Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet 10-01-02
.. ~ .., OCTOBER 1, 2002 7:00 PM BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING AGENDA WELCOME GENERAL RULES AND PROCEDURES Attached is the agenda which will determine the order of business conducted at today's Board meeting: CONSENT AGENDA- These items are considered routine and are enacted by one motion. There \vïll be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commissioner so requests. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS- Proclamations, Presentations, Public Hearings, and Department requests are items which the Commission will discuss individually usually in the order listed on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS- These items are usually heard on the first and third Tuesdays at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. However, if a public heating is scheduled for a meeting on a second or fourth Tuesday, which begins at 9:00 A.M., then PUblic hearings will be heard at 9:00 A.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. These time designations are intended to indicate that an item will not be addressed prior to the listed time. The Chairman will open each public hearing and asks anyone wishing to speak to come forward, one at a time. Comments will be limited to five minutes. As a general rule, when issues are scheduled before the Commission under department request or public hearing, the order of presentation is: (1) County staff presents the details of the Board item (2) Commissioners comment (3) if a public hearing, the Chairman will ask for public comment, (4) further discussion and action by the Board. ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION- Please state your name and address, speaking clearly into the microphone. If you have backup material, please have eight copies ready for distribution. NON-AGENDA ITEMS- These items are presented by an individual Commissioner or staff as necessary at the conclusion of the printed agenda. PUBLIC COMMENT- Time is allotted at the beginning of each meeting for general public comment. Please limit comments to five minutes. DECORID.l- Please be respectful of others opinion. MEETINGS- All Board meetings are open to the public and are held on the first and third Tuesdays of each month at 7:00 P.M. and on the second and fourth Tuesdays at 9:00 A.M., unless otherwise advertised. Meetings are held in the County Commission Chambers in the Roger Poitras Administration Annex at 2300 Virginia Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL 34982. The Board schedules additional workshops throughout the year necessary to accomplish their goals and commitments. Notice is provided of these workshops. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Manager at (561) 462-1777 or TDD (561) 462-1428 at least forty-eight(48) hours prior to the meeting. '-' .~ www.stlucieco.gov John D. Bruhn Doug Coward Paula A. Lewis Frannie Hutchinson Cliff Barnes District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 ßOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA October 1, 2002 7:00 P.M. INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE "FREEDOM" performed by ~ St. Lucže Elementary School 3rd Grade :t. . MINUTES Approve tlÍe minutes of the meeting held September 24, 2002. Approve the minutes of the Final Budget Public Hearing held on September 19, 2002. . I 2. ?ROCLAMATIONS /PRESENTATIONS Resolution No. 02- 239 - Proclaiming the month of October, 2002 as "Domestic Violence Awareness Month" in St. Lucie County, Florida. 3. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT 4. CONSENT AGENDA NOTICE: All Proceedings before this Board are electronically recorded. Any person who decides to appeal any action taken by the Boara at these meetings will need a record of the proceedlDgs and for such purpose may neea to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. Upon the requesf of an:r party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any paryy to the proceédìngs will be granted fhe opportunity to cross-examine any indivIdual testifying during a hearing upon request. ADyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meetin2 should contact the S1. Lucie County Community Services Manager at (561) 462-1777 or TDD (561) 462-1418 at least forty-eight(48) hours prior fo the meeting. - '. '-' .....I REGULAR AGENDA OCTOBER 1, 2002 PAGE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS SA. Resolution No. 02-197 / St. Lucie County Public Transit Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) / (Continued from September 24, 2002) - Consider staff recommendation to proceed with the establishment of a MSTU for Transit: 1) Approve the resolution creating the :\ISTU, or 2) Approve advertising for a new public hearing to be held on November 12, 2002, if the Board is desirous of including non-motorized transit within the MSTD. The new public hearing is necessary to include this significant addition to the MSTU. .,... (' End of Public Hearings 6. ADMINISTRATION Parks Referendum Priority Projects - Consider staff recommendation to approve the proposed priority projects for Parks Referendum revenue. The proposed priority lists are subject to change and authorization. The final priority list will be submitted after agreements with municipalities are finalized. 7. COUNTY ATTORNEY Smithsonian Marine Ecosystems Agreement / Amendment No.2 - Consider staff recommendation to approve the amendment and authorize the Chairman to sign the amendment. \~ , -.. ~ """ CONSENT AGENDA October 1. 2002 1. WARRANTS UST Approve warrants list No. 52 2. PUBLIC WORKS A. Bid No. 02-113 / Fairgrounds Electrical Infrastructure - Consider staff recommendation to award the bid to the lowest and sole bidder, Gerelco Electric Contractors, Inc., in the amount of $289,569. B. Fairgrounds Project - Consider staff recommendation to approve the 2nd Amendment to Contract No. C 02-02-311 with Dickerson Florida, Inc., for the supply of Coquina Rock in an amount not to exceed 5200,000 and authorize the Chairman to sign the amendment as prepared by the County Attorney. C. Florïda Department of Environmental Protection Stormwater Retrofit Grant Application - Consider staff recommendation to grant permission to submit a grant application in the amount of $600,000 for Phase 2 of the Indian River Estates Stormwater Attenuation Facility Project. .,-( 3. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Resolution No. 02-154 - Consider staff recommendation to approve the resolution correcting a scriveners error associated witpthe Final Planned Development plans for the project known as Portifiono Shores. . I 4. INVESTMENT FOR THE FUTURE Bid No. 02-0ïl / Edwards Road over 5-Mile Creek Bridge Repair (Bridge ill 940070) - Consider staff recommendation to award the bid to the low bidder, Custom Built Marine Construction in the amount of $131,828.26, and authorize the Chairman to sign the contract as prepared by the County Attorney. 5. ADMINISTRATION A. Bid No. 02-102 / River Park Baffle Boxes - Consider staff recommendation to reject the bid received and authorize staff to rebid the project. B. BOCC Meeting Cancellation - Consider staff recommendation to cancel the December 3,2002 Board of County Commissioners Meeting due to lack of a quorum. 6. COUNTY ATTOIU..JEY Moss and Garten v. St. Lucie County, et al / Proposed Settlement Agreement - Consider staff recommendation to approve the agreement, and authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement. . -, '-' CONSENT AGENDA OCTOBER 1, 2002 PAGE TWO "WI 7. CENTRAL SERVICES A. Administration Building Addition Project - Consider staff recommendation to approve the Second Amendment to the agreement with Edlund & Dritenbas increasing the budget to satisfy non-conforming Life Safety issues and authorize the Chairman to sign the amendment as prepared by the County Attorney. B. Bid No. 02-108 / FÐl~ Hurricane Shutter Project - Consider staff recommendation to approve the low bidders, locations and amounts for the installation of hurricane shutters allowing staff to issue purchase orders, and authorize the Chairman to sign the contracts as prepared by the COl!nty Attorney: 1) Rolladen South County Annex $90,800.00 Agriculture $10,400.00 I.M. Waters $10,400.00 ,,( Lakewood Park Library 2) Rolling Shield $ 8,447.00 3) Gulfstream Milner Health $ 9,7ï6.00 . \' 8. PARKS AND RECREATION Budget Resolution No. 02-242 / Department of State, Division of Historical Resources Grant - Consider staff recommendation to approve the budget resolution to appropriate and expend the $35,000 grant revenue for fiscal year 2003, for an outdoor exhibit for the Historical Museum. . . .. ~ ..J St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Announcements October 1, 2002 A.' The General Election date is November 5, 2002. B. The November 5, 2002 and November 19, 2002 Board of County Cmpmissioners Meetings have been changed to 9:00 am. C. The November 12, 2002 Board of County Commissioners Meeting has been changed to 7:00 pm. .,.( ~ ....,¡ BOARD OF COUNlY COMMISSIONERS ADDITIONS AGENDA October 1. 2002 REVISED REGULAR AGENDA Administration R-A 1 Consider staff recommendation that the Port Authority (BCC) submit a grant application to FSTED in the amount of $6,000,000 for the Acquisition of 67 acres of Port Property from Destin Beach, Inc., and execution of the application by the county administrator. CONSENT AGENDA Public Safety C-A. 1 Motorola Maintenance Contract for the 800MHz Public Safety Radio System - Consider staff recommendation to approve the contract and authorize the Chairman to sign the contract. NOTICE: All Proceedings before this Board are electronically recorded. Any person who decides to appeal any action taken by the Board at these meetings will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, IndMduais testifying during a hearing will be sworn In. Any party to the proceedings will be granted the opportunity to cross-examine any IndMdual testifying during a hearing upon request. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. lucie County Community Services Manager at (561) 462-1777 or TDD (561) 462-1428 at least forty-eight(48) hours prior to the meeting. · '-" ...., OCTOBER 1, 2002 7:00 PM BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING AGENDA WELCOME GENERÅL RULES AND PROCEDURES Attached is the agenda which will determine the order of business conducted at today's Board meeting: CONSENT AGENDA- These items are considered routine and are enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commissioner so requests. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS- Proclamations, Presentations, Public Hearings, and Department requests are items which the Commission will discuss individually usually in the order listed on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARlNGS- These items are usually heard on the first and third Tuesdays at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. However, if a public hea~ing is scheduled for a meeting on a second or fourth Tuesday, which begins at 9:00 AM., then pUblic hearings will be heard at 9:00 AM. or as soon thereafter as possible. These time designations are intended to indicate that an item will not be addressed prior to the listed time. The Chairman will open each public hearing and asks anyone wishing to speak to come forward, one at a time. Comments will be limited to five minutes. As a general rule, when issues are scheduled before the Commission under department request or public hearing, the order of presentation is: (1) County staff presents the details of the Board item (2) Commissioners comment (3) if a public hearing, the Chairman will ask for public comment, (4) further discussion and action by the Board. ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION- Please state your name and address, speaking clearly into the microphone. If you have backup material, please have eight copies ready for distribution. NON-AGENDA ITEMS- These items are presented by an individual Commissioner or staff as necessary at the conclusion of the printed agenda. PUBLIC COMMENT- Time is allotted at the beginning of each meeting for general public comment. Please limit comments to five minutes. DECORUM- Please be respectful of others opinion. MEETINGS- All Board meetings are open to the public and are held on the first and third Tuesdays of each month at 7:00 P.M. and on the second and fourth Tuesdays at 9:00 AM., unless otherwise advertised. Meetings are held in the County Commission Chambers in the Roger Poitras Administration Annex at 2300 Virginia Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL 34982. The Board schedules additional workshops throughout the year necessary to accomplish their goals and commitments. Notice is provided of these workshops. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Manager at (561) 462-1777 or TDD (561) 462-1428 at least forty-eight(48) hours prior to the meeting. ~ . ..." www.stlucieco.gov John D. Bruhn Doug Coward Paula A. Lewis Frannie Hutchinson Cliff Barnes District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 ßOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA October I, 2002 7:00 P.M. INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE "FREEDOM" performed by St. Lucie Elementary School 3rd Grade (p'C~ -I-cJU---zL ) :to MINUTES l!f{lrdlXt/ 5--D ~ (. l./1\.pprove the minutes of the meeting held September 24, 2002. vÃPprove the minutes of the Final Budget Public Hearing held on September 19, 2002. . I 2. ?ROCLAMATIONS IPRESE'\lATIONS ;4p¡:?íMd 5 ~o vResolution No. 02- 239 - Proclaiming the month of October, 2002 as "Domestic Violence Awareness Month" in St. Lucie County, Florida. 3. ""GENERAL PUBLIC COMME'\ 1 rJ~ vù! þ;it;D -h Iffi.- ....cONSENT AGENDA A-wfóW cf 6-0 4. NOTICE: All Proceedings before this Board are electronically recorded. Any person who decides to appeal any action taken by the Boara at these meetings will need a record of the proceedmgs and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record ofthe proceedings is made. Upon the requesf of any 'party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing "ill be sworn in. Any paryy to the proceëomgs will be granted toe opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Manager at (561) 462-1777 or TDD (561) 462-14Z8 at least forty-eight(48) hours prior fo the meeting. ~ ...."" REGULAR AGENDA OCTOBER 1,2002 PAGE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS SA. Resolution No. 02-197 / St. Lucie County Public Transit Municipal Service Taxing ')" t!~ Unit (MSTU) / (Continued from September 24, 2002) - Consider staff .J.), rU ' recommendation to proceed with the establishment of a :MSTU for Transit: o~ 1) Approve the resolution creating the MSTU, or Ô, ' . 2) Approve advertising for a new public hearing to be held on November 12, LV JALt~.' , 2002, if the Board is desirous of including non-motorized. transit within the ,;J ~~--; ... {e. MSTU. The new public hearing is necessary to inclu~e tÞ.i~ pignificant ~ ¿,Uif' M<-- ad~tion to the MSTU. X -f~-fú.d- /1.kad ~J t.-z< (: . / . . 0. 6~¡n,yucl '&kr) i tþ<~. áI 11.~ ~ (1-0 'Ix End ofPubIic Hearin ~, 6 . wllJÚJ . t2 C!-rh~'rfl ¥J 6. i1(fmd S-D 7. f+pP(~ :jC-D I ADMINISTRATION Parks Referendum Priority Projects - Consider staff recommendation to approve the proposed priority projects for Parks Referendum revenue. The proposed priority lists are subject to change and authorization. The final priority list will be submitted after agreements with municipalities are finalized. COUNTY ATTORNEY Smithsonian Marine Ecosystems Agreement / Amendment No.2 - Consider staff recommendation to approve the amendment and authorize the Chairman to sign the amendment. ~ ...",., CONSENT AGENDA October 1. 2002 1. WARR~'\lSLIST Approye ,,-arrants list No. 52 2. PUBUC "'ORKS A. Bid No. 02-113 / Fairgrounds Electrical Infrastructure - Consider staff recommendation to award the bid to the lowest and sole bidder, Gerelco Electric Contractors, Inc., in the amount of $289,569. B. Fairgrounds Project - Consider staff recommendation to approve the 2nd Amendment to Contract No. C 02-02-311 with Dickerson Florida, Inc., for the supply of Coquina Rock in an amount not to exceed $200,000 and authorize the Chairman to sign the amendment as prepared by the County Attorney. C. Florida Department of Environmental Protection Stormwater Retrofit Grant Application - Consider staff recommendation to grant permission to submit a grant application in the amount of $600,000 for Phase 2 of the Indian Ri\-er Estates Stormwater Attenuation Facility Project. 3. COM~llT?\lTY DEVELOPMEL~T Resolution No. 02-154 - Consider staff recommendation to approve the resolution correcting a scriveners error associated witpthe Final Planned Development plans for the project known as Portifiono Shores. I 4. INVESTMENT FOR THE FUTURE Bid 1\0.02-071/ Edwards Road over 5-Mile Creek Bridge Repair (Bridge ID 940070) - Consider staff recommendation to award the bid to the low bidder, Custom Built Marine Construction in the amount of $131,828.26, and authorize the Chairman to sign the contract as prepared by the County Attorney. 5. ADMD,TJSTRATION A. Bid No. 02-102 / River Park Baffle Boxes - Consider staff recommendation to reject the bid received and authorize staff to rebid the project. B. BOCC Meeting Cancellation - Consider staff recommendation to cancel the December 3,2002 Board of County Commissioners Meeting due to lack of a quorum. 6. COŒ'\TI ATTORNEY Moss and Garten v. St. Lucie County, et al / Proposed Settlement Agreement - Consider staff recommendation to approve the agreement, and authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement. ~ ~ CONSENT AGENDA OCTOBER 1, 2002 PAGE nvo ...., ï. CENTRAL SERVICES A. Administration Building Addition Project - Consider staff recommendation to approve the Second Amendment to the agreement with Edlund & Dritenbas increasing the budget to satisfy non-conforming Life Safety issues and authorize the Chairman to sign the amendment as prepared by the County Attorney. B. Bid No. 02-108 / FEMA Hurricane Shutter Project - Consider staff recommendation to approve the low bidders, locations and amounts for the installation of hurricane shutters allm\ing staff to issue purchase orders, and authorize the Chairman to sign the contracts as prepared by the Co~nty Attorney: 1) Rolladen South County Annex $90,800.00 Agriculture $10,400.00 I.M. 'Vaters $10,400.00 2) Rolling Shield Lakewood Park Library $ 8,447.00 3) Gulfstream Milner Health $ 9,776.00 . I 8. PARKS AND RECREATION Budget Resolution No. 02-242 / Department of State, Division of Historical Resources Grant - Consider staff recommendation to approve the budget resolution to appropriate and expend the S35,OOO grant revenue for fiscal year 2003, for an outdoor exhibit for the Historical Museum. -.... ..." St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Announcements October 1, 2002 A.. The General Election date is No\-ember 5, 2002. B. The November 5, 2002 and November 19, 2002 Board of County Col]1ß1issioners Meetings have been changed to 9:00 am. C. The November 12, 2002 Board of County Commissioners Meeting has been changed to 7:00 pm. .r-( \' '-- ...", BOARD OF COUNlY COMMISSIONERS ADDITIONS AGENDA October 1. 2002 REVISED REGUlAR AGENDA Administration J Mf~ :);0 R-A 1 Consider staff recommendation that the Port Authority (BCC) submit a grant application to FSTED in the amount of $6,000,000 for the Acquisition of 67 acres of Port Property from Destin Beach, Inc., and execution of the application by the county administrator. CONSENT AGENDA Public Safety ~ J C-A. 1 Motorola Maintenance Contract for the 800MHz Public Safety Radio ~(íl ,¡J-- System - Consider staff recommendation to approve the contract and VÙ fj)~' authorize the Chairman to sign the contract. évm 11 ñu--r CbuJét>Ld: I (j)t7þKd~J ¡æ-4f¡J~ ~ kw du'SUU tv í()C-/~ @ (2~~'ck uJ( 04M-'o.M'~ bel.·· ~ ('~, ~ C0 ÚM .4£~~) ~ ~.~ _-----_ 4cUjW - ,~, . LOA) I ~~c-W- WIS~VM ~ ~cd ~-::. q~¡;Js tf-tþ, 10 ~u k: ,~&6~~ NOTICE: All Proceedings before this Board are electronically recorded. Any person who decides to appeal any action taken by the Board at these meetings will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, IndMduals testifying during a hearing will be swom In. Any party to the proceedings will be granted the opportunity to cross-examIne any IndMdual testifying during a hearing upon request. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. tude County Community Services Manager at (561) 462-1777 or TDD (561) 462-1428 at least forty-elght(48) :.\Gi7:)~ ~J: yu.o..J, "l< I wru~ w/ ~ ~d ~ .."" ST. LUCIE COUNTY MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS John D. Bruhn District 1 Doug Coward District 2 Paula A. Lewis District 3 Frannie Hutchinson Cliff Barnes District 4 District 5 AGENDA September 24, 2002 1. MINUTES Approve the minutes of the meeting held September 10, 2002. Approve the minutes of the Tentative Budget Public Hearing held September 12, 2002. Approve the minutes of the Final Budget Public Hearing held September 19, 2002. ") GENERAL PUBLIC COMMÐrr PUBLIC HEARINGS COUNTY ATTORNEY MF~ .,..( Resolution No. 02-05 - Consider staff recommendation to adopt the proposed resolution approving the petition. to e.'\.1>and Mosquito Control District boundaries to add the emainder of the Reserve DR! and a 1200' parcel lying between the southwestern boundary of the Reserve DRI and Canal C-24 and authorizing a referendum on the proposed expansion. \' Resolution No. 02-06 - Consider staff recommendation to adopt the proposed resolution 'approving the petition to e.'\.1>and Mosquito Control District boundaries to add Westchester Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and waiving the referendum requirement. CONSENT AGENDA 1. WARRANTS LISTS Approve Warrants list No. 50 through 52 ~ ~~iYLot,1J)l- ~ fa fo~ ~~OÒ·L,.kiY>( ~(' ~,C ~'n~ ~ 6- 'P~ beL ( ~*' ~~~~ Q ~ \J~~\ ~<5W>J ~-~ L~J~~~) :SOTICE: All proceedings beCore this Board are electronic:ally recorded. Any person who decides to appeal any action taken by the Board at these meetings will need a record oC the proceedings and Cor such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record oC the proceedings is made. Upon the request oC any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceedings will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine :my indhidual testif)"ing during a hearing upon request. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie Comuy Community Services Manager at (561) 462-1777 or roD (561) 462-1428 at least Corty-eight(48) hours prior to the meeting. 'rr ...." AGENDA REQUEST ITEM NO. R-A1 DATE: October 1. 2002 REGULAR: (X) PUBLIC HEARING: ( ) CO ENT: ( ) TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBMITTED BY (DEPT): ADMINISTRATION SUBJECT: Grant Application submittal to Florida Seaport Transportation and Econo ' 'c velopment (FSTED) Council for the Acquisition of Sixty-seven (67) Acres of Port Property from Destin Beach, Inc. BACKGROUND: The County has received FSTED approval for this project. FSTED is now going through the allocation of funding process. As a part of the process, they need Port Authority (BCC) approval to apply for the funding. FUNDS AVAILABLE: NIA PREVIOUS ACTION: May 9th letter to John LaCapra, President, Florida Ports Council (attached) May 14th approval by BCC (attached) to offer Destin Beach, Inc., $11,745,000 for 67 acres of Port property RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Port Authority (BCC) submit a grant application to FSTED in the amount of $6,000,000 for the Acquisition of 67 Acres of Port Property from Destin Beach, Inc., and execution of the application by the county administrator. COMMISSION ACTION: ~PPROVED 0 DENIED Æ~THER: 5-0 Review and ADDrovals Q County Attorney: Q Management and Budget: Q Purchasing: Q Originating Dept: Q Other: Q Other: Q Finance: Check for copy only, if applicable: Anyone with a disability requiring accommodations to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Manager at 561-462-1777 or TTD 561-462-1428, at least 48 hours (48) prior to the meeting. H :IWINIWPIAGENDA IFSTED .wpd ~ '-" ...".¡ ITEM NO. R-A1 DATE: October 1,2002 AGENDA REQUEST REGULAR: (X) PUBLIC HEARING: ( ) CO ENT: ( ) SUBMITTED BY (DEPT): ADMINISTRATION TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBJECT: Grant Application submittal to Florida Seaport Transportation and Econo'c velopment (FSTED) Council for the Acquisition of Sixty-seven (67) Acres of Port Property from Destin Beach, Inc. BACKGROUND: The County has received FSTED approval for this project. FSTED is now going through the allocation of funding process. As a part of the process, they need Port Authority (BCC) approval to apply for the funding. _ / ' / FUNDS AVAILABLE: N/A PREVIOUS ACTION: May 9th letter to John LaCapra, President, Florida Ports Council (attached) May 14th approval by BCC (attached) to offer Destin Beach,lnc., $11,745,000 for 67 acres of Port property RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Port Authority (BCC) submit a grant application to FSTED in the amount of $6,000,000 for the Acquisition of 67 Acres of Port Property from Destin Beach, Inc., and execution of the application by the county administrator. COMMISSION ACTION: CONCURRENCE: [) APPROVED [) OTHER: o DENIED Douglas Anderson County Administrator Review and Approvals .S! County Attorney: 9. Management and Budget: 9. Purchasing: .S! Originating Dept: 9. Other: 9. Other: .S! Finance: Check for copy only, if applicable: Anyone with a disability requiring accommodations to attend this meeting shouJd contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Manager at 561-462-1777 or ITD 561-462-1428, at least 48 hours (48) prior to the meeting_ H:\WIN\WP'AG EN DA\FSTED .wpd .,- ~ ' '-" ~ , BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS May 9, 2002 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DOUGLAS N,. ANDmSON Mr. John LaCapra, President Florida Ports Council Bank of America Plaza 315 Calhoun Street, Suite 712 Tallahassee, FL., 32302 Dear Mr. LaCapra: Please fir)d attached copies of memorandums written by Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney, and myself, discussing the issuance of a purchase offer to·Mr. Lloyd Bell to acquire 67 acres of Port property at the Port of Fort Pierce by the County and the financing alternatives of said acquisition. '. ./, , , .~ V'Ve plan on presenting this ifem to the Board of County Commissioners at their next scheduled meeting, May 14, 2002. Providing it is approved to proceed, I plan on appearing .. before'the Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Council (FSTED) L/ on June 27,2002, to request emergency action to make available funds forthis acquisition. Prior to June 27, 2002, Dan Mcintyre and myself plan on meeting with officials from the affected State agencies to discuss the County's plan. We appreciate the assistance and guidance that you have provided us and look forward to successfully completing this project. "7.4----- Ä D Ugl~I~I. Anderson County Administrator DMAlab 02-50 c: Board of County Commissioners Robert Bradshaw, Assistant County Administrator Dan McIntyre, County Attorney Attachments ~ ........ JOHN D, ßRUHN. Disrricr No.1. DOUG COWARD. Disrricr N:J. 2 . PAULA A. lE')lIS. Disrricr No.3. FRANSIE HUTCHINSON. D'.sT.G t>:>. <1 . CUFF DARNES. Disrricr No, 5 Coumy Aóminis;;crcr - Douglos M. Anderson 2JOO Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL J4982-5652 · Phone (772) 462-1450 · IDD (772) 462-1428 _"I -l_..~_~__ _A. I.._~_ -'I .._ '-" ..." FLORIDA SEAPORT TRANSPORTATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PROJECT APPLICATION P ART A APPLICANT PORT: PORT OF FORT PIERCE (ST. LUCIE COUNTY) .. .. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: - - NAME: Mr. Douglas M. Anderson TELEPHONE: (77?) 461-1450 TITLE: County Administrator . FAX: (7n) 461-1648 . ADDRESS: 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce. Florida 34982 E-MAIL: DOUGA 11,STLUCIECO.GOV , , - / ,,-/ 0. PROJECT NAME: PORT PROJECT NUMBER: FSTED PROGRAM Fm-."'DI~Ü REQUEST: 2002 - ( ) PHASED $ 6.000.000 for FY2002 '1003 Has project been previously approved by the FSTED Council? (If yes, please indicate previous project number(s) below.) YES X NO Project Number(s): 1996 Bond Program: $8.000.000.00 Has project been modified since last submitted for FSTED Council review and approval? YES x NO If yes, please identify the nature of modification below. Provide details on additional sheets, if necessary. You may \\ish to highlight those parts of this application which have been revised due to the modification. _ Project Name _ Project Phasing _ Increase in Funding Request _ Change in Scope _ Transportation Impact _ Economic Impact -Ã- Other (please describe.) PREVIOUS PROJECT \VAS WITHDRAWN * If this project has been previously approyed and not modified, please ensure that all information included in this application is current. FSTED FORMS - FORM- FSTED-I Injl 5/22/01 G:\AdminIFSTED Grant Applications Port PropertY 5_1_02.OOc 1 of 7 '-" ...I PORT: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: FDOT DISTRICT: FSTED PROGR..\~I PROJECT APPLICATION FORT PIERCE 2002- ACOUjSITION OF 67 ACRES OF PORT PROPERTY DISTRICT FOUR COUNTY: ST. LUCIE COUNTY PART B - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ÄND MEA1"iS OF FINANCING PLEASE PROVIDE DRAWINGS OR MAPS THAT SHOW THE RELATION OF THE PROJECT TO THE PORT AND THE LOCAL COMMUNITY. PLEASE IDENTIFY CLEARLY THE PORT PROJECT LOCATION. (Note additional map requirements in Part C-IIA and Part E - lA, IE and IF.) PROJECT DESCRIPTION IN DETAIL: PURCHASE OF 67 ACRES OF PORT OF FORT PIERCE PROPERTY FROM PRIVATE OWNER TO BE DEVELOPED FOR MIXED USE AT BERTH 1 AND MEGA YACHT FACILITIES ON REMAINDER OF PROPERTY. '(HIS PROJECT IS KACCORDA..1\'CE WITH THE PORT MASTER PLAN AND IS INTENDED TO EXPAND AND DEVELOP ECONO::\IIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE PORT AREA. * P ART B-1 - NOT PHASED PROJECTS ONLY' (DO NOT COMPLETE PART B-1 FOR PHASED PROJECT REOUESTS - USE PART B-2) I Estimated Total.Cost of Project: I 12,000,000 Amount ofFunds Requested from FSTED Program for FYOl 02: 6,000,000 ¡Amount of Port Matching Funds: \ 6,000,000 Source(s) of Port Matching Funds: BORROWED FUNDS TO BE FUNDED BY (i.e, operating revenues, capital funds, borrowed funds, etc.) OPERATING REVENUES If Applicable, Source(s) and Amount(s) of Other Matching Funds: Source(s): (i.e., ACOE, other federal funds, private sector, etc.) Amount(s): \ II I * PART B-2 - PHASED PROJECTS ONLY (COMPLETE PART B-2 FOR PHASED PROJECT) Reminder: A new project application will be required annually for subsequent phases for which the port is requesting funding. Estimated Number of Years for Project Completion from Start to Finish: ~ years I Phase or Year of this Request: 12002 year I 20f7 FSTED FORMS.. FORM.. FSTED.. 1 Injl S/22/01 G:\Admin\FSTED Grant Applications Port Property S-1-02.doc '-" '-" PORT: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: FDOT DISTRICT: FSTED PROGRAM PROJECT APPLlCATIO:\ FORT PIERCE 2002- ACQUISITION OF 67 ACRES OF PORT PROPERTY DISTRICT FOUR COUì\"TY: ST. LUCIE COUNTY DESCRIPTION OF WORK TQ BE DONE IN THIS PHASE: PURCHASE 67 ACRES Estimated Total Cost Project from Start Finish: Estimated TQtal Cost this Phase: Amount of Funds Requested from FSTED Program: Amount of Port :Matching Funds: Source(s) of Port ?\Jatching Funds: (i.e, operating revenues, capital funds, borrowed funds, etc.) If Applicable, Describe Other Funding by Source(s), FY, and Amount(s): (i.e., ACOE, other federal funds, rivate sector, etc.) Source(s): FY: Amount(s): If Applicable, Estimate Total Amount of Matching Funds from Other Source(s): TOTAL: 12,000,000 * PART B-3 ATTACH A COpy OF PORT 5-YEAR CAPITALJMPROVEME:\T PROGRAM - 2002/2003 - 2006/2007. 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan Attached: YES NO X (Please point out proposed project on 5-Year CIP. If comments are applicable, please describe on additional sheet.) 30f7 FSTED FORMS· FOR.\I- FSIED - 1 Injl 5/22/01 G:\Admin\FSTED Grant Applications Port Property 5-1-02.doc '-" '...I PORT: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: FDOT DISTRICT: FSTED PROGRAM PROJECT APPLICA TlO;'oì FORT PIERCE 2002- ACQUISITION OF 67 ACRES OF PORT PROPERTY DISTRICT FOUR COUNTY: ST. LUCIE COUNTY PART C - PLAN INFORMATION Department of Community Affairs The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) will be reviewing each project for consistency, to the ma.ximum ex1ent feasible, with the applicable Port Master Plan and Local Government Comprehensive Plan (LGCP). The following information must be provided for each project for DCA's review. I. STATEMENT OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH PORT MASTER PLAN A:.'\l> LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Attach documentatiorr·indicating that both the Department of Community Affairs and the FSTED Council have current updated Port Master Plan> If an update to your port master plan has resulted in a local government comprehensive plan amendment within the past twelve (12) months, you do not need to answer Questions B or D in Part I, nor Question A in Part II. A. Explain why the project is consistent with your most recent Port Master Plan? B. Indicate when the Port Master Plan was incorpbrated into the applicable LGCP? If not yet incorporated, when do you expect it to be adopted into the LGCP? C. If applicable, give the LGCP amendment number which includes this ~ort project. ." " /: D. Please list all amendments made to the LGCP as a result of a Pori Master Plan Update, a port land acquisition, or a port project. E. Please list due dates for the applicable local government Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) and the EAR- based amendments, including any amendments to the Port Master Plan or transportation elements as a result of the EAR review. F. Ifa project involves a development of regional impact (DRI), please give the name and number ofthe DRl. II. CONSISTENCY EVALUATION CRITERIA: A. Provide a map of the existing and future land uses of the port project and abutting properties. (If not sho\\1l on map included in Part B.) B. Identify the land use of the parcel as currently designated on the LGCP and the proposed designation necessary in order to proceed with the project. Demonstrate the compatibility of the proposed projects with the adjacent land uses. C. Provide a description of the availability of public facilities, including sanitary sewer, solid waste, transportation, drainage, potable water, and recreation, as appropriate, and identify the demand that the project will place on each of these facilities and their level of service D. Provide information about the impact of the proposed project on natural resources, includingwetlands, beaches and dunes, submerged lands, flood plains, wildlife habitat, living marine resources, and water quality. E. Provide information about the impact of the project on public access and historic resources. F. Show how the proposed project is consistent, to the maximum extent feasible, with the Goals, Objectives, and policies of your Port Master Plan and the LGCP. 40f7 FSTED FOR.\lS - FOR.\!- FSTED - 1 !ojl 5/22/01 G:\Admin\FSTED Grant Applications Port Property 5-1-02.doc ~ ..." PORT: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: FDOT DISTRICT: FSTED PROGRAM PROJECT APPLICATION FORT PIERCE 2002- ACQUISITION OF 67 ACRES OF PORT PROPERTY DISTRICT FOUR COŒ\TY: ST. LUCIE COUNTY PART D - ECONOl\IIC BENEFIT ANALYSIS Governor's Office of Tourism. Trade and Economic Development The Governor's Office of Tourism, Trade and Economic Development will be reviewing each project in terms of itS e{:onomic benefit and consistency with the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program to be included in the Florida Se2.port Mission Plan. Each port is encouraged to provide detailed economic impact analysis information. The following information must be provided for each project for this review. ,. I. HOW THE PROJECT IS CONSISTEì'.i \\lTH FLORIDA SEAPORT MISSION PL...\.c.'\. Explain how this project is consistent with the Florida Seaport Mission Plan. Cite specific goals and objectives in the Plan, and indicate how the project fits into the Plan's five-year capital improvement program. II. HOW THE PROJECT WILL SUPPORT L\lERt~ATIONAL COl\1MERCE, INèREASE OR MATh"TAIN CARGO FLOW THROUGH THE PORT OR L\IPROVE CRUISE PASSENGER SERVICE. A. On what projections of additional service or capacity is the project based/of how is it neeèed to maintain existing service or<:apacity? TO FULLY DEVELOP THE PORT OF FORT PIERCE '',¡: B. Compare present activity (cargo or passenger) at the port with anticipated increases in 2.ctÏvity resulting from completion of the project. ESTIMA TED A1\~ruAL ECONOMIC IMP ACT WILLGO FOR "tYlThniAL TO 100,000,000NEAR. EST. PROVIDED BY POTENTIAL USERS. C. What is the expected life of the project? 99 YEARS D. What type of emplo)ment project will be created by the project? Why is it needed to S1.'Pport existing employment? 300 NEW JOBS. Provide estimated project emplo)ment and wages: 1. Estimated total number of new, full-time jobs created by the project: 300 2. Estimated total number of temporary jobs created during construction: 100 3. Estimated annualized average wage (not including benefits) of the new jobs created by the project: $_11.78 (ST. LUCIE COUNTY'S CURRENT AVERAGE WAGE) E. What port revenue estimates are associated with the project or will result from the project? 25,000,000 OVER 20YEARS. F. How will the port project affect and enhance the local, regional, and state economies? ESTIMATED 100,000,000 G. Indicate whether the project is located in or directly adjacent to any of the following officially designated areas. If so, which? Please check all that are applicable and list the name of the officially design21ed area(s). 1._ State Enterprise Zone 2. Brownfield Area 3.- Rural Area of Critical Economic Concern 4.- Ta-x Increment Financing District 5.- Federal Enterprise Community 6.== Economic Development District (US EDA) 8. Urban Infill Area 9.----X- Community Redevelopment Area 10._ Front Porch Florida Community 11._ Federal Empowerment Zone l2.~ Community Development Block Grant Eligible Area 50f7 FSTED FORMS - FORM - FSTED - 1 Injl Sn1 \)1 G:\Admin\FSTED Grant Applications Port Property 5-1-02.doc ~ 'wi PORT: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: FDOT DISTRICT: FSTED PROGRA...'1 PROJECT APPLICATION FORT PIERCE 2002- ACQUISITION OF 67 ACRES OF PORT PROPERTY DISTRICT FOUR COUNTY: ST. LUCIE COUNTY 7._ HUB (Historically Under Utilized Business) Zone 13._ Other: Name of Officially Designated Area(s): III. STATEMENT OF ELIGIBILITY. OPERA TffiG REVENUES. At....'D ECONOMIC BENEFITS. (Ports with annual operating revenues of $5 million or less may elect to propose for funding projects as defined in s. 315.02, Florida Statutes, and, therefore, must comply with the provisions of s.311.07(3)(b )(10), Florida Statutes, by pr0\ iding the following documentation.) Section 3l1.07(3)(b )(10), Florida Statutes, provides thåt projects eligible for funding includeÙe following: "Constrllction or rehabilitation of port facilities as defined in s. 315.02, excluding any park or r2creational facilities, in ports listed in s. 311.09(1) l\irh operating revenues of $5 million or less, provided that such projects create economic development opportunities, capital improvements, and positive financial returns to slIch forts. " If applicable, please provide information below and anach additional documentation àt:testing to the port's operating revenues for FY99/00 to satisfy this requirement. A. _ FY 99/00 PORT OPERATING REVENL~S of$ o , were $5 million or less. " ,/ B. Please describe how this project is eligible under s. 315.02, Floridá Statutes. C. Please explain specifically how this project creates economic development opportunities, capital improve::rrents, and positive [mancial returns to your port. Use additional sheets, if necessary. 60f7 FSTED FORMS - FORM - FSTED - 1 Injl Sn2l01 G:\Admin\FSTED Grant Applications Port Property 5-1-02.doc \r- '-'" PORT: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: FDOT DISTRICT: FSTED PROGRAI\1 PROJECT APPLICA nON FORT PIERCE 2002- ACQUISITION OF 67 ACRES OF PORT PROPERTY DISTRICT FOUR COUi\'TY: ST. LUCIE COUNTY PART E - TRANSPORTATIO:\' IMPACT INFORMATION DeDartrnent of TransDortation Tbe Department of Transportation will be reviewing each project in terms of its consistency with the Florida Transportation PI2.Il and its adopted work program. The following information must be provided for each project for this review. I. STATEMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACT'CRITERIA: A. If not provided in Part B, provide a map indicating existing highway and proposed roadway access/connections to the port and the proposed port project (planned and programmed per existing Port Master Plan - include city, county, state, and/or federal highway numbers where applicable), and note whether the roadways are part of the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIRS), 1'ational Highway System (NHS), and/or a designated narional Highway System Connector. B. If not provided in Part B, provide a map of existing and proposed railroad access/connections to the port and proposed port project (planned and programmed per existing Port Master Plan - include common carrier n2.!Ile by location or indicate if owned/operated by the port). . " / / C. Provide a traffic impact analysis sufficient to identify existing ând projected level of service impacts OIl off-port roadway arterials identified in Question A resulting from implementation of the proposed project. D. pescribe public and private passenger transportation services existing or required to serve the project 10carioD- If the proposed project is related to cruise operations, a detailed answer is required E. Provide an estimate of the increase in number of vehicles per day resulting from implementation of the propos.ed project, if any. N/A F. Provide an estimate of the increase in number ofrai1cars and/or TEUs per day resulting from implementarion ofthe proposed project, if any; and include a map if not provided in Part B indicating the impacted rail/high\yay grade crossings resulting from the implementation of the proposed project, if any. N/ A G. Provide an estimate of the maximum length of vehicles expected to be utilizing the facility as a result of the proposed project. N/A H. Please attach a statement from the appropriate local govemment(s) or governmental agency concerning impactS related to the adopted level of service standards of the highway facilities impacted. 70f7 FSTID FOR."rS - FORM - FSTED - I Injl 5/22/01 G:\Admin\FSTED Grant Applications Port Property 5-1-02.doc '-" """ AGENDA REQUEST ITEM NO. G DATE: May 14, 2002 REGULAR [XX] PUBLIC HEARING [j CONSENT [] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.... - PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): County Attorney Daniel S. McIntyre County Attorney SUBJECT: Port ot Fort Pierce - Destin Beach; Inc. Property' ,- Purchase Offer , . . / ' BACKGROUND: . . See attached memorandum ~~./ . ' , / " .' \ FUNDS AVAILABLE: PREVIOUS ACTION: RECOMMENDA nON: Staff recommer:ds that the Board: (1) Direct staff to s"bmit a written offer in the amount of $11,745,000.00 to purchase the property owned by Destin Beach, Inc. free and clear of 011 liens and encumbrances including the lease with AES: and (2) Adopt Resolution No. 02-126 cs prepared by the County's Bond Coun~el. lXl APPROVED [ ] DENIED [ ) OTHER: As amended that M.r. Bell will provide a third appraisal \.¡Í thin 60 days from today. ouglas Anderson County Administrator COMMISSION ACTION:. JY Review and Aoprovals CO'Jroty Attorney: 1.',ercsement & Budget P.~!"d-.c.1:r';: Pé!ic Works Dir: Cc"':.Ti.ty Er9·: Origiroating Dept. Eff.5/;ó C;"~"r"; (Check for Copy only. if applicable) '-' ....., INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM ST. LUCIE COUNTY~ FLORIDA TO: Board of County COi1,missioners FROM: Daniel S. McIntyre, County Attorney C.A. NO. 02-673 DATE: May 7,2002 . . . ------~--------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------~----~---------------- Port of Fort Pierce - Destin Beach, Inc. Property - Purchase Offer . SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: .: ~ /" , -,/ ' ,/ The County is the port authority for the Port of Fort Pierce. The County currently owns 20 acres kno','m oS Harbor Pointe within the port planning area. The 67 acres immediotely adjacent to the County'S property is owned by Destin Beach, Inc. The County recently adopted a master plan for the Port of Fort Pierce. The master plan identified c number of proposed useS induding useS related to the mega yacht industry, Tor the County-owned property ond the property owned by Destin Beach, Inc. On March 17, 2002, the County advertised a Request for Qualificct¡.:ms/Proposals soliciting responses from firms interested in partnering with the County to develop the port in a manner consistent with the master plan. In response to the RFQ/RFP, on May 1, 2002, the County received 4 proposals. The County is currently evaluating the 4 proposals. Based on the port master plar, and on a preliminary evaluation of the 4 proposals, County staff believes that it is in the best interest of the County and its citizens for the County to attempt to acquire by negotiated sale the 67 acres owned by Destin Beach, Inc In this regard, the County had appraisals completed by Florida Property Consultants and F.¿lIer Armfield Wagner. A summary of the results of the two (2) appraisals foIl0\,IIS: ~ '...I Value Florida Property Consultants Fuller Armfield Wagner $11,745,000.00 $ 9,500,000.00 Since it is very much In the County's best interest to acquire the property through negotiation, st,!rr recommends that the Board offer Destin Beach, Inc. the highest o( :the two values or $11,745,000.00 to acquire all jnterests in the property. ·..In addition, starr believes the higher value is justified to avoid the cost and risk of litigation in the event negotiations are unsuccessrul. Although it is difficult to predict with any accuracy}he cost of litigation, th~ .County's exposure for costs and fees assuming a trial and an appeal: could be' one . million and 0/100 ($l,OOO,OOO.OÖ} dollars even in a best case sc~nario. In a worst case s.cenario, the CoUiïty's exposure could be two to .three times the best caS·e scenario. Perhaps' more :i mportont Iy, the time á~d risk i nvo Ived in Ii tigotion could have an adverse impact on negotiations .with prospective tenants. County staff proposes to fund the proposed purchase price with grant runds and revenues from the prospective tenants as set rorth in the memorandum dated May 7, 2002 rrom the County Administrator, a copy or which is attached. Becaus~ or timing, it will most likely be necessary ror the County to borrow the runds n2.eded ror the purchase. In this regard, the County'S bond counsel has drarted the appropriate resolution authorizing the issuance or not exceeding $15,000,000.00 in bonds and rurther authorizing the commencement or proceedings to validate the bonds. Further official action of the Board will be required for the sale of the bonds. RECOMMENDATION/CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Board: 1. Direct staff to submit a written orrer in the amount of $11,745,000.00 to purchase the property owned by Destin Beach, Inc. free and clear of all liens and encumbrances including the lease with AES. , ~ ....., 2. Counsel. Adopt Resolution No. 02-126 as prepared by the County's Bond DSMlcaf Attachments " .' , , . , , / - " ., '--' '"wII Daniel t\1:;:-ò:)'re - m-board-ir' resolution.doc Peg~ 1 11 E 11 0 RAN DUM i ! ¡ I I í I I I ¡ I I I I I I I I I I : i I I t I I I I I r [ ¡ i ! i i I \ ! i SSQlJlRÈ uL\ND ER5 LEGAL COUNSEL WORLDWIDE Squire, S:l!lders & Dempsey L.L.P. To: Board of County Commissioners St. Lucie County, Florida COPY.: Daniel S. McIntyre, Esquire, Countr ATIomey Douglas M. Anderson, County Administrator Loomis C. ("Bill") Leedy, III, William R. Hough & Co. From: Robert Freeman ~ . Date: May 7,2002 _Re: Port Reven:ue Bonds / , , -The attached resolution author\zes the issuance of not exceeding.815 millio:1 Pon Revenue Bonds in order to provide for å source of moneys to acquire the Destin Bei?ch propenies at the J>ort of Fort Pierce and to pay costs related to the acquisition of the property and issuance of the . B~nds, including capitalized interest on the. Bpnds through March 200~. The resolution provides that the Bonds will òe secured solely by a lien upon and pledge of the revenues derived from the operation of the port, grant and loan mOD.eys from government agencies or other sources, moneys on deposit in the funds and accounts esti?blished pursuant to a supplemental, detailed bond resolution, investrnem earnings on those moneys, and any other source of non-ad valorem revenues which the B02.!d may decide to pledge as security for the Bonds (including a covenant to budget and appropriate from non-ad valOiem revenues) in order to obtain the best interest cost on the Bonds. The resolution provides that the Bonds will not be secured by the full faith and credit and taxing power ofthe County, by a l!en upon the Project,. or by a lien upon any o!.1er moneys or properties of the County. The resolution authorizes the County Attorney aIld Bond Counsel to institute proceedings for validation of the Bonds pursuant to Chapter 75, Florida Statutes, in the Circuit Court for St. Lucie County. The resolution also authorizes the preparation of additioD.al documents necessary for the authorization, sale, and issuance of the Bonds, including a Preli.rninary Official Statement, and delegates to the County Administrator the au-.Ì1ority to "deem fmal" ù1e Preliminary Official Statement on behalf of the County. Further official action by the Board will be required for the sale of the Bonds. , Squire, Sanders & Dempsey LLP. - j - May 7. 2002 '-' ....., ! , Page 1 I "Daniel M::intyre - initial resc )n.do::: RESOLUTlO); NO. 2002-llb , I i \ \ I ¡ 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIOÌ'.T£RS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITIO~ O? PROPERTY IN A:-';D FOR THE PORT OF FORT PIERCE k"'\;-o THE ACQUISITION AND CO~STRUCTIO); OF ADDITIONS, EXTENSIONS A0;""D IMPROVE~'1ENTS THEREO~; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ~OT EXCEEDING S15,000,000 PORT ,REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2002, TO FINANCE THE COST THEREO?; PROVIDING FOR THE PA y},JENT O? THE BO)i1)S FRO~l PORT REVE1'\TUES AND OTHER }'10~t:.YS; AUTHORIZING PROCEEDINGS FOR VALIDATION OF THE BO:NuS; AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIA IE OFFICERS OF THE COUNTY TO PROCEED TO DEVELOP ì<ECE5SARY DOCUME~TS TO SELL TrIE BONDS AT NEGOTL:\TED SALE; AUTHORIZING THE CO~TY ADMINISTRATOR TO ~t:\KE CERTAIN CERTIFICATIONS ON BEH::\LF OF THE·COUNTY REGARDING A PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL 5T A TEIv1E~ 1 FOR THE BO?--''DS; PROVlDD'G FOR CONTINUIN9 þISCLOSURE \\11 n RESPECT TO THEBO~DS; A1';"D PROVIDING ANI?.fFECTIVE DATE. , ./ -- BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIO?--.T£RS O? ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA: . !' I ! Section 1. Authority for Resolution. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to Chapter 125, Part I, Florida Statutes, County OrdiDance No. 87-77, as amended, and other é.p;·l::::able provisions oflaw (collectively, the "Act"). Section 2. Findings. I~ is hereby êScertained, determined and declared by u"le B:)ard of County Commissioner (the "Bòard") of St. Lucie County, Florida (the "County") that: \ A. It is necessary ê.i1d in the best interests of the County and the health, 0ety and welfare of its inhabitants to pro\'ide for the acquisition ofreal property in and for the Po::: of Fort Pierce 'the "Property") ad for the cODstruction acquisition and construction of é.:iditions, extensions and improvemen~ to port faciliLies thereon (the "Improvements", and, together- with the Property, the "Project') The costs û~ereof shall include, but shall not necessarily be limited to: the cost of the acquisitioi1 of the Property, any interests therein, or any other p:vperties deemed necessary or convei1iei1t therefor; engineering, accounting, financial ~dvisory, ~d legal fees and expenses; expenses for plans, specifications and surveys; expenses for estimates of costs and of revenues; the fees o~ advisors ê.:.ìd consultants; the cost of bond insurance c.lld/or debt service reserve account premiums; administrative expenses; the capitalization of inte~ on the Bonds authorized hereby for a reasonable period of time after the date of issuance é.l-:.d de1ivery thereof; the establishment of reasonable reserves for the payment of debt sef\ice on the Bonds; discount upon the sale of the Bonds; the expenses and costs of issuance of the Bonds; s'.lcn other expenses as may be necess2..-Y or incidental to the financing authorized by this resolujo~ to the undertaking of the Project, ê.nd to the pla:ing of the same in operation; and reiIDbursemeDt to the 1 .. 8S49vlJ2S901-C01091l..1.\JTH 5.'iORT U49v112&902.001091l..1.\JTH SHORT \", """ Page 2 n.doc rDanie: r,~:::¡:1tyíe- initial resc' County for any sums expended for the fo::-egoing pllrposes. B. Project. The County is authorized pursuant to the provisions of the Act to undert2..."e Lle C. The County is without 2.:iequate, currently available funds to finance the cost of the Project, and it is necessary and desirable that the County borrow the money through the issuance of Port Revenue BO>1ds, Seiies.. 2002 (the "Bonds"), in an amount not to exceed S 15,000,000 to pay the cost of the Proje~t. ~ D. . It is necessary and desiI2.ble and in the best interests of the County and i::s residents that the Board authorize the issuance of the Bonds at .this time. The details of the Bonds, including the specific covenants and agreements to be entered into by the County with the holders from time to time of the Bonds an¡J.the funds and acc~unts (the "Funds 2I1d Accounts") to be .established for their benefit and securi~, wil1 be detennined in a s.ubsequent resolution (L':e "Supplemental Resolution") to be adop::=d at or prior to the time 'of issuance of the Bonds. ", E. Th~ principal of: premium, if any, a,¡d inter,est ,on the Bonds a,.¡j all requi,ed _ sinking fund, reserve and othèr pa)me~ëS shaH be payable rr9m~nd secured sole]y by (i) the nee - revenues received from the Qperaï:ion, leasing, management'.6r use of the Project (the "Project Revenues"), grants, gifts, or other cO:1tributions received by the County with respect to the Project (the "Grant Revenues"), (iii) Òe moneys on deposit from time to time in the Funds ê.iid Accounts to be created by the Supplemental B.esolution,(iv) earnings on the moneys on deposit in the funds and accounts created by the Supplemental Resolution (the "Investment Earnings"), ¡sd (v) such other revenues derived from sources other than ad valorem taxation as the Board sh?l1 determine are necessary to accomplish The most favorable interest cost on the BO:1ds, which may be in the form of a covenant to budgeï: c.l"1d appropriate from such sources (the "Non-Ad Yalore71 Revenues", and, together with the Project Revenues, the Grant Revenues, the moneys in the ... Funds and Accounts, and the· In\'e5~-nent Earnings, the "Pledged Revenues"). Tne BODås authorized hereby shall not be or COrL~jtute a general obligation or indebtedness of the Coumy within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory provisions. The County shall never be required to levy ad valorem taxes on c...l)" real property therein to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds or to make any other payments provided for herein and in the Supplemenëa1 Resolution. The Bonds shall not constitute a lien upon the Project or upon any p:operties o\\l1ed by or located within the boundaries of me County other than the Pledged Revenues. F. It is hereby found a.r¡d determined that due to the character of the Bonds, CUITeDt favorable market conditions, time cOrb-uaints and the uncertainty inherent in a competitive bid process, the negotiated sale ofthe Bonds is in the best interest of the County. G. The County staff is authorized to prepare or cause to be prepared on behalf ofÙe County a Preliminary Official Staœment to be used in connection with the offering 2.,îd distribution of the Bonds. H. In order to enable the llildemTiters for the Bonds to comply with Rule 15c2-12 2 U~9vlm902.oo109IR-At.111! SHORT J ~ .J Pa:::e 3 ! - , Dant.·el M.clntyre ~ initial resoll . .' . -.. .doc under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, ê.5 2.m=-nd;:d (the "Rule"), in conpection with the offering and sale of the Bonds, it is necessary th?! the Preliminary Official Statement b~ "òeemed final" (except for permitted omissions) by 2. represem?ti\";: 0 fthe County. 1. . It is necessary and in the best intere5cs of ~le County that its County Aòministrator be authorized to certify the Preliminary Ofiici2.1 Sta!eme,~t as "deemed final" under the Rul~. Section 3. Authorization ofProject¡. The Project is hereby specifically authorized. . Section 4. Authorization of Boners. }r,e iS5,"ance by the County of not exceeding $15,000,000 Port Revenue Bonds, Series 2002, for the purpose of paying costs of the Project is hereby authorized. The Bonds shall be d2.ted, shall bea:- interest at a rate or rates not exceeding the maximum legal rate per annum, shall be payable, shall mature not more than forill (40) years from their first principal payment date, sh2.1! bt subject to redemptiçm, and shall have such other characteristics as shall be provided by a subse'"Ç¡æm resolution (the "Supplèmental Resolution") of the Board adopted prior to their sale. n,e Boa:-d hereby grants to the holders of the Bonds, and the Bonds shim be secured solely by, a lien u?o:"¡ 2.::2 pledge of the Pledged Revenues. . ' ,./ , Section 5. Authorization. to Proceed; Delegation fg Deem Preliminary Official Statement Final. THe Courity Administrato;, in c0;-s.:ltation ~\4th and upon the advice of the City's Bond Counsel and Financial Advisoj" is 2.u~':o¡Ìzed to proceed to draft and develop, or c~use to be drafted and developed, all documents .:ecessary to facilitate and proceed \\it.Ì1 the authorization, sale, and issuance of the Bo:!ds, inchldi"g a Preliminary Official Statement. The County Administrator, with the advice of the Counz,'s Bond Counsel and Financial Advisor, is hereby authorized to certify or otherwise represeï:t \,·hen such Preliminary Official Statement shall be "deemed final" by the Board ê.5 of its da:e (except for pennitted omissions), in accordance wHh the Rule. , Section 6. Continuing Disclosure CertificatioD. The County Administrator is authorized and directed, with the advice of Bond CO~DSel, to execute and deliver a Continuing Disclosure Certificate satisfying the requirements ofSEC Rule 15c2-12. Section 7. Validation. The Board herebY2.uÒorizes the County Attorney fu"ld its Bond Counsel to institute validation proceedings therefore in the Circuit Court for St. Lucie County. Section 8. Repeal of Inconsistent Instruments.. All resolutions or ordinfu"lces of the County or parts thereof in conflict herewith ~e hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. Section 9. Effective Date. This Resolu.ion shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. Passed aDd Adopted this _ day of and held. 2002, at a regular meeting duly called ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA 3 , U49v111!9'J!-OOI09,it-AtJ11I SHORT ~ ....., Page 4 I íDaniel t-.i::lntyre - initial resol·.doë· (SEAL) By: Chairman, Board of County Commissioners I i I I I ¡ I 'I ATTEST: .. - By: Clerk of the Circuit Court, ex-officio Clerk of the Board . . .. . . APPROVED AS TO FORtY! AÌ\TD CORRECTNÉSS: / /~ . , / .- / " , County Attorney '" .t 4 1~9vIIlS~-CIOI09;R.AlJ1H SHORT \w 'wi' COUNTY' ADMINISTRATION FROM: Board of County Comm ssi ~ qouglas M. Anderson, untyÀdministrator NDUM ," ...+ .:~_._.. .'_ .,..""<, ,d,,~ ~."... .....~ oW··.,·, '-';'--'..'~..- -'--', ,"-- ....., <"~,.",.,.,c.,,.·. ",. ~,wn'··,' ."".., ,.,'-_~_ ," ,~.' c ~-.. .. ; - ~"-,,,,,-..,,> - < TO: DATE: May 7,2002 RE: ,,Financing of Acquisition of Part Property It will be recommended that a proposed purchase offer in the amount of $11,745,000 be mad-e to Mr. Lloyd Bell to acquire 67 acres of Port property.: Once the purchase offer is accèpted by Mr. Bell, t~e CoÜnty would obtain a bridge I~~n'for the full amount. On June 27, 2002, the County will appear before the Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Council (FSTED) requesting 50% reimbursement ofthe acquisition cost on'ce the property is acquired. ' Outlined below are two financing scenarios to acquire the property: 1. FSTED Approves 50% Reimbursement Subiect to FS 311 The above mentioned bridge loan would remain in affect until we receive the 50% reimbursement from FSTED, $5,872,500. At that time, the County would obtain long term financing for the remaining 50%, $5,872,500, payable over 30 years. The estimated Annual Debt Service including funded reserves would be $510,000. If we are successful in leasing this property to a tenant, the amount of the lease would cover our Debt Service. If we weren't successful in leasing this property, the Annual Debt Service would be covered by the County's General Fund, 2. FSTED Does Not Approve 50% Reimbursement The County would enter into long term (30 year) financing for the full $11,745,000. The estimated maximum Annual Debt Service would be $960,779. If the County were successful in leasing this property to a tenant, at least 50% of the Debt Service would be covered by the lease. The remaining 50% of the Annual Debt Service, $480,390~ would come from the County's General Fund. - . ~ "" 4"" .... Page 2 May 2, 2002 financing of Acquisition of Port Property If the County is not successful in leasing the property, the total Annual Debt Service, S9ôQ,ïï9, would be paid from the Cóunty's General Fund. Infrastructure ImIJrovements The second phase of this project woulsJ be the development of ·the infrastructure improvements., The County would seek FS"fED funding for 50% of any improvements made by the County. Before any infrastructure improvements were made or committed to, the financial responsibilities would be worked out and approved by both the tenant and the Board of County Commissioners. . . . DMAlab c: -Robert Bradshaw, Assistant C.ounty Administrator/ " -Dan Mcintyre, CourityAttörney . / ' -. Marie Gouin, Mánagemènt &'Budget Director' --/ ,.,' ' , , AGENDA REQUEST ITE~O. CA 1 DATE: October 1, 2002 REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [X] TO: BOARD OF COUNT'( COMMISSIONERS SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): PUBLIC SAFETY PRESENTED BY: JACK T. SOUTHARD PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR SUBJECT: Motorola Maintenance Contract for the 800M Hz Public Safety Radio System BACKGROUND: Service contract with Motorola for maintenance of the 800M Hz radio system infrastructure (backbone) including all equipment, technical support, infrastructure repair, network monitoring, software subscription and response service 24 hours a day/7 days a week. Cost is $349,493.76. See attached information. FUNDS WILL BE AVAILABLE: 107003-212000-546000-200 (800M Hz Public Safety Radio System Equipment Maintenance) PREVIOUS ACTION: RECOMtv'lENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the contract and have the chairman sign. [XI APPROVED [ ] DENIED r J OTHER: , COMMISSION ACTION: :JJ:' Review and A county Atto=ey, ~ Originating D~ ~ Other: Finance: (CheC~~py only, if applicable) -..sing, /1 / Other: Eff. 5/96 .. @/ ~~TOR~'--,: ., vet: 4.4 '.:. ~ERYICE"Ä0EMEN~ .. I 1307 East Algonquin Rçad Schaumbùrg, IL 60196 (800) 247~2346 Agreement Order # : Supersedes Agreement #(5): New Agreement Date: 9/512002 Required P.O.: Customer # : 1000743907 Bill to Tag #: 0002 Contract Start Date: 10101/02 Contract Expiration Date: 09/30/03 Auto Renew:)Icr Y.es- ~¿'v .. Payment Cycle: Monthly e:<t Tax E:<empt Yes PO#: Company Name: St Lucie County Attn: Jac\< Southard Billing Address: 101 N. Rock Road CIty, State, Zip: R. Pierce, FL 34945 Customer Contact Jack Southard Phone: 561~-1736 Fax: 561-462-1737 QtV ModeUODtion Description Monthly Ext ¡Annual Ext SVC01SVC1102 DlspatchServica $ . 662.08 $ 7,944.96 4 SVC234AA ENH: Smartzone SIte " 68 SVC236AA ENH: Smartzone Slation-Astra 9 SVCZJ9AA EJ.lH: Smartzone Operator Position SVC01SVC1104 Technical Support Service $ 855.6 $ 10,267.32 1 SVC146AA ENH: Smartzone System 4 SVC131AA ENH: Smartzone Site 68 SVC133AA ENH: Smartzone Station-Astra 9 SVC134AA ENH: Smartzone Operator Positfon SVC01SVC1108 Infrastructure Repair $ 5,078.2f $ 60,939.00 4 SVC251A8 ENH: Smartzone Site 68 SVC253A8 ENH: Smartzone Station-Astra - - - . 9 SVC256A8 ENH: Smarlzone Operator Position - SVC01SVC1103 Network Monitoring Service $ 2,358.0 $ 28,296.12 1 SVC211AA ENH: Smartzone System 4 SVC215AA ENH: Smartzone SIte 68 SVCZl7AA ENH: Smartzone Station-Astra 9 SVC280AA ENH: Smartzone Operator PositJon T5767 SMARTZONE SOFTWARE SUBSCRIPTION $ 8,571.~ $ 102,852.48 68 0162 ENH: Number of Repeaters 1958 0163 ENH: Number of Subscribers 0164 ENH: Astro DIgital Operation 0165 ENH: OmniRnk Operation Q166 ENH: Voies and Data Operation . 4 0355 ENH: Number of Sites SVC01SVC1410 OnSlte Infrastructure Response Service $ 10,286.7f $ 123,441·.0~ 4 SVC218AA ENH: OnSite InfrasJructvre Response-Siles-NonConventlonal 68 SVC219AA ENH: OnSile InfrasJructvre Response -Stations 9 SVCZJ.OAA ENH: OnSile Infrastructure Response -Operator Positions SVC01SVC1405 System Survey and Analysis· SIte Access A $ 1,312.7' $ 15,752.88 68 SVC212AA ENH: System SIJIWY and Analysis - Station - Site Access A 9 SVC213AA ENH: System Survey and Analysis-op Position-Site Accsss A I SPC 4.4 Release Date: 2/01/02 ", ." .. :~ .. .. .. .. .. .' .. .' .:...", .. .' : . . .. :. " . . . . . . '. .' .. AddIIionII tennS. dedniticns and ccnàilicns at 1IIis SERVICS AGi'lEEME.'lT al8 aIIaCIe4. SUBTOTAL - RECURRING SERVICES $ 29,124.48 $ 349.493.761 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS - ATTACH STATEIoÆNTO' WORK FOR PERFOIUIAHC:! SUBTOTAL· ONE-TIME EVENT SERVIces 1$ - OESCIUPTICNS TOT AU $ 29,124.48 $ 349.493.761 TAXESiso.oo 1$0.00 GRAND TOTAL! $ 29.124.48 $ 349.493.76 THIS SERV1a .u.IOUNT IS SUUC: TO Sf ATë & LC~ TAXING JURlSCICTICNS, TO BE VERIFIED BY MOTCROI.A. SUBCONTRACTOR(S) CITY STATE I I TITL.E DATE Area Support Manager TITL.E 407-877 -w45 PHONE r-,-Od-. DATE 407-877-2803 FAX SPC 4.4 Release Date: 2/01/02 , .... .. ...., . . ........ .' . '. ..:.: . ....,., ìSolutions Service Agreement . . This iSolutions Service Agreement is entered into þy and between Motorola, Inc. ("Motorola") and the customer named in this Agreement ("Customer"). . . Section 1 DEFINmONS "Agreemenr means this ¡Solutions Service Agreement and its Attachments, if any, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. "Equipmenr means the communication equipment that is specified in the Attachments or that is subsequently added to this Agreement "Services(s)" means those installation maintenance, repair, support, training, and other services referred to both herein and in the Attachments. ' Section 2 ACCEPTANCE Customer agrees to ao:ept the terms of this Agreement and to pay the prices set forth herein. The terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement and in the Attachments will become binding only when accepted in writing by Motorola. The term of this Agreement Will commence on the date specified in this Agreement, incJuding any Attachments ("Start Date"). Section 3 SCOPE OF SERVICES .' 3.1. Motorola Will provide the Services generally described in this Agreement Certain Services may require more particular description or definition, or may require detailed Statement(s) of Work. If particular descriptions or detailed Statement(s) of Work are required, and are therefore attached to this Agreement, Motorola and Customer hereby agree to be bound by any additional terms incJuded in those Attachments, which are fully incorporated in this Agreement as set forth in Section 1. 3.2 Motorola may also provide additional services ("Additional Servicesj at Customer's request. Such Additional Services will be billed ~at Motorola's then-appllcable rates. for such services. . ~ . 3.3. If Motorola is providing Services for Equipment (i) Motorola parts or parts of equal quality will be used; (fi) the Equipment Will be Serviced at levels set forth in Motorola's product manuals; and, (ill) routine service procedures that are prescribed from time to time by Motorola for its products will be followed. 3.4. . Any equipment purchased by Customer from Motorola that is or becomes part of the same communications system as the Equipment covered under this Agreement ("Additional Equipmentj will be automatically added to this Agreement and will be billed at the applicable rates after the warranty period has expired. 3.5. All Equipment must be in good working order on the Start Date or at the time the Equipment is added to the Agreement Customer must provide a complete serial and model number list either prior to the Start Date or prior to the time that the Equipment is added to the Agreement " . 3.6. Customer must specifically identify any Equipment that is labeled intrinsically safe for use in hazardous···· . environments. . 3.7. Customer must promptly notify Motorola in writing when any Equipment is lost, damaged, stolen or taken out of service. Customer's obligation to pay Service fees for such Equipment will terminate at the end of the month in which Motorola receives such written notice. 3.8. If Equipment cannot, in Motorola's opinion, be properly or economically serviced for any reason induding excessive wear, unavailability of parts, the state of technology, or the practical feasibility of the scope of Services as specified in this Agreement, Motorola may: (i) modify the scope of Services related to such Equipment; (ii) remove such Equipment from the Agreement; at which time cost with associated equipment shall be adjusted in ISolutions Service Agreement (1-1~2) 1 . . .\.t., .. '. ...... ".. .., ... \ , . . " .... the .agreenient. (iii) increase the price tå Servi.ce such Equipment. Modifications :in scope .and inc'reasês in price should require the consent of the County. 3.9. Customer must promptly notify Motorola directly of any Equipment failure. Motorola will respond to Customer's notification in a manner consistent with the level of Service purchased as indicated in this Agreement. Section 4 EXCLUDED SERVICES 4.1. Service does not include the repair or replacement of Equipment that has become defective or damaged due to physical or chemical misuse or abuse from causes such as lightning, power surges, or liquids. 4.2 Unless specificaJly induded in this Agreement, Service does not include repair or maintenance of any transmission line, antenna, tower or tower lighting, duplexer, combiner, or multicoupler. Motorola has no obligation or responsibility for any transmission medium, such as telephone lines, computer networks, the internet or the worldwide web, or for Equipment malfunction caused by such transmission medium. 4.3. Unless specificaJly included in this Agreement, Service does not include items that are consumed in the course of normal operation of the Equipment, such as, but not limited to, batteries, magnetic tapes, etc. 4.4. Unless specifically set forth in this Agreement, Service does not include upgrading or reprogramming of Equipment; accessories, belt dips, battery chargers, custom or Special Products, modified units, or software. 4.5. Service does not include certification programs, software support, reprogramming of Software or modifications to Equipment related to ass~g the correct processing, providing, or receiving of date data from, into, or between the year 1999 and the year 2000. Section 5 RIGHT TO SU8CONTRACT/ASSIGNMENT Motorola may assign its ~ghts and obligations under this- Agreement and may subcontract any portion of . Motorola's performance 'called for by this Agreement. County reservès the right to accept/reject the subcontract/assignment. If at any time the County rejects subcontractor/assignment prices quoted for the Maintenance Agreement are subject to change. Such acoroval shall not be unreasonablv withheld. Section 6 TIME AND PLACE OF SERVICE Service will be provided at the location specified in this Agreement. When Motorola performs service at Customer's location, Customer agrees to provide Motorola, at no charge, a non-hazardous work environment with shelter, heat, light, and power and with full and free access to the Equipment. Waivers of liabßity from Motorola and/or its subcontractors will not be imposed as a site access requirement. Customer wm provide all information pertaining to the hardWare and software elements of any system' with 'which the Equipment is interfacing that enable Motorola to perform its obligations under this Agreement. Unless otherwise specified in this Agreement, the hours of Service Will be hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., excluding weekends and holidays. Section 7 CONTACT Customer will provide Motorola with designated points of contact (list of names and phone numbers) that Will be manned twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week and an escalation procedure to enable Customer's personnel to maintain contact, as needed, with Motorola. Section 8 PAYMENT Unless alternative payment terms are specifically set forth in this Agreement, Motorola will invoice Customer in advance for each payment period. All other charges will be billed monthly, and Customer must pay each invoice ISolutions Serviœ Agreement (1-1-02) 2 . . . . Ii.. :. ~-- '. . . ....... " ....... ...,. . . 'e' . . . . · . . · . in U.S: dollars within thirty (30) days of the invoice date. Customer agrees to -reimburse Motorola for all propertY taxes, sales and use taxes, excise taxes, and other taxes or assessments levied as a result of Services rendered · under this Agreement (except income, profi~ and franchise taxes of Motorola) .by any governmental entity. Section 9 WARRANTY Motorola warrants that its Services under this Agreement will be free of defects in materials and workmanship for a period of ninety (90) days following completion of those Services. In the event of a breach of this warranty, Customer's sole remedy is to require Motorola to re-perform the non-conforming Service or to refund, on a pro- rata basis, the fees paid for the non-confonning Service. MOTOROLA DISCLA.IMS ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILfTY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Section 10 CERTIFICATION DISClAIMER Motorola specific:aJly disclaims all certifications regarding the manner in which Motorola conducts its business or performs its obligations under this Agreement, unless such certifications have been expressly accepted and signed by a Motorola authorized signatory. Section 11 DEFAUL T/TERMINATJON -- 11.1. In the event that any sum of money owed by Customer is not paid when due and remains unpaid for a period of thirty (30) days after receipt by Customer of written notice of such delinquency, Motorola may terminate this Agreement effective upon seven (7) days written notice. If either party defaults in the performance of any of its obligations set forth in this Agreement and the default remains uncured for a period of thirty (30) days after receipt by such party of written notice from the other party detailing the specific contractual obligation and the nature of the default thereunder, then the injured party, in addition to any other rights available to it under law, may immediately terminate this Agreement effective upon the giving of notice in writing to the defaulting party. 11.2. Any tèrmination -of this Agreement Will not relievè either party of obligations previously incurred pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to payments which may be due and owing at the time of termination. Upon the effective date of termination, Motorola Will have no further obligation to provide Services. 11.3. All sums owed by Customer to Motorola Will become due and payable immediately upon termination of -this Agreement. Section 12 UMITATJON OF UABIUTY Notwithstanding any other provision, except for personal injury or death, Motorola's total liability for losses, whether for breach of contract, negligence, warranty, or strict liability In tort, is limited to the price of the previous twelve months of Services provided under this Agreement. IN NO EVENT WILL MOTOROLA. BE LIABLE FOR LOSS OF USE, LOSS OF TIME. INCONVENIENCE. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, COMMERCIAL LOSS, LOST PROFITS OR SAVINGS, OR OTHER INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES TO THE FULL EXTENT SUCH MAY BE DISCLAIMED BY LAW. Section 13 EXCLUSIVE TERMS AND CONDmONS 13.1. Customer acknowledges that this Agreement supersedes all prior and concurrent agreements and understandings, whether written or oral, related to the Services performed. Neither the Agreement nor the Attachments may be altered, amended, or modified except by a written agreement signed by authorized representatives of both parties. 13.2. In the event of a conflict between the main body of this Agreement and any Attachments, the main body of this Agreement will take precedence, unless the Attachment specifically states otherwise. ISolutions Service Agreement (1-1-O2) 3 . '-' '.. '. . . . .-. " . . . -.,. ., ~ ~ - .-.. "WI1 , ' 13.3. Customer agrees .to reference this Agreement on any purchase' order(s) issued in furtherance of this Agreement. Neither party s~~U be bound. by any terms contained in Customer's purchase order(s), acknowledgements or other wntings. unless: (I) such purchase order(s), acknowledgements or other writings spedfically refer to this Agreement; (ii) clearly indicate the intention of both parties to override and modify this Agreement; and (iii) such purchase order(s), acknowledgements or other writings are signed by duly authorized representatives of both parties. Section 14 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION; CONFIDENTJAUTY 14.1. Any information or data in the form of specifications, drawings, reprints, technical information or othelWise furnished to Customer under this Agreement will remain Motorola's property, will be deemed proprietary, will be kept confidential, and will be promptly returned at Motorola's request Customer may not disclose, without Motorola's written permission, to the extent aJlow by law, any such information or data to any person, or use such information or data itself for any purpose other than performing its obligations under this Agreement The obligations set forth in this Section will survive the cancellation, termination, or completion of this Agreement 14.2. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, no commercial, financial or technical information disclosed in any . manner or at any time. by Customer to Motorola·will be deemed sèCret·or confidential. Motorola will have no obligation to provide Customer with access to its confidential and proprietary information, including cost and pricing data. .~ Section 15 FCC UCENSES AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS Customer is solely responsible for obtaining licenses or other authorizations required by the Federal Communications Commission or any other federal, state, or local government agency and for complying with all rules and regulations required by such agencies. Neither Motorola nor any of its employees Is an agent or representative of Customer in any governmental matters. Section 16 OWNERSHIP OF INTELLECTUAL_PROPERTY This Agreement does not grant directly or by Implication, estoppef, or othelWise, any ownership right or license under any Motorola patent, copyright, trade secret, or other intellectual property including any intellectual property created as a result of or related to the Equipment sold or Services performed under this Agreement .. Section 17 COVENANT NOT TO EMPLOY During the term of this Agreement, and continuing for a period of two years thereafter, Customer agrees not to hire, nor to engage on contract, nor to solicit the employment of, nor to recommend employment to any third party of any Motorola employee with whom there is conta~ during an assignment under this Agreement, without the prior, written authorization of Motorola. If, at any time, this provision is found to be overly broad under the laws of the applicable jurisdiction, this provision shall be modified as necessary to conform to such !aws rather than be stricken herefrom. . . Section 18 MAlëRIALS, TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT All tools, equipment, dies, gauges, modefs, drawings or other materials paid for or fumishe? by Motorola for the purpose of this Agreement will be and remain the sole property of Motorola. Customer will safeguard all such property while it is in Customer's custody or control, be liable for any loss or damage to such property, and return it to Motorola upon request. Such property WIll be held by Customer for Motorola's use without charge and may be removed from Customer's premises by Motorola at any time without restriction. Section 19 GENERAL TERMS 19.1. If any court renders any portion of this Agreement unenforceable, the remaining terms will continue in full force and effect. ISolutlons Service Agreement (1-1-02) 4 .. it.. ~.. ."~ .. ..''':'' " ." "will.. .' . . . . 19.2. This Agreement and the rights and duties of the partIes will be governed and interpreted in accordance' with the laws of the State of FIorida. 19.3. Failure to exercise any right will not operate as a waiver of that right, power, or privilege. 19.4. Neither party is liable for delays or lack of performance resulting from any causes such as strikes, material shortages, or acts of God that are beyond that party's reasonable control. 19.5. Except for money due upon an open account, no action may be brought for any breach of this Agreement more than one (1) year atterthe aecuaf of such cause of action. 19.6. THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT SHALL BE FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS WITH TWO ADDITIONAL OPTION YEARS. THE OPTION FOR EACH OPTION YEAR WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY EXERCISED UNLESS EITHER PARTY NOTIFIES THE OTHER PARTY OF ITS INTENTION TO DISCONTINUE THE AGREEMENT BY PROVIDING WRITTEN NOTICE OF ITS INTENT NOT LESS THAN SIXTY (60) DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION ON THE CURRENT TERM. EITHER PARTY MAY TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE BY GIVING THE OTHER PARTY SIXTY (60) DAYS PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE. THE ANNUAL INCREASE OF THIS CONTRACT WILL NOT BE HIGHER THAN COMSUMER PRICE INDEX (CPI) TABUlATED IN JUNE OF EACH YEAR. .- 19.7 If Motorola provides Services after the tennination or expiration of this Agreement, the terms and conditions and any prices in effect at the time of the tennination or expiration will apply to those Services. ISolutions Service Agreement (1-1~2) 5 '. .. ..~. .. ',;"i. '. .. ® M~ROiJ.····· Statement of Work' Definitions There may be additional tems defined in this list that do not apply to the SOWs attached. Terms in this list that are not specifiQ]1y used in the attached SOWs should be disregarded. 1. 0 Definitions Capitalized tI:ImS used in this Statement ofW ork and not otherwise defined within the Statement ofW ork, CoIIIlIIl111ÎC:1tions System Agreement or other applic:1ble Agrmnent have the following me:urings: 1.1 Box Unit Test Unit is tested in a fixture that simulates the functions for which it was designed, engineered, or manufàctured to iDSure that it meds manuf.1cturcr specifications. 1.2 Case: Electronic tracking document for requests for service through the System Support Center. 1.3 Components: Motorola new or refurbished parts of equal quality. 1.4 Configuration Change Support A change in a user-defined parameter, which may include, but is not limited to, a change in the placement of a dispatch console talkgroup window. Fleetmapping is not considered included. in Configuration Change Support. 1.5 Cominnously: Seven (7) days per week, twenty four (24) hours a day, three hundred sixty five (365) days a year including holidays. 1.6 Core Release: A new version of Software that adds Standard Fe3tu:res and major enhancements. These new versions ate signified by changes to the fiISt digit of the version identifier number (e.g. SmartZone 2.0.3 to SmartZone 3.0). 1.7 Customer: The end-user Customer as identified in the Communic:1tions System Agreement, Service Agr=nent or other app1ic:1ble Agreement. 1.8 Customer Support PIan: A document mut11al1y developed by Motorola and the CustoD:Jcr that provides information about ~ Customer and the System and describes the specific processes by which Motorola will deliver and the CuStomer will receive the services promisèd under this Statement of Work. 1.9 Enhancement Release: A supe:seding issue of Software, which adds to, improves, or enhances the peIÍoxmance of Standard Features contained in the then cm:rentIy shipping Software version. These releases are signified by changes to the s~ond digit of the veISÎon identifier numbc: (e.g. SnmtZone 3.1 to SmartZone 3.2). 1.10 Equipment: The equipment specified in the Equipment List as set forth in the CoIIlII1UIlÏc:1tions SystemAgreement, Service Agreement or other applic:1ble Agreement, including any additions to the Equipment List during the Warranr¡ Period. 1.11 Enhanced System Support (ESS) Period: The 12 month period commencing at the start of the Warr3IJ!y Period for Equipment and Software as defined by the CommuniC:1tions System A~· . 1.12 Event .AI! a1ar.m or informational notification l'eI:eived by Motorola through the Network Mamgement tools. 1.13 Fedml Technic:1l Center: A Motorola facility located in I:1nj,:1m, Maryland, the purpose of which is to serve as Motorola's centralized location for radio repair for Federal Custome:s. 1.14 Firmware: Software in object code fOIm that is implanted or embedded in hardware. 1.15 Inft'astructure: The fi."{cd Equipment excluding mobiles, portables, and accessories. 1.16 Maintenance: The process for detl"nT1iniTlg the c:luse of Equipment failure, removing, repairing, or rep1acingparts or elements necessary in order to confOIm the Equipment with the manufacturer's specific:1tions along with system specific specific:ltions, delivering and reinstalling the parts, and placing the Equipment back into operation. 1.17 Motorola Software: Software whose copyright is owned by Motorola. 1.18 Radio Support Center: A Motorola facility located in Rockford, llIinois, the purpose of which is to serve as Motorola's centralized location for radio repair. Definitions Approved by Motorola Contracts & Compliance Page 1 of 2 '. ~ '. ... .~ . . ,.' .... ..",,;.. ® MOTOROLA . . . . . 1.19 Response: Response times are defined as when a technician, a remote systems technologist or a remote network specialist is actively working the technical issue, remotely or on-site, as deteImined by Motorola. 1.10 RcstorclRestoration: The effort requÎred to bring Equipment to the level for which it was designed, eng:inemd and adjusted for perl'or.mance in accordance with the manufacturer's published specifiC:1tions, although such Equipment may not necessarily be malfunctioning. 1.11 Service:: a Motorola Authorized Service Station or Motorola Field Service personneL 1.22 Software: Includes Motorola and any non-Motorola Software that may be fumished with the Q,rmmmic:uions System. 1.23 Standard Bu.sÏacss Day: Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,loc:U tÌme, excluding Motorola holidays. 1.14 Standard Fe:1ture: A software functionality for components of Customer's System that is available to Customer in the stmdard software release. 1.25 Start Date: Effective start date as listed on the Service Agrecnent or other applicable AgrecDent. 1.26 System: System is the comnnmir.:ttions system as defined in the Q,mmnniC:1tions System .Agreement or other app1ic:1ble AgIeement. 1.27 SystcmAcceptance: Unless otherwise defined in the Conmmnic:rtions SystemAgrecment, the date upon which Motorola has ~y completed aU of the System tests as described in the acceptance test pIan. 1.18 System Support Center: a Motorola fåcility loc:1ted in Sc1mumburg, DIinois, the pmpose of which is to serve as Motorola's centnlj'tœ system support fåcility to compliment the field support resources. The System Support ~ is hcreÏIIaftcr refetred to as the "SSC.'" 1.29 System Test: UDit is tested in a Motorola manufactured system of similar type from which the unit was designed to test aU ñmcticma1ity of the unit to insure that it meets manufacturer specifications. 1.30 Systemic: A softwarelhardware product defect related to or affecting the designed system ~~~~ - - - 1.31 Technical Support Ope:ations: A-centralized telephone support hcJp desk that provides teclmical support for Motorola customm' who have purchased Commercial Govemment and Industrial Solutions Sector (CGISS) proc:iuds or have a cåntract for technical support. 1.32 Work Flow: A step-by-step process including instruction or direction for routing, nanñ1mg, and processing infommtion at a given agency. .. Definitions Approved by Motorola Contracts & Compliance 11114/01 Page 2 of2 .' \..,. '. '. .' . .' ""'" ® MOTOROLA Statement of Work Dispatch Service 1.0 DescriptÎon of Services The Call Center Operation (CCO) at Motorola's SSC provides Continuously a central point of contlct for technic:1l customer service requests. The CCO is staffed with customer support representatives who will coordinate the appropriate service response and resources. Service requests are tracked and monitored from c:re:1tÎon to close through an electronic Case process. The terms and comiitions of this Statemc1t of Work are an integral part of the Motorola Service Agreement or other applicable Agreement to which it is attached and made a part thcrcofby this reference. If there are any inconsistencies between the provisions of this Statement of Work and the provisions of the Service or other applicable AgreemI;nt, the provisioDS of the AgreemcDt shall prevail 2.0 Motorola bas the fonowing responsibilities: . 2.1. Continuously receive tcclmica1 service requests from Customer or Motorola via telephone. 2.2. Open a Case and gather infoImation from Customer to perfOIIIl. the fonowing: 2.2.1. Qw:actcrize the issue 2.2.2. DeteImine a pIan of action 2.2.3. .Assign and track the Case to resolution. 2.3. Dispatch a Servicer as required by stmdard procedures and provide necessary Case informatÎon collected ins~on3.2 . 2.4. Verify with Customer that Restoration is complete or System is fimctional, ifrequiIed by Customer's repair veritic:mon preference as set forth in section 3.1. If verification by Customer C3J1Dot be completed within 20 minntes ofRcstoIation, the Case will be closed and the Servicer will be relC3Sed. 2.5. Ensure the required persoxmeI bave"acceŠs to Customer information as needed. 2.6. Escalate the Case to the ~í>J.Cr~)1iate party upon expiration of a Response time. 2.7. Close the Case upon ICi:eMng noâfÏc:mon from Customer or Servicer, indicating the Case is resolved. 2.8. Noâfy Customer of Case !tams via pager or emai1 at the following Case levels as determined in section 3.1: 2.8.1. Open and Close; or 2.8.2. Open, .Assigned, AIrival, Deferred, Closed. 2.9. Provide periodic activityrcports to Customer. 3.0 Customer bas the fonowing responsibilitÎcs: 3.1. Provide Motorola with the fonowingpre-defined information prior to service Start Date: 3.1.1. Case notificatÎon preferences 3.1.2. Repair verification prefc:enc: . 3.2. Call the SSC provide the fonowing information to the customer support representative: 3.2.1. Assigned SystemID number 3.2.2. Problem descriptÎon and site location 3.2.3. Othcrpertinent information for Motorola to open a Case. 3.3. Verify with the SSC that Restoration is complete or System is functional, ifrequired by Customer's repair verificatÎon preference stated in s~on 3.1. 3.4. Complete and submit aU required database and escalation procedure forms to be entered and stored at the System Support Center. . 3..5. Submit changes in any information supplied in the Customer Support Plan to the Customer Support Manager. 3.6. ·Cooperate with Motorola and perl"orm aU acts that are reasonable or n~essary to enable Motorola to provide the Dispatch Service to Customer. Dispatch Service Approved by Motorola Contracts & Compliance 10/03/01 Page 1 of 1 .I ': ., . . . \.r' - '. ,. ". .-. . ., .. .. .... .·c ~:: .. . @J;oT~~O'-A " Statement of Work Technical Support Service 1.0 Description of Services The Tecl:miC3l Support Operation at Motorola's SSC provides to Customer's techniC3l staff centralized remote telephone support for teclmic:ù issues tbat require a high level of COTmn11n;~ons systems expertise or troubleshooting on the Equipment. The Technical Support Opcation is staffed with technologists who speda.lize in the diagnosis and resolution of system performance issues. Teclmical Support Service (i) shall not include software upgrades that may be required for issue resolution; and (ii) is only available for those system types supported and approved by Teclmic:1l Support Operations, and (ilil is not available to provide Customer traWng via the telephone. Tecl:mical Support is applicable to the following system types: SmartZone v2.0.3 and higher, SmartZonelOmn;T ink, E911, Private Data v2.0.3 and higher, and SmartNet. The following eqaipmcnt is not supported by Technical SuppOlt Micœ; DcskTIaC Repeat:r Model #L3Ssum7000; MSF 5000 that are not part of a SmartZone system, NO', and Darcom. The temLS and conditions of this Statement of Work (SOW) are an integral part of the Motorola Service Agreement or other applicable Agreement to which it is attached and made a part thereofby this reference. If there are any inconsistencies between the provisions of this SOW and the provisions of the Service or other applicable Agreement, the provisions of the Agre:mcnt shall prevail 2.0 Motorola has the following responšibiliti'"es: 2.1. Provide Technic:ù Support Operation availability for all Severity One issues Continuously. 2.2. Respond to requests for the Restoration of fài1ed Systems and to diagnose operation-affectÏI1g problems in accordance with the Response times defined in Table B and Scmity Levels defined in Table C in Appendix 1 at the back of this Sþtf!m~ of Work. 2..3. Advise caner with procedure for det.onnining any additional ~u.Ü.cú!Clts for issue characterization, Restoration, or known fix for issue resolution. 2.4. Attempt remote access to System for remote diagnostics, iípossible. 2.5. As needed, coordinate with the Servicer or Customer in the field until close of the Case. 2.6. Coorcfinate tcclmic:ù resolutions with agreed upon third partyvendor(s), as needed. 2.7. Esc:ùate support issues to Motorola engin=ing and product groups, if necessary. 2.8. Provide a focal point for any Systemic issue and manage the Systemic issue to resolution. 2.9. EscaIatc the Case to the appropriate party upon expiration of a Response time. 2.10. Provide remote assistance, if ne:ded to install an Enhancement Release provided pmsuant to the Software Subscription Agreement. 2.11. Provide Configuration Change Support and Work Flow changes to Systems that have dial in c:1pability. 3.0 Customer has the following responsibilities: 3.1. Complete and submit all required database and esc:1lation procedure forms to be entered and stored at the System Support Center prior to Start Date. 3.2. Submit changes in any information supplied in the above documents to the Customer Support Manager prior to the change taking effect. 3.3. Contact the System Support Center in order to access the Technical Support Operation, provide ~ of c:iller, name of Customer, S ystcm ID number, Service Agreement number, site( s) in questions, and brief description of the problem.. 3.4. Supply on-site presence when requested by System Support Center. 3.5 . Validate issue resolution prior to close of the Case. Technic:1l Support Service Approved by Motorola Contracts & Compliance 11//4/01 Page 1 of2 .. . '-' .' . .... . '. .' '- .. . .. "'" ... '.' " . '. ®PM~~OLA . . 3.6: Allow Motorola remote access to the System. 3.7. Cooperate with Motorola and perfOIm all acts that are re:lSonable or nec:ssary to enable Motorola to . proVide the Technic~ Support se:vices to Customer. . 3.8. Acknowledge that Cases will be h3ndIed in accordance with the times and priorities as defined in Table B and C in Appendix 1 at the back oftbis SOW. APPENDIX 1 TABLE B - Remote Technical Support Response Times RESPONSE Within 1 Hoar 1iom . t of notiñotion Within 4 Hours fiom tee . t of notiño'tÏon Wrtfrin next Business Da .- -S1a:i:1dard Business Days TABLE C -Severity Definitions . Severity Lev~· . .- . . ~ . ,'I. ... Severity 1 Severity 2 Severity 3 Ptobleul'Iypes. ~ . . ::".":".j. ,.. .' . ...:. ". ...~.~: .:.~~. .:...;.;.:,.1.:' " Major systcmŒIure 33% ofSysœmdown 33%' ofSitc cham1cls down Site Environment AlaIms (smoke, access, temp, AC Power) Response is provided <Äntinuously. Sigytiñc:mt System Impairment Response during Standard Business Day Parts Questions Upgrades Intemñttcnt problems System problems presently being monitored Operational and infoxmational questions <Änñgmation Cbange Support and Work Flow procedure questions R onse d . Standard Business Day. .- -.....1. .. . .' Tcchnic:11 Support Service Approved by Motorola Contracts & Compliance 11/14/01 Page 2of2 . . '-'" -. '. .... .- . .. . .. , .: .'!wI!. . @ MOTOROLA .- .' Statement of Work Infrastructure Repair 1.0 Description of Services Infrastructure Repair provides repair service to Motorola and select third party Infrasttucturc as set forth in the applicable attached Exhibit, all of which are hereby incOIpOIated by this reference. Customer's System type &tfoTTTñn~ which Exh1'bit is applicable (i.e. Exhibit A is for SmartZone systems, Exhibit B is for SmartNet systems). Equipment is serviced down to the component level at the Motorola System Support Center (SSe). At Motorola's discretion, select third party Infrastmctnre may be sent to the original equipment manufàcturer or third party vendor for repair. If third party Infrastmctnre is no longer supported by the original equipment manufàctmer, Motorola my replace Eqtùpment with a comparable/compatible or like Eqtùpment, when possible. The terms and conditiOns of this Statcmcm ofWorlc (SOW) are an integral part of the Motorola Service Agreement or other applicable Agreement to which it is. attached and made a part thercofby. this reference. If there arc any incoDsistencics between the provisiOIlS of this SOW and the provisions of the Service or other applicable AgreemcIt, the provisions of the Agreement sha11 prevaiL . 2.0 Motorola bas the fonowing responsibilities: 2.1. Reteive Equipment fÌ'Om Customer and doc:u:ment its arrival, repair and retum. Provide retum authorization numbers whcnrequested as mentioned in3.1. 2.2. Per!OIII1 the fonowing on Motorola Equipment: 2.2.1. PcrfoIII1 an operational check on the Equipment to detemJine the nature of the problem. 2.2.2. Replace malfunctioning Components with new' or reconditioned assemblieS. 2.2.3. Verify that Motorola Equipment is retc.mcd to Motorola manu:f1ctured specifications, as aPPlicable. . ~ - . - 2.2.4. PcrfOIm a Box Uriit Test on an serviced Equipment. 2.2.5. PcrfoIII1 a System Test on select Equipment. 2.3. Provide service on third party Infrastructure 2.3.1. Perform pre-diagnostic and repair services on select t1ü:rd party Infrastructure to con1Ïm1 Equipment malfunction and eliminate sending Equipment with no trouble found (NTF) to third party ve:Ddor for repair, when applicable. 2.3.2. Ship select third party Infrastructure to the original equipment ma.n.nftc;turer or third party vendor for repair servi~ 2.3.3. Coordiœte and track third-party Infrastmctnre Equipment sent to the origiDal equipment ~ or third party vendor for service. 2.3.4. PcrfoIII1 a post-test to conñIm ma1f1mction Equipment has been repaired and fimctiOIlS properly in a Motorola S~ configuration, when applicable. . 2.4. Reprogram Equipment to return Equipment to original operating parameters based on templates provided by Cu.stomc'. If the Customer template is not provided or is not reasonably usable, a generic template will be used. 2.5. Properly package and return ship (Motorola will pay return shipping charges) Equipment to the Customer specified address. 3.0 Customer bas the following responsibilities: 3.1. Contact the SSC for a return authorization number prior to shipping malfunctioning Equipment or third party Infrasttucture named in the applicable attached Exh1'bit. The initial c:ill to the SSC my be from Servicer it: pursuant to a Statement of Work or other applic:tble Agreement, SerVÏcer is acting 0D: Customer's behalf: 3.1.1. Provide model description, model number, seriaÍ number, type of System and FiImware version, symptom of problem and address of site location for FRU or Equipment. Infrastructure Repair Approved by Motoro/a Contracts &: Comp/Ú1lIce / II/5/0/ Page 1 of7 '-' .. .~ ... ~~. " :..-: . . ,~. . ®.··~~ROLA . . . Infrastructure· Repair ( COIit.) 3.1.2. Indic:rte if the Equipment or third party Infr.1structure being sent in for servic: was subjected to physic:Jl damage or lightIring damage. Follow Motorola instructions regarding inclusion or removal of Firmware and Software applic:1tions fi:om Equìpment being sent in for service. 3.2. Maintain templates ofSoftwarelapplic:1tions and Firmware for reloading of Equipment as set forth in paragraph 2.4. 3.3. Properlypadc1ge Equipment and tIrird party Infrastructure for shipping and ship the malfunctioning Equipment and third party Infr:1structure (freight prepaid by Customer) to Motorola. Clearly print the retum authorization number on the outside of the padc1ging. 3.4. Cooperate with Motorola and pcrl'OIm all acts that are IC3Sonable or necessary to enable Motorola to provide tIie InfrastIucture Repair se:vices to Customer. InfutstIUcture Repair Approved by Motorola Contracts & Compliance ////5/0/ Page 2 of7 ..... .. ..... ....:: ..~.... ',' CoDSole(s) MB s or NOVA Interconnect MoIlÎtCI(s) Moscad Network Fault Mana ent printeI(s) .. . .. .. .. . s) Includes AEB, AlMI. ZAMBI SIMS IIISite Lens. Excludes all hard drives used for SIMS that is not at 1e3St a 1 GB in size. All monitors connected to computers that diIectly int:erfå.ce with or control the coDIII11IDÍcations System. Includes fIat panel displays and toùch screen monitors. Excludes defective orphosphor-bumcd cathode ray tubes CRT(s) and burned-in flat anel . 1a ima retention. As part or System .only. Standalone. MOSCAD must be quoted sepatately. Excludes S Control and Data Ac . 'non SCADA MOSCAD S Includes Full Vision. Excludes NMC Includes printers that directly interface with the cormmmicatioDS Sysœm. Excludes coJ151IJDable items such as rinter cartrld es. Includes RAS 1101 and RAS 1102. Excludes RAS 1100 Includes Quantar and M1'R2000, ASTRO-TAC RecciveIS. Includes Rubidium, GPS and Netclocks tems sold with the Motorola S Includes terminals and servers. Excludes ALL SUDIIMP hard drives except TLN349SA 0820 1 GB drive. Excludes the following SUNIIMP CPUSET's: TLN3278B 0406, TLN3343A 0424 and TI..N3278A 0181/0389 Addition:ú Exclusions: 1. All Equipment over seven (7) years from product c:U1cellation date. 2. Physic:1l1y damaged Equipment. 3. Third party equipment not shipped by Motorola with the original System. 4. Dictaphones and Recording Equipment. 5. Microwave Equipment. 6. Consumable items including but not limited to batteries, connectors, printer cartridges, mice, and trackballs. 7. Test Equipment. 8. Racks, furniture and cabinets. 9. UPS Systems. 10. Firmware and/or Software upgrades Inftasttucture Repair Approved by Motorola Contracts & Compliance 11/15/0 I Page 3 of7 '. \. . . . ... .e.._ . .... .... " -.', . ..' .. :", . . c ..iI ...... ...." .' .' . . '. Console(s) Excludes all Equipment such as bi-<iircctional amplifiers, multicouplers, combine:s, tower top pre-ampliñers, ante"":!", c:1bles, towers, tower lighting, and transmission lines Quamar, Quantro, Digital MSF5000, MTR2000, and Dcsktrac L35SUM7000- T RepeatCIS ONLY. Network Management is not avaiIable on all stations. Ple:1Se refer to the SOW for detai1s. Includes Lo . Retorder Inte::f4c: and Network Hub. Includes and Telco. Excludes Siemens Includes S ectr.1tae, D' 'cae, and Astrotac Comcarators. Includes computers that directly inœrf.1ce with or control the communic:1tions System, including SIP and Systemwatch II. Excludes laptop computers. Excludes mice and ttackbaIIs, unless UIJique to the product Excludes defective or phosphor-bumed c:tthode ray tubes CRT(s) and burIied-in fIat me! . ]a ima retention. Incb.Jd~CODSoles as pm of complete Systems ONLY. CentracomlI, Centtacom Gold Cassie, Centracom Gold Elite. ar.lude5 Centracom r, headset . acks. dual footswitches. and oseneclc mi hones. Incb1<f~ SmartNet II 28 n, nn~l, Smartwor.ks, SIartsite (See IDO Sortable Product Mattix) Base Station(s) and Repeate:(s) Controller Includes ABB, AIM!. ZAMBI SIMS JJ/ Site LeIJS. Excludes all hard drives used for SIMS that is not at least a 1GB in size ME s or NOY A IntercoIDlect Monitor(s ) All monitors connected to computes that directly ïutemce with or control the communiC1tions System. Includes fIat panel displays and touch sc:e= monitorS. Excludes defective orphosphor-bu:medcathode ray.tubes CRT(s) and bumed-in fiat anel dÏsÐ1a ima2e retention. As part oC System ooly. Standalone MOSCAD must be quoted separately. Excludes System Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) MOSCAD S . Includes Full Vtsion. Excludes NMC Includes printers that cürcctly intemce with the commtmications System. Does not include consumable items such as . cartrid es. Includes RAS 1101 and RAS 1102. Excludes RAS 1100 Includes uantar, MTR1000 and ASTRO- TAC Receivers. Moscad Network Fault Mana ement printer( s) Includes Rubidium, GPS and Netclocks systems sold with the Motorola S tem. Universal S.imulc:JSt Controller Interfac s Additional Exclusions: . 1. All Equipment over seven (7) years from product cancellation date. 2. Physically damaged Equipment. 3. Third party equipment not shipped by Motorola with the original System. 4. Dictaphones and Recording Equipment. 5. Microwave Equipment. 6. Consumable items including but not limited to batteries. connectors, printer cartridges, mice, and trackballs. 7. Test Equipment. 8. R.1cks. furniture and c:1binets. 9. UPS Systems. 10. Firmware and/or Software upgrades Infrastructure Repair Approved by Motorola Contracts & Compliance 11/15/0 I Page 4 of7 . ..... . " ..~... ,_... .- . """.. .." . . @ MOTOROLA _- Exhibit C-Coverag·e arid Exclusions for ID.frastructure Repair . . .. . .\ ~~~~~J~~~~~\~~.~ÖfeS~~~?~~S"/~;l;~~f~~~~.~~~~ ~ U1 m~nt4~~t~...,............_..~,":,.'t".;:..."'':---~ . .~_....':'\,...~~-,;, -. ...?-":~';;O'S"'·::·"'-~~*~~'f.'o;:~~~~:~~~.~-:$" Antenna Systems Excludes all Equipment such as bi~onal amplifiers, multicouplers, combiners, tower top prc-amplifiers, antennas, cables. tcweIS, tower Ii ring, and tr.msmission lines Base Station(s) and RepeateI(s) QuantaI', Quantro, DigitalMSF5000 andMTR1000 ONLY. Excludes MICOR and Analo MSF5000 s) Includes Lo . Rettlrder Interfuce and Network Hub. Includes and T elctl. Excludes Siemens Includes S ectratac, Di 'tae, and Astrotac. Includes computers that directly inœmce with or ctlntrol the con:in:mnications System. ~cludes laptop computers. Excludes mice and trackballs, unless unique to the product. Excludes defective or phøsphor-bU1'l1ed cathode ray tubes CRT s and bumed-in fiat anel . la' retention. Console(s) Incþ1ties coDSoles as part of complete Systems ONLY. CemIacom II, C:ntracom Gold C1assie, Ccntracom Gold Elite. Excludes Ccnttactlm 1, headset jacks, dual footswitchcs, and ose:neck micro hones. Receiv s Simulcast DistnëutionAmplifier(s). Site Data Modem{ s Site Frequency Stmdard(s) tar, MTR2000 and ASTRO- TAC receiveIs. Moscad Printer( s) Includes Rubidium, GPS and Netclocks systems sold with the Motorola S em. Universal Simulcast Controller Interfac s Additioual Exclusions: 1. All Equipment over seven (7) ye:l1'S fÏom product cancellation date. 2. Physically damaged Equipment. 3. Third party Equipment not shipped by Motorola with the original System. 4. Dictaphones and Retording Equipment. 5. Microwave Equipment. 6. Consumable items including but not limited to batteries, connectors, printer ~dges, mice, and trackballs. 7. Test Equipment. 8. Racks, fumiture and cabinets. 9. UPS Systems. 10. Firmware and/or Software upgrades Infrastructure Repair Approved by Motorola Contracts & Compliance 11/15/0 ¡ Page 5 of7 ....\..r}.. . . . .. '. .,. . . : ". .®;'orORO~· Exhibit D-Coverage and Exclusions for Infrastructure Repair Monitor(s) uantar. uantro. Digital MSF5000 and MTR1000 ONt Y. Includes computm that directly ÎI1ter.face with or control the communiC3t:ions System. Excludes laptop computers. Excludes mice and trackbalIs, unless unique to the product Excludes defective or phosphor-bumed cathode ray tubes CRT s) and burned-in fiat anel disoIa ima e retention. All D1OI1ÌtOIS ccIlI1CCted to computm that directly interface with or control the COmmunications S tem. Includes printers that directly ÏI1terf1ce with the comrmmicatiODS System. Does not include coDSUIIUlble items such as rimer c:Irtri es. {nclnrl~ One (1) RNC and One (1) RNC Console. Redundant RNC's must be quoted separately. Excludes RNCSOO, RNCl000. NCP2000, NCP2500 and NCP3000. . printer( s) Radio Network Controller Site Data Mo s Additional ExclusioDS: 1. All Equipmcm: over seven (1) years ftom product cance11ation date. 2. Physically damaged Equipment. 3. Third party equipmctt not shipped by Motorola with the original System. 4. Dictaphones and ~ording Equipment. 5. Microwave Equipment. 6. CoDSUIIUlble items including but not ~ to batteries, connectors, printer c:u1ridges, ~e, and trackbalIs. 7 . Test Equipment. 8. Racks, fumiture and cabinets. 9. UPS Systems. 10. Firmware and/or Software upgrades In.fi:astIUcture Repair Approved by Motorola Contracts & Compliance 11/15/01 Page 6 of7 ~. .".. .. ":: '.. .'-' . . " , ,~. ., "" ® MOTORO~ Exhibit E - Covërage and Exclusions for Infrastructure Repair· " '.' . . . Includes computers that directly interface with or control the COmmuniatiODS System. Excludes laptop computers. Excludes mice and trackballs, unless UIJique to the product. Excludes defective or phosphor-bumed C:1thode ray tubes CR~ s and bumed-in fiat anel displa ima e retention. PrintcI(s) All monitors connected to computers that directly interface with or control the commtmicatitJDS System. Excludes defective or phosphor-bumed cathode ray tubes CRT(s) and bumed-in fIat mel . la ima retention Includes printers that directly intcrfàce with the communications System. Does not include consumable items such as . ex' cartrld . Includes computers that directly ïntem.ce with or control the communications System. Excludes laptop computers. Excludes mice and trackballs, unless unique to the product. Excludes defective or phosphòr-bumed cathode ray tubes . CRT s and bumed-in flat anel dispIa ima e retention. Includes up to six {6} administrator phones, and all 911 and IŒM hones. 911 Line s Additional Exclusions:. 1. All Equipment over seven (7) YC3IS from product cancellation date. 2. Physically damaged Equipment. 3. Third party equipment not shipped by Motorola with the original System. 4. Dictaphones and Recording Equipment 5. MiC1'Owave Equipment 6. Consumable itemS inCluding but not limited to batteries, connectors, printer cartridges, mice, and trackballs. 7. Test Equipment. 8. Racks, fumiture and cabinets. 9. UPS Systems. 10. Firmware andlor Software upgrades InftastrUCture Repair Approved by Motorola Contracts & Compliance 11/15/01 Page 7 of7 "... ..~.. ...... . " '..~... ~ '.' .. ',' 4... .. ."'.il '.~.- ®·MOTOROLA . . Statement of Work Network Monitoring Service 1.0 Description of Services Network Monitoring Service electronic:1lIy monitors specific elements of the System for Events. When an Event is detected, it is forwarded to the Motorola System Support Center using system speciíic monitoring tools. The System Support Center is staffed with trained tec1mologists, who acknowledge tile Event, run available diagnostic routines, and initiate an appropriate response. Network Monitoring Service is applicable to the following system types: SmartZone, SmartZone/OmniT ink- v2.0.3 and higher, E911, Private Data v2.0.3 and higher with a WNG box, and SmartNet The following equipment is not supported by Networlc Monitoring Service: Private Data $)'Stems without a WNG box, Micor, DeskTrac Repeater; MSF 5000 that arc not part of a SmartZone system; MTR 2000; MSR 2000; and NCP Data Base Stations. The temIs and conditions of this Sþ~1"nt ofWor!c (SOW) arc an ÏDtegral part of the Motorola Service Agreement or other applicable Agreement to which it is Jltt\1<::hed and made a part thereofby this reference. If there arc any inconsistencies between tile provisions of this SOW and the provisions of the Service or other applicable Agreement, the provisions of the Agreement shall prevaiL 2.0 Motorola has tile following respOIISibiIities: . 2.1. Recommend and coordinate instalIation of any needed connectivity or monitorlng equipment. 2.2. Provide dedic3.ted S6k D:amc relayIICCessary for monitoring SmartZone, SmartZone/ OmniT ink, and Private Data system types. . . 2..3. Verify com1edions and Event monitoring prior to System Aca:ptance or-Start Date. . 2.4. Monitor System. Continuously. 2.5. Access the Customer's System to perfonn remote diagnostics as indicated per Customer in section 3.6. 2.6. Create a Case when action is required. 2.7. Disable and enable System devices as z=ded for Service:s who go to the Customer's site when iIItervention is needed.. 2.8. Verify service ofEvem as needed. 2.9. Provide activity reports to Customer on Case history. 2.10. Provide Perfo~ ~orts for SmartZone, SmartZonei Onm1ï mk, and Private Data System types:. 3.0 Customer has tile following responsibilities: 3.1. Allow Motorola remote access Cominuously to obtain System perfommnce data. 3.2. Purchase any conneCtivity or monitoring equipment as determined by Motorola. 3.3. Cover any installation costs of com1edivity or monitoring equipment. 3.4. Notify the System Support Center when Customer pCIÍOImS any activity that impacts tile System. (Activity that impacts the System may include, but is not limited to, installing software or hardware upgrades, perfonning upgrades to tile network, or taking down part of the system to perl'onn maintenance.) 3.5. Allow Servicers access to Equipment (including any connectivity or monitoring equipment) ifremcte service is not possible. 3.6. Order and maintain dedicated dial..up phone lines for telephone service for SmartNet and E911 system types. 3.7. Cooperate with Motorola and perfonn all acts that arc r=sonable or necessary to enable Motorola to provide the Network Monitoring Service to Customer. Network Management Service Approved by Motorola Contracts & Compliance /0/03/01 Page I 0(2 . . ~ ...~.. 0';' '-' . . .... .. . .. ... ,. .' ,. .. . , APPENDIX 1 Severity Definitions . . Severity ~~v~ ·;::-~.:rrtJ.~~~~:rYP~ :.~:~:' . .' ..,. ".' . " --. . .~;::: ':'::::', ':~,,' . Severity 1 Major systc:n:fåilure 33% of System down 33% of Site I"n nneIs down Site Environment AlaIms (smoke, access, temp, AC Power) RespoIlSe is provided Continuously Severity 2 Significant System Impairment System problems presently being monitored Response during Standard Business Day Severity 3 Parts QucstÏons Upgrades ~ttt.ßtproblems onse during Standard Business Day. NetWork Management Service AIJTJrOved by Motorola Contracts & Compliance 10/03/01 """'" ., -', Page 2 of2 .. .., .... '.;. '. . .- '. '--' . . 'WI' .. "'~; ':: ..... . . ® MOTOROLA Statement of Work Software Subscription Agreement 1.0 Description of Service Motorola provides Software relcscs by mc:ms of a Software Subscription Agreement C"SSA"). AJ more thoroughly discussed in the SSA, Motorola will provide to Customer periodic bulletins which axmounce and explain available Enhanc:mcnt Relcscs and Core Relcscs for Motorola Software for use with upgrade-Clpable Motorola Equipment covered by the SSA. 2.0 Motorola has the following responsibilities: 2.1 Provide to Customer bulletins æmouncing Enhancement Relcses and Core Rele3Ses. 2.2 Provide to Customer available Enhancements Rele3Scs and Core Relcscs as ordered by Customer. If Customer orders a new EIlbancement Relcse or Core Rele3Se, provide those StandardFe:1tUreS included in the release which apply to Customer's e:cisting system componems.. 3.0 Customer has the following responsibilities: 3.1 Customer must contact its Motorola representative to order 3D. available Enhancement Release or Core Release. 3.2 Pay any charges associated with additional engineering or hardware required for e:1Ch Enba.nccment Rele:1Se or Core Re1C3.Se that Customer cheoscs to order and instaIl. Additional engineering may be required if Customer's System has specia11y developed options. 3.3 Use the Software and re1e3Ses in ~rdance with the teIms of the Motorola software . liceme agreement aecuted by Customer, or Motorola's standard software 1iceIlSe tcnns if no license was signed. - 3.4 Cooperate with Motorola and perform aU acts that are I'C3Sonable or necessary to enable Motorola to provide the Software Subscription Agreement services to Customer. Software Subscription Agreement Approved by Motorola Contract:; & Compliance 8/11/00 Page 1 of 1 \w, .'-trI .~ ",. ...... .' ... ... .... .' ~ MOTOROLA Statement of Work OnSite Infrastructure Response 1.0 Description of Service OnSite Inñ:astrncture Response provides for on-site ~bIJid~n Response as detem:ùned by pre-defined severity levels set forth in Table C and Response times set forth in Table A-I in order to Restore the System. The teIms and conditions oftlris Srntf!mt'!nt of Work (SOW) are an integral part of the Motorola Service Agreement or other applicable Agrccmcnt to which it is atl3ched and made a part tf1ereo{by this reference. If there are any inconsistencies betw=1 the provisions of this sow and the provisions of the Service or other applicable Agreement, the provisions of the AgrecDcnt shall prevail. 2.0 MotoI:Qla has the fonowing respomibilities: 2.1 If Motorola is providÏDg Teclmir.a1 Support servicè (via an additional Shltf!ml"1]t o{Wark) in addition to this OnSite IDfi3.stmctme Response service, Motmcla will fiISt ¡espond in ~ with Teclmica1 Support scrvio: Slatement of Work and Table B herein, unless required to Respond otherwise in the Coli II "' m1catiOns System Agreement or other applicable Agreement. I( in the .. períommnce of the Teclmic:ù Support ¡esponsibilitics, Motorola de~t'!!! that an on-site technician is necessary, dispatch. will OCaIrpromptly after such deteImination is made and on-site ¡esponse will occur in accotdance with Table A-2. 2.2 If Motorola is not providing Teclmic:ù Support but only provicfing OnSite Infrastructure Response, Motorola will respond in accordance with this Srntf!mt'!!!t of Work and Tables A-I and C. . 2..3 Períorm diagnostics on the ComponentlFicld Replaceable UDit (FRU) lassembly 2.4 Restore the System by repIadng defective CompOIlC1tlFR.U/assembly: 2.4.1 FRU and assembly will be provided by Customer. 2.5 Provide materials, tools, docnmt'!TIt:!.tion, physic:ù planning manuals, diagnostic and test equipment necessary to peñorm. the MøintP'n:ln~e service. 3.0 Customer has the fonowing responsibilities: 3.1 Establish and TmlTnrnm a suitable environment (heat, light, and power) for the Equipment location and provide the ServiceI' full, ~ and safe access to the Equipment so that the ServiceI' may provide servicls. .All sites shall be aœessible by standard service vehicles. 3.2 Supply FRU or assembly as n=ied in order for Motorola to Restore the System as set forth in paragraph 2.4.1 . 3..3 Maimain and store any and all Software needed to Restore the System. 3.4 Cooperate with Motorola and perform. all acts that are re3Sonable or necessary to enable Motorola ~o provide the OnSite Infras1ructure Response services to Customer. Table A-l- OuSite Response runes Severity Level Response rune Severity 1 Within 4 hours from ~eipt of notification Severity 2- Within 4 hours from ICt:eÏpt o{ notific:1tion* Severity 3- Within 24 hours from receipt o{notification* OnSite Infrastructure Response Approved by Motorola Contracts & Compliance: 04/03/02 Page 1 of2 .... ....- ',..," ., ......:: ".. " ..' \..-. . . .... . .. .' , 'wi ., .. ~ '0. . .. ,. ,. MOTOROLA Table A-2 - OnSite Response Times with Remote Technic:ù Support Response Times Severity Level Response rIme Severity 1 Within 1 hour from receipt of request for Teclmic:ù Support On-site within 4 hours from time of dispatch. Severity 2· Within 1 hour from receipt of request for T eclmic:ù Support. On-site within 4 hours'* from time of dispatch· Severity 3· Within next Business Day from receipt of request for Teclmic:ù S11'CPort*. On-site within 24 hours from time of discatch'* ·Denotes that these response times are applicable only during Standard Business Day. Severity 1 Response TiIm:s are applicable Continuously. Table B - Remote Teclmicl Support Response rlDles Severiqr . .'# .. 'Response . , ..." ,I - , "..:. .... '. Within 1 Hour from . t of notific:úion Within 4 Hours'* from receÌPt of notiiic:1tion Severi 3· Within next Business Da '" Denotes that these response times are applicable only during Standard Business Day. Severity 1 Response rJII2CS are applicable Continnously. . .. ~ . . ". . I. '.' . .. . ..... Table C -Severity Definitions Severity Level.'· ~.b,l~ ,Types Severity 1 Major system r.wure . 33% of System down 33% of Site cbanneIs down Site EnVÍrOJ:III1C1t AlaIms (smoke, access, temp, AlC Power) onse is vided Continuousl Severity 2 SigIlificant System Impairment onse is vided Standard Business Da Severity 3 Parts Questions Upgrades Intermittent problems System problems presently being monitored Operational and infOIIIlationaI questions Configuration Change Support and Work Flow procedure questions onse is vided Standard Business Da . ., OnSite Inftastructure Response Approved by Motorola Contracts & Compliance: 04/03/02 Page 2 of 2 ..,-,:- '. -....,,¡I.. . ., ..,' ".. " , . '. .'. . ." " - . MOTOROLA Statement of Work System Survey and Analysis 1.0 DescriptionofServicc System Survey aud.Aælysis will provide operatioœl test and alignment, on the· Customer's Equipment (infra.structme or fixed network equ:ipmcnt only) to ensure the Equipment ~ts original mamrl'acturer's speciñc:1tions, as set fåIth in the applicable attached Exhibit( s}. an of which are hereby incorporated by this refexcnce. Customer's System type ck-~~ which Exhibit is applicable (ie. Exhibit A is for SmartZone systems, Exhibit B is for SmartNet systems). System Survey and AmIysis will be perfoIIIlCd during Standard Business Days. If System or Customer requirements dictate this service must occur outside of Standard Business Days, Motorola will provide an additional quotation. Customer will pay any charges associated with hc1icaptl:r or other unusual access requirements or expenses. The teImS and conðiti()ft' of this Sbl~l'!!It ofWark (sqW) are. an integral part of the Motorola Service Agreement or other applicable .Agre:mcnt to which it is atta.cl1ed aud made a part thereofòy this refexcnce. If the:e are my iIIcom:istencies between the provisions of this SOW and the provisions of the Service or other applicable Agreement, the provisioDs of the Agreement shall prevail 2.0 Motorola has the fo11owing rcspoIlSibiIities: 2.1 Notify the Custcmcr of any possible System. downtime nc=ied to perfocn this servic:. 2.2 Physic:illy Í11spcå the infrastrIIctme Equipment in the system (equipment cabinets, general circuitry, fåult mdicatoIS, cables. and connections). 2.3 Remove any dust, and/or foreign substmces ftom the Equipment. 2.4 Clean fiIœrs, if applicable. - ~ 2".5 Measure, ICCOId, align, adjust the Equipment parameters in aa:ordance with the ID3I1J.tfacture's . ~ service manuals and the Rules and Regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (Fcq, where applicable. 3.0 Customer has the fonowing rcspoIlSibiIities: . 3.1 Provide prcfemd schedule for System Survey and Analysis to Motorola. 3.2 Authorize and acknowledge any System downtime. 3.3 Maintain periodic backup of databases, Software applications and Firmware. 3.4 Establish and tmimrnm a suitable envi:roDment (h.~ light, and power) for the Equipment location and provide the Servi=' full, free, and safe acCess to the Equipment so that the Servicc:r may provide services. All sites shall be accessible by standard service vehicles. 3.5 Cooperate with Motorola and perfocn all acts that are I'C3Sonable or necessary to enable Motorola to provide the System Survey and AnalysiS services to Customer. System Swvey and Analysis Approved by Motorola Contracts & Compliance: 04/03/02 Page 1 of6 ....~ .. . . '.~ . . 'wi .. ." .'. ".. ... ... . . . MO'TO~O~~ . Exhibit A:... SmartZone System Equipment . KquipmentT}rpe . . :: OpeÍ'atío. . nalClleck(wfIeœapplicafilel :'.'::' ;::. ... ~ ~; ":.'~: 6_.". ': .0, . '. . .-.. - Rep= s, ontre tatto s TI3I1SImtter modulation RF ~ower outout/reflected RF Freauencv Me:1SUI'ed/adiusted Rec:iver SeI1Sitivity MC3SUIedI Adjusted Power SutroIv voItaltes Audio ImIut & Outcut Level ~k Low Sceed Data Combiners & Circulator Loss Consoles PositionslR.emotcs Audio Iœut & OutDut Level Ethemet Oaeration CEB Power SUD1Jlv V oltag;e, and AC RiÐPle Switches, Li2hts, CRT CEB Sismal Levels WiI:imz and Groundin2 for each Position ~k and Oem keyboards, CPU. CRT's ~ ~ntro11eI; Digitac, Comparators Central Controller and Power SUD1JIies TBarSwitched Simulcast Controller Simulcast Remote Controller - Distribution Amc . - ~ Di2Ìtac CoIIIDarator - - . - . Rec:iver Multi-Couplers and Tower Mounted Amplifier GPS GPS RXIControUer F Standard Calibration Site Equipmcnt Audio Network AmIner Baseline Database Server Svstcm Manaszer Tmninal Site Test/System Calibration E~ment UPS Batteries Switch-Over Ot>erations AClDC Voltages .. O~er Equipment ~k all svstem IJI1m= Check all modems for m'\JtJer levels & svnchronization MaX/Other telco interfåce common equÏpmcnt tcI() C IS n() System Survey and Analysis Approved by Motorola Contracts & Compliance: 04/03/02 Page 2 of6 .' \w.o.; ",' ..,. , -..",./: ': ";:' "-:' " ... -. G "'O~OR~LA Exhibit B - SmartL~et System Equipment . . £'quipmentType: '.. ..- -' ~-'" "." ,..; :..; :,.' Oper:rtiõna[ CIlecli:(wlïereappIíc:lIire). . .;,.:J,_: .>:0.;::: Repeater(s), Control Station(s) Transmitter modulation. RF t ower oumutlreflected RFF Me:1SUIed/adiusted Reœiver Sensitivity MC3SUICdI Adjusted Power SlIDPlies Audio IJmut &: Outcut Levels Combiner &: Circulator Loss Consoles PositionslRemotes Audio IJmut &: Outcut Levels Ethemet Oceration CEB Power SlIDPlv Volta2C. and AC Riccle . Swi1ches. Li2hts.. CRT CEB Sismal Levels W'Irin2 and - . for each Position Check and CIe:m 1œvboards. CPU. CRT's Central ControllctS, Digitac, ComparatoIS Central Controner and Power SutJt lies TBarSwitched SimnlC3St Controner SimnlC3St Remote Controller Distribution Amo - Disritac Comcarator - - . - Rcceiver Multi..couplers - - GPS GPS RXlController F Standard Cah'bration Site Equipment Audio Network ADalvzer Baseline Database Server S .-.;.,., TermiDa1 --,. Site TestISystem Calibration EauitJment UPS Batteries Switch-Over Ocerations AClDC Voltages .. Other Equipment Check an --- Check an modems for proper levels &: svnchronization MBXlOther telco interface common ~ent System Survey and Analysis Approved by Motorola Contracts & Compliance: 04/03/02 Page 3 of6 '-" . . . ...., .. .. ;..-":", " - . 0 MO~OROLA Exhibit C- Conventional System Type Base Staaon(s), Rcpe:1ter(s), Control Sl:atíon(s) Kquipm. entT~'Pt= . ',.::, ".:" .... -..~ .:~ opèrat¡. -OßarCJr..ecIt(wfiereàPìíJté:dire).~·:·;::·:S.~.~.:.: Consoles PositionslRemote:s Comparators (Voting) and lor Satellite Reteivers UPS Other Equipment System Survey and Al1a1ysis Approved by Motorola Contracts & Compliance: 04/03/02 Page 4 of6 '. . \.r " .. .. .:; ;:. ""-'I. .' . , . . . o MC?!"RC::LA Exhibit D - Data System Equipment £quipmentT:.vp~ . ..: .; -0.: .- ~ . . . Oper:rtîonaI:CTtecli:(wfiereappJïcafire): - - . . . : ~." ~.:: Data Base Station (QUAL\fTAR) RSSI Cah'bntion Check (-90) Transmit FreQUency Adiustments Transmitter Deviation Adiustments Transmitter modulation Compensation Transmitter Power out and Adiustments Reflect Power Me:J.SUIeIneI1t Reœiver Sensitivity Test Receive Antenna De-sense Test MSF 5000 Base Stations RSSI Calibration Checlc VCO Cilibration Check (.38Micro Volt) Iniection Filter Adiustments Pre-selecto ,. Filter Adiustments Tnmsmit F Adiustments RF Power out Me3S1II'CII1CI1t RFForward and Reflect Trip adiust . Transmit Deviation Adiustments Receiver Sensitivitv Test Transmitter modnIation Compensation GEMll'lI Base Station RSSI Calibration Check - Tr.msmitF Adiustments ~ - RF Power out Me3SUreII1CIltS ~ . RF Forward and Reflect Tm adiust Tnmsmit Deviation Adiustments Receiver Sensitivity Test Transmitter modulation Compensation Power Smmlv Voltage Check Power SlICPly RiPPle V oltage ~k Radio Network Controllers No PM on Wireless Network Gateway I No PM on UDSlComsphere Modems UPS Batteries - Switch-Over Operations AClDC Voltal1;cs System Survey and Analysis Approved by Motorola Contracts & Compliance: 04/03/02 PageS of 6 '-' . . . ". .....iÎ e". .,.,.. . 0 , . ,. MOTOROLA Exhibit E - E911 System Equipment EquipmClit'Cvpe:',:',' o· ~::;..:, .. ',;.", <:'''::~<. Opèr:Jtïona[Clieclt(wñmappñcalife)r<:·.:'~:~: '.. ':"\;;~. ANI Controller Power sutJPI cheà: -DC Vola e Processor c:1rd ba test Review of adviso 10 Inspect phone, handsets, cords, touch tone pads, lights, and tel hone instruments at main P SAP and remote loation. Test operation or e3Ch 911 t:rtmk and administrative phone line Check ANI cable routing and verify all connections (tighten cable/connector strain relief devices, review punch block wirin V . dial-lID access V . an scare circuit boards are CIatiOnal Inspect ANI cabinets (ventilatioIllcooling. secure covers) V . no alarm status on call saeen. Check a1arm/event 10 Check size of call detail records. e if neeess Size ofhard space tp!m ining and advise customer. Purge if net:css Test operation of all servers, te:minalslclients printeIs, at main PSAP and remote locations Make test 911 calIs to verify AU ÏDfoxmation is properly displayed on all tl"m1in T~/clients at main PSAP and remote locations V . are AU or devices are CIatiOnal If system uses loc:ù AU or Tst, verify system properly receives Telco snbscriber dates as . Check AU cable routing and verify all coDIledÌons (tighten cable/connector strain relief devices where nee Inspect all computer and teImiDal equipment (fàDs, vents, ]a: oafds. CRTs. etc . Verify AU components are receiving proper ventiIatioIllcooling Generate test aIann and verify that Motorola NMO receives outbound alarms for Site S Device SEE Verify inbound remote m intl"n nce access of both ANI and AU functions through all remote access devices (SEE or maintenance modems) . Ch~k and verify proper installation of all grounding cables and connectors. V . 0 erational status of ression etlumment Verify operational status of standby power systems (upS equi~ment. AC generators) AU Controller Other System Survey and Analysis Approved by Motorola Contract:¡ & Compliance: 04/03/02 Page 6of6 - " .' .. .. .... '- . . ." ... '"0'-- ~ . ," 'J . . .. . "." ..... We now have a WEB Access feature that allows you to get yoUr email from anywhere in the world. Simply go into your web browser and type: gwmail.co.st-Iucie.fl.us and a GroupWise Web access screen will appear. Check the GO button to enter. Type in your user GroupWise user name and GroupWise password. To enter the GroupWise system click on LOGIN. Once in, you can click on the mailbox icon to display your mail. ~ \ , ~ '-ill BOARD OF OCUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA REGULAR MEETING Date: Septcmbcr 24, 2002 Tapc: I Convened: <):00 a.m. Adjourned: 10:30 a.m. Commissioners Present: Chairman, Doug Coward, Cliff Barnes, Frannie Hutchinson, Paula A. Lewis, John D. Bmhn Others Present: Doug Anderson, County Administrator, Ray Wazny, Asst. County Administrator, Dan McIntyre, County Attorney, Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director.,Paul Phillips, Airport Director, Don West, Public Works Director, Bill Blazak, Utilities Director, Beth Ryder, Community Services Director, Jim David, Mosquito Control Director, A. Millie Delgado, Deputy Clerk 1. MINUTES (1-029) It was moved by Com. Hutchinson, seconded by Com. Lewis, to approve the minutes of the meeting held September 17, 2002 and the minutes for the tentative budget public hearing held September 12,2002; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 2. PROCLAMA nONS/PRESENTATIONS ,. 4:: The St. Lucie County Fair Association, Inc., madc a prcscntation to thc Board. Checks were also presented to the Board by the Kawanis Clubs and Eli's Western Wear as well as a promise of $1 0,000 per year for the next 10 years from the Peter Buseh Family Foundation. These donations were for several of the buildings to be constructed at the fairgrounds. 3. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Jean Hearn, Indrio Road resident, addressed the Board regarding the Port and her conccrns with possiblc expansion ofthc cargo area. Mr. Charles Grande, Hutchinson Island resident and representing the Presidents Council addressed the Board and stated that both the Port and Airport should remain as countywide facilities. It was moved by Com. Bmhn, seconded by Com. Hutchinson, to approve the Consent Agenda including item CA-l; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. I. WARRANT LIST The Board approved Warrant List No. 51. 2. PUBLIC WORKS A. Professional Engineering Service/Roadway and Intersection Design- The Board approved the one year extension to the consultant agrccmcnts with Amcrican Consulting Engineers, PLC Inwood Consulting Engineers Inc., Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Lindahl, Browning, Ferrari & Hellstrom, Inc., and PBS& J and authorize the Chai rman to sign the agrecmcnts. B. Fiscal Year 2002-03 Software Purchase- The Board approved the purchase from DBM System in the amount of $1 0,000 for the scale house. 1 09/20/02 F7.ABWARR FUND 204 215 262 282 316 316001 382 390 395 396 401 418 421 441 441802 448 449 451 458 461 471 / ·1 491 505 505001 610 611 620 625 665 G'll ()'/ G '-' 'w1I ST. LUCIE COUNTY - BOARD WARRANT LIST #51- 14-8EP-2002 TO 20-SEP-2002 FUND SUMMARY TITLE EXPENSES Communication System 1&8 Fund 5-Yr Bldg Bond Anticipat.1&S Fund Tourism Dev 4th Cent 1&S Fund Environmental Land 1&S Fund County Capital Transportation Capital Environmental Land Capital Fund Treasure Cove/Ocean Harbor S Cap River Branch MSBU Capital Lennard Road 1 - Roadway Capital Sanitary Landfill Fu~d Golf Course Fund' H.E.W. Utilities Fund North Hutchinson Island Utilities SFWMD ~. Hutchinson Water Main NHI Util-Renewal & Replacement Fund NHI Util - Capital Facilities Fund S. Hutchinson Utilities Fund SH Util-Renewal & Replacement Fund Sports Complex Fund No County Utility District-Operatin No Cty. Util Dist-Renewal & Replace No Cty Util Dist-Capital Facilities ~uilding Code Fund <l~ Health Insurance Fund Property/Casualty Ins~rance Fund Tourist Development 7~ust Fund Tourist Development 7~ust-Adv Fund Law Enforcement Trus~ Fund Law Library SLC hrt in Public Places Trust Fund r;. l[l1l".c~hin:¡()n l,'und Kil19 Orango MSlJU Fund 200,653.75 1,949,349.92 380,000.00 1,295,305.00 37,317.20 1,508.00 13,250.08 1,500.00 1,483.00 941. 28 71,768.53 10,586.91 1,995.55 100,441.67 3,072.74 3,704.75 4,086.17 25,845.81 5,694.11 21,183.92 26,025.77 5,188.95 1. 03 2,753.43 534,583.53 13,623.10 756,381.00 14,516.63 462,534.99 9,225.57 1,300.00 581.00 '1,31/..S0 GRAND TOTAL: 6,917,277.40 PAGE 2 PAYROLL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,606.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32,833.84 ;;-,. ., 09/20/02 FZABWARR J.'[}i'JJ) 001 001141 001143 001151 001265 001::>'67 001269 001809 101 101002 101003 101006 102 102001 102104 104 104001 105 107 107001 107002 " .. "7003 126 113 114 116 117 119 121 123 127 136 138 140 140001 140403 140800 145112 145816 145817 160 183 183001 183004 184203 184804 1A5002 003 \.,-. - ST. LUCIE COUXTY - BOARD ..." WARRANT LIST #51- 14-SEP-2002 TO 20-SEP-2002 FUND SUMMARY TIT/,}'; General Fund Section 112/MPO/FHWA FY02/03 Health & Human Srvcs CSBG FY01/02 Urban Mobile Irrigation Lab Grant TDC Planning Grant FY01/02 EMPA 01/02 Dept. of Community Affai FDEP-Urban Mobile Lab Grant 01/02 SFWMD-Floridian Aquifer Well 01/04 Transportation Trust Fund Transportation Trust/80% Cor.st:tut Transportation Trust/Local Opt:on Transportation Trust/Impact Fees Unincorporated Services Fund Drainage Maintenance MSTU FDOT Bicycle/Pedestrian Coòrdi~ator Grants & Donations Fund Recreation Donations Fund Library Special Grants Funè Fine & Forfeiture Fund Fine & Forfeiture Fund-Wireless Sur Fine & Forfeiture Fund-E911 Surchar Fine & Forfeiture Fund-800 :-.:hz Oper FDOT DUI Specialist Grant ¡Harmony Heights 3 Fund Harmony Heights 4 Fund Sunland Gardens Fund Sunrise Park Fund Holiday Pines Fund Blakely Subdivision Fund Queens Cove Lighting Dist#13 F~nd pine Hollow Street Lighting MS:U Monte Carlo Lighting MSTU#4 Fu~d Palm Lake Gardens MSTU Fund Port & Airport Fund Port Fund FDOT Sheriff Department Securi~y IRL Taylor Creek Restoration S=W~D NOAA/ClP Bear Point lntegratio~ Ind River Lagoon License Plate 2002 SFWMD/Impoundment 19B lmprove~ents plan Maintenance RAD Fund Ct Administrator-19th Judicial Cir Ct Administrator-Arbitration/Mediat Ct Admin.- Teen Court Ft. Pierce Beach Restoration FIND So. Causeway Shoreline St~bil. SHIP Housing Assistance FY 01/02 FHFA SHIP FY02/03 ~._-",'" EXPENSES 427,227.42 74.85 10,407.64 10.85 9.55 2,607.33 909.78 12.27 59,773.51 52,365.03 44,648.50 3,154.00 2,445.50 46,057.13 13.32 64,810.94 170.67 5,660.69 127,571.18 7.70 56.35 185.97 4,019.71 201.53 443.45 492.00 122.78 716.97 68.18 250.81 325.24 1,296.22 105.52 17,619.27 7,006.31 1,400.00 11,368.42 3,807.15 874.83 9,533.40 88.12 377.45 1,537.50 296.25 21,807.46 21,807.46 2,800.00 13.30 ? -=-_GE I.' r: I 1 Pi-_-l'?:JLL 24,227.00 0.00 0.00 c.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 :;.00 J.OO J.OO 0.00 S.OO : .00 C.OO C.OO : .00 J.OO :.00 :.00 :.00 C.OO :.00 C.OO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ).00 0.00 J,.OO j.OO J.OO ).00 J.OO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ~ ...., C. Entrada Avenue and Rio Mar Drive Landscape Project- The Board approved Work Authorization No.6 with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., in the amount of$I,300 for additional design services for grant application purposes. D. Sunrise Boulevard at Merritt Ditch 60" RCP Culvert Replace Project~ The Board approved awarding the constmction contract to Johnson Davis,lnc., second lowest bidder for the project, in th4e amount of $154,650 approved the budget as outlined and authorized the Chairman to sign the contract J. PARKS AND RECREATION A. Discounts at the Marine Center Gift Shop- The Board approved the 10<% discount offers at the Marine Center Gift Shop on an occasional basis. B. Department of Environmental Protection Florida Coastal Management Program Grant Applications- The Board granted permission to submit two grant applications for funds to build/repair crossovers for two beach parks. 4. LIBRARY ,,~: State Aid to Libraries Grant Application FY 02/03- The Board approved the Chairman signing the application at I Ill; time of' approval and approved the annllal plan of'service. 5. COUN'rY ATTORNEY A. Agreement for Installation and Maintenance of Gaging Station- The Board approved the agreement and authorized the Chairman to sign the agreement. B. Resolution No. 02-238/Street Renaming- The Board approved the resolution renaming a portion of Mesa Circle lying in the North ~ of Section 13, Township 36S, Range 39E to Windy Pines Lane, record the resolution in the Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida and notify all necessary entities of the approved street name. C. Environmentally Significant Land Program/North Fork ofthe St. Lucie River Phase HlParcel 97,98 and 99- The Board approved the Option Agreemcnts, authorized the Chairman to execute the agrecmcnts, and dirccted stafft close thc transaction and record the documents in the Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida. 6. ADMINISTRATION A. BOCC Mceting Changes for December, 2002- The Board approved changing the December 10,2002 meeting to 7:00 p.m. and the December 17, 2002 meeting to 9:00 a.m. B. RFQ No. 02-114/State Housing Initiative Partnership SHIP Program- The Board approved awarding the RFQ to Jacobson Construction, Chilberg Construction and James Gazdacko Flooring and authorized staff to enter into contracts to provide services under the SHIP program. C. Bid No. 02-1 04/Temporary Personnel Services - The Board approved awarding the bid to the low bidder, Home Options ofJackdsonviIle. D. Permission to Advertise- The Board granted permission to advertise a Request f'or Proposals for a replacement telephone system. 2 '-" ...." E. Budgct Amendment No. 02-157/ Advertising/Promotional Funds for the Parks Referendum MSTU- The Board approved the budget amendment authorizing the use of $36,200 from General Fund Contingency for the purpose of advertising and promoting the Parks . Referendum MSTU. The Board approved a specific fining that this funding is for a public purpose and will benefit the citizens of the county. F. Fairgrounds Project- The Board granted permission to apply for a loan in the amount of$I,486,987 for completion of the new Fairgrounds. 7. HUMAN RESOURCES Indian River Community College Training Program- The Board approved the contract with IRCC and authorized the Chairman to execute the contract. 8. MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET A. Budget Resolution No. 02-235- The Board approved accepting the School Board contribution in the amount of $1 0,300 for the FY02 Agri-Science payroll expenses and approved the budget resolution to appropriate the funds. B. Full cost Allocation Plan- The Board conceptually approved the Full Cost Allocation Plan but authorized the County Administrator to modify parts of the plan in order to further refine the product. The County Administrator would have the authority to waive some charges, to increase or decrease other charges, and when warranted, to impose additional charges. The modifications will eventually be incorporated in to the Full Cost Allocation Plan. '(; 9. AIRPORT A. Federal Aviation Administration Grant- The Board approved accepting the $292,000 grant for the preparation of the Part 150 Noise Study Update, and the Perimeter Fencing Phase 2 Project at St. Lucie County International Airport. B. Maintenance Building Constmction Project- The Board approved the A WM Constmction, Inc., final pay request and authorized release of retain age for a total project amount of $168,850. 10. COMMUNITY SERVICES US Department of Justice Violence Against Women Office Safe Havens- The Board approved accepting the grant and authorized the Chairman to sign the documents necessary for the grant. 11. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A. RFP No. 02-05<J/Urban Servicc Boundary Study- The ßoard approvcd the contract with Tindale-Oliver & Associatcs. B. Lee Roy Parnell Concert/Fort Pierce Amphitheatre- The Board approved the issuance of cashiers or certified check to the Parnell Band in the amount of$7,500 so that the band's management group may be paid the day of the concert. C. Resolution No. 02-1511Seaside Subdivision- The Board approved the resolution granting approval for a Major Site Plan to be known as Seaside Subdivision. 3 '-' ....., 12. MOSQUITO CONTROL A. DEP Coastal Management Program Community Stewardship Grant Application- The Board authorized the Chainnan to sign a letter of support to partner with the Marine Resources Council for the grant. B. DEP Florida Coastal Management Program Grant Application- The Board approved submitting a grant application for improvements at Blind ('rœk P;1rk. CA-l lnterlocal Agreement Mobile Command Unit- The Board approved the Interlocal Agreement and author~zed the Chainnan to sign the Interlocal Agreement. REGULAR AGENDA 5. COMMUNITY SERVICES(l-819) A. Resolution No. 02-197- Consider staff recommendation to approve the resolution creating the St. Lucie County Public Transit Municipal Servicing Taxing Unit for the purpose of providing a dedicated funding source for public transportation for St. Lucie County. ,. (~ The Community Services Director addressed the Board on this item. No public comments given. Com. Bruhn stated they needed a definite cap number before addressing this issue with both cities. The Community Services Director stated that it was recommended to be .25 by the consultant. Com. Hutchinson addressed her concerns with the boundaries. Presently it is presented from county line to county line on all three sides. She stated there have not been any calls past Range Line Road and that they draw a boundary at that point. If they have the ability to go back once a year and review this, they can change it. It would be senseless to ask someone to pay for something they will not be utilizing or the intent is not there. Com. Lewis stated that she is inclined to agree with Com. Hutchinson's comments, she would have a question as to what that would do to their tax base when they come to applying the millage. The Community Services Director stated this would not cause an appreciable difference to millage due to the fact that the total in that area would be less than 2% of the total taxable value for the county. Com. Coward stated he does not have a problem with contributing to the Orange Avenue extension even though he does not utilize it because it provides a service to the community and he does not have a problem contributing to the western areas, so why should anyone be exempt from contributing to the eastern areas. Com. Barnes asked if this could be delayed and figures obtained from the tax collector's office before a decision is made. He understands the taxable value, however, what he is trying to see is how much taxable value would be lost. The COlllmunity Services Director advised the Board how to obtain the f1gurc lar the first year. 4 ,. '-' ~~~NNNN~NNNN~N~N~~~~~~~~ 000000000000000000000000 ~NNN~~~~~~~~~~~~OOOOOOOO ~~WN~o~ro~m~~wN~owro~m~~wN WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWNNNNNNNNNNNNNN~~~~~~~~ ~owro~~m~~~WN~~OOW~~~~mm~ w~~mrooN~~owmww~~~w~rowoowro ~~~~m~mw~ww~W~W~~~~~m~mro ~~~mow~mwwwwWW~~~~WN~m~~ mN~m~W~mwoo~~OO~O~~~w~wm ~~~~W~O~WO~OWO~~~~wo~mo~ ~~WW~W~OOOo~w~~wœ~w~o~w~ ~~ONNm~OWwO~~~N~m~mw~w~~ wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~WWW OW~~~N~W~~~~WN~OCD~~~OCD~~ ooowmo~~~~~woo~mmm~~oo~mw~ ~~~m~mN~Nm~OO~~w~wmmmmm~ W~~O~~WW~~W~~~ww~w~om~mw ~~~~Wm~NWOmm~m~wowmw~~~~ W~w~~WOm~WN~~~WOOW~WW~WW 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 W ~ WWŒŒ N WW~~~~ ~ WW~~~W~ ~ ~~NWWWW ~ N~~~O~OO N ~m~~w~~ ~ ~N~mW~~ ~ ~W~O~W~ N ~mw~W~~ ~ NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN~NNNNNNN 000000000000000000000000 NNNNNN~~~~~~~~~~OOOOOOOO ~~WN~OW~~m~~WN~OW~~m~~WN WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNN~ W~m~~WN~OO~~~~~~~WWN~~O~ ~OW~~~~~wo~w~mw~~~ow~O~~ W~~~N~N~~~m~WW~~N~N~O~~m ~~mOm~mON~mm~~W~m~~WNOmO oww~Om~~~NN~WN~ON~~~~Wm~ ~~~N~W~m~~m~wm~~~~~~WNNO ~~~~~~~~~o~ww~m~~o~~~OOW~ WN~O~O~mw~~~~w~w~~om~m~m WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~WWW OW~~~N~W~~~~WN~OW~~~OW~~ ~owmo~~~~~woo~mmm~~oo~mw~ ~~~m~mN~Nm~OO~~w~wmmmmm~ W~~OOO~WW~~~~oo~wwm~~om~m~ ~N~~Wm~NWOmm~m~wowmw~~~~ W~w~~WOm~WN~~~WOOW~WW~WW 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 W -" 9 N ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ o ŒWWŒ WWWWWWWWW(nWW(n(nW~~~~ WW-"~NNNWWW~~~~~~~~~NN N~N~~~~N~~oN~m~wN~~~~ ~~~ON~~oo~wmm~~mwwow-" o~~w~~~m~wwo~o~NN~~OO W~o~~-"Nm-"Nmm~N~~~W~Ow ~om~ooN~-"~-"~~~~~N~~W-" ~~~~~~o~w~~m~~o~~~~w~ o~o~mw~~~~w~w~~om~m~m --~.,-....... ..~ _.- ---" ~ -< CD W .., }> -:-- a. N< Ow 3!:õ == -, (J CD ........3 :::0 zCD::;i CD < W CD CD ::J a. ê !!!. CD .... !P. ^ CD -- -0 ~ -< CD W .., }> -:-- a. N< ~w 3!:õ == -, (J CD ........3 :::0 ZCD-; CD < ilì CD CD ::J a. ª !!!. CD- OJ ~ CD =õ CD a. l ~:,. ., '-' ..".; Com. Barnes requested more time to review this issue. Com. Hutchinson questioned the 90 day limit as stated on the Resolution. The Community Services Director stated they can bring back additional numbers by the' 90 day period. The County Attorney stated the 90 day period can be changed, they would need to expedite the ordinance and send it to the cities, they should have time if it is done in October. Com. Lewis stated she did not mind delaying this issue for a week or two, but, did not wish to drag it on any further. She is in support ofthe MSTU. Com. Coward provided the Board with what he felt was a broader approach and asked the Board to consider what he presented. He distributed the attached spreadsheet for the Board's perusal. It was moved by Com. Bruhn, seconded hy Com. Lewis, to continue this item on October 1,2002; at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 6.· ADMINISTRATION (1-2188) ,. <, A. Children's Services CounciI- Consider staff recommendation to select three nominees for submission to the Office of the Governor, for consideration for the Children's Services Council appointment. Sonja Y. Davis Corinne Bchncke (requesting re-appointment) Sandra L. Foote Angela Ninestine, RN Upon tallying the votes, the nominees selected are: Angela Ninestine Sandra Foote Corinne Behncke B. Legislative Items- Consider staff recommendation to grant permission to submit the following projects: Project Title Regional Disaster Control Center/Special Needs Facility Orange A venue New r ,ihrary COlls(nldioll Funding Request 2,000,000 1,020,000 SOO,OOO Policy Issues Baseball Spring Training . Annexation/Chapter 171 & 163 RevIew Medicaid Nursing Home Bills Dept. of Juvenile Justice/Juvenile Assessment Centers Article 5/Revision 7 CRA's Regional Transportation Issue North Bridge 5 '-' ....., It was moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com. Bruhn to grant pennission to submit the listed projects; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. C. Bi-WeekJy Committee Reports- The Board provided updates. 7. COUNTY ATTORNEY (1-3076) A. Resolution No. 02-227/Rouse Road MSBU- Consider staff recommendation to adopt the resolution for financing for the MSBU. It was moved by Com. Bruhn, seconded hy Com. Lewis, to approve Resolution No. 02- 227; and, upon roll call, motion calTied unanimously. B. Resolution No. 02-228 River Branch MSBU- Consider staff recòmmendation to adopt the resolution for financing for the MSBU. It was moved by Com Hutchinson, seconded by Com. Bruhn, to approve Resolution No. 02-228; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. RA-l COUNTY ATTORNEY Resolution No. 02-240/2001 MSBU Tenn Loan Agreement Modification- Consider staff recommendation to adopt the resolution as drafted. ,. It was moved by Com. Barnes, seconded by Com. Bruhn, to approve Resolution No. 02- 240; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. i;, There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. Chainnan Clerk of Circuit Court 6 '-'" ...", BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA FINAL BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING Date: September 19, 2002 Tape: 1 Convened: 5:05 p.m. Adjourned: 5:15 p.m. Commissioners Present: Chairman, Doug Coward, Cliff Barnes, Paula A. Lewis, Frannie Hutchinson, John D. Bruhn Others Present: Doug Anderson, County Administrator, Ray Wazny, Asst. County Administrator, Dan McIntyre, County Attorney, Dennis Murphy, Community Development Direçtor, Pete Keogh, Parks and Rec. Director, Roger Shinn, Central Services Director, Beth Ryder, Community Services Director, Jim David, Mosquito Control Director, Bill Blazak, Utilities Director, Dennis Wetzel, IT Director, Susan Kilmer, Library Director, Paul Hiott, Veterans Director, Marie Gouin, M & BDirector, David Rodriguez, Human Resources Director, A. Millie Delgado, Deputy Clerk The Management and Budget Director read the roll back rate and the aggregate millage for fiscal year 2002-2003. ThE! Management and Budget Director reviewed the additional change to the Errata sheet and the tentatively approved budget. The change is as follows: 1. Information Technology 001-1955-5XXXXX-100 Systems Engineer I Noice 001-1955-540000-100 Travel 001-1955-5XXXXX- 100 Systems Engineer IINoice $ (44,035) (948) 44,983 · To create senior level position commensurate with responsibilities, increase in salary and benefits will be absorbed by IT. 2. Solid Waste 401-3410-568000-300 401-9910-599300-800 Capitalized Software Reserves $ 10,000 (10,000) Equipment Request 03-185 5. . The Rolled Back Rate is 8.0521 The following are the operating funds mil/ages and budgets MILLAGE BUDGET GENERAL FUND FINE & FORFEITURE FUND 2.9639 4.6155 65,521.275 53,067,040 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS BEACH BOND I & S PORT I & S ENVIRON. LAND I & S 0.0922 0.0284 0.1711 1,095,687 602,450 2,110,078 54,672 1,335,419 9,015,284 795,245 631,990 SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL STADIUM COMMUNICATION SYSTEM I & S 5 YEAR BUILDING BOND I & S BECKER ROAD I & S TOURISM DEV 4TH CENT I & S OTHER FUNDS WITHOUT MILLAGES SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS TRANSPORTATION FUNDS 37,082,355 -1- \--. GRANTS & DONATIONS LIBRARY SPECIAL GRANTS FUND ADDITIONAL COURT COSTS ARTS SPECIAL FUND DRUG ABUSE TRUST FUND PORT AND AIRPORT FUND PORT MSBU PLAIN MAINTENANCE RAD COURT FACILITIES FUND COURT FACILITIES FUND COURT COSTS COURT ADMINISTRATOR 19TH CIRCUIT HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY ENVIRONMENTAL LANDS HOUSING ASSISTANCE SHIP PROGRAM BOATING IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS BLUEFIELD RANCH IMPROVEMENT FUND "WI 347,938 334,747 259,650 5,355 16,021 12,622,849 151,567 245,072 784,545 84,660 1,908,223 65,390 64,720 1,150,900 292,500 101,300 TRUST FUNDS TWO CENT TOURIST DEVELOPMENT ONE CENT TOURIST DEVELOPMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT TRUST FUND LAW LIBRARY ARTS IN PUBLIC PLACES TRUST FUND SLC ECONOMIC DEV TRUST FUND FFA ROAD MSBU FUND (DEBT SERVICE) SOUTH HUTCHINSON FUND (DEBT SERVICE) DRIFTWOOD MANOR FUND(DEBT SERVICE KING ORANGE MSBU(DEBT SERVICE) LOST TREE ESTATES MSBU(DEBT SERVICE) ANITA STREET MSBU(DEBT SERVICE) TIMBERLAKE ESTATES MSBU BRIARGATE ESTATES MSBU(DEBT SERVICE) ROUSE ROAD MSBU(DEBT SERVICE) TREASURE COVE OCEAN HARBOR NORTH A1A MSBU DEBT SERVICE IDEAL HOLDING ROAD MSBU (DEBT SERVICE) WESTGLEN MSBU (DEBT SERVICE) RAINTREE FOREST MSBU (DEBT SERVICE) RIVER BRANCH EST MSBU (DEBT SERVICE) 1,541,587 707,872 899,837 324,149 272,402 300,877 16,463 2,927,976 15,551 9,750 4,947 18,245 53,645 5,505 5,000 5,000 18,735 18,493 16,774 14,398 5,000 CAPITAL OUTLAY FUNDS; SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL STADIUM BEACH BOND IMPACT FEES FUND 5 YEAR BUILDING BOND FUND COUNTY & TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PORT DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL SHI WASTEWATER TREATMENT SPORTS COMPLEX IMPROVEMENTS MSBU IN HOUSE LOAN FUNDS ENVIRONMENTAL LAND CAPITAL 15,000 256,308 8,326,810 784,250 26,217,211 214,327 118,903 506,725 587,051 . 7,536,363 ENERPRISE FUNDS: SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS GOLF COURSE SPORTS COMPLEX BUILDING CODE FUND HEW UTILITIES NO HUTHCINSON ISLAND UTILITIES NO HUTCHINSON UTILITIES RENEWAL REPL NO HUTCHINSON UTILITIES CAPITAL SO HUTCHINSON UTILITIES SOUTH HUTCHINSON FUND R & R FUND HOLIDAY PINES OPERATIONS HOLIDAY PINES RENEWAL REPL. 02-216TMill 20,977,738 2,559,776 1,485,230 3,656,178 82,073 2,537.999 454,227 1,988,125 1,885,780 909,947 1,329,460 415,862 -2- \r-' HOLIDAY PINES CAPITAL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS: INSURANCE AND LOSS 'w1I 330,993 12,150,162 7. It was moved by Com. Hutchinson, seconded by Com. Barnes, to approve the mil/ages as presented; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 8. It was moved by Com. Barnes, seconded by Com. Hutchinson, to approve the budget for thë operating funds as amended; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 9. MILLAGES AND BUDGETS OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS STREET LIGHTING DISTRICTS # 1 RIVER PARK 1 # 2 RIVER PARK 11 # 3 HARMONY HEIGHTS 3 # 4 HARMONY HEIGHTS 4 # 5 SHERATON PLAZA # 6·SUNLAND GARDENS # 7 SUNRISE PARK # 8 PARADISE PARK # 9 HOLIDAY PINES # 10 THE GROVE # 11 BLAKELY SUBDIVISION # 12 INDIAN RIVER ESTATES # 13 QUEENS COVE # 16 PALM GROVE # 126 SOUTHERN OAKS MILLAGES BUDGET 0.4066 0.6818 0.6858 0.7268 0.5761 0.5275 0.4973 1.3543 0.1716 0.1017 1.2761 0.1163 0.0885 0.4877 0.5317 37,514 7,486 2,940 6,527 5,710 7,156 1,793 10,525 10,437 2.236 1,010 12,444 3,669 9,636 1,608 It was moved by Com. Barnes, seconded by Com. Bruhn, to approve the millages for the special districts as presented; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Com. Bruhn, seconded by Com. Hutchinson, to approve the budget for the special districts; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 10. MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING DISTRICTS M.S.T.U UNINCORPORATED AREA M.S.T.U. STORMWATER M.S.T.U. LAW ENFORCEMENT MONTE CARLO LIGHTING M.S.T.U. # 4 M.S.T.U. PALM LAKES GARDENS LONGWOOD ESTATES MSTU THE WOODS MSTU PINE HOLLOW STREET LIGHTING MSTU KINGS HIGHWAY INDUSTRIAL PARK LIGHTING ROIJSE ROAD MSBU CAPITAL TREASCOVEOCEANHARBORCAPFUND RIVER BRANCH ESTATES CAP FUND LENNARD ROAD MSBU (ROAD) CAPITAL LENNARD ROAD MSBU (WATER) CAPITAL LENNARD ROAD MSNU (SEWER) CAPITAL GREY TWIG MSBU CAPITAL 02-216TMill -3- MILLAGES BUDGET 0.3959 0.4108 0.3082 0.3832 0.3454 3,823,150 8,071,538 1,462,843 18,780 1,558 2,929 8,414 13,147 17,985 227,891 755,037 285,501 369,631 75,355 35,004 357,000 '-- ~ It was moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com. Barnes, to approve the millage as presented; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Com. Hutchinson, seconded by Com. Bruhn, to approve the budget and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. At this time the Board recessed to review and approve the Final budgets and millages for the Mosquito Control District and the Erosion District. The Board reconvened at this time. RESOLUTION NO. 02-233 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A FINAL MILLAGE RATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made the following determinations: 1. On September 12, 2002, after TRIM notices were mailed to all property owners pursuant to Section 200.069, Florida Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider adopting the tentative millage for fiscal year 2002-2003 and adopted the tentative millage. 2. On September 12, 2002, after TRIM notices were mailed to all property owners pursuant to Section 200.069, Florida Statutes, the St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District, a dependent taxing district of this Board, held a public hearing to consider adopting the tentative millage for fiscal year 2002-2003 and adopted the tentative millage. 3. On September 12, 2002, after TRIM notices were mailed to all property owners pursuant to Section 200.069, Florida Statutes, the St. Lucie County Erosion District, a dependent taxing district of the Board, held a public hearing to consider adopting the tentative millage for fiscal year 2002-2003 and adopted the tentative millage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida: The following are hereby adopted as the Final millage rates for fiscal year 2002-2003: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS General Fund Fine & Forfeiture Fund Beach Bond I & S Port Property Bond I&S Environmental Land I&S MILLAGE RATES 2.9639 4.6155 0.0922 0.0284 0.1711 PECIAL TAXING DISTRICTS #1 River Park I 0.4066 0.6818 0.6858 0.7268 #2 River Park II #3 Harmony Heights III #4 Harmony Heights IV 02-216TMill -4- \a.-' ..",J #5 Sheraton Plaza 0.5761 #6 Sun/and Gardens 0.5275 #7 Sunrise Park 0.4973 #8 Paradise Park 1 .3543 #9 Holiday Pines 0.1716 #10 The Grove 0.1017 #11 Blakely Subdivision XI 1.2761 #12 Indian River Estates 0.1163 #13 Queens Cove 0.0885 #16 Palm Grove 0.4877 #126 Southern Oaks Estates 0.5317 MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNITS Unincorporated Area Services 0.3959 0.4108 0.3082 0.3832 0.3454 Stormwater Law Enforcement Monte Carlo/Meadowood Palm Lake Gardens MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT Mosquito Control Fund 0.2757 EROSION DISTRICT Operating Erosion Zone E 0.1000 AGGREGATE MILLAGE (excludes interest and sinking fund levies on voter approved indebtedness) 8.5302 02-216TMiII -5- \.-r ....., B. The proposed aggregate millage rate to be levied is greater than the roll-back rate as computed pursuant to Section 200.065(1), Florida Statutes by 5.94%. It was moved by Com. Bruhn, seconded by Com. Barnes, to adopt Resolution No. 02-233 as amended; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 02-234 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A FINAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002:-2003 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made the following determinations: 1. On September 12, 2002, after TRIM notices were mailed to all property owners pursuant to Section 200.069, Florida Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider adopting the tentative budget for fiscal year 2002-2003 and adopted the tentative budget. 2. On September 12,2002, after TRIM notices were mailed to all property owners pursuant to Section 200.069, Florida Statutes, the St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District, a dependent taxing district of this Board, held a public hearing to consider adopting the tentative budget for fiscal year 2002-2003 and adopted the tentative budget. 3. On September 12, 2002, after TRIM notices were mailed to all property owners pursuant to Section 200.069, Florida Statutes, the St. Lucie County Erosion District, a dependent taxing district of the Board, held a public hearing to consider adopting the tentative budget for fiscal year 2002-2003 and adopted the tentative budget. NOW, TIII¡:REF()RI~, BF: IT RF:SOLVF:D by the Board of County Commissioncrs of St. Lucic County, Florida: A. The following is hereby adopted as the FINAL budget for fiscal year 2002- 2003: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BUDGET AMOUNT PERA TING FUNDS WITH MILLAGES GENERAL FUND FINE & FORFEITURE FUND $65,521,275 $53,067,040 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS BEACH BOND I & S FUND PORT I & S FUND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND I & S FUND SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL STADIUM I & S FUND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM I & S SYR BUILDING BOND I & S FUND BECKER ROAD I & S TOURISM DEV 4'1'11 CENT I & S FUND $1,095,687 $602,450 $2,110,078 $54,672 $1,335,419 $9,015,284 $795,245 $631,990 -6- '-' SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS TRANSPORTATION TRUST FUND GRANTS AND DONATIONS FUND LIBRARY SPECIAL GRANTS FUND ADDITIONAL COURT COSTS FUND ARTS SPECIAL FUND DRUG ABUSE FUND PORT AND AIRPORT PORT MSBU DEVELOPMENT FUND PLA~ MAINTENANCE RAD COURT FACILITIES COURT FACILITIES FUND - COURT COSTS COURT ADMINISTRATOR HOUSING AUTHORITY ENVIRONMENTAL LANDS HOUSING ASSISTANCE SHIP PROGRAM BOA TING IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS BLUEFIELD RANCH IMPROVEMENTS CAPITAL FIJNnS SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL STADIUM BEACH BOND IMPACT FEE FUNDS FIVE YEAR BUILDING BOND FUND COUNTY & TRANSI>ORTATION CAPITAL PORT DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL FUND SHI W ASTEW ATER TREATMENT SPORTS COMPLEX IMPROVEMENTS FUND MSBU IN-HOUSE LOAN FUNDS ENVIRONMENTAL LAND CAPITAL F:NTF:RPRISI~ FUNDS SOLID WASTE GOLF COURSE SPORTS COMPLEX BUILDING CODE FUND HEW UTILITIES NO. HUTCHINSON UTILITIES NO. HUTCIDNSON R&R NO. HUTCHINS0N CAPITAL SO. lHJTCI-HNSON UTILITIES FUND 02-216TMill -7- "'" " $37,082,355 $347,938 $334,747 $259,650 $5,355 $16,021 $12,622,849 $151,567 $245,072 $784,545 $84,660 $1,908,223 $65,390 $64,720 1,150,900 292,500 $101,300 15,000 $256,308 $8,326,810 $784,250 $26,217,211 $214,327 $118,903 $506,725 $587,051 $7,536,363 $20,977,738 $2,559,776 $1,485,230 $3,656,178 $82,073 $2,537,999 $454,227 $1,988,125 $1,885,780 '-' SO. HUTCHINSON R&R FUND HOLIDAY PINES OPERATIONS HOLIDAY PINES R & R HOLIDA Y PINES CAPITAL INTERNAL SI~RVICE FUNDS INSURANC~ & LOSS TRUST AND AGENCY FUNDS TWO CENT TOURIST DEVELOPMENT ONÈ CENT TOURIST DEVELOPMENT-ADV LAW -ENFORCEMENT TRUST FUND LA W LIBRARY ARTS IN PUBLIC PLACES SLC ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT F.F.A. ROAD SOUTH HUTCHINSON DRIFTWOOD MANOR KING ORANGE MSBTJ LOST TREE ESTATES MSBU ANITA STREET MSBU TIMBERLAKE ESTATES MSBU BRIARGA TE ESTATES MSBU ROUSE ROAD MSBU TREASURE COVE/OCEAN HARBOR MSBU NORTH AlA MSBU IDEAL HOLDING ROAD MSBU WESTGIÆN MSBU RAINTREE FOREST MSBU RIVER BRANCH ESTATES MSBU SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICTS #1 RIVER PARK I FUND #2 RIVER PARK II FUND #3 HARMONY HEIGHTS 3 FUND #4 HARMONY HEIGHTS 4 FUND #5 SHERATON PLAZA FUND #6 S{JNLAND GARDENS FUND #7 SUNRISE PARK FUND #8 PARADISE PARK #1) HOLII>A Y PINES FUND #10 THE GROVE #11 BLAKELY SUBDIVISION FUND 02-216TMill -8- ...." $909,437 $1,329,460 $415,862 $330,993 $12,150,162 $1,541,587 $707,872 $899,837 $324,149 $272,402 $300,877 $16,463 $2,927,976 $15,551 $9,750 $4,947 $18,245 $53,645 $5,505 $5,000 $5,000 $18,735 $18,493 $16,774 $14,398 $5,000 $37,514 $7,486 $2,940 $6,527 $5,710 $7,156 $1,793 $10,525 $10,437 $2,236 $1,010 '-' #12 INDIAN RIVER ESTATES FUND #13 QUEENS COVE LIGHTING DISTRICT #16 PALM GROVE FUND #126 SOUTHERN OAKS ESTATES LIGHTING MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNITS UNINCOPORATED SERVICES MSTU FUND STORMW A TER MSTU FUND LA W ENFORCEMENT MSTU MONTE CARLO LIGHTING MSTU #4 PLAl\1 LAKE GARDENS MSTU FUND LONGWOOD ESTATES MSTU FUND THE WOODS MST(J FUND PINE HOLLOW MSTU KINGS HIGHWAY INDUSTRIAL PARK LIGHTING ROUSE ROAD MSBU TREASURE COVE/OCEAN HARBOR CAPITAL RIVER BRANCH MSBU CAPITAL FUND LENNARD ROAD (ROAD) MSBU CAPITAL FUND LENNARD ROAD (WATER) MSBU CAPITAL FUND LENNARD ROAD (SEWER) MSBU CAPITAL FUND GREY TWIG MSBU CAPITAL FUND MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT MOSQUITO CONTROL FUNDS MOSQUITO CONTROL STATE FUNDS EROSION DlSTIU( :'1' EROSION DISTRICT ...., $12,444 $3,669 $9,636 $1,608 $3,823,150 $8,071,538 $1,462,843 $18,780 $1,558 $2,929 $8,414 $13,147 $17,985 $227,891 $755,037 $285,501 $369,631 $75,355 $35,004 $357,000 $2,862,180 $46,900 $5,047,502 TOTAL BUDGET: $315,858,162 It was moved by Com. Hutchinson, seco~ded by ,?om. Bruhn, to adopt Resolution No. 02-234; as amended; and, upon roll call, motion earned unanImously. 02-216TMill -9- \.' There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. ...., 02-216TMill -10- Chairman Clerk of Circuit Court .... \.,t. ..., AGENDA REOUEST ITEM NO. ~ A- DATE: October 1, 2002 REGULAR [X] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [ ] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): County Attorney Daniel S. McIntyre County Attorney SUBJECT: Resolution No. 02-239 - Proclaiming the month of October, 2002 as "Domestic Violence Awareness Month" in St. Lucie County, Florida. BACKGROUND: Domestic Violence transcends all ethnic, racial and socioeconomic boundaries. Its perpetrators abuse their victims both physically and mentally, and the effects of their attacks are far reaching - weakening the very core of our County. The Honorable William L. Roby, Administrative Family Division Judge, has requested that this Board proclaim the month of October, 2002, as Domestic Violence Awareness Month in St. Lucie County, Florida. PREVIOUS ACTION: RECOMMEND A TION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution No. 02-239 as drafted. COMMISSION ACTION: ~ APPROVED [] DENIED [ ] OTHER: 5-0 CE: County Attorney: ~ Review and Approvals Management & Budget Purchasing : Originating Dept. Other: Other: Finance: (Check for Copy only, if applicable)___ Eff. 5/96 \.,,- ,..." t , RESOLUTION NO. 02-239 A RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 2002, AS "DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH" IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made the following determinations: 1. Domestic Violence transcends all ethnic, racial and socioeconomic boundaries. Its perpetrators abuse their victims both physically and mentally, and the effects of their attacks are far reaching - weakening the very core of our County. 2. Domestic Violence is particularly devastating because it so often occurs in the privacy of the home, which is meant to be a place of shelter and security. 3. During the month of October, Americans should contemplate the scars that domestic violence leaves on our society and what each of us can do to prevent it. 4. Because domestic violence usually takes place in private, many Americans may not realize how widespread it is. Each year in the United States, approximately 1.5 million women are raped and/or physically assaulted by their current or former husbands, partners and/or boyfriends. 5. Many of these women are victimized more than once over the course of a year. As unsettling as these statistics are, it is also disturbing to realize that the children of battered women frequently witness these attacks, thus becoming victims themselves. 6. Our prosecutors, law enforcement officers and victim advocates have worked hard to reduce domestic violence in our County and to assist victims and their families. 7. Through education, awareness and enforcement, we are striving to prevent domestic violence and sexual assault. Public action awareness will create a society that promotes strong '-' .., values, fosters a safe and loving home environment for every family and refuses to tolerate domestic violence in any form. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County: 1. This Board does hereby proclaim the month of October, 2002, as "DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH" in St. Lucie County, Florida. 2. This Board urges everyone in St. Lucie County to join together to end domestic violence that threatens so many of our citizens and children. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 1st day of October, 2002. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: DEPUTY CLERK CHAIRMAN APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND CORRECTNESS: COUNTY ATTORNEY ...., . ~ ~~~~~~ ~/Il~ ~A.-~ êak &::1; rb, ~ ~ C:..ê' . /7 . --r- . UL<a~ I' WILLIAM L. R.OBY CIRCUIT JUDGE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 100 EAST OCEAN BOULEVARD STUART. FLORIDA 34994 (560463-3281 FAX (560463-3283 NINETEENTH JUDICIAL ClR.CUIT TO FROM: RE: DATE: A.11 Cities & Counties William L. Roby, Administrative Family Division Judg Domestic Violence Awareness Month August 26, 2002 \0\ \ OF FLORIDA October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. If your city or county is interested in entering a Proclamation in this regard, I have attached a sample of a Proclamation that was entered last year. Should you need any other information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or my Judicial Assistant, Maggie, at 772-463-3281. Thank you. INDIAN RIVER. MAR TIN. OKEECHOBEE & ST. LUCIE COUNTIES . . '-' .."",I NATIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH 2002 Domestic violence transcends all ethnic, racial and socioeconomic boundaries. Its perpetrators abuse their victims both physically and mentally, and the effects of their attacks are far reaching - weakening the very core of our communities. Domestic violence is particularly devastating because it so often occurs in the privacy of the home, which is meant to be a place of shelter and security. During the month of October, Americans should contemplate the scars that domestic violence leaves on our society anà what each of us can do to prevent it. Because domestic violence usually takes place in private, many Americans may not realize how widespread it is. Each year in the United States, approximately 1.5 million women are raped and/or physically assaulted by their current or former husbands, partners and/or boyfriends. Many of these women are victimized more than once over the course of a year. As unsettling as these statistics are, it is also disturbing to realize that the children of battered women frequently witness these attacks, thus becoming victims themselves. Our prosecutors, judges, law enforcement officers and victim advocates have worked hard to reduce domestic violence in our City/County and to assist victims and their families. Through education, awareness and enforcement, we are striving to prevent domestic violence and sexual assault. Public action and awareness will create a society that promotes strong values, fosters a safe and loving home environment for every family and refuses to tolerate domestic violence in any form. NOW, ..... proclaim October 2002 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. We call upon everyone in the community to join together to end domestic violence that threatens so many of our citizens and children. \w AGENDA REOUEST ....,¡ ITEM NO. ~ DATE: October 1, 2002 REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [X] CONSENT [ ] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY: Community Services Beth Ryder, Director ~ SUBJECT: Continuation of the September 24,2002, Public Hearing for approval of Resolution No. 02-197 creating the St. Lucie County Public Transit Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) for the purpose of providing a dedicated funding source for public transportation for St. Lucie County. BACKGROUND: On September 24, 2002, a Public hearing was held for the purpose of creating an MSTU for public transportation. The hearing was continued in order for staff to bring back information on including bike paths and sidewalks and excluding the areas west of Range Line Road. St. Lucie County has contracted for transit services since 1992 and provided matching funds for vehicles. Various State and Federal grants have provided operating and capital costs. A new census designation combining St. Lucie County and Martin County has changed both counties status from under 200,000 population to over 200,000. Therefore, neither county is eligible for Federal Transit Administration operating assistance. If St. Lucie County is to continue providing the current service levels, a dedicated source oflocal funding needs to be established. FUNDING AVAIL: N/A PREVIOUS ACTION: On September 24, 2002 the Public Hearing was held and then continued to October 1, 2002. On August 27,2002 the Board approved advertising for Public Hearing for the attached resolution. On June 6, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners, the Fort Pierce City Commission and the Port St. Lucie Council held a workshop to discuss local funding for public transit. The consensus was to create a countywide MSTU for Public Transit. RECOMMENDATION: Proceed with the establishment of a MSTU for transit. 1. Approve Resolution #02-197 creating the St. Lucie County Public Transit Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) or: 2. Approve advertising for a new public hearing to be held on November 12,2002, if the Board is desirous of including non-motorized transit within the MSTU. The new public hearing is necessary to include this significant addition to the MSTU. [ ] APPROVED [] DENIED ~] OTHER: Pulled for more information. Items that need addressed: 1. Funding for alternative transit 2. Allocation of funds for School Board for 3. Workshop with Cities for Review and ADprovals input. County Attorney: x Originating Dept. ""'- COMMISSION ACTION: M. Anderson ou Administrator sidewalks. Management & Budget: X Other:_ Purchasing: Finance: (Check for Copy only, if applicable X) EfT. 5/96 '-' ,..., CO~~TYSERVICES MEMORANDUM #02-86 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Beth Ryder, Community Services Director SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearing on Municipal Service Transit Unit (MSTU) DATE: October 1, 2002 At the Public Hearing on September 24, 2002, Commissioner Coward asked the consultant to discuss the financial effect of including non-motorized transit i.e. bike paths and sidew~lks within the MSTU for public transit. Bill Ball with Tyndale -Oliver and Associates, Inc. will present their analysis at the Public Hearing. Commissioner Barnes requested the amount of taxable revenue that would be excluded from the MSTU if the areas West of Range Line Road to the County line were excluded. That information is included in the packet. 'i. '-' ....,¡ RESOLUTION NO. 02·197 A RESOLUTION TO BE 'KNOWN AS THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSIT MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT RESOLUTION; PROVIDING DEFINITIONS AND FINDINGS; CREATING THE PUBLIC TRANSIT MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT; AUTHORIZING SUCH UNIT TO ANNUALLY LEVY AD VALOREM TAXES; AUTHORIZING OTHER GENERAL POWERS OF SUCH UNIT; DECLARING THE EXCLUSION FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACf; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABn..ITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFEcrIVE DATE NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, that: ARTICLE I INTRODUcnON Section 1.01. Dermitions. When used in this Resolution, the following terms shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly requires otherwise: "Board" shall mean the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida. "County" shall mean St. Lucie County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida. "Public Transit" shall mean any form of public transit services, including but not limited to fixed route, deviated route, demand response, van pooling, ran, transpo~tion disadvantaged and Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") trips. "Unit" shall mean the Public Transit Municipal Service Taxing Unit as created by Section 2.01. 1 :, '-' ""'" . . Section 1.02. Findings. It is hereby ascertained, determined and declared that: A. Pursuant to Article vm, Section 1 of the Florida Constitution, and Sections 125.01 and 125.66, Florida Statutes, the Board has all the powers ofloca1 self-government to perform county functions and to render services in a manner not inconsistent with general law and such power may be exercised by the enactment of county ordinances. B. Section 125.01 (1)( q), Florida Statutes, provides legislative authorization for counties to establish a municipal service taxing unit for any part or all of the unincorporated areas within its boundaries and wi~ municipal boundaries subject to consent of the respective municipality within which may be provided essential facilities and municipal services. C. The purpose of this resolution is to create the Public Transit Municipal Service Taxing Unit for the purpose of public transit services for all residents of St. Lucie County. The Board determines that.the creation of this municipal service taxing unit will be of benefit to the real and personal property within the unit. The Board shall determine each year the estimated cost of providing such services for the ensuing County fiscal year within the boundaries of the unit. D. The Board hereby determines that the provision of public transit services is an essential municipal service within the meaning of Article VII, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution and Section 125.01(1)(q), Florida Statutes. 2 '-' ....,¡ E Section 12S.01(1)(q), Florida Statutes, provides that upon consent through adoption of an ordinance by the governing bodies of affected municipalities given annually or for a tenn of years, the boundaries of a municipal service taxing unit may include all or part of the boundaries of a municipality. ARTICLE n PUBLIC TRANSIT MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT Section 2.01. Creation. There is hereby created the Public Transit Municipal Sen:ice Taxing Unit pursuant to Section 12S.01(1)(q), Florida Statutes. The boundaries of the Unit shall include the entire unincorporated and incorporated areas of the County as indicated in the boundaries set forth and described in the Appendix, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The purpose of the Unit is to provide and facilitate public transit services within the Unit. The Board of County Commissioners shall be the governing board of the Unit. Section 2.02. Governing Board Powers. The Governing Board shall have the power to: Levy annually an ad valorem tax upon taxable. real and personal property for the provision of essential facilities and municipal services within the Unit in the same manner as other county ad valorem taxes are levied; A. Ädopt a budget at the same time and in the same manner as the Board prepares and ( adopts its annual county budget and levies ad valorem taxes as provided by law; B. Separat~ly maintain in a separate account the funds obtained ftom the levy of the tax. Those funds obtained from the levy of the ad valorem wees shall be used solely for 3 '-' ~ the purpose of providing public transit services within the boundaries of the Unit, including but not limited to operating expenses, planning, facility construction, purchasing buses, equipment, and other capital costs; C. Appropriate and expend revenue of the Unit; D. Contract to receive and expend money, to sue and be sued, and generally to perform all other acts necessary or incidental to the powers and duties granted by this resolution. E. Reimburse the County for funds advanced for the east-west fixed route service during the County's Fiscal Year 2003. ARTICLE m MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Section 3.01. Declaration of exclusion from Administrative Procedures Act. Nothing contained in this resolution shall be construed or interpreted to include the Unit in the definition of agency contained in Section 120.52, Florida Statutes, or to otherwise subject the Unit to the application of the Administrative Procedures Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. This declaration of intent and exclusion shall apply to all proceedings taken as a result of or pursuant to this resolution. Section 3.02. Severability. If any clause, section or p~ovision of this resolution shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason or cause, the remaining portion of said resolution shall be in full force and effect and be valid as if such invalid pOrtion thereof had not been incorporated herein. 4 · . '-' .., Section 3.03. Effective date. This Resolution shall take effect upon the enactment by the City of Fort Pierce City Commission, the City of Port St. Lucie City Council and the Town of St. Lucie Village Board of Aldennen of ordinances consenting to the inclusion of their respective entity within the boundaries of the Unit as required by Section 12S.01(1)(q), F1o~da Statutes, within ninety (90) days from the date of adoption of this Resolution. In the event one or more of the municipalities does not adopt such an ordinance within this ninety (90) day period, this Resolution shall become null and void. After motion and second, the vote on this resolution was as follows: Chairman Doug Coward XXX Vice Chairman Cliff Barnes XXX Commissioner Paula Lewis XXX Commissioner John Bruhn XXX Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson XXX PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this XX day of xx, 2002. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE. COUNTY, FLORIDA ATl'EST: BY: Chairman Deputy Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: BY: County Attorney 5 -; '. .. . '-' ~ APPENDIX A BOUNDARIES OF TIlE PUBLIC TRANSIT MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT Unincorporated and incorporated areas of St. Lucie County, Florida. 6 ~Q .. = ë3 ¡ '0 ~ Ii~ ~- c I! = Q o c CJ~ c o )( ;: ftI 0.... o en - Q ftI- U ftI 0(1) -I en CD > ;: ftI E c .!.2 )( <'ã.ftI 21 0 ... .5ëã = -ggC) .... =-1 ehLl. CD :ã ftI ... .. üi C ftI ... ... ëã u o -I ... ::> o ... ~ ~ E E = (I) Q) ... '0 e : Q) Q) C ~5i~ :e 0) ftI Q)8~~ ~ .= ëV '0_ _U)Q)Q) g 8 ª CQ -5 Q»~ ~ g e ~ ...... C CQ C o U) C o t5 :c U) 'C .2. '0 Q) ro u :e Q) '0 >- '2 - - o C - C) Q) = C co .~.~ ... CQ '0- Q)- Q).c:C)¡0 tV ~ .= ..0 gæ ë3...... - o .?;- c: .!!æ (ij ~·c.a8~ CQ,gUic.c U)-...e- ~ ãJ ~ ~ 8 ~§æg,!Q'~ 'O.c: Q)- ro .~ ~~ Q) tV '0 '(3 ~g ... U) - CQ Õ U) C U) -Q) 0- z § CQ Q)Õ ,C Q) '0 ~ :; :;, ~ g .!!æ ~ .c:_ :::'5 U):C Q) Q) >-'0 E e o ë6 > ~ u ;: CD CII =-c !~i CD I! 16 CD ~ ftI U U 6i§ Qcß C) C C ~ 'x 'i:» ~ s ... 0 É C)8õ ~.= a.Q) >- '0 .!!æ :;, =§Q)(ij 6-U> .c: Ui C Q) :; ... e = CQ ~ :;, - C Q)g, ~ CQ CQ CQ= C) C :c ~ C'O.a ~.a8CQ .g ë 0) > o.OU)~ ... ~ 'G) ~ .E t:: 0 )( C)OCCQ .= g. ~ ; 'g ~ U) g .aj;~ëñ '0= ~ .~ ~~ Q) tV '0 '(3 'êg _ U) - CQ o U) C U) - Q) 0- Z § C) 8 tV C C 'x 'iñ Q) CQ 'O!!Q ~C)oCQ! j.=&U).~ .?;- 'g .!! ~ ·c.a 8ëü ~ ~ æ ~ :;'11>"'25 CQ ~ ~ CQ C 0 U) )( CQa.CQs 0) ¡;; Q) C 0 == :c E e C 8 .- ~ .= ß'O¡ ui .!!æ U) = co U) 'iñ Q) ~ 5i e ! ! co ..oCQ > co I (ij c!ëE :;, ~ 0 Q) Q) ! cU)!Q==e,,2 æ!Q!'õ&~ Q) U) ]! CQ - .cëü~ )( :;, CD Sg.... U) co 8 Q) C e m~ëñ ëCQit. ~ ~:; 8. ~ Õ c U) CQ ... CQ .c CQ .c-:;;~ )( U) ... S~Q) U)>-a. CQ..oëÑ' C) '0 8 CD ÕIU...CD >- !Q 8. .... C IU Q) C ... Q) U Q)gc.5 a.._ 0 U) ëü :;, c c o CQ - C '0 CQ ~ãi;e Q) Q) 0 õ'U)~ a. æ 0 ! b -! co .5 i;; - ... CQ ~ ... 8. .sit. (\') jõ go! õ'! ... a. CO U)_ëV Q) a. e :;, Q)'- 5i .:.: c e ~¡ -~~Ciì !(ij:ë e Q) - _ .2 C 0'0:;: - Q)e~~ SQ)Q)U) o > 0 'C Z ~ ~.2. Q) C U) o CQ CQ.c: õ ~ Q) - :;, (ij > Q) .c: - - .! I!- ëüN :;,CD eCD c.... co 8 C C ~ 'iñ CO it. i~ 0'0:1' ... "- 0)0 U) Q) (ij U) - C Q) U) ~ ~ 8. U) æ f CQ .c CQ .c-:;;~ )( U) ... S ~ 8. U) >- CQ..oë- ~~8~ OU)~CD >-CQQ).... CQ)o.Q) o C ... Q) U ZQ)gc.= 0._ 0 U) Q) C o "- o Q) :;, (ij > Q) .c: - - .5 Q) '0 !Q .! Q)... ~bCiì 'õ'.5 ~ a. ~ (ij ~ N > ~CQ~ -:;,..0 U) C CQ ~æš .5 Q) '0 U) Q) CQ ~~~ 'õ'.5 ~ 5o~ëü ~ N > ~CQ~ -:;,..0 U) C CQ ~æš .c ... i c CII 0 ~- el C),5 ....,/ õ.8§U)Q) §æeë'c :o::u&'Q).s .Bc=~~ 'C .2 '0 Q) :> --Q)""Q) C .Y U) C) = 8~CQCQQ)_ Q) .- ..0 Ñ ,C Q) =·2.~õ!:ë -.c:c't:CQ~ U) U c¡:: Q) - :;, Q)CQQ)ë~C' >- Q) '0 ._ _ Q) '0 - .! 0 ~ l1 § 'õ' C ;: U) a. CQ .B ~U)=:SíD C'-"'UlO :;,cQ):C 8°1i'O'~ :;-Q)~ ~:9 a8~ - ... Q) 0. v. -ë..ooc o 0 0 ... I! Zu_a._ U) CQ 0) Q) ë.....c ~ c: - CQ CQ ..0>- UI Ciì > :::: Q) .- '0 '0 :;'Q)Q)'gæ C'êi.-CQCQ Q) 0 :;, .......~ :;;.'O:9,cu U)CQ~S'2 Q) )( C _ :;, >-s88E 0"[ >t...; -)(CQ CCUt:: :;'-0 OUla. CJCQU) >-C)c cUll! o.!- :;;.5~ oo'c z1ãs. - Q) Q) o '0 0 UI '(3 - .~ Q) C ~ CQ ..0 'õ ~ '0 CJ _ C >-CQ 0 'iñ :;, - C oE'OCQ ..o::>Q)þ Q)...iQ) = CJ) .- .c: -;~j~ Q)cU)·s >-COQ)... '-'0 U) 0 Q) .~ (ij ]! CQ Q) 0 '0 '0 a. c:;'6 Ciì 5 ü U ~ 'c.5~'O ~ g :;, æ [ -:-: (ij õ UI '(3 CQ >- 1:: CQ '2 ! CQ CQ ! :;, CQEa.coE '0 Q) - CQ ... o a. ... o U C '2 :;, Q) .c: - - ... .! C) CQ~ ! C Q) O):;,.c: CQ-- ... Q) C (G = CQ Q)-= ..0 0 C ~!~ 0!J!:;, Z(GU),C - 'iñ C I! - õ C o ;: - oS 8 :s ~ .!! Q) '0 rn ~e ... 0 - - - ... ftI ftI 0. a, 13'6 ë:e = ftI 2a. 0>- a. '0 ::e.a asCI) ~~ CC CQ= ,CLI. ...- ::> 'iñ Q)C .- I! g... ..JQ) ..,- (/)5 a:: , i )( ü: N I co ㊠0) '0 :;, m (ij C ¡¡: N o o ~ .... o o N it b C ::J o o ~ CJ :;, ...J d oS ui Q) ëõ g U) c! 'tJ C CQ ... j ~N 1ã~ 'tJ>- .5"5 I-~ .J en ,.; '-' ..""" CALCULATION OF TAX REVENUES FOR THE WEST OF RANGE LINE ROAD AREA TAXABLE VALUE (1) YEAR Assuming 3% Increase ply TAX REVENUES Assuming 0.09 Mills Assuming 0.25 Mills 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 $155,575,090.00 $160,242,342.70 $165,049,612.98 $170,001,101.37 $175,101,134.41 $180,354,168.44 $185,764,793.50 $191,337,737.30 $197,077,869.42 $202,990,205.50 $209,079,911.67 $215,352,309.02 $221,812,878.29 $228,467,264.64 $235,321,282.58 $242,380,921.05 $249,652,348.69 $257,141,919.15 $264,856,176.72 $272,801,862.02 $280,985,917.88 $289,415,495.42 $298,097,960.28 '- $38,893.77 ' $40,060.59 $41,262.40 $42,500.28 $43,775.28 $45,088.54 $46,441.20 $47,834.43 $49,269.47 $50,747.55 $52,269.98 $53,838.08 $55,453.22 $57,116.82 $58,830.32 $60,595.23 $62,413.09 $64,285.48 $66,214.04 $68,200.47 $70,246.48 $72,353.87 $74,524.49 $14,001.76 $14,421.81 $14,854.47 $15,300.10 $15,759.10 $16,231.88 $16,718.83 $17,220.40 $17,737.01 $18,269.12 $18,817.19 $19,381.71 $19,963.16 $20,562.05 $21,178.92 $21,814.28 $22,468.71 $23,142.77 $23,837.06 $24,552.17 $25,288.73 $26,047.39 $26,828.82 NOTES: (1) Taxable value of the West of Range Line Road area was calculated by the GIS Division of Community Development Blocks 11,12,21,22,31,32,41,42 '-"' """" DRAFT (revised 8/26/02) The results of the evaluation are presented in Table ES-2, which summarizes the required amount of each revenue source (in terms of equivalent mills of ad valorem, pennies of gas tax, and percent of sales tax) that is necessary to leverage federal, state, and other transit revenues. This information is also illustrated in Figures ES-2 through ES-4. Table ES-2 Potential Revenue Needs by Source Local Ad Ad Gas Tax Gas Tax Sales Sales Tax Valorem Valorem Tax Year Revenue (county- (unlncorp. County County/Munl County County/Munl Need wide) only) (pennies) (pennies) (percent) (percent) 2002 $714,989 0.090 0.160 2.50 1.00 0.080% 0.050% 2003 $796,659 0.090 0.160 2.50 1.00 0.080% 0.050% 2004 $966,587 0.090 0.200 2.50 1.00 0.090% 0.050% 2005 $1,016,649 0.090 0.200 3.00 1.00 0.090% 0.050% 2006 $1,706,099 0.165 0.320 5.00 2.00 0.150% 0.080% 2007 $1,806,167 0.165 0.320 5.00 2.00 0.150% 0.080% 2008 $1,889,939 0.165 0.330 5.00 2.00 0.150% 0.080% 2009 $1,977,600 0.165 0.340 6.00 2.00 0.150% 0.080% 2010 $2,069,330 0.165 0.340 6.00 2.25 0.150% . 0.080% 2011 $2,165,319 0.185 0.340 6.00 2.25 0.150% 0.082% 2012 $2,265,765 0.185 0.350 6.00 2.50 0.150% 0.082% 2013 $2,370,874 0.185 0.360 6.00 2.50 0.150% 0.082% 2014 $2,480,864 0.185 0.360 7.00 2.50 0.150% 0.082% 2015 $2,595,962 0.185 0.370 7.00 2.75 0.150% 0.082% 2016 $2,716,403 0.185 0.370 7.00 2.75 0.150% 0.082% 2017 $2,842,438 0.185 0.380 7.00 2.75 0.153% 0.082% 2018 $2,974,326 0.205 0.380 7.00 3.00 0.153% 0.083% 2019 $3,112,340 0.205 0.390 8.00 3.00 0.153% 0.083% 2020 $3,256,763 0.205 0.400 8.00 3.00 0.153% 0.083% 2021 $3,407,894 0.220 0.400 8.00 3.50 0.153% 0.083% 2022 $3,566,045 0.220 0.410 9.00 3.50 0.153% 0.083% 2023 $3,731,543 0.210 0.420 9.00 3.50 0.153% 0.083% 2024 $3,904,728 0.210 0.420 9.00 3.50 0.153% 0.083% 2025 $4,085,959 0.210 0.430 9.00 3.50 0.153% 0.083% TOTAL $58,421,243 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NOTE: The gas tax and sales tax both have two scenanos, including (1) only the county participates, and (2) the county and municipalities participate. Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. August 2002 (revised) St. Lucie Urban Area MPO Fixed-Route Transit Funding Study \wr ...., DRAFT (revised 8/26/02) . - -..------ Figure ES-2 Ad Valorem Requirements (mills) 0.45 0.36 0.18 -o-CountyNide -o-Unincorporated Only 0.27 0.09 0.00 NM~~W~~~O~NM~~W~~~O~NM~~ oooooooO~~~~~~~~~~NNNNNN ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Figure ES-3 Gas Tax Requirements (# of pennies) 10 9 - ~Gas Tax (County) .r - - 8 ~ -o-Gas Tax (CountylMuni) - - ./ ~ 7 6 - I J - 5 f 4 ..I 3 - - - -- - - -= ....... .... ... 2 ~ 1 ---~- .... .... ... 0 N M(5 ~ 88 ~ ~ 0 ~ N M ~ ~ W ~ ~ 0) 0 ~ N M "<; " ~ 0 80 0 0 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N NN N NN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Figure ES-4 Sales Tax Requirements (percent) 0.18% 0.16% - 0.14% r 0.12% I 0.10% I ~---- ----- ------ 0.08% ............ r....- 0.06% --~ 0.04% ..J -o-Sales Tax (County) 0.02% -o-Sales Tax (CountylMuni) 0.00% NM8~8~~~0~NM~~W~~0)0~NM,,<; "~ 08 8 008.....~~~....................~~NNNNNN o 00 0000000000000000 NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. August 2002 (revised) Sl Lucie Urban Area MPO Fixed-Route Transit Funding Study '-' .....,¡ Section 6 Funding Evaluation for St. Lucie County Based on the information compiled in this study, five local revenue sources were identified for more-detailed evaluation. These sources include ad valorem, MSTU, local option gas tax, local option sales tax, and County/City general fund. These potential sources are discussed below in the context of three major transit funding needs. These needs include: · Dedicated Source of Revenue is Needed for Transit - A dedicated and stable source of revenue for public transportation is the most critical need and would help resolve the funding shortfall for public transportation. · Revenue Source Must Grow With Inflation - At a minimum, the selected revenue source must grow with inflation to keep up with increasing costs. · Municipalities Receiving Service Should Participate in Funding the Transit System - Municipalities in which public transportation services are provided should participate in funding public transportation services. The evaluation of transit funding alternatives in the context of these three needs is summarized in Table 6-1. AD VALOREM According to the St. Lucie County budget for fiscal year 2001/2, ad valorem taxes are the largest source of local revenue. The current millage rate is 7.9551 mills, while the standard countywide millage cap is ten mills. The potential for using this revenue source to address the three critical transit funding needs is summarized below. Dedicated Source - If revenue from this source were allocated from the county general fund, the amount is determined on an annual basis as part of the county's budget cycle. As a result, this source of funding can result in some funding uncertainty depending upon the availability of general funds and the priorities of the BOCC. According to the FY 2001/02 budget, the taxable values in St. Lucie County are projected to increase approximately three percent annually.. Although not dedicated to any particular use, this consistent increase provides some certainty that revenues will continue to be available should they be allocated to public transportation. Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. July 2002 6-1 St. Lucie Urban Area MPO Fixed-Route Transit Funding Study \w. ...." Grows With Inflation - As indicated previously, growth in taxable values are projected to increase by an average of three percent annually. As a result, revenues generated are expected to keep pace with inflation at least at the levels experienced in recent years. This, however, requires that the number of mills allocated to public transportation be maintained as appropriate to ensure that revenues allocated to public transportation also increase at a rate equal to or greater than inflation. Municipality Participation - According to the "Local Government Financial Information Handbook" (September 1999), the certified taxable values were $7.7 billion for the county as a whole, with $2.5 billion in the City of Port S1. Lucie, $0.96 billion in the City of F1. Pierce, and $24 million in S1. Lucie Village. The distribution of taxable values is approximately 45 percent, or $3.5 billion, within municipalities and 55 percent, or $4.2 billion in unincorporated areas of the county. In Section 4, the distribution of proposed fixed-route bus service was 76 percent in the municipalities and 17 percent in the unincorporated areas, with the remaining seven percent in Martin County. It should be recognized, however, that the local transit funding would not only support fixed-route bus service, but also paratransit services already provided throughout the county. MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT This funding source is essentially a mechanism for using ad valorem taxes without counting towards the general county millage cap of ten mills. The potential for using this revenue source to address the three critical transit funding needs is summarized below. Dedicated Source - Ad valorem taxes can be levied to provide essential facilities and municipal services within a specified taxing unit. Th~ millage levied on any parcel of property for municipal purposes by all MSTUs may not exceed ten mills. Therefore, an MSTU is a dedicated source if it is specifically created to fund public transportation. However, the millage is reviewed annually and could be changed based on the direction of the County Commission. Grows With Inflation - The taxable values in S1. Lucie County are projected to grow at an annual rate of three percent, which is similar to the rate of inflation in recent years. As a result, revenues generated through an MSTU are also expected to increase over time as long as the millage rate is maintained at an appropriate level over time. Municipality Participation - The boundary of the MSTU may be specified to include unincorporated areas of the county, as well as municipality boundaries. The MSTU is subject to the consent by ordinance of the governing bodies of ·the affected municipalities. Participation could be defined according to the proposed service area for the fixed-route public transportation services. Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. July 2002 6-3 St. Lucie Urban Area MPO Fixed-Route Transit Funding Study '-' ."",tI LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX S1. Lucie County currently levies all three types of Local Option Gas Taxes allowed. One penny of gas tax generates approximately $0.9 million per year for the county as a whole. Of this $0.9 million, approximately $353,000 comes from unincorporated areas of the county, while the remaining $547,000 come from the municipalities of Ft. Pierce, Port S1. Lucie, and St. Lucie Village. Revenues collected from this source are distributed among the county and the municipalities according to interlocal agreements. The distribution is based on a moving five-year accumulation of transportation related expenditures by each jurisdiction. The potential for using this revenue source to address the three critical transit funding needs is summarized below. It is recognized that all gas tax proceeds have been allocated to highway projects. As a result, the local option gas tax is not a viable funding option for public transportation. Despite this reality, the analysis still included gas tax in the analysis for future reference. Dedicated Source _ Similar to ad valorem, this revenue source is not dedicated since it is reviewed annually and could be changed based on the direction of the County Commission. In addition, the value of one penny of gas tax has been increasing at an annual rate of less than one percent since 1992. Since this revenue source has historically grown at a rate slower than inflation, it is likely to be characterized by greater funding uncertainty. Grows With Inflation _ Since 1992, the revenue generated from a penny of gas tax has increased at an annualized rate of 0.70 percent, which is lower than the rate of inflation over the same time period. According to county staff, this trend is expected continue, suggesting that future gas tax revenues are not likely to keep pace with inflation. Municipality Participation - If an equivalent gas tax were adopted by the county and its municipalities, the local option gas tax would be somewhat equitable in terms of the share of funding versus the proposed distribution of fixed-route bus services. This would not be the case if only the county allocated funding with gas tax. LOCAL OPTION SALEST AX Although currently eligible to levy a local discretionary sales surtax, S1. Lucie County has not been able to obtain voter approval for such a tax. A local option sales tax can be appealing since it not only paid by residents, but also tourists and visitors. The potential for using this revenue source to address the three critical transit funding needs is summarized below. Dedicated Source _ Similar to previous discussions, the allocation of revenues from a local option sales tax is subject to annual review by the County Commission, unless an authority is established with specific taxing powers. Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. July 2002 6-4 St. Lucie Urban Area MPO Fixed-Route Transit Funding Study ~ .." Grows With Inflation - The value of a one percent sales tax has increased at an annualized rate of 4.4 percent per years since 1992, which is higher than the inflation rate over the same time period. Municipality Participation - The estimated burden on the county is projected to be disproportionately high when compared to the proposed distribution of fixed-route bus service reflected in the TDP (see Section 4). The county would generate approximately 55 percent of the total, while the municipalities would generate the remaining 45 percent. In contrast, only 17 percent of the proposed bus service would operate in unincorporated areas. COUNTY AND CITY GENERAL REVENUE Under this option, the county and the two major municipalities would contribute lump sum amounts determined to be appropriate by interlocal agreement. The potential for using this revenue source to address the three critical needs is summarized below. Dedicated Source - This source not dedicated in the sense that all jurisdictions review their budgets on an annual basis. As a result, there are no guarantees that funding will be maintained or increased over time. However, funding assurance is somewhat favorable since a significant portion of general revenue is substantially based on ad valorem. As discussed previously, the taxable values in St. Lucie County have increased by an average of 8.8 percent annually since 1985, which provides some assurance that funding should be stable. Grows With Inflation - Although taxable values in the county as a whole have increase at a rate greater than inflation, this has not been the case in Ft. Pierce. As a result, the ability to show growth in revenues at a rate equal to or greater than inflation is not expected to occur for all jurisdictions. Municipality Participation - If this funding source were selected, it is believed that interlocal agreements could be established to determine an equitable contribution from each of the jurisdictions. RESULTS OF ASSESSMENT The five potential local revenue sources for public transportation were evaluated to estimate the extent to which each source would need to be implemented in order to fund the public transportation system described in the TDP and the 2025 Long Range Transit Plan (LRTP). As discuss previously in Section 2, revisions were made to the five-year financial plan to reflect the impact of new urban area boundaries resulting from the 2000 Census. The resulting local revenue requirements were projected to provide a basis for evaluating potential funding sources at the local level. Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. July 2002 6-5 St. Lucie Urban Area MPO Fixed-Route Transit Funding Study >.GI - ::I è3 ; '0 ~ liD:: ~ii e ... ::I GI o e U~ UI GI ~ ... ~ E e .!.2 )( <ë.~ Ç! 0 ... e ii Yd :ggc> .... ::I.... chLL. :!:: GI UI :ë e ~ I! ...... ~ u o .... .... o ~ E E ::I f/) e .2 )( - ~ Q.... o UI - GI ~- U ~ of/) ..J '0 Q) ~ :0 Q) "0 cu Õ e - o Z Q) ... ëü cu ... I/) Q) e c: 0 Q); C)CU Q) g (,)- .5 ñi I/) Q) Q) ::I (,) c: 5 ~ g ~ '- >- .0 "0 2 cu ::I ñi > Q) "0 Q) ro u :0 Q) "0 >- "2 - - o c: - .r:. C) _ c: .¡ .~ ... "0- ~ Q):; C)Q) ãí c: 'ü .¡ .- .c o >- "0 .!Iæ I/) _ c: I/) '§ .a 8 CU.r:.iñC: I/) - ... e I/) :;) ~ :;) Q) CU __ I/) °"2C:OI/) Z:;)IVa.CU "O.r:. Q) - ro .¡ ~~ Q) ro "0 'ü ~g ... I/) - CU Õ I/) c: I/) - Q) 0- Z § :;:) ... f/) :æ CU .... Q) 0 .0 Q) "0 ~ :; :;) ~ g .!Iæ 'g .r:._ ;:::'rJ 1/):0 Q) Q) >-"0 E f o ~ ~ "0 .r:. ~j (,)"0 :02 Q) CU ~ '8 '3 I/) ... I/) ::: CU o I/) c: I/) -Q) 0- z § u ;I G) lit ::I'C e.¡¡ ¡ ~ '5 G) a::e,g~ c3 ¡ s Qf/) C) c: c: ~ .~ 'õ ê - ... 0 .r:. C) g .... ~c:a.0 ~ :0 I/) Q) ~C:'- ~ .¡:: .a 8 > o c: :; ~ IV ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CU&.CU£ C) c: :0 ~ C:"O.2 .Q .a g CU ::õ .. C) > :;) c: I/) ~ ~ ~ .- -D .E -ê 8 ~ C) 0 c: S c: a. e :0 ~ :;) 8 c: CU ~ c: .a þ CU ëñ Q) C) (,) c: c: 'x ëñ S "0 ~ .r:. 0 CU ~ C) 0 ~ .5 C) I/) >- -g .!Iæ ~ ~:;)Q)ëü ... .... (,) > ~~ãQ) :;) Q) ... ::õ cu~O~CU c: 1/)( CUo.cuS c: CU c: o I/) c: o tš :c; I/) .¡:: :;) '-' - I/) Q) ~:; Q) .5 U I/) c: Q) iñ .!Iæ ëñ ::J ëñ Q) c: cu8:õ~ ~ ~ ~ f ::J ¡; 0 Q) c: :;) I/) .r:. I/) IV - ã!Q~õ 0) c: :c; c: .a - ¡'g f !Q cu-9 ¡ ~ c: 0 &~ Q) c: o I/) cu~ Õ x Q) S :;) ëü > Q) .r:. - Q) (,) c: ëii Q) ~ - ëüN ::I CD c:CD c:..... CU 8 c: c: ~ 'ëii CU';fl. ~~ ~~ ... .... C)O I/) Q) ñi I/) - c: ~ Q) a. c: I/) CU ... CU .r:. CU .r:.-;;~ x I/) ... .! ~ 8- !Q~-- ..... C:N ...., "0 Q) CD õQ)~CD :>-!QQ)..... c: Q) 0. Q) c: ... Q) (,) Q)gc:.5 a.._ 0 en ëü :;) c: c: o CU - c: "0 CU ~ãí Q) Q) 'ë' !Q a.~ ~ U cu.5 - ';fl. ('I) õ .s e - CU_ Q) ... en IV CU ~ ~ ... (,) Q) .5 0. ,g';fl. ('I) I~ 'ë' e o.cu en_ñi ~ 5r.5 c: ~ c: >Q)Q) ~ ~ ...~~- e ëü .5 ~ Q)_.r:.o 6 gj~ O)Q)Q):O - > U .~ o cu cu :;) Z .r:. a..-. Q) c: en o cu cu.r:. Õ ~ Q)- :;) ëü > Q) .r:. - - 2 cu ...- ëüN ::JCD c: CD c:..... cu Q) c: g ~ ëñ cu';fl. ~'O:I: ~ ~ ... .... 0)0 en Q) ëü en - c: en ~ Q) Q) >- a. en ã t!! cu .r:. IV .r:.-;;~ x en ... S~Q) en:>-a. cu.cëÑ 0) "0 Q) CD ÕQ)~CD >-enQ)..... c: cu a. Q) c: ~ Q) (,) ZoQ)gc:.5 a._oen Q) c: o Õ Q) :;) ñi > Q) .r:. - - .5 Q) "0 en Q) cu - Q)- ~bU) ·õ'.5 ~ "'''0- a.Q)IV ON> C¡::::::=Q) ('I)CU- -::J.c I/) c: IV ~ãš .5 Q) "0 en Q) CU u~~ .~ g ~ o .- ::J "'''0- a.Q)cu ON> C¡::::::=Q) (f)CU- -::J-D en c: co Q) c: x >-coB s: - i e lit 0 ~¡ "'Ë c>_ Õ ! c: Q) c:c:o~.c .2 ~ 5 6 ,g '5 a. E "0 .0 c: ::I Q) Q) .¡:: 0 "0 Q) > ëtšQ)lO.Q) 8:C;!Q~13 Q) .~ .0 ~ .0 :; .2. 'g Õ ~ -.r:.c:'t:CO en U co:: Q) - Q)coQ)ë~ >- Q) "0 ._ _ 'gQ)Õ -g£5 'õ' c: :g .en a. ~ .c ~en-E'i c: .- ... I/) .... :;) c: Q) :0 'S: ooãí...~ (,);Q)....Q) Q)::J~Q)en .r:. p- ....' en - - ... Q) !2 'ëii - ë .c p 5; o 0 0 _ w z(,)_o.þ I/) cu C) Q) ë"O.r:. ~ c: - CUCO~ .~ "0 "0 :;) Q) Q) CTÕ,,- Q) 0 ::J :!:"O:9 ""-""co"::: ~~C:8 >-- en- ~ ~ -g¡§ co co >-.e- - (,) § '2 o ::JE U .... Q) Q) ... o "OU 0 I/) 'ü '5 ~ Q) c: ~ .¡:: .~ .8 'õ ~ co -g ~6==-g :;) cu - ë ::J oE"Ocuo .o::>Q)þ.c Q)L-iQ)Q) .r:. en .- .r:. £ ;:::.....:::õ-~ I/)":;CO.r:.w Q)cû)-~ >- co Q) .¡ co "0 Q) - cu ... o a. ... o (,) c: '2 ::J Q) .r:. - - .... 0) - .æ .5 'ëii co "0 c: ~ c: Q) e 0)::J.r:.- co""-õ .... Q) c: co£~5 Q)....-:¡:: .c0c::;) æ~~€ of~::Jû) Zcoen.o:C; >.c _ 0 :¡¡ Q.Q, uu ë:e ::I ~ :ElL ...,¡ - Q) :ë co - '5 CT Q) o§ >0....; _xcu C:COt:: :;)-0 01/)0. (,)IVen :>-C)c: -I/)CO 52Þ ....cu(,) .- U'- "õ'0:Õ Z=æà. ñi Q) "0 :;) U .5 o I/) ñi {ü' E "0 Q) - IV ... &. ... o (,) c: '2"0 :;) c: .... CU o I/) i ë a. IV - Q) (,) .~ Q) en 0>' 0.."0 ~~ COC) Q)c: <:0 c: c: co:;) .oLL. ...- ::> ëñ Q)C: .- co (,)... ::I'" ...JQ) .- -:;) (/)0 0:: I "0 Q) X ü: N I <0 - en Q) E ëü a. 'ü '2 ::J E ... Q) 0) "0 :;) CD ëü c: II: N o o N - ..... o o N >- U. Z. C ::J o () Q) 13 3 (.) .5 rñ Q) ãí '8 en en <C "0 c: co ... ~ ~N 1ü~ "0:>- .5'3 ....., ... en '-" ."J Section 5 Meetings With County & Municipalities This section documents the meetings with St. Lucie County and the major municipalities, including Port St. Lucie and Ft. Pierce. The meetings are first summarized, while the section concludes with a review of the critical issues and results of the meetings held to discuss transit funding and governing issues for St. Lucie County. PORT ST. LUCIE A meeting was held with Port St. Lucie staff on Thursday, May 9,2002 at 9 AM. Included in this meeting were representatives of the Planning and Zoning Department and the Office of Management and Budget. c- Participants · Steven Ball, Director of Planning and Zoning, City of Port St. Lucie · John Barlow, Planner, City of Port St. Lucie · David Pollard, Director, City of Port St. Lucie · Darrell Drummond, Executive Director, Community Transit · Steven Tindale, President, Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. · William Ball, Principal, Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Agenda · Overview of the Transit Funding Study · Project Schedule · Overview of the Transit Development Plan · Perception of Transit in St. Lucie County (staff level vs. policy level) · Discussion of City Budget · Discussion of Governing Options · Other Comments, Issues, and Questions Summary of Meeting · Port St. Lucie staff requested a copy of the final TDP. The final plan has since been provided. · The City Council is not that aware of public transportation issues, with the exception of Council members serving on the MPO Board. l. Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. July 2002 5-1 St. Lucie Urban Area MPO Fixed-Route Transit Funding Study '-' 'WIll · The fiscal year 2002/03 budget for the City was In the process of being developed at the time of this meeting. A City Council retreat was scheduled for July 24th, 2002 to discuss the budget. · There is a need to act quickly if the upcoming budget Is to be Impacted by the public transportation funding issues. · There is support for the five-year transit plan at the staff level but there is uncertainty regarding what the level of support will be at the policy level. · City staff indicated a need to integrate public transportation with the Regional Land Use Study recommendations and the need for more community center land use patterns (e.g., Village Green area). · The gas tax revenues allocated to Port St. Lucie are generally obligated. Any contribution from the City would need to come from the general fund. There is little interest in an increase in the City's millage rate. · City staff suggested that the County administer the budget for the transit system. · The City is experiencing an annual population growth of four to five percent. · If directed to fund the transit system, it would require the redirection of existing revenues or an increase in the millage rate. · City staff would tend to favor ad valorem as the revenue source for public transportation. · Staff also suggested the potential future involvement of the Community Redevelopment Authority in helping to fund the transit system. · City staff agreed to share the results of this meeting with the City Manager (Mr. Don Cooper). FT. PIERCE On Wednesday, May 15, 2002 at 10 AM, a meeting was facilitated with the City Manager and the director of Community Transit. Participants · Dennis Beach, City Manager, City of Ft. Pierce · Darrell Drummond, Executive Director, Community Transit · Steven Tindale, President, Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. · William Ball, Principal, Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Agenda l· · Overview of the Transit Funding Study · Project Schedule · Overview of the Transit Development Plan · Perception of Transit in St. Lucie County (staff level vs. policy level) Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. July 2002 5-2 St. Lucie Urban Area MPO Fixed-Route Transit Funding Study '-' .J ( · Discussion of City Budget · Discussion of Governing Options Summary of Meeting · Discussions with the City of Ft. Pierce were more global in perspective, given that the meeting was with the City Manager. · Mr. Beach indicated that St. Lucie County should take responsibility for administering and funding the transit system. In his opinion, the public transportation system is truly a countywide project. · Mr. Beach encouraged the Consultants to review the City's Transit Greenway Conceptual Master Plan in the context of future public transportation services. · The Ft. Pierce Community Redevelopment Authority was established in 1982 and expanded in 2001. The transit system should coordinate with redevelopment efforts as appropriate. · Parking will become a critical issue and problem as development occurs in downtown. · Connections to the beaches should be considered for public transportation at some point in the future. · In conclusion, Mr. Beach indicated that the City would support the County in its effort to fund the public transportation system with countywide ad valorem. ST. LUCIE COUNTY A meeting was held with St. Lucie County on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 at 3 PM. Participants involved in the meeting included representatives from the Community Development Department, the MPO, Human Services, Office of Management and Budget, Community Transit, and Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Participants · Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director, St. Lucie County · David Kelley, Director of Planning, St. Lucie County · Cheri Fitzgerald, MPO Supervisor, St. Lucie County · Beth Ryder, Community Services, St. Lucie County · Marceia Lathou, Transportation Planner, St. Lucie County · Darrell Drummond, Executive Director, Community Transit · Steven Tindale, President, Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. · William Ball, Principal, Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. I ) '- Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. July 2002 5-3 St. Lucie Urban Area MPO Fixed-Route Transit Funding Study '-' ..1 Agenda This meeting was essentially a brain-storming session on how to proceed with the presentation of transit funding options to a Joint Meeting of elected officials from St. Lucie County, Ft. Pierce, and Port St. Lucie. Discussion issues included the following: · Potential local funding options; · Format of joint meeting; · Schedule for joint meeting; · Municipal Service Taxing Units (MSTUs). Summary of Meeting The purpose of this meeting was to define potential transit funding options to be considered at a joint meeting of elected officials. Four options were initially identified, while a fifth option was subsequently added at the request of MPO staff. The five options include: · Do Nothing Alternative (Implement US 1 fixed-route without east-west connecting routes in Ft. Pierce or Port St. Lucie) · Distribute the funding burden equally between St. Lucie County, Ft. Pierce, and Port St. Lucie (33 percent each) · Increase the Countywide Millage Rate · Establish a Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) · Use Revenue From the Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) The Consultant was charged with preparing a summary of these options for distribution to the elected officials prior to the joint meeting. These funding options are discussed in more detail as part of the review of the joint meeting in the next section. The remainder of the meeting with St. Lucie County focused on how and when to facilitate a joint meeting of elected officials from each of the jurisdictions. Significant discussion also occurred regarding the legality of an MSTU that included both unincorporated areas and municipalities. It was agreed that this was possible and should be explored further prior to the joint meeting of the elected officials. JOINT MEETING OF ELECTED OFFICIALS Based on the information compiled regarding potential local transit funding options, five options were identified for presentation to the elected officials of St. Lucie County, Ft. Pierce, and Port St. Lucie. The five options include: ~ Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. July 2002 5-4 St. Lucie Urban Area MPO Fixed-Route Transit Funding Study '- ...J · Do Nothing Option · Increase the Countywide Millage Rate (Ad Valorem) · Distribute the Local Funding Investment Equally Among the County. Ft. Pierce. and Port St. Lucie (General Funds) · Establish a Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) · Use Revenue From the Federal Surface Transportation Program A workshop was facilitated with elected officials from St. Lucie County, Ft. Pierce, and Port St. Lucie. In preparation for this workshop, a summary of these five local transit funding options was prepared for review prior to and at the workshop. Note that some revisions are reflected in a redline-strikethrough format to emphasize changes in funding requirements due to the aggregation of urban areas in St. Lucie and Martin counties. The summary of local transit funding options is provided below. Summary of Local Transit Funding Options St. Lucie County, Port St. Lucie, and Ft. Pierce (revised June 4, 2002) On Thursday, December 6, 2001, the St. Lucie Urban Area MPO adopted the Transit Development Plan (TOP) Update. The TOP reflects existing and planned public transportation services in St. Lucie County for the years 2002 through 2006. A copy of the presentation made to the MPO is attached to this summary (Note: Presentation is provided in Appendix B of this report). A key observation noted by the plan Is that "St. Lucie County Is the largest county In Florida, In terms of population, without fixed- route bus service. " The TOP identifies the need for east-west fixed-route bus service in Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie to support the regional fixed bus route along the US 1 co"idor (implemented in June 2002 with 100% state funding). The transit plan also reflects a commitment to evaluate potential local funding sources that will leverage additional statelfederal funding for the implementation of the east-west bus service in the two major cities of the county. Numerous potential local revenue sources were identified and evaluated in the context of their potential for funding public transportation services in St. Lucie County, including the following: ( · Local Option Gas Tax · Local Option Sales Tax · Municipal Revenues · Transit Impact Fees · Ad Valorem (property taxes) · County General Fund Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. July 2002 5-5 St. Lucie Urban Area MPO Fixed-Route Transit Funding Study .\w .."J. . Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) . Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) Meetings were recently held with representatives of St. Lucie County, Ft. Pierce, and Port St. Lucie to discuss their respective budgets and obtain input regarding the potential for various local revenue sources to support public transportation. These discussions resulted in the selection of five potential options to be considered by the decision-makers of each of the jurisdictions. The five options are summarized below. (1) Do Nothing Option - Under this option, a local funding source for public transportation is not identified. The regional fixed bus route will continue as planned along the US 1 corridor, with no east-west fixed-route bus service connecting to US 1. Efforts would be made to continue operating demand- response service as it is provided today; however, the existing level of service will be in jeopardy given recent financial constraints, as well as the funding implications resulting from the aggregation of urbanized areas based on the 2000 Census. (2) .. \,. Increase the Countywide Millage Rate by O:2Q Q.:W - lij)1lil1Wôfštmla fç,inaríò, this option would require the County Commission to approve an increase in the millage rate of approximately ~ 0:4C. This would generate the local revenues needed to leverage additional state and federal funding and implement the five-year plan as currently adopted. In addition, this option ensures that demand-response service levels will be maintained at existing levels in areas of the county that would not initially be served by fixed-route bus service. Ih iñ~J¡ .-. .,.=' f,~ (;)«(Œt~/i'r:J1(:K(:N#I1jIll(;fì(:'l;:=VU/[ì:m@m-r-€rm(.1;;:Ut:,¡;[=t(;míJm4iJlilí1iI' I,i!.' {; ~.';m; m"/{i(:tf::: !Jr- flir:ì Jtù!øìiJ.!/;.¡iiffiØ(i !;,t:[íl1rif[J[;(=U(ir¡¡: i£Uir(;1/JÏiII!r:r1' ';r.Q. e·· ~' i., =}:{fiii1ir=l-$liit+1iirlltfllIf\ ; ',' fi:JliØií¡;'ì?l!llIfH'X;~ fii,iNi.:¡::0IJ (( í!. ,·1 r,' ""~ ~ (3) Distribute the Local Funding Investment Equally Among the County, Ft. Pierce, and Port St. Lucie - Under this option, the county and the two major municipalities would contribute an equal investment in support of the public transportation system. , this lIB would require an annual investment of approximately'" $292,000 from each jurisdiction for the next five years, matching the average annual requirement of ...... $976,000. Similar to Option 2, this option ensures that demand-response service levels will be maintained at existing levels in areas of the county that would not initially be served by fixed-route bus service. (4) Establish a Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) - This option would require the County Commission to establish a Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) that corresponds with the urbanized portions of St. Lucie County per Title XI, Chapter 123.01 of the Florida Statutes. -The governing body of a county shall have the 5-6 St. Lucie Urban Area MPO Fixed-Route Transit Funding Study Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. July 2002 \., -..I ( power to establish...special districts to include both incorporated and unincorporated areas subject to the approval of the governing body of the incorporated area affected... The governing body of such special district shall be composed of county commissioners and may include elected officials of the governing body of an Incorporated area Included In the boundaries of the special district, with the basis of apportionment being set forth In the ordinance creating the special district. n , a millage rate of" sUgl:Jt!y greater than 0.1 () would need to be established to fund the five-year public transportation plan. Similar to Options 2 and 3, this option ensures that demand- response service levels will be maintained at existing levels in areas of the county that would not initially be served by fixed-route bus service. (5) Use Revenues From the Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) - STP funds were conceived to be "fIexiblen in their application and may be used for transit capital and selected transit operating projects based on local policy decisions. A decision could be made to set aside STP funds on an annual basis to support public transportation. This, however, does not address the on-going need for local operating revenues. After significant discussion and questions, the participants in the joint meeting agreed in concept to pursue the development and adoption of an MSTU for public transportation. Sample resolutions and ordinances for an MSTU in Orange County (includes part of the City of Orlando) are provided in Appendix A of this report. This example is for the International Drive Master Transit Improvement District. Three major advantages of the MSTU were identified in the discussions, including the following: · Service area can be established to be consistent with the transit service area as appropriate. · The millage for the MSTU does not count toward the general millage cap of ten mills. · The establishment of an MSTU does not require a referendum. One disadvantage is that the MSTU could not be established in time for th~ fiscal year 2002103 budget cycle; however, the county is still pursuing the establishment of the MSTU for fiscal year 2003/04. FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSIONS ~ ,. Since the joint meeting, numerous discussions have occurred among representatives from the Consultant, St. Lucie County, and Community Transit. These discussions have related to providing supporting documentation for continuing discussion with elected officials from each of the respective jurisdictions. In addition, significant efforts were undertaken to develop a revised budget that reflects the aggregation of urban areas in St. Lucie and Martin counties, along with the resulting impacts on transit funding. Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. July 2002 5-7 St. Lucie Urban Area MPO Fixed-Route Transit Funding Study '- 'wII Section 4 , Proposed Provision of Fixed-Route Bus Services The purpose of this section is to quantify the proposed distribution of transit service within the ni,unicipalities and unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County. Given that the US 1 regional bus route just began operating and the east-west routes are not yet operating, data are limited to the proposed distribution of fixed-route bus service in the adopted TDP. As a result, the projected route miles for the year 2006 are assumed for the fixed-route bus system in St. Lucie County. QUANTIFYING PROPOSED SERVICE DELIVERY The geographic measurement of service delivery was performed based on the projected route miles reflected in the adopted TDP. This initial measure was used to quantify the length of each proposed route by jurisdiction (in miles). The length of each route is based on the measurements provided by the geographic information system (GIS). for the existing US 1 route and the proposed east-west routes. RESULTS OF ASSESSMENT Table 4-1 presents the distribution of route length by bus route and jurisdiction (municipalities and unincorporated area of St. Lucie County), while Figure 4-1 illustrates the overall distribution of proposed fixed-route bus service. Map 4-1 illustrates the proposed routes in relation to the jurisdictional boundaries. Route # Fort Port St. St. Lucie Unincorporated Martin From Route Description Total TDP Pierce Lucie Village County County 7 US 1 Regional Route 17% 16% 0% 36% 32% 100% 8 Fl Pierce Route 1 85% 0% 0% 15% 0% 100% 10 PSL Route 1 0% 98% 0% 2% 0% 100% 11 Ft. Pierce Route 2 75% 0% 0% 25% 0% 100% . 12 - PSL Route 2 0% 93% 0% 7% 0% 100% Total % Distribution 35% 41% 0% 17% 6% 100% Total Route Miles 29.14 35.84 0 14.93 5.89 85.8 Table 4-1 Distribution of Route Length by Route and Jurisdiction Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. July 2002 4-1 Sl Lucie Urban Area MPO Fixed-Route Transit Funding Study '- ."" Figure 4-1 Percent Distribution of Proposed Route Miles by Jurisdiction (2006) 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% FOft Pierce .. Route length Poft SL Lucie SLLuc:ie l/lllllge \JnincaI IOrlted Martin County County Jurtldlc1lon SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Three observations are made regarding the distribution of proposed fixed-route bus services in St. Lucie County. . The municipalities (Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie) would receive most of the fixed-route bus service (76 percent), while the unincorporated areas of the county would receive only 17 percent of the service. The remaining service (7 percent) is provided in Martin County as part of the US 1 regional bus service, which is funded 100 percent by the Florida Department of Transportation. . In terms of projected route miles, Port St. Lucie actually receives more service than Ft. Pierce because of the larger municipal boundary and more disbursed development throughout the city. . Areas not served by the proposed fixed-route bus service continue to be served by the countywide paratransit service on an as requested basis. This includes St. Lucie Village and other unincorporated areas of the county (Lakewood Park, Indrio, Hutchinson Island, etc.). These observations can be used to compare the proposed distribution of service to the proposed distribution of funding offered by various revenue sources. Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. July 2002 4-2 St. Lucie Urban Area MPO Fixed-Route Transit Funding Study '- '-" Table 2-2 Summary of Transit Costs and Revenues Including 5% Contingency (in 2001 dollars) Category 2002 I 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Operating Costs Fixed-Route $504.212 $504.212 $630.265 $630.265 $630.265 S2.899,218 Deviated Fixed-Route $126.053 $126.053 $378.159 $378.159 $378.159 S 1.386,583 Vanpool Program $0 $0 $0 $0 $30.000 $30.000 Para transit (includes ADA) $2.117.452 $2.117 .452 $2.120.867 $2.120.867 $2.502.851 $10.979,491 Contingency (5 percent) $137.386 $137.386 $156.465 $156.465 $177.064 $784,785 Total Operating Costs $2.885.103 $2.885,103 $3,285.756 $3.285,756 $3.718.339 $16,060.056 Operating Revenues Federal $1.144.200 $390.945 $390.945 $390.945 $390.945 $2.707,981 State $780.801 $1.025.211 $1.224.318 $1.224.318 $935.502 $5.190,150 Contract Revenue $602.921 $602.921 $602.921 $602.921 $602.921 $3.014.605 Farebox Revenue - Existing $50.000 $50.000 $50.000 $50.000 $50.000 $250.000 Farebox Revenue - New $46.617 $46.617 $72.673 $72.673 $110.872 $349.452 Local- Existing $23.791 $23,791 $23.791 $23.791 $23.791 $118.955 Local - New $236.773 $745.617 $921.107 $921.107 $1,604.308 $4.428,913 Total Operating Revenues $2.885.103 $2.885.103 $3,285.756 $3,285.756 $3.718.339 $16,060.056 Balance $0 SO SO $0 $0 $0 Capital Costs Vehicles $1.405.000 $230.000 $345.000 $920.000 $ 1.045.000 $3.945,000 Transfer Facility $0 $200.000 $0 SO $0 $200.000 Pam-and-Ride Improvements $0 $60.000 $0 $0 $0 S60.000 Other Transit InfrastnJcture $65.000 $25.000 $58.750 $25.000 $25.000 $198.750 Miscellaneous Capital $790.728 $30.000 $30.000 $30.000 $30.000 $910,728 Contingency (5 percent) $113.036 $27.250 $21.688 $48.750 $55.000 $265,724 Total Capital Costs $2.373.764 $572.250 $455.438 $1.023,750 $1,155.000 $5.580,202 Capital Revenues Prior Grant for Vehicles $920.000 $0 SO SO $0 $920,000 Federal $225.000 $176.413 $310.163 $789.963 $899.050 $2.400,589 State $774.339 $368.587 $123.587 $162.037 $177.951 $1.606,501 Local· Existing $0 SO $0 SO $0 $0 Local - New $454,425 $27,250 $21,688 $71,750 S78,OOO $653,113 Total Capital Revenue $2.373.764 $572,250 $455,438 $1,023.750 $1.155.000 $5.580,202 Ton Revenue Credit (soff match) $0 $44.103 $71.541 $151.491 $178.762 $451,897 Balance SO SO $0 $0 SO SO Total Costs and Revenues Costs $5.258.867 $3.457.353 $3.741.193 $4.309.506 $4.873.339 S21.640,258 Revenues $5.258.867 S3.457.353 S3.741.193 $4.309.506 $4.873.339 $21.640.258 Balance SO $0 $0 $0 $0 SO PROPOSED LOCAL CONTRIBUTION Existing Contribution $23,791 $23,791 $23,791 $23,791 $23,791 $118,955 Proposed New Contribution $691,199 $772,867 $942,795 $992,857 $1,682,308 $5,082,026 Total Local Contribution $714,990 $796,658 $966,586 $1,016,648 $1,706,099 $5,200,981 Percent Local Contribution 13.60% 23.04'. 25.64% 23.59% 35.01% 24.03% Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. July 2002 2-8 St. Lucie Urban Area MPO Fixed-Route Transit Funding Study ....1 COMMUNITY SERVICES MEMORANDUM #02-78 TO: FROM: Board of County Commissioners Beth Ryder, Director # SUBJECT: Public Hearing on MSTU - Resolution No. 02-197 DATE: September 24, 2002 Attached for consideration is Resolution No. 02-197 creating a Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) for public transportation in St. Lucie County. In order to maintain the current transportation service which is primarily demand response door to door, a local funding source needs to be identified. The current system has depended upon Federal TransitAdministration (FT A) grants, State Block grants and capital match funds from the St. Lucie Board of County Commissioners. Since 1992 this County has applied for and received from the FTA $6,275,147.00 in operating assistance. Unfortunately, in May, 2002, the census published the new urbanized areas and St. Lucie County was linked with Martin County into one urbanized area called the Port St. Lucie, Florida Urbanized Area with a combined population of 270,774. This new designation rendered both St. Lucie County and Martin County ineligible for operating funds starting in FY2003 which begins October 1, 2002. Under the grant rules, only areas with a population of under 200,000 are eligible to receive funds for operating of the transit system. Back in December, 2001, the Metropolitan Planning Agency (MPO) approved the five year St. Lucie Urban Area Transit Development Plan. The approved plan shows the need for fixed route service and the necessity for a dedicated local source for funding. At the time this plan was written and accepted, there was an expectation that the current level of operating funds would be available to provide the demand response system already in place until after the 2010 census, and the only new local funding that would be needed was for new fixed route service. " '-' ..., Memorandum 02-78 September 24, 2002 Page two On June 6, 2002, a workshop was held with the Board, the City of Fort Pierce and the City of Port St. Lucie with the original intent to receive direction on how to fund the new fixed route service, which had been approved in December, 2001. Attached is a copy of the different funding methods that Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. developed, and a summary of the meetings leading up to the workshop. The unanticipated loss of operating funds was also discussed and the unanimous consensus of all three elected bodies was that transit is a countywide issue and a Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU) covering the entire County for Public Transit should be considered by the Board of County Commissioners. On September 17, 2002 staff updated the Town of St. Lucie Village Board of Aldermen at their regular monthly meeting. Staff has been working with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the Federal Transit Administration (FT A) to maximize all funds that can be used in the short term to fill the gap to keep the current level of service until local funds are available. The U.S. House of Representatives passed unanimously legislation that will allow areas that reached the 200,000 threshold this year to continue to be eligible for operating funds for FY 2003 only, and we are hopeful that the U.S. Senate will take similar action this year. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution #02-197 creating the St. Lucie County Public Transit Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU). c: City of Fort Pierce Commissioners City of Port St. Lucie Councilmen Town of St. Lucie Village Aldermen St. Lucie County Administrator St. Lucie County Attorney Town of St. Lucie Village Attorney Fort Pierce City Manager Fort Pierce City Attorney Port St. Lucie City Manager Port St. Lucie City Attorney Assistant County Administrator Community Development Director Management and Budget Director CEO Council on Aging! Community Transit Okeechobee Coun~ s- a. õ5. :J s::: ::IJ D) <: ;::¡. g¡ '5 () () Q c: Q :J C -< :J .:;z ...., ~ 0 . .... .; U» ø U» ~ .~ a... s:: 0; c: :e m Q) (fþ 2 CÞ L.. :J 0>- -¡¡; I- U» Q"L.. ø . ..... m 'S (.) Q).!a u o CD 2 ~ CÞ .- L.. :> ~ ...., ,..... ..s::a..= E <f :J en I- ..J . Q" 'i- ~ -¡¡; o s:: ~ u CO 0 0 II a: ..... a. L.. :9 ..... C ."'C mcCD 0 en m "'Cs:: «S o O.~ ;; :æ CD'- :> <f:> ...c Q) :J .... CJ.....L.. S J..., ><u... :s CD c: .c '5 ::J . .... .- f./) u... c: L.. :::> ..... Q.; (fþ ë3 L .- :::> C "$ N 0 c-.j 0 <J:> .... ~ o (j) (j)ë ....<D (j)~(j) <DE ~ .... <D <D ë 0.. <D a:s (I) >-.- ,,, 0 _ - ëo.~ '-V_ '0:= (I) 0..:= Ü <D <D ::» OEg o>ã) 2....J<D .... wLL.!!2.S 0 .~ .....;.(3 !:....ooo...... Q..U)::J (I) 0:'::: 0 0.. 0 1:: 1:: -I E .~.c. o·ãf 0 0.....; ~ ::2 d: ~ ë75::2 (I) lL a.. U) ã. .!:! .... EOO<J013(j W ..- õ - N <D > Z a:s <D <D C > > \- :;::"';:; 2 a:s ~ « E - .... - ""'-'0)"-(1) +-' CO~.,-.:t: ·üS <D « <D « (I) C >->- (I» a:s-Z..-ZN .Þ f'. a:s <D a:s <D ;;a:s(l)E_E_ ~ ro:S2525 ~Q..ct «a:«a:a:s -{gE--o--o<D < ._ (l) ..- (l) N <D < ( ) S::;( 2 .~ 2 .~ <D .... z.._::>LL.::>lL 0 ::J C .... 0 -0 0 -0 .- o ::>o.s;( a: <D a: <D è: a:: ..., ...... ......(1) "0 ü ·C -0 g! -0 .g! U) ( ) .S;; (5 ~ 'ã) .~ ã) ~ "0 a:s ü iI: 0 lL 0 .- ië Q..-IQ......J::2 E .¡¡¡ U) I- U) I- U) :::! E ::2 :J LL a.. LL a.. ..- o ~ a:: ..- (] "'""- ~ '-' ....,I ITEM NO. 6 DATE: October 1.2002 AGENDA REQUEST REGULAR: (X) PUBLIC HEARING: ( ) CONSENT: ( ) TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY (DEPT): ADMINISTRATION / SUBJECT: . A list of proposed priority projects to be funded with revenue from the Parks Referendum is attached. Staff recommends that the Board approve the list, contingent on available funding. BACKGROUND: See attached memorandum FUNDS AVAILABLE: PREVIOUS ACTION: \ RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed priority projects for Parks Referendum revenue. The proposed priority lists are subjectto change and authorization. The final priority list will be submitted after agreements with municipalities are finalized. COMMISSION ACTION: 11 APPROVED 0 DENIED :. , o OTHER: 5-0 E!! County Attorney: fk' Review and Approvals r Il\\¡- E!! Management and BUdget:@f I It I~ E!! Other: Parks & Recreation ~ 9. Purchasing: E!! Originating Dept: 9. Other: 9. Finance: Check for copy only, if applicable: Anyone with a disability requiring accommodations to attend this meeting should contact the SI. Lucie County Community Services Manager at 561-462-1777 or TTD 561-462-1428, at least 48 hours (48) prior to the meeting. H:\WIN\WPIAGENDA \ParksRefListwpd .' '-" '..,.¡ COUNTY ADMINISTRATION MEMORANDUM 02-12 W"'"'_¢¥:':i";"""'::;';'~~?ðV''':''''~''':''''-''::':';i~~''iØØ<;-,' _""..........'c...."";//:::__...;'.,,.'.""/../,.../ .. ........'....:,.::':,..:».»"._<.,__.....,....,.._..'..../..,.,.,..>,.......... .. .. ,-.-..,.>.,-.'-,;,.'"'>-'.-./,-'.-::';-'.".'>:",,,....,'..c._..,._,.,."..}.,.,.,.',.,._,.::.:::.·".'._:;i:',""_:"_,,_,__,_,__,,,,,·_::::::::_,,_,__.,_,"":-,.,--,--...-.,'-,.-.,'.,....':::, >-^'M~~<WJm~>.»j'$:?>_...,~i$.:?,""~~J>,.=X««<>"'«,~"'*'we,,:::'.""~'~'''''--~''''_·....··,~;ø,..Ó'-ù:~:i¿·'';,v;;0'.,'},;:)<=~~¡;:'., _t,~W~Jm>mw.'Ø@:""""")"~~:;.~,~i~:>:,:::::>~" ~....,,:.,:-...:~ DATE: Board of County Commissioners Ray Wazny, Assistant County Administrator ~. October 1, 2002 TO: FROM: RE: Parks Referendum The expected revenues over 20 years from the Parks Referendum are estimated below: of' $ Millions Unincorporated St. Lucie County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $23.7 Port St. Lucie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $27.4 Fort Pierce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 8.3 Village of St. Lucie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .{. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ .2 TOTAL .............. . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $59.6 PROPOSED PRIORITY PROJECTS Sf. Lucie County: Lakewood Park, Lawnwood Stadium, Lawnwood Recreation Complex, Trail Enhancement and Beach Access Fort Pierce: Lawnwood Park, Beach Parks, Moores Creek Linear Park, Avenue '0', Means Court Square & Community Center and Tourist Station Port St. Lucie: Lyngate Park, Riverwalk (Midport Lake area), Veterans Memorial Park, Winter lakes Community Park, Turtle Run Neighborhood Park, McChesney (Specialized Facility Park), Port St. Lucie North Neighborhood Park, Oak Hammock Park, Torino Regional Recreation Facility, St. Lucie West Neighborhood Park, California Boulevard Community Park, Fred Cook Park, C-24 Canal Park, Dreyfus Lakes Park, Whispering Pines Community Park, South bend Community Park, Wilderness Park Site, East Port Neighborhood Park, Westmoreland Park '-" ....." Page 2 October 1,2002 Parks Referendum As part of St. Lucie County's continuing effort to assess the parks/recreational needs and wants by its residents, the Board of County Commissioners agreed to secure professional services to assist in the development of a "Community Parks System Master Plan" and a "Lawnwood Recreation Complex Master Plan," At the September 18, 2001 BOCC meeting, the Board agreed to contract with Glatting Jackson to develop both master plans. At the Board's direction, a "Steering Committee" was also formed to help guide the process, provide input and work with staff by providing feedback. A Parks Referendum Commission Workshop was held on July 1, 2002 and a Parks Referendum Workshop with the Commissioners was held on August 20, 2002 to finalize the implementation plan. Presentations on the Parks Referendum were given to the Chamber of Commerce members by staff, ballot language has been approved by the BOCC and submitted to the Supervisor of -Elections for placement on the November Ballot (#14). A Campaign/Marketing Committee comprised of County staff, Ft. Pierce & Port St. Lucie staff, School Board staff, Trust for Public Lands staff and citizen volunteers has been formed. Campaign materials including a brochure and a Q & A sheet have been drafted, a Speaker Bureaotformed, speaking engagements are being scheduled and presentations have already begun to take place. RLW/ab I ~ ....,¡ COUNTY ADMINISTRATION MEMORANDUM 02-12 "'."...., TO: FROM: ,····""".M.'·'·· . 'mYmYmYn"'··' ",,,.,,,,,,, Board of County Commissioners Ray Wazny, Assistant County Administrator ~ October 1, 2002 DATE: RE: Parks Referendum The expected revenues over 20 years from the Parks Referendum are estimated below: $ Millions Unincorporated St. Lucie County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $23.7 Port St. Lucie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $27.4 Fort Pierce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 8.3 Village of St. Lucie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ .2 TOTAL .......................................... $59.6 PROPOSED PRIORITY PROJECTS Sf. Lucie Co un tv: Lakewood Park, Lawnwood Park and Lawnwood Recreation Complex Fort Pierce: Lawnwood Park, Beach Parks, Moores Creek Linear Park, Avenue 'D', Means Court Square & Community Center and Tourist Station Port St. Lucie: Lyngate Park, Riverwalk (Midport Lake area), Veterans Memorial Park, Winter lakes Community Park, Turtle Run Neighborhood Park, McChesney (Specialized Facility Park), Port St. Lucie North Neighborhood Park, Oak Hammock Park, Torino Regional Recreation Facility, St. Lucie West Neighborhood Park, California Boulevard Community Park, Fred Cook Park, C-24 Canal Park, Dreyfus Lakes Park, Whispering Pines Community Park, Southbend Community Park, Wilderness Park Site, East Port Neighborhood Park, Westmoreland Park H :IWINIWPIAG EN DA IParksRefList wpd \..t 'wi Page 2 October 1, 2002 Parks Referendum As part of St. Lucie County's continuing effort to assess the parks/recreational needs and wants by its residents, the Board of County Commissioners agreed to secure professional services to assist in the development of a "Community Parks System Master Plan" and a "Lawnwood Recreation Complex Master Plan." At the September 18, 2001 BOCC meeting, the Board agreed to contract with Glatting Jackson to develop both master plans. At the Board's direction, a "Steering Committee" was also formed to help guide the process, provide input and work with staff by providing feedback. A Parks Referendum Commission Workshop was held on July 1, 2002 and a Parks Referendum Workshop with the Commissioners was held on August 20, 2002 to finalize the implementation plan. Presentations on the Parks Referendum were given to the Chamber of Commerce members by staff, ballot language has been approved by the BOCC and submitted to the Supervisor of Elections for placement on the November Ballot (#14). A Campaign/Marketing Committee comprised of County staff, Ft. Pierce & Port St. Lucie staff, School Board staff, Trust for Public Lands staff and citizen volunteers has been formed. Campaign materials including a brochure and a Q & A sheet have been drafted, a Speaker Bureau formed, speaking engagements are being scheduled and presentations have already begun to take place. RLW/ab H :IWINIWPIAG EN DA IParksRefList.wpd 09f20/2002 15:06 772-455-5808 eITV OF FT PIERCE PAGE 02 '-' ...., ~ITY ~f ~RT PHR~I -lo,.lJa ---.- DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT City Hall · 100 North U.S. 1 · P. O. Box 1480 · Fort Piérce, Florida 34954-1480 Phone (561) 460-2200 . Fax (561) 466-5606 September 20, 2002 Ray Wazny St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34950 Dear Mr. Wazny: The City Commission at their regular meeting of September 16, 2002, approved the proposal for the use of the City'S share offunds from the Parks referendum outlined in the attached memorandum to the City Manager dated September 10, 2002, plus a tourist station on A venue D and E, and the right to determine other projects as time goes on and funding becomes available. Sincerely, ~o- ~ I ,,'__ Ramon Trias, AICP ) Director of Development RT/ckg cc: Dennis Beach 09/20/2002 15:06 772-456-5808 CITY OF FT PIERCE PAGE 03 \r ~ MEMORANDUM To: City Manager From: Director of Development ~\ Date: SepternberlO>2002 SUBJ: Parks ReferendDIII Ray Wazny, Assistant County Administrator, has requested that the City Commission take official action and recommend priority projects to be funded by the Parks Referendum. I suggest that this item be brought for discussion at the September 16 Conunission Meeting. I recommend we make the following proposaJ for the use of the city>s share offunds: 1. City funds will match the county's investment in Lawnwood up to 4 million doHan. 2. The balance of the city's funds wiU be allocated, as projects are designed and approved by the City Commission, to: 8. Beach Park~ including a n.ew boardwalk b. Moore's Creek Linear Park c. Avenue ~~D" and Means Court SqUMe and Community Center RT/ccg '-" (ATTACHMENT "A") ..." PROPOSED PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS For the ~ City of Port St. Lucie, Florida May 3. 2002 Submitted by: The Port St. L~ie Parks & Recreation Department , .. .. , ' '-' ....,¡I PROPOSED PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS For the City of Port Sf. Lucie May 3, 2002 This report identifies a preliminary list of city projects that could be developed by the City's Parks & Recreation Department, contingent on funding generated by the proposed county parks referendum, scheduled to appear on the November 2002 electoral ballot. The projects represent the Department's current unfunded CIP program and also reflect the findings of the 200 I Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment. It is important to understand that aU improvement costs identified herein are estimates, and reflect development costs estimated in 2002-dollar values. No etigineering or geo-tecbnical assessments were made in compiling the project list, nor do the project development estimates reflect staffmg, operational or equipment costs. The projects are listed according to the political district in which they are located. Each project is ranked by priority of need, with "1" being critically important, "2" being moderately important and "3" being important but can be developed at a later date. While it is the Department's intention to provide services equally to all areas of the city, some areas will see a greater number of projects constrUcted based on the historical lack of park development and/or the growing population within a specific district. DISTRICT 1 Park Name: Lyngate Community Park Map No.: 1 Acreage: 12.0 acres Proposed Improvements: Construct an additional youth league baseball field (lighted) and a trail system that will link with the proposed improvements at '~ Midport Lake. Estimated Improvement Cost5: $400,000 Priority: 2 2 ,'- '-' Park Name: Map No.: Acreage: Proposed Improvements: ~ Estimated Improvement Costs: Priority: Park Name: Map No.: Acreage: Proposed Improvements: Estimated Improvement Costs: Priority: Park Name: Map No.: Acreage: Proposed Improvements: ..." Riverwalk (Midport Lake Area) 2 . 9.83 acres (lake is 4.67 acres) Construct interior park. roadway, parking. small fishing piers. perfonnance area. picnic pavilions, restroom and trai11inkage. 5750,000 1 Veterans Memorial Park 3 10.0 acres Construct public restroom facility and small museum building. $200.000 2 DISTRIcr 2 , ., Winterlakes Community Park 4 29 (+/-) acres Ball field, soccer fields, playground, sand volleyball court. basketball court. group pavilion, picnic area, restroom and paved 3 .' '-' Estimated Improvemeat Costs: Priority: .' Park Name: Map No.: Acreage: Proposed Improvements: Estimated Improvement Costs: Priority: Park Name: Map No.: Acreage: Proposed Improvements: Estimated Improvement Costs: Priority: ...., parking. A concept plan, prepared by the developer, is on file in the Parks & Recreation Department. .f $1,500,000 2 Turtle Run Neighborhood Park (Large) 5 10.0 acres Construct public restroom. $50,000 1 McChesney Specialized Facility Park (Soccer) 6 11.09 acres Construct additional soccer fields; develop picnic area with pavilion and parking.· , ., $600,000 1 4 '-' Park Name: Map No.: Acreage: Proposed Improvements: .; Estimated Improvement Costs: Priority: Park Name: Map No.: Acreage: Proposed Improvements: Estimated Improvement Costs: Priority: Park Name: Map No.: Acreage: ...., Port St. Lucie North Neighborhood Park (Large) 7 11.9 Construct new large neighborhood parle. Amenities to include a playground, tennis courts, open space play area with practice backstop, restrooms, fitness trail, sidewalks and paved parking. A concept plan has been developed, based on the public charette process, and is on file in the Parks & Recreation Department. $600,000 1 Oak Hammock Park 8 48.7 acres Construct new park access point and parking area. Develop picnic area with restroom. $210,000 3 , .. Torino Regional Recreation Complex. 9 136.11 total acres (approx. 30 acres is lake or used for drainage). An. additional 17.19 acres is located on West Torino Parkway and Blanton Boulevard .- 5 ~ Proposed Improvements: Estimated Improvement Costs: .' Priority: Park Name: Map No.: Acreage: Proposed Improvements: Estimated Improvement Costs: Priority: Park Name: Map No: Acreage: Proposed Improvements: Estimated Improvement Costs: Priority: ~ Design and construct new multi·field sports complex. This complex will host league and tournament play ~ûvities on a variety of sports fields, including baseball, softball and soccer. $3,000,000 for phase one development 51.500.000 for acquisition of adjacent undeveloped parcels. 54,500,000 1 for land acquisition; 2 for development. St. Lucie West Neighborhood Park 10 4.97 acres Develop new neighborhood park. Amenities to include restroom, open space play area, playground, picnic area and parking area. $415,000 2 California Blvd. Community Park (Small) 11 12.68 acres , .. Develop small community park with recreational amenities including ball field (lighted), tennis courts, basketball court, playground, restroom, picnic area and parking. 51.200.000 3 ,'- 6 \.,.; Park Name: Map No.: Acreage: .¡ Proposed Improvements: Estimated Improvement Costs: Priority: Park Name: Map No.: Acreage: Proposed Improvements: Estimated Improvement Costs: Priorit)·: Park Name: Map No.: Acreage: ...." DISTRICT 3 Fred Cook Neighborhood Park ., 12 5.5 acres Construct playground, picnic area and public restroom. $150,000 1 C-24 Canal Park 13 7.93 acres Improve public access to waters of the C-24 canal and North Fork ofSt. Lucie River. Reconstruct boat ramp, construct fishing pier, picnic area, improve vehicle access to park and reconstruct parking lot. $375,000 (The Department is aware of major development constraints, i.e., environmental concerns and traffic related issues, that will significantly increase the overall development cost of this project). 2 Dreyfuss Lake p~ 14 166.39 acres (110 acres is lake) .- 7 . ., ~ Proposed Improvements: Estimated Improvement Costs: Priority: Park Name: Map No.: Acreage: Proposed Improvements: Estimated Improvement Costs: Priority: Park Name: Map No.: Acreage: Proposed Improvements: Estimated Improvement Costs: Priority: "-" Construct boat ramp, fishing pier and picnic area. ConstrUct restroom, stabilized driveway and parking lot. .. $400,000 3 Whispering Pines Community Park 15 36 acres Construct additional recreational structures including racquetball courts, tennis courts and a community swimming pool. $2,225,000 3 Southbend Community Park (fesoro development) 16 22.05 acres Design and develop a new community park. Site ameriities w'll include a playground, tennis courts, basketball court, lighted soccer field, lighted youth baseball field, lighted baseball/softball field, picnic area, restroom, sidewalks. paved parking and a fitness trail. $1,500,000 1 8 ,- ~ Park Name: Map No.: Acreage: \ Proposed Improvements: Estimated Improvement Costs: Priority: Park Name: Map No.: Acreage: Proposed Improvements: E5timated Improvement Costs: Priority: Park Name: Map No.: Acreage: ...,; DI&TRICI' 4 Wilderness Park ., 17 85.09 acres To be developed into the City's "Central Park". Passive recreation facilities to be built include bicycle trails, walking/jogging trails, picnic areas, open space play areas, public gardens, fishing areas and outdoor festival area. $3,225,000 2 East Port Neighb<;>rhood Park 18 3.98 acres Develop new neighborhood park. Amenities to include restroom, , open space play area, playground, picnic area and parking area. $300,000 . 1 , , Westmoreland Park 19 31.75 acres 9 t·... '-' Proposed Improvements: ~ Development of this specialized facility will offer recreational amenities such as an open space play area, picnic area, small playground, tennis courts, backstop, bathroom' and parking, Public access to the river will also be provided. A conceptual plan has been created by the Planning &. Zoning Department and the Parks & Recreation Department. Estimated . Improvement Costs: $247.000 Priority: 2 The projects listed above will be developed either within an existing park site, or on City owned property that is zoned OSR (Open Space Recreation). There are three projects, however, that do Dot have specific locations identified. These are: Project Name: Acreage: Number To Be Developed: Proposed Improvements: Estimated Improvement Costs: Priority: Neighborhood Parks Development Program Each park will encompass acreage ranging from a small neighborhood park (less than 5 acres) to large neighborhood park (6-14 acres). A minimum of four (4) additional Neighborhood Parks are proposed to be developed throughout the City. A typical neighborhood park will consist of a playground, open space play area, picnic area. restroom, and parking. , " Each of the four (4) parks is projected to cost approximately 5340,000 to develop, for a total ofSl,360,OOO. The Parks & Recreation Department will continually monitor the growth of neighborhoods within the City to detennine when and where a new neighõorhood park should be built. 10 .- ~ Project Name: Acreage: Number To Be Developed: ~ Proposed Improvements: Estimated Improvement Costs: Priority: Project Name: Acreage: Proposed Improvements: Estimated Improvement Costs: Priority: .., Racquet Complex It is estimated that this project will require 5 ta 10 acres of developable land. h is recommended that a minimum of 12 tennis courts, all baving the same playing surface, be constructed in order to accommodate local, regional and state tournaments. Proposed facility will have offices, a pro-shop, tennis courts, racquetball courts, restrooms and parking. $1,100,000 3 W aterparkJ Aquatic Complex It is estimated that this project will require 7 to 10 acres of developable land, depending on location and available infrastructure. A family waterpark with assorted water features such as slides and . pools, a competition pool and a recreation building. $8,000,000 To be detennined by City Council . .. The total estimated cost to develop the projects outlined above is $29,307,000. 11 '~ ~ ...,I -, SUMMARY t The intent of this report is to highlight the possibility of developing a wide range of park improvement projects within the City of Port St. Lucie, provided funding becomes available through the SL Lucie County proposed parks referendum. This report should be used as a guide when planning and budgeting the city's future park acquisition and development needs. Although a description of improvements is included for each proposed project, these improvements are purely conceptual at this point in time. It is almost certain that some of these projects will change from their original description due to public input during the design phase. In addition, political, cultural and environmental pressures may alter a project's final design and development. The information contained in this report is l?elieved by staff to be an accurate projection of future park and recreation needs of the city. Should the County referendmn fail to pass in November 2002, it is the Department's intention to pursue development of the projects contained herein through other funding mechanisms. , ... '. 12 ""' ..." i \ I _. ~ ~ I· A Z \! 8 ~ 6 \~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'tI -i A ;;:a » 0 :%:o::¡ \~ ~ 8fiõ ." c Z Z r- 'tI o~ ~ » ... ~ ~ a,. c = 0 m . '" ~ I ~ o ž ~ 'V ~ ~- ~ I I I I I I :.--- 3 "C a < m 3 m :;) ... ïJ '"' .Q. m Sl C/) () -. ...... '< ~ -u o ;¡ en ,-+ - "'tJ a "'0 o (I) m 0. - r c: 0. - CD o O ~, ""- AGENDA REQUEST ITEM NO. ..., '1 DATE: October 1, 2002 REGULAR [XX] PUBLIC HEARING [] CONSENT [] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): County Attorney Daniel S. McIntyre County Attorney SUBJECT: Smithsonian Marine Ecosystems Agreement - Amendment No.2 BACKGROUND: See attached memorandum FUNDS AVAILABLE: PREVIOUS ACTION: RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve Amendment No.2 and authorize the Chairman to sign the Agreement. COMMISSION ACTION: ~ APPROVED [ ] DENIED [ ] OTHER: 5-0 Dou as Anderson County Administrator County Attorney: !)J Review and Approvals Management & Budget Purchasing: Originating Dept. Parks & Rec. Dir: County Eng.: Finance: (Check for Copy only, if applicable) Eff. 5/96 ,. . ~ ~ INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Daniel S. McIntyre, County Attorney C.A. NO. 02-1190 DATE: September 25, 2002 SUBJECT: Smithsonian Marine Ecosystems Agreement - Amendment No.2 BACKGROUND: On November 8, 2000, the Board approved an agreement with the Smithsonian Institution to locate the Smithsonian Marine Ecosystems Exhibit in St. Lucie County. On January 19, 2001, the Board approved Amendment No.1 which modified Paragraph 14 (Insurance) of the Agreement to incorporate the specifics of coverage provided through TRICO. Attached to this memorandum is a copy of Amendment No.2 which provides for the County to be able to sell clothing and other items with the Smithsonian logo at the Marine Center gift shop. As indicated in the Amendment, the County would pay Smithsonian a royalty rate of fifty percent of net receipts on the sale of Smithsonian products. RECOMMENDATION/CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Board approve Amendment No.2 and authorize the Chairman to sign the Amendment. Daniel S. McIntyr, County Attorne - , """,. Smithsonian Institution ...", Office of Contracting Business Contracting Division September 9, 2002 Daniel S. McIntyre County Attorney St. Lucie County, Florida 2300 Virginia Avenue 3rd Floor, Administration Annex Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 ~~''''~''''-~'''''-"''''''''' -'-"~ ... .'";_. R . \1J ft. iI. ~n.i. \1'1' ~ .':'J l£~ U c'. 'lJ.. r' . ... I ',' \ f\ \ SEP I 9 2002 . ;L:r~0NTYÃTÚ1R~:; . '.,J. ~,.......,...,~,- -' ..,..""""",........- i , . Re: Amendment No.2 to Smithsonian Institution Contract No. RCO-021228-0000 (St. Lucie County Contract No. C99-11-069) Dear Dan: Enclosed are two (2) originals of the above-referenced Amendment. Please note that two changes have been made: At the request of the Marine Station, I added additional categories of Smithsonian Products in Paragraph 1. Additionally, I added in Paragraph 3 that the Products can be offered for sale only in the Ecosystems Exhibit gift shop. If these changes are acceptable to the County, please move forward to agenda the Amendment for Board consideration. Once both originals of the Amendment have been signed, please return one original to my attention in this office. If returning the original by regular mail, please use the following address: Susan Engelhardt Office of Contracting Smithsonian Institution P.O. Box 37012 Victor Building, Suite 6200, MRC 907 Washington, DC 20013-7012 If you have any questions or need further information, please don't hesitate to contact me directly at (202) 275-0859. Thank you. S~ Susan Enge1hard~ Contract N egotiator- Attorney enclosures - n/Y.oJ \~,{\ { 0 vJ1 ~ cc: Valerie Paul, SMS 750 9th Street, NW, Suite 6200 Washington DC 20560-0907 202.275.0859 Telephone 202.275.0624 Fax EngelhardtS(a),contracting.sLedu E-mail 'w-' ....., S.I. Contract #:RCO-021228-0002 ACK #: 640-3364-1040-6100-1110-444910 AMENDMENT NO.2 THE AGREEMENT (Smithsonian Institution Contract No. RCO-021228-0000, herein the "Agreement"), executed on January 24, 2001, by and between the SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION ("Smithsonian") and ST. LUCIE COUNTY ("County"), is hereby amended effective as ofthe date hereof as set forth below. 1. Smithsonian Products. Pursuant to Section 9 of the Agreement ("Gift Shop"), the County desires to sell merchandise in the Gift Shop that is or has been developed by the Smithsonian. Such merchandise shall include, at this time, only the following: t-shirts, hats, sweatshirts, polo shirts, mugs, sweaters, jackets, pins, patches, pens and pencils, tote bags, beverage insulators, keychains and bookmarks bearing the Smithsonian Institution logo (herein "Smithsonian Products"). The Smithsonian shall provide to the County appropriate contact infonnation for Smithsonian-approved manufacturers/licensees of Smithsonian Products. The County shall order Smithsonian Products from these approved manufacturers/licensees only. 2. Smithsonian Royalty. The County shall pay to Smithsonian a royalty of fifty percent (50%) of Net Receipts on all Smithsonian Products sold in the Gift Shop. Royalty payments to Smithsonian shall be made on an annual basis, as set forth in Section 4.B.(3)c. of the Agreement, with payments to be rendered as set forth in Section 4.B.(3)e. of the Agreement. A. Statements. Along with each payment, the County shall furnish to Smithsonian a complete and accurate statement, certified to be accurate by an authorized representative of the County, detailing the Smithsonian Products sold during the preceding year along with a calculation of Net Receipts. Each statement shall reference both the Contract number and the ACK number shown on the face of this Amendment. The County shall submit statements whether or not any royalty payment is due. B. Smithsonian's receipt and/or acceptance of the statements furnished or of any sums paid by the County shall not waive Smithsonian's right to question the correctness thereof at any time. In the event that any inconsistencies or mistakes are discovered in such statements or payments, such shall be immediately corrected and all appropriate payments promptly made by the County. Smithsonian reserves the right to request an independently certified statement, if Smithsonian has a reasonable basis upon which to justify such a request. This statement, made by an independent certified public accountant, shall evidence the quantity, description, gross sales price, gross receipts and Net Sales Receipts of Smithsonian Products sold in the Gift Shop up to the date of Smithsonian's request. The cost of such independent audit shall be borne by Smithsonian unless an inaccuracy of five percent (5%) or greater is found, in which case the County shall bear the cost of the audit. OConSFE090902 · \,.. ..""" 3. Restrictions. All Smithsonian Products are subject to the prior, written approval of the Smithsonian's Authorized Representative before they are made available for sale in the Gift Shop, and may be offered for sale only in the Gift Shop. In addition, the County shall not use Smithsonian Products for promotional activities, combination sales, as premiums or giveaways, or for any similar method of merchandising without the prior, written approval of the Smithsonian's Authorized Representative. 4. Authorized Representatives. Pursuant to Section I8.C. of the Agreement, Valerie Paul, Director, Smithsonian Marine Station, shall replace Dr. Mary E. Rice as the Smithsonian's Contracting Officer's Representative. 5. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement are unchanged and shall remain in full force and effect. ACCEPTED AND AGREED: SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA John W. Cobert Contracting Officer Signature of Chairman Date Date ATTEST: Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: County Attorney 2 OConSFE090902 '-' ...., ITEM NO. ~A- DATE: October 1.2002 AGENDA REQUEST REGULAR: ( ) PUBLIC HEARING: ( ) CONSENT: (X) TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBMITTED BY (DEPT): PUBLIC WORKS - ADMIN PRESENTED BY: J. / SUBJECT: Recommendation to award Bid # 02-113, the Fairgroun Electri I Infrastructure to Gerelco Electric Contractors Inc. the lowest and sole bidder in the amount of $289,569.00. BACKGROUND: The infrastructure phase of the Fairground construction project started in December, 2001. The target completion date is January, 2003. FUNDS AVAilABLE: loan Proceeds PREVIOUS ACTION: Board Agenda dated September 24, 2002, approved obtaining a loan to fund construction at the new County Fairground. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends award to the lowest and sole bidder, Gerelco Electric Contractors, Inc, in the amount of $289,569.00. COMMISSION ACTION: ~APPROVED o OTHER: o DENIED E: Review and A 181 Originating Dept: (Pub. WkS.)~ 181 County Attorney: 181 Management and Budget: ttD m ~ 181 Purchasing: lf~ o Parks & Recreation: o Environmental lands: o Other o Finance: Check for copy only, if applicable: ~ '-' """ _ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS May 9,2002 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DOUGLAS M. ANDEr-SON Mr. John LaCapra, President Florida Ports Council Bank of America Plaza 315 Calhoun Street, Suite 712 Tallahassee, FL., 32302 Dear Mr. LaCapra: Please fir)d attached copies of memorandums written by Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney, and myself, discussing the issuance of a purchase offer to Mr. Lloyd Bell to acquire 67 acres of Port property at the Port of Fort Pierce by the County and the financing alternatives of said acquisition. ~ We plan on presenting this item to the Board of County Commissioners at their next scheduled meeting, May 14, 2002. Providing it is approved to proceed, I plan on appearing before the Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Council (FSTED) on June 27,2002, to request emergency action to make available funds for this acquisition. Prior to June 27, 2002, Dan Mcintyre and myself plan on meeting with officials from the affected State agencies to discuss the County's plan. We appreciate the assistance and guidance that you have provided us and look forward to successfully completing this project. Sincerely . L _~7.A.~ D ugl~I~1. Anderson County Administrator DMA/ab 02-50 c: Board of County Commissioners Robert Bradshaw, Assistant County Administrator Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney Attachments ~ ...- JOHN D. DI\UHN. Disrricr No.1' DOUG COWAI\D. Disrricr N::>. 2 . PAULA A. lE'j/IS. Disrricr No.:J . FP.ANNIE HUTCHINSON. [)'.s-;:cr No.4' CLIFF DAI\NES. Disrricr No.5 Counry Adminisrrc<or - Douglos M. Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 · Phone (772) 462-1450 · TDD (772) 462-1428 FAX (772) 462-1648 · email: douga@co.st-Iucie.fl.us web site: www.co.st-Iucie.fl.us '-" ....., FLORIDA SEAPORT TRANSPORTATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PROJECT APPLICATION PART A APPLICANT PORT: PORT OF FORT PIERCE (ST. LUCIE COUNTY) AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: NAME: Mr. Douglas M. Anderson TELEPHONE: (772) 462-1450 TITLE: County Administrator FAX: (772) 462-1648 ADDRESS: 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce. Florida 34982 E-MAIL: DOUGA@STLUCIECO.GOV PROJECT NAME: PORT PROJECT NUMBER: FSTED PROGRAM FUNDING REQUEST: 2002 - ( ) PHASED $ 6.000.000 for FY2002/2003 Has project been previously approved by the FSTED Council? YES X NO (If yes, please indicate previous project number(s) below.) Project Number(s): 1996 Bond Program: $8,000,000.00 Has project been modified since last submitted for FSTED Council review and approval? YES X NO If yes, please identify the nature of modification below. Provide details on additional sheets, if necessary. You may wish to highlight those parts ofthis application which have been revised due to the modification. _ Project Name _ Project Phasing _ Increase in Funding Request _ Change in Scope _ Transportation Impact _ Economic Impact ~ Other (please describe.) PREVIOUS PROJECT WAS WITHDRAWN * If this project has been previously approved and not modified, please ensure that all information included in this application is current. FSTED FORMS - FORM- FSTED-I /njl 5/22/01 G:\AdminIFSTED Grant Applications Port Property 5-1-02.doc 1 of 7 '-' '..J PORT: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: FDOT DISTRICT: FSTED PROGRAM PROJECT APPLICATION FORT PIERCE 2002- ACOUlSITION OF 67 ACRES OF PORT PROPERTY DISTRICT FOUR COUNTY: ST. LUCIE COUNTY PART B - PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND MEANS OF FINANCING PLEASE PROVIDE DRAWINGS OR MAPS THAT SHOW THE RELATION OF THE PROJECT TO THE PORT AND THE LOCAL COMMUNITY. PLEASE IDENTIFY CLEARLY THE PORT PROJECT LOCATION. (Note additional map requirements in Part C- IIA and Part E - lA, IB and IF.) PROJECT DESCRIPTION IN DETAIL: PURCHASE OF 67 ACRES OF PORT OF FORT PIERCE PROPERTY FROM PRIVATE OWNER TO BE DEVELOPED FOR MIXED USE AT BERTH 1 AND MEGA YACHT FACILITIES ON REMAINDER OF PROPERTY. THIS PROJECT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PORT MASTER PLAN AND IS INTENDED TO EXPAND AND DEVELOP ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE PORT AREA. * PART B-1 - NOT PHASED PROJECTS ONLY (DO NOT COMPLETE PART B-1 FOR PHASED PROJECT REQUESTS - USE PART B-2) Estimated Total Cost of Project: 12,000,000 Amount of Funds Requested from FSTED Program for FYOl/02: II 6,000,000 Amount of Port Matching Funds: 6,000,000 Source(s) of Port Matching Funds: BORROWED FUNDS TO BE FUNDED BY (i.e, operating revenues, capital funds, borrowed funds, etc.) OPERATING REVENUES If Applicable, Source(s) and Amount(s) of Other Matching Funds: Source(s): (i.e., ACOE, other federal funds, private sector, etc.) Amount(s): * PART B-2 - PHASED PROJECTS ONLY (COMPLETE PART B-2 FOR PHASED PROJECT) Reminder: A new project application will be required annually for subsequent phases for which the port is requesting funding. Estimated Number of Years for Project Completion from Start to Finish: -.L years Phase or Year of this Request: 2002 year 20f7 FSTED FORMS - FORM - FSTED - 1 /njl 5/22/01 G:\Admin\FSTED Grant Applications Port Property 5-1-02.doc '-' ..., PORT: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: FDOT DISTRICT: FSTED PROGRAM PROJECT APPLICATION FORT PIERCE 2002- ACQUISITION OF 67 ACRES OF PORT PROPERTY DISTRICT FOUR COUNTY: ST. LUCIE COUNTY DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE DONE IN THIS PHASE: PURCHASE 67 ACRES Estimated Total Cost Project ITom Start Finish: Estimated Total Cost of 12,000,000 this Phase: Amount of Funds Requested ITom FSTED Program: Amount of Port Matching Funds: Source(s) of Port Matching Funds: (i.e, operating revenues, capital funds, borrowed funds, etc.) If Applicable, Describe Other Funding by Source(s), FY, and Amount(s): (i.e., ACOE, other federal funds, rivate sector, etc.) Source(s): FY: Amount(s): If Applicable, Estimate Total Amount of Matching Funds ITom Other Source(s): TOTAL: 12,000,000 * PART B-3 ATTACH A COPY OF PORT 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - 2002/2003 - 2006/2007. 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan Attached: YES NO X (Please point out proposed project on 5-Year ClP. If comments are applicable, please describe on additional sheet.) 30f7 FSTED FORMS - FORM - FSTED - 1 /njl 5/22/01 G:\Admin\FSTED Grant Applications Port Property 5-1-02.doc \w¡ ....., PORT: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: FDOT DISTRICT: FSTED PROGRAM PROJECT APPLICATION FORT PIERCE 2002- ACQUISITION OF 67 ACRES OF PORT PROPERTY DISTRICT FOUR COUNTY: ST. LUCIE COUNTY PART C - PLAN INFORMATION Department of Community Affairs The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) will be reviewing each project for consistency, to the maximum extent feasible, with the applicable Port Master Plan and Local Government Comprehensive Plan (LGCP). The following information must be provided for each project for DCA's review. I. STATEMENT OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH PORT MASTER PLAN AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Attach documentation indicating that both the Department of Community Affairs and the FSTED Council have current updated Port Master Plan. If an update to your port master plan has resulted in a local government comprehensive plan amendment within the past twelve (12) months, you do not need to answer Questions B or D in Part I, nor Question A in Part II. A. Explain why the project is consistent with your most recent Port Master Plan? B. Indicate when the Port Master Plan was incorporated into the applicable LGCP? If not yet incorporated, when do you expect it to be adopted into the LGCP? C. If applicable, give the LGCP amendment number which includes this port project. D. Please list all amendments made to the LGCP as a result of a Port Master Plan Update, a port land acquisition, or a port project. E. Please list due dates for the applicable local government Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) and the EAR- based amendments, including any amendments to the Port Master Plan or transportation elements as a result of the EAR review. F. Ifa project involves a development of regional impact (DRI), please give the name and number of the DRI. II. CONSISTENCY EV ALUA TION CRITERIA: A. Provide a map of the existing and future land uses of the port project and abutting properties. (If not shown on map included in Part B.) B. Identify the land use of the parcel as currently designated on the LGCP and the proposed designation necessary in order to proceed with the project. Demonstrate the compatibility of the proposed projects with the adjacent land uses. C. Provide a description of the availability of public facilities, including sanitary sewer, solid waste, transportation, drainage, potable water, and recreation, as appropriate, and identify the demand that the project will place on each of these facilities and their level of service D. Provide information about the impact of the proposed project on natural resources, including wetlands, beaches and dunes, submerged lands, flood plains, wildlife habitat, living marine resources, and water quality. E. Provide information about the impact of the project on public access and historic resources. F. Show how the proposed project is consistent, to the maximum extent feasible, with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of your Port Master Plan and the LGCP. 40f7 FSTED FORMS - FORM - FSTED - 1 Injl 5/22/01 G:\Admin\FSTED Grant Applications Port Property 5-1-02.doc '-' ....,¡ PORT: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: FDOT DISTRICT: FSTED PROGRAM PROJECT APPLICATION FORT PIERCE 2002- ACQUISITION OF 67 ACRES OF PORT PROPERTY DISTRICT FOUR COUNTY: ST. LUCIE COUNTY PART D - ECONOMIC BENEFIT ANALYSIS Governor's Office of Tourism. Trade and Economic Development The Governor's Office of Tourism, Trade and Economic Development will be reviewing each project in terms of its economic benefit and consistency with the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program to be included in the Florida Seaport Mission Plan. Each port is encouraged to provide detailed economic impact analysis information. The following information must be provided for each project for this review. I. HOW THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH FLORIDA SEAPORT MISSION PLAN. Explain how this project is consistent with the Florida Seaport Mission Plan. Cite specific goals and objectives in the Plan, and indicate how the project fits into the Plan's five-year capital improvement program. II. HOW THE PROJECT WILL SUPPORT INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE. INCREASE OR MAINTAIN CARGO FLOW THROUGH THE PORT OR IMPROVE CRUISE PASSENGER SERVICE. A. On what projections of additional service or capacity is the project based or how is it needed to maintain existing service or capacity? TO FULLY DEVELOP THE PORT OF FORT PIERCE B. Compare present activity (cargo or passenger) at the port with anticipated increases in activity resulting from completion of the project. ESTIMATED ANNUAL ECONOMIC IMPACT WILLGO FOR MINIMAL TO IOO,OOO,OOONEAR. EST. PROVIDED BY POTENTIAL USERS. C. What is the expected life of the project? 99 YEARS D. What type of employment project will be created by the project? Why is it needed to support existing employment? 300 NEW JOBS. Provide estimated project employment and wages: I. Estimated total number of new, full-time jobs created by the project: 300 2. Estimated total number of temporary jobs created during construction: 100 3. Estimated annualized average wage (not including benefits) of the new jobs created by the project: $ 11.78 (ST. LUCIE COUNTY'S CURRENT AVERAGE WAGE) E. What port revenue estimates are associated with the project or will result from the project? 25,000,000 OVER 20YEARS. F. How will the port project affect and enhance the local, regional, and state economies? ESTIMATED 100,000,000 G. Indicate whether the project is located in or directly adjacent to any of the following officially designated areas. If so, which? Please check all that are applicable and list the name of the officially designated area(s). 1._ State Enterprise Zone 2. Brownfield Area 3. Rural Area of Critical Economic Concern 4._ Tax Increment Financing District 5._ Federal Enterprise Community 6._ Economic Development District (US EDA) 8. Urban lnfill Area 9.~ Community Redevelopment Area 10._ Front Porch Florida Community 11._ Federal Empowerment Zone 12.~ Community Development Block Grant Eligible Area 50f7 FSTED FORMS - FORM - FSTED - 1 /njl 5/22/01 G:\Admin\FSTED Grant Applications Port Property 5-1-02.doc \w ....., PORT: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: FDOT DISTRICT: FSTED PROGRAM PROJECT APPLICATION FORT PIERCE 2002- ACQUISITION OF 67 ACRES OF PORT PROPERTY DISTRICT FOUR COUNTY: ST. LUCIE COUNTY 7._ HUB (Historically Under Utilized Business) Zone 13. Other: Name of Officially Designated Area(s): III. STATEMENT OF ELIGIBILITY, OPERATING REVENUES, AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS. (Ports with annual operating revenues of $5 million or less may elect to propose for funding projects as defined in s. 315.02, Florida Statutes, and, therefore, must comply with the provisions of s.311.07(3)(b)(1O), Florida Statutes, by providing the following documentation.) Section 3l1.07(3)(b )(10), Florida Statutes, provides that projects eligible for funding include the following: "Construction or rehabilitation of port facilities as defined in s. 315.02, excluding any park or recreational facilities, in ports listed in s. 311.09(1) with operating revenues of $5 million or less, provided that such projects create economic development opportunities, capital improvements, and positive financial returns to such ports. " If applicable, please provide information below and attach additional documentation attesting to the port's operating revenues for FY99/00 to satisfy this requirement. A. FY 99/00 PORT OPERATING REVENUES of$ o were $5 million or less. B. Please describe how this project is eligible under s. 315.02, Florida Statutes. C. Please explain specifically how this project creates economic development opportunities, capital improvements, and positive financial returns to your port. Use additional sheets, if necessary. 60f7 FSTED FORMS - FORM - FSTED - I /njl 5/22/01 G:\Admin\FSTED Grant Applications Port Property 5-1-02.doc '-" PORT: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: FDOT DISTRICT: FSTED PROGRAM PROJECT APPLICATION FORT PIERCE 2002- ACQUISITION OF 67 ACRES OF PORT PROPERTY DISTRICT FOUR COUNTY: ST. LUCIE COUNTY ""'" PART E - TRANSPORTATION IMPACT INFORMATION Department of Transportation The Department of Transportation will be reviewing each project in terms of its consistency with the Florida Transportation Plan and its adopted work program. The following information must be provided for each project for this review. I. STATEMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACT CRITERIA: A. If not provided in Part B, provide a map indicating existing highway and proposed roadway access/connections to the port and the proposed port project (planned and programmed per existing Port Master Plan - include city, county, state, and/or federal highway numbers where applicable), and note whether the roadways are part of the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIRS), National Highway System (NHS), and/or a designated national Highway System Connector. B. If not provided in Part B, provide a map of existing and proposed railroad access/connections to the port and proposed port project (planned and programmed per existing Port Master Plan - include common carrier name by location or indicate if owned/operated by the port). C. Provide a traffic impact analysis sufficient to identify existing and projected level of service impacts on off-port roadway arterials identified in Question A resulting from implementation of the proposed project. D. Describe public and private passenger transportation services existing or required to serve the project location. If the proposed project is related to cruise operations, a detailed answer is required E. Provide an estimate of the increase in number of vehicles per day resulting from implementation of the proposed project, ifany. N/A F. Provide an estimate of the increase in number of railcars and/or TEUs per day resulting from implementation of the proposed project, if any; and include a map if not provided in Part B indicating the impacted rail/highway grade crossings resulting from the implementation of the proposed project, if any. N/A G. Provide an estimate of the maximum length of vehicles expected to be utilizing the facility as a result of the proposed project. N/A H. Please attach a statement from the appropriate local government(s) or governmental agency concerning impacts related to the adopted level of service standards of the highway facilities impacted. 70f7 FSTED FORMS - FORM - FSTED - 1 /njl 5/22/01 G:\Admin\FSTED Grant Applications Port Property 5-1-02.doc '- AGENDA REQUEST ITEM NO. ""'" Co DATE: May 14, 2002 REGULAR [XX] PUBLIC HEARING [] CONSENT [] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): County Attorney Daniel S. McIntyre County Attorney SUBJECT: Port or Fort Pierce - Destin Beach; Inc. Property ,- Purchase Offer BACKGROUND: See attached memorandum , / " \ FUNDS AVAILABLE: PREVIOUS ACTION: RECOMMENDATION: Staff recomme~ds that the Board: (1) Direct staff to submit a written offer in the amount of $11,745,000.00 to purchase the property owned by Destin Beach, Inc. free and clear of all liens and encumbrances including the lease with AES: and (2) Adopt Resolution No. 02-126 as prepared by the County's Bond Couns,el. lxl APPROVED [ ] DENIED [ ) OTHER: As amended that Mr. Bell will provide a third appraisal wi thin 60 days from today. ouglas Anderson County Administrator COMMISSION ACTION: tlY Review and Approvals County Attorney: 1.'.cr.cgement & Budget Purd1C!ir.g: Originating Dept. Pu:'!ic Works Dir: County Er~¡': Finance: (Check for Copy only. if applicable) Eft. 5/96 '-' ....,¡ INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Daniel S. McIntyre, County Attorney C.A. NO. 02-673 DATE: May 7, 2002 . ------~--------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------~--------------------- Port of Fort Pierce - Destin Beach, Inc. Property - Purchase Offer . SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: . , / The County is the port authority for the Port of Fort Pierce. The County currently owns 20 acres known as Harbor Pointe within the port planning area. The 67 acres immediately adjacent to the County's property is owned by Destin Beach, Inc. The County recently adopted a master plan for the Port of Fort Pierce. The master plan identified a number of proposed uses including uses related to the mega yacht industry, for the County-owned property and the property owned by Destin Beach, Inc. On March 17, 2002, the County advertised a Request for Qualifications/Proposals soliciting responses from firms interested in partnering with the County to develop the port in a manner consistent with the master plan. In response to the RFQ/RFP, on May 1, 2002, the County received 4 proposals. The County is currently evaluating the 4 proposals. Based on the port master plan and on a preliminary evaluation of the 4 proposals, County staff believes that it is in the best interest of the County and its citizens for the County to attempt to acquire by negotiated sale the 67 acreS owned by Destin Beach, Inc, In this regard, the County had appraisals completed by Florida Property Consultants and Fuller Armfield ~ Wagner. A summary of the results of the two (2) appraisals follows: '- ..""" Value Florida Property Consultants Fuller Armfield Wagner $11,745,000.00 $ 9,500,000.00 Since it is very much in the County's best interest to acquire the property through negotiation, staff recommends that the Board offer Destin Beach, Inc. the highest of.. the two values or $11,745,000.00 to acquirè all ,interests in the property. ..In addition, staff believes the higher value is justified to avoid the cost and risk of litigation in the event negotiations are unsuccessful. Although it is difficult to predict with any accuracy Jhe cost of litigation, the .County's exposure for costs and fees assuming a trial and an appeal: could be one million and 0/100 ($1,OOO,OOO.OÒ) dollars even in a best case scenario. In a worst case scenario, the County's exposure could be two to three times the best case scenario. Perhaps'more importantly, the time and risk involved in litigation could have an adverse impact on negotiations with prospective tenantS. County staff proposes to fund the proposed purchase price with grant funds and revenues from the prospective tenants as set forth in the memorandum dated May 7, 2002 from the County Administrator, a copy of which is attached. Becaus~ of timing, it will most likely be necessary for the County to borrow the funds needed for the purchase. In this regard, the County's bond counsel has drafted the appropriate resolution authorizing the issuance of not exceeding $15,000,000.00 in bonds and further authorizing the commencement of proceedings to validate the bonds. Further official action of the Board will be required for the sale of the bonds. RECOMMENDATION/CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Board: 1. Direct staff to submit a written offer in the amount of $11,745,000.00 to purchase the property owned by Destin Beach, Inc. free and clear of all liens and encumbrances including the lease with AES. '- ....,J 2. Counsel. Adopt Resolution No. 02-126 as prepared by the County's Bond DSM/ caf Attachments / / ., Qaniel t\i1s1ntyre - m-boar<\w resolution.doc ...." Page 1 MEMORANDUM I I I I I i I I , I I I I I f I S SQUIRE ~DER5 LEGAL COUNSEL WORLDWl DE Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P. To: Board of County Commissioners St. Lucie County, Florida Copy: Daniel S. McIntyre, Esquire, County Attorney Douglas M. Anderson, County Administrator Loomis C. ("Bill") Leedy, III, William R. Hough & Co. From: Robert Freeman Date: May 7,2002 Re: Port Revenue Bonds -The attached resolution authorizes the issuance of not exceeding81 5 million Port Revenue Bonds in order to provide for å source of moneys to acquire the Destin Beach properties at the Port of Fort Pierce and to pay costs related to the êcquisition of the property and issuance ofthe B?nds, including capitalized interest on the, Bpnds through March 2004. The resolution provides that the Bonds will be secured solely by a lien upon and pledge of the revenues derived from the operation of the port, grêI1t and loan moneys from government agencies or other sources, moneys on deposit in the funds and accounts established pursuant to a supplemental, detailed bond resolution, investmem earnings on those moneys, and any other source of non-ad valorem revenues which the Board may decide to pledge as security for the Bonds (including a covenant to budget and appropriate from non-êd vêlorem revenues) in order to obtain the best interest cost on the Bonds. The resolution provides that the Bonds will not be secured by the full fêith and credit and taxing power of the County, by a lien upon the Project, or by a lien upon any other moneys or properties of the County. The resolution authorizes the County Attorney êI1d Bond Counsel to institute proceedings for validation of the Bonds pursuant to Chapter 75, Florida Statutes, in the Circuit Court for St. Lucie County. The resolution also authorizes the preparation of additional documents necessary for the authorization, sale, and issuance ofthe Bonds, including a Preliminary Official Statement, and delegates to the County Administrator the au-chority to "deem fmal"' the Preliminary Official Statement on behalf of the County. Further official action by the Board will be required for the sale of the Bonds. 1 Sguire, Sanders & Dempsey L.LP. - 1 - May 7, 2002 " DaniefMclntyre - initial ~. m.doc ...., Page 1 i RESOLUTION NO. 2002-/,1b A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIO}.,TERS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY IN AND FOR THE PORT OF FORT PIERCE AJ.'-1l) THE ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS, EXTENSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS THEREON; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NOT EXCEEDING $15,000,000 PORT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2002, TO FINANCE THE COST THEREOP; PROVIDING FOR THE PA nœNT OF THE BO~TIS FROM PORT REVENUES AND OTHER ~10~TEYS; AUTHORlZING PROCEEDINGS FOR VALIDATION OF THE BOl\oTIS; AUTHORlZING THE APPROPRlA TE OFFICERS OF THE C01JNTY TO PROCEED TO DEVELOP 1\T£CESSARY DOCUMENTS TO SELL THE BONDS AT NEGOTIATED SALE; AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO Mll.KE CERTAIN CERTIFICATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY REGARDING A PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT FOR THE BONDS; PROVIDING FOR CONTINUING DISCLOSlTRE WITH RESPECT TO THE BO?\'DS; A1\'D PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. / BE IT RESOLVED Bx' THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIO}.,TERS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORlDA: Section 1. Authority for Resolution. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to Chapter 125, Part I, Florida Statutes, County Ordinance No. 87-77, as amended, and other applicable provisions of law (collectively, the "Act"), Section 2. Findings. It is hereby ascertained, determined and declared by the Board of County Commissioner (the "Bbard") of S1. Lucie County, Florida (the "County~') that: A It is necessary and in the best interests of the County and the hea1th~ safety and welfare of its inhabitants to pro\'ide for the acquisition of real property in and for the Port of Fort Pierce (the "Property") and for the construction acquisition and construction of additions, extensions and improvements to port facilities thereon (the "Improvements", and, together with the Property, the "Project"). The costs thereof shall include, but shall not necessarily be limited to: the cost of the acquisition of the Property, any interests therein, or any other properties deemed necessary or convenient therefor; engineering, accounting, financial 2.dvisory, and legal fees and expenses; expenses for plans, specifications and surveys; expenses for estimates of costs and of revenues; the fees of advisors and consultants; the cost of bond insurance and/or debt service reserve account premiums; administrative expenses; the capitalization of interest on the Bonds authorized hereby for a reasonable period of time after the date of issuance and delivery thereof; the establishment of reasonable reserves for the payment of debt service on the Bonds; discount upon the sale of the Bonds; the expenses and costs of issuance of the Bonds; such other expenses as may be necessary or incidental to the financing authorized by this resolution, to the undertaking of the Project, and to the placing of the same in operation; and reimbursement to the ., 8849v1128902.00I09R·AIJ11J SHORT 8849v1128902.00I09R·AIJ11J SHORT ¡'-Daniei·~.1clntyre- initial r~ - n.doc ....¡ Page 2 : County for any sums expended for the foregoing purposes. B. Project. The County is authorized pursuant to the provisions of the Act to undert2ke the C. The County is without adequate, currently available funds to finance the cost of the Project, and it is necessary and desirable that the County borrow the money through the issuance of Port Revenue BODds, Series 2002 (the "Bonds"), in an amount not to exceed $15,000,000 to pay the cost of the Project. D. ' It is necessary and desirable and in the best interests of the County and its residents that the Board authorize the issuance of the Bonds at this time. The details of the Bonds, including the specific covenants and agreements to be entered into by the County with the holders from time to time of the Bonds and the funds and accounts (the "Funds and Accounts") to be .established for their benefit and securit¥, will be determined in a subsequent resolution (the "Supplemental Resolution") to be adopted at or prior to the time 'of issuance of the Bonds. E. The principal of. premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds and alJ required sinking fund, reserve and other payments shall be payable from a'nd secured solely by (i) the net revenues received from the Qperation, leasing, management -dr use of the Project (the ;'Project Revenues"), grants, gifts, or other contributions received by the County with respect to the Project (the "Grant Revenues"), (iii) the moneys on deposit from time to time in the Funds and Accounts to be created by the Supplemental ~esolution,(iv) earnings on the moneys on deposit in the funds and accounts created by the Supplemental Resolution (the "Investment Earnings"), and (v) such other revenues derived from sources other than ad valorem taxation as the Board shall determine are necessary to accomplish the most favorable interest cost on the Bonds, which may be in the form of a covenant to budget and appropriate from such sources (the "Non-Ad Valorem Revenues", and, together with... the Project Revenues, the Grant Revenues, the moneys in the Funds and Accounts, and the Investment Earnings, the "Pledged Revenues"). The Bonds authorized hereby shall not be or constitute a general obligation or indebtedness of the County within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory provisions. The County shalJ never be required to levy ad valorem taxes on any real property therein to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds or to make any other payments provided for herein and in the Supplemental Resolution. The Bonds shall not constitute a lien upon the Project or upon any properties o\\11ed by or located within the boundaries of the County other than the Pledged Revenues. F. It is hereby found and determined that due to the character of the Bonds, current favorable market conditions, time constraints and the uncertainty inherent in a competitive bid process, the negotiated sale ofthe Bonds is in the best interest of the County. G. The County staff is authorized to prepare or cause to be prepared on behalf of the County a Preliminary Official Statement to be used in connection with the offering and distribution of the Bonds. H. In order to enable the underwriters for the Bonds to comply with Rule l5c2-12 2 8849v1 128902·00 1 09/R·AUTH SHORT ~ D~niel Mcintyre - initial re~ .doc Page 3 ! ...., under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as ame-nded (the "Rule"), in connection with the offering and sale of the Bonds, it is necessary that the Preliminary Official Statement be "deemed final" (except for permitted omissions) by a representative 0 fthe County. I. . It is necessary and in the best interests of the County that its County Administrator be authorized to certify the Preliminary Official Statement as "deemed final" under the Rule. Section 3. Authorization of Project. The Project is hereby specifically authorized. . Section 4. Authorization of Bonds. The issuance by the County of not exceeding $15,000,000 Port Revenue Bonds, Series 2002, for the purpose of paying costs of the Project is hereby authorized. The Bonds shall be dated, shall bear interest at a rate or rates not exceeding the maximum legal rate per annum, shall be payable, shall mature not more than forth (40) years from their first principal payment date, shall be subject to redemption, and shall have such other characteristics as shall be provided by a sUbseBuent resolution (the "Supplemental Resolution") of the Board adopted prior to their sale. The Board hereby grants to the holders of the Bonds, and the Bonds shàl1 be secured solely by, a lien upon and pledge of the Pledged Revenues. . Section 5. Authorization to Proceed; Delegation to Deem Preliminary Official Statement Final. The County Administrator, in consultation \\1th and upon the advice of the City's Bond Counsel and Financial Advisor is authorized to proceed to draft and develop, or cause to be drafted and developed, all documents necessary to facilitate and proceed with the authorization, sale, and issuance of the Bonds, including a Preliminary Official Statement. The County Administrator, with the advice of the County's Bond Counsel and Financial Advisor, is hereby authorized to certify or otherwise represent when such Preliminary Official Statement shall be "deemed final" by the Board as of its date (except for permitted omissions), in accordance with the Rule. , Section 6. Continuing Disclosure Certification. The County Administrator is authorized and directed, with the advice of Bond Counsel, to execute and deliver a Continuing Disclosure Certificate satisfying the requirements of SEC Rule l5c2-l2. Section 7. Validation. The Board hereby authorizes the County Attorney and its Bond Counsel to institute validation proceedings therefore in the Circuit Court for St. Lucie County. Section 8. Repeal of Inconsistent Instruments.. All resolutions or ordinances of the County or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. Section 9. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. Passed and Adopted this _ day of and held. 2002, at a regular meeting duly called ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA ., .) 1 8849v1128902-00109/R-AlITH SHORT !,Daniel Mcintyre - initial re\.· .doc ...",¡ Page 4 I (SEAL) By: Chairman, Board of County Commissioners ATTEST: By: Clerk of the Circuit Court, ex-officio Clerk of the Board ·1 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: , / County Attorney .., 4 8849v112890~-OOI09I1l-AU11I SHORT . . \., .-.",1 TO: COUNTY ADMINISTRATION MEMOR NDUM 2-49 '-,c".,...__..'._'....'.n'.....'''ø FROM: qouglas M. Anderson, DATE: May 7, 2002 RE: ..Financing of Acquisition of Port Property It will be recommended that a proposed purchase offer in the amount of $11 ,745,000 be made to Mr. Lloyd Bell to acquire 67 acres of Port property. Once the purchase offer is accepted by Mr. Bell, the County would obtain a bridge loan"for the full amount. . ?/ On June 27,2002, the County will appear before the Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Council (FSTED) requesting 50% reimbursement ofthe acquisition cost on'ce the property is acquired. Outlined below are two financing scenarios to acquire the property: 1. FSTEo Approves 50% Reimbursement Subiect to FS 311 The above mentioned bridge loan would remain in affect until we receive the 50% reimbursement from FSTED, $5,872,500. At that time, the County would obtain long term financing for the remaining 50%, $5,872,500, payable over 30 years. The estimated Annual Debt Service including funded reserves would be $510,000. If we are successful in leasing this property to a tenant, the amount of the lease would cover our Debt Service. If we weren't successful in leasing this property, the Annual Debt Service would be covered by the County's General Fund. 2. FSTEo Does Not Approve 50% Reimbursement The County would enter into long term (30 year) financing for the full $11,745,000. The estimated maximum Annual Debt Service would be $960,779. If the County were successful in leasing this property to a tenant, at least 50% of the Debt Service would be covered by the lease. The remaining 50% of the Annual Debt Service, $480,390, would come from the County's General Fund. - '- ...." Page 2 May 2, 2002 Financing of Acquisition of Port Property If the County is not successful in leasing the property, the total Annual Debt Service, $960,779, would be paid from the County's General Fund. Infrastructure Improvements The second phase of this project woulsJ be the development of the infrastructure improveménts., The County would seek FS!ED funding for 50% of any improvements made by the County. Before any infrastructure improvements were made or committed to, the financial responsibilities would be worked out and approved by both the tenant and the Board of County Commissioners. DMAlab c: Robert Bradshaw, Assistant County Administrator _ Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney Marie Gouin, Mánagement &'Budget Director , / / .. ~- 09/27/02 F'7:ABWA..~R FUND 001 001137 001141 001143 001151 001249 001265 001266 001267 001269 001809 101 101002 101003 101006 101211 102 102001 102104 10400l 105 7 1001 107002 107003 111 112 120 122 126 127 128 139 . 140 , 140001 140322 140403 145815 145817 160 181 183 183001 183004 185003 315 "~6 J02 \...- ST. LUCIE COUNTY - BOARD ...", WARRANT LIST #52- 21-SEP-2002 TO 27-SEP-2002 FUND StJMrw"Ã..~Y TI':'LE Gerreral Fund Zo~a Neala Hurston Dust Tracks Heri Section 112/MPO/FHWA FY02/03 Eealth & Human Srvcs CSBG FY01/02 Urban Mobile Irrigation Lab Grant Section 8 Grant FY 99/00 TDC Planning Grant FY01/02 CTD TRIP Grant FY01/02 ~M?A 01/02 Dept. of Community Affai FD3P-Urban Mobile Lab Grant 01/02 SF\'ìMD-Floridian Aquifer Well 01/04 Transportation Trust Fund Transportation Trust/80% Constitut Transportation Trust/Local Option Transportation Trust/Impact Fees ?D3P Canal & Stormwater Retrofit Un~ncorporated Services Fund Drainage Maintenance MSTU ?DJT Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator Recreation Donations Fund ~ijrary Special Grants Fund ?irre & Forfeiture Fund ?irre & Forfeiture Fund-Wireless Sur ?i~e & Forfeiture Fund-E911 Surchar ~l~e & Forfeiture Fund-800 Mhz Oper River Park I Fund ?i -:er Park I I Fund -:-he Grove Fund =niian River Estates Fund S8~thern Oak Estates Lighting ~i~e Hollow Street Lighting MSTU ~i~gs Hwy Industrial Park Lighting pa:-"m Grove Fund. ?o~t & Airport Fund Po~t Fund Industrial Park West Development ?DJT Sheriff Department Security =ni River Lagoon License Plate 2002 SF:'ìMD/Impoundment 19B Improvements Plan Maintenance RAD Fund SLC Housing Finance Authority Fund Ct Administrator-19th Judicial Cir Ct Administrator-Arbitration/Mediat Ct Admin.- Teen Court FH?A SHIP FY02/03 County Building Fund Co:mty Capital West First Street MSBU Capital EXPENSES 485,275.35 17.74 2,153.96 1,274.88 878.96 13,227.37 283.82 2,152.32 9,780.07 43.31 298.57 136,110.81 5,835.00 1,785.00 61,535.85 300.00 21,226.85 7,371.30 567.05 208.80 4,806.22 105,067.37 1,630.39 790.96 5.05 2,563.74 513.93 151.66 853.20 110.14 50.40 249.10 659.39 17,083.90 7,388.67 10,330.00 4,000.00 234.25 458.35 1,643.18 307.76 1,547.55 962.91 1,747.36 449.44 11,635.24 37,246.46 7,341.52 PAGE 1 PAYROLL 452,362.66 238.99 7,953.72 933.60 1,188.80 0.00 8.00 8.00 3,649.33 0.00 1,188.80 105,752.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42,421.40 3,255.15 1,287.72 J.OO 1,977.61 94,324.13 1,285.75 1,286.76 J.OO J.OO ).00 0.00 ).00 ).00 J.OO ).00 0.00 10,123.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 ).00 0.00 2,~40.00 0.00 4,'=95.71 1,115.38 2,874.61 1,'=30.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 ,; 09/27/02 F"7ABWARR FUND 389 395 396 401 418 421 441 448 449 451 458 461 471 478 479 491 505 505001 611 615 625 .~ '... " \.,f ST. LCCIE COUNTY - BOARD ...., WARRANT LIST #52- 21-SEP-2002 TO 27-SEP-2002 FUND SUMMARY TITLE Rouse Road MSBU Capital River Branch MSBU Capital Lennard Road 1 - Roadway Capital Sanitary Landfill Fund Golf Course Fund H.E.W. Utilities Fund North Hutchinson Islanà Utilities NHI Util-Renewal & Replacement Funà NHI Util - Capital Facilities Fund S. Hutchinson Utilities Fund SH Util-Renewal & Replacement Fund Sports Complex Fund No County Utility District-Operatin No Cty Uti I Dist-Renewal & Replace No Cty Util Dist-Capital Facilities Building Code Fund Health Insurance Fund Property/Casualty Insurance Fund Tourist Development Trust-Adv Fund Impact Fees Fund Law Library GRAND TOTAL: EXPENSES 7,089.39 11,060.68 6,876.50 133,272.88 21,591.45 423.35 5,049.33 698.86 117.34 1,445.68 4,343.46 16,846.97 1,502.64 7,831.30 51.44 14,766.48 23,528.09 2,173.40 12,032.34 119,336.55 8,192.61 1,368,385.89 PAGE 2 PAYROLL 0.00 0.00 0.00 37,495.47 20,430.86 158.66 3,003.17 443.09 613.06 2,003.95 391.52 10,588.38 2,269.08 221.55 307.05 28,472.56 2,861.83 1,874.43 5,575.91 0.00 0.00 538,299.09 -:;, .4:, '-' """'" ITEM NO. C 2b DATE: October 1. 2002 AGENDA REQUEST REGULAR: ( ) PUBLIC HEARING: ( ) CONSENT: ( X ) SUBMITTED BY (DEPT): PUBLIC WORKS - ADMIN PR~ENTED BY: ~~ PM Bowers Assist Public Works Director TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBJECT: 2nd ($50,000) amendment to Contract No. C 02-02-311 with Dickerson Florida, Inc., for the supply of Coquina Rock of the New Fairgrounds. BACKGROUND: Dickerson Florida, Inc., has agreed to supply Coquina Rock for the New Fairgrounds project only at a cost of $3.50 per ton, which is below their standard rate of $4.25 per ton. It was estimated that the Fairground project would require up to $100,000 of Coquina Rock. The 1st amendment to the contract in the amount of $50,000 was approved by the Board May 7,2002. FUNDS AVAilABLE: Funds are available in the New Fairgrounds, Capital Improvements, Improvements other than Buildings Account No. 316-'7420-563000-7655 PREVIOUS ACTION: February 19, 2002 the Board approved Contract No. C 02-02-311 with Dickerson Florida, Inc. May 7,2002 the Board approved the first amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioner's approve the 2nd amendment to the contract with Dickerson Florida, Inc., for the supply of Coquina Rock for the New Fairgrounds for an amount not to exceed $200,000 and authorize for the Chairman to sign the amendment as prepared by the County Attorney. D C COMMISSION ACTION: 3 APPROVED 0 DENIED o OTHER: 181 Originating Dept: (Pub. Wks.) ~\"', 181 County Attorney: r. 181 Purchasing: .~ 0 Parks & Recreation: Review and Approvals é)v/ 181 Management and Budget: UIJ /ýl/'H ~ o Environmental Lands: o Other o Finance: Check for copy only, if applicable: J. " r, \w en O::M W"("'" W z"("'" 0· 0:: _N =:J ene I- >enC u 1--- =:J z:E£O 0:: =:J:E. I- 0°1- en uu~ ~ W>:I: -I-en LL Uz z =:J=:Jz - ...I ...100 <C ·u- t;LL~ U i2 :E 0...1 I- Q. c=:J U e 0::£0 W e <c<C ...I . . 01- W N £0 en @) c N Z e =:J e ° N 0:: ~ co C) "("'" 0:: 0:: <C W LL £0 > :E I- W Z en I- =:J ~ Q. ° 0:: w U ° en W 3: - c u u W =:J - ...I ...I Z £0 W I- =:J Q. en Q. ° N 0 In 0 W ~ 0 < It') <'l z It') 0:: w tß- I- -I « ~ 0 In 0 w ~ 0 < It') co~ Z en 0:: CO W tß- I- -I « 0 0 ~ In en CO w ~ en en « co In N tß- 0 Z en 0:: 0 I- 0 ~ en I- 0:: Z 0 0 0 0 z 0 w 0:: > I-..J OLL w~ -I!:!:! wo 03 o· -II- wUJ 0::1- w~ C)~ N ~ en It') ,... ~ ~ '" 0 W I- ;:) In '" 0:: 0 I- W en u. 0 ~ en 0 I- 0 Z Z w en w > w ::!E w z ;:) 0 0 w « 0 0:: E Q. 0 ::!E en 0 0 0 (,) 0 ~ 0 In In ns - u. u. U. rn 0 0 0 " r::: 0:: 0:: 0:: ns W W W E In In In ( ) " ::!E ::!E ::!E ~ ;:) ;:) ;:) ( ) Z Z Z '" "w1I '-' ....." SECOND AMENDMENT TO FEBRUARY 19,2002 CONTRACT THIS FIRST AMENDMENT, is made and entered into this day of , 2002, by and between ST. LUCIE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, (the "County") and DICKERSON FLORIDA, INC., (the "Contractor"). WHEREAS, on February 19, 2002, the parties entered into a Contract which provided for the supply of Coquina Rock for the New Fairgrounds through and including February 18, 2003; and, WHEREAS, on May 7, 2002, the parties executed the First Amendment to the Contract to increase the total "not to exceed" amount of the Contract from $100,000 to $150,000. WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Contract to increase the total "not to exceed" amount of the Contract from $150,000 to $200,000. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promise contained herein, the parties agree to amend the Contract as follows: 1. Paragraph 5. CONTRACT PAYMENT shall be amended to read as follows: 5. CONTRACT PAYMENT The County shall pay the Contractor for the performance of this Contract and completion of the project in accordance with the Contract Documents, subject to adjustment by change order, the amount in current funds being $3.50 per ton. The total amount of this contract shall not exceed $200.000.00. 2. Except as amended herein, all other terms and conditions of the Contract shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have accepted, made and executed this First Amendment upon the terms and conditions above stated. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: DEPUTY CLERK CHAIRMAN APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: COUNTY ATTORNEY DICKERSON FLORIDA, INC. BY: WITNESSES: Authorized Representative Print Name: Title: AGENDA REQUEST -..I ITEM NO. C-2c DATE: October 1, 2002 CONSENT [X REGULAR PUBLIC HEARING [ ] Leg. [ Quasi-JD. TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBMITTED BY (DEPT): Public Works PRESENTED BY: (~~~f'~~ SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: FUNDS AVAIL. : PREVIOUS ACTION: RECOMMENDATION: COMMISSION ACTION: [Xl [ ] APPROVED OTHER: County Attorney: Originating Dept: Finance: ß Authorize the Public Works Department to submit a Florida Department of Environmental Protection Stormwater Retrofit grant application for funds in the amount of $600,000 to assist in Phase 2 of the Indian River Estates Stormwater Attenuation Facility. Due to the original drainage design, the Indian River Estates subdivision does not drain properly after large amounts of heavy rain. For this reason, the County and several state agencies have developed a drainage plan to improve flood protection for the subdivision and to improve the quality of the stormwater runoff which currently discharges into the Savannas State Reserve and eventually the North Fork of the St. Lucie River. On June 25, 2002 the BOCC approved authorizing staff to submit an application for $600,000 for Section 319 grant funds for the construction costs of the treatment lake. In addition, a Revolving Loan application has been submitted to cover the construction of the attenuation facility. If this grant application is funded, it will lower the amount of the Revolving Loan required to complete the project. The Public Works Department has already met the match requirement due to the value of the land and funds allocated for engineering costs. The match for this project is $2,500,000 from the State Revolving Loan Proceeds. The Board authorized the engineering firm to complete final engineering for this project on October 17, 2000, and authorized staff to submit a second Section 319 grant on June 25, 2002. Staff recommends that the Board application to FDEP Stormwater $600,000 for Phase 2 of the Attenuation Facility project. authorize staff to submit a grant Retrofit program in the amountof Indian River Estates Stormwater DENIED Mgt & Budget: Public Works: Purchasing: Other: Age319FDEPlRE2bcc.doc '-' ...." REQUEST FOR GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR STORMWATER RETROFITTING ORGANIZATION: Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) FUNDS: Funding to retrofit urban stormwater discharges to impaired waters is available through the Urban NPS Management Technical Assistance Grant Program administered by the Bureau of Watershed Management, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Approximately $3.0 million is available for projects that treat stormwater from areas without stormwater treatment. It is anticipated that grant awards will be in the $500,000 to $600,000 range but DEP reserves the right to fund projects at other levels. SUMMARY AND FUNDING PRIORITIES BACKGROUND:Stormwater discharges from lands developed before the implementation of Florida's stormwater treatment rules are a major source of pollutants discharged to Florida's surface waters. The Florida Forever Program provides funding to FDEP to be used for reducing stormwater pollutants discharged from urban stormwater systems into impaired surface waters. For the purposes of this grant solicitation, an impaired water means any surface water identified on the 1998 Section 303( d) list, or any surface water on the adopted Group 1 Verified List of Impaired Waters, or any surface water on the planning list or verified screening list of impaired waters as set forth in a Group 1 or 2 basin status report. This information is available at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdllindex.htm GOAL: Our goal is to fund projects that maximize the1rer;noval of urban stormwater pollutants in the most cost effective manner. A second goal is to obtain cost and monitoring data on the effectiveness of the stormwater treatment system in reducing pollutant loads. PROJECT READINESS: All projects submitted for funding consideration must be ready to begin construction by no later than June 1, 2003 and be completed by June 30, 2004. A contract for this project must be executed by December 31, 2002. APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS APPLICATION DUE DATE AND TIME: Applications must be received by 5:00 pm Eastern Time on September 30, 2002. Applications received after this date and time will not be considered. ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS: Applications for grants for retrofitting urban stormwater discharges may be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in this document by any local government, water control district, or water management district that owns or operates a stormwater system that discharges to an impaired water. FORMAT: One electronic and four written copies must be submitted for each application. Applications must be completed using MS Word. A written copy of the application is shown in Attachment A. The electronic version of the instructions and application will be made available at the bureau's website: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watershed. 1 of 19 Legend f'1ump Station Storm Sewer Force Main Flow direction toward Retention/Storage Area 'Sa ~ J } J I } } ¡ H:\ZENANUSA\WER £.,..it.fP:H~·t;lt ("'¡:'lOft ¡ Sdtfttls!! Exhibit 1 Savannas TaskForce Savannas Ecosystem Restoration Project Storm Sewer/Porce Main with County Park Storage Area ¡ L I .1. 'f ~ UJ a::: w z o UJ UJ :!E ~ :!EI- U ozzw uW:3ó ~z~a.g: <..JI- ::::>a.<U °wt:: Uca." LLUJ<~ O~UÕ ~a:::a:::a::: <~~w 0>)-1- CCS:2W< )-..J>3: I-CC-:!E Z::::>LLa::: ::::>0. 0 o I- U UJ W U ::::> ..J ¡...: UJ I- trl ., "1- 00 0:::1- Q, IJ po.. 0:::0 «0 WN >^ ~~ WI- >0 ¡:¡:I- !:;5 D. ¡g5 D. :g5 D. ~5 D. S5 D. CO) tit- o~ >w u..z >0::: o:::w 0:::> «0 (,) I- NW oc!) >0 u..:;) IX) ~t; I-W -.., ~O (,)8: 05)000 ~ ~ 8 cr5a5ò 01/)0 6:!.~ .... 05)0 po.. -.r 0 ..-(')0 cr5a5ò 01/)0 (') -.r I/) ci-Ñ ..- po.. $ 18:g Mr-: ~~ Ñ ~~ ~~ 00 ..- ..- Ñ- 10$ N 10 -.r.... g; o Ñ l/)íÕ ~~ òÑ ~~ Ñ po..ÔO ....NO -.roo òmò co 0> 0 ~-~ po..ÔO ..-NO -.roo òmò ~. £'1 ~ ..- Ñ I/)N ~. :g Ñ a;~ 1/). .... 0000> o 0> o 0> gæ ..- 10 Ñ 0000> o 0> o 0> òm po.. N 10 Ñ 000 o o Ò po.. o 0> o 0> o 0> òm I/) N ..- 10 Ñ o 0 o o &Ö o 0 o o &Ö o o o Ò N o o o Ò N o o o Ò N o o o Ò N o 0 o o &Ö 00 o o &Ö 0> 0> 0> m N 10 Ñ o N 0 0 0(')00 0(')00 &Ömò&Ö 10 po.. I/) -.r .... Ñ z « o ..J ø z :> ..J o > C/) W I- 0::: Z 0 UJ C/) UJ 0::: I- UJ UJ ::E « «»1-3: 1-0:::a:C/)a: C/) C/) UJ UJ UJ 0 UJ r}¡C/)C/»u.. x o UJ UJ Z_ « UJ a: a: UJ I- UJ I- I- Z ~ ~ '. üZZO Z oUJUJI-~a:UJ ::Æ a: ::E ::E C/) « UJ :::::> C/):hCl.UJ~UJcc~o UJ~~~~ffi~z~ ~~9~5i~2g~ o N II) N CO) .... It) .... o o N II) N CO) .... It) .... .... o .... ID po.. o N CO) It) I/') ID § N o ID N ID 0> 0> .... o .... It) po.. I/') en .... ID en CO) ID II) o po.. po.. en CO) ID It) -.r -.r en 0> : N ID N It) 0> en po.. en .... -.r IJ w :;) z w > W 0::: ~ o I- 01/)00>1/)00:- ooo(')-.r-.r-.r(') 8 ~ 08. N~ I/)NI/)· 08. Ov 80· ~. O~ § N:ß· O¡c¡· ~ IONN. g;iIOI/)OOpo..-.rI/)NO(6 co~ ....-.r..--.rO>N(') I/)N-.r-.r M ÑÑ 01/)00>1/)0 o c:o oco 1/)0 00>01/)1/)0 g;ig¡;f~g ..--.r..--.rO>N o o o g N 01/) o co 00> Ò...; 00 ..- N o 0>1/)0 co 8:g:g8~ òÑÑÒÒ ~~~~tñ Ñ ø z ð ø z o cooooo(') ~a;8fri8~ Òcr5Òr-:ÒM po..-.r I/)N 010 ~ ~~ o o o Ò o N o o o Ò o N o o o Ò o N o o o g N 000 a;8fri ~g~ o o o Ò o o. ..- 0.... 8 ¡g ò&Ö I/) 10 N 10 o 10 o po.. o (') Ò...; I/)N N W o po.. 01/) o I/) òÑ I/) N N W o 0> 8 0). g~ N (') o 0 o o Ò o I/) ~~ë;~ co 10 co 10 Ñòr-:Ñ ~ ~ ~~ë;~ COW CO 10 Ñòr-:Ñ co-.r -.r -.r 001/)0000000 8 ~ 8 8 ò .... ò ò 000 ..- (') Il) Ñ 000000 o 00 o 0 0 g r-:~ N ~(') 1l)1l)0>1l)0 CO 10 COIl)O 0> CO I/) I/) 0 "';a5ÑÑò 01/)1/)00 N..--.rION CO0008 ~a;8frio òcr5òr-:ò po..-.rl/)NI/) N a; :g coco Ña5 co Il) 10 .... Ol/)OCOOOO 00> 0 po.. 0 0(') N I/) 0 .... 001/) &öcr5ò&öòòr-: ~g~po..I/)I/)N IJ w 0:: ~ Õ z W D. X W IJ C/) I- ..J (,) c:( w z ., c:( o ü 0::: > z Q, I- 0 I- C3~~ æ",C/)~~ø~ ~'-'..JJ:ü¡::z ~z~3:w~5 0~c:(a:~~1- g:~üowlliw !ffiÇ~~5~ ~Cl.C3~~g?C/) ë:[ß~ozl:¡:: <0J:z~~"", (,)~3:~OCl.uj O-.r~ 8~co g;t N-.r ~~ë;~ ~~~~ (')0 .... ..- 00(') o 0 N 0010 ÑggÑ ..- ..- o w ~ ZCl. ø::E iß ç O:J W« cc:::::> 00 I-~ C/) a: I-C:( üCl. Wa: -, w o > a:_ Cl.a: z ír>~ I-OCl. ~ a: ..J oCl.:::::> ~~~ ....~o w«ü C/)~ç ~~~ ~o5 a:C/)a: «I-w Cl.:I:1- w > « C/)z3: iSO::E ~::Ea: «~~ Cl.:I:c/) w Z:a ;:j ..-N(')-.rl/)lOpo..COO>O..- .... ..- ~~$~~~~~~N~~~~~~~ægM~~~~~ IJ w :;) Z W > W 0::: Î ü > ~ g I-::E I- Ü..J C/) :::::>c:( Z ~ ü ë( C/) C/) 0 C/)a:w..J¿ UJoI-Ou.. ~I-~~~ I-WC/)z ~~~8~ w::E~~5 ~C/)Q:ç¿w å::z(')..J ZWWN~ ~~§~z zLtJ:~~ It) 0> ", Ñ ID "'. .... ..- N I o o o ë o ~ .... I/') en ", Ñ ID ", ë .... .... II) o .ñ .... ..... .... ID po.. CO) .,¡ .... q .... .... It) It) Ñ po.. o. .... en .... Ø!. .... I/') ~ .... N ID I/') ,zj ", .... It; It) CO) i M po.. N ", .,¡ o CO) Ñ o po.. N rD ~ M IJ I- (,) W ., o 0:: D. ~ o I- '" j I ~ '" 3 ~I r ~ Õ '" ~ Õ 6 a: ~ ::> ~ J o ,- en ~ w z o en en :E ~ :E~ 0 Oz W owz"'") >:E<O ~~..J~ z~D..D.. ::J<..J~ OD..<o w~- °oë:~ U-en<t; O~oi5 ~~~~ <~~w O»~ IXIOW< >..J>~ ~IXI-:E Z::JU-~ ::JD.. 0 o ~ o en W o ::J ..J ¡..: en r----- - , ~)., ;;S ~ 0 0 0 It) 0 0 0 I~ "<t 0 N N N N CO '<t 0 CO') 11:1 11:1 11:1 a; Ò Ò è Ñ Ñ Ñ 0 -'1- ~ 0 10 .... CO') CO') CO') 0 00 ~ CD .... .... .... o. 0::1- ..¡ ..¡ iii ItÌ iii ~ no .... .... .... 0 0 0 0 Ô (1).... 0 0 0 0::0 0 0 c <0 è è è WN 0 0 C >^ O. O. C!, .... .... ~ ;;S ~ 0 0 0 It) 0 0 0 C ~~ '<t 0 N N N N CO '<t 0 CO') 11:1 11:1 11:1 a; Ò Ò è Ñ Ñ Ñ 11.1..... ~ 0 10 .... CO') CO') CO') >0 .... CD .... .... .... ¡¡I- ..¡ '<to ItÌ ItÌ ItÌ .... .... .... 10 10 0 0 0 0 .... .... .... ê: CO) CO N 0 0 0 z .... CO q .... .... .... ~:s a;) Ñ .... iii > iii iii 0 10 CD .... .... .... no ~ CO Ø) 0 0 0 Ñ Ñ Ñ 10 N 0 0 0 .... CO') CO') . CO') §: 0 CO .... It) It) It) :g~ .... .... It) lit It) cD cD Ñ iii 0: CD iii 0 CO) '<t .... .... .... no .... CO Ø) 0 0 0 Ñ N- Ñ CO .... 0 0 0 CO') 0 0 $ ê: CO) CD 0 CD CD Z 0> .... .... N N N :g:s M ai M iii <t iii iii 0 Cõ N Ø) Ø) Ø) no .... Ø) Ø!. Ø!. Ø!. .... .... .... CO CO) 0 0 0 .... 0 0 0 C 0> 0> Ø) .... .... .... ;!~ ~ CO It) It) It) It) .... M ItÌ ,.: ~ ,.: ,.: 0 0 0 It) It) It) no .... CO Ø) Ø). Ø!. Ø!. .... .... .... 0 "<t 0 0 0 '<t CD CD CD C 0 CO) 0 CO') Ø) Ø) Ø) g~ 0> 0> C CO CO') CO') CO') ai ,..: Ò ,.: iii ~ iii iii 0> CO 10 CO') 11:1 11:1 11:1 .... Ø) 0 0 0 c.. ,.: ,.: ,.: 0 "<t 0 0 0 '<t Ø) .... Ø) Ñ CO')toIt ~ CO) 0 CO') CD Ø) CD .... 0> 0 11:1 Ø!. CO') Ø!. I/' O~ ~ ,..: Ò ,.: .... :::I iii .... ItÌ >11.1 CO 10 CO') 11:1 It) 11:1 N Ll.Z .... Ø) .... '<t .... !2 .¡ ..¡ ..¡ .... Ø) .... N >0:: N Ø) N .... '<t Ø) '<t I/' 0::11.1 ..¡ en aï 'i ItÌ 0::> 0 N N ~O CO') CD CO') M Ñ Ñ Ñ I- .... .... .... 0 0 It) I/' I/' It) C 10 0> .... N Ø) Ø) Ø) NW 10 0> .... ..... Ø) Ø) Ø) oc) ,¿ ai to .... ,.: ,.: ,.: >0 CO It) It) Ø) Ø) Ø) LI.::;) .... 11:1 .... .... .... In ..¡ ..¡ ..¡ II) II) 11.1 11.1 II) 0:: Z ¡: 11.1 no is x Z 11.1 11.1 (J) ...J no 11.1 ~ X (J) 11.1 ...JI- Z 11.1 ~ Z <0 11.1 (J) 11.1 1-11.1 (J) a.. 11.1 C) - -, 11.1 X > 0 ~O II) 11.1 ...J I- 11.1 (J) a:: ¡5 o f z Z ...J 11.1 II) ~ 11.1 < (J) z a.. z 11.1 ~ 11.1 CI X 0 > a:: II) no « 11.1 ¡:: Ü I- 11.1 11.1 X 0:: 0 11.1 oð C) ~ Z Z ¡: ~ ...J Z 11.1 11.1 II) ~ < ~ 11.1 C) ~ 11.1 is Ü a.. z 11.1 ::;) 0 Z Z 11.1 Z a:: ¡:: ...J 11.1 11.1 In Z < 11.1 Z Z ~ > no ..... 11.1 Z a.. 0 0 11.1 11.1 X W C) ü: 0 z ü (J) 0:: 11.1 Z N o ~ :g .., î J E ;¡¡ .., ~ a. 0:1 ~ Ü .., ~ ~ S ::> 2 '" ~ g! Ci 11.1 ....COO>O....Nco)"<tIOCO....COO> Z_CO)CO)CO)"<t"'"'<t"<t'<t'<t'<t'<t"<t"<t :J g~fij~~:g¡gIõ:gmg ~ N coco \w ..J COUNTY ADMINISTRATION MEMORANDUM ,:;,<~~",:::~~;;;;;;:~",:;:;:~;~:"",' ·-c· :'9,';-'-"';::':::':':;::":"::;:/:,:;--,:,,-,,.-,-:,::, ",-=",,,~~d~:,wØ~W:'i:ð";}~#;;" ,,,,,,;.".;;;<'::;::;:%'"'-".~~;;¡Cii~W£~w:n"'V<'0N:W'~ -'-"c','_I,O«~M~tw."~~<",;:,:", ,.",;.;",..~-,~::;::~;~;;:;;;;;~?:::,~:~"" Board of County Commissioners Jody Bonet, Grants Writer ~ September 26, 2002 TO: FROM: DATE: ;',-'",;,-."""""""-'---"'+',-',y;'- RE: Budget for Indian River Estates Stormwater Attenuation Facility This grant proposal to Florida Department of Environmental Protection Stormwater Retrofit will assist us in me construction of the $5,600,000 Stormwater Attenuation Facility. The grant application will be for an additional $600,000. The chart below depicts the anticipated funds coming in to assist with this project. Source of Funds Transportation Trust/Local Option Drainage MSTU State Revolving Loan Fund FDEP / EPA 319 Fiscal Year 02 FDEP / EPA 319 Fiscal Year 03 St. Lucie Issues Team 02/03 Legislative Item / SJRWMD* TOTAL FDEP Stormwater Retrofit Grant GRAND TOTAL Amounti $ 45,302.00 $ 47,278.00 $2,500,000.00 $ 600,000.00 $ 600,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $5,792,580 $ 600,000 $6,392,580 Status In budget In budget Formal approval 10/02 Contract to be signed Verbal Commitment Verbal Commitment Ceremonial check from Pruitt in 2002 November 15, 2002 Notice of Funding * SJRWMD - St. Johns River Water Management District will transfer the Legislative Allocation to the County for this project. No formal letter has been received. ...., .""." To: Submitted By: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: FUNDS AVAILABLE: PREVIOUS ACTION: RECOMMENDATION: \w' 'wi Agenda Request Item Number Date: C.3 10/01/02 Consent Regular Public Hearing Leg. [ ]. [Xr [ ] [ x ] Quasi-JD [ ] Board of County Commissioners Community Development Resolution 02-154 - correcting a scriveners error ciated Development plans for the project known as Portifiono Shores. Final Planned On June 18,2002, this Board approved Resolution 02-140, granting a change in zoning from the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 du/acre), IX (Industrial, Extraction), and CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) zoning districts to the PUD (Planne<! Unit Development _ Portofino Shores) Zoning district for the residential project known as Portofino Shores _ PUD. Unfortunately, and inadvertently, the Resolution Number 02-140 was improperly assigned to another resolution that the Board approved through a totally separate action on July 9, 2002 for the Community Services Department. Since we cannot have two Resolutions with the same number, it necessary that the Board reapprove the Resolution granting Final Planned Development approval for the project known as Portifiono Shores. Attached is a copy of Resolution 02-154 that reapproves the Final Planned Development plans for the project known as Portifiono Shores. N/A On June 18, 2002, this Board approved Resolution 02-140, granting a change in zoning from the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 du/acre), IX (Industrial, Extraction), and CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) zoning districts to the PUD (Planned Unit Development _ Portofino Shores) Zoning district for the residential project known as Portofino Shores _ PUD. Staff recommends approval of Resolution 02-154 COMMISSION ACTION: CVJ APPROVED c=J DENIED LJ OTHER Douglas M. Anderson County Administrator County Attorney Originating Dept.: Finance: )1 Coordination/ Signatures Mgt. & Budget: Other: Purchasing: Other: (AGEND656a) \w' ....I COMMISSION REVIEW: October 1, 2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Administration MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: County Commission Community Development Direct~ September 23,2001 DATE: SUBJECT: Resolution 02-154 - correcting a scriveners error associated with the Final Planned Development plans for the project known as Portifiono Shores. On June 18, 2002, this Board approved Resolution 02-140, granting a change in zoning from the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 du/acre), IX (Industrial, Extraction), and CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) zoning districts to the PUD (Planned Unit Development - Portofino Shores) Zoning district for the residential project known as Portofino Shores - PUD. Unfortunately, and inadvertently, the Resolution Number 02-140 was improperly assigned to another resolution that the Board approved through a totally separate action on July 9,2002 for the Community Services Department. Since we cannot have two Resolutions with the same number, it necessary that the Board. reapprove the Resolution granting Final Planned Development approval for the project known as Portifiono Shores. Attached is a copy of Resolution 02-154 that reapproves the Final Planned Development plans for the project known as Portifiono Shores. If you have any questions, please let me know DJM attachment PROTOFINOMEM_SCRIVNRS1 001 02(H) Cc: County Administrator County Attomey Ass!. Community Dev. Director Planning Manager Noreen Dryer 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 '-"' ...." 1 2 3 4 RESOLUTION 92449 02-154 FILE NO.: RZ-02-007/PUD-02-002lMJSP-02-003 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE RM-5 (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY - 5 DU/ACRE), IX (INDUSTRIAL, EXTRACTION), AND CN (COMMERCIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD) ZONING DISTRICTS TO THE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - PORTOFINO SHORES) ZONING DISTRICT OF CERTAIN PROPERTY IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, based on the testimony and evidence, including but not limited to the staff report, has made the following determinations: GENERAL 1. On June 18, 2002 this Board held a public hearing to review the petition of the Œassman Development Corporation, for a change in zoning from the RM-S (Residential, Multiple Family - 5 du/acre), IX (Industrial, Extraction), and CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning Districts to the PUD (Planned Unit Development - Portofino Shores) Zoning District for certain property in St. Lucie County, Florida, and for Final Planned Developemnt Plan approval for the residential project to be known as Portofino Shorrp 2. At the conclusion of the public hearing on this petition, this Board, through Resolution 02· 140, voted 4-0 to grant approval to the requested change in zoning and granted FH tal Developemnt Plan approval for the residential project to be known as Portofino Shores. 3. Prior to the recording of Resolution 02-140, it was discovered that duplicate Resolution numbers had been assigned and that it was necessary to reassign the Resolution number for this particular petition. CHANGE IN ZONING 4. Glassman Development Corporation, presented a petition for a change in zoning tmnl the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 du/acre), IX (Industrial, Extraction), and CN Underline is for addition StrUm through is for deletion File No.: RZ-02-007/PUD-02-002/MJSP-02-003 JURe 18, 2002/ (revised October 1, 2002) Resolution 02-154 Page 1 1 2 3 4 5. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 6. 12 13 14 15 16 17 7. 18 19 20 21 22 8. 23 24 25 9. 26 27 28 29 30 31 10. 32 33 34 35 36 11. 37 38 39 40 12. 41 42 43 44 13. '- ..." (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning Districts to the PUD (Planned Unit Development _ Portofino Shores) Zoning District for certain property in St. Lucie County, Florida. On May 16, 2002, the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing, of which due notice was published and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet at least 10 days prior to the hearing, and recommended to this Board that the requested change in zoning from the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 du/acre), IX (Industrial, Extraction), and CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning Districts to the PUD (Planned Unit Development - Portofino Shores) Zoning District be granted. e 18, 2002, this Board held a public hearing on the petition, after publishing a notice of such hearing and notifying by mail all owners of property within 500 feet of the subject property and granted final approval to the property described below. SITE PLAN petitioner is proposing the construction of a project consisting of 519 single-family units in Phase I and a one-acre commercial parcel in Phase II for property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of the Turnpike Feeder Road and Spanish Lakes Country Club Boulevard. The Development Review Committee has reviewed the site plan for the proposed project and found it to meet minimum technical requirements. On May 16, 2002, the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing, of which due public notice was published and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet at least 10 days prior to the hearing, and recommended to this Board that Preliminary Development Plan approval for the project to be known as Portofino Shores - PUD, be granted. On June 18, 2002, this Board held a public hearing on the petition, after publishing a notice of such hearing and notifying by mail all owners of property within 500 feet of the subject property, and granted Preliminary Development Site Plan approval for the property described below. The proposed project is consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives, and standards of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, and the Code of Ordinances of St. Lucie County. The proposed project will not have an undue adverse effect on adjacent property, the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, parking, utility facilities, or other matters affecting the public health, safety, and general welfare. All reasonable steps have been taken to minimize any adverse effect of the proposed Underline is for addition Stril<c through is for deletion File No.: RZ-02-007/PUD-02-002/MJSP-02-003 Junc 18, 2002/ (revised October 1, 2002) Resolution 02-154 Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 '-' ....., project on the immediate vicinity through building design, site design, landscaping, and screening. 14. The proposed project will be constructed, arranged, and operated so as not to interfere with the development and use of neighboring property, in accordance with applicable district regulations. . 15. The proposed project will be served by adequate public facilities and services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of S1. Lucie County, Florida: SITE PLAN - A. Pursuant to Section 11.02.05 of the S1. Lucie County Land Development Code, the Preliminary and Final Site Plan for the project to be known as Portofino Shores - A Planned Unit Development be, and the same is hereby approved as shown on the site plan drawings for the project prepared by Kilday & Associates, Inc., dated April 15, 2002, and date stamped received by the S1. Lucie County Community Development Director on April 19, 2002, for the property described below, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, including any use or occupancy authorizations for sales or temporary use facilities, the project entrance(s) on the Turnpike Feeder Road shall be constructed with right and left turns at all project entrances. 2. By October 1, 2002, the petitioner, his successors or assigns, shall dedicate to St. Lucie County, in a manner and form acceptable to St. Lucie County, the east 15 feet of the petitioned property described in Part B below for future right-of-way needs associated with planned improvements to the Turnpike Feeder Road. 3. Prior to the recording of any plats for Phase Five or beyond, the developers, their successors and assigns, shall conduct a signal warrant study to determine if any additional entrance improvements are required at either of the project entrances. If signalization is warranted, all costs to provide such signalization shall be the responsibility of the developer, their successors and assigns and all improvements shall be contracted for prior to the recording of the plats for Phase Five or beyond as shown on the approved project site plan referenced under this Resolution. 4. No land clearing or site alteration permits shall be issued until the following Underline is for addition Strilœ tllrough is for deletion File No.: RZ-02-007/PUD-02-002/MJSP-02-003 JURe 18,2002/ (revised October 1, 2002) Resolution 02-154 Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 '- ...¡ items have been addressed or provided for: a) Land clearing or site alteration permits shall only be issued for primary infrastructure areas. General lot clearing is specifically prohibited until a detailed lot line, tree survey, and grading plan is provided. This plan must provide for the preservation and protection of as much of the existing pine f/atwood habitat as possible. b) A complete mitigation plan consistent with the requirements of the St. Lucie County Lane Development Code is approved by the Natura! Resources Division. 5. Prior to the issuance of any building permits in the commercial portion of the project, Final Planned Development Site Plan approval must be granted by the Board of County Commissioners following a duly noticed public hearing, The commercial area shall be limited to a maximum size of one-acre and restricted to the uses described within the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District. Nothing in these conditions shall be interpreted to relieve the developers, their successors or assigns, from meeting any conditional use Of other CN Zoning District standards. If the proposed commercial use at this location would otherwise require a conditional use permit application, then a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission will also b{-1 required before the petition is forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for Final PUD review. No development of this phase rnay proceed until at least 208 of the authorized dwelling units of the project (:to percent) have been completed. 6. Driveway access to the commercial tract shall be from the Turnpike Feeder Road/North Kings Highway only. No driveway access shall be permittee! to the entrance driveway serving Spanish Lakes Country Club Village unlew.3 this restriction is specifically amended by the Board of County Commissioners following a major adjustment review to the Planned Unit Development consistent with the public hearing notice requirements of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. 7. Prior to the recording of any plats for this project, the developers, their successors and assigns, shall have entered into an enforceable utility service agreement with St. Lucie County Utilities regarding the final provision of water and sewer services to this site. This agreement shall be in a form consistent with St. Lucie County regulations regarding utility service extensions and service provisions. 8. The irrigation system within this project shall be designed to accept reuse water from the St. Lucie County Utilities as the preferred method of irrigation. Underline is for addition Stril(c through is for deletion File No.: RZ-02-007/PUD-02-002/MJSP-02-003 Junc 18, 20021 (revised October 1 , 2002) Resolution 02-154 Page 4 1 2 3 B. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 \.r ...., The property on which this Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development Site Plan approval is granted is described as follows: BEING ALL THAT PART Of THE EAST ONE-HALf Of SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, fLORIDA, LYING NORTH Of THE TURNPIKE fEEDER ROAD, AND ALL THAT PART Of THE WEST ONE-QUARTER Of SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST, LYING NORTH Of SAID TURNPIKE fEEDER ROAD; LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREfROM A PARCEL Of APPROXIMATELY 2.9 ACRES DESCRIBED AS: A PART Of THE WEST 146. 34 fEET Of THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER Of SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, DESCRIBED AS fOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION Of THE NORTH-SOUTH ONE-QUARTER SECTION LINE WITH THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-Of-WAY LINE Of THE SUNSHINE STATE PARKWAY fEEDER ROAD, WHICH POINT IS 86.61 fEET SOUTH Of THE NORTHEAST CORNER Of THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER Of THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER Of SAID SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 39 SOUTH, RANGE 34 EAST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-Of-WAY LINE Of THE SUNSHINE STATE PARKWAY fEEDER ROAD, A DISTANCE Of 205.62 fEET TO A POINT, WHICH POINT AT ITS CLOSEST DISTANCE IS 146.34 fEET fROM THE NORTH-SOUTH ONE-QUARTER SECTION LINE Of SAID SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST; THENCE NORTH, PARALLEL WITH THE SAID NORTH-SOUTH ONE-QUARTER SECTION LINE, A DISTANCE Of 847.84 fEET; THENCE WEST 146.34 fEET TO THE SAID NORTH-SOUTH ONE-QUARTER SECTION LINE; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID ONE-QUARTER SECTION LINE, A DISTANCE Of 988.34 fEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT Of BEGINNING. ALSO INCLUDING ANY AND ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN A CERTAIN EASEMENT DATED OCTOBER 27, 1970, fiLED NOVEMBER 16, 1970 AT O.R. BOOK 188, PAGE 907, CLERK'S fiLE NO. 200989, ST. LUCIE COUNTY RECORDS; EASEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 16, 1970, AT O.A. BOOK 188, PAGE 908, CLERK'S fiLE NO. 200990, ST. LUCIE COUNTY REC&DS; AND EASEMENT DATED OCTOBER 12, 1970, fiLED NOVEMBER 16, 1970, AT O.A. BOOK 188, PAGE 896-897, CLERK'S fiLE NO. 200987, ST. LUCIE COUNTY RECORDS. EXCEPTING THEREfROM: A PART Of THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER Of SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, DESCRIBED AS fOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE Of THE NORTH-SOUTH ONE-QUARTER SECTION LINE WITH THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-Of-WAY LINE Of THE SUNSHINE STATE PARKWAY fEEDER ROUTE, WHICH POINT IS 86.61 fEET SOUTH Of THE NORTHEAST CORNER Of THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER Of THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER Of SAID SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 39 SOUTH, RANGE 34 EAST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-Of-WAY LINE Of THE SUNSHINE STATE PARKWAY fEEDER ROUTE A DISTANCE Of 205.62 fEET TO THE POINT Of BEGINNING Of THE TRACT HEREBY DESCRIBED; fROM SAID POINT Of BEGINNING RUN NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE RIGHT-Of-WAY OF SUNSHINE STATE PARKWAY fEEDER ROUTE, A DISTANCE Of 200.00 fEET; THENCE NORTH PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTH-SOUTH ONE-QUARTER SECTION LINE TO A POINT THAT Underline is for addition Strilw through is for deletion File No.: RZ-02-007/PUD-02-002/MJSP-02-003 June 18, 2002/ (revised October 1 , 2002) Resolution 02-154 Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 C. 16 17 18 19 20 D. 21 22 23 24 E. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 F. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 '\.- ....", WOULD BE INTERSECTED BY A LINE EXTENDED DUE EAST FROM A POINT ON SAID NORTH-SOUTH ONE-QUARTER SECTION LINE THAT IS 901.72 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST ON&QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE WEST ALONG SAID LINE EXTENDED DUE EAST TO A POINT THAT IS DUE NORTH OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH AND PARALLEL WITH SAID ONE-QUARTER SECTION LINE, A DISTANCE OF 847.84 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 185.91 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. (Location: Southwest corner of the intersection of the Turnpike Feeder Road and Spanish Lakes Country Club Boulevard) This Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development Site Plan approval shall expire on June 18, 2004, unless final plat approval is granted or an extension is granted in accordance with Section 11.02.06(8)(3), St. Lucie County Land Development Code. A Certificate of Capacity, a copy of which is attached to this resolution, was granted by the Community Development Director on June 18, 2002. A copy of this resolution shall be attached to the site plan drawings described in Section A, which plan shall be placed on file with the St. Lucie County Community Development Director. CHANGE IN ZONING The proposed change in the Zoning District Classification for that property described as follows: BEING ALL THAT PART OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, LYING NORTH OF THE TURNPIKE FEEDER ROAD, AND ALL THAT PART OF THE WEST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST, LYING NORTH OF SAID TURNPIKE FEEDER ROAD; LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM A PARCEL OF APPROXIMATELY 2.9 ACRES DESCRIBED AS: A PART OF THE WEST 146. 34 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH-SOUTH ONE-QUARTER SECTION LINE WITH THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE SUNSHINE STATE PARKWAY FEEDER ROAD, WHICH POINT IS 86.61 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12, Underline is for addition 8trilœ threugh is for deletion File No.: RZ-02-007/PUD-02-002/MJSP-02-003 June 18, 2002/ (revised October 1, 2002) Resolution 02-154 Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 \.,. ...", TOWNSHIP 39 SOUTH, RANGE 34 EAST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHï.:T'l"Y RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OFTHE SUNSHINE STATE PARKWAY FEEDER ROAD, A DISTANCE OF 205.62 FEET TO A POINT, WHICH POINT AT ITS CLOSEST DISTANCE IS 146.34 FEET FROM THE NORTH-SOUTH ONE-QUARTER SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST; THENCE NORTH, PARALLEL WITH THE SAID NORTH-SOUTH ONE-QUARTER SECTION LINE, A DISTANCE OF 847.84 FEET; THENCE WEST 146.34 FEET TO THE SAID NORTH-SOUTH ONE-QUARTER SECTION LINE; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID ONE-QUARTER SECTION LINE, A DISTANCE OF 988.34 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO INCLUDING ANY AND ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN A CERTAIN EASEMENT DATED OCTOBER 27, 1970, FILED NOVEMBER 16, 1970 AT O.R. BOOK 188, PAGE G07, CLERK'S FILE NO. 200989, ST. LUCIE COUNTY RECORDS; EASEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 16, 1970, AT O.R. BOOK 188, PAGE 908, CLERK'S FILE NO. 200990, ST. LUCIE COUNTY REC&DS; AND EASEMENT DATED OCTOBER 12, 1970, FILED NOVEMBER 16, 1970, AT O.R. BOOK 188, PAGE 896-897, CLERK'S FILE NO. 200987, ST. LUCIE COUNTY RECORDS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE OF THE NORTH-SOUTH ONE-QUARTER SECTION LINE WITH THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE SUNSHINE STATE PARKWAY FEEDER ROUTE, WHICH POINT IS 86.61 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 39 SOUTH, RANGE 34 EAST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE SUNSHINE STATE PARKWAY FEEDER ROUTE A DISTANCE or 205.62 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT HEREBY DESCRIBED; FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING RUN NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE RIGHT-OF-WAY or SUNSHINE STATE PARKWAY FEEDER ROUTE, A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTH-SOUTH ONE-QUARTER SECTION LINE TO A POINT THAT WOULD BE INTERSECTED BY A LINE EXTENDED DUE EAST FROM A POINT ON SAID NORTH-SOUTH ONE-QUARTER SECTION LINE THAT IS 901.72 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE SOUTHE^ST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE WEST ALONG SAID LINE EXTENDED DUE EAST TO A POINT THAT IS DUE NORTH OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH AND PARALLEL WITH SAID ONE-QUARTER SECTION LINE, A DISTANCE OF 847.84 FEET, MORr (Jf LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. (Tax ID #'s: 1312-110-0001-000/6 and 1407-221-0002- 000/5) CONTAINING 185.91 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. (Location: Southwest corner of the Intersection of the Turnpike Feeder Road and Spanish Lakes Country Club Boulevard) owned by Glassman Development Corporation, is hereby changed from the RM-S (Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 du/acre), IX (Industrial, Extraction), and CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning Districts to the PUD (Planned Development - Portofino Shores) Zoning District. Underline is for addition Strilœ through is for deletion File No.: RZ-02-007/PUD-02-002lMJSP-02-003 June 18,2002/ (revised October 1, 2002) Resolution 02-154 Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 \..r' ...,,¡ G. The St. Lucie County Community Development Director is hereby authorized and directed to cause the change to be made on the Official Zoning Map of St. Lucie County, Florida, and to make notation of reference to the date of adoption of this resolution. REPEAL OF PRIOR ACTIONS H. Through the approval of this Resolution, all prior approvals granted by this Board through Resolution 02-140, following the Board's public hearing of June 18, 2002, are hereby repealed and declared to be void. After motion and second, the vote on this resolution was as follows: Chairman Doug Coward xxx Vice-Chairman Cliff Barnes xxx Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson xxx Commissioner Paula A. Lewis xxx Commissioner John D. Bruhn xxx PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 1 st Day of October 2002. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY Chairman ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: Underline is for addition Strike through is for deletion File No.: RZ-02-007/PUD-02-002/MJSP-02-003 Junc 18, 2002/ (revised October 1, 2002) Resolution 02-154 Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ~ ....,,¡ Deputy Clerk County Attorney DJM/hf H :\WORD\Resolution\FI N ISH ED .2002\Portofino. PD\PortofinoRES. wpd Underline is for addition Stril(c through is for deletion File No.: RZ-02-007/PUD-02-002/MJSP-02-003 Junc 18, 2002/ (revised October 1, 2002) Resolution 02-154 Page 9 14 15 16 ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Exhibit A Certificate of Capacity Underline is for addition Strike through is for deletion File No.: RZ-02-007/PUD-02-002!MJSP-02-003 Junc 18, 2002/ (revised October 1, 2002) ~ Resolution 02-154 Page 10 .-......-~--_...~._... ... AGENDA REQUEST ~TEM NO. C-4 DATE: 10/01/02 Investment For the Future REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT[X] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): PURCHASING SUBJECT: Award of Bid No. 02-071, Edwards Road over 940070) , BACKGROUND: On August 16, 2002 bids were opened for Edwards Road over 5-mile Creek Bridge Repair. Six hundred ninety (690) vendors were notified, twenty-eight (28) bid documents were distributed and four (4)bids were received. The bids were checked using the unit prices that were provided. Some math errors were founçi)n the bids; however they did not affect the bid ranks. Based on our review of the bids, we recommend award of the bid to Custom Built Marine Construction, Inc. the lowest complete bid, in the amount of $131 ,828.26 The recommendation, tabulation, and spreadsheet attached. FUNDS AVAIL.: Funds are available in 316001-41133-56~000-4326Transportation Capital-Local Option Bridge maintenance and available in 101002-41123-4326 Transportation Trust/Constitutional - Bridge PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends award of Bid No. 02-071 Edwards Road over 5-Mile Creek Bridge to the low bidder, Custom Built Marine Construction, in the amount $131,828.26, authorization for the Chairman to sign the contract as prepared by the County Attorney. COMMISSION ACTION: - M APPROVED [] DENIED [ ] OTHER: County Attomey:_X ~/ Engineering X: ¡~I ,p Coordination/Siqnatures Mgt. & Budget:_X ítêIJ mrf\! 11 ¡ Purchasing Mgr.:_X ß~J· Other: Other. Finance: (Check for Copy only, if Applicable) Eff. 1/97 G:\COMMON\AGE~AS\BIDS\lAGENDA.FRM ...., DIVISION OF ENGINEERING MEMORANDUM 02-269 To: Ruth Totton -Interim Purchasing Manager Via: Michael Powley, P.E. - County Engineer Via: Barbara Meinhardt - Budget and Revenue Coordinator From: Craig Hauschild, P.E. - Senior Project Engineer Date: September 19, 2002 Subject: Edwards Road over 5-Mile Creek Bridge Repair Project (Bid # 02-071) Bridge 1.0.940070 ~~~~~m~~~~¡~~~~~¡~~~;~~~~!~~i~~~~~~;~~~I~;~~~~~;~¡~~~;I¡;~¡;Im~~mm~m¡~~¡~~¡~I¡~I!~I~;I¡;~¡;I¡;I¡;I¡~Imm¡;I!;~¡;I¡~I!;I¡;I!;I~m;I¡mmmm;~~mm;Ii;I!;I!;Im¡;I¡~I¡;I¡;~~;I¡;I¡;~¡;I¡;I¡~I¡;I¡;I¡;I¡;I¡;I¡~I¡;I¡;Im¡;I¡m;I¡;Im¡;I!;I¡;I¡;I¡;I¡;I¡;~; This project will rehabilitate the existing bridge to meet current safety standards and expand its service life. On August 16, 2002 bids for this project were opened in the Purchasing office. We have reviewed all four bids received. The bids were checked using the unit prices that were provided. Some math errors were found in the bids; however they did not affect the bid ran kings. Based on our review of the bids, we recommend award of the contract to Custom Built Marine Construction, Inc., the lowest complete bid, in the amount of $131,828.26. The following budget is established for the project: Construction: Testing: Reserves: TOTAL: $ 131,829.00 $ 2,750.00 $ 11.206.00 $ 145,785.00 Funds are available in 316001-41133-563000-4326 Transportation Capital- Local Option Bridge Maintenance and available in 101002-41133-563000-4326 Transportation Trust I Constitutional - Bridge. attachments: Bid Tabulation Sheet Bid Summary Spreadsheet cc w/attachments: Ray Wazny, P.E. - Assistant County Administrator Don West. P.E. - Public Works Director -- ~ ,_._. _....~'^..,~ ""'" DIVISION OF ENGINEERING MEMORANDUM 02-269 To: From: Ruth Totton -Interim Purchasing Manager Michael Powley, P.E. - County Engineer MVP Barbara Meinhardt - Budget and Revenue Coordinator ~'" Craig Hauschild, P.E. - Senior Project Engineer MtI Via: Via: Date: September 19, 2002 Edwards Road over 5-Mile Creek Bridge Repair Project (Bid # 02-071) Bridge 1.0. 940070 Subject: ~~~~~~m~~~~~~~~~~~~m~~~tml~~~I~J~I!~~~~~t~~~~!~II~j~I!~~!~~!j~It!~~!~~!~~!~~i~I~~I~~~!~I!~~!~~i~~!~I!~It!~~!~~!~I~~I!~~im~Imm!~~~mm~Immm!~Im!~I!~~m!~~!~I!m~~!~~mm!~t~~~~!~Ii~Im!~I!~~i~I!~lttI!m~t~!~~i~ItfI!~~~ This project will rehabilitate the existing bridge to meet current safety standards and expand its service life. On August 16, 2002 bids for this project were opened in the Purchasing office. We have reviewed all four bids received. The bids were checked using the unit prices that were provided. Some math errors were found in the bids; however they did not affect the bid rankings. Based on our review of the bids, we recommend award of the contract to Custom Built Marine Construction, Inc., the lowest complete bid, in the amount of $131,828.26. The following budget is established for the project: Construction: Testing: Reserves: TOTAL: $ 131,829.00 $ 2,750.00 $ 11.206.00 $ 145,785.00 Funds are available in 316001-41133-563000-4326 Transportation Capital - Local Option Bridge Maintenance and Transportation Trust I Constitutional - Bridge. attachments: Bid Tabulation Sheet Bid Summary Spreadsheet cc w/attachments: Ray Wazny, P.E. - Assistant County Administrator Don West, P.E. - Public Works Director _'.___.__~_ ___ __'-_ ....·ü'~__....~___~_ ,."...._~ ~ - 0 ...... 0 (/) 0 o:::~ ~ en w...... . Zo C O' . - _N W (/)0 ~~g C) c Z:Em æ :J:E. m 001- - O°ttl 0::: W~:I: - « ÕZ(/) Q. W :J::)Z 0::: ..JOO W ·0- I- I- C) (/)LL« C O..J - C:J 0::: o:::m m :æ: «~ ~ Q. 0 W m w 0 0::: 0 . . 0 N W @ ..J - N :æ: 0 . 0 It) N 0::: .. w CD > ~ 0 I- C) (/) C Z ::) « - C) 0 0::: :J 0::: W « W en z . . C - 0::: C) C Z W ~ W Z . W CI :5: a. w a.. 0 (\ \9 \) ~ 0 \4 . ~ <X) . N ~ c;x) ~ ~ (X) , ~ '" ,,' ~ l't) (\. ~ "'- "'- ~ 0 0 0 0 C 0 ~ 0 0 - . . . m N CO CO 0 ~ N M M W CO CWl CD It) .(/) .. ... .. ~ M M M « M ...... ...... en m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . 0 Z . 0 · - 0 . 0 I- Z tn Z - . Z 0 · 0 0 - 0 Z I- 0 - 0 0 · 0:::" (/) W :J l- . 0::: Z 0::: (/) w 0 - 1-. Z W C 0::: en 0 :I: Z « Z..J 0 ·tIJ w :E O~ I- Z :I: > I- OJ: 0 O..J ..J >~ en..J - «u. :J :I:W oð·~ m- m Q.a1 <~ :æ:~ :E~ 0:::== «õ 0.,.:- :J~ 0:::0 . oð W ~Il. 1-1- 1-0:: ..Jz C)~ (/)< wt; w< :JF: :I:W :I:ë ~~ 0", I-~ (/)~ (/)0 'wi .,.. co ~ en N co ... C W I- :J m ... ~ C W '" ¡¡: Õ ¡:: ~ ë 0 Z :2 W '" W > W :¡: üi Z :J 0 0 W E < 0 0:: a.. c 0 :¡: '" (,) 0 C C ~ ãi m CIS u .... en U. U. U. 'C 0 0 0 c CIS c:: a:: a:: E w w w .~ en a: w '2: '2: Z ~ ~ -- - - z z ,::;. ,~..-..;~~- . -..1 'J '-' ...., ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 0 §§§§§§§§§8!§~~~~§§~8i§§§ Q - GI ;~~~~~~~~~g~~~;~æ~~~~;~~ M -e u lit ...if M MMM M .. Ø) ! .... .,. ~ u .a 888888888888888888888888 ~ ~ IS ~~!~~~~~~i~~aam~~~aaamm~ all :Sif ~m ~~oo ~ ~~ ~ .~ Mw ~ ~ M M 888888888888888888888888 0 ~~~~~~~~~j~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 cc) - S M !if ~~~~m~om~ ~~~m~M~~~~ ~~~ CD .~~~ ~ ~ ~ M~ ~ M ~M~ M MM M M M M to- .... .,. c 888888888888888888888888 fl ~ all ~ IS ~~ø~~__~_~"Ø~~I~~gi~aa~ - s C 'C ::I a.. ~~~~~~~ " ~~ ~ .! MM M M ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 0 ~§~§~§§~~§~~~oª§§~~~i~~o cc) jl w~~~~~~~~~~~æ2~~~;~ ~M~2 0 CICl S "" to- .... c .,. ,g 1S i 888888888888888888888888 -~_~~~~~j~~~a~ii~~~~a~~~ 0 !i u ~~~~~~~M ~ m~ ~ .!' M M W M M M e- ;:, :& 8888888~~8;i8~8~88~8~ii8 CD . . . . . . . C'o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N ~.I.~~¡.~~i.¡~iqiili&~N. cc) N - f! ~~~"~~m~~ ~~~mwmw ~" ""~ CICl -e 'C M M M MM .... ... a.. M .... ! .,. 'C t'IJ :& :I:: '5 III ~ B E c '-' '-' AGENDA REQUEST ITEM NO. c-sA DATE: October 1.2002 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR: ( ) PUBLIC HEARING: ( ) CONSENT: (X) PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY (DEPT): ADMINISTRATION SUBJECT: Staff requests the Board reject the bid received for River Park Baffle Boxes, Bid #02-102, and authorize staff to re-bid. BACKGROUND: On August 28, 2002, the bid for River Park Baffle Boxes, Bid #02-102, was opened. One bid was received from Sheltra & Son Construction Co., and this exceeded budgeted funds. FUNDS AVAilABLE: N/A PREVIOUS ACTION: RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board reject the bid received for River Park Baffle Boxes, id #02-102, and authorize staff to re-bid. KAPPROVED o OTHER: o DENIED COMMISSION ACTION: Q County Attorney: ~" Review and Approvals Q Management and Budget: ~ Purchasing: ;1b~ ~ Originating Dept: ~ Other: Public Works Þf"· r Q Other: Q Finance: Check for copy only, if applicable: Anyone with a disability requiring accommodations to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Manager at 561-462-1777 or TTD 561-462-1428, at least 48 hours (48) prior to the meeting. H ;IWINIWPIAGEN DA IRvrPrkBaffleBid. wpd " { 1.. '-" ...., DIVISION OF ENGINEERING MEMORANDUM 02 - 257 j~j~~j~~j~~f~@j~~~j~~~j~~j~~j~~~j~~~j~~~j~~~j~~~j~~~j~~j~~jj~~t~~j~~jjj~~@j~~@j~~~j~~~j@j~~@j~j TO: Ruth Totton, Senior Buyer FROM: Michael Harvey, Engineer Intern (Y) t\ VIA: Michael Powley, County Engineer MvP DATE: September 6,2002 SUBJECT: River Park Baffle Boxes, Bid #02-102 On August 28, 2002, bids were opened for the above referenced project. There was only one bid and it exceeds the allocated funds for the project. We recommend the present contract not to be awarded. Weare revising the plans and bid documents in anticipation of receiving lower bids. New bid documents shall be forwarded to the Purchasing Department at a later date. cc: Don West, Public Works Director Barbara Meinhardt, Department Revenue Coordinator '" .; .~-.: ¡ c'..... \':/ ~...J t.J1 ; tIJ O::N Wo z~ O· _N tIJO ~~g Z:lo:l ::):1. OO~ UU~ W~::I: ÕZCl) ::)::)z ..JOe . u- ~ ~ enLLc( O..J c:;) 0::0:1 <C~ o m '-' en w >< e m w ..J LL LL c( m ~ 0::: c( c.. 0::: w :> ä:: C) z - 0:: W W Z - C) z w . :I . Q. Q Q . . N @) N Q Q N o:f N I- tIJ :J C) ::) <C . . c W z W Q. o C Q C! - m 0 N W 'lilt en .. N c( M OJ M 414 . U Z - .. . 0 u z 0 ~ en u 0:: ::) 0 0::: C I- en z z W 0 > u z 0 en.... oð~ ~~ I-~ ..Jz W< :to en~ ~ e ~ ,... ~ ('II ... .. è ~ ~ m b f!: w en ¡:¡: is ¡:: ~ ë 0 z z w en w > w =e W Z ~ (J (J w E <C 0 D:: c. Q 0 =e tn () 0 Q C ..: ãj ãj CIS (,) - en u.. u.. U. 't:I 0 0 0 c CIS a: ~I D:: E w w Q) aJ m 't:I :æ :e! :e ¡", :::J ::)1 ::::I Q,I !:.i z 21 ::2 ~;: ! '~'~_'~""'-"',.~.,,~.,~_.. AGENDA REQUEST """" ITEM NO. C5b DATE: October 1, 2002 REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [ X ] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): Administration Doug Anderson County Administrator SUBJECT: BOCC Meeting Cancellation BACKGROUND: It has been requested that the December 3, 2002 Board of County Commissioners Meeting be cancelled due to lack of a quorum. FUNDS AVAILABLE: N/A PREVIOUS ACTION: RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the December 3, 2002 Board meeting be cancelled due to lack of a quorum. COMMISSION ACTION: ["l APPROVED [ ] DENIED [1 OTHER: Review and Approvals County Attorney: Management & Budget Purchasing: Originating Dept. Other: Other: Finance: (Check for Copy only, if applicable) Eft. 5/96 " AGENDA REOUEST ITE~. C (p Date: October 1, 2002 Regular [ ] Public Hearing [ ] Consent [ X ] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): County Attorney Heather Young Assistant County Attorney SUBJECT: Moss and Garten v. S1. Lucie County. et al- Proposed Settlement Agreement BACKGROUND: See C.A. No. 02-14898 FUNDS A V AIL.(State type & No. of transaction or N/ A): Account No. 1 45 6230 561 000 6950 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed settlement agreement, and authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement. COMMISSION ACTION: E: [11 APPROVED [] DENIED [ ] OTHER: County Attorney: ~/ Coordination/Shma tur es Purchasing: Originating Dept.: Other: Finance (Check for Copy only, if applicable): "-' ...., INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney C.A. NO: 02-1489 DATE: September 19,2002 SUBJECT: Moss and Garten v. St. Lucie County. et al- Proposed Settlement Agreement BACKGROUND: Attached to this memorandum is a proposed settlement agreement in the quiet title suit filed by Lynnore Moss and Herbert Garten in 1999. In their suit, the Plaintiffs alleged that they owned an undivided one-half interest in a 24.56 acre parcel of land on the southern tip of what is now known as the Vitolo Family Park on South Hutchinson Island. The subject property lies entirely within a mosquito control impoundment located along the east bank of the Indian River Lagoon. The subject property was purchased by the County in 1998 using grant funds from the Florida Communities Trust. The Plaintiffs own the property lying directly to the north of the Vitolo Family Park and claimed an interest in the property as a result of what they perceived to be an error in the 1887 survey which established the government lot lines on that portion of the island. The issue had been reviewed by the Department of Community Affairs at the time of the purchase and the Department determined that the property was not owned by the Plaintiffs. The Department of Community Affairs and the Vitolos were also named as Defendants in the suit. The case was ordered to nonbinding arbitration by the court. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the County and the other Defendants, but the Plaintiffs rejected the order and the case was scheduled to proceed to trial. A copy of the arbitrator's order is attached to this memorandum. As noted in the arbitrator's order, the Plaintiffs were assessed as the owners of the subject property from 1985 through 1995 as a result of an erroneous notation on the map used by the Property Appraiser to determine ownership in that area. Due to the time which has lapsed, they are not eligible for a refund of the taxes paid. In addition, it should be noted that both the Plaintiffs and their family before them have supported and continue to support the Mosquito Control District's efforts on the island, including an easement for management of their property. That easement remains in effect today. Finally, the Plaintiffs previously purchased EDUs for the South Hutchinson Island wastewater treatment plant for their property on the island including the subject property. County policy does not permit the direct refund of this cost once the EDUs have been purchased. 1 '-' 'wIÎ If the case were to go to trial and the Plaintiffs prevailed, the end result would be joint ownership of the property by the County and the Plaintiffs. As the County purchased the property with funds from the Florida Communities Trust, any use of the property is subject to the requirements of the Grant A ward Agreement and the approved management plan for the site. As owners of a half interest in the property, the Plaintiffs or their successors would be in a position to impact the County's ability to comply with those requirements. Failure to comply with those requirements could result in the FCT seeking reimbursement of the grant funds. Settlement discussions ensued following the placement of the case on the docket.. A copy of the proposed settlement agreement is attached to this memorandum. The terms of the proposed settlement are as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs will dismiss the suit, with prejudice. Each party will bear the cost of its own attorneys' fees and costs. 2. The Plaintiffs will execute a quit claim deed conveying whatever interest they may have in the subject property to the County. 3. The County will pay the Plaintiffs the amount of five hundred and 00/100 dollars ($500.00). 4. The County will name the fishing pier to be constructed on the subject property, or other on-site improvement if the pier is not permitted, after a person designated by the Plaintiffs. Their attorney has notified staff that they wish to have the pier named after their mother. 5. The County agrees to assist the Plaintiffs in the development of their other property on Hutchinson Island through the provision of mitigation opportunities made available to the Plaintiffs on the same basis (including cost) as such opportunities are made available to other property owners on Hutchinson Island. 6. With regard to the EDUs, the Plaintiffs may choose to transfer the EDUs for the subject property to any other property they own on South Hutchinson Island assuming the property has sufficient capacity for the EDUs purchased. As an alternative, they may transfer the subject EDUs to the EDU bank and be paid for the cost of the EDUs if and when they are utilized by a contractor within the system. Both alternatives are consistent the policies governing the EDUs for the South Hutchinson Island plant. 7. Each party will execute mutual general releases for the other parties. F or the reasons stated above, the proposed settlement appears to represent an equitable 2 \w- ..., settlement of the matter for all parties. RECOMMENDATION/CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed settlement agreement and authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement. Heather Young Assistant County Attachments HY/ 3 ',-, .."", SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE ("Settlement Agreement") is made this _ day of , 2002, betwee·n Lynnore Moss and Herbert S. Garten (hereinafter "PLAINTIFFS"), on the one hand, and S1. Lucie County, Florida Communities Trust, Christie Vitolo, and Christine Vitolo (hereinafter "DEFENDANTS"), on the other hand. RECITALS WHEREAS, on or about November 2, 1999, PLAINTIFFS filed a Verified Complaint to Quiet Title against DEFENDANTS in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in and for S1. Lucie County, Florida, Case No. 99-CA-001421 (the "Lawsuit"), alleging that PLAINTIFFS were the owners of an undivided one-half interest in certain property constituting approximately 24.56 acres in S1. Lucie County, Florida, known as the "Southern Tip;" and WHEREAS, on or about November 29, 2000, PLAINTIFFS filed a First Amended Complaint to Quiet Title against DEFENDANTS, making substantially the same allegations as the Verified Complaint; and WHEREAS, at various times, DEFENDANTS filed Answers denying the allegations of PLAINTIFFS; and WHEREAS, PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANTS desire to resolve their differences and settle any and all allegations and claims that they may have against each other. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, the mutual covenants, agreements, and promises contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANTS agree as follows: - 1 - '-' ...., 1.0 Recitals: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 2.0 Settlement Procedure: 2.1 PLAINTIFFS shall cause to be dismissed; with prejudice, the Lawsuit, with PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANTS each to bear their own attorneys' fees and costs. 2.2 PLAINTIFFS shall execute a quitclaim deed conveying any and all interest they may have in the Southern Tip to Defendant St. Lucie County. A copy of the Quitclaim Deed to be signed by PLAINTIFFS is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 2.3 Defendant St. Lucie County is to pay to PLAINTIFFS the total sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00). 2.4 Defendant St. Lucie County will name the fishing pier to be constructed on the Southern Tip (or other on-site improvement if a fishing pier is not permitted) after an individual or individuals designated by PLAINTIFFS, with appropriate signage consistent with the design and construction of other St. Lucie County signage on Middle Cove. PLAINTIFFS shall provide to Defendant St. Lucie County the name of the individual(s) within sixty (60) days after this Settlement Agreement is executed on behalf of all parties. 2.5 Defendant St. Lucie County agrees to assist PLAINTIFFS in the development of their other property on Hutchinson Island through the provision of mitigation opportunities made available to PLAINTIFFS on the same basis (including cost) as such opportunities are made available to other property owners on Hutchinson Island. 2.6 Defendant St. Lucie County cannot reimburse PLAINTIFFS for the cost of the EDUs purchased for the Southern Tip. However, PLAINTIFFS may transfer the Southern Tip EDUs to any other property they own on South Hutchinson Island (assuming the other property has sufficient capacity for the number of EDUs purchased). Alternatively, PLAINTIFFS may transfer the Southern Tip EDUs into the EDU bank, from which PLAINTIFFS will be repaid - 2 - \.f "wi for the cost of the ED Us if and when they are utilized by a contractor within the EDU system. 3.0 Mutual General Releases: In consideration for the foregoing, and as a material inducement to the execution and delivery by PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANTS of this Settlement Agreement, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, other than the rights and obligations created by this Settlement Agreement, PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANTS agree to remise, release, acquit, satisfy, and discharge each other, and each other's heirs, personal representatives, predecessors, successors, assigns, parents, subsidiaries, officers, directors, shareholders, employees, agents, and attorneys, of and from any and all manner of actions, causes of action, suits, debts, dues, sums of money, accounts, reckonings, bonds, bills, specialties, covenants, contracts, controversies, agreements, promises, variances, trespasses, damages, judgments, executions, claims, and demands whatsoever, in law or in equity, which PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANTS ever had, now have, or hereafter can, shall, or may have against each other for, upon, or by reason of any matter, cause, or thing whatsoever, from the beginning of the world until the date of this Settlement Agreement. 4.0 Bindinq Aqreement: This Settlement Agreement, when duly executed by all Parties, shall be binding upon, and will inure to the benefit of, the Parties hereto and their respective permitted heirs, executors, successors, administrators and assigns, as the context permits or requires. 5.0 Entire Aqreement: This Settlement Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. This Settlement Agreement and the terms hereof supersedes and overrides any agreements or provisions of any other agreements in conflict herewith. No prior or present agreements or representations, either written or oral, shall be binding upon the Parties hereto unless incorporated in and made a part of this Settlement Agreement. No modification or change in this Settlement Agreement shall be valid or binding upon the Parties unless in writing and executed by all Parties. 6.0 Attornevs' Fees: In the event that any litigation is instituted for the purpose of enforcing or interpreting any provision of this Settlement Agreement, the prevailing Party, as determined by the Court having jurisdiction, shall be entitled to recover, in addition to all other - 3 - '-' ...., relief, an amount equal to that Party's reasonable attorneys' fees, together with costs incurred, including any appellate proceedings. 7.0 Governing Law and Venue: This Settlement Agreement and all of its provisions shall be construed according to the laws of the State of Florida. Any action or proceeding of any kind arising out of or related to this Settlement Agreement shall be brought in the appropriate State or Fede~al Court for St. Lucie County, Florida. 8.0 Further Assurances: Each Party agrees that, whenever and as often as shall be reasonably requested by the other Party, such Party shall execute, acknowledge and deliver any and all instruments and Agreements, and shall take such other action as may be reasonably necessary in order to complete or effectuate the terms of this Settlement Agreement. 9.0 Counterparts and Facsimile: This Settlement Agreement may be executed in as many counterparts as is deemed necessary or appropriate. Each such counterpart will constitute an original and all counterparts together will be deemed one Agreement of the Parties. Any copy of this Settlement Agreement executed or transmitted by facsimile shall be deemed an original for all purposes. 10.0 Counsel: The Parties have had an opportunity to retain the services of legal counsel in connection with the execution of this Settlement Agreement and have executed this Agreement voluntarily, without duress, coercion, or undue influence. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Settlement Agreement on the day and year first above written. Witnesses: Lynnore Moss -4- '- F:\Tierney\lndiantown Land 9073-001\Settlement Agreement.doc - 5 - ...".¡ Herbert S. Garten Christie Vitolo Christine Vitolo St. Lucie County By: Its: Florida Communities Trust By: Its: '-' ....".¡ IN THE ClRCUIT-cotJRT -OF THE MNETEENTBJUDIC'IALCIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ST.LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA LYNORE'MOSS and1lERBERT-S. GARTEN, "CASE NO: 99-CA-001421 JUDGE: Hon. Robert A. Hawley Plaintiffs, vs, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the Sta~eof~lorida,et a1. 1 ,"-w:··:O° 0 Œ © Œ ~ W f-OO". I ~.~ '1 II NMJ8a11 .j Defendants. COUNTY ATTORNEY J FINAL ARBITRATION ORDER Pursuant to Court Order, an arbitrative hearing was held on March 5,2002. The Plaintiffs, pd't:nJ(1Ills, ~t. Lucie cCuunty, -christine Vitoio, and Department of -Community Affairs presented witness testimony, exhibits, other evidence and arguments. This is an ~ion 10 1J11Ïet 1Ïtle. fÞtaintÏffsclaim "that -t11ey are the owners of an undivided one-half (1/2) interest in that portion of governments lots 3 and 4 in section 30 T 35S, R41E, St. Lucie-County, FL,lying~aathofadescribed1ine as set fortn in the First Amended Complaint consisting of approximately. 24.56 acres. Defendant~deny1hat pl(1iuliffs are 1he owners of1he subject property and claim 1hat -St. Lucie County is the owner of the subject property. FINDINqs OF FACT Most ofthpmmeriai facts are undisputed. PlantÏffs deraign their tide as fol1ows: (a) Deed ITom Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida to Florence Garten æd Board ofT-rade, Inc., a Florida corporation, conveying lots 3 and 4, Sec. 30T 35S, R41E, St. Lucie County, Florida, dated April 11, 1956 (DefEx 1) .~,~ (b) Warraqty Deed dated December 26, 1973 from Florence Garten to PlantiíÏs "'J r conveying, an undivided one-half (l/2) interest in lots 3 and 4, in section 30T 35 S, R (l~. / 41E, St. Lucìe -County) ~ ... U , ~r'vD/~ V. (JI'%¡ \..t """'" (c) Final Jt¡dgelll~lll ofPartitiundated .Apri125, 1985. This Final Judgement was stipulated to by the Estate of Bernard M. Shotkin (succssör in title to Board of Trade, Inc.) and tre Plaintiffs. Paragraph 1 of this Final Judgement provided that the Estate is the sole owner of said lots 3 and 4 less the Northerly 1040.50 feet. Paragraph 3 provided tpat-rlre PlaillliIE uwned 1he Northerly tß40:50-feet of said government lots 3 and 4. (P Ex 3) (d) Plantiffs claims as a result of this Partition Action and this Final Judgement they became th~ owners of an undivided one half (112) interest in the subject property commonly referred to as the "Southern Tip". Plaintiff based this claim because of paragraph.6 of this Final Judgement. However, paragraph 5 provides any right, which at this time inure for the benefit of, or which ,may be acquired in the future by the Garten family or the Estate to that property lying South ofGovernment10ts 3 and z . are owned by the Plaintiffs and the Estate as Tenants in Common. Then paragraph 6 attach~ as Exhibit A delineates the legal description set forth above. After the Final Judgement of Partition, Plaintiffs, on January 16, 1986, conveyed by Quit Claim deed gOV~lIllllent lots 3 am:l4, -Section 3"0, T3-5-S, R41E, less the Northerly 104050 feet to Jacob Fishman as Personal Representative of the Estate of Bernard Shotkin. (Def Ex 2) The Defendant, St. Lucie County deraign its ownership of government lots 3and 4 Sec. 30 T35 S, ~41E, less northerly tû4D50 feet as follows: (a) Personal representative deed dated August 2, 1989 from the Estate of Bernard Shotkin, d~ed-ro{;hrisrieVitolo,cullv~yiug gOV~lIllllent lots 3 and 4, -Section J() T35S, R, 4 E less northerly 1040.50 feet (P Ex 14) (b) Warranty Deed dated February 26, 1998 from ·Christie Vitolo and Christine Vitolo to St. Lucie County, conveying Government lot 3 and 4, Section 30 T35S, R 41E less North W4ß50 feet (DefEx 5) From approximately 1985 to 1995 the County Property Appraiser's office maps showed the SouthffrTIboundary of~ti gOV~lJllJJent tots 3 and 4to be1he 1887 government meander line and showed a "Southern Tip" south of government lot 3 and 4. This "Southern 'f-ip"-was 1tSSessed-wthe PI~IliŒs -anti Vitolos. Then in 1995 the County Property Appraiser's office eliminated the USouthern Tip" assessment to the Plantiffs. This was a'TeStI1t -of a survey ofthe iand -by Davis A$Ociates, Inc. that showed the Southern boundary line of Government lots 3 and 4 to be the high waterline and not the 1887 Gov,rnment meander line. Page 2 '-' ~ CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Govermp.ent meander 1ines do not estab1ish "the boundary 1ines of government 10ts but the boundary line of these government lots is the mean high water line. 2. The 1887 guv~IUment meander iineis-notihe -Southern boundary line of said government lots 3 and 4. 3. The Southern boundary line of said government lots 3 and 4 is the mean high water line as established by the Davis Associates, Inc. survey. 4. Property Appraiser maps are not surveys and do not establish title and ownership to lands. 5. The Property Appraiser of St. Lucie County is a constitutional officer, separate and distinctive tìum "S1:.LucieCumrty. Any mistakes and knowledge that "the t8871ine was the Southern boundary line of Government lots 3 and 4 are not imputed to S1. Lucie County. 6. The Plaintiffs and their predecessor's in title only acquired title to an undivided one-half (1/2) inter~ in said government 10ts 3 and 4. They never acquired tide or any interest in property south of Government lots 3 and 4. 7. The Fin~ Jud~~ment ufPartition ùated A-pril25, 1989 was a division or partition of properties between the parties in that suit. It did not create or convey title to property. 8. The Quit~im deedfromihe Plantiffs1:o1:tæEstate ufB~lIlaId -Shotkin (DefEx 2) and the Personal Representative's deed to Christie Vitolo (P Ex 14) conveyed title to the subject property. 9. The Plaintiffs do not have title to or any claim to any property south of said Govermµent 10ts 3 and 4. 10. The cases cited in the Plaintiffs' Arbitration Brief, for the most part, dealt with parties in actual ppssessron uf \;ertaÍIl funds ·or-by ~dvel se -possession. The Plaintiffs and their predecessors in title were never in actual possession of the subject property. Hence those case~ -are TIot appliarlrle. The Plaintiff s have a compel1ingargument for Boundary by Acquiescence with the Shotkin Estate, but not with the Vitolo family or S1. Lucie çounty. The Vitolo fi1l.üily acqtrired-title1:oihe subject-property on A-ugust 2, 1989 by Personal Representative Deed ITom the Shotkin Estate (P Ex 14). The Final Judgementcl Partition did -not give Notice of a -possible interest by Plaintiffs in the subject property because it described property lying South of said Government lots 3 and 4. Page 3 '- ....., 11. Plaintiffs have failed to prove by the greater weight of the evidence that they own and have tit~-:to the subject property. Therefore, for the above reasons, the Arbitr~tor finds for all Defendants. DONE ANllßRDERED1his Florida. I 1ft:( dayufMarch 20021rt Vero Beacn, ..~ Copies to: rhull1(1:SW. 'Tierney Heather Young Rick Lotspeich J efITey R Eisensmith Page 4 ~ 'r/ '"' AGENDA REQUEST ..., ITEM NO. c-7o. DATE: Oct. 1,2002 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [x] PRESENTED BY: Paul Julin ~/ Project Manager SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): CENTRAL SERVICES SUBJECT: Administration Building Addition Second Amendment/Edlund & Dritenbas Architects BACKGROUND: Through Continuing Contract staff has worked with Edlund & Dritenbas Architects to provide professional services for the Administration Building Addition. Upon inspection, non-conforming Life Safety issues were discovered within the building (see attached). In an effort to satisfy these issues and the current National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 101 code requirements, staff is requesting approval to amend the current Agreement with Edlund & Dritenbas reflecting an increase to these services in the amount of $7,582.00. In addition construction cost will increase by $93,418, reflecting a total increase of $101,000.00 for changes in both the scope and budget of this project. i FUNDS AVAIL: $ 300,000 (310003-1930-562000-16008 Impact Fees-Other Public Bldgs.) $1,700,000 (316-9910-599300-800 Reserves)** $ 101.000 (310003-1930-562000-100 Impact Fees-Public Bldgs Zone)** $2,101,000 (total budget) **current budget location / funds will be made available in program no. 16008 in FY 02/03 PREVIOUS ACTION: The Board of County Commissioners approved a First Amendment to the Agreement on April 16, 2002 Item No. c-4. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is requesting approval to amend the Agreement with Edlund & Dritenbas and add additional cost for construction for a total of $101,000.00 reflecting a change in both the scope and budget forthe Administration Building Addition to satisfy non-conforming Life Safety issues, authorizing the Chairman to sign this Second Amendment as prepared by the Attorney. MISSION ACTION: [j APPROVED [] DENIED [ ] OTHER: Coordination/Siqnatures Mgt. & Budget: ~ fHYl 0, Other: Purchasing Mgr.: County Attorney: Originating Dep~ :Y Other: Finance: (Check for Copy only, if Applicable) Eft. 1/97 E:\Ase~da-Admin III.wpd .. ~ ...., 22 August 2002 To: Project: Re: Paul Julin, Project Manager, Central Senices Administration Building Addition, Comm. #030201VB Revisions to the Owner Architect Agreement AlA Document B141-1997 County Project # C02-0 1-232 Dear Mr. Julin, Our current Agreement between St. Lucie County and Edlund & Dritenbas Architects, dated 24 January 2002, requires additional revisions. The revisions consist of an increase in the scope of Architectural Services to satisfy non-conforming Life Safety Issues that we discovered within the building. These issues are outside the area of our proposed additions, and must be corrected to satisfy the current NFPA 101 code requirements. An itemized list of the actual items is attached for your review. Please make reference to the two Drawings LS-l and LS-2 provided, to help you navigate through the itemized list. >t'.( Upon our initial meeting with the Fire Marshall, he expressed concern associated with the building meeting life safety requirements, maximum travel distances and maximum building areas allowable within an Office Building with Business Occupancy and no fire sprinklers. Representatives from our firm spent approximately two weeks documenting existing conditions within the building and studying old plans to generate the two Life Safety Plans attached. These agreement revisions are being submitted in accordance with'Article 1.3.3.1. These changes in scope will require a Purchase Order Change Order Request Form drafted by your office for our review and approval. The a!!:reement revisions consist of the following: I. Revising the project budget and time parameters; Article 1.1.2.5 & 1.1.2.6, on page 1-2. 2. Revising the Architect's compensation in accordance with Article 1.5.1, & 1.5.2 on page I-II. 3. Removing Opinion of Probable Project Cost #3 and replacing it with Opinion of Probable Project Cost =='4 consisting of two pages. 4. Removing the Project Time Parameters document, (two pages), and replacing it with the revised Proj~t Time Parameters schedule dated 23 August 2002. 5. An updated Certificate of Insurance form is also attached for your files. Paul, these revisions to our agreement will bring it current with the scope of work required for permitting. A quick response would be greatly appreciated. Please advise as soon as pos.sible. xc: Mr. Dan Mcintyre Mr. Robert Bradshaw Page 1 of 1 C:03020 I VB.doc '-' .."., LIFE SAFETY CODE ISSUES ST. Ll'CIE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIO\." Bi~'ILDING 22 AUGUST 2002 PREPARED BY: EDLUND, DRITENBAS, BINKLEY ARCHITECTS, P.A. The following items are required to bring the first and second floors into compliance with Litè Safety Code NFP A 101, 2001 Edition. Please refer to the two Life Safety Code plans LS-I & LS-2 provided to assist in identifying the locations of these actual proposed improvements. GROUND FLOOR 1. ,~0-~ A -/4 The ceiling of the Tax Collector's area and the proposed second floor must have a one hour assembly rating. [Table 600 F.B.C.] In addition, [Chapter A.38.3.6.1 Exception No.2 of NFP A 101] does not allow this facility to be considered as occupied by one tenant. Different agencies are considered multiple tenants. SL- I 2. Add primary exit P-3 at the south face of the building to meet the 75' maximum travel distance requirement. [Table A.7.6.1 NFPA 101]. The path of travel will go through the existing work room. S L- \ 3. Remove thé (door and a section of wall at the work room to satisfy the Florida Accessibility Code passing and turn around area requirement [F AC 4.3.4]. SECOND FLOOR . r 1. Reverse the door swing at the lounge to satisfy clear opening requirement of adjacent exit door. [FBC 1003.2.3.2]. 2. Add exit door E-11 to satisfy the maximum travel distance requirement. [Table A.7.6.1 NFPA 101]. 3. Relocate double doors at exit E-2 to satisfy the maximum travel distance requirement. [Table A.7.6.1 NFPA 101]. 4. Remove door and wall and replace exit door E-I0 to satisfy the maximum travel distance requirement. [Table A.7.6.1 NFPA 101]. 5. Add exterior stair at new exit E-4 to satisfy t~e maximum travel distance requirement. [Table A.7.6.1 NFPA 101]. end C:030201 VB.doc ~ ..." Kevised 23 August 2002 ARTICLE 1.1 INITIAL INFORMATION 111 111I~ :\[;rt?t?I11l:nl\S bJsed on the following informal\"" JilJ assumptions. . \ ':,. ¡/¡e ,11'l'iI.';liilll (.'r t/le li,lIoWI11): 1'<'111' /1,1' ;lISat;lIg the r<,</II'·5:.--1 I1U(1rt1lat;oll or a st,/lCIII<,11I 'ill·l, II'· IIllt ",¡{,Ie:' ··II/lh/l'JII·1I ,If t;/lI<' o( t'.\ù·llfiPlI·' ill' "10 Ill' dl'tl'm1illl'd 1,,1," h· /lllItl/a/ aglcellle/lt." I 1.1.2 PROJECT PARAMETERS 1.1.2.1 The objective or use is: I/'¡'II/;(Y 01 dc,er;I'e, if IIl'l'wJ'rill <', 1'/(1J'o,c;/ I/Sl' or gOllls.) The. building use will be offices, Group B, per the Standard Building Code. 11.2.2 The physical parameters arc: (ld~lI/ify 01 d<,sail,,'. if IIl'l'rol'ril/lc. sizc. location. dilllCIISiollS, or Ollli~r pertincnt information. Sill" liS gco/cdmical "'J'orl> ¡¡¡'OIlt thc sitc.) This is an addition to an existing building. The south elevation will front Virginia Avenue. 1.1.2.3 The Owner's Program is: (¡.Jelltify Jocl/mcllta/ioll or state the ""II/"cr in w/¡icl¡ tile program wi1/ be de\'eloped.) The program was previously established in the feasibility study dated 29 Hay 2001. Additional programming will be required for the Community Development Division, and is included in tbis proposal. 1.1.2.4 The legal pararríéters are: (IdClltify pcrtillell/ legal illforlllation. incll/ding, if appropriate. 1,111.1 SI/rveys and legal descriptiClIIs and rcstrictions of the site.) The Owner shall supply as built surveys of the existing site and a legal description for same. Drawings of the exist~ng building shall be supplied to the Architect as requested to assist in tHe ~tructural connection design. 1.1.2.5 The financial parameters are as follows. .1 Amount of the Owner's overall budget for the Project, including the Architect's compensation, is: $2,207,506.00 . .2 Amount of the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work, excluding the Architect's compensation. is: $ 2,058,624.00 1.1.2.6 The time parameters are: (Id,-II/ify, if appropriate. miles/olll! dates. duratiolls or fast track schedulillg.) As yet, no time parameters have been established. The Architect will prepare a written timetable following approval of this agreement. (See attached Project Time Parameters Revised 23 August 2002 1.1.2.7 The proposed procurement or delivery method for the Project is: (Idelltify method sitch as competitive bid. tregotiated contract. or CO/lslructiotr managcmcllt,) Design, Bid, Build. Competitive bid using general contractors licensed, insured and bonded in the State of Florida. 1.1.2.8 Other parameters are: (Idelltify special c/Jaractcristi<,s or needs of the Project sitch as energy. etrdrolllliental or historic prescn'cltioll rCt lli remellls.) Stormwater permitting shall be through South Florida Water Management District. Minor site plan approval shall be through St. Lucie County Department of CQDDUIlity Development. These services are included in the Architect's fee. WARNING: Unlicensed pholocopymg 'Jolare. US copyright laws .nd will subjecf .he violaror to leg.1 prosecution fll\l '" &1 ô. .0. °å'~'~o c:::=J ()1997 AIA~ AlA DOCUMENT 1"1-1997 STANDARD FORM AGREEMENT I The Amerí<:an Institute of ArchitectS 1735 New York Avenue, N.W Washinglon. D.C. 20006-5292 '-' ...., Revised 23 AuguS( 20ü~ 141 S 1CLlJI IClÏns Jnd Conditiuns. '11)(L\,11 1:::':' .::1-: -':'l1dltl,'I1' Ih,1In]!),il!\ thIS\l;I,'cî1lL'11 .11 ,. ," (, ,II, II\S: ARTIClE 1.5 COMPENSATION 1.5.1 !'or the ,\r(hilcLI's Sl'rVI(CS as descrih.:d lInder Artide 1.4. (ol11 1cnsalilll\ shall he (ol11puted as [0 II lI\VS: Compensation shall be a fixed stipulated sum of $ 148,882.00 combined with $56,138.00 in reimbursable expenses itemized in 1.5.5, for a total of $205,020.,00. Schematic Design Documents Design Development Documents Working Drawing~ Bidding and Negotiations Phase Construction Administration Phase 15% 20% 45% 05% 15% 100% $ 30,753.00 $ 4 I ,004 .00 $ 92,259.00 $ 10,251.00 $ 30,753.00 $ 205,020.00 * See bottom of page. 1.5.2 If thc scrvic~~ of the Architect are ch¡¡n¡.;ed as described in Subpara¡.;raph 1.3·}·1. the Architec.:t's cOInpcnsati0l1 sh¡¡1I be adjusted. Such aJjustl11ent shall be calculated as describcd below or, if JlO method of adjustment is indicated in this Paragraph 1.5.2, iJl ..m equitable manner. (ll/scrt IltIsis I~r nl/"pells'ltio". i"eludi"g rates a/Jd /III/Itiples of Direct l'erso/l/rel Expcllse fV,. I'rillÔI'"ls 1111.1 c/IIployces. lIud ide"tify l'ril/cip<lls tllld dllssify employees. if rCCjuired. hlilltify spccific scn'iccs to \l'hich Jlllrtic- ult/r met¡'ods of compel/sa/ioll IIpply) , I Should the scope of work change and the construction budget is increased, the Owner 'and Architect will re-negotiate compensation using the attached Department of Management Services chart, or by applying the following hourly rate scale. Paul U. Dritenbas, Greg D. Edlund, John F. Binkley, Architects $ 110.00 per hr. Chris Crawford, Intern Architect $ 75.00 per hr. Level One CADD Technicians $ 65.00 per hr. Clerical and Administrative $ 38.00 per hr. 1.5.3 For a Change in Services of the Architecl's consultants, compensation shall be computed as a multiple of one point one zero (1.10 ) times the amounts billed to the Architect for such services. 1.5.4 ror Reimbursable Expenses as described in Subparagraph 1.3.9.2. and any other items includeJ in P¡¡ragraph 1.5.5 as Reimbursable Expenses. the compensation shall he computed as a multiple of one point one zero (1.10 ) times the expcmcs incllrred hy the Architect, and the Archilcc\'s employces and consultants. 1.5.5 Othcr Ikimbursahlc Expenses. if any. are ¡¡S follows: See attached breakdown of reimbursable expenses titled "1.5.5. Reimbursable Expenses Summary for Lmnp Sum Submittal", Page 1-14. * The Architect shall be compensated 7.6% of Additive Change Orders for items not due to errors and omissions of the Architect or his consultants. ut.t..DUUJr.. Ilnl,rPtHed photocopyin~ violare~ tI S (Opyrtghl law~ and w'~1 "t.bte-ct tt-e vlolate'f to legal prosecl li'::f1 I 8111 <> 0 O. ,0 Dó·ti.::h·ëO c=:::1 ©1991 AIA@ AlA DOCUMENT nH-1997 STANDARD FORI'<1 AGREEMENT 1 he Al11ellCdn Inslll"le of A,chilecls 1735 New Yorl-;'we""e. U W Washington. n ( )O()C.., 5!'): \w ..." OPINIOS OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST #4 SITE DEVELOPlrfENT TWO STORY UTILITIES DEPARTlvfENT ADDITION & BUILDOUT :I'D FLOOR ADDITION & BUILDOUTOVER TAX COLLECTOR EAST-WEST COVERED WALKWAY & TWO TOWERS FACELIFT ON TWO STORIES AT PROPERTY APPRAISERS OFFICES FACELIFT ON WEST & NORTH FACES OF OLD COMMISSIONS CHAlo,fBERS LIFE SAFETY COMPLIANCE ON TWO FLOORS REVISIONS WITHIN THE EXISTING COMMUNITY DE VEL OPMENTAREA 22 Augllst 2002 I. SUe Development Costs A) Handicap parking modifications 1 new sidewalks ramps B) Storm water retention modifications C) Landscape, Irrigation, Sod modifications D) Relocate large reclinata palm E) Lift Station to 12" force main F) Contingencies @ 2% Sub Total I ,r ( II. Two Story Utilities Dept. Addition and Buildout A) Ground Floor 3,550 sf x $120.00 Isf * B) 2nd Floor (shell only) 3,741sf~$ 75.00/sf C) 2nd Floor hui/dout 3,741 sf* $; 45.001 sf D) S. W Tower entrance 256 sf x $ 90.001 sf E) Tower at Tax Collector Entrance 256 sf x $ 90.001 sf F) Tower at Northwest corner exit stair 256 sf x $90.001 sf G) N-S Covered Walkway Roof & Columns 301 sf x $60.001 sf H) Fire Sprinklers (not required by calculations) J) Contingencies @ 2% Sub Total II III. 2nd Floor Addition and Bui/dout over Tax Collector A) Ground floor (exterior face lift leaving windows in place) * B) 2nd Floor (shell only) 2,200 sf x $ 75.00 C) 2nd Floor hui/dout 2,200 sf x $ 45.001 sf D) Fire Sprinklers (not required by calculations) E) Contingencies @ 2% Sub Total III IV. East-West Covered Walkway and Two Towers A) Tower at Property Appraiser Entrance 256 sfx $90.001 sf B) Tower at East end of...ralkway 256 sf x $90.001 sf C) Covered Walkway Roof and Columns 1477 sf x $60.001 sf D) Contingencies @ 2% Sub Total IV Page 1 of2 $ 20,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 55.000.00 $ 2.700.00 $ 137,700.00 = $ 426.000.00 $ 280,575.00 = $ 168,345.00 = $ 23,0./0.00 = $ 23,0./0.00 = $ 23,0./0.00 = $ 18.060.00 = $ 000.00 $ 19.242.00 $ 981,342.00 $ 65,000.00 $ 165,000.00 = $ 99,000.00 = $ 000.00 = $ 6.580.00 $ 335,580.00 = $ 23,040.00 = $ 23,0./0.00 = $ 88,620.00 $ 2.694.00 $137,394.00 ~ ...,¡ Facelift on Two Stories aT Propaf.."· .-1ppraisers OJ}iCt!.) .i) 93 linear feel x fì.rQ SlOrie5: Igroundjloor windmvs remaznzng, -: . ~~ ~ )1 ;~, 'j' BJ Remove the 3 '-6" cantilevered section and rebuild the wall at The secondjloor S 50,000.00 C) Contingencies @ 2% 5 4. 060. 00 Sub Total V 5207,060.00 VI. Facelift on West & North Faces of Old Commission Chambers A) 67 linear feet x 1.5 stories 5 55,275.00 B) Contingencies @ 2% = 5 1,105.00 Sub Total VI $ 56,380.00 VII. Life Safety Revisions and Existing Community Development Work Area Remodeling A) First Floor life safety revisions = S 53,500.00 B) Second Floor life safety revisions S 15,000.00 C) Remodeling within the existing Comm. Develop. area S 30,000.00 D) Add glassblock in south stairwell = S 3,000.00 E) Contingencies @ 2% = S 2,030.00 Sub Total VII $103,530.00 VIII. Other Cost A) Architett / Engineers fees @ 7.6% B) Reimbursable Expenses C) Impact fees / bldg. permit fees D) Applicationfees, miscellaneous E) Fire alarm / Security system F) Furnishings G) Building signage . r $ 148,882.00 $ 56,138.00 $ 22,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 16,000.00 (not included) S 2,500.00 $ 248,520.00 Sub Total VIII Total to act as Project Budget $2,207,506.00 .Shell improvement will include electrical service 10 an empty panel. and main supply and return chiller lines. NOTE: Opinions expressed in this report represent the professional opinion of the fIrm of Edlund & Dritenbas Architects, P.A. We have used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar conditions by reputable members of our profession practicing in the same' or similar locality. Edlund & Dritenbas Architects, P.A. does not warrant that this opinion of probable construction cost will not vary from actual costs incurred by the client. Respectfully Submitted, Paul U. Dritenbas, Architect A.LA. Page 2 of2 C:030201VB.doc ~ ..¡ 23 August 2002 To: Project: Re: Paul Julin, Project Manager, Central Services Administration Building Addition, Comm. #030201 VB Project Time Parameters (Updated) (In accordance with the Owner/Architect Agreement, Article 1.1.2.6) Dear Mr. Julin, In accordance with Article 1.1 of our Agreement for Services dated 18 October 200 I, we are herewith subm itting a proposed timetable for the project design and construction. The timetable also includes time for the Central Services to solicit a public advertisement for qualified General Contractors who may be interested in bidding on the project. START FINISH TASK 1. OWNER/ARCHITECT AGREEMENT 18 OCT 01 24 JAN 02 2. SCHEMATIC DESIGN DOCUMENTS, SITE PLANNING DOCUMENTS, AND THREE FRONT ELEVATION STUDIES 25 JAN 02 26 FEB 02 ". ( PROJECT ON HOLD WHILE THE COUNTY DETERMINES FUNDING FOR OPTION #3 (THE PROJECT WILL TRACK WITH THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE ASSUMING AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED IS RECEIVED BY 24 APRIL 2002....) 3. CERTIFIED LAND SURVEY WITH TOPO TO ARCHITECT . r 25 APRIL 02 16 MAY 02 4. PROGRAMMING & EXISTING FACILITY ANALYSIS 7. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE 6 MA Y 02 17 MA Y 02 17 MAY 02 26 JUNE 02 26 JUNE 02 20 AUG 02 26 JUNE 02 25 SEPT 01 5. OWNER REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS 6. LIFE SAFETY RESEARCH & DOCUMENTATION CONCURRENT ACTIVITIES GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS STORM WATER MANAGEMENT DESIGN UTILITY SERVICES COORDINATION & DESIGN FIRE MARSHALL INITIAL REVIEW LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN OUTLINE (INDEX) TO SPECIFICATIONS PROPOSED PLANNING AND ZONING APPROVAL APPLICATION A TIENDANCE AT AGENCY APPROVAL MEETINGS CO-ORDINATION OF CIVIL AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS TRAFFIC STATEMENT OR STUDY PAGE IOF2 \w ð ù\N'NER REVIEW & APPROVAL OF DOCUMENTS 26 SEPT 02 9. WORKING DRA WlNGS 03 OCT 02 CONCURRENT ACTIVITIES S.F.W.M.D. PERMIT APPLICATION D.E.P. PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMlIT AL TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL FIRE MARSHALL FINAL REVIEW SOUTHERN BELL SITE PLAN SUBMllTAL COMMUNICATIONS, SECURITY AND FIRE ALARM SYSTEM DESIGN A lTENDANCE AT AGENCY APPROVAL MEETINGS PHONE, DATA AND SECURITY SYSTEMS DESIGNS INTERIOR DESIGN FINAL PROJECT MANUAL AND SPECIFICA nONS ADVERTISE FOR QUALIFIED BIDDERS * 10. ISSUE DOCUMENTS TO BIDDERS 07 JAN 03 CONCURRENT ACTIVITIES SUBMIT DOCUMENTS FOR BUILDING PERMIT REVISE FINAL DOCUMENT.s BASED ON PERMIT REVIEWS 11. FINALIZE OWNER/CONTRACTOR AGREEMENt' 13 FEB 03 CONCURRENT ACTIVITIES COUNTY COMMISSSION APPROVAL OF A WARD TO G.C. 12. CONSTRUCTION PHASE \' \ 18 MAR 03 13. PUNCH LIST 03 FEB 04 * OWNER CO=ORDlNATED ITEM. ...¡ ***END OF PROJECT TIME PARAl\IETERS"""* Page 2 0[2 C:03020 1 Vß.doc 02 OCT 02 18 DEC 02 12 FEB 03 12 MAR 03 02 FEB 04 10 FEB 04 AGENDA REQUEST ....,¡. ITEM NO. c-7b DATE: Oct. 1,2002 REVISED REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [x] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: Don McLam Project Manager SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): CENTRAL SERVICES SUBJECT: FEMA HURRICANE SHUTTER PROJECT/AWARD OF BID BACKGROUND: Invitation to bid was sent out on Aug. 18, 2002 under BID #02-108 with bid opening September 18th at 2:00 pm. Seven bids were received, two were determined to be non- responsive. Due to complexity and time line involved with this project staff wishes to select several contractors to accomplish this task. 1) Rolladen South County Annex Agriculture $90,800.00 $10,400.00 2) Rolling Shield Lakewood Park Library I.M. Waters $ 8,447.00 $13,743.27 $ 9,776.00 3) Gulfstream Milner Health FUNDS AVAIL: (several funding sources, please see attached) PREVIOUS ACTION: Board of County Commissioners approved request for bid on August 13, 2002, Agenda Item No, c-10c. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the above listed low bidders, location and amounts for the installation of hurricane shutters, allowing staff to issues purchase orders and authorize the chairman to sign contracts as prepared by the Attorney. MISSION ACTION: [11 APPROVED [] DENIED [ ] OTHER: nderson ty Administrator County Attorney: Originating De~~ Finance: (Check/or Copy only, if Applicable) .I Mgt. & Budget: ~urCha5ing Mgr.: ~ Other: Other: Eft. 1/97 H:\Agenda\Agenda-Shutter Contract.wpd AGENDA REQUEST ...,¿ ITEM NO. c- 7b ? .. \I-r DATE: Oct. 1, 2002 REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [x] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: Don McLa~ Project Manager SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): CENTRAL SERVICES SUBJECT: FEMA HURRICANE SHUTTER PROJECT/AWARD OF BID BACKGROUND: Invitation to bid was sent out on Aug. 18, 2002 under BID #02-108 with bid opening September 18th at 2:00 pm. Seven bids were received, two were determined to be non- responsive. Due to complexity and time line involved with this project staff wishes to select several contractors to accomplish this task. 1) Rolladen South County Annex Agriculture I.M. Waters Lakewood Park Librarý Milner Health 2) Rolling Shield 3) Gulfstream $90,800.00 $10,400.00 $10,400.00 $ 8,447.00 $ 9,776.00 FUNDS AVAIL: (several funding sources, please see attached) PREVIOUS ACTION: Board of County Commissioners approved request for bid on August 13, 2002, Agenda Item No, c-10c. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the above listed low bidders, location and amounts for the installation of hurricane shutters, allowing staff to issues purchase orders and authorize the chairman to sign contracts as prepared by the Attorney. MISSION ACTION: [ ] APPROVED [] DENIED [ ] OTHER: CONCURRENCE: Doug Anderson County Administrator County Attorney: Originating De~~ Finance: (Check for Copy only, if Applicable) ../ Mgt. & Budget: atures V'þurchasing Mgr.: ;(!Jv.;--- Other: Other: Eft. 1/97 H:\agenda request form.wpd -ê- ;;. ~ ...." DATE: GRANTS ACCOUNTING REQUEST-FCJìÌi 08106. '02 Central Services FEMA Hurricane Shutter Grant FEMA throuç;h FDCA DEPARTMENT: NAME OF GRANT PROJECT: GRANTING AGENCY (NAME): GRANT MANAGER (NAME): GRANT PERIOD (START DATE): BOCC APPROVAL (APPUCATlON): BUDGET RESOLUTION #: (NUUBER): 12951 2894 Don McLam 581-462·1514 (NUMSER): (ENDING DATE): (ACCEPTANCE): GRANT/CONTRACT ID: 9 mas from execution 108/13/02 03HM3M106601001 316GRT upon execution REVENUE ACCOUNT: 316102-19~331232-100 PREDECESSOR FUND: OTHER GRANT #'a ON THIS PROJECT: INPUT TO GRANT· USER NAMES Diane Pauley(pauleydi}. Don McLam (DONM) Diane Paule.,,(pauleydi). Don McLam (DONM) INQUIRY TO GRANT· USER NAMES GRANT PROJECT BUDGET: GRANTING AGENCY (AMOUNT) COUNTY SHARE (AMOUNT) OTHER (FDCA) $400,644 (PERCENTAGE) 75.00% $66,755 (PERCENTAGE) 12.50% $86,755 (PERCENTAGE) 12.50% $11,684 (PERCENTAGE) 5545,838 (PERCENTAGE) 100.00% percentage OTHER ·federal admln. alrb'ance TOTAL PROJECT (AMOUNT) IS THE GRANT BASED ON A PERCENTAGE OR DOLLAR AMOUNT ALLOCATION? ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Cour.~:s local match is budQete~in FY03 under: 316-7240-563000-700 The match will be moved into the grant by Line- ï::-Lir.e after 10/01102. Itemization of cost centers planned for this Qra~t ::;;e to GASS 34: Org. 1305 Org. 1611 Org. 1650 Org. 1930 Org.3715 Org.6210 Org. 6420 Soutt: C=-un:-I Annex ~ . '. State A::~ne'/s Office. 411 2nd 5t Juver.::e Co¡,;rt, 435 N. 7th ST --, Org. 7110 Cent.-a; Services Complex, 3071, Oleander AQriet.:;t- :-e Center, 8400 Picos Rd Ave C r.ea:th Facility, 712 Ave C Milner Df". Health Dept 1M Wê~e.", B:ég. 200 5. 2nd St. Comr:1. S;'\'cs. Bldg, 437 N. 7th 51. Librar.es: PSL. Hurston, Lakewood, Momingside . J .; ., ~ " . ..,. - -I Reports: Quarterly Progress Reports due 10101 :2.01/01/03,04/01/03.07/01103: Closeout Report due within 60 days of grant expiration. Contact: Jakita Jones 850-922-5629 APPROVAL: GRANT MANAGER: MGMT & BUDGET: DEPARTMENT MANAGER FINANCE DEPT: FUND #: 316102 H:\emailform.wb3..... .08/06/02 ~ , ., "'Un ;::r I o N 0> I ::I () x' C/) »~ ..., 0> §.-<" ~Qo C') C/) Ëo> @ g - ..., . ;::¡.: Z'< o - ::I ~ ::u " m Z -0 0 o ::I ::I !.!!. ~ < en 0>-0 I 0 ::I en ~. -i -u LO (f) :5: (f) s: I ç :Þ 0 -u (f) <' 10 » 0 s: 0 Co ~ 0 0 r C Q Z C m g~~ < ~ ;;u <s: m m ::u c Z ;;u ^ ;;u ~ OJ ;;u m » ~ ~ ~s: s: s: ~ Z ~ m C/) m () ~ c: ~ O^~ Z r C/) :!! -0 m :r ::u ~ ð () () ~C/)~ C C/) ~ -c » Z 0 C r m :-I rz ::u ::u () r ~ m m m_ m m :: Q 0 :r z 0 ~ C/) ~ r () ::u r ()~ C/) ~ m 0 Q o C/) C/) C 0 C OJ 0 C ::u » () m :r () 0C/) ~ ::u 0 Z r ~ -0 ;;u ::u ~ m OJ Cm í\) z m ~ ~ » m ~ ^ o ::u » C m C/) :r z () C/) z ~ ::U::u C/) m CD ::u () Q r r c: ~~ ~ ~ -< ~ » '"T1 () ^ m m I!! ~ () ~ 0 OJ 0 0 cñ z » :r c: z C/) ;;u m :r ~ () ::u ;;u z z () c: ~ C/) o C/) '"T1 Z m ~ ~ 0 () OJ m ~ r () » Q m r OJ ~ ::u C/) '"T1 :r X ~ ~ ::u ::! 0 () -< '"T1 s: Õ c ::u 0 r CD ::u -< z -0 ~ m ~ -< r m X (fl (fl (fl (fl (fl (fl (fl (fl ~ (fl ~ ~ » (,.) ~ ..... (fl ~ ~ ~ () <D ...... (,.) ..... 0 ...... ..... .0) 00 N .þ. 01 ..... ..... ..... ..... () .þ. ~ (fl (fl ..... a> ...... N .þ. ~ ..... N .þ. 0 0 .þ. <D ..... 0 0 0 <D <D N N ~ .þ. (,.) ..... ..... ...... N Ò1 ..... 0 01 <D N .þ. N .þ. (,.) <D 0 0 0 (,.) 01 .þ. <D ..... 00 :--J a> ~ 00 ...... ..... 00 01 .þ. ;u (,.) 0 0 0 ~ <D 0 N N 01 <D (,.) 00 (,.) .þ. a 00 01 a> (,.) .þ. 0 (,.) ...... ..... a> ...... 0 <D en (,.) ;u 01 ..... 0 (,.) 0 .þ. (,.) a> 00 00 00 00 ...... <D N .þ. ...... 0 0 00 0 z s: r - r (fl (fl »2 (,.) (fl ~ ..... ~ (fl ::u S:Q .þ. a> ...... 00 .þ. <D .- C/) N (fl (fl ~ ~ 01 ~ (,.) ~ ~ (fl (fl (fl ~ (fl (fl ~ (fl <D 0 '"T1 :r ~ 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 r .þ. ...... 01 r ...... (,.) 0 0 0 <D <D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .þ. r m N 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 I r :¡:.. a> C 00 N N 0 <D a> N ..... -0 N ...... ...... 0 :r;u »0 rr ~ (J) çç (J) En ~ ~ ~ (J) (/) En Zo ..... N ..... <D ..... (J) ..... (» Q) Om (() 0 (/) (/) (/) ..... Q) m 0 N (,.) (f) .0 (J) ...... (() -i .þ. ~ N ..... (/) (f) (f) (J) 0 »z .þ. 0 0 0 01 0 òo 0 0 .þ. 0 0 0 0 0 01 ...... r_ 0 0 (() <D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .fT1z (() 0 0 0 0 ..... 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 » 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r ,,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 ~ '., » ..... (fl ~ (fl .fI) ~ (fl ~ {It ~ ~ {It () ~ N ..... m ..... Q (» ..... ..... ...... <D (,.) 00 .þ. N 00 00 () (,.) ~ ~ 00 òo {It . . ...... N m ~ ~ ~ (It 0 C 0 0 <D <D 00 0 ..... 00 00 ~ 0 0 ...... 0 ~ 00 0 ..... (() 0 0 (,.) ...... <D ..... .þ. (() .þ. (,.) ::u r .þ. 0 0 0 a> ?> :" (» 0 0 .þ. 0 0 0 C/) " 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ...... 0 .þ. 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 -i(f) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C~ 0 z »::u .;\ ~~ . s: (fl (fl ::u ~» .þ. .þ. <D {It ~ (fl ~ ~ ~ (fl <D ~ ~ ~ ~ (fl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (J) 0 r <D 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ <D 0 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 r C <D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '<D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r s: 00 0 0 0 cr 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 c z 0 0 -0 C s: ~ (fl (fl ~ » ..... ~ ~ ~ ..... ~ .þ. ..... () ..... (» ...... <D ...... () Q 0 {It (J) (J) {It {It (J) {It {It {It ~ {It (It -:¡:.. m m ...... (» 0 :r m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m (,.) ..... ~ - ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...... 00 .þ. .þ. .þ. .þ. ;u »Z (,.) 0 0 00 ..... :--J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 en 01 a> 01 0 rm 0 N :¡:.. 00 N (,.) ~~ ...... 0 N a> <D ..... (,.) a> 0 ...... Z J: r- .. J: '1 <n ~ r C (,.) ;u ;u 0 (/) (J) (f) (f) (f) (/) (f) <n (f) <n <n (f) (f) <n <n (f) (/) <n 0 0 ;;U a> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a> r () 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 r » ..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... I C Z :¡:.. :¡:.. -0 m .þ. .þ. - Vf (fl ~ (fl (fl » ...... N ..... ..... ..... () ..... {It (fl ~ ~ .!'> <D (fl ~ ~ ~ (fl .01 ~ ~ ~ (fl ~ (fl (,.) () (,.) 0 0 0 0 0 ëo 0 0 ~ 0 0 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 a> 0 0 0 0 .þ. ...... 0 0 0 0 0 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 a> ;u J: .þ. 0 0 0 0 <D ~ 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 .þ. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 s:;u z -;u »- s:O ::u . » z {fl {fl (J) (J) ~ (fl (fl {fl ~ (fl {fl ~ ~ {It {It {It {It {It {It (f) 0 '"T1 m 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r "'U , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C ;u -0 0 ~ m (J) (fl ~ (/) (f) » () N ..... ..... ..... ...... r ::! 01 (f) (/) (f) (f) .þ. .þ. (It (f) (J) (J) (f) 01 (f) (/) En (f) (J) (/) 01 -i 0 ~N ...... m 0 0 0 0 -:¡:.. N ~ P 0 0 0 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ::u z 00 N 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Z .þ. 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ » 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 m ::I C') o ::I en , üï Z 0)"0 ~OJ OJã: ã:C/) 0> C') C ::I. .-+ '< ro o '"' o N , ..... o 00 I C ::u ~ () » z m en I C :: m ;u C/) Ï1 o ;u () o C Z ~ '"T1 » () r ::J m C/) "'" AGENDA REQUEST ..., ITEM NO. C- 'if DATE: October 1, 2002 REGULAR [] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [ X ] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBMITTED BY: Parks and Recreation PRESENTED BY: Peter Keogh SUBJECT: Historical Museum grant of $35,000 from the Department of State, Division of Historical Resources for an outdoor exhibit. BACKGROUND: On September 17,2002, the Board of County Commissioners approved Budget - Resolution #02-220 to set up the budget for a $35,000 grant from the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources. The revenue should have been recognized during fiscal year 2003. FUNDS AVAILABLE: .JThe match for the grant is available in: 001-7910-599330-700 (Historical Museum Project Reserve account) of fiscal year 2002 - 2003. PREVIOUS ACTION: See background above. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board M County Commissioners approve budget resolution 02-242, and the $35,000 grant revenue for fiscal year 2003. COMMISSION ACTION: [1a APPROVED [] DENIED [ ] OTHER: Coord i nation/Siq natu res County Attorney: XX Management & Budget: XX Purchasing: Originating Dept: Public Works: Other: Finance: (Check for Copy only, if applicable) XX 71'.\"'" "'In ir"___.. .._..I ~ ~ ...." RESOLUTION NO. 02-242 WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of the 81. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners budget for S1. Lucie County, certain funds not anticipated at the time of adoption of the budget have become available in the fonn of a grant from the State of Florida, Division of Historical Resources in the amount of$35,000. WHEREAS, Section 129 .06 (d), Florida Statutes, requires the Board of County Commissioners to adopt a resolution to appropriate and expend such funds. NOW, THEREFO~, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners ofSt. Lucie County, Florida, in meeting assembled this 151 day of October, 2002, pursuant to Section 129.06 (d), Florida Statutes, such funds are hereby appropriated for the fiscal year 2002-2003, and the County's budget is hereby amended as follows: REVENUES 001281-7910-334713-700 Division ofHist. Resources, State of Florida $35,000 APPROPRIATIONS 001281-7910-534000-700 "., ( Other Contractual Services $ 35,000 After motion and second the vote on this resolution was as follows: . r Conunissioner Doug Coward, Chairperson Conunissioner Cliff Barnes, Vice Chairperson Conunissioner John D. Bruhn Conunissioner Paula A. Lewis Conunissioner Frannie Hutchinson xxx XXX XXX XXX XXX PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED THIS 1st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2002. A TrEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: CHAIRMAN APPROVED AS TO CORRECTNESS AND FORM: COUNTY ATTORNEY H·\OOI?RIGrantwud '-" .."J ST. LUCIE COUNTY MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS John D. Bruhn District 1 Doug Coward District 2 Paula A. Lewis District 3 Frannie Hutchinson Cliff Barnes District 4 District 5 AGENDA September 24, 2002 1. MINUTES Approve the minutes of the meeting held September 10,2002. Approve the minutes of the Tentati\'e Budget Public Hearing held September 12, 2002. Approve the minutes of the Final Budget Public Hearing held September 19, 2002. "".f r~ 0 GENERAL PUBliC COMMENT PUBliC HEARINGS .i}( ¡;1 f T COUNTY ATTO~ / \'{Ilv' ./ 3A Resolution No. 02-05 - Consider staff recommendation to adopt the proposed resolution \} approving the petition to expand ~Iosquito Control District boundaries to add the!1i 1 / À remainder of the Reserve DR! and a 1200' parcel lying between the southwestern boundary Lrj of the Reserve DR! and Canal C-24 and authorizing a referendum on the proposed ~ expansion. \ ' I \ ). \. Resolution No. 02-06 - Consider staff recommendation to adopt the proposed resolution \\ approving the petition to expand Mosquito Control District boundaries to add Westchester cÏ Development of Regional Impact (DR!) and waiving the referendum requirement. 2. 3B. Approve Warrants List No. 50 through 52 ./ f, ¡...":> )J r I' ~¡)~ r J1J r# /, -~oJl j~lð u/l p ¡)V (b CONSENT AGENDA 1. WARRANTS LISTS J NOTICE: All proceedings beCore this Board are electronically recorded. Any person who decides to appeal any action taken by the Board at these meetings will need a record oC the proceedings and Cor such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record oC the proceedings is made. Upon the request oC any party to the proceedings, Individuals testiCying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceedings will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testüying during a hearing upon request. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Manager at (561) 462-1777 or TDD (561) 462·U28 at least Corty-eight(48) hours prior to the meeting. . . . '-' ....,I MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA REGULAR MEETING Date: September 10, 2002 Tape: 1 Convened: 9:40 a.m. Adjourned: 9:41 a.m. Commissioners Present:·Chairman, John D. Bruhn, Doug Coward, Cliff Barnes, Frannie Hutchinson, Paula A. Lewis, Others Present: Doug Anderson, County Administrator, Robert Bradshaw, Asst. County Administrator, Dan McIntyre, County Attorney, Pete Keogh, Leisure Services Director; Bill Blazak, Utilities Director, Marie Gouin, Interim Management & Budget Manager; Ray Wazny, Public Works Director; Scott Herring, Road & Bridge Manager; Leo Cordeiro, Solid Waste Manager; Becky Padrick, MSBU Coordinator; Mike Rath, Purchasing Director; Deputy Williams, Lauri Heistermann, Deputy Clerk 1. MINUTES It was moved by Com. Coward, seconded by Com. Hutchinson, to approve the minutes of the mceting held August 27, 2002; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 2. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS Nonc 3. CONSENT AGENDA It was moved by Com. Hutchinson and seconded by Com. Coward, to approve the Consent Agcnda to include item CA-l; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 1. Warrant Lists The District approved Warrant List Nos. 48 through 49. 2. County Attorney A. Permission to Advertise/Resolution No. 02-05/Expansion of District Boundaries - The Board approved starr recommendation to grant permission to advertise a puhlic hearing 011 Octoher 1,2002 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thcrcaflcr as possible, to consider adoption of the resolution approving the petitions submitted to expand the Mosquito Control District boundaries to include The Reserve Development of Regional Impact (DR!) lying west ofthe existing District boundaries and approving a referendum of the qualified electors residing in the area on the proposed expansion. B. Permission to AdvertiseIResolution No. 02-06/Expansion of District Boundaries - The Board approved staff recommendation to grant permission to advcrtisc a public hcaring on October I, 2002 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, to consider adoption ofthe resolution approving a petition ot expand the Mosquito Control District boundaries to add the Westchester Development of Regional Impact (DRI). .. '6 '-' ....I CA-I Acknowledge of Creek Pump, Inc., Contract- The District approved the acknowledgement changing the name from Quality Industries, Inc., to Creel Pump, Inc., and authorized the Chairman to sign the acknowledgement. There being no further business to be brought before the District, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 a.m. ' Chainnan Clerk of Circuit Court . 2 \wr. ....,¡ MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA TENT A TIVE BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 Date: September 12, 2002 Tape: 1 Convened: 5:09 p.m. Adjourned: 5:10 p.m. Commissioners Present: Chairman, .lohn D. ßruhn, Paula A. Lewis, Frannie Hutchinson, Doug Coward, ClilTßarnes Others Present: Doug Anderson, County Administrator, Ray Wazny, Asst. County Administrator, Dan McIntyre, County Attorney, Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director, Jim David, Mosquito Control Director, Marie Gouin M& B Director, Dennis Wetzel, IT Director, Bill Blazak, Utilities Director, A.Millie Delgado Deputy Clerk The Management and Budget Director read the millage and budget for the Mosquito Control District. MOSQUITO CONTROL FUNDS MILLAGES BUDGET Operating..Funds Mosquito State 1 0.2757 2,842,180 34,000 It was moved by Com. Hutchinson, seconded by Com. Coward to approve the millages for the Mosquito Control District; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Com. Hutchinson, seconded by Com. Barnes, to approve the budget for the Mosquito Control District, fiscal year 2002-2003; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. There being no further business to be brought before the Mosquito Control District, the meeting was adjourned. Chairman Clerk of Circuit Courts 1 '-' "" MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA FINAL BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 Date: September 19, 2002 Tape: I Convened: 5:09 p.m~. Adjourned: 5:10 p.m. Commissioners Present: Chairman, John D. Bruhn, Paula A. Lewis, Frannie Hutchinson, Doug Coward, Cliff Barnes Others Present: Doug Anderson, County Administrator, Ray Wazny, Asst. County Administrator, Dan ~cIntyre, County Attorney, Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director, Jim David, Mosquito Control Director, Marie Gouin M& B Director, Dennis Wetzel, IT Director, Bill Blazak, Utilities Director, A.Millie Delgado Deputy Clerk The Management and Budget Director read the millage and budget for the Mosquito Control District. MOSQUITO CONTROL FUNDS MILLAGES BUDGET Operating Funds Mosqùito State 1 0.2757 2,862,180 46,900 It was moved by Com. Coward, seconded by Com. Lewis to approve the millages for the Mosquito Control District; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Com. Hutchinson, seconded by Com. Lewis, to approve the budget for the Mosquito Control District, fiscal year 2002-2003; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. There being no further business to be brought before the Mosquito Control District, the meeting was adjourned. Chairman Clerk of Circuit Courts 1 ~ 09/27/02 F7.ABWARR FUND TITLE 145 146 ~ ST. LUCIE COUNTY - BC&~D WARRANT LIST #52- 21-SEP-2002 TO 27-SEP-2002 FUND SUMMA..><.Y - MOSQUITO EXPENSES Mosquito Fund Mosquito State I Fund 202,468.93 7,130.46 'J "''''' ... GRAND TOTAL: 209,599.39 PAGE 1 PAYROLL 27,052.15 0.00 27,052.15 09/13/02 FZÞ..3';'¡A.~R FLTl\"D TITLE ~ 143 Mosquito Fund ST. LUCIE COù~TY - BOARD ....¡ WARRANT LIST #50- 07-SEP-2002 TO 13-SEP-2002 FUlID SUMMARY- MOSQUITO GRAND TOTAL: EXPENSES 2,947.92 2,947.92 PAGE 1 PAYROLL 28,579.83 28,579.83 09/20/02 FZABWARR FUND 145 TITLE ~ ST. LUCIE COUNTY - BOARD ..., WARRANT LIST #51- 14-SEP-2002 TO 20-SEP-2002 FUND SUMMARY- MOSQUITO Mosquito Fund GRAND TOTAL: EXPENSES 17,373.82 17,373.82 PAGE 1 PAYROLL 0.00 0.00 !\. , AGENDA REQUEST ITEM Nð'!'!A Date: October 1,2002 Regular [ ] Public Hearing [ X ] Consent [ ] TO: ST. LUCIE COUNTY MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): County Attorney Heather Young Assistant County Attorney SUBJECT: Resolution No. 02-05 - Approving petition to expand Mosquito Control District boundaries to add the remainder of the Reserve DRI and a 1200' parcel lying between the southwestern boundary ofthe Reserve DR! and Canal C-24 and authorizing a referendum on the proposed expansion BACKGROUND: See c.A. No. 02-1412 FUNDS A V AIL.(State type & No. of transaction or N/A): N/A RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Mosquito Control District adopt proposed Resolution No. 02- 05, as drafted. COMMISSION ACTION: CONCU [)Q APPROVED [] DENIED [ ] OTHER: 5-0 County Attorney: la/ Coordination/Si!!na tures ~"þP Purchasing: Originating Dept.: Other: Finance (Check for Copy only, if applicable): '-' """" INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA TO: St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District FROM: Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney c.A. NO: 02-1412 DATE: September 16, 2002 SUBJECT: Resolution No. 02-05 - Approving petition to expand Mosquito Control District boundaries to add the remainder of the Reserve Development of Regional Impact (DRl) and a 1200' parcel lying between the southwestern boundary of the Reserve DRl and Canal C-24 and authorizing a referendum on the proposed expansion BACKGROUND: Chapter 87-510, Laws of Florida, established a procedure for property to be added to the St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District. As indicated in Section 3 of the special act, property owners seeking to have their property added to the District must submit a petition to the Clerk's Office. Following a submission ofthe petition, the Board of County Commissioners, sitting as the District's governing board, will conduct a public hearing on the petition. Ifthe petition is approved, a referendum of the qualified voters in the area proposed to be added will be held. If a majority of the qualified electors vote in favor of being added to the District, the property will be added to the District tax rolls for the subsequent year. The western boundary line of the District currently bisects the Reserve. As a result, only the eastern portion ofthe development receives mosquito control services. A number of the residents living outside the District have submitted petitions seeking to have the District's boundaries expanded to include the entire development. As their properties are contiguous to the existing boundaries and expansion to include the remainder of the development would appear appropriate, Attached to this memorandum is a copy of proposed Resolution No. 02-05 which approves the petition and authorizes the Supervisor of Elections to conduct a mail ballot referendum of the residents of the affected area. The area identified in the resolution includes that portion of the Reserve lying west ofthe existing District boundaries as well as an approximately 1200' strip lying between the southwestern boundary ofthe Reserve and Canal C-24. If a majority ofthe ballots cast support inclusion in the District, the area would be subject to the District's taxes in 2003 but would immediately become eligible for mosquito control treatment. 1 '-' ,..." Notice of the October 1,2002 public hearing was published in The Port S1. Lucie News on September 13, 2002. RECOMMENDATION/CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Mosquito Control District adopt proposed Resolution No. 02-05 as drafted. Respectfully submitted, t)~~ Heather Young Assistant County Attorney Attachment HY/ Copies To: Concurring Staff Clerk Secretary Press Public 2 PGA VillagEYReserve Resolution No. 02-05 Proposed Expansion Mosquito Control District Boundaries Subject Property Map prepared September 17, 2002 t r N This map has been compiled for g_¡¡¡ plannfng and reførence pUlpos$ onfy. Whilø øvrary effort hils been maœ to proviœ 1hø most CUtlonf åJ1d IICCUrafe information possible. U is not Int_ lor use !IS e legølly binding document. '-' ...." ST. LUCIE COUNTY MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 02-05 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PETITION TO EXPAND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT TO ADD CERTAIN PROPERTY LYING WEST OF THE EXISTING DISTRICT BOUNDARY AND AUTHORIZING A REFERENDUM OF QUALIFIED ELECTORS IN THE SUBJECT AREA FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER TO EXPAND THE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES TO ADD SUCH PROPERTY TO THE DISTRICT WHEREAS, the St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District has made the following determinations: 1. Section 29, Chapter 87-510, Laws of Florida, establishes a procedure whereby the owners of property located outside of the boundaries of the District may petition the District to expand the boundaries of the District to include their property. 2. On October 1, 2002, the District held a public hearing to consider the petitions submitted by owners of property lying west of the existing boundaries of the District seeking to expand the District's boundaries to add their property. 3. The subject property is contiguous to the existing boundaries of the District and would benefit from regular treatment for mosquitoes and sandflies by the District. 4. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the District determined that it is in the best interest of the District and the affected property owners to expand the boundaries of the District to add the property lying west of the existing District boundaries and further bounded by the right of way line of the FEC Railroad and the right of way line of the South Florida Mosquito Control District Canal C-24, as more particularly described in the legal description attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A", hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the S1. Lucie County Mosquito Control District: 1. The petition to expand the District boundaries to add the Subject Property is hereby approved: 2. The District does hereby direct the Supervisor of Elections to conduct a mail ballot referendum in accordance with the Mail Ballot Election Act on the following 1 '-' ....., proposition to be voted upon by the qualified electors of St. Lucie County residing on the Subject Property: EXPANSION OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY MOSOUITO CONTROL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Shall the boundaries of the St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District be expanded to add the following described property lying west of the existing boundaries of the District: A parcel of land lying in Sections 16, 20, 21, 28, 29 and 33, Township 36 South, Range 39 East, St. Lucie County, Florida; said parcel being more particularly described as follows: Begin at the intersection of the Southeasterly right of way line of the FEC Railroad and the Northeasterly right of way line of the South Florida Water Management District Canal C-24; thence Southeasterly along said Northeasterly right of way line of the C-24 to the intersection of the East line of Section 33, Township 36 South, Range 39 East; thence North along the East line of SectionS 33, 28, 21 and 16, Township 36 South, Range 39 East to the intersection of the Southeasterly right of way line of the FEC Railroad; thence Southwesterly along said Southeasterly right of way line to the Point of Beginning. YES NO After motion and second, the vote on this resolution was as follows: Chairman John D. Bruhn AYE Vice Chairman Paula A. Lewis AYE Commissioner Cliff Barnes AYE 2 ~ ..." \ Commissioner Doug Coward AYE Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson AYE PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 10th day of September, 2002. ATTEST: ST. LUCIE COUNTY MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT BY: DEPUTY CLERK CHAIRMAN APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND CORRECTNESS: COUNTY ATTORNEY g:\atty\resoltn\2002\02-02.mcd. wpd 3 ..... AGENDA REOUEST ITEM ~3.B Date: October 1, 2002 Regular [ ] Public Hearing [ X ] Consent [ ] TO: ST. LUCIE COUNTY MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): County Attorney Heather Young Assistant County Attorney SUBJECT: Resolution No. 02-06 - Approving petition to expand Mosquito Control District boundaries to add Westchester Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and waiving referendum requirement BACKGROUND: See C.A. No. 02-1413 FUNDS A V AIL. (State type & No. of transaction or N/A): N/A RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Mosquito Control District adopt proposed Resolution No. 02- 06, as drafted. [~APPROVED [] DENIED [ ] OTHER: . . Do M. Anderson Second motlon - Move to loan up to $2,000.00 . . from General Fund Contingency to be paid backCounty Admlllistrator (Staff to come up with a way for repayment). Providing referendum passes. Approved 3-2 (Coward and Hutchinson-No) Coord ioa tioo/Sil!Qatu r es COMMISSION ACTION: County Attorney: (k Mgt. & Budget: {&~~ Purchasing: Originating Dept.: Other: Finance (Check for Copy only, if applicable): ~ ....,; INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA TO: St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District FROM: Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney C.A. NO: 02-1413 DATE: September 16,2002 SUBJECT: Resolution No. 02-06 - Approving petition to expand District boundaries to add Westchester Development of Regional Impact (DRl) and waiving referendum requirement BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Chapter 87-510, Laws of Florida, a property owner seeking to have his property added to the St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District may submit a petition to the District requesting the District boundaries be expanded to include their property. Following submission of the petition, the Board of County Commissioners, sitting as the District's governing board, will conduct a public hearing on the petition. If the petition is approved, a referendum of the qualified voters in the area proposed to be added will be held. If a majority of the qualified voters vote in favor of being added to the District, the property will be added to the District tax roll for the subsequent year. The owners of the Westchester Development of Regional Impact (DRl) have submitted petitions requesting that the property be added to the District. The property is contiguous to the existing boundaries and expansion appears appropriate given the planned development of the property. As the petitions submitted represent one hundred percent (100%) ofthe property owners which will be affected by the proposed expansion of the District, it would appear appropriate to waive the referendum requirement in this instance. Attached to this memorandum is a copy of proposed Resolution No. 02-06 which would approve the petition and waive the referendum for the reasons stated. lfthe resolution is adopted, the area would be subject to the District's taxes in 2003 but would immediately become eligible for mosquito control treatment. Notice of the October 1, 2002 public hearing was published in The Port St. Lucie News on September 13, 2002. RECOMMENDATION/CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Mosquito Control District adopt proposed Resolution No. 02-06 as drafted. Respectfully submitted, ')~~ Heather Young Assistant County Attorney Attachment HY/ Copies To: '-' """" Concurring Staff Clerk Secretary Press Public ¡¡ --. ..., RANGE LINE ROAD Q ~\~ o G>~ ~~ '1J c . &~ 0,.(' /<' 1Jo ~() < ~ == I'D Q ~ ., n ¡:¡- =- I'D Q ~ = ~ I'D í" ., () t:;: I'" I'D < = '" I'D I\::¡ n ë ;¡. ~ 'CI C t:;: e I'D ~ I'D ~ < ~ ... ë ~ 'CI Q .:k. e '"l- e ... 'CI () ~ to I'" = \~ '< I'" I'" ~ I'" ~ 1 c::t-n \.., v...,J ST. LUCIE COUNTY MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 02-06 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PETITIONS TO EXPAND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT TO ADD THE WESTCHESTER DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI); DETERMINING THAT ALL PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ADDED TO THE DISTRICT HAVE SIGNED THE PETITION; AND WAIVING THE REFERENDUM REQUIREMENT WHEREAS, the St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District has made the following determinations: 1. Section 29, Chapter 87-510, Laws of Florida, establishes a procedure whereby the owners of property located outside of the boundaries of the District may petition the District to expand the boundaries of the District to include their property. 2. On October 1, 2002, the District held a public hearing to consider the petitions submitted by the owners of the Westchester Development of Regional Impact (DR!) to add their property to District, as set forth in the legal descriptions attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A". 3. The subject property is contiguous to the existing boundaries of the District and would benefit from regular treatment for mosquitoes and sandflies by the District. 4. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the District determined that it is in the best interest of the District and owners of the subject property to expand the boundaries of the District to add their property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District: 1. The petitions to expand the District boundaries to add the Westchester Development of Regional Impact (DR!) are hereby approved. 2. As the signatures on the petitions represent one hundred percent (1 00%) of the owners of the subject property, the requirement for a referendum of the qualified electors residing in the subject property is hereby waived. 3. This resolution shall take effect on the date of adoption. 1 '-' "wi! After motion and second, the vote on this resolution was as follows: Chairman John D. Bruhn XX Vice Chairman Paula A. Lewis XX Commissioner Cliff Barnes XX Commissioner Doug Coward XX Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson XX PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this xx day of xx, 2002. ATTEST: ST. LUCIE COUNTY MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT BY: DEPUTY CLERK CHAIRMAN APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND CORRECTNESS: COUNTY ATTORNEY g: \atty\resoltn \2002\02-06 .mcd. wpd 2 '- EXHIBIT "A" ..", WESTCHESTER LEGAL DESCRIPTION Parcel 1 Begin at the intersection of the centerline of Gatlin Boulevard (also being the north line of Section 15) and the westerly limits of Gatlin Boulevard Right-of-Way and the westerly limits of those lands described in an Order of Taking, dated July 24, 1979 and recorded in Official Record Book 311 at Pages 2946 through 2952, inclusive, Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida, and as shown on the Florida Department of Transportation Right-of- Way maps for State Road #9. (1-95), Section 94001-2412, dated 6/2/77, with last revision of 9/11/79; thence South 89 degrees 57 minutes 05 seconds West, a distance of 7702.12 feet; thence South 00 degrees 05 minutes 46 seconds West, a distance of 757.53 feet; thence South 89 degrees 57 minutes 43 seconds West, a distance of 1159.20 feet; thence North 00 degrees 40 minutes 03 seconds East, a distance of 152.60 feet; thence North 54 degrees 52 minutes 19 seconds ~ast, a distance of 153.89 feet; thence North 11 degrees 24 minutes 07 seconds East, a distance of 156.51 feet; thence North 14 degrees 02 minutes 38 seconds West, 'a distance of 439.20 feet; to the beginning of a curve concave southerly, having a radius of 200.00 feet and a central angle of 130 degrees 29 minutes 58 seconds, thence northerly. westerly and finally southerly along the arc of said curve to the left, a distance of 455.53 feet to the curves end; thence South 35 degrees 27 minutes 24 seconds West, a distance of 161.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 57 minutes 05 seconds West, a distance of 1118.66 feet; thence North 43 degrees 15 minutes 34 seconds West, a distance of 1.86 feet; thence North 09 degrees 54 minutes 33 seconds East, a distance of . 528.17 feet; thence North 62 degrees 56 minutes 57 seconds East, a distance of 710.69 feet; thence North 39 degrees 35 minutes 38 seconds West, a distance of 373.81 feet; thence South 80 degrees 50 minutes 18 seconds West, a distance of 92.33 feet; thence North 00 degrees 09 minutes 21 seconds East, a distance of 4587.82 feet; to the southeasterly line of Grove No.3, as recorded in O.R. Book 383, at Page 1059, St. Lucie County Public Records (Special Warranty Deed from A. Duda & Sons, Inc. to D & M Indian River Groves) thence along said southerly and easterly line of Grove NO.3 the following courses and distances: North 74 degrees 07 minutes 42 seconds East, a distance of 3624.15 feet; thence North 02 degrees 40 minutes 30 seconds West, a distance of 853.63 feet; thence North 03 degrees 34 minutes 36 seconds East, a distance of 264.67 feet; thence North 11 degrees 39 minutes 14 seconds East, a distance of 299.59 feet; thence North 05 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East, a distance of 655.21 feet; thence North 13 degrees 31 minutes· 07 seconds East, a distance of 422.94-feet; thence departing said Grove No.3, continue North 13 degrees 31 minutes 07 seconds East, a distance of 51.88 feet; thence North 74 degrees 14 minutes 30 seconds East; a distance of 2525.46 feet; thènce North 76 degrees 04 minutes 00 seconds East, a distance of 1244.50 feet; thence North 65 degrees 11 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 178.59 feet; thence North 59 degrees 06 minutes 39 seconds East, a distance of 424.13 feet; thence North 73 degrees 43 minutes 15 seconds East, a distance of 14.12 feet; thence South 50 degrees 55 minutes 52 seconds East, a distance of 7.43 feet; thence North 56 degrees 01 minutes 38 seconds East, a distance of 31.64 feet; thence North 33 degrees 56 minutes 01 seconds East, a distance of 30.15 feet; thence North 54 degrees 34 minutes 18 seconds East, a distance of 298.73 feet; thence North 85 degrees 53 minutes 58 seconds East, a distance of 132.02 feet; thence North 70 degrees 54 minutes 26 seconds East, a distance of 143.67 feet; thence North 56 degrees 25 minutes 29 seconds East, a distance of 121.35 feet; '- ...., thence North 66 degrees 21 minutes 07 seconds East, a distance of 557.84 feet; thence South 00 degrees 35 minutes 12 seconds West along the northerly prolongation of the East line of the northeast quarter of said Section 4, a distance of 271.44 feet to the northeast corner of Section 4; thence continue South 00 degrees 35 minutes 12 seconds West, along the East line of said Section 4, a distance of 2833.04 feet to the East quarter corner of said Section 4; thence South 00 degrees 36 minutes 27 seconds West, a distance of 2651.97 feet to the northwest corner of Section 10; thence North 89 degrees 54 minutes 10 seconds East along the North line of said Section 10, a distance of 1793.84 feet; to a point of intersection with the westerly Right-of-Way line of said 1-95 and the said westerly line of the lands described in the Order of Taking dated July 24, 1979 and recorded in Official Record Book 311 at Pages 2946 through 2952, inclusive, and with a non-tangent curve, concave easterly, having a radius of 5983.58 feet and a central angle of 23 degrees 41 minutes 41 seconds, thence along the westerly line of said 1-95 Right-of- Way and along the said westerly line of the lands described in the Order of Taking, dated July 24, 1979, the following courses and distances: thence southerly along the arc of said curve to the left, a distance of 2474.52 feet, said arc subtended by a chord which bears South 06 degrees 56 minutes 28 seconds East, a distance of 2456.92 feet to the curves end; thence South 18 degrees 47 minutes 19 seconds East, a distance of 714.03 feet; thence South 14 degrees 47 minutes 19 seconds East, a distance of 510.88 feet; thence South 07 degrees 32 minutes 07 seconds East, a distance of 374.37 feet; thence South 06 degrees 58 minutes 16 seconds West, a distance of 373.49 feet; thence South 15 degrees 33 minutes 28 seconds West, a distance of 491.49 feet; thence South 34 degrees 39 minutes 50 seconds West, a distance of 207.78 feet; thence South 70 degrees 02 minutes 50 seconds West, a distance of 289.50 feet; thence South 00 degrees 01 minutes 45 seconds West, a distance of 64.09 feet; thence South 82 degrees 24 minutes 53 seconds West, a distance of 317.56 feet; thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 15 seconds West, a distance of 372.63 feet; thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 15 seconds West, a distance of 262.61 feet; thence South 00 degrees 01 minutes 45 seconds West, a distance of 100.00 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. . Parcel 2 The perpetual, non-exclusive easement for ingress arid egress granted in and by virtue of that certain Gatlin Boulevard. Easement Agreement between Horizons St. Lucie Groves Associates and Horizons St. Lucie Associates dated effective as of July 14, 1997 and recorded July 17, 1997 in Official Records Book 1088, at Page 1,068, Public.Records of St. Lucie County, Florida, said easement for ingress and egress being over and upon the following described property lying in Sections 9,10,15 and 16, Township 37 South, Range· 39 East, being a strip of land, 200 feet in width, lying 100 feet on either side of the following described centerline: Begin at the intersection of the centerline of Gatlin Boulevard (also being the north line of Section 15) and the westerly limits of Gatlin Boulevard Right-of-Way and the westerly limits of those lands described in an Order of Taking, dated July 24, 1979 and recorded in Official Record Book 311, at Pages 2946 through 2952, inclusive, Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida, and as shown on the Florida Department of Transportation Right-of- Way maps for State Road #9 (/-95), Section 94001-2412, dated 6/2/77, with last revision of 9/11/79; thence South 89 degrees 57 minutes 05 seconds West, departing said North line ... -- "" - '- ...." of Section 15, a distance of 3500.00 feet, to the Point of Termination of the herein described centerline. Scriveners Note: It is the intent of the herein described centerline to be common with the South line of those lands shown and described on that certain Boundary Survey prepared by G.C.Y., Inc., last revised of July 11, 1997 and having a file and drawing number of 97- 1039-01-01 and the North line of those lands shown and described on that certain Boundary Survey prepared by G.C.Y., Inc., last revised on July 11, 1997 and having a file and drawing number of 97-1039-01-02. Parcel 3 The non-exclusive easements for irrigation, drainage, ingress and egress granted in and by virtue of that certain south Borrow Canal Drainage, Irrigation and Ingress/Egress Easement Agreement between Horizons St. Lucie Groves Associates and Horizons St. Lucie associates dated effective as of July 14, 1997, and recorded July 17, 1997 in Official Records Book 1088, at Page 1039, Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida, such easements for irrigation, drainage, ingress and egress being over and upon the two tracts more particularly described in Exhibits "A" and "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof. "Exhibit A" A parcel of land lying in Section 15, 22, 23, 26, and 35, Township 37 South, Range 39 East, St. Lucie Count~, Florida, more particularly described as follows: Begin at the intersection of the centerline of Gatlin Boulevard (also being the north line of Section 15) and the Westerly limits of Gatlin Boulevard Right-of-Way, as shown on the Florida Department of Transportation Right-of-Way maps for State Road #9 (1-95), Section 94001-2412, dated 6/2/77, with last revision of 9/11/79; thence along the westerly line of said 1-95 Right-of-Way the following courses and distances: thence South 00 degrees 01 minutes 45 seconds West, a distance of 100.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 58 minutes 15 seconds East, a distance of 242.61 feet; thence along the westerly line of a 20 feet wide F.P. & L Right-of-Way, as recorded in Official Records Book 349, at Page 9049, Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida, the following courses and distances; thence South 00 degrees 01 minute 45 .seconds West, a distance of 20.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 58 minutes 15 seconds East, a distance of 318.60 feet; thence South 81 degrees 56 minutes 34 seconds East, a distance of 515.34 feet; thence South 69 degrees 58 minutes 48 seconds East, a distance of 276.75 feet; thence South 52 degrees 20 minutes 12 seconds East, a distance of 908.27 feet; thence South 43 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East, a distance of 590.74 feet; thence South 27 degrees 42 minutes 53 seconds East, a distance of 590.14 feet; thence South 19 degrees 56 minutes 04 seconds East, a distance of 1197.74 feet; thence South 18 degrees 47 minutes 19 seconds East, a distance of 2565.69 feet to the beginning of a curve concave easterly, having a radius of 24749.33 feet and a central angle of 03 degrees 11 minutes 10 seconds, thence southerly along the arc of said curve to the left, a distance of 1376.21 feet to a point of intersection with a non-tangent line; thence North 01) degrees 02 minutes 34 seconds East, to a point in '- ....., the said westerly line of 1-95 Right-of-Way, a distance of 53.48 feet; to a point of intersection with a non-tangent curve, .concave northeasterly, having a radius of 24729.33 feet and a central angle of 01 degrees 31 minutes 59 seconds, thence 'along the said westerly line of 1-95 Right-of-Way the following courses and distances: thence southerly along the arc of said curve to the left, a distance of 661.68 feet, said arc subtended by a chord which bears South 22 degrees 37 minutes 35 seconds East, to a point of intersection with a non-tangent line; thence South 65 degrees 15 minutes 33 seconds East, a distance of 59.98 feet; thence South 23 degrees 30 minutes 12 seconds East, a distance of 5.99 feet; thence South 10 degrees 06 minutes 31 seconds West, a distance of 72.11 feet; to a point of intersection with a non-tangent curve, concave northeasterly, having a radius of 24729.33 feet and a central angle of 10 degrees 31 minutes 35 s_econds, thence southeasterly along the arc of said curve to the left, a distance of 4543.31 feet, said arc subtended by a chord which bears South 28 degrees 54 minutes 46 seconds East, a distance of 4536.89 feet to the curve's end; thence South 34 degrees 10 minutes 33 seconds East, a distance of 1712.58 feet; to the beginning of a curve, concave westerly, having a radius of 6987.97 feet and a central angle of 29 degrees 45 minutes 21 seconds, thence southeasterly along the arc of said curve to the right, a distance of 3629.11 feet to the curve's end; thence South 04 degrees 25 minutes 12 seconds East, a distance of 1751.36 feet; to the beginning of a curve, concave westerly, having a radius of 24381.33 feet and a central angle of 04 degrees 30 minutes 14 seconds, thence southerly along the arc of said curve to the right, a distance of 1916.56 feet to the curve's end; thence South 00 degrees 05 minutes 02 seconds West, a distanc~ of 724.96 feet; thence South 09 degrees 10 minutes 27 seconds West, a distance of 101.27 feet; thence South 00 degrees 05 minutes 02 seconds West, a distance of 483.47 feet; to a point of intersection with the northerly line of those certain lands described in a deed dated May 12, 1951 to the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, recorded in Deed Book 165 at pages 361 thr~ugh 362, Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida, and a point in the north Right-of-Way line of the South Florida Water Management District Canal C-23; thence North 89 degrees 54 minutes 36 seconds West, along the said northerly line of those lands described in Deed Book 165 at pages 361 and 362, and along said Right-of- Way line of the C-23 Canal Right-of-Way a distance of 250.18 feet; thence departing said C-23 Canal Right-of-Way, thence North 00 degrees 27 minutes. 29 seconds East, a distance of 1984.84 feet; thence North 27 degrees 47 minutes 31 seconds East, a distance of 133.29 feet; thence North 02 degrees 13 minutes 06 seconds West, a distance of 919.03 feet; thence North 42 degrees 52 minutes 02 seconds East, a distance of 59.68 feet; thence North 04 degrees 26 minutes 42 seconds West, a distance of 792.27 feet; thence North 35 degrees 52 minutes 36 seconds West, a.distance of.84..15 feet; thence North 05 degrees 11 minutes 29 seconds West, a distance of 1514.96 feet; thence North 11 degrees 26 minutes 44 seconds West, a distance of 698.08 feet; thence North 16 - degrees 47 minutes 01 seconds West, a distance of 903.46 feet; thence North 27 degrees 11 minutes 16 seconds West, a distance of 664.26 feet; thence North 27 degrees 47 minutes 36 seconds West, a distance of 357.15 feet; thence North 32 degrees 46 minutes 03 seconds West, a distance of 613.01 feet; thence North 34 degrees 56 minutes 03 seconds West, a distance of 330.54 feet; thence North 33 degrees 47 minutes 06 seconds West, a distance of 1904.25 feet; thence North 31 degrees 22 minutes 39 seconds West, a distance of 325.93 feet; thence North 28 degrees 30 minutes 01 seconds West, a distance of 2168.54 feet; thence North 25 degrees 32 minutes 10 seconds West, a distance of 651.46 feet; thence North 22 degrees 32 minutes 08 seconds West, a distance of 927.20 feet; thence North 50 degrees 17 minutes 06 seconds West, a distance of 159.47 feet; "-' ~ thence North 31 degrees 46 minutes 57 seconds West, a distance of 109.55 feet; thence North 07 degrees 55 minutes 28 seconds West, a distance of 177.53 feet; thence North 01 degrees 15 minutes 37 seconds East, a distance of 109.86 feet; thence North 20 degrees 41 minutes 28 seconds West, a distance of 216.21 feet; thence North 21 degrees 38 minutes 43 seconds West, a distance of 716.99 feet; thence North 16 degrees 36 minutes 10 seconds West, a distance of 323.54 feet; thence north 18 degrees 58 minutes 57 seconds West, a distance of 1915.94 feet; thence North 17 degrees 09 minutes 49 seconds West, a distance of 375.16 feet; thence North 19 degrees 25 minutes 42 seconds West, a distance of 358.89 feet; thence North 21 degrees 34 minutes 26 seconds West, a distance of 635.36 feet; thence North 19 degrees 43 minutes 54 seconds West, a distance of 548.53 feet; thence North 26 degrees 28 minutes 01 seconds West, a distance of 277.17 feet; thence North 39 degrees 38 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 314.46 feet; thence North 45 degrees 54 minutes 01 seconds West, a distance of 256.94 feet; thence North 47 degrees 47 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 665.93 feet; thence North 51 degrees 22 minutes 57 seconds West, a distance of 502.14 feet; thence North 71 degrees 26 minutes 24 seconds West, a distance of 197.54 feet; thence North 80 degrees 07 minutes 32 seconds West, a distance of 443.11 feet; thence North 86 degrees 11 minutes 17 seconds West, a distance of 206.15 feet; thence South 89 degrees 41 minutes 14 seconds West, a distance of 391.07 feet; thence North 80 degrees 59 minutes 51 seconds West, a distance of 114.01 feet; thence North 02 degrees 53 minutes 30 seconds East, a distance of 285.19 feet; thence South 89 degrees 58 minutes 15 seconds East, a distance of 52.00 feet, to the Point of Beginning. EXHIBIT "B" INGRESS 1 EGRES~ EASEMENT SOUTH OF GATLIN BOULEVARD A strip of land being 50 feet in width, lying 25 feet each side of the following described centerline; said strip of land lying in Sections 15, 22, 23, 26, & 35,· Township 37 South Range 39 East, St. Lucie County, Florida, said centerline being more particularly described as follows: Begin at the intersection of the centerline of Gatlin Boulevard (also being the north line of Section 15) and the westerly limits of Gatlin Boulevard Right-of-Way, as shown on the Florida Department of Transportation Right-of-Way maps for State Road #9 (1-95), Section 94001-2412, dated 6/2/77, with last revision oL9/11/79; thence North 89 degrees 58_. minutes 15 seconds West, along the westerly prolongation of Gatlin Boulevard Centerline, a distance of 77.03, feet; thence South 02 degrees 53 minutes 30 seconds West, a distance of 306.41 feet; thence South 80 degrees 59 minutes 51 seconds East, a distance of 138.51 feet; thence North 89 degrees 41 minutes 14 seconds East, a distance of 392.21 . feet; thence South 86 degrees 11 minutes 17 seconds East, a distance of 203.92 feet; thence South 80 degrees 07 minutes 32 seconds East, a distance of 439.89 feet; thence South 71 degrees 26 minutes 24 seconds East, a distance of 191.22 feet; thence South 51 degrees 22 minutes 57 seconds East, a distance of 496.94 feet; thence South 47 degrees 47 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 664.73 feet; thence South 45 degrees 54 minutes 01 seconds East, a distance of 255.16 feet; thence South 39 degrees 38 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 310.20 feet; thence South 26 degrees 28 minutes 01 seconds East, a distance of 272.82 feet; thence South 19 degrees 43 minutes 54 seconds '- ..., East, a distance of 547.46 feet; thence South 21 degrees 34 minutes 26 seconds East a distance of 635.29 feet; thence South 19 degrees 25 minutes 43 seconds East, a distan~e of 357.92 feet; thence South 17 degrees 09 minutes 49 seconds East, a distance of 375.06 feet; thence South 18 degrees 58 minutes 57 seconds East, a distance of 1915.82 feet; thence South 16 degrees 36 minutes 10 seconds East, a distance of 324.13 feet; thence South 21 degrees 38 minutes 43 seconds East, a distance of 717.88 feet; thence South 20 degrees 41 minutes 28 seconds East, a distance of 211.15 feet; thence South 01 degrees 15 minutes 27 seconds West, a distance of 107.02 feet; thence South 07 degrees 55 minutes 28 seconds East, a distance of 184.82 feet; thence South 31 degrees 46 minutes 57 seconds East, a distance of 118.90 feet; thence South 50 degrees 17 minutes 06 seconds East, a distance of 157.36 feet; thence South 22 degrees 32 minutes 08 seconds East, a distance of 921.68 feet; thence South 25 degrees 32 minutes 10 seconds East, a distance of 652.76 feet; thence South 28 degrees 30 minutes 01 seconds East, a distance of 2169.82 feet; thence South 31 degrees 22 minutes 39 seconds East, a distance of 327.09 feet; thence South 33 degrees 47 minutes 06 seconds East, a distance of 1905.03 feet; thence South 34 degrees 56 minutes 03 seconds East, a distance of 611.45 feet; thence South 27 degrees 47 minutes 36 seconds East, a distance of 355.93 feet; thence South 27 degrees 11 minutes 16 seconds East, a distance of 661.85 feet; thence South 16 degrees 47 minutes 01 seconds East, a distance of 900.02 feet; thence South 11 degrees 26 minutes 44 seconds East, a distance of 695.55 feet; thence South 05 degrees 11 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 1520.45 feet; thence South 35 degrees 52 minutes 36 seconds East, a distance of 83.97 feet; thence South 04 degrees 26 minutes 42 seconds East, a di.stance of 774.29 feet; thence South 42 degrees 52 minutes 03 seconds West, a distance of 59.10 feet; thence South 02 degrees 13 minutes 07 seconds East, a distance of 922.71 feet; thence South 27 degrees 47 minutes 31 seconds West, a distance of 132.67 feet; thence South 00 degrees 27 minutes 29 seconds West, to the northerly line of those certain lands described in a deed dated May 12, 1951 to the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, recorded in Deed Book 165 at pages 361 through 362, Public Records of S1. Lucie County, Florida, and a point in the northerly right-of-way line of the South Florida Water Management District Canal C-23, a distance of 1991.08 feet, to the Point of Terminus. Parcel 4 Non-exclusive easement for the benefit of Parcel I as created by Drainage And Irrigation Easement dated.January 26,1990, recorded January 31,.1990 in Otficial..Records.Book 675, Page 1942, of the Public Records of S1. Lucie County, Florida, for drainage and irrigation, on, over, and under the land described as follows: (Subject to the terms, provisions and conditions set forth in said instrument) A parcel of land located in Sections 4 and 5, Township 37 South, Range 39 East and in Sections 33 and 34, Township 36 South, Range 39 East, S1. Lucie County, Florida and being more particularly described as follows, to wit: Commence at the Southwest corner of said Section 34; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 07 Seconds East along the south line of said Section 34 a distance of 1753.27 feet to the intersection of the south line of said Section 34 and the Southwesterly right-ot- way line of the South Florida Water Management District Canal C-24 as shown on the right-of-way map for said Canal C-24, checked dated 11/25/58 and revised 02/23/59; '- .., thence North 43 degrees 08 minutes 38 seconds West along said Southwesterly right-of- way line of Canal C-24, a distance of 911.96 feet, to the Point Of Beginning of the herein described parcel; thence continue North 43 degrees 08 minutes 38 seconds West along said right-of-way line a distance of 139.00 feet to the Southeasterly corner of Grove 2 Addition as recorded in Official Records Book 589, Page 1186, Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida; thence North 89 degrees 08 minutes 58 seconds West along the Southeasterly line of said Grove 2 Addition a distance of 318.79 feet; thence South 60 degrees 24 minutes 31 seconds West along said Southeasterly line of said Grove 2 Addition a distance of 793.61 feet to the Southeasterly corner of Grove 2; thence South 65 degrees 05 minutes 51 seconds West along the Southeasterly line of said Grove 2 a distance of 762.00 feet; thence South 70 degrees 42 minutes 47 seconds West along said Southeasterly line of Grove 2 a distance of 440.52 feet to a point in the Northeasterly line. of the O.L. Peacock Cemetery Parcel (being a lessed out parcel in that conveyance from Peacock Fruit and Cattle Company, Inc. to A. Duda and Sons, Inc.); thence South 43 degrees 58 minutes 54 seconds East along Northeasterly line of the O.L. Peacock Cemetery Parcel a distance of 57.60 feet; thence South 62 degrees 44 minutes 35 seconds West along the said Southeasterly line of the said O. L. Peacock Cemetery Parcel a distance of 967.89 feet; thence South 76 degrees 11 minutes 52 seconds West along the said Southeasterly line of the said O.L. Peacock Cemetery Parcel a distance of 819.19 feet; thence South 74 degrees 54 minutes 36 seconds West along the Southeasterly line of the said O.L. Peacock Cemetery Parcel a distance of 1079.51 feet; thence departing said O.L. Peacock Cemetery Parcel South 66 degrees 31 minutes 36 seconds West a distance of 63.88 feet; thence South 74 degrees 12 minutes 41 seconds West a distance of 1540.89 feet; thence South 67 degrees 04 minutes 30 seconds West a distance of 91.06 feet: thence SÇJuth 22 degrees 55 minutes 30 seconds East a distance of 45.16 feet to a point common to TRACT B at the Northwesterly corner of the 115.07 acre Sod Field Parcel; thence North~asterly along the North line of said TRACT 8 the following courses and distances: thenèe North 74 degrees 14 minutes 30 seconds East a distance of 2525.46 feet; thence North 76 degrees 04 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 1244.50 feet; thence North 65 degrees 11 minutes 40 seconds East a distance of 178.59 feet; thence North 59 degrees 06 minutes 39 seconds East a distance of 424.13 feet; thence North 73 degrees 43 minutes 15 seconds East a distance of 14.12 feet; thence South 50 degrees 55 minutes 52 seconds East a distance of 7.43 feet; thence North 56 degrees 01 minutes 38 seconds East a distance of 31.64 feet; thence North 33 degrees 56 minutes 01 seconds East a distance of 30.15 feet; thence North 54 degrees 34 minutes 18 seconds East a distance of 298.73 feet; thence North 85 degrees 53 minutes 58 seconds East a distance of 132.02 feet;Jhence North 70. degrees. .54 minutes 26 seconds East a distance__. of 143.67 feet; thence North 56 degrees 25 minutes 29 seconds East a distance of 121.35 feet; thence North 66 degrees 21 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 557.84 feet; thence South 00 degrees 35 minutes 12 seconds West along the East line of said TRACT B a distance of 12.29 feet; thence North 65 degrees 05 minutes 51 seconds East departing the East line of said TRACT B a distance of 75.98 feet; thence North 60 degrees 24 minutes 31 seconds East a distance of 770.50 feet; thence South 89 degrees 08 minutes 58 seconds East a distance of 388.11 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 2,033.20 acres, more or less. / ~ // // .. 1.'·. .' '- ..." A parcel of land lying in Sec/ions 5, 6, 7, 8. 15. 16, 17. & 16, .Tol,l/nship 37 South. Range . ·39 Eas!, SI. Lucie County, Florida, more particularly dascribed asfo/lows: ~ . . Begin at the intersecljon of the centerline of Gatlin Bou!evar«;í (also being ¡he North linè .of Section 15) and the \'¡8sterly limits of Gatlin Boulevard Ri9hj~of:Waï ~nd ths wEsterly limits of those lands describ~d in an Order of Taking, dated July 24. 1979 and recorded in Official Record Book 311 at P2gas 29~6 through 2952, inclusive. Public Records of St. Lucie County, florida, 2nd as shown on the Florida Department of Transportation Right-oF-Way maps for Slate Road ;,;!9 (1-95), S~ctioIl 94001-2412. dated 6/2f77, with last revision of 9/11/79; thence along lhe westerly liries of the parcels described in lha said Order of Taking racorded in Official Record Book311 at Pages 2946 through 2952, inclusive, and along the w.:sterly line of said 1-95 Right-or-Way the fol!ov¡ing courses and distances; thence South 00'0 1'45~ West. a distance of 100,00 feet; thence Soulh 89°58'15" East, a· distance of 242.61 feet; tl)ence along the westerly line of a 20 foot wide F.P.& L. eë3sement. as described in an Order Gran!ing Petitioners Motion for relief (rom Order of Taking and Amending Order of Taking, as same is recorded in Official Record Book 349. at Pages 90 through 93. inclusive, Public Record~of SI. Lucie County, Florida, the follo1.'/ing courses and distances; . thence South Op·01'4S"West, a distance of 20.00 feet; thence South 89'58'15~ E<1s1. a distance of 318.60 feet; thence SOLJth 81°56'34" East, a distance Qf 515.34 feet; Ll1ence South 69°58'40" East, a distance of 276.75 feet; thence South 52°20'12" East, éI distance of 903.27 feet; thence South 43°16'30" East, a distance of 590.74 feet; thence Soulh 27'42'53" East, éI distance of 590.97 feet; thence Soulh 19°56'O.:;~ East. a distance of 1197.74 (eet; thence South 18 °4 7'19" East, êI dist~nce of 81 9.08 fee~ to the easterJy pro!o:1galion of the North line of that certi3in pëJrccl described in a Special Warranty Daed 10 Melröpolita.n life Insurance Company dated September 18. 1985, and recorded in Omcial Recorç1 Book 477 at Pages 560 through 566, inclusive, Public Records of St Lucie County,' Florida; thence North 89°50'39" '/esl, along the just said northerly !:ne of th2 parcel described in the Special Warranly deed 10 Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. recorded in Official Record Book 477 at Pages 560 through 566, and the easterly . prolongation thereof, a distance of·2016-1·,26..[eet; to the· easterly Right-or-Way liñ"e of ~ ___. State Road S-609. as shown on Ih~ Florida Department of Transportation Right-of-Way map dated 11/5/64 and revised January. 1965; thence departing said northerly line of the parcel described in ltie Special Warranty deed to Melropolilan Life Insurance Company record~d in Official Record Book 477 at Pé:lges 560 through 5ô6. and along said easterly Righ~-of-Way of State Road S-609, the f.o:/owing COurses and distances: North 00°00'21" East a distance on040,61 feet; thence North 00'01'22 W2St, a distance of 2519.04 f~;t to the south !ine of the O.L Peacock Canal; Ih2nce departing said easlerly Right-of-Way of Stale Road S-609 and along the southerly line of the O.l. . Peacock Canal the fQlIowing courses and distances: North 83:31'36"-Easl, a distance of 1352.70 feet; ./ r. / / ./ /- '- ." thence North 82 "02'35" East, a distance of 12.2.7.72 feel; thence Norih 19"53'24" East,·a dislance of 6903~'4a feel;:'. .' ' thence North 24 °05'21" East, a distance of 1 054.48 feet; to the I,'¡:!sterly bouilda,'Y of Grove 3, as recordèd in Of¡icial Record Book 38J, Page 1059 of the SI, Luci~ County Put>/jc Records (Special Warranly Deed (rom A. Duda 2. Sons, Inc. !o 0 & lvllndia:1 River Groves): thence along the western boundary of said Grove 3, South 15"52'16" East, a distance of 2316.58 feet to the southWêst CO!'n~r of .s~id Grov2 3; thence along th.: south lins of said Grove 3. Nqrth 74"07'42" East, a ,distance of·845.57 feet 10 the "'¡est boundary of those lands described in O,1idal Record " Book.íQS8, Page 1032, Pub1ic Records of St. Lucie County, Florida; thence d.:parting said šoulh line of Grove 3 and running along the wèsterly and southedy lines of said lands, the folLowing courses and distances: South 00·09'21" Wes!, a distance of 4587.82 feet; thence North 80"50'18" Eas!, a dislance of 92.33 feet; lhence S<?ulh 39"35'3.9" East, a distance of 373.81 feel; thence South 62 "56'57" West. a d;sté1nco: of 710.69 feet: thence South .09°54'.33" Wesl, a distance of 528.17 feel; thence South 43G1S'34" Easl, a dislance of 1.86 feel; thence North 89"57'05" East, a dislance of 1118.66 feet: thence North 35-27'24" East, a distance of 161.00 feet; thence along a tangent curve to Ihe rightl.,/ith a radius of 200.00 feet, a tangent lenglh of 433.82 feel, a central angle of 130"29'58",lhe chord of which bears Soulh 79" 17'.3T' East; thence along the arc of said curve for a distance of 455.53 feet to the curves end; thence South 14°02"38" EéJsl. a distëJnco: of "139.20 feel; .~ thence Soulh 11-24'07" Wesl, a distance of 156.51 feet; thence South 54 "52'19" Wes!, <I distance of 153.89 feel; lhence South 00"40'03" West, a dist¿lnce of 152.60 feel; thence North 139°57'43" EëJsl, a distance of 1159.20 feet; thence North 00·05'46" East. a distance of757.53 fel2l; lhence North 139·57'05" Eas!, a dIstance of 7702.12 feet to the southeasterly corner of those lands described in said survey for BanI<; Atlantic Venture Partners 6,lnc. and lhe POINT OF BEGINNING of Ihe herein described parcel. LESS AND EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING: Begin at the intersection of the centerline of Gatlin Boulevard (also being the north line of Section 15) and lhe weslerly limils of Gallin Boulevard Right-of-Way and the weslerly limits of those lands described in an Order of Taking, dated July 24, 1979 and recorded in Official Record Book 311 at Pages 2946 through 2952, inclusive. Public Records of Sf. Lucie County, Florida,and as shown on ~be F!orida Department of Transportation. .. Right-oF-Way maµsior Slate Road 1t9'(1~95rSèëliõ"n g4001~2412, dated 6/2/77. with lasl revision of 9/11/79: Th~nce South 00"01'45" West, a distance of 100.00 f.;et; Ihence Sou~h 89°57'.05" West, a dislance of 2427.95 feet 10 the beginning of a curve concave 10 the Southeast, having a radius of 175.00 feet; thence Southwesterly along the arc of said curve, through a central angle of 54°37'24", a distan:;e of 166.84 feet to a point of reverse! curvature \','Hh a curVe co;¡calJ~ to the Northwest, having a radi'J5 of 300.00 f=et; thence SouthwesterJy 210ng the arc óf said curve, through a cenlral angle of 19"14'49". a distance of 100.78 feet, to a point of reverse curvature with a curve concave to the. Southeast, having a radius of 175.00 feet; thence Southwesterly and Southerly along the arc of said curve, through a central angle of 54°37'24", a distance of 16ô.84 fee!; thelJce South 00·02'55" Eàsr a dislance of 12.70 feet; thence South 89°57"05" West, a distance - , . .. /-_. -"- / / /' ~ ....- .. . . . . .. . :1'--:- .... : = 1.;-.. .. .. ....... ,";' :'. of 20"0,00 fe,et; thence North 00'02'55" Wes!, 'å distance o~ 12.70feel, [0 the beginning of a CUNa conca'/e to the South','/2S!, having a radius of 175 feet; thence Northwesterly along the arc of sa:d curve, through a cenlral angle of S4 637'24", a disla:1ce of 166.84 feet, to a point of reverse clJrvalure 'v'/ilh a curve concave to the NOrîh=ast, having a radius of 300.00 feet; thence Northweslerly and Northerly along the arc Df said curya, through a cen¡ral angle of 54 "37'24", a distance of 286.01 feet to a point being on the . centerline of said Gatlin Boulevard extension; lhence Norlh 89"57'05" East along sa:d .:cenlerline, a distance of 3115.39 feet to the Point of BeginniQ9. .0,_· .. Containing 205~.74 acres more or less. f "