HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 05-18-99
~
......,
www.stlucieco.gov
John D. Bruhn
Doug Coward
Paula A. Lewis
Frannie Hutchinson
Cliff Barnes
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
ßOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
May 18, 1999
7:00 P.M.
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. MINUTES
Approve the minutes of the meeting held May 11, 1999.
2. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
3. CONSENT AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. UTILITIES
Resolution No. 99-108- Consider staff recommendation to approve the resolution putting into
effect a schedule fixing water and wastewater utility rates, fees, and charges for customers of
the North County Utility District, and providing for an effective date.
5. UTII,ITIES
A. Resolution No. 99-106- Consider staff recommendation to approve the resolution
putting into effect a Uniform Service and a Uniform Extension policy for the North
County Utility District and providing an effective date.
B. Holiday Pines Utility- Consider staff recommendationÁo approve an amendment with
Avatar Utility Services, Inc., in the amount of $144,1>0 annually and authorize the
Chairman to sign the agreement and that the amendment will become effective on the
closing date of the sale of the Holiday Pines System to St. Lucie coµnt . /
/J V )/ '7 /' ~,,,-cApJ ~
~ AIRPORT ¡r;Þ.t,,~...fle-s l-J.:J /( '~/J- " )....._d1';) .~ ~
CY ~___o y . ,
k~rport DRI- Consider staffrecommendation to authorize staffto rank the Airport.'s General
¡ ! / ~ Consultants for preparation of an Airport DRI including the projects listed . ~ ¡Airport
'1 Business .and Marketing Plan r~X~IUding length~n~ runway 9RJ27L.
h~~tJ~ .A.,,-~L-~ -µ¡ ~514. \
~ .diP;H/' /? ß-,C~6/¡; l..-./rjJ,/2;;rt -,.'
NOTICE: All proceedings before this Board are electronically reconled. Any person who decides to appeal any action taken
by the Board at these meetings will 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 part)' to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing will
be sworn in. Any part)' to the proceedings will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a
hearing upon request.
~
....,.¡
REGULAR AGENDA
MAY 18, 1999
PAGE TWO
7. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Resolution No. 99-112- Consider staffrecommendation to approve the resolution urging the
United States Congress to reauthorize and fund the National Estuary Program for an
additional five years.
~
....,.¡
CONSENT AGENDA
May 18, 1999
1. WARRANTS LIST
Approve warrants list No. 33.
2. COUNTY ATTORNEY
A. Emergency Medical Services Award- Consider staff recommendation to approve the
third extension of the interlocal agreement for use of funds disbursed under the
County Emergency Medical Services Award and authorize the Chairman to sign.
B. Jury Services Reimbursement- Consider staff recommendation to accept a check for
$532.54 representing one-half reimbursement for jury services in the case of Omec v.
Yang.
C. Permission to File Suit- Consider staff request for permission to file suit against
Archie and Sheila Jones to quiet title on property owned by the County.
3. MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
A. Budget Resolution No. 99-11- Consider staffrecommendation to approve the budget
resolution establishing the budget for the Ideal Holding Road MSBU project.
B. Equipment Request No. 99-211- Consider staff recommendation to approve the
equipment request for the purchase of a State surplus Dozer for the Road and Bridge
Division.
4. PERMISSION TO ADVERTISEfRECOMMENDED FOR A DAY MEETING
County Attorney- Consider staff request for permission to advertise a TEFRA hearing on A-I
Roof Trusses Ltd. Company on June 8, 1999 at 9 am or as soon thereafter as possible.
,,-.._-.~ ,~~ -"-.-,
'-'
'-'
..
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
RF.ßULAR MEETING
Date: May 11, 1999
Tape: 1
Convened: 9:03 a.µ1.
Adjourned: 1 0: 13 a.m.
Commissioners Present: Chairman, Paula A. Lewis, John D. Bruhn, Frannie Hutchinson, Doug
Coward, Cliff Barnes
Others Present: Doug Anderson, County Administrator; Phil Freeland, Asst. County
Administrator; Dan McIntyre, County Attorney, Julia Shewchuk, Community Development
Director; Ray Wazny, Public Works Director; Bill Blazak, Utilities Director; Dennis Murphy,
Asst. Com. Development Director; Jim David, Mosquito Control Director; Mike Bowers, Road
and Bridge Manager; Harvey Lincoln, M & B Manager; Don West, County Engineer; Jack
Southard, Public Safety Manager; Charlie Bicht, Purchasing Manager; Nick Dragash, Central
Services Manager; Joe Finnegan, Personnel; David Kelly, Planning Manager; Gayla Barwick,
Tourism Manager; Deputy Nickel; A. Millie Delgado, Deputy Clerk
1. MINUTES (1-029)
It was moved by Com. Hutchinson, seconded by Com. Coward, to approve the minutes of the
meeting held May 4, 1999; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously.
2. PRESENTATIONS
A. The Employee of The Quarter award ( January - March, 1999) was presented to Barbara
Meinhardt, Engineering.
B. The Employee Suggestion Award (first quarter) was presented to Anthony Lacoparra.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS (1-222)
Mr. David Keown, Lakewood Park resident, addressed the Board regarding the $20 million
Environmental Lands program and bike paths.
CONSENT ADDITIONS (1 =340)
A-I - Collective Bargaining Unit- Consider staff recommendation to approve the expansion of
the bargaining unit to include the part-time marine safety officers.
A-2- Transfer of funds- Consider staff recommendation to transfer $783 from contingency into
the Legal Counsel budget to pay closing costs on a property purchase.
It was moved by Com. Coward, seconded by Com. Bruhn, to approve Consent Additions A-I
and A-2; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously.
.,;,~,",,_~.,-:"':-F;;"7"'"
'-'
':;"".,";~y,,'.'-;"--
......,
REGULAR AGENDA ADDITIONS(I-349)
A.3 F.I.N.D.- F.I.N.D. Commissioner Joanne All~Jl12resented the Board with a check in the
amount of$172,071.62 for the Ft. Pierce inlet Spur Jetty.
4.
CONSENT AGENDA (1-400)
/'~
It was moved by Com. Bruhn, seconded by Com. Coward, to approve the Consent Agenda with
the change in figure on item C-4 to $44,449.00 and item C-ll to include all names as noted; and,
upon roll call, motion carried unanimously.
1. WARRANT LIST
The Board approved warrant list # 32.
2. LEISURE SERVICES
Resolution No. 99-43- The Board approved the resolution revising the criteria for an
Associate Members/Resident Players Card for Faiiwinds Golf Course.
3. PUBLIC WORKS
A. Engineering- The Board approved a work authorization for Lindahl, Browning, Ferrari
and Hellstrom for engineering services to provide stormwater retrofitting within
NSLRWCD Canal C-9-A in the not to exceed amount of$39,500 and authorized the
Chairman to sign and approve the project budget.
B. Engineering- The Board approved the escrow agreement for Phase II of the Brown Ranch
Mine mining permit and authorized the Chairman to sign the agreement.
C. Solid Waste- The Board approved the Camp, Dresser & McKee proposal for operational
assistance and permit compliance monitoring of the Glades Road Landfill Gas System for
a lump sum fee of$69,600.
D. Solid Waste- The Board approved the Camp, Dresser, & McKee proposal for the Glades
Road and Golf Course Landfills permit annual compliance: groundwater testing and
reporting, Landfill annual aerial survey and financial responsibility update, video survey
and evaluation of the Landfill leachate collection system, and continuing consulting
services for a total amount of$127,390.
** Com. Coward requested that in the future that items such as C and D go through the RFP
process.
4. CENTRAL SERVICES
Rock Road Detention Center- The Board approved declaring Northern Technologies as
the sole source manufacturer of equipment designed to protect critical equipment from the effects
of lightning and poor power quality conditions in the amount of $46,500.
5. MANAGEMENT/BUDGET
Resolution No. 99-109- The Board approved the,budget resolution appropriating
$200,000 for Morningside Library, and authorized the Çhairman to sign the inter-local agreement
with St. Lucie School Board outlining the conditions of purchasing equipment and furnishings
for Building A.
'-'
- -""-'---'\
~----
.....,;
6. RISK MANAGEMENT
Group Life Insurance- The Board approved authonzing staff to enter into contractual
negotiations through McCreary Corporation with the Standard Insurance Company to provide
basic and supplemental life and AD & D insurance.
7. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
A. Tourism- The Board approved payment of the April invoices to MBI Advertising in the
amount of$6,960.13.
B. Tourism- The Board approved payment of the April invoices to RJ. Gibson Advertising
in the amount of $9,558.26.
C. Resolution No. 99-17- The Board approved the resolution amending the date of
expiration in Resolution 98-088 for the Riverview Oil Company Self Storage.
8. PURCHASING
A. AutomatedServices- The Board approved the agreement for Remote Database
Administration with SCT in the amount of $20,000 and authorized the Chairman to sign
the agreement.
B. Office Furniture- The Board approved renewing the discount agreement for purchase of
Hon office furniture from Office Products and Services.
9. INVESTMENT FOR THE FUTURE
A. Bid No. 99-43- The Board approved awarding the bid for waterproofing for the County
Administration Building and Empire I to VIP Painting, Inc., in the amount of $24,200 for
the Administration Building and $36,500 for Empire I and authorized the Chairman to
sign the contract as prepared by the County Attorney.
B. Bid No. 99-37- The Board approved the bid for roof replacement on various buildings to
the bidders listed and authorized the Chairman to sign the contract as prepared by the
County Attorney and establish the project budget as outlined.
C. Parks Improvements- The Board approved piggybacking onto a Broward County bid with
Recreational Design and Construction, Inc., for completion of second year Parks/Beach
access renovation projects in a not to exceed amount of $415,600.
10. COUNTY ATTORNEY
A. Assignment of Professional Services- The Board approved assignment of professional
services from Goldman, Bruning & Mildner, P.A. to Krieger & Farley for the code
Enforcement Board.
B. So. 25th St. Phase 1- The Board approved the Contract for Sale and Purchase from Hawley
Road Limited Partnership in the amount of $20,000 and payment of the associated legal
fees estimated to be $2,467.50 and authorized the Chairman to execute the Contract for
Sale and Purchase.
C. Revocable License Agreement- The Board approved the Revocable License Agreement
with Ms. Wojcieszak for use of Indian River Drive right of way and authorized the
Chairman to execute the agreement.
~~::$':'''~~?,~¡:-¡
~~~}¡
'-"
'-"
D. Consent to Assignment- The Board approved the .consent to the assignment of the
subleases between Air Charter of Fla., Inc., d/b/:idet Service Center, and Michel
Prefontaine and Aircraft Ground Equipment Corporation to Knight Investments
Partnership, and authorize the Chairman to execute the 'Consents to Assignments of
Sublease as prepared by the County Attorney.
11. ADMINISTRATION
A. Citizens Budget Committee- The Board ratified Com. John Bruhn's appointment of
Wayne Skinner to the Citizens Budget Committee.
B. Central Florida Foreign Trade Zone- The Board approved the request of the Board of
Directors to reappoint Judy Culpepper to the Board for a three year period.
c. Vegetation Protection Committee- The Board approved the appointments as listed, to the
Vegetation Protection Committee:
Com. Bruhn - Betty Lou Wells
Com. Coward- Fred Jones
Com. Hutchinson- Roberta West
Com. Barnes - Sam Comer
Judy Gersony- St. Lucie County Conservation Organization
Stefan Matthes- Professional Engineer/Planner
Sabine Lange-Marcks- St. Lucie County Landscape Architect
Gary Roberts - St. Lucie County Nursery Industry
12. AUTOMATED SERVICES
Fairwinds Golf Course- The Board approved canceling the current computer golf
software contract and purchase Golf Management Systems software and hardware, support and
maintenance program $20,400 and on site training in the amount of $4,200 and also purchase
hardware upgrades in the amount of$13,363 necessary for Y2K compliance.
REGULAR AGENDA
COUNTY ATTORNEY (1-667)
5. Resolution No. 99-42- This public hearing was continued from March 23, 1999
Commission meeting. Consider staff recommendation to approve the resolution
transferring control of the cable television franchise from AT & T to Media One
Applications of Northern Illinois and authorize the Chair to sign the resolution.
The County Attorney addressed this issue and gave background information on resolution.
Ms. Susan Bisnò, Director of Public Policy for Media One, addressed the Board and requested it
not be a conditional approval. " j",
......'.....
The County Attorney advised the Board that he did not feel comfortable nor does he recommend
the Board not place the condition of a time limit regarding the fiber optic lime
-
""", .
~...' .'- - ... ,- ,
'~__~__n_.. .__
---------
'-"
....."
"'':.-'1:''-;';''.:::!W-~:''''
Ms. Bisno stated that in speaking with her soon to be colleagues from TCI that a two year time
frame would be more suitable, however, she is not sayÜig that it would not be completed sooner
than that time.
Com. Bruhn questioned why this is bein.;, made a condition of the transfer.
The County Attorney stated this link would save the county mõney.
Ms. Bisno asked if possibly the language could read that the fiber optic link would be completed
within a reasonable amount of time agreeable to both parties.
The County Attorney advised the Board that this would not give the county any more certainty it
would only provide for further negotiations on the issue, however, he would be more comfortable
with the language" within a reasonable amountoftime not to exceed 2 years" or something in
that order.
Ms. Bisno stated, "that would be fine".
Com. Lewis expressed her concerns with the words "reasonable amount of time".
Com. Bruhn stated he would prefer to see the prices reduced to the customer if an agreement was
to be modified.
Com. Coward questioned the impact on the rates to the customers once this transfer is completed.
Ms. Bisno stated the transfer would not impact existing rates, however, as with any organization
the increase their rates on an annual basis as TCI would do, they are in a competitive
environment, but to say there would never be an increase that would not be feasible.
It was moved by Com. Coward, seconded by Com. Bruhn, to approve Resolution No. 99-42
subject to adding language to the paragraph regarding the fiber optic links that would clarify that
it would be provided within a reasonable amount oftime not to exceed two years, and also the
Board request Media One provide a proposal to provide service to Tozier Road, Winding Creek
and Indrio Road within a 30 to 60 day period; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously.
6. ADMINISTRATION /BIKE PATHS (1-1424)
Com. Barnes commented on a Ms. Linda Sampson whose son was injured while riding his bike
on Kings Highway. Ms. Sampson submitted a petition with 2000 or more names in the
Lakewood Park area who requested a separated bike path provided the length of the highway to
the park.
Com. Bruhn questioned if millings could be utilized as an experiment for bike paths.
He was informed by the County Engineer that it could save the county money on construction
costs, however, based on utilizing a concrete bike path 8 ft. wide or asphalt 8 ft. wide, the figures
in the information provided is based on this type of construction. This runs about $18.00 per
foot. The millings cost would be $4-5.00 per foot rougll!y. The disadvantage to utilizing
millings is that it would be more of a rough surface an~ the material as. it. ,,:ear~ throws off gravel
which could create some slipage, however we really wIll not know untIl It IS tned.
Com. Coward expressed his concern with the millage limiting multiple uses of the path. He
would prefer a more appropriate area be selected for the experiment utilizing ~illin~s and stated
he was more in favor of utilizing concrete or some other smooth surface for this proJect.
~
~7-"'~.""'-"'-:~"'""--"
r---:--·
-.-;--~
'-'
.~
:~ . , ~ ":- .
The Asst. Community Development Director stated that in the case of rollerblading, he is
confident the millings surface would not work due to the fact it may bind up the wheels.
Com. Bruhn suggested utilizing the millings on Kings Highway and if it does not work, they can
then resurface it with asphalt.
..
Com. Hutchinson concurred with Com. Barnes and Com. Bruhn and stated there are other areas
which have previously requested bike paths and we do not have the money to place bike paths in
every area ofthe county, however, if the experiment does work and this would be starting at a
slow rate, then the millings can be utilized for many areas.
The Asst. Community Development Director stated a smooth surface would be needed for
rollerblades.
Com. Coward stated this should be something that should be definitely explored, however, he
feels we should not experiment in a residential area which will have multiple types of uses as
well as high use. He urged the Board to pursue what staff has recommended.
It was moved by Com. Barnes, seconded by Com. Coward, to approve constructing a bath path
with the budget as recommended; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously with the
following comments:
Com. Bruhn stated he would like to pursue and explore the millings experiment in the
future.
Com. Hutchinson stated she concurred with Com. Bruhn however, she thought the Board
was to be concerned with safety issues of people in putting sidewalks to get them offthe roads.
She does not feel it is the Boards' place to address every recreational activity that the public does
and would agree to this as long as another area is found to place the milllings.
BOARD COMMENTS
'."
Com. Lewis requested ratification of her appointment to the Vegetation Protection Committee,
Lee Mitchell.
It was moved by Com. Barnes, seconded by Com. Coward to ratify Com. Lewis' appointment;
and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously.
Com. Hutchinson requested clarification regarding the position ofthe Public Information Officer.
Com. Barnes addressed Com. Hutchinson's question and stated he had asked the County
Administrator to come to the Board and review with them the short listed candidates
, ,.
qualifications so the Board would be comfortable with his decision. The County Administrator
has kept him informed all along and he is happy with his decision of the candidate.
Com. Coward stated he has also had many conversations .with the County Administrator and is
happy with his selection.
Com. Bruhn stated Com. Hutchinson's concerns are legitimate since the person will be speaking
for the Board and the Administrator and he feels the Board is torn as to who should be the
selected candidate and who they should report to. He feels it will be a hard decision to fill and
the Board needs to know ifthe person will be working fpr the Board or the County
Administrator.
Com. Lewis stated the Board will still be expressing their views individually and the person
would be relating basic information to the press as ~ell as the public. She stated she would be
uncomfortable if the Board started taking an too much of an active role on hiring.
'., ~'.
~"Ji.'. :... .
,- '=-,~'-'--.-,--,,_..,--.-
-
'-"
,--~--,-,~,~--"..
-...",I
';::-o;~~;~
'., .
Com. Bruhn asked "why pay someone $60,000. to say what the County Administrator will say?
Com. Lewis addressed Com. Bruhn's question and stated she has spent many hours answering
questions on basic factual knowledge and backgroun.d information on an issue in order for it to
be understood. Hopefully, the Public Information Officer will be taking care of all these
questions. She does not see him/her as expressing opinions.
Com. Coward concurred with Com. Lewis and stated there are a lot of positive things the
community can be made aware of.
Com. Hutchinson stated she was concerned with the continuing changes as to what the PIO was
going to be. She does not have a problem with the person presenting basic information, but does
not feel he/she should be speaking for five Commissioners.
Com. Barnes stated the County Administrator basically does what he is directed to do by the
majority of the Board and he feels the PIO will be doing the same thing, which is relate what the
majority of the Board decides regarding projects, etc.,. In the past, had information been related
in a timely manner on certain issues, many law suits could have been avoided.
Com. Barnes requested that one immediate function of this person should be to show the public
where their tax dollars are going, who is in charge of them and how the Board and all the
Constitutional Officers address their budgets.
Com. Coward requested a status report on the excessive parking requirements in the Land
Development Code discussed at a prior meeting.
The Planning Manager advised Com. Coward and the Board that they are looking into revisions
of the Supplemental Standards to the Code and in addition they have at least one developer who
will present a site plan which uses our reserve parking provision.
Com. Coward requested staff continue to work on the excessive parking requirements and
include their recommendations in the next loop of changes in the code.
There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
10:13 a.m.
Chairman
Clerk of Circuit Court
:;1 .
. ;." - .
.,
'-'
....",
AGENDA REQUEST
ITEM NO. 4
DATE: May 18, 1999
REGULAR [ ]
PUBLIC HEARING [X]
CONSENT [ ]
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PRESENTED BY:
SUBMITTED BY (DEPT) : Utilities Department
William R. Blazak
SUBJECT:
Resolution #99-108, A resolution of the County Commissioners of St. Lucie
County, Florida, adopting and putting effect a schedule fixing water and
wastewater utility rates, fees and charges for customers of the North
County Utility District, and providing an effective date.
FUNDS AVAIL. :N/A
PREVIOUS ACTION:
Board of County Commissioners established a preliminary schedule of rates,
fees and charges for customers of the North County Utility District on May
4,1999 at a regular scheduled meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of resolution #99-108, putting into effect a
schedule fixing water and wastewater utility rates, fees, and charges for
customers of the North County Utility District, and providing for an
effective date.
~~IS~~~:O~~~ION~
[ ] OTHER:
DENIED
~ ------.
Crr' Coordination/Signatures
t/.:....
County Attorney:X Mgt, & Budget:
Originating Dept:X ItrlBdU Other:
Finance Director: (CReek f~r Copy only, if applicable)____
ou Anderson
County Administrator
Purchasing :
Other:
Eff. 5/96
'-'
...",.¡
" I
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
UTILITIES & RECYCLING
DEPARTMENT
WILLIAM ßLAZAK
DIREGOR
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
William Blazak, Utility Director \j)..tfr
FROM:
DATE:
May 18, 1999
RE:
Resolution # 99-108- North County Utility District- Rates
BACKGROUND:
Resolution # 99-108, will adopt and put into effect a schedule fixing water and
wastewater rates, fees and charges for customers of the North County Utility District.
The rates, fees and charges that have been established for the Holiday Pines Service
Corporation, and approved by the Florida Public Service Commission, are the basis for the
rate, fees and charges schedule for the North County Utility District. These rates, fees and
charges were also the basis for the calculations that were performed to determine the economic
feasibility of the Utility to be self supportive. No significant changes have been made to the
rate structure other than customer deposit requirement~. The deposits required from new
customers requesting services from the North County Utility District have been adjusted to be
consistent with deposits required in other St. Lucie County Utility Districts.
The customers of the existing system can take comfort in the fact that no increase in their
rates and charges are required in order to undertake and finance this acquisition. However,
customers may experience some extremely minor adjustments in future years as a result of
indexing and pass-through rate provisions, which are designed to allow the system to keep pace
with escalating costs. The indexing has not been a reason for St. Lucie County to adjust rates in
any Utility District for the past three years. Growth within the Districts has offset the average
one percent indexing increase that has occurred annually. The historical growth of the system
has been 1.5% and limited to a defined service area. The ability to expand the service area
through public or private demand will provide an increased rate of growth in future years that
should provide revenues increases that will offset any significant indexing.
The preliminary schedule of rates, fees and charges were publically advertised on May 7,
1999.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of Resolution # 99-108, putting into effect a schedule fixing
water and wastewater utility rates, fees and charges for customers of the North County Utility
District, and providing for an effective date.
nD D' . N 2 PAULA A LEWIS District No .3 . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, District No.4· CLIFF ßARNES, District No, 5
JOHN D, ßRUHN, District No, 1 . DOUG COWAn , Istrlct 0,· " '
County Administrator - Douglas M, Anderson
2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982 · Phone (561) 462...1150 · FAX (561) 462...1153
-
'-'
"wi
,..
RESOLUTION NO. 99-108
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ST. LUCIE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, ADOPTING AND PUTTING INTO EFFECT A
SCHEDULE FIXING WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY RATES,
FEES, AND CHARGES FOR CUSTOMERS OF THE NORTH COUNTY
UTILITY DISTRICT, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, (the
"Board") has concluded that it is in the best interest of the public to acquire the water,
wastewater and reuse utility facility of Holiday Pines Service Corporation (the "Facilities:);
and
WHEREAS, the Board, in conjunction with the acquisition of the Facilities, must fix the
initial Schedule of rates, fees and charges for the utility service to be provided by the North
County Utility District (the" District");
WHEREAS, the Board established a Preliminary Schedule fixing rates, fees and charges
for the utility service to be provided by the District in Resolution 99-107; and
WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing, on May 18, 1999, whereby all of the owners,
tenants and occupants of property served or to be served by the District, and all other interested
members of the public had a opportunity to be heard concerning the Preliminary Schedule
fixing rates, fees and charges, notice of which public hearing was properly published in a
newspaper in the County; and
WHEREAS, the Board, on the advice and recommendation of its technical advisors, and
after consideration of the comments from the public, finds that the rates, fees and charges set
forth in the attached Schedule are just and equitable and in the public interest.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. That the attached Schedule of rates, fees, and charges hereby adopted as the
rates, fees and charges of the District.
Section 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage.
'-'
-
...
....,
After motion and second, the vote of this Resolution was as follows:
ATTEST:
Chainnan Paula A. Lewis
Vice-Chainnan John Bruhn
Commissioner Cliff Barnes
Commissioner Doug Coward
Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
Deputy Clerk
DAY OF MAY, 1999.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
Chairperson
Approved As To Fonn And Correctness
County Attorney
.
'-'
....,¡
,.- ç::-,.-
ST. LUCIE COUNTY NORTH COUNTY UTILITY DISTRICT
SCHEDULE OF UTILITY RATES, FEES AND CHARGES
WATER
RESIDENTIAL SERVICE
APPLICABILITY
For water service for all purposes in single-family homes,
individually metered multi-family units.
MONTHLY RATE -
Base Facility Charge (no gallonage allowance):
Meter Size Base Facility Charge
3/4" $28.33
1" $70.83
1-1/2" $141.63
2" $226.62
Gallonage charge per 1,000 gallons;
$ 3.29
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SERVICE
APPLICABILITY -
For water service for all purposes in multi-family residences
served by a master m~ter.
MONTHLY RATE -
Base facility charge (no gallonage allowance):
Meter Size Base Facility Charge
3/4" $28,33
1" $70.83
1-1/2" $141.63
2" $226.62
3" $453.25
4" $708.20
6" $1416.40
8" $2266.24
Gallonage charge per 1 ,000 gallons;
$ 3.29
-1-
'-'
"""
,- ,',:,.'
WATER
GENERAL SERVICE
APPLICABILITY -
For water service for all purposes for customers who do not
qualify for residential or multi-family services
MONTHLY RATE
Base Facility Charge (no gallonage allowance):
Meter Size Base Facility Charge
3/4" $42.50
1" $70.83
1-1/2" $141.63
2" $226.62
3" $453.25
4" $708.20
6" $1416.40
8" $2266.24
.
Gallonage charge per 1,000 gallons;
$ 3.29
PRIVATE FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE
APPLICABILITY -
For fire protection service.
MONTHLY RATE -
Line Size
Amount
4"
6"
8"
$ 235.98
471.93
754.27
Gallonage charge per 1,000 gallons:
3.29
-2-
'-"
"'"
- -;'':''-
FIRE HYDRANTS
APPLICABILITY - For service to fire hydrants (ie: temporary construction meters)
MONTHLY RATE -
$250.00 advance payment required. Balance of unused advance payment
refundable upon return of meter in good working condition.
Gallonage charge per 1,000 gallons:
3.29
METER INSTALLATION FEES
WATER TARIFF
AMOUNT
3/4" meter
1" meter
1 1/2" meter
2" meter
3" meter
All Above 3" - Actual Cost
,
$150.00
200.00
500.00
1 ,000.00
2,500.00
-3-
'-'
'-"
,. ,'io
WASTEWATER RATE SCHEDULE
RESIDENTIAL SERVICE
APPLICABILITY -
For wastewater service for all purposes in single family homes,
individually metered multi-family units.
MONTHLY RATE-
Meter Size Base Facility Charge
3/4" $16.32
1" $40.79
1-1/2" $81.57
2" $130.52
Gallonage charge per 1,000 gallons:
(Maximum 10,000 gallons)
$2.61
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SERVICE
APPLICABILITY -
For wastewater service for all purposes in multi-family residences served by
a master meter.
MONTHLY RATE -
,
Base Facility Charge (no gallonage allowance):
Meter Size Base Facility Charge
3/4" $16.32
1" $40.79
1-1/2" $81.57
2" $130.52
3" $261.03
4" $407.87
6" $ 815.74
8" $1305.20
Gallonage charge per 1,000 gallons:
$2.61
-4-
--
--
--
'-'
.....,
GENERAL SERVICE
APPLICABILITY -
For wastewater service for all purposes for customers who do
not qualify for residential or multi-family services.
MONTHLY RATE -
Base Facility Charge:
Meter Size Base Facility Charge
3/4" $24.48
1" $40.79
1-1/2" $81.57
2" $130.52
3" $261.03
4" $407.87
6" $ 815.74
8" $1305.20
Gallonage charge per 1,000 gallons:
(Maximum 10,000 gallons)
$2.61
MISCELLANEOUS SERVICE CHARGES
REQUEST FOR METER TEST BY CUSTOMER
t
Meter Size
fee
$30.00
30.00
Actual cost of test
3/4"
1" and 1 1/2"
2" and above
If the meter is found to register in excess of the accuracy limits prescribed by the Utility, the Fee will be
refunded. But if below such accuracy limit, the fee will be retained by the District as a service charge for
conducting the test.
RECONNECT CHARGES
Normal Hours After Hours
Normal reconnection
Violation reconnection
Premises Visit (in lieu
of disconnection)
$30.00
$30.00
$30.00
$45.00
$45.00
$45.00
-5-
-
'-"
...."
,',"" ,
GUARANTEED REVENUES
Whenever developers are required to pay guaranteed revenue fees, the charge for each
equivalent residential connection required to be supported by the guaranteed revenue fees
shall be as follows:
Meter Size Water - Guaranteed Wastewater -
Revenue Charge Guaranteed
Revenue Charge
3/4"residential $26.84 $15.21
3/4" commercial $40.26 $22.82
1" $67.10 $38.03
1-1/2" $134.20 $76.06
2" $214.72 $121.69
3" $429.43 $242.28
4" $670.99 $380.29
6" $1341.97 $760.57
8" $2147.16 $1216.91
t
-6-
~
....."
WATER ACCRUED GUARANTEED REVENUES
Whenever developers are required to pay accrued guaranteed revenue fees, the charge
for each equivalent residential connection required to be supported by the guaranteed
revenue fees shall be as follows:
$788.25 per ERC
WASTEWATER ACCRUED GUARANTEED REVENUES
Whenever developers are required to pay accrued guaranteed revenue fees, the charge
for each equivalent residential connection required to be supported by the guaranteed
revenue fees shall be as follows:
$1997.83 per ERC
,
-7-
'-'
....."
CONNECTION CHARGES
PER EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL CONNECTION
Water Plant Wastewater Plant
$861.00 $325.00
Li.n.es. Li.n.es.
$244.00 $ 602.00
Total $1105.00 $ 927.00
-8-
APPLICABILITY -
AMOUNT
Residential
Multi-Family
General Svce.
--
'\w'
"""
.~ ç:.> .
CUSTOMER DEPOSITS
Before rendering service, the County will require a deposit to
secure the payment of bills which shall be non-negotiable and
non-transferrable.
The amount of such deposit shall be an amount at least
necessary to cover charges for service for two billing periods.
Meter Size Water Wastewater
3/4" $ 45.00 $ 50.00
1" ,85.00 225.00
1 1/2" 110.00 315.00
2" 220.00 685.00
Per Unit 30.00 45.00
3/4" 50.00 100.00
1" 115.00 320.00
1 1/2" 200.00 1,400.00
2" 600.00 1,600.00
3" 700.00 1,900.00
4" & Above Two Months Est. Bill
-9-
--
~
....""
AUTOMATIC ADJUSTMENTS
The rates, fees, and charges described herein, shall be automatically decreased or
increased, without hearing, upon application by the utility as follows:
1. For implementation of a decrease or increase in the rates, fees, and charges
charged to the utility for water and/or wastewater utility services, bulk water, electric power,
or the amount of taxes or assessments levied against the utility, if any.
2. Annually as of the first day of the fiscal year, based upon an "operating cost
index", The index shall be the Price Index in effect on the adjustment date determined by
the Florida Public Service Commission, pursuant to Section 367.081.(4)(a), Florida
Statutes, and Rule 25-30-420, Florida Administrative Code, as amended from time to time.
3. In the event that costs have been incurred for water quality testing required by
regulatory agencies or that costs have been incurred as a result of the promulgation of
regulations by other govemmental agencies related to treatment procedures for water and
sewage.
.
-10-
.,
'-'"
.,- .,'.>"
.....,
~
.- ..~.
AGENDA REQUEST
ITEM NO. 5-A
DATE: May 18, 1999
REGULAR [X]
PUBLIC HEARING [ ]
CONSENT [ ]
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PRESENTED BY:
SUBMITTED BY (DEPT) : Utilities Department
William R. Blazak
SUBJECT:
Resolution #99-106, A resolution of the County Commissioners of St. Lucie
County, Florida, adopting and putting into effect a Uniform Service and a
Uniform Extension Policy for the North County Utility District, and
providing an effective date.
FUNDS AVAIL. :N/A
PREVIOUS ACTION:
Board of County Commissioners established·.the North County Utility District
.
and established preliminary rates, fees and charges on May 4, 1999 at a
regularly scheduled meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of resolution #99-106, putting into effect a
Uniform Service and a Uniform Extension policy for the North County Utility
District and providing an effective date~
~O~S~~~:O~~ION~
[ ] OTHER:
DENIED
.-....-
/""
!
L....r)/
~Í/t4,
County Attorney:X '"
" J I ";p. '/'Ù-'.~II. ..
I ;...1'. if'" "1·· /
Originating Dept:X \n,\) ,~/\#,.".
Finance Director: (check for Còpy only,
\,J
u Anderson
County Administrator
Coordination/Signatures
Mgt. & Budget:
Purchasing
Other:
if applicableJ____
Other:
Eff. 5/96
'-'
.-....,;
/'\
/
BOARD OF COUNTY
COg\¡~AISSION€RS
UTILITIES 6- RECYCLING
DEPARTMENT
WILLIAM ßLAZAK
DIREGOR
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
l1¡th
William Blazak, Utility Director ~l\L~$
FROM:
DATE:
May 18, 1999
RE:
Uniform Service and Extension Policies / North County Utility District
BACKGROUND:
The Uniform Service and Extension Policies are the rules by which the Utility operates
and provides service to our customers and or developers.
The Uniform Service Policy establishes d~:finitions, rules and regulations applicable to
the water and/or wastewater service provided to all customers in a fair and equitable manner.
The Uniform Service Policy for the North County Utility District is consistent with St. Lucie
County's Uniform Service Policies'that have been ad~ted for other Utility Districts within the
County. The only minor difference in the North County'Uniform Service Policy that differs from
the Holiday Pines Service Corporation tariff is the deposit schedule, the deposits for water and
wastewater service have been adjusted to be consistent with all other County Utility Districts.
This adjustment was performed to eliminate confusion between the various Districts when
service is requested.
The Uniform Extension Policy is designed to set forth the service and financial
relationship between the Utility and property owners, builders or developer/future customers
seeking to obtain Water and/or Wastewater services for the benefit of their properties. The
Uniform extension policy for the North County Utility District is consistent with St. Lucie
County's Extension Policies that have been adopted for other Districts within the County.
Although the Uniform Service and Extension policies are consistent with all other County
Districts it is important to note that some types of services and some of the fees. and charges are
unique to each Utility District. The Guaranteed / Accrued Guaranteed Revenues, rates, fees and
charges are unique to each District and should not be considered uniform among all County
Districts.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of Resolution # 99-106, putting into effect a Uniform Service
and Extension Policy for the North County Utility District, and providing an effective date.
JOHN D, ßRUHN, District No.1. DOUG COWARD, District No, 2 . PAULA A. LEWIS, District No,:3 . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, District No, 4 0 CLIFF ßARNES, District No.5
County Administrator - Douglas M. Anderson
2300 Virginia Avenue II Fort Pierce, FL 34982 . Phone (561) 462-1150 · FAX (561) 462-1153
'w'
'-"
~('-71'-
.....- \.~..
..' ,."..-
RESOLUTION NO. 99-106
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY COM:MISSIONERS OF ST. LUCIE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, ADOPTING AND PUTTING INTO EFFECT A
UNIFORM SERVICE AND A UNIFORM EXTENSION POLICY FOR THE
NORTH COUNTY UTILITY DISTRICT, AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, (the
"Board'') has concluded that it is in the best interest of the public to acquire the water,
wastewater and reuse utility facility of Holiday Pines Service Corporation (the "Facilities:);
and
WHEREAS, the Board, in conjunction with the acquisition of the Facilities, must
establish uniform policies for service and for extension of service by the North County Utility
District (the "District"):
WHEREAS, the Board, on the advice ariu recommendation of its technical advisors,
finds that the service and extension policies set forth in the attached Schedule are just and
equitable and in the public interest.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COM:MISSIONERS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. That the North County District Uniform Service Policy and Uniform Extension
Policy attached to this Resolution are hereby adopted.
Section 2.
This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage.
'-'
......,
,- ,'~
After motion and second, the vote of this Resolution was as follows:
Chairman Paula A. Lewis
Vice-Chairman John Bruhn
Commissioner Cliff Barnes
Commissioner Doug Coward
Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
ATTEST:
Deputy Clerk
DAY OF MAY, 1999.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
Chairperson
Approved As To Fonn And Correctness
,
.
County Attorney
'-'
"-'
c·,..- ,',;..-
.- ....~--
ST. LUCIE COUNTY UTILITIES
NORTH COUNTY UTILITY DISTRICT
UNIFORM SERVICE POLICY
"
.-
'-'
'-'
TECHNICAL TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
1.0 BACKFlOW PREVENTER - A device installed to prevent contaminants of any kind
from entering the potable water supply system.
2.0 BASE FACILITY CHARGE - (BFC) - A monthly charge which represents a per
customer share of a portion of the fixed and nonvariable cost of providing service.
3.0 CONSUMER - The person, firm, association, corporation, governmental agency or
other entity or organization supplied with water and/or wastewater service by the
District.
4.0 CUSTOMER - The person, firm, association, corporation, government agency or
other entity or organization who has entered into an agreement to receive water
and/or wastewater service from the District and who is liable for the payment of that
water and/or wastewater service and shall abide by all the District's Rules and
Regulations.
5.0 CUSTOMER'S WASTEWATER INSTAllATION - All pipes, fittings, fixtures and
appliances or apparatus of every kind and nature used in connection with or forming
a part of an installation for disposing sewage located on the customer's side of
"Point of Collection" whether such installation is owned by customer, or used by
consumer under lease or otherwise.
6.0 CUSTOMER'S WATER INSTAllATION - All pipes, fittings, valves, fixtures and
appliances or apparatus of every kind and nature used in connection with or forming
a part of an installation for utilizing water far any purpose ordinarily located on the
customer's side of "Point of Delivery", whether such installation is owned by
customer or used by consumer under lease or otherwise.
7.0 DISTRICT - North County Utility District.
8.0 DOMESTIC WASTEWATER - Wastewater generated by dwellings, business
buildings, institutions, and the like.
9.0 EaUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL CONNECTION (ERC) - A unit of water and
wastewater treatment facilities necessary to deliver to a prospective customer, 250
gallons of water per average day, and 250 gallons of wastewater per average day.
All non-residential uses are converted to ERCs by dividing their respective demands
by the units of capacity set forth above. Master metered multi-family dwellings are
deemed to have a domestic service demand of 250 gallons of water per day, per
dwelling unit, with all external or irrigation uses calculated separately.
10.0 GENERAL SERVICE - For water or wastewater service for all purposes for
customers who do not qualify for residential or multi-family services.
1
__.,¡r
-
--
'-'
.....,
,'~
,-""
11.0 GREASE TRAP/Oil SEPARATORS - A device for separation of grease, oil or
similar deleterious substances from wastewater by flotation, so that it can be
removed from the surface prior to discharge into a sanitary wastewater system.
12.0 HAZARDOUS WASTE - Any substance, waste or product that is potentially
damaging to environmental health because of toxicity, ignitability, corrosivity,
chemical reactivity, radioactivity, infectious characteristics, or any other reason.
13.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER - Wastewater generated by industrial source
processes including reject water from reverse osmosis treatment units.
14.0 METER - Device used to measure water delivered to a customer by the District.
15.0 POINT OF CONNECTION - The point where the District's main collector pipes are
connected with pipes of the customer.
16.0 POINT OF DELIVERY - The point where the District's pipes (mains) or meters are
connected to pipes of the customer, or customer's property line if so designated by
District.
17 .0 POTABLE WATER - Water that is considered satisfactory for domestic use.
18.0 RATE RESOLUTION - The resolution of the St. Lucie County Board of County
Commissioners adopting rates, fees and cA¡:¡rges for the District, as amended from
time to time.
19.0 RECLAIMED WATER MAIN - A pipe, conduit, or other facility installed to convey
reclaimed water to individual service lines or to other mains.
20.0 SERVICE LINES - The customer's pipes (service laterals) which are connected to
the District's mains at the "Point of Collection".
21.0 SERVICE POLICY - The Uniform Water and Wastewater Service Policy of North
County Utility "District , as amended from time to time.
22.0 WASTEWATER MAIN - A pipe, conduit, or other facility installed to convey sewage
from individual service lines or other mains.
23.0 STORM WATER - The water which results from and occurs immediately following
a rainfall event; water produced by unusually high tides and/or hurricane surges.
2
'-'
~
'-:.. "~.:o,.-
24.0 UNIFORM EXTENSION POLICY - The Uniform Extension Policy adopted by the St.
Lucie County Board of County Commissioners, as amended from time to time.
25.0 WATER MAIN - A pipe, conduit, or other facility installed to convey water service
to individual service lines or to other mains.
"
3
~ ......
.. -- --
. ...
'-'
'-*'
, ~:!7'-
INDEX OF RULES AND REGULATIONS
RULE NUMBER
PAGE NUMBER
1.0 POLICY DISPUTE
6
2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION
3.0 SIGNED APPLICATION NECESSARY
4.0 APPLICATIONS BY AGENTS
5.0 WITHHOLDING SERVICE
6.0 EXTENSIONS OF FACILITIES
7.0 LIMITATION OF USE
6
6
6
7
7
7-8
8.0 CONTINUITY OF SERVICE 8
9.0 TYPE AND MAINTENANCE 8
10.0 CHANGE OF CUSTOMER'S INSTALLATION 8
,
11.0 INSPECTION OF CUSTOMER'S INSTALLATION 8-9
12.0 PROTECTION OF DISTRICT'S PROPERTY 9
13.0 ACCESS TO PREMISES 9
14.0 RIGHT-OF-WAY OR EASEMENTS 9
15.0 BILLING PERIODS 9
16.0 DELINQUENT BILLS 9-10
17.0 PAYMENT OF WASTEWATER AND WATER SERVICE 10
BILLS CONCURRENTLY
18.0 TEMPORARY DISCONTINUANCE OF SERVICE 10
19.0 EVIDENCE OF CONSUMPTION 10
4
'w.
'wi
,".
,";:,.'
INDEX OF RULES AND REGULATIONS
(cont. )
RULE NUMBER PAGE NUMBER
20.0 TAX CLAUSE 10
21.0 CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY 10-11
22.0 UNAUTHORIZED CONNECTIONS - WASTEWATER 11
23.0 UNAUTHORIZED CONNECTIONS - WATER
24.0 ADJUSTMENT OF BILLS
25.0 CUSTOMER DEPOSIT
26.0 STORM WATER
27.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER
28.0 GREASE TRAPS, OIL SEPARATORS
29.0 HAZARDOUS WASTES
"
30.0 METERS
31.0 ALL WATER THROUGH METER
11
11
11-12
12
12
13
13
13
13
32.0' REQUEST FOR METER TEST BY CUSTOMER 13
33.0 ADJUSTMENT OF BILLS FOR METER ERROR 14
34.0 BACKFLOW PREVENTERS 15
35.0 MISCELLANEOUS SERVICE CHARGES 15 - 16
5
-
'-'
.....,¡
.'~~
RULES AND REGULATIONS
1.0 POLICY DISPUTE - Any dispute between the District and the customer or
prospective customer regarding the meaning or application of any provision of this
Policy, upon written request by either party, will be resolved by the St. Lucie County
Utility Director. Any party not satisfied by this decision, may, within ten (10) days
thereof, appeal the decision to the County Administrator.
2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION -In the event the District's Rules and Regulations are
inconsistent with any Statute, Law or Court Order, the Statute, Law or Court Order
shall prevail and the District's Rules and Regulations shall be null and void. These
Rules and Regulations apply to the rate schedules, applications and contracts of the
District. In the absence of specific written agreement to the contrary, these
regulations apply without modification or change to each and every customer to
whom the District renders water and/or wastewater service.
In the event that a portion of these Rules and Regulations is declared
unconstitutional or void for any reason by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
decision shall in no way affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Rules and
Regulations for water and/or wastewater service unless such court order or decision
shall so direct.
3.0 SIGNED APPLICATION NECESSARY - Water and/or wastewater service is
furnished upon signed application acceptt\d by the District and the conditions of
such application are binding upon the customer as well as upon the District. A copy
of the application for water and/or wastewater service accepted by the District will
be furnished to the applicant on request.
The applicant shall furnish to the District the correct name, street address and legal
description of property to which water and/or wastewater service is to be rendered.
4.0 APPLICATIONS BY AGENTS - Applications for water and/or wastewater service
requested by firms, partnerships, associations, corporations, and others (principals),
shall be tendered only by duly authorized parties (agents). When water and/or
wastewater service is provided under application(s) entered into between the
District and an agent of the principal, the use of such water and/or wastewater
service by the principal or agent shall constitute full and complete consent by the
principal of the application(s) entered into between agent and the District and under
which such water and/or wastewater service is rendered.
6
;::::::w
'-'
....,
,.,....
,']:0-
5.0 WITHHOLDING SERVICE - The District may withhold or discontinue water and/or
wastewater service provided to any customer if all prior indebtedness to the District
has not been settled in full.
Service may also be discontinued for any violation by the customer or consumer of
any rule or regulation set forth in this Tariff. The District will provide written notice
by mail or posting at customer service location.
6.0 EXTENSIONS OF FACILITIES - Extensions will be made to the District's facilities
in compliance with the District's Uniform Extension Policy and Rate Resolution.
7 .0 LIMITATION OF USE -
(A) Wastewater service purchased from the District shall be used by the
customer only for the purposes specified in the application or agreement for
wastewater service. Wastewater service furnished to the customer shall be
for the customer's own use and sewage shall be received directly from the
customer into the District's main wastewater lines. In no case shall a
customer, except with the written consent of the District, extend his lines
across a street, alley, lane, court, property line, avenue, or other way, in
order to furnish wastewater service for adjacent property, even though such
adjacent property is owned by that customer. In case of such unauthorized
extension, sale or disposition of service, customer's wastewater service is
subject to discontinuance until full payment is made of bills for wastewater
service, calculated on proper classifications and rate schedules and
reimbursement in full made to the District for all extra expenses incurred for
clerical work, testing and inspectiolt\S. Also, see Rule 26.0 to 29.0: Storm
Water, Industrial Waste, Grease Traps and Hazardous Wastes.
(8) Water service purchased from the District shall be used by the customer only
for the purposes specified in the application or agreement for water service.
Water service furnished to the customer shall be rendered directly to the
customer through District's individual meter and may not remetered by the
customer for the purpose of selling or otherwise disposing of water service
for a profit to lessees, tenants, or others and under no circumstances shall
the customer or customer's agent or any other individual, association or
corporation install meters for the purpose of so remetering said water service
for the purpose of making a profit. In no case shall a customer, except with
the written consent of the District, extend his lines across a street, alley, lane,
court, property line, avenue, or other way, in order to furnish water service
for adjacent property through one meter, even though such adjacent property
is owned by that customer. In case of such unauthorized extension, re-
metering, sale or disposition of service, customer's water service is subject
to discontinuance until full payment is made of bills for water service,
calculated on proper classification and rate schedules and reimbursement
7
'-"
'-'
..,...
,.J?
in full made to the District for all extra expenses incurred for clerical work,
testing, and inspections. Under no circumstances shall any source of water
other than the District's be connected to the District's water supply system
or any part thereof, be it on private or public property except with the written
consent of the District.
The District shall have the right of inspection at reasonable times during
customer's installation to verify compliance with Rules and Regulations.
8.0 CONTINUITY OF SERVICE - The District will at all times use reasonable diligence
to provide continuous water and/or wastewater service, and shall not be liable to the
customer for failure or interruption of continuous water and/or wastewater service.
The District shall not be liable for any act or omission caused directly or indirectly
by strikes, labor troubles, accidents, litigations, breakdowns, shutdowns for
emergency repairs, or adjustments, acts of sabotage, enemies of the United States,
Wars, United States, State, Municipal or other governmental interference, Acts of
God or other causes beyond its control. If at any time the District shall interrupt or
discontinue its service for any period greater than one hour, except for emergency
repair as indicated, all customers affected by said interruption or discontinuance the
District shall use its best efforts to give not less than 24 hours notice by publication,
radio or television service announcement.
9.0 TYPE AND MAINTENANCE - The customer's pipes, apparatus, and equipment
shall be selected, installed, used and maintained in accordance with standard
practices, conforming with the Rules, Regulations and Specifications of the District,
subject to full compliance with all laws and governmental regulations applicable to
same. The District shall not be responsib~ for the maintenance and operation of
customer's pipes and facilities. The customer expressly agrees not to utilize any
appliance or device which is not properly constructed, controlled and protected, or
which may adversely affect the water and/or wastewater service. The District
reserves the right to discontinue or withhold water and/or wastewater service to
such apparatus or device.
10.0 CHANGE OF CUSTOMER'S INSTAllATION - No changes or increases in
customer's installation, which will materially affect the proper operation of the pipes,
mains or pumping stations of the District shall be made without written consent of
the District. The customer will be liable for any changes resulting from a violation
of this rule.
11.0 INSPECTION OF CUSTOMER'S INSTAllATION - All customer's water and/or
wastewater service installations and/or changes shall be inspected during
installations and/or by a District representative to ensure that customer's piping,
equipment, and devices have been installed in accordance with accepted standard
practice, company rules, regulations and specifications and such local governmental
rules. Where municipal or other governmental inspection is required by local rules
8
"-'
"ç,,¡
,.,.,.-
or ordinances, the District cannot render water and/or wastewater service until such
inspection has been made and a formal notice of approval from the inspecting
authority has been received by the District. Failure to have an inspection will result
in the customer having to expose the service line for inspection at his own costs.
The District reserves the right to inspect the customer's installation prior to rendering
water and/or wastewater service and from time to time thereafter, but assumes no
responsibility whatsoever for any portion thereof.
12.0 PROTECTION OF DISTRICT'S PROPERTY - The customer shall exercise
reasonable diligence to protect the District's properly on the customer's premises,
and shall knowingly permit no one but the District's agents, or persons authorized
by law, to have access to the District's pipes and apparatus.
In the event of any loss, or damage to property of the District caused by or arising
out of carelessness, neglect or misuse by the customer, the cost of making good
such loss or repairing such damage, including attorneys' fees and court costs if
enforcement proceedings are initiated, shall be paid for by the customer, which cost
shall constitute a lien on property served until paid.
13.0 ACCESS TO PREMISES - The duly authorized agents of the District shall have
access at all reasonable hours to the premises of the customer for the purpose of
inspection of customer's installation to verify compliance with District's Rules and
Regulations, installing, maintaining, and inspecting or removing District's property,
and other purposes incident to performance under or termination of the District's
agreement with the customer and in such performance shall not be liable for
trespass. "
14.0 RIGHT-OF-WAY OR EASEMENTS - The customer shall grant or cause to be
granted to the District without cost to the District, all rights, easements, permits, and
privileges which are necessary for the rendering of water and/or wastewater service,
including mains, lines, pump stations, fire hydrants and the like.
15.0 BilLING PERIODS - Bills for water and/or wastewater service will be rendered
monthly. Bills are due when rendered and shall be considered as received by
customer when delivered or mailed to wastewater service address or some other
place mutually agreed upon.
Nonreceipt of bills by customer shall not release or diminish obligation of customer
with respect to payment thereof.
16.0 DELINQUENT BillS - Bills are due when rendered, and if not paid within twenty
(20) days thereafter become delinquent, and water and/or wastewater service may
then, after five (5) days written notice, be discontinued. Service will be resumed
only upon payment of all past-due bills and penalties, together with a service charge
9
'-'
'wi
,"\-}oo"
established on the basis of the expenses incurred in the disconnection and
restoration of service which shall be nondiscriminatory in its application. There shall
be no liability of any kind against the District by reason of discontinuance of service
to the customer for failure of the customer to pay the bills on time.
No partial payment of any bill rendered will be accepted by the District, except by
agreement with District, or by order or direction of the St. Lucie County Board of
County Commissioners.
17.0 PAYMENT OF WASTEWATER AND WATER SERVICE BILLS CONCURRENTLY
- When both wastewater and water service are provided by the District, payment of
any wastewater service bill rendered shall not be accepted by the District without
the simultaneous or concurrent payment of any water service bill. If the charges for
wastewater are not paid, the District may discontinue both wastewater service and
water service to the customer's premises for non-payment of the wastewater service
charges, or if the charges for water are not paid, the District may discontinue both
water service and wastewater service to the customer's premises for non-payment
of the water service charge. The District shall not reestablish or reconnect
wastewater and water service or either of customer's services until such time as all
wastewater and water service charges and all other expenses or charges
established or provided for by these Rules and Regulations are paid.
18.0 TEMPORARY DISCONTINUANCE OF SERVICE - Where service is to be restored
at the same premises to the same customer (member of household or designated
agent), customer will pay to the District the base facility charge for each billing
period during which service was discontinued. All prior indebtedness must be paid
before service will be restored. '.
19.0 EVIDENCE OF CONSUMPTION - The initiation, continuation, or resumption of
water service to the premises shall constitute evidence of the initiation, continuation,
or resumption of wastewater service to the premises, regardless of occu pancy.
20.0 TAX CLAUSE - Rates and/or charges may be increased or a surcharge added in
the amount of the applicable proportionate part of any taxes and assessments
imposed by any governmental authority in excess of those in effect after the
approval of this rule which are assessed on the basis of meters or customers or the
price of or revenues from water and/or wastewater service sold, not including
income taxes.
21.0 CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY - When change of occupancy takes place at any
premises supplied by the District with water and/or wastewater service, WRITTEN
NOTICE may be requested and shall be given at the office of the District not less
than three (3) days prior to the date of change by the outgoing customer, who will
be held responsible for all water and/or wastewater service used on such premises
until such WRITTEN NOTICE is so received and the District has had reasonable
10
- -
'-' ...,,;
";.~.
.'~-
time to discontinue water and/or wastewater service. However, if such WRITTEN
NOTICE has not been received, the application of a succeeding occupant for water
and/or wastewater service will automatically terminate the prior account.
Customer's deposit may be transferred from one service location to another, if both
locations are supplied by the District and the customer has established a
satisfactory credit record. Customer's deposit may NOT be transferred from one
name to another.
For the convenience of its customers, the District will accept telephone orders to
discontinue or transfer water and/or wastewater service and will use all reasonable
diligence in the execution thereof. However, oral orders or advice shall not be
deemed binding or be considered formal notification to the District.
22.0 UNAUTHORIZED CONNECTIONS - WASTEWATER - Connections to the District's
wastewater system for any purpose whatsoever are to be made only by employees
of the District or under direct supervision of District's authorized employee.
Unauthorized connections render the service subject to immediate discontinuance
without notice and wastewater service will not be restored until such unauthorized
connections have been removed and unless settlement is made in full and for all
penalties, damages, and wastewater service estimated by the District to have been
used by reason of such unauthorized connection.
23.0 UNAUTHORIZED CONNECTIONS - WATER - Connections to the District's water
system for any purpose whatsoever are to be made only by employees of the
District or under direct supervision of District's authorized employee. Unauthorized
connections render the service subject to immediate discontinuance without notice
and water service will not be restored untiJ such unauthorized connections have
been removed and unless settlement is made in full and for all penalties, damages,
and water service estimated by the District to have been used by reason of such
unauthorized connection.
24.0 ADJUSTMENT OF BILLS - When a customer has been undercharged as a result
of incorrect application of the rate schedule, or if wastewater service is measured
by water consumption, a meter error is determined, the undercharged amount may
be billed to the customer.
25.0 CUSTOMER DEPOSIT - Before rendering service, the District shall require a
deposit or guarantee satisfactory to the District to secure the payment of bills. The
District shall give the customer a non-negotiable and non-transferrable deposit
receipt.
The amount of such deposit shall be calculated in accordance with the District's
Rate Resolution.
11
'-'
.....,¡
,'~ -
.- ,:::-
After a residential customer has established a satisfactory payment record and has
had continuous service for a period of 25 months, the District will refund the
customer's deposit provided the customer has not, in the preceding 12 months, (a)
made more than one late payment of the bill (after the expiration of 20 days from
the date of mailing or delivery by the District), (b) paid with a check refused by a
bank, (c) been disconnected for non-payment, or at any time, (d) tampered with the
meter, or (e) used service in a fraudulent or unauthorized manner.
Upon termination of service, the deposit will be credited against the final account
and the balance, if any, shall be returned promptly to the customer, but in no event
later than forty-five (45) days after service is discontinued.
The District may require, upon reasonable written notice of not more than fifteen
(15) days, such request or notice being separate and apart from any bill for service,
a new deposit, where previously waived or returned, or an additional deposit, in
order to secure payment of current bills; provided, however, that the total amount
of the required deposit shall not exceed an amount equal to the average actual
charge for water and/or wastewater service for two billing periods. In the event the
customer has had service less than two billing periods, then the District shall base
its new or additional deposit upon the average actual monthly billing available.
Governmental entities are exempt from the deposit requirement as are other utilities
that provide service to the District which have reciprocating no deposit
requirements. Governmental entities include:
1. Federal, State and County Agencies
2. Municipalities '.
3. Special Taxing Districts
4. St. Lucie County School Board
5. Entities lawfully empowered to levy and collect taxes
26.0 STORM WATER - No storm water systems of any kind shall be connected to the
District's wastewater system, including air conditioner cooling water and condensate
lines which normally discharge to storm wastewaters or drainfields. No storm water
shall be diverted into the District's wastewater system through manholes, cleanouts,
and the like. Failure to comply with this rule will cause discontinuance of water and
wastewater service.
27.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER - The District will accept only domestic wastewater
in its wastewater system. No industrial wastewater or the like, including septage,
shall be discharged into District's wastewater system unless proper pretreatment
facilities are provided on customer's premises by customer, properly operated and
approved in writing by the District and all applicable regulatory agencies.
12
~...... ..
'..........
'-'
.-- ...~.
~'.1'>'-
28.0 GREASE TRAPS, OIL SEPARATORS - All commercial food preparation facilities
and all other facilities generating wastewater with high grease and/or oil
concentrations must have a grease trap to intercept these wastes prior to discharge
into the District's sanitary wastewater system. Location and type of grease trap
used must be approved, in writing, by District and all applicable regulatory agencies.
Grease traps must be properly maintained by customer or owner. Design and
maintenance of grease traps shall be in accordance with St. Lucie County rules,
regulations and codes, and shall conform to the specifications and requirements of
the District. If grease and/or oil in excess of allowable amounts, in accordance with
District's and regulatory agency requirements, is discharged, District shall inform
operator and/or owner of premises to properly repair and maintain or replace, if
necessary, said grease traps. Failure to cease discharging wastewater with high
grease and/or oil concentrations shall be cause for discontinuance of water and
wastewater service.
29.0 HAZARDOUS WASTES - No hazardous wastes of any kind shall be discharged
into District's wastewater system under any circumstances without prior written
authorization from District. Failure to comply with this rule shall be cause for
discontinuance of water and wastewater service and violator(s) will be subject to
criminal prosecution.
30.0 METERS - All water meters shall be furnished by an remain the property of the
District and shall be accessible and subject to is control. The customer shall
provide meter space to the District at a suitable and readily accessible location and,
when the District considers it advisable, within the premises to be served. The
customer shall also provide adequate and proper space for the installation of meter
boes and other similar devices. "
31.0 ALL WATER THROUGH METER - That portion of the customer's installation for
water service shall be so arranged that all water service shall pass through the
meter. No temporary pipes, nipples, or spacers are permitted and under no
circumstances are connections allowed which may permit water to by-pass the
meter or metering equipment.
32.0 REQUEST FOR METER TEST BY CUSTOMER - Should any customer request a
bench test of his water meter, the district will require a fee in advance to defray cost
of testing and that the test be requested in writing. Such fee not to exceed the
schedule of fees set forth in the Rate Resolution.
If the meter is found to register in excess of the accuracy limits prescribed under the
Rule No. 33.0 of this Policy, the fee will be refunded. But if below such accuracy
limit, the fee will be retained by the District as a service charge for conducting the
test.
13
... WI" ..
.. ..
'-"
......,
~_ ;;'!oo -
~- ..~
Further, upon written request of any customer, the District shall, without charge,
make a field test of the accuracy of the water meter in use at customer's premises
provided that the meter has not been tested within the past six (6) months.
33.0 ADJUSTMENT OF BILLS FOR METER ERROR - In meter tests made by the
District, the accuracy of registration of the meter and its performance in service shall
be judged by its average error. The average meter error shall be considered to be
the average of the errors at the test rate flows.
FAST METERS - Whenever a meter tested is found to register fast in excess of the
tolerance provided in the Meter Accuracy Requirements provision herein, the
District shall refund to the customer the amount billed in error for one-half the period
since the last test. Said one-half period not to exceed twelve (12) months except
that if it can be shown that the error was due to some cause, the date of which can
be fixed, the overcharge shall be computed back to but not beyond such date,
based upon available records. Re refund shall not include any part of any minimum
charge.
SLOW METERS - The District may backbill in the event that a meter is found to be
slow, non-registering or partially registering. The District may not backbill for any
period greater than twelve (12) months from the date it notifies a customer that the
meter is slow, non-registering or partially registering. If it can be ascertained that
the meter was slow, non-registering or partially registering for less than twelve (12)
months prior to notification, then the District may backbill only for the lesser period
of time. In any event, the customer may e~end the payments of the backbill over
the same amount of time for which the utility issued the back bill.
METER ACCURACY REQUIREMENTS - All meters used for measuring quantity
of water delivered to a customer shall be in good mechanical condition and shall be
adequate in size and design for the type of service which they measure. Before
being installed for the use of any customer, every water meter, whether new,
repaired or removed from service for any cause, shall be adjusted to register within
the accuracy limits set forth in the following table:
14
'-'
....,
.- "-~,~.
ACCURACY LIMITS IN PERCENT
MAXIMUM INTERMEDIATE
METER TYPE RATE RATE NEW REPAIRED
Displacement 98.5 -101.5 98.5 - 1 01.5 95 - 1 01.5 90 - 101.5
Current 97 - 103 97 - 1 03 95 - 1 03 90 - 1 03
Compound* 97 - 103 97 - 103 95 - 1 03 90 - 1 03
* The minimum required accuracy for compound meters at any rate within the
"changeover" range of flows shall be 85%
34.0 BACKFLOW PREVENTERS - St. Lucie County requires the installation of backflow
prevention devices with all new services. A backflow prevention device shall be
installed in accordance with the District's specifications. All installations shall be
prior to or in conjunction with the meter installation.
All backflow prevention devices subject to the District's control. If approved. by the
District, the District shall own and maintain the backflow prevention device itself
between the inlet and outlet valves of the~Ðevice on all installations two-inch and
smaller. For installations larger than two-inch, the District shall retain ownership
and maintenance responsibility for all piping and appurtenances between the
connection to the District's main and the discharge flange of the downstream valve
on the above-ground backflow preventer assembly. In the event the District does
not so determine to own and maintain the backflow or prevention device as set forth
above, the customer shall own and be responsible for the maintenance and all
certifications required by law with respect to the operational status of the backflow
prevention device. The customer shall provide space at a suitable and readily
accessible location and, when the district considers it advisable, within the premises
to be served. The customer shall also provide adequate and proper space for the
installation, operation and maintenance of backflow prevention devices. Customers
with existing services are required to install backflow prevention devices upon
request by the District if District determines that a potential hazard for other
customers exist.
35.0 MISCELLANEOUS SERVICE CHARGES - The District shall charge the following
miscellaneous service charges as set forth in the Rate Resolution in accordance
15
'-'
....,
~':' .
,'¡,o"
with the terms also stated below. If both water and wastewater services are
provided, only a single charge is appropriate unless circumstances beyond the
control of the District require multiple actions.
INITIAL CONNECTION - This charge would be levied for service initiation at a
location where service did not exist previously.
NORMAL RECONNECTION - This charge would be levied for transfer of service
to a new customer account at a previously served location, or reconnection of
service subsequent to a customer requested disconnection.
VIOLATION RECONNECTION - This charge would be levied prior to reconnection
of an existing customer after disconnection of service for cause, including a
delinquency in bill payment.
PREMISES VISIT CHARGE (IN LIEU OF DISCONNECTION) - This charge would
be levied when a service representative visits a premises for the purpose of
discontinuing service for non-payment of a due and collectible bill and does not
discontinue service because the customer makes payment arrangements with the
District, and the customer service representative verifies arrangements with service
personnel. Service personnel cannot accept payments in any form from customers.
RETURNED CHECK CHARGE - It is the policy of the District (the "County") to
accept checks from the public for the payment of fees and other charges, drawn
only on United States banks in U.S. currency with the drawer's name and address
imprinted on the checks. It is the further policy of the District to invoke any and all
available penalties, service fees, servi~ charge or civil actions, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, when checks are dishonored.
The District's receipt of a check is considered to be a conditional payment until it is
honored by the drawer' bank. If the check fails to clear the bank for any reason, it
is considered a non-payment. Upon District's receipt of dishonored check, notice
shall be sent to the drawer indicating that the drawer has 30 days from receipt of
notice to tender payment in cash of the full amount of the check, plus service
charges and/or service fees authorized under Section 125.0195, Florida Statutes.
If payment is not received within 30 days, the District reserves the right to pursue
any criminal actions, pursuant to Section 832.07, Florida Statutes.
In order for the District to recover a portion of the costs for handling dishonored
checks, the District may charge the maker of a worthless check a service fee of
twenty-five dollars ($25.00), if the face value of the check does not exceed $50.00;
thirty dollars ($30.00) if the face value exceeds $50.00 but does not exceed
$300.00; forty dollars ($40.00), if the face value exceeds $300.00; or five percent
(5%) of the face amount of the check (whichever is greater), pursuant to Section
125.0105, Florida Statutes.
16
...
.... ..
.. -
'-"
.....".
REFUND FOR REFUNDABLE CHECK DEPOSITS - No refunds shall be made for
refundable utility deposits until at least fifteen (15) working days after the date of the
deposit of the check by the District.
REMINDER NOTICE LATE CHARGE - When a utility bill is delinquent (See Rule
No. 16 Delinquent Bills) and a written notice is issued, the District shall impose a
late charge of $1.00 or 1.5% of the face amount of the late notice, whichever is
greater.
"
17
'-"
'--'
~~ -
,.- ,.".-
ST. LUCIE COUNTY UTILITIES
NORTH COUNTY UTILITY DISTRICT
UNIFORM EXTENSION POLICY
'.
'-'
....,.¡
~.~ -
.- .'.~
ST LUCIE COUNTY UTILITIES
NORTH COUNTY UTILITY DISTRICT
UNIFORM EXTENSION POLICY
I. INTENT:
St. Lucie County ("County"), as owner and operator of the St. Lucie County North
County Utility District ("Utility"), hereby establishes this Uniform Extension Policy
(sometimes referred to as the "Policy") designed to set forth the service and financial
relationship between the Utility and property owners, builders or developer/future
customers seeking to obtain Water and Wastewater service for the benefit of their
properties. The County declares that each prospective consumer of the Utility's
systems shall be responsible for the cost, allocable to it, for wastewater treatment and
disposal, water production and treatment; including water storage and distribution
necessary to provide the required service to its property. This Policy should not be
"
construed as a commitment to provide capacity upon demand.
This Policy further has as its goal, the establishment of a uniform method of
computing or determining all capital contributions required to be paid by prospective
consumers which shall be demonstrably non-discriminatory among consumers of the
same class in the service area, and shall further be applied uniformly to all customers
and prospective customers within the present or expanded future service area.
The County further declares that the reservation of capacity from Utility facilities
which are in existence, under construction, or under active design for near term
construction requires the payment of guaranteed revenue fees which are intended to
1
~
....,.¡
';.,..
,'~
offset the fixed costs operating and maintaining utility facilities reserved for future use.
No capacity will be reserved without payment of guaranteed revenue fees. Such fixed
costs maintenance, administrative and general expenses, and such other items of
expenses which are not reflective of the actual expense of producing and delivering, or
receiving, treating and disposing of the product of the Utility's systems.
Finally, it is the County's intention that the connection charges provided for
herein and the guaranteed revenue fees which support the carrying costs of facilities
held for future use, be established from time to time, so as to balance the financial
requirements of the system equitably and properly between the existing customers of
the Utility and prospective customers. In order to provide for future facilities, it is the
County's policy that prospective future customers should be required only to pay the
allocable share of costs properly attributable to them. The policy and goal of the
County is that connection charges and capacity reservation fees paid by such
prospective customers are not to be used for thetÇ>perations and maintenance of that
portion of the utility system utilized by existing customers, but rather, should be limited
in their use to the provision of new system facilities properly sized and allocated to each
future customers or for debt service and maintenance expense allocable to such plant
facilities constructed for future customers.
II. DEFINITIONS:
(a) Backflow Prevention Device and Meter Installation Fee: The charge
imposed by the Utility for the backflow prevention device and water meter, valve,
box and appurtenances, together with the installation of these facilities, installed
at the request of Developer/Future Customer.
2
\wi
....,.¡
-;""::-.
~._~
(b) Connection Charges: The reasonably anticipated cost of expansion of
facilities necessitated by Customer's connection to the existing facility.
(c) County: St. Lucie County, Florida. As used in this Uniform Extension Policy,
(North County Utility District) the terms "County" and "Utility" may be
interchangeable.
(d) Developer/Future Customers: Any person or entity whose properties were
seeking to secure water or wastewater services for property(ies) within the
County's service area for the benefit of itself or prospective future customers of
such service, including a lot owner.
(e) Developer/Future Customer Agreement: A written agreement setting forth
in detail the terms and conditions under which the County will render service to a
Developer/Future Customer's property, and setting forth the obligations and
requirements of each party to the agreement.
(f) Equivalent Residential Connections (ERC): A unit of water and
wastewater treatment facilities necessary to deliver to a prospective
customer, 250 gallons of water per average day, and 250 gallons of wastewater
per average day. All non-residential uses are converted to ERCs by dividing
their respective demands by the units of capacity set forth above. Master
metered multi-family dwellings are deemed to have a domestic service demand
of 250 gallons of water per day, per dwelling unit, with all external or irrigation
uses calculated separately. '
(g) Guaranteed Revenues/Accrued Guarapteed Revenues: Those charges
required by the County to financially support the fixed costs of maintaining
capacity reserved for future use by specific Developer/Future Customer, as
further provided herein.
(h) Off-Site: The required improvements from the required point of service of the
District's Utility system to the Point of Connection of the Developer/Future
Customer.
(i) Point of Connection: The point where the District's master wastewater
collection pipes are connected with pipes of the customer.
U) Point of Delivery: The point where the District's water pipes (mains) or meters
are connected to pipes of the customer, or customer's property line if so
designated by District.
(k) Refundable Advance Agreement: Money paid or property transferred to the
County, pursuant to an agreement, by a Developer/Future Customers for the
3
'-'"
.....,¡
,_ ~'::.o-
-.'::,>,-
installation of utility plants or facilities which are deliberately oversized relative to
Developer/Future Customer's individual needs, which oversizing takes place
either in order to accommodate the County's overall master plan, or in order to
cause an expansion of plant facilities in advance of the timetable that the County
would otherwise construct same. In the case of such oversizing, County will
collect from subsequent Developer/Future Customers who utilize such facilities
and act as transfer agent for return of such monies to the original
Developer/Future Customer who paid for such refundable advance, pursuant to
specific agreement therefor.
(I) Reserved Capacity: The specific allocation of water or sewer capacity by the
County for the benefit of Developer/Future Customer as evidenced by a
Developer/Future Customer's Agreement and supported by the payment of
guaranteed revenue fees in accordance with this Policy. In the event
Developer/Future Customer's actual capacity utilization exceeds the capacity
allocated to Developer/Future Customer in its Developer Agreement, as
determined by County's engineers, then Developer/Future Customer shall pay,
on demand, connection charges for such excess capacity utilized, together with
accrued guaranteed revenue fees from the date of execution of the Developer
Agreement, and together with any fines or penalties levied by jurisdictional
regulatory agencies as a result of over utilization of permitted facilities. The
County reserves the right to and Developer/Future Customer consents to the
issuance of an injunction by a court of competent jurisdiction to provent actual
capacity utilization from exceeding the capacity allocated.
III. AVAILABILITY:
'.
(a) The provision of service under this Policy is available to Developer/Future
Customers subject to matters of technical, environmental and economic feasibility,
which it has invested or may be required to invest in conjunction with any proposed
extension.
IV. ALLOCABLE COSTS
(a) Developer/Future Customer Facilities: Each Developer/Future Customer,
and/or customer shall be responsible for bearing the cost of the design, installation,
inspection and testing of the complete water and wastewater systems located in the
street or streets adjoining or within the boundaries of Developer/Future Customer's
4
'-"
....,¡
,'.~'
property to a Point of Connection to the County's master water, and wastewater
systems and Point of Delivery to the water system of such size and capacity as needed
to serve the Developer/Future Customer's needs in accordance with all applicable
regulations, standards and specifications.
The term "complete water distribution and wastewater collection ", as used
herein, shall include all component parts of a water distribution system, including
valves, fittings, laterals, hydrants and all appurtenances as shown upon the approved
design of water distribution system. The wastewater collection system shall include all
collection lines, manholes, force mains, lift or pumping stations, including the site for
same, and all other appurtenances as shown upon the approved design for the
installation of such water and wastewater systems.
The County's requirement for the installation of oversized lines or facilities,
designed to provide capacity over and above that which is required to meet the
Developer/Future Customer's needs shall be the~ubject of a Refunding Agreement as
set forth hereafter in this Policy.
If so requested by Developer/Future Customer, and agreed to by the County,
and taking into consideration the limited size of Developer/Future Customer's property
for which service has been requested, the County may design and install the water
distribution and wastewater systems. In such event, the County reserves the right to
compute the estimated cost of such extension and to require the Developer/Future
Customer to pay such cost of construction in lieu of Developer/Future Customer's
installation of the water distribution and wastewater systems.
5
"'-'
-.....I
(b) Off-Site Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems - Hydraulic Share: The
County declares that service to each Developer/Future Customer's property is
dependent upon these main water transmission lines, wastewater collection lines, force
mains and/or master pumping stations necessary to connect all Developer/Future
Customer's property with the central facilities of the County adequate in size to provide
proper pressure and transmission from all Developer/Future Customers' properties. All
of these "off-site" facilities are generally defined as the master water distribution system
and the master wastewater systems. It is the County's policy to apportion the cost of
the master water distribution and wastewater systems pro rata against all properties
receiving or designed to receive service from such master systems
The County further declares that the charge for Developer/Future Customer's
hydraulic share of the master distribution and collection facilities will be applicable to
Developer/Future Customer's property whether or not the main transmission lines, force
mains and pumping stations have been previous~y constructed. The apportionment of
.
the cost of the master distribution and collection system has been reduced to an
equivalent residential unit cost, and such costs have been included within the
connection charge in accordance with the schedule set forth herein.
The specific location of Developer's property and the County's requirement for
economic feasibility may result in Developer/Future Customer being required to
advance all or a portion of the cost of the master systems in order to extend the master
systems of the County from their present terminus to the Point of Connection and/or
Point of Delivery with Developer/Future Customer's facilities. Such eventualities are
6
'-'
"""
,~ .'"","
,':¡o,o"
covered by provisions in the Uniform Extension Policy (North County) under the
heading "Refundable Advances".
(c) Plant Capacity Charges: County declares that it will require
Developer/Future Customers to contribute to that portion of the cost of construction of
water resource, treatment, storage and pumping cost, and wastewater treatment and
effluent disposal cost corresponding to the demand expressed in gallons per average
day exerted or to be exerted by Developer/Future Customer upon the water and
wastewater plants. The allocable fair share cost to be borne by each ERC has been,
and will continue to be, determined through an analysis of the cost of all plant facilities
acquired, under construction or to be constructed in the future, compared with the
anticipated demand of the service area expressed in ERCs at its build-out.
The cost of treatment plant facilities shall include such items as engineering,
legal, accounting, financing costs, administrative and general expenses associated with
the planning or construction of facilities, the cost Qf obtaining regulatory permits, the
cost of land and rights of way, if any, and such other costs normally associated with
such capital programs. These plant capacity charges, together with the
Developer/Future Customer's allocable share of "off-site" or master facilities are a
component part and are included within the category Connection Charges.
(d) Connection Charges: County has established "connection charges" as a
method of expressing the cost to Developer/Future Customer of its allocable fair share
of both treatment plant capacity costs and the master water transmission and
wastewater collection system. The County declares that such connection charges shall
7
'-"
-..."",I
~..,.. .
,'¡"
be uniform among all Developer/Future Customers within the service area,
notwithstanding provisions which may be contained in Developer/Future Customer
Agreements not executed by the County, or the practices and procedures pertaining to
Connection Charges as established by prior owners of the Utility, or contained within
agreements executed between Developer/Future Customer and prior owners of the
Utility.
The County's requirement to apply Connection Charges uniformly to all
Developer/Future Customers requires that existing Developer/Future Customer's
connections not in service on the effective date of this Policy have their connection
charges adjusted to the levels set forth herein.
"
8
- - -
'-'
-..",I
,-
The Connection Charges declared to be in effect on the effective date of the Resolution
adopting this Policy and which will continue in effect until lawfully changed by the
County, are as follows:
CONNECTION CHARGES
PER EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL CONNECTION
Water Plant Wastewater Plant
$861.00 $325.00
Lines Lines
$244.00 $ 602.00
"
Total $1105.00 $ 927.00
9
'-'
.....,;
.,.,...
,.:>-
(e) Common Facilities - Multi-Family Complexes: All uses for water and/or
wastewater service of a common nature for such purposes as irrigation, washing,
recreational facilities, clubhouses, meeting rooms or similar applications generally found
in connection with the construction of multi-family projects shall be considered in the
same manner as commercial installations and the connection charges applicable
thereto shall be computed in accordance with the commercial category set forth below.
(f) Commercial: All property devoted to industrial, business, educational or other
categories not covered by the above shall be considered to be commercial uses. The
connection charges to be paid to the County for such proposed uses shall be based
upon determining the residential equivalency of such proposed use. The County's
engineers shall estimate the anticipated water consumption on a daily basis and shall
divide such gross daily consumption by a factor of 250 gallons per day. Such
residential equivalency factor shall be multiplied by the connection charges then in
effect for single-family residential use in order to Qetermine the connection charges
applicable to such proposed commercial use. The minimum connection charge for any
commercial use shall be that of one equivalent residential connection.
(g) Irrigation Uses: Water connections for the purpose of irrigating common
areas (not applicable to single-family house lots) shall be computed on the same basis
as commercial installations. Since irrigation water does not include corresponding
wastewater service, the residential equivalency shall be multiplied by $1250.00 per
ERG instead of the fee applicable for the water and sewer to single-family residences.
10
'-'
...,
~. ¡,. .
(h) Connection Charges - When Payable: Connection Charges for all capacity
reserved are declared to be due in full at the time of the execution of the
Developer/Future Customer's Agreement reserving capacity. This reservation may be
made for the entire project or specific phases. However, capacity shall only be
reserved for that which Connection Charges have been paid. In the event
Developer/Future Customer elects to pay Connection Charges in phases, he shall pay
such Connection Charges in full for each phase prior to the commencement of each
such phase. In no instance shall active connections to the system be made prior to the
payment of connection fees.
V. GUARANTEED REVENUES/ACCRUED GUARANTEED REVENUES
The County declares that each Developer/Future Customer is responsible to
provide the economic support required to cover the fixed costs of maintaining
treatment plant capacities reserved for the Developer/Future Customer. The County's
schedule of rates and charges are divided into ÌW9 principal categories; base facility
charges (monthly minimums) and commodity charges. The base facility portion of the
rates and charges addresses the fixed costs of maintaining service facilities for an
active customer, whether any commodity is consumed or not. Accordingly, Guaranteed
Revenue Fees charged to a Developer/Future Customer for the capacity which he has
reserved are established to recover certain of the fixed costs per month in the County's
systems from time to time. In addition to the current payment of guaranteed revenue
fees by a Developer/Future Customer pursuant to a Developer/Future Customer
Agreement, there shall also be due and owing upon connection of each future user, an
11
'-'
....I
,_.. .'~-
accrued guaranteed revenue fee (AGRF), per equivalent residential connection (ERC)
applicable to established charges !isted herein and are payable in advance and prior to
connection.
WATER ACCRUED GUARANTEED REVENUES
$788.25 per ERC
WASTEWATER ACCRUED GUARANTEED REVENUES
$1997.83 per ERC
Each Developer/Future Customer Agreement shall be deemed to provide, in its
terms, as if fully set forth therein, for the payment of Guaranteed Revenue Fees
monthly in advance from the date of execution of the Developer/Future Customer
Agreement, and in accordance with the rates, fee~ and charges as adopted thereafter
until all capacity reserved is connected to the County's System.
The Developer/Future Customer Agreement shall further be deemed to provide
that, after thirty (30) days' written notice, a default in the payment of, or renewal of,
Guaranteed Revenue Fees shall be a default in the Developer/Future Customer
Agreement and shall result in the lapse of all remaining reserved capacity, which may
be reallocated by the County. In the event of a lapse of the remaining reserve capacity,
the County shall retain all connection charges paid to date until and unless the County
can reallocate Developer/Future Customer's lapsed capacity after first allocation any
12
'-'
....,¡
previously unallocated capacity present in the County System.
VI. OBLIGATIONS OF DEVELOPER
(a) Engineering Information: It shall be the Developer/Future Customer's
obligation to furnish to the County, accurate information with regard to matters of legal
descriptions, engineering, construction, drainage and roads. In addition,
Developer/Future Customer shall accurately describe its project in terms of the amount
of water and wastewater services required or the number of ERCs required by the
subject property. Increases in the number of ERCs required by the project beyond
those which have been reserved will result in the requirement for the payment of
additional connection charges and a recalculation of Capacity Reservation Fees to
conform with the accurate ERC requirements.
Developer/Future Customer is solely responsible for errors or changes in
engineering information or the design of its on-site water distribution or wastewater
system. Any error in Developer/Future Custome~s plans or the construction of Utility
facilities on Developer/Future Customer's property which are not in conformity with the
plans may result in increased cost to the Developer/Future Customer in the correction,
alteration or reconstruction of facilities.
b) Easements and Right of Way: Following the construction of any water
distribution or wastewater system proposed to be connected to the facilities of the
County, Developer/Future Customer shall grant to County, such easements or rights of
way corresponding with the installation of the facilities. Such grant or conveyance shall
be in form satisfactory to counsel of County, together with such evidence as may be
13
'-"
'wi
required by County that the easements and/or rights of way transferred to County are
titled to the County and free of all liens, encumbrances and encroachments. Such
conveyances shall be made without cost to County. County reserves the right to
require such easement or right of way to the point at which the meter is proposed to be
installed or at the "point of delivery of service," being the point at which the facilities of
County joins with consumer's own installation.
(c) System Design - Independent Engineers: County shall accept the design of
water and wastewater facilities prepared by a professional engineer, registered in the
State of Florida, regularly engaged in the field of potable water or sanitary engineering,
covering the design of Developer/Future Customer's on-site water distribution and
wastewater system. Provided, however, that each such design shall be fully subject to
the approval of County's engineer and shall conform in all respects to the written criteria
of County governing the installation of utility facilities ultimately to be accepted by
County for ownership, operation and maintenan~. County reserves the right to charge
a fee commensurate with the cost to County of reviewing such engineering plans and
furnishing to Developer/Future Customer's engineer, various information regarding
location and criteria. All designs of water distribution and wastewater facilities are at all
times subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over such design.
The engineer of record shall be present at all pressure tests, lampings and lift
station start-ups. Additionally, County reserves the right to inspect all on-site systems
which it does not take title to. In the event that the Developer/Future Customer
completes distribution of on-site facilities and covers such facilities prior to inspection by
14
'-'"
'wtI'
. - ~'.~;'
County, County reserves the right to require uncovering of such lines so that same can
be inspected prior to being placed into service.
(d) Inspection Fees: County reserves the right to inspect the installation of all
water distribution or wastewater facilities installed by Developer/Future Customer or
Developer/Future Customer's contractors, which facilities are proposed to be
transferred to County for ownership, operation and control. Such inspection is
designed to assure County that water and wastewater lines and/or lift stations are
installed in accordance with approved designs and are further consistent with the
criteria and specifications governing the kind and quality of such installation. County
further reserves the right to be present at tests of component parts of water distribution
or wastewater systems for the purpose of determining that the system, as constructed,
conforms to the County's criteria for exfiltration, infiltration, pressure testing, line and
grade. Such tests will be performed by Developer/Future Customer or
Developer/Future Customer's contractor, but only,under the observation of County's
engineer or authorized inspector.
County reserves the right to charge an inspection fee not to exceed 2 percent of
the cost, either actual or estimated, of the subject water and wastewater facilities as
installed by Developer/Future Customer. County maintains full-time inspection
capability and the cost for inspection services as set forth herein is and shall continue to
be designed to defray the actual cost of conducting such inspections and testing.
(e) Inspections of Plumber's Hook-up: It shall be the responsibility of
Developer/Future Customer or its plumbing contractor to connect Developer/Future
15
'-"
-....,tI
,'~'
.'~
Customer's plumbing installation with the wastewater collection facilities of County. The
connection is generally made at "the point of deliver of service" which shall be the
discharge side of the water meter or, in the case of wastewater, where the building
wastewater line connects with the Utility lateral coming from the main to the property
line of customer. County reserves the right to inspect all such connections to be
assured that the same are properly made in accordance with County's rules governing
such connections and that the connection, as made, is free from infiltration within
reasonable engineering standards. County maintains inspection personnel for the
purpose of inspecting these plumbing hook-ups and will provide such inspection service
for Developer/Future Customer without cost.
(f) Administration Fees: County reserves the right to charge Developer/Future
Customer the actual administrative costs of processing Developer/Future Customer's
service request, including, but not limited to the cost of preparation of agreements,
preliminary engineering costs, review and appro~1 of governmental agency
applications, construction/engineering plans and shop drawings, recording costs, and
legal preparation, review and processing costs.
VII. BACKFLOW PREVENTOR AND METER INSTALLATION FEES
County will charge a backflow preventor and meter installation fee to each
prospective customer requesting water service. Such fee is intended to defray the cost
of the backflow preventor and meter and the installation thereof. County will require the
payment of such fees concurrently with the request by a prospective customer for the
backflow preventor and meter installation. The backflow preventor and meter
16
~
.....,
,- .'~
.'::,."
installation fee shall be charged only one time for the installation of a backflow
preventor and meter at anyone location; provided, however, that requests to exchange
existing backflow preventors and meters for backflow preventors and meters of a larger
size will result in a charge to the prospective customer of the difference between the
existing smaller size backflow preventor and meter and the requested larger size
backflow preventor and meter. In addition, backflow preventors and meters of larger
size have a different ERC value and consequently require the payment of increased
connection charges. The difference between the connection charges paid and the
connection charge applicable to the larger backflow preventor and meter will be
collected at the time of the request for larger backflow preventor and meter service.
VIII. TRANSFER OF CONTRIBUTED PROPERTY - BILLS OF SALE
Each Developer/Future Customer who has constructed portions of the water
distribution and wastewater system on Developer/Future Customer's own property prior
to interconnection with County's existing facilities,~hall convey such component parts of
water distribution and wastewater system to County by bill of sale in form satisfactory to
County's counsel, together with such evidence as may be required by County that the
water distribution system proposed to be transferred to County is titled to the County
and free of all liens and encumbrances.
Any facilities in the category of "customer's lines" or "plumber's lines" located on
the discharge side of the water meter or on the customer's side of the point of delivery
of service shall not be transferred to County and shall remain the property of
Developer/Future Customer, a subsequent owner-occupant thereof or their successors
17
'-"
......,
F ,'-""
,':--
and assigns. Such "customer's lines" or "plumber's lines" shall remain the maintenance
responsibility of Developer/Future Customer or subsequent customers.
County shall not be required to accept title to any component part of the water
distribution or wastewater system as constructed by Developer/Future Customer until
Health Department and all other regulatory clearance is received and County's
engineer has approved the construction of said lines, accepted the tests to determine
that such construction is in accordance with the written criteria established by County
and thereby has evidenced its acceptance of such lines for County's ownership,
operation and maintenance.
Developer/Future Customer shall maintain accurate cost records establishing the
construction costs of all utility facilities constructed by Developer/Future Customer and
proposed to be transferred to County. Such cost information shall be furnished to
County concurrently with the bill of sale and such cost information shall be a
prerequisite for the acceptance by County of the Qortion of the water distribution and
wastewater system constructed by Developer/Future Customer.
County reserves the right to refuse connection and to deny the commencement
of service to any customer seeking to be connected to portions of the water distribution
and wastewater system installed by Developer/Future Customer until such time as the
provisions of this section have been fully met by Developer/Future Customer or their
successors or assigns.
IX. REFUNDABLE ADVANCES:
County may require, in addition to the connection charges provided for herein, a
18
'-"
''WI'
".,.,..
":0."
refundable advance by Developer/Future Customer to further temporarily defray the
cost of any portions of the master water distribution or master wastewater system
necessary to connect the Developer/Future Customer's property with the then terminus
of the Utility's water and wastewater facilities, adequate in size to provide service to the
subject property. In cases where the required advance exceeds the Developer/Future
Customer's obligation to pay connection charges, the County and the
Developer/Future Customer will enter into a Refunding Agreement which will provide for
the contingent refund to Developer/Future Customer, in accordance with its terms and
conditions, of such sums which exceed Developer/Future Customer's total commitment
for connection charges. The Refunding Agreement, where circumstances indicate, may
be based upon the utilization by third party Developer/Future Customers of the facilities
constructed as a result of the refundable advance. The amount of refund due a
Developer/Future Customer under this provision shall be equal to the difference in
actual cost, as evidenced by contract estimates a~ adjusted to actual cost upon
completion of construction, between the cost of those facilities required to meet the
needs of the subject property, in accordance with all applicable stands and
specification, and the cost of the oversized facilities as installed to meet the planning
need of the Utility. This cost differential shall be divided by the number of future
ERC's which may be reasonably connected to the oversized facilities in the future. In
all cases, the specific area to be served and the location and number of future ERC's to
be served shall be designated in the agreement. The amount of refund on a per ERC
basis shall not exceed the then current master water distribution and wastewater
19
"'-"
...,
~
.~ . ;')0".
,.~'.
systems components of the approved Connection Charges. The County shall not
include any interest upon the fund of Developer/Future Customer's advances, except in
the case of specific agreements approved by the County. The term of the Refunding
Agreement shall be limited to seven (7) years after the date of execution of the
Agreement.
x. RESERVED CAPACITY - APPORTIONMENT
The County reserves the right to allocate available capacity among the several
Developer/Future Customers to the end that a fair distribution of such capacity is accomplished
and that no Developer/Future Customer shall preempt others from the reasonable opportunity
to obtain such capacity when the same is required by such Developer/Future Customers in the
near-term future.
tt
20
.,----
-
..
,
'-"
......,¡
AGENDA REQUEST
ITEM NO. 5-B
DATE: May 18, 1999
REGULAR [X]
PUBLIC HEARING [ ]
CONSENT [ ]
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PRESENTED BY:
SUBMITTED BY (DEPT) : Utilities Department
William R. Blazak
SUBJECT: The First Amendment to Avatar Utility Services, Inc., Contract for
operation and maintenance of County utility facilities. Consistent with the
guidelines set forth in RFP # 98-73 and the existing negotiated contract,
the total amount of the amendment is $144,800.00.
FUNDS AVAIL. : Revenues from the North County Utility System.
.
PREVIOUS ACTION: Establishment of the North County Utility District on May
4, 1999 and preliminary establishment of rates fees and charges for the
North County Utility District on May 4, 1999
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the amendment with Avatar
Utility Services, Inc., in the amount of $144,~00.00 annually and requests
that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Chairman to sign the
agreement. Staff further recommends that the Board agree that this
amendment will become effective on the closing date of the sale of the
Holiday Pines System to St. Lucie County.
COMMISSION ACTION: RENCE:
o
[ ]
APPROVED
OTHER:
DENIED
9J /
County Attorney:X ~
O<igina'ing Oep"X Ll~~~
ou Anderson
County Administrator
Coordination/Sianatures
Mgt. & Budgetx:
Purchasing
Other:
Other:
....
.--
-
...
'-"
"'-'
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
UTiliTIES & RECYCLING
DEPARTMENT
WILLIAM ßLAZAK
DIREGOR
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
William Blazak, Utility Director u1L~
FROM:
DATE:
May 18, 1999
RE:
First Amendment to Avatar Utility Services, Inc. Contract
BACKGROUND:
County utility staff has reviewed the operation and maintenance of the Holiday Pines
Service Corporation facilities, water and wastewater, and developed a staffing schedule
consistent with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection existing permits.
Required permit staffing is three and one halfhours per day per the permits. Staff has
determined that additional on-site contract staffing is required to deliver a better level of service
the customers of the system. In addition to the required permit staffing, utilities is proposing to
maintain additional staff at the utility facilities to perform customer service field work and
additional maintenance to the system.
The Public Service Commission (PSC) reports, filed by Holiday Pines Service
Corporation served as the historical information to determine the previous operating costs
associated with the facilities. The operation and maintenance costs in the PSC report, for the
water and wastewater facilities contract labor, were approximately $190,000.00. The amount
stated by Avatar Utility Services, $144,800.00, to staffthe facilities, represents a significant
reduction in the O&M costs and contribute considerably toward the ability of St. Lucie County to
acquire the system.
Operation and maintenance of the Holiday Pines system will be consistent with the
operation of all other County facilities and provide for comprehensive operation and maintenance
of the system.
The amendment for operation and maintenance of the Holiday Pines system is contingent
upon successful acquisition of the system by St. Lucie County and will become effective on the
closing date of the sale.
JOHN D, ßRUHN, District No, 1 . DOUG COWARD, District No, 2 . PAULA A, LEWIS, District No, 3 . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, District No, 4 . CLIFF ßARNES, District No, 5
County Administrator... Douglas M. Anderson
2JOO Virginia Avenue . Fort Pierce, FL J4982 · Phone (561 ) 462-1150 · FAX (561) 462...115J
....
...
- - ....
--.
'-"
""""
,.J'p.'
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the amendment with Avatar Utility Services, Inc., in the
amount of$144,800.00 annually and requests that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the Chairman to sign the agreement. Staff further recommends that the Board agree that this
amendment will become effective on the closing date of the sale ofthe Holiday Pines System to
St. Lucie County.
'-"
"WI
... ~. "'"
.- ...:.-
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR OPERATION, MAINTENANCE,
AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY
WATER, WASTEWATER, AND RECLAIMED WATER FACILITIES
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made this day of , 1999, by
and between St. Lucie County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida (the
"County") and Avatar Utility Services, Inc. ("Contractor").
WIT N ESE T H:
WHEREAS, on December 23, 1998, the parties entered into an Agreement for
Operation, Maitenance, and Management for St. Lucie County Water, Wastewater, and
Reclaimed Water Facilities (the "Utility Management Agreement") whereby the Contractor
agreed to operate, maintain and manage the County's Wastewater Treatment, Reclaimed
Water & Potable Water Systems and a permitted non-community drinking water system
at the County's Agricultural Extension Office, as described on Exhibit "A" to the
Agreement (the "Facilities"); and
WHEREAS, the Cou nty intends to acquire the Holiday Pines Water and Wastewater
Facility (the "Holiday Pines Facility") and the parties have agreed that the Contractor shall
also operate, maintain and manage the Holiday Pines Facility for an additional fee under
the terms of the Utility Management Agreement effective upon the acquisition of the
Holiday Pines Facility by the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of, the mutual promises and covenants
contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree to amend the Utility
Management Agreement as follows:
1. Exhibit "A" to the Utility Maintenance Agreement is hereby amended by the
addition of the Holiday Pines Facility as described on Exhibit "A-1" attached hereto and
made a part hereof.
2. Exhibit "0" to the Utility Maintenance Agreement is hereby amended by the
addition of the fee for the Holiday Pines Facility as described on Exhibit "0-1" attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
3. This First Amendment shall be effective upon the closing of the acquisition
of the Holiday Pines Facility by the County.
4. Except as expressly amended herein, all of the remaining terms and
conditions of the Utility Management Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
-1-
'-"
~
..~.
.- ,'"...
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreementto be duly
executed as of the date and year first above written.
A TIEST:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
CLERK
CHAIRMAN
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNESS:
COUNTY ATTORNEY
A TIEST:
AVATAR UTILITY SERVICES, INC.
BY:
SECRETARY
'.
C:\JWL\AGREE\A VA TAR-1A.WPD
-2-
-
'-'
...."
......
,.,,-
NORTH COUNTY WATER & WASTEWATER DISTRICT
(HOLIDAY PINES SERVICE AREA)
DESCRIPTION OF tHE SYSTEM
The water and wastewater utilities primarily serve the Holiday Pines Subdivision. The
service area is located northwest of the St. Lucie County Airport and is comprised of residential
developments consisting of single family homes, apartments, town homes and some commercial
establishments. In addition to the Holiday Pines Subdivision the following areas are served:
· Indian Pines Village Apartments
· Heatherway Apartments
· Indrio Crossing Shopping Center
· ~borFedercùBank
· Riverside National Bank
· Lakewood Park Elementary School
· Golf Lake Villas
· Lakewood Park Fire Station
· Lakewood Park Library
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
The North County System (NCS) is comprised of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) SDR 21 piping, 4-
inches inside diameter, 0.35-inches thick, to 12-inches inside diameter, O.44-inches thick. Some
local and end of line runs may be as small as 2-inches in diameter. The system consists of
approximately, 2,350' of2 inch PVC pipe, 1,800' of 3-~h PVC pipe, 20,226' of 4-inch PVC
pipe, 9,225' of 6-inch PVC pipe, 15,696' of 8-inch PVC pipe, and 883' of 8-inch ductile iron pipe.
The water is metered through 719- 5/8 inch meters, 12- 1 inch meters, 13- 1 Y2 inch meters and
4-6 inch compound meters totaling 751 meters in the system.
The system currently has only three fire hydrants. One hydrant is located at Deer Run Drive and
two hydrants are located at Indrio Crossing Shopping Center.
WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
The water treatment plant site occupies about 5.4 acres and is a low pressure reverse osmosis
(R.O.) plant also know as membrane softening. The facility is permitted at 288,000 gallons per
day(gpd) maximum daily flow (MDF) consistent with the 1998 Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) permit. This total includes 160 gpm permeate (treated water)
+ 40 gpm raw water blend equal to 200 gpm total. Two hundred gallon per minute (200gpm) is
the equivalent of288,000 gallon per day (gpd). The maximum hour capacity for permeate flow is
9,600 gallons per hour (gph). Raw water is supplied to the plant from the two Surficial Aquifier
wells located at the water treatment facility site.
EXHIBIT
I fl - I
- --
'-" ....,
,'<þ>"
,':¡,o
Membrane reject water, also called brine, from the RO. process is pumped to the wastewater
treatment facility effluent splitter box, where it is mixed with the wastewater effluent prior to
being discharged to the percolation ponds. The reject water flow rate mentioned in the water
facility permit, is approximately 0.038 mgd.
The main process building houses the reverse osmosis unit, a single membrane skid unit
consisting of seven vessels each equipped with six 8-inch elements for a total of 42 elements and
a total capacity of approximately 0.230 mgd (permeate). The membrane is a three stage, single
pass, spiral wound thin film composite materíal with feed pressure of about 150 psi.
Other facilities include:
· Three high service pumps rated for 480, 480, and 700 gpm for a total pumping
capacity of 960 gpm
Brine storage tanks 1 and 2 with transfer pumps (submersible type)
Two de-gasifier blowers
Water meter, 8-inch diameter, with bypass piping
200,000 gallon prestressed concrete potable water tank
78,500 gallon storage tank
10,000 gallon hydropneumatic tank
Cascading tray aerator for aerating brine
Gas chlorination system consisting of two 100 pound chlorinators with on as
stand-by
One 150 KW emergency generator equipped with automatic start-up device to
provide auxillary WTF power including power to one well pump.
The plant cmrently produces potable water that meets state regulatory primary and secondary
drinking water standards.
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
"
,
WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND PUMPING SYSTEMS
The wastewater collection and pumping system is a typical gravity sewer, manhole and
pumping station network. The gravity sewer pipe and force main system is PVCpipe. Gravity
sewers mains are not less than 8-inches in diameter and placed on slopes of not less than 0.40%.
Force mains are not less that 4-inches in diameter and include 10,700' of 4-inch pvc mains and
1,700' of6-inch mains. Gravity collection sewers consist of approximately 30,000' of8-inch
PVC pipe and approximately 1,200' of 6-inch PVC service laterals. The collection system
contains 137 precast concrete manholes with a nominal inside diameter of approxiamtely 48-
inches.
The collection system contains Eight lift stations, seven throughout the system and one
located at the wastewater treatment facility. The station are based on Flygt pumping station
design. Wet wells are six to eight feet in diameter with valve vaults, covers on the pump and
valve vaults are aluminum. Stainless steel control panels and guide rails are consistent with
design. The pumps cmrently utilized are Peabody-Barnes with varying horsepowers. The
stations have float type switches and water service with an RPZ device for wash down.
The master lift station at the wastewater treatment plant is equipped with an auto-dialer.
......... --
'-' ....,,;
...,..-
..",..-
,-- ,".".-
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
The wastewater treatment plant is a 0.21 mgd McNeil cast-in-place concrete type plant.
The plant operates as an extended aeration facility with capacity of 0.21 mgd and effluent
disposal via percolation ponds. The process for extended aeration includes aeration, settling, and
chlorine contact. Sludge is sent to a sludge holding tank from which a portion is returned (RAS)
to the aeration basin and the remainder wasted, (WAS).
Facilities include:
· Aeration Basin# 1: one 141,000 gallon rectangular tank with a single floating type 15
horsepower (hp )surface aerator. This basin receives raw sewage and acts as a surge tank.
The basin has a surface area of2,675-square feet and a depth of8 feet.
· Aeration Basin#2: one 69,000 gallon rectangular tank with a single 15 hp floating type
surface aerator. A single submersible pump is located in the tank to pump mixed liquer to
the calrifier through a splitter box. The basin has a surface area of 1 ,314-square feet and a
depth of 8 feet.
· Mixed Liquer Pump: a single pump located in aeration basin 32 that discharges
Into a Flow Splitter box.
· Clarifier Unit: Cast-in-place rectangular unit with a volume of 39,400 gallons, surface
area of 520 square feet, and a weir length of 33 feet.
· Circular Davco Clarifier: Metal fabricated clarifier has a volume capacity of23,052
gallons, a surface area of 314 square feet and a weir length of 59.7 feet per FDEP permit.
Permitted surface loading rate is 669 gallons pJf day per square foot.
· Chlorine Contact Tank: cast-in-place concrete tank with a volume of9,350 gallons.
Disinfection is provided by gas chlorination utilizing recycled water as a vehicle water.
Flow measurement is by a V -notch weir and flow recorder/ totalizer located downstream
in the contact tank.
· Aerobic Digesters: Cast-in-place concrete adjacent to Aeration Basin #2 the digester is
divided into several connected compartments with a total volume of 18,800 gallons.
Coarse bubble aeration is provided by two 12 hp blowers located in the generator
building. The blowers operate in a lead/lag mode. Sludge is land applied via contract.
· Percolation Ponds: Effluent disposal is via two groups of percolation ponds. Group I
consists of three separate ponds with a total area of95,900 square feet. Group 2 consists
of four ponds with a total area 70,600 square feet.
· Generator / Blower Building: W oden structure that houses the emergency generator and
blowers. Building is 10 feet by 8 feet.
- -
'-' ....",
.~.~-
,.- .'~-
· Emergency Generator: One Onan propane fueled 84 kilowat, 3 phase, 60Hz generator.
Two 120 propane tanks are utilized for fuel storage
· Blower Equipment: Blower equipment includes two 12 twelve horsepower rotary positive
displacement blowers. Blowers are belt driven.
· Monitoring Wells: the site includes eleven wells but only four are operational
'"
;,--.,....
H.~~....··..·····..··..···..······· .. ....H ....... ......
~ I 1 ~
r 7 . ~ ::!I
- \
1 !~
;' \ \ ,
«... -
,. : .;¡CAlE
1
- """\ I \
\ 1
\ -\
] r
"'- 1 ~d~
"'- Donlon
,. ~.. ~ .........
"'-
NET'!". ~.;) ru.;); i~~Y:- ....... - HOUCAY PINES :
(B/W ~. WWTP ¡
6 IN! 'H WA TER. MAiN I..·...
,./ 350; EEfT ; ~ :
"I r \ 1\ ." BOUNCAR.'f0F AReASRECE!\!IN
,. f . 1,/ , I WATER &. SewER SERvtCE \ "
PALOJ. 'AR PARK'ìI lAY ¡NASi. <II
\ J ~
8 INC. WATER JlAIN \ \ \ 1
f.700 ET ) i\ D C'ER;l ~rJ~/)R. rVJ~!LE 1 RINK
R --- :I 6 INC ¡,WA 'ER. 'N 8
\ w f 400 EET 1
FEDERAL.'\.
RI'J ERSIDE "
"- /
I NA './
I..AJ< EWOOD "- ',~!.......
··..·....·····..····F '\ "- iT] 1 ...~...
!..AIŒWOOD 'AK!\ "-
FIRE STATIO "- "- P- I; Tl"W', J.¡:;' 'AS$
: WA7 ER J
~ ;::::::;- F,lET '.
\ ··.btJ uH" .Ht' )'f'<'J
.' ......
, ~I '., .......
,."
: , \ ......
1 "'- :
~: , ~.
~ ~
:I: lIS
!II Q
CD, ~ ,........,...-
c:::
S2
{:. ~
.
,,. ..........,... ..
............................................ ...H.····..·..· "..n.n..... ............ ............_..... ......u.....· ." ......... ..........
WATER 01 STRI BUT 10 N SYSTEM
Proposed , mmediate Improvements
...... -..;;..~...._., -
~. ST. LU CtE COUNTY UTILITIES
HOLIDAY PINES
--
() NEW WEll. NO.3
(FUTURE)
, .
NEW WElL NO.2
(),
"-
"-
"
"-
"-
BLOWOFF I DRAI
--
Holiday
UI'IdahI~inI. .~ G
T8rf 1& Hellstram. In:.. .
---.-
=::S~~ R~
'-'
.'~ .
~~
\
""""
APPROXIMATE ROUTE OF 4W PVC
BRINE REJECT TO EFFLUENT
DISTRIBUTION BOX AT EXIST
~~1REATMENTPIANT~¡; ,
/ ':'
/ :,: ~"
/ ,:'.' NEW ABOVE GROUND aw
ROUND STORAGE TANK /" ETER WITH BY-PASS
(MARHOFFTANK) / .':'
DEGASIFIERS / / "..::
BLOWERS " ..
200,000 GAL CROM
GROUND STORAGE TANK
\
\
\
~
tn
\
\
BRINE HOLDING TAN
& CASCADE AERATOR ./
./
./
./
(
I 12" eQUALJZER UNE-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
-L._
C1 ABANDONED
WELL
PP WI MOUNTED '
TRANSFORMERS
ORIGINAL R.O. SKID UNIT
UNIT ABANDONED &
FOUNDATION PAD ABANDONED"
ORIGINAL METER -FLUSH
TO GRADE - NOT -I;JSEI?,
HIGH SERVICE PUMP
M-3 FIRE PUMP
- -
TREATMENT PROCESS BUILDING
HOUSES RO UNIT. CHEMICAL INJ,
GENERATOR SET, &AUTOMATlC
SWITCHING
FENCE &
PROPERTY LINE
Site Layout
Pinf.3s Water Treatm,ent Facility
.-.. ___.J"-
ST. LUCIE COUNTY UTILITIES
HOLIDAY PINES
..,¡
LAKEF/OOD PARK·,
SUB-DIVISION
SCALE
..
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
FACILITIES
ONITORlNG
WEIJ. (TYP)
. .-
"
,
,
HOLIDAY PINES COLF COURSE
AND SUB-DIVISION
IIØi eG
Und8tii, BrOWftfnt.
~ . ~~ ,Ire. ': .
... -- .:-- . ......
---~ R~
Site Layout
Holiday Pines Wast~vy~ter Treatment
ST. LUCIE COUNTY UTILITIES
HOLIDAY PINES
Facility
- -. .. -
./
/
/
-<..... PERCOLATION
/ ~OND (GROUP 1)
/
/
/
/
/
/
'-'
.- ,"::,.-
'.~.- ."".-
\
6" INFLUENT
CHLORINE
CONTACT
BASIN
SCALE
1" = 20'
r
~
11
1/
III ABOVE GROUND
t II TRANSFER PIP,I~~ . _.
II
))
//
SECURITY
FENCE <)
'i
-
<> ~.:..
/- ,
-
GOLF COURSE
Holiday'
". (AG
Undahi. Btawnlnø.
~FecIW1__.,Hellstrom.Irc.. .
- --- . .......
-::::..--00: "nol
Treatment Facility Layout
Pines Waste,.wa,ter Treatment
ST. LUCIE COUNTY UTILITIES
HOLIDAY PINES
F a c ¡Ii ty
-
~~i~ ~l:s\!
'-'
- ,"-""--
--- ~,-""..
....- -.:j;.-
AprilS, 1999
William Blazak, Utilities Director
St. Lucie County Utilities
2300 Virginia Avenue
F,t. Pierce, FL 34954
Subject:
Proposal to Operate Holiday Pines Water/W astewater Systems
Dear Bill:
Confirming our previous conversations on this subject, AUSI proposed cost to provide operation
and maintenance services for the above project is as follows:
:,:¡ill::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;':::::::::,:::::::::::::::::::,:::::::::::::,:::':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;'::¡::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::' ::::::::::::::::::::¡::::;::::::::j:¡:::::::íijl::lt::_i:.
Personnel $66,000.00
Chemicals $24,000.00
Laboratory Testing $13,400.00
Trave1JTraining $1,000.00
Operating Materials & Supplies $2,800.00
Contractual (Meter Reading) $10,500.00
, '~
Sludge Removal $1 5,600.00
Small Parts (Allowance) $5,000.00
Sewer Vacuum Truck (Allowance) $2,500.00
GroundskeepinglLandscaping $0.00
Other - Bonding $2,800.00
- Special Insurance $1,200.00
Total $144,800.00
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
AVATAR UTILITY SERVICES, INc;
4837 Swift Road, Suite 200
Sarasota, Florida 34231
Telephone 941/ 927-1455
FAX 941/927-0659
WINW.avatar-services.com
e M. Overton
xecutive Vice President and
CbiefOperating Officer
EXHIBIT
I -»- I
@
A Unit of Avatar Holdings Inc.
-
.,., ~ -~ ...... ~
~
'-' AGENDA REQUEST
r~NO. b
DATE: May 18, 1999
REGULAR [X]
PUBLIC HEARING [ ]
CONSENT [ ]
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SUBMITTED BY: Airport
PRESENTED BY:
Paul A. Phillips
SUBJECT: Consider staffs request for authorization to rank the Airport's general consultants by
qualifications to prepare the Airport DR! to include projects outlined in the Airport Business &
Marketing Plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) (excluding the 1,500'
runway extension).
BACKGROUND: On April 8, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners held a work session on
the DR! to discuss development projects at St. Lucie County International Airport to be included in
the Airport DR!. At the work session, the BOCC requested that the Airport DR! be scheduled for
the April 20, 1999 regular BOCC meeting.
At the April 20, 1999 regular BOCC meeting, the BOCC requested additional information from the
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and
requested the item be deferred until the May 4, 1999 regular BOCC meeting. At the May 4, 1999
regular BOCC meeting, the BOCC deferred discussion on the DR! until the May 18, 1999 meeting
to allow staff sufficient time to schedule meetings with the regulatory agencies.
FUNDS AVAILABLE IN ACCT#: 140-4220-599300-400
PREVIOUS ACTION: See attached staff report
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)
authorize staff to rank the Airport's General Consultants by qualifications for the preparation of an
Airport DRI that includes the following projects listed in the Airport Business & Marketing Plan
(excluding the 1,500' runway extension of9R/27L):
· construct new 3,700 foot Runway 9L/27R (as operational demand dictates)
· construct connecting taxiways, lighting, and marking for new Runway 9L/27R
· develop Authority owned property for aviation and industrial/commercial uses
· complete land acquisition (approx. 100 acres) within airport boundaries (east of Kings Highway)
· expand passenger terminal, parking, and apron area as market demand dictates
· construct new 10,000 square foot cargo building with vehicle and aircraft parking areas
COMMISSION ACTION:
[~PROVED [ ]DENIED
[]OTHER: 4-1, see attached other
Reviews & Approvals
County Attorney: . OMB
Originating Dept: (¡¡jIr'l¿~}/ Other:
Finance:(Check fort ópy nly, if applicable)
URRENCE:
Purchasing
Other:
~
...,
Item # 6
Do not pursue lots 24 & 59A for purchase.
Do not purchase land west of King's Highway
Begin discussion with FDOT to revise the Airport Master Plan.
, ~
'-"
....,
. ,
,.
STAFF REPORT
from
St. Lucie County
International Airport
Subject:
Board of County Commissioners
Paul A. Phillips, AiIport Director1J(>
May 16, 1999
Airport Development of Regional Impact (DR!) Issues
To:
From:
Date:
On April 8, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) held a work session on the DR! to
discuss development projects at St. Lucie County International Airport to be included in the Airport
DR!. This work session was held in response to a deadline imposed by the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council (RPC) requesting a response to the second round of sufficiency questions for the
original Airport DR! which included projects listed in the 1994 Airport Master Plan approved by the
BOCC, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA). At the work session, the BOCC requested that the Airport DR! be scheduled for the April
20, 1999 regular BOCC meeting. In response to issues raised by the BOCC at the April 20, 1999
regular board meeting regarding development at St. Lucie County International Airport, the
following staff recommendations are offered:
Issue one: Why should the DRI be completed and contain certain aviation related projects?
. BECAUSE NO MORE EXTENSIONS FROM THE RPC WILL BE GRANTED.
In a discussion with Mr. James Snyder, DR! Coordinator for the RPC, Mr. Snyder has indicated
that the RPC would not provide another extension for the Airport DRI beyond the August 2,
1999 deadline indicated in his letter dated December 10,1998. (See attachment one) Mr. Snyder
state~ that any additional deadlines would comprise the DR! process because the data included
in the DRI would be outdated and therefore unreliable for evaluation of the Airport DR!.
. BECAUSE FDOT WILL REQUIRE REPAYMENT OF $156,807 FOR NOT COMPLETING
THE DRI.
According to Mr. Matthew Thys, Aviation Supervision for FDOT, the Joint Participation
Agreement (JP A) between FDOT and the BOCC for the preparation of an Airport DR! was
executed because the BOCC proposed to include aviation projects in the DRI. Without an
aviation project included in the DR!, FDOT stated that the BOCC would forfeit the remaining
$66,693 in the JP A and would be required to reimburse the $156,807 already disbursed by
FDOT to the BOCC. (See attachment two)
~
~
'--'
'-'
· BECAUSE IT KEEPS LAND PURCHASES ELIGIBLE FOR FAA REIMBURSEMENT.
As the FAA will not reimburse the BOCC for any property used for commercial, industrial,
research, or for any non-aviation development, any use of the property other than for airport use
will make the property not eligible for reimbursement from the FAA. (See attachment three)
Without the potential land reimbursements from the FAA to the FDOT, the BOCC will need to
reimburse FDOT directly using County funds.
The land currently eligible for FAA reimbursement is located at the west end of runway 9/27,
which is the runway 9 approach protection zone. These parcels equal approximately $4 million
dollars, of which 90% ofthe cost in the amount of$3.6 million dollars is FAA eligible. The
FAA reimbursements can be used for the repayment ofthe debt to FDOT. However, the $3.6
million dollars eligible for reimbursement from the FAA falls short of the $9 million dollars
required as payback to FDOT. The inclusion of the parallel runway in the DR! will allow
additional property to become eligible for reimbursement from the FAA, and therefore will cover
the additional $5.4 million dollars that is owed to FDOT.
To date, approximately $9 million dollars is owed to FDOT. The BOCC has received
approximately $728,000 from the FAA as payment to FDOT. As stated above, the remaining
property that is eligible for reimbursement from the FAA will not cover the debt requirements,
thus the reason for including the new runway in the DR!.
. BECAUSE FDOT WILL REQUIRE $27 MILLION PAYBACK FOR LAND PURCHASED
FOR THE AIRPORT.
Over 2,100 acres have been purchased for approximately $36 million dollars, with approximately
$27 million dollars coming from FDOT. FDOT provides 75% of the cost of the property as front
end funding for the purchase of property needed for airport use. The JP A's with FDOT stipulate
that within ten years after the date of acquisition, the BOCC must apply to the FAA for funding
reimbursements on any property that is FAA eligible. The FAA reimbursements are designed
to reduce the amount the BOCC owes FDOT. After ten years, if FAA reimbursements has not
been received, then the BOCC will be responsible for repayment of 25% of the cost of the
property paid to the BOCC by FDOT as a loan. After the repayment of the 25% loan, the BOCC
and FDOT will each have provided 50% of the funding towards the purchase of the property.
This'ratio is consistent with the requirements of Florida Statutes.
Additionally, as stated in the attached letter dated May 13, 1999 from FDOT, if the BOCC were
to eliminate all airport projects from consideration, the BOCC would be expected to repay FDOT
for not only the 25% loan, but the entire amount of FDOT participation. As indicated in the
following table, the total liability to the BOCC could be as high as $27 million dollars.
2
..
i
'--'
....""
Fiscal Year Total Land Total FDOT $ Total BOCC $ Total FDOT
Purchased 75% 25% Reimbursement
($) Required
100% (after 10 years)
1987/88 $1,836,666 $1,377,500 $459,166 $459,166
1988/89 $461,352 $346,014 $115,338 $115,338
1989/90 $2,903,531 $2,177 ,648 $725,883 $725,883
1990/91 $4,693,695 $3,520,271 $1,173,424 $1,173,424
1991/92 $11,339,000 $8,504,250 $2,834,750 $2,834,750
1992/93 $1,482,568 $1,111,926 $370,642 $370,642
1993/94 $914,787 $686,090 $228,697 $228,697
1994/95 $12,361,801 $9,271,351 $3,090,450 $3,090,450
TOTAL $35,993,400 $26,995,050 $8,998,350 $8,998,350
. BECAUSE OF SOUND AIRPORT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.
After careful consideration, several factors influence the recommendation for completion of the
DR! and inclusion of aviation projects. The primary reason for the recommendation is that the
inclusion of aviation projects makes sound airport and financial management sense. As the
Airport has developed into one ofthe finest general aviation facilities in the State, it is incumbent
upon the County to strive for projects that insure that the Airport develops into a first class, high
quality, general aviation airport. Nothing in the BOCC approved Airport Business & Marketing
Plan is inconsistent with sound airport management. The projects included in the Business Plan
were developed with full consideration for pilot safety, neighborhood noise consideration, and
first class general aviation development.
Additionally, as the economy continues to improve and legislation by Congress is passed that
enhances the development of general aviation aircraft, airport system capacity enhancement
projeCts will become increasingly necessary. The parallel runway is a project that will enhance
pilot safety, and is consistent with sound airport management.
Issue two: Should the Airport develop into a regional jetport?
With regard to the development of a commercial service hub airport, supply and demand
determine competitive markets. Without a significant subsidy to a major airline, the current
population of St. Lucie County cannot sustain the load factors required by high volume
commercial air service providers. The competitive marketplace dictates where regional aviation
facilities will develop. Examples of struggling markets that have had difficulties sustaining the
burdens of commercial service are Melbourne International Airport which supports a regional
population of over 450,000, and Daytona International Airport which supports a regional
population of over 450,000.
3
~
--~....... --
'-'
"'"
Nothing in the Airport Business & Marketing Plan is designed to establish the Airport as a
regional jetport. The projects are designed to insure that the Airport continues to grow as a first
class general aviation facility with limited commercial service. The recommendation for a
parallel runway is designed to increase pilot safety by segregating traffic on the existing runway
system.
Issue three: Should a new Airport Master Plan be developed?
The Airport Business & Marketing Plan and the DR! cover all elements of future development
at the Airport for at least the next ten years. In that those documents and the new Airport
Element of the Comprehensive Plan direct future development at the Airport, no new Master
Plan is necessary. It would only be a redundancy to prepare another plan when these other
planning documents are in place.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on sound airport and financial management practices, it is recommended that all of the
projects listed in the Airport Business & Marketing Plan, except for the construction of a 1.500 foot
runway extension on Runwav 9RJ27L, be included in the Airport DR!, and that the DR! be
completed by the most qualified of the four firms who have submitted a proposal to do the work.
A recommendation on the firm to negotiate the contract for the amended DR! will be brought to the
BOCC within the next thirty days.
The exclusion of the runway extension from the Airport DR! is based on the fact that the extension
of Runway 9RJ27L is not an absolute necessity. It would serve to increase pilot safety, and lessen
the noise impacts to the residents east of the Airport. However, regional jets that serve 37 to 50
passengers generally need only a runway length of 6,500, and any runway in excess of 6,500 will
need special justification for federal funding.
The following projects are recommended to be included in the DR!, (1 )to avoid repayment of
$156,807 to FDOT for the DR!, (2)to avoid repayment of up to $27 million to FDOT for the land
purchased for airport development, (3)to continue the reimbursements from the FAA for land
purchased for airport development, and (4 )to insure that the Airport grows to meet the air
transportation needs of the community:
· construct new 3,700 foot Runway 9L/27R (as operational demand dictates)
· construct connecting taxiways, lighting, and marking for new Runway 9L/27R
· develop Authority owned property for aviation and industrial/commercial uses
· complete land acquisition (approx. 100 acres) within airport boundaries (east of Kings Highway)
· expand passenger terminal, parking, and apron area as market demand dictates
· construct new 10,000 square foot cargo building with vehicle and aircraft parking areas
If you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
cc: Douglas Anderson, County Administrator
Daniel McIntyre, County Attorney
4
-- ....- ... -.. ----
treevure 'wII
co~t
regional
planniQ9
council
;"~~I· ~~
.' I'!
<~
~fr
I "j
j ~..,f¡ij
I~ fi.·.·
~4 ;,;M
~ f'?
;J
I
i.,,~
I
December 10, 1998
Mr. Paul Phillips, Airport Director
St. Lucie County Port and Airport Authority
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, Florida 34982
n.........-r.q.....J
cr':""~· y- ':' . .-.
.. i~.. v........~: L..
Dr:.:: 11 i~~~~8
_ ;\'~~":!;'(Ï
;.:~- _.,~t...:~ 1~'~~- ':', :;_!"~~'!J;\
Subject: St. Lucie County International Airport Development of Regional Impact
Dear Mr. Phillips:
Council has received Mr. Coen's letter of November 24, 1998 requesting an extension of
time to submit a response to the second round of sufficiency questions. Council staff
understands the extenuating circumstances that has triggered this request and has agreed
to extend the time for response to August 2, 1999. However, we believe a meeting to re-
identify the preapplication assumptions should be done prior to submittal of the second
sufficiency response. Council staff will also delay the scheduling of the Council
workshop until you have submitted a response.
If you have any questions please call.
Sincerely,
r:: ~nYder
DRI Coordinator
Cc: Nelia Coyle, Chairman TCRPC
J ames Golden, SFWMD
Roger Wilburn. FDCA
Bruce Offord, FDEP
Steven Lau, FGFWFC
Diane Bowen, USFWS
George Percy, FDOS
Robert Hall, FOEP
Don Keirn, FOEP
Bill Cross, FOOT
Linda Ferrell, USACOE
301 east oceon boule"ord
suite 300
stuart, florido 34994
phone (561) 221-4060
H 969...4060 fnT (0;61\ ?21...40l.7
Barbara Lenczewski, FNAI
Dennis Murphy, St.LC
Cheri Fitzgerald, St.LC
Ramon Trias, Ft.P
Susan Adams, MC
Robert Keating, IRC
Dennis Ragsdale, Vero Beach
W.G. Thiess, St.LV
Maria Palombo, MTPG
Curtis King,
FDOT SFRc/PTO
Fax:954-777-4095
May 13 '99 11:45
.....,
P.02
'-'
JEB BUSH
GOVERNOR
~
Florida Department of Transþortation
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OFFICE . AVIATION SECTION
3400 WestCOmmeråal Boulevard. Fort Lauderdale. Florida U30t4421 . (954)7774490
THOMAS F. BARRY, JR.
SECRETARY
May 13, 1999
MI. Paul Phillips, AAE.
Airport Director
St. Lucie County International Airport
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, FL 34982
Dear Mr. Phillips:
Subject:
St. Lucie County International Airport Development Issues
Per your request, I have attached a copy of the State Aviation Manager's response dau~ February 24,
1998 to Curtis King's December 8, 1997 letter regarding the land acquisition loans iss ued to St Lucie
County. In addition, our recent discussions identified several issues SurrOW1Øing the Joint Participation
Agreements (JPA) between the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and St. Lucie County
which need to be addressed.
It is important to reiterate the nature of the Department's participation in the subject agreements.
Beginning in the mid-1980's, the FDOT and St. Lucie County entered into Joint Participation
Agreements for the purchase of approximately 2300 acres of property. This property would become
part of the Airport and used for future Airport expansion. The Airport's 1984 Master :Plan, as
approved by the CoWlty Commission, was the document used as justification for the land purchase,
This Master Plan and the Florida Aviation System Plan (F ASP) identified the anticipatoo need for St.
Lucie County International Airport to provide commercial service to the Treasure C~:t region. The
FDOT Aviation Office remains committed to the development of St Lucie County Intomational
Airport for this purpose.
During our meetings on April 28, 1999 and May 3, 1999, we discussed the Airport' s f~e and the
impact certain development proposals would have on the State of Florida loan agreemmts. The St.
Lucie County Commission has posed several questions regarding the COWlty' 5 obligations under these
agreenimts. Based on our discussions, I see the fonowing areas of concern:
· completion of the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Study;
· repayment of State loans for land acquisition;
· and the future development of the Airport.
With respect to the DR! Study, the JPA scope of work for that project included the ultimate Airport
build-out. The county has proposed to complete the current DR! addressing only two industrial
developments, which will be located on Airport property, eliminating all airport expansion elements. If
aviation elements are not addressed in the DR!, the Department would be forced to reevaluate our
participation in the project. If the evaluation detenIÚnestbat the project no longer meri11s Department
participation, the JP A would be terminated. In that case, the Cowrty would forfeit the remaining
$66.693.00 in tbeJPA budget. The ColU1ty would also be required to return the $156,807.00 already
disbursed by the Department as specified in paragraphs 9.10 and 9.11 of 1hc JP A,
www.dot.state.fI.us
(9 AeCYCLED PAPeA
FDOT SFRC/PTO
Fax:954-777-4095
.Ma~..l:; '99 11 :46
....,
P.03
'-'
Mr. Paul Phillips. A.A.E.
May 10. 1999
Page 2
All JPA's for land acquisition issued to the County were written under the authority o:fChapter 332
F.S., to assist the Airport obtain property for various Airport protections and future Airport expansion.
St. Lucie CoWlty purchased property utilizing State loans which, under the terms of the JP As, would
be submitted to the FAA for reimbursement consideration when eligible. After 10 years, if FAA
reimbursements do not cover the entire loan amounts, the COWlty is required to pay the State of Florida.
fifty percent of1he non-Federally funded share. To eliminate these repayment obligations, the County
would be forced to seek Legislative relief
Should the County pursue a development plan contrary to the Airport Master Plan or the Florida
Aviation System Plan and not utilize the land for aviation purposes in accordance with the terms of the
JPAs, 1he County will be expected to repay the Department a sum equal to 75% oftht;! appraised value
of 1he property at 1he time of repayment. These fimds would become immediately dUE~ to the
Department. Non-payment of those funds would necessitate forwarding the matter to the appropriate
state agencies (i.e. Department General Counsel, State Comptrollers Office) for interpretation and
guidance. Subsequently, existing and future funding for aviation projects could be jeopardized.
Al1hough current operational statistics do not yet support airport expansion, the Department maintains
its position that the property should be protected to meet the futme aviation needs of S1. Lucie County
and 1he Treasure Coast region as established in the Florida Aviation System Plan. The: current Master
Plan identified several areas for industriaI/ commercial development. As the purpose of these areas is
to generate increased revenues for the Airport, the State would have no objection to th~~ COWlty
proceeding wi1h the proposed developments on land identified for such purposes. The FDOT remains
committed that any areas identified for future Airport inftastructure or expansion shall be protected,
If there are any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me.
:?qp¿ ¥
Aviation Supervisor
Public Transportation Office
cc: Doug Anderson, CotUlty Administrator
Dean Stringer, FAA Orlando ADO
Jack Reynolds, FAA Orlando ADO
Annando Rovira., FAA Orlando ADO
William Ashbaker, FDOT Aviation Office
Harry Downing. FDOT Aviation Office
Joseph Yesbeck, FDOT District Four
Nancy Bungo, FDOT District Four
file
H:'dII"",,,~_loanj~l.wpd
- - --
IAWTOI'I CIIILES
GOVERNOR
605 Suwannee Street, Thllahassee, Florida :52:599-0450
Aviation Office
MS-46
March 4, 1998
mol'lAS f. IIARRY. Jr.
SECRETARY
RECEjVrn
MAR 9 1998
Mr. Curtis King
Airport Director
St. Lucie County International Airport
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652
PORT MID AIRPORT
ST, UJCIECOONi1,fLORIM
Dear Mr. King:
Thank you for your letter concerning St. Lucie County Port and Airport Authority's land
acquisition loan agreements with the Department. I am sorry that this response has taken so
iong, but we have taken time to examine the Authority's options under Florida Statutes and
Department procedures.
We agree that the Department would welcome FAA participation in all of the land purchased by
the Authority with help from our airport land acquisition loan program. As you point out, this
may eventually happen. But in the mean time, our legal office advises me that we have no
immediate options for relief from the terms of our loan agreement without a change in law or
procedure. The Department cannot replace the loan agreements requiring a payback in 10
years with loan agreements allowing payback tied to FAA reimbursements with no time limit as
you requested. This would require changes to existing Florida Statutes.
I understand your concern over state loans coming due while the FAA grant program is
shrinking and general aviation airports are receiving smaller and smaller shares of federal
money. I am continuing to investigate both procedural options within the Department and
legislative options with the Florida Airport Managers Association. The good news is that St.
Lucie County Port and Airport Authority's loan repayment schedule should not become critical
within the next two years with current and anticipated FAA payments. This gives us time to
pursue a solution.
In the interim, I recommend that the Authority reimburse the Department the amount of
$635,000 recently received from the FAA according to our loan agreement. Additionally, all
future FAA grants specifically for land purchases that the Department has funded should
conti!,lUe to be used to reimburse the Department according to our loan agreements.
Nancy Bungo and Harry Downing in our District 4 Office are responsible for these loans and
their payback. It will be appropriate to work directly with them on these issues. They will be
directly involved with developing a solution to this situation and will be responsible for key
administrative decisions relative to your loan agreements.
Si~IYI .
~J. " aker. P.E.
State Av' tion Manager
WJAlbj
cc: Nancy Bungo
Harry Downing
<Ð RECYCLED PAPER
-
MAY-13-1999 14:58
FAA ADO
407 812 6978 P.02/02
'-:
"'"
~
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
ORLANDO AIRPORTS DISTnlCT OFFICE
5950 Hazeltine National Dr., Suite 400
Orlando, Florid~1 32822-5024
Phone: (407) 812-6331 Fax: (407) 812-6978
May 13,1999
Mr. Paul A. Phillips
Airport Director
St. Lucie County International Airport
2300 Virginia Avenue
Ft Pierce, Florida 34982
Dear Mr. Phillips:
This is in response to your May 12, 1999, letter regarding land reimbursement at St.
Lucie County International Airport.
The acquisition of any interest in land is eligible for Federal funds/reimbursement when
the land is necessary for airport purposes. The approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP)
servas as the primary basis for determining the area of land necessary for the airport.
Land for airport purposes includes the building area (passenger terminal), landing area
(runways, taxiways, ramps, apron). land adjacent to these facilities requii"ed by current
separation/clearances standards (runway protection zone, approach aroas, areas for
noise compatibility), and offsite areas required for airport utilities (sew~lge, drainage,
power, and obstruction lighting).
However, land for commercial. industrial, scientific research, or land that is not directly
for airport purpose is not eligible for Federal funds/reimbursemen!.
Sincerely,
dh7do/l~/4ùf
Armando L. Rovira
Project Manager
cc: Mathew J, Thys, FOOT /4
PARTNERS IN CREATING TOMORROW'S A1RPORT$ +
TOTAL P.02
-
.
~.
..."I
AGENDA REOUEST
ITEM NO.
.
\p
DATE: April 20,1999
REGULAR ( X
PUBLIC HEARING
£Q: Board of County Commissioners
CONSENT (
SUBMITTED BY (DEPT.): AirDort
PRESENTED BY:
Paul A. -PhilliDS
SUBJECT: Authorize Selection Process for Consultant to
to Airport DRI; Removal of 1,500 Runway Extension from
Direction on Purchase of Land west of Kings Highway.
Complete Amendment
Business Plan; and
BACKGROUND: On April 8, 1999, the BCC held a workshop on the airport.
Information was provided on the background of the purchase and financing of
property at the airport, the uncompleted DRI, the status of the selection of a
consultant to amend the DRI, future projects in the approved Airport Business
Plan, and the potential purchase of property west of Kings Highway. At the end
of the session, the BCC directed staff to provide additional information and
schedule the matter for the April 20, 1999 Board agenda.
The attached report provides additional information requested by the Board
about projects and discusses the payback issues related to purchase of property
at the airport. Additionally, it discusses the issue of runway lengthening on
the existing 9R/27L runway and the purchase of property west of Kings Highway.
FUNDS AVAIL.: 140-4220-599300-400
PREVIOUS ACTION: See April 8,1999 workshop report.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners direct
staff to proceed with the selection process for a consultant to amend the
Airport DRI in accordance with the Airport Business Plan; eliminate the
lengthening of Runway R/9/27L¡ and provide direction regarding purchase of
property west of Kings Highway.
COMMISSION ACTION:
CONCURRENCE:
APPROVED
OTHER
DENIED
Douglas M. Anderson
County Administrator
Review and ADDrovals
County Attorney: Management & Budget
Originating DePt'~ Other,
Purchasing:
- - ...
---....
'.
'-'
'wi
St. Lucie County International Airport
MEMORANDUM
TO:
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
Paul A. Phillips, Airport Director
DATE:
April 16, 1999
SUBJECT:
Additional Infonnation on Selection of Airport DR! Consultant, Airport
Busness Plan and Land Purchase west of Kings Highway
As a result of the airport workshop held on April 8, 1999, the Board asked that additional
information be provided and that the issues discussed at the workshop be placed on the April 20,
1999 Board agenda. This report provides additional information and makes recommendations
regarding the airport DR!. Further, it requests direction regarding future land purchases west of
Kings Highway.
One of the primary issues before the Board at the workshop was what projects should be included
in the amendment to the DR!, if it was to be completed. It was pointed out that the Board approved
Business Plan for the Airport was being used to provide direction for the completion of a ten year
DR!. Questions were raised about the necessity of extending the existing runway and building a new
runway to the north of the existing runway, as well as whether either was necessary for the future
of the airport. There were questions regarding the "payback" of FDOT funds by the County and
reimbursement from the FAA. Additionally, there were questions about the need to purchase land
west of Kings Highway. Each of these issues is addressed in more detail below.
The Airport Business Plan was approved by the Board in March, 1997. This plan was established
to accomplish four goals: (1) to scale back the 40 year DR! to a manageable ten year time frame; (2)
to eliminate projects that were unacceptable to the community, primarily related to turning the
airport into a major jetport facility; (3) to develop a plan that would make the airport a self-
sustaining operation (no dependency on the County's General Fund); and (4) to continue the
reimbursements from the FAA and "payback" of funds to FDOT. The overall intent of the Airport
Business Plan was to ensure that the airport would become a quality general aviation facility over
the next ten years and that it would not be a financial burden on the County.
The need for the extension of the existing 9R127L runway and the building of the new northerly
runway are in the Airport Business Plan to accomplish the above-stated goals. However, in doing
~
'-"
Page 2
Information on St. Lucie County Airport Issues
April 16, 1999
further analysis since the workshop, a recent FAA Bulletin indicates that it is not necessary to
lengthen runways beyond 6,500 feet in order to accommodate regional jet aircraft. This bulletin is
attached to this report. The bulletin does not address possible noise reduction and safety issues,
which are considerations in lengthening a runway. However, it is reasonable to assume that the FAA
would be satisfied that the airport is continuing to operate in a safe manner that protects the Federal
Government's investment and the public safety if the existing runway is not lengthened.
In the case of the new north parallel runway, this project is based on FAA criteria for safe operation
of an airport that reaches a specific utilization criteria. This runway will provide proper separation
of flights landing and taking off and will reduce the overall noise contours beyond the boundary of
the airport. From a safety and operational standpoint, it is a necessary future project. Additionally,
this runway was proposed to utilize the land on the northerly portion of the airport for airport related
uses, thereby qualifying all the land for Federal reimbursement of its cost and making it and other
projects at the airport eligible for cost sharing with the FAA and FDOT.
With regard to current service numbers at the airport, there are currently 144,347 operations
annually. This includes all actual take offs and landings, as well as training touch and go operations.
That figure is currently at 53% of capacity. Based on FAA design criteria, planning for additional
capacity is required when the airport reaches 60% of capacity, or 162,000 operations, and actual
construction of facilities at 80% of capacity. It is likely that the design threshold will be reached in
the next 3-5 years and the construction threshold within the ten year tenn of the plan. It is important
to note that the new runway is not triggered by a change in fleet mix, but by the number of new
operations at the airport, and that, because of its length, will only accommodate general aviation
aircraft. Elimination of this runway from future planning for the airport could likely jeopardize
future Federal reimbursements and cost-sharing for airport projects.
Last week, additional information was provided to you regarding the "payback" and reimbursement
schedule for airport land purchased with FAA and FDOT funding. This information is provided
again as part of this report. The "bottom line" on this issue is that if the County continues to receive
FAA reimbursements and continues to work with FDOT on the repayment schedule for the funds,
it should be possible to repay the funds over the next five-seven years without any significant burden
on the County. The December 8, 1997 letter from Curtis King to William J Ashbaker, FDOT
Aviation Manager, details the manner in which the repayment can be made. Although this
arrangement has not been formalized, it remains the best arrangement and its future formalization
is based on a continuing good working relationship between the FAA, FDOT and the County, and
on the continued operation of the airport that mutually meets the goals of all parties.
The issue of the purchase of additional land for the airport west of Kings Highway was raised at the
workshop. The Board had given staff authorization in 1998 to proceed to negotiate for the property
west of Kings Highway. An arrangement was worked out that would not require any County
'-'
....,I
Page 3
Information on St. Lucie County Airport Issues
April 16, 1999
funding for this project through payment for the land from FOOT with a leaseback agreement with
the property owner. Owning this land would allow the County to control land use in this clear zone
west of the airport runways. However, its purchase is completely a decision for the Board, based
on your determination of need for the airport to own the property. In the short term, it is not critical
to own the property. In the long term, it may be valuable for the County to control the use of such
property.
Finally, with regard to the hiring of a consultant to do an amendment to the existing uncompleted
DR!, the County can select a consultant to negotiate a contract for the completion of the project. We
have four proposals from consultants we have under contract. However, we cannot ascertain the
price of a contract until we are in the negotiation process. As was discussed in the workshop, the
consultant that did the original DR!, quoted the County a price of$168,000 to amend the existing
DR!. An additional $60,000-$80,000 was projected for initial resource permitting to go along with
the DR! so that the projects can be developed expeditiously once they were designed and ready for
construction. These numbers mayor may not be of value today depending on the consultant to be
selected (if the DR! proceeds), and what potential increases in costs may have occurred since the
quote was received in 1997. The cost of the amended DR! would be a 50%-50% match between
FDOT and the County. The County's Joint Participation Agreement budget with FDOT for the DR!
has approximately $140,000 in it and there is $90,000 for the resource permitting. This includes
both FDOT and County funds committed to these projects. If the price of the amended DR! exceeds
this budget, the County will need to request a modification of the JPA with FDOT, fund the
difference in cost itself, or abandon the DR!.
In conclusion, the Airport Business Plan that was adopted in 1997, provided a course of action to
develop a quality general aviation airport that would be self-sustaining, primarily through the
development of light industrial and airport-related uses that would generate substantial income for
the airport. Completion of the DR! would make it possible to maintain reasonable airport-related
development at the airport over the next ten years and ensure that the partnership between FAA,
FDOT and the County would continue, with our two partners paying for a majority of the projects.
It would help to bring new industrial development to the area surrounding the airport, with the
airport itself being the needed catalyst for such private development to occur successfully.
Additionally, the plan assures, with some certainty, that the County would be able to repay FDOT
for land purchases through Federal reimbursements and other funding available over the next five
to seven years. This repayment issue remains a critical component in future decision-making on the
airport.
Please let me know if you have any questions or I can provide any additional information.
Attachment
.-. "-tI
FAA Southern Region
Airportopics
RECEIVED
AM 5 1999
y A!Ri'ORT
St lllCié.æL~.ftGfWA
ATLANTA-ADO, GA
(404) 305-7150
FAX (404) 305-7132
9.ASO-A TL-ADO@faa.gov
Georgia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Newsletter No. 73
JACKSON-ADO, MS
(601) 965-4628
FAX (601) 965-4632
9.ASO-JAN-ADO@faa.gov
Alabama
Mississippi
MEMPHIS-ADO, TN
(901) 544-3495
FAX (901) 544-4243
9.ASO-MEM-ADO@faa.gov
Kentucky
Tennessee
ORLANDO-ADO, Fl
(407) 812-6331
FAX (407) 812-6978
9.ASO-ORL -ADO@faa.gov
Florida
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
April 1999
1998 Annual Airports Awards
Airport Manager of the Year
Air Carrier-Robert M~ Ball, Southwest Florida International Airport, Fort Myers, Florida
General Aviation-Wanda F. Fulmer, Mark Anton Airport, Dayton, Tennessee
Airport Safety
Naples Municipal Airport, Naples, Florida
9 'd~
,: '...,. ~ .. . ":, t~~
~ ~" .> > "ioIIJ
~~~rJ.e
11.1111, ~w ".
» Extension of AlP
» New Civil Rights Officer
» Reinventing government
» Unannounced security testing
» Runway incursions
» FAA navigational aids
» Y2K
» New documents
~
Airpòrtopics
. Change 12 to AC 150/5370-10A, Standards for
Specifying Construction of Airports. dated
2/22/99.
. Change 3 to AC 150/5340-14B., Economy
Approach Lighting Aids. dated 1/26/99.
Airport Master Records (FAA Fonn 50 I 0-1) are
now available through the Internet without the
airport sketch at www.gcr1.com.
Noise Compatibility Programs
We completed an evaluation of the implementation
of noise mitigation measures included in a Part 150
Noise Compatibility Program. Six airports were
reviewed in the state of Florida. At these six
airports, 70% of the recommendations were
implemented and 19% of the recommendations were
in the process of being implemented. We believe that
this is a representative sample of the positive results
achieved throughout the Part 150 process.
Runway Approach M,inimums
FAA Aviation Systems
Standards will no longer deny
night minimums when there is
an unlighted 20: 1 approach
surface peneuation. The
purpose of this change in
policy is to allow operators time to remove or light
the object. This new policy will continue for a least
another year.
Normally. FAA will not develop and publish an
approach category for a new instrument approach
procedure greater than the approach category of the
existing design aircraft listed on the approved ALP.
If an approach category greater than that of the
existing design aircraft is desired. the airport owner
should express this desire in their request for the
instrument approach procedure and must submit an
analysis showing that operations by these aircraft
may be conducted with an acceptable level of safety.
When constructing, reconstructing. or overlaying
runways to serve 37 to 50 passenger regional jets
'-'
April 1999
you generally only need a length of 6500 feet and a
width of 100 feet. Any runway length in excess of
6500 feet and wider than 100 feet will need special
justification for federal funding.
Airport Operators Financial
Reports
If an airport operator does not submit its financial
reports in a timely manner. we are now required to
immediately suspend processing applications for
discretionary funds for that airport. Requests for
extensions will not be considered after the 120-day
grace period for submitting the reports.
Unannounced FAA Security
Testing
Vulnerabilities m acçess to aircraft. airport
operations areas. and failure to challenge and to
display ill have been vividly demonstrated in recent
tests at several airports. Airport and air carrier
personnel, systems. and policies contribute to this
vulnerability. FAA Security Division is requesting
that airports evaluate the above areas and if it is
determined those problems exist. develop and
implement a plan to eliminate the problems. FAA
has begun unannounced site visits at selected
airports to test the vulnerability of the above areas
and if determined that there are problems. the FAA
will assist the airport consortium in developing A
C01v1PREHENSIVE ACTION £LAN. Additional
FAA Security testing will be conducted within 45
days after the corrective action plans are
implemented to verifY that the corrective actions
have eliminated the problems.
If you have any questions. please contact Wylie
Kilpatrick at (404) 305-6931.
Installation of FAA Navigational
Aids
Listed below are the people that plan, schedule. and
install FAA navigational aids on your airport. They
also negotiate reimbursable agreements to relocate
navaids and generally can answer your inquiries
concerning the status and scheduling of navaids.
6
'-"
-....J
MEMORANDUM TO THE RECORD
DATE:
March 30, 1999
FROM:
Harvey Lincoln
SUBJECT: Airport Debt Reimbursement Schedule
Attachment 1 is a listing of the Joint Participation Agreement (JPA"s) between St. Lucie County and the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) in relation to the purchase of property for the St. Lucie County Airport.
At the bottom of the page is a ten year payback schedule to be implemented in the event that the Federal
schedule for reimbursement for the land does not occur as planned. Federal reimbursements have not and are
not anticipated to be received as planned, so the reimbursement schedule is in effect.
The first JPA, WPI No. 4829222 in the amount of$459,166.67 has been paid off. Attachment 2 reflects the
payments to date on JP A WPI No. 4829223. It reflects that, of the amount due through FY 2000 ($841,222),
S728,570 has been paid, This leaves a balance of$112,652 to be paid during FY 2000,
It is currently anticipated that a substantial fund balance will be available in Fund 140, the Port and Airport Fund,
at the end of the current fiscal year (FY 99). This will be available to pay the $112,652 due in FY 2000, and still
leave a substantial balance,
Financial shortfalls may begin to occur in FY 2001, when $1,173,424 comes due, and FY 2002, when an
additional $2,834,750 comes due. If currently projected fund balances are left intact, they should cover the FY
2001 payment, and leave a small balance to be applied to the FY 2002 payment.
If and as payments from the F ederal Aviation Administration occur and are applied to the indebtedness, it may
alter County ad valorem tax supported payment requirements,
A proposal made to the FDOT in a December 8, 1997 letter (attached) would either defer the repayments until
Federal reimbursement was received, or convert the agreements to grants with a condition that the state would
be reimbursed as federal funds were received in accord with the original land financing plan. This would result in
no additional cash outlay for the state, and would relieve the County from a potential property tax burden., but no
fonnal response has been forthcoming,
The question of the proper allocation of federal reimbursements under the original 90-5-5 federal-state-Iocal
sharing in light of the repayments in progress under the 50-50 state-local matching arrangement does not appear
to have been addressed, and may prove to be contentious at some future date,
,--."....-.. --. ........-... -.
ST. LUClEi ;JUNTY PORT AÑÖ"ÄÏRPÖRT' Ãl:JJRrTY f1 ~CM1
JOINT PARTICI~ïION AGREEMENTS FOR LANO A~QUISlïrON
INV.
SUM.
tiSL...-
FOOT AMT.
PAID
TO AUTH.........
STATE
WARRANT
DATE
STATE
WARRANT
Jº-,--
PAY
BACK
MO/YR
AMOUNT
DUE TO
...Í...9 JE_
JPA WP..L NO. 4829222 -IQ..b~\...~00-381 A
1 sl,368,553.50 10/05/87 0595519 10/97 s 456,\84.50
2F 8 1 91\ 6-..dQ. 1/19/88 1351\193 1/98 2 ,L.9_I:t<...~~,
51,377,500.00 '5 459,\66.67
JPA WPI No. 4829223 Job JiQ..._ 94000-38?..!
1 $ 52,823.33 4/25/89 2242251 4/99 5 17 ,.607 .78
2 293 , 191 .50 7/21/89 0083200 7/99 97;730.50
3 227,648.00 3/28/90 2146077 3/00 75,882.67 ¡
4 1,950,000.00 4/25/90 2384299 4/00 650,000.00
5 34 ,650-.00 10/19/90 0870639 10/00 11,550.0Q
6 1,748,850.60 2/06/91 1744367 2/01 582,950.20
7 1,736,770.00 3/05/91 1973956 3/01 578,923.33
8 256,066.57 5/20/92 2640218 5/02 85,355.52
1,903,933.43 5/20/92 2640219 5/02 631\,6~1\ .-18
9 1 , 11 1 ,925 .59 6/25/93 3058814 6/03 370,64 \ .86
10F 359 , 1 ~O .98 4/07/95 2544970 4/05 _ _\ \ 9 ,7 I 3 .66
59,675,000.00 53,225,000.00
]PA WP¡ No. 1\829225 Job No. 91\000-384 \
\ 5 386,966'.40 \/30/95 1850327 1/05 s \28,988.80
2F 75,533.60 t/07/95 2544970 4/05 _ _ _ _:?j_,J...lL,--S_<2
5 462,500.00 s \51\,166.66
3PA_ WP ~.Q..!_ 4829238 Job No ,_.Y!QOO -385~
IF 56,344,250.00 5/19/92 2625387 5/02 s 2 , 1 1 4 , 750 .00
J PAW P J.....JiQ...., 4829267 Job NQ-L- 9AOOO-;;li!Z~
1 5 686,090.38 8/05/94 0226510 8/04 s 228,696.79
2 449,317.05 10/21/94 0960504 10/04 1~9,772.35
3 742,690.90 10/2.1/94 0960504 10/04 247,563.63
A 781,037.61 2/01/95 1876766 2/05 ?60,345.87
5 303 , 150 .48 2/01/95 1876765 2/05 10\,050.16
6 723,556.98 4/04/95 2506383 4/05 241,185.66
7F 3.A49~&Q 4/04/95 2506381\ 4/05 -1J.l.~9_L98_~ ,-~1.
57 . 135 ,800 .00 52.378,600.00
)PA...J:æ..l No. 4829283 _ Job J::!.Q.\.. 9Ii.QQQ-3fi..9~1
IF 52,000,000.00 6/27/95 33~9436
6/05
( 6 Ó , 6 6 (, . 6 7
526,995,050.00
- - -
GRANO TOTALS
- - -
s8 ,999,.350.00
ST. LUCiE COUNTY PORT AND AiRPD?T AUTHORITY
TEN (10) YEAR PAY BACK DUE BY FISCAL YEAR
ONLY IF FEDERAL REiMBURSEHENT ~ 90% HAS NOT OCCURRED FIRST
10/97-9/98 10/98-9/99 10/99-9/00 10/00-9/01
s 459,166.67 ~ 115,338.28 ~ 725~882-67 ~1 ,173.423.53
10/01-9/02 10/02-9/03 10/03-9/0A 10/O·~-9/05
s2,834,750.00 s 370.641.86 s 228,696.79 s3.090,....50.20
-
'-'
""'"
IhT'lJz-t~}J['
7-
The county was scheduled to begin paying FOOT back for JPA WPI No. 4829223 beginning April 1999, In
actuality, we began paying FOOT for this JPA WPI March 1998. The following schedule is an accurate report
of what is due and what has already been paid:
Amount
Due
Amount
Paid
March 1998
July 1998
$335,849
$392,721
April 1999
July 1999
March 2000
April 2000
$17,608
$97,731
$75,883
$650,000
$841,222
$728,570
Amount Due
April 2000
$112,652
Fla Oept of Transportation
Airport Payback
WPI 4829223
8e<:¡in Sal Per Schedule from State Auditor General 12116/97
Date Parcel Number Fed AlP Amount Paid Check Number
Begin Sal
March 6, 1998
March 6, 1998
March 6,1998
July 2, 1998
6
RH1
6
5
18 S159.353.60
18 517,141.73
18 S159,353.60
19 S392,721.oo
224207
224207
229488
Balance Due
S3,225,OOO.00
S3,065, 646. 40
53,048,504.67
S2,889,151.07
52,496,430.07
- -
"'-,~
.3
ST. LUCIE COUNTY PORT AND AIRPORT AUTHORITY
~
""';íJ7tZ. frYr1 ~
PORT Of FORT PIERCE· 51 LUOE COUNTY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Port Director
CURTIS KING
Airport Dircdor
December 8, ~997
... _.
M :"-¡-,"-:GF-
ANAr:::;'''';'-:'~I- ... <:>,
- . .......... ~~.
Mr. Wi~~iam J. Ashbaker P. E .
Manager, Aviation Office
F~orida Department of Transportation
605 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450
I
,
I
l.."':'J I I 1997
_ 51 LUCIE COUNTY FLC'F.,_
Dear Mr. Ashbaker:
Re: st. Lucie County Port And Airport Authority
Land Acquisition Joint Participation Agreements With FOOT
Since 1982 the Florida Department of Transportation has worked
very cooperatively with the st. Lucie County Port and Airport
Authority in a mutual effort to ensure that sufficient land is
available to meet the long term growth needs of our airport.
In ~986 a decision was made by the Authority and supported by the
FOOT to purchase all of the land that the Airport Master Plan
recommended acquiring. This decision was made so that the
capability of expanding the airport to its ultimate build out
would remain intact even though it may take forty to fifty years
for full buildout to occur. It was reasoned that if the
Authority owned the land then the airport could be expanded
incrementally according to future demand as it came about.
The Master Plan, with several amendments, recommended the
acquisition of approximately 2,800 acres of land. The original
airport consisted of about 1,400 acres. The total of 4,200 acres
would be enough land to provide the recomme~ded clear zones and
approach protection zones as defined by FAR Part 77. There would
be adequate room for a commercial size terminal area and
approximately 1,000 acres for airport development land. The
airport development land was intended to be leased to aviation
related industry to support the expense of operating a large
airport.
The first land acquisition project for the airport was completed
during the 1987-88 fiscal year. Since that time about 2,300
acres has been acquired. When the land acquisition program began
it was anticipated that the Federal Aviation Administration would
reimburse both L~e Authority and FOOT within a much shorter time
frame than what has actually occurred. We have received FAA
JOHN D. BI1UHN. Out"", No 1 . ŒN $l\Tll.::.<" D;.nic: No, ~. PNJL^ ^ LEWtS. Dà<rc No. ) . GN<t 0, CHAQUS. SR. Oi.u>ct No, ¿ . OJfF B/>J1NES. Ddoid No, S
'BOO Virgini., Avcnue . Fort PKrcc, i1. 3498~,5652· Phoo<: (561) ~62-1732 . FAX (561) 462-1718 . Suncom 259.1732
/>
/
'-'
....,
,¡
/
William J. Ashbaker
December 8, 1997
Page Two
reimbursements for land that was purchased under WPI #4829241
which was an up front grant. We have used these reimbursements
as matching funds under the FOOT 75%-25% land acquisition
program. Our last reimbursement under this project has occurred
and we are now beginning to receive reimbursements for land
purchased under the 75%-25% program.
Our paybacks to FOOT are scheduled to begin during this fiscal
year (1997-98). As everyone in the aviation world is aware, the
Federal Government has drastically cut the AlP Program. AIP has
been cut by about $1.4 billion dollars over the last four years
from what it would have been under previous spending levels.
Consequently, our land reimbursements have been much lower than
what was expected. The cuts in AIP have·dramatically slowed
airport development throughout the whole country.
We have every reason to believe that the FAA will eventually
reimburse us for our land acquisitions. However, it will take
much longer than originally was anticipated. We believe that it
would be in both the Authority's best interest and FOOT's if our
obligations could be postponed until FAA reimbursement does
occur.
The purpose of this letter is not an attempt on our part to get
out of paying FDOT what we owe. We want to pay back FDOT. In
fact we have recently received an FAA land reimbursement in the
amount of $635,000 which will be applied toward what we owe. We
believe that FOOT would realize a much greater benefit from FAA
reimbursements than if we were to pay a 25% share to clear up our
debt. Attached is a breakdown of the Authority's land
acquisition transactions. as they have occurred. At the bottom is
a schedule of the 25% paybacks.
In rounded figures we have entered into 75%-25% JPA's totaling
$36,000,000 requiring a payback. Of this amount FDOT's share is
$27,000,000 and the Authority's share is ,$9,000,000. If we were
to pay $9,000,000 to FOOT to make a 50% matching fund project,
then FOOT would receive $9,000,000. But if we can postpone the
payback until we are reimbursed by FAA then there would be the
potential for 2DOT to receive back their entire investment except
for 5% of the total cost of the land. There would be the
potential of being paid back $25,200,000 ($27,000,000 less
$1,800,000) .
'-'
'wi
William J. Ashbaker
December 8, 1997
Page Three
Our latest pre~application with the FAA includes almost
$9,000,000 (before our recent reimbursement) in eligible
reimbursements that will be paid to FOOT as the reimbursements
are made. Attached is an Exhibit A Property Map for the airport
which shows the e1igible property. It is colored dark green on
the west side of Runway 9R. It is clear 'zone and approach
protection zone property that has a hig~ priority for
reimbursement.
We are in the process of a development of regional impact study
and an environmental assessment report for constructing the first
phase of Runway 9L-27R. The environment assessment has been
completed but has been put on hold for review by the FAA because
of a present downturn in traffic. However we are continuing with
the development of regional impact study. With some flight
schools that are coming on line at the airport we expect the
traffic to increase again and that the new runway will be needed
perhaps shortly after the year 2000. Much more land will become
eligible for reimbursement when this project is approved by FAA.
Also, as more infrastructure is completed and more,land is leased
to aviation enterprises more land will become eligible.
We believe that it will be mutually beneficial to FOOT as well as
to the Authority to be able to postpone these debts.
What we are proposing is, that since we operate a General
Aviation Airport, for FOOT to replace our JPA's requiring a
payback in ten years with JPA's that require a payback as FAA
reimbursements occur with no time limit. . We understand that the
new land acquisition program could be interpreted so as to allow
this to be done.
As an alternative, we would propose that the current JPA's
structured as 75%-25% loans be converted to grants. We would
suggest that they be converted to 75%-25% grants, within the
limits of the currently authorized 80%-20% grant program. No
funds would be required to take this action. As a condition of
this action, the Authority would agree to transmit all federal
AJP funds made available relating to this land acquisition
program to FOOT until the FOOT receives its full share under the
Federal 90%-5%-5% federal grant program. Since there is already
approximately $9,000,000 eligible for reimbursement, FOOT would
get a least as much as it would by converting the loans to 50%-
50% grants, and would stand to recoup some $16,000,000 in
addition as the reimbursement program was compieted.
/
'-'
''wi
./
William J. Ashbaker
December 8, 1997
Page Four
We would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this matter with
you in anticipation of arriving at a resolution that is in the
best interest of FDOT, the Authority, and the Aviation Community.
Sincerely yours,
/f ' ~.
~{'¿'tt:;; , ./t:;~
L
Curtis King
Airport Director
CK/hs
cc: Port and Airport Authority
County Administrator
Assistant County Administrator
County Attorney
Management and Budget Manager
Interim Port Director
Russ Tagliareni, FDOT Aviation Centra1 Office
Harry Downing, FDOT District 4
'-'
"'"
Development of Regional Impact (DR!)
Chronology
Background A Binding Letter of Interpretation for Development of Regional Impact Status was issued
by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to St. Lucie County on January 22,
1987 regarding St. Lucie County International Airport. This letter concluded that the
extension of Runway 9/27 by 1,500 feet to a length of 6,500 feet was not a DRI. The letter
also concluded that the runway extension "shall be considered cumulatively with any future
additional development."
Nov. 1990
Dec. 1990
Feb. 1991
Aug. 1991
Nov. 1991
May 1992
Oct. 1992
Dec. 1992
Apr. 1993
The St. Lucie County Port & Airport Authority (P&AA), after considering the
implementation of the 1984 Airport Master Plan, concluded that additional development is
of regional impact. Thus, a DR! should be prepared. In addition, the P&AA concluded that
to determine the [mancial feasibility of relocating the airport, an Alternative Site Analysis
should be completed.
The P&AA approved a Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) with Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT). This JPA for 50% funding of the project was for $150,000 of
FDOT funding and $150,000 of BOCC funding for a total project cost of $300,000. The
JP A and Resolution 90-35 (see Attachment One) approved the development of a DR! based
on the ultimate build out of the Airport as indicated in the 1984 Airport Master Plan. (see
Attachment Two)
As a result of Greiner's work with the approved 1984 Master Plan and a perceived conflict
of interest for Greiner, the P&AA disapproved Supplemental Agreement No. 19 for
$185,130 to the Greiner engineering contract dated January 18, 1988 for the preparation of
a DR! and for the preparation of an Alternative Site Analysis.
P &AA authorized the Airport to advertise for proposals from firms to produce a DRII ADA
and the Alternative Site Analysis.
P&AA approved the ranking of firms for staff to negotiate with for the preparation of the
DRI and the Alternative Site Analysis.
P&AA approved Phase I to Aviation Planning Inc. for $126,610 to conduct an Alternative
Site Analysis.
P&AA voted to tenninate the Aviation Planning contract because ofthe consultant's failure
to keep the planning team together. P&AA authorized staff to negotiate with the number
two firm, Williams, Hatfield, & Stoner.
P&AA approves the updated Airport Master Plan. (see Attachment Three)
FDOT stated that they would not support any relocation of the Airport from its current
location. (see Attachment Four)
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) stated that they would not participate in any
Alternative Site Analysis as the existing site has not been maximized. The FAA stated they
would participate in an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed paralld runway.
(see Attachment Five)
P&AA rejected the $160,000 proposal from WH&S to conduct the Alternate Site Analysis
and directed staff to conduct the study in house.
May 1994
Jul. 1994
Sep. 1994
Jul. 1996
Sep. 1996
Oct. 1996
Feb. 1997
Mar. 1997
Apr. 1997
May 1997
Sep. 1997
Apr. 1998
Aug. 1998
Oct. 1998
Dec. 1998
'-'
......,
FDOT states that state or federal funding would not be available for the relocation of the
existing Airport. (see Attachment Six)
P&AA accepted the Analysis of Alternate Sites prepared by Community Development. The
Analysis recommends that all Airport development remain at its present location. (see
Attachment Seven)
P&AA approved terminating the existing RFP with all the firms for the Airport DR! and
negotiate with Greiner to prepare the DR!.
P&AA approved Supplemental Agreement No. 16 for $279,587 to the Greiner engineering
contract dated June 3, 1991 for the preparation of a DRI/ADA for the Airport.
FDOT increases funding participation by $30,000 for the preparation of the DR! to
$180,000 for a total project cost of $360,000. This increase will cover the RP~'s review
costs.
Greiner submits the ADA for the DR! to the RPC for review.
RPC notifies the P&AA that the ADA for the DR! contains insufficient information for the
RPC to perform the regional impact assessment as required by Florida Statutes.
P &AA approves the scope of work with TRCC to prepare an Airport Business & Marketing
Plan.
P&AA approves the Airport Business & Marketing Plan mission statement and goals. (see
Attachment Eight)
Greiner submits the ADAlDR! Sufficiency Responses to the County and the RPC.
RPC notifies the P&AA that the revised ADA for the DR! contains insufficient information
for the RPC to perform the regional impact assessment as required by Florida Statutes.
Greiner notifies RPC that the P&AA is in the process of substantially revising the scope of
the DR! and additional time is needed.
P&AA approves an $43,500 increase in FDOT participation to $223,500 for a total project
cost of $447,000. This increase is for rewriting the DR! to conform to the amended Master
Development Plan for the Airport.
P&AA requests proposals from the Airport's four consultants to evaluate the Airport
Business & Marketing Plan and develop a cost estimate to obtain permits for all of the
projects listed in the Master Development Plan.
FDOT notifies the P&AA that a request for consultants to submit a cost breakdown is a
violation of the Consultants Competitive Negotiations Act (CCNA) which states that "the
agency may request, accept, and consider proposals for the compensation to be paid under
the contract only during competitive negotiations." After clarification of the request by the
County Administrator, FDOT approves the consultant's selection process.
RPC extends the time to respond to the second round of sufficiency questions to August 2,
1999.
.. tt:>
' !! ~i~ Ii E-<....... ON
I J ~.: i I u z
ill! ! :j III! ç.i¡.....
~ I< il 60> E-<~
.. ì! I~;¡ æ ç.i¡O
O. ~~ i1í ;¡e ~ i¡¡¡ iIi ij¡ ~ ç.i¡
«¡;¡ ìi n ~I ; B~ 0...0 ::r::.......
Z~ ~~~ ~ z íJ}
r§¡ i ~¡¡¡
W ~ E-< Po.
or I, ~ ;j
0
W g 1:\ ~I U !II 0... ~
!!l ~
J I Ii il '" J .......
ilil ~ ;: <t: ¡;,;;¡
,I Ii! .~ ,...:¡ Po.
I ,I ~: I iIi ç.::¡<t: 0
;! ¡ ~ c::
~' ""'Z Po.
uo
:;:>""'
,...:¡E-<
§ <t:
.Z E-<
E-<~ .......
¡:o
~ Cf.¡ç.::¡ .......
E-< ::r::
¡¡¡ Z :><:
ø.. ..... ¡;,q
<::>
0
<")
N
. ~ "
$ \
.. ,.
~ it "
~ ..
¡c: ,
" " ~
~ "~
iÁ h .
$
Ú
..¡
ä .;
I I.
~I
HilJO 01 I \
s . .
I
W
(f) . rJ
s: .... I!! II
II
-(-.. \R-
~<ì
{\Ù
~
.î
"-
,~
~
..:,
~
"
~"'::.
.~
J
o
J..-
ç
~
<V
,,)
.....;/
~
1.082886
....", Attachment One
ST. LUCIE COUNTY PORT AND AIRPORT AUTHORITY
PORT MW ¡'\h"ìPORT
DIRECTOR
Sf. LUCIE COU:UY. FLORIDA
RESOLUTION NO. 90-35
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS JOINT
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BY THE ST. LUCIE
COUNTY PORT AND AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND
AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ST. LUCIE
COUNTY PORT AND AIRPORT AUTHORITY 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 Port and Airport Authority has made
the following determination:
1. This Authority has sought approval for a Project to provide
for the undertaking of a Development of Regional Impact studY (DRl)
for ultimate buildout of St. Lucie County International Airport (Work
Program Item No. 4829256).
2. This Authority should authorize and approve execution of the
._..
Joint Participation Agreement with the State of Florida Department of
Transportation Division of Public Transportation Operations to provide
for the undertaking of a Development of Regional Impact Study (DRI)
for ultimate buildout of St. Lucie County International Airport.
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Lucie County Port and
Airport Authority:
A. This Authority hereby authorizes and approves execution of
the Joint Participation Agreement with the State of Florida Department
of Transportation Division of Public Transportation Operations to
provide for the undertaking of a Development of Regional Impact Study
(DRl) for ultimate buildout of St. Lucie County International Airport.
~ V--oA-"Il-'
Rec Fee $ /1) DOUGL^S DiXON
,
Add Fee S
S1. Ltlci~ County
D0C T<ïX S
Clerk of Circuit Court
~
Depuly Ck:rk
gro 7 I 8 PJG[ I 85.3
lnt Tax S ~
~
T",t,,' ~: / ()
By
~ ...."
B. The Chairman and the Clerk of this Autho'fity are hereby
authorized to execute the Joint Participation Ag'feement app'foved by
this resolution, and further, the County Attorney is hereby authorized
to execute the agreement by approving it as to form and correctness.
After motion and second the vote on this resolution was as
follows:
Chairman Jim Minix AYE
vice Chairman Judy Culpepper ABSENT
Commissioner R. Dale Trefelne'f AYE
Commissioner Havert L. Fenn ABSENT
Commissioner Jack Krieger AYE
.'
ATTEST: "
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 19th day of November, 1990.,.;',';:~:,
ST _ LUCIE COUNTY .,,;>\'C\:~~-::..
PORT AND AIRPORT AUTHORI1..~..I.·'· .,.. ..,'
,:,;.?~~,;..~",?'," '.,>:~>.~?r <: , .,;~,~'"
'.." 'i<~'-:"J . -,,',
........
(),{:...~. ;< tÆ
<{;i[,¥J;¿~, k
:,:'->~':< .~ ~OEPUTY CLERK
a( .:". -
.>,.*
BY:
T
APPROVED AS TO FORtI AND
il1hlR'
COUNTY ATroRNEY
!/
:.,
1.082886
"5U IE 10 A9 :57
FILED MiD R;-r'nJ;~:¿" ./
OqUGlAS OiXÕÑ"r:;-!-, .....i1,J
S1. LUCf~ CnUN1 ~.~- ;':
gro7 '8 PAEFf 854
·
AJ~ ,.
'T£M
ex..
."'CtAL .'''.0111' ELEvATION 14'
Mf". tlAX.MUM Tf....E...TU.E;
Attachment Two
·
A,.t-OttT aCIII£a4t:·f'([ S.....LI:
A'.P(HtT TCIt..tIAL ."VAIOS
...,
.UU'CMlT "(F["E,," POUlTS LAT. Z'
CootlD.....n:S '''.''1 LONG.'
·
. SOUftCE, F.A.A. "D-
C QSUM(S TMfI££ ",w
CLOKDt
~
---.......
I
.I
.....ue K4U: lei ~n
II
-F
(
k~
~~';.:£'1
......-.... "-II _::C
·L·
- -
·
--_J
·
FllTUfI_
FOR. -- -----1
UNDE_____ __
fOff CLfAR ZONE OIMENSIONS Sff
SHEErs 6 , r 0' .If
·
·
"-
"
"
\
\
\
\
I
. ---+ -
I
I
I
'" '
roo
I
L".. .
·
'"
·
II
II
·
A L
·
- :,
·
·
___,
---
·
,.,. .-Zf
"'M-II
""'4-U
.,. .....
!!..!!!!
....,...
-...
-...
.......
..,
--
.....
.o.
nod
4-22
LOfl G -RANGE
"'..-
IS
RUNWAY
...
"(VlSlOtIS
IT ...........n:
--
oa_
",. ..n . M-II
.,. .-ar. 4421
IfhI ....,. ......
-...
...0 ..
-...
u...
.......,......
Gn!InerEtIgl1et!f'ÎiIg Sdenœs.h:.
___ _Il_
........
·
-,,-,
. CALlI 10,. aø ....... tLYO'I.
t~........... .-..0....
AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN
....
,.-.-
VI_
ST. LUCIE COUNty INTERIIATIOIIAL AI"PORT
....T NIICC. ........
.i
.....x: IIAT....... G.IIIA'''C CUlT".
nAT": wa' NUl _.&ell.
ptatOO: ...-....
........ ., ....."...: IOþSO
- --.
1
- ----!!!!L-
- ~
..... ..c..".
.............. -¡¡;¡--
..,..: ......
SNUT NO.
.. 14
II
.
II
.
III
·
II
II
·
II
·
II
!II
·
·
·
·
·
·
"r.
LEGEND
\!!IIII!i œ!&
-... -
NOf't:wrr 'tOM ACOUIfI(D
.....nDII!ASr..T
""'IIILO flMCtKIff
---------
I!!!!I!II!Ii!ã
----
----
...........1tØTIICT.. Lilt( -..... .,--......,-
_.-
""US....,........" .
LUS( UlCS
--
....,....ICJfT.tO.
..aJÍOCICD 011 _MOICD
----
----
-,~.~=
-..-..-
~u c: =-
"£:.:j....u
NOTES
MI. ,......'IS.................u..
-,,",",c· a'"" ,. ....,..... M.A. ('ft.. .."
.....WUroW'.....,...___...... CAHaJn.
~ .......IrII:a.ftG;... -.-:t "to ,.............
..... ___. --. ........... .... MID
CUM ~. ~ ...,. PM ~ ....
--
.UY....C ltU.....oa .PWJr'fIOtfIOC1'lwno. ......
~MI~_-..c:r1'O DÞMAD
... ..-
..... _Of ......~..... .........
-
--
I
--
-
LAIIÐ JlCtwllI£D
,ØIt ANItfJACN AIICAS
U/l!JDCII CALT1IIATC CAPA/llLlrr
1.....-
i
.¡
1=
.1
5
--+
-
\t .
.,~ .
\'''''0 ~
-d--·--:=æ
.....- -- --
"
--
-^
--
t
~
,...____.L_
+
~
.
ì
jl
~..._< 'K.~( _ "(1
AIRPORT DATA
.T._ ."........""-! ,
_u:_·,....· lUIS'*' rUT,," II"'( ..
...... - ..... . .... -
,....c'... _...__
....... ........ øec.'. -.-... ........ ..
............., "" -. - -
~."c~,,_,,1"W Þ'W, - -
--- .__,__I-'¡' .,.....,'M".. "- "-
--- - --..-...~.. -
-- .- ....... .-
--- ~ ..... "-.- w..
-- - w..
--- - w..
-..... "·,,,/n-lOtl "-»""1.._'"
___ c...__c_ -. _c~. -
_CAt. _c--, __n
c~.--, _.-1 -'''".._a ,..,.... ...
_ _..ttt.u~ ......'....._, U·'·_ ,.,
.. .,.. .'.
--- .........
,1'(.
.uc.............u..,...
-- ...- ............
__'6C......··cr.......
_1'1"__
-, "'"...,...,.
'.......,. --.
6=,.1.:::,:r:- =.J:~~.:'c.":o-:. or'M¥IiIC'
(IllS'...
f'U'UIt(
u_
,....
i~.,
-.
~::..':;.~..~'I..
'."ØI,.
.....
.... _co.
L'" ~n·.'-"·
L_ ...Ui..·.
Attachment Three
_._-
-----
----
Ulf...AT
-
-
....
w..
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
MASTER PLAN
AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN
EXHIBrT 8.1
~
"""
OF TRANSPORTATION
IAW1'O" C"IIZ.S
QOWIII'IOR
-::. DEPARTMENT
-
-
--
-
-
--
-
605 Suwa"""" 5trttl Tallahas.o;e.,. norida ~2~0450
am G. ."TIS
~~~rJ.VEU
~~.~;; I; ", íj t ~a
~ ,u"",;~1!...f , fa.
OCT 20 1992
October 16~ 1992
PORT AND AIRPORT
Mr. Curtis King
Airport Director
St. Lucie County Port and Airport Authority
2300 Virginia Avenue~ Room 104
Fort Pierce. Florida 34982-5652
51. lUC:E COUNTY, FLORIDA
Attachment Four
Dear Mr. King,
We have reviewed the September 16th letter from the Honorable William' G.
Thiess, Mayor of St. 'Lucie Village~ to Commissioner Judy Culpepper that
expresses opposition to St. Lucie County International Airport improvements.
The Mayor's proposals for alternative airport siting or alternative airport
configuration and operating policies are not feasible with current
environmental regulations and available aviation funding. As such, they
cannot be supported by the Florida Department of Transportation.
A proposal such as relocating St. Lucie County International Airport~ faces
environmental, political and financial barriers. The cost alone would be
prohibitive. And, due to prior legal commitments to the Federal Aviation
Administration and the State of Florida, the cost would have to be funded
entirely from local government sources.
St. Lucie County International Airport has a well-though-out airport master
plan that has been approved by the Federal Aviation Administration according
to federal requirements. It describes improvements necessary to provide
needed air transportation services to the businesses and residents of St.
Lucie County and the surrounding region with minimal impact on the
environment. Following the Plan's recol9mendations will provide necessary
current and future airport capacity at far less cost than building a new
airport. With individual project approvals, these costs will be eligible for
federal and state funding.
The proposed reconfiguration of the airport runways would require significant
changes'to the airport master plan and subsequent approval by the FAA. The
Department would oppose these changes because they degrade the airport's
operating capability with an attendant decrease in capacity. The Mayor's
proposed night time operating prohibitions are solely within the FAA's
authority to establish. The Department can not~ however, support these
restrictions as they also will degrade the airport's operating capability and
capacity.
Airport runway directional orientation, displacement, length and use are
functions of aircraft, airspace and meteorological operating requirements
detailed in the master plan. Redesign of an airport's basic configuration
such as requested by Mayor Thiess must be justified using the same
aeronautical operating requirements. It is the Department's position that a
· .
~
....,
Mr. Curtis King
October 16, 1992
Page Two
redesign to accommodate Mayor Thiess' requests would not support the long
term operating capability and capacity requirements projected in the Master
Plan.
A master plan also considers existing land use and development in establishing
runway configuration. While the east-west runway orientation is aeronautically
necessary, it is also more advantageous in avoiding impacts to existing land
development in the airport's overall vicinity. St. Lucie County has a FAR Part
150 study that identifies incompatible land use based on airport noise
exposure using recognized national standard guidelines. U sing these federal
guidelines, noise exposur.e levels incompatible with residential land use do not
extend into any portion of St. Lucie Village. either currently or for fu~ure
operations. Run way reconfiguration will not result in a significant decrease in
size of forecast noise' exposure levels in the Village but will likely result in
instances of incompatible use in areas where the exposure levels will increase.
Overflight of the Village will certainly occur when aircraft operate on an east-
west runway as occurs now and will in the future, regardless of run way
configuration. East-west flight however, spans the least distance across the
built-up area represented now by St. Lucie Village. On this flight path, an
airplane as a potential noise source, exposes the built-up area for the shortest
possible time. Runway redesign may reduce these overflights, but will result
in longer overflights of far larger built-up areas north and south of the
airport.
I hope these comments make the Department's position concerning Mayor
Thiess' proposals clear. Please do not hesitate to call me at (904)488-8444 if I
can answer any questions or provide additional assistance.
fty 1/
~ William . Johnson. A.A.E.
Managel'
A viation Office
cc Mr. Charles Blair, Manager Orlando Airports District Office, FAA
Mr. Rick Chesser, District Secretary, FDOT Dist IV
'-'
'wJI
RECEIVED
Attachment Five
DEC 22 1992
o
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
PORT AND AIRPORT
Orlando Airports District Of tSldtWCIE COUNTY.f1DiUOA
9677 Tradeport Drive, Suite 130
Orlando, Florida 32827-5397
December 16, 1992
Mr. Curtis King
Airport Director
St. Lucie County International
Airport
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652
Dear Mr. King:
This is in response to your letters of June 24, 1992, and
October 9, 1992, concerning a Preapplication for a site
selection study and a request for review of a revised
Airport Layout Plan (ALP) as it pertains to land identified
in a Land Acquisition and Use Feasibility Study Report,
respectively.
Preapplication - Due to the existing Master Plan and the
Draft Master Plan/ALP currently under FAA review and
coordination, it is not appropriate at this time to embark
upon a site selection study for a new airport. We do not
believe such a study is necessary and it is, therefore, not
eligible for Federal funding. However. if you wish to
pursue a project for an environmental assessment for the
proposed parallel runway which would include all feasible
alternatives, we could be receptive to considering such a
project when funds become available.
Revised ALP October 9. 1992 - By telephone on December 10,
and 15. 1992, you requested an immediate advance approval to
add additional land to the ALP which is currently under
review and coordination by FAA. As far as your october 9,
1992, submittal is concerned, our preliminary review
indicates no problem with the proposed land acquisition from
an ALP approval standpoint.
None of the above comments are to be construed as a
commitment of Federal funds.
J W. Reyno ds,
Àssistant Manager
LAWTOl'O C"IUS
<iOvt'RI'OOR
~
L-I'
-
-
-
-
-
-
.-
-
-
--
-
DEPARTMENT
'wi J>;JÞ ~~
OF TRANSPORTATION
60S Suwannee Street. Tallahassee. nor1da .32.399.()4S0
Hf.I'O <i, WATTS
St:CRf.TAKY
Aviation Office. MS-46
April 26, 1994
::~E~E~\f~:'Ð
~ ·L¿~··/ "J 1:r.:~~';
. . . .
~ _..': :.'~:.~_\-(:_J.!,,~.~·.,:ji'.
Mr. Curtis King
Manager
St. Lucie County International Airport
2300 Virginia Avenue
Ft. Pierce. FL 34982
Attachment Six
Dear Mr. King:
My staff has evaluated St. Lucie County's study of potential new airport sites to
relocate St. Lucie County International Airport. St. Lucie County conducted a
thorough and professional study. You adequately addressed the issue and we concur
with the conclusion that it is not cost -effective to relocate the airport.
Further. the Florida Aviation System Plan. which is both the aviation component of the
Florida Transportation Plan and the State of Florida's input to the FAA's National Plan
of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), does not indicate a need for a new airport or for
relocation of the existing airport. In other words. it is not likely that state or federal
funding would be available to assist with such a relocation.
We congratulate you for your hard work to develop St. Lucie County International
Airport to its full potential. The citizens of Ft. Pierce and surrounding communities in
St. Lucie County will enjoy the substantial economic and transportation benefits of
your fine airport long into the future.
Sincerely. ~.. '1
?¿ . I
I I.' í '
~l¡} I ..
Willia J. Ashbaker. P.E.
Administrator
Aviation Development
cc: Nancy Bungo. District 4 Public Transportation Manager
...
~
¡(¡\FlECYCLED
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·
I
I
I
·
,
II PREPARED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEI
. TECHNICAL SERVICES DIV.
·
I
I
I
-
1iEiiiEe. iii5!ii!.c.
--
- ....
......
J. Attachment Seven
,---- - --- -- --~._-- ---.----. ------ -----
j
I
r-- -- -_~_
lLJ
Z '
o
N
I ,
u 0
« 0
o N
0:::: ~
D-
D-
«
,
o
o
,
o
o
o
,
o
o
Q)
0::::
r---
N
1-----
'- ---'---
Æ2
.
I
ìR~~S1110N~l ZONE
o
.
EXISTING
AIRPORT
ULTIMATE
BUILD-OUT
RESIDENCES
SUBDIVISIONS
*
PRIVATE AIR STRIPS
Â
TALL TOWERS
EXHIBIT 16
~,
~
~
-
~
~
~
~
,
~
,
,
1
~
,
,
,
"
I
'-"
'....I
Attachment Eight
ST. LUCIE COUNTY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
1998 - 2002 BUSINESS AND MARKETING PLAN
WITH A 2010 PLANNING HORIZON
"..<;.~'~::::.:~,
,'/;,.. \ Ý"" r· ~-"':'"
,'~;~~~~Æ{~:',
,.( "~" - '. -'. -. .'"
'\<','~F£ii,i \~:~~ ,', Ii
" ^"~:~-';-~'::"',~ //
/'~! !'"'~,....,~ ~ //
""->-.>?_ ~.l r~ \\-!....~:<. '
- "'-. ::_:..-.::~..::~ -- .-
Submitted to
The St. Lucie County Port and Airport Authority
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, Florida 34982
Submitted by
The Airport Business Plan Committee
November, 1997
I
"".
.....,;
I
ST. LUCIE COUNTY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
BUSINESS AND MARKETING PLAN
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I
I
The airport business and marketing plan establishes a mission statement as well as goals and objectiyes
that provide the guidance necessary for effectively managing the airport in the most cost effective
manner possible over the next five years. The mission of the Port and Airport Authority is to
operate and manage the St. Lucie Count}· International Airport to serve general aviation and the
air transportation needs of the community on a fmancially self-sustaining basis, generating full
use of Authority-owned properties for commercial and industrial business.
I
I
While the business and marketing plan has a 5-year time frame. it also includes an Airport Ca¡:>ital
Improvement Plan (ACIP) coyering a twelve-year span that coincides with the time frame for the newly
modified scope of the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) study. Overall, the Business and
Marketing Plan and the ACIP outline a development program which will make the S1. Lucie County
International Airport a first class executive general aviation airport that acconunodates small
conunercial jet and/or turboprop scheduled service as the need is presented. The plan limits the use of
the airport to the type of aircraft already using the facility, therefore eliminating a need for
strengthening the existing runway. The plan also identifies ways to improve the airport's perceived
image, operating efficiency and revenue generating capability while minimizing environmental impact
and mitigation requirements.
I
I
I
I
EXISTING OPERATING ENVIRONMENT
St. Lucie County International Airport"s runway system, instrument approach capability. and
supporting infrastructure make it comparable to other airports located in the Southeast region. The
airport is presently classified in the National Plan for Integrated Airport Systems (NIPIAS) and the
Continuing Florida Aviation System Planning Program (CFASPP) as a general aviation airport.
Inclusion in both the National and State plans qualifies the airport to receive funding assistance for
eligible capital improvement projects at various funding levels.
I
!
The airport offers a full range of aviation services including fuel sales, airframe and power plant repair.
avionics sales and service, aircraft painting. aircraft rental. air taxi and charter service. and flight
instruction. It also has a federally operated control tower and a customs facility. The entire airport site
is designated as a general purpose foreign-trade zone (Zone #218). Within the past year, the Micco
Aircraft Company (formerly The New Meyers Aircraft Company) has begun production of a two-seat.
high performance single-engine aircraft. Other aviation related companies have also indicated a desire
to locate at the airport.
]
I
I
Over the past 10 years, the Authority has purchased approximately 2.300 acres of property in a joint
land purchase program with the Federal Aviation Administration and the Florida Department of
Transportation. When added to the airport's original 1,400 acres, nearly 3,700 acres are available for
airport infrastructure, industrial/conunercialland uses, and areas designated as buffer zones to other
adjacent land uses. In total, it is estimated that approximately 720 acres of Authority-owned property
are available for light industrial/conunercial, and aviation related development.
I
I
II
~
......,
·
q
Development of Regional Impact (DR!) and Envirorunental Assessment (EA) studies have been on-
going over the past two years. The DR! study was to project long-term demand (20 to 30 years) for an
airport infrastructure and address the social, economic and envirorunental impacts of an additional
parallel runway, as well as other supporting airport developments. The focus of the EA was to address
the envirorunental impacts of a new parallel runway north of the existing main runway. On September
19, 1997, County staff introduced a modified DRI plan which covers a period of 12 years. This
modification, which was approved by the Port and Airport Authority on October 7. 1997. contains a
reduction in total envirorunental impacts and presents a more realistic planning horizon when
considering the present level of activity at the airport. At the same time. the EA was temporarily
postponed by the FAA due to the current level of operations at the airport.
·
·
II
MANAGEMENT AND OPERATING ISSUES
·
OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT
The ABPC identified several areas of the existing operation that presented opportunities for
improvement in support of the mission statement, goals and objectives.
I
I
Redefinine the Scope of Airport Development
Discussions within the ABPC produced a consensus that the high level of aviation activity projected in
the original DRI will eventually occur at the airport, but not within the near-to-intermediate time frame
(five to 15 years). Since the business and marketing plan and the ACIP cover a period of five years and
twelve years respectively, the ABPC agreed that the focus should be on improving the operation and
quality of the existing facility.
II
II
Capitalizin2: on Existine Revenue Sources
The ABPC concluded that the leasing of available property for aviation and industrial/commercial
development is a top priority for the airport to achieve financial self-sufficiency. The ABPC is
recommending that staff make ready-for-Iease 265 acres of airport property.
I
Streamlinine Existin~ Leasine Procedures
The ABPC found that the existing procedures for leasing Authority-owned property are somewhat
cumbersome and time consuming. The committee consulted with the County Attorney and made
recommendations for the Authority's consideration to improve this process.
I
I
Developin2: a Standard Lease Packa2:e - Consistent with "streamlining" the leasing process. the
ABPC is recommending that a standard lease package be developed by staff. This package would not
only provide a standard source of lease information. but also serve as a marketing device in attracting
new lessees.
I
AlJowine Commissions to Real Estate Brokers - The ABPC recommends that staff develop. with the
approval of the Authority, conditions under which qualified real estate brokers could earn ~
commission for introducing and securing a lease agreement on Authority-owned property. The ABPC
believes that the network available to the real estate profession could be very effective in getting more
acres under lease in a shorter period of time.
I
I
I
11
I
'-'
.....,
Updatine Airport Minimum Standards and Leases
Minimum standards were developed for the airport in 1978 to create a fair and competitive business
environment. Since that time, the airport has matured and seen many changes in the operating and
regulatory environment warranting a review and update of these standards. Changes in environmental
legislation and regulation also make it necessary to review and update the airport's leases (0 assure that
the lessee and the Authority are adequately protected. and that each has a clear understanding of their
responsibilities. The ABPC is recommending that the airport minimum standards and leases be
reviewed and updated accordingly.
Identifyin~ Proiects to Improve Air~ort Aesthetics and Imaee
The ABPC visited the airport for a briefing on past, present, and future capital improvemem projects
and to develop a first-hand impression of the facility in terms of general aesthetics. For the air
traveling public, the airport is the first. last. and sometimes the only element upon which visitors base
lasting opinions about the community. The Committee discussed their views on what they s~\\'. and
identified several areas of the airport that need attention. The ABPC is recommending that staff
develop a program that systematically addresses each of the areas identified.
Realienine Manaeement and Staffine
A recommendation is being made to have one director for the port and the airport. while incorporating a
lower to mid-level operations supervisor for each operation. For the near term. operational needs
represented by positions such as the finance/grants coordinator and environmental manager can be
accommodated as has been done in the past using existing staff.
BUSINESS AND MARKETING PLAN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND STAFF ACTION PLAN
The business plan identifies certain projects and staff actions that focus on improving the operation.
aesthetics and overall quality of the existing facility over the next five years. The plan also identifies
capital improvement projects over the next twelve years that are consistent with the mission statement,
goals and objectives, and the level of activity projected for the plan period.
Proiect Costs and Schedule by Fiscal Year
Projects identified for FY97/98 are designed (0 improve the general aesthetics of the airport and
maintain existing building structures. Staff actions will focus on making ready-far-lease approximately
265 acres of Authority-owned property for aviation and industrial/commercial uses. Local project costs
for contract work in the current year are accounted for in the approved FY97/98 budget. The (Otal cost
of planned projects in FY97/98 is $1.907.559.00.
Projects identified for FY98/99 and FY99/oo cominue the airport improvement theme with landscapmg
and signage projects, vehicle control fencmg. and aircraft parking apron rehabilitation. The Authority
currently has Joint Participation Agreements (JPAs) with the Florida Departmem of Transportation for
the landscaping and signage projects; however. it will be necessary (0 pursue additional state funding
during FY97/98 for the aircraft parkmg apron rehabilitation and vehicle control fencing. Staff actions
focus on updating the airport's minimum standards and leases. The total estimated cost for FY98/99 is
$252,555.00. These projects will be funded with transfers to the capital account. Projects scheduled
for FY99/00 continue to improve airport landscaping, signage and vehicle control. The local cost for
111
II .
II .
II
~
II
II
II
II
II
II
,
II
,
II
II
III
II
III
III
-..,
""
these projects is estimated to be SI40.ooo.oo and will be funded wirh transfers (0 capiral.
The capital improvement plan for FYoo/O 1 and FYO I /02 identifies the third phase of the landscape and
signage projects, and an overlay project to improve the air operations area (e.g.. existing runways and
taxiways). The total local cost for Fyoo/Ol is estimated at SI44.6oo.oo. The FYOl/02 cost is
estimated to be $92.200.00. Projects for both years will be funded with transfers (0 capital.
Projects for the remainder of the capital improvement plan period focus on pavement maintenance and
improvements to the operational efficiency and safety of the runway and taxiway em'ironment. These
projects would be initiated based on need. local funding capability and the availability of federal and
state grant money. In the current year (FY97/98) the Authority has set aside Sloo.Ooo in local match
money to accommodate projects when state and/or federal grant money becomes available. This set
aside will be available in each subsequent year through the year 2005 when the amount will be
increased to $150.000.00 annually to allow for anticipated increases in project costs.
The following lists the primary capital improvement projects that are anticipated for the planning
period. These projects will be funded by federal, state and local matching dollars.
Construct 1.500 foot runway extension on Runway 9R/27L (no strengthening)
Construct new 3,700 foot Runway 9U27R (as operational demand dictates)
Construct connecting taxiways. lighting, and marking for new Runway 9U27R
Develop Authority-owned propeny for aviation and industrial/commercial uses
Complete Land Acquisition (approx. 100 acres) within current airpon boundaries (east of Kings Highway)
Expand passenger terminal, parking. and apron area as market demand dictales
Construct new 10,000 square foot cargo building with vehicle and aircrafl parking areas
MARKETING PLAN
This plan identifies areas of economic development potential for the airport that require similar. hut
separate. marketing efforts. These areas include marketing for the development of:
Scheduled commuter airline service
· Increased use of the airport by general aviation and corporate aircraft
· A viation use property
· Industrial/commercial use property
The primary alliances identified for assisting staff in administering the marketing plan include:
· Enterprise Florida
· The S1. Lucie County Chamber of Commerce
The S1. Lucie County Division of Tourism
· The National Association of Realtors
· Other national, state and local economic development orgal1lzatJons
Marketina: Strate!!"
The following provides a strategy for each of the areas of economic development potential described
above.
IV
II ' ~
II·
II
II
II
II
II
II
III
II
II
II
II
II
~
II
II
II
II
'-"'
.....,
.'
Scheduled Commuter Airline Service Development - Staff will develop an air service market profil.:
for consideration by prospective airlines to provide commuter service at the airport. Due [0 the fact
that the Treasure Coast has a significant northeast presence in the community. a focus will be placed on
those carriers exhibiting a strong east coast market and route structure. Airlines targeted include US
Airways (US2), Comair (Delta), Continental. and American Eagle. Low cost carriers such as I\.iwi.
Southwest, and others will also be contacted periodically as a means of measuring our market with
airline requirements. Alliances identified to assist staff in this effort include the Chamber of
Commerce, the Division of Tourism. and the PGA.
General Aviation and Corporate Acthity Development -- Staff will work with the FBOs and other
airport businesses to develop a joint marketing campaign for increased awareness of area amenities and
the services available at the airport. The campaign will include advertising in prominent industry
magazines that cater to pilots, aircraft suppliers and buyers. and corporate flight departments. to entice
them to use St. Lucie County International Airport. Staff will also prepare materials for distribution jt
industry expositions such as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) Conference. and th.:
National Business Aircraft· Association (NBAA) Conference. Staff will coordinate these efforts with
the Chamber of Commerce. the Division of Tourism. and airport businesses.
Aviation Use Propert}' Development -- Staff will continue to work with Enterprise Florida and the
Chamber of Commerce to identify other companies that may be interested using networking and
industry conferences as the primary method for making contacts. This method has proven effective in
the past. Staff will also develop a lease information package for marketing Authority-owned property.
Industrialf Commercial Property Development -- Staff will continue to work with Enterprise
Florida. Bureau of Tourism. and the St. Lucie County Chamber of Commerce to target markets and
specific companies within these markets. The following markets have been identified by the Chamber
of Commerce as desirable and suitable for locating within our community:
- Pharmaceutical
- Warehouse and Distribution
- Agribusiness
- Plastics
- Biomedical
- Marine Manufacturing
- Electronics
- Sports Related Manufacturing
- Aviation and Aircraft Manufacturing
The strategy for marketing businesses in these industries will include use of availahle data hases and the
Internet. Other contacts will be made as a result of the networking. advertising and exhibition effom"
Staff wíll also develop a lease information package for marketing Authority-owned property. The total
marketing cost for FY97f98 has been budgeted at SI3.ooo.00.
FINANCIAL PLAN
The ABPC reviewed the history of airport revenue and expense for the years covering FY~ I 192
through FY96/97. Airport operating revenues have increased from S260.877 .00 in FY91 192 to a hIgh
of $560,944.00 in FY95/96 due mostly to increases in the amount of property under lease.
Additionally. one large lease payment of $150.000.00 was received from the golf course in FY95/96.
The net operating result during this period required that ad valorem subsidy be applied to the airport
each year. with the greatest subsidy occurring in FY91 192.
v
II .
.'
.~
III
,
II
II
II
II
,
II
'I
II
Q
II
II
II
II
II
II
- -
'-"
""wJfI
Financial Forecast
A conservative financial forecast was developed for the airport based on the general assumption that
operating revenue and expense would grow at a rate consistent with past economic trends. and that
planned capital expenditures would be fully accounted for in each year of the airport's capital
improvement program.
Break-even Analvsis
Earlier analyses indicated that a priority should be placed on the lease of available Authority-owned
property to provide a means for attaining financial self sufficiency. The ABPC believes that securing
20 additional acres under lease each year is a reasonable and achievable goal. An average leasehold
value of $2,500.00 per acre for industrial! commercial use property at the airport was determined
reasonable for planning purposes based on discussions with local area real estate brokers. Success in
meeting this goal indicates that, from an operating standpoint. the airport could be financially self
sufficient by the year 200 I where additional airport revenue from land leases is sufficient to cover
operating costs. It is also estimated that the airport could be totally self sufficient by the year :!005
where additional land lease- revenue is sufficient to cover both the airport's projected operating and
capital expenditures.
CONCLUSION
The plan outlined herein is developed to be financially responsible in providing for airport
improvements through the year 2010. It will limit the use of the airport to smaller aircraft and thus not
require the strengthening of the existing runway. The use of smaller aircraft and reduction in the scope
of the proposed development will minimize environmental impacts and the amount of mitigation
required. The plan promotes the development of new commercial and industrial businesses and
positions the County to continue receiving State and Federal funding. thereby eliminating the need to
repay $9 Million in matching grants related to the purchase of airport lands over the past 10 years.
The plan also promotes upgrading existing facilities at the airport and indicates that the airport
operation can become totally self-sustaining by the year 2005 if the land lease program is successfully
implemented.
VI
-
.. ......-
- ----
~I~/
'-"
Ie (J'; Ej)
-----
AGENDA REOUEST
....,
ITEM NO. --1-
DATE: May 18, 1999
REGULAR [X]
PUBLIC HEARING [ ]
CONSENT [ ]
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PRESENTED BY:
SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): County Attorney
Daniel S. McIntyre
County Attorney
SUBJECT:
Resolution No. 99-112 - Urging the United States Congress to reauthorize and fund the National Estuary
Program for an additional five years.
BACKGROUND:
The Indian River Lagoon has been designated an "estuary of national significance" and participates in the National
Estuary Program.
Senator Torriœlli has introduced Senate Bill 878 to reauthorize the National Estuary Program for five years and
is requesting a fifty million dollar appropriations for the National Estuary Program for the upcoming fiscal year.
Representative Saxton has introduced House Resolution 1237 to reauthorize the National Estuary Program for
five years and provide a fifty million dollar appropriation for the upcoming fiscal year.
Commissioner Barnes has requested this office prepare a resolution urging the United States Congress to
reauthorize and fund the National Estuary Program for an additional five years. The attached Resolution No. 99-112
has been drafted for that purpose.
FUNDS AVAIL.:
PREVIOUS ACTION:
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution No. 99-112 as drafted.
...
- --
~/"
'-"
......,
COMMISSION ACTION:
~PROVED [] DENIED
[]OTHER:
CONC
CE:
"'--"
County Attorney:
.t/~
li
Review and AÐÐrovals
Management & Budget
Purchasing
Originating Dept.
Other:
Other:
Finance: (Check for Copy only, if applicable)___
Eft. 5/96
--
l
'-'
....,
RESOLUTION NO. 99-112
A RESOLUTION URGING THE UNITED
STATES CONGRESS TO REAUTHORIZE AND
FUND THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
FOR AN ADDITIONAL FIVE YEARS
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made
the following detenninations:
1. The Indian River Lagoon has been designated an "estuary of national significance" and
participates in the National Estuary Program.
2. This program, one of only twenty-eight in the country, provides support to address local
environmental issues through cooperation among local governments, state agencies, and our federal
partners.
3. This federal support is matched with state and local funding to implement specific projects
and programs to protect and restore our natural resources and water quality. These projects and
programs are outlined in the Indian River Lagoon Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan.
4. Senator Torricelli has introduced Senate Bill 878, along with nineteen other co-sponsors,
to reauthorize the National Estuary Program for five years. Along with this legislation, Senator
Torricelli is requesting a fifty million dollar appropriations for the National Estuary Program for the
upcoming fiscal year.
5. Representative Saxton has introduced House Resolution 1237, along with seven co-
sponsors, to reauthorize the National Estuary Program for five years and provide a fifty million dollar
appropriation for the upcoming fiscal year.
6. As a member of the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program Management
Conference, St. Lucie County urges support for reauthorization and funding, at the current match
-
ì.
'-'
'wII
ratio, to enable us to implement the actions in our Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of St.
Lucie County, Florida:
1. TIùs Board hereby urges the United States Congress to reauthorize and fund the National
Estuary Program for five additional years.
2. The County Administrator is hereby directed to forward a copy of this resolution to
Senator Christopher Bond, Chairman of the Senate VA-HOD Appropriation Subcommittee;
Representative James Walsh, Chairman of the House VA-HOD Appropriation Subcommittee;
Senator Torricelli; Representative Saxton; Senator Bob Graham and Senator Connie Mack.
After motion and second the vote on this resolution was as follows:
Chairman Paula A. Lewis XX
Vice Chairman John D. Bruhn XX
Commissioner Cliff Barnes XX
Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson XX
Commissioner Doug Coward XX
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 1999.
ATTEST:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
CHAIRMAN
DEPUTY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNESS:
COUNTY ATTORNEY
-
05/17/99 ~UCIE COUNTY - BOARD 'wi PAGE 1
FZABVARR VARRANT LIST #33- 08-MAY-99 TO 14-MAY-99
FUND SUMMARY
FUND TITLE ej EXPENSES PAYROLL
.._~<'ri'_~
001 General Fund 327,475.53 238,436.10
001116 Sec 112/MPO/FHWA/Planning 98/99 2,195.04 4,535.86
001120 Community Services Block Grnt 98/99 233.90 0.00
001217 DEP-Regional Attenuation Facility 9,338.07 0.00
001235 TDC Planning Grant 98/99 90.46 255.05
101 Transportation Trust Fund 60,690.84 87,754.44
101002 Transportation Trust/80% Constitut 7,105.56 0.00
101006 Transportation Trust/Impact Fees 300.00 0.00
102 Unincorporated Services Fund 18,634.92 33,816.51
102001 Drainage Maintenance MSTU 1,442.06 2,917.14
102103 Urban & Community Forestry 97/98 77.05 0.00
105 Library Special Grants Fund 772.41 1,849.71
107 Fine & Forfeiture Fund 166,321. 47 54,707.61
121 Blakely Subdivision Fund 66.03 0.00
140 Port & Airport Fund 24,656.49 7,277.80
160 Plan Maintenance RAD Fund 5,069.04 1,964.80
170 Court Facilities Fund 137.90 0.00
181 SLC Housing Finance Authority Fund 4,550.00 0.00
182 Environmental Land Acquisition Fund 706.38 1,431.39
183 Ct Administrator-19th Judicial Cir 2,033.05 3,222.71
183001 Ct Administrator-Arbitration/Mediat 1,244.53 2,449.60
183002 Ct Admin.-County Arbitration/Mediat 75.00 0.00
183004 Ct Admin.- Teen Court 442.98 897.60
183204 Court Reporter Grant-In-Aid 98/99 3,447.00 0.00
~. 183206 FDJJ-Teen Court 98/99 561. 84 1,138.46
185203 FHFA-SHIP 98/99 608.40 1,232.80
186 Recycling Operating Fund 1,632.48 1,334.69
186202 DEP-Recycling & Education 98/99 219.54 444.89
315 County Building Fund 9,900.00 0.00
315201 DOS-315-Fort Pierce Branch Library 2,179.75 0.00
316 County Capital 26,004.82 0.00
382 Environmental Land Capital Fund 165,050.00 0.00
401 Sanitary Landfill Fund 20,854.61 25,806.22
418 Golf Course Fund 21,688.31 16,490.93
421 H.E.V. Utilities Fund 4,683.81 149.35
441 North Hutchinson Island Utilities 49,765.86 2,488.98
449 Capital Facilities Fund 49,532.00 0.00
451 S. Hutchinson Utilities Fund 63,391.55 2,339.64
461 Sports Complex Fund 63,752.99 9,819.37
491 Building Code Fund 8,211.66 15,019.94
501 Automated Services Fund 54,334.18 57,949.23
505 Health Insurance Fund 325,190.53 0.00
505001 Property/Casualty Insurance Fund 2,289.30 0.00
510 Service Garage Fund 16,094.98 8,527.59
611 Tourist Development Trust-Adv Fund 1,887.62 2,697.31
GRAND TOTAL: 1,524,939.94 586,955.72
.-~._.~-"..~
.,
:;1
:'l
~ ~~
.~
,
~':1
; ~
'"
,- ="_:~
~:'~':'I
,4
I
¡
j
,\
~
05/17/99
FZABYARR
-
~ --
~ LUCIE COUNTY - BOARD
'....I
VOID LISTI 33- 08-MAY-99 TO 14-MAY-99
FUND: 001 - General Fund
CHECK
~.J
TOTAL
INVOICE VENDOR
174.84
00237495 99008514 Yorld Almanac Education
FUND TOTAL:
174.84
PAGE 1
......-
..¡
"'
"
"
'i
~
05/17/99
FZABYARR
...
~LUCIE COwrY - BOARD
.....,
VOID LIST# 33- 08-MAY-99 TO 14-MAY-99
FUND: 107 - Fine & Forfeiture Fund
TOTAL
CHECK
'"
INVOICE VENDOR
00242763 99022394 Bruhn & Moore
FUND TOTAL:
13,758.00
13,758.00
~
\.....,./
PAGE 2
:;;;r"..~
,
'Z':':7
-
05/17/99
~ LUCIE COUNrY - BOARD
"wi
FUND: 451 - S. Hutchinson Utili ties Fund
VOID LIST# 33- 08-HAY-99 TO 14-HAY-99
FZABYARR
..j
CHECK
INVOICE VENDOR
00023386 99014501 National Assoc of Cnty Informa
00023519 99022294 Allied Chemical Industry Inc
99022299
99022304
CHECK TOTAL:
FUND TOTAL:
TOTAL
30.00
557.20
557.20
557.20
1,671.60
1,701.60
PAGE 3
,.... -"'--"'"
~,.~
,<
.,
...
,.,
';1
f!,
05/17/99
FZABTJARR
FUND: 501
CHECK
~
- -
~ LUCIE COUNTY - BOARD
.....,
VOID 11ST# 33- 08-MAY-99 TO 14-MAY-99
- Automated Services Fund
INVOICE VENDOR
TOTAL
120.00
00240361 99015964 SCT Government Systems Inc
FUND TOTAL:
120.00
PAGE 4
:~<.t-~,
;:;t
Í'-~ ,'.-;;~!
"
¡:;~
;>::a
05/17/99
'w' LUCIE COUNTY - BOARD
VOID LISTH 33- 08-MAY-99 TO 14-MAY-99
"wi
FZABYARR
FUND: 625 - Law Library
CHECK
INVOICE VENDOR
00242896 99022399 Legal Aid Society of the Bar A
99022399
CHECK TOTAL:
FUND TOTAL:
,_,V'
TOTAL
4,184.98
7,637.31
11 ,822.29
11,822.29
PAGE 5
,
~
AGENDA REQUEST
....,
ITEM NO.
U-Ä
DATE: May 18, 1999
REGULAR [ ]
PUBLIC HEARING [ ]
CONSENT [XX]
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY:
SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): County Attorney
Daniel S. McIntyre
County Attorney
SUBJECT: Extension of Interlocal Agreement for Use of Funds Disbursed Under the
County Emergency Medical Services Award
BACKGROUND: See attached memorandum
FUNDS AVAILABLE:
PREVIOUS ACTION:
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached Third Extension
and authorize the Chairman to sign the Extension.
COMMISSION ACTION:
[vfAPPROVED [] DENIED
[ ] OTHER:
NCE:
Anderson
Administrator
County Attorney:
~C):r
R view and A
Purchasing:
Management & Budget
Originating Dept,
Other:
Other:
,'n.nc., ::f¿;¡) foe Copy only, if ~.]
Eff. 5/96
·
\
~
'wi'
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
James W. Lancaster, Assistant County Attorney
C.A. NO.
99-629
DATE:
May 11, 1999
SUBJECT:
Third Extension of Interlocal Agreement for Use of Funds
Disbursed Under the County Emergency Medical Services
Award
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND:
On April 16, 1996, the County and the St. Lucie County Fire District
entered into an Interlocal Agreement whereby the County agreed to disburse
Florida Emergency Medical Services Grant funds to the Fire District so that
the Fire District could use the funds to improve and expand pre-hospital
emergency medical services systems in St. Lucie County pursuant to Part
11 of Chapter 401, Florida Statutes. The Interlocal Agreement provides for
extensions each year to include EMS Grants which may be received by the
County and disbursed to the Fire District. The County has received an EMS
Grant for 1998-99 and the parties have agreed to extend the term of the
EMS Interlocal Agreement to cover the disbursement of the 1998-99 EMS
Grant to the Fire District.
'"
....,
RECOMMENDA TION/CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the Board approve the Third Extension of the
Interlocal Agreement and authorize the Chairman to sign the Extension.
Respectfully submitted,
~?v;~o
J, es W. Lancaster
Assistant County Attomey
JWL/caf
Attachment
.....,.
, .."
THIRD EXTENSION OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR
USE OF FUNDS DISBURSED UNDER
THE COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AWARD
THIS THIRD EXTENSION is made and entered this _ day of
1999, between the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY,
FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, (the "County"), and the ST. LUCIE
COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT, (the "Fire District").
WHEREAS, on April 16, 1996, the parties entered into an Interlocal Agreement (the
"EMS Interlocal Agreement") whereby the County agreed to disburse Florida Emergency
Medical Services Grant funds (the "EMS Grant") to the Fire District so that the Fire District
could use the funds to improve and expand pre-hospital emergency medical services systems in
St. Lucie County pursuant to Part \I of Chapter 401, Florida Statutes and St. Lucie County
Resolution No. 95-210; and
WH EREAS, the EMS Interlocal Agreement provided that the parties could extend the
term of the Agreement each year to include EMS Grants which may be received by the County
and disbursed to the Fire District in subsequent years; and
WHEREAS, the County has received an EMS Grant for 1998-1999 and the parties have
agreed to extend the term of the EMS Interlocal Agreement to cover the disbursement of the
1998-1999 EMS Grant to the Fire District.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual covenants and promises, the parties
agree to amend and extend the EMS Interlocal Agreement as follows:
1. The term of EMS Interlocal Agreement is hereby extended to cover the EMS
-1-
""""
"'"
Grant disbursed by the County to the Fire District for 1998-1999 pursuant to Resolution
No. 98-195.
2. Except as expressly extended or amended herein, all of the remaining terms and
conditions of the EMS Interlocal Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have accepted, made, and executed this
Agreement upon the terms and conditions above stated on the day and year signed.
ATTEST:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
CHAIRMAN
DEPUTY CLERK (SEAL)
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNESS:
BY:
COUNTY ATTORNEY
WITNESSES:
ST. LUCIE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
BY:
CHAIRMAN
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNESS
BY:
FIRE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
g:\atty~im \interloc\ems-ext. 99
-2-
'J,\
~/
'-"
AGENDA REQUEST
."""""
ITEM NO.
L-dlJ
DATE: May 18, 1999
REGULAR [ ]
PUBLIC HEARING [ ]
CONSENT [XX]
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY:
SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): County Attorney
Daniel S. McIntyre
County Attorney
SUBJECT: Omec v. Yang; Case No. 98-1092-CA-17 - Accept Check for $532.50
Representing One-Half Reimbursement for Jury Services
BACKGROUND: See attached memorandum
FUNDS AVAILABLE:
PREVIOUS ACTION:
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board accept the check from William R.
Ponsoldt, Jr. representing one-half reimbursement for jury services.
COMMISSION ACTION:
~ APPROVED [] DENIED
[ ] OTHER:
NCE:
Review and ADprovals
County Attorney:
Management & Budget
Purchasing:
Originating Dept,
Other:
Other:
Finance: (Check for Copy only, if apPliCable)QL\
Eft. 5/96
'-'
......"
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
Daniel S. McIntyre, County Attorney
C.A. NO.
99-612
DATE:
May 7, 1999
SUBJECT:
Omec v. Yang; Case No. 98-1092-CA-17 - Accept Check for
$532.50 Representing One-Half Reimbursement for Jury
Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND:
The attorneys in the referenced matter were required by Judge Shack
to pay one-half of the monies expended by the County for jurors' services at
the trial. Attached is a copy of a letter dated April 9, 1999, from William R.
Ponsoldt, Jr. with a check in the amount of five hundred thirty-two and
50/100 ($532.50) dollars which represents payment of the defendant's
portion of the cost.
RECOMMENDATION/CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the Board accept the check from William R.
Ponsoldt, Jr. representing one-half reimbursement for jury services.
Respectfully submitted,
). //1.7~~/~') 'j;'! /
f r," f /
" /, / 'r'
.(,,/ ,~,('/\" ~. ' .
Daniél S: M4nt re
County Attorney
, /
/
DSM/caf
Attachment
'-' ..,
WARNER,FOX,WACKEEN,DUNGEY
SEELEY, SWEET & WRIGHT, L.L.P.
DEBORAH B. BEARD
RICHARD J. DUNGEY'
M. LANNING FOX'
GARY L. SWEET
W. THOMAS WACKEEN"
THOMASE.WARNER"
TIM B. WRIGHT
1100 S, FEDERAL HIGHWAY
P,O, DRAWER 6
STUART, FLORIDA 34995-0006
(561) 287-4444
TELEFAX(561) 220-1489
ANTHONY L. CONTICELLO
LOUIS E. LOZEAU. JR.
MICHAEL J.McCLUSKEY
WILLIAM R. PONSOLDT. JR.
'''BETH TEARDO PRINZ
SUSANN B. WARD
AARON A. FOOSANER
ROBERT L. SEELEY
OF COUNSEL
JUPITER (561) 744-6499
. BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE LAWYER
.. BOARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL LAWYER
'''BOARD CERTIFIED WILLS, TRUSTS
&: ESTATES LAWYER
April 9, 1999
Board of County Commissioners
St. Lucie County
2300 Virginia Avenue
Ft. Pierce, FL 34982
Re: Omec v. Yang; Case No. 94-1092-CA 17, St. Lucie County
Dear Sirs:
Enclosed is a c ck for $532.50. This represents my understanding of one-half of the amounts
expended by-X on behalf of the jury for this trial. Please treat this as a voluntary contribution
to reimbufs our office fOJ e jurors' services at the trial in the above- referenced matter.
,vej' yyo7f /;,1
/ ~am R. Ponsoldt Jr.
cc: Judge Schack
William Murphy
F:IHOME\BILLICLIENTSIN-Z\Y ANG\LETTERSISt. Lucie Co, Pay
'-'
....,
. "," ~"..,. ,'_ ;:o-",,~"':. .~:~ .... . ..': ...: ;",... ,¡....~ ..,-"...;._. ....
.. . --.. -. ......- .'·'U .,. ".... . . .. "," 0;;' .'. '. .. ",... .,..,,, -,;';.:~:::.,:.'.:,..-:.~;.~.:-'.-.:::.:",: :.~,~-.,.~,':';.':,.::;_':~,-.'_:'.:,_~:,.~..:.',:,~.'.::'~;..~,:,.,.~,~:',:~.;~.'~,:.'.,::..:--.:..:.'~.';"':~....-~..:..:::.~~.:',':,~.::,~..;.:....~_~''~'.::,:::.::-~.:...~:,'...::.:..-~:~,."'-.'..,:.;:~,'~..'::.~;.~'.".",.',..".:,,::,,!'..~,,~,~."":;':'~';,;.,'.~,..:.::;..',','..~':.-:,..'~.~..~~-:.:.;,.,;:',"::,..'~,~_~.',..,:_~'..,·.·~c~:;:.:~.-:.·.·.~,·,~..:,·~;'~~.~,,·,7...,~,·'.',..,:-,-.~'.,:,:_-~,.,'~:~:_~._..~..,..~,~~':,_~,,':.:._:..,_~_..:.,:~
:~~;~ ;"1,~ijtIf~j~;,,~~~f~;i;:',~~{tf~~"'~~;:fì;~~~;·~5§~;:i;;" ';. .." . '. . '.,. . ., . . "
," .-
-.
.. .
['(AV.t\y^ VÞ. Y.t\. VA V..... VAVA 'U\.YAYL- y.t Y,fo.:VA VA\. VA "'<AYAYA\I\YA YAVAVA YAVAYAYf..Y.l\:Vi\v.Þ. ÿAYAYL\ YAV" (A VAVN(Þ Y.AYA VA V,t. '11 V.... VA\. /,t. '(/ "Þ,V ^V.t..YIW1\.{ AV ¡,:VAYAVA '<,^V...\.YA Y ^ YAYAYAYf..v,¡
(WILLlA?V'I R PONSOLDT JR
770 SW LIGHTHOUSE DRIVE
PALM Crry FL 34,!90
5456100011075062 ~HomeComingf 1005
FINANCIAL NETWORK
Date---i1fr'~ î. ,en¡ 56-773/422
I
ç;'
ílJ f,~fl~rIh~ i rd Ba n k
$ 5S1.S-u
Dollars f!I =~~:-
.- ~ . .~
:~'f;~~~~1~~~~{f~
.: 0... 2 20 ? ? 31 5': ? 31 31111 31 . ti 2 ? III
/ß
.005
lIP
. ;-
t'~>t "~~¿If.:;::;::;{ ~:'~f;;L~:
~·,tf~~~t~;t~~fi-;~r~
.'
For
....
..
..-....
..........
...
7",i
'r'
','"
,;·f.'
r·
"
~~":._~.:;;..~_: '" . ~.. .. :.. ;:.. .-..' ;;: ..~~;~ '::' ":.. ::·;;i;'-....~: ':.. .:~ ':.-- -: ..: ·::;:~r.
;::, ,:~::~' :~ j:'\: .;;, ::'::;~~~~~~i·)~, ~~~;¡,;,~;:~~~1~~:,:d;.,~;};õ::~::~;~8::;~;'r::t ~i¡:::':;:~ '~':.::=, :~;,
...~. ............. ...
, .,
" ~<
y/
'-"
AGENDA REQUEST
....,
ITEM NO.
(-d -C-
DATE: May 18, 1999
REGULAR [ ]
PUBLIC HEARING [ ]
CONSENT [XX]
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY:
SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): County Attorney
Daniel S. McIntyre
County Attorney
SUBJECT: Permission to File Suit - Board of County Commissioners vs. Archie and
Shiela Jones
BACKGROUND: See attached memorandum
FUNDS AVAILABLE:
PREVIOUS ACTION:
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Attorney's office
to file suit against Archie and Sheila Jones to quiet title in property owned by the County.
COMMISSION ACTION:
[0 APPROVED [] DENIED
[ ] OTHER:
NCE:
Review and Approvals
Management & Budget
Purchasing:
County Attorney:
Originating Dept,
Othe r:
Other:
Finance: (Check for Copy only, if applicable)
Eff. 5/96
..
'-'
....""
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
Daniel S. Mcintyre, County Attorney
C.A. NO.
99-614
DATE:
May 7, 1999
SUBJECT:
Permission to File Quiet Title Suit - Board of County
Commissioners vs. Archie and Shiela Jones
=================================================================
BACKGROUND:
Archie and Shiela Jones were record title holders to property located
in Indrio North Savannas. The 1995 ad valorem taxes on the subject
property were not paid and Tax Sale Certificate No. 426 was issued by the
Tax Collector. As a result of an application made for the issuance of a tax
deed, the subject property was offered for sale on December 1, 1998, as
required by law for cash to the highest bidder. The County submitted the
highest bid and paid the bid sum. This property was purchased as part of
the environmentally sensitive lands acquisition program.. The County is the
grantee in the Tax Deed (copy attached) conveying the property. Since title
passed to the County through a Tax Deed, a quiet title suit is a requirement
of closing. Since Mr. and Mrs. Jones were the record title holders to the
property at the time the Tax Deed was conveyed to the County, they are
necessary parties to the suit for quiet title.
..
'-'
""-"
RECOMMENDA TION/CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Attorney's
office to file suit against Archie and Sheila Jones
DSM/caf
Attachment
I -
. Tax Deed File No. 98-164 '-'
Property
Identification No, 1407-443-0020-000/9
ARCHIE RAY JONES SHEILA S
DR-S06
R.Oll95
Tax Deed
State of Florida
County of
ST. LUCIE
* Doc Assurnp: $
* Doc Tax $
* Int Tax $
0.00
5.60
0.00
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
The following Tax Sale Certificate Numbered 426 issued on
May 31, 1995 was filed in the office of the tax collector of this County and application made for
the issuance of a tax deed, the applicant having paid or redeemed all other taxes or tax sale certificates on the land
described as required by law to be paid or redeemed, and the costs and expenses of this sale, and due notice of sale
having been published as required by law, and no person entitled to do so having appeared to redeem said land; such land
was on the day of Decembe r 1, , 19 -9.B..- , offered for sale as required by law for cash to the
highest bidder and was sold to !=;ATN'T' T.TJCTE COUNTY, a political subdivision in the £itate
of Florida
whose address is 2300 Uirl)'iniò AupnllP, Port- Pierce. Florida 34982
highest bidder and having paid the sum of his bid as required by the Laws of Florida,
Now,onthis l5t day of Dpt"'pmhpr ,19~,
in the County of ST. LUC IE , State of Florida, in consideration of the sum
of ($ 746.06 ) SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY SIX AND 06/100 Dollars,
being the amount paid pursuant to the Laws of Florida does hereby sell the following lands, including any hereditaments,
buildings, fixtures and improvements of any kind and description, situated in the County and State aforesaid and described
as follows:
,being the
State of Florida
;U"Tlc..
ro 1-" e
n ¡"-<I
CJcn=
1 =
CJ.. ::z: IT
roC
CJ..3::r
..ere
cnf-
,;:
--L .. P
I'J L..1 =
I I"
8 Û'. c-
/ IOJf-
.. . -0 IT
/; /., /, 000-
/( A-Z:!/~f ." -;;.~ c.¿~~d..L--1šeal) 0:
Circuit Court or County Comptroller b Û" ....,
~j-...1~
County, Florida. 0". 0 IT
:D ;u c-
. f-
3r:o-
. or
a!::
~f-
West 30 Ft (1.15 AC)
7 34 40 South
(OR 262-2046)
ST. LUCIE
County of
ST. LUCIE
~t
~~
CO~
....JI
C'
On this 1st day of DECEMBER ,19~ ,before
me Bettv V. Robson personally appeared JoANNE HOLMAN
Clerk of the Circuit Court or County Comptroller in and for the State and this County known to me to be the person
described in, and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the execution of this instrument to be his own
free act and deed for the use and purposes therein mentioned,
Witness my hand and office seal date aforesaid,
.6,/(1.,
!
)/, ,¿í-tJ.0'_ (7Z-
~
-n .
:D
Qr
[Tl~
r
f-
~rr
lJ1
o
~' "-
Vii ,,!-'
/~~~ / .' \
(\ ..,1 J ,/. '.,', ,~c:¡
I . I ~ \ '.' \ (, ,
J\ì V r r.. : ,\ v
.) '.J) , \
I. L!r:
.../
"'J£ii·":·~~ó;:.,_ BETTY V. ROBSON
~~( ~'T:~ MY COMMISSION N CC429251 EXPIRES
~_,"~'Æ'i January 12, 1999
"~p.f.::\-f.." BONDED THRU T1IOY FAIN INSURANCE, INC,
":.1
¡
__J.
¿,..n
.., .../......".,'
.<-': ':"
/
,
~ AGENDA REQUEST
"""" ITEM NO.
c-3A_
DATE: May 18, 1999
REGULAR []
PUBLIC HEARING [ ]
CONSENT [X ]
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SUBMITTED BY:
PRESENTED BY: Harvey M. Lincoln
SUBJECT: Establishing A Budget For The Ideal Holding Road MSBU
OMB
BACKGROUND: In order to comply with the Board's direction to proceed with construction of the
Ideal Holding Road MSBU a budget must be adopted for the project. Budget
Resolution No. 99-111 appropriates funds in the form of contributions from
property owners and establishes a budget for the Ideal Holding Road MSBU.
FUNDS AVAILABLE: See attached Budget Resolution No. 99-111
PREVIOUS ACTION: July 23, 1996 - The Board Accepted the petition and granted permission to
advertise for the initial public hearing held on August 20, 1996.
August 20,1998 - The Board adopted Resolution 96-194 and authorized the
County Engineer to proceed with design of the project.
December 8, 1998 - the Board adopted Resolution 98-260 stating the County's
intent to use the uniform method of collection.
March 2, 1999 - The Board granted permission to advertise the second public
hearing.
April 6, 1999 - The Board adopted Resolution 99-088 to levy a non-ad valorem
special assessment on the Ideal Holding Road MSBU participants; approved the
preliminary assessment roll and authorized the County Engineer to proceed with
construction.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board adopt Budget Resolution No. 99-111
establishing the budget for the Ideal Holding Road MSBU project.
[vf APPROVED [] DENIED
[ ] OTHER:
COMMISSION ACTION:
County Attorney: XX
81·
çOOr¡ inatiQ::4)~ /
Management & Budget: ' \0/ Purchasing:
Public Works: XX íf!/IL{F
Originating Dept:
Other:
Finance: (Check for Copy only, if applicable) XX
G: Ibudgetlagenda' slagenda9915'I8 _Ideal, wpd
¿
'-"
....",
/'
\.....
¡\
to
RESOLUTION NO. 99-111
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 in the form of contributions from
the property owners participating in the Ideal Holding Road Municipal Services Benefit Unit.
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 18th day of May, 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
392-4115-366910-415006
Proceeds - Contrib Fm Prop Owners
$279,000
APPROPRIATIONS
392-4115-563000-415006
392-4115-563005-415006
392-4115-563008-415006
392-4115-563009-415006
392-4115-563011-415006
392-4115-563023-415006
392-9950-573100-415006
392-9910-599330-415006
Improvements orr Buildings
Improvements orr Bldgs - Consulting Engineer
Improvements orr Bldgs - Advertising
Improvements orr Bldgs - Soil Testing
Improvements orr Bldgs - Permits/Appl
Improvements orr Bldgs - Equipment Rental
Additional Bond Expenses
Project Reserves
$209,400
$960
$600
$3,300
$1,000
$500
$20,400
$42.840
$279,000
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 18TH DAY OF MAY, 1999.
ATTEST:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
CHAIRMAN
APPROVED AS TO CORRECTNESS
AND FORM:
COUNTY ATTORNEY
G:\budgetlagenda'slagenda99\5'18 _Ideal. wpd
~ AGENDA REQUEST
-.....I ITEM NO.
DATE: May 18, 1999
C-3B
REGULAR []
PUBLIC HEARING [ ]
CONSENT [X ]
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SUBMITTED BY:
OMB
PRESENTED BY: Harvey M. Lincoln
SUBJECT: Equipment Request # 99-211 For State Surplus Dozer
BACKGROUND: The Purchasing Manager was informed by the State Surplus Agency that they are
in the possession of a surplus 1986 550B Dozer. In conversation with the Road &
Bridge Manager, it was determined that due to the smaller size this would be a
very useful piece of equipment for the Road & Bridge Division. The average resale
price is $22,900, however, the County can purchase it for $3,600. Due to cost
savings there is sufficient funds remaining in the Road & Bridge Maintenance
section under Machinery and Equipment.
FUNDS AVAILABLE: 101-4110-564000-400
PREVIOUS ACTION: None
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board approve equipment request # 99-211.
[ ~PPROVED
[ ] OTHER:
[ ] DENIED
COMMISSION ACTION:
County Attorney: 1Q\ !Ji
Originating Dept: / ß~./
Management & Budget
Purchasing: XX
á3
Public Works: XX
Other:
Finance: (Check for Copy only, if applicable) XX
G:\budgellagenda' slagenda99\5'18 _ Dozerwpd
.~
.....,
.....,
.Î
\..
MEMORANDUM
PURCHASING
DEPARTMENT
FROM:
Office of Management & Budget _ i~
Charles L. Bicht, Sr., Purchasing Manager ~/
TO:
DATE:
May 12,1999
SUBJECT:
Equipment Request
The State Surplus Agency called this morning informing me that they have a 1986 John
Deere 550B Dozer in surplus. I called the Road Department and the Road & Bridge
Manager informed me that this would be a very useful piece of equipment. A dozer of
this size could be used in areas too restrictive for a larger machine, can be used to fight
fires and has greater portability.
The cost to the county is $3,600. The average resale for this machine is over $22,900.
The Road department has the $3,600 in their equipment account because of savings
on the budgeted equipment purchased.
Please prepare an Agenda Request to the BOCC for their May 18, 1999 meeting.
H:\WP\MEMOS\JD 550 requesc,'öpd
r
en
c:=
W
zen
00?
en~
en en
- ~
:2c:=
:2<
Ow
U>-
~cæ
::JU
O~
uu.
u.C:=
O~
c....
c:=en
<w
O::J
[CO
~~
Z....
::JZ
OW
u:2
w9:
-::J
Uo
3w
~
en
CI)
~
c
w
c
z
w
:¡¡¡
:¡¡¡
o
(.)
w
D::
c
w
>
o
D::
D..
D..
<
CI)
~
a::
~
ü
~
CO
:::J
a..
IJ.J
(!)
a
ë2
CO
~
«
a
ð
a::
.:.:
z
w
:¡¡¡ z
~ 0
< (j)
fb ~
c c
'-'
~
c: t:I)
~ :§
~-c::
.!Q ...!2I
(1)- -
(1) ._N c:
.g II) ;
Q.. II) .;;:;
Q) ~ "\oil
Cii'õ.9
II) (1) (1)
~ II) .Q
(1) ~ 32
t:I) ~ ~
~ (1) ~
(1) .Q ~
:::. ... ...
co (1) (1)
(1) ~ N
.:: ~ .g
o .(1)
c:::i.c:~
o (1)- ...
co (1) Q
cY') ~ '"
~ ::... ü),
Q=æ.=
Q) ~ (.)
II) õ ~
~ c: (1)
~ c: Q..
~ .0 Q)
Q.. t5 t::
t:: Q) 0
co II)
(.) (1) cri
.ò t:I) Q)
c: 12 .c:
_ .t:
g co (.)
(.) <>ð co
(1) ~ E
Sco:ï5
... 0 þ)
(1) a:: -
N ~
o Q) (1)
as
s
CO II) ...
o (1)
It) c: Q
It) 0
~ (1) .~
(1) s :u
(1) c: .s
a co II)
c: S ~
"§Q30
""')11) =æ .9
~ E II)
_ II) co
e- ~
~ .!Q co
II) - c:
co ã5 '-
II) ~ ~
co ¡;;: Q)
.c: ,9. II)
~ ~
Gt:r~
c: (1) t::
(1) .... co
t:I) 0 ...
« (1) .~
II) (.) II)
~ .~ co
_ Q.. (1)
~ .!Q -g
CI)'::t
(1) 0 cri
- c:::i g. ~
oS 0 t:: Iõ::
CI) 0) ~ ~
(1) C\ - ..... ~
'::~~.ð
o
o
~
C
o
o
~
co
It)
C
-.-
-.-
~
I
-.-
o
-.-
Q:
w
III
:¡¡¡
::J
Z
I-
Z
::J
o
(.)
(.)
<
-.-
-.-
C\
I
0)
0)
o
IJ.J
:it
~a
w
D::
I-
Z
W
:¡¡¡
D..
5 (
w
z
o
¡::
<
(.)
ü:
¡::
en
::J
.,
~/
......,..
AGENDA REQUEST
~M NO. (- L(
DATE: May 18, 1999
REGULAR [ ]
PUBLIC HEARING [ ]
CONSENT [XX]
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY:
SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): County Attorney
Daniel S. McIntyre
County Attorney
SUBJECT: A-I Roof Trusses Ltd., Company TEFRA Hearing Request
BACKGROUND: See attached memorandum
FUNDS AVAILABLE:
PREVIOUS ACTION:
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board grant pennission to advertise a TEFRA
hearing on June 8, 1999 at 9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as the item may be heard.
COMMISSION ACTION:
[~PPROVED [] DENIED
[ ] OTHER:
..-.-..-.
Dou sAnderson
County Administrator
County Attorney:
pr,
t:Ä
Review and Approvals
Management & Budget
Purchasing:
Originating Dept,
Other:
Othe r:
Finance: (Check for Copy only,
if a~\e) ,
Eff, 5/96
'-'
"""
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
Daniel S. Mcintyre, County Attorney
C.A. NO.
99-627
DATE:
May 10, 1999
SUBJECT:
A-l Roof Trusses Ltd., Company TEFRA Hearing Request
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND:
Attached is a copy ofa letter dated May 7, 1999 with enclosures from
Mark E. Raymond, Esquire. Also attached is a copy of a letter dated May
10, 1999 from Mr. Raymond. As indicated in the letters, Mr. Raymond
represents A-l Roof Trusses Ltd. Company (A-l). A-l is requesting that the
County issue up to $3,000,000 in industrial development revenue bonds in
order to finance a roof-truss manufacturing facility in Reserve Commerce
Park in St. Lucie County. A-l is currently in business in Palm Beach County
and desires to relocate to St. Lucie County.
Issuance of the industrial development revenue bonds requires an
allocation of the private activity bond volume cap from the State of Florida.
In this regard, A-l would like the County to hold a TEFRA hearing and
adopt an inducement resolution. The inducement would not obligate the
County to issue the bonds. If the Board determined at some future date to
'-"
'wi
issue the bonds, the County would not be responsible for paying the debt
service on the bonds.
RECOMMENDA TION/CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the Board grant permission to advertise a
TEFRA hearing on June 8, 1999 at 9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as the
item may be heard.
DSM/caf
Attachments
Copy to: R. Freeman, Esquire
B.Leedy
.iH. ,1 ø . 9::' 1 [1: [1::::;':"['1 rllJ" -. F U::~t'1 I GRf L L T. AL P. 2/3
....,,' ""'"
MOYLE, FLANIGAN, KATZ, KOLINS, RAYMOND & SHEEHAN, P.A.
AITORl'.'EYS AT LAW
625 North Flagler Drive - 91/1 Floor
West Palm Beach, Florida 334014025
P.O. Box 3888
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3888
Telephone: (561) 659-Î500
Facsimile: (561) 659-1789
Other Offices:
T al1ah.assee, FL
(850) 681.3828
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
(561) 625-6480
MARKE, RAYMO~D
Dir~çt Line: (561) 822-0380
E"'J!¡.¡¡il: mraymond@æoyldaw.com
May 10, 1999
Daniel S. McIntyre
County Attorney
St. Lucie County, Florida
2300 Virginia Avenue, 3rd fl.
Administrative Annex
Fe Pierce, Florida 34982-5652
Re: A-I Roof Trusses Ltd., Company
TEFR..-\ Hearing Request
Dear !'vIr. McIntyre:
I spoke with Robert Frer::man on Friday afternoon and Robert advised that you will seek
permissìon to advertise at the Bee meeting on May 18, 1999. Given the fourteen day publication
requirement, this would lead to a TEFRA hearing on June 8, 1999. This would mean that the
TEFRA notice would need to published no later than May 25, 1999. I will contact you on May
19. 1999 to determine whether permission to advertise has been granted. and if so, I will then
make the necessary arrangements to have the notice published. Perhaps on the 19th you and I
could also di:)cus5 who should attend the June 8 meetìng on behalf of the company.
The Resolution tbat I prepared authorizes the County Administrator to complete the
arphcation for allocation in any amount up to $3,000,000. As Mr. Freeman indicated in his May
7, 1999 letter to you, the application contains a certification that the amount of bonds ultimately
Issued will be at least 90% of the amount requested. The $3,000,000 figure is an upset figure,
and it is not expected that the Company will request an allocation for that amount ($2.5 million
b~i!1g ;l more likely target). However, please be ad.vised that it is the Company's intention that
r.h~ a.rnount of bonds ultim..':\ttly 1ssued wm be 100% of whatever amount of allocation is requested.
When it is time to complete the application for allocation I will prepare an appropriate Jetter from
the Company to St. Lucie County confirming this fact.
G',0:.')~\~\J-~0-'1.> IT< I""".wopd
il':'¡',' ~:] ";:":; W :':YjAt'1 ri(I" ~. FLAt II GAt',!, ET . AL
Fl. :3/3
¥
'"
May 10, 1999
Page 2
Also, Robert suggested that I address why the Company would like to expedite the TEFRA
hearing, There is a limited amount of private activity bond volume cap available in the State of
Florida, and in general, it is allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. Unless the allocation
is received, no bonds can be issued. Therefore, it is important to expedite the filing of the
allocation request. Additionally, because the bonds cannot be issued unless the allocation is
received, it seems most efficient to determine whether an allocation is available before spending
. the substantial amount of time and effort necessary to proceed with a bond issue. For that reason,
only after an allocation is received would the Company parùcipate in the formal review process
by the County leading to a decision whether to issue bonds.
I hope this letter has been responsive to your needs. Please call if you require anything
further, Unless, I hear from you, I will contact you May 19, 1999.
Very trUly yours,
ØJrA
Mark E. Raymond
-7
MERJams
cc: Distribution List
ç-\t':3~1~'''¡\~-lo-99 ~ Jrd)'rt" wpJ
MOYLE, FLANIG~, KATZ, KOLINS, RAYMOND" SHEEHAN, P.A.
A TIORNEYS AT LAW
625 North Flagler Drive - 9th Floor
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-4025
P.O. Box 3888
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3888
Telephone: (561) 659-7500
Facsimile: (561) 659-1789
Other Offices:
Tallahassee, FL
(850) 681-3828
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
(561) 625-6480
MARK E. RAYMOND
Direct Line: (561) 822-0380
E-mail: mraymond@moylelaw.com
May 7, 1999
Daniel S. McIntyre
County Attorney
St. Lucie County, Florida
2300 Virginia Avenue, 3rd fl.
Administrative Annex
Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982-5652
Re: A-I Roof Trusses Ltd., Company
Dear Mr. McIntyre:
As you and I discussed sometime ago, this firm represents A-I Roof Trusses Ltd.,
Company and its owner, John R. Herring. Mr. Herring is requesting that St. Lucie County,
Florida issue up to $3,000,000 of industrial development revenue bonds in order to finance a roof-
truss manufacturing facility to be located on a site Mr. Herring owns in the Reserve Commerce
Park. Mr. Herring and A-I have,been in business in Palm Beach County for 22 years and now
wish to relocate in St. Lucie County. The proposed bonds are to be credit-enhanced with a
SunTrust letter of credit.
Issuance of the bonds requires an allocation of the private activity bond volume cap from
the State of Florida. Since there is a limited amount of allocation available, we would like for the
County to expedite the "inducement" of the bond issue to allow us to apply for an allocation of the
volume cap. The inducement would not obligate the County to issue the bonds. In order to
expedite the inducement, my client requests that he be allowed to delay submission of the formal
application to a later date, either before or promptly after receipt of the allocation.
Enclosed please find an initial draft of an inducement resolution and preliminary
distribution list.
Since it is required that the TEFRA hearing be held prior to the filing of the allocation
request, and since the hearing is required to be held after no less than 14 days' published notice,
G:\0l338\l\5-7-99 me intyre,wpd
'-"
v
May 7, 1999
Page 2
would you please contact me as soon as possible and let me know when this matter could be placed
on a County Commission agenda so that I may make arrangements to have the notice published.
A copy of a proposed notice is included for your review.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience.
/j leY yours,
Mark E. Raymond
MER/ams
cc: Distribution List
G:\0I338\1\5-7-99 me inryre.wpd