Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLegislative Requests July 2001 St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners District I District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 Commissioner John D. Bruhn Commissioner Doug Coward Commissioner Paula A. Lewis Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson Commissioner Cliff Barnes Legislative Requests July, 2001 - Where's the mone~~ Local projects that cost $500,000 or more in the ~tate budget: ralm Beach County South Florida Fair Agriplex: $750,000 ' Mizner Park Amphitheater: $500,000 Reconstruct SR 809jMilital) Trail: $21 million Reconstruct SR 80: $87.5 (nillion Reconstruct Interstate 95' $2.9 million . ~ike path at Lake Okeecho- bee: $2.7 million Extend runway at PBIA: $1.1 million Noise waÚs on highway: $3.9 million New 1-95 interchange: $20.( (nillion ~econstruct Beeline High- way: $3.5 million Palm Tran grant: $3.8 millio, Resurface northbound turn- pike: $2.3 million Resurface ,Dixie Highway: $4.1 million Resurface Olive Avenue: $3.8 million Resurface Beeline Highway: $4.6 million Drainage improvements on SR 7 in west Boynton: $500,000 Alzheimer's Community çare: $908,000 Bpca Raton westem library: ~500,000 Boynton Beach city library: $500,000 Ç}elray Beach· Public Library: ~500,OOO Highland Beach Library: $500,000 ~roadway reconstruction: $1 iJlillion "'rt of Palm Beach road vtork: $3 million ~iden Atlantic Avenue: $2 million Gake Okeechobee restor& .. tiOn: $7.5 million .. lIake Worth Lagoon Partner- S\1ip: $2.5 million ~orth Palm Beach water su¡:r rSlY plan: $500,000 P.ahokee waste-water irn- Jìrovements: $700,000 ' \ð'insberg Farms Wetland fiestoration: $750,000 ritartin County Bridge work: $1.2 million I!est area on 1-95: $14.6 mil- ILon ~esurface U.S. 1: $2.3 mil- lion ~esurface AlA: $1.5 millio~ Martin high-risk facility: $920,000 Coxahatchee River Preserv& tjon Initiative: $2.5 million ,. ¡, St. Lucie County lJF aquaculture program: $1.2 million f!.ort Pierce beach renourish- ment: $2.2 million Sunrise Theater: $500,000 (3ridge repair on AlA: $5.6 '1'illion Fiesurface U.S. 1: $3.4 mil- lion Resurface Emerson Avenue: $2.9 million ~esurface Indrio Roaâ:.$2.8 million Resurfaèe Kings Highway: $4.3 million . 80rida Atlantic University ~ranches: $1.7 million f\irport Industrial Park waste "Yater: $788,800 St. Lucie River Issues Team: $5 million ~ '! 4keechobee County' Ilesurface SR 98: $7 million Work on SR 70: $3.3 million Flesurface Turnpike: $4.8 million ~ckerd Youth Center renov& tions: $2 million Ôkeechobee Wastewater "(rust: $1.3 million ... May 16, 2002 'f'ß¡t'V W' IL ~U (" (;/'-'0"1 ltJ ~I~ ~ fJ,.J ,~ S Mr. Douglas M. Anderson fÃ.I'~ p; County Administrator P (/' f ~ S1. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners ~I v Jj 2300 Virginia Avenue 'fk) ß 1 J Fort Pierce, Florida 34.982 '£Ò II r . RE: Department of Community Affairs/Emergency Management preparednes~ ~ ¡f/ ,J (' L GrantslFCT/Other Successes. ~b( y¡/ Dear Doug: r I wanted to follow-up on the conversation we had on April 16th regarding the Emergency Management Preparedness Grant Program at DCA and the project ranking of the St. Lucie submissions. Neither of us could figure out why we were ranked at positions 50 and 51, while other governmental bodies were ranked above number 25 and their requests did not include local match, etc. After full review of this matter (with several individuals), I would agree that the process was a bit irrational and biased. I anticipate Senator Pruitt pursuing a plan to do away with this process sometime over the next year, when he begins his chairmanship of the Senate Appropriations Committee. ~ ,_~.........,u...._'<>',.._· ,LRW OHlCU PRormlOnRL R\\OCIRTlOn In spite of our poor performance on Emergency Management grants, we have, nonetheless, had significant success with DCA (with our assistance and with that of Senator Pruitt). Specifically, I point to DCA's awarding millions of dollars to St. Lucie in FCT grants: 1. North Fork of the S1. Lucie River $ 775,000 2. Indrio Scrub Preserve $ 471,500 3. Westmoreland RiverPark $2,055,825 4. S1. Lucie Village Heritage Park $3,095,000 5. Ancient Oaks $ 352,400 6. Savanna Buffer Preserve $ 420,000 7. WhiteCity Flatwoods $ 335,000 8. Sheraton Plaza Preserve $ 606,000 9. White City Woodlands $ 412,000 (We recognize that this project may not be funded, as there is an intent to fund when additional Preservation 2000 money becomes available.) (oncorde (enter 2 - 2999 northeðll191 ~treet, p~ 6 - "venturð, ~Ioridð 33180 - Telephone(30S) 93S-1866 - ~ðX (30S) 93S-9137 101 [ðll (olle~e "venue, ~uite 302 - Tðllðhðllee, ~Ioridð 32301 - (8so) 22~-28S9 ../// , - , . , Mr. Douglas M. Anderson May 16, 2002 Page two In addition to these direct DCA awards, we add this year's legislative victories as well: 1. 2. Regional Disaster Control Center Airport Industrial Park Wastewater $ 200,000 $ 788,000 We are working on a veto strategy and \\ill keep you posted. As it relates to FCT, the next funding cycle begins on May 20th and ends on July 30th. The next FCT meeting is on July 24th. I urge your continued participation in this program. Contact me .with any questions. ¡ V" RLB :rse cc: Bill Rubin Tara Dudley p. 1 Jun 05 02 O~:20p GREETINGS FROM SENATOR KEN PRUITI THE FLORIDA SENATE DISTRICT 27 2400 SE MIDPORT RD, SUITE 1 í 0 PORT ST. LUCIE, FL 34952 661-335-8000 Fax 561-398-2873 SENATOR KEN PRUITT 27tr. District Fax To: qJr from: {~(¿( r [¿ lõax: Lf&J- J/31 Date: ~/?'f(Jd- r , Phone: Pages: {p Re: cc: :J Urgcnt 0 For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Pleaso Reply 0 Please Recycle -Comments: \ ~ù~ p/iI \J.çf v~~ ~ ~.., ;'."~ (6"; [;â 0 \"n r ;¿,' .'..., ~. "_-," ...i':L , i { i jJ JUN 0 ~ 2002 ~¡ CO. ADMIN. OFFICE Jun 05 02 O'H 20p -.-' -........, .1.... ~(' 1j~(j.¡88~33[j HSE A?PROPRIATJON ;'A3¡:: fJl 2001 Special Session E Veto List -t"t) " ~ __ ~\ ~,of '.HB 27E ':.. .' ' , . ,.'_.' ~:,~.(,:. :..,.':.:...\¡..~"\.,.,.'..;. .0 linG Jlern . . I ~.~~ J. :',';:~,;.:' :. ,.'U~ ".;~:'\ '{ . -~ .' ;,~ ,'. Te~ &B ~SeRlSABER ---- - - ~. 1 ).OC.:)OQ ~8-:F~ëcï¿;r,ii;iÕ;:t~-:Ë(!~~~tcN/I; ~'I$-~ -'T-- -- å54~m ~C~ Grãiii'$'M5"ÃicTiròÙG;J1 GCI\Iemmenl:< Arid Noo~tale e:nl;b~~ . 'ix,ed Capita! OU:lðy . -~-'- --, i-3?5,ÕÕÕ I ~oIQ<:al,lst Mt,¡seIJI'\1 I -, 220 'ïGiã:IG(: G~õñ5ïEnl·fëò-:--Ct.~ geppar Y";'tI1ll1lcro;tnaon Çìlll.r ---- "-,-" - S53"'fiS ~- :spëCiãiëiiãgQriè;-: G;;':;i$A;:dÅTd~ïò;;¡b~~ Tra.ni;iQ'Prëg¡¡m-'- .----; -... - -'¡ð3.739 '-~lš¡'~a) Caië~iÚ '·ïr;iõšrãtð"ð ""Iine ~mar'" PI'091'#m. u~iVC;¡iÿ or Mi~- ~ u. ._~--- -, , 2~OCO' --~~: ·-·=f::':~5L~~~·on !~l~!ã;i;~::~~~~!~g~.____ - -- _ _ _.. ~F~' ~ __ .~~:: -----;ï&--~'I\!lylkï7.ëÿõ,,¡rèi~tÏ~æ;-----·,--·-- . .-"--., ~~.üòò. -~8-;~¡~ñiiBõo\¡ Fãir-·· -..------..--.---- - -..- 1.__ -:;-~.OO) . '!9 ^-~~~~a~~~~~~~råñts AM Ads -Lumlo1ç G¡tI!WiyS ~-===-~=-~.',_l=·,~.~ ,'2-=S1'~OOÕ: 127 oCiIQO/'\ lea'nI'1O Cenler : 400,()()Q 127 !iii;;riìjãHüm¡¡¡j¡.~$èounc~ ~~- ¡--- -~7S,«.o ~_~lÑt'';1~ibQ(·~.lnstltu,. at 5NCtmp-- - __ ' ----=~=r- =_ -.;~~:~~ 130 ¡'Si1w"daY HOO~td On AlI!:tnø Tec.'!nQlogy . . 10.OCO ~C~'- =rãkèŸõÜr Oãd to S(~004· ¡';j«etivr ,--h--~ --, - 4[,4OC ---------....~ -----;;~ 1¡¡¡ V I Oar"'''. Ei....;}, cQmI'!1lll"t'r COIIegt ~.OOO ""~QI '1H¡1;MPrõ]ëëtMOhiloMllbri'RW ~:)~ ~01 Proposed l'ø1:artCSatø" H.t-~I~ Benent Cover.ges Report --- --~--i)Õ~ -- 2Se IE.p:J"~c:>n ¢rV'1> "",..Ing HtXT18 Oi.¡;¡¡-oñlnl~a~.... i.ë~ 3h1A IvNOWPqOI Program -t- 75õ.ëõõ ----~ (emerald CcJ3St C/'Iilórtn's ~"oc.1cy Cø(tlar. Ob\oo.5;l ..w Waitt" Cou,)lie$ I 1 ~2:6õO 3~!! C·NDW P~oct .= F~.;. s.Cc,o 3$5 A AFIRE 01 PasCQ .. __= - 7~.~ 387 A C/1ikIran's Uadl¢.*1 Otrectar . N.... ~lJI\lon1 of III. ilfnvle Coa,I.I~an River. Mal1in. ~.~ __ Oçkee~ and S~ L\,¢it Couüs I ~"7 ^ tSchõol !)Istrlcl or HJII\1o'O\Ig'l c..."'\.In~ . Mønl.)l Meat¡" StrViçe~ I 35C.~:JO 409 A IR'Si~ Prevention Cent.,. . c.~rting. Srtltem 01 Prev.ntlon --.-¡- - 2~J.750 411 iSub~!a'K;e Abu¡ø, I;tl\iÙï·,u-ing an:lll\yøs~s - .1 :'5.25:> 422 Imrnrgr3110n ""il~'1C£ÞrOQtam ì 3".SW - 4~2 $inv!o: MOlh.~ Inlllaliv. . Slitewid~ i ~ 12.500 0451 N Førlda Institute for Healln a~ H\lman Seri...Qts ! :.c,QOC 4S:¡ ·-~.lmef·S Pallenl Oay C,.,. Sarvlc.e$. Hillsborwgtl ~Iy SønlorC.n:er : 100.0c0 "73 Communlly BIISeQ lOl'lg Tarm CQn~I1YY", 01 Cite Fiimify CSf.glVtl51l1Wiltive, PaL-n B~a;.'" . t-- -- H.3iõ County 0473 Senior ~emð!)l D'¢r<I~' F''VIJI.'" ·I!rgwata 1;0\1(\1)0, '- ï5.UCX' --- -- 473 ISoulllw.st Foe.r Point. ~att~ 8i11 PM NuI.ri8Qt\ Pro;rn. erowilf~ ClXln!y 31.5OC -..~ l SenJg" Sa¡lIing SOllJIiOns . a~~ Cwnty - X.'1:JO --¡~" Irramt tlw a\(;! Subst:ln/:.. Ab'&e C;d~CII~"" - r---'~m"m . 52r-'1 Statewide Villor. SCIMrir>¡¡ . CQIot PI'.olarell'it.tion 50»~) 5<11 ÎCrillall Htalll'l o¡u(ñr.o~ PIOOI"," n Þi.-.ehas Co '-' --=+- ~~2$õ 1-- 54~l"'O~ OuI?~Ìlenc TI'Q¡~n:, t-rVlAlns:lM "'Q~a\i!'s þfe'l'lInrlQr) erv!..., . ' ! ,roJ.~ -57r--tJ!roO_Y'IIS.n.:I'Communl'r~~·tI1,",r:~nlelIi.OI\roeCcIl"C't - - -i-~ ~T$O r-- !j7~ /Þrlmary C,re Qu!r11aCh Proram CSI¡r¡ Coa¡: Ho.¡~laI) FI1ellu County ! _ ¡,O,COO ~74 'CIlO~l FlClnda Helllll C#~ Inc - Ha~." ojlghl~. Polio : Z2S.000 r---m--p¡iSCriPtìOrI A.;œss for T"- t.lnóerserv8i1 . ~u~~.t .~.HC' HiliSÒOIoUOh i _ Pi?~ 5H . I Teleho.pic:e . þ.oÞ+ ko~picc . Lee c~ I el.~ ~IPnmøryCI1f" Cenler. Oanl,;¡ BU;/1 . Motmor1.1l He<I;~ CtIr9 Svllems ! $;'.ow S1'¡ I H.>w<tcw,";;r1\Y uc.:tan... .III......,C CO\,lf\1y l ---;.~ -. :l74~NewsCar'-ëtl\l'''-~eCoullry ---- , ¡ 1~OOO - "$74 l"ami·Oed. Chld~ Leoni ~ Pre....Illicr.l'ltIQtim -~ ___'. ~ ! 15.0l\0 ON ISarnot M.",OI}' DIsorIHI þ~ - ~ Bf~~ Hos~ i 15000 "'-"-""--- PIgG hI 5 p.2 --.. ~ - Jun 05 02 04:20p r-S:: APPROPRl A 11 Jt~ PAGE ø::: ~b/e5/2ÐÐ2 1~:30 85f'd8B433Ð 2001 Special Session E Veto List , . E \ ' . ,,' ,.., ',.".. -, . ..j "'·~···z*::; : ;.: -'. .,~. ,H827 ", ,,;r:.~' '1~'¡:4~;~~,,"{t;-þ"..~t...,· -;,"Itjj·,·::' ~·:lí'n.\·R.m . . ':, ~ ' . '''~.. ): T1tJt -: ~~ -.J Þ...> )\. ,'),,' J' \.. t·)·'Ì~.~~·· ."~~ ",:" 57A 'SQlllh Broward Ho~pilÞl t).:lIrlCI.Héailll St,...,l¢n·Sgeo;¡1 NHdslOtaa~~ ~ul,\lon , - - - m--' · cÒ<ññW-ni":ÿ 'Mediüï ~,. cèïiìëî":'tm'ÞUt'O ~ -'~~Pri-ëY c:i';,s'iÑi6t¡:M;;;Qfi\y -UndaIS\l~ Popu:aUOn . Soulll BtCWl~ Ko,pilll 574 . Rytal Hiiith-t'ïëtWõtkõTMðñ(õë County - 574 ',ndì'geiiiD8/'1lal Car~ PrOgtllrtl - sãÚëd He!ll\ C.'jldrDt'" Hospllal . E'carr~ CounIY _~_, 574 ""fš¿amtliàéóVniy Billed ~õ¡;¡'t--' i S14 --W'Õmon'i-H'ëðÏÏlÏ. ê'ãitiio,Va$t~l<lr l~iU"'Ì'<tI . Statewide -5-:;r-" - .unj~;TIy-ëjršõüiì\fIOtiOii'fåmpa 'ëëner¡¡l HO$;>1a1 StrO\ce I.,JI\¡¡U...e Prajc!" '---"S7S' Ã --W¡;;¡¡¡G¡'~n -~,-tifhAíG'.;'~ê-·- - ~--")õi! DiMâ~~ôÕc-';¡jd;éñ', HO~¡)¡ii:ii:)'17mäiõ'ÕQY(~OQY F'rognl<1\· Browatd County ("011' Iro~U\"I'¡"'iJ) ---š"99'-' -'¡;ïôi1da cã;;¡P¡; è¡¡idr.ñ¡;;;('-Y~\h wi" :)Ia:!e¡æ-"-AAidiiiã ëõ:'inty (M~,~curriMg) ~ ---'I!t~bê,ëõil¡ërRead:-ëQìtë'fëõu"~y ('eGu<ril\g) --....... 615 Â : Flor~~-ÏJieiñ~i"¡ Mimõ;¡ëj"~"ãlï.-ši~Lï,cie C~---- ~~ ~êÕn\racltCe-;:'Îûil;Wã-š'ië'Uãn¡gerNenl in Prh:Ot\$ - ---e]Õ~f-OC Ñ-;sëc¡;rë 'Tfe Dtmip;oo;.¡rn - eao.. IAgjØt wõmëi\iïëin\er - (174 Þ. :Galewo)' èc'"ñi,;':~~iÏŸŠervi\;es for Ir3f'sitJooel ~ng IOf dudy diaQ~ In,";ltn 11ï:s-rsic1etl of !u~œl' - ---rr43¡uñi~ëisny of Miami F.Jmlly Wetlr1ess Trc!~!me"t f::Jr sa.~.1y ~itlQue!" Yot1th -'1144 A. : Gïa/llS Ar:d Aid."'g ;.ocãi GO~.II'ñirM1\1$ A.'\d NttI$~'c EntlU4l!; - FIxed Cèøil¡1 QI¡\la'f" AIJ;løe II l Fb:ecI Capital Ou«ay Needs , 144 e IGiDnla ~ Aids To LOCõII Govemmer.ts Ar4 "-eftS:,'e En\l1" . F1x~ CÐp;·.a1 o\¡Uay . 1'1,.. I !Port Itl(:h&y ~:¡rIM "',\il...'. r '117 ¡FriendS of th. !:\derly Trefnklg C~øiH'ic~ '011-101118 (/!ETCH) I 1190 ¡Jobs fOI FIOn4¡ GtacNlI-eS -- 1190 ! Southeu\ Florida Gano ActMly PrevenÖOl\ PIOIr.I'" "90 ¡MalS Cads ciìÕa<!e CoIIl1ty ~~_. ¡Palm B~1iIdI COutliYTrvancy Itltervcl\\Jon 11110 I Firlñou$e 't'1;ftItt; Cenler 1 ~90 !Cetaty Tr¡¡i"ir>g PrO;tam 1190 iJ!Jvcnlle Adl.lltWQI1(Strvlc:es- I -~ 1I.Gr:.all~ À~d ....ids To ~ocal GQ'Je,.,m~\.;Anð N(¡I\&La'e Entibs . ~ed CeciLal Oullay - Grana ¡ lAM ^K\S . CI'WQ ¡>6~" 'rQulJllnltM""O^ ~*",\er -+- 1233 : Cit'f of Noll" Miil," Bo30.'"'h ~lir, \JØ9ioÞ -t- 150.000 1233 :Palœ Co~r,ty ôllellft's?ffic::a L~w En!Ór;emeo\ Radie Syolum Upgt;lld¡¡-- ----1....=-- ïoo,cco 1233 ICItJ~n'$ C,jm.. Walch 01 Mlom¡' O~<lt: ÇQunI¡' . ,..__,J~ 1GO.OCO 1303 " iLul'f'4) Sum. FIQt1d;¡ S~le InUlaUI/II .¡- , .OOO_OOQ 1345 A ;Aid To Local GOVff~~:$· Grarl!$Me! AAI3. Sc~ And WatlfCoat Sharing Ptogr.am 'T ~oa,ooo 1409 I BuckhaDd Ri!lOf' Uftt,qu!1O ConI"'. O;$l-ict 'S,cCO 10411 A : Special Calogor;c~· ~.c¡uilo Cenlrol Program ~ -2,500,ÕÕÕ 1443 II - ifôlJced Capital Ouby- ~ldQr18 Ane! R.~.oe~l. Po~anoS\a1e Farme':; Malll'\- Om!> I ~CO.COO ~. ,U IM~d ,__ I 14043 C ,Cre$MewlO~QQ:$a MIJhl'Pl,lrpgJa ~rrI;Iy Fac!I.t)I - PNost' II 144;} C : "'Oriç\lllural CtN,,' RenOya~on-Ok..C1Iol:e. '443 C f:IQt,do City Farnw'1 '-Ia¡1(o\ Inlta31Nc:lU", ~"'9 '" ¡VF.\FAS nQ~ ~I_ Rlsl!al'l:n at',d EclVceUlln I::tf\!ef - ACuac:urtvre Prg¡;l1Im SutlØOn 1!í23 A ;Senlq CenllitlSpecial Need; $hl!:\lar Fac.if1) '523 A ;O;ange COUl'lty ~nlf Parcel InlllOlp(ÎOll 15~3 ^ 11::11)' of NQ,;I\ M,."" ø...d1 $c,;urity U9II'~ "'---;523 A .enll.oo.:d 911 -I.efal)ellt CQUl1IV "23 Po. _ eoc eo.,.,munlcaÜQt\J ~Id.nod Cel'll'" 1~::J A ; !!In$'¡¡¡eoçy OØOI,\1oN C'nllr . Dada CD 1523 A 'Monloe Counl)' Emlllg6"Cy OP~'IUOI'Ið C,,,tar ··t,. .~ ..:~~.. .'Tet;ol ¡ 75.IJCC .~---¡--- --.-" 50.000- I ---,'- 7~.õéõ i , ....'37.500 -' iëi:ŠOO ..- '37,'000'" -- "37:500 - i.èß:-õo'Q ... _n .. 7S,OOQ .. -200~OOC --;----. -' i6~OOO ---------' '-~,B:¡6 -~'~---¡_. -' ,òo":õõQ ,- --I~- - ~97.22' '---¡--"ÏíC:OOo- ..l 23~.221 I 100.OCC ,--_.---~-=- ~ +-. -_.~ , 2Q.OCO ft----2õõ,õÕÕ 5CO.OOO - --i5õ.õõõ eo ,000 ".....- 250.000 3SQ,CQO 3CO.OCO 200,QOO 200,000 5õ.õõã 250.000 , , - .. . 1UO;Q(jij"" ;)5Q.~(O 100.000 \ ,ð2.779 500,000 1,ItO,OOO 110.000 50,000 100.1)00 . ",- 100.000 200,000 ,,- c ,-, j page 2015 p.3 - -- -- p.4 05 02 04:20p J un. _ ._. .. ....~J(. J..... .:H) 1:J5Ð488';33Ð HSE AF';:>RIJPR:Aì!Q:.. PAGF.: 113 2001 Special Session E Veto list I HB27E:;' .', ", i~ "r" ,:;~,. '. ,.OJ' ··"·~f ": :"!' "~l"'" .. . . :!;' .,!.¡;-':;r' ::.¡. ~!. .~:~;? : !","'f-l' , .\~'.~J~: ,;' - , . . LI~e"iem :. ;i..' '.' :~~~:"ff.f:rlll.:,-,:".",. ~~. '~¡'~'/~,.·· .!. ' '; ~.':: '. To!~r ~ =--=,~ 1523 A ¡Manatee Cwlf Spød~1 Need, !'adr.l)' GenetilOf I 50.000 .- 1523 A ~åkP.-9-::;¡-Iefè¡ÎrïTaii:"'fi$¡ìiitoñ- 1-'--- ðs:ëõõ .- 1523 A íFJ;eï'iã'ïnil1g TÕ;t.Rijl1aCGment - : .. ".'."öô.èÕõ' 11:>2,) 11 : Big Trèë RO:;11 P~r.c MessaG'l Cenl<:r---r---.- ~õ.õõO . ~~'~¡'-êã"Pš"uÏ:iiìõnPrÕì~'111 Cnl~f'I'" Hõ.s~~ .----- .¡-- -2":;ö.(i.5Q .. '~3 A Tã;'or coui;yË~nC'1 Re:ii()!\~e CBnter - ~-_...J.._ -- '-- -{ã'õ:OõÕ - 1523-"'-' l~~!~o/ .!.~~~~:lïií;r.---=-_ _ ------=--=:-~==_1-~~ ....~~~ __'S23A~I~C~~~~.'~~~I!.' .___.__.__ _...:._ -------J-___._ ~10'OO~ 1523 A EMS SlaUon!S'leller So~IPle8SI : 10:; 000' ""152:iÃ-~M¡ÍlõñõisulerSiï;clerfReç~~~on ¿tote;- ~ --~--r~" , zco:Wõ --111iA-'Õe~¡'y B¡~(hé'iTÌ!!fõè"ey S~.lt., R~"'Qr.1 -- ---- - ----..--·1-··-- - 11)õ.õòä --f~n.---- Bo"':~ng GrO;:;- CQ;T;ñü~ï:y &n,,, & sr.ener 4-- -- . .. I so:Õoo '-"ïš23Ã'~~R~~ [)¡s.-šietëcnio'CIItI~;I·Spedø/"N~ F1ÇI.~ -----r--- ":öõ'Oõcï -'~~tDí8ë~~i~"'ëiiëï~ Fmtl'04l1<:y MaNaQfIlnenl .---~'- ,... iõ;O.òõ ~~:A. iP'im 8ãY!'~Opltr=-dons CenlerfSl\øl.ë, ----r-----:-='Jq>~õõ 15~4 A :SO"lh County CQrT1munl¡¡lltevl\¡liza~on Pian ~ ~--¡--- ICO.OOO . "7'( Å ¡~r:nce!On OperariCtlS Centet ~õõ.i:iõC ~ À f Profe3 slonii!õøPQrlun Illes fo< St.Jdtnls (POI'S) _ 1-'-' ~3_Q.:?~OOO 1574 A' :Pa~ks l..andioQ Atrordallle Houa~1'I¡ r 1>:1,000 '-1574 A IP/Qrld. City AJtord¡t)e HouslrIQ ProCl'.lm -.- -: ----ïõo.õoO ~~"'I KaT Habitat fOr -Hu,,",:l!'IJiy ANordablc- ttouling Dev ¡ - --- -5ô.õõO --;fsm~al ~egor~s - Miaml'O~e C~ty EM9OWettntnl2one - ¡----fëõõ:ôoõ 1800 IFlofldl !¡llIdrOçi)romh: P~ram I 750,000 ~. .1' __-¡- .,,~ - 1600 TRen.....blc ¡;I1ergy "Leon Cel/lIly ! 1.000.000 1624 A i $pc..;1 Categories . Aeq~isìlil;m 01 ~.olOr V-"Içjaa . 31g,OOO ,- 1632-~Hi:i~ah P,ri ROJœ "r'açJ( -. I 10<:1.000 r-,.~845 j~scayn. 8;:oy C....atel Ww\lill1d, t:ERP Pro"ç~ .__ - e,~~ 1 t36 A ¡Sped'" CI!e\¡OIl.s - Ac;quislllOll Of Motor Vtl\Ì<;ln -1=, ~~ '785 A. 'I<.y lllrOO Was""'.!;:r Tl'Qlmell: [)j&trï.:l 200,000 ~~ ~s..sSll1enl Dr Ioiarmful Ale... QIoo~1aò Q(\ ëõl1lr RH/$ in Sooth Florida (Gteen T:d~ j ---SOo,ãèõ :" 1769 ¡CII3/loUe P;¡,k Wa:tle'Naler E.panslon-·Cily )f Punll C;orlll _ I _ ~!l3.265 176; ¡ChaUallOOçhee Wastewater Tte"tI1I'lI! Flcjijly Improvement I 2'So.OOC I I __'__'~ 1759 " Cil')' or BlQunls!i)'...." S.......... UpgrOd. _. ~~ -' 1189 City I>f Montk:4l:o InftOWIlr¡r,llrauOtl '2!i¡) .000 17G9. ICltyofPa'm8:aYSèptiçT~li.s -- I '-1~O~ÕÕÕ -. 1769 [CiIy 0' 51. ClOUd Sewer ReglilClima,.¡ - t '50.000 ~?I!i/ !Cult....-ë;h3M~ "A" Olainili("PlojlÎct I !oo.ëõõ 17I:ig tNj1e Ga'del'¡ Orain8ge l"'Ofove'mel1'k 25õ]'õ¡) - 1169 -lp~II:I$ COun~-Orma:li IlTIQro~"1'1eI1IPart 91\o<d '--+~' --Šoo:ëõõ 17G9"IPUl1la GOlda WaSlew"l., Tl'ealmønl Planl fixpao~on ' I 3.90B.~e '-" '---- i7tì9 !S~yvI.w WaM.....aler SyJtom, : 821.000 1769 ¡SoIona WaS~Ir\þtQ'ternen~_c.~ of P\ÞI'i!;¡ Corti" ¡ ~tIO~ 115!) ISwth Mi.nll Potable W'!W Project I 250.000 '. 1169 ¡Wares Creek "",¡inII!NinCfI DredglnQ 3~ 1769 IW'5\J\ilgYSbne 'Septic a~ StwtrRtnO'<tD~on I -_ _~~~ --i?lI!I ¡W"~I Mt.......¡ wu....."ter "'fO/eel ¡ 700.000 17g6 A ¡Rur.,! Eool\QrnicO'....igpment ¡¡nd In~lu", -= Hard.. CO""1y ! 2500.000 __---J,._. _ 17g8 A I Cenrr:<'s ~( e[çe,,*,~ In OtQõJI1Iç Itaeyding ~r CO~"tl ~~~¡rltne;~~ ".c.o:~" C.......ty . 1{143 A ¡W.e C.r~ Pal¡ - WallM County 1843 A. j BI,cayne ~OI..!I. p,ri( . t.4i1n11/0~~;¡¡;¡· ~ 1870 Â f.~ed Capllôll c\l~Way . Navarr. 8e1l~ S~~ 1~9 A r5peçlai CatlIlOf'Îet. . ConI1~ Sw.iQts ,- .=>11183 or!> - 2"iiõ.õW ~75oÕÕÕ I-L 150.0GO 1,_ _ '~-~Ooo~o t= t=- 2.;~~:~~: I i --- Jun 05 02 04:20p ~~fÐ5/7~62 ~~:3Ð B~Y1"8843n Hsr APPROPRJ.ATlC!-j PAGE 134 2001 Special Session E Veto List . ¡ . ·.~,),:\~1~:~~·:;·.~\~~ ·~?;'~~I~~~::~;~.., r·~·.- ;:·;~t~1~..< ~'\~t :~1fí&f!~'-~~;·)~~~~::..·j .J: .: _:....: ,;', , .',...,~,o\.j, f.1·"'"::' ;Tlllo;·", . ,":'1\." /.~..'¡;"." ·q~.·,.;I?b,,· ;0.'. '. '1 olal :z004 A iS~çi¡¡¡ CaleçOli~s - Oertllrct VeS$.1 Remov3! Pl'IIgnm : 501),(>00 ~B-iii;~-èö¡"lbl Ó~ìï;¡·"iõõMègl~~ DlSp..~ c.~ler, La¡¡. C¡¡y-----,- ... -1Ó2",CQQ· - 201 1 Ã-ts¡;¡~aïcãi.9Ô<ies-:-¡cql.is:~n Ahd Re~iã'ëëm./lt Of Boa~. MOkirs: Artd 'rra:r..rs t--. -;;sJòò- _. 20.2. A I Fii;.d""CãpHaI ÕÙU;¡y. Vi$ilor FãCJ~ . ~rø4 C. eabCÔCilJ~~w.bb Wlld!Lfe "'f¡r,a9~,~Î¡---' -~,(¡,ii2 ,_.JAnr. ·Orn~ ~__~__ _ ___~ __. ¡ ____. 2036 B H)(ed Ca;¡IUlI OIJV.y - Wes: FIOIIda AnI/lor o.Jtr~ach Cel'lter i 31>9.1'6 . 2õ4s C-!GrÏt¡;¡;-Ãnd-Ãid¡Yõr~r Governrn..'IIs And Nõñs-t;;¡.ë;G~e~ - FI~ðdC,p:tãiOJt'a)~-f --- -. ;!!4~~õO ' G~Qef Progrdm ! -----¡ö¡iI"""1<ë?Trd"é"':"MQ't¡;;;¡¡i,ìii'ëT·ãt!- '. '1.ÔO¡).OO" --------1-.. ____.._____ ______._.._____ ____ _____----._ .._~__.._ 2049 ¡R$ð r,d/! RIW~arch 15,000 -206ð -." JiÕtid:a rìiñ;¡wt:J! on çOo'TImÌS$ion . S!raï;Ç¡Ç¡;r';ñiõmaxlmlzl Idt-rã'i"'reã~",u~-!~-"-· - ioooO,) 1"~<'I<!f : -.. 201i-·!N~Hl;"Id".i"~Qf' IS¡¡;¡ i:¡~~OJi':'ãri'õôt . P~m I PD&f; $îudi-~--- --j -..-··'·25CÕOO --21ô2A';rIJ~ Sum. Tr"'s;tb-1 e~~Of Ñë... Cfb¡ìiet Offle&r$ ~-~~-~---'-.ÕQô.OOõ --"16& A-Toe... :Ì'ï;'¡;¡ñõF~'~(;r¡:l;¡¡;ëii~jT~ì;ï;;ëiãri¡:-ïridi'aramediëã:-lnf:aJ\:d 1Í\84'T.. ~;'~;:1!-' - gofè()O _ ____~!~'!,~œ$ ~!~efi9l':0!1:S .. _ _ ' 217\18 ¡Tampa Hills, Ut~"n lea!lctO HI1dquartt<~ Ii SIoIILs T,¡inìng elf -5f.ooo' --222nl TS~e~~;¡ c¡~ëg~~1$ ·ñõñl.?.~~wernor$I~<:!lullé¡' Opgral1"M '-115.000 . 2236 E i TI10 Cl1litj Car. A.~s(>CI~'iO" 01 8N1.ard I 100.000 _ 243~ ~ lsp.C~8~: lm'~.'1!I' 70 The ~IOric:l' Mobil. Home Rtloc.:.uo" TI1,~ ~--T~·1õõ.õõ5" 2484" IHJmarJ ()fvlloøtnenl & AUQIllas CIf., 51. Lucio Co ' -~Õ~ 24~~~A}Clorl ..-. ~~~~ SD,OOlJ 24&1 A I)rban ßiJSiness ECC<>Omk: tJeoJelopmofl\ P¡ovratn (U"I;O) I !iQ,OQO 2484 A Ðf~çk StHet Re~torat)on ProgriJlYt --- J ·~o,OOO 2464 ^ EnE':n"eriO¡¡ Stl)Oy. PlneUas c() 1 12$.'JOÕ 2484 À IOrmond eeaQh Cc'.~or econornl~ RtNlt Pian (CERP) ! -iOo.otO \ ...--- . -~-_.., ...- 24&4 II I Jupltlr Thealle Aet\\lJsit:Qn WId Reno\lõltloll ~ __~ I '00.000 :>4114 A p.~bggy ......~:to~...n - ¥pIUSi& CQ -' ·-·-----¡-------;OO.ooo 24&4 A. Tarpotl Spnngs ~8M1J$l:um and Par'( -~ 100.000 24ß.4 A ~T,T. W~r;.'OI111 51..hl Museutrl.\ G6rd.~S .-----+- ~____SOC.ODO 2484 A I Florida S.""œ"š'bpo>l """!Item (FSep ! 400.000 2464 A I Mayor. Svmmllol the ÂlT\eral. Int ---"-,õõ.õõõ 2484 Po _[0.... Stop PtlMliIbl1g. 9ltJward c~ - -~-------'s1.QOO 24,~ A ¡~QOr1cmìc Incenll\l$ P~ra"' ~,OOO 24$4 A .1lorida SfT'P'Owermtht Zone ~I ._________ "iÕõ:õ'õO 2 ð4 ^ IHIJBZONE Bullr.e~~ Op~r1un:~ i 50.000 1.~üïus: T~OQy AS!1IQMIf __=--_ ì '-- ~o.oC() 24M" "-!USF'~ POlicy Excl1ar\O$ Center 00 AgIr1~~~ an AffolÛlble À.$:ist~.Uv1nC Se,-vle8$ fc~: 100,C:00 ~otI~ ÞftsOnS t 711ð4 A Lake i!uUlr Mair¡ Slr6e\ Sê....lIO. Cgllector Repal!$ -~., ....Ounalt;l HOIIse lItenoY2tions 211604 A POOCII (!t Leo/\ SOuIev~~ E.COI'IOIY1IC Revlta11u\loo 2486 : Palm BiI)' Selw.r - Brvv8(d Co 2.88 ìÖr1.".v..I'.<>,;,,~.... AirporI E...rJ ~amp f'\'IY."'è"'! Rehab ~- IKrs~ilY1mt. Pllk ~Oii:l Turr1Øil\e E~d\8l1>g. 2466 Rel\¡\b. Ri.lnway 19·38 P8\1GfT'tllt FOOT P~Je~t M\)96:!3 ..lIae Bay Counl)t ¡"Ie~ø.....t TI'II~.~...t_ S~3:"'" ~rre;Wl48-Vt'\9 oj S¡¡b,l¡¡¡nd..-d fl:oa¿~~ 21185 !P¡eflmln,)')' Desigo Sl~d)' for co",tIty Ro;)d Z10l'JS 1 ._~.. .... _,24M lorl.~1'Ido ~~y.! Aviil~on W.s~'" P:ad i=..çilldeø 24!1& Wid.m"S Of Sal'lll Ulk9 RQ84 2486 test VIr&il\l, ~Sl ~~, 24e6 ¡Ic;e P:al:le.to \g \'t1\iUng line . Tampa !!etllle StrMlc.r 20486 r (;11)' 01 Opa-L.oek.I SIred RMUrf.cïlÌø. køne' L.1n.'ltirÍi: '" . Pol"'" gl!.i I ,.-L i i i ¡ -- 100.000 1QO.000 25(1.000 --i1ií5.<:IOO ,- '50.000 -150.000 :ZSO,OOO ~SO.(jOO 5õ.õoõ ~---_. I 100,000 --:' 150,000 t--' 400.0~ 1 100.CeO ~ --¡õÕ,Õ\j1i t~- --5õ."ooc i -t I , I p.5 - ---- p.6 05 02 04:21p \]un ....v' '..Jf .''(,,or..r£ 1t¡: 3t1 853<289<2330 HS£ ~~PPlJPRrAT:~, PAi:j:: 65 2001 Special Session It Veto list i H82Të·;,' '" ;,,;;P;,:,.;';-','1<·.,' .r·,··;;~Tf', f ;.." r Un. lam .,' :<', ;1 '~""':; "Þ'. . TltI,: ..·.::·,.."·),1·/,..:::.' !::: '1-<d :.:' To\.:ll 24B6 IMaln. 511e,1 . OranQiI Co ! 6QO.C'00 '-~2~-'Tc7n~';;;;;;;;-~LDk~Co h.____~___ r--- 'ëC'Õ:ëÇÒ. - -i¡~ '-j RJetlt-õiW"yÄ~ìsilio-;Tci¡:Ëw Slat. Ro.¡ìif.~o-- -, : ~--, 5a{ÕÖÕ ~ --~~~5 .=.i~~ï¡¡¡-~¡¡~~~~QO \0 ~..:.-=-_._~____, __~ .. ',,-_.. " iJO.OOO' 2485 !Sl~'e Road 16 (>~ 1.I.:oncl)_ - ïro:Qoõ '~1486" TpaÎÑÏQ'I~~-EaïM;;¡¡;¡------------ ..~--' ~Co.o-o-Y "'2486 -¡ptop¡ëMõVë;-Feu¡ti;¡¡t;;~-~---,·_~_ ; . ~-.. ",~;¡'1;oo . ~:.~: ~=1:~~:o~~fn~~~i~UAN3ij~ C."I~~__~_.__=- _-L~= ?,C~ 1 1)jO,QOO ·-·2~ïõ.;'~d-Ort POt1"Rãn-Sy3!em ¡mÕt~Me"ts ----- ~~-- - _. ~~O;¡O ·--~-TsideWiik:~ø;;õñc¿-St.hool. rowo .'lU-~----·--'·_--"'-;~__. '$Õ~ '-~;¡-6Õ-" ~r.bïã'''us W~î~-¡~:;~ COVl1tÿ- '~--_'_h'~______ ---¡--oõ'ooo I" 2ièc¡'" !stãiè Road :m-eXi,õ',¡¡ö;,---- ------.-~ ~-, '-~:ëCõ ---......~-_..- ---- .-------.---- ---------.. ---.- 2411fJ I Av~liQl\ FII~I Fltm; FOOT Prnj~ct" II09t!::u I :"'.000 --'~-rëüõJiilèiõrRoá¡'. Olela Slale Pa,"-- --- -f'----' '45S,õOO =-·24~:·ffiQ~;d"¡ç;,¡-Ÿ;'iRã¡,;;ø¡ F~~"mln31 'or W OrlnQ..Cõ--· ." --, --- -- __,~.~~; ~YJ.rl~ -~:-~~~. ~~ Coast AJ1 TralTlç Radar S~,tcrr. ______ j _ !.!:.OOQ ,2A86 My'1/. Ave, RQ¡c!way Oranage Impto\lle(rlenl --r 3~,OOO ~~.. T~"BouJ,vari"ov~m,p'flCrIarSCO -==~~_,===.::r-=,J}O,OOO __~rtS'CUlÌtyE"Nlnc.&.""'tlb'81~. ¡ _.~'~ __~_lll'i,,&,;tQf151r.~~~~ _ _ I _1.~ -_ 24ð5 ~!POr1 of "II11Pa!J"(~modal V;a/d.Vth¡tle OiSII'IbuUCh1 Cenler ____ , I _ _~~ _ 248$ SA 1_Dt;¡nag._lrrI¡)/'C....me.'t.W.IIB~~__._, --' _ ~!~ 2466 l.n.'\J"'v.r~ P,¡,h'IY Intll~lIgê I ~C'J.QCO --g¡¡¡ Vir1\1al Olive' SIn1viãi!õñSyslem --¡=' 700,000 ~88' Adcill1~11 WQrller$;-Comp"nsa~OI1 f'ro9ram PQ,íiio,,~ I 5405.021> "'---ž74i\" R'I9lQnal s-~u Car>te' $~,,;ae -~ .. l--=--~~ 278JA ,OlherÞQ.'onaIS9tV1tf~ ~-~--,-- ~ ~C.OOO 2766 A S~cialciteõõiiëS. ~./urb¡,Jh Svrplus Property ~~=- ---l.-_ ~,i,,1\)I; 3f06£ Spocl,¡ C~\eQOIìk . Acqv1aj~on or M'JIIJr VehiCleS I 14.Soo -3.06 G SPfCial C~tego"u. PC'oIOII Cro$:)' Estate '~ - ---,- 4<10,000 3139A Hðm:tn~C0\/1iyPuÞUCll)fWyS1$!fm -_.. ~' ~,~O 31:!9A lllkeCouhlylltltary()petarOll~ ----- ! 5C.COO 3 mA FI Anaç, of W0/Tl4n'8 & Gi~S Cll.lbs. Il1cJQays' AuxlUory - . ì - ~Q .'XÕ 3139 A I &a)l of Pigs M\l1IWtI\ & Ubfa~ r ~,!X:O ,- Jag A It.I&t\rfirÌg GffClIl1~ -- 'I, 4:X;.900 ; 1)& ^ H/iIT,ãhHiij¡II Cvll\If,l ~hler - S:I.C')O 3'39A H/aIcOhUÞ/ill) - ¡ 5i)~o.~ 3139A Hispa"klh.ah-.GviI4-- --~.- í 'OOOOD TQlal 1.1". kem3 V.tõêd In kB 27E 9G,j5$..ne Î'--- -- I ~ -~ i-~_._ OrhC'f a.cho". I Sect,on 17 1'Mãñ.,lee COVIlIy SMARTSCf1or;, O-:IT1OttSlrlllJc:n Hi¡¡h 5el',001 trorr\ SIT funda ,ö~ S.crion ~6 Óo..er Sr¡¡~b'fry Res,ardl . FCO for Gtllf Coast RaS9li't/\ anll ¡;duci~on CfWe' ~--'ð~O.OQa __S":CliQO 3i!~rvlc. ¡:¡..!..'W F~ Iç¡ Prn,rva!fon 2OO0.-nd FIO;:¡¡jãFõiiiVêïbO,.,¡;--¡-----¡oCooo,ooo --¡--- ¡ : ~afldTotal : 20r.<C5..HI - - - T Peg& 501 5 [9~¡J~o~ard-kerri335ào()() . , p.~iJe11 11 e(!: 80eL ........ þ~11bV ?¿; [ ] Telephoned ~ [ ] Will call again [*] Please call ~ [ ] Wants to see you [ ] Returned your call () A [ ] Urgent [ ] Came to see you fYJ foI- WAnts some dates to know when Senator Pruitt can ~ T. make some check presentations to the Board. From: To: Date: Caller: Company: Phone: Angela Huff Doug Coward Thu,. May 23, 2002 10:37 AM Kern Senator Pruitt's office 335 8000 j!:t: .;¿6-d_ ~ ~~-cLv ,r- ¡j¿ ~ V- r ¿L . «f~ adZ ~~ãJ7~' fJ¡/~-Jd'~~/~'~ ~ j¡ 7t~N)t1-/J"'MII Jd- ~ -ttJ~+ ~r-J ~~ >f<i¡J,0ò¡titi¿ _ ~ rf}~ P-IÆO/J-¡? ~ W ____ J 1k& "-I.» -c/Jd áJao ~) M áJ&Jd &.a 11 -4 ~ ¿UtùJ ~ (fi.¡vLír éÐ- _._----~ ;; C"(~llinWŒ ~I J~ MA y ~ 3 2002 ~ CO. ADMIN. OFFICE ~ , I' I J I I I I I I , I I I I Existing Airport Industrial Park State Fiscal Year 2001 / 2002 Revised September, 2001 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS UTI LITr ES DEPARTMENT 'MLLlAM ßLAZAK DIf\EGOf\ MEMORANDUM TO: State Legislators FROM: St. Lucie COlmty, Florida William Blazak, Utility Director DATE: Fiscal Year 200 I - 2002 Continued Funding Request RE: AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK (EXISTING) The project that St. Lucie County is requesting continued additional funding for is a project that was initiated and presented to the Water Advisory Panel in Fiscal Year 1999-2001. The project met the criteria set forth by the Water Advisory Panel and received $50,000.00 of a requested $1,200,000.00. In Fiscal Year 2000 -2001, Water Advisory Panel new applications were not accepted with the direction that all previous partially fimded projects would receive additional fimding toward their completion. This project received an additional $100,000.00 towards that effort, 2001-2002 State fimding, but is still not totally funded. As a result of the initial funding from the State, engineering design and permitting activities have occurred and a complete set of plans are ready for bidding and construction. The most recent fimding allocation, $100,000.00 \vill allow for formation of a Municipal Service Benefit Unit and physical construction of Phase one. Formation of the Municipal Service Benefit Unit will provide St. Lucie County the ability to collect matching funds, from existing land owners in the Industrial Park, to improve our ability to receive continued State fimding. The project has been divided into multiple phases to accommodate future fimding appropriations that would be less than the $788,000.00 cUlTently requested. Currently, St. Lucie COW1ty is requesting $ 788,000.00, this fiscal year, to complete the wastewater collection and conveyance system in the existing Industrial Park. This amount represents 65% of the original Water Advisory Panel request. If any additional information is needed please feel free to contact: William Blazak, St. Lucie County Utility Director - 561- 462-1150 office 561- 462- 1153 fax BillB@co.st-lucie.f1.us e-mail Rev.09!OJ JOHN D, O;1.IJHN, D"rricr No, 1 . DOUG CO')/Af\D Disrricr No,:2 . P,:,:JLA A, LEWIS, Disrricr No,.3 . mANNIE HUTCHINSON. Dlsrricr No, 4 . CLIFF OARNES. Disrricr No, 5 COCJnry Aj,,,,nlsrroror ' Douglas M, Anderson 2300 Virginio Avenue · Fort Pierce. FL 34982 · Phone (561) 462-1150 · FAX (561) 462-1153 1~~~l~\!'i I; ey",<¡,,1 . 't:j'!;b\~;¥¡Ð¡\ii;¡¡i¡ (,!,' , ":;\$~fil~~________,_____ b -_..._-------------~-- (' . . ... ~ ' '. . -".. '. ....,_0 .._ _'c........',," . '. . -" , .~-"~. ..... ,"... '.', . ,-.,' <, ;;." ,- ";':;>='-~~';>:ú~fy .~ .....; Indial1 River Estates/Sa\7annas Water Retel1tiol1 Facilities Retrofit Project State Fiscal Year 2001 / 2002 Revised September, 2001 Indian River Estates/Savannas Water Retention Facilities Fìetrofit Project A proposal for $S.5million to build a nov'/ walor Ictentioí'\ facility to improvo the flow of \vé1ter, reduce floocJinç) and improvD \\'ater quality in Indian r-iiver' Estates and the Savannas. :r{))ç~~i::~~'i~~.%~~~r;:;::~t>2>~~;!~t.~~~'h~"~""."~,<':; >vC:'~"-~"{ . ~J,. . ,/ .tWg'/?t':¡~ ~~<..,:>. . ~.. .\lJ·,...,·· e. ~::,~:<i~\ ';'~,;>,.,." ,:\J>,.> (;, .IS . ·ill:h".....<('·~'..'r.. ". ...... .~~~h:\'Yt.........f j' !.~~. ";'<J__ ,~~, \~t.:...-.:",;"'J. '. :..... ~." '>':tr'l'~' ;:,·~t ~.,,~ . J' J ~'f'.., ~ c ' ., ~ f:~k~~ii1f~~l ·;~i~~f.';( ..·..,~^~~~~41~tJ.~~}~.. i~~:;~ l".;,J~.;~ ~..~...",-:.> ~'b"'i,i,¿,\,-::~~".·-..·~"';i!""?f; '. . '," '-,' . "~~J.Ùf.~~,;,,'}'('·(iY;~/i.,~~::~;'L:;;Aj~~~~~J:~',' . _~ " ~.,~.., ,.<, ,0:-., . ~......."-.;>' "'J ~,..,., ~:;~_.,,'~;:::'~~~~~i~~~4~~ ~~~:"J. - .I~:~·. . ,1r~~~'c~"""';Ç<i.".,:.;,~~'~~' ~,." . :,' "-. Y~';"':7J"'~'-?:"~'::?'" -.;: p>: '-:~~, :':5-:.<~~?/..,~~·>,:'·Y?;/·~~;'';~;; ~.'V:,'ç¿: , -. INDIAN RIVEn ESTJ.\TES/S!\VANNAS WATER RETENTION FACILITIES nFrnOFIT PROJECT Project Manager: Don West County Engineer Amount of Flequest: $2.5 Million Description of Project: Current,!y, St. Lucie County is partnering with SFWMD, FDEP, and Indian River Lagoon j\jational Estuary Program (NEP),to design this facility. The project involves constructing a storm water collection and treatment system to handle storm water runoff from the Indian River Estates Subdivision. Storm water runoff from the subdivision drains untreated into the Savannas State Preserve. This is having a detrimental effect on the Savannas ecosystem. Storm water from Indian River Estates Subdivision will be collected and pumped into a retention pond to improve water quality, prior to being discharged to the Savannas. Final design plans have been completed at this time, and we are currently investigating land acquisition for the retention pond. The project cost is estimated at approximately $5.5 million, including land purchase. Permitting and land acquisition are underway, and should be completed within 12 months. Construction could commence by October, 2002 pending funding. The County is requesting·$2.5 million from the State for this project. A 50-50 local match of $2.5 million is proposed to be borrowed from the State Revolving Loan Fund. \^Je are currently applying for funding through the SRLF Program. Reason for Project: This project will reduce flooding in this residential area and improve the quality of life for it's residents. It will also improve the ecosystems throughout the ,Savannas State Preserve. /" ;~ ;- t 11 Ronòla l. BooK, P. H. -~=~~.. lHW omcu PRoru!lOn"l R¡¡GCIATlOn Dear Doug: March 25, 2002 Doug Anderson, County Administrator St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 Re: Hennelly Claims Bill í / / / Ronald L. Book~· ! Enclosed please find a copy of the final legislation CS for CS for SB76 which, as you know, passed the legislature for the amount of $1 ,250,000. I know that we played a meaningful role in getting this matter re~olved on behalf of the County and the Sheriff. , I J{ Proud ¡ have been of help. //.\ fI/ ( &p11'1. Si?/ cJ~ I ~ {jII" cdJ ~ ~ ~ ~O~ ~l ¡,ttt' ;> ,i; Tf! (; ~¡¡)V'¡ Mf¡ ~ f,4lì4;' ~ f) RLB:dh Enclosure / I l ! / i ! ! , í'n R n ~ It. (2 íS r\ \ì! LŠ ,\!'J \ LS ~') l~ U c, -, II Û,r--- ~\~\\ Ù\ WU 9?rol \l:J Concorde Center 2 - 2999 northealt 191 ~treet. PU 6 - A'Imtra. r(~da 33180 - Telephone (305) 935-1866 - rax (3 5) 935.\mr- ADMIN, OFFICE _~~~o Cv, 101 [alt Colle~e Avenue, ~uite 302 - Tài!õ~jj;?(, norida 323°1 - (850) 22~-2859 -- ./ :- '" en <- >. '" en ¡:: ro 0 .0 H en w H w '.... 10 H '" ¡:: ~ ¡:: " en 01 w '" ro > .... '" '" '" '.... ¡:: '.... '" '" .... u 'Ö > '" E ..... 'Ö H ¡:: en ..... w H ¡:: '.... ,¡:: w ro ::; '" '" E 'Ö 0 >. H U '" ro w w .... H 'Ö U ,¡:: 0 ro '" ro ,¡:: '" .-< '" '.... \" ro 0 ro .... 0 '.... w u w ,¡:: ro ,¡:: 'Ö ..; H rij P. H w .... '" '" '" 0 '.... w '.... en H a ro w '" 0 .... .... .0 H U w :- H '" It) ~ ~ w ¡:: Q .-< :.> 0 0 ro '" w '" > ..... ~ "- ¡:: " 'Ö 'Ö H .0 'Ö w 0 0 .... 0 en .;:¡ en en 0 'Ö 0 '" '" '" w w ¡:: ro ¡:: w U '" E - .... E 'Ö P. '" .. ,¡:: w ,¡:: ro ro '" ¡:: ro .... 0 '" .... ¡:: ~ ¡:: en w :- w 'Ö E en .. '" .... :> .... ~ '.... to ~ '.... .; ro µ '" w Q) 0 .0 Q) ..... OJ H ..... .... w .-< U H E 'Ö .0 ¡:: H '.... .... .0 H w H U H 'Ö ¡:: ¡:: w '.... H ro H w w Q) ro '" E '" Q) '" ro ro ro ~ ~ p. ~ w .-< ,¡:: w ~ ,¡:: 0 .... 'Ö H 'Ö '" w Q) "2 u ~ ¡:: (/) (/) (/) H .... ¡:: Q) '" 'Ö 'Ö '" H '" 0 '.... ro ..... w .... '" ~ :- H en ¡:: '" ..... ~ H ..... 'Ö .... >. '" '" '" ro ~ .... p. '" H , w w .c .; '" en >. :- '.... en '.... >. - Q) '" 0 ¡:: ¡:: w -.-< ..>: 'Ö .-< H rij H w Q) H .... ,¡:: > ¡:: Q) ~ ~ ro H .-< >. ~ ~ en ,¡:: ~ .... w E 0 .... ." H w 0 Q) '" "2 ..>: p. '" W 'n ..... '" H 01 U 0 OJ w :- ¡:: ,¡:: Q) w H H ,¡:: 0 'Ö w .-< ¡:: w '.... '" en 'Ö ro Q) 0 w .... ~ Q) ci '" ." '" .-< '" :- ro '" Q) ,¡:: .... TO '.... H w .0 ro '" '" :c '" ¡:: :- w w Ò (/) tJ1 .... u '" :J :0 ,¡:: ¡:: H H .-< H U 'Ö ¡:: .... .-< ~ 0 w 0 en 0 Q) ~ ro ¡:: '" ~ a >. ¡:: '.... 0 ro ..:I '" ro :0 w ro '.... en ,¡:: .0 H 0 P. 'Ö a w <tI U w ¡:: µ¡ .-< w Ò w w H :- '" .... X ¡:: '" ¡:: ~ '" '.... '" co U 'Ö 0 U '" ~ 'Ö > w '" 0 5 w 'Ö en .... w µ¡ .... ro Q) w w a ro .-< Ii ¡:: '" u U .-< ¡:: '" (/) :c C1 ... .. (/) a .; Q) 'Ö ro en ro ¡:: ..... U Q) H ro ro ¡... OJ ro 'Ö Q) Ò Q) en 'Ö ¡:: 0 0 >. H 'Ö '" ,.:¡ l! .-< '" '" ¡:: ¡:: u '.... '" ro 0 >. H .-< ..... .-i ~ '" ..... .. tJ1 'Ö ,¡:: -.i u ,¡:: w .ê It) '.... ,¡:: '" 0 H 0 ro w w ..... u '" ¡:: '" w I!) 1-< '" ¡... u w '" '" .... ¡... .. 0 ..; .-< .... tJ1 U ¡:: U U W '.... .. ~ .c '0 '" 0 .-ì 'Ö ,¡:: .... ro '" >. ..... '" ~ '" ¡:: ~ <tI .... w '" w .w .. ¡:: 0 ¡:: w 0 ~ U 'Ö '" .-< H tJ1 ..... ,.:¡ ro ro w en '0 '.... w "" <tI j ¡:: 0 ro w ..... '" .-< ¡:: ¡:: Ò >. ¡:: '" 'Ö '" 0 en M u; '" .0 E u; en .-i u; ,¡:: u; ~ '" '.... .0 ro U '" .... en w - " 01 0 ¡:: tJ1 w .w u ro a ¡:: ¡:: 'Ö ..... .-i 0 '" .... ¡:: ... ¡;j H .-ì u «: 0 '" ¡;j (/) 'Ö ¡;j .-i W 01 a '9 0 '9 0 ¡:: .... .0 '" '" .... 0 " '" µ¡ u ¡:: H ¡:: ro .. ro '" .w -.-< ;; ..... ro .... ro w .... ~ '.... ..... <='" '" E ro ¡:: '" '" '" '" 0 ro '" u ~ .w .w 0 ¡:: '0 .. w CIa µ¡ '" '.... ..... µ¡ H 'Ö µ¡ ,¡:: .... µ¡ 0 .-. :c 'Ö U ..,. .-< '" I!) .... '" '" '" ¡¡ - '0 ,¡:: '" '" :3: .-< ro 'Ö :3: w ,¡:: :3: '-' :3: ¡:: '" ¡:: CJ) (/) N - '" (/) CI) en III.,. ro .... '" ¡:: 8' .-I .-i ro '-' .; '" '" '" .... .... '-' ro Q) ¡:: 'Ö "'.... w ¡:: '" '" " .-< ..... ¡:: .. .. .... ¡:: ¡:: ..... .. ...'" ..... .; ..... 'Ö U '.... ro '" ... ~ a ~ .w ro 0 '.... ro .-< .. ro '-' 0 ". P. ro '.... '.... 'Ö .... ¡:: .-< U It) to H ,¡:: .. H ro 0 .w § ;; ~ 0..,. en ro E u .... ¡:: ¡:: ~ .. .w w '" H w w en ....... 0 '" '" u .... '.... '-' '" ro ..... M ¡:: I!) U ~ ,¡:: ro 0 w ~ 0 ro ¡,g "'''' ,¡:: ,¡:: .. ro 0 .... ro :c .... u "" 0 '" ro ro '" :- .w ro en U .-I H Q .... '" M ..,. It) '" <- OJ '" a ... '" M ..,. It) '" <- QJ '" a ... '" M ..,. It) \D <- OJ '" a ... 8 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .-< .-< '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" M M en '" c en ¡:: <- .w .... I!) ,¡:: 0 '" I!) .... '" '.... 0 en .... u en ..... 10 '" H U >. .... :.> ~ 'Ö en 0 ..... '" w OJ U '" ¡:: .... :.> en ¡:: ,¡:: '" ,¡:: .-I ..... ..... :- ro <tI H '" 0. .. ro u ¡:: H :- U 'Ö " w W w " ~ .... :0 ~ W ..... '" ..... 'Ö 0 " ,; ¡:: CI) .c >< p. .; '" en >. > ¡:: ,¡:: ro '" " '" '" ..... tJ1 :;; .... '" .. ~ w ..... ..... '" .., U .... ¡:: 01 ro ,; '... Q '0 ~ w .0 ~ .. > I!) OJ ..... >. 0 .ê ro g. :c >. w 'Ö '" 0 en P. 'Ö ¡:: .. U .-< .... '" '" U '-' '0 '" ¡:: '" ,¡:: en Q) ro ,¡:: ro ro '" E 'Ö .... ,¡:: en > .... U .. OJ c: .-< ro p. '" ~ 'Ö Q) > ... " " '.... ro ¡:: 0 w '" '.... 'Ö 0 ro Q) .... :J 0 "" en .. .-< 0 ,¡:: 0 'Ö 0 ... U '.... <tI I!) w " '.... >< 0 OJ ,; .b '" '.... '.... '" w '" .0 '" '" E ~ .-< en en >. u ro '" ¡:: ø. .... u I!) ..>: p. 7 .. ,¡:: ,¡:: ¡:: ... ..:I .-< 01 - I!) 0 I!) .. ro 0 .c u ¡:: 01 ro w ,¿ w 01 '.... to H .... ¡:: .... '.... .-I .... E ro OJ .w 0 0 '.... en ..,. > ¡:: .-. w '0 .... .-I N ,¡:: '" 'Ö >. ... ..>: ..... .. w N '.... ~ E '" '.... >. .0 '" .-I U ¡:: U .-< .... >. ¡:: .0 «: u en I!) CI) .... '.... H 'n '" .-< 0 :J 0 .. '" ..... .0 ro ~ ~ 'Ö ¡:: 'Ö 0 H I!) ¡:: ¡:: .-< ..,. 'Ö ¡:: ,.:¡ ¡:: ~ ,¡:: E ro 'Ö 'Ö .. ro ¡:: 0 '" .... 0 ,¡:: '.... .... ro ..... 111 I!) ..... .... I!) :.> 0 w 'Ö rij I!) ro w u " ... .-< 0 .... ,¡:: CI) 0 :3: w 0 OJ :.> ,¡:: It) ¡:: '" OJ 0 en w w '" w .-< 01 'Ö ro «: .w ~ .0 . w co 0 <1 w ro '" rij OJ CO '.... .... ... ~ >. ro '" <1 .; ¡:: .. ... ¡:: CJ) .. ro ..... Q) .c 'Ö 'Ö X w .... .-< ro w <1 u ..... ro '" «: 0 Û "0 '" ,¡:: .... '" .-< Q) U '" ¡:: .. H '" ¡:: '.... Q) ¡:: 0 ¡:: 'Ö '" P. '.... ro -ª P. w 0 u .. '-' ro Q) 0 f-o '" .. .. ~ en Q) '.... '" ..,. 0 'Ö '-' '0 , ro 'Ö w 01 ro 01 :- '" >. 0 .. 01 > .... \D ro u .; I!) Q) 'Ö OJ .-< ro OJ ¡:: .w w <1 ~ '" ,¡:: '" .-. <1 '" OJ E co. ro '.... '-' '" .. I!) Q) 01 '" .-< " ro w '" I!) 01 P. .-< ro H -.-< '" .c 7 ro u ..>: 'Ö .0 .... ..... '" ¡:: 0 I!) ê .... .. '" .... '" '" Q) w . .w E >< 0 '" ..... 0 .-< ro 0 I!) w ,¡:: H U 0 <1 > 'Ö '-' '-' .c It) ..... I!) 0 ¡:: en H P. ..... u w 0 '" ~ .... I!) >. ..... Q) ro ¡:: Q) 01 H M .w w ro ro ¡:: 'Ö w " .-< .... :c ..:I '" U .. w <1 w ..... E .... '" en <1 .-< 01 U 0 '" '" Q) ro .-< 0 E ,¡:: ..... ro u :- (/) ro .c u ro Q) '.... '" , ¡:: '.... .. .. .-< .;¡ ..... '-' 01 '" Q) '-' .... ~ '" 0 Q) c en 0 '.... Q) '-' I!) I!) .0 ¡:: <1 '-' ,¡:: .... H P. <1 .c CO CO ¡:: en '" ro :- '-' ,¡:: U Q) :- 'Ö '" 01 ..... .ê CI) w 0 0 .0 en Q) 0 '-' I!) .... w 'Ö ,¡:: w u '-' Q) .0 '" «: ¡:: 'Ö '-' I!) Q) .-< .c 01 ... .. Q) U I!) '" w >. I!) 0 ¡:: ..... .... I!) I!) '" '" .. U w '0 .w ¡:: 0 .. I!) I!) ro en <1 H .-< .. 0 0 w > 'Ö ,¡:: w I!) - ..... en H .... :J P. P. I!) H I!) I!) <1 .-< ro '" ro 0 <1 w ro ~ .... <1 I!) ,¡:: I!) ro .w .w .w 0 >< en ,¡:: >. I!) ~ w ro I!) 'Ö i OJ>. .-< .. ro OJ '0 .... 0 H I!) " " ro u -.-< .c I!) w W ¡:: .. ¡:: ¡:: "'I!) '" P. 01 ¡:: '.... I!) > 0 :J :J w ro ¡:: '.... <1 ro "'OJ .. >. ¡:: '" '0 .. u; :- '0 '-' u; '0 '" .. u; ro u; " ..... u; .. I!) CI wO .-< ..... ~ '" '" ro '" ¡:: H '" ,¡:: '" ro :c ,; ., we. w >. .-I '-' H ,¡:: ¡;j 0 'Ö >. «: 0 " p. «: 'Ö ¡;j 01 'Ö ..: ,¡:: u " ... U w '" u 0 '" en .; ,¡:: .... ro ~ u P. µ¡ '" '.... <1 µ¡ w .. <= E" '" ro ¡:: ¡:: '" U .... '" " 0 '" '-' OJ '" W '" :c ro '" 'Ö en ..... CI EO a ~ ¡:: H .... '" '-' µ¡ ,¡:: ¡:: ~ c ¡:: '" µ¡ U µ¡ µ¡ 'Ö '" H .... to ow , <1 0 '" .... 0 ~ ,¡:: <tI :c >. " :J ro .... .-I :c " :c '" " :c I!) " ~ Uco '" «: u :c 'Ö w " w 'Ö :3: w '" 0 :i " .... ~ '0 :3: '.... '" ~ ,¡:: " ,¡:: " III ¡:: .,. .-< ¡:: .. u >. E ¡:: X E u H '0 U 'Ö '" "'''' .... .-< ro '" >. CO 0 '.... 0 ro " ¡:: '-' .. ... .oCl) '" '" p. " Q) ~ " OJ U 0 ,¡:: 0 P. <tI ro 0 H w , ê " .... C. .c It) .. u :3: 0 'Ö ..,. U 'Ö U '0 en " 'Ö 'Ö P. '" ..; ... >.¡:: ... '" u <1 " ¡:: '" .... .... ro .-I <1 P. ,¡:: 0 0 '" IOro M :c 0 <tI ,.:¡ <tI '0 0 :- 0 ro ro w ~ '-' Z H Q .... '" M ..,. It) \D <- OJ '" a .... '" '" ..,. It) \D I"- OJ '" a .... '" M ..,. It) \D <- OJ '" a .-< 0 .... ... .... ... ... ... ... .-< .-< .-< '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" M M U /" '" ... <:I .... 0 .... ø '-' '-' to tOE '... <11 '0 I< "'.... '0 0 '<::.-i f1 ... '-'.-i ~ .... '" to >.3: I- '... to ¡-. .-i .-i U Z '-'.-i I< DO: <=:QJ '" UO "'<=: '0 :.. ~<:IO § 00 QJO t;:;t:;J <11:1:0 ûE-t 0. '" z::> "'0 '0 .:;¡-. "'<=:'" I< "'i '<::<:IN 0 UE--ir-- '-'0< ..; :> 00 ..,"'''' '00<1> ':;;:¡CIJ "''-' '" Hen U 0 <:I ¡-. CIJ "QJ'-' 0 Z~() 'OU '... 0:::::::3 "'....0 '-' t-<~ "'''-'''' '" ::''':JE--i "-' .-i <=H "'00 '" ;:¡:;; '-' .... '0 C!~ ::E ,,"'... N 0 '-'- '" 0 !:..(J ·rl1,¡..~ I< 0 0 '-'''-'''' f1 N "'........ ¡-. .01 <D :;; tIJ '" OJ '" E '" ¡-. '" >-0 <:I'" .:; ..u.u~ <DO ¡-. '-'<:1"-' to, CIJ ,..." '" EO >- '" "'.,. EU.-i '0 '0'" 0 .-i I< ....'" U"'''' 0 1<' '" [j ã ~ 0... ...... '<::"QJ C> r.,,., E-<..:I:1: Z H Q ~ '" ,., .,. "' '" r- CD '" 0 ... '" M .,. "' '" .... CD '" 0 ... '" M .,. "' '" .... CD '" 0 ... 0 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... '" '" '" '" '" '" '" N '" '" ,., M U Doug, this is the information regarding the "additional" GR funding and AIDS Insurance Continuation Program. Thanks -----Original Message----- From: Liberti, Tom Sent: Tuesday, March 05,20023:50 PM To: Walgren, Diane J Subject: RE: ADAP Funding Diane We are requesting 757,,000 for the AIDS Insurance Continuation Program and 1,000,000 for the ADAP program. Both are in the Governor's budget request. We are asking for new General Revenue. They have not been picked up yet by the house or Senate Health and Human Services Appropriations Committee. The House is chaired by Rep. Murman from Tampa and the Senate is chaired by Senator Silver from Miami. There are no bill numbers to mention except the appropriations bill. Thanks Tom /, f~r,ýNO~ .(VI" À ~ ¡/'vl ~ ;;,¡ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DOUG COWARD COMMISSIONER February 26, 2002 The Honorable Gayle Harrell 1102 Capitol 402 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399 Re: Proposed Cost Shift of$48 Million in Medicaid Nursing Home Costs - Vote NO to HB 1975 Dear Representative Harrell; The St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners recently learned that the House is anticipating to vote on the proposed budget this Friday, March 1,2002. The State staff has proposed a $48 million cost shift to counties by increasing the County Medicaid match for nursing home costs. St. Lucie County urges you to vote NO to HB 1975, which if approved, would impose an additional unfunded mandate, and just for FY2002/03 would cost St. Lucie County $867,385. On behalf of my fellow Board members and all St. Lucie County tax payers, thank you for your attention to this very important vote. Sincerely, ~v-Iv- e~ " ..I - Doug Coward Chaim1an pc: Board of COlUlty Commissioners Douglas M, Anderson, County Administrator Robert Bradshaw, Assistant County Administrator Marie Gouin, Management and Budget Director Dan McIntyre, County Attomey Beth Ryder Conununity Services Director Ron Book, Esq. FEB 2 7 2002 CO. ADMIN. OFFICE ~ JOHN D, ßRUHN, Disrricr No, 1 . DOUG COWARD, Disrricr No, 2 . PAULA A, LEWIS, Disrricr No,,3 . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, Districr No, 4 . CUFF ßARNES, DisrricT No, 5 Counry Adminisrroror - Douglos M, Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 . (561) 462-1412 FAX (561) 462-2131 · TOD (561) 462-1428 -:. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DOUG COWARD COMMISSIONEr. February 26, 2002 The Honorable Richard Machek 405 House Office Building 402 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399 Re: Proposed Cost Shift of$48 Million in Medicaid Nursing Home Costs - Vote NO to HB 1975 Dear Representative Maychek: The St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners recently learned that the House is anticipating to vote on the proposed budget this Friday, March 1, 2002. The State staff has proposed a $48 million cost shift to counties by increasing the County Medicaid match for nursing home costs. St. Lucie County urges you to vote NO to HB 1975, which if approved, would impose an additional unfunded mandate, and just for FY2002/03 would cost St. Lucie County $867,385. On behalf of my fellow Board members and all St. Lucie County tax payers, thank you for your attention to this very important vote. Sincerely, vo+¿;~ Doug Coward Chairman pc: Board of County Commissioners Douglas M. And.:rson, County Administrator Robert Bradshaw. Ao;sistant County Administrator Marie Gouin, Management and Budget Director Dan McIntyre, County Attorn.:y Beth Ryder Community S.:rvices Director Ron Book, Esq. JOHN D, ßRUHN. DisTricT No, 1 . DOUG COWARD. Disrria No, 2 . PAULA A, LEWIS, DisTricT No,:) . FflANNIE HUTCHINSON. DistricT No, 4 . CLiff ßARNES. DisTricT No, 5 County AdminisTraTor, Douglas M, Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce. FL 34982-5652 · (561) 462-1412 FAX (561) 462-2131 · TDD (561) 462-1428 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DOUG COWARD COMMISSIONEr- February 26, 2002 The Honorable Stanley Mayfield 221 Capitol 402 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399 Re: Proposed Cost Shift of$48 Million in Medicaid Nursing Home Costs - Vote NO to HB 1975 Dear Representative Mayfield: The S1. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners recently learned that the House is anticipating to vote on the proposed budget this Friday, March 1, 2002. The State staff has proposed a $48 million cost shift to counties by increasing the County Medicaid match for nursing home costs. St. Lucie County urges you to vote NO to HB 1975, which if approved, would impose an additional unfunded mandate, and just for FY2002/03 would cost St. Lucie County $867,385. On behalf of my fellow Board members and all St. Lucie County tax payers, thank you for your attention to this very important vote. Sincerely, iJ~e~.--t Doug Coward Chairman pc: Board of County Commissioners Douglas M. Anderson, County Administrator Robert Bradshaw, Assi~1ant County Admini~1rator Marie Gouin. Management and Budget Director Dan McIntyre, County Attorney Beth Ryder ConilllUnity Services Director Ron Book, Esq. JOHN D, ßRUHN, District No, 1 . DOUG COWARD, DisTrict No, 2 . PAULA A, LEWIS, DisTrict No, J . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, District No, 4 . CLIFF ßARNES, District No, 5 County Administrator, Douglas M, Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 · (561) 462-1412 FAX(561)462-2131 · TDD(561)462-1428 ... BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DOUGLAS M, ANDERSON COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR January 18, 2002 Mr. Frank Bernardino Legislative Affairs Representative South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road " West Palm Beach, FL.. 33406 ~. , J T"..J t~"'.) Dear Mr. Bernardino: >...:. St. Lucie County has requested legislative funding on the following water proJects: PROJECT LEGISLA TIVE REQUEST LOCAL MA TCH $2,500,000 $3,000,000 Indian River Estates Stormwater Master Plan $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Airport Industrial Park $ 788,000 $ 11,530? Wastewater Collection & ' -¡kL Conveyance System ed ~ ~cG ~ It J YYl 5 8fÂ ri()Ó, O()(' '. Indian River Estates ,p~ ~ Indian River Estates consists of 1600 houses and an additional 900 vacant lots on 1,200 acres adjacent to the environmentally sensitive Savannas State Preserve. St. Lucie County proposes to provide a $3,000,000 match forthis stormwater project. This matching funding will be generated from the Municipal Services Taxing Unit. These 2.500 home sites are now on well and septic. In addition to local residents participating in stormwater improvements, they are also pursuing a Municipal Services Benefit Unit to provide potable water to the area at a cost of $6 million. Cost estimates have been requested from the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority and Port St. Lucie Utilities. Indian River Estates residents are expected to select a potable water service provider by this summer. This project will reduce flooding in this residential area and improve the quality of life for it's residents. It will also improve the ecosystems throughout the Savannas State Preserve. Stormwater Master Plan Four' ,öòds in St. Lucie County have been plagued with stormwater flooding. , © T~e~ iglÉ}b9ThöodS are: Paradise Park, Harmony Heights, San Luca. and Sunland \ n J__,~ens~ïhcl COl~nty wants to create stormwater Master Plans for these neighborhoods. \ \ ,.,.; , , \ \ " l '. , \ JO~N D, ßflLtI«, Dl£r8r NfO~2. Dooot:9wARD, Dlsrricr No, 2 . PAULAA, LEWIS, Disrricr No, 3 . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, Disrricr No, 4 . CLIFF ßARNES, Disrricr No, 5 \ .'.' \.I~,'t '\ \ Counry Admlnlsrroror - Douglos M, Anderson \' --- i'i 2,?~ ,.?,Yir9!Qi9.~nUe \. Fort Pierce. FL 34982-5652 · Phone (561) 462-1450 · TOD (561) 462-1428 ~.,- . . '''.1 OFf\CE J FAX (561) 462-1648 · emoil: dougo@stlucieco.gov CO f~,)~,',~_,~.._,..__'_--- '" Page 2 Legislative Funding Requests/Water Projects January 18, 2002 This would be the first step in addressing this problem. The four subdivisions that are proposed for stormwater improvements ultimately discharge into the Indian River Lagoon. The stormwater improvements will include treatment facilities to reduce sediment and improve water quality of stormwater discharges such as retention/detention swales and ponds; stormwater outflows form each subdivision discharge to the SFWMD C25!Taylor Creek Canal, which ultimately ou.tfalls to the Indian River Lagoon. The Indian River Lagoon is an estuary of National significance under the National Estuary Program. Currently, St. Lucie County is partnering with several regulatory agencies to implement muck removal and restoration dredging of the C25!Taylor Creek Canal. The agencies contributing to the Taylor Creek Project include: SFWMD, IR Lagoon NEP, FIND, and FSTED. The total estimated cost is $600,000. Once the Master Plans are completed, the County would then be able to determine the various costs for these projects. ( £P$1InJ b) Airport Industrial Park Wastewater Collection and Conveyance System The project that St. Lucie County is requesting continued additional funding for is a project that was initiated and presented to the Water Advisory Panel in Fiscal Year 1999-2000. The project met the criteria set forth by the Water Advisory Panel and received $50,000 of a requested $1,200,000. In Fiscal Year 2000-2001, Water Advisory Panel new applications were not accepted with the direction that all previous partially funded projects would receive additional funding toward their completion. This project received an additional $100,000 towards that effort in 2001-2002 State funding, but is still not totally funded. As a result of the initial funding from the State, engineering design and permitting activities have occurred and a complete set of plans are ready for bidding and construction. The most recent funding allocation we are considering, $100,000, will allow for formation of a Municipal Service Benefit Unit and physical construction of Phase One. Formation of the Municipal Service Benefit Unit will provide St. Lucie County the ability to collect matching funds, from existing land owners in the Industrial Park, to improve our ability to receive continued State funding. The project has been divided into multiple phases to accommodate future funding appropriations that would be less than the $788,000 currently requested. Currently, St. Lucie County is requesting $788,000 this fiscal year, to complete the wastewater collection and conveyance system in the existing Industrial Park. This amount represents 65% of the original Water Advisory Panel request. t~ rJYrH~ ~ct eJ--Úm4 ~ f~ µ2~ It 1 :~ ~ ~. .i'f?J. (l1ff/? ðK) 300, Mo J11 C./:;fduÀ Cb . YV1 S 8Ll- 10 é ()J.JUU/f , d <í). 1,--- 2/) -, "AA /J / rrt r;¡;(ë~. .fwuC0 ø d a:;U . IItVv I I Y:..t/ J..1 v'l . ) 0 ~ '~ Page 3 Legislative Funding RequestslWater Projects January 18, 2002 uestions/concerns, please feel free to contact my office at 561-462-1450. .4~ DMA/am c: Board of County Commissioners Dan Mcintyre, COl:lnty Attorney Ray Wazny, Public Works Director Bill Blazak, Utilities Director Paul Phillips, Airport Director Becky Padrick, MSBU Coordinator Dennis Murphy, Interim Community Development Director Ronald Book, P.A. ~ -- {ìÚJ'r>j /c£" Ronala l. BOOK,P. R LHIIJ QÇfICU PRorWlOnHl HHOrlHTlOn January 25,2002 ~ I¥ ' (I V cÁ'/' l\t\lrt yIIP~, fJ ,~ C', ~/ f\ , 51~ Mark Delegal, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street 2nd Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32301:.2095' Re: 81. Lucie Coùnty/Senate Bi1176 House Bil1563 . Dear Mark: As you are probably aware, I represent St. Lucie County iri Tàllahassee.· We are responsible for " all matters that involve the County during the Legislative Session as well, as year round: Toward that end, we'aredeeply po~cernedwithHB 563 and its companion measµre, SB 76. It is my , , understanding that you representthe Sheriffs Fund and that Ron Mowrey represents,Florida Sheriff's Self-Insurèr's Fund. We should coordinate our effqrts to éhhancethe chances that this legislation will "die on the vine." Hopefully we can meet' this week to coordinate 0ll! ~fforts. RLB:dh Enclosures " cc: Doug Anderson, County Admitiistrator Ron Mowrey, Esquire, ' Bill Rubinw/enclosUres Tara Dudley w/enclosures --:::::-~ ((\. ~ [1\': \~ ~"\M~~' '. \ !:> \,lr) l~~ \ ':, r \ ~- ~'_':: :W~ \' \ l -.: " .\ U " \ \ ~,\\, JAN 2 9 2002 '\\ ,I ,\LU~ l cG AoMIN OFFICE (oncorde (enter 2 - 2999 northea!t 191 ~treet, PH 6 -/!ventura, florid¡¡ 33180 - Telephone (JO~)93~-1666 - fiIX (J05) 9J5-'9137 lOt faIt (olle~e "venue, ~uite 302 - Tallahaliee, florida 32301 - (Bsu) 2l~-2BS9 .. f St. Lucie officials put forth wish lists The county's legislative delegation hears about a marine hospital and road expansion among other topics. By Nirvi Shah ,,')11,110 I ' Palm &ach P/I$/ S/aiflVriler .i}. ï , FORT PIERCE - St. Lucie County government officials and residents asked lawmakers on Thurs- dav for money for a marine hospital, the West Vir- giñia Drive corridor and an expansion of Orange Avenue. Money for algae research, shrimp research and a waste-water project also was atop wish lists. Public school officials didn't ask the county's legislative delegation for anything so tangible. In- stead, they said, ensure there will never be another year like this one. "My colleagues and I feel it is the intent of the Florida Legislature to destroy the public education system "said Steve Barrish, a sixth-grade teacher at Sòuthe~ Oaks Middle School. This year, St. Lucie County schools struggled to give teachers raises. They learned last week they must cut their budget by $3,6 million. St Lucie County School Superintendent Bill Vogel asked that school districts be able to make their own decisions about how to spend the money the state allots them, rather than requiring. it be spent on items for which districts may not have a need. Vogel acknowledged that the idea will be a hard sell but Sen. Ken Pruitt, R-Port St. LUcie, and Rep. Gayle Harrell, R-Stuart, have filed bills on the subject. : Also, local tax rates set by the legislature need to be raised to levels from two or three years ago. This year, at a cost of $31 to each homeowner in St. Lucie County with a $75,000 home and a $25,000 home- stead exemption, the district could have raised $5 million. Teachers union President Clara Cook asked for a temporary, statewide half-penny sales tax that could raise as much as $1.3 billion statewide. Pruitt called the property tax and sales tax solu- tions Band-Aids. He favors another suggestion Cook made: tax refonn. Pruitt supports a plan to lower sales tax from 6 cents per dollar to 4 cents per dollar. Exemptions in tax laws also must end, other than food, medicine Please see WISH UST, 9B Pruitt in favor of sales tax reform $t. Lucie's wish list .' st. Lucie County officials and residents asked state lawmakers to consider supporting the following items during next year's legislative ~ession: , : - Incorporating Hutchinson Island: Local legislators re- fused for the second time to support creation of a new city qn South Hutchinson Island. Supporters raised the idea in :!-998 and local legislators decided in March 1999 not to !!Upport it They rejected it again Thursday. , - Community redevelopment: St. Lucie County's request for changes in laws authorizing community redevelopment agencies was denied. County officials have criticized Fort P.ierce's plans to expand its CRAs. Serr. Ken Pruitt said lo- Cal governments should settle their disputes and not ask the legislature to referee. , - County projects: St. Lucie County officials again asked ,~or state money for the new county fairgrounds, Indian Riv- er Estates drainàge improvements and an airport industrial ~ark sewage system. : - Orange Avenue: County Officials asked for $1.02 mil- lion to help improve the shoulders along Orange Avenue ~rom Fort Pierce to the Okeechobee County line. Poor road çonditions have been blamed for accidents. The county ~as spent some $2.7 million already. ~ - Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution: Jerry Lafferty, associate vice president of Florida Atlantic University's St. Lucie West campus, asked for money to build an academic program with the institution as well as a joint-use building there. Harbor Branch asked for $1 million to research al- gae blooms in the coastal St. Lucie County waters that are harming tourism and the health of the water. " . - West Virginia Drive conidor: Port St. Lucie Mayor Bob Minsky asked for help in the long-running effort to build a ~ridge over the St. Lucie River because although Port St. I:.ucie Boulevard is being expanded now, it will reach its ca- pacity by 2007. , , - SL lucie County Chamber of Commerce: Legislators ~upport the idea of banning for-profit groups from using ~chamber of commerce" in their company names. Some companies with the name have muddled the reputation of ~heir nonprofit counterparts" president AI Rivett said. WISH LIST From lB and health care, he said, noting that the state exempts more in taxes than it collects. To become part of the constitution, however, Florida voters must approve the measure. Rep. Stan Mayfield, R-Vero Beach, told AI Rivett, president of the St Lucie County Chamber of Commerce, that for the legisla- tion to be a success, the chamber must gather support from its member businesses, who are en- titled to many of the exemptions now. Ed Massey, president of Indi- an River Community College, al- so asked for relief from an ac- counting system that is unfair to some community colleges. He wants to set in statute a plan that reimburses community colleges for students the same way each year, State money for work force programs also should be brought under the umbrella of community colleges, and the state should pay for more financial aid for part- time students. Also, Massey asked that the higher out-of-state tuition rate be waived for some people in the coming year, including Vought Aircraft Industries workers and their fanúlies who will not be able to establish residency for some time after moving' here from Geo rgia. La"'makers return to Talla- hassee next month for the annual legislative session. Staff writer Jim Reetkr C, ontributed I to this report. ' ~ nirvi_shah@pbpost.com .. From: Date: Subject: Carol Bracy <cbracy@fl-counties.com> 11/16/01 5:49PM Special Session - Legislative Alert County Commissioners, County Administrators, County Attorneys & County Legislative Staff, Given the importance of the upcoming Special Session for all counties, the Florida Association of Counties is sharing with you a copy of a letter from Rep. Mike Fasano sent to the The St. Petersburg Times (see below). This letter is in response to FAC's position and communication to the St. Pete Times relating to shifting millions of dollars of new Medicaid costs to counties during your county's current budget year and next fiscal year. It is your commission's choice whether to respond to the St. Pete Times or your legislative delegation on this issue and the comments stated below. Additionally, commissioners from across the state will be coming to Tallahassee during the week of special session on Nov. 28 & 29 to meet with legislators regarding unfunded mandates and costs shifts. Their purpose is to defend the Florida Association of Counties' position on these issues and to be sure their voice is heard. Carol L. Bracy, Legislative Director Florida Association of Counties Post Office Box 549 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (850) 922-4300 (850) 488-7192 FAX cbracy@fl-counties.com ~Jð 101 ,d.y Letters to the Editor The St. Petersburg Times 11321 U.S. Highway 19 Port Richey, FL 34668 Dear Editor: The response from the Florida Association of Counties that counties should not be required to share more of the cost of Medicaid services is hardly surprising but is nonetheless selfish. In these tough budget times nobody wants to pay more for anything, but all levels of government have a responsibility to step up to the plate and participate in balancing Florida's income and outflow. Statutes require counties to pay 35% of the total cost of care in excess of $170 per month, not to exceed $55 per month per person. In the 1978-79 fiscal year the average Medicaid cost per person per month was $521,06, of which the counties contribution limit was $55.00, or 10.56% of the cost. In the current 2001-02 fiscal year the projected average Medicaid cost per person per month is $3,201.26, of which the counties contribution limit, if not raised by the Legislature, will still be $55.00, or 1.72% of the cost. The proposal currently before the Legislature is for the county contributions for nursing home care and hospital inpatient services to be increased to 4% of the monthfý nursing home cost. The Association's assertion that such an increase "is unbelievable and unacceptable" is self-serving and shortsighted to the state as a whole. For twenty-plus years the counties' percentage of the cost sharing has steadily diminished, while the state's has steadily increased. It is projected that the fiscal year 2002-03 Medicaid cost per person per month will be $3,487. A refusal to bear a greater burden at the county level will mean that the counties' contribution during the next fiscal year will drop to a mere 1.58%. -. The Association asserts that "counties do not have the ability to generate any additional revenues or hold special sessions to deal with unexpected cost shifts from the Florida Legislature" does not take into account the counties' ability to allocate resources in their general funds that were not budgeted. In Pasco County, for example, the Clerk of the Circuit Court returned over $400,000 to the general fund after the start of this fiscal year. These funds, as well as any monies in the county's rainy day fund can be used, if the board of county commissioners chooses, to pay any Medicaid contribution increases the Florida Legislature may wish to impose. I have little doubt that counties throughout the state receive windfalls based on the good stewardship of the constitutional officers. Another area that counties may wish to look at would be the membership fee paid to be a part of the Florida Association of Counties. Pasco County recently paid $36,991 in taxpayer-provided dues to belong to the Association. If dollars are as scarce locally as they are in Tallahassee, these monies would go a long way towards offsetting any possible increase in the Medicaid cost-sharing contribution. A portion of these dollars, as well as a portion of the fees paid by all member counties, goes towards the salary paid to the executive director of the Florida Association of Counties, the chief advocate for adding new taxes to many of the services received by citizens of our county and state. Whatever the Florida Legislature ultimately adopts during its upcoming special session there is little doubt that most if not all levels of government are going to feel a pinch. Instead of refusing to be a part of the solution, I encourage the Florida Association of Counties to reconsider their position and look back at the historical data. After years of paying such a small amount of the important Medicaid services provided to individuals the truly modest proposal being looked at in Tallahassee is far less burdensome, percentage-wise, than the way it was in the 1970's. Yours truly, Mike Fasano State Representative, District 45 MF/gg I Douglas Anderson - housesinediealert.doc Pag FAC LEGISLATIVE ALERT PLEASE DISTRIBUTE IMMEDIA TEL V!!! TO: County Commissioners County Administrators County Attorneys County Lobbyists FROM: Mary Kay Cariseo, Executive Director DATE: October 30, 2001 RE: SPECIAL SESSION IS OVER (I N THE HOUSE, AT LEAST!) In an unprecedented move, the House of Representatives approved the Senate budget this evening as passed by the Senate last week (no conference committee process). In order to implement several cuts in the budget, the Legislature must pass substantive legislation in separate bills. Several bills which would have levied a substantial impact on counties were not considered. In particular, SB 8-B/HB 61-B, the Article V Trust Fund bills and SB 26-B/HB 75-B, the Medicaid Cost Shift bills, were not considered by the House. As a result, the budget may not be balanced. What does this mean for counties? First, the Medicaid cost shifts that were built into the Senate budget do not have general law authorization. Second, since the State of Florida must operate with a balanced budget, the Legislature will more than likely be called back into special session (November/December) prior to the regular session. If this scenario happens, the potential cost shift to counties in the area of Medicaid, Article V and other budget cuts an.9.§bifts,-wm-resuffåce:---" "-, - ~._- . // This is a critical time for all counties. Each county must continue to keep the pressù-re"------,,'_ ~ee:~~~~~rl~~~s~tf;~;~y:~:~mently oppose balancing the ~~~~_~~~,ge~~,:_th~ ~~:~_s o'. ) --~"', ----~ ~.--_....~--_.~.- .~_._..----- I cannot thank you enough for your calls and letters during the past two weeks. Please remember to thank those legislators who have committed their support of FAC's position and continue to educate all legislators about the impact these cost shifts will have on their districts. MKC/ ~~ ¡O I ~I . f¿;(J- ~ b C· ~JY'.t (ð -I ~tI f1 1~ ..~.".,.~."^"..... "- lnw OHlCU ~~O¡[\\lOn nl nHO(lnnOn October 30, 2001 Î1¡1 1\'11 L~~ ~ /J f 1 ,~ðn..f1J_ .) ~. IJ h/ ,~f:1 M ,!f1p~f j n r ,~ r ()i Doug Anderson, County Administrator St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 RE: Special Legislative Session(s) Dear Doug: As you know, the Legislature just concluded the first week of the Special Legislative Session, called to deal with Florida's budget deficit. It was a tough, painful, difficult, if not most bizarre- ending first week. It certainly appears at the time of dictating this letter (Saturday, October 27, 2001 - 5:05 p.m.), that the Session will not go the duration. The current plan will be for the House and Senate to reconvene on Tuesday afternoon, have the House take up the Senate budget, pass it without amendment, send it back to the Senate for a final vote (in order to meet the constitutionally required 72-hour cooling off period), and go home. The House mayor may not take up several previously passed Senate budget cut bills and the budget implementing bills. The reason I say "mayor may not" is that it is not certain they will do this under their plan to spar with the Senate. In any case, it appears that the Senate plan sparred most entities in a major way as the House cuts were deeper and more significant as they had fewer dollars to spend under their approach. We will most likely be in for additional Special Session(s) over the coming weeks and months. Who knows, these could run right into the January Regular Session. Please feel free to call for details. RLB:drb r:.-:.---'- ., ¡--\ í, " - :1 "" '~\ \¡ú\~ 'e' I,: - -~\\\\ \ill l NOV - Z 20m \ æJ C0. ADMIN. OFFICE --" (on(or~e (enter 2 - 2999 nort~eðlt 191 Itreet, p~ 6 - nventurð, flori~ð 33180 - Telep~one (305) 935-1866- 101 [ðlt (olle~e nvenue, \uite 302 - Tðllð~ðHee, flori~ð 32301 - (850) 22~-2859 ------ Ronðld l. Boo~r P. H. lnw OHICU PRomllonnl nHOClnTlOn ~!ú\ 1,\11 ~CGfJ ~b' ~b jV'(J('- , ~ '/J'?/'/ ¡l/ ¡ý~~ October 29,2001 C'· Mr. Doug Anderson County Administrator St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 Dear Doug: As it relates to the issue of library funding, as long as the House picks up and passes the Senate budget as planned on Tuesday, October 30,2001, library funding will remain as is. On the issue of the nursing home days, as long as the House passes the amended "cut" bills, that issue will also be resolved in your favor. All of that said, the problem is we will probably be in another Special Session for more cuts in 3-4 weeks. I will keep you posted. RLB:drb Sincer~, Ld L. Book cc: Bill Rubin Tara Dudley rr:\--;:;-~-0~;---¡;-~ l ., ! ~\ 1 \ \ D) ~-2-" ' U [, -I i 1\ \ I l~ l OCT 3 I 2001 \ l!!J Conwrde Center 2 - 2999 northeðlt 191 \treet, PH 6 - nventurð, rloridð 33180 - Telephone (305) 935-1866 - rðX 305) 935-(m:¡. ADMIN OFFICE 101 [ð!t Colle~e nvenue, \uite 302 - TðllðhðHee, rloridð 32301 - (850) 224-2859 I i Douglas Anderson - MORE GOOD NEWS! Page 1 j From: To: Date: Subject: <JSzabo@clearwater-fl.com> <fla@jodyfitzgerald.com> 10/23/01 1 :11 PM MORE GOOD NEWS! Good news from State Librarian Barratt Wilkins... Latest word is that Senator Charles Clary (R-Destin) chair of the Senate Appropriations General Government Subcommittee offered an amendment in full Senate Appropriations Committee this morning to restore all State Aid to recurring sources resulting in NO CUTS for State Aid. The amendment passed! The Conference Committees to resolve differences between the House and Senate Appropriations bills will De meeting this Friday (10/26) and Saturday (10/27). The Conferees have not been appointed as of this date. The House still has $3,000,000 in cuts to State Aid. WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW: * Contact Senator Charles Clary and thank him for AGAIN supporting libraries by championing the elimination of the $1.9 million cut in the Senate. Senator Charles Clary email: clary.charlie.web@leg.state.fI.us Tallahassee Suncom: (BOO) 277-5009 Destin Suncom: (BOO) 674-9159 * Contact your Represenatives in the House and let them know how critical State Aid is to Florida's libraries and encourage them to follow the Senate's excellent lead. Thank you Florida library supporters! You've done a phenomenal job over the last week reminding our legislators how important State Aid funding is! Your thank you's to Senator Clary late last week were obviously beneficial. Keep up the great advocacy work! John F. Szabo, Chair FLA Legislative Committee '\ (}f1 f o rŒ & fLlJYJ Œ L' r. c. ,""'" " ", , ", "..~ ' -....,-~ . "~,,,' , ~ '.... II Ronðl~ l. Boo~, P. R .-,---'-~ lnw OHlW PRorullOnnl nHOClnTlOn October 11, 2001 ìr\vl \," . htU b , b\ \1 ICÚ tf\ I C' fl9~ r I IV;? Doug Anderson St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 Re: Special Legislative Session Dear Doug: As I anticipated, the Governor has called a Special Session of the Legislature commencing at 9:00AM on Monday, October 22,2001 and extending through 11 :59PM on Thursday, November 1, 2001. This session will deal with the budget cuts and any legislation necessary to impact those cuts as may be deemed appropriate. This is going to be a bumpy ride and will clearly be a prelude to the regular session in January. Contact me with any questions. S incerel 'lí,A ./// .. RLB/dm Enclosure (oncor~e (enter 2 .. 2999 nort~eð¡t 191 Itreet, p~ 6 - nventurð, rlori~ð 33180 .. Telep~one (30S) 93S-1866 - riIX (30S) 93S-9737 101 [ð¡t (olleye nvenue. \uite 302 - Tðllð~ð!lee. rlorida 32301 - (8so) Wr28S9 , -- - . Page 1 of2 Subj: please print for Ronnie Date: 10/10/01 5:54:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: MadonnaEl1 To: RLBOOKPA, RonBOffice . PROCLAMATION STATE OF FLORIDA EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR TALLAHASSEE TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE FLORIDA SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WHEREAS, on September 11, 2001 our country was struck by horrific acts of terror that took the innocent lives of thousands and injured many others, and that disrupted air transportation and the normal conduct of this nation's commercial and financial markets; and WHEREAS. the economy and therefore the anticipated revenues of the .State of Florida, as in the rest of the country, have been adversely affected by these acts of terror, and to the extent our economy relies on air transportation and tourism, Florida is uniquely impacted; and WHEREAS. the Governor considers it necessary to reduce appropriations to offset the expected decline in revenues; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the citizens of the State of Florida to call a Special Session so that the Legislature may give full and adequate consideration to the reduction of this fiscal year's appropriations in anticipation of decreased revenue. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jeb Bush, Governor of the State of Florida, by virtue of the power and authority vested in me by Article III, Section 3(c)(1), Florida Constitution, do hereby proclaim as follows: Section 1. That the Legislature of the State of Florida is convened in Special Session commencing at 9:00 a.m., Monday, October 22, 2001, and extending through 11 :59 p.m., on Thursday, November 1, 2001. Section 2. That the Legislature of the State of Florida is convened for the sole and exclusive purpose of considering the reductions to this fiscal year's appropriations from the general revenues of the state that are needed to deal with the anticipated decline in revenue in the aftermath of these acts of terror. Section 3. That the committees of either house of the Legislature are authorized to consider legislation within the purview of this proclamation from this date forward. Thursday, October 11,2001 America Online: RonBOffice Page 2 of2 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of Florida to be affixed to this Proclamation convening the Legislature in Special Session at the Capitol, this _ day of October, 2001. GOVERNOR ATTEST: ,SECRETARy.oF STATE Thursday, October 11,2001 America Online: RonBOffice - .. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DOUGLAS M. ANDEr-SON September 20,2001 I ! \) ) o.Î tv, ,IV "'J ~ tJo o Mr. Ronald L. Book, P.A. Concorde Center 2 2999 Nòrtheast 191 Street, PH 6 Aventura, FL 33180 Dear Ron: Please find enclosed four (4) original consultant agreements between St. Lucie County, your finn, and the Rubin Group, Inc. for lobbyist services for the period of October 1, 2001 to September 30,2002. Please sign these documents, along with the president of the Rubin Group, Inc., and return to my attention. I will then have the Chainnan of the Board of County Commissioners sign and return an original agreement to you for your records. ard to working with you and the Rubin Group over the next year. c: . County Attorney JOHN D, Of\UHN, DisrricT No, 1 . DOUG COWAf\D. DisrricT No, 2 . PAULA A, LEWIS. Disrricr No, J . Ff\ANNIE HUTCHINSON, DiSTrict No, 4 . CLIFF OAf\N5, DistricT Nt Counry Administrotor - Douglas M, Anderson 2,300 Virginia Avenue . Fort Pierce, FL,34982-5652 · Phone(561)462-1450 · TDD(561) 462-1428 FAX (561) 462-1648 · email: douga@stlucieco.gov - , CONSULTANT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _ day of ,2001, by and between ST. LUCIE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as the "County", and RONALD L. BOOK, P .A. and THE RUBIN GROUP, INC. hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the County desires to retain the professional services of the Consultant to coordinate the County's legislative relations and provide lobbying services; and, WHEREAS, the Consultant desires to provide the County with such services. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual benefits which will accrue to the parties hereto in carrying out the terms of this Agreement, itis mutually understood and agreed as follo'ws: 1. GENERAL SCOPE OF THIS AGREEMENT The relationship of the Consultant to the County will be solely that of a consultant. The Consultant is an independent contractor and is not an employee or agent of the County. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to establish any relationship other than that of an independent contractor, between the County and the Consultant, its employees, agents, subcontractors, or assigns, during or after the performance of this Agreement. The Consultant will provide the professional and technical services required for the successful completion of this Agreement in accordance with practices generally acceptable within the industry and good ethical standards. 2. SCOPE Of WORK' Consultant shall provide necessary legislative relations and lobbying services to the County. These services shall include work for the purpose of securing funds and grants in g: \atty\agreemnt \Book-Rubi n -1- achieving the County's objectives. Consultant shall be guided by a statement of objectives to be adopted by the County. The Consultant shall provide a monthly report to the County Administrator on the status of the Consultant's efforts. 3. PROJECT MANAGER The Project Manager for the County is Douglas M. Anderson at (561) 462-1450. The Project Manager for the Consultant is Ronald L. Book at (305) 935-1866. The parties shall direct all matters arising in connection with the performance of this Agreement, other than invoices and notices, to the attention of the Project Managers for attempted resolution or action. The Project Managers shall be responsible for overall resolution or action. The Project Managers shall be responsible for overall coordination and oversight relating to the performance of this Agreement. 4. TERM The term of this Agreement shall be for one (1) year beginning on October 1, 2001. The parties may mutually agree to extend the term of this Agreement. 5. COMPENSATION The Consultant shall be compensated for all services rendered under this Agreement as follows: Eighty-seven thousand five hundred and 00/100 ($87,500.00) dollars per year payable in equal monthly installment payments on or before the 20th day of each month of the term of this Agreement beginning October 20, 2001. This includes out of pocket expenses. All invoices presented to the County for payment shall be on a Request for Payment form approved by the County. 6. TERMINATION Either party may terminate the Agreement without cause at any time upon fifteen (15) calendar days prior written notice to the other party. In the event of termination, the County shall compensate the Consultant for all authorized work satisfactorily performed through the termination date. g: \atty\agreemnt \Book-Rubi n -2- 7. ASSIGNMENT The County and Consultant each binds itself and its successors, legal representatives, and assigns to the other party to this Agreement and ~o the partners, successors, legal representatives, and permitted assigns of such other party, in respect to all covenants of this Agreement; and, neither the County nor the Consultant will assign or transfer its rights and obligations in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. Nothing herein shall be construed as creating any personal liability on the part of any officer or agent of any public body which may be a party hereto. The Consultant agrees that the persons named in the scope of work shall provide services as described therein. The services of the person(s) so named are a substantial inducement and material consideration for this Agreement. In the event such persons can no longer:'_provide the services required by this Agreement, the Consultant shall immediately notify the County in writing and the County may elect to terminate this Agreement without any liability to the Consultant for unfinished work product. The County may elect to compensate the Consultant for unfinished work product, provided it is in a form that is sufficiently documented and organized to provide for subsequent utilization in completion of the work product. 8. SUBCONSUL T ANTS AND SUBCONTRACTORS In the event the Consulfant requires the services of any subconsultant, subcontractor or professional associate in connection with the services to be provided under this Agreement, Consultant shall secure the written approval of County Project Manager before engaging such subconsultant, subcontractor or professional associate. 9. AUDIT The Consultant agrees that the County or any of its duly authorized representatives shall, until the expiration of three years after expenditure of funds under this Agreement, have access to and the right to examine any directly pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of the Consultant involving transactions related to this Agreement. The Consultant agrees that payment(s) made under this Agreement shall be subject to reduction for amounts charged thereto which are found on the basis of audit examination not to constitute allowable costs under this Agreement. The Consultant shall refund by check payable to the County the amount of such reduction òf payments. All required records shall be maintained until an audit is completed and all questions arising therefrom are resolved, or three years after completion of the project and issuance of the final certificate, whichever is sooner. 9: \atty\agreemnt \Book-Rubi n -3- 10. PUBLIC RECORDS The Consultant shall allow public access to all documents, papers, letters, or other material subject to the provisions of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, and made or received by the Consultant in conjunction with this Agreement. . 11. INSURANCE The Consultant shall carry lawyer's professional malpractice insurance or other form of insurance satisfactory to the County's Risk Manager which shall provide coverage of not less than $500,000. A current certificate of insurance shall be provided the County's Risk Manager. 12. NOTICE All notices, requests, consents, and other communications required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be (as elected by the person giving such notice) hand delivered by messenger or courï.er service, telecommunicated, or mailed by registered or certified mail (postage prepaid) return receipt requested, addressed to: As To County: St. Lucie County Administrator Administration Annex 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce,. Pierce, fL 34982 With A Copy To: St. Lucie County Attorney Administration Annex 2300 Virginia Avenue fort Pierce,. Pierce, FL 34982 As To The Consultant: Ronald L. Book Concorde Center 2 2999 Northeast 191 Street, PH-6 Aventura, Florida 33180 or to such other address as any party may designate by notice complying with the terms of this Section. Each such notice shall be deemed delivered (a) on the date delivered if by personal delivery, (b) on the date upon which the return receipt is signed or delivery is refused or the notice is designated by the postal authorities as not deliverable, as the case may be, if mailed. 9: \atty\agreemnt \Book-Rubi n -4- 13. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS The Consultant, its employees, subcontractors or assigns, shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations rel,ating to the performance of this Agreement. The County undertakes no duty to ensure such compliance, but will attempt to advise Consultant, upon request, as to any such laws of which it has present knowledge. 14. NON-WAIVER The rights of the parties under this Agreement shall be cumulative and the failure of either party to exercise properly any,rights given hereunder shall not operate to forfeit any of the said rights. 15. PRIORITY Consultant shall not be prohibited from representing or providing like services to other persons and entities besides the County, so long as the Consultant shall avoid any representation or relation which would create a conflict of interest, as determined by the County Administrator. Further, Consultant shall not accept any client or matter which would jeopardize the Consultant's ability to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to fulfill all obligations to the County. 16. DISPUTE RESOLUTION Any disputes relating to interpretation of the terms of this Contact or a question of fact or arising under this Contract shall be resolved through good faith efforts upon the part of the Contractor and the County or its Project Manager. At all times, the Contractor shall carryon the work and maintain its progress schedule in accordance with the requirements of the Contract and the determination of the County or its representatives, pending resolution of the dispute. Any dispute which is not resolved by mutual agreement shall be decided by the County Administrator who shall reduce the decision to writing. The decision of the County shall be final and conclusive unless determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be fraudulent, capricious, arbitrary, so grossly erroneous as to necessarily imply bad faith, or not be supported by substantial evidence. 17. MEDIATION Prior to initiating any litigation concerning this Contract, the parties agree to submit the disputed issue or issues to a mediator for non-binding mediation. The parties shall agree on a mediator chosen from a list of certified mediators available from the Clerk of Court for St. Lucie County. The fee of the mediator shall be shared equally by the parties. To the 9: \atty\agreemnt \Book-Rubi n -5- extent allowed by law, the mediation process shall be confidential and the results of the mediation or any testimony or argument introduced at the mediation shall not be admissible as evidence in any subsequent proceeding concerning the disputed issue. 18. INTERPRETATION: VENUE This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior verbal or written agreements between the parties with respect thereto. This Agreement may only be amended by written document, properly authorized, executed and delivered by both parties hereto. This Agreement shall be interpreted as a whole unit and section headings are for convenience only. All interpretations shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida. In the event it is necessary for either party to initiate legal action regarding this Agreement, venue shall be in the Nineteenth Judicial circuit for St. Lucie County, Florida, for claims under state law and the Southern District of Florida for any claims which are justiciable in federal court. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have accepted, made and executed this Agreement upon the terms and conditions above stated on the day and year first above written. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: CLERK CHAIRMAN APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: COUNTY ATTORNEY ATTEST: THE RUBIN GROUP, INC. BY: SECRETARY PRESIDENT RONALD L. BOOK, P .A. BY: RONALD L. BOOK g: \atty\agrumnt\Book-Rubi n -6- , 1 URBAN CAUCUS Thursday, October 4, 2001 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Sheraton World Resort, Tampa Bay Room 1- 2 Orange County (Orlando), Florida 2002 Preliminary Policy Statements Article V / Revision 7 Implementation: SUPPORT revising the definitions of county responsibilities (Chapter 29.008, Florida Statutes) adopted by the 2000 Legislature to more accurately reflect the intent of the voters. Issues to be addressed include the definitions of facilities, security, communication services, existing radio systems, and existing multi-agency criminal justice information systems. SUPPORT legislative efforts to ensure a smooth transition of court-related responsibilities, as soon as practical, prior to the 2004 transfer deadline. Article V Trust Fund: SUPPORT re-authorizing the County Article V Trust Fund and continuing its current funding sources. Billboards: SUPPORT legislation maintaining county authority to regulate outdoor advertising, including reasonable amortization schedules for non-conforming uses. Infrastructure Funding: SUPPORT legislation providing for additional state and local revenue sources to specifically address public infrastructure needs. To that end, SUPPORT legislation that provides for greater flexibility to local governments by removing impediments to implementing local revenue sources, minimizing use restrictions, eliminating state mandates, and enhancing county authority to pledge revenue for bonding. OPPOSE legislation that would adversely impact the capacity of counties to fund local infrastructure needs or services, particularly countywide facilities and programs, through local option taxes or state-shared revenues. OPPOSE legislative efforts to diminish or eliminate county home rule authority to impose impact fees. Growth Management Reform: School Concurrency: SUPPORT a statewide policy of integrated school planning and school concurrency where appropriate based on available capacity and projected student enrollments. Streamlinina I State I Reaional Oversiaht: SUPPORT legislation that improves comprehensive planning by defining the proper roles and interests of the state, by promoting local flexibility, and by streamlining state and regional oversight of planning decisions. SUPPORT a regional process that addresses the extra-jurisdictional impacts of local decisions and to promote better intergovernmental coordination. State Funding Reductions/Cost Shifts: OPPOSE state funding cuts that reduce funding for local services or shift more responsibility to provide services at the local level. Efforts to reduce state government should not result in increased spending or taxing pressure on local governments. DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE PROPOSED FY 2002-03 COST SHIFT IN PREDISPOSITION COUNTY DETENTION COSTS ALACHUA $259,022 BAKER $14,508 BAY $148,703 BRADFORD $11,183 BREVARD $446,715 BROWARD $1,390,316 CALHOUN $14,508 CHARLOTTE $78,885 CITRUS $85,837 CLAY $121,804 COLLIER $270,205 COLUMBIA $76,165 DESOTO $25,691 DIXIE $11 ,183 DUVAL $947,833 ESCAMBIA $529,227 FLAGLER $24,482 FRANKLIN $8,463 GADSDEN $64,982 GILCHRIST $5,138 GLADES $3,325 GULF $9,672 HAMIL TON $9,370 HARDEE $18,135 HENDRY $32,038 HERNANDO $76,467 HIGHLANDS $48,359 HILLSBOROUGH $1,356,163 HOLMES $16,321 INDIAN RIVER $100,042 JACKSON $32,944 JEFFERSON $9,067 LAFAYETTE $3,627 LAKE $197,667 LEE $439,763 2001 FAC Legislative Policy Committee Meetings October 4, 2001 Orange County (Orlando), Florida COUNTY DETENTION COSTS LEON $199,782 LEVY $29,318 LIBERTY $907 MADISON $9,067 MANATEE $272,018 MARION $269,903 MARTIN $106,087 DADE $2,031,675 MONROE $29,318 NASSAU $53,497 OKALOOSA $179,834 OKEECHOBEE $40,803 ORANGE $1,081,726 OSCEOLA $115,457 PALM BEACH $868,041 PASCO $214,592 PINELLAS $844,466 POLK $606,601 PUTNAM $127,244 ST. JOHNS $136,614 ST. LUCIE $301,940 SANTA ROSA $129,360 SARASOTA $204,618 SEMINOLE $343,348 SUMTER $30,527 SUWANNEE $22,366 TAYLOR $7,556 UNION $6,045 VOLUSIA $552,802 W AKULLA $21,459 WALTON $28,713 WASHINGTON $12,996 Unknown $58,937 Out of State $59,844 TOTAL $15,885,267 : GGGGGGGGGOGeeeeeOGO e e 'I' e e ASSESSING FLORIDA'S G G . ANTI-TERRORISM CAPABlllTIES G G RECOMMENDATIONS G G o G G G G G G G o G o 0 G G o 0 G . o . o e o G e . e . e G G t~' .. G ~G' ~! .-'~} G~.·' vw . ~ ",'," - ..., ...."') R.'«' eeeOGOeGGGOGOOOOOGG .','~ .~ .... .', ,J ,,,OR/O,,, ~, f~! ~ ",:¡ ,..,,'} ".",¡f' Assessing Florida's Anti-Terrorism Capabilities Recommendations The events of September 11, 2001 weakened the American public's confidence in the government's ability to protect our homeland from terrorist attack. While international terrorism is principally a Federal responsibility, in light of new realities, states must do more to prepare to combat all types of terrorism. Florida's economic prosperity depends heavily on travel and tourism, and it's citizens and visitors have the right to feel and be safe. It is important that Florida's government leaders take immediate steps to ensure that this State is safe from and prepared to respond in the event of a terrorist attack. Accordingly, on September 14, 2001, Governor Jeb Bush formally directed the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and the Florida Division of Emergency Management (DEM) to immediately complete a comprehensive assessment of Florida's capability to prevent, mitigate, and respond to a terrorist attack. Under the State plan, FDLE is the lead agency for crisis management and DEM is the lead agency for consequence management. The Governor directed these agencies to consult with all involved parties and recommend improvements for strengthening the state's anti-terrorism strategy. Governor Bush further directed that the Assessment examine our capabilities regarding training programs, equipment, and execution protocols, focusing particularly on preventing/mitigating a terrorist attack. The Governor requested a report be completed within ten working days. To meet these goals four primary workgroups were formed around the State's existing emergency support functions: Emergency Services, Human Services, Critical Infrastructure, and Public Information & Awareness. Using the existing networks of law enforcement, firefighters, emergency medical services, and selected private sector partners, these workgroups collected information about Florida's existing capabilities and capacities. An Assessment Tool was developed and deployed to collect critical information not already available at the State level. Outstanding response was received from Sheriffs, Police, Fire/Rescue, Emergency Medical, and State agencies, as well as critical private sector industries. Although this was not a scientific survey, the returned instruments provided valuable insight into the status of Florida's anti-terrorism preparedness. Subject matter experts were asked to join the workgroups to review and analyze the information and develop recommendations for strengthening Florida's safety and security framework. Subject matter experts included sheriff, police, and fire and emergency services professionals as well as private sector partners critical in maintaining public and government services. Recommendations of this group were reviewed, validated and approved by the chief executives of State, County, and Municipal agencies with emergency responsibilities in Florida. The primary recommendations for strengthening Florida's anti-terrorism preparedness are outlined in this report. It is noted that these recommendations will add value not only in strengthening the State's anti-terrorism strategy, but also to our overall public safety issues. It is noted that references to anti-terrorism in this document refer to both domestic and international threats to the safety of Florida's citizens and visitors. Assessing Florida'. Anti-Terrorism Capabilities Page 2 of 13 .. \,-?R1o.¡ ~"" .~l~i . . ~ . ~ "j ~I)t} R.~ Assessing Florida's Anti-Terrorism Capabilities Executive Summary ..,.~:\ ~ "~I, ;' . . Governor Bush's CharCl,! Review and make recommendations for Improving the existing emergency response framework, and strengthen Florida's Anti-Terrorism Strategy regarding: . Equipment . Training Programs · Execution Protocols fr.2ject Guidin~ Princie!!! 1. Validate and build on existing State Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan 2. Strengthen Florida's anti-terrorism preparedness and prevention 3. Maximize Involvement of federal, state, and local government, as well as appropriate private sector entities 4. Implement recommendations for improvement using existing regional FDLE/DEM model · "I ...... ~IJ :l ,\.ORIO~ ß" ~ {tr'~.. I tt 11! t¡,1' ,.. '~ .# ""lie} u«' Assessing Florida's Anti-Terrorism Capabilities Recommendations I I. Emergency Services t Law Enforcement 1. IMPLEMENT REGIONAL ANTI· TERRORISM TASK FORCES (RATTF) in each of the seven FDLE/DEM regions. Florida's preparation for and response to threats and acts of te"orism must be regionally designed and implemented. Otherwise, our effort will be fragmented and ineffective, and the associated costs will soar. Short Term * Organize RATTFs on the Incident Command System Model to be led by FDLE, a Sheriffs Office. or a Police Department. RA TTFs will be responsible to a statewide, multi-agency oversight board, consisting of representatives from FDLE, Florida Sheriffs, and Florida Police Chiefs. Duties include coordination of training, law enforcement disaster response teams, monitoring terrorist groups, collection and dissemination of intelligence and investigative information, participation in subsequent criminal investigation in the event of an attack. * Cross-designate all law enforcement personnel assigned to the task forces, similar to the narcotics task forces. * Charter RATTFs to work with federal task forces to ensure a seamless effort in preventing, predicting and responding to terrorist attacks. Long Term * Authorize the establishment of the RATTFs in Florida Statute. 2. ENSURE all response personnel receive appropriate training. TRAINING is critical to the safety of law enforcement personnel and the efficient and effective handling of te"orist incidents. Without proper training, the tragic effects of the initial incident would, in fact, worsen and become further complicated. Short Term * Ensure Basic Awareness Level training is provided for all first responders. The curriculum should be included in both the basic law enforcement recruit academy and mandatory in-service retraining. * Conduct recurring Incident Command System Training for supervisors. * Schedule and provide enhanced training for bomb response. Long Term * Implement mandatory Weapons of Mass Destruction Operations Level training for tactical response teams such as SWAT or Emergency Response Teams. * Provide enhanced Unified Command Training for interdisciplinary unit response. * Conduct, annually, a full-scale functional exercise to validate training and maintain a state of readiness. Assessing Florida's Antl·Terrorism Capabilities Page 4 of 13 ,_ .. ''-9' ~! ~ .,~; "'ltc)- R.-.., ..,.}.. ." ..... ~'¡ -' .: .', Assessing Florida's Anti-Terrorism Capabilities Recommendations 3. IDENTIFY and OBTAIN appropriate equipment for all response efforts. EQUIPMENT Is essential to ensure immediate, effective, and safe response, Short Term * Equip all responding law enforcement personnel with the necessary types of Personal Protection Equipment needed for each of the varying duties to be performed at the scene of any incident. Training is of limited benefit without this type of equipment, especially in cases of biological and chemical contaminants. * Identify specialized field equipment necessary to support a major incident scene, such as generators, portable lighting, and robotic equipment as identified in the FDLE Mutual Aid Resource System (MARS). Long Term * Identify and upgrade mobile command post vehicles and related equipment to provide for on-site command and communication. * Identify and/or purchase specialized response vehicle/vessels/aircraft (i.e., armored vehicles, and offshore patrol boats). * Extend MARS database to other public safety network users and expand it to include their information, while maintaining existing confidentiality. 4. ENHANCE retrieving, storing and sharing of vital intelligence and investigative information. INTELLIGENCE and investigative information is critical to the prevention, response and subsequent investigation of a terrorist attack, Short Term * Expand utility of anti-terrorism data through creation of a dedicated statewide anti-terrorism database maintained by the FDLE Office of Statewide Intelligence (OSI) and make available to all Florida law enforcement agencies for their respective regions. * Share anti-terrorism intelligence and investigative information gathered in Florida by Regional Anti-Terrorism Task Forces with federal terrorism task forces. * Provide a clearinghouse and analysis function for terrorism intelligence, to include a comprehensive document security protocol, through the Office of Statewide Intelligence. * Encourage cooperation between Public Health components and the Regional Anti-Terrorism Task Force in combined criminal and epidemiological investigations. * Identify all government and public databases and methodologies that contain information needed in the anti-terrorism efforts. Long Term * Provide funding for the Regional Anti-Terrorism Task Forces to obtain intelligence and investigative information from informants. * Obtain full access to Banking Secrecy Act data for analysis and comparison related to terrorism and other criminal investigative efforts. A....slng Florida's Antl·Terrori.m Capabilities Page 5 of 13 .' ..~. , .., ~'l .: ~,\.~~ .KI,. II! ~~; ,.~ Jo.\<{' Assessing Florida's Anti-Terrorism Capabilities Recommendations 5, COORDINA TE COMMUNICATION command and control between responding agencies. A compatible communication system is essential to the efficient and effective response and recovery efforts during terrorist incidents. Long Term * Ensure compatibility of the state law enforcement 800 MHz system with local government entities (law enforcement and emergency response agencies). * Establish complete redundancy for emergency radio communication and information systems. * Adopt Legislation and/or Public Service Commission rule to require commercial cellular telephone carriers to provide prioritization of frequencies to public safety users during critical incidents. * Integrate Law Enforcement, Fire, and EMS systems for cross-disciplinary communication. * Disburse federal funds consistent with priorities outlined in Assessina Florida's Anti-Terrorism CaDabilities. 6. ENHANCE early warning, response and recovery capabilities through PROVEN AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGY for Public Safety agencies. Short Term * Enhance investigative capability for cyber-terrorism/computer network security. * Contract with a private vendor for single point of access to public sources of information (Le. drivers license information, motor vehicle registration, etc). Long Term * Integrate Automated Fingerprint Identification System technology with regulatory databases to promote more effective screening of applicants, employees, and licensees. * Expand CJNet to be accessible to other public safety entities (Le., county OEM, EMS, Fire/Rescue ). 7. ENHANCE and EXPAND prevention/regulationlstatutory remedies to combat terrorism. Short Term * Create Work-Study Group(s) to address new, modified or enhanced legislation/administrative rules to allow law enforcement to effectively investigate and negatively impact those committing terrorist acts. Issues to be addressed by the Work Study Group(s): · Expand wiretap and surveillance capabilities ensuring that they incorporate new technologies (Le. wireless communications) and conform to federal law. · Identify and/or train language experts for use in wiretap and surveillance activities. · Create a mechanism by which dissemination of otherwise public records can be postponed when disclosure could adversely affect an on-going criminal investigation. · Examine need for regulation of certain industries (Le. flight training schools, hazardous material transportation companies). Assessing Florida's Anti-Terrorism Capabilities Page 6 of 13 ,\,O R, 0", ~, fll,.~ :'j,! '\~l "'lit)- R.~ Assessing Florida's Anti-Terrorism Capabilities Recommendations .' .... .., .~ :' Long Term * Expand Public Records Exemptions for records related to: · Anti-Terrorism Prevention · Anti-Terrorism Intelligence · Security Plans · Response Plans · Vulnerability Assessments · law Enforcement communication devices including assigned telephones and pagers. · Arrest booking documents and information that if released may compromise an on-going investigation. * Create a mechanism to allow information generated and maintained by regulatory agencies to systematically generate and disseminate notifications to FDlE's Office of Statewide Intelligence of matches against suspect lists. * Provide immunity from liability for those making good faith reports of ·suspicious activity or persons" to law enforcement and for the good faith maintenance by law enforcement of such information and intelligence. * Require background checks and employment standards for individuals working or having regular access to ports of transportation. * Consider options to enable law enforcement to detain for a reasonable period of times those individuals suspected of terrorist activities or involvement. 8, Implement short and long term recommendations regarding issuance of driver licenses and identification cards, * Implement measures to eliminate the inadvertent issuance of fraudulent driver licenses. The Florida Driver License is a universally accepted form of identification and driver license records (photos, applications, and transactions) contain a wealth of information that supports the investigative process. The integrity of documents and proof of identity is crucial to the protection of citizens, business community and law enforcement. The driver license issuance process must be enhanced to ensure reliability and validation of identity (specific recommendations have been approved). * Acquire equipment for driver's license issuance to create a record of companion documents used to establish identity. * Provide a high level of identity security and enhance the forensics aspects of investigative activities through use of layered biometrics technology, such as facial recognition, fingerprint and iris scanning. When applied to programs such as driver license issuance, biometrics provides a competent method to ensure the integrity of the issuance process. 9. EXAMINE FEDERAL ISSUES that if addressed would improve State and National anti-terrorism efforts. Short Term * Encourage Immigration & Naturalization Service to tackle lack of resources and improve responsiveness to requests for assistance. Assessing Florida's Anti-Terrorism Capabilities Page 7 of 13 .O}' ~\' ... ~. " -- \\.OR'O-4 ~, 'ß.1í1 "', .... ~ ~.t ""1tC)' "..<f' Assessing Florida's Anti-Terrorism Capabilities Recommendations * Provide authority for local and state law enforcement to act under INS/federal law and to locally detain those individuals believed to be in violation of immigration laws until federal agents can assume control. * Explore the creation of a reporting window for foreign nationals currently in the United States to submit for fingerprinting, photographing and determination of legal documentation. Apply the new standards to all entering foreign nationals. * Identify a means for sharing classified intelligence information relative to potential threats with appropriate state officials. * Participate in state task forces and supply relevant intelligence information. * Supplement Sky Marshal program with experienced and cross-designated local law enforcement officers. * Consider development of Sea Marshal program for protection of cruise ships and vessels transporting critical and/or sensitive cargo. Long Term * Automate interface between INS databases and FCIC Hot Files (wanted persons, stolen vehicles, etc) to provide local law enforcement an automatic response to determine if a foreign national is legally documented. * Explore possibility of obtaining and storing current photograph and fingerprints of foreign nationals upon entry into the United States (utilizing LiveScan type technology). Fire and Emeraency Services 1, ENSURE all response personnel receive appropriate training. TRAINING is critical to the safety for fire and emergency service personnel and the efficient and effective response to and mitigation of terrorist incidents, Short Term * Enhance Awareness training for all Emergency Responders. * Provide funding for Operations through Technician Level training. * Develop training and capacity for mass casualty incidents in each are of the state. * Adopt the use of the Incident Management System Long Term * Construct an Urban Search and Rescue training facility for statewide utilization. * Establish Mass Casualty training for all EMS and health care agencies and facilities. * Conduct, annually, a full-scale functional exercise to validate training and maintain a state of readiness, maximizing reality-based scenarios. Assessing Florida's Anti·Terrorism Capabilities Page 8 of 13 ,,,OR/a.., '~ t&~! fl., , .... ~'" ....~ ...~ Assessing Florida's Anti-Terrorism Capabilities Recommendations .>~' IIIIU '.~~. ::: !'" " 2. IDENTIFY and 08T AIN appropriate equipment for all response efforts. EQUIPMENT is an essential component with training to ensure safety, effective response and mitigation. Short Term * Begin acquiring Personal Protection Equipment needed to perform the varying duties at the scene of any incident. Training is of limited benefit without this type of equipment. * Identify and begin upgrading mobile command post vehicles and related equipment for on-site command and communication. * Identify and being acquiring specialized vehicles and equipment necessary to support all responding components (i.e., Hazardous Materials, Urban Search and Rescue, Disaster Medical, and Mass Casualty) at a major incident scene. * Disperse Federal funding consistent with recommendations in State Plan (Assessing Florida's Anti- Terrorism Capabilities) * Expand the State Working Group on Domestic Preparedness to include the private and public sector 3. COORDINATE COMMUNICA TION command and control between responding agencies. A compatible communication system is absolutely essential to the efficient and effective response and recovery efforts during terrorist incidents. Short Term * Develop plan to integrate Law Enforcement, Fire, and EMS systems for cross-disciplinary communication. * Disperse Federal Funding consistent with the priorities outlined in Assessing Florida's Anti- Terrorism Capabilities. Long Term * Upgrade state Emergency Medical System's communications capabilities consistent with emerging technology * Establish complete redundancy for emergency communication and information systems. * Seek Legislation and/or Public Service Commission rule to require commercial cellular telephone carriers to provide prioritization of frequencies to public safety users during critical incidents. * Expand CJNet to be accessible by other public safety entities (i.e., county OEM, EMS, Fire/Rescue ). t II. Critical Infrastructure I 1. IMPROVE the State's critical infrastructure readiness and protection, Short Term * Identify priority assets and related infrastructure and venues. Assessing Florida's Anti-Terrorism Capabilities Page 9 of 13 l í " ..~ " ...u ~' oJ ~ : ,....0 R '0.. ~, f~! ~ ",¡ ..~ ".".i' Assessing Florida's Anti-Terrorism Capabilities Recommendations * Designate high consequence and/or unique essential service. * Design and implement corresponding deployment plans to ensure asset protection. 2. PERFORM PHYSICAL SECURITY AUDITS AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS with minimum standards such as background investigations, access and security controls and physical/electronic measures to protect critical infrastructures. Short Term * Expand Critical Facility Database. * Develop Physical Security Plans. Long Term * Expand the standard assessment format, as utilized by the State Working Group for Domestic Preparedness and as established by the Department of Justice Training Manual for statewide use by all entities. * Mandate participation in an assessment process by specific industries that deal in or transport hazardous materials. * Require State agencies that have regulatory responsibilities to ensure that vulnerability assessments are completed by those industries they regulate. 3. DEVELOP, IMPLEMENT and REHEARSE a BUSINESS/DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN by all State Agencies for all State functions in order to continue critical services in times of emergency. Short Term * Develop agency specific essential service resumption plans including human resources, information systems and facilities. 4, EXEMPT certain information on private infrastructure assets from public disclosure. Short Term * Pursue statutory revision of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, to provide and strengthen exemptions allowing for government and business operations to protect their critical information pertaining to physical security plans, and disaster recovery plans. 5, PROVIDE private sector businesses and government entities with accurate and timely information regarding credible terrorist threats so that life, property and vital services are protected. Short Term * Pursue an aggressive public awareness strategy to alert businesses and governmental entities of credible terrorist threats. Establish mechanisms to counter misinformation that may lead to mass Assessing Florida's Anti-Terrorism Capabilities Page 10 of 13_ \ ,,,ºR10...¡ {tí'~' '~~-~,.,Ij~ . ..' }je ~ ·l ....IIc).R.~ Assessing Florida's Anti-Terrorism Capabilities Recommendations .., . ..~, ..... ~} t .: hysteria resulting in the loss of vital government services in the form of unnecessary calls for service. 6. ENSURE all personnel receive appropriate training. TRAINING of all governmental entities and private industry partners in response to implied threats and actual events is critical. Short Term * Begin creation and implementation of: · Anti-Terrorism and Security Training · Emergency Plans · Discipline Specific Training J III. Human Services , 1. ENSURE all response personnel receive appropriate training. TRAINING is critical to ensure the safety of all responders to an incident and to allow for the continuity of operations for the Human Services Branch. Short Term * Begin implementing training in all Emergency Support Function components relating to response to Weapons of Mass Destruction incidents. 2. IDENTIFY and OBTAIN appropriate equipment for all response efforts. EQUIPMENT is an essential component with training to ensure that all responders are equipped to handle the variety of situations that could arise in a bio-te"orist event. Short Term * Allow mobile staging units provided during emergency response activities to expand beyond animal control to include protection of citizens from contamination. Long Term * Enhance current diagnostic capability for biological events through the acquisition of a facility and appropriate equipment. 3. PROVIDE ABILITY to state and local agencies to fully implement special needs shelters * Transportation during evacuation (special needs for elderly population) * Continuity of health care * Supplies Assessing Florida's Anti-Terrorism Capabilities Page 11 of 13 / .. .'~'" '\ ... .~ : .. ,,,,OR'D-i fÍ!(\' .~I,J! ,,' ,... ~ ~" #0;11<). "...,. Assessing Florida's Anti-Terrorism Capabilities Recommendations 4. ENHANCE PROTOCOLS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS to ensure security and provide for the needs of victims, volunteers and responders. Short Term * Develop and implement a system to include security background checks (including FDLE intelligence files) for certain persons who access a restricted area during an impacted scene. * Develop and implement a system to issue credentials and identification badges during the response to a terrorist incident. * Explore the feasibility of conducting background checks (including FDLE intelligence files) on vendors and their agents. * Enhance security measures for safeguarding food, water and ice inventories at feeding sites. * Seek clarification from FEMA as to previous denials and then direct new strategies to allow the Department of Elder Affairs to qualify for FEMA funding. * Modify the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan to incorporate the coordination of Mental Health and Family Well Being activities into the mission of the same Emergency Support Function. Long Term * Establish a standard to identify the risks for responding individuals/teams as it relates to disease exposure. Establish the terms and conditions under which those persons would be at risk. * Ensure that copy of valid driver license is obtained on all truck drivers and maintain record on drivers and companies. * Coordinate leasing of trucks, forklifts, etc. with Department of Emergency Management Logistics section. * Seek amendments to Federal Regulations to allow the use of USDA commodities for feeding of responders, in addition to victims. * Require an approved and finalized disaster plan for Exotic animal ownership and licensed parks. * Obtain needed veterinary/ medical supplies such as field operating equipment, medicines, and tents, many of which could be obtained through the surplus market from hospitals, government agencies (including the military) and universities. I IV. Public Information and Awareness I 1. ENSURE individuals, families and visitors are prepared prior to a terrorist incident. Short Term * Continue all hazard public awareness campaigns that would include public service announcements, training courses, and printed materials. Assessing Florida's Anti-Terrorism Capabilities Page 12 of 13 7 , .' ,...~RIO.¡ ~I ..., .,' , ,~.! ~ ;". ....IJc}.U.-..,. .., ';'. .... ~J ? - .. Assessing Florida's Anti-Terrorism Capabilities Recommendations 2. UTILIZE PUBLIC ALERT and NOTIFICA TION systems to inform citizens. Informing citizens Is essential for saving lives and reducing injuries of all Floridians and visitors in the event of a te"orist incident. Short Term * Use existing notification systems such as the Emergency Alert Systems (EAS) or the NOAA Weather Radio to provide immediate alert and notification of the event to the public. It is the responsibility of local, state, and federal governments to continuously provide information to the public to protect its citizens, visitors and infrastructure and issue protective action public instructions, specifically related to evacuation, shelter, and re-entry. Long Term * Install a back up EAS capability at the Florida Department of Law Enforcement headquarters. Alternate monthly tests from the State Emergency Operations Center, the Department of Law Enforcement and the Primary EAS stations. 3. PROVIDE all citizens and visitors with updated event activities. Short Term * Identify and train state agency communications directors and public information officers to ensure the dissemination of fact-based emergency information. * Identify a coordinator who will manage the Florida Emergency Information Line operation in conjunction with Emergency Operations Center staff. Identify ways to increase capacity during large emergencies. Long Term * Implement procedures to establish a multi-agency Joint Information Center within the State Emergency Operations Center (EOC). 4. Broadcast public instructions to the general population regarding protective actions to be taken. Short Term * Develop standard procedures to ensure the Governor and public officials can broadcast emergency information from pre-identified locations across the state. As.esslng Florida'. Antl·Terrorlsm Capabilities Page 13 of 13 f- "I ~.. .. FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 2001.2002 GUIDING PRINCIPLES HOME RULE County officials are dedicated to the preservation of democratic principles, specifically the notion that the govemment closest to the people is the appropriate authority to serve the needs and requirements of the community. Home rule is the right of the people to determine and implement a public purpose at the grassroots level. Home rule power is conferred to Florida counties by Article VIII, Section 1 (f), of the Florida Constitution (1968), and by Section 125.01, Florida Statutes. The preservation of this fundamental democratic concept is essential to the operation of county govemments in Florida. Accordingly, the Florida Association of Counties is dedicated to maintaining the integrity of county home rule power, both administrative and fiscal, which allows counties to develop and implement community-based solutions to local problems. UNFUNDED MANDATES A state directive that compels local govemments to provide a service, program, or benefit without providing the appropriate monies or a funding source is regarded as an unfunded mandate. County officials recognize that some state mandates are justified because they achieve agreed upon statewide policy goals. However, many, if not most, mandates on counties are imposed without the consensus of local govemments or the resources for implementation. Mandates drain the financial lifeblood from county govemments and cripple their ability to adequately deliver the fundamental services required by law. Mandates also compromise a county's ability to provide discretionary services requested by the local community. Thus, the Florida Association of Counties opposes any state or federal actions that limit the ability of local elected officials to make fiscal and public policy decisions for the citizens they represent. COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The strength and vitality of local and state economies are built upon the foundation of infrastructure and services provided by county govemment. Furthermore, our economic prosperity rests on the stability of community leadership and the tools that are made available to county officials. Lastly, our community's "quality of life" requires evermore cooperation and teamwork between public and private sectors. Therefore, counties need flexible tools to develop economic strategies that target local strengths, enhance and expand employment opportunities, and maintain an adequate infrastructure. While economic development occurs primarily at a local and regional level, it is imperative that the state assists local communities by providing its resources through incentives, marketing and technical assistance. Accordingly, incentives at the state and local level should be based on need and provide for a return on public investments. REVENUE FLEXIBILITY ~', The ad valorem tax is authorized to Florida counties by Article VII, of the Florida Constitution, and implemented by general law. Within limitations, the Constitution authorizes counties to levy up to 10 mills on all taxable property for county purposes. This tax is the primary revenue source for the operation of county government. However, the revenue generated by this tax has not kept pace with the demands and requirements of modem government in a rapidly growing state. As a result, counties have to resort to other tax and non-tax revenue sources to meet their demands. The Florida Association of Counties is dedicated to protecting the integrity and fairness of the ad valorem taxing authority. Also, FAC encourages the creation or enhancement of alternative public financing mechanisms to meet the ever-increasing demands on county government service delivery. ,;; GROWTH MANAGEMENT & &NVIRONMiNT ~BQNMl;tiTAL ~ The impacts of growth and development in Florida during the last 30 years Aa¥e has imposed signi~cant bllr-dens on brouoht sianificant benefits and costs to county government. Chapter 1 êJ, Florida Statuto&, mandate& that counties comply with statewido planning roquiremonts. Counties also 3m required to ha'le a compr~hensive plan ttlat meets tho diverse planning noeds of the local community, balancing cllrrent and ft.¡tllre infrastrblctllre needs with development and revenuo pressllms, "o'hile protosting and sonsorving the enviroRment. Given Florida's substantial arowth durina this Deriod. the Florida Association of Counties SUDDorts a comDrehensive Dlannino framework with state oversiaht and minimum local reauirements. At the same time. this Dlannina framework must recoanize that many local land use decisions result in little to no imDact on state and reaional interests. Furthermore. because Florida's communities are remarkably diverse. this Dlannina framework must also allow maximum flexibility to Florida's counties to address uniaue local concerns and conditions. Thus. to the oreatest extent Dossible, the state's comDrehensive Dlannina framework must defer to local decision-makino and utilize an incentive-based rather than reaulatorv-based aDDroach to better orowth manaaement. Consistent with sounties' home rbllo powor&, eOllnty officials must havo I:ltitude to develop and imposo revenlle sources that allO\': gro'Nth to pay fer itsolf. The Florida Association of Counties supports the right of county officials to responsibly perform their planning, police power, and other functions to address local issues at the local level. County officials must have the ability to make reasonable decisions for the advancement of the local community on zoning, comprehensive planning, and infrastrblcture issues without being subjected to prohibitive claims for damages for infringement on private property rights. Additionally. and consistent with counties' home rblle Dowers. county officials must have the latitude to develoD and imDose revenue sources that allow arowth to Day for itself its fair share. In addition FinallY, conservation and protection of QY! natural resources is an I:4ndeniable componont ef critical to managing growth, Dromotina economic development, and maintaining an attractive aRå healthy environmont auality of life for county citizens. Accordinaly. and J in keeping with home rblle authority, the Florida Association of Counties defends SUDDOrts the right to adopt local environmental regulations to protect a community's unique natural resources and suppeRs in(¡ontivo based policies whish ensouF3ge environmental self 3I:Jdits intended to halt or pro'Jont envir-onmental damage. . ,.....,----, .. . FINANCE & TAXATION '. The backbone of good government is financial accountability. For public officials to be accountable to taxpayers, the decision to tax should occur at the same level of government where the decision to enact a new program is made. County governments have a responsibility to raise the necessary revenues to finance a wide variety of critical, basic public services. Counties need a revenue base that adequately finances the services and programs required by the state, and the programs and services needed locally. If counties are to succeed in meeting their responsibilities, an adequate and fair local tax policy that is commensurate with the many responsibilities of modem county government must be developed. HUMAN SERVICES County officials recognize the importance of providing for quality human services to protect and assist citizens in need. Counties have demonstrated this commitment by providing preventive services, medical assistance, social and aging services, and housing assistance; however, most human service programs and the laws that govern these programs are established by federal and state governments, though many of these services are being provided through community-based services at the local level. As a critical link in the federal/state/county human services partnership, counties must be included in formulating and implementing policies that protect the health, safety, and welfare of all the citizens of the state; allow for flexibility within communities to achieve the desired level of services based on local needs and priorities; and encourage the integration and coordination of human services. Given the varying capacity and funding capabilities of counties, the Florida Association of Counties supports adequate federal and state funding to ensure uniformity in the human services continuum. PUBLIC SAFETY County governments have a long tradition of ensuring the public's safety through funding and support of the state's court system, county emergency management programs, sheriffs' offices, juvenile programs, victims' assistance, and the jail system in each county. The funding necessary to operate these programs places a huge demand on revenues in every Florida county. Since 1972, statutory changes and case law have expanded county court-funding responsibilities to include an ever-increasing multitude of costs. Those costs include providing office space for judges, public defenders, and state attorneys, expert witness fees, court appointed counsel costs, and many other related expenditures. While some revenue sources have been provided to assist counties in defraying court costs, these sources are grossly inadequate. The revenue from ad valorem taxes funds the majority of the county's mandated share of the operation of the state court system. The counties' long-held policy is that funding of the state court system is the responsibility of the state. County funding of the state's courts causes ad valorem taxes intended to fund programs truly local in nature to be used for state programs over which counties have no control or accountability. Accordingly, the Florida Association of Counties opposes the use of ad valorem taxes to fund the state's judicial responsibilities and supports implementation of Constitutional Revision 7, which provides for a more equitable manner of court funding. ~ - ~ ,... .,¡~ ,..,......,..,...~ OPTIONS FOR LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING Octob~r 2001 For the 2002 legislative session, FAC staff has compiled a list of changes to state and local revenue/funding sources that could enhance local government capacity to address infrastructure needs. All suggestions listed here are merely possible options, not definite recommendations. The first list represents those options, that in the opinion of staff, have the best chance of successful adoption by the Legislature whereas the second list represents those options with less chance of adoption. Recognizing the scarcity of state revenues, staff focused in both the first and second lists only on those options that would have no impact on the state budget or state revenues. THE FIRST LIST . Increase the bonding capacity of local government revenue sharing dollars . Remove referendum requirement for the Local Option Infrastructure Surtax to create an incentive for joint/coordinated local government planning (note: this option needs more detail and must consider whether to include schools) . Increase funding for the "Small County Kicker" by redirecting certain sales tax revenue from the Solid Waste Management Trust Fund. . Eliminate or reduce grant restrictions from the Rural Infrastructure Trust Fund THE SECOND LIST · Authorize counties to impose a local option documentary stamp tax for infrastructure needs (referendum - yes or no?) · Create a Revolving Loan Program for infrastructure needs (zero percent loans only) · Authorize or encourage local governments to create special districts to address infrastructure needs · Authorize county local option license fee on those mobile homes not considered real property. Growth & Environmental Planning Policy Committee October 4, 2001 GROWTH MANAGEMENT Growth Management Reform: School Concurrency: SUPPORT a statewide policy of integrated school planning and school concurrency where appropriate ba~~d on available capacity and projected student enrollments. JA..eot11ítieS"Wíffiñïëlrï nrniectèâ sl...dðnt Qrowttf. SUPPORI leaislation that orovides for alternative school financina and oversiaht where intearated ~çhool olannina is imolemented. CJ /~)6 Water & Land-Use Planning: Relates to possible legi supply planning (Le., making water supply availabilit comprehensive planning or a concurrency test). - I i the authoritv of local aovernments to make land use decisions with reaard to water suooly facilities in order to address environmental imoacts. comoatibilitv. infrastructure demands. and other land use issues. ,fJ1þð ,4~d ~'~fj~1¡ / / , rl~ II' y~, ,,1,1' ~ ; ¡ ,~/I rW! /jfJ ~ '~ t ¡, GROWTH & ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY COMMITTEE Thursday, October 4,2001 1 :30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. Sheraton World Resort, Florida Bay Room 1-2 Orange County (Orlando), Florida 2002 Preliminary Policy Statements GROWTH MANAGEMENT Annexation: SUPPORT legislation that revises Chapter 171, F.S., to re-define key terms, addresses enclaves, avoids duplicative public spending, provides better notice to counties and affected p~perty ,(V ~ owners, and requires municipalities to assume service responsibilities for annexed areas. (J )//J Billboards: SUPPORT legislation maintaining county authority to regulate outdoor advertising, r including reasonable amortization schedules for non-conforming uses. Gr9Wth Management Reform: , ~ School Concurrency: SUPPORT a statewide policy of integrated school planning and school concurrency where appropriate based on available capacity and projected student enrollments. StreamlininQ / State / ReQional OversiQht: SUPPORT legislation that improves comprehensive planning by defining the proper roles and interests of the state, by promoting local flexibility, and by streamlining state and regional oversight of planning decisions. SUPPORT a regional process that addresses the extra-jurisdictional impacts of local decisions and to promote better intergovernmental coordination. "JNater & Land-Use Planning: Relates to possible legislation linking land use and water supply ~Ianning (Le., making water supply availability a required consideration in comprehensive planning or a concurrency test). ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Environmental Permitting: Relates to legislation waiving penalties and fines for minor violations by governmental entities and allows the completion of public projects to serve as mitigation under certain circumstances. Everglades Funding: Relates to a dedicated, recurring source of funding for the state portion of the comprehensive Everglades restoration project, provided such sources do not adversely impact . ~3ïFing state programs that assist local governments. ¡f\¡¡~ 'iferformance-Based Permitting: Relates to proposed legislation by the Department of '~ . \ì Environmental Protection to consider a permittee's past compliance and enforcement history in the '\ review/approval of environmental permits. Preservation 2000 I Florida Forever: SUPPORT legislation that preserves the existing funding levels of state land conservation programs. Where funding for state land conservation programs is reduced, SUPPORT legislation that promotes the state and local partnership in land conservation by protecting county land acquisition programs. (v v Ii/ 'n .ft¡ tJ- V ¡-l,,-J V1bJ' ¡Jpb f Recycling: Relates to restoring solid waste management and waste reduction funding to local governments in order to preserve the state, local and private partnership to promote recycling, market development, and the conservation of landfill capacity. In the absence of adequate state funding for solid waste management and waste reduction, the Legislature should provide for a statewide recycling goal and enhances regulatory flexibility in meeting recycling standards. Waste Tire Funding: SUPPORT legislation that ensures that the revenue from waste tire fees returns to the counties to combat mosquito infestations and prevent the illegal dumping of tires. Water Quantity: SUPPORT legislation promoting alternative water supply development, including the use of economic incentives. OPPOSE legislation authorizing the privatization of state water resources. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Affordable Housing: SUPPORT legislation to revise the State Housing Initiative Partnerships (SHIP) program 10 ~lIo'" great9~~ilily f~~c':""l geve'AlRoA! CQl>lributinn6~eliminates duplicative or costly compliance monitoring, ' lows I huusing oES8ssm8rtt to determinp. n6'8t alleeatisr:li np.tween singl~ family, ml~familv, 809 IClIläl Clsslslante. Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRAs): SUPPORT legislation that revises the definitions of "slum" and "blighted area" pursuant to Chapter 163, Part III, F.S., to include specific, objective criteria of poor economic conditions and general disrepair. SUPPORT legislation that requires approval for the use of county tax-increment financing for any future CRAs or the expansion/modification of existing CRAs. FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 2001-2002 GUIDING PRINCIPLES HOME RULE County officials are dedicated to the preservation of democratic principles, specifically the notion that the government closest to the people is the appropriate authority to serve the needs and requirements of the community. Home rule is the right of the people to determine and implement a public purpose at the grassroots level. Home rule power is conferred to Florida counties by Article VIII, Section 1 (f), of the Florida Constitution (1968), and by Section 125.01, Florida Statutes. The preservation of this fundamental democratic concept is essential to the operation of county governments in Florida. Accordingly, the Florida Association of Counties is dedicated to maintaining the integrity of county home rule power, both administrative and fiscal, which allows counties to develop and implement community-based solutions to local problems. UNFUNDED MANDATES A state directive that compels local governments to provide a service, program, or benefit without providing the appropriate monies or a funding source is regarded as an unfunded mandate. County officials recognize that some state mandates are justified because they achieve agreed upon statewide policy goals. However, many, if not most, mandates on counties are imposed without the consensus of local governments or the resources for implementation. Mandates drain the financial lifeblood from county governments and cripple their ability to adequately deliver the fundamental services required by law. Mandates also compromise a county's ability to provide discretionary services requested by the local community. Thus, the Florida Association of Counties opposes any state or federal actions that limit the ability of local elected officials to make fiscal and public policy decisions for the citizens they represent. COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The strength and vitality of local and state economies are built upon the foundation of infrastructure and services provided by county government. Furthermore, our economic prosperity rests on the stability of community leadership and the tools that are made available to county officials. Lastly, our community's "quality of life" requires evermore cooperation and teamwork between public and private sectors. Therefore, counties need flexible tools to develop economic strategies that target local strengths, enhance and expand employment opportunities, and maintain an adequate infrastructure. While economic development occurs primarily at a local and regional level, it is imperative that the state assists local communities by providing its resources through incentives, marketing and technical assistance. Accordingly, incentives at the state and local level should be based on need and provide for a return on public investments. REVENUE FLEXIBILITY The ad valorem tax is authorized to Florida counties by Article VII, of the Florida Constitution, and implemented by general law. Within limitations, the Constitution authorizes counties to levy up to 10 mills on all taxable property for county purposes. This tax is the primary revenue source for the operation of county government. However, the revenue generated by this tax has not kept pace with the demands and requirements of modern government in a rapidly growing state. As a result, counties have to resort to other tax and non-tax revenue sources to meet their demands. The Florida Association of Counties is dedicated to protecting the integrity and fairness of the ad valorem taxing authority. Also, FAC encourages the creation or enhancement of alternative public financing mechanisms to meet the ever-increasing demands on county government service delivery. GROWTH MANAGEMENT & ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION The impacts of growth and development in Florida during the last 30 years Rave has imposod significant burdens on brouqht siQnificant benefits and costs to county government. Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, mandatos that counties comply ':./ith statowido planning roquiromonts. Counties also aro required to have a comprehensive plan that meots the diverse planning noods of the local community, balanoing current and futuro infrastructuro needs with developmont and rovenue pressures, 'Nhile protecting and oonsorving tho environmont. Given Florida's substantial Qrowth durinQ this period. the Florida Association of Counties supports a comprehensive planninq framework with state oversiQht and minimum local requirements. At the same time. this planninQ framework must recoQnize that many local land use decisions result in little to no impact on state and reQional interests. Furthermore. because Florida's communities are remarkablv diverse. this planninq framework must also allow maximum flexibilitv to Florida's counties to address unique local concerns and conditions. Thus. to the Qreatest extent possible. the state's comprehensive planninQ framework must defer to local decision-makinq and utilize an incentive-based rather than reQulatorv-based approach to better Qrowth manaQement. Consistent v./ith countios' homo rulo pO'.\'ers, oounty officials must havo latitudo to dO'lolop and impose rovonuo sourcos that allO'.\' growth to pay for itsolf. The Florida Association of Counties supports the right of county officials to responsibly perform their planning, police power, and other functions to address local issues at the local level. County officials must have the ability to make reasonable decisions for the advancement of the local community on zoning, comprehensive planning, and infrastructure issues without being subjected to prohibitive claims for damages for infringement on private property rights. Additionallv. and consistent with counties' home rule powers. county officials must have the latitude to develop and impose revenue sources that allow Qrowth to pay for itself its fair share. In addition Finallv, conservation and protection of our natural resources is an undeniable component at critical to managing growth, promotinQ economic development, and maintaining an attractive aM healthy on'lironment Qualitv of life for county citizens. AccordinQlv. and ~ in keeping with home rule authority, the Florida Association of Counties defends supports the right to adopt local environmental regulations to protect a community's unique natural resources and supports inoentive based policies whioh encourage environmental self audits intended to halt or pro'Jent environmental damage. FINANCE & TAXATION The backbone of good government is financial accountability. For public officials to be accountable to taxpayers, the decision to tax should occur at the same level of government where the decision to enact a new program is made. County governments have a responsibility to raise the necessary revenues to finance a wide variety of critical, basic public services. Counties need a revenue base that adequately finances the services and programs required by the state, and the programs and services needed locally. If counties are to succeed in meeting their responsibilities, an adequate and fair local tax policy that is commensurate with the many responsibilities of modern county government must be developed. HUMAN SERVICES County officials recognize the importance of providing for quality human services to protect and assist citizens in need. Counties have demonstrated this commitment by providing preventive services, medical assistance, social and aging services, and housing assistance; however, most human service programs and the laws that govern these programs are established by federal and state governments, though many of these services are being provided through community-based services at the local level. As a critical link in the federal/state/county human services partnership, counties must be included in formulating and implementing policies that protect the health, safety, and welfare of all the citizens of the state; allow for flexibility within communities to achieve the desired level of services based on local needs and priorities; and encourage the integration and coordination of human services. Given the varying capacity and funding capabilities of counties, the Florida Association of Counties supports adequate federal and state funding to ensure uniformity in the human services continuum. PUBLIC SAFETY County governments have a long tradition of ensuring the public's safety through funding and support of the state's court system, county emergency management programs, sheriffs' offices, juvenile programs, victims' assistance, and the jail system in each county. The funding necessary to operate these programs places a huge demand on revenues in every Florida county. Since 1972, statutory changes and case law have expanded county court-funding responsibilities to include an ever-increasing multitude of costs. Those costs include providing office space for judges, public defenders, and state attorneys, expert witness fees, court appointed counsel costs, and many other related expenditures. While some revenue sources have been provided to assist counties in defraying court costs, these sources are grossly inadequate. The revenue from ad valorem taxes funds the majority of the county's mandated share of the operation of the state court system. The counties' long-held policy is that funding of the state court system is the responsibility of the state. County funding of the state's courts causes ad valorem taxes intended to fund programs truly local in nature to be used for state programs over which counties have no control or accountability. Accordingly, the Florida Association of Counties opposes the use of ad valorem taxes to fund the state's judicial responsibilities and supports implementation of Constitutional Revision 7, which provides for a more equitable manner of court funding. ...¡ I .-. . ... I.. .. I!.. .- t!!.. !!f -- ~ ..... FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 2002 LEGISLATIVE POLICY COMMITTEE MEETINGS FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION POLICY COMMITTEE Thursday, October 4, 2001 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Sheraton World Resort, Florida Bay Room 1-2 Orange County (Orlando), Florida Commissioner Welton Cadwell, Lake County, Chair Commissioner Lane Rees, Walton County, Vice Chair Commissioner Shannon Staub, Sarasota County, Vice Chair 9:00 a.m. 9:05 a.m. 10:15 a.m. 10:30 a.m. 11 :30 a.m. 11 :55 a.m. AGENDA INTRODUCTION & OPENING REMARKS REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY POLICY STATEMENTS BREAK REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY POLICY STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) DISCUSSION OF NEW ISSUES & GUIDING PRINCIPLES ADJOURNMENT/CLOSING REMARKS *Next Committee Meeting November 15, 2001, 8:30 a.m. - 11 :30 a.m. FAC 2002 Legislative Conference Radisson Hotel Orlando 5780 Major Boulevard Orange County / Orlando -á FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION POLICY COMMITTEE Thursday, October 4, 2001 9:00 a.m. -12:00 p.m. Sheraton World Resort, Florida Bay Room 1-2 Orange County (Orlando), Florida 2002 Preliminary Policy Statements ADMINISTRATION Animal Control Officers I Cross Reporting: SUPPORT maintaining local government decision making relating to county animal control officers reporting known or suspected incidences of child abuse. w f::. o/I,J-/::; A! /'t?f3 Þ' ,/.)/J/'"' Building Inspectors I Privatization: Relates to allowing an owner or developer to hire his or her own private "commercial building inspector" to review and certify plans for code compliance in order to obtain a building permit from any governmental jurisdiction in Florida. Additionally, the "commercial building inspector" would be authorized to perform all mandatory inspections required by the code, and then submit a certificate of compliance to the local government's building department. Economic Development: SUPPORT expanding economic development incentives, including the maintenance and nurturing of natural resources and existing businesses and industry as well as encouraging new businesses to locate in Florida. Florida Building Code I Local Amendments: SUPPORT maintaining local government ability to address local or regional issues through local amendments to the State Building Code. Florida Retirement System: OPPOSE any changes to the benefit structure of the existing defined benefit plan that would substantially increase employer contribution rates. áUHt.",'¡·:;" <to ft#ù Special Risk Class: OPPOSE any attempts to expand eligibility for membership in the FRS Special RisClass, which would increase the employer contribution rates. \ .A rivatization of Public Library Operations: Relates to the "outsourcing" of daily operations of \ I(J public libraries to private, for-profit corporations, with the expectation that these private companies V would be eligible for state libr grants. Public Library Funding: R lates to funding of State Aid to Libraries to the maximum level of 25 cents for each dollar of local xpenditure as provided in s. 257.17, Florida Statutes. Also relates to funding of all public library con u~~n grant requests on th,e State's priority list at the highest level authorized by State rule. ($$) If''(/.---¡J)v¡ t/W"" t) tfYJ~ JD ~ .7D ~~~ Transportation Funding: SUPPORT the continuation of state funding for the County Incentive Grant Program, the Small County Road Assistance Program and the Small County Outreach Program. Relates to returning revenues generated from the state service charge (seven percent) on local option fuel taxes back to the county where the tax was levied to meet local transportation needs. ¡)II,,¡ ~ " ç~ c ~,c /tAJr6' ~ FINANCE , '/J 11 Jí}" cß u"'-"'1 . dP J d /'-/J, 4(- ,/ lV'v {;øv 3, ~~ L/íí~ I Communication Services Tax: SUPPORT legislation further implementing t~ Commuhication ~ / Services Tax that ensures proper jurisdictional tax collections by requiring industry that uses ':J.Pt:'. : enhanced zip codes be tested for accuracy; ensures enforceable provisions with respect to tax U' treatment of bundled services; and preserves the local government ability to require cable in-kind agreements. EMS Assessments: SUPPORT legislation expanding the use of non-ad valorem assessments to fund county emergency services. Infrastructure Funding: SUPPORT legislation providing for additional state and local revenue sources to specifically address public infrastructure needs. To that end, SUPPORT legislation that provides for greater flexibility to local governments by removing impediments to implementing local revenue sources, minimizing use restrictions, eliminating state mandates, and enhancing county authority to pledge revenue for bonding. OPPOSE legislation that would adversely impact the capacity of counties to fund local infrastructure needs or services, particularly countywide facilities and programs, through local option taxes or state-shared revenues. OPPOSE legislative efforts to diminish or eliminate county home rule authority to impose impact fees. Property Tax Reform: Save our Seniors Exemption: SUPPORT revision to the additional homestead exemption that will ensure equitable recognition of senior income. Additionally, SUPPORT reducing the burden on seniors where the annual test for eligibility to receive the exemption is maintained. ~ Taxation of Leasehold Property: Relates to the taxation of governmental leaseholds. Issue include: o Equity among taxpayers; o Expansion of the municipal exemption to include property not used for governmental purposes; o Efforts to waive county immunity with respect to county owned property; and o Allowing the Legislature to define public purpose for municipal exemption. St f Funding Reduct lost Shifts: OPPOSE state funding cuts that reduce funding for local se ices or shift more res sibility to provide services at the localleve!. Efforts to reduce state government should not result in increased spending or taxing pressure on local governments. State Tax Reform: SUPPORT efforts to reform and simplify the state tax system that achieve equitable and adequate revenue sources, including but not limited to, the following key components: · Recognizes and preserves county revenue raising authority; · Continues the state/county partnership of state shared revenues; · Enhances equity through expanded sales tax base; · Increases county ability to provide infrastructure; · Provides adequate state funding for mandated local programs; and · Does not increase of the local tax burden or service responsibility. COUNTY PROGRAMS - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION **County Incentive Grant Program: Created by the Legislature (within the FOOT) to provide grants to counties to improve transportatiOn facilities located on the State Highway System or to relieve congestion on the State Highway System. --About $490 million is allocated to the program over a 1 O-year period **$125 million appropriated for FY 2001-2002 --All 67 counties are eligible for participation in this program --Funding is allocated as follows: *60% for projects on the Florida Intrastate Highway System *50% for projects on the State Highway System *35% for projects on the local highway system that are demonstrated to relieve congestion on the State Highway System **Small County Outreach Program: Created by the Legislature (within the FOOT) to assist small county governments in resurfacing or reconstructing county roads, or in constructing capacity or safety improvements to county roads. --About $120 million is allocated to the program over a 1 O-year period **The funding for the SCOP program is included in the $125 million appropriation to the County Incentive Grant Program (FY 2001-2002) --Counties with a population of 150,000 or less are eligible for the program --The State provides a 75% match of the project costs **Small County Road Assistance Program: Created by the Legislature (within the FOOT) to assist small counties in resurfacing or reconstructing county roads. --About $250 million is allocated to the program over a 10-year period **$25 million appropriated for FY 2001-2002 (State Transportation Trust Fund) --Counties with a population of 75,000 or less are eligible for this program --Projects that add capacity to a county road (i.e. adding lanes) are not eligible for this program --At a minimum, a county must have either a local option gas tax rate of 6 cents per gallon and an ad valorem rate of 8 mils, or an ad valorem rate of 10 mils to be eligible for this program --Projects funded from the SCRAP Program would be included in the FOOT's five-year work program OPTIONS FOR LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING October 2001 For the 2002 legislative session, FAC staff has compiled a list of changes to state and local revenue/funding sources that could enhance local government capacity to address infrastructure needs. All suggestions listed here are merely possible options, not definite recommendations. The first list represents those options, that in the opinion of staff, have the best chance of successful adoption by the Legislature whereas the second list represents those options with less chance of adoption. Recognizing the scarcity of state revenues, staff focused in both the first and second lists only on those options that would have no impact on the state budget or state revenues. THE FIRST LIST r): Increase the bonding capacity of local government revenue sharing dollars Remove referendum requirement for the Local Option Infrastructure Surta,x to create ãfffrïC8ntive for joint/coordinated local government planning (note: this option needs more detail and must consider whether to include schools) · Increase funding for the "Small County Kicker" by redirecting certain sales tax revenue from the Solid Waste Management Trust Fund. · Eliminate or reduce grant restrictions from the Rural Infrastructure Trust Fund THE SECOND LIST · Authorize counties to impose a local option documentary stamp tax for infrastructure needs (referendum - yes or no?) ,V;)~ te a Revolving Loan Program for infrastructure needs (zero percent loans only) ~~ uthorize or encourage local governments to create special districts to address ~ '. infrastructure needs · Authorize county local option license fee on those mobile homes not considered real property. \ FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 2001-2002 GUIDING PRINCIPLES HOME RULE County officials are dedicated to the preservation of democratic principles, specifically the notion that the government closest to the people is the appropriate authority to serve the needs and requirements of the community. Home rule is the right of the people to determine and implement a public purpose at the grassroots level. Home rule power is conferred to Florida counties by Article VIII, Section 1 (f), of the Florida Constitution (1968), and by Section 125.01, Florida Statutes. The preservation of this fundamental democratic concept is essential to the operation of county governments in Florida. Accordingly, the Florida Association of Counties is dedicated to maintaining the integrity of county home rule power, both administrative and fiscal, which allows counties to develop and implement community-based solutions to local problems. UNFUNDED MANDATES A state directive that compels local governments to provide a service, program, or benefit without providing the appropriate monies or a funding source is regarded as an unfunded mandate. County officials recognize that some state mandates are justified because they achieve agreed upon statewide policy goals. However, many, if not most, mandates on counties are imposed without the consensus of local governments or the resources for implementation. Mandates drain the financial lifeblood from county governments and cripple their ability to adequately deliver the fundamental services required by law. Mandates also compromise a county's ability to provide discretionary services requested by the local community. Thus, the Florida Association of Counties opposes any state or federal actions that limit the ability of local elected officials to make fiscal and public policy decisions for the citizens they represent. COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The strength and vitality of local and state economies are built upon the foundation of infrastructure and services provided by county government. Furthermore, our economic prosperity rests on the stability of community leadership and the tools that are made available to county officials. Lastly, our community's "quality of life" requires evermore cooperation and teamwork between public and private sectors. Therefore, counties need flexible tools to develop economic strategies that target local strengths, enhance and expand employment opportunities, and maintain an adequate infrastructure. While economic development occurs primarily at a local and regional level, it is imperative that the state assists local communities by providing its resources through incentives, marketing and technical assistance. Accordingly, incentives at the state and local level should be based on need and provide for a return on public investments. REVENUE FLEXIBILITY r The ad valorem tax is authorized to Florida counties by Article VII, of the Florida Constitution, and implemented by general law. Within limitations, the Constitution authorizes counties to levy up to 10 mills on all taxable property for county purposes. This tax is the primary revenue source for the operation of county government. However, the revenue generated by this tax has not kept pace with the demands and requirements of modern government in a rapidly growing state. As a result, counties have to resort to other tax and non-tax revenue sources to meet their demands. The Florida Association of Counties is dedicated to protecting the integrity and fairness of the ad valorem taxing authority. Also, FAC encourages the creation or enhancement of alternative public financing mechanisms to meet the ever-increasing demands on county government service delivery. GROWTH MANAGEMENT & ENVIRONMENT EN'lIRONI'v1ENT AL PROTECTION The impacts of growth and development in Florida during the last 30 years Rave has imposed significant burdens on brouQht siQnificant benefits and costs to county government. Chaptor 163, Florida Statutos, m~mdates that counties comply with state'Nide planning mquiremonts. Counties also am mquirod to have a comprehensivo plan that meets the diverso planning needs of the local community, balancing current and futuro infrastruoture noods with dovelopmont and revenue pressures, '.vhile protocting and conserving the onvironment. Given Florida's substantial Qrowth durinQ this period. the Florida Association of Counties supports a comprehensive planninQ framework with state oversiQht and minimum local requirements. At the same time. this planninQ framework must recoqnize that many local land use decisions result in little to no impact on state and reqional interests. Furthermore, because Florida's communities are remarkably diverse, this planninq framework must also allow maximum flexibility to Florida's counties to address unique local concerns and conditions. Thus. to the qreatest extent possible, the state's comprehensive planninq framework must defer to local decision-makinq and utilize an incentive-based rather than requlatorv-based approach to better Qrowth manaqement. Consistent with counties' homo rule powors, county officials must ha'.'e latitude to dovolop and impose revenue sourcos that allm\' grmvth to pay for itself. The Florida Association of Counties supports the right of county officials to responsibly perform their planning, police power, and other functions to address local issues at the local level. County officials must have the ability to make reasonable decisions for the advancement of the local community on zoning, comprehensive planning, and infrastructure issues without being subjected to prohibitive claims for damages for infringement on private property rights. Additionally. and consistent with counties' home rule powers. county officials must have the latitude to develop and impose revenue sources that allow Qrowth to pay for itself its fair share. In addition Finally, conservation and protection of our natural resources is an undeniable component at critical to managing growth, promotinQ economic development, and maintaining an attractive aM healthy environment quality of life for county citizens. AccordinQly. and ~ in keeping with home rule authority, the Florida Association of Counties defends supports the right to adopt local environmental regulations to protect a community's unique natural resources and supports incentive based policies which encourago environmental self audits intonded to halt or prevent environmental damage. FINANCE & TAXATION The backbone of good government is financial accountability. For public officials to be accountable to taxpayers, the decision to tax should occur at the same level of government where the decision to enact a new program is made. County governments have a responsibility to raise the necessary revenues to finance a wide variety of critical, basic public services. Counties need a revenue base that adequately finances the services and programs required by the state, and the programs and services needed locally. If counties are to succeed in meeting their responsibilities, an adequate and fair local tax policy that is commensurate with the many responsibilities of modern county government must be developed. HUMAN SERVICES County officials recognize the importance of providing for quality human services to protect and assist citizens in need. Counties have demonstrated this commitment by providing preventive services, medical assistance, social and aging services, and housing assistance; however, most human service programs and the laws that govern these programs are established by federal and state governments, though many of these services are being provided through community-based services at the local level. As a critical link in the federal/state/county human services partnership, counties must be included in formulating and implementing policies that protect the health, safety, and welfare of all the citizens of the state; allow for flexibility within communities to achieve the desired level of services based on local needs and priorities; and encourage the integration and coordination of human services. Given the varying capacity and funding capabilities of counties, the Florida Association of Counties supports adequate federal and state funding to ensure uniformity in the human services continuum. PUBLIC SAFETY County governments have a long tradition of ensuring the public's safety through funding and support of the state's court system, county emergency management programs, sheriffs' offices, juvenile programs, victims' assistance, and the jail system in each county. The funding necessary to operate these programs places a huge demand on revenues in every Florida county. Since 1972, statutory changes and case law have expanded county court-funding responsibilities to include an ever-increasing multitude of costs. Those costs include providing office space for judges, public defenders, and state attorneys, expert witness fees, court appointed counsel costs, and many other related expenditures. While some revenue sources have been provided to assist counties in defraying court costs, these sources are grossly inadequate. The revenue from ad valorem taxes funds the majority of the county's mandated share of the operation of the state court system. The counties' long-held policy is that funding of the state court system is the responsibility of the state. County funding of the state's courts causes ad valorem taxes intended to fund programs truly local in nature to be used for state programs over which counties have no control or accountability. Accordingly, the Florida Association of Counties opposes the use of ad valorem taxes to fund the state's judicial responsibilities and supports implementation of Constitutional Revision 7, which provides for a more equitable manner of court funding. · Ronðld l. Boo~r P. R Iõ)Œ~ŒDWŒm liO 'OCT I 2001 W -"'--"',.~",.".-,",...""""",,, lRW OrrlCU PROHl!lOnRl HI!OCIHTlOn C(" ADMIN, OFFICE September 26, 2001 \0\ ~ \ V\ \, ¡(\ìÞ Û t·) Mr. Doug Anderson County Administrator St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia A venue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 Dear Doug: I received copies of the correspondence sent to you by Steven Seibert this past week. I would like to be certain that your staff is following up on this latest correspondence and working with Tara, as well as the Department staff, to maximize on the grants and programs that the Secretary has outlined. If we are to be successful this year, we are going to need to be creative and driven on these type of opportunities. Let us hear from you right away. sm;:L ~Ona1d L. Book / 1//' RLB:drb cc: Tara Dudley (oncordeCenter 2 - 2ggg northeðlt Igl \treet, p~ 6 - ßventurð, rloridð 33180 - Telephone (30~) 93~-1866 - tðX (30~) 93~-9731 _.A_O>_._õ<_ 101 [ð\t (olle<¡e ßvenue, \uite 302 - TðllðhðHee, rloridð 32301 - (8~o) 224-28~9 111 Ronðld l. Book, P. R ~r Œ Œ Œ ~ W Œ m L~ i SEP 21 2001 I ! U I L JU Cc., ADMIN OFFICE "'.~'.............--,....,.,.,... lHW OHlCU PROfUlIOnHl HIIOCIHlIOn September 24,2001 rt /6\ ï ~ !¡J/r1 Doug Anderson County Administrator St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 Re: Special Legislative SessionlBudget DeficitlFiscal Crisis Dear Doug: This is a short note to let you know that the Governor is planning to call a special session of the Legislature to deal with Florida's fiscal crisis and the downturn in the economy. This session is likely to be called during the week of October 9, 2001. All previously approved legislative projects and all revenue sharing issues could be impacted by this session. Florida is in its worst economic position in history, and we must be prepared in trying to minimize the impacts on your local government. Please contact me with any questions. RLB:dh cc: Bill Rubin, Esq, Concorde Center 2 - 2999 northeðll191 \treet, p~ 6 - "venturð, rloridð 33'80 - Telephone (30S) 93S-¡866 - rðX (30S) 93S-9131 101 [ðll Colle~e "venue, \uite 302 - Tðllðhðllee, rloridð 32301 - (8so) 22~-28~9 ~A5~/?V~ ~~ -~ø ta C-- .__ ¿__~ (, or- .,¿;;¡/~ , ~Jí e-c.Æ:.;;Z:: ~U'J 1~ / ~Aí/ ¿;'~/_.of)~b ;P-'?/d ~ Y /)Vr C4bJ L""",'6¿.rlði::' i,: q ! t.~ Æ / ¡Ii',J y/ r , t;Jcß/ ~ . 11 R'ì vJ ('1 I v .,.. 'è> ¡yr 1:~~Þø~ ~p; ¡1 From: To: Date: Subject: <tom. barry@dot.state.fI.us> <douga@co.st-lucie.fI.us> 8/24/01 2:03PM Your Phone Call Doug, I tried to return your call but you were out, so I thought I'd cover it with an e-mail. You had called about funds for the 1-95/St. Lucie West Boulevard/Prima Vista Boulevard Interchange. Last year Representative Harrell had the funds added to the Transportation Outreach Program (TOP) during the legislative process. However, the Governor only approved those projects that had been recommended by the TOP Council, resulting in the $50,000 being vetoed. ' The Department is not pursuing funds for this project at this time. Our analysis showed it would be many years before the interchange reached an unacceptable level of service. If there are specific short term improvements the County would like the Department to consider, please contact Rick Chesser or his staff in Fort Lauderdale. Tom Barry Secretary Florida Department of Transportation Phone: (850) 414-5205 Fax: (850) 488-5526 tom. barry@dot.state.fI.us cc: <rick.chesser@dot.state.fI.us> ¿)~/~J BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DOUGLAS M. ANDEr-SON August 10,2001 Ronald L. Book, Esquire 2999 Northeast 19J5tStreet Penthouse 6 Aventura, FI 36180 Dear Ron: Please find enclosed correspondence received today regarding the implementation of Article V/Revision 7. As stated in the memorandum from Mario Kay Cariseo, Executive Director of the Florida Association of Counties, we must continue to reinforce the importance of the implementation of Article V /Revision 7 and continue to educate the Governor and Legislators on this very important issue. Also enclosed is an August 2nd memorandum with a briefing paper prepared by the Florida Association of Counties on this subject. We need to proceed with implementation on this very imp-ortant legislation. r- Berson inistrator 01-14 c: ard of County Comrrùssioners Robert Bradshaw, Assistant County Administrator Dan McIntyre, County Attorney JOHN D, GRUHN, District No, 1 . DOUG COWARD, District No, 2 . PAULA A, LEWIS, District No, J . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, Disrricr No, 4 . CUFF GARNES, Disrricr No, 5 County Adminisrraror - Douglas M, Anderson 2.300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 · Phone (561) 462-1450 · TDD (561) 462-1428 FAX (561) 462-1648 · emoi/: douga@stlucieco.gov 08/09/01 19:46 FL A550C OF COUNTIES ~ 5T LUCIE NO.362 P001/003 . II Ii .- ... FIDR. ., ASSOCIAT; ':r:, .m. COUN !Ç ..- P.O. BOk 549/1allahauee, FIOI'ida 32302 Phone: 850/922-4300 SunC'øm: 292-430tJ FAX: 8501488.1501 Wrb,;'e-: w_.fl.<twn,iH.Cøm PLEASE DISTRIBUTE IMMED/A TEL YI .' M e M 0 RAN DUM... via facsimile TO: All County Commissioners County Administrators Mary Kay Cariseo, Executíve Director ~\~"\ FROM: DATE: RE: August 9, 2001 Governor'a Response - Article V Trust Fund The Florida Association of Counties recelveå today Governor Jeb Bush's response 10 President Karen Marcus' letter regarding the Article V Trust Fund veto (see attachment). As you can sse from the letter, counties must continue theír strong advocacy at the focal level and reinforce the importance of this issue to your county with the Govemor and legislators. As your members begin to focus on the 2002 Session, preas8 continue to educate them about Article V/Revision 7. A briefing paper outHning the constitutional changes is available on FACls website at www.f-counties.com (go to the Governmental Relations Page under uLinks"). Thank you for your support and commitment to this very important matter. MKC/clb Attachment CC~ County lobbyists M"'Y .fA t' P.tflS¡O E.\'eCUTIVC OllUCIUN I ItAtfEN r. NlAacUS "'<{.~I()fNT 'AIM 'fACH I CnuClt DtJNNJCIt I'R~SJPENT· ELEG CJSCfØt.Io I c. CUY ....u·CY , S r VIet PRE$IDCNT HIGHlANDS I eUH YHMiL IN() V¡r.F PRF,Ç//JENT lEON 08/09/01 19:46 FL RSSOC OF COUNTIES ~ ST LUCIE NO.362 P002/003 ~. ". ' . ," ,::~~~;~~,;: '_ /:.-:; ;.! '..~~'J- . ,.' . ~) STATe OF 'I.OIUDA ~ffíce of tbe ~ouernot J e9 l~USIi co Vf;1I NO It THE CAPITOL TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA n3,9.oo01 www.naov.com 8150·488·7148 U0-4SNI801 (ax August 2, 2001 REC~"/Cf) AUG 0 9 ZQO¡ FLORIDA ASs\.Ilo.ill\ nON OF COUNTIES ." The Honorable Karen Marcus President, Florida Association.of Counties Poat Office Box 549 TaJ)ahassee, FL 32302,' Dear Commissioner Marcus: Thank you for writing me regarding my vetoes of certain expenditures for Article V purposes in the 2001-02 budget. I understand that you and your association disagree with these vetoes, and I directed my policy and budget staff to respond to your Executive Director's e-mail on this maUer. You will also be contacted by Donna Arduin, my Budget Director, for further discussion of these matters. You are certainly right in stating that I agree that compliance with the American with Disabilities Act can be difficu1t for small counties. That is why 1 approved funding (or small-county courthouse renovations approved in line item #2970. which provides $3.34 million to fund renovations required by the ADA. This line item provides funding for 18 small counties with amounts ranging from $75,000 to $500tOOO. My s~arrs reference to my veto statement and rationate for rejecting ·'piecemeal" tunding was not meant to refer to the fact that some of the Article 5 funding was designated for certain counties. (Although that is one reason why I vetoed funding for conflict legal services in only three counties). ) believe that the stl.\te can no 10nger efford to ñmd on a fragmented basis certain court costs when no one has a aolid understanding ofthe state's Article V liabilities which begin in 2004t only three fiscal years away. As I noted in my press conference, we can and will make an intelligent determination of the 2004..05 liabilities. Then and only then we will begin funding that liability. To expend $20 mmjon of state taxpayer dollars on services that arc not yet required under state law, and do not correspond to a comprehensive approach to state"court funding responsibilitiest is simply iru::onsistent with my views on the use of state funding, This is especially true when we know that economic conditions are already requiring a much morc conservative use ()f state financja1 resources. o G ~s M8\tIri1g Initiative o .. A MINTDIIo .. A liD ""'" f'-' 1·IDO-.z~·n'6 08/09/01 19:46 FL ASSOC OF COUNTIES ~ ST LUCIE NO.362 P003/003 The Honorable Karen Marcus August 2, 2001 Page Two At the a.ppropriate time, the Legislature will be required to fUnd an increase of hundreds of millions of dollars in the area of the state courts. Unti1 we understand the extent of this required tunding, it would be premature to expend state dollars on a fragmented basIs before this responsibility is incurred. To wldress the need for researching the costs of Revision 7, I approved significant funding to determine exactly bow much liability the state wiU incur in 2004. As I noted in my veto message, 161 ~ave approved the expenditure of5800,OOO to allow the Joint LegisJati\le Committee pn Articlc V to retain consultants or statrto assist in implementing Revision 7, and studying the cost of such implementation. I believe it is unwise to continue to fund an indeterminate portion of the Article V costs with the Article V Trust Fund until this effort is complete. Current funds in the County Article V Trust Fund wiU remain available for funding the state's Article V responsibilities in 2004." Of course, such funding will remain available, regardless if the trust fund is reauchorized. The funds wiU simply remain within the working capital fund. I uppreciate your letter and understand that this matter is critically important to your association. I hope you can understand that my duties require that I carefully review a11 state funding to ensure that our state government fulfills its statutory and constitutional responsibilities, In the area of criminal justice. this state al1'eady expends approximately $3 billion to fund the Departments of Corrections, Juvenile Justice, Legal Affairs, State Courts, State Attorneys and Public Defenders, and related areas. In addition. we must invest billions more in education, health and human services, environmental protection, and other areas. My office tooks f01Ward to working closely with you as we collect the data and detennine the final Article V costs. 1 took forward to working together to address the costs ofRevis\on 1 in an equitable and rationale manner, in the face of other budget priorities within state government. Sincerely. ~ JB/mbt .-. . ... FLOR~·~. -~ ASSOCIA"f¡ '1-:' =: OF COUN .... ~ !!.- ~~2~~ c.c.'. ~~ Co·A~' P.O. Box 549 /Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Phone: 850/922-4300 Suncom: 292-4300 FAX: 850/488-7501 Website: www.fl-counties.com MEMORANDUM TO: County Commission Chairs /' FROM: Mary Kay Cariseo, Executive Director SUBJECT: Article V I Revision 7 DATE: August2,2001 In FAC's meetings and discussions with members of the Florida Legislature over the summer, it has become evident that there is a great deal of confusion and misinformation regarding Revision 7 and its implementation. I need to enlist your assistance in further educating legislators on the importance of this issue. I am requesting that you work with your fellow commissioners on your board to schedule breakfast, lunch or dinner meetings with the members of your delegation to educate them on Article V funding and the impact it has on your county. Since you and your colleagues know which of you has the best relationship with each legislator, we suggest you determine who is the most appropriate commissioner to meet with each legislator individually. Enclosed is a briefing paper prepared by FAC for your information and for you to share with legislators when you meet with them. The most effective means of educating your members on this issue is for you to illustrate the local perspective on this issue: If the county did not have to fund these court items we could fund "X" number of additional deputy sheriffs; buy "X" parcels of land for a new park; roll property taxes back by "XU mills, etc. Your staff can help you with these specifics. While the local perspective is most critical, the following are several other points we would like you to stress: . The Florida Constitution requires counties to fund the state court system after Revision 7 is implemented. Counties will continue to provide court facilities; court security; existing criminar justice infor.r:nation systems; limited communications services; and certain local programs. In short, counties will still be responsible for funding hundreds of millions of dollars in support of the courts. MARY KAY CARISEO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR I KAREN T. MARCUS PRESIDENT PALM BEACH I CHUCK DUNNICK PRESIDENT- ELECT OSCEOLA I C. GUY MAXCY 1 ST VICE PRESIDENT HIGHLANDS I CLIFF THAELL 2ND VICE PRESIDENT LEON . There are many revenues and fees that subsidize the courts. If a specific revenue source is provided to fund a particular function or service that will be assumed by the state under Revision 7, that revenue source should be made available to the state. . The current system is rife with a lack of accountability where the people underwriting the cost of the system have little to no oversight. The transfer of many court functions to the state will create statewide efficiencies, uniformity and accountability. It is crucial that th~se meetings with your delegation members take place before legislators become focused on the 2002 Session, which is likely to be contentious due to reapportionment. I~k that you meet with your legislators prior to the FAC Policy Committee mee Ings on October 3. Enclosed is a brief questionãirë-lo7'CÇ>mmlssloners to fill out and return to us so we can remain apprised of your meetings. Please contact all members of your delegation and inform us of your meetings by October 3. Thank you for you assistance on this matter. We urge counties to participate in this effort and to contact all members of their delegation, even those that serve multiple jurisdictions. They need to hear your county's perspective on this issue. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. MKC/jr Attachments cc: FAC Executive Committee FAC Legislative Leadership Council FAC Policy Chairs County lobbyists ec\AT/O", ~~ .... O~ "". ... ~_.. ··b o~.. .-c '2. ,... .: <' 0.... .. ':"i ): ... ..~ ~ _. c., ARTICLE V/Revision 7 A Briefing for County Commissioners Prepared by the Florida Association of Counties, Inc. January 2001 HISTORY In 1972, the Florida Legislature gave voters the opportunity to revise the state courts system by reorganizing its structure. The proposed changes were approved by voters in the 1998 November General Election. Until the 1972 changes were adopted, Florida's courts were a "hodge podge" of municipal courts, county courts, justices of the peace and other court venues. The major impetus behind the changes made in 1972 was to create a unified, state-funded system. While the statewide system that was envisioned came into place, state funding did not and counties have been forced to fund an increasing share of the court system through local property taxes. Although some legislative achievements were enacted by the Legistature, such as the creation of the Article V Trust Fund, 20 years of unsuccessful pleading with the Legislature to assume more ofthe costs of its court system compelled Florida county leaders to pursue an amendment to the state constitution. Revision 7 was adopted by Florida voters in the November 3, 1998, General Election. Revision 7 is required to be fully implemented by 2004. CURRENT COUNTY RESPONSmILITIES Currently, counties fund many components of the state courts system and the offices of the state attorneys, public defenders, and clerks of court. Some of the costs counties pay are statutorily mandated (e.g., court reporters) and some county costs are mandated by court decisions (e.g., additional private attorneys to assist public defenders). Other expenses paid by counties are made in an effort to reduce costs, such as hearing officers to reduce the need for additional judges. Other types of expenses paid by counties include: office space, courtrooms, administrative staff, communication services, expert witnesses, interpreters, security, depositions, court programs (e.g., dispute resolution), and other miscellaneous equipment and travel expenses. State/County Comparison Court Funding 1 $SDD,DDD,DCD $7DD,DDD,DDD nDD,DDD,DDD $5DD,DDD,DDD $4DD,DDD,DDD $3DD,DDD,DDD $2DD,DDD.DDD $1DD,DDD,DDD $D ID-81 15-8& ID-11 15-1S 17-11 Year Source: ¡State Appropriations Data from Florida s Final Budget Report and Ten-Year Summary of Appropriations Data 1988-89 through 1997-98, Office of Planning and Budget, Executive Office of the Governor. County Expenditures data from the Uniform Chart of Accounts (UCA) provided by the Department of Banking and Finance. Counties also pay for the court-related expenses of the clerks of court that are not covered by fees and service charges. CURRENT STATE RESPONSffiILITIES The state funds all salaries and expenses of the District Courts of Appeal and Supreme Court. The state pays for certain costs associated with the offices of the state attorneys, public defenders, judges, and a significant amount of court administration staff. Select travel expenses for judges and expenses for certain court programs, such as Guardian ad Litem, are also funded by the state. Other expenses funded by the state include: expenses of the Judicial Nominating Committe-e, the Judicia) Qualifications Committee, juror expenses, and limited witness expenses. CURRENT COURT APPROPRIATIONS The judicial system represents only 1.4 percent of the total state budget. In FY 2000-01, the courts, public defenders, and state attorneys received approximately $732 million of the state's $51 billion budget. Funding for the Courts in Florida FY 2000-01 Total O>urt Expenditures (1,44%) $732 mlion Total State Expenditures (98,56%) $50,9 biIon Source: 2000-200 I General Appropriations Act. ORIGINS OF REVISION 7 Counties worked with the 1998 Constitution Revision Commission (CRe) to develop what is now known as Revision 7. The proposal was crafted during many months of negotiations among the primary stakehold- ers in the state courts system (counties, the courts, state attorneys, public defenders, and clerks of court). In addition to Revision 7, the Constitution Revision Commission promulgated a Statement of Intent which has been incorporated into West s Florida Statutes Annotated. The Statement of Intent clearly articulates the intent of Revision 7 regarding the funding of the state courts system and the offices of the state attorneys, public defenders, and clerks of court. All parties (state attorneys, public defenders, courts, clerks, and counties) had input in creating this document. WHAT REVISION 7 DOES A summary of the provisions of Revision 7 is as follows: 1) Requires the bulk of expenses associated with the courts, state attorneys, and public defenders to be funded by the state. This includes items such as court reporters, court-appointed counsel, support staff and witness fees. 2) Requires the following related to clerks: · Directs all court-related operations of the clerks of court to be funded primarily by filing fees and service charges. · Allows the courts to receive appropriate fees for court programs. · Requires the state to provide funds to the clerks of the circuit court in instances where charges cannot be levied because doing so would bar access to the courts. · Requires the state to fund any shortfalls that may exist between clerk revenues and expenses. 3) Requires counties to fund: · Construction or lease of courthouse facilities. · Maintenance, utilities, and security of courthouse facilities. · Communications services, existing radio services, and existing multi-agency criminal justice information systems. · Costs and expenses of court programs needed to meet local requirements as determined by the Legislature. Article V . Page 2 4) Requires the Legislature to develop a phase-in schedule and begin appropriating additional court funds in FY 2000-01. Full state assumption of enumerated court expenses must be implemented by July 1,2004. COST ESTIMATES There is no single method for capturing the revenues and expenditures within the state courts system, so exact figures have been difficult to obtain. The Florida Association of Counties and other interested parties advocated for, and the Legislature approved, the creation of a unifonn accounting system for the courts (Chapter 95-400, Laws of Florida). The first year of data colJection, county fiscal year 1998-1999, is now available', and data should be available within a few months for the 1999-2000 fiscal year. While it may not conclusively detennine the exact cost of the system, it should more clearly identify court revenues and expenses. During the last decade, county expenditures for the courts have grown at a rate of 11 percent annually. This dramatic increase is due, in part, to a lack of accountability-counties have been funding a system for which they have no managerial control. Legislative fimding of specific court functions will bring increased oversight and accountability, and economies of scale to the system. The Legislature, for example, could work with the courts to establish statewide appointment parameters and payment schedules for expert witnesses, which currently vary from circuit to circuit. WHAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE THE ADOPTION OF REVISION 7 In 2000, the Legislature passed Chapter Law 00-237 (Chapter 29, F.S.). The legislation created a phase-in schedule to begin the implementation of Revision 7. The phase-in schedule is a follows: FY 2001-2002: Requires review of the revenue generated by the court system and allows appropriate rev- enue to be redirected to the state. FY 2002-2003: Requires review of the state attorneys' offices, public de- fenders' offices, the use of civil indigency counsel, and conflict counsel to determine what functions should be state fimded. FY 2003-2004: Requires review of the offices of the clerks of the circuit and county courts to define court related activities perfonned by the clerks. The legislation requires counties to continue funding the existing elements of the state courts system, state attorneys' offices, public defenders' offices, court- appointed counsel, and the offices of the clerk of the circuit and county courts consistent with current law and practices until the state assumes the cost of these functions. The legislation established a conflict attorney pilot project in Polk County, Hillsborough County, and Miami-Dade County to pay for attorney's fees, costs, and expenses related to conflict counsel. The bill also provided funding for the Small County Contingency Fund to assist counties with a population of85,000 or less with "extraordinary criminal" case-related costs. Chapter Law 00-237, defines the "essential elements" of the state courts system, state attorneys' offices, public defenders' offices, and court-appointed counsel. It also defmes the counties obligations regarding facilities, construction and lease, maintenance, utilities, security, communication systems, existing radio systems, and existing multi-agency criminal justice infonnation systems in a manner that is inconsistent with the express language of Revision 7 and the Statement of Intent promulgated by the Constitution Revision COITunÎssÎon. The legislation also created the Article V Joint Legislative Committee made up of four members from the Senate and four from the House of Representatives. The committee will recommend programs and funding to implement Revision 7. Also created in this legislation was the Article V Financial Accountability and Efficiency Workgroup. The Workgroup was tasked with the following: · Develop recommendations related to financial accountability systems and standards. Article V . Page 3 · Establish alternative budgeting structures and fi- nancial management. · Collect data on revenue sources for the court sys- tem. · Assess the efficiency and effectiveness of operat- ing policies and procedures for the court system, the public defenders and the state attorneys. The committee is made up of eleven voting members and four ex-officio members. FAC has an ex-officio representative on the workgroup. The workgroup will terminate upon submittin~ their report and recommendations to the Article V Joint Legislative Committee, Senate President, House Speaker, Supreme Court Chief Justice, and Governor. A report is due by January 15,2001. COUNTY POSITION Florida counties support implementing legislation consistent with Revision 7 to the Constitution and the Statement of Intent promulgated by the CRC. Such legislation must include the following: . Clarifying county responsibility for funding court operations, specifically as it relates to facilities, security, communication services, existing radio systems, and existing multi-agency infonnation systems. · Immediate state funding of essential court ele- ments, including but not limited to, juror compen- sation, court reporting services, court interpreter/ translator services, conflict counsel, witness fees, and expert witness fees. Florida's counties stand ready to work with the Leg- islature to ensure the court funding transition is as smooth and efficient as possible, and look forward to accomplishing our mutual goals. For more infonnation, contact Mary Kay Cariseo - Executive Director, Carol Bracy - Legislative Director, John Ricco - Director of Enterprise Programs, at FAC - (850) 922-4300. OC\AT101\r v;(,) .... O~ ~. ... ~ ... .. c¿, o ~.. .- c:: ~,... -:< o 1111- ... ~ ): .... ..~ ~ -. c, 100 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Office: (850) 922-4300 Fax: (850) 488-7192 Website: www.fl-counties.com Article V . Page 4 Article V Commissioner/Legislator Questionnaire Commissioner name: Legislator Name: Date of meeting: 1) Was the legislator generally knowledgeable about Revision 7/ Article V? Yes No Comments: 2) Was the legislator aware that counties will still fund a significant portion of the courts after Revision 7 is implemented? Yes No Comments: ~' 3) Did the legislator express a willingness to assist the county in assuring its concerns are addressed when this issue, is acted upon by the Legislature? Yes No Comments: 4) Other general comments: (Please complete this form and fax it back to FAC at 850/488-7192) Article V Commissioner/Legislator Questionnaire Commissioner name: Legislator Name: Date of meeting: 1) Was the legislator generally knowledgeable about Revision 7 / Article V? Yes No Comments: 2) Was the legislator aware that counties will still fund a significant portion of the courts after Revision 7 is implemented? Yes No Comments: 3) Did the legislator express a willingness to assist the county in assuring its concerns are addressed when this issue is acted upon by the Legislature? Yes No Comments: 4) Other general comments: (Please complete this form and fax it back to FAC at 850/488-7192) I) Ronðld L. BOOk, P. R b -- lRW orrico PROrmlOnRl RHOCIRTlOn July 13, 2001 ~ \oJ ~ ® ~ U 1!1 Œ 1 frì; r:¡ ól \rù \ JUL I 6 2001 '2. , 111 ) ~tf¡" _' L u_~ I' Doug Anderson ' { v (J _ C<" ADMIN OC¡:iCE County Administrator C I (1('" ß-¡ St. Lucie County /J~~ IV 2300 Virginia Avenue f . "A /..1 ,/\ Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 I V V" Dear Doug: 1~ As you know, we requested an adjustment of fees for the UPCOmJn~Year. After much discussion with you, our Joint Venture concluded that a $20,000.00 adjustment(which would include expenses) was the right level to request. We determined the need for the adjustment based on the amount of time involved for the County, as well as the expenses we absorbed on behalf of the County over the course of the Session. As you are aware, we did not cost invoice the County, as we did virtually all of our other clients, for expenses. At the increased retainer amount (and the fees are split 50/50 with the Rubin Group), the fee is still below what we normally charge for our other public clients. Although our success with the Governor was not great, we certainly worked hard and got the majority of our agenda accomplished with the Legislature. We believe, with the earlier planning, we will have the opportunity to do much better with the process and the Governor. Our percentage chance of success will be significantly greater. We look forw to our continued relationship with St. Lucie County and hope the Commission will see its y to approve this increase. (oncorde (enter 2 - 2999 northeðlt 191 !treet, p~ 6 - Aventurð, rloridd 33180 - Telephone (J05) 935-1866 - rðX (305) 935-9731 101 [dlt (olle~e Avenue, luite 302 - TdllðhðHee, rloridð 32301 - (850) 22~-2859 Q~ ;-..,; , / / n \~ - RLB:dh Ronàld L Boo~r P. H. lHW OHlCO PROHHIOnHl HHOCIHTlOn August 28, 2001 ~ \ÖI ,C;, J ~ 1f \~8 ,v\ VJ (I:¡~ ,\ ( ~f /~ C' r/1f 0 (\ IV/nt? 't c¡ The Honorable Representative Ken Pruitt ' 2400 SE Midport Road Suite 310 Port St.Lucie, Florida 34952-4806 Re: S1. Lucie County/I-95/St. Lucie West Boulevard Interchange Dear Ken: Any brainstorming help that you can give to S1. Lucie County on this project would be grèatly appreciated. Minimally, we need to get the planning money issue resolved. After you give this some thought, will you give me a call to discuss? Tha . . advance. j/ Sipcere y, / / .I 1/ ¡ Ronald L. Book ,I ¡ i RLB/dm Enclosures BC: Doug Anderson fõ) Œ ~ Œ ß \'Ii Œ~I l1ù AUG 30 2001 æJ Concorde Center 2 - 2999 northeð!t 19' Street, PH 6 - ~venturð, rloridð 33180 - Telephone (305) 935-1866 - rðX (3 5) 935- E ' co ADMIN. OFFIC 101 [ðlt ColI~ ~1't'IJUe, luite 302 - TðllðhðHee, rloridð 32301 - (850) 224-2859 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR August 6, 2001 (/J .~ß\ ~rlì\,r '\OJ ~ @ ~ Ii 1iJ ~ ~ IUù t<OO I 1 2001 ~ Mr. Rick Chesser, PE., District Engineer Florida Department of Transportation 2400 West Commercial Soulevard FL Lauderdale, Florida' ' 33309-3421 ..- cv. ADMIN. OFFICE " - Subject: 1-95 and St. Lucie West Blvd. Interchange - Expansion/Feasibility Review Dear Mr. Chesser: As you may be aware, åmong the various individual projects that Governor Bush 'vetoed as part of the FY 200 1/02 State Budget was a $50,000 appropriation for a feasibility review as to exactly what it will take to complete the interchange at 1-95 and St. Lucie West Boulevard here in St. Lucie County. This appropriation was placed into the budget atthe request of St. Lucie County, through Secretary Barry's Office, as one of the first steps in quantifying the construction costs for completing remaining bridge and roadway alterations to this interchange. As I am sure you are aware, when this interchange was built back in the 1988/89 time period, only Ÿ2 of the interchange structures/ bridges were built. The entry and exit ramps were built with ultimate design considerations in minds; all primary utility lines (the major FPL Transmission lines along the west side of the interchange) were raised/relocated with the ultimate design considerations in mind and most, if not all, of the primary drainage system was constructed with the ultimate designs in mind. All of the right-of-way for the ultimate design is already in FOOT possession. The project is part of the MPO's Transportation Plan, but it is not in the Current Cost Feasible portion of the Plan. Until we get a better handle on exactly what it will cost, we do not feel it is appropriate to put in the Cost Feasible portion of the Plan. The project has been the subject of prior TOP's and special direct legislative funding requests. The project is wholly consistent with the , County's Comprehensive Plan. Since our earlier discussions with Secretary Barry indicated that the evaluation of this interchange's needs would,likely þe in a,n in-house work project, 'we would like to request that this project be included as part of the upcoming Tentative Work Program for the FY 2002/03. Once a better picture on the costs associated with completing this interchange are developed, we will be pursuing the appropriate funding resources to see that the project is completed, through the appropriate processes. JOHN D. ORUHN. Disrricr No.1. DOUG COWARD. Disrricr No, 2 . PAULA A. lEWIS, DisrriCT No, J . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON. DisrricT No.4. CLIFF OAR!'IES. DisrricT No, 5 Counry AdminisrroTor . Douglas M. Anderson 2300 Virginio Avenue · Forr Pierce, FL .34982-5652 Administration: (561) 462-1590 · Planning: (561) 462-2822 · GISffechnical Services: (561) 462-155.3 Economic Development: (561) 462-1550 · Fax: (561) 462-1581 August 6,2001 Page 2 Subject: 1-95 and St. Lucie West Blvd. Interchange· Expansion! Feasibilìty Review Thank you for your attention to this item. If you or your staff have any questions about this matter, please do not hesitate to let me know. DJMI slwestblvdintchg2(h) cc: County Commission, County Administrator County Attorney Pete Hegner Gustavo Schmidt, AICP Develqpment Director ,- ;.i. AUG-24-01 03:28 PM DOUG ANDERSON 5614621648 P.82 From: To: Date: Subject: Doug. f/1r~t r I, II e' <tom. barry@dot.state.fl.us> <douga@CO.st·/ucia.fI. LJs> 8/24/01 2:03PM Your Phone Call trIed to return your call but you were out, so I thought I'd COver it wIth an e-mail. You had called about funds for the r~95/St. Lucie West Boulevard/Prima Vista Boulevard Interchange. Last year RepresentatIve Harrell had the funds added to the Transportation Outreach Program (TOP) during the legislative process. However, the Governor only approved those projects that had been recommended by the TOP Council. resulting in the $50,000 beIng vetoed. ., The Department Is not PUrsuIng funds for thIs project at thIs time. Our analysis showed It would be many years before the interChange reached an unacceptable level of service. If there are specific short term Improvements the County would like the Department to consider, please contact Rick Chesser or his staff In Fort lauderdale. Tom Barry Secretary Florida Department of Transportation Phone: (8S0) 414-5205 Fax: (850) 468-5526 tom. barry@dot.state.fI.us cc: <rick.chesser@dot.state.fl.us> ¿)~ <tIJv/Ç¡ ~ C-VvJ f1/i ,.. ~ I'tIV ~¡t-t4~ø;~ U''j~,J ¡ S!,J¡t1 F I Budget Watch florida' TaxWat Volume 7, Issue 6 October 2001 Guiding Florida through Our Fiscal Storm: TaxWatch Offers $700 Million Budget Cuts Florida's Govemor and Legislature will be making some tough decisions over the next few months as they face the reality that Florida will have less money than anticipated, both for the current budget year and the next. The economy had already slowed, then the tragedy of September 11 occurred. The state's economy, particularly the tourist industry, was hit hard. Revenue Projections Lowered Florida's General Revenue Estimating Conference met soon after the terrorist attacks and forecast that the State's General Revenue receipts for the current budget year are expected to be $673.2 (3.4%) million less than was anticipated and appropriated back when the Legislature crafted the budget. The revenue estimate for next year (fiscal year 2002-03) was also reduced by $800.8 (3.8%) million. Some upward revisions in items such as unused prior year appropriations mitigate the shortfall for this year's budget. These items, along with the money in the Working Capital Fund reduce the effective shortfall. This does not include $970 million in the Budget Stabilization Fund, the State's emergency reserves. However, the last Estimating Conference did not attempt to gauge the full effects of the attacks on Florida's economy. It is scheduled to meet again on October 15, and further reductions in revenue estimates are expected. The Governor has called the Legislature into Special Session October 22 through November I if the general revenue deficit exceeds 1.5% it must meet to resolve it (the current shortfall is 1.3%.) Many ideas for coping with the shortfall have already been tossed about, but generally there are four options: raise taxes; use the Budget Stabilization Fund; reduce spending; or some combination. Implement Cost Savings, Non-fLow-Performing Activities and Reduce Non-Essential Spending First While the Governor has rightly stated that everything should be on the table for discussion, appropriate budgetary policy and taxpayer concerns lead Florida, TaxWatch to recommend that the Governor and Legislature opt for reducing spending first. Raising taxes in poor economic times is questionable policy. This is when taxpayers can least afford it and it can slow economic recovery. The Budget Stabilization Fund (BSF) should be the second option. It was established to meet emergency shortfalls. It is questionable as to whether this constitutes an emergency yet. These are very uncertain times and uncertainty is the enemy of good fiscal policy. With the questions the future holds, maintaining an adequate balance in the BSF would be prudent. Further, any funds taken from the BSF must be replenished within five years. That leaves reducing spending. Instead of an across-the-board "meat-ax" approach, the State should target its cuts. After first focusing on efficiencies, if broader budget cuts still need to be made, administration should be cut first, essential services last. To achieve this Florida TaxWatch offers the following: 1) Cost Savings/Productivity Enhancements. Florida TaxWatch has compiled a list of 20 cost savings ideas worth $400 million.. These are presented in this report. Some of these ideas may not be of immediate help in balancing the budget--particularly this year's because it may take longer for the savings to accrue. Some of the savings are in trust funds, and without legislative action, can't be used to offset general revenue shortfalls. Still, all these items can help reduce the cost of government and lessen the impact of budget cuts. In addition, to the items on this list, the State should explore the implementation of all cost savings recommended by the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA.) OPPAGA has made a substantial number of recommendations over the years that have yet to be implemented. Some of these are reflected in the list of cost savers in this report. 2) Davis Productivity Award "Adapt" Achievements. Also listed in this report are 78 examples of over 500 achievements from the 1999,2000 and 2001 DPA competition that can and should be implemented throughout state government to add an estimated $350 million to the value of state services over the next three years. These cost saving and revenue enhancing achievements could prompt budget redirects and reductions and hold down budget increases in 2001-2003 and beyond. 3) Limit "turkeys." Florida TaxWatch has identified in excess of $220 million in "turkeys" in each of the last three budgets, including $282 million this year. Turkey are generally projects of limited local interest that find their way into the budget without the nonnal controls and accountability of the budget process. The Governor vetoed $179 million of these last year. In this current budget year, any money not yet spent on "turkeys" that were not vetoed should be withheld. Next, year the Legislature must take a strict "no-turkey" stance. Call them what you will, "special projects," "member projects," "community budget issues," or just "turkeys," these have no place in a budget were budget cuts are being considered. 4) Cut overhead and administration before direct services. When instituting budget cuts, the Legislature should take care to look to administration first and, to the extent possible, avoid cuts in direct services. Program cuts should be targeted at non-essential programs, not core government services or programs that can save money over the long-tenn. Florida TaxWatch recommends several guiding principles (listed below) that have served the state well in its continuing effort to manage its programs effectively. They have guided Florida TaxWatch's research and policy analysis of state programs as a government watchdog since 1979. They have served as guiding principles for Partners in Productivity, a public and private cooperative effort established in 1987 by The Florida Council of 100, Florida TaxWatch and the State of Florida to identify, implement, measure and reward major cost savings and perfonnance enhancements in Florida state government. They similarly have ably served the Frederick Commission that was appointed by the late Governor Chiles in 1991 and charged with making Government more accountable to taxpayers. The guiding principles for evaluating spending to cope with the budget squeeze are: Meets Taxpayer Priorities Accountable Competitive Effective Market Driven Customer Driven Performance-Based Efficient Essential to State Core Functions St!bject to Legislative Oversight These principles also are consistent with the seven principles outlined by the Governor to guide the Legislature and Executive Branch and with what Florida statutes require: .... We must agree on the size of the new budget; .... Florida's highest priorities should be protected; .... We should be wary of obligating the state to new government programs that we temporarily cannot afford. New programs, yet to be implemented, should be first in line for cuts; .... We should not increase taxes; .... We must maximize management efficiencies in lieu of eliminating critical programs; .... There needs to be a balance between using our strong reserves and making the difficult recurring cuts in proposed expenditures; and .... Shared sacrifice must guide us politically through this difficult process. Florida TaxWatch uses the following criteria for identifying programs and spending as worthy of retention, elimination, consolidation, outsourcing or efficiency/effectiveness enhancement: 1. whether the program is constitutionally or statutorily derived; 2. whether the program is duplicative (whether its function was a part of another program within the agency or across agencies); 3. whether the services or products of the program could be more competitively provided via some other mechanism such as being contracted out or privatized; 4. whether the program has an accountability mechanism (such as output or outcome measures); and 5. whether the program is provided as efficiently or as effectively as possible (as measured from its unit cost and performance measures). Recommended Budget Cuts / Cost Savings / Productivity Improvements B Eliminme the Recycling and Eductmon Grant Program 2 Property Tax Administr&tion :J Reduce Child SUpport Enforcement Reliðnce on OR 4 Ch6nge Eminent Dom8ín Laws to Reduce the Cost of Right-of-Way S Overweight Motor CarrÎer Fines and Permits (!) Etiminme OR Support of Regulation, Marketing and Technlcðl Assistence 7 Petroleum Inspection Program 8 RegulEltion of Professions 9 stme Employees' Group Health Insurance 'It) Reduce university fundîng of ell but direct instruc!lonðl activlies by 20% 11 Etiminme prescription drug destruction in nursing homes ·12 Cancel 2.5% Pay RðÎSe tor AD stete Employees E&ming $90,000 Annu&1Iy ·3 Reduce Legislator Sðlðries by 5%. . 4 Sanction Under -Performing Contracted Health and Human Services Providers . 5 Worker's Comp Program ·16 Highway Safety Efficiencies 17 Centralized Vehicle Mðintenence System ... Eliminate Over-Sampling in DHSMV's Quality Assurence Title Review. 19 First DCA Annex 20 Negotiate better rates Subtotal AGEnCY TOTAL $ GR$ Tf$ DEP 10,300,000 10,300,000 DOR 5,000,000 3,131 ,SOO 1,868,500 DOR 4,900,000 4,900,000 DOT 36,500,000 36,500,000 DOT 56,000,000 56,000,000 DACS 65,000,000 65,000,000 DACS 2,976,939 2,976,939 DBPR 21 ,400,000 21,400,000 DMS 41 ,000,000 17,261 ,000 23,739,000 DOE 105,000,000 105,000,000 DOE 11 ,340,000 11 ,340,000 statewide 11,600,000 4,640,000 6,960,000 Legislature 230,000 230,000 DOH/AHCA 10,800,000 4,000,000 6,800,000 DLES 727,929 727,929 HSMV 1 ,418,643 1,418,643 DMS 1,590,000 636,000 954,000 DHSMV 145,000 145,000 Courts 15,800,000 15,800,000' stetewide :J97,619,624 229,228,256 ·168.:J11,368 * Does not include future funding requirements equipment, operating, staffing and maintenance costs, which will cost many times over the cost of construction. 1999, 2000 and 2001 Davis Productivity Awards / Cost Savings / Added Value 1. Medicaid field offices staffing cut 2. Diabetes Discovery community-based initiative 3. Retroactive buy-in of Medicare coverage 4. Improved detection of fraud in home meal delivery 5. Medicaid transportation cost reduction 6. Coordinated primary care for at-risk Medicaid recipients 7. Improved Medicaid billing practices 8. Computerized Medicaid database 9. Standardized expert witness contracts 10. PB2 accountability system 11. Reduced time of dependent children in emergency care 12. Reduced number of children in residential group foster care 13. Reduced time in foster care 14. Combined quarterly reports for foster care and protective services 15. More effective handling oftennination of parental rights cases 16. Improved processes for finalizing adoptions 17. Improved workers compensation programs 18. Diverting elderly clients from institutions to Community Centers 19. Improved process for restoring competency of impaired defendants 20. Fraudulent Food Stamp error management infonnation system 21. Decreased institutional food services costs 22. Developmental disability clients' risk management program 23. Internet on-line document review/approval 24. Bidding maintenance of computer network devices statewide 25. Improved contract monitoring procedures 26. Paperless electronic grants routing system 27. Automated substance abuse screening system 28. "Rocket Docket" criminal defendant scoring sheet 29. Overtime reporting process 30. Steel security windows for prison cells 31. Reduced waste of medications 32. Telephone Answering Program using prison inmates 33. Satellite learning centers at employer and community agency sites 34. Immersion program for 5th and 8th grade students 35. Centralization of cash receipts -- teacher certification revenue 36. Technical support request application linking databases 37. Water quality enforcement 38. Automated payment system 39. Electronic storage and retrieval of vouchers 40. Reduced emergency room visits by CMS clients 41. Merging of CMS client infonnation 42. Improvements to the AIDS Drug Assistance Program 43. Primary Access to Health (PATH) & We Care Programs 44. Volunteer Physician Programs 45. Free medications 46. Improved third party insurance reimbursement 47. Automation of monthly spending plans 48. Web-based registration for competitive solicitations 49. Elimination of eligibility screenings - WIC & FLORIDA AHCA $ 3,000,000 AHCA 6,000,000 AHCA 300,000 AHCA 3,000,000 AHCA 800,000 AHCA 200,000 AHCA 2,200,000 AHCA 150,000 AHCA 300,000 DBPR 300,000 DCF 30,000,000 DCF 15,000,000 DCF 7,500,000 DCF 2,500,000 DCF 10,000,000 DCF 300,000 DCF 12,400,000 DCF 42,000,000 DCF 6,500,000 DCF 20,000,000 DCF 700,000 DCF 5,000,000 DCF 1,500,000 DCF 2,000,000 DCF 1,900,000 DCA 375,000 DOC 2,200,000 DOC 300,000 DOC 5,800,000 DOC 150,000 DOC 500,000 DOC 1,800,000 DOE 2,400,000 DOE 12,900,000 DOE 2,000,000 DEP 1,000,000 DEP 100,000 DEP 300,000 DEP 3,000,000 DOH 300,000 DOH 875,256 DOH 8,000,000 DOH 3,000,000 DOH 10,000,000 DOH 1,600,000 DOH 1,214,130 DOH 1,032,396 DOH 365,000 DOH 900,000 / 50. Infonnation Security Training initiative 51. Automated reconciliation system 52. Automated travel reimbursement system 53. Home detention savings 54. Referral and tracking system for mental health services 55. Warning Tour for delinquent youth 56. Post-disaster fraud training program 57. Avoidance of illegal Food Stamp payments 58. Automation of DNA analyses 59. On-line testing for law enforcement certification 60. Video teleconferencing system 61. Improved Property Accountability System 62. Tracking delinquent child support 63. Simultaneous plea agreement 64. Locating unregistered commercial rental property for back taxes 65. Automated Q&A program -- employee behavior issues 66. Pre-trial conference hearing -- traffic court 67. Job placement program for unemployed first-time felony offenders 68. Filing Family Law actions without an attorney 69. Web-based system to input/track work order requests 70. On-line application and admission process 71. Infonnation studies infonnation system 72. Paperless procurement system 73. On-line program budget management system 74. Electronic personnel management system 75. Employee payroll deduction parking pennit program 76. Developing corridors for road and bridge projects 77. Improved utilization ofCADD 78. Web-based consultant invoice transmittal system DOH DOH DOH DJJ DJJ DJJ FDLE FDLE FDLE FDLE FDLE DOL DOR DOR DOR DOR SCS SCS SCS SUS SUS SUS SUS SUS SUS SUS DOT DOT DOT Subotal Grand Total Recommended Budget çuts / Cost Savings / Productivity Improvement Annotations '-_...-.,~ 4,000,000 2,000,000 300,000 900,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 25,000,000 1,500,000 1,800,000 420,000 500,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 800,000 2,500,000 600,000 7,000,000 1,600,000 850,000 350,000 180,000 180,000 1,000,000 500,000 450,000 450,000 10,000,000 200,000 1,000,000 $303,741,782 $701,361,406 1. Eliminate e Recycling and Education Grant Program (DEP). This program, created to help sta' county recy mg programs, has been successful in establishing recycling programs in Florida's countier Office of rogram Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPP AGA) detennined that its elirr Ol ot have significant negative impact on recycling rates. State funding of recycling grants is n necessary since the program has exceeded its goal of recycling 30% of municipal solid waste. In 1 (' grants were reduced 55%. A subsequent OPPAGA report recommends the Legislature completely el; Recycling and Education Grant Program. While it is expected that the recycling programs in large counties would continue if the gra abolished, programs in smaller counties would likely cease. However, the 36 smallest counties <J 10% of the state's waste. If the Legislature would like to continue some funding for small CC' consider transferring funds from the waste tire fee, a problem that has been largely addressed. This is a recurring savings to the Solid Waste Management Trust Fund. A statutorJ l needed for the funds to revert to general revenue. Funding reductions could occur without a statutory change. Elimination of the program would require amending s. 403,7095, F.S. Potential downside: Recycling programs in small counties could cease. Potential Savings: $10,300,000 2. Property Tax Administration (DOR), Eliminating fonn DR219, which is intended primarily to provide the program with property sales infonnation for analysis of county tax rolls, would save $5 million. State law requires real property sellers, buyers or agents to file DR219 with county clerks when property has been sold. However, according to the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPP AGA,) Department of Revenue program staff have been unable to effectively use infonnation fTom this fonn, and many purchase the infonnation fTom private vendors. The savings comes fTom eliminating the 1 % commission paid to county clerks to handle the fonn. If the state wants to keep DR219, it could require that it be recorded as an additional page of the deed, thereby holding the document to a higher level of accountability. The clerk could then collect a recording fee, instead of a state paid commission. Since the commission is retained by the county from documentary stamp taxes collected, the elimination of the form would result in a recurring increased doc stamp tax remittance to the state. General revenue receives 62.63% of doc stamp revenues. A change to s. 201.022 F,S. would be required. Potential downside: If the form is completely eliminated, county clerk revenues would be decreased. Potential Savings: $5,000,000 3. Reduce Child Support Enforcement's Reliance on General Revenue (DOR). A recent Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPP AGA) report concluded that the program could increase its federal incentive funding in federal Fiscal Year 2001 by an estimated $2 million by closing inactive cases, using federal guidelines. The program also can increase its recovery of administrative expenses from non-custodial parents by an estimated $4.5 million annually by updating its administrative cost schedule to reflect increases in program activity costs, increasing efforts to obtain court orders that assess these costs, and increasing efforts to collect costs that have been assessed by the court. The Department of Revenue feels that OPP AGA's savings estimates may be overstated. Savings of 75% of the estimated amount would total $4.9 million. Increased federal funds and expense recoveries could replace some general revenue funding, The savings from increased federal funds would be largely non-recurring, the expense recoveries would be an annual savings. A statutory change is not needed. Potential downside: Although cases should only be closed if there is little likelihood of collections, closing cases ensures the child support will not be collected. Potential Savings: $4,900,000 4. C ange Eminent Domain Laws to Reduce the Cost of Right-of-Way Acquisition (DOT). When Florida acqu"res right-of-way, the state's law has the effect of encouraging landowners to go to court rather than seek set ement with the state. Litigation is especially costly in Florida, because, the state pays landowners' costs for attorneys, appraisers, and expert witnesses. Florida is paying more than any other state in fees, including some that other states don't pay at all. In addition to $63.5 million paid in fees in 1997-98, $18.8 million was paid in business damages; the next closest state for this cost was Georgia, which paid $1.2 million. Most states (41) do not pay any business damages. The eminent domain laws should be changed to lower right-of-way costs and / encourage settlement, while still protecting landowners and businesses that give up their property. One option, recommended by the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPP AGA), would pay landowner's cost, up to a specified amount, for one appraisal and cap the amount the state will pay for landowners' costs for attorneys and other technical experts and only pay these costs if the property's final sale price is a specified percentage over the department's initial offer. Limiting or excluding business damages could also be considered. These savings would be recurring savings to the State Transportation Trust Fund. ymutory changes to Ch. 73, F,S. would be needed. / Potential downside: The ability of less affluent landowners to challenge to state's offer could be diminished. Compensation for some landowners could be reduced and there would be an increased chance of a landowner not being equitably compensated. Potential Savings: $27 million to $46 million 5. Overweight Motor Carrier Fines and Permits (DOT). Florida allows some of the heaviest trucks in the nation. Trucks cause most of the controllable damage to roads and therefore account for much of the $200 million Florida spends annually on highway maintenance. Florida's current truck weight and enforcement system does not adequately protect other taxpayers from the costs of this damage. The state's overweight penalty structure fails to deter repeat and more serious violations, which do more severe damage to highways because the amount of road damage caused by heavy vehicles increases exponentially as weight increases. For example, if the weight on a single truck axle is increased from 22,000 to 30,000 pounds, its pavement-damaging impact more than triples. The current fine, which has not increased in almost 50 years, does not deter some trucks from purposely overloading. Increasing fines similar to what was recommended by the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPP AGA), in 1998 could raise an additional $56 million. This would result in increased recurring revenue to the State Transportation Trust Fund, There would also likely be an undetermined amount of cost savings from decreased road resurfacing and reconstruction costs. Statutory changes to Ch. 316, F.S. would be needed, Potential downside: Shipping costs for businesses using overweight trucks in Florida would be increased. Potential Savings: Up to $56 million 6. Eliminate General Revenue Support for Regulating, Marketing and Technical Assistance Programs in the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) - User Fees to Pay for Services Received: Agricultural Economic Development. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services' Agricultural Economic Development Program received approximately $59 million GR in 1999-2000. The Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPP AGA) recommends that industry groups directly benefitting from the program's services should pay for these services rather than funding them with general revenue tax dollars. Statutory changes to Ch. 570, F.S. would be needed Animal Disease Control. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Animal Industry, received $6.6 million GR in 1998-99 to enhance the marketability of the state's livestock through programs to control and eradicate various animal diseases. FTW suggests that increasing fees (such as laboratory fees) could reduce the Division's need for general revenue. ~ Statutory changes to s. 585.61, F.S. would be needed 'J( Forest Resource Planning. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services' Forest Resource Planning and Support Services program received $5.6 million GR in 1998-99 to promote and encourage forest environmental education, forest land stewardship, good forest management, tree planting and care, forest recreation, and the proper management of public lands. Local governments pay $3,000 per year for these services. FTW suggests that a GR reduction of at least $545,000 is attainable by raising fees charged the counties for county forester services from $3,000 to $18,000 per forester. This is the level identified by OPP AGA to cover half of the foresters' cost. These fees have not been changed since 1963 while inflation has increased approximately 433%, or more than five fold. Statutory changes to s. 589.32, F.S. would be needed The above DA CS fee adjustments would produce recurring GR savings. Potential downside: Increased costs to private sector and local goverlll1lent users of these services Potential Savings: $65,000,000 7. Petroleum Inspection program (DACS). Duties include inspecting and testing pumps and other measuring devices used throughout the state to sell or distribute motor and heating fuel to ensure the devices are accurate. Collecting and testing samples of petroleum fuels, brake fluid, and antifreeze products detennine if they meet state quality standards. Testing is for quality started at the retail level and before the product reaches the retailer (mixed). There is a high rate of compliance on the accuracy of measuring devices (95.8% in 1996-97) and in quality of tested products (99.3% in 1996-97). This program should be contracted out and a risk-based sampling technique should be implemented in lieu of status sampling presently used. These measures have the potential of saving 75% of program costs (1997-98 Appropriation: $3,969,252 - all trust funded). This would be a recurring trust fund savings. Statutory changes to: s 501.91,F.S. "Antifreeze Act of 1978"; Ch 525,F.S. "Gasoline and Oil Inspection"; s. 526.5,F.S. "Sale of Brake Fluid"; s. 570. 46,F.S. "Division of Standards: Powers and Duties"and The Florida Administrative Code Rules 5F-2, 5F-6 and 5F-10 would be needed. Potential downside: May not be as accurate as total inspection due to sampling error. Potential Savings: $2,976,939 8. Regulation of Professions (DBPR). Each of the following professions and businesses is administered by separately appointed boards or councils: Accountancy, Architecture, Asbestos Contracting and Consulting, Athlete Agents, Auctioneers, Barbers, Building Code Inspectors and Administrators, Community Association Managers, Construction Industry Cosmetology, Electrical Contractors, Employee Leasing, Engineers, Funeral Directors and Embalmers, Geologists, Harbor Pilots, Interior Design, Landscape Architecture, Real Estate, Surveyors and Mappers, Talent Agencies, Veterinary Medicine, Water and Wastewater Operators; Licensing, testing, investigations, and legal support are centralized department services. These professions could be largely self-regulated like the professional engineers. If these were self-regulate , with oversight retained by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, estimated savings could total approximately $21.4 million (75% of expenditures). Savings would be recurring trust funds. A statutory change to Chs. 454 - S. 493, F.S. for the respective profession would be required. Potential downside: Costs may be higher for a specific profession, as experienced by the privatization of the Professional Engineers. Potential Savings: $21,400,000 9. State Employees' Group Health Insurance (DMS). The Division of State Group Insurance is responsible for managing the state employees' group insurance and flexible benefit programs, including employee enrollment, premium collection, payment to health care providers, procurement, contract management, cost containment methodologies, and other administrative functions for active and retired state employees and surviving spouses. While most employees pay a portion of the cost, the state pays the full cost for legislators, legislative staff, Senior Management and Select Exempt Service, the Lottery department and others. According to an October 2001 publication of the Senate Governmental Oversight and Productivity Committee 35,000 employees receive fÌee health and life insurance. They state that requiring all employees to pay for their coverage could make an additional $41 million to $54 million available for funding. Savings would be recurring and a combination of trust fund and general revenue (estimated at $17,261,000 to $22,680,000 GR; $23,739,000 to 31,320,000 TF). A statutory change to Ch. 110, F.S., other affected statutes and the General Appropriations Act would be required. Potential downside: Affected employees (generally elected, senior management and select- exempt) would incur a reduction in earnings. Range of Potential Savings: $ 41,000,000 to $54,000,000 10. State University System -Reduce funding of all but direct instructional activities by 20%. Chapter 240, Floržda Statutes, requires that "each full time equivalent university faculty member paid wholly from state funds shall teach a minimum of 12 classroom contact hours." However, the fulfillment of instructional contact hours may include non- instructional duties. In 1999-2000, 35% of "classroom contact hours" paid by state funds were for non- instructional duties. These non-instructional services accounted for $525,300,097 million in expenditures of state funds in 1999-2000. [$155,772,821 million for academic administrative duties, $327,819,620 for faculty research, and $41,707,656 for public service.] According to the Auditor General Office (AGO) and OPP AGA, the data available measuring the results of many of these non-instructional services is inadequate. OPP AGA recommends that performance measures be developed that describe the time spent on and who benefits from such activities. Reduce state funding of non-instructional duties by 20% until there is demonstrated accountability for the funds expended. Savings would be recurring general revenue. No statutory changes are required. Potential downside: Some valuable research or public service may not receive funding. Potential cost saving: $105,000,000 11. Elimination of the Destruction of Bulk Prescription Medications Belonging to Floridians Entering or Transferring From And To Long-Term Care Facilities. Cost savings are based on a estimate that 10% of prescription drugs are destroyed as a result of current nursing home practices. Potential Savings: $11,340,000 12. Cancel 2.5% Pay Raise for All State Employees Earning $90,000 Annually or More. At this time of revenue shortfalls, the first area that should be cut is administration. Elected officials and top level staff should set the example by stepping up to absorb the initial impact of reductions before they enact cuts that will adversely affect students, clients, constituents, and fÌont-line state employees. Consultation with legislative staff revealed that approximately 4,500 positions would be affected if this cost saver is adopted. Affected positions would include, but not be limited to, the following: ...Governor ... Lt. Governor ... Elected Cabinet Heads (Secretary of State, Agriculture Commissioner, Education Commissioner, Attorney General, Treasurer, Comptroller) ...Supreme Court Judges ... District Court of Appeals Judges ...Circuit Judges ...County Judges ...State Attorneys ... Public Defenders "'High-Level State University System Staff(-2,600) ...Senior Management System Staff (-290) This cost saver would result in recurring savings of $4.64 million in General Revenue and $6.96 million in trust funds. Amend GAA to reduce budget authority. Potential Downside: Labor-related lawsuits by those disputing the cancellation of their pay raise. Possible contract disputes could result. Potential Savings: $11.6 million 13. Reduce Legislator Salaries by 5%. Due to the revenue shortfalls, Florida TaxWatch recommends that, legislators and other elected state officers should set the example by stepping up to absorb the initial impact of reductions before they enact cuts that will adversely affect clients, constituents, and front-line state employees. This would result in recurring General Revenue savings of $230,000. No statutory changes. Potential Savings: $230,000 . Strengthen Authorization and Ability to Sanction Consistently Under- Performing Contracted Health and Human Services Providers. Based on program reviews by the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPP AGA) and anecdotal reports by a number of state officials and other Floridians, Florida Tax Watch conservatively estimates that at least one percent of appropriations designated for contracted providers represent partial monies allocated to underperforming providers. Such providers are those not significantly not meeting their performance outcome and/or those not complying with state laws or regulations. Therefore, this item consists of savings realized through sanctions imposed on these providers via overpayment recovery, rate cuts, or contract terminations. Florida TaxWatch believes the amount is higher but wants to encourage to state to redistribute these monies to above average or new providers. Because under-performance ultimately undermines services to constituents who are entitled to quality care, because it shortchanges Florida taxpayers, and because it erodes trust in government, accountability for under-performing contractors must be carried out. Florida TaxWatch proposes that the state should more proactively impose sanctions within current law for consistently under-performing providers in the following, as well as other, areas: .Substance Abuse · Mental Health · Developmental Disabilities · Foster Care · Nursing Homes · Assisted Living Facilities .Other programs as appropriate Florida TaxWatch believes this approach can be carried over into other governmental agencies and encourages the Governor and the Legislature to closely scrutinize this issue throughout state government. It is estimated that these would be recurring savings of $4 million in General Revenue and $6.8 million in trust funds, based on the assumption that the state would save at least 1 % of appropriations for grants and aids and special categories by sanctioning contractors. These figures are based on a sampling of such appropriations in the current year's budget for DCF. No statutory changes. Potential Downside: Costly litigation could result. Fewer citizens might be served. It should be stressed strongly that while sanctions for poor performance should occur, true rewards for strong performance should occur as well. The current environment does not foster a dearth of willing and able providers in most health and human services areas, and the state is strongly urged to improve the contractual environment so that capable private providers are truly encouraged to serve needy Floridians. Potential Savings: $10.8 million 15. Worker's Compensation Program (DLES). There appears to be an overlap in services between the Worker's Compensation Program and other state agencies such as the Agency for Health Care Administration and the Department of Insurance. The potential exists for a merging of Worker's Compensation functions with either or both of these agencies. The outsourcing of some of the program's duties is also an option. The privatization of the audit function of Worker's Compensation alone could save $90,000 annually. Further savings could be accomplished if the applicant review process was also privatized for an additional $13,000 annually. The Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPP AGA) has suggested the outsourcing of the program's re-employment process. A potential savings of $624,928 is found here. The agency has implemented some of OPP AGA's recommendations for a significant savings, but it has yet to fully introduce outsourcing concepts that could provide even more. Savings would be recurring from trust fund resources Statutory changes to s.20.171, Ch. 440, F.S. would be n~eded Potential downside: Public perception of a diminished level of service due to outsourcing. Potential Savings: $727,929 annually 16. Highway Safety Efficiencies (DHSMV.) The usage of civilians in positions within the agency such as court liaison, police information officer, and polygraph examiner could save significant money in personnel costs. The Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPP AGA) reports an estimated savings of $833,823 if these positions were "civilianized". OPPAGA has also suggested a change in uniform for communications personnel. Dispatchers currently wear expensive unifonns that are virtually identical to sworn personnel. By switching to more cost-effective civilian attire, the agency could save $195,000 annually. The contracting of vehicle maintenance to the private sector is another cost-saving idea the agency could implement for an annual savings of $170,000. Police agencies around the state have found this to be an effective tool to cut high vehicle maintenance costs. OPP AGA has also recommended that the Highway Patrol paint its vehicles one standard color for an annual savings of $219,820. Savings would produce recurring GR savings. Statutory Changes: Ch. 321.02 F.S. Potential downside: Agency resistance to changes could be strong. There is 110 apparent downside for service delivery. Potential Savings: $1,418,643 17. Centralized Vehicle Maintenance System (DMS). Currently, the state pays an estimated $8 million annually to private garages for passenger vehicle maintenance. A centralized maintenance system can provide volume discounts and help prevent paying for unnecessary repair work. The Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPP AGA) estimates $800,000 to $2.4 million annual savings by implementing a centralized vehicle maintenance system. It recommends the state contract with a private fleet management company to provide a garage network and managed maintenance program. The bid process should be open to any state agency. The Department of management Services (DMS) has implemented a narrower version of OPP AGA's recommendations by privatizing and outsourcing its maintenance garage. This has led to a reduction in 14FTES and a total savings of $809,570. IfDMS implemented a broader version of privatization and outsourcing, it could see a greater realization of privatization's savings potential. Savings would be recurring and a combination of trust fund and general revenue. A statutory change could help facilitate the establishment of a centralized system. Potential downside: Some agencies expressed concern that a garage network could make it inconvenient to obtain needed repairs. Potential Savings: $1,590,000 18. Eliminate Over-Sampling in DHSMV's Quality Assurance Title Review. The Program's staff review samples of tax collectors, title paperwork after the titles have been issued and the title paperwork has been sent to a contractor for document imaging to determine whether county tax collectors' staff have properly processed the titles. A review by the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPP AGA) concluded that they are over- sampling and devoting too many resources to this effort. By reducing the sample size of the reviews to 10% the department could reduce the number of FTE positions from 10 to 5. Thus, eliminating excess quality control would result in a cost savings of$145,000 per year. Savings would be recurring from trust funds. No statutory changes needed. Potential Savings: $145,000 19. First District Court of Appeal Annex. The 2000 Legislature appropriated $15,800,000 million to build 6 new courtrooms in the First District Court of Appeals. This project did not go through the Capital Improvement Project process and was therefore included in the Florida TaxWatch 2000 Turkey Report. The First District C01ll1 of Appeals does not support this project. The state cannot afford to spend scarce dollars without careful scrutiny of such projects. The funds should be returned to the General Revenue Fund for appropriate review and possible re- appropriation as needed. Savings would be non-recurring general revenue funds. No statutory changes needed. Potential Savings: $15,800,000 20. Negotiate better rates. A slowed economy does allow some opportunities to save money. The state has taking advantage of lower interest rates by refinancing debt. The state should continue this practice wherever possible and strive to renegotiate any deal for which it is paying higher than current market rates. This includes leases and purchases of goods and services. State law now allows for negotiation with current leases rather than requiring them to go out to bid. Savings would be recurring general revenue funds. No statutory changes needed. Potential Savings: indeterminate - -----. - --------- . .____n____..____ - ----- -~..~---~- ._._.-----_._-~-------._--_. -- Maximizing The Value Of Davis Productivity Awards Achievements Following are examples of more than 500 achievements from the 1999,2000 and 2001 DPA competition that can and should be implemented throughout state government to add an estimated $350 million to the value of state services over the next three years. The 78 ideas listed here--worth $303 million--inc/ude cost saving and revenue enhancing achievements that could prompt budget redirects and reductions and hold down budget increases in 2002-2003 and beyond. The full list of 1999 and 2000 items can be found at the DP A webpage and a full list of 2001 items will be available by November 15, 2001. Agency for Health Care Administration 1. A Medicaid field offices staffing study that utilized Sterling Quality Principles to cut 44 positions valued at $1.7 million can be used as a benchmark by other agencies with field offices. (2001, AHCA-84 & 103) 2. A Diabetes Discovery community-based initiative that could save $6 million annually in Miami-Dade County may be applicable to other areas ofthe state. (2001, AHCA) 3. Retroactive buy-in of Medicare coverage for selected Medicaid clients that saved $105,207 in Miami-Dade County can be used to cut costs throughout the state. (2001, AHCA-99) 4. Improved detection of fraud in home meal delivery saved $1 million in Miami-Dade County could save $3 million statewide. (1999, #97, page 52) 5. A Medicaid transportation cost reduction and quality improvement initiative in Hillsborough County that will save an estimated $84,000 annually could be applied in ten of the most populous counties to save an estimated $800,000. (2001, AHCA-81) 6. An initiative in Miami-Dade County that provides cootdinated primary care for at-risk Medicaid recipients, saves billing dollars and makes it easier to identify provider and recipient fraud and abuse, can be implemented in other parts of the state. (2000, page 54, #18) 7. Improved Medicaid billing practices in Tampa that saved $618,000 in ambulance service costs could save $2.2 million statewide. (1999, page 52, #95,) 8. A computerized database that added $61,038 of value to the Area Six Medicaid Office could be worth a minimum of $150,000 statewide. (2000, page 52, #14) 9. Standardized expert witness contracts that saved $153,870 can be adapted by other agencies requiring the use of expert witnesses. (2001, AHCA-21) Department of Business and Professional Regulation 10. An accountability system that improves implementation of performance-based budgeting saved $10,800 and can save more than $300,000 statewide. (1999, page 23, #10) Department of Children and Families 11. Techniques reducing the time that dependent children stay in emergency care yielded net savings of approximately $30 million and can be applied to the Department's other eleven districts. (2001, C&F) 12. Reduction of the number of children in residential group foster care to less restrictive therapeutic environments saved $4.5 million in the Orlando district and is being evaluated for implementation in other districts. (2001, C&F-5) 13. Actively searching for missing parents and relatives of foster children in the St. Petersburg district means children spend less time in foster care for potential savings of $1 million locally and an estimated $7.5 million statewide. (1999, page 29, #27) 14. Combining quarterly reports for foster care and protective services saved $173,000 in Fort Myers and could save $2.5 million statewide. (1999, page 30, #31) 15. More effective handling of termination of parental rights cases saved $1.4 million in the Daytona Beach district and is applicable to other districts. (2001, C&F-81) 16. Improved processes for finalizing adoptions in the Fort Myers district produced a $53,717 productivity improvement which could be worth several times that amount statewide. (2000, page 27, #28) 17. A workers compensation program that has reduced employee injury costs at Florida State Hospital every year for more than a decade could save $12.4 million statewide. (1999, page 29, #25) 18. Diverting elderly clients from institutions to Community Centers annually saves more than $5 million in Pensacola and could save $42 million statewide. (1999, page 26, #19) 19. An improved process for restoring the competency of impaired defendants saved $1.3 million in Pensacola and could save at least $6.5 million statewide. (1999, page 27, #21) 20. An error management information system that saved $12 million in the issuance of fraudulent Food Stamp and cash benefits in Hillsborough and Manatee Counties can be used statewide. (2001, C&F) 21. A public/private partnership decreased food services costs at Florida State Hospital by $200,000 and could save more than $700,000 statewide. (2000A, page 75, #17) 22. A risk management program in Miami-Dade County that utilized client data to identify, predict and reduce the number of serious incidents affecting clients with developmental disabilities to save $695,758 is applicable to mental health, substance abuse and adult services program clients in other districts statewide. (2001, C&F -79) 23. An internet on-line document review application that saved $495,000 can be adapted by any agency that circulates draft copies of documents for review. (2001, C&F -11) 24. A method to bid the maintenance of computer network devices statewide without regard to specific configurations and manufacture that is saving $1.1 million in 2001 can be utilized by any agency requiring statewide maintenance. (2001, C&F-5) 25. improved contract monitoring procedures instituted department wide for an annual cost avoidance of at least $1.9 million could save an equal or greater amount if implemented by other state agencies. (2000, page 20, #18) Department of Community Affairs 26. A process automation and paperless electronic routing system that reduced the cost of paper, labor overhead and time involved in annually processing approximately grants and other projects by $125,000 may be applicable to other agencies that process grants. (2001, DCA) Department of Corrections 27. An automated substance abuse screening, priority ranking and placement system that saved/avoided $4.3 million may be adaptable by the Departments of Juvenile Justice and Children and Families in addition to other program bureaus within the Department of Corrections. (2001, DOC-12) 28. A "Rocket Docket" criminal defendant scoring sheet used at the time of felony arrests that saved probation officers in the Panama City area $60,000 could save an estimated $300,000 statewide. (2000, First Installment, page 39, #4) 29. A reporting process that saved $2.8 million in overtime costs for the Ft. Lauderdale Region could save at least twice that amount statewide. (1999, Page 43, #71) 30. Design and fabrication of steel security windows for prison cells that saved Jackson Correctional Institution $168,000 the first year could save a recurring $150,000 department wide. (2000, page 37, #1) 31. Reduced waste of medications that saved $34,000 at Lake Correctional Institution could save $500,000 statewide. (1999, page 42, #68) 32. A Telephone Answering Program using prison inmates improves driver license services while providing useful job skills for inmates that added $376,000 of value could add nearly $2 million statewide. (1999, page 61, #121) Department of Education 33. Satellite learning centers at employer and community agency sites that produced additional revenue and cost avoidance of $1.2 million in 21 locations can be adapted by all school district and community colleges. (2001, DOE-6) 34. An "immersion program," which is an alternative to retaining students in the fifth and eight grades, saved $1.3 million for 50 schools in eight districts and could save $12.9 million if at least 500 of Florida's 750 public middle and high schools adopt the strategy. (2000, page 41, #2) 35. Centralization of cash receipts can increase teacher certification revenue by $233,000 and add $2 million in revenue statewide. (1999, page 48, #87) Department of Environmental Protection 36. A technical support request application that links· existing and new databases to improve employee efficiency and communications (which is believed to be unique within state government) can be adapted by other agencies to save an estimated $1 million or more. (2001, DEP-12) 37. An innovative approach using education rather than enforcement helped to restore the water quality of a subdivision in Central Florida after 57 homeowners violated environmental regulations by removing vegetation and adding sand to their shoreline. As a result, the problem was solved in nearly 1/6 the time that one-on-one enforcement actions would have taken, at a savings of nearly $30,000. This approach can be used in other areas of the state that are faced with similar challenges. (2000 DP A Magazine, page 32) 38. An automated payment system produced a 75% reduction in inputting data into a manual system; a 95% reduction in time spent inputting into an accounting system; and used 50% less paper. This system saved $27,950 and could be worth $300,000 statewide. (2000, page 45, #2) 39. Electronic storage and retrieval of vouchers annually saves $175,000 and can save $3 million statewide. (1999, page 49, #89) Department of Health . 40. Reduced emergency room visits by Childrens Medical Services clients in Miami-Dade County that saved $150,000 may be adapted by other county health departments. (2001, DOH-27) 41. A computer program developed by Childrens Medical Services staff in Tampa that merges all patient information onto various forms can save an estimated $875,256 statewide. (2001, DOH-8) 42. Improvements to the AIDS Drug Assistance Program in Miami-Dade County that produced added value of more than $4 million can be adapted by any metropolitan area with a large number of providers and multiple funding sources for coordinated services. (2001, DOH -9) 43. A Primary Access to Health (PATH) Clinic in Brevard County provides medical specialty referrals and intervention for the medically indigent population and patients with chronic health problems. Local physicians volunteer their services to provide a full range of care from diagnosis to surgery. A second program, We Care, supports PATH by specializing in diagnostic services, surgical and specialist intervention. It is estimated that We Care will contribute over $3 million in added value. According to the Brevard County Health Department director, the key to the success of this initiative is a strong partnership developed over time between the department, the County Commission, local hospitals and the local medical society. (2000A,page 95-6, #6 & 7) 44. Volunteer Physician Programs saved more than $2 million in Escambia and Indian River Counties and could save $10 million statewide. (2000A, page 95-6, #5) 45. Securing free medications from 17 companies for indigent citizens in Charlotte County saved $160,000, and could save $1.6 million statewide. (2000A, page 97, #9) 46. The dental staff of the Leon County Health Department, through improved third party insurance reimbursement verification, increased the clients it serves by 61 % while reducing net budget costs by 74% and increasing revenue 14 fold for added value of $121,413. This initiative can be implemented by any agency that does Medicaid and/or third party billing. (2000, page 59, #3) > 47. Automation of a monthly spending plan for each of the Department's bureaus and divisions that cut six positions for savings of $258,099 may be adaptable by all agencies that use the Florida Information Resource (FLAIR) system to obtain budget and expenditure data. (2001, DOH) 48. Web-based registration for prospective vendors to download competitive solicitations plus electronic identification of prospective bidders could be worth $365,000 if adapted by all state agency purchasing offices that issue competitive solicitations. (2001, DOH-67) 49. A system linking the Department of Health's Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program and the Department of Children and Families' FLORIDA måinframe computer databases eliminates eligibility screenings for annual savings of approximately $900,000. (2001, DOH) 50. An Information Security Training initiative reduced both instructor led training and time required to meet mandatory training requirements by 50%, saving $1.2 million. This achievement is applicable to state agencies that deal with human services health care delivery or confidential information security policies and procedures. Examples: Agency for Health Care Administration, Department of Children and Families, Department of Community Affairs, Department of Corrections, Department of Education, Department of Elder Affairs, Department of Juvenile Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, Department 0[. Veterans Affairs, State Court System and Public Defenders' offices. Estimated savings amount to $4 million based on these agencies achieving an average of25% ofthe savings reported by the Department of Health. (1999, page 58, #12) 51. An automated reconciliation system that provides immediate on-line identification of accounting items that need correcting saved $200,000 and could save $2 million statewide. (1999, page 59, #115) Department of Insurance 52. An automated system that reimburses department employees for their travel expenses, resulting in reássigning one position to another division, can be used by any state agency accounting office that uses the Florida Accounting Information Resource (FLAIR) and Cooperative Employment Personnel System (COPES). (2001, DOl) Department of Juvenile Justice 53. A faith initiative in Broward County that provided non-secure shelter to youth under home detention status saved more than $300,000 in recurring general revenue and is adaptable by other regions of the state. (2001, DJJ) 54. A referral and tracking system for mental health services reduced missed appointments worth $15,000 in Daytona Beach and could save an estimated $250,000 statewide. (1999, page 55, #130) 55. A Warning Tour that provides delinquent youth a feel for what it is like to be in secure detention saved an estimated $230,000 in Leon County and could save more than $1 million statewide. (1999, page 65, #127) Department of Law Enforcement 56. A post-disaster fraud training program in Orlando that improves intergovernmental effectiveness in fighting post disaster fraud (which reached an estimated $750 million after Hurricane Andrew) could save $25 million after a future disaster. (1999, page 73, #149) 57. Use of data generated by an electronic benefits transfer system avoided $67,758 worth of illegal Food Stamp payments in the Jacksonville region and could be worth as much as $1.5 million statewide. (2001, FDLE) 58. An automation process and procedural changes increases the number of completed analyses of DNA samples to maintain the convicted offender database and reduce possible crimes by repeat offenders while saving $1. 8 million in instrumentation and personnel costs. (2001, FDLE) 59. An on-line testing process for law enforcement certification that saved at least $139,062 the first year can be adapted by any agency that is required to administer tests. (2001) 60. A video teleconferencing system that reduces annual travel and training costs by $180,000 could save an estimated $500,000 for other agencies with multiple offices throughout the state. (2000, page 67, #4) Department of Lottery 61. An improved Property Accountability System that relocated items with an acquisition value of $374,000 could be worth nearly $2 million statewide. (1999, page 75, #153) Department of Revenue 62. A database for tracking whether delinquent child support is owed before workman's compensation claims are paid to non-custodial parents captured nearly $500,000 worth of delinquent child support and court costs in the Clearwater area, and is adaptable by other offices statewide. (2001, DOR-61) 63. A simultaneous plea agreement (developed with the Statewide Prosecutor's Offices in Clearwater and Tampa) which reduces the time spent on investigations by eliminating the need for a voluminous case report, discovery and pre-trial conferences could be worth an estimated $800,000 annually statewide. (2000A, page 40, #3) 64. A new process that cut in half the time and cost required to locate and review unregistered commercial rental property for back taxes owed in Brevard County yielded a $500,000 revenue increase and could be worth $2.5 million statewide. (1999, page 81, #169) .. 65, An automated question-and-answer program for supervisors to use when they have questions about handling issues involving employee behavior promotes consistent and fair disciplinary actions throughout the Department, thereby reducing potential liability costs. It also saves an estimated $200,000 worth of staff time by eliminating communication between supervisors and human resources staff. (2000A, page 134, #28) State Courts System 66. A pre-trial conference hearing initiative developed by the state courts system in Miami- Dade County has reduced traffic court trials by 75%. Police overtime pay to attend trials is being reduced by at least $7 million annually and officers' hours on the street are increasing by 150,000 annually (equivalent to 75 new officers), plus a projected $10.6 million may accrue from increased collection of fines and costs. Statewide implementation could be worth an estimated $7 million. (2000, page 73, #2) 67. A job placement program for unemployed first-time felony offenders also developed in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit yielded $823,635 first year net savings from decreased re-arrests, jail time and prosecution. Tax users become taxpayers, facilitating restitution to victims, payment of delinquent child support and collection of fines and fees. Statewide implementation could be worth a minimum of $1.6 million. (2000, page 72, #1) 68. Filing Family Law Actions without an attorney saved Tallahassee and Leon County residents $170,000 and could save a conservative $850,000 statewide. (1999, page 83, #175) State University System 69. A web-based system developed by the College of Health and Human Perfonnance, University of Florida (UF), that allows individuals to input and track their own work order requests, thereby eliminating a $35,000 position, can be adapted by other administrative units throughout the state university system and by state agencies. (2001, UF) 70. An on-line application and admission process at the University of Central Florida that reduced processing costs by $60,000 may be adaptable to other state universities and community colleges. (2001, UCF -7) 71. An infonnation studies infonnation system developed at Florida State University (FSU) that has enhanced cost-saving distance leam,ing and reduces task redundancy for initial savings of $60,000 may be adaptable throughout the state university and community college systems. (2001, FSU-29) 72. A paperless procurement system at FSU that eliminates the need to circulate and file thousands of purchase orders to hundreds of areas within the university to save $338,484 can be adapted by other state universities, community colleges and state agencies. (2001, UF) 73. An on-line program budget management system that eliminated two positions for annual recurring savings of $11 0,000 at FSU's National High Magnetic Field Laboratory can be adapted by other departments within the university. (2001, FSU-30) 74. An electronic personnel management system developed by National High Magnetic Field Laboratory staff eliminated one temporary services (OPS) employee and reduced processing time for new hires by 40% and achieved other time savings worth a total of $90,240. This innovation is applicable to other state universities, community colleges and state agencies, and it could be applied to other processes such as purchasing and proposal submission/review/approval. (2001, FSU-7) 75, An emplòyee payroll deduction parking pennit program at FSU that cut two data entry and filing positions, and achieved other time savings and printing cost reductions to save $165,000, could be adapted by other state universities, community colleges and state agencies that issue parking penn its. (2001, FSU-11) Department of Transportation 76. A new approach to developing corridors for road and bridge projects developed in Ft. Lauderdale can reduce the cost of environmental impact statements by an estimated S500,00 for major projects. (200 I, DOT-20) .. 77. Improved utilization of computer-aided drafting design equipment and software that reduced the number of drafting positions in Fort Lauderdale from five to two for annual savings of $96,000 can be adapted by other offices statewide. (2001, DOT -19) 78. A web-based consultant invoice transmittal system that reduces manual processing and auditing for anticipated annual savings of more than $200,000 can be adapted by other state agencies that use the same standard methods of compensation when negotiating and executing consultant agreements. (200 I, UF) Legend (1999) - Statewide Implementation of Davis Productivity Awards Achievements Can Save $270 Million, March 2000, (2000)- Adaptation and Implementation of2000 Davis Productivity Awards Achievements, First Installment, November 2000. (2000A) _ Adaptation and Implementation of Davis Productivity Awards Achievements Can Save $400 Million, May 2001. (2001) - Soon to be published Davis Productivity Awards report. (Nomination # is included.) ~ .----- _.._----_._--._.~_._- ..._-_._~ ----- .----_...-._~_._- _ ______n____________ n_________ ___ - - _.-' ------- This report was researched and written by Senior Research Analysts Kurt Wenner and Dave Davis, Research Analysts Janet Herndon and Louise Horkan, Assistant Research Analysts Philip Canto and Abdul Hamit, with and under the direction of Keith G. Baker, Ph.D., Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. T. O'Neal Douglas, Chainnan, Dominic M. Calabro, President and Publisher © Copyright Florida TaxWatch, October 2001 --~------- -----.----- ----- . ______n_____ For questions regarding this or any TaxWatch report, please call: (850) 222-5052 OR write TaxWatch at: P.O. Box 10209 Tallahassee, FL 32302 OR e-mail Return to the Florida TaxWatch main page. - """ .. gj> § ~ .s ca'~ '~~ :a ~",s::§S:: s::s:: s:: ~ -g .S '61> g .a gJ¡ ~ ¡:;~ S~C) ~å1 S ~(1 S'dQ) 'æS· ..... "~ Q) c: *5::s ~..... .s bO¡j, rJJ;¡ ~ .....,0 :>,(1 (1...... ..¿~2J s:: 'Ci1~ ~Po.....(1:>.s:: ('oj Q) ~ '61> ..... (1 CI.) 0'..... Q) m, , .~ 0 Q) ¡ß 'd '~p:; s:: ~ ' ~ M .~...... .::s~Q):>.::s Z :>; ~~O'::ss::èII8 ;:¡ ...... ......(1Q),c ~ Po' 0 Q) § ..... d I-< ,"" 'd 'd Q) Q) .- ,~ 'd ¡:;¡ Q).=:' s:: ..... .c: 'd ~ :a s::g¡¡:õ1!(1::S~2 ~ Q) .~ rJJ.~ ~ 0 ~!:::'~ ¡9 8 rJJos::o..........orJJrJJ d .~.....I-<s::bOs::rJJ Q) ¡:;¡ s::Q).....s::Q)"ds::..d ..... 0 :> rJJ·.... C) s:: 0 +J' ~ <15 0'¡¡:J ~g'g I-<::S~.s rJJS::C)rJJ,",¡:;¡::SQ)oQ)o Q);::: Q)....._ Q).....¡¡; I-<'d.c ::S'dß 8~.c: Q)(1 ~'s:: 8 g',~ ,~~ E;~.~'~ <X:, \:> I-<'d Po.... rJJ"d~' c;:; rn. 1:3 0) .~ ~O ~ ~ ~ U' o ......-4 15 J:i Q) 0 II) (1 M bO 1-<" , ,",,015 ..... c: Q) Q)~.....oOI-<~¡g.qQ)o s:: .c '" b g I .9 Q) C) -¡;,...... s. ~ ,:;1 ~ § ó ~ ~ {J 1:] fJ ~ s ~ :;::J{/)u0ët!a>.......:¡:¡ f/l..-4 o§ ro.c;.c:(/).....~s::'d 'E' ~ Co) S ~ ¡oJ. ..... e 0 Po g,.s:: od Q) ~ "d ..... ¡:; "d :3 -£! E-< .Þ~ (/) '" s:: ~ ~ s:: § >. Q) Po.... (/).... s:: Q) Q) (1 Q) ~ (1 s::....'..... Q) <> Q) 1-0 0 I-< Co) - Co) ''-' -= (1 s:: (1£I..:;:::.~¡:; Q) s:: Q) ii'J ~ s:: 8 g 8 0 I '2 d þ,c (1 £I s:: ¡:; o I-< Co) ¡j .......... ::s ¡:;¡.....::::: s:: 0' '" 0 J::Q) (/)§s::dQ)Co)·....Q)..... U I-<Po~Q) ~~¡:;¡£Q)~"E.:1~:~ Q).BE; ~I-< 8......c:.....·.... s::- Po .~S s:: Q)o::sh::s(1Q);'::: I-< . (1 PoC) 0 .0 8 S 'Uï ~~"""dbO O'dX Q) '~Q) ¡g ~ ~ ~Q) 15 ~ § ~ .0 ~CiI.s ::st:1-< ca s::......"'" 'dQ)~"'" s:: (1 ~ :>. '~'õ I-< en;3 6> Q) 0 .S ~..... ~t:Q) .;: rJJ ~ ~ ~ 'd .~ å1 ~ ". O,..d Po s:: Q) :> Q) ... ca p:; 'd ..... 'd :>. +J 0 ~ Q) I-< ...0 :>. rJJ·.... Q).S SQ).....Q)I-<Q)Q)C) 1-<Q)C)..d(1 d :>'t) g¡ Po.~.c (1 :>.c9 I-< å1 +J S §8Q).s::'gp:;g¡~t:'d~S'õQ) C) PI.s:: C),... Q).c:~ Q) S::ö d I-< :>. Po.....' ~ ~..... .,¡< Po (1 . ¡:;¡ t Q) ..... (1..d Po Q) ~ b Q) 0 'ãJ ,CD 8 @.s:: s:: :>.~o S ~..... S I-< I-< ..... 1-< PoE; ::so ~ ~ ..... d . C) 0 PI.§o ::s 0 23.... ... Q)¡:;¡.....Q)rJJ O<o:."'C) C) ~ PI..... .....CI.) .s:: S .0 ..... Q) ~ S;a ~ ~ ~ E; g 0 ~, <X:,* Iii .~ .......... rJJ ~;> ..... ,c.t: ;> ::s S S. ~:§ ti s'õ ~t: :>; ~.B §8.....Zo ~, ::S'd 0'..... s:: Q)rx.. rJJ C)Q) Q)"';:::Q)I-<s:: Q) ..... ..... I-< r:::'~. d _Po·.... .::s 1-<', C) Q) UU ¡:;¡ c¡).'"Ct E;- bO~ Sgt:~::S'~rJJ :<X: x ,.0 rJJ (1 s:: rJJ rJJ 'd Q) s:: ~ s:: Po.B Q) s:: ,~ 'S:: Q) 0 0 Q) :> ... "'£I:5-5b::::~ 15~ ~'¡¡:J 'E ..... ..... .~ ~ "'..... Q) å1 ::s Q) ~ 8~ S'd~ bO'd,c 8180'1 å1c:<1.....t: s:: ¡:; I-< Q)0*..d....,..0"'~Q) bO Po.... +J *.9 Po'" .£ "'......o~Q)rx..(/)oQ)o '§1!ti~:S Q) §.s:: e s:: "'='00 rJJ.s::I-<·~·~- ""'.....C) ..........E;,cP-t ,gca .B ~ ~ §~~~.~ 015 ~¡¡ : rJJ......,..O..... ......;::'~ bObO .... (1Q)~~~ S Q) s:: ..... s:: s:: .s::..... þ; rJJ Q)'" Q)S·.... 0....."'(1·.... Q) ,..:::1 ~,,'¡¡:J ..... .¿ 'd bOQ) rJJ 0 ,'cd b ..... rJJ (1..... Q)...... ::::: c.;;. -5 s rJJ .§.... (1 ~.s:: rJJ ",bO ~:§ 'd........:::: Q) .S Q) 0 s:: c; s:: Q) 'Q)rJJ~ ~C)Q) ~ oQ)rJJ·....1-< w. C) ~ I-< I-< (1 .s(1 ~ .s §' ~ ,.. ~ .~ g. ......s:: Q)..... +J"'¡:;";""'" ::s~ ..s::::s ~ Q)~<:@s. .c~'d......c..... ,..::S Q) ~.... .~ 'd. bO 0 M ~ '0 .s~rJJ~~ 0 c.;;.Q)¡¡~"'" w...~... ~l-<bOO:>' ::s s::"';:::........... - ..... 0..... ~ $ .s:: '8 'd§ -g 1:: ~ ~ s:: ~ s:: ,cen::S'd 'd(1 @.....:>..s::::s ~g~~~-g~ C).B~::::8 ~ ;g tï ~ ~~ ~15 ~ § ~ ~ £ ... ,.. s:: ~'d' (/) ~ E; Q)-- d Po ,.. ~ bO ..... 'do ' Q) ~ ''-' ¡:;¡ Q) ''-' s:: Q) Q) s::..... ::s Q) ~ ca g ~ E ~ ~.¿ .s:: ~ ã rJJ .~ . go Q) Q)- .~E;'t:Ì';::¡ 15~ ......C) bO~ rJJ ",SC)(1 o ...¡..J o ~. o ...¡..J ~ .t'-- '~',¿o ~~ -0 ~ r:rJ ~ ,0) ~ ".~,,' .....-4 ~) ~ - ~~ Q~ ~ l~.-I Zm, :;:) ~ ' ,OlE Co) 00 8 tI:! .... rd ~rJJ .s:: § ,~ ~ ~a~ .§~ gó 'ª 8 M'd s:: bOod'" ~ Q) ,.:¡ S Q) (1 d I-<.s:: * ''d bO . ~ s:: .;::¡ "'..... bO S::.S ~(1'''''' ~ ~ bJ)~ ~~Q) ......c:t: Q)0S::' po ti 0 (1 (/) U 'õ ., 0 ~ S .s:: ::s ~ ~ M,~ ~,!!¡ , ..... ~ s:: +J Õ M:5" ~ Q) rJJ ,¿..... ..... ~ s:: ~ Q) , ~ g¡ .:1 e'" :g ~ :~ ¡ Q)~C) Q)Q)'þs::(1 rJJ ~ :>"~ £ § cJ} Q) ~ ¡;:Q~ , ~.c8 rJJ'¡¡:J E ~ ......ê bO . ~ ~ Po ,;:::.~""':; g¡ o·S ~ ... 0..... ''-' d ..... ''-' ...... IJ § ::s .s..... 0 0 ¡:;¡ (1 s::....... ,..:. ..... 'rJJ~ .0d.s::(1rJJQ)' ,(1 'd rJJ .... .c: rJJ.s:: ¡:;¡ ~ ~ Q) ..... Po~ .~..... ~......~ ~ 8 Q) ~.B õ rJJ..... rJJ S bO s..... ~ S ~ Q) '¡¡:J.~ : s:: 8 ,'d ~ §:::: -g 0 8 ~ .~.Þ ~ ~ 8.E s:: 8 ~.;¡ ~ Po:S S § ~ 1-<.....1::0Q)¿::(1s::~ S +J ~ ::s Q) ¡::¡ .~ ~: ¡j:.s å10 8 S ~ ~ ~.::: ::s; ~ ~ :::~ C) Q) 0 ~ ,.. I:: ~ Q) bO(1....... :S J:: Q Ò<J >, 'dèS::Q) 'dQ)S:: ~ ~ 8 ª B ~:S ~' :i' .0 .....(1 '~::::.... . ~b§ S~ 15Ê'~ .~" S 0 ~ ~ ~. ~~ 'I~ 'Cþ C)CD ~ 0 Õ :'.0 ,c Q) ~ 2 ¡:; ..... ......';:'!':Q) Q) .s:: ,.. (1 ~ "';:::.~:'~, ,:,!;8 ~ ~ Q,).t) ~ ~. '\oJ ~,¿.s Q) ~.~1::" Q) Q) 1::' 2 .s g ¡; ::sO" ~ 80(10 -:>'C) rJJ I d ..... ,.. '" '..... ¡:;¡bOrJJ 0'dQ) rJJ ~>< ti .S "t .....:ÞèII ~:S ~ (1.....Q) ::so C' ......::::.~ ~E;"'" Q) .s:: S I-< 'd (/) ,.., o~.cPo ·;::¡15ti M ~~~13>..§·~§ .s ¡;:¡.crJJo~<x:·.....g -g u Q).............. d ... ;::¡ IJ s::......... Þ ¡:;¡,.. .;::: ~:>0°'g§8gj> Q) o .......d ....0... ..s:: E-' ø rJJ +J .;::: 0 C):C ~'E; CI.) :>"~ S I-<~ .- Q) Q~ . ~.! 0).... "<0 Q tí, G¡ "-- " BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DOUGLAS M. ANDERSON April 16, 2002 Senator Ken Pruitt 2400 SE Midport Road, ~uite 110 Port St. Lucie, FL 34952 Re: Department of Community Affairs Emergency Management Competitive Grants Dear Senator Pruitt: St. Lucie County received notice yesterday that its two grants for the Emergency Management Competitive Grant Program would not be funded. The first of these grants is for a Mobile Command Vehicle. The St. Lucie County Fire District, the St. Lucie County Sheriffs Department, the City of Fort Pierce, and the St. Lucie County Department of Public Safety combined to provide a 68% match of$129,000. The requested amount was $60,000. The second grant is for portable stalls to establish a regional emergency animal shelter. For this grant, St. Lucie County provided a 70% match of $269,500. Requested funds equaled $118,000. In that this is a competitive grant program, the decision to fund specific grants is to be based upon a point system. Points are to be awarded based upon how clearly, succinctly and comprehensively the grant application addresses six topic areas and how the project meets certain criteria within these six areas. It is our contention that both of these grants addressed each of the topic areas in a manner which should have earned the maximum number of points. For example, on the first topic, 150 points are awarded if the project addresses one of three emergency management priorities and if it improves emergency preparedness in identified areas of need. Both of our projects addressed all three emergency management priorities and the grant applications list a minimum of eight areas in which the projects will improve the operation capabilities of agencies assigned lead or support responsibilities as identified in the Florida Emergency Management Plan. In reviewing these two grants and the scoring criteria detail, we do not see how the six topic areas could have been answered any more clearly, succinctly or comprehensively. Given the high need for these two projects, the amount of matching funds provided, and the manner in which the two grants applications were written; we fail to understand how the projects could be ranked behind 46 others. This is particularly true of the mobile command vehicle project. Review of the titles of higher ranked projects causes even greater consternation since the need for these projects does not appear to be as great as our projects. It would be useful to see Leon County's mobile command center project scored significantly higher than ours. JOHN D, BRUHN, Districr No, 1 . DOUG COWARD, Districr No, 2 . PAULA A, LEWIS, Disrricr No,.3 . FRANNiE HUTCHINSON. Disrricr No, 4 . CLIFF GARNES, Disrricr No 5 Counry Administraror - Douglas M, Andersen 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 , Attached is a copy of preliminary scores released by DCA. Copies of the two grant applications and the scoring criteria are available upon request. Your assistance in obtaining clarification regarding wh ese two projects were not funded will be appreciated. ... ,Res.pect 1); d f-/~~' dr---- ~~ ugla M. Anderson oun Administrator !/é/1 Ah')CA/~ Á/Ik- Ken J. Mascara 'd St. Lucie Coun heriff ' ,~~ Lucie cou~ty Fire District ~ ,dÁU/-¿ø ~~ne1avage :ief, City o;:z::;:;:ent ac Southard Dir ctor St. Lucie County Public Safety Department CC: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Daniel McIntyre, County Attorney Jody Bonet, Grants Writer Ron Book, Attorney At Law .. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ø~~~~~WN~ N o -.J z ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~g~8g~~w~w~~8~g8gogg~~~~~~OOON8~~~~~~~g~~g~~~~w8~ggg~N~~[ ~NW~W~~~OO~OOWOO~~WWNOOO~~~~OO~OOWN~~WN~~OWOO~W~~WW~~W~OO~~~OO~OO~~OO~~ rt ~~~~E~~~~~~~~~~~Q~~g~~~~~~Q~Q~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~§~~ o ~3~.æ~~~a~Err~ª~E~~~~EWma~~~~g~m3~~g<~g~~·~~0·m~£~<roª~~ª~~a~~~&~;' rt ow CD ~~_~~ CD_a~OCDCDO=- ..~- ~=~_O ~O _CD O-~= OI~I~nCD~-' I~- ~~g.W~W;::a~RR~;::~~CDCD~~;S~giQ~~gCD~~g~gaCDgi~I~&i~~a~()~~~:r.~g.;Q~~ W ~gg~~~~()()~~~~~()()()~~O()()B~~CD~~~~P~~~()()~().:<:~gg~()~()()~~~ig()~~()O~g~ ~ ~§reg.~g.~g~gg~~a~ggo~~gg~g.~~o~!!Q~oigg~gaQ~æg.gjgg~~~~reg¡~g~~§! _.:<:~g~gi~':<:~~~iW~~@-i.:<:~~~g~?~oo~~~Q-OO~~OOi~$iwg~3~~~Q~j()i~~!:g"<i ro~3-~~~m--o~~~ - _00 I-ic.()~:ro--~ :r m:r CD~~()c~CD"<~~O ~CD3 'ro~ g;3 ~~~~~~-~9~~~ ai~~~i~~~~~~ ~ ~~;::~~~i~()i~g~~ia;~~ ~i~~~gg _§ o()~~()() ()~oo()~ ~()()~wc.a.-a- ~ -g .n:-o w~cgoo~, ~- O·Wc.CD a ~ ~~~CD ~,~ ~ . ~()~ ~O 0 00 o~~~a ()i~o·g .~w ~g~aª ro '~~ ()'" ro 0 _()¡¡¡ _"" - ""- ",,_'-CDg ()~O-,,~ ::1~~ -CD' ()CD a g QQ~~ ~g~ ~ ~ ~ 0 g~ Q ~3m ~møn LQ3m3~i 3~.a ~o~o3~ ~ = m _;:: CD. c. n :J 0 . _ - -;:: 3 0 .... g CD ~ 0 ~ ~ r- c. , I ~E ~ ¡ CD ¡ ~ ~~ ~ ~I ~ ~I lall~ ~~~ !::13~~if i ",q>L!" 0 0 () _' ~:J ~ -'oo~-'''' o~,... ,_,:J CD> CD ~~ ~ ~ g. a g aQ a~· g~gi~ §~ ()CDagi ~~ ~ 33 ~ _ :J ~ m m- m:J~ ---::;~ n- o%.- CDI :2- ~ ~ ~ ~,g g, ~;:: ;:: ~ ;:: ~ § ~ ~ g~ =' g ~ ~ ¡¡¡ ~ ~ ~ 'f? æ ~ ~ CD §.~ ~ g ~ a 5' ~ ~ ~' ~ 3 ~ ~ ;. 3 ~ ~' 6' g 3 n ' ~ ~ 5: c. ~ -i õ' CD ~ ~ CD 11 - 3 ¡¡ 2, - g ~ g;, _ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ Q ìJ Ii o ...J. (!) () rt U1 rj) ~ tr' S 1-'- rt rt (!) P. ~ z CD i' Q "" '"d W lQ (!) rj) (') ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~WN~~ N ~~i~g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~8~~~Q~Q~~~~~~~b~~~~~~~2~~~~~~~~~~ rt >~~~~!I~I~I~I.~I~I~~lmti;!~~a~I~I~I~litl~li~lilii~;I~g11;;2~ o ~~;~Q~~~~i()<~~~CD~º~~~~~~~;~~~~~i~~g~()I~CD~g~~~'iial~~~~oog~~~8 b__Qre~Qg~m30~I()!¡c.~~~Q,ª-æiaßG)CDc.E~Q~c.ß30~()~;§%.CDgC~IQ~o~I~~~3~~iI ~ ~~() ""I -~3 CDQO~N-'~~CD CD~c.-~~~~o--""~()~ ~o~g~_a_~~~.~_~,,:JªCD~r-~C 1~~1~3Iill~~~I~I~~igi~~:~~~~!~ig~f~()3o~g3igti~~i~~I~~i~i~g~~if()¡ c.æ~=~~~ªnCDc.~3-~;::~~CD~CD~&i3 ~S¡¡~~30~3 ~ ~~~t~~~!~~S~~~.~:J-~%.P:J ~W~~!~i~~~fj!~I~.~~~lj¡f~ ~~¡~gl~~i~~~~~~~~~~3~~~!~~~~g~~~~~~ >~o ~co~>~~~ ~m~m~ro~l~~~~ 0 _3~omm~-.O~~-~_oo -~~ m~ro-·ro~~mro-· ¡¡~~ ~n~~2~-~~-g-~i~~õ¡¡¡m~~ a Qæ~CDi~m£~~~!~ª~~~~g~Q~5~,ª~~~~~,ª$ I~~ §CD~3~CD ~~ :J~m_g~~~~~ ~ ~aCD~()~3g-()j-~~¡¡¡oQ;m3.m~¡0~õæICD9~~ ~%.i Ir!~~ ~~ l!gi~~~Gii I III~I·I~I~ ,;~I~I~~~ljg~~~i~Q~i~~! ::s 00 _ "" 00 :r n _ CD CD '" ~ ~ CD - := _, ~ .^ CD ro ~ :J 0 ~:r 'ë .... ... c < 0 ,::¡ :r ~ "" ~ -i ~ ;;< - CD u, :J o ~ ~ ~5~~~ o~ ¡¡:J3~~~~g~~ ~ ~~ CG) ~::1~~ ~&aCD<CD~~CDCD.O~¡~ - ¡¡~c. _ -va-_ :J3 _CD<CD~CD ~~ :J _- -CD ~~c.:J 1~1"'~:J~<:Jn.~()c.£-··:J CD rt ~ õ' ':!! CD' _ ~ ~ ~ %. CD ¡¡ ':; ~ $!2 ~ g c. ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ -c g CD 3 :J g 3 ~ Q CD '8 .Q ~ f91, ~ ~ P Q, ~ ~ ~ ~ ¡¡¡~ ¡¡~ ~ ~ bgil~ ~ ro~ ~~ I~~~ %.!~;::~~~~~~~~g7~ ¡ I~ '~ a ~ ~ -CI~ ¡¡ CD ~~~_CD 5: ~CD ~S '5~-~ Õþ:J~-3~%.CDCD='~·~::; - ~¡¡¡ 8 ~ :J 00 a'ë :J ff c.:J ~ ~- ~~ :Jc. - ~ :J CD~.-i=-O()~- ;:: 3 ~ ~ P ¡.¡s' =r Õ () . S _ S ,-ro ~ ~ ¡ß õ' ~:;i ~ %. ~ CD ~ 1>' 5: ~ - ¡¡ ~ a, g. ~ _ ~ ¡¡! CD ~i I~ ¡ ~ ~i -i~ i~ 3 ~! ~_. ~!i ~ ~~ _ ~ $ %. -8 ~ -c ~!oo æ~ €~ CD 3~ ~ ~ -i -.~ ~ 0 Ij;) ~ ~ ",::>, a ro:J ~ 3 ~ 3: ~ %. -[. è5 ~ ~ g. §!: ~ ¡¡¡ . l!:g £ i:¡ ~,. ~ ~ 4' õ CD· ~ ~ g ~ ~ . _ ~:J ~ _~ a -~ ~ 3~ CD - ff~ CD 2 ~ ~ 3 ;g-~' ~ ;:: ~¡¡ -i go m::! g. :r < g. ¡¡ ! aa ~ g~ ~ ~ g ~ g'g 3 ~ ~ i I i ~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~ g. ::u ä: CD ctI Q) .g f :J c. en ar CD () ~ ~ ~ :J, ~ ro Ii (!) 1-'. ::s () ~ ~ p. (!) p. 1-'- ::s t-h p¡ X ~ rn~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ttttttt~~~~~~~g[ ONW~WW~~~~w~~W~~~ONN~~~~WO~~~~NN~~~OOO~~~~~w~~~~~~~OON~~WN~~~~CD~ ~~~~~~~~~g~~~~gg~ggß~~~~~g~~~~g~~~~~~g~~t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~ ~ ::0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~g~ ~~~~~~~~~~~?~~~~~~~~9ft~rn~~~~~~~~ft~~~~p~~~~~~~ft~~~~~~~~~~~~~o~g §~gggg~~~gggg~~~~gg~tgg§gg§~§§§§§~§~~g~g~gg~~g~g§*~§§§~§g~~§[a ~ ~ *~~ ~~ M*~~~ ~ -~ ;~~~t~~m~g~8~~i~~~~~~~~g~~~~R ~g~~g~g~~g~~~g~g~oo~gg~~8~~8äl ~o~~owo~oo~waooaawœooooo~OO ø D. ~~~~~~~**~ø~~~~*~ ~~~~*~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ww~ ~~~NW~~~~W~NW~~~oaa wmoo NN~ w W~Nw~m~~Þ~NOW~omw~mmwwmm~ _ ~~OID w~oo~~w~w~w~~~~ommmm~ h~N~œœaON~~~~W~~~~~aoa~oomoo ~wwa~~wwWWW~~~NNNowooœoo-mmooww ~__m__oowWwoo~~~~~~m~~~~~~ooo mNmoCII s:~;.g ~ ~ . ...., su CD N<O ;:¡. 0 ~_gg3- 'C. Co) n ~ :!! ñ ~~ :; g. ~~~õg. g~~ 0 en :::J ëD 3 ,<'>33 ~~g§ ~~~~ ~~ i ~ ~31¡~ ;:¡. g! ii! ~~ ~~= m3U1 '"D .. ~aª' z~» > < UI ~CDUI -<~~ ~~~ g~~ m 0 ... CIIcc C ~ UI .. .. 3 ~ ~ D. G) m z m ;;0 » r o ~ ~ a N EMP A COMPETITIVE GRANT APPLICA TIO~ ATTACHMENT 1 TITLE PAGE TITLE OF PROJECT Mobile Command Vehicle AMOUNT REQUESTED FROM STATE $60,000 AMOUNT MATCHING FUNDS COMMITTED $120,000 Cash and $9,000 In-kind Services This is an application for a competitive grant under (indicate ONLY one): 1) Emergency Management Competitive Grant Program, or 2) Municipal Competitive Grant Program The application is submitted for consideration in the follov.1ng category (select ONLY one): x 1) A project that will promote public education on disaster preparedness and recovery issues. .. 2) A project that will enhance coordination of relief efforts of statewide private sector organizations, including public-private business partnerships. 3) A project that will improve the training and operations capabilities of agencies assigned lead or support responsibilities in the State Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. X 4) A project that will otherwise further state and local emergency management priorities identified in the Notice of Fund Availability. APPLICANT INFORMATION: Name of Organization: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Address of Organization: 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 E-mail address:rosieri~co.st-Iucie.f1.us Name of Chief Elected Official: Douglas Coward, Chair BOCC Name of Chief Administrative Officer: Douglas M. Anderson, County Administrator Name of Applicant Contact: Jody Rosier Bonet Title of Applicant Contact: Grants Writer Telephone Number of Applicant Contact: (772) 462-1592 Federal Employee Identification (FEID) Number: 59-6000835 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE ~ comply with 9G-19.008(7), F.A.C., or application will Dot be scored] : Signature: -4..dL e.. _.1 Title: Chair of St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners February 5, 2002 DOUG COWARD BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONEr, W, Craig Fugate, Director Division of Emergency Management 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2199 Dear Mr. Fugate: Please accept this grant application for the following St. Lucie County Priority Project. Through analysis of the County's most important projects on the Local Mitigation Strategy Prioritized List, St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners requests $60,000 in Trust Funds to purchase a mobile command vehicle. The St. Lucie County Public Safety Department, St. Lucie County Fire District, St. Lucie County Sheriffs Department, and the Fort Pierce Police Department have coordinated efforts to contribute $120,000 cash and $9,000 in-kind administrative services toward this project to provide a greater than 2: I match. St. Lucie County residents and St. Lucie County emergency managers will benefit from this project by having a mobile command vehicle th.at will enable the managers to more effectively and expeditiously respond to a full scope of disaster or emergency events. The mobile command unit will provide managers with an on-site sheltered environment in which they can plan, coordinate, and manage emergency response services. The communication system within the vehicle will provide them with the ability to simultaneously and reliably communicate with multiple field staff, with residents in an emergency area, and needed support distant from the emergency area. Conference calling systems will promote communication between emergency victims with special needs and necessary help such as translation services. The communication system within the mobile command vehicle will also have the capacity to serve as a reserve 911system. Computers within the unit will provide the managers with immediate access to County data banks enabling them to secure necessary geographical, topographical, site, or building information. A stealth camera within the vehicle will enable managers to view an emergency site from as far away as three miles. In the event of toxic exposure or hostage events, this ability to view the scene from a distance could serve to prevent injury to emergency workers. St. Lucie County will provide the following assurances: that only those entities identified in the application are involved in the proposed project; that the application is made without collusion with any other entity submitting an application; that the application is, in all respects, fair and in good faith, without fraud or collusion; and that the signer of the application has full authority to bind the applicant and all other involved parties. I hereby certify that these assurances are true and accurate and that the County is fully committed to completing this project within one year of the contract date. If you have any questions regarding this grant application, please contact Jody Bonet, Grants Writer, at (561) 462-1592. St. Lucie County appreciates your positive consideration of this project. s~~ Douglas Coward Chair, St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners cc: Board of County Commissioners Eugene Savage, Fort Pierce Police Chief Jay Sizemore, St. Lucie County Fire Chief Daniel McIntyre, County Attorney Douglas Anderson, County Administrator Ken Mascara, St. Lucie County Sheriff Jack Southard, Public Safety Director JOHN D, ßRUHN Dlsrrier No 1 . DOUG COWARD, District No 2 . PAULA A, LEWIS. District No,.3 . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, District No, 4 . CLIFF ßARNES, District No,S County Adminlsrrator ' Douglas M, Anderson 2.300 Virginia Avenue . Forr Pierce, FL .34982-5652 · (561) 462-1412 FAX (561) 462-21J1 · TDD (561) 462-1428 EMPA COMPETITIVE GRANT APPLICATION ATTACHMENT 1 TITLE PAGE TITLE OF PROJECT Mobile Command Vehicle AMOUNT REQUESTED FROM STATE $60,000 AMOUNT MATCHING FUNDS COMMITTED $120,000 Cash and $9,000 In-kind Services This is an application for a competitive grant under (indicate ONLY one): x 1) Emergency Management Competitive Grant Program, or 2) Municipal Competitive Grant Program The application is submitted for consideration in the follo\\'ing category (select ONLY one): 1) A project that will promote public education on disaster preparedness and recovery Issues. 2) A project that will enhance coordination of relief efforts of statewide private sector organizations, including public-private business partnerships. 3) A project that will improve the training and operations capabilities of agencies assigned lead or support responsibilities in the State Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. X 4) A project that will otherwise further state and local emergency management priorities identified in the Notice of Fund Availability. APPLICANT INFORMATION: Name of Organization: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Address of Organization: 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 E-mail address:rosieri(tl¿co.st-Iucie.f1.us Name of Chief Elected Official: Douglas Coward, Chair BOCC Name of Chief Administrative Officer: Douglas M. Anderson, County Administrator Name of Applicant Contact: Jody Rosier Bonet Title of Applicant Contact: Grants Writer Telephone Number of Applicant Contact: (772) 462-1592 Federal Employee Identification (FEID) Number: 59-6000835 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE fMust comply with 9G-19.008(7), F.A.C., or application will not be scored] : ~ SIgnature: ~..~ t:;.,. _.1 Title: Chair of St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners 2 St. Lucie County Mobile Command Vehicle Table of Contents Letter of Transmittal Page 1 Title Page Page 2 Table of Contents Page 3 Emergency Management Need Page 4 Emergency Management Benefits Page 7 Consistency With State and Local Comprehensive Management Plan Page 9 , Justification of Approach and Method Page 11 Applicant's Match Page 12 Applicant's Experience and Ability Applied To The Project Page 12 Proposed Budget - Tab B for Budget Page14 St. Lucie County LMS Project Identification Page 15 3 1. Clearly identify a demonstrated state or local emergency management need and explain how this project will address it. If applicable, identify which emergency management prioriry, as identified in the Notice of Fund Availability, the project address. Clearly link the project to the priority. In the event of an emergency, St. Lucie County does not presently have a central location from which emergency response services can be managed and coordinated. The County also lacks adequate communication systems between an emergency site and County databases. These limitations effect significant complications that impede appropriate, timely, and cost-effective emergency response. Such complications include: · an inability to provide on-site emergency response management and coordination services without interference from weather conditions such as wind or rain' , · a reduced ability to centrally position key emergency management personnel; · a limited ability to simultaneously communicate with multiple emergency managers; · an inability to quickly access geographical, topographical, site, and building records; · a limited ability to conduct emergency management and coordination services at night due to lighting problems; · and an inability to conduct emergency management functions without distraction of news organizations. The St. Lucie County Department of Public Safety, the St. Lucie Fire District, the St. Lucie County Sheriffs Department, and the Fort Pierce Police Department have therefore deemed it necessary to secure a mobile command vehicle that will include emergency communication and computer equipment necessary to manage and coordinate emergency response services. Each of these four agencies considers the need for the mobile command vehicle to be of such importance that each agency has committed $30,000 that will be used as 2:1 match. An additional $9,000 in-kind administrative services will also be contributed. This grant proposal is therefore for the purchase of a mobile command vehicle. The vehicle will be a Blue Bird CS12000 40' Forward Control Coach similar to that pictured on the previous page. The vehicle will be equipped with two 20 KW generators, a six-position communication system, computers with direct link to County data bases by means of a directional antenna and broadband wireless program, conference area and table, and stealth camera with 40' pneumatic mast. This vehicle, equipped as planned, will enable St. Lucie County emergency response agencies, either individually or in coordination with each other, · to provide on-site emergency response management and coordination services in a secure and sheltered environment; · to communicate with multiple emergency managers and supervisors simultaneously and expeditiously; · to have field access to geographical, topographical, site, building, and other records and information available in the County's data bases; · to have visual access of approximately three miles of disaster areas by means of a stealth camera and tower mounted on the command center. 4 During a recent wildfire emergency, County emergency managers had to conduct management and coordination services from the hood of a car. Maps of the area were constantly disturbed by winds. Communications with various managers were limited to cell telephones providing inconsistent reception. The managers had to rely upon verbal report by helicopter staff observance of the fire's spread. This at times was flawed due to misunderstanding of the verbal report. The managers had no access, other than by verbal report by cell phones, to County databases to secure information regarding buildings threatened by the fires. Throughout the disaster, they had to work with frequent interruptions by news organizations. Had the disaster involved flooding and a rain event, the managers would not have even been able to work from the hood of the car. The mobile command vehicle will provide a center of operations secure from weather elements and other disruptions. It will provide emergency managers with access to multiple telephone lines for communication. The communication system in the mobile command vehicle will be sufficient to assume all the functions of the County's 911 system in the event of that system's failure. It will therefore serve the very important function of back-up to the 911 system. It should be noted the St. Lucie County Fire District is establishing a state-of- the-art broadband communication system and tower that will support the communications system in the mobile command vehicle. This system will be completed by July, 2002. Multiple computers in the mobile command vehicle will provide quick and immediate access to geographical and topographical maps, information regarding building plans, and information regarding property ownership and residence. The emergency managers additionally will have the benefit of a stealth camera providing immediate visual inspection of the disaster event for up to three miles. In the event of a chemical spill, the stealth camera could provide the managers, without having to closely approach the site, with information regarding the type of chemical spilled by allowing them to read signage on vehicles or containers. In the event of a hostage crisis, the stealth camera will also allow emergency managers to view the hostage area from a significant distance if this were necessary. This project addresses needs in all three priority areas identified in the Notice of Fund Availability. . The project is one which implements the community's Local Hazard Mitigation Strategy and which can clearly be initiated and completed within the twelve month grant cycle contract period. Securing a mobile command vehicle for emergency and disaster situations is identified as item number 41 in the St. Lucie County Unified Local Mitigation Strategy. The manufacturer of the mobile command vehicle has stipulated delivery of the vehicle within eight months from the signed date of the contract. St. Lucie County has had extensive conversations with the manufacturer, L&S Custom Coaches, and is prepared to secure a contract with the manufacturer as soon as the grant contract is signed. L& S Custom Coaches is the sole source for this type of vehicle. Therefore competitive bidding will not be necessary. . The project improves emergency management capabilities in the following three areas of preparedness, response, or recovery: Wildfire Mitigation: The mobile command vehicle improves the emergency managers' abilities to manage and coordinate response and rescue services during a wildfire by providing on-site management and coordination services 5 in a secure and sheltered area with technologically advanced communication systems and computer access to necessary County databases. Citizen Warning: The mobile command vehicle, with its on-site capabilities and advanced monitoring and communication systems, provides emergency mangers with the capability to warn citizens in a specific disaster area of the precise nature of the emergency and appropriate response action. For example, without having to return to headquarters, printers contained in the mobile command vehicle could print out evacuation route maps to be quickly distributed to a community. With access to County databases, emergency managers will also be able to better identify residents in an emergency area and advise them of a need to evacuate. The more comprehensive on-site evaluation the mobile command vehicle allows will also effect more expeditious and accurate news/warning release to the media. Special Needs Population: With the aid of telephones, closed circuit television, fax machines, and printers contained within the mobile command vehicle; managers will have the ability to communicate in a variety of different ways with persons with special communication needs. For example, the communication system will allow managers to immediately have access to doctors, translators, or family members significantly removed from the disaster scene. . This project improves the operation capabilities of the following agencies assigned lead or support responsibilities as Identified on the ESF Matrix of the Florida Emergency Management Plan: It assists the Division of Communications in ESF2 (Communications) by providing an on-site communications center for any emergency or disaster occurring in 81. Lucie County. It assists the Department of Transportation in ESF3 (Public Works and Engineering) by providing access, at the emergency site, to engineering plans contained in the County's database. It assists the Division of State Fire Marshall by providing an on-site command and communications center where wildfire response and rescue services can be coordinated and managed in St. Lucie County. During the response and recovery phases of a disaster, it assists the Division of Emergency Management in ESF5 (Information and Planning) by providing a command and communications center in St. Lucie County where incident action planning can be conducted and facilitated through on-site information collection, processing, and dissemination. During the initial response stage after a disaster, a mobile command vehicle assists the Department of Management Services in ESF7 (Resource Support) by providing an on-site command and communications center where emergency response and rescue services can be assessed, planned, coordinated, and managed. It assists the Division of State Fire Marshall in ESF9 (Search and Rescue) in both urban and non-urban search and rescue efforts by providing a quickly accessible command and communications center where information can be gathered and coordinated and where services can be planned and managed. 6 I t assists the Department of Environmental Protection in ESF 1 0 (Hazardous Environmental) by allowing environmental emergencies to be initially assessed from a distance by utilizing a stealth camera, thereby reducing risk and danger to emergency workers. It assists the Department of Community Affairs in ESF 14 (Public Information) by allowing for in-depth, on-site evaluation and assessment of an emergency, with the full benefit of County resources and data, prior to information dissemination to the general public through the news media. This allows for more accurate and timelier news and warning dissemination. It provides assistance to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement in ESF16 (Law Enforcement and Security) by providing a mobile, on-site center where the services of law enforcement personnel can be assessed, planned, coordinated, and monitored during emergencies involving evacuation, rioting, crowd control, or other law enforcement events. 2. Identify the immediate tangible emergency management benefits (short term projects, i.e. - 12 months or less in duration), or, reasonable expectation of long term emergency management benefits coupled with the availability of resources (other than this grant amount) to continue implementation of the project past the term of the award (long term projects, i.e. - duration of longer than 12 months). Also, identify the number of emergency management organizations or the targeted population area whose emergency management needs will be directly benefited by the project. This project is a short-term project with long-term benefits. The project will be short-term in its completion in that purchase of the mobile command vehicle can be accomplished within eight to ten months after the grant contract is signed. The manufacturer has additionally stated local staff can be trained in proper operation and maintenance of the vehicle within two weeks after delivery. The mobile command vehicle can therefore be fully operational within eleven months after the grant contract is signed. The long-term emergency benefits of this project are based upon the fact that the mobile command vehicle has a life expectancy of at least fifteen years. Dade County has a similar vehicle, which they purchased from the same manufacturer fifteen years ago. The vehicle is still operational. It should be noted the mobile command vehicle will be purchased by and available to the St. Lucie County Safety Director, the St. Lucie County Sheriffs Department, the St. Lucie County Fire District, and the City of Fort Pierce Police Department. The vehicle will therefore have the expertise, experience, and resources of emergency managers from each of these agencies in its operation. Maintenance of the vehicle will be the responsibility of the St. Lucie County Fire District. The mechanics and technicians of this agency have extensive training and experience in the maintenance of similar vehicles such as emergency medical rescue vehicles and fire engines. Given these factors, the short-term and long-term emergency management benefits of this project will be that St. Lucie County and the State of Florida will be better prepared to more 7 comprehensively, expeditiously, and safely meet numerous Emergency Support Functions. These include, but are not limited to the following: · Providing emergency radio and telephone communication services to organizations involved in emergency response and recovery operations; · Evaluating infrastructure damage and coordinating debris clearing of essential roads and coordinating emergency contracting, engineering, and demolition services; · Providing incident management teams in detecting and suppressing woodland, rural, and urban fires; · Collecting, analyzing, and disseminating critical information on emergency operations for decision-making purposes; · Securing resources necessary to appropriately assess and respond to the emergency or disaster; · Locating, extricating, and providing emergency assistance to victims trapped in an emergency situation; · Providing inspection, containment, and cleanup of hazardous materials accidents or releases; · Coordinating and directing the restoration of water, sewer, electrical power, telephone service, and fuel supplies; · Coordinating RIA T assignments and National Guard resources to assist where needed; · Coordinate the dissemination of all disaster related information to the media and general public; · Providing and coordinating general law enforcement services during and emergency; · And managing the receipt and distribution of donated goods and services in the wake of a disaster. Resources available to St. Lucie County to continue this program beyond the twelve month grant program are many. The St. Lucie County Safety Director, the St. Lucie County Sheriff, the St. Lucie County Fire Chief, and the Fort Pierce Police Chief are responsible for providing training to staff in appropriate emergency assessment, planning and response measures. These training services are ongoing and continuous. For example, within the last month, St. Lucie County conducted a mock training program regarding appropriate response to a school hostage or shooting incident similar to that which occurred at Columbine High School. Available to them in meeting emergency training needs is Indian River Community College, located in Fort Pierce, which provides both degree programs and continuing education courses in law enforcement, fire safety, and emergency medical services. It should additionally be noted each of these agencies, but especially the St. Lucie County Fire District, have staff mechanics and technicians who are trained and certified in the repair and maintenance of motor vehicles, communications equipment, computer networks, audiovisual equipment, and specialized emergency equipment which are necessary to the operation of the mobile command vehicle. St. Lucie County Fire District has four certified mechanics who will be assigned responsibility for maintenance of the vehicle. 8 Emergency management organizations and emergency needs directly benefited by this program include: · The St. Lucie County Public Safety Department, the St. Lucie County Sheriffs Department, the St. Lucie County Fire Department, and the City of Fort Pierce Police Department who will have a mobile command vehicle from which to monitor, coordinate, and manage emergency response services during an emergency; · The St. Lucie County Public Safety Department, the St. Lucie County Sheriffs Department, the St. Lucie County Fire Department, and the City of Fort Pierce Police Department who will have a reserve communication center from which all 911 dispatching services can be conducted; · The Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the Division of State Fire Marshall, Division of Emergency Management, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the Division of Communications who will have local access to a command center from which on-site emergency services can be assessed, planned, coordinated, and managed for any major emergency occurring in St. Lucie County; · And the Department of Community Affairs who will receive the benefit of more accurate and timelier information for news and warning dissemination. 3. Describe the project's consistency with the State Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and any applicable local comprehensive emergency management plans. [Maximum score 100 points] Florida's Comprehensive Management Plan in its general statement regarding methods of operations asserts "The State of Florida utilizes a 'closest appropriate responder' concept (could be county, the State, or nationally available resources) when responding to any threat, event, or disaster. In most situations, the counties will be the first and primary responders, and will be required to exceed their abilities or deplete their resources prior to requesting State assistance." Given this policy that counties, in most situations, will be the first and primary responders to an emergency, it is highly consistent with the State Comprehensive Management Plan that St. Lucie County be prepared to respond to an emergency as expeditiously and as efficiently as possible. The proposed mobile command vehicle will markedly and distinctly improve St. Lucie County's ability to respond to an emergency and to coordinate appropriate resources in a timely, efficient, and cost effective manner. The procurement of a mobile command vehicle by St. Lucie County is additionally consistent with the following purposes of the State Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan 1998 which are listed in the plan's introductory statements: · Reduce the vulnerability of people and communities of this state to loss of life, injury, or damage and loss of property resulting from natural, technological or man- made emergencies, catastrophes, or hostile military or paramilitary action; · Prepare for prompt and efficient response and recovery activities to protect lives and property affected by emergencies; 9 · Recover from emergencies by providing for the rapid and orderly implementation of restoration and rehabilitation programs for persons and property affected by emergencies; and · Assist in anticipation, recognition, appraisal, prevention, and mitigation of emergencies that may be caused or aggravated by inadequate planning for, and regulation of, public and private facilities and land use. By providing emergency managers in St. Lucie County with an on-site, sheltered center with computers and communication systems necessary to expeditiously access personnel, agencies, and databanks to better respond to an emergency; the mobile command vehicle accomplishes each of these purposes. of A January 4, 2002 letter from Jack Southard, St. Lucie County Public Safety Director, stipulates this project is additionally consistent with St. Lucie County's Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. Due to the limited number of pages allowed in this grant application; a copy of this letter is not attached, but can be provided upon request. The project is more specifically consistent with both the following State and St. Lucie County Emergency Support Function guidelines: · ESFI (Transportation) - The mobile command vehicle will enable emergency managers to assess transportation needs by being on-site and by having communication and computer systems necessary to coordinate such services; · ESF2 (Communication) - The mobile command vehicle will provide emergency managers with a technologically advanced communication system in a sheltered environment at the site of the emergency with which they can exercise necessary communications; · ESF3 (Public Works and Engineering) - The mobile command vehicle will provide on-site emergency managers with immediate access to engineering and public works plans available in the County's databases enabling them to more expeditiously mitigate a disaster; · ESF4 (Firefighting) - The mobile command vehicle with its communication system, computer access, and stealth camera will provide emergency managers with an on- site center from which wildfire detection and suppression services can be assessed, coordinated, and managed in both urban and rural fires; · ESF7 (Resource Support) - The mobile command vehicle provides an on-site communication systems and a planning center from which support resources can be assessed, summoned, and coordinated; · ESF8 (Health and Medical Services) - The mobile command vehicle provides on-site communication systems and a planning center from which emergency medical services can be summoned and coordinated; · ESF9 (Search and Rescue) - The mobile command vehicle provides not only on-site communication systems and a planning center from which search and rescue operations can be conducted, but also a stealth camera which provides visual search capabilities of up to three miles; · ESFIO (Hazardous Materials) - The stealth camera on the mobile command vehicle provides the capability of assessing a hazardous materials accident from as far awaysas three miles, thereby reducing potential exposure injury to emergency workers; 10 · ESF13 (Military Support) - The mobile command vehicle provides on-site communication and computer systems and a planning center from which military support services can be assessed, coordinated, and managed in the event of an emergency; · ESF14 (Public Information) - By allowing for in-depth, on-site evaluation and assessment of an emergency, with the full benefit of County resources and data, the mobile command center supports more accurate and timelier news and warning; · ESF15 (Volunteers and Donations) - The mobile command vehicle provides on-site communication/computer systems and a planning center from which emergency volunteer services and donations can be planned, summoned, managed and coordinated; · ESF16 (Law Enforcement and Security) - The mobile command vehicle provides on-site communication/computer systems and a planning center from which law enforcement services can be planned, summoned, and coordinated during an emergency; and · ESF17 (Animal Protection) - The mobile command vehicle provides on-site communication/computer systems from which animal rescue services can be coordinated during an emergency. 4. Discuss why this particular method and approach was chosen. [Maximum score 100 points] Following the recent wildfire emergency in which County emergency managers were forced to coordinate services without the benefit of a sheltered planning area, without reliable communication systems, without immediate access to the County's databases, and without interruption; it was determined the County was in need of a mobile vehicle which could provide emergency managers with necessary communications, computer systems, and logistical space. Other counties and municipalities were contacted to determine their remedies to the types of problems the County encountered. These included Dade County, Palm Beach County, Manatee County, Boca Raton, and Coral Springs. Each of these have been utilizing a mobile command center manufactured by L&S Custom Coaches. Dade County had been using a mobile command vehicle for greater than fifteen years and reports it continues to be an integral and necessary component of their emergency response services. Discussions with these counties and municipalities failed in identifying alternative solutions to the problem. Discussion and strategy planning by St. Lucie County emergency mangers also failed in identifying alternative feasible solutions. The assessed need for this project and the County's compelling confidence in the solution it provides can be measured and validated by the fact that four local governmental emergency service agencies have significantly contributed to the project by providing a 2: 1 match. When the costs for establishing this program are considered, there can be no question the benefits far outweigh the projected costs. The projected costs are the following. . Salaries and Benefits - All services necessary to initiate, manage, conduct, and maintain the mobile command vehicle program will be provided by existing St. 11 Lucie County personnel. There are no salary or benefit costs associated with this project and these are not being considered as in-kind match services. · Other Personal/Contractual Services - There are no match and no grant requests for this item. · Administrative Expenses - There is an in-kind administrative expense of $9,000 and no grant request. · Expenses - There are no match and no grant requests for this item. · Operating Capital Outlay - A mobile command coach with a 20 KW main generator, 20 KW reserve generator, six vehicle radio compartment, stealth camera system and pneumatic mast, audio/visual equipment, and other equipment as necessary for managing and coordinating emergency response services. · Fixed Capital Outlay - There are no match and no grant requests for this item. 5. Identify Applicant's project match. [Maximum score 50 points] Project match funds will come from the following sources: · St. Lucie Department of Public Safety $30,000 + $9,000 in-kind · St. Lucie County Fire District $30,000 · St. Lucie County Sheriff's Department $30,000 · City of Fort Pierce Police Department $30,000 Due to limited number of pages allowed, letters from each of these agencies confirming the commitment of these funds are not attached. However, these letters are in the County's grant file and can be sent to the Division of Emergency Management upon request. The total project cost is $189,000. The County's match of$129,000 is 68% of the project cost. Grant funds requested for this project are $60,000, 32% ofthe total project cost. St. Lucie County is therefore providing a 2: 1 match. When consideration is given to computer equipment expenses, equipment maintenance expenses, and emergency manpower expenses which St. Lucie County will assume, but will not consider as match funds; the actual match ratio is notably greater than 2: 1. 6. Discuss the Applicant's experience and ability applied to the project. Jack Southard, has served in the position of St. Lucie County Public Safety Director for greater than fifteen years and therefore brings considerable experience to this proj ect. He has overseen disaster response to several hurricanes, a major hazardous materials incident, and a wildfire disaster. His experience is respected to the degree that he has lectured at state and national meetings regarding disaster preparedness and management. St. Lucie County Sheriff Ken Mascara has greater than ten years of experience in law enforcement and has served for one year in his current position. St. Lucie County Fire Chief Jay Sizemore has greater than twenty years of experience in emergency medical services and fire prevention/fighting. Fort Pierce Police Chief Eugene Savage has served in his current position for five years and has many additional years of law enforcement experience as assistant police chief with the City of West Palm Beach. The agencies each of these 12 II'- - ~ . .. .. e : I - ~lJJpG¡¡ MpO 91 ~g~G!JJCUf' ,,' ~ guq liJ ' , ~ QX!~U2!lIGIÀ . E9Cµ 0UJl~~~ ~ CCPilIJ!C2 !U1!Ucq flQCUClr. 9'uq Gxb . ~e GL!GIJCGq !IJ individuals manages provide staff members who are extensively trained and experienced in all areas of emergency preparedness, response, and management. Each of these agencies also has available to them a complete staff of certified engineers, technicians, and mechanics who are amply capable of ensuring the proper functioning of all mechanical, computer, and communications equipment contained in the emergency command vehicle. Through cooperative programs, Indian River Community College, located in Fort Pierce, offers extensive training to staff from these agencies in the areas of emergency medical services, fire science, law enforcement, and computer technology. 13 EMP A COMPETITIVE GRANT APPLICATION Mobile Command Vehicle A TT ACHMENT - B Date: 01115/02 Proposed Budget EXPENDITURE Cash In-Kind Total EMPA Total CATEGORIES Match Services Grantee Award Project A Match Cost D Cost B A+B= C+D=E C 1. SALARY AND BENEFITS 2. OTHER PERSONAL / CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3. ADMINISTRATIVE 9,000 9,000 9,000 EXPENSES 4. EXPENSES 5. OPERATING CAPITAL 120,000 120,000 60,000 180,000 OUTLA Y Mobile Command Vehicle with back-up generator, pneumatic mast, and stealth camera. 1. FIXED CAPITAL OUTLA Y TOTAL EXPENDITURES 120,000 9,000 129,000 60,000 189,000 PERCENT AGES 63% 5% 68% 32% 100% NARRATIVE EXPLANATION AND JUSTIFICATION OF LINE ITEMS: 1. Salary and benefits: Although there is committed staff time committed for the development, implementation, and maintenance of the Mobile Command Vehicle, no match or grant funds are included for the salary and benefit section. 2. Contractual Services: Zero match and zero grant request for this item. 3. Administrative Expenses: County management of project is $9,679. 4. Expenses: Zero match and zero grant request for this item. 5. Operating Capital Outlay: A mobile command coach with a 20 KW main generator, 20 KW reserve generator, six vehicle radio compartment, stealth camera system and pneumatic mast, audio/visual equipment, and other equipment as necessary for managing and coordinating emergency response services will be purchased with 67% of the funds from the grant applicant and 33% from EMPA award. 6. Fixed Capital Outlay: Zero match and zero grant request for this item. 14 & BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR February 6, 2002 Department of Community Affairs Division of Emergency Management 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2199 Subject: St. Lucie County's LMS project identification To whom it may concern: As required in the Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund, Emergency Management Competitive Grant, I am writing this letter to confirm that St. Lucie County has completed its Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS). As part of the LMS document the LMS Committee developed and approved a project prioritization list, which designates projects, identified as needed by the various jurisdictions within the County. Project Number 41 of the Project Prioritization List designates an identified need for the acquisition of a mobile command center for St. Lucie County. Please accept this letter as official confirmation that the project proposed within this application are found on the St. Lucie County official Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS) Project Prioritization List. Sincerely, ___ ,', . G \ / L'l~,-(l Y~~0 d CyndiSnay Co-chair, Local Mitigation Strategy Committee DJM/cps cc: Don Daniels, Emergency Management Coordinator Don West, County Engineer Amy Adams, Engineering Consultant h:\ Imsgrant-support-Itr.doc JOHN D, ßI'.UHN, DistriCT No, 1 . DOUG COWAI'.D. DistriCT No 2 . PAULA A. LEWIS. DistriCT No J . Fl'.ANNIE HUTCHINSON, District No 4 . CLIFF ßAr\NES, DistriCT No,S County Administrator, Douglas M, Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Administration: (561) 462-1590 · Planning: (561) 462-2822 · GISlTechnical Services: (561) 462-1553 Economic Development: (561) 462-1550 · Fax: (561) 462-1581 Tourist/Convention: (561)462-1529 · Fax: (561)462-2132 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 'Vedicated to making Florida a better place to call home" JEB BUSH Governor STEVEN M. SEIBERT Secretary April 15, 2002 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Re: Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Competitive Grant Program - Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Application Scoring and Ranking Application(s) Dear The Department of Community Affairs has completed its review of the applications submitted under the FY 2002-2003 funding offering in the Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund (EMP A TF) Competitive Grant Program. A total of 282 applications requesting $37,922,005 in funding under the Competitive and Municipal Programs were received. A total of274 applications requesting $36,477,526 were determined eligible and were scored and ranked in accordance with the criteria stipulated in Rule Chapter 9G-19, Florida Administrative Code, and in the Application Packet, May 2000 version, Form Number 006. Your organization's preliminary position in the ranking and recommended funding is indicated on the enclosed Grant Application Preliminary Score/Ranking Sheet. These preliminary scores, application rankings and recommended funding levels, are subject to appeal and may change if appeals are filed and are successful. At this time, final awards cannot be made until any appeals have been resolved. Even if your application is currently ranked in the funded range, other applicant appeals may affect your ranking and funding level. The enclosed Notice of Administrative Proceeding Rights is provided to inform you of the appeal process. 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100 Phone: 850.488,8466/Suncom 278.8466 FAX: 850,921,0781/Suncom 291.0781 Internet address: http://www.dca.state.fl.us CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FiElD OFFICE 2796 Overseas Highway. Suite 212 Marathon. FL 33050,2227 (305) 289-2402 COMMUNITY PLANNING EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVElOPMENT 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee. FL 32399-2100 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Tallahassee. FL 32399-2100 (850) 488,2356 (850) 413-9969 (850) 488,7956 Revised: February 7,2001 NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE RIGHTS You have the opportunity for an administrative proceeding pursuant to Ch.120.569, Florida Statutes. If you do not dispute issues of material fact raised by the Department detennination, then the administrative proceeding will be infonnal, conducted pursuant to Ch.120.57(2), Florida Statutes. In an infonnal administrative proceeding, you will have the opportunity to be represented by counsel, to present to the Department written or oral evidence in opposition to the Department's action or to present a written statement challenging the legal grounds upon which the Department justifies its actions. Mediation is not available with respect to this decision. If you dispute any issues of material fact stated in this decision, you may request a fonnal administrative hearing before an administrative law judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Ch.120.57(1), Florida Statutes. At a fonnal administrative hearing, you may be represented by counsel of your choosing, and you will have the opportunity to present evidence and argument on all the issues involved, to conduct cross-examination and submit rebuttal evidence, to submit proposed fmdings of fact and orders, and to file exceptions to any recommended order. If you desire either an infonnal proceeding or a fonnal hearing, you must file with the Agency Clerk of the Department of Community Affairs a written response or pleading entitled, "Petition for Administrative Proceedings" with 21 calendar days of receipt of this letter. The petition must be in the fonn required by Rules 28-106.104,28-106.301, Florida Administrative Code. A petition is filed when it is received by Paula Ford, Agency Clerk, in the Department's Office of General Counsel, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100. The petition must include the signature of someone authorized to act on your behalf A petition must specifically request an administrative proceeding, it must admit or deny each material fact contained in this decision, and it must state any defenses upon which you rely. If you lack knowledge of a particular allegation of fact, you must so state and that statement will operate as a denial. You waive the right to an administrative proceeding if you do not file a Petition for Administrative Proceeding with the Agency Clerk within 21 days of receipt of this letter. Any petition must specifY in detail the basis for review. Unless the petition clearly describes disputed issues of material fact, the proceeding will be conducted pursuant to Ch.120.57(2), Florida Statutes, and applicable rules. To the extent that the Department accepts the facts represented in the application, but denies funding based on the interpretation of law or rules, an infonnal proceeding is appropriate. · - -- - - -....,- J~··...".'.I..'.,f.} \"'-"'"'.: /,\. ~~_\ 1.,*,-''',,>>.. ............ ""~ .,.......'....A·....'·'··'·"..""'...."",·,...,......A-.............>A.__~... .........., .........._~-....'~,y,d!JoI ~ Reformed. A bus once used by drug dealers debuts in its new form - a mobile command center for the FHf PHOTOS BY BARBARA V. PEREZlTHE ORlANDO SENTl~ Rolling toward a n· e' W II- fe' In~ates use skill~ tha , will help after prison By Amy C. Rippel OF THE SENTlNa STAFF DAYTONA BEACH - From the hands of prison inmates came a vehicle for law enforcement. The Florida Highway Patrol on Wednesday unveiled its new mobile command center - a renovated tour bus that had been confIscated in a drug bust. Inmates at 'Ibmoka CoITeCtional Institute in Daytona Beach, through a prison work program called PRIDE - Prison Rehabilitative Industries and Diversified Enterprises - spent the past two months gutting the 42-foot-Iong, 13-foot-high bus and refurbishing it. The bus has computer and telecommunication systems that enable FHP to establish a central command for troopers during emergencies and events during which strong law-enforcement presence is needed, such as Bike Week, spring break and Black College Reunion in Daytona Beach. The bus, which will be stationed in DeLand but used throughout Central Florida, has a conference room, Please see INMATES, D-5 A tour. Inmate George Lewis (right) shows the bus' FHP Capt. Bill Sanders (left) and Lt. David McCryst; Lewis, in prison for murder, helped work on the bus. , ' ~ .' ,r '," 'r:'~~ ~~~.~~h.~ - ',::.~,~'~~~. Taking ~ver.s.onny Carter, a member of the f~lOridà~ighway Patrol Auxdiary, cranks up the refurbished bus. He'll be its driver. . Þ-'". ~ . ...~, ~A Work'êos! $"17Ö,"ÔÖÒ"'H rath-êt"thãn$f'mmro'h . :-- ~.:.-,.. --;'-.;,~.'.' " :', ·..:·:'·....:·,~:,l '::; -, INMATES from D-1public contracts are~~ arms about the PRIDE program , Several Lake Couqty printers said PRIDE is undercutting some local merchants to the point of extinction. . --, n ' ' PRIDE officials said their '_ . business competes on. a level ' , playing field and has a minimal profit margin. >. ' ~', Inmates working in the , program say it has given them ~. hope for the future. Inmates are paid 50 cents to a dollar an hour . and given skills they can take with them when they leave prìson. .. " _ J'unmy Clifford, in prisón for '14 years for second-degree murder in Sl Petersburg, said the PRIDE program has been a Way for him to perfect his craft. As a graphic artist in the program, Clifford creates the images on the vehicles.' '~.' , "I know what 1 did, and 1 like to be able to give back to the ' community," he said _ . Other PRIDE workers said the program has given them skills they can use when they leave prison. Roy Bales. incarœrated since 1934 for bank robbery,. installed all the upholstery in the renovated bus~ An upholsterer before he was arrested, Bales ,~said he ,enjoys teachingthe other inmates the trade. -:', . . ,- ;., "It's very important to most òf us," he said of the program. '~ lot of the guys that are here are l,OT"Ø hør-~11C'a thou h':)~ nn <:1rinc;: . .": :~~·}N "1t: ~;"ß: ~~. t: ~;~ bathroom aÌtd mi~ve.It's also equipped with a reñigeratoI; several television sets and a compact-disc playeJ: , " , Renovating the bus cost about $170,000, much less than the $1' million price tag for a new one, officials said , "It took an operation that we nonnally do with patrol cars, table tops and hand-held radios and moved it into a vehicle," said FaP-Mqjor Rick Gregory. "I . the quality of work is equal to or superior to the outside." Dealers had been using the bus to transport dntgs across the state until it was confiscated in a , 1997 bust in northwest Florida. In 1999, FlIP received a grant to renovate the bus for the DeLand area. The PRIDE progrcim at' 'lbmoka, which has been around for about 12 years, has about 100 . inmates from the maximum- security prison Working every day to renovate heavy vehicles, RUch as dump trucks, school buses and firetrucks. Throughout the state, thousands of inmates work in the program and produce everything from corrugated boxes to office furniture to business cards. Although officials Say the ' PI'Qgram helps the inmates and saves taxpayer dollars, it doesn't come' '.ithout,controversy. T_ ,.1.." {"'I,....'_hT ~......."'11 - ' , /' ) V olusia inmates take PRIDE in new mobile command center ¡ . By HENRY FREDERICK up to 55 cents an hour by PRIDE Ent~'1 Staff WrIt.r. ¡irises, a ~t. Petersburg.based general! DAYTONA BEACH - ConvIcted mur· manufacturmg and services company ¡ derer Jimmy Clifford has gone out of his Clifford, 42, of St. Petersburg, did all ! way to help law enforcement. the lettering and graphics for the vehicle. ¡ He's not alone in that regard. Roy Bales, 45, of Tulsa, Okla., dOing! Clifford and several other inmates at To- time for a bank robbery" supervised a ~ moka Correctional Institution converted crew of five inmates who installed the : what was once a tour bus used by drug carpeting and upholstery. dealers into a high-tech mobile command Others worked on installing computers ' center for the Florida Highway Patrol and software. : The inmates presented the revamped The work came from a state grant that j vehicle to the FHP Wednesday. resulted in the tour bus being retrofitted : The heavy-duty vehicle is equipped in the last couple of months, along with : with computer and telecommunication, another large vehicle to be used by the . systems that atIow FHP to establish a FHP for the same purpose. central command center for crisis situa· Florida Highway Patrol Maj. Rick Gre- tions such as a riot or special events like gory said the tour bus was seized in in- Bike Week. 'I sac.pla in 1997 after it was pulled over d, This two-month project was one of sev· troopers found 220 kilos of cocaine insi e. ( eral completed by inmates employed at SEE INMATES/7C Florida Highway Patrol Lt. David McCrystal, center, and Capt. Bill Sanders get a ,þriefing_,_ Wednesday from George Lewis, an, inmate at Tomoka Correctional Institution, on the conversion of a tour bus into a high-tech mobile command center. D Inmates' program do not return to prison after being released - primarily because they receive valuable job train- ing and experience. Carl Ladson, 54, of Baker County, who has less than a year to go on a tenn he is serving for a failed kidnap and ransom plot 30 years ago, sees a shining light at the end of his tunnel, thanks in part to the experience he has acquired behind the prison gates. "I know this is profitable work and I'think I can deal with society," he said. CONTINUED FROM 1 C Paul Banasco, assistant warden, said projects such as restoring the bus give inmates a "sense of self· worth, satisfaction and prid~-=- Pam Davis, president and chief executive" officer of PRIDE, said 85 percent of the inmates statewide in the , , ',' . \ .. .' ,. . ",-,-~:~." I"'-':.'~"""~""."\""'" ':::.' ;"~.:.:, . :~',,",'~)"'~: ~ \,..... :.'~",:',,"., . . . .. ...', , '. "'ì: '~.:' . I '. .. \ . .:" _:~~...;;¿'... ..~~.:. L' :~~:.>;,~,,~:...::~ ~'_,..~..: :;:.~':J:",L"j.-¿~L..{~;",~.:L~~';·_~.:;.· ~~) ~ ' þ, ~ t¡- ¡.. }-' Inmates 'help turn bus ìnto command center . , '> . , ,'t. . ' " By HENRY FREDERICK Staff Writer DAYTONA BEACH - ,Con- victed murderer Jimmy Clifford has gone out of his way to help law enforcement. He's not alone in that regard. Clifford and several other in- mates at Tomoka Correctional Institution converted what was once a tour bus used by drug dealers into a high-tech, mobile command center for the Florida Highway Patrol. The inmates presented the re- vamped vehicle to theFHP Wednesday. The heavY-duty vehicle is equipped with computer and telecommunication systems that allow FHP to establish a central command center for crisis situa- tions such as a riot or special events like Bike Week. This two-month project was one of several completed by in- mates employed at up to 55 cents an hour by PRIDE Enterprises. a St. Petersburg-based general manufacturing and services com- pany. Clifford. 42, of St. Petersburg, did all the lettering and graphics for the vehicle. Roy Bales, 45, of Tulsa. Okla.. doing time for a bank robbeI1', supervised a crew of five in- mates who installed the carpet- ing and upholstery. Others worked on installin~ computers and software. The work came from a state grant that resulted in the tour bus being rEtrofitted in the lasr couple of months. along with an- other large vehicle to be used by the FHP for the same purpos:). " Pam Davis, president and chief executive officer of PRIDE, said 85 percent of the inmates statewide in the program do not return to prison after being released - primarily because, they ÆCeivevafuable job training and experience. Florida Highway Patrol Maj. Rick Gregory said the tour bus was seized in Pensacola in 1997 after it was pulled over and troopers found 220 kilos of co- caine inside. Paul Banasco, assistant war- den, said projects such as restor- ing the bus give inmates a "sense of self-worth. satisfaction and pride. .. , Pam Davis, president and chief executive officer of PRIDE. said J5, percent of the inmates statewide in the program do not return to prison after being re- leased - primarily because they receive valuable job training and experience. Carl Ladson. 54, of Baker Coun- ty, who has less than a year to go on a term he is serving for a . "::iled kidnap and ransom plot 30 years ago, sees a shining light at the end of his tunneL thanks in Part to the experience he has ac- qUired. behind the prison gates. "r know this is profitable work and I think I can deal with socie- '7,.' he said. POf4I7_ ...--- PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING In Re: Petition for Administrative Hearing St. Lucie County, Florida Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Competitive Grant Program - Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Grant Application # 1-078-4-03 / PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 120.57(2), FLORIDA STATUTUES FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE RULE 28-106 DECISIONS DETERMINING SUBSTANTIAL INTERSTS P,etitioner, St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners, by and through its undersigned attorneys and pursuant to Chapter 120.57(2), hereby petitions the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for an administrative hearing and states: 1. Petitioner is St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners, 2300 Virginia Avenue, third Floor, Administration Annex, Fort Pierce, Florida 34982-5652; Telephone (772) 462-1440. 2. Petitioner is represented in this matter by 3. This petition is in regard to Florida Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Competitive Grant Program - Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Grant Application # 1-078-4-03 4. On April 17, 2002, Petitioner received a letter from Deborah Wonsch of the Department of Community Affairs with an enclosed Grant Application Preliminary Score/Ranking Sheet. The letter and the Grant Application Preliminary Score/Ranking Sheet indicated the Petitioner's Florida Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Competitive Grant Program - Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Grant Application #1-078-4-03 achieved a score of369.50 and would therefore not be funded. 5. Petitioner's substantial interests are affected by the Department of Community Affairs' scoring of the grant application in a manner that is inconsistent with scoring policies outlined in Rule Chapter 9G-19, Florida Administrative Code and in the Application Packet, May 2000 version, Form Number 006 6. The April 15, 2002 letter from Deborah Wonsch of the Department of Community Affairs stipulates applications "were scored and ranked in accordance with the criteria stipulated in Rule Chapter 9G-19, Florida Administrative Code, and in the Application Packet, May 2000 version, Form Number 006." 7. Rule Chapter 9G-19 of the Florida Administrative Code, hereinafter referred to as the Rule, states "Applications shall be awarded points and ranked using the following criteria: A. Extent to which the proposed project is consistent with and furthers the State Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and the applicable local comprehensive emergency management plan or plans. (Maximum score 100 points) Proposed project method and approach. (Maximum score 100 points) Amount of eligible match supplied by the applicant for the proposed project. (Maximum score 50 points) Experience and ability applied to the project (Maximum score 25 points) Immediacy of tangible emergency management benefits (short term projects, i.e. -less than 12 months in duration), or, long-term emergency management benefits coupled with the availability of resources to continue implementation of the project past the tenn of the award (long term projects, i.e. - duration of 12 months or longer). Identify the emergency management organizations or the targeted population area whose emergency management needs will be directly benefited by the project or both if applicable. (Maximum score 75 points) Extent to which the proposed project addresses a demonstrated emergency management need. (Maximum score 75 points) Extent to which the proposed project addresses an emergency management priority, as identified in the Notice of Fund Availability. (Maximum score 100 points)" B. C. D. E. F. G. 8. The Rule additionally states, "Points shall be awarded based upon the evidence contained in the application. No points shall be awarded based upon the information not contained in the application." 9. The Division of Emergency Management Emergency Management Competitive Grant and Municipal Competitive Grant Application Packet May 2000 Version Form #006, hereinafter referred to as the Application Packet, delineates the same seven general scoring criteria areas as specified in the Rule. However, the order of the scoring criteria differs and two of the scoring criteria areas are combined into one. The Application Packet also delineates more specific scoring criteria within each of its six general scoring criteria areas. The six general scoring criteria areas presented in the Application Packet are the following. A. "Clearly identify a demonstrated state or local emergency management need and explain how this project will address it. If applicable, identify which emergency management priority, as identified in the Notice of Fund Availability, the project addresses. Clearly link the project to the priority. [Maximum score 150 points]" B. "Identify the immediate tangible emergency management benefits (short term projects, i.e. - 12 months or less in duration), or, reasonable expectation of long term emergency management benefits coupled with the availability of resources (other than this grant amount) to continue implementation of the project past the term of the award (long term projects, i.e. - duration of longer than 12 months). Also, identify the number of emergency management organizations or the targeted population area whose emergency management needs will be directly benefited by the project. [Maximum score 75 points)" C. "Describe the project's consistency with the State Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and any applicable local comprehensive emergency management plans. [Maximum score 1 00 points)" D. "Discuss why this particular method and approach was chosen. [Maximum score 1 00 points]" E. "Identify Applicant's project match. [Maximum score 50 points)" F. "Discuss the Applicant's experience and ability applied to the project. [Maximum score 25 points]" '10. The Application Packet additionally states "Since the project proposal is to be presented as a single narrative rather than in a question/answer format, flexibility is provided to the Applicant in presenting the information, e.g., the Applicant need not repeatedly detail the description ofthe project in order to address individual criteria areas; or criteria area #2 may be discussed in combination with #1, etc." 11. Other than those priority areas specified in the October 17,2001 Notification of Funding Availability, neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the type of benefits or services provided by the project. 12. Neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the number of services or benefits provided by the project. 13. Neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the number of individuals, organizations, or communities benefited by the project. 14. Neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the geographical area in which the project services are rendered or received. 15. Neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the ranking/importance of the state or local emergency management need addressed by the project. 16. Neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a proj ect based upon the ranking or importance of the emergency management priority addressed by the project. 17. The format of the Evaluation And Scoring Sheet is more consistent with the format and order of criteria enumerated in the Application Packet as opposed to the format and order of criteria enumerated in the Rule. 18. The Evaluation And Scoring Sheet divides the first general criteria area as specified in the Application Packet into two parts. The first part is listed as "a. Demonstrated state or local EM need (50 max points)." The more specific scoring criteria listed in the Application Packet that apply to this first scoring area are the following. A. The state or local emergency management need to be addressed by the proposed project is clearly and succinctly identified; B. Support confirming the need is supplied; C. The application clearly, succinctly, and rationally explains in depth what the project is and how the project will address the emergency management need; D. The application clearly, succinctly, and rationally identifies a certain and credible effect on, or improvement in emergency preparedness, response, recovery, or hazard mitigation. 19. In response to item A enumerated in paragraph 18 above, the state or local emergency management need to be addressed by the Petitioner's grant application is clearly and succinctly identified in the first paragraph of page 4 of the Petitioner's application where it states, "In the event of an emergency, St. Lucie County does not presently have a central location from which emergency response services can be managed and coordinated. The County also lacks adequate communication systems between an emergency site and County databases. These limitations effect significant complications that impede appropriate, timely, and cost-effective emergency response. Such complications include: · an inability to provide on-site emergency response management and coordination services without interference from weather conditions such as wind or rain; · a reduced ability to centrally position key emergency management personnel; · a limited ability to simultaneously communicate with multiple emergency managers; · an inability to quickly access geographical, topographical, and building structure information; · a limited ability to conduct emergency management and coordination services at night due to lighting problems; · and an inability to conduct emergency management functions ,vithout distraction of news organizations." The state or local management need is additionally identified in St. Lucie County's Unified Local Hazard Mitigation Strategy as noted in the third paragraph of page 5 of the Petitioner's application. This states "The project is one which implements the community's Local Hazard Mitigation Strategy and which can clearly be initiated and completed within the twelve month grant cycle contract period. Securing a mobile command vehicle for emergency and disaster situations is identified as item number 41 in the St. Lucie County Unified Local Mitigation Strategy." The local need is also identified in a February 6, 2002 letter from Cyndi Snay, Co-chair of the Local Mitigation Strategy Committee. This letter is included in the Petitioner's application as page 15. 20. In response to item B enumerated in paragraph 18 above, support confirming the need for the project outlined by the Petitioner's grant application is supplied in paragraph 2 of page 4. This support is not just verbal support, but monetary support from four separate local agencies. Paragraph 2 of page 4 states "The St. Lucie County Public Safety Director, the St. Lucie Fire District, the St. Lucie County Sheriffs Department, and the Fort Pierce Police Department have therefore deemed it necessary to secure a mobile command vehicle that will include emergency communication and computer equipment necessary to manage and coordinate emergency response services. Each of these agencies considers the need for the mobile command vehicle to be of such importaq.ce. that each has committed funds that will be used as 2: 1 match." Letters of support confirming these matching funds are referenced on page 12 in the following statement: "Due to the limited number of pages allowed, letters from each of these agencies confirming the commitment of these funds are not attached. However, these letters are in the County's grant file and can be sent to the Division of Emergency Management upon request." Support is additionally found in a letter dated January 4, 2002 from the St. Lucie County Public Safety Director, which stipulates this project is consistent with St. Lucie County's Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. Due the page limitations of the grant application, this letter was not attached to the application. However, the letter is referenced in the second paragraph of page 10. Additional support is documented in the third paragraph of page 5, which notes securing a mobile command vehicle for emergency and disaster situations is identified as item number 41 in the St. Lucie County Unified Local Mitigation Strategy. Support is also found in the letter from Cyndi Snay, Co-chair of the Local Mitigation Strategy Committee included in the Petitioner's application as page 15. 21. In response to item C enumerated in paragraph 18 above, the Petitioner's application clearly, succinctly, and rationally explains in depth what the project is and how the project will address the emergency management need in paragraphs 3 and 4 of page 4: "This grant proposal is therefore for the purchase of a mobile command vehicle. The vehicle will be a Blue Bird CS12000 40' Forward Control Coach similar to that pictured on the previous page. The vehicle will be equipped with two 20 KW generators, a six-position communication system, computers with direct link to County data bases by means of a directional antenna and broadband wireless program, conference area and table, and stealth camera with 40' pneumatic mast. "This vehicle, equipped as planned, will enable St. Lucie County emergency response agencies, either individually or in coordination with each other, . to provide on-site emergency response management and coordination services in a secure and sheltered environment; . to communicate with multiple emergency managers and supervisors simultaneously and expeditiously; · to have field access to geographical, topographical, site, building, and other records and information available in the County's data bases; to have visual access of approximately three miles of disaster areas by means of a stealth camera and tower mounted on the command center." 22. In response to item D enumerated in paragraph 18 above, the Petitioner's application clearly, succinctly, and rationally identifies a certain and credible effect on, or improvement in emergency preparedness, response, recovery, or hazard mitigation in paragraphs 1 and 2 of page 5: "During a recent wildfire emergency, County emergency managers had to conduct management and coordination services from the hood of a car. Maps of the area were constantly disturbed by winds. Communications with various managers were limited to cell telephones providing inconsistent reception. The managers had to rely upon verbal report by helicopter staff observance of the fire's spread. This at times was flawed due to misunderstanding of the verbal report. The managers had no access, other than by verbal report by cell phones, to County databases to secure information regarding buildings threatened by the fires. Throughout the disaster, they had to work with frequent interruptions by news organizations. Had the disaster involved flooding and a rain event, the managers would not have even been able to work from the hood of the car. "The mobile command vehicle will provide a center of operations secure from weather elements and other disruptions. It will provide emergency managers with access to multiple telephone lines for communication. The communication system in the mobile command vehicle will be sufficient to assume all the functions of the County's 911 system in the event of that system's failure. It will therefore serve the very important function of back-up to the 911 system. It should be noted the St. Lucie County Fire District is establishing a state-of-the-art broadband communication system and tower that will support the communications system in the mobile command vehicle. This system will be completed by July, 2002. Multiple computers in the mobile command vehicle will provide quick and immediate access to geographical and topographical maps, infonnation regarding building plans, and information regarding property ownership and residence. The emergency managers additionally will have the benefit of a stealth camera providing immediate visual inspection of the disaster event for up to three miles. In the event of a chemical spill, the stealth camera could provide the managers, without having to closely approach the site, with information regarding the type of chemical spilled by allowing them to read signage on vehicles or containers. In the event of a hostage crisis, the stealth camera will also allow emergency managers to view the hostage area from a significant distance if this were necessary." 23. The Petitioner's application responded comprehensively, clearly, succinctly, and rationally to all criteria required for general criteria area 1a of the Evaluation and Scoring Sheet and is to be awarded the maximum points or close to the maximum number of points allowed for this section. Evidence of this exists in the fact that one scorer assigned the maximum of 50 points to the application and a second scorer assigned a score of 45. 24. In that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the type of benefits or services provided by the project other than those priority areas specified in the October 17,2001 Notification of Funding Availability; in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the number of services or benefits provided by the project; in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the number of individuals, organizations, or communities benefited by the project; in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the geographical area in which the project services are rendered or r~ceived; in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the ranking/importance of the state or local emergency management need addressed by the project; and in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the ranking or importance of the emergency management priority addresséd by the project; two scorers in scoring general criteria area 1 a utilized criteria not included in either the Rule or in the Application Packet to score the Petitioner's application, did not read the entirety of the Petitioner's application, or were biased in their judgment. This is evident in their assigning scores of 30 and 15 despite the fact that all criteria were addressed by the Petitioner's application in a comprehensive, clear, succinct, and rational manner. 25. As noted previously, the Evaluation And Scoring Sheet divides the first general criteria as specified in the Application Packet into two parts. The second part is listed as "b. Address an EM priority identified in NOF A (100 max pts)." The more specific scoring criteria listed in the Application Packet that apply to this scoring area are the following: A. c. The emergency management priority to be addressed by the project is clearly and succinctly identified; The application clearly, succinctly and rationally explains how and why the proposed project will address the emergency management priority; The application clearly, succinctly and rationally identifies a certain and credible positive effect on, or improvement in, the area identified as an emergency management priority. B. 26. In response to item A enumerated in paragraph 25 above, the emergency management priority to be addressed by the project is clearly and succinctly identified in paragraph 3 of page 5 of the Petitioner's grant application and this continues to pages 6 and 7: This states "This project addresses needs in all three priority areas identified in the Notice of Fund Availability. . The project is one which implements the community's Local Hazard Mitigation Strategy and which can clearly be initiated and completed within the twelve month grant cycle contract period. Securing a mobile command vehicle for emergency and disaster situations is identified as item number 41 in the St. Lucie County Unified Local Mitigation Strategy. The manufacturer ofthe mobile command vehicle has stipulated delivery ofthe vehicle within eight months from the signed date ofthe contract. St. Lucie County has had extensive conversations with the manufacturer, L&S Custom Coaches, and is prepared to secure a contract with the manufacturer as soon as the grant contract is signed. L& S Custom Coaches is the sole source for this type of vehicle. Therefore competitive bidding will not be necessary. . The project improves emergency management capabilities in the following three areas of preparedness, response, or recovery: Wildfire Mitigation: The mobile command vehicle improves the emergency managers' abilities to manage and coordinate response and rescue services during a wildfire by providing on-site management and coordination services in a secure and sheltered area with technologically advanced communication systems and computer access to necessary County databases. Citizen Warning: The mobile command vehicle, with its on-site capabilities and advanced monitoring and communication systems, provides emergency mangers with the capability to warn citizens in a specific disaster area of the precise nature of the emergency and appropriate response action. For example, without having to return to headquarters, printers contained in the mobile command vehicle could print out evacuation route maps to be quickly distributed to a community. With access to County databases, emergency managers will also be able to better identify residents in an emergency area and advise them of a need to evacuate. The more comprehensive on-site evaluation the mobile command vehicle allows will also effect more expeditious and accurate news/warning release to the media. Special Needs Population: With the aid oftelephones, closed circuit television, fax machines, and printers contained within the mobile command vehicle; managers will have the ability to communicate in a variety of different \'lays with persons with special communication needs. For example, the communication system will allow managers to immediately have access to doctors, translators, or family members significantly removed from the disaster scene. · This project improves the operation capabilities of the following agencies assigned lead or support responsibilities as identified on the ESF Matrix of the Florida Emergency Management Plan: It assists the Division of Communications in ESF2 (Communications) by providing an on-site communications center for any emergency or disaster occurring in St. Lucie County. It assists the Department of Transportation in ESF3 (Public Works and Engineering) by providing access, at the emergency site, to engineering plans contained in the County's database. It assists the Division of State Fire Marshall by providing an on-site command and communications center where wildfire response and rescue services can be coordinated and managed in St. Lucie County. During the response and recovery phases of a disaster, it assists the Division of Emergency Management in ESF5 (Infonnation and Planning) by providing a command and communications center in St. Lucie County where incident action planning can be conducted and facilitated through on-site information collection, processing, and dissemination. During the initial response stage after a disaster, a mobile command vehicle assists the Department of Management Services in ESF7 (Resource Support) by providing an on-site command and communications center where emergency response and rescue services can be assessed, planned, coordinated, and managed. It assists the Division of State Fire Marshall in ESF9 (Search and Rescue) in both urban and non-urban search and rescue efforts by providing a quickly accessible command and communications center where infonnation can be gathered and coordinated and where services can be planned and managed. It assists the Department of Environmental Protection in ESFIO (Hazardous Environmental) by allowing environmental emergencies to be initially assessed from a distance by utilizing a stealth camera, thereby reducing risk and danger to emergency workers. It assists the Department of Community Affairs in ESF14 (Public Infonnation) by allowing for in-depth, on-site evaluation and assessment of an emergency, with the full benefit of County resources and data, prior to infonnation dissemination to the general public through the news media. This allows for more accurate and timelier news and warning dissemination. It provides assistance to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement in ESF 16 (Law Enforcement and Security) by providing a mobile, on-site center where the services of law enforcement personnel can be assessed, planned, coordinated, and monitored during emergencies involving evacuation, rioting, crowd control, or other law enforcement events. 27. In response to item B enumerated in paragraph 25 above, the Petitioner's application clearly, succinctly and rationally explains how and why the proposed project will address the emergency management priority in paragraph 3 of page 5, which continues in pages 6 and 7. These explanations are listed previously in paragraph 26 above. , 28. In response to item C enumerated in paragraph 25 above, the Petitioner's application clearly, succinctly and rationally identifies certain and credible positive effects on, or improvement in, the area identified as an emergency management priority in paragraph 3 of page 5 which continues in pages 6 and 7 by noting the project would enable St. Lucie County to secure a mobile command vehicle as identified in the St. Lucie County Unified Local Mitigation Strategy in less than twelve months; by describing how the project improves emergency management capabilities in wildfire mitigation, citizen warning, and special needs populations; and by describing how the project will improve operation capabilities of nine agencies as identified on the ESF Matrix of the Florida Emergency Management Plan. These positive effects are more specifically listed in paragraph 26 above. 29. The Petitioner's application responded comprehensively, clearly, succinctly, and rationally to all criteria required for general criteria area 1 b of the Evaluation and Scoring Sheet and is to be awarded the maximum points or close to the maximum number of points allowed for this section. Evidence of this exists in the fact that one scorer assigned the maximum number of 100 points to the application and a second scorer assigned 85. 30. In that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the type of benefits or services proyided by the project other than those priority areas specified in the October 17,2001 Notification of Funding Availability; in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the number of services or benefits provided by the project; in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the number of individuals, organizations, or communities benefited by the project; in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the geographical area in which the project services are rendered or received; in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the ranking/importance of the state or local emergency management need addressed by the project; and in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the ranking or importance of the emergency management priority addressed by the project; two scorers in scoring general criteria area 1 b utilized criteria not included in either the Rule or in the Application Packet to score the Petitioners application, did not read the entirety of the Petitioner's application, or were biased in their scoring. This is evident in their scores of 60 and 40 despite the fact that all criteria were addressed by the Petitioner's application in a comprehensive, clear, succinct, and rational manner. 31. The Evaluation And Scoring Sheet lists the second general criteria area as "Projects benefits and Emergency Management personnel needs (75 max pts)." The more specific scoring criteria listed in the Application Packet that apply to this second general criteria area are the following. .' A. The application clearly, rationally and succinctly indicates the type and time frame for emergency management benefits. B. The application clearly and succinctly describes the specific benefits. C. The application clearly and rationally explains whether the benefits are direct or indirect. D. The application clearly and unequivocally connects the benefits with already identified emergency management objectives; E. The application includes significant supporting documentation. F. The application clearly and succinctly identifies reasonable commencement and completion dates and appropriate milestones of the project. G. The application clearly identifies any testing, analysis, studies, forecasting, or methodology underlying the forecasted long-term benefits. H. The studies, forecasts, analysis, testing, or methodology are sound and support projected long-term benefits. 1. Resources to support long-term projects are clearly identified, described, and firmly committed, as demonstrated by supporting documentation. J. Application identifies emergency management organization and emergency needs directly benefited by this project. 32. In response to item A enumerated in paragraph 31 above, the Petitioner's application clearly, rationally and succinctly indicates the type and time frame for emergency management benefits in the first and second paragraphs of Section 2, which begin on the bottom of page 7 of the application. This states, "This project is a short- term project with long-term benefits. The project will be short-term in its completion in that purchase of the mobile command vehicle can be accomplished within eight to ten months after the grant contract is signed. The manufacturer has additionally stated local staff can be trained in proper operation and maintenance of the vehicle within two weeks after delivery. The mobile command vehicle can therefore be fully operational within eleven months after the grant contract is signed. "The long-term emergency benefits of this project are based upon the fact that the mobile command vehicle has a life expectancy of at least fifteen years. Dade County has a similar vehicle, which they purchased from the same manufacturer fifteen years ago. The vehicle is still operational. It should be noted the mobile command vehicle will be purchased by and available to the St. Lucie County Safety Director, the St. Lucie County Sheriffs Department, the St. Lucie County Fire District, and the City of Fort Pierce Police Department. The vehicle will therefore have the expertise, experience, and resources of emergency managers from each of these agencies in its operation. Maintenanc~ of the vehicle will be the responsibility of the St. Lucie County Fire District. The mechanics and technicians of this agency have extensive training and experience in the maintenance of similar vehicles such as emergency medical rescue vehicles and fire engines." ¡ 33. In response to item B enumerated in paragraph 31 above, the petitioner's application clearly and succinctly describes the specific benefits of the project beginning in the last paragraph of page 7 of the application in the following: "Given these factors, the short-term and long-term emergency management benefits of this project will be that St. Lucie County and the State of Florida will be better prepared to more comprehensively, expeditiously, and safely meet numerous Emergency Support Functions. These include, but are not limited to the following: · Providing emergency radio and telephone communication services to organizations involved in emergency response and recovery operations; · Evaluating infrastructure damage and coordinating debris clearing of essential roads and coordinating emergency contracting, engineering, and demolition services; · Providing incident management teams in detecting and suppressing woodland, rural, and urban fires; · Collecting, analyzing, and disseminating critical information on emergency operations for decision-making purposes; · Securing resources necessary to appropriately assess and respond to the emergency or disaster; · Locating, extricating, and providing emergency assistance to victims trapped in an emergency situation; · Providing inspection, containment, and cleanup of hazardous materials accidents or releases; · Coordinating and directing the restoration of water, sewer, electrical power, telephone service, and fuel supplies; · Coordinating RIA T assignments and National Guard resources to assist where needed; · Coordinate the dissemination of all disaster related information to the media and general public; · Providing and coordinating general law enforcement services during an emergency; · And managing the receipt and distribution of donated goods and services in the wake of a disaster." 34. In responding to item C enumerated in paragraph 31 above, the Petitioner's application clearly and rationally explains whether the benefits are direct or indirect in paragraph 2 of page 9 which states "Emergency management organizations and emergency needs directly benefited by this program include: · The St. Lucie County Public Safety Department, the St. Lucie County Sheriffs Department, the St. Lucie County Fire Department, and the City of Fort Pierce Police Department who will have a mobile command vehicle from which to monitor, coordinate, and manage emergency response services during an emergency; · The St. Lucie County Public Safety Department, the St. Lucie County Sheriffs Department, the St. Lucie County Fire Department, and the City of Fort Pierce Police Department who will have a reserve communication center from which all 911 dispatching services can be conducted; · The Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the Division of State Fire Marshall, Division of Emergency Management, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the Division of Communications who will have local access to a command center from which on-site emergency services can be assessed, planned, coordinated, and managed for any major emergency occurring in St. Lucie County; . And the Department of Community Affairs who will receive the benefit of more accurate and timelier information for news and warning dissemination. . . 35. In responding to item D enumerated in paragraph 31 above, the Petitioner's application clearly and unequivocally connects the benefits with already identified emergency management objectives on page 8 of the application: "Given these factors, the short-term and long-term emergency management benefits ofthis project will be that St. Lucie County and the State of Florida will be better prepared to more comprehensively, expeditiously, and safely meet numerous Emergency Support Functions. These include, but are not limited to the following: . Providing emergency radio and telephone communication services to organizations involved in emergency response and recovery operations; . Evaluating infrastructure damage and coordinating debris clearing of essential roads and coordinating emergency contracting, engineering, and demolition services; · · · · · · · · . . · · Providing incident management teams in detecting and suppressing woodland, rural, and urban fires; Collecting, analyzing, and disseminating critical information on emergency operations for decision-making purposes; Securing resources necessary to appropriately assess and respond to the emergency or disaster; Locating, extricating, and providing emergency assistance to victims trapped in an emergency situation; Providing inspection, containment, and cleanup of hazardous materials accidents or releases; Coordinating and directing the restoration of water, sewer, electrical power, telephone service, and fuel supplies; Coordinating RIAT assignments and National Guard resources to assist where needed; Coordinate the dissemination of all disaster related information to the media and general public; Providing and coordinating general law enforcement services during and emergency; And managing the receipt and distribution of donated goods and services in the wake of a disaster." 36. In response to item E enumerated in paragraph 31 above, the Petitioner's application includes significant supporting documentation in the listing of 12 county and state emergency support functions on page 8 of the application. These are listed in paragraph 35 immediately above. , 37. In response to item F enumerated in paragraph 31 above, the Petitioner's application clearly and succinctly identifies reasonable commencement and completion dates and appropriate milestones of the project in the following statement in the first paragraph of section 2 on page 7: "This project is a short-term project with long-term benefits. The project will be short-term in its completion in that purchase of the mobile command vehicle can be accomplished within eight to ten months after the grant contract is signed. The manufacturer has additionally stated local staff can be trained in proper operation and maintenance of the vehicle within two weeks after delivery. The mobile command vehicle can therefore be fully operational within eleven months after the grant contract is signed." This issue is also addressed in paragraph 3 of page 5 of the application where it states "The manufacturer of the mobile command vehicle has stipulated delivery of the vehicle within eight months from the signed date of the contract. St. Lucie County has had extensive conversations with the manufacturer, L&S Custom Coaches, and is prepared to secure a contract with the manufacturer as soon as the grant contract is signed. L& S Custom Coaches is the sole source for this type of vehicle. Therefore competitive bidding will not be necessary." 38. In response to item G enumerated in paragraph 31 above, the Petitioner's application clearly identifies in the third paragraph of page 7 that an analysis of the long term benefits was completed by contacting various counties and municipalities that possessed a mobile command vehicle. One of these, Dade County, purchased a similar mobile command vehicle from the same provider fifteen years ago. This analysis demonstrated the long-term benefits can be expected to continue for fifteen years. An analysis was additionally completed to determine the appropriateness of this solution to the identified need by contacting other counties and municipalities who had purchased a mobile command vehicle manufactured by L&S Custom Coaches, the same provider from whom the Petitioner intends to purchase the mobile command vehicle. These included, but were not limited to, Palm Beach County, Manatee County, Boca Raton, and Coral Springs. This is noted on page 11 in the first paragraph of section 4. Each of these confirmed the mobile command vehicle to be an appropriate solution. 39. In response to item H enumerated in paragraph 31 above, it should be noted the studies, forecasts, analysis, testing, or methodology utilized by the Petitioner are sound and support projected long-term benefits. There is no better analysis than to secure, study and rely upon information from comparable sources where identical projects ha~e been operated. The Petitioner contacted other counties and municipalities that currently operate a mobile command vehicle to determine the functioning and use of the vehicle in their emergency operations. Specific counties, which had purchased their vehicle from the same provider the Petitioner intends to use, were also deliberately chosen in an effort to ascertain the quality and longevity of the vehicle and also to determine whether the mobile command vehicle offered the solution to the emergency response needs identified by the Petitioner. 40. In response to item I enumerated in paragraph 31 above, the Petitioner's application clearly identifies and describes firmly committed and documented resources to support long-term projects in the last paragraph of page 8 where it states "Resources available to S1. Lucie County to continue this program beyond the twelve month grant program are many. The S1. Lucie County Safety Director, the St. Lucie County Sheriff, the St. Lucie County Fire Chief, and the Fort Pierce Police Chief are responsible for providing training to staff in appropriate emergency assessment, planning and response measures. These training services are ongoing and continuous. For example, within the last month, S1. Lucie County conducted a mock training program regarding appropriate response to a school hostage or shooting incident similar to that which occurred at Columbine High School. Available to them in meeting emergency training needs is Indian River Community College, located in Fort Pierce, which provides both degree programs and continuing education courses in law enforcement, fire safety, and emergency medical services. It should additionally be noted each of these agencies, but especially the St. Lucie County Fire District, have staff mechanics and technicians who are trained and certified in the repair and maintenance of motor vehicles, communications equipment, computer networks, audiovisual equipment, and specialized emergency equipment which are necessary to the operation of the mobile command vehicle. 81. Lucie County Fire District has four certified mechanics who will be assigned responsibility for maintenance of the vehicle." Long-term commitment to this project by the four agencies noted above is confirmed not only in the letters referenced in page 12, but more importantly in their actions which includes the contribution of sizeable matching funds and also thorough research involving other counties and municipalities to ensure the longevity of the vehicle. 41. In response to item J enumerated in paragraph 31 above, the Petitioner's application identifies emergency management organization and emergency needs directly benefited by this project in the first paragraph of page 9: "Emergency management organizations and emergency needs directly benefited by this program include: · The St. Lucie County Public Safety Department, the St. Lucie County Sheriffs Department, the St. Lucie County Fire Department, and the City of Fort Pierce Police Department who will have a mobile command vehicle from which to monitor, coordinate, and manage emergency response services during an emergency; · The St. Lucie County Public Safety Department, the St. Lucie County Sheriffs Department, the St. Lucie County Fire Department, and the City of Fort Pierce Police Department who will have a reserve communication center from which all 911 dispatching services can be conducted; · The Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the Division of State Fire Marshall, Division of Emergency Management, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the Division of Communications who will have local access to a command center from which on-site emergency services can be assessed, planned, coordinated, and managed for any major emergency occurring in St. Lucie County; . And the Department of Community Affairs who will receive the benefit of more accurate and timelier information for news and warning dissemination." 42. The Petitioner's application responded comprehensively, clearly, succinctly, and rationally to all criteria required for general criteria area 2 of the Evaluation and Scoring Sheet and is to be awarded the maximum points or close to the maximum number of points allowed for this section. Evidence of this exists in the fact that one scorer assigned the maximum number of 75 points to the application and a second scorer assigned 70. 43. In that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the type of benefits or services provided by the project other than those priority areas specified in the October 17,2001 Notification of Funding Availability; in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the number of services or benefits provided by the project; in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the number of individuals, organizations, or communities benefited by the project; in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the geographical area in which the project services are rendered or received; in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the ranking/importance ofthe state or local emergency management need addressed by the project; and in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the ranking or importance of the emergency management priority addressed by the project; two scorers in the scoring general criteria area 2 utilized criteria not included in either the Rule or in the Application Packet to score the Petitioners application, did not read the entirety ofthe Petitioner's application, or were biased in their scoring. This is evident in their scores of 30 and 40 despite the fact that all criteria were addressed by the Petitioner's application in a comprehensive, clear, succinct, and rational manner. 44. The Evaluation And Scoring Sheet divides the third general criteria area as specified in the Application Packet into two parts. The first part is listed as "a. Explains consisteµcy-with State CEMP (50 max points)." The more specific scoring criteria listed in the Application Packet that apply to this first scoring area of the third general criteria area include the following. "consistent in every respect - particular items in the plan are identified and the consistency of the project with the State plan is rationally, clearly and comprehensi vel y explained." 45. The Petitioner's application explains the consistency ofthe Mobile Command Vehicle project with the State Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan in pages 9 and 10 where it states" Florida's Comprehensive Management Plan in its general statement regarding methods of operations asserts "The State of Florida utilizes a 'closest appropriate responder' concept (could be county, the State, or nationally available resources) when responding to any threat, event, or disaster. In most situations, the counties will be the first and primary responders, and will be required to exceed their abilities or deplete their resources prior to requesting State assistance." Given this policy that counties, in most situations, will be the first and primary responders to an emergency, it is highly consistent with the State Comprehensive Management Plan that St. Lucie County be prepared to respond to an emergency as expeditiously and as efficiently as possible. The proposed mobile command vehicle will markedly and distinctly improve St. Lucie County's ability to respond to an emergency and to coordinate appropriate resources in a timely, efficient, and cost effective manner. "The procurement of a mobile command vehicle by St. Lucie County is additionally consistent with the following purposes of the State Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan 1998 which are listed in the plan's introductory statements: . Reduce the vulnerability of people and communities of this state to loss oflife, injury, or damage and loss of property resulting from natural, technological or man-made emergencies, catastrophes, or hostile military or paramilitary action; . Prepare for prompt and efficient response and recovery activities to protect lives and property affected by emergencies; . Recover from emergencies by providing for the rapid and orderly implementation of restoration and rehabilitation programs for persons and property affected by emergencies; and . Assist in anticipation, recognition, appraisal, prevention, and mitigation of emergencies that may be caused or aggravated by inadequate planning for, and regulation of, public and private facilities and land use. By providing emergency managers in St. Lucie County with an on-site, sheltered center with computers and communication systems necessary to expeditiously access personnel, agencies, and databanks to better respond to an emergency; the mobile command vehicle accomplishes each of these purposes." The Petitioner's application additionally explains the consistency of the project with the State Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan in pages 10 and 11 where it states "The pmjeèt is more specifically consistent with both the following State and St. Lucie County Emergency Support Function guidelines: · ESF1 (Transportation) - The mobile command vehicle will enable emergency managers to assess transportation needs by being on-site and by having communication and computer systems necessary to coordinate such services; · ESF2 (Communication) - The mobile command vehicle will provide emergency managers with a technologically advanced communication system in a sheltered environment at the site of the emergency with which they can exercise necessary communications; · ESF3 (Public Works and Engineering) - The mobile command vehicle will provide on-site emergency managers with immediate access to engineering and public works plans available in the County's databases enabling them to more expeditiously mitigate a disaster; · ESF4 (Firefighting) - The mobile command vehicle with its communication system, computer access, and stealth camera will provide emergency managers with an on-site center from which wildfire detection and suppression services can be assessed, coordinated, and managed in both urban and rural fires; · ESF7 (Resource Support) - The mobile command vehicle provides an on-site communication systems and a planning center from which support resources can be assessed, summoned, and coordinated; · ESF8 (Health and Medical Services) - The mobile command vehicle provides on-site communication systems and a planning center from which emergency medical services can be summoned and coordinated; . . . ESF9 (Search and Rescue) - The mobile command vehicle provides not only on-site communication systems and a planning center from which search and rescue operations can be conducted, but also a stealth camera which provides visual search capabilities of up to three miles; · ESF10 (Hazardous Materials) - The stealth camera on the mobile command vehicle provides the capability of assessing a hazardous materials accident from as far away as three miles, thereby reducing potential exposure injury to emergency workers; · ESF13 (Military Support) - The mobile command vehicle provides on-site communication and computer systems and a planning center from which military support services can be assessed, coordinated, and managed in the event of an emergency; · ESF 14 (Public Information) - By allowing for in-depth, on-site evaluation and assessment of an emergency, with the full benefit of County resources and data, the mobile command center supports more accurate and timelier news and warning; · ESF15 (Volunteers and Donations) - The mobile command vehicle provides on-site communication/computer systems and a planning center from which emergency volunteer services and donations can be planned, summoned, managed and coordinated; . ESF16 (Law Enforcement and Security) - The mobile command vehicle provides on-site communication/computer systems and a planning center from which law enforcement services can be planned, summoned, and coordinated during an emergency; and . ESF17 (Animal Protection) - The mobile command vehicle provides on-site communication/computer systems from which animal rescue services can be coordinated during an emergency. " 46. The Petitioner's application responded comprehensively, clearly, succinctly, and rationally to all criteria required for general criteria area 3a of the Evaluation and Scoring Sheet and demonstrated that the Mobile Command Vehicle project is consistent in every respect with the State Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. The application is to be awarded the maximum points or close to the maximum number of points allowed for this section. Evidence of this exists in the fact that one scorer assigned the maximum number of 50 points to the application and a second scorer assigned 40. 47. In that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the type of benefits or services provided by the project other than those priority areas specified in the October 17,2001 Notification of Funding Availability; in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the number of services or benefits provided by the project; in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the number of individuals, organizations, or communities benefited by the project; in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the geographical area in which the project services are rendered or received; in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be a\varded to a project based upon the ranking/importance of the state or local emergency management need addressed by the project; and in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the ranking or importance of the emergency management priority addressed by, the project; two scorers in the scoring general criteria area 3a utilized criteria not included in either the Rule or in the Application Packet to score the Petitioners application, did not read the entirety of the Petitioner's application, or were biased in their scoring. This is evident in their scores of 30 and 15 despite the fact that all criteria ",ere addressed by the Petitioner's application in a comprehensive, clear, succinct, and rational manner. 48. As noted previously, the Evaluation And Scoring Sheet divides the third general criteria as specified in the Application Packet into two parts. The second part is listed as "b. Consistency with Local CEMP (25 max pts/50 pts if no municipal plan applies)" The more specific scoring criteria listed in the Application Packet that apply to this scoring area are the following: "plan exists and the project is consistent in every respect - particular elements in the plan are identified and the consistency ofthe project with the local plan is rationally, clearly and comprehensively explained." 49. The Petitioner's application explains the consistency of the Mobile Command Vehicle project with the Local Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan in pages 10 and 11 where it states "A January 4, 2002 letter from Jack Southard, St. Lucie County Public Safety Director, stipulates this project is additionally consistent with St. Lucie County's Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. Due to the limited number of pages allowed in this grant application; a copy of this letter is not attached, but can be provided upon request." This section of the application establishes that a local plan does exist. The consistency of the project with the local plan is established in the following begins on page 10 of the application: "The project is more specifically consistent with both the following State and St. Lucie County Emergency Support Function guidelines: . ESF 1 (Transportation) - The mobile command vehicle will enable emergency managers to assess transportation needs by being on-site and by having communication and computer systems necessary to coordinate such services; . ESF2 (Communication) - The mobile command vehicle will provide emergency managers with a technologically advanced communication system in a sheltered environment at the site of the emergency with which they can exercise necessary communications; .' · ESF3 (Public Works and Engineering) - The mobile command vehicle will provide on-site emergency managers with immediate access to engineering and public works plans available in the County's databases enabling them to more expeditiously mitigate a disaster; · ESF4 (Firefighting) - The mobile command \'ehicle with its communication system, computer access, and stealth camera will provide emergency managers with an on-site center from which wildfire detection and suppression services can be assessed, coordinated, and managed in both urban and rural fires; · ESF7 (Resource Support) - The mobile command vehicle provides an on-site communication systems and a planning center from which support resources can be assessed, summoned, and coordinated; · ESF8 (Health and Medical Services) - The mobile command vehicle provides on-site communication systems and a planning center from which emergency medical services can be summoned and coordinated; · ESF9 (Search and Rescue) - The mobile command vehicle provides not only on-site communication systems and a planning center from which search and rescue operations can be conducted, but also a stealth camera which provides visual search capabilities of up to three miles; · ESF10 (Hazardous Materials) - The stealth camera on the mobile command vehicle provides the capability of assessing a hazardous materials accident from as far away as three miles, thereby reducing potential exposure injury to emergency workers; · ESF 13 (Military Support) - The mobile command vehicle provides on-site communication and computer systems and a planning center from which military support services can be assessed, coordinated, and managed in the event of an emergency; · ESF14 (Public Information) - By allowing for in-depth, on-site evaluation and assessment of an emergency, with the full benefit of County resources and data, the mobile command center supports more accurate and timelier news and warning; · ESF15 (Volunteers and Donations) - The mobile command vehicle provides on-site communication/computer systems and a planning center from which emergency volunteer services and donations can be planned, summoned, managed and coordinated; · ESF16 (Law Enforcement and Security) - The mobile command vehicle provides on-site communication/computer systems and a planning center from which law enforcement services can be planned, summoned, and coordinated during an emergency; and . ESF17 (Animal Protection) - The mobile command vehicle provides on-site communication/computer systems from which animal rescue services can be coordinated during an emergency." 50. The Petitioner's application responded comprehensively, clearly, succinctly, and rationally to all criteria required for general criteria area 3b of the Evaluation and Scoring Sheet and demonstrated that a local emergency management plan exists and that the Mobile Command Vehicle project is consistent in every respect with this plan. The application is to be awarded the maximum points or close to the maximum number of points allowed for this section. Evidence of this exists in the fact that one scorer assigned the maximum number of 50 points to the application and a second scorer assigned 45. 51..in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the type of benefits or services provided by the project other than those priority areas specified in the October 17,2001 Notification of Funding Availability; in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the number of services or benefits provided by the project; in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the number of individuals, organizations, or communities benefited by the project; in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the geographical area in which the project services are rendered or received; in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the ranking/importance of the state or local emergency management need addressed by the project; and in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the ranking or importance of the emergency management priority addressed by the project; two scorers in the scoring general criteria area 3b utilized criteria not included in either the Rule or in the Application Packet to score the Petitioners application, did not read the entirety of the Petitioner's application, or were biased in their scoring. This is evident in their scores of 30 and 15 despite the fact that all criteria were addressed by the Petitioner's application in a comprehensive, clear, succinct, and rational manner. 52. The Evaluation And Scoring Sheet lists the fourth general criteria area as "Project method and approach (100 max pts)." The more specific scoring criteria listed in the Application Packet that apply to this fourth general criteria area are the following. A. Potential methods and approaches are identified, explained and analyzed; studies, analyses, standards and policies are identified and rationally applied to the project; project method and approach are clearly, rationally and concisely identified and explained. B. The choice of method and approach is conclusively appropriate for the project. C. The budget of the proposed project is clearly and rationally set forth in exceptional detail. D. The application clearly, succinctly and rationally describes how and why the budget is necessary and appropriate to the scope and potential of the project. 53. In response to item A enumerated in paragraph 52 above, the Petitioner's analysis of the solution to the identified emergency management need is listed in paragraphs 2 and 3 of page 11 where it states "Following the recent wildfire emergency in which County emergency managers were forced to coordinate services without the benefit of a sheltered planning area, without reliable communication systems, without immediate access to the County's databases, and without interruption; it was determined the County was in need of a mobile vehicle which could provide emergency managers with necessary communications, computer systems, and logistical space. Other counties and municipalities were contacted to determine their remedies to the types of problems the Coupty-encountered. These included Dade County, Palm Beach County, Manatee County, Boca Raton, and Coral Springs. Each of these have been utilizing a mobile command vehicle manufactured by L&S Custom Coaches. Dade County had been using a mobile command vehicle for greater than fifteen years and reports it continues to be an integral and necessary component of their emergency response services. "Discussions with these counties and municipalities failed in identifying alternative solutions to the problem. Discussion and strategy planning by St. Lucie County emergency mangers also failed in identifying alternative feasible solutions. The assessed need for this project and the County's compelling confidence in the solution it provides can be measured and validated by the fact that four local governmental emergency service agencies have significantly contributed to the project by providing a 2:1 match." 54. Item B enumerated in paragraph 52 above requires an analysis of the Petitioner's response to the issue of method analysis rather than a specific response by the Petitioner. In this, it should be noted there is no better analysis than to secure, study and rely upon information from comparable sources where identical projects have been operated. St. Lucie County contacted other counties and municipalities that currently operate a mobile command vehicle to determine the functioning and use of the vehicle in their emergency operations. St. Lucie County additionally sought out counties that had purchased their vehicle from the same provider St. Lucie County intends to use. In this manner, not only was St. Lucie County able to determine the appropriateness of a mobile command vehicle, but also the reliability and longevity of the vehicle, as well as the reliability of the provider. 55. In response to item C as enumerated in paragraph 52 above, the budget ofthe proposed project is clearly and rationally set forth in detail in Attachment B, page 14 of the grant. 56. In response to item D as enumerated in paragraph 52 above; the Petitioner's application clearly, succinctly and rationally describes in page 12 and in Addendum B that this project is for the purchase of mobile command vehicle, the cost of which is $180,000. Since the Petitioner can only contribute $120,000 to the project, a request is being made for $60,000. 57. The Petitioner's application responded comprehensively, clearly, succinctly, and rationally to all criteria required for general criteria area 4 of the Evaluation and Scoring Sheet and demonstrated that its project method and approach are reasonable for the project and clearly and rationally explained. The application is to be awarded the maximum points or close to the maximum number of points allowed for this section. Evidence of this exists in the fact that one scorer assigned the maximum number of 100 points to the application and a second scorer assigned 95. 58. In that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the type of benefits or services provided by the project other than those priority areas specified in the October 17,2001 Notificatioo of Funding Availability; in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the number of services or benefits provided by the project; in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the number of individuals, organizations, or communities benefited by the project; in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the geographical area in which the project services are rendered or received; in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the ranking/importance ofthe state or local emergency management need addressed by the project; and in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the ranking or importance of the emergency management priority addressed by the project; two scorers in the scoring general criteria area 4 utilized criteria not included in either the Rule or in the Application Packet to score the Petitioners application, failed to read the entirety of the Petitioner's application, or were biased in their scoring. This is evident in their scores of 45 and 35 despite the fact that all criteria were addressed by the Petitioner's application in a comprehensive, clear, succinct, and rational manner. 59. The Evaluation And Scoring Sheet lists the fifth general criteria area as "Project match (50 max pts)." All four scorers assigned the full 50 points to the project given that the Petitioner provided a 2:1 match. 60. The Evaluation And Scoring Sheet lists the fifth general criteria area as "Experience and ability applied to the project (25 max pts)." The more specific scoring criteria listed in the Application Packet that apply to this sixth scoring area are the following. A. The experience, abilities and qualification of all persons is identified and clearly rationally and succinctly related to the proposal project. B. The materials and other items are clearly identified, described, and are available without qualification or delay. 61. In response to item A enumerated in paragraph 60 above; the experience, abilities and qualification of all persons are identified and clearly rationally and succinctly related to the proposal project in the last paragraph of page 12 of the Petitioner's grant application which states the following: "Jack Southard, has served in the position of St. Lucie County Public Safety Director for greater than fifteen years and therefore brings considerable experience to this project. He has overseen disaster response to several hurricanes, a major hazardous materials incident, and a wildfire disaster. His experience is respected to the degree that he has lectured at state and national meetings regarding disaster preparedness and management. St. Lucie County Sheriff Ken Mascara has greater than ten years of experience in law enforcement and has served for one year in his current position. St. Lucie County Fire Chief Jay Sizemore has greater than twenty years of experience in emergency medical services and fire prevention/fighting. Fort Pierce Police Chief Eugene Savage has served in his current position for five years and has many additional years of law enforcement experience as assistant police chief with the City of West Palm Beach. The agencies each of these individuals manages provide staff members who are extensively trained and experienced in all areas of emergency preparedness, response, and management. Each of these agencies also has available to them a complete staff of certified engineers, technicians, and mechanics who are amply capable of ensuring the proper functioning of all mechanical, computer, and communications equipment contained in the emergency command vehicle. Through cooperative programs, Indian River Community College, located in Fort Pierce, offers extensive training to staff from these agencies in the areas of emergency medical services, fire science, law enforcement and computer technology." 62. In response to item B enumerated in paragraph 60 above, the Petitioner's grant application clearly identifies and describes the materials in paragraph 3 of Page 4 which states "This grant proposal is therefore for the purchase of a mobile command vehicle. The vehicle will be a Blue Bird CS/2000 40' Forward Control Coach similar to that pictured on the previous page. The vehicle will be equipped with two 20 KW generators, a six-position communication system, computers with direct link to County data bases by means of a directional antenna and broadband \\ireless program, conference area and table, and stealth camera with 40' pneumatic mast." The grant application also specifies that the materials are available without qualification or delay in paragraph 3 of page 5 which states "The manufacturer of the mobile command vehicle has stipulated delivery of the vehicle within eight months from the signed date of the contract. St. Lucie County has had extensive conversations with the manufacturer, L&S Custom Coaches, and is prepared to secure a contract with the manufacturer as soon as the grant contract is signed. L&S Custom Coaches is the sole source for this type of vehicle. Therefore competitive bidding is not necessary." The lack of delay in completing this project is additionally stipulated in paragraph 3 of page 7 which states "The project will be short-term in its completion in that purchase of the mobile command vehicle can be accomplished within eight to ten months after the grant contract is signed. The manufacturer has additionally stated local staff can be trained in proper operation and maintenance ofthe vehicle within two weeks after delivery. The mobile command vehicle can therefore be fully operational within eleven months after the grant contract is signed. " 63. The Petitioner's application responded comprehensively, clearly, succinctly, and rationally to all criteria required for general criteria area 6 ofthe Evaluation and Scoring Sheet and demonstrated that St. Lucie County has the experience, ability, and qualifications necessary to successfully complete the proposed project. It additionally demonstrated the project can be completed without qualification or delay. The application is therefore to be awarded the maximum points or close to the maximum number of points allowed for this section. Evidence of this exists in the fact that two scorers assigned the maximum number of 25 points to the application. 64. In that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the type of benefits or services provided by the project other than those priority areas specified in the October 17,2001 NotificatioR of Funding Availability; in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the number of services or benefits provided by the project; in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the number of individuals, organizations, or communities benefited by the project; in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the geographical area in which the project services are rendered or received; in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the ranking/importance of the state or local emergency management need addressed by the project; and in that neither the Rule nor the Application Packet specifies that additional points will be awarded to a project based upon the ranking or importance of the emergency management priority addressed by the project; two scorers in the scoring general criteria area 6 utilized criteria not included in either the Rule or in the Application Packet to score the Petitioners application, did not read the entirety of the Petitioner's application, or were biased in their scoring. This is evident in their scores of 20 and 18 despite the fact that all criteria were addressed by the Petitioner's application in a comprehensive, clear, succinct, and rational manner. 65. The Evaluation and Score Sheets for the Petitioner's grant application have been provided to the Petitioner by the Department of Community Affairs. There are a total of four Evaluation and Score sheets numbered 1,2,3, and 4. The low scores for all six general criteria areas were assigned on the Evaluation and Score Sheets numbered 3 and 4. The scorers of Evaluation and Score Sheets 3 and 4 will hereinafter be referred to as scorers 3 and 4. The maximum number of points a scorer can assign to an application is 500. The average score assigned to the Petitioner's application by scorers 3 and 4 is 216 points lower than the average score assigned by the other two scorers. This discrepancy strongly suggests a scoring system that is highly subjective and highly inconsistent. · 66. Leon County additionally submitted an application for a mobile command vehicle. In the opinion of the Petitioner, Leon County's responses to the various criteria were not as comprehensive, clear, rational or succinct as those provided by the Petitioner. However, scorers 3 and 4 assigned Leon County's application a score that is, on average 100 points higher than the application submitted by the Petitioner. Scorers 1 and 2, on average, scored the Petitioner's application 43 points higher than Leon County's. This additionally suggests a scoring system that is highly subjective and highly inconsistent. Wherefore, The Petitioner hereby requests an administrative hearing to consider the issue ofthe Department of Community Affair's scoring of the Petitioner's Mobile Command Vehicle grant application and to seek the following relief: The Department of Community Affairs (the Department) will have scorers 3 and 4 clearly, rationally, logically, succinctly, and criterion by criterion explain how scorers 3 and 4 arrived at a score for the Petitioner's grant application that is markedly low. Only criteria stipulated in the Rule or in the Application packet will be utilized and accepted in this explanation. Since, through this petition, the Petitioner has demonstrated its response to each ériterion; The Department will have scorers 3 and 4 clearly explain the manner in which each of these responses is deficient in meeting a criterion and how they determined the number of points to be assigned to the criterion within the Petitioner's application. This explanation will be based solely upon criteria stipulated in the Rule or in the Application Packet. The Department will also provide to the Petitioner the 20 highest scoring Category 4 grant applications. The Department will additionally provide the Petitioner with instructions regarding the exact method utilized to assign points to an application so that the Petitioner can then, utilizing the method and acting with highest honesty, evaluate the 20 highest scoring grant applications and arrive at a score that is within 50 points of the score assigned by scorers 3 and 4. In that Leon County submitted an application for a mobile command vehicle, the Department will also have scorers 3 and 4 comprehensively, clearly, succinctly, rationally, logically and criterion by criterion explain how Leon County's application scored, on average between the two scorers, 100 points higher than the Petitioner's application. This explanation will be based solely upon criteria stipulated in the Rules or in the Application packet. If the Department is unable to accomplish the above, the Department will replace the scores assigned by scorers 3 and 4 to the Petitioner's grant application with scores of 500. Respectfully submitted this ih day of May, 2002, Daniel S. McIntyre, County Attorney Copy to: N :¡¡¡ g ...J ~ W Z W C> 0 00 "'''' "'''' "'''' <0.... ........ ........ ...."" "'''' "'0 O~ ~<o 0;0; is .., "''''' ~~ ~ "" """" mo NN N'" ~~ mm m'" "'''' ",0 I~ 0 0<0 "'0 00 "'''' ........ "'''' "'''' NO 0"" "".... N...""Þ II) uilÓ cr:i«'- ciLÔ r-:,..: ;ig ~ai ""':('1") ,..:oq:- ai a:'- ai"": aie r-:.....: ~~ .... <0'" "'''' "'<0 ",m ~ m ON ....'" "'''' <o~ mN ....'" ~m '" NN ~"" <0'" ~O 00 r--.~ oq-_ ..qo_C"')þ ('\1_"-_ m<o "'''' "'''' N~ ~.,. ~ MM ct'iÑ ÑÑ NN ÑÑ ~* ;;W Z;w .,..,. .,..,. .,..,. .,..,. .,. .,..,. .,..,. .,..,. .,..,. .,..,. . "0 '" 00 ~8 00 88 ""m 00 00 om "'0 0'" om 0'" "'0 C;; ..:.;. 'lOt! 0'" "'''' "" "" ",,0 0"" 0<0 ""0 0<0 8~ 8~ ~O 0'" <00 "'''' 00 "'~ "'0 (')0 ""0 ""0 (')N "'''' ..... 0... cia> aid tt)-LÔ còci C'\-.....= cò&ñ a:iw- 16M ufo- ma:; Ño:i rri«'- de¡) ü~ ~.,. ~O "" "" ~'" "'''' ""~ m.... "'''' mo ....'" ~.... "'''' N~ C;; ~ ..« N ~'" ~N N'" .,..,. NN .,..,. .,.~ ~(') .,..,. .,.~ .,.~ .,. N a ìñ ~ ..J ~ W Z W C) " I: æE - I! 2 8' t;.t gë ~g Ui.. en > <1:;:1 -g~ : ~ :8 1:" I!!"I: _e~ ~ ~& ~~¡CÞ .~ 2 ~~ u:igS - E CÞ 0 ~ 1i ~::: J!I g. E 0 maw:;: 0 M 0 It) ~ :;¡ " .. O'" '" .. .~; :¡:¡c( I~ " 00 00 :e~ m~ 00 ~8 01'- mU') aU') 00 mo aU') NO "'0 M<O 88 ~8 88 88 00 U')M O<D 00 <00 ~ a NO 00 U')O "'0 00 - .. 00 00 ",M 00 O<D U')O 8¡g 00 U')O ON ~O ¡;j8 mm am moo 0<0 00 1'-0 <DO 1'-0 <00 <OU') 00 00 1:_ aU') 00 ~ <0 I'-m ...N MO ON M<O 00 "'0 M~ "'0 ~m 00 MO 00 00 N <0 <D<D aU') ON a ~ U')O mo ~O <D<O I'-<D 00 ::J en Lñ~ ci 0- r--:o:i aiLl'i Lt)-ri aiiti ó<Ii ...,:-U:; LÓcti o-Lli :g"g LÓcri ~-ui aió ~a) g~ ~I.l')- cia) mo- c.ti~ .jai OM 000 criN- MO "':0- LÒci r--:a- -.:i"': ciLÓ o .. I'-m 00 ~m m<D mo U')N ON N.... <0'" "'<D ~æ I'-<D 00 <Dm "'<0 M~ NO ~U') <0 <x> am am N <D <DU') "'0 ~O U') <0 N<O U')N E 9. ........ MM ~ ~ ~.... N~ ~.... MN ;;; N.... ~.... ~M ........ NM ....N MN ~.... ........ NM N.... NN MN MN ........ ........ ~M ....M ........ N.... ~N <I: .. ........ ........ .... ........ .... ........ .... .... ........ .... ........ .... ........ .... ........ .... ........ ........ ........ ........ .... .... ........ a: ~ U')U') 88 1'-0 O<D 88 aU') ON <00 00 U')O 8~ gg U')U') 00 8:e U')O NN U')U') <ON NU') U')O U')U') aU') U')O 1'-1'- U')N 00 000 aU') MM I'- ~ <00 00 U') I'- U')m U')U') U')<O NO MI'- NO I'-U') <O<D NN ":U1 ~I'- MO NN ON NN I'-m NO aU') 00 "'1'- ",0 ~ .. COW còLri oc;fN om coco ""':ui ~ó 00 de¡) roo:) M~ dm ~~ cOcO crieD uiLri ..,..¡ Me-? ~ ~ ~a.i .....:.....: tÕu) Lri"¡' .,¡..,¡. MO cid cO""': ""':<ri ..oM MN 'Ë 5 ...... ~~ ...... ~¡:¡ MM MM MM MM MN N N NN N~ Me;) Me;; Me;; Me;; Me;; P)M ~O 00 00 00 00 00 00 mm mm mm mm =~ MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM NN NN NN NN e II. :~ ~ II) :;; E 1ií I: '" '" 0 U II) (ii '" .>< is I: ii I: ~ .. :::¡ .9 x -I: ::õ II) 8 w I: 0 .. ,2 '~ Iii ii '" ~" e I~ '~ Q) II) en a. ~ 1ií Ü I: Q) Q) .~ Q) Q) ::J E ~ '" '2 èñ I: ~I,g '" "- ¡ I: Q) aI I: Q) ê 81~ ,2 II) Q) ;:I Q) N 0 i3 .. .5 .", ¡:: 1ií aI Ü ~ $ g u: õ.. èñ J: Q) II) Q) Ig Q) II) I: ~ .Eë O' II) ~ e ::J ~15 .5 > I: ,2 :2 Õ Q)::;) u ~ .>< '" .. 'ë '" 0 I $ f- > I: ~ ~ u "" a. oðU g ~ '5 II) 2 w Q) I: I: Q) t:: 0 e '" ~ ~ a. a¡ en ::J J: ';;. ~ 9 .c: II) aI .. ~ ::õ ~~ II. .c: .. :'! :ã u I: I: ::õ I~ 'ë $ ~ (ij UQ) .ë Q) en $ .ë .. 0 '" w ~ ::J 'ª ~~ 0 oð ::J ~~ ,!!! ::J m:¡= ã: ¡; ~ E I: '2 ~ õ ~ ::J ::J I: .>< I,~ a. Q) I! u Q) E en'" Õ Q) I~ u õi ~I~ z I: ~ E E aI II) o.c: '" _w () $ E I: E II) II) I: I: N 0 ~~ Q) Õ I: li! .. ã: .~ ~8 a: II) Q) 0 .~ '" Q) 0 8 aI J: U > Q) ~z: II) E $ .c: I: '" II) Q) ]i $0 ð Q) ã: E U I (ij 1ií E E II) I: II) Q) 12 I: > Q) I: I: ,- '" II) II) ..;: ë Q) I: '" E I: I: I: m.g Q) 8 '" Ig I: I: I: :; '" Q) I: ~ 'I: 3: E e 0'" 2 '" II) ~ E E I: '" ¡¡j ::J '" I: E 0 E !\1 Q) I~ ::J t 0 .. aI ~ I: .c: .. 0 o E Q) I! t: U .. Q) U a. +=.c ~ :;; W ,- I: W Q) "w I: aI I: Ë ::õ $ E E ~ aI I~ ~ ci5 E aI f- I~ C) Q) $ > ~ I: I~ .. o '" E Z :E E Q) .. '" '" w II) E E Q) Q) I: --' E -ª " I: 0 I: '" ,_ w 1: Q) m'C {i E.g .c: I: Q) I: ~ f- ::J U aI I: :;:. 0 e ~ Q) f- 0 I: S 0 0 I: Q) 'ë ~ > E $ ::;) Q) ~ I: aI E -I: Q) o 0 Q) èñ ë 1: ~ ::õ Q) ü :gu 0 '" 1; Q) ~ 0 ::J Q) ä: ,,-0 ~ ::õ ü '" ,9. 1: w I: .. ~ U UU Q) '" a. I.ª ~ .ê E i3 c;. U E Q) Q) E II) Q) E Q) 'ª II) ::J ,!!1. ì3 ¡; I: '" € $ E enQ) ~ ::õ I,~ II) '" I: aI ,~ Q) II) I.ª $ B ::õÙi 0 I: II) E E en ~ 'õ D-'" II) I: Q) $ I: en a¡ I: E " e '" ~ ,g ::J 0 E II) E II) w= aI ~ I~ '" I: I: E w§ '" I~ I: E ~ g .5 -g ffi II) Q) ~ I.~ õi I: Ü .c I: E I: l~ aI I: 0 e .c E 0 wE 0 0 .ê Q) Q) I: ,2 a. 0 U '" Q) o Q) 0 ii ~~ en ::õ II) 8 0 Q) II) --' ill E 0 'E I~ w ~ uO:: i3 0 0 U a. j!! e II) aI I: ~ U ,~ U U E ~~ aI II) ~ aI ë '" .. 0 w 0 I: U ~ ~ en .5 g ¡,ª D- Q) ~ ~ ¡; I: I: .9 I~ E Ig Q) U I: æ en ::J I: E$ Q) 0 U ~ '" .. 0:: ::;) II) Ë 0:: 0 0 U W Q) Q) U aI '¡¡j x 9 ¡¡; Q) ",'" Q) II) .5 .š 0'" w I: Q) '" '" II) '" E ij¡ > II) J: Q) Q) :ã II) I: I: U en I: ~ .>< E 0 OQ) I: E ~ 'ë en {i aI :is § .>< ë ::õ 0 ~ I: '2 ~ '" U E è5 I: Z (,) '2 '" Q) Q) +=.c II) ,2 '" ~ ë I: {i I: 1ií 1:: --' ::J I: aI '" I: '" 0 1ií1! u LI;I w I: ",= 0 1ií 0 ~ I: ::J ::õ ~ ~ I: U ::J '" ii aI '" ou t; 0 w ~ g ã; ::;) " ~ -g~ ~ > ::J ~ '" Q) Q) 1i II) E aI i aI E E .~ '5 E :;; :;; ~ .. N Ù '" I: Q) D- I: ~~ I: Q) Q) a¡ ï!! 1I).c: ii I: a. ,_ w <0 § en '" aI '" ë U'" Q) '~ II) > Q) j!! aI ii f- I: ~ alen ,ª, 8 Z. Q) ~g E :;; Õ ::õ 8¡s f- a E I: 1ií 0:: = I: Q) ::J I: II) Q) II) Q) "- 0 Q) 1ií ~ Q) I: Q) 0 a¡ Q) ::J 'I: = Q) aI > Q) õi 'ë ",Q) I: D- o E 0 1ií u 0 '" '" ::J E =m 0:: .!!! ::J 0 > II) E 8 E 0 0 ~ .c II) '" E II) I: en I: ~I~ ii Q) "5 Q) .c: I~ ~ 'Ë a. 0:: « I~ I~ a '¡¡; '¡¡; I~ E I: 0 ::J 0 I:C) ~ (ij 'Ë 1:.'" ::õ .ê Q) ::J W U w ::õ <I: I~ 0 IE '" ~ U E II) :ã ~ E E .c E Õ ¡; Q) ~ .g I: Q) E Q) w 0 -u E u- ~I¡; ,~ Q) Q) 0:: 0 I~ Eõ ¡; Õ ~ aI 0:: ii Q) E is aI E I: 0 ~¡s U aI Q) > U ,~ Q) 0:: 00:: '" I 11)", E o~ 3! aI ~~ ]j U 01: II) (ij U ~ ::J u II 0 E u 0 U ::J U Q) I: ~ I: I: ~ I: J!! 0 .s:::: I: U.. 8 ß 8 01: 'ë ~ " E E I: U{i I: ::J I: I: :; 01: N I: Q) '" I: I~ 0 Q)U II) ~ ~ ~ I~ .c: Q) :;; ~ M 0 W I: 'iä¡g ::J en ,!!! II) '2 ::J ~ Q) 0 0 ~ 0 u1 ~ J: 'õ ::õ U Q) E ~ U U ~ '" I~ :2 '" en ~ ~ ~* I: 9 <I: I: U .!!~ E '" Õ gp~ Q) "g E .. Q) '" '2 ¡'51 ~ '" I: .21 u aI :;; ~~ ~ en 1ií u Õ ~ $f- ~ 8 .. ::õ f- I: 0 Q) E Q) .5 Q) ~ E aI Q) .c aI aI N en aI U :g~ .2 Q) E ~ Q) ~I.~ '" E :;; '" Q) :;; ~ I: aI 0:: I: .ë aI 2 :;; .c: Q) u õi E Q) E E ~ ~ II) E 011) .c: 8 z'É 0 ~ E '" 1:: '¡¡; t: õim E N 0:: E .!!! gj ~ a .c: ::J 0 > e E ~ E II) 1ií Q).c ::J '" aI 0 Õ ::õõ I: 0 I: 0 Q) Q) Q) 0 .c:- aI I: ð a I: W 0 '" aI "" 0 D- W U ::õ w u: w ü: --' D- U W W N enw W ::Õ::Õ ww U f- ::;) D- men 0:: f- f- a¡ U enC) w ::;) I « w w o.w <0 W U U ::õ « a. w w a. en «::õ +oJ "'... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ... ...... M'" ~... ...... ...... M'" ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... "'M ... ...... ...... ...... ... ...... ... ... ...... ...... ... M...... 0 m w I~ 0:: :> :: 0 II) õ II) 0 ~ I: 8 m II) ::J 0 II) 0 '~ ~ "- Q) U ë Õ I: 8 0 Q) ,- <I: '" '" en u Z aI :2 :> e '~ '" ~ I: U I!! ::õ I!! I: ::J i ~ Q) ~ Õ is w Q) I~ u: Q) '" I: 0 ::::¡ I: <3 u: '5 õ I: Q) ;i Q)en E Q) U II) 0 .5 0 èf. I!! -g~ Q) E g Q) w « '¡¡; '~ 1;; '¡¡; Q) I I: U ~ :> ~ 01: a: II) ui Q) ~ is II) I¡; 1ií ' ::J Õ e ë '~ 11- 'Ë Q) I~ Q) 'Ë rJJ ~ 8 I: 'Ë E 'S; I: I: Q) E .c: q ~ Q) w ,2 3! <3 '" 0 m E 1:: 8 E i3 '" IE ~¡s I: ~ ::õ 1:: 0 0 u 0 u: 8 U ~g 1ií .5 w ã: (ij ¡; ~ õ U J: I: Z IE II) ~ 0 g '" 'õ 2! ~ w ~ Q) Q) õ _u ~ Õ U "¡¡j ~ ~ Õ UI: :: õ J!! Õ ~ 0 Õ E 0:: a¡o !E Q) o I: Õ Õ U I: 0 IE U Q) CD ëìJ II) '" Q) Q) II) II) .21 0:: <3 8J:: :;; II) m II) w ~ õ~ ~ Q) U II) I: t:: 0 1: ~ u I~ ~ U 'ª 0 '" II) 0 õ I~ Q) I~ ~ Õ '2 E !i: '2 Õ w .c: U « Õ ::;) 01: 8 Õ U J: U <I: II)U U U I: ~ :: aI es'E õ:g :;; '" ü: 0:: I: aI U en I~ :: a. 0 Q) U ~ U U õ I~ Q) U ~ U U IE '* -5 ~ :;; ~ ,2 Q) :! U :: I: 0:: II) U .,; :! \i::U U U 0 §,b 0 _ ::J ~ü E 0 ci l~ ui õ ~ .!!2:_ ~ - "(i) -5 Iz: £ U ::J -I: Q) ï:: m Õ Õ ,~ <3 Õ 0 <3 '" a¡ 88 ::J ~ ~ U :m~ Q) ~ 'E .c: 0 <3 lË 'E u <3 a¡ 0 15. I: II) ~ I~ a¡ ,m :ë ~~ 'ë :: a¡ Iz: 8:: <3 .~ 1: U I: N ~ Ü I: z: ~ z: <3 z: :.i - :: --' õ -5 Q) 0'" II) I: I: ::J ~~ -5 '" Q) '" '" U Q) ::J '" () ::J 1: 0 I: a¡ ,ª "ª ::J f-Q) I: 1: ~ gë ã: E ::J ~ 0 0 B :> æ <3 I: II) 'ª ::J U ::J 0 U ~ aI E Q) ¿ 0 Q) I: 0 I: <3 --, z: I: ::J z: ~ ::J 0 .0:: 0 " ::J 0 II) ::J 0 U a¡ '" a¡ '" U U :ë ::J Æ ~ ,::J ::J a. ::J 0 '" ::J I: aI Q) U t: I: ~ i ..U aI i "- 0 {i 0 U ::J II) U 1; 00 '" 0 ui II) 0 ~ Q) (ij 0 =::J U ::J 0 'S; ::J U II) 0 U u: . Q) ~ U 1ií I: 0 0 u: <3 U 0 ü: I!' õ <3 0 U °u <3 'S; U « 0 '" ~ ,~ 0 U I: e «ü '" Q) '" ,U '¡:: '" '2 '" aI Q) ~ ci U 'S; uu U '" II) U II) Q) '" .¡'Jß õ oð U 0 ~ e a¡ '" 'õ ",.g a¡ a¡ a¡ '" I: õi I~ 0:: õi ð U 0:: £ :§ ::J .,; -II) II) a¡ aI I: I: ::J U I: I: Iii Q) !\1 0:: .. '" ~ I: Õ I~ .8 ~ 8 '" aI '" 8 '" '" E 0 .>< 'Ë ~èü <3 II) .c '¡¡; ::J :g5i 'E $:2 w 'E 'E II) j!! II) Q) 'Ë I: Q) .c: " .2.Q 1: 0 j!!~ u 0 .!1! 8 I: .>< I: E E --' E Q) g ~ 2 = æ aI I: II) E .c: u I: g 0 aI ~ 'C fI) '& 0 u g¡ I! .. II) ::J '" '" I: .. Q) Q) E Q) 1:: I: '" Q) 8 '" .!1! II) '¡¡j t:: '§ ro m Q) I: .~ ::J U Q) II) '" æ (ij ~~ II) aI E .Q aI Q) (ij ~ 0'C (ij I: '" 0 .c: Q) '" Q) 0 '" aI Q) .c: '" 0 > Q) > '" æ.!S! m ~ aI Q) aI aI I èñ u:o ~ ~ ~ ð u: U:: -< I: ð --' J: f- 0 --'<I: <I: --' f- --, 0 ,,-a. a. D- o. ::;) oU: f- 0 f- a¡ a¡ 0 a. U en I U 0 a. C) z ::Õ::Õ « a. ::õ a. en"- <I: Q) « .c I'- m N ~<D MU') ;;; 1'-0 <01'- <x> aU') U') 000 "'<0 m m Mm <0 MIX) MM ~ <D ... N I'-m a NO I'- ~ N <DOO MO I'- ... U')N U') a "'U') a "'... moU') 11- E U') m a ~~ N <0 U')U') <00 N mM ... ~~ ~:! § I'- ¡g~ m :t~ ~~ <D <D §§ N MU') <0 m~ <O~ U')O a N <x> mM m M U')O I'- :g~ ::~:! :=;; a a N ~~ ON a O~ a a a a a ;:~ ~:: 00 ~~ a a ;:~ a a a ~ ~ 'ª ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ w <D~~:~:~~m~~~~~:e~~~~g;;;~:~~~~~mg~~~:~~~~m~§~a;~~~~~~~~E~~~E~~~ N o ù> ~ o ..J ~ W Z W C> " C æe ... I! 2g- -;0: gê: ~g 0" UI > c(;t -g~ ..CL :¡ ~ ..0 C'" r! -g ~ '¡ ¡ ~ ~e~ l:' 0.. c ëc:; EË~ ~ &~ ..O:ge> :2õ¡~ .2 1: ~~ ~ Ë ¡ g ~ i ~~ .111 ~e 0 (/)CW~ 0 .., 0 It) ~ : " .. å,E CL.. "õ ~ ";::ICC I'; " 00 00 g~ 00 0.... 00 "'''' "'0 00 "'''' ....0 §§ "'.... 0g ....0 "'''' 00 "'0 "'0 00 N~ "'0 gci!j ~O 00 "'0 "'0 0'" ON "'''' ... .. gg 00 ~g "'.... ....0 "'''' "'0 00 "'~ "'0 "'.... ~O ....0 ~N gg 00 "'0 0.... "'''' 00 ~O 0'" 00 "'''' 0'" 0'" ~ '" C... 00 ON ~'" ....0 "'.... "'''' 00 r-'" 00 NO "'a r-.... r-o "'''' N'" r-'" "'0 ON "'0 ON ....~ ....0 "'.... 0'" "'''' " UI dci ciui å~ Ñå cD 0- ctiLfi ~LIi aSci gg r--:~ gg ~ID r-:~ gg cño me gg Ño T""-""': LÔai me "":u; c:i~ ~å o-«i ""':ó mci NC'i åri «i~ o .. 00 "'''' "'''' a~ "'''' r-'" r-o "'''' r-'" "'''' :;;a ag "'''' NO "'''' "'''' ~N ....r- 0'" "'0 "'''' r-.... r- ~ "'''' 0.... ...'" ~g "'''' ...~ ~N N'" ...~ ...N ...N "'''' ~... ...~ ...~ N'" ;;;;;; "'~ ...'" NN NN ...~ ...... "'N ...'" ~ N NN ~N ...... "'... ... ...... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ...... ...... ... ...... ... ...... ...... ...... ... 0:: ~ 0'" 00 ON gg ~g "'0 or- or- r-o ....'" 00 "'''' NO ø.... "'''' 0'" 00 "'''' 00 ....0 r-o "'0 r-o 00 r-r- 0'" ON r-ø "'N "'''' or- 00 "'''' "'0 "'0 "'''' ....'" Nr- "'0 ",r- "'~ "'0 Nr- ....'" "'0 r-N "'''' ....'" "'0 r-o "'0 "'''' ....0 ON 0.... "'a r-o ....r- :g e NO dd aJa) me» ,....:tri Lriari NN cim moo còui anLri .¢(") C'iC"i NO cricri oj,....: LOU> C'i~ occi .....:.....; ~M dd rooo ,....:,....: r...:,....: .....:<ó <Dr-) NO ai.q: N~ eO "'''' "'''' øø "'''' ø'" ø'" ø", ",r- r-r- r-r- ....r- r-.... r-r- r-r- "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ "'''' "'''' =~ NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN e 0.. fI c UI IU- iñ~ .c " UI " 'õ c en c 0 c I~ e ! ~ IU C 0 .. c I~ .. "" g õi EO c :J .. 'õ e I-'E õ E '6 ,~ .!J I~ ~ ~ w 0 ~ I~ c £ UI 0 en c "0 E 0 õ c ü: .. '" " :! " ... Q) t5 r! 0 > '" 0 c ã'i ,g¡ 15 ,g iij c 0 ~ 0.. > .. Q) ... E 0 ~ Q) 0 Q) " .!J e 1i5 ... ;; E ~ .. E c ;;: '" e:¡ e [1. Q) a> Q) fI a> UI a> 0 .~ e Q) '8 a> ~ W E I§. e 0 I~ õ E a> !E ~ '" 0 -' UI e:¡ " e " cc î:: ... .. c a> 0 '" ~ 13 '" IU 0 a> IU -' 'E I- :; .!!! en " õ ,g I~ ~ IU I:~ iij e " a> Iz: 12 '" E ,~ ~ N a> c '" ~ UI E I£¡ Ii ';;; .c E Q) a ~ e '5 IU 0:: I~ IU e ~ e " E '" 1i5 e :J 0:: ¡j ,:: e e fI ~ e I,~ 0 e e en t5 w Q) I! w Q) I~ e ... " [1. ,2 :J a> ,2 t5 " 0 0 0 'E ~ '" a e g¡~ a> Q) 0:: '" I- " ~ ,g 0 lh I~ en -' a> ~ ~ ïii Q) e « a> ~ ,~I~ e ;; e Q) [1. B ãí LË\ '6 '" 0 e Q) Q) > IU a> 0 '" a "5 0 ,g a> 0 ii ,~ I~ Q) a> e " ~ I~ 0 iij > :¡ij ¡¡¡ " §~ E ü: 0 en :; '2 1õ Q) E ~ õ iñõ w :is î:: 0 en en 'g -en '" ~~ W 0:: è: o a> '6 ~ e E 0 =ê~ ~Ig a> ï:: e W "5 a> " " ... I'~ 0:: !" e IU t5~ " ~ x " :2 " I"ª " e 0:: " :ë e 0 E a> 'E ~ ~ ~ " t:: e ~ E IU W e 0 e g .c '§I~ a> Q) e I~ E IU E ¡;¡ õ e e e LLe 0 0 en IU 0:: 'E a> " IU E r! IU ,g a> e ~~ :J_ e ,_ 01:1 0 E '" t5:! IU w g ~ Q) fie:¡ ,g¡ IU 0 [1. 00.. t5 [1. C3 .!J- õ: IU E ¡j a> " Q) 0 Ig '" « 19 E I- õ .~ a>~ ~~ Q) fI " oe:¡ L~ en e r! 0:: ;¡ ï:: Een IU e 'E IU ... E e ~ Ie .E 0 0 IU '" e £ (,!!l- eo aen ~ I- 0 I- Q) Q) 0 ,g g 0 ~Ig e ... ~ 'E "C .2 01:1 Q) [1. a> '" ~ 0 I~ I~ 5 a> g 0 .9! g " 1! a> ,20 ,2 ~ " E e ~ .c it;; E I~ î:: L~ 0 IU a> [1. a> '" 5 E ~'E e '" 0:: B~ :ë e a> e (3 lh ... e &1Ï¡j ~~ IU e o .2 .c e 0 -ê"E ~ ë E eõ Q) 0 0 N e :J Ii £ ¡j 0 I; '" [1. I- 0 Q) Q) :J Om Q) " E 0 e " e ~ 2 0 ãí a> o a> ~ .c 0 e e IU (3 " 8 iij :; ~I~ w Q¡ wð a> [1. fI ,,0 ~ :; a> ~ Iii I! IU ,- :; I§ 'E Q) '§ ; ~ E '§ ~ en '" o .~ 0:: Q) Q) e ~ £: e Q) ... e Q) a ãí -c .~ > '¡¡ a> IS£¡ I,~ a> ~~ '" ~~ I~ a> E 'õ Q) 8 a> " _ e e Q) a> a> e e '6 E ~ Q) enð E 0:: " e a> " 0 ~ e '" 0 0 I~ 0:: 'C: 0 > e IU IU 0 0 I~ Q) IU E 0 e IU Q) 0 IU e Õ e 0 W I~ :ë 0 IU e e E 00 £ UI E UI t~ e 0 IU ... Eõ .c IU IU ;:: '" e:¡ 0 ii UI '" 0 E :;:::; c: ,~ a> " .c ë5j0 :; a> 0 Q) ø I~ LL a> ~ Q) E 'EU ii a> fI a> en Q) º 0 ~ 0::- " " ~-g IU IU EW Q) 0 E .. " I~ e I~ ,_ 0 ,~ a> I~ w g e:¡ ~ <;0 ï:: 0:: 0:: C3 e:¡ ~Iß E_ :s e 0 £: e E a> Q) I~ .c õ 0 'õ m E e 0:: W E E ~ w õ e ~ ~ õ I§ :is .. z: l¡j 'õ Eë 'õ 0 ¡j e 0:; .¡j .s o e :; 8 en I o IU 0 W e e a> " oa> IU ,2 Ig .. 00 0 £E 0 .2 g 0 Iª £¡ 0 IU 0 0 î:: w IU 00 .. :; .. e 0... m ~ « a> [1. ... "5 "5 I~ E U '" ~~ a> t:: e ~[1. .c ü: .!JIª :g 0 Q) Q) LL .!J üiij e e ~ 0 e " e õi LL e Q) LL Q) ~ .. a>,ª ~ I~ Q)O .c '5 ïii " " 0 ,!!! I~ õi Q) m IU e 18 " I~ I~ m .~ I~ 8ãí e ¿gg en'" 5 ~ '" Q)'" e ~ "5 Iª Q)- ï:: æ «0 I- I~ 0 .c 0 e ~ € m "5 E w 'Ú ~ æ ~ .. 0 õi :is Q) - Q) .. 0 g I:; a1i5 Oõ ,5; :; c; IU ü: ~ .c.c ~ ~ ",en 'Ú ~ ;; ~ ." UI I- I'§ ...e:¡ 0 e ~~ '¡¡ -ê:õ -êen E .c Q) ï:: > o~ Q) 0 IU t::Þ 'E e Q) Q) Q) ... ,,'" a> 0 æ a> 'E .Q IU :2 " e E 0 IU Q) ~ E ¡; E .. I! E Iì e E Eg - Q) :2 € E e .š:æ E 'ãj .c Q) ~ .~ 0 <5 0 0 0... ~ Oa> Q) " > .= o Q) 0 a> IU Q) (5 a>.c 0 0 Q) Q) 0 :sèë 1i5ð o 0 " ;; o .= 0 e 0 :;ü: :; m wz I- W 0 W WLL W 0 [1.0:: 0 W I I- W I m ü: W 0:: wen 0:: en « W W en 0 enI W en en [1.:; I LL [1.« ... ...... "'.... ........ ........ ........ "'.... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ "'''' ........ ....N ....'" ....'" N.... ....'" "'''' ........ ........ N'" ........ "'''' "'.... ........ ...."'.... 0 1!2 e W õi 'E Q) E In e W 'E e It _õ Q) ';;; l¡j ci 0 E E 0 8 e õi 0 8 0 III ~ E W I~ .c 0 en .. 01:1 .. " ~ IS ui '1: 'C r! e '1: 'õ ~ ~ IU c: IU IU e Õ a> e fI Q) ';;; « 0 u :; Q) " c: ë '" :J .. en <3 e E en 0 « Q) 0 I~ 1: e Q) ü: E Q) 0 (3 iñ Z IU "§ III "5 Q) E I~ e "5 IS 0 a> Q) õ E '§ iñ 'Ô ü: I Ig 'É 'E i ~ ~ 0:: 0 en '6 I~ Q) a> e õ .¡; Q) Q) Iz :; :J e 0 Q) I§ Q) I~ IU 0 ~ a> '" * Q) ë: Q) õ E a 0 <>ð I~ "CJ 0 E w CC .c .¡; ~ a> IU IU e Q) £; l~ u I~ e Z t '" ~w 0:: IU ~ IU Q) 0 9 e IU 'E a :J 1i5 0 IU t l~ Q) -' a> 0:: 0 IU ~ Q) 0 ii5 e '" Q) õ: ~ Q) <3 0:: 0" 0.. E ¡¡:: 0 0 l;i 'Ë I~ '" e en fI a> õ '" a> 0 0 Q) ene õ e Q) W 8 ... I~ 0 E Q) Q) õ E « 0 ¡¡:: e õi Q) 0 a> 0 01:1 e fI o IU 0 a " 0 ¡¡¡ IU 0 t:: 0:: E õ ¡¡:: ~8 ~ 0 ¡¡:: " .- Q) 1:: " 0 õ õ Q) I~ ~ 0 e ~ t:: ,,: 0 e 0 0 e .c e ¡¡:: -g å ~ IU '" B ãí '" :¡; e 8 e t:: '" 0 iñ I~ is ,§ 11 '" Q) ." E 0 e e '1: 0 !i: Q) > 0 I~ "'" Q) " '" Q) '" E IU e a> ,,: õ E E e 'ë: õ I~ 0 õ ~ a> ü: e ~ ~ '" '" !i: E ii= Q) a> 'E ~ UI 0:: '" .. " ü: 0:: is Q) 0 ~ " 0 .. a> 8&e Q) 0 I~ 0:: t:: 0 0 ~ Q) It a¡> en I~ I~ ~ W 0 :J t:: a> m 15 E '" Q) IU 0 Õ ~ W 0:: [1. ¡¡¡ I~ I 0 > 0 !i: õ "It õi 01:1 ~ .c Iz: e 0 m 01:1 I~ 0 e iJ e en õ -0 i~ õi 0 E I~ W e Q) I a> Is! o a> .c 0 IU Õ m ~ .!J Q) I~ ¡¡ e ~ ü: Q) .c " .c .c " ~ e a> e e:¡ e ~ Õ e 0 Iz: £¡ I~ 00 e ~O I~ e z: .c " g ,- .c en Iz :g 0 en I~ 0 e I~ .c IU ~ .. I~ ü: e e 'E '" 0 2: en 0 0 ~ Q) L~ ü: " Q) :> 18 " 0 ~~ 0 " of I~ .. 0 ~ e 0 a> 5 IU I~ ü: " ü: z: ~ o '" EÜ: Is! 0 z: õ e 0 Ii e ~ 8~ " 0 e IU 8 0 02: ci e l~ a> iJ "" 11 0 e 0 I~ 0 " Q) LL [1. <3 e I- Õ «- -' <3 en IE 0 " of ~ 0 " 0 0 I~ " e 0 0 õi " e:¡ I ~'E °õ " ü: m e 0 E 0 ~ " " ~I~ a> 5 0 e ! 0 0 E ~I~ " 'E 0 ,'ª e Q) '" ü: 0 'E " IU 0 0 e iJl~ UI ~ 0 " .c " " ~ E .. 0 Ë of " I-e 0 0 Ë 'Ú 0 <3 I~ .c i " en Q) '[: ð 'ÚI£¡ 0 ~ 'Ë 0 Q) 'Ô " 'Ë Q) e 0 0 " e .c .c 0 0 0 '" 0 . " .!J Q) 0 0 :is " .c [1. 'C 1:5 0 CÕ r! IU ¿ ~ W IU IU a> e Q) 0 '" 0 .. IU " 0 e IU IU 0 '" 8' Q)O 0 'E IU 0 m .. r! IU IU .. 0 IU - :8 ü: æ 0 0 0 " 0 'C E ," .. .c IU mO .. Q) I! IU 0 ;;; ~ a> IU '" 'E 0:: :ö :¡; E 0 =0 e mo 'E :¡¡ a> " " IU " Q) " l~ -~ ~I~ :ö 0 Q) :¡; IU Q) iñ a> :¡; 9 en õ .õ Q).c ~ö .. '" .c I m E tð .. ¡¡ E E a> > ... IU Q)O m IU e 0 m 0 I~ e:¡ e m . 0 ~ ~ Q) .3 .. E e m '" Q) '¡¡¡ ,~ .. IU 0 Q) 5~ IU IU -' IU 0 I~ ~ ':6 I! Eæ E ~ Q) 'Ë '" 0 E ~ ~1l 0 e '" E [1. E IU 'E I,ª ~ .c 'E I~ "Q ë~ ~ :ê E E E e ~ e e .c ;; E [1. .c e " .. ~ ~ .. e " > 'E t:: '¡¡¡ "= 5 t:: a> " " iñ t:: t:: Q) e ¡¡¡ ãj Q) õi ¡¡¡ õi IU IU ~ ~ I!! IU UI 0 '" " IU (ijõ IU 0 0 õi 0 Q) > IU õi .. .. I! E 0 '" :¡ijl! -æ.a 0 0 IU 0 IU m 0 ¡¡¡ 0 > IU 0 æ '" rom IU > õ: " :,;:: èë e <ë :¡¡ e:¡ I [1. [1. [1. m en ., W z e:¡ I WO I ü: 0[1. Z [1. LL I ::; m [1. m I 0 « 0 -,0 [1. en 0 0 W Z en I Z « m en W :; [1.LL -,0 CC ~~ « ~'" "'N ~ '" r-.... "'''' ~~ ~N '" ~ "'''' N'" "'0 "'''' N'" NN ~¡g "'''' ",r- "'''' ........ "'''' ~.... "'.... "'0 N ~ N'" ~ r- aN ",r- ....ON 0.. 00 "'''' "'''' ~.... NN "'''' 0.... ~~ N~ "'''' "'''' ØO "'~ "'''' "'''' N'" ~~ ~'" ~'" r-N "'.... NN '" N ON ø.... NO ~....r- E~ ~O o~ o~ o~ 00 NO o~ ON ~N NO ~O 00 ~ 0 ~O O~ O~ ~ 0 00 ~ 0 ~OO :::¡¡ ,,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W Z N~~~~~~~re~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m~~~~~~~~~m~~~~~~~~~~g ------------------------------------------------------------ N ~ ~ o ..J ~ W Z W C> 0 .., 0 '" .... .. ~ " ~-a a.:; ë3 ~ ..« ~ " 00 NM <DO §!ª g~ 00 "'0 ~O ~g ON "'0 0'" 000 - ., 00 <D'" <DO NO ....0 "0 O~ ....0 OM 000 c:_ 00 om ~ N 0'" <DM ~O ~O OM 00 0'" MOO ::t UI 06 ....:~ r-:,.: "':Ñ do g;i aio "":0 ~I.Ô ò"": mo ciN' ligg o ., 00 ...... ........ ..'" OM <D'" <DO .....'" "'.. 0" ~~ E § MM ...~ N ~N M~ ...~ ~... ~M ...... ...... N'" ...~M 0(., ...... ... ... ...... ...... ... ... ...... ... ...... 0:: ~ "'''' 0..... .....0 "'0 0'" 0'" 0'" ",0 "'0 0'" 00 M'" "''''''' .....0 m'" mo ~O 0..... "'N MN m'" ..'" 0..... .....0 ~<D ..........N c: ., men r--:...r om moo cO"": r--:tÒ LOLri me» <Cui tri"-: .....:.....: cOr....: ~;;;~ "ë (; NN NN N ~ NÑ NÑ ÑN NN 00 00 00 ~?2 "'''' .- " NN NN NN NN NN N N ãitJ) !t UI ., UI ::t 0 I œ :e ë ., UI Ig " ., ., ,ñ E ::t :6 '" E UI l'! 0:: UI '" '" ~ ~ õ ~ ¡¡j ~ E C> '" ~ '" > I", ~ $ " 8 ~ c: i.~ c: e õ ~ g '" I'~ '" ¡:: '" a:: UI " tJ) £; ë e .g '" - 'õ oð " LL '" UI 0 a. '" " c: Ula:: UI UI e..> UI .~ ::t c: ë ~ ~ c: oð '" '0 UI 0 UI ~ e UI '" UI E 0 UI UI UI .5 c: ~ c: ., a. '" '" ~ UI ~ 0( c: 0 '0 "" I- !!! ::t ui ~ 5 UI 2 ~ '" ., I~ 0 ::t ~ ::t ~ '" c: "" "'ffi UI '0 tJ) t: e ~ '" '" ~ "" e..> .r: '" ë I~ c: 'ë W ~ '" ., UI a. ~ 1 en E ,ñ ::t ; 1; ~ .r: I- UI ~ '" '" ::t E a. en 1ñ '" tli " c: 0 g ,ª 0 m c: " I~ 0 E I~ 'ë oð c: ~ E a I~ E ~ '" '0 0 -m.:!! ::t UI ,~ 'ë I.~ c: J:! t$ UI 0 c: ~ ~ e..> '" ::;: c: '" UI ., 'C: t' g 11; '" 0 2 0( W E UlI- ãí ~~ en E E g '" B_ UI > 'E '" c: 'ë c: W Õ'CI I~ x '0 '" W '" W ::t Õ § 'ë enl~ g æ ë '" c: '" c: '0 ,- c: '" cJ¡,~ I- '0 I- '" I '¡¡j '" c: a c: '" S ~ g c: e I~ " ti ~ ä: (3'" 0( c::! ::t E E E Õ a '" T;i $ UI '" '" E UI !'! 0 c: UI E '" ::;: UI ~ E E ãí o ::t E UI e..> ~Q) ~ ~ ~ 0 E UI a:: c: J:!W '" "''0 en 0'" c: "'en e..> ::t '" W 0 ~ Œ t'o( .E e..> ~ '" UI a. g UI ",oð .r: '" oe..> g '" '" õ 0 œ J:! T;i c: ' I:; ::t ~ ~o( c: œ ::t 'OJ:! " "'0 "'- E § ::t 0( UI ¡: I~ ~I~ en UI ~W 2: ::t W UI UI '" ~Ig ¡jjw ~¡g W '0 UI ~ en t '0 UI ~ ~ '" '0 c: 0 Õ '" (3 ë::;: '" ::t 2õ 'E ::t 51'" ""m '0 '" 0 c: ::;: 0 E< ¡¡; '" 0 ~~ "'_ en 0 '" ë ::;: ~ ,!'J :õe..> 11; c: c: "" '" 0 I e..> '" Õ ãí õ ~Ig æ1; 0 .r: .3~ "ë Õ ~ 0 '0 '" UI c: m '0 € Õ i~ UI ª UI ::t c: ~ _'0 2 t¡; ",0 -g~ I~ ~ü LLUI 0 '0 c: 0 e ':; c: '" ãí '" c: I~ c: '" ~~ or> 0= '" 13 'E :š g~ .f:Ë; õ;~ ::t t' \;; "'''' ]gs 0 C> 0 c: 0 '" C> .,!. ~ ., I:§ e ãi ãi '" '" ~ 1ñ '" E ~ UI "E -¡I c: 0 c: UI :eè > '" ãi :;j j ~ '" UI ~ E 0'" '" ãí '" .r: ~ Ei 0 >= E > e E '" ::t c: e '" w e..>a. üÜ: z a:: 0 I- 0 I e..> c:::;: LLW W a.w ::;: IO LLen .,; MM MM "'N ..'<t '<t'<t ~'<t M" NM NM ~M ~M ~M M'<t M'<t (.) s!> c: w ¡¡¡ ë '" en E c: w e 0:: 'S; 0 ë c: (.) '" w $ II) E oð ~ t ~ t 'S; ~ c: - ¡g, ~ '" It i:3 '2: '" (.) 0( c: 5! '2: .r: '" '" '" e..> I~ z " 0 õ '" '" ë 'õ '" c: en .r: '" .r: i ~ '" ~ '" c: ~ ..... ~ ~ (.) ::t '" (.) ::::; E E 8õ c: c: 11 '" " ::t '" W 0( '2: t '" '6 ~ c: t 0 W '" 0:: .~ D '" I~ I~ g~ e..> ~ .:;: a. '" 1ñ 1.2i ::;: õ 0( !'! '" !'! .~ is '" ¡¡¡ I;; '" "E õ 'E Õ ¡¡¡ 0 "" ¡; lei 0 ð , l'! 1'9 E ¡¡:: c:_ '" en ,,ª 1:: " Õ .r: '" c: '" W .r: 0 '" 0 ~ ª 8 "" > ~ 0 '" "" ~~ ~ '" UI '" e..> Õ '" ~ e..> Õ'§ '" 'ë '" m '" Ii:: I~ e..>::> ü: I ~en ü: 0:: '55 ~ ,?;~ '" UI ~ ui UI e..>- tD::;: I'" '" ë c: õ e..> E m'" ui UI '" .r: '~ 'É UI i~ UI ~~ ~ e..> .r: W e..>, c: ~ ,§ ~ e 0 c: I~ 0 ë e õ en tjÜ:. ::t t51~ e..> ::t '" ::t (j e..> I~ 151 m ~ oð 0 'Ë ~ 0 0::0 "" I~ '" ~~ .3 i~ ,~ m .§ e..> C:ãí e..>ë '" '0 e..> c: Õ ",e..> '0 e..> e..> '0 e..>e..> '" c: 6 E i:3 0 m::t LL '" ::t ::t I~ '" õ '" UI c: ::t '" 0:: '" 0 'CI~ a:: £ "" a:: ¿-c ::t 0 Õ mãí '0 e..> '" .0 0 '0 "§ .~ e..> c: 'é ü: 0 e..> 'CI'ã '" c:ë oe..> oð ,~ e..> '" e..> e..> c: t ~ c: t '" ~ a. ~ of ~~ c: e..> 18 ~ UI 9 ",- e..>", c: E 0 .!!! I?: ü:a:: t' l'! I'! '" .!!! £ 8 I~ 'Ë '0 '" ~ e ~ '" ,,L :; " .r:C: ":Ii ~ '" '¡: ~~ " ã; "" c: UI'CI :2 I;; c: E ~ c: "5 .~ ~ > '" g :ë '" UI e '" c: '" "C'c == 6 :ë E :; '" ':; ~ '" 'ë E '" '" '" '" e :¡ '" 0 8::;: :¡ 0'0 .5 '" 0 e..> I a. 0 Z 01- C>ü: e..> 0( a. 0 enC: ::;: ::> 0( ..JI 0( .8~ 0( <Dm <D ~ 00 M'" ",m mm NM Nm "'..... ..~ "'..... <D~ <DO D.. ",m ;!g <DN 00 ~~ g~ mo OM ON N'" ....... ~~ .....0 E~ 00 O~ 00 N~ ~O O~ O~ ::IE ::t~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ w Z .. g N <D ..... oi M ... " c: æ.E ~~ ~ 0 ~ct gê: ~ð iñ QJ UI > <.. -gl '" E :8 c:_ 1!! '0 c: -~~ ~[& «eN ~D.. ¡¡ "2 c: :& ê~~ E '" c: 8 ~~ :2õšË .2 1: ~~ ~ Ë ¡ g ~ ¡ ~~ J!g.EO tJ)OW~ _NM~~~~mmO-NM~~~~mmO-N~~~~~ m~=m=m=m=mmmmmmmmmmooooOooo ___________________NNNNNNNN ; STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS "Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home· IEB BUSH Governor STEVEN M. SEIBERT Secretary April 15, 2002 ~A1111 ¡ 1/ ~cIÎ~o'~A'/A;D;M~:1!:JE~ Mr. Jody Rosier Bonet ,) Grants Writer v l St. Lucie County Board of County ./L..W A. Commissioners ~ '1t1 1/ , 2300 Virginia Avenue Ij' ííßflj/->I/') Fort Pierce, Florida 34982-5652 /' YJ /) ~ ¡Y1 Re: Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Cobtpetitiye Grant Program - Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Application Scoring and Ranking Application(s) #1-077-4-03,1-078-4-03 and 1-079-4-03 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Dear Mr. Bonet: The Department of Community Affairs has completed its review of the applications submitted under the FY 2002-2003 funding offering in the Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Tmst Fund (EMPATF) Competitive Grant Program. A total of282 applications requesting $37,922,005 in funding under the Competitive and Municipal Programs were received. A total of274 applications requesting $36,477,526 were determined eligible and were scored and ranked in accordance with the criteria stipulated in Rule Chapter 9G-19, Florida Administrative Code, and in the Application Packet, May 2000 version, Form Number 006. Your organization's preliminary position in the ranking and recommended funding is indicated on the enclosed Grant Application Preliminary ScorelRanking Sheet, These preliminary scores, application rankings and recommended funding levels, are subject to appeal and may change if appeals are filed and are successful. At this time, [mal awards cannot be made until any appeals have been resolved. Even if your application is currently ranked in the funded range, other applicant appeals may affect your ranking and ftmding level. The enclosed Notice of Administrative Proceeding Rights is provided to inform you of the appeal process. 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD · TAllAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100 Phone: 850.488,8466/Suncom 278.8466 FAX: 850.921.0781/Suncom 291.0781 Internet address: http://www.dca.state.fl.us CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE 2796 Overseas Highway. Suite 212 Marathon, Fl 33050-2227 (305) 289-2402 COMMUNITY PLANNING 2355 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Fl32399·2100 (830) 488-2336 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Fl32399-2100 (850) 413-9969 HOUSING & COM\lU!'o1TY DEVelOPMENT 2555 Shumard Q--.k ¡;oul",~rd Tallahassee, Fl 323?9-21GO (850) 488-7956 ;:; Applicant April 15, 2002 Page Two After the appeal process and verification of eligibility, applicants will receive notification of final scores and award amounts being offered. This is anticipated to take place in early May 2002. Applicants who receive a funding offer will have 21 days to accept or reject the Department's offer. Upon the applicant's acceptance of the Department's funding offer. a contractual agreement will be developed and forwarded for execution by the recipient's chief elected official or designee. Upon final execution of the contractual agreement by the Department, expenses under the contract may be incurred and are retroactive to the July 1, 2002 contract start date. Prior to the acceptance of the Departmenfs funding offer, the applicant should realistically determine if the ,project's completion time frame is within the required 12-month period of the contract. If you intend to accept the funding offer, we highly recommend that you immediately take action to move ahead on the proposed project by planning for requirements that may cause delays, such as: budgeting, local governing actions, permitting, reviews, approvals, bid advertisements, site or building preparations. These are areas that need to be completed immediately to ensure that the contract is completed within the 12-month contract time frame. Please be aware that no cost incurred PRIOR TO THE JULY 1,2002 CONTRACT DATE will be reimbursed under this award. We appreciate your interest and participation in the EÌ\IPA TF grant funding cycle. As noted above, the demand for EMPA funds is far greater than the funding available to award. We commend your initiative and look forward to your continued participation in the program. We will keep you on our mailing list for future notices of funding availability under the EMP A Program. If you have questions regarding the scoring, ranking and funding levels, please contact Ms. Paula Churchwell at (850) 413-9942, Ms. Eva Thorpe at (850) 413-9939, or Ms. Dianne Smith at (850) 413-9966. Any questions pertaining to the appeal process. should be directed to Mr. Alfred Bragg, Assistant General Counsel, at (850) 488-0410. Sincerely, ~-&o~ \;0C1Y)S~ Deborah Wonsch, Planning Manager Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund Program DW/vj Enclosures cc: Alfred Bragg Revised: February 7,2001 NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE RIGHTS You have the opportunity for an administratiye proceeding pursuant to Ch.120.569, Florida Statutes. If you do not dispute issues of material fact raised by the Department determination, then the administrative proceeding \vi11 be informal, conducted pursuant to Ch.120.57(2), Florida Statutes. In an informal administrative proceeding, you will have the opportunity to be represented by counsel, to present to the Department written or oral evidence in opposition to the Department's action or to present a \'',Titten statement challenging the legal grounds upon which the Department justifies its actions. Mediation is not available with respect to this decision. If you dispute any issues of material fact stated in this decision, you may request a formal administrative hearing before an administrative law judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Ch.120.57(1), Florida Statutes. At a formal administrative hearing, you may be represented by counsel of your choosing, and you will have the opportunity to present evidence and argument on all the issues involved, to conduct cross-examination and submit rebuttal evidence, to submit proposed findings of fact and orders, and to file exceptions to any recommended order. If you desire either an informal proceeding or a formal hearing, you must file with the Agency Clerk of the Department of Community Affairs a written response or pleading entitled, "Petition for Administrative Proceedings" with 21 calendar days of receipt of this letter. The petition must be in the form required by Rules 28-106.104, 28-106.301, Florida Administrative Code. A petition is filed when it is received by Paula Ford, Agency Clerk, in the Department's Office of General Counsel, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100. The petition must include the signature of someone authorized to act on your behalf A petition must specifically request an administrative proceeding, it must admit or deny each material fact contained in this decision, and it must state any defenses upon which you rely. If you lack knowledge of a particular allegation of fact, you must so state and that statement will operate as a denial. You waive the right to an administrative proceeding if you do not file a Petition for Administrative Proceeding with the Agency Clerk within 21 days of receipt of this letter. Any petition must specify in detail the basis for review. Unless the petition clearly describes disputed issues of material fact, the proceeding will be conducted pursuant to Ch.120.57(2), Florida Statutes. and applicable rules. To the extent that the Department accepts the facts represented in the application, but denies funding based on the interpretation of law or rules, an informal proceeding is appropriate. N ~ ~ .J < IX W Z W c¡ " c æE ø ~(/) ~ew ala.a: ~ë8 ~ð~ õi~a: ~E:2 'g i:¡¡ :g¡¡j ~ug: c_ .,";1:: .!:: I!! E 2 ~ ~&~ <!caa: .è:'a. c c ëë~~ ~~~.3 E .. c ., o ~cuC) c U __0 ~-;~ -o:eEfi ,g ë ~~ ~ ~Ëãg< o 1:: C)N-< .! [~SQ. Æ~.fi¡::¡~ ~gg~~~~~~~b~~~~~~~~~gg~;~mm,~ q 0 <.0 0 0 U'l q q q <o;f. <'1. ,.... ,.... v~ Mþ U') ~ Lf!. Ul C\l 0 q to to ,.... C\!.. ,....,- ~æ~~~~~~§~8~~~~ß~!~~~m~~~~~ MMMMN~NÑNÑN~~~~~~~M~~~MMMM ~~~~M~MMMMMMMMMMM ~ oo~~oo~otOmooooomU')~o~~m~U')U')8~ ~~8~~õ~~õ8ffi~mgg~g~~õgæõ~õ~;U')~ ~;2a~8~~~gÑ~~~~~U')~~8~~~~M~~~m ;<N ~M-NNM~MNNMM~__MM~M_~_MMM 5 ~ ~MMMM MM MMM M M _~8~~Q~g8Q8~gQ8g8~~Q8~o8~o8~~8~o88°8Qo8~QQQgQQ~~Qo8g~~g~8Q8~~~o808Q8~88808 c:_~M<.OOIl1.VOOq""'LOÕMOtOOCX)ÕM(\,._ ,....~U')N 0 Õ O'!.i:r)CSÕ«tÕÕU')'i')Õ r.oOC\lU1'P""OÕO,....c.ca> õOC')IJ')01fJ ~..omm8~~mo8~m~mm~M~8mmNmM~om~~oo88mm8°~~~o~8~m~Nm~oomm~Nm880N~~~8 o~~~- ooco_U') U')m_m~~Mm ,....U')-,....~~C\I_ø~(Qo Nm U')U')(Q~tO_ NLt)c.c~mmM~_~(Q,....m 0l~~""'~ ~g~ ~~~~~W~W~~MM ~~~W~M~ ~MW~ ~~~~W~~~MW~~~~M~M ~0W~W ~I~I~~~I~ M ~ a: ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~q~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~C~~~~NM~~Nm~~~M~~~M~~~øMomø~MNN~~~~om~~~~NNO~~~M~~m~~~~mm~MNommm .-~~N~~~~m~:MMMMMNNNNNNoooommmmmmmmmmm~~~~~~mm~~~~~~ID~~ø~~~~~~~~~~ ~~MMM~VVV V~~~~VV~VVV~VVVMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM I!! 0.. I~ I~ E '" u '" " '5 ~ ~ ~ ø £ ~ ~ ~ .! <D ~ ~ ]§ JJ'Ë cE ~ iIi ~ ,g ~ g ä: C:c: ~ ~ ~ 5 :k E .2 .2 rJ ~ c: § .g ~ m ~ñi ~ U U:Q .¡¡ ~ 'Ü ~ w .:2 I- -5 15 ~ IV .~ tit i:i: E CD W ... 2 ~ - u en" E ~ '0 ~ ~" en '" 5'" v, - :;:: '" Fß E ~ w.. ,g è:" 0.. CD., :; <S 5; I!? ~ ~ ~ ü æ ~ I)! ¡z 9 E -5 ;; E ~ ¡i! aJ e 'E 1; ~ ~ '" 8 :š š -å () I- 1(;) 10... ~.E Q)E .5: ~ ~:g en ~.s ~ :f u ~ ë en _ ë .c: ...f,/)'ti - Q)-Q) E -c c:~ 1-1- "52~ en Q)ID Q) "Cu ".,., CI) o..ê~ E a:..E,,~~~ I!?~ .~ ~~ 0" æ~ Æ £;;s a:u u ~.. s: ¡ I~ ~ ê £ ~ ~ ~ ð 1š § ~ '; Ë g ¡¡¡ ~ c ~ 2 E ~ ~ 0 £ a;-8 ~ 15 ¥ ~ ,~ 15 U : £ ê ~ !'ê I~ B Ilo~ E ~O"~::i~.,..è:ê~::Eo..~EE E"~a:I~ !., .,ffi ~ u~li~6 E ~ a:u U~ 0.. Ilene I" - Q) O· 0 en § CI) c E;;; ~.5 0 Q) v, ~., '" 1; 0 ~ Q) :> S' E 0 E 0 c 0 Q) .. £~u i siili8§;§II~~j,11 ~~II~ ~I ~I -g 11~~IJJ~i~u j~ !ii~i I -gIll 'E '" '" ? -" ~ c: (? ~I ~ a: '" 0;> 2'.~151.~ ~ '" 0 g ~ ~ ¡¡¡ CI) '" ~ := .2 ;; e 0.9 .... 1]1 u 1! CI) -ª CI) '" 0 iii ~~·o~g~~I~~c,2~~~~C:~~~~w ~E~I~ S=~Eg § ~i¡~E~~~~~ en) cnë~g~ ~_§~,g ~U~EQ)~~gEli!E~~JJ£I~::Eli~ ~g~;;~¡¡¡~E~~ i ~æ~~~~~~šo.. I~E iii~JaJ~ ~~i~u ~~~ð;~~II~~I~~;~815~8!1~1JI~I~II~:ð~~ ~ ~1~¡,g~I-g~! JI~ II~(/)ª~ lil~~S~g :~ Q Q) ê ë (I) ~ Q) e æ - ~,~ ,Eg E 0 B;g 10... - ë: ~ 0 ·-I~ ID æ u ~ _ .E 0 B.c: ii ~ '- :g 10... cu ~ $I t!! '2, ~ ~ ..c::;; ~ ã 5 10... ·ül.~ « ~ u LU ~E~g:~e.fig~-g~~lg~~~~::~£~u"'i§~gE;;EgQ)s~8 ;;~SI!?~a:,g'~$~~~I~~~I~~i(/)~U~~wwE~g£ ",W",,,,~,,I- "'~"'šo-o~a:~Q)w £ oE:>enE '" -0- E"I~a.~~~I~en::E~.EII~c.§~c:"" = Q) '" ~S¡~~~j~,.;II~CI)~li::~;;il¡;;~01§~§~!8§ljllll~~~~IB~I~~1~1~!~I~I~~E!~£~D§I,I~a:Q)8Æ -,~O-~-~IÕ'vc N~U::E~O'?-g cOEuo·~UO~Oca:~ en c~°a.'~0",~",12 E~"'c> CI)~",'" w- ~ -5 ~ ~ ¡¡¡ ~'~~I? ðï~~ ~ ¡¡:ß ~ iû:: Elg ~ 8a: E!" UÆ-t:~I? 0 è: ..I;; ~ 1"gU:I~I? ðJ';I'f; ~:¡ !1J8'~ 8 E.fi ~ ë:;,'~ ~ -,; u a: a:~l;; ~ :r: c <.J <.J E Q) E¡ ~ CJ UJ.... 0 _ :J g ~ c: :31 ~ a.. .~ 01 g "C ~ 0 '- g -é CD "'I ~ CC ::: 9:? UJ ~I Š ul ~ ,~ c J: en co·õ 0 _ ë ,2 g w ~ g õ -æ . CD g ._ 8 ~ ~ ~ 8 CI) 2J 01 ª en ~ ! ¡g -g ~ ..;> ~ 8 ~ I!! ~ "g ~ ~ 8, ~ :: ~, g¡ ~ ~ ~18 d1à; ~ E ~ 't;, ~ ~ ~ I!! 8 u: tj > ~ ¡gL~ iû ~ _ ü ~ ;¡:.2 q ~I ~ ~ I ~~cc:§x!~~oQ)O~ñilo...~_~-cc~c~-~~I~.gEI~mU~~~£~~w,-Q)I~~ ~UJ-~c=o.-alo...~en"'oi«~'-o §§~~'I~~~~I~E~II~~~03~~~~~!~~~~~~1¡8~~I~&~~§~I~fi~J!~~1111~~~~~~~~~~lj NNWWW~OZWaJ oa:;>o..wzW~~>aJ~.WWUo..UWo..I~WCI)<;>ZOWOWOI;>.;>o..CI).a: WWCI),wa:l-a:o..wu =~NM~~~V~~~V~VV~VV~V~~~~~~VV~V~~V~~V~..~~VV~~~~~~~VVV.~~~vvvvvv~ () ~ o ~ .. Z (; ~ ! ~ ~ c , ~ E ï: Q) _ . oS .. "'.- UI ê U ¡¡¡ E:ß c .. E E 'C 1 "'0 E '1: 8 E E 10... 0 ~ Q)"C -- Q) 1ñ c: o ïii Q) E < ,!{J .. E .- .. I ~ 8 ~ ,!I! ~ 91-ê 0 ~ Q) 0 'õ '" ~ 0 E 9c~:> ala '" ~ (/) ~ ~ :> 'õ E Ii! 0 c 0 ¡:¡., c U c ~ EE::E ë ~ ,- c: 8 = :;:: '" U ., ~ ::E '" ::E ::E ~ ,- 0 'I: .... I;; ¡:¡ I~OEg I;'ï~ a:g~!!fI) £,5 W ~W W a: g :!i2 '" EE g 'is., iii a ~ Q) u If::> iij .~ g Æ 8 oð ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ oð g is ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ * 15 '~ "ª ~I,š 8 8 ~ ~ 'Ë ~ ~ ¡~ ë ~..2i ~ .2i ~ ,2i g ë ~ I c ~ ¡g ~ ~ 1 ~ 8 ~'Ë~I~§ õl.~E :¡~;;8ðJ g~~O;;O E 0-: ~ 'ë Q) 1~..Ij ~::E JJ ~ ~ . ~ E .. '" ,-.. I.. E ==! " U (/)... E Q) 0 .. U U c: 0 :=.. - ;;;;. 0 ~ CO~C~ ~§~ ~æ~olgo ~m_~'~ ~~ ~ ,~g eo~ ~ ~ '~8~ ~g~~ ~ cD ~~..:~~ ~£I!!1 S~o ~U ==iÌ:~05 00 0 5.'2 ~U~ ., "'.. ,t Q)~-=~,~ - ~OQ)U aJ I~ I'º Q)Š~aJ 0 "en Q)., ;; _~., _-gaJ~ ~ ~ CI)-U uu~~uo c _ gUJJ1~IJ ~~0~~~~8~i ~I~~~::E~~ ~ :~~~¡",i£gg¡~ sg~~£_~~~~£~ ~~8 ~I~ §~óÆ~~a:-gllu:l~u-=~~~Q)E~§8¡1~!~1!~I~1! ~,~ð(?1!lb~8:>11'~~~~ ~~~¡m~~~~~~g~8Eð~ I~B -~u~:>~"'~u"~ EE §uaJ~w;>§CI)~~CI)_UI~ Cl)E ~ 1~~~U-~~~(/)aJ~:>:>c§mu~ I~--U !~1~~~Æ~~li~.lgi88!8~ls~~8~8§~8i~~~££~~Jj~~8~~~1~88ðl~:~~~~88~~(?'~~ðl~I~~J ~~(;u~aiiien~"'lleu~~""aJuCI~!1J Q)~u s~~~u-;;oaJ~~s~" ~8~~:eaJ~~~~::;aJ~aJ£c_ en_ ~~ii.~~~~~I~~~€i~~BE~~E~tiã~~ã~~~~~§~g~~€~~~~Iª~~~~€§~3~~€§!~$~~I~~~ o§=~~<.J~~~~~ooc:eoen~~~~C:~Q)O~mm~m£Io...CD~m~~o,5:CDomm~Ooc:Oco_~o,-om~m~m-m'-- ~II~<~UIOI-::Eo..Z~aJU:oo..o:eo..~-<~::EaJ~~'l-o..O~UOaJo..zo..OU~~O::E>~Zo..CI)(/»aJZo..,o..O~::E~m~ ~ C 00 ~~ø~-~m-M~~MM-~M~~Moø~Nm~vNMm~m~ø~~mONM~~~mmm~m~~~m~MN~~mN '~~~N~~mø~MM~~O~~~w~~~~~m~-MNooO~~o~~~~mom8m~M~~M~M~~~M-m~~~-m~mo ~~ oOOO~O~OON_O ~~~~~~oO~~~~_O~N~~~~~~~_oo~~o_ oooO_O~~~~~OON Z _NM~~~~~m~~~~~~~~~~~Ñ~~~~~~~~~M~~~~~~~~~;~~:~~~~~g~~~~~m~~m$~~~ N 0 i 55 M 0 ~ "' .... 0 ... M '" '" -'0 .. ... a... Ü ~ I~< ..J <t c: w z w ~ '0 C ,¡ E - .. .. ... Þ ë'ffJ lOll-a: gë8 ~ð~ ~~~ 'O"';iË ¡ 8.:J :¡gUJ G>ug: c_ ",'Cät: .!:fEo ",,, G>!2 ~ ê~~ ~n. æ c ëë::i~ ~~~.9 E G> C .. o ~& c la°c~.2 :Eõ2E~ .2 ë ~~ g ~~¡g< ~ ¡ E'<:' < Eg.~g~ encUJ....UJ ,o~"'g~~88....~~....~"'~"'~~~~8"'N~...~M~~~"'~~~~~8g"'~~Ø~8~8~~N~O~"'O~8~8~~~~~Ø ë!Õ~CO;!~vt':~qqæ~~Õ~Õq~ÕM~;Õ~Õ~~O~MÕÕ~ÕõC\Jcoffi<oo~õ~t;~~õt;;q~o;g~,...tOõoõoõõõ~ :o..o....~~"'"'M~"'8Ø....Ø"'~o"'Ø8"'~..."'~8~~8o~"'o~~8Ø~...~8M8~~NMO....o"'8....o.......o"'880"'o_ O~o-~~WmO~N NN~COV~<O<O ~m~<oo com ~~COM~N ~~coco m mN<O<O~~O_ I~CON~~N ~CO~M E~M---~N--~MN- N*_~-M~N~~NM~NI~N_W~~N~NWNNMNMN~WWW_M~~I~W~~~NMMW__N <œ~~~~ ww~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ w ww ~I_WW w~w wwwwww ww _ ~ ~W a: ~ 8~88~8gg~g~~~g~~g8~gg~~~88~~~~~ææ~~~~~8~~8~æ~~t;;~~8~~g~~~88~88~~ £e~~~o~~~~~~ggggæææ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~gggg~~~g~gg~~ggggg EOM~M~MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMN~NNNNNNNNNNNN _u ";jen Il: I~ª I~ ~ E w C ~ ~ o U I~ (I) .~ as ~ Õ CD I~:g ~.s g", )( 'c ::. ~ ¡'¡ s ë I~ ~ ~ g'~ ~ ~ o .~ ~ Bë en CJ'J ~(J)g Il: ~ ëií ü '§ ~ ~ ~ g~?, -8 "C iñ ~ E.5j 'fJ ¡¡: ~ 51 ~ '~ ~ c., c: E:o '" '" IS .J2 ~ ~ ~ ü,g 13 ~ ê 81~ Ë I" Æ ~, 0:5 Cii ~ - J: .,fJ ",CD .!!! "G>" 5 I.!; r.Eë_E ~ (/) CD '0 ::J ~ ë .E .~ > 5 ':;: :a '- õ ~ >Q)::J CD 0 W . ~ '- a': 't:I Q) '- "ë cu .- C'tS :: CD en t- c E C 0 Ü f-: U2!5 I" w oð ü .!!!I,," c ~ iü .12 ój ë !!1 en ~ 0 E ,2 _ G> J: = 1:= u r. .. '" Il- .!!! e .2 ,,!: G> :'!:::. I g '" ., ü f? 'E... . I-:!: ;;: :ä '2 5 æ :!: ::. a. ,2 § .. ::. 'iii U., = G> C I E fJ > '" ., ... Il:~ g:> ~. ë~æ :g'fJ ä:'~~~::' Eg"E 1'1;' ~:Q ~:Q< JJ-èc3ãi"E:! ð I~ ~ !!,~ E § ~ ~ :¡ g¡ ~!~ ð æl~ ~ g g ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ B g ~~ õ ~I ~ ~ c3 § ,~~ É æ I ~I Š ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ l~ ~ ~ § ~ ~ ~ :~ §L~I~ £I~I ~ § ; OCD~~ ~~ ~~~., w""E ü - ~c-wg~i- ::....EE P~~_E E1;1- '¡E£...~:Oa.- e ~UQ» u~ ~ê~l~ œ mÕns Ez ~ ~æ,-C'tS~wë CI)~EE ~~~~æ mC- SEë~5g~B ,Igl-5ëg 51 ~w~,~ ë ~~O~E.!!!~ ; -5CDê.siæë~ ¡æ80 ..,.~ë .~æü"'881~en~~ IÕ ~~Q)E ~t ~CD~'- Q)e ~~ !~~õm E~ C'tS§.~ëwEQ) """_0 u ~~w~Q) ~ ~CDO -œ~w~ '~J~i~,j!~~j!J!¡ ~g i,~~~,¡§~j £J~i~~!i~:f'~~~I~IE~ji!1 ij~~¡~i~~lj,~! 1~~~ml~~~~!J~IG>11 ëiíij~~@~~lj.!!!~~~,g~~~~¡,gI~i~IJ~~~J~i~;JI~~~~~j~i! ~§I§~~~~¡~"E~~Jt~) li~~!t ~~~llil~~~I,~~æl,I~~~~~:~8~!I~¡~i~I~"E~I~,~;~ ~£~JJ!~£~I£~fi~~~ü~§ü~I~,g~~!~ti~g¡~~EElj8~~lilð5~~81!18E'o~~~~:!:iE~~~8~'~~EE~ 1; '" ? .2: ., 0 ~ CD ?; E G> UJ 0.. E LL I? B c;;: ~ ., ., - - a: 0.2: 01 ~ - -I ~ '" '" ~? a:1;:; '6 ., E '" r, E ? :> 0 ~ E 0 0 _ u CD Ig~~ill¡!~g8~~~ß~g@l~jl~~a~~:!:zl~~~§8~~~~§~~~8~NI~~18~~~8~8~.!!!8t£~:Cii8 ~ ~j ~~~I'~I¡~ ~~~~~~ ~g~I~~I~ ~~ª~~~r~'~ ~ ~1~1~IJ~I'~I~gJ ~!~~ ~~.~~ ~1~!~lil~ ~~ ~~i ª~~i~ oE .Ee~Øo.~Eo.~coZ~oo~~Eoeco~l~ø~~eo~~EI£~æE~~~E8cwoo~e~eE~~~ooue.coo ~ UJ ¡¡: w ¡¡: j ã: ü 0 W ~ 0 w ¡;¡: en w UJ ::. ::. w w ü I- ~ a. en en c: I- I- CD ü en (!) w ~ :r: < w w 0 a. w ~ w ü ü::' « a. L!JI« w a. en « ::. ü -= (!) ü ü ~ ð "t "'It -.:- "I:t 'II:t "I:t 'V "I:t 'II:t "I:t "'It [I') 'I:t ..... 'V ~ 'Ct 'V "It (I') 'V "Ct "I:t 'V 'V "'It 'V 'V 'V 'Ct "I:t "I:t "I:t 'V .qo "It ('I') "'It 'It "lit "I:t "I:t "lit "I:t v 'V 'It' "I:t 'V "It ~I 'I:f "'It "'It C') "'It "I:t "I:t C') "'It v "'It "'It ë .. u ~ < ~ . _ü ¡ - ,2: I Z .. E 'C E g¡ C ë CD '" iij '" ... .. :0 U __ § & g¡ 8 '~ ~~ ~ COÕ -6 .~o U) 13 .~G ~ .. :g,;;i::'f?~ - è:"E:§ § Sg¡ ~ e en oOw CD t'O LL. c8 c: 0 «let Š cu ¡'¡ ¡¡:-õ5~ f? z-8.2:~ ~ I~ g¡ Èoð ~ .Q.E .- ë;;~ .'ü)Cl. CD -~:=J: c: Ie .~ coõ ~ ~ en ~ Q)I,ª'~ U) r: üj 0 I § - 0 'ë ~ -.J ~ ~ !~ I ~~C:'Ë5G>~5 ¡'¡ ,ª ~'ËE~'~ æ ,ª ðJ õ~~tb Eo ? ~ .G>EG>i3ü'g· == õi :!:,æ~g w ä: 'iii iü ::< ? :>Uuõõ - 8 J: Š ~ ¡¡: ~ 8 Cii g¡ « e ; _ 0 ,j "C ::. ü :; õ ü - ,,!: õ 'g ,~G> ~ Ü g :g ~ g¡ . Z ~ Õ ~ ~ õ'" 0 õ E a:!:!: CD C ~ 'Ë g ,~ õ 5 Cii,~ ., ~ ü ü §.. I,¿ .. ð Ij _ ~ Ü G> 5 ¡¡: a: is õ '" ~,Cii I .. '0 W G> en Õ r. ,:. G> ü .:2 õ :5 1:: ël& ,g ~ _ CD ü!'ï;! õ.:2 0 0 u CD G> q¡ 'iii "" .¡: r. Ulo~~õ~Cii~~~~~5~G>ü_~~$ .2:- ~,ªðõ õðuoüül~õCD£ ~ 8õG>$~8 ~81~ -8=O-liEõõ'~~ë~ .c 0 - :J ~ 0 ~ . < .- 0 en CD .- 0 - U) :J . c: Q) .... CD - 0 CD U 0 :s LU .9. u.. :I ~ ~~~8t~~~,~~õ8il~lilli~I~~~~jtii~~I~i~I~811Iiõ~:~~I¡~1~!~~I.2:§~~~~i~~ð~~~8~ OO~ær.ol-£01~~Ær.ðg§ll-~ð8eðgU~~gr.Æ~58Æ~~~Ou81~õ§~>~óðõ~0~~ §ð~ð.!!!~~~g5 10~oü~5U§oüO~ou.:2üO~~ü.,¡¡: CDG>~:!:CD·ü~~üiü"C~~üOa:o¡¡:G>.,uü08~~¡¡:üü"'oü"Cü:¡8ua:oü~¡¡:"'~.,~ U ~m~~~ c~~ 0 m"- 0 C~ ~m~ =~ 0 wm ~u c~m m ~~ x-m j!J'~~J~~!~'~Jjli~~Jj~i~ÆJ~]!~j]~~j~~JJ!jj~~J~~I~j~iijl~jll~¡~~~J ... m '^M~ ~om~~o~~oœv=mmMm=M=MM~-~N~mONO~_N~mM8~_~~N~o~~om~mo~O_~MN_ ÞO~Nm~~~=ONmM~m~~v-~=~m~~~-õ~~8m~_M~=m_=_~ 8-~mMmM~O~~O-MV___mQM .§~~~~~~_ONOO_O~~_~~~~_~~ ~_ -_22~-O-O~~22~_N ~222o-ao~~--~22~22 Z .~~~~mO-NM~~~~møO-co""coMco~~co",Ø",~"'",~",2=~~~~~~~ggoSa~~~~~g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m m V'W'W'W'W'W'W'W'W' ___________________________ .J « II: w Z w ø " C æE g~ þe ",Cl. gë ;S ~~ ~8. : 5 ;:0 CO' ~~~ :!! ~& c(~ca þCl. C ëë~ ~~~ E '" C o~& caoc:a¡ :Eõ~E ~ - >.,LU ü:igg Õ ~ &~ s ~æN ~~.!j~ '" ~ ~ 0 '" 0 .,.; ... ... M '" I" .. ~ a... ëj ~ ~< " ~§ g~ ~§ "'''' :28 §§ "'''' ~§ §§ co... ~§ ~8 "'''' §§ gg ~8 80 "'~ ~§ §re ~§ 8~ g¡8 "'0 8¡g 0'" "'''' §§ "'''' ¡g8 §~§ com co~ "'... ~'" "'''' "'0'> 82 ~co ¡g~ O'''' ~m "'... "'''' ...'" "'0 ..... "'''' "'~ ...'" ... ~ "0 "'... "'''' ~'" CO' :> .. C\Ìo :gg M'" ....,.; tÕO 88 ~c;; ~8 ..'" J::~ "'0 m8 0'>0 8:ß ¡:j8 ~... "';0'> mo ...'" 8;1; ;;;8 0'" "'0 coo "''''' g~ "'~ 88 - '" ~t;; :t¡;j8 0'" ~~ ...'" "'0 0'>'" co", "'0 co", "'''' ",m ~'" ...... "'''' ...... ... ~ <00'> "'''' ..... ~g "'... ...~ ...'" ...'" "''''' -... ...~ ...~ ...... "'''' ~'" ;;;; "'- ....'" "'''' "'''' ...- ...... "'''' ...'" ~'" ~I¡:¡ ;;¡:¡ ... ... ... ¡;¡¡;¡ "'1;; ¡;¡ ;;~¡;¡ ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... .... ........ .... ....... .... ....... ....... ... ...... ... ...... ... II: ~ 88 00 ~8 0... 0... ~g ...'" ~8 "'''' "'0 CO" "'''' 0'" ~8 "'''' 00 "'0 ::;8 ~8 [;;8 ~g ...... 8gJ 8~ ...co "'''' "'''' "'''' 0... ¡;;8 ~88 "'''' "'0 "'m "'... "'... "'~ mo "'... ..'" ...'" "'''' ...'" "'0 coo "'0 ..... "'0 m", ~ '" 0)0) "";CÖ Lriu) ÑC\Î om cricé cDU) uiui ~M MM NO aim cò"": uiui M"": da:i ,...:,...: ;ig dd cèoo ,....:,...: ,..;,...: "":cci ccit"':i NO a)~ Ñ"""; 0> a) ",,:-.:t Om cécëcC :ê 8 coco coco coco coco co... ...... "... ..." "" ...... ..." "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' ..... ...... ..... ...... ... ... ...... "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'- ~ÑN "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' "'''' ã)UI ò: .~ ~ c: '" Æ T~ æ '" I- 0 ~ ~~ S1 <E ë ~ 'ü E CD 'ü ~ e: 'ë '" CD " &' '" 0 rn ~ I~ ~ 'f~ CD 0 a: 1:; r! ü: .~ III c: III !~ r! u :> 'tI oð ~ .2 ~ r! 0 ë ëë ~ E .2 III CD iii .E g I- 0 CD § '" ¡¡¡ 0 E ,2 ë ~ª ò: e û5 ~ ãj ¡¡¡ a: CD E CD ;; ãj III g I~ Q. CD E CD w ~ CD I~ r! 0 I~ '" CD = ~ 'tI I~ u 0 E III g CJ 0 e CD CD ë 'tI :::¡ r= 0 ë( .!!2 'ì: CD ~ g .Q !!! Q. !~ ~.c: CD '" ë ::; III ãi UI ::> Õ .E ,~ ,~ '~ '" CD I.~ 'E ~ 'E III I.E ~rn E I] 1;; CD E 'S; .c: E u In '" !~ c: to :;: r! c: 1;; c: 'tI E In ¡¡¡ :) '" .~ g < c: CD ~ E 0 E en Ü w CD '" W '" r= ~ ::; 0 u :) c: Ü 'tI ,2 0 ë :; r! :; .~! '~ CD CD ~ " E :> ~ E= CD .2 '" 1;; 0 ~ c: < CD ~.~ II: ãj !!! en I:~ ..J ~ CD 0 '" u :> Š 1;; 0 .!a ~ ê5 .Q iii 'ë c: !J iii 0 CD ~ '" CD ,2 .~ !! 0 'E a ü: II CD CD In CD ~ CD ,~ 0 > ::> E ~ ~ 0 CD Uiñ U e a en ~ en ¡¡¡ ~~ =CI) '" 0 ~ E CI) E E g ~ ë - ~ w :ë 0", :;: 'E CD g 0 ~ig CD ë w ëõ a: æ ~ .CD a: ,~ c: '" Q. ~~ ::> 'ë ~ !:! 'g c: 'tI E .~ §~ a: ~ o CD CD 0 )( en 'tI '" W ¡!w CD ë ~ '~ § 0 '" c: ~ E ~ CD w £ 0 c: u,~ c: ,_ §~ CD !!!I"ª ,~ c: CD c: U aLL e en '" ë CD ::> '" ~ Ij 0 ¡! - ~ oð E !! Ü '" '; 'g Ii CD E CD CD ~u Ü a '" E 'tI CD 0 !,~ Ë ~Æ - c: '" CI) .~ CD I.ê ~CJ 'e CI) ,- Q.J: Q. Q. a Õ III ä: a: CD '" :; '" I!! < Õi r! 0 r! æ .c: I- ECI) CD ,g '" 5i E :; '" g ê .U c: 2 ~ è5 0 0 ~ CD .E Q).£ CD !:! I~ I- c: c: ~ ~-g oð 0; I!! Ì!! 0 '" ~ " e ~ ,20 0 ~I~ E c: ~ I- 0 ,2 0 c: ~ 0 '" CD Q. ~~ a iñ ~ë I!! .E a: :: £~ :ö c: Õ £g '" 'E o .2 ~ c:U CD :: I~ I,~ Ü ê5 E N ê ê5 e CD ~~ ~ c: ::> iii -= CD 8æ ~ .c:ë ë $2 e E '" Q) a '" ,2 0 .c: ,2 ~ ~ I g a ë I.g r! Q.I- '" ~~ O"t: CD :) ~ ,~ Õ 8 ¡ß ::> CI) e '" c: Q) 2 0 ë CD ë ë 1;; ë CI) II: I~ w Wu CD ~Q. CD ~ £ 'tI0 ::; ë 0; ~ E ~ Õ 0; ë~ iii '§ ~ 'g.!; '§ ~ III :> 0 U å) CD '" u- CD c: !,§ ~ ~ o CD ~ en CD ,S; ~ I~ CD E 'ü CD !~ CD ::> I~ Q) U 0 ~ ~ c: c: 'õ E ~ Q) en CD 0 !2 0 - E & ::> ~ CD 0 ,§ .~ c:= en 0 0 .~ ~ .Q '" ~ '" 2 Q) !! o'~ ~ ~w ::> '" CD '" c: Õ :;: æ c: 0 w ~ .ë 0 to c: c: E o ,_ '" E '" E e E- ~ to '" !5 ~ w W 'tI 'go E 0 OE CD 0 0 CD CD LL CD CD E q¡ CD Q) CD en ~~ 0 E~ ëõ CI:ë -gQ) I~ '" w ¡ß iii c: .~ CJ'g .c:.c: U :::; ø .- 0 0 CJ '" CD I~ Iª I~ ,~ ø CD 'E .~ ga: a E,¡¡ ~Ig :5 B .c: 0 ,~ CD" CD o c: OE E ::> C:CI) Õ ~ ë ~I~ I~ I~ 15' :ë g E 'ü ~ 0 CD_ 'ü 0 0::; o c: ::; 0 CI) ~ 0 ~~ c: 'õ CD 0 J: o CD c: a: w 0 w ~~ we c: CD '" w É e ::; .:g-g U~ U ., " <~ ::> ¡¡-ê oð'tl ,2 -U o E d.Q 0 ª CD to g 0 c: c: '" uO &' ü: o- m ~ $ ~ 32 0 Q) Q. ~c: c: 0 '" õ B .ª "E S E E ~ !!! c: ~:: c: 0 '" ::> ëõ LL c: '" IIIQ. c: c: '" ., CD c: ~ .,0 c: :e CD !!! LL In 0 Ig ~ ¡¡¡ In ~ëõ ~~ ~ ':; I~ I~ I~ ¡¡¡ 'ì;; I~ ~¡¡¡ ~ .~ (ij~ en '" ê5 ~ ~~ U <8 0 0 a c: <E € 1;; ëõ w.c: ë ~ ¡g c: ~ '" a ëõ :ë CD " :ë .;, ~ CD~ û5 'E ,¡¡ !2 'C: 1;;; û5 ~ Õ'E !; :; I!! ::; I~ ¡:: 0 ~ø :¥ 0 U~ <2,¡¡ ~j ü: 'õ e:1== tJ '" E a ~:§ ë ãjCJ .c: o ~ g Uo '" CD ë CD ëõ CD 1;; '§ ~ CD ~ ::>= CD ë CD·- '" CD 'e .Q en CD 0 e u § CD o !2 e CD E "'.= E ~ E N e E ES -CD € E om .!!ã) E ~ € ~ :;: 18 "'~ ãj '" ,!: E '" å) > CD Q) o CD CD E,t: CD o ., 0 CD '" '" CD Ü CD.c: Ü CD _ '" o 0 :> 0 a '" <5 .!:: CD CD.c: ü: I- ::;cD wz I- WU ww ü: :;: w 0 c.a: 0 w J: I- W J: CD ü: w a: wen a:UI ~ w wen U UlJ: wo :)CD Cl)0 CI) CI) c.::; J: LL Q. <w U Q. LLZ a: 01- ð~ ...... "'.. ..... ..... ..... ..... .... .... .... .... "'''' .... ..'" ..'" ..'" "'.. ..'" "'''' ...... ...... "'''' ...... """'''' ...... ..... "'... "'... .... ...~ .."'.. 'Q c: w ëõ ë CD E UI c: e w 'S; 0 II: g 0 ~ '" c: -u II! ë ~ w i! a ~- U .. CD UI .~ oð ,~ " ~'g '1: 'gõ E >- B CD ,- 'C: ~~ ðJ 5,¿ u '" > c( - 0 ~ 't: . ~ ~ en ê3 ë c: ü: iñ ë '1: ~ CD e CD ~ 0 U Q) Õ CD E S; iñ ~ J: 12 ë 1:5 0 ë z '" CD E ., ~ Ii: ë :Ë tJ CI) 'ë CD CD Õ 'ë '" CD ~ '" ... CD j CD ,-¡3 CD I~ '" 0 ~ ., ü CD Q) .~ CD õ E :> ::; CD E ::¡ 0 ::; CD 'tI c: .c: CD iii Ú ~ E '" 0 Q) u U '" 'ë 0 '" ~ '" ~ '" S ,2 û5 0 '" ~ I~ II! 'ü W .~ 'C: I~ w Q) ~ 9 ::> CD II: '" 0 Ii '" I~ u 0 ë III CD ä: ~ ê3 a: a ~ Ii u; a: ë CD ~ ~ ., en a. !f: u 'e ~ E In UI CD CD Õ u 0 CD Q) CD 1:5 CD '" ~ U CD CD u õ E !f: ~ CD CD 0 .., ë a '" u 0 . CD ::> 0 ê CD .~ '" u '" a: E õ ;¡:¡ '" ,; ¡;;;¡:¡ 0 ~ 0 ;¡:¡ :> 'E CD .g 'ë CD ;¡:¡ CD ~ c: I~ 0 u :; ë :; 1:: u '" ~ ~ IE e '" '" 0 iñ I~ Õ 50 G; 0 .~ '" CD E Õ '" :> 0 Õ ~ '1: iii 0 ¡I.: CD U CD I~ "'" ., '" IIi II! CD E = ë E a: 0 I~ ëõ õ ~ E 'E õ ~ 0 ~ 0 ü: c: III ~ CD = In !:: E CD !:: a: '" '" In In In õS; CD CD U 1;; CD ¡I.: ::>!:: Õ I~ 0 CD U ~ CD !:: Q) en CD W ::> :) '" CD CD E r! CD '" '" 0 õ U ï:::: 'C: W a: '55 I~ ~ u > u ¡I.: Õ :> a: Q) ~~ J:U II: CD .c: 0 ~ e 0 CD 1;; ~ Q. .., a CD 'C: ~M e ~ ~ I~ õ -c5 U ëõ a E ~ ê3 I~ ü: CD ~ J: '" Is! u CD U .. .c: .c: ~ e õ CD e 1% ~ G; ~ CD iii e õ U ~ E C I~ ~ °u ~ c: Q. ~ c: " :; .c: 'g ¡¡ :~ ë55 en ~ U 32 0 I~ ê3 ;,~ 0 ë .c: U W u. §~ ~ õ I~ c: c: U .Q _0 ::> ëõ I~ õ CD ê5 '" ü: :> ü: I~ ~ ü: ~ I~ tiÜ: I.~ :> CD :> Õ ë U ~ ~I~ § ãjO ê3 0 CD § I~ Õi 0 c. 0 ~I~ 0 CD CD .c: CD 0 c: o !! ''ª ~ .., ~ 8 :> U ê3 ~ ë 0 ëõ CJ CD ~ u_ :> ~ ü: CD ê3 12 U .¡¡ U ~ § :> I- 0 Õ m .ª u::> 0 ~ 1;; ~ a ~% a J: ë '" § u 0 ~ ., Q) § ., ...I i 0 ::> 'tI '§ ü: .g § ~,~ 0 '" õ ~I~ ,¿ ê3 ,!:,! U E .. U 'e I- C U 0 'e .c: 1;; U ê3 ~ti ~ ::> CI) CD U ë ·e 0 CD " :> 'e '" 0 U 0 0 ~ CD 0 .. CD 0 :> CD u 0 :ë ::> ~ Q. 'tI ~ U 0 Õ CDiii "U C C 0 B w 3 0 .. '" CD ë CD 0 '" £ LL c: 0 '" '" 'tI 0 c: '" c: i! 0 In OJ CD 0 '" 0 ë '" 0 CD '" ~ '" '" '" 0 E U ~ u: U "S '" c: .E .2 U I- :ö ~ E :> U EU ~ . ::> "E ~ CD ::> 'tI "'" ::> CD ::> .", '" u ~~ CDU :ö U CD ~ .. ~ CD CD ~ ~ 9 CI) '" :ë U .,.c: 0 U a. 2~ .. '" "E a: 0 CD > ~ '" CD 0 CD j c: '" OCD 0 ~ g 0 ø c: CD :> ~ :> Õ C CD~ ::; 0 !!! ~ .~ ~r! iii ~ E E '" CDO '" 0 E ~ U å) S E :; iV '§ I~ !2 '" Q) U CD c: CD 32 .c: to ~£ ~ 't: ~ ,!;I~ di .c: .c: .c: ë Ë '" .Q -g 8 E In ~ B .c: ëñ "E 0:.= I~ ë~ ~ E E CD ë :> iñ 0 ãj E Q. ë: ~ '" E.Q CD ãi ëõ u e ë '§ '" :; ñiõ ê5 0 '" <E '" ~ '" ~ :> ëa.a ;3 õ '" '" ¡¡¡ '" CD '" 0 Õi mm "'" ð :e In ~ m e "," ~ õ CD '" '" 0 '" '" '" 0 cD 0 0 CD '" '" '" '" è5 a ~ jð '" 0 ë( 0 û5 0 > :¡ a '" II! '" CD '" '" ,- '" ä: > ~ CD CI) :> W Z ~ CJ J: WU J: ü: oc. Z c. u. J: :::¡ CDQ. CD J: U Q.en U W Z en J: Z < CD CI) W ::; Q.LL ..J U J: Q. 0 Z 01- ::;CJ .., c( ~ c( '" co... "0'> "'''' <D~ "'''' ~O'> "'''' "'''' 0'" "'''' 0'>'" ~¡g <D'" "'''' ...'" g¡~ ...'" co_ ...'" ...'" 0", ~'" "'~ "'0 '" m ..... 0'" "'''' m", ~o O"'co .t:J "'- ..'" ~8 8~ "'0 ...... "'''' _'" ",m "'co oco "'''' "'''' m", "'- "'- co... ~¡g ..'" ~~ ~8 '" co ¿;~ o~ ;gr:; "'co m... ¿;¡g ~ª~ Cl. 'E _0 _0 ~'" 0_ ~ ~ _0 ~o "'- ~~ 0_ o~ -0 0_ 0_ ;:~ o~ ~ ~ ::E :> -~ ~~ -~ - ~ - ~ - - ~ - - - ~- ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- W Z ~~~~M~~~~~~~~~;~~~~~~~~~~~~~m~~~~~~~~~~m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~::~~~:~ ~~~~~~~-------------------------------------------------------- ì ..J < a: w z w ~ 'C C æe õíS, þe 8~ c c Be lOCI õi~ :lE -gãi :~ .. 0 CDO c_ e -g ~ 'i~Q) :t:Cl.r:o c:(!ca ~Q, c ëë~ ~~~ e CD c o~& cooc", :5!õ~~ .2 ë ~~ ... ~ co - CDO o r:o... G» ca" , ~ CI.~S lI)2:w~ ... N 5í - ... o o M o oñ .... .. M ... ~'C .. .. CI... ü~ I~< _i~~~~8;~~~~~~~~~8~~ c~mo~~M~o~ÕÕ~OÕÕ~MÕÕ g~gg~~~~8~gg-80~N~g8 e2-...--...-M......~~~~...~..._M <~~ ~~ ~~ ~ W~ II: ~ ~~~g~~~~~8~R8~~~~m ~m~~~~~~m~~~~~~~~~~~ ]8ÑÑÑÑÑ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ õill) Q: :ß !3 o J: '¡ij E Q) ë CI) ] CD ~ Q) E .. II: E .. _Eo ~ ¡ (! > Q) 'C Õ 8 ~I~ I~ i '£ ~ ~ t:~ !3 u C t1 .~ i ~~ :!!~,~ ~ ~ Æ~ 'ö; Q:Q) I~ i i ~ il I ~ E~~ ~ w'~ -1 ~ .. ~8!3 E ~ c: I.§II) ~i]~~ ~ ~ ~ ~: I c~j..s 0 ~ ~I ~c Iª ~eWgg I?: E ..~ _,2 < ~i~~1 ~ : ~~ ¡IE I ~~Iº~~~~ ~ 0: ~§Q) E ~2'~~Q,(!E eCD6= ~E~ CD .. CD~"" ~-~ II)E.. g E'ö;II:W6Sw $I~Ñ~ ..OCD .. O~....~CD~ I~IQ~.. oO~ ~ 5C1)~S~.~_ I~~~S ;~< ~ ~"¡II)!Jig ~I~W....CD~I~~E o~~aOE~ CD~,~Õ~!3~I~~Q) E_~_-Q)..E<~~I~UgE~Eo~ Q) 0.. :gl~ U,_.. > cæ, CD'C> ....J.~ e:!!~e~Ei~gjCD CD~CDO~I~ I~~~ill~!~~õll'~~j~!'t >..~-cõit1~Q)..EQ)..oE,cu ~~ªa8ë~~Æ~£Æ~~i8ÆÆ - ðNMMMNM~M~M~MM~MMM~ Ig w '¡ij ë Q) E rfi e II: ':; o c U W II) ~8..gj ~ ~ _ð'~ $.~ ! Z< C_CD ..--c ·5- U B~~ ~- Z :š = 19 ~ c: ~ ~ c :¡ ]OCD,: ..~~ 8õ~ 1U ::: _e¡,ca Ic:SlS II: I,f¡" ;:¡; ~ ::1 È g f¡ I.~ c3 -g ~ ~Ig Igl'~ ~~ð æõ i ª ~!~ ~8~~.. ~EÆ §8 £ 5«; ~ ~~~ ~~cn ~cn c ~Æ~~~Æli~ '§~ë~ ~ë,~~ i 2ue-UI~OZ CD U~-CDUle~ o ~U ~'C~uëõ~8~õl~u'Cõõ ~ cm~~Q~œ~>~~~ I~_œ ~ 18·8~~8'C8"~~II:€õ':~€¡ s - cB ~..u£æBOCD~Bo~ ~ ~~8~~~~~~~c~:::~~~~::gj u ·-~~œcE~~'5~œœ >œmE ~ ~8~6~~~~8~~~j~§~j~ < < Q, ::¡¡ w .. CD ë CD ~ ~~ é! :gu w" CD æ< õ- (f.)~ .. !~~~mNMNøœ~~~~~~~~8 E~~8œmo8Sg~~~~~N~~~ .ª~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~m~~~~~~~mgQsa~~!~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ '" CD to:. ~ ... ...........l.._ '-" BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DOUGLAS M. ANDEr-SON February 4,2002 Representative Gayle Harrell 121 SW Port St. Lucie Boulevard, Suite 140 Port St. Lucie, FL., 34984 Dear Representative Harrell: Please find attached water projects that St. Lucie County has requested funding for in the 2001-2062 legislative session. These projects have been ranked by the Board of County Commissioners and a copy of those rankings is attached. I have also attached information regarding matching f~nding sources. " At this point, St. Lucie County does not know if any of these requests have made it into any state department budgets. \.- Please contact me with any questions or requests for additional information. c: Board of County Commissioners Ron Book, Lobbyist Bill Blazak, Utilities Director Paul Phillips, Airport Director Ray Wazny, Public Works Director Dan McIntyre, County Attorney Attachments ~ JOHN D, BRUHN, Disrricr No, 1 . DOUG COWARD. Disrricr No, 2 . PAULA A, LEWIS, Disrricr No, J . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, Disrricr No.4· CLIFF BARNES, Districr Nc Counry Adminis:roror - Douglas M, Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue . Forr Pierce. FL 34982-5652 · Phone (561) 462-1450 · TDD (561) 462-1428 r'"AV I<;'}...~' AA0_1AL1A . pmoil: douoa@stlucieco.gov ~- - , ') t...... , ] , ] ~] ~] ') ~I' ~) \.. .J ~) ~ I . J I ~ I I OJ . , ] 1 '-' ] ), st. Lucie County Legislative Delegation Meeting Thursday, December 13,2001 9:00 am to 5:00 pm Roger Poitras Administration Annex, 3rd Floor, Commission Chambers 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982 2001/2002 Leqislative Fundinq Request Rankinq bv the Board of County Commissioners ~1 ~I Airport Industrial Park (Existing) Wastewater Collection and Conveyance System _ Continuation of Funding (Water Advisory Panel) - $788,000 (Ranked #1) ~ Tab 3 ~I Tab 4 ~I ./jl Stormwater Master Plans - $300,000 (Ranked #2) , Orange Avenue - $1,020,000 (Ranked #3) Regional Disaster Control Center/Special Needs Facility - $2,000,000 (Ranked #4) Stormwater/lndian River Estates - $2,500,000 (Ranked #5) 2001/2002 Leqislative Issues Tab 6 ~I Tab 7 ~I Tab 8 ~! Tab 9 jl ìl Tab 10 ~I Community Redevelopment Agencies Revised Legislation Libraries - Keep State Aid Money in Recurring Funds Medicaid - Nursing Home Billings Juvenile Justice Program - Proposed Cost Shift to Counties Septic Tanks/Conversion Grant Assistance - Establish State-wide Grant Program with Realistic Criteria NOTICE: All Prcx:eedlngs before this Board are electronically recorded. Any person who decides to appeal any action taken by the Board at these meeUngs 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, Individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn In. Any party to the proceedings will be granted the opportunity to cross-examine any IndivIdual testifying during a hearing upon request. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeUng should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Manager at (561) 462-1777 or TDD (561) 462-1428 at least forty-elght(48) hours prIor to the meeting. ~ 't :Ó} ~.'. \.,r \.. ~J ) 1 p BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DOUGLAS Iv'.. ;'.ND~RSON COUNTY ADMINISTRATO August 14, 2001 . '0:' Senator Ken Pruitt- ' 240.0 SE tvIidport Ro~d Suite 110 Port St. Lucie, FL 34952-4806 .' .. . , ,..., ,,", Dear Senator Pruitt: Per S.216.052 (3) of the Florida. Statutes the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners discussed and ran~ed the 2001/2002 Legislative funding requests at their August 14, 2001 meeting. At that meeting the public was invited to comment on these requests. The rankings are as follows: , , 5788,000 5300,000 51.020,000 52,000,000 52,500,000 52ôl,531 5300,000 -0- , 54,:300,000 54,300,000 , ' , ' R,mki~g,) Project Title ... - . -" .. Tu'nciing:; Loè¿ti, Milich Re' ûeiaed> .' .. 1 2 3 4 5 Airpo~t Indus~z2 ?2:k (E.xisting)\\·¡;s:e·,·;¡;:e; Co!lecÛC:1 ë.:-:d Conveyance S\'s:em Sto¡-¡:;.....ater r-.laster Plans Oran~e Þ-:;enue ReconslrUctiO:1 Fa1rgroui1è5,:Special Needs Shelter Storm\'.ë.:e~!lndian River Esta:es Please note that the County originally requested $450,000 for Stormwater Master Plans fOJ three neighborhoods. The total project cost is 5600,000 for six neighborhoods) oh\'hid we now have a local match of5300,OOO. Therefore, our original request is nov.' lo\\'erec to 5300,000. It should be noted that it was extremely difficult to rank these projects as thE are all extremely important to our community. As an example, the Fairgrounds/Specia Needs Shelter has now received a local match of 54.,300,000 tovvard the S9)OOO)OO( Project. We feel that vvith this type of match, the State should take a hard look at thi project even though it is ranked number four. These Legislative projects '\vere previousl submitted to you in July, 2001, with detailed back up. lfyou need further information an wish to discuss any of these projects, please feel free to contact me. JOHN D. û!\UHN. D,s:ricr No.1. DOUG COWA!\D. Dis,ricr No.2· ?':'UtA A. LEwIS. Di~-:;cr N:>,:I . Fr\ANNI£ HUTCHINSON. Disrñcr No. ¿ . am' ¡:;AP8, r"'.#'o-.. A~minisrroror _ D:a.:O:::::CS .i..\. Ar,d~rson \.. '-' \..r Senator Pruitt August 14~OOl Page 2 Thank you for your continued assistance and support. 4( Dougl M. Anderson. y Administrator _ . , .,'.. D:I!A:esOI-151 c: Board of Count)' Commissioners· Ron Book, Esquire Jeanne Keaton, Fair ~!anaget RayWazny, PubIicWorks Director Don West, Count)' Engineer Bill Blaza.'.¡. Utilities Dir~ctor Paul PhHIips. Airport Director _J \.rJ _J J ,] _J ] ] -J ~l AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK (Existing) \VASTE\VATER COLLECTIO:\" A,l'\L> CONVEYANCE SYSTE1\1 Original Water Advisory Panel Grant Applic2.tion S 1,200,000.00 Funding Received from Water Advisory Pc:.nel (1999-2000) - $ 50,000.00 BOCC Contribution of S 11 ,530.00 added to the original ·Grant to complete engineering plans for the project. - S 11,530.00 Remaining Project Costs (2000 - 2001 ) $ 1.138.000.00 .,"-. - .... 9 J ] ] -J ] ] \.-J ] 2000 - 2001 Legislative continued funding of original Water Advisory Panel, partially funded projects - $ 100,000.00 Remaining Project Costs (2001 - 2002) $1. -0-38.000.00 Fonnation and Adoption of 2. Municipal SeI'"\ices Benefit Unit that would assess each of the lOO lots in the Inàustrial Park $2,500.00 ( 35% matching funds) - $ 250;000.00 2001-2001 LEGISLATIYE fUNDING REQUEST $ 788,000.00* *This amount represents 65% of the origin2.l \Vater Advisory Panel funding request. Project Manager - William Blaza.~ Department- St. Lucie County Utilities ~ I ] ~ J J J ] ] ] J ,] ~ ] ] ] ] --J ] ] ~ -J ] 1 STORMWATER MASTER PLANS LEGISLATIVE REQUEST FOÚR NEIGHBORHOODS IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY HAVE BEEN PLAGUED WITH STORMWATER FLOODING. THE COUNTY WANTS TO CREATE STORMWATER MASTER PLANS FOR THESE NEIGHBORHOODS. THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST STEP IN ADDRESSING THIS PROBLEM'- ..... THE NEIGHBORHOODS INVOLVED ARE: PARADISE PARK HARMONY HEIGHTS SAN LUCA SUNLAND GARDENS THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST IS $600~'OOO. THE LoëÂ.L MATCH IS $300,000. ONCE THE MASTER PLANS ARE COMPLETED THE COUNTY WOULD THEN BE ABLE TO DETERMINE THE VARIOUS COSTS FOR THESE PROJECTS. LEGISLATIVE REQUEST - $300,000 LOCAL MATCH - $300,000 TOTAL COST - $600,000 -- '-'" STORMWATER MASTER PLANS 2 PARADISE PARK HARMONY HEIGHTS SAN LUCA SUNLAND GARDENS ~ The four (4) subdivisions that are proposed for stormwater improvements ultimatel} discharge into the Indian River Lagoon. The stormwater improvements will include treatment facilities to reduce sediment a¡ improve water quality of stormwater discharges such as retention/detention swales ponds. Stormwater outflows from each subdivision discharge to the SFWMD C25[T, ". Creek Canal, which ultimately outfalls to the Indian River Lagoon. (See overall site location map). ~ ~~ The Indian·River Lagoon is 'af") estuary of National significance under the National Estuary Program. .,... Currently St. Lucie County is Partnering with several regulatory agencies to implemE muck removal and restoration dredging of the C25[Taylor Creek Canal. The agenciE contributing to the Taylor Creek Project include: SFWMD, IR Lagoon NEP, FIND, anc FSTED. '-" -1 ",1 ,-,J .1 I i, . ~ ~ '\ I''.. ! I , ¡ L ¡ \ ) \.r- . \ 1 I J i '1. L-1 I J '-J ~-J - ] Ll INDIAN RIVER ESTATES/SAVANNAS WATER RETENTION FACILITIES RETROFIT PROJECT Project Manager: Don West County Engineer Amount of Request: $2.5 Million Description of Project: ..... Currently, St. Lucie County is partnering with SFWMD, FDEP, and Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program (NEP), to design this facility. The project _, involves constructing a storm water coliection and treatment system to handle storm water runoff from the Indian River Estates Subdivision. Storm water runoft from the subdivision drains untreated into the Savannas State Preserve. This is having a detrimental effect'òn the Savannas ecosystem. Storm water from Indian Rivercstates Subdivision will be coliected and pumped into a retention pond to improve water quality, prior to being discharged to the Savannas. Final design plans have been completed 'at this time, and we are currently investigating land acquisition for the retention pond. The project cost is estimated at approximately $5.5 million, including land purchase. Permitting and iand acquisition are underway, and shouid be completed within 12 months. Construction could commence by October, 2002 pending funding. The County is requesting $2.5 million from the State!Îor this project. A 50-50 local match of $2.5 million is proposed to be borrowed from the State Revolving Loan Fund. We are currently applying for funding through the SRLF Program. Reason for Project: This project will reduce flooding in this residential area and improve the quality of life for it's residents. It will also improve the ecosystems throughout the Savannas State Preserve. ' \.. AGENDA REQUEST ITEM NO. C-4C DATE: June 25, 2001 SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): ENGINEERING DIVISION 4115 I REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [x] PRESENTED BY: þ~o&&~ -~~ (Donald 8. We~t, P.E. County Engineer TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBJECT: Authòrize the Engineering Division to submit an EPA Section 319 Nonpoint Source Manageme, Program grant application to Florida Depar.ment of Environmental Protection for funds to assist in th Indian River Estates/Savannas Ecosystem Management Project. \. BACKGROUND: Since 1995, Engineering staff has been working to design a stormwater management system for th , 1200 acre Indian River Estates subdivisiòn. The extreme fJooding that occurred in 1995 and 199 resulted in a recognition thatthe existing drainage system is insufficient. The flooding that occurs in th neighborhood lasts forweeks,because the adjacent Savannas water levels rise too high. The flood watE in the neighborhood has no place to go because the existing drainage system outfalls directly toth Savannas State Reserve. Indian River Estates subdivision was designed in the late 1950's, prior t Griteria being established for treatment and storagå of stormwater runoff. . In 1997, the local FDEP office documented the impacts that were occurring to the Savannas Preserv because of the untreated stormwater runoff coming out of Indian River Estates. The entire subdivisio (3600 lots) contains septic tank drainfields for sewage disposal. The slightest amount of nutrient loadin in the stormwater runoff causes a large impact to the Savannas ecosystem. At the request of the County, the Savannas Task Force was created to address these problems. Th Task Force is comprised of representatives from the various regulatory agencies, including official representing the Savannas State Reserve and Federal agencies. The goal of the Savannas Task Forc was to reach a consensus on the design of a stormwater management system for Indian River Estate and to facilitate permitting of the project. To date, the conceptual design and final construction plans have been completed for the project. Wi are ready to submit for permit approvals. Currently, we are finalizing the land acquisiton issues an pursuing funding for contstruction of the project. We anticipate that we could be ready to advertise th project for construction by October, 2002, pending available funding. Based upon final design plans, the estimated cost for construction of the project is $5.5 million dollar~ Several agencies have partnered with the County to fund the design work as listed below: ~ , , -,~ :::I I \w _J :cI ,J J _J _J .r...o J r. I no í J \., ..... J '-"" I r --- ï J .., i ~ 'î J - I -! - -, i I I ..... -- ..- I ~ I -r i Î C-4C Page 2 Desion Costs: S1. Lucie County SFWMD SJRWMD/NEP Total $259,700 $100,000 S 95.000 $454,700 SFWMD, FDEP and SJRWMD/NEP have expressed a desire to contribute towards funding ofthe pre construction. The County intends to provide matching funds using the Stormwater MSTU and the ~ Revolving Loan Fund as a source of money. . The grant application is for the EPA 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program administered thrc FDEP in Tallahassee. The grant request is in the amount of $600,000, the maximum amount that be granted through the program. Our goal is to submit an additional Se:::tion 319 Grant application year. If funded, the grant award will occur between April and August 2002, and the project construe could begin between July and November of 2002. This would provide a total grant contribution of million through FDEP/Section 319. ". The Engineering Division has already met the matching funds requirement due to the value of the and the funds previously, ~xpended for engineering costs. . FUNDS AVAIL.: n/a PREVIOUS ACTION: y 8, 1997, the soee entered into an agreement with Hazen and Sawyer for preliminary engineE design in the amount of $118,500. - December 15, 1998, the soee entered into an agreement with Hazen and Sawyer for a portion 0 engineering design in the amount of $73,000. The remaining $152,0001:0 complete the design permitting ($225,000 total) was to be authorized 'at a later date when the full grant funds were seCL (These grant funds were obtained in 2000.) August 24, 1999, the soee entered into an agreement with Hazen and Sawyer to develop a conce¡ plan for the alternate stormwater retention site (Savannas Recreation Area) in the amount of $11 October 17,2000, the soee approved amendment to work authorization with Hazen and SaWYE Phases III and IV of the Savannas Ecosystem Management Project in the amount of $242,200 approval of the project budget. '-' '-' '-' C-4C Page 3 " - RECOMMENDATION: -'~aff recommends the Board grant authorization to submit an EPA Section 319 Nonpoint Soure ...anagement Program grant application to FDEP in the requested amount ofS600,OO for the Indian RivE Estates/Savannas Ecosystem Management Project and authorize signature by the Chairman. COMMISSION ACTION: CONCURRENCE: [ ] APPROVED [ ] DENIED [ ] OTHER: (Y [x]County Attomey [x]Originating DepL Ptlblic Works t ~ , [ ]Finance , (check for copy only, if applicable) savannasecosystem.ag - .,'.. Coordination/Slqnatu res [x]Mgt. to Budget UO cJ1!!51'n/KC¡ [x]Co. Eng 1\~ . . { Douglas Anderson County Administrator [x]Revenue Coord \';.1:;' ft [ ]Other , '-" BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DOUGLAS M. ANDERSON February 4, 2002 Ronald L. Book, P.A. 2999 Northeast 191 Street, PH 6 Aventura, FL., 33180 Dear Ron: St. Lucie County is supportive of revised language for Community Redevelopment Area legislation. We have been working with Broward, Hillsborough, Polk and Martin Counties in an effort to revise this legislation. '-" Attached is some information regarding this bill. Palmer Mason, Florida Association of Counties, is our contá'ct person. As you can see, two bills have been introduced; a moderate version by Representative Paula Dockery (HB 1341) and Senator Latvala (SB 2170), and a more inélusive version (Broward County's version) by Senator Campbell (SB 1578). Please contact Palmer at your earliest convenience to discuss this proposed legislation. c: Board of County Commissioners Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney Attachments ~ " JOHN D, ßRUHN, Disrricr No, 1 . DOUG COWARD, Disrricr No, 2 . PAULA A. lEWIS, Disrricr No.:3 . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, Disrricr No, <! . CLIFF ßARNES, Dis,ricr t> Coun;y AdminisTroror - Douglas M. Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 · Phone (561) 462-1450 · TDD (561) 462-1428 FAX (561) 462-1648 · email: dougo@stlucieco.gov ~ '-' \.. , CRA Legislation CÔntact: Florida Association of Counties Palmer Mason Phone 850-922-4300 Cellular 850-251-7775 Sponsors : Moderate Version: Representative Dockery - House Bill 1341 Senator Latval~, - Senate Bill 2170 " More Inclusive Version (Broward County's Version) Senator Campbell - Senate Bill 1578 Bill needs co-sponsors " .. - -- ,--. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION MEMORANDUM 01-1Ï3 DATE: ~oar~ of~ ~~~~t~ co~- Douglas M. Anderson~unty Administrato~ November 19, 2001 -- .---_. _.- ." _. -- -. -.. ~", ',-' TO: FROM: RE: Draft (CRA) Legislation Friday, November,'1B, 2001, ,I attended a meeting in Orlando to discuss proposed legislative revisions to~ the Florida Statutes regarding the establishment of Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRA). Those in attendance included representatives of the· Fiorida Association' of Counties (FAC), Florida City/County Management Association (FCCMA), Florida Redevelopment Association (FRA). the Florida League of Cities (FLC), and CRAs. ,. ' \. Attached is a draft bill that Broward County plans on introducing this legislative session. The proposed changes to the language are either stricken or underlined. Section 8, Paragraph 2c, Number 7, exempts district or taxing authorities which promulgates the health, safety, and welfare of citizens of the State of Florida. Five counties have joined together in an attempt to push this legislation forward. They are St. Lucie, Broward, Martin, Polk, and Hillsborough. The FLC and the FCCMA have strong reservations about this revised legislation. A meeting will be set up in the very nearfuture to try to hammer out our differences. DMAlam c: Ron Book, County Lobbyist Dennis Murphy, Interim Community Development Director Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney Patti Tobin, Economic Development Manager Jay Sizemore, Fire Chief Attachment ~ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY ADMINISTRATO '-' DOUGLAS M. ANDERSON January 2, 2002 Mr. Palmer Mason Growth and Environmental Planning Florida Association of Counties 100 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL., 32301 , . -. Dear Palmer:.. '-" Please find attached a Letter to the Editor that was published in December 30,2001 Fort Pierce Triöul}e, discussing exemptions of Fire Districts within a Community Redevelopment Area. I thought you would find it interesting. Do 1::).¿¡fZf , qounty Administrator DMAlam 02-02 c: Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney Attachment \. JOHN D. ORUHN. D:srricr No.1. DOUG COWARD. Disrricr No. 2 . PAULA A. LEWIS. Disrricr No. 3 . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON. DisTricT No.4 . CLIFF 0':';:"; Counry AdminisrroroT - Douglas M. Anderson """"f"\f"\ \I:__;~:~ Au,""""", . çl"'\rT Pi""r,-,::> ~I :\.1GI1?-5652 . Phone (561) 462-1450. · TDD (561) 462-1¿ '> .' '-" .. .... ' ;';' u '-:'0 § '~' , ~ :>.~. :S § +' 0 ~ .8 'õ u 'C).~ . +,RH~'d"-l +' H:>+' Pit;:1.8~'d (l).?;>.?;>r:: ~ k13 S -c:r:: E:!ô (l) ~a (l) (l) (l) U) ~ (l)p::0 (l)(q(l)' t~¡t~~U)~H ~ oi@ 1:1 ~:6 ~ IX e ç;:: ß ("j o(l) (l)>.c;jU)'d(l) d u¡ +'{3'd S+J ~tJ §-B~'-=I2~ :;:1 c:! ~ Pi ~ s:::..... .d +J ~ ..... e:; CJ¡:;Oob.O b:¡:¡1ï;C!J.....c;e-:: s::: 0 ~ ~ ;::: -;:: (I) ~ _, :> C!J ~ .... ~ ~ ......(1) ~.fO"'1 ro-""" c.> O'O........"::J o ~ .~ '[; c; ~ p C!J r::;::: 'Ò 'd H OCJ..t::'Ò =:C!J..t::~C)::!s:::C; ».¡:: 8 C!J.S·.....:: Q) ü.c ~ c; g. :::::......, . S-4 Q) E: ~ -B.-t c.> ..U"J "d CJ O.~ @ g; ::! s::: CJ .....:õ :?; u E .~ A. ,.., '_.... s::: 0 ... CJ::; -.... CJ .~ t-t Pot...¡....J.-4.....-4,.0...4 (l)' Po. tI) :.....t ro.D CJ Q) OJ)'ëiJ i:1 ..t:: ~ Õ C!J s:::' (¡) Po;::: ::!.:: s::: 0 0 ~ s::: I-<..t:: oS .... E'''' H µ:..... Po CJ .......... Po..... P. q..... ~ ..... r-- t:r-- <:1M 'OM iii- <:I ro ... g' Il.--l ~,~ :¡ :E E ¡:: õ.E c.t) ::13 CJ ..; ~U) o -;:: CJ 0 "c.. ,0 CJ2. ~ CJ s::: . .,..-{ . ~ d - S· ê ,..... 0 -..I ,', \ (I) '" .c o:;! 0 Z· ¡:;:¡:¡. tI1 I-< ~ ::! O(l)~-~S:::§ ~~ HOO~ ;:::J ~PoEs...9,o·¡j0 .so--,§&P-<:SCJ ~ ~~~sg~~~g8~~~~c;s~:s 3 ~ ~~j âE~~~~~ § E_~ §:r~~~ ;:::J. ......:; M~ ~ ~ g~ ~ S è1j e ê' ~ ~ e u5 '3 s::: o HooBS:::_N~~ZbJ)-O~s:::CCJ~gE " 0 >. r:: H..... t.D :2 u; c ,¿. ..... - c:J r:: g >--' C!J .U1 .'-' O. 0 _... - c; c:!.;..I ~.c c; -- c:J ~, U1 .... .... ." ~ ) ;...( ,- """"" ~ (fj "" ;::¡ ~ 0'0..0 ~ .-. cj...... "U U)" . ~ s =E 8:.a -;;; o·Cf} rd (I) ~ ~.eI) ~ ~ ~ (I) ...., ,~ ~ u ¡: 0 ::! ¡:.- 0 c; c; c:J 0 t.D ~ .::: ..-< c; 2> 2; ,..0 ° "'0r::_0Cl10CJ(I)X.sC c:J...... .... rfl Q CJ CI) 0. ~ ~ 8·... éd .- 'd .0 CI') (I) C!J'- ¿ ° '). ,....., ~ ct:ì \o-..l:::;¡ .c: -- ~ v s:: ::> w,.c:::: en 0 'ï:j \ Q"-< õ.8 CJ 0 ~ ME-< (I) Q)Õ c; ¡; ..... C!J ».- ..-: \ ~'c.O. '8 ~.::: ~.c;::' p.S :;.; ~ .s0.s ~;:::: 'õ ~'8 'ê ~ ~ .~ ~~__~~.~ 0 _~r X '. ;: a .8 5 ~ :: ~ ~ S (/) ~ ~;:.8 ~:E -~ :.::: :3 .-t 0 -........:::1 ~ 0 c:J :J 0 ..-Þ ":J -< ~ ~ u --" ~ ~ ~ (fJ ~_ ~~~~oo ~~~o= ~o~·~o~~a ~ ~ 0~U~~~~Ow ~~H=UØ~~ , ,.0»> ~ ~ CJ..' 0:9 60;::< .< (I) :::: (l). ca.c '" CJ c:: ~::!>=o ~ c:JcoC)¡:::: ~ ~~~(l)~ ~§~~~a~~~2~~~~ s~ê§5~~~"d~=~50 = b ~~~~~CJ~~~§~~~~~~d~§~~ ~~c~~~~~§~~g"d~ ~ G~ ~~~~~~@g~~~.s~~~U~B~g~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ê.s~~ 3~ (l) ;e,'.c So C; ....... c:! 'Ò -' c:O ;.0:'- :Sa.> c; ~ - ~ ;::: - - -' c::::o CJ .J ~ CJ OJ c·- Q -'(I) ~ <2 µ.. ..... .... 0 s::: Po ro W:-:'"' ¡;;;., en c; Q 0 0 c:: _ - - .- v. ... ..... . C1J CJ W OJ C) p.. Q).... X ~ ..J 0;:: C A' :::: ro 0, S -' A. .0'" x ~ 0 ~ ~ -;:: CJ ~.~ ~ ~ C; ~.c:: C) (I) I:: ;..., Q) ~ ..'" A' ..... @:;:¡ '" -' c> ~ C!J (I) -' 0 '"' 0 _ C) _ _:: " , ... - 0 ~... - I-< .- O......c:: .w C) p.. ~ ..t:: ? ..... S ..... 0 C") § ~ C!J 'Ò c;... U1 ~ _ c:J c:J c:J Ö cr.'W CJ - - -' cr. ..... (f Po Po C) .- -' .- - ..... s::: ...... .c:: ..... d S oo''õ ~ <h:........ ~ § :?; ~ is "d '.~ C :::; ó:: . ~ e ~ S¿ ~ - "d ~'5 (I) 7" C; tî 2 -' ::!.$ t ..... ¡¡¡ ¡:;'Q)~ c>tî~ C!J 0 ¡: ~'~-.::::~$;:U·~'o< ê 22 ~iS § õ'~ § g.::; o<,ê 8:5 E<:: §'t: ~&:-g :>:;j CJ a .-t ~ tI) c.J ~ C 0 -loot ~o _ cr. ,...,., __. ,.......... ~,- ~ ~ r-t Q) ..........c Cl) ......,.-t s::::; 0 1-1 o 0 ~ .¡:: C> H ~ @ ~ 0 G.> 0 ::;' ~ 0 ''A H < ...... :> c:: c:D ~ 0 ..... - 0 ? CJ c; >- ~ -' ..... X CJ C!J c.::. "C) ro s::: ~ C!J tí ,...¡ ~ '2 00 ~ $j ~ s:::. 2 o.~ ~ ,.8 . u ? ~ :.:1 '2c :: ';j ~ ~ CJ ~ =š. ~"'8 0 .s C) 2. X :3 -g 5 s::: .s ~ b ~ ~ a ro <l) r8 w .~ ~ ::: ;.; roo ~.g ~ 8 :: ~ ~ ç:o ~ ~ .~' s: ::! c; r:: ~ ;2 ~ <: 00 ~' . t: "d .g ~ . s:: ...... § :S s:> .c ....:-;:¡ ~ ... ~ ~.'" ".... cr. >- ..... G' CJ (l) -. ¡:::: >" (I) C!J ~J ~ID~~C!J~~~~§~~tî~E~~§ª~~~§~:5E~~~~~~~'õ~O~;u~~~ ¡:; 'd (l)' t-.., .0, ..... .... ..... (1)';-< ~ 0 (f :5 CJ 0""" :r. ::: cr. CJ -¡:J 0 -.... CI1 ro';:j ..t:: c:J ;;- C c:J..... ÿ';- ro ..... to ....... I-< . S .... . .t:: 0 M c..> .... or. -' "d oJ .-. - x :=. 0 r;: _ -' up-... c..> rr; c:J .... .::: 0 _C) c I() (,) cd Q) <=,1 (1) ~-.~;.o ê3 :: tfì ~ L'; ~ ";:j Q d ::: :; -= ~::;: Oc.: C) ~ ::.- C) ~..c b 0 ~ .. c.> ~ (\10 tJj ....... :::: t: to Q) d..c CI>..c -. @ I:: (l)'''' CJ C'l s:: C ... ... ..... :r. ;:: -. 0 - Co> ~..t:: 0 -' ~ - ....c:: ~ .... 0 0 u> 'CI ¡:; ':oJ ......:¡:¡ c; --' s-: _ s::: q :..: CI> 0 c; =: = -=- :: :r. 0 C.ê1 .c :::::. "d c; - -' Po p- ~ =: - U1 ÇQ q I:: 0 ,,....... 0..0 ~. ,~.~ . ro .(1) Q) ~ s::: C!J' s::., - ¡: .. '8 (I) <:)..:. I-< 00 ~ S s::: ~ <: .......... :>i·û....... :> :> c; ::::r. . ';j.~ ..:> ~ ~ 'd 0 I-< C) -- 6 c;g:p" ç:::g§~s:::oc;~ C::;Ã :.c= ~:.;-6.8~ c..>~C;¿)'d:5c; u.z;öc> ...... c:! 0' S:::~(I)..t::C) i::_u;:::<:) C:"C)- c;7' ....';j.....C)I-<-.: :::~ C!J ~~ _ Pi ¡:; ............. 0 ro ~ CI) ..... <.::0 CJ,...",:·ü:,:. -' c::';:: -. ¿j s <:)......;;,. - b CJ t..:) c; 0 '0' rñ ~ Z' (l) ..... b U) .... 0 ..... ~ .8 .~ ;::: C'-. C s :: r:::= ~ ~ or. -.: ~ ~:=. ::! c; ~ ~ s::.5 ¡:: c:J t..:) 'd' 1-<.8 < >. r::~~~~~~2><~bC!J~gE8~~~~$~~~eQs~r::ç:::-,~~~c~ ~~~] g>'~~~I-<::!~§~_S~ECJ~r::~HC)C~~s::;:::='~:>CJ~UÞ~~"""~"'" Süoc; uSS::c:!~'o, U~p:>_..t::_o-~",=~-c;c;o-X-~Cl>C::;-'C)o-,:~ u'" E . ro ¡:; C!J P-< ...... . c; 0 c::: _ <:) ;.) '- ..... ::; ~ :.; -.: ~''''.c :r. - ro .... s:: ~ s::..t::..... C)"'¿ s::: :::: ~..... ~~s::S~'d....~~......~~<:)~:>t..:)0~c~~~0~-~~~~=::::Oq:Hs:::-C;~::::X CJ 1"1,..-4 0 """"'" s:: CI) 0 ~ (/).-i I""'" 0 CJ ~ "'V c.,..., _ ~- ~ ;.> H ~ t.....I -' CJj GJ ~ ......,..-: t...:j 0 C) )o..o-t 5 - .... 0 -~~ü""'~(l) -p~o=: ';jOO-Wo;;" __oC-(I)O_c;~C)c.::.~C!JU~»~H '-' ~ Cl> ... "'" 0:::1 ~ ..... p. CJ' ...,..., -' .- ~..t:: ... tIJ ~ .::: c;j::: s:::" - ..... (I) .0.... P- H ~..t:: Cl> Õ Cl> ..t:: ,.,:¡ '-=I 00 C!J ~ ¡:: 0. h Z =: :-' g.:=, 0 t..:) S·.... CJ ::: ;.... .c' c; ~ .8 ..=: C!J 0 C!J 0 C!J 00 Pi . ~ +-J,.c: C P :: ~- ~ C!).c:...,":: ::1 c> ~ CJ d:- :::.::: ~ E < ~ ~... ~,";= ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ Æ1 ~.t:: ~ 8 ~ +' ~ ..... ¡:; _ ~ CJ +'..... ~, (f ... 0 S -' '- -' __ 0 - -..... '"' -' -'....:> h s:: ~ u..... u -' Cl')o~.....~~o~~~o=g~~:> ~C)~~:..p~~~~5~g~~C)~ro~.8S:::~~~ ~ +' o. ro 0 P-< C!J ..... <8 'd +' oS ._ ;:: ~ ~ ~ E ~ ocr. c :5 8 ü ..... < ::: (I) c; 0 :> ¡..;..... <:)...... 0 H 0 0 :> G.> o bJ)..o ~ _ oW :> (I).... s::: C!J .~ :> ... 0..... ..... '- c; -' -' ... c; c; .;::: CJ u ..... C).c H...... ~ C!J 'd H s:: s::: C; ..... ~ H ro ~ Cl> ro ::! I-< :..';::: r:: 0 +' C) -;: :.; ¡r. 'd H "..j..... ... C'! CJ s::: oS :> c; _ CJ ro :> C!J p.,8 ~ ..... 00 Cl> 0 ~ ...... ..... s::::: C) CJ ;;,. -:: <:) ü:: =- CJ s:: 0 G :: ¡:; I-< Cl> .0 CJ X ro'~ . ~ 00 (I).c C) ,S~S::S::'CIµ:'o:::1G.>c;S::Cl>otl1>£~-':r.~-'~';jxCJ- cO...Eros:-.:r::.....~....C;...-.:H s::: ~ ~ .g C!J s::;;:¡ .!:t ~ .5! Ë; s::: g;> cr. -:: Q CJ ?~ := r:: .r;:.t:: 0 ::; -' CJ ~ Pi X 0 ..... 0.:!1 ~ CJ p:¡ õ x CJ ;:J ~ C,) +' p.:;..... s: µ:. ~ p.:.. 0.... .~ .5 '2 :5 P. ~ 3 ';:' r ~ :5 :5 .g .8.;: 0 .s ~ .5 ::: Ç¡ ::: 8 ~ .s .5 ~ I.~ <:J CJ '., ~ :..- c--. ~ :- . t::. 00 2; ..s~:£. ';0 ~... '2 õ6 en is ~ § e ~ 'd 5' ~ ~ .Q.~ __ ~ -= 'ë 'E E ..j .S 2; .~.... .:.:1 ~1w~C!Jæ§CJ=~£s:::~~~~~0~§~o~Ht. ::! ~ ~~~m~o~c~.~~-~=~u~.~~~~~~ 0 c:J iii s::: "ëa ¿:: ¡:; ~.s è;j s.:::: c ~.š ß 0 CJ.~ :-. a - .s C,) c; ~ :5-.0 i:èE!E-<~::::~~.c:::: >= :r.-~ 'I' s:: ..._0 ~ ~ ~ 1ï; p. . c..> Q) Q) C/):> . 0 (I) . 'P 1-<'- 0 ':: r:.3 0 ':;:J .~ ';j t:: - ~ Po ~ ~ H o ¿::: "'"'" s::: Cl> 00 ...._ M _ 0 ... __ '. - '"':;:: ~ ;.. ¡: - 0 CJ c; C '<:;j c; :; 8 gg.9 .s .g b e.S ~o ~,8 ';:.ê ~ \1:- .5 ~.c c; Ç23 5' 2 Po ¡:; e ó' c; -ci ~.s¡ ,~c; CJ i» .... ,-- õ ~ <r.- ~ '2 .- 0 s:: _:::: o.t:: ~ ~ .0 .8 ..t:: C!J .b 7" ,g " Pi:s .:; g $:! u c:: -;:: !:: x.:: . s: to-. 0 C,j S CJ ~ ~ ~CJ(I)~~C!J.sr::£8;...::::R~::UCP.;oCJ-~ ~c;c c:!jCl>~£j..c.8C!JI-<CJ£--8.~~~~~~CJH.c~~~~';j¡:; ¡:; ..c _......:;::¡ .c:: 0 '" C c:J cr. ~ 0, ¡: ~,..., ~ -' - .... r:: C!J C!J E Po :;::¡ ~ :> 0 J!1 c.... ~ ~ ....... p;:; C :.. c; ~ . . >=.::::. ~ c; 'd I-< 0 :.;j en ;> e .. . ¡,;: ~ Po. Q -.:= :J ;r." CJ ~ B .- ~ ~ £1 0 c9 u o ~ >. 8. ~ .;:1 g E 8.:.-.c :9 ... ~ !::..;:; "';.c c:J._..... CJ cr. ..t:: c:J -' . ~ 0 ..... I:: £;: "'._:-........ (I) s: '" '- ::: 0,--' 0.c c:; .... :>,- ~.o I-< -' ~ 1: 'ë3 g.9 e:ó ~ -t: ;:.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _8.... e ~ ~ u;::: ~.¿ . I-< ~'<,. Q):> c;: '-'0 0 _ c:;.- CJ = .c C) _ CJ -...J CJ ~ 0 ~ .. ~ s::: 8. C!J to ~ g E ~ :>:; .c õ..s:: 13 = :w. C!J .0 :£. c::.£ ~ t..:)'d 0 ~ ~ ~ 'Ò'~ a c; Eo'" ",::::-- - CJ c;;':r.x.c t) CJ::l.- c; c'd ::!.::; ..... J:j § C!J a .~'~ 8 § § s:.§:;:;;::: 5 -g Õ 8 .?;> c; ~ g 5 Q) ~ C!J p... s::: , '8+:1:5 CJ) C!J~ p-'¡¡j~::::<'õ 8;¡ 0 ~ '~p:¡.~ P-~:50:S .8 \.. ~' Q ,~ \ ,~ --.... \.... '(1) B§ ~,.D 0Ë:8 ,~ (1) .~~ " q .~ :iE 3- .:iêií (J ~ ë Õ ÕO- .... (j .c (j :I: ....../' -~ ~ .J ..... c; ... õ ...... (I) OOu t/j.~ arg 2¡:: p..@ C!J 1-<' .... c; ::::p... .... 'd or:: ......c; s::: (I) .g 'Éj .- ..... (I)..t:: f::t.e ~r;: 00· ~C!J .......~. r;: CfJ S (1) .g~, o~ °0 'o.O~ ~ ~ o 0 .t3f"'"\ w~ ~ ~ ,,- .,' '.. -..... BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DOUGLAS M. ANDERSON January 22, 2002 Ronald L. Book, P.A. Concorde Center 2 2999 Northeast 191 Street Penthouse 6 Aventura, FL., 33180 RE: February 1, 2002 Strategic Planning Session Dear Ron: Please find enclosed an agenda for the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners February 1, 2002 Strategic Planning Session. \.... The Planning Session will be held at the St. Lucie West Country Club, located off of 1-95, exit 63c, St. Lucie West Boulevard. Please let me know if you will be in attendance. Thank you. /l Enclosure ~ JOHN D, ORUHN, Disrricr No.1. DOUG COWARD, Dìs:rta No, 2 . PAULA A, LEWIS. Disrricr No,.3 . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, Disrricr NO.4· CLIFF OARNES. Disrricr County Adminisrroror - Douglos M, Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue. Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 · Phone (561) 462-1450 · TDD (561) 462-1428 FAX (561) 462-1648 · email: dou9a@stlucieco.gov "" St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Strategic Planning Session February 1, 2002 St. Lucie West Country Club . 3:00pm-3:30pm Assemble Welcome / Opening Comments - Doug Anderson Emergency Reserves / Round Table Discussion Revenue Trends / Round Table Discussion Unfunded Mandates / Round Table Discussion Citizens Budget Committee / Ed Lounds Parks Referendum / Round Table Discussion Tax Abatement Referendum - Continuation 1 Round Table Discussion Community Pride / Round Table Discussion Lunch Fixed Route Transit System Update Capital/Operational Projects / Round Table Discussion GASB Update Space Needs Discussion / New Building Update and FEMA Grant / Round Table Discussion Summary 8:00am-8;30am 8:30am-8;45am 8:45am-9:00am 9:00am-9:30am 9:30am-9:45am 9:45am-1O:00am 1O:00am-l1:30am 11: 30am-11 :45am \.. 11 :45am -12:00 noon 12:09 noon-12:45pm 12:45pm -1:15pm 1:15pm - 2:30pm 2:30pm-2:45pm 2:45pm-3:00pm '-' 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. individuals testifying during a hearing will be swom in. Any party to the proceedings will be granted the 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. luåe County Community Services Manager at (561) 462-1777 orTDD (561) 462- 1428 at least forty-eight(48) hours prior to the meeting, ~ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DOUGLAS M. ANDEf\SON January 22, 2002 Ronald L. Book, P.A. Concorde Center 2 2999 Northeast 191 Street Penthouse 6 Aventura, FL., 33180 RE: Senate Bill 76/House Bill 363 Dear Ron: ~ Please find attached Senate Bill 76/House Bill 363 together with correspondence regarding the above-referenced claim bills. I am requesting that you follow these bills for St. Lucie County and offer us your assistance in opposition to them. Please provide me with updates. Thank you. c: Board of County Commissioners Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney Ken Mascara, County Sheriff Attachment '-" JOHN D, DRUHN, District No, 1 . DOUG COWARD. Disrricr No, 2 . PAULA A, LEWIS. Disrricr No..3 . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, D~icr No, 4 . CLIFF ßARNES. Disrricr ~ Counry Adminisrrator - Douglas M. Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue. Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 · Phone (561) 462-1450 · TDD (561) 462-1428 FAX (561) 462-1648 · email: douga@stlucieco.gov · "<', LAW OFFICES \w PURDY, JOLLY & GIUFFREDA, P.A. 1322 S.E. THIRD AVENUE FORT LAUDERDALE, \"LORIDA 33316 RICHARD A. PURDY" BRUCE w. JOLLY RICHARD A, GIUFFREDA SUMMER M, BARRANCO MICHAEl,- J. STEPHENSO:\ ·Certified Mediator and Arbitra:or TELEPHONE (954) 462·3200 FACSIM.ILE (954) 462·3861 TOLL FREE (800) 741,3306 January 10,2002 , ----':---'. ;~ ~n p \ 'I' .-:-~\.?, Ü \:¡ '? ,~I \' \ ~ ~--::-~ ' -'~? : , \\ \'\ \\ \0, JµJl \ \ '-, ,~,< \ 1\_1_ , t . \ c~C~-:.'~~:..:'¡~~?'J Daniel Mcintyre, Esquire County Attorney, St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982 Re: Senate Bill 76/House Bill 363 \w Dear Mr. Mcintyre: As a follow-up to our telephone conversation of Monday, January 7,2002, and as I believe you are aware, this firm represents S1. Lucie County Sheriff Mascara not only in the above- referenced claim bills, but in the underlying litigation styled Hennelly v. Knowles, Case No. 97- 629-CA-11. As we discussed, hearing was conducted on December 7,2001. before Senate Special Master Maria I. Matthews. To my knowledge she has not yet issued a report on that hearing. In connection with that hearing a Pre-Hearing Conference Book was prepared on behalf of the Florida Sheriffs' Self-Insurance Fund, which provides insurance type benefits to former Sheriff Knowles and current Sheriff Mascara, under whose authorization the litigation was defended and the Claims Bill is being resisted. For your convenience I enclose a copy of the Summary and the insurance comments attached to that Summary. The pre-hearing conference book additionally contains pleadings. motions, appellate materials and some evidentiary materials, and I am not enclosing them at this time unless specifically requested. '-' The lobbying effort is on-going. The Board of Managers for the Florida Sheriffs' Self- Insurance Fund is represented by Ron Mowrey of Mowrey & Biggins, P.A. in Tallahassee. The Sheriffs' Fund has additionally retained the services of Mark Delegal of the Pennington law firm in Tallahassee. At the hearing John Hunt, Jr. of the Hunt Insurance Group, administrators for the Florida Sheriffs' Self-Insurance Fund and Seminole County Sheriff Don Eslinger testified as to the affects of this verdict on the availability ~f-iü.sura~fe(and~-~ë7~\7I1y,. B , ,--' --",'.I~.I, I ! " ~, , ;) ,',¡ '(1~" '(I ~ : \ JI\'" , 6 : -" ¡ : L': 1 (. ! 1 ~ ¡ i Ml't _ - . - \ 1 1 , ..... L \ \ I ce.,. ADLÆ\~, OFFICE \w Daniel Mcintyre, Esquire January 10, 2002 Page No.2 on how law enforcement is impacted as it relates to performing law enforcement functions. The claimants are represented by the law firm of Grossman, Roth & Partridge as trial counsel and Robert Trammel as the retained lobbyist. Sheriff Eslinger and I have already met with House Speaker Feeney's Special Counsel, Paul Hawkes. The St. Lucie County Sheriff and the Florida Sheriffs Association feel strongly that the actions of St. Lucie County Sheriffs Deputy Don Evans in this instance were not egregious and were not the cause of the crash and resulting injuries, but that the trial court and appellate court are hamstrung in applying sovereign immunity in the context of pursuits because of how the Supreme Court's opinion in Pinellas Park v. Brown, 604 So.2d 1222 (1992) is, necessarily, being extended. Any cooperation or assistance that can be provided in the continuing opposition to the Claims Bills will be appreciateq. - Thank you for your inquiry and if you have any questions, please call. ~ Very truly yours, "'j/ BRUCE W. JOLLY BWJ:sa Enclosures cc: Kathy Weber, Esquire, Professional Claims Managers Ron Mowrey, Esquire Mark Delegal, Esquire Joe Gillespie, Sr. Claims Examiner, FSSIF \..- ) ~ Senate Bill 76/ In Re: Relief of 'Villiam and Ann Hennelly MEMORANDUM OF LA'V 1. Standard of Review Pursuant to Senate Rule 4.81, a de novo hearing is necessary to determine liability, proximate cause, and damages. At the Special Master's level every claim bill, whether based on a jury verdict or not, must be measured anew against the four elements of negligence: duty, breach of duty, proximate cause, and damages. If and only if, all four elements are satisfied, can liability be found. See Special Master's Final Report for SB 70 and HB 609 (April 16, 2001). The Fund agrees with those who "see the Legislature's as a de novo responsibility to review, evaluate and weight the total circum~tances and the type of public entity's liability, and consider those factors that might not have been perceived by intródlJced or introduced to the jury or court." Id. '-" II. St. Luc.ie County Sheriffs Liability As to damages, the St. Lucie County Sheriff ("Sheriff') and the Florida Sheriffs' Self- Insurance Fund ("Fund") do not dispute or challenge the amount of damages, but rather disputes the assignment ofliability for those horrific damages inflicted by James Parker's decision to completely ignore his legal obligation to stop his vehicle, to exceed the speed limit, and run a red light which '-' resulted in the collision. At the hearing on this matter, the Claimants only presented evidence ofthe terrible damages suffered as a result of James Parker's car colliding with the van which the Hennelly's were passengers in on that fateful morning. However, the Claimants have the burden of proving each element of there claim and thus, have failed to prove the elements of duty, breach of duty, and proximate cause. See Special Master Maria 1. Matthews Letter (October 3, 2001). In this case, the Claimant's have offered no evidence to indicate that Deputy Evans physically caused the collision between Parker and the Claimants. In addition, there is no evidence that Deputy , ~ Evans operated his vehicle in an negligent manner attempting to stop Parker. However, the Sheriff did offer expert evi~ence in, theforrn of opinion testimony from Lou Reiter that under Florida Law this was not apursuit, but rather a "catch-up" and attempted pursuit. In Mr. Reiter's expert opinion, Deputy Evans did not act negligently and did not exceed proper and rational bounds. In addition, Mr. Reiter testified that Deputy Evans did not .violate the St. Lucie County Sherifr s Department Motor Vehicle Pursuit'policy. The principle evidence which the ClaÌI112.ílls relied upon to establish liability.is Mr. Baughman's testimony regarding the "momentum effect." According to Mr. Baughman, the effect occurs as a fleeing criminal speeds up, causing the deputy to speed up, which in turn pushes the suspectJo go faster. This-theory or effect attributes responsibility to the law enforcement officer for the acts Ç>f a fleeing suspec,t which is contrary to Florida Law because there are no 12.\'\'5 that require a law enforcement officer 1'0 give a fleeing suspect "breathing room." Liability predicated on the \. momentum effect is equivalent to saying that the Sheriff is responsible for Parker's failure to stop, exceed the speed limit, and run the red light. Another important consideration are the facts of this case in comparison to cases where pursuit liability was found. \Vhen the facts ofthe City of Miami v. Home, 198 So.2d 10 (Fla. 1967) and City of Pin ell as Park v. Brown, 604 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 1992) decisions are compared tó the facts ofthe present case, it is clear that in every respect the manner in which those officers conducted their pursuit was far more hazardous than the Deputy Evans. In Home, the deputies were traveling 95 mph in a 30 mph zone, 65 mph over the speed limit. In Pinellas Park, the deputies were traveling 80 and 120 mph in congested traffic areas. In this case, Deputy Evans was traveling 60 and 85 mph in a 35 mph speed zone, 25 to 50 mph over the speed limit. '-' -2- ~ There were two law enforcement vehicles involved in Home, 14-20 law enforcement vehicles involved in Pinellas Park, a!ld only one law enforcement vehicle involved i~ this case. The length of the pursuit in Pinellas Park was 25 miles versus the length ofthe pursuit in this - ." . case was 1.4 miles. The length of the pursuit in the Horne case is unknown. In the Home case, the deputy closest to t~e offender was appro~imately one block away form the pursued. In this càse, Deputy Evan~,:was from as far away as three tenths of a mile to as close ...~.~.-. as 350 feet behind Parker. It is unknown how far away the 1aw enforcement vehicles were from the pursued in Pinellas Park. ;.--- In Home, the pursued disregarded several stop signs and red lights prior to the crash. In PinellasPark, the pursuit traveled through 34 stop signs and traffic lights. In this case, there \vere no stop ~igns or traffic lights during the course ofthe pursuit with the exception ofthe light on AIA , , \...- were the crash_occurred. In Home, the pursuit traveled through a well populated area. In Pinellas Park, the pursuit commenced in a suburban area and continued into an urban area that was densely populated with urban traffic. In this case, the population density was sparse and the areas were undeveloped or semi-developed neighborhoods consisting of mixed residential and industrial buildings. In Pinellas Park, it is clear that the pursuit traveled through at least 34 intersectio'ns based upon the number of traffic signals. In Home, the pursuit traveled through several intersections. In ... this case, the course traveled by Deputy Evans was intersected by only five streets. It should be noted that none of these streets faced traffic signals. In Pinellas Park, the pursuit traveled through heavy urban traffic. In Horne, it is unknown how many cars were on the road anhe time. In this case, there was not one single car traveling in "-' -3- '-', either the opposite or same direction on Old Dixie Highway during the pursuit. In all three cases, the deputies engaged their lights and sirens. In this case, the siren of Deputy Evans was heard bynearly every witness at the intersection, including Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Jenson, Mr. parker"Mr. Young and Mr. Hardin. Although the offense committed by the pursued is irrelevant for purposes of evaluating the manner in which the pursuit was condl.lced for purposes of civil liability, the facts of this case are ~:. analogous to those in Home. In Home, the pursued was stopped for speeding in a 30 mph zone. The pursued stopped and exited his vehicle, and then ran back to his vehicle and fled because he had no driver's license. In Pinellas Park, the offender ran a red light. In this case, Parker was stopped for speedi~ (58 mph in a 35 mph zone), he pulled his car to the edge of the road, came to a near stop, andthenfled because hesaid he had no driver's license. The time duration ofthe pursuits in Home ~ and Pinellas Park are unknown. The duration of the pursuit in this case is a mere 48 seconds. The mechanism of the crash of these cases was also similar. In Home, the pursued ran through an intersection and collided with the plaintiff s vehicle causing her immediate death. In Pinellas Park, the pursued ran through an intersection, collided with the Horchler vehicle, and caused their deaths. In this case, Parker ran a red light and struck the vehicle in which the Claimants were passengers killing one occupant and seriously injuring the Claimants. It should be noted that in Pinellas Park, there was a deputy at the intersection next to the Brown sisters who was aware that the pursued was driving recklessly and approaching the intersection at the time the Brown sisters entered the intersection. Rather than warning the Brown sisters of the upcoming danger, the deputy turned onto the roadway in an effort to joint the caravan \.,. instead of protecting the Brown sisters. Brown v. City of Pinellas Park, 557 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 2d -4- ) '-' DCA 1990). There are no such similar facts in this case. Assuming :tvlr. Baugman's momentum effect theory were a legitimate basis for impos'¡ng' liability, the facts ofthis case fall short of supporting the imposition of liability. As a matter oflaw under the Horne decision, it cannot be said that traveling 65 mph over the· speed limit isperse '-~ - negligence when 2..t.'1 officer is authorized to exceed the ,speed limit pursuant to Flonda Statutes §316.072. Mr. B,mgman's theory is predicated on the fact that Deputy Evans was exceeding the speed limit which ultimately caused Parker to drive faster and eventual ly run a red light. Thus, under the Horne decision, and considering all ofthe facts ofthis case, Mr. Baugman's opinion that Deputy Evans was traveling too fast behind Parker's vehicle such that he forced Parker to collide with the Plaintiffs' vehicle, as a matter oflaw fails to establish liability. " III. Sources of Recovery for Excess Judgment '-" 1. Florida Sheriffs' Se1f~Insurance Fund Pursuant to §í68.28(5), Florida Statutes, the Sheriffs damages are limited to $100,000 per person and $200,000 per occurrence. The Fund is legally obligated to pay only those damages irrespective of any judgment in excess ofthe sovereign immunity liability limits. However, should the Legislature authorize an amount in excess of the sovereign immunity limits the Fund will be responsible to the extent the St. Lucie County Sheriff has remaining insurance co~er~ge for the policy year in question. Ifthe legislature requires that an amount be paid in excess ofthe sovereign immunity waiver limits, then the Fund will be obligated to pay to the extent that it has remaining coverage. For the 1996 policy year, the Fund had two layers of excess reinsurance and a self-insured retention. The \w first layer for recover is the Self-Insured Retention("SIR") layer which mirrors the $100,000 per -5- \..- person and 5200,000 per occurrence damage limitations provide for in §768.28(5), Florida Statutes. , . This layer is paid out of the pool of funds paid in by the member Sheriffs' and not covered.by reinsurance. In this case, the Fund paid in excess of the $200,000 per occurrence SIR limjt when it settled the Horchler claim. Thus, the Fund has exhausted the SIR coverage available for this claim which triggers the first layer ofreinsurance. Once the SIR Ís exceeded for a policy year, the first layer of excess insurance would apply. 'l'he first layer of reinsurance is limited to S 1 ,000,000 per covered member, $1,000,000 per incident, $1,000,000 per Sheriff, and to $10,000,000 for all covered member claims. Each covered member Sheriff has $1,000,000 provided the aggregate pool of $10,000,000 for the entire Fund has not been exceedç~:L This layer of-reinsurance is covered by the LIRi\1..A. Reinsurance Policy No. 480 / AA0005800 assured bySt. Paul Reinsurance Company LTD, CNA International Reinsurance \.r Company LTD, and Zurich Re (UK) LTD. For the policy year in question, the Sheriff had spent $646,595.32 of the first layer ofreinsurance as of September 30,2001. Therefore, $353,404.68 of available coverage was left of the initial Sl,OOO,OOO before the second layer ofreinsurance \\'ould , be triggered. In order to reach the second layer of reinsurance, a covered member Sheriffs c1aim~ \vould have to exceed $1.3 million dollars (5300,000 SIR + 51,000,000 first layer ofreinsuranèe). This layer of reinsurance is covered by the policies identified by Certificate Nos, LX95007 assured by Underwriter at Lloyds, London, CNA International Reinsurance Company Limited, and Zurich Re (UK) Limited. Once the second layer of reinsurance has been triggered, the amount available to pay claims is contingent upon the remaining coverage because the second layer of reinsurance is $1 '-' million dollars for all the Sheriffs' claims. For instance, if Leon County had paid claims totaling -6- '-' $1.5 million and Wakulla County had paid claims totaling S 1.6 million for the policy year in.. question, then there would. only be $500,000 available to pay S1. Lucie claims in excess of $.1.3 million because Leon and Wakulla counties had already dipped into the second layer to pay$200,000 and $300,000, reSpectively. In this' case, no Sheriffs have exceeded there SIR and first layer to reducethe second layer of reinsurance. Thus, t~e second layer ofreinsurance is available to pay this claim. One additional item which needs to be addressed are claims expenses because they act to reduce the available coverage. Pursuant to the Fund agreement The aggregate limit of the Fund '$ liability for all incidents and occurrences per Sheriff anyone annual policy period'shall not exceed the aggregate amount stated in ;~he applicable CQverage Declarations page, which aggregate includes claims . expenses as defined herein. See Fund Agreement, Sectión 5, ICe). ~ Claims expenses includable in the Fund's limits of liability are attorney's fees and "all other fees, costs, and expenses resulting from the investigation, adjustment, defense, and appeal of a claim if incurred by the Fund." See Fund Agreement, Section N, 4(a). Therefore, S1. Lucie County's available coverage is being continuously exhausted in the defense of this claim bill and any other claims being defended for the policy year in question. In conclusion, S1. Lucie has exhausted the SIR limit for this claim and has approximately 200,000 to 300,000 of coverage remaining in the first layer of reinsurance. Therefore, based upon amounts already paid as of the September 30, 2001 reporting period, the Fund had as much as $1,353,404.68 million in available cover~ge to pay this claim. \... -7- ~ 2. Non-Florida Sheriffs' Self-Insurance Fund Sources of Recovery The only other possible source of recovery is from the general revenues ofSt. Lucie County, Florida. "~'.".-'- .IV. Conclusion It is the Sheriffs position that this j~ry verdict is based largely upon sympathy for the Claimants, and the jury's desire to è'ompensate the Claimants for the horrific damages inflicted by James Parker's decision to ignore his legal obligation to stop his vehicle, to exceed.,t,he speèd limit, and run a red light which resulted in the collision. Another basis for the Sheriffs belief that the verdict is based largely upon sympathy, is thefactthat Mr. Parker has no means which would enable him to pay a civil verdict because he is serving time for the commission of multiple felonies. It .. . should be noted, Mr. P'ifrk,er had previously been convicted of cocaine possession and the sale, ~ manufacturing ,and deli very 'of cocaine. As you are aware, the Sheriff contests liabili ty based upon the fact Deputy Evans did not act in a negligent manner. If this excessjudgment is upheld it will prevent Sheriffs from being able to màke stops, use emergency equipment (lights and siren), and to pursue those individuals believed, to have acted in violation of the law for fear of runaway jury verdicts and the meaningless of the sovereign immunity waiver limitations. If this judgment is endorsed it will have significant impacts on both taxpayers and county , governments because they will be responsible for those amounts whichexceedthe Sheriff s available coverage under the Florida Sheriffs' Self-Insurance Fund. In addition, the judgement would exhaust all the second layer of reinsurance which is available to all the covered Sheriffs for the policy year ~ in question. ' -8- '-' Lastly, if this judgment is "rubber-stamped " based upon deference to the jury's decision,.. without a proper de novo 'analysis of the elements and consideration of all the relevant factors and repercussions, a dangerous signal will be sent both to criminal offenders and law enforcement. First, suspects will be more likely to flee based upon the belief that law enforcement cannot give chase which will increase risks to innocent bystander~ as Sheriff Donald F. Eslinger specifically testified. Second, law enforcement officers sworn-to protect the sanctity of human life by enforcing the laws of the land will be inhibited and often prevented from perfomiing their duty to preserve law and order. Respectfully, the Sheriff demands that this decision be reported as UNFAVORABLE because . , the Claimants failed to prove the elements of negligent as to the Sheriff. \.. RON Florida Ba .0122006 D. TYLER VANLEUVEN Florida Bar No. 0178705 MOWREY & BIGGINS, P.A. , 515 North Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (850) 222-9482 Telecopier: (850) 561-6867 ATTORNEYS FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND FLORIDA SHERIFFS' SELF-INSURANCE FlJ1'..TD '-' -9- '-' '-' '-" -, . , . ~ 'CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBYCER1:IFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Memorandum of Law has been fumishèd by United States mail to Maria 1. Matthews, Esquire, Special Master on Claim Bills, 404 South Monroe Street, 515 Knott Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1100, Eric Haug, ,Esquire, Committee on Crime Prevention, Corrections & Safety, 402 South MonrÓ'ë Street, Suite 1201, The Capital, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300, and Willia..rn E. Partridge, Esquire, Grossman, , Roth & Partridge, 1800 Second Street, Suite 777, Sarasota, Flo~da 3423 6, this 12th day of December , 2001. ,'~ ~jlK'", _" ~ 1-\', D. Tyl~ Leuven .....- .. -10- '-' ~ INSURANCE COMMENTS The Sheriff of St. 'Lucie County is a member ofthe Florida Sheriffs' Self-Insurance Fund (the "Fund"), which provides coverage for claims such as the one presented by the claimants in this matter. The Fund is a self-insured pool created under the auspices of Section 76828 (15)(a), Florida Statutes, and available solely to the, Sheriffs of Florida. The Fund is "O\vned" by the Sheriffs who are its members. The Food is the primary source of liability protection for most of the Sheriffs in the State of Florida. In one fonn or fashion, 60 of the Sheriffs in the State of Florida participate in the Fund. Like most self-insurance pools or programs, the Fund provides the limits of liability coverage but obtains reinsurance to protect the Fund over certain levels. Prior to October 1, 2001, the Fund obtainedr,einsurance in three specific layers over an amount the Fund paid out of its monies. The amounts paid by the Fund that are not subject to reinsurance are referred to as the self-insured retention limits, and those limits essentially mirror the sovereign immunity limits of $1 00,000 per person, $200,000 per occurrence. The Fund and its reinsurance renew every October 1. Prior to September 11,2001, one of the biggest concerns of the reinsurance carriers providing coverage to the Fund was the exposure of the Fund to claims arising from alleged pursuits. However, at that time renewal of the reinsurance coverage appeared imminent but with a significant increase in the rates to be charged by the reinsurance carriers. After September 11,2001, the insurance world changed. The national press has carried stories indicating that some carriers will no longer write certain lines of coverage, which they consider "risky", and that those that are renewing policies are doing so with very significant premium increases. Specific to the Fund, on September 27,2001, the Fund was [mally provided with an offer to renew coverage at significantly lower limits and '-" '-' '-" at a premium that was greater than the limits of coverage offered. As a result, the Fund has had to assume the first layer of coverage above the self-insured retention limits. The assumption of that layer of risk results in an exposure to the Fund for an additional $18 million per year. Additionally, the other two layers ofreinsurance coverage have renewed coverage for 30 days until the details of annual renewal are ironed out. The current offer to renew coverage comes with additional terms and conditions,· and a premium increase of 97% over the prior year's premIUm. Essentially, carriers willing to reinsure la\v enforcement liability programs, pools or policies are concerned about "pursuit" claims. Their concern is that, under the current state of the law, law enforcement officers and agencies continued to be exposed to damages awards such as the one rendered in this case not so much because the actions taken by the law enforcement officers involved were truly inappropriate, particularly in comparison to the actions to the violators being sought, but because of the end result of those actions. In light of the fact that law enforcement officers have a continuing duty to attempt to stop criminals and traffic violators, and claims are being made almost any time an officer activates his emergency equipment and the violator strikes an innocent party, many insurance carriers simply cannot quantify the risk involved in law enforcement liability so they refuse to accept the risks. As for those insurance carriers that are willing to accept the risks by providing law enforcement liability coverage in some form or fashion, they are making sure that line of business will be profitable for them by charging exorbitant rates to match exorbitant judgements/risks. '-' '-' SUMMARY On Saturday morning, February 17, 1996, St. Lucie County Sheriffs deputies Don Evans, Joseph Failla, and Sgt. Jerome Rothman set up a stationary radar directed toward southbound traffic on Old Dixie Highway near Chamberlain Boulevard in Fort Pierce, Florida. The speed limit on Old Dixie Highway is 35 mph. Deputy Failla, who was operating the stationary radar gun, saw a grey older model vehicle approaching at a rate of speed in excess of 35 mph. Deputy Failla clocked the vehicle going 58 mph. Deputy Failla stepped in the middle of the road, and held up his left hand directing the vehicle to stop and pull over to the side of the road. The grey vehi?le slowed and pulled onto the shoulder of the road on the east side of Old - Dixie Highway and rolled past Deputy Evans as if to stop. However, the vehicle failed to obey the ' . deputy's instructions to stop and began to pull away slowly from the side ofthe road continuing in ..... a southbound direction on Old Dixie Highway. In an effort to stop the grey vehicle, Deputy Evans ran to his patrol car which was parked on the east side of the road facÏi1g north, made a u-turn onto Old Dixie, and continued southbound behind the grey vehicle. At trial there were disputes in the testimony regarding the speeds of the vehicles. The evidence at trial showed that Deputy Evans was proceeding from as slow as 60 mph to as fast as 80 mph at the time of the crash. At trial there were also disputes regarding the distance between Deputy Evans' vehicle behind Parker's vehicle. Deputy Evans believes that he was as far away as three tenths of a mile, at he north end of the East Coast Packers warehouse complex at the time of the accident. '-' ) It was undisputed that the distance traveled from the point where Mr. parker fled until the point of crash equaled 1.4 miles, that from the first communication with the dispatcher until the time '- ~ '-' ) Deputy Evans announced the crash was 48 seconds and that the parker vehicle was traveling at 60 mph at the time he ran thè red light and collided with the Plaintiffs' vehicle. Throughout this 1.4 mile course, Deputy Evans did not pass any cars coming in the opposite direction, or in the same direction. Deputy Evans did not pass any civilians, pets, or animals. Deputy Evans had no difficulty controlling his vehicle. Deputy Evans had no near collisions with any person, obj ect, or vehicle. Deputy Evans had no difficulty avoiding the accident between Parker and the Plaintiffs' vehicle at the intersection of AlA and Old Dixie. Deputy Evans was not so close to the Parker vehicle that he had to make an emergency maneuver to ensure that he wouldn't collide with the Parker vehicle from behind. The neighborhoãd and population density through which the vehicles traveled consisted of ' . areas that are completely undeveloped and semi-developed consisting of mixed residential and industrial neighborhoods with sparse population. Old Dixie Highway consisted oftvlo lanes. There were no traffic signals or stop signs along the route traveled by Evans and Parker. There were seven intersecting two lane streets along the route. Deputy Evans was the only Sheriffs vehicle traveling behind the Parker vehicle, Deputy Evans had his lights and siren engaged after he began to exceed the speed limit. All ofthe witnesses at the intersection, including the driver ofthe vehicle behind Plaintiffs' van, James Gib~ons, heard the siren prior to the crash, with the exception of Julia Horchler, the individual driving the vehicle in which Plaintiffs were passengers. Despite the fact that Deputy Evans' siren was audible to the motorists at the intersection of Old Dixie and AlA, Ms. Horchler never slowed her vehicle prior to entering the intersection in an effort to yield to the emergency vehicle. The weather conditions during this incident were clear, dry, and sunny. There was no evidence to indicate that the manner in which Deputy Evans operated his motor "-' vehicle, in any way, physically contributed to the cause of this accident. As a result of Parker's decision to ignore his legal obligation to stop his vehicle, to exceed the speed limit on Old Dixie Highway, and to run a red light at the intersection of Old Dixie and AlA, he collided with the vehicle being driven by Julia Horchler, in which the Plaintiffs were passengers. As a result ofthe accident Richard T, Horchler, died. Julie Horchler, driving the Volkswagen can struck by the fleeing vehicle, and the Hennellys, were seriously injured. A lawsuit was instituted by Mrs. Horchler, on her behalf, and as Personal Representative of her late husband's estate, which litigation was settled in May of 1998, with the participation of the Florida Sheriffs' Self-Insurance Fund in exchange for settlement in the sum of$225,000.00. That litigation was dismissed pursuant' . . .. to Settlement Agreemerit. In addition, the Florida Sheriffs' Self-Insurance Fund made a offered to '-" settle with the Hennelly's prior to the trial which was rejected. It should be noted, pursuant to §768.28(5), Florida Statues, Florida law limits recovery in negligence against political subdivisions of the State arising out of the same incident or occurrence to $200,000 absent an act of the Legislature. That being said, the Sheriffmade a good faith attempt to settle above what was legally required. The defense by the Sheriff of this litigation did not focus on the severity of theoHennelly' s injuries. Rather, the defense was both factual and legal as it related to causation (a jury question) and application and analysis of sovereign immunity (a legal question). Conclusion ofthe evidence by the jury is skewed by the admittedly horrific nature of the Hennelly's injuries. Once the totality of the evidence as to the Plaintiffs injuries was submitted to the jury, the legal defense of sovereign ~ immunity was, improperly, negated. The verdict in this litigation represented an improper "second guessing" of actions by St. Lucie County Sheriff's Deputy Don Evans in an extreme and dangerous '--' '-' situation not of his making. . Recognizing both the profound difficulty in making these decisions as well as the importance of quick and decisive action, courts historically recognized the inherent discretion involved and protected law enforcement from liability except where a police officer drove negligently and crashed. Citv of Miami v. Home, 198 So. 2d 10 (1967), 113. Early cases implicitly recognized a fundamental social cost-benefit analysis that law enforcement's decisions to pursue, though carrying a substantial risk ofharm, also afforded substantial social benefits which outweigh the inherent risks. Since the Florida Supreme Court issued its opinion in Pinellas Park v. Brown, 604 So.2d 1222 (1992), there has been a discemable erosion of the historical deference which has been afforded law enforcement officers despite the Supreme Court's continuing lip service to the Home doctrines. ' _ Decisional law concerning pursuit liability has been chaotic ever since and substance has yielded to form. In order for a claimant to avoid the formerly formidable hurdle of sovereign immunity, the claimant may now simply label the decisions that an officer makes during a pursuit as being operation acts. If a pursuit results in a crash \vhich injuries innocent person, pleadings will recast the decisions made as negligent operational acts now blessed with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. Liability may be passed through the active and intentional wrongdoerto the well intentioned officer or deputy who has, for the protection of society, heroically endangered himself or hers.el( This shift in liability neither serves reason or logic nor protects the public. The legacy of Pin ell as Park is that law enforcement policy-makers now are burdened \\ith case law guidance which instructs them that their liabilities will be determined by what they learn after their difficult decisions have been made. It may be that the only reasonable response to the emerging rule of pass-through or direct liability for any pursuit \vith injurious consequences, is the banning of pursuits. Such a policy will have an inevitable and unwise social cost. '-' '-' This lawsuit was specifically tried with the intent to obtain, if a jury verdict was unfavorable, a clarificatiòn from the judiciary at an appellate level as to wheth<?r sovereign immunity is to remain viable as a defense in pursuit legislation. No such clarification was provided. , Senate bill 76 provides the Legislature the opportunity to assert its rightful role in the constitutionally mandated separation of powe~s. It is respectfully suggested that the claim bill be rejected, on the merits. .. '-' \.,.. November 21, 2001 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR \... BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DOUGLAS M. ANDEr-SON Senator Ken Pruitt 2400 SE Midport Road, Suite 220 Port St. Lucie, FL., 34952-4806 RE: Department of Juvenile Justice Funding Dear Senator Pruitt: ~ As you know, it is being proposed that in FY 2002-2003, Department of Juvenile Justice costs be shifted to Counties for Pre-Deposition Detention cost. If these proposals are implemented, each County will pick up the cost for the first 2.3 days that a juvenile is held ,..,in detention. The estimated annual impact for S1. Lucie County will be $301,940. It also appears that there will be statewi~e reductions to Department of Juvenile Justice programs. Obviously, reductions in the program will have significant impacts on the law enforcement network, both statewide and in St. Lucie County. Attached is a report from Beth Ryder, Community Services Director, outlining these issues. Please contact either Beth or myself should you need any additional information or have any questions. ;/ ~7/-- -- Dougl1s M. Anderson County Administrator DMAlam 01-224 c: Board of County Commissioners Ron Book, County Lobbyist Robert Bradshaw, Assistant County Administrator Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney Marie Gouin, Management & Budget Director Beth Ryder, Community Services Director Ken Mascara, Sheriff Garry Wilson, Chief Deputy \.... Attachment JOHN D, ORUHN, Dis"~ S::>, 1 . DOUG COWARD, Disrricr No, 2 . PAULA A, LEW;S, DlsrricT No,:> . FRANNiE HUTCHINSON, District No, 4 . CLIFF OARNES !)'S:7'~ County Administror::>r - Douglas M, Anderson 2.300 Virginia Avenue . Forr Pierce, FL .34982-5652 · Phone (561) 462-1450 · TDD (561) 462-1425 FAX (561) 462-1648 · email: dougo@stlucieco.gov '-' COMMUNITY SERVICES MEMORANDUM #02-12 Revised FROM: Douglas M. Anderson, County Administrator Beth Ryder, Director ~ TO: SUBJECT: Department of Juyenile Justice (DJJ) Proposed Cost Shift to Counties DATE: November 19, 2001 . ';;~ . ~. ,.~.~. .£ <,:' , " .". , - ~ ~ ~ Attached is the Department of Juvenile Justice proposed FY 2002/03 cost shift estimates to counties for predisposition detention costs. If these proposals are implemented each county would pick up the cost for the first 2.3 days that a juvenile is held in detention. The estimated impact for St. Lucie County would be $301,940. This figure is considered just the tip of the \......- iceberg because of all the program cuts that have been proposed. Attached is FY2001-2002 budget comparison from DJJ showing the reductions that would occur with either the House or the Senate proposal after Special Session "B". What the actual cuts will be is still to be determined in Special Session "C". The reductions will have a significant impact on the whole law enforcement network here in St. Lucie County, because the cuts effect many of the juvenile prevention programs already in place. If those programs are not available, or the number of clients that can be served are drastically cut, then Judges only alternative will be to sentence juveniles to either probation or a residential commitment facility. Needless to say, if juveniles are placed on probation without a transition program, the cycle is more likely to start all over again. pc: Robert Bradsha,,,, Assistant County Administrator Marie Gouin, Management and Budget Director © Œ 0 W Œ ~ ~ \..... ill;Œ NO'/ 2 1 2001 CO ADMIN. OFFICE Proposed 2002-03 DJJ Cost Shift '--' DJJ PROPOSED FY 2002-03 COST SHIFT IN PREDISPOSITION DETENTION COSTS COUNTY '-' ALACHUA $259.022 BAKER $14,508 BAY $148,703 BRADFORD $11,183 BREVARD $446,715 BROWARD $1,390.316 CALHOUN $14,508 CHARLOTTE $78,885 CITRUS $85,837 CLAY $121,804 COLLIER $270,205 COLUMBIA $16,165 DESOTO $25,691 DIXIE $11,183 DUVAL $947,833 ESCAMBIA $529,227 FLAGLER $24,482 FRANKLIN $8,463 GADSDEN $64,982 GILCHRIST $5,138 GLADES $3,325 GULF $9,672 HAMILTON $9,370 HARDEE $18,135 HENDRY $32,036 HERNANDO $76,467 HIGHLANDS $48,359 HILLS BOROUGH $1 356,163 HOLMES $16.321 INDIAN RIVER $100,042 JACKSON $32,944 JEFFERSON $9,067 LAFAYETTE $3.627 LAKE $197.667 LEE $439,763 '--' 2001 Legislative Policy Meetings COUNTY DJJ PROPOSED FY 2002-03 COST SHIFT IN PREDISPOSITION DETENTION COSTS LEON $199,782 LEVY $29.318 LIBERTY $907 MADISON $9,007 MANATEE $212,018 MARION $269,903 MARTIN $106,087 DADE $2.031,675 MONROE $29,318 NASSAU $53,497 OKALOOSA $179,834 OKEECHOBEE $40,803 ORANGE $1,061,726 OSCEOLA $115,457 PALM BEACH $868,041 PASCO $214,592 PINELLAS $844.466 POLK $606,601 PUTNAM $127,244 ST. JOHNS $136,614 ST. LUCIE $301,940 SANTA ROSA $129,360 SARASOTA $204,618 SEMINOLE $343,348 SUMTER $30,527 SUWANNEE $22.366 TAYLOR $7,55ß UNION 56,045 VOLUSIA $552,802 WAKULLA $21 ,459 WALTON $28,713 WASHINGTON $12,996 Unknow~ $5a,937 Out of State $59.844 TOTAL $15,885,267 \..., \.... \...- C) () +:i (f =' c -, 0 C) .~ 0 == '- 0 C to N C) Q.C") > EN =' 0 't) -, U 0 .... c ON 0 -tJ 0 ëii co en Q)~~ Eor-ïü 1:: 0 Ü to 0 CI) Q.N~ ",- 0 C\I 0 0 ~ ~ lO e') ~ 5 lO e::¡ 8 ..- 0 e') 0 co 0 lô 0 ~~ ...-C\I <D 0 It) 0> d5 C\I 0> ~ t- o ..- 0 co ~ 0 0 0 <D<D co 0 C\I co e') co e') 0> t- o 0> 0 lO ...- e') 0 0 ...-0 Š 0 0 ~ ri cD cD a:i 0 Ñ cri Ó Ó Ñ Ó ui cD ui å 0 cD"": t:::. C') ~ 0 <D N lO co 0> ~ to 0 to 0 t- co to 0 0 ;'})~ It) C\I. C'J.. 0 <D £1 ~ ..- ~- <D 0> 0 ~ ~ C() ~ <D 0 ci ,...: cD .~ Ñ cDui I- ...- ...- :s ..- ~ ~ !£.. ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 lOO 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 It)lO e') e') 0> If 0> O>N ·u cri criui QJ ..... 0 0"- ~ If ~ ~ ~ :J QJ ~ ..... I- ~ c ra QJ 0 C\I 0 0 '<t '<t lOe') (j) 8 lO Ie::¡ 8 ..- 0 e') oco Ô 0 CDt- QJ ~ :J <D 0 It) '<t It) O>~ co 0> '<t t- o ..- 0 co '<t 0 0 0 C\I<D en QJ c co o. C\I lO co e') co co e') (]') t- o (]') 0 lO ...- e') 0 0 Nt- C QJ 0 0 ~ ri cD cD cD å Ñ cri Ó Ó Ñ Ó Lri cD ui 0 0 cD"': QJ > t:::. C') ...- 0 <D N lO t- O> ~ to 0 to 0 t- CO<D 0 0 e')N C> QJ It) ~ C\I_ N_ O CD ~ ~ ..- ~. to (]') 0 ~ '<tCO Ie- <D '<t 0 ~ I£::! ...- ..- t- cD :s I~ ..- Ñ ~ Lri ~ e. w ô ô 0 00 C! ô oci 0) 0 LÒ('j t- LÒ I- .e- IS N ...-N It:::. ...- u.. ~ ô N 0 0 0 0 t-O> 05 ~ 6' 0 00 0 CD 0 0 COlO 1t)<D It)lO lOe') 0> t- 0 0 '<to OlO It) co C\I 0 N CD e'). t- o 0 ..- 0 e') ~ Cü ..¡ 0 ..¡ Ñ Ñ å N Ó a:i å cD 0 ,...: Lri <D t:::. ...-CO co ..- 0> to (]') 0 CDO ..- 0> ..... ...- e- O> t- lO ~ ~. N 0 0> !:£. t- O 0 ~ ci @: cD ~ ~ ~ ~ I- ~ ...- ~ !£.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 ..... If If :J ~ ·u I- QJ ~ QJ Õ N' ~ ô ¡::: ~ 0 lô e::¡ 8 0 0 0 0 CD Õ 0 lco ß If 0 0 0 0> :J QJ It) <D L() It) lO e') 0> t- o 0 '<to 0 It) Cõ It) co C\I 0 N CD e') t- o 0 ...- 0 e'). '<t 0 :J ..¡ 0 ~ Ñ Ñ å Ñ Ó a:i Ó cD å t- Lri J: ~ C QJ <D t::.. ..- co co ...- 0> to (]') 0 <DO ...- 0> QJ ...- ~ 0> t- lO ~ ~. N o. 0> !:£. t- O C > I~ I~ @: cD ~ ..- ~ ~ ~ QJ QJ ~ :s e. (!) ~ ~ 5- .~ 5 0 t- o t- r--: cD £1 lO ~ ~ CD W ~ e- I- u.. (/) - c CI) .¡:¡ -0 CI) U 0 (]) E .~ .... t5 :::!: .Q ~ 0 .:J CI) :3 ...- (/) c: C/) CI) c CI) :::!: -0 CD C/) ... "æ 0 CI) E 0 ~ C\I co ~ ~ CI) ü :E <t CI) 1:: "0 C .2 ctI ïií CI) CI) g .- u. Õ ..J :s ... t- c :J .... ~ CI) :J (/) (/) CI) - ~ e z 0:: U U " (,) (/) ;:: Õ E C/) t5 Õ CI) CI) CI) CI) õ > U ~ f/) ~ C/) C/) E co :> :s .~ " z co ctI "0 ro .~ c ë3 (/) " I CI) U 0 ... CI) w a... 0 - CI) (/) :J C " ð " 0 CD à: CI) c c: en U 0 CI) ïií C à: c::: E g U co I- .~ "0 CI) 0 .~ u. a> ïií (/) Z t5 ... CI) Z I ~ <t 0 a. :s co CI) c::: <C CD c: ~ C/) .C: CI) :ë c: ... a> "0 f/) ... a... ëij .~ 0 ~ C/) ... c: C/) .Q ... 19 U 0:: :J .- CI) õ z 0 Z :J .Q (/) :J a> a> c: c: ~ .... Z ëO a... U (/) .... c U £ a> t5 0 0 .!!! :J :õ .~ u. ü: CI) c (]) CI) (/) ... ctI co U U 0 ëñ C - a:: E € CI) wO:: .c I :J ... c: c::: CI) :J a... .~ C/) Ù5 CI) t5 > :J c: -en I (]) o è. U'- <t ::> C/) C/) ~ .:J e c: > co C/) 0 CI) c: x I-w CD e z ~ ~ ':> ct <t 0 z (/)0 0 CD co ~ ~ Z(,) ...J U. ë3 0 a... c: a>0 co ~ CI) CD a... CD 0 z a... CI) 2 CI) a...z 0 a> CI) CI) c w_ ê5 êií z êií ëO CD êií ¡g CI) ~ CI) êií êií CI) (]) ~ QJ f/) CI) CI) CI) CI) [ij~ '- .... u co u .... c ctI u c: u u ~ -0 c: c: 0 c: 0 £ c: c: c :J£ (]) :J a> :J j~ :J :J :ê :ê ii) :ê :J û) :J :ê :ê :ê > :ê ...-0 " " ïií ~w " (/) " -0 f/) (]) If o CI) Q) CI) ãi Q) CD CI) CI) CI) CI) Q) (]) !Æ W co:: ill 0:: 0:: 0 0:: Q.en ü:i ü:i c::: ü:i c::: 0:: c::: 0:: ü:i ü:i ü:i 0::0:: à: _ N '" ... \l') <D "- 00 c> « 0 ~ « N '" ... \l') <D "- 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 coco 0 C')e') Ñ oÑ C') It) co 8 N co ri ri ~ £1 0 ã) ~ t'-t- C') e') cr) cri C')e') ..- ...- 0 cD £::!- ,~ 0 NN 0 00 0 0 0 Ñ ...- ri C') ..- ~ 8 ..- t-_ t:::. t:::. 0 0 - .¡:¡ .s .Q f/) :3 .... -0 CI) 0 Q) .S1., en 0 C ... a. (]) 1; § ;:; E :J E 0 f/) 0 ïü ... ü i '~ ro CI) c ~ 0:: g () -0 oð '6 Q a> -0 x 0 <t c ü: ctI t5 c :J (]) ... cü) ,- c ctI 0 ::20 ff) Cü ..... o t- J9 c QJ i C'( Q. QJ C C> 0 ... \l') ....., "...,. """" ~ ....,. -.:t V -.:r '¢ <oq' v ~ '-' .,'-. '-' \-.- (1) o ~ U) :3 C -:» 0 (1) .~ c; := ~o C ra N Q) Q.M' > EN :3 0 Õ -:» () 0 'õ N E +' ° ø cOCl) (1)~:' E--œ ~ 0" raoCII º"~c% .ß o t- U) ·0 0) - 0:: ~ 0) ... 7ó t- c -æ 0) 0) ... ::I en 0) C C 0) (,) > C>~ W t- LL Cü - o t- - +' U) ::I ... t- U) ·0 0) 0:: 0)- U) ::I o ::r: -æ 0) ... ::I C ~ 0) 0) > C>~ W t- LL I~ Nlã> COOl'- <0<00 oo:iÑ <O"'-~ ~.<O.~ I~N 000 ;::Nm COOl'- <0<00 oo:iÑ <O"'-~ ~.<O.~ 1£2. N 8018 cciC':iLri t:.<Os ......0...... <0 <0 I'- I'- I'- r--"' ...- ...... <0 <0 ~ I~ 00 I'-~OO......COOO ~~~ ~~g~ "":(j)cr) t.ÔÑt.Ôcri' I'-O<{') N...-I'-<O I~ 1'-. £::. ~ o. £2. N. £::. I!S ~ ¡:;¡-Iã) 000 0 01;:: ......N ~ <{')<{') 0 S& Ë <{')<{') 0 O...-CO 0 0'> ~ 0'> L.'") I'- ~ 0 0 O'>tO(") ~<OO""" l{)cr)cr) t.ÔÑt.Ôo:i I'- 1'- L.'") N...- I'- N ~tO.£::. ~O.£1N. I£::. ,~~ =~ o L.'") triLri £::.... S - 00 dcci ,:S Ic;:)'¡ji 0 0'> ~ <0 0 0 0 N 0 0 <0 0'> NI'- ON<OOOOC""J OO'>N tOtO ......C""JC""JO:..')O<O O<OCO ri ó t.Ô ~ ..¡ 0 :..-; 0 ri tÖ cri' a:5 ......<0 C""J<oN<O,O<O I'-...-N t::. <0. ~. C""J ...- ~ C> <0 C""J. I~~. <0. I£::. S S £::.. ~ 0 - £::.. 00'>000000000 ... (") ' ::!: O1OOC""JI'-...-r-- ...-<0<00'>...-<0 ...-I'-C""JC""JNCO r--"'riÑor--"'ri C""JI'-...-I'-O'>... <0_ ~ ~ 0 "'-.1£2. ~ S~ <{')~...O'>OCOOI'- 8~~~ ~g~ "":cr)cr)"": ÑOt.Ô O'>O<O~ ...-<01'- ~ r-- I£::. ... 0_ ~ CO. ~ S !S I~ 00000000 I(ñ' c¡) <0 :s ¡;:)'60 0'> ~ <0 æo 0 N NtO ON<OOOOC""J to(") ...-C""JC""Jo:..'")O<O ri cD t.Ô ...- ..¡ 0 :..-; 0 ri ...r-- C""J<OC'oj<o,O<O t::.co ~.C""JIS~;e.I:£C""J· S S S \ I~ õ1í!)0 -iLrid ,:S~ 0<00 00'>...... O<OLO tÖcri'~ I'-...-LO Ie. ~_ CO_ ,9>.(j) '-s 00000000 ~O<OOC""JI'-"""¡:::- ~ ......<0<00'>......<0 N ......I'-C""JC""JNCO Ñ r--"'riÑor--"'ri ~ C""JI'-.....I'-O'>... 0'>. <0_ £::.. :£ 0 ....._ ~ ~ ~ s¡~ s c;j ~ 8 '<i ~ (")O(,,)O~I'- N<OCO C'ojC'? to(,,)1'- C""J<O ri cD Ñ .......¡ ...1'-0 <ON t::. CO 1'-. C""J S :s !S IS 010 0 C""J 0 0 0 OCOOO O<OOLO Ol'-Or--"' O<OOC""J ~N.~~ ¡£::.. ô ...... CO cv? r- C'? cv? IS Ol'-OOC""JI'-<oa: CO <00'><0'" <0 C""JC""J~a: ..¡ ÑOt.ÔC'". T""" T"""CD(J)r- CO. :£ C""J. CO. ::: ~ ¡:st::.. 00000000000000 OOOOOOOC I~ ~ ~~ o 0 C""J 0 0 O\Õ oi¡:::'OOC""JI'-<oc ...... ...... <{')<;"...O'> COOl'- (")OC""J ~I'-O <0 <0 (")(';<{')CO ~O~ NtOCO C'ojC'? OCOOO ...- CO <0 0'> <0 l I'- I'- ON(")tO <000'> to (")1'- C""J<O O<OOLO CO <0 C""J C""J ~ ( r--"' I'- "":ç)cr)r--"' ÑOt.Ô ricDÑ ~..¡ Or--"'Ol'- ri ..¡ ÑOt.Ô( ...... ...... O'>O<{')~ ...- <0 I'- ...1'-0 <0 C'oj O<OOC""J r- ...... ......<00'>. <0 <0 I~r--£::.""" O. ~ CO. t::. CO 1'-. C""J.IS 1:£ N_I~I£1 C""J CO ~ C""J. CO., ~ 18 ~ :s !S ~ IS!S IS £::.. ri ~ s;t::.. ,s 18 õlõ ,~ ~ 000 'õ ô 0 00 ~ cci cci <D L.'") C':id '<t dLricci C':i C':i 0 0 N'" I~ 0'> ~~,~ ~ ...... S ...... ''"'S :s £1 :s 0) ::I ff .!!! CfJ () > CfJ z :E c < Z o ~ () W " C W > i= I/):J c:() ow <=x gw 't1 -0 c: ..c:i ~ëõ c: coE 0 u- 0 ~ co .B 'ê ,§ c3 t Q) LJ - C1 ~roD c:Q)- ~O~~ocE C Q)-o::¡ o-c:c- _co~Cl."'£- LJ - u-oCf) _Q)Q)OU - -~ co ~ .~ « <Ii ë Q (¡j ~ ,~ ::¡ .5 '~ co C .e õ § Q)I_U S Que Cf)-oQ)-c~2 2 ,s~ Cf)'~,c:~Cf» ~CII= -Cl. -oCCf)...- E~ 0 _ ~ogê5~ ~c:co Q)Cl.õ Ig~"'CII ~~~ ~dCf)£Õ~ ~co~iEoQ !cõCl.~ Eu~ ~rt-Q)Q) C:c:"'õ~~~ ª=Q)CIICII -oQ)E c:Q)...... ~_u :::>-E8co~"'-cce~~~~ «a::-o oUCIIgoWu c: t"'cCIIOOCl.~"'Ua:: _~~ ~c:,~~Cl.o~ g~o~co!U~_(¡jCl.~ C:OC: CII~I~::¡~=- ~ O~CO~LJu-oQ)=co- o 0 ~~~Cf)~Q)oëõ c:c:c:u ~Q)oco~>«cco ._ z ._ ~::: -' ,... - C1) 0 0 Q)?: - ë. "' :;; 0 _0 _ _ OCII~-oCf)~~OZ.s:::.~:;;ro~ ~~E~co-o=- Mc:Mz ~~C:_Q)(¡j~oC1)COCO-CO'~ ~~-~LJ "'o"'OQ)c:~co~E"'::¡ ~DD~UB~Cf)=~.~Q)c::¡ - - eOCO-~ouCf)~ ee~-oCO~Cl.~a~~Oen o~~~c:ÜCf)§-I~c:<«Cl.Cl.enQ)enco<(z~wuc 1~~ffi~*~~1¡8gm8~8~~¡~55~~58~ ::¡ ::¡u~I~C:~Q)~>::¡iO::¡::¡::¡::¡~Q)u::¡::¡::¡::¡::¡::¡LJ uu ~roË ªEc-o N-o-o-o-oC"'::¡-o-o-o-o~~o ~~iw~_t::¡_oQ)(¡j~C1)C1)Q)Q)o~~Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)~", wwwQoillc:enillua::O~a::a::a::o::u-~o::o::o::o::o::a::Cl. <f!. .eN -g;S {J >- u CI! _co co -c c.Þ CD ~ co c :s ::¡ æ R u _ '-' CI! U Q)- ~ cr; 2 ~ ~ ::¡ ¿ êi5 ~il-M,~c >- .~ -0 e;; en c: Z :ë ~ ëñ - ~ .:; 3 C) 0 Q) en 0 .- ~ I -0:: EZ~:Z 0:ß:ßQ)Q)~~" -uu~~::¡Q)~ -J ~ .- .- u c: -0 .A'~2:2:Q)COC( ~ iX: Q) Q) en ~ ro ~,; ..... ?;enen è~« Q)1 zo§~o~o-g: W...J.- ::¡Z-") Q)_L: C t .~ õ Q) Q) iií C1) ( _Q)2:::¡uucu< en> Q);'::¡ ::¡.-::¡ W § §-:ßii:êii a: () en 0:: 0:: 0:: w a:: ( ~~~~~~ n~lJ")co,....mC'> o::~~ ~ ~ 0 ,.... m ~ 0 ~ N _ _ _ _ _ _ N N N PalmBeachPost.com Page 1 of3 ~J'"'I~X"'" : .: \ 1 . iJ' .f ~ PalmBeachPost.com '-' ilbo sa.gS got1 ca.n't '}>t19 a. '}>est tri @SEU.SOUlH Yellow Pages mß.Î ~ 1~~st~_~~i~~,_,,___oA ~ post Cla.s~ifi~,d,s___ "0 FIND IT FAST: I P'<:>~t~_<:>,I,u.~~~st~ Search for News ENTER KEYWORD: I GO!.'.' ~ NEW ONLINE Holiday Marketplace . Dining Guide Travel Deals Win a Trip! Real Estate Weekend Find a Job Contests Doppler Radar TODAY'S PAPER Main News Local News · Martin/St. Lucie · South P.B. County · Obituaries Business sports Opinion Accent Movie Listings Classifieds Photo of the Day Don Wright Cartoon Quick Headlines WEEKLY SECTIONS A&E Food & Dining Good Life Neighborhood Post TGIF \.. Tuesday, November 20 Accent I Business I Local News I Martin/St.Lucie I News I Opinion I South PB County I Sports Juvenile crime will climb as dollars fall, experts say By William Cooper Jr., Palm Beach Post Staff Writer Tuesday, November 20, 2001 WEST PALM BEACH -- More than a third of the juvenile delinquents on probation in Palm Beach County will go unsupervised and a successful Treasure Coast boot camp may close if proposed state budget cuts are approved, officials said Monday. The impact could mean a return to the days prior to 1994, when juvenile crime weakened Florida tourism because youngsters who should have been locked up were preying upon and sometimes killing tourists, according to members of the juvenile justice boards that represent Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, Okeechobee and Indian River counties. "We really are going to be hurting," said Cynthia Becton, chairwoman of the Palm Beach County Juvenile Justice Board. "We're talking about cutting programs that have success rates." Tuesday, November 20 News Updates · Teen Pleads Guilty to Killing Mother · Jury Deadlocks in Reno Murder Case · Adopt-A-Sailor Program Booming · Ex-School Sup Faces Weapons Charge · USa-Style Show for \!IITC Workers · Bush Urges Generosity During Holidays · Bush Pledqes to Help Filipino Leader · Bush Spotlights Humanitarian Efforts · Filipino President Seeks U.S. Help · New Law to Overhaul Airline Security · Barak Testifies on Mideast UprisinQ · Judqe Details Cell Tied to Attacks · Groups Want to Rebuild Buddha Statue · Reuters Cameraman Dies in Afghanistan · Alliance to Taliban: Surrender Kunduz The two boards met Monday to start lobbying efforts to get state lawmakers to soften the blow to juvenile justice programs. Legislators will meet next week in a special session to vote on the cuts because of a $1.3 billion budget shortfall caused by the _.:::.I ~ Is there In your Order F FIND just got He Want We're s SEAF QUI Go · Holiday · Cold & · 800+ L · Lottery Speci¡ · 2002 N Buver's ( · Discovl Beach Cc · Hurrica :.~-~'-- The Pa . ~ d_'_____,_~:.:~~.../t"rt"'"/np\.Vc;: h~~f7062426c80ecOOE... 11/20/2001 PalmBeachPost.com \..- Travel PAST 7 DAYS Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday POST SERVICES Subscribe Archives Contact The Post Order Photos PostFacts research Advertise in The Post Announcements Work at The Post Internships .,.'. \.., Extra! Extra! Celebrate Old Glory Buy 2002 Star- Spangled calendars ¡:;¡f~~:r~F}\t5TS; . .~'Y::' ::::./ ~, , "-,, ~:::.?~~~~~:t!nél,tjqh ,. . \'':;''.'; Gu:äei'i t. ___·_..:.Z..__.':':--~_· .-.......--........... \.... . Calendar . . SDonsored by , The Post III postpages Make areat aifts . Order photos Photo reDrints ~.. '. Research .. s..odI --. . PostFacts can "~ help l.~1 Page 2 of3 economic downturn and the events of Sept. 11. In 1994, in response to a series of tourist murders, state lawmakers passed a $200 million package that created the Department of Juvenile Justice. The agency had the authority to pay for programs that diverted juveniles from the court system and into boot camps. Law enforcement and juvenile officials credit a mix of prevention programs, the expansion of residential programs and broader probation services with reducing juvenile crime. In Palm Beach County, the number of juvenile arrests dropped 15 percent from 1997 to 2000, going from 10,242 to 8,751, respectively. On the Treasure Coast, the arrests dropped 8 percent, going from 4,881 in 1997 to 4,577 in 2000. Now Department of Juvenile Justice officials are expecting a cut of $72 million from their budget. That translates into the loss of 515 jobs statewide. The money will come from programs ranging from the building of new juvenile treatment centers to programs that monitor delinquents after they've been released from lock-down facilities. In Palm Beach County, juvenile justice officials expect to lose 12 of 82 juvenile probation officers in order to save $600,000. Each worker has a caseload of about 50 youngsters to monitor, which means about 600 juvenile offenders will have no direct supervision. Probation officers typically visit homes and schools checking on the whereabouts and progress of their charges. Local juvenile probation officers now oversee 1,600 youngsters. "These cuts will cost us in the future lives of our children and the quality of life in our community," said the Rev. Leo Armbrust, treasurer of the Community Alliance of Palm Beach County, which oversees the planning and development of local social services programs. "We just can't afford to have this happen." Local juvenile justice officials also expect to lose the home detention program, which provides supervision for more than 100 juvenile offenders placed on house arrest. The $350,000 program uses nine staff members to keep track of the youngsters, said David Kerr, a local spokesman. In Martin County, Sheriff Robert Crowder is preparing to lose the after-care component of his highly successful boot camp for nonviolent felons. Crowder, who attended Monday's meeting, said the 12-month program needs the follow-up phase because without it juvenile delinquents are likely to commit new crimes, landing them back in the juvenile justice system. And if the budget cuts remain at this level, Crowder said he will have to shut down the program entirely by June 30, 2002. . '- _-"_~_~ '_t..._M+I"'......"'",.!",1;t;nn<:/tnl'i::w/npw" h1af7062426c80ecOOe... 11/20/2001 ~ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DOUGLAS M. ANDERSON October 19, 2001 Mr. Ronald L. Book, P.A. Concorde Center 2 2999 Northeast 191 Street, PH 6 Aventura, FL 33180 RE: State Aid to Libraries Budget Reductions Dear Ron: ~ Please find attached a memo from St. Lucie County Library Director, Susan Kilmer outlining her understanding of proposed cuts in State Aid to fund Libraries. I am sure that you have this on your radar screen. However I thought this information would prove helpful. /--- derson inistrator s Ol- e: oard of County Commissioners Dan McIntyre, County Attorney Robert Bradshaw, Assistant County Administrator Marie Gouin, Management & Budget Director Dan McIntyre, County Attorney ~ JOHN D, ßRUHN, District No, 1 . DOUG COWARD, Disttict No, 2 . PAULA A. LEWIS, District No, J . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, District No, 4 . CLIFF ßARNES. District No, 5 County Administrator - Douglas M, Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 · Phone (561) 462-1450 · TDD (561) 462-1428 FAX (561) 462-1648 · email: dougo@stlucieco,gov ID: OCT 19'01 13:53 No.002 P.02 '--' MEMORANDUM ST. I,UCTE COUNTY LIßRARY ~110\ 1° TO: Doug Anderson, County Administrator Susan Kilmer, Library Director ~1"'-) ';;:'~/rrz.(./"j FROM: DATE: October 19, 200J SUBJECT: State Aid to Libraries Budget Reductions ................**.***........................................................ As a part of the Governor's goal to cuI almost $1.5 billion trOIll the 2001 State! Budget, a proposed cut of$3,738,583 ÍÌ'omthe State Aid to Libraries program has been recommended to the Legislature. This is a cut trom the $32.4 million appropriation approved by the Legislatllre during the 2001 session. This cut would reduce the funding of State Aid to 7.6 cents on the dollar, this would be the lowest kvel in 25 YI:-ars (since 1976-77). There is also a reeon'1J11endation to put the remaining State Aid to Library dollars into the nonrecurring general revenue. \.- As of 4:30pm on Thursday, October 18, 2001 the Senate General Govcnuncnt Appropriations subconuni1tee cr.air, Senator Charles Clary, with the apparent support of the committee mem\x.'1"s, reduced State Aid only $1,958,816 from recurring sources. The House reduction plan remainil almost in tact with the re<:luction listed: Reduce $1 nùllion from Non-recurring General Revenue $3 million trom Recurring General Revenue Transfer $28.4 million fi'om RecuITing to Non-Recurring General Revenue We currently use our State Aid doJlurs to fund three (3) full time positions within our Technical Services and Re:tèrence Services Department; provide approximately $120,000 towards the operation of the St. I.ude West Library Cooperative; miscellaneous equipment purchases under $750; and a wide variety of operating expense!s. We recei...,ed $297,826 in State Aid dollars in 2001, our projections for 2002 funding wus $262,761 - if the reductions are put into place we stand to Jose $38,179 or $224,582 in anticipated revenues trom State Aid for FY2002. If the County's lobbyist would be able to assist in making contacts to help with this issue I would gladJy give him MY other information he might need. The Florida Library Association's lobbyist is Jody Fitzgerald. cc Dr. Rudy Wid!!1an/Chair - T jbrary Advisory Board '-"' ~ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS December 12, 2001 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DOUGLAS M. ANDERSON Senator Ken Pruitt 2400 SE Midport Road, Suite 220 Port S1. Lucie, FL., 34952-4806 Subject: Elimination of State Funding to Offset Costs Related for Court Appointed Counsel Representing Indigent Parents in Child Dependency Cases Dear Senator Pruitt: The Legislature funded $61 ,548.ÒO last fiscal year to offset a portion of the cost related to providing counsel for indigent parents in dependency court proceedings. Attached is a memorandum from Beth Ryder, S1. Lucie County Community Services Director, alerting us that as a result of the Special Session "C" this funding was eliminated from the budget of the Justice Administrative Commission. While the amount of this funding seems small in the scope of the state budget, this is but one example of shifts that have occurred this fiscal year. \.,.. Please be mindful, as you are deciding where to allocate funding during the next session, that each time an allocation is eliminated for a program mandated by Florida Statute, those , costs become an unfunded mandate for the county. As always, thank you for your consideration in this matter, and all the other issues that are so important to the quality of life for S1. Lucie County residents. h ~. ~~ Æ D ugl 5 M. And rson ou y Administrator DMA: -- c: Board of County Commissioners Beth Ryder, Community Services Director Robert Bradshaw, Assistant County Administrator Dan McIntyre, County Attorney Marie Gouin, Management and Budget Director Ron Book, Esq. County Lobbyist \.. Attachment JOHN D, ßRUHN, Disrricr No, 1 . DOUG COWARD, Disrricr No, 2 . PAULA A. LEWIS, Disrricr No. oJ . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, Disrricr No, 4 . CLIFF ßARNES, Disrricr No Counry Adminisrraror - Douglas M. Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue . Forr Pierce, FL 34982-5652 · Phone (561) 462-1450 · TDD (561) 462-1428 FAX (561) 462-1648 · email: douga@stlucieco.gov · , \..- \.. \.- In addition to the letter sent to Senator Pruitt, letters were sent to the following: Senator Bill Posey 1802 South Fiske Boulevard, Suite 108 Rockledge, FL., 32955-3007 Representative Stan Mayfield 1053 20th Place Vera Beach, FL., 32961-1359 Rèpresentative Richard Machek 5353 West Atlantic Avenue Delray Beach, FL., 33484-8102 Representative Gayle Harrell 121 SW Port St. Lucie Boulevard Port St. Lucie, FL., 34984-5099 \. COMMUNITY SERVICES MEMORANDUM # 02-18 FROM: Jr~lt I DOugl~s M. Anderson, County Administrator 11'~ fð (}..I Beth Ryder, Community Services Director~ C . (f\ State Cost Shift to St. Lucie County for Counsel for Indigent ~:rents in Dependency, Court Proceedings TO: SUBJECT: DATE: December 5, 2001 ' 'J _. .... ~ -' -. -.," ~ . . " - . , ' . ,- - - - ~ Tom Willis, Court Administrator, confirmed that during Special Session "C" the budget for court appointed counsel representing indigent parents in child dependency cases had been cut, and that those costs will now be paid by the county. The amount expended last yearfor St. Lucie County was $61,548.00. Tom did say these costs would probably be covered under the Article V issue. After reading the attached statutes, it appears that the county would be responsible for these costs, but can enforce a lien against the parents for court ordered payments of attorney's fees and costs. Attached is a copy of the statute that our attorney's office provided. Please advise if you would like ·further investigation. pc: Robert Bradshaw, Assistant County Administrator Victoria Winfield, Assistant County Attorney Marie Gouin, Management and Budget Director Tom Willis, Court Administrator ~ " statutes->View Statutes->2001->Ch0039->Section 0134: Online Sunshine , Page 1 of 1 '-' SOn line h.. uns lne Wel(om~ Ses1ion Commitle~~ Lel1is!a);'¡IS Information ~ Lobbyí~) ; (enter ~In!ormalìon Search Statutes Constitution laws of Florida Order .-. ~..............,...... î\!I\\\ View Statutes Select Year: ~,~,~,!..í1 The 2001 Florida Statutes .ð."",~y,:".~·························,·· Title V ChaDter 39 Judicial Branch' Proceedings Relating To Children 139.0134 Appointed counsel; compensation.-- View Entire Chapter (1) It,counsel is entitled to receive compensation for representation pursuanttõ:å court aþpofntment in a dependency proceeding pursuant to this chapter, such compel)sation shall be ---" ëstablished by each count'{. The county may acquire and enforce a lien upon cõurt-ordered payment of attorney's fees and costs in accordance with s. 984.08. (2) If counsel is entitled to receive compensation for representation pursuant to court appointment in a termination of parental rights proceeding, such compensation shall not exceed $1,000 at the trial level and $2,500 at the appellate level. History.--S. 12, ch. 84-311; s. 9, ch. 87-289; s. 28, ch. 98-403; s. 9, ch. 99-193. \." 1Note.--Section 1, ch. 92-37, provides that "(n]otwithstanding the provisions of chapter 39, Florida Statutes, to the contrary, the attorneys whose compensation was provided in the November 1989 Supplemental Appropriations Act and is continued in subsequent general appropriations acts shall provide legal representation in cases arising under sections 39.40- 39.474, FloridÐ Statutes." Provisions within chapter 39 were transferred to other locations by ch. 97-238, ch. 98-403, and ch. 2000-139. Some of the material within the cited range can be found at parts VI, VIII, and Xl of ch. 39, as redesignated by ch. 98-403 and ch. 2000-139, and ch. 984, as redesignated by ch. 97-238. Note.--Former ss, 39.415, 39.474. Welcome. Session. Committees. Leqislators · Information Center · Statutes and Constitution. Lobbyist Information Disclaimer: The information on this system is unverified. The journals or printed bills of the respective chambers should be consulted for official purposes. Copyright © 2000-2001 State of Florida. Contact us. Privacv Statement \..r :.. . n. ,.__ 1')/! statutes-> View Statutes->200 1->Ch003 9->Section 807: Online Sunshine , ' Page 1 of2 View Statutes Select Year: [~gg:j$J Search Statutes (ommìtle~~ Lenislo!ols Inlormolion ~ Lobbyis! :I (enler ~lnfC)rmaH()n Constitution Laws of Florida Order '-' SOn line h· uns lne W~l(om~ Ses~ion @@fuH II The 2001 Florida Statutes btJl A&.'otoI'~..,......~..................,............" Title V Judicial Branch Chapter 39 Proceedings Relating To Children View Entire Chaoter 39.807 Right to counsel; guardian ad litem.-- (l)(a) At each stage of t~e _proceeding under this part, th,~Çourt~shall advise the"par~rit'of theft right to have counsel prf;¥ér\'\:. The court shall appoint counsel for indigent parenl:.$?The court shãll ascertain whether the right to counsel is understood and, where appropriate, is'i<ñowingly and intelligently waived. The court shall enter its findings in writing with respect to the appointment or waiver of counsel for indigent par~nts. (b) Once counsel has been retained or, in appropriate circumstances, appointed to represent the parent of the child, the attorney shall continue to represent the parent throughout the proceedings or until the court has approved discontinuing the attorney-client relationship. If the attorney-client relationship is discontinued, the court shall advise the parent of the right to have new counsel retained or appointed for the remainder of the proceedings. ~ (c)1. No waiver of counsel may be accepted if it appears that the parent is unable to make an intelligent and understanding choice because of mental condition, age, education, experience, the nature or complexity of the case, or other factors. 2. A waiver of counsel made in court must be of record. A waiver made out of court must be in writing with f,:1t less than two attesting witnesses and must be filed with the court. The witnesses shall attest to the voluntary execution of the waiver. 3. If a waiver of counsel is accepted at any stage of the proceedings, the offer of assistance of counsel must be renewed by the court at each subsequent stage of the proceedings at which the parent appears without counsel. (d) This subsection does not apply to any parent who has voluntarily executed a written surrender of the child and consent to the entry of a court order therefor. (2)(a) The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the best interest of the child in any termination of parental'rights proceedings and shall ascertain at each stage of the proceedings whether a guardian ad litem has been appointed. (b) The guardian ad litem has the following responsibilities: 1. To investigate the allegations of the petition and any subsequent matters arising in the case and, unless excused by the court, to file a written report. This report must include a statement of the wishes of;the child and the recommendations of the guardian ad litem and must be provided to all parties and the court at least 72 höurs before the disposition hearing. ~ 2. To be present at all court hearings unless excused by the court. 3. To represent the best interests of the child until the jurisdiction of the court over the child terminates or until excused by the court. :.. - _.... ,,,,1"\( \.. ~ ~ statutes->View Statutes->2001->Ch0039->Section 807: Online Sunshine , ' Page 2 of2 (c) A guardian ad litem Is not required to post bond but shaH file an acceptance of the office. (d) A guardian ad litem Is entitled to receive service of pleadings and papers as provided by the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure. (e) This subsection does not apply to any voluntary relinquishment of parental rights proceeding. History.--s. 9, ch. 87-289; s. 17, ch. 90-306; s. 36, ch. 94-164; s. 89, ch. '98-403; s. 46;·ch. 99- 193; s. 36, ch. 2000-139. Note.--Former s. 39.465. Welcome. Session. Committees. Leqistators · Information Center · Statutes and Constitution. Lobbvist Information Disclaimer: The Information on this system is unverified. The journals or printed bills of the respective chambers should be consulted for official purposes. Copyright © 2000-2001 State of Florida. Contact us. , PrivacY Statement ... , ~"O~ ~ , '~ \} '1 , . \ (}..;, 'Q ") ~. f'rJ . :..0..". ~ _ '" <; _ ~\ ~;,...;\DM1NiSTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 0," ..,:' >¡j', ,~~...~ ,,' . INTER-OFFICE Õ ~"'b;""~',.. >'¡" ~ê1:".'. MEMORANDUM ~I \~1 \. \, .' ~ ' \: ~ 2001 228 1. '.-, -,,- > ' - \,;'~ . . ._':''''':.;' ". ' J -1 ~ ¥J' ~:~\l~U\~\ \ \ ~ ..... ,'. . ' ·Iiœdler, Indian River County Administrator t. :Russ Blackburn, Martin County Administrator George Long, Okeechobee County Administrator Doug Anderson, St Lucie County Administrator FROM: ~m \Vi11i~, Court Administrator y {\ 1,)1 V lU \ c \ 7 .i' 0 ~¡i) /" t ,rv / . D ( 1\ \ Ý 'J¡ 'Ì I I J ~. " ~ p ~~ \~ O~1 / 1/"6 fl ~J c '. Ic For the past three years we have received monies from the Legislature to offset c~unty ¡L costs related to providing counsel for indigent parents in dependency court proceedings. Appropriation per county was based on dependency cases filed and amount to several thousand /"'I dollars for each of the counties of our Circuit. " ~ TO: DATE: November 14,2001 , RE: Dependency Counsel State Appropriation - No Funding \...r it ~I ) S ~ ~ ~F Attached is a letter from E. Frank Farrell, Executive Director of the Justice Administrative Commission indicating that t\Ús money wi\1 possibly be gone after the special session; therefore no funds will be distributed. ~~ \~}~~\_- ct... AIJ'':',N O!"~,t ; _ . ~ ,._.. c. 'Ç"rt ;..r~·6' THW!khg cc: Chief Judge Marc A. Cianca \...r :.. , ' / ~ STATE OF FLORIDA JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIO:S Post Office Box 1654 117 West College Avenue Tallahassee. Florida 32302 .. .- --.....:..... :. ;~.~ . . .. ~. .' .~..~.... .t COMMISSION! State Altc Curtis A. Gc _. ... Public DefE Diamond R (850) 488-2415 SUNCOM 278-2415 FAX (850) 488-8944 i State Att( Jen November 8, 2001 ./ / Public Def Dennis Rc . .;.:.-'.' E. Frank Farrell Executive Director 19th Circuit, Court Administrator St. Lucie County 229 Courthouse Addition 218 South 2nd Avenue Ft. Pierce, FL 34950 Re: Dependency Counsel State Appropriation Dear Circuit Court Administrator: ~ The Justice Administrative Commission was appropriated $3.5 million dollars for State fiscal year 2001 _ 2002 for distribution to offset costs related for court appointed counsel representing ÚJ.digent parents ~ child dep~ndency cases. During the latest special session, the Florida Legislature proposed cutting this appropriation in its entirety to help cover the State budget shortfall. Until further legislative notice, no funds will be distributed this year. Should you have any questions, please call Roy Neel, Accounting Director or myself at (850)-488-2415 or Suncom 278-2415. ~~ E. Frank Farrell Executive Director ~ cc: ~ Deborah Lacombe, Program Manager Lisa Goodner, Office of the St~te Courts Administrator .. . . . _ .., ._... MrHOC: thp- offices of State Attorneys, Public Defenders. · '-' \... ~ '~ COUNTY ADMINISTRATION MEMORANDUM 01-178 TO: Board of County Co ,~"»::;;..=~,,..,.-,-...;¡,~ FROM: Douglas M. Anderson unty Administrator DATE: November 19, 2001 RE: Draft (CRA) Legislation Friday, November 16, 2001, I attended a meeting in Orlando to discuss proposed legislative revisions to the Florida Statutes regarding the establishment of Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRA). Those in attendance included representatives of the Florida Association of Counties (FAC), Florida City/County Management Association (FCCMA), Florida Redevelopment Association (FRA), the Florida League of Cities (FLC), and CRAs. Attached is a draft bill that Broward County plans on introducing this legislative session. The proposed changes to the language are either stricken or underlined. Section 8, Paragraph 2c, Number 7, exempts district or taxing authorities which promulgates the health, safety, and welfare of citizens of the State of Florida. Five counties have joined together in an attempt to push this legislation forward. They are S1. Lucie, Broward, Martin, Polk, and Hillsborough. The FLC and the FCCMA have strong reservations about this revised legislation. A meeting will be set up in the very near future to try to hammer out our differences. DMAlam c: Ron Book, County Lobbyist Dennis Murphy, Interim Community Development Director Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney Patti Tobin, Economic Development Manager Jay Sizemore, Fire Chief Attachment .. 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 ~ A bill to be entitled An act relating to Broward County; ; providing an effective date. Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: Section 1. Subsections (3), (7), and (8) of section 163.340, Florida Statutes, are amended to read: (3) "Governing body" means the council. commission. or ~ther legislative body charged with governing the county or municipality. (7) "Slum area" means an area in which a minimum of one auarter tftere is a predominance of all buildings or improvements, whether residential or nonresidential, which by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age, or 9bsolescence; inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, or open spaces; high density of population as evidenced by comparables of the population density of adjacent areas within the county or municipality. and overcrowding. as evidenced by government-maintained statistics and information in the South Florida Building Code; the existence of which conditions which endanger life or property by fire or other causes; or any combination of such factors.:. is conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, inf-ant mortality, juvenile delinquency, or crime and is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals, or ·welfare. (8) "Blighted area" means either (a) Aªn area in which there' are a substantial number of slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures and in which conditions as evidenced by government-maintained statistics. are leading to economic distress or endangering life or property by fire or other causes or one or more of the follo'/iing factors that substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of a county or municipality and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare in its present condition and use: Substantial deterioration of structures is defined as a minimum of one quarter of all buildings in the area being in a deteriorated state. The following factors. as contributing to slum and blight. may be considered. but do not in and of themselves aualify for a finding of slum and blight: 1 CODING: Words stricl<en are deletions; words underlined are additions. "-' ~ \..., . 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 ,I 1. Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout; 2. An unemployment rate that is higher than. and rising faster than the county in which the proposed redevelopment area is situated. over a five-year period: 3. A tax base that has been flat or falling for five years: 21.. Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness; 5. An increase in the number of tax-exempt properties: 32. Unsanitary or unsafe conditions; 4Z. Deterioration of site or other improvements; 5~!. Inadequate and outdated building density patterns; 9. Falling lease rates per square foot of office. commercial and industrial space: 610. Tax or special assessment delinquency exceeding the fair value of the land; 11. High and rising residential and commercial vacancy rates: 112. Inadequate transportation and parking facilities; aOO 13. A high incidence of crime. as compared to the remainder of the county and municipality: 14. A large number offire and emergencv medical service calls to the area. as compared to the remainder of the county and municipality: 15. A large number of building code violations cited to the area. as compared to the remainder of the county and municipality: 8. Di'v'ersity of ovmership or defective or unusual conditions of title 'vvhich prevent the free alienability of land 'vvithin the deteriorated or hazar'CIous area; or (b) An ar-ea in '¡¡hich there exists faulty or inadequate street layout; inadequate parking facilities; or roadways, bridges, or public transportation facilities incapable of handling the volume of traffic flo'N into or through the area, either at present or following proposed construction. However, For purposes of qualifying for the tax credits authorized in chapter 220, "blighted area" means an area as defined herein described in paragraph (a). Section 2. Section 163.355, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 163.355 Finding of necessity by county or municipality.-- 2 CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. \..- \..- '-' . 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 .1 ill No county or municipality shall exercise the community redevelopment authority conferred by this part until after the appropriate governing body has first adopted a resolution finding slum and/or blight and that there is detailed iustification as to how some or all of the factors stated in subsection (8) of section 163.340 contribute to the slum and blight. The resolution shall state that: ffliID One or more slum or blighted areas, or one or more areas in which there is a shortage of housing affordable to residents of low or moderate income, including the elderly, exist in such county or municipality; and, {2}!Ql The rehabilitation, conservation, 6f redevelopment, or a combination thereof, of such arèa or areas, including, if appropriate, and the ~evelopment of housing which residents of low or moderate income, including the elderly, can afford, is necessary in the interest of the public health, safety,' morals, or welfare of the residents of such county or municipality. m If a slum and blight determination is successfully challenged by an affected party. the community redevelopment plan and any subsequent activity taken with regard to that plan will be rendered null and void ab initio. Subsection (1) of Section 163.356, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: (1) Upon a After adoption of a finding of slum and/or blight. necessity as set forth in s. 163.355, and upon a further finding that there is a need for a community redevelopment agency to function in the county or municipality to carry out the community redevelopment purposes of this part, any county or municipality may create a public body corporate and politic to be known as a "community redevelopment agency." Each such agency shall be constituted as a public instrumentality, and the exercise by a community redevelopment agency of the powers conferred by this part shall be deemed and held to be the performance of an essential public function. The community redevelopment agency of a county has the power to function within the corporate limits of a municipality only as, if, and when the governing body of the municipality has by resolution concurred in the community redevelopment plan proposed by the governing body of the county. Subsection (c) of Section 163.356, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: (c) The governing body of the county or municipality shall designate a chair and vice chair from among the commissioners. An agency may employ an executive director, technical experts, and such other agents and employees, permanent and 3 CODING: Words stricl<en are deletions; words underlined are additions. \...- , 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 \.. \w temporary, as it requires, and determine their qualifications, duties, and compensation. For such legal service as it requires, an agency may employ or retain its own counsel and legal staff. An agency authorized to transact business and exercise powers under this part shall file with the governing body, on or before March 31 of each year, a report of its activities for the preceding fiscal year, which report shall include a complete financial statement setting forth its assets, liabilities, income, and operating expenses as of the end of such fiscal year. At the time of filing the report, the agency shall publish in a newspaper of general cir.culation in the community a notice to the effect that such report has been filed with the county or municipality and thàt the report is available for inspection during bU,siness hours in the office of the clerk of the city or county commission and in the office of the agency. At the time of filing the report with the Auditor General: a second report is to be submitted to the governing body of the county which provides detailed information on progress in redevelopment activities. with report to timeframes and benchmarks. including. but not limited to changes in tax increment payments. enhancements to the tax base. leverage of private or non-ad valorem funds. costs and revenues. growth in new business. reduction of incompatible land uses or code violations. improvements to infrastructure. and benefits to the larger community. Section 4. Section 163.358, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: The community redevelopment powers assigned to a community redevelopment agency created under s. 163.356 include all the powers necessary or convenient to carry out and effectuate the purposes and provisions of this part, except the following, which continue to vest in the governing body of the county or in the municipality. only if so delegated: (1) The power to determine an area to be a slum or blighted area, or combination thereof; to designate such area as appropriate for community redevelopment; and to hold any public hearings required with respect thereto. (2) The power to grant final approval to community redevelopment plans and modifications thereof including a modification to the boundaries of a community redevelopment area served by the plan. as set forth in s. 163.361. ill An extension to the term of the plan involving the continuing contribution by the taxing authority beyond the original plan approval or adoption. 4 CODING: Words stricl<en are deletions; words underlined are additions. ~ , 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 \.,- ~ ffi A change to the plan of such magnitude as would require a county or municipal land use plan amendment. ß}@ The power to authorize the issuance of revenue bonds as set forth in s. 163.385. t41@ The power to approve the acquisition, demolition, removal, or disposal of property as provided in s. 163.370(3) and the power to assume the responsibility to bear loss as provided in s. 163.370(3). (5) The power to approve the development of comm.unity policing innovations. Section 5. Section 163.361, Florida Statutes, is amended t~ read: , (1) If at any time after the approval of a community redevelopment plan by the appropriate governing body it becomes necessary 'or desirable to amend or modify such plan, the governing body may amend such plan upon the recommendation of the agency. The agency recommendation to amend or modify a redevelopment plan may include a change in the boundaries of the r:ede'v'elopment area to add land to or exclude land from the redevelopment area, or may include the development and implementation of community policing innovations. f21 If at any time after the approval of a community redevelopment plan by the appropriate governing body it becomes necessary or desirable to amend or modify the boundaries of such plan. or implement any or all ofthe other amendments enumerated in s. 163.358 upon the recommendation of the agency. the governing body of the county in which the community redevelopment areas are located shall consider the impact of the amendment on the county as a whole. and thereafter may approve same by resolution. The agency recommendation to amend or modify the boundaries of a redevelopment plan may add land to or exclude land from the redevelopment area. t21.Ql The appropriate governing body shall hold a public hearing on a any proposed modification of a community redevelopment plan after public notice thereof by publication in a newspaper having a general circulation in the area of operation of the agency. ß}ffi If a community redevelopment plan is modified by the county or municipality after the lease or sale of real property in the community redevelopment area, such modification may be conditioned upon such approval of the owner, lessee, 5 CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. \..- . 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 ~ \.,. or successor in interest as the county or municipality may deem advisable and, in any event, shall be subject to such rights at law or in equity as a lessee or purchaser, or his or her successor or successors in interest, may be entitled to assert. Section 6. Subsection (10) of section 163.362, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: (10) Provide a time certain for completing all redevelopment financed by increment revenues. @} Such time certain shall occur no later than 30 years after. the fiscal year in which the plan is initially approved; or adopted; or amended pursuant to s. 163.361(1). ßù For plans amended or modified. pursuant to s. 163.361 and after October 1. 2001. such time certain shall occur no later than 30 years after the fiscal year in which the plan was initially approved or adopted. (11) Subsections (1), (3), (4), and (8), as amended by s. 10, chapter 84 356, La'ß's of Florida, and subsections (8) and (10) do not apply to any gov:erning body of a county or municipality or to a community rede'v'elopment agency if such go'v'erning body has approved and adopted a community rede\¡elopment plan pursuant to s. 163.360 before chapter 84 356 became a law; nor do they apply to any governing body of a county or municipality or to a community redevelopment agency if such governing body or agency has adopted an ordinance or resolution authorizing the issuance of any bonds, notes, or other forms of indebtedness to 'Jv'hich is pledged increment revenues pursuant only to a community redevelopment plan as approved and adopted before chapter 84 356 became a law'. {çl The time certain for completing all redevelopment financed by increment and revenues referenced in (10) hereinabove applies regardless of the fact that the plan was adopted before Chapter 84-356. Laws of Florida. become law or if bonds were issued pledging tax increment revenues pursuant only to a plan approved before Chapter 84-356 became law. The county. upon notification. may impose such conditions as the county may determine to be reasonably necessary in securing the financial liability of any community redevelopment undertaking by the entity and/or agency. Section 7. Subsection (1) of Section 163.385, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 6 CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. ~ 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 ~ '-' (1)(a) When authorized or approved by resolution or ordinance of the governing body, a county, municipality, or community redevelopment agency has power in its corporate capacity, in its discretion, to issue redevelopment revenue bonds from time to time to finance the undertaking of any community redevelopment under this part, including, without limiting the generality thereof, the payment of principal and interest upon any advances for surveys and plans or preliminary loans, and has power to issue refunding bonds for the payment or retirement of bonds or other obligations previously issued. In the event the issuance of the redevelopment bonds is not from the county. the issuing entity and/or agency must notify the county. in writing of its intent to issue or if applicable. refinance bonds. T~e county. upon notification. may impose such conditions as the county may determine to be reasonably necessary in securing the financial liability of any community redevelopment undertaking by the entity and/or agency. Any redevelopment revenue bonds or other obligations issued to finance the undertaking of any community redevelopment under this part shall mature within 6e30 years after ~he end of the fiscal year in which the initial community redevelopment plan was approved or adopted. However, in no event shall any redevelopment revenue bonds or other obligations issued to finance the undertaking of any community redevelopment under this part mature later than the expiration of the plan in effect at the time such bonds or obligations were issued. The security for such bonds may be based upon the anticipated assessed valuation of the completed community redevelopment and such other revenues as are legally available. Any bond, note, or other form of indebtedness pledging increment revenues to the repayment thereof shall mature no later than the end of the 30th fiscal year after the end of the fiscal year in which increment revenues are first deposited into the redevelopment trust fund or the fiscal year in 'v'v'hich the plan is subsequently amended the initial community redevelopment plan was approved or adopted. However, any refunding bonds issued pursuant to this paragraph may not mature later than the final maturity date of any bonds or other obligations issued pursuant to this paragraph being paid or retired with the proceeds of such refunding bonds. (6) Subsections (1), (4), and (5), as amended by s. 14, chapter 84 356, La'ws of florida, do not apply to any governing body of a COW'Ity or municipality or to 7 CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. "-' 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 '-' ~ a community FCde'v'elopment agency if such governing body or agency has adopted an ordinance or resolution authorizing the issuance of any bonds, notes, or other forms of indebtedness to 'iv'hich is pledged increment revenues pursuant only to a community rede'v'elopment plan as approved and adopted befer-<) chapter 84 356 became a la·v)'. Section 8. Subsections (1) and (2) of section 163.387, Florida Statutes, area amended to read: (1) After approval of a community redevelopment plan, +!here shall be established for each community redevelopment agency created under s. 163.356 a redevelopment trust fund. Funds allocated to and deposited into this fund shall be used by the agency to finance or refinance any community redevelopment it undertakes pursuant to the approved community redevelopment plan. No community redevelopment agency may receive or spend any increment revenues pursuant to this section unless and until the governing body of the county or of the municipality. if authority is so delegated by the county. has, by ordinance, provided for the funding of the redevelopment trust fund for the duration of a community redevelopment plan. Such ordinance may be adopted only after the appropriate governing body has approved a community redevelopment plan. The annual funding of the redevelopment trust fund shall be in an amount not less than that increment in the income, proceeds, revenues, and funds of each taxing authority derived from or held in connection with the undertaking and carrying out of community redevelopment under this part. Such increment shall be determined annually and shall be that amount equal to 95 percent of the difference between: {a) The amount of ad valorem taxes levied each year by each taxing authority, exclusive of any amount from any debt service millage, on taxable real property contained within the geographic boundaries of a community redevelopment area; and (b) The amount of ad valorem taxes which would have been produced by the rate upon which the tax is levied each year by or for each taxing authority, exclusive of any debt service millage, upon the total of the assessed value of the taxable real property in the community redevelopment area as shown upon the most recent assessment roll used in connection with the taxation of such property by each taxing authority prior to the effective date of the ordinance providing for the funding 8 CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. , \ 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 '-' of the trust fund. However, the governing body of any county as defined in s. 125.011 (1) may, in the ordinance providing for the funding of a trust fund established with respect to any community redevelopment area created on or after July 1, 1994, determine that the amount to be funded by each taxing authority annually shall be less than 95 percent of the difference between paragraphs (a) and (b), but in no event shall such amount be less than 50 percent of such difference. (2)(a) Except for the purpose of funding the trust fund pursuant to subsection (3), upon the adoption of an ordinance providing for funding of the r~development trust fund as provided in this section, each taxing authority shall, by January 1 of each year, appropriate to the trust fund for so long as any indebte,dness pledging increment revenues to the payment thereof is outstanding (but not to exceed 30 years from the date of approval or adoption of the initial plan) a sum that is no less than the increment as defined and determined in subsection (1) accruing to such taxing authority. If the community redevelopment plan is amended or modified pursuant to s. 163.361 (1), each such taxing authority shall make the annual appropriation for a period not to exceed 30 years from the date of approval or adoption of the initial plan after the date the governing body amends the plan. (c) The following public bodies or taxing authorities created prior to July 1, 1993, are exempt from paragraph (a): 1. A special district that levies ad valorem taxes on taxable real property in more than one county. 2. A special district the sole available source of revenue of which is ad valorem taxes at the time an ordinance is adopted under this section. 3. A library district, except a library district in a jurisdiction where the community redevelopment agency had validated bonds as of April 30, 1984. 4. A neighborhood improvement district created under the Safe Neighborhoods Act. 5. A metropolitan transportation authority. 6. A water management district created under s. 373.069. 7. Any public body. district or taxing authority which promulgates the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the State of Florida. Section 9. Section 163.410, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 9 CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. , , " ' ~ 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 ~ '-' In any county '~vhich has adopted a home rule charter, tIhe powers conferred by this part shall be exercised exclusively by the governing body of stteft the county in which the community redevelopment area is located. However, the governing body of any such county which has adopted a home rule charter may, in its discretion, by resolution... delegate the exercise of the powers conferred upon the county by this part 'within the boundaries of a municipality to the governing body of stteft a municipality in which a community redevelopment area is proposed to be located. Such a delegation to a municipality shall confer only such powers upon a ~unicipality as shall be specifically enumerated in the delegating resolution and may only include those powers which are not specifically reserved to the county under this part. Any powerí.§l not specifically delegated by resolution from the county to the municipality shall be reserved exclusively to the governing body of the 'county. This section does not affect any ongoing community redevelopment activity in any community redevelopment agency area created by a municipality prior to the adoption of a county home rule charter October 1. 2001. However. after October 1. 2001. any amendment to the boundaries to any community redevelopment area or plan may be approved by a resolution of the governing body of the county as provided in s. 163.361. as well as any or all of the amendments enumerated in s.163.358 upon the recommendation of the agency. Notwithstanding the above to the contrary. any municipality within the county may create a community redevelopment agency to operate within the boundaries of the municipality if neither the municipality nor the community redevelopment agency requests that the county provide an appropriation of incremental ad valorem tax revenues for the redevelopment activities planned or undertaken within the community redevelopment area or obtains such an appropriation from the county. A municipality creating a community redevelopment agency pursuant to this section shall be authorized to exercise all the powers conferred by the Community Redevelopment Act of 1969. as codified in Part III of Chapter 163. Florida Statutes. as amended. In the event a municipality desires to create a community redevelopment agency in which the county will participate by providing an annual appropriation of incremental ad valorem tax revenue. the municipality shall notify the chief executive officer of the county of its intent prior to conducting the study reauired pursuant to s. 10 CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. .) d' t,h ~ " ~ _'t ~ \ ~ . -x \) \/'l ~"( .y tJ.,J , " . . . ,t 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 \. 163.355. If the county determines that it will participate in the municipality's proposed community redevelopment. the county shall delegate the exercise of the powers in Part III of Chapter 163. Florida Statutes. as provided in s. 163.410 and subiect to such other requirements adopted by the county pursuant to this act. In addition to the authority the county has pursuant to s. 163.410, in delegating the exercise of such owers ursuant to this section the count ma ~ ill Reserve to itself approval of the issuance of revenue bonds pursuant to s.163.385. including imposition of such conditions as the county f'!1ay determine to be reasonably necessary in securing the financial viability of any community redevelopment undertaking by the agency: ill Provide by ordinance or resolution that the municipality or the community redevelopment aaency create an advisory' committee comprised of residents and business owners within the community redevelopment area: ill Provide by ordinance or resolution that community redevelopment agency engage in joint planning activities where the area under the agency's jurisdiction is adiacent to another community redevelopment area: ill Notwithstanding any provision of s. 163.387 to the contrary. establish by ordinance or resolution conditions under which the county will participate in the undertakings of a community redevelopment agency and pay to the agency incremental ad valorem revenues produced in the community redevelopment area. Such conditions which shall be memorialized in a letter of agreement. may include. but not be limited to. establishing the percentage of incremental tax revenue to be paid. establishing the total number of years for such funds to be paid to the agency. restricting the use of the incremental tax funds paid to the agency and .further. establishing the mechanism for retaining all or part of the County's share of the tax increments. consistent with the terms of the letter of agreement. Section 11. Section 163.415, Florida Statutes, is hereby repealed. Section 12. This act shall take effect on October 1, 2001. CLK/lt H:\DA T A \DIV2\CLK\Clk01 \CRAfirst. 80 1 #01-001.01 11/2/01 11 CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. î:)Ç¡, Cør~ October 16, 2001 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR \... BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DOUGLAS M. ANDEr-SON Representative Richard Machek 5353 W. Atlantic Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33484 Re: Community Budget Issue Request Forms Dear Representative Machek: ~ St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners are pleased to have the opportunity to provide your office the Community Budget Issue Request Fonns for our much-needed Legislative Requests. On July 17,2001, the Board approved the submittal of the Legislative Requests for State,Fiscal Year 2001 /2002. At that time, the packets mailed to our Representatives did not include-the Community Budget Issue Request (CBIR) Fonns. For that reason, please accept the CBIR Forms for the following projects: · Regional Disaster Control Center - $2,000,000, · Storm\'iater / Indian River Estates - $2,500,000, · Stormwater Master Plans for four subdivisions - $300,000, · Orange Avenue Reconstruction - $1,020,000, and · Airport Industrial Park Wastewater Collection - $788,000. \.., If your staff would like an email version of the CBIR, please contact Jody Bonet at 561/462-1592. If your staff has specific questions on the individual projects, the CBIR has the appropriate contact names. Once again, St. Lucie County BOCC is pleased to work with our local Representatives and Senators to improve the quality of life for our residents by resolving flooding, traffi safety, and evacuation preparedness problems. ~'I- ¡!- D ugl M. Anderson Cou Administrator C: Board of County Commissioners Robert Bradshaw, Assistant County Administrator Dan McIntyre, County Attorney Jack Southard, Public Safety Director Paul Phillips, Airport Director William Blazak, Utilities Director Raymond Wazny, Public Works Director Don West, County Engineer Pete Keogh, Parks and Recreation Director Ronald Book, P.A. ==- ~ ~ JOHN D, DRUW, :: wier No, 1 . DOUG CO'~'ARD, Disrricr No, 2 . PAULA A. LEWIS. DisrricT No.3' FP.ANNIE HUTCHINSON. Disrricr No.4' CLIFF DARNES, Disrricr Nc Counry AdministraTor - Douglos M, Anderson . 2-300 Virginia Avenue . Forr Pierce. FL -34982-5652 · Phone (561) 462-1450 · TDD (561) 462-1428 FAX (561) 462-1648 · email: douga@stlucieca.gov October 16, 2001 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR \... BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DOUGLAS M. ANDERSON Representative Gayle Harrell 121 S.W. Port St. Lucie Blvd. Port St. Lucie, Florida 34984 Re: Community Budget Issue Req~est Forms Dear Representative Harrell: ~ St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners are pleased to have the opportunity to provide your office the Community Budget Issue Request Forms for our much-needed Legislative Requests. On July 17,2001, the Board approved the submittal of the Legislative Requests for State Fiscal Year 2001 /2002. At that time, the packets mailed to our Representatives did not include' the Community Budget Issue Request (CBIR) Forms. For that reason, please accept the CBIR Forms for the following projects: · Regional Disaster Control Center - $2,000,000, I · Stormwater / Indian River Estates - $2,500,000, ------ ' · Stormwater Master Plans for four subdivisions - $300,000, · Orange Avenue Reconstruction - $1,020,000, and · Airport Industrial Park Wastewater Collection - $788,000. , ,~"I & " .", ~,'- -. Jw " \~~ "" ~ If your staff would like an email version ofthe CBIR, please contact Jody Bonet at 561/462-1592. If your staff has specific questions on the individual projects, the CBIR has the appropriate contact names. Once again, St. Lucie County BOCC is pleased to work with our local Representatives and Senators to improve the quality of life for our residents by resolving flooding, traffic safety, and evacuation preparedness problems. C: Board of County Commissioners Robert Bradshaw, Assistant County Administrator Dan McIntyre, County Attorney Jack Southard, Public Safety Director Paul Phillips, Airport Director William Blazak, Utilities Director Raymond Wazny, Public Works Director Don West, County Engineer Pete Keogh, Parks and Recreation Director Ronald Book, P.A. \..., JOHN D, ßRUHN, Dlsrricr No, 1 . DOUG COWARD. Disrricr No, 2 . PAULA A, LEWIS. DisrriCT No.:3 . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON. Disrricr No.4' CUFF OARNES, DisrriCT I" Counry Adminisrroror - Douglos M, Anderson 2300 Virginio Avenue . Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 · Phone (561) 462-1450 · TDD (561) 462-1428 ~AX (,)A1) .1A?-1648 . emoil: douqo@stlucieco.gov October 16, 2001 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR \. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DOUGLAS M. ANDEr-SON Representative Stan Mayfield 1053 20th Place Vero Beach, Florida 32961-1389 Re: Community Budget Issue Request Forms Dear Representative Mayfield: ., St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners are pleased to have the opportunity to provide your office the Community Budget Issue Request Forms for our much-needed Legislative Requests. On July 17,2001, the Board approved the submittal of the Legislative Requests for State ,Fiscal Year 2001 /2002. At that time, the packets mailed to our Representatives did not include the Community Budget Issue Request (CBIR) Forms. For that reason, please accept the CBIR Forms for the following projects: · Regional Disaster Control Center - $2,000,000, · Stormwater / Indian River Estates - $2,500,000, · Stormwater Master Plans for four subdivisions - $300,000, · Orange Avenue Reconstruction - $1,020,000, and · Airport Industrial Park Wastewater Collection - $788,000. \... If your staff would like an email version of the CBIR, please contact Jody Bonet at 561/462-1592. If your staff has specific questions on the individual projects, the CBIR has the appropriate contact names. Once again, St. Lucie County BOCC is pleased to work with our local Representatives and Senators to improve the quality of life for our residents by resolving flooding, traffi safety, and evacuation preparedness problems. C: Board of County Commissioners Robert Bradshaw, Assistant County Administrator Dan McIntyre, County Attorney Jack Southard, Public Safety Director Paul Phillips, Airport Director William Blazak, Utilities Director Raymond Wazny, Public Works Director Don West, County Engineer Pete Keogh, Parks and Recreation Director Ronald Book, P .A. ~ JOHN D, ßRUHN, Dlsrricr No, 1 . DOUG COWARD, Dlsrricr No, 2 . PAULA A, LEWIS, DisrricT No, J . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON. DiSTricT No, <1 . CUF:' ¡)ARNES, Disrricr No Counry Adminisrroror - Douglos M, Anderson 2300 Virginio Avenue . Forr Pierce. FL 34982-5652 · Phone (561) 462-1450 · TDD (561) 462-1428 FAX (561) 462-1648 · emoil: dougo@srlucieco.gov October 16, 2001 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR \. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DOUGLAS M. ANDERSON Senator Bill Posey 1802 S. Fiske Blvd., Suite 108 Rockledge,Florida 32955 Re: Community Budget Issue Request Forms Dear Senator Posey: ~ St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners are pleased to have the opportunity to provide your office the Community Budget Issue Request Forms for our much-needed Legislative Requests. On July 17,2001, the Board approved the submittal of the Legislative Requests for State, Fiscal Year 2001/2002. At that time, the packets mailed to our Representatives did not include the Community Budget Issue Request (CBIR) Forms. For that reason, please accept the CBIR Forms for the following projects: · Regional Disaster Control Center - S2,000,000, · Stormwater / Indian River Estates - S2,500,000, · Stormwater Master Plans for four subdivisions - $300,000, · Orange Avenue Reconstruction - S 1 ,020,000, and · Airport Industrial Park Wastewater Collection - $788,000. ~ If your staff would like an email version of the CBIR, please contact Jody Bonet at 561/462-1592. If your staff has specific questions on the individual projects, the CBIR has the appropriate contact names. Once again, St. Lucie County BOCC is pleased to work with our local Representatives and Senators to improye the quality of life for our residents by resolving flooding, traf c safety, and evacuation preparedness problems. C: Board of County Commissioners Robert Bradshaw, Assistant County Administrator Dan McIntyre, County Attorney Jack Southard, Public Safety Director Paul Phillips, Airport Director William Blazak, Utilities Director Raymond Wazny, Public Works Director Don West, County Engineer Pete Keogh, Parks and Recreation Director Ronald Book, P .A. ~ JOHN D, (}RUHN, Disrricr No, 1 . DOUG COWARD, Disrricr No, 2 . PAULA A, LEWIS. Disrricr No, J . FRANNiE HUTCHINSON, Disrricr No, 4 . CLIFF (}AP.NES, Disrricr No Counry Acrninimaror - Douglas M, Andersen 2300 Virginia Avenue . Forr Pierce, FL 34982-5652 · Phone (561) 462-1450 · TOD (561) 462-1428 FAX (561) 462-1648 · email: dougo@srlucieco.gov October 16, 2001 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR \...,. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DOUGLAS M. ANDmSON Senator Ken Pruitt 2400 S.E. Midport Road, Suite 110 Port St. Lucie, Florida 34952 Re: Community Budget Issue Request Forms Dear Senator Pruitt: ~ St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners are pleased to have the opportunity to provide your office the Community Budget Issue Request Forms for our much-needed Legislative Requests. On July 17,2001, the Board approved the submittal of the Legislative Requests for State,Fiscal Year 2001/2002. At that time, the packets mailed to our Representatives did not include the Community Budget Issue Request (CBIR) Forms. For that reason, please accept the CBIR Forms for the following projects: · Regional Disaster Control Center - $2,000,000, · Stormwater / Indian River Estates - $2,500,000, · Stormwater Master Plans for four subdivisions - $300,000, · Orange Avenue Reconstruction - $1,020,000, and · Airport Industrial Park Wastewater Collection - $788,000. \.-. If your staff would like an email version of the CBIR, please contact Jody Bonet at 561/462-1592. If your staff has specific questions on the individual projects, the CBIR has the appropriate contact names. Once again, St. Lucie County BOCC is pleased to work with our local Representatives and Senators to improve the quality of life for our residents by resolving flooding, tra c safety, and evacuation preparedness problems. C: Board of County Commissioners Robert Bradshaw, Assistant County Administrator Dan McIntyre, County Attorney Jack Southard, Public Safety Director Paul Phillips, Airport Director William Blazak, Utilities Director Raymond Wazny, Public Works Director Don West, County Engineer Pete Keogh, Parks and Recreation Director Ronald Book, P.A. \... JOHN D GRUHN, D,STTict No, 1 . DOUG COWARD. DisTricT No, 2 . PAULA A, LEWIS. DisTricT No,:3 . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON. DistricT No, 4 . CLIFF GARNES. DiSTricT No, Counry AdminisTraTor - Douglas M, AndeTson 2300 Virginia Avenue. Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 · Phone (561) 462-1450 · TDD (561) 462-1428 FAX (561) 462-1648 · emoil: dougo@stlucieco.gov Project Tracking #: Community Budget Issue Request Requester: Douglas M. Anderson. Co. Administrator Organization of Requester: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Project Title: Regional Disaster Control Center / Special Needs Facility Date: October 15. 200 I \..,... Member District: House of Representatives 78. 80. 81 and Senate 15 & 27 What statewide interest does this project address as it relates to Chapter 216.052(1)? Once completed. local counties and statewide evacuees can use the Disaster Command Post. Primary Special Needs Shelter. 911/EOC back up and an evacuation area for horses. Recipient: ' Name: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Street: 2300 Virginia A venue City: Ft. Pierce. FI Zip Code: 34982 Counties: St. Lucie and many counties needing to evacuate Gov't Entity X Private Organization (Profit/Not for Profit) 0 Contact: Name: Don West. County Engineer Phone # 561/462-1707 Project Description: (Include services to be provided) Funded with County. private in-kind funds and Fair Association over $4.296.000 has been invested in purchasing and preparing the property to build the Regional Disaster Control Center. Measurable Outcome Anticipated: Funds will be used to plan. design. engineer and construct the Regional Disaster Control Center and Special Needs Facility. The County's current facilities are inadequate and this site would be accessible to assist all counties. Amount you are requesting from the State for this project this year? Amount I $ 2.0 million Total Cost of Project: I $ 9.0 million Is this request being made to fund (check all that apply): Operations 0 Engineering and Construction X ~ What type of match exists for this request? Local X What kind? Total Cash Amount I $ 2.9 million Private 0 Federal 0 I Total In Kind Amount None 0 I $1.4 million Was this project previously funded by the State? If yes, most recent Fiscal Year I I Yes No X UnknownD Amount I Is future-year funding likely to be requested? Yes 0 No Unknown X If yes, how much? Purpose for future year funding: Recurring Operations 0 Non-Recurring Construction 0 Other Will this be an annual request? Yes 0 No X Unknown 0 Was this project included in an Agency Budget Request? Yes If yes, name the Agency Was this project included in the Governor's Recommended Budget? Yes No X Unknown 0 No X Unknown 0 Is there documented need for this project? Yes X No 0 Unknown 0 If yes, what is the documentation? The existing Special Needs Shelter is too small and has maior roof problems. In addition. the State has seen the benefits of having evacuation facilities on all sides of the state. Located on SR 70 and near 1-95. this site will be accessible for evacuees from the south. the north and the west and for horse owners trying to find a safe area to evacuate to. Was this project request heard before a publicly-noticed meeting of a body of elected officials (municipal, county, or state)? Yes X No 0 Unknown 0 ~ If yes, name the Body: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Most recent meeting date: July 17. 2001 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Due to the fiscal constraints caused by reduced revenues and unanticipated growth in the Medicaid program, Speaker Feeney and Chairman Lacasa recommend that you identify, in the current FY 2000-01 budget, an amount which can be reduced which IS equal to the amount of funding you are requesting for this project. This exercise will improve the prospects for your project substantially, and will serve as a clear indication of your commitment to responsible budgeting on behalf of the citizens of Florida. Please work with more senior members if you feel that you need help with this information. ~ Identify item(s) in the FY 2000-01 Appropriations Bill to be reduced: Specific Appropriation Title: Specific Appropriation #: Amount to be Reduced: I $ Fund Source: General Revenue 0 Trust Fund 0 Important: Attach appropriate supporting documentation, Version 27 12/01100 Project Tracking If: Community Budget Issue Request Requester: Douglas M. Anderson. Co. Administrator Organization of Requester: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Project Title: Indian River Estates / Savannas Water Retention Facilities Retrofit Proiect Date: October 15. 2001 \.." Member District: House of Representatives 78. 80. 81 and Senate 15 & 27 What statewide interest does this project address as it relates to Chapter 216.052(1)? The Savannas State Reserve basin is an Outstanding Florida Waters. Since it does not drain quickly. the adiacent Indian River Estates subdivision floods and septic tanks systems back-up and pollute the resident's wells and the adiacent Outstanding Florida Waters. The Reserve provides ecotourism. Recipient: Name: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Street: 2300 Virginia Avenue City: Fl. Pierce. FI Zip Code: 34982 Counties: St. Lucie (Benefit.s Martin County) Gov't Entity X Private Organization (Profit/Not for Profit) D Contact: Name: Don West. County Engineer Phone # 561/462-1707 Project Description: (Include services to be provided) Funded with County. SFWMD. FDEP and IRLNEP engineering has been completed and permit applications have been submitted. Funds will be used to assist in the construction of the stormwater facility. Measurable Outcome Anticipated: Funds will be used to construct a stormwater facility to eliminate flooding in the IRE subdivision making the drinking wells safer and cleaning UP water before it enters the adiacent Savannas State Reserve. Amount you are requesting from the State for this project this year? Amount I $ 2.5 million Total Cost of Project: I $ 5.5 million Is this request being made to fund (check all that apply): Operations D Construction X \." What type of match exists for this request? Local X What kind? Total Cash Amount I $ 2.5 million Private D Federal D I Total In Kind Amount None D I 0.00 Was this project previously funded by the State? If yes, most recent Fiscal Year I I Yes No X Unknown D Amount I Is future-year funding likely to be requested? Yes D No Unknown X If yes, how much? Purpose for future year funding: Recurring Operations D Non-Recurring Construction D Other Will this be an annual request? Yes D No X Unknown D Was this project included in an Agency Budget Request? Yes X . No Unknown D " If yes, name the Agency SFWMD may include this on the St. Lucie River Issues Team Request to FDEP for $500.000 Was this project included in the Governor's Recommended Budget? Yes No X Unknown D [s there documented need for this project? Yes X No D Unknown D [[yes, what is the documentation? Please see attached flooding pictures. Due to the health problems associated with the septic tanks. the Department of Environmental Protection has identified water quality violations to the state's Outstanding Florida Waters. Was this project request heard before a publicly-noticed meeting of a body of elected officials (municipal, county, or state)? Yes X No D Unknown D ~ If yes, name the Body: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Most recent meeting date: July 17. 2001 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Due to the fiscal constraints caused by reduced revenue~ and unanticipated growth in the Medicaid program, Speaker Feeney and Chairman Lacasa recommend that you identify, in the current FY 2000-01 budget, an amount which can be reduced which i¡; equal to the amount of funding you are requesting for this project. This exercise will improve the prospects for your project substantially, and will serve as a clear indication of your commitment to responsible budgeting on behalf of the citizens of Florida. Please work with more senior members if you feel that you need help with this information. Identify item(s) in the FY 2000-01 Appropriations Bill to be reduced: ........ Specific Appropriation Title: Specific Appropriation #: Amount to be Reduced: I $ Fund Source: General Revenue D Trust Fund D Important: Attach appropriate supporting documentation. Version 27 12101/00 Project Tracking U: Community Budget Issue Request Requester: Douglas M. Anderson. Co. Administrator Organization of Requester: S1. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Project Title: Stormwater Master Plans: Paradise Park. Harmony Heights. San Luca, Sunland Gardens Date: October 15. 200 I ~ Member District: House of Representatives 78. 80. 8 I and Senate 15 & 27 What statewide interest does this project address as it relates to Chapter 216.052(1)? The Indian River Lagoon isa state water body that provides recreational. tourism and sport fishing incomes to the state. The subdivisions have constant flooding problems and the pollutants ITom the subdivision are not treated before entering Taylor Creek (SFWMD C-25) and drain to the Indian River Lagoon. Recipient: Name: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Street: 2300 Virginia Avenue City: Ft. Pierce. FI Zip Code: 34982 COllnlÏes:¿'j,LldlÇ.ie OlQnefÙs (mfum River aXL~ Marlln COIlI1.\iÇ,'Ù Gov'UilJliJy-K Private Organization (Profit/Not fi)r Profit) 0 Contact: Name: Ravmond Wazny. Public Works Director Phone # 561/462- I 707 Project Description: (Include services to be provided) Funded with County and Legislative funds. this project would develop stormwater master plans for four subdivisions plagued with constant flooding. This is the first necessary step to resolve problems. Measurable Outcome Anticipated: The funding will assist with the completion of four stormwater plans which will give the County and the State proposed recommendations on how to solve this neighborhood flooding and pollution problem to the Indian River. Amount you are requesting ITom the State for this project this year? Amount I $ 300,000 Total Cost of Project: I $ 600.000 Is this request being made to fund (check all that apply): Operations D Construction Planning X \.,- What type of match exists for this request? Local X What kind? Total Cash Amount I $ 300,000 Private D Federal D I Total In Kind Amount None D I 0.00 Was this project previously funded by the State? If yes, most recent Fiscal Year I I Yes No X Unknown D Amount I Is future-year funding likely to be requested? Yes D No Unknown X If yes, how much? Purpose for future year funding: Recurring Operations D Non-Recurring Construction D Other Will this be an annual request? Yes 0 No X Unknown 0 Was this project included in an Agency Budget Request? Yes No X Unknown 0 If yes, name the Agency Was this project included in the Governor's Recommended Budget? Yes No X Unknown 0 Is there documented need for this project? Yes X No 0 Unknown 0 If yes, what is the documentation? Please see attached flooding pictures. Due to the amount of silt and debris draining from these subdivisions. the county and state agencies have invested funds to dredge silt ITom Taylor Creek to benefit the Lagoon's seagrasses. Was this project request heard before a publicly-noticed meeting of a body of elected officials (municipal, county, or state)? Yes X NoD UnknownD \.,. If yes, name the Body: S1. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Most recent meeting date: July 17.2001 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Due to the fiscal constraints caused by reduced revenue~ and unanticipated growth in the Medicaid program, Speaker Feeney and Chairman Lacasa recommend that you identify, in the current FY 2000-0 I budget, an amount which can be reduced which ~s equal to the amount of funding you are requesting for this project. This exercise will improve the prospects for your project substantially, and will serve as a clear indication of your commitment to responsible budgeting on behalf of the citizens of Florida. Please work with more senior members if you feel that you need help with this information. Identify item(s) in the FY 2000-01 Appropriations Bill to be reduced: Specific Appropriation #: ~ Specific Appropriation Title: Amount to be Reduced: I $ Fund Source: General Revenue D Trust Fund D Important: Attach appropriate supporting documentation. Version 27 12/01100 Project Tracking II: Community Budget Issue Request Requester: Douglas M. Anderson, Co. Administrator Organization of Requester: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Project Title: Orange A venue trom Kings Highway to Okeechobee County Date: October] 5. 200] ~ Member District: House of Representatives 78, 80. 8] and Senate] 5 & 27 What statewide interest does this project address as it relates to Chapter 2] 6.052(])? Orange A venue is the primary transportation route for citrus in the County since it connects with SR 44] to the west and to packing houses on US 1. The County grows over 400,000 tons of citrus with an on-tree value of$56 million. Commercial truckers use Orange Ave. trom 441 to 1-95 and Turnpike. Recipient: Name: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Street: 2300 Virginia Avenue CitY:J~t. Pierce,£! Zip Code: J.1,9Rf. Counties: St. Lucie (/3cne/its Indian River & Okeechobee Counties) Gov'! En.!i!.Y X Private Organization (I'rolil/No{ li)r Pro/it) D Contact: Name: Don West. County Engineer Phone # 561/462-1707 Project Description: (Include services to be provided) This proiect involves the reconstruction of Orange Avenue to provide a two- lane roadway with 4' wide shoulders. Proiect includes 17 miles of existing pavement that has deteriorated due to the heavy agricultural and commercial truck use. Orange A venue will be reconstructed and widened to improve safety and evacuation. Measurable Outcome Anticipated: The first phase of funding will assist with the completion of the design and permitting costs associated with the reconstruction improvements for Orange Ave. Once completed. the County MPO will look for construction funds. Amount you are requesting from the State for this project this year? Amount I $ 1,020.000 Total Cost of Project: I $9,000.000 Is this request being made to fund (check all that apply): Operations 0 Construction Permitting X ~ What type of match exists for this request? Local X What kind? Total Cash Amount I $2,700.000 Private 0 Federal 0 None 0 I invested in project. Total In Kind Amount 0.00 Was this project previously funded by the State? If yes, most recent Fiscal Year I I Yes NoX UnknownD Amount . Is future-year funding likely to be requested? Yes 0 No Unknown X If yes, how much? Purpose for future year funding: Recurring Operations 0 Non-Recurring Construction 0 Other Will this be an annual request? Yes 0 No X Unknown 0 Was this project included in an Agency Budget Request? 'Yes No X Unknown 0 If yes, name the Agency Was this project included in the Governor's Recommended Budget? Yes No X Unknown 0 ]s there documented need for this project? Yes X No D Unknown D If yes, what is the documentation? Increased accidents and fatalities and an increase in drop off from the side of road to dirt edge. Was this project request heard before a public]y-noticed meeting of a body of elected officials (municipal, county, or state)? Yes X No 0 Unknown 0 If yes, name the Body: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners "". Most recent meeting date: July 17.200] *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Due to the fiscal constraints caused by reduced revenues and unanticipated growth in the Medicaid program, Speaker Feeney and Chairman Lacasa recommend that you identify, in the current FY 2000-0] budget, an amount which can be reduced which is equal to the amount of funding you are requesting for this project. This exercise will improve the prospects for your project substantially, and will serve as a clear indication of your commitment to responsible budgeting on behalf of the citizens of Florida. Please work with more senior members if you feel that you need help with this information. ~ Identify item(s) in the FY 2000-0] Appropriations Bill to, be reduced: Specific Appropriation Title: Specific Appropriation #: Amount to be Reduced: I $ Fund Source: General Revenue 0 Trust Fund 0 Important: Attach appropriate supporting documentation, Version 27 12/01100 Project Tracking #: Community Budget Issue Request Requester: Douglas M. Anderson, Co. Administrator Organization of Requester: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Project Title: Airport Industrial Park Wastewater and Conveyance System Date: October 15.2001 \..." Member District: House of Representatives 78, 80. 81 and Senate 15 & 27 What statewide interest does this project address as it relates to Chapter 216.052(1)? St. Lucie County has one of the highest unemployment rates in the state. This project will increase the developable area on industrial sites allowing more emplo;ees to be hired. Having more iobs for residents will lower the State's unemplovment and other costs for this area. Also project protects lagoon. Recipient: Namc: SeLucic County Board of County Commissioncrs Strcct: 2300 Virginia Avcnuc City: Fe Picrcc, FI Zip Codc: ;14982 Counties: St. Lucie (Benefi~s Indian River & Okeechobee Counties) Gov't Entity X Private Organization (ProfitINot for Profit) 0 Contact: Name: Bill Blazak, Utilities Director Phone # 561/462-1150 Project Description: (Include services to be provided) At the County Airport Industrial Park. there are 106 industrial lots on septic systems limiting the size of the developable area. By proyiding a wastewater and conveyance system, a larger portion of the industrial lots can be developed allowing for a company to hire additional employees and eliminate septic tank pollutants to the environment. Measurable Outcome Anticipated: Industrial businesses will be able to more fully use their property and protect ground water. Amount I $ 788,000 I Amount you are requesting from the State for this project this year? Total Cost of Project: I $1,200,000 Is this request being made to fund (check all that apply): Operations 0 Construction X ~ What type of match exists for this request? ~X What kind? Total Cash Amount I $261.530 Private 0 Federal 0 I Total In Kind Amount None 0 I 0.00 Was this project previously funded by the State? I f yes, most recent Fiscal Year I 00-0 I I Yes X No 0 Unknown 0 Amount I $100,000 Is future-year funding likely to be requested? Yes 0 No X Unknown 0 If yes, how much? Purpose for future year funding: Recurring Operations 0 Non-Recurring Construction 0 Other Will this be an annual request? Yes 0 No X Unknown 0 Was this project included in an Agency Budget Request? Yes X . No 0 Unknown 0 If yes, name the Agency: Department of Environmental Protection Was this project included in the Governor's Recommended Budget? Yes X No 0 Unknown 0 Is there documented need for this project? Yes X No 0 Unknown 0 If yes, what is the documentation? Reduces pollutants to the Indian River Lagoon and ground water and allows businesses to expand. Was this project request heard before a publicly-noticed meeting of a body of elected officials (municipal, county, or state)? Yes X No 0 Unknown 0 If yes, name the Body: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Most recent meeting date: July 17, 2001 ~ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Due to the fiscal constraints caused by reduced revenues and unanticipated growth in the Medicaid program, Speaker Feeney and Chainnan Lacasa recommend that you identify, in the cl,IITent FY 2000-01 budget, an amount which can be reduced which is equal to the amount offunding you are requesting for this project. This exercise will improve the prospects for your project substantially, and will serve as a clear indication of your commitment to responsible budgeting on behalf of the citizens of Florida. Please work with more senior members if you feel that you need help with this infonnation. Identify item(s) in the FY 2000-01 Appropriations Bill to be reduced: ~ Specific Appropriation Title: Specific Appropriation #: Amount to be Reduced: I $ Fund Source: General Revenue 0 Trust Fund 0 Important: Attach appropriate supporting documentation, Version 27 12/01100 ~ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DOUGLAS M. ANDERSON October 16, 2001 The Honorable Senator Ken Pruitt 2400 S.E. Midport Road #110 Port St. Lucie, FL 34952-4806 . Subject: Medicaid Inpatient Hospital Billings Dear Senator Pruitt: This is a followup to my October 11th letter whereby I discussed the shifting of nursing home billings from the state to the counties. In the current 2002 fiscal year, St. Lucie County has already taken a hit and is projected to have $400,000.00 shifted to it by the state as a result of the state legislature increasing the county's responsibility by two additional inpatient days. It is my understanding that this unfunded mandate affects all \... counties in Florida and will be ongoing unless the state legislature changes the statute. Thank you for your continued attention to this matter. DMA:rs01-207 Attach. c: Board of County Commissioners Beth Ryder, Community Services Director Robert Bradshaw, Assistant County Administrator Marie Gouin, Management & Budget Director Dan Mclntrye, County Attorney Ron Book, Esq. IlL ',m" ç;. ~ ') ~ JOHN D, ßRUHN, DisTricT No, 1 . DOUG COWARD, DisTricT No, 2 . PAULA A. LEWIS, DisTriCT No,.3 . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON DisTricT No, 4 . CLIFF ßARNES, DistricT No,S County AdministraTor - Douglas M, Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 · Phone (561) 462-1450 · TDD (561) 462-1428 FAX (561) 462-1648 · email: douga@stlucieco.gov ~ COMMUNITY SERVICES MEMORANDUM #02-05 TO: Douglas M. Anderson, County Administrator Beth Ryder, Director ~ G- FROM: SUBJECT: St. Lucie County's Estimated Budget Impact for FY 2002 as a Result of Legislative Revision to the County Share of Medicaid Inpatient Hospital Billings DATE: October 12, 2001 Since the 1970's the Legislature has mandated that counties participate in the hospital Medicaid County Billings at the rate of 35%) ofthe total cost of hospital inpatient care in excess of 12 days, but not to exceed 45 days per state fiscal year. The 2001 Legislature passed SB 792 and HB 1753 increasing the Medicaid County Billings by $13.5 million state-wide. The legislation increases the county's responsibility by two additional days. The ~$13.5 million estimate was furnished by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA). Staff audited St. Lucie County's billings for the past year and the estimated impact would have been approximately $400,000 a year and not the $214,558 that is estimated by AHCA. Unless the legislature changes the statute, this additional cost will be ongoing, not just for one year. This unfunded mandate impacts all counties in Florida. pc: Robert Bradshaw, Assistant County Administrator Marie Gouin, Management and Budget Director œŒ©ŒDWŒm,¡ I 1':1; fl.1 ! OCT 1 5 2001 ¡ j ~' co ADMIN. OFFICE \.,., ~ COMMUNITY SERVICES ". MEMORANDUM #02-03 ,~ Q Œ Œ -ß Ü W ~l~ II U)\ U \ \ ~~\ 1, OCT \ 0 20m \ \_ TO: Douglas M. Anderson, County Administrator Beth Ryder, Director 6i3r9- '- FROM: SUBJECT: The Agency for Health Care Administration Proposed $169 Million Increase in Medicaid Nursing Home Billings for Counties and $2.421.355.49 for St. Lucie County DATE: October 9, 2001 The F ACSSE Medicaid sub-committee met on October 3,2001 with Robert Sharpe, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) Deputy Secretary for Medicaid, to discuss the agency's proposed $169 million shift in nursing home billings to the counties. Mr. Sharpe stated that the $1.4 billion shortfall in the state budget has required cuts of $700 million for the Medicaid program. The large amount of cuts has changed staff recommendation and the proposed $169 million increase in nursing home billings has been "taken off the table". He did say however, that anything was possible, and that FAC should continue to monitor all the budget hearings, to be sure that this proposal was not pushed through at the committee level. ~ In lieu ofthe nursing home billing increase to counties, AHCA is considering recommending elimination or cutting the following programs: Elimination of the Medially Needy program which will effect 20,000 patients, the $30 million state aid Senior Drug Program and a medical program affecting 50,000 disabled or aged patients above 74% ofthe Federal Poverty Level (FPL) to 90% ofthe FPL. Another area that will be looked at is shifting clients to HMO's from the Medipass program. Mr. Sharpe asked for assistance from the counties to identify areas that could be cut without impacting the county budgets. He stated that if programs were cut, then the clients would look to the local county programs to fill the gaps. The number of people using the hospital emergency room and the county health unit when other services are not available will increase. After a lengthy discussion of many of the programs offered by the state Medicaid program and the lack of knowledge at all levels, Mr. Sharpe agreed to present "Medicaid 101" at the FAC Legislative Conference in November. The consensus was that in order to understand the ramification of any decision to cut programs, it would be helpful for the Commissioners and staff to understand the programs and the effect on local services. My recommendation would be to contact our legislative delegation and Ron Book, our lobbyist, to raise the awareness of the impact that just a change in the Medicaid nursing home billing rate would have on the county budget should this proposal "be lifted from the table". The impact, just this year would have been $2,421,355.49. ~ pc: Robert Bradshaw, Assistant County Administrator Marie Gouin, Management and Budget Director ~ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DOUGLAS M. ANDEr-SON October 11, 2001 /f'Í; . ~ f). 'I':;~ ~'" 1 ,,/'<1 ,.~ ' J þ,l.&,,,, ~.;.- i> /' ~ ¡~ The Honorable Senator Ken Pruitt 2400 S.E. Midport Road #110 Port St. Lucie, FL 34952-4806 Subject: Medicaid Nursing Home Billings For Counties Dear Senator Pruitt: ~ Please find attached a memorandum from Beth Ryder, Community Services Director, St. Lucie County, alerting us that should the Agency for Health Care Administration decide to shift $169 million in nursing home billings to the counties, there would be a catastrophic affect on local budgets. The impact for St. Lucie County for just the current budget year would be $2.4 million. This may be one of the areas considered to relieve the seriousness of the $1.4 billion projected shortfall in the State budget. However, counties can not be expected to shoulder that responsibility. Another area that must be carefully monitored is the elimination or cutting of local programs by the Agency for Health Care Administration. Obviously if this were to occur, the people needing these services would be forced to use hospital emergency rooms or the County's health units which in turn would increase their workloads. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. DMA:rs01-20~ c: Board of County Commissioners Beth Ryder, Community Services Director Robert Bradshaw, Assistant County Administrator Marie Gouin, Management & Budget Director Don McJntIye, County Attomey Ron Book, Esq. ~ JOHN D, ORUHN. Disrricr No, 1 . DOUG COWARD, Districr No, 2 . PAULA A, LEWIS, Disrricr No,.3 . FI\ANJ':õ HUïCHINSON, Disrricr No, 4 . CUFF ßARNES, Disrricr ~ C::Junry Adminisrroror - Douglos M, Anderson 2JOO Virginia Avenue . Fort Pierce, FL J4982·5652 · Phone (561) 462-1450 · TDD (561 )462-1428 FAX (561 ) 462-1648 · email: douga@stlucieco.gov ~ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DOUGLAS M. ANDEr-SON October 11, 2001 The Honorable Senator Ken Pruitt 2400 S.E. Midport Road #110 Port St. Lucie, FL 34952-4806 Subject: Medicaid Nursing Home Billings For Counties Dear Senator Pruitt: \.,. Please find attached a memorandum from Beth Ryder, Community Services Director, St. Lucie County, alerting us that should the Agency for Health Care Administration decide to shift $169 million in nursing home billings to the counties, there would be a catastrophic affect on local budgets. The impact for St. Lucie County for just the current budget year would be $2.4 million. This may be one of the areas considered to relieve the seriousness of the $1.4 billion projected shortfall in the State budget. However, counties can not be expected to shoulder that responsibility. Another area that must be carefully monitored is the elimination or cutting of local programs by the Agency for Health Care Administration. Obviously if this were to occur, the people needing these services would be forced to use hospital emergency rooms or the County's health units which in turn would increase their workloads. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, DMA:rs01-203 c: Board of County Commissioners Beth Ryder, Community Services Director Robert Bradshaw, Assistant County Administrator Marie Gouin, Management & Budget Director Don McIntrye, County Attorney Ron Book, Esq. \.... JOHN D, ßRUHN, Dimict No, 1 . DOUG COWARD, District No, 2 . PAULA A, LEWIS, District No, J . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, Districr No, 4 . CUFF ßARNES, DisTrict No, :; County Administrator - Douglas M, Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 · Phone (561) 462-1450 · TDD (561) 462-1428 FAX (561) 462-1648 · email: dougo@stlucieco.gov ~ COMMUNITY SERVICES MEMORANDUM #02-03 In) i~ ©U W Œ ,fñì \ \ ~ \ \ OCT \ 0 20m \ \~\ ~ ¡!: \ , -'-"-' -. TO: Douglas M. Anderson, County Administrator Beth Ryder, Director r§i3G- '- FROM: SUBJECT: The Agency for Health Care Administration Proposed $169 Million Increase in Medicaid Nursing Home Billings for Counties and $2.421.355.49 for St. Lucie County Dð.TE: October 9, 2001 The F ACSSE Medicaid sub-committee met on October 3, 2001 with Robert Sharpe, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) Deputy Secretary for Medicaid, to discuss the agency's proposed $169 million shift in nursing home billings to the counties. Mr. Sharpe stated that the $1.4 billion shortfall in the state budget has required cuts of S700 million for the Medicaid program. The large amount of cuts has changed staff recommendation and the proposed $169 million increase in nursing home billings has been "taken off the table". He did say however, that anything was possible, and that FAC should continue to monitor all the budget hearings, to be sure that this proposal was not pushed through at the committee level. ~ In lieu ofthe nursing home billing increase to counties, AHCA is considering recommending elimination or cutting the following programs: Elimination of the Medially Needy program which will effect 20,000 patients, the $30 million state aid Senior Drug Program and a medical program affecting 50,000 disabled or aged patients above 74% ofthe Federal Poverty Level (FPL) to 90% ofthe FPL. Another area that will be looked at is shifting clients to HMO's from the Medipass program. Mr. Sharpe asked for assistance from the counties to identify areas that could be cut without impacting the county budgets. He stated that if programs were cut, then the clients would look to the local county programs to fill the gaps, The number of people using the hospital emergency room and the county health unit when other services are not available will increase. After a lengthy discussion of many of the programs offered by the state Medicaid program and the lack of knowledge at all levels, Mr. Sharpe agreed to present "Medicaid 101" at the FAC Legislative Conference in November. The consensus was that in order to understand the ramification of any decision to cut programs, it would be helpful for the Commissioners and staff to understand the programs and the effect on local services. My recommendation would be to contact our legislative delegation and Ron Book, our lobbyist, to raise the awareness of the impact that just a change in the Medicaid nursing home billing rate would have on the county budget should this proposal "be lifted from the table". The impact, just this year would have been $2,421,355.49. \... pc: Robert Bradshaw, Assistant County Administrator Marie Gouin, Management and Budget Director " I ~ ßOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DOUGLAS M. ANDŒSON August 14, 2001 { Senator Ken Pruitt, 2400 SE Midport Road Suite 110 Port St. Lucie, FL 34952-4806 Dear Senator Pruitt: '-" Per S.216.052 (3) of the Florida Statutes the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners discussed and ranked the 2001/2002 Legislative funding requests at their August 14, 2001 meeting. At that meeting the public was invited to comment on these requests. The rankings are as follows: Project 1 2 3 4 5 Airport Industrial Park (Existing)Wastewater Collection and Conveyance System Stormwater Master Plans Oran e Avenue Reconstruction Fairgrounds/Special Needs Shelter StormwaterlIndian River Estates $788,000 $300,000 $1,020,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $261,531 $300,000 -0= $4,300,000 $4,300,000 '-' Please note that the County originally requested $450,000 for Stom1water Master Plans for three neighborhoods. The total project cost is $600,000 for six neighborhoods, of which we now have a local match of $300,000. Therefore, our original request is now lowered to $300,000. It should be noted that it was extremely difficult to rank these projects as the are all extremely important to our community. As an example, the Fairgrounds/Special Needs Shelter has now received a local match of $4,300,000 toward the $9,000,000 Project. We feel that with this type of match, the State should take a hard look at this project even though it is ranked number four. These Legislative projects were previously submitted to you in July, 2001, with detailed back up. If you need further infom1ation and wish to discuss any of these projects, please feel free to contact me. JOHN D, DRUHN, Disrrict No, 1 . DOUG COWAI'.D, Disrricr No, 2 . PAULA A, LEWIS, DiSTrict No, J . H>'ANNIE HUTCHINSON, DisrriCT No, 4 . CLIFF [JARNES, Disrricr Counry Administrotor - Douglas M, Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 · Phone (561) 462-1450 · TOD (561) 462-1428 FAX (561) 462-1648 · emoil: dougo@stlucieco.gov ~ . \.- ~ \..... Senator Pruitt Augus t 14, 2001 Page 2 Thank you for your continued assistance and support. DMA:esOl-151 c: Board of County Commissioners Ron Book, Esquire Jeanne Keaton, Fair Manager Ray Wawy, Public Works Director Don West, County Engineer Bill Blazak, Utilities Director Paul Phillips, Airport Director \. Letter 01-151 sent to Florida Legislative Delegation ~ \..,... ~ AGENDA REQUEST ITEM NO. RA-2 DATE: July 17, 2001 R'EGULAR [ X ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [ ] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: Sl::JBMITTED BY(DEPT): Administration Douglas M. Anderson County Administrator SUBJECT: Legislative Funding Requests BACKGROUND: Our lobbyist, Ron Book, P.A., states that our funding requests must be submitted to his office on July 18, 2001. FUNDS AVAILABLE: N/A PREVIOUS ACTION: N/ A \.. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant permission to submit the following projects for funding: Funding Project Title Reauested Fairgrounds! Special Needs Shelter $2,000,000 Stormwater !Indian River Estates $2,500,000 Stormwater Master Plans $450,000 Orange Avenue $1,020,000 Airport Industrial Park (Existing) Wastewater Collection and $788,000 Conveyance Svstem '-" [ ] APPROVED [ ] DENIED [ ] OTHER: CE: COMMISSION ACTION: ""-- D glas Anderson ounty Administrator ~ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DOUGLAS M. ANDEr-SON 2001/2002 LEGISLATIVE REQUESTS I. STORMWATER Legislative Requests Local Match A. Indian River Estates $2,500,000 $3,000,000 B. Stormwater Master Plans: Paradise Park Harmony Heights San Luea Sunland Gardens 450,000 150,000 ~ II. REGIONAL DISASTER CONTROL CENTER/SPECIAL NEEDS FACILITY AND RECONSTRUCTION OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY MULTI-PURPOSE REGIONAL FAIRGROUND FACILITY Total Proiect Cost $9,000,000 Local Match $4,300,000 Shortfall $4,700,000* "We are requesting $2,000,000 from the State in the 200112002 budget year. III. TRANSPORTATION Orange Avenue reconstruction from Kings Highway to the County Line. Proiect Cost $9,000,000 LeS[islative Reauest $1,020,000 We are requesting $1,020,000 from the State in the 2001/2002 budget year for design/permitting costs. Since the State turned Orange Avenue over to the County in 1985, we have spent $2,700,000 on resuñacing, bridge repair maintenance and culvert replacement. ~ JOHN 0, ßRUHN. Disrrier No, 1 . DOUG COWARD, Disrricr No, 2 . PAULA A, LEWIS, Disrrier No,.3 . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, Disrrier No, 4 . CLIFF ßARNES, Disrrier No, 5 County Adminisrroror - Douglas M, Anderson 2.300 Virginia Avenue. Fort Pierce, FL .34982-5652 · Phone (561) 462-1450 · TDD (561) 462-1428 FAX (561) 462-1648 · email: douga@srlucieco.gov ~ IV. AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK (ExistinR') WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND CONVEYANCE SYSTEM · Original Water Advisory Panel Grant Application $ 1,200,000.00 Funding Received from Water Advisory Panel (1999-2000) - $ 50,000.00 BOCC Contribution of $11,530.00 added to the original Grant to complete engineering plans for the project. - $ 11,530.00 Remaining Project Costs (2000 - 2001 ) S 1.138.000.00 · 2000 - 2001 Legislative continued funding of original Water Advisory Panel, partially funded projects - $ 100,000.00 '-' Remaining Project Costs (2001 - 2002 ) S 1. 038.000.00 · Formation and Adoption of a Municipal Services Benefit Unit that would assess each of the 1 00 lots in the Industrial Park $2,500.00 ( 35% matching funds) - $ 250,000.00 2001-2001 LEGISLATIVE FUNDING REQUEST $ 788,000.00* *This amount represents 65% of the original Water Advisory Panel funding request. Project Manager - William Slazak Department-St. Lucie County Utilities '-' ~ '-' indian River Estates/Savannas Water Retention Faci[1ties Retrofit Project July, 2001 .......... '-' Indian River Estates/Savannas Water Retention Facilities Retrofit Project A proposal for $5.5million to build a new water retention facility to improve the flow of water, reduce flooding and improve water quality in Indian River Estates and the Savannas. '-' \..... · '-' INDIAN RIVER ESTATES/SAVANNAS WATER RETENTION FACILITIES RETROFIT PROJECT Project Manager: Don West County Engineer Amount of Request: $2.5 Million Description of Project: ...... Currently, St. Lucie County is partnering with SFWMD, FDEP, and Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program (NEP), to design this facility. The project involves constructing a storm water collection and treatment system to handle storm water runoff from the Indian River Estates Subdivision. Storm water runoff from the subdivision drains untreated into the Savannas State Preserve. This is having a detrimental effect on the Savannas ecosystem. Storm water from Indian River Estates Subdivision will be collected and pumped into a retention pond to improve water quality, prior to being discharged to the Savannas. Final design plans have been completed at this time, and we are currently investigating land acquisition for the retention pond. The project cost is estimated at approximately $5.5 million, including land purchase. Permitting and land acquisition are underway, and should be completed within 12 months. Construction could commence by October, 2002 pending funding. The County is requesting $2.5 million from the State for this project. A 50-50 local match of $2.5 million is proposed to be borrowed from the State Revolving Loan Fund. We are currently applying for funding through the SRLF Program. Reason for Project: This project will reduce flooding in this residential area and improve the quality of life for it's residents. It will also improve the ecosystems throughout the Savannas State Preserve. , \....- AGENDA REQUEST ITEM NO. C-4C DATE: June 25,2001 SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): ENGINEERING DIVISION 4115 REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [x] PRESENTED BY: Þ~~~-\À~ (Donald B. We~t, P.E. County Engineer TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBJECT: Authorize the Engineering Division to submit an EPA Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program grant application to Florida Department of Environmental Protection for funds to assist in the Indian River Estates/Savannas Ecosystem Management Project. BACKGROUND: Since 1995, Engineering staff has been working to design a stormwater management system for the 1200 acre Indian River Estates subdivision. The extreme flooding that occurred in 1995 and 1997 resulted in a recognition that the existing drainage system is insufficient. The flooding that occurs in the neighborhood lasts for weeks because the adjacent Savannas water levels rise too high. The flood water in the neighborhood has no place to go because the existing drainage system outfalls directly to the Savannas State Reserve. Indian River Estates subdivision was designed in the late 1950ls, prior to rriteria being established for treatment and storage of stormwater runoff. """'n 1997, the local FDEP office documented the impacts that were occurring to the Savannas Preserve because of the untreated stormwater runoff coming out of Indian River Estates. The entire subdivision (3600 lots) contains septic tank drainfields for sewage disposal. The slightest amount of nutrient loading in the stormwater runoff causes a large impact to the Savannas ecosystem. At the request of the County, the Savannas Task Force was created to address these problems. The Task Force is comprised of representatives from the various regulatory agencies, including officials representing the Savannas State Reserve and Federal agencies. The goal ofthe Savannas Task Force was to reach a consensus on the design of a stormwater management system for Indian River Estates and to facilitate permitting of the project. To date, the conceptual design and final construction plans have been completed for the project. We are ready to submit for permit approvals. Currently, we are finalizing the land acquisiton issues and pursuing funding for contstruction of the project. We anticipate that we could be ready to advertise the project for construction by October, 2002, pending available funding. Based upon final design plans, the estimated cost for construction of the project is $5.5 million dollars. Several agencies have partnered with the County to fund the design work as listed below: '-' C-4C Page 2 '-" , Design Costs: St. Lucie County SFWMD SJRWMD/NEP Total $259,700 $100,000 $ 95.000 $454,700 SFWMD, FDEP and SJRWMD/NEP have expressed a desire to contribute towards funding ofthe project construction. The County intends to provide matching funds using the Stormwater MSTU and the State Revolving Loan Fund as a source of money. The grant application is for the EPA 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program administered through FDEP in Tallahassee. The grant request is in the amount of $600,000, the maximum amount that can be granted through the program. Our goal is to submit an additional SeGtion 319 Grant application next year. Iffunded, the grant award will occur between April and August 2002, and the project construction could begin between July and November of 2002. This would provide a total grant contribution of $1.2 million through FDEP/Section 319. The Engineering Division has already met the matching funds requirement due to the value of the land and the funds previously expended for engineering costs. FUNDS AVAIL.: n/a PREVIOUS ACTION: ........ y 8, 1997, the soee entered into an agreement with Hazen and Sawyer for preliminary engineering design in the amount of $118,500. December 15, 1998, the soee entered into an agreement with Hazen and Sawyer for a portion of the engineering design in the amount of $73,000. The remaining $152,000to complete the design and permitting ($225,000 total) was to be authorized at a later date when the full grant funds were secured. (These grant funds were obtained in 2000.) August 24, 1999, the soee entered into an agreement with Hazen and Sawyer to develop a conceptual plan for the alternate stormwater retention site (Savannas Recreation Area) in the amount of $11 ,500. October 17, 2000, the soee approved amendment to work authorization with Hazen and Sawyer for Phases III and IV of the Savannas Ecosystem Management Project in the amount of $242,200 and approval of the project budget. \.,.. C-4C Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: ~ ....~aff recommends the Board grant authorization to submit an EPA Section 319 Nonpoint Source , ..,anagement Program grant application to FDEP in the requested amount of$600,OO forthe Indian River Estates/Savannas Ecosystem Management Project and authorize signature by the Chairman. COMMISSION ACTION: CONCURRENCE: [ ] APPROVED [ ] DENIED [ ] OTHER: Douglas Anderson County Administrator [,Co,"", Attorn", ¡>-- [x]Originating Dept. Public Works I ~ [ ]Finance (check for copy only, if applicable) savannasecosystem.ag CoordinationlSianatures [x]Mgt. & Budget UfJ c.M~ [x]Co. Eng ~\}\. ( [x]Revenue Coord r,~.) ~ Jt [ ]Other \.... \...,., I I ~ I I I I I I I '~ I I I t I I \..... ~ ~ Legend . Pump Station Storm Sewer Force Main .. Flow direction toward Retention/Storage Areéi Exhibit 1 Savannas Task Force Savannas Ecosystem Restoration Project Storm Sewer/Force Main with County Park Storage Area HßEN AND SA\WER [niu"mcñUI haiftctU ¡ Sci...usts '-' Photographer: SUSAN COHEN Bob Przekop, law enforcement officer for the Savannas State Park, worries about the detrimental effect of stormwa- ter r,unoff in the 'Savannas. Standing behind Przekop -is John Mann. SavaDnas reserve ravaged by runoff Study faults nearby neighborhoods ~ By Yvette C. Hammett of the News staff Nobody wòrried about stormwater pollution when ditches were dug to keep water out of the houses and off the streets of Indian River Estates. Nobody worried about the nutrient-laden runoff coming from the Savanna Club mobile home park or east Port St Lu- cie, pouring into the Savannas State Reserve. A new study says it's time to worry. Sto:-mwater coming out of these neighborhoods - filled with lawn fertilizers' and road grime - is changing the face of the reserve. The 5,OOO-acre mo- saic of pine flatwoods; wetlands and scrub lands lies east of U.S. I between Jensen Beach Boule- vard and Midway Road. Scientists say the pollution should be stopped, but that might prove difficult lx:cause of a lack of monev to bUIld more sophisticated dÍ-ainage systems and because of the time it wnuld take to study the issue cvcn more, \.,.., SUNDAY Polluted runoff infiltrating the reserve's borders is filled with nitrogen from fertilizers, used oil ãnd antifreeze from driveways and roads and just about anything else people put on their lawns or spill from their cars. That runoff is changing the plant an.d a!1imal.life iñ the re- serve, SCIentists say~ Thick cattails and invasive willows have taken over in the areas where drainage ditches meet wetlands. The heavy nu- trients. are allowing more pol- lution-tolerant. invertebrates. such as snails and some micro- scopic creatures, to become more prominent" affecting the entire food chain, said J.B. Miller, regional biologist for the Florida Park Service. "The problem will do noth- ing but get larger as the area grows," Miller said. "A lot of what is happening in the Savannas happened over the years. These (drainage ditches) were put in place when we didn't care about stormwa- Please see SAVANNAS A3 MAY 28, J ~':3f, I SAVANNAS .' CONTINUEC FROM A 1 .---. '-" ter ." Indian River Estates is the worst offender. with canals simply dumping neighborhood runoff straight into the Savannas, the report said. Savanna Club is a little better because it has S<?me filtering. East Port St. Lucie is probably the· least of- . fensive, with an extensive reservoir and a set of small· dams to help filter the water before it reaches the wetlands. The solution is to reduce the amount of stonnWatcr . going into the Savannas "to the greatest extent possible." say Gregory A. Graves and DouglasG. Strom~ scientists at the Florida Department of Environmental Protec- tion who wrote the study. At the very least, the water must be cleaned up, Miller said. But" finding the money to do that might be a prQblem. , "This study is like a peephole into the prob- lem." Miller said. "It probably raises more questions than it answers:' . P.ecause 5.000 acres of the Savannas is pub- licly owned, it is reasonable to spend more tax- payer dollars to clean it up, he said. The DEP is applying for a grant from the Florida Department of Community AlTairs to make an in-depth assessment .of the elTeets of stormwater discharge in the reserve. Miller said he hopes to Convince the South Florida Water Management District to do a computer model showing where the water comes from that ends up in the Savannas. Once state officials know where the water is coming from, they can concentrate on ways to alter tJte flood control system, lessening its im- pact on the fragile Savannas ecosystem. Miller says. But that takes money, and nobody is volun- teering to foot the bill. "I just lost the 5~nt gas tax for roadim- provements and we are trying to promote drain~ge improvements, but with great diffi- culty," said Ron Brown, St. Lu::ie County's public works ,director. "I have no money at all allocated for drainage. but I'm working on it.·· The County Commission recently opted not to consider a 5-œnt gas tax that would have been used for road improvements. The water management district has money. but it must be matched. Brown said the countv has no money for that. '. -.... The key to r )Iving problems such as this, he said, is gettir.J the backing of county resi- dents. "Obviously. people don't care. Until citi- zens get concerned. there won't be anything done. .. The ultimate answer probably is to build a svstem behind Indian River Estates and the Sa- vånna Club such as the one in east Port St. Lu- cie. Miller said. ' A reservoir and long Canal with small dams to filter the water as it approaches the Savan- nas, off Green River Parkway, were built to serve east Port S1. Lucie. The project is consid- ered well-engineered. "It"s cheap and it has no moving parts ex- cept for a pump," said John Gonzales, deputy , director of public works in Port St. Lucie. "By' . the time the water gets to the Savannall. it hås been settled out numerous times:' Miller concedes that the county must put the stormwater somewhere. In Indian River. Es- tates. water runs into six ditches between Mid- way Road and Easy Street. dumping directly into the Savannas. Where those canals end. he said, the trouble begins. '-' '-" ""'\\ ~RQ1ECT/ON#1.. ":-,'.;.. '.~¿" ~~~\\t'\ ~ ~'\0~'i. . t.." ..,.' ~ Ø;/" t. . ~~ ".:~:_. ~ \l;ii ~ ~""'\:r ~' FLOR~· ~ - ._,- ._. 1\ . .1 ~~~~ - - '-..oo.:::~-~-~-~-.-.I>ð.-.-.-.-.-_-.-.-_-~-.-.-. ...,:.. Stormwater Impact on the Savannas State Reserve S1. Lucie and Martin Counties, Flofida ~ Florida Department of Environmental Prtotection Southeast District Ambient Monitoring Program April, 1997 Gregory A. Graves Douglas G. Strom Bill E, Robson ~,ç.",o ~t..o..."e....c ~.. ~ ;~c. ... \ ~ " 2 !4 1 ~ ~ ð' . ~ ()~... +<;; '1" 0+ 1""~HT of C 'A report of the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Florida Coastal Management Program. pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. 96-CZ-15-13-00-16-030. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the State of Florida, NOAA or any of its subagencies. April, 1997. Cover courtesy of Sou//; Florida Water Managemen~ District. '-" I - I t'-' I 1- ~ \... Executive Summary The Savannas State Reserve is dominated by an oligotrophic, freshwater marsh in eastern St. Lucie and Martin counties, Florida. Background water quality within the Reserve is characteristically low in nutrients, chloride and hardness, and has an acidic pH. This physico-chemical regime supports an assemblage of aquatic plants and animals adapted to these conditions. Macroinvertebrate and water quality samples were collected during 1995-96 to evaluate the ecological consequences of stormwater discharge. into the.R.eserveÞ _ Two, residential subdivisions in S1. Lucie county use the Reserve for stonnwaterdisposal:' East Port SL Lucie (which has an advanced stonnwater treatment system).and Indian .Ri'\lCr Estates (an older subdivision with no treatment), Sample collection locations were distributed the length of the Reserve, coinciding with areas near and removed from stonnwater inflows. The introduction of stonnwater was found to alter the composition and character of the Reservè's water quality and macroinvertebrate community. Key causative water quality factors were identified as increased total phosphorus, hardness, and pH, and decreased dissolved oxygen. In response, the macroinvertebrate community exhibited increased numbers of tolerant or opportunistic organisms. Stormwater was' also found to transport heavy metals and pesticides into the Reserve, Advanced treatment reduced the extent and nature of stonnwater effects on water quality and macroinverteblÃte communities. Effects in the area of the Savannas adjacent to lndiàn River Estates were more severe than those near East Port S1. Lucie. The marsh water in this area possessed significantly higher pH, hardness and total phosphorus, and lower dissolved oxygen than all other locations sampled. Species diversity and number of taxa were highest in this area of the Reserve most severely impacted by stonnwater; thus, the prevailing assumption that increased pollution will always result in a cOITesponding reduction in these biotic metrices was found to be unsound. Violations of Florida Administrative Codes (FAC) 62~302,530(31), 62-302,530(47), 62- 302.530(48),62-302,560(19) and 62-302.700(1) were doc.umented. Recommendations of this study include no new stonnwater discharges,-retrofitting of the Indian River Estates subdivision, and periodic maintenance of the existing East Port St. Lucie stonnwater treatment system, A multi-agency task force was fonned to resolve water quality and quantity issues. IV '-" ~ \..- Recommendations · No new developments should use the Reserve for disposal of stormwater. · The Indian River Estates subdivision should be retrofitted with an appropriate stormwater treatment system to ameliorate stormwater inputs to the Savannas. · Maintenance of the East Port St Lucie stormwater treatment system is advised to prevent fu::.':~r proliferation of nuisance vegetation ånd alteration of aquatic . comm~ities. Removal of plant biomass and muck sediments may increase the ability of the treatment system to absorb nutrients and reduce releases of phosphorus to the Reserve. · Harvesting of invasive plants in the areas of the Savannas Reserve marsh impacted by storm water could improve water quality, · It is recommended that the con:ribution of stormwater nutrients to the Savannas fÌ'om the Sugar Hill development viå the Henderson Pond ,canal be evaluated to assess its affects on the Reserve. · Goals to protect and enhance the Savannas should be evaluated. Restoration goals may include no further degradation of wetlands (no further increase in impact zones) and limitation of discharges of treated stolU1water to those quantities åeemed natural. Water quality and biological health goals for protection and enhancement should approach those found at background (Reference group) areas. · Long term monitoring of inflowing and ambient water quality and macroinvertebrate communities should be performed to docwnent restoration efforts. Studies of aquatic plants, periphyton and fish m~y al~o be appropriate. · Ditches which were d~signed to drain the Savannas (Hog Pen and the Savanna Drainage ditch~s) should be modified to limit back-flows into, and thus impacts to, the rese::rve. 34 '-" ~ "" Stormwater Master Plans ti Paradise Park ti Harmony Heights ti San Luca ti Sun[and Gardens July, 2001 \".. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DOUGLAS M. ANDEr-SON STORMW A TER MASTER PLANS LEGISLATIVE REQUEST FOUR NEIGHBORHOODS IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY HAVE BEEN PLAGUED WITH STORMWATER FLOODING. THE COUNTY WANTS TO CREATE STORMWATER MASTER PLANS FOR THESE NEIGHBORHOODS. THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST STEP IN ADDRESSING THIS PROBLEM. THE NEIGHBORHOODS INVOLVED ARE: ~ PARADISE PARK HARMONY HEIGHTS SAN LUCA SUNLAND GARDENS THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST IS $600,000. THE LOCAL MATCH IS $1 50,000. ONCE THE MASTER PLANS ARE COMPLETED THE COUNTY WOULD THEN BE ABLE TO DETERMINE THE VARIOUS COSTS FOR THESE PROJECTS. '""I LEGISLATIVE REQUEST· $Aee-;ooo>~"'" ~(~/ t.-J l 0 LOCALMATCH·~ S¿)())(j(;) TOTAL COST· $600,000 --...' JOHN D, [)RUHN, Disrricr No, 1 . DOUG COWARD, Disrricr No, 2 . PAULA A, LEWIS, Disrricr No, J . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, Disrricr No, 4 . CLIFF [)ARNES, Disrricr No, 5 County Adminisrraror - Douglas M, Anderson 2.300 Virginia Avenue. Fort Pierce, FL .34982-5652 · Phone (561) 462-1450 · TDD (561) 462-1428 FAX (561) 462-1648 · email: douga@stlucieco,gov '-' STORMWATER MASTER PLANS PARADISE PARK HARMONY HEIGHTS SAN LUCA SUNLAND GARDENS \.- AFTER '-' BEFORE ~ '-' ~ STORMWATER MASTER PLANS LEGISLATIVE REQUEST FOUR NEIGHBORHOODS IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY HAVE BEEN PLAGUED WITH STORMWATER FLOODING. THE COUNTY WANTS TO CREATE STORMWATER MASTER PLANS FOR THESE NEIGHBORHOODS. THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST STEP IN ADDRESSING THIS PROBLEM. THE NEIGHBORHOODS INVOLVED ARE: PARADISE PARK HARMONY HEIGHTS SAN LUCA SUNLAND GARDENS THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST IS $600,000. THE LOCAL MATCH IS $300,000. ONCE THE MASTER PLANS ARE COMPLETED THE COUNTY WOULD THEN BE ABLE TO DETERMINE THE VARIOUS COSTS FOR THESE PROJECTS. LEGISLATIVE REQUEST· $300,000 LOCAL MATCH· $300,000 TOTAL COST· $600,000 \r ~ \..,.. STORMWATER MASTER PLANS PARADISE PARK HARMONY HEIGHTS SAN LUCA SUNLAND GARDENS The four (4) subdivisions that are proposed for stormwater improvements ultimately discharge into the Indian River Lagoon. The stormwater improvements will include treatment facilities to reduce sediment and improve water quality of stormwater discharges such as retention/detention swales and ponds. Stormwater outflows from each subdivision discharge to the SFWMD C2S{faylor Creek Canal, which ultimately outfalls to the Indian River Lagoon. (See overall site location map). The Indian River Lagoon is an estuary of National significance under the National Estuary Program. Currently St. Lucie County is Partnering with several regulatory agencies to implement muck removal and restoration dredging of the C2S{faylor Creek Canal. The agencies contributing to the Taylor Creek Project include: SFWMD, IR Lagoon NEP, FIND, and FSTED. D:IDrawíngsIPW-DEPTIOOO7PPdwg, 07í17/2001 0339:23 PM, SLCPWO - Engr. Div - DSA tv ~ - z t m N o o N ....... N o o w - š: " :D o < m š: m Z -4 " :D o c.. m ~ ~ I~ DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 2002 I 2003 DISPLAY MAP 07/17/2001 04:1358 PM, SLCPWD - Engr. Div, DSA c ~ - z :Þ G) m N - o ~ o " N :D ...... 0 ~ ~ o ~ W m Z at " :D o c. m n SAPP :f ROAD v, q~ D\Drawíngs\PW-DEPT\0007SlPdwg, 07/17/2001 03:0141 PM, SlCPWD - Engr. Div, DSA DRAiNAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 2002 I 2003 DlSPLA '( MAP c ~ ... 2 :Þ G) m I\) ... 0 !: 0 " I\) :D ........ 0 I\) < 0 m 0 !: w m 2 -I " :D 0 c.. m n -I en q~ Oì/1ì/2001 0401 :34 PM, SLCPWD - Engr. Div, - DSA c ~ - 2 :Þ ti) m ~ - Q ~ Q IIIJN ~ :D ....... 0 ~ ~ Q ~ W m 2 -I " ::D o c. m n -I en ¡ I~ DRAiNAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 2002 I 2003 DISPLAY MAP ~ ~ Regiona[ Disaster Control Center I Special Needs Faci[ity July, 2001 ~ FOR ])1rU~ ~Ò q -I J.. TIME 1/ fb-" A~ ~pC ~5tJ.... qJ;). - I frO "7 AREA CODE NUMBER A.M. P.M. DATE M OF PHONE EXTENSION .. <,.,.","" .', ··.~i 1184 ~ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DOUGLAS M. ANDERSON August 29,2001 Mr. Steven Seibert, Sepretary Florida Department Qf Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oaks Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Dear Mr. Seibert: \..,. Please find enclosed two St. Lucie County funding requests for the upcoming 2002 State Budget. The first funding request in the amount of $2,000,000 is to assist us in developing a Regional Disaster Control Center/Special Needs Facility currently under construction. The total estimated project cost is $9,000,000 of which we have matching funds to date of $4,300,000. If funded, the $2,000,000 would be used toward the construction of the Disaster Center/Special Needs Facility. This facility would be used as a staging and distribution area of equipment along with the capability of providing for regional staging of resources and serve as a primary command post during recovery stages of a disaster. It would be the only Special Needs Population Shelter outside the 10-mile emergency planning zone. This 30,000 square foot facility will meet Category 3 hurricane design requirements, accommodate over 500 people, contain a full service kitchen, restrooms and showers and dining for 250 people. As an emergency center it would contain emergency lighting, phones, data facilities and an emergency generator system to provide reliability in emergency situations. This structure will be completely self contained. ~ Also included is a $300,000 funding request for Stormwater Master Plans for four subdivisJons that require stormwater improvements whose runoff ultimately discharges into the Indian River Lagoon. The stormwater improvement will include treatment facilities to reduce sediment and improve water quality of stormwater discharge, such as retention/detention swales and ponds. Stormwater outflows from each subdivision discharge to the SFWMD C25!faylor Creek Canal, which ultimately outfalls to the Indian River Lagoon. As you know, the Indian River Lagoon is an estuary of National significance under the National Estuary Program. The estimated cost for these master plans is $600,000 of which there is a local match of $300,000. Therefore, we are requesting that $300,000 be placed as a line item in the 2002 Department of Community Affairs budget. JOHN D, ßRUHN. District No, 1 . DOUG COWARD. District No.2' PAULA A. LEWIS, District No. J . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON. District No, 4 . CLIFF ßARNES. Disrrict N( County Administrotor - Douglos M, Anderson 2.300 Virginia Avenue. Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 · Phone (561) 462-1450 · TDD (561) 462-1428 FAX (561) 462-1648 · emoil: dougo@stlucieco.gov t ..... ..... ~ ... Page 2 Mr. Steven Seibert, Secretary August 29, 2001 If you need additional information regarding these requests, please contact me. Thank you. D~IA:esOl·16.3 c: Board of County Commissioners Jack Southard, Public Safety Director Ray Wazny, Public Works Director Robert Bradshaw, Assistant County Administrator Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney Ron Book, St. Lucie County Lobbyist Tara Engel Dudley, St. Lucie County Lobbyist St. Lucie County Regional Disaster Control Center I Special Needs Facility \....- Project Manager: Ray Wazny Public Works Director Amount of Request: $2,000,000 ~ Description of Project: This facility will be used as a Disaster Command Post, Primary Special Needs Shelter, 911/EOC back up and an evacuation area for horses and other animals in the event of a natural disaster. Reason For Funding: Funding is needed to develop the facilities. The project will create a Special Needs Disaster Shelter that is badly needed in the County. A substantial local match for the requested funding has been made available through the purchase of the land and ownership of the land by the County in the amount of $1,000,000. Furthermore, the County has allocated $1,000,000 for the construction infrastructure. In-kind services this far have been provided in the amount of $1,400,000. These services included clearing of the land, donation of fill dirt and preparation for construction. Further in-kind services are expected in the next 2 years. The Fair Association at this time is allocating $400,000 toward the construction of this project. Total value of local contribution/match is estimated at $4,296,000. \....- ~ St. Lucie County Regional Disaster Control Center I Special Needs Facility A. Geographic Information - The 200-acre site is located in the heart of St. Lucie County, west of the major population centers, bordered on the north by State Road 70 and on the south by County Road 712. The site is geographically centered to serve the four county area of Okeechobee, St. Lucie, Indian River, and Martin Counties. This site is within 6 miles of the Florida Turnpike and 1-95 Interchanges along with being located outside the emergency planning zone for the nuclear power plant. B. Agricultural- Emergency collection site for large animals, an estimated 200 head of horses and residing east of US Highway 1 in the areas that are subject to flooding and wildfires. This facility will provide a safe and secure location for livestock and large animals in emergency situations in which residents are instructed to evacuate. C. Disaster Command/Special Needs Shelter - Facility will be used as a staging and distribution area of equipment along with the capability of providing for regional staging of resources and primary command post during recovery stages of a disaster. It would be the only Special Needs Population Shelter outside the 10-mile emergency planning zone. Used as an alternate Emergency Operations Center outside the EPZ should we lose location. Currently we have inadequate locations for the evacuation of school children during a nuclear power plant emergency, this facility will help provide needed shelter. ~ D. Facilitv - The 30,000 sf structure will meet Category 3 hurricane design requirements, accommodate over 500 people, contain a full service kitchen, restrooms, and showers and dining for 250 people. Building interior will have folding walls to provide for more versatile use. As an emergency center the facility will contain emergency lighting, phones, data facilities and emergency generator system to provide reliability in emergency situations. Water system would include a ground storage tank capable of sustaining minimum fire protection needs and storage capability. This structure will be completely self contained. '-' ST. LUCIE COUNTY REGIONAL DISASTER CONTROL '-" CENTER I SPECIAL NEEDS FACILITY FUNDING NEEDS I. Land Purchase II. Project Engineering & Design III. Water/Sewer IV. Infrastructure V. Disaster Center VI. Livestock/Equine VII. Furnishings VIII. Contingency '-" TOTAL AMOUNT REQUESTED LOCAL MATCH I. Land Purchase II. St. Lucie County Funding III. Site Work (In Kind) IV. Fair Association Loan V. Fair Association Funding TOTAL MATCHING FUNDS Shortfall *$2,000,00q minimum funding required 2002 Fiscal Year \.....- $1,000,000 $ 600,000 $ 500,000 $1,200,000 $3,000,000 $1,500,000 $ 500,000 $ 700.000 $9,000,000 $1,000,000 1,000,000 1,400,000 500,000 400.000 $4,300,000 $4,700,000 ~ \...- Reconstruction of a St. Lucie County Mu[ti-Purpose Regiona[ Fairground Faci[ity July, 2001 '-' ') f , I \..- Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services CHARLES H. BRONSON, Commissioner The Capitol · Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 August 27,2001 \\ú\ -q,\ 'V / 0/ ~ .,"> ~tf <1\ . ¡pr ,¡0 r r~f' C/V ~.-\ Please Respond to: Mr. Douglas Anderson, Administrator St. Lucie Board of County Commissioners 2300 Virginia Avenue e' Ft. Pierce, Florida 349~2 Dear Mr. Anderson: I have received your request for the Multi-Purpose Regional Fairgound Facility. Commissioner Charles H. Bronson has asked that I ensure that all components of your budget request meet the minimum criteria for local community budget initiatives established by the Florida Legislature and the Governor's Office. \...,r To assist me in this task, I have enclosed an information request sheet for local projects. Please note the instructions on Page 3, and that the signature is required to be notarized. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give Mark Markley or me a call at (850) 487-4322. Thank you for your continued support of Florida agriculture. Sincerely, CHARLES H. BRONSON COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE ~~ Donald A. Coker, Chief Bureau of State Farmers' Markets DAC/tb . ~. Florida Agriculture an $53 Billion for FlorIda s Economy œŒ©ŒßWŒ@ AUG 30 !X>t ' d Forest Pr t> d G;6tADMIN. OFFICE , Enc: 1 \...,. ,f \... '-' ~ LOCAL PROJECT BUDGET REQUEST INFORMATION SHEET 1. Project Name 2. Organization Information Organization Name: Please see page three of this packet for detailed instructions on how to complete Mailing Address: City/State/Zip Contact Person: Contact Phone Number: _~ Contact FAX Number: _~ 3. Primary facility use: (Attach additional page(s) if necessary) 4. Local Government Sponsor(s)- 5. Project Business Plan - 1 \... '-' \.,.. ., LOCAL PROJECT BUDGET REQUEST INFORMATION SHEET (CONTINUED) 6. Identify Local Match Sources and Dollar Amounts Source: Dollar Amount: (Attach additional page(s) if necessary) 7. Provide Project Schedule: (Attach additional page(s) if necessary) Please see page three of this packet for detailed instructions on how to complete 8. Attach photographs of existing Facilities: I hereby attest that the information provided above is to obtain a Community Budget Request as per section 216.052, Florida Statutes and that the information is accurate within my knowledge. Information Submitted By: Name Title Date Notary Public, State of Florida My Commission expires: Date 2 '. , , Instructions for filling out: LOCAL PROJECT BUDGET REQUEST INFORMATION SHEET \..r 1. Project Name: Insert the name of the project given by the local government sponsor. It is important that this is the name be used in all references to this project. Project name must be consistent in local project budget request, agency legislative budget request and any Legislative member requests and letters of support. 2. Organization Information: Insert the name of the local governmental organization requesting the grant and the primary contact that will be responsible for administering the grant on behalf of the local governmental organization. 3. Primary Facility Use: The primary use of facilities must be agricultural promotion or agricultural related education activities, events or functions. Such activities, events, or functions may include agricultural fairs, shows and other activities involving livestock, produce or other agriculture products. Aquaculture facilities are not eligible projects. These facilities come under review criteria ofthe Aquaculture Review Council pursuant to Chapter 597, F.S. I 4. Local Government Sponsor: "The project must be sponsored by a local government entity (including a city or county) which will administer the state funds." · Please identify the local government entity sponsoring the project and provide documentation of sponsorship resolution from meeting minutes. ~ 5. Project Business Plan: "The plan must state objectives of the project, return on investment, the local economic benefit to the state. The project sponsor will provide a history of previous funding. The sponsor will identify the ownership of the facility to be refurbished or otherwise improved and indicate the specific population served by the project. If multi-year state funding is requested for fixed capital outlay costs must be clearly detailed in the project funding plan." · The Business Plan must include a projectjunding plan showing all sources of fimds for this project, past, present and future. 6. Identify Local Match Sources and Dollar Amounts: "Local sponsor must provide for at least a 50% match of the total project fixed capital outlay cost. Match may include funds from other local and federal sources and in kind contributions. In kind contributions must be documented and assessed at fair market value of the goods and services and must be directly related to the project. Reductions or waiver of the local match may be considered, based on a demonstration of the inability to provide the match. The following information shall be taken into account regarding the reduction or waiver: a) the sources and amounts of local, state, and federal matching funds secured, anticipated, or being pursued for the project; b) the identified sources of local and other funding that have not been pursued; and c) the reasons that identified sources of local or other funding were not pursued or not secured." · Please provide local match information. 7. Project Schedule: "The project completion is limited to no more than a two-year period from the date of the appropriation" · Please provide a schedule for renovations and construction for this specific request offunds. 8. Photographs of Existing Facilities: "Construction of new facilities are not applicable for the review process. Project construction for prior multi-phase state funding commitments which are substantially complete are applicable for this review process." Please provide photographs of the existing facility to be renovated or expanded. With each photograph, please provide a description of the image in the picture and the role it has in your requested project. ~ 3 '-" Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services CHARLES H. BRONSON, Commissioner The Capitol . Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Please Respond to: August 16,2001 ø t). r} Mr. Douglas Anderson, Administrator í\ {) ~ () St. Lucie Board of County Commissioners P~:rJ ff 2300 Virginia Avenue 1~~ ,1 Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982 , A ' . l.,..I . 0 ,ADM/' OFFICE Dear Mr. Anderson: j1f1 ~ b /{f/r I am in receipt ofa copy of your letter of July 24, 2001 C02rning the reconstruction of the Multi-Purpose Regional Fairground Facility at the St. Lucie County Fairgrounds. I appreciate the important role that county fairgrounds play in supporting local agricultural interests and area citizens. Œ@ŒllWŒfñ) ,.., 2 0 2001 æJ '-' I have assigned your request to Mr. Donald A. Coker, Chief of the Bureau of State Farmers' Markets in our Division of Marketing and Development. I have asked him to contact you directly to ensure that all components of your proposal have met the minimum criteria for local community budget initiatives which have been established by the Florida Legislature and the Governor's Office. If I or my staff can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to call upon us. We wish you much success this year and thank you for your continued support of Florida agriculture. Sincerely, ~~ CHARLES H. BRONSON COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE CHB/dac ,\ 1// - ~ ~a. F lor i d a A g r i cuI t u r e an d For est Pro due t s $53 Billion for Florida's Economy \..- '--' '-" '-' From: To: Date: Subject: Liz Martin Douga 8/20/01 1 :03PM State Budgets Hi Doug, Frannie would like to know which state budgets the following are included in Fairgrounds/Emergency Operations Center AJ c¡ /I, c.. / 0 cA- Stormwater Master Plan IJ€,/' Airport Industrial Plan - tYc/ ~/,,¡ //1 &<-' (I,i .,I/t¡ J ~t rV' þ,~ þ-o->--- <J.-./7r??h..J j f)~ I~{ .-¡; ß£µ-9 ø/#~· ::/l:J ~v p'¡;;; ~ Reconstruction of a 51. Lucie County Multi-Purpose Regional Fairground Facility '-" Project Manager: Ray Wazny Public Works Director Amount of Request: $2,000,000 '-' Description of Project: This project will expand/modernize the Fair and provide a multi-purpose, regional livestock/equine facility for training and education. This is also a designated Trailhead for the Greenway and Trail Program. Reason For Funding: Funding is needed to expand and develop the facilities. The project will create a new Fair Association opportunity that is badly needed in the County. The Fair has operated at the airport for 37 years and has been required to relocate to allow economic development of the Airport on Airport Property. \..,.. A substantial local match for the requested funding has been made available through the purchase of the land and ownership of the land by the County in the amount of $1,000,000. Furthermore, the County has allocated $1,000,000 for the construction infrastructure. In-kind services this far have been provided in the amount of $1,400,000. These services included clearing of the land, donation of fill dirt and preparation for construction. Further in-kind services are expected in the next 2 years. The Fair Association at this time is allocating $400,000 toward the construction of this project. Total value of local contribution/match is estimated at $4,296,000. \..... Reconstruction of a St. Lucie County Multi-Purpose Regional Fairground Facility A. Geographic Information - The 200-acre site is located in the heart of St. Lucie County, west of the major population centers, bordered on the north by State Road 70 and on the south by County Road 712. The site is geographically centered to serve the four county area of Okeechobee, St. Lucie, Indian River, and Martin Counties. This site is within 6 miles of the Florida Turnpike and 1-95 Interchanges along with being located outside the emergency planning zone for the nuclear power plant. B. Agricultural - Fair Association will hold the annual county fair, along with the livestock shows/sales and auctions. Facility will be used for agriculture training and education, trade shows, equine training/specialty classes, 4H events, farm equipment safety training exhibitions and rodeos. Building will include stable facilities for horses and adjoining arena. c. Facility - The 30,000 sf structure will meet Category 3 hurricane design requirements, accommodate over 500 people, contain a full service kitchen, restrooms, and showers and dining for 250 people. Building interior will have folding walls to provide for more versatile use. As an emergency center the facility will contain emergency lighting, phones, data facilities and emergency generator system to provide reliability in emergency situations. Water system would include a ground storage tank capable of sustaining minimum fire protection needs and storage capability. This structure will be completely self contained. ~ D. Greenway Trail Facility - The Fairgrounds Facility is also designated as a trailhead for several multi-purpose public trails in the proposed Greenways and Trails Masterplan. '-" RECONSTRUCTION OF A ST. LUCIE COUNTY \.... MULTI-PURPOSE REGIONAL FAIRGROUND FACILITY FUNDING NEEDS I. Land Purchase $1,000,000 II. Project Engineering & Design $ 600,000 III. Water/Sewer $ 500,000 IV. Infrastructure $1,200,000 V. Agriculture Exhibit $3,000,000 VI. Li vestock/Equine $1,500,000 VII. Furnishings $ 500,000 VIII. Contingency $ 700.000 ~ TOTAL AMOUNT REQUESTED $9,000,000 LOCAL MATCH I. Land Purchase $1,000,000 II. St. Lucie County Funding 1,000,000 III. Site Work (In Kind) 1,400,000 IV. Fair Association Loan 500,000 V. Fair Association Funding 400.000 TOTAL MATCHING FUNDS $4,300,000 Shortfall $4,700,000 *$2,000,000 minimum funding required 2002 Fiscal Year '-' St. Lucie County Fair Association Projected 2002 Income \..,. Inside Booth Rental $ 22,000.00 Outside Booth Rental $ 50,000.00 Total $ 72,000.00 Total Fair Admission Revenue $ 225,000.00 Midway Income Grounds Rental $ 40,000.00 Advertising $ 10,000.00 Ride Income $ 170,000.00 Tickets $ 5,000.00 Ticket Seller $ 2,500.00 Total $ 227,500.00 TOTAL ANNUAL FAIR INCOME $ 524,500.00 Off Season Facility Rental Grounds $ 60,000.00 Family Center Bldg $ 30,000.00 School Bldg $ 30,000.00 Exhibit Hall $ 60,000.00 Vendor Camping $ 20,000.00 Total $ 200,000.00 '-' Other Income Premium Book Adv $ 5,000.00 Interest Earned $ 25,000.00 Mise Income/Sponsorships $ 35,000.00 Total $ 65,000.00 Total Income $ 789,500.00 '-" \.... St. Lucie County Fair Association Projected 2002 Expenditures General & Admin Wages $ 110,000.00 Office Supplies $ 15,000.00 Sub&Dues $ 1,200.00 Photography $ 300.00 Legal & Accounting $ 12,000.00 Taxes $ 15,500.00 Educationrrravel $ 5,500.00 Mise $ 3,000.00 Insurance $ 22,000.00 Postage $ 3,500.00 Bank Charges $ 1,000.00 Promotions $ 5,000.00 Tickets $ 5,000.00 Printing $ 9,000.00 Donation $ 1,000.00 Total $ 209,000.00 Scholarships $ 4,000.00 Advertising Electronic $ 30,000.00 ~ Print $ 20,000.00 Total $ 50,000.00 Utilities $ 70,000.00 Debt Service $ 60,000.00 MaintlRepairs/lmprov Materials/Supplies $ 35,000.00 Equipment $ 10,000.00 Landscaping $ 5,000.00 Total $ 50,000.00 Fair Expenses Entertainment $ 75,000.00 Equipment Rental $ 15,000.00 Fair Security $ 30,000.00 Concessions Cost $ 5,000.00 Fair Casual Labor $ 20,000.00 Fair Exhibits $ 20,000.00 Livestock $ 25,000.00 Total $ 190,000.00 Total Expenditures $ 633,000.00 \...- ~ '-' Orange Avenue I(ings Highway to Okeechobee County Line July, 2001 '-" ~ ~ Ii', ~ II 'Iii t~ D r ÞI.K> I 3 2001 \ ~ L 1 cG, ADMIN o¡:¡:\~___- Florida House of Representatives Representative Bob Allen District 32 '-" Council Council for Competitive Commerce Committees Transportation & Economic Development Appropriations Workforce and Technical Skills Health Promotion Tourism August 7,2001 6· ..It f'J¡01 pi Or-- ¿ ( ~ V"') c..V rY ,1/ , ~ p"J (1';') ';'\ , C· ~/ J (' TOTheHonorableMr.Anderso( ~D/ r;ýìì /~ (l Thank you for sending me all the information on the reconstruction of Orange A venue from /(j/ King's Highway to the Okeechobee County Line in St. Lucie County. I agree this is a needed occurrence, and look forward to working with you in the future. House Desil!:nate Florida Spaceport Authority { The Honorable Douglas M. Anderson County Administrator 2300 Virginia Ave. Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 '-" With Kind Regards, I remain, - ¿Jc- )JJr- ~~~ ~. Bob len State Representative, District 32 BAld Reply to: \. o PO Box 541532 Menitt Island, Florida 32954 (321) 449-5111 SC 362-5111 (321) 449-5113 - fax o 410 House Office Building 402 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300 (850) 488-4669 (888) 635-2335 --fax allen,bob@leg,state,fl,us Orange / to Okeechobee County line Project Manager: County Funds Spent ,020,000 $2,700,000 Amount of Request: Description of This project involves the reconstruction of Orange Avenue to provide a two lane roadway with 4' wide paved shoulders on side. The project includes 17 miles of existing pavement to widened for safety reasons. The County has estimated it will cost approximately $9 million to implement the design and construction of the improvements. Reason For Funding: The County has insufficient funds perform a maintenance improvement of this magnitude. The heavy use Orange Avenue by semi trucks hauling citrus products creates a condition for the motoring public. The number of fatalities on Orange Avenue increased with several deaths in recent months. Orange Avenue is an evacuation route in the event of a disaster. The existing roadway is substandard width and the shoulders are deteriorated. \..- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FRANNIE HUTCHINSON COMMISSIONEr. March 13, 2001 Mr. Rick Chesser, P.E., District Four District Secretary, State of F10rida Florida Department of Transportation 3400 West Commercial Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, F10rida 33309 - 3421 RE: Orange Avenue Dear Mr. Cht::::>:>~L'-:~<:t. ~ I have been receiving complaints regarding the condition of Orange Avenue from Kings Highway west to the St. Lucie and Okeechobee County line. I persona11y, along with county staff have driven the road and it is in deplorab1e condition. Several of the other Commissioners have also driven the road to view its condition, as we have all received complaints. I have contacted the St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office and between that agency and the Florida Highway Patro1, ov~r 200 accidents have been investigated within the last twenty-four months. I have attached pictures taken by county staff and the drop- off varies in depth from four to eight inches and is a safety condition that requires immediate repair. St. Lucie County has spent over $2,000,000.00 on the road in the past six ,years for bridge repair maintenance and culvert replacement ~lone. Orange Avenue was transferred to St. Lucie County from the: State Highway System in 1979 and the road components were accepted by the County with an assumed 1ife of not less than 10 years. From 1990 to 2000 we have spent an average of $3,600.00 per mile per year, in addition to one resurfacing of the entire 17 miles of roadway at cost of $700,000.00. At our last M.P,O. Meeting the Board agreed to list Orange Avenue (State Road 68) on its 2025 Long Range Plan. Hopefully, it will move rapidly up the list. At this time, I'm asking for your input and help in trying to obtain some type of emergency funding for what is being recognized loca11y as a very serious problem. ~ JOHN D. ORUHN, Disrricr No, 1 . DOUG COWARD. Dis:riCT No.2· PAULA A, lEWIS. DisrriCT No. J . FI\ANNIE HUTCHINSON, DisrriCT No.4. CLIFF OARNES. Disrticr No, 5 Counry Adminisrtorot - Douglos /0.\, Anderson 2.300 Virginia Avenue · FOrT Pierce. FL .34982-5652 · (561) 462-1451 FAX(561)462-2131 . TDD(561)462-142B \... '-" \...- March 13, 2001 Page Two I wi1l be in Tallahassee on March 29~ and have a meeting scheduled with Mr~ Barry and wi11 bring up the condition of the road at that time. I contacted your office in the hopes that you would be in Tallahassee and could attend the meeting with me, however, I was told that you would not be in Tallahassee, If possible, to going to I would like Tallahassee. to discuss Hutchinson, Chair County Commission FH/lm Attachment cc: Ray Wazny, Public Works Director Don West, County Engineer this with you prior œ m rn ~ w Œ ~:'ì'¡ I'j I "I I I" MAR I 5 200; ~; ,;¡. '.ii., '.~;~ ENGINEERING \..... '-" ~ DIVISION OF ENGINEERING MEMORANDUM 01-56 j~~~~§~~~~~§~~§~~~~~~~~~§E§~§~~~~~~~§~~~E§~~~~~§E§~;~E~§E;~~~~§~~E~;§~§~~E~E§E§E§E§~;¡§E§;~E§;~~;§E~§i~§~~§~§~! TO: Ray Wazny, Public Works Dir~ct~ Ron Harris, County surveyor~ FROM: DATE: February 28, 2001 SUBJECT: Orange.Avenue a.k.a, S.R. 68 Right of Way Conveyance Functional Classification The instruments listed below transferred the jurisdiction and maintenance responsibilities of Orange Avenue to St.Lucie County. The right of way maps encompass 17.2 miles of roadway, beginning at the Okeechobee County line and extending easterly to Kings Highway a.k.a. S,R, 713 (Stations on right of way map end 700' feet west of Kings Highway) . 1. March 08, 1979 recorded in Plat Book 19 at pages 13,14 and 15. 2. May 05, 1981 recorded in Plat Book 22 at pages 16, 16A-16D, cc: Don West,P.E., County Engineer File .,. ,....!; ... .. -..... ,( '·:.;;::i;';·::·.:\/~~ ,. 'r- \~i¡¡lft:'" ,,':¡ . ~ ". . ,;,.:' -'. õ . ,'. ,;"g;~/\.,,~, _'_"', .~ð~ ,¡;á'ti,.;';'-i~I'Öf~ " "." " tt"';:' :,~t~;"~~l\~m~~~h±..,,-=tIoØ.POI' a',?~{~~~ t.'.\ ~V$ JAN 2Q PM2~ ",-' -:;:: \- ./ : ~-'l" ..;c¡~ ,';: ! ~'$-' ,·::S! . , -,, f . ~. f.:.. , ./ " '... ~ '<V: k'r, . ""':~ V It" ,"'PI _ :¿;i, ---- .;;-" ..~....:.~ .: .l, , ' "!';;:;"~:' ':"\:;'2' ..'_:.:........ .' ;;....._....,~ '. .:. eh.. ~ :'.~~ " 1ii~';~~;~;'*ido ,3331"26" ,~~II'.l.,L ~'~u.1'" .tn. ,):.-. ~:..t.1AIOä .county ea.t..l1oneu , _1!!t._at1.~l- uóO Yù9wa ,..,.... ton: .woe¡nocl. 33nO : ' . .. Deal' ca.1..1OMI' 'a~ I ".n....U 1'1, 1"~ 1': I":, . ;Þ;' ,. é.'. AI"'" 5'v ~ . .:. ('r '1 r'··'" --~ !bit 1. tr. ullia1ally lnfo~ you of the fol1owin,.otionl the m~eft ~ w. lunct10nally o1....Uie4 a. a looal roað in ~'!' wi. _ adtel'1a oonu.ine4 in ..0t,1oI\ 335.04 'l~i4a ltatl&tel. It ... ~,eat14 toa ~110 heal'lno fo~ 01a..iflQat1oA PUZPO"· on ."U I, 1.71. thI.OhaDfI inf\&nOt1ona1 ola.lifiaation of thil roeð relUlte4 in & ohaftP in ,adtticUou1 napon.1biUty. IeOUOft 331.04, r1~iAa.tawte., .. ...n4eð by ct\Çter .4-291, Lad o! nocü&, MI plaMd .'ollow1n9 ncpi,.entl on the uulfU of ~ tM' OOGU af~ 0Øt0M1' ~, 1M41 ri~'" any roa4 for W1ah reepou1bU1ty 11 lMtiftl uua'.....'na I _ DePU~t to ownti.. o~ lIII\io1pa11ti.. .hall tie ~ to" ...,.10&1 oon4!'t.on ~ate v1th oonteliPOCU)' ~. of 11ue9i .- ea1lûnt hMUoM1 ala..Uloation vlth the oounty ~ 1III\101pa11t.y. .....~... v1'" couty repHønta'l'" to nvi.eV the oontit.f.on of .... .-A,'" "'11''''''' pu'o" the lIIin~ IIrdc;e. apee4 to tuiftl .... nviMf. 'fte IOtI4 now oaIIP11eè vith the ftCI'IlnMAtl of the 1aV .. .ta_ in, .. "..,ioØ ..-.. ' ,1ft aMiUoa. '. 1aV nquU.' tNt, ,d~ to þ....furint woh we""" .tM ..........'MIr ., .. ...,_11 _"ifY tha' l' hat the nnanc1al Û1U.~ to .wa~ tM ..... ,~""I~ wi.th ...uc-' 131.04 (1) (c), .. ~, U ",,*,1'" tNC tt..'.'~:.. ,,-¡,tv.' _~y.... _f~1al ù!Uty to ..1Ma1a ",;~!"..~~.':+7'~..¡,..a ....:~~:oøt.~f~'1oIt ~..U~W a .._1"_ ,,'...~~;., +-'....,....!ot.r "'" ..... '.r"""",,' ~....-- JO .'::~':":"';M~~.:~'~'~-~.' "1UÜlla,a.~lø, D1.~io',......,. , ".;;"¡,~~",.,,,.o:;;.;..;.._~"'..-"'.'II -..1. '---1_' .-'--' ......a. .'."'- , ,.'_...,.~~.,. ,~~~~. ftO .~. . .~ na - --...y v.___ ,'" :,' : 0:<" Io~.'~.'~,.r !*Þ -~. ~. _u ... ......' ""'. ... aouitOY - Olio ',;, " ",{::,::.~_~'it'....,,,üøoÞ -\Iii. ..... ' . '~)?~¥~~~~,~~,,~, ,," . III MOtion 110. 94070, I. It. 'I fl'Olt OkMOhObH county Line to M11e1O.t 17.174 at I. a. 713. ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION EST. UNIT QUAN. UNIT PRICE EST. AMOUNT '-- ORANGE AVENUE SHOULDER WIDENING COSTS PER MILE OF ROAD 1. MOBILIZATION & PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION BOND (2.5%) L.S. 1 $11,500 $11,500 2. CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING L.S. 1 8,000 8,000 3. MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC L.S. 1 3,000 3,000 4. PAVING TYPE S-3 ASPHALT WIDENING STRIPS (2'1 TIllCK) S.Y. 7040 4.00 28,160 5. COQUINA ROCK BASE PRIMED (8" TIllCK) S.Y. 7627 8.00 61,016 6. STABILIZED SUBGRADE (12" TIllCK) S.Y. 8214 2.50 20,535 7. STABILIZED SHOULDER (6" TIllCK) S.Y. 4693 1.75 8,213 ~ 8. SODDING OF SHOULDERS S.Y. 4693 1.50 7,040 9. ASPHALT OVERLAY ENTIRE ROADWAY SECTION (2" TYPE S-3 ASPHALT) S.Y. 18,773 4.00 75,092 10. PAINT STRIPING & RPM'S L.S. 1 1,500 1,500 11. EARTHEN FILL MATERIAL FOR SHOULDERS C.Y. 10,000 4.50 45,000 12. GUARDRAIL L.F. 5,280 25.00 132,000 13. LARGE CULVERT REPLACEMENT EA. 1 75,000 75.000 SUBTOTAL $476,056 14. ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING $60,000 '-' TOTAL $536,056 KINGS IDGHW A Y TO OKEECHOBEE COUNTY LINE = 17 MILES 17 MILES @ $536,060IMILE = $9,113,020 \.... </;. .¡.»( ,,,,,-, ...! .-- T 4' G I - \~~/"!~': .s.1~~ _ - Sï'r> I ~-' >-j <. .~ ~+kIUlb. 4' 0'" 12' ~ÖT'~~'þ 1 PAYEJ::> TM vel L ÞcNE. ., ,.sJ.k>U~!) I ;..-- . ~ -:;...-- -- -::;-- - I ~ \----5- - - \..---- --- l\ r.- ^' r,\! r r= " \I r. \, r! I t= íJ ."/.;.(.... 'O:~ r., - ", """"" ref< . ----...-- ~ -~.__.~.. - .. .,- -.- . -.-- -- -. 0/1 , I ! '" - ' ~ ~)v \-::.LJe: R. ~ l,J b~1-J '\l G; ~ 17 /,4\: l~.s LON 61 t:IN~ 4tJ~y. -b 0JU'N-P¡ L, NE. . ~ 21/- I Å V N ~ : I y p<¿ ~ - ~ A.s: r~A L-T ----, -, - (G ') (5 2-2'tJ !~) -=- :$ I) G:, ~o ?::. S '"U-; Ç. 'I )( L- 2.'1 JyÞE S --s A$.t~+'l T . OVe:RWV : -. (16)( S"LRo) - ~4-) 4-a<) :J,~~) Sf x 1.- ~F - ..3 5J..o ~y- "':. 7,61-0 ~y .-. :-::- ~F --.;. - ~2.21~'y I ~ J 1 ') ~ ~::'j ----------.. - - ~ ~~~INt\ ~þ"':_t~~ : --.-.-----...-. 1/ ~ Go~lJJ}.JA ~I\$.E.. (~ . So') ( S"2~ ~ ') -==:. 34)ó~ 'SF - ~~ J ~ 5;:,/ ~~~ 2.. 7 .s: ì' _& ... ...-.-......".,--..--- - ---~..--.---.. It ~ J'2- MIX/!£J) .sí~IL'''2..~ ,~ußG¡R.lxJ)E. ~ &"- 0_· __ __ _____u_. _ __. ._._ _ _. (7 ') ( 5-¿~6 ') - '3có ::> ~GO ~ '!::: ......:.. .-- 4/0 7 :îl ~~~_,. ,~L ~ So ï~ I LI ~___ '~_H<?~_~~~_. : G, II M r X ED ~ --- '(4 ')( S7..~\)~ - 2-1) I ~ ~ t- - 2347 ~'/ 4~ ~~ ':Sf '-" -_Þ___a__ --.....------- 'Þ . _.____._ PMNT ~TRJ'PINGi 4 1..PM~. ~ :::.' .-- --- -----. -- .--.. ._----_._-----~----- ." , I:; ':' .. - ---. ,- - -- .. --,- - '_··._a ._ L,5$.. 1~ MILe '-' \....- '-' Existing Airport Industria[ Park July, 2001 '-' ~ ~ AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK (Existin2) WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND CONVEYANCE SYSTEM · Original Water Advisory Panel Grant Application $ 1,200,000.00 Funding Received from Water Advisory Panel (1999-2000) - $ 50,000.00 BOCC Contribution of$11,530.00 added to the original Grant to complete engineering plans for the project. - $ 11,530.00 Remaining Project Costs (2000 - 2001 ) $ 1.138.000.00 · 2000 - 2001 Legislative continued funding of original Water Advisory Panel, partially funded projects - $ 100,000.00 Remaining Project Costs (2001 - 2002 ) $1. 038.000.00 · Formation and Adoption of a Municipal Services Benefit Unit that would assess each of the 100 lots in the Industrial Park $2,500.00 ( 35% matching funds) - $ 250,000.00 2001-2001 LEGISLATIVE FUNDING REQUEST $ 788,000.00* *This amount represents 65% of the original Water Advisory Panel funding request. Project Manager - William Blazak Department- St. Lucie County Utilities BOARD Of COUNTY .. '-" COMMISSIONERS UTiliTIES DEPARTMENT '-" '-" , WILLIAM ßLAZAK DIREGOR MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: ,. AD William Blazak, Utility Director LU;C~ð September 6, 2000 ...-. .--.-.- ..- _ DATE: RE: Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) - Grant Existing Airport Industrial Park BACKGROUND: In February 2000 County Staff identified several projects throughout the County that would potentially qualify for funding through the newly formed Water Advisory Panel created by Governor Bush. The existing Airport Industrial Park was identified by staff as one of the projects to apply for grant funding through this new source. The original grant application included design, pem:iltfìng and construction costs to complete a gravity collection and conveyance system for the existing Airport Industrial Park. The origmaI application was for a total of $ 1.5 million dollars. The grant that FDEP approved is for $50,000.00 for the Industrial Park. The Grant will provide a significant portion of the funds required to design the collection and conveyance system and develop a complete set of Engineering Plans for the project. Staffhas worked with Inwood Consulting Engineers, Inc. to develop a scope of work which includes geotechnical and electrical engineering as well as land surveying services. The compensation for the scope of work from Inwood Consulting Engineers, Inc. totals $61,530.00. At the August 1.7, 2000 Budgèt Workshop the County Administrator, Doug Anderson, identified a source for the additional funding in the amount of$II,530.00. The additional funds will be made available from Airport Reserves I\ccount # 140-9910-599300.;800. Given the lateness of this fiscal year OMB will prepare a grant budget for October 1,2000 and move the additional funding into the grant budget as well. Staff will request that the County Attorney prepare a work authorization for Inwood Consulting Engineer's, Inc. in the amount of$61,530.00. Staff will bring the Inwood work authorization back to the Board for approval. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that thè Board accept the grant from FDEP in the amount of $50,000.00 and further requests that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the Agreement. 'OHN D. ßRUHN, Dlsrricr No.1. DOUG COWARD, DiSTTicr No.2. PAULA A. lEWIS, Dlsrricr No.:\ . ffiANNIE HUTCHINSON. Disrricr No.4. CUFF BARNES, Disrricr No.5 Counry Admlnisrrator - Douglas M. Anderson 2300 Virginia Avenue 0 Fort Pierce, FL 34982 . Phone (561) 462-1150 e FAX (561) 462-1153 Project Title: St. Lucie County Airport Industrial Park Wastewater Collection and Conveyance Systeµ¡ ~ Project Location: Adjacent and East ofSt. Lucie County Airport, North ofSt. Lucie Blvd and one mile West of U.S. Highway #1. Name: William Blazak, Utility Director Phone Number: (561) 462-1150 Name of Water body Benefitting from the Project: Indian River Lagoon Project Description: This project will consist of the design, permitting and construction of a gravity wastewater collection and conveyance system for the existing St. Lucie County Airport Industrial Park. The Industrial Park consists of 106 sites that would receive wastewater service as a result of this project. Currently the entire Park is utilizing individual septic systems and the design requirements for commercial application of septic systems prohibits maximum utilization of the individual sites because of the size ofthe drain field. Some of the smaller business owners have experienced a loss of as much as 25% of their property to drain field construction. The loss of this property to the septic system not only hinders growth of the small businesses but also deters economic development within the Park. St. Lucie County has recently constructed a collection and conveyance system for the Airport property directly West and North of the Industrial Park. The existing Airport system will provide some of the backbone transmission lines to convey the wastewater collected by this \..,.- project to the Fairwinds wastewater treatment facility which is owned and operated by St. Lucie County . The project will provide wastewater service to the individual lots within the Industrial Park. The estimated cost of the project is $ 1,200,000.00 Current Status of Project: Preliminary design and cost estimates prepared. Airport collection, conveyance and treatment system constructed and in operation. Describe the work to be completed each state fiscal year through project completion: FY 2000-2001 Planning, permitting, design and begin construction FY2001-2002 Complete construction, receive final certifications (early 2001) Total Cost: $ 1,200,000.00 Secured and Reasonably Anticipated Matching Funds: $ 0.00 Request for reduction in match requirement: ---X.. Yes No Existing customers have invested in costly septic systems to meet their current wastewater needs within the Industrial Park. The customers could not bear the additional expense ofthe installation of gravity sewers either individually or through the rate structure of the proposed Utility District. \....,., - 'Or _......'; '--" Water Facilities Grant Application (For State Fiscal Year 2000 Funding) WATER ADVISORY PANEL Person Who Can Answer questions Regarding This Application: Name: William Blazak, Utility Director Phone Number: (561) 462-1150 Project Title: St. Lucie County Airport Industrial Park Wastewater Collection and Conveyance System Project Location: Adjacent and East of St. Lucie County Airport, North of St. Lucie Blvd and one mile West of u.s. Highway #1. City and County of Project Location: St. Lucie County Florida Street Address: St. Lucie Blvd and Industrial Ave. Three (see attached maps) Name of Water body Benefitting from the Project: Indian River Lagoon '-" Project Description: This project will consist of the design, permitting and construction of a gravity wastewater collection and conveyance system for the existing St. Lucie County Airport Industrial Park. The Industrial Park consists of 1 06 sites that would receive wastewater service as a result of this project. Currently the entire Park is utilizing individual septic systems and the design requirements for commercial application of septic systems prohibits maximum utilization of the individual sites because of the size of the drain field. Some of the smaller business owners have experienced a loss of as much as 25% of their property to drain field construction. The loss of this property to the septic system not only hinders growth of the small businesses but also deters economic development within the Park. St. Lucie County has recently constructed a collection and conveyance system for the Airport property directly West and North of the Industrial Park. The existing Airport system will provide some of the backbone transmission lines to convey the wastewater collected by this project to the Fairwinds wastewater treatment facility which is owned and operated by St. Lucie County. The project will provide wastewater service to the individual lots within the Industrial Park. The estimated cost of the project is $ 1,200,000.00 '-" ~. .-- . ...::. \..- 1. Project Sponsor Name: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Address: 2300 Virginia Ave. Fort Pierce, Florida 34954 Contact PersonlTitle: William Blazak, Utility Director Phone Number: (561) 462-1150 E-Mail Address: BillB@StLucieco.gov 2. Need for Project: a. Resolves/helps resolve a documented recurring water quality violation in the project area. None _Yes _No b. Resolves/he1ps resolve a substantiated public health threat None _Yes _No c. Reduces discharges of pollutants to an impaired water body on DEP 303(d) list, that resulted in the listing of the water body. Indian River Lagoon -X.. Yes _No ~ d. Reduces documented discharges of contaminants to groundwater supplies --X- Yes _No 3. Population and Median Household Income of Proposed Service Area a. Population of Proposed Service Area: None - Strictly Business and Industrial tenants. b. Median Household Income of Proposed Service Area None 4. Mandatory Hookup Project Sponsor or Grant Recipient has or agrees to adopt a mandatory-hookup ordinance for the service area - Ordinance may allow for mandatory hookup upon failure of individual systems. St. Lucie County has a mandatory connection ordinance X- Yes _ No (See attached copy) 5. Schedule for Completion and Funding Plan a. Current Status of Project: Preliminary design and cost estimates prepared. Airport collection, conveyance and treatment system constructed and in operation. ~ '-" b. Describe the work to be completed each state fiscal year through project completion FY 2000-2001 Planning, permitting, design and begin construction FY200l-2002 Complete construction, receive final certifications (early 2001) FY2002-2003 FY2003-2004 FY2004-2005 c. Total Project Cost Planning: Design: $ 100,000.00 Construction: $1,000,000.00 ~ Construction Related Costs: $ 100,000.00 Equipment: Land: Owned by St. Lucie County Total Cost: $ 1,200,000.00 d. Previous State Appropriations for this Project and Amount of Previous Appropriations Spent: Y earl Amount Appropriated Amount Spent '-" ".,0.- __....._. '-' e. State Appropriations to be Requested FY 2000-2001 $ 1,200,000.00 FY 2001-2002 FY 2002-2003 FY 2003-2004 FY 2004 - 2005 e. Secured and Reasonably Anticipated Matching Funds: FY 2000-2001 Source: Status: Amount: '-"' Source: Status: Amount: FY 2001-2002 Source: Status: Amount: Source: Status: Amount: FY 2002-2003 Source: Status: Amount: Source: Status: Amount: '--' FY 2003-2004 Source: '-' ~ 10. ~ - .' Status: Amount: Source: Status: Amount: FY 2004-2005 Source: Status: Amount: f. Other sources of local or other funding currently being pursued: None g. Appropriate sources of local or other funding that were pursued, but not secured; reasons such funds were not secured: None h. Appropriate sources of local or other funding not being pursued; reasons such funds were not pursued: None 1. Source of funding for recurring operating costs: Rate supported Utility District Matching Funds a. Total match amotmt to be provided: b. Match percent oftotal project amount: c. Request for reduction in match requirement: X Yes - No Existing customers have invested in costly septic systems to meet their current wastewater needs within the Industrial Park. The customers could not bear the additional expense of the installation of gravity sewers either individually or through the rate structure of the proposed Utility District. 12. Signature of Authorized Representative: Æ £. () ß2fJ ~ I {'.i ;;011 r, 70 (J Name ,'~ {/(J Title Revised, January 18, 2000 \... St. Lucie County. \... EXISTING AIRPORT df~ INDUSTRIAL PARK ~f~f~ ~ \..,..- '---' '--' .¡ ~ Q ~ \.." , , ORDINANCE NO. EC-93-01 AN ORDINANCE OF S'r. LUCIE COUN'rY ENVIRONMEN'rAL CON'rROL BOARD 'rO PROVIDE FOR 'rBE MANDA'rORY CONNEC'rION OF ON-SI'rE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYS'rEMS ON ~CBINSON ISLAND 'rO PUBLICLY OWNED OR INVES'rOR OWNED WAS'rEWA'rER COLLEC'rION SYS'rEMS AF'rER NO'rICE 'rHA'r SUCH A SYS'rEM IS AVAILABLE; PROVIDING FOR DEFINI'rIONS; PROVIDING FOR AN ADMINIS'rRA'rIVE WAIVER OF 'rBE MANDA'rORY CONNEC'rION; PROVIDING FOR PENAL'rIES FOR VIOLA'rION¡ PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILI'rY AND AN EFFEC'rIVE DA'rE WHEREAS, the Board of County commissioners of St. ·Lucie County, Florida, has made the following determinations: 1. Article VIII, Section 1 of the Florida Constitution provides that counties shall have all powers of local self government including government, corporate, and proprietary powe~s to enable them to conduct county government, perform county functions, and render county services, and may exercise any such powers for county purposes for health, safety, or welfare of its citizens not inconsist~nt with general or special law; and, 2. The Board has, previously,adopted a Comprehensive plan which incorporates the valid state and federal law objectives, which include, respectively, re-use of treated sewage effluent for groundwater recharge purposes and the elimination of as many source points of pollution as possible, as is mandated by federal public law 82-500, and this ordinance is in furtherance thereof; and, Strack through passages are deleted. added. Underlined passages are -1- ^'~C-. CD ~'o (")1-'> o CD ::J 1"'\ ::J o...ZCD ro c 0..3== ..ero CD I-' 1"'\ 3 o..1lJ .::- ::J I ~f-J() I ~,I-' \0 IV CD w¡:..;¿. 00 ~\CH¡ ~Wg. U1WCD > () . ~. ::š 1"'\ () OC ::0 ~. rt t¡; O() 00 :;O::C 1"'\ rt 0, COC/) W:' Lnt""' c () ~. '\jCD > C)() ~o C ::J OQ f-J \C CO -- ....-..":. ,_.... - ..: 3. The Florida Legislature enacted the Indian River Lagoon '-' Act in 1990 (Chapter 90-262, Laws of Florida) which requires the County to enact regulations to eliminate pollution discharges to the Indian River Lagoon and requires the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation to identify areas served by package wastewater treatment plants which are considered to be ~ threats to the water qualify of the Indian River Lagoon system; and, The State of Florida Department of Environmental 4. Regulation has prepared a report dated July 1, 1991 titled "Indian River Lagoon System Water Quality Threats from Package Wastewater Treatment Plants" in which the Department has listed wastewater treatment plants which it considers to be threats to the Indian ~ River Lagoon System; and, 5. Package sewage treatment plants and use of septic tanks in certain areas pose a continuing threat to the water quality of the Indian River Lagoon System; and, 6. The Board of County commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, recognizes that County currently has, and, unless regulated by the Board, will continue to have in the foreseeable future, package sewage treatment plants on Hutchinson Island which affect the continued p'rotection, planning, and management of the Indian River Lagoon; and, '--' strue]t thre\i§h passages are deleted. added. Underlined pass,ages are -2- o ~ t:;j o o ?': o 00 W lJ1 "tj :Þ CJ C::I o ¡.J \0 \0 - -- '--' 7. The Board desires to encourage the, re-use of treated wastewater and to prevent the increasing degradation of the Indian River Lagoon, by both surface and ground waters, which results in a lower quality of life and potentially substantial increases in cost for water and sewerage services in the future, and to protect and provide for the continued health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of St. Lucie County; and, 8. The Board recognizes that in the general interest of the public and to promote the general heal th and welfare of said public, it is necessary to encourage the use of publicly owned or investor-owned sewerage systems and to minimize the use of on-site sewage disposal systems on Hutchinson Island; and, 9. On February 25, 1-993, the St. Lucie County Local Planning "'"'" Agency voted 8-0 to determine that the proposed ~rdinance is consistent with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan; and, 10. On March 11, 1993, the Board held the first public hearing on the proposed Ordinance after publishing notice of the hearing in the Tribune and the Port st. Lucie News; and, 11. On March 25, 1993, the Board held the second public hearing after publishing notice in the Tribune and the Port st. Lucie News and determined to adopt the proposed Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE I'r ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUN'rY COMMISSIONERS OF S'r. LUCIE COUN'rY, FLORIDA: PAR'r A ARTICLE III OF CBAP'rER 1-7.5 "ENVIRONHEN'rAL CON'rROL" "MANDMORY CONNEC'rION - ON-SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYS'rEMS - BU'J:CBINSON ISLAND" IS CREATED AS FOLLOWS: '---' Strl:1ek throu§h passages are deleted. added. Underlined passages are -3- o ~ 0:1 o o :;=::: o CO Lv lJ1 "t :I> C) t%j o tv o o .....-. ..- Section 1-7.5-40 DEFINITIONS \....- (1) "continuous Compliance" shall mean that the On-Site Sewage Disposal System has not at any time during the preceding 12 months before the notification by mail or by publication, as referenced in section 1-7.5-41 of this Ordinance, been out of compliance with or in violation of any rule, order, statute, ~ ordinance or regulation relating to the operation and maintenance of the On-site Sewage Disposal System promulgated by any regulatory agency or governmental authority having jurisdiction over that system. Any On-Site Sewage Disposal System that the state of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation has publicly reported poses a water quality threat to the Indian River Lagoon System shall be deemed not to be in continuous compliance. If an '-" equipment malfunction ~ccurs due to no fault of the sys_tem operator that causes a transitory or temporary violation which is forthwith repaired by the operator of any such system, such malfunction shall not be deemed or construed to cause the system to be out of "continuous compliance" for the purposes of Section 1-7.5-41. (2) "On-site Sewaqe Disposal Svstem" shall mean any sewage treatment and/or disposal facility not equipped for and not treating and disposing of all of its effluent for re-use on its own premises, whether serving individual buildings or units, or several buildings or units, which treats or disposes of human body or household type wastes. Such systems include, but are not limited to, standard septic tank systems, laundry wastewater systems, and '-" strl::1.c]t through passages are deleted. added. Underlined passages are -4- o ::v OJ o o ?:: o CD W tJJ "'0 :t> CJ [:j o N o t-I ..--. ..--'"- '-" individual on-site sewage treatment plants which are installed or proposed to be installed on land of the owner or 'on other land to which the owner or owners have the legal right to install a system and which primarily serves or proposes to serve the owner's property or development. Section 1-7.5-41 MANDA~ORY HOOKUPS FOR EXIS~ING OH-SI~E SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYS~EMS ON HU~CBINSOH ISLAND ~O CEN~RAL SEWERAGE SYS~EMS Except as provided in Section 1-7.5-43, each existing On-site Sewage Disposal System on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County, (except approved on-site reclaimed water systems developed under the provisions of law and administrative rules), shall connect to a governmental or governmentally approved and certificated central wastewater collection system (System) within '90 days after ~ notification by mail or by publication that such. a System's collection lines, force mains or lift stations have been installed immediately adjoiriing or across a public easement or right-of-way which abuts the property served by t,he On-site Sewage Disposal System or is within 200 feet of the property. Upon such connection to a central System, the owner or party in control of such On-site Sewage Disposal System shall cease to use it or any other non- central system method for the disposal of sewage, sewage waste, or other polluting matter. All such connections shall be made in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations then pertaining for such connection, which rules and regulations may provide for, among other things, a connection charge, a service ~ struck threugh passages are deleted. added. Underlined passages are -5- a ~ c:: a o ?":: o CD Lù Ln "tI :t> Cl [%] o N o N --=~ availability charge or an impact fee and an accrued guarantee '-' revenue fee, in such reasonable amounts as shall 'be determined by the appropriate authority and pursuant to applicable law. On-site Sewage Disposal Systems other than standard septic tank systems shall be exempt from this section for as long as such a system has maintained or maintains Continuous Compliance with all rules, orders, statutes, ordinances and/or regulations, relating to the operation and maintenance of the On-site Sewage Disposal System facility, of any regulatory agency or governmental authority having jurisdiction over that facility. The Board of County commissioners of St. Lucie County shall be the final administrative decision-making body with respect to all '-" issues relating to the mandatory sewer connections 'pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Ordinance. Section 1-7.5-42: PROHIBI~ION OF CONSTRUC~ION OF ON-SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYS~EMS After April I, 1993, no On-site Sewage Disposal System shall be constructed on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County unless the Community Development Administrator grants an administrative waiver as provided in section 1-7.5-43. Section 1-7.5-43 ADMINIS~RATIVE WAIVER The requirement of mandatory connection for a particular On- Site Sewage Disposal-System or the prohibition of construction of a particular On-site Sewage Disposal System as set forth above shall be waived administratively by the Community Development Administrator if the Administrator determines in a written order '-" Strue]t through passages are deleted. added. Underlined passages are -6- c ...... .... tt: C C ^ c œ w In "t: :t> Cl L-1 o N o W .... - -.:.....~- \..,.., that such connection should not then be required. Any such waiver shall be based only on a finding that the central wastewater System does not have sufficient capacity to serve the additional demand of that particular On-Site Sewage Disposal System or on a finding that' a proposed On-Site Disposal System is more than 200 feet from a central wastewater System's collection line. Any person requesting a waiver as provided herein, who disagrees with the decision of the Community Development Administrator may appeal the decision to the Board of County Commissioners by filing a written"request with the County Administrator within fifteen (15) days of the date of the Community Development Administrator's decision. Any waiver granted shall be conditioned upon the written consent of the owners of the system to connect to a central wastewater System which has '-' sufficient capacity within ninety (90) days after the central System's collection lines have been installed immediately adjoining or across a public street or is within 200 feet from the property served by the On-Site Sewage Disposal System. Section 1-7.5-44: PENAL~IES; ENFORCEMEH~ Any person violating the provisions of this Ordinance shall be subject to penalties and enforcement proceedings of the St. Lucie County Environmental Control Hearing Board set out in Section 11.13.02 of the St. Lucie County Land Developmen~ Code. In addition, compliance with the terms of this Ordinance may be enforced by injunction or otherwise in a court of law having jurisdiction over such matter. '-" Strue1c throu§h passages are deleted. added. Underlined passages are -7- c - ^' t::: C C ?;: o ~ W Ú1 'i:! > a t'1 o tv o ¡:.. ',~ PART B: SEVERABILITY \....- If any section, subsection, sentence, clause; or phrase or if any portion of this Ordinance is found for any reason to be invalid, or unconsti tutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate and distinct, an independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of any remaining portions thereof. PART C: EFFEC~IVE DATE The provisions of this Ordinance shall become effective on April 1, 1993. PART D: CONFLICTING PROVISIONS Special acts of the Florida legislature applicable only to unincorporated areas of st. Lucie County, and adopted_prior to ~ January 1, 1969, County ordinances and County resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict with this ordinance are hereby superseded by this ordinance to the extent of such conflict. PµT E: FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE The Clerk is hereby directed forthwith to send a certified copy of this ordinance to the Bureau of Administrative Code and Laws, Department of State, The Cápitol, Tallahassee, Florida 32304. ~ Strac]t throu§h passages are deleted. added. Underlined passages are -8- o :;ö t;:: o o ;:=:: o OJ Lv U1 "'0 :Þ CJ [%1 o N o U1 \...- -:F-":-~.. 'PART F: ADOPTION After motion and second, the vote on this ordinance was as follows: Chairman Cliff Barnes AYE Vice Chairman Denny Green AYE commissioner Judy Culpepper AYE commissioner R. Dale Trefelner AYE commissioner Havert L. Fenn ABSENT PART G: CODIFICATION provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated ,in the Code of Ordinances of st. Lucie County, Florida, and the word " ordinance" may be changed to " section", ~. article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be \...... renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention; provided, ... ~ however, that Parts B through G shall not be co~ified. PASSED AND DULY ENACTED this 25th day of March, 1993. ATTEST: . ~/ <£ì~u~ Duty Clerk ............... -~~ '" \j p..~:!.:! ;'j~~ l~~it\ a: I ~ i:"¡ !. ë3 \ . ~~~ j (11:' , .~ . tP,. 'of. .... .~ ':j~ . ~ ·'·.~!'fJ wt ,..~~.., ~ . be ......-.., <:s If CQUH¡'(', ~~ . . ,-.~:~~;:.~ .~ ST. LUCIE COUN'rY ENVIRO~ÀL:" ' CON'rROL BOARD ,:~-",~,..,.,.. ' ~~<" , Chairman \........ ". ."'.. .': . -;j., ., &",0/') .... .' BY: Strae)t thr()a~h passages are deleted. added. Underlined passages are -- ' -9- . '-." o :::::: to o o ;.:0;: o (XJ Lù tJ1 "t > C) t:1 o t\) o 0' ;.. .' .,'