HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002
~
~
'-"
. -']
FORT PIERCE HARBOR ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting
July 23, 2002
Convened: 3: 16 p.m.
Adjourned: 4:48 p.m.
This meeting of the Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee was held Tuesday, July 23,2002 at 3: 16p.m.
in Conference Room #3 of the Administration Annex Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Members Present:
Gail Kavanagh, Chairman
Jeanne Hearn
David Souza
Commissioner Christine Coke
Mary Chapman
Stix Nickson
Delores Hogan Johnson (late 3:10p.m.)
Kevin Jackson, Vice Chairman (late 3:35p.m.)
Also Present:
Missy Stiadle, Recording Secretary
Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney
Carla Roccapriore, Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers
Robert P. Anderson, Resident Indrio
Michael Rath, Purchasing Director
S. K. Patel, BCI Engineers and Scientists
Alexandra Bryant, Intern Administration Office
Emily Grande, Hutchinson Island
Don West, Engineering Department
Liz Martin, Executive Aide to Commissioner Hutchinson
Barbara Felton, Executive Aide to Commissioner Lewis
Victoria Stalls, Executive Aide to Commissioner Barnes
Jim David, Mosquito Control Director
AGENDA
1. ROLL CALL
Ro II call was taken
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Charles Grande commented on discussion at the last meeting regarding the City of Fort Pierce
adopting the County Port Master Plan. He stated he thought that there may be a misunderstanding
1
~
that there is no recommendation needed. Mr. Grande stated if the City chose to adopt the Master
Plan, he would suggest that they should adopt it by reference and include the text of the Port Master
Plan in their Comprehensive Plan and refer to it so that if it should change along the way it would
always be consistent between the City and the County. Mr. Grande stated if the City adopted it
literally and included it in the plan, over time it would diverge and create problems.
John Arena commented on the curve on the south end ofthe property and stated that it could have
been built into the property in order to conduct the incoming current to the south. He stated that if
the curve were touched by either removing some, or adding some, it would change the
hydrodynamics. Mr. Arena explained that several things could then happen and what he thought
each scenario might be in detail.
Stix Nickson asked for the location of the curve that he was speaking about. Mr. Arena stated that
it is the big beautiful curve when you are standing on the bridge and pointed it out on the map used
for one of the presentations. Mr. Nickson asked if this was part of the dredge material when the
navigation channel was dredged at the inland waterway and the port. He stated that it was his belief
that it was spoil material put there on purpose. Mr. Arena stated that he believes that it was put there
in 1950 when the land was developed. Mr. Nickson asked if it was his estimation that it was dredged
spoil material. Mr. Arena stated that the port area is spoil material and he is assuming that it is part
of the original plans. He stated that he was searching for the archival maps and would bring them
to the committee when he finds them.
.'-'
Robert Anderson stated that he wanted to know how long the operations had been going on in
Melbourne or Palm Bay at the dredge disposal site. Mr. Patel stated that he thought this was the
second year after the completion of the dredging. Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Patel ifhe could tell him
when the dredging started up there. Mr. Patel stated that he would have to look at the specific date
on that. Mr. Anderson stated that they were there the first part of 2000 and he gave Committee
members pictures that he had taken last week. Mr. Patel stated that this is a pace project. He stated
that when people make statements in public meetings they should find out what the project; is and
how it will be phased out. Mr. Patel stated that this was a phased project in other words a section
was dredged and the disposal area was filled and emptied and then dredged again. He stated that
maybe Mr. Anderson came by after the first year of dredging. Mr. Anderson stated that he has been
by the site every month. Mr. Patel stated that was fine; he was just making a statement for them to
remember that this was a phased project and was done in two phases. Mr. Anderson stated that his
reason for bringing in the pictures and asking the questions is because this is what brought him in
to attend these meetings, because this type of disposal site was to be put directly across from his
property not as a partial disposal site, but as a lifetime site.
3.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES JUNE 25,2002
It was moved by Commissioner Christine Coke, seconded by Stix Nickson, to approve the minutes
of the June 25,2002 meeting. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
4. UPDATE ON RFQ/P #02-053 - ROBERT BRADSHAW /MIKE RA TH
Mike Rath, Purchasing Director stated that on July 15, 2002 the Board of County Commissioners
held a work session to hear presentations from the three firms that were short listed as part of the
~
2
~
~
'-"
-
;;;
Request For Qualification process for the Port development. He stated the Commission heard
presentations from Fort Pierce Development, Haskell Company and World Port. Mr. Rath stated
the Board of County Commissioners authorized the issuance of the 2nd phase which is a Request for
Proposals to be issued to the three short listed firms. He stated that the tentative dates for the
issuance of the RFP and receipt of the RFP is expected to be issued August I, 2002 with the
proposals to be received by September 25,2002. Mr. Rath stated that at that point an evaluation and
work session will be held with the Board of County Commissioner to review the proposals that are
submitted and to make a recommendation to move forward to negotiate with the first ranked firm.
He stated that these proposals would be more detailed than the first ones submitted.
4.1
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
5.
UPDATE ON THE TAYLOR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATION
- SK PATEL, BCI ENGINEERS
Mr. Patel gave a brief presentation on the Taylor Creek Restoration Project. He stated that in 1998
they worked with Williams Hatfield and Stoner to assess the sediment quality in Taylor Creek. Mr.
Patel stated that they also did a phase two of the sediment quality in the C-25 canal, but did not find
any significant sediment between the north one spillway and the fixed weir submerged structure. He
stated that they will remove about 200,000 cubic yards of material that will come out of both sites
of Reach 1 and Reach 2 of the project. Mr. Patel stated that between the FEC Railroad and Old
Dixie Highway is most of the utilities. He stated that they have met with Florida Power and Light
and know of submerged cables. Mr. Patel stated that this is something that they will have to take
under consideration and will be an area that they may be inclined not to dredge out or touch. He
stated their intent is to dredge out everything else, but will leave buffer zones on areas that will not
be dredged because they do not have enough engineering information. Mr. Patel stated that they
want to make sure that the dredging does not move any material around from this area that is used
it to stabilize a structure. He stated that they would not want to cause it to collapse. Mr. Patel stated
that they would create pockets in the dredging in hopes that they will actually be reestablishing the
traps that have now been filled with sediments. He stated that this was basically the project
description.
John Arena asked Mr. Patel to clarify on the map exactly where he is talking about dredging. Mr.
Patel referred to a drawing to show Committee members the areas.
Mr. Patel stated in 1999 and 2000 they did two reports with Williams, Hatfield and Stoner and the
reports have been forwarded to DEP. He stated that they met with DEP in June and September of
last year and are now waiting for the Environmental Resource Permit. Mr. Patel stated he was hired
to do this in the best and safest environmental approach for the dollar being spent.
Mr. Patel stated that the goal here is to help the Indian River Lagoon. He closed with saying that
their recommendation to the County as the Consultants on this project would be to put in the ERP
and let DEP come back with specific questions and comments. He stated that they have experts
looking at the document and the data. He stated that the concern is what to do to protect the sea
grasses. Mr. Patel stated that it has been four years. Lets move on, put the permit in, see what the
3
~
'-"
'-'
.
5.1
questions are, and direct the funding to answer those specific questions.
Jeanne Hearn asked if they had received permission from the City. Mr. Patel stated yes we have met
with the City to talk about plans. He stated that they are asking DEP to help to formalize what they
think will be best with all of the factors for the disposal site. He stated that they would potentially
like to use the 20 acres on the southwest side of Harbor Pointe as a disposal site. Mr. West stated
that they have talked with Dennis Beach at the City of Fort Pierce in the past and the concern
expressed by him was that the City was concerned with a permanent spoil site. He stated that if it
was only going to be a temporary type site they would allow it. Jeanne Hearn asked if the City
realized that the temporary site would be for two years. Mr. West stated yes and they would make
a formal Submittal to the City once we have the ERP permitted and it would probably have to go to
the City Commission for approval. Mr. Patel stated that on a weekly basis they are keeping the
County and the City and a few people from DEP appraised of what is going on so the City has
always been contacted as to what they are doing.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
6.
SOLI FLOW DREDGING TECHNIQUE (VIDEO) - PROVIDED BY JOHN ARENA
Mr. Arena provided a video to be viewed by Committee members explaining the Soli Flow Dredging
Technique. Chairman Kavanagh asked Mr. Arena were he obtained the video. Mr. Arena explained
that the source of this material needed to remain undisclosed and that the person he got the video
from has no monetary interest at all. Mr. Patel asked if he could get in touch with this person or
would he need to go through Mr. Arena. Mr. Arena stated that he could put him in touch with the
person. Jeanne Hearn stated that she appreciated Mr. Patel having interest to at least view and look
into the Soli Flow Method. She stated that we do have a sensitive situation there and it can be
improved upon without breaking the bank. Mr. Nickson stated that this was redirecting the dredge
material back into the same estuary it was coming out of except in a different area. He stated that
we have a very different situation and wanted to know how Mr. Patel would relate to that. Mr. Patel
stated that it is interesting that they said that they put it in water in place without having much
environmental impact. He stated that if it were truly fine grain sediment regardless of whether they
moved it at 60% solids, they found that very difficult to believe that you could take a slurry material
of 60% fine grain material, place it in water and pump and that it would not create too much
turbidity. Mr. Patel stated that this is a very different application and their intent is to remove the
sediment from the waterways and place it upland or find some beneficial reuse. He stated that the
other thing to keep is mind is contaminated sediments. Mr. Patel stated that when dealing with
contaminated sediments, there are certain levels that are of concern to wildlife and people. He stated
when this happens, normally you are equating this to higher costs of removal and perhaps there was
something in the sediments or some elements that they were really concerned about and this was the
only option available. Mr. Patel stated that they do indicate that they compared the hydraulic and
clam shell, but looking at what components they may have had, then maybe this was the only and
best economical way of best handling that particular component. He stated that it is his job to look
at Taylor Creek and get the best for the project dollarwise. Mr. Patel stated to keep in mind that
certain technologies are applicable to certain types of materials. David Souza asked if this method
would utilize a spoil site. Mr. Patel stated that yes this would require a spoil site. Mr. Arena stated
4
~
~
'-"
.
6.1
that the company to get in touch with on the tape was the Louisiana Pump and Engineering
Company. He explained how the Soli Flow Method is able to pump mostly solid materiall800 feet
through a pipeline. Mr. Arena explained in detail how the whole process works.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
7.
REPORT ON BELL PROPERTY FORMERLY SEMINOLE SITE - JIM DAVID
Jim David, Mosquito Control Director stated that he has looked at the soil codes and researched the
information from F.I.N.D. on the soil maps that are available for the site. He stated that soils maps
are not always reliable. Mr. David stated that he took total acreage and mixed the two together to
come up with a ballpark number. He stated, just as a summary, there is probably a minimum of 42.8
to 49.4 wetland acres on site. Mr. David stated that there was a BCI estimate referenced in a letter
that he found in a file for 60 acres, but unfortunately it was not a direct quote from BCI. He stated
that there is a lot of variability in the quality of the wetlands on site and he would be able to answer
questions to the best of his ability. Mr. David stated that there was another piece of work that he
found that identified the site almost entirely as wetland because it was covered with Brazilian Pepper
trees at the time of the survey. He stated that they had assumed that anything that had a Brazilian
Pepper on it was to be considered by DEP as a wetland. Mr. David stated that this is not necessarily
the case, but while they were doing the survey, the landowner came out and bulldozed all of the
peppers away. He stated that there was also one issue on site of a large lake that was created, which
was illegally dug and the landowner did not obtain proper permits and was sited and this is part of
the reason the property went into bankruptcy. Mr. David stated that the lake was either partially
filled or excavated. It was hard to say. He stated that they are looking at somewhere between the
BCI estimate and his at 50 acres.
Charles Grande stated that it would be 50% of the total site. Mr. David stated no, that the total site
was 139.
Jeanne Hearn asked if this was the property that was considered for a spoil site at one time. Jim
David stated that was correct; it was the Seminole tract.
Jeanne Hearn asked who owns the property at this present time. Mr. David stated that Lloyd Bell
is the owner of the property. Jeanne Hearn asked ifhe owned the property now. Mr. David stated
yes, as far as we know, he purchased it from the Seminole tribe.
Jeanne Hearn asked what the purpose was for Mr. Bell to buy the property. Mr. David stated that
Mr. Bell wishes to develop it for industrial uses. Jeanne Hearn stated no, what is the point of this
presentation for what use, for a spoil site. Mr. David stated that he did not know why, that someone
had requested that Mr. Bradshaw provide a summary to the Committee of how many wetlands are
on site. He stated that this was his only purpose for speaking to the Committee today. Robert
Anderson stated that Jeanne Hearn asked the question at the last meeting. Jeanne Hearn stated okay.
She stated that she was not sure since it tied in so much with Mr. Patel's presentation and thought
that maybe they were looking at it as a spoil site. Mr. David stated no, it was background research
for the wetland. Jeanne Hearn stated ok, it was for the sensitivity of that land.
5
.~
~
~.
7.1
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Patel asked if the DEP was receptive to restoring or refilling the dredge parcel. Mr. David stated
do you mean the lake, yes they were at that time. Mr. Patel asked if they got a clean sand material
from this dredging project, could it be used as a site where they could fill in. Mr. David stated yes
if Mr. Bell wanted the material. Jeanne Hearn stated that he would probably charge one point ten
million to put it there. Mr. David stated that there are other alternatives too. Robert Anderson
commented on the price that Mr. Bell paid for it and the amount that the County had offered. Mr.
David stated that the County had done an appraisal for it and it was around a million one.
Mr. Anderson stated that he was curious and wanted a copy of Mr. David's presentation. He stated
that he wanted to see where is shows all of the wetlands and where they are. Mr. David stated that
he used the soils map and it is in the report. Mr. Anderson stated that he was curious and wanted to
know how much could be developed and if any of it can. Mr. David stated probably 70 or 80 acres.
Discussion ensued among Mr. Anderson and Mr. David on the history of the property.
8.
UPDATE ON BERTH PERMITS - DON WEST
Don West stated that this issue came up at the last meeting and Mr. Anderson has talked to the group
a couple of times. He stated that he was asked to bring back an update, but there has really been no
change on the permits at this time and no work done to date or change of status. Mr. West stated that
he did pull the permits again just to look at them because he was not sure of the dates. He stated that
for Berth Permits Number One and Four, we have permits in hand, a DEP permit and an Army Corp.
Permit and the expiration dates are 2003 for those permits. Mr. West stated that Berths Two and
Three permits were applied foryears ago and the file was never completed and questions were sent
back because the file was basically inactive for a number of years, therefore it is still an open file
with DEP. He stated that they really have permits for One and Four and that Two and Three are still
an open question.
Stix Nickson asked for the expiration dates on permits One and Four. Mr . West stated D EP Permits
in February 2003 and the Corp. Permit in May of2003.
Jeanne Hearn asked if they are approved permits. Mr. West stated yes, they are approved permits
and were obtained a number of years ago.
8.1 PUBLIC COMMENT
Robert Anderson stated on permits One and Four, whenever you say permits, is that on bulkheads.
Mr. West stated they have drawings and sketches that show concrete bulkheads; it is not real
specific, but permit type drawings. Mr. Anderson explained why he asked the question and the
difference in the types of bulkheads that would be needed for cargo vs yachting industry.
Don West stated that the permits may have to be modified to accommodate the needs of the
development at the port.
9.
OTHER BUSINESS
6
........
~
~
.
Jeanne Hearn stated that there has been a lot of talk about the Corp. maintaining our inlet unless we
expand cargo. She stated that there is a segment in our community that says that we have got to
increase our cargo or we are going to lose the opportunity for the dredging of the inlet. Jeanne Hearn
stated that this is not true and passed out an article that she found in Boat u.s. Maf!azine/Julv 2002.
Please see attached copy.
9.1
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment
10. ADJOURNMENT
Having no other business to discuss, it was moved by Jeanne Hearn, seconded by Delores Johnson,
to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
The meeting adjourned at 4:48p.m.
Missy Stiadle
Recording Secretary
c:
Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee
Members:
Delores Hogan Johnson, Chairman
Kevin Jackson, Vice Chairman
Gail Kavanagh
Jeanne Hearn
Commissioner Christine Coke
Stix Nickson
David Souza
Jerry Kuklinski
Board of County Commissioners
Dan McIntyre, County Attorney
Doug Anderson, County Administrator
Ray Wazny, Asst. County Adm.
Don West, Public Works Director
Mike Powley, County Engineer
7
.....
FORT PIERCE HARBOR ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting
June 25, 2002
Convened: 3 :00 p.m.
Adjourned: 4:02 p.m.
This meeting of the Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee was held Tuesday, June 25,2002 at 3:00p.m.
in Conference Room #3 of the Administration Annex Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Members Present:
Gail Kavanagh, Chairman
Jeanne Hearn
David Souza
Commissioner Christine Coke
Jerry Kuklinski
Stix Nickson
Delores Hogan Johnson (late 3:18p.m.)
Member Absent:
Kevin Jackson, Vice Chairman
,...,
Also Present:
Missy Stiadle, Recording Secretary
Robert Bradshaw, Assistant County Administrator
Mary Chapman
Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney
Carla Roccapriore, Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers
Robert P. Anderson, Resident Indrio
Bob Bangert, Conservation Alliance
Michael Rath, Purchasing Director
AGENDA
1. ROLL CALL
Roll call was taken
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment
~
1
!lIP"
Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee
June 25, 2002
Page Two
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 2001
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OCTOBER 23,2001
APPROVAL OF MINUTES NOVEMBER 27, 2001
APPROVAL OF MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2002
APPROVAL OF MINUTES MARCH 11,2002
APPROVAL OF MINUTES APRIL 23, 2002
Jeanne Hearn stated to the Chairman that she wanted the minutes to show some of the Committees
concerns and have the minutes more specific and not so vague. She stated that it is her belief that
the Commissioners refer to the minutes and wanted them to be able to read the concerns that they
have. Chairman Kavanagh asked if they wanted more detailed minutes. David Souza stated if the
Commissioners are going to pay attention to the Committee, they will need to have all of the
comments so that they can read them. Stix Nickson stated that if everything is put in, it may
discourage them from continually reading the minutes because they will be too long. Commissioner
Coke stated that from her point of view, when she gets minutes from the various meetings pertaining
to an item on the agenda, she reads every word of it because that Committee is probably more aware
of what is going on. Stix stated that perhaps the Committee should ask the Commissioners what they
would like. David Souza stated that he thinks they are looking for an overview. Mr. Bradshaw
stated that if Committee members look at the later minutes they do get into more detail.
~
Mary Chapman stated that she wanted the record to show that she attended the October 5. 2001
meeting and asked Mr. Murlev questions. She stated the record should show that he did not answer
anv of the questions she asked. Commissioner Coke stated that the record should show that
questions were asked. but that Mr. Murlev was not responsive.
It was moved by David Souza, seconded by Stix Nickson, to approve the minutes of the October 5,
2001 meeting with the above underlined changes to the wording. The motion carried unanimously
by voice vote.
It was moved by Jeanne Hearn, seconded by Stix Nickson, to approve the minutes of the October 23,
2001 meeting. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
It was moved by David Souza, seconded by Christine Coke, to approve the minutes of the November
27,2001 meeting. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
It was moved by Christine Coke, seconded by Stix Nickson, to approve the minutes of the January
22, 2002 meeting. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
It was moved by Jeanne Hearn, seconded by Christine Coke, to approve the minutes of the March
11, 2002 meeting. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
It was moved by Christine Coke, seconded by Stix Nickson, to approve the minutes ofthe April 23,
2002 meeting. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
'-'"
2
....
Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee
June 25, 2002
Page Three
Chairman Kavanagh stated that the Committee would hate to see Jerry Kuklinski go and recognized
Mary Chapman who will take Mr. Kuklinski seat on the Committee starting July 23,2002 meeting.
4. UPDATE ON RFQ/P #02-053 - ROBERT BRADSHA W/MIKE RATH
Mr. Rath gave Committee members a brief overview on the RFQIP #02-053. He stated since the last
meeting on April 23, 2002 they have received four qualification packages in response to the RFQ.
He stated that they received proposals from Fort Pierce Development, The Haskell Company, World
Port and Sun Resorts. Mr. Rath stated that the evaluation Committee met on May 15, 2002 to
discuss the proposals and evaluate them. He stated that the selection Committee recommended that
a workshop session be held in conjunction with the County Commission to have the proposers come
and give a presentation. Mr. Rath stated that it is scheduled for July 15,2002 at 2:00p.m. He stated
that they would hear presentations from the three top-ranked firms: Fort Piece Development, The
Haskell Company, and World Port. Mr. Bradshaw stated that they hope the Committee will be able
to attend the presentations on the 15th. Jeanne Hearn asked if there where any visuals besides the
verbage, maybe maps. Mr. Rath stated that this is a basic outline and is very generic. He stated that
once the Board decides with whom they wish to proceed, they will get formal proposals from the
firms that are chosen with which to move forward.
4.1
PUBLIC COMMENT
'-'
Robert Anderson asked if the public would be able to attend. Mr. Bradshaw stated that it was open
to the public and would be held in Conference Room #3.
5.
UPDATE ON FLORIDA PORTS COUNCIL FINANCING COMMISSION MEETING HELD
IN KEY WEST MAY 22,2002 - ROBERT BRADSHAW
Mr. Bradshaw stated that this was essentially to confirm the fact that we do have an application
before FSTED for the Taylor Creek Restoration Project. He stated that the original application was
asking for $700,000 and it has now been increased to $1.75 million because the cost of the project
has almost doubled. Mr. Bradshaw stated that the total cost of the Taylor Creek Restoration Project
is now about three and a half million, so this represents about 50% which will be the 50% FSTED
match that we are looking for. He stated that this was just a preliminary meeting and the final
allocation meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2002 in Tallahassee. Mr. Bradshaw stated that Doug
Anderson would be attending the meeting, representing the Port of Fort Pierce, to present this
application. He stated they are moving forward with the permitting application with the respective
agencies, but have not identified a spoil site. Mr. Bradshaw stated that they are trying to keep the
funding sources open and will try to locate the spoil site within the next year. Jeanne Hearn asked
if the County had received a commitment in writing from FSTED stating that these funds can be used
for other things other than cargo. Mr. Bradshaw stated that this project has already been approved
and we are going back to ask for the additional funding. Jeanne Hearn asked if they still had no
commitment. She stated that we still have no assurance that they can't come back and say that
Taylor Creek has to be used for cargo purposes. Mr. Bradshaw stated that we do not have that
'-"
3
--
Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee
June 25, 2002
Page Four
assurance. Stix Nickson stated that it was his understanding that this is for navigation right-of-way,
and boat passage, which has been approved under FSTED guidelines for transportation. Mr.
Bradshaw stated that there is an environmental slant which has been included in the application also.
Jeanne stated that she thought they had said they could not do environmental projects. Mr.
Bradshaw stated that they were not really enthusiastic about it, but they did approve it. He stated
that we have two active applications; this one plus the six million for the acquisition of the Port
property.
5.1
PUBLIC COMMENT
~
John Arena asked what method of dredging they were considering for Taylor Creek. Mr. Bradshaw
stated from trestle east back to the inlet area they will do a small suction cutter dredge. Mr. Arena
asked if they had gone any further with looking at "Soli Flow Method." Mr. Bradshaw asked what
the "Soli Flow" method was. Mr. Arena stated that it is the method that was developed by four
corporations and the Hudson River Project has been held up for thirty-five years. General Electric
has been saying that the cutter head would just make a mess down there, but now they are going to
proceed with the "Soli Flow" Method. He stated that "Soli Flow" stands for Solid Flow. In other
words, you do not take the sediment and mix it with a hundred times more water and then pump the
stuff and try to get rid ofthe water. Mr. Arena stated that the Soli Flow method actually takes the
sediment with the amount of moisture it already has and pumps it solid through a pipe and places
it where you want it. Mr. Bradshaw asked Mr. Rath if he was familiar with this method. Stix
Nickson stated in the back up material on Page Two of the Board of County Commission Agenda
Request from the Engineering Division, Section Four, stated that Hydraulic dredging would be the
most effective method to remove Taylor Creek Sediments. He stated that they have basically settled
on that form of dredging. David Souza stated that hydraulic is where they have to string the pipes
out and then they pump everything and all of the water to a spoil site like at Turkey Creek. Mr.
Arena stated that the method is a hundred years old. What is does is takes the sediment and the
toxins and washes it. He stated that it washes every last grain of sand and silt until each grain is
perfectly clean, and the toxins are left in the water. Mr. Arena stated that through some process they
think that they are going to solidify the sediment again and discharge clean water, but in fact, the
water is just like water coming out of a washing machine. It is the dirty water and it will be going
back into the Indian River Lagoon. He stated that this method is out dated and is no longer
acceptable. Mr. Bradshaw stated that they are going through the permitting process with DEP and
Water Management and he is sure they will let the County know ifthere is an issue there. As of now,
the consultanting Engineer is recommending the hydraulic method. Stix Stated that he understood
the concern, but it is time that the project move forward because it is costing us too much in time and
money. Mr. Arena stated that it is time to start doing it right. Stix Nickson asked what happened
to Mr. Bell's offer of his property to get the project done. He stated we never moved on that
suggestion either. Mr. Nickson stated that Mr. Bell offered his property to put the spoil material on
because he saw the need and we never moved on it nor did anything about it. Delores Johnson stated
that it is her belief that one of the concerns was the drainage going back into the Lagoon. She asked
John Arena if he had talked with BCI in regards to that. Mr. Arena stated that BCI was supposed
to look into it and was surprised that Mr. Bradshaw had not heard the results yet. Mr. Bradshaw
'-"
4
...
Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee
June 25, 2002
Page Five
stated that he was not aware of it. Ms. Johnson stated that John had brought the issue up before and
SK was to look into it. Robert Anderson stated that he was up by Turkey Creek facility yesterday
and took pictures and will have them developed for the next meeting. He stated that the site is still
a disaster, and they are still trying to clean it up. Stix Nickson stated that the sediments that they are
talking about are already in the lagoon now. Discussion ensued among Committee members as to
how the sediment would drain and where it would run to. Delores Johnson asked the Chairman if
she could ask staff to have BCI come to discuss this procedure. Robert Bradshaw stated that he
would follow up on it.
6.
DISCUSSION OF FSTED APPLICATIONS FOR ACQUISITION OF 67 ACRES OF PORT
PROPERTY AND TAYLOR CREEK RESTORATION
~
Robert Bradshaw stated this is our second application to FSTED. We are requesting $6 million. He
stated that the County offered Mr. Bell $11.7 million for his property, and we are asking for
approximately 50% from FSTED. He stated that it will be presented Thursday, June 27,2002, by
Doug Anderson to the FSTED Council. Mr. Bradshaw stated that they have submitted the
application and have had some very positive preliminary feedback and feel it should be approved.
He stated that one thing that has come up, which all of the Ports will experience, is that the bulk of
the money from the 311 program and the bond program will need to go to the Security program. Mr.
Bradshaw stated they have had preliminary feedback that it is fairly positive that we should be
approved for this particular application, which will be considered this Thursday in Tallahassee.
Jerry Kuklinski asked from where they got the drawings. Mr. Bradshaw stated that it came from one
of the RFQ's from the World Port proposal. He stated that it is just conceptual and was used to
emphasize Port development which one of the options is the Mega Yacht development. Jeanne
Hearn asked who prepared the application for the $6 million. Mr. Bradshaw stated that Doug
Anderson prepared it. He stated that he understood that she had concern that some of the questions
were not answered. Mr. Bradshaw stated that they researched it, and FSTED told them that they do
not consider property acquisition as a Capital project. Thus, we have a bare bone application
compared to the Taylor Creek project. Jeanne Hearn stated that she had a lot of concern about how
the questions were answered when pertaining to cargo and cruise ship activity and were answered
to develop the Port fully which is talking about existing use at the Port. She stated that this scares
her, and she wanted to go on record for being very concerned about the use of FSTED funds to
purchase the Port. Mrs. Hearn stated that she feels like it will open the door for future cargo
expansion. She stated that after reading the application throughly, she saw nothing in there about
any use except cargo and passenger service. Stix Nickson stated that it's because that is basically
FSTED's requirement to get the money. Mr. Bradshaw stated that the controlling document is the
Port Master Plan. Mr. Nickson stated not to get FSTED money. Mr. Bradshaw disagreed with him.
Mr. Nickson stated that FSTED money is a State requirement that you use it for, as Jeanne said,
cargo, transportation commerce related uses, and that is what the money is dictated by. He stated
that his main concern was when he received the letters that went up to the Florida Ports Council
asking for the money as if we already have a deal to purchase the property. Mr. Nickson stated that
the County may have offered Mr. Bell $11.5 million, but he has no where near accepted that and we
are now applying for funds when we don't even know if we can buy the property, and we have an
~
5
."
Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee
June 25, 2002
Page Six
owner that is really not interested in selling too much. He stated that he warned the County and
spoke to the County Commission that private property rights are starting to be trampled on and that
is where he has a problem. Mr. Nickson stated that these letters are one of the first steps in
trampling them because they are dictating that we have this property, that the deal is already done,
and it is not near that. He stated that the County has got to be careful because we are not working
with him and stepping down the wrong road. Delores Johnson stated we are not working with him.
Mr. Nickson stated that he is not saying that he is an easy man to work with. Ms. Johnson stated that
she understood what he was saying. He stated that as a realtor he is upheld to the private property
rights and stated that this would be larger if we continue on this road of trying to take this man's
property without his authorization and without him being able to use the property at least in some
form for him to get back his investment. Ms. Johnson stated at $11 million he has doubled his
investment. Mr. Nickson stated that might be okay for you and me, but is not necessarily the
standard in private property rights. Mr. Souza stated that there is potential in that property of what
it will make him over the years, not what it will make him today. Ms. Johnson stated that she
understood. Jeanne Hearn stated if anyone here made her a deal like that, just once in her lifetime,
she would be really happy. She stated in a few years turnaround and at his age. Mr. Nickson stated
that when people have a lot of money it means a different thing to them when they go out and buy
a Mercedes or yacht. For them, it's like a couple of bucks, and for us, it's like a wind fall and it's
all relative to where they are in the social economic status. Therefore, we cannot judge the price.
Mrs. Hearn stated that she understood.
.~
Commissioner Coke stated that she would like clarification because at the County/City meeting
when they discussed the Master Plan, it was stated that they were including Taylor Creek for the
purpose of receiving FSTED funding because it had to be part of the Port Plan. She stated now we
are being told that it does not have to be part of the Port Plan to receive the funding. Mr. Bradshaw
stated he did not know how to respond. Delores Johnson stated that she would comment since she
attended a lot of the meetings and stated that she knows that they have been requested at separate
times. (She stated initially the $8 million for the purchase of the Port property and then three years
ago there was the Taylor Creek issue.) Ms. Johnson stated now it appears that they have just
combined it. Mr. Bradshaw stated there are still two separate applications and they are trying to tie
the two together. Commissioner Coke stated everybody has worked very hard for a number of years
now and when the City Commission and County Commission met and went over line by line and
finally came to a conclusion within the last two minutes of the meeting it was brought up to the
City's attention since Taylor Creek was included and not part of City property the City would not
need to include or approve the Port plan. She stated, number one, it was brought up under the
premise in order for Taylor Creek to get the funding, it had to be included, not that they were looking
to suddenly exclude the City. Commissioner Coke stated she had a great concern because the City
Commission now agrees with the Port Master Plan. She stated that her concern is since the majority
of the Port is within the City limits, rather than the County's jurisdiction, if the County Commission
does not ask the City Commission to include Port Master Plan as part of the City Master Plan, then
years down the road you have basically shot this whole pIan in the foot because you will have a
group of Commissioners that may view it a lot differently and if it is not part of the City's plan then
they can change the rules and regulations and etc. Commissioners Coke stated that she thought that
""
6
...
Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee
June 25, 2002
Page Seven
~
it was essential that the City and County work together on this to preserve our Port. She stated that
the plan itself with the limitations is exactly what we need and she thinks that since the County
Commission has not come to the City and said will you approve this as part of your plan to try and
protect it for the future, that maybe we, as an advisory Committee, should ask the Commissioner to
do that. Commissioner Coke stated that she would like to recommend that we ask the County
Commissioners, because the City had originally intended to vote on it, but the County at the last
minute stated that they did not need them to incorporate it. She stated that this was a grave error on
the County's part and hoped that it could become part of the City's plan. Discussion ensued among
Committee members. Chairman Kavanagh asked Commissioner Coke if she wanted to make a
motion that this Committee take action. Commissioner Coke stated that she did not want to make
the motion, but wanted the Committee to recommend to the County Commission that they ask the
City Commission to adopt this as part of their Comprehensive Plan. She stated that this would be
a good way to protect the Port plan. Chairman Kavanagh asked if anyone on the Committee was
wi 1 ling to make the motion. Jerry Kuklinski stated that he would make the motion and Jeanne Hearn
stated that she would second it. Chairman Kavanagh opened the floor for discussion of the motion.
Jeanne Hearn stated that the City deserved the continuity. Mr. Nickson stated that he thought it was
premature to make this motion not considering the study that would be presented tomorrow.
Commissioner Coke stated that was irrelevant. Mr. Nickson stated that is was not because the study
is on the Port and is almost similar to what the County asked Jim Murley to do and they came out
with a different conclusion. Commissioner Coke stated that they came up with no conclusion, but
four recommendations. Mr. Nickson stated that Jim Murley came up with recommendations too
based on what he had heard. He stated now there are two different studies and to make a motion
to adopt one, not having heard the other, would not be fair. Commissioner Coke stated that it was
not a Port Master Plan, but was just a study of the Port and different options. Mr. Nickson stated
that this is very similar to a Master Plan because it is telling you what you could do and what can
be done. He stated that it is a similar thing, but may not be as comprehensive as the County. Mr.
Nickson stated what he is saying until we see both sides lets hold off and really fully understand
before we make the recommendation and then proceed. Commissioner Coke stated that the other
point she would like to make on that is that what the City is getting tomorrow is a report, not a
comprehensive plan or a master plan. She stated that the City Commission and the County
Commission worked together hand in hand, went over line by line, every item on the Port Master
Plan, and agreed upon it. Mr. Nickson asked why the City spent $97,000. Commissioner Coke
stated that this was a year ago and was suppose to be done four months later and is one of the issues
that is being complained about now because the report is months past due. Mr. Nickson stated that
Jim Murley's was too and that they both go back to the same amount of time. He stated that the
studies were acted or contracted upon at almost the same time. Mr. Nickson stated that all he is
saying is wait until that meeting happens. Delores Johnson stated that she wanted to make a point
of order that there is a motion and a second on the floor and asked that madam Chair call for the
vote. Chairman Kavanagh stated that the Committee was still having discussion. Jerry Kuklinski
stated that he totally disagreed with what Mr. Nickson is saying. He stated that all the Committee
is doing is making a recommendation to the County not dictating anything to them and therefore
should go forward with it.a
........
7
..
Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee
June 25, 2002
Page Eight
It was moved by Jerry Kuklinski, seconded by Jeanne Hearn, that the Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory
Committee recommend to the County Commission that they ask the City Commission to adopt the
Port Mater Plan as part oftheir Comprehensive Plan in its entirety.
Roll Call vote as follows:
Commissioner Christine Coke Yes
Jeanne Hearn Yes
Delores Johnson Yes
Jerry Kuklinski Yes
Stix Nickson No
David Souza Yes
Chairman Gail Kavanagh No
Chairman Kavanagh stated that the motion is approved 5-2.
..,
Stix Nickson stated that Jeanne Hearn had a concern at a past meeting about traffic concerns if the
Port is to go to cargo operations. He stated in the packet are letters from the Public Works
Department and the traffic analysis which states that is appears that the development ofthe Port will
not have any significant impact on the operation of area roadways beyond the customary back
ground traffic forecast. Mr. Nickson read from the Study, Traffic Operations Impact. Jeanne Hearn
stated that her concern was with rail traffic blocking the life and limb of the access to our beaches
for fire and ambulance services, and the noise of the rail traffic which is already a problem for the
city. She stated that the ship that will be unloaded will have to leave by rail or by truck from the
Port. Debate ensued between Mrs. Hearn and Mr. Nickson voiced their concerns on the Port
pertaining to cargo and container transporting.
6.1
PUBLIC COMMENT
Robert Anderson stated that he would like to find out from Mr. Bradshaw or Mr. West ifMr. Bell
has been in contact with the County asking for help in developing the Seminole property that he
purchased. Mr. Bradshaw stated that they have been meeting regularly with Mr. Bell and he has
indicated that he would like assistance from the County to develop that parcel of 135 acres. He
stated that he has not specifically stated what type of help he is looking for from the County at this
point.
Bob Bangert stated that it has been estimated by the year 2020 that there will be 100,000 cars a day
on Route 1. He stated that anything that is done to increase the traffic will cause us to suffer.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
Jeanne Hearn stated that in the minutes ofthe March 11,2002 meeting on Page 3, she had asked
about Berth four and if it was an active berth. She stated that Mr. Bradshaw stated that there were
drawings and she had asked for more information on it. Mr. Bradshaw stated that Mr. Anderson
.....,.
8
III
Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee
June 25, 2002
Page Nine
updated the Committee at the last meeting on all of the Berths and permits. He stated that he thought
Mr. Anderson had answered all of the questions. Mr. Bradshaw stated the information was given
at the April 23, 2002 meeting. Jeanne Hearn stated that Mr. Anderson did speak on the Berth, but
would not allow any questions. Mr. Bradshaw stated you were asking what the status was on Berth
four. Jeanne stated that she wanted to know if there were actually active berth permits. Mr.
Bradshaw stated that he would get the information for her and have it at the next meeting.
Jeanne Hearn stated that Robert Anderson had asked about the Environmentally Sensitive Land. Mr.
Bradshaw stated that he had not had a chance to get with Jim David, Mosquito Control Director, and
would do so and have him respond at the next meeting.
7.1 PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment
8. ADJOURNMENT
Having no other business to discuss, it was moved by Delores Johnson, seconded by Stix Nickson,
to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
..
The meeting adjourned at 4:02p.m.
Missy Stiadle
Recording Secretary
c:
Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee
Members:
Delores Hogan Johnson, Chairman
Kevin Jackson, Vice Chairman
Gail Kavanagh
Jeanne Hearn
Commissioner Christine Coke
Stix Nickson
David Souza
Jerry Kuklinski
Board of County Commissioners
Dan McIntyre, County Attorney
Doug Anderson, County Administrator
Robert Bradshaw, Asst. County Adm.
Don West, County Engineer
,.,
9
(
....."
~
.....
" '<{ ,
FORT PIERCE HARBOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting
April 23, 2002
Convened: 3 :03 p.m.
Adjourned: 4: 11 p.m.
This meeting of the Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee was held Tuesday, April 23, 2002 at 3:03p.m.
in Conference Room #3 of the Administration Annex Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Members Present:
Gail Kavanagh, Chairman
Kevin Jackson, Vice Chairman
Jeanne Hearn
David Souza
Commissioner Christine Coke
Jerry Kuklinski
Stix Nickson
Delores Hogan Johnson
Also Present:
Missy Stiadle, Recording Secretary
Robert Bradshaw, Assistant County Administrator
Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney
Carla Roccapriore, Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers
Charles Grande, Presidents Council of Hutchinson Island
Emily Grande, Hutchinson Island residence
Robert P. Anderson, Resident Indrio
Bob Bangert, Conservation Alliance
1
~ :. .-.
.....
Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee
April 23, 2002
Page Two
AGENDA
1. ROLL CALL
Roll call was taken
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Charles Grande commented that another ship is docked where the Rachel B. Jackson was. Heather
Young addressed Mr. Grande's concerns under other business.
Charles Grande stated that in the prior administration of this Committee there was a positive effort
to allow public participation on the agenda items. He commented on why he thought public input
at these meetings was important to the Committee and the County Commission.
Chairman Kavanagh gave her feelings on public input at the meetings and asked the Committee
members to give their feelings on this subject. Discussion ensued among Committee members and
the public in attendance.
~
It was moved by Commissioner Christine Coke, seconded by Jerry Kuklinski, to have public
comment limited to three minutes per person at the beginning of the agenda under the public
comment section. Have the presentation of the agenda item. Open the floor to public comment with
a limit of three minutes per person, close public comment and then have Committee discussion.
Roll Call vote as follows:
Commissioner Christine Coke Yes
Jeanne Hearn Yes
Kevin Jackson Yes
Delores Johnson Yes
Jerry Kuklinski Yes
Stix Nickson Yes
David Souza Yes
Chairman Gail Kavanagh No
The vote was seven to one to accept the motion.
Robert Anderson asked Don West and Robert Bradshaw if they could give him any insight on the
Seminole property recently purchased by Lloyd Bell, on the acreage which is environmentally
sensitive, land and also the mosquito compound. Mr. Bradshaw stated that he would have to get with
Jim David, Mosquito Control Director, for that information.
""
2
it ....
. ~
~
Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee
April 23, 2002
Page Four
Jeanne Hearn asked if we have proven that funds are allowable for the Mega Yacht Industry through
FSTED in writing. Mr. Bradshaw stated that FSTED acts as a clearing house for the monies. He
stated that the three agencies that approve it are FDOT, DCA and OTTED and each has their own
criteria. Mr. Bradshaw stated that we have not submitted anything for this particular project at this
time. He stated that the Taylor Creek Project is the only one we have an application in for now.
Mr. Bradshaw stated that on April 25, 2002, the Governor will sign the Bill for the 311 funds for
security measures. He stated that the next Florida Ports Council Meeting will be May 22 through
May 24,2002, in Key West and the Next formal FSTED meeting would be June 26, 2002 through
June 27, 2002, in Tallahassee. Mr. Bradshaw gave a brief overview ofthe funding they would be
asking for in the application.
Jeanne Hearn questioned the lease approved by the County Commission for the Rachael B. Jackson.
She stated that we should not make a decision without knowing how his business went while he was
here. Jeanne Hearn stated that from time to time there were other ships docked there and wondered
ifhe was sub leasing the dock. She stated that she would have liked for the Committee to have heard
the facts. Mr. Bradshaw reminded Mrs. Hearn that the Committee approved the contract prior to the
Commission meeting. She stated that it is changing now. Discussion ensued among Committee
members and staff regarding the fees charged.
...
Bob Bangert asked if the aragonite could be kept in the Silos. Mr. Bradshaw stated that the County
has been working with AES trying to relocate them, and one of the options was to use the Silos.
They are owned by Sea Mist and the County has been unable to talk with anyone there.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Having no other business to discuss, it was moved by Delores Johnson, seconded by Commissioner
Christine Coke, to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
The meeting adjourned at 4 : 11 p.m.
Missy Stiadle
Recording Secretary
c:
Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee
Members:
Delores Hogan Johnson, Chairman
Kevin Jackson, Vice Chairman
Gail Kavanagh
Jeanne Hearn
Commissioner Christine Coke
Stix Nickson
David Souza
Jerry Kuklinski
Board of County Commissioners
Dan McIntyre, County Attorney
Doug Anderson, County Administrator
Robert Bradshaw, Asst. County Adm.
Don West, County Engineer
,-",.
4
w, '.
,
"-"
FORT PIERCE HARBOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting
March 11, 2002
Convened: 3 :04 p.m.
Adjourned: 4:03 p.m.
This meeting of the Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee was held Monday, March 11,2002 at 3:04p.m.
in Conference Room #3 of the Administration Annex Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Members Present:
Gail Kavanagh, Chairman
Kevin Jackson, Vice Chairman
Jeanne Hearn
David Souza
Commissioner Christine Coke
Jerry Kuklinski
Stix Nickson (Late 3:06p.m.)
Member Absent:
Delores Hogan Johnson
Also Present:
Missy Stiadle, Recording Secretary
Robert Bradshaw, Assistant County Administrator
Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director
Don West, County Engineer
Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney
Carla Roccapriore, Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers
Charles Grande, Presidents Council of Hutchinson Island
Emily Grande, Hutchinson Island Resident
John Arena, Earth First
Betty Lou Wells, Conservation Alliance of SLC
Barbara Felton, Executive Aide to Comm. Paula Lewis
Gilbert Kennedy, Waterfront Council
~
""
1
~
~
,..,.
~
-~ .
Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee
March 11, 2002
Page Two
AGENDA
1. ROLL CALL
Chairman Kavanagh introduced and welcomed new member Jerry Kuklinski to the Committee.
Roll call was taken
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
John Arena commented on the Sailing Ship Industry and asked that they be included on the RFP/Q
when it goes out. He stated that he had given the name and address of one company to Doug
Anderson's secretary and would be getting more names and addresses.
3.
CONSIDERATION AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DRAFT #4 OF THE PORT
MASTER PLAN - DENNIS MURPHY
Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director, stated the County Commission would be
reviewing the final set of Draft Goals and Objectives for the Port of Fort Pierce Master Plan. Mr.
Murphy stated that the County Commission is charged to set the basic policy guidelines for the
operations, to the City ofF ort Pierce. He stated that the County Commission is not trying to set final
land use control or final land use authority within the confines of the Port of Fort Pierce, other than
the area that is over their automatic jurisdiction, which is the unincorporated part ofthe County. He
stated that the City of Fort Pierce still retains all land use and zoning control within the Port areas
within the City limits. Mr. Murphy gave a brief highlight of the Goals, Objectives, and Policies in
Draft 4, the final version of the document, and asked for questions and comments from Committee
members. Discussion ensued among Committee members regarding the document.
It was moved by David Souza, seconded by Christine Coke, to accept or reject Draft 4 of the Goals,
Objectives, and Policies as it stands to the County Commission for recommendation.
Roll Call vote as follows:
Commissioner Christine Coke
Jeanne Hearn
Kevin Jackson
Delores Johnson
Chairman Gail Kavanagh
Jerry Kuklinski
Stix Nickson
David Souza
Accept
Reject
Accept
Absent
Accept
Reject
Reject
Accept
The vote was four to three to accept Draft 4 as it stands and recommend it to the County
Commission.
2
"
"
.
Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee
~ March 11,2002
Page Three
4. CONSIDERATION AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING RFQ# 02-053 DESIGN,
BUILD AND OPERATION OF ASSOCIATED UPLAND DEVELOPMENT AT THE PORT
OF FORT PIERCE
Robert Bradshaw stated that all Committee members should have a copy ofRFQ# 02-053 in their
packet. Mr. Bradshaw stated that the RFQ (Request for Qualifications) is the initial phase and the
second phase is the RFP (Request for Proposals) for the development of the Port property. He stated
that the County is currently in discussions with Mr. Bell regarding the use of the Port property that
he owns. He stated that the RFQ is entitled development of eighty seven acres or a portion thereof.
He stated that it was drafted like that to include the twenty acres that the County owns and controls,
plus the possible sixty seven acres that Mr. Bell owns and controls. Don West stated that on page
10 of the document it references the two property owners and gives a back ground on the Harbor
Pointe property and Mr. Bell's property. Don West explained the two point process and the phases
of the process to the Committee. He stated that if the Port Master Plan is approved tomorrow by the
Board then they would ask for the submittals to come in around May 1 st.
It was moved by Stix Nickson, seconded by David Souza, to approve and recommend the County
Commission move forward with the RFQIP #02-053 DESIGN, BUILD AND OPERA nON OF
ASSOCIATED UPLAND DEVELOPMENT AT THE PORT OF FORT PIERCE. The motion
carried unanimously by voice vote.
.....
5.
OTHER BUSINESS
Jeanne Hearn asked if Berth 4 had been approved as an active berth. Mr. Bradshaw stated that he
did not know. Don West stated that there was permit drawings on it, but did not know if it was
approved as formal. Chairman Kavanagh asked if they could get that information for the next
meeting.
Jeanne Hearn asked about Port Security and how we would pay Port Security fees that would be
forthcoming according to articles in National News. Robert Bradshaw stated that FDLE has
characterized us as an undeveloped inactive Port and we are not in the mix right now. Jeanne Hearn
stated that she was inquiring about the future. Robert stated that we are participating with FSTED
as far as a contract with a lead security consultant SEASECURE, and they are currently conducting
Phase I survey of our Port. He stated that we are not considered to be a threat at this time; we are
a low minimum risk seaport. Jeanne Hearn stated that she is still concerned about the future.
Discussion ensued on the funding for the Port security.
'-'
3
\.
.......
Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee
March 11,2002
Page Four
6. ADJOURNMENT
Having no other business to discuss, it was moved by Commissioner Christine Coke, seconded by
Jeanne Hearn, to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
The meeting adjourned at 4 :03p.m.
Missy Stiadle
Recording Secretary
c:
Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee
Members:
Delores Hogan Johnson, Chairman
Kevin Jackson, Vice Chairman
Gail Kavanagh
Jeanne Hearn
Commissioner Christine Coke
Stix Nickson
David Souza
Jerry Kuklinski
Board of County Commissioners
Dan McIntyre, County Attorney
Doug Anderson, County Administrator
Robert Bradshaw, Asst. County Adm.
Don West, County Engineer
~
""
4
'-"
FORT PIERCE HARBOR ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting
August 27,2002
Convened: 3:12 p.m.
Adiourned: 4:18 p.m.
This meeting of the Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee was held Tuesday, August 27, 2002 at 3: 12p.m. in
Conference Room ff3 of the Administration Annex Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Members Present:
Gail Kavanagh, Chairman
Commissioner Christine Coke
Mary Chapman
Stix Nickson
Delores Hogan Johnson
Kevin Jackson, Vice Chairman (late 3: 17p.m.)
Members Absent:
Jeanne Hearn
David Souza
Also Present:
Missy Stiadle, Recording Secretary
Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney
Michael Rath, Purchasing Director
Emily Grande, Hutchinson Island
Don West, Engineering Department
Barbara Felton, ExecutiveAide to Commissioner Lewis
Robert Bangert, Conservation Alliance
Lloyd Bell
Charles Grande, Presidents Council of Hutchinson Island
John Wolsieter, South Beach Association
Dan and Barbara Conroy, South Beach Association
Shirley Burlingham, North Beach HomCDwners Association
Kenneth Roberts, Indian River Terminal Co.
Dennis W. Beach, Manager City of Fort Pierce
John Parry, Waterfront Council
Maggie Large, Tribune
Kevin Stinnette
~
AGENDA
1. ROLL CALL
Roll call was taken
\..r
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
\.
John Arena stated that at the last meeting he mentioned a large curve where Berths Three and Four
would be and stated that it is present there today. He stated that he went to the City and got a 1964
aerial and it is not there. Mr. Arena stated that it may have depoged itself on the incoming current
and put sand on there naturally and formed a radius or more or less of a radius.
3. UPDATE BY CHRISTINE COKE ON CITY OF FORT PIERCE INTENT TO
PURCHASE PORT PROPERTY FROM INDIAN RIVER TERMINAL COMPANY
Commissioner Coke stated that she would give the Committee a little bit of the background
information and then have Dennis Beach, City Manager, give them the rest of the update. She stated
that the City of Fort Pierce is concerned that the Port of Fort Pierce is the only privately held port and
they feel that it needs to be in the City's or the County's hands. Commissioner Coke stated the County
is looking to develop the waterfront property right next door and have their hands full so they thought,
in the best interest of the public, that in order to be able to control what goes on in the port, which
obviously the citizens would like them to do, they would need to have ownership of the port.
~
Chairman Kavanagh asked Mr. Beach ifhe could add anything to the update. Mr. Beach stated that
another thing that drives the decision is trying to find the public resources necessary to make a lot of
the improvements that need to bemade in the Port area itself and that is to the public infrastructure,
the streets and drainage, and so on and so forth. He stated that they believe that it is a lot more
accessible if that property is in public ownership. Mr. Beach stated that what the Commission
authorized was to simply explore the acquisition of the Indian River Terminal property plus one other
piece of property. He stated that they have not authorized the purchase of it, but simply the expiration
of it. Mr. Beach stated that we have seen some dramatic changes in prices of waterfront property in
the last couple of years and whether or not it is feasible to get into public ownership still remains to be
seen, simply because of the escalating property values.
\..-
Delores Johnson asked why the City is looking into purchasing this property. Mr. Beach stated to put
the ownership of the port operations itself under the public sector as opposed to the private sector. He
stated that discussions about the waterfront have been going on for years and years and the property
that Mr. Bell has is commonly referred to as port property. He stated that this is certainly part of the
planning area for the port that was recently defined by the County, but if you look at it from
specifically a use standpointthe Port of Fort Pierce is Indian River Terminal. Mr. Beach stated that it
has the bulkheads, the turning basin, and the facilities to operate a deepwater functioning port and
there are resources available through various agencies to support and build public infrastructure and
ports that are publicly owned. Ms. Johnson asked what they would do with it if the City were to
purchase that. Mr. Beach stated that part of exploring the feasibility of that would be how we will pay
for it. He stated that the only way they could pay for it is to lease it back to the private sector for some
private operation as a port. Ms. Johnson stated buy it and lease it back. She stated that the County
had looked into that possibility also. Ms. Johnson stated that she is still having problems and is
wondering why you would buy it in the first place to lease it back. Dennis Beach stated for the
reasons that we have just stated and that is the only reason that we would do it. Ms. Johnsontated
that this just does not make any sense and there is an entity there now and it is privately owned and the
County is in the process of negotiating with Mr. Bell. She stated that she would like to hear comments
from others and the public in attendance. Stix Nickson asked what the taxable value of the property is
right now. Mr. Beach stated he did not know. Mr. Nickson asked ifhe knew what they are paying in
2
'-'
taxes right now. Mr. Beach stated no. Mr. Nickson stated that by purchasing it the City would be
basically taking it off of the tax roll. Mr. Beach stated that the vacant property would be taken off of
the tax roll. Mr. Nickson stated if the City purchases Indian River Terminal it comes off of the tax
roll. Mr. Beach stated that it would depend on what the use is. He stated that if it is still used for
private purposes it would be taxed. Mr. Nickson asked in what capacity. He stated if it is a lease back
they are paying a lease fee how can they be paying taxes. He asked if the taxes would be included in
the lease. Mr. Beach stated that in municipal government one of the things that distinguishes the
municipal operations from the County operations is property that the City owns that is used for private
purpose is taxable. Mr. Beach stated that if the County, for whatever reason, is exempt from that
requirement of municipalities. Mr. Nickson asked would it become more expensive for them to do
business under that scenario, then what they are at now. Mr. Beach stated that it is not a matter of
leaving it where it is now or doing it differently. He stated that ifthe City were to pursue something
like this it would have to be in conjunction with the owners of the property. Mr. Beach stated that they
would somehow have to participate in this and it would have to be worth their time or they simply
would not be involved in this. Mr. Nickson stated then a private/public partnership would elude itto
all ofthis. Commissioner Coke stated that one of the importantthings is that if the City were to own
the property, we could then apply for the funding to redo the infrastructure that the City at this point
and time cannot afford to redo on its own. She stated that they could get Federal funding for that,
which would enhance the property for whomever was using it. Ms. Johnson asked who the City was
looking at getting funding from because FSTED comes to mind. Mr. Beach stated that they may be a
source. Ms. Johnson asked ifthere was anyone else. Mr. Beach stated that there are actually a number
of agencies that have resources available for something ofthis nature if you qualify. He stated that
right now they are still in the prœess of determining whether or not the project qualifies or whether
the City qualifies to take advantage ofthose funding sources. Ms. Johnson asked if they would be
looking at form ing a separate Authority. Mary Chapman stated that she would like to be assured that
this will not be used as a cargo terminal. Commissioner Coke stated that she did not think the City
Commission would allow that to go on and this is one of the reasons they are looking at purchasing it
because if we own the property then we have some say as to the what kind of cargo goes in and out of
there. Ms. Chapman asked if she could put this in writing. Commissioner Coke stated she would and
could probably get three other City Commissioners and the Mayor to do it also. Stix Nickson stated
the other side of the coin is cargo operation, which will yield the most revenue and the biggest bang
for the buck. Commissioner Coke stated everything is not about money and they have had this
discussion before. Mr. Nickson stated he disagrees; everything does come down to money, what you
do with the money and how it's directed. He stated everything in life comes down to money, honestly.
He stated the City needs revenue and money to operate desperately and you are just decreasing the
amount of money coming into that pot. Mr. Nickson referred to his presentation at past meetings on
the flow of money. CommissionerCoke stated there is a big difference between cargo and container.
She stated that you can have cargo moving in and out of the port without having our City looking like
Riviera Beach, littered with containers from one end out to Interstate 95. Mr. Nickson stated that he
understood her concern, but transporting of goods is aœxpertise and the business world should be
left to it, since we do not have the expertise. He stated that containerization of cargo is the most
efficient and probably economical and environmentally friendly way to move goods out of a port.
Kevin Jackson commented on cargo and container use at the port. He stated that we cannot rule this
out because it will be takingjobs away from the people of this County. Mr. Jackson stated that they
are shipping fruit from this County right now out ofF ort Lauderdale in containers and this is why we
have nothing in St. Lucie County, because the money is leaving our County to the surrounding
Counties because we do not offer the services here.
~
\.-
3
'-"
3.1 PUBLIC COMMENT
Charles Grande thanked CommissionerCoke and Dennis Beach for coming to a public hearing like
this and explaining the City's position and giving the public some interaction. He asked if the City
would purchase and then lease back to the existing tenants or if they would be looking for new tenants
and also if this would be financed through grants, bond issue or general tax financing. Commissioner
Coke stated at this time is it premature. They have not even looked into seeing if Indian River
Terminal is willing to sell the property or ifthey would want to sell it and lease it back. ShBtated,
until they have this information they will be unable to look for financing ifthey are unable to buy it.
Mr. Beach stated that they are in the beginning phases of things and there are any number of things
that could change the Commission's level of interest in doing it and the public level of interest in
doing it. He stated clearly the Commission at this point and time feels there are some advantages to
public ownership of that facility. Mr. Beach stated ifthis starts to come together in a way that does not
make economic sense or does not achieve what the Commission is trying to achieve, then it could go
away rather quickly.
John Parry stated that he agreed with Mr. Nickson about the concepts that containers are the way that
things move and that is where the money is. He stated to entertain a cargo port that isn't a container
port in this day is ridiculous. Mr. Parry stated we are beating around the bush and there are two side
container and yachting. He stated the other way to create revenue is in the yachting industry and
would like assurances from Commissioner Coke and Mr. Beach that when looking for tenants, that
they will also talk to the yachting industry not just the cargo shippers. Mr. Parry also commented on
the Corp dredging.
'-'
Stix Nickson asked Commissioner Coward what the original intent of the County was when they
purchased the Cotton Property. Commissioner Coward stated the referendum language that went
before the voters as he understands included basically recreation and commercial uses. He stated that
this fits into the Port Master Plan that was developed jointly by the County Commission and the City
of Fort Pierce Commission. Mr. Nickson stated the property has been taken off ofthe tax roll and we
have not really done anything with the property. He stated when government starts purchasing these
things, there are economic ram ifications and does not want to see that happen again or perpetuate the
nonuse of some very valuable property that can generate an income for a community that needs it
desperately. Mr. Beach explained what spurred the acquisition of the Cotton Property. He stated the
purchase stopped a rather intense industrial operation from being developed on the twenty acres.
CommissionerCoward stated that the County has been reluctantto go in there and spend a great deal
of money until we have a better vision or plan for the overall use ofthe port, which is what we are
currently refining and trying to move forward in cooperation with a number of different entities. Mr.
Nickson commented on the amount of income that the community might have right now ifthe plant
would have come and how that amount may have affected property taxes with an additional economic
engine. He referred back to the flow of money presentation that he presented to the Committee at past
meetings. Discussion ensued regarding the other side of the issue and the ramifications.
Bob Bangert stated if things are so bad in this County because of jobs, why is Stix Nickson getting
rich selling real estate. He stated that people are moving to this County every day and bringing tax
revenue to the County and the Cities.
Kevin Stinnette commented on the jobs that could be created by the Mega yacht industry and reasons
why businesses have not developed the port area and are lookingœ do so now.
\.-
4
'-'
John Wolsietercommentedon the County's purchase of the twenty acres and the revenue and jobs that
will be produced if a Mega yacht facility does come here
Charles Grande commented and gave Committee members his view on Mr. Nickson point.
Commissioner Coward stated he disagrees with Mr. Beach's comment that it is either jobs or the
environment. He stated what we need to understand is that we can promote economic development
that does not destroy the environment. Commissioner Coward stated this is why he thinks that the
marine industry and the Mega yacht proposal has gotten the interest of this Community, because it is a
win/win opportunity.
John Parry commented on past developers and stated that no developers will develop a high-end piece
of property when they do not know what is coming next door. He also commented on why a cargo
port damages the environment and not, why it doesn't. Mr. Parry stated it is always language and not
written word. He stated that if the other side of this argument even wants to begin to make the
argument intelligent that have to start with something written on paper, a scientist with proof. Mr.
Parry stated there is so much on this issue and so little in rebuttal to it.
~
Delores Johnson stated speaking as the President of the Waterfront Council that they have been
supportive of industry coming to our port that is both economically and ecologically sustainable. She
stated that over the years, the industry that has basically risen has been the yachting industry. She
stated that she has serious problems with the City wanting to purchase the property that is there. Ms.
Johnson stated for the record she plans to lobby and find three votes on that Commission to say don't
go for it. Commissioner Coke stated that this would give the City and the County the perfect
opportunity to work together and control the port so that it will adhere to the Port Master Plan so that
the people of this County and the City of Fort Pierce will get what we want. She stated they could
work together to promote the economic developmentthat is going to be, not lime stone factory, but
maybe yachting and that type of thing. Discussion ensued regarding the City buying the property and
leasing it back to the previous owners.
Stix Nickson stated that he does not make his money in real estate brokerage. He stated that he
makes his money by investing in real estate.
Mr. Nickson stated that Commissioner Coward is absolutely right. He stated that he would go on
record right now and say that he does not want to develop something that will destroy the
environment. Mr. Nickson stated he believes in today's technical world and today's advances that
we can now develop industries, ports, etc. with the environment in mind.
Mr. Nickson stated I am alluding back to the comment made by John that all Ports go in and destroy
something. Mr. Parry stated I did not say that Stix. Stix stated I do not have one piece üScientific
evidence that has ever pointed to your house being built, or your house being built or anybody's
houses being built here without destroying some of the ecological environmental concerns. Mr.
Nickson stated it's a trade off, you have to live someplace, you have to clear the land, you have to
bulldoze trees and everything else. He stated the point I am trying to make is, scientific evidence has
never shown me at all of when a house has actually benefited the environment as you so claim. Now I
will allude to you there is a port right here in the State of Florida. He stated do you know where the
most pristine environmentally ecological place in the State of Florida that has more endangered
\.-.
5
\.r
species then anywhere else in the United States is. He asked do you know where that is. (Mr.
Nickson and Mr. Parry yelling responses at each other unable to understand.) John Parry stated that the
Smithsonian Institute says that it is the Fort Pierce Inlet. Stix stated no it is not. Christine Coke stated
point of order we are suppose to have discussions here not screaming. Stix stated the most diverse
estuary in the State of Florida that has more endangered species then anywhere else in the State is
Cape Canaveral. He stated that Cape Canaveral is also the most industrialized part of the whole
country. John stated here it is in writing from the Smithsonian. Stix stated that the information comes
from NASA and if he did not believe him he could go to their websitwecause he learned this from
them. He stated that the most hazardous waste materials are also stored at Cape Canaveral. John
Parry stated here are three more pages of what I said. Stix stated John I understand and the point I am
trying to make is. John stated your not making a point your talking and not showing me anything Stix
and that is what I am tryingto avoid here. Chairman Kavanagh stated that they needed to move on.
Stix stated to John I let you talk, it's my turn to talk, come on now. Delores Johnson stated point of
order we need to move on. Chairman Kavanagh stated to move on and asked John to leave the room if
he could not??? John stated I willleaveI am sorry; I want us to reduce this to the written word, not
language. Chairman Kavanagh stated then send it to us and I will passed it out. Mr. Parry stated I've
given it to you, I don't need to send it. I just put it right in front of you, Gail. Mr. Nickson stated that
his point was there has to be a conscious effort. He stated if there is a way to get the industrialization
to where it is environmentally friendly there would probably be a consensus by most of the people.
John Arena asked that Mr. Nickson show them in writing at the next meeting. Mr. Nickson stated
absolutely he got it from NASA.
~
Lloyd Bell stated he wanted to comment on a couple of items. He stated number one was the
discussion on the twenty acres that is owned by the County. He stated that there is no question in
anyone's mind that it is a beautiful site and the County has done well by clearing it and putting in park
benches. Mr. Bell asked if anyone has stopped to think that this area is not a deepwater portion and
you cannot take a boat up to it except in Taylor Creek. He stated it is straight river frontage. Mr. Bell
stated in order to make it useable, they would have to dredge past the Lagoon because it is shallow
water. Mr. Bell stated the function of that piece of property is 180 degrees out of what the people in
this meeting are talking about using it for because they needvater depth in order to properly utilize
that property available to the ocean. Mr. Bell stated another thing is that he has no argument at all
with the value of Mega yacht and has been the strongest advocate of the Mega yacht and was the one
that went to Germany and brought Lurssen in and has research and believe that we should not put all
of our eggs in a Lurssen basket. He stated that the County needs Lurssen because Lurssen is a
prominent member of the world community in Mega yachts, but stated that we should not hand them
the keys to the County because they are only one company. Mr. Bell stated he would like to see is
Lurssen along with about twenty other major companies around the world. He stated there is no
reason why we cannot have the best of the best. Mr. Bell stated that Peter Lurssen told us here that
this could be the Mega yacht capital of the world. He stated let's mix it up and not put everything in
the hands of a German company, but bring them all here and make this a tourist attraction. Mr. Bell
commented on the Charette information given to him by the City and the County and the break down
of the 87 acres.
Shirley Burlingham commented on how she was disillusioned by the Charette of 1996. Charles
Grande stated that it was the rule of its day and whether is was right or wrong it has passed and is
obsolete. He stated that the Charete is now out of date and the Comprehensive Plan adopted by
the City and the County has taken its place and was passed unanimously by the County and the
City. Mr. Bell stated that the Charette may have been adopted here, but he did not think that it had
~
6
\....
\.r
~
been adopted in Tallahassee.
Shirley Burlingham stated that she worked on the bond issue for buying the property at Harbour Pointe
and it is her feeling that we put this in trust that it would not be developed into anything else, but light
commercial or recreation. She stated that she goes out there fairly often for picnics. Ms. Burlingham
stated that it is not a place where one could launch a kayak or canoe because the currents are much too
strong and it is shallow but it is one of the most beautiful quiet areas in St. Lucie County. She stated
that she believes that the way we are going to develop it is the right wa.y
4. OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business brought forward for discussion.
4.1 PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Having no other business to discuss, it was moved by Commissioner Christine Coke, seconded by
Kevin Jackson, to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
The meeting adjourned at 4: 18p.m.
Missy Stiadle
Recording Secretary
c:
Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee
Members:
7
.~
~
FORT PIERCE HARBOR ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting
September 24, 2002
Convened: 3:12 p.m. Adiourned: 4:56 p.m.
This meeting of the Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee was held Tuesday, September 24,2002
at 3: 12p.m. in Conference Room #3 of the Administration Annex Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue,
Fort Pierce, Florida.
Members Present:
Gail Kavanagh, Chairman
Jeanne Hearn
Mary Chapman
Stix Nickson
Members Absent:
Kevin Jackson, Vice Chairman
David Souza
Delores Hogan Johnson
Commissioner Christine Coke
'-"
Also Present:
Missy Stiadle, Recording Secretary
Katherine McKenzie Smith, Assistant County Attorney
Emily Grande, Hutchinson Island
Don West, Public Works Director
Ja'net Pentz, Executive Aide to Commissioner Bruhn
Liz Martin, Executive Aide to Commissioner Hutchinson
Charline Burgess, Executive Aide to Commissioner Coward
Ray Wazny, Assistant County Administrator
Robert Bangert, Conservation Alliance
Charles Grande, Presidents Council of Hutchinson Island
John Wolsieter, South Beach Association
Shirley Burlingham, North Beach Homeowners Association
John Parry, Waterfront Council
Gil Kennedy, St. Lucie Waterfront Council
Jim Egan, Marine Resources Council
Bill Hearn, St. Lucie Waterfront Council
AGENDA
1.
ROLL CALL
'-'
Roll call was taken. It was found that there was no quorum available for the meeting.
Chairman Kavanagh announced that they would still have the presentation by Mr. Egan but
would be unable to vote on any of the business items on the agenda.
/
\.-
2.
PUBLIC COMMENT
John Parry stated that he would like to apologize for being too passionate at the last meeting.
He stated that he spoke out of turn to Mr. Nickson and wanted to apologize to him. Mr.
Nickson stated he appreciated and accepted the apology. He stated that he was very
sympathetic, because he also was very passionate about the issues.
3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 23, 2002 MEETING
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 27, 2002 MEETING
The minutes were not voted on due to lack of a quorum.
4. PRESENTATION BY JIM EGAN ON THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON WATER
QUALITY
Jim Egan, Executive Director of the Marine Resources Council of East Florida gave
Committee members a presentation on ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACTS OF PORTS ON THE
FLOIRDA EAST COAST WITH EMPHASIS ON THE INDIAN RWER LAGOON, FLORIDA.
Please see attached copy of Mr. Egan's presentation.
4.1 PUBLIC COMMENT
\.,.
Bill Hearn stated that the approved Port Master Plan that was developed by the coordinated
effort of the Citizens, staff, and the City of Fort Pierce, is now going through more changes
behind the scenes. He asked if it would come before the public before final approval after
the changes. Mr. Hearn stated that he was not aware that it would be changed without public
input. Mr. Wazny stated that it is not the policy ofthe Board to approve anything without
public input. He stated that this committee is a recommending committee appointed by the
Board. Mr. West stated that the approval itself in front of the Board would be a public
meeting and he was sure there would be an opportunity for public comment. He gave
Committee members a website that they could look at and stated that he was unsure if the
document would be updated before the approval by the Board. Mrs. Hearn asked for the web
address. He stated that he thought it was fortpierceportplan.org.
5. OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Wazny stated an item he wanted to address was the minutes ofthe Harbor Committee
meetings. He stated that he has asked the recording secretary to start putting the minutes in a
summary fashion as is done for other boards. Mr. Wazny stated that this is a recommending
board and if members or individuals would like to have verbatim minutes we would make
tapes available.
~
2
\..
\r
5.1
'-'
Stix Nickson stated that he wanted the minutes to reflect that Jim Egan did a fine job in his
presentation and for the minutes to also reflect that it was basically the same presentation that
was made here about two years ago. He stated that he wanted the County Commissioners to
know in the minutes that he did not hear any new information since the last presentation and
that he vehemently disagrees with the information that was presented and for the record it is
the same people in attendance that were here the last time and there was no new input and he
wanted the record to reflect that.
Mr. Egan commented that the presentation was similar to the last one but did contain new
information.
Jeanne Hearn stated that the information about the spotted jellyfish was new. She stated that
she had not heard about them until now but had read about them on her own. Mrs. Hearn
stated that she would be very interested in seeing a report by Mr. Nickson to give us the other
side of the story. She stated that she would really like for him to prove it by bringing in facts
if there are any out there. Mrs. Hearn commented on why this information would be
important to our Community. Mr. Nickson stated that he would not be unable to do a study
at this time and compile notes that he has because he has other things on his plate right now
that will prevent him from doing so. He stated after November 5, 2002 he would have more
time to compile the information. Mr. Nickson stated he gave some information, which is in
today's agenda packet. He read word for word from the information he provided.
Discussion ensued.
PUBLIC COMMENT
John Parry stated that he went to the NASA website and commented on the information that
he found there. He stated that the reports are not about an estuary they are about land. Mr.
Parry stated that the report does not reference sea creatures, but talks about birds. He stated
that we are comparing apples to oranges.
Mr. Grande commented on the material presented in the packet by Mr. Nickson and stated
that there was nothing marine related in Canaveral that is anywhere near as diverse as the
Indian River Lagoon in our area.
Mr. Nickson stated to be fair he only spent about ten to fifteen minutes gathering this
material while Mr. Parry may have spent hours. He stated that he only obtained this
information to back up his comments at the last meeting and this was his only intent. Mr.
Nickson stated that he would get more information after November 5, 2002 to present to the
Committee.
Mr. Nickson commented on a newspaper article and asked if Chairman Kavanagh could have
a man named Pug come and give a presentation on spoil islands and what the dredging has
done to create these spoil islands and bird sanctuaries. He stated that the articles advocate a
3
..
'-'
lot of the good things that were done dredging both the intracostal waterways and the inlet
and the environmental pluses that it actually gives us. Jeanne Hearn commented on the news
article and stated that we cannot continue to erode and if Pug Ergle along with Johnny Jones
will come, they will enlighten him on exactly what this was like before we started dredging
our inlet. Discussion ensued between Mr. Nickson and Jeanne Hearn.
Bill Hearn stated that it amazes him how people from other parts of the country can come
here to our piece of paradise and tell us what we should do and what we should appreciate
and that we should not be concerned about our environment here in our community. He
stated that it makes him sick to his stomach to hear these words out of mouths of people who
should know better.
Mr. Wazny stated to Mr. Hearn that we should keep focus on why the Board formed this
Committee. He stated that this is a Harbor Advisory Committee. Therefore, when there is an
exchange of ideas, whether you agree with them or not, this is what the Board's intent was.
Mr. Wazny stated the Board appointees on this Committee have a large responsibility of
coming up with a consensus recommendation so that they can make decisions. He stated that
the Board does not get to hear all of the input and may not agree with everyone, but the
Board's charge is for this Committee to make good recommendations so that they can make
decisions and focus to make progress for maintaining, improving and making decisions
relative to the Port on its future development.
'-"
Mr. Hearn commented that the input needed to be factual.
Jeanne Hearn invited everyone to the site behind the Historical Museum to view across the
Port area. She stated that she thinks that visual expectation and visual pictures can tell more
than anything that we say or do.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Having no other business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned by Ray Wazny, at 4:56p.m.
Missy Stiadle
Recording Secretary
c:
Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee Members:
'-'
4
,
~
~
~
FORT PIERCE HARBOR ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting
November 19,2002
Convened: 3:01 p.m.
Adjourned: 3:40 p.m.
This meeting of the Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee was held Tuesday, November 19, 2002 at
3:01p.m. in Conference Room #3 of the AdministrationAnnex Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce,
Florida.
Members Present:
Commissioner Christine Coke
Mary Chapman
Stix Nickson (late 3:06p.m.)
Gail Kavanagh, Chairman
Jeanne Hearn
David Souza
Members Absent:
Delores Hogan Johnson
Kevin Jackson, Vice Chairman
Also Present:
Missy Stiadle, Recording Secretary
Katherine Smith, Assistant County Attorney
Maggie Large, Tribune
Ja'net Pentz, Executive Aide to Commissioner Bruhn
Commissioner Doug Coward
1
-
,
AGENDA
'-'
1. ROLL CALL
Roll call was taken
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment
3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 14, 2002 MEETING
It was moved by Commissioner Christine Coke, seconded by Mary Chapman, to approve the
minutes of the October 14, 2002 meeting. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
4. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ON BOARD APPROVAL OF THE PORT MASTER
PLAN
Ms. Hearn stated that this discussion is sort of after the fact. Chairman Kavanagh stated that
it seems as if a lot of issues seem to come to the Committee after the fact. Ms. Hearn stated
that this has been a complaint from the Committee for some time now.
~
Commissioner Coke stated that she had one thing that she wanted everyone to be aware of.
She stated that the County sent a letter to the City asking them to define exactly what the
zoning is VS. the land usage. Jeanne Hearn asked ifthe City had sent back a response to the
County yet because she wanted to get a copy of it. Commissioner Coke stated that she did
not know if the City had sent a written response yet because there was some discussion about
changing the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the zoning. She stated that she would check on
it. Ms. Hearn stated that it was her understanding that the County needed the City to give an
indication that they could work together on it after the fact in order for DCA to go ahead and
approve the plan to get the funding from FSTED, which is very important. Commissioner
Coke stated her interpretation was that they were not as sure of the exact zoning as they
thought they were when they came to us with the maps. She stated that they had instructed
Ramon to review the exact zoning and the exact lines on the maps so that they were not out
of sync. Jeanne Hearn asked if staff could find out ifthe City answered. She stated that she
thinks this County really needs that information.
Chairman Kavanagh asked if anyone knew of a meeting of the County Commission to review
the RFP. She stated that she read in the paper they had a meeting last Friday. Jeanne Hearn
stated that she did know if the next one would be on Thursday or Friday. Mary Chapman
asked if staff could give Committee member's formal notice of the meeting because she was
not aware of the last one and missed it. Ms. Hearn stated the meeting the other day was a
staff meeting so it was not open to the public but the one that she attended on Friday was
open to the public and had been advertised. Mary Chapman stated that she did not see the
~
2
'-'
advertisement. Ms. Hearn stated that when she inquired about the meeting she was told that
it was not open to the public but she knew that an RFP had to be open to the public so she
just went. Ms. Chapman stated that Bob Bangert had called the Planning Department and
was told that the meeting was not open to the public. Jeanne Hearn stated that she thinks this
just happens sometimes. Ms. Chapman stated that if anything like this comes up she would
like to be called. Chairman Kavanagh asked if there was anyway that the Committee
members could be notified of these meetings.
\.-
Stix Nickson asked what the end result was of the recommendations that were presented to
the Board of County Commission from the Committee. Jeanne Hearn stated the plan was
approved and issues were raised by some of the Commissioners and they were incorporated
into the plan as well. Ms. Chapman stated that by the time it was approved it was very close
to the March 12, 2002 document that we had seen. She stated that the corrections at the end
were mostly typos and just nit picky type things. Jeanne Hearn stated that she has not yet
seen the final document. Chairman Kavanagh stated that when there are no real issues this
Committee really has nothing to discuss. Jeanne Hearn stated that the reason the public did
not attend today was with the agenda that is out they would wonder why they would come to
discuss something that has already been approved formally by the County Commission. She
stated that staff needs to present things ahead of time rather then in arrears. Chairman
Kavanagh stated that this seems to be the topic of discussion that keeps coming up because
the Committee always seem to get the issue after the fact instead of before so what good is an
advisory committee. She stated that they are not advising but simply rubber-stamping after
the fact. Ms. Chapman stated that the material she presented at the last meeting did go to the
Commissioners and they did use most of it. She stated therefore the Committee did have
some input as a body. Ms. Hearn stated the Committee has lost some good members over the
years because they felt the Committee was a waste of time.
4.1
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment
5. OTHER BUSINESS
Stix Nickson stated an issue the Committee could take up would be to research the pros and
cons of an independent port authority, which discussed by Mr. Machek and brought forward.
He stated that Mr. Machek had received calls from several regional people from Okeechobee
and Martin County. Mr. Nickson stated that he sat in on a regional meeting with Okeechobee
County, Martin County and Indian River County and they stressed very heavily that they
want to be participants in the Port and have some say in Port issues because it will effect the
region. He stated the economy and the development of the Port are not only just St. Lucie
County but also helps development in the region. Mr. Nickson stated he would like to
propose as a Committee to study the pros and cons of an independent port authority.
Commissioner Coke stated the City Commission voted unanimously last night to let
~
3
'-"
Representative Machek know how they felt at this point and time, that St. Lucie County was
the Port Authority, and that is exactly who it should be and if some point down the road it is
going to change it should be ajoint City of Fort Pierce and St. Lucie County. Mr. Nickson
stated that this was his whole point. He knew that the City voted that why and he did not
think that the County Commission wanted it to go that way either because they lose control
but we are losing site of the bigger picture which is a regional facility. He stated both the
Federal Government has their hands as a limited governmental agency as well as the State of
Florida. Mr. Nickson stated by keeping it local we are being very selfish in our own mind to
what is good for us and we don't care about anybody else. He stated that his suggestion is to
study what the ramifications are to an independent port authority and what is mean not only
for St. Lucie County but also a region and a much broader sense of economic and whatnot.
Commissioner Coke stated that her personal belief is that the City and the County have a
hard enough time agreeing on things and the citizens here are the County, and we are going
to be most effected by it and are the ones that are paying the taxes and will live with the
results of what goes into the port. She stated that she did not want someone coming in from
Okeechobee telling us what we need to put in our backyard. Commissioner Coke stated that
we do not go to Okeechobee and tell them how to run their lake and they don't need to come
here and tell us how to run our port. Discussion ensued.
\."
Chairman Kavanagh stated that she would like to know what Commissioner Coward
thoughts are on this subject and asked ifhe would like to comment. Commissioner Coward
stated quite honestly he did not think that there was any merit to this discussion. He stated
that it is abundantly clear that we want to retain local control over our local community and it
is that simple. Commissioner Coward stated as elected officials both the County
Commission and the City Commission have had discussions about this and it was brought up
a good six month to a year ago and the idea of a regional port authority if even to be
discussed should have been brought up at that time. He stated that he has heard no elected
official wanting this to occur and all of the elected officials that are apparently supporting
this have never had a conversation with him so if this idea is to ever gain any serious
momentum he would hope that those individuals or individual would come to the elected
officials in a straight forward fashion and ask us, as opposed to what we are seeing now,
which is basically behind our backs, which is what is most disappointing about this whole
process. Commissioner Coward stated that he did not see why we would want to lose control
over this. He stated that he thought the honest truth of what is going on is that people who
do not see their philosophy for cargo being espoused are now asking to change the authority
so they can hopefully change the intended use of the port. He stated that this why it is
coming up at this time as opposed to two years ago and if this port authority had come up
with a pro cargo slant do you think that the individuals that are calling for a regional port
authority would want that to happen. No of course not, they would want to retain the current
authority that is pushing their agenda but because this current County Commission does not
support a cargo facility like that, which is envisioned by some landowner and others, they
want to change who is in control. Commissioner Coward stated that it is that simple. It has
nothing to do with Okeechobee and these people are not looking out for the best interest of
\."
4
'-"
Okeechobee, they are just trying to push an agenda. Commissioner Coke stated that she
would be very concerned if this group as an advisory council were to recommend such a
study it would just lend a little bit of creditability to the fact and someplace down the road
someone could point a finger and say the Harbor Advisory Council thought that we should
study this so maybe there is some merit to it. She stated that she thinks that the Port
Authority is the County and that is where it needs to be right now. Commissioner Coke
stated that she does not want to go and tell them how to run their lake in Okeechobee and
therefore they do not need to come tell me how to run my port. Mary Chapman and Jeanne
Hearn both stated that they concur with Commissioner Coke. Mr. Nickson stated that he
disagreed on the layers of bureaucracy for the simple reason that a port authority would take
that away from local officials and they would become what is known as the port authority to
have the land use regulations, zoning and things of that sort to get this port going. He stated
that the port has been discussed for the last fourteen or fifteen years and it is still in the same
state is was fourteen or fifteen years ago because of this consistency. Mr. Nickson stated that
this would be one of the ways to break the ice and get it moving. He stated obviously it is
not in the minds of the people here and you are entitled to your opinion but it would be a way
of exploring the benefits and not so benefits of a port authority, which would give the
Committee more information and the County Commission, more information. Mr. Nickson
stated that it would then give the citizens of the County the ability to know that we are trying
to study the issue for what would be best for them. Commissioner Coward stated that he
would like to stress one other point about the independent aspect of this because two
scenarios are one is that the board would be elected like the one in Palm Beach so it is not
being taken out of politics, and second of all if you appoint someone that is not elected who
are they accountable to. He stated the people should choose who the elected officials are to
determine their fate so they are accountable. Commissioner Coward stated that neither of the
scenarios is good. He stated that he did not want another layer of political process to elect a
port authority and certainly did not want to put someone on there that is not accountable to
the people. Mr. Nickson stated that it has worked in the past for economic development
when these port authorities go in they produce economic development for a whole variety of
people in a large area. He stated the Port of Palm Beach has done so well that they have not
had to raise Ad-Valorem Taxes in twenty-three years and this is because of all the money that
they tax from the business structure they take in. Mr. Nickson stated that he understood what
Commissioner Coward is saying but he is looking at the economics of it as well.
\..
Commissioner Coke stated that she would like to see the Committee send a letter to the
Representative telling him that we would like our Port Authority to stay in local hands, the
same as the City Commission voted to do last night. She stated that we need to let them
know that now is not the time after all of the planning and hard work of all the citizens,
County Commission and City Commission to muddy the waters and try to change what we
have worked so hard to get to. Jeanne Hearn stated that she would support that idea and
Mary Chapman concurred. Chairman Kavanagh asked if she would like to make a motion.
Commissioner Coke stated that she would make it a motion.
\..
5
It was moved by Commissioner Christine Coke, seconded by Jeanne Hearn, to recommend
the Board of County Commission send a letter to Representative Machek, The Governor and
other delegation telling them that we would like our Port Authority to stay in local hands.
The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
'-"
It was moved by Stix Nickson, seconded by David Souza, to include that the vote on the
recommendation to the Commission was not unanimous. The vote was a tie and failed. Mr.
Souza stated that he did not think it was unreasonable to say that the Board wasn't
unanimous and there should not be a motion for it. He suggested an individual vote to show
how each Committee Member voted. Commissioner Coke suggested that we send the
motion over with a list of who voted and how.
The vote as follows:
Absent
Absent
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Abstained
\....-
Kevin Jackson
Delores Johnson
Commissioner Christine Coke
Stix Nickson
David Souza
Jeanne Hearn
Mary Chapman
Gail Kavanagh
Jeanne Hearn asked if the Committee Members could get a review of the RFQ or RFP now
presented to the Board after the review is done so that we can see what the result are.
Chairman Kavanagh stated that was a reasonable request and asked that staff present this at
the next Harbor meeting.
Chairman Kavanagh stated the next meeting is scheduled for Christmas Eve and suggested
the Committee move the meeting or cancel for the month of December. Mary Chapman
suggested the Committee meet a week earlier on December 17, 2002 at 3 :OOp.m. Chairman
Kavanagh asked if this time would be good and Committee members concurred. She
commented if the RFP was the only thing on the agenda that they cancel for the month of
December. Jeanne Hearn stated that she thought the Committee members really needed to
see the RFP before it was after the fact again. She stated that she was sure the decision
would go forward quick. Mary Chapman stated that she would like to have a copy of the
RFP well before the meeting to review. Commissioner Coke stated that maybe staff could do
the presentation earlier. Jeanne Hearn stated that staff could just call a special meeting when
they get it together. Chairman Kavanagh stated the next meeting would tentatively be
schedule for December 17,2002.
Mr. Nickson stated that he would like to address the constant public comments after each
item. He stated that he was one of the proponents of saying this was a good idea. Mr.
'-"
6
~
Nickson stated having gone through several meeting now he thinks that we have diluted this
Committee to the point where we are no longer a Committee the public is a part of the
Committee. He stated that he would like to make a motion that we go back to the one public
comment area and then let the Committee address that other business on the agenda. He
stated that the one public comment area could be at the beginning or the end but that the
Committee should reduce it to one section on the agenda. Commissioner Coke stated that
she questions and agrees with Mr. Nickson. She stated the last couple of meetings have
gotten way out of hand, but is public comment something we want to eliminate or something
that we want to be more stringent on control of. Commissioner Coke stated that rather then
someone standing up and making a comment for a minute or two they make a comment and
then we as a group allow them to get into debates. She stated public input is really important
and the fault in lies that we should jump up and say point of order these are the rules for our
public comment. Mr. Nickson stated if we keep public comment in the beginning they see
the agenda and can comment then on the issues. Commissioner Coke stated the agenda
could have public comment at the very beginning and then again at the end of the meeting so
if something does come up during the meeting that someone from the public had a question
or concern about they could bring it up then rather then after each individual item. Mr.
Souza stated that perhaps we should have public comment at the beginning of each agenda
item and then close it and have Committee discussion. Ms. Hearn stated that she liked that
idea. Mr. Souza stated that the time limit on public comment is three minutes. Ms. Hearn
stated if someone has something to say that is longer then three minutes then they would
need to be put on the agenda to present it. Chairman Kavanagh stated that what she is
hearing is that David suggested that public comment be at the beginning of each agenda item
with three minutes per person or less. Discussion ensued among Committee members on the
best way to handle public comment. It was decided that public comment would be at the
beginning of each agenda item with a three minutes limit and then closed for Committee
discussion and vote. Mr. Souza stated that this gives the public in attendance a chance to
make their point and gives the Committee an opportunity to take their comments into
consideration. Chairman Kavanagh stated the Committee could give this a chance and if it
does not work they would revisit it. Ms. Hearn stated that if this does not work she has a
paddle system they could use. She explained that one side of the paddle is green for
agreement and the other side is red for disagreement. Ms. Hearn stated that they are color
paddles and they work well. Chairman Kavanagh stated that they would go forward with this
policy and see if things will stay under control.
\....
Ms. Hearn stated she would like to mention what she saw on the RFP. She stated that all
they saw was the map and a brief presentation by the Haskell Company. Ms. Hearn stated
that to her it really has a lot of potential just by seeing. She stated that she is anxious for the
Committee to see it because of the job opportunities and economic gain for the Community
and yet keeping our downtown safe and protected. Ms. Hearn stated that if we could ever
make this come true she would be very happy.
\..
7
'-"
\.-
\.-
Chairman Kavanagh stated the next meeting would be on December 17,2002 at 3:00p.m.
unless staffwill be able to give the presentation on the RFP earlier.
5.1
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment
6. ADJOURNMENT
Having no other business to discuss, it was moved by Commissioner Christine Coke,
seconded by Jeanne Hearn, to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
The meeting adjourned at 3:40p.m.
Missy Stiadle
Recording Secretary
c:
Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee
Members:
Gail Kavanagh, Chairman
Kevin Jackson, Vice Chairman
Delores Hogan Johnson
Jeanne Hearn
Commissioner Christine Coke
Stix Nickson
David Souza
Mary Chapman
Board of County Commissioners
Dan McIntyre, County Attorney
Doug Anderson, County Administrator
Ray Wazny, Asst. County Adm.
Don West, Public Works Director
8
-.
~
FORT PIERCE HARBOR ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting
December 13,2002
Convened: 1: 11 p.m.
Adjourned: 2:02 p.m.
This meeting of the Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee was held Tuesday, December 13, 2002 at
1 : 11 p.m. in Conference Room #3 of the AdministrationAnnex Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce,
Florida.
Members Present:
Commissioner Christine Coke
Mary Chapman
Gail Kavanagh, Chairman
Jeanne Hearn
Councilman Chris Cooper
Howard Conklin
Delores Hogan Johnson (late 122p.m.)
Members Absent:
David Souza
\.-
Also Present:
Missy Stiadle, Recording Secretary
Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney
Maggie Large, Tribune
Liz Martin, Executive Aide to Commissioner Hutchinson
Charles Grande, Presidents Council Hutchinson Hand
Emily Grande, Miramar Royale
Kevin Stinnette, Indian River Keeper
Robert P. Anderson, Resident Indrio
Barbara Felton, Executive Aide to Commissioner Lewis
\.
1
..
AGENDA
~
1. ROLL CALL
Roll call was taken
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment
3. ELECT CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN FOR 2003
It was moved by Jeanne Hearn, seconded by Mary Chapman, to appoint Delores Hogan
Johnson as Chairman of the Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee for 2003. The motion
carried unanimously by voice vote.
It was moved by Jeanne Hearn, seconded by Commissioner Christine Coke to appoint Mary
Chapman as Vice Chairman of the Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee for 2003. The
motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
4.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 19, 2002 MEETING
'-"
It was moved by Commissioner Christine Coke, seconded by Howard Conklin, to approve
the minutes of the November 19,2002 meeting. The motion carried unanimously by voice
vote.
5.
DISCUSSION OF PORT RFP
Ray Wazny, Assistant County Administrator, stated that staff was asked to provide a brief
overview of the proposal that was made by Haskell. He stated that they checked with the
County Attorney and can do this overview, but will have to address it in general terms since
the Selection Committee has taken no action. Mr. Wazny stated there would be no
discussion about where the County is with respect to negotiations, but as a group the
Committee can submit any questions they may have to the Selection Committee for
consideration. He stated that there cannot be a two-way discussion simply because no
selection or recommendation has been made to the Board. Mr. Wazny referenced a diagram
of the area and explained the proposed uses and locations. He stated the basic context of the
proposal is for the County, State and essentially Government to invest roughly $52 million to
create the infrastructure for the Port and then for the developer to invest roughly $142 million
dollars in the development of the vertical construction such as warehouses and whatever else
is needed. Mr. Wazny stated that this is generally the content of the proposal, which has
been embraced by just about everyone. He answered questions from the Committee and
public in attendance, but asked that they keep in mind that he would be unable to answer
questions that would be relative to the negotiations.
\.-
2
;;,
~
""
.....,
Mr. Conklin asked when the Selection Committee would move forward and conclude its
negotiations. Mr. Wazny stated that they would probably get some direction after the City
Council of Fort Pierce and St. Lucie County has a joint meeting on January 7, 2003. He
stated then staff would get some guidance from the two political bodies on which way they
should move based on the Haskell proposal. Mr. Wazny stated then the Selection Committee
could make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
6.
OTHER BUSINESS
Robert Anderson expressed his concern regarding stacking containers on the Seminole
property.
Jeanne Hearn asked if he was suggesting that the County have an ordinance like the City of
Fort Pierce that would limit the height that containers can be stacked.
Mr. Anderson stated that he was unaware of the City ordinance but was concerned that these
containers could be stacked 10 to 15 high on top of each other that he would have to look at
from his front door. He stated that he was wondering if the County has or would implement
an ordinance not only for his house and other residence but also for the Port area.
Jeanne Hearn stated that maybe the Harbor Committee could recommend to the County
Commission that they look into an ordinance just in case it develops anywhere along the
Lagoon.
Charles Grande stated that the City has an existing ordinance and suggested that the
Committee get input from the City of Fort Pierce as to what their ordinance it since it has
worked well for a number of years now.
Chairman Kavanagh asked if there was a motion from the Committee to have the County
Commission look into an ordinance.
It was moved by Jeanne Hearn, seconded by Delores Johnson to recommend that the County
look into the possibility of developing an ordinance similar to the City of Fort Pierce on
height restrictions of container stacking. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Mary Chapman brought in photographs pertaining to beach re-nourishment in the Vero
Beach area between the years of 1995 and Thanksgiving Day 2002. She stated that there has
been an increase of ten feet. Ms. Chapman stated that she wanted the Committee to view the
dramatic difference in the photographs. She stated that she was not trying to say that this
would be a solution for us because every situation is different.
3
'-"
Chairman Kavanagh asked if there was any action that she would like to see this Committee
take on this particular issue.
Ms. Chapman stated that the same engineering design has already been proposed to the
County Commission and rejected. She stated that she would like to see it be reconsidered or
at least looked at again. Ms. Chapman stated that she did not know what the groin situation
was at South Beach or if it would work any better than this. She stated that she would like
for this to be revisited by the County Commission if the Committee felt it was appropriate.
Chairman Kavanagh asked Ms. Chapman if she knew why this was turned down by the
Commission.
Ms. Chapman stated that she did not.
Chairman Kavanagh stated that maybe the Committee should inquire as to why the
Commission turned down the proposal.
Ms. Johnson stated along with asking about this she would like to ask staff if some of our re-
nourishment sand has gone to Vero Beach. Discussion ensued on whether or not the spur at
the Jetty has helped with beach re-nourishment.
~
Jeanne Hearn stated that she would like these questions passed on to the County Engineering
Department and have them come back to the Committee with a report or a presentation.
Charles Grande commented on the differences between Vero Beach and County regarding
beach re-nourishment.
Mr. Conklin stated that it would be useful to have a presentation by the engineers because we
are all laymen not engineers and there may have been valid ground for the Commissions'
decision. He stated that the Committee would certainly not want to make an uninformed
proposal to the County and should do some homework first.
Ms. Chapman agreed and stated that she would like to hear why the Commission rejected it.
Chairman Kavanagh stated that she would like to request that Don West come and give a
report on the whole process explaining what happened and why it was eliminated as a
probable solution.
Delores Johnson asked ifthe Committee was serious about appointing her as Chairman of the
Committee. Chairman Kavanagh stated yes they were serious. Ms. Johnson stated that she
really has a problem with getting to the meetings on time because of an extended day
program she is in charge of. She stated that she would try to work it out.
'-"
4
\.,.,
~
~
.
Ms. Chapman offered to help her as Vice Chairman until she can get to the meetings.
Ms. Johnson stated that she would try to work this out and revisit this at the next meeting.
Ms. Hearn stated that she had a video on the Mega Yachts facilities if anyone was interested
in viewing it. Mr. Conklin stated that he would be interested in it and other members
concurred. Ms. Hearn stated that it is very informative and that she would bring it back to
the next meeting for viewing.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Having no other business to discuss, it was moved by Commissioner Christine Coke,
seconded by Delores Johnson, to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
The meeting adjourned at 2:02p.m.
Missy Stiadle
Recording Secretary
c:
Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee
Members:
Gail Kavanagh, Chairman
Howard Conklin
Councilman Chris Cooper
Delores Hogan Johnson
Jeanne Hearn
Commissioner Christine Coke
David Souza
Mary Chapman
Board of County Commissioners
Dan McIntyre, County Attorney
Doug Anderson, County Administrator
Ray Wazny, Asst. County Adm.
Don West, Public Works Director
5
'-'
MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Division of Economic Development
TO:
Harbor Advisory Board
Patricia Tobin, Economic Development Manager ~
FROM:
DATE:
January 15,2,002
SUBJECT:
Draft of Port Master Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies for the Harbor Advisory
Board's Recommendation
'-"
I have attached the second draft of the goals, objectives and policies for the Board's consideration
and recommendation. I have also attached the agendas for the three stakeholder meetings held in the
months of October and November. In addition I have attached correspondence between the County
Attorney and the Department of Community Affairs regarding the procedure for adoption ofthe port
master plan.
The consultant team, including Mr. Jim Murley will be in attendance at your meeting to answer any
questions or clarify any issues.
cc: County Administrator
Assistant County Administrator
County Attorney
Community Development Director
County Engineer
'-"
y
Draft GOPs 113/2002 1
'-'
References to the "Port of Ft. Pierce" in the Goals, Objectives, and Policies shall be
liberally interpretèd to reference the appropriate local government entity charged
with the responsibility for enforcing or completing the specific objective or policy
statement. The Port of Ft. Pierce Charrette is the vision underlying these goals,
objectives, and policies.
DRAFT Goals, Objectives, and Policies for Port of Ft. Pierce
Goal 1
Responsibility for ~he Port
The overall responsibility for the ownership and management of the Port of Ft. Pierce
should be detennined in the public interest of all the citizens of St. Lucie County.
Objective 1.1
St. Lucie County, ,,:orking with the City of Ft. Pierce, interested agencies and
private property owners and consistent with the port enabling laws and the
constitutional and statutory protections for the rights of existing private property
owners, should ensure that the public interest and quality of life is protected when
expanding public control of port property.
Policy 1.1.1
\....
St. Lucie County, in conjunction with the municipalities, shall examine whether to
establish an operational Port Authority for the Port of Ft. to manage public and
private port activities.
Policy 1.1.2
Unless a legislatively authorized port authority or equivalent management
structure is established or created, St. Lucie County shall maintain the necessary
oversight over the Port of Fort Pierce to ensure compliance with applicable state
law governing deepwater ports and to guarantee the [mancial feasibility of any
publicly funded infrastructure within the port.
Policy 1.1.3
The Port of Ft. Pierce should determine whether to initiate actions necessary to
acquire public ownership of those areas in the port detennined to be in the public
interest.
Policy 1.1.4
\.-
Unless a legislatively authorized port authority or equivalent management
structure is established or created, St. Lucie County should coordinate with the
Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Council (FSTED)
Draft GOPs 1/3/2002 2
'-"
and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council to ensure that the needs of the
state and region are being addressed in the operations ofthe Port ofFt. Pierce.
Policy 1.1.5
Unless a legislatively authorized port authority or equivalent management
structure is established or created, St. Lucie County, operating through its existing
and future legal authorities, should initiate discussions with the City of Fort
Pierce, with other public agencies, and with the private business sector to create
the legal agreements, ~emoranda of understanding, and joint planning
agreements necessary to-ïmplement the goals, objectives, and policies of the
Master Plan for the Port ofFt. Pierce.
Objective 1.2
The Port of Ft. Pierce should establish a general Port Planning Area boundary and
a Port Operations, Area boundary to provide elected officials, prospective
community investors, and the public a clear understanding of the physical location
of the activities that could be accommodated in the Port of Ft. Pierce (See Figure A).
Policy 1.2.1
'-'
The Port of Ft Pierce, guided by the vision and direction of the Port of Ft. Pierce
Charrette, shall continue to support cargo operations.
Policy 1.2.2
The Port ofFt. Pierce, guided by the vision and direction of the Port ofFt. Pierce
Charrette, shall support development of tourist and recreational uses in the
northern third of the undeveloped port property.
Policy 1.2.3
The Port ofFt. Pierce, guided by the vision and direction of the Port ofFt. Pierce
Charrette, shall support development of marine uses, expansion of cargo, or
expansion oftourist/recreational uses depending on market conditions.
Policy 1.2.4
Activities within the remaining Port Planning Area shall comply with the
applicable State and County laws and the plans and regulations of the City ofFt.
Pierce or St. Lucie County as may be appropriate to the legal regulating authority.
""
Draft GOPs 1/312002 3
\...-
Goal 2
Port Activities
The quality of life for St. Lucie County residents will be strengthened and maintained by
enhancing the economic viability, attractiveness, environmental quality, and social
benefits associated with activities at the Port ofFt. Pierce.
Objective 2.1
The Port of Ft. Pierce should strengthen the economic development activities in the
Port Planning Area by working with state and local government to formulate an
economic development plan by 2004 that will foster new jobs that exceed the
County's average annual wage.
Policy 2.1.1
The Port of Ft. Pierce shall encourage the improvement of port facilities to
maximize curr~nt potential, including rehabilitation and modernization of existing
buildings consistent with the City ofFt. Pierce downtown redevelopment.
Policy 2.1.2
The Port of Ft. Pierce will continue as a deepwater port and will accommodate
cargo operations.
\..,.
Policy 2.1.3
Public infrastructure improvements in the Port Planning Area should be made
consistent with the Port Master Plan.
Policy 2.1.4
St. Lucie County, working with state and local governments, will provide
incentives for jobs that exceed the County's average annual wage.
Policy 2.1.5
The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with state and local governments, will encourage
port industries to use the local workforce to the fullest extent possible.
Objective 2.2
The Port of Ft. Pierce in cooperation with the City of Ft. Pierce and other
governmental bodies, shall assist in the development of design standards to ensure
that port facilities in the Port Operations Area are compatible with the use of the
surrounding area in the City of Ft. Pierce.
\..
Draft GOPs 1/3/2002 4
'-'
Policy 2.2.1
The Port of Ft. Pierce, in cooperation with other governmental bodies, should
develop and maintain aesthetically pleasing public port facilities and landscaping
to encourage new and expanded business development.
Policy 2.2.2
The Port of Ft. Pierce, in cooperation with other governmental bodies, should
ensure that port facilities_ are aesthetically compatible with newly renovated
downtown Ft. Pierce and other adjacent neighborhood areas.
Policy 2.2.3
Existing activities within the Port of Ft. Pierce Operations Area that are
determined to be inconsistent with future uses of the port should be identified and
removed through eminent domain, code enforcement activities, private/public
partnerships, grants, or other mechanisms by the appropriate unit of government.
Objective 2.3
~
The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with regional and local government and business
entities, should maintain, increase, and promote marine industry and related
scientific and commercial activities at the Port of Ft. Pierce so there is no net loss of
marine industry.
Policy 2.3.1
The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other concerned governmental bodies and
interested parties, should promote water-dependent marine industry uses such as
boat service and repair yards, marina facilities, and related service activities
within the Port Operations Area.
Policy 2.3.2
The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other concerned governmental bodies and
interested parties and guided by the vision and direction of the Port of Ft. Pierce
Charrette, should accommodate water-related marine activities such as
restaurants, hotels, and related service activities within the Port Planning Area
for the benefit of the residents and visitors to the community.
Policy 2.3.3
The Port of Ft. Pierce, in cooperation with the City of Ft. Pierce, should protect,
maintain, and promote marine industry activity fÌ'om encroachment or
displacement by incompatible land uses.
\.-
Draft GOPs 1/312002 5
'-"
Policy 2.3.4 '
The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies and interested
parties, shall encourage the location of additional marine science facilities in the
Port Planning Area that are compatible with the Smithsonian and the Harbor
Branch Oceanographic Institution.
Objective 2.4
The Port of Ft. Pierce should allow and support expansion of other types of water-
dependent recreational and ecotourism uses in the Port Planning Area.
Policy 2.4.1
The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies and interested
parties, should ~ncourage recreational uses within the Port Planning Area.
Policy 2.4.2
~
The Port ofFt. Pierce working with other governmental bodies should maintain a
public education and information program for the commercial and recreational
boating activities on and adjacent to the Port Planning Area to alert and advise
those users ofthe environmentally sensitive resources in the area.
Objective 2.5
The Port of Ft. Pierce, in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, should work
with appropriate public safety entities to revise the port security management plan
for the Port Operations Area by December 2003.
Policy 2.5.1
The Port of Ft. Pierce should insure that port security is consistent with existing
laws in order to adequately protect port users and citizens from crime or terrorism
concerns and to prevent any increase in criminal activity or enterprises.
Policy 2.5.2
The Port ofFt. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies, should develop a
public education program for the port security management plan to ensure that the
owners, users, other responsible parties, and members of the public understand
port security.
'-"
Draft GOPs 1/3/2002 6
\.,.
Goal 3
Environmental Protection
The environmental integrity ofthe Indian River Lagoon shall be protected by minirni7ing
any detrimental effects caused by current operations and long-term development and
improvement activities by the Port ofFt. Pierce.
Objective 3.1
The Port of Ft. Pierce working with other governmental bodies should ensure
protection of the Indian River_ Lagoon and minimize future degradation of the
Lagoon's ecological health due to port activities.
Policy 3.1.1
The Port of Fort Pierce, working with other governmental bodies, will require
discharges coming from port activities into the Indian River Lagoon to comply
with state and federally approved standards for relevant parameters.
Policy 3.1.2
~
The Port of Ft. Pierce, working through the Comprehensive Plans and Land
Development Regulations of the City of Fort Pierce and St. Lucie County, should
manage excessive freshwater inflows originating from the Port Planning Area to
minimize their impacts on estuarine salinity, consistent with guidelines being
developed by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and the South Florida Water
Management District in the Indian River Lagoon - South Feasibility Study Draft
(2001).
Policy 3.1.3
The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies and interested
parties, shall limit inputs of suspended materials, nutrient inflows, and toxic
substances from the Port Planning Area into the estuary to state and federal
approved limits.
Policy 3.1.4
The Port of Ft. Pierce shall work with other governmental bodies and interested
parties to enforce existing laws and prevent exotic invasive species from entering
the estuary via ship's ballast and bilge water or cargo.
\.-
Draft GOPs 1/3/2002 7
\..r
Objective 3.2
The Port of Ft. Pierce will work with other governmental bodies and interested
parties to minimize detrimental effects on the estuary caused by port activities by
supporting estuary diversity and the population of endangered and threatened
species.
Policy 3.2.1
The Port of Ft. Pierce shouJd work with other governmental bodies and interested
parties to preserve and restore seagrass beds and mitigate any permitted losses to
existing seagrass beds caused by port activities to the maximum extent possible.
Policy 3.2.2
The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies and interested
parties, shoul~ protect endangered and threatened mammals, fish, reptiles,
amphibians, and invertebrates from port activities in the estuary adjacent to the
Port Operations Area.
Policy 3.2.3
~
The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies and interested
parties, should protect and conserve fm and shellfish resources in the estuary
adjacent to the Port Operations Area from damage due to port activities.
Objective 3.3
The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies and interested
parties, should protect and maintain the existing natural coastal areas and resources
within the Port Planning Area.
Policy 3.3.1
The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with the Comprehensive Plan and Land
Development Regulations of the City of Ft. Pierce, should maintain or reduce
existing air quality emissions from port activities to ensure that new emissions
ftom the port meet applicable air quality standards.
Policy 3.3.2
The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies and interested
parties, should create a scientific advisory committee, composed of researchers
and managers from the Smithsonian Institute, Harbor Branch Oceanographic
Institution, and other regional marine research institutions, to provide scientific
~
Draft GOPs 1/3/2002 8
'-"
advice on port operations and activities (commercial, industrial and recreational)
that may impàct the Indian River Lagoon.
Policy 3.3.3
The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies and interested
parties, will develop a list of best management practices for environmental
protection which have been used successfully by other ports to ensure efficient
and effective management of port operation activities while providing
environmental protection. :
Goal 4
Public Access
The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies and interested parties,
should enhance public access to the Port Planning Area.
Objective 4.1
The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies and interested
parties, should develop an integrated open space system to provide public access
between those portions in the Port Planning Area that are open to the public and the
surrounding community.
'-'
Policy 4.1.1
The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies and interested
parties, should facilitate public access to short-term parking.
Policy 4.1.2
The Port of Ft. Pierce should encourage unobstructed public access to designated
public fishing areas.
Policy 4.1.3
The Port of Ft. Pierce should cooperate with and support efforts of other
interested governmental bodies in providing access to unobstructed scenic views
ofthe estuary.
Policy 4.1.4
The Port of Ft. Pierce should encourage the City, County, and State to improve
and maintain an orderly network of streets and entrances to access port facilities.
\...
Draft GOPs 1/3/2002 9
'-"
Policy 4.1.5.
The Port of Ft. Pierce should develop an integrated open space system along the
waterfront of the Port Operations Area, with the exception of areas where such
access would pose a safety or security concern or where it would interfere with
approved port activities.
Goal 5
Emergency Management
The public will be protected ill various emergency situations through cooperation
between the Port of Ft. Pierce with other governmental bodies to achieve maximum
levels of safety.
Objective 5.1
The Port of Ft. Pier~e, working with regional and state emergency management
agencies, should identify new and existing procedures to ensure public safety in the
event of a hurricane or other natural disaster.
Policy 5.1.1
\...
The Port of Ft. Pierce shall comply with the comprehensive emergency
management plans of the City of Ft. Pierce and St. Lucie County to ensure safe
evacuation of the port during times of hurricane or other disasters.
Objective 5.2
The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies, should ensure that
adequate procedures are in place to respond to a hazardous material spill.
Policy 5.2.1
The Port of Ft. Pierce shall comply with the processes of federal, state, and local
governments for safe and expedient cleanup of hazardous spills.
Policy 5.2.2
The Port of Ft. Pierce shall cooperate with governmental bodies to provide
complete and timely information to the public in the event of a hazardous
materials accident.
\...
Draft GOPs 1/3/2002 10
\."
Goal 6
Landside Infrastructure
Landside and waterside infrastructure serving the Port ofFt. Pierce should meet the port's
future requirements in a manner consistent with the abilities of the agencies to provide
the services needed to support approved port activities.
Objective 6.1
The Port of Ft. Pierce should work with other governmental agencies to improve
linkages between the port facilit.es and intermodal transportation routes.
Policy 6.1.1
The Port of Ft. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies and interested
parties, should prevent increased traffic congestion in the Port Planning Area and
on roadways adjacent to the Port Planning Area consistent with the adopted levels
of service in th~ City of Fort Pierce and St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plans.
Policy 6.1.2
\..,.
The Port ofFt. Pierce should enhance and expand activities that tie the port to the
St. Lucie County Airport in order to maximize interrnodal transportation
connections and facilitate the continued economic growth, development, and
vitality of 81. Lucie County. Beginning in 2003 and continuing annually
thereafter, St. Lucie County shall prepare a State of the Ports Report to
demonstrate to the public how activities of both facilities are furthering the quality
of life of S1. Lucie County residents.
Policy 6.1.3
The Port of F1. Pierce, working with other governmental bodies, should facilitate
expansion of public transit to and rrom the Port Planning Area.
Goal 7
Navigation Channels
Navigation channels serving the port's maritime and recreational activities should be
maintained to meet existing and future needs.
Objective 7.1
The Port of Ft. Pierce should modify the channel depth as necessary to support port
activities agreed upon by port property owners, appropriate units of local
government, and St. Lucie County citizens.
Policy 7.1.1
~
Draft GOPs 1/3/2002 11
\...,.
The Port of Ft. Pierce should coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and the Florida Inland Navigation District to provide for the maintenance of the
navigation channels, including location of spoil disposal sites.
Policy 7.1.2
The Port of Ft. Pierce should coordinate with the U.S. Coast Guard in the
placement and maintenance of the navigational aids within the port area.
Policy 7.1.3
In case the United States Congress authorizes àny necessary expansion of
dredging areas beyond the existing channels, turning basins, and anchorages, the
Port of Ft. Pierce should coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
the Florida Inland Navigation District to address such issues.
\..,.
~
~
-0
o
~
,-+
o
--n
11
,-+
"0·"=2>
f", /\,
\-
,-......
-0
CD
~
o
CD
(.... ~i-~-'?
, \
I '
''-_.r)
......
· .
· .
· .
· .
· .
· .
· .
· .
.....
\'.
" dJ
'" dJ
4 4
.g '"0
CD i'i>
ñ3 ::J
::J
g. :5'
::J (Q
C/) Q)
Q) ø
ø Q)
Q)
(J)
2
?if
"-'
"-'
OJ
o
o
·
·
:
·
·
·
~
~
~
....
\....
PORT OF FT. PIERCE MASTER PLAN
PUBLIC INPUT WORKSHOPS
WORKSHOP I
October 30, 2001 5:00 - 9:00 PM
St. Lucie County Civic Center, Room 101
~
OBJECTIVES
.:. Explain Workshop Series Proc~ss Scope, and Outconles
.:. Review the Master Plan Process and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process and Technical
Requirements
.:. Review any Ongoing Activity that would affect Port Planning
.:. Explore the Future of the Port
.:. Identify and Agree on Key Issues that must be addressed in the Plan'
.:- Agree on any Needed Next Steps
AGENDA
5:00 Welcome and Introductions
5:15 Review History and Context of Ft. Pierce Port Planning:
Need to develop port plan
Brief Overview of previous! other efforts (charrette results and city process)
'-'
5:45
Review Status of the Consultant Study
Structure and role of the Port Master Plan process
Preparation of the required data and analysis
Updates to the website www.ftpierceportplan.org
6:15 Futures Exercise It is 2010. What activities are happwing in and around the port? What does the port
look like? What effects does it Irave on and in the coml1lZmihj?
7:00 Break
7:15 Futures Exercise Debriefing
7:45 Issue Identification
VVhat are the issues the cOlmlllmihj should address through the port plan process?
VVhat background infonnation (i.e, reports, dOCUIIIWts, special conditions, etc.) does the pla11llÌllg tei111l
need to consider to plan wisely for the port?
. .
8:55
Next Steps
.~
9:00 Adjourn
?;4j\
'-'
Port of Ft. Pierce Master Plan Workshops
Page I
'-'
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
On October 30,2001 the F AU Joint Center team preparing the Ft. Pierce Port ß,laster Plan conducted the
first of three public workshops to solicit input to be used in preparing the plan. Approximately 95
participants attended the meeting.
The purpose of the first workshop was to explore the range of aspirations in the community for the future
of the port, to identify the issues that w-ill need to be addressed in the plan, and to identify information
that community members would like the consultant team to consider in developing the plan.
The meeting was facilitated by the Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium and records of the discussions
made on easel-paper or in other was during the course of the meeting. This report presents the results of
discussions at that meeting, based on transcripts of those notes. More detailed descriptions of the process
used for each discussion are presented in the corresponding sections of this report.
AGENDA
The following agenda was followed during the meeting. The full agenda packet used by participants is
available separately from the consultant team.
~
5:00
5:15
5:45
6:15
7:00
7:15
7:45
8:55
9:00
\..
Welcome and Introductions
Review History and Context of Ft. Pierce Port Planning:
Need to develop port plan; Brief overview of previous/ other efforts
Review Status of the Consultant Study:
Structure and role of the Port Master Plan process
Preparation of the required data and analysis
Updates to the website \\·\\'\\'.ttril'rcl'rortf'lé1nnin¡;.or~
Futures Exercise. It is 2010. What activities are happening in and around tIlE port? What does the port
look like? What effects does it have on and in the communilt;?
Break
Futures Exercise Debriefing
Issue Identification
What are the issues the community should address through the port plan process?
What background information (i.e., reports, documents, special conditions, etc.) does the planning team
need to consider to plan wisely for the port?
, .
.~
Next Steps
Adjourn
Port of Ft. Pierce Master Plan Workshops
Meeting I Summary Report - October 30. 2001
Page 3
FU1VRES
~
FUTURES EXERCISE
PROCESS
Small Group Discussions
After the initial presentations of background information, participants formed four small groups. Each
small group was asked to discuss and answer the following questions. A facilitator assisted each group
with its discussion and recorded its ans\yers on easel-paper.
For this exercise, assume it is the year 2010. Imagine the port is fully developedand playing a positive role in the
commlmity. From your perspective, how would this look? Please consider tlte following questions.
1; What activities are happening in and around the port?
1; What does the port look like?
:; What effects does it hmle on and in tlte community?
Debriefing
\..
During the debriefing, the groups were asked to tell each other about their discussions and to compile a
common set of answers. Each group in turn was asked to offer one of the ideas it had generated. These
were recorded by the facilitators on a common list. This process was repeated until all substantively
different ideas had been offered. After this process was completed, participants identified items they all
could agree to, and items about which they had concerns.
The purpose of the debriefing was to identify in broad terms areas of agreement and areas of difference
that would need to be resolved in later workshops.
This section of the report presents the results of each small group's discussion, as well as the debriefing.
, -
.~
~
Port of Ft. Pierce Master Plan Workshops
Meeting 1 Summary Report - October 30. 2001
Page 4
\.r.
PORT OF FT. PIERCE MASTER PLAN
PUBLIC INPUT WORKSHOPS
WORKSHOP II
November 14,2001 6:00 - 9:00 PM
S1. Lucie County Civic Center, Room 101
AGENDA
Objectives
· To review the role of the Por.t Master plan.
. To build on the results of Workshop I to identify suggested recommendations for
inclusion in the plan as goals, objectives, and policies.
. To identify areas of agreement and disagreement regarding suggested
recommendations.
6:00 Welcome and introduction
Agenda review'
6:10 Review of role of the Port Master Plan
6:20 Review of futures and issues exercises results from Workshop 1
\.,- 6:30 Issues discussions
Guiding the future of the port through goals, objectives and policies
· Activities
· Environmental Issues
· Public Access
· Disaster Planning
· Landside Infrastructure
· Navigation Channels
. .
· Responsibility for Port .-
· Other Topics
8:55 Next Steps
9:00 Adjourn
\.,.
Port of Ft. Pierce Master Plan Workshops
Page J
INTRODUCTION
\w
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
On November 14, 2001 the FAU Joint Center team preparing the Ft. Pierce Port Master Plan conducted
the second in a series of public workshops to solicit input to bè used in preparing the plan.
Approximately 105 participants attended the meeting.
Building on the results of the first workshop, the purpose of the second workshop was to identify
suggestions that might serve as the basis for draft goals, objectives, or policies in each of the Port Master
Plan's topic areas required by Florida ru!es.
PROCESS
The meeting began with a brief review of the role of the master plan and of other documents and
processes in determining the future of the port. This was followed by a review the results of the
Workshop 1. The facilitators suggested that the topics for the Workshop 2 issue discussions would allow
participants to address the requirements of Florida rules and the issues raised during Workshop 1.
The meeting was facilitated by the Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium and records of the discussions
made on easel-pads during the course of the meeting. A more detailed description of the process used for
each discussion is included in the corresponding section of this report. This report presents the results of
discussions at Workshop 2, based on transcripts of the easel-pad notes.
\w
AGENDA
The following agenda was used during the meeting. The full agenda packet used by participants is
available separately from the consultant team.
6:00 Welcome and introduction, agenda review
6:10 Review of role of the Port Master Plan
6:20 Review of futures and issues exercises results from Workshop 1
6:30 Issues discussions - guiding the future of the port through goals, objectives and policies
· Activities
· Environmental Issues
· Public Access
· Disaster Planning
· Landside Infrastructure
· Navigation Channels
· Responsibility for Port
· Other Topics
.~
8:55 Next Steps
9:00 Adjourn
'-"
Port of Ft. Pierce Master Plan Workshops
Workshop 2 Summary Report - November / 4, 200/ Page 3
'-"
PORT OF FT. PIERCE MASTER PLAN
I
PUBLIC INPUT WORKSHOPS
WORKSHOP tIll
November 29, 2001 6:00 - 9:00 PM
St. Lucie County Civic Center, Room 101
AGENDA
OBJECTIVES
To understand the role of the Port Master pIan.
To prioritize issues for workshop discussion order.
To review the draft goals, objectives and policies and suggest refinements.
To solicit verbal, written, and electronic feedback on goals, objectives, and policies.
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
6:00
~ 6:10
6:20
Welcome and introductions
Agenda review
Review of previous workshop activities
Review of role of the Port Master Plan
Individual review of draft goals objectives and policies
Please take this time (fi¡œen minures) to individually read the draft goals, objectives, and policies.
Group selection of priorities for Workshop ill discussions
Which objectives (or related goals/policies) is most important to discuss tonight. (We will try to
focus our discussion time on those parts of the draft most in need of refinement or modification.
Additional comments on other parts of the draft will be solicited via the website
www.ftpierceportplan.org or on the paper cc:nnment fonns distributed at this meEting.)
6:45 Discussion of selected objectives (or related goals/p~licies)
This time will be allocated for discussion of the top ranked prioritized objectives (or ". .
related goals/policies) selected earlier. Some time at the end of this ~!on will be
reserved for comments on other portions of the draft.
8:55 Next Steps
9:00 Adjourn
\..-
INTRODUCTION
\¡...
BACKGROUND
On November 29,2001 the FAU Joint Center team preparing the Ft. Pierce Port Master Plan
conducted the third in a series of public workshops to solicit input to be used in preparing the
plan. Approximately 95 participants attended the meeting.
Building on the results of the first two workshops, the purpose of the third workshop was to
review draft goals, objectives, and policies and make suggestions for refinement. The goals,
objectives, and policies address each of the Port Master Plan's topic areas required by Florida
rules.
MEETING PROCESS
The meeting began with a brief review of the role of the Port Master plan and the results of
Workshop 2. The rest of the meeting was a review and refinement of the draft goals, objectives
and policies and identification of anything that might be missing.
The meeting was facilitated by the Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium and records of the
discussions made on easel-pads during the course of the meeting. A more detailed description of
the process used for each discussion is included in the corresponding section of this report. This
report presents the results of discussions at Workshop 3, based on transcripts of the easel-pad
notes.
\..-
AGENDA
The following agenda was used during the meeting. The full agenda packet used by participants
is available separately from the consultant team.
6:00 Welcome and introductions
Agenda review
Review of previous workshop activities
6:10 Review of role of the Port Master Plan
6:20 Individual review of draft goals objectives and policies
6:35 Group selection of priorities for Workshop III discussions
6:45 Discussion of selected objectives (or related goals/policies)
, -
8:55
Next Steps
~~
9:00 Adjourn
ACTIVITIES
PROCESS
\..-
3
~
The group was asked to review the draft list of goals, objectives, and policies that was distributed
in the agenda packet. Participants were asked to select five of the objectives (to include
corresponding policies) that the group should discuss at the meeting. Facilitators asked the
following question.
Wlziclz object ires (or related goals/policies) is most important to discllss tonight. (We will try to Jaws 0111'
discllssion time on tlzose parts oj tlze draft most in need of refinement or modification.
Facilitators asked for a show of hands for each of the objectives. The following was the vote for
each of the objectives. The number in parenthesis is the number of participants who raised their
hand for the objective to be one of the discussion items for the meeting.
(60) Obi. 1.1 (18) Obi. 3.1
(32) Obj. 1.2 (7) Obj. 4.1
(42) Obi. 1.3 (2) Obi. 4.2
(26 ) Obi. 1.4 (27) Obi. 5.1
(17) Obi. 1.5 (52) Obi. 6.1
(35) Obi. 2.1 (46) Obi. ï.l
(21) Obi. 2.2
~ (18) Obi. 2.
, .
.~
'-"
4
\..r
~
~~.
~~
(Ð
'--'
..,
;1
""0=
.., cr.
o~
'-. 0
~ :l
- ..
<:i> :::..
-.
....
-
-
...
-
3
"'0
;:þ
'"03""0
¡" ~ 0
= = :l
-
~
-
æ;-
=
>
:g ~
=~
f") ....,
~~
=·0
=
<:i>
o
~
'"0<
~ ~
., -
3.§
=:a
<:i> ~
=
-
-
8
~ (j
o ~
<"0
~ -.
:: S'
~ -
=
-
<:i>
C.onsisterrcy
en
"CI
~ ~
:5
n
.-
"0
~
.,
:: N
-. 0
==
~ -.
c.=
c(lQ
<:i>
~
<:i>
--
3'
"0
ëi'
3
at
=
S'
..
õ
=
>
~
õ
=
en
::0
~ (1
C.o
~
> < 8
., ~ a
~ 0 c
~ "'C =
a -.
~~
=
.-
~ =
=~coo
c. C ....-.
~ --
.,~e:~
f") ~ = -=
C" ., (lQ -
.... <:i> ~
-" ::0=
~ = ~ ~
- 0 < =
= .... ....
.,<:i>~c.
~ ~ ~
-
~
,..
~
=
c.
c
c
<
c
Õ
"
3
c
=
..
::a
c
IJQ.
c
&"
..
Õ
=
(j
o
a
;''''C
., ri
t=="
~ ~
~ !:
"'C ... .
~ <
= ~
;-::
., ~
-=~
o ~
., .,
--=
-
~
=
~
(1=
Q =
= c.
~~
= <:i>
- ~
::-;,
= 0
= =
= <:i>
(lQ ~
~ ~
:: ~
~ -
= ....
_0
=
..
n,..
o 0
3 (')
m~ !.
-(Dc:)
3;- 0
c = <
= en ~
~<=
en c 3
-"c
-=
~ ..
=
.-
Lgv~el.of l=>~ta.il
~
><
~
a
~
--
~
c:::;,)
t=T
~
>-=-
~
~
o
-
, '
~
~
~
-~
~
~
'r=r
--
e
~
,97
~
:=3
~
~
.~
~
~
("tQ
~
~
¿3
r=r
~
~
:<5
~
~
.~
:--
,(5)
~
~
.(5)
,~
~
«'Q
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
,~
.e')-
J:t
~
~
~
~
~
~
i
Q
(D
:s
(D
..
Dt
-
~
~
~
~
,§
~
~
g,1
~
~
-=
\...-
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
"Oedicatèd to making Florida a better place to call home"
JEB BUSH
Governor
STEVEN M. SEIBERT
Secretary
December 27,2001
,..---
!" r..~·.
, .
f? œ Œ n \i7 Œ r::,'
:..,.-=--~! ! III
UEC 3 I 2001 ¡~
_n -------_J
Mr. Daniel S. Mc Intyre
County Attorney
St. Lucie County
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, Florida 34982-5652
C-=:',G¡<iY AïTORNEY
RE: Procedure for Adoption of Port Master Plan - City of Fort Pierce
Dear Mr. McIntyre:
~
The Department is in receipt of your letter of December 17,2001 regarding the
procedures for the preparation of the comprehensive port master plan and the integration of that
master plan into the coastal management element of the City of Fort Pierce comprehensive plan
under Section 163.3178(2)(k), Florida Statutes. We have reviewed your understanding of the
procedures and can confinn that your understanding is consistent with the provisions of the
statute. Accordingly, we concur with the procedures set forth in your letter.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
¿;?~#~-
Richard A. Lotspeich
Assistant General Counsel
\...-
\~'~
()O\d':~rÎ \1r 0
VJ~~ L, èÞw
2555 S HUM A R D 0 A K 80 U LEV A RD· TAll A H AS SEE, F LOR I D A 32399 - 210 0 \;~<:..
Phone: 850.488.8466/Suncom 278.8466 FAX: 850.921.0781/Suncom 291.0781 r,Y
Internet address: http://www.dca.state.f1.us ~þ
r::------..-.
I rJ Π(rJ. '-r; - 'r--;'~ - or' .:.' ~-...
i D: ë:~-~<--/ ' " " . - )
! n"i
U U ¡ JAN ~ 2002 ' , ;
. -,."./ .
MUms
L______ .,
co. ...... "-, .r [.~:~-
- .. . . '. - ~'T
CTl"-'-C ~'-""",..JI-I'¡~I~
~... . -,:.: CU,'HY. Fl
CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE
2796 Overseas Highway. SuHe 212
Marathon. FL 33050-2227
(305) 289--2402
COMMUNITY PLANNING
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee. FL 32399-2100
(850) 488-2356
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee. Fl 32399-2100
(850) 413-9969
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee. FL 32399·2100
(850) 488-7956
~
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY
ATTORNEY
Daniel S. Mcintyre
Heather Young
Katherine Mocl~enzie-Smith
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTOP.NEì
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTOP.NEì
December 17, 2001
Cari L. Roth, Esquire
General Counsel
Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
RE: Procedure for Adoption of Port Master Plan for the Port of Fort Pierce
~
Dear Ms. Roth:
St. Lucie County needs clarification as to the proper procedure for preparation and
approval of a comprehensive port master plan as required by Section 163.3178(2)(k), Florida
Statutes. The cited Section requires that each coastal management element of a
comprehensive plan is required to include a port master plan for any listed deepwater port
within the jurisdiction of the government preparing the relevant comprehensive plan.
Based on the statute, it appears that the appropriate procedure is:
1. Preparation of a comprehensive master plan for the deepwater port by the
appropriate port authority (in this case, St. Lucie County).
2. Submission of the port master plan to the "appropriate local government" at
least six months prior to the due date of the local government-for integration
into the coastal element. (In this case, the appropriate local government for
comprehensive planning purposes is Fort Pierc~.)
3.
Integration of the port master plan into the overall coastal management
element by the appropriate local government (Fort Pierce) and submission to
the Department of Community Affairs for review.
'-"
JOHN D. ßRUHN. Disrricr No.1. DOUG COWARD. Districr No.2· PAULA A. LEWIS. Disrricr No. J . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON. Disrna NO.4· CUFF ßARNES. Districr No 5
County Adminisrrotor - Douglos M. Anderson
2.300 Virginia Avenue · .3rd Floor Admin. Annex · Fort Pierce. FL .34982-5652 · Phone (561) 462-1415
FAX(561)462-1440 · TDD(561) 462-1428
'-"
~
\..,-
Cari L. Roth. Esquire
December 17.2001
Page 2
By the way of background, all of the planning area which constitutes the port is
located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Fort Pierce. Under the
circumstances, it is the County's conclusion that the County's responsibility is for preparation
and submission of the master plan. Fort Pierce's responsibility is review of the master plan
and integration into its comprehensive plan.
On behalf of St. Lucie County. I would very much appreciate your confirmation of the
foregoing procedure.
DSM/caf
Copy to:
Board of County Commissioners
County Administrator
Community Development Director
Economic Development Manager
.~