Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet 03-02-99
,- ........'.."'1- '-' MARCH 2, 1999 ...." WELCOME BOARD OF COIlNTY COMMISSI.ONERS MEETING AGENDA GENERAL RULES AND PROCEDURES Attached is the agenda which will determine the order of business conducted at today's Board meeting: 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 ITEMS- 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 and third Tuesdays at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. However, if a public hearing is scheduled for a meeting on a second or fourth Tuesday, which begins at 9:00 A.M., then public hearings will be heard at 9:00 A.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. These time designations are intended to indicate that an item will not be addressed p.rjn.r to the listed time. The Chairman 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. 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 Chairman 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 ITRMS- These items are presented by an individual Commissioner or staff as necessary at the conclusion of the printed agenda. PUBLIC COMMRNT- Time is allotted at the beginning of each meeting for general public comment. Please limit comments to five minutes. DECORUM- Please be respectful of others opinion. MEETINGS- All Board meetings are open to the public and are held on the first and third Tuesdays of each month at 7:00 P.M. and on the second and fourth Tuesdays at 9:00 A.M., unless otherwise advertised. Meetings are held in the County Commission Chambers in the Roger Poitras Administration Annex at 2300 Virginia Ave., Ft. Pierce, Fl. 34982. The Board schedules additional workshops throughout the year necessary to accomplish their goals and commitments. Notice is provided of these workshops. '-' ßOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS www.stlucieco.gov AGENDA March 2, 1999 7:00 P.M. INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. MINUTES ..., John D. Bruhn Doug Coward Paula A. Lewis Frannie Hutchinson Cliff Barnes District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 ~~ :p- '. Approve the minutes of the meeting held February 23,1999. " . d~t,~fJc(h Ordinance No. 99-02- This is the second of two required public hearings. tOnsiderstãff recommendation to approve the ordinance which proposes general amendments to the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. 2. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT 3. CONSENT AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING COMMUNITY DEVEI,OPMENT ~/ 5. ADMINISTRATION A. Treasure Coast Opera Society- The Board is asked to discuss the request from the Treasure Coast Opera Society for emergency funding. II~ f ~ /JuLO );if' I¥ fr ¡o1Ø--- ¡)~r('v /NO/1)éS!~ ~ .:" .., .. NOTICE: All proceedings before this Board are electronically recorded. Any person who decides to appeal any action taken by the Board at these meetings wiU need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceedings wiU be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. '-' ....,; REGULAR AGENDA MARCH 2, 1999 PAGE TWO 5. ADMINISTRA TION (CON'T) B. Reorganization- Consider staff recommendation to approve the following changes to the County's organizational structure: -Establish the Library as a separate County department -Transfer the Tourism Division to the Communi~ Development Department , -Make modifications in the Automated Services Department -Create the position of Public Information Officer -Create the position of Grants Writer -Reclassify the position of Stadium Superintendent to Stadium Manager for the Thomas J. White Sports Complex -Reclassify a Planner II position to the position of Resource Protection Coordinator -Make changes in the Community Development Department salary structure -Hire a Engineering Intern instead of a Civil Engineer 6. 'COUNTY ATTORNEY /. .' Taylor Creek Permits- Board direction is reqUe~ted to abandon the permit exemption for /' maintenance dredging of Taylor Creek and to proceed with plans for an ERP permit from the . .south Florida Water Management District. . ~ COMMUNITY DEVFj,OPMEJ:jT St. Lucie West Road Impact Fee Credit- Consider staff recommendation to approve the Road Impact Fee Credit Agreement 99-002 with the St. Lucie West Development Corporation for certain right-of-way dedications in the amount of $4,239,320. P éJ (:.- <J ¡l P "', ~ c) 6 oÆJ ~ () '-' CONSENT AGENDA March 2, 1999 ....,; 1. WARRANTS LIST Approve warrants list No. 22. 2. COUNTY ATTORNEY A. St. Lucie County Sports Complex - Consider staff recommendation to approve the Fourth Addendum to Facilities Use Agreement and Second Addendum to the Florida State League Agreement with the New York Mets and the St. Lucie Mets concerning a new scoreboard at the Stadium. B. Resolution No. 99-52- Consider staff recommendation to approve the resolution rescinding Resolution No. 88-154 which exercised eminent domain authority for acquisition of land for right-of-way at So. 25th Street and Edwards Road. C. Legal Aid Society- Consider staff recommendation to approve the Agreement with Legal Aid Society of the Bar Associations of St. Lucie County, Florida and authorize the chairman to sign the Agreement. 3. MANAGEMENT AND B{IDGET Resolution No. 99-58- Consider staff recommendation to approve the budget resolution appropriating $22,091 grant-in-aid from the Office ofthe State Courts Administrator. 4. PUBLIC WORKS A. Road and Bridge- Consider staff recommendation to approve the list of proposed roads selected for the Asphalt Millings Road Project for 1998/99. B. Engineering- Consider staff recommendation to approve funding to the City of Ft. Pierce for modification to County maintained drainage outfaUs within the Moore's Creek Project in an amount not to exceed $25,000 and approval of the project budget. C. Road and Bridge- Consider staff request for permission to advertise the FY 98/99 Road Resurfacing bid. 5. PERMISSION TO ADVERTISEIRECOMMRNDED FOR A NIGHT MEETING Public Works- Consider staff request for permission to advertise the second public hearing on the Ideal Holding Road M.S.B.U. for April 6, 1999. CONSENT AGENDA MARCH 2, 1999 PAGE TWO '-" "'-" 6. AIRPORT A. Curtis King Boulevard- Consider staff recommendation to approve the following for this project. Authorize the Chairman to sign all documents subject to DOT approval: \ -Change Order No. 1 to the contract with URS/Greiner for additional engineering as a result of pond relocation, in the amount of $36,100. -Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Bennett Site Development fm- additional construction costs, in the amount of $57,800.47. -Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Culpepper and Terpening for additional construction management, in the amount of $14,500. -Approve direct payment of $73,900 to FPUA for conversion of the underground power and utility enhancements. -Resolution No. 99-59 appropriating and expending funds received from the FDOT for the additional work. B. Resolution No. 99-61- Consider staff recommendation to approve the resolution accepting the Supplemental Joint Participation Agreement for construction of Curtis King Boulevard and parking lot improvements. Approve the JP A and authorize the Chairman to execute. '-" '-' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADDITIONS AGENDA MARCH 2,1999 CONSENT AGENDA COUNTY ATTORNEY A.l Agreement Extension- Consider staff recommendation to approve extension of the agreement with Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan for water quality testing. PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE A.2 Community Development- Consider staff request for permission to advertise two public hearings and a Fair Housing Workshop for the FFY 1999 Community Development Block Grant application. MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET A.3 Sheriff's Office- Consider staff recommendation to send a transmittal letter and request for information to the St. Lucie County Sheriff regarding the requested salary increases for Sheriff's Office staff. Direct staff to arrange for such follow up as may be required. ......" 'wi .1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA REGULAR MEETING Date: February 23, 1999 Tape: 1-2 Convened: 9:08 a.m. Adjourned: 10:55 a.m. Commissioners Present: Chainnan, Paula A. Lewis, John D. Bruhn, Frannie Hutchinson, Cliff Barnes; Doug Coward Others Present: Phil Freeland, Asst. County Administrator; Dan McIntyre, County Attorney, Julia Shewchuk, Interim Community Development Director; Ray Wazny, Public Works Director; Bill Blazak, Utilities Director; JimP~'id, Mosquito Control Director; Mike Bowers, Road and Bridge Manager; Harvey Lincohi, M & B Manager; Don Cole, Acquisitions Manager; Don West, County Engineer; David Kelly, Planning Manager; Gayla Barwick, Tourism Manager; Dennis Murphy, Land Development Coordinator; Joe Finnegan, Personnel/Risk Manager; A. Millie Delgado, Deputy Clerk 1. MINUTES (1-032) It was moved by Com. Hutchinson, seconded by Com. Coward, to approve the minutes ofthe meeting held February 16, 1999; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 2. PRESENTATION This item was pulled until next week 3. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. David Keown, Lakewood Park resident, addressed the Board regarding the availability ofE- Mail to the public. 4. CONSENT AGENDA (1-153) It was moved by Com. Coward, seconded by Com. Barnes, to approve the Consent Agenda with item C-6 pulled for a later date; and item C-8 to be discussed separately; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 1. The Board approved Warrant List No. 21 as follows: ~ -1 'wi 02/19/99 ST. LUCIE COUNTY - BOARD PAGE 1 FZABVARR VARRANT LIST 121- 13-FBB-99 TO 19-FBB-99 FUND SUHHARY FUND TITLB BXPBNSES PAYROLL 001 General Fund 240,985.47 273,143.96 001116 See 112/HPO/FBVA/Planning 98/99 276.26 3,311.34 001120 eo.mity Services Block Gmt 98/99 2,996.90 218.75 001221 001-DEP-Childrens's Enviro HuseUIR 6,074.06 0.00 001229 FBIP Boating Related Activities 1,300.00 0.00 001235 TDC Planning Grant 98/99 0.00 151.77 001236 TDC Non-Sponsored Trip Grant 98/99 16,490.00 0.00 001242 98/99 E. M.. P.A. 4,185.00 0.00 /: 101 Transportation Trust Fund 110,545.44 90,324.53 101001 Transportation Trust Interlocals 4,200.00 0.00 101002 Transportation Trust/801 Constitut 3,130.00 0.00 101003 Transportation Trust/Local Option 155,908.78 0.00 102 Unincorporated Services Fund 658.46 30,693.52 102001 Drainage Maintenance KSTU 70,629.12 2,914.08 102103 Urban & ColllllUJ1ity Forestty 97/98 11.50 936.80 105 Library Special Grants Fund 3,099.75 1,925.60 107 Fine & Forfeiture Fund 56,175.13 56,402.82 140 Port & Airport Fund 7,392.86 6,168.56 160 Plan Maintenance BAD Fund 3,996.58 2,316.50 182 Environmental Land Acquisition Fund 17.48 1,431.39 183 Ct Administrator-19th Judicial Cir 39.52 3,673.11 183001 Ct Adminis trator-Arbitra tionlMedia t 120.56 2,449.60 183206 FDJJ-Teen Court 98/99 >'- 13.80 0.00 185203 FHFA-SHIP 98/99 15.18 1,232.80 186 Recycling Operating Fund 697.01 .1,334.69 186202 DBP-Reeycling & Education 98/99 175.65 444.89 304 Communication System Fund 5,011.51 0.00 315201 DOS-315-Fort Pierce Branch Library 249,182.00 0.00 316 County Capital 3,194.57 0.00 382 Environmental Land Capi tal Fund 134,219.70 0.00 401 Sarti tary Landfill 1Iund 35,496.34 24,969.76 401211 DBP-Vaste Tire 98/99 1,142.25 0.00 418 Golf Coursë Fund 4,691.86 15,902.91 421 H.B.V. Utilities PUhd 61.22 168.82 441 North Hutchinson Island UtHi ties 679.59 2,815.49 451 S. HutchiMon Utilities Fund 2,935.88 2,646.48 461 Sports Complex Fund 11,353.10 8,647.57 491 Building Code Fund 176.33 15,042.39 501 Automated Services Fund 33,693.74 48,507.22 505 Heàl th Insurance Fund 212,882.42 0.00 510 Service Garage Fund 7,878.28 7,619.36 611 Tourist Development Trost-Adv Fund 1,520.26 2,846.36 625 Law Library 320.99 0.00 GRAND TOTAL: 1,393,574.55 608,241.07 '-' .'-t/ 2. MANAGEMENT/BUDGET Transfer of Funds- The Board approved the transfer of funds in the amount of $146,645 from reserves for inmate medical to inmate medical expenses. 3. INVESTMENT FOR THE FUTURE Bid No. 99-09- The Board approved awarding the bid for bridge replacement at Orange Avenue and Cow Creek to Sheltra & Son Construction in the amount of $214,731.25 and authorized the Chainnan to sign the contract as prepared by the County Attorney and establish the budget as outlined. 4. PUBLIC WORKS A. Engineering/RFP No. 99-20 Professional Surveying Services - The Board approved the following: 1. The selection of Culpepper & Terpening, GCY, Inc., and Lindahl, Browning, Ferrari and Hellstrom as recommended by the Competitive Negotiation Committee ' . '.. '.' 2. Authorized staffto initiate contracts for continuing services with the three finns 3. Authorized the continued use of the survey contract management and rotation system as the rotation system with the following revisions: A. The first project will be awarded to Culpepper & Terpening, Inc. B. The second project will be awarded to GCY, Inc. C. The third project will be aw&rded to Lindahl, Browning, Ferrari & Hellstrom B. Solid Waste- The Board authorized the Solid Waste Division to publish, in a newspaper of general circulation, the Solid Waste Full Cost Accounting Report for Fiscal Year 1997-98. 5. COUNTY ATTORNEY A. Lease Agreement- The Board approved the lease agreement with the South Florida Water Management District for the DuPuis Groves in Martin County. B. Resolution No. 99-53- The Board approved the resolution approving the proposed street name Garden Lane for a private ingress/egress easement. Notify all property owners and all the necessary entities of the approved street name. C. Resolution No. 99-46- The Board approved the resolution approving the proposed street name Forgotten Lane for private ingress/egress easement in St. Lucie Gardens Subdivision and notify all property owners of the approved street name and all the necessary entities that affect service to this area. D. Pennission to advertise- The Board approved advertising a public hearing on Ordinance No. 99-09 amending the Code of Ordinances to include an assessment of two dollars for non-criminal infractions, increasing the filing fees for the Law Library, and increasing all filing fees under section 2-10-17 to be consistent with increases in Chapter 1-7. 6. LEISURE SERVICES Grant Agreement- This item was pulled '-' ''wi 7. VETERANS SERVICES- Office Hours- The Board approved the change in the Veterans Services office hours open to the public to 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday and 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Wednesdays. REGULAR AGENDA(1-350) 5. COUNTY ATTORNEY (1-357) A. Resolution No. 99-42- For consideration before the Board was to approve the resolution consenting to the transfer of control of the cable television franchise from AT & T to Media One and authorize the Chainnan to sign the resolution. I' It was moved by Com. Barnes, seconded by Com. Coward to continue this public hearing on March 9, 1999 at 9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as possible; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. B. Orene King vs. St. Lucie County- For,c<?I.1:sideration before the Board was to approve the proposed settlement. Mr. David Keown, Lakewood Park resident, questioned the settlement and future medical expenses. The County Attorney addressed Mr. Keown's questions. It was moved by Com. Barnes, seconded by Com. Coward, to approve the proposed settlement; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 6. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (1-764) Road Impact Fee Credit Agreement- Consider staff recommendation to approve payment of $40,615 to the developer of the DKE/Midway Mobil upon acceptance of the deed for right of way. It was moved by Com. Coward, seconded by Com. Bruhn, to approve staff recommendation; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 7. ADMINISTRATION (1-968) Com. Barnes combined discussion on both of the items below: A. Proposed Ordinance- Com. Barnes requested Board discussion on a proposed ordinance to prohibit the use of rectangular or square retention areas where possible and requiring that they be landscaped, hidden from view and regularly maintained. B. Board discussion - Com. Barnes requested the Board discuss the following: White City Historical District Increased Landscaping on major corridors Architectural standards for major corridors Tree groupings on larger lots Com. Barnes suggested scheduling a workshop to review all past ideas the citizens submitted at various meetings and ask Mr. Trias from the city ofFt. Pierce to educate the Board. '-' '-" Com. Lewis suggested re-forming and re-mobilizing the group or possibly have a charette on the White City Historical District project. Mr. Kelly advised the Board that Mr. Trias did not put together the final plan. Staff put this plan together with the help of the citizens. Mr. Kelly stated ifthe Board would like a presentation on what it was or what it is , he would be happy to do so. Com. Barnes requested that Mr. Trias be asked to attend and stated he would be willing to find the funding to make this happen. Com. Hutchinson stated she concurred with Com. Barnes and she still receives many calls on the White City area and something needs to be done. Com. Coward stated he also concurred with the Board and that this is an overdue project and is of historical significance. Com. Bruhn also concurred and stated it is at a stage where it still can be saved. Com. Barnes suggested having a night meeting to inform all of the White City residents that the county plans to move forward with the project and have them express their feelings. Mr. Kelly stated he would in the next week or two meet with Mr. Trias and see what his schedule consists of and bring back a plan or outline of what was accomplished. Com. Coward suggested contacting the Regional Planning Council who has a design team and which could save the county some dollars. Com. Barnes commented on Port St. Lucie Blvd. and the development standards which is architecturally significant in the area. He stated the city has architectural standards which have increase land value. He stated he would like to see the county move forward in that direction on our major corridors by increasing the landscaping and cutting back on the parking space requirements. Com. Coward concurred with Com. Barnes comments and stated the parking requirement is something worthwhile looking in to. He suggested doing a spot check and take an inventory to see if it is necessary to have this type of a parking requirement in our code. Com. Barnes commented on retention areas being incorporated into landscaping. Com. Coward recommended action on the parking requirements and asked that staff be directed to begin analyzing this issue in further detail and find out if our code is in fact going far beyond the needs that are set at the national level. It was moved by Com. Coward seconded by Com. Barnes to direct staff to study this issue in more detail; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 8. COUNTY ATTORNEY (1-2206) A. St. Lucie Pinelands- Consider staff recommendation to approve the Option Agreement for the Olson Parcel, authorize the Chairman to execute the Agreement and direct staff to close the transaction in conjunction with the Florida Communities Trust. It was moved by Com. Barnes, seconded by Com. Bruhn, to approve staff recommendation; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. ~ 'wi B. Resolution No. 99-55- Consider staff recommendation to approve the resolution concerning sale of bonds for the Environmentally Significant Lands Program and authorize the Chairman to sign the Resolution. It was moved by Com. Hutchinson, seconded by Com. Bruhn, to approve Resolution No. 99-55; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. C. Resolution No. 99-54- Consider staff recommendation to approve the resolution concerning the Holiday Pines Utility Acquisition and authorize the Chairman to sign the Resolution. r It was moved by Com. Bruhn, seconded by Com. Coward, to approve Resolution No. 99- 54; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. D. Resolution No. 99-56- Consider staff recommendation to approve the Resolution concerning the line of credit to provide initial financing for MSBU Projects and authorize the Chairman to sign the Resolution. It was moved by Com. Hutchinson, se.c<:>~~ed by Com. Bruhn, to approve Resolution No. 99-56; and, upon roll call, motion carried unaÏrimously. 9. PUBLIC WORKS (1-2821) U.S. I and Midway Road Tree Cutting- The Public Works Director updated the Board on this matter. The Public Works Director advised the Board that he has met with Brian West and the attorney to discuss a settlement regarding the removal of trees. Com. Barnes stated that what he was looking for was for the developer to return the value to the site, and would like a conservation easement over the portion that was being restored. Com. Bruhn stated he wanted the Board to send a message that this will not be tolerated and stated that stiff penalties should be imposed. Com. Lewis concurred that something needs to be done to return the value, but is reluctant to propose a conservation easement on commercial property. Com. Coward stated he would like to see an inch by inch replacement with a substantial fine imposed as well. Com. Hutchinson stated she concurred with Com. Coward and would like the replacement to be eight inches and above. Com. Coward asked if they do not have a conservation easement, would there be any mechanisms in place so that ifthey went back a cleared what was restored that they could once again be made accountable. The County Attorney stated they could make this part of any settlement as well as maintaining the trees until they reach a certain height. Com. Barnes stated he wanted to prevent large tree limbs from being cut down at a later date and wanted the area to remain a "green space". No action required. ~ "wi A-I ADDITIONS (1-3573) Treasure Coast Opera Society- Commissioner Paula Lewis requested discussion on the request :trom the Treasure Coast Opera Society for emergency funding. Com. Lewis questioned what was available in the contingency fund. The Asst. County Administrator advised the Board of what was available. Com. Lewis stated she was in favor providing emergency assistance at this time and asked for Board input. ~ Com. Barne~ stated although it was a worthwhile request, the group has not presented a budget. He also remmded the Board that a workshop regarding Cultural Mfairs has been scheduled in March and potential funding will be discussed and he would prefer to discuss it then. Com. Lewis stated she was looking at it as an emergency situation and did not want the organization to fold before the season was over. Mr. Barena, representing the Opera Society, ad&essed the Board regarding the request. He stated the $10,000 request would help them to complete the season. Com. Bruhn stated he did not have a problem with approving the request, he felt this is a valuable asset to the community. Com. Hutchinson questioned if the organization had contacted the cities for their assistance. Mr. Barena stated their intent was to speak to the cities to request some assistance. Com. Barnes stated he would vote against this request simply because he has not been presented with any budgetary figures and ifthe organization has been able to do this for the past 8 years without county funding, he would like to see why this year is different fÌ'om the previous years. Mr. Barena stated the society members have been funding the perfonnances and at this time they are unable to do it. Com. Hutchinson stated she would approve funding them with $5,000 to start until the infonnation is presented for review by the Board. The Board continued discussion on this issue with Com. Barnes retaining his position being opposed to the funding. It was moved by Com. Hutchinson, seconded by Com. Bruhn, to approve funding in the amount of$5,000 as emergency funding and requested the infonnation be provided as requested by Com. Barnes to review continuation; and, upon roll call, the vote was as follows: Nay: Barnes; Aye's: Coward, Bruhn, Hutchinson, Lewis; motion carried by a vote of 4 to 1. Com. Coward stated he would like to see what the $10,000 will be utilized for and if it includes advertising, he feels there may be some source of assistance in the tourism area such as the grant program available which may be able to help them. -, '-" ......, C-8 Community Development Block Grant Program- Consider staff recommendation to authorize staffto enter into negotiations with the top ranked finn for Planning/Grant Writing and Administration. It was moved by Com. Hutchinson, seconded by Com. Coward to approve staff recommendation; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. The Assistant County Administrator wished to clarify for the record that the Holiday Pines purchase has not occurred and negotiations are still going on and an E-Mail report will be prepared for the Board to review regarding the web site expansion. r' There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 a.m. Chainnan ; -'0'--.- '" Clerk of Circuit Court \ \ / '-' -..I AGENDA REQUEST ITEM NO. 4 DATE: March 4, 1999 CONSENT REGULAR PUBLIC HEARING [ X ] Leg. [X] Quasi-JD. SUBMITTED BY: Community Development PRESENTED BY: ¿~ TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBJECT: Consider Draft Ordinance 99-002 providing for a series of General Amendments to the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. BACKGROUND: Draft Ordinance 99-002 proposes a series of amendments to the County's Land Development Code. These amendments are to the regulations governing the ability to access non-residentially zoned property and a number of minor amendments to the County's regulations governing Telecommunication Towers. On February 6, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners held its first public hearing on Draft ordinance 99-002 and accepted public comments and testimony on the draft. At the conclusion of this hearing the Board announced its intention to hold a second, and final public hearing on Draft Ordinance 99-002 on Tuesday, March 2, 1999 @ 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. FUNDS AVAILABLE: N/A PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of draft Ordinance 99-002, as amended. COMMISSION ACTION: [ ) APPROVED [ [V] OTHER: DENIED ENCE: Continue to April 6, 1999 M. Anderson Administrator Coordination/Siqnatures County Attorney: J:t' Mgt & Budget: Purchasing: Other: Other: Originating Dept: Finance: (copies only) : (AGEND419) . '-' '~ ~ COMMISSION REVIEW: March 2,1999 Ordinance 99-002 MEMORANDUM DEP ARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Julia Shewchuk, Community Development Director DATE: February 22, 1999 SUBJECT: Consider Draft Ordinance 99-002 providing for a series of General Amendments to the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. Attached is a copy of Draft Ordinance 99-002 which proposes a series of amendments to the County's Land Development Code. The amendments included in this Draft Ordinances are: Section 1.06.00 Rules of Interpretation Section 1.06.02 District Boundaries The amendments to this section were originally intended to be for the purpose of providing clarification to the generally accepted planning and zoning practice that public roadways are not considered to be zoned for the purpose of access limitations or restrictions. These amendments have been determined to be no longer necessary and are recommended for deletion from the final Draft of Ordinance 99-002 · Section 7.05.05 addresses further additional restrictions on the use of residentially zoned property for access to non-residentially areas and other restrictions effecting the use of local streets for access to non-residentially property. Section 2.00.00 Definitions: · Draft Ordinance 99-001 proposes to amend several definitions affecting th~ County's Telecommunication Tower regulations based on the recommendations ofthe County's advisory counsel on telecommunication matters. Section 7.05.05 Use of Residential Property for Access · This Section clarifies the issue of accessing private property from a public or private street or road right-of-way based on prior Board discussions. Section 7.10.23 Telecommunications Tower SitinQ , '-" '-II February 22 1999 Page 2 Subject: Draft Ordinance 99-002 The amendments to this Section address the recommendations of the County's advisors on telecommunication issues as they relate to excluding certain types of broadcast facilities. In addition this section provides for procedural amendments in the method of processing Telecommunication Tower applications; enhanced landscaping standards when these facilities are adjacent to a street right-ot-way; a clarification on the aggregate amount of storage shed space that can be located at any telecommunication tower site and a clarification on the date to which a telecommunication tower may be considered to be a pre-existing tower. The original draft ot Ordinance 92-002 included an expansion ot the exclusion of on-site security residencies, which are only authorized as an accessory use, in the CN, CO, CG, IX and I zoning districts, and which would have been consistent with the existing exclusions granted for the IH, IL and U utility zoning districts. At the January Local Planning Agency/ Planning and Zoning Commission review ot this item that Board agreed to a public request not to expand this exemption into these other districts. The current draft of Ordinance 99-002 (Draft #3) does not include the previous recommended additions. On January 16, 1999, the Local Planning Agency/Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on Draft Ordinance 99-002. After that hearing, the LPA voted to recommend that the Board approve draft Ordinance 99-002, as amended On February 6, 1999, the Board of Count y Commissioners held its first public hearing on Draft ordinance 99-002 and accepted public comments and testimony on the draft. At the conclusion ot this hearing the Board announced its intention to hold a second, and final public hearing on Draft Ordinance 99-002 on Tuesday, March 2,1999 @ 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. Staff recommends approval ot draft Ordinance 99-002, as amended. If you have any questions, please let me know. la Shewchuk velopment Director SUBMITTED JSldjm OR9902m3(disk98) cc: County Administtator Ass!. County Administrator County Attorney Planning Manager 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 t '\wf >...,I ORDINANCE NO. 99-002 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 1.06.02, RU INTERPRETATION, DISTRICT BOUNDARIES, TO P CLARIFICATION OF THE ZONING DISTRI BOU COUNTY; BY AMENDING SECTION , D PROVIDE FOR AMENDMENT TO TH FINI EXISTING TOWERS AND PRE, ISTI TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY, TE OR TOWER; BY AMENDING SECTION 6. A SCRIVENERS ERROR; BY AMENDIN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR CLARIFICATION OF ACCESS REST SECTION 7.10.23(A), TELECOM PURPOSE, TO PROVIDE FO APPLICABILITY OF THESE 7.10.23(B), TELECOMMUNI PROVIDE CLARIFICATI THESE FACILITIES CERTAIN REQUIRE TELECOMMUNI ST ARDS TED T; NICA FIC TY OSITS; BY AMENDING SECTION 7.10.23 CLARIFYING THE SEPARATION STANDARDS CATION TOWERS; BY AMENDING SECTION - OMMUNICATION TOWERS, BUILDINGS - AND ORAGE AREAS, TO CLARIFYING THE MAXIMUM QUARE FOOTAGE OF SUPPORT BUILDINGS TO BE AT A TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER SITE; BY 'ING SECTION 7.10.23(P) PREEXISTING ---------~~dI~i;f~ad~tioo--------- ÐEri]te Tkreli!JR is for deletion ÐOuble:Æl1I1de~JHj¡ne!æi~ærlli\€,!f.~.¡:;;'iilBll_" is change from 02/016/99 BCC meeting Ordinance #99-002c Draft #3 Page 1 PRINT DATE: 02/22/99 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 ~ \wi '...,I TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS TO CLARIFY WHAT CONSTITUTES A PREEXISTING TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER; BY AMENDING SECTION 11.05.06(F), BY CORRECTING A SCRIVENERS ERROR; BY PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING PROVISION, BY PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING FOR APPLICAB TY, PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEP ARTME OF . ATE, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, PROVIDING PTION AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners the following determination: 1. On August 1, 1990, the Board of Cou County, Florida, adopted the 81. Lu Code. 2. The Board of County· amendments to the 81. through the following Or: pted certain lopment Code, - 9 - 2-17 - 93-03 - 93-06 - 94-07 - 94-21 - 96-10 - 97-09 - 98-01 - May 14,1991 June 2, 1992 February 16, 1993 May 25, 1993 June 22, 1994 August 16, 1994 August 6, 1996 October 7, 1997 February 2, 1999 1, 1 I the Local Planning Agency! Planning and 'on held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance otice in the Port 81. Lucie News..and the Tribune at prior to the hearing and recommended that the ordinance be approved. ruary 16, 1999 this Board held its first public hearing on the osed ordinance, after publishing a notice of such hearing in the ort 81. Lucie News and the Tribune on February 6, 1999. ---------~~clTMisf~~d~tioo--------- Otri]te TRF6ti! 'R is for deletion DOål'èiliiil1ndê1!JJ¡ìnêllfu~.¡~t~~!~iiI.&_t is change from 02/016/99 BCC meeting ordinance #99-002c Draft #3 Page 2 PRINT DATE: 02/22/99 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 ') '-" ......, 5. On March 2, 1999 this Board held its second public hearing on the proposed ordinance, after publishing a notice of such hearing in the Port St. Lucie News and the Tribune on February 18, 1999. 6. The proposed amendments to the St. Lucie Development Code are consistent with the general objectives and standards ofthe St. Lucie County Co and is in the best interest of the health s nd citizens of St. Lucie County, Florida. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Lucie County, Florida: PART A. THE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS TO TH LAWS TO READ AS FOLLOWS, IN DE AND COMPILED sts with respect to the intended boundãries of the various zoning districts las, the Board of County Commissioners shall make the interpretation using - ' t boundaries are the center lines ofthe streets, alleys, waterways, and rights-of-way, Ise indicated. Wherever designation of a boundary line on the Zoning Atlas coincides tion of a street, alley, waterway, or right-of-way, it shall be construed to be the boundary ---------~~clT~i;f~ad~tioo--------- Ð\;;rilte 'l'areti! 'a is for deletion D~tfde!tt'1rmne¡_.1,I~~_.1 is change from 02/016/99 BCC meeting Ordinance #99-002c Draft #3 Page 3 PRINT DATE: 02/22/99 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 \w' '-" of such d ¡strict f;xê6åtthat'êllb(]blie;3t1;eet3:£1f1d;rioad:r#'tht.~flfU ¡fesè~Dt£;latti:3t~ëclS:andmad rid ¡f{so~",e'a'\'>fflë'ê'tiAaMffl¡H¡mHmmöIrRt' "ooâ'éj·0¡;'8Vl'ßtá1:rêlfœ Jmn~'t<t'ãrë{n~itime40d~' d'f-' ,',_' .', .......... . ,,,,,,,,V,:y:, . ,:"':*,f ,:, :,' ,. ',' ,', -"_,:, . . .:~ c· . -WI:,' ':, . . '" . . t ,. . " . ,:, ::,. '. - .:. ',' ., " . :0- '. >Ý~;'M. ,t_ . .; ': ,.:_1\,' ',y ._', ".:~ '.' , ''':"IO~'',!_, ,- ,_ _ ~ _.-. .'. '~ '-' .<.... ,~., " ,'_ ,'- ,6. ,'. ,. , ': h -, _ -·a.ae.. .; :':~~ "m,r: pt1rffè3é3':"êŒa'f!~el~'j!i'Ì~IU~êfl~ë:bYð'ii8i6Ás%êftS:ê~¡6S~l5i!ê1fde1 B Where the zoning district boundaries do not coincide with the location of streets, alleys, waterways, and rights-of-way, but do coincide with lot lines, such lines shall be construed to b boundary of such districfÆW' ,p,~W'> % """ c. Where the zoning district boundaries do not coincide and rights-of-way or lot lines, the zoning district bound shown on the Zoning Atlas. D. Zoning district boundaries indicated as approximately as following those boundaries. 2.00.00 DEFINITIONS nings herein ascribed to them. roved for construction for v.'hich a buildiRg permit aRd cOflditional rior to SeDtember 2. 1997. Uu; effective datc of this Ordiflancc, provide one or more telecommunications services, including, without mitting towers, other supporting structures, and associated facilities used to nications signals. An open video system is not a telecommunications facility to I provides eft!y video services; a cable system is not ª telecommunications facility t it onlv provides eft!y cable service. ATIONS TOWER OR TOWER: ---------~~cli~isf~~d~tioo--------- GtFiJte Tare1i!!R is for deletion ÐOub3Jêillii[1nde11t'l'Zill.êSt9Ji'1§~1!;¡;¡¡¡!!_~~~~~ is change from 02/016/99 BCC meeting Ordinance #99-002c Draft #3 Page 4 PRINT DATE: 02/22/99 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 \...i ..."" Any structure, and support thereto, designed and constructed primarily for the purpose of supporting one or more antennae intended to provide telecommunication services includinq lattice. monopole and quyed towers. fOf tfansmitting Of fecciving The term includes personal wireless services ; telcphonc, fadio and similaf communication pUfpOSCS, including latticc, monopole and guycd towefs. . facilities used for the provision of commercial mobile services. un licenced wireless services telecommunication services usin dul authorized devices which do not re uire in "guallicences and common carrier wireless exchanqe access services. For ur 0 s of t' ode =Fthe term includes radio and television transmission towers, not to be a telecommunications tower: 1) a structure supporting a utility transmission Ii 2) a structure up to 150 feet in height supportin line(s), and antenna(e), when located in no 3) a structure supporting a amateur radio ante 1J a structure su ortin a radio television or onlv. 6.00.03 VEGETATION R A. (No Change) B. Unless otherwise provided i County government, shall shall ot be subject to n 11.13.er 03 of this Code. C. ******************************** OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR ACCESS ¡ zoned property. excludina arterial or maior collector roadways . or driveway, walkway, or any other access purpose to any non-residentially zoned land, nd used for a purpose not permitted in a residentially zoned districue_ilJ_.l!lr;8:ïØ1~ ---------~~rtIMisf~~d~tioo--------- ÐtriJre TRretl§ft is for deletion Dotû)IDe1ili\Und~'ne__'¡!~~;;¡f$illf;JI.!!!!JI¡.~ is change from 02/016/99 BCC meeting Ordinance #99-002c Draft #3 Page 5 PRINT DATE: 02/22/99 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 '-" ....., inParaqraPR B below. ~.. ",' except 8sm'a'y<;ë'ö~sb~'êificâll~utR6¡¡¡æèb'lEtlad,Dððril16U30I:lfit¥£6ffimi3sioftct's.;;;mo;;str;ð8h6.í%œeè C6A3idcfëðßt(tI)'Œ'~lë1fàm't3ifJèfftìãl;51tÐÐt~6f¡J"è8ëV:ã';:t,5RB1lr"êill3cè~f6'F:ae!:~'1të:¡:rél'im'elîmIll:r~ industriallv zÔnc(f:¡)fÒf3cFtV~,: aRel: Wltß_*~tt --if~' y. ---------~~dT~isf~~d~tioo--------- Gtri][e Tare\i!a is for deletion DØublêiDUndêr::l!iinê!\f;gm¡;;;ttiR,I¡~~;'%..~¡;!¡~iJ!,~~~~ is change from 02/016/99 BCC meeting Ordinance #99-002c Draft #3 Page 6 PRINT DATE: 02/22/99 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 '-' '...,I . ******************************** 7.10.23 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER SITING A. PURPOSE. The purpose of this section is to establish regulations and requireme telecommunications towers or antennas in the Coun shall be sub'ect to these re The section is intended to accomplish the followinç¡: 1. Protect and promote the health, safety a unincorporated areas of the County; 2. Minimize potential impacts of towers upon re 3. Encourage and promote the location of tow impact on the community is minimal; 4. Minimize the total number of towers co-Iocàtion of antennas on new construction of additional sing ongly encouraging the primary option rather than 5. Encourage and promote t minimizes the advers siting, landscape sc s to configure them in a way that s and antennas through careful design, uflaging techniques; and, 6. unications services to provide such services Imely application process. County shall at all times give due consideration to the County's isting land uses, and environmentally sensitive areas, including ving sites for the location of towers. B. towers may be locate(j as a permitted use in the "AG-S" Agriçultural-S; I t, "IH" Industrial Heavy, and "U "Utility Zoning Districts subiect to the of to Section 7.10.23. Telecommunications towers may be located as a use, subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.23 and Section 11.07.00, in all zoning districts. ommunications towers may be located as a permitted use on the same property as nother use. A different existing use on the same lot or parcel that is proposed to have a ---------~~dIMiãf~ad~tioo--------- Seri]te Tarsti!3R is for deletion miiØ:!J!J¡i!1wtJnd.êj!fa.'!i¡n~'I..~,*1 is change from 02/016/99 Bee meeting Ordinance #99-002c Draft #3 Page 7 PRINT DATE: 02/22/99 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 '-' '''wII telecommunications tower located on it shall not preclude the installation of that telecommunication tower if the other requirements of this section can be met. 3. Co-location of telecommunications antennas by more than one provider on existing telecommunications towers shall take precedence over the construction of new telecommunications towers. Accordingly, each application shall include ritten report certified by a professional engineer licensed to practice in the da, stating the following: a. An iftffiaf evaluation within the search analyzing the~ 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) availability of towers for co- structural capacity of all av radio frequency interference geographical service area r mechanical or electrical inc inability or ability to locate any restrictions or limit that would preclud any additional i r; and nications Commission nd unty. 8. by opaQue security fencing eight (8) feet in ch the tower is located.. C & D - No Change E. - ers shall meet the following requirements: site, the design of the buildings and related structures shall use materials, screening, and landscaping that will blend them into the natural setting and ding building to minimize the visual impact. Towers and any accessory buildings retain their silver/grey factory finish or be finished or painted in stealth or neutral tone olors. ---------~~rtTœisf~ãd~tiõ~-------- Gtri][e Tlu's!i!Jft is for deletion f)øul:!JiI!è\illUnâèit1at.iínél;éJ?BI___ is change from 02/016/99 Bee meeting Ordinance #99-002c Draft #3 Page 8 PRINT DATE: 02/22/99 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 '-' '-" 2. #(/ 3. The from the re uired erimeter landsca Telecommunications Tower meets ~ The Telecommunica zoninq district. !ù ty reserves the right to require that any new towers be designed as a camouf1áge ---------~~rtTMi;f~~d~tioo--------- Ð~£iJŒ 'l'ft£e\i!!R is for deletion D~1ieiffiUnde_d¡néj¡I¡¡2~ællÍlJ~~ is change from 02/016/99 BCC meeting Ordinance #99-002c Draft #3 Page 9 PRINT DATE: 02/22/99 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 j? 32 33 34 35 36 37 \wi , 'v ... .' 'V I \¡l ....., y {'(1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Every telecommunications s rvice provider shall establish a cash security fund, or provide the with an irrevocable letter of red it . e in the same amount, to secure t e cost of removing an antenna, antenna array, or tower that has been determined to be abando ed under Section 7.1 0.23(P), in the event the owner fails to comply with the provisions of Section 7 10.23(P). The amount of the security fund~ erletter of credit. or'õtliíëfdform " ätm'iJI is to be provided . as follows: 1:. for eac elecommunication tower and initial set of antenna or antenna array 2. for each co-located telecom roviders antenna or antenna arra Paragraph G through K - L. SEPARATION The following separation requirements s building permit is required: 1. a. the base of the tower to the lot line of the cified in Table 7-40, except as otherwise ers shall comply with the minimum standards '- 750 feet or 100% of tower height, whichever is greater 500 feet or 100% of tower height, whichever is greater entially zoned land and residences in IL, IH and U 20% of tower height, zoning setback or fall radius, whichever is greater ---------~~rlIMi;f~~d~tioo--------- GEri]te TRF6\i!!R is for deletion Ðøuhâie¡WlUnde¡)$J.ilJi.l1'1emœ.§.~~Ñfi"..a is change from 02/016/99 Bee meeting Ordinance #99-002c Draft #3 Page 10 PRINT DATE: 02/22/99 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 '-' \.,I c. The Community Development Director may approve variances from the separation requirements to habitable residential structures, and to vacant residentially zoned land, provided that no variance shall permit a separation distance of less than 300 feet. The Community Development Director shall not appr specific written findings of fact based directly upon th him showing that: 1 . A literal interpretation of the applicant in violation with F 2. The granting of the vari surrounding properties, and 3. The variance is the minimu use of the land, building, a 4. t is unique and peculiar conditions of this Code and pplicant. The variance reque to the land involv not by the ac . d. The Board of Adju to habitable r I from the separation requirement fee~_~Iif_ V ~ 1- 1.10' M. nications tower will have some type of associated electronic ilding or near the tower. Depending on the type of tower being erected, ds shall apply, in addition to the other general provisions of the code. - Paragraph 1 & 2 - No changes cated on towers shall comply with the following requirements: Equipment/storage facilities shall not exceed an aaareaate total of 1,500 square feet in area per taBmîllliøã.fíœlower site. ---------~~dI~i;f~~d~tioo--------- ÐeriJte Tkre1:l.!Jk is for deletion ÐOUb&ðWØttdð~ð~I~~h~~~I~~1 is change from 02/016/99 Bee meeting Ordinance #99-002c Draft #3 Page 11 PRINT DATE: 02/22/99 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 .\..t ......, b. Equipment/storage facilities shall comply with the minimum building setback standards of the zoning district in which they are located. This requirement may be modified by the Couflty~~gmtWø:t2m.tfnlæ:r'lf!tð1 BøllcClBfm'tiiiJstfflîîemt to encourage co-location. c. All equipment/storage facilities shall be screened in accordance h the general requirements of Section 7.09.00. Paragraph N & 0 - No P. PREEXISTING TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER Any permitted existing telecommunications tower erec 2, 1997 shall be allowed to continue usages which e . tower and its support facilities is allowed to contin . Any e standards of this section shall not be required t hese sta proposed for replacement. At the time any' ommuni replaced or substantially improved, then this s September Routine maintenance of the that does not meet the s and until the tower is ower is proposed to be shall apply. 11.05.06 F. tor determines that any land development activity violates the tation Removal Permit or the provisions of this Code, the r on the development site in question and process the violation ment in accordance with Section 11.13.62 03 of this Code. ******************************** a legislature applicable only to unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County, County ty resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict with this ordinance are hereby superseded o the extent of such conflict. ---------~~clT~iãf~ad~tioo--------- Ct:ri]ce Tfirsl:t!! B. is for deletion meuJ:ij ¡ei1!llunder>lrŒeIOO~&~",',I!¡'¡;!iI.:;I)II.~ is change from 02/016/99 BCC meeting Ordinance #99-002c Draft #3 Page 12 PRINT DATE: 02/22/99 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 ~ "-' 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 ch holding shall not affect its applicability to any other person, property, or circumstance. PART D. APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE. This ordinance shall be applicable throughout S1. Lucie Coun PART E. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STA The Clerk be and is hereby directed forthwith to send a certi Administrative Code and Laws, Department of State, The C PART F. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect upon filing w PART G. ADOPTION. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx nance shall be incorporated in the S1. Lucie County Code and Compiled Laws, and ce" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of ---------~~clIMi;f~ãd~tiõñ-------- SEFi]Ee Tft£e~!!'ft is for deletion D01.1b;lJeHIIIU:rrde!rf1'1Ìin:__;_-j¡~!,_ is change from 02/016/99 Bee meeting Ordinance #99-002c Draft #3 Page 13 PRINT DATE: 02/22/99 '-' '.J 1 this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention; provided, however, that 2 parts B through H shall not be codified. 3 4 5 PASSED AND DULY ENACTED this xxth day of xxxxx, 1999 6 7 8 9 ATTEST: 10 11 12 BY: 13 DEPUTY CLERK 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 ---------~~rlT~i;f~ãd~tioo--------- Gtrilte TRre1i!R is for deletion l!)ø_!!è1Wnde~~" is change from 02/016/99 Bee meeting ordinance #99-002c Draft #3 Page 14 PRINT DATE: 02/22/99 '-" """" PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE 99-002 FILE NO. ORD-99-002 Chairman Wesloski convened the Board as the Local Planning Agency. Mr. Dennis Murphy presented staff comments. Mr. Murphy referenced Draft Ordinance 99-002 (a spin-off from Draft Ordinance 99-00 I reviewed by this Board several months ago, which was are-numbering of Draft Ordinance 98-016). Mr. Murphy stated that the specific amendments contained in Draft Ordinance 99-002 deal with three areas, two related to each other and one unrelated. The two related areas deal with access for commercial and zoning district boundaries and the other area deals with telecommunications towers. Mr. Murphy stated that he would go through each section briefly and then allow the Chairman to open the hearing for public comment. Mr. Murphy stated that staff is proposing a change to Section 7.05.05, that did not make the final production drafts, and provided copies to each of the Board members. Section 7.05.05(A) should read as follows, the underline text is for addition: No residentially classified street or zoned property, excluding arterial or major col1ector roadways, shall be used for driveway, walkway, or any other access purpose to any non- residentially zoned land, or to any land used for a purpose not permitted in a residentially zoned district except as provided for in Paragraph B below. Mr. Murphy asked the Board if they had any questions regarding Section 7.05.05. Ms. Dreyer asked Mr. Murphy to clarify Section 7.05.05(B)(2). Mr. Murphy stated that the intent of Section 7.05.05(B)(2) is that the applicant has satisfied the standards of review as established by the County Commission in that the dominant use of the property within the area of the proposed driveway connection, to the proposed or existing use is vacant or otherwise occupied by non-residential uses. For example, when you look at the area surrounding the proposed driveway connection, it is either (1) vacant or (2) the dominant uses in the area are non-residential in nature. Ms. Dreyer asked Mr. Murphy if he is speaking of the area surrounding the proposed driveway location access connection point. Mr. Murphy stated yes to the area surrounding the proposed driveway location access connection point, but not the use itself, the concern is not what's happening on the property. The North Hutchinson Island Mini-Storage site plan that has caused so much concern in the past, is 7 'w. >...,I administratively dead because of the failure to proceed on the part of the applicant. Mr. Murphy stated that if someone chose to apply for a warehouse operation on that property right now, they would have to go back to ground zero and start all over again. They would have to comply with all current county standards, including access, which would not be off Marina Drive, and they would have to go through the conditional use process, which is the level of extra scrutiny that had been requested from the beginning. Prior to this time, the county did not have this ability, now if someone wants to come in with that use on the property, at least the opportunity is present. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Murphy if we have existing properties that are zoned non-residential that are not accessible other than through residentially zoned areas, if we consider streets as part of the areas prior to this change, are we looking for some relief for the owners or builders of those non- residentially properties so that they can have access, or are we not going to assume that the zonings are erroneous or incorrect. Mr. Murphy stated that at this time staff is not going to assume that the zonings are erroneous or incorrect. Mr. Grande stated that if the Board approves the changes as proposed by staff, we are guaranteeing the property rights of the properties that may have been zoned incorrectly or may be sitting with an old zoning that has not been updated and should have been. Mr. Murphy stated that we are guaranteeing the rights of the property owner to at least make their best pitch, should it be necessary to do so. The exception provisions if approved are very strict, wherein you have to demonstrate you have no other way to access your property and that it was through no fault of your own. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Murphy how many properties are located in the county, other than the North Hutchinson Island property, that would cause the county to take this corrective action, which really grants property rights which may be very dangerous. Mr. Murphy stated that the county has enough existing uses that are potentially being placed in precarious positions should the continued interpretation as rendered be that roads are considered to _ be zoned residential, therefore you cannot use them for access, because of the way the existing zoning lines are in the various parts of the county. He does not foresee a great flood of uses coming in right now and he does not foresee commercial or other types of intense development in the middle of areas like Lakewood Park or Indian River Estates. Mr. Murphy stated this really applies to the church and park type uses, which are by definition, non- residential and may be in residential areas, and by statutes the county is required to provide for these uses. He does not see this change as opening up the gates. The county cannot blanketly state you cannot do it, without having a relief mechanism available, otherwise they could be setting themselves up for various types of litigation. Mr. Grande stated that if the county has the ability to look at parks and churches on a case by case 8 '-' "'-II basis using the variance or conditional use as the solution, by incorporating these changes into the code, the county be giving property owners with improperly zoned parcels property rights that they shouldn't have. This would put the county in a position where they will not be able to stop the property owners in the future from using access they shouldn't be able to use, only because the property was poorly zoned to start with. Mr. Murphy stated that the method to address that specific issue would be to review the entire zoning structure of the county. He stated that denying this change would not cure the problem, it would only delay the issue until a property owner is denied and brings it forward in a court oflaw. Mr. Grande stated that it would come up case by case. Mr. Murphy stated that it would come up case by case and in a very painful and expensive manner. He stated that if you want to evaluate the zoning applications across the board, there is an opportunity to some degree to do that relative to the comprehensive plan updates. He would caution the Board that there are property right components that we must be cognizant of, there should be compelling reasons to change from one use to another is very complicated. Mr. Moore stated that he would like to make a point for the edification of the Board and for the residents present tonight. The last time this Board visited this issue, he adopted Mr. Killday's suggestion for modifying the proposed ordinance. When he saw that it hadn't been done, he spoke with Mr. Murphy and he believes it is important for the Board and the audience to hear why that was not adopted. Mr. Moore stated that Mr. Killday offered proposed language that may have worked better than the language provided by staff and it seemed like a good compromise for the people that were concerned about the North Hutchinson Island Mini-Storage and for the instances staff raised that night. He stated that Mr. Murphy told him the reason the proposed language was not adopted into tonight's draft was because there were other instances that weren't just potential for negative litigation, but there are parcels of land present today that are not improperly zoned and in commercial areas and there is no way for the property owners to use that land given Mr. Killday's proposed language. Mr. Moore stated that if staff feels it is necessary to talk about those instances that exist today, he thinks the Board and the audience should listen to why Mr. Killday's language would not work. Mr. Murphy stated that there will be situations where the configuration of the parcel, the condition or requirements of the adjacent collector roadway would preclude or otherwise prevent a driveway connection to that roadway. You then have a parcel that cannot have access to it. Mr. Murphy stated that an example of this could be Ridge Haven Road and North U.S. 1. where you have commercial zoning fronting onto U.S. 1 and the lots carry all the way back through to Ridge Haven Road. Ridge Haven for all practical purposes is a residential street. It may not be possible to have a driveway connection at the comer lots due to the access management criteria with DOT. Today there are connections, but the moment you go to improve the property you must meet all current DOT standards and that will have a negative impact. 9 '-' \wi Mr. Murphy stated that in this situations you at least want to have the opportunity to explore a safer design that would allow some encroachment back onto the street. The standards outlined in these change staffbelieves are in this vein. The burden of proof and responsibility remains on the property owner, it is not the county's responsibility to prove that the property owner cannot get to their property. Mr. Murphy stated that other examples could include Beach Club Colony, where a string of old duplexes were converted into businesses years ago. They are double ftontage lots and the businesses have constantly wanted to use the back door approaches to get in. Legally they can't do it. It's a constant war to come in and prevent it. In some instances, in general, there may be no alternative. Mr. Trias stated that he is not familiar with the background ofthe North Hutchinson Island Mini- Storage project. He can understand in some cases there is a real problem with access to property. He is a little concerned about applying this concept generally throughout the county as proposed in the draft ordinance. Mr. Trias asked Mr. Murphy what happens with the pattern when you have a grid of streets with a variety of uses, such as an older neighborhood in Fort Pierce, when someone wants to create new construction. What is the affect of having a residential street that actually takes you to a commercial area. How would this apply in the county. Mr. Murphy stated that if you are coming ftom the residential area into the commercial areas, with commercial on both sides, there is no affect. Mr. Trias asked Mr. Murphy what if you have a commercial establishment in the middle of your residential area. Mr. Murphy stated it kills it. Mr. Trias asked Mr. Murphy why would that be a good thing. Mr. Murphy stated that the way the Code is written and interpreted right now, it would kill it. This mechanism assuming you have the commercial zoning and the other criteria, would at least allow for it-to be considered. With the recent interpretation that has been carried forward, it would run counter to the concepts of new and traditional and integrated land use, straight-up, you can't do it. He stated that the Board needs to decide if this is good or bad. To not be able to integrate your uses in an urban environment such as Fort Pierce. Mr. Trias stated that in his opinion, there may be a better tool to address some of the issues and specific concerns that apparently brought this about, than changing the overall definition of streets in the county. Ms. Dreyer asked if this could possibly lead to the tail wagging the dog if you have a small commercial parcel with no other access than through a residential street located in an undeveloped area. Would that not then be an impetus for the neighboring properties to request commercial zoning 10 '-" '....I since you now have a commercial constructed use and a road leading to it. Mr. Murphy stated that no more than it would if you had the frontage off of the arterial or the collector. Ms. Dreyer stated this is where we would typically place commercial. Mr. Murphy stated that this would really only apply in a comer lot situation. He cannot see the County Commission sanctioning the introduction of a commercial use, distinguishing commercial specifically, into an established residential area knowing that it would result in a domino effect of applications for converted uses for that activity. Chairman Wesloski stated that her understanding is that a request for a change in zoning would not be able to move forward because roads currently having zoning. This draft ordinance will allow the request for a change in zoning go forward through the process, providing it meets all of the criteria, including the public hearing process. Mr. Murphy stated that if a private property owner wishes to make use of this property and could not otherwise meet the regulations as set forth in the code. The components in Paragraph B provide a relief mechanism the property owner can take advantage of. This is no guarantee. It provides an available mechanism for the,property owner to use. The county's defense will then be, it was made available, if for whatever reasons coming forth through the review process it is determined to be totally inappropriate. It puts the county in a better position to defend our actions, rather than being accused of being arbitrary and capricious. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Murphy if the warehouse on the beach were to come forward, would they be under the new regulations. Mr. Murphy stated that they would be under the new regulations and would require a conditional use approval. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Murphy if during a prior meeting he used the example of a property on Old Dixie Highway. Mr. Murphy stateáthat was the zoning petition of the Baptist Church. Chairman Wesloski asked Mr. Murphy if that road is zoned residential. Mr. Murphy stated yes it is zoned residential. Chairman Wesloski stated that the majority of the properties in that area are commercial. Mr. Murphy stated that non-residential land use designations are in that area, but Old Dixie Highway was classified for residential uses. 11 '-" "'" Chainnan Wesloski stated that we all know what goes up and down that road. Chainnan Wesloski - askea Mr. Murphy if trucks can travel on a residential road. Mr. Murphy stated yes. He stated that he believes the amendments outlined in this draft address that point. Chainnan Wesloski stated that Old Dixie Highway would no longer be considered residential. Mr. Murphy stated that it would be an arterial collector roadway so the provisions of access contained herein would not apply in that particular instance. He stated this draft ordinance could be approved in the most rigid fonn possible that might state "we cannot access commercial or industrial property from anything but an arterial collector roadway" and there could possibly be that one flukey situation where this would still not fit. Mr. Murphy stated that we have to choose our words carefully because we have situations where we have a commercial local street. For example, Fort Pierce Business Park, off of Selvitz Road, technically the street entering this park is a local street. Weare in no way stating that you cannot access that local street because there is industrial on both, sides and all around it. He stated that residentially zoned local streets are those with the predominant use on both sides are residential in nature. Chainnan Wesloski asked if there are any more questions for Mr. Murphy. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Murphy if the North Hutchinson Island Mini-Storage property was zoned when the land use designations were put into affect. Mr. Murphy stated that particular parcel has had a commercial classification as far back as the late 1960's early 1970's. It has had different degrees of commercial and different classifications, but it has had a non-residential use. Non-residential is a broad heading, it covers churches, schools, parks, low intensity commercial, moderate intensity, high intensity, industrial and landfills. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Murphy if there are a lot of other properties that carry the zoning through, before the land use program was adopted in 1984. - Mr. Murphy-stated that is correct. He stated that there were uses in 1984 and again in 1990 (when changes were made to the code) that were subject to new zoning categories. The use that may have been pennitted in the previous category no longer worked and had to go to the nearest compatible, and churches are a good example. Mr. Merritt stated that if we do not provide some method of relief, we are opening up the county for lawsuits. Mr. Murphy stated that he is not an attorney. He believes the county is opening themselves up to a potential problem in the way of access and damages regarding the denied use of property and/or restricted use of property. 12 \...f "" Mr. Murphy outlined the changes being made to Section 2.00.00 and Section 7.10.23. He stated that in Section-7:10.23(A) the underlined language should have been eliminated and the struck through portion should have been left in. He stated that he believes the remaining changes are minor in nature. He stated that the landscaping and aesthetics requirements have been strengthened around telecommunications towers. Mr. Murphy stated that a problem has recently come up on pennitted use towers. He referred the Board to Section 7.1O.23(E)(3). He stated that a few tower providers have come into areas that are zoned industrial or agricultural, which are a pennitted use of right. One specifically was surrounded by five or six tire mounds and two out in the middle of groves. He stated that landscaping is required around the tower base. The towers in these particular instances are not anywhere close too or visible from a roadway, at base level. In the case of the industrial location, it does not make sense to go into the middle of a tire chip dump and put in trees that will not live. Mr. Murphy stated that staff proposes to allow the Community Development Director discretion to waive the landscaping requirements provided the substandard requirements are complied with and screening is provided at the base level. The requirements of the base level would require an opaque screening around the base of the tower. Mr. Murphy stated that in the case of the groves, ornamental landscaping in the middle of a productive agricultural environment will do nasty things to citrus trees, so you would not want to put landscaping there, you already have grove trees that will shield the base. Mr. Murphy stated the intention of Section 7.1O.23(E)(3) is to provide some ability for the Community Development Director on a case-by-case basis to review the development plans and provide for some relief in those instances. Mr. Murphy stated that the county encourages co-location of services providers and requires a $15,000 removal bond. He stated that the Security Fund, Section 7.10.23(F), does not distinguish between co-located providers. He stated that the county had a problem (which we are attempting to address here) where a provider wanted to co-locate onto an existing tower. The provider was told $15,000 (in addition to the $15,000 that the county was already holding for the tower) they raised the question why. This is a legitimate question. Mr. Murphy stated that stáffis proposing if you are co-locating onto an existing tower the fee will be $3,000 which should be sufficient to remove the antenna. He stated that based on economics, he believes this will encourage co-locating rather than building from scratch. Mr. Murphy asked the Board if they had any questions. Mr. Merritt stated that to charge $3,000 for co-location seems to punish a co-location instead of encouraging. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Murphy if the security fund of$15,000 is not enough on the original tower. He stated that he has seen leases on towers that have had up to 12 co-locations. He stated that he does not have a problem with the $3,000 but he feels the co-locator may have a problem with it. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Murphy what it costs to take down a tower and why are we 13 '-'. . -..".I. discouraging the co-location with a $3,000 fee. Mr. Murphy stated that he does not believe we are discouraging the co-location, he believes we are encouraging the co-location. If the applicant does not co-locate they would have to write a check for $15,000, right now they only have to write a check for $3,000. A year and a half ago, the County Commission determined that it was appropriate to require a bond to ensure that the tower would be taken care of and/or removed should it be necessary. Consistent with that, the recommendation was made that $3,000 was reasonable for a co-located antenna or antenna array. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Murphy what would be the cost to take a tower down. Mr. Murphy stated that he cannot give a precise amount. Mr. Merritt stated that we do not even know if the $15,000 would cover the cost of taking it down. Mr. Murphy stated that it would depend on the type of tower. A monopole or guyed tower would be cheaper to take down than a self-supporting tower, due to the amount of time involved in removing the tower. It would also depend on the complexity of where it is located, and how you access the property. Mr. Merritt stated that he has a problem with the cost of $3,000 for removing a co-located antenna, he would like to see that changed and encourage co-location. Chainnan Wesloski asked if there were any more questions for Mr. Murphy. Mr. Loundsasked Mr. Murphy how many applications per year are received for co-location, and are they increasing. Mr. Murphy stated that he does not have an exact number. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy if the county would rather see them co-locate then to apply for separate towers. Mr. Murphy stated absolutely. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy if the $3,000 would cover the cost of hiring someone to take that specific antenna and co-axial cable off of that particular tower. Mr. Murphy stated yes ifit were necessary. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy why this is not left up to the tower owner. Mr. Murphy stated that it could be. The county could put the burden of responsibility on the owner of the tower. The present structure of the code is that, if you want to co-locate a facility, in addition to the $15,000 paid by the original tower owner, the co-locator would have to pay $15,000. This 14 '-' ....", change is an attempt to change what staff felt was a contradictory action on the part of the county. For instance, on one hand we want you to co-locate anc:hm the'other hand we are going to charge you $15,000 to place the co-locate. Mr. Lounds stated that he understands and agrees with the intent. He stated that he agrees with Mr. Merritt wherein the county would rather have people co-exist on a tower than build more towers. He stated that $3,000 for a radio station may not be a lot of money, if it were a small business that needed that antenna, height and location $3,000 may make a decision for them. Chairman Wesloski stated the Board will have a public hearing on each section and vote on each section, during this time we can get into the specifics. Mr. Murphy stated that staff recommends approval of Draft Ordinance 99-002 as amended with Section 7.05.05(A) as presented tonight. Chairman Wesloski stated that the North Hutchinson Island Mini-Storage is no longer a viable project. Chairman Wesloski asked the Board if there were any specific questions of staff regarding Section 1.06.02 and 7.05.05. At this time, Chairman Wesloski opened the public hearing on Sections 1.06.02 and 7.05.05. Chairman Wesloski asked ifthere was anyone who would like to speak on Sections 1.06.02 and 7.05.05. Chairman Wesloski requested that Mr. Killday's hand-out be made a part of the record. Mr. Brian Killday, 923 Jackson Way, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Killday stated that he is speaking tonight on behalf of the Conservation Alliance ofSt. Lucie County. Mr. Killday read into the record as follows: Dear Commissioners: I hereby submit to the record-the position of the St. Lucie County Conservation Alliance with respect to Draft Ordinance 99-002. We have concerns with certain provisions of this proposed -ordinance as stated below: 1.06.02 7.05.05 DISTRICT BOUNDARIES USE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR ACCESS The proposed amendments to these sections, as written, clearly violate the intent of the Land Development Code and are inconsistent with the County Comprehensive Plan. Section 1.06.02 (page 3) clearly states that, where indicated on the zoning map, the zoning district boundaries are the center lines of the streets and roads. If the intention had been to exclude the streets from the 15 '-' '.....I zoning regulations, the zoning atlas boundaries would have been drawn as such. He stated that if streets were intended to be excluded it would have b-een drawn along the property lines. It is very clear that in the situations were it was intended to be excluded it would not be drawn along the center of the streets. These amendments, as written, directly violate Policy 1.1.8.4 of the Comprehensive Plan. The Land Development Code must be in confonnity with Objective 1.1.8 which states: The protection of the single family neighborhood as a defined residential area from the encroachment of commercial and/or other inappropriate land uses will be provided for through the Land Development Regulations. He stated that Policy 1.1.8.4 requires that any commercial/non-residential use in residential areas must meet the following standards: 2) The property for which the commercial designation is sought is located on an arterial or major collector; and 5) The site does not have direct driveway access onto any local or minor collector street. Policy 1.1.8.4 does not allow for exemptions of this rule. Mr. Killday stated that their suggestions for remedying the problems brought forth, churches and commercial uses in the middle, most of these are on major collector or arterial streets. Mr. Killday stated that there is no needed to amend the defmition of Section 1.06.02, it is very clearly written as it was intended to be. Martin County has the same provisions as St. Lucie County as it's presently written. Ifwe change the codeto read "no residentially zoned property excluding arterial or major collector street or road rights-of-way, shall be used for driveway, walkway, or any other access purpose to any other non-residentially zoned land, or to any land used for a purpose not pénnitted in a residentially zoned district" then it will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The way it is written is not. Mr. Killday stated that we have a beautiful county with well-written Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code provisions that allow for reasonable development. The proposed amendments cited would only serve to degrade our property values and quality of life. - In addition, these amendments are inconsistent with the St. Lucie County Comprehénsive Plan and in violation of Section 163, Florida Statutes, and can be appealed to the Department of Community Affairs pursuant to this statute. Mr. Killday stated that the Land Development Code as presently written has a legally defensible position against takings lawsuits. It is written in the Land Development Code that if someone had a problem they could have come out when the Land Development Code was being written and challenged it through the Department of Community Affairs. He stated that now there would certainly be an argument that they are being estoppel from arguing. If Draft Ordinance 99-002 is adopted and the property owner can prove they do not have access to a major collector street, the county no longer has a choice, the county must allow access through the neighborhood to their 16 \..f ....I property. The County Commission would then be forced to approve the access because it is written in the Land Development Code and the property owner can sue on a takings c1ailse if you do not allow it. Mr. Killday stated that Section 11.06.01 outlines the purpose of this section is to provide for a means for amending the text of the Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development Code or the Official Zoning Atlas. Section 11.06.03, Standards of Review, in reviewing the application of a proposed amendment to the text of the Land Development Code, the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: · Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. These amendments clearly violate the spirit, the intent and clearly the letter ofthe Comp Plan. · Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would adversely affected the property value in the area. We have the same amenities as Martin and Indian River Counties yet property values here in St. Lucie County are much lower for equivalent houses. Why move to St. Lucie County and buy a $250,000 water-front home, when all at once the Land Development Code can be changed and you have trucks accessing a storage warehouse or whatever may come forward, perhaps a pawn shop. Your home is suddenly worth $100,000 less than you paid for it, if you can find a buyer. Why not move to Stuart where they prohibit commercial access on residential streets, they have safe-guards in their code that we have in our Code. So why should we change our Land Development Code to be sub-standard to the surrounding counties. · Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in hannony with the purpose and interest of this Code. The citizens here are opposed to these amendments. Where are those who are in favor of this. Who ask the County Planners to changes these Codes and why are they not here stating their public interest. Where are the potential litigants. Mr. Killday stated that he urges someone to make a motion to reject this and to listen to the people. Chainnan Wesloski requested that Ms. Spalding's hand-out be made a part of the record. Ms. Nancy Spalding, 211 Marina Drive, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Ms. Spalding stated that the warehouse proposed for North Hutchinson Island withdrew their application because the Land Development Code does not pennit it. As soon as the new code is implemented, she believes they will be back in to re-apply. Ms. Spalding stated that in 1958 the land in question was to have been developed as a yacht club and this is why it was made commercial. Ms. Spalding stated that Section 1.06.00 as written, specifically pennits warehouses. She stated that 17 ~ ....., - Section 7.05.05 is completely contradictory. She stated that the change made by Mr. Murphy tonight regarding Section 7.05.05(A) incorporates the changes she is suggesting iil-her hand-out as Section 7.05.05(C) and asked Mr. Murphy if this is correct. Mr. Murphy stated that it is a redundant sentence and it doesn't undermine anything, in his opinion. Ms. Spalding stated that if Section 7.05.05(B) stands as is, definitely the warehouse as it was proposed could go in there because it states that "the dominant use of property within the area of the proposed driveway". If they put the driveway on Flotilla Terrace instead of Marina Drive, the property just east of Flotilla Terrace is commercial and that would be pennitted. The residents would still be left with a warehouse in a residential area. Ms. Spalding stated that she just can't understand, July was the first time the code changes were proposed, and since then conversations have been held with staff, including a public meeting where it was explained what the residents want, but they don't seem to get it, they seem to want a warehouse on this property. Chainnan Wesloski stated that Draft Ordinance 99-002 is not for the warehouse, it is for the whole county. Ms. Spalding stated that no matter what staff proposes always pennits the warehouse to go on that particular parcel. Chainnan Wesloski stated that she would not say that it would pennit it, it might give it the opportunity to request to be pennitted, but that does not mean it would be pennitted. Ms. Spalding stated that she believes it would be impossible, given this wording, for the County Commission to turn it down. She stated that staff if very concerned about the hardship for the property owner but not about the hardship for the residents. Mr. Murphy stated that it is important to remember the third word in Section 7.05.05(B): Except as ~ be specifically authorized. This is not a mandatory action, it is a pennissive or subjective type action. The Board of County Commissioners has the ability through the review process to turn it down. Mr. Murphy stated that staff is cognizant of what happens to each individual property as well as the impacts on the surrounding area. Chainnan Wesloski stated that each property owner has the ability to ask. Mr. Murphy stated that this simply provides a mechanism. It is not a guarantee, you have to meet the standards. It does not guarantee approval. Chainnan Wesloski asked Mr. Murphy if the applicant does not meet the standards would they still go forward through the hearing process. 18 '-' , ..,.¡ Mr. Murphy stated yes, staff does not have the ability to administratively deny. Chainnan Wesloski stated that a property owner in the County would have the ability to have a forum to bring forth their request. Mr. Murphy stated yes. Mr. Grande stated that if this Board does not make any changes at all, property owners who are affected have the right to come forward to ask for relief at the County Commission level. The County would only be exposing themselves ifthe property owners are unsatisfied with the relief at the County Commission level. If this Board makes these corrections we are reversing the process and in affect giving the property owners the rights to expect relief. Mr. Murphy stated that presently there are no provisions. The property owner may come in, request a development plan or access rights to their property, be denied, and go to court. Draft Ordinance 99-002 at least attempts to provide an interim step. If a compelling reason is given, due to the particular circumstances associated with that case to the satisfaction of the County Commission, they may grant some level of relief. Mr. Grande stated that they may hope to exercise a right and put the County on the defensive. Mr. Murphy stated that he does not see it that way. Chainnan Wesloski requested that Mr. Doran's hand-out be made a part ofthe record. Mr. John Doran, 3300 North AlA, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Doran stated that he serves as the Director of the North Beach Homeowners Association. He stated that in the summer of 1998 the St. Lucie County Planning Department proposed a number of changes to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. There were strong objections to the changes proposed in 1.06.02 and 7.05.05. This Commission instructed the Planning Department to hold a "workshop" to listen to and then, hopefully, adjust the proposed language. The ''workshop'' was held, however, our Association felt we were not listened to. In November of 1998 the proposed changes were again before this Commission. Again, this Commission sent the proposal back to the Planning Dep-artment and suggested a re-write. Our - Association even suggested acceptable language for Section 7.05.05. Again, we feel, we have been ignored by the Planning Department. We ask that Ordinance 99-002 be rejected in totality. Please look at page two of my presentation. This is the language of7.05.05 as it is today. You will note that it was adopted in August of 1990. It was reviewed and passed without revision in August of 1996. One sentence, two lines. Now, please look at page three of my presentation which is 7.05.05 as revised by the Planning Department after the ''workshop'' in August 1998. It now has a total of thirteen lines. This was rejected by this Commission in November of 1998 and sent back to the Planning Department for a 19 ~ ....,,¡ re-write. Now, let's look at page four which is the proposal that is before you tonight, without the revision provided by Mr. Murphy tonight. It is now thirty three lines long. Mr. Doran stated that do you, as an advisory board wonder why we citizens at times question our governmental units. South Beach has been driven to their current pursuit only because the County Planning Department overstepped its authority. Likewise, North Beach has spent over $17,000 in legal fees opposing the variances the Planning Department provided in an area called "Barts Bay". That is still before the Courts. Mr. Doran stated please listen to us, look closely at my presentation. Look at page two. Look what happened after the ''workshop'', the language expansion. Look what happened after this Commission sent it back for a consideration of a small re-write. Now you have a full page, thirty three lines of this proposed ordinance. We strongly urge this Commission to reject this entire proposal. Mr. Dick Spalding, 211 Marina Drive, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Spalding stated that he just wants to point out that the beach is our greatest asset. Presently the beach is a very high taxed area, compared to the rest of the County. The atmosphere and the ambiance are present and he would like to keep it that way. To build a warehouse on the beach does not seem like a very intelligent thing to do to choice property to keep the pace of taxes that support the whole County. It does not make economic sense to the County, to allow a warehouse on the beach. Chainnan Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on Sections 1.06.02 and 7.05.05. Mr. Leslie Savino, 3207 South Lakeview Circle, Fort Pierce, addressed the Board. Mr. Savino stated that his property faces the street where the warehouse supposedly was going to be constructed. He stated that he has owned his property for four years, and purchased this property because he thought North Hutchinson Island was the most beautiful area he had seen in Florida. Mr. Savino stated that he can understand the Commission evaluating this area where residential streets are slowly being converted into commercial streets. Commercialism over-powers residential areas, people move out, commercial properties move in, and it becomes a residential street. Mr. Savino stated that on North Hutchinson Island the reverse is true, this is a residential area and there is no commercialism that could possibly find its way onto the Island unless we allow the areas that we have today already zoned commercial to be developed as commercial properties. He stated that he believes this property was mis-zoned originally. It is not a commercial area. Mr. Savino stated that he compliments members of the Commission who questioned this change. These changes are not applicable to everyone, only in some areas of the County, not North Hutchinson Island. He believes the County should leave it as is. Look at it on a case by case basis, leave the street zoning, and let each property owner fight for their position. 20 ~ ~ '-' Mr. Bill Hearn, who resides in Indrio, addressed the Board. Mr. Hearn stated that he concurs with the residents who have proceeded him tonight. He must point out, if the owner of this commercially --. zoned property, in the middle of a residential neighborhood, wanted to obtain the most value for his property, he could have the zoning changed to residential to confonn with the other uses. He stated that in most cases, in a residential area like North Beach, the values for the residential property would equal the commercial property. Mr. Hearn stated that he would like to suggest that the Board delete the following from Section 7.05.05(A) "excluding public or private street or road rights-of-way". Mr. Murphy stated that language has been deleted and referred Mr. Hearn to the language shown on the overhead projector. Mr. Hearn stated that he would like to suggest the following changes to Section 7.05.05(A): · change the last line in Section 7.05.05(A) to read "district, however. · include the two paragraph in Section 7.05.05(B) as part of paragraph Section 7.05.05(A). · after paragraph number 1 add the word "and". · after paragraph number 2 add the word "and". · Section 7.05.05(C) would then become Section 7.05.05(B). Mr. Hearn stated that this is the only possible compromise. He stated that he would encourage the Board to leave the wording as is. Chainnan Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on Sections 1.06.02 and 7.05.05. Hearing no further arguments in favor of or in opposition to Sections 1.06.02 and 7.05.05, Chairman Wesloski closed the public portion of the hearing. Chainnan Wesloski asked what would be the pleasure of the Board. Mr. Grande stated that he cannot vote on these two sections. He does not feel staffhas corrected the problem. He does not see any risk to the County by leaving these sections as they are. If a potential risk to the County were present, he would like to see that risk defined by the County Attorney at a level the Board could understand. He cannot see any reason whatsoever to make the requested changes. Mr. Matthes stated that he disagrees with Mr. Grande. The Land Development Code is only a working document. When it was put together, it was not cast in stone. The Board was giving the 21 '-' ...." ability to make changes to the Code as situations arise. He does not believe a warehouse or some commercial applications would be proper at the end of Marina Drive. Mr. Matthes believes that the Planning Department has come upon a legitimate concern, wherein some type of litigation could possibly happen if we do not allow for some type of a relief mechanism, for a different situation, to run its due course. He believes staff is trying to point out these situations and protect the County from litigation. Mr. Trias stated that he agrees with Mr. Killday's proposal because it seems to address the fundamental issues of what a street is and what a lot is. Mr. Trias made a motion to reject the changes drafted by staff. Mr. Grande seconded the motion. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was any discussion. Mr. Lounds stated that he would like for Mr. Trias to explain whether or not he is asking for Mr. Killday's language be substituted for what staff presented. Mr. Trias stated that his motion is to reject the changes drafted by staff. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was any further discussion. Chairman Wesloski asked the Recording Secretary to call the roll. Upon roll call the motion was denied 6-3. Chairman Wesloski stated that she would entertain another motion. Mr.Lounds asked Mr. Murphy what differs from Mr. Killday's interpretation of Section 7.05.05(A) and the language proposed by staff. Mr. Murphy stated that there is no difference other than staffhas added an exception clause which refers you to paragraph B. The only difference in the lead-in language provided by Mr. Killday, excluding arterial or major collector street or road rights-of-way, from that provided by staff, is the word "street" versus "roadways". Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy if the exception clause is to cover the County from a legal perspective. Mr. Murphy stated yes, in his opinion. Mr. Moore stated that the problem he has with the proposed changes are staffhas informed him there are instances in the community right now that are not on Hutchinson Island and are not on the Beach, 22 '-" "'*' where owners of commercial property cannot use their property. The example given by Mr. Hearn is a great argument because if you are on the Beach, and you have a commercial piece of property, you are not going to lose any money because you can use the property in a residential manner. Mr. Moore stated that if we have instances that are not on the beach and the area has been zoned commercial for as long as the surrounding areas have been zoned residential, and the owner bought that piece of property, has been assessed and paid taxes on that piece of property at a commercial rate (which is higher than a residential rate), you have basically cut the owner offby saying that they cannot use their property. Mr. Moore stated that he disagrees with Mr. Killday's assertion that if a property owner has not challenged the language at this point, they are stopped from doing so. He does not believe this to be true. He stated aside from a legal challenge he believes there is an inherent unfairness. For example if a property owner states they are going to develop a commercial piece of property and the commercial property has existed as long as the residential, to say sorry you can't develop, that's what he sees as the problem. This is why he now tends to favor what staff has recommended as opposed to Mr. Killday's suggestion. Mr. Lounds stated that he agrees with Mr. Moore. He feels the plea of the residents. He stated to Ms. Spalding, Mr. Killday and Mr. Doran that he understands their feeling. He stated that he does not know what the ramifications are that the residents have to do in order to continue to protect their property, their property rights and their feelings. Mr. Lounds stated that every piece of property with similar circumstances has the same rights of protection and development as Ms. Spalding, Mr. Killday and Mr. Doran are trying to protect for their own; He stated it is very admirable the residents have brought these ideas forward and as a group are here to fight for it. He wished there were more public interest in the other areas the Board looks at. He does not know how you protect a glitch other than get out and fight for it. Mr. Lounds stated that the Draft Ordinance presented by staff is a clear example of working with some of the original ideas brought forth months ago. He believes this is an attempt to correct the wrong in unclarified rulings years ago, and in the future there will probably be more that will have to be done, whatever this Board decides on we will all have to live with. Mr. Grande stated that he would like to hear from the County Attorney's Office exactly what this will protect the County from. Mr. Lancaster stated that if the County denies property owners the right to develop their property it could cause litigation. He stated that Mr. Murphy is not attempting to state that it would be successful litigation. He stated that this is recognizing a problem and attempting to deal with it head on. He stated that this is an attempt by staff to make a compromise between the concerns of the residents present tonight, that there be no access, and the person who mayhave a unique situation, that has to be dealt with. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Lancaster if this is approved can the specific case of the North Hutchinson 23 ~ -...I Island Mini-Storage be brought back as it was originally proposed. Mr. Lancaster stated that the North Hutchinson Island Mini-Storage could come before the Board of County Commissioners and asked for an exception. He stated that Mr. Murphy has other issues that would also bear on that. Mr. Murphy stated that for the record the North Hutchinson Island Mini-Storage is dead. He stated the zoning on the property still remains. In the discussions earlier tonight, all have been centered around what could happen on the property. This could get approved tonight, and someone could come in tomorrow and propose to do another commercial use on that property. This could get denied tonight and someone could come in tomorrow and propose another commercial use on that property. He stated that if the driveway connections are run through the shopping center at the front end, there is not a thing in the world the County can do to stop it. This has not addressed the fundamental concerns of the neighborhood. You could have a restaurant or an expansion of the shopping center out there tomorrow and there is not a thing the access matters are going to do about it. They could still come through the property from AlA down through the shopping center and into that area, all they have to do is secure the access rights through that property. He stated that ifthe fundamental concern on the North Hutchinson Island Mini-Storage case is that the zoning is wrong, then access is not the tool to control that. To stop it, you change the zoning. Chainnan Wesloski stated that the Board is not here to discuss that case. Mr. Murphy stated that is correct but in this one instance, it is not an access question, it is a fundamental zoning designation on the property. Mr. Trias stated that he agrees with Mr. Murphy. The issue is access not zoning. He stated that 7.05.05(B) and 7.05.05(C) are unclear. 7.05.05(A) seems to deal with the fundamental issue of the confusion of, what is a lot and what a street is. He believes to complicate the issue as proposed is not necessary at this point. Ms. Dreyer stated that she applauds staff for bringing this problem to the Board and would like staff to continue to do so. She stated that she does not agree with this particular correction; It is not in violation of the Policies of the Comprehensive Plan that were cited. This is not a clear violation and this is a big stick to bring at a small problem for lawsuits that mayor may not happen, and she would not be in favor ofthis particular amendment. Chainnan Wesloski stated that the exception would give property owners the right to come forward and present their issues at a forum and she believes everyone should be allowed to do this. Chainnan Wesloski stated that she would entertain a motion. 24 '-" ...,.¡ Mr. Merritt made a motion to approve Sections 1.06.02 and 7.05.05. Mr. Lounds seconded the motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 6-3 with Mr. Trias, Ms. Dreyer and Mr. Grande voting in opposition. Chainnan Wesloski stated that the Board will continue with Sections 2.00.00 and 7.10.23. Chainnan Wesloski asked ifthere were any questions for Mr. Murphy on Sections 2.00.00 and 7.10.23. Mr. Grande stated that he has a philosophical problem with the language contained in Section 7.10.23(E)(3) "the Community Development Director may consider" and in 7.1O.23(L)(1)(c) "the Community Development Director may approve variances". He believes variances should be approved by the elected officials. If these variances are pennitted, he would feel more comfortable if they were at the discretion of the County Commission. Chainnan Wesloski asked Mr. Murphy ifhe would like to comment on this. Mr. Murphy stated that the Land Development Code has two levels of variances. There are a series of administrative variances, which are minor in nature. The remaining variance provisions, typically, with very few exceptions, go to the Board of Adjustment. These are considered major, they require a public hearing and are dimensional with fundamental impacts on an area. Mr. Murphy stated that the County Commission in prior years detennined they did not want the burden of a variance request for routine items. If the recommendation of this Board is that all variances be routed through to the appropriate Board (and in most cases it will be the Board of Adjustment) that's fine. He believes this will have a negative effect on development and permitting properties. Staff has requested a number oftimes from a number of entities to liberalize the variance provisions to approve items at the staff level as opposed to going through the Board process. In prior years the Boards have been very receptive to minimizing time, constraints and other impacts on the use of property. This is really a philosophical position. Mr. Grande stated that he did not mean this in a negative sense. His concern is that if we allow the administrative variance procedure, we would preclude the hearing process, wherein interested parties may want to have input. Chainnan Wesloski asked Mr. Murphy if staff has been instructed to handle the minor adjustments at the administrative level. Mr. Murphy stated yes and you are precluding being heard at the time the order is written. There is an appeal procedure for administrative variances and typically they go to either the County Administrator or the County Commission to arbitrate and make a detennination. Variances issued by the Board of Adjustment are appealed through the Circuit Court. Board of County Commission variances are also appealed through the Circuit Court. 25 '-' ...,,¿ Chainnan Wesloski asked ifthere were any other questions for Mr. Murphy. Mr. Trias stated that he agrees with Mr. Murphy's proposal, and he would move for approval. Chainnan Wesloski stated to Mr. Trias that she had not opened the public hearing so she will not be able to consider his motion at this time. Chainnan Wesloski asked if there were any other questions for Mr. Murphy before she opens the public hearing. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy who would a land owner go to for arbitration regarding Section 7.10.23(E) ifthe Community Development Director said no. Mr. Murphy stated that the appeal route for administrative variances would be the County Administrator and then to the Board of County Commissioners. In this particular instance, it would be County Administrator and then Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Lounds stated that several years ago the Fire District constructed a building on Shinn Road and the landscaping cost several thousand dollars more because the plants were required to come from a certified nematode free nursery. There were no provisions at that time for this and this would have eliminated the need for that. He stated that he believes this is a good provision. Chainnan Wesloski asked if there were any other questions for Mr. Murphy. Mr. McCurdy asked Mr. Murphy if a co-located antenna is simply an antenna and cable on an existing tower. Mr. Murphy stated that it could be. It could be an array or dish. Mr. McCurdy stated that the $3,000 figure is prohibitive. He stated that $1,000 seems to be a more reasonable figure in his opinion. Mr. Murphy stated that the Board may change the $3,000 figure. At this time, Chainnan Wesloski opened the public hearing on Sections 2.00.00 and 7.10.23. Mr. Hearn, who resides in InOOo, addressed the Board. He asked Mr. Murphy if there are any towers that were approved for construction prior to September 19, 1997 that have not been built. Mr. Murphy stated none that he is aware of. Mr. Hearn stated that he has some suggested wording changes that would clarify the intent of the definition and the code and they are as follows: . on page 4, PRE-EXISTING TOWERS AND PRE-EXISTING ANTENNAS: he 26 '-'" ....." would like this paragraph to read "Any, pennitted, existing tower or antenna constructed prior to September 19, 1997 (the effective date of Ordinance 97-023), excluding residential radio and television towers". He stated that he can see a very creative attorney telling someone who has a television antenna tower in their yard that it would qualify for a replacement for a larger tower that could hold a communications antenna. · on page 6, PURPOSE: he would like this paragraph to read "The purpose of this section is to establish regulations and requirements for siting of wireless telecommunications towers. All new towers or antennas in the County shall be subject to these regulations". · on page 7, GENERAL: he would like the third line of paragraph 1 to read "requirements of Section 7.10.23. Telecommunications towers may be located as a conditional". · on page 7, GENERAL: he would like the fourth line of paragraph I to read "use, subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.23 and Section 11.07.00, in all remaining zoning" . · on page 9, he would like the third line of paragraph b to read ''way, public park or playground, public or private school (K through 12), any habitable residential structure or any area". Mr. Hearn stated that on page 10, Table 7-40, the CN, CO, CG, IX and I, have been added to make it easier to erect towers in areas other than where they are now pennitted. Mr. Hearn stated that he would like to comment on Section 7.1 0.23(L)(1)( c) wherein the Community Development Director may approve variances. At some later date he would like to see the wording in paragraph c read "The Community Development Director may approve variances up to 10% :trom the separation requirements.....". He would like to see this change because of what happened last summer. The Community Development Director issued a variance down to 300 feet, when the requirement is 750 feet. He believes this is a major variance and should have been handled by the Board of Adjustment. · on page 11, the first sentence at the top, he would like to read "to habitable residential structures ofless than 300 feet provided the applicant meets all conditions of Section 7.1O.23(L)(c). · on page 11, paragraph P, he would like the first sentence to read "Any pennitted existing telecommunications tower erected before September 19, 1997 (date". Mr. Hearn stated that he hopes this Board will give careful consideration to these suggested changes. He has had close and personal relationships with problems that have occurred without this language. He believes this will clarify the ordinance and make it a little more difficult to place towers in areas 27 '-" ....., that they are not permitted in. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Hearn ifhe was suggesting that CN, CO, CG, IX and I be removed now from Table 7-40 or was he just making a comment. Mr. Hearn stated that he is suggesting that they be removed now because these are not permitted areas. Mr. Grande stated to Mr. Hearn in paragraph c on page 10 he recommended that staff add "up to 10" in the future. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Hearn if there was some reason why he was not recommending that this change be made tonight. Mr. Hearn stated that he does not have the ability to recommend this change tonight based on advertising constraints. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Hearn why he wants to exclude IX. Mr. Hearn stated that IX is a temporary zoning classification. When the extraction is finished the property is rezoned to another zoning classification. A tower is not necessarily a temporary structure. Mr. Merritt stated that the property would have to go through a rezoning. If you have a property zoned IL or IH with a tower on it, you can still rezone it. Mr. Hearn stated that he does not feel a temporary zoning classification is the right place for a tower. He stated a good example would be the Stuart Sand Mind property. It would make a fantastic residential homesite for eight or ten beautiful homes on the lake. If a tower is present, not too many people will want to build up scale homes. Chairman Wesloski asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on Sections 2.00.00 and 7.10.23. Hearing no further arguments in favor of or in opposition to Sections 2.00.00 and 7.10.23, _ Chairman Wesloski closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Murphy if he has any objections to Mr. Hearn's suggested changes. Mr. Murphy stated he has concern regarding the suggested changes on: · page 9, paragraph b, adding the words "any habitable residential structure". To the extent that this does not conflict with the items of Table 7-40 nor conflict with an agricultural environment, he does not believe this to be a problem. His major concern is really in the agricultural/grove areas. In this type of environment, domestic ornamentals, you are creating a problem for the agricultural operation itself which has a negative impact. By trying to minimize the impacts of one use you wind 28 '-" ~ up hurting the primary industry in the County. · page 10, Table 7-40, CN, CO, CG, IX and I are not permitted uses of right, they have to be accessory to an existing commercial use on the property. They are subordinate to the commercial use on the property. It was felt the owner should not be penalized for placing a tower on their property. They know what they are getting into. If you have a house on the property, that is not an accessory security residence, meeting the criteria you can't take advantage of this exception, you have to meet the applicable standards for that particular use. Mr. Mwphy stated that his recommendation would be to leave Table 7-40 as is. With a little work between now and the County Commission we can work on the appropriate language for page 9, paragraph b. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Mwphy ifhe feels the proposed language for page 9, paragraph b, is a simple redundancy that may be a potential conflict with something that he does not recognize at this point. Mr. Mwphy stated yes. Mr. Murphy stated that regarding the proposed language on page 4, PRE-EXISTING TOWERS AND PRE-EXISTING ANTENNAS, he is not aware of their being any towers that were previously approved prior to this date that have not been built. He will check. If there are none with lawful approval, no hann. If this are some with lawful approval, staffwill need to address this. Chainnan Wesloski stated that if someone would choose in their motion to pickup that wording, the Board would need to clarify that staff would need to check that. Mr. Mwphy stated the comments are on record. As long as we are not creating an undue hardship on anyone, no problem. If an undue hardship exists, he will have to express that concern as it is this Board's ultimate recommendation as to which way to go. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Mwphy if the existing antennas or miniature towers that are on the condominiums on the beach, are considered towers. Mr. Murphy stated yes. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Mwphy how are we going to differentiate those from the habitable structures. Mr. Mwphy stated that you can put up a tower right next to a house if you want to, if you obtain the proper variances. Mr. Merritt stated that these are approved pre-existing towers. Mr. Mwphy stated that someone could install an antenna right next to his house, provided the proper variance is obtained. The exclusionary language in this Draft Ordinance is for accessory security 29 - '\w' ...., units only and for the particular zoning districts without having to go through the formal Board of Adjustment variance. Mr. Mwphy stated that Section 7.10.23(L)(1)(d) on pages 10 and 11 is the variance provision that the Board of Adjustment will allow the tower to go up tomorrow. That would include, potentially, the construction or the erection of an antenna array and or communication system on top of a condominium. Mr. Grande asked Mr. Murphy if these towers would fall within the height overlay zones on the Island. Mr. Mwphy stated yes. He further stated that there is no prohibition of having a multi-story building on the mainland. If you can meet separation standards and meet the requirements of the Land Development Code, you could put up a tower in the middle of Reserve. Chairman Wesloski asked what would be the pleasure of the Board. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Heam if he wanted to change anything in Table 7-40. Mr. Hearn stated that CN, CO, CG, IX and I zoning districts are not districts where towers are permitted uses. The additions of these zoning classifications to the exempted habitable residential structures that are accessory uses makes it easier to put towers where they are not permitted. For example, if you own a piece of property that is zoned CGwith a habitable residential structure, that happens to be a security residences, and the person living in that structure works for you, they are not going to object. Mr. Moore stated to Mr. Heam that he also has a problem on page 10 with the discretion that the Community Development Director would have. Mr. Heam stated that is something we can't deal with tonight. Mr. Moore stated that he understands we can't deal with this tonight. He asked Mr. Heam if this is something that he does not agree with. Mr. Heam stated that when you take the required 750 foot distance and one person who mayor may not live in our community, reduces it to 300 feet, that's a major variance. Mr. Moore stated that he agrees and there is not a problem with re-publishing. Mr. Heam stated that in the future a 10% variance would be reasonable for one person to make, and when it exceeds 10% the Board of Adjustment should make that decision. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Mwphy ifhe would re-consider the amount ofthe security fund on page 9. Mr. Murphy asked Mr. Lounds which portion. 30 '-" -.J Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy if he would lower the co-located telecommunication providers antenna or antenna array fee. Mr. Murphy stated that $3,000 is only an estimate. The Board can recommended another amount if they so desire. Mr. Lounds stated that he would like to recommend that the co-location amount of $3,000 be lowered to $1,000 and would suggest the $15,000 for each tower be lowered to $7,500. Chairman Wesloski stated that she would be opposed to lowering the $15,000 figure because some of these towers are large and it would probably cost more than that to remove them. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Murphy ifthe idea of$15,000 is to cover removal of the original base and tower. Mr. Murphy stated yes. Mr. Lounds stated strike his request for lower the $15,000 amount. He would like to recommend co-location be reduce to $1,000 to enhance co-locating. Chairman Wesloski stated that she would like to entertain a motion. Mr. Grande made a motion to approve Sections 2.00.00 and 7.10.23, with the changes outlined by Mr. Hearn in totality and the reduction from $3,000 to $1,000. Mr. Lounds seconded the motion, and upon roll call the motion was approved 8-1 with Chairman Wesloski voting in opposition. 31 (\...' " t.--! The Conservation Alliance of St. Lucie County, Inc. P. O. Box 12515 Fort Pierce, Florida 34979-2515 Internet Home Page: www.biosys.net/indianriver Email: conservationalli(â)hotmail.com January 21, 1999 S1. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Dear Commissioners: I hereby submit to the record the position of the S1. Lucie County Conservation Alliance with respect to Draft Ordinance 99-002, which provides for a series of General Amendments to the S1. Lucie County Land Development Code (LDC). We have concerns with certain provisions of this proposed ordinance as stated below: 1.06.02 DISTRICT BOUNDARIES 7.05.05 USE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR ACCESS The proposed amendments to these sections, as written, clearly violate the intent of the Land Development Code and are inconsistent with the County Comprehensive Plan. Section 1.06.02 (page 3) clearly states that, where indicated on the zoning map, the zoning district boundaries are the centerlines of the streets and roads. If the intention had been to exclude the streets from the zoning regulations, the zoning atlas boundaries would have been drawn as such. These amendments, as written, directly violate Policy 1:1 .8.4 of the Comprehensive Plan, which explicitly requires that any commercial/non-residential use in residential areas must meet the following standards: 2) The property for which the commercial designation is' sought is located on an Arterial or Major Collector; and 5) The site does not have direct driveway access onto any local or Minor Collector street. (See attachment A) Policy 1.1.8.4 does not allow for exemptions of this rule. Our suggestions for remedying the problems brought forth by Community Development Staff while still remaining consistent with the Comprehensive Plan is to amend the LDC as follows: 1.06.02: 7.05.05 It is unnecessary to amend this section. No residentially zoned property, excluding Arterial or Major Collector street or road rights-of-way, shall be used for driveway, walkway, or any other access purpose to ~ ~ any other non-residentially zoned land, or to any land used for a purpose not permitted in a residentially zoned district. We have a beautiful county with well-written Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code provisions that allow for reasonable development. The proposed amendments cited would only serve to degrade our property values and quality of life. In addition, these amendments are inconsistent with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan! This is in direct violation of section 163, Florida Statutes and can be appealed to the department of Community Affairs pursuant to FS section 163.3213. We request that these offending amendments be deleted. Respectfully submitted, The Conservation Alliance of S1. Lucie County, Inc. K. Brian Killday, Vice President k.~~ An ð-c \ \-.- ~ r ® ~he t.e~.:>logy used in ~he Spec~~ Use ~esignation ~dent~f~e8 the type of perIIU-tted act~v.l.ty, InaXunUID zoning density or maximum zoning intensity. Each Mixed Use Activity area will identify the type of Special Use areas in the legends of each area. - Policy 1. 1. 7 . 6 st. Lucie County shall review on an annual basis, beginning one year from the adoption of this plan, all mixed use activity areas for consistency with the other elements of this plan and to determine if any amendments or further definition of intensity designation is warranted. The protection of the single family neighborhood as a defined residential area from the encroachment of commercial and/or other inappropriate land uses will- be provided for through the Land Development Regulations. -------.'-.'. All new subdivisions, planned unit developments and site development plans shall be designed to include an efficient system of internal traffic circulation, that does not require internal trips or trips of short duration from being forced onto the major roadway network. OBJECTIVE 1.1.8 Policy 1. 1. 8 . 1 Policy 1. 1. 8 . 3 All new subdivisions shall be designed so' that all individual lots have direct access to the internal street system, and that any lot or property along the periphery of the development is to be buffered from any major roadway and incompatible land uses. In conjunction with the Objectives and Policies of the Traffic Circulation Element, St. Lucie County shall develop and implement by August 1990 a county-wide right-of-way protection regulation and Right-of-Way Dedication Ordinance. Policy 1. 1. 8 . 2 Policy 1. h 8 . 4 Limited development of commercial/non- residential uses will be allowed within areas classified for residential use, provided that these activities are compatible with the adjacent land uses and meet the following standards: 1) The intent of the commercial use is to provide easily accessible, convenience-type uses to immediately surrounding residents; May 14, 19 9 1 1 - 78 LANDUSE ,. Policy 1.1.8.5 Ma y 14 I 1 9 9 1 ~2 ) The property for wh~ designation is sought is Arterial or Major Collector; the commercial located on an 3) Conversion of the petitioned property would not promote any strip commercial-aae of land; 4) The use is compatible with surrounding land uses and is provided with adequate screening and buffering of any adjacent residential property; 5) The site does not have direct driveway access onto any local or Minor Collector street; 6) The property for which designation is sought does acres; and, the not commercial exceed 10 7) Within any area designated as PREFERRED RESIDENTIAL (PFR) , (Figure 1-11) , the following restrictions shall apply to the establishment of any congregate living, group care, or foster care home as defined in the St. Lucie County Land Development Regulations; No Congregate Care, Group Care or Foster Care Facility shall be authorized that would permit more than six unrelated individuals to be housed in that facility. Any request for a change in zoning or land use to an Industrial, Commercial, Institutional or other non-residential land use designation for property located within any area designated as PREFERRED RESIDENTIAL (PRF), must be accompanied by an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to remove the Preferred Residential Designation from the petitioned property: S~ch applicatio'n for amendment is to be prócessed in accordance with the provisions of Section 163.3187, Florida Statutes. Require effective visual and light diffusion barriers between residential and non-residential uses. Standards and requirements for such barriers are to be included in the landscaping and screening regulations of the St. Lucie County Land Development Regulations. 1 - 79 LANDUSE ~ """" CORAL COVE BEACH- OWNERS,ASSOCJA TION 211- Marina Drive' Fort Pierce. Florida, 34-94-9 561-465-5826' Fax: 56"'.465-9061 ~ D-ATE:- January 19; 1999 MEMOTO:- St. Lucie County Planning' and Zoning Board Commissioners SUBJECT: pratt of Ordinance No; 99-002. Specifically l.06;OOand7.05~05 As you are' aware' from' previous correspondence' and' meetings, the' warehouse'proposed for North, Hutchinson Island, is not pennitted under the present St. Lucie County Land Development Code. As soon as this was pointed, out to' Planning' and Zoning' statf, they have been, doing' their best to ch~~f~ the. code so that it would pmmit the. building. of a. warehouse. in a. residential neighborhood~ The draft before you for the January 21st meeting is a case in point. At the October 15, 1998~ meeting afthe Planning and-Zoning Commissioners, Mr. KiIlday, of North, Hutchinson Island, proposed a, compromise which would read as follows: ''No' residentially zoned property r excluding. arterial or: major collector street or road rights.-oß.wav shall be used' for driveway, walkway, or any other access purpose to any other non-residentially zoned land, or to' any land used for a- purpose' not pennitted in' a' residentially zoned' district". The draft (Ordinance No; 99-OO2)'of7.05~05isso'convoluted-andcontradictory that in-the opinion. or one lawyer.,. it is a. legal nightmare_ 1.06~ 00 has heen' changed' specifically to permit warehouses in'residential districts. 7.05.05 has so'many contradictions- that we must go· through, them paragraph by pamgrap~ A.. This specifically permits the building,ofawarehouse in a residential district~residential streets WILL NOT be considered' residential for access purposes to commercial property as they are now; Ii. Residential streets WILL BE considered' residential fòr access purposes to commercial property, uniess the' County Commissioners change'it. ~- ~ Memo to P&Z Commissioners Page 2 January £9, £999 B.1.2.3-); After many words, read carefully, the- warehouse- proposed' would have- to' be- permitted by the County Commission if the driveway were to open up to Flotilla. Terrace" ar.esidential street, rather than Marina Drive, leaving our residential' area still' encwnbered' by a warehouse. 7~05.(J5 ' " C. This paragraph'reads similarly to'the-wording proposed'by Mr. Killday, except they use-the- phrase "In a. Residential Larid Use. category" instead- of referring to, residentiaUy zoned pr.operty., At first reading it WOULD NOT permit the warehouse on the property proposecL unless the wording quoted means something to- staff not readily obvious to' us. ' As you can see, the proposed draft IS- convoluted and contradictory. We wouId'propose that L06.00, remain as it is, and that '7:05.05 remain as it is. Or, that '7:05.05 consist of Mr. KiUday's compromise'only, andthe-Commission-consider zoning North, Hutchinson Island, "Residential" and, any commercial. enterprises, wishing to enter our Island apply for a variance to' do- so~ Sincerely, Nancy Spalding, Secretary ('-" ' ~ c:;I\fo'tth !B£aC!h dfHociatiDn of cSt. --Cue£¿ (!Ount!J1 [/rw.. P. O. Box 3573 Fort Pierce. Florida 34948 N. B. January 21, 1999 To: the Planning & Zoning Commission of St. Lucie County, Fl. From: John~. Doran, Director, North Beach Assoc., of St. Lucie Co., Fl. Re: Ordinance # 99-002. In the summer of 1998 the St. Lucie County Planning Department proposed a number of changes to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. There were strong objections to changes proposed in 1.06.02 and 7.05.05. This Commission instructed the Planning Department to hold a "workshop" to listen to and then, hopefully, adjust the proposed language. The "work- shop" was held, however, our association felt we were not listened to. In November of 1998 the proposed changes were again before this Commission. Again, this Commission sent the proposal back to the Planning Department and suggested a rewrite. Our Association even suggested acceptable lan- guage for section 7.05.05. Again, we feel, we have been ignored by the Planning Department. We ask that Ordinance # 99-002 be rejected by the Planning & Zoning Commission in its totality. Please look at page two (attached). That is the language of 7.05.05 as it is today. It was adopted in August of 1990 and withstood revisions thru August 1, 1996. One sentence ...two 1ines. Now, please look at page three (attached). 7.05.05 is revised by the Planning Department after the "workshop" in August 1998. It now has a a total of ... thirteen 1ines. This was rejected by this Commission in November 1998 and sent back to the Planning Department for rewrite. Please now look at page four (attached). This is now before you as the Planning Department's rewrite ... and now is thirty-three 1ines 1ong. Our position is leave 7.05.05 as is ... just reading the proposed changes must lead one to believe there is no ne~d_bo) change 7.05.05. Do you, as an advisory board, wonder why we citizens are questioning our governmental units? South Beach has been driven to their current pursuit only because the County Planning Department overstepped its authority. Likewise, North Beach Association has spent over $17,000.00 in legal fees opposing the variances that the Planning Department of St. Lucie County Government gave a body known as "Barts Bay". ~lease listen to us and reject this ordinance. Please, again, look and read pages two, three and four attached. ~- ,...., A;pop-r£'J} (,/-90 R.E:VI.$GD -rI(Rù f-I-r¡¿, 1.05.05 USE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR ACCESS Section 7.05.00 Transportation Systems No residentially zoned property shall be used for driveway, walkway. or any other access purpose to any non-residentially zoned land. or to any land used for a purpose not permitted in a residentially zoned district. " . ~. ...- '",' page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 :W ;H '-' """ Ordinance #99-001a Draft #2 -------------------------------- Underline is for addition St1:';',,~ l..~v;'.,;¡' is for deletion Page 18 PRINT DATE: 09/29/98 7.05.05 USE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR ACCESS A. No residentially zoned property, excluding public or private street or road rights-of-wa~, shall be used for driveway, walkway, or any other access purpose to any non-residentially zoned land, or to any land used for a purpose not permitted in a residentially zoned district. B. Exce t as ma be s ecificall authorized b the Board of Coun Commissioners;. no street or road classified as a local residential street or roadway shall be used for ;access~ to commercially or industrially zoned property. .!J. No other alternative access route is available to the property. gj page 3 ment "-" ''''''¡ What follows is the re-write by the St. Lucie County Planning Depart- of the Ordinance now numbered 99-002a of the original part of 7.05.05. The original part of 7.05.05 was just TWO LINES. Please, leave i~_as is. 19 20 7.05.05 21 22 A. 23 24 25 26 B. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 i8 ---------~~rli~i;f~~d~tioo--------- £trilte Tftrsli!!ft is for deletion Ordinance #99-002a Draft #1 Page 5 PRINT DATE: 01/08/99 - - this Section are literally enforced: and the condition is created by the reaulations of this qodè. and not by an action or actions of the property owner or the applicant. _ c. '-' f~ 18 _~ ~_ ~ Ii "j il "" , ,',' ¡ 'I Ii ¡ 1,11/ Iii . FEB 9;:i il':J/ I cJ;:'7~"CC¡ cc;-;=.C';"7j"T :¿~'~-~~- ,. ~';~'-:'~é~_~~:: QI~©~n'\-f~~ FE B 1 9 1999 U :=/ - f1 ------rr-;r:-~ìl ': 1;' I ¡ ~! ,r,_.., ; n ¡ "'" ,. 2805 Flotilla Terrace Fort Pierce, FL 34949 February 13, 1999 Reference: St. Lucie County Board of Commissioners 2300 Virginia Ave. Annex Fort Pierce, PI 34982 Dear St. Lucie County Board of Commissioners: I would like to use this letter as a vehicle to ask you, our County Commissioners, to NOT approve changing our county code sections 1.06.00 and 7.05.05 at either your February 16 or March 2 meetings. As a resident of North Hutchinson Island, living on Flotilla Terrace, extremely near to the proposed storage rental building, I find it not possible that such a crime attracting establishment could be considered in the middle of a residential area. As I understand it, these two codes are only being changed to permit this one particular permit to be possible. The situation has never come before your august commission before. Why, all of a sudden, when it was found that the permit would violate long existing codes did the zoning and planning departmerit magically change them? I had this further drilled in to me this morning as I witnessed the auctioning off the contents rrom a rented unit in the storage facility on US 1. It seems this auction was the result of the rental unit being used for the storage of stolen goods. Please veto this code change. Residential streets should not beused for entrance to commercial establishments! . KriA; tJ ð.: ßð ~ AJJn~1l . Com. ~v. J '-" """"" AGENDA - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY, MARCH 2,1999 7:00 P.M Consider Draft Ordinance 99-002 (General Amendments to the St. Lucie County Land Development Code). If it becomes necessary, these public hearings may be continued from time to time. Please note that all proceedings before the Board of County Commissioners are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board of County Commissioners with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he 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. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Legal notice was published in the Port St. Lucie News and The Tribune, newspapers of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on February 18,1999. FILE NO. ORD-99-002 '-' ...." NOTICE OF ,ESTABLISHMENT OR CHANGE OF REGULATION AFFECTING THE USE OF-LAÑD The St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners propose to adopt the following Ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. 99-002 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 1.06.02, RULES OF INTERPRETATION,' DISTRICT BOUNDARIES, TO PROVIDE FOR A ClARlRCATION OF THE ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES IN THE COUNTY; BY AMENDING SECTION 2.00.00, DEFINITIONS, TO PROVIDE FOR AMENDMENT TO THE DEFINITIONS OF PRE· EXISTING TOWERS AND PRE-EXISTING ANTENNAS, TELECOMMUNICATION FACIUlY, TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER OR TOWER; BY AMENDING SECTION 6.00.03(B) (2), VEGETATION REMOVAL PERMIT REQUIRED, TO CORRECT A SCRIVENERS ERROR; BY AMENDING SECTION 7.05.05, USE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR ACCESS BY PROVlDING,CLARIRCATlON OF ACCESS RESTRICTIONS; BY AMENDING SECTION 7.10.23(A), TElECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER SmNG, PURPOSE, TO PROVIDE FOR ClARIFICATION AS TO THE APPLlCABIUTY OF THESE REGULATIONS; BY AMENDING SECTION 7.10.23(B), TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER SmNG, GENERAL, TO PROVIDE ClARJACATION TO THE ZONING DISTRICTS IN WHICH THESE FACIUTlES MAY BE LOCATED, SUBJECT TO MEETING CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS; BY AMENDING SECTION 7.10.23(E) TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER SITING, AESTHETICS,. TO PROVIDE STANDARDS WHERE A PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATION, TOWERS IS LOCATED IN AN INDUSTRIAL OR AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT; BY AMENDING SECTION, 7.10:23(F) TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER SmNG, SECURfTY FUND TO PROVIDE ClARJRCATlON ON THE. AMOUNTS AND METHOD OF REQUIRED SECURITY DEPOSITS; BY AMENDING SECTION 7.10.23(L) SEPARATION, BY CLARIfYING THE SEPARATION STANDARDS FOR TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS; BY AMENDING SECTION' 7.10.23(M), TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS, BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT STORAGE AREAS, TO ClARIfYING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF SUPPORT BUILDINGS TO BE LOCATED AT A TElECOMMUNICATION TOWER SITE; BY AMENDING SECTION 7.1 0.23(P) PRE-EXISTING TElECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS TO ClARIFY WHAT CONSTITUTES A PRE- EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER; BY AMENDING SECTION 1-1.05:06(F), VIOLATIONS, TO CORRECT A SCRIVENERS ERROR; BY PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING PROVISION, BY PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIU1Y, PROVIDING FOR APPLlCABIU1Y, PROVIDING FOR RLlNG WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE,"PROVlDING FOR AN EFFEalVE DATE, PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION AND PROVIDING FOR CODlACATlON. . A PUBLIC HEARING on Ordinance 99·002 will be held before the St. lucIe County Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 2, 1999, at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible, in the County Commission Chambers, 3rd floor of the County Administration Annex, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, FL. Matters affecting your personal and property rights may be heard and acted upon. All Interested persons are Invited to attend and be heard. Written comments received In advance of the public hearing will also be heard. The purpose of this public hearing Is to amend the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to provide for a series of,general amendments to the Code. This Is the, second required public hearing on these proposed amendments. Copies of the proposed ordinance is available for review In the office of th.e Community Development Director, St. lucie County Administration Building, 2300 , Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, FL, during regular business hours. Amendments to the , proposed ordinance may be made at the public hearing. If any person decides to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at the meetings or hearings of any board, committees, commissions, agency, council or advisory group, that person will need record of the proceedings and that, for such purpose may need to ensure thðt a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record should Include the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, Individuals testifying durin!! 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. This notice dated and executed this 15th day of February, 1999. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS S1 LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /S/ Paula A. Lewis, Chairman PUBLISH DATE: February 18, 1999 7] \e. 7 ltv) 5 2-17-1999 11 : 53AM - . FR THE TRIBUNE 5615950106 '-" '..J NOTICE OF ESTABLISHMENT OR CHANGE OF REGULATION AFFECTING THE USE OF LAND Tho St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners propose to adopt the fol- lowing Ordinance; ORDINANCE NO. 99-002 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE St LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOP. MENT CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 1.06.02. RULES OF INTERPRE- TATION. DISTRICT BOUNDARIES. TO PROVIDE FOR A CLARIFICATION OF THE ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES IN THE COUNTY; BY AMEND- ING SECTION 2.00.00. DEFINITIONS. TO PAOVIDE FOR AMENDMENT TO THE DEFINITIONS OF PRE·EXISTING TOWERS AND PRE· EXISTING ANTENNAS, TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY, TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER OR TOWER; BY AMENDING SECTION 6.00.03(6)(2), VEGETA- TION REMOVAL PERMIT REQUIRED. TO CORRECT A SCRIVENERS ERROR; 6Y AMENDING SECTION 7.05.05. USE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR ACCESS BY PROVIDING CLARIFICATION OF ACCESS RESTRICTIONS; BY AMENDING SECTION 7,10,23(A). TELECOMMUNI- CATIONS TOWER SITING, PURPOSE. TO PROVIDE FOR CLARIFICA- TION AS TO THE APPLICABJUTY OF THESE REGULATIONS; BY AMENDING SECTION 7.10.23(6), TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER SIT. ING. GENERAL. TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION TO THE ZONING DIS. TRICTS IN WHICH THESE FACILITIES MAY BE LOCATED. SUBJECT TO MEETING CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS; BY AMENDING SECTION 7.10.23(E) TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER SITING. AESTHETICS. TO PROVIDE STANDARDS WHERE A PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS IS LOCATED IN AN INDUSTRIAL OR AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT; BY AMENDING SECTION, 7,10.23(F) TELECOMMUNICA- TIONS TOWER SITING, SECURITY FUND "TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION ON THE AMOUNTS AND METHOO OF REQUIRED SECURITY DEPOSITS; !:IV AMENDING SECTION 7.10.23(L) SEPARATION, BY CLARIFYING THE SEPARATION STANDARDS FOR TELECOMMUNICA. TION TOWERS; BY AMENDING SECTION 7.10.23(M). TELECOMMUNI. CATION TOWERS. BUILDINGS AND EOUIPMENT STORAGE AREAS, TO CLARIFYING THE MAXIMUM PERMITIED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF SUP. PORT BUILDINGS TO BE LOCATED AT A TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER SITE; BY AMENDING SECTION 7.10,23(P) PRE.EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS TO ClARIFY WHAT CONSTITUTES A PRE-EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER; BY AMENDING SEC. TION 11 .05.06(F), VIOLATIONS. TO CORRECT A SCRIVENERS ERROR; BY PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING PROVISION. BY PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY, PROVIDING FOR FIL- ING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFEC- TIVE DATE. PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFI. CATION. A PUBLIC HEARING on Ordinance 99'()02 will be held Defore Ihe 51. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 2. 1999, at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. in ths County Commission Chambers, 3rd floor of tho County Administration Annøx, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce. FL. Matters afflICting your porconal and property rights may be heard and acted upon. All inter- ested persons are Invited to atle~ and be heard. Written comments received in advance of lhe public hearing will also be heard. The purpose of this public lIeðriog is to amend the SI. Lucie County Land Developmenl Code 10 provide for a series of general amendments to !he Code. This Is the second requtred public hoaring on Ihoso propo$9d amondmen~, Copies of the proposed ordinance is available for review In lhe offlco of tho Community DeWllopment Director, St. Lucie County Adminlstrallon Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce. FL. during regutar business hours. Amendments to the proposed ordinan<:e may be made at the public hearing. If any person decides to appeal any decision made with respect 10 any matter considered at the meetings or hearings of any board, commlnoes. commissions. agency, council or advtsory group. !hat person wll need record of the proçeed- ings and Ihðt, lor such purpose may need 10 ensure that a II'&rÞðtim rocol'd of !he proc99dlngs is maclø, which rllCard should Include lhe lestimony and evidenco upon which the appøalls to be based. Upon the requeSI of any party to the pro- cêêding. individuals lêstifylng during a hearing will bê Gworn in. Any party to the proceeding w~1 be granted an opportunity to cross· examine any iridividual testify- ing during a hearing upon request. This nolice datod and oxeculed this 1sIh day of February, 1999, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FlORIDA /51 Paula A. Lewis, Chairman PUBLISH DATE: February 18, 1999 P_2 \ t I ~ ~ ...,; ~ AGENDA REQUEST ITEM NO. --.SA DATE:3/2/99 REGULAR [xx] PUBLIC HEARING [ CONSENT [] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY (DEPT) : Admjnjstration Doug AnderRon SUBJECT· Treasure Coast Opera Society BACKGROUND: The Treasure Coast Opera Society appeared before the Board on February 23, 1999 to request emergency funding of $10,000. At that time, immediate approval of $5,000 was given with the instruction that the Opera Society supply revenue and expense information justifying the request for funding. This information is attached along with the original request received. FUNDS AVAIL : PREVIOUS ACTION· RECOMMF.NDATION: The Board is requested to determine whether to grant an additional $5,000 to the Treasure Coast Opera Society. COMMISSION ACTION: ~~ APPROVED OTHER: DENIED ----- ---- M. Anderson Administrator Postpone until after the March 12, 1999 workshop. Review and ~provals County Attorney: Management & Budget Purchasing: Originating Dept. Other: Other: Finance: (Check for Copy only, if applicable)___ Eff. 5/96 , .. ..- - - - - ~ ~ .r~ CCoad{Jju»ta.9'~ .Þnc, 1309 Indiana Avenue, Ft. Pierce, FL 34950 (561) 465-6204 ~ Fax. (561 J 464-4257 February 3, 1999 SA - Carlos BarrelUl GENERAL DIRECTOR Board of County Commissioners St. Lucie County Administration Building 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982 Dear Commissioner: Over the past six weeks or so, we have been privileged to meet with each of the Count Commissioners in private session, to outline our situation in the cultural life of our area. We have pcinted out Our twenty-one year record of having served the Treasure Coast community with the finest of classical operas obtainable; the fact that we are revenue producing; that we are involved in training chorus singers of all ages from this area; that we are a proven tourist-attracting endeavor; that we have consistently put St. Lucie County "on the map" of classical music by way of publication in the international magazine of opera, "OPERA NEWS". We now have a three-part request to make of the Commissioners. The first is.~for an emergency grant of $10,000 to enable us to complete the 1998/99 Season. We are less than halfway through the program, and find ourselves at the mercy of reduced income, insufficient contributions from private and other sources and caught in the trap of steadily-rising expenses. We feel that, after twenty-one years, we are ;ustified in coming to the entity which we have been serving for help. The second request involves a place on the County budget for an annual grant of $10,000, replacing a grant which for mßny years the County allocated to us, a~d which was arrested seve- ral years ago. This would enable us to extend our community outreach dramatically and efficiently. This Season, we are actively spotlighting several ensembles from Lincoln Park Academy in "the operas, including Dr. Diane Float's young musi- cians. Frances'K. Sweet Magnet Elementary has been represented by Ms. Christine Hill's Chorus as well. There are many ways in which we could further enhance the cultural/educatiOfial climate of our residents and guests, but we have no further resources at this time. Third, we point to the condition of the Civic Center, whose present lighting and sound systems need a major overhaul. Equipment which has been used constantly over the years since the Civic Ce~ter was built is in need of replacement. Other items require attention, such as the Riser seats, which are very shaky. We would like to remind the Commissioners that the Civic Center is the only such facility between large enough to accomodate a major stage event. -- ~ t-' - Page 2 When the Civic Center was originally built, it was presented tot h e v 0 tin g pub lie a s a fa c i lit Y for the use -'0 f the p e 0 pIe of the County. ' It was never intended to be principally a money-maker, any more than the Amphitheatre or the various County stadiums are considered in that light. The fact is, that if the Civic Center were renovated, it COULD be a very viable facility for revenue-producing events and, prooerly managed, could be busy constantly. We are making tremendous strides in St. Lucie County, in so many directions, that it seems unwise to overlook the obvious state of our cultural level. We can seek ways to attract those tourists and winter guests whose lives in the metro- politan cities of the north have accustomed them to lively and various entertainment. We can encourage schools of classical musical training to be established and flourish. Please consider our request. If the situation could be handled in any other way, we would not burden the County. Thank you for your interest and understanding. Please instruct us as to how to proceed. You r.,s---v·e-t y t 1; u I Y , ///~aJø- ~ ( Carlos Barrena ~General Director, TCOS ~ t- ~ ~ MEMORA:tiDUM TO: Doug Anderson, County Administrator FROM: Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson DATE: February 5, 1999 SUBJECT: Civic Center Attached is a letter I received from the Treasure Coast Opera Society regarding the condition of the civic center and a request for some emergency funding for the Opera Society.: Is it possible for some funding? What about a recommendation to both cities to assist in the funding since it benefits all residents of St. Lucie County? It would be a great loss not to help provide for our cultural future as a County. Improvements to the Civic Center would enhance the chances for larger audiences which means more revenue to those renting the civic center as well as St. Lucie County. #99-40 Attachment r f -_._-;---~_. ...- ~ , I~ (íl> rl. n '1',7 ß " "I. : 0 J r-L-~~_1~~~.1! \'I_....~~-,. G 1 f < ; , : :: , , 1,..-: FEB - 9 /999 ¡i; i ¡,__u___, cc: Board of County Commissioners County Administrator TR~UR555E COAST OPERA SOCIETY, IN~ ESTIMATED BUDGET 4/1/98 - 3/31/99 Estimated Actual Expenses Expenses Personnel-Administrati ve: General Director $ 18,000 $ 13,500 Assistant Director 12,000 8,500 Ticket Manager 7,000 7,000 Accounting & Secretarial 2,000 2,000 Payroll Taxes 5.000 $ 44,000 4.200 $ 35,200 Personnel- T echnical/Production: Technical Director $ 1,800 Stage Manager $ 1,800 $ $ -0- Outside Artistic Fees & Services: Assistant Artistic Director Singers, Conductor & Stage Director $ 29,000 $ 27,200 , Orchestras 30,000 28,600 Costumes & Scenery 10,000 11,000 Makeup Supervisor, Hairdresser & Wigs 2,000 1,100 Stagehands 3.000 $ 74,000 3.400 . $ 71,300 Outside Other Fees & Services: Music Rental/Royalties $ 5.500 $ 5,500 $ 4.850 $ 4,800 Space Rental: Theatre $ 7,400 $ 7,400 Studio & Office 8,400 7,200 Warehouse 1.800 $ 17,600 1.680 $ 16,280 Travel: Artists-Transportation & Meals $ 6,200 $ 5,100 Artists-Hotels 4,200 3,900 Orchestra-Transportation & Meals 2,800 1,200 Sets & Costumes-Transportation 3,600 3,200 Administrative Travel 2.500 $ 19,300 1.400 $ 14,800 Marketing: Advertising. Brochures, Flyers, Sales & Promotional Fees $ 18.000 $ 18,000 $ 17.000 $ 17,000 Remaining Operating Expenses: Telephone $ 3,100 Supplies & Maintenance 9,400 Postage 2,600 Interest 2,150 Other 800 $ 18.050 $ 18.050 $ 18.050 Total Expenses $198,250 $177,430 Admissions Other Revenue: * Opera Ball La Fortuna Raftle Other Social Events Corporation Grants . Foundation Grants Memberships & Private Donations \..ot TREASURE COAST OPERA, SOCIETY, INC. ESTIMATED INCOME $ 4,200 9,700 7.300 Grant Request Total Projecled Income Total Actual Expenses Total Estimated Income * Total Deficit $177,430 $156.500 (-$20.930) Estimated $ 89,200 $ 2],200 $ 6,500 $ 17,000 $ 50.000 $ ]4.350 $] 98.250 ......, f , ~ 'i Iql {, ,1'Ð1 Actual () ¡vO ./ I ' $ 79,200 $ 6,200 /: cJ° --\~p $ 6,500 [ ¡J o $ 17 ooo~· /\ 0 , ) , \ ( Ù v / n Ò $ 43.000 " (1 II \ / '7 $ 4.600 // $] 56.500 * Reasons for Deficit: Lack of persOlUlel, staff and volunteers, as well as the funds needed in order to successfully operate the Opera Ball, La Fortuna Raffle and Cocktail Party drawing. '-' ...; LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF LOCAl ARTS AGENCIES FY 1994-95 REGRAN11NG NOTES 1. PAlM BEACH: regrants: $2,000,000 in tourist tax 2. SARASOTA: regrants: $650,000 in tourist tax 3. BROWARD: $2,350,420 in county funding includes: $466.240 admissions sales tax $945,760 music sales tax $487,270 rental of tangiblè personal property reg rants: $25,000 in county general revenue $1,500,000 dedicated source $600,000 tourist taxes 4. DUVAl: - reg rants: $1,148,742 (combined city/county government) 6. ORANGE COUN1Y: regrants: 7. HILLSBOROUGH: reg rants: $727,780 county general revenue $355,665 City of Orlando $100,000 Orlando Util~ies Commission $100,000 Greater Orlando Aviation Authority $365,000 county general revenue $25,000 tourist tax 8: DADE: ·other / $1,833,000· is 20% of 2% hoteVmotel bed tax dedicated to the CAC by ordinance. reg rants: $755,000 county general revenue $1,193,000 other dedicated source of revenue $464,000 tourist taxes $706,000 city 9. PINELLAS: 10. CHARLOTTE: 11. OSCEOLA: reg rants: reg rants: reg rants: ~ 13. BREVARD: regrants: $200,000 county general revenue $36,320 tourist taxes $25,000 County general revenue $17,415 tourist tax $10,000 City of Kissimmee $36,320 tourist taxes '-"' '..".I 14. ESCAMBINSANTA ROSA: Santa Rosa contnbutes $3,000 in general revenue Escambia County contributes $50,000 in tourist taxes City of Pensacola contributes $36,000 regrants: $500 Santa Rosa I general revenue $35,000 Escambia I tourist taxes $20,000 City of Pensarola 19. SEMINOLE: reg rants: $10,000 County general revenue $ 1,600 City of Altamonte Springs NOTE: Aft In Public Places funds were not Included In the chart ~ v '-'" """ "\ VOu,q AGENDA REOUEST ITEM NO. 5 B DATE: March 2,1999 REGULAR ( X PUBLIC HEARING TO: Board of County Commissioners CONSENT ( SUBMITTED BY (DEPT.): Administration PRESENTED BY: Douglas M. Anderson SUBJECT: Request for Approval of County Organizational Changes BACKGROUND: As the County continues to urbanize and the complexity of County government functions increase, it is important that the County's organization be equipped to meet the growing needs of its residents and businesses. Services must be maintained and community expectations met for the County to continue to operate effectively. Changes in the County organization that need to be made to improve the quality of service we can offer are discussed in the attached report. They include making the Library Division a separate department in County government to support its role as an ~portant cultural function within the County; moving the Tourism Division into Community Development where it can operate as part of the County's economic development program; modifying the pay grades in the Automated Services Department to ~prove the quality of information technology staffing provided there; creating a Public Information Officer to infor.m, educate and involve the public in County government programs and projects; creating a grants writer position to find new revenue sources for vital County projects; creating a Stadium Manager for Thomas J. White Stadium to operate and maintain that important facility; creating a Resource Protection Coordinator to manage the County's tree protection and landscaping program; making changes to the Community Development Department salary structure to provide incentives for hiring more qualified planners in the County; and reducing a Civil Engineer position to an Engineer Intern in order to be able to hire a needed staff person to complete critical engineering functions in the Public Works Department. -- .. ~ .~ ...., Page 2 Request for Approval of Organizational Changes February 24, 1999 FUNDS AVAIL.: As described in the attached report. PREVIOUS ACTION: None. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the recommendations attached to this agenda item and contained in the summary portion of the Request for Approval of Organizational Changes report. COMMISSION ACTION: CONCURRENCE: ( ../) ( ) APPROVED OTHER ( DENIED Look into creation of a Natural Resource Department. Make other changes as discussed. Doug as M. Anderson County Administrator Review and Approvals County Attorney: Management & Budget Purchasing: Originating Dept: Other: Other: -- ~ t - - '-' ...", 6h RECOMMENDATIONS A. Public Infonnation Officer - Staff recommends the creation of a Public Infonnation Officer report41g to the County Administrator at a Pay Grade 28 ($34,153.60 _ $50,107.20) with funds transferred from the Contingency Account to staff the position through the end of the 1998-1999 fiscal year. Future funding wiII be from the County's General Fund. B. Grants Writer - Staff recommends the creation of a Grants Writer position reporting to the Community Development Director at a Pay Grade 28 ($34,153.60 - $50,107.20) with funds transferred from the Contingency Account to staff the position through the end of the 1998-1999 fiscal year. Future funding wiII be from the County's Community Development MSTU. C. Stadium 1''Ianager - Staff recommends the upgrading of the Stadium Superintendent position to Stadium Manager position reporting to the Leisure Services Director at a Pay Grade 29 ($35,776 $52,540.80) funded from the County's General Fund and revenues generated by the stadium. , ,.J ~ fJ ¡?( }'ì ¿H~,,_dl D. Resource Protection Coordinator - Staff recommends changing the title and job duties of a Planner II to Resources Protection Coordinator at a Pay Grade 23 ($27,123.20 _ $39,811.20) funded from the County's Community Development MSTU. E. Community Development Department Salary Modifications - Staff recommends modifications to Community Development Department salaries as contained in the attached memo with the elimination of one Planner I position to fund the modifications. Funding is through the Community Development MSTU. F. Information Services Support Specialists I, IT, III Upgrades - Staff recommends eliminating a vacant Computer Hardware Engineer I position (Pay Grade 17) and changing the pay grades on the ISSS I, IT, lIT positions (effective on the date of hire for S. Beavers, P. Brodeur, J. Raynolds, and A. Chui) and as described in the report. Also, approving one ISSS ITl hire at a salary of$4l,000 a year. Funding for the increase in Pay Grades and staffing wiII be from the County's General Fund paid from fees generated from the various users of the Department. G. Engineer Intern - Staff recommends reducing the position of Civil Engineer (Pay Grade 32) to Engineer Intern (Pay Grade 24) and authorize the salary for the selected applicant to be 18% ($33,502.56) above the base starting salary for the Engineer Intern position. '-" 'wi County Administration MEMORANDUlVl TO: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Douglas M. Anderson, County Administrator DATE: February 24, 1999 SlJBJECT: Request for Approval of County Organizational Changes As the County has improved the management functions for the growing number of projects being undertaken, certain organizational changes are needed. Restructuring of some of the departments will provide better delivery of services, more effici~ncy and more timely response to resident needs. Weare recommending a number of changes, as indicated below. Librarv Division We have moved the Library Division out of the Leisure Services Department and made it a separate department under the direct control of the County Administrator. This will provide for better communication between our six libraries and county administration and the Board of County Commissioners. It will also relieve the Leisure Services Department of some of the administrative responsibility that it has borne, and give the department the opportunity to concentrate more on park and recreation issues. This change was implemented on February 22, 1999. Tourism Division We have moved the Tourism Division out of the Leisure Services Department and put it in the Economic Development Division of the Community Development Department. The tourism function is clearly one of economic development. The service it provides can be enhanced by being part of the economic development effort. As with the Library Division, its removal from the Leisure Services Department will give that department more time to focus on park and recreation projects and the management of the County's large inventory -- '-" of park and environmentally sensitive lands. Automated Services Department 'wi With some difficulty, this department has been able to restaff over the past three months. The difficulty is primarily due to the demand for well-trained technical computer employees throughout the industry and the commensurate high salaries. At this date, there is only one technical vacancy and the Director and Assistant Director positions open. Automated Services Department Project Responsibility Novell & GrouDwise Services Al H. Desktop SUpport Al H. Torn McDaniel Scott Samson William Martin Reid Galvin Sig Bo Mike Gagnon Kelly McCormick Diane Gorman Assad Josephs Jackie Mosley Randy Sutterfield Susan Beavers Phill Brodeur Chuck Satchwill Jayne Raynolds DRI NT/OTG DB Al H. Help Desk NT , Data Al H. Randy Sutterfield Scott Samson Eaale Dave J. Banner Finance Al.1L. Darrell McCloud Pete Cotter Frank Hansler Jim Oliver Alan Chui Jackie White Al Harbin Trainina Al H. Administration Director Randy Sutterfield Scott Samson Kelly McCormick Traci Sullivan Kathy Aldhizer Delphine Grant Cindy Bennese Unix Dave J, Ove~lan/Catipult Dave J. Darrell Mccloud Steve Rykof: Dave Johnson Oracle DBA Al H. Mainframe Dave J. Jim Oliver Dave Johnson Darrell McCloud Banner Civil Al.1L. Traffic/Felonv Dave J. Steve Barber Jayne Raynolds Chris Schmidt Regina McCants. Hardware SkiD A. Operations SkiD A. Robert Rosart Joe Cimino Wayne Hartwick PaulBrennan James White Jose Clavijo Dan Allison Carlos Cantillo Nelson Azcuenaga In order to bring the new technical staff on board, as well as providing equity for the existing staff in the ISSS I, ISSS II and ISSS III categories, we are requesting that the following starting pay range adjustments be made. - '-" 'wi .. _.....~... -- - AUTOlVIATED SERVICES TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ISSSM FOR PROGRAMMING AND PROJECTS {SSM MAINFRAME SUPPORT ISSM HARDWARE & OPERATIONS AL HARBIN DA VE JOHNSON SKIP ARENDT Responsible for aU des~'top, server support and aU programming applications resident on servers Responsible for all mainlÌ1une Support, mainlÌ1une program Applications, connections, and Resolutions of conilicts within AJld between County departments Responsible for all hardware and Upgrades, connections, resolutions Of conflicts within and between County Departments, as well as all computer Operations ISSS I Current Pay. Grade 22 ($25,896.00 - $38,001.60) Recommended Pay Grade 27 ($32,625.20 -$47,860.80) ISSS II Current Pay Grade 25 ($29,744 - $43,638.40) Recommended Pay Grade 28 ($34,153.60 - $50,107.20) ISSS III Current Pay Grade 28 ($34,153.60 - $50,107.20) Recommended Pay Grade 29 ($35,776.00 - $52,540.80) The total salary impact of these pay grade changes is $31,159.60 per year. To offset a majority of this cost, we are recommending the elimination of a vacant Computer Hardware Engineer I position ($21,566), leaving a total cost of1:t1e changes at $9,593.60. Not only will this pennit the hiring of the new staff at competitive salaries, but will provide salary equity throughout the range of technical staff positions in Automated Services. Additionally, we are requesting Board approval to hire one highly qualified individual into the ISSS III position above the base salary as indicated below. William Nlartin $41,000 14.6% above new base salary - '-" ''''''''; It is anticipated that the Director and Assistant Director positions will be filled within the next thirty - sixty days. Finally, we are directing that the three ISSS Managers be responsible for specific Departments and Agencies, and that all Automated Services projects be assigned to the managers with teams of technical staff members to complete each project. All Departments and Agencies will know who is managing their projects and which of the managers they can contact if there are problems based on the type of project or specific program that is being undertaken within the various departments. Public Information Officer One of the primary objectives of a well-managed County is to provide information to the residents that will educate and inform. The BCC has directed that the County provide more opportunity for the residents to give more input into the County's programs and projects. Additionally, the County is looking into televising Board meetings, if the Board so chooses, and other meetings of interest to the general public. Having a Public Information Officer on staff will give the County the opportunity to complete a number of new initiatives that will be valuable to our residents. Some of these projects include providing: information on the County's budget upcoming events and announcements special development project information employee information rumor control emergency announcements newsletters County annual report public meeting management radio and television information projects BCe televised meetings public presentation assistance press release and media coordination coordination of communication with the cities ofFt. Pierce and Port St. Lucie All of these activities will give the residents of St. Lucie County more ability to be involved in County government and to better understand the activities of the local government. This will assist the County Commission and the County staff in making more informed recommendations and decisions. This will benefit the County as a whole. -- '-' '.."",I It is recommended that the County Commission approve the position of Public Infonnation Officer and authorize the establishment of the position in the County's budget. Funding for the remainder of the 1999 will be from contingency with future funding from the County's General Fund. Grants \V riter As the potential for increasing County revenues from traditional sources decreases, it becomes incumbent on the County to reach out for other new revenue sources. Grants for a number of varied projects are often available to the County. However, to obtain them requires creative and complex grant applications and a thorough understanding and knowledge of how each grant process operates and where special grants are available. This mandates specialized expertise that only trained grant writers have. They are often aware of many grants that other County staff may not know of and they know how to access those funds. It is usually the case that one grant achieved by a grant writer will pay for the yearly salary of the writer. It is anticipated that an effective grant writer can achieve 5-10 grants a year and better coordinate the County's efforts to manage our overall grant program. Additionally, it should be pointed out that many grants are leveraged with other funding to create substantially larger funding sources for important projects that otherwise would not occur. Coordination of the County's capital funding is another important function that the grant writer can work with and access funding for many different capital projects. It is recommended that a grant writer be approved for the County and that funding be allocated from contingency for the remainder of this fiscal year. It is recommended that the position be approved with a salary level starting at $34,153.60 (pay Grade 28). Stadium Manager As part of the County's Investment for the Future, the County has undertaken a major improvement prograIIl at the Thomas J. \Vhite Stadium. Over $1,000,000 in renovation work has greatly improved the facility. In order to now properly maintain the stadium in the future and utilize it appropriately, a full time stadium manager is needed. This employee will be responsible for all maintenance and operations of the stadium. It is recommended that the Board approve the establishment of a Stadium Manager position with a starting salary of $35,776 (Pay Grade 29) to replace the Stadium Superintendent position. This position will be funded from the County's General Fund and revenues generated fÌ'om use of the stadium. ~ '..."" Community Development Department The attached memo discusses changes in the structure of the Community Development Department that are needed to complete the reorganization that was started in January, 1999, when the pennjt and code compliance division was moved to the Public Works Department and the Economic Development Division was integrated into the Community Development operations. One of the key changes is to create a Resource Protection Coordinator working directly for the Department Director. This staff person will be responsible for managing the County's landscape and tree protection program and coordinating efforts to improve the quality of site plans and development projects coming into the County. This will be established :trom an existing Planner II position that is vacant, so there will be no budget increase required. Other changes in the Community Development Department are to make the planner and Geographic Information staff positions competitive in the marketplace. The total yearly cost to the County's budget to accommodate the changes is $9,730, which is funded through the County's MSTU for Community Development services. Finally, it is being recommended that a one time 5% increase be provided for those planners who obtain AICP certification. This certification is an important technical qualification tool in the planning field and is similar to other certification incentives applied to other technical positions within the County. There will be no cost to the County budget for the remainder of this fiscal year for this program. It is estimated that the total yearly cost beginning next fiscal year will be $7,550. Engineer Intern The State qualifications for the County's Civil Engineer position require that the employee must be a registered professional engineer with four years of experience in the field. We have been unable to fill our vacancy and meet these qualifications. The licensure issue has been the main reason why applicants are not qualified for the position. In that the Engineering Division needs to fill this vacancy to meet current workload, we have selected a candidate who is a well qualified Engineering Intern. Weare requesting approval to reduce this position to an Engineer Intern level. The work required in this position can be performed by an experienced Engineering Intern working under the direct supervision of a licensed Professional Engineer. This would take the position from a Pay Grade 32 to a Pay Grade 24. The net savings to the County would be $7,577 per year. In that the applicant has 12 years of work experience and holds a Bachelor of Science degree - '-' ""'" in Civil and Environmental Engineering, we would recommend that the Board approve a starting salary in the Engineer Intern pay range of 18% above the entry level. The job description and qualifications for the proposed position are attached to this report. Summary In total, these organizational changes will help to improve the County's employee team and work to provide a higher level of service to our residents and businesses. It will help to ensure that we maintain our valued employees and that they are oÎthe highest caliber. It will provide new incentives and training for our staff. It will give the County the opportunity to obtain additional revenues and to be more responsive to residents needs through the provision of better public information. It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following organizational changes: A. Public Information Officer - Staff recommends the creation oÎ a Public Information Officer reporting to the County Administrator at a Pay Grade 28 ($34,153.60- $50,107.20) with funds transferred from the Contingency Account to staff the position through the end of the 1998-1999 fiscal year. Future funding will be from the County's General Fund. B. Grants Writer - Staff recommends the creation of a Grants Writer position reporting to the Community Development Director at a Pay Grade 28 ($34,153.60 - $50,107.20) with funds transferred from the Contingency Account to staff the position through the end of the 1998-1999 fiscal year. Future funding will be from the County's Community Development MSTU. C. Stadium Manager - Staff recommends the upgrading of the Stadium Superintendent position to Stadium Manager position reporting to the Leisure Services Director at a Pay Grade 29 ($35,776 $52,540.80) funded from the County's General Fund and revenues generated by the stadium. D. Resource Protection Coordinator - Staff recommends changing the title and job duties of a Planner II to Resources Protection Coordinator at a Pay Grade 23 ($27,123.20 - $39,811.20) funded from the County's Community Development MSTU. E. Community Development Department Salary Modifications - Staff recommends modifications to Community Development Department salaries as contained in the attached memo with the elimination of one Planner I position to fund the modifications. Funding is through the Community Development MSTU. -- '-' "'" F. Infonnation Services Support Specialists I, II, III Upgrades - Staffrecommends eliminating a vacant Computer Hardware Engineer I position (Pay Grade 17) and changing the pay grades on the ISSS I, II, III positions (effective on the date of hire for S. Beavers, P. Brodeur, J. Raynolds, and A. Chui) and as described in the report. Also, approving one ISSS III hire at a salary of $41 ,000 a year. Funding for the increase in Pay Grades and staffing will be from the County's General Fund paid from fees generated from the various users of the Department. G. Engineer Intern - Staff recommends reducing the position of Civil Engineer (Pay Grade 32) to Engineer Intern (Pay Grade 24) and authorize the salary for the selected applicant to be 18% ($33,502.56) above the base starting salary for the Engineer Intern position. - v ...,I Job Code Pay Grade Revised Page 29 2/22/99 1 of 2 LEISURE SERVICES Sports Complex - Stadium Manager MAJOR FUNCTION: Highly responsible administrative work directing the total operation, management, and development of services for the Sports Complex / Thomas J. White Stadium, including the planning, organization, review, and coordination of all in-house contracts with the New York Mets Professional Baseball Club, St. Lucie Mets, Gulf Coast Mets, Volume Services America, and the implementation all user / event contracts, in addition to organizing, promoting, staffing, and supporting activities, festivals, sports competitions and community events. Oversees and coordinates Spring Training game day staff, which includes parking attendants, cashiers, facility clean-up, security, and first aid services, in addition to capital project management, improvement programs, and grounds maintenance operations. KNOWLEDGE. SKILLS. AND ABILITIES NEEDED IN ORDER TO PERFORM THE ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTIONS: KNOWLEDGE: Stadium management techniques use in a comprehensive stadium operation. Modern principles, practices, and procedures of recreation/facility management, revenue development, and field maintenance operations and procedures. Knowledge of the methods and techniques used by the entertainment industry fer booking events and entertainment programs in a stadium / public arena. Marketing and cultural program development. Develop budget initiatives and prepares the annual budget for Stadium operations and maintenance. Responsible for contract and project management, in addition to athletic field preparation, stadium maintenance, and overall management of the facility. SKILLS AND ABILITIES: Plan, organize, and direct the activities of staff engaged in the daily operation and maintenance of the Sports Complex / Thomas J. White Stadium. Responsible for the design, development, implementation, and promotion of community programs and events. Ability to establish and maintain effective and cooperative working relationships with employees, contractual tenants, promoters, community groups, organizations, government officials, and the general public. Prepares and presents complex and technical reports as they pertain to the Sports Complex / Stadium operations. Project management skills and abilities as they pertain to capital projects and facility renovations. Ability to motivate, train, supervise, and evaluate subordinate staff. ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTION: Coordinates and evaluates aU programs, events, and facility reservation requests at the Sports Complex / Stadium. Acts as a liaison between St. Lucie County and the New York Mets Professional Baseball Club and its organizational affiliates the St. Lucie Mets and Gulf Coast Mets. Responsible for the preparation and administration of the annual <?perations/field maintenance budget, monitoring and approving expenditures, coordinates and negotiates various types of contracts and special projects, developing a marketing and revenue plan for stadium operations, promotions events, concerts, and sports activities at the stadium. Also, develops and implements policies and procedures for stadium operations, hires, trains, supervises, motivates, and evaluates staff, coordinates work schedules, submits re90rts and makes presentations as required. Supervises tenant contracts and in-house services for Sports C0mpfex / Stadium Operations. Performs related work as requested or assigned. - , ! ì ; v '..,,¡I Job Code Pay Grade Revised Page 29 2/22/99 2of2 LEJSURE SERVICES Sports Complex - Stadium Manager ESSENTIAL PHYSICAL SKILLS: Walking, standing, and sitting. Occasional lifting to 50 pounds. Occasional bending and squatting. Use of both hands and fingers with dexterity. Good vision and hearing. Must be able to negotiate stairs, ramps, and unpaved surfaces. Able to access all areas of the Sports Complex / Stadium. Good hand/eye coordination and near/far vision. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITJON REQUIREMENTS: While perfcrming this job the employee will work both inside and outside. Exposure to physical elements and the possibility of vision disfunction due to computer work. SAFETY EQUIPMENT USED OR NEEDED: Equipment used or needed may depend on the activities or the duties in which the employee is performing at the time. EDUCA TlON: Graduate form a accredited college or university with a Bache o~s degree in Leisure Services, Parks and Recreation Management, Business Administration, Sports Management, or a closely related field. A comparable amount of training or experience may be substituted for the minimum qualifications. EXPERIENCE: Five (5) years of increasingly responsible Leisure Services / Recreation / Facility experience preferably with two (2) years experience in Stadium Management or revenue facility management LICENSE CERTlFICA TlON. REGISTRA TlON AND MEMBERSHIPS: Certified Leisure Professional (CLP) from the National Recreation and Parks Association, membership and participation in related Facilities Managements Associations (Le. I. A.A .M. -International Association. of Assembly Managers, F.F.M.A. - Florida Facilities Manager Association, etc.). A valid Florida driver's license and a good driving record is required. -- v ...., JOB CODE PA Y GRADE: 32 REV. DATE: 02-10-99 PAGE 1 OF 2 PUBLIC INFOIUvIA TION OFFICER MAJOR FUNCTION: Responsible administrative position coordinating various programs, activities and publications in order to promote the County and provide for state of the art communication systems. Acts as a liaison between the County, the media and community groups and individual residents and businesses. KNOWLEDGE. ABILITIES AND SKILLS NEEDED TO PERFORM THE ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTIONS OF THE POSITION: 1. Facilitates County contact with community organizations and individuals by keeping groups infonned of County activities. Encourages and assists in ensuring citizen participation in County programs. 2. Fosters, designs and produces various internal and external publications to keep employees and residents infonned of County activities. 3. Markets and promotes County services through: Video presentations Brochures, flyers and newsletters Production of radio and television shows. 4. Represents the County on various committees and groups as directed by the County Administrator. 5. Coordinates and edits Ïnfonnation on the County's internet site in conjunction with the Automated Services Department. 6. Reviews County correspondence and memorandums and provides the media with copies of correspondence, press releases, and other Ïnfonnation about various County projects and issues. 7. Writes and distributes press releases. -. \wi -...I Public Information Officer County Administration Page 2 of2 8. Manages County communications program, telephones and provides interface with Automated Services on information technology issues. ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTION: Knowledge of good English grammar, spelling and punctuation, in order to prepare documents and compose letters, publications and press releases; Knowledge of County office policies and procedures; Knowledge of the principles of community organization and group interaction; Knowledge of and experience in voice and data communications systems; Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with employees and the general public. Ability to use such systems as computers, television, and communication networks; Ability to communicate using speaking, hearing and visual skills; Ability to learn and apply professional problem solving techniques; Ability to create presentations that convey meaning to the residents of St. Lucie County and the media; Ability to maintain records and distribute information in an orderly manner. EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE: Graduation from an accredited four-year college or university with a degree in public relations, political science, business or a related field. Three years of experience in public relations, business, marketing, or government, preferably with an emphasis on administration and management. LICENSES. CERTIFICATIONS OR REGISTR,!\TIONS: Valid Florida Driver's License ~ """" JOB CODE PA Y GRADE: 28 REV. DATE: 02-25-99 PAGE 1 OF 2 GRANT WRlTER MAJOR FUNCTION: Responsible administrative position preparing and coordinating various grant programs, in order to obtain new revenue sources for the County and obtain specific funding for County capital projects. Acts as a liaison between the County agencies to coordinate the submission of grant applications and to determine appropriate funding sources for projects. KNOWLEDGE. ABILITIES AND SKILLS NEEDED TO PERFORJvf THE ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTIONS OF THE POSITION: 1. Facilitates County grant proposals by searching out needed grants and applying for them. 2. Fosters, designs and produces various grant proposals to achieve the completion of needed County capital projects. 3. Promotes County grant activities through: Working closely with other local, State and Federal agencies Creative presentations highlighting County grant needs Coordinating grant and in-kind funding sources. 4. Represents the County on various committees and groups as directed by the County Administrator. 5. Coordinates and defines information on the County's departmental grfuît participation. 6. Reviews County correspondence and memorandums as it relates to grant funding and capital projects. 7. Writes and distributes grants. -- ~ "'" Public Information Officer County Administration Page 2 of2 ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTION: Knowledge of good English grammar, spelling and punctuation, in order to prepare documents and compose grants; Knowledge of County office policies and procedures; Knowledge of the principles of grant writing and what grants are available; Knowledge of and experience in making presentations to obtain grants; Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with employees, other governmental agencies and the general public. Ability to use such systems as computers and communication networks; Ability to communicate using speaking, hearing and visual skills; Ability to learn and apply professional problem solving techniques; Ability to be creative in the preparation of grant documents; Ability to maintain records and distribute information in an orderly manner. EDUCA nON AND EXPERIENCE: Graduation from an accredited four-year college or university with a degree in public relations, political science, business or a related field. Three years of experience in grant writing, business, marketing, or government, preferably with an emphasis on administration and management. S't'fJc'L I--Irvvt;- A fr6b-.J I::-~~y ['Cc.~ LICENSES. CERTIFICATIONS OR REGISTRATIONS: Valid Florida Driver's License ... f" "" -."",I CIVIL ENGINEER Job Code 681 Pay Grade 32 Rev Date: 6/1/92 Page 1 of 2 ~AJOR FUNCTION: Responsible technical and administrative engineering work providing administrative and technical support to the Director of EngineeYing. KNOWLEDGE I JI..BILITIES AND SKILLS NEEDED TO PERFORM THE ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTIONS OF THE POSITION: Knowledqe: Knowledge of modern techniques, methods, practices. and procedures of Public Works Engineering. Knowledge of the' practices and proceduyes used in the development and construction of roads, streets, public works facilities. Knowledge of office management, principles and practices. Knowledge of contract administration and project management. Abilitv: Ability to evaluate a diverse array of engineering and related problems. Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with consultants, the general public, employees and officials. Ability to express oneself clearly and concisely, orally and in writing. Ability to supervise, plan, review and evaluate technical engineering projects, designs and specifications. ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTION: Assists in the supervising of personnel and in coordinating the activities of the Engineering Division. Designs various projects, such as road construction, drainage improvements, etc. Acts a Project Engineer Coordinator on road construction projects. Supervises personnel in checking subdivision site plans and constructiç>n. Supervises surVeying party n necessary surveys. Advises Road and Bridge Director on various projects. Prepares cost estimates for construction and maintenance projects. Coordinates permit activities. Performs related work as requested or assigned. ESSENTIJI..L PHYSICAL SKILLS: Occasional walking and standing. Ability to occasionally lift 30 pounds. Ability to communicate , concisely orally and in writing. Good hand/eye coordination. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION REQUIREMENTS: Occasional work outside with the majority of work inside the office. ENVIRONMENTJI..L PHYSICAL SKILLS: weather conditions on occasio~. ]I~ility to tolerate variable -- v "'" Job Code 681 Pay Grade 32 Rev Date: 6/1/92 Page '2 of 2 CIVIL ENGINEER WORK HAZARDS: Occasional field work may require mobility skills over variable terrain. Possible vision disfunction due to heavy computer work. Ammonia operated blueprint machine. Occasional traffic and heavy equipment. EDUCATION: Graduation from an accredited four (4) year college or university with a degree in engineering. EXPERIENCE: Four (4) years experience in the field of public works and engineering, preferable including experience in administering public works or construction 'contracts., Must be a Registered Engineer (or registered within six months) in the State of Florida. A comparable amount of training or experience may be substituted for the minimum qualifications. LICENSE, CERTIFICATION OR REGISTRATION: Florida Driver's License and a good driving are required. -- \w' """ Job Code 808 Pay Grade 24 Rev Date: 6/1/92 Page 1 of 2 ENGINEER INTERN MAJOR FUNCTION: Technical engineering work in the preparation of plans, designs and specifications for Public Works projects under the supervision of the Director of Engineering or Assistants. Also reviews developments for compliance with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. KNOWLEDGE. ABILITIES ~~ SKILLS NEEDED TO PERFORM THE ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTIONS OF THE POSITION: Knowledae: Knowledge of the principles and practices of civil engineering. Knowledge of the investigation, design and construction of Public Works facilities. Knowledge of contract administration and project management. Abilities: Ability to make engineering and related mathematical computations. Ability to design moderately difficult engineering projects. Ability to secure compliance by private contractors and utility companies with the contract and specifications governing Public Works projects in a tactful, firm and impartial manner. Skill in use of engineering instruments and equipment. ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTION: Designs of County proj ects under the supervision of supervisor. Inspects County proj ects and subdivisions checking paving and drainage and legal description for plats, subdivisions and site plans . Receives and checks eomplaints made by general public. Researches and locates certain information. Performs drafting for small high priority jobs. Keeps abreast of new developments and legislation. Responsible for keeping contract and specification documents up to date with the latest State and Federal guidelines. Acts as a liaison/Project Manager between project consultants and the County in the coordination of major Public Works contracts. Acts as liaison between County officials and Public Works Department. Prepares proper permits for projects. Applies for Federal and State funds and grants. Applies field changes to ongoing projects. Checks contractual payments. Attends seminars, meetings, etc. Performs related work as requested or assigned. -- v ......, Job Code 808 Pay Grade 24 Rev Date: 6/1/92 Page 2 of 2 ENGINEER INTERN ESSENTIAL PHYSICAL SKILLS: Occasional walking and standing. Ability to occasionally lift 30 pounds. Ability to communicate concisely orally and in writing. Good hand/eye coordination. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION REQUIREMENTS: Occasional work outside with the majority of work inside the office. ENVIRONMENTAL PHYSICAL SKILLS: weather conditions on occasion. Abili ty to tolerate variable· WORK HAZARDS: Occasional field work may require mobility skills over variable terrain. Possible vision disfunction due to heavy computer work. Ammonia operated blueprint machine. Occasional traffic and heavy equipment. EDUCATION: Graduation from a recognized college or university with a degree in civil engineering or related field. EXPERIENCE: Desire two years of progressively responsible experience in the field of Public Works' and Epgineering. A comparable amount of training or experience may be substituted for the minimum qualifications. LICENSE, CERTIFICATION OR REGISTRATION: Registered Engineer Intern in the State of Florida is required. A Florida Driver's License and a good driving record are required. -- '-' ...., COUNTY COMMISSION REVIEW: March 2, 1999 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Administration MEMORANDUlVI TO: FROM: Board o! cou1y-com7{'ssioners ~1'.:J (/ ... rt& l /<-l.-WC u.../<-- JUliý hewchuk, Community Development Director February 18, 1999 DATE: SUBJECT: Consider Proposed Amendments for the Organization of the Community Development Department. For the past months the Planning Division has been unsuccessfully trying to fill a number of vacant positions within the Division. Our search has shown us two critical issues which have a negative impact on our ability to attract new employees. First, there is a general, nationwide, shortage of qualified applicants. Conversations with other planning officials throughout the area have confirmed that each has difficulty finding qualified applicants to fill available positions. The second critical issue is our salary ranges. Our starting salaries are about three to five thousand dollars less than what other agencies of similar sizes are paying. Attached is a current pla~ning salary survey from other agencies in the area. Over the past year, the Planning Division has lost four employees to jurisdictions and agencies which offered higher salaries than St. Lucie County. The Planning Division currently has an authorized staff level of 17. Each of our Planner II and Planner III positions requires the equivalent of a Masters degree. The Planner I position may be filled with a Bachelors degree. In order to address the problem of finding and retaining qualified employees, I am proposing several changes to the base salary structure for the Planner and GIS positions as shown in the table below: Position Current Current Current Proposed Proposed Proposed Title Pay min. max. Pay grade min. max. Grade Planning 29 $ 35,776 31 $ 39,249 $ 57,782 Manager MPO 25 $ 29,744 $ 43,638 30 $ 37,440 $ 55,036 Supervisor Planner III 25 $ 29,744 $ 43,638 29 $ 35,776 $ 52,541 z..,. Planner II 23 $ 27,123 $ 39,811 ~ 25 $ 29,744 $ 43,638 Planner I 20 $ 23,587 $ 34,653 ~ 23 $ 27,123 $ 39,811 ~ Dev, Reg. 20 $ 23,587 $ 34,653 ~, 23 $27,123 $ 39,811 I -- Reviewer '-' '-" If we are able to upgrade the starting salaries and pay ranges and are able to find and retain staff for the vacant positions, then we would be able to eliminate one of the existing Planner I positions in the Planning Division. The position to be eliminated is currently vacant. Our current work load is such that for the foreseeable future we can meet our requirements without this Planner position. Through the elimination of this one Planner I position, we will be able to fund the proposed reorganization with an increase of only $ 9,730 per year, all of which the MPO's budget would absorb. The Community Development MSTU would see a decrease in cost of $1,047. The total cost estimate is shown on the Table on the last page. The currently vacant Environmental Planner II position would'be renamed to Resource Protection Planner II and would be reassigned to report directly to the Community Development Director. If approved, this reorganization would result in a salary adjustment for only those staff persons that need to be brought to the minimum of the new pay grade. If the staff person is already making more than the new minimum, no adjustments will be made. Probationary periods would not be required for any reclassified staff position. The required probationary period, along with the end of probation salary adjustment of 5%, would only apply if an existing employee were promoted to a reclassified position or if a new employee were brought in. Beginning October 1999, I am also proposing that 5% salary adjustment be made available to those individuals in the Community Development Department who have obtained a recognized professional certification such as the AICP. These types of certifications require the attainment of certain minimum education adjustment for our building inspectors and professional experience. The County offers similar adjustment for our building inspectors and professional engineers. There would be no impact this fiscal year, the total increase beginning October 1999 would be $7,550 annually. In addition to the above recommended changes, I am also requesting a p'p rova I of the separation of Technical Services Section of the Planning Division into its own Division. This mission of this Section is to provide and maintain an integrated geographic data base for use by the public and the County's other Departments. The staff from this section provides technical support and specialized support not only-to the operations of the Department of Community Development, but also to the other operating Departments in the County. The functions and responsibilities expected of the GISrrechnical Services Staff have increased over the past several years. The use of computers and complex programming and data base management technologies require a high degree of specialization, training and education. Qualified applicants for the operation of this system must have a minimum of a bachelors degree in computer programming or related sciences along with understanding of the principals of a GIS data system. Our current job descriptions require for these technical positions only a high school diploma, because these job descriptions have not been revised to match the increased technological knowledge and education requirements for the positions. The salary levels for these positions are also still based on the high schoolleve! of education. Therefore, I am proposing that the following adjustments be made to the Technical Services Section: Community Development Reorganization February 24, 1999 page 2 - '-' \wi Current Current Current Current Revised Proposed Proposed Proposed Position Pay min. max. Position Pay min. max. Title Grade Title Grade GIS 25 $ 29,744 $ 43,638 GIS 30 $37,440 $ 55,036 Supervisor Coordina tor Dev. ' 14 $17,909 $ 26,250 GIS 26 $ 31 , 138 $ 45,718 Services Analyst Technician III Dev. 14 $17,909 $ 26,250 GIS 23 $27,123 $ 39,811 Services Analyst II Technician Dev. 14 $17,909 $ 26,250 GIS 20 $ 23,587 $ 34,652 Services Analyst I Technician The recommend position of GIS Analysts III would replace a currently vacant technician position. The other two GIS Analyst positions are filled with existing staff who have reached the necessary level of expertise with continuing education and certifications. The recommended classifications and pay ranges are in line with the Planner I and Planner II positions which require a similar level of expertise and education. Revised job descriptions and classifications will be developed in coordination with the Personnel Department. Funding for the GIS salary adjustments is available within the Planning Divisions FY 98/99 operating budget. No budget amendments are required. The recommended salary adjustments can be provided for based on the existing appropriated funds in the salary and benefits area of the Planning Division Budget. The Office of Tourist Development has been transferred from the Department of Leisure Services to the Community Development Department. This is simply a straight transfer of operations and staff. At this time we are not proposing any salary or budget changes for this Division. As part of the FY 99/00 budget submittal the appropriate budget fund transfers and reorganizations will be completed. In addition to the transfer of the Tourist Development Office, the County is proposing to create a new position of "Grants Writer" which would be located in the Community Development Department. Finally, I am proposing to retitle the position of Land Development Coordinator to Assistant Community Development Director. This position currently serves that function and this re-titling will provide for a clearer organizational structure. I am also proposing to amend the pay grade for this position from a pay grade 31 to 33, consistent with the other changes outlined above. There are no budget amendments required or associated with this change. - Community Deve!opment Reorganization February 24, 1999 page 3 - - '-" y Position title current Recommended Revised pay minimum maximum Position pay minimum maximum grade Title grade Land Assistant Development Community Coordinator 31 $ 39,250 $ 57,782 Develop. 33 $ 43,098 $ 63,752 Director Staff recommends approval of the recommended reorganization as shown in Exhibit "B" and the above cited salary and job title adjustments. If approved, the appropriate amendments will be made to the job description and codes for the Community Development Department. If you have any questions, please let me know. SUBMITTED: ¿JZclL ia Shewchuk ( I ommunity Development Director !/ JS/DJ M PLANG1a(a58) cc: County Administrator Asst County Administrator County Attorney Personal Manaqer Management & 'Budget Community Development Reorganization February 24, 1999 page 4 -I: I: 0 cI1._ E:::: a. III o 0 -a. cI1>o ~.c C III >0 ·w ::::>0 1:- - ca oJ I: E< E- o I: UcI1 ....E oiii -:I I: is' Ë< t:~ ca ca a.- CII ca C(I) t/J :I ro û5 <D Ü I: ~ <D ~ o ~ ro ëij U) -0 <D t/J o a. o à: ~ ro ëij U) c ~ .... :I Ü ,m i= .c o ., "'C <D t/J o a. o à: ( ) :;:: i= .c o ., C <D .... .... :I Ü >. .c -0 ]~ N o ..- >. .c -0 <D "'C I: :I u.. 2 ¡¡:: <D I: <D aJ ~ ro ëij U) tJJ t;: Q) I: Q) aJ ~ ro ãi U) -0 ªª ¡¡:: o ~ Q) E ro tJJ Q) E ro IJ) 0> eX) C"). t- ,... ~ o C!) 0> cD I() ~ .... is -> <D o E o ü iñ IJ) « "'0 .... o o Ü -> Q) o -0 I: .s o 4A- I: CII 0 Q;: I: ca ca:: oJ: III Uë: (ije -"'0 ~< "'0 "'0 ~ ~ ¡;:: ¡;:: o ~ o 177 <D E ro IJ) ( ) E ro IJ) ex) C!) C"). I() ,... 4A- C") N 0>. eX) "f" 4A- ( ) E ro IJ) .... Q) C) ro I: ro ::2: C) I: '2 I: ro õ: '-' o 4A- <D E ro IJ) ( ) E ro IJ) ,... t- C"l C") ,... 4A- ex) ex) t- o" "f" 4A- ( ) E ro IJ) .... o IJ) .~ ( ) a. :I U) o Cl. ::2: C ro -0 á5 ªª > ¡,¡:: t- t- t-. o ,... 177 o N A. I() ,... 4A- C!) t- t-. I() C") 177 C!) 0> ex) N' ,... 4A- C") N ,... ,..: N 177 è. IJ) I: ro ~ .... ( ) I: I: ro õ: a. IJ) I: ro ~ ~ I: I: ro õ: o ~ ( ) E ro tJJ ( ) E ro IJ) C!) 0> eX) N' ,... 177 0> ,... I() ö C") 177 ( ) E ro IJ) è. IJ) I: ro ~ - .... ( ) I: I: ro õ: "'0 "'C ~ ~ æ: \;: ,... C") N.. N 177 0> C") ,... N' ,... 177 C!) t- t- Lei C") 177 o o "": ,... ,... flit ~ ex) 0> ('f) (t) flit ( ) E ro IJ) c ( ) .... .... :I Ü :::: .... ( ) I: I: ro õ: C!) o C!) C") 177 ,... o a. ,... ,... 177 "f" "f" t-. 0> N 4A- C!) ,... a. o ,... flit C") N ,... t- N flit ( ) E ro IJ) c Q) .... .... :I Ü :::: - ~ I: I: ro õ: -0 ~ ~ I: ¡;:: íi) ,... <0. I() C") ~ o ~ o ~ ex) N o N' ,... 177 t- eX) I() ri N 177 "'0 ( ) ro I: :~ Q) ( ) .c .9 c Q) .... =: g .... ( ) I: I: ro õ: o 177 Q) E ro tJJ ( ) E ro tJJ o "f" N.. N ,... flit o t- ,... cD C") 177 C") N ,... ,..: N flit Q) E ro IJ) c: e '5 I: UJ :::: .... ( ) c: c: ro õ: C ro ü ro > <0 C <0_ C") 177 N'ÎÍÌ t- 01 ,... C") <0- ~. N,... 177 4A- .....!,...~ ,... o c_ ,... ,... ~ "<t "f" t-_ 0> N 177 <0 ,... a. o ,... flit I: .9 13 2 e a. ( ) !::: .... :I ê 01: ~.!!! a:: a. I: e '5 I: ~ CII C! I: IIIC! oJ: I: U_ _I: III I: -III 0- !-o. .... ( ) I: c: ro ã: t- t- t-_ o ,... 177 'wII -0 ªª ¡¡:: o 177 <D E ro IJ) ( ) E ro IJ) ,... t- eX). "<t ,... ~ I() "<t "<t a) C") ~ .... o ro I: 'õ .... o o ü £Q C) ..; c> <Do. EU) a.tJJ ..Q~ ~ .~ <D <D OU) c ro ü ro > -0 ~ ¡;:: L!) t- "f"_ C!) ,... 177 o I() <0_ ex) 177 ,... ex) eX). C") ,... ~ C!) 0> eX). N ,... 177 ex) C") ,... ,... C") ~ C") N ,... ,..: N 177 I() C") C!) ö ,... ~ C") 0> ,... ,... ,... flit 0> o 0> ,..: ,... ~ C!) t- ,... Ö N ~ - - - - iñ :>. ëij I: « C/) ë:5 êi) ã) :>. :>. ëij ãi I: I: « < £Q C/) C) ë:5 oJ: Ü Q) 1- ¿ ( ) U) -> Q) o oJ: oJ: Ü Ü Q) ( ) 1- !- ¿ ¿ <D Q) C/) U) -> > Q) ( ) o 0 -0 "'0 ªª ªª t;:: ¡,¡:: o ~ ( ) E ro tJJ ( ) E ro IJ) 0> L!) C!) ai 4A- o 0> ~ ..¡ N ~ o ~ Q) E ro IJ) ( ) E ro IJ) o (t) (t) ..¡ ,... ~ C!) C!) 0> Ñ (t) ~ ( ) E ro IJ) .... Q) ;: ( ) '5 ( ) a:: 0) ( ) a:: > <D o ~ N ,... 10" N tit c: .90 to. 8.¿ 00) Cl. .S ::2:5 o)u I: c: :.a~ :I 0 ul: c: ~ '- t- o"<t MO t- . 0"" 01 tit tIt~ (I) a CII C! I: III oJ: U -¡ - o !- - I: Q E a. o Q; > c C >0 - ë: :I E E o U c OI_ l: I: ca c oJ:E Ut: -III .sa. o c !-c - I- CJI- z!!1 --J Z I-q: w- ~ü o:W W ~g¡ ~ C- o ...J ºo: ::;w W o z zz o :5 > &J a. II> W ..:.: >- '- 0 c:: ?: '<: Q ~I- ~ ¿W :ë oc:: <:0 ;:¡ w c.. (I) >- £ c ... I- O').£! ... - O').!!! « -> z COÕ .. 0')01 "" ::J ' c: -+-' >- §~ .- :?E L1.Nãi .c "C IllS E Q) CIt .- :?E c:CII .!: >-0. :!:!ø >< 0"3° 0 ....al W 0.- 0 0.2 «ãi E c \I- 01 '¡j 0 tn C'II e 0 I- 01 8 c z ~ u õ Œi W u.. 0 0 :E 5 I- ~ « a. w Q \wi ....,.¡ I- Z w :E a. o ...J W > W C >- ... .... ... cc - Q) "" z Q) "" - co +' ::J <J) .- >- .c ~ .- LL J: :?E ï:J >< <J.) W 0 .~ > <J.) U a: ~ o .... z w :E .... ct: <C 0- W C 0:: ° Ç:~ zO:: ::¡I- 811 .~ ~ '-' I- Ç:~o:: z:EO ::¡a..1- :Eot) :E-'W' OW 0:: U~61 a: ~ z ¡sz a:Q- o t;" o ~a: (.) oil! z II:~ o Q. 2 § ~! w'" z b ~! g: ~ ~ ~~~ a:~ ð '" w oc '''-''' -- - a: o >- ... t: ß § g; ::¡ c ::¡... o z UW ::¡ ~¡s UI-' «~ c II: W CJ « ~ ::¡ CJ z Z z 0( ..J Q. - MARTIN COUNTY PLANNER 2 SENIOR PLANNER GITECH GIS TECH GIS SPECIALIST CITY OF STUART PLA1~NER 1 PLA1~NER 2 PLANNING TECH- GIS - CITY DESIGNER PROJ COORDINATOR CITY OF PSL 'wi 27,967.00 - 40,716.00 30,312.00 - 44,139.00 12.01 HR - 18.00 HR 10.50 HR - 15.76 HR 27,967.00 - 40,716.00 28,433.00 - 41,163.20 34,548.80 - 50,044.80 24,565.50 - 35,568.00 29,848.00 - 43,222.40 PLANNER 28,621.50 - NO MAXIMUM GIS ADMINISTRATOR 32,718.00 - NO MAXIMUM GIS COORDINATOR ' 30,680.00 - NO MAXIMUM INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PLANNER 1 PLANNER 2 PLANNER 3 GIS ANALYST 2 26,743.00 - 40,715.00 29,484.00 - 44,889.00 38,721.00 - 60,986.00 24,785.00 - 36,446.00 'wi' ... -- " '-' ....., CITY OF VERO ASST PLANNING DIRECTOR PLANNER 2 GIS ADMINISTRATOR DRAFTING TECH 34,346.00 - 53,430.00 27,319.00 - 41,886.00 54,000.00 (NEGOTIABLE) 21,411.00 - 32,799.00 - - ......" .ò c: ::;:¡- o~ Oc: ..... ( ) ::;:¡ E 0 E .0 <tJ ( ) CI) :::. 0 ( ) 0> CI) CI) ... ~ ( ) :J CO c: 0 ~ C\ 'ii) 0 :J...... a .0 .s a ..... ...... -.- en o :J :::.:. I CI) Q.~ a a:: \.;. .s c: a W ( ) - a c: ~ E C\ z ~ 0 E -.- 0) l() 0 0) o E 0 I "'t:J CI) (.) a en I -.- co c:......( ) C\ en 0) <tJC:..c:: -.- 0) C/) CI)( )...... I :E~ ~ .....:tJc: -.- c: ii) ._ a :Ea::0) ~~;§ a 0«0) 'ii) ( ) ~ uw~ ~ ::S c: ~ ~ - ( ) ( ) .2 .....:::....... I- ..J N Q <tJ ._ <tJ (.) 0> ,g. Z «:I: w -Õ 0 .(.) ::J U U Q Q):;;"€ o en a:: z w W "'t:J<tJC1J :it W W Q ...J c: ...... Q. I- Ui:i:« :!: Q < < <tJ CI) Q) Z u. a:: :æ: :!: 0 ~ 0 E.ò~ ~ o 0 û..i 0 (.) e> en '-= §.s 0 (.) aJ >- >- .Qo"E (.) Cu..I- w 0 < < .c: Ü 0 (.) a:: I- « ~ ~ c.. c.. õ"'t:J 0 < -( )(.) «enc c:......"'t:J o W« (.) c: ~~<tJ CJ ::J C co .- ""- (.) "'t:J CI) ~az 'è: CI) 'ii) Ww ::;:¡ <tJ CI) Z a:: C) E..c:: <tJ ::J Z « E"E ~ o <tJ (.) 00 (.) 0 ... U¡:: (.) a::¡ Q) :::::(1)0 W- .0 It: _en :J::ËO uO Q. . "'t:J~c: ::Jc.. Q) "¡¡J .2 ..J C/) -.- C\ C") :::.c:- <0 a co e·2 E ¡....: UJ co a co Q.~ ~ Ü l()" co" "",' .§:g .$2 en S; (\') -.- In ~ ~ ~ .....«..:: IE o . (.) "'t:J CI). C/) Q)E~ ~ ~ Q) ~ :J 0 c: 0> a.. ¡::: ¡::: .s e Q) ~ « .~ Q. ¡:: g: .ò -g . ¡...: c: <tJ CI) ..". U) C/) :J CI) ~ C\ ~ ~ a o......CI) I 5ê 5È ü (.) ( ) 0) Q) .~ (.) 0) C Q ,c:ee C/) « « ¡....: Q. Q. a.. W I- :it ~ ...J W Z 0 l- e> 0 w z ¡::: Q ¡::: ~ w ~ :!: z m CD < z_ I- Z 0 ~ !::: (.) 0 ~ º E ~ u.. ...J ü: ¡::: < m < w < ¡::: ëi5 c.. :> m ..J Z I- m w 0 < w 0 ~ 0 c Õ a.. m CD I- ~ c.. en a:: w Zen Oen endJ en en :=~ :Eo:::: en o«en uw~ »N I-...J Z«~ :;:)UU ocna:: UU-« U-O::::~ OOW CU-I- 0::::1-<2: <2:cnc Ow <2: ~5~ ...Ww zO::::C) ::JZ<2: 00 u¡:: w- _cn uO ::JQ. ...J t-= en CI) ~ (:) UJ (:) Z UJ :E :E o (,) UJ 0::: I- ðj ~ Q o -J ~ UJ Q >- I- ~ ::> :E :E o ü ¡:..: z UJ :E I- 0::: « c.. w c < o ¡:: ~ ¡....: CI) ~ ~ Q « z º tn ~ (:) s UJ < UJ (:) o (,) aJ o '") .,... <0 to It)" (\") E.9- > c::: ~ .... « tn to C\ UJ (:) ~ C) >- <C a.. C\ o o <0- .,... E.9- tn I- ü: W z W aJ ......, vj E: ~ Œ E: ~ Q¡et:: e -';;:.0 II) Q~ ~ 1:: ,ò ~ .S¿ Œ §II)Q.Q¡ o .S¿ ~ ( ) ü13.....£ ....( )t::..c: ,E 0.. Œ Q¡ II)II)Q¡~ ( )~"tJe ~'S ~ £ . ( )O'"t::è,ò :;:.. ~ ( ) QJ t:: ~1I)E:(¡jð "tJt::ÖII)ü .S·Q 0.::' ( ) -.;;: êë "9 ~ 'ù .8 .~ ::::: ::::: ::J "tJQ.~""-J t:: 0..:::¡.,E.....; ::¡ QJ ~ t1) CI) ,E.....II)t::t:: t:: "tJ 's.. '- ( )~t::QJQ¡ "6 Q¡ -2 0.. ,S ....... :5 ....... 10.....'" "'0 "tJ-.;;;;t::QJt:: ( )i2Œ( )-2 ( ) ( ) t1) ::>.,..... t:: (,) t:: .... (,) (,) '- ( ) .( ) ~::¡~ 0..Õ' QJII).Q~å. S: ....- 0 t:: s:~.9Œ1§ ( ) ( ) II) Q¡ ~ t:: S: .~ 0 0.. ..c:- 0 ~.,... II) .!2 ::r: § to "tJ .S ÒI 1::: t:: æ .§.S 8. ~ (¡j "tJ"tJ o..~~ :>-t:: O( ) 0.. 1:: -2 ::>".Q ~ ::¡ ..... t:: o t:: QJ.S Q) üŒE:~§ Q¡II).Q..... ~....QJo-2 .....,E..c:t::0 .... :>- QJ ..... ,E~""'(,)(¡j II) 2: § :ï> .S¿ ~ QJ ,C¿ :;;: 1:: ~o'-'~(,) ::¡..... ( )::>i II) o II),¡::......- (1)'- ¡...: t:: t:: ( ) II) Œ 0 ::¡"8!ri Q¡~ t::..c: ~ "tJ II) @.....~oo .. ( ) ï:: 0 0.. ~ E: S: Q¡.!2 (¡j~t:«¡:: § 0 ro . '-..c: ~ "tJ....: :!::: ....... ""-J Q) ""'" ~'O"tJ~~ ~ ( ) E: '- ..... ( ).S.Q ~ ~8.ê~-g z o t= <C (,) ü: t= (J) ~ c ~ " { c c o o .,... , o o o C\ .,... It) I .,... o .,... It) .,... I C\ o .,... :$¡; I- Z ~ o (,) (,) « It) C\ o , 0) 0) CI) a. :it o w c::: z o t= ü5 o a.. -- m m I co m wm c:::~ wC::: z< º~ w..J ~< :!:u :!:U)m oj¡m uc:::~ >- 0 ~ I-u.N Zl-J: ::JU)U OWC::: Ü::J< u.O:!: ow.. oC:::~ C:::Z< <00 0-< aJl-O >-c3z I--W Z!:!:C) ::JU)< QU) u:) Wu -w gc::: ..Jz "'=0 U)- t:: U) o a.. CI) ~ c w c z w :E :E o u w a::: CI) lJ..J Ü ~ a:: lJ..J CI) lJ..J a:: ::, CI) lìj -J t=-: z w :æ: z ~ 0 < (j) a- :> ~ ã 5] CI) ~ lJ.J a:: o <: CI) ~ c w > o a::: a- a- « ~ ~ o ü f:2 a:: o Q.. CI) >- ...J I- Z W a::: a::: ::J u '-' ct lJ.J (!) ~ ~ ~ ::, Q ~ CI) a <:0 c:) "'" 10 C"\ ' 10 $ 0) ~ lJ.J C"\ a <: a ~ ...... ...... 10' (\') ~ I- ffi ~ ~ <: ~ ~ ::, CI) ~ ::, Q ~ CI) a <0 ~ a a <:0- (\') <:0 C'I ~ ~ C"\ a a ~ 0) <:0 10- C"\ ~ W ...J l- t:: Z o E en o a. w w w 0 C) en 0<').:1- o a::: < a::: ü: .:.¡ ue>a:::«w< ID>->--.JZI- O«<wO -¡a.a.enall- a "Ct <0 N "'" C <0- "Ct- .,.. It) ~ ~ ~ ~ a 0) C"\ " ""," (\') .,.. ~ ~ ( ) ~ ~ ~ t:n ~ o.·S I:: o "0 c: -g ~ ~ (tJ §- 0 ·S .c: (tJ .S ~ ì:'"O(¡¡ '(tj ~ c: I:: Õ "~ .E :::. CI) ... .S ~ ~ (¡) e õ 8 0. '"0 .s '"0 Q) ~ ~ § Æ § 'ti (tJ D- (tJ (tJ (¡) "~ .....0 !l> .....: ~Qj:?Q) ~ ¡::: "C: ê :s.. :è: (tJ -) 1:i _.....~ I:: ~ -§ ... ~ l::æ.E§ o c: ~ D- ~ .~ ~ co Q) a; ~ ·s £ C):- :t::: ·s ~ ~ ~ co ~ - I:: '.: Q) Q) .§ § ~ ~ 'ti ~ :::. (tJ 0 .S 1i) :t a CD g .1:: 0" ..;:: o=:: a--= .,.." (tJ ~ ì:- CD ~.§ ~ CI) :::. CD e :::. o..S I:: ~ e ~ t:n 0 ct~ ~ ~ - CD æS CD ~ .c: '- ~ .§ .E ~ ì: I:: CD 0 .§ - I:: CI)~:::- ~::::~~ - U (tJ Q) ..s ~ êi5 f; Q) ië CD CD ¡::: S ~ ~ Z o t:: « u ü: t:: en ::J -¡ "'wI a ~ I a a a C"\ .,.. 10 o C"\ 10 ...... I .,.. <0 "'" OJ c: :c: (tj :c: (tj I:: Q) c:: ~ .Q ~ ~ o :::! 0. CI) å> ~ OJ Q) (tJ .t:! ~ .§ :E ~ I:: I:: .:;: '"0 "0 c: (tJ (tJ êi5 I:: ( ) .:;: s"O o ~ ..... CI) ì:~ ~~ c: 0 ~ CI) c: c: 'ã5 :2 9. e :::! ( ) CI) 0. o :it I- Z ::J o U u « "'" <0 o 1 0) 0) () a:: :it o w a::: en en < ...J () W IX: - - 'w" ""wI C C Q ~~~ ~ CI) s: IJ..J a:: 0') 0 C C 0') <: '"" I , CO C 0') C C (J'}O') C\ o::~ '"" lO wO:: I C Z« '"" OW lO CI) CI) '"" ->- , ~ ~ C\ (J'}...J C ~« '"" ~U C") C\ CD C\ lO " ~UJO') '"" (Q " 0-0') ,,- C")- Q- u.O') C\ '"" : Uo::~ <: ~ ~ >- 0 ~ 0 C ¡:: C\ I-u.N ~ Zl-:I: Ü a:: '"" C1 ~ 2 co :JUJU w oj OwO:: .- 0 ~ $: C") U:J< CIJ a:: C") ~ w Q ~ I L1.O~ :J ~ C\ C IJ..J ow.. 0 ü C\ oO::~ c w 0 M w 0::: a:: 0 C\ O::z< C :::J Ü '"" Z C1 0 ,,- :it <00 w CI) C\ 0-< :B w ~ ~ .- > z ml-o :B 0 :J >-<z 0 0::: 0 .....2w 0 0- U W 0- U Z~C) 0::: « « :JUJ< oUJ C") ~ CD C\ " U« '"" (Q " w...J ,...... (Y)- cS ::.:. C\ '"" :t - _u ~ ~ c:: OW C 0 :JO:: I- C\ CI) ~z ~ ( ) <: '"" ~ .....0 ~ >- - co -6 ...J - 0)- UJ- .- a:: C") !:: 0 z ~ co ~ .Q UJ -J W (Q C") I 0 0 ~ 0::: <: lO C\ C "-., 0::: ~ C\ "tJ a.. lU :J M c:: Q U C\ a:s >- ..... ( ) I- ,,- t:n ~ Q) C\ c:: <: ~ a:s lO "§ (Q ~ ~ C I ~ ( ) 0) ~ 0) 0 :::: ü ü ¡.:: a:: w z ~! ¡:.: ...J 0 0' z .- w w i= w w i= 0::: :B z w c (!) CIJ « CIJ .... Z 0 C ~ Z >= .... u CIJ 0::: 0 0 0::: ~ 0::: ¡¡: .J ¡¡: :5 « (j) ï= u (!) c::: ~ w ~ i= 0- s; tñ CD >- >- ...J Z CIJ U W 0 0 ~ « ~ w 0 :J W c ë 0- ...., a. a. CIJ II! .- ...., a:: 0) cn~ c:::co wO) z~ 00:: cn< cnw :E>- :E....IO) 0<0) u~~ >- - ~ ...U.N ZO::J: ::JOU Ou.o:: U...< u.cn:E OgsLij CO'" o::W< <o::C °Z< aJOC >--Z ......W Z<C) ::J~< O:E U::i WW UZ ::JO ....It=: ~Cñ UJO £l. CI) ~ o w o z w :?: :?: o <.J w e:: I- aJ ~ a.. o a:J ~ lJ.J Q >- I- ~ ~ o ü ~ z w :E l- e:: <: 0- w o (!) <: ~ 'C( it z o Cñ ~ o co ': - " w o o <.J m o "') " C\ ~ ~ (r)- C\ - C\ .... ~ ~ ;>: e:: <: -J <: en a C\ w o <: e:: o >- <: 0- en t: u.. w z W aJ .....,¡ ....: c:: ( ) ~ (1] ~ ( ) :S .S "tJ -§ ( ) ( ) c:: (I) c:: .Q ..... (1] ~ '6 o E: ( ) :S "tJ c:: -2 .8 ..... c:: ( ) ~ CIJ 0... ( ) Q ..... c:: ( ) E: ~ ~ ( ) Q ~ 'ë;: ;:) E: E: o ü ( ) :S ~ o :::::: (1] -- ~ c:: ~ 'ii) o 0... .(1) 's .... o c:: ~ (1] .S .§ Q) ( ) ¡:: z o ¡::: <: <.J ü: ¡::: (/) :J "') - - a a co I a a a C\ .... It) I a .... a 0) I .... a It) :it I- Z :J o <.J <.J « ~ <: :;t o w e:: z 0- E (/) o 0- 0) tnO? c:::co wO) z~ 00::: tn« tnw ->- :E-I :E«O') On 0') Uù5~ >-- I-LL.N ZO::::I:: ::>OU OLL.O::: UI-« LL.tn:E O~W COI- C:::W« «O:::C OZ« mOC i:i=ffi Z«C) ::>2;« O:E o::::¡ WW õZ ::>0 -li= ...:<ñ 000 a. C/) ~ o w o z w ~ ~ o (.) w 0::: C/) l1J <..) s ffi CI) ß ¡....: ~ f2 :::, ~ <C <: ¡:.: Z W ~ .... 0::: < 0.. UJ a z º en :; Õ It') Q) "- w o o (.) OJ o ~ co It') IC) ...: (\,¡ (\. .,... ~ ~ >= 0::: <: -I <: en "- .,... w o <: 0::: (!) >- <: 0.. co IC) .,... en l- LL w z W aJ .... w (!) o ::! II] -I ~ o I- ""-' ~à5 0..0.. Q) e ..c::o. ;::Q) o:s -§Q) q:,32 L.;;: ::. ~e §-o. Q).£ :S"b .£-§ tI) Q) Q)Q) c: c:: '3; ,~ (t¡ ,.... tl)è:3 è:E: ~ ~ (t¡ ~ tI) c:: ~ 'E - E ~q:, &~ (t¡ e .£~ - (.) á5 ,~ E e 't::o. (t¡ O¡ g..S a& tI) c: Q) 0 .~ ..c:: ~~ C/)- "b .~ Q) !2 _ v, (t¡ (t¡ E.£ .£tI) :J c: <C.!;2 Q)~ :s~ ~o. o~ :::::C/) (t¡C/) "'=- '§ "b c: ¿ij ~:::: .- C/) ~C/) o.C/) tI)- £ëi5~ .....C/)Q) o C/) tI) c:-:J .!;2 Q) ~ (¡j:So ,S C5 0 E.,;:;- :':::::tI)~ Q) Q).- Q)~è: ¡::~~ z o ~ <: (.) LL ~ en ::J ~ - - o o Q) C o o (\. .,... It') I o .,... o 0) I .,... o It') :it I- Z ::! o (.) (.) <: ~ <: :it o w a:::: z 0- ~ Cñ o 0.. tnO') ~t:1? WCO Z~ 0'1"" ~~ -w :iæ>- :iæ-!O') 0«0') UU~ >- (J) a I-¡:¡:N Z~J: :::::>OU 0u.~ U « u.1-:iæ Ocn.. Ww C:::::>I- ~a« «WC O~« mcnC >-wZ I-cnW Z«C) :::::>w« OCt: UU wZ <3>- :::::>a:: ~:5 1-« cncn o <: CI) ~ CI) ~ c w C z w :E :E o (,) w 0:: C/) l1J ü s: a:: l1J C/) CI ~ ~ e :;) q:;: ~ <: ¡:.: z w :E z ~ e « ëñ a. :> ~ õ I- a:: o Q § CI)::::J' CI)-J :E§. ~I- ~ :3 CI)::!; <: ü §~ C/) ~ a:: o ~ - >- ..J I- Z W a:: a:: ::I (,) I- a:: o ~ C/)::::J' C/)-J ::iE§. ~I- ~:3 C/)::!; <:ü §~ C/) ~ a:: o ~ W ..J I- ¡:: Z C ¡:: U3 o a. '-' c CO c:) <0 CO ......- ~ ......())t.9- "'~c C\ I("j C") <0 C\ " C") t.9- ~ <: C <0 - C C co' C") '" C) t.9- "'~c c <C C) CO 10- C\ t.9- w W w c <:> (/) a « z >- l- e 0:: « 0:: u: ..J (')oC:::«w« m >- >- ..J :z I- e«««we -, a. a. (/) co I- <- "§¡.è .- t::: .¡;: :::J (t 0 t::: Ü '- ( ) ~ :S Q) ~ fJ) - ~ .... (t ð E :&i è ëï¡ (t tI) èã (t tI) t::: "0 (t ( ) u tI) o 0 ~ e- o. ( ) ¡5: ã5 :::J :tJ 3; '8 tJ) c,; .~ .~ ~ (t .~ Q Q) .¡;: 0. ~ u E .¡;: ~ ( ) .8 .... .è ...... ~ c: t::: :::J g Q) 0. Ü ~ ~ tI) (t ü (t á} "0 .!!2 Q ~ § Q) :::: "0 :S § :~ ~ t¡- "0 E: .... .S à5 ~ "0 0. Ô ~ ~ ~ ~ .e. :::J ~ ( ) t¡- :2_ ~ .~ ¡:, .... ~ ,;;; .S 0. ( ) (t _ .;:: E CI) ~ t::: CI) ( ) (t CI) ~ u -; 0 ~ :S (.) .... .... è (t o ( ) :S tI) ::.. !J) Q) (t ¡;;; :3 .~ ¡;¡ e .~ :i3 .~ ¡5: .8 è...: ~ (t ( ) - - t::: Q) (t t::: .c: tI) (t "0 Q) E t::: S -. co t:J) (t ( ) t::: t::: ::.. °Ñ .Q ~ 't::: tI) .... o tI) Q) .¡;: ~ ê" :5 e 0 q:;: 0. u z e ¡:: « u u: ¡:: (/) ~ -, .....,¡ - c c CO 6 c c C\ ..- 10 6 c c ()) I ..- C 10 :it I- Z ::I e (,) (,) « <0 <0 C I ()) ()) ü a:: "It: o w a:: (/) (/) « ..J (,) W 0::. tna') o:::~ WOO Zm 0'1"" -0::: ~< -w :2>- :2-10') 0<0') UU~ >-tn ~ I-ü:N Zo:::J: :::>OU 0u..a:: UI-~ Ou.. tJ) .. Ww e:::>1- 0:::0< «we 00:::« £DtJ)e >-WZ I-tJ)W Z«C> :::>W< 00::: UU w~ 5>- :::>0::: ~:3 1-« tJ)tJ) 5J CI) :;: ~ o <:: CI) ~ CI) ~ c w c z w ~ ~ o u W 0:: c w > o 0:: 0.. 0.. < CI) ~ :;: ffi CI) c ~ ~ e ;::, 'C( ~ z w ~ I- 0:: < 0.. W C I- a:: o 8: ;::, CI):::j' ~§. ~;:: ~~ CI) .....J <::~ 00 ¡::~ ~CI) a:: o ~ .... Q:: o a: ;::, CI):::::ï' CI).....J :E~ ~I- ~~ CI).....J <::~ 00 ¡::~ ~CI) a:: o ~ W ...J I- ~ Z o ~ ëñ o c.. '-"" a ('\ r--.: a .,.. a' lC) OJ .,.. ~ ('\ ~ (0 M lC) .,.. "".- (\") ~ C) ..". cO (\') (0 (\')- ..". 10 .,.. ~ ('\ ~ a C) ~ ~ 0)' ("\ ~ w w woC) (/) o « Z >- I- o 0:: « 0:: u: ...J uOO::«w« m>->-....tzl- o«««wo ..., c.. 0.. (/) In I- ~ <: ~ <: ~ <: .¢ .I.:: ;::... .!2> ..... .I.:: § (\ 0 c:: 0 .~ Q) Q) :S (I, (I, ~ ~ ~ (\ o E - .~ ~ (I, ..!!1 (\ œ c:: '=' (\ Q) (J (I, o 0 ~ e- o. Q) ~ (¡j ~ 'S; 'S ,s:; tJ) tJ) ~ Q) ~ '(3 ~ Q) 'ï:; Q ~ "5 ~ .I.:: ~ Q) .2 .... ~ i: ~ § Q) ~ 0 .e ~ 0 (\ 0 (I, 0. 0 (\ ~~~ Q) ~ '"0 :S èij 's ~ g. 'õ ê .... .s:; Q) Q '"0 0. Q) ,Q) ;:::: C,,) ~ .~ ~ :æ (I, .s. ~ c:: Q) 0- :2 ~ .s:; 'ëi) (\ (\ o E :š 0. Q) (1J -- ~ E CI) ~ ~ ~ ~ (J -; 0 ~ :S (J _ .... ~ (1J o Q) :S (I, ~ ~ ~ (\ ~ (\ .!a ~ ~ .!a Q) ·s ~ .2 è ~ ~ (\ Q) -- - c:: Q) (\ c:: .I.:: (I, (\ '"0 Q) E c:: :S _ (1J 01 (\ Q) .s:; ã ~ .~ 'èi) :.;:: o (I, Q) :S ~ ~ ~ e 0 'C( 0. (J Z o ~ « u u: ~ (/) ::::) ..., ....., - - a a OJ I a a a ('\ .,.. lC) I a a a 0) I .... ~ :it I- Z ::::) o u u < "- (0 a I 0) 0) o a:: :it o w 0:: (/) (/) j u w 0:: (J')O) o::~ wCX) Z~ O~ -0:: ~« -w :;>- :;-JO) 0«0) uu~ >-en - ....-N ZU-J: ::JO::U 0°0:: UU-« U-....:; Oen.. Ww O::J.... 0:::0« «WO 00::« aJenO >-WZ ....enW Z«C) ::JW« 00::: UU W~ õ>- ::JD:: ..J« ....:~ en en a l.U CI) S l.U a:: o <:= CI) ~ CI) ~ o w o :z w :!: :!: o u w a: f- a:: o ~ CI)::J' CI) -J ~~ ~~ ~CI) CI) :::¡ <:=:::5 o() ~~ ~CI) a:: o ~ ë w > o a: a. a. « CI) l1.J () S a:: l1.J CI) a ~ ~ 2 ;:, <:( I- a:: o 8: ;:, CI)::J' CI)-J --..~ <:::: I:!¡:: ~CI) CI):::¡ <:=:::5 o() ~~ ~CI) a:: o ~ ¡:..: :z w ~ :z D:: º « en a. :> ~ i5 W -J I- ¡:: :z o ¡:: ëi5 o a.. '-' o II:) o ~ 10 ('.¡ 10 0) C'<') !$ C\ ~ 0 o <0 f'.. f'.. 10' C'<') ~ ~ <:: o C\ " o - 0' 10 II:) C'<') ~ C\ ~o 10 ~ - ~' C'<') ~ w w wOC-' en o«:z~.... o D:: « D:: ü: U C-' D:: « w CJ > > ...J :z o « « « w ., a.. a.. en CJ - <- ~ .~ ~ - c::: ra :::J .S 8 ~ Q) Q) ::; ~ CI) s ~ o ra ..... E .~ ¢ ~ ~ ra ra c::: CI) ra 1;:) (,J Q) o ~ ~ e- (¡j Q. :::J Q) ~ ~ 'S ·s '" '" c::: c::: Q) ra ra ~ '" :(3 0 ~ E: _ ra "5 Q. ~ E .8 ~ Q) ... ~ ~ ~ §; Q) :::J - ~ Ë" 8 ra 0 CI) Q. () ra c3~~ ~~1:J ....... <'C '3; ~ ~ ~ ê ~.s Q)oS:1;:) Q. Q) Q) ;::: Q ~ .~ ~ ~ CI).e.~ c::: Q) '"' .S? ~ .S ~ (t] ~ ~ E .S - Q) ra ::: ~ E CI) :;:: c::: CI) ( ) ra CI) g. u - 0;;; Q) CD 8 ~ ~ ~ èñ o §? ::; ~ ra ~ ra .~ ~ ~ .CI) Q) ·s ~ .8 ¢...: CI) ~Q)% ra c:: ~ CI) ~ 1;:) Q) ¡:,o c::: ~ 0;;; ra ~ (¡j CD ·s § .~ .~ .èi) ~ o CI) Q) ~ ~ Ë" ~ ~ 8 :z o ¡:: « U ü: ¡:: en ::J ., ...,,¡I - o o II:) 6 o o C\ .... 10 6 o o 0) , .... o 10 :it .... :z ::J o U U « II:) 10 o ¿., 0) () a:: :it C1 w D:: en en :5 U W c:: CJ)O) a::C1? WCO zm 0""" -a:: ~< -w :E> :E..JO) 0<0) uu~ >CJ) A ....-N zu..J: =>a::u 0°0:: uLL< u..1-:E O(/J.. Ww e=>1- a:: 0< <we ° a:: < IJJ(/JC >WZ I-CJ)W Z<C> =>W< ° a:: uu !!!~ U> :::a a:: ~j 1-< (/J(/J U) ~ c w c :z w :¡¡ :¡¡ o <.> w It: t- a:: o 2: ::) U) C/)::;: :¿t- ~U) U)::J >-::!; U)() ð~ ¡:: VJ ~ a:: ~ U) ~ S a:: LU U) Q ~ ~ 2 ::) ~ t- a::~ OJ:: 8: a:: ~~ U):¿ m::!; ¡..;:::j ~~ U):::- <:- 01- ¡::~ -J ~::!; a:: () o~ ~U) ;% <: ~ z w :E z ~ 0 < ëñ a. :> ~ ë IÜ -J I- ¡::: 2 o ¡::: ëñ o a. '-' .....- ~ ~ o co c:) ~ I() <"I- I() 0) C"') ~ <"I ~ 0 o <0 " " I()- ("I) ~ I() 0 <0 <0 I() ~ ,,- <0- ~¡; o co C "'I- 10 <"1- 10 0) C"') ~ <"I ~ 0 o <0 " " 10- ~ w w WOC) (J) 0<2>-1- o 0:: < 0:: ü: u C) It: < w CD >- >- -J 2 o < < < w ""'J a.. a. (J) CD .... .(f¡ è èì5 (f¡ ~ C\ C\ c::: (f¡ C\ 1:J (.) ( ) o ~ ~ g. Cù :§. ::J ( ) ;tJ r:: s: r- 'ð c::: CIÌ '- c::: CIÌ c::: C\ ( ) ~ :~ -~ ~ .c::: C\ (.) ê- .c::: ~ ~ .8 ... ( ) c:"*~ ( ) Q. ::J -ê § 8 C\ (.) (f¡ á} 1:J C\ Q .S!? .!!? ~ C\ ( ) - ::J .s ~ ;tJ tJ- s: ~ ... 'ð t: 0 c::: ( ) .,;:; '- Q. ( ) 1:J - (.) ( ) :;::: cc ~ ~:s.'à5 è ~ ::J C\ .;; tJ- - C\ c::: ¡j5 ~ '- ~ ~ f? ~ ·s :e ~ ~ C\ .... ~ .... ( ) c::: (f¡ 0.. C\ ( ) 1: (.) .c::: 0 .... (..) ~ ~ è.... Q ~ C\ ..... .s C\ (t ~ § .:2 ::J :t:J .:2 (f¡ :~ ~ ~ "ö .8 .S L..: ,1:J Q) (f¡ ( ) c::: Q. .S æ¡ ~ .ê E 1:J ::!: C6 æ¡ ~ c::: ( ) ;:¡;; .Q ~ .:2 ~ ~ .s ~ ( ) 'õ e ~ OIQ.O c::: <- (..) :s: .c: ~ .c::: .!2J c::: ( ) .c::: ::J .s (t 8 OI.S ( ) ·s fI) .s .~ :B o (f¡ (f¡ .c::: ::J ~ :; 5 en ~ 0 1: ..""" - o o co I o o o <"I ..... I() 6 o o 0) I ..... o I() :it I- 2 ::) o (.) (.) < 0) <0 o I 0) 0) () a:: :it (J W 0:: tIJ (J) < -J (.) w It: 0) 0) I IX) 0) (/)0) ~~ w~ z< OW -)- (/)...1 ~< :Eu :E(/)O) 0ii:0) u~~ )- 0 ~ I-u..N Zl-~ ::J(/)U Ow~ U::J< u..O:E Ow.. o~~ ~z< <00 0-< ml-O )-<z 1-2w z!!:C) :J(/)< O(/) u:) Wu -w g~ ~z 1-0 (/)- !::: (/) o a. ë w C z w ~ ~ o (.) w tt: ~ ~ () :::ï § Q .:.: z w :iE z ~ 0 < (j) fu :> c ã CI) ~ ë w > o tt: a.. a.. « (!) ~ i (!) æ '-' ~ ~ ~ a:: lJ.J ~ (!) aJ c C\ M (0 co -- "'I- (0 "'I- ~ ~ C\ C;; C C\i 0) ("') (0' C\ ~ C 10 ~ ~ -' ....... ~:; a:: ill ~ (!) aJ -J s: Ü C (0 ~ (0 c· co -C\ ~ ~ ("') C;; C c:) (0 C -' "'I- ~ W -J I- ¡::: Z o E en o a.. w w w c (!) en c < Z :>: I- oa::<a::Ü:':'¡ uC)a::<w« m>->--Jzl- o«<wo ~ a. a.. CI) m I- ,8 .... c: q, o '- '& ItS '"Q Q) - o Q) Q5 CI) Q) :S "- .E è .S! q, CI) Q) :S Q) .~ '-.; o :S r:: ::J 0 q,:o::; '"Q ëi5 c: 0 q, Q. c: E :2~ . ëi) ..s o "- Q.Q) Q) Q) :S .S <0-0) o&j Q) '"Q Q) ~:S 0)<0- :::...0 ~è Q).S! :S~ Q)O) 0c: -51: ID,s I.;;. CI) ,8<1> .~ rJ c:.Q .0 <I> ';::;..c:: q,..... '0 i4:::: ~ 'ëi) 0 CI).Q .S! q, o '-Q ~~ CI)"'" ~J5 Z o ¡::: « u ü: ¡:: CI) ;::) ~ ""-" - c C "'l- e c c C\ - 10 to - - "'l- I - C - :it I- Z ;::) o u (.) « ~ c ch 0) () a:: :it o w a:: CI) CI) < -J U W a:: -- 0') f-. 0') ~ I 00 0 0') (J U)O') (J e:::'r"" « We::: CI) z« ::::¡ OW 0 ->- CI) õ: U)...J ~ § ~« ~U ~cnO') 0-0') u.0') uO::'r"" >- 0 ~ CI) f-u.N <: Zf-J: 0 ¡:: ~ . ::JU)U ëï; c:: OwO:: 2 U::J« 0 Q. '- u.O~ C'J) CI) c ow.. ë ::::¡ Q co::~ w 0 ::... - O::z« c Q:: ..Q Z ë § C'J) :it <oC w '- w ~ I- 0-« :!E > z aJf-c :!E 0 - => <tJ >-«z 0 0:: c:: 0 f-2W () a.. "' () Z!:!:C) w a.. ...... () 0:: « c:: « ::JU)< ~ Q) aU) .§ u:) <: C'J) ::J Wu :s- -w go:: ~ "' f-. è ~z ~ 0 ~ ¡:: 1-0 æ - <tJ U)- CI) ~ t: 0 0 U) -J Q. ê 0 g; CI) a. ..... .E l1J ...., 0 0 CI) õ: "tJ ~ <: Q) 0 § i3 ~ ëï; :ê ..- s: "- <:) ~ èi <tJ , Q) 0) -J 0) 0 -J Q) (J (J « CI) Q:: w z :it ¡:.: ~ 0 Z I- 0 W W ¡::: W W ¡::: 0:: ~ Z W C c.:> en « en z a « z :>: I- () I- 0 0 0 a:: « u: u: en a:: ¡::: a:: ~ j M () c.:> 0:: .Q « ¡¡; :5 w ~ ¡::: 3: a.. :> ¡¡; CJ >- >- z en u c; w 0 0 « « « w 0 => w z c ã a.. -, a.. a. t/) CD I- -, a:: ü: LL ;=: '!J -< ~ -..J ~ <: -c: c: 0 ell ._ E:: o.UI 00 -a. CD>. ~.Q CUI >.'¡ ::>. c:- :::I III E c: E~ o c: OCD ...E 00 -:::I C::g ~« t:~ 111111 0.- CD 'III 0(1) (/ :J ro èi5 OJ U c: OJ ... OJ ~ is ~ ro ëõ CI) "'C OJ (/ o 0. e a. ~ 10 ro CI) - c: ~ :::I (.) ~ ï= .Q o .., "'C OJ (/ o 0. e a. OJ :¡::; ï= .Q o .., ë OJ ~ :J Ü >. .Q "'C ~~ N o ..- >- .Q "'C OJ ~ :3 LL 2 ¡¡:: OJ c: OJ CD ~ 10 ëõ CI) (/) iE: Q) c: Q) !II ~ 10 ro CI) "'C ~ IE o ~ Q) E 10 (/) Q) E 10 (/) 0> ex) (I) 1"-. ..... ø o cc 0) cõ 10 ø '- is :> Q) c È 8 iñ (/) « "'C C o ü :> Q) o "'C c: 10 ...J c: CD 0 0= c: III 111-= .J:.UI Oi: iãË -"'C ~« o w o 0 ~ ~ o ~ OJ E ro (/ Q) E 10 (/ ex) co <'1 10 ..- ø (I) N ~ ex) oq- ~ Q) E 10 (/ ... Q) C) ro c: ro ~ C) c: c= c: rn ã: "'C "'C ~ ~ c;: '+= " OJ E ro (/ OJ E ro (/ ..- ..... (I), (I) ..- fit ex) ex) I"- o oq- fit Q) E ro (/ ... o <II .~ OJ a. :J (j) o c.. ~ '-i ë ro u ro > ..... ..... ..... o ..- ~ o N A. 10 ..- ~ co ..... ....., LO M ~ <0 0> ex) Ñ ..- ~ (I) N ..- r-: N fit ci. (/) c: 10 ~ ... Q) c: c: ro ä: ci. (/ c: ro ~ ... OJ c: c: ro ä: "'C "'C "'C ~ ~ ~ iE t¡:: '+= o ~ OJ E ro (/ Q) E ro (/ co 0> ex) N- ..- fit 0> ..... 10 o (I) fit Q) E 10 (/ ci. (/ c: ro t - Q¡ c: c: ro ä: ..- M N. N ~ 0> M ..- N ..- ~ co ..... ..... 10' (I) ~ o o 1"-- ..- ..... fit oq- ex) 0>_ (I) (I) fit Q) E 10 (/ ë OJ ... ... :J ~ ... OJ c: c: 10 ä: co o co. M ~ ..- o o ..- ..- ~ oq- oq- ...... 0> N ~ co ..- o o ..... fit (I) N ..... r-: N ... Q) E 10 (/ ë OJ ... ... :J Ü ~ ... OJ c: c: ro ä: ro -- c: lÕ ..- co LÔ M ~ o ~ o ~ ex) N o Ñ ..... fit I"- ex) 10 M N ø "'C Q) êij c: :ê Q) Q) .Q .9 ë Q) ~ :J Ü ~ ... Q) c: c: ro ä: "'C ~ IE o ~ Q) E C1I (/ Q) E 10 (/) o oq- N Ñ ..... ø C I"- ..... cõ (I) ø (I) N ..... r-: N ø ( ) E 10 (/ c .Q (j Q) ë a. Q) ~'- :::I ê °c (/)10 ~ã: c: e '5 c: UJ ~ c: e "5 c: UJ ~ ... Q) c: c: ro ä: ... ( ) c: c: ro ä: ë C1I u ro > co o <O_ M ~ ..- o a, ..- ..- ~ oq- oq- ..... 0) N ø co ..... c o· ..... ø CD o c: 1110 .J:.c: 0_ _C: III c: -III 0_ I-a. ..... ..... ....., o ..- ~ Nit) ..... 0> T'" (I) ¿IO- N..... ~... ....!.,..~ "'C ~ ¡¡:: o ~ ( ) E ro (/) Q) E 10 (/) ..... I"- ex) ..¡ ..... fit 10 oq- ..,. 0) (I) ø '- o êij c: 'Ë ° o () CI) a ..; ë> Q)o. ECI) a.(/ .S2~ g!'~ OJ( ) OCl) ......, ë ro u C1I > 10 ..... oq-. co ..- ~ ..- ex) eX)_ M ..- ~ ex) M ..... ..... (I) fit 10 (I) co o ..... fit 0> C 0> r-: ..... ø - - (/) >- ëõ c « CI) a .J:. U OJ l- e: Q) CI) :> Q) o "'C "'C ' "'C ~ ~ ~ iE -+= æ: o LO co. ex) ~ co 0> OJ. N ..- ~ M N ..... r-: C\I ~ (I) 0> ..... ..... ..... fit <0 I"- ..... o N ø = - (/ >. ãi c: « ~ <.9 .J:. U Q) I- ~ OJ CI) :> OJ o o ~ OJ E ro (/ Q) E 10 (/ 0> 10 co a:i fit o 0> 10 ..¡ N fit - iñ >- ëõ c « CI) a .s::. u Q) l- e: OJ (j) :> OJ o -- ... OJ 3: Q) '5 Q) a::: C) OJ a::: :> OJ o o ~ OJ E ro (/ Q) E C1I (/) o (I) (1)- oq- ..... ø co cc 0> Ñ (I) fit Q) E C1I (/ ~ 10 N ..- 10' N ~ c: .20 ta. 8.~ o~ a. .- ~-g o>ü c: c: =ö:: :J 0 üC: c: - .- ..... ooq- MO ..... . .T'" CD~ w~ en a Q) o c: (1 .s::. Ü iã - o I- - c: CD E 0. o Gi > CD C >. - i: :J E E o () ell 0_ c: c: (1 ( .s::.E üt:: -(1 ßa. o ( I-C ......., AGENDA REQUEST ....,¡ ITEM NO. I (0 DATE: March 2, 1999 REGULAR [XX] PUBLIC HEARING [ CONSENT [ ] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION ~RS PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): County Attorney Donald B. West County Engineer and Daniel S. McIntyre County Attorney SUBJECT: Taylor Creek Restoration Project BACKGROUND: See attached memorandum FUNDS AVAILABLE: PI<EVIOUS ACTION: :çI!:COMMENDATION: "If the Board determines to abandon the exemption, staff recommends that the Board direct the County Attorney to notifY the Hearing Officer, the Department and the parties involved in the Adm.inistrative Hearing of the Board's intent to abandon the exemption. Staff also recommends that the Board direct staff to negotiate an a111endment under the contract with Williams, Hatfield & Stoner to allow BCI to perfonn the services needed to obtain the Environmental Resources Permit. COMMISSION ACTION: [v{ APPROVED [] DENIED [ ] OTHER: Bring amendments with BCI as soon as possible. Dou 1 Anderson County Administrator l:-~IJnty Att:'~~r~~y: o Review and Approvals 14?flr. J~f:'l':~rjt & BLK1Jo?:t PU1:-:_:h2..c;: irJ J: ()ri·JinatinJ D~r\t. ()th~r: Orh.,¡-: Fir,rir,·:";.::>: {Ch::"..::k t·.-'r \:'·:'f"Y <"[Ily, it nppli...'"':¡:¡l":",.l~J Eri. .5/~IÔ '-" """"" ~ INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Donald B. West, County Engineer Daniel S. McIntyre, County Attorney C.A. NO. 99-225 DATE: February 24, 1999 SUBJECT: Taylor Creek Restoration Project BACKGROUND: This item was previously agendaed for Board discussion on December 22, 1998. A copy of the December 22 agenda package is attached. The County has received a maintenance dredging exemption for a portion of Taylor Creek. Currently, the exemption covers the channel located east of the railroad right-of-way. It appears that the County could apply to State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to extend the exemption west of the railroad right-of-way subject to providing the same type of information and complying with the same type of requirements (e.g. deposit spoil in a self-contained upland site) that apply to the current exemption. It is likely that the persons and groups challenging the existing exemption would also challenge any proposed extension of the exemption. One alternative to expanding the exemption is for South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) to apply for a general permit. County staff has previously requested the District to apply for a general permit (see letter dated July 27, 1998 from Jack Karibo to Michael Slayton, copy attached). District staff declined the County's request citing, among other things, lack of funds and that the project was not "singularly an environmental restoration project" (See copy of August 24, 1998 letter from Michael Slayton to Jack Karibo, copy attached). '-' ....., Another alternative to proceed with the project is for the County to abandon the exemption and apply to FDEP or SFWMD for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP). If the Board chooses this option, the Board will need to contract with BCI Engineers & Scientists, Inc. through Williams, Hatfield & Stoner to perform the engineering work necessary to receive the permit. RECOMMENDATION/CONCLUSION: If the Board determines to abandon the exemption, staff recommends that the Board direct the County Attorney to notify the Hearing Officer, the Department and the parties involved in the Administrative Hearing of the Board's intent to abandon the exemption. Staff also recommends that the Board direct staff to negotiate an amendment under the contract with 'Williams, Hatfield & Stoner to allow BCI to perform the services needed to obtain the ERP. Respectfully submitted, ¡'¿~~t f ~~------ County ngineer DSM/ caf Attachments '-" ..., South Florida W"ater Management District 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 . (561) 686-8800 . FL W A TS 1-800-432-2045 TOO (561) 697-2574 CON-06 RF: 98769 n¡Þ \qi> "l µ 'I},l c (,'f /îJ), I"X q I , ~ ¡..v ~(1(; < 'C1 Co () C· ~~" I Y (' ~f-' J,z,,) , ,V 'tt ~~~. ~ /,0 b'v ?> !f1/~ <t~ -t' f>' f·' . ð""v I · ,J.N l/ August 24, 1998 Mr. Jack Karibo, Port Director S1. Lucie County Port and Airport Authority 2300 Virginia Avenue F1. Pierce, Florida 34982-5652 Dear Mr. Karibo: Subject: Taylor CreeklC-25 Dredging Project We are in receipt of your request that the South Florida Water Management District apply for a general permit (FAC 62-341.485) to restore the Taylor CreeklC-25 downstream of Structure 50 to it's original design specification. This general permit is specific to the Water Management Districts and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and allows restoration activities through an accelerated permit process. The intent of the general permit is to expedite implementation of those environmental restoration projects which have already gone through a comprehensive planning, design and public review process. Though we agree that the removal of some sediment from the C-25 channel will benefit the health of adjacent seagrass beds and the Indian River Lagoon, we do not believe it is appropriate to use the Noticed General Permit for Restoration Activities in this case. Since the project is not singularly an environmental restoration project, an individual Environmental Resource Permit is a more suitable avenue. The individual permit process is designed to methodically address the outstanding issues that have been raised by the public with respect to the project, thereby allowing effective issue resolution. These issues include concern for protected species (manatee, seagrass beds), sediment quality and potential release of deleterious substances to the water column, spoil disposal uncertainties, proximity to the Aquatic Preserve and secondary impacts resulting from deepening the channel. Additionally, we do not have comprehensive information indicating that sediment within Taylor Creek is a priority for removal within the Indian River Lagoon. Gowrnil1g Board: Frank Williamson, Jr., Chairman Eugene K. Pettis, Vicc Chairman Mitchell W, Berger Vera J\I. Carter \Villiam E. Graham \ Viiliam Hammond Richard A. Machek Michael D. Minton Miriam Singer , ,Q,~J. -\ ~,'. -', ~:.)' . . 1 1'--' '1- Samu 1 E. PboIe-HI,Exccutivc-DiTcc Mich' el SIa0®, I)ç¡m~ æ;tec@.vëtOl[).ßor ì\ hiljn~ .-\ddrc,;s: p.o, Box 24680. \ Vest P~ùm Beach. FL 33·H6-4680 '-' .~ Mr. Jack Karibo, Port Director St. Lucie County Port and Airport Authority August 24, 1998 Page 2 As you are aware, the District will contribute $500,000.00 to the project through the Florida Legislature's Special Appropriation 1196. We will also work with the county in coordinating the C-25 bank stabilization effort that will complement the dredging project and we are working toward budgeting monies to support this effort. Beyond this effort, we have no District funds budgeted for C-25 dredging in FY99. If you have further questions or desire additional information please contact Paul Millar at the Martin/St. Lucie Service Center at 1-800-250-4100. Sincerely yours, ~ch~S~ Deputy Executive Director South Florida Water Management District MSlpm c: Doug Anderson, Administrator, St. Lucie County Dennis Beach, Manager, City of Fort Pierce '-' '..,/ ST. LUCIE COUNTY PORT AND AIRPORT AUTHORITY PORT Œ FORT PIERCE . ST. LUGE COUNTY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT July 27, 1998 Mr. Michael Slayton, Deputy Executive Director South Florida Water Management District P.O. Box 24680 West Pa~m Beach, FL 33416-4680 RE: Application for Environmental Restoration General Permit 62-341.485, Florida Administrative Code; Taylor Creek/C-25, St. Lucie County Dear Mr. Slayton: This letter is to fonnally request that the South Florida Water Management District apply for a general penn it to restore Taylor Creek C-25 system to its original design specifications up to the S-50 spillway structure. As you know, we have had several interagency meetings and have met with the South Florida Water Management District to discuss a consolidated effort to remove built up sediments in the Taylor Creek C-25 systems east of the S-50 spillway structure. One alternative is to use the general penn it authorized by Chapter 62-341.485, Florida Administrative Code. However, South Florida Water Management District must be the applicant for this endeavor. Projects similar to this have been initiated by your sister agency, the St. Johns River Water Management District, with great success and clearly benefitted the Indian River Lagoon System. For your infonnation, the application was actually made by the Executive Director of the St. Johns River Water Management District for the Crane Creek project. A copy of the application is attached for your review. If you have any questions, we look forward to discussing them with you at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, -"..(Jr',/? :.~ ~,~ <----rãckKaribo Port Director cc: Dan McIntyre, County Attorney Michael Minton, SFWMD William Malone, SFWMD Paul Millar, SFWMD Bob Ulevich, SFWMD Nancy Hurlbert, WHS Steve Lewis, Esq., LL&W ,- -' " y/~ ~\ \ :-, \ i I \ . I \ JOHN D. BRUHN, Dittrict No, 1 . KEN ~TT1.ER. Diocrict No.2· PAULA A. l£WIS, District No.3· GARY D, CHARlES, SR, Dislrict No. , . CUFF BARNES, Dittrict No.5 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 · Phone (561) 462-1732 · FAX (561) 462-1718 . Suncom 259.1732 TOO (561) 462-1428 JUL. -27' 98 (MON) 15:28 LEWI~' ¡MAN&WALKER TEL:904-.,../~42 P. 002 '/ò ¿ . ~J"3/ (94') 667-23-45 FAX; (904-11661-2662 ---..-------... M::s ~ ~. &,GlNEERS & SCl~NTlSTS. INc. P.O. SoxS4G7 LakalanQ. R. 33807-5467 November 6. 1997 Ba PN 969431.8 Mr. John luiJianna SJRWMD 305 East Drive Melbourne. Florida 32904 Re: Noticed General Pennir for Turtœy Creek: Dredging Proj= Dear John: BCI Engineers and Scíencists. Inc. ß pleased In submit an original Noticed General Pemñt documau for the Tufkr:y ûœk Dredging Project In Palm Bay. aze....am County J Ronda. We are also enclosing IVJO additional copies for submittal to FDEP and one more for your files. Please have page S of S in the 3CtUaJ permit folD"lS signed by Mr. Henry Dean. Executive Director at the District and insert signed copies in the remaining docttmems prior to submittal CD FDEP. BQ would also 2ppreciare receMrig a copy of the signed page. On behalf of the Gty of Palm Bay, BC thanks you and the District for your assiStaDCe and prornpr CODper.Won in this maIœr. Should you have any questions. please call. RespecâuIly submitted, BCI ~eMM ShaiJesh K. Patel, M.Sc. Project Manager ~ Wayoe A. Ericson, P.E. Executive VICe President SKP:mwb AttachrnenI5 ~""'"'""'-JIr JUL. -27' 98(MON) 15:28 LEW[\....i--iMAN&WALKER ÒRt.1 : ·)p.p!:' J74~.201 ó.oooo EO: GI O&J: CÐ22sç TEL: 904- -,d"42 p, 003 1'OIIIr., u.s.u... ftl 1Q....~ .M'JtNT~At. IIGSÖ4I~·1IIwr "'~TIa.. DA1tï: ~1. "III SECTJON A ACOE Þ.cp Í~tíQn ¡s Due ....Pl:uìcaua" lIec~c F'rcOQU.d Pf'giea Ut. . . . Pn:IØCJillød f'raiea __. -._:-. -~ -----. -----. FOR AGENcy Use OM..y OIPMlMO AØØicaCicn /I 0.. ~:atiGñ Rect.:iveil Fee~t F.. tt.C8/pt 11 = ---- PART 1: ~ any at the lCIIviti.. "-:no"" ;" Ih/s apPlication _"" to oa:ur in, On, or OVer we".ds or other $un'ace waters? e Yes a No - I, II1is ·Pplic¡¡Oon being filed by or on - or. -..." entity Oc QOIInage dlStnct? Ii! Y os 0 No PART 2: A Type of Ernri""'mønlOl ROoou"," Petn>t R_ (d1ec:k ..I.... one). See A_nt 2 for :I1resnolds !C1( desc:rr¡:ujons. ~ NOt1ceo Gel1atQl - Indude Inrormarral1 requested in Sealen a. o Sta"""", Gan_ (S;.,gle Fanwy Cwao/mgj -....... ÍfÚOm1adan __ in S...oo$ C and O. o Sian",,,, G..."", (a. O"or Standard Goo."" P"'ieas) _ '- infonnaaon requested In SectJons C af1(j E. o In""';oual (Slngte FamIly Dwelling) - ind""o InIonnaticn _ In Sections C and D. a IndivK1ua1 (all ""'... '''''''''uaI rDjec:o¡¡ - r.;¡..,elnbmauOn _led ;" SeaJons C and E. o Cellceptual. ioc:1cJd& inlb~sran requested in Sections C .and E- O M'di_ Bank P"""" (ConSlnlc11on) - indlode1nfannauan ""ItÆsteQ In Secoon C.... F. ( If 1he I'roPcsed mirigabon b.... I_1ft" _""'" or. suriaœ water mana9ement SYStem requiring <!nether P&rrnit defined .¡bo'le. chedl; the apørcpnate box and submit the irlformatiQt requesr.ea by the appliCable sectron.} a MitigatiOn Sank (concePtUal) . indude tnfctmæi.cl1 requested in Seaion C and F. 8 iype of acmnty forwnfcò you are apPlying (cneck: at least one) 13 Construcdon or °PetõUon of. new SV....., adler",an . SOlid ...... facility, inclUding dredging or filling in. on or over wetlanas and ather surfaœ warers. o COn.struaîon. expaOSJOn Or mcditicatïon of it SOlid wasœ fGciäty_ o A~on or """"""'" at an "'<ioting SVStem_ _ not P~ __ by . """'" or OeP. e Modificution of a SYstem prevÍQusly peFTrTitted by a WMO or OEP. PrOVide previous Permir nunmel'S. a Alteraticl1 of a system 0 ExtenSIOn of permit dUtënon [J Abandonment of", system a COnstrudion of aClditional Phases 01 it system a Removal of a system C. Are you requesnng authorization to USe SOvereign Subtnerged Lands. !!5lYes QNo (See Section G and Altaenrnent 5 fi:r ""'Ie"",- o.ron. an....rin~ "'is question.) O. For aaiv;¡;". ¡". on Dr over "'ellan.. or other 'arlace........ eneok type of ""''''''' dredge -- I- and fiU pecmit reqUested: o IndividUal a Programmatic General Z GeneraJ 0 Nationwide a Not Applicable . ,4"e you claiming to qlJaKfy for an exemption? ~Ye! a No If yes. provide l'U e nUmber If know". la-I!. 011 (3-C) 11' .A. C. p"..... 1 ,,, " · JUL. -27' 981MONj 15:29 LEW[~-'~MAN&WALKER TEL: 904-~-"~42 p, 004 PART 5: ~Q'" '" .;t~", 1'0... IT1't4 ~ I!lM¥llIOIotollEH'rat.. ~ PeIV.trr AJlI'I::.Ia.11ðo, aA'IW: Oc_..~, 1m Project lOC;Jtion (U$& additional Sheets. if needed): Coun't'y(ies) Br.vard SectJon{s) ~4 T~ip 2es Sc!ctiQn(s) _Township_ Secnon(s) Township Land Gram name. If appjIcab'e lfl/A Tax Parcel Identification Number NLA Slreet address. rOad, or orher Ioc:aucn N I A Cily, lip COde If applIcable RIA J7E Range Range Range PART 6: Describe Ir1 general terms the propasea JX'a ect. system, or activity. As part of che rndian River Lagoon Surfaé.e tJ4ter Lç't'Ove.m.enr. and &n;a.gement Plan 19B9 and 1994 · ~<k raaav.l fro. tribnoari.. of tho Indian River Laa.Oft is a pt'1or1ty to the Di.strict. The Turkey Creek dredgi.ng projec::t "1 1 1~1 i.tat t'e:I1IOv.al of muck sedimencs from the. Hortb Central 4eCtion of the It1.diau E.iv&.r La oon. A Noticed General Perait is bein sou I: to 41lcw the removal. of muck ed1menc fr01l1 a rOJCÍJI1a.telv 47 acres i¡¡ tlu! Turkey Creek Area. The pro .cr:: area fr C.ad > rk 200 ft. veo< of th. >.E,C. Railroad BriO.. in Turkey Slough) east. Turke Lake. and Pala Bay. The overall gD~l of this proje~t 1a to rsmaYe the ~a'orit? of the muck vol~e froœ these ar_.$ to attain an improved benthic en"ironment a.nd ~ater ualit. revent resuS"Øensian of fine-grained/organic Sediments. In add1tion~ the sediment r~o"al ~ll attain SUfficient depen in the pro cc a a to oro,,·cie. n efficient 1011 t:er'œ "sinkll or "era II for f:i.ae- ra / or anie sed1œenr::s 01'1 inatiue in th. upper reaches of the creek vatershed aRd Melbourne Tillman Water Concrol Structure. F1nall . this project nIl. also Ù1- P ~ k POllock P k boat ra a. to Pêlicaa Barbor aud Palla Ba mar;Ln¡¡s. To 1fica:1tl reduce se.dfment:at10D il:1 the projec: area muck sed!ment .ourCI! COnr::1:'ol effDrts are under vay (refereuce 12 Turkey Creek Proposed I rovezuencs) vb.ict¡ induda the mana. emeqc: of urban dra1.uaglr. aDd sadimen~C1on, the TUrkøv Creek C-l re-d1versioD rojecc. and tha develop~ent and t le1lle1ttat1on of surfa.ce water dr.1na e trèatmenc: plan for the City of Palm Bay. ~ =- Page 3 ot 5 JUL. -27' 98!MONI 15:29 LEW¡~-'MAN&WALKER 04' "-14 ., TE~:9 -.~ ~ p, 005 FOIW.. U...1q.aQO(tt FO"- ~ JOIII1t ÐMIIION.I,tCWraL.. ~~~fIaoo OAT\!:. ~"'I. Ilia - PART 8= A. By "90'.9 .n;s ,..lioo.ioo fO''', I"", e..>,;ng, "' I am ".'y;ng on bene" of 'h. 'Pplic.n.. fa, 'he P"mot and 'ny ""'prietaty 'U'''''''''.ans Id'."fi... .b..e, ....,dinO 10 'M SUPPoning d... .nd a'.... Inci.o.tel 'nf....OI'.. fll.. ""h 'lis app.Ica..... , ... f...,.., wi'h ,he 'nf...,.t/on ca",.fnod i. W. e.."c..oo 'nd ,.,.,...... '"at 'uch "'f..m.tIon i. '""" com.,... 'nd 'ccura... , """.,....., 'hi. is an ·"...'ioo end ... · Perm". snd "'ar w.tt.riot.. IIp.r..., I,. ""'1_.. I und"otand tt"" 'hls ap,liconon 'nd 'ny '.rmo i'_d., .'oøri....., .u"""_an issue. pur....'" .h.,..a, do.. no. "liev. ..e of 'ny obllg'''.n f.. ....,ni... any ."'., ......... federal. _.. Water mon.g....., district 0' 10." .'nn.. on., ,. ........ncem.n. of Con._. , ......, at . ..... a. b"".K of the _Ii..",. to oø.,... .nd m'imain '... .......tt.d ''1...." un....... .''''''tting 'gettCV .uth",,_ un"".f .h. .'rm~ to. "·""""b'. 0""";.. ·.'oty. I """"''''.d .hlt knoWi",,1y mo.... any f.... .......... ., .......n...o. io 'h,. ......... i. · ""''',.n .f 5o'''on 373.430, F. S. '.d t 8 lJ.s.C. S"".on 1 001 . kenry Dean TY..a'Pt'n'.d N.m. of A..lican. (If no ""'m .. .sedl a, "".n. (// .... i. .. "'hot,,,,. b".wl Signature or ApplIcant/Agent ~ecutivQ Directo~. St Johns River Water M4nagement D1str1~c fCorpcrare Title .t õlpplicaOlel Date AN AGE", MAY SIGN ABOVE Q&):: IF 11-IE API'UCAHT COMPl.£rEs 11-1. FOU.OINING, .. I h...by ·.....at. and auth""", "'. .ge,. r..... above t. aet.n ..y ..h.". ., .. b".U .f my co",,,,..... .. tho ag.nt in ",. .'......'0 .f "'~ a..."".on 'ot tho ..nn, and/., P,.."...", aut.o"".on iodic","d .bove; 'nd to furni.h, "" ".q,,,,.t, ..."pI'''.n'aI inf.rm..on in s.O.Prt .f "" ·PO"e.Oo.. In 'dditlon, .uth.... .h. .b.........d .ge", tp 0;,,0 mo. or my oo"'Otation. I. .en.nn aoy ",qU'rem.nt whiclt "'V b. n....sary ,. ....c... tho .enn~ .. '.'han.ation ind;'''..d .be... I und''''.nd ,n.. knO"""91V "'..'"" any f.... Slot...... 0' ..P....nt...n >n .hl. aP."""".n is a vi.'.".n ot Secrlon 373.430. F.S. and i8 U.S.C. Section tOOL TVP4iO/Printed Name Qf Applicant SignatUre of Applicant Dale ¡Corporate Title if appliCable) PERSON AUTHORIZINc¡ ACCESS TO THE PROPeRTY MUST COMptETETfie FOlLOWfNG: Ple!lS. f1O{~ tnt!' --.~ erialroll. ~;ItItIl""e ("Q~ II eJlO1rl ,.. ,.",..,;~ "'''YJit C. r ......, .wn "" ."'''''Y .""'bOd in "''' ...qcoti.n 01' I h.v. I.... e"'h.n", '. .lIaw ...... .. th·o'..."". and con....t, .n., re-... priot .otifles"..., t. 'ny .it. V<S;, on the ."'.""" by .gents 0' ''''P"""I from .h. De''''''''.m of en..anm.....' """_.n. the IN..., Manag....n, Disrtict ''''' the U.S. Anny eo",. .t Engin.... nec....", f., <he r...... and i........n .t tho "o.o..d "0;0., SO...f'Od in thl. apPII""..n. I autheri.. 'hese 'gen", 0' ""'.nne' t. eoh" <he Oro.erty 's ",a.y .m.. .. ""''I b. necessary to make SlJch review and In.søectian. Further. I agree to provide entry to tt'e proiect site for Sl/ch agents Or perSOnnel to monitor permitted work ìf II permit is gr<rnred. Hen Dean TVDed/Printed Name Signature Date Executive D.irector. St Johns River Water Man.a.gelllet\!: District (CarpOrllte Title if ;a~p jcI.!OJ.1 Page 5 of 5 _40__ JUL. - 2 7' 98 !MON) 15: 30 LEWI ~ '-"~MAN&WALKER '-" TEL: 904-2' "'-142 ...." P,006 , ~ o ~ ~ 'f .. Œ:J J.£G£tm AREA TO BE OREDG~D .oJACE'HT PROPERTY 10 N ~ "!.\ '\ '!c. o . SCALE: 600 . ~ ~ / ~c ~. ENGINEERS & SCIENTISTs. /He. 2000 E. El)GþOOO DR.. I..tJCEUND. FL 33600 FElON!: (&41) I Sa?-~I!i ~~ B/04/97 RI;Vt5!C: [IRAWN 9\: LSD \ CITY OF PAUl BAy FIGURE 1 AD.IACENT PRoPERT& TURJœy CR~ D!ŒDGJNG PBOÆcr PAUl BAY, FLORIDA SCAl.E: AS SHOWN PRoJECT NO.: 969431 eCl /'.1(1.: 0577 v ..., '-" AGENDA REQUEST ITEM NO. 7 DATE: March 2, 1999 CONSENT REGULAR x] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] Leg. [ ] Quasi -JD. TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBMITTED BY: Community Development SUBJECT: Consider Approval ofInterim Road Impact Fee Credit Agreement #7 with the St Lucie West Development Corporation for certain Road Right-of-Way Dedications in the Development area known as St Lucie West BACKGROUND: The St Lucie West Development Corporation is requesting additional Road Impact Fee Credits for the value of certain road right-of-way dedications internal to the St Lucie West Development Project The credits would be for the value of the dedicated right-of-way in excess of the impacts ofSt Lucie West The specific roadways involved through this credit agreement are: roadway segment from ill St Lucie West Boulevard Cashmere Boulevard California Boulevard California Boulevard Peacock Boulevard West Virginia Drive California Boulevard West Virginia Drive West Virginia Drive St Lucie West Boulevard University Boulevard Florida Turnpike 1-95 St Lucie West Blvd Heatherwood Blvd Peacock Blvd Cashmere Blvd 1-95 This amount of right-of-way to be conveyed is in excess of the proportionate traffic impacts expected to be generated by this development project The conveyance of this right of-way is not considered to be a "site-related" improvement or requirement Accordingly, the conveyance of this right-of-way is considered to be eligible for possible Road Impact Fee Credits. Section 1-17- 33. I (c)(6) of the County's Code and Compiled Laws provides that eligible Road Right-of-Way dedications may be granted a Road Impact Fee Credit for up to 120% of the tax appraised value of that land, Using the fonnulas set out in this Section, which rely on the most current Property Appraisers Office valuation for tax purposes, the calculated value of the right-of-way to be dedicated is approximately $690,500. Section 1-17-36 of the County's Code and Compiled Laws provides that a property owner who feels thatthe Property Appraisers assessed value is not reflective of the actual market value of the property being dedicated, may submit an Independent Property Appraisal for the purpose of establishing the fair market value of the property required to be conveyed. The developers ofSt. Lucie West have submitted such an appraisal prepared by Florida Property Consultants, Inc.. This Independent Property Appràisal has established a value of $4,239,320 for the property to be dedicated. Section 1-17-37 of the County's Code and Complied Laws, requires that when an Independent Property Appraisal is submitted that provides an appraised value in excess of 120% of the tax appraised value for the property in question, an Independent Review Appraisal must be- conducted. Such a review, appraisal has been completed by Fuller - Armfield - Wagner Appraisal & Research, Inc., and the results of that review validate the values submitted by the property owner. FUNDS AVAILABLE: N/A PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A RECD MMENDA TION: Staff recommends approval of Road Impact Fee Credit Agreement 99-002. C MMISSION ACTION: [ APPROVED [] DENIED [ ] OTHER: County Attorney: ¥ Mgt& Budget: Purchasing: Originating Dept: Other: Other: Finance: (copies only) : (AGEND418) ......., ...., 1 COMMISSION REVIEW: March 2, 1999 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Julia Shewchuk, Community Development Director DATE: February 15, 1999 SUBJECT: Consider Approval of Interim Road Impact Fee Credit Agreement #7 with the St. Lucie West Development Corporation for certain Road Right-of-Way Dedications in the Development area known as St. Lucie West. Attached is copy of Road Impact Fee Credit Agreement 99-002 which, it approved, would grant to the St. Lucie West Development Corporation additional Road Impact Fee Credits for the value of certain road right-of-way dedications internal to the St. Lucie West Development Project. The credits would be for the value of the dedicated right-ot-way in excess of the impacts of St. Lucie West. The specific roadways involved through this credit agreement are: roadway seament from JQ · St. Lucie West Boulevard - California Boulevard 1-95 · Cashmere Boulevard West Virginia Drive St. Lucie West Blvd · California Boulevard West Virginia Drive Heatherwood Blvd · California Boulevard St. Lucie West Boulevard Peacock Blvd · Peacock Boulevard University Boulevard Cashmere Blvd · West Virginia Drive Florida Turnpike 1-95 This amount of right-of-way to be conveyed is in excess of the proportionate traffic impact-s expected to be generated by this development project. The conveyance of this righ_t of-way is not considered to be a "site-related" improvement or requirement. Accordingly, the conveyance of this right-of-way is considered to be eligible for possible Road Impact Fee Credits. Section 1-17-33.1 (c)(6) of the County's Code and Compiled Laws provides that eligible Road Right-of-Way dedications may be granted a Road Impact Fee Credit for up to 120% of the tax appraised value of that land. Using the formulas set out in this Section, which rely on the most current Property Appraisers Office valuation for tax purposes, the calculated value of the right- of-way to be dedicated is approximately $690,500. Section 1-17-36 of the County's Code and Compiled Laws provides that a property owner who feels ~ ....,I February 15, 1999 Page 2 Subject: S1. Lucie West Road Impact Fee Credit Agreement that the Property Appraisers default valuations are not reflective of the actual market value of the property being dedicated, may submit an Independent Property Appraisal for the purpose of establishing the fair market value of the property required to be conveyed. The developers of St. Lucie West have submitted such an appraisal prepared by Florida Property Consultants, Inc. This Independent Property Appraisal has established a value of $4,239,320 for the property to be dedicated. Section 1-17-37 of the County's Code and Complied Laws, requires that when an Independent Property Appraisal is submitted that provides an appraised value in excess of 120% of the tax appraised value for the property in question, an Independent Review Appraisal must be conducted. Such a review appraisal has been completed by Fuller - Armfield - Wagner Appraisal & Research, Inc., and the results of that review validate the values submitted by the property owner. A copy of this review appraisal is attached. This review appraisal was coordinated through the Property Acquisition office. Staff recommends approval of Road Impact Fee Credit Agreement 99-002. If you have any questions, please let me know. Submitted: Harvey Lincoln Management & Budget Director JIS/DJMI attachment SLWEST1(a58) cc: County Administrator City Manager (PSL) Ass!. County Administrator County Attorney Public Works Director Management & Budget Director Finance Director Pete Hegener 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 '-" '-' RIF 99-002 INTERIM ROAD IMPACT FEE CREDIT AGREEMENT NUMBER SEVEN BETWEEN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND THE ST. LUCIE WEST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH VARIOUS PRIMARY ROADWAYS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT KNOWN AS ST. LUCIE WEST THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered, into as of this _ day of , 199_ by and between ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as lOSt. Lucie County" and ST. LUCIE WEST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, hereinafter referred to as "West". WITNESSETH WHEREAS, "Wesf' owns certain property in the City of Port St. Lucie generally known as the St. Lucie West, Development of Regional Impact. WHEREAS, "Wesf' has agreed to dedicate to the City of Port St. Lucie, for the use and benefit of the public, certain rights~of-way for the following roadway segments: roadwavseament from JQ St. LucieWestBoulevard Cashmere Boulevard California Boulevard California Boulevard Peacock Boulevard West Virginia Drive California Boulevard West Virginia Drive West Virginia Drive St. Lucie West Boulevard University Boulevard Florida Turnpike 1-95 St. Lucie West Blvd Heatherwood Blvd Peacock Blvd Cashmere Blvd 1-95 WHEREAS, lOSt. Lucie County" has adopted a "Roads Impact Fee Ordinance," which imposes impact fees relating to public transportation facilities; and, WHEREAS, Section 1-17-33.1 (c)(6) of the Code of Ordinances of St. Lucie County provides for credits for the dedication of non-site related road right~of-way on those roadways that are a part of the County's Roads Impact Fee Eligibility network; and, Road Impact Fee Credit March 2, 1999 RIF 99-002 Page 1 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 47 48 49 50 '-'" ~ WHEREAS, "West" has elected not to accept the County's standard method for the determining the value of right-of-way and has submitted an Independent Property Appraisal for the purpose of determining the fair market value of the property proposed for dedication; and, WHEREAS, the submitted Independent Property Appraisal has established a value for the property to be dedicated in excess of 120% of the appraisal value as shown on the official property records of St. Lucie County and the St. Lucie County Property Appraiser; and, WHEREAS, the County has commissioned, and completed, the required Property Review Appraisal, for this property, said review appraisal determining that the valuation established by the Independent Property Appraisal represents a reasonable fair market value for the property to be dedicated, the value of which has been established at four million, two hundred thirty ninelhousand, three hundred and twenty dollars ($4,239,320); and, WHEREAS, based on the provisions of the Section 1-17-33.1 (c)(6) of the Code of Ordinances of St. Lucie County, the proportionate amount of the total project cost that is eligible for consideration of road impact fee credit is: $ 4,239,320.00 WHEREAS, "West" arid "St. Lucie County" are desirous of establishing an agreement concerning the amount of credit that "West" shall be entitled to for the dedication of certain road right-of-way internal to the Development of Regional Impact known as St. Lucie West; and, WHEREAS, on November 25, . 1997 the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners granted conceptual approval to the issuance of a Road Impact Fee credit to "Wesf'in consideration for their dedication ,of certain road right-of-way internal to the Development of Regional Impact known as St. Lucie West; and, WHEREAS, "Wesf'.and "St.LucieCounty" are desirous of establishing a final amount of credit for the dedication of certain road right-óf-wayinten;al to the Development of Regional Impact known as St. Lucie West; and, NOW, THEREFORE, inconsideration of the mutual covenants entered into between the parties hereto, to be made and performed, and in consideration of the benefits to accrue to each of the parties, it is agreed as follows: Section 1. Incorporation by Reference. The above recitals are true and correct and are made a part of this Agreement by reference. Section 2. Amount of Credit. "Wesf' is entitled to a credit against Road Impact Fees in the amount of four million, two hundred thirty nine thousand, three hundred and twenty ($4,239,320) dollars under the Road Impact Fee Credit March 2, 1999 RIF 99-002 Page 2 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 47 48 49 50 Section 3. Section 4. Section 5. Section 6. Section 7. '-' '-' criteria set forth in Section 1-17-33.1 (c)(6) of the Code of Ordinances of St. Lucie County for the properties legally described in the attached Exhibit A. Limitation of Credit. The credit established by this Agreement is limited solely to the property legally described in Exhibit A and is not transferable to any other property owned by "West" in St. Lucie County. The credit may only be applied against Road Impact Fees and shall not be transferable as a credit against other impact fees imposed for purposes other than roads. Assignability of Credit. "West" may assign all or part of the credit described in Section 2 above to its successors in title and interest. Such assignment shall be by recordable written instrument. Before the assignment is effective, a copy of the assignment shall be provided by "West" to St. Lucie County and the City of Port St. Lucie, at the address set forth below and the original assignment shall be recorded in the public records of St. Lucie County: County Administrator 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 City Manager 121 SW Port St. Lucie Blvd. Port St. Lucie, Florida 34984 with copy to: County Attorney 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982 City Attorney 121 SW Port St. Lucie Blvd. Port St. Lucie, Florida 34984 Future Road Impact Fee Agreements. By signing this agreement, "Wesris not waiving any rights that it may have to claim future credits for improvements already constructed or for improvements that may be constructed in the futurelo the extent permitted under the "County's" Roads Impact Fee regulations. By signing this agreement, "St. Lucie County" is not granting any credits other than those specified ¡nthis agreement and the County is not setting a precedent in the manner itwillhandle future credit requests from "West." Recordabilityof Agreement. This Agreement shall be recorded by "St. Lucie County" in the public records of St. Lucie County, and shall be binding upon "West's" successors in interest and title to the property described in Exhibit A. Requirement for Quarterly Reports. Consistent with the terms of RIF-93-01, and in consideration for the issuance of this Road Impact Fee Credit, "Wesf' agrees to provide to St. Lucie County and the City of Port St. Lucie a detailed written report on the use of the credit approved through this agreement. This report shall indicate the building permit number, the date of issuance of that permit and a description of the activity being permitted on which the normally required road Road Impact Fee Credit March 2, 1999 RIF 99-002 Page 3 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 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 '-' -..."I impact fee is not being paid. The first of these reports shall be due on January 1, 1994, and shall be then be due by the 15th day of each subsequent quarter. These reports shall be sent to the addresses set forth below, County Administrator 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 City Manager 121 SW Port St. Lucie Blvd. Port St. Lucie, Florida 34984 with copy to: County Attorney 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982 City Attorney 121 SW Port St. Lucie Blvd. Port St. Lucie, Florida 34984 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: St. Lucie West Development Corporation Paul "Pete" Hegener, President ATTEST: Board of County Commissioners St. Lucie County, Florida BY: DEPUTY CLERK CHAIRMAN APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: COUNTY ATTORNEY RIF99-002 Road Impact Fee Credit March 2, 1999 RIF 99-002 Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 '-' >.."I ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) ss ) COUNTY OF BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority personally appeared Paul 11 "Pete" Heqener, and is authorized to sign and execute the above 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 Agreement and that the representations above stated are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief. SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this day of , 19 Notary Public State of Florida at Large My Commission Expires: Road Impact Fee Credit March 2, 1999 RIF 99-002 Page 5 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 '-" .....", 1 2 3 EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description 51. Lucie West Development of Regional Impact A portion of Sections 23, 26, 34 and 35 and all of Sections 24, 25 and 36, Township 36 South, Range 39 East, and portions of Sections 19,30 and 31, Township 36 South, Range 40 East, all in St. Lucie County, Florida, particularly described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of Section 35, Township 36 South, Range 39 East, run thence South 89 degrees 59 minutes 48 seconds West a distance of 460.96 feet to the easterly right-of-way line of 1-95, also known as State Road 9, and shown on Right-Of-Way Map No. Section 94001-2412, sheet 4 of 14; run thence in a northerly direction along the East right-of-way line of said 1-95 the following courses and distances: Thence North 23 degrees 34 minutes 44 seconds East a distanceoft,538.27 feet to the point of curvature of a curve concave to the West, having a radius of 5,903.58 feet; thence northerly along the arc of said curve 2,241.45 feetthrough a central angle of 21 degrees 45 minutes 14 seconds; thence North 01 degrees 49 minutes 30 seconds East a distance of 4,295.10 feet; thence continue North Of degrees. 49 minutes 30 seconds East along the easterly right-of-way line of said 1-95 adistance of3,39.6..92ifeet to the Point of Curvature of a curve concave to the West and having a radius of 11;633.16 feet; thence Northerly along the arc of said curve a distanceof1 ,750.36 feetthrough a central angle of 08 degrees 37 minutes 15 seconds to apoint of tangency; thence North 06 degrees 47 minutes 46 seconds West a distance of 1 ,054.70 feet to thé pOint of curvature of a curve concave to the East having a radius of 11 ,285.16 feet; thence Northerly along the arc of said curve a distance of 1,338.58 feet throughaœentral angle of 06 degrees 47 minutes 46 seconds to the point of tangency; thence North.OOdegrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 532.68 feet to the intersectionpoint.of said easterly right-of-way line of 1-95 and the North section line of Section 23, Township 36 South, Range 39 East. Said point also being th,e South West corner of the Plat of Port St. Lucie Section 44 as recorded in Plat Book 16, Page 23, St. Lucie County, Florida, Public Records; run thence North 89 degrees 22 minutes 57 seconds East along said South line of the Plat of Port St. Lucie Section 44 and the North line of said Section 23, a distance of 2,020.07 feet to the North quarter corner of said Section 23; run thence North 89 degrees 46 minutes 24 seconds East a distance of 2,671.27 feet to the Northeast corner of said Section 23; run thence South 89 degrees 44 minutes 41 seconds East continuing along the South line of said Plat of Port St. Lucie Section 44 and the North line of Section 24, Township 36 South, Road Impact Fee Credit March 2, 1999 RIF 99-002 Page 6 \..I -.....I 1 Range 39 East, a distance of 5,282.95 feet to the Northeast corner of said Section 24; run 2 thence North 89 degrees 43 minutes 32 seconds East along the said South line of the Plat 3 of Port St. Lucie Section 44 and the North line of Section 19, Township 36 South, Range 4 40 East, a distance of 2,658.50 feet to the North quarter corner of said Section 19 and the 5 westerly right-of-way line of the Sunshine State Parkway, as shown on the Florida State 6 Turnpike Authority Right-of-Way Map of Section 6, St. Lucie County, Job and Contract No. 7 6.3, Sheet 8 of 12; run thence southerly along the North/South One Quarter (1/4) line of 8 Sections 19 and 30, Township 36 South, Range 40 East, also being the westerly right-of- 9 way line of said Sunshine State Parkway the following courses and distances: Thence 10 South 00 degrees 02 minutes 01 seconds West a distance of 5,291.20 feet to the South 11 quarter corner of said Section 19; thence South 00 degrees 18 minutes 33 seconds East 12 a distance of 2,768.11 feet; thence continue to run South 00 degrees 18 minutes 33 13 seconds East along the said West right-of-way a distance of 2,541.48 feet to the South 14 quarter corner of Section 30, Township 36 South, Range 40 East; thence South 00 15 degrees 15 minutes 12 seconds West along the North/South One-Quarter (1/4) Section 16 line of Section 31, Township 36 South, Range 40 East and along said West right-of-way 17 line a distance of 5,334.47 feet to the South One- Quarter (1/4) Section corner of said 18 Section 31 and the North line of the Plat of Port St. Lucie Section 9, as recorded in Plat 19 Book 12, Page 39, St. Lucie County Public Records; run thence North 89 degrees 48 20 minutes 31 seconds West along the South line of said Section 31 and the North line of said 21 Plat of Port St. Lucie Section 9, a distance of 2,631.43 feet to the Southwest corner of said 22 Section 31; run thence South 89 degrees 44 minutes 44 seconds West along the South 23 line of Section 36, Township 36 South, Range 39 East and the North line of the Plat of Port 24 St. Lucie Section 8, as recorded in Plat Book 12, Page 38, of said St. Lucie County Public 25 Records, a distance of 5,314.49 feet to the Southwest corner of said Section 36; run 26 thence South 89 degrees 50 minutes 26isecondsWest along the South line of Section 35, 27 Township 36 South, Range 39 East and the North' line of the Plat of Port St. Lucie Section 28 20, as recorded in PlatBook 13, Page. 21, of said St. Lucie County Public Records, a 29 distance of 5,297.97 feet to the Southwest corner of said Section 35 and the Point of 30 Beginning. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Road Impact Fee Credit March 2,1999 RIF 99-002 Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 "-i "'" Road Impact Fee Credit March 2, 1999 RIF 99-002 Page 8 ( '-" "'" ( ~ P. \wordproc\storage\98S00SS0lreport ( '-' '-'" FLORIDA PROPERTY CONS ULT'AN'fS GH..OUP 1<: ... ..,........... September 14. 1998 Mr. Jim Anderson Sf. Lucie West Development 1740 SW St. Lucie West Boulevard Sf. Lucie West. Florida 34986 Re: Right of Way Value Analysis - Six Roadways In Re: Road Impact Fee Credits for Excess ROW Donations Sf. Lucie West, Port st. Lucie, Florida 34986 Our File No: 98500550 Dear Mr. Anderson: \ As requested. I have reviewed and analyzed the data provided in regard to the above projectinan.effort to estimate the market value of the fee simple estate pertaining to the excess' rights of way donated to the city and county over various dates,' generally being January and February ,1998. ".We have made a detailed inspection of the subject property. its economic environment and surrounding neighborhood. considered and inspected sales and offers' ot similar properties., and considered all factors 'relative to the probable market value of the fee simple estate interest in the above-named properties. The purpose of this assignment. therefore, has been to conclude an estimate of the market value of the fee simple estate of the various properties affected by the donated road rights of wqy in St. Lucie West. The function of this report is for your use in negotiating with the county for exc·ess rights otway road impact fee credits. (':' We appraised this property as of February 13. 1998 [our File #98500500] and submitted a restricted report of . our findings and conclusions shortly thereafter. . This current report is a self~ontained,'format of that appraisal report. The preparation of this complete appraisal, self-contained report is intended to confoim with the appropriate and pertinent rules and regulations for appraisal promulgated byUSPAP, the Appraisal Institute. the State of Florida. the, Appraisal 'Foundation and associated Standards Board. and FIRREA 12 CFR 34, oswell as those rules/guidelines stipulated by st. Lucie County. . The conclusions and data presented:herein are subject to and predicate upon, any and all assumptions and limiting conditions, contained herein and those in File 98~OO500: . , Based upon-my investigation and dnaly~es. I have'concluded,the following total marke't'value of the fee simple title for theabove-referenced sUbject'propèrty segments. "as is". as of February 13; 1998: - , FOUR MILLION TWO HUNDREDTHIRTY·NltU THOU~AND THREE HUNDRED TWEN1YDOLLARS2 [$4,239,320) 795 SB PORT ST. L!JCI~ BLVD. SUITE A . PORT ST. LUCIB, PLORIDA . 34984 P.O. BOX ,90U . PORT ST. LUCIB,': P,LORIDA . 34985 ',. PHONB: (561) 336·2201 . PAX: (561) 336-1799 B·m.it duink@AOL.com 1 Exce.. ROW h that ROw donated by de';'elòper. In addHIon to lOW needed to meet requirement. of the ORL 2 Value re",e..nt. ,t~e totai amOunt of numorou. .egment. a. d~alktd In the'leH« of Tran.m~aL - ( .'-' '....,I Mr. Anderson September 14. 1998 The various rights of way involved in this analysis are portions of Peacock Loop. Cashmere Boulevard. California Boulevard. Sf. Lucie West Boulevard. and the proposed path of the West Virginia Drive extension. as shown on the map provided on the following page of this letter. ' Following that is a summary table of the per unit values [costs] concluded in our analyses. ' It is important to note that this appraisal'is predicate upon a primary assumption. being that the donations generally stem from ROW areas opposite already developed ROW _ i.e.. the donation from Peacock Boulevard would involve the west and north sides of the roadway. Furthermore.uinregard to the date of valuation. as noted in the initial letter report. the intent ·of the appraisal' is premised upon, the ~t. Lucie County Roads ImpactFée Ordinèmce;Article III, with particular reference,toSec.1-17-33.1 Credits. Thus, the dqteof valuation reflects' the date of inspection and is a reasonable approximation of the anticipated dates of donation of the road rights of way, which generally occurred over January - February 1998. We inspected the properties on February 13, 1998, thus the values reported herein are as of that date. Please refer to the following map depicting the segments appraised, followed by a tabulation of values concluded. ~:-- .. \\Au>HASBRV\R.DRlVB\WORDPROCISTORAGB\9SSOOSSO\RBPOR:MSSOOSSÓ.cIoc: ',', ' ii . ., . . . . 5160' . . ... .. .0. ... ..e, .. .. ,oê-4C··· "",\ · ~ .. , ' OCt( \ ~'.. , ~.. ~¡ .. ~I · ei£ Z¡ · ,.15 'W~ · ;".z :~~. · ,~ . : !!? ~ ~ · 01. I(I)~' . IC) ~. · . ;$ ; ~ 0/ : UN~~~!y . g : ~ / ,.----- ~----. Ii: .; I : . ,:] ~ ~ I : I .J""" ~: I ~,I' ::.c I ...~. I I g : . '~-"\ ;.(. ~ ~---------J----------- I (.') I ., _-\--- .< I' .c I .' .,..... \ I ~ I.&J I . " _:..---. . a ./. 0. I . _-- \ . ,.'-, I . ..."C... \ ( "-, I I _--- I \. \.' · ~ : 2655' ...~. ""n. \ . is --'- \ I I ...:t \ ...-v.." => ~-\--~-!--........ ø ~ ........~.... . ~ \ " Sf LUCIE I '1 Ò . \, . . ~ I, I I 0 e~ .. :; OJ.~ , .$ is ¡ \.'~{¡ð.¡ B : ........,. u (;): 1 · -.;: : : . ~.: I. . 5: ø> ~ . §: ''''E~'t''\~...-------.l.._--... ð .~-':.;._:..--:-- ' . . . . . ..~ . ..'" " , . , ' , ' . Co' WEST VIRGINIA .. ...........¡..................................I\............... , ~ "13680',' , , . ' I r·---:~ ~ - -.-- --------------: I' JUUET ,I . , \ I . I . . " I ~~---------------------~----- \ DELRIO' '. '\'. , \ , \. \ \ , \ \ \ , \~~---~--~_:~~------~~---------~\\. \ ROA'DRIGHT~ÒF~·WAY, ,CAPITOL IMPROVEMENTS ( 10 01 It.I t- < t- (I) It: It.I t- Z ..:,~\ '-' ""-' UNETYPE INDiCATES AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL R/W FOR CAPITOl IMPROVEMENTS ........., ..,.... ' ..... 12Ò'AOOIl1ONALR/W 80' 'ADDIT1ONAL R/W 60' ADDITIONAL R/W, UNETYPES FOR ROADS ....,TH NO ADDITIONAL RI~fT-,OF-WAY FOR CAPITOL It.1PROVEt.1E~nS -------- EXISTING ROAD PROPOSED ROAD, . St. Lùcie West Development Corp~ Q It.I ::.c 0. Z 0:: :::I I- NTS., 0:: o ...J I&. PPEPNIm IIY' CUlPErf'(1t 6: 1tRPE..-..c. IoIC. o.J-OS-1He 14M-5.0WC "-"1' c ~ \wi ( , Mr. Anderson September 14. 1998 Conclusion of Analyses: ST. LUCIE WEST ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS- RIGHT OF WAY CREDITS DONATED ROADWAY DONATED ROADWAY ADDTNL AREA SEGMENT ROADWAY LENGTH ROW WIDTH Gæ COST COST TOTAL DONATED WiQIti ALLOCATED rtotal for sea,) rtotal for sea,} fiU.f ~ VALUE CASHMERE [SOUTHI 8.505 (60) (510.300) Commercial backland 685 60 41.1 00 $3.50 $152.460 $143.850 Residential/Institutional 7.820 60 469.200 $0.57 $25.000 $269.250 CALIFORNIA [NORTH] 9.555 (60) (573.300) Commercial frontage 319 60 19.140 $7.00 $304.920 $133.980 Commercial backland 2.192 60 131.520 $3.50 $152.460 $460.320 Comm/lnslitutlonal . 1.738 60 104.280 $2.00 $87.120 $208.560 Resldential-undeveloped 5.306 60 318.360 $O~7 $25.000 $182.750 CALIFORNIA [SOUTH] 2.374 60 142.440 $0.57 $25.000 $81.750 PEACOCK LOOP 12.360 (60) (741.600) Industrial-developed'. 3.692 60 221.520 $2.07 $90.000 $458.100 Induslrial-undevelop~d 3.208 60 192.480 $0.76 $33.000 $145.860 Residential-undeveloped' . 5.460 60 327.600 $0.57 $25.000 $188.000 SLW BLVD 2.655 80 212.400 $3.50 $152.460 $743.400 [1-95 - CALlFORNIAI WEST VIRGINIA DRIVE , 12.765 (120) (1.531.800) S/D-develope<;! , 4.999 120 599.880 $1J5 $50.000 $688.500 Residential-undeveloped 5.194 120 623.280 $0.57 $25.000 $357.750 Residential/Institutional 2.572 120 308.640 $0.57 $25.000 $177.250 TOTAL 3.711.480 $4.239.320 Thus. the precedingindicates'atotal value for the donated excess ROW segments of: -: 54.239.320· () ( ( ~~ The preceding $totementof value is made predicate upon any and all assumptions and 'limiting conditions expressed in this appraisal report. ' '. The scope of this ass¡gnmentincludes estimating a reasonable exposure time for the subject properly. considering histone. prevailing and projected market and economic conditions, and basedòn the analyses and conclusions inherent in the approisal of the subject property. The ,conclusion is stated in the, body.of the report. ¡ Some .lEe. have chan"ed .Ince we .ubmHtctdthe original prttCunory r.port. The .IE.. hfctd In this tab" w.e modlktd and, provided by Stefan Mátth.. 0' Culpepper and Terpening a"d confnn.d by MlchaellColodzlo c~k of lawson. Nob.... W.bb, Inc. ,'. , 4 Valu. repre.ent. tlie total amounf of numerous ..gmonh a. defalled In the left. of Tran.mHtal \W.PI{ASERV\R~DRlVE\WORDPROC\StoRAGE\98S00SSO\REPOR1\98SOOSSO.doc iv Mr. Anderson September 14. 1998 ~ ""'" In regard to compliance with the Competency Provision of the USPAP. we have been appraising these types of properties in this area for more than 19 years. Enclosed is an appraisal report which includes a description of the property appraised. as well as the valuation procedures used in arriving at the preceding value conclusion. The estimate is contingent upon the Assumptions and limiting Conditions in the body of , this report. We appreciate the opportunity to have been of service to you. If you have any questions. please call. . Ibilic/tlc Enclosure ~, Very truly yours, FLORIDA PROPERTY CONSULTANTS GROUP ~~ ~;MAI. State-Cert. Gen. Appr. #0000383 Senior Appraiser File #98500550 \\ALPHASßRV\R-DRIVE\WORDPROC\STORAGr,I.9R50055O\REPORT\98.500550,doc . v. '-" "'" ' A REVIEW OF AN APPRAISAL OF THE EXCESS RlGHTS-OF--WA Y ALONG SIX ROADWAYS IN ST. LUCIE WEST, PORT ST. LUCIE ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA ;,..1 j PREPARED FOR Mr. Donald G. Cole Property Acquisition Manager St Lucie County 2300 Virginia Ave. Ft Pierce, Florida 34982 DATE OF APPRAISAL - February 13, 1998 DATE OF REVIEW - February 1, 1999 Prepared by: Daniel D. Fuller, MAl FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER Appraisal & Research, Inc. 328 South Second Street Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Review Report No. 12625 FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER '-' ,. .. FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER Appraisal ~esearch~ Inc. DANIEL D. FULLER, MAl, SRA St.Cert.Gen.REA 0000567 PETER D. ARMFIELD, MAl, SRA St.Cert.Gen.REA 0000524 RICHARD L. YAGNER, MAl, SRA St.Cert.Gen.REA 0000608 SCOTT N. MATTHEY, SRA St.Cert.Res.REA 0000448 o 328 S. Second St. Ft. Pierce, FL 34950 Office (561)468~0787 Fax (561)468-1103 o 320 E. Oecan Blvd. Stuart, FL 34994 1-800-273-7364 February 3, 1999 Mr. Donald G. Cole . Property Acquisition Manager St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Ave. Ft. Pierce, FI 34982 Dear Mr. Cole: As requested, we have completed a review of an appraisal of the excess rights-of-way along six roadways in St. Lucie West for Impact Fee credit. The appraisal was completed by Mr. Jack Crahan, MAl, of the firm Florida Property Consultants Group (FPCG), 795 S.E. Port S1. Lucie Boulevard, Port St. Lucie, Florida 34984 (FPCG appraisal #98500550, dated February 13, 1998). Value appraised is Market, with the interest appraised Fee Simple. , i . Our review consists of a desk review of the report, which entails analysis of logic, correctness of math calculations, completion of USPAP reporting requirements, soundness of data and analysis of the data, and also inspecting the neighborhood of the subject, and an inspection of the subject ofthe report and the comparable sales. Based on the analyses presented in this review report, it is our opinion, Mr. Crahan's analysis and report are well supported, and we concur with his value estimates. We believe the report to be complete, but any questions you may have are welcomed. Sincerely, ~ ....rr,.-·- ,~-- anI I . Fuller, MAl St. Cert. Gen. REA #0000567 REO/DDF/asf f:commfile 12625 '-" ....., 1 ) ¡ IDENTIFICATION OF APPRAISAL REVIEWED AND PROPERTY APPRAISED Subject of the Appraisal Beina Reviewed · Estimate of market value of excess rights-of-way in S1. Lucie West donated to St. Lucie County over various dates, for the purpose of compensation in the form of impact fee credits. · Land located along and adjacent to Cashmere Boulevard, California Boulevard, S1. Lucie West Boulevard, Peacock Loop, and proposed West Virginia Drive extension, all in S1. Lucie West, Port S1. Lucie, Florida (S1. Lucie County). · Owned by S1. Lucie West Development Corporation. · Legal descriptions not provided for the appraisal report by their client. Appraiser's Client · St. Lucie West Development Corporation, represented by Jim Anderson. ..! Appraiser and Identification of Appraisal · Appraisal Firm: Florida Property Consultants Group, Real Estate Analysts and Consultants, 795 S. E. Port St. Lucie Boulevard, Port S1. Lucie, Florida 34986. · Appraiser: Mr. Jack Crahan, MAl, State of Florida, State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser #0000383, principle in the firm. · Appraiser's File #98500550 Value Estimate · Market Value per definition in USPAP,1996 edition. Property Riahts Appraised · Fee Simple Interest Date of Appraisal: · February 13, 1998 Review Appraisers · Daniel D. Fuller, MAl, State of Florida State Certified Real Estate Appraiser #0000567, principle in the firm of Fuller-Armfield-Wagner Appraisal & Research, Inc., 328 S. 2nd Street, F1. Pierce, Florida. · Robert E. Oliver, Florida State Certified Appraiser #0001255, staff appraiser. Date of Review · February 1, 1999. FULLER-ARMFIELD- WAGNER - ...... ..."" 2 SCOPE OF THE REVIEW The scope of this review is to check for completeness and consistency of the appraisal and report, including compliance with the Uniform Standards of Appraisal Practice (USPAP). Our review consists of a desk review of the report which entails analysis of logic, correctness of math calculations, completion of USPAP reporting requirements, soundness of data and analysis of the data, and also inspecting the neighborhood of the subject, an inspection of the subject of the report, and the comparable sales. I , ! ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS OF REVIEW Appraisal Type The appraisal reviewed is a Complete Appraisal assignment consisting of analyzing data to estimate market value of the subject property as of February 13, 1998. ! ,) ..'\~ The appraisal conforms to USPAP standards with all applicable approaches to value completed. In the case of the subject only the Direct Sales Comparison Approach is applicable. Report Format The appraisal report under review is a Self-Contained report, and contains all of the data required to meet USPAP repQrt requirements, including a correct and complete "Certification of Value" and inclusion of "Assumptions and Limiting Conditions". Appraisal Analysis and Value Conclusions Analysis of the subject's neighborhood, and other factors affecting subject's value were addressed in the report, are complete, and well detailed. Additionally, the logic and appraisal methoqs ßmployed were appropriate for the subject property type - the appraiser ased an "across the fence" analysis which is warranted in this case, in our opinion. The data is adequate and relevant for the property type. We did note that the two pending sales on Page 25 were apparently not summarized in the addenda of the report, however we are familiar with one of these pending sales, and the information that was provided appears accurate. The omission of these two sale summaries appears to just be an oversight. Overall, the appraiser's value conclusions appear reasonable and well supported. FULLER-ARMFIELD- WAGNER ] -1 v 'wII 3 ¡ ! CERTIFICATION We certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief: a) The facts and data reported by us and used in the review process are true and correct. b) The analysis, opinions, and conclusions in this review report are limited only by the assumptions and limiting conditions stated in this review report, and are our personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. c) We have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and we have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. d) Our compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analysis, opinions, or conclusions in, or the use of, this review report. e) Our analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this review report was prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. f) Robert E. Oliver and Daniel D. Fuller, personally inspected the subject of the report under review. g) No one provided significant professional assistance to the persons signing this review report. h) The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. i) "As of the date of this report, Daniel D. Fuller, MAl, has completed the requirements under the continuing education of the Appraisal Institute." j) Daniel D. Fuller is a State Certified General, Real Estate Appraiser, license #0000567, and appraisal functions performed by him meet state certification requirements. k) Robert E. Oliver is a State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, license #0001255, and appraisal functions performed by him meet state certification requirements. ,j I ¡ ! -~ Robert E. Oliver St. Cert. Gen. REA #0001255 Daniel D. Fuller, MAl St. Cert. Gen. REA #0000567 FULLER-ARMFIELD-W AGNER '- ...." 4 LIMITING CONDITIONS AND UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS 1. The value given in this review report represents the opinion of the signer as to the Value AS OF THE DATE SPECIFIED. Values of real estate are affected by an enormous variety of forces and conditions will vary with future conditions, sometimes sharply within a short time. Responsible ownership and competent management are assumed. 2. This review report covers the premises herein described only. Neither the figures herein nor any analysis thereof, nor any unit values derived therefrom are to be construed as applicable to any other property, however, similar the same may be. 3. It is assumed that the title to said premises is good; that the legal description of the premises is correct; that the improvements are entirely and correctly located on the property; but no investigation or survey has been made, unless so stated. 4. The value given in this review report is gross, without consideration given to any encumbrance, restriction or question of title, unless so stated. 5. Information as to the description of the property, restrictions, etc. involved in this report has been obtained from the report under review. All such information is I considered to be correct; however, no responsibility is assumed as to the ;;d correctness thereof unless'so stated in the report. 6. Possession of any copy of this report does not carry with it the right of publication, nor may it be used for any purpose by any but the applicant without the previous written consent of the appraiser or the applicant, and in any event, only in its entirety. 7. Neither all nor part of the contents of this report shall be conveyed to the public through advertising, public relations; news, sales or other media, without the written consent of the author; particularly as to the valuation conclusions, the identity of the appraiser or the firm with which he is connected, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute, or to the SRA or MAl designations. 8. The appraiser herein, by reason of this report is not required to give testimony in court or attend hearings, with reference to the property herein appraised, unless arrangements. have been previously made therefore. 9. "Fhe Contract for, the review report is fulfilled by the signer hereto upon the delivery of this report duly executed. 10. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and zoning laws unless non-compliance is stated, defined and considered in the review report. 11. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous material, which mayor may not be present on the FULLER-ARMFIELD-W AGNER '-" ....., 5 LIMITING CONDITIONS AND UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS (continued) property, was not observed by the appraiser. The appraiser has no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the property. The appraiser, however, is not qualified to detect such substances. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation, or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. The value estimate is predicated on the assumption that there is no such material on or in the property that would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, or for any _ expertise or engineering knowledge_ required to discover them. The client is urged to retain an expert in the field, if desired. 1 ".I FULLER-ARMFIELD-W AGNER .'-' '-' 6 QUALIFICATIONS OF THE APPRAISER ROBERT E. OLIVER Education Brevard Community College; Cocoa, Florida, Graduated 1984, AA Degree Appraisal Courses and Seminars Introduction to Real Property Appraising -1986 Uniform Residential Appraisal Report Seminar - 1987 Applied Residential Property Valuation - 1988 Capitalization Theories & Techniques, Part 1 -1900 Capitalization Theories & Techniques, Part 2 - 1991 Standards of Professional Practice - Parts A & B - 1991 Persuasive Style in Narrative Appraisal Reports - 1992 Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation - 1992 Professional MembershiDS State-œrtifJed General Real Estate Appraiser, #0001255 .J WotK Excet iet ICE! Real estate salesman, Globe Realty of Florida, Inc; Merritt Island. Florida - 1984 to 1985. Staff Appraiser and Researcher, Annfield.Wagner Appraisal & Research, Inc.; Vero Beach, Florida - August, 1986 to ~ 995. Staff Appraiser, Fuller-Annfleld-Wagner Appraisal & Research, Inc.;Fort Pierce, Florida - 1995 to present. Real Estate Aooraisals Made for the FoI1CfMna Attorneys Accountants Barnett Banks FIrSt National Bank First Union National Bank Fort Pierce, City of Harbor Federal Savings Bank Incfrviduals Port st. Lucie National Bank Relocation Companies RiYerside National Bank st. Lucie County SUnTrust Banks Harbor Federal Savings Bank .:rvœ of Aooraisal ComDleted Residential Income Producing Properties Single Family Residences Relocation Reports Institutional Property Vacant Land ResidentialWarehouses Institutional Commercial Highest and Best· Use Analysis Condominium Units Appraisal Reviews Office Buikfrngs Airplane Hangars Medical Offices Multi-family FULLER-ARMFIELD-W AGNER · ì I '-' ....., 7 QUALIFICATIONS OF THE APPRAISER DANIEL D, FULLER, MAl Education Indian River Community College, Graduated 1967, AJS Degree Professional Memberships Member Appraisal Institute (MAI)#7876 - Appraisal Institute Senior Real Property Appraiser (SRPA) - Appraisal Institute Senior Residential Appraiser (SRA) - Appraisal Institute Florida - State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser tIOCI:Y:X5õl Registered FIorida,Real Estate Broker Work ExDerience 1992 - Pres. President, Fuller-Armfield-Wagner Appraisal & R~, Inc., Fort Pierce, FL 1987 - 1992 VICe President & Partner, Annfield-Wagner Appraisal & Research, Inc., Fort Pierce, FL 1983 - 1987 Staff Appraiser, Annfield-Wagner Appraisal & R~, Inc., Vero Beach, FL 1981 - 1983 Salesman/Appraiser, Florida Licensed ReaItor-Associate, Procino Realty, A Pierce, FL 1979 - 1983 Staff Appraiser, Harbor Federal Savings and Loan Association, Fort Pierce, FL 1974- 1979 Staff Appraiser, St. Lucie County Property Appraiser's OffICe, Fort Pierce, FL "J ',";: ~~. Real Estate Aooraisals made for the followina: Attorneys Accountants Barnett Banks Dept. of Natural Resources Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. Federal Home Loan Bank Board Fed. National Mortgage Corp. FII'St National Bank First Union National Bank Fort Pierce, City of Harbor Federal Savings Bank Harris Corporation IOOl8n River County Martin County Port St. Lucie National Bank Resolution Trust Corporation RiYerside National Bank St. Lucie County South FIoIida Water Management District SunTrust Banks TUTF Vero Beach, City of TyPeS of Aooraisals ComDleted Airplanè Hangars Automobile Dealerships Car Washes Commercial Groves Industrial Insurable Value land Locked Parcels Mini-Warehouses Motels Multi-Family OffICeS Paclång Houses Ranches Recreational Vehicle Pañ<s Residential Restaurants Retail Shopping Centers Service Stations Subdivision Warehouses Wetlands Vacart lands Qualified as ExPert Witness Circuit Court - St. Lucie County Martin County Indian River County U.S. Bankruptcy Court - West Palm Beach District AccomDlishments Past President - Society of Real Estate Appraisers - Indian River Chapter 211 (1989 - 1990) Past Instructor - Indian River Community College - Appraising Income Producing Real Estate FULLER-ARMFIELD-W AGNER '-' AGENDA REQUEST .....,; ITEM NO. --,- DATE: March 2, 1999 REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [ CONSENT [XX] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONEI~S PRESI!:NTED BY: SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): County Attorney Daniel S. McIntyre County Attorney SUBJECT: Extension of Agreement with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. for Water Quality Testing BACKGI~OUND: See attached memorandum FUNDS AVAILABLE: PREVIOUS ACTION: RECOMMENDATION: Staffreèommends that the Board approve the Agreernent Extension and authorize the Chairman to sign the Extension. COMMISSION ACTION: [J APPROVED [] DENIED [ ] OTHI!:R.: Dougl Anderson County Administrator C0unty Att~rr~~y: () Review and Approvals Originatin] D~pt. 1A- ,. ""{.::.u·,.,a[> ' BU~~(Z ."df"~ " _HI _ '" & ',," _ ,_ . S,:,l:Ld Wast'O! ]1,:¡r.: .' Pl1r~.hn,sin]: Oth",r: Fir!anc~: (Ch-=c:k t·:,r C-:.py ·:·nly, it applic;Ü:,l~) Erl. 5/~5 '-' """" -M INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Daniel S. McIntyre, County Attorney C.A. NO. 99-214 DATE: February 22, 1999 SUBJECT: Extension of Agreement with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. for Water Quality Testing BACKGROUND: On March 8, 1996, the Board entered into an Agreement with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. to provide water quality testing services to the County for an initial term of two years with the option to extend the Agreement for two additional terms of one year each on the same terms and conditions. On February 3, 1998, the parties exercised the first option to extend. The parties have agreed to exercise the second option and further extend the term of the Agreement through and including March 8, 2000 on the same terms and conditions. RECOMMENDATION /CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached Agreement Extension and authorize the Chairman to sign the Agreement Extension. DSM/ cat Attachment '-' '-'" AGREEMENT EXTENSION THIS AGREEMENT EXTENSION, is made this day of 1999, between ST. LUCIE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, (the "County"), and POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH & JERNIGAN, INC. or his, its or their successors, executors, administrators, and assigns (the "Consultant"). WHEREAS, on March 8, 1996 the parties entered into an Agreement (the "Agreement") whereby the Consultant agreed to provide water quality testing services to the County for an initial term of two years with the option to extend the Agreement for two additional terms of ore year each on the same terms and conditions; and WHEREAS, on February 3, 1998, the parties entered into a First Amendment to the Agreement and thereby exercised the first option to extend; and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to exercise the second option and further extend the tern of the Agreement, as amended, through and including March 8, 2000 on the same terms and conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the Agreement, as amended, is hereby extended through and including March 8, 2000. Except as extended herein, the remaining terms and conditions of theAgreement, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County has hereunto subscribed and the Contractor has affixed his, its, or their names, or name the date aforesaid ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: CLERK CHAIRMAN APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: COUNTY ATTORNEY WITNESSES: ::2J ;ff!~~, BY: Print Title: Sr. Vice President C:VWL \AGREE\PBSJ-EXT, WPD '-' "'-' 11 AGREEMENT EXTENSION THIS AGREEMENT EXTENSION, is made this day of 1999, between ST. LUCIE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, (the "County"), and POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH & JERNIGAN, INC. or his, its or their successors, executors, administrators, and assigns (the "Consultant"). WHEREAS, on March 8, 1996 the parties entered into an Agreement (the" Agreement") whereby the Consultant agreed to provide water quality testing services to the County for an initial term of two years with the option to extend the Agreement for two additional terms of o:æ year each on the same terms and conditions; and WHEREAS, on February 3, 1998, the parties entered into a First Amendment to the Agreement and thereby exercised the first option to extend; and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to exercise the second option and further extend the tern of the Agreement, as amended, through and including March 8, 2000 on the same terms and conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the Agreement, as amended, is hereby extended through and including March 8, 2000. Except as extended herein, the remaining terms and conditions of theAgreement, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County has hereunto subscribed and the Contractor has affixed his, its, or their names, or name the date aforesaid ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: CLERK CHAIRMAN APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: COUNTY ATTORNE" WITNESSES: ~d';--:/) þ~Á~ L~ BY: RNIGAN, INC. Title: Sr. Vice President C;\JWL IAGREEIPBSJ-EXT, WPD '-' ......, 1t AGREEMENT EXTENSION THIS AGREEMENT EXTENSION, is made this day of 1999, between ST. LUCIE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, (the "County"), and POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH & JERNIGAN, INC. or his, its or their successors, executors, administrators, and assigns (the "Consultant"). WHEREAS, on March 8, 1996 the parties entered into an Agreement (the "Agreement") whereby the Consultant agreed to provide water quality testing services to the County for an initial term of two years with the option to extend the Agreement for two additional terms of Ole year each on the same terms and conditions; and WHEREAS, on February 3, 1998, the parties entered into a First Amendment to the Agreement and thereby exercised the first option to extend; and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to exercise the second option and further extend the tern of the Agreement, as amended, through and including March 8, 2000 on the same terms and conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the Agreement, as amended, is hereby extended through and including March 8, 2000. Except as extended herein, the remaining terms and conditions of the Agreement , as amended, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County has hereunto subscribed and the Contractor has afftxed his, its, or their names, or name the date aforesaid ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: CHAIRMAN CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: COUNTY ATTORNEY WITNESSES: aÆ;;;;)J~ fp~h« ;4 -¡; . BY: Cooley Title: Sr. Vice President C:\JWL IAGREEIPBSJ·EXT. WPD \ ' '-" ....." ''e; ot AGREEl\1ENT EXTENSION THIS AGREEl\1ENT EXTENSION, is made this day of 1999, betweenST. LUCIE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, (the "County"), andPOST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH & JERNIGAN, INC. or his, its or their successors, executors, administrators, and assigns (the "Consultant"). WHEREAS, on March 8, 1996 the parties entered into an Agreement (the "Agreement") whereby the Consultant agreed to provide water quality testing services to the County for an initial term of two years with the option to extend the Agreement for two additional terms of oæ year each on the same terms and conditions; and WHEREAS, on February 3, 1998, the parties entered into a First Amendment to the Agreement and thereby exercised the first option to extend; and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to exercise the second option and further extend the tern of the Agreement, as amended, through and including March 8, 2000 on the same terms and conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the Agreement, as amended, is hereby extended through and including March 8, 2000. Except as extended herein, the remaining terms and conditions of the Agreement, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County has hereunto subscribed and the Contractor has affixed his, its, or their names, or name the date aforesaid ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COl\1MISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: CLERK CHAIRMAN APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: COUNTY ATTORNEY WITNESSES: ~7~ BY: Print Title: Sr. Vice President C:VWLIAGREEIPBSJ-EXT. WPD Certificate of Insurance nus CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MA TIER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO IŒH1S UPON YOU nm CERTlFlCA 'Œ HOLDER. THIS CERTlFICA'Œ IS Nor PO CY FS Nor AMEND. EXI'mD. OR ALTER nŒ COVERAGE AFroRŒD BY THE POUCES LISTED BELOW. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jemigan,Inc. 2001 N. W. 107 Avenue I f-- =s':~ LIBER1Yfj) L Miami, FL 33172 Insured. MUTUAL.. .....""'!' _01.... "!"'ficoD"~'"'" by ...<:om_......... _-JI .......... Tho................ by.. '....""""ØooI. -~fo""" 1IInns. exckJsions and CD1di1íons II'Id IS not ahøred by any 1"8qU/I8I118nt, I8nn or condIian of fft'/ œnIIaà or other document Wi1h respect ÌD wfùè::h lhis ~ may be issued EXP.DATE · 0 CONTNJCUS TYPE OF POUCY o EXTENDED POUCY NUMBER UMIT OF UABIUTY Q:g IIOHM WORKERS COVERAGE AFFORDED UNDER we EMPLOYERS UABIUTY COMPENSA TION LAW OF THE FOU.C7N1NG STATES: BociIv 1r'4wv Bv Acxident 06130/99 WA1-150-217333-178 ~ AZ, CA, CO, DC, Fl. GA, $500,000 Each KY, MD, MA. NC, N.J, SC,TN, Accidenl 1X. UT, VA Bodiy Inµy By Disease $500,000 Policy limit Bodily Injwy By Disease $500,000 ~:~n GENERAL GeneralAggregaIø - 0Ihar1han PrcdudslCanplelBd ~ LIABILITY. $2.000,000 06130/99 TB7-151-217333-Q48 Prcxb::tvCcmpIe 0peraIi0ns Aggregare - t8I OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 0 CLAIMS MADE BodIy lniwv and Prcøertv DamaQa Uability Per $1,000,000 Occurrence P8rIa1aI and Adver1iÜ1g li1tJry Per Person! I RE1RO DATE I $1,000,000 OrganiUlion Other RRE LEGAl IOther MED PAY $100,000 $25,000 AUTOMOBILE $1,000,000 Each Accident - Single Umit LIABILITY . B.I. and P.D. Combined t8I OWNED 06130/99 AS7-151-217333-038 Each Person 181 NON-OWNED Each Accident or Occurrence t8I HIRED Each Aa:ident or Occurrence OTHER $10,000,000 SINGLE UMIT FOR BODILY INJURY AND UMBRELlA EXCESS LIABIUTY 06130/99 TI-l1-151-217333-Q78 PROPERTY DAMAGE LlABIUTY OVER UNDERLYING UMIT ADDmONAl COMMENTS WC INCLUDES AlL STATES ENDORSEMENT - . IIItMt certincalll expiration clallt is conlÎnuoul or U18nded term. you wil be nodtled if COYenIQe is l8rminlted or reduced before the œrtIfIc:allt expiradan date. SPEQAL HOT1C&ONO: ANY PERSON WHO, WITH IN1ÐIT 10 DEFRAUD OR ICNOWINO THAT He IS FACUTATINCI A FRAUD AGAINS1' AN NIt.RER. SUBMITS AN APPlICATION OR FILES A ClAIM CONTAINING A FALSE OR DEŒP11VE STATEMENT IS OUI.TY OF INSURANCE FRAUD. N011Œ OF CANCS.I.AtIOH: (NOT APPt.JCASlE UNlESS A MAlBER OF DAYS IS ENTERBJ BELaN.) BEFORE 'ßE STATm EXPIRAT10N DATE . ~ 'ßECOMPANYWU NOT CANCEL OR REDUCE THE INSURANCEAFFOADED UNDER n£ABOVEPOUCES UNn. AT lEAST 30 DAYS NOTI::E OF SUCH CANCElJ.AT1ON HAS BEEN MAIlED TO: I I , utual Group œumtr tnŒR "SPECnvIEN" L --.J FT. LAUDERDALE OFFICE (800) 542-0055 PHONE NUMBER DATE ISSUED This certificate is executed by LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP as respects such insurance as is afforded by ThOS<! Companies as ïï2L (FL1 ..:-.-.....'......-:-:.:-:.: (1~!i'iiI."jt_...,...l 305 822-7800 nus CERTmCATE IS ISSUED AS A MATIER OF il'oTOR.'IIATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTmCATE ROLDER. nus CERTIFlCATE DOES Nor AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. .:-. ':'>:::::::::/:)}::;;::::::;:::::;::;:;:::";' PRODt:CER Collinsworth, Alter, Nielson, Fowler & Dowling, Inc. Post Office Box 9315 Miami Lakes, FL 33014-9315 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE L'iSL'RED COMPA.'IV A Reliance National Indemnity COMPANY Post,Buckley,Schuh & Jernigan 2001 N.W. 1 o 7TH Avenue Miami FL 33172 B COMPANY c COMPANY TInS IS TO CERTIn' TIlA T THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE Ll3I'ED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISStJED TO THE INstIllED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD DolJlCATED. :'iorWITHSTANDING ANY REQtJ1REMENI', TERI'oI OR CONDmON OF A.'IV CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCIJ.\ŒNI' Wlm RESPECT TO WHICH nus ŒRTIF1CA TE ~IA Y BE ISSL'ED OR :\ÍA Y n:RT AIN, THE INStJRANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TER.'IIS, EXCLl'SlO:'iS ,\"1> CO;\1>ITIONS OF st'CH POLICIES. LL\IITS SHOWN 1'01 A Y IIA VE BEE:-I REDUCED BY PAID CLAL\IS. CO LTR TYPE OF INStJRANCE POLICY NtJMBER POLICY EFF. POLICY EXP. DA TE ~L\IIDDiYY) DATE (M:\IIDDiYY) LL\IITS GE;\"ERAL UAIIILITY COl'ollll. GENERAL LIABILITY CLAI:\IS lIIADE D OCCtJR O\V:llEll'S '" CONTRACT'S PRar ALTOI'olOBILE UAIIILITY ANY AIlTO ALL OWNED AIlTOS SCHEDULED AIlTOS HIRED AIlTOS :'iO:-l.owr.'ED AIlTOS GENERAL AGGREGATE PROD-COMP/OP AGG. PERS. '" AnV. INlURY EACH OCClJRRENCE F1RE DAMAGE(Oae FIre) MEn EXP(ADy one penOllI COMBINED Sl/lõGLE LL\UT BODn. Y INJURY (Por penoo) BODn.y INJURY (Per accideot) PROPERTY DAMAGE GARAGE UABn.1TY A.'IV A IlTO ALTO ONLY·EA ACCIDENT OTHER THAN ALTO ONLY: EACH ACCIDENI' AGGREGATE EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE EXCESS UABILITY L':IIBRELLA FOR.'ll OTIIER TIIA."IIJMBRELLA FOR.\( WORKERS COMPENSATION A....1> E.\!PLOYERS' LIABILITY THE PROPRIETOR! PAR~IEXEctJI1VE OffiCERS ARE: OTHER INCL EXCL STATtlTORY LIMITS EACH ACCIDENT DISEASE-POLICY LL\IIT DISEASE·EACH EMPL. A NTF2516646 9/30/98 9/30/99 Professional/ Pollution Liab. $1,000,000 Limit Claim and Aggregate DESCRIPTION OF OPERA TIONSILOCA TIONSIVElDCLES/SPECL\L ITEMS "SPECIMEN" SHOtJLD A.'IV OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIIlATION DATE THEREOF. THE ISst"ING COMPA.'IV WILL E;\1>EAVOR TO ~IAIL 45 DAYS WRlTIEN :'iOTICE TO 11JE CERTmCA TE nOLDER :-IA.\ŒD TO THE LEFT, BL T F AlLL'RE TO ~IAIL secn :'iOTlCE SIL\LL L\IPOSE NO OOLlGA TIO:-l OR LIABILITY OF A¡'"Y KI;\1> l'PON TIlE CO~IPA;o."y. ITS AGE;\TS OR REPRESE;\T A TlYES. ,\tJTIIORIZED :'i T .-\ CO RD25-S (3/93). "'3·15 1JD~IAnalyt~1 .1- ~Jserv'ces "WII Chemical Testinl Environmental Toxicology Field Services February 10, 1999 ~ Leo 1. Cordeiro Solid Waste Manager St. Lucie County Public Works Department 2300 Virginia Ave. Ft. Pierce, FL 34982 Re: Agreement Extension Dear Mr. Cordeiro: Per your letter of 1/28/99, attached please find (4) original executed Agreement extensions and our Certificate of Insurance. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me. Sincerely, ~~ Thomas D. French Client Services Manager Attachments (as stated) cc: Vanessa May, Sr. Client Services Representative Doris Adams, PBS&J Analytical Services Chemtest Laboratory 6635 East Colonial Drive · Orlando, Florida 32807-5273 · Telephone: 407.277.4443 . Fax: 407.382.8794 . www.pbsj,com ,;. v .....", AGENDA REQUEST 1 ITEM NO. / \ ~./ DATE: March 2, 1999 REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [X] '1'0: BOAIW OF' COUNTY COMMISSIONEHS :~~~ Julia Shewchuk. Interim Communily Development Direclor SUI~MIT'I'lm BY: Communily Development SUBJECT: Permission to adverlise Two Public Hearings and a Fair Housing Workshop for the F'FY 1999 Communily Developmenl Block Granl Application, BACKGIWUND: Sl. Lucie County is considering applying to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for a Small Cities Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) in an amount up to the maximum allowable of $750,000, Il is necessary to conduct two Public Hearings and a Fair Housing Workshop as a part of lhe öpplicalion process, The First Public Hearing is to obtain the views of Sl. Lucie' County citizens on community development needs in lhe County. VUNDS AVAILJiLA PIŒVIOUS ACTION: On February 23. 1999 the Board authorized staff to enter into negotiations with Craig A . Smith, the highest ranked firm for CDBG planning and writing. IŒCOMMENDATlON: Staff recommends that the Board approve advertising for two public hearings and a Fair Hoüsing Wor~s~op for the FFY 1999 Community Development Block Grant application. COMMISSION ACTION: - CONCURHENCE: I ~ APPHOVED [ ] DENIED I I OTHER: Douglas M, Anderson County Adminislralor Coordination/Sianatures County Attorney: Management & budget Purchasing: Originating Department: Other: Other: Finance: Check for copy only, if applicable X FFY98\agenda.199 G:\WP\CDBG\FFY98\AGENadfph.199.wpd '-" ....., *'0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM # TO: Board of County Commissioners Julia Shewchuk, Interim Community Development Director ~ Is. FROM: SUBJECT: Permission to advertise the Two Public Hearings and Fair Housing Workshop for the FFY 1999 Community Development Block Grant Application. DATE: February 25, 1999 St. Lucie County is considering applying to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for a Small Cities Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) in an amount up to the maximum allowable of $750,000. State Rule requires that two Public Hearings be held as part of the application preparation. Staff is requesting permission to advertise for the two public hearings, the first one to be conducted on March~ 1999 during the County Commission Meeting. q STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board approve advertising for the First Public Hearing for the FFY 98 Community Development Grant application on March.%1999, at 9:00 A.M. q G:\ WP\CDBG\memo 1999. wpd ~ '-'" ""'" AGENDA REQUEST ITEM NO. A-3 DATE: REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] ADDITIONS AGENDA CONSENT [ X ] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBMITTED BY: Administration PRESENTED BY: Doug Anderson SUBJECT: Request for data supporting Sheriff's request for salary increase funding. BACKGROUND: At Board direction, the Citizens Budget Committee addressed the issue of the information required for the Board to make an informed decision on the Sheriff's' s request for salary funds. The attached materials incorporate a listing of materials to be requested, compiled by the Committee and staff, and a transmittal letter. The letter also addresses a proposed FY 2000 Budget Request Format. . FUNDS AVAILABLE: N.A. PREVIOUS ACTION: RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners send the attached transmittal letter and request to the Sheriff, and direct staff to arrange for such follow up as may be required to satisfactorily resolve this issue. COMMISSION ACTION: CONCURRENCE: rv] APPROVED [] DENIED r ] OTHER: Conduct workshops and set spending priorities. Send questions to the Sheriff's Office and receive answers prior to workshops. Get questions from all Commissioners. Coordi nation/Signatures Doug Anderson ounty Administrator County Attorney: Management & Budget: XX Purchasing: Originating Dept: Public Works: Other: '-'" ''w1I ~~ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PAULA A. LEWIS COMMISSIONER March 3, 1999 Mr. Robert C. Knowles Sheriff 4700 West Midway Road Fort Pierce, FL 34981 Dear Sheriff Knowles: Thank you for your presentation, and that of Undersheriff Dennis Williams, at the Board of County Commissioners meeting on Tuesday, February 16th. You and Dennis clearly articulated your need for salary increases within the Sheriff's Department. I think our commitment to try to find the resources for those higher salaries was a positive indication of our concern for this issue. In a broader context, both the Sheriff's Department and the Board of County Commissioners face some serious fiscal and program priority problems. In dealing with these þroblems for this and future fiscal years, we can take one of two fundamental approaches, or some combination thereof We can seek to proceed jointly, on the basis of building mutual understanding and consensus through clear communications, or we can proceed unilaterally, on the basis of clout and compromise through standard political processes. We acknowledge your right to take whatever approach you feel will be most effective in meeting the needs of your Department. We respectfully suggest that the communication, understanding, and consensus route would be the more productive and less painful one to choose, for everyone involved. St. Lucie County's rock is the inexorably increasing demand for public services driven largely by population growth; we clearly understand this pressure for increased services, both in the Sheriff's arena and in other areas that are the responsibility of the Board of County Commissioners. The hard place is the diminishing and static level of revenue growth available to meet these demands, such that resources may not be adequate to meet basic service level requirements. Both the Sheriff and the Board share the space between these two conflicting realities. JOHN D, ORUHN. District No, 1 . DOUG COWARD, Disrrict No, 2 . PAULA A. LEWIS, District No, J . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, District No, 4 . CUFF OARNES. Distric, No, 5 County Administrator, Douglos M. Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce. FL 34982-5652 · (561) 462-1406 . FAX (561) 462-2131 . TDD (561) 462-1428 SUN COM 259-1406 v ...." Mr. Robert C. Knowles Sheriff Page 2 We realize that we can nQ1 afford to take the position that the rising demands in law enforcement are "your" problem; that "you'll just have to take care of them the best way you can" with whatever we feel we can give you. At the same time, it would not be realistic for you to take the position that the County's fiscal condition is not your problem; that the Board is compelled to fund your requests at the level you desire regardless of the overall availability of funds for local government operations. The task we face is establishing and maintaining a climate of trust and a viable working relationship in approaching the broad issues we face together, while dealing constructively with the immediate financial funding issues that must be resolved. The salary issue must be considered in the context of your overall operating budget request for the next fiscal year. This in turn must take into account your capital requirements at the jail, to the extent if any that they may impact your FY 2000 operating budget, and the staffing and operating implications of the jail and related court facilities development. We probably ought to schedule some workshop sessions to establish the ground rules on how we will go about approaching these problems, to share infonnation, and to determine if we can arrive at a mutually acceptable approach. In the meanwhile, we would appreciate receiving "official" copies of the materials Dennis Williams presented at the Board meeting, along with the analysis used to arrive at the figures you presented. We need to understand the facts and assumptions behind these calculations. Attachment "A" lists some additional detailed infonnation identified by the Citizens Budget Committee, Commission members, and staff that we believe would be helpful to the Board in making an Ïnfonned response to your request. If you are not comfortable in providing any of this infonnation at this time, please so indicate, and we can defer these items and address them in a workshop or other appropriate setting. '-' ...., Mr. Robert C. Knowles Sheriff Page 3 We have also included a copy of the FY 1998-99 Annual Budget proposal prepared by the Palm Beach County SherifP s Office. While the addition of organization, staffing, and program information would substantially improve this document trom a public information standpoint, and the level of detail provided on equipment requirements is not necessary, it is the consensus of the Board that the comprehensive treatment of revenue and expenditure data presents a better picture for both the Board and the public in being able to understand and respond to your budget requests. We request that you submit your FY 2000 budget request in substantially this format, subject to discussions in an early workshop session on desirable modifications to better reflect your program activities and requirements. We both seek to provide the balanced level of services required to maintain an acceptable quality oflife standard for the residents of St. Lucie County. We look forward to working with you in this effort. Sincerely, Paula A. Lewis, Chairperson, St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners John D. Bruhn, Commissioner, District 1 Doug Coward, Commissioner, District 2 Frannie Hutchinson, Commissioner, District 4 CliffBames, Commissioner, District 5 SHERIFF\2'22DRAFf GIBUDIWPIS ~ ""wI ATTACHMENT "A" TABLE OF ORGANIZATION, REFLECTING: ALL POSITIONS REPORTING RELATIONSHIPS CERTIFIED/NON-CERTIFIED STATUS CURRENT GENERAL PAY PLAN - SALARY SCHEDULE (SALARIES, STEPS, AND RANGES) POLICY/PRACTICE ON ABOVE MINIMUM HIRING, SALARY ADJUSTMENT AFTER PROBATION PROPOSED GENERAL PAY PLAN - SALARY SCHEDULE (SALARIES, STEPS, AND RANGES) LISTING OF ALL POSITIONS (NOT INCLUDING NAMES OF PERSONS IN POSITIONS) REFLECTING: TITLE OF POSITION PAY GRADE OR LEVEL OF POSITION CURRENT STARTING AND MAXIMUM SALARIES FOR POSITION LENGTH OF SERVICE OF INCUMBENT SALARY CURRENTLY BEING PAID INCUMBENT PROPOSED SALARY TO BE PAID INCUMBENT UNDER NEW SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION OF EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN FOR EACH TYPE OF EMPLOYEE PAID LEAVE UNIFORM ALLOWANCE, REPLACEMENT, CLEANING AUTO ALLOWANCE, TAKE HOME, USE COST BREAKOUTS - EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE PAID INSURANCE TUITION REIMBURSEMENT JOB DESCRIPTIONS FOR BENCHMARK POSITIONS ROAD PATROL DEPUTY CORRECTIONS OFFICER BAILIFF SERGEANT LIEUTENANT METHOD OF ARRIVING AT PROPOSED COST OF SALARY INCREASE COST/DOLLARS ALLOCATED PER JOB TITLE TOTAL COST SALARY/BENEFIT BREAKOUT AMOUNT/PERCENT OF INCREASE BY CATEGORY OF EMPLOYEES DEPUTIES SERGEANTS AND LIEUTENANTS CAPTAIN AND ABOVE CLERICAUADMINISTRA TIVE OTHER JURISDICTIONS CANVASSED FOR COMPARABLE COMPENSATION DATA SURVEY RESULTS IMPACT DATA VACANCY NUMBERS, TRENDS, TURNOVER INFORMATION ON SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER PROGRAM TOTAL STAFFING, COSTS AMOUNT PAID BY STATE AMOUNT PAID BY SCHOOL BOARD AMOUNT PAID BY SHERIFF/COUNTY TAXES G:\budget\QUA TTRO\RESEARCH\SHERIFF-SALARIES.wb3 03/02199 02/26/99 S~ LUCIE COUNTY - BOARD ...., PAGE 1 FZABVARR vARRANT LIST #22- 20-m-99 TO 26-FEB-99 FUND SUMHAttt FUND TITLE EXPENSES PAYROLL 001 General Fund 396,964.12 0.00 001116 Sec 112/MPo/FHVA/Planning 98/99 90,245.12 0.00 001118 Summer Food Program 97/98 174.46 0.00 001120 Communi ty Services Block Gmt 98/99 50.25 0.00 001235 TDC Planning Grant 98/99 164.35 0.00 001242 98/99 E. H.. P.A. 2,499.00 0.00 101 Transportation Trust Fund 83,992.57 0.00 101001 Transportation Trust!nterlocals 982.50 0.00 101002 Transportation Trust/80% Constitut 800.00 0.00 101003 Transportation Trust/Local Option 25,012.50 0.00 101006 Transportation Trust/Impact Fees 21,976.00 0.00 102 Unincorporated Services Fund 26,811.51 0.00 102001 Drainage Maintenance MSTU 78,526.67 0.00 102103 Urban & Community Forestry 97/98 337.83 0.00 105 Library Special Grants Fund 6,241. 98 0.00 107 Fine & Forfeiture Fund 2,824,399.60 0.00 113 Harmony Heights 3 Fund 200.94 0.00 114 Harmony Heights 4 Fund 442.29 0.00 116 Sunland Gardens Fund 490.60 0.00 117 Sunrise Park Fund 122.44 0.00 119 Holiday Pines Fund 713.92 0.00 123 Queens Cove Lighting Distl13 Fund 249.96 0.00 136 Monte Carlo Lighting MSTUl4 Fund 1,293.55 0.00 138 Palm Lake Gardens MSTU Fund 105.26 0.00 140 Port & Airport Fund 15,025.10 0.00 160 Plan Maintenance MD Fund 3,151.20 0.00 170 Court Facilities FUnd 93.00 0.00 182 Environmental Land Acquisition Fund 896.98 0.00 183 Ct Administrator-19th Judicial Cir 2,089.95 0.00 183001 Ct Administrator-Arbitration/Hediat 1,116.82 0.00 183002 Ct Admin.-County Arbitration/Hediat 225.00 0.00 183104 Domestic RelationS Officer 98/99 5,979.15 0.00 183206 FDJJ-Teen Court 98/99 273.00 0.00 185202 FHFA- SHIP 97/98 15,000.00 0.00 185203 FHFA-SHIP 98/99 609.87 0.00 186 Recycling Opera tiì1g Fund 299.65 0.00 186202 DEP-Recycllng & Education 98/99 1,087.63 0.00 315201 DOS-315-Fort Piercê Branch Library 3,010.30 0.00 316 County Capital 4,489.90 0.00 316001 Transportation Capital 3,600.00 0.00 382 Environmental Land Capital Fund 192,389.32 0.00 401 Sanitary Landfill Fund 15,533.50 0.00 418 Golf Course Fund 29,739.94 0.00 421 H.E.V. Utilities Fund 4,451. 23 0.00 441 North Hutchinson Island Utilities 11,213.49 0.00 448 Renewal & Replacemen t Fund 122.57 0.00 451 S. Hutchinson Utilities Fund 1,196.93 0.00 461 Sports Complex Fund 11 ,815. 27 0.00 02/26/99 S~LUCIE COUNTY - BOARD -..,,; PAGE 2 ~ FZABVARR vARRANr LIST #22- 20-FEa-99 TO 26-FEB-99 FUND SuMMARy ( FUND TITLE EXPENSES PAYROLL 491 Building Code Fund 7,288.64 0.00 501 Autotnáted Services Fund 57,984.51 0.00 505 Health Insurance Fund 245.58 7,620.35 505001 Property/Casualty Insurance Fund 10,960.00 0.00 510 Service Garage Fund 24,028.06 0.00 611 Tourist Development Trust-Adv Fund 3,098.19 0.00 625 Law Library 13,600.82 0.00 672 F.F.A. Road Fund 17,990.04 0.00 GRAND TOTAL: 4,021,403.06 7,620.35 02/26/99 r S~'LUCIE COUNTY - BOARD ....,; FZABttARR VOiD LISTI 22- 20-FEB-99 TO 26-FEB-99 FUND: 001118- Summer Food Program 97/98 CHECK INVOICE VENDOR TOTAL 174.46 174.46 00236618 99006594 Fla Deþartment of Education FUND TOTAL: PAGE 1 02126/99 S~"LUCIE COUNTY - BOARD FZABVARR VO!D LISTI 22- 20-FEB-99 TO 26-FEB-99 FUND: 421 - H.E.V. Utilities Fund CHECK INVOICE VENDOR 00023368 99013096 Insurance Fund ~ FUND TOTAL: TOTAL 1.69 1.69 PAGE 2 02/26/99 . FZABttARR S~UCIE COUNTY - BoARD '-' CHECK FUND: 441 - North Hutchinson Island Utili ties votD LIST# 22- 20-FEB-99 TO 26-FEB-99 ( 00023368 99013096 Insurance Fund INVOICE VENDOR FUND TOTAL: TOTAL 28.30 28.30 PAGE 3 02/26/99 SrNUCIE COUNTY - BOARD FZABVARR VOID LISTI 22- 20-FEB-99 TO 26-FEB-99 FUND: 451 - S. Hutchinson Utilities Fund CHECK INVOICE VENDOR 00023368 99013096 Insurance Fund '" FUND TOTAL: TOTAL 26.59 26.59 PAGE 4 '" AGENDA REQUEST ;Ie I~MNO. G_ ~'o DATE: fV\tJ.rÚl;< I I qqq REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [XX] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: SUBMITIED BY(DEPT): County Attorney Daniel S. McIntyre County Attorney SUBJECT: St. Lucie County sports Complex - Scoreboard - Fourth Addendum to Facilities Use Agreement; Second Addendum to Florida State League Agreement BACKGROUND: See attached memorandum FUNDS AVAILABLE: PREVIOUS ACTION: RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the Fourth Addendum and the Second Addendum and authorize the Chairman to sign the Addenda. Dougl sAnderson County Administrator [ APPROVED [] DENIED -!-+. OTHER: County Attorney: 0Y Review and Approvals Management & Budget Purchasing: Originating Dept. Fin.n;;, ICheck ~ only, 'f[1'J (V Leisure Svcs. Dir.:~ Other: if applicable) Eff. 5/96 "'" '-' CVt INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Daniel S. McIntyre, County Attorney C.A. NO. 99-171 DATE: February 15, 1999 SUBJECT: St. Lucie County Sports Complex - Scoreboard - Fourth Addendum to Facilities Use Agreement; Second Addendum to Florida State League Agreement BACKGROUND: Attached is a draft Fourth Addendum to Facilities Use Agreement and Second Addendum to Second Amended and Restated Florida State League Facilities Use Agreement between the County and Sterling Doubleday Enterprises} L.P.} owners of the New York Mets and the St. Lucie Mets (the "Club"). As indicated in the draft Agreement, the Club has agreed to advance three hundred thousand and 09/100 ($300,000.00) dollars to allow the County to purchase a new scoreboard. The Club has already paid the vendor (A.D. Systems) one hundred fifty thousand and 0/100 ($150}000.00) dollars. The balance will be paid upon proper installation of the scoreboard. The County has agreed to reimburse the Club by paying the Club seventy-five thousand and 0/100 ($75,000. 00) doll~rs each year beginning in 1999. The Agreement sets out the County}s intent to use the County's fiftfi75D%) share of net revenues from scoreboard advertising and sales to pay for the new scoreboard. In the event that the County's share of revenue is insufficient, the County agrees to forego the County's share of other stadium revenues to cover the shortfall. ~ \..1 RECOMMEND A TION/CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the Fourth Addendum and the Second Addendum and authorize the Chairman to sign the Addenda. DSM/ caf Attachment '-" ""'" . FOURTH ADDENDUM TO FACILITIES USE AGREEMENT AND SECOND ADDENDUM TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED FLORIDA STATE LEAGUE FACILITIES USE AGREEMENT These Addenda made and entered into this _ day of . 1999. by and between ST. LUCIE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida ("County") and STERLING DOUBLEDAY ENTERPRISES, L.P., formerly known as Doubleday Sports, Inc. ("Club"). WIT N E SSE T H: WHEREAS, the County and the Club entered into a Facilities Use Agreement dated June 4, 1986, wherein the Club agreed to use the St. Lucie County Sports Complex for major league and minor league spring training activities for a period of years ("FUA"); and, WHEREAS, the County and the club entered into an Addendum to Facilities Use Agreement on April 4. 1996. to allow fence advertising and certain other forms of in-stadium advertisements in order to increase revenues under the terms and conditions set forth in the Addendum; and. WHEREAS, the County and the Club entered into a Second Addendum to Facilities Use Agreement on April 8. 1997, to clarify the revenue sharing and rent provisions in the FUA under the terms and conditions set forth in the Second Addendum; and, WHEREAS, the County and the Club entered into a Third Addendum on March 24. 1998 to further clarify the revenue sharing and rent provisions in the FUA under the terms and conditions set forth in the Third Addendum; and, WHEREAS, the County and the Club entered into a Second Amended Florida State League Facilities Use Agreement dated April 8, 1997. wherein the Club agreed to use the S1. Lucie County Sports Complex for Florida State Leag"ue activities in St. Lucie County for the 1997 Florida State League season and subsequent years (FSLFUA); and, WHEREAS, the County and the Club entered into a First Addendum to the FSLFUA on March 24. 1998, clarifying the revenue sharing and rent provisions in the FSLFUA under the ten11S and conditions set forth in the First Addendum; and. g:\atty\agreemntVac-use\4th&2d Add-Sterling -1- ,-,I ~....J WHEREAS, the parties agree that the existing scoreboard at the St. Lucie County Sports Complex should be replaced with a new scoreboard because the existing scoreboard requires frequent repair. The parties further acknowledge that the company that built the existing scoreboard no longer manufactures that scoreboard so that parts are difficult to find and are expensive; and. WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the FUA and the FSLFUA to provide for the purchase of a new scoreboard and to provide for a method to pay for the new scoreboard; and. WHEREAS, the parties that are affected by this Fourth Addendum to FUA and the Second Addendum to FSLFUA are the County and the Club. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein and in the FUA and the FSLFUA, the parties hereby supplement the terms of the FUA and FSLFUA by adding the following Fourth Addendum to FUA and Second Addendum to FSLFUA: 1. A new subparagraph G. shall be added to Paragraph 6 of the FUA and Paragraph 3 of the FSLFUA, which shall read as follows: G. The parties acknowledge that on February 2, 1999, the County entered into an agreement with AD Systems to manufacture and install a new scoreboard at the St. Lucie County Sports Complex. The cost of the new scoreboard as outlined in the contract beween the County and AD Systems is two hundred ninety-seven thousand wo hundred sixty-three and 0/100 ($297,263.00) dollars. The Club agrees to advance funds in an amount not to exceed three hundred thousand and 0/100 ($300,000.00) dollars to allow the County to purchase the new scoreboard. Of that total. the Club has paid A.D. System.s one hundred fifty thousand and 0/100 ($150,000.00) dollars as of the date of this Addendum. The Club agrees to pay the balance (not to exceed an additional one hundred fifty thousand and 0/100 ($150.000.00) dollars) due to A.D. Systems upon receiving written certification from the County that the new scoreboard has been properly installed and is oper§:ting. The County agrees to reimburse the Club by paying the Club seventy-five thousand and 0/100 ($75,000.00) dollars each year for four (4) years beginning in 1999. Payments to the Club shall be made at the same time other receipts (e.g. concession revenues) are paid to the etutJ. The parties acknowledge that it is the intent of the County to use the County's fifty (50%) share of net revenues from scoreboard advertising and sales to pay for the new scoreboard. In the event that the County's share of such revenues is insufficient. the County shall nonetheless ensure that the Club is fully reimbursed, and shall forego the County's share of other stadium revenues to g:\atty\agreemntVac-use\4th&2d Add-Sterling -2- '-" '-' cover the shortfall, if necessary. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to allow the Club to compel the County to levy an ad valorem tax to pay for the scoreboard. In the event any funds remain within the project budget of three hundred thousand and 0/100 ($300,000.00) dollars after final payment for the new scoreboard has been made, the Club agrees to use the remaining funds for landscaping enhancements around the new scoreboard. 2. All tenns of the FDA and the FSLFUA shall apply to the rights granted by this Fourth Addendum to FUA and Second Addendum to FSLFUA and are specifically incorporated herein. Except as amended herein, the remaining tenns and conditions of the FUA and the FSLFUA shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Fourth Addendum to FUA and this Second Addendum to FSLFUA on this _ day of 1999. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: BY: County Attorney Date signed: WITNESSES: STERLING DOUBLEDAY ENTERPRISES, L.P. By: Mets Partners, Inc. General Partner BY: Name: Title: Date signed: g:\atty\agreemntVac-use\4th&2d Add-Sterling -3- ~ y AGENDA REQUEST I~M NO. C- .;) ~ DATE: March 2, 1999 REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [XX] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: , SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): County Attorney Daniel S. McIntyre County Attorney SUBJECT: Resolution No. 99-52 Rescinding Resolution No. 88-154 BACKGROUND: See attached l11emorandu111 FUNDS AVAILABLE: PREVIOUS ACTION: RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt Resolution 99-54 as drafted. APPROVED [] DENIED [ ] OTHER: Review and Approvals ':'·>t;nT:Y J.\T: t.'." rn.:~y: H_n_____u__n_________n___nn_ddn_n____n 11\~r,r:·J-:~!!\-:~nt òc Bud·J-:~1:,_________..______m_..mh__. Pu (::n~ r.; 1 :] J : __n____unnn___________n___n____n_____n__n___n o!' i -J1 1":[j t i r~,] D-:~C't. _______n_____._______n_hmnm_un__n__u Oth',r: OIh',r: __n_hun____n___________u_nnnn_____nn____nu__n_n__hnn __n_n__nn__n_________nh_________________________n_____. Finr:r,,_,>-~; I~:'\~;~I.-::k t':'1" I,:-""f"Y -.-·r,J.y, it nr~['J.i,__::;.;l.~,l_:~) Err.. .~1/~;:; .. '-' ..., c~ Y;J INTER~OFFICE MEMORANDUM ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA TO: Board. of County Com.m.issioners FROM: Daniel S. McIntyre, County Attorney C.A. NO. 99-213 DATE: February 22, 1999 SUBJECT: Resolution No. 99~S2 Rescinding Resolution No. 88-154 BACKGROUND: In ll/{ay, .I 988, the Board adopted. l?esolu.tion No. 88..154 exercising eminent domcLÍn a:u.thority for the acquisition of land for right-aI-way pUY].1oses for the intersection of Sou.th 2Sh Street and Ed.¡,'uards l:¿oad. 1'}"e r"OI."nt" hr·s <:::ncD " t- _ '._ .... ...!:J .\.4'" "d. ,A_ determined it was not necessary to acquire the parcel by eminent domain. 1t a.dopted, Resolution No. 99..52 Luou.ld rescind Resoluticm l"JÒ. 8.8...1 54. RECOMMENDA TION/CONCLUSION: St' ('I r't' rDfYlm !-f~ L")'", r1 <:: th rtf r' h e B· ()rJ rli r' rJ rr"'t' j"e S '-111 ;t't-¡'¡ 11\ fo Q Q.. ¡;;: ') " ~ d1"rJ I'tpd '-_ ~.':..J \,.. ._~._. I. (.\... f (.I...c!.\..t ... '-"A.t. . ....~. lA.... - ...f....Æ...jJ" X..... f.) .'.'('1,,1.,./ ' [\! .. .1"... ...J..... tf...~':) . t.Ad !...~ .þ DSì\íf 1",_,:' ~_ly / !-A_i} Attachm.ents i<' ~ 'will RESOLUTION NO. 99-52 A RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 88·154 WHEREAS, this Board, pursuant to C'hapter 127, Florida Statu.tes, adopted R.esolution No. 88",154 on .ivfo.y 24, 1998, au.thorizirlg the acquisition of the la-rid descrihed below as Parcel "A." to be used to widen CLnd improve 25th Street at the intersection UJith Ed.u)ards Road: PARCEL "'A" DESCRIPTION: A str~p qllcmcllying in Section 20, Township 35 South, Range 40 East, St. Lucie County, Florida and being rnore 't)a1TZ'Clll-'r1,1 b' CI1J.nr'pd '7.nrl rlesc'rz'be>rI /"1 <;: t-()1['nt' ·5' .l- ... .~... . .f..i... (.y _ .' '-.. ....L.... . 1.-.. "'....$" t...l, _,,- , .... ,..f..J.. l"(."..., - t..... {.I".. C01UJVIENC:'E at the Sou.theast comer ql said Section 20.; thP"1Cc' ì\TJrth Or)O 1]'¡-)0/1 H'e"t r,1J11g the Erl<::t' ll'11CJ nt~ "al'~ . 1......1 . .....: .L ~( .. .,¿;j.à l ,;J \lV .,,~..., l.(.L.{ .loA... -... l.A:."...... ,f ...:: ....J ~ . .t.Æ. S"ect'l'(~"'1 2' () /"1 ·il·st(-'n(~ð Clf A() ()':' fie>pt' r.'henr-p S'ol"t'h' Io.~ "..'..".J r ' '.' ." t...c. t ,,\'. r... ,,(.. ,...t;... ./"j "-? ..' ,. \, \.) "... ...., .. ..' .."..... ~ A".... 89()S9'07" tVest, a distance of 40.03 feet, to the intersection L?f the North right-oJ-way q{ Edwards Road and the l,-Vest right·of-way f?f South 2,~.J: Street; thence ... 'I 1)/J'l1 ,(),.,.. H,Y '1 'j fAr ' . l·r f .!vortn t..,..," ,~, livest, a,.ong sau illesr. rzg It''OrL/Jay c~ South 25th Street fmd parallel with the East line qf said Section 20, Cl distance ql61 '7. 06 feet, to a point on the North line of the Southeast 1'/ 4 of the Southeast 1/4 of ,1 " 'h 'I/,1.f' "d S' rl' 2() I 'h ,\1 tJ 'ht tfle >."out r.ea.st ../ <1 oJ sm. .. e.....wn . , a.nú. r. .e lvor 1 rig r...·' ().f-wau qrNorth St. Lucie River Water lvlanagement District Canal No, 9. said point being the POINT OF BEGIN1vING; thence continue North 02°11 '03/1 Hlest, along sa.id ~,Vest . h t f f" tJ J -'h St t .1 1"" 1 'h rIg ,....(~ "lDay oJ d)U 1 ;..::;' l. ,ree.. ana, paraûeL U)ltfl t e East Une L?f said Seciion 20, a distance of 6.5 7.09 feet to CL point on the North line qf' the Southeast 1/4 ql the Southeast 1/4 ofscâcl Section 20; thence N011h 89''56'13'' HY 1'·1 ill J l' . 'h S 'h 1 '/.t f f'l !IV est, a,.ong SCi.lD. lvort l ,me oj r. ,e l. our. ,east "/ '1" oJ "ne SOv.thefLst 1/4 of Section 20, a distance oj' 20.02 feet.; thence South 02"1]'03" East, parallel with said vilest i: '-" """" , 't r of S' 'h 2'" t"""th S" ri' t ~ 6_,.,. 11') ngn...·,o.. ..way oJ ~ out .") ~ treet, a ",ÛS .ance oJ :::; I. L/ J' . "'h 1\," rt" l' ~ t1 S' " + I '/.1. ,F eet, to a pmnt on t .e dO "n "me OJ "ne .. o "u.th.eas, .. / ... OJ the Southeast 1/4 afthe Southeast .1/4 of said Section 20 and the North right-aI-way of North St. Lu.cie River t.\later ~/ranar 0ment Di<::tn'ct n,..,~, ..,IIlTn q. +},once SOl.,th 80°5,0'2'" ,0" lv~\.. . ..gt", ..... .._.. ...... .. .... ".....~Å.[ c.{.t... 1 'V.... .ø".'f L. c."... . ..' "" . L .~. ~ () .....J I" + " . i 1\T' l' >}' 'f¡ S tf¡ 1 '4 if 'h .r.w.s", al.ong sau ./liorth. ane 0 t.e L.OU... I.east / 0 t e Southeast J/4 of the Southeast .1/4 of Section 20, CL distance of 20,01 feet, to the POINT OF BEGIlvTNING:; containing 0.302 Acres, more or less. WHEREAS, Resolution No, 88-154 was recorded in QltlcicÛ Records Book 589 at page 2778; and, WHEREAS" the C'ountU hCLS since determined that it was not necessary to acqu.ire the pa.rcel by eminent domain. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that Resolu.tion No. 88·154 is rescinded. A '~tor mofl'o"- "nd "ocon rl +},c; 7')nt"; nIl t' 1-, Z'" rC",,)Îl 'tz'o~' .. ,r, <:: ,..", J~,)1io'v<" _ J..... /.... ..fl. l.s.. ., ".,t:..... ..·.Å,~ t. !....... . l.. t",;..... ,I:,.,....., .....\.')\,. t..L ..ft· ~.ul."(..... ·...4.10.' l t.....¿. '\..'). Chairman Paula A. Lewis XX 1líce Chainnan John D. B11.J,hn XX. CorrwÚssioner Doug Coward XX Commissioner CZ{ff Barnes )(X Cmnrnissioner Frannie Hutchinson XX PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this _ da.y of , 1999. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTYCQMM1SSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY,. FLORIDA BY: <: Deputy Clerk '-" ......., Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: BY: County Attorney V AGENDA REQUEST ~M NO. (~~G DATE: March 2) 1999 REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [XX] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): County Attorney Daniel S. McIntyre County Attorney SUBJECT: Agreement with Legal Aid Society of the Bar Associations of St. Lucie County, Inc. BACKGROUND: See attached memorandum FUNDS AVAILABLE: PREVIOUS ACTION: RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached Agreement and authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement. COMMISSION ACT-ION: [~APPROVED [] DENIED [ J OTHER: Dougl Anderson County Administrator .~.,c~" ,.,..p,' C1/ ~. "'.j ,'._." '-.. '-~ Review and Approvals H~i.r!;;1~::'F~r!t & Bu.:J.1-=t Pl1r:;h2;~'i~>J : OriJin~tin1 D-=pt. Oth~r: ()U~,=r : EïrlarJ'::-::-: (Ch~·::k l-:'r C-:'f"..y:,nlys it (tppli.::abl-=} EU. S/~" ~ -....I ê~v INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Daniel S. McIntyre, County Attorney C.A. NO. 99-212 DATE: February 22, 1999 SUBJECT: Agreem.ent with Legal Aid Society of the Bar Associa.tions of St. Lucie County, Inc. BI.lCl{ºR.º.{lN.:P~ On June 3, .7997, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 97-05 which provided for h - r1 . r - ST' ",,! -) B L 1 ,\ ·d- -) A ,r ,. t ,B j1J.nu.mg (~ the... t. LÆiCze U)Wlty 1 ro onoegal. ~"'lL . 1 rogram.. _ copy OJ me Ordinance is attached. The attached .A.yreernent, if approved, would establish procedLlre,::; for the disbu.rsement of the fands collected. RECOMMENDATION/CONCLUSION: Sta~Ü recommends th.at the Boa.rd approve the a.tta.ched Agreem.erd and authorize the Chairman to sign the Agreement, Sincerely, DSNI/ caf Attachmen.t.s 11:2, 1~9<'l FRI 13:00 FAX 561-1655722 Robt J Gorman PA ~002 ~ ''WI AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this 16th day of February, 1999, effective July I, 1997, between ST. LUCIE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter called the uCOUNTY", and LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF THE BAR ASSOCIA TIONS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, INC., a Florida not for profit r.;orporation, or its successors, executors, administrators and assigns hereinafter called the "RECIPIENT". WHEREAS, on June 3, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, adopted Ordinance No. 97·05 providing for the funding of the St. Lucie County Pro 80no Legal Aid Program; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to establish procedures for disbursement of the funds collected by the COUNTY to the RECIPIENT. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual benefits received by each part¡ the parties mutually agree as follows: 1. On or before the 15th day of each month beginning March 15, 1999, the COUNTY shall disperse monthly to the RECIPIENT by mailing a check to the address Indicated in Paragraph 9. a sum equal to the amount collected by the COUNTY in the Pro Bono Legal Aid Fund during the previous month to be used for the St. Lucie CQunty Legal Aid Program. Any funds currently held shall be disbursed upon approval of thIs Agreement. 2. The funds provided by the COUNTY shall be used only to fund a pro bono Page 1 of 5 ,j'l 19' 9~ TLE t.;: 15 F.n 5811 ~,)5i22 Robt J Gorman PA ~003 ~ ''-'' legal aid p:-ogram to benefit the citizens of the COUNTY. Upon request, the RECIPIENT shall provide the COUNTY with an annual report indicating the number of clients served using funds provided hereunder and the type of service rendered. 3, The RECIPIENT shall have internal controls adequate to safeguard the administration of the funds. 4. If the funds are not used according to this Agreement, any money not 50 used shall be reimbursed to the COUNTY. 5. The RECIPIENT gives the COUNTY the right, until the expiration of three (3) years after expenditure of funds under this Agreement, to audit the use of the legal aid fund, Upon demand, the COUNTY shall have access to and the right to examine ai/V dIrectlY pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of the RECIPIENT involving transactions related to these grant monies. All required records shall be maintained until an audit is completed and all questions arising therefrom are resolved, or unti! the expiration of three (3) years after the expenditure of the funds. 6, The RECIPIENT is and shall be an independent contractor, responsible to all parties for all of its acts or omissions and the COUNTY shaH in no way be responsible for such acts or omissions. The RECIPIENT shall and will indemnify and hold harmless the COUNTY from and against any and all liability, claims, damages, ~xpe¡¡ses, tei?s, fines, penalties, SUits, proceedings, and actions and cost of actions.. including rea$onable attorney's fees of any kind and nature arising or growing out of or in any 'Nay connected with the use, administration cr control of the above described serv:ces by the RECIPIENT or its agents, employees, customers, subcontractors, patron~ or invitee, or resulting from injury to person or property, or a loss of life or Page 2 of 5 ,,' 1 .' 1 '.I ,q.g Tt~· 1 '.\ : 15 F.n 5 ß 14 Po:) ,3 i:: 2 Robt J Gorman PA ~(l04 v "-" property ot any kind or nature whatsoever sustained during the term of this Agreement. The RECIPIENT hereby acknowledges that the payments made under this ¡L'\greement include specific consideration for the indemnification provided herein. 7, The RECIPIENT agrees to comply with all applicable local, state and fed~rallaws, rules and regulations. 8. Any notice shall be in writing and sent registered or cer1ified mail. postage and çharges prepaid, and addressed to the parties at the fcllow1ng addresses: 1.9 th~-.-C..ºUN1Y; With a copy to: 5t. Lucie County Administrator Administration Annex, 3rd Floor 2300 Virgìnia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 St. Lucie County Attorney Administration Annex, 31d Floor 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pieroe, Florida 34982 To th~ RECiPIENT~ With copies to: LegíJl Aid Society of the Bur Associations of St. LlJc¡~ County, Inc. 1209 Delaware Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 St. Lucie County Bar Association Port St. Lucie Bar Association Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc. 963 East Memorial Boulevard P.O. Box 24688 - Lakeland, FL 33802-4688 9. No amendment, modification or waiver of this Agreement shall be valid or etfectjve Lnless in writing and signed by both parties and no waiver of any breach or conditÍ<:)n (H this Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other cOi,ditions or subsequent breach whether of like or different nature. 10. Except as otherwise provided, this Agreement shall be binding upon an Page 3 of 5 1;'1,'1~) i 9~ n1~ 15; 16 F.H 56U655722 Robt .J Gorman PA 41005 ~ '...,.I shalJ inure to the benefit of the parties, their successors and/or assigns. 11. The RECIPIENT 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 Florida Statutes 112.311 (1997) and as may be amended from time to time. The RECIPIENT further represents that no person hav¡ng any interest shall be employed for said performance; provided however that this shall not prevent any' representation of qualified individuals pursuant to program guidelines who may assert a claim against COUNTY. The RECIPIENT shall promptly notify the COUNTY in writing by certified mail of all potentia! cO'1flicts of interest prohibited by existing state law for any prospective business association, interest or other circumstance, which may influence or appear to influence the RECIPIENT'S judgment or quality of services being provided hereunder, provided that nothing herein shall require any disclosure of any privileged or COilfidential information or material or invade attornev-client confidential communications or privilege. Such written notification shall identify the prospective b~JsJne~s association, interest or circumstance, th~ nature of work that the RECIPIENT md'ý undertake and request an opinion of the COUNTY as to whether the association, interest or circumstance would, in the opin!on of the COUNTY, constitute a conHLet of interest if entered into by the RECIPIENT. The COUNTY agrees to notify the RECIPIENT of its opinicn by certified maîrWîthin thirty (30) days of receípt of notjfic.::tion b)' the RECIPIENT. It in the opinion of the COUNTY, the prospective busm€ss associéJtion. interest or circumstance would f10t constitute conflict of intere$t b'ý the Rf:ClPIEN T: the COUNTY shall so state In the notification and the RECIPiENT Page 4 of 5 ~] 1~ 99 IrE 15'16 FAX 561~~55722 Robt J Gorman PA 4J 008 '-" ''wi shall, at his/her option, enter into said association, interest or circumstance and it shalf be deemed net in conflict of interest with respect to services provided to the COUNTY by the RECIPIENT under the terms of this Agreement. 12, In the e'Jer.t it is necessary for either party to initiate legal action regarding this Agreement, ven!..le shaH be in the Nineteenth Judìcial Circuit for St. Lucie County, Florida, for claims under state law and the Southern District of Florida for any c!aims whicr are justiciable in federal court. ~') ¡ '.,;,,, RECIPIENT understands that the funds to be provided hereunder are raised pursuant to a COUNTY ordinance relating to court filing fees. RECIPIENT agrees that COUNTY may terminate this Agreement upon cessation of collection of such part of the filing fee or upon mutual agreement of the parties" j 4. This Agreement embodies the whole understanding of the parties. There ':He no promises. terms, conditions or obligations other than those contained herein, arid th¡s Agreemerlt shall supersede all previous communications, representations or aqreements, either verbal or written¡ between the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the execution by their duiy authorized officials as of the date and year first above written. ArrEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORiDA -..-------------.---- By: DE;put·ý Clerk . Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: By: . County Attomey Page 5 of 5 I . '-' 'wi ORDINANCE NO. 97-05 j AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1-7-2 (CIRCUIT COURT CIVIL DIVISION SERVICE CHARGES); AMENDING SECTION 1-7-3 (CIRCUIT COURT PROBATE AND GUARDIANSHIP DIVISION SERVICE CHARGES); AND AMENDING SECTION 1-7-4 (COUNTY COURT CIVIL DIVISION CHARGES AND COSTS) OF ARTICLE I (IN GENERAL) OF CHAPTER 1-7 (COURTS) OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCES; TO INCREASE FILING FEES BY TEN DOLLARS FOR CIRCUIT CIVIL MATTERS, INCLUDING DOMESTIC RELATIONS; AND FIVE DOLLARS FOR PROBATE AND COUNTY COURT MATTERS TO FUND THE PRO BONO LEGAL AID PROGRAM; FURTHER ADDING SECTION 1-7- 10 (DISPOSITION OF LEGAL AID FUND); FURTHER PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION; AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION - -f / " \ ì ...:, ...... " WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made the following determinations: 1. On December 6, 1996, the St. Lucie County Bar Association voted to approve a Pro Bono Legal Aid Program and recommended that ... '> :. the Board of County Commissioners consider increasing the filing -' fees by ten and 00/100 dollars ($10.00) for Circuit Civil matters, including Domestic Relations, and five and 00/100 dollars ($5.00) - \-:~ J -...:.. for Probate and County Court matters in order to generate re'venue to fund the Pro Bono Legal Aid Program. 2. Thrs Board has determined that it is necessary and in the public interest of the citizens of St. Lucie County, Florida, (,0 amend Section 1-7-2, Section 1-7-3, and Section 1-7-4 of Article I of Chapter 1-7 of the St. Lucie County Code of Ordinances by Struc]: through passages are deleted. added. Ur:.derlined passages are -1- ~~\ ~~'f ~~:!:: ~~v .~ n--f 0'1 ::s I ... ~~(') I(]JI-' \D (!) -.J(]J~ IDo ~WHl ..,.,.,rt I-'\N:r WOO( ) "C (') . 1-" ::s: 11 . n os:: ::c 1-" rt tI:I 0(') 00 ~¡:: 11 rt ~I Ocn Q)~ NI:""' ¡:: n 1-" "C( ) ~ (j)(') 1:%10 ¡:: ::s ~~ (]J ~ C\ '. . ~ ...., increasing the filing fees as recommended by the St. Lucie County Bar Association, and add Section 1-7-10, Disposition of Legal Aid Fund. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida: Chapter 1-7 (Courts) of the St. Lucie County Code of Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 1-7 COURTS ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Section 1-7-1. Additional costs for law enforcement training. Every court in the country, created by Article V of the State Constitution shall assess two dollars ($2.00) in addition to the two dollars ($2.00) assessed by Section 943.25(4), Florida Statutes, as a court cost against every person convicted for violation of a state penal or criminal statute or convicted for violation of a municipal or county ordinance. However, no such assessment shall be made against any person convicted for violation , of any state statute, municipal ordinance, or county ordinance relating to the parking of vehicles. All such costs collected by the aforesaid courts shall be deposited in a special grant fund of the county to be used for law enforcement training expenditures by said county. PART A. AMENDMENT OF SE:CTION 1-7-2. DIVISION SERVICE CHARGES. CIRCUIT COURT CIVIL Struck through passages are deleted. added. Underlined passages are -2- - o ::c t:Ø 8 ~ ¡.J o CO N "1:1 :Þ Cj) I:1j ¡.J 01 ~ ~ '-" ....., Section 1-7-2 (Circuit Court - Civil Division Service Charges) is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 1-7-2. Circuit Court - Civil Division Service Charges. The party instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in the circui t court shall pay to the clerk of the court service charges as follows: ita) For filing all civil actions (over five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) : *Clerk's service charge....................... $ Leg a 1 Ai d. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -9-- . $ Law library.................................... $ State civil action fees....................... $ Court facility charge.. ......... .............. $ State court education trust fund.......... .... $ Mediation-arbitration charge..... .......... ... $ 40.00 10.00 15.00 8.00 20.00 2.50 5.00 TotaL................................. .$90.50 $100.50 *This service charge is for up to and including five (5) defendants. If there are more than five (5) defendants, there is an additional charge of two dollars ($2.00) for each additional defendant. (b) Additional charge for proceeding of garnishment, attachment, replevin, a~d distress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 35.00 Additional charge to be paid by the party seeking each severance that is granted.. ...... $ 10.00 (d) For filing petition for dissolution of marriage or annulment: (c) Clerk's service charge.............. .......... $ Legal aid.................................-9--. $ Law library................................... $ State civil action fees....................... $ Court facility charge......................... $ HRS fee....................................... $ - State court education trust fund............. .-~ Mediation-Arbitration charge.................. $ Filing of Final Judgment of Dissolution of Struck through passages are deleted. added. 40.00 10.00 15.00 8.00 20.00 5.00 2.50 5.00 Underlined passages are -3- o :;ø 0:1 o o ~ oJ o (D tv "tI ~ G') M oJ 01 '-l (D ~ """ Marriage service charge...................... Displaced Homemaker Trust Fund......... ....... $ 7.00 $ 5.00 $ 117.50 jUdgment $ 45.00 $ 10.00 $ 55.00 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $107.50 (e) For filing petition for modification of a final of dissolution of marriage: Mediation-Arbitration charge... ............... Leqal Aid.............................. . . . . . . . Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (f) For filing notice of appeal: a. Se~vice charge to district C8urt of appeal and state supreme court. ....... $ 250.00 Service charge to clerk of the circuit court............................ $ 75.00 Certified copy of notice of appeal for district court... .... ......... ....... $ b. c. 2.00 PART B. AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1-7-3. CIRCUIT COURT - PROBATE AND GUARDIANSHIP DIVISION SERVICE CHARGES. Section 1-7-3 (Circuit Court Probate and Guardianship Division Service Charges) is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 1-7-3. Circuit Court - Probate and Guardianship Division Service Charges. The service charges of the clerk of the circui t court for filing probate and guardianship cases are as follows: (a) For the opening of any estate of one document or more, including but not limited to petitions and orders to approve settlement of minor's claims; to open a safe deposit box; to enter rooms and _places; for the determination of heirs if not formal administration and for a foreign guardian to manage property of a nonresident, but not to include issuance of letters or order of summary and family administration: Clerk's service charge.. .... ........ .... ....... $ 20.00 Struck through passages are deleted. added. Underlined passages are -4- - o ::0 txI o o ,;: oJ o Q) N "'t1 ~ G') M oJ 01 ~ \0 """ '....I Legal aid................................. .~. $ Law 1 ibrary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ Court facility charge......... ................. $ Mediation-Arbitration charge................... $ 5.00 15.00 8.00 5.00 (b) Caveat: TotaL.................................. .$18.00 $ 53.00 Clerk's service charge......................... Legal aid.................................. ~. Law library.................................... Court facility charge......... ............ ..... Mediation-Arbitration charge.............. ..... Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $~:;. 00 $ 15.00 $ 5.00 $ 15.00 $ 8.00 $ 5.00 $ 48.00 (c) Petition and order to admit foreign wills, authenticated copies, exemplified copies or transcripts to record: Clerk's service charge......................... Legal aid................................. .~. Law library.................................... Court facility charge..... ..................... Mediation-Arbitration charge................... Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $58.00 (d) For disposition administration: of personal property Clerk's service charge......................... Legal aid.................................. ~. Law 1 ibrary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Court facility charge.......... ........... ..... Mediation-Arbitration charge... ..... .... ....... Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $18.00 (e) Summary administration: Clerk's service charge......................... Legal aid................. --=-. . . . .. . . . . . . . .. .~. Law library.................................... Court facility charge.............. ............ State court education trust fund............... ---Mediation-Arbitration charge................... Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 65.50 StrucJ: through passages are deleted. added. $ 30.00 $ 5.00 $ 15.00 $ 8.00 $ 5.00 $ 63.00 without $ 20.00 $ 5.00 $ 15.00 $ 8.00 $ 5.00 $ 53.00 $ 35.00 $ 5.00 $ 15.00 $ 8.00 $ 2.50 $ 5.00 $ 70.50 Underlined passages are -5- o :xJ tJj o o ~ -1 o Q) N 'tI :Þ ø M -1 01 Q) o '-' '-" (f) Family administration: Clerk's service charge......... '" ...... ....... Legal aid.................................. --G--. Law library.................................... Court facility charge.......................... State court education trust fund............... Mediation-Arbitration charge........... ........ Total................................... .$75.50 $ 45.00 $ 5.00 $ 15.00 $ 8.00 $ 2.50 $ 5.00 $ 80.50 (g) Formal administration guardianship, ancillary, curator- ship or conservatorship proceedings: Clerk's service charge...... ........... ........ $ Legal aid..................................-8-. $ Law library.................................... $ Court facility charge.......... ................ $ State court education trust fund......... ...... $ Mediation-Arbitration charge... ......... .... ... $ 75.00 5.00 15.00 8.00 2.50 5.00 (h) Guardianship proceedings of person only: TotaL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $105 . 50 $110. 50 Clerk's service charge......................... $ Legal aid.................................. --G--. $ Law library.................................... $ Court facility charge.......... '" ............. $ Mediation-Arbitration charge... ........ '" ..... $ 25.00 5.00 15.00 8.00 5.00 Total. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . $53.00 $ 58.00 (i) Veteran administration guardianship pursuant to Chapte= 744, Florida Statutes: Clerk's service charge......... ......... ....... $ 25.00 (j) Exemplified certificates: Clerk's service charge. ................. ....... $ 4.00 Cover sheet.................................... $ 1.00 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 5.00 (k) Petition for determination of incompetency: - Clerk's service charge. ....... .... ,..... ....... $ 25.00 Legal aid................................. .--G--. $ 5.00 Struck through passages are deleted. added. Underlined passages are -6- o ::ø 0:1 o o ~ ~ o OJ N ÞtJ :Þ ø ~ ~ 01 OJ I-' ~ """ Law library.................................... $ 15.00 Court facility charge......... ............ ..... $ 8.00 PART C. TotaL.................................. .$18.00 $ 53.00 AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1-7-4. COUNTY COURT CIVIL DIVISION CHARGES AND COSTS. Section 1-7-4 (County Court Civil Division Charges and Costs) is hereby amended to read as follows: Sect~on 1-7-4. County Court Civil Division Charges and Costs. Upon the institution of any civil action or proceeding in county court, the plaintiff, when filing his action or proceeding shall pay the following service charges: (a) Claims of less than one hundred dollars ($100.00): Filing fee..................................... Legal aid.................................. --G-. Court facility................................. Law library.................................... State court education trust fund............... State court cost............................... Mediation-Arbitration charge... ........ ... ..... Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $29.50 $ 10.00 $ 5.00 $ 2.00 $ 3.00 $ ,2.50 $ 7.00 $ 5.00 $ 34.50 (b) Claims of one hundred dollars ($100.00) or more but less than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00): Filing fee..................................... Legal aid.................................. --G-. Court facility................................. Law library.................................... State court education trust fund........ ....... State court cost............................... Mediation-Arbitration charge................... Total................................... .$Q9.50 (c) Claims of more than two thousand five hundred ($2,500.00) : Filing fee..................................... Struck through passages are deleted. added. $ 25.00 $ 5.00 $ 7.00 $ 3.00 $ 2.50 $ 7.00 $ 5.00 $ 54.50 dollars $ 40.00 Under 1 ined passages are -7- - o :0 ~ o o ~ -1 o Q) N "a :Þ G) tr1 -1 01 Q) N - ......" 'will Legal aid.................................. --8--. ~ Court facili ty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ Law 1 ibrary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ State court education trust fund............... $ State court cost............................... $ Mediation-Arbitration charge... ................ $ 5.00 12.00 3.00 2.50 7.00 5.00 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 69.50 $ 74.50 (d) Removal of tenant (eviction): Filing fee..................................... Legal aid................................. .--8--. Court facility................................. Law library........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State court education trust fu~d........ ....... State court cost............................... Mediation-Arbitration charge..... ........... ... $ 35.00 $ 5.00 $ 4.00 $ 7.50 $ 2.5û $ 7.00 $ 5.00 $ 66.00 To tal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 61 . 00 (e) Additional charge for proceeding of garnishment, attachment, replevin and distress......... ..... $ 35.00 ( f) Notice of appeal (two (2 ) separate payrnents)*: Filing notice of inferior court, county court. . $ 50.00 Filing notice to higher court, circuit court. . . $ 75.00 *These charges do not include service charge for certified copy of notice of appeal to the circuit court. Section 1-7-5. Service charges other than those fixed by this chapter. Service charges other than those fixed in this chapter shall be governed in Section 28.24, Florida Statutes; as amended. Section 1-7-6. Disposition of law library funds. All additional costs cOllected for the law library shall be set aside by the clerk to be used exclusively for the establishment and maintenance of- the county law library. At the end of each month, such clerk will turn over such funds so collected to the Struck through passages are deleted. added. Underlined passages are -- -8- - o ::c tx:I o o X ~ o (D N '"C :Þ G") [t1 f-1 01 (D lù ~ '" board of trustees of the county law library as provided in Chapter 57-1790, Laws of Florida as amended by Chapter 71-895, Laws of Florida. Section 1-7-7. Disposition of court facility funds. All additional costs collected for court facilities shall be set aside by the clerk in a separate account to be used exclusively for the construction, operation and maintenance of court facilities as determined by the board of county commissioners. Section 1-7-8. Reserved. Editor's note - Ordinance No. 86-61, Pt. A, adopted Dec. 9, 1986, speci fically repealed former Sec. 1-7-8 in its entirety. Such former section pertained to additional penalty in noncriminal dispositions of traffic infractions and de~ived from Ord. No. 86- 21, Pt. A, enacted July 20, 1986. Section 1-7-9. Disposition of mediation-arbitration fund. All additional costs collected for mediation-arbitration services shall be set aside by the clerk in ::!l'= civil court mediation-arbitration account fund, county court mediation- arbitration account fund and the family mediation account fund, as appropriate, to be used to fund circuit civil mediation-arbitration services, county civil mediation-arbitration services and family mediation-arbitration services under the supervision of the Chief Judge for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit. The Clerk shall forward -one and 0/100 ($1.00) dollar of each charge tò the Office of the Struck through passages are deleted. added. Underlined passages are -9- ~ o ~ tt1 o o ,:; oJ o CD N "'d :Þ G1 t%1 oJ 01 Q) ~ ~ "wi State Courts Administrator for deposit ln the state mediation and arbitration trust fund. Scction 1 7 10. Re3crved. PART D. ADDITION OF SECTION 1-7-10. FUND. DISPOSITION OF LEGAL AID Section 1-7-10 (Disposition of Legal Aid Fund) is hereby added to read as follows: , Section 1-7-10. Disposition of leqal aid fund. All additional costs collected for the Pro Bono Leqal Aid Proqram shall be set aside bv the Clerk in a separate account to be used exclusively to fund the Pro Bono Leqal Aid Proqram under the supervision of the St. Lucie County Bar Association for the 19th Judicial Circuit or its desiqnee. Section 1-7-11. Assessment of court costs to be used for the implementation and operation of a juvenile assessment center. (a) The court shall assess court costs of three dollars ($3.00) per case, in addition to any other authorized cost or fine, on every person who, with respect to charge, indictment, prosecution commenced or petition of delinquency filed in the county or circuit, pleads guilty, nolo contendre to, or is convicted of, or adjudicated delinquent for, or has had adjudication wi thheld for, a felony or misdemeanor, or a criminal traffic offense or handicapped parking violation under state law, or a violation of any municipal or county ordinance, if the violation constitutes a misdemeanor under state law. (b) The clerk of the circuit and county court shall collect the three dollar ($3.00) court costs assessed by the court and deposit those funds in an appropriate, designated account established by the clerk. The clerk shall wi thhold - fi ve (5) percent of the assessments collected for the costs of administering the collection of assessments. The clerk shall release funds to the Struc]: through passages are deleted. added. Underlined passages are -10- o ::c tI:1 o o ~ -I o Q) N 'tI :x:- Ci) ttj -I 01 Q) 01 ....- v ''-11 sheriff upon request. The clerk shall also, at the request of the sheriff, receive and deposit in the designated account, any additional funds attained by the sheriff for the implementation and operations of the juvenile assessment center, and release those funds to the sheriff upon request. Section 1-7-12. Assessment of court costs to be used for the operation and administration of teen court. (a) The court (both county and circuit) shall assess court costs of three dollars ($3.00) per case, in addition to any other authorized cost or fine, against every person who pleads guilty or nolo contendre to, or is convicted of, regardless of adjudication, a violation of a state criminal statute or a municipal oràinance or countv ordinance or who pays a fine or civil penalty for anÿ violation of Chapter 316, Florida Statutes. Any person whose adj udication is withheld pursuant to the provisions of section 318.14(9) or (10), Florida Statutes, shall also be assessed such cost. The assessment shall not be deducted from the proceeds of that portion of any fine or civil penalty which is received by a municipality in the county or by the county in accordance with Sections 316.660 and 318.21, Florida Statutes. The assessment shall specifically be added to any civil penalty paid for a violation of Chapter 316, Florida Statutes, whether such penalty is paid by mail, paid in person without request for hearing, o=: paid after hearing and determination by the court. However, the assessment shall not be made against a person for a violation of any state statutes, county ordinance, or municipal ordinance relating to the parking of vehicles, with the e;(ception of the handicapped parking laws. (b) The clerk of the court shall establish a teen court trust fund, to be used to fund the operation and administration of the teen court, under the direction of the court administrator and the supervision of the chief judge of the nineteenth Judicial Circuit. The clerk of the court shall collect and deposit the assessments collected pursuant to this section an9 shall remit the same to the teen court monthly, less five (5) percent, which is to be retained as fee income of the office of the cireui t court. Sections-r=ì-13 - 1-7-19. Reserved. ,Struck through passages are deleted. added. Underlined passages are -11- o :::t 0:1 o o ~ oJ o OJ N "t! :t:I G1 tx:I oJ 01 Q) m "-' """ PART E. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS. Special acts of the Florida legislature applicable only to unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County, and adopted prior to January 1, 1969, 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. PARTF. SEVERABILITY AND APPLICABILITY. 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 G. 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 H. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect upon adoption. PART I. ADOPTION. After motion and second, the vote on this-ordinance was as follows: Chairman Gary D. Charles, Sr. AYE Vice Chairman Paul A. Lewis AYE Struck through passages are deleted. added. Underlined passages are -12- - o ~ tø o o ~ -I o (D N ~ :z:- G') tt1 -I 01 (D '-I .. "w" "'" Commissioner Cliff Barnes AYE Commissioner Ken Sattler AYE Commissioner John D. Bruhn AYE PART J. CODIFICATION. Provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated in the Code of Ordinances of St. Lucie County, Florida, and the word "o=:-di'nance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections rJf this' ordinance may be ¡.J renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention; providedr,) U1 Q) however, that parts E through J shall not be codified. ~ ,t'li', Q) ~. :;' , ,....<.t),C':... ' PASSED AND DULY ENACTED this 3rd day of June, 1997 \~'t"';''! ' ;'r.' ,~,,"t,,~iI!>._, ,,'/' ~y!:~,(:~' , "'."yå." BOARD OF COUNTY;"-CQMM-ISSIONERS ~', ATTEST: ST. LUCIE COUN.Ty ,::à?L6Ri:~~-:)' '~'~~",:i: cÚ~~ BY, ~i~~+';;/ .. :-.' ," "', . , ,~ , :;::,::¡; ",':,!·t 3. > ~r~~£~ ~)~\ APPRO~O~;;:~;¡/~D ie' ~.\....~,,~~J, ,/",,;:/.. , ,/ I~' f :/V1 ':¡" "'. .;.-"..." .' . /11Ó!\.i---C... ·tq¿;;~:~;.:.,:.~, ;C/~l-/ ,//I~ -COUNTY 70I!NEY Struck through passages are deleted. added. Underlined passages are -13- o ::t1 tx:I o o ~ ¡.J o Q) N 't :Þ ø [t , '-" AGENDA REQUEST """"" ITEM NO. C- 3 DA TE: March 2, 1999 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR [] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [ X ] SUBMITTED BY: OMB PRESENTED BY: Harvey M. Lincoln SUBJECT: Budget Resolution for appropriation of funds from OSCA Grant-In-Aid for certain court costs in criminal cases. BACKGROUND: The Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) will pay St. Lucie County $22,091 as a grant-in-aid for costs related to expert witness fees in criminal cases, curt reporting and transcribing costs in criminal cases, and costs associated with the appointment of special public defenders. OSCA will disburse the money in three installments prior to July 31, 1999. Grant funds not encumbered by June 30, 2001 must be returned to OSCA. FUNDS AVAILABLE: 183207 -1636-334905-100 PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board approve Budget Resolution 99-58 appropriating $22,091 grant-in-aid from the Office of the State Courts Administrator. COMMISSION ACTION: [¡APPROVED [] DENIED [ ] OTHER: ./"""'-- ----L o Anderson Countý Administrator County Attorney: XX )Ý Coordination/Sianatures Management & Budget XX ~¡¥f!ì Purchasing: Public Works: Other: Originating Dept: Finance: (Check for Copy only, if applicable) XX G: Ibudgetlwplagenda' slagenda99\2'9Clerk _Grant wpd \.,/ "'-' ~ RESOLUTION NO. 99-58 WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners budget for St. Lucie County, certain funds not anticipated at the time of adoption of the budget have become available from a grant-in-aid to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners from theState Courts Administrator (the "OSCA") to be used for certain court costs in accordance with paragraph 25.402(1 )(d)(2), Fla. Stat. (1997) for expert witness fees in criminal cases, court reporting and transcribing costs in criminal cases, and costs associated with the appointment of special public defenders. 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 2nd day of March, 1999, pursuant to Section 129.06 (d), Florida Statutes, such funds are hereby appropriated for the fiscal year 1998-99, and the County's budget is hereby amended as follows: REVENUES 183207-1636-334905-100 Office of State Courts Administrator $22,091 APPROPRIA TIONS 183207 -1636-534000-100 Other Contractual Services $22,091 After motion and second the vote on this resolution was as follows: Commissioner Paula A. Lewis Commissioner Cliff Barnes Commissioner John D. Bruhn Commissioner Doug Coward Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson xxx XXX XXX XXX XXX PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED THIS 2ND DAY OF MARCH ,1999. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: CHAIRMAN APPROVED AS TO CORRECTNESS AND FORM: COUNTY ATTORNEY G:\budget\wp\agenda' s\agenda99\2'9Clerk _Grant wpd ~ ~ AGENDA REQUEST ..." ITEM NO. c-4A DATE: MARCH 2, 1999 REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [X] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT-ROAD & BRIDGE DIV ~~ SUBJECT: P. M. Bowers, Manager Road & Bridge Division Approval of the list of proposed roads for the Asphalt Millings Road Project for 1998/99. See attached list. BACKGROUND: During 1997/98 asphalt millings were applied to over 3 centerline miles of test roads with favorable results. We have proposed an additional 8.25 miles of roads to receive this surface application in 1998/99. Each year the CIP budget will contain $150,000.00 to fund this program on a continuing basis (see attached memorandum dated August 12, 1998). FUNDS AVAILABLE: 101002-41122-563000-42003 PREVIOUS ACTION: Bid Waiver and Sole Source Declaration approved 12-22-98. RECOMMENDA TION: Staff recommends approval of the list of proposed roads selected for the Asphalt Millings Road Project for 1998/99. C MMISSION ACTION: APPROVED [ ] DENIED [ ] OTHER: ENCE: Doug sM. Anderson County Administrator 'Jf ~ ,uJ-. / coordinati~at~res [X] Mgt. & Budget: ~ [X] Co. Eng: ~ ~ { [ ] P W Budget Coord, [X] Road & Bridge/ProjMgr. [X] Purchasing æ ~ [ ] County Attorney: [X] Public Works Dir: [X] Finance-Contract: CODY Onlv (Check for Copy to Finance only, if Applicable) - '-' (L~v lS£D Jc. Li4 1998-99 LIST OF ROADS FOR "MILLlNGS" BY DISTRICT DISTRICT ROAD NAME FROM TO LENGTH Anglevilla Dr Angle Rd East End 0.12 Behrens Rd Anglevilla Dr North End 0.05 Deberry Rd S 33rd St S 37th St 0.12 Kerr St Okeechobee Rd North End 0.23 Peterson Rd S 33rd St Hartman Rd 0.50 Rolyat St Okeechobee Rd North End 0.23 San Diego Av N 53rd St Keen Rd 0.25 TOTAL: 1.50 2 Dyer Rd US#1 Silver Oak Dr 0.57 Silver Oak Dr Dyer Rd State Preserve 1.00 Tilton Rd Silver Oak Dr East End 0.50 Tilton Rd Silver Oak Dr West End 0.50 TOTAL: 2.57 4 Barbara Av S 25th St S 21st St 0.25 Coral St Citrus Av Oleander Av 0.24 Echo St Oleander Av Citrus Av 0.24 Elizabeth Av S 25th St S 21st St 0.25 Kearney Rd Melville Rd Oleander Av 0.24 Linda Vista Av Edwards Rd Jacobs Rd 0.30 S 21st St Edwards Rd Sibley Av 0.25 S 22nd St Edwards Rd Barbara Av 0.14 S 23rd St Edwards Rd Elizabeth Av 0.25 S 24th St Edwards Rd Barbara Av 0.14 Sibley Av S 21st St West End 0.06 TOTAL: 2.36 5 Arcadia Av Indrio Road Del Mundo Street 0.23 Del Monte St US#1 Alvarado Avenue 0.15 De Mundo St US#1 Alvarado Avenue 0.15 Del Mundo St Old Dixie Hwy Palomar Avenue 0.10 Dusk Way Orange Ave North End 0.50 Huber Drive Old Dixie Hwy N US #1 0.21 Julian Drive Old Dixie Hwy N US #1 0.21 River Palm Dr Julian Drive Old Dixie Hwy 0.21 TOTAL: 1.76 Revised 3-1-99 - '-' '-" .. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ROAD & BRIDGE DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: Doug Anderson, County Administrator VIA: FROM: Don West, Acting Public Works Director P. M. Bowers, Road & Bridge Managert:~ DATE: August 12, 1998 SUBJECT: Roads - Asphalt Milling Surface Application I now have over three (3) centerline miles of asphalt millings in place. The intent is to decrease maintenance requirements by surfacing the shell/coquina roads and to place our citizens first by improving the quality of life of those living along these roads. Per South Florida Water Management Districts requirements (no permit is required), no ditch lines were modified and there was no change in water direction. The positive change is in the quality of the water run-off. The water is cleaner because it no longer carries shell/coquina silt material into our waterways. With the cleaner water, lower maintenance costs and the improvement in the quality of life of those living near these roads, I believe that this process (asphalt milling application) has merit and should be considered as an alternative to shell/coquina road construction. . Our test results have indicated that the minimum requirements for a road to be considered as a candidate for the surface application of asphalt millings is as follows; 1. The minimum right-ot-way width should be sufficient to contain a 24 ft. travelway with proper drainage. 2. Proper drainage must be in-place prior to the application of asphalt millings (this is a surface treatment only) 3. Maximum design speed tor the travelway is not to exceed 35mph. 4. The travelway has an existing shell/coquina base. 5. The travelway is placed on the resurfacing list to be reevaluated in 1 to 2 years after the millings treatment to determine the need and method ot resurfacing or reconstruction. - '-' 'wi -, Roads-Asphalt Milling Surface Application August 8, 1998 Page 2 Currently the Road & Bridge Division uses six (6) graders to grade 165 miles of shell/coquina roads on a once-a-week grading cycle. As of this date, approximately 50 miles will meet the minimum requirements for the application of asphalt millings. The hard surfacing of 50 miles of shell/coquina roads would allow this Division to reduce the grading operation by a third (2 of6 graders), creating an estimated annual savings of $100,000.00. The Drainage Section of the Road & Bridge Division uses a four (4) man crew to construct roads and drainage structures as needed. This same crew could construct 5 to 7 miles of millings roads per year at an estimated annual cost of $150,000.00. I would like to create a line item in the CIP to fund this program on a continuing basis until all our shell/coquina roads are surfaced. If I can provide any further explanation or information please let me know. Attached is an alphabetical list of road candidates for the surface application of asphalt millings. PMB:sb Attachments cc: Brian Barnes, Capital Project Engineer Owen D. Reagan, Drainage Engineer Elbert Stewart, Operations Supervisor Dewey Hudman, Project Supervisor Fred LaSala, Construction Field Foreman - LIST OF P~OSED ROADS FOR "MILLlNGS" BY DIS'f1tfCT -- 2-23-1999 DISTRICT LENGTH ROAD NAME TAX MAP NUM FRM TO 0,12 ANGLEVILLA DR 24061 ANGLE RD EEND 0.05 BEHRENS ROAD 24061 ANGLEVILLA DR N END 0.12 DEBERRY RD 24171 S 33RD ST S 37TH ST 0.23 KERR ST 24191 OKEECHOBEE RD N END 0.50 PETERSON RD 24171 S 33RD ST HARTMAN RD 0.23 ROL YAT ST 24191 OKEECHOBEE RD N END 0.25 SAN DI8GOAV 14312 N 53RD ST KEEN RD Total 1,50 2 0,57 DYER RD 34231 US #1 SILVER OAK DR 1.00 SILVER OAK DR 34231 DYER RD STATE PRESERVE 0.50 TILTON RD 34231 SILVER OAK DR E END 0.50 TILTON RD 34232 SILVER OAK DR WEND Total 2.57 4 0.12 ARAPAHO ST 34091 PARKLAND BV N END 0,25 ARNOLD RD 24201 S 35TH ST S 39TH ST 0.25 BARBARA AV 24781 S 25TH ST S 21ST ST 0.12 BARREL AVE 24341 OLEANDER AVE E END 0.45 BARTOW ST 34111 BUCHANAN DR SEAGRAPE DR 0.45 BRADLEY ST 34021 BUCHANAN DR SEAGRAPE DR 0.12 BRANTLEY RD 24201 S 29TH ST S 27TH ST 0.25 BUCKEYE DR 34041 CITRUS AV OLEANDER AV 0.25 CHARLOTTA ST 34041 ELMAV MAGNOLlAAV 0.12 CHASKA ST 34091 PARKLAND BV N END 0.12 CLEMATIS AV 24201 S 39TH ST S 41ST ST 0.24 CORAL ST 34091 CITRUS AV OLEANDER AVE 0.20 CORY CAMPBELL RD 34031 OLEANDER AVE EEND 0.15 CYPRESS AV 34041 SECOND ST CHARLOTTA ST 0.40 DAME RD 24191 KIRBY LOOP RD EDWARDS RD 0.05 DANIELS ST 34051 CHRISTENSEN RD WEST VIRGINIA DR 0.12 DAVIS ST 34091 GOPHER RDG RD SEND 0,50 DUNN RD 34051 MIDWAY RD N END 0.25 DUNN RD 34052 MIDWAY RD SEND 0,09 E LAKE DR 24271 N LAKE DR S LAKE DR 0.24 ECHO ST 34091 OLEANDER AVE CITRUS AVE 0.25 ELIZABETH AV 24781 S 25TH ST S 21ST ST 0.24 FLOOD RD 34091 CITRUS AV OLEANDER AV 0.12 GARDENA ST 34091 PARKLAND BV N END 0.12 GARNER ST 24191 MCNEIL RD WEND 0.25 GREGORY ST 34021 PALMETTO DR BUCHANAN DR 0.25 HATCHER ST 24291 EDWARDS RD UPSALAV 0.24 KEARNEY RD 34101 MELVILLE RD OLEANDER AVE 0,10 LACEAV 34031 MIDWAY RD INDIANAAV 0.12 LENAPE ST 34091 PARKLAND BV NEND 0.25 LEWIS ST 24291 EDWARDS RD UPSALAV 0.30 LINDA VISTAAV 24781 EDWARDS RD JACOBS RD 0.12 MAGNOLIA A V 34041 MIDWAY RD AUGUSTA AV 0.25 MAGNOLIA DR 34021 WEATHERBEE RD MIDWAY RD 0.30 MARAVILLA BLV 24781 EDWARDS RD FEC RR 1,25 MC CARTY RD 33051 MIDWAY RD WILLIAMS RD 0.12 MERRY BEE DR 34091 PARKLAND BV N END 0.10 MIDDLE RD 24191 HAPPINESS ST SEARS ST 0.11 NICHOLAS RD 24211 EDWARDS RD W BOOTHE DR 0.12 NOTLEM DR 34031 S 2ND ST S 3RD ST 0.24 OLIVE ST 34101 MELVILLE RD OLEANDER AVE LIST OF Pftttw,;OSED ROADS FOR "MILLINGS" BY D/~T -- 2-23-1999 DISTRICT LENGTH ROAD NAME TAX MAP NUM FRM TO 4 0.12 OSCEOLA DR 34091 CITRUS AV EEND 0.48 PALMETTO AV 34041 FIRST ST SEND 0.30 PALMETTO DR 34021 WEATHERBEE RD MIDWAY RD 0.70 PALMETTO DR 34022 MIDWAY RD HOWARD ST 0.90 PALMETTO DR 34023 HOWARD ST EASY ST 0.65 PINETREE DR 34021 MIDWAY RD HOWARD ST 0.95 PINETR~E DR 34022 HOWARD ST EASY ST 0.21 PINETREE DR 34023 WEATHERBEE RD GREGORY ST 0.12 PINEVIEW DR 24201 CORTEZ BL V SEND 0.25 REVELS LN 24271 OLEANDER AV S 7TH ST 0.15 ROSE LANE 24341 TUMBlINKlING RD SEND 0.25 S 21ST ST 24781 EDWARDS RD SIBLEY AV 0.14 S 22ND ST 24781 EDWARDS RD BARBARA AV 0,14 S 24TH ST 24781 EDWARDS RD BARBARA AV 0.12 S 26TH ST 24201 CORTEZ BLV BRANTLEY RD 0.12 S 27TH ST 24201 CORTEZ BLV BRANTLEY RD 0.12 S 28TH ST 24201 BRANTLEY RD WILDWOOD LN 0.20 S 29TH ST 24201 CORTEZ BL V WILDWOOD LN 0.40 S 34TH ST 24171 OKEECHOBEE RD SEND 0.20 S 39TH ST 24201 VIRGINIAAV SEND 0.25 S 41ST ST 24201 VIRGINIAAV lAZY HAMMOCK LN 0.15 S LAKE DR 24271 W LAKE DR VERNON ST 0.12 SEMINOLE DR 34091 CITRUS AV EEND 0.06 SIBLEY AV 24781 S 21ST ST WEND 0.15 SILVER OAK DR 34021 WEATHERBEE RD MIDWAY RD 0.70 SILVER OAK DR 34022 MIDWAY RD HOWARD ST 0.95 SILVER OAK DR 34023 HOWARD ST EASY ST 0.25 SOUTHLAND DR 24271 US#1 EEND 0.10 STARR AV 34031 MIDWAY RD INDIANA AV 0.05 SUNRISE BLVD 34041 MIDWAY RD FIRST ST 0.50 W 1 ST ST 34041 PALMETTOAV OLEANDER AV 0.15 W 2ND ST 34042 CITRUS AV ELM AV 0.18 W LAKE DR 24271 REVELS LN N LAKE DR 0.20 W LAKE DR 24272 KING ORANGE DR KANNER DR 0.09 WEST VIRGINIA DR 34051 DANIELS ST MIDWAY RD 0.25 YATES RD 24191 KIRBY LOOP RD SEND Total 20.26 5 3.00 ANGLE RD 23041 OLD FFA RD GODWIN WHEELER RD 0.25 BENNETT RD 23131 PETERSON RD SEND 0.25 BERGER RD 23091 ORANGE AV NEND 0.24 BRIDLEWOOD WAY 23101 ORANGEAV HORTON RD 0.25 CYCLONE DR 23081 ORANGE AV NEND 0.50 DUSK WAY 23081 ORANGE AV N END 0.50 EMERALD AV 23091 ORANGE AV SEND 0.05 FLAMINGO BV 14362 ATLANTIC BCH BV OAK DR 2.00 GLADES CUTOFF RD 42151 CARLTON RD WEND 0.24 GOKCHOFF RD 23101 ORANGEAV HORTON RD 0.39 HElL RD 23211 S FFA RD JERNIGAN RD 0.39 HENRY RD 23211 S FFA RD JERNIGAN RD 0.10 HORTON AV 23101 GOKCHOFF RD BRIDLEWOOD WY 0.21 HUBER DR 14081 OLD DIXIE HWY NUS 1 1.75 IDEAL HOLDING RD 32091 OKEECHOBEE RD SEND 0.50 IMMOKOLEE RD 13261 EMERSON AV SEMINOLE RD 0.18 IROQUOIS AV 14281 ST LUCIE BV NEND LIST OF P~OSED ROADS FOR "MILLlNGS" BY DIS~T -- 2-23-1999 DISTRicT LENGTH ROAD NAME TAX MAP NUM FRM TO 5 0.50 IROQUOIS AV 14331 ST LUCIE BV SEND 0.12 JENKINS PARK BLV 23121 JENKINS RD KAYEST 0.21 JULIAN DR 14081 OLD DIXIE HWY NUS 1 0.12 KA YE ST 23121 JENKINS PARK BLV N END 0.12 LOTT ST 23121 JENKINS PARK BLV N END 0.06 MOORINGS LN 14362 ATLANTIC BCH BV OAK DR 0.15 N LAKE DR 24271 VERNON ST W LAKE DR 0.53 OAK DR 14361 MOORINGS LN MARINA RD 0,70 OLD FFA RD 23041 ANGLE RD SOUTH END 0.40 PETERS RD 23131 GRAHAM RD SEND 0.21 RIVER PALM DR 14081 JULIAN DR OLD DIXIE HWY 0.05 SEA OATS DR 14362 ATLANTIC BCH BV OAK DR 0.12 STARCHER RD 23121 JENKINS RD WEND 0,50 SUNRISE DR 23081 ORANGE AV N END 2.50 TROWBRIDGE RD 22121 ORANGEAV GOLDSMITH RD 0.50 WILLIS RD 23091 CAMPBELL RD E COKER RD 0.05 WINDHAM LN 14361 ATLANTIC BCH BV OAK DR Total 17.64 Total 41.97 r '-" "wtI AGENDA REQUEST ITEM NO. C-2-C ~.» / DATE: December 22, 1998 9fJJj/ REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [XX] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): PURCHASING PRESENTED BY: CHARLES BICHT SUBJECT: Bid Waiver and Sole Source Declaration for the purchase of Asphalt Millings from Dickerson Florida, Inc. BACKGROUND: In accordance with the S1. Lucie County Purchasing Manual section 5.5, (a), (2), staff requests a bid waiver and sole source declaration for the purchase of asphalt millings from Dickerson Florida, Inc. See attached. FUNDS AVAIL.: 101-4110-553200-400 PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval for the request for a bid waiver and sole source declaration for the purchase of asphalt millings from Dickerson Florida, Inc. '., COMMISSION ACTION: Ì I] APPROVED [] DENIED [ ] OTHER: CONCURRENCE: Doug Anderson County Administrator County Attomey:(X) Originating Dept: Finance: {Check for Copy only, if Appllcable)_XX_ /J ' ~,~}( 1'/ '\ I Co Purchasing Mgr.:(X) t,8 Other: other: Eft. 1/97 BI\WP\AGENDAS\WAIVERS\Bid Waiver Dickeraon.wpd , '-' AGENDA REQUEST ....., ITEM NO. C-4B DATE: March 2, 1999 REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [x] PRESENTED BY: (¿~~1~ County Engineer TO: BOARD OF COUNlY COMMISSIONERS SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): ENßINEERING DIVISION 4115 SUI¡3JECT: Moore1s Creek Stormwater Retrofit in the City of Ft. PierCè BACKGRQUND: The City of Ft. Pierce has requested assistance from St. Lucie County in providing funding for modification of several County maintained drainage outfalls. The City d A. Pierce is currently constructing Phase 1A á the Moore's Creek Stormwater Retrofit. The objéctive d this project is to construct an effective stormwater management system for Moore's Creek that will improve the quality of stormwater discharges to the Indian River Lagoon. The project involves widening of the canal banks to increase storage capacity and improve stormwater detention time in Moore's Creek. As a result c:I the regrading of the canal banks, there are four (4) County drainage structures that must be modified. The structures provide drainage outfall for the roadside swales along 37th and 41 st streets, adjacent to Moore's Creek. Based upon a field inspection of the existing drainage structures, staff is recommending total replacement. Portions of the existing pipes run underneath the paved roadways, and the pipes are in very poor condition. It is to the County's advantage to replace all of the structures now while we have a contractor mobilized onsite. Furthermore, the outfall pipes will no longer function property without modification. The City is requesting St. Lucie County to pay for the cost of replacing the four drainage outfall pipes, as they are County maintained structures. (See attached letter from Hector Arias, City Engineer, dated February 10, 1999.) The City has prepared design drawings detailing the necessary work, and the contractor has submitted a cost proposal (see attached copy) in the amount of $22,381.00. The City will administer the construction work as part of the Moore1s Creek contract with Sheltra Construction Company. The project budget will be established as follows: Construction Contract Contingencies (Reserves) Total - - $22,381.00 $ 2,619.00 $25,000.00 :;:: = FUNDS AVAIL.: 101003-41134-59933()..425019 A'--~~~~S Creek Page 2 March 2,1999 '-" 'wi PREVIOUS ACTlQN: 2/18/97 - BOCC approved the allocation of $176,980 for Phase 1A Construction of Moore's Creek. 9/6/94 - SOCC approved $39,000 for design of Phase 1 Moore's Creek. RECOMMENDATIQN: Engineering staff recommends approval to contribute funds to the City of Ft. Pierce for modification to County maintained drainage outfalls within the Moore's Creek Project ,in an amount "not to exceed $25,000.00, and approval of the project budget as outfined above. COM",'S$IQN AC1]Qtl;, rJ APPROVED [ J DENIED [ ] OTHER: ") (x)County Attorney ~~ 1Í'v CoorcInIIt~ (x)~. & BudgEt ..ÆJ (xJCo. Eng ~(,\ í ( )Purchasing (x)BudgetlRev (x)OrIgInsting DeJt. Public Wor1<s moores.ag M" ì~ ...., SUII/Ii <c. \ I / ~" 01' "- ,'" CL\b [IfY ~f ~Rr PHR[I toriJa February 10, 1999 OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER TEL (561) 460-2200, EXT. 143 ..~--~-------~._._- Don West S1. Lucie County Engineering 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 u r; i'J r¡; n II 0 I ~;;-.:;n,;: ~', . ' ; n ; I", ÆB I 2," I I ¡:! ¡: I .. ... , 1 L,.n ~ f' c; SUBJECT: MOORE'S CREEK RETROFIT PHASE lA Dear Mr. West: Please find enclosed sheets 14 and 15 of the Moore's Creek Retrofit Phase lA. The project is proceeding as planned, with anticipated completion within the next 30 days. All the necessary revisions to the plan have been made to insure the County's drainage system is completely functional. The contractor is fully aware of the changes needed to maintain the existing drainage, and the methods of construction to complete the work. A proposal for the additional work has also been enclosed for your review and approval. We are requesting the County fund the modifications to the drainage outfalls. Please send a written response to this office as soon as possible, so that this project may be completed. Sincerely yours, ø- Hector P. Arias, P.E. City Engineer {U (' 1v( lIP Ancm Attachments cc: Mike Bowers, S1. Lucie County Road and Bridge Division Bill Zaroda, S1. Lucie County Drainage Coordinator H:\OFFICEIMOORESCKlBid Proposal Letter to Don West.wpd Office FiIe:Moore's Creek CITY HALL . 100 NORTH U,S, 1 . p,o. BOX 1480 . FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA 34954-1480 t ......, ....., BID PROPOSAL Project: Moore's Creek Retrofit Phase lA ( County Drainage Outfall Connections ) Contractor: Sheltra & Son Construction, Inc. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Item UNIT No. DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANT. PRICE AMOUNT 1 Pipe Removal LF. 70 $3.00 $210.00 2 Concrete Headwall Ea. 3 $975.00 $2,925.00 3 I Type "C" Inlet Ea. 4 $1,350.00 $5,400.00 4 12" - 18" Diam. Concrete Mitered End Ea. 4 $850.00 $3,400.00 5 12" CMP L.F. 20 $16.00 $320.00 6 15" CMP LF. 173 $22.00 $3,806.00 7 18" CMP LF. 45 $26.00 $1,170.00 8 Pavement Patching S.Y. 60 $27.50 $1,650.00 9 Beddingl Fill Material L.S. 1 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 Total Estimated Cost $22,381.00 ~ '-' AGENDA REQUEST "'" ITEM NO. {! - it:!...- DATE: MARCH 2, 1999 REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [X] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT-ROAD & BRIDGE DIV -i~vy P. M. Bowers, Manager Road & Bridge Division SUBJECT: Permission to Advertise Fiscal Year 98/99 Road Resurfacing Bid BACKGROUND: Annually the County solicits bids for the resurfacing of various roads. Based on 97/98 bids the estimated cost for Resurfacing 18.90 miles of road, is $895,000.00. Resurfacing includes asphalt overlay, striping, pavement marking, surface mill and fabric overlay. Funds are available in account 101003-41132-563000-42003. Attached is a list of the roads to be resurfaced this fiscal year. FUNDS AVAILABLE: 101003-41132-599300-42003 PREVIOUS ACTION: NIA RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval to advertise for road resurfacing bids. C MMISSION ACTION: [ APPROVED [ ] DENIED [ ] OTHER: CE: Doug sM. Anderson County Administrator [X] County Attorney: -~ -?/~ [X] Finance-Contract: CODY Only Coordination/Sianatures [X] Mgt. & Budget: ~ [X] Co, Eng: ~~ { [ ] P W Budget Coord, [X] Purchasing ~ [X] Road & Bridge/ProjMgr. ~ [X] Public Works Dir: (Check for Copy to Finance only, if Applicable) , I '-'" '-" 1998-99 ROAD RESURFACING LIST ROAD LIMITs LEN1.3TH WIDTH FROM I TO (MILES) (Feet) REGULAR ROAD RESURFACING Indianapolis St Indian River Dr Indianapolis Dr 0.02 20 Indianapolis Dr Indianapolis St Indianapolis St 0.09 20 Blue Heron Bv S Ocean Dr East End 0.43 24 Kingswood Lane Palmetto Ave East End 0.22 20 Fleetwood Lane Palmetto Ave East End 0.22 20 Driftwood Lane Palmetto Ave East End 0.24 20 Lazy Hammock Rd Hartman Rd South End 0.24 19 Woodlands Dr Oleander Av East End 0.21 18 Savanna Club Bv US#1 Bromelaid Cr 1.20 44 Pressler Ln Weatherbee Rd Plumosa Ln 0.21 15 Plumusa Ln Areca Palm Dr Pressler Ln 0.06 11 Areca Palm Dr Weatherbee Rd Tumblin Kling Rd 0.25 17 Jeffrey Ln Areca Palm Dr East End & WEnd 0.23 19 S 35th St Cortez Bv Kirby Loop Rd 0.24 22 Grove Dr S 29th St South End 0.22 20 Atlantic Bch Bv Shorewinds Dr South End 0.62 23 Tamarind Dr Shorewinds Dr Flamingo Rd 0.50 15 Sea Oats Dr Atlantic Bch Bv N Ocean Dr 0.12 20 N Ocean Dr Shorewinds Dr Sea Oats Dr 0.24 19 Mooring Ln Atlantic Bch Bv N Ocean Dr 0.15 17 Flamingo Bv Atlantic Bch Bv Tamarind Dr 0.05 17 Marina Dr NA1A West end 0.36 20 Bermuda Bch Dr Flotilla Ter West end 0.36 20 Bimini Dr Flotilla Ter West end 0.23 20 Flotilla Ter NA1A North end 0.20 20 Palm Dr (IRE) Sunset Bv Easy St 1.59 18 Banyan Dr Prima Vista Bv Entrada Av 0.42 36 Princess Dr Banyan Dr Entrada Av 0.13 18 Eatons Dr Banyan Dr Entrada Av 0.10 18 Aldea St Prima Vista Bv Camino St 0.38 18 Aldea Ct Aldea St East End 0.06 18 Camino St Prima Vista Bv Aldea St 0.41 18 Camino Ct Camino St West end 0.02 18 Rio Mar Ct Prima Vista Bv South End 0.08 25 Old Dixie Hwy Rouse Rd Harbor Branch Rd 1.60 20 Old Dixie Hwy Harbor Branch Rd North County Line 1.60 20 Wood crest Dr Orange Av North end 0.44 18 Rio Vista Dr S Indian River Dr West end 0.10 14 ROADS NEEDING FABRIC o VERLA Y plus RESURFACING Indian River Drive Rio Vista Dr Midway Rd 1.80 18 Indian River Drive Midway Rd 6303 Block 1.18 18 Sunset Bv (IRE) Midway Rd Easy St 1.95 18 ROADS NEEDING SURFACE MILLED plus RESURFACING N Las Olas Dr Surf Dr Elmar Dr 0.14 20 S Las Olas Dr Surf Dr Elmar Dr 0.21 20 Surf Dr SRA!A Las Olas Dr 0.02 20 Elmar Dr N Las Olas Dr S Las Olas Dr 0.22 20 ('tIc )~ . '-' AGENDA REQUEST "-" ITEM NO. C- 5 DATE: March 2, 1999 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [XX] PRESENTED BY: f~~~~~~~ County Engineer SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): ENGINEERING DIVISION SUBJECT: Ideal Holding Road M.S.B.U. Paving and Drainage Improvements Request Permission to Advertise Second Public Hearing BACKGROUND: See Attached Memorandum FUNDS AVAIL. (State type & No. of transaction or N/A): N/A PREVIOUS ACTION: July 23, 1996 - The Board accepted the Petition and granted permission to advertise for the Initial Public hearing to be held on August 20, 1996. August 20, 1996 - The Board adopted Resolution 96-194 and authorized County Engineer to proceed with design of the project. RECOMMENDA TION: Staff recommends that the Board grant permission to advertise the Second Public Hearing to be held on April 6, 1999, which is a night meeting. COMMISSION ACTION: [j APPROVED [] DENIED [ ] OTHER: - ----- Douglas M. Anderson County Administrator [XJCoun'y A"o'n~ [X] Public Works . Coordination/Signatures [ ]Finance (Info Copy Only): []Management & Budget: [] Purchasing: []Other: ., , . ~ -...,; cS COMMISSION REVIEW: March 2, 1999 ENGINEERING MEMORANDUM NO. 99-036 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Board of County Commissioners County Engineer February 23, 1999 Ideal Holding Road MSBU Paving and Drainage Improvements Request Permission to Advertise Second Public Hearing BACKGROUND On July 23, 1996, The Board accepted the Petition and granted permission to advertise for the Initial Public Hearing to be held on August 20, 1996. On August 20, 1996, The Board adopted Resolution 96-194 and authorized the County Engineer to proceed with design of the project. The design and bid of the project is complete and the tentative assessment has been mailed to the property owners. On February 11, 1999, an informal meeting was held with the property owners to explain the project design and tentative assessment. Several property owners petitioned St. Lucie County to investigate the feasibility of creating a Municipal Services Benefit Unit (M.S.B.U.) to provide paving and drainage improvements to the unpaved portion of Ideal Holding Road. The Initial Petition received represented fifty-seven (57%) percent in support of the Project. An informal meeting was held on June 20, 1996 to explain the MSBU process, the proposed engineering design, and to provide an estimated cost of the project. At the request of the property owners present at the informal meeting, a re-polling petition was mailed to each of the affected property owners to determine if there is a clear majority in favor of proceeding with the project. Based upon the Initial Petition and the Re-polling results, sixty-four (64%) percent of the affected property owners wish to proceed with the Project. When based solely on the re-polling results, the percentage is fifty-eight (58%) percent. Ideal Holding Road is located approximately seven miles west of the Fort Pierce City Limits, south of Okeechobee Road (see attached location map) and is 1.56 miles in length. Seventy-seven (77) properties are located within the proposed MSBU boundary. The method of assessment will be based upon the "Equivalent Residential Unit" method, whereas each property owner is assessed equally for the improvements. This method was selected due to the location of the benefited parcels in relation to the roadway. Only 8 of - . ..... ...,.I the 77 affected properties actually front on the unimproved portion of Ideal Holding Road. Aero Acres Subdivision, a residential community consisting of 68 lots, is located at the south end of Ideal Holding Road. The large tracts of land that bear the majority of front footage on the roadway (i.e. pasture land, citrus, etc.) are developed consistent with the land use. Therefore, based on existing use (AG-5 Agricultural Use) of all affected properties, and due to the trips generated by Aero Acres, staff concluded that the "equivalent" method is the most fair and equitable method of assessment. The assessment methodology has been verified by an independent outside source, Culpepper & Terpening Engineers, Inc. Ideal Holding Road has an existing right-of-way width of 100', which is sufficient to physically fit the proposed improvements. The paved roadway will be 22' wide with level shoulders on both sides. A drainage system is necessary and would consist of wide grassed open swales along both sides of the roadway with the stormwater flow being directed to existing canal outfalls. The Project will be built to current St. Lucie County design standards, in order for the County to accept for maintenance. The engineering plans were prepared by in-house staff. In addition, the Public Works staff is recommending this Project as a candidate for the "In-house" Road Paving Program. This will result in a cost savings to the property owners in comparison to contracting out the entire Project. In the event the Project is not ultimately approved and constructed, the cost of preparing the plans, specification, bond validation hearing, and cost estimates may be assessed against the affected property owners within the Ideal Holding Road MSBU. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board grant permission to advertise the Second Public Hearing to be held on April 6,1999, which is a night meeting. DBW/bp cc: Staff Concurring Finance Director OMB Manager Michael Powley, Project Engineer Property Appraiser Tax Collector g\wp\msbu\idealh\aga-adv2. wpd '-' ~' AGENDA REQUEST ITEM NO. C../ 6 A DATE: REGULAR [ PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT V(] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBMITTED BY: Airport SUBJECT: Approve changes to the contracts for the construction of Curtis King Boulevard and parking lot at St. Lucie County International Airport. PRESENTED BY: BACKGROUND: During the excavation of the retention pond associated with the construction of the entrance roadway, the contractor, Bennett Construction, Inc identified petroleum product in the soil. As a result, a preliminary investigation of the site revealed that a significant amount of contamination exists. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) stated that cleanup of the entire site would be necessary before construction of the retention pond could continue. The testing firm estimated that costs associated with the cleanup of the site could easily exceed the costs associated with relocation of the pond to an alternative site. Change Orders No.1 include costs associated with relocation of the retention pond, the parking lot layout change, and design changes required because many of the utilities were located in the project's subgrade. This Change Order No. 1 has several components. The information depicted in the attachment identifies the required changes to the engineering contract, construction contract, construction inspection contract, and electrical power contract. FUNDS AVAILABLE IN ACCT.#: Will be made available in 140274-4220-563000400 County's share of costs will be paid from Airport Reserves PREVIOUS ACTION: BOCC award of engineer, construction, and construction inspection contract. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve four changes to the Curtis King Boulevard contract for a total increase to the project of$182,300.47 and authorize the chairman to sign the Change Orders subject to approval by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) approval. A. Staff recommends that the BOCC approve Change Order No.1 for $36,100 to URS/Greiner, Inc for additional engineering required as a result of the pond relocation. B. Staff recommends that the BOCC approve Change Order No.1 for $57,800.47 to Bennett's ~ .\wJ Site Development, Inc for the construction contract. C. Staff recommends that the BOCC authorize direct payment of $73,900 to FPUA for conversion of the underground power and utility enhancements. D. Staff recommends that the BOCC approve Change Order No. I for $14,500 to the construction management continuing contract with Culpepper & Terpening, Inc. for additional services. E. Staff recommends that the BOCC approve resolution No. 99-59 to appropriate and expend these funds. COMMISSION ACTION: ~ [v'jAPPROVED [ ]DENIED [ ]OTHER: Reviews & Approvals / /. ~ / County Attorney:~ D~ OMB eß8!J pi" Originating Dept: Other: I Finance:(Check for opy only, if applicable) CONC~NCE: f .~ Purchasing Other: ~ ALL ITEMS APPROVED EXCEPT: change order to URS/Greiner. Re-Agenda for March 9, 1999 02/17/99 WED lJ:13 FAX ~ ....,1 ! !¡ì 002 URS Greiner c-Coþ( URS Greiner, InC. PO Box ~1646 (3383'-341€) 7650 V-l C~J..t~ey Cary,pbell Ca...s~·Nay Tampa, FI')~lda 33607 - '462 T"JI~pho-'G:: (813) 286-171' ;::acsi""6: iå13) 287-$591 Project Number: VI00000221.23.00004 February 16. 1999 {),ff!c~~ 1:-1 Pr/!1c/pal Cit/dS Nat¡c;,,.,~yÙ:is =U):::i).~ ...t.)\ CiXCOC' ~LOFL~~ #;...(: ::-::Y~~j2::¡:· Mr, Paul Phillips, Director St. Lucie County International Airport 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft Pierce, Florida 34982-5652 RE: Terminal Parking Lot, Acces§ Road and Landscaping Improvements WPI No. 4829274 Bid No. 98-61 Change Order Number 1 Dear Mr. Phillips: A number of necessary changes have been identified during the course of construction rE:quiring the preparation of the attached change order. As requested, we have broken down the items comprising the change order into tht'f fol1owing general categories to assist in differentiating the change~, and to provide a brief explanation for each: 1. Relocation of the Stonnwater Treatment Pond 2. Relocation of the Tiki Road 3. General Utility Adjustments 4. Miscellaneous drainage revisions 5, Changes related to routing of underground power lines per Ft Pierce Utilities Authority 6. Owner requested modifications for aesthetics and future maintenance provisions 1. Relocation Of The Stormwater Management Pond During the design process, a stormwater management pond serving the proposed improvements had to be located in a site other than the location identified in the Airport's Master Plan because this location was then being occupied by the County Fair. The only available location that could effectiv~:ly serve the project was detennined by all parties involved at the time to be west of the proposed Entrance Road to the Airport immediately south of the existing Tenninal Building. The pond was designe:d for that location and the project was bid. Shortly after construction commenced, the Contractor was perfonning demolition of an old concrete structure located in the area of the pond and detenttined tt,e soil had the odor of fueL The Testing Lab was dispatched and it was determined that the area was contaminated with fuel. The structure, apparently was the foundation for several old fuel tanks that had betm removed and the site was abandoned for a long time. Although as a part of the design phase testing prO~'Tarn borings were obtained to a depth of six feet in the proposed pond areal none were taken in the i1nmediate vicinity of the old concrete structure. The results were typical of the area and revealed no indicuion of fuel contamination. As a consequence to this discovery and at the direction of the County, due to the time frame to evalua.te and remediate the site of contaminated fuel, a new location for the stormwater management pond had to be found to serve the project. Airport staff negotiated with a lease holder to use property located within 02/17/99 WED 14:14 FAX 141003 ~ .'-( URS Greiner Mr. Paul Phillips Change Order No. 1 Page No.2 his lease just north of the present Fair Grounds and west of his proposed Flight Training School. URS Greiner, Inc. was requested to prepare a proposal for services to design the relocation of the storrnwater management pond and provide sufficient infonnation to the Contractor to prepare the change order for the associated additional work. Items of additional work included relocation of the existing by-pass channel to a locatior, adjacent to the pre-treatment swales, modification of the col1ection system to convey pre-treated water to the new storm water management pond by means of a pipe system, design of the new pond and associated strucrure~, additional permitting. Construction costs related to this change order: Less credits for construction items not used: Total $79,925.80 ($6.920.QID $73,005.80 2. Relocation Of The Tiki Road: During construction it was observed by the County that the proposed tie-in to the Tiki RI~staurant parking 11.'>1 would result in the loss of approximately two parking spaces. Upon review and inspc:ction of the site it was determined that an alternative location for the access road would result in the opportunity to provide 6 additional parking spaces and more convenient access by relocating the entrance and providing a small amount of additional pavement in strategic locations. It was also agreed that removal of the existing roadway to the parking lot (already scheduled for removal under the contract), leaving the old pipe structure in place and sodding the old road would provide a more cOlwenient walkway connecting the Tenninal area to the Tiki Restaurant that would not require pedestrians tel cross the existing drainage ditch. Construction costs related to this change order: Less credits for construction items not used: Total $9.332.42 [$378.00) $8,954.42 3. General Utility Adjustments: A number of un forse en utility adjustments were necessary, particularly in the new parking lot area as a result of existing water service Hnes being located just below the surface of the existing paved parking lot area. Although the difference in elevation between the bottom the new parking lot pavement base material and the existing ground surface was generally only 12-inches or less, the Contractor encountered service lines at very minimal depths, requiring adjustments to lower the services below d1e subgrade. These lines are nonnally placed at a depths of 30 to 36 inches by the utility companies. An existing 8- inch water main crossing the proposed by-pass channel required the use of ductile iron pipe and mechanical joint fittings for lowering this section. Four manholes were identified in the plans to be adjusted. During the adjustment process the Contractor determined that two of the manholes they had been constrocted in such a manner that they could not be lowered by conventional means (one in the 02/17/99 WED 14:14 FAX ~004 '-' '-( URS Gi1einer Mr. Paul Phillips Change Order No. 1 Page No, 3 parking lot area and one in the roadway). The manholes had to be excavated to a level te- allow that a portion of the base, below the cone to be sawed off to facilitate lowering of the cone, frame and cover to meet design grades, which was significantly more work than anticipated in the bid item. Construction costs related to this change order: Less credits for construction items not used: Total $11,176.75 ($1.900.00) $9,276.75 4. MisceJlaneous Drainage Revisions: Minor unforseen revisions to drainage structures 5-1, $-1 A and S-3 were required at the Exit Road at St Lude Boulevard, as the result of an existing 24-inch pipe under St. Lucie Boulevard. having only minor cover at t1'lat location. Mr. Brian Barnes of St. Lucie County requested. due to the minimal cover on the pipe, that these structures be revised in such a way to allow a precast 4S degree bendjus,t off the pavement at S1. Lucie Boulevard, which would then turn down to provide additional cover on the remaining pipe and extend the pipe through the inlet into the headwall structure S-3. Th~ Contractor provided a credit for all structures bid and provided a change price to accomplish this request. Additionally, upon detennining the acrual elevation of the sanitary sewer line through ce,nflict structure S-4A, it was necessary to increase the conflict manhole diameter from a 4-foot diameter to a 6-foot diameter to provide more walt thickness between the conf1ict sewer line and the storm d:'ainage pipe. Construction costs rela.ted to this change order: Less credits for construction items not used: Total $9.970.00 ($4225.50) $5,744.50 5. Changes Related To Routing Of Underground Power Lines Per Ft Pierce Utilities Authority: During the design of the project, the proposed conversion of overhead to underground p,)wer was coordinated closely with Fort Pierce Utility Authority (FPUA). When the final layout was provided by FPUA, which was shown on the plans, it indicated one circuit for the proposed street lighting. During construction, FPUA detennined that it was necessary to break the lighting into two circuits instead of one, w1'ljch resulted in the increase of the quantities of 2-inch and 4-inch conduit, trench less construction under the Fort Pierce Farms Drainage District Canal and St. Lucie Boulevard, concrete fiectionalizer cabinet pads, and transformer pads. The County consequently directed the Contractor to perform this necessary work to prevent delay of the project. Additionally, it was understood that the work done by FPUA would include the conversion from overhead to underground connections to the c:xisting buildings. Additionally, the existing power feed to the Airport Rotating Beacon was routed from the existing taxiway immediately east of the project to the east side ofdle Entrance Road then north along the 02/17/99 WED 14:15 FAX ~005 v '1 URSGreilHW Mr. Paul Phillips Change Order No. I Page No.4 Entrance Road to a point opposite the Beacon. then west along the edge of an existing dirt road to the beacon. The plans provided for locating this cable and encasing it in split duct under the proposed road and across the by.pass ditch to the Beacon. During construction it was determined by th4~ County that in order to help ensure uninterrupted power to the Beacon, it would be best to provide prin:,ary power via a new underground conduit £rom a power pote located close to the Beacon on the west sidE: of the by.pass ditch and install a new transforn1er at the Beacon. The additional duat 4.inch conduit frem the pole to the transformer, the new transfonner pad and the dual2-inch conduit from the transformer a:~e also included in this item. Construction costs related to this change order: $24,809.00 Less credits for construction items not used: ($0.00) Total 524,809.00 6. County Requested Modifications For Aestbetics And Future Maintenance Provisions: Severa.l other County requested field modifications were included in this change order to allow for improved aesthetics and to allow for easier maintenance of the facilities in the future. Ao Airport Master Landscaping Plan, prepared by URS Greiner, Inc. a number of years ago included recommendations for Landscaping Improvements along the Airport Entrance Road, which included irrigation. However, due to lack of funding. URS Greiner, Inc. was specifically requested not to include irrigation and not to include landscaping plans in the design, but to direct the Contractor to submit Landscaping Design drawings fòr approval by the County and to construct landscaping improvements for a zc:roscape design(basically maintenance free). The County in anticipation of providing irrigation of the area in the future, requested that sleeving under the paved parking lot areas be added. In the existing parking lot area, one backflow preventor served both the Terminal Buildirrg and the Customs Building. The County requested that this be modified su.ch that each tàcility would be served by a separate backflow preventor. During the process of lowering the water main onder the by-pass ditch, it was detern1ín(~d by m the County that the a number of businesses were served off of the water main on the far end of the line, between the closes':: shut·offvalve to the proposed work. Ifthis line is shut down for repairs, the businesses would be without water. The County, in anticipation ofthe future storm water management pond construction and its close proximity to the construction site, directed the Contractor to install a new 8.ínch gate valve in a location beyond the proposed constructiot'l to prevent any potentia I interruption of service to the existing customer base. Two 6~foot concrete sidewalks crossing the landscaped areas at the ends of the cross walks exiting the Terminal Building in the parking lot area were added at the request of the County. To cut costs, the negotiations with FPUA for the installation of the street lights included: the installation of wooden light poles at the request of the fonner Airport Director. In order to improve the aesthetics of the area proposed wooden poles were changed to concrete poles with improved lighting fixtures at the - -, .L. , ~ ~ " LoLl ..L.... -L 0 r 1'\...0\.. ~006 '-' ......,; URS G;1'eÎIJeI' Mr. Paul Phillìps Change Order No. I Page No.5 request of the County. Construction costs related to this change order: Less credits for construction items not used: Total $12,410.00 ($0.00) $12,410.OQ The total costs involved in this change order are summarized as follows; Original Contract Price: Change Order I: $680,321.25 Additions: Deletions: Total Amount of Change Order No.1: Revised ContJ'act Price: $147,623.97 ($13.423.50) $134,200.47 $134.200.47 $814.S:u.z¿ For your information, we have prepared the attached spreadsheet, which contains a code referenced to the above categories, identifying each item as to which of the above described categories thE: item is related in the change order. We have reviewed the attached change order and find the prices to be reasonable and rec.ommend approval. We trust that this infonnation will provide satisfactory explanation for the changes included in this change order. Please contact us if you should have any further questions. c. Mr. Brian Barnes St Lucie County Engineering Department end ~ \...; Curtis King Boulevard Change Order No.1 SUMMARY A. Greiner, Inc. - Engineering The engineering contract with URS Greiner was approved by the BOCC on May 17, 1996. This contract was for the engineering design of the terminal area expansion project in the amount of $74,625. This amount included a $1,000 allowance for the South Florida Water Management District Permit. Staff recommends that the BOCC avprove Change Order No. 1 for $36,100 to URS/Greiner. Inc for additional enf!ineerinf! required as a result of the vond relocation. B. Bennett' Site Dev - Construction Award of Bid #98-61 for the construction of the St. Lucie County International Airport Terminal Parking Lot, Access Road and Landscaping Improvements to Bennett's Site Development was approved by the BOCC on July 7, 1998. Staffrecommends that the BOCC approve Change Order No.1 for $57.800.47 to Bennett's Site Development. Inc for the construction contract. This Change Order includes an increase to the construction contract of$129,800.47 and the elimination of the allowance account for conversion to underground power of $72,000 for a net increase to the construction contract of $57,800.47. C. FPUA - Electrical Power The Bennett construction contract included $72,000 as a allowance for FPUA to convert the electrical system to underground power. For Bennett to pay FPUA directly, they are authorized under the contract to pass on to the BOCC a carrying charge of 15% or $10,800. By reducing Bennett's contract $72,000 and by the BOCC paying FPUA directly, the BOCC is able to save $10,800. Additionally, airport staff has requested from FPUA electric pole enhancement at a cost of $1 ,900. Staff recommends that the BOCC authorize direct vavment of $73.900 to FPUA for conversion of the underf!round vower and utilitv enhancements. D. Culpepper & Terpening, Inc. - Construction Mgmt Work Authorization #1 to the Construction Management continuing contract with Culpepper & Terpening, Inc. for $54,100 for the construction inspection and contract management of the Curtis King Blvd widening and airport parking lot improvements was approved by the BOCC on August 25, 1998. Staff recommends that the BOCC approve Change Order No. 1 for $14.500 to the construction management continuing contract with Culvevper & Terpeninf!. Inc. for additional services. '-' "'" Curtis King Boulevard Change Order No.1 SUMMARY TABLE Approved + Change Order = Total Project Contract No.1 Costs Amount A Greiner, Inc. - Engineering $73,625.00 + $36,100.00 = $109,725.00 B Bennett' Site Dev - Construction $680,321.25 + $57,800.47 = $738,121.72 C FPUA - Electrical Power $0.00 + $73,900.00 = $73,900.00 D Culpepper - Construction Mgmt $54,100.00 + $14,500.00 = $68,600.00 sub-total I $182,300.471 E SFWMD - Permits $1,000.00 + $0.00 = $1,000.00 F Ardaman & Assoc.- Testing $2,500.00 + $3,500.00 = $6,000.00 G Matula Electric - Electrical $0.00 + $2,500.00 = $2,500.00 TOTALS $811,546.25 I $188,300.471 $999,846.72 '-' '....I RESOLUTION NO. 99-59 WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners budget for St. Lucie County, certain funds not anticipated at the time of adoption of the budget have become available from the Florida Department of Transportation in a form of a 50% contribution to supplement a part of a $188,300 increase in the construction of Curtis King Blvd and parking lot at St. Lucie County International Airport. 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 2nd day of March, 1999, pursuant to Section 129.06 (d), Florida Statutes, such funds are hereby appropriated for the fiscal year 1998-99, and the County's budget is hereby amended as follows: REVENUES 140274-4220-334411-400 Florida Dept. Of Transportation $85,500 APPROPRIATIONS 140274 -4220-563000-400 Improvments OfT Buildings $85,500 After motion and second the vote on this resolution was as follows: Commissioner Paula A. Lewis Commissioner Cliff Barnes Commissioner John D. Bruhn Commissioner Doug Coward Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson xxx XXX XXX XXX XXX PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED THIS 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 1999. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: CHAIRMAN APPROVED AS TO CORRECTNESS AND FORM: COUNTY ATTORNEY G:\budget\wp\agenda' s\agenda99\3 '2Airport _Grant. wpd ...... ....", AGENDA REQUEST ITEM NO. c... 6 B DATE: REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT C(] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY: Ait:port SUBJECT: Approve Resolution No. 99-61 Accepting the Supplemental Joint Participation Agreement (JP A) and authorizing the Chairman to execute the JP A to increase funding of the total project from $830,000 to $1,001,000.00 for the construction of Curtis King Boulevard and parking lot improvements. This is a 50% matching fund JP A with the Florida Department of Transportation. BACKGROUND: The existing JP A with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has an approved project estimate of $830,000. The FDOT has approved $811,546.25 for contracts associated with this project. Change Order No.1 to the contracts will require additional funding. FDOT has agreed to supplement the JP A by $171,000 to cover the aaadditional costs. Change Order No. 1 - FUNDING SUMMARY TABLE Approved Original Supplemental New Project Project Project JPA Needed Totals Participation Estimate Project Estimate $811,546.25 $830,000.00 $171,000.00 $1,001,000.00 FDOT Share (50%) $405,773.13 $415,000.00 $85,500.00 $500,500.00 BOCC Share (50%) $405,773.13 $415,000.00 $85,500.00 $500,500.00 FUNDS AVAILABLE IN ACCT#: Will be made available in 140274-4220-5630-400 PREVIOUS ACTION: Resolution 98-14 Accepting the Supplemental JPA increasing the project funding to $830,000. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Supplemental Joint Participation Agreement (JP A) between the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and authorize the Chairman to execute the JP A and the Resolution No. 99- 61. COMMISSION ACTION: dAPPROVED [ ]DENIED CONCURRENCE: ~ '~ 4- [ ]OTHER: Reviews & Approvals , County AttomeY:]ié'f'AA. OMB, V¡¡g! V Originating Dept: Other: .I ( Finance:(Check for Copy only, if applicable) Purchasing Other: 1 '-" STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATliJwtI PUBLIC TRANSPORT A TION SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT ClRÞ ~ \. ' FORM 7254.JO-07 PUBLIC TRANSP ADMIN OGC - 07/94 Page 1 of 4 WPI No: 4829274 Fin. Prog. No.: 236712-1-94-01 Job No: 94000-3870 Fund: Function: Federal No: Contract No: 010 637 N/A A9739 SAMAS Approp: SAMAS Obj.: Org. Code: Vendor No.: 088719 790007 55042010428 VF 596000835030 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _ day of 19_ by and between the STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, an agency of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as the Department, and St. Lucie County Port & Airport Authority hereinafter referred to as Agency. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Department and the Agency heretofore on the 10th of entered into a Joint Participation Agreement; and May 19 93 WHEREAS, the Agency desires to accomplish certain project items as outlined in the Attachment· A· appended hereto; and WHEREAS, the Department desires to participate in all eligible items for tlùs project as outlined in Attaclunent . A· for a total Department Share of $500.500.00 NOW, THEREFORE THIS INDENTURE WITNESSETH: that for and in consideration of the mutual benefits to flow from each to the other, the parties hereto agree that the above descnDed Joint Participation Agreement is to be amended and supplemented as follows: 1.00 Project Description: The project description is amended Nt A '-' -....; FORM 72S-03O-07 PUBUC TRANSP ADMIN OGC - 07/94 Page 2 of 4 2.00 Project Cost: Paragraph 3.00 of said Agreement is increasedld"".~.,J by $ 701.000.00 (171.000.00)** bringing the revised total cost of the project to $ 1.001.000.000 Paragraph 4.00 of said Agreement is increasedld""......b..,d by $ 350.500.00 (85.500.00)** bringing the Department's revised share in the project to $ 500.500.00 3.00 Amended Exhibits: Exhibit(s) B of said Agreement is ~ amended by Attachment "A". 4.00 Contract Time: Paragraph 18.00 of said Agreement is amended N/A ** This agreement will increase District share by $85,500.00. Project was supplemented on September 11, 1998, adding $89,000.00 and October 09,1995, adding $176,000.00 DS funds. '-" "'" FORM 725.{J3().(J7 PUBUC TRANSP ADMI;'; OGC - 07/94 Page 3 of 4 WPI NO. FIN. PROG. NO.: JOB NO. Contract No. Agreement Date 4829274 236712-1-94-01 94000-3870 A9739 Except as hereby modified, amended or changed, all other terms of said Agreement dated and any subsequent supplements shall remain in full force and effect. May 10. 1993 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents be executed, the day and year first above written. AGENCY: St. Lucie County Port & Airport Authority DATE FUNDING APPROVED BY COMPTROLLER (SEE A IT ACHED ENCUMBRANCE FORM) BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM, LEGALITY TITLE: ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ATTEST: DISTRICT SECRETARY or DIRECTOR of PLANNING & PROGRAMS TITLE: (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: EXECUTIVE SECRETARY or NOTARY BY: (SEAL I TITLE: '-' '-' FOR.\{ 725-030-07 PUBUC TRANSP ADMIN OGC - 07/94 Page 4 of 4 WPI NO. FIN. PROG. NO.: JOB NO. Contract No. Agreement Date 4829274 236712-1-94-01 94000-3870 A9739 ATTACHMENT "A" SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 'This Attachment forms an integral part of that certain Supplemental Joint Participation Agreement between the State of Florida, Department of Transportation and St. Lucie County Port & Ait:port Authority dated DESCRIPTION OF SUPPLEMENT (Include justification for cost change): Project scope increased due to additional Engineering Services needed for completion. I. PROJECT COST: ......... .. .... ........ . , ~pproved , $830,000.00 Amended ...... .. ... .. ~~t C~~ng~ ..,........ .... . ......... . ... . $1,001,000.00 $171,000.00 II. P~T~CIP.ATI<?~.:.......................... ......... .. .%..... ............... . ApP!?~~~.. .... ............... ........~~.e.~~,e.~...................... ..,~~!..çÞ.~!1g,e............. Department 50.0% $415,000.00 $0.00 $415,000.00 $500,500.00 $0.00 $500,500.00 $85,500.00 $0.00 $85,500.00 FAA Local 0.0% 50.0% III TOT AL PROJECT COST: 100.0% $830,000.00 $1,001,000.00 $171,000.00 '-' '-' ST. LUCIE COUNTY PORT AND AIRPORT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION 99-61 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BY THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT BY APPROVING IT AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS WHEREAS, the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners has made the following determination: 1. On April 20, 1993, the St. Lucie County Port and Airport Authority adopted Resolution No. 93-03 which accepted the State of Florida Department of Transportation Division of Public Transportation Joint Participation Agreement, and authorized the chairman of the St. Lucie County Port and Airport Authority to execute the agreement, and further authorized the County Attomey to execute the agreement by approving it as to form and correctness. 2. On May 10, 1993, the Department of Transportation and the St. Lucie County Port and Airport Authority entered into a Joint Participation Agreement whereby the Department agreed to provide for the undertaking of installing terminal very high frequency omni directional range (TVOR) (Work Program Item No. 4829274). 3. On June 14, 1994, the Authority adopted Resolution No. 94-11 which accepted the State of Florida Department of Transportation Division of Public Transportation Supplemental Joint Participation Agreement, and authorized the Chairman of the St. Lucie County Port and Airport Authority to execute the agreement, and further authorized the County Attomey to execute the "". ...., agreement by approving it as to form and correctness. 4. On June 28, 1994, the Department of Transportation and the S1. Lucie County Port and Airport Authority entered into a Supplemental Joint Participation Agreement whereby the Department agreed to amend the project description to include terminal expansion. 5. On August 22, 1995, the Authority adopted Resolution No. 95-15 which accepted the State of Florida Department of Transportation Division of Public Transportation Supplemental Joint Participation Agreement, and authorized the Chairnlan of the S1. Lucie County Port and Airport Authority to execute the agreement, and further authorized the County Attorney to execute the agreement by approving it as to form and correctness. 6. On October 9, 1995, the Department of Transportation and the S1. Lucie County Port and Airport Authority entered into a Supplemental Joint Participation Agreement whereby the Department agreed to amend the project description to read: "Terminal Expansion Including Landscaping, Parking Lot and Entrance Road Improvements" and to increase funding of the total project from "$300,000 to $652,000". 7. On September 11, 1998, the Department of Transportation and the St. Lucie County Port and Airport Authority entered into a Supplemental Joint Participation Agreement whereby the Department agreed to increase funding of the total project from $652,000 to $830,000. 8. To cover the construction Change Order the Department of Transportation and the S1. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners have mutually agreed to increase funding of the total project from $830,000 to $1,001,000. 9. This Authority should authorize and approve execution of the Supplemental Joint Participation Agreement with the State of Florida Department of Transportation in order to allow an increase in the funding of the total project from "$830,000 to $1,001,000". 'r'. SLC INT' L APT. ¡O-H CO, ATTORNEY ......, ~002 02 25'99 1I~):5ß NOW, THEREliORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Lucie COlUlty Board ofC{Junty COIT'.LITlÍssioners: A. Thís Board hereby authorizes and a.pproves execution of the Supplememal Joint Participation Agreement with the State of Florida Department of Transportation to provide for an increase in the fnndmg of the total project fÌ'om ''$830,000 to $1)001,00011. B. The ChaiIman and the Clerk of this Board are hereby authorized to execute the Supplem;:ntal Joint Participarion Agreement approved by this resolution, and fUrther) the County Attorney .L,; heæby authorized to execute t..he agreement by approVLng it as to form and correctncss. A..41.er motion a..1.d second the vote on this resolution was as follows: Chairman Paula Lewis XXX Vice Chairman John Bruhn XXX Commissioner Doug Coward XXX Commission::: Frannie Hutchinson XXX Comr<.J.ÏssÎoner C1i:íTBames XXX PASSED AND DUI~Y ADOPTED this__ day of _____, 1999. ATTEST: ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF CO'lTi'''TY COl\11\USSIONERS ~---- BY: .----- CHAIR.l\-fAN APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: COUNTY A TTOR...~Y