w
C
the interests of navigation. Petitioners' insistence that the
E
District address the bridge openings is novel. No instance was a)
M
c
identified by the parties where this District, any other water
L
management district, or DEP has attempted through an ERP to M
M
dictate how frequently a railroad bridge must open to accommodate 2
L
LL
boat traffic.
s
109. The Coast Guard is currently reviewing the project's y
00
potential impacts on navigation and will make a determination 00
about the operation of the moveable bridges. It has already made
such a determination for the moveable bridge which crosses the
New River in Ft. Lauderdale.
110. Petitioners point to section 10.2.3.3 of the
Applicant's Handbook, which states that the District can consider
an applicant's Coast Guard permit, and suggest that this shows
the District is not limited to what the Coast Guard has required.
However, Section 10.2.3.3 explains the navigation criterion in
terms of preventing encroachments into channels and improving
channel markings, neither of which encompasses the regulation of
train bridges.
111. The preponderance of the evidence shows the project
would not cause harmful erosion or shoaling or adversely affect
the flow of water.
32
Packet Pg. 315
10.A.1.e
Factor 4: Fishing, Recreational Values, and Marine
w
Productivity
C
r
c
m
112. The preponderance of the evidence shows that there
m
a�
would be no adverse impacts or only insignificant impacts to
M
a
fishing or recreational values and marine productivity.;
M
Factor 5: Permanent Impact
-Ma
113. The proposed project will have both temporary and
L
O
6=
s
permanent impacts. The temporary impacts include the
COo
installation of silt fences and turbidity barriers designed to
`r°
CO
Iq
reduce water quality impacts and impacts to functions provided by I-
wetlands and surface waters. The impacts due to track
installation, construction and rehabilitation of the non -moveable
bridges, at -grade crossing improvements, and stormwater system
improvements are permanent in nature. The permanent impacts have
been minimized and mitigated.
Factor 6: Historical or Archaeological Resources
114. Petitioners do not contend that the project will
adversely affect significant historical or archaeological
resources.
Factor 7: Wetland Functions in Areas Affected
115. Because the proposed work is within the limits of an
existing railway corridor where impacts have been occurring for
decades, and the majority of the wetlands to be affected are of a
low to moderate quality, there would be only a small loss of
functional values and that loss would be fully mitigated.
a
33
Packet Pg. 316
10.A.1.e
Public Interest Summary w
C
116. When the seven public interest factors are considered
E
and balanced, the proposed project is not contrary to the public a)
M
c
interest. Even if Petitioners' non -environmental issues are M
L
included, the project is not contrary to the public interest. M
M
Compliance With Other Permit Conditions 2
L
117. The project is capable, based on accepted engineering s
and scientific principles, of performing and functioning as y
eo
proposed. CO
118. The Applicant demonstrated sufficient real property `-
interests over the lands upon which project activities will be
conducted. It obtained the required consent for proposed
activities relating to bridge crossings over state-owned
submerged lands.
119. The Applicant provided reasonable assurance of
compliance with all other applicable permit criteria.
Exemption Verification for Roadway Crossings
120. The Applicant's ERP application included a mixture of
activities which required an individual permit, as well as
activities in roadway crossings which the Applicant claimed were
exempt from permitting. Pursuant to section 5.5.3.4 of the
Applicant's Handbook, the Applicant requested a verification of
exemption as to certain work to be done within 23 of those
24 roadway crossings. The District determined that the
Q
improvements for which an exemption was sought were exempt from
c
d
permitting under rule 62-330.051(4)(c) for minor roadway safety E
c�
a
34
Packet Pg. 317
10.A.1.e
construction, rule 62-330.051(4)(d) resurfacing of paved roads,
and rule 62-330.051(10) for "construction, alteration,
maintenance, removal or abandonment of recreational paths for
pedestrians, bicycles, and golf carts."
121. The preponderance of the evidence shows the proposed
work qualifies for exemption under these rules.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Jurisdiction
122. DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject
matter of this proceeding. See § 120.569, Fla. Stat.
123. This is a de novo proceeding designed to formulate
final agency action. See § 120.57(1)(k), Fla. Stat. (2017);
Capeletti Bros. v. Dep't of Gen. Servs., 432 So. 2d 1359, 1363-64
(Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
Standing
124. Respondents stipulated that Petitioners and Intervenor
have substantial interests which could be affected by the
proposed activities within their respective geographic limits.
Therefore, Petitioners and Intervenor have standing to challenge
the ERP Modification and 2017 Exemption. See St. Johns
Riverkeeper, Inc. v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 54 So. 3d
1051, 1054 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).
125. Petitioners lack standing to challenge proposed
activities outside their respective boundaries unless they can
show an injury within their boundaries. See Osceola Cnty. v. St.
Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 486 So. 2d 616, 617 (Fla. 5th DCA
�L
N
r
c
m
E
m
a�
M
c
M
L
M
M
�L
U.
s
0
00
T-
oo
Q
35
Packet Pg. 318
10.A.1.e
1986); Vill. of Key Biscayne v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 206 So. 3d
788, 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)(A municipality must demonstrate an
interest that exceeds the general interest of its citizens.).
Burden and Standard of Proof
126. The ERP Modification is a license issued pursuant to
chapter 373 and, therefore, this proceeding is governed by
section 120.569(2)(p), Florida Statutes, which provides for an
abbreviated procedure for satisfying an applicant's prima facie
case that it is entitled to a permit, and places the burden of
ultimate persuasion on the challenger to prove its case in
opposition to the permit.
127. Modifications can be made to an application after an
agency issues its notice of intent to approve or deny a permit,
even during the course of a final hearing, as long as due process
is preserved. The modifications made by the Applicant before the
final hearing and during the course of the hearing were made
without violating the due process rights of Petitioners and
Intervenor to prepare and offer evidence in rebuttal.
128. The 2017 Exemption Verification was also issued
pursuant to chapter 373. It meets the definition of a license in
section 120.52(10) because it is an authorization required by
law. It is required by section 5.5.3.4 of the Applicant's
Handbook. Therefore, the 2017 Exemption is subject to the
abbreviated presentation and burden -shifting described in
section 120.569(2)(p).
�L
N
r
c
m
E
m
a�
M
c
M
L
M
M
�L
LL
s
0
W
00
CO
a
36
Packet Pg. 319
10.A.1.e
129. The Applicant made a prima facie showing that it meets
all applicable requirements for issuance of the ERP Modification
and the 2017 Exemption by entering into evidence the ERP
application and supporting materials, the District's original and
proposed amended staff reports, the request for verification of
exemption and supporting materials, and the District's notice of
intent to issue the permit and exemption. Therefore, Petitioners
have the burden of ultimate persuasion in their case in
opposition to the permit and exemption.
130. A challenger cannot meet its burden of ultimate
persuasion merely by showing that the applicant's information
does not preclude the possibility of contrary physical factors or
effects. The challenger must prove by competent and substantial
evidence that reasonable assurance has not been provided. Id.
131. Section 120.569(2)(p) does not mention surrebuttal, but
judges have the discretion to allow surrebuttal when appropriate
Surrebuttal was determined to be appropriate in this case and was
granted to Petitioners.
132. The applicable standard of proof is a preponderance of
the evidence. § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat. (2017). Petitioners
and Intervenor must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
the Applicant did not provide reasonable assurance of compliance
�L
N
r
c
m
E
m
a�
M
c
M
L
M
M
�L
LL
s
0
CO
00
T-
oo
with applicable requirements. d
Q
133. The term "reasonable assurance" means a demonstration 6
T
that there is a substantial likelihood of compliance with
E
z
c�
a
37
Packet Pg. 320
10.A.1.e
standards. See Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Coscan Fla., Inc., 609 So. w
0
2d 644, 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). It does not require absolute
E
guarantees. See Save Anna Maria, Inc. v. Dep't of Transp., 700 a)
M
c
So. 2d 113, 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
L
"Segmentation" M
M
134. The District's interpretation of Section 1.5.2 of the 2
0
LL
Applicant's Handbook, as not prohibiting the separate review of s
related activities that qualify for an exemption, general permit, y
CO
or individual permit, is a reasonable interpretation of the rule. CO
It is also consistent with section 5.5.3.4, which specifically
allows for both permits and exemptions for related activities.
The District was not required by section 1.5.2 to review as part
of a single individual ERP permit application, the activities
covered by the 2013 exemption, 2015 general permit, and 2017
Exemption.
135. The 2013 exemption was issued pursuant to
section 373.406(6), which provides for the exemption from
permitting of activities that the district determines will have
only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse
impacts on the water resources of the district. The 2015 general
permit was issued pursuant to rule 62-330.401, which is also for
activities the District has determined will cause minimal
individual and cumulative adverse impacts to the water resources.
The minimal impacts from these activities and the 2017 Exemption
Q
do not require mitigation by the Applicant and do not have to be
c
a�
considered in the cumulative impacts analysis. E
c�
a
38
Packet Pg. 321
10.A.1.e
ERP Criteria
136. For an applicant to be entitled to an ERP, it must
provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activities meet
the conditions for issuance set forth in rules 62-330.301 and
62-330.302, and the applicable provisions within the Applicant's
Handbook, Volumes I and II.
137. Petitioners contend the Applicant and FECR failed to
comply with rules 62-330.301(1)(a)-(f), (i), and (k), and rules
62-330.302 (1) (a) (1) - (5) and (7) , (1) (b) , and (1) (c) .
Water Quantity
138. Rules 62-330.301(1)(a), (b), and (c) require reasonable
assurance that the construction, operation, and maintenance of a
proposed project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to
receiving waters and adjacent lands, adverse flooding to on -site
or off -site property, or adverse impacts to surface water storage
and conveyance capabilities.
139. The Applicant provided reasonable assurance of
compliance with all applicable rules for managing water quantity
and preventing flooding.
Water Quality Impacts
140. Rule 62-330.301(1)(e) requires reasonable assurance
that the construction, operation, and maintenance of a project
will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such
that state water quality standards, including anti -degradation
standards and any special standards for OFWs, would be violated.
�L
N
r
c
m
E
m
a�
M
c
M
L
M
M
�L
LL
s
0
00
CO
a
39
Packet Pg. 322
10.A.1.e
141. The proposed project complies with District design w
C
criteria for water quality protection, creating a presumption
E
that the proposed project meets state water quality standards. a)
M
c
See Applicant's Handbook, Vol. I, § 8.3.3, Vol. II, § 4.1.1.
L
Petitioners failed to rebut that presumption. M
M
142. The Applicant provided reasonable assurance of 2
L
compliance with all applicable District requirements to protect s
water quality. y
CO
Functions Provided by Water Resources CO
143. Rules 62-330.301(1)(d) and (f) require reasonable
assurance that a proposed project will not adversely impact the
value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed
species by wetlands and surface waters, or cause adverse
secondary impacts to water resources.
144. In evaluating compliance with these rules and
corresponding provisions of the Applicant's Handbook, de minimis
or remotely related secondary impacts are not considered. See
Applicant's Handbook, Vol. I, §§ 10.2.2, 10.2.7.
145. The Applicant provided reasonable assurance of
compliance with all applicable requirements to protect water
resource functions, taking into account secondary impacts.
Elimination and Reduction of Impacts
146. Section 10.2.1.1 of the Applicant's Handbook requires
an applicant to implement practicable design modifications to
Q
eliminate or reduce impacts to wetlands and other surface waters,
c
a�
E
z
c�
a
40
Packet Pg. 323
10.A.1.e
unless the applicant qualifies to "opt out" pursuant to w
C
Section 10.2.1.2. c
m
E
147. The requirement of Section 10.2.1 that an applicant a)
M
c
consider "alignment alternatives" to avoid or reduce impacts does
L
not require an evaluation of alternative routes in other areas of M
M
the region or state. An applicant's selection of a linear route 2
0
LL
involves many factors other than potential impacts on water s
resources, not least of which is project costs. The District y
CO
cannot force an applicant to choose a route based on a single CO
factor -- impacts on water resources -- solely because water
resources are the basis of the District's regulatory
jurisdiction. In this case, the evaluation of measures to
eliminate or reduce water resource impacts was appropriately
confined to the railway corridor in Segment D09, within which the
project is proposed.
148. The Applicant implemented practicable design
modifications to eliminate or reduce impacts to wetlands and
other surface waters. Furthermore, the Applicant qualified under
the opt out provisions of section 10.2.1.2 so that it was not
required to implement design modifications. The Applicant showed
that the ecological value of the functions provided by the
impacted wetlands and other surface waters is low, and that the
proposed mitigation is part of a plan that will provide greater
regional long-term ecological value.
Q
0
T
d
E
t
a
41
Packet Pg. 324
10.A.1.e
Mitigation
149. If a proposed activity will cause a net adverse impact
to the functions of wetlands or other surface waters, the impact
must be offset by mitigation. See A.H. Vol. I, § 10.2.1.
150. Petitioners failed to prove that the Applicant's
proposed mitigation is inadequate. The preponderance of the
evidence supports the District's determination that adverse
impacts will be fully offset by mitigation.
Cumulative Impacts
151. Rule 62-330.302(1)(b) requires reasonable assurance
that a regulated activity will not result in unacceptable
cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. By a
preponderance of the evidence, the Applicant showed that it
satisfied this requirement.
Public Interest
152. Under section 373.414(1)(a), an applicant proposing to
engage in a regulated activity in, on, or over wetlands or surface
waters must provide reasonable assurance that the activity will
not be contrary to the public interest, or if the activity is
within or significantly degrades an OFW, is clearly in the public
interest. The Applicant's proposed project will not be within or
significantly degrade an OFW, so the relevant showing is that the
project is not contrary to the public interest.
153. The rules that govern the public interest test refer
only to the "regulated activity." See § 373.414(1)(a), Fla.
Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-330.302(1)(a); Applicant's
�L
N
r
c
m
E
m
a�
M
c
M
L
M
M
�L
0
LL
s
0
00
00
a
42
Packet Pg. 325
10.A.1.e
Handbook, Vol. I, §§ 10.1.1(b). Section 2.0(a)(2) of the
Applicant's Handbook defines the term "activity" to mean the
construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, abandonment, or
removal of any stormwater management system. For the ERP
Modification, the "regulated activity" consists of the
construction and operation of a stormwater management system and
certain culvert and bridge modifications.
154. However, Petitioners and Intervenor were allowed to
argue and present evidence in support of their position that the
public interest test requires the District to consider
non -environmental matters, especially public safety associated
with the operation of high-speed passenger trains. A
considerable amount of the final hearing was taken up with these
matters.
155. The public interest test was created in 1985 and first
codified in section 403.918. When the ERP Program was adopted in
1993, the public interest test was transferred to section
373.414(1). The "whereas" clauses in the law as it appeared in
chapter 93-213, Laws of Florida, have environmental themes.
156. In section 373.414(1), the Legislature added a preamble
stating that the test is to be "part of an applicant's
demonstration that an activity regulated under this part will not
be harmful to the water resources or will not be inconsistent
with the overall objectives of the district."
§ 373.414(1), Fla. Stat. (1993). The overall objectives of a
district relate to water resources, their management and
�L
N
r
c
m
E
m
a�
M
c
M
L
M
M
�L
U.
s
0
00
CO
S
a
43
Packet Pg. 326
10.A.1.e
protection for flood control, water supply, and maintaining w
C
environmental quality. See § 373.016(3), Fla. Stat. (2017).
E
157. In a 2011 report of the Senate Committee on 0)
M
c
Environmental Preservation and Conservation regarding the ERP
L
Program, it is stated that the first public interest criterion M
M
"considers only environmental factors, not economic or social 2
0
LL
factors." Fla. S. Comm. on Envtl. Pres. & Conservation, s
0
Statewide ERP Interim Report 2012-121, at 3 n.18 (2011). cn
CO
158. The District's interpretation of the public interest oo
test to limit the question "[w]hether the activity will adversely
affect the public health, safety, or welfare of the property of
others" to consideration of only environmental issues is clearly
shown in Section 10.2.3.1 of the Applicant's Handbook:
In reviewing and balancing the criterion
regarding public health, safety, welfare and
the property of others in section 10.2.3(a),
above, the Agency will evaluate whether the
regulated activity located in, on, or over
wetlands or other surface waters will cause:
(a) An environmental hazard to public health
x
w
or safety or improvement to public health or
safety with respect to environmental issues.
a
Each applicant must identify potential
environmental public health or safety issues
resulting from their project. Examples of
these issues include: mosquito control;
proper disposal of solid, hazardous, domestic
or industrial waste; aids to navigation;
E
hurricane preparedness or cleanup;
environmental remediation, enhancement or
restoration; and similar environmentally
d
related issues. For example, the
Q
installation of navigational aids may improve
T
public safety and may reduce impacts to
public resources;
E
z
c�
a
44
Packet Pg. 327
10.A.1.e
(b) Impacts to areas classified by the w
Department of Agriculture and Consumer o
Services as approved, conditionally approved,
m
restricted or conditionally restricted for m
shellfish harvesting. Activities that would
cause closure or a more restrictive M
classification or management plan for a
L
shellfish harvesting area would result in a
negative factor in the public interest 3:
balance with respect to this criterion; M
L-
(c) Flooding or alleviate existing flooding s
on the property of others. There is at least c
a neutral factor in the public interest y
balance with respect to the potential for CO
causing or alleviating flooding problems if 00
the applicant meets the water quantity
criteria in Part III of Volume II; and o
(d) Environmental impacts to the property of
others. For example, construction of a ditch
that lowers the water table such that off -
site wetlands or other surface waters would
be partly or fully drained would be an
environmental impact to the property of
others. The Agency will not consider impacts
to property values.
159. In construing the public interest test in
section 403.918, the First District Court held that the reference
to impacts on the "property of others" is confined to
environmental impacts. Miller v. Dep't of Envt'l Reg., 504 So.
2d 1325, 1327 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
160. In Save Anna Maria, Inc. v. Department of
Transportation, 700 So. 2d 113, 116 (Fla 2d DCA 1997), the Second
District Court held that the "[r]eview of the public interest
criteria is limited to environmental impacts." Q
0
161. Although the case of Avatar Development Corporation v.
d
State, 723 So. 2d 199, 207 (Fla. 1998), involved a challenge to
c�
a
45
Packet Pg. 328
10.A.1.e
DEP's authority to enforce permit conditions, the opinion of the w
C
Supreme Court is important for this discussion. In Avatar, the
E
appellant argued that DEP's authority to enforce permit a)
M
c
conditions pursuant to section 403.161 was an unconstitutional
L
delegation of legislative authority because DEP was not M
M
adequately guided by statute. In holding that the Legislature 2
L
had provided sufficient guidance for the exercise of DEP's U.
authority, the Court pointed to the "specific policies" in y
00
section 403.021. Those policies relate exclusively to oo
environmental matters. The Court noted that the public interest
test in section 373.414 allows DEP to consider public health,
safety, and welfare, but explained that DEP's authority is
limited to "specific legislative intent" and gave examples of
this intent in provisions of chapter 403 that articulate specific
environmental objectives.
162. In Avatar, the Supreme Court determined that, despite
the expansive connotation that may be associated with "public
health, safety, and welfare," these words must be given a limited
meaning in section 373.414 in order for the Legislature's
delegation of authority to be constitutional. The delegation is
constitutional because DEP's authority (and the authority of the
water management districts) is limited to environmental matters
for which there is legislative guidance in the statutes. There
are no "specific policies" and there is no "specific legislative
Q
intent" in chapters 373 or 403 to guide DEP or the water
c
a�
management districts in making regulatory decisions based on non- E
c�
a
46
Packet Pg. 329
10.A.1.e
environmental factors associated with public health, safety, and
welfare.
163. In Florida Wildlife Federation v. South Florida Water
w
C
c
m
E
a)
Management District, Case No. 04-3064 (Fla. DOAH Dec. 03, 2004;
M
c
2
L
SFWMD Dec. 08, 2004), the Administrative Law Judge rejected an
M
attempt to interject non -environmental factors in the public
M
2
L
interest analysis:
U.
s
The application of the public interest test
y
does not involve consideration of non-
00
environmental factors other than those
00
expressly set forth in the statute such as
S
navigation or preservation of historical or
c
archaeological resources. Specifically,
`V
traffic concerns, congestion, quality of
of
N
L
rural life, and school overcrowding are not
within the seven factors contained in Section
E
m
373.414 (1) (a) .
Q-
R.O. at 49, T 116. The District adopted the Recommended Order in
toto, and the Fourth District Court affirmed per curiam, without
opinion. Fla. Wildlife Fed. v. So. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 902
So. 2d 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
164. Despite the case law, administrative orders have not
been consistent on this issue. Some agency orders that were not
appealed did not follow the judicial precedent. See e.g.,
Goldberg v. So. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., Case No. 16-1018 (Fla.
DOAH Nov. 8, 2016; SFWMD Jan. 10, 2017)(concluding that public
health, safety, and welfare allowed consideration of the public
safety benefits of a proposed roadway project).
Q
165. Although administrative orders addressing this issue
c
a�
have not been consistent, it is concluded that the consideration E
c�
a
47
Packet Pg. 330
10.A.1.e
of public health, safety, and welfare must be confined to
environmental matters.
166. The preponderance of the record evidence shows the
proposed project is not contrary to the public interest, even if
Petitioners' and Intervenor's non -environmental factors are also
considered.
Other ERP Criteria
167. The Applicant provided reasonable assurance of
compliance with all other applicable permit criteria.
168. The Applicant demonstrated its entitlement to the ERP
Modification.
The Exemption
169. Petitioners argue that the Applicant does not qualify
for the 2017 Exemption issued under rule 62-330.051(4)(c), which
applies to "minor roadway safety construction," because
Petitioners claim the proposed work will not make the crossings
safe. However, to qualify for this exemption, it is only
necessary to show that the proposed work meets the description of
"minor roadway safety construction." It is unnecessary to
demonstrate how safe the resulting improvements will be. That is
not within the District's expertise and is appropriately left to
other agencies to determine. The proposed roadway crossing
improvements meet the description in the rule and qualify for the
exemption.
170. The Applicant demonstrated that it qualifies for the
2017 Exemption.
�L
N
r
c
m
E
m
a�
M
c
M
L
M
M
�L
LL
s
0
CO
ao
S
Q
Packet Pg. 331
10.A.1.e
RECOMMENDATION w
C
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
E
Law, it is
M
c
RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District
L
enter a final order that: M
M
(1) approves Environmental Resource Permit Modification 2
L
U.
No. 13-05321-P on the terms and conditions set forth in the s
District's Corrected Proposed Amended Staff Report of May 11, y
00
2017; and oo
2017.
(2) approves the Verification of Exemption dated March 31,
DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 2017, in
Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
BRAM D. E. CANTER
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings
The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847
www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the
Division of Administrative Hearings
this 29th day of September, 2017.
HN
Packet Pg. 332
10.A.1.e
ENDNOTE
l/ All references to the Applicant's Handbook are to Volume I
unless otherwise indicated.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Segundo J. Fernandez, Esquire
Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A.
Post Office Box 1110
Tallahassee, Florida 32302
(eServed)
Richard V. Neill, Jr.
Neill, Griffin, Tierney, Neill & Marquis
Post Office Box 1270
Fort Pierce, Florida 34954
(eServed)
Jeffrey A. Collier, Esquire
Stearns, Weaver, Miller, Weissler,
Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A.
Suite 2200
401 East Jackson Street
Tampa, Florida 33602
(eServed)
Bridgette Nicole Thornton, Esquire
South Florida Water Management District
3301 Gun Club Road
West Palm Beach, Florida 33406
(eServed)
Eugene E. Stearns, Esquire
Stearns, Weaver, Miller, Weissler,
Alhadeff, and Sitterson, P.A.
150 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
Miami, Florida 33130
(eServed)
Ian Osking, Associate Attorney
Neill, Griffin, Tierney, Neill & Marquis, Chartered
311 South 2nd Streeet
Fort Pierce, Florida 34950
(eServed)
50
Packet Pg. 333
10.A.1.e
James Edward Nutt, Senior Practice Expert
South Florida Water Management District
Mail Stop Code 1410
3301 Gun Club Road
West Palm Beach, Florida 33406
(eServed)
Ernest Marks, Executive Director
South Florida Water Management District
3301 Gun Club Road
West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007
(eServed)
Brian Accardo, General Counsel
South Florida Water Management District
3301 Gun Club Road
West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007
(eServed)
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions
within 15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any
exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the
agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.
51
Packet Pg. 334
10.A.1.f
BEFORE THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
RECEIVED
Martin County and St. Lucie County, DISTRICT CLERK'S OFFICE
Petitioners, Nov 16, 2017 9:54 am
and
Town of St. Lucie Village,
Intervenor,
vs.
All Aboard Florida - Operations, LLC;
Florida East Coast Railway, LLC; and
South Florida Water Management District,
Respondents.
SOUTH FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
�6
SFWMD No. 2017-084-FOF-ERP
DOAH Case Nos. 16-5718 & 17-2566
FINAL ORDER
On September 29, 2017, an administrative law judge ("ALY) with the Division of
Administrative Hearings ("DOAH"), issued a Recommended Order to the South Florida
Water Management District ("District") in this case. A copy of the Recommended Order
is attached as Exhibit A. After review of the Recommended Order, exceptions and
responses to exceptions filed by the parties, and the record of the proceeding before
DOAH, this matter is now before the District for final agency action.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ORDER
The issue before the ALJ was whether All Aboard Florida - Operations, LLC and
Florida East Coast Railway, LLC (collectively "Applicants") are entitled to the modification
of an Environmental Resource Permit ("ERP") for construction and operation of a surface
water management system to serve railway facilities, and an exemption verification
1
Packet Pg. 335
10.A.1.f
("2017 Exemption") for work to be done at 23 roadway crossings (collectively referred to
as "the Project")
The ALJ concluded Petitioners, Martin County and St. Lucie County, ("Petitioners")
and Intervenor, Town of St. Lucie Village, failed to meet their burden to prove the Project
does not comply with all applicable permitting criteria. Applicants demonstrated
compliance with all applicable permitting criteria and their entitlement to the ERP and
2017 Exemption. The ALJ recommended the District issue the ERP and 2017 Exemption
STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR RECOMMENDED ORDERS
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
Section 120.57(1)(1), Florida Statutes, prescribes that an agency reviewing a
recommended order may not reject or modify the findings of fact of an ALJ, "unless the
agency first determines from a review of the entire record, and states with particularity in
the order, that the findings of fact were not based on competent substantial evidence."
§ 120.57(1)(1), Fla. Stat. (2015); Stokes v. Bd. of Prof'I Eng'rs, 952 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 1 st
DCA 2007); see also Padron v. Dept of Envtl. Prot., 143 So. 3d 1037, 1041 (Fla. 3d DCA
2014). The term "competent substantial evidence" does not relate to the quality,
character, convincing power, probative value or weight of the evidence. Rather,
"competent substantial evidence" refers to the existence of some evidence as to each
essential element and as to its admissibility under legal rules of evidence. See Scholastic
Book Fairs, Inc. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 671 So. 2d 287, 289 n.3 (Fla. 5th
DCA 1996).
The ALJ's function in an administrative hearing is to consider all evidence
presented, resolve conflicts, judge credibility of witnesses, draw permissible inferences
2
Packet Pg. 336
10.A.1.f
from the evidence, and reach ultimate findings of fact based on competent, substantial
evidence. Heifetz v. Dept of Bus. Regulation, 475 So. 2d 1277, 1281 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1985)
A reviewing agency may not reweigh the evidence presented at a DOAH final hearing,
attempt to resolve conflicts therein, orjudge the credibility of witnesses. See, e.g., Rogers
v. Dept of Health, 920 So. 2d 27, 30 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2005) (citing Aldrete v. Dept of Health,
Bd. of Medicine, 879 So. 2d 1244, 1246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)). If there is competent
substantial evidence to support an ALJ's findings of fact, it is irrelevant that there may
also be competent substantial evidence supporting a contrary finding. See, e.g., Arand
Constr. Co. v. Dyer, 592 So. 2d 276, 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). These evidentiary -related
matters are within the province of the ALJ, as the "fact -finder" in these administrative
proceedings. See, e.g., Tedder v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 842 So. 2d 1022, 1025 (Fla. 1 st
DCA 2003); Heifetz, 475 So. 2d at 1281.
It is the ALJ's function to draw permissible inferences from the evidence and make
ultimate findings based thereon. An ultimate fact is a mixture of fact and law defined as
"'[t]hose facts found in that vaguely defined field lying between evidential facts on the one
side and the primary issue or conclusion of law on the other, being but the logical results
of the proofs, or, in other words, mere conclusions of fact."' Tedder, 697 So. 2d at 902
(citing Black's Law Dictionary 1365 (5th ed. 1979)). Ultimate findings of fact are
necessary for proper review of administrative orders and are within the sole province of
the ALJ to make. Tedder, 697 So. 2d at 903.
Agencies do not have jurisdiction to modify or reject rulings on the admissibility of
evidence. Evidentiary rulings of the ALJ that deal with "factual issues susceptible to
ordinary methods of proof that are not infused with [agency] policy considerations," are
Cl
Packet Pg. 337
10.A.1.f
not matters over which the agency has "substantive jurisdiction." Heifetz, 475 So. 2d at
1281. Evidentiary rulings are matters within the ALJ's sound "prerogative ... as the finder
of fact" and may not be reversed on agency review. Martuccio v. Dep't of Prof'I Regulation,
622 So. 2d 607, 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
In addition, the ALJ's decision to accept the testimony of one expert witness over
that of another expert is an evidentiary ruling that cannot be altered by a reviewing
agency, absent a complete lack of any competent substantial evidence of record
supporting this decision. See, e.g., Peace River/Manasota Reg'I Water Supply Auth. v.
IMC Phosphates Co., 18 So. 3d 1079, 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Collier Med. Ctr. v. State,
Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 462 So. 2d 83, 85 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1985). An agency
has no authority to make independent or supplemental findings of fact. See, e.g., City of
North Port, Fla. v. Consol. Minerals, 645 So. 2d 485, 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) ("The
agency's scope of review of the facts is limited to ascertaining whether the hearing
officer's factual findings are supported by competent substantial evidence."); Manasota
88, Inc. v. Tremor, 545 So. 2d 439, 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (citing Friends of Children v.
Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 504 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (a state
agency reviewing an ALJ's proposed order has no authority to make independent and
supplementary findings of fact to support conclusions of law in the agency final order)
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Section 120.57(1)(1), Florida Statutes, authorizes an agency to reject or modify an
ALJ's conclusions of law and interpretations of administrative rules "over which it has
substantive jurisdiction." § 120.57(1)(1), Fla. Stat. (2015); see also Barfield v. Dep't of
Health, Bd. of Dentistry, 805 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), Deep Lagoon Boat Club,
0
Packet Pg. 338
10.A.1.f
Ltd. v. Sheridan, 784 So. 2d 1140, 1143 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). An agency's review of legal
conclusions in a recommended order, are restricted to those that concern matters within
the agency's field of expertise. See, e.g., IMC Phosphates, 18 So. 3d at 1089, G.E.L.
Corp. v. Dept of Envtl. Prot., 875 So. 2d 1257, 1264 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
If an ALJ improperly labels a conclusion of law as a finding of fact, the label should
be disregarded and the item treated as though it were actually a conclusion of law. See,
e.g., Battaglia Properties v. Fla. Land & Water Adjudicatory Comm'n, 629 So. 2d 161,
168 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). However, an agency cannot label what is essentially an ultimate
factual determination as a "conclusion of law" in order to modify or overturn what it may
view as an unfavorable finding of fact. See, e.g., Stokes, 952 So. 2d at 1224.
An agency has the primary responsibility of interpreting statutes and rules within
its regulatory jurisdiction and expertise. Pub. Employees Relations Comm'n v. Dade
County Police Benevolent Assn, 467 So. 2d 987, 989 (Fla. 1985); see also Duke's
Steakhouse Ft. Myers, Inc. v. G5 Props., LLC, 106 So. 3d 12, 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013);
Fla. Audubon Soc'y v. Sugar Cane Growers Coop. of Fla., 171 So.3d 790 (Fla. 2d DCA
2015). Considerable deference should be accorded to these agency interpretations of
statutes and rules within their regulatory jurisdiction, and such agency interpretations
should not be overturned unless "clearly erroneous." Dept of Envtl. Regulation v
Goldring, 477 So. 2d 532, 534 (Fla. 1985); Falk v. Beard, 614 So. 2d 1086, 1089 (Fla
1993). Furthermore, agency interpretations of statutes and rules within their regulatory
jurisdiction do not have to be the only reasonable interpretations. It is enough if such
agency interpretations are "permissible" ones. See, e.g., Suddath Van Lines, Inc. v. Dept
of Envtl. Prot., 668 So. 2d 209, 212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). However, an agency is
Packet Pg. 339
10.A.1.f
prohibited from using the rejection or modification of a conclusion of law to form the basis
for rejection or modification of findings of fact. § 120.57(1)(1), Fla. Stat. (2015).
Pursuant to Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and associated rules of the
Florida Administrative Code, the District has the administrative authority and substantive
expertise to exercise regulatory jurisdiction over the administration and enforcement of
the ERP program. Therefore, the District has substantive jurisdiction over the ALJ's
conclusions of law and interpretations of administrative rules, and is authorized to reject
or modify the ALJ's conclusions or interpretations if it determines that its conclusions or
interpretations are "as or more reasonable" than the conclusions or interpretations made
by the ALJ.
RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS
I. GENERALLY
The case law of Florida holds that parties to formal administrative proceedings
must alert reviewing agencies to any perceived defects in DOAH hearing procedures or
in the findings of fact of ALJs by filing exceptions to DOAH recommended orders. See,
e.g., Comm'n on Ethics v. Barker, 677 So. 2d 254, 256 (Fla. 1996); Henderson v. Dept
of Health, Bd. of Nursing, 954 So. 2d 77, 81 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). If a party does not file
exceptions to certain findings of fact the party "has thereby expressed its agreement with,
or at least waived any objection to, those findings of fact." Envtl. Coalition of Fla., Inc. v
Broward County, 586 So. 2d 1212, 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); see also Colonnade
Medical Ctr., Inc. v. State of Fla., Agency for Health Care Admin., 847 So. 2d 540, 542
(Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
0
Packet Pg. 340
10.A.1.f
In reviewing a recommended order and any written exceptions, the agency's final
order "shall include an explicit ruling on each exception." § 120.57(1)(k), Fla. Stat. (2015)
However, the agency need not rule on an exception that "does not clearly identify the
disputed portion of the recommended order by page number or paragraph, that does not
identify the legal basis for the exception, or that does not include appropriate and specific
citations to the record." Id.
II. RULINGS ON PETITIONERS' EXCEPTIONS
Petitioners' Exceptions Generally
Petitioners raise seventeen exceptions to the Recommended Order. Some of the
exceptions fail to comply with the requirements of Section 120.57(1)(k), Florida Statutes,
because they either do not include a legal basis for the exception or do not clearly explain
the disputed portion of the Recommended Order. Although the District is not required to
include an explicit ruling on exceptions that do not comply with Section 120.57(1)(k),
Florida Statutes, the District has tried to determine what Petitioners' exceptions are and,
where possible, rule on each, despite their failure to comply with those statutory
requirements. Additionally, in some instances Petitioners take exception to findings of fact
to support their argument, but do not state that the finding is incorrect. Although this is
an improper exception as to those findings of fact under Section 120.57(1)(k), Florida
Administrative Code, in an abundance of caution, the District has explained its ruling why
those findings of fact are supported by competent substantial evidence which is the
standard of review for findings of fact.
7
Packet Pg. 341
10.A.1.f
Exception 1
(Findings of Fact 20, 21, 22, and 23; Conclusions of Law 134 and 135)
In Exception 1 Petitioners maintain that the District cannot segment its review and
consider each authorization independently. Applicants submitted and the District
approved four items: 1) an ERP Modification, 2) a 2017 Exemption, 3) a 2015 General
Permit, and 4) a 2013 Exemption. Petitioners argue that:
• Applicant's Handbook section 1.5.2 requires Applicants to submit a master plan
and get conceptual approval for all activities together in one agency action and
Applicants did not do that.
• If Applicants do not get conceptual approval of a master plan then Applicants
must show the Project can be constructed, operated, and maintained totally
independent of future phases and there is no competent substantial evidence
they can be.
• The activities authorized by the ERP, exemptions, General Permit and other
future District authorizations constitute separate phases and cannot be
constructed, operated, and maintained separately from each other.
• The District's failure to review all activities together undermined a complete
evaluation of the impacts of the Project, and specifically the analysis of
cumulative impacts.
The parties stipulated that the proceeding involves Segment D09 which is part of
Phase II of the train system from West Palm Beach to Orlando. Jt. Prehrg. Stip. at pg
16, ¶12; FOF 11. Therefore, each of the authorizations are part of the same phase. The
AU agreed with the District's interpretation of section 1.5.2 of the Applicant's Handbook
that it does not prohibit separate review of related activities. The District has the primary
0
Q
Packet Pg. 342
10.A.1.f
responsibility to interpret the statutes and rules within its regulatory expertise and
jurisdiction. Duke's Steakhouse, 106 So. 3d at 15 (finding the District properly construed
the statutes, rules and criteria it is charged with implementing in rejecting an ALJ's
contrary conclusion of law) (citing Pub. Emps., 467 So. 2d at 989), and Petitioners have
failed to demonstrate the District's interpretation is clearly erroneous. Goldring, 477 So
2d at 534.
Furthermore, Petitioners do not dispute the following parts of the findings of fact
and conclusions of law included in their exception.
1. Finding of Fact 20 and the part of Finding of Fact 21 which describes
Petitioner's argument alleging improper segmentation;
2. That part of Finding of Fact 21 where the ALJ describes the requirements of
section 1.5.2 of the Applicant's Handbook;
3. The statement in Finding of Fact 23 that portions of Phase II are outside the
District's boundaries and therefore cannot be regulated by the District.
(Petitioners conceded that the All Aboard Project extends from Miami to Cocoa
Beach and then from Cocoa Beach to Orlando because they did not take
exception to Findings of Fact 10 and 11 which set forth this information. (See
also, § 373.069(2)(e), Fla. Stat.));
4. That part of Conclusion of Law 135 which identifies the authority under which
the 2013 Exemption and the 2015 General Permit were issued. (Petitioners
did not challenge Findings of Fact 14 and 15 and therefore have conceded the
correctness of these findings that describe the authority under which the 2013
and 2015 authorizations were issued).
0
Packet Pg. 343
10.A.1.f
Therefore, Petitioners' exception to these portions of the contested findings and
conclusions is improper because they failed to provide any legal basis for the exception
See, Standard of Review and Petitioners' Exceptions Generally sections, supra.
The ERP, 2013 Exemption, 2015 General Permit, and 2017 Exemption authorized
activities for parts of Phase II. Because these authorizations were not themselves
separate phases of the Project, section 1.5.2 does not require Applicants to prove they
can be operated, constructed, and maintained totally independent of future phases. The
District's rules and criteria allow exemptions and general permits within a phase of a
project when the proposed activities meet the criteria associated with an exemption or
general permit. The District did not require the cumulative impacts analysis for the ERP
to include impacts from the exemptions and general permit because the District
determined that the activities covered by the exemptions and general permit have minimal
or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the water resources
Petitioners did not take exception to Findings of Fact 14, 15, and 76 that found the 2013
Exemption and 2015 General Permit were based on determinations they would have
minimal or insignificant adverse impacts on water resources. Therefore, Petitioners have
conceded the correctness of these findings and cannot now argue a contrary position
Where there is competent substantial evidence to support a finding of fact, the
District may not disturb it. See Standard of Review section, supra.
Finding of Fact 20 is supported by competent substantial evidence. Jt. Prhrg. Stip
at pg. 3; TR. 360-17-23, 403-5-408.8, 410-19-411.10, 447-9-450.5. Finding of Fact 21 is
supported by competent substantial evidence. Jt. Prhrg. Stip. at pg. 16, ¶¶12, 13, 16, pg
17 ¶24; TR. 359-12-360.23, 1881-21-1882.1. Finding of Fact 22 is supported by
10
Packet Pg. 344
10.A.1.f
competent substantial evidence. TR. 2206-19-2207.9. Finding of Fact 23 is supported by
competent substantial evidence. TR. 594-9-596.10.
Conclusions of Law 135 and 136 are consistent with the ALJ's findings of fact and
consistent with the District's interpretation of its rules and permit criteria.
Therefore, Petitioners' Exception 1 is denied.
Exception 2
(Findings of Fact 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39; Conclusions of Law 138 and 139)
In Exception 2 Petitioners argue that the ALJ was wrong in his determinations that
the Project will not cause adverse impacts related to water quantity, flooding, or surface
water storage and conveyance. Petitioners contend that the record does not contain
calculations required to demonstrate a lack of impacts offsite or site specific conditions at
the discharge points. However, both the Applicants' and the District's experts testified on
this point and the ALJ credited their testimony over Petitioners' expert.
Petitioners do not dispute the ALJ's description of their argument regarding the
alleged absence of calculations or the District's criteria regarding water quantity impacts
set forth in Findings of Fact 34, 35, and 36 and Conclusion of Law 138.
The District cannot reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses
That is within the sole province of the ALJ as the fact -finder. See Standard of Review
section, supra.
Finding of Fact 34 is supported by competent substantial evidence. Rule 62-
330.301(1)(a), (b), and (c), Fla. Admin. Code; Petitioners' Proposed Rec. Order ¶116
Finding of Fact 35 is supported by competent substantial evidence. Jt. Exh. 25 at pg. 3 of
17; §§3.3 and 3.3.1, Applicant's Handbook Vol. II; TR. 944-17-945.22, 2270-17-20,
2272-8-2273.2, 2335-17-24, 2352.1-12. Finding of Fact 36 is supported by competent
11
Packet Pg. 345
10.A.1.f
substantial evidence. Petitioners' Proposed Rec. Order ¶56; TR. 898-20-906.17. Finding
of Fact 37 is supported by competent substantial evidence. TR. 2051.7-19, 2066:24-
2068.24, 2274-13-2277.18. Finding of Fact 38 is supported by competent substantial
evidence. Petitioners' Proposed Rec. Order ¶58; TR. 2071-21-2073.6, 2364-25-2365.24
Finding of Fact 39 is supported by competent substantial evidence. TR. 903.4-12,
2049-25-2050.12, 2075-24-2078.22, 2272-8-2274.12, 2352-13-2365.24.
Conclusions of Law 138 and 139 are consistent with the ALJ's findings of fact and
consistent with the District's interpretation of its rules and permit criteria.
Therefore, Petitioners' Exception 2 is denied.
Exception 3
(Findings of Fact 69, 70, 71, 75, and 771; Conclusions of Law 143, 144, and 145)
In Exception 3 Petitioners dispute portions of the Recommended Order concerning
secondary impacts of the Project. Petitioners state that their experts testified that
wetland -dependent, endangered, threatened wildlife species and species of special
concern were observed in the area of the Project and that testimony was unrebutted
Petitioners also argue there is no competent substantial evidence that species are
adapted to higher speed and more frequent trains.
However, the "area" addressed in Petitioners' expert testimony is the State Parks
in general, and not just the railway corridor or adjacent to the corridor. Nonetheless, the
AU weighed the testimony of the parties' witnesses and credited the testimony of
Applicants' and District's witnesses over Petitioners' on these two points. The District
Petitioners quote Finding of Fact 107 in this exception but do not reference it within the discussion of the
exception. Nonetheless, the ruling on this exception includes Finding of Fact 107 in an abundance of
caution
12
Packet Pg. 346
10.A.1.f
cannot reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. See Standard of
Review section, supra.
Petitioners discuss at length the potential impacts to the gopher tortoise. However,
they did not take exception to Finding of Fact 72 that, notwithstanding that the gopher
tortoise is not aquatic or wetland -dependent as required by the District's criteria, the
impacts to the species would be insignificant. Therefore, Petitioners have conceded the
correctness of this finding and cannot now argue a contrary position.
In addition, Petitioners do not dispute Finding of Fact 69 and Conclusions of Law
143 and 144 that state the District's criteria on these issues. Therefore, Petitioners'
exception to these contested findings and conclusions is improper because they failed to
provide any legal basis for the exception to those portions of the Recommended Order
See, Standard of Review and Petitioners' Exceptions Generally sections, supra.
Finding of Fact 69 is supported by competent substantial evidence. §10.2.7,
Applicant's Handbook Vol. I. Finding of Fact 70 is supported by competent substantial
evidence. Jt. Prhrg. Stip. at pg. 15, ¶8; Jt. Exh. 25 at pg. 4 of 17; TR. 2130-11-2131.12,
2207-10-2212.1. Finding of Fact 71 is supported by competent substantial evidence. Jt
Exh. 25 at pg. 7 of 17, Jt. Exh. 9 at pgs. 7, 13-15, and 17 of 560; TR. 345-13-17, 362:19-
364.7, 612-9-613.12, 617-22-24, 623-6-625.10, 2124-3-2126.6, 2130-11-2131.12,
2158.7-17, 2211-7-2212.1. Finding of Fact 75 is supported by competent substantial
evidence. TR. 2208-21-2209.7. Finding of Fact 77 is supported by competent substantial
evidence. Jt. Exh. 25 at pg. 7 of 17, Jt. Exh. 9 at pgs. 7, 13-15, and 17 of 560; TR. 2125:3-
2131.12, 2158.7-23, 2207-10-2212.1. Finding of Fact 107 is supported by competent
13
Packet Pg. 347
10.A.1.f
substantial evidence. Petitioners' Exh. 157 82-21-25; TR. 2111-17-2113.8, 2140:15-
2141.8.
Conclusions of Law 143, 144, and 145 are consistent with the ALJ's findings of
fact and consistent with the District's interpretation of its rules and permit criteria.
Therefore, Petitioners' Exception 3 is denied.
Exception 4
(Findings of Fact 78 and 79; Conclusions of Law 146, 147, and 148)
In Exception 4 Petitioners dispute that the Project complied with the criteria for the
elimination and reduction of adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface water
functions. Petitioners contend that 1) Applicants failed to consider practicable design
modifications, specifically alternative alignments outside the existing rail corridor and 2)
the "opt out" provision is not applicable to the Project because Applicants have not
mitigated for potential impacts from work at the St. Lucie River Bridge.
First, Petitioners did not take exception to Findings of Fact 80 and 81 which found
Applicants implemented certain practicable design modifications even though they were
not required to do so because the Project qualified under both criteria for the "opt out"
provision. Therefore, Petitioners have conceded the correctness of these findings and
cannot now argue a contrary position.
Next, Petitioners' argue that the Project does not qualify for the "opt out" provision
because the St. Lucie River Bridge impacts were not mitigated. Their argument is flawed
because this application does not include proposed work at the St. Lucie River Bridge
TR. 1944-21-1945.13, 1988-18-22, 2213-20-22. The District cannot consider impacts for
works not included in the ERP application.
14
Packet Pg. 348
10.A.1.f
Finally, Petitioners argue that Applicants were required to consider alternative
alignments outside the existing rail corridor. However, because the Project met the "opt
out" criteria Applicants did not have to implement any design modifications to reduce or
eliminate impacts to wetlands and other surface water functions including alternative
alignments, whether inside or outside the rail corridor. In essence, Petitioners' exception
reargues their position on this issue and requests the District to reweigh the evidence and
make additional findings which the District may not do. That is within the sole province of
the ALJ as the fact -finder. See Standard of Review section, supra.
Petitioners' exception to Finding of Fact 78 and Conclusion of Law 146 is improper
because they failed to provide any legal basis for the exception to these paragraphs. See,
Standard of Review and Petitioners' Exceptions Generally sections, supra. Nevertheless,
Finding of Fact 78 and Conclusion of Law 146 are accurate statements of the District's
requirements to implement practicable design modifications and the "opt out" provision
and Petitioners do not expressly dispute that.
Finding of Fact 78 is supported by competent substantial evidence. §10.2.1.1,
Applicant's Handbook Vol. I. Finding of Fact 79 is supported by competent substantial
evidence. Petitioners' Proposed Rec. Order ¶¶101,102, and 126; Jt. Prhrg. Stip. at pg. 35
¶¶84 and 85; TR. 309-20-24, 2185-5-2186.4.
Conclusions of Law 146, 147, and 148 are consistent with the ALJ's findings of
fact and consistent with the District's interpretation of its rules and permit criteria.
Therefore, Petitioners' Exception 4 is denied.
15
Packet Pg. 349
10.A.1.f
Exception 5
(Findings of Fact 85, 86, and 87; Conclusions of Law 149 and 150)
In Exception 5 Petitioners dispute portions of the Recommended Order concerning
mitigation for the Project. Petitioners contend that Applicants agreed at the final hearing
to provide 0.29 additional freshwater herbaceous mitigation credits from the Bluefield
Ranch Mitigation Bank. Petitioners argue that the ALJ determined that the mitigation was
adequate because of these additional credits and therefore a permit condition should be
added to require them.
Petitioners are mistaken. The 0.29 mitigation credits were included in the Proposed
Corrected Amended Staff Report as part of the mitigation evaluated during the permitting
process and have already been purchased. Jt. Exh. 25 at pg. 5 of 17, Jt. Exh. 14 at pg
7. Therefore, the credits are already part of the permit under consideration and no
additional permit condition is needed.
Petitioners' exception to Findings of Fact 85, 86, and 87 is improper because their
exception does not dispute these findings. Their only issue, as explained above, is to
require a permit condition. Petitioners' exception to Conclusions of Law 149 and 150 is
improper because they failed to provide any legal basis for the exception to these
conclusions. See, Standard of Review and Petitioners' Exceptions Generally sections,
supra. Nevertheless, Conclusion of Law 149 is an accurate statement of the District's
mitigation requirements and Petitioners do not expressly dispute that. Petitioners'
exception to Conclusion of Law 150 is improper because their exception does not dispute
the adequacy of the mitigation.
Finding of Fact 85 is supported by competent substantial evidence. Jt. Exh. 25 at
pg. 5 of 17, Jt. Exh. 14 at pg. 7. Finding of Fact 86 is supported by competent substantial
W
Packet Pg. 350
10.A.1.f
evidence. Jt. Exh. 15 at pg. 4, Applicants' Exh. 157 at pgs. 82-20-84.23. Finding of Fact
87 is supported by competent substantial evidence. Jt. Exh. 25 at pgs. 4 and 5 of 17; TR
345-18-346.16, 2114-24-2115.9, 2124-3-2125.2, 2127-10-2128.5, 2135-21-2136.14,
f►�i[[ijfiN'��i[�iiE:�
Conclusions of Law 149 and 150 are consistent with the ALJ's findings of fact and
consistent with the District's interpretation of its rules and permit criteria.
Therefore, Petitioners' Exception 5 is denied.
Exception 6
(Findings of Fact 108, 109, 110, 111, and 116; Conclusion of Law 166)
In Exception 6 Petitioners dispute the ALJ's determinations regarding the third
public interest factor concerning navigation, the flow of water, and harmful erosion or
shoaling.
Petitioners claim that the Project will increase bridge closures resulting in 1) more
boat traffic churning up the river and causing adverse impacts to aquatic life and marine
habitats and 2) impeding navigability in crossing under the St. Lucie River
Bridge. Petitioners argue that more trains necessarily mean an additional hazard to the
boating public. The ALJ found however that, "Evidence regarding hazards of boaters
waiting for passage of freight trains was anecdotal and speculative as to the expected
increase in the hazard if shorter and faster passenger trains are added." FOF
106. Petitioners did not take exception to Finding of Fact 106, but they mischaracterize
portions of it to support this exception. Petitioners have conceded the correctness of
Finding of Fact 106 and cannot now argue a contrary position.
Petitioners contend that because the ALJ was not persuaded by their argument
that more bridge closings would necessarily increase boat traffic and cause harmful
17
a
Packet Pg. 351
10.A.1.f
erosion or shoaling or adversely affect the flow of water that there was no competent
substantial evidence to support the ALTs Finding of Fact 111. Finding of Fact 111 is
supported by competent substantial evidence. Jt. Exh. 19 at pgs. 4 and 5; TR. 2078:15-
2079.11, 2274-08-12. Petitioners are asking the District to reweigh the expert testimony
on this subject which it cannot do. That is within the sole province of the ALJ as the fact -
finder. See, Standard of Review section, supra.
In addition, Petitioners challenge Findings of Fact 108 and 109 regarding the Coast
Guard's authority to regulate the opening and closing of moveable bridges and the review
of the bridges for the Project. Petitioners do not dispute the Coast Guard's authority to
regulate bridge operations. Rather, Petitioners argue there is "absolutely no evidence" of
the Coast Guard's review of the Project bridges or the status of such a review. However,
these findings are supported by competent substantial evidence. Jt. Prhrg. Stip. at pgs
38-40 ¶¶116-118 and 128; Petitioners' Proposed Rec. Order ¶¶76-88 and 124; Jt. Exh
19 at pg. 4; TR. 1414-14-1415.5, 1416.4-11, 1423-22-1424.18, 1610-24-1612.10,
1613-12-1615.20, 1640-20-1641.1, 1946-11-1949.23, 2212-20-22.
Petitioners take exception to Finding of Fact 116 and Conclusion of Law 166 that
the Project is not contrary to the public interest even if Petitioners' non -environmental
issues are considered. This finding of fact is supported by competent substantial evidence
and the conclusion of law is consistent with the facts and the District's interpretation of its
rules and criteria.
Petitioners do not dispute Finding of Fact 110 rejecting Petitioners' argument that
section 10.2.3.3 of the Applicant's Handbook applies to the train bridges. Therefore,
Petitioners' exception is improper because they failed to provide any legal basis for the
`E;
Packet Pg. 352
10.A.1.f
exception to this finding. See, Standard of Review and Petitioners' Exceptions Generally
sections, supra. Nevertheless, Finding of Fact 110 is a correct characterization of
Petitioners' argument and the District's criteria and is supported by competent substantial
evidence. Petitioners' Proposed Rec. Order at ¶¶89 and 124; §10.2.3.3 Applicant's
Handbook Vol. I; TR. 2213-23-2214.2.
Petitioners also want the District to impose permit conditions to "address expected
adverse impacts to marine resources, recreation, and navigation [sic] (including impacts
[to] navigational safety and navigational impacts such as significantly increased wait times
which impede navigability in crossing un the St. Lucie River Bridge)." For the reasons
stated above, such conditions are not appropriate.
Finding of Fact 116 is supported by competent substantial evidence. Jt. Exh. 19,
Jt. Exh. 25 at pg. 8 of 17; TR. 2215-25-2219.19.
Conclusion of Law 166 is consistent with the ALJ's findings of fact and consistent
with the District's interpretation of its rules and permit criteria.
Therefore, Petitioners' Exception 6 is denied.
Exception 7
(Finding of Fact 118; Conclusions of Law 167 and 168)
In Exception 7 Petitioners dispute that Applicants demonstrated sufficient real
property interests for the Project, specifically for the St. Lucie River Bridge. As part of
their application, Applicants submitted a 2012 letter from Florida Department of
Environmental Protection ("FDEP") stating that consent is provided under Florida law and
no additional proprietary authorization is required. Jt. Exh. 18 at pg. 1. Petitioners contend
that Applicants do not have sufficient real property interests because a 2014 letter to
19
Packet Pg. 353
10.A.1.f
Martin County stating that there is no record of an easement for the St. Lucie River Bridge
supersedes the 2012 FDEP letter.
None of that matters because the ERP application does not include work at the St
Lucie River Bridge. TR. 1944-21-1945.13; 1988-18-22; 2213-20-22. Therefore,
Applicants are not required to demonstrate a real property interest in that area. In addition,
there is nothing in the record to support Petitioners' contention that FDEP's first letter to
Applicants has been superseded or that Applicants must obtain an easement from FDEP
The District cannot reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. That is
within the sole province of the ALJ as the fact -finder. See Standard of Review section,
supra.
Finding of Fact 118 is supported by competent substantial evidence. Jt. Exh. 25 at
pg. 8 of 17, Jt. Exh. 18; TR. 2016.6-11.
Conclusions of Law 167 and 168 are consistent with the ALJ's findings of fact and
consistent with the District's interpretation of its rules and permit criteria.
Therefore, Petitioners' Exception 7 is denied.
Exception 8
(Findings of Fact 120 and 121; Conclusions of Law 169 and 170)
In Exception 8 Petitioners complain that the ALJ completely ignored their analysis
that Applicants were not entitled to the 2017 Exemption for minor roadway safety
construction and road resurfacing and grading under rules 62-330.051(4)(c) and (4)(d)
Petitioners argue that Applicants do not qualify for the exemptions because they propose
to install additional rails. Petitioners' argument is not supported by the record. In fact,
Petitioners did not take exception to Findings of Fact 18 and 19 where the ALJ explained
that the new track work is covered in the ERP Modification (not the 2017 Exemption)
20
Packet Pg. 354
10.A.1.f
Therefore, Petitioners have conceded the correctness of these findings and cannot now
argue a contrary position. District staff testimony supports the ALJ's findings. TR. 2282:6-
2283.11.
Petitioners also argue that Applicants do not qualify for an exemption for
recreational paths under rule 62-330.051(10) because Applicants are not proposing any
of the activities listed in the exemption. However, Joint Exhibit 24, the 2017 Exemption
Determination Package, includes a multi -use trail. Jt. Exh. 24 at Application Exhibit 3
pgs. 32 and 34 of 54. In addition, District staff testified the exemption applies. TR. 2283:2-
5.
Petitioners' exception does not dispute Finding of Fact 120. Petitioners
acknowledge that Applicants claimed the District determined that certain activities were
exempt as described in Finding of Fact 120, they just disagree with the District's
determination. Therefore, Petitioners' exception to this finding is improper because they
failed to provide any legal basis for the exception. See, Standard of Review and
Petitioners' Exceptions Generally sections, supra.
Petitioners only dispute the last sentence of Conclusion of Law 169 and not the
remainder of it. Therefore, the exception to those parts of Conclusion of Law 169 is
improper because it does not provide any legal basis for the exception. See, Standard of
Review and Petitioners' Exceptions Generally sections, supra.
In summary, the ALJ did not ignore Petitioners' argument but rather found that it
was unpersuasive. The District may not reweigh evidence presented at a DOAH final
hearing. That is within the sole province of the ALJ as the fact -finder. See Standard of
Review section, supra.
21
r
Q
Packet Pg. 355
10.A.1.f
Finding of Fact 120 is supported by competent substantial evidence. §5.5.3.4
Applicant's Handbook Vol. I, rule 62-330.051(4)(c), (4)4(d), and (10); Jt. Exh. 25 at page
2 of 17, Jt. Exh. 24; TR.2282:6-2283:11. Finding of Fact 121 is supported by competent
substantial evidence. Jt. Exh. 25 at page 2 of 17, Jt. Exh. 24; TR. 1860.8-19, 1981-13-25,
2089.7-12, 2143-23-2144.12, 2282-6-2283.11.
Conclusions of Law 169 and 170 are consistent with the ALJ's findings of fact and
consistent with the District's interpretation of its rules and permit criteria.
Therefore, Petitioners' Exception 8 is denied.
Exception 9
(Finding of Fact 10)
In Exception 9 Petitioners take exception to Finding of Fact 10 because they argue
the ALJ relied on Applicants commitment to install Positive Train Control systems
(providing remote operation) in determining that the Applicant met the public interest test,
but the ALJ's ultimate recommendation does not require it as a permit condition.
This Finding of Fact is contained in the "Background" section of the Recommended
Order and substantively conforms with admitted facts in the Joint Prehearing Stipulation
Jt. Prhrg. Stip. at pg. 15, ¶11. Petitioners do not dispute the content of Finding of Fact 10,
but rather challenge what they contend the ALJ relied upon when he determined the
Project met the first factor of the public interest test. However, the ALJ clearly determined
this was a non -environmental factor that could not be considered relative to the first factor
of the public interest test. FOF 100, COL 165. Nonetheless, the ALJ chose to briefly
address the non -environmental issues raised by Petitioners through evidence at the final
hearing, including Positive Train Control. Id., FOF 102, COL 154. It is evident the ALJ
22
Packet Pg. 356
10.A.1.f
correctly limited his analysis of the public interest test to environmental factors. FOFs 99,
100, 116; COLs 158, 165, 166.
Petitioners did not take exception to Findings of Fact 99 and 100 and therefore
have conceded the correctness of these findings limiting the first factor of the public
interest test to environmental factors and cannot now argue a contrary position
Petitioners also did not take exception to Conclusion of Law 158 that the District's criteria
clearly evidence the District's interpretation that factor 1 of the public interest test is limited
to environmental issues. Therefore, Petitioners have conceded the correctness of this
conclusion.
Petitioners' suggestion to add a permit condition to require installation of Positive
Train Controls seeks to interject matters into the ERP program it is not designed to
address. The District does not have regulatory authority over train safety. Finding of Fact
101 found the Federal Railroad Administration has the responsibility for train safety and
Petitioners did not take exception to that finding. Therefore, Petitioners have conceded
the correctness of this finding and cannot now argue a contrary position.
Finding of Fact 10 is supported by competent substantial evidence. Jt. Prhrg Stip
at pg. 15, ¶11; Jt. Exh. 25 at pg. 2 of 17; TR 1934-20-1937.7.
Therefore, Petitioners' Exception 9 is denied.
Exception 10
(Finding of Fact 33)
In Exception 10 Petitioners contend that 1) unconnected emergency access ways
must be connected to be useful and 2) Applicants are likely to unlawfully use unpermitted
connections thereby creating the potential for impacts. Petitioners do not argue that there
23
Packet Pg. 357
10.A.1.f
is any District rule requiring that access ways must be connected and they are speculating
about Applicants' future plans to use unpermitted connections.
Petitioners' exception does not actually dispute the challenged finding of fact
Petitioners acknowledge that the access ways are not presently continuous or proposed
to be continuous. Instead they argue there is no competent substantial evidence of the
access ways' usefulness or purpose. Petitioners did not take exception to Finding of Fact
30 that found the access way is a private dirt road for railroad -related vehicles and
sometimes used for maintenance activities. Therefore, Petitioners have conceded the
correctness of this finding and cannot now argue a contrary position.
Petitioners' exception asks the District to make additional findings of fact and
reweigh the evidence which the District cannot do. That is within the sole province of the
ALJ as the fact -finder. See Standard of Review section, supra.
Finding of Fact 33 is supported by competent substantial evidence. TR. 306:10-
14, 1199.9-18, 1917-2-1918.24.
Therefore, Petitioners' Exception 10 is denied.
Exception 11
(Findings of Fact 48 and 49)
In Exception 11 Petitioners complain that the ALJ did not address the issue they
raised about water quality impacts from construction of access ways.
Petitioners do not actually dispute Finding of Fact 48 which 1) describes
Petitioners' expert witness testimony on the effect of compaction of previously
undisturbed soils in the access ways and 2) explains that the ALJ found Petitioners' expert
unpersuasive because he did not calculate pre- and post -construction infiltration rates to
prove his point.
24
Packet Pg. 358
10.A.1.f
Finding of Fact 49 is an ultimate fact based upon the prior Findings of Fact 40
through 48 which address water quality impacts of the Project and finds the Project
complies with the District's criteria and will not cause water quality violations and
Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof to prove otherwise.
Petitioners' exception simply asks the District to reweigh the evidence presented
and make additional findings of fact which it cannot do. That is within the sole province of
the ALJ as the fact -finder. See Standard of Review section, supra.
Finding of Fact 48 is supported by competent substantial evidence. TR. 1158:19-
1161.3, 1174-24-1175.14, 1176.5-13, 1189-1-1193.1. Finding of Fact 49 is supported by
competent substantial evidence. FOFs 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, and 48; Jt. Exh. 25
at pgs. 3 and 4 of 17; TR. 2049-7-2050.7, 2270-17-2271.15, 2272-17-2273.2, 2279:15-
2280.15, 2324-13-2326.6.
Therefore, Petitioners' Exception 11 is denied.
Exception 12
(Finding of Fact 104)
In Exception 12 Petitioners dispute that train service would cease when a hurricane
is approaching. Petitioners contend the ALJ relied on this unsupported finding as part of
the analysis of the first factor of the public interest test related to public health, safety, and
welfare, and therefore it should be made a permit condition. Petitioners also argue that at
the hearing Applicants' counsel assured closer coordination between Petitioners and the
Florida East Coast Railway during emergencies and therefore a permit condition requiring
that coordination should be added.
The ALJ did not make any findings regarding Petitioners' argument for closer
coordination between Petitioners and the Florida East Coast Railway. Petitioners are thus
25
Packet Pg. 359
10.A.1.f
requesting the District to make additional findings of fact, which the District has no
authority to do. The District may not reweigh evidence presented at a DOAH final hearing
That is within the sole province of the ALJ as the fact -finder. See Standard of Review
section, supra.
Petitioners' suggestion to add these permit conditions seeks to interject matters
into the ERP program it is not designed to address. The District does not have regulatory
authority over train operations and therefore cannot add a permit condition about it.
Finding of Fact 104 is supported by competent substantial evidence. TR. 1786:2-
1788.1, 1796-13-18, 1799.5-8, 1854-8-1855.18.
Therefore, Petitioners' Exception 12 is denied.
Exception 13
(Finding of Fact 105)
In Exception 13 Petitioners contend that the ALJ's statement that Applicants do
not propose or want to stage trains at the bridges is not supported by competent
substantial evidence yet the ALJ relied on that premise in determining that Applicants met
the public interest test. This finding of fact is supported by competent substantial
evidence and the District is not entitled to reweigh it. Petitioners' Proposed Rec. Order
¶¶88 and 128; Jt. Prhrg. Stip. at pg. 40 ¶127; TR. 1940-3-1941.10, 1957:20-
1960.17. The ALJ stated that he did not rely on any non -environmental factors in making
his determination on the public interest test. FOF 100; COL 165.
Petitioners also want the District to impose a permit condition to prohibit train
staging at the bridges. The District does not have regulatory authority over train
operations or safety. Finding of Fact 101 found the Federal Railroad Administration has
the responsibility for train safety and Petitioners did not take exception to that finding
W
Packet Pg. 360
10.A.1.f
Therefore, Petitioners have conceded the correctness of this finding and cannot now
argue a contrary position.
Therefore, Petitioners' Exception 13 is denied.
Exception 14
(Conclusion of Law 168)
In Exception 14 Petitioners dispute the ALJ's conclusion that Applicants are
entitled to the ERP. Petitioners argue that based upon all of their arguments in all
preceding exceptions, the District must deny the ERP.
Contrary to Petitioners' assertion, Conclusion of Law 168 is consistent with the
District's interpretation of its rules and criteria and the findings of fact regarding issuance
of the ERP. Those findings of fact are supported by competent substantial evidence, as
explained in the rulings denying Petitioners' preceding exceptions. The rulings on the
preceding exceptions are incorporated in response to this exception.
Therefore, Petitioners' Exception 14 is denied.
Exception 15
(Conclusion of Law 170)
In Exception 15 Petitioners dispute the ALJ's conclusion that Applicants are
entitled to the 2017 Exemption. Petitioners argue that based upon all of their arguments
in all preceding exceptions concerning the 2017 Exemption, the District must deny the
2017 Exemption.
Contrary to Petitioners' assertion, Conclusion of Law 170 is consistent with the
District's interpretation of its rules and criteria and the findings of fact regarding
entitlement to the 2017 Exemption. Those findings of fact are supported by competent
substantial evidence, as explained in the rulings denying Petitioners' preceding
27
Packet Pg. 361
10.A.1.f
exceptions. The rulings on the preceding exceptions are incorporated in response to this
exception.
Therefore, Petitioners' Exception 15 is denied.
Exception 16
(Conclusion of Law 153)
In Exception 16 Petitioners contend that construction and operation of new rails is
a "regulated activity" and should be considered under the public interest test. Petitioners
take issue with the ALJ's Conclusion of Law 153 that the "regulated activities" consist of
the construction and operation of a stormwater management system and certain culvert
and bridge modifications. "Regulated activity" is defined in section 2.1 of the Applicant's
Handbook Volume II and the ALJ's conclusion is consistent with that definition. The
District does not consider train operations a regulated activity that is within the scope of
its ERP review.
Conclusion of Law 153 is consistent with the District's interpretation of its rules and
permit criteria
Therefore, Petitioners' Exception 16 is denied.
Exception 17
(Findings of Fact 42 and 43;
Conclusions of Law 152, 156, 157, 159, 160, 161,162, 163, and 165)
In Exception 17 Petitioners take issue with the ALJ's rulings on 1) whether the
Project must be shown to be "clearly in" the public interest and 2) the scope of the factors
that may be considered under the public interest test.
Petitioners first contend that the Project will directly discharge to an Outstanding
Florida Water ("OFW") and therefore Applicants must show that the Project is "clearly in"
NEI
Packet Pg. 362
10.A.1.f
the public interest. The ALJ found that the proposed activity will not discharge to either
impaired waters or OFWs so it does not have to be "clearly in" the public interest, and
only needs to meet the "not contrary to" the public interest test. FOF 97. Petitioners did
not take exception to Finding of Fact 97. Petitioners also did not take exception to the
ALJ's Conclusions of Law 140, 141, and 142 that the Project complies with all applicable
District requirements to protect water quality, including the anti -degradation standards
and special standards for OFWs. Therefore, Petitioners concede these findings and
conclusions and cannot now argue a contrary position. Petitioners are asking the District
to reweigh the evidence ruled on by the ALJ and make a contrary finding of fact which
the District cannot do. That is within the sole province of the ALJ as the fact -finder. See
Standard of Review section, supra. Findings of Fact 42 and 43 are supported by
competent substantial evidence. TR. 2087-12-2088.2, 2277-23-2282.5.
Second, Petitioners assert that the District should look at non -environmental
factors when considering the public interest test. Petitioners take exception to the ALJ's
Conclusions of Law 156, 157, 159-163, and 165, where the ALJ explained the statutory
scheme setting forth the public interest test as well as appellate case law, DOAH Orders,
and a Florida Senate report, primarily describing the scope of what the agency may
consider for the first public interest factor addressing public health, safety, and welfare
Petitioners contend there are two different tests and that the controlling test in this case
is contained in the anti -degradation rules, rules 62-4.242 and 62-302.300, which allow
consideration of non -environmental issues. Petitioners also state that 1) previous District
Orders contain examples of non -environmental considerations and 2) the case law cited
by the ALJ stating that the District cannot consider non -environmental factors is
29
Packet Pg. 363
10.A.1.f
distinguishable from this case. None of that matters because the ALJ determined in
Conclusion of Law 166 that even if Petitioners' non -environmental factors are considered
the Project is not contrary to the public interest.
Finally, Petitioners also adopt and incorporate their Exception 16 in this exception
Therefore, the ruling on Exception 16 is incorporated in response to this exception.
Conclusions of Law 152, 156, 157, 159, 160, 161,162, 163, and 165 are consistent
with the ALJ's findings of fact and consistent with the District's interpretation of its rules
and permit criteria.
Therefore, Petitioners' Exception 17 is denied.
RULING ON REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
Petitioners requested oral argument. All parties have had an opportunity to file
written exceptions and responses. Petitioners filed 47 pages of exceptions and
challenged 63 paragraphs of the Recommended Order. It does not appear that oral
argument is necessary to clarify issues in this case. Therefore, the request for oral
argument is denied.
ORDER
Having reviewed the Recommended Order, the exceptions and responses to
exceptions, and the record of the proceeding before DOAH, and having considered the
applicable law and being otherwise duly advised, it is ORDERED that:
A. Petitioners' exceptions are denied for the reasons set forth above.
B. The Recommended Order (Exhibit A) is adopted in its entirety, and
incorporated herein by reference.
C. Issuance of ERP Modification No. 13-05321-P to Applicants on the terms
30
Q
Packet Pg. 364
10.A.1.f
and conditions set forth in the Staff Report, as modified in the District's Corrected
a
Proposed Amended Staff Report dated May 11, 2017, and the complete Application for
L
the Permit, is approved.
D. The Exemption Determination dated March 31, 2017 is approved.
a�
E
E. Petitioners' request for oral argument is denied. o
L
F. A Notice of Rights is attached as Exhibit B. u,
L
Pursuant to Section 373.079(4)(a), Florida Statutes, the Governing Board
0
delegated to the Executive Director its authority to take final action on permit applications
under Part IV of Chapter 373.
CU
DONE AND ORDERED this day of November 2017, in West Palm Beach,
r
Florida.
L
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER U-
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT r
0
U)
co
co
mie Marks, Executive Director o
N
O
L
E
0
Z
L
L
O
LL
47
r
Q
O
C
E
L
V
fC
r
r
Q
31
Packet Pg. 365
10.A.1.f
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished
by electronic mail on this Uoday of November 2017, to all counsel of record listed
below.
SERVICE LIST
Counsel for Petitioners Martin County and
St. Lucie County:
Segundo J. Fernandez, Esq.
Timothy P. Atkinson, Esq.
Timothy J. Perry, Esq.
Sidney Bigham, III, Esq.
Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant, & Atkinson,
P.A.
2060 Delta Way
Tallahassee, Florida 32303
sfernandez@ohfc.co
tatkinson@ohfc.com
tperry@ohfc.com
sbigham@ohfc.com
asmith@ohfc.com
Counsel for Intervenor Town of St. Lucie
Village:
Richard V. Neil, II, Esq.
Ian Osking, Esq.
Neill, Griffin, Tierney, Neill, & Marquis
311 South Second Street, Suite 200
Fort Pierce, Florida 34954
rneilljr@neilgriffin.com
iosking@neillgriffin.com
Counsel for Applicants All Aboard Florida
Operations, LLC and Florida East Coast
Railway, LLC:
Eugene E. Stearns, Esq.
Matthew W. Buttrick, Esq.
Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff &
Sitterson
150 West Flagler Street # 2200
Miami, Florida 33130
estearns@stearnsweaver.com
mbuttrick@stearnsweaver.com
Jeffrey A. Collier, Esq. r
Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler o
Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A. `"
00
401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2200
00
Tampa, Florida 33602 7T
jcollier@stearnsweaver.com
0
N
E
a�
0
z
L
0
LL
r
d
0
E
r
Carlyn H.'KO-\kalsky a
Attorney
32
Packet Pg. 366