HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-17-2006 TVC Workshop
Board of County Commissioners Workshop
Fiscal Viability: Implementing Needed Improvements within the Towns, Villages
and the Countryside (TVC) Area
July 17, 2006
St. Lucie County Commission Chambers
2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, FL 34982
2:00 P.M. - 5:00 P.M.
Aaenda
I. Background
2. Development Overview (2006 - 2030)
· County staff
· TCRPC
3. Fiscal Neutrality
· County staff
4. Capital Improvement Needs
· County staff
· TVC consultants
5. Estimated Expenditures
· County staff
· TVC consultants
6. Estimated Revenue
· County staff
· TVC consultants
7. Revenue vs. Expenditures
· County staff
8. Traditional Financing Methods
a. Development Agreements
b. Impact Fees
c. Community Development Districts
d. Ad Valorem Taxes
9. Aditional Financing Methods - (Terry Lewis)
a. MSBU, MSTU
b. Special Assessment District (F.S. 189)
c. Independent Special District
d. Water/Drainage Control District (F.S. 298)
e. Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) District
10. Land Management Options
· County staff
11. Staff Summary & Recommendations
· County staff
12. Board Discussion and Direction
13. Transportation Funding Contribution Proposal by Developers
· Kolter Properties
14. Adjourn
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
Michael Brillhart, Strategy & Special Projects Director
/lIÞ
July 13, 2006
DATE:
RE:
Fiscal Viability Workshop on the North County Towns, Villages and the
Countryside (TVC) Area
The intent of this Fiscal Viability Workshop is to provide a summary of the capital needs
and costs of improvements associated with proposed development within the TVC area
together with the revenue sources needed to implement these improvements. Both
traditional revenue sources and recommended new revenue source options are to be
presented for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners.
The attached slides are part of the staff and consultant presentation materials to be used
for this Workshop. This information consists of data used within the fiscal analysis of the
TVC comprehensive plan amendment as referenced within the Capital Cost and Revenue
Generation Report prepared by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC).
The TCRPC's financial consultants will be available at the Workshop to present their
findings and to discuss new revenue source options. As noted within the materials, there
are financial options that could be implemented within the TVC area that would require new
development to provide the needed revenue to implement these costs and to ensure that
development is concurrent with local and state growth management requirements.
Staff will also discuss some possible land management options for Board consideration as
part of the comprehensive plan amendment. Additionally, a group of developers will
present a conceptual proposal for implementing transportation improvements through a
proportionate fair share contribution arrangement.
Cc: Doug Anderson, County Administrator
Ray Wazny, Assistant County Administrator
Faye Outlaw, Assistant County Administrator
Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney
j
metròstudy
Hcusing Starts H."n
St. Lucie County
Housing Market
Over the past 25 years, single family residential construction within St. Lucie
County consisted of scattered lot development in the southeast portion of
the county with condos built along the coastal areas. This trend is now
beginning to change with the construction of a number of large subdivisions
near Interstate 95 in the southern and central sections of the county. While
development in the southeast portion of the county continues today, it is
now generally focused on condos and attached housing as the number of
large lots needed for development has diminished.
Residential construction activity in the northeast section of the county has
been slow to take off due to its rural nature and distance from an
employment center. This is poised to change, however, as housing prices
continue to increase in south Florida and the amount of land available for
residential development throughout southeast Florida continues to decline.
With its close proximity to the ocean, Vero Beach and Interstate 95, the
northern portion of St. Lucie County should see a dramatic increase in
development over the next decade.
In addition to diminishing land stock, housing prices have skyrocketed in
southeast Florida over the past 5 years, forcing those looking for cheaper
housing to move north. Because of this, overall housing prices in St. Lucie
County have increased considerably within the past 5 years, as retirees and
families migrating from Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties
pushed demand to record levels. However, while these prices have risen to
record levels, they continue to be much less than housing prices in the south
Florida market. This pricing disparity between the two markets will continue
to drive demand for housing in St. Lucie County for the foreseeable future.
The population of the Treasure Coast (Martin, St. Lucie, and Indian River
Counties has been increasing at a fast pace, and this trend will persist for the
3
metros. tudy
HcusingStarts Hn,n
foreseeable future. Retirees from the northeast who would in the past have
moved to Boynton Beach are now opting in larger numbers for st. Lucie.
Workers employed in Jupiter and Palm Beach Gardens are now commuting in
increasing numbers from the Treasure Coast.
At the end of 2004, there were an estimated 234,820 residents in 95,798
households in St. Lucie County. There were 9,467 more households in the
county than in 2000, representing total growth of 11 %.
Year Number Net Change
Population
1990 168,712 *
2000 212,829 44,116
2004 234,820 21,991
Households
1990 66,571 *
2000 86,331 19,761
2004 95,798 9,467
Source: Claritas
The population of the county is expected to rapidly increase over the next 10
to 20 years as a combination of migrating families and retirees continue to
fuel demand for new housing.
In regards to household size, the county is becoming increasingly diverse,
with a mixture of both an active adult and family housing market with an
average household size of 2.42 persons. 42% of the households in St. Lucie
County have two persons, reflecting the area's appeal to retirees.
I Household Size
1 Person
2 Persons
3-5 Persons
6+ Persons
TOTAL
2004
23,583
40,090
29,159
2,967
95,798
% Distribution I
25%
42%
30%
3%
100%
st. Lucie Average HH Size: 2.42
S. Florida Avg. HH Size: 2.57
Source: Garitas
4
metrostudy
Hcusing,Starts Hn,o
The graph below illustrates the high percentage of two-person households in
St. Lucie County when compared to south Florida. This is a particularly
strong indicator for the type of future development in the area, reflecting
demand in the active adult homebuyer market. Three to five person
households represent an additional 30% of the market, confirming that there
is also a strong family market within St. Lucie County, particularly within the
county's central and southeastern sections.
St. Lucie County vs. South Florida
Percent Distribution of 2004 Households by Size
45%
10%
40%
35%
:I 30%
1 25%
i-
,. 15%
5%
0%
1 Person 2 Persons 3-5 Persons
SfHJm : CIidM Ost. WC" County .South florid. I
6+ Persons
As of 2005, there are approximately 73 Million "Baby Boomers" between the
ages of 41 and 59. Because they are in their peak earning years, second
home purchases and retirement housing, which have been on the rise over
the past few years, are projected to increase over the next 15 years as the
majority of the Boomers enter their 50's.
The amount of new housing available to the Boomers in Miami-Dade,
Broward and Palm Beach counties is decreasing fairly rapidly as there are
relatively few large vacant tracts of land available for development. As the
production of new housing decreases in these counties, builders are
developing in St. Lucie and Indian River counties. This trend of northward
movement will continue to increase over the next 15 to 20 years until the
supply of land is exhausted.
During the next five years, the largest effect in the Treasure Coast will be
continued strong demand for vacation homes. Communities like Tesoro, by
5
~
~1!".2.study
the Ginn Companies, demonstrate that seasonal residents will buy in st.
Lucie County.
Retiree demand is also projected to increase as well. The number of people
turning 65 on an annual basis will double over the next 14 years. This is
evident from the increase in births from 2 million to 4 million between 1940
and 1954.
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
hby 800m Generation
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
Source: 0 ~
U.5.CensU5 ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ¡ ï i ! ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ¡ ~ i ~ 5 ~ ~ ~
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between 2015 and 2025, retiree demand will continue to run at a strong
pace. Therefore, if current housing trends persist (construction of retiree and
vacation homes in warm climates), st. Lucie County will encounter a
prolonged housing boom.
The next largest demographic segment that will redefine housing in the
coming years is the "Generation V" or "Millennium" generation. This group,
born between 1979 and 1994, will have over 74 million members (more than
the Baby Boomers) and will make up 34 percent of the population by 2015.
Locally, there are nearly one million residents within southeast Florida and
the Treasure Coast that currently fall within this age group.
According to a study recently conducted by the Urban Land Institute, this
emerging segment is more likely to trade appeal for lifestyle and
convenience factors and less likely to seek prestigious housing, instead
preferring a more utilitarian model. Surprisingly, 56% of those Generation V
6
CAPITAL COST &
REVENUE
GENERATION
ANALYSIS
..
Page 1 of 27 Chapter 10
INTRODUCTION
As part of the Data and Analysis supporting the TVC Plan Amendment, a financial
analysis has been performed. Under this task the analysis includes the following:
· Estimate the costs and revenues associated with the proposed change in the
pattern of development, addressing both new development as well as the
provision for necessary infrastructure for existing development.
· Develop Municipal Service Financing and Development Impact Assessment
mechanisms to ensure fiscal viability of the proposed pattern of settlement for the
study area and provide St. Lucie County with an accurate estimate of the cost of
implementing and maintaining future development, land, infrastructure and
natural resources.
· Estimate costs and impacts relative to the creation of the central backbone system
of water management.
· Estimate the cost of acquiring and/or stewardship of vacant land, public open
space, civic buildings, public safety facilities, recreational facilities, schools,
roads and other infrastructure.
· Defme Level of Service standards for the purpose of satisfying comprehensive
plan amendment requirements.
The analysis is organized to respond to each of these tasks, including a comparison of the
costs and revenues associated under the TVC scenario and non- TVC scenario.
All assumptions relied upon in this analysis related to timing and costs, revenue,
infrastructure needs, timing and costs, and timing and pace of development (absorption)
can be found in Schedules 1 - 11; and in additional analysis conducted by Metro Study
Corporation, Zimmerman Volk and Associates, LBFH Inc., and GMB Engineers and
Planners. The fmancial analysis schedules are attached to this report. Additional analysis
conducted to support the completion of this financial report are located in the completed
Data and Analysis Section that has been transmitted to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) in support of the draft TVC Comprehensive Plan
Amendment.
Page 2 of27
Summary
North St. Lucie County
Towns, Villages and Countryside (TVC)
Financial Analysis
Summary
The scenario which is described as the "TVC Case" assumes a maximum
cap on new development in the SAP of 3 7 ,500 new residential units with a
mix of single family and multi-family units, provided from a study by
Zimmerman V olk & Associates.
To evaluate financial feasibility, it was first necessary to determine the costs
and the revenue associated with the proposed plan. In addition consultants
were requested to evaluate on the same basis the costs and revenues
associated with a "non TVC case" which assumed no changes to the existing
comprehensive plan with development limited to 22,000 residential units -
the maximum number of residential units under existing future land use. A
mix of single-family ("large lot") and multi-family units was based on
existing future land use.
Metro Study Corporation provided a forecast of the housing absorption,
through build out for both TVC and non- TVC cases. A copy of their report,
dated September 2005 is included in the Data and Analysis, and summarized
below.
Page3 of 27
NORTH ST. LUCIE COUNTY SPECIAL AREA PLAN
Estimated Average Absorption
TVC AREA
Housing Units
YEAR
S
WITH TVC WITHOUT TVC
Per Year 5 Years Per Year 5 Years
750 3,750 325 1,625
2,050 10,250 975 4,875
3,180 15,900 1,175 5,875
1,070 5,350 825 4,125
540 2,250 625 3,125
350 1,750
165 625
1 - 5
6 - 10
11-15
16 - 20
21 - 25
26 - 30
31 - 35
Total Housing Units
37,500
22,000
Level of Service standards have not been changed. They remain the same as
those currently adopted for the entire County.
Infrastructure Costs
The Infrastructure Costs Analysis focused on the major costs associated with
development, which include roads, schools, fire, police and drainage. Other
costs were considered but not covered in this study due to their limited
impact on the overall costs.
For both cases, TVC and non- TVC, the costs were based on new
development.
Page 4 oj 27
Drainage costs were analyzed, and an expenditure of less than a half a
million dollars was provided to correct existing problems with culverts as
described in the analysis provided by LBFH Inc., included in the Data and
Analysis.
In both cases the costs for water and sewer are assumed to be paid for by the
developer with an approximate cost of between $5500 and $6500 costs per
unit.
Conclusion Infrastructure Costs
As shown in the chart below, schools and roads show the most significant
difference in costs between the TVC and non- TVC cases. However,
although more schools are required in the TVC case due to the higher
number of residential units at build-out, the per unit difference in cost
between the TVC and non-TVC case is reasonably close.
Roads have the highest cost differential, at $3578 per unit. This pronounced
differential is a direct consequence of the traffic patterns generated. Under
the TVC case, traffic is distributed through a proposed network of streets:
predominantly a series of two-lane, and a minimal amount of four-lane
roads. The non- TVC case relies on a few main collector roads (Indrio Road,
Kings Hwy, Kobblegard and Johnston roads) to carry all traffic, and
consequently on the cost implications of widening such State and County
corridors.
To create an "order of magnitude cost comparison", road costs for the non-
TVC case were based on FDOT average costs-per-Iane mile. In the TVC
case, road costs were estimated by GMB Planners & Engineers, based on
cross-sections generated as part of the TVC implementation analysis. These
cost estimates do not include all categories considered under the County's
PD&E study (i.e. intersection improvements). If the cost estimates in the
PD&E studies prepared by FDOT for Indrio Rd. and Kings Hwy. were used
instead, the road cost in the non- TVC case increases by an additional $28
million or $1272 per unit. This increase represents a total road cost
differential of approximately $4,850 per unit.
Page 5 if27
The considerable increases in road construction costs in the non- TVC case
would suggest a scenario of no, or very limited growth due to traffic
concurrency limitations.
Infrastructure costs for fire, police and drainage are similar on absolute basis
for both cases but vary on a per unit basis, with the TVC case having lower
costs due to the higher number of housing units constructed and the land
contribution by the developer. In essence: due to the ability of the developer
to count public facilities towards the open space requirement, the
construction of public facilities in the TVC case lies within the mandatory
open space requirements - land that would otherwise not have been
available for public infrastructure. This same land in the non- TVC case
needs to be purchased by the different agencies, not only adding to the cost
of the facilities, but making it impossible to guarantee that such public
facilities will be in proximity of the community.
NORTH ST. LUCIE COUNTY SPECIAL AREA PLAN
TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS THRU BUILDOUT
TVC CASE NON-TVC CASE DIFFERENCE TVC - NON-TVC
PER PER PER
UNIT $MILLlON UNIT $MILLlON UNIT $MILLlON
SCHOOLS $ 8,800 $ 330.00 $ 7,895 $ 173.70 $ 905 $ 156.30
ROADS $ 2,418 $ 90.69 $ 5,996 $ 131.92 $(3,578) $ (41.23)
FIRE $ 192 $ 7.20 $ 418 $ 9.20 $ (226) $ (2.00)
POLICE $ 80 $ 3.00 $ 136 $ 3.00 $ (56) $
DRAI NAGE* $ 12 $ 0.46 $ 20 $ 0.46 $ (8) $
TOTAL $ 11,502 $ 431.35 $ 14,465 $ 318.28 $ (2,963) $113.07
Revenue
As opposed to the cost of infrastructure, which can be reasonably estimated,
the revenue generated through new development either for the TVC or non-
TVC case is more difficult to forecast. However, this study provides an
"order of magnitude analysis" of the revenue generated for comparison
between the two cases.
Page 6 oj27
Sources of revenue are impact fees assessed for infrastructure and ad
valorem tax revenue generated by new residential development. Using St.
Lucie County's October 2005 impact fee schedule and current mileage rates
for taxes these revenue sources were estimated as shown on schedules 4a,
4b, 5a and 5b, attached.
Conclusion Revenue
Based on this approach, the "order of magnitude" estimate shows the TVC
case generating slightly less than 1 billion dollars of additional revenue over
the non- TVC alternative, primarily resulting from ad valorem revenue.
NORTH ST. LUCIE COUNTY SPECIAL AREA PLAN
REVENUE VS CAPITAL COST $ MILLION
THROUGH BUILD OUT
TVC CASE NON-TVC CASE DIFFERENCE
Number of Housing Units 37,500 22,000 15,500
Years to Build Out 25 34 9
Years for Projected Revenue 34 34
REVENUE
Ad Valorem Taxes $ 2,054 $ 1,206 $ 848
Impact Fees $ 248 $ 140 $ 108
Total Revenue $ 2,302 $ 1,346 $ 956
CAPITAL COSTS
Total: Schools, Roads, Police
Fire and Drainage $ 431.3 $ 318.3 $ 113.0
NET BENEFIT $ 1,871 $ 1,028 $ 843
Financial Feasibilitv
In addition to evaluating costs arid revenue, the report recommends a
financing mechanism to ensure the fiscal viability of the proposed towns,
villages, and countryside settlement pattern. Various forms of assessments
and taxing districts were considered which included, Municipal Service
Page 70127
Benefit Units (MSBU), Municipal Service Taxing Units (MSBU), 298
Districts, and Community Development Districts (CDD).
Although each of these may serve an important role, execution of an overall
financial plan would be extremely difficult without a system encompassing
the multiple landowners in the study area and addressing the limitations on
funding infrastructure costs for infrastructure such as new schools.
The implementation team recommends that an Independent Improvement
District be formed covering the entire SAP. Details on the procedure and
pros and cons of this recommendation are included in Chapter 12 of the Data
and Analysis.
In addition to providing a mechanism for basic infrastructure and
maintenance of the improvements, the above Independent Improvement
District could allow, if needed, additional revenue to support infrastructure
such as new school construction.
Finally, and of great significance, is that under the non- TVC (current
conditions) there is no vehicle to tie together the landowners and the
development community to deal with issues such as concurrency or the
cost/funding/phasing of infrastructure.
Page 8 of27
TVC and Non-TVC Infrastructure Costs
The costs for major inftastructure, i.e. roads, schools, fire and police, for both
development scenarios have been analyzed. In the TVC case, a maximum of 37,500
units was used. This represents the maximum number of units allowed if the entire area
develops as towns and villages. In the non- TVC case, 22,000 units based on existing
future land use were considered.
ROAD COSTS
To calculate the total miles for each type of road to be constructed, Figure 3-15 of the
Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendments and the traffic study prepared by GMB,
Engineers and Planners were used. The costs are for road and lane needs through 2040.
These road costs are based on an "order of magnitude" calculation, a comparison between
both cases, and have not been verified by preliminary engineering studies. In both cases
the costs ofR.O.W. to be acquired was calculated using a base of$50,000 per acre.
TVC ROADS
The road costs for this case were based on the cross sections prepared by the
implementation team, based on the community's request for "maintaining a rural
character in the North County Area" and cost estimates provided by GMB Engineers &
Planners.
The costs used:
For the 2 lane rural section: 1.2 million per mile.
For the 4 lane rural section: 2.0 million per mile.
For the 4 lane Boulevard section: 2.5 million per mile.
To calculate the total miles for each type of road, Figure 3-15 of the Draft
Comprehensive Plan Amendments was used. These calculations are as follows:
2 LANE RURAL ROADS, 55' R.O.W.
(See schedule 6 for roadway lengths and R.O.W. to be acquired)
2 lane rural roads:
Total a length of 20.4 miles - (less) existing 2 lane roads of4.9 miles = 15.5 miles to be
constructed.
Costs of 1.2 million per mile x 15.5 miles =
R/W needed, 16.4 acres x $50,000 =
$18.61 Million
$5.14 Million
Page 9 of27
1-95 Flyover @ $10.0 million=
$10.00 Million
TOTAL 2 LANE ROAD COSTS
$33.75 Million
4 LANE ROADS, 100' R.O.W.
(See schedule 7 for roadway lengths and R.O. W. to be acquired)
4 lane rural roads total, length of20.98 miles.
Costs of$2.0 million per mile x 20.98=
R.O.W. to be acquired, 178.49 acres x $50,000=
Turnpike flyover @ $10.00 Million=
2 Bridges over Belcher Canal @ 2.50 Million=
t;} 2~;\
"
$~Million ,
$8.92 Million 1.~~
$10.00 Million
$5.00 Million
4 lane Boulevard section, total length of 0.95 miles.
Costs of$2.5 million a mile x 0.95=
TOT AL 4 LANE ROAD COSTS
$2.37 Million
$68.26 Million
TOT AL ROAD COSTS FOR TVC
$1 QJ. Q Y Million
'1 ',:.»
NON- TVC ROADS
(R.O.W's VARY) (See schedule 8 for roadway lengths and R.O.W. to be acquired)
The costs for this case are based on FDOT's 2004 TRANSPORTATION COSTS, dated
March 2005, which are as follows:
4 lane Rural road $4.1 million per mile,
4 lane Urban road $5.3 million per mile,
adding two lanes $2.5 per mile.
The additional 2 lanes for Johnston, south ofIndrio is figured using $1.0 million per mile.
The R.O.W. required for the Urban section is 120' and for the Rural section 210' (See
attached exhibit B).
The costs for county 4 lane roads are the same as the TVC, with a 100' R.O.W. required.
4 LANE ROADS FDOT
4 lane urban section, total length, 6.40 miles.
Costs of$5.30 million per mile x 6.40=
$33.92 Million
Page 100/27
4 lane rural section, total length, 7.52 miles.
Costs of $4.1 million per mile x 7.52=
$30.83 Million
Add 2 lanes to State roads total length, 8.90 miles.
Costs of 2.5 million per mile x 8.90=
2 Bridges over Belcher Canal @ $2.5 million=
$22.54 Million
$5.00 Million
4 LANE COUNTY ROADS
4 lane rural section, total length 14.11 miles.
Costs of $2.0 million per mile x 14.11 =
$28.21 Million
Add 2 lanes to Johnson.
Costs of $1.0 million per mile x 4.55 miles=
$4.55 Million
TOTAL R.O.W. TO BE AQUIRED
R.O.W. to be acquired, 198.3 acres x $50,000=
$9.92 Million
TOT AL ROAD COSTS
$133.42 Million
SCHOOLS
(See schedule 9)
The school costs and number of schools needed are based on information supplied by the
S1. Lucie County School District.
TVC SCHOOL REOUIRMENTS
The total number of schools for the TVC is as follows:
K-8, 6 schools at $ 35.0 Million=
$210.00 Million
High Schools, 2 schools at $60.0 million=
$120.00 Million
Land costs at $0.0 per acre=
$0.00 Million
TOT AL SCHOOL COSTS
$330.00 Million
Page 11 of27
NON- TVC SCHOOL REOUIRMENTS
The total number of schools for the non- TCV is as follows:
K-8, 3 schools at $35.0 Million=
High Schools, 1 at $60.0 Million=
Land costs at $73,470.0 per acre=
TOT AL SCHOOL COSTS=
PUBLIC SAFETY~ FIRE
(See schedule 10)
$105.00 Million
$60.00 Million
$8.70 Million
$173.7 Million
The fIre station costs number of stations needed were supplied by the St Lucie County
Fire District.
TVC FIRE STATION REOUIREMENTS
4 Fire Stations at $1.8 Million=
Land costs at $0.0
Total Fire Station costs=
NON- TVC FIRE STATION REOUIRMENTS
4 Fire Stations at $1.8 Million=
Land costs at $0.5 Million=
Total Fire Station costs=
PUBLIC SAFETY~ POLICE
(See schedule 11)
$7.20 Million
$0.00 Million
$7.20 Million
$7.20 Million
$2.00 Million
$9.20 Million
The Police Sub-Station costs were supplied by St Lucie County, office of Administration.
TVC and NON- TVC
Page 120/'27
s:::
o
:.:::1
~
o
o
C"ì
~
d
o
.....
-
~
o
C"ì
~
I.¡..;
o
...
rIJ
o
U
C':j
~
..¿
(1)
""C
(1)
(1)
s:::
rIJ
.....
s:::
o
'.g II
... rIJ
oot)
I 0
..D U
;:s s:::
00 0
(1) '¡j
.;:a C':j
- ...
000
~.6
- ;:s
rñOO
(1) (1)
rIJ U
C':j .....
Uõ
..c~
Oëa
..D...
..s~
~
<C
:i
:E
::J
en
z
e
....
D.
~
0::1-
etn
""0
~o
0....
We
D.I-z
tnä:o
~e-
z 0 :t
::ttn-
0> :&
ow-
w::t
_z
ow
3¡¡j
..:0::
tn
:z::
~
o
z
w
()
z
w
0::
w
u.
u.
Õ
w
(J)
<C
()
()
~
z
o
z
w
~
()
~
o 0') I
o
10
ICi
.....
o
o
o
Ñ
N
;;~
o
o
10
,..:
('I)
~~
J!!
'2
::J
CI
c:
ïii
~
o
J:
-
o
E
E
~
z
Q)
~
c:
~
a::
:;~
o Q)
"0..",..
:= e
~a-
CD ....
.s.e
~ ~
as as
Q) Q)
»
Page 14 of2?
co co co
vOIO
co ..... 0')
~iß-~
~~~
..... .....
~iß-~
vCON
IOVO
ON('I)
Ñ Ñ
~~~
UI
~ Q)
~ ê
w ¡¡ i ~
::> ;: u. 0::
Z 0...._
wïüoj!!
> > as 0
~ :¥ ,gl-
v
.¢
N
.....
iß-
('I)
ex)
.....
('I)
iß-
.~
Õ
a-
uf
"OQ)
2 t»
~a::~
en uf 1!!
o -0
() 8 "0
..J J:: c:
<C eno as
I- ~ ~
li: j!!"-
C3~U.
N
('I)
co
~
co
N
0_
.....
~
r--
C\Í
v
v
0)
10
0:).
.....
~
EI'*-
I-
ü:
w
z
w
CD
I-
W
Z
C
~:8
Ze-
::Jo
o fI) II)
T'" .'" .a +J
w-c(c(°-
..J!:!:!G~:5
::J (.) ~.... m
O::Ji;""'C
W ..J CD (.) .-
G"':~~~
(1)(1)"0 0
:C,! :c
~~
o:¡:¡
ZfI)
W
rJ)&O It) It) It) It) 0 It)
¡;,;;N............NN&ON
CUCOCX)OO~~"""CO
~ ~~tti~(t''-~
~It)
I- &OIt)It)It)It)O&O
::> N............NN&OCO
O....('I')O)-r-:.CX)COC")~
J:CU ~
!::~
~Qj
a.
00000
f!&01t) 0 It) It)
CU......NO)C")N
>-CD (t) ci tti tti Ñ
... ~~
0&0
~ 00000'
J:....&O&Ooo......v
I- cu...... q ~MOMIt)
~~ NC")~
....
CD
a.
en
IX:
«
W
>-
... &OOIt)O&O
... O~NNC")C")
&0..- , I , I I
I I ~CO~CO~
~CO~~NNC")
Page 150127
o
o
o
N
N
o
o
&0
......
C")
~
0)
~e
::J Q)
- >
(/) CU
0_
.... CU
-::J
Q) c:
:Ec:
>.CU
.QCD
- ....
incu
CU c:
~ ~
o.l:
u..'"
"Oe
c: Q)
,..cu .Q
E E
Q) ::J
Oz
OJ
c: .
.- It)
"'0
::Jo
0(\1
J: M
- ...
Q) CD
....Q
~j
c:Q.
oJ3
"2"0
tI)~
CU CU
aJ"O
tI)
:t::
c:
::>
0)
c:
'(i)
::J
o
J:
.e
{:.
...
... ...
"0
c:
CU
~
Õ
c:
o
Ë
c:
Q)
E
ø
ã.
.5
...
~CD
CU ...
.... :::I
::Jt)
g~
.e~
"Oc:
ø=
E.~
::J;t::
$.5:
CUõ
.!!l c:
Q).Q
c:~
o_
m';
CD c:
>- .-
10
o
o
~
~
õ
~
õ - -
Z 0 0 0
0 0 N 0 N
C") (J) 0 Ø!
03 ~ a) ~ ...
N C"')
w~- .... - -
o.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .,.
Zz
~o
wZ - - - -
0 I"'- 0 0 ~
LL.'I- 10 (0 co (0
LL.o- 10 C") .... C") en.
-~z ~ ~ <Ó ~ 18
Q :;:) N ~
IX: (J) N N - It)
w ri - .; c:
c.. - - ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .,. .E
z 0)
:5 C)
IV
0. Z 0 0 0 0 10 It) c:
m 0 N 0 0 ~ cø 'j!
0 I"'- ~ ('II 0 N
w3 M ~ a) M c;j .oc) '0
I"'- C") ... j
~ ~.~ ~ ~ C")
..JU)
~I- o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .,. Ò
uU)~1- ~ 0
0
N~8:;)8 0 I"'- 0 0 t; ,þ
.~ 10 ~ co ~ 10
~U)..Jt;Q z- 'I: " .... ¡ ~
:;)~~:;):::! OZ tri 8 cO g
z:;:) (J) .... Õ
Q -~:;) 0::: co (J) 'I: " ....
w:;)!à:enal UJ 1"'-- IÕ .... 1;)
Goo~æ c.. ... 0
~ ~ ~ ~ .,. 0
en 0...1 .!
!!!~~i: IV
°0- Z 0 0 0 0 It) It) E
0 0 0 0 10 It) .~
:;)1- 0 0 0 ('II 0 'I: " cø
...I ::¡ g Ñ r--: M 0 ~
...: ...J 0 a.
w~ C") ~ a.
en IV
:r: en~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .,. c: ..:
IV 0)
~ ~ a..
° 1Q.Q
0 o~ 0 0 0 8 0 '00)
Z 0 0 0 0 ~i)
~z 0 0 0 0
0 c;j ~ c;j Ñ .- '0
:;:) 0 ~ co en "8~
0::: co ~ "':. E¡
UJ ai Ñ ...
c.. ... !'O
~ ~ ~ ~ .,. .9'~
Eo.
. .!ë
en w ~O)
~ In E
...J .(~
0 CJ) W ..J
0 ð u z ~ W:¡::I )
:I: W ::¡ ~ b~~
u 0::: 0 0
(/') IX: ü: c.. C I- z.
Page 16 of27
10
8
~
10
....
Õ
....
~ §. IX) MOM I'- M M
d!i m....:~N ¡...: Lri
COM 0 10
,10 ..... 0)
Z.....
0
Z
~
W
0
Z
W ~
0::
w tU
LL ~
LL
is fit fit fit fit «It fit «It 10
N
~ .5
.. 0 ~ MIX) V I'- N N "0 CO 0
Q. .. 0 m"":LriC"i c:i ~. ,SNg
.. O. C't Q)V
~ W IX) V v ëi.~cr:i
~ N .... ....
0:: N .... EOCO
c( 0 8:;M
.JW 0 .!!l
<1::;:) ~ Q)
(jZ~ U)
C")WW:;:) Z r3
~g¡~~~ 0 ~
Z fit «It «It «It «It «It «It «It
:;:)~LL:::!-
ra~Oæ~ .s::
0 ;1) COIX)I'-V 10 ~ C)COg
:;,N
%0:3:;:):& 0 criNmu) ¡...: ..... 0;1)0
10 0
0000::- w r--: Ñ 101'- V ~ ÉI'-LÔ
o 0::% ~ ..... N
~:;:)~ M Ñ tUg.....
. M
00 0 I!?c:i
:;:)0 U tU
.J ~ Q)
..: >-
0 ;;r;
% fit fit «It fit «It «It Cß- .!!l Cß-
~ .s::
0
0 i
Z
.....
:::J
0
:!2
·5
.c
1J .s::
ï: C)
:;,
:::> e
C) .. W .s::
c:: U) U) ..... ~
¡ñ ~ :B :::> c::
:;, tU Z ~ .¡::
0 l- LL W D.
::I: U) ~ (¡j .s:: Q)
Õ E Q) U) U)
~ Q)ÕCl) ~ C- D:: Q) :::J
... 0 LLO"O .§ :;, Q) 0
Q) ().s::~Q)= ...J c:: C):J:
.c ~ ~ 0 a:::'!:: 0 19 ~ !1!mó
E rJ) LLD.
~ Q) = >
:;, ~ .§ ~ ~::!E<
z
Page 170127
w
m
z<
s<>
Q.~
iá.
«wm
<:;)«
<e:ïi!ifiiá
..._»
~~~;t
omll.J:
wwOC)
:C-m:;)
<><>wo
(1):;)<>«
..J«J:
..,::;)....
mo
J:m
1i2:ïi!
0:;)
zz
z
<
mmø~~g~~~~~~~~~~~ø~~~~...o~~~~~~~~~~ ~
~~~~~...ð~~~~~~ó~~~~8re~NNN~~~~~~~~~~~
W~~~~~!g~re~~~~~~~~g~~m~æœ~gg$g$$ggæg
..J:;)~~NOø~~Om~øMm"'O~~~NØ~Ø~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
~z~œöÑ~~Ñ~~~~m~tÑg~~œgmm~Ñmggöóóggóò~
OW ~~~N~~"''''~~~ m ø ø ømmø mmm mmg
....~ Ñ
0:::
~~~~~~~~~~~~_~~~~~00~~~~~0~0~0~~~~~
888~~88888~~~~~~~~~~g~~gg
~~~~~~~~~~~~~MM~~~~~oðoo~
m~~~~~~~~~~~l~~l~~llll~~~~!
ÕE~~~~~~~~~~ÓÓÓÓó~~~~~~~~~
...._ ~~~~~NNNNN .
00~0~~0~00~00~Ø~~~ØØ~00~0
~~~~~gg§§§~~~~;~§888~~~~~
~~~~~~rerererereggggg~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~ØØØØØNNNNN~~~~
~~~000~0~~0~00~0~ØØ00000~
I
m
w
w
II.
....
~
,
~~~~~~~~~~gggggggggggoog8
NNNNN~~~~~~~~~~mmmmmM~~M~
Jrerererereggggg~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
c..
000~~00~~0~0~~~0~~~~~0~00
~~o~o~oooo~O~~OOOOOOOOO~o
NN~N~~~~~~~~~~~OOOOO~~~N~
ø~~~~~~~~~~~œœœœmmmmmmmmø~
~~......~~~mmm~~~~~~~~~~~!!!ð~
~~~~~~~~M~~~~~~~ÑÑÑÑÑ~~~~
0~0~~0~~0~~0~~0~~0~~~~000
~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~ªªªªª~~~~g
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~ttttg
g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~øøøøø~~~~~"'''''''''''''NNNN
(,) ~'-"C"'-T'*"""
en
~~~~0~000~0~0~~~~~0~~~0~~
mmø~~O~~N~~~~~Ø~~ø~~~~~o~~æ~~ææ~æ~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N;~Ó~~~-~~S~~~-~~~~~
~ø~~~~~~~g~~~~~i~~~~~~~gg~g~~~~~~~~!~
~~~~~~~MœMœMÓœ~~~M~œ~~~~~¿œøóóÓÓÓÓÓÓM
>~ ~~NN~......~~~~~~øœøøøøøømmmmmmmm~
~~ Ñ
~00~000~~0~00~~~~~~~~~000~~~~~~~~~~
~!~~~~~~~§.~~~~~~§.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~C ~N~~~~m~"'~O~~mON~"'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ë~ ~~_NNNN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
::;¡*
U
~ ~~~~oo~~oooggoooooooogoo~
§i~~~~~~qq~~~~~~~~~~~~;:K~~~
05 NNNNN~~~~~~-~--
Z::I:
. , , fl. . I I ~
~
~~N~...~~~ømO-N~...~~~ømo-N~...~~~ømo~N~'"
~ ~ ......~~~~~~~......~NNNNNNNNNNM~~~~
Page 180127
~
ð
-
8
IÒ
~
~
!;i
N
~
8
IÒ
~
~
ai
~
~
o
o
o
~
g
Ñ
-
...
cD
õ
Q)
CI
GI
.!!
'Ë
~
g
Ñ
:B
Ñ
~
~~
~N
><
~
§
IÒ
N
~
~
~
~
§
~
~
~
~!~
~~¡¡:(\
'<¡"
:.ø
:;
E
"$.
o~g
~ðiað
~~~
E
S
..!!!
g>
'¡¡j
'*
o
m !;:
~ 0
>< .~
E
~ œ
§ c:
_ 0
~~01
Eg"O~
:::I ~ HI
~~O:::.j
~ ~
i!a Q.
¡¡ Qí .5
fY- ~
~
~
s¡
:::I
.8
UJ
CfJ
Zë)
~
~~
UJ,
a::UJen
oC(:;:)a::
UI-'ZoC(
.,~UJUJ
UJo~>-
-'UJ....1n
:;:)Q....N
QCfJLI.:C
WUJ°C)
:c-CfJ:;:)
OOUJO
en::>oa::
-'a:::c
. ::> ...
t>0
:cCfJ
~;t
0::>
ZZ
~
œm~~mOŠ~N~~~~~~~~~~~~~"O~ 0
~~~~m~ m~ ~~m~~~~~~~N~~~" ~
~~~N~~ ø~ øo~œ~~~~ONNNNN~ d
UJ~~~œ~.~¿~~Ñi-~~·~-~Òri~œÑ~~~ .,
~~m~m~~~Nm~ N~~ ~~~~m~~.,m ~
-'::>~~NO~~~Om~~ œ.,o ~~N~~~~"~ N
~Z~~~ÒÑ~~Ñ~~~~œ~.Ñò~~~ò~œ~Ñœ ~
5 ~~~N~~,.,ø~~~m~~~~œ~~mœ~ ~
1-'0:: ~
~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~ªªªªª~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.sco _.. - - - -... -.......... -..
°E""~"~~~~~~ooooo~~~~~~~~~
..._ ~~~~~NNNNN
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
g888g8°888g22goo~~~oO~~~O
~~~~~m~œmœ~~~~;8õõõ8~~~~~
œriri~~~~øø~~òòòòò~~~~~œœœ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~'~N
LI.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
:
en
UJ
UJ
LI.
...
~
Q.
!
~~~oooo~~goooooo00000002~
NNN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(1)¡(1)~~
œ~ø~~~òò~-~·ò~·~-~-~·~ÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑ~
ONNNNN~~ ~ ~~~~~~mmmm~
~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~
Q.
~~~~w~~~~~~~~~~~w~w~ww~~~
OOO~OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
~~~ ~~~~~~"""""~~~~~NNNN~
NNN N~~~~~~~~~~OOOOONNNN~
0~~~~~ri~g~ri~~~~~œœ~œœœœmœ.
~~~~~~~mœ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~ri~ri~~~~~ÑÑÑÑÑ~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
g822828882222828888888888
~~~~~~~~~~~~~"~~~~~~NNNN~
0ÑÑÑÑÑ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....Ò
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NNNNN~œ~~œ
8~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"""""NNNN
o -or-..................T-
en
~~~~w~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~w~~~
mm~~~~~~N~~~~~~~~~~~~~(1)~~
~~~~~~~~~~N~~II)~N;~~~~~~~~
E.~ri~~8-òò~ÑÑ~ri~~·mÑ·I·~~·~Ò~g-
mœ~~.,N ~II)Nm~~~N ~~N o~~~o~
~j~~~~ ~øll)~N~~m O~~ N~O~~~
Oc - - -.. -' - -. - - -. -.... -. -..-
mœ~~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~~m~~m
>~ ~~NN~.,.,~~~~~~~~~w~~~
~a::
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~w~~~~~w~~~
J0!~~§!~~~~§~~~!~~I!~~~~!~~
œ:t:: _. _ _.. _.. _.... - -. - -... --
~~ ~N~~~~œ~.,~o~ømON~.,~~mø~~
E~ ~~~NNNN~M~M~M~M~~
j#
o
~c:gggggggg~S~~~~~R~~~~2~~~~
::>~~~~~~qqq~q~~~~~qqqqq~~~~
ó5 NNNNN~~~~~-~-~~
ZJ:
0::
~~N~.,~ø~øm~~~'~~~~~~~N~~~~
>-
Page 190127
8
8
~
Ñ
ø
~
,-~.
~
II)
~
~
C5
....
~
8
§
~
~
~
~
.,
N
~
8
§
~
~
ø
œ
~
~
8
d
8
d
g
Ñ
....
.,
~
~
'õ
œ
tII
co
.!!
"ë
....~
~~
~N
)(
8
§
~-
~
~
~
~
~
§
~
~
M
:¡¿..
'Ë
~
:::¡
E
o
~
~
~
~
'i
N.
~
~
~
:.:: )~
~tfæ~
oð
OM >-
~a;=
~ _E
8"~.m
'c .!?
Co 0)
?A .~
5 ~
~ Ie
ciI
¡; 'õ
)( .i!S
E
~ tV
C c:
j 0
'õ "0
.8 i
E~III.E
jO¡fß
~B~.æ
œ~ ü
~!R !
~ ¡ ,5
a:t.L. -
.: <
o
g
~
M
w
~
zO
:s~
0..,
~~
0:: Z ,^
c('D::
c(-'~~
ltI~z>-
W0l!:!..,.
5~WM
C(/)O:::Z::
WWu.C>
ßÕO::)
(/)::)(/)0
-'WO::
'0 :z::
1-0::1-
(/)::)
:Z::o
tt(/)
0-'
zc(
::)
z
z
c(
W~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ã~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~
...I~~~~~~e~*~~~§~~~I~~~8~~¡~~~~m~m~~~m 0
~roÑM~~~M~~~~~Ñ~~~~~~~~~M~~~~~mè~ò~~~ œ~._
0> ~~~NNNM~~""""""""""~~~ItIItIItIItIItIItI~~~~~~
I-W
~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~
~~~~~ªªggggggg~~g~~~§§§§§gª~ªª~~~~'§
~ÑÑÑÑÑ~~~~~~~~~~Ò~ÒÒÒ~~~¿~~~~~~ÑÑÑ~ ~
-~~~~~~NNNNN~~~~~~~~~~mæmæm~~~~~~~~~ ~
~EÑÑÑÑÑ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MMMMMÑÑÑÑÑ~~~ Ò
1-- ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~.~
~ItIItIItIO~ItIItIItIItI~~~ItIItIItIItIItIItIItIItIItIItIItIItIOOOOOItlItl~O'~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0
A,òòòòòèòèòòòèòoòMMMMM~~~~~~~m~~òòèÑ ~
::: CIO CIO CIO CIO CIO ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. œ œ œ œ œ 0 0 0 0 0 ItI ~ ItI ItI IQ CO CO ItI IX) CIO ..,. ..,. ..,. M 9
.1.1.- NNNNNNNNNNNNNNN~~~~~ ~
~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~
~
en
W
W
1.1.
~
0..
!
~~~~~~~gg~~~ß~~~~~~g~g~~2~02~2~~~8'0
NNNNN~~""~""""""""""""NNNNNNNNNÑìõ~ìõÌi5ìõooo~ 8
G>~~~~~¿~~~¿mmmmmèòèèè~m~~~mmmmm~~~Ñ 0....-
~ltIltIltIltIltIw~ww~œœœœœ..,...,...,...,...,.oOOOOItlItlItl~ItINNNN ..,.
o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~
Q. M
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~
~~~~ß~ß~g20000~~~~g~~~g~~88888~~~~'8
~~~~~""""""""~~~~~IX)~~~~~""""""""""""""""""""IX)CIOCION 0
ø~~~~~t~~~t~~~~~~m~mm~~~~g~~g¿~~~~~ 1
~W~WWWClOCIOCIOCIOCIONNNNN~m~mæ~~~~~mmw~æ~~~N CIO
~ ~~~~~ÑÑÑÑÑ~~~~~~~~~~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~
1tI1tI1tI1tI1tI~1tI1tI1tI1tI~~1tI~1tI1tI1tI~1tI~1tI~1tI1tI~00000~1tI~018
NNNNN....~~~~~................NNNNNNNNNNItI~ItI~ItIOOO~ 0
1tI1tI~1tI1tI~ltIltIltIltIœœœœœooooow~~w~œœœœm..,...,...,...,.
~~~~~~¿~~~~~g~ææ~~~~~~~~¿gmmmmmm~m~ ~
8MMMMM~~~~~................~~~~~~~~~~ItI.....~m~1tI N
~~~~~~MMMMM~~~~~MMMMMÑÑÑÑÑ~~~~~ m
w CIO
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~
~~~~~~!~~!~~ª~§~~g~m~re8m~!ffi~~g~88~'m
~~Ñtg~~~~reg~M~~~m~~~~g~~M~~~~~~9g~t~ m
~~8C1O....~ItINœWM~~~CI08~wmN~....ItIN8""""~""~MM""N""Õ W
~~ ~ÑM~~m~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~~t~~~~~mgg~ 8
~G> ~
~~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~
~sltl~~g~~~g~8~~~8~8~~~8~~~8~~~~~~g~~08
~~~~œ~~~~~~~~~q~~~q~~~~~~q~~~~q~~~~_
~~ ~~N('t)VItl~""IX)O~N('t)V""~~""""CIOœœmoo.....~~~~N
U~ ~.....~.....~.....~.....~~~~~~NNNNNNNN
~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ß~~S~~~~~ 8
~~~M('t)~~œœœœœ~~~~~CIOCIOCIOCIOCIO~~W~W~~~M('t)~~-- 0
.~ ~~~~~ ~
00 N
Z:I:
; O~N('t)""IQ~""CIOœO~N~""~~~CIOœO.....N('t)V
~~N('t)VItI~""CIOœ~..........~__~~~~NNNNNNNNNN('t)('t)M('t)('t)
>-
Page 20 oJ27
ItI
8
~
.....
o
....
W
~
....
8
ci
Õ
G>
en
j
°ë
~~
)(
o
o
o .::.
~ 'Ë
(f) S
E
~~~
~~Ü:;j!.
~
('t)
"C
C
as
....N~
:g~E
8"¡~S
O~ -&
3! ·i
6 ;j!.
"': ~
~ Õ
as )(
~ °ë
== as
c c
::I 0
~ i
.8.J!!ø!
E8"Oê ~.~ ~
II( )O::.æ
Q) 'õ
ê 11.1 [
~ Z .E
~t ê(
W
~
zO
~~
Q.,
~~
~Z(l)
c(1~
m..JWc(
1t)~;:)W
WOZ>
..JW~1t)
;:)Q.WN
O(l)~:X:
WWu..C)
:X:-O;:)
~g(l)i
..Jw:x:
. 0 I-
I-~
(I);:)
:x: 0
~(I)
O~
z;:)
Z
Z
c(
in
W
W
II..
~
Q.
;¡æ
~~lt)o~~lt)m~æm2~o~~~~~~It)~-m~ 0
w ~_ <'1~. ~ ~ ~ ~ aI. ~ "I:. ~.~ at ~~ '"': ~q m. ~~. ~ ~ ~~_ ~
..J;:)~~øON~m~N~It)~~m2mmm~~ø~ø~~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~q~~~~~~~q~~~~~g
O>N~~It)~~~co""~coNlt)co--~~co--~~~co Ñ
I-W ~"""_NNN~M~~~~........1t)1l)1t)1t)1t)1t) 0
~ CO
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
88888888~88888888888~~~8~ ~
NNNNN~~~W~cococococoNNNNN~ÕÕOÕ Õ
~ÑÑÑÑÑ~~~~¿~~~~~ÖÖÖÒÒ~~-~~~m
_ ...~~~..........~~~~~mmmmm~~~~~co cococo N
~mqqqqq~~~~~"I:."I:."I:."I:."I:.~~~~~~ _~~~'"':
~ENNNNN~~~~~.....~~~~It)It)~It)Il)MMMMM ~
- -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1l)1l)1l)1l)1l)1t)1l)1l)1l)1t)1t)1l)1t)1t)1t)1t)1t)1l)1t)1l)1l)1l)1l)1l)1t) It)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ÖÒÖÒÖÒÒÖÖÒööòòò~ri~ri~.....~
~coØcococo~~~~~mmmmmOOCOOIt)Il)It)Il)Il) ~
~ NNNNNNNNNNNNNNN.............................. CO
.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
gggggggggggSggggggggggggg g
NNNNN.....~.....~.....~~.....~.....NNNNNNNNNN N
Igggggggggg"",~~~~~ggggg.
o ~~~~~~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~ M
Q. ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~--~~~~~~~
gggggggggggggggggSgggggggg
......__................~~........cococococo~.............._..........~.....~ .....
~~~~~~i~~$$tttttœœœœ~ggggg~
m~~~~~cococococoNNNNN~~ffiffi~-.................. ~
~ ~~~~~ÑÑÑÑÑ~"..:..,.:"..:~~~,,:.,.:~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--
1l)1t)1l)1l)1l)1t)1l)1l)1l)1l)1l)1l)1l)1l)1l)1l)1t)1l)1l)1l)1l)1t)1l)1l)1l) Il)
NNNNN~~~""'~~~~""''''''NNNNNNNNNN N
1l)Il)Il)Il)Il)Il)Il)Il)Il)It)mmmmmoocoo~~~~~CO
~~~¿¿¿~¿~~~ææ$~æ~~~~~~¿¿~~¿
8M~MMM~~m~~""'~""'~""'~~~~~~~~~ll)ø
~~~~~~~riri~~.....~~~ri~ÑÑÑÑÑ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~-~~~-~~~-
~~:ß~~~~re~m~¡~~~~~~~~~~øm~~
E. q,..... N.. ~ ~ ".. 0.. ~ CO.. ~ ('I).. to-:. '": It!~.. ~ «!. ~~... «!. -.: (\I.. C!. ~.r.t:!. ~
~~~g88~æ~re~;a~æ~~~~~8æ~æa~~
..2 c: 0) CO ....... <0 u") N CXI u) ('t) 0 C"') '!SCO 0 ('I) US œ N In ..... t.t) NO" ~ (»
>m~ ~Ñri.~œÑ¿¿~.~~.¿¿~~~~œ~Ñ.~
Q) ...............NNNMMMM~~~~~1l)1l)1t) (ò
~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---~~~--~--
~øll)oll)olt)~ll)oIl)Oll)cIl)8Il)Oll)clt)oIt)OIt)81t)
~=NIl)~ON .....Il)NO~It)N .....CNIl)~ONIl)~ N
ECM~m~~ 1l)1l)1l)1l)~coONMNOco~Il)....""'M ~
~~ ~~Ñri.¿¿~¿Ö~Ñ~.~~¿~~¿œœ
0# ~~~~...~...~~~~~~
1t)1t)1t)1l)1l)1l)1l)~1t)1l)1l)1l)1l)1t)1l)1t)1t)1l)1l)1t)1t)1l)1t)1l)1l)1t)
~c:NNN~N~~~~~~~~~""'NNNNNNNNNN ~
5·~~MM...~~mmmm,",:,",:,",:,",:,",:cococococoCO~~~CO -
.5 or-~"-'r""'" œ
00 -
z::c:
~_NM~~co.....comO"""NM~Il)~.....comO""NM~1t)
< ~~~~........~......~NNNNNN
W
>-
Page 21 rif27
Il)
8
~
-
õ
.....
æ
~
ci
'õ
Q)
.f
'Ë
88
ci~
~~
_N
x
~...~
'Ë
8 s
ci ;e
8. ê
CD '*-
~ B ~
=21-0
o .- C
~Q.u..m
..è!:'
o 0 'Ë
~qqs
·c~~~
Q.O m C)
g . ~ .~
5 <f!.
~ ~
C)
~~~Õ
x .~
e
.-ê as
C
~ C
_ 0
~ i
.8øøfó
Eõ-o.o
~ 0 m ø
c'fi°m
IIcn~""
~cø i
~G) E
Q) G) ._
~t ;(
.J~
~::¡
0:::1
1-:1
.,..
~(I)Z
wUJO
>g::¡
~æ:::l
.Jm:l
1.1. .,..
(l)z
I-º
Z (1)..1
0:::1
:3 o::¡¡¡
a. .,..
i3 0
!i~ UJ
..1(1) . 0 ( )
:-'ww
01(0 Cwo::
(30 oZo
cøwo cC~C(
wa.g
.J(I)o::
;:)~w
ozz
w;:):3 (l)Z
50 ....º
(1)00 (1)..1
~~ 0:::1
O:i
;:) .,.
.J ~
~ Z
:z: 0
~ w¡::
mo
0 0;:)
Z ....0::
u.lÞ
.Jz
0
(,)
C)
~zUJ
-z
wlÞ:3
.Jf3N
u.c
..IcC
ëi!~
1-1.1.
go
i~~~ ~
¡,
;~S::~;
K~~f::
t~~~~
I~
~i!
ij
~:
~;o
:ß;tt C'!
¡ii···~"'"
>....~ .' C")
;~:'~¡~í
:'. ....."".~;
.....:(
iZ¡,
'~'."...;.
.,.,<,<
} "'i'- ~j.
;~~
!~.'
~tl
(ii)'r <0
¡~~
.~~ It)
ø,:,
'~':.
~~
lèj@
\ø~
¡tm~
~wti CD~
;~,.~
:~~N
'ø-
".'<:$..
');\$,
i~~¡
l>i§~¡~)g
I~
I~
I,,·,"
,~ ' ·1:
; .r:~
i,~~
;iil
I~
~.'.'.'..'
" ,C
:.. ,~
I~
~~;co
!~¡¡,,~
~~~~:
18
¡i;",o
~ì1~
,,?&r~
ii
;(1);
'¡I
~$;":
lØg
&\;',;?o
~~cÖ
I
ii$:C;.
I~
~;~g
è~t'"
~
"~'f;!
~~&~
f~{~
I~
~~~~ì
~~'
~~,#
.,,'f~
i~'·~,.
:{~;'~t,
Page 22 of 27
I~
~f~
~~
~lit.~jX
rl
,)11
~t[{~'
~5.o
ætco
~I· .....~.,.:
~>f" ?
"
.t~~
)f!ï¡
I~
;~*
'I'·:~~·~·;
t~ ~<~;i
t·_,'.¡
Î5
~¡*~
~li~
w~
¡I~
t.it;;~
¡Ulf
I~
f~
I~~
~. '.. \1.
;' .~?;
t'!;;?/;
I~
I'.··'·',·'·'.~.
." ..~
h ¥' t
0).·.".
i~;
iUJ~
!~"o
,ffij'i: 0
~~~N
lë
r.~~
ft
¡~
~~&
:~~~('f')
f~~~
~lñ'¡
gj¡.....Q¡.
~~
~~:,?
''1i~
I.':~~;o
!f~o
f~r~ N
~f¡if~ OJ~
¥i;\~~ or
f~~~
tr<';~~
i,!,!!¥
~~n~
~~(ß
I~
~~~.i~i~
ø
;¡:~'f:
I
~""'~......
¡I'
~
~¡¡
II,
1"0
~~
,.I,~
~
~
I~
!¡~øj
~"1~
I,
~~1i
¡~'I
m'7~.\~,
·;,>011:'1
B,~;O
It'~
1-';A~ -
~~~!r¿"""
~~......
¡,.\!1í
~~!~
ï~
;'i'::.-:(,'
I
.""";:'-:-"
~<'::-~~,:J
~~~i~
~1 "!
þ~N
~
~".'~
!2t¡
"Ø,',
I~
1~:;
"<:),',,
~~
~ª~
~;'r
¡flo
iî~~t 0
g?,\,1f¡~
1-
I@
I~
~<:nj
Ii
:);ii~ 0
:Q,"It
11~
ì::>..,. '.'..;
.,~r
I
~~LO
i,:Æ~ OJ
~~N
'.:.::3,
I,
y.~Y4.~
~~~
t!
ttJ
C')
.,..
o
o
è
-
.,.
...
-
IÕ
-
to-
to-
N
o
-
-
c.o
cÖ
-
.,..
..I
~
~
o
Z
~
"
J
"
-û
j
~I
ai'
,
-t'
j
~
f
....,..
't
!
)
7
~
~
.
r
W\
ï frt@ f;.'({i1 ¡!It~ I~ :Ti~p.
...... It) ...... 0> ('t) .'1.~-,;,.; co I
~ z ('t) I It) r~¡~ 0 CO C'! cq
0 N cO 0 r--:
::¡ .... ....
.... N
0 ...
.... i I
ø ø
I ~ ~ ~
~ .
fI) z -
w w 0
> C,!) ::¡ (~~
0 c ... iM
z ~ æ i ¡~~
:s 1"
LL m ø ¡~~ ~ ~. t
Q. ~¿' ~j ~'¡ ~
i .1"
~~ r,.-,'t I~
~ ~\i ~
¡Ø1f ! .>... ~
Z f~1 ~ 0> co jZl It) ~,;...... '~,; co N
CI) fI) 0 '!If§ ~" -~ It) ,.~',~ co It) I~CO ¡'j .... CD
I~ ,........~; N 0 181 0 ~ '.;¡' >( . ,t:;i~ N CÖ
... 0 .... ::¡ -; _.,~ ..... Ii iZ1....
s; fI) I ;'w" I~ I
u 0 ... I~ ',0, ...
u i ¡ø.,1
w ~ (,) ~1, 'I
...... Q. ø I I I} ~: I ~
0 '"', ':1
W fI) ~; ~
... ~ rt: ~":,'" :-: I~ j~4
::::I W i(jZ'¡; 0 l~ß 0 .:'>~ 11 ...... -~ N ~¡o '~2 0 ~
C C :Qi; r:~ '. -,~
Z ~ C'! cq It) ~ " ., ('t) ~ CO
W W }~ r--: ' ~ . M
::::I C fI) i~ .... ~ ..... i~~ iI .... .,,(t) CO
::r: 0 .J w w ¡iJ N -~ '" ,~ It) ~" ..... ~. .... ¡'QjM ¡~4 ~ ......
(,) b ,. '\ ~~ ....
U 0.: w rt: ., :. I
CI) ;~"
W ::::I C Z ~ Ij h,:',~·~ ¡~
Õ 0 4( ~ ~ I{ 7§!~ ~J
f c. .':
::::I LL IJ ¡~ 11
... I ~ . ->.I ~~
&3 ~ ;~~ 11 ¡U· :[Ij~ ~
(ØJ ) "~" ·t '"
~' ;',,"'': m ~j, co ~~ co I~ B~ 0 II) C')
::r: z '." ",~ ...... }ii1 I ..... i:"'!
~ 0 ~1 M ~ ~ 0 1m,! CO N It)
tt: N f~ -. 'f. IÓ r--: r--: I 0 ~It) ;~~ r--: fA iii
tJ) ::¡ i; . ".'>,' ¡æ~ C')
0 0 ... I" ;: .'"" .~;
i rœ;. t~!
z (,) I !,.~ X''''$ .J-
~.
ø ; ",'.. ø
I ìì I \ .,
g 0 ~%\ 0 0 g I~ 0 ...
0 ~1 It) 0 0 ~ ~
LL 0 It) ...... It) .:j~ «!, 0
... It'i ~- 0) ctS I .... 0) ~
...... .... .... 1i"\:1 f"~ .... .
~ i'¡j}'; ~]!J, I r--
;,~:~,(~,: I ~%m; c
~~1 -
~ !~}~~ z
,}'~ !~ê§ ~
~~!\~¡ ~l~t' 11
~~ ~~ It C)
;~i:2$~ ~~í
Page 23 of27
\'-'.\?;':~~ I; I~ I~ I~ tit";",
Z N
..J 0 O'!
~ ~
:::¡ f')
0 ..J ~
l- i l0"~~ ~\~
- I~ I -
0
iX U) Z '~i' ~ø~ , ~'~~ I 0
¡~: :~~ 1m ,JJ,c;1 an
w w 0 ~':.e .~' ~~
> C) :::¡ If¡$~ I f2:"I 11 I~
0 C ..J ~1 It ' ',~,; .' (_.'" !1
Z ~ æ ¡ ~ bi~ {~1 I~
:5 i~
U) u.. aI - 'Ii] fØ(! \t:i)í ,. '1,
D. I- ¡Cil),~ 1:-"'. '; 3 ~,
~ U) I Ii ~...~~â# -
0 "1 It ¡D:;1 I
,-"~' .,' ~ '. \~ I
0 ' ;~'':J _i (J)
0::: z ~I~ .~ N
<C C -., ' ...J ¡~ j(Ø,,0 ..,.
U) 0 IN 'If")
~ <C I- fl';,((::('f) ¡;~ci ~4 IN cö
0 U) :::¡ ¡(ii~ I ~!
(j 0::: 0 ..J (11 I
¡ ~' '. ..t~ ~,
..
W W 0 ks~ j:" ii ~ -
= - ,Œ'\ ~ ~"1
Do. Z ~. .~ -
~',<~ ¡¢¡)~ ~.
W U) :5 ¡JiQ' ~ . ' 1
..J I~ ~ I~
;:) ~ I m·o ¡w1 Ii i ~, 0
>< c (0:io .~,. "j¡O
c ~t~ I'CO r ';1 í~~~ I' f')
w Cñ w ,~....: \11 I~ cö
;¡: ;:) .J c en Ii
0 S w ~ ·..·w' 11~ ~j¡"" md ...,,<.;.~ en
0 C ~~¡ r~J \C$' ~if~ ~
0 0::: w 'i\j ~ I ~ i I
U) c z ~ ìf g. ifßÞ r ~:"~~
w ;:) ('J " .. 1l~i ~ ~~:, fI~
(j 0 <C ~ I~ Ill, Ii ~ ~t"~ ", Æ,' :I;
u.. I~ ¡I~ .,,~ itfi I
;:) B' ¡;~~ !I~
..J I ~J ¡~ ~~ =~ - ~
0 I" <v ,- '"
¡..: r'" :ì.i ("...~ ~v . "
U) ~ 'G~ ïflN ~~ 'o.. lID . ~jN
;¡: Z ¡ãJ~ ID .,~!!)ID tl° 0
z ~ 0 B1~ I~ J:1i C') ¡...~o m'~ 'W" <'! !~i~ 10
~ \'}:~¡ . ~có oci
0 :::¡ ~~ i".~ -.i ;J~ ; ~~
z U) ii~~ .~.~~ :í!IC.~ i:2\ ~ ~
0 0 ..J 11 ~" [wt ~" ~
z 0 i ~ ~ !i~ I ~j I
~~,\ 0:. .
R ¡~.f,
- ~1~k~ ~ II -
~Y.~1 ~~~, ~t
~ 1m1 ,.,,'''~ 18 ~. ~~!o
I{~~ !O)¡¡ .~
!~~ìo ~,~ ~'o I 110 flo ~
I; ,~g ~~ ¡~i(O ~;~~~ 0 I~
u.. ""~" ¡~i'~ o. ii£~~ ~ I~
~." -
..J ~.·.N ~1~~~ ~ I~~ ~'r¡ 0
..J I ;~~ ~I~i~ ~~ ~~¡ I-
g rlt~ JtJ~ if~ ~'*w c
f)!; I i¡~
~1<rw ~'~ ~J'î ¡Wr' ~
I "~,~ ~~~~ tii;t
I- ~,j ;¡i4 I ,~~~
rf£~~ II id C)
~ti~
Page 240127
Z
:5
D.
c(
~cn
c( t)
:¡!O
ÕO
woa
m D. C
wcnwZ
5~~g
fDza~
::J:::»wi
0°0::.,.
cnoU)
w.,J
õO
::»0
~::J:
~~
::J:
~
°
Z
en
..,j...J
<.:0
1-0
OJ:
I-U
en
...J
~
o
I-
~
~
ro
I!!
0)
.r:.
I-
...-
~
...-
N
o
N
I
CD
...-
10
...-
I
...-
...-
o
;b
10
I
...-
en
0::
~
CD
o
o
ci
...-
N
W
w w
0...-
o
.n
('I)
w w
w w
0('1)
o
.n
o
...-
w w
0...-
o
.n
('I)
w w
0...-
o
.n
('I)
w w
I/)
"õ
o
-"5
2en
(,).....
eno
Wco~
~ 2~~
'"' .r:. ::s I::
U ~zj
~
N
o
o
ci
N
...-
w
w
w w
ift ift
ift W
0...-
o
ci
CD
w w
0"'-
o
ci
CD
W W
w w
I/)
"õ
o
.r:.
(,)
-en
8.....
.r:.0
(,) ~
enZ
~E-g
._ ::s C'O
J:Z...J
w
co
o
o
ci
('I)
('I)
w
w
o
o
.n
('I)
w
ift
o
o
.n
CD
...-
w
o
o
.n
0)
ift
o
o
.n
('I)
w
...J
~
o
I-
('I)
o
o
.n
o
...-
w
w w
0...-0
o co
.n ....:
('I)
w w
w w
0...-0
o co
.n ....:
('I)
w w
0...-0
o co
.n ....:
('I)
w w
w w
I/)
-8
w8"5
en.r:.en
<.:(,).....
ueno
~
uCO.8
~2E~
,:5::s1::
z~zj
o
Z
Page 25 of27
...-
o
~
.n
o
o
ci
<0
W
w
w w
ift ift
ift ift
0...-0
o ('I)
ci M
CD
ift ift
~ ~
I/)
8
.r:.
-~
8õ
.r:.~
~.8
.r:.E~
C)::sl::
J:zj
o
('I)
M
~
~
o
I"-
M
I"-
...-
ift
~
o
co
có
('I)
ift
~
o
...-
ci
o
...-
~
o
~
CD
('I)
~
~
...J
~
~
~
o
('I)
có
10
...-
w
~
oj
I/)
r3
~
I::
o
Z
.5
~ .E
(,)
~ ~
I"-m2-
~'""::s
('tj'(,).c
I"- ro
We -
@~ ~
I/) - a.
I!!~ I/)
(,)WI::
ro@)8.
101/)0
N ..,.....
I/) ~ 0
I!!~t:
'S 10 ¡g,
C"~
I!! I/) I/)
0) ro
-g.!:: ~
ro::s~
I:: i.5
.Q ~ '¡:
=~ê:
E æ 0
IO¡:(,)
('I) o.ra
w=
J!J=~
I/) E æ
80-
«0)
_wI/)
8J!Jr3
.r:.I/)U
(,)o~
I/) (,)
~-
J9 8.5
æ ~ ~
E.r:. ::s
0) CI I/)
iIiJ:~
~
z
ô
co
...-
-
ift
ift
o
0)
<i
ift
o
N
cri
10
~
o
o
Iri
('I)
ift
w
(.)
Z
W
0::
W
LL
LL
Õ
- õ õ
0 0 8
I- 0 0 0 0
w Cl)tI') 10 M 10 M 0
O::!: - - C\Î C\Î
(.) T'"
(.) -
Z
w
It: CI) - -
W T'" T'" 0
LL LLZ - -
LL 00
is d~ 0
0
CI:I
ZI-
~ CI) CI:I
.s::::.
"C
Q. c:
c( ..!!!
W 0 0 0 0 0 (.)
tt: w ~tI') 0 0 0 0 0 ~
M M M M N
c( 5 o::!: Ñ N- C\Î C\Î a)
~ c:
(.) 0
Z
oß~ (.) ...
~ CI) T'" T'" T'" T'" 'It 0
....Q.w LLZ LL
W(I)u.. Z 00 iii
..J~c(- 0 d~
:;) (I)~ Z :g
czo- ZI- CI:I
w:;)_u.. CI) 0
% ...1- ~
0°10
(1)0:)
WQ. .5
(j 0 0 0 0 1ií
:;) I-tI') 0 0 0 ..~
..J ~ co co 0
~::!: M ......- 0
¡-: W T'" T'"
CI) (.) 0
(I) c:
() .....
~ CI:I
~ CI) T'" N T'" 'It j
LLZ
0 00 ::1
Z d~ .c
:s
ZI- c:
CI) 8 S
.-
.-
"0....
j8.
CI) 10 10 ....I (1)0
It: 10 0 ..... N ~ EO
L;) I T'" , I ::1q
..... I ..... T'" 0 o
co
>- T'" N I- ~fõ
. tit
Page 26 0127
0 0
f- M M
(J)iIt
W O:::t
U u
z
W
0::: (J) ~ .....
W
U. U.Z
U. 00
ë d~
Z¡...;
(J)
t;>iIt
O:::t
u
z
S w (J)
&:I. (J) u.Z
oct (§ 00
w .¡::
~ ~ ~~
~ (J)
Z
Õ 0
....w Z (J) (\ ~ 00 (\ (\ 00 0
....&:1. u.f- <D 00 ..... ..... M 0
WCl)W offi 0 ..... <0 M 00 "It 10
~ Ñ "It- Ò ...: CÕ I.Õ
..J~U '0 ..... ..... ..... 10
::I - 0-
CZ..J Z(J)
W::;)O W
::J:O&:l. 0:::
Uu
Cl)W
Õ
::I 0 t· 0
..J t;>iIt M M
~ O:::t
U
::r:: ~
~ e:
en ..... ..... ( )
0 W u.Z "0 0)
Z "1;; II)
~ 00 . !!! ~
u d~ "000
~ Zf- ~&¡::
en ¡goe:
::J <0 .-
en I() I() g I() 0 I() o""ã1
u.f- .... &1 .... 10 .... .c: 8._
offi M .... M .... 00 ... e: ::J
a) IÔ a) M CÕ ~ ~o,g
'0 (\ M ..... :¡:;J:¡
0- J!!,Se:
zen e:1I)8
w 0)1:,
0::: :2::Jã1
II) II)
!!! ( ) E
Lt)e:::J
"" . 0 II)
(J) I() 0 I() & ....I iJj NII)æ
0::: I() 0 ..... ~ ~ m ~ 0) II) II)
~ I ..... I W E·!:::·-
..... cb ..... ..... g b ::J::J"O
..... ..... (\ ( ) II) 0* e:
>- J: II) ( ) (1
f- Z «0:::....1
Page 27 of27
LEWI5~ LONGMAN &WA'UŒR, pl~LE COpy
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
HELPING SHAPE
FLORIDA'S FUTURP@
www.llw.la...·.com
Reply To: West Palm Beach
September 28, 2005
Michael Busha, Executive Director
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
301 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 300
Stuart, FL 34994
RE: Options for Implementation of Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC)
St. Lucie County Charrette
Dear Michael:
As a result of discussions with you and your staff, I understand that TCRPC is currently
working with St. Lucie County, landowners within the County and other interested parties in the
development of a plan for implementing certain restoration projects related to ground and surface
waters within the northern portion of St. Lucie County. The discussions have taken place in the
context of charrette meetings conducted by TCRPC and have involved consideration for use of the
Ft. Pierce Fanns Water Control District (the District) as a possible tool for implementing water
control changes in the planning area. The District is the only governmental body within the
planning area that might have the ability to implement the charrette other than St. Lucie County.
You have asked that I provide you with viable options available for implementing the
charrette plan, including consideration of the use of the District. Because of its limited authority, I
do not believe that the District in its present fonn, represents a logical option for the task. There are
other alternatives available, however. The remainder of the letter outlines background facts as I
understand them and then identifies those alternatives, along with pros and cons.
A. Background Facts
1. Ft. Pierce Fanns Water Control District covers a substantial portion of the
geography of Northern and North Central St. Lucie County which is the subject
area of the TCRPC planning charrette. The District was created several decades
ago, pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes. Water control districts created
under Chapter 298 are single-purpose districts with legislative authority to
BmJenwn
1001 3rd Avenue West
SuiLe 670
Bradenton, FL 34205
(941) 708-4040
Fax: (941) 708.4024
Jacksunv;lle
9428 Baymeadows Road
Suite 625
Jacksonville, FI. 32256
(904) 737·2020
Fax: (904) 737·3221
Tanaka..,,",
Post Office Box 10788 (32302)
125 South Gadsden Street
Suite 300
Tallahassee, FI. 32301
(850) 222.5702
Fax: (850) 224·9242
Mr.t Palm Bmc¡'
1700 P.tlm Beach Lakes Blv,1.
Suite 1000
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
(561) 640.0820
Fax: (561) 640·8202
"
(
<.
Michael Busha, Director
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
September 28, 2005
Page 2
provide only water management (drainage, flood control, water supply and
environmental restoration of waters) within district boundaries. They are
authorized to levy non-ad valorem assessments annually against all benefited
landowners within the district to build and maintain a water control system for
that purpose. They also have the authority to issue bonds for the capital
improvements necessary to construct the water control system.
2. Land uses within the District and the charrette planning area are primarily
agricultural. The flood control and water management systems installed by the
District serve the agricultural uses and are essentially a grid pattern of canals,
dikes, levees and pumps that control the ground and surface water levels in the
District sufficient for agriculture such as citrus. The District maintains and
operates the water control system by levying non-ad valorem assessments on a
per acre basis upon benefited lands in the District that are served by the system.
3. Over the past few years, the charrette area has come under urban development
pressure. Several large regional developers are in various early stages of
planning and designing large residential and commercial developments. I
understand a number of developers have already committed resources to the
preparation of the infonnation necessary to process a Development of Regional
Impact application, pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, through St. Lucie
County and the Florida Department of Community Affairs. I also understand
these developers are currently willing to cooperate with TCRPC and St. Lucie
County in developing and implementing a comprehensive planning blueprint for
the area provided their plans are not unnecessarily threatened or delayed.
4. During the past year, the TCRPC charrette meetings have developed the concept
of a flowway or flowways to begin restoration and rehydration of substantial
portions of the District that had been previously drained. TCRPC also recognizes
the need to develop a plan and institutional framework for the area that would not
only implement the plan, but balance the needs of the development community
with environmental restoration goals.
5. Concurrently, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) is interested
in a project in this area for water storage and rehydration of the groundwater
regime as part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP).
Hence, there is potential for local, state and federal participation in a restoration
project.
(:
( !
Michael Busha, Director
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
September 28, 2005
Page 3
6. As the general purpose government with responsibility for comprehensive
planning and the operation and maintenance of local public infrastructure, St
Lucie County is responsible for overseeing the future development of the area in
question.
7. From discussions with TCRPC staff, it seems clear that in addition to the
development of a plan for the area in question, some institutional structure is
needed that has the ability to finance, construct and maintain the public
infrastructure necessary, coordinate planning and implementation activities with
other governments and work with development interests. TCRPC staff has,
therefore, asked that I address possible options for implementation of the
charrette plan, along with the pros and cons of each option.
B. Option 1: Pros and Cons - St. Lucie County Alternate No.1
1. St. Lucie County may implement the charrette plan as follows:
a. The County as the general purpose governm~nt has the ability to amend its
comprehensive plan for the area in question to dictate accomplishment of
the new water control system. It is possible for the County to fast track
implementation to some extent, pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes.
b. Concurrently, the County may, pursuant to Chapter 125, Florida Statutes,
create a municipal service taxing unit or a municipal service benefit unit
(MSTU or MSBU) that covers the geographic area in question. This entity
will continue to be an administrative ann of St. Lucie County government.
c. Also, concurrently, TCRPC and St. Lucie County should consider
discussions with the Ft. Pierce Fanns District to raise the issue of whether it
should be dissolved or otherwise integrated into the plan. As a part of
dissolution, the assets and liabilities of the District would be transferred to
St. Lucie County.
d. Pursuant to Article Vil, Section 9 of the Constitution and Section 125.01,
Florida Statutes, MSTUIMSBU powers essentially include all municipal
services. As examples, potable water, sewer services, roads and bridges,
trash, fire protection, flood control, drainage, recreation and law
enforcement are municipal services that can all be funded and provided via
an MSTUIMSBU structure.
e. MSTUIMSBU powers also include the ability to levy and collect ad
valorem taxes on lands within the MSTUIMSBU to provide for public
infrastructure. As a matter of law, St. Lucie County has the legislative
, '
(
Michael Busha, Director
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
September 28, 2005
Page 4
authority to levy up to an additional ten mills of ad valorem tax within the
MSTUIMSBU boundary for municipal services. The District also has the
ability to levy non-ad valorem (benefit-based) assessments within the
District on all benefited properties.
f. Finally, the MSTUIMSBU may issue bonds with County approval that
would be backed by non-ad valorem assessments. Such bonds would allow
fast tracking the desired infrastructure. Bonds backed by ad valorem taxes
generated by the MSTU may be issued only with referendum approval of
electors within the MSTU.
2. Pros and Cons
a. Pros
(1) Alternative 1 could be reasonably speedily implemented. As noted
previously, S1. Lucie County can begin to fast track the planning
and the creation of an MSTUIMSBU.
(2) A single administrative entity will be in charge of the creation of the
MSTUIMSBU and implementation of the financing scheme and
construction of the charrette proposal.
(3) As the general purpose government within the area, S1. Lucie
County has the legislative authority to do all things necessary to
begin implementation. The only matter over which they do not
have absolute authority is the possible dissolution of the Ft. Pierce
Fanns Water Control District.
(4) With St. Lucie County responsible for most of the implementation,
coordination with TCRPC and SFWMD, as well as landowners,
would be relative simple.
b. Cons
(1) Generally, the time, expense and manpower commitment by the
County to accomplish the tasks identified will be substantial. At
this time, it is unknown whether S1. Lucie has knowledgeable staff
that would have the time to devote to all tasks required.
(2) The administrative burden of management will also be fairly
substantial. This wj]) include:
(i) Initial organization and creation of the MSTUIMSBU as
well as plan adoption.
(
Co'
Michael Busha, Director
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
September 28, 2005
Page 5
(ii) Once created, administration and oversight of finance, land
acquisition, construction and maintenance of the new
infrastructure.
(3) If the District is dissolved, the assessments that are currently
available to maintain the existing water control system will be lost.
(4) Dissolution of the District will also shift any liability they may have
to St. Lucie County.
(5) There are always political issues and potential controversy
associated with the levy of any new taxes or non-ad valorem
assessments. St. Lucie County would be at the center of these
issues as well.
C. Option 2: Pros and Cons - St. Lucie County Alternative No.2
1. St. Lucie County may implement the charrette as follows:
a. The County can fast track a comprehensive plan amendment that authorizes
implementation of the water control and related features.
b. The County also probably has the authority to require large scale and
regional developers to implement portions of the charrette within lands
thereon at their cost. The implementation of chmrette projects would be
included as conditions of any approval of development. The developers'
options for implementation of charrette requirements would be:
(1) Pay the costs up front and let St. Lucie County implement the
charrette projects.
(2) Implement the charrette projects themselves as part of the
development and transfer ownership of the facilities to St. Lucie
County for maintenance (probably along with a commitment to
assess the developed property for maintenance).
(3) Petition St. Lucie County or the Governor and Cabinet to create a
community development district (COD) pursuant to Chapter 190,
Florida Statutes. This district would be created congruent with a
developer's land and be set in place to finance, construct and
maintain public infrastructure in perpetuity. A COD has many
powers to construct public facilities of all kinds.
2. Pros and Cons
, '
(
(
Michael Busha, Director
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
September 28, 2005
Page 6
a. Pros
(1) The proposal has fairly reasonable administrative ease for St. Lucie
County. Essentially, St. Lucie County would need to amend its
comprehensive plan to incorporate the charrette proposal. The
County would also need to be certain it could impose development
conditions on developers as they came in for development approval
that would achieve development of portions of the charrette plan.
(2) The cost to St. Lucie County would be fairly nominal and could be
transfeITed directly to developers desiring new development within
the area.
b. Cons
(1) The implementation schedule for the charrette plan will be
piecemeal and coordination with the SFWMD project will be
unwieldy. Each developer will have different a schedule and plans
for development and actually ensuring that the project is ultimately
accomplished within a meaningful time schedule will be difficult.
(2) There will also be fragmented responsibility for maintenance of the
project or portions of the project if it is done in the manner
described.
(3) Small landowners may not be able to implement their portions of
the project. Hence, some portions of the project may never get
accomplished.
(4) There will still be a need to coordinate (either dissolution or a plan
amendment by the District) with the existing water control district.
(5) There is also the possibility of legal challenges from the
development community depending upon how a County
comprehensive plan amendment implementing the chaITette plan
affects them.
D. Option 3: Pros and Cons - St. Lucie County Alternative No.3.
1. Under this option, St. Lucie County will probably still have a need to amend its
comprehensive plan to identify the charrette project.
2. Concurrently, TCRPC and S1. Lucie County may request the Legislature enact a
special act to create a multi-powered independent improvement district that
covers the charrette area. For your review, I have attached a copy of the Big
· '
(:
(,
Michael Busha, Director
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
September 28, 2005
Page 7
Cypress Stewardship District Act recently passed by the Legislature. It was
established for similar purposes to those of the charrette plan.
3. At the same time, the County, in conjunction with Ft. Pierce Fanns, should
probably request a Court dissolve the District and transfer its assets and liabilities
to the new district once it is created.
4. The new improvement district created by legislative act would be the overall
entity responsible for financing, implementation and maintenance of the charrette
plan. The district could be organized and empowered as follows:
a. The special act would provide the district with perpetual existence. The
governing board of the district would be established as a five member
board. In order to recognize the desire of St. Lucie County to maintain a
voice in what happens, two of the board members could be appointed
directly from the County Commission. Three board members could be
appointed by the Governor from a list of County and district residents that
are recommended by the County Commission. The purpose of the mix is to
maintain the district as an independent political subdivision. Maintaining
independence is important when the new district acts to levy ad valorem
taxes or sell bonds. As an independent district, ad valorem taxes levied by
the district would not be counted toward the County's 10 mill cap.
b. Improvement districts, such as the one described herein, typically have all
the powers of a county or municipality except police power. And, even
then, such districts are authorized to collect taxes or non-ad valorem
assessments for the purpose of cooperating with police power agencies for
general public protection.
c. The district can also be authorized to levy ad valorem taxes (subject to
referendum approval within the district), non-ad valorem assessments,
impact fees and other fees.
d. Importantly, a district such as the example attached (The Big Cypress
Stewardship District) has the statutory authority to create sub-districts or
units of development within the district. The District can then implement a
development plan within the sub-district and finance the development with
non-ad valorem assessments levied only against the benefited property
within the sub-district. Hence, property within the district but outside the
sub-district would not have to pay assessments for improvements in the
sub-district that provide no direct benefit.
e. If TCRPC and St. Lucie County desire, it would also be possible to include
language in the special act that directed the new district to implement the
TCRPC charrette and assist with St. Lucie County, SFWMD and the Corps
of Engineers in the implementation of the CERP projects.
.' .
( ...
\...~
Michael Busha, Director
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
September 28, 2005
Page 8
5. Pros and Cons
a. Pros
(1) The newly created district would have a clear linkage for
coordination purposes with the St. Lucie County Commission.
(2) A broad legislative charter would authorize the district to not only
implement water control features but other important infrastructure
such as roads, water, sewer service, etc. And, if desired, the special
act could also mandate implementation of a charrette plan consistent
with the S1. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan and the CERP
project.
(3) Sources of public finance, separate and independent of S1. Lucie
County would be created by way of district authority to levy non-ad
valorem on property as well as the collection of ad valorem taxes.
(4) By creating sub-districts and levying non-ad valorem assessments
discretely within a sub-district to finance improvements, the overall
plan can be implemented in manageable pieces and only the
property receiving direct benefits would pay the assessments.
(5) St. Lucie County would be insulated from liability or management
responsibilities for project implementation.
(6) Under the legislative charter, the new district would be the
responsible entity for continuing maintenance of water control
services within the planning area that had previously been the
responsibility of Ft. Pierce Fanns.
(7) The new district would become a permanent maintenance entity for
existing and new infrastructure in the planning area.
(8) The district would have extensive authority to issue bonds to pay for
fast tracking capital construction.
b. Cons
(1) Initial costs of creation and operation that would need to be
assumed by S1. Lucie County or some other entity once the new
district was created. It will probably be a year to a year and a half
before the district would be up and running on its own revenue.
c
(
Michael Busha, Director
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
September 28, 2005
Page 9
(2) The new district will be a separate independent government. It will
be necessary to coordinate district activities with TCRPC, St. Lucie
County and SFWMD to guarantee little or no conflict.
(3) As with previous alternatives, political issues associated with taxes
and assessments could arise.
Michael, I think the options I have outlined are reasonably comprehensive. In my opinion,
Option #3 provides the greatest opportunity to accomplish the stated goals. This is so because it
creates a substantial, new source of revenue and an institutional organization dedicated solely to
accomplishing the goals identified by the charrette.
If you have any question on the matter, please let me know.
Sincerely yours,
--r--' _. /
.~.c--~
Terry E. Lewis
TEllbt
Enclosure
c. Ms. Marcela Camblor
Mr. Douglas M. Anderson
Daniel S. McIntyre, Esquire
:\Client Documents\Treasure Coast RPC\New Matter\Corr\Busha Ltr - 09-06-05 Revised.doc