The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 08-20-02 " \w ...,., AGENDA REOUEST ITEM NO. a 11 DATE: August 20, 2002 REGULAR [X] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [ ] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): County Attorney Daniel S. McIntyre County Attorney SUBJECT: Resolution No. 02-201 - Proclaiming August 26, 2002, through September 2, 2002, as "FIRE FIGHTER APPRECIATION WEEK" in 81. Lucie County, Florida. BACKGROUND: Fighting fires is one ofthe most hazardous professions, requiring physical strength, stamina, extensive training, courage, and self concern for the welfare of our citizens. In addition to their daily service to communities, Fire Fighters throughout the state and across the nation have joined the Muscular Dystrophy Association for the past forty-five years in the fight against neuromuscular diseases. Lauren Rockwell, District Director for MDA, has requested that this Board proclaim August 26, 2002, through September 2,2002 as Fire Fighter Appreciation Week in appreciation to the Fire Fighters of8t. Lucie County. FUNDS AVAIL.: PREVIOUS ACTION: RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution No. 02-201 as drafted. [Xj APPROVED [] DENIED [ ] OTHER: 5-0 COMMISSION ACTION: , County Attorney: Originating Dept. '-' ~ Review and Approvals Management & Budget Other: Finance: (Check for Copy only, if applicable)___ Purchasing Other: ...., Eff. 5/96 , .. ~ ..."", RESOLUTION NO. 02-201 A RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING AUGUST 26, 2002, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2, 2002, AS "FIRE FIGHTER APPRECIATION WEEK" IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of S1. Lucie County, Florida, has made the following determinations: 1. Fighting fires is one of the most hazardous professions, requiring physical strength, stamina, extensive training, courage, and self concern for the welfare of our citizens. 2. In addition to their daily service to communities Fire Fighters throughout the state and across the nation have joined the Muscular Dystrophy Association for the past forty- five years in the fight against neuromuscular diseases. 3. Florida Fire Fighters collected a record breaking $1,142,000.00 in over 300 communities with their 2001 "Fill the Boot" campaign for MDA, again making them MDA's largest source of funding. 4. The Muscular Dystrophy Association is extremely grateful to the 81. Lucie County Fire Fighters for their support and dedication. 5. The funds collected by the S1. Lucie County Fire fighters assists MDA in providing medical services at local clinics, summer camp, research grants, support groups, and public education seminars at no cost to local children and families. 6. In honor of the efforts of the S1. Lucie County Fire Fighters, the Muscular Dystrophy Association is sponsoring St. Lucie County Fire Fighters Appreciation Week. 7. It is appropriate for all S1. Lucie County citizens to join the Muscular Dystrophy Association in this tribute to our Fire Fighters. ., , ~ ....., NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of S1. Lucie County, Florida: 1. This Board does hereby proclaim August 6, 2002, through September 2,2002, as "FIRE FIGHTERS APPRECIATION WEEK" in S1. Lucie County, Florida. 2. This Board commends St. Lucie County Fire Fighters for their efforts on behalf of the Muscular Dystrophy Association. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 20th day of August, 2002. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: DEPUTY CLERK CHAIRMAN APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND CORRECTNESS: COUNTY ATTORNEY f' 07/30/2802 07:38 551-452-1703 ?Le COI,MUNIT'i S\"CS FAGE 02 \. , 7410 S. IJS HiÇhvv<l~ 11 #102, Port ~ucie, FL. 34952 relephcne' (561) 813-9422; F¡¡x: (561) 873-9423 , I '~'~~1 R!!C~~D ~fì rt¡DAf\ ~ /\V' ~ July 26, 2002 J'JL 2 $ I I I 2"~'1 1".';' "ní"~r''''''' ..;, t ~ ~.,. tl"11 , ..ur¡;.:.........t¥ "....UiW;S Ms. 3eth Ryder Comm~nity Services Director 437 North 7th Street Fort Pierce, FL 34950 Dear Ms. Ryder: I am wr~ti~9 to request your 3ssistance :in recog~izins the outstanding efforts of the St. :::"uç:'e CQun1Y Fire Fighters on behalf of the Muscular Dystrophy Associ*tion, The funds collected during thei:::- 2 DO:" "Fill the Boot"! çampa~gn, combined I wich the totals from the fi.re deDarcmentsl 3.Cr08S the State, brought in a record breaking $1,142~OOO, Fiorida Fire Fighters hold #2 poai tion in st.ate rankings for monies¡ raised for YlDA. , I To show our ¡;¡ppreciatior. to the Fire Fightere in your community, the r-luscular ;)ystrophy Association is sponsorir:.g ~'ire Fighter Appr-eciac:ion Week on Aug'...ist 26 U"_Tough SeptE1mber 2, 2002, This courageous group of meYl and women will be recog-nized net only for their service to our communities but also for their dedication to are children and adults with mU6~le disorders. Enclosed you will find a sample proçlaration. We would appreciate your presenting the proclamation at a C::mncil meeting during the month of Al~gust 2002. ?::'ease ad'vise me of the date and tiITe that a formal presentation will be ~ade_ Thank you reques:,. E73-94.22, i çon~ideration of can: be reached at 1 this 772- in advance for YO;lr kind If yeu have any questions, I c5?~~ Lauren Rockwell District Direçtor LR:md Enclosure Muscular Dystrophy Association JERRY LEWIS, National Chairman I I i OediCCt",d to tMe .;radicatlon of the muscular dyst"ophies. QmýotrOp~lo loter,;]1 sclero~s (Lou Gehrig's dlaeme), myo3ther,ia Qravi.. t~.. spinal muscular utraphles. °rI9~1relch'3 ataxia and a host, of oth"" f1eu'cmu~uiar diseasl"s, w,^,w,mdausa.org t' , c \: 7410 S. US HjghWa~ 1, #102, Port_ucie, FL 34952 Telephone: (551) 813-9422; Fax; (561) 873-9423 , I i Whereas, figh~g fires is, one o~ the most hazardous profe~sions, requiring physical strength, stamina, extens1ve tralUlJl.g, courage, and self c~ncem for the welfare of our citizens: and : Whereas, in addition to their daily service to cornmunitie~ Fire Fighters throughout the state and across the nation have joined the Muscular Qystrophy Association for the past forty-five years in the fight against neuromuscul~ diseases: and I Whereas, Florida Fire Fíghters collected a record breakint $.1,142,000 in over 300 communities with their 2001 "Fill the BOOt'1 campaign !for MDA, again making them MDA's largest source of funding: and i i Whereas, the Muscular Dystrophy Association is extremely grateful to the St. Lucie County Fire Fighters for their support and dedicatioh: and Whereas the funds collected by the St. Lucìe County Firei Fíghters assists MDA in providing medical services at local clinics, sununer campi research grants, support groups, and public education seminars at no cost to local c~ildren and families, and ! Whereas, in honor of the efforts of the St. Lucie C~unty Fire Fighters, the Muscular Dystrophy Association is sponsoring St. Luc~e County Fire Fighters Appreciation Week: and ! I Whereas it is appropriate for all St. Lucie County citiz~ns to join the Muscular Dystrophy Association in this tribute to our Fire Fighters. : Now, therefore be it resolve that the Mayor does proclaimlO BE DETERMrNED I ! ST. LUCIE COUNTY FIRE FIGHTER APPRECIATION WEEK I And comm~nd St. Lucie County Fire Fighters for their iefforts on behalf of the I Muscular Dyst"ophy Association. I I I I ¡ i MUlÒ;cular Dvstrophy Association JL:"IRY LEWIS, National Cllal/man , D$çlcoted to th6 eradlcoflon oHlle mus<::ulcr ~'/atrophIQ$, amyotrophic laterol ~~sl5 (LOU G9hrlg's disease), myaUhQnlo ""ViS, th& spinal muscular atrOPhI&s, F,. ·'oreich's otaxlo ond <:I i"10!\t qf olt"er neurOml.;'CJlar dlseaSE!$, www,..·1ou~,org , 1Íi;",,,, , à.;JL, , , ¡J,;o§I¡j~ji¡;¡;);:~¡,îi-ç;~.;;t;;iliJþ:iilii/:i¡;'Úlii,;d;;ij;¡;,jÂi'i¡¡¡*;""~;;,ªlii:li;lliiiJJ " . RECEìt'É:D ~ 5S -;:)() ,- O'd- August 20, 2002 :r (£1'\ f"ß (!..{2 :...r;,-c: ~ft. Rcu.¡ w. LtJi '-fY1 e.- ~~ We, the undersigned residents - of Fleetwood Acres, petition the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners to enter an order to demolish the property at 2205- Elizabeth Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. ~r¿- ~~~~~ £- - ~~-~-- ----------------- j~---- Address: ¿_~_~ç¿____!l:~--~- ~~-~-~----~~~~~~~------------ MO( !f ------------.------------------------------- J-I J-cJ ¡¿-Þ;T L ff/?; t;' //-/ ~/ -------------------------.------------------ ¿¿r.:?.Z_f.£L.2dLJ..<_Z:6..._~~.e..___ --d-LQ-}..-b.LL<...I'J._ó:-±L-é.l-u.~_______ --2J/2..g__[;jJ~?g.h_~t~---tl:'t'-~------- ¿J¡)..6_Er-"~~tb__A~_____ ~ ,;;¿;) 03 ~ ~ I-A- ~ L ß__K.~ -------------~~----------------- _:2æp-_¥JLiZL__ -¿ªQL.__J¡;t~¿A_¿_(L../:,'-_tz~:C£----- c?._tQ~__f:f~Ì./y.tLAll~________ ;l ;)~3 8- /Z/-l-6é'l/J AJ ------------------------------------------- ., ""' August 20,2002 ...., We, the undersigned residents of Fleetwood Acres, -petition the St. Lucie County Board of County -Commissioners to enter an order to demolish the property at 2205 Elizabeth Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. Name: ~ø..,-£--4¿------ ~J_~_~___ ~~------------- t0J£~--- ~-~----- ~~g1.'l.Î.sS?..ù.ì::~,~___ . ~ - --- ------------------- " ~ ::---------- A· ~ - ___~~---u:~- _~--1JJ.f..&v --- .~-p Address: _~~~<:LJ{6.~A?.!~LIL___:5.J!..Ë________ ¿MfJi£-f!l-t;;~---- __Z¿Çz___J!~__R£_Ll:flf~'1e2~~ ~, . z.. ~.9_L t:;.LL¿B..~? 1:~__A~~.t____ ~~j-~~-~~--------------- _m_Q_6_£.'="i~f¿Ç;;I!f.__t1_¡¿_~__ ~~~~;tt~:-M __~.k_'l~~_____ __~ZQ?._¿LL~c.:_~_~~b\.!.___________ __~~l~~___~ç¿_~~_~_~~_:_____________ ~ ..., \.. , August 20, 2002 We, the undersigned residents of Fleetwood Acres, petition the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners to enter an order to demolish the property at 2205 Elizabeth Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. Name: ~ yj Jh J-- (~-~&~_____~____l~{~~_________ [)1~-~¡1ir--------- ø.a%Ôl~-i Ha.&~~__~~__ lL__£~ IJlfY~wL______~_!rtf:1 '~-.&me:.~___E:._LLGÇ2L ~L_~î2~_q!! ___l2JC~___12:~_~___ -~Lc;.Q.1hOßQ_________ -~-1ß.ßr__Ji~_~ljA}tL__ - ~ ~~---~---------------- ---ß~º-'D.~~3Á__~'4c,l~__ Address: -~!P-~--I§!!~~_~A__!lL!.~___________ ~-!..?.l__~¿_f-_!~t~tt~_!tt'e~____ ~~~~~~---------------- ~ltB.J3gd{.b0i~=-_l~~0-L____ b'1Q.5J2a:~~4.!!., ~,;~º_2__~__~__~ øótJ£__f].!fLtéC¿__¡tl!.¢:~__~ i2~~-lL~~___&t~~___ -_2!:--~-~?~--~_~__~~s: -51!-2~-~t-j:h_Cl~Lv__t.L~__ _~~J___~~__~_~_~~~____________________ --Æ2P...2____~R.:3d__J-:t;.______ -__~11~-----~S?-:--~-~-~~~--------- , ~/ / '-' AGENDA REQUEST ~EM NO. ¡¿~A( DATE: August 20, 2002 REGULAR [XX] ADDITIONS PUBLIC HEARING [] CONSENT [] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): County Attorney Daniel S, McIntyre County Attorney SUBJECT: Agreement to Conduct Site Remediation Activities - Wal-Mart Stores East, LP , (Project P) BACKGROUND: See attached memorandum FUNDS AVAILABLE: PREVIOUS ACTION: RECOMMENDA nON: Staff recommends that the Board approve the Agreement to Conduct Site Remediation Activities and authorize the Chairman to sign the Agreement. [~APPROVED [ ] DENIED [ ] OTHER: 5-0 D glas Anderson ounty Administrator COMMISSION ACTION: County Attorney: ~ Review and Approvals Management & Budget :~i.(~Hc Works DfF:~ ¿ .J0 Purchasi ng: Origi nati ng Dept, ;Solid Waste Mgr,:~' Finance: (Check for Copy only, if applicable) Eff, 5/96 AUG-20-02 01:0r PM '-" STLUCIEC0S0LIDWASTE 7724626987 P.01 ll~., ~B, ~~~:J:':' j~. ~~ ~H4~il44Ø COJ .."" fi Ai*- lt~.. f.:l~ ðiENf:>A R.EQVE5T ITeM NO. I)ATE¡ AUllU$t 20, zQ02 REC7UI.AR (XX] AtlCITION$ PUSL!C I4EARING [) CONSE:NT [J "0: ~oAR~ OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRl7SENTED BY: 5'.JBM!iTE~ BY(CEPT): County Attornt.Y Daniel S. Mcln1yrt County Attorl'llY MJ~Q:; Agl'un\lmt to Condu¢ Sit. Rcrnc<liøtlon Ac1'il/iTies . Wo.l-Mart StorBl East, LP (Proje.ct P) B,e.ÇKGo~OUNþj See attached m,.morandum FUDlPS._tYAILA8L.e: t.Rl::VIOY§ ¡l.CTIO~ ~,ÇQMMê~t?AT10N: Staff recommends tho' th, Board approva the AQNement '0 conduct Site R¡;m~iotion Ac'lvl1'i.s (lnd au1horlzl the Ckalrmol'l to sign the AQN.m~" ~OMMlS~ION AmON: eONCUIilRENCE; , J APPRÖVFD [ 1 DENIED :. l OTHe~: bOll9la5 Anclctson COl.lnty Administrator c,....t) ~no'.cY'__...i~ !!t-v¡ew qnd AaÞr'cWlls -- Me rlag&'1lt1l'/ & aud~.t ,~_ J'fa.: -~ Purclw1",: _-., Orls,n,\,"; CIll' '.~~, ..4*øI...v'. PH ~IU ~,.~rc~; tC~I,k t~r CGpy ahly If Gp~I;~~LlI~' '-' 'wJÌ INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Daniel S. McIntyre, County Attorney C.A. NO. 02-1257 DATE: August 20, 2002 SUBJECT: Agreement to Conduct Site Remediation Activities - Wal-Mart Stores East, LP (Project P BACKGROUND: The proposed location of Project P is near the County's Glades Road Baling and Recycling Facility ("Landfill"). Due to the proximity of the Landfill, Project P has requested that the County consider entering into an Agreement to Conduct Site Remediation Activities, a copy of which is attached. Also attached is a copy of a letter dated August 8, 2002 from Alex H. Makled, Vice President of CDM, the County's solid waste consultant. As indicated in Mr. Makled's letter, CDM does not believe that a defined leachate plume exists east of the Landfill. According to Mr. Makled, if a plume should develop in the future, the County would "be responsible under existing law to initiate corrective measures and remedial actions. Notwithstanding the County's existing legal requirements, Project P is requesting that the County enter into the Attached Agreement. The Agreement would provide Project P with an independent contractual right to require the County to correct and remediate any groundwater contamination caused by the County facility. Given the substantial positive economic impact from Project P, staff recommends that the Board approve the Agreement, '-' WJÌ RECOMMENDATION/CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the Agreement to Conduct Site Remediation Activities and authorize the Chairman to sign the Agreement. DSM/caf Attachment \.". "wf!!IÞ AGREEMENT TO CONDUCT SITE REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered as of this day of 2002, by and between the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA ("County") and WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, a Delaware limited partnership ("Wal-Mart"). WHEREAS, Wal-Mart wishes to acquire the property attached in Exhibit "A" ("Property") for the purposes of constructing a regional distribution center; and WHEREAS, such a distribution center would provide significant economic benefits to the residents of St. Lucie County; and WHEREAS, the County wishes to facilitate Wal-Mart's acquisition of the Property for the purposes described and WHEREAS, County owns and operates a landfill adjacent to the Property, which facility is known as the Glades Cut-Off Road Baling and Recycling Facility ("Landfill or "Facility"); and WHEREAS, the County states that its Facility is in full compliance with all federal and state permitting requirements for such a Facility, and WHEREAS, routine, recurring monitoring and analysis of site groundwater conducted by the County's consultants indicates that there is no current off-site migration of leachate or other contaminates, and WHEREAS, Wal-Mart has received preliminary indications that leachate or other contaminants from the Landfill ("Contamination") may exist in the vicinity of the Property; and WHEREAS, one of the issues which must be addressed before Wal-Mart is willing to consummate purchase of the property, is assurances from the County to Wal-Mart that County will take all measures required by applicable federal or state law, to remediate any such current or future Contamination of the Property that may exist or which may occur in the future as a result of the Landfill; WHEREAS, County wishes to provide such assurances to Wal-Mart, g:\atty\agreemnt\ Waf-Mart 1 '-' ~ NOW, THEREFORE, Wal-Mart and County agree as follows: 1. Accuracy of Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct. 2, Remediation ReQuirements, a, County shall, at its sole cost and expense, retain an environmental consulting firm to conduct such periodic (in no event less than twice per year) assessments and reviews ("Assessments") of the Landfill as may be required by the applicable permitting agencies. Copies of all such written Assessments shall be provided to Wal-Mart within thirty (30) days of receipt by County. b. If the County's environmental consulting firm, or any other environmental consulting firm or applicable permitting agency or Wall-Mart, inform the County that there is or may be Contamination of the Property, or any soils, groundwater, or surface waters, in, on, or under the Property caused by the County Facility, then County will, at County's sole expense, take all steps necessary to promptly evaluate, monitor, implement and complete such corrective measures and remedial actions as may be required by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and/or any other local, state or federal agency having jurisdiction over such matters. c. County shall promptly notify Wal-Mart in writing (and provide copies of any related Assessments) upon County's receipt of evidence of Contamination of the Property, or any of the soils groundwater, or surface waters, in, on or under the Property, and shall advise Wal-Mart of County's proposed actions and time frame to further investigate and, if required, to remediate such Contamination. The County shall obtain Wal-Mart's written consent for any such proposed actions on the Property which shall not be unreasonably withheld, d, Upon acquisition of the Property, Wal-Mart shall, upon request from County, provide reasonable access to the Property for the purpose of conducting activities necessary to carry out the terms of this Agreement. In no event shall the County access the Property without Wal-Mart's written consent. If any damage to the Property is caused by County's investigation or remediation operations, County shall, at County's sole expense, promptly repair and restore the Property to its immediately previous condition. The County and its assigns shall take all reasonable steps so as not to interfere with Wal-Mart's business operations on the Property, e, The County shall promptly and at its sole cost and expense take all such actions as may be necessary to assure that Contamination does not adversely affect Wal- Mart's use or occupancy of the Property for the intended purposes, g:\atty\agreemnt\ Wal-Mart 2 '-' ""-!!I f. Contamination shall mean violation of any applicable federal or state water quality standards or related regulations governing the operation and maintenance of a landfill pursuant to the Federal Resource Conservation Recovery Act, Clean Water Act or CERCLA or Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, or any other federal or state law, which requires remediation of ground or surface waters on the Property. 3. Governina Law, This Agreement shall be governed, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. 4, Notices, The parties designate the following persons as representatives to be contacted and to receive all notices by hand delivery, certified mail/return receipt requested, overnight express delivery or facsimile regarding this Agreement. For the County: County Administrator St, Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982-5652 With a copy to: County Attorney St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982-5652 For the Owner: Wal-Mart Stores East, LP 2001 Southeast 10th Street Bentonville, Arkansas 7716-0550 Attention: Legal Department With copies to: Wal-Mart Stores East, LP 2001 Southeast 10th Street Bentonville, Arkansas 72716-0550 Attn: Distribution Center Facilities Susan P. Motley, Esquire Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, PA 200 East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 g:\atty\agreemnt\ Wal-Mart 3 ...... ...."J 5. Successors and Assians This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their successors or assigns and is strictly conditioned upon Wal-Mart purchasing the Property described in this Agreement, 6, Acknowledament County acknowledges and agrees that nothing in this Agreement obligates Wal- Mart to purchase the Property or to reimburse the County for any of its remediation or investigative costs, The execution of this Ag.reement by Wal-Mart is expressly subject to Wal-Mart's Executive Committee approval. IN WITNEss WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused the execution of this Agreement by their duly authorized officials as of the day and year first above-written. WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, a Delaware limited partnership Printed Name: By: WSE MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, General Partner Printed Name: By: Robert M. Bedard, Assistant Vice President Real Estate ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Doug Coward, Chairman Print Name: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: BY: County Attorney g:\otty\ogreemnt\ Wol-Mort 4 \" ... ..... TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): County Attorney AGENDA REQUEST '-« ITEM NO. ft4~ DATE: August 20, 2002 REGULAR [XX PUBLIC HEARING [] CONSENT [] PRESENTED BY: Daniel S. McIntyre County Attorney SUBJECT: Economic Development Ad Valorem Tax Exemption - Ballot Question - November 5, 2002 General Election Ballot BACKGROUND: See attached memorandum FUNDS A V AILA BLE: PREVIOUS ACTION: RECOMMENDA TION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt Resolution Nos. 02-116 and 02-196 and authorize the Chairman to sign the resolutions. COMMISSION ACTION: [)eJ APPROVED [ ] DENIED [ ] OTHER: 5-0 Approved Resolution 02-116. Resolution 02-196 will be brought back at a later date. Dou as Anderson County Administrator Review and Approvals County Attorney: Management & Budget OriginClting Dept. Com. Dev. Dlr. Eft. 5/96 Finance: (Check for Copy only, if applicable) Purchasing: County Eng.: '-' ..",¡I INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Daniel S. McIntyre, County Attorney C.A. NO. 02-1134 DATE: August 8, 2002 SUBJECT: Economic Development Ad Valorem Tax Exemption - Ballot Question November 5, 2002 General Election Ballot BACKGROUND: Florida law allows the Board of County Commissioners to hold a referendum to allow the voters to determine whether to authorize the Board to grant new or expanding businesses in St. Lucie County economic development ad valorem tax exemptions, The law provides that any exemption would only remain in effect for ten (10) years and would not apply to school, city or voter approved taxes. In addition, the exemption, if granted, would only apply to the improvements that are constructed and personal property that is installed by the new or expanding business. The real property (land) owned by the new or expanding business would continue to be assessed and taxed. In 1992, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 92-175 which authorized a referendum to be held on November 3, 1992 to consider the issue of economic development ad valorem tax exemptions. On November 3, 1992, the voters in St. Lucie County approved the referendum by a vote of 32.127 (For) to 25,720 (Against). Prior to the November 3, 1992 referendum, the Board also adopted Resolution No. 92-264 which provided for a Property Tax Exemptions Phase Out Schedule and Property Tax Eligibility Chart. In this resolution, the Board provided incentives in the form of increased years of exemption for those businesses that employed large numbers of employees and that employed St. Lucie County residents. ""' ...., In 2001, this Board adopted Resolution No. 01-248 which granted businesses additional incentives if the business used a licensed general contractor whose principal place of business is located in St. Lucie County to construct the improvements which are the subject of the exemption. During the ten (10) year period from 1992 to 2002, the County has used the economic development ad valorem tax exemption to attract new businesses (e.g. QVC, Convergys) and encourage the expansion of existing businesses (e.g. East Coast Lumber, Orchid Island Juice, Tamlite Lighting, Tropicana). Approximately two thousand eight hundred fifty (2,850) jobs were created by the businesses that utilized the economic development exemption. Both County staff and Economic Development Council staff believe that the ad valorem tax exemption is an essential component of the County's economic Development strategy. Due to the success of the economic development ad valorem tax exemption program over the past ten (10) years, County staff believes that it is appropriate that the Board authorize a referendum to be held on the November 5, 2002 general election that, if adopted, would grant authority for the Board to grant economic ad valorem tax exemptions during the ten (10) year period from 2002 to 2012. In this regard, staff has drafted the following resolutions for Board consideration: .:. Resolution No. 02-116 providing for the placement of a proposition calling economic development ad valorem tax exemptions on the November 5, 2002 general election ballot. .:. Resolution No. 02-196 establishing a property tax exemption eligibility chart and phase out schedule for new or expanding business. Also attached to this memorandum is an informational brochure prepared by the Community Development Department concerning the ad valorem tax exemption program. '-' ....." RECOMMENDATION/CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt Resolution Nos. 02-116 and 02-196 and authorize the Chairman to sign the resolutions. Daniel . McIntyre County Attorney DSM/ caf Attachments ....... ~ RESOLUTION NO. 02-116 A RESOLUTION DIRECTING AN ELECTION TO BE HELD TO PROVIDE FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A PROPOSITION CALLING FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AD VALOREM TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, ON THE NOVEMBER 5, 2002 GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made the following determinations: 1. Section 196.1995, Florida Statutes, provides that the Board of County Commissioners may hold a referendum to allow the voters to determine whether to grant authority for economic development ad valorem tax exemptions to new and expanding businesses in St. Lucie County under Section 3, Article VII of the State Constitution. 2. This Board believes that directing an election to provide for placement of a proposition calling for economic development ad valorem tax exemptions for St. Lucie County on the General Election Ballot on November 5, 2002, is in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of St, Lucie County, Florida. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida: 1. This Board does hereby direct the Supervisor of Elections to place on the November 5, 2002, General Election Ballot the following proposition to be voted upon by the electors of St. Lucie County: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE AD VALOREM TAX EXEMPTION The Economic Development Ad Valorem Tax Exemption would allow the County to encourage the establishment of new businesses and the expansion of existing businesses by granting an exemption from County property taxes of up to 100 percent \...- ,.,., of only the assessed value of improvements and personal property for those businesses. Any exemption would only remain in effect for up to ten (10) years and would not apply to school, city or voter approved taxes. Shall the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County be authorized to grant pursuant to Section 3, Article VII of the State Constitution, property tax exemption incentives to new businesses and expansions of existing businesses? Yes For authority to grant exemptions. No Against authority to grant exemptions. 2. If the proposition is approved by a majority of the electors voting at the November 5, 2002 election, the Board of County Commissioners, at its discretion, by ordinance may exempt from ad valorem taxation up to one hundred percent (100/0) of the assessed value of all improvements to real property made by or for the use of a new business and of all tangible personal property of such new business, or up to one hundred percent (100/0) of the assessed value of all added improvements to real property made to facilitate the expansion of an existing business and of the net increase in all tangible personal property acquired to facilitate such expansion of an existing business, provided that the improvements to real property are made or the tangible personal property is added or increased on or after the day the ordinance is adopted. After motion and second, the vote on this resolution was as follows: Chairman Doug Coward XX Vice Chairman Cliff Barnes XX Commissioner Paula A. Lewis XX Commissioner John D. Bruhn XX Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson XX '-' ., PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 2002. day of ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: BY: County Attorney '-' .."øI RESOLUTION NO. 02-196 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION ELIGIBILITY CHART AND PHASE OUT SCHEDULE FOR NEW OR EXPANDING BUSINESS APPLYING FOR AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AD VALOREM TAX EXEMPTION WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St, Lucie County, Florida, has made the following determinations: 1. On August 13, 2002, this Board adopted Resolution No. 02-116 pursuant to the provisions of Section 196.1995, Florida Statutes, wherein the Board of County Commissioners directed than an election be held on November 5, 2002 on the issue of granting a local option economic ad valorem tax exemption. 2. On October 6, 1992, this Board adopted Ordinance No. 92-24, which amended Chapter 1-19.3 (TAXATION) of the Code of Ordinances of St, Lucie County, Florida, by creating Article V - Economic Development Ad Valorem Tax Exemption. 3, Section 1-19.3-59 (Eligibility Business or Industry) of Ordinance No. 92-24 provides for the formulation of criteria for determining the length of an exemption and the percentage amount of an exemption pursuant to resolution of this Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of St, Lucie County, Florida: 1 '"' ....I 1. This Board hereby adopts the Property Tax Exemptions Phase Out Schedule and Property Tax Eligibility Chart, attached hereto and referred to collectively as Exhibit "A", for purposes of establishing eligibility of a tax exemption for new or expanding businesses. Z. This Board shall provide incentives for businesses to employ St. Lucie County residents and St, Lucie County contractors, These incentives shall be the following: a) If a business can verify after the first year of exemption that sixty percent (60io) of its full-time employees have been St, Lucie County residents for at leastsix (6) months prior to employment then said business shall be entitled to one additional year from the standard exemption as set forth on "Exhibit A". b) If a business can verify after the first year of exemption that eighty percent (80io) of its full-time employees have been St. Lucie County residents for at least six (6) months prior to employment then said business shall be entitled to two additional years from the standard exemption as set forth on "Exhibit A". c) If a business can verify that it used a licensed general contractor whose principal place of business is located in St. Lucie County to construct the improvements which are the subject of the application for exemption then the business shall be entitled to one additional year from the standard exemption as set forth on Exhibit "A", 3. The Board shall have the discretion to modify the eligibility requirements based on other significant factors including, but not limited to, the following: 2 '-' .J a) The increase in local employment attributable to the new or expanding business; b) The unemployment and underemployment of the available local labor force and the types and wages of jobs created therein; c) The amount of capital investment purchased by the new or expanding business; d) The ability of the County to otherwise meet its total fiscal needs should the requested exemption be granted; e) The cost of any increased local government services, including but not limited to roads, water, sewer, gas and law enforcement, and other direct expenditures associated with that specific business, After motion and second, the vote on this resolution was as follows: Chairman Doug Coward XXX Vice Chairman Cliff Barnes XXX Commissioner Paula Lewis XXX Commissioner John Bruhn XXX Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson XXX PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 13th day of August, 2002. 3 '- ATTEST: Deputy Clerk -wi BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: BY: County Attorney 4 \.. .-.J PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION ELIGIBILITY ELIGIBILITY (number of years) NUMBER OF STANDARD ST. LUCIE 60/'0 SLC 80/'0 SLC EMPLOYEES EXEMPTION COUNTY RESIDENTS RESIDENTS CONTRACTOR 10 - 24 5 6 6 7 25 - 49 6 7 7 8 50 - 99 7 8 8 9 100 - 199 8 9 9 10 200 + (DISCRETION OF COM MISSION) Less than five (5) years is left to the discretion of the Board, EXHIBIT "A" - z ~ o V) ~ ~ ~ ~ a..::l'+- :tDO WW L.. X I III WU~ X V) ::l «1--5 1--5~ S~~ w«~ a.. I 1-1 0a..\.!) ~ ~ W "-' ..,I 0 ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e .... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\ 00 ,.... ..0 In 'V (T') N .... .... ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e 0\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\ 00 ,.... ..0 In 'V (T') N .... ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e 00 8 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 0\ 00 ..0 In 'V N .... ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ,.... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\ 00 ,.... ..0 'V N .... ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ..0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\ 00 ..0 'V N .... ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 ..0 'V N .... ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e 'V 8 In 0 In 0 ,.... In N .... ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e (T') 8 ,.... (T') 0 ..0 (T') .... ¡-.e ¡-.e ¡-.e N 8 0 0 In .... ¡-.e ¡-.e .... 8 0 .... I 0 .... a.. .... N (T') 'V In ..0 ,.... 00 0\ .... .... a.. :tZ L.. L.. L.. L.. L.. L.. L.. L.. L.. L.. L.. « u...~o ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ a a ~ ~ ~ W Ow~ III III III III III III III III III III III >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- ,.... '-' en ~ Q) c o -- en en ~-- +-' E § E o 0 Üü Q) ~ -- +-' Ü C :::J :::J --I 0 ~ü (f),+- o -0 ~ CO o CO E )( 0 05, I- 0 Ect ~ c o 0 e- O+- >~ -c c.\) < )( w ç: Zl/) :)w 0,-> '->z w~ HZ '->H :)C) -3C£, ¡-:O l/)u.. '0 >w WC) -30 '->,-> ~ C£, "" ~ '- ...." E C'. ~ X c: -cO a 0 of-J- La .- of- >-b E Ol c. 0 E -cc~ La ~ L. ~ +-0- ~ £: X -- 0 c (\) £: W ~L.> E.2 X .- ~ o..+- 0 c: ..s:: \J 00.. J- :::Jof-,< -E E~ (\) (\) E E-c c: > X o ~ 0 ~W ~ L. Uof-~ 0 :::J > X - ~ 0-- u 0 .- a > -c -c en EJ- of-oo 0 \J \f-~of- £: E '< 0L. en 0 (\) c:Oof- u c: La ~ U c: C'. W 0 0 N OC: - -- -- ~ 0 a U) of- f-I .- > .- -- of- of- U-c >-c. -of-E -c 0 O:::JC: ~ -c o :::J ~ ~ en-c 0 X '<en\JW ~ '-' E a L. ~ o E- +- a.. c: s::: ~ 0 E.- o.+- 00. -E ~ ~ > X ~w u X .- a EI- o c: E o (.\) U E- Wo - a > -c ~ '+-w'+- O..c°u W +- +- "- s::+-LE o 0 0 ° ..c 0.... s:: "~ +- V) ° c::V)o~+- s= - V) s:: OOW=Wv) L 0 V) 0 c:: W 01 +- :J L s="_ o - W 0.... 01 L 0 >-- > 0 W .o...L+-O~+- W s:: ~ 0 W > :J L > L ...cWO:JW+- J- V) u ° -a V) . ~ ~ E CJ I"- Ol o I"- +-0- s:: s:: (U'O E.- o-+- 00- -E (U (U > X ~w u X .- CJ EJ- g E o (U U I"- Wo - CJ > -c ~ '\~;; .....I +- -0 U U 01 ~·Ë ~ L.~ l\)-a 01 0 +- 0 +-..c t: ·Vi g t ~ o~X- -:; &. (.\) U Oo~ (.\)._ X -ol\)+-L ~(.\) ~ (.\) ~ +- (.\) (.\) 0 . - -0 (.\) ~ 01 ~ +- E .- .2: -0 0 ~ ~ o>+-c5~+- L ? ~ ._ ... ~ -... 0 .- ... O"'lo...(.\)SU~::J o U ^' C ::J 0 LOC~l\)-OU CL +- 0_ C . ~ E c:J t- 01 o t- -I- 0- s:: s:: (\) 0 E.- 0..-1- 00.. -E (\) (\) > X ~w u X .- c:J EJ- g E o (\) U t- Wo - c:J > \J ~ '-' Vl . E ð§~ ~ S -+-LO"lO-Ö ~ c: O"l~-+- 8-0 c ~o VlO '+- ~ t.. 0..._ - X ~ 0 Õ 0. ~ ~ ~ ¡!...s::: s::: -CVlVl..c -+-0. ö 0 -0 0 -+- >- ._ >- > . - 0 0.. -+- ..c -+- t.. -+- '-'t.. -0 t.. O"l U -+- -a 0..:; ':J C ~ :J ö Vl öEöo..öo..ot..:J o..OL-+--o ~~-+-VlXL..c-+-C ..c X 0 -+- ^\ 0.. -+- ö ,_ I-~CH\'v . '-" E CJ L. en o L. .... 0- s: (\) s: E.2 c...... oc.. -E (\) (\) > X ~w u X .- CJ EJ- o s: E o (\) U L. W 0 - a > -c ~ ....,I o u o o ...t: 0"1 ::J o L ...t: +- -0 ~ > o L 0.... 0.... ° ON V) 0\ 00\ ~~ s:: EO- o E L ::J 0"1-0 o s:: L ~ o....L V) ~ 0- '+- ...t: ~ J- L . ~ ..c +- >- ..0 -0 ~ > o L 0.... 0.... o ~ ° ..o.Ç 0- +- s:: V) ::J ::J E EE s:: 0 o u .- +- ~ ~..c 0- +- 5'+- ..cO +- ~ ::J+- o 0 ~ L L 0 V)+- 0_ U ..c ~ f-"t\) . s:: '- s:: o 0- +- o N 0- L o ..c +- ::J o ~ L L o '+- 0- ::J . V)N '- 0 EO ON L L cn~ 0..0 t..E V) ~ .- > ..c 0 f-Z . '-" .""", c E .S! ii" ,- f'.. C\J LO C\J C\J ,- C\J E Gl 0 (j) 0 0 (j) 0 0 0 0 'D Glt: 0 (j) 0 0 (j) 0 0 0 0 -.... a )( <ll C\J ,- C\J C\J ,- C\J C\J C\J C\J .a w- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- ~ ...en LL LL LL Ll.. Ll.. Ll.. Ll.. Ll.. Ll.. L. <ll Gl 0'\ >- 0 L. +- Q.. c: 0 co f'.. co <0 0 0 LO LO (Y) ,- ,- ,- (\) c: E 0 e- o. +- 0 0. 0 <0 <0 ,- '<t ,- 0 ,- C\J E 0 (j) (j) 0 (j) 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 (j) (j) 0 (j) 0 0 0 0 0 (\) C\J ,- ,- C\J ,- C\J C\J C\J C\J C\J > (\) (\) X c c D W 0 0 ~ ~ :Q ?;: c c c c 0 X (]) 0 0 0 0 .a U ïii '00 '00 '00 I1l en Z .c c -.... c c c c (]) 0 a c I1l I1l I1l I1l e- O 0. 0. 0. 0. n: 0 E ~ x x x x ..... -.... I- LU LU LU LU 0 c ü (ij' 0 0 m m m en '00 0 (]) m m en en ~ c n: (]) (]) (]) (]) -.... I1l C c .£ c m 0. m m m '00 '00 '00 en en m m c: E >- c m (]) X (]) (]) (]) - 0 :J :J :J :J C LU .£ .£ c c ,- lD lD lD lD 0 :J- ïii en m m '00 (\) o g OJ OJ OJ OJ :J en :J :J :J 0';' c c ,£ ,£ lD (]) lD lD IJJ U ' en <= <= iií iií ?;: c ?;: ?;: L. I1l C m en '00 ?;: W .;. 0 'x 'x 'x ·x (]) :J (]) (]) (]) 0 EO LU LU LU LU Z lD Z Z Z - a > ... (]) (]) Ü .0 'S -.... en E OJ rn g :J J .£ I1l Ctí -c c ...J 'D E ü 0 >- c OJ '6 0 iií -.- lD OJ ..... I1l OJ ~ rn (]) ... ~ t5 I1l Ui ::J I1l >- ~ (]) (]) (]) 0 ..... c OJ (]) C (]) :J I1l ... W LU 0 'D ,~ Ü (]) >- > E I1l 'ã. > t:: (]) iií .c ë 0 c (]) ü 0 c (]) > '§: ..:>:: (]) I1l ..... I1l (]) ..... 0 .0 :J IJJ W 0 I- 0 I- 0 ::J 0 I- 0 '--' E c L. 0'1 o L. -I- a.. s:: (\) c E.2 c..-I- oc.. -E (\) (\) > X ~w u X .- c Et- o s:: E o (\) U E- Wo - c > -c ~ CJ :J - o > V) ....c .- 0"'1 EO :ë ° U L..2 S O1CJCJ ~....c c 0.. +- 01 C C -0 ._ oc+- .- 0 U +- 0.. 0 o..xL ECJ+- ~ot CJ+-~ x-o-O o CJ eJ +-V)V) :J d EeJ-O ~ -0 X 000 -+-+- . o V) >-o~CJ CJ +- .- -o-oLJ= o c CJ V) eJ CJ 0..:J ..c+-0-o ~ "~ t.."~ . 0>- U ot -... ~ CJo.. V) 0 d L -00... - X d 0+= +-s:: - ~ o "- \:J +- .- s:: V) ~ ~ -oL .- L ~:J . L 0 eJ I >-:0 s:: 0..." - o ~ V) s:: ~ V) ~..:::t:. 0 ....c 0.. +-aV) Q)uo s:: +- S .- s:: 0 -o~- a E V) o..co X L V) CJ ~ CJ ~>x "'^ 0 0 L.U Q) +- . ....." '-' E c:s L. 0'\ o L. +- a.. c:. (\) c: E.2 c..+- oc.. -E (\) (\) > X ~w o X .- c:s EJ- g E o (\) . t.tl S - c:s > -c ~ ....." ~ ...0 o .--' ~ ~ .- .... ..cE § 5 ~ O"l ~>->..oc ,+--.O+-LO '- 0... L . ~~CVlO-o -a Vl ::J._ +- ~ '- 0 E..c u-o >-'oE+-OL ~ X o.~ 'I- ~ .0.. 0 U O"l t-( +- +-C"-J o ~ c.- Vl +- >-..c ~ c._ -a t +- C'Ë C ~~OOLO C 0... +-E 0... ~ += Q') 0 "^ +- 0... 'Vi L ~ 0 ~ ^' 0....- U -a E ~ L ~ -o-a+-+-~x VluVlC_~ .- 0 ::J 0 0 E--O+-VlC C L 0 o ~.- 0 ~ L..c :> .o....c +- m+- ::> E+-O o '+- ~._ +- C LOCCOL .0.. C O"l 0 C 0 .Vl o.~ ~ ~ L ..c .- +- L L ~ J-~uoo..c o ~ t/) >-t o ~t:-g1~ z ~ 0 '--'+- ::> o (.\) ...0 o +- \J (.\) tIl o . 0... C"'. o...E :JO tilL tIlQ) ._ 0 ..cL +-0... - +-- - t: t: 0 tIl·- .- +- ... 0 +-~ :JL CCiu E a L. 01 o L. +- Q.. ~ (U ~ E.2 c..+- oc.. -E (U (U > x ~w u X .- a Et- o ~ E o (U U L. Wo - a > -c ~ '" ....." I ..- T'"" al 0 0 0 0 0 0 c: 0 0 0 0 al co 0 0 0 0 .... al r-: c,r CD~ Ñ C\I :::: CD CD .... ..... ë + + C I + J:: C') (1) :l E E 0 0. ~ 0 ca J:: ~ - 0') 't:I ..... (1) al 0 - 't:I 0) :::- 0 al 0 êi:i 0) (1) ~ o1~3: 0) C a. uo<l: (/) c: - 0 0 0 0 T'"" C al 0 c: 0 0 0 0 - 0 >< 0 al 0 M r-.. 0) .- 0 III W E Ô o:t'- Ñ .... en E .- I-alc.. r-.. 0 .... M (1) ..... >-0.2 .... .... .... 0 0. - l: Cll :l .... .- > c E al en Q C g. 0 (1) 0 (1) .... Q. :::- 0 >< (1) w w - al 0: (1) >< :JCl o c: >< J:: ro J: III :=J:>- ca ..... I- ;::ut: I- ..... (/) 'E Q 0 M :l E Q Q 0.. 0 >< E 0 0 0 0 M :>-. 0 III .... 0 M M (1) I- 0.. 0.. c't CD~ LO 0- ..... CD :lo... J:: ~ 't:I 0 al N 0 o:t'- N (1) ..... 0 alãiJ: .... .... ->- .- III 0 0. 3: - E ~- ca 0 > ..>- '0 (/) l: :lo... w<l: a. c '0 '0 ca « (1) J:: ..... ..... ro .- E 3: - (/) 0 .- al .~ III ..... '0 l: 0 en .... 0 (/) =ö W Q. .... Q - >. 0 01 :::: Æ ... >. W () - > u .... () l: () () 0 > ..c In U 0 ...J \r E c L. en o L. +- CL s:: s:: ~ 0 E.- o.+- o 0. -E ~ ~ > X ~w u x ·e C 01- s:: E o ~ U L. Wo - C > -c ~ \J ~ +- c... E ~ X ~ V) ~ X (\. oE +-Cj >.L +-01 L 0 ~ L c.. c.. OV) L·- c.....c - +- -aL ~ ~ L\J ~§ ...." ~ -0 .- S >-.. ~ +-V')Ls:: s:: >-.. ~ ~ ::J a...c E o-+- '-> ~ 0 s:: - 0 -o=-oL s:: +- s::.- V') a > a s:: -o-6'~w CoxV') ::J..o 0- Y- >-.. +- ç OL+-s:: L ~ U ::J ~ >.- 0 cW.f=U ~ V') ~ Q') ..-..c V) -0 -0 +- ~- -'- +- a V) ,- .0...- 0 +- u cE~...c ::J ~ .0.. U r~ X V) ::J E '-J ~ ...V')o ~~V')V') L ...c L ~ -0 Q') +-oðs:: 0 >-.. V) +- ::J L - - y-.o.. ~2o-o V) r-o~-O Zo"'~-5 t § <::V»-l \.,..- E c:J L. en o L. +- 0- C C (\) 0 E.- c..+- oc.. -E (\) (\) > X ~w o X .- c:J Ef- o C E o (\) o L. W 0 - c > -c ~ """'" c 0 .- - c.. U) 0 L{) ('t) 0 0 CO CO N l'-- E Q.) Q.) >< N l'-- 0 0 0 0 ~ L{) ..c: Q.) m N 0) 0 0 CO CO 0 ~ I- >< I- ('t) CO 0 0 ~ ~ CO L{) - W ~ L{) L{) L{) ~ oo;;t 0 0) 0 >< "C .,- ('t) Q.) .::::: m - :::s I- 0. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U) E E Q.) Q.) c: Q.) >< :l... <t 0 w - U) m <t > "C "C <t Q.) - - 0. C E Q.) Q.) E >< c.. I W 0 - U) Q.) Q.) > :::s Q.) c C Q.) 0 ....J > Q.) E :l... oo;;t L{) CO l'-- CO 0) 0 .,- <t c: m 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0 0 I- 0 Q.) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0 0 0 c >- .,- .,- .,- .,- .,- .,- C\J C\J 0 I- 0 W \..., "wfII E (\. t/) +- a E 0- x c 0 L- a ::::J+- m L. t/)+- 0 en ::::J::::J 0 o 0 L- 0- .L. L 0- +- C- o.. o ~ . >- s::: > ~ +- ~~ 0- L ~ s::: II) c ..c E.2 -- ..co ::::J "-... ..£: +- +- E ex:> ~ o..+- +- 0) >- E t-..... c 00.. c +- 0 0 0 >- .- -- ...-t - -E ~c U ...-t 0 ..0 o ::::J ~ *IT ~ ~ =E ..c '+- 0 ~ X -c °E +- 0 L t\) .. 0 C ~ >- QW ~U 0- 0 s:: V) ..c 0) 0- -- O~ 0 X a ...0 ..c +- ~ c U S 0- en x+- .- c:J 0 ~ L Ef- t\) oc L 0) 0 +- 0- 0) 0 ~ 0 ~ >-4- U L >- ~ s::: E +-c 0- 0 L ~ E > 0 t\) ~E 0 C ~ > 0 0 U O-c C t: o- W L- a o L 0 0 0 ..£: L ~ 0 U .- o->~ ~ @J E - -00...0 a +- -0 V) -q- ~ 0) 0 > a -o-+- ~ ...0 N ..£: ot/) -0 0 CUt/) C o~ L -C ~ o 0 ~ 0 0 ()J 0-- 0- > -< X,+-b x 0 0 w 0 L W 0 ...-t \..- ...,J INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA TO: Board of County Commissioners Daniel s. McIntyre, County Attorney(A" FROM: C.A. NO. 02-1189 DATE: August 8, 2002 SUBJECT: Resolution Nos. 02-116 and 02-196 - Economic Development Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Attached is a draft copy of an agenda package pertaining to the Economic Development Ad Valorem Tax Exemption question. This item will be agendaed for Board action on Tuesday, August 20, 2002. If you have any questions or comments in the interim, please let me know, DSM/ caf Attachment Copy to: County Administrator Community Development Director R. Freeman, Esq. B. Leedy ~ ....., BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA REGULAR MEETING Date: August 13,2002 Tape: 1-2 Convened: 9:00 a,m, Adjourned: 11: 45 a.m, Commissioners Present: Chairman, Doug Coward, Cliff Barnes, Paula A. Lewis, Frannie Hutchinson, John D, Bruhn Others Present: Doug Anderson, County Administrator, Robert Bradshaw, Asst. County Administrator, Dan McIntyre, County Attorney, Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director, Paul Phillips, Airport Director, Ray Wazny, Public Works Director, Pete Keogh, Parks and Rec. Director, Roger Shinn, Central Services Director, Jim David, Mosquito Control Director, Bill Blazak, Utilities Director, A. Millie Delgado, Deputy Clerk 1 . MINUTES (1-029) It was moved by Com, Bruhn, seconded by Com, Hutchinson, to approve the minutes ofthe meeting held July 23, 2002; and, upon roll call, motion cnrried unanimously. 2, PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS Presentation- Rachel Scott 0 FP & L presented the Board with a $10,000 donation to be used towards the Mobile Command Unit. 3, GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Joseph Patroni, Port St. Lucie resident, addressed the Board regarding the additional Homestead Exemption for seniors and future water costs, 4, CONSENT AGENDA(1-305) 1, WARRANT LIST . The Board approved Warnml List No, 43, 44, and 45, 2. PURCHASING A. Bid No, 02-092 Purchase of One Transportable Bleacher- The Board approved awarding the bid to Century Industries, in the amount of$37,775, B. Bid No, 02-068/North Hutchinson Wastewater Treatment Plant Mod~fications- The Board approved awarding the bid to the low bidder, Speegle Construction II, lnc" in the total amount of $774,000 and authorized the Chairman to sign the contract as prepared by the County Attorney, C. Bid No, 02-077/Fire Alarm Testing Monitoring & Inspection- The Board approved awarding the bid to the overal1 lowest bidder, 15t Fire & Security at the unit prices suhlllitll:d, ;11lll aulhori/'.ed till; Chairman to sign the contract as prepared by the County Attorney, D. Bid No, 02-079/Fire Sprinkler System Inspection, Testing & Maintenance - The Board approved awarding the bid to the lowest overall bidder, Life /Safety Systems Group, Inc., at the unit price submitted and authorized the Chairman to sign the contract as prcparcd by the County Attorney. r E. '-rnendment and Extension ¡tract No, c-99-09-607 with ~n; Inc., The Board approved the amendment and extension through September 30, 2003 and authorized the Chairman to sign the amendment as prepared by the County Attorney, F. Amendment to Contract No. C02-04-399 with The Terminix International Company- The Board approved the amendment to correct facility addresses and authorized the Chairman to sign the amendment as prepared by the County Attorney, G. Extension of Contract No, COO-06-418 with Stewart Mining Industries, Inc., The Board approved the extension through June 26, 2003 and authorized the Chairman to sign the extension as prepared by the County Attorney, H, Bid No, 02-088/Temporary Personnel Service - The Board approved rejecting the bids received, amend the specifications as necessary and re-issue the bid. J, Extension of Contract No, C99-12-128 with Florida Rock Industries, Inc,,- The Board approved thc extension through September 30, 3002 and authorized the Chaiml,an to sign the extension as prepared by the County Attorney, J. Bid No, 02-097/Fairgrounds Water & Sewer Line Constmction- The Board approved awarding the bid to the low bidder, RK Contractors, Inc., in the total amount of $120,710 and authorized the Chairman to sign the contract as prepared by the County Attorney. K, Bid No, 02-093/Contmction of Boardwalks/Crossing at North Indrio- The Board approved awarding the bid to the low bidder, Custom Built Marine Constmction, Inc., in the total amount of$22,699.41 and authorized the Chairman to sign the contract as prepared by the County Attorney, L. Pemlission to Issue an Invitation to Bid- The Board approved issuing an Invitation to Bid to sell surplus computers to other governmental entities and removal of these itcms from the County's Capital Asset Records, ], PARKS AND RECREATION A. Park Referendum Update- A written report was forwarded to the Board, B, Fee Waiver for Lincoln Park Community Center- The Board approved a temporary waiver of fees until October 1,2002 for use of the Community Center by tfle NAACP for it's meetings. 4. PUBLIC WORKS A. Burger King at Merrit Ditch Emergency Culvert Replacement Project- The Board approved accepting the project, released retainage in the amount of$19,196 to Shenandoah General Constmction, 13. South 25th St. Roadway Widening (Midway to Edwards Road) Project- The Board approved the Third Amendment to the Consultant Agreement with Inwood Consulting Engineers for additional surveying geotechnical and design services in the amount of $59, 968.60, and for an additional 90 days to allow time for the additional activities bringing the completion date to June 30, 2003, and authorized the Chairman to sign the amendment. C. Florida Humanities Council Mini Grant Application- The Board approved submitting a grant application for $1,500 to host a "Writing in Nature" Workshop at the Oxbow Eco- Center. D. Header Canal (Canal No, 59) & Goldsmith Road Sheet Pile Installation & Embankment Improvements- The Board approved the reduction in retainage of Lucas Marine Constmctions contract from $29,376.75 (10%) to $14,688.38 (5%), F Ten Mile Creek Waler Preserve Area Project- The Board approved the Cooperative Agreement between South Florida Water Management District and Sl. Lueie County, and authðrized the Chairman to sign the agreement. 2 '-' ...., F, Ten Mile Creek Water Preserve Area Project- The Board approved the Memorandum of Agreement between SFWMD and St. Lucie County for Tree Rcmoval/Relocation at the Ten Mile Creek Water Preserve Area and authorized thc Chairman to sign the agreement. 5, COUNTY ATTORNEY A. Citrus Avenue Paving Contribution- The Board approved the release of the $16,440 paving contribution to the Developer. B. Permission to Advertise Ordinance No, 02-24 Amending Section 1-4,5-1 to Delete Restoration and Mosquito Control projects from the Art in Public Places Ordinancc- The Board approved advertising the proposed ordinance for Public Hearing on September 17,2002 at 7:00 p,m. or as soon thereafter as possible, C. Treasure Coast Archers/First Amendment to March 20, 2001 Facilities Use Ag¡:eement- The Board approved the proposed amendment and authorized the Chairman Lo sign the amendment. D. Permission to Advertise/Ordinance No, 02-026 Amending Circuit Court Civil Division Services Charges- The Board granted permission to advertise a public hearing on September 17, 2002 at 7 :00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. 6, HUMAN RESOURCES Equipment Request No. 02-238/Budget Amendment No, 02-150 - The Board approved the budget amendment and equipment request to purchase a HP 4600 Laser Color Printer in the amount of $2,523 for the Risk Management Department to support writing claims and i nvestigati ons. 7. PUBLIC SAFETY A. Radiological Emergency Preparedness Agreement for Fiscal Year 2002-03 and 2003-04- The Board approved the agreement and authorized the Chairman to sign thc agrccmcnt. B. Hazards Analysis Agreement with State of Florida HAZMAT- The Board approved the agreement and authorized the Chairman to sign the agreement. 8. AIRPORT A. Budget Resolution No, 02-1 79/Rehabilitation of Airfield Lighting- The Board approved the budget resolution to accept the FDOT Joint Participation Agreement grant in the amount of $450,000. B. Budget Resolution No, 02-178/Preparation ofPart 150 Noise Study Update- The Board approved the budget resolution to accept the FDOT Joint Participation Agreement grant in the amount of$7,900, 9. MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET A, Budget Resolution No, 02-198- The Board approved accepting the check from FP&L to be used for the Mobile Command Post and approved the budget resolution. B. Allstate Litigation Expenses/Budget Amendment No. 02-148- The Board approved the budget amendment moving $25,000 from General Fund Contingency into the County Attorney's Allstate Litigation program number to pay anticipated expenses associated with the Allstate litigation, C. Budget Amendment No. 02-147/Equipment Request No. 02-237- The Board approved the budget amendment and equipment for the purchase of a laptop computer for Judge Conner's office, :ì CÍ!íw''RAL SERVICES ....I A. Fort Pierce Inlet Boat Ramp FBIP Grant- The Board approved the agreement from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to be used for a restroom facility and authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement. B. FEMA GrantlHurricane Shutter Project- The Board approved the Subgrant Agreement through the Department of Community Affairs and FEMA for installation of hurricane shutters on county buildings, and authorized the Chairman to sign the agreement. C. Request for BidslFEMA Hurriance Shutter Project- The Board approved to go out for bids for the purchase and installation of hurricane shutters on county buildings through the FEMA Contract Agreement in the amount of$545,838. II. COMMI INITY )EVELOI'M ENT A. Christensen Acres Subdivision/Minor Site Plan- The Board approved the request for relief from the requirements of Section 11.02.09 (A)(5) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, B. Montoya 1 Subdivision/Minor Site Plan- The Board approved the request for relief from the requirements of Section 11.02.09 (A) (5) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. C. Montoya 2 Subdivision/Minor Site Plan- The Board approved the request for relieffrom the requirements of Section 11.02.09 (A)(5) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact RepOlt, D, Tourism/Simple Success Marketing Advertising Invoices- The Board approved thc Tourist Development Council's and staffs recommendation to pay the invoices for the months of June and July in the amount of$50,239.75. 12, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS . Resolution No. 02-193- The Board approved the resolution amending the Election Precinct's for St. Lucie County. 13, ADMINISTRATION A. Florida Communities Trust Florida Forever Program Grant- The Board gave after the fact authorization to the County Administrator to sign the application for the Florida Department for Community Affairs to assist in the acquisition ofIndrio B1ucway Buffer. The deadline for submission of the grant application was July ]0, 2002, 8, PorI Master Plan- The Board approved the recommendation of staff and the Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee to request the City of Fort Pierce adopt the Port Master Plan into the City Local Comprehensive Plan, 14, ST. LUCIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE- Request for Distribution - The Board approved the request for distribution from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund in the amount of$462,534,99, 15, INVESTMENT FOR THE FUTURE Budget Resolution No. 02-200- The Board approved the budget resolution budgeting and appropriating the funds in the amount of $560,000 from the Tourist Development Tax Revenue Note for improvcmcnt to the Thomas J. White Stadium, r 4 '-' ~ REGULAR AGENDA 5.A PUBLIC SAFETY(1-320) Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CON) Application of ARC St. Lucie County for a Class F (Wheelchair Transport) In-House only. Consider staff recommendation to approve the request of ARC of St. Lucie County. It was moved by Com. Hutchinson, seconded by Com, Bruhn, to approve staff recommendation. 5,B MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Budget Resolution No, 02-187/Local Law Enforcement Block Grant- Consider staff recommendation to accept the grant, and approve the resolution to increase the Fine and Forfeiture Fund by $63,296. ' It was movcd by Com: Bruhn, scconded by Com, Lewis, to approvc Budget Resolution No, 02-187; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously, 5,C COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Resolution No, 02-1 46/DUNCAN- Consider staff recommendation to approve the resolution to define a Class "A" Mobile Home as a Detached Single Family Dwelling Unit for 10 acres of property , It was'moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com, Barnes, to approve Resolution No. 02-146; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously, 5.D PURCHASING Authorization to Negotiatc with the City of Port St. Lucie for Water and Sewer Service for Project "I''' - Considcr staff rccommendation to authorize staff to negotiate an agreement with the City of Port St. Lucie, and that the negotiated agreemcnt bc brought back to the Board [or final approval. The Board of County Commissioner's gave the City ofFt. Pierce the opportunity to discuss this issue and state their position, Com, Barnes questionéd if Fort Pierce had a legally binding right for service to this area. The County Administrator advised the Board that the County never entered into any territorial agreements nor have any exclusive rights been given to either city. The 20 I Paei lities Plan is not a territorial agrcclllent. The County Attorney reviewed what he understands is the law regarding territorial agreements or :lIIY type of exclusive rights to servc, lIe understands it as, " I r there is an exclusive contract to provide service, to a particular area, if indeed this exists, under the Metco Case, you cannot require annexation as a condition of service. In other words, if a city agrees contracturally to provide service within a service area, and that's with the county, they have to provide service and they cannot require annexation. So he believes this is the dilemma and would confront the possibility of a territorial agreement between the three entities. The City ofFt. Pierce's policy is in order for you to get service you have to annex. The County Attorney stated his position was" the 201 agreement is not a territorial agreement and does not require the county to honor an exclusive right to serve it. It was not intended to do th~t, this is his position", The Community Development Director alluded to the service area maps in the Comp Plan Element which identifies the general service areas for the various utility operations in the county, These maps and speci !¡cally ligure Ú 1 of the county's infrastructure element for water. it includes a map which was part of the overall master plan and lit has a specilic foot note which reads, "The service area boundaries do not designate future annexation boundaries or Icgal boundaries", This is 5 j to b~eneral planning documel discussed by the County Attorney, identifies the general service JS itories as The County Attorney advised the Board that the fact that this parcel is in the unincorporated area of the county and not in any of the cities make a difference. The fact that it is in the unincorporated area and in the absence of a territorial agreement or an exclusive right to serve, he believes the county has the ability to provide the service through alternative means and this could be through a contract with the utilities authority or through a contract with Port St. Lucie, Mr. Rupert Koblegard, Attorney for FPUA addressed the Board on this issue and stated he had written a letter in July to the City of Port St. Lucie's City Attorney as well as the County Attorney advising them that FPUA was aware of the project and they had not been contacted and this was one of their service areas (FPUA) which was established years ago and the infrastructure has been put in place by FPUA . Mr. Koblcgard revieweù various cases with similar issues, He stated a resolution had been passed in 1983 for this purpose, He also reviewed Chapter 180 of Florida Statutes, His interpretation is that the county cannot request water from the city of Port St. Lucie for that area without FPUA's approval since they were the entity which put the infrastructure in place. Mr. Koblegard continued to advise the Boarù on the Utilities position on this issue. He stated their letter from July 3rd to the attorney's for the county and the city put the City of Port St. Lucie and the County on notice, that they are proceeding at their own peril not recognizing them as the server for that area, The only response received was a copy of the RFP. The County Administrator advised the Board that it is his understanding that they will not be crossing FPUA lines. The Utilities Director stated they have sat with the property owner's engineer and staff and have looked at alternate ways of approaching this project. They will not physically be crossing any FPUA lines. Com, Hutchinson asked Mr. Koblegard what is holding them from consenting to bringing this type of an economic advantage to the county. Mr. Koblegard stateù that unfortunately it is a Wal Mart and not a smaller project. This is not an issue of this particular development, if they okay this, all the pipes and infrastructure they put in outside the city is for not. Com, Hutchinson stated would they not consider each project individually since there are other projects such as the airport annexation issue or the Oleander or Orange Avenue issues, but are here specifically on this project. She again asked why they would not consent. Mr. Koblegard stated this was not his decision, but was the decision of the City Commission and the noanl. Ilowever, he fell they had been stonewalled by the City of Port St. Lucie. Thc County Administrator reiterated that the Project "P" ol1ïcials consistently told him that they will not sit down with either city to discuss this issue, that this deal is strictly with the county and not the cities. He felt that no one was stonewalling anyone. Com, Bruhn asked if they would proceed with legal action. Mr. Koblegard stated that would be up to the Board. Com. Barnes requested time to review the cases presented. The Chairman requested the opportunity be given for more public comment. Mr. Schwerer, Attorney for the City of Ft. Pierce, addressed the Board on this issue and stated the authority and exclusivity of the city to supply water and sewer to a defined service area is a question or law. It is not a quesl iOIl or interprclalion or what the 20 I services plan says, it's not a question or what the intent or the county was 10 or 20 years ago. It is absolutcly, positively a matter of law, r (¡ '-' .J Mr. Schwerer continued to relate the city's position on the issue. He stated that the adoption of Resolution No. 83-06, by law, established the exclusivity of the city of Ft. Pierce to service this particular planning area, Com. Hutchinson questioned if the FPUA water lines have the capacity that was requested in the RFP, Mr. Schwercr stated he could not answer that question. Com. Hutchinson addressed the question to Mr. Boudreaux, Mr, Schwerer stated that Mr. Boudreaux nodded his head in the aflìmlative and continued to present the city's position, The Utilities Director addressed the fire protection issue and stated that FPUA was unable to attain minimum fire flows fròm their lines, Port St. Lucie has 9 million gallons in storage and are-pump facility in the area with that the fire protection issue is mute. Fire protection is what is driving this Issue, Mr. Sehwerer stated the city's position is that neither the county or any other municipality can provide bulk water service to a defined service area as a matter of law, and this is why the city and FPUA did not bid for this territory because they already have it as a matter oflaw, Mr, Roger Orr, Port St. Lucie City Attorney addressed the Board on this issue. He advised the Board,that the amount of usage that this particular customer represents is not of great consequence. Port St. Lucie will not fight for this customer, that is not what they are about. They are looking at it as an opportunity for St. Lucie County which historically had an unemployment rate of 15% sometimes higher, we are now in the 9%, These are 1200 jobs and 1200 people who will not be unemployed anymore, This is not a million dollar a day customer and they are not going to stand there anò say that they will fight to have them as their customer. They will however try to facilitate this project coming to St. Lucie County because they perceive it as being beneficial to the entire county and Port Sl. Lucie, He stated that the most important issue and the question which should be presented to the city and the utility is "are you going to require annexation"? and if their position is yes, Wal Mart says they are not going to annex, where do we go? ~ The Chairman asked the County Attorney if anything he heard today would change his position, The County Attorney stated that he would not change his position, and one of the key facts is that service can be provided without crossing FPUA's lines and this is a key faet for him, He suggested the following; the whole purpose is to try to bring Project "p" into our community. He suggested as an alternative to going ahead with the recommendation, that perhaps the Board defer aetion on the recommendation for one week, They have to present an MOU next week. They go back to Project "P" and try to see ifthey are willing to meet with the UA and the city to discuss the provision of scrviœ 1'01' I'rojcct "I''' 1I11dcr condiliollS which arc acccptahle with I'rojcct "I''' and this can possibly Ilush outlhc annexation issue. Com, Barnes stated he would like for the attorneys to examine the case laws and facts, maps, etc" to ldlthc Board just how strong Ft. Pierce position is, Mayor Enns addressed his position and stated they would I ike to know more about the project in order for the Board to consider this issue, Com. Barnes requested information be given to the City of Ft. Pierce Commission for their review and possible discussion and decision at next Monday's Commission meeting, Mayor Enns commented on the annexation policy and asked the Board give the city the opportunity to discuss this issue. Commissioner Duke Nelsoll nddreilsed this isslIe and nsked former Com, Havcrt Penn what hc felt W;IS Ihe Bee's positiOIl nlllw limc whcn (hc r~csoluti()n wns pnssed , 7 ,-. ""'" Mr. Havert Fenn addressed the Board regarding the Resolution and the planning areas as stated in the Resolution, He stated these areas were set aside strictly for St. Lucie County Utilities and Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority back in 1984, The Chairman made closing remarks regarding the fact that Project "P" did not wish to have any discussions with either city. He stated the company has stated what they wanted and what they did not want and the county has known that since February. This was expressed to the city in February and afterwards, They do not want to be annexed and the county has conveyed this to the City ofFt. Pierce's staff and to the Mayor, The City Commission has never addressed this issue and five months later we still have the same issue unresolved. The Chairman stated he is willing to entertain a one week delay with the assurance from the County Administrator that this will not jeopardize the ability of this project to move forward. The County Administrator stated that next Tuesday would be " Fish or Cut Bait" time. Com, Barnes stated he has agreed with everyone who has spoken tonight and everyone has different interests and responsibilities and he hopes everyone can compromise and we can bring the company to St. Lucie County, Com, Lewis stated she was generally in agreement with the one week delay, however, she would respectfully like to ask the Fl. Pierce City Commission that in their deliberations they consider the annexation and consent issues, She is very concerned with this delay however, she does not wan to make an arbitrary decision. Com. Bruhn stated he was disappointed that a decision could be made on an issue whieh means so much to this county. He docs not have a problem delaying it a week, but is concerned with the time frame and asked the city to move as quick as possible and make a determination on what they are going to do, The Chairman stated he hoped the issues could be resolved by next week. The County Attorney stated they would make an attempt to see if the Project "P" staff would meet/or speak with the city and the county at least over the phone, It was the consensus of the Board to delay action for one week. . G. AIRPORT (2-1899) Update on the $292,000 Federal Aviation Administration Grant for the Part 150 Noise Study Update and the Perimeter Fencing Grant. It was moved by Com. Barnes, seconded by Com, Bruhn to approve the receipt of the update; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimQusly. 7, ADMINISTRATION A. Bi- Weekly Committee Reports- This item was deleted, B. Jim Egan/Marine Resources gave an update on the Indian River Lagoon Public Workshop, There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. Chairman Clerk of Circuit Court r 8 '-' ..." RESOLUTION NO. 91-106 A RESOLUTION WHEREBY ST. LUCIE COUNTY AGREES TO AMEND THE FORT PIERCE/ST. LUCIE COUNTY 201 FACILITIES PLAN BY CHANGING THE AREA THAT WILL BE SERVED BY WAS'l'EWi\'mR SERVICES I3E'rWEEN 'l'IlE COUNTY AND TilE UTILITIES AUTIlORITY. WHEREAS, the Fort Pierce/St. Lucie County 201 Facilities . Plan was certified by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation in January, 1980, and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency in January, 1981, and , WHEREAS, st. Lucie County Planning units Nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 17 are included in the Service Area for Fort pierce utilities Authority and st. Lucie County, and WHEREAS, subsequent to the Plan's approval, the Fort pierce utilities Authority began and continues to furnish wastewater service to Planning Areas 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, and WHEREAS, st. Lucie County has implemented a Waste Water Treatment Program, and pursuant to said program will serve St. Lucie County Planning Units Nos. 10 and 17, and WHEREAS, st. Lucie County, the City of Fort Pierce, and the Port pierce utilities Authority have determined that it is in the best interests of all three bodies and the citizens served, that st. Lucie County serve Planning Units Nos. 10 and 17, and the Fort pierce Utilities Authority serve Planning Units Nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, and WHEREAS, the three bodies have determ1ned that the 201 Facilities Plan should be amended to reflect such agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That st. Lucie County, the City of Fort Pierce and the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority, do jointly resolve and agree that st. Lucie County will serve Planning Units Nos. 10 and 17, and the Fort pierce utilities Authority will serve Planning Units Nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, .8 and 9 , with wastewater disposal service. 2. That an appropriate agreement implementing the modifica- tion of responsibility for the Planning Units will be prepared and entered into by the parties hereto. J. That appropriate and necessary action will be taken by the three bodies to submit an amendment to the 201 Facilities Plan implementing the change and seeking approval of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the united States Environmental Protection Agency. '-' -' J ~ The redesignation of the wastewater service areas as described herein shall also include the designation of the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority with the responsibility of providing potable water to 2. 5. 6. 7~,8, 9, 10 and that part of 17 to the south boundary of the Florida Power and Light Nuclear Plant .property. The County shall provide corresponding potable water service for area 17 south of the Florida Power and Light Nuclear Plant. All parties to this agreement shall take those actions necessary to transfer these responsibilities and any needed approvals to accomplish said transfer, approval of which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Transfer of potable water service to County in area 17 south of the Florida Power and Light Nuclear Plant Shall be accomplished through a metered wholesale User agreement. ) 5. The parties understand and agree that this agreement is solely for the purpose of amending and updating the service areas set out in the Section 201 Facilities Plan. The parties agree to cooperate and develop territorial agreements in the future based on the party's respective master plans. of P~SED..~~d dUly adopted by St. Lucie County this ~<-..,.<.../ ,1991. / WI, day ST. LUCIE COUNTY A ATTEST: BY¡ JI.(j1f/Í/t a<, ¡;;;;tJ -.Qhalrman ~ D CORRECTNESS: County r /(1 C 0 u " , .". J .....".... I I\J : 0 L_ ¡-- _d_, ~ : ~.:-.. t-: . , r·...·-!I '" " ........' ,(/í ! .... lO ~ ,7. (-It ~ ~ ~ > "-1" ~ '" _ I x -'-, ~ ¡ '- -'-- I, :' ,- ,!7 ~ :j;:-'.- ~ I " " > ~ x I I: i: ___ I -, . 'II (fl ;-l r c 0-u fTl r -"oþ ØOZ c' Z ¡:,:-uZ m r G) ,P .~ Z C z Z z~ G)(f) » :u rrI » '.) \ }. ~ ~ '\ }. ~ '.)0 ,;-\ ~ ~ , ,I 1\' ¡ I Ii r' .. i'/" :,( , " ii/ ,,~ CITY OF CLEARWATER v, ALLEN'S CREEK PRO, Fla, 539 Clle as 658 So,2d 539 (Fla.App,2 Disl, J 995) ON MOTIOIY FOR REHEARING v. State, 624 So.2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), AND/OR CL.1RIFICATION review denied, 634 So.2d 622 (Fla,1994), PER CURIAM, We deny appellant's motion for rehearing, but grant his motion for clarification to clari- fy the sentence which may be imposed on him upon remand. "Ve therefore withdraw our original opinion and substitute the follow- ing opinion. Appellant, Larry Washington, asserts that the trial court elTc,d in sentencing him m\ a habitual felony Offc,llder whcrc the trial court accepted his open plea of guilty without first confirming that he was personally aware of the ramificatións of hahitualization, Because the trial court did not confirm that appellant was aware of the rna.\:Ìrnum habitualized pen- alty he could receiw as a habitual offender, we are compelled to reverse appellant's sen- tence pursuant to A.shley v, State, 614 So.2d 486, 490 (Fla.l993), Although only the sec- oncl prong of ¡[,,}¡fey was viol:ltec1 and al- t.hou¡;h this ¡;ase il1wolves an open plea, 0111' recent. decision in \Filson v. St(l.te, G¡llí 30,2d 1042 (FIn, 4th DCA 1994), is directly on point and compels reversal and remand for resen- tencing to a maximum sentenee not cxcel,d· iug fifteell years. While the written plea agreement did not promise a guidelines sentence, it did indicate a maximum sentence of fifteen years.' The trial court classified appellant as a habitual felony offender and sentenced him to twelve years imprisonment, to be followed by five years probation, for a sentence totalling sev- enteen years. . Withouthabitualization, the statutory max· imum sentence for burglary in the second degree is fifteen Years. § 775,082(3)(c), Fla, 8tat. (1993). Th~refore, on remand, we di- rect the trial court to resentence appellant to a sentencc not exc('eding the fiftcen year statutory Il1lLximum, \\'ith the term of incar- cel'ation not ('xcccdin¡..; twelve .veal'S, whi('h W:1S lht~ (lrig-jllal lCl"In of incarceratioll im- POsed. See Morganti v. State, 573 So.2d 820 (Fla.l991); Regueiro t', State, 619 So,2d 463 (Fla, 4th DCA 1993), Because we reject the ~I.all"~ :t1lt'l'llal.iw' ~;lIl:I',I',~lìnn 01' :i1lnwin)':, nil 1'('III:llId, app(,I:lnl tn withdl'aw hh\ plea, a:; Wp did in Wii,wn, \\'(, e(~I'lil''y enlillid with lIell Defendant, also contends, and the state concedes, that the trial court erred by includ- ing special conditions of probation prohibit- ing defendant from using intoxicants and possessing, carrying or owning a weapon without the consent of his probation officer. We therefore strike these special conditions of probation not orally pronounced, See Sliacraha v, State, 635 So,2d 1051 (Fla, 4th DCA 1004), REVERSED AND RE::ILA..NDED, WARNER, PARIE?\TE and STEVENSON, JJ., concw', CI1T OF CLEAInY.,\.TER, a municipal corporation in the State of Florida, Appellant, · ,', ALLEN'S CREEI{ PROPERTIES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee, No. 94-01849, District Court of Appeal of F10l;da, Second District, April 5, 1995, Opinion Granting Rehearing and Certifying Question June 30, 1995. Owner of property located outside city boundaries bl'ought action against city for deelal'atol'Y relief, ~eeking provision of dty ~eweJ' sel'vices for prolH'l'ly withollt anl1('X, "lioll or j>l'lljlerly by city, The Circuit Court. PinelIas County, John S. Andrews, J" en- tered judgment for owner, determining that city had assumed duty to provide sewer 5er- \'ÏI'P olltside ils IIl1l1lidpal hIlIlIHl:n'ìp~, City lIP)lI:lIlt:d. 'l'he lJi~l.'kt COllrt (If Appeal, J 'al- l.er~()II, .1., held that Ilcithet· city'ö Pllrtie· \." 540 Fla. 658 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES ...,j ipation in county facilities plan nor city's interlocal agreement with another city defin- ing their respective exclusive sanitap sewer sel'Vice areas brought city within exception to general rule, that mumcipality cannot be compelled to supply services to areas outside its municipal boundaries, and, thus, city could condition provision of sewer service to own- er's property upon annexation of property by city, '" Iii;:: Ii d\, II ' 1:1'::. 1..'1 JJj"; , !;II,'i V" ~~, i I: i:; ,~ ' ','j. i hi, \'1'1 \'1: Reversed, and question certified to Su- pl'eme Court on motion for reheadng-, Municipal COI'porat,ions <Þ712('1) N either city'~ participation in county fa- cilitie~ pIau, which inclucted exclusive seWel" service area for city including owner's prop- erty located outside city's municipal bound- aries and which Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) never approved, nor city's interlocal agreement with another city defin- irw l1H'i,' 1'l·}tlpd.ivl1 l'xcll1~~ivo H:U1ill1l'Y II(~W('I' ~"rvice areas, brought city within exception to general rule, that municipality cannot be compeller] to supply ¡;ervices tn al'ea~ outside it" lIlunieipal hC,>II1UI:lI'il:'¡, allrl, thllS, eily could condition provision of sewer service to own- er's property uJlon annexation of property by city. F,S.1983, §§ 163.ül, 180,19; Clear- water, Fla" Ordinance 68-97, I'alll l(ieharcllJull, Ax¡.¡L City Alty., Cleat·- waleI', for appellant, Ie Nathan Hightower of Macfarlane Aus- ley Ferguson & McMullen, Cleanvater, for appellee, PATTERSON, Judge. . The City of Cleanvater (the City) appeals from a fmal judgment in favor of Allen's Creek Properties, Inc, (Allen's Creek), de- claring that the City has an obligation to provide sanitary sewer services to the Allen's Creek property, which is outside its'muniei- pal boundaries, We reverse, 1. Ordinance 6S-97 is a resolution eSlablishing the City's policy pertaining to the use of city sanitary sewers by property owners outside the city limits. It provides: "It is the basic policy of Allen's Creek is the owner of a tract of land comprised of approximately sixty acres !c,C2,;:"d between U.S, Highway 19 and Tampa Bay, immediately east of the Belleair Road ~d l.".S. Highway 19 intersection in Pinellas Cot..:J.ty. In September 1990, Allen's Creek rub!:l.irted a site plan for development of this rrac: ro Pinellas County, Pinellas County ofiic'21s directed Allen's Creek to apply to the City for sewer services, In response tn Allen's Creek's request for sewer service, the Cit:; ad\i¡.¡er! that it required annexation a¡.¡ a eOIHìil inll to th" pl'oviding' of ¡'¡IW¡ s(,t'Vi[~I's IHH'>[J:l1l1. I.n City "r C(:al'wal.l~I', "nl'icla, O/,- dinanee GS-!J7 (AUb'llst G, 1!l(8) 1. Allen's Cr(>,,)( responded by initialing thi~ action foJ' decbratory and othcr relief, In determining that thc City had assumcd a legal duty to prO\-ïde sewer sel'Vices outside its municipal bo=daries, the trial court relied on a docu- ment entitled the Central Pinellas County 201 Facilities Plan (the 201 Plan) and an inteloea! agreement between the City and IJ(· Cíty uJ' Llll'gll. THE 201 PLAN In 1!)7~, the Unil.ed Sl.al,('s ConJ;l'C's¡,¡ (mad-- eù r!](, Fedel'al Watel' Pollution Contl'Ol Act A..'11endments of 1972, Pub.L, No, 92-500, § 2. 86 Stat. 816. The goal of the act was to elimi...Tlate the disehm-ge of pollutants into nmigable waters by 1985. To that end, the act provided for federal funding to creale plan;; for at'ea waste t.n'a\.nwnt l11ana¡.:enH,nl.. :::ù't ion ~(l1 (¡~) or t.he :wl. I'l'Ovidl:d rill' ¡~ranl.s for t.he consLrudÎon of treatment wOI·I(s. Pur:,uant to the ad, the City partici¡lUted in tbe 201 Plan, The project was canied out nnder the auspices of the Florida Depart- menr of Environmental Protection and the 'CDi;:ed States Environmental Protection Age!Jcy (EP A), The study focused on the disposal of treated wastewater by "deep well injection" and provided for "service areas" to detcrmine the scope of facilities which would be required, By City of Clearwater, Florida, R~o]ution 78-132 (December 7, 19.78), the City approved the final 201 Plan which in- cluded an "exclusive sel'Vice area" of the tte City iliat no property owner shall be allowed to connect to said sanitary sewer without first lx-ing annexed into the City." J CITY OF CLEAltWA'I'lm v. ALLEN'S CHEEK J>JW, Clle II!> 6~H SU.211 5:\9 (FI:..Ap). 2 )lIst. 199~1 CiLy.l Thc Allen's Creek tract of land is within Clearwater's service area, The City submitted the 201 Plan, as adopted, to the EPA for approval. The EPA rejected the Plan hecause it did not favo!" the use of deep well injection, The CitJ; then discontinued its study of deep well injection and went forward to develop, with its own funds, an alternative method of wastewater treatment not recommended by the 201 Plan, No at- tempt was made to implement the 201 Plan it""If. '1'/1/'; /N'!·/';/.'!,()!:/!/, ¡\(;/U';/I'i\4HN'1' Oil ~;f~pL(~HII(~t· l~), J!)s:t, }lllnlll<llll L( ~l:e- tion 163,01, Florida Statutes (1983), the City and the City of Largo entered into an inter- local ab'1'ccment which defined theil' respec- tive ex(~lu~ive ~anltary f>ewcr service areas. The agreement st..Üed that the cities would not compete to supply sewer services; each city would provide the other with wholesale sewer services for portions of each exclusive service area which fell within the municipal boundaries of the other, The geographical areas established by this agreement were virtually identical to the areas contemplated by the 201 Plan, THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS In its judgment, the trial court made the following pertinent findings and conclusions: The Court finds that by voluntarily adopting the 201 plan and entering into the 1983 inter-local agreement which gave the City the exclusive right to provide sanitary sewer service to the area of "Plaintiffs property, the City demonstrated its intent to provide sanitary sewer service within the area it had the exclusive right to serve... . The Court finds based upon the record in this case there is no rational basis to require annexation as a condition of ser- vice. The Citv has assumed an obligation, implied by I;W', to render to all of the public in its service area sanitary sewer 2. Clcanvatcr Scn"icc Area The City of Clcanvatcr \vill provide service 10 an area bounded on the north and west by the extremities of the Cenlral Pinellas 201 planning area, and on the south by Belleair Fla, 5.11 sen'ice, City of Wi/llcr Park v. Southem States Utilities, //lc., 540 So,2d 178 (Fla, 5th DCA 1989). The City argues. and Allen's Creek dnes not dispute thc gencral l'ule, that a munici- pality cannot be compclled to supply sel"Vices to areas outside its municipal boundaries, See Allstate Ins, Co. t'. City of Boca Raton, 387 So,2d 478 (Fla, 4th DCA 1980); C,C, Mal"Vel, Annotation, Right to Compel Munic- ipali/.y to E:rlend it" Wate/' System, 48 ^,I"lL~d 1~~~ (I!I;,I;). \\I,'lh",'('fll/," ""uflifl(, II", ,"i1I""';I;,',' :\111'11\ (;re'I,I, ,·il.., III Iii I hi... 1':IS(' willaill all t·\t'l'Iljllll to that J~('Ill·l'all·llh~. Th" trial CIIII!'l, in ib Jinal jlldgment, rdied on City of Winter Park v. Southern States Utilities, IIIC" 5.10 So,2d 178 (Fla, 5th DCA 1(89), In Winter Park, the City, pursuant to section 180,02(;~), Florida Statutes, enacted an ordinance e:o.1:ending its sewer service be- yond its corporate limits, It then sought to prohibit a nongovernmental utility company from prO\iding' sewer sel'\;ces \\;thin this extended sel'\ice area, Winter Park pro- ..;des no authority here since the City has not enacted such an ordinance and seeks to re- fuse, not require, the furnishing of servich, In addition, _-\lien', Creek relies on Sebring Utilities Commission t. Home Sa~'ings Ass'n of Florida, 50S So.2d 26 (Fla, 2d DCA), review den ied, 515 So,2d 230 (Fla.19S7), which mu,t be read together \\;th Edl1S v. Sebring Ulililies Commission, 237 So,2d 585 (Fla, 2d DCA), cut, denied, 240 So.2d 643 (Fla.1970). In Edris, this co\Ut held that the Sebring Utilities rule, which required water customers outsidc the municipal boundariÐS to also purchase electJicit~' from the City, was discriminatory and im'alid, In Home Savings, thi, court reached the opposite re- sult when Seòring Ctilities demonstrated an economic need for such an interlocked ser- \;ee requirement. While these cases shed some light on the City's right to "interlock" the pro\iding of "ewer senices \\itJl annex- ation, they do not pro\ide an exception to the general rule stated abo\'c, Road, cxch:.siyc of .any incorporated ponion of Largo Bellea;r or Dunedin. The area includes the -m~nicip2l limits of Clearwater and Safety Harbor as well as a significant quantity of unincorporated land. . r ~ ....J IT" I , ¡ 5112 Fla, 658 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES ), Allen's Creek also cites City of Clecll"1wtcr v. Melcn /Jevelopment Cmil., 519 So,2d 2:1 (1"Ia. 2d DCA laIl7), "c'llic'U} clcnidd, iJ2.5 So.2d 876 (Fla,1988), for the proposition that the Cily's allllcxation policy is invalid. In that case, the court struck down the City's re- r¡lli1"'I1Wl1t of amwxatiol1 in retllrn fo]' \l'at(,I' ~ervices ill ulliw.·orpIJl·aled areas. T1H~ d{~l'i- sion, howl'vc'l', tOI11S 011 lh" fact that the Cit.y and Pinellas County hat! eutered into a con- tractual relationship whereby the City agreed to provide water services to certain unincorporated areas. This court affirmed the trial court's holding that the City could not alter this contractual duty by adding a condition of annexation, Thus, it prO\ides no authority for this case wherein the City has no corresponding contract in regard to se'\\er services. Likewise, Williams v. City of lVfount Dora, 452 So,2d 1143 (Fla. 5th DCA 19St), has no application here, The issue in lY'illiams was whether the City as a public utility could require a new applicant for electric senice, in an area outside its municipal boundaries which it chose to serve, to pay the delinquent bill of a priOl' occupant as a condition of receiving service, The only case, cited by cither party, that we find persuasive is Allstate Insurance Co. v. City of Boca Rator~ 387 So.2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), In 1965, the Palm Beach County Regional Planning Board formulated and issued "A Plan For Regional Water Sup- ply, Treatment and Distribution and Region- al Sewage Collection, Treatment and Dispos- al," wherein it designated the Cil)- of Boca Raton as the "Designated Agent" of the Boca Raton Service Area. The City accepted the plan and the designation, Thereafter, All- state requested water and sewer senices for a tracJ; within the unincorporated area of the Boca Raton Service Area, Boca Raton re- fused to provide such service unless Allstate would comply with certain of its zoning and planllil1¡>; ol·dillane,,". AlIstat.e declincd and Iilcd a nllllti-coullt action secki;lg- to rcquire Boca Raton to provide services \\ithout con- ditions. In affu'ming the t¡'ial court's dis- missal of the action for failing to state a cause of action, the Fourth District held that Boca Raton's voluntary participátion in the 1'1 ::1 ! r plan did not place an absolute duLy on Boca nat.on to provide watel' and sowag" (0 land- owncrs outsidc iL~ boundaries, The plan in j\tl"/',,Ü' is not i¡k'nt.ieal to tilt' 201 Plan in this casc, buL iL is similar in il~ intcnt and procedures, We determine that t.hc~ ';"IIl~ral lu-il1('ipl{',~ :l111ll11Il\(,l~d ill Alf.,;t!I!,' ai'" applicabl" hCI'" and that. t.he nl"r" partic- ipation of the City ill the 201 Plan did not require the City to provide unconditional ser- vice within its service area. The record fails to show substantial and competent e\idence that the City engaged in any other conduct which would impose such a duty, The Inter- local Agreement is specifically åuthorized by section 180.19, Florida Statutes (1983), as an agreement between municipalitiès and has no interrelation with the 201 Plan or the issues presented here for our determination, rhe underlying issue in this controversy i; one of economics. If forced to annex, Allen's Creek will not be able to build its project as planned due to more restrictive requirement3 of the City's comprehensive use plan as op- posed to the less restrictive use plan of Pinel- las County, If forced to provide senice without annexation, the City will lo;;e the revenue of impact and other fees and taxes chargcd to its residents which make up part of its overall plan to finance and pro\ide municipal services, A There is nothing in this record to support the conclusion that this economic need on the part of the City does not provide a natural basis for the requirement of annexation, If Allen's Creek declines to meet the Cil)°s condition, it is not unable to obtain like ser- vices from alternative sources, It may seek approv~ù from the appropriate state and county agencies to construct its own self- contained treatment facility, It may abo request the City of Largo to provide sel'\iccs. Such a request would require the consent of the City; however, we do not reach the question of whether the Cit.y .could in ,(ood faith refuse sneh conscnt in view of the issues presented and resolved here. Reversed. FRANK, C.J., and PARKER, J" concur, Fla. 543 PASTEUR HEALTH PLAN, INC. Y. SALAZ.AR ClI. as 658 So.2d 543 (fla.App,3 Dlsl, 1995) ON MOTION FOR REHEARING not "motor yehicle" "ithin health plan's ,ex- clusion for injuries resulting from motor ve- hicle accidents, PATTERSON, Judge, We grant the motion for rehearing and certification o(Allen's Creek Propmties, Ine" to thc extent that we add to our opinion fùed ^pril Cí, J!lDr;, the following Cuest.ion wl,ich we el:rlify t.o the slll'n'lIw COllrt as ¡'"illg or greal public importance: MAY A MUNICIPALITY REFUSE TO PROVIDE SEWER SERV1CE, OR CON- DITION THE PROV1SION OF SEWER SERVICE ON ANNEXATION, AS TO NONRESIDENTS LOCATED WITHIN I'l'S EXCLUSIVE SF;WER SF;RVICE TERRITORY ESTABLISHED punsu- ANT TO INTER-LOCAL AGREE- MENTS WITH NEIGHBORING MU- NICII'AL SI';WI·;n SJ':nVrCI'~ 1'1WVfll- ERS'! F'ItANK, C:.,J., and PARKEn, .J" con I'llI'. PASTEUR HEALTH PLAN, INC., a domestic health maintenance organization, Appellant, Y. Miriam SALAZAR, Appellee. No. 94-738. · Dish'Ìct Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, May 3, 1995, Rehearing Denied AlIg, 30, 1995. In actioll by hospital for paymellt, in- Sured sought coverage under health mainte- nance orr,aniwt.ion (HMO) pl:lI1 for ehilc1's ilijll>'ies callsed by accident. while ridillg' all- terrain cycle (ATC), The Circuit Court, Dadl.' County, 11un 1. Gor'dol1, ,1., found C()vOt'~ age. hlijlU'er appealed. The Diijtrict çourt. of Appeal, Jm'genson, J" held t.hat ATe is .¡;"{.:: ,,~~,l U-t :- -'i!, Affirmed, 1. Insurance Þ·152.iI AII-\.errain \'ehide (ATV) was 1I0t "II\U\.ot· vehicle" wit.hin meaning of exclusion in he:Üt.h maintenance organizatioa (HMO) plan for in- juries resulting from motor vehicle accidents; ambiguity in term "motor vehicle" had to, be construed in fa\'or of coverage, and the lall- terrain cycle (ATe) was not "motor vehicle" under motor vehicle st.atutes, West's F.S,A. §§ 316,003(21), 62ï,731. ' See public~tion Words and Phrases i for olhcr judicial constructions and dcf- ; illitioll~. ! ! 2. Insurance Þ138(1) Health maintenance organization (HMO) insurance plan is contract of adhesion, Stabinski & Funt, Hicks, Anderson- & Blum and Bambi G. Blum, Miami, for ap{>cl- lant. Floyd Pearson Richman Greer Well Brum- baugh & Russomanno and Robert J. Fiore, Miami, for appellee. Michael R. Presley, Chartered, Boca Ra- ton, for Variety Children's Hosp., as amicus curiae, Bèfore Hù1lBART, JORGENSON, and GERSTE!\, JJ. JORGEKSON, Judge, This is an appeal by the insurer, Pasteur Health Plan, Inc" of a final summary judg- ment on liability in favor of the insured sub- scriber, Miriam Salazar, For the following reasons, \\'e affirm. The non-final order under rcview rules against Pasteur 011 all its affirmative defens- es, The order renders the insurer liable to t.he insurcd undcl' all HMO medical instll'- ance plan to pay for certain hospital and olhel' Illcdicnl expenses arising [rom II tt'aflic accident Involving ì'vll·ij. Salazar's son, who also was covered under the medical pIa!!. , . i " : , .'" , .;....- ..-:~ . ro," :\.- :.>;, ".! ::..'.1 f.~ I;:: r\~:~· ~;~. ", ;-;"1: ¡":;,". ;'j:' " \:.' ,!,..,' ~,:. lC> ¡\'I\ <,? f-.,/-.:. ~..{I ~~~ ill";' ~~~ ~1i' ~. ~~; . ...-,' \s:~, ;1~~: i(';(:,1 U:tj' f(i:\' .~;J:";¡' , ~.",. .' 'f'.- , ~A"; ·i1ií',· .~; "¡ . ~ !i; CITY OF MOUNT DORA v. JJ'S MOBILE HOMES Clt.....579 50.2<1219 (FlLApp,5DlIL 1991) should be accurately formulated and stated to fit the reason for, or purpose to be servcd by, the rule or exception, Then the facts of-a particular case can be examined with the rule (and itS reason) in mind and a decision made in the particular case by finding that the given case is either within or without the rule or some exception. The correct statement of the full rule and its exceptions is not dicta and is superior to merely formulating or stating or reformu- lating or restating a general- rule, or excep- tion, in terms of the facts of the particular case wherein the rule or exception is stated or applied -because, as in the development and application of principles of law in- volved in this case illustrates, immaterial facts of the particular case involving the principle may be erroneously taken to be essential breadth or limitation on the appli- cation of the rule, or an exception thereto. We hope we now have it correct in stating that: The assignee of a special guaranty can- not enforce the special guaranty as to debt the assignee has created by extend- ing credit to the debtor, An assignee of debt and of a special guaranty relating thereto clm enforce the ¡;uaranty as to debt resulting from credit extended by the original creditor to the debtor, wheth· er or not that assigned debt is due or past due at the time of the assignment. Accordingly we reverse and remand for determination of the liability of the guaran- tor for the proper amount of the balance, if any, of guaranteed debt resulting from credit extended by the original named credo itor to the debtor and assigned to the as- signee. REVERSED and REMANDED for pro· ceedings consistent with this opinion. GIUFI"IN and DIAMANTIS, ,T.1., concur, Fla. 219 CITY OF MOUNT DORA, Florida, Appellant, v. JJ's MOBILE HOMES, INC., Appellee. No. 90-733. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. - April 25, 1991. Private utility that had been granted Public Service Commission certificate to provide water and sewer service brought action against municipality for determina· tion that utility had exclusive right to pro- vide service within certificated area even after municipality's annexation of tract within area. The Circuit Court for Lake County, Ernest C. Aulls, Jr., J" granted summary judgment in favor of utility, and municipality appealed. The District Court of Appeal, Cowart, J" held that: (1) utility had exclusive right to provide service with- in area given that it was ready, willi~g, and able to do so; (2) fact that municipality was not subject to regulation by Commission did not mean that it could servc utility's ccrtificated area; and (3) absencc of word "exclusive" in utility's certificate did not mean that utility's rights were not in fact exclusive, Affirmed, Harris, J., dissented with opinion. 1. Municipal Corporations ¢;>710 Waters and Water Courses ¢;>198 Public Service Commission water and sewer certificates issued to private utility granted utility exclusive right to provide water and scwcr service to certificated area and such right precluded any other entity from having right to serve certificat- cd area with water and sewer utilities, 2. Public Utilities ¢;>14I Although municipal utility systems are not subject to regulation by Public Service Commission as utility, neither are munici- r '...... -..... ~ ~"",,,",..u-..·~··,,",,,,,;allli.·,.w~·_ ,......'>1'>0100_......, _...._-,...,.............-... ........IoIl -....""'" ..!. ..J 220 I>'la, ;'79 SOUTm:HN HEI'OHTlm, 2d SF-lUES palities given dominion over decisions of Public Service Commission. J 3. Municipal Corporations <::::0710 Waters and Water Courses <::::0198 Under statute dealing with operation of competing utility services, municipality had to obtain private utility's consent be- fore construction of water and sewer utili- ties within private utility's certificated area after annexing tract within certificated area and, without such consent, private utility had exclusive right to provide ser· vice within area, notwithstanding munici- pality's contention that statute did not ap- ply because private utility did not actually provide service to area; private utility was ready, willing, and able to. serve utility needs of its service area, West's F.S,A, § 180,06. 01. Munlcipnl Corpomtions <::::o7~0 Although municipal utility Was not subject to regulation by Public Service Commission, municipality did not have au- thority to interfere with rights granted by Commission to private utility in area that was subsequently annexed by city. West's F.S,A. § 367,022(2), 5. Franchises <Þl When granted, franchise becomes property right in legal sense of the word. 6. Municipal Corporations <Þ710 Waters and Water Courses <::::0198 Fact that certificate issued by Public Service Commission to private utility did not use word "exclusive" did not mean that utility's right to provide sewer and water services in certificated area was not exclu- sive insofar as utility had ability to prompt- ly provide service to public within area everY after municipality annexed tract with- in area. West's F.S,A. § 367,011 et see¡, 7. Public Utilities <::::0113 Essence of concept of utility serving the public is that it is in best interest of public that entities, governmental or pri- vate, providing utility services not be per- mitted to compete as to rates and service and that each entity be given exclusive service area and monopolistic status, --~ 8. Public Utilities <Þll1 Term "public utility" implies public use with duty on public utility to service public and treat all persons alike. See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and definitions. 9. Public Utilities <Þ113 Territorial rights and duties relating to utility services as between prospective sup- pliers are more properly defined and deline- ated by administrative implementation of clear legislation than by judicial resolution of actual cases and controversies resulting from lack of clear legislative direction; however, in absence of clear legislative in- tent, courts must resolve individual dis- putes by application of principles that ap- pear to best serve public and to be fair and equitable to legitimate competing interesl~, 10, Public Utilities <Þ1I3 lIasis for right of bolh government.al and private entities to provide utility servic- es to public is statutory, and franchise right of each is equal and neither entity is, per se, superior or inferior to the other. 11. Public Utilities <Þ113 Franchise granted to entity, either gov- ernmental or private, authorized by law to provide utility sel"Vice to public may be exclusive as to both type of service and territory, . 12, Public Utilities <::::0111 Right to provide utility services to pub- 1ic carries concomitant duty to promptly and efficiently provide those same services, 13. Public Utilities <::::0113 Right to provide utility services to pub- lic in franchised territory is inherently sub- ject to, allll conditioned upon, ability of franchise holder to promptly and efficiently meet iL~ duty to provide such services, West's F.S.A. § 367.045(5)(a). 14. Public Utilities <Þ113 When public service entity, either gov- ernmental or private, has earlier acquired legal right to provide services in particular territory but does not have present ability to promptly and efficiently meet its duty to do so, public is entitled to be served by í. i , :¡ 1 ,t:\ i. ; .. j J it ~ ,] '" · '4~1 -..: ~'. .... I: ~:- ':"""-.r ':'':1 .1-'. ~~.' , ...¡. ·t. l ~~ ~. -, t...·· ..~. r,.: r.". ¡ ¡ Lt, Ii:: CITY OF MOUNT DORA v. JJ'S MOBILE HOMES Clle .0579 $0.2<1 219 (FlILApl" 5 DloL 1991) Fla. 221 ~llme other puhlic ~el-viee eutity that doe,; have pre"eut ability tJl provide lleeded "er- vin', althvu,h legal daim of ri¡:ht of "ec- and entity to provide. such service is sec- ondary in time priority to prior legal right of entity without ability. 15, Public Utilities =113 When each of two public service utility entities, whether governmental or private, have legal basis for claim of right to pro- vide similar services in same territory. and each has present ability to promptly and efficiently do so, that entity with earliest acquired legal right has exclusive legal right to provide service in that territory without interference from entity with later acquired claim of right, Sherri K, Dewitt and Houston K Short of Graham, Clark, Pohl & Jones, Winter Park, for appellant, Mary M, McDaniel of Minl{Off & Mcllan- iel, P.A" Tavnres and Robert Q, Williams of Williams, Smith & Summers, l',A" Ta- vares, for appellee. COWART, Judge. This case involves a territorial dispute between a private utility company with cer- tificates from the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) authorizing it to provide utilities in a certain geographical territory and a municipality which, subsequent to the acquisition by the private company of its utility franchise, annexed ll. portion of the private utility company's service area and claims the right to provide similar utili- ty services in the annexed portion of the private utilit.y company's service territory. I II 19HI, a private utility cOlllpany, ,I,)'s Mohile lIomes, Inc. (appellee herein, plaill- tiff below) obtained [mill the 1"lo)'ida I'SC ccrLificates o[ llecessiLy ¡;ranLin~, the pri- vate utility COl1lp:lIIY Lhe rir;ht (franchise) to operalc a water and sewer uLilities sysLem within a specified geographical territory ncar, but outside of, the city limits of a municipality (the City of Mount Dora, ap- pellant herein, defendant below). In 1988, the municipality voluntarily annexed into its city limits a tract of land most of which is within the private utility company's certi- fied service territory and hy ordinance ap- 1"'IIV"'( a bnd dev"I<'I",r'o; prop",;al t.hat. U", municipality serve the developer by exlcnù- ing the municipality's water and sewer util- ities into a portion of the newly annexed area of the private utility company's certi- fied service territory, The private utility company, as plaintiff, filed this action against the municipality, as defendant, for a judicial determination that the private utility company had the legal right to provide water and sewer service within all the territory specified in its cer- tificates fr~m the Florida PSC and that the municipality did not have the legal right to provide the same utility service within the territory, The trial court granted sum- mary judgmenl in favor of the privale utili- ty company and the municipality appeals. [1-3] Wß adopt the trial court's finding of uncontroverted facts, conclusions of law and resulls, The trial court fonnd the fol- lowing' facL<; to be uncontroverted: 1. The Plaintiff (private com)lan~) owns and holds Florida Public Service Commis- sion Certificates Number 298-W and V 248-8 granting the Plaintiff the right to operate a water and sewer utility system within a specified territory, 2, On March 5, 1981, the Florida Public Service Commission entered an order ap- proving the issuance of the foregoing water and sewer certificates to the Plain- tiffs and in said order, found that notice as required by law had been given and that the issuance of the certificates to the plaintiff was "in the public interest." 3, Pursuant to that authority, the Plain- t.iff owns, operales and maint.ains an ap- proved waLeI' alld sewer uliliLy sysLem wiLhin th" cerLified t."rritory, which ntili- ties have been in operat.ion ~jllce the Illid~~ 1!l70's, 'L The Plaintiff's cerLí[icaLed terriLol'y encompasses Dora Pines mobile home subdivision, together with a large parcel of currently undeveloped property. The Plaintiff's utilities currently serve the Dora Pines mobile homes subdivision, which consists of approximately one hun- r '-" 222 Fla. 579 8uuu-umN REPORTER, 2d SERIES""" .:, dred thirty-eight (138) water and sewer cus tomers. 5, At the time the Plaintiff's water and sewer systems were constrµcted, they were designed and built for the purpose of providing water and sewer utility ser- vice to the entire certificated territory. The Plaintiff's utilities have the present ability to provide water and sewer ser- vice to the certificated territory. G. The Plaintiff's water and sewer utili- ties have current operating permits from the Department of Environmental Regu- lation, which pennits are valid through October 15, lÐÐ4. The sewer plant is clIl'l'cnlly pel'lIlitted rol' ninely-five tholl- Hand (%,000) I:allon:¡ pCI' day, nlld CIII'- rcnt flows going into thc plant arc only ab()ut seventeen thousand (17,000) gal- lons per day. The plant is designed so as to be expandable up to two hundred nine- ty-five thousand (295,000) gallons per day, 7, Sometime in 1987, the· Plaintiff learned that the Defendant was consider- ing the voluntary annexation of a large tract of property, a significant portion of which was within the Plaintiff's certifi- caterlterrirory. The Plaintiff objected at that tilllc to tile City's proposed exten- sion of its municipal utilities into the Plaintiff's certificated territory. 8. In Ordinance 467 (adopted May 3, 1988) and Ordinances 488, 489 and 490 (adopted October 3, 1989), thc City volun- tarily annexed a tract of contiguous property, most of which lay within the Plaintiff's certificated territory. In Ordi- nance 529 (adopted October 3, 1989), the City authorized a planned unit develop- ment for the annexed property and as a part of that ordinance, adopted a devel- oper's agreement calling for water and sewer utilities to be furnished by the City. to the annexed property. 9. On March 31, 1989, the Plaintiff, through its attorney, fonnally notified the City of its claimed right to provide water and sewer service to its certificat- ed territory. 10, The Plaintiff is currently actually operating its water and sewer utility within its certificated territory, The ..--' Plaintiff's existing water and sewer lines extend to a point that is immediately adjacent to the annexed property making them much closer to the annexed proper- ty than the Defendant's water and sewer line. The trial court made the following con- clu.;;ions of law: 1. The Public Service Commission water and sewer certificates issued to the Plaintiff grant the Plaintiff the exclusive right to provide water and sewer utilities ~en-jce to the certificated territory. This right precludes any other entity from ha\'ill¡~ 1.11(' ri¡:htto :wrve i.lw eertirieal.e¡J an,a with wat(~r and ~l(lWer ul.iliLieH. ~- 1\lthoußII municipal uLility systems are not subject to regulation by the Pub- lic S.ervice Commission as a utility, nei- ther are municipalities given dominion o,"er decisions of the Public Service Com- mission. 3. The Plaintiff's actual operation of its water and sewer utility within its certifi- cated territory is in territory whieh is immediately adjacent to the Defendant, Therefore, pursuant to Section 180,OG, F!orida Statutes (lD8~). the JJcfendaut must obtain tile Plaintiff's consent be- fore construction of water and sewer utilities within the Plaintiff's certificated <,_rea. Without that consent, the Plaintiff hz..s the e~c1usive right to provide service within its certificated territory. The trial court declared and adjudicatcd: . " . that the water and sewer certificates issued to the Plaintiff by the Florida Public Service Commission grant the Plaintiff the right to furnish water and sewer utility service to the certificated territory as described in the certificates to the exclusion of all other utilities, in- cluding those owned by the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant may not ex- tend its water and sewer utility lines into any part of the Plaintiff's·certificated territory. Sc-ction 180.06, Florida Statutes, after enumerating activities authorized by mu- nicipalities and private companies, provides: " , :¡ ~ .i ( -t ~ ·, '. i l'"! . , I. ~ , :t: .W ¡Bfa; CITY OF MOUNT DORA v. JJ'S MOBILE HOMES Fla. 223 CIlr. IU 57'J So.2d 219 (F}¡~^rll. 3 DlIu.lIJ91) However, a prival.c company or munici- pality shall not construct any system, work, project or utility authorized to be conslructed hereunder in the event that a system, work, project or utility of a sim- ilar character is being actually operated by a municipality or private company in the municipality or territory immedi- ately adjacent thereto, unless such mu- nicipality or private company consents to such construction. [Emphasis added]. The city argues that section 180.06, Flor- ida Statutes, does not apply because the private éompany does not actually provide services to the disputed area, The restriction of the statute was de- signed to avoid the wastefulness of dupli- cate capit.al invcsllllenL~ for compct.ing- ut.il- ¡ties t.hat could not likely be operated wit.h- out financially jeopardizing each other's op- erating revenues if erected in the same consumer territory. State v. Plant City, 127 Fla. 495, 173 So, 363 (Fla,1937) (con- struing Ch, 17119, § 1, Laws of Fla., prede- cessor statute to § 180,06. Fla,Stat.). In regard to section 180,06, Florida Stat- utes. in Ortega Utility v. City of Jackson- ville, 564 So.2d 1156 (Fla, 1st DCA 1990). the court held: While the statute is not a monument to clarity and draftsmanship, .., we inter- pret it only to prohibit direct encroach- ment by one utility provider into an oper- ating area already served by another.' Any other intcrpretati<m would not seem lo comport with lo¡~ic or rea!;on, Under our interprelat.ion, there would be 110 du- plicate capital investment within the same consumer territory, In Ortega, the private company provided services within a specific (certified) area, The city planned to provide service to an area outside but located near the private company's certified area, In addition the private company had neither the capacity nor plans to serve the new area. 1. In City of Wmter Park v. Southern States Utili- ties, Inc., 540 So,2d 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). this court held that where a city did not have the present ability to serve the public the cily had no legal right to prevent a privale company This case is distinguished from Ortega in that in Ortega the area sought to be served by t.he munieipalit.y was oul.side t.he privat.c company's certified area and the private utility company did not have the capacity to serve the area the municipality sought to service, while in this case, the area the municipality proposes to serve is within the territory which the private company has the prior legal right to serve and the pri- vate company is ready, willing and able to serve the utility needs of its service area.1 [4] The municipality argues that it is not subject to regulation by the PSC and interprets this statement to mean that it may seTte \v¡th utilities an area within the city's boundary whether or not the PSC may have theretofore issued a certificate of Ilcccssit.y authorizing a private utilit.y com- pany to provide similar ut.ilit.y services in the same area, Chapter 367, the "Water and Wastewater System Regulatory Law" provides the Florida Public Service Commission with ex- clusive jurisdiction over the authority, ser· vice and rates of utilities. Soction 367.- 022(2) pro\;des: 367.022 Exemption.s-The following are not subject to regulation by the com- mission as a utility nor are they subject to the pro\-isions of this chapter except as expressl)' provided: (2) Systems owned, or systems of which the rates and charges for utility service to the public are controlled, by govern- lIlenU¡] aulhorities. [5] The certificates isslled to the private company by the PSC_ are a granting of a privilege generally referred to as a fran- chise. A franchise is defined as "a special privilege conferred by the government on individuals or corporations that does not belong to the citizens of a country general- ly by common right (citations omitted.)" 12 McQuillin. Municipal Corporations, § 34.03 (3d Ed,), When granted, a fran- certified to provide services to an area within the city's territorial limits. from serving the pub- lic where the private company ha¡;l the present capability to provide services. r ~24 Fla, 579 SOÙnml¡;,~ REPORTER, 2d SERIES ....., chise becomes a property right in the legal sense of the word, Leonard v. Baylen Street Wharf Co" 59 Fla. 547, 52 So. 718 (1910); West Coast Disposal Service, lnc, t', .Smith, 143 So.2d 352 (Fla,2d DGtA 1962), cerL denied, 148 So,2d 279 (Fla.1962). But see, Alterman Transport Lines, Inc. v. State, 405 So,2d 456 (Fla, 1st DCA 1981) where the court rejected the argument of holders of certificates of public convenience that the deregulation of the trucking indus- try took away a valuable property right of the holders (the certificates) and impaired existing contracts. In Pahokee Housing Authority v. South Florida Sanitation Co" 478 So.2d 1107 (Fb. 4th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 491 So,2d 280 (Fb,198(i), a dispute arose between a housing authority and the holder of an exclusiÝe garbage franchise from the coun- ty over garbage collection in the area con- trolled by the authority. The authority decided to collect and dispose of its own garbage, claiming it was exempt fro'm the exclusive franchise granted by ,the city. The trial court found that the authority's intrusion violated the private company's ex- clusive franchise, The district court af- finned but reversed the damages awarded to include the holder's costs of o~eration, Southern Gulf Utilities, Inc. v. Mason, 166 So,2d 138 (Fla,1964) is cited by the city for the broad proposition that the PSC has no authority whatsoever over utilities oper- ated by governmental agencies. Mason must be read more narrowly. In Mason, a private company with an exclusive certifi- cate issued by the PSC sought the PSC to issue a stop order for a municipal utility which invadcd the private company's ser- vice area. The PSC dismissed the private COlli plIny's complainL on Lhe grollllllH LhnL the PSC had no authority to restrain a governmental agency from invading the service area of the private company. The supreme court agreed but specifically not- ed it did not rule on the rights of the parties which rights were being litigated in an action for injunction in the cilcuit court 2. Section 367,011(2), Florida Statutes, provides: The Fiorida Public Service Commission shall which was not the subject of the appeal. This case presents no question as to the PSC's authority, as distinguished from the circuit court's subject matter jurisdiction, to restrain the city from invading- the pri- vate company's area. Although governmental utilities are ex- empt from the authority of the PSC this does not mean that the governmental unit has the authority to interfere with rights granted a private utility company by the PSC. The PSC certificates issued to the private company represent a valuable prop- erty right and the city is not authorized to interfere Viith those preexisting rights by the mere subsequent annexation of a por- tion of the private company's territory. [61 The municipality further aq:u"s that the trial court erred in finding as a matter of law that the certificates issued to the private utility company granted an ex- clusive right to provide utilities to the ser- vice territory because the certificates as issued do not use the word "exclusive," In this case the PSC issued the private utility company certificates of necessity au- thorizing the private utility company to provide the public with water and sewer in the questioned territory before the munici- pality, which has the general legal authori- ty to pro\ide similar services within its municipal limits, annexed the area. The private utility company not only had the prior legal rif!;ht but, more importantly, it also had the ability to meet its duty to provide such services. The statutory scheme of Chapter 367,2 as well as the concept of a public utility, envisions that the right granted by the PSC to a private utility company is exclusive to the extent that such company has the ahility Lo )l-olllpLly provide service Lo the public wiLh- in its franchised territory. [7,8] The essence of the concept of util- ities serving the public is that it is in the best interests of the public that the enti- ties, governmental or private. providing utility senices not be permitted to compete have c-'tclusive jurisdiction over each utility with respect to its authority, service and rates, ~ : 1.. ~. :" ~ CITY OF MOUNT DORA v. JJ'S MOBILE HOMES cu. as 579 So.2d 219 (Fla.App. 5 DIlL 1991) as to rates and service and that each entity be given an exclusive service area and mo- nopolistic status. This unusual economic advantage is given a utility in our free market economy in Úchange for the utility relinquishing its usual right to determine the level of service it provides and to set its own eOlnJletitive rates and submitting those two matters to a governmental authority which regulates the quality of service to be provided and sets rates to provide the utili- ty a reasonable return on its investment. The term public utility implies a public use with a duty on the public utility to service the public -and treat all persons alike, See, 73 C,J.S" Public Utilities § 2 (1983) and 78 Am,Jur., Waterworks and Water Compa- nies, § 2 (1975), r!l] TmTit.orial rifihl.~ and dnti,,:¡ n:llltinl( to uLility :\Cl'vices WI hdweeli Jlro:iI'(~et.iVl! suppliers are more properly defined and delineate¡) by administrative implementa- tion of clear legislation than by judicial resolution of actual cases and controversies resulting from the lack of clear legislative direction, However, the problem is cur- rently a controversial political matter in the State of Florida and in the absence of clear legislative intent, courts must resolve. indi- vidual disputes by the application of princi- ples which appear to best serve the public and to be fair and equitable to legitimate competing interests. Some such principles are: [10] (1) In Florida the basis for the right of both governmentaJ.ll.nd private en- tities to provide utility services to the pub- lic is statutory and the franchise right of each is equal and neither entity is, per se, superior or inferior to the other, [11] (2) A franchise granted to an enti- ty, either governmental or private, autho- rized by law to provide utility service to the public, may be exclusive as to both type of service and territory, Sec, St. Joe Natural Co, v, City of Ward Ridge, 265 So,2d 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972), cert, denied, 272 So,2d 817 (Fla.1973). [12] (3) The right (franchise) to provide utility services to the public carries a con- 3, City of Winter Park v, Southern States Utilities, Fla, 225 comitant duty to promptly and efficiently provide those same services. See, 73B C.J.S" Public Utilities, § 2 (1983). [13] (4) The right (franchise) to provide utility services to the public in a franchised territory is inherently subject to, and condi· tional upon, the ability of the franchise holder lo promptly and efficiently meet iL~ duty to provide such services. Section 367.045(5)(a), Florida Statutes, [14] (5) When a public service entity, whether governmental or private, has a prior (earlier acquired) legal right to pro- vide services in a particular territory but does not have the present ability to prompt- ly and efficiently meet its duty to do so, the public is entitled to be served by some other puhlic Rervice ent.ity which cloeR have t.IHl III'ellc~IIL ahility to II'OI'id,' thc' 1I"l'd,'d service although the le¡;al claim of right of the second entity to provide such services is secondary in time priority to the prior legal right of the entity v.ithout the abili- ty.3 [15] (6) When each of two public ser- vice utility entities, whether gove1-nmental or private, have a legal basis for the claim of a right to provide similar services in the same territory and each has the present ability to promptly and efficiently do so, that entity with the earliest acquired (prior) legal right has the exclusive legal right to provide service in that territory without , interference from the entity with the later acquired (subsequent) claim of right. AFFIRMED, GOSlIOllN, J" conCllrs. HARRIS, J., dissenL~ with opinion, lIAIŒIS, Judge, dissenting, I would like to concur in the majority opinion because I believe that the regula- tory scheme devised by the trial court and approved by the majority is fairer than the one enacted by the legislature, Under the majority's water and wastewater system plan, the franchisee is given an exclusive area which cannot be encroached upon by anyone so long as it services or is capable 540 $o,2d 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). r ~6 Fla. 579 SOU'l,........" REPORTER, 2d SERIES ., of servicing the area. Unfortunately the legislative plan is different and I believe controls, Under chapter 367 there is no authority for the Public Service Commission tb grant an exclusive franchise area. The certifi- cate in this case does not purport to grant an exclusive franchise area. The commis- sion grants exclusivity by limiting the num- ber of franchises in any given area. There- in, of course, lies the problem. A govern- mental agency, such as appellant, is ex· e-mpted from the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission in supplying water and sewer services within iLq corporate Iimit:¡, '1'111' l\lI"jl~t:I. propt1rty hl\n 1I0W 1P1~!l 11I1- l\L'xed at the requcst of the prOllerty OW!lcr and is P:lI·t of I.I,,~ Illllni(~ipality. The munic- ipality lIIay !lOW scrvc the area without a permit from the Publie Service Commis- sion. If it is to be prohibited from proceed- ing to provide service, it must be under the strictures of section 180,06. To preclude appellant under this section, appellee mllst be actually operating' within or adjacent to the annexed area. Such has not been shown in this record, Ability or capacity 1.0 operate in or adjaccnt to the annexed area is lIot sufficient, un(ler this :;I;\I,uLP, to ,I,my UH' IlIollÌ,'iplllity 1.111: ri¡(ht to extend its water and sewer lines.' The majority believes, as I do, that one who makes an investment in reliance on a certificate deserves economic protection,! To provide thi:l proteclíon the majority rec- ognizes an exclusive franchise area, This, however, permits the Public Service Com- mission, by granting a service area to a private company, even within the munici- pality,2 to exclude future municipal devel- opment. This indirectly permits the Public Service Commission to regulate the service and service area of the municipality con- trary to the express exemption contained in the statu~. I would REVERSE. Kenneth Leslie WILLIAMS and Betty J. Williams and Williams Communications, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee. No. 90-1624. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. April 2!1, l!HJ 1. Condelllne" appealed frolll fimll jud.',- menl of the Circuit Courl, Leon County, Ben C. Willis, J" pursuant to jury verdict determining amount of business and sever- ance damages owed by Department of Transportation for taking of its business property. The District Court of Appeal, Zehmer, J" held that: (1) testimony of De- partment's appraiser was based on miscon- ception of law resulting in lower than cor- rect valuation of damage~, and lrial court's I'l,rll:¡alto iltrilw that tl,:¡UlIlOIlY wa:1 rcVcr:l- ible error; (2) opinion testimony of anolher Department expert as to adequacy of park- ing under proposed cures was outside area of his expertise; (3) trial court also commit- ted reversible ellil'or in aUowin,: Departmen- tal experl in civil and site plan engineering to opine as to whether proposed cures com- plied with city and county ordinances and in submitting those legal questions to jury; and (4) requested instruction on business damages caused by proposed cures was somewhat confusing and was properly re- fused. Reversed and remanded. 1. Appeal and Error <Þ719(1), 758.1 While appellate rules no longer' require formal assignments of error, appellate 1. I urge that this protection should come from 2. § 367,021(10), Fla,Stat. (1989). the legislature. r ~ tl72 ¡·'Ia. Ii,!) SOlJTlIEIC'\ IŒl'OltTlm, 211 simms '-' order iLsdf conkmplaled Lhe isslIanCl! of a specific set of mitten guidelines for a partic- ular roadblock. It is the failure to comply . with that mandate that is fatal to tte road- block here, Jones was decided in 1986 manv years before this roadblock was established and the J oncs mandate is clear, It is als~ apparent from the standard operating order here that the police were familiar with Jones, but failed to comply \~ith its directive in this instance, The requirement of \\l'itten guidelines is not merely a formality, Rather. it is the method this Court and others have chosen to ensure that the poliee do not act with unbri- dled discretion in exercising the pO\\'er to stop and restrain citizens who have manifest- ,~c1 "" CII."dll<'t t1lal WOllld otherwise jllstify all iI1Lnl:\Îtil1 011 :t (,jll"!'''':; lilll~l't,Y. III 1.llis 'Ollll LI'.Y UII' lllli.'" :11'1' Ijlll. \"1':',11'.1 \\'il.h LlI' V"lwr:d :Ull,J¡lIl·jLy t.ll ~;I'l IIp Ilrull!.illl''' nl:ldlI.I(·I\:~ al allY LillW or pltll'l~. It:ditl~f', law ('llron'(~Il11~rIL was placed on notice by our holding ill Joncs that the stopping and detaining of a citizen .is a selious matter that requires partictùarized advance planning and direction and strict compliance thereafter, Accordingly, we find that the linùted police directives prepared in this case did not suffi- ciently circumscribe the field officers' discre- tion and fell far short of the "\\TÌtten set of unifònn guidelines" we required in Jones_ CONCLUSION We conclude that the documentation used by the poliee officials, which patently did not comply with the Statc v. Joncs requirement for written guidelines, rendered Campbell's stop fatally defective under the Fourth Amendment and :uticle I, section 12 of the Florida Constitution. We quash the distliet court decision below and approve the deci- sion in Hartsfield v. State, 629 So,2d 1020 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), It is so ordered, KOGAN, C,J" and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. ' r ALLEN'S CREEK PIWPEHTlES, INC., etc" Petitioner, v. CITY OF CLEARW -\TER etc., Responde;t. ' No. 86123. Supreme Court of Flüriâa. Sept. 19, 1996. Ow~er of property ,locateù outside city boundanes brought actlOn ag-2.ir.st city for dcclal':llOl'y relie.f', seeking pro,-ì~ion of' city SPWf~r ~;(~rviee:-¡ (01' Pl"O){'rl.y \\ ilholll :lII11PX- al.i<1I1 of 1I'ol"'l'ty by I'il.\', '1'111' ( 'i ''('lIil (:'"11'1 I'illdl:l:\ (:Hllrd.y .Iolin:-'~ '\Ildn"\'" 1 ' .' . , . ". .", I'll (.1.'/'l~c1 .iUd¡'''lIll~lI!. rot' U\\'l(,', d¡'(¡'rllIillill', l.llal clly had aS~il1llled duLy to IWO\ ide SeW!'!" St~r vice outside its municipal boundaries, City appealed. The District Court of _~ppeal, Pat- terson, J" 658 So.2d 539, rever~ed and certi- fied question to Supreme Court on motion for rehearing. Mter granting reTIe", 663 So.2d 628, the Supreme Court, Kogan, C,J" held that: (1) area wastewater treatment manage- ment plan, in whose development city had participated, and city's interlocal agreement with neighboring municipal "c"er service providers did not come within exception to general rule th\t municipality has no duty to supply services to areas om.-iâe its bound- aries, and city was not required to provide sewer service to owner buL. rather could condition provisi~n of service upon ci¡y'S an- nexation of property, and (2) ciry's provision of sewer service outside its boundaries in only limited situations did nüt amount to afflI'IIlative expression of mten! to sen-e all in area so as to require city to pro\ide sewer service to owner. District Court of Appeal decision ap- proved, 1. Municipal Corporations =277 General rule is that rnuricipality has no duty to supply services to areas outside its boundaries, -.., ~~;.. . ~~; W!i ,. " ALLEK'S CREEK PIWPERTIES Y. CLEARWATER Cite as 67~ 50.2d 1172 (Fla. 1996) 2, Municipal Corporations Þ712(4) 7. Municipal Corporations <J?277 Municipality's dccision to providc service without restriction in area outside its bound- aries would 'meet requirement, for city to have duty to provide öervice to unincorporat· ed area, that municipalit)"s conduct e.\.-pressly manifest its desire or intent to assume such duty, Area wastewater treatment management plan. in whòse development city had partici- pated and city's interlocal agreement ,vith neighboring municipal sewer service provid- ers did not affrrmatively e>.-press city's intent to supply sewer ser\ice to unincorporatcd portion of its service area referred to in plan and agreement and, thus, plan and agree- ment did not come within exception to gener- al rule that inunicipality has no duty to sup- ply :H,l'vier,:¡ 1.0 :lI'(,as (¡lItsid(' its ¡'Ollllrl:lI'ir':I, and city was 1l0L J'('ljuil'ed 10 provide sewer service to owner of property located outside city but, rather, could condition provision of servicc upon city's annexation of property; annexation policy had been applied consis- lcnUy, and city's poLential loss of revcllues and inability to ensure adequate services to its residcnts was reasonable justification for annexation condition, Federal Water Pollu- tion Control .Act of 1972, § 201(g), 33 U,S.C.A. § 1281(g); 'West's F,S,A, § 1G3.01. 3, Municipal Corporations <J?277 Municipality may be required to extend its services to areas out.síde its boundaries if it has ag-reed to do so by contract. ~, Municipal Corporations Þ277 Contract that requires municipality to scrve only particular entity outside it.~ munic- ipal hOllll(I;lrif~~: d(Þl~:; Ilof 1l(·('(I~;~;:lI"il.y J"('qllin' tlllllli(·ip;\lil..v 10 :~I"'VI' HI I!!'' ~,illlilar'l'y :;il.ll:ll.,'¡ ! . J II. ¡I, i ( .: ~ . 5, Municipal Corporations Þ277 In case of contract requiring municipali- ty to service entire area outside its limits, municipality will be rcquired to serve all the public in that area m: lowest possible cost \,ith most efficiency, 6, Municipal Corporations Þ277 Through its conduct., municipality may assume legal duty to pro,ide reaSonably ade- quate services for reasonable compensation to all of the public in unincorporated area; however, conduct must. e.\.llressly manifest municipality's desù'e or intent to assume that duty, Fla. 1173 8. Municipal Corporations Þ712(4) City's provision oi sewer ser\ice outside itH boundaries in onl~' limited situations did 1I1l[. allllllllll. 1,0 arJinilal ¡vr' 1'~;I',(!f:~',i(l1l IIf ill' tent tu sel'Ve all in area so aoS to require eity to provide sewer·scl".-ice to 0\\111'1' of property located outside city boundaries, !l. Municipal Corporations Þ277 Municipality's proyision of senicc out- side its boundaries in only limited situations does not amount to afflrmatÏ\-e e>'llression of intent to serve all in area so as to render municipality under duty to pro,ide ser\ice to all in area, : ,H> · i; l-¡:i · i·' L ~ ~: ; · I:·:'.' ,',1·-, !i¡·:¡I::: '::I:, J{¡;¡¡ :¡!:;';:;: 'I"fi' .', ,:\;,.<, , "'j :: '1:1'; '.','. , '¡!)iIJ , '¡ill'li Ill.l':IV ;"1 ¡!'.f' ¡·li:r!¡; "I'IP . . il~!~i ":"1:/ ..;:.'\¡,{ ¡ :: ;j ,,! ~! ; !! J-~X ,'!¡I,:'¡' '¡r:¡{l, 10. Municipal Corporations Þ712(4) City, which Wl1l' not under duty to pro- vide sewer ser\'Î.ce outside its boundarj,¡,s, could apply annexation condition to prO\'Î.sion of sneh service, if condition was applied con- sistently and if rea¡;onable justification for condition existed, R Nat.han lTi,:hlo\\'('I' and Snsall Fox of M:lCl":lI"lnll(', Aw;](',\", FI'J'I',II:.llll & iVl('Mulll'll, (:II·;Ln"al.I"·, f"l· I'l'l ¡lllIlll''. I'alll Wehard Hull, l\ssistallt City Attor- ney, Clearwater, for Respondent. KOG.lli, Chiei Justice. [1] We have for re,iew City of Clear- water v, Allen's Creek Properties, Inc" 658 So.2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), wherein the district court, by sep2.rate order, certified the follo,\'Ìng question to be oi great public im- portance: MAY A MUNICIPALI'TI- REFUSE TO PROVIDE SEWER SERVICE, OR CONDITION THE PROvlSION OF SEWER SER\lCE ON .lliNEX- ATION, AS TO :\ONRESIDENTS LO- CATED vVITHI?\ ITS EXCLUSIVE r ~. 1174 Fla. SEWER SERVICE TERRITORY ES- TABLISHED PURSUANT TO INTER- LOCAL AGREEMENTS WITH' NEIGHBORING MUNICIPAL 'BEWER 679 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES :-:I-:ltV¡CI'; 1'¡tOVIIlI:ltf-:'{ td. al. f"I:!. Wl~ haVl' .i1l1'i:l<lid¡OII. ^1'1.. V, § il(lJ)('.l), Fla. Con~l. We anSWel" lhe l¡Ues·· tion in the affirmative based upon the gener- al role that a municipality has no duty to supply services to areas outside its bound- aries, See Allstate Insurance Co. v. City oj Boca Raton, 387 So.2d 478 (Flu. 4th DCA ·1980); C,C, Marvel, Annotalion, Right to Compel Municipality to Extend its Water System, 48 AL,R. 1222, 1230 (1956). Allen's Cree\¡ Properties (Allen's Creek) contends I hat th,' rae\:; ¡o thix cax" ""tahli"l, an exe,'i'- Lion to this ~~'t~lIt~r:d nile allt! t.hat. ('ollsl~q\H'lll- Iy, Clearwater's l'eI'usal to provide servkes to uoincol'jlorated flI'OI",rty lueated withi" its service area was inlJlI·olH~r. For the reasons ('XIH'{':;:a·d l11~lnw we (lisap,Tl'e. AIII'11':; l :n't'!\ o\Vll:¡ a 1':11'1'1'\ or land IO(':\(I,t! ill the unincorporated area of l'inellas Count,\' immediately adjacent to Clearwater's city lilllits, Tn Sl)l\.(:llIhel' l~)rlO, AII(~n's Cr-e,,\¡ sublllilled to Jlirwllas County a Hite plan fol' the development of this parcel. PinelJas County officials directed Allen's Creek to apply to Clearwater for sewer serviees be- cause the parcel was located within Clear- water's sanitary sewer service district, Upon receiving the request for sewer ser- vices, Cleanvater official~ infonned Allen's Creek that, pursuant to City of Clearwater, Florida, Ordinance 68-97 (August 5, 1968), the developer would have to consent to an- ne..,ation before receiving sewer services. Allen's Creek refused to allow the City to annex the properly and filed suit for c1eclara- I.ory and .other relief, The trial court held that Clearwater, through the Central Pinellas County 201 Fa- cilities Plan (the 201 Plan) and its interlocal agreement with the City or Largo, had as- sumed an obligation to provide sewer service in its designated service area. That ~ervice 1. Those entities included the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the United States Environmental Protection Agency" the City of Largo, the City of Safety Harbor, the Town of Belleair. and Pinellas County. r .,¡ area included the land owned by Allen's Creek, Further, the trial COlU't concluded that the record did not present a rational basis to require annexation a~ a condition to ~H''vic·p. (:I":lrll'al.l'I' ilPpealed \.Ill: t.ri:t1 CIIIII·I.'/I d",·¡. Sillll, and UI': di::l.rid mill-, 1'1:'1"1':1'''1. /\1.1"//,':: Cree¡~ 658 So,2d at 542. The dist.rict court examined each of the documents on wlùch the trial court based its decision, The first document, the 201 Plan, was devised pmsu- ant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Pub,L, No, 92-500, § 2,86 Stat. 816. _-\s a primary goal the Act sought to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into navi¡;able waters by 1985. To meet this goal t.he fedf'I'al government. provided fundinf: for t.1IP "(':-'.t·:tn'h and d(~vplulIlIl'IlL of \\'astl'wat(~r treat lllelll. lTIaJ\ag'{~ltleIlL plans. 1 'lIr:-HI:llIl Lu "edio" 201(g) 01' the Ad L1ll'se lllalla!~ell1(,1I1. plans Wt'l'e a prerequisite t.o the receipt. (,f additional [,!'alltS fol' eonstn,,:tinn of t.."at- lilt· I 11 f: Ii . ¡Ii j, i PI ~ . Clcar\\'aLer, ;llon~l: with lIw Sl'vl'l'al oL1Il~1' entities,' participat.ed in t.he development of a 201 I'lan fol' it.s p;eo!(raphic al'ca. The Plan delinealt:d ~;erviee :lI'l:a>: for Ui<:arwat.er as well as the other local entities involved in developing the Plan, The service areas were designated in order to determine the scope of facilities needed in the future, Clearwater approved these service area designations when it approved, by resolution,z the 201 Plan, Allen's Creek fell wilhin Clearwater's designated service area, The 201 Plan also recommended "deep well injection" as the best method of sewage treatment. The Environmental Protection Agency did not favor t\ùs method of t.reat- ment and consequently rejected the Plan. In rcsponse, Cle:U'W:ller disconLÏnned its stndy of "deep well injection" and developed, with its own funds, an alternative method of wastewater treatment. Clearwater thus nev- er implemented the 201 Plan, The district court determined that Clear- water's participation in the 201 Plan did not 2, City of Clearwater, Florida, Resolution 78-132 (Deeember 7, 1978). j 2 :1 .. , , " :y .~¡: :~ :r'~: " " " ", '.ot .::2 " " AI.U:N'S {;I(I';Io;I\ I'IWI'ŒTII';S Y. CU:.\I:\L\''':I/ Citl""sli7'J Su.2d 1172 (Fla. 1996) Fla. 117ri { require it to provide sewer service to unin- corporated areas within the service area des- ignated by the 201 Plan. Allen',. C"cck, GfiS Sn.2d at .542, Hather, the eourt fonnrl the 201 Plan w:w analogous to I.he plan in All- staf.e InRnra.nec CU, 'U. Ci/,y oj }Jow Unt.rill, 387 So,2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Allen', Creek, 658 So.2d at 542; In Allstate, the court determined that a plan issued by the Palm Beach County Regional Planning Board, which designated the City of Boca Raton as the "Designated Agent" for the Boc¡¡ Raton Service Area, did not place an absolute duty on the City or' Boca Raton to provide services to landowners outside its municip:ù boundaries, 387 So.2d at 481.. The Altstate plan e;..:pressly stated that "[n]othing is stated or implied that the desig- nated agency shall be required to provide collection or transmission facilities." Id. at 480. Additionally, the Altstate plan offered other suppliers that could provid.e services if a designated agent would not, Id. Although the 201 Plan in the instant case did not contain these exact provisions, the district court concluded that the 201 Plan was similal' in intent and procedure to the Allstate plan and consequently that the 201 Plan did not establish a duty to provide services to Allen's Creek. Allen '8 Creek, 658 So,2d at 542, The district court also examined the inter- local agreement that the City of Clearwater and the City of Largo entered pursuant to section 163.01, Florida Statutes (1983), The agreement designated servjce areas for the City of Clearwater and the City of Largo consistent with the service afeas designated for those cities in the 201 Plan. With respect to these service areas the agreement pro- vides: The parties shall have the exclusive right to provide wholesale and retail sanitary Sewer service \vithin the area allocated to such part and further agree not to compete with each other as to the provision of such sewer servicc outside their designatcd area, The district court concluded that this agree- ment between the municipalities had no in- terrelation with the 201 Plan and had no bearing on the issues presented. fd. Finally, the eOll!'¡ noted that Allen's Greek development plan. while in conformity with the requirements set by }'in"¡la~ C0unty, was not ('on~¡::;:t01~t with the more rl~f,trictive re~ qllircnwllt.- "'t by Clc:w\\'at['r. Id, ^('('ord- ingly, tllC' di,;¡rict ('('lll'll'('('ogllized tbat. it' the trial court', dcci,ion were appl'o\'cd, Clear- water \Vowd be forced to pro\ide service to a project that was inconsistent \\ith its compte- hensive use plan and would ultimatelY suffer a loss of rewnue, I d. The cit)Js economic need, the conn concluded, pro\ided a suffi- cient basis for the annexation requirement. f d. ,The court noted that if Allen's Creek cho·se. not to annex it could seek serVices from altcrIla¡i\'c ,otlrccs. I rl. [2-5] :\lli'n'" Creek maintains that this case establis~le" a:1 exception to the general rule that a municipality cannot be compelled to supply se!"\;ce, to areas outside its munici- pal boundaries. We recognize that excep- tions to this general rule do exist. For ex- ample, a municipality may be required to extend it,; scn;ces if it has agreed to do so by contrael. :\ ('[)ntrad lIlay rcqllil'c t.he municipalit:. to serve only a particuhlr entity outside its municipal bOlU1daries.. ~uch a contract does not necessarily require the mu- nicipality te, serve other similarly situated entities, 0:: the other hand, a contract may requi.re the municipality tû se1'\;ce an entire . area oUl5i¿e its limits, In such cases the municipali~' \\ill be required to serve all the public in th~t al'er. at the lowest possible cost with the most efñciency as dcmonstrated by the deci"ion in City of Clearwater v, Meteo Dcvclopm(·¡¡t Co>'p., 519 So.2d 23 (Fla, 2d DCA l!!SõJ. I'lTicll' dC>licd, [,25 80.2<1 87G (Fla.195S), I I ' ::: ~ 1;' . : 1:1 ii' , :<1j -1',; d J~':; ! I:,::>:i" fU::, l :!:::;LF. I<ii!:!::,¡' II ,(;! '1,1 :1;::;' I,!::,I-,·:i:;)' . ',01,- "., . i:1: :\;¡, : ¡¡~:'·f I" Iii ",:, 1'1 It' ;1'1:·1 I" " i"I, ,: ";"I'I';,it U'I"!!~ ¡:r 1/ ,iil ¡i:; ','I, ",,,.,,, I'!; :I:¡ 'j~:!;l I '~; ¡. -;" I-I. ::I!j¡;jl'¡!:lliEL 1",\,'1,,," ,11'1::1:11\(,:: ",",,11::,",' " '111",'i'" I' :: ¡I1!:¡i[ I', 'Ï'i(1ì:;;~¡', I:: ,:\ II T~;; ~ .,'11111,::',1 I" ,¡ ;;(-j,.l I!!, i IP;,):j" I'.',;i I li,l'v : .1 It i¡,- i' ¡!¡r'H, 11,_,",; 11 !Î:1'I: '1,1, I'· ::! :'): ., !i !I '~;t In Meteo, the òeveloper owned unincorpo- rated property located in Clearwater's water senice are". 518 So.2d at 24. The City was already 5er.-mg t~e northern portion of the developer'; property but refused to serve the southerr: pe,rdo:: 'Jnless the dC\'elopcr agreed to annexation. 1 d. The court determined that the Ci,y by contractually agreeing to serve Ll¡e e:1tire water service area, which included ~e developer's land, became obli- gated to dc, 50, I d, at 24-25. A contract like that relied on b:. ¡he court in Meteo does not '-" m!) SüU'I'IIIŒN ItE¡'OlCI'I';/{, ~d SI';ltJlo;S ....I 1176 1>'la, exist in the instant case.3 This exception is therefore inapplicable, SOl)le jurisdictions recognize anothw ex- ception to the general rwe for those munici- palities that through their conduct hold themselves out as public utilities. According to the jurisdictions that recognize this excep- tion, a municipality that holds itself out as a public utility for a particular area outside its city limits has a duty to supply everyone in that area.4 Allen's Creek contends that Clear\vater held itself out as a public utility by entering an interlocal agreement that des- ignated certain unincorporated areas as a part of its service area 5 . and by supplying s(~wer sel'Viecs to certain nonresidents, Ac- COl'din!~ly, AlleH's Creek contends that Clear- water has ä legal olJligation to provide sewer service to nom'esidents located within its ser- vice area. [6,7] We a[:I'(,e t.hat throu¡:h its conduct a municipality may assume the legal duty to provide reasonably adequate services for rea- sonable compensation to all of the publie in an unincorporated area. See city of Winter Park v. Smtthern States Utilities, lnc" 540 So,2d 178, 180 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)(city's passage of ordinance requiring property owners outside the city but within a zone designated by the ordinance to connect to the city's sewer service when available was con- duct sufficient to bring into effect law appli- cable to public utilities), We add however t.hat. 1.1", COlldlld mu:;t eXII'essly manifest the municipality's desire 01' intent to assume that 3. Wc ,·ccor.nize that section 163.01(5), -Florida Statutes (1989), refers to interlocal agreements as contracts. Even if we recognize Ùle interlo- cal agreement in this case as a contract., the agreement does not indicate that Clearwater \\-ill unconditionally supply the service area located outside its city limits, It merely states that Clearwater, as ·opposed to the City of Largo, has the exclus!ve right to serve this area, 4. See, e.g.. Yakima County (West Valley) Fire Pro- tection Disr. No,] 2 v. City of Yakima, 122 Wash.2d 371, 858 p,2d 245. 251 (1993); 48 A.L.R, at 1230. 5. The parties and the district court refer to Clear- water's seIVice area as "exclusive," but neither the 201 Plan or the interlocal agreement' refer to it that way. Wc find the term "cxclusivc" mis- leading here because. as the district court point- --\ duty. A municipality's decision to provide service without restriction in an area outside its boundaries would meet this requirement. The 201 Plan and interlocal agreement relied on here do not, Like the plan in .411statc nothing in either the Plan or agreement affir: matively states that Clearwater will provide services to the unincorporated area, N or do these agreements preclude those located out- side Clearwater's city limits but \vithin its sen;ce area from seeking services from an alternative source,G [8, 9] Allen's Creek also contends that the City has acceded to the status of a publie utility because it provides services to others olltsirlc its city limits, All(~n's Creek,' howev- er, ha:; noL dr~mollsLral.l~d that Clr:arwal.l!I"s provision of scrvices in these im:Lance~¡ \Va~: not one of the limited exceptions it makes to . its general policy of providing OIÙy residents with sewer serVice, Providing service out- side its bOllll{bl'ics in only limited situat.ions, as Clearwater has done here,' does not amount to an affirmative expression of intent to serve all in the area. Clearwater there- fore has not accepted a duty to provide ser- vices to the unincorporated land located in its ~crvicc area. [10] llec:mw Clearwat.er has no (lut.y to provide services to the unincorporated land within its service area, wc conclude that the City may condition upon annexation the land- owner's receipt ðf sewer services, That con- dition however ITIllst he applie(] consist.ently, and a reasollable jusUlïcaLioll for the Gilldi- cd out, there arè: other sources of sewer service availL\blc to Allen's Creek. Allen's Cno:ck could, with CleaI"VJater's approval, seek services from the City of Largo, With approval from the prop- er agencies Allen's Creek could also constrUçt its own treatment facility. Accordingly, wc do not use the term "exclusive" when referring to Clcar- water's service area. 6, We do not address whether a refusal by Clear- water to allow Allen's Creek to apply for services elsewhere would amount to conduct sufficient to manifest the intent to serve all in the service area as this issue is not presented to us for review. 7. Clearwater provides sewer services. pursuant to legislative act, to areas which it provided services in the early seventies. Clean"ater~sO pro....;des sewer service to those areas in the City of Largo whkh Largo is unable to serve. t c ·s ,'- 's lS to . ,ts It- 1S, lOt lnt re- el'- its , to :md the II1d- ['(lll- ntly, mdi- ·rvice :ould, from prop- Jet its lo not Clear· clear- ~rvice5 icnt to :e area 'cvicw. _lfSUant covided :er also he City :'/:, .~.: .~, J ì\IcCA W COMMUNICATIONS v. CLARK Cite., 679 So.2d 1177 (Fla, 1996) tion must exist. See Sebring Utilities Comm'n, v. Home Savings Ass'n, of Florida, 508 So,2d 26, 28 (Fla, 2d DCA)("Courts will not m.terfere mth a municipal utility's exer- cise of its authorir:-: as long as the municipali- ty does not arbirrarily discriIlÙnate between its customers and can present reasonable justifications for its actions,"), review denied, 515 So,2d 230 (Fla,19S7), We find that Clearwater's condition of anncxation meets both thcse rcquirements. The annexation I'0li(~'y h; apfllil'¡] III the r~nlil'l.' nnil1l'Ol'>Ol':Ltccl aI''''' wiLl, 0111,1' ~·.>l.'cilïl' li",il.l'd c,x['''I'l.Îow;, Additionally, Clearwater woulù ~uffel' a loss of revenue and would be unable to ensure adequate sel'\ices to its own residents if it were required to dispense with this annex- ation condition, Accordingly, we approve the decision of the district COUl'. We find that the agree- ments entered by Clea.ríl"ater in this case did not affirmàtively e....-press the City's intent to supply sewer serdce to the unincorporated portion ofits sewer service area. Nor did Clearwater engage in any other conduct that expressed the intent to serve this area. The general rule th!:s still applies to this case and requires us to alb"Wer the certified question in the affirmatiye. It is so ordered, OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HArmING, \\1:1.1.8 and ANSTEAD, J.T" COllClll'. McCAW CO:\Il\JU~1:CATIONS OF FLORIDA, I:\C" Appellant, {}: Y. c' ;," Susan F. CLillK, etc., ct a!., Appellees. !\' 0, 86866. Supreme Court of Florida, Sept. 26, 1996, Teleco=unications mobile ser\ice pro- vider (MSP) qlpealed Public Senicc Com- Fla, 1177 mission (PSC) order govercing rates paid by mobile service providers t(, telephone local excban¡¡e can'iers (LEe) for switching ser- vice, discontinuing practice followed in prior order of having such rates fluctuate with access charges prod by telephone interex- charige carriers (IXC), T..'1e Supreme Court, Shaw, J., held that: (1) Commission's order was supported by competent substantial evi- dence and met essential requirements of law, and (2) order did not -.iolate doctrine of arhninh;t.rative flnalit.y. ;"t;: 1..1 :,'J ''':'1 I ¡Î;¡' 1:,,1:" .1 ¡,J,; ;'1'1~n ,ii 1:; :.j:H'I! ':liI:! '''''1'1. :,j.I!I¡' :11¡!.!¡·. .' ::1 :'\"1: I :,: I¡'.:ili. '.' I,' Iii I ;, " ¡II" "1"1',";'. ' I, /"1"1 11:-':'1 ': '1\..; II."'';', .1111,.,1\:: .:: .!' 11 _! ¡ I' ¡ ~j , !: : !I.-: II i~, _': I,' JI"I'k' I L 1'1' ,: :'j"'" ..' .,j,...... ¡\::¡; ..-.;~r, ,l .j ~;",k:ji!lj~ ¡: \"'11".1'1'.' ; j '11\ii<: "I'" ''''1 ¡:·":I':II'!':':. . '. 'l! - 11 ~ ,,: ;- i.::,: ':¡";:I':'\I"': . 1'" .IIII'¡.:", ¡'I' 'i':l-,~');! ';"'·I,I!II.,. ,1,1,1·',> .1'1 '1'.'.'.1101"". \:'1' '1· 'V', . .1'['1"" ":'I':!,;"'" l,;.., r:.1r: l ¡'.I:~; -:;!~Jir 1;):/ ..,". "'1"'\'1'''; ,., '1"'''' ¡'I' 1-,Ii'l'I.i ., .;:11'1:'1 ,,'.I·'·II'·.!' , 1"1\ ". l';! '. I: \' 'V.!~;;~ I ',\1, I:::' I'.' "1."111".':'" ., !I'"..·" , 'III :.1, ...., ¡I ':'1" . '\'1""1": , ,.11'1'." II'" '] ; 11'1\,'<' '1\ \ I" il,l I,:;!! : I. ¡!, j¡~',. " _~ I!:"!:I:"} ; f'"nf:1 I: ii\IJ;[: ':·:i.~~; 11,¡::,~;2 ¡~ 'il::!{;t .: i' ~.~:-: Al'1ínlled. 1. Tele'communications =330 , Public Service Commission's (PSC) or- der, discontinuing practice of having rates paid by mobile service pro\iders (MSP) to telephone local exchange carriers (LEC) for switching service f1ucruate with access charges paid to LECs by telephone interex- change carriers (IXC), ml.S supported by competent substantial e\idence and met es- sential requirements of la'l", where witnesses testified l!-t length conce..T'I1Ìnf advantages of severing link between swiwhing service charges and access ch2Iges, and evidence showed that mobile co=unications industry was undergoing significant change and that IXC access charges were being influenced by factoi'H unrelated to mobile interconnection, 2. Public Utilities (;;=>194 In reviewing Public Seniee Commission (PSC) order, Supreme Court will not reweigh or reevaluate evidence presented to Commis- sion but, rather, will e:..amine record only to determine whether order complained of meets essential requirements of law and whether agency had a'1:'ailable to it competent substantial evidence to EUpport its findings, 3. Telecommunications (;;=>336 Public Service Commission's (PSC) or- der, discontinuing practice followed in its prior order of having rates paid by mobile service providers (MSP) to telephone local exchange carriers (LEC) Îor switching ser- vice fluctuate \Vith access charges paid to r '-' AGENDA REOUEST ...., ITEM NO. SA DATE: August 20, 2002 CONSENT [ 1 REGULAR [ X 1 PUBLIC HEARING [X 1 Leg. [ Quasi-JD. [X] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBMITTED BY (DEPT): Public Works PRESENTED BY: @~ß-, SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: FUNDS AVAIL.: PREVIOUS ACTION: RECOMMENDATION: COMMISSION ACTION: [Xl APPROVED [ [ 1 OTHER: 5-0 Depa:r. :ment Baa..! Public Hearing to consider demolition of unsafe building at 1808 Ave. Q, Fort Pierce, Florida. The Building located at 1808 Ave. Q, Fort Pierce, Florida, has been deteDnined to be unsafe by the Building Official. The County Commission has declared the building to be unsafe and now must hold a public hearing to consider appropriate action to abate the safety hazard. Other Contractual Services, Acct No. 102-2415-534000-200 The County Commission declared the building at 1808 Ave. Q, Fort Pierce, Florida to be a public nuisance on July 16, 2002. Pursuant to the provisions of Article III of Chapter 2-5 of the St. Lucie County Code of Ordinances and C~iled Laws, County Staff recommends that the Board enter an order to repair or demolish the building at 1808 Ave. Q by November 1, 2002. If the building is not repaired or demolished by November 1, 2002, the County shall demolish the Building and assess the entire cost against the real property where the Building is located. 1 DENIED ;w}=::..~,;,;:=~~~ Other. ~ \.J - ,--_ (1808 Ave. Ct ~ 2 02100) Kgt Eo Budget. Originating Dept. Finance. (copies only). ~ """ MEMORANDUM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CODE COMPLIANCE DIVISION TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Dennis M Grim, Building Official DATE: Aug. 7, 2002 SUBJECT: Request for Order to Repair or Demolish unsafe building at 1808 Ave. Q, Fort Pierce, FL On March 18, 2002, the building at 1808 Ave. Q, Fort Pierce, FL (the "Building") was inspected by the Building Official of St. Lucie County, FL and was determined to be unsafe and to constitute a nuisance. On July 16, 2002 the Board of County Commissioners, pursuant to Article III of Chapter 2-5 of the St. Lucie County Code and Compiled Laws (the "Code"), declared the Building unsafe and ordered a public hearing. (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A) On July 23, 2002, the Building was posted. (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B) Because the Building has not been repaired or demolished and continues to constitute a nuisance, Staff recommends that the Board, pursuant to Section 2-5-43 of the Code, enter an order as follows: 1. Clifford Boston, as the owner of the Building, shall obtain a building permit by October 1, 2002 to either repair or demolish the Building. If a permit is obtained by October I, 2002, Clifford Boston, as the owners of the Building, shall repair or demolish the Building or cause the Building to be repaired or demolished by December 1, 2002. 2. If the permit is not obtained by October 1, 2002, for repair or demolition of the Building or if a permit is obtained and the Building is not repaired or demolished by December I, 2002, the County shall demolish the Building and assess the entire cost against the real property where the Building is located. '-' "w1fI A Notice of Declaration of Unsafe Structure of Building was published in The Tribune and in the Pt. St. Lucie News on July 23, July 30, Aug. 6, and Aug. 16, 2002. A copy of the Affidavit of Advertising is attached as Exhibit c. Submitted: iIt-M':im~ Building Official DMG:csl Exhibits: A - Declaration of Unsafe Building or Structure B - Posted notice of Unsafe Building or Structure C - Affidavit of Advertising memo demo 02100 '-" ....., BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY DECLARATION OF UNSAFE BUILDING OR STRUcruRE NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING THIS MATTER came on before the Board of County Commissioners for 5t, Lucie County (the 'Board') on.July 16,2002, pursuant to Article III of Chapter 2·5 ofÙle St Lucie County Cooe of Ordinances and Compiled blws (Ùle 'Codeì and upon the request of the St. Lucie County Community Public \ V orks Direl·tor to declare that the building located at 1808 Ave. Q, Fort Pierce, FL and described as: 43549 Beg 340 Ft W of SE cor orNE 1/4 ofNW 1/4, th N 100 Ft, Th W 50 FT, Th S 100 Ft, Th E 50 Ft to as recorded in the Public Records ofSt. Lucie County, FL, (the 'Buildingì, is unsafe and constitutes a nuisance and ùle Board having re\;ewed the 'Certilied Report of Inspection of Structure' tiled by ùle St. Lucie Coumy Building Official and hm;ng heard conunems of County StalT hereby makes Ùle ¡ollowing determinations: 1. l11e Building described abm'e is hereby declared to be unsafe and to constitute a nuisance by reason of opemi¡gs /ÍJ dlC 5/J"ucture, ,1bsC11l of propcr !òundation and tie dOlm, mndOH'5 am! doors mÙslng, lack of proper roofcol"enng, /'1ck ol'plumbIÍJg, e!cc/J"ic;¡) and HJ.-:-t C sFstcms and ofx'/lIÍJgs IÍI dlc 511'ucturc, 2, The structure is danlaged {o such an extent ùlat Ùle cost of repair or restoration of the building \~;Il exceed 50% of Ùle value of the building alter repair, 3, .-\ public hearing shall be held on .-\Ugtlst 20, 2002 at ï :00 p,m, or as soon ùlereafter as Ùle maller may be heard in the Sl. Lucie County Commission Chambers located on the ù1Ìrd floor of Ùle 51, Lucie County Administration Annex, 2300 Virginia Ave" Ft. Pierce, Florida to determine what further action should be taken W;ÙI respect to the Building described above under the prm;sions of Section 2-5-13 of the Code. ·1. Actions taken at ù1Îs public hearing may include issuing an order for the condemnation and demolition of this Building. The COst of Ùle demolition may be assessed to the o\mers, DONE A.'1D ORDERED this 16th day ofJuly, 2002. ATTEST: ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSiONERS ¡ .. . .~>:.~ . j'r ~. .---, r" ....."'Io.....~.:....;"~=-;:iI1' -- APPROVED AS T FOR.\-! A..~D CORRECfNESS: ~)17 A.ñ COUNTY ll.. ORNEY All interested persons have the right to appear before the Board at the public hearing either in person or by counsel. Any questions related to this notice or the public hearing should be directed to the St. Lucie County Code Compliance Manager at (772) 462-1572. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board with respect to any matter considered at the above noticed public hearing, he or she will need a record of the proceedings and that for this purpose he or she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made whieh includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. EXHIBIT A "'" ~ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY DECLARATION OF UNSAFE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING THIS MA.TTER came on beforc the Board of County Commissioners for St. Lucie County (the "Boardí on.J uly 16, 2002, pursuant to Article III of Chapter 2-5 of the St. Lucie County Code of Ordinances and Compilcd IA'lwS (lllc "Code1 and upon the request of the St. Lucie County Community Public \Vorks Diret'tor to declare that the building located at 1808 Ave. Q, Fort Pierce, FL and described as: 43549 Beg 340 Ft W of SE cor of NE 1/4 ofNW 1/4, th N 100 Ft, Th W 50 Fr, Th S 100 Ft, Th E 50 Ft to as recorded in the Public Records of St. Lucie County, FL, (the "Building"), is ullsafe and constitutes a lluisant'e andllle Board ha~ing re\iewed the 'Ccrtilied Report of Inspection of Structure' tilcd by llle St. Lucie Coulltr Building Official and ha\ing hcard comments of Coulltr Stall'l\l.:reby makes llle follO\\ing detennillations: 1. l11e Building describcd abo\'e is herebr declared to be unsafc and to constitute a nuisancc by reason of openÙ¡gs ÙI Úle structure, .1hsenl of proper /òund.1áon and lie dOlm, madoU's ;uHf doors missing, f.1ck of proper roo{coverÙ¡g, !.1Ck olplumbÙ¡g, c!ectric;¡/ ,wd HT-:4 C S}'Slems and opcnÙIg5 ÙI ÚIC structure. 2, The Structure is damaged {o such an extent that ll\e cost of rcpair or restoration of the building \\ill exceed 50% of llle value of the building alter repair. 3, .\ public hearing shall be held on August 20,2002 at i:OO p.m, or as soon thereafter as thc matter mar be hcard in thc St. Lucie County Commission Chambers locatcd on the lllÎrd floor of llle SI. Lucie County Administration .-\nnex, 2300 Virginia Ave" Ft. Pierce, F10rida to determine what further action should be taken willl respect to the Building described above under the prmisions of Scetion 2-5-·13 of llle Code. ·1. Actiolls taken at lllis public hearing mar include issuing an order for the condemnation and demolition of this Building. The cost of ll\e demolition may be assessed to the O\\l1erS, DONE A.'iD ORDERED this 16th day oUuly, 2002. A TrEST: ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS '" - \~~.';:,~.'. t(.,~~:~~..~.~. APPROVED AS T FOIl"! A."iD CORRECTNESS: ~ A.ñ COUNTY XnORNEY All interested persons have the right to appear before the Board at the public hearing either in person or by counsel. Any questions related to this notice or the public hearing should be directed to the St. Lucie County Code Compliance Manager at (772) 462-1572. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board with respect to any matter considered at the above noticed public hearing, he or she will need a record of the proceedings and that for this purpose he or she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. EXHIBIT B '-" ':"'11" BOARD OF COUNTY. ...' COMMISSIONfIt ':" FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY DECLAllA TION Of' : UNSAfE BUilDING ..;" OR STRUc:rIJRE ;~'.~- NOnCE OF';';":: PUBLIC HEARI~;i':';\ THIS MATTER co... _ o~ bot",e the Board 01 c<!U"Ìi Commts..... for st.í.od¥ Counly (the 'Boord"l: <Óft July 16, 2002, puniÛQnllÔ Article III of Choplw 2~ cI tfle St, Lucie Counly Cod4t of Ordlnonc.. ond C_ piled Laws ~he 'Code') I and upon the _elf of the 51, Lucie County CommunitY pubnc W",ks DIrectar' 10 declare that the building oa,ted of 1808 AYO. Q, Fort Pierce, FL -ana de.crlbed a., .o3S.9" BOg ~o Ft W of SE cor of NE 1/. of NW 1/.. tfl N,IOO Ft,Th W 50 FT, Th S 100 Ft, Th E 50 Ft to a. recorded In tfle Public Roc",ds of Sf. Lucie CQunty, FL, ,', (the "Building", Is unsafe and consliMel a nuisance and tfle Board havi"ll r~ JI1e ·Certlfled lepo<I of Inspedla" of Structure" flied by tfle 51. Lucie County Building Official and ,'~'; ing heard commenls 'of County Staff hereby mak.. the following determinations: ...",;J 1. The Building described above Is hereby, declared to be unsafe and to consll· tute a nuisanœ by r~son of opening. In the struchl... ab.ent of preper founda- tion and tl. down. windows and doan mining. lad: of proper roof coverIng, "lock of plumbing, ·electrlcal and HV AC systems coo open· Ings in the structure. 2. The struchlr. I. damaged to such an extent thát the cosl of f1IIpair or restoration of the buUdlng ,..;U ..ceed 50% of the value of the bulldl"ll after repair, 3. A pubhc hearing .ha,be held an Augu.t 20, 2002 of 7:00 p.m. or as soon there- after as the matter may be heard in the St. Lucie County Commission Cham. be" located on tfle tflird floor of the 51. Lucie County Administration Annex, 2300 VirgInia Ave., Ft. Pierce, Florida: to dttwmlne whof further action .hould be taken wltfl r..pect tò tfle ll\¡i1dlng described above under the provisions of Seca Hon 2-5-43 of tfle Code. . 4. Actions taken "at this public hearing may Include iSlulng an order for the condemnatlon ond demoJ¡.. Hon of tfll. Il\¡lIding, The cost of !he demollHon may be assessed 10 the ownws. ".... DONE AND ORDERED till; 16tfl day of July, 2002.<',q; A:r.EST: . .~_:'.;~~?~~~ Mill.. Delgado. "~,.,,,., DEPUTY CLERK - "'.:: 1;:;';:;. ST, LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY, CllfIcrd Barnes VlCE·cHAIRMAN APPROVED AS TO FoaM AND CORRECTNESS: H_ Young _ ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY PubH.h, July 23, 30. 2002 August 6, 16. 2002 . 2.B 1995 '-' ...., CERTIFIED BUILDING OFFICIAL REPORT DATE: March 18,2002 BUILDING AT 1808 Avenue Q, FORT PIERCE, FL The building located at 1808 Avenue Q, Fort Pierce, Florida is blighted and is manifestly unsafe and unsanitary for use as a single family dwelling. The building is in such a condition as to constitute a public nuisance. Specific conditions which exist include: Absent of proper foundation and tie down Openings in the structure Lack of plumbing, electric and HV AC Systems. Lack of proper roof covering Windows and doors missing Under the provisions of Section 302.1.1 of the Standard Unsafe Building Code, the building at 1808 Avenue Q, in Fort Pierce, FL is determined to be UNSAFE. Q:~o Building Official St. Lucie County cc. County Attorney Public Works Director DMG:csl inspection, 1st notice '-' AGENDA REOUEST ..., ITEM NO. 6A DATE: July 16, 2002 CONSENT [ 1 REGULAR [ X ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] Leg. [ ] Quasi-JD. X] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: tsl j/M J'--.- SUBMITTED BY (DEPT): Public Works Deoartment SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: FUNDS AVAIL.: PREVIOUS ACTION: RECOMMENDATION: COMMISSION ACTION: ...... [Xl [ ] APPROVED [ OTHER: (5-0) County Attorney: X (JY Mgt Originating Dept:X Finance: (copies only): (02100 agenda1 1808 ave.Q EIT. 11/&193 Department Head Request for County Commis..it"n to declare unsafe the structure located at 1808 Ave. 0, Fort Pierce. The structure located at 1808 Ave. 0, Fort pierce, FL, has been dete:rmined to be unsafe by the Building Official. The County Commission must take affirmative action to dec.J.are the structures unsafe and hold a public hearing to take appropriate action to remove the safety hazard. Other Contractual Services, Acct No. 102-2415-534000-200 After inspection, the Building Official declared the structure unsafe and a public nuisance on March 18, 2002. Pursuant to the provisions of Article III of Chapter 2-5 of the St. Lucie County Code of Ordinances and Compiled Laws, County Staff recommends that the Board declare the structure located at 1808 Ave. Q, Fort Pierce, Florida, to be unsafe and that the Board hold a public hearing on Aug. 20, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible to take such further action as is appropriate under Article III of Chapter 2-5 of the Code. 1 DENIED sAnderson y Administrator atures Public Works: X Other: ---=--~::--:-=l -.----:-: ---- - 1 1 1 ~ .....-- ,... .c. ;....-'~ ..:-~.....-"""'~ / '-"' ...,.; PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: The Pile FROM: Charlotte LaChance - Code Com} iance Secret¿rj DATE: July 23, 2002 RE: Service of Board of County Commission Orders for Declaration of Unsafe Buildings and Advertising a Public Hearing on Aug. 20. 2002. On the dates indicated below, the following notifications were made relative to the service of the BCC Orders for Declaration of Unsafe Buildings or Structures and Notice of Public Hearing dated July 16, 2002: Posted on properties at: (Posted 07/23/02) Tax I. D. 2404-214-0008-000-9 Clifford Boston, 1808 Ave. Q, Fort Pierce Tax I. D. 2428-604-0047-000-5 Jack Hoyt, 2205 Elizabeth Ave, Fort Pierce Posted at the St. Lucie County Courthouse on 07/23/02; Mailed by regular mail to property owners listed above on 07/23/02; Mailed by Certified Mail, return receipt requested, to property owners listed above on 07/23/02; cst Attachments as noted titlesearch2 ..... 1808 AVENUE Q Marcb 19, 2002 ..." '- 1808 AVENUE Q March 19, 2002 ,.., "'" ....,J Unsafe Buildings bject P operty 9 /0 I /I I /2 -+-' I Q) I ~ -+-' (J) /6 /5 /4 /3 46 ..c -+-' (j) ~ 45 Avenue p..c 44 -+-' L 43 o 9 /0 /I /2 Z 42 4/ 1808 Avenue Q Avenue Q ---- ---- -+-' 25 Q) (l) 24 L 26 -+-' 23 (J) 27 ..c 22 ---- 28 -+-' CD 2/ ---- ~ 29 ..c 20 30 -+-' L 0 /9 3/ Z /8 ............ : ~ · - - ! i - · ! i i · i · ! i 5ìF4~~~~ t Map prepared June 26, 2002 { TNI rllIIp ha -.n ~ b~~ and AIInrx;e ~ rrit. "HIIaw.t'j.-m"bMr\lMdetoptllo'lde-"moIIlCU'fWll:and~. N ~ Jx.I:lIe. III rø....... b..- u . ieOd'f ÞrldnJ dcnImIrt '-' "-" BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY ORDER FOR THE REPAIR OR DEMOLITION OF UNSAFE BUILDING PROPERTY OF CLIFFORD BOSTON 1808 AVE. Q, FORT PIERCE, FL THIS MATTER came on before the Board of County Commissioners for St. Lucie County (the "Board") at a duly advertised public hearing on August 20, 2002 pursuant to Article III of Chapter 2-5 (Unsafe Buildings and Structures) of the St. Lucie County Code of Ordinances and Compiled Laws upon the request of the St. Lucie County Public Works Director to consider appropriate action to abate the safety hazard and the Board having heard comments of staff and the public hereby makes the following determinations: 1, The structure at 1808 Ave. Q, Fort Pierce, FL (the "Building") was reported as unsafe. On March 18, 2002, Staff inspected the structure and determined it to be unsafe. 2. On July 16, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners, pursuant to Article III of Chapter 2-5 of the St. Lucie County Code and Compiled Laws (the "Code") declared the Buildings unsafe and ordered a public hearing to be held on August 20, 2002, to determine what steps should be taken with respect to the Building. As of this date, the Building has not been demolished and continues to constitute a nuisance. 3. On July 23, 2002, the Building was posted and on July 23, 2002, the Building was posted at the County Courthouse. 4. A Notice of Declaration of Unsafe Structure or Building and Notice of Public Hearing was published in The Tribune on July 23, 2002, July 30, 2002, August 6, 2002, and August 16, 2002. 5. The structure is damaged to such an extent that the cost of repair or restoration of the building will exceed 50% of the value of the buildings after repair. Based on the above determinations, the Board orders as follows: If the permit is not obtained by October 1, 2002, for repair or demolition of the Building or if a permit is obtained and the Building is not repaired or demolished by December 1, 2002, the County shall demolish the Building and assess the entire cost against the real property where the Building is located. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of August, 2002. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: SECRETARY CHAIRMAN APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: COUNTY ATTORNEY '- ....", AGENDA REOUEST ITEM NO. 5B DATE: August 20, 2002 CONSENT [ ] REGULAR [ x ] PUBLIC HEARING [X] Leg. [ Quasi-JD. [ X ] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY (DEPT): Public Works {tl./Yvt. ~ Depart;ent Head SUBJECT: Public Hearing to consider demolition of unsafe building at 2205 Elizabeth Ave, Fort Pierce, Florida. BACKGROUND: The Building located at 2205 Elizabeth Ave, Fort Pierce, Florida, has been determdned to be unsafe by the Building Official. The County Commission has declared the building to be unsafe and now must hold a public hearing to consider appropriate action to abate the safety hazard. FUNDS AVAIL.: Other Contractual Services, Acct No. 102-2415-534000-200 PREVIOUS ACTION: The County Commission declared the building at 2205 Elizabeth Ave., Fort Pierce, Florida to be a public nuisance on July 16, 2002. RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to the provisions of Article III of Chapter 2-5 of the St. Lucie County Code of Ordinances and C~iled Laws, County Staff recommends that the Board enter an order to repair or demolish the building at 2205 Elizabeth Ave. by November 1, 2002. If the building is not repaired or demolished by November 1, 2002, the County shall demolish the Building and assess the entire cost against the real property where the Building is located. COMMISSION ACTION: [ X ] APPROVED [ [ ] OTHER: 5-0 ] DENIED Anderson Administrator ~ounty Attorney. ~:d/ PurChaSif ~ Other. - .1t COOrdiDation/SiaDaZ5fñs Mgt " Budget: !40 v;n rnf:::J Originating Dept I ~ Finance. (copies only). (2205 Eli:zab4lth Ave. Agenð.a2 02101) \. "wt1IIi MEMORANDUM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CODE COMPLIANCE DIVISION TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Dennis M Grim, Building Official DATE: Aug. 7, 2002 SUBJECT: Request for Order to Repair or Demolish unsafe building at 2205 Elizabeth Ave, Fort Pierce, FL On March 18, 2002, the building at 2205 Elizabeth Ave., Fort Pierce, FL (the "Building") was inspected by the Building Official of St. Lucie County, FL and was determined to be unsafe and to constitute a nuisance. On July 16, 2002 the Board of County Commissioners, pursuant to Article III of Chapter 2-5 of the St. Lucie County Code and Compiled Laws (the "Code"), declared the Building unsafe and ordered a public hearing. (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A) On July 23, 2002, the Building was posted. (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B) Because the Building has not been repaired or demolished and continues to constitute a nuisance, Staff recommends that the Board, pursuant to Section 2-5-43 of the Code, enter an order as follows: 1. Jack Hoyt, as the owner of the Building, shall obtain a building permit by October 1, 2002 to either repair or demolish the Building. If a permit is obtained by October 1, 2002, Jack Hoyt, as the owner of the Building, shall repair or demolish the Building or cause the Building to be repaired or demolished by December 1, 2002. 2. If the permit is not obtained by October 1, 2002, for repair or demolition of the Building or if a permit is obtained and the Building is not repaired or demolished by December 1, 2002, the County shall demolish the Building and assess the entire cost against the real property where the Building is located. '-" ...." A Notice of Declaration of Unsafe Structure or Building was published in The Tribune and in the Pt. St. Lucie News on July 23, July 30, Aug. 6, and Aug. 16, 2002. A copy of the Affidavit of Advertising is attached as Exhibit C. Submitted: t)-k ~ß- Dennis M Grim Building Official DMG:csl Exhibits: A - Declaration of Unsafe Building or Structure B - Posted notice of Unsafe Building or Structure C - Affidavit of Advertising memo demo 02101 '-' 'wi! BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY DECLARATION OF UNSAFE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING THIS i'tIA TIER came on before the Board of County Commissioners for St. Lucie County (the 'Boardì onJuly 16.2002, pursuant to Arúcle III of Chapter 2·5 of the St. Lucie County Code of Ordinances iUHl Compiled b.ws (the 'Codc") and upon the request of the St. Lucie County Community Public \ V orks Director to declare that the building located at 2205 Elizabeth Ave, Fort Pierce, FL and described as: Fleetwood Acres Blk.310t 11 (0.18AC) (or282-2517) as recorded in the Public Records of St. Lucie County, FL, (Ùle 'Buildingì, is unsafe and consútutes it nuisance and the Board ,¡;ning re\ieIVed thc "Certilied Report of Inspection of Structure" liled by the St. Lucie County Building Ollicial iUHl having heard comments of County Staff hereby makes the foUo\ling detenninaúons: I. The Building described abo\'c is hereby declared to be unsafe and to constirute a mlisiUlCc by rC;L_on of d¡Ul1aged inferior lI':ú!s ¡uld ceIlÙ¡gs, dam¡¡ged elec/nc;¡} wiling; dami/f!ed roof SlJ'uclllre, l11lSSÙlg doors and lJÙJ(!ows. ¡uulopen ¡l11d unsecured. 2, The structure is d;unagecl to such an extent that the cost of repair or restoraÚon of ¡he building will exceed 50% of the value of ùle building after repair, 3. A public hearing shall be hcld on :\ugust 20. 2002 at 7:00 p,m. or as soon thereafter as the malter may be heard in the St. Lucie County Commission Chambers located on the third noor of the 51. Lucie County Administraúon Annex, 2300 Virginia Ave., FL Pierce, Florida to detemùne what further action should be taken ,\iù¡ respect to the Building described above under the pro\isions of Section 2-5··l3 of the Code, .1. Actions taken at ùlis public hearing may include issuing an order for :.h.: condenmaúon iUld demolition of this Building. The cost of ùle dcmolition may be assessed tu the ù\tllers. DONE A.'iD ORDERED this 16th day OfJlÙY, 2002. ATIEST: ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY· ~ v;C£. CHAl· N APPROVED AS TO FOR."I AN'D CORRECfNESS: ~~ M-COUNTY ATIOR.1\EY All interested persons have the right to appear before the Board at the public hearing either in person or by counsel. Any questions related to this notice or the public hearing should be directed to the St. Lucie County Code Compliance Manager at (772) 462-1572. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board with respect to any matter considered at the above noticed public hearing, he or she will need a record of the proceedings and that for this purpose he or she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. EXHIBIT A '- 'wfi! BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY DECLARATION OF UNSAFE BUILDING OR STRUCfURE NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING THIS MA TIER came on before the Board of County Commissioners for St. Lucie County (ùle 'Board') on.July 16.2002, pursuant to Article III of Chapter 2·5 of the St. Lucie County Code of Ordinances <uu! Compiled L,WS (the 'Codeì and upon the request of the St. Lucie County Community Public \\' orks Director to declare that the building located at 2205 Elizabeth Ave, Fort Pierce, FL and described as: Fleetwood Acres Blk.310t 11 (0.18AC) (or282-2.517) as recorded in the Public Records of St. Lucie County, FL, (ùle "Buildingì, is unsafe and constitutes a nuisance and Lhe B()ard ,';l\ing rc\iell'ed the "Certilied Report of Inspection of Structure" lìled by the St. Lucie CuunLy Building Ol1icial and ha\ing heard comments of County Staff hereby makes the following detenninations: I, The Building described above is hereby declared to be unsafe and to constitute a nuisance by re:Lson of d;¡m;¡ged ÙJtcrior n~'Úls ;lIld ceilings, daIn.7ged elecaic;ú wiring, damaged roof SIIUclun~ missing doors ;u/(l nÙ/(loll'5, ;u/(lopcn ilIld unsecured 2. The structure is d:unaged Lo such an extent that the cost of repair or restoration of the building will exceed 50'.'6 of ùle value of ùle building <Úter repair, 3. A public hearing shall be held on .-\ugust 20,2002 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the St. Lucie County Commission Chambers located on the third 110ar of the St. Lucie County Administration Annex. 2300 Virginia Ave., Ft. Pierce, Florida to detennine what further action should be taken \\ith respect LO the Building described above under the pro\isions of Section 2-5-13 of the Code, ·1. Actions taken at ùlis public hearing may include issuing an order for ~h" condenulation and demolition of this Building. The cost of ùle demolition may be assessed to the owners, DONE A.'iD ORDERED this 16th day ofJuly, 2002. A TIEST: ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIOl''¡ERS BY· ~ V;Cí. CHA.r N APPROVED AS TO FOR.:.\oI A.l'\fD CORRECfNESS: ~~ M-COUNTY ATTOR.NEY All interested persons have the right to appear before the Board at the public hearing either in person or by counsel. Any questions related to this notice or the public hearing should be directed to the St. Lucie County Code Compliance Manager at (772) 462-1572. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board with respect to any matter considered at the above noticed public hearing, he or she will need a record of the proceedings and that for this plll'Jlose he or she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. EXHIBIT B '-' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER. FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY Dl:CLARA TION OF . UNSAFE BUILDING -OR STRUC1URE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ....,J THIS MATTER como on before !he Boord of Cpvnty CommlSll<lflen lor ·SI, lucie County (!he "Boord' on July 16. 2002, pursuont to M;cle III of Chop..... 2-5 of the SI. Lucie County Code 'of Ordinances and Com. piled Laws (the 'Code, ond upon !he request of the St. Lucie County Community Public Works Director to declare !hal the building located ot 2205 Elizabeth Ave, Fort, Pi..ce, Fl and described as: Fleetwood Acres Blk 3 lot 11 (0.1 BAC) (or 2B2-2SI7) as recorded in . the Public Records of St. Lucie CQunty, Fl. ¡the "Building', Is untafe arid constiMes a nuisance and the_ Board havmg revk!wed th'e ·Certifled Report of Inspection of Structure" filed by the SI. Lucie County Building Official and hav- Ing heard' comments. of County Staff hereby makes the following determlnatiorn: 1. The BlIilding described above is hereby declared to be unsafe and to constl~ tute a nuisance by reason of damaged Interior wells and ceilings, damaged electrical wiring. damaged roof structure. mining doors and windows, 'and open and unsecured. 2. Th. structure is damaged to such an extent that the cost of repoir or restoration of the building will exceed 50% of the value of the building after repair. 3. A public hearing shall be held on August 20, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. or os soon tI1.... after as the matter may be heard in the St. Lucie County Commluion Cham- bers located on the third floor of the Sf. Lucie County Administration Annex, 2300 Virginia Ave., Ft. Pierce, Florida lo detarmlne what further action should be taken with respect to the Building descrIbed above I under the provisIons of SIC- tion 2-5-43 of the Code. 4. AcHons token at this ' pu~1c ~earing may indude - issuing an order for the condemnation and demoll. tlon of this Building. The cost of th. demolition may be assessed to the owners. DONE AND ORDERED !his 16th doy of July. 2002, ATTEST, Millie Oelgodo DEPUTY CLERK ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY: CUffard Barnes VICE-CHAIRMAN APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS, Heather Young ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY Publis," July 23, 30, 2002 August 6, 16, 2002 24820t 3 '-' ...,I CERTIFIED BUILDING OFFICIAL REPORT DATE: 3/18/02 BUILDING AT 2205 ELIZABETH A VENUE, FORT PIERCE, FL The damaged building due to neglect located at 2205 Elizabeth Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida has been determined blighted and is manifestly unsafe and unsanitary for use as a single family dwelling. The building is in such a condition as to constitute a public nuisance. Specific conditions which exist include: open and unsecured structure damaged walls and ceilings damaged electrical wiring missing doors and windows damaged roof Under the provisions of Section 302.1.1 of the Standard Unsafe Building Code, the building at 2205 Elizabeth Avenue, in Fort Pierce, FL is determined to be UNSAFE. fÝ-hv.J7-- DENNIS M, GRIM, CBO Building Official St. Lucie County ce. County Attorney Public Works Director DMG inspection ,1 st notice '-' ~ AGENDA REOUEST ITEM NO. 6B DATE: July 16, 2002 CONSENT ] REGULAR [ X ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] Leg. [ Quasi-JD. X SUBMITTED BY (DEPT): Public Works Deoartment f!)RESENTED BY: ~,~ Department Head TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBJECT: RellUest for County Commission to declare unsafe the structure located at 2205 Elizabeth Ave, Fort Pierce. BACKGROUND: The structure located at 2205 Elizabeth Ave, Fort pierce, FL, has been determined to be unsafe by the Building Official. The County Commission must take affirmative action to declare the structures unsafe and hold a public hearing to take appropriate action to remove the safety hazard. FUNDS AVAIL.: PREVIOUS ACTION: Other Contractual Services, Acct No. 102-2415-534000-200 After inspection, the Building Official declared the structure unsafe and a public nuisance on March 18, 2002. RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to the provisions of Article III of Chapter 2-5 of the St. Lucie County Code of Ordinances and Compiled Laws, County Staff recommends that the Board declare the structure located at 2205 Elizabeth Ave, Fort Pierce, Florida, to be unsafe and that the Board hold a public hearing on Aug. 20, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible to take such further action as is appropriate under Article III of Chapter 2-5 of the Code. [ ~] [ ] APPROVED [ OTHER: (5-0) ] DENIED COMMISSION ACTION: County Attorney:X ~t &. Budget:X - - ~. Originating Dept:X Public Works.X Finance: (copies only). (02101 agenda1 2205 Elizabeth Ave. ) EFF. 111&193 '-' ...¡ 2205 ELIZABETH AVE 1/16/02 JACK HOYT '-' ..."" 2205 ELIZABETH AVE 1/16/02 JACK HOYT '-' ....,; Unsafe Buildings 8 I 18 I D I I 16 15 I I 16 I Barbara Avenue ...... I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (/) I 2 "0 ~ ...... I") Q) 16 I 15 141 N Q) 13 12 II 10 9 22 21 ~ I I (/) ...... (/) ..c Elizabeth Avenue ...... Ll) I I 2 I N 31 9 4 5 6 7 I 8 10 .c I I ...... ::J 0 (/) 2205 Elizabeth Avenue 5Ir~~~~ i <itl¡. . .4.."" :þ., r Map prepared June 26,2002 ThllIIIIp_....,~lcrgllWlllplarwing.ndMf--.œ~oTll ""*'~iIft:lIlhu~~k1~..mcJlll:awt8OII8fld~ N ~P*Þa,I.not\nlJnjedIarIllll.I~Þrldngdaau'lWill _L. '-' ....., PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: The File FROM: Charlotte LaCl,ance - Code Compliance Sec.': ,~ DATE: July 23,2002 RE: Service of Board of County Commission Orders for Declaration of Unsafe Buildings and Advertising a Public Hearing on Aug. 20. 2002. On the dates indicated below, the following notifications were made relative to the service of the BCC Orders for Declaration of Unsafe Buildings or Structures and Notice of Public Hearing dated July 16,2002: Posted on properties at: (posted 07/23/02) Tax I. D. 2404-214-0008-000-9 Clifford Boston, 1808 Ave. Q, Fort Pierce Tax I. D. 2428-604-0047-000-5 Jack Hoyt, 2205 Elizabeth Ave, Fort Pierce Posted at the St. Lucie County Courthouse on 07/23/02; Mailed by regular mail to property owners listed above on 07/23/02; Mailed by Certified Mail, return receipt requested, to property owners listed above on 07/23/02; csl Attachments as noted titlesearch2 to . "- ....I BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY ORDER FOR THE REPAIR OR DEMOLITION OF UNSAFE BUILDING PROPERTY OF JACK HOYT 2205 ELIZABETH AVE, FORT PIERCE, FL THIS MATTER came on before the Board of County Commissioners for St. Lucie County (the "Board") at a duly advertised public hearing on August 20, 2002 pursuant to Article III of Chapter 2-5 (Unsafe Buildings and Structures) of the St. Lucie County Code of Ordinances and Compiled Laws upon the request of the St. Lucie County Public Works Director to consider appropriate action to abate the safety hazard and the Board having heard comments of staff and the public hereby makes the following determinations: 1. The structure at 2205 Elizabeth Ave, Fort Pierce, FL (the "Building") was reported as unsafe. On March 18, 2002, Staff inspected the structure and determined it to be unsafe. 2. On July 16, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners, pursuant to Article III of Chapter 2-5 of the St. Lucie County Code and Compiled Laws (the "Code") declared the Buildings unsafe and ordered a public hearing to be held on August 20, 2002, to determine what steps should be taken with respect to the Building, As of this date, the Building has not been demolished and continues to constitute a nuisance. 3. On July 23, 2002, the Building was posted and on July 23, 2002, the Building was posted at the County Courthouse. 4. A Notice of Declaration of Unsafe Structure or Building and Notice of Public Hearing was published in The Tribune on July 23, 2002, July 30, 2002, August 6, 2002, and August 16, 2002. 5. The structure is damaged to such an extent that the cost of repair or restoration of the building will exceed 50% of the value of the buildings after repair. Based on the above determinations, the Board orders as follows: If the permit is not obtained by October 1, 2002, for repair or demolition of the Building or if a permit is obtained and the Building is not repaired or demolished by December 1, 2002, the County shall demolish the Building and assess the entire cost against the real property where the Building is located. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of August, 2002. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: SECRETARY CHAIRMAN APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: COUNTY ATTORNEY '- AGENDA REOUEST 'WIll ITEM NO. 5.C Date: August 20, 2002 Regular [ ] Public Hearing [ X ] Consent [ ] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): County Attorney Heather Young Assistant County Attorney SUBJECT: Ordinance No, 02-23 - Creating Section 1-15-30.1 (Restraint of Dogs) to Require Dogs to be Under Restraint by Lead or Leash in County Owned or Leased Properties or Facilities Which Permit Dogs BACKGROUND: See c.A. No, 02-1208 FUNDS A V AIL.(State type & No. of transaction or N/A): N/A RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners consider adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 02-23. COMMISSION ACTION: [ ] APPROVED [] DENIED []( OTHER: Withdrawn City of Fort pierce has addressed this item in their ordinance. County Attorney: é/J/ Coord ination/Sil!:ßatur es Mgt. & Budget: Purchasing: Originating Dept.: Other: Other: Finance (Check for Copy only, if applicable): \.f ..., INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM ST. LUCIE COUNTY. FLORIDA TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney C.A. NO: 02-1208 DATE: August 12,2002 SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 02-23 - Creating Section 1-15-30.1 (Restraint of Dogs) to Require Dogs to be Under Restraint by Lead or Leash in County Owned or Leased Properties or Facilities Which Permit Dogs BACKGROUND: Section 1-4-21 of the St, Lucie County Code of Ordinances and Compiled Laws makes it unlawful for an animal owner to permit his or her animal to be off of the owner's private property in the unincorporated areas of the County unless the animal is restrained by a leash or lead, or actively engaged in the sport of hunting. As Section 1-4-21 applies only to the unincorporated areas of the County, this requirement does not extend to the County's parks and other facilities located within the incorporated areas of the County, such as the Lawnwood Recreation Area, The City of Fort Pierce has requested that the County amend its ordinances to extend this leash requirement to County parks located within the City, Proposed Ordinance No, 02-23 has been drafted to address the request from the City of Fort Pierce. In light of the fact that the County also operates parks within the City of Port St, Lucie, the proposed ordinance extends to all County properties and facilities where dogs are permitted. A copy of the draft ordinance is attached to this memorandum, Notice of the August 20, 2002 public hearing was published in The Tribune on August 1, 2002. RECOMMENDATION/CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners consider adoption of proposed Ordinance No, 02-23, Respectfully submitted ~ 9ð-- Heather Young Assistant County Attorney Attachment HY/ Copies To: Concurring Staff Clerk Secretary Press Public '-'" ...." Commission Review: August 20, 2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division MEMORANDUM TO: County Commission FROM: Community Development Director DATE: August 14, 2002 SUBJECT: Application of East Florida Primitive Baptist District Association, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit to allow educational services and facilities in the I (Institutional) Zoning District LOCATION: 3950 Juanita Avenue. ZONING DISTRICT: I (Institutional) FUTURE LAND USE: RU (Residential Urban) PARCEL SIZE: 19.46 acres PROPOSED USE: Educational Services and Facility SURROUNDING ZONING: RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 du/acre) Zoning to the south and east. I (Institutional) Zoning directly east and further east. RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family - 4 du/acre) Zoning to the west. IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning is located to the north. IX (Industrial, Extraction) Zoning is located to the northwest SURROUNDING LAND USES: The general existing use surrounding the property is residential. FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: The Future Land Use Classification of the immediate surrounding area is RU (Residential Urban to to the south, east, and west IND (Industrial) is located to the north. Station #4 (4000 St Lucie Boulevard), is located approximately 3 miles to the north/northwest UTILITY SERVICE: The subject property will be served by the Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority. '-' ..."" August 14,2002 Page 2 Subject: East Florida Primitive Baptist District Association, Inc File No.: CU-02-006 TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: The existing right-of-way width for Juanita Avenue is 80 feet. The Level of Service for Juanita Avenue is ·C", SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: TYPE OF CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: None. Certificate of Capacity. STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.07.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE In reviewing this application for the proposed conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider and make the following detenninations: 1. Whether the proposed conditional use is in conflict with any applicable portions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code; The proposed conditional use is not in conflict with any applicable portions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. Section 3.01.03(X)(7), I (institutional) Zoning District, allows educational services and facilities as a conditional use subject to Board of County Commission approval. 2. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would have an adverse impact on nearby properties; The proposed conditional use is not expected to adversely impact the surrounding properties. The subject property is currently the location of a church facility. 3. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including roads, police protection, solid waste disposal, water, sewer, drainage structures, parks, and mass transit; This conditional use is not expected to create significant additional demands on any public facilities in this area. Juanita Avenue currently has a transportation Level of Service ·C". '-' """ August 14,2002 Page 3 Subject: East Florida Primitive Baptist District Association, Inc File No.: CU-02-006 4. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment; The proposed conditional use is not anticipated to create adverse impacts on the natural environment. The proposed facilities are to be located on-site in new structures in an area previously cleared for construction. COMMENTS The applicant, East Florida Primitive Baptist District Association, Inc., has applied for the requested conditional use in order to establish an educational facility for a maximum of 200 students for a religious school. A church is currently located on the sUbject property. The applicant is proposing the addition of two new 4,320 square foot classroom buildings. Educational Services and Facilities are allowed as conditional uses in this zoning district subject to the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. Attached is the site plan for the proposed conditional use permit. At the June 20, 2002, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, by a vote of 6 to 0, with two members (Mr. McCurdy and Mr. Jones) absent and one member (Mr. Matthes) recusing, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit. Staff finds that this petition meets the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.07.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Attached is a copy of Draft Resolution 02-144, which, if approved, would grant the conditional use permit, subject to the following conditions: 1. The number of students shall be limited to a maximum of 200. 2. The hours of operation for the educational facility shall be from 7 A.M to 6 P.M., Monday through Friday. Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter. Attachment hf cc: County Administrator County Attorney Gary Willis R.J, Hendley, Jr. File +-' '- .."., (f) +-' -4R Z 0... Ü ~, co c co ~' " - , ~ CD C 0 <.0 ,.:$" j '" > 0 0 +-' íl . +-' CO 0 ¡¡ ~ E I 0 :;- . ü C'\I '" u 'C 0 di' .. Ï 0 " ,¡,- ~ ~ 0.... (f) 0' . r ~ 0 (f) ~ .. CO <C => Q .. . . ò "'0 Ü \ C. '" +-' , ~ ü 0 ~ , +-' LL (f) 0 ... ... .. .. ... ... '" ~ :J ~ 0 ü Z :J 0 a.oaI JNI, ]ON", Ü ex: ~ I I ~ ã: z ... Ii! ... ¡::: .. ~ ex: III :; I « I .... ..... 0'f0H NOl'1llÐ ::¡;; '" '" z « .... 0 -. ;¡¡; s \>[ ! S Ç£ ! ... ... ~ .. ... ~ ! .. ... '" AlNn08 3380H833>lO \w East Florida Primitive Baptist District Association, Inc. '4 ( i i ) I i í i .J / -0 o o 0:: ,---- ~._---_.._.._--._.__.._--_._-------------_.-..__..._.---.... ---------------------- , 0 ~.5 (/) aþre I , 6,80 acres 2.52 acres F.P.F.W,M,D. Conal No. 1 § Motonzas :. I ,5 , -J .4 Avenue: I loll ....- 'IS , '1< . UJ , ,12 , .' .03, cre~ 10 .!1!? . 10.27 acres Juanita Avenue 15.34 acres .......----..-----...-...........----------....-...-......------------.......-...- IS J I< IJ CU 02-006 -----------. 500' boundary r / / / / /1 This pattern indicates rLLLLLj subject parcel M,p :~:::~ f ThlI map - ~ ~ lor~plIn*'Q n:I ~ pupoIM Mt- N 'MIle ~ Mb1 tIN biMn made to plOoide the mœt (Uqn ald __ ttlorfT-.tlon~.lInothllwDldIl'JrUllJ...legIIyb/rdrlg~ A Petition of East ~ida Primitive Baptist District Association, Inc, for-tf Conditional Use Permit to allow Educational SeNices and Facilities in the I (Institutional) Zoning District. I ¡ ¡ I ¡ i ¡ i ; ____~,¡I -0 o o a:: Q. Q. o Vl f,P,f,W.M,O, Conal No, 1 ~ê§ G z, __ -J- <4 otanzas Avenue 16 16 ð 17 H IS 15 ., I) 19 > It .¡: Cl , . "" I) "0 , a 0 , ~ 1 :>, Avenue " I · IB 0 ..., · 12 · D · M Z zs IS III 9 17 . 17 16 :5 16 .. (; . .. :; Z H H I) a . H . a CU 02-006 r / / / / /1 This pattern indicates rLLLLLJ subject parcel Juanita Avenue 51>-';:...,.. ~~ t !¡l$, ~<=,_ Map prepared May 21, 2002 ThiafNplliM~OOf1'llIedfor~pIlnWlglnd~~CI1Iy. 1\,- Y\Ne fMK'f eIforttlas cean INiOI kl prtMdlllhe IIlOII:CUfftan:l ~ . . ínIorrNtion ~lia nctlrUrded forl.lM... ~ bi'ldInQ dOcuTw'II. z . East Florida Primitive Baptist District Association, Inc. onlng 1 ¡ i ¡ "0 ¡ 0 J 0 ¡ IX CJ::: IL ; g -' ¡...----' Vl F.P,F.W,M,D. Conal No. 1 ~ ~ ~ · 5 -J- .- ~+ Malanzas Avenue IS I IS Z -- ,""",. ,. · H J1I3 H III Il IJ .. .. I · .. > ¡z 5 ¡z '': 0 · 1---- , ID RM-5 , · f--..-- -- .. '0 , 0 I--¡-- -,-- 0 . ~ 7 >. Avienda Avenue 0 J: · IS I ~-- ,. r 0 h ~. .. ,. '" ..., 5 :':~J 1 t>-- tH ... · ~ .. · IJ -..1:-- ~ -- ¡z ZJ J IZ ¡¡¡ _. 5 --- · 112'__ M z --{-- T .. -.-- .-- Z5 I , Juanita Avenue Juanita Avenue .. I .. ., · '" f--,;¡- r-J- ID -- .. · " '0 --.-- --11I--'" II C N ~ 11 'Of' · .. 11 IS :5 7 IS RM-5 ,. õ , 15 Õ Z H · H --- .. IJ !!..¡z-- · IZ -- Son Diego Avenue m 1 IS 1-,-- 1---- ,. J H /J I · IJ CU 02-006 ~ This pattern indicates subject parcel t 5{F.t~4-,~ q¡,~,; ~-~.-~ Map prepared May 21, 2002 1NIlNPl'lMbM'1~1llrQlll'*lll~and~~onJr. N ~ ~1IIbt_ ~ INlieto prWde "InllIlCl..n'W1lIlncl.x:ualll 'rioo:múon poaibIlI,lt.. nollntended Ior~... ~ t*dng doa.\'T1n. East Florida Primitive Baptist District Association, Inc. Land Use I i i i i ¡ i ) :' '0 o o 0:: a. a. o Vl INO F.P,F.W.M.D. Conal No, 1 ~ ~ . 5 -J- -4 Motanzas Avenue IS IS . 15 " .113 H III '" 10 ¡g .~ ð · 2D 'tl · 0 0 it 7 >. 0 I · IS 15 " 0 5 ..., H 12 · ß 12 D · Il4 · to . Avenue Juanita Avenue Son Die m . H d . " CU 02-006 r / / / / /1 This pattern indicates rLLLLLl subject parcel 5i:rh~~~ t GJ~~li '-';'~<;,;}...~=- Map prepared May 21, 2002 1hiIffWtJhubeen~forQlf1ll'lll'*"'*"2tnd~IUJXlIUOftt NT 'MlIlefNfIfYeIfOO:n.been~topravldl".mQltQ"rNnllßl~ : no.m.tion poaible.l.1VlI1rUnded lor.... as. ~ birdng o.x.-lt. '..... East Florida Primitive Baptist District Association, Inc. Xr/-~~'~ t Ql.l;¡' ~<.~~ Map prepared May 21, 2002 Thi8maphet~~Ior~pbImin¡¡:&rod~~OlVy, N 'MIlle fMJI:YeI'Iorl:hUi blÞen rNIdI to :lRIWlIlIlhfI rnœtWTenland acante norm.tø. posalbMt,itil nallrUnded DUM as .1øgaI'Y~ doc:uroInI. \w !. "â .. .J" ~ 7',.'. f'.l ~ Ci~:;-:;- r. '4 - tl ti." ~~ rr.;¡-___ U;~9~l\1::ha '~n?~;t'I¡; r '::;~"1',,'¡"'U "~,,,o:w'¡¡l¡t 2:¡.íTl\U'i. ' AGENDA ITEM 5: EAST FLORIDA PRIMITIVE BAPTIST DISTRICT ASSOCIATION, INC. . FILE NO. CU-02-006: Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 5 was the application of East Florida Primitive Baptist District Association, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit to allow social services (educational services and facility) in the I (Institutional) Zoning District for property located at 3950 Juanita Avenue. He continued that the surrounding zoning is RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 du/acre) to the south and east, I (Institutional) zoning directly east and further east and RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family - 4 du/acre) Zoning to the west. He also stated that IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning is located to the north and IX (Industrial, Extraction) Zoning is located to the northwest. He continued that the applicant has applied for the requested conditional use in order to establish an educational facility for a maximum of 200 students for a religious school. A church facility is currently located on the subject property. The applicant is proposing the addition of two new 4,320 square foot classroom buildings. Educational Services and Facilities are allowed as conditional uses in this zoning district subject to the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to two limiting conditions. 1. The number of students shall be limited to a maximum of 200. 2. The hours of operation for the educational facility shall be from 7 A.M to 6 P.M., Monday through Friday. Mr. Grande questioned if there is an entrance already existing off of Juanita Avenue or is a new entrance going to be constructed. Mr. Flores stated that there is currently an existing entrance with parking in place at this time. Mr. Grande asked why the difference of solid and dotted lines on the site plans. He continued that on the site plan there is a parking area to the right of the existing sanctuary in solid lines and then on the left it shows dotted lines for an additional parking area. He questioned if the parking west of the sanctuary exist today and Mr. Flores stated that was correct. Mr. Lounds stated that the aerial photograph provided in their packets shows the existing parking more clearly. Chainnan Merritt asked if the petitioner or their representative were present. Mr. David Phillips from Culpepper & Terpening stated they would be representing the applicant. He also stated that this project was originally developed back in 1990 and the dotted lines on the site plan originally represented the grass stabilized parking areas. He continued that as part of the development, they tried to locate the two modular buildings on the comer, and the existing grass parking would be moved towards the south property line. He stated that the applicant is looking to open the educational facilities in mid-August 2002 and are trying to obtain an expedient schedule. He also stated that they have had pre-application meetings with the SFWMD, as well as the local FPUA and DEP. He advised that everything has been submitted for approval and are waiting on the permits. He stated that he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Hearn questioned why the infonnation stated, "existing paved parking" to remain but Mr. Phillips just advised that it is grass parking. Mr. Phillips stated that right now there are portions P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 23 ,";". ~'0~~~~~~~!}~ ..... kÎ~ ,. " ß \'gj ~ 3'h... ..~,_.~.,leJ YD 8~ l~;~\~?~~':ì ,-' ....:. ".'.' '. "; '.' ~ ~,~ n ¡"j" 8. ~J ;,:; ~-::,r: \J nl ~""-~ -~__ - ",'~: ~- .1<"'. """...n of the project that have paved parking and driveways and the grass parking that'¿urretitly' ¿Xlsts . wraps around the east side of the project and continues around the north side. He advised that everything shown within the solid lines is paved parking. Mr. Hearn then asked Staff ìf the grass parking area is acceptable. Mr. Flores stated that it is acceptable with church facilities and they based parking on the sanctuary area, which allows them up to 75% in grass parking. '- Chairman Merritt opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Charles Hendly stated he is a member of East Florida Primitive Baptist District Association and stated he has a concern because the staff report shows daycare and pre-school faciÌlcy but they are proposing a school. Mr. Flores advised that was an error in the report but was advertised for educational facilities and services. Chairman Merritt questiol)(~d the hOllrs \Jí operation listed at 5:00 P.M in condition #2 because they might need later hours for after hour activities, Mr. Hendly stated that he believes they changed the hours to 6 P.M. because most individuals get done work at 5 P.M. and this would allow them time to pick up their children, Mr. Flores stated that in his presentation he confirmed the new time of 6 P.M, instead of 5 P,M, Chairman Merritt questioned why a school was being restricted to a closing of 6 P.M, bCCalUiC they might want to have activities at 7 or 8 P.M. at night. Mr. Flores stated that in review of theiJ applications they had stated that the church services and school operations would not Of'. operating at the same time. Mr. Hendly stated they would accept that because usually thCTi'. i, not any church service at night and they were mainly concerned with having sufficient hours to allow time for parents to pick up their children. Ms. Pinky Hendly stated that they had listed their hours of operation but would certainly have activities from time to time past the closing time of 6:00 P.M. She advised that would not conflict with the church services and stated she did not want the time limited to 5:30 P.M. She also stated that they were planning on having activities at the facility on a limited basis, Chairman Merritt questioned if Ms. Hendly was stating that they need additional hours at certain times and she confmned that they would indeed need additional hours at certain rirœ¡;, Chairman Merritt questioned Staff if this would be a problem. Mr. Kelly stated that they do not have a problem with that and that the sanctuary could be used because there are no limits on the hours for the sanctuary. He also stated that they were not intending to limit the actual use of the classroom building in the evenings, just the hours of the students' day at school. Chairman Merritt stated he could see setting times for a daycare but since this is a school it should be a. different situation. Mr. Kelly stated that if the Commission wished to change the conditions Staff would not have any objection. Mr. Lounds stated he would not have any problem extending hours to a school that is associated with a religious facility. He also stated that any time a church wants to extend their teachings (0 education and provide for the people, it is a wonderful thing. He advised that he wouldn't mind seeing them having children at the school at 7 or 8:00 P.M. doing something productive with their time. He questioned if there was any feedback from those on 10 Haywood Drive, Ms. Hendly stated that they have not spoken to them directly and has not heard any commenis at aU from anyone in that area. Mr. Lounds stated that sometimes those who live right next door to a school become concerned with noise and things. Ms. Hendly stated that their actual school d.ay ends at 3:00 P.M. and will allow three hours for aftercare to allow time for parents Co their children. Mr. Lounds stated he has no problem with extending the time so that it best suits the applicant and would best benefit their plans. Mr. Hearn stated that he would like to assure Mr. Lounds that those on 10 Haywood Drive have been notified via the mailing and the signs, P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 24 ~ ';" '",""~~n" &\ B c ~.).:;."~J'- '"~ ~~ ~ ~M .- ~~\,:;i)!' tJ b~lHL.l ~~ Seeing no one else, Chairman Merritt closed the Public Hearing. f";:~,,:~ ~~'~::"'"f Tn ~J¡.....~f-6~i:...<_ ~ ~ u -, ð1 Cr' ...n:"~ -~·''''':n~' "t1 ~~i l~!~ ¡~J,¡~ ~~~ Mr. Hearn stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.07.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of East Florida Primitive Baptist District Association, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit to allow educational services and facilities in the I (Institutional) Zoning District because it is going to be a quality extension of their church services, it seems to fit into the community, and there are no residents here in objection to it, with the following conditions: 1. The number of students shall be limited to a maximum of 200. 2. The hours of operation for the educational facility shall be from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Friday. Motion seconded by Mr. Trias. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 6-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 25 ZONiNG r~PPROV AL '-' ...; AGENDA - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY, August 20,2002 7:00 P.M. EAST FLORIDA PRIMITIVE BAPTIST DISTRICT ASSOCIATION, INC., has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Conditional Use Permit to allow Educational Services and Facilities in the I (Institutional) Zoning District for the following described property: Location: 3950 Juanita Avenue. Please note that all proceedings before the Local Planning Agency are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Local Planning Agency with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purposes, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to all adjacent property owners August 9, 2002. Legal notice was published in the Port St. Lucie News and The Tribune, newspapers of general circulation in St. Lucie County, on August 9, 2002. File No. CU-02-006 '-' -.",I August 9,2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS In accordance with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, you are hereby advised that EAST FWRIDA PRIMITIVE BAPTIST DISTRICT ASSOCIATION, INC., has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Conditional Use Permit to allow Educational Services and Facilities in the I (Institutional) Zoning District for the following described property: Location: 3950 Juanita A venue. THE PROPERTY'S LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS A V AILABLE UPON REQUEST The second public hearing on the petition will be held at 7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible, on August 20, 2002, County Commissioner's Chambers, St. Lucie County Administration BuiIdíng Annex, 2300 Virginia A venue, Fort Pierce, FÚJrúkz. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at that time. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Writkn comments to the Board of County Commissioners should be received by the County Planning Division at least 3 days prior to a scheduled hearing. County policy discourages communication with individual County Commissioners on any case outside of the scheduled public hearing(s ). You may speak at a public hearing, or provide written comments for the record. The proceedings of the County Commission are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the County Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings. For such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. If it becomes necessary, a public hearing may be continued to a date-certain. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Director at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (561) 462- 1777 orT.D.D. (561) 462-1428. If you no longer own property adjacent to the above-described parcel, please fOIWard this notice to the new owner. Please call 561/462-1582 if you have any questions, and refer to: File Number CU-02-006. Sincerely. ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~? Cow~ /ø~- Doug cowar:lhainnan JOHN D. GRUHN. Disrricr NO.1· DOUG COWARD. Disrricr No.2· PAULA A. LEWIS. Distrier No.;¡ . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON. District No 4 . CLIFF GARNES. Disrricr No.5 Counry Admiflistrator - Douglas M, Anderson 2.300 Virginia Avenue . Fort Pierce, FL .34982-5652 Admlnistrotion: (772) 462-1590 . Plonning: (772) 462-2822 . GIS/Technicol Services: (772) 462-155J Economic Development; (772) 462-1550 . Fox: (772) 462-1581 Tourist/Convention: (772) 462-1529 . Fox: (772) 462-21J2 www.co.st-Iucie.fl.us '-' ...""I ST. LUCIE COUNTY CONDITIONAL USE RESPONSE FORM Section 11.07.01 (C) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code provides that where a written protest against an application for a Conditional Use Permit is signed by the owners of fifty (50) percent 01' uCla of the area within five hundred (500) feet of the property affected by the proposed action, any such Conditional Use Permit shall not be approved except by the favorable vote of four-fifths (4/5) of all of the Board of County Commissioners. The Applicant Proposes the Following Conditional Use: Regarding Property Located At: Currently Zoned: To allow Educational Services and Facilities in the I (Institutional) Zoning District 3950 Juanita Avenue I (Institutional) Please Return To: St. Lucie County, Department of Community Development Planning Division 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, FL 34982 Please check only one of the three fOllowing statements and return by: AUQust 12. 2002. I AM IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE I HAVE NO OPINION TO THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE J certify that, as of the date shown below, I am a property owner within 500 feet of the proposed Conditional Use. Name (Please Print): Address: Date: Signed: Please note that any form retumed without a name and address will not be considered. All returned forms are a matter of public record and available for viewing upon request. Comments: (FILE NO. CU-02-006 East Florida Primitive Baptist District Association, Inc.) '-' E 2 The Tribune Friday, August 9,2002 ., " . '. 1010 Legal Notices ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA August 20, 2002 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, NOTICE is hereby given in accordance with Section 11.00.03 of ff1e St. Lucie County Land Development Code and in accordance with the provisions of the Sf. lucie County Compre- hensive Plan, thOf fhe fol- lowing applicant has requested thot the Sf. Lucie (OUllty Board of Commis. sioners considel" their fol- lowing request: EAST FLORIDA PRIMITIVE BAPTIST DISTRICT .'ASSO. CIATION, INC.. for'o Con- ¿iUonal Use" Permit to allow Educational Servic:ès and facilities in the I tlnstiMion. 01) Zoning District for the following deSCribed property: THE.NORTI:fJ/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 34 ,$O\JTl:t.. RANGE 40 EAST.. lESS THE. EAST. 1560.00 FEET. THE WEST 37i.54'FEET;1l.lE· NORTH. 3~.00·fEET 'AND THE RíGtl1:-Òf;W"''i'fqR JUA- NITÄÁVÈNUE.:'·, .. " ,'. ~;,,' _ ,b,:,; 1 ~_~ Location: 3950' Juanita" A~~ PUBLIC-HEARINGS wõll ¡,.; held in Comm!ssi¢:n Cham~, ben., R~ ~oitras .Ann'~ 3rd FlOOr ~St.J~e, COuntY AdmlnÎ$trati~~,,_,,_~~U~lng. 2300 V'lf\inia A",nuo. Fort Pierce, Flori,*> on August 20. 2oo2;.·'beginning at 7:00 _P.M. i>f~š )oon there- after as' POf!Î~(4!l:': ......"7'.~¢.... PURSUANT', ,TO Section 28'6.0105. florido S_, !f.~:ø p~ decides' to CippéCJhany .decision. made by ::'Jê,_\.~.d. agency.' or ~m~¡'~:sron with respect to any. mattS- considered at a meeting or hear~g. ~e will need a record of thè pr~, ceedings, and that. for s~ch purposes. he may need to ensure that "0 Verbe'lm record of the proCeedings is made, which- record indudeS .IM' testim"orty and evidence Upon, whIch the . OP~!,is"ro'be based.- BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ST, LUCIE COUNTY, flORIDA , /S/ boug CóW<l,d. CHAIRMAN ~ublish: August 9. 2002 2491901 '-' ( , ( ..,.¡I f· r '7 ,e- Planning and Zoning Commission Review: 06/20/02 File Number CU-02-006 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Manager DATE: June 13,2002 SUBJECT: Application of East Florida Primitive Baptist District Association, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit to allow social services (day care and pre- school facility) in the I (Institutional) Zoning District. LOCATION: 3950 Juanita Avenue. ZONING DISTRICT: I (Institutional) FUTURE LAND USE: RU (Residential Urban) PARCEL SIZE: 19.46 acres PROPOSED USE: Educational Services and Facility SURROUNDING ZONING: RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 du/acre) Zoning to the south and east. I (Institutional) Zoning directly east and further east. RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family - 4 du/acre) Zoning to the west. IL (Industrial, Light) Zoning is located to the north. IX (Industrial, Extraction) Zoning is located to the northwest. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The general existing use surrounding the property is residential. . The Future Land Use Classification of the immediate surrounding area is RU (Residential Urban to to the south, east, and west. INO (Industrial) is located to the north. FIRE/EMS PROTECTION: Station #4 (4000 St. Lucie Boulevard), is located approximately 3 miles to the north/northwest. UTILITY SERVICE: The subject property will be served by the Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority. '-' ( ( ..."", June 13, 2002 Page 2 Subject: East Florida Primitive Baptist District Association, Inc. File No.: GU-02-006 TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADEQUACY: The existing right-of-way width for Juanita Avenue is 80 feet. The Level of Service for Juanita Avenue is "C". SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS: None. TYPE OF CONCURRENCY DOCUMENT REQUIRED: Certificate of Capacity. STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.07.03, 5T. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE In reviewing this application for the proposed conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider and make the following determinations: 1. Whether the proposed conditional use is in conflict with any applicable portions of the 5t. Lucie County Land Development Code; The proposed conditional use is not in conflict with any applicable portions of the St. Lucie County land Development Code. Section 3.01.03(X)(7), I (institutional) Zoning District, allows educational services and facilities· as a conditional use subject to Board of County Commission approval. 2. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would have an adverse impact on nearby properties; The proposed conditional use is not expected to adversely impact the surrounding properties. The subject property is currently the location of a church facility. 3. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including roads, police protection, solid waste disposal, water, sewer, drainage structures, parks, and mass transit; This conditional use is not expected to create significant additional demands on any public facilities in this area. Juanita Avenue currently has a transportation Level of Service ·C". '-' c ( ~ June 13, 2002 Page 3 Subject: East Florida Primitive Baptist District Association, Inc, File No.: CU-02-006 4. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment; The proposed conditional use is not anticipated to create adverse impacts on the natural environment. The proposed facilities are to be located on-site in new structures in an area previously cleared for construction. COMMENTS The applicant, East Florida Primitive Baptist District Association, Inc., has applied for the requested conditional use in order to establish an educational facility for a maximum of 200 students for a religious school. A church is currently located on the subject property. The applicant is proposing the addition of two new 4,320 square foot classroom buildings. Educational Services and Facilities are allowed as conditional uses in this zoning district subject to the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. Attached is the preliminary site plan for the proposed conditional use permit. Staff finds that this petition meets the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.07.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The number of students shall be limited to a maximum of 200. 2. The hours of operation for the educational facility shall be from 7 A.M to 5 P.M., Monday through Friday. Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter. Attachment hf cc: County Administrator County Attorney Gary Willis R.J. Hendley, Jr, File '-' r; ~.::,.:. c ..,.¡ Section 3.01.03 IQ~\~~ U\~m~ ~~~ ~m\~~~~ x, L INSTITUTIONAL 1. Purpose The purpose of this district is to provide and protect and environment suitable for institutional, public, and quasi-public uses, together with such other uses as may be compatible with institutional, public, and quasi-public surroundings. The number in "0" following each identified use corresponds to the SIC code reference described in Section 3.01.02(B). The number 999 applies to a use not defined under the SIC code but may be further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this code. 2. Permitted Uses a. Community residential homes subject to the provisions of Section 7.10.07. (9991 b. Family day care homes. (999) c. Family residential homes provided that such homes shall not be located within a radius of one thousand (1000) feet of another existing such family residential home and provided that the sponsoring agency or the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) notifies the Board of County Commissioners at the time of home occupancy that the home is licensed by HRS. (999) d. Institutional residential homes. (999) e. Parks. (999) f. Police & fire protection (9221.9224) g. Recreational activities. (999) h. Religious organizations (866) 3. Lot Size Requirements Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. 4. Dimensional Regulations Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. 5. Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements Off-street parking and loading requirements are subject to Section 7.06.00. 6. Landscaping Requirements Landscaping requirements are subject to Section 7.09.00. 7. Conditional Uses a. b. c. d. e. f, g. Amphitheaters. (999 Cemeteries. (6S5J Membership organizations (86) Correctional institutions. (92231 Cultural activities and nature exhibitions. (999 Educational services and facilities (821 Executive, legislative, and judicial functions. (91,92,93,94,95,05.97) ¡. Adopted Augusl1, 1990 132 Revised Through 08101/00 ,,-- h. i. j. k. I. m. n. o. p. q, '- ( ...,,¡ c Section 3.01.03 Zoning District Use Regulations Fairgrounds. (999) Funeral and crematory services. (726) Theaters. (999þ Medical and other heallh services. (80) Postal service. (43) Residential care facilities for serious or habitual juvenile offenders, (999) Social services (63) Sporting and recreational camps (7032) Stadiums, arenas, race tracks (794) Telecommunication towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23 (999) 8, Accessory Uses Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00, and include the following: a. Drinking places (alcoholic beverages related to civic, social, and fraternal uses). (999 b. Restaurants. (Including the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption only.) (999) c. Funeral and crematory services. (7261 d. Heliport landing/takeoff pads. (999) e. Detached single-family dwelling unit or mobile home, for on-site security purposes. (999) f. Residence halls or dormitories. (!199 Adopted August 1, 1990 a. 133 Revised Through 08/01/00 c ( ( \.,.. c ~ ...." BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR June 8, 2002 [n accordance with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, you are hereby advised that EAST FLORIDA PRIMITIVE BAPTIST DISTRICT ASSOCIA TION, INC., has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Conditional Use Permit to allow Educational Services and Facilities in the [ ([nstitutional) Zoning District for the following described property: Location: 3950 Juanita A venue. THE PROPERTY'S LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS A V AILABLE UPON REQUEST The fIrst public hearing on the petition will be held at 7;00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible, on Thursday, June 20,2002, County Commissioner's Chambers, St. Lucie County Administration Building Annex, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at that time. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Written comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission should be received by the County Planning Division at least 3 days prior to a scheduled hearing. County policy discourages communication with individual Planning and Zoning Commission and County Commission on any case outside of the scheduled public hearing(s). You may speak at a public hearing, or provide written comments for the record. The proceedings of the Planning and Zoning Commission are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings. For such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross- examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. If it becomes necessary, a public hearing may be continued to a date-certain. Anyone with a disability requiring acconunodation to attend this meeting should contact the S1. Lucie County Community Services Director at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (561) 462- 1777 or 1'.0.0. (561) 462-1428. If you no longer own property adjacent to the above-described parcel, please forward this notice to the new owner. Please call 561/462-1582 if you have any questions, and refer to: File Number CU-02-006, Sincerely, ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ~!~/~ JOHN D. Ol'\UHN. Di')rricr No.1· DOUG COWARD, Disrricr No.2· PAULA A. LEWIS, Oisrflcr No J . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, Oisrricr No.4. CUFF OAf\NE5. Disrricr No.5 Counry Adminisr(oror - Douglos M. Andefson 2JOO Virginia Avenue . Forr Pierce, FL J4982-5652 Adminisrrorion: (561) 462-1590 . Planning: (561) 462-2822 . GISfTechnical Services: (561) 462-155J Economic Developmenr: (561) 462·1550 . Fox: (561) 462-1581 Tourisr/Convenrion: (561) 462-1529 . Fox: (561) 462.21J2 \., c Sl LUCIE COUNT'Y. PLANNING AND: ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA June 20. '2002 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, NonCE is. hereby given in accordance with Sccfioll 11.00.03 of lI,c SI. Lucic Counly land De...clopment Code and the provisions of the St. Lucie (ounty Com- prehensive Plan, fne follow- I jog applicants nove I requested that the SI, Lucie : County Planning and ZOIl- ! jog Commission consider their following. requests; 1. EAST flORIDA PRIMI- TIVE BAPTIST DISTRICT ASSOCIATION, INC.. for 0: Conditional Use Permit - to allow Educational Services ànd FaciÎifies; in the I (Iristi4 M.iona.l) Z?nin~ Dístr.id ,for the follówirig 'describ~d 'p~Opérty: .; , THE NORTH 1/2 Of THE. SOUTHWEST 1/4 Of, SECTION 32; TOWNSHIP, 34' SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST, LESS' THE EAST 15600.00 fEET, THE WEST 371.54 fEET, THE NORTH 135.00 fEET, AND THE RIGHT-Of-WAY fOR JUA- NITA AVENUE. Location: 3950 Juanita Avenue. 2.' EMILIO R. MARTINEZ for a' ChoQge in. Zonin~ from ;·.the ·.eN· ¡èommercioC Neighborhood) Zaning Dis- trict ta the CO (Commer- cial, Office) Zoning Oistrict for the Following described property, LOTS 4 AND 5, BLOCK 171, LAKEWOOD PARK UNIT 12A, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK I ¡, PAGES 35 THROUGH 37, PUBLIC RECORDS Of Sf. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. location: 5106 T vrnpik:e Feeder Road. PUBLIC HEARINGS w¡ be ' held in Commission Cham- bers. Roger Poitras Annex~ 2300 Virginia Avenue, rort \ Pierce, Florida on June :to 2002. beginning at 7:ÒÓ P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. PURSUANT TO Section 286.0 I 05, F1arida Statutes. if a person decides, "to' appeal any decision made by 0 boord, agency,' òi commission with respect to any matter considered at (] meeting or bearing; he will. i need a record of the· pro· ceedings, and that, far such purposeS. he' may' 'neeli to' ensure that a verbafifn record of the proceedings Is made, which· record includes the testimo~y' and evidence upan. whidl ihè o'ppeal is to be bosed. - ('\ o o (\.( 00' Q) c: :;j ""'? >- ro '2 :;j ãí (j) Q). .C: :;j .0 ~ Q) ..c: t--: I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION S'(, LUCIE CO.uNTY, ..., ,. FLORIDA' . /S/ Stefan CHAIRMAN Publish, June 8, '2002 2446901 ('. I ¡ ....,,¡ :i i' :1 Ii II I I I i I' II Ii ¡¡ ii I C .:= - 0: rcë:l .~ ~ t '" ..,< rn'tj c .~ 1.:= ~ - .~ o:Q e - J.. .~ ,.s~ C 0: ';::Cl:l .~ .., .c ;.- i Q. ~ I os .~ I... e 011 .~ o ... ..,~ e,:, 0: .'0 .... .¡: C 0 ërz ~~ _ os ..¡..¡ t ... QoS ;.,'" .~ Q co:> = . e::l e:;J ou u ... '1;,g 1- - = .~ ..,~ S 011 ... C == ãì' .;¡ Q;; I "'''' ~~~ ~~ ~:,8 :~~ - MM -IV) t-MM N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I~í iN ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~I~j I~ co ~ ~ ~ ~ __~;L;J___. + f') ¡ , i . ¡-T í . , I ~ ~8 I z~l.J jt;lfl)¡¡; II i i !~I~¡ : I' ¡ 1 I 'C) (,)f ", II , ¡ Ë! j : "~I'~! ~: I i I 1!ll ~ ~: 81 (ljj 8¡ 8¡ EI E: 8' B: 818~ 8; :,' ê! , 1-< ~'t,' '"") COt ....¡ ~, 2' 21 I-. ~¡ ~ ~j ti i Q)c! ,:i,'~ ·....;·-I·~I' ool"~ .~¡ 'CQ:CQi .~ .....' lø:;lø:;¡'Ã¡' I ,I~-! :!Q..¡Q..;Q..,Q.. ~,ø.. ø..¡ ,I ¡::.,,:ø.. _ _ O,tlt'tltl~lt t¡ I~I~I 5,51 Itlt1tl ¡ It: ii ¡;:¡jf~¡~i~Lce::tj'¡;IG:~ +U¡LU¡L "";':-\ L~-~L~+___; uj.zi !: ~ i i I ill J I ' I Ii 01 ¡ í I I ì i",,11 i" I ;:! ! ~ 01 I i 'I' iiõlðlO¡ ¡~Ioj ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ èS:~ ; ~¡ojÖ! II il-gI-g1-g! 1û5!"81 ! ¡ I '"Ci c' !21-ø!-o! I, ',1.0 0101 _1_101_11 I I 8: g,:1 :, "18'100" ',~ ~ ~<Il -" 1<Il è'ií è'ií ~I ,,' '" " "111~:I:I:I:I~'f :I:~~OO I~ ~ : ~jli I] ~liI ill ~ill~I~¡I~ ~ 8 ~ ~ I.~ ~ i ~I,~¡ ,l'~--", ~:¡Iª",o'l I ]I;:;;;:;;;;;;~Ñ~, 1,000~t I ('.j\O ~"'''' IN,N N N --- N N :- -"1"l ~¡V 'I ill I II , 11-;-11 ¡ ! I; ¡ II i 1m r~rt tt1; i H J_ .... .. E .. :z: '« .. ~ 'g " " ...J .!!! ,. -" <Il .., '" E .. :z: E 2 u " « õ a:¡ Jj...J~I«1 I ë 15 ~ ~ ,~ . Il) U ~ g I :z: Cl ::e !- ...J I .¿ ,! e ø.. " E " I j I r 'of. ~ I ¡;¡ J Ie !M .. ~ ël¡¡5~_::,ª ž~~&ldldldlæ N .: ~,NO' -5- ~~ M\Ct'r'If') MN-.:t~ cici~~ ON on '0 '" 00 o ~~~~!;:~~ ~ClIciocioo\cio - '" ..... Q ... !-<t on 00 _ 000 000 000: 00 00 ..... <t§§§ QOoo .... r--- r--- r--- HNNN .Mt'*"lt'r'l f...;!:!:! OO"''''§ 000 000 0000 OONO\-.:t V100V1 088õ 0-8õ OONf'~ -N", t'I""I f') M f') :!:!:!:! !- '" " .~ ~ " ~ ~ u:> " ~ " " ...J E '" -" =] " .- a:¡a:¡ " ¡: o a:l ...J ~I~ ~!- I' , I , I ~ "" II¿I ~d .ël :t~ &l o I ~ .J " " ~~ a:¡ a:¡ ;;:oo~ - -.., '" 000 ;; ;; ;; " 00 '" ««« .~ ~ ~ ~ I~ I~~I~ I] £ £ £ I"" ¡g¡g¡g ~ .c .c - ~I:§]: 0::1 u u u d ::e::e::e "£! ËËg S:. ,_ ,_ ,_ a:¡u uuu on on "'..... o~ o t-- l() loCI ClCl '0"'", cido_ .............. - .., 000 ~~ d\Ó .., t-- ..,.... loCI 00 \QNN- odo""; õ f:g¡ 88 '0'" -.... 0_ 00 õõ 0000_ MMS ::!~~ +-t 1318 1~lo 108 '°1° li~,~ ~!;::; :!r:! 88õ 000 000 '" - 00 §"'''' 088 008 ~~~~ M M M ~ :!:!:!~ " ~ ," :ø:: 't :~ .. Cl '" õ 1_ _I' t: I <Il <Il, * ti tîj ~ ;:';1 u zz ..... - ~ fa ~ ...... '" 'õ ...J u f! f! '" '" ~~ a:¡ a:¡ " " '" ~ ü :¡ ã ¡Hi 88 ::E ClCl ~~ ~ ~ o 0 ::e::e 00 " E '" ...... " " " ~ ü on '" .... '" o ã ã E e " " õõ uu '" ...."''<> ~~~ 000 on .., o 0> 00 ..... .., 000 ..... ° o ° ~ õ o 00 .., :! ¡ 0'\ \OJ ·-f UI ;~J~I ", ~ ,,: ø::: t::i 0' "" ~ ~ MI:" 15 b ~ ~ ~ ~ \0 \0 \Oi~_ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ l"O~~~~O,J.N~IoÕ~ ó!:~~~;;~~~~ó!:;;t: ""=t""=tVV'o:tM vvv'o:t MMMMMM_("t)('"')MM ! ¡¡I ~ : I'E !~! i ~ Iii lLI ! lLIj 81 8î 81 8 Q)1 g Il) ~ül "I '.;;1...1../....1.... f:' I...... ~ B ~ ~ ~I£I£ £1£ £Ii~ £ £ £1£J1 u¡j~~l~t~ ÆH&.~ Æ, ~~ ! ¡~1 I;! ¡ , I ~I Iii I I eiliilii !tl ~ i,iiè'iíl I~ ~ ~ rø ~I ~ ~ § .~ ~ ~~I ,ll ::e ::el::e 00 ::e .~ - e ::ell::el~ ~ _.Q =~Ii,~ ~ ~ 0::1 ~ ~ s: .Q z¡ ...... ""'~ CQ N Õ a::l 00 \0 00 o! r--- - - 0 0 0 00 0 0- 0 0 0\. o M M N ~ ~ ~ c.. ~ ~ ~I T"' I~ ' -rr- -i -:r .!!! õj I ø.. I 1 I ",::E .- " "'¡);.: e:;:: «:t " tl 'C " '" ~ '" '-H o r!~ ~I! '" ~ ~~ g !! uu I~ ",c/ o e ~ e """" " 00 '" ø.. 1ií ::e ::E E " U;1; ]~ljë :i~Jj8 Cl«u¡ - en ::E a:¡ "I., E r::§ 13 ~ !§I..i: '" o .- 3 0 g 'C ..e; E '" > '" ,- Cl<>:tl:l...J:><u::E '" ~ ~~ g ~ uu .... ~~ o o - 00 .~ '" a:¡ " .~ '§ 'C § 0.- '" ¡¡:; ~.~ ~ ëiëi~ ¡:; <Il .. !:!, I ~ ..:.:!:: I £:l:9g~ I~ B g.. .ä ~ .~ ã ~ æ~t:l::c:r::I::I: r--. V) V) f') M N N 0 ~ 0 0 . .,.¡ - - - ~V"¡O\r-ooN MN<o::tN~t"'"l ooO:dN::: dd ~;:!;~:q~~~~:G~~~ ooooO:dddt.ñóo_ on = .S¡ ... .. fI'.l ·0 ... Q ... '" .;: rI) ..< ... ... rJ:l ... = ã:: .sa ~ 1;Q a ... a... .~ ~a = .. ~ø:l .- ... .c: ;.. C."';: .. .- ~.ª Q .. Ole., ~ '" , I "C; ,,'" 'C Ii 5 .s , a .... î; ...¡¡;¡ ~ .. Q<S ....\C ;:::= cC:> = I as a¿¡ QU U .. 'Q<S ... ... = '" Q,l:J .s OJ) ¡~ fr "; iQ ::!: ---1. M::2"''''GO",,,,,,,_~Ir-r- "'''' ..",:g",r-""'jooooy '~~~~~~~~:::~~I~ ~~ ?;::aV)~fó?;r¿~fó .0 M ¡:1 ¡ ~ ~ ~ ~ M ¡~I¡I ¡ ¡ : ~ ¡ ~ ¡I: ¡ ¡ ¡ I ~ ~o~~~V)~ ~v ~v oo~~~ ~~~ ,~ ~~~~~~~ ~~?;~ ~~~,~: ~~~ I 11"'1 MOMMMMMt--~~~M Il""')l"") MMM~+_--!:,MM II I I I : I I! i i : i 1 1 11:,,1 EJ": ti,d¡;:~gj.td~L~..: ..: ..: ..: ßl~J~I¡¡;l": ßj__11 " ' ¡; ¡ . i I Ii; I ~ !i !r ¡ ¡ ¡ I: . I . : ' , :' ) I :; "t ¡ : ' ! ! I 11)" 11) of 11.>1 O¡.;: o! lU'l UI U'· (IJ, U flJ: u; ; oi 0, I 111)1: O! 0: ì /1): u' OllUllUl :1] ¡i ~I~ tf ~¡ ¡ t! I t;]i tl t t! ti tl t! ti ~i I' ~¡ ~i i it ti t: i ti tl t: t[ t! ,i,l, i, lië:: ii: ii:! lii:¡ "L'ii:i~!ii:Ië::Ië::ië::ië::ië::¡ë::lo.:l 0.:1ë::1 'I lë::jii:1ë:: ruo.:¡ii:1ë::11ii:1ii:¡ II ',',,¡ Qjài_i¡',t::o" t::o",to, 'I, I t::i-¡;¡ t::¡ gi t::', t::1, t::1 t::i t::', t::',' t::; t::', 1 t:: t::1" Ut:: t::1 t::i Ei, t::', t::1,I t:: t::" t::I, 'I,i~ ' ' í 0lõ 0, ....; 0 0: 0: 0] 0, 01 01 01 o¡ 0 I 0 0 O[ co, 0: o. 0 0: 0, Il---. U I"'~":o ""I---I,~~- ,""LIIÌJ,~?-"-""~""-""-'?-;,,",I,""-I__j""-ì""_+-, ,,,,,,,,,-!,..., f:-o.L"'l-,",,+~+--~.,._":-_I_ --I' Ii ,: I ¡ i i ¡ ! 'I' '!: I ¡ II I I ! i ! Ii. ! II II II: ::: -01 i :: I ! i : I I I I ¡ ! ¡Ii : ! I i: :1 j~ t:: ¡ æ I II I Ii..,.. ! I I I : I '11 ~ ~ ¡ ~ ¡ H I ~: Ii II lil~ ~ i _i~~]~'" ..i~lûl '" ]~'ltllj~ 1.1.1 I:¡"'~ :!"I~ ~~: i II ~~ "I ¡~I~ ,,·ä.. :is ",,", '~"lli~li~ I' .9 1;;:;:; ~1;;""" il IL"' ::c ::c::c¡ I....:=::c 0::c "' '" ::t,;¡ :;;:I::C!::C ~ ~ .. :;;: - ::t:;;: ::t ::t::c I 'I :¡ ~ ~ ~~. 'z¡~ ~ ,1¡l ~"z l:í ....,~I!~ zl~I.Q1 z~IIZ I :> Z ~ ~ z'.Q ~ ~ -å ~I~~ i=V)¡3~~":t~~s:iõ8~1 88 gõ~8~j:!~8 II ~!~!~~-f:1t~¡::¡&:}:lÑCo.I:'~~¡::¡::! ~~! ~,~~¡::}:l¡::~~ II ~i I, I i I I II I I I ~Ii I I II i Ij¡ I ,I I II/I ~fl- ~,·ttt111 I -r~¡I--!-~T I I ~¡ I IIII ~ I I I ~ ¡Ii " .¡; :::l -l iñ iõ '0- I", , ì u_ I "" -l ::2 ';;ø., ...., .. " ë E "" S ~-E ~ " co >- " " z 0 I- 1Il-l 1Il i "' I Il .. ë ...., '" ,,~ c E ~ 0 .. "' :::l e 0 ~:5! :e co ;¡~ 0 .. " ~ Z -lo ::2 z~ I I ¡ ...., ::2::2 ... ~~-; ,,~-o -l::2uf!-l ~ ~ .. .- " .... c: ~-o:!!"!3 .- ~ c .E:: ~ .¡; ¡g ~... E ... 'C ,,~~~~ ü"õ co .~ 0 :=~f!:l.c~ ~~ Z >"'0 1Il 0",,,,0 ::C¡¡:;::C¡tl ¡¡¡::2 .!! < =Æ ,- " ~o " ,:: o <l o N '- o '" " 01) " Co. ] ~ o ::t .. '" .. c .. 0 ... "' ~~ UJ g U ll.l ....J ...J ell U ~ t) ~ CfI ¡¡ .. .- .£ .c .£ " ....'"Oe0'S....~ .!!.5 ~.~ .... gj '"0 U-l::2z-o(ø.,¡¡¡ , I I[ II ... " " ~ i ~ e...... co <.> <.> Z ~ ~ '" '" C _ N N :ë'-.oo ;:::"" ~~ .c l:! :::l .c U :¡I~ :J § '1:1 0 "' !j U .9 I ~ .~ ~ ~ .... ~ ~_t¡ ~ Co. .3 ~ E -;;: ~ ë .. õl ~ _ u"g f! 3 "",,,, "''''1-1-1-1->;;>;;> "'ltVlOO"ttV'lV"¡V)U")'" ......f'O"'IIlDr-NNNNN ~~~ ciMooo \Óddci 0 J ~::t " 0 ...., ...., '" r- "''''' d"": "' II! ~ u-8 ~c:: ~~~ " 'C "' ~ := ~ ..:¡ '! ~ 'B ].5 8 ~ ~ il -Ë g :§ :l::2::2::2::2::2::2z~¡;¡~c:.: g g '" '" ..- !¡~~ ddo 00 GO on '" '" '" '" 0' d d r- '" '" "''''''' Nci~ d 0 GO '" '" N 00 "'''' 000 '" - o . ,0 M on on '" '" 00 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ B~ddo-o 000°:2000 ~~ I ! '" on '" '" 00 I on 0000 °o~ ~~~~~~:q~¿q -00000000 '" I, '" Ii § hll ;g r-;g ;g';g 08000 00000 ~ N\Or- 88V'¡~8 o~so2 MMOOÕ NMOOOOr---. NN-_N M M M M t"I"\ ::!::!vv~ r- 0 '" 000 000 000 ~:!:8 000 000 000 000 r- r- r- '" '" '" '" '" '" <o;tv::!: ~õo88~~S 00000000 00000000 l:'l:'\OVìNOOlnO -V'¡OVì-_r-_ 80-80-0000 o§ooo -"'0 0000 0-0 OOOOt"--OOt'OOMf"-- --N-N-NN t"f"IMMMMMMM '\1':!:!:!:!::!"":! §r- o§ on '" '" '" 00 00 00 00 r- r- '" '" '" M :!:" 88 00 00 0"" '" '" 0'" 00 '" o M 00 '" - '" '" "":!: '" '" 00 00 00 ~~ ~~ 00 GO GO ~~'3 ......~ 00-.\00'1 00 g 01' ~ ê}:l ~ I õ 8 8 8111 -000 0000 00 r---. r--- r--- ;:::; ~ fA ~U :! :! ,~~ËL -', - '-' ...." .~ ~. Agenda Request Item Number Date: r- Ùt::. 08/13/02 Consent Regular Public Hearing Leg, [ ] / ] [ ] [ X ] Quasi-JD [ X ] To: Submitted By: Board of County Commissioners Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consider Draft Ordinance 02-015 Amending the St. Lucie County Land Develop ent Code by Amending Section 10.00.04, Nonconforming Lots of Record, to Provide for the Elimination of the Restriction Effecting Contiguous Ownership of Nonconforming Lots of Record A Nonconforming Lot of Record is any lot that fails to meet the current minimum yard requirements of the zoning district in which it is located, but that because of when it was created, is afforded some latitudes in the ability of the property owner to obtain an building permit. However, these same regulations that afford some use of the property, also currently treat contiguous ownership or groupings of non-nonconforming lots as essentially one parcel for development purposes. Division of those properties, even back to the lots platted or described parcel lines, is not allowed unless the parcel to be separated can be made :~ conform with the current zoning requirements for the area in which they are located. BACKGROUND: In regard to the proposed a,.,-¡endments to Section 10.00.04 of the County's Land Development Code, the County has been asked to consider deleting from our Nonconforming Lot of Records Standards, a restriction that has been in place for a number of years that was designed to limit the number of housing units that may be constructed in areas of the County that for one reason or another do not meet minimum County Development Standards an Codes, Specifically, there is a restriction in Section 1Q,OQ,Q4(A) of the County's Land Development Code that states when two or more nonconforming lot of record are in contiguous, common ownership, then for the purposes of obtaining building permits, any such combination of lots is considered to be one development parcel. Should an owner of such a lot configuration wish to divide or re-divide this "commonly considered parcel" into more than one parcel they may do so, but any such division must be in accord with all applicable County Development Standards and Codes, including but not limited to lot area (based on the zoning district in which the parcel is located) and road frontage standards (either or a publicly owned right or way or a private right built to County Standards). FUNDS AVAILABLE: The genesis of this proposed amendment is from a private party land sales action in the St. Lucie Gardens area of the County. A property owner in this area apparently acquired, over time, several of the 1.25 acre tracts found on this area so that they formed a contiguous ownership block that was not otherwise divided by any recognized ingress/egress easement as provide for in Section 1Q,OQ.04(A)(2) of the County's Land Development Code. Over time, this initial property owner apparently conveyed off one or more of the assembled parcels to other individuals, apparently either unaware of the nonconforming nature of the parcels or with a misunderstanding of prior County correspondence regarding how the parent parcel was considered to be "one" for he purposes of the County's Land Development Regulations, When a subsequent purchaser of one of these re-separated parcels approached the County about obtaining a building permit on their newly acquired property, they were informed that the property in question was not eligible for a building permit since it was the product of an illegal division of the assembled parent property in violation of the subdivision standards described in the County's Land Development Code, N/A PREVIOUS ACTION: s., ,ocommoo," d'"", of Om, """'"'oo,,~ ()I~ ONCURRENCE: RECOMMENDATION: COMMISSION ACTION: []t] APPROVED D DENIED D OTHER Approve recommendation to denv (4-1) (Bruhn no) Douglas M, Anderson County Administrator County Attomey Originating Dept.: Finance: Coordination! Signatures Mgt. & Budget: Other: Purchasing: Other: (AGEND641 a) · ¡:}' ~ ..., COUNTY COMMISSION REVIEW: August 20, 2002 MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: County Commission FROM: Community Development Director DATE: July 10, 2002 SUBJECT: Consider Draft Ordinance 02-015 Amending the St. Lucie County Land Development Code by Amending Section 10.00.04, Nonconforming Lots of Record, to Provide forthe Elimination of the Restriction Effecting Contiguous Ownership of Nonconforming Lots of Record Attached is a copy of Draft Ordinance 02-015 which proposes to amend Section 10.00,04, Nonconforming Lots of Record, to provide forthe elimination of the restriction effecting contiguous ownership of Nonconforming Lots of Record. Section 10.00.04 of the Land Development Code addressees Nonconforming Lots of Record. A Lot of Record is defined in the Land Development Code as follows: LOT OF RECORD: As used in this code, a lot of record shall mean: (1) Any contiguous quantity of land that is part of an approved subdivision recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court; or (2) Any contiguous quantity of land which is capable of being described with such definitiveness that its location and boundaries are established, and which has been so recorded in the public records in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court prior to January 9, 1990, unless otherwise considered to be a nonconforming lot of record as described in Section 10.00.04 of this Code; or (3) Any contiguous quantity of land which is the subject of an agreement for deed or other instrument of conveyance properly executed prior to January 9, 1990, and which describes the parcel with such definitiveness that its location and boundaries are established and recognized by Florida Law, unless otherwise considered to be a nonconforming lot of record as described in Section 10,00,04 of this Code, A Nonconforming Lot of Record is any lot that fails to meet the current minimum yard requirements of the zoning district in which it is located, but that because of when it was created, is afforded some latitudes in the ability of the property owner to obtain an building permit. However, these same regulations that afford some use of the property, also currently treat contiguous ownership or groupings of non-nonconforming lots as essentially one parcel for development purposes. Division ofthose properties, even back to the lots platted or described parcel lines, is not allowed unless the '-" ...." I )~ , August 15, 2002 Page 2 Subject: Draft Ord. 02-015 parcel to be separated can be made to conform with the current zoning requirements for the area in which they are located, At the June 16, 2002 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to separate this Draft Ordinance into two parts, forwarding the proposed revisions to Section 10.00.04 of the County's Land Development Code to the Board for further review, and sending back to staff the proposed establishment of Interim Architectural Review/Design Standards for commercial development in the unincorporated areas of the County. In regard to the proposed amendments to Section 10,00.04 of the County's Land Development Code, the County has been asked to consider deleting from our Nonconforming Lot of Records Standards, a restriction that has been in place for a number of years that was designed to limit the number of housing units that may be constructed in areas of the County that for one reason or another do not meet minimum County Development Standards an Codes. Specifically, there is a restriction in Section 1 O,OO.04(A) of the County's Land Development Code that states when two or more nonconforming lot of record are in contiguous, common ownership, then forthe purposes of obtaining building permits, any such combination of lots is considered to be one development parcel. Should an owner of such a lot configuration wish to divide or re-divide this "commonly considered parcel" into more than one parcel they may do so, but any such division must be in accord with all applicable County Development Standards and Codes, including but not limited to lot area (based on the zoning district in which the parcel is located) and road frontage standards (either or a publicly owned right or way or a private right built to County Standards). \.; f.; ., ~ The genesis of this proposed amendment is from a private party land sales action in the St. Lucie Gardens area of the County. A property owner in this area apparently acquired, overtime, several of the 1.25 acre tracts found on this area so that they formed a contiguous ownership block that was not otherwise divided by any recognized ingress/egress easement as provide for in Section 10.00.04(A)(2) of the County's Land Development Code. Over time, this initial property owner apparently conveyed off one or more of the assembled parcels to other individuals, apparently either unaware of the nonconforming nature of the parcels or with a misunderstanding of prior County correspondence regarding how the parent parcel was considered to be "one" for he purposes of the County's Land Development Regulations. When a subsequent purchaser of one of these re- separated parcels approached the County about obtaining a building permit on their newly acquired property, they were informed that the property in question was not eligible for a building permit since it was the product of an illegal division of the assembled parent property in violation of the subdivision standards described in the County's Land Development Code. Over the past several month period there were numerous discussions at various levels of the County Administration in regard to this matter, until staff was directed to proceed with the processing of an amendment to the County's Land Development Code that would address this issue in some manner that would recognize the re-division of a previously aggregated non-conforming parcels to a condition where those parcels could be considered to be eligible for a building permit. .'~ There are at the momentthree (3) areas ofthe County where the requested change in the County's regulations would have the most notable effect. These areas are St. Lucie Gardens; the North Indrio/ Savannas Area and a small area just south of the Pantherwoods Development, northwest of Ft. Pierce. There are most likely other areas of the County that could be effected by the '-' ...", I P' August 15, 2002 Page 3 Subject: Draft Ord. 02-015 requested change to Section 10,00.03 of the County's Land Development Code. Although this specific request has its origination from one particular problem, the Board is asked to consider the broader impacts of any such general Code Amendment on the community as whole. This is the second of the two required pubic hearings on this matter. If you have any questions on this matter, please let me know. Submitted: DJM OR02-015MEM03(H) cc: County Attorney 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 ~ 'wi I ORDINANCE NO. 02-015 An Ordinance Amending the St. Lucie County Development Code by Amending Section 10. Nonconforming Lots of Record, to Proy Elimination of the Restriction E tin Ownership of Nonconforming Lots ec Conflicting Provisions; Provi for Providing for Applicability; Provi Department of State; Providing Providing for Adoption and Provid· WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners 0 following determination: 1. On August 1, 1990, the Boar Florida, adopted the St. L The Board of County the St. Lucie Cou Ordinances St. Lucie County, ent Code. 2. ed certain amendments to ode, through the following 11;, y..... ,~., Aug anua , 1995 ch 4,1997 mber 2, 1997 rU6, 1999 August 17, 1999 July 20, 1999 September 7,1999 June 13, 2000 June 13, 2000 December 18, 2001 91-09 - 92-17 - 93-03 - 93-06 - 94-07 - 94-21 - 96-10 - 97-09 - 99-01 - 99-03 - 99-05 - 99-16 99-18 00-11 - 00-13 May 14, 1991 June 2, 1992 February 16, 1993 May 25, 1993 June 22, 1994 August 16, 1994 August 6, 1996 October 7, 1997 February 2, 1999 August 17, 1999 July 20, 1999 July 20, 1999 November 2, 1999 June 13,2000 June 13, 2000 Underline is for addition Ot, ikl: TI ,I 01:191 , is for deletion Ordinance #02-0158 Draft #2 Page 1 PRINT OATE: 08115/02 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 '-' , J~ ~ ~; ...,J 3, On , the Local Planning Agency/ Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance after publishing notice in the Port 51. Lucie News and the Tribune at least 10 days prior to the hearing and recommended that the proposed ordinal'1çe be approved. 4. On , this Board held its first p ordinance, after publishing a notice of suc News and the Tribune on 5. On , this Board held . proposed ordinance, after publishing a n Lucie News and the Tribune on 6. The proposed amendments to the 51. Lu . are consistent with the general purpose the 51. Lucie County Comprehensi health safety and public welfare NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAIN County, Florida: Commissioners of 51. Lucie , ./;{ PART A. IE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER X HARDSHIP RELIEF NONCONFORMITIES Underline is for addition Otli¡G TI..õ~gl, is lor deletion Ordinance #02-0156 Draft #2 Page 2 PRINT DATE: 08/15/02 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 ~ .,J i ''';, 1 0.00.04 NONCONFORMING LOTS OF RECORD A. LOTS OF RECORD CREATED PRIOR TO JULY 1, 1984 1, ~. '" \ f' tl cable only to unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County, res ions, or parts thereof, in conflict with this ordinance are nce to the extent of such conflict. nce is for any reason held or declared to be unconstitutional, inoperative, all not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance. If this ordinance or hall beheld to be inapplicable to any person, property, or circumstance, such fect its applicability to any other person, property, or circumstance, Underline is for addition Otrikc Thl ol:lgl , is for deletion Ordinance #02·0158 Draft #2 Page 3 PRINT DATE: 08115102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 '-' ....J I I"' ,>;¡ f: PART D. APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE. This ordinance shall be applicable in the unincorporated area of St. Lucie County, PART E. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. The Clerk be and is hereby directed forthwith to send a certified copy of th' of Administrative Code and Laws, Department of State, Th apitol PART F. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the D PART G. ADOPTION. After motion and second, the vote on this ordinance Chairman Doug Coward Vice Chairman Cliff Barnes Commissioner Paula L Commissioner Jo '$ xxx rated in the St. Lucie County Code and Compiled Laws, to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the ren mbered or relettered to accomplish such intention; provided, all not be codified. ACTED this XXth day of XXXXXX, 2002. Underline is for addition Otl ikG TI, ol;lgl, is for deletion Ordinance #02-0158 Dratl#2 Page 4 PRINT DATE: 0S/15/02 "-" .J I ~ !c 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 ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST, LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk Chairman -------------------------------- Underline is for addition Strilll~ TI,retl~h is for deletion Ordinance #02-0158 Draft 1/2 Page 5 PRINT DATE: 08115/02 17' '-' .""", AGENDA ITEM 12: ORDINANCE 02-015 - Amend Land Development Code (Architectural Standards & Non Confonninl! Lots: Mr. Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director stated that Agenda Item # 12 proposed two amendments to the County's Land Development Code. He stated that the first amendment deals with adjustments to the non-conforming lot restrictions affecting contiguous ownership. He continued that the County currently has a restriction that states if you have a non-conforming lot of record, if you have more than two or three parcels in a row, they are considered to be one parcel unless they are divided by a roadway or easement. He stated that they had recently been approached about a situation down in the south/central part of the County where an individual had three lots together, not separated by anything, and they sold parcels in a private transaction. Those individuals that bought the parcels tried to apply for a building permit and were told their parcel is considered to be part of the parent parcel and was never legally divided under the non- conforming statues. He then stated that Staff was asked by the Board of County Commissioners to bring forward a proposed amendment to address those types of matters. He also stated that this amendment would eliminate the contiguous lot prohibition. He continued that, if approved, a series of lots under common ownership, then it would revert back to the original legal description of the parcel. He stated that if you have five lots, under the current guideline, they would be considered one. He advised that under the proposed amendment it would be considered as five. Mr. Murphy stated that the second amendment is the establishment of Interim Community Architectural Standards that would apply to all areas of the unincorporated County as minimum criteria for all new construction or substantial expansion to existing building or structures or building in areas zoned CN (Commercial, Neighborhood), CO (Commercial, Office), CG (Commercial, General), I (Institutional), RF (Religious Facilities), Pun (Planned Unit Development), PNRD (planned Non-residential Development) and PMUD (planned Mixed Use Development). He continued that these design standards were not intended to stifle imagination nor curtail variety but rather they were for the purpose of promoting a more attractive and unified community appearance. He also stated that these interim design standards were patterned after the existing community architectural standards found in the City of Port St. Lucie and were intended to serve as a short-term regulation until a broader set of community design criteria was developed. " \'~ ~. r t Staff recommends that you forward draft Ordinance 02-015 to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Hearn questioned if the Commission could recommend approval with additions to the colors listed on the color chart because he would be hesitant to have such a limit on the colors allowed. Mr. Murphy stated that would be fine. Mr. Hearn asked if they approve the change to non- conforming lots, would they stilI have to have the proper area for width, depth and road frontage, Mr. Murphy explained that would not be correct this change would make them completely build- able. Mr. Hearn stated he would like to have the ordinance modified to read that it must meet all of the other building criteria too. Mr. Grande stated that he is disappointed that these two items are presented together in one ordinance because they are two very different issues. He questioned if he understood what was presented about a buyer finding that he was unbuildable. Mr. Murphy stated that was correct. Mr. Grande he felt this would be a risky change because that was an issue where the proper P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 36 *" ~j ....." ....I " ',) disclosures weren't made and now this would change the Code to correct those types of buyer/seller issues when they aren't County issues. Mr. Murphy stated that amendments aren't usually used for correcting self-inflicted problems but this was an issue that has been a problem for quite some time and this would be the best way to resolve those situations, He continued that the Commission is being asked to review a proposal, if approved, would resolve those types of issues. He also stated that the reason they were brought forward in one ordinance is to help suppress excess paperwork and processing time as well as to save money on advertising costs. He advised that when these types of items are brought before the Commission they do not require a straight approval or denial and can be amended or part approved and part denied. Mr. Grande stated that he did not think the changes to Section 10, non-conforming lots, were warranted and that he is sure Staff can find another way to resolve those situations. He also stated that the standards are a good. idea but that on page 3, paragraph d, regarding screening vegetation should not be six feet at time of planting but should have to grow to that height within a certain period of time. Mr. Murphy stated that there are already minimum height restrictions for vegetation but that this particular section only applies to drive-throughs that shall not be located between a primary collector/arterial street and a building and that if they have no other option than they must provide a six-foot minimum vegetation screening. Mr. Grande stated that he feels that request is logical and reasonable but doesn't believe they should have to be that high at the time of planting. Mr. Lounds questioned if Mr. Grande is considering a large hedge area or screened area to hide ingress or something. Mr. Grande stated that was not correct and he was considering it was an area that would qualify for a requirement of six-feet but just not at the time planted. He continued that he feels the restriction should read that it would mature to six-feet within a reasonable specified amount of time. He stated that on page 4, section f, there was a reference to Chapter n.B, which should actually read Ill. B. ~~. Mr. Grande questioned why on page 5 there is a prohibited façade feature of reflective glass and Mr. Murphy stated that was so there wouldn't be a glass box building. Mr. Grande stated that the way he was reading it, it sounded like no reflective glass could be used as a feature to a façade. He continued that he was concerned about interpretation of that because that could mean there could not be a window on the front side of a building that has reflective glass in it. Mr. Murphy stated that he would have to review how the City applies that portion of the code. He stated that there is a difference between glass being reflective for solar treated purposes and mirrored glass. He continued that he felt this was intended to restrict the use of mirrored glass and Mr. Grande stated that he disagreed and could be interpreted differently. Mr. Grande stated that on page 7 they are prohibiting brightly colored glazed tile as a roof material and says that he doesn't feel it should be completely prohibited. He questioned Section B; number 6, on page 10, where it says signs should be kept below the top of roof. He asked if that meant the top of the roof or the bottom of the roof. Mr. Murphy stated that they wanted a roof line and did not want the sign above the top of the roof. Mr. Grande stated that on page 11, Section F, should have City Council replaced with Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Merritt stated that in all his years on the Commission he has never seen so many changes to the code as he has this past year and questioned where the requests are coming from. Mr. Murphy stated that these requests come from community interest and the interest of the County Commission. Mr. Merritt questioned how the word "drive through" on page 3 would be P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 37 ~ ..., interpreted. He stated that over on 25th street the medical center has a drive through for ambulatory pick-up and Mr. Murphy stated that would not be considered a drive through. Mr. Merritt stated that the wording doesn't specify and Mr. Murphy stated that the intention is to cover a drive through pick up window. Mr. Merritt questioned if page 7, item E where it states "butler buildings" are pemùtted for warehouse use only applies only to the commercial district. Mr. Murphy confirmed that was correct. Mr. Lounds stated that under that same section and item that butler buildings cannot be used for anything other than warehouse use. He questioned those businesses that run their business out of those and how it would affect them. Mr. Murphy stated they couldn't build a new butler building in the commercial district unless it is for warehouse use only. Mr. Merritt stated that this could affect car dealers and Mr. Murphy stated that could happen. Mr. Lounds questioned if Edwardg Road between US #1 and Oleander are commercial and Mr. Murphy stated he believed that area is industrial. Mr. Lounds asked if he wanted to go into a commercial area and put up a butler building for a repair shop, he would be denied. Mr. Murphy explained that was correct. Mr. Lounds stated that he wasn't comfortable with that restriction. Mr. Lounds questioned if an example of a drive through pickup would be like what they have at Walgreens or Eckerds. Mr. Murphy stated that was correct but that most of them have their drive through on the side of the building and that the vegetative screening only applies if they have to have it on the front of a building. He continued that he tried to choose standards that have already been effectively implemented in other areas and the City of Port St. Lucie has used theirs for about five years. Mr. Lounds questioned if screening on the backsides of the buildings were a problem. Mr. Murphy stated they have other standards to address that, as does the County. Mr. Jones asked what the urgency of adopting an interim ordinance would be if they plan OD creating a permanent ordinance. Mr. Murphy stated that rather than have no standards at all until. a finalized plan is ready; these were available in the interim. Mr. Jones stated that with regards to the non-conforming lots, he fears that passing that will cause more problems than it is correcting. Mr. Hearn asked if this new ordinance would eliminate manufactured commercial buildings. Mr. Murphy stated that would not happen because if they treat the facades in a way that meets the standards. Mr. Hearn questioned why they couldn't just do that for a butler building. Mr. Murphy stated there wasn't any real reason why they couldn't. Mr. Merritt stated they should probably remove the word "butler" from the standards. Mr. Murphy stated this is just an interim standard and could be changed at a later date. Mr. Hearn stated that he has been involved with non-conforming lot problems and if the language is changed to read; in any district principle pemùtted structures and customary accessory buildings may be erected on any single lot of record existing before July I, 1984 provided that the lot meets the provisions of area, width, and frontage for the district in which the lot is located. Mr. Murphy stated that the only problem with his suggested wording would be the term frontage. Mr. Hearn stated that it already states that if the lot does not have any road frontage, as defined in Chapter 2, then proof of recorded legal ingress and egress acceptable to County Attorney must be furnished. Mr. Grande questioned if right now an old platted piece of land was subdivided and each of the subdivided lots conformed to the current requirements for building in that location and each had P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 38 ~ .., an accepted ingress and egress they could build on it. Mr. Murphy stated that if you have an non- conforming subdivision and have contiguous holding. you can only get one building permit on that contiguous holding unless it was separated by a recognized street or easement. Mr. Murphy stated that if it was re-subdivided and platted it would have to conform to all current standards but this doesn't apply to it being re-subdivided. Mr. Merritt questioned if this problem was created by the 1984 ordinance. Mr. Murphy stated that he does believe it was about then and this was correct that. Mr. Hearn stated that he agrees that a permit should not be issued on a lot that is not big enough or has the right width or frontage or dedicated easement without getting a variance as provided. He continued that he does have a problem with if you own two lots and sell one of them that are totally acceptable in size and it is not considered buildable. Mr. Lounds questioned if those issues would be corrected by passing this changed ordinance. Mr. Murphy stated that was correct. Mr. Lounds questioned if the issue is a lot that does not have frontage to drive to and this change would allow it to be built. Mr. Hearn stated that is not what he was stating. Mr. Grande stated he doesn't know of anything existing that says that you cannot build on a lot if you meet the requirements of frontage. Mr. Hearn slated that such a lot must be in separate ownership and not contiguous to other lots in the same ownership because if they are and they are sold, that makes them unbuildable. Mr. Murphy slated that would be correct unless the sixty-foot right-of-way is a public right-of-way or a private roadway built to County specifications. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Jones made a motion to continue Ordinance 02-015 to the June 20, 2002 Planning and Zoning Meeting at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a vote, the motion was unanimously approved (with a vote of 7·0) and would be continued to the June 20, 2002 meeting. P & Z Meeting May 16,2002 Page 39 -...." f'1W1š"'PIr~Ii'.\1 hS:,~~-- "') ":'...0. ~_>1 If ~,':;._~" 't:, iJ .... !:J', .~; .~ If \j, ;.::. ""oF _~,,(.."_.:Jd $";"1' ~ G .r,' :,,~>~..?.'\b ~.'....,.;;c?2'~~~':·:: l . '::--"'- ; \\, r ¡",.. rr··',. AGENDA ITEM 6: ORDINANCE 02-015 - Amend Land Ðevelopméìii- Code (Architectural Standards & Non Conformine: Lots): Mr. Hearn stated that due to the hour he would like to continue this item again until the July 18th meeting. Ms, Young stated that if they wish to make a motion to continue again, they do need to open the public hearing and hear any testimony and then once closed make that motion. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Mr, Rob Russell stated that he has been trying for almost three years to get a permit to build a house on the lot he purchased. He also stated that he was in attendance at the previous June 20th meeting but did not speak and that was continued. He advised that he is in real need of help with his matter and would hope that they would not continue this item again. Mr. Hearn stated that he wanted his motion to continue the portion of the ordinance that related to architectural standards and would like to resolve the non-conforming lot issues tonight. Chainnan Matthes questioned if that could be done since both items were originally presented as one ordinance. Ms. Young stated that it is one ordinance and they could discuss the portion (Í1at relates to non-conforming lots but they would have to make a motion with regards to :'he ordinance as a whole. She continued that since it is one ordinance, they would not be able to just vote on half of it. Mr. Hearn questioned if they have to give a yes or no on the whole ordinance or could they give two separate recommendations on each subject. Ms. Young stated their motion could indicate that they are making an overall recommendation for the ordinance as a whole, but add that they are in support of one part or the other. Chairman Matthes asked if they could recommend that the architectural portion be broken out of this ordinance and have it re- presented under a separate number. Ms. Young stated that they could recommend that it be done that way. Mr. Grande stated that this point came up last month and that they would really not like to have ordinances that cover multiple. separate categories under one number and would not like this to happen again. He continued that ordinance should be single topics only and would like some justification as to why they are lumping together different subjects. Ms. Young stated that they should make a recommendation for approval or denial of the ordinance as a whole, but then include in the recommendation that they would like the architectural portion separated. She continued that it would go to the Board as presently drafted unless directed differently by the Commission. Mr. Kelly stated that the LPA could recommend that they would like to have it separated when it goes to the Board. Chairman Matthes questioned if they could request all reference with regards to architectural standards be deleted and then leave the rest of this ordinance as it is with regards to non-conforming lots but bring back the architectural portion under a separate number. Ms. Young stated they could recommend that if that it what they want. Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager stated that Agenda Item # 6 was continued from the June 20th meeting and proposed two amendments to the County's Land Development Code. He stated that he was going to use St. Lucie Gardens as an example to show a pattern of lots that has a row of easements for access alternating on the property lines. He advised that several years ago this was reviewed and they decided that it was not a good idea to continue to allow lots of development on easements where the county would not be able to provide roads and could cause service issues. He continued that the County currently has a restriction that states if you have a non-conforming lot of record, if you have more than two or three parcels in a row, they are P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 26 -... f',":'''''.: ., "., c .JIT'"~~"...~ >~tr-!t;·L;t§'...'.~_. ~ :~J :') ""' . I considered to be one parcel unless they are divided by a roadway or easement."Hé,sia~~ç1)þ~t.i ~l they had been approached about situations where an individual had three lots together, not separated by anything, and they sold parcels in a private transaction. Those individuals that bought the parcels tried to apply for a building permit and were told their parcel is considered to be part of the parent parcel and was never legally divided under the non-conforming statues, He also stated that this amendment would eliminate the contiguous lot prohibition. He continued that, if approved, a series of lots under common ownership would revert back to the original legal description of the parcel. He stated that if you have five lots, under the current guideline, they would be considered one. He advised that under the proposed amendment it would be considered as five, Mr. Trias asked how this would be solved. Mr. Kelly stated that by changing the language in the Land Development Code to take out all of paragraph 2 and some of the language in paragraph I that says, "such lot must be in separate ownership". Mr. Merritt stated that he failed to see the common sense in the way the current code is written. Mr. Kelly stated that is why they are trying to correct some of these issues with this change. Mr. Grande stated that if they were public roads instead of private easements, then it would not be an issue. Mr. Kelly confirmed that was correct. Mr. Heam questioned the wording in the first paragraph, around the 18th line, about a variance from yard dimensions and if it meant the distance that a house has to be from a side yard. Mr. Kelly stated that it is pointing out that any variances that may be needed have to be acquired from the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Hearn asked what the definition of "yard dimensions" was. Mr. Kelly stated it is discussing those areas other than area, width, or frontage. Mr. Heam stated that the word "yard dimension" is with regards to setbacks and Mr. Kelly confirmed that would be correct. Mr. Rob Russell stated that he is in this situation because he bought a lot from someone in St. Lucie Gardens who had owned lots that were contiguous. He continued that he received a letter from Ms. Linda Pendarvis of the Public Works Department that stated they determined his property does not meet the criteria for a non-conforming lot of record and lacks the required road frontage for AR-I (Agricultural, Residential - 1 dulacre) zoning. He stated that his lot is off of Tilton Road, which is east of U.S. 1 off of Dyer Road. He continued that the man who sold him the lot had purchased three separate lots at three separate times but since the one he purchased was contiguous it became unbuildable. He questioned why they are considered to be one lot when they were each purchased at separate times and they pay three different property taxes for each individual property. He also stated that there are homes to the right and left of his and they are buildable, which doesn't make sense to him. He advised that his lot is only 330 feet from the corner of Tilton Road and has spoken with Commissioner Bruhn about these issues. Chairman Matthes questioned if this proposed change would solve Mr. Russell's problems. Mr. Kelly advised that it is his understanding that it would. Mr. Merritt questioned if by changing this they would be creating more problems. Mr. Kelly stated that he isn't sure if it would create any more problems but that it would resolve many of the problems that have come from the original change. Mr. Hearn stated that he ran into a situation where he sold a lot but previously the same man owned two contiguous lots, the lot he sold was not considered to be buildable. Mr. Russell stated that is the same type of situation he is in today and that people behind his property are buildable, but he isn't. Mr. Grande questioned if this problem has arisen because Meehan Lane (which is now Tilton Road) is a private road. Mr. Kelly confirmed that is correct and if it were a county or public road, in general, this would not be an issue. P & Z Meeting June 20, 2002 Page 27 ....... r~~tRr" ;.·~~~L .- meT IG " Li1¡']r;¡¡JJ E 3m ~:-1r:ÎH;1i:"'io("~~~,r 1:)nHl\l ·,!<:;;~~jitì4,::;.,;~~Ui\: il~- ;:~:;E..I{H Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Russell if he was planning on building a home on that lot. Mr. Russell stated that he had been approved to build a home, using the lot as collateral, almost three years ago, but was denied when he came in to request his building permit. He continued that he had his lot prepped to be built on at that time but has been fighting ever since to get a permit to build. Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Hearn made a motion to recommend approval of the amendments to the wording in Section 10.00.04, Section A, Number 1 and to delete Number 2 in it's entirety, Non- Conforming Lots and also to delete aU sections regarding creating Section 7.10.24, Interim Architectural Standards and have those resubmitted under a separate ordinance number. Motion seconded by Mr. Merritt. Upon a roll call vote, the motion was unanimously approved (with a vote of 7-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting June 20,2002 Page 28 "-' ..., NOTICE OF ESTABLISHMENT OR CHANGE OF REGULATION AFFECTING THE USE OF LAND The St. Lucie. County Board of County Commissioners propose to adapt the following Ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. 02-015 An Ordinance Amending the St. Lucie County Land Development Code by Amending Section 10.00.04, Nonconforming lots of Record, to Provide for the Elimination of the Restriction Effecting Contiguous Ownership of Nonconforming Lots of Record; Providing Conllicting Provisions; Providing for Severability; Providing for Applicability; Providing for Filing with the Department of State; Providing for an Effective Date; Providing for' AdOPtion and Providing for Codihcation. A PUBUC HEARING on Ordinance 02..()1 S will be ' held before the St., Lucie County Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, August 20, 2002, at 7:00 PM or as soon thereafter as Possible, in the County Commission Chambers, 3rd 1I00r of ,the County Administration Annex, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft.' Pierce, FI. Matters affecting your personal and property rights may be heard and acted upon. All interested persons are invited to attend and, be heard, Written oomments' receMid in advance of the public hearing will also be heard; : ' The purpose of this ,pu.blic hearing is to amend the 5t; Lucie County land Development Code to amend the County'S nonconforming lot of record standards to eliminate the restrictions associated with contiguous ownership of properties that fail to meet, th,fn;iriimum lots'tandards and requirements of the zoning described in which they are located, This is the second of two public required hearings, If any person deddes to appeal any decision made with respect' tò any matter considered at the meetings ,or 'hèarings of any board, committees, commissions; agency,. Councilor advisory group, that, persønWin need record of the proceedings and that, for such·purpose may need to ensure that a vernatim record of the proceedings is made, which record should include the testimony and evidence upon whic~theappeal is to be based, Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in, Any party to the, proceeding will be granted an opportunity to i, érOs~xamine any individual testifying dUring,a hearing upon request. This notIce dated and executed this 6th day of August, 2002, BOARD OF COUNTY CÒMMISSIONERS ST, LUCIE COlINTY,FlORIDA /S/ Doug Coward; Chairman PUBLISH DAT~: August 9, 2002 - .............,_...-.....~-~......... ·'-··_._._h"_",~"""" ~ """" AUGUST 20, 2002 6:00 PM BOARD OF COUNTY COMÏ\1ISSIONERS MEETING AGENDA WELCOME GENERAL RULES AND PROCEDURES Attached is the agenda which will determine the order of business conducted at today's Board meeting: CONSENT AGENDA- These items are considered routine and are enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commissioner so requests. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS- Proclamations, Presentations, Public Hearings, and Department requests are items which the Commission will discuss individually usually in the order listed on the agenda, PUBLIC HEARE\GS- These items are usually heard on the first and third Tuesdays at 7:00 P.I1!. or as soon thereafter as possible, However, if a public hearing is scheduled for a meeting on a second or fourth Tuesday, which begins at 9:00 A.M" then public hearings will be heard at 9:00 A.I1!. or as soon thereafter as possible, These time designations are intended to indicate that an item "ill not be addressed prior to the listed time. The Chairman will open each public hearing and asks anyone v\ishing to speak to come forward, one at a time. Comments will be limited to five minutes, As a general rule, when issues are scheduled before the Commission under department request or public hearing, the order of presentation is: (1) County staff presents the details of the Board item (2) Commissioners comment (3) if a public hearing, the Chairman will ask for public comment, (4) further discussion and action by the Board. ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION- Please state your name and address, speaking clearly into the microphone, If you have backup material, please have eight copies ready for distribution. NON-AGENDA ITEJ\IS, These items are presented by an individual Commissioner or staff as necessary at the conclusion of the printed agenda. PUBLIC COMJ\IENT- Time is allotted at the beginning of each meeting for general public comment. Please limit comments to five minutes, OECORUM- Please be respectful of others opinion, I1IEETINGS- All Board meetings are open to the public and are held on the first and third Tuesdays of each month at 7:00 P.M. and on the second and fourth Tuesdays at 9:00 A.M., unless otherwise advertised, Meetings are held in the County Commission Chambers in the Roger Poitras Administration Annex at 2300 Virginia Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL 34982. The Board schedules additional workshops throughout the year necessary to accomplish their goals and commitments. Notice is provided of these workshops. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Sef\ices r\'Ianager at (561) 462-1777 or TOO (561) 462-1428 at least forty-eight(48) hours prior to the meeting, '-' ....",¡I www.stlucieco,gov John D. Bruhn Doug Coward Paula A. Lewis Frannie Hutchinson Cliff Barnes District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 ßOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA The order of business will be as follows: 6:00 pm Item 1 Item 3 Item 4 Item R.5 Project "P" Additions ¡(A ¡. --- INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 7:00 om Item2A Public Hearings 5A through 5E Item 6A through 6e Item 7 /2ß~ August 20, 2002 , 6:00 P.M. 1, MINUTES Approve the minutes of the meeting held August 13, 2002, 2. PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIO:\S A. Resolution No. 02-201 - Proclaiming the week of August 26,2002 through September 2, 2002 as "Fire Fighter Appreciation ~Week" in St. Lucie County. 3, GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT C ~ 6 CONSENT AGENDA .../ Pll vV' 4, R,S Authorization to Negotiate for Water and Sewer Service for Project "P" - Consider staff recommendation to authorize staff to negotiate an agreement with _______________________, and that the negotiated agreement be brought back to the Board for final approval. 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 ofthe proceed lOgs and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. Upon the requesf 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 testif}ing during a hearing upon request. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Manager at (561) 462-1777 or TDD (561) 462-1428 at least forty-eight(48) hours prior to the meeting. '-' ..." REGULAR AGENDA AUGUST 20,2002 PAGE TWO k~':~'UJ,~ iVga:~r.l__.,. ,r.,_ I_I -~, ~ PUBUC HEARINGS PUBLIC WORKS SA, Demolition of Unsafe Building /1808 Avenue "Qu, Fort Pierce, Florida - Pursuant to the provisions of Article III of Chapter 2-5 of the St. Lucie County Code of Ordinances and Compiled Laws, consider staff recommendation enter an order to repair or demolish the building by November 1, 2002. If the building is not repaired or demolished by Koyember 1, 2002, the County Shall demolish the building and assess the entire cost against the real property where the building is located. SB. Demolition of Unsafe Building / 2205 Elizabeth Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida - Pursuant to the provisions of Article III of Chapter 2-5 of the St. Lucie County Code of Ordinances and Compiled Laws, consider staff recommendation enter an order to repair or demolish the building by November I, 2002. If the building is not repaired or demolished by Kovember 1, 2002, the County Shall demolish the bU~'lCli g and as~.:¡s the entire cost against the real property where the building is J. ca. r' tI;· - ,,;au i\ R \ I bf'" ~ .. !f 5(,\ Ordinance No. 02-23 - Staff recommends that the Board consider adoption of the . ì\ . proposed ordinance creating Section 1-15-30.1 (Restraint of Dogs) to require dogs V f\ to be under restraint by lead or leash in County owned or leased properties, or ~ \ facilities, in the incorporated and unincorporated areas, which permit dogs. Resolution No, 02- 144/ Ouasi- Tudicial / East Florida Primitive Baptist District { Association, Ine. - Consider staff recommendation to approve the resolution granting a Conditional Use PerllÙt to allow Educational Services and Facilities in the I (Institutional) Zoning District. Location: 3950 Juanita Avenue CQt\r-.IUNITY DEVELOPMENT SE, Ordinance No. 02-015 / Ouasi- Tudicial / Land Development Code / Non- Conforming Lots of Record - This is the second of two required public hearings on this matter. Staff recommends denial of the resolution. End of Public Hearings &._. U¡;_-ry1'lt"'JU ~JMJj;,~~~ '-' "'" REGULAR AGENDA AUGUST 20,2002 PAGE THRE 6. OUNTY ATTORNEY A, County Audit / Agreement with Berger, Toombs, Elam & Frank, Chartered - Cons.ider staff recommendation to approve the agreement and authorize J the Chairman to sign the agreement. , Resolution No. 02-199/ Community Parks / Open Space Bond Referendum Ballot Question - Consider staff recommendation to adopt the resolution, authorize the Chairman to sign the Resolution and authorize staff to advertise a notice of the bond referendum election as required by state law. 7. SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS Budget Amendment No. 02-149 - Consider staffrecommendation to approve the budget amendment moving S160,000 from General Fund Contingency into the Supervisor of Elections Transfer account to pay anticipated expenses associated with the redistricting and reapportionment, '-' ...., CONSENT AGE\'DA August 20, 2002 1. WARRANTS LIST Approve warrants list No. 46, 2, PUBLIC WORKS A. South 7th Street Canal/Farmer's Market Drainage Improvements - Consider staff recommendation to approve Work Authorization No. 8 to the Agreement for Continuing Professional Engineering Services with Hazen and Sawyer, P.e., for the S. 7th Street Canal Crossing as part of the project, in the amount of 58,400, and authorize the Chairman to sign the work authorization, B, Road & Bridge / Equipment Request No, 02-240 - Consider staff recommendation to approve the equipment request for the purchase of a 60" 26HP Dixie Chopper Mower in the amount of $7,539. e. Road & Bridge / Equipment Request No. 02-242 - Consider staff recommendation to approve the equipment request for the purchase of a 48" Hand Squeeze Roll Applicator "ith Air Cylinders from the lowest bidder, 3M in the amount of $3,132, D. River Branch Estates MSBU Water :\lain Project - Consider staff recommendation to accept the project and release the retainage in the amount of $7,686; deduct Change Order No,l in the amount of($1,775.60), deduct ($40.00) from the contract for failed laboratory tests, make final payment to Barton Underground Construction, Inc. in the amount of 521,832. E, Road & Bridge / Equipment Request ;\0,02-243/ Budget Resolution No. 02- 207 - Consider staff recommendation to approve the equipment request and budget resolution for the purchase of a replacement 7KW Generator in the amount of 51,449, 3. PURCHASING A. Bid No, 02-094 / Fertilization Program for Thomas]. White Stadium . Consider staff recommendation to award the bid to Lesco, Inc., at the unit prices submitted, and authorize the Chairman to sign the contract as prepared by the County Attorney. B, Bid No, 02-101 /Pre-Employment Physical E~ams & Drug Testing - Consider staff recommendation to award the bid to Absolute Testing & Consulting, Inc. At the unit prices submitted, and authorize the Chairman to sign the contract as prepared by the County Attorney. C. Extension of Contract No, C99-10-067 \\1th Dave's Communications, Inc. - Consider staff recommendation to approve the final one-year extension to the current contract through September 30, 2003, and authorize the Chairman to sign the extension as prepared by the County Attorney. '- CONSENT AGENDA AUGUST 20, 2002 PAGE TWO ,..., -1. PARKS .t\ND RECREATION Budget Amendment No. 02-151 - Consider staff recommendation to approve the budget amendment to use $5,000 from the Contingency Fund for improvements to the Employee Break/Lunch Room. :>. ADMINISTRATION A, Equipment Request No. 02-244 /Budget Amendment No. 02-152 - Consider staff recommendation to approve the budget amendment and equipment request for the purchase of a HP Laser Jet 4100 Printer for District 4 in the amount of $1,103, B. Change Order No, 2 to Existing Contract With MCSi -Consider staff recommendation to approve Change Order No.2 for additional media equipment in the amount of $42,866.08, and authorize the Chairman to sign the Change Order. 6, COl\L\IUNITY DEVELOPMENT A. Final Plat Approval / Raptor SID - Consider staff recommendation to approve the final plat and authorize its final execution. B, Christensen Acres Subdivision / Final Plat Review -- Consider staff recommendation to approve the final plat and authorize staff to proceed with its final processing. C. Montoya 1 Subdivision / Final Plat Review - Consider staff recommendation to approve the final plat and authorize staff to proceed with its final processing. D, Montoya 2 Subdivision / Final Plat Re\iew - Consider staff recommendation to approve the final plat and authorize staff to proceed with its final processing, - /, COUNTY ATTORNEY Resolution No, 02-195 - Consider staff recommendation to adopt the proposed resolution authorizing the Medical £''Xaminer to increase the fee for preparation and issuance of a Cremation Certificate. 8. IN\'ESTlvIENT FOR THE FUTURE Thomas ]. White Stadium Improvements - Consider staff recommendation to approve the purchase of 1005 replacement seats and 1273 replacement seat backs from American Seating Company, as a sole source procurement, and approve the use of Investment for the Future Funds in the amount of $43,057.55 for the purchase, '-' """" St. Lucie ~ounty Board of County Commissioners Announcements August 20,2002 A, There will be a Ground Breaking for Little Jim Bridge Boat Ramp on August 26, 2002 at 10:00 am, B, There will be a Erosion Workshop on August 26, 2002 at 2:00 pm in Conference Room 3. C. There will be a Community \\'ide Memorial Service held on September 11, 2002 at 7:00 pm in the St. Lucie County Civic Center. D. The 2002/2003 Budget Public Hearings will be held on September 12, 2002 and September 19, 2002 at 5:05 pm in the Commission Chambers. E, The election dates are as follows: Primary Election September 10, 2002 General Election November 5, 2002 ~ - ~ AGENDA REQUEST ..,J ITEM NO. R-5 DATE: August 20, 2002 REGULAR [X ] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [ ] Douglas M, Anderson County Administrator SUBMITTED BY (DEPT): ADMINISTRATION SUBJECT: Authorization to negotiate with the City of Port St. Lucie for Bulk Water and Sewer Service for Project "P" BACKG ROUND: On August 9,2002, proposals were opened for the supply of Water and Sewer Service to the County for Project "P". The Request for Proposal was issued to the City of Ft. Pierce and the City of Port St. Lucie; the attached responses were received, The Administration recommends that the Board authorize staff to initiate negotiations with the City of Port St. Lucie with an agreement to be brought back to the Board for final approval. FUNDS AVAilABLE: N/A PREVIOUS ACTION: On August 13, 2002 the Board deferred action on this recommendation for one week. RECOMMENDA TION: Staff recommends that the Board authorize staff to initiate negotiations with the City of Port St. Lucie for the supply of Bulk Water and Sewer Service to the County for Project "P", and that the negotiated agreement be brought back to the Board for final approval. COMMISSION ACTION: ~ APPROVED [ ] DENIED [ ] OTHER: 5-0 NCE: oug Anderson County Administrator Coordination/Signatures County Altorney:(X) Mgt. & Budget Purchasing Dir.:(X) Originating Dept: Other: Other: Finance: (Check for Copy only, if Applicable) Eff.1/97 Au¡-19-20~1 C5:14pm '-'II0RKCENTRE PRom '-' +15476449ge T-546 . 001/002 F-~Sl ....I RUDEN MCCLOSKY SMITH SCHUSTER .& RUSSELL, F!.A. 200 EAST BRaINARD BOULEVARj FORT LAUDE II.DAl', FLDIUDA 33301 POST OFFiCE BOX 1900 FORT LAUDERDALE, FlOIUD^ 33302 AT TOR N ~ .,. 5 AT l A VI (954) 527·2412 F""X: (954) 333-4012 5U\^NMOILEY@RUDENCOM August 19,2002 ~ ø ·11 f(1 \t þ"V . ,,,", l- J JY1 Ù c' '!v1''1:/þ ifÞ,J;rfl Via Facsimile 7724679264 Denñis W. Bea~h, City Manager City of Fort Pierce 100 North U. S. 1 P.O. Box 1480 Fort Pierce, FL 34954-1480 Re: Yortr letJer of AUgllSt 16, 2002/Project 'P" Utility Services Dear DennÍS: I received your letter datt::d August 16, 2002 and immediately forwarded it on to my cHants. After m1.lch thought. they have asked me to inform you that Project P cannot accept your proposal, This is a multi-million dollar project that Project P's company has been investigating and revíevving for ljl;:veral months. At this point. it is too late in Project p's internal approval process to make a change to the planned Lltility improvements for this project, Project P hopes that the City Of Fort Pierce wìll thoughtfully recognize the situation and not stand in the way of a facility which will bring !\ great number of jobs to the residents of Fort Pierce as well as the rest of St. Lucie County, Sincerely, RUDEN McCLOSKY, SMTTH, SC ~~:;¡yu, P. Motley SPM/lks cc: Robert W. Schwerer, City Attclmey FTL,92.'4S,1 FORT LAUDERDALE-MIAMI- N.~PLES. PORT 5T, lliCE_5AIt...SOTA_5T. PETERSBURG-TALL...HASSEE-TI\MPA-WfST PAL'VI BEACH -~ / ? ~,~ 3>" .,/ ;-;~<"">'~:"-' (/§/,' :::/2"":(7 " ,:, ; ~~I;" ':::0- I ,..,. Ir ~ f' >", \ \ ß~â:::. \ \ /' .' \ I, \ \~ j i\ ~/ " \" ~ // ~ ~ ...." CITY OF PORT ST, LUCIE ~ ~ 9 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a 3 3 3 ~ ~ 3 3 3 J 0 A CiTY FOR ALL AGES August 6, 2002 Mr. Douglas M. Anderson County Administrator St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 Subject: Project P Proposal Dear Mr. Anderson: Attached herein please find a response to St. Lucie County's solicitation to provide bulk water and sewer services to Project P. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact this office at your convenience. The City of Port St. Lucie stands ready to provide any clarification or additional information that you may require. Sincerely, (I,i / /.4 I " /'1 r,</ ~ '~~-!-.rl: .{;/ {/L.->lf..l!/l () {;t7;.fWL- DONALD B. COOP~ City Manager DBC:eg Attach. ",-,.'" "- >,',' '-" ..., Project P Bulk Sale Water & Sewer to St. Lucie County The County is soliciting proposals from utilities who are interested in providing water and sewer services to the County on a bulk sale basis for retail sale to a potential development knows as "Project P" located in unincorporated St. Lucie County. Please contact the County if you have specific questions about the location of the proposed development. 1. Fire Protection & Potable Water Requirements: Can two independent water sources be guarantee with minimum required flows as follows: 2500 gallons per minute at a residual pressure of 45 psi for two hours; OR 625 gallons per minute at a residual pressure of 45 psi for up to eight hours for refill of one (or two) of the company's 300,000 gallon water storage tank(s). PSL Response: Yes, service can be provided 2500gal./min @ 45psi for two hours, it can also be provided at 625 gal./min for eight hours @ 45psi Domestic Water: Can the utility provide 200 gallons per minute at a residual pressure of 65 psi at the meter (average 20,000 gallons per day): PSL Response: Yes If additional system upgrades are required to provide the requested flow, please specify: PSL Response: Water main extension from Project P site to Midway Road (appropriate size to be determined) (this depends on options selected) Earliest date County could connect to water: (Note: Connection shall be available no later than 5/17/04) PSL Response: :1:10 months (end of May, 2003) depending upon time of construction of water main and FOEP approval Cost per 1,000 gallons of water: PSL Response: $1.90 I thousand gallons of water based upon Interlocal agreement between the City of Port St. Lucie and St. Lucie County -.. ,..." Page 2 Project P Bulk Sale Water/Sewer How long is this price guaranteed: PSL Response: October 1, 2002 through September 30, 2003, subject to the provisions of the referenced Interlocal Agreement How will future increases be calculated: PSL Response: Any rate increases must be adopted by City Council, and would be subject to the referenced Interlocal Agreement and/or ordinance, or both Will there be connection fees (please see #4): If so, what are they: PSL Response: Yes, $770.00 per ERC (equivalent residential connection). ERC is based on 250 gallons per day. Number of ERCs to be determined in the Interlocal Agreement between the two governmental bodies. 2. Sewer Requirements: Can the utility provide the required 20,000 gallons per day (average) of outflow sewer: PSL Response: Yes Date County could connect to sewer: (Note: Connection shall be available no later than 11/21/04) PSL Response: :i:10 months (end of May, 2003) based upon estimated construction time and FDEP approval Cost of sewer service: PSL Response: Cost per 1,000 gallons of wastewater: $5.77 per thousand gallons. Rate to be determined by Interlocal Agreement ~ """" Page 3 Project p Bulk Sale Water/Sewer How long is this price guaranteed: PSL Response: October 1, 2002 through September 30, 2003 How will future increases be calculated: PSL Response: Any rate increases must be adopted by City Council, and would be subject to the referenced Interlocal Agreement and/or ordinance, or both Will there be connection fees (please see #4): If so, what are they: PSL Response: Yes, $967.00 per ERC (equivalent residential connection). Number of ERCs to be determined by estimated flows or by the Interlocal Agreement between the two governmental bodies. 3. Temporary Water Source for Construction: Can an independent source capable of supplying 600 gallons per minute at 45 psi be guaranteed: PSL Response: An a" water main currently terminates south of the Florida Turnpike on the west side of Glades Cut-Off Road Earliest date temporary water service will be available: (Note: The Above service shall be provided at the site within 30 days of receipt of notice from the company requesting such service no later than 3/8/04.) PSL Response: Contingent upon completion of construction of the required water main extension If additional system upgrades are required to provide the requested flow, please specify: PSL Response: Construction of above referenced water main '-" ..., Page 4 Project P Bulk Sale Water/Sewer 4. The company has requested a waiver of all water and sewer connection fees and any other similar fees and capacity changes. Will you waive any or all of these fees? Please specify: PSL Response: No, the City's bond covenants do not permit water and sewer plant capacity fees to be waived. However, City Code 63.22 does allow developers to receive credits against water and sewer plant capacity fees if the City requires lines to be oversized. 5. Will the utility/City contribute financially to this project: PSL Response: Yes, the City of Port St. Lucie is prepared to contribute $2,000,000.00 to St. Lucie County for use in meeting the transportation needs of this project, subject to a mutually agreed upon Interlocal Agreement If yes, how much and under what conditions: PSL Response: Terms and conditions will be determined by the referenced Interlocal Agreement 6. Will City ever require annexation of this property: Yes No *(Please note that Project P has specified as a condition of providing water and sewer service that they will not agree to any condition requiring annexation.) PSL Response: No. '-' ..."" PROPOSER INFORMATION Submitted by: Proposer (Entity): Donald Cooper, City Manager City of Port St. Lucie l'v..,tflliHy'. . ( City of Port St. \ ucie /Î, -,1- r;,r. ¡ Signature: Name (Typed): Address: 121 S.W. Port St. Lucie Blvd. City/State: Port St. Lucie, FL 34984-5099 Telephone: 772-871-5163 Fax: 772-871-5248 It is understood and agreed by Proposer that the County reserves the right to reject any and all qualifications submittals/proposals, to make awards on all items or any items according to the best interest of the County, and to waive any irregularities in the RFP or in the proposals received as a result of the RFP. It is also understood and agreed by the Proposer that by submitting a proposal, proposer shall be deemed to understand and agree that no property interest or legal right of any kind shall be created at any point during the aforesaid evaluation/selection process until and unless a contract has been agreed to and signed by both parties. /)þJ ,t ~l , (, (Authorize Signature) l¡>~,u..vf t;. Z# Z-- // / (Date) ~. - //0 r__..r ~A/¡2L ~ ;Y, LtitJ/'/{:/L (Printed Name) Proposer must sign below to acknowledge receipt of addendum (if necessary). Addendum No.1: Addendum No.2: Addendum NO.3: FORT PIER~ UTILITIES AUTHORITY "Committed to Quality" ..., Director of Utilities 113 N, Second Street (34950) Post Office Box 3191 Fort Pierce. Florida 349L18-3191 Phone 772-466-1600 Fax 772-595-9841 August 8, 2002 Douglas M. Anderson, Administrator St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982 Re: RFP for Bulk Water and Sewer Service to St. Lucie County Project P l Dear Mr.Anderson: The Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority (FPUA) is in receipt of the County's Request for Proposals (RFP) to provide bulk water to St. Lucie County for Project P. FPUA will not be responding to the RFP. St. Lucie County and the FPUA, pursuant to the 201. Facilities Plan, have repeatedly adopted resolutions recognizing and designating FPUA as the proper entity to provide water and sewer service to the proj ect P location which is designated as Planning Unit No. 7 in those respective resolutions. As a follow-up to the 201 Plan, St. Lucie County, FPUA and the City of Fort Pierce, in their respective comprehensive plans and master plans for supplying water and sewer service throughout the county, have further designated the area within which proj ect P is located as the service area for FPUA to provide water and sewer service. Based on those resolutions, planning documents and state law, FPUA has developed the necessary infrastructure to serve Planning Unit 7. Neither St. Lucie County, Port St. Lucie by the way of the County, nor any other entity is entitled to sell bulk water or provide sewer service within FPUA's service areas. It is therefore the intent of FPUA to provide direct service to any customer in this service area. Based on UA's meeting with the City, we are convinced that the City can resolve the annexation issue with the prospective customer of Project P. The City remains convinced that it can successfully address all concerns when it is given the opportunity to do so. You may assure your contact that neither the FPUA nor the City of Fort Pierce will delay the finalization ...,. August8,2002 Page - 2 ..." of its plans. Our involvement will in fact accelerate the provision of services to the project. Y01JX'~rul , ~ {/{I/ "'-- ~! ~ &fie J. Boudreaux III,o;~' Director of Utilities RNK: smb cc: Dennis Beach, City Manager Robert V. Schwerer, City Attorney Dan McIntyre, County Attorney R. N. Koblegard III, FPUA Attorney Board of County Commissioners Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director Bill Blazak, County Utilities Director Fort Pierce City Commissioners Michael Rath, County purchasing Director - - - ,----..- 't.r' AGENDA REQUEST ...., ITEM NO. ¿,CJ DATE: August 20, 2002 REGULAR [XX] PUBLIC HEARING [] CONSENT [] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): County Attorney Daniel S. McIntyre County Attorney SUBJECT: County Audit - Agreement with Berger, Toombs, Elam & Frank, Chartered BACKGROUND: See attached memorandum FUNDS A V AILABLE: PREVIOUS ACTION: RECOMMENDA TION: Staff requests that the Board approve the Agreement and authorize the Chairman to sign the Agreement. l~ APPROVED [ ] DENIED [ ] OTHER: 5-0 ou as Anderson County Administrator COMMISSION ACTION: County Attorney: !)d/ Review and Approvals Mânagement & Budget. /Yjm ~ Public Works Dir: Purchasing: Originating Dept. County Eng.: Finance: (Check for Copy only, if applicable) Eff. 5/96 \.of ...J INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Daniel S. McIntyre, County Attorney C.A. NO. 02-1204 DATE: August 12,2002 SUBJECT: County Audit - Agreement with Berger, Toombs, Elam & Frank, Chartered BACKGROUND: On January 8, 2002, pursuant to state law, the Board authorized the formation of an Auditor Selection Committee comprised of the County constitutional officers and one (1) Board member. The Committee issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for audit services soliciting responses from interested firms. On June 7,2002, the Committee interviewed the firms on the shortlist and selected the firm of Berger, Toombs, Elam & Frank, Chartered, as the top ranked firm. Pursuant to state law, the Board directed staff to attempt to negotiate a contract with the top ranked firm. The County Administrator and the Management & Budget Director met with representatives of the top ranked firm and negotiated the scope of work and cost proposal that is included in the agreement which is attached to this memorandum. As set out in Paragraph 4(a) of the agreement, the proposed compensation per fiscal year shall not exceed the following: Fiscal Year Maximum Fee 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 $201,000 $199,000 $205,000 \.",.- ..I The proposed fee includes analyzing quarterly reports of County utilities which is currently handled under a separate contract. If the County requested the Auditor to assist in preparing a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, there would be an additional maximum fee of $12,500. At the request of the Committee, language has been added providing for liquidated damages in the event that the audit report is not delivered in a timely manner. RECOMMENDATION/CONCLUSION: Staff requests that the Board approve the Agreement and authorize the Chairman to sign the Agreement. DSM/ caf Attachment '-' ..." AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered on , 2002, by and between ST, LUCIE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter called the "COUNTY", and BERGER, TOOMBS, ELAM & FRANK, CHARTERED, hereinafter called the "AUDITOR", WITNESSETH In consideration of the mutual terms and conditions, promises, covenants and payment hereinafter set forth, County and Auditor agree as follows: SECTION 1. AUDIT SCHEDULE The Auditor shall conduct an examination of the County's basic financial statements, the Board of County Commissioners and the Constitutional Officers' fund financial statements for the fiscal years ending September 30,2002,2003,2004 and thereafter as approved by the County and Auditor. The audit shall begin on or before September 1, prior to the end of the fiscal year under audit and shall be submitted no later than March 31, after the end of the fiscal year under audit. The Auditor acknowledges that timely delivery of the audit report is important to the County, If the Auditor fails to deliver the audit by March 31 after the end of the fiscal year under the audit, the Auditor shall pay the County the amount of $250.00 per day as agreed liquidated damages for failure to deliver the audit report in a timely manner. The Auditor shall not be required to pay liquidated damages if the delay is caused by reasons outside the control of the Auditor. 1 \.."t ...,J The Auditor shall deliver up to twenty-five (25) copies of the final audit report to the County no later than March 31, after the end of the fiscal year. If additional copies are requested by the County, the Auditor will provide the additional copies at their cost. SECTION 2. AUDIT TEAM The firm of J.W. Gaines & Associates, Chartered, shall serve as a subcontractor to the Auditor. No change shall be made regarding the two (2) firms providing the audit services without the written consent of the County. SECTION 3. SCOPE OF AUDIT a) The audit for each Fiscal year shall cover all of the funds and/or accounts of the various county agencies. b) The Auditor shall examine the County's financial statements, for the audit period, in order to express an opinion on the fairness with which they present the financial position, results of operations, and changes in fund equity of the County in accordance with Accounting Principles Generally Accepted in the United States of America (GAAP) and Board policy, and an examination of financial compliance in accordance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements, including Federal and State laws and regulations, c) The Auditor shall express an opinion on the basic financial statements of the County. The Auditor shall provide technical assistance to the County in implementing GASB 34 and, if requested by the County, a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) , If unable to express an unqualified opinion, the Auditor shall state the reason for qualification or disclaimer of opinion. 2 \.,- ..J d) The audit report for the County shall be a single document and will include a table of contents and separate audit reports for the County, Board of County Commissioners, Supervisor of Elections, Clerk of Circuit Court, Property Appraiser, Sheriff and Tax Collector. The audit report for the County will contain the information outlined in Chapter 10.557, Rules of the Auditor General. The audit report for the Board of County Commissioners, Supervisor of Elections, Clerk of Court, Property Appraiser, Sheriff and Tax Collector will conform to Chapter 10.557(5), Rules of the Auditor General. The management letter for the County shall be prepared as defined in Chapter 10.554(1)(9)1. through 6" Rules of the Auditor General. e) The audit shall be conducted in accordance with United States Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS) along with the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Governmental Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and the Rules of the Auditor General Chapter 10.550. f) The financial statements shall be presented in accordance with Accounting Principles Generally Accepted in the United States of America. For examination of grant funds and/or programs, the Auditor shall, in addition, comply with the procedures set forth in the Single Audit Act of 1984 and the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and/or the Florida Single Audit Act. g) The Auditor shall observe the adequacy of internal control. If weaknesses are noted, appropriate recommendations shall be first reviewed with the appropriate public official(s), prior to inclusion in the management letter. The County Administrator will be notified of any significant internal control weaknesses as they are discovered during field work. 3 '-' ""'" h) The engagement cannot be relied upon to disclose errors, irregularities, or illegal acts, including fraud or defalcations, that may exist. However, the Auditor will inform the County of any such matters that come to the Auditors' attention, The County authorizes the Auditor to disclose immediately all findings of suspected fraud or embezzlements as prescribed by the United States Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133 and/or the Government Auditing Standards (1994 Revision). i) At the conclusion of the fieldwork, the Auditor shall discuss within a reasonable time with the head of each respective county agency and the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners or his/her designee, all of the Auditor's comments which may be included in the final audit report pertaining to that agency's particular area of responsibility. The Auditor will deliver the management letter to the appropriate County official and request that he/she prepare a response and provide the Auditor with a copy within thirty (30) days as required by Rule 10.558(a), Rules of the Auditor General. j) The Auditor acknowledges that the County's staff participation in the audit will be limited to activities within the normal course of business and that any assistance with the audit by County personnel shall be limited to matters within the scope of each County employee's responsibility, The normal level of participation as described herein by County staff shall in no way relieve the Auditor from responsibilities for the conduct ofthe audit. k) The County is responsible for adjusting the basic financial statements to correct material misstatements and for confirming to the Auditor in the management representation letter that the effects of any uncorrected misstatements aggregated by the Auditor during the current 4 \..; ....,¡ engagement and pertaining to the latest period presented are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. 1) The Auditor shall analyze the quarterly reports of the County utilities and attend meetings as necessary, SECTION 4. COMPENSATION AND TERMS OF PAYMENT a) The Auditor will bill the County periodically (no more frequently than bi-monthly) for services previously performed. Each billing will be for actual hours worked multiplied by the specific hourly rates set forth in subsection (b) below, Total billing shall not exceed: FISCAL YEAR MAXIMUM FEE 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 $201,000 $199,000 $205,000 The maximum fee includes the scope to prepare the individual fund financial statements for the Board of County Commissioners and each constitutional officer and the County-wide financial statements (Basic Financial Statements) and the required special reports for solid waste, additional court costs, and conflict counsel fees and expenses. Should the County request assistance to prepare a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, an additional maximum fee of $12,500 will be allowed for the preparation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. b) The following are the hourly rates to be charged by the Auditor for the audit by individual class of audit personnel. CLASS FISCAL YEAR 2001-02 HOURLY RATE FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 HOURLY RATE FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 HOURLY RATE Director Manager $150 125 $155 130 $165 135 5 \.".- ., Senior Staff Clerical 75 60 25 80 65 25 83 68 25 c) Should irregularities, the absence of reasonable cooperation of all County agencies or other unforeseeable conditions be encountered which might necessitate the extension of the audit beyond the scope of work set forth in Section 3 of this Agreement, the Auditor shall immediately notify the County in writing of such conditions, providing a detailed explanation of the unforeseen conditions or circumstances and why additional time is necessary, The Board of County Commissioners shall approve and/or deny such requests for additional time due to an increase in the scope of the audit prior to the firm incurring any significant increase in time. Any adjustments to the scope of the audit shall be set forth in writing and be attached to and become a part of this Agreement when approved and executed by the parties in the same manner as this Agreement. d) Upon satisfactory completion of the work required hereunder or any supplements thereto, and, upon acceptance of the work by the County, the Auditor may invoice the full amount of compensation due under the terms of the Agreement less the amount(s) already paid by the County, e) The Auditor agrees to maintain all books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidences pertaining to work performed under this Agreement. It is understood that all such books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other such evidences assembled by the Auditor for the purpose of producing the audit report are the property of the Auditor. If for due cause it may become necessary to disclose certain information contained therein, the Auditor will honor reasonable requests by the County or his designee to make such materials available at its 6 \.,..;. ....J office at all reasonable times during the Agreement period for three (3) years from the date of final payment for audit or inspection by the County or its designee, Separate accounting records must be maintained for each subsequent year's work under this Agreement. SECTION 5. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The County may request additional services at any time from the Auditor. a) To the extent that such services are an extension of the scope of the audit(s) as a result of increased regulatory requirements, the addition of agencies or funds to be audited, or any other reason beyond the control of the Auditor, such extra services shall be compensated based upon actual hours worked at the appropriate rates by staff classification. b) To the extent that such services are separate from the scope of the audit but essential to the overall [mancial management of the County, compensation for such services shall be subsequently negotiated by the County and the Auditor on actual hours worked or lump sum fee basis, at the discretion ofthe County. c) All requests for additional services, which result in an increase in the maximum hours and/or maximum fees set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement, shall be approved by the Board of County Commissioners, All adjustments shall be set forth in writing and be attached to and become a part of this Agreement. SECTION 6. CHANGES IN SCOPE OF WORK County or Auditor may request changes that would increase, decrease, or otherwise modify the "Scope of Work". Such changes and method of compensation must be set forth in writing and shall be attached to and become a part of this Agreement when approved and executed by the parties in the same manner as this Agreement. 7 '-'" ..."J SECTION 7. RESPONSffiILITY OF THE AUDITOR a) The Auditor shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and the coordination of all professional services furnished by the Auditor under this Agreement. b) Neither the County's review, approval of, acceptance of, nor payment for any of the services required under this Agreement shall be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out of the performance of this Agreement, and the Auditor shall be and remain liable to the County in accordance with applicable law for all damages to the County caused by the Auditor's negligent performance of any of the services furnished under this Agreement. SECTION 8. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS All reports that result from the Auditor's services under this Agreement shall become the property of the County after final payment is made to the Auditor. No changes or revisions to the documents furnished by the Auditor shall be made by County or its agents without the written approval of Auditor. SECTION 9. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The Auditor represents that it presently has no interest and shall acquire no interest, either direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of services required hereunder, as provided for in Florida Statute 112,311. The Auditor further represents that no person having any interest shall be employed for said performance, The Auditor shall promptly notify the County in writing by certified mail of all potential conflicts of interest prohibited by existing state law for any prospective business association, interest or other circumstance which may influence or appear to influence the Auditor's judgment 8 ...., ..",;J or quality of services being provided hereunder. Such written notification shall identify the prospective business association, interest or circumstances, the nature of work that the Auditor may undertake and request an opinion of the County as to whether the association, interest or circumstance would, in the opinion of the County, constitute a conflict of interest if entered into by the Auditor, The County agrees to notify the Auditor of its opinion by certified mail thirty (30) days of receipt of notification by the Auditor. If, in the opinion of the County, the prospective business association, interest or circumstance would not constitute a conflict of interest by the Auditor, the County shall so state in the notification and the Auditor shall, at his/her option, enter into said association, interest or circumstance and it shall be deemed not in conflict of interest with respect to services provided to the County by the Auditor under the terms of this Agreement. SECTION lO, ASSIGNMENT This Agreement, or any interest herein, shall not be assigned, transferred or otherwise encumbered under any circumstances by the parties hereto without prior written consent of the opposite party and only by a document of equal dignity herewith. SECTION 11. ALL PRIOR AGREEMENTS SUPERSEDED This document incorporates and includes all prior negotiations, correspondence, conversations, agreements or understandings applicable to the matters contained herein and the parties agree that there are no commitments, agreements or understandings concerning the subject matter of this Agreement that are not in this document. Accordingly, it is agreed that no deviation from the terms hereof shall be predicated upon any prior representations or agreements, whether oral or written. 9 ....... ., It is further agreed that no modifications, amendments, or alteration in the terms or conditions contained herein shall be effective unless contained in a written document approved and executed by the parties in the same manner in this Agreement. SECTION 12, TRUTH-IN NEGOTIATION CERTIFICATES In compliance with Section 218.391(i) Florida Statutes, and the Contract between the County and the Auditor, for the audit of the fiscal years ending September 30, 2002, 2003 and 2004, Auditor herewith certifies that: a) The rates of compensation and other factual unit costs supporting the compensation are accurate, complete and correct at the time of contracting, b) Any and all limitations on current or future years' audit contract fees including any arrangements under which fixed limits on fees will not be subject to reconsideration if unexpected accounting or auditing issues are encountered are disclosed herein. c) All services rendered are at rates or terms that are customary. d) The contract price and additions shall be adjusted to exclude any significant sums by which the County determines the contract price was increased due to inaccurate or incomplete factual unit costs within one (1) year of the end of contract. SECTION 13, TERMINATION If either party defaults in the performance of any substantial term, covenant or condition of this Agreement, the non-defaulting party may terminate this Agreement upon not less than thirty (30) days notice unless the defaulting party has cured the default or is in the process of curing the default to the satisfaction of the non-defaulting party. 10 '-'" ....,¡ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have made and executed this Agreement in (3) counterparts on the respective dates under each signature; ST. LUCIE COUNTY through its BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, signing by and through its Chairman, authorized to execute same by Board action on the day of , 2002 and BERGER, TOOMBS, ELAM & FRANK, CHARTERED, signing by and through its President, duly authorized to execute same, ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST, LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA Deputy Clerk By: Chairman DATE: WITNESSES: BERGER, TOOMBS, ELAM & FRANK, CHARTERED By: DATE: 11 y AGENDA REQUEST ..I ITEM NO. &B DATE: August 20, 2002 REGULAR [XX] PUBLIC HEARING [] CONSENT [] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY(DEPT} County Attorney Daniel S. McIntyre County Attorney SUBJECT: Community Parks - Open Space Bond Referendum Ballot Question BACKGROUND: See attached memorandum FUNDS AVAILABLE: PREVIOUS ACTION: RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt Resolution No. 02-199 and authorize the Chairman to sign the Resolution. Staff also recommends that the Board authorize staff to advertise a notice of the bond referendum election as required by state law. COMMISSION ACTION: o 91as Anderson C unty Administrator L~. APPROVED [ ] DENIED [ ] OTHER: 5-0 County Attorney: Review and Approvals Mà.n.'.....". ~ Pørks & Rec. Dip: " / Purchasing: Originating Dept. County Eng.: Finance: (Check for Copy only, if applicable) Eff, 5/96 '-" "-" INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM ST. LUCIE COUNTY. FLORIDA TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Daniel S, McIntyre, County Attorney C.A. NO. 02-1162 DATE: August 9, 2002 SUBJECT: Community Parks - Open Space Bond Referendum Ballot Question BACKGROUND: In 2001, the Board requested that a determination be made as to whether the County's community parks system is adequate for the current needs of the citizens of St, Lucie County. As a result of the Board's request, a Community Parks System Master Plan was developed with input from the public along with a steering committee appointed by the Board, Based on the results of the master plan, County staff is recommending that the Board authorize a referendum on November 5, 2002 to allow the voters to determine whether or not to issue limited ad valorem tax bonds in an amount not to exceed $25 million payable from ad valorem taxes at a rate not to exceed t mill per annum for a term of no longer than 20 years, In this regard, the County Attorney, in conjunction with the County's bond counsel, has drafted Resolution No, 02-199. The ballot question in the draft resolution is based on a question that was drafted for the County by representatives of The Trust for Public Lands, If approved, notice of the bond referendum election would be published in the Tribune on September 30 and October 14, 2002 as required by state law, RECOMMENDA nON/CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt Resolution No, 02-199 and authorize the Chairman to sign the Resolution, Staff also recommends that the Board authorize staff to advertise a notice of the bond referendum election as required by state law, DSM/ caf Attachment '-" ..¡ RESOLUTION NO. 02 -199 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF LIMITED AD V ALOREM TAX BONDS OR NOTES OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN ONE OR MORE SERIES, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $25,000,000 BEARING INTEREsT AT NOT EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM LEGAL RATE, MATURING IN NOT MORE THAN 20 YEARS, PAYABLE FROM AD VALOREM TAXES UP TO ! MILL PER ANNUM TO FINANCE THE COST OF ACQUIRING LAND TO PROTECT WATER QUALITY IN LAKES, STREAMS AND THE ST. LUCIE RIVER, ACQUIRE NATURAL LANDS AND OPEN SPACES: TO IMPROVE AND CONSTRUCT NEW PARKS AND ENHANCE PARK SAFETY: USING MATCHING FUNDS AND SUBJECT TO CITIZENS' COMMITTEE REVIEW AND ANNUAL AUDIT CALLING FOR AND PROVIDING FOR A BOND REFERENDUM OF THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS RESIDING IN THE COUNTY TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 2002 ON THE QUESTION OF THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH LIMITED AD V ALOREM TAX BONDS OR NOTES: PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN MATTERS WITH RESPECT THERETO: AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made the following determinations: 1. In 2001, the Board requested that a determination be made as to whether the County's community parks system is adequate for the current needs of the citizens of St. Lucie County. 2, As a result of the Board's request, a "Steering Committee" was created in October 2001 to assist the County in the needs determination. The Committee included members of the County's Recreation Advisory Board as well as a representative from the City of Fort Pierce, the City of Port St, Lucie and the St. Lucie County School Board. 3. The Board also approved the development of a Community Parks System Master Plan and Lawnwood Recreation Complex Master Plan. "" '-" 4, A number of public workshops were held in December 2001 and January 2002 to solicit public input as part of the master plan process. Surveys of the public were conducted in an attempt to further solicit public input. 5. Based on the results of the master plan, the Board has determined to authorize a referendum on November 5, 2002 to determine whether or not to issue limited ad valorem tax bonds in an amount not to exceed $25 million payable from ad valorem taxes at a rate not to exceed t mill per annum for a term no longer than 20 years, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida: A. This resolution is adopted pursuant to Section 125,01, Florida Statutes, Chapter 100, Florida Statutes, and other applicable provisions of law, B. Subject and pursuant to the provisions hereof, limited ad valorem tax bonds or notes (herein "bonds") of the County of St. Lucie, Florida (herein "County") are authorized to be issued in one or more series in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $25 million to finance the cost of acquisition of land to protect water quality of lakes, streams and the St. Lucie River, acquire natural lands and open spaces; to improve and construct parks and enhance park safety; together with other purposes necessary, appurtenant, or accidental thereto, including all costs of the issuance of the bonds, Such bonds shall be payable from ad valorem taxes levied at a rate not to exceed t mill per annum on all taxable property in the county. Such bonds shall bear interest at the rate or rates not exceeding the maximum rate permitted by applicable law at the time of the sale of the bonds, to be determined upon sale of the bonds. None of the bonds shall be issued for a term longer than 20 years from their date of issuance. C. Under this parks improvement program, the County shall establish a citizens committee to review and oversee the implementation of the County's portion of the program. All expenditures from bond proceeds shall be reviewed by an independent auditor as part of the financial audit required in Section 218,39, Florida Statutes. D. A bond referendum of the qualified electors residing in the County is hereby called to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2002, to determine whether or not the issuance of such bonds in one or more series in an aggregate principal amount not-to-exceed $25 million shall be approved by such qualified electors to finance the cost of acquisition of land to protect water quality in lakes, streams and the St. Lucie River, acquire natural lands and open spaces, improve and construct parks and enhance park safety; together with other purposes necessary, appurtenant, or incidental thereto, including all costs of the issuance of the bonds. '-" ....¡ All qualified electors residing in the county shall be entitled and permitted to vote in such bond referendum. The places of voting and the inspectors and clerks for the bond referendum shall be the same as those places designated and those persons appointed by the Supervisor of Elections for the primary election to be held in the County on the same date. The polls will be open at the voting places from 7:00 a,m, until 7:00 p.m. on said day. E, County election equipment shall be used at such bond referendum and the ballot to be used shall be in substantially the following form: OFFICIAL BALLOT ST. LUCIE COUNTY Bond Referendum Community Parks November 5, 2002 TO PROTECT WATER QUAUTY IN LAKES, STREAMS, AND THE ST. LUCIE RIVER, ACQUIRE NATURAL LANDS AND OPEN SPACES, IMPROVE AND CONSTRUCT PARKS, ENHANCE PARK SAFETY, USING MATCHING FUNDS AND SUBJECT TO CmzENS' COMMITTEE REVIEW AND ANNUAL AUDIT, SHALL ST. LUCIE COUNTY ISSUE NOT EXCEEDING 25 MILUON DOLLARS IN BONDS, BEARING INTEREST AT NOT EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM LEGAL RATE, MATURING NOT MORE THAN 20 YEARS, PAYABLE FROM AD VALOREM TAXES UP TO f MILL PER ANNUM? For the Bonds Against the Bonds F. Absentee voting shall be permitted in such bond referendum. G. The Supervisor of Elections of the County is authorized and directed to make all arrangements for the conducting of such bond referendum. H, The bond referendum shall be held and conducted in the manner prescribed by general law for holding bond referenda. v ....., 1. If a majority of the votes cast at such bond referendum shall be for the issuance of such bonds, the issuance of such bonds shall be approved and then such bonds may be issued as hereafter provided by the County. J. This resolution shall be published in full by the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners as part of the notice of such bond referendum, together with a caption in s such form as she shall determine, in a newspaper published in and of general circulation in the county, at least twice, once in the fifth week and once in the third week prior to the week in which the bond referendum is to be held, the first publication to be not less than 30 days prior to the date of such bond referendum. K. In the event that any word, phrase, clause, sentence, or paragraph hereof shall be held invalid by any court of any competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect any other word, clause, phrase, sentence, or paragraph hereof. L. All resolutions in conflict or inconsistent therewith hereby are repealed, insofar as there is a conflict or inconsistency. M, This resolution shall take effect immediately, After motion and second, the vote on this resolution was as follows: Chairman Doug Coward XXX Vice Chairman Cliff Barnes XXX Commissioner Paula A. Lewis XXX Commissioner John D. Bruhn XXX Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson XXX PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 20th day of August, 2002, ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY BY: Deputy Clerk Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: BY: County Attorney v .....; NOTICE OF REFERENDUM IN THE COUNTY OF ST. LUCIE, FLORIDA, ON NOVEMBER 5, 2002 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A REFERENDUM will be held on the 5th day of November, 2002, in the County of St. Lucie, Florida, for the purpose of determining the question set out in the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 02-199 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF LIMITED AD VALOREM TAX BONDS OR NOTES OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN ONE OR MORE SERIES, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $25,000,000 BEARING INTEREST AT NOT EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM LEGAL RATE, MATURING IN NOT MORE THAN 20 YEARS PAYABLE FROM AD VALOREM TAXES UP TO ~ MILL PER ANNUM TO FINANCE THE COST OF ACQUIRING LAND TO PROTECT WATER RQUALITY IN LAKES, STREAMS AND THE ST. LUCIE RIVER, ACQUIRE NATURAL LANDS AND OPEN SPACES; TO IMPROVE AND CONSTRUCT PARKS AND ENHANCE PARK SAFETY; USING MATCHING FUNDS AND SUBJECT TO CITIZENS' COMMITTEE REVIEW AND ANNUAL AUDIT CALLING FOR AND PROVIDING FOR A BOND REFERENDUM OF THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS RESIDING IN THE COUNTY TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 2002 ON THE QUESTION OF THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH LIMITED AD VALOREM TAX BONDS OR NOTES; PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN MATTERS WITH RESPECT THERETO; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, has made the following determinations: 1. In 2001, the Board requested that a determination be made as to whether the County's community parks system is adequate for the current needs of the citizens of St. Lucie County. 2. As a result of the Board's request, a "Steering Committeell was created in October 2001 to assist the County in the "'" ..." needs determination. The Committee included members of the County's Recreation Advisory Board as well as a representative from the City of Fort Pierce, the City of Port St. Lucie and the St. Lucie County School Board. 3. The Board also approved the development of a Community Parks System Master Plan and Lawnwood Recreation Complex Master Plan. 4. A number of public workshops were held in December 2001 and January 2002 to solicit public input as part of the master plan process. Surveys of the public were conducted in an attempt to further solicit public input. 5. Based on the results of the master plan, the Board has determined to authorize a referendum on November 5, 2002 to determine whether or not to issue limited ad valorem tax bonds in an amount not to exceed $25 million payable from ad valorem taxes at a rate not to exceed ~ mill per annum for a term no longer than 20 years. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida: A. This resolution is adopted pursuant to Section 125.01, Florida Statutes, Chapter 100, Florida Statutes, and other applicable provisions of law. B. Subject and pursuant to the provisions hereof, limited ad valorem tax bonds or notes (herein "bonds") of the County of St. Lucie, Florida (herein "County") are authorized to be issued in one or more series in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $25 million to finance the cost of acquisition of land to protect water quality of lakes, streams and the St. Lucie River, acquire natural lands and open spaces; to improve and construct parks and enhance park safety; together with other purposes necessary, appurtenant, or accidental thereto, including all costs of the issuance of the bonds. Such bonds shall be payable from ad valorem taxes levied at a rate not to exceed ~ mill per annum on all taxable property in the county. Such bonds shall bear interest at the rate or rates not exceeding the maximum rate permitted by applicable law at the time of the sale of the bonds, to be determined upon sale of the bonds. None of the bonds shall be issued for a term longer than 20 years from their date of issuance. C. Under this parks improvement program, the County shall establish a citizens committee to review and oversee the implementation of the program. All expenditures from bond proceeds shall be reviewed by an independent auditor as part of the financial audit required in Section 218.39, Florida Statutes. ~ """ D. A bond referendum of the qualified electors residing in the County is hereby called to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2002, to determine whether or not the issuance of such bonds in one or more series in an aggregate principal amount not-to-exceed $25 million shall be approved by such qualified electors to finance the cost of acquisition of environmentally significant land to protect water quality in lakes, streams and the St. Lucie River, acquire natural lands and open spaces, and improve and construct parks and enhance park safety together with other purposes necessary, appurtenant, or incidental thereto, including all costs of the issuance of the bonds. All qualified electors residing in the county shall be entitled and permitted to vote in such bond referendum. The places of voting and the inspectors and clerks for the bond referendum shall be the same as those places designated and those persons appointed by the Supervisor of Elections for the primary election to be held in the County on the same date. The polls will be open at the voting places from 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. on said day. E. County election equipment shall be used at such bond referendum and the ballot to be used shall be in substantially the following form: OFFICIAL BALLOT ST. LUCIE COUNTY Bond Referendum Community Parks November 5, 2002 TO PROTECT WATER QUALITY IN LAKES, STREAMS, AND THE ST. LUCIE RIVER, ACQUIRE NATURAL LANDS AND OPEN SPACES, IMPROVE AND CONSTRUCT PARKS, ENHANCE PARK SAFETY, USING MATCHING FUNDS AND SUBJECT TO CITIZENS' COMMITTEE REVIEW AND ANNUAL AUDIT, SHALL ST. LUCIE COUNTY ISSUE NOT EXCEEDING 25 MILLION DOLLARS IN BONDS, BEARING INTEREST AT NOT EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM LEGAL RATE, MATURING IN NOT MORE THAN 20 YEARS, PAYABLE FROM AD VALOREM TAXES UP TO X MILL PER ANNUM? For the Bonds Against the Bonds F. Absentee voting shall be permitted in such bond referendum. /. '-" -.I G. The Supervisor of Elections of the County is authorized and directed to make all arrangements for the conducting of such bond referendum. H. The bond referendum shall be held and conducted in the manner prescribed by general law for holding bond referenda. I. shall be shall be provided If a majority of the votes cast at such bond referendum for the issuance of such bonds, the issuance of such bonds approved and then such bonds may be issued as hereafter by the County. J. This resolution shall be published in full by the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners as part of the notice of such bond referendum, together with a caption in s such form as he shall determine, in a newspaper published in and of general circulation in the county, at least twice, once in the fifth week and once in the third week prior to the week in which the bond referendum is to be held, the first publication to be not less than 30 days prior to the date of such bond referendum. K. In the event that any word, phrase, clause, sentence, or paragraph hereof shall be held invalid by any court of any competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect any other word, clause, phrase, sentence, or paragraph hereof. L. All resolutions in conflict or inconsistent therewith hereby are repealed, insofar as there is a conflict or inconsistency. M. This resolution shall take effect immediately. After motion and second, the vote on this resolution was as follows: Chairman Doug Coward XXX Vice Chairman Cliff Barnes XXX Commissioner Paula A. Lewis XXX Commissioner John D. Bruhn XXX Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson XXX PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 20th day of August, 2002. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA /S/ Millie Delgado DEPUTY CLERK BY:/S/ Doug Coward CHAIRMAN '" ...¡ APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: /S/ Daniel S. MCIntyre COUNTY ATTORNEY A majority vote shall pass the referendum. The places of voting in the referendum shall be the same as in the General election on the same day. The polls will be open at the voting places on the date of said referendum from 7:00 A.M. until 7:00 P.M. on the same day. All qualified electors residing within the County shall be entitled, qualified, and permitted to vote as such referendum. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: /S/ Doug Coward, Chairman PUBLISH: September 30, 2002 October 14, 2002 PUBLISHER: Fort Pierce Tribune TYPE AD: Legal column PROOF TO: St. Lucie County Attorney Administration Building Annex 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, FL 34982 BILL TO: Board of County Commissioners Administration Building Annex 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, FL 34982 COPIES TO: "" County Administrator Clerk of Circuit Court Supervisor of Elections Clerk's Secretary ""'" / --. 'wi AGENDA REQUEST ITEM NO. 7 DATE: August 20, 2002 REGULAR [ X ] PUBLIC HEARING [ CONSENT [ TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBMITTED BY: Supervisor of Elections PRESENTED BY: Honorable Gertrude Walker SUBJECT: Supervisor of Elections Redistricting & Reapportionment Expenses BACKGROIJND: When the Supervisor of Elections submitted her budget for fiscal year 2002, she asked the board for $200,000 in contingency for additional election expenses associated with redistricting and reapportionment. She is asking the Board for $160,000 from contingency to be used for these additional expenses, This will place her budget at $1,597,726, FUNDS AVAILABLE: See attached Budget Amendment 02-149 PREVIOUS ACTION: None RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board approve Budget Amendment 02-149 moving $160,000 from General Fund Contingency into the Supervisor of Elections transfer account to pay anticipated expenses associated with the redistricting and reapportionment. I Attachment: List of additional costs l~. APPROVED [] DENIED [ ] OTHER: 5-0 COMMISSION ACTION: CoordinationlS i gnatures County Attorney: XX ')4¡ j DJ'f1 Management & Budget: ~rr&¡ Purchasing: PWorks Dept: Central Services: Finance: (Check for Copy only, if applicable) X Other: Su ervisor of Elections Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the 51. Lucie County Community Services Manager at 561- 462-1777 orTDD 561-462-1428 at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting. \, ~ ...., CONTINGENCY FOR ADDITIONAL ELECTION COST ASSOCIATED \VITH REDISTRICTING AND REAPPORTIONMENT ELECTIONS REFORM LEGISLATION 1915 10 NEW PRECINCTS 513100 60 poll workers 4,950.00 training for 60 poll workers 1,663.20 541000 phone line installations and monthly phone charge 1,791.70 544000 Rental of polling places 1,000,00 PRECINCT NOTIFICATION TO VOTER 541300 Postage 27,010,20 547000 Printing 35,695,10 534000 Other contractual 19,817,94 UPGRADES TO VOTE TABULATION SYSTEM 551200 Replace old memory cards purchased in 1995 21,250.00 534105 New central processing unit host computer 9,000.00 552000 Maps with new precincts and districts 8,200,00 LEGIS LA TIVE MANDATES 513100 66 Poll workers 5,250,00 Training 2,000.00 547000 Printing 2,500,00 RE PRECINCTING 534000 564100 GIS Services - reprecincting upgrade to Plus Streets 2000 16,000,00 2,015,00 \ '-' BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST FORM ....., REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: OMS for Supervisor of Elections PREPARED DATE: 08/06/02 AGENDA DATE: 08/20/02 TO: 001-8191-599081-800 Su ervisor of Elections General Fund - Transfer to Constitutional Officers $160,000 FROM: 001-9910-599100-800 Contin enc $160,000 REASON FOR BUDGET AMENDMENT: To a for Additional ex enses due to Redistrictin CONTINGENCY BALANCE: THIS AMENDMENT: REMAINING BALANCE: $457,385 $160,000 $297,385 DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: OMB APPROVAL: BUDGETAMENDMENT~ DOCUMENT # & INPUT BY: 02-149 G\Sudget\QUA TTRO\G EN ERAL \FORMS\AMEN DM02. wb3 \ '-'" DEPARTMENT Approved Budget BA02-125 BA02-131 BA02-132 BA02-136 Public Saf BA02-140 BA02-139 BA02-141 BA02-142 BA02-148 Proposed action: BA02-149 BA02-151 ...,,¡ FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 FUNDS APPROVED FROM CONTINGENCY GENERAL FUND AMOUNT REMAINING: $457,385 ITEM ACCOUNT # Contingency 001-9910-599100-800 Reserved for Supervisor of Elections Supervisor of Elect. Loan Payoff to Sun trust Bank Tourism Recovery Plan in Partnership with FLAUSA AS400 Public Safety Software Upgrade Reimbursement of expenses for the AMISTAD Sailing Ship Risk Management/Safety Equipment Request #02-177 Defibrillators Electrical system upgrade at the Ft Pierce Amphitheater County Coalition for Resp Mgt of Lake Okee... Preliminary Engineering Services - Indian River Estates MSBU SOE Voting Equipment (additional) SLC Chamber of Commerce (Comp Everglades Restoration Plan) SOE Voting Equipment (additional) 4-H Organization Educational Activities Mobile Command Post Purchase of Portable Bleachers by Parks (EQ02-229) Increase in Summer Programs So County Stadium Concession/Restroom Allstate Litigation Expenses Total used: Balance Available Supervisor of Elections Redis/Reapp Expenses Employee Break/Lunch Room project Balance Available After Proposed Action: G :\Budget\QUA TTRO\G EN ERAL \FORMS\.A.M ENDM02,wb3 AMOUNT 1,107,452 $107,452 $5,648 $109,931 $18,000 9,554 9,450 6,000 $1,000 $100,000 5,348 20,000 $27,684 $500 $20,000 $40,000 $10,500 $134,000 $25,000 650,067 457,385 $160,000 $5,000 292,385 08/15/02 -"'~T,'UlliR FUND 001 001001 001137 001139 001140 001141 001143 0011';5 001151 001267 001268 001809 ::'01 ::'01002 :01003 :01006 2.02 :02001 ::"02104 :04001 :05 _ _ 1001 :07002 :07003 :07126 2.21 2.40 ~4GO,Jl 2.c;O:-:'C7 2.60 2.83 2.83001 ::'83002 183004 2.85001 :85002 205 310002 3::"6 ...."1,-""....... ':.LCV.,J.l. 382 396 c;Ol 418 421 / '1 '-' ST. LUCIE COu~TY - BOARD '" WARRANT LIST #46- 10-AUG-2002 TO 15-AUG-2002 FUND SUMMARY TITLE General Fund Recreation Special Events Zora Neala Hurston Dust Tracks Heri FHA Transportation for 21st Century Section 112/MPO/FHWA FYOl/02 Section 112/MPO/FHWA FY02/03 Health & Human Srvcs CSBG FY01j02 IMLS/2001 Conservation Assessment Urban Mobile Irrigation Lab Grant EMPA 01/02 Dept. of Community Affai 01/02 Haz Mat DCA Grant SFWMD-Floridian Aquifer Well 01/04 Transportation Trust Fund Transportation Trust/80% Constitut Transportation Trust/Local Option Transportation Trust/Impact Fees Unincorporated Services Fund ~rainage Maintenance MSTU FDOT Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator ~ecreation Donations Fund ~ibrary Special Grants Fund Fine & Forfeiture Fund Fine & Forfeiture Fund-Wireless Sur Fine & Forf~ture Fund-E911 Surchar Fine & Forfeiture Fund-800 Mhz Oper FDOT DUI Specialist Grant Blakely Subdivision Fund ?ort & Airport Fund Port Fund 2onst. Parking Apron#405823-1-94-01 Plan Maintenance RAD Fund 2t Administrator-19th Judicial Cir Ct Administrator-Arbitration/Mediat Ct Admin.-County ArbitrationjMediat Ct Admin.- Teen Court SHIP Housing Assistance FY 00/01 SHIP Housing Assistance FY 01/02 Beach Bond I&S Fund Impact Fees-Parks 20unty Capital Transportation Capital Environmental Land Capital Fund Lennard Road 1 - Roadway Capital Sanitary Landfill Fund Golf Course Fund H.E.W. Utilities Fund North Hutchinson Island Utilities NHI Util-Renewal & Replacement Fund EXPENSES 263,204.23 391.08 13.66 29.09 4.47 612.82 4,830.21 127.35 536.56 370.07 29.35 90.95 65,209.02 2,000.00 16,158.54 39,208.55 23,452.45 1,302.63 208.04 90.00 1,116.05 163,338.58 1,953.48 251.92 9,585.14 3,627.37 68.18 6,357.86 7,536.58 49, Ill. 52 2,813.96 906.64 168.58 25.00 215.11 0.18 14,109.77 33,150.00 1,300.00 76,449.13 19,196.00 12,580.31 1,600.00 983,210.56 7,028.69 61.40 2,384.46 64.50 PAGE 1 PAYROLL 453,194.36 0.00 183.98 380.16 0.00 7,726.32 943.50 0.00 1,188.80 3,649.34 0.00 1,188.80 110,090.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 40,491. 25 2,297.98 1,287.72 0.00 2,298.85 85,579.24 829.15 829.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 9,898.78 0.00 0.00 2,735.56 4,496.72 1,115.38 0.00 2,874.61 0.00 1,430.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50,094.44 20,083.84 189.13 2,708.00 867.81 08/15/02 -¡:;''7ABWARR FUND 449 451 458 461 471 478 479 491 505 505001 610 611 '-' ST. LUCIE COUNTY - BOARD ....,I WARRANT LIST #46- 10-AUG-2002 TO 15-AUG-2002 FUND SUMMARY TITLE NHI Util - Capital Facilities Fund S. Hutchinson Utilities Fund SH Util-Renewal & Replacement Fund Sports Complex Fund No County Utility District-Operatin No Cty Util Dist-Renewal & Replace No Cty Util Dist-Capital Facilities Building Code Fund Health Insurance Fund Property/Casualty Insurance Fund Tourist Development Trust Fund Tourist Development Trust-Adv Fund GRAND TOTAL: .. EXPENSES 51.21 7,349.77 52.77 21,532.76 692.16 39,628.72 63.61 2,730.20 320,629.45 115.78 210,305.00 22,769.97 2,442,001.44 PAGE 2 PAYROLL 686.13 1,425.91 709.46 13,210.86 2,805.40 278.39 856.76 28,712.96 2,957.00 1,584.03 0.00 5,611.66 867,492.04 \...- ..""" ~ 08/15/02 ST. LUCIE COUNTY - BOARD PAGE 1 P"'i\BWARR VOID LIST# 46- 10-AUG-2002 TO 15 -AUG-2 002 FUND: 418 - Golf Course Fund CHECK INVOICE VENDOR TOTAL 00287890 12226739 Xpect First Aid 59.95 FUND TOTAL: 59.95 . '--' AGENDA REQUEST ITEM N~-l .:L- DATE: August ;0, 2002 REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [X] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: ~~~~-~~ (Donald B, We t, P.E. County Engineer SUBMITTED BY (DEPT): ENGINEERING DIVISION 4115 SUBJECT: S. 7th Street Canal/Farmer's Market Drainage Improvements - Work Authorization No.8, to the Agreement for Continuing Professional Engineering Services with Hazen and Sawyer, P,C. BACKGROUND: As part of the Farmer's Market Drainage Improvements Project, the S. 7th Street canal crossing will need to be rerouted and upgraded, and the hydraulic sufficiency of the proposed culvert crossing will need to be evaluated. The attached proposal from Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. outlines the scope of services for hydrologic parameter update, hydraulic modeling, and permitting assistance. This will be work authorization no, 8 in the amount of $8,400, FUNDS AVAIL.: Funds are available in 102001-3725-563000-42510 Drainage Maintenance MSTU PREVIOUS ACTION: n/a RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached Work Authorization No, 8 to the Agreement for Continuing Professional Engineering Services with Hazen and Sawyer, P.C" for the S. 7th Street Canal Crossing as part of the Farmer's Market Drainage Improvements Project in the amount of $8,400, and authorization for signature by the Chairman. [X]Originating Dept. Public Works s. 7th st. canal was.ag E: COMMISSION ACTION: ~ APPROVED [ ] OTHER: [ ] DENIED [XJCounty Attorney') [X]Mgt. & Budget tj/J) [X]Co.Eng~ [ ]Purchasing [X]Revenue Coord. ~~ t\ < ~ ....,.1 WORK AUTHORIZATION NO.8 Engineering Services Related to Stormwater Management COO-06-085 for S. 7th Street Canal/Farmer's Market Pursuant to that certain Agreement Between County and Engineer for Engineering Services (the "Agreement") between St. Lucie County (the "County") and BCI Engineers & Scientists, Inc,(the "Engineer") dated June 13, 2000, the Engineer agrees to provide the additional Scope of Services described in Exhibit "A" and for the additional Compensation described in Exhibit "B". All services provided under this Work Authorization shall be completed according to the schedule described in Exhibit "C", IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County has hereunto subscribed and the Engineer has affixed his, its, or their names, or name, on the dates below. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: ATTEST: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: COUNTY ATTORNEY WITNESSES: ENGINEER BY: Print Name: Hazen and Sawyer Engineers, P.C. Date: AUG 09 2002 3:45 ~~ FR H 5 FT PIERCE '-' 561 489 0299 TO SLC PW P.03 ..., EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH 7TH STREET CANAL I FARMER'S MARKET BACKGROUND South 7th Street Canal crosses the SI. Lucie County Farmer's Market via an existing 36" culvert which is both insufficient hydraulically and actually passes under existing structures. This crossing needs to be rerouted (within dedicated easements) and upgraded, and the existing culvert should be plugged to avoid potential for sinkholes in its vicinity, In order to evaluate the hydraulic sufficiency of the proposed culvert crossing, previous hydraulic modeling should be updated. SCOPE OF SERVICES Task 1 . Hydrologic Parameter Update ENGINEER shall verify the contributing drainage basin and update hydrologic parameters such as percent impervious, curve number I soil storage, and time of concentration. In addition, modeling Within the Platt's Creek Watershed has been performed by FDOT in conjunction with proposed US1 widening, Data from that study will be obtained to establish tailwater conditions for hydraulic modeling I calculations, Task 2 - Hydrologic I Hydraulic Modeling Using data compiled in Task 1, ditch cross sections from previous analysis, and the plans for the proposed culvert routing, ENGINEER shall develop a hydrologic I hydraulic model utilizing AdlCPR software. Task 3 - Alternatives Analysis ENGINEER Shall utilize the model developed in Task 2 to evaluate the following scenarios: a) Proposed 5' x 7' box culvert with no upstream or dO'Mlstream detention. b) Proposed 5' x 7' box culvert with upstream andlor dO'Mlstream detention. c) One alternative culvert size I type for both condilions noted in a)and b) above, All scenarios will be analyzed for the 10 year, 24 hour storm event and results compared to local road elevations to evaluate level of service efficiency, Task 4 . Summary Memo and Review Meeting ENGINEER shall summarize evaluation methodology and results in a summary memorandum, and shall attend one meeting wth the County to review. Ftp,ProposalsSI.LucieCounIy()35.doc 1 Agenda Request ..., Item Number C·2b Date: AUQust 20, 2002 Consent I X ] Regular I ] Public Hearing I ] Leg, I ] Quasi-JD I "^ ~ To: Board of County Commissioners ~. Scott Herring, Manager Road & Bridge Division Submitted By: Public Works Dept.-Road & Bridae Division SUBJECT: Approval of the Equipment Request to purchase a 60" 26HP Mower to replace the present mower (PR#40-4517) . BACKGROUND: This mower is needed to replace a 2000 Dixie Chopper 60" that has been used more than anticipated and needs to be replaced before it's condition gets worse, Maintenance upkeep has increased. We have built an inventory of spare parts that can be used on the new mower. Funds are available from savings of previous purchased equipment. FUNDS AVAILABLE: 101-4110-564000-400 - Capital Equipment PREVIOUS ACTION: N / A RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Equipment Request EQ02-240 to purchase this 60" 26HP Mower for $7,539.00. COMMISSION ACTION: ~ APPROVED [ ] OTHER: [ ] DENIED [X] County Attorney ~ it' IU1'1 , [X 1 Originating Depl. Public Works r [)fJ Finance Coordination/Signatures [Xl M9t.&BUdget~ [ ] Co. Eng 1']'"_" 1í ,/ [ lOther (check for copy only, if applicable) ...I ~ ); 'e 0 LlJ c:: 01 a:: CO~ CO 'e'e ~ ~ c:: CO CO CO ,9- CD ~ U CI) :t:::;COO c:: ~ E COU_ s::c::;:: CO .- 5: 0 S.EQ) c <: ~ 'e ~ C O~'e ,. E CO c:: 8 ..... CO 'eCl)fI)": C ll>CI):s.,~ ~ CI) CO ~ ::l ,c 0 ~ C::Cl.'eE 6 ll> ll> CO It ,... UJ ll> ll> e ll> ,... 0:: CI) CI) .Q ..lC 01 c:: ,. WN CI) §- c:: ,... ~ ~ CO ll> C zo ,cll>Q,c ..... 00 \".ottJ..... -C';! ~~~§ UJ..... oC::CO'e UJo E~ltll> -0 CI) ,!:; 'åi ~ ~N ~o:: ~~Cl.ll> O«N ¡:.: 'e.Q Ii: Z ' 'c:: c:: CJwo W ¡;::-C::COIll W ~.52 Cfj U ~>-o ë ~ ~~.le"'" IlJ .J£:! w w ,.'e_co ~ C::~:5 Z«o c Š c 0 :::l :::ICJ£:! z ë ;jtUll>-ê z w OUJClO ~ w a. ll> 32 CO I- _0 ~ w a::~CI)Cl. z CJ u.. .. :E ~ e:.~~~ :::l u..o::w 0 ~ ¡ ....co'eco 0 OO~ 0 a. ~ CD Cl. 0 W ~ W o CI) CI) ~ Cu..C ~ z o.....co..-. E CI) ~ ° 0::........ . ~ ~ «UJUJ ~ æ ,!:; .s OWw a.. ,g CI) c:: £0:::1:::1 o CO !e ~OO ::t:.....,c ~ 0 >,,!:; Ww C'\'eè:c:: ZO::o:: .... c:: ::l CO ~.Q 0 ~ :::1....« Cl. =6 Ü '5 OZC °c::CD.Q CJWZ B8~!e W::æW ,92 _CI) ..: ~ -D..C) CJ5« ,~~ III ll> :::10 a:: Q ~ ~~ c.e.... ~W ~ 8,80..: .... C'\ :5~ UJ ~ CO It g ° ~g~E a:: CO'eCl)ll> LlJ ~ Q..~.!!!~ ~ C!l a.. ~S!.E"'" 0 ;:::: Q. 1:] .!:2 a:: 9 ::t: '§ ~ ~ :5 ~ a:: Ü ....CD ,c Ql LlJ ll>.Qll>'I::! C Ü .., 8 lto~s: "" O.....ll>lt C'\ ::ï Q O'l E{l.....o , Q ~ C'\ ~ ð ,!!2 0 g E c . 1"-.- 0 c ~¡g,!!2.s a.. a:: <0 ~ LlJ ¡:.: ð z ¡:.: :::l W 0 ~ Z ¡:.: ~ I- W Z Z ~ Ž W I- W Ii: 0 :E w ~ ~ ti) a. C) a. a. :> 5 c 5 w a :::l a c Õ W IlJ W AGENDA REQUEST wi ITEM NO. C-2c DATE: August 20,2002 REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [X] '-' SUBMITTED BY: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT-ROAD & BRIDGE DIV Scott H ring, Manager Road and Bridge Division TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBJECT: Approval to purchase a 48" Hand Squeeze Roll Applicator with Air Cylinders to use in the Sign Shop to fabricate signs. BACKGROUND: The Traffic Section of Road & Bridge needs to purchase a Squeeze Roller Applicator to replace one loaned to the Department that is being returned to the manufacturer due to this loan program being discontinued, This applicator is used to apply the background film to sign blanks and will increase the efficiency and quality of signs. See attached Bid Summary, There are sufficient funds available in the equipment account due to savings on other equipment being purchased under budget. FUNDS AVAILABLE: 101-4109-564000-400 - Capital Equipment PREVIOUS ACTION: N / A RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of equipment request EQ 02-242 and for the request to purchase a 48" Hand Squeeze Roll Applicator with Air Cylinders from 3M (lowest bidder) for $3,132.00, COMMISSION ACTION: E: IX! APPROVED [ ] DENIED 11 OTHER: [ ]Co. Eng. //), ~/ [X]Purchasing ¿, / [X]Road & Bridge 0I¡(4---' F [X]County Attorney "*'0 i'" O,f '" [X]Originaling Depl. Public Works Coordi nation/S i llnatures [X]Mgl. & Budget '!/l{) I T\l'Nbl [X] Finance (check for copy only, if applicable) .I @ CI) s ~ 'tl I: 11l ~ I: ,<Il ~ <Il <Il 0 ;: <:) ~ II) <:) llh:i g 11l <Il ~ E <:) o ~ ~ .5; ~ ..... 10 .S! <Il , è.Q ~ UJ 1ii ..... 0::: CI) CI) .£:2 ::s "i WN ~ E ..... ~ ~ <:) Zo 'tl ..... 00 ,I: II) 11l -~ I: ~ UJ.... ,~ I: UJo II) 11l -0 ~ ~ :EN :Eo::: I: 0 <Il 0 O«N (¡j~ Q¿ (.)WO ,g C") W ~>O ë .Q E m ..J~ W .l!!e ~ Z«O c -.; ::::l :J(')~ z ë .9 I: Z OUJOO w w ..... 11l I- :IE .S! 0 _0 ß è§ z (.) LL .. :IE ::::l LLO:::W 0 a:: ~ II) 0 OO!« (.) 11. (.) W ~ ~ ~ ~ QLLQ a:: ~ ..... 0:::.......... flJg «UJUJ àï e OWW I: ~ co:J:J CO <Il ~aa ..Q<Il Ww CO ~ ZO:::o::: 'tl0' <Il II) :J.....« II)~ OZQ ~ 0 (.)WZ ¡{l <Il W:EW ..c:::~ -D..C) I: ,2 Qj (.)5« 1::) g¡ :Ja ~w ~ 0 ..c::: ..... ~ .5; UJ ~~ 11l <Il E UJ ;: II) ~ (!) .5; §, a:: ~ §- 'Iii ~ ..c::: <Il CXl CI);: C\ að 1:..... ~ Ü 0 ::ï Cl .2> >.. , CI):t:: C\ ~ ð <IlCll <:) ~g. 0 0::: UJ ä .=.: w a:: z I- W Z ~ Z W I- ~ a:: 0 ~ iñ 11. 5 w :> a c Õ w '-" ....., Bid Summary for Squeeze Roller BIDDER BID 3M Traffic Contol Materials Division $ 3,132,00 Traffic and Parkina Control Co, $ 3,996,00 Universal Siqns & Accessories No Bid '"'" ..,¡ AGENDA REQUEST ITEM NO, C - 2cl DATE: August 20, 2002 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBMITTED BY (DEPT.): ENGINEERING DIVISION (4115) REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [x] PRESENTED BY: ~{1\o9.A. ~'-~~ (Don West, P.E. County Engineer SUBJECT: Approve Change Order No, 1 in the deductive amount of (1,775,60); accept the River Branch Estates, "MSBU" Water Main project; release the retainage in the amount of $7,686,00; deduct ($40,00) from the contract for failed laboratory tests and make Final Payment in the amount of $21,832,00 to Barton Underground Construction, Inc, for the project. BACKGROUND: On March 14, 2000, the Board approved an Interlocal Agreement between the County and the City of Port St. Lucie relative to the River Branch Estates MSBU. Under the agreement, the County would create the River Branch Estates MSBU to fund the project for potable water service to the River Branch Estates Subdivision, The County would also design and install the potable water system, Upon completion of the project, the County would turn the system over to Port St. Lucie Utilities for ownership and maintenance, pursuant to a Bill of Sale and Owner's Affidavit. FUNDS AVAILABLE: Funds are available in Fund No, 395-4115-534000-4512 PREVIOUS ACTION: May 5, 1998 - Board accepted petition and granted permission to advertise the Initial Public Hearing June 2, 1998 - Initial Public Hearing held; Board created MSBU and authorized the County Engineer to proceed with the project. March 14,2000 - Board approved the Interlocal Agreement between the County and Port St. Lucie, January 15, 2002 - Board adopted Resolution 02-023 to levy non ad valorem special assessments; approved the preliminary assessment roll and authorized staff to proceed with construction of the project. February 12, 2002 - Board adopted Resolution 02-64 to establish the budget for construction ofthe project. June 25, 2002 - Board approved the Bill of Sale and Owner's affidavit agreeing to turn the potable water system over to the City of Port St. Lucie for ownership and maintenance, RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board accept the project and release the retainage in the amount of $7,686,00; deduct Change Order No. 1 in the amount of (1,775,60); deduct ($40.00) from the contract for failed laboratory tests and make Final Payment in the amount of $ ,832,00, and authorize the Chairman to sign, ~ APPROVED [] OTHER [] DENIED tliiÁ -- Do la Anderson, County Administrator ['I Mgt ""'g. ['I Orig;""" o,~;' w,'"' íÍw [x] Budget & Rev. Coor. 'í'>"''1 [x] MSBU Coor. COMMISSION ACTION: [x] County Attorney ~ (),r I-t [x] Project. Man. c'~ (Check for copy only, if applicable) , " '~ '-' ...." .' . : DIVISION OF ENGINEERING MEMORANDUM 02 - 228 .'.-.".-.".-.".".","...-.-.-.".".-.-.....-.-.-.-.-.-."--.---.---_..-...-...-.---_._~_._-...-.._-.-.-.-.-...-...-...-...-...-...-.... .---.--.------------------.----.-.---"-----.-----.-.-.......-"-.-.. ......nn______________________..............··......··_···...... :.:-=.:-:::.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:-:-:-:-: ................................................._________h....__ --------.-..-...-.-.---.-.-----.-.-.-------------..----------..-..- FROM: Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney Don West, County Engineer ~'P'~ August 5, 2002 TO: SUBJECT: River Branch Estates Water Main Extension fï;::~~rr_a:~r-...~. 11 nIL, '" I I ¡J "...-. ' /'1 n1 ¡ . UU ¡( AUG - 0 ¿UC( . l ; 1 COUNTY ATTORNEY , ' " ,.~.)<. 1...1...: DATE: On March 12,2002, the Board awarded Barton Underground Construction, Inc. a contract for the above referenced project. Please approve the attached Releases of Lien for correctness. If we can be of any assistance, please call Craig Hauschild, Senior Projects Engineer, at extension 1707. Bam Attachments: (4) ()", ~ - cc: Ray Wazny, Public Works Director Mike Powley, Capital Projects Engineer Becky Padrick, MSBU Coordinator Craig Hauschild, Senior Projects Engineer ~~ rõJrn@rnow~fñ) lnJ U 12m æJ ENGINEERING .~ '-' .....,/ CHANGE ORDER ST. LUCIE COUNTY ,,' PROJECT: River Branch Estates MSBU Water Main Ext (name, address) CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: No.1 & Final INITIATION DATE: 7/30/02 TO (Contractor): Barton Underground Construction, Inc. 401 Campbell Rd. Fort Pierce, FL34954 CONSULTANrs PROJECT NO.: N/A ST. LUCIE COUNTY CONTRACT NO: C02-o3-374 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: (Additional sheet attached as Exhibit A - Yes) CONTRACT DATE: 3/12/02 SEE ATTACHED The original (Contract Sum) was ..".,.......,.......,.....,",.".",.,.".........,.......... $92,821,60 Net change by previous authorized Change orders ...... , . , , . . , . , . , . , . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . " $ -0- The (Contract Sum) prior to this Change Order was ...........,........,...".,.,.................. $92,821.60 The (Contract Sum) will be (decreased) by this Change Order. . , . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . , . . . , , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . , . ($1,775,60) The new (Contract Sum) including this Change Order will be .,.,.........,..."....,.,.............. $91,046,00 The Contract rime will be (unchanged) by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . , . . . , , . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . , .. (0) Days The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is: 7/17/02 Funds Available: Account Number: 395-4115-534000-4512 The adjustment in Contract Price and/or Contract Time stated in this Change Order shall comprise the total price and/or time adjustment due or owed the Contractor for the work or changes defined in this Change Order. By executing this Change Order, the Contractor acknowledges and agrees that the stipulated price andlor time adjustments include the costs and delays for all work contained in the Change Order, including costs and delays associated with the interruption of schedules, extended overheads, delay, and cumulative impacts or ripple effect on all other non- affected work under this Contract. Signing of the Change Order constitutes full and mutual accord and satisfaction for the adjustment in contract price or time as a result of increases or decreases in costs and time of performance caused directly and indirectly from the Change Order, subject to the current scope of the entire work as set forth in the Contract Documents. Acceptance of this waiver constitutes an agreement between the County and Contractor that the Change Order represents an equitable adjustment to the Contract, and that Contractor will waive all rights to file a claim on this Change Order after it is properly executed, All work performed under this Change Ordér'shall be performed in accordance with the contract specifications. Barton Underqround Construction, Inc. Contraclor Pierce, FL 34982 401 Campbell Rd.. Ft. Pierce, FL 34954 ~ e~s, /J, ~_ \. - 7ì /2flvvC- : U By: Date <3/ ~ /b~ [JÍate Approved as to Form and Correctness County Attomey L.. <l> ..... ro ~ ::J OJ (f) ~ tJ' <l> ..... ro ..... tJ' W .!: o c: ra L.. OJ L..T'" <l>::: >0::: O::w a 0::: o w (!) tz QJ« <5' J: a:u c: o tJ' c: Q.) ..... >< w c: ra ~ C ON :.¡::o °0 2N 1i5~ C >, o (¡ Ü:?E c ,. .g2 (¡ (¡ coO '0 QJ QJ g .t; L-a:~ .§.9~ ~QJ.Q ........u:::: C:.;::;:u 00'0 üZ« '-' ãi ~ ;£;t '" - 0 ê'i: :J c.. .1.: ;£t?j~ ~~;:",)'.~i ·~/È --"CD m - ~~ 000 "<l:~~ CONN 1t)<':l0 q<'-!.~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ I()OO "'-00 M<Ò<XÏ ~...-~ ~~ 000 000 000 <òr-.:oi C'?"-co C'? . , >-l1..l1.. (f)-l-l c c ëii ëii :?E:?E ..... L- Q) QJ rom 5:5: üü » '00..0.. 0_ (f)ëoÕ::l <0 co ..-- ..-- It)lt) 00 ...-C'?C'? , ~..-- ..-- , , tÔ~~ "-<0<0 It) ...- '..I '. , , Ïii Õ I- " ~LICATION FOR ~ AND FINAL PROJECT NAME: ENGINEER I S PROJECT NO.: C)),I.-!J OWNER: CONTRACTOR:/Y}f}¡(V¡/J/,f/{)ff¡6fJY-IAJLi'71.)gBÆ:tIlJJ7]12. CONTRACT DATE: 6 bj--{)~ APPLICATION AMOUNT: .;;;;/ &=7.;;)., {.lJ APPLICATION DATE I 52.0-0.;:1 FOR PERIOD ENDING: 5 -,:jCì-o:;;. ~~~~~~N C~~~:u'g~A~iTIES {¡"r.tiai: &J() ~!~.IG TABllT,ATTON OF AMOTlNT nTlE THT.'l APPLICATTON ORIGINAL CONTRACT N10UNT COMPLETED TO DATE (See Attached "Estimate of completed work") CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE ORDER NO. _@_% ORDER NO. ~@_% ORDER NO. '_@_% ORDER NO. _@_% COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE PREVTOUS ~Y~~S: ill $h:¡-, t2 $ #3 $ #4 $ TOTAL $ k:fJJ7LJ. trJ TOTAL WORK TO. DATE (+) LESS PREVIOUS PAY. (-) SUB-TOTAL LESS FAILED LAB. TESTS (+) (+) ( +.) (+) AS APPLIED FOE BY CONTRACTOR $ 91 [)¿/~, en $ $ $ $ $ q¡ ílLl I..... I YJ $ ~ nLJ, t.O $ ..::J/ R-?.;:), Ü'J AMOUNT DUE FINAL PAYMENT, EXCEPT FOR ANY LIQUIDATED DAMAGES ASSESSED BY BOARD AS APPROVRD BY RNGINEER ~o $ 92,82.1. (-) (.,0 $- I, 7iS. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ <)0 "11,0,\.... ~~. I 1~, 00 2.1, 81Z. .0 140. .0 00 $ ZI.832. CONTRACTOR'S AFFrDAVI~ TLe undersigned Contractor hereby Swears under penalty of perjury that all obligations inourred by the Contractor under this Contract to date have been disoharged in full, that no suits are pending in connection with the work un~er the Contract; that the Contractor agrees to the total final price of $ lj,/f'I/ l,., Ll) and finå1 payment of $ .OJ ~7¡;), I Y) as full settlement of his acoount under the Contract and of all olaims in connection therewith. B J a..J .:zY,; C!... TITLE ¡;-é?6!d~nl- CO TY OF STATE OF ::),.., . Before me this -.:L-' day of mCUi~ ' :be ';¡LO~ personaUy ~~~~:;e~nd \-~~~J~ ~~;~he' J'-':-}~J¡':J~}l me, who bê~~li~~fY o~w~~~, did Contractor above mentioned; that he prepared attached application for payment and executed above affidavit on behalf of said Contraotor; and that all of the statements contained therein are true, correct and complete. lyn Oltrcnder ), ....... /)\..¿'.-I-. ~ _ ¡/ I} , Illy commission expires: MYCOMMISSION# CC?Om2 ¡XPi~ES o.,..,¿/Vo (J....Y;.c¿r)A.~ " J L 1/ '" BO Februory~2004 U Notary Public c..-,.J' b )'-( ""OlHlU"om~w,"",c"", L.'::Jn~ÌTa{)4.('!r- ro: BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLOR;I:DA The attached application for payment by the Contractor has been reviewed by the Engineer. The Enginear hereby approves final payment under this ~pplication i~ the amount of $ , less liquidated damages ~ssessed by Board, WITH~CTrrAL PAYMENT SUB,TF.CT TO CONTRACTOR I S SIGNING ABOVE ~FFTDAVIT. }.\~Cþ't Ã ~tJ~~. ST. LUCIE COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTHENT APPROVED BY Donald B. West, P.E.,· Ray Wazny, P.E.' County Engineer Public Works Director )ATE: :ontract Time Began: lubstantia1 Completion onl \otual Construction Time: :ontract Construction Time: ¡ainy Days Allowance: lther Overrun Allowances: ret Ove rrun: Cal. Cal. Cal. Cal. Cal. Days Days Days naYFi Days :c: P'n.....·"'....r. tîr-.r.~,..'"'~ CHECKED BY, PREPARED BY /"; ~ 7/Zf#¡.... St. Luoie County Éng. Depart. \w ..., , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ci ci 0 ci ;;; ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci 0 0 0 m 0 co ~ 0 0 0 10 0 '" 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 m ~ ~ co 0 "'t co "! q, 10 "? ~ "< ~ 10 0 cõ Ñ ~ ;;; ,..: ..¡ cõ ;;; ;;; ö ;;; ;;; ... ;;; ;;; M ... M ... ... ... ;;; '" ;;; ... ... ;¡ jij .. ... U .. Õ ;: " 0' l- ll. '" ';ft ';ft '<I'm '<I'1ll01ll'<l''<I' '<1'1'-- ~CON'<I'I'-- ';ft ';ft 0:: ~ '" 0 0 CONCO 0 0 >- "" 0 0 N m III 0 0 .. '" ãi ~ N ~ ~ ~ 0.. u ii. jij Õ !! E c > ë 0 ü: c ;:) U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q 0 0 0 0 0 q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ci ci 0 ci ci ci ci ci 0 ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci 0 0 ... m ... 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... 0 Si 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 ~ co '" "< "'t co "! 10 <0 "< ~ l() 0 cõ ~ ~ Ñ .,.; ;;; ;;; ö ¡;; ... ;;; ... ;;; M ... M ... ... ;;; '" ¡;; ... ... jij .. ... u ~ ;: 0.. ~ .. "" ãi ::!'- ';ft 0 0 ';ft ';ft ø 0 .. ii. 0 0 0 0> 0 0 .... l() .... .... .... 0 ~ co '" .... 'o.. 0 0 l: u 0 0 co 0 0 g !! E .- .- ~ .- .- 0 ë 0 .5 ;:) u If 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l: 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q.) ci ci ci ci ;;; ci ci ci ci g ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci .... I- 0 0 0 0> 0 co ~ 0 0 10 0 '" æl ~ 10 0 0 u 0 10 0> ~ ~ co 0 "'t co "! q, 10 "? .- l() 0 >< ~ cõ Ñ Ñ ;;; ti ..¡ cõ ;;; ;;; ö ;;; ;;; ... ... ... ;;; M ... g W ... .... .... ;;; '" ;;; ... .... I- jij -ª ... l: z Õ à: 0 I- ro u 10 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :E c 0 0 0 ... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w ci ci .0 ci ..; cõ oj ci ci ci ci ci ci ci g .0 ci ci ci ... c 0 0 '" N ... ;;; ;;; 0 l() l() 0 l() 0 '" 'o.. 10 0 0 0:: 0 10 'o.. M ~ co ,., ;;; l() ,., ~ M ~ l() 0 Q.l ~ cõ Ñ ... ... ... Ñ ... ... ... ... ... M .... ... ... ... ... ro $: ;g 0 :J l() ~ .- .- .... m '" ~ It) .... .... .... 'o.. .- co '" v 'o.. .- .- CO Ñ CJ) :E (f) (f) L1í L1í >- u. u. L1í L1í L1í L1í L1íL1í L1í L1í L1í L1í l/) ~ III C ...J ...J (f) ...J ...J ...J Q.l 0 .... +- ro .0 .... Ü N '0 If ::J 0 <D W I.... 0 Qí ..... N ..l: CJ) - ë. c E ãi 2 <J C ~ u ~ ::!: 1:: ell oð 0 >. 0 IE e J:J 1:: 012 e 'C - l: (\:J Ü e! 0 e c E ~ 0 ~ l/) .9 :> ::> ro Ü :: l- e "" ãi ãi '" >- .<:: g. W g § ::!: ::!: ., :ä "" l/) ....I . . e ... 'õ ~ ., tl 0 ., 2 ~ ~ E OK . tl tl ...J e CO C (\:J l3 e! ., '" ~ CD '" 3l w '" ~ ~ ~ e '3 0 (\:J 0 e 0 '" ¡¡; ., ~ ~ e .9 ~ 2 0 e! ... ,Q c '" 0:: ~ ~ e!~ ~ ~ õí tl 0 0 ~ ., CD 1) ~ CD 0 Q.) t e 0:: >- U ~ CD ~ ~l: en .!! IS È 'E .~ '0 CO .!! ~ ¡¡; :I: ~ n: '" CD.!!.!! CU <D :ä c 'C it ., c ã a.Q .0 ~ ., 8 <D .¡;; ., '" S CJ CJ l!! en c .s.sð ::> e 0:: en <..1 0 0 'C . 8 0 0 CD 0 ::!: ::!: 0:: 0 !o co ~ ii:ãi <ri l/)eno Q 0.. 0 0:: ... .- .- ~ <:' ~ lO co co co ~ Ol '" '" .- '" ,., ..,. ~ Ol '- a.. . N , ~ ~ .- .- å ~ ~ ch ch ch .... 0> 0 ;:; ,., M ;;;; "? , , N ;;¡; rh CD 8 ti .9 0 0 0 lõ lõ 0 ~ ;¡; ~ .- 0 .- .- .- 'o.. 0 .- ;;¡; i?i cI, cI, .- ti ~ ,., ,., ~ .- .- i?i .- <D l() ~ ~ , N .... 0> m 0> Q) .S! cI, , '" ;g ~ ~ lO lO B C ,., i?i ;g .... .- .- õ ;:6 E Ui § co .- Q: 0 _2 ~ .- ü z 'iii; '-' Agenda Request ....1 Item Number C·2e Date: Auaust 20. 2002 Consent [ X ] Regular [] Public Hearing [ I leg. [ I Quasi-JD [ Submitted By: Public Works Dept.-Road & Bridoe Division Presented By: v~'1H atJ.rw,(1ý) P' J, Scott lïerring, Manage Road & Bridge Division To: Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Approval of the Equipment Request and Budget Resolution to purchase a replacement 7KW Generator. BACKGROUND: The Road & Bridge Division purchased two (2) new generators in November 2001. On July 16th, 2002 one (PR# 40-5372) of these was stolen off a truck in the Compound, This equipment will replace the stolen generator. The purchase ofthe replacement equipment (EQ02-243) will require approval of the attached Budget Resolution No, 02-207 which will establish the revenues and corresponding expenditure in the proper accounts, FUNDS AVAilABLE: Funds will be made available in 101-4109-564000-400 - Capital Equipment PREVIOUS ACTION: N I A RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Equipment Request EQ02-243 and Budget Resolution No, 02-207 for $1 ,449,00. COMMISSION ACTION: [~ APPROVED [ ] OTHER: [ I DENIED Coordination/Signatures [X] County Attorney ~ &' 0ð)101 . . [ X] Originating Dept. Public WorKs £-v . [X] Mgl. & Budget Zi'JJ m~ 1 [ I Co, Eng [X] Purchasing ¿:¡: ./ [ ] Other [ ] Finance (check for copy only, if appiicabie) \w ..",,¡ RESOLUTION NO. 02 - 207 WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners budget for St. Lucie County, certain funds not anticipated at the time of adoption of the budget have become available in the form of insurance proceeds for the settlement of a stolen generator from the Public Works I Road and Bridge division, WHEREAS, Section 129.06 (d), Florida Statutes, requires the Board of County Commissioners to adopt a resolution to appropriate and expend such funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, in meeting assembled this 20th day of August, 2002, pursuant to Section 129.06 (d), Florida Statutes, that such funds are hereby appropriated for the fiscal year 2001-2002, and the County's budget is hereby amended as follows: REVENUES 101-4108-369930-400 APPROPRIATIONS 1 01-41 08-564000-400 Reimbursements $ 1,449 Machinery and Equipment $ 1 ,449 After motion and second the vote on this resolution was as follows: Commissioner Doug Coward Commissioner Cliff Barnes Commissioner Paula A. Lewis Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson Commissioner John D, Bruhn PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED THIS 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2002. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: CHAIRMAN APPROVED AS TO CORRECTNESS AND FORM: COUNTY ATTORNEY ~flJ" I' .."", k h, Iii [ill'" ¡1,i.. ~r'* 19 l1JH It IHi ~I I ", '!i': lii< 19' ('\ 0 0 "" ~ "l- e !,t "... 0 ~ 0 Ii" OJ ~ I' .S; lO 1< § ~ I. 0 UJ E "... 0:: ~I "I- CI) CI) ì , WN "... ~ ~ l1J 0 Zo ~ <¡ "... 00 iii <1.1 () -~ ~r, < t2 UJ..... UJo ii' i9 "0 -0 t: :EN Ð ! C1l :Eo:: 'i··'. ('\ O<CN :i:m ¡:.: ~ it: (,)wo :: z,· "... ....., W ~ W ~>o ë :lE,. al .Js:::! " 1: :lE w :: ~: z<C° c ,521 :) :::)(,) s:::! z ßJ, :s" t: z w ì I- OUJCIO :lE c..,' z _0 ~ ~:: (,)IL.. :lE t: :) ILO::W 0 r:r: ¡'I ~ 0 00!cc 0 c.. 0 w ~ W 9, t: 0 eILe r:r: ¿ () ~ 0::1-1- :.,:;,: ~ .... <CUJUJ () " ~ OWw iM 10:;):;) t: ~oo "i .l!1 ,.,.. .E Ww ! <1.1 zO::o:: i. (\j'~ :;)I-<c ¡Ji ;, r-.."I' (\')r-.. OZe lOlO (,)wz 1m; Ii ' I 00 w:Ew Ii..' i~ -Q.C) '..,'.: i;. (,):;)<C 1< 0.8:. :;)0 ,.'.' ..., --- .. ...., ().:c ~w ,i· t: U o 2 I- < ()¡...:: UJ :. 1< < U t: 1m', ~.~ Q,CI) It " ~ () l1J 2 -..c: ~ I,ir:, 115 <!> ffi It a .... o.:c ~ it F:, .... 0 æ C1l IX) a'] Ii.': ()~ (\') ü Oð t: () "I- <!> ('\ ::::¡ a If:!" 0)19· &:5 , ~ :;.,"1 ('\ § C§ .~ E 0 ~ 0 0. It 1# r-.. ~~91 ¡5:,g l1J "I, ð ,. lZlH 8mi.. z w I- 0 r:r: z ¡:.: ~I,;'· ~ I- W Z Z :¡¡ Z W 0 w i 0 :lE tuti, ü: :lE ¡¡; iF' e: gli¡,! ¡:: c.. c.. - i·' :) I/) 5 w ~i:i a ~ a c c W al W % ...... Immediately after an accident. fill out this form. ..." ST. LUCIE COUNTY LOSS REPORT, PROPERTY FOR DAMAGE TO YOUR OWN PROPERTY I LOCATION CODE , . BUILDING AND/OR CONTENTS DETAILS OF LOSS . .,\ ''¿ ~;~ .~ .". '1 '( ·1 SAF-4 ~- .l!I- .' I." . oot-..Le.t ~ -]",.._1-... ~4OfI..'~1 ~.,.,..ll.'.',U.' ~.. .,.'t"....L-....\f'..!!I..,!!I.__ill'_ DATE OF EMPLOYMENT ". ~.~~:' .;J ;:~ l¡; -;...' ".1' p ~ ¡-;'l ·;..'f ....!f, I"" ~~"~. r.-¿; p, f-:~"" ~ r:::;.~ ì~ .~ " . ,,¡~ 'X ~ :~ ~ CARG. ~:],' "{J. t:;; NAME OF DRIVER OWNER OF VEHICLE ':lESCRIPTlON OF VEHICLE· INCLUDE MAKE, MODEL, YEAR, SERIAL NO. BOILER Be MACHINERY DETAILS OF LOSS " EMPLOYEE DISHONESTY NAME OF EMPLOYEE JOB TITLE ;¡~ ROBBERY OR SAFE BURGLARY CULPRIT APPREHENDED - EXPLAIN " POLICE AUTHORITY INVOLVED - EXPLAIN '" ATTACH SUPPORTING MATERIAL - POLICE REPORT - NEWSPAPER ACCOUNT. DETAILS OF CLAIM, ETC, SUMMARY (HOW LOSS OCCURRED AND DAMAGE EXTENT) ATTACH SUPPORTING MATERIAL, ANY AVAILABLE REPORTS, NEWSPAPER ACCOUNT, PICTURES. REPAIR ESTIMATES OR BILLS. ETC, 'Rptwppn T\1rmrl::lY n;ß'ht" n7/1c;/n? ~ 1'I1Pr:::rl!:l;' morn-ine; ()7/1f../n"" "\ i'f)()() t1"t-t- e:n......"'r?+-?T pr ..u.',n_5Ji".. mQg91..u. EXGBVE7010-3, serial # 9912207618, worth approximately $1,500.00 was stolen off the back of the sign truck pr #40-5744. The generator was noticed missing Tuesdaa am. . ~~ ~ July 19, 2002 :~ DATE ~r~' ". Dat.e: 7/23/02 Time: 11:25:47 -- ST LUCIE COUNTY ShERIFFS OFFICE Offense Report "-II Page: 1 P:l:'ogram: CMS301L ----------------------------------~-------------------------------------------- Case No. . , Dept Class , Day Of Week Occu~ To Date Area. . . . . city. . . , . Map Reference ZO:1e . ' " . Report Date Entry Date . 1-02-009096 BURGLARY OF A VEH~CLE MONDAY 7/16/02 7:00 ST. LUCIE CO~TY, 3071 FORT PIERCE, FL SORES028 ZONE 7 7/16/02 7:59 SMITH, TO~Y 7/16/02 Case Status Dt : Occur From Date: County . .. OLEA..1\íDER AVE Location Type Report Officer s:lpervi::::or 7/16/02 7/15/02 16:00 ST LUCIE MOTOR VEHICLE SMITH, TONY BATES, Cl\..'VlERON 7/16/02 ********************** R E L A T Incident # 1-02-009054 E DIN C IDE ~ T S *********************** Incident # Source OFFN BURGLARY O~ A VEHICLE ************ Dept Class . Ir:vest.igator Dept Unit Invest:igator Supervisor Assigr.ment Date: CAS E MAN AGE M E B0RGLARY OF A VEHICLE COLA.l'\GELO, M. N TIN FOR MAT ION ************* Case Status Dt : 7/16/02 ***ASSIG~MENT HISTORY*** CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS COLlu~GELO, MARK HOSTETLER, LAWRENCE, SGT 7/17/02 ********************* 0 F FEN S E Offense Class LARCENY-FROM VEHICLE At~mpt/Committ : COMMITTED C~arge Type FELO~Y Location Type MOTOR VEHIC~Z UCR Dispositior.: UN0ER INV2STIGA"ION R E P 0 R T (NOT PARTS) Stat\.:te/Ordin Forced Entry . Aàult/Juver.ile (OPEN) ********* PRO P E ~ T Y I N FOR MAT ION Description GAS ?OWERED GE~ERATOR 7000WATT Category . ., STOLEN Value Property type TOOLS Make . Model . . ., GBV7000-3 Color Quantity/weight: 1 Year. ********* V E H I C LEI N FOR M License # 206527 ?L Vehicle Type VAN/TRUCK Make . . DODGE Model Name . p/U Color - Top WHITE VIN 3B6MF365XM25941 Value 24,000 A T ION Ii Category Year . Model Style color - Bot.t.om Disposition # 1 ******************* 812.0::'4 NO UNKNO¡"~ SUSPECT ., ff 1 ********************* 1,800.00 EX-C2LL BLACK 2001 1 ********************* BuRGLARIZED 2002 pi'.] PICKUP WHEZ LE?T AT THE SCENE ********* COM P L A I NAN TIN FOR MAT ION # 1 ************ Last Name HANES, RICHARD Street Number 3071 O~EANDER AVE cit.y FORT PIERCE, FL Home Phone No. 0/000-07'72 Business phone 772/462-1195 2"d \..t ..." ----------------------~----------------~--------------------------------------- Date: 7/23/02 Time: 11:25:47 ST LUCIE COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE Of:ense Report Page: 2 Program: CMS301L ___________________________________________________________~~____4_____________ Case No. . . . Cell Phone . . Person Status Sex occupatio:J. S;;¡ployer Name ,¡..************* Business Narr.e Street Numbe:L' city. . . . Phone Number Victim Type 1-02 -009096 772/216-5928 ADULT MALE MANAGER (Continued) 9/16/1970 31 ~oJI.II TE NONHlSPANIC Birth Date . . Race. . . . . Ethnic Origin ***~MPLOYER INFORMATION*** SLC ROAD AND BRIDGE V I C TIM I N FOR MAT ION - # 1 ******************** SLC ROAD AND BRIDGE 3071 OLEÞ~DER AVE 5'ORT PIERCE, FL 0/000-0772 Fax Number ,. 772/462-1195 GOVE!ZNMENT ***SMPLOYER INFORMATION*** E~ployer Na~e : SLC ROAD AND BRIDGE **************************** ~ A R RAT I V E # 1 *************************** CAD Information Reported By: SMITH, TONY 7/16/02 Call#: 021970162 Beat: Zone 7, SO Units.: S0330 Employees: 0000000208 SMI'!'H. TONY Call change from 54 to S30 BY C06GO P 01 0000000904 1036 JODI REF S30 P~OPSRTYI/ 1056 OFFICE T I V E # 2 SMITH, TONY SMITH, TONY BATES, CA1't1ERON *************************** **************************** N A R ~ A ORIGI~AL NÞ~RATIVE ~eported By: Entered 3y. : Reviewed By: 7/16/0?, 7/16/02 7/16/02 ON THE Þ~OVE DATE AND TIME, I RESPONDED TO 3071 OLEANDER AVENUE (SLC ROAD ~~D BRIDGE) IN REFERENCE TO THEFT 05' A GENERATOR, UPON ARRIVAL, I CONTACTED THE COMPLAINANT, RICHARD Hk~ES, RICHARD STATSD, BETWESN 07/15/02 AT 1600 HOURS k~D 07/16/02 AT 0700 HOURS ?ERSON{S) UNKNO~~ STOLE A GAS POWERED GENERATOR FROM THE REAP. BED OF A COlmTY TRUCK. NO OTHER PRO?E~TY WAS MISSING ~ROM THE OTHER VEHICLES IN THE COMPOUND, ALTHOUGH A V~TCHING GENERATOR WAS IN THE NEXT TRUCK OVER. . I PU~LED A FINGERPRINT FROM THE TAILGATE OF THE VEHICLE WHICH WILL BE SUBMITTED TO EVIDENC~. RICHARD STATED, HE WOULD COMPILE A LIST OF GATE CARD USERS WHO WERE IN TgE COMPOUND DURING THE TIME OF THE THEFT. IN A SIMILAR CASE ( 01-02-009054), ON 07/12/02, ANOTHER VEHICLE WAS BuRGLARIZED IN THE SAME COMPOu~D (SLC ~OSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT) . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * END OF REPORT * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * £'d \w AGENDA REQUEST ~M NO. C-3-A ~ DATE: August 20,2002 REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [X] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY (DEPT): Purchasinq Michael Rath, Purchasinq Director SUBJECT: Award of Bid No. 02-094, Fertilization Program for Thomas J. White Stadium BACKGROUND: On July 31,2002 bids were opened for a Fertilization Program for Thomas J, White Stadium, Six hundred forty-two (642) vendors were notified, seventeen (17) bid documents were distributed and three (3) bids were received. The Parks and Recreation Department has reviewed the bids received and has determined that the fertilizer proposed by the two lowest bidders, Diamond R fertilizer and Lykes Agri Sales, did not meet the minimum specifications of chemical composition and did not bid all items, therefore, recommends that the bid be awarded to Lesco, Inc. at the unit prices submitted. Tabulation and recommendation attached. FUNDS AVAILABLE: Funds are available in the Sports Complex Fund, Grounds Maintenance Account Number 461-75201-546300-700. PREVIOUS ACTION: RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends award of Bid No. 02-094 for a Fertilization Program for Thomas J, White Stadium to Lesco, Inc" atthe unit prices submitted and authorization for the Chairman to sign the contract as prepared by the County Attorney. County Attorney. (X) Jl COMMISSION ACTION: ~ APPROVED [] DENIED [ f OTHER: Coordination/Signatures Mgt. & Budget (X) ftA ~.r(l6 Other: ,n Purchasing Mgr,:(X) f- r¿ Originating Dept: Other: Finance: (Check for Copy only, if Applicabie) Eft. 1/97 ~ ~ B'd N 02 094 F rtT f P '-' f Th J Wh't St d' I o. . - e Ilza Ion roa ram or omas Ie a lum Diamond R Fertilizer Lesco, Inc. Lykes Agr, Sales Co, Ft. Pierce. FL Strongsville, OH Lakeland , FL #1 0-0-22 $4,14 $7,85 $6,24 Product: Diamond R Lesco #8607 Delivery Time 3 Days 7 -10 Days 5 - 7 Davs #2 15-5-15 $6,18 $8,20 $8.43 Product: Diamond R Lesco #8608 Delivery Time 3 Days 7 - 10 Days 5 - 7 Days #3 19-0-19 No Bid $15,20 No Bid Product: Lesco Delivery Time 7 - 10 Days #4 21-0-0 $4,27 $6,05 $5,35 Product: Diamond R Lesco #8609 Delivery Time 3 Davs 7 - 10 Days 5 - 7 Davs #5 10-15-15 $4.60 $6,95 $6,18 Product: Diamond R Lesco #8610 Delivery Time 3 Days 7 - 10 Days 5 - 7 Davs NUMBER OF COMPANIES NOTIFIED'; 642 NUMBER OF BID DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED': 17 NUMBER OF BIDS RECEIVED: 3 'per demandslar,com l ~. M,ichael Rath - BID #02-09~rtilization Program fo!_ Thomas J. White Sta~ium I. I Page 1 I ~...., From: To: Date: Subject: Linda Brown Rath, Michael Friday, August 02, 2002 3:53PM BID #02-094-Fertilization Program for Thomas J. White Stadium Jim Cummings, our Parks Manager who has expertise in Fertilizer/Chemicals has reviewed the three bids submitted and has determined that the bids from Diamond R. Fertilizer and Lykes Agr. Sales do not meet the specifications requested in the three of five described product items. The bids submitted by these two companies are for the base price product without the additives requested, If the price of these additional additives were included, the prices submitted would most likely have been higher. Due to the high quality standards required in maintaining the fields for professional play,any deviation from the exact product specifications would not be satisfactory, Therefore, we are requesting that Lesco, Inc. who has meet all specification requests be awarded the bid, cc: Cummings, James; Peter Keogh (;- ~-j) II AGENDA REQUEST '1fEM NO. C-3-B \...r DATE: August 20, 2002 REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [Xl TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY (DEPT): Purchasinq Michael Rath. Purchasinq Director SUBJECT: Award of Bid No. 02-101, Pre-Employment Physical Exams & Drug Testing BACKGROUND: On August 7,2002 bids were opened for Pre-Employment Physical Exams & Drug Testing for the Human Resources Department. Seven hundred sixty-eight (768) vendors were notified, seven (7) bid documents were distributed and one (1) bid was received. The Human Resources Department has reviewed the bid received and recommends that the bid be awarded the sole bidder, Absolute Testing & Consulting, Inc" at the unit prices submitted. Tabulation and recommendation attached. FUNDS AVAilABLE: Funds will be made available in the requesting departments operating accounts, as services are required. PREVIOUS ACTION: RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends award of Bid No. 02-101, Pre-Employment Physical Exams & Drug Testing to Absolute Testing & Consulting, Inc., at the unit prices submitted and authorization for the Chairman to sign the contract as prepared by the County Attorney. COMMISSION ACTION: ~ APPROVED [] DENIED '[ ]' OTHER: County Attorney:(X) 0'\/ ¡,/'6 Coordination/Signatures Mgt. & Budget (X),~ui:t r0YY'(}¡ J Purchasing Mgr.:(X) ~.?- Originating Dept: Finance: (Check for Copy only, if Applicable) Other: Other: Elf. 1197 "-' ~ z z Z Q. c: c: c: m s: s: s: 3 OJ OJ OJ ~ ~ m m m Q. ;0 ;0 ;0 !e ~ 0 0 0 " -n -n -n 0 3 OJ OJ (') 8 8 0 VI C s: "C ;;0 0 » m (') z (') c: ñi m s: <: m VI m z z C -l 0 VI -l C :;; Cii ñi -i C ;;0 .~ æ c: -l m c .~ ...... ." .... ...... ClO 0 » 0 0 m >< ." ." ." -n r -n ;:c " I ::J: ::J: :L ;:c -n C"> -n C G) » -< -< -< . 0 I G) en en en en en -< :::¡ :L :::¡ ñ ñ ñ 0 en m m C"> » » » » r 0 ;:c r ï r r en ;:c m - - C"> C"> c m C"> :E 0 ;:c G) Z 0 :::¡ m Z r :L m en - :L 0 Z n G) 0 r Z ;:c c en -I G) m C"> m n ;:c Z ::J: m Z m m G) 3: Z Cñ Z -I G) ;:c -< ." ;:c 0 !! r m » OJ en 0 r C -I m -I m en -n-l 0- ;:cZ -(;ß -(;ß .... -(;ß -(;ß .... .... -IG) w w w w en U1 ...... ."Qo I I ffin I 0 I (XI 0 U1 U1 U1 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 ;:cO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 nz men ~ C -nr r:::! z ,Ç) - z C"> "wII 0 ::J: ." ." C ;:c m :s: m z » . m m z 3: 0 ;:c ." m r » en 0 c 0 -< G) c :s: c ;:c m en C"> z -I m -I :-l en ." :L N -< 0 0 en N ñ @ » en r :-I N m r 0 X C 0 » C"> ." 3: m :s: en C"> Qo -10 0 »c ;:c OJZ C c-l G) !Þ-;< -I m -I OJ en -0 -I 0» Z Z;:c G) enO :LO m-n ~C"> I 0 OJC -Z 0-1 0-< ':-"C"> .....0 ~3: 3: en en Õ Z m ;:c en From: To: Start: Due: Subject: Pat Clute Michael Rath Thursday, August08,2002 Thursday, August 08, 2002 BIDS After reveiwing the bid submitted by ABSOLUTE TESTING I recommemd we award them the bid and continue our relationship with a new contract. \.r- ~ AGENDA REQUEST ~M NO. C-3-C DATE: August 20,2002 REGULAR [ ] HEARING [ ] CONSENT [X] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY (DEPT): Purchasinq Michael Rath. Purchasinq Director SUBJECT: Extension of Contract No, C99-10-067 with Dave's Communications, Inc. BACKGROUND: On October 5, 1999 the Board of County Commissioners approved, pursuant to RFP No. 99-075, a two-year contract through September 30, 2001 for Pagers and Pager Service with Dave's Communications, Inc. The contract allows for two (2) additional one-year extensions at the same terms and conditions. On August 28, 2001, the Board authorized the first one-year extension through September 30,2002. Staff is requesting authorization to exercise the second and final one-year contract extension through September 30, 2003, FUNDS AVAILABLE: Funds will be made available in the requesting departments operating accounts. PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the final one-year extension to the current contract with Dave's Communications, Inc" through September 30,2003, and authorization for the Chairman to sign the extension as prepared by the County Attorney. COMMISSION ACTION: [~. APPROVED [] DENIED [ ] OTHER: CE: County Attomey:(X) &- , Coordination/Signatures Mgt. & Budget (X). :V-~f ......''tYlm L1 - --.,/. Originating Dept: Finance: (Check for Copy only, if Applicabie) Purchasing Mgr.:(X) Other: ;./2 Other: Elf. 1/97 ..... ..., SECOND AMENDMENT TO OCTOBER 5, 1999 CONTRACT BETWEEN ST. LUCIE COUNTY AND DAVE'S COMMUNICATIONS, INC. THIS SECOND AMENDMENT made this day of 2002, by and between ST. LUCIE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida (County) and DAVE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., or his, its or their successors, executors, administrators and assigns (Contractor). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, on October 5, 1999 the parties entered into a Contract (the "Contract") whereby the Contractor agreed to provide pagers, pager service, and maintenance services to the County; and WHEREAS, on August 28, 2001 the parties executed the First Amendment to extend the term and conditions of the Contract to September 30, 2002; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Contract to exercise the final one- year extension option under the same terms and conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, inconsideration of the premises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Paragraph 4 of the Contract is amended to read as follows: 6. TERM The term of this Contract shall be from October 5, 1999 through and including September 30, 2003. 2. Except as amended herein, the remaining terms and condition of the October 5, 1999 Contract shall remain in full force and effect. 1 \w ...., IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County has hereunto subscribed and the Contractor has affixed his, its, or their names, or name, and the date aforesaid. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA By: CHAIRMAN APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: COUNTY ATTORNEY WITNESSES DAVE'S COMMUNICATIONS, INC. By: AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Print Name: Title: 2 · .,?">..- '. n'J ""'" .~_. ,-:1 L iJl~lt;.· wA: '...I .1/ .-,;:..- r'J,.,.// , ~ /.., -:---- (.'-17' ,"U' Vb / ! f , / FIRST AMENDMENT TO OCTOBER 5, 1999 CONTRACT BETWEEN ST. LUCIE COUNTY AND DAVE'S COMMUNICATION, INC. '1 0-- TillS FIRST AMENDMENT made and entered into this C" û day of , " ! -!J þ""" ,. 2 ! " -·~-."u, 001, U by and between ST. LUCIE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter called the "County', and DAVE'S COMMUNICATION, INC. , a Florida corporation, or its successors, executors, administrators, and assigns hereinafter called the "Contractor": WITNES SETH: WHEREAS, the parties entered into a Contract dated October 5, 1999 (Contract) whereby the Contractor agreed to provide pagers, pager service and maintenance services to the County; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Contract to establish a one year extension of the Contract at the same terms and conditions. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Paragraph 4 of the Contract is amended in its entirety as follows: 6. TERM. The term of this Contract shall be from October 1, 1999 through September 30,2002. Upon prior written mutual agreement of both parties, the term of this Contract may be extended through and including October 1, 2003, subject to the same terms and conditions as stated herein. 2. Except as amended herein, the remaining terms and conditions of the October 5, 1999 Contract shall remain in full force and effect. -1- '-' '-' IN 'WITNESS WHEREOF, the County has hereunto subscribed and the Contractor has affixed his, its or their names, or name. '.- -, .:.:~. ~. ATTEST: .- . ,.;~~:>", ~ /:- " ") fA;;#<'; ',,0;.. -.: .,,' ;\, ¡ it ~. .I:- f~ - r .....- ,r.... -"IT... r / /1~ ,1/21 ,f{£¿/J Aj:Ú1,~~" "\.~:>. ~ /1"'// /V-:t{.....;?!;/:··~j ) ,...._1,'... ~ , ,..&_'- \L.--",ð,.(,y""....'. ".\ J.,...., DEPÚTY CLÈRK'01 "/1'· ~, . .... f;':~ ~l~~i;;~~~~ ATTEST: e '1 J rJ - (. /'l©--L.... ^ - I 0le¿O ¡\) SECRETARY g:lagrccmnt\amend98\1 a-Dave' sj -2- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLQRIDA /-- .~'_.-../.' ../ /} )~-,.. ----- ,// ,. / '¡-----, // .' .. i . / \ / y. ' - ~-- I/"- BY:"-f( .....·~7....................... ,'-:-~......:...~~:'._,:, ,.a:~-"'-';:""_':"':-;-:,-..__ . '- CHAIRMAN, .~ APPROVED AS TO FORM AND C)RRECTNESS: /vlWfft£A / COUNTY AuY DAVE'S COMMUNICATION, INC. BY: (\ C-, ~~~~--4 PRESIDENT (SEAL) TJAVE E.iJ/{/J{ name Print \w '...J DAVE~~ (OMMUNICATIONS, INC. 2530 OKEECHOBEE ROAD· FORT PIERCE, FL 34947 . PHONE: (561) 464-9711 St. Lucie County Board of Conunissioners 2300 Virginia Ave. Room 228 / Purchasing Fort Pierce, Fl. 34982 7/31/01 Dino DeRostaing, Daves Communications wishes to excercise a 1 year renewal of Contract #99-10-067. Terms and Conditions will remain unchanged. This Contract covers Paging Service from 10/01/01 thru 9/30/02. &:cerV!3 ! :£h\h'by W. Brown cc.ff. \..r '....I (I '- ; ....- I /, ,-' ~ Li(c: ! CONTRACT THIS CONTRACT, made this ,")-U dayof tJe,~J ,1999, between ST. LUCIE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter called the uCounty" , and DAVE'S COMMUNICATIONS, INC., or his, its or their successors, executors, administrators, and assigns hereinafter called the UContractoru: WIT N E SSE T H: 1 . PURPOSE That Contractor agrees with County, for the consideration herein mentioned, at his, its or their own proper cost and expense to do all the work and furnish all the materials, equipment, supplies, and labor necessary to carry out this Contract to the satisfaction of the duly authorized representatives of St. Lucie County, v,.'no shall have at all times full opportunity to inspect the materials to be furnished anr t" ð work to be done under this Contract. 2. DESCRIPTION OF WORK Contractor agrees to provide pagers, pager service a nd maintenance to the County in accordance with Composite Exhibit" A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Any conflict between the terms and conditions of this Agreement and Composite Exhibit "A" shall be interpreted in favor of this Agreement. 3. PROJECT MANAGER ) 462-1700. The Project The parties shall direct all matters arising in connection with the performance of this Contract, 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 performa.nce of this Contract. 4. TERM g:\attylagraemntIOave's -1- '-' ~ 5. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY The Contractor is an independent contractor and is not an employee or agent of the County. Nothing in this Contract shall be interpreted to establish any relationship other than that of an independent contractor, between the County and the Contractor, its employees, agents, subcontractors, or assigns, during or after the performance of this Contract. The Contractor shall take the whole responsibility of the work and shall bear all losses resulting to him, or it, on account of the amount or character of the work, or because of the natu re of the ground in or on which the work is done is different from what was assumed or expected , or because of bad weather, or because of errors or omissions in his or its bid on the Contrac t price, or except as otherwise provided in the Contract Documents because of any other causes whatsoever. 6. CONTRACT PAYMENT The County shall pay the Contractor for the performance of this Contract and for all services satisfactorily completed in accord with the terms and conditions of this Contract at the rates set forth in Composite Exhibit U Anand on the basis of invoices submitted by the Contractor and approved by the St. Lucie County Purchasing Manager. 7. AUDIT The Contractor agrees that the County or any of its duly authorized representatives shall, until the expiration of three years af ter expenditure of funds under this Contract, have access to and the right to examine any directly pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of the Contractor involving transactions related to this Contract. The Contractor agrees that payment(s) made under this Contract 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 Contract. The Contractor shall refund by check payable to the County the amount of such reduction of payments. All required records shall be maintained until an audi t is completed and all questions arising therefrom are resolved, or three yea rs after completion of the project and issuance of the final certificate, whichever is sooner. 8. PUBLIC RECORDS The Contractor 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 Contractor in conjunction with this Contract. 9. INDEMNIFICATION The Contractor covenants and agrees at all times to save, hold, and keep harmless th e County, its Officials, Employees, Agents, and Volunteers and indemnify the County, its Officials, Employees, Agents and Volunteers agains t any and all claims, demands, penalties, judgments, court costs, attorney's fees and liability of every kind and nature whatsoever arising out of the performance of this Contract to the extent of the insurance requirements g:lattylagreemntlDave's -2- \..- ...." set forth herein. The Contractor hereby acknowledges that the payments made under this Contract include specific consideration for the indemnification provided herein. 10. INSURANCE A. WORKERS' COMPENSATION The Contractor shall procure and maintain, through the term of this Contract, Worker' s Compensation insurance in accordance with the I aws of the State of Florida and in amounts sufficient to secure the benefits of the Florida Workmen's Compensation law for all employees of the Contractor and all subcontr actors. The Worker's Compensation insurance policy required by the Contract shall also include Employer's liability. B. GENERAL LIABILITY The 'Contractor shall maintain during the lifetime of this Contract, regular Comprehensive General Liability Insurance providing for a limit of not less than Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) for all damages arising out of bodily injuries and property damage during the policy period. If any part of the work is subject, similar insurance shall b e provided by or in behalf of the subcontractors to cover their operations. C. CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE Certificates to all insurance required from the Contractor shall be filed with the County at least seven (7) calendar days prior to the commencement of work and shall be subject to the County's approval for adequacy. 11 . DEFAULT: TERMINATION A. FOR CAUSE If either party fails to fulfill its obligations under this Contract in a timely and proper manner, the other party shall have the right to terminate this Contract by giving written notice of any deficiency and by allowing the party in default seven (7) calendar days to correct the deficiency. If the defaulting party fails to correct the deficiency within the seven calendar day period, this Contract shall terminate at the expiration of that time period. With regard to the Contractor, the following items shall be considered a defaul t under this Contract: (1) If the Contractor should be adjudged bankrupt, or if he, or it, should make a general assignment for the benefit of his, or its, creditors, or if a receiver should be appointed on account of his, or its, insolvency. (2) If the Contractor should refuse or fail, except in cases for which an extension of time is provided, to supply service and maintenance to the pagers. 9 :\atty\agreemnt\Dave' s -3- \w ...." (3) If the Contractor disregards laws, ordinances, or the instructions of the Project Manager or otherwise be guilty of a substantial violation of the provisions of the Contract. In the event of termination, the County may take possession of all materials, and finish the Work by whatever method it may deem expedient. In such cases, the Contractor shall only be entitled to receive payment for Work satisfactorily completed prior to the termination date. If the expense incurred by the County to finish the Work exceeds th e unpaid balance on this Contract, the Contractor shall pay the difference to the County. The _ expense incurred by the County as herein provided, and the damage incurred through the Contractor's default, shall be certified by the Project Manager. B. WITHOUT CAUSE Either party may terminate the Contract without cause a t any time upon thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice to the other party. In the event of termination, the County shall compensate the Contractor for all authorized work perlormed through the termination date. 12. NON DISCRIMINATION Contractor covenants and agrees that Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment to be employed in the performance of the Contract with respect to hiring, tenure, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, or any matter directly or indirectly related to employment because of age, sex or physical handicaps (excep t where based on a bonafide occupational qualification); or because of marital status, race, color, religion, national origin or ancestry. 13. VERIFICATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS The County will not intentionally award contracts to any contractor who knowingly employs unauthorized alien workers, constituting a violation of the employment provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA "). The Count shall consider the employment b y the Contractor of unauthorized aliens a violation of 8 U.S.C. Section 1324a(e) [Section 274A(e) of the INA]. The Contractor agrees that such violation by the Contractor shall be grounds for the unilateral cancellation of this Contract by the County. 14. ASSIGNMENT The County reserves the right to freely assign this Contract. The Contractor, however, shall not assign this Contract to any other persons or firm without first obtaining County's written approval. 15. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS In the event of any dispute concerning the terms and conditions of this Contract or in the event of any action by any party to this Contract to judicially interpret or enforce this g:\atty\agraemnt\Dave's -4- \w. ....; Contract or any provision hereof, or in any dispute arising in any manner from this Contract, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable costs, fees and expenses, including but not limited to, witness fees, expert fees, consultant fees, attorney, paralegal and legal assistant fees, costs and expenses and other professional fees , costs and expenses, whether suit be brought or not, and whether any settlement shall be entered in any declaratory action, at trial or on appeal. The liability of the Contractor and its surety or sureties for such fees and costs is joint and several. 16. NOTICES All notices, requests, consents, and other communications required or permitted under this Contract shall be in writing and shall be (as elected by the person giving such notice) hand delivered by messenger or courier service, telecommunicated, or mailed by registered or certified mail (postage prepaid) return receipt requested, addressed to: As To County: With A Copy To: St. Lucie County Administrator Administration Annex 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, FL 34982 St. Lucie County Attorney Administration Annex 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, FL 34982 As To Contractor: Dave's Communications, Inc. 2530 Okeechobee Road Fort Pierce, Florida 34947 (407) 464-9711 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. 17. INDULGENCE NOT WAIVER The indulgence of either party with regard to any breach of failure to perform any provision of this Contract shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of the provision or any portion of this Contract either at the time the breach or failure occurs or at any time throughout the term of this Contract. 18. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The Contractor represents that it presently has no interest and shall acquire no interest, either direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with the performance g:\attylagreemntIDave's -5- \w .., of services required hereunder, as provided for in Section 112.311, Florida Statutes (1997) and as may be amended from time to time. The Contractor further represents that no perso n having any interest shall be employed for said performance. The Contractor shall promptly notify the County in writing by certified mail of all potential conflicts of interest prohibited by existing state law for any prospective business association, interest or other circumstance which may influence or appear to influence the Contractor's judgment or quality of services being provided hereunder. Such written notification shall identify the prosp ective business association, interest or circumstance, the _ nature of Work that the Contractor may undertake and request an opinion of the County as to whether the association, interest or circumstance would, in the opinion of the County, constitute a conflict of interest if entered into by the Contractor. The County agrees to notif y the Contractor of its opinion by certified mail within thirty (30) days of receip t of notification by the Contractor. If, in the opinion of the County, the prospective business association, interest or circumstance would not constitute a conflict of interest by the Contractor, the County shall so state in the notification and the Contractor shall, at his/her 0 ption, enter into said association, interest or circumstance and it shall be deemed not in conflict of interest with respect to services provided to the County by the Contractor under the terms of this Contract. 19. DISPUTE RESOLUTION Any disputes relating to a question of fact arising under this Contract shall be resolve d through good faith efforts upon the part of the Contractor and the County or its representative. At all times, the Contractor shall carry 0 n 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 or its representatives who shall reduce the decision to writing. 20. MEDIATION In the event of a dispute between the parties in connection with this Contract other than a question of fact to be resolved as described above, the parties agree to submit the disputed issue or issues to a mediator for non-binding mediation prior to filing a lawsuit. 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 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. 21 . INTERPRETATION: VENUE This Contract constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to th e subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior verbal or written agreements between the parties with respect thereto. This Contract may only be amended by written document, properly authorized, executed and delivered by both parties hereto. This Contract shall be g:\atty\agreemnt\Dave' 5 -6- '-" ...., DAVE'S): PAGER EXPRESS Florida STATEWIDE PAGING COVERAGE AfIantIc Oœan Gull of MexIco This map is a represenfation of , 52.480 statewide coverage. Cities in bold indicate tower locations. . Coverage area Vera Beach (561) 778-4849 R. Pierce (561) 464-9711 Port St. Lucie (561) 335-8289 Stuart (561) 286-5763 ·~ - '. - '-' 'WI Montb tv Pqjn: Service Prices Digital Paging Service........ .............. ............$ 3.00 Alpha .'Iumeric Paging Service....... ......... ........$ 6.00 This local service covers the pager from Cocoa to Key Largo ****Extended State Coverage is an additional $2.00**** 2 . ~ 1- j;1.. Q3 cUéd¿ f:-<--:'J.; j6a:h:tf ~¿¿L¿ .~ &u Ù'V"'j6 Dave's Communications is a 30 ycår old St LucieColinty business and hopeS thê comIty does not choose to send it's money to an out of cotlIlty business after the many years of satisfactory service we have fumi!':hed. We look forward to continuing tQ. serve you. Xr _ ~ r-ã ...;¡... f.l- ;tt~i'"'Ø."'\1 _ .J~' ~ .~.:). ::;or Sin~ly, fJJ2- Dave Evans ,/ Wi '-- '-/ AGENDA REQUEST rMl NO. C-41 DATE: August 20, 2002 REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [X] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: Pete Keogh Director, Parks and Recreation SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Approval of Employee Break/lunch Room improvement funding. BACKGROUND: On April 23, 2002, the BOCC awarded RFP # 02-046 Concession Service for various county facilities including the Employee Break/Lunch Room to Domenick Collura, The Country Store Sub Shop and Catering. In response to numerous requests from county employees to upgrade the quality and choice of foods available, Mr. Collura is proposing to bring in fresh sandwiches and provide a fresh soup and salad bar daily (there will be no cooking on-site). An attendant will be on-site daily. In order for Mr. Collura to implement the fresh food proposal and to meet the Health Department's requirements for obtaining a permit, $5,000.00 in improvements need to be completed as per the attached shop plan. FUNDS AVAIL.:- 001-9910-599100-800 (Contingency Fund) PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A RECOMMENDA liON: Staff requests thatthe Board of County Commissioners approve funding in the amount of $5,000.00 from the Contingency Fund for improvements to the Employee Break/lunch Room and Budget Amendement 02-151. DC! APPROVED [] DENIED [ ] OTHER: CE: COMMISSION ACTION: . Coo""""", -b Originating Dept: Coordination/Siqnatures Mgl. & BUdgetrtf'-1h~ Other: Purchasing Mgr.: Other: Finance: (Check for Copy only, if Applicable) Eft. 1/97 H: \Agendas\agendlunchrm. wpd \..r - ÃV¡'JS COMMUNICATiONS, INeil -."J '- ! 2530 OKEECHOEEE ROAD · FORT PIERCE, FL 34947 · PHONE: (561) 464-9711 #c,.ff· /O'OG""} Date: August 30, 1999 c --<- To: Charles Bicht, FJI'Cbasing Manager Board of County Commissioners 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft Pierce, FL 34982 - - "-"- From: Dave Evans Dave's ComwwñcatiOns,· Inc. 2530 Okeechobee Rd. Ft Pierce, FL 34947 Re: RFP# 99-075 Dear MI. Bicht., Dave's Communications offers to furnish pagers and pager service to St Lucie County at the prices listed below. It should be noted that the county now owns the present pagers with service. mamtenlmCe, and insuranc:e being provided by Dave's " - include Multi-Departmental Billing): Communications. The following is the proposal for added services (prices quoted /'7 / ' // / t!f // 41~' / ,Q. J J - f'J.:i " ?( . _ Paler Priees DiiftaJPager as low as...........................$ 35.00 Alpha NwnericPager as low as.................$ 40.00 All pager prices will include: * Lifetime Warranty * S10.00 Loss Replacement * Same-Day Trade-out * Free IDsurance * Free V oicemail * Unlimited Calling * Local Service E'iCh: 1:+ A fQs~ ~t'f -a -' BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST FORM REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: OMB for Parks and Recreation PREPARED DATE: 08/12/02 AGENDA DATE: 08/20/02 ACCOU~T NUÏtt8I;R,:' ,. ACCOUNT'NAMÉ ".. TO: 001-1930-562000-100 BUILDINGS $5,000 FROM: 001-991 0-5991 00-800 CONTINGENCY $5,000 REASON FOR BUDGET AMENDMENT: To meet the Health De artment's re uirements for obtainin a ermit for concession service in various count break/lunch room, CONTINGENCY BALANCE: THIS AMENDMENT: REMAINING BALANCE: $297,385 $5,000 $292,385 ~ DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: OMB APPROVAL: BUDGET AMENDMENT #: DOCUMENT # & INPUT BY: ¡l"1 02-151 G:\Budget\QUA TTRO\GENERAL\FORMS\AMENDM02,wb3 \,..,. DEPARTMENT Approved Budget BA02-125 BA02-131 BA02-132 BA02-136 Public Saf BA02-140 BA02-139 BA02-141 BA02-142 BA02-148 Proposed action: BA02-149 BA02-151 "'wI FISCAL YEAR 2001·2002 FUNDS APPROVFD FROM CONTINGENCY GENERAL FUND AMOUNT REMAINING: $457,385 ITEM ACCOUNT # Contingency 001-9910-599100-800 Reserved for Supervisor of Elections Supervisor of Elect. Loan Payoff to Suntrust Bank Tourism Recovery Plan in Partnership with FLAUSA AS400 Public Safety Software Upgrade Reimbursement of expenses for the AMISTAD Sailing Ship Risk ManagemenVSafety Equipment Request #02-177 Defibrillators Electrical system upgrade at the Ft Pierce Amphitheater County Coalition for Resp Mgt of Lake Okee.., Preliminary Engineering Services - Indian River Estates MSBU SOE Voting Equipment (additional) SLC Chamber of Commerce (Comp Everglades Restoration Plan) SOE Voting Equipment (additional) 4-H Organization Educational Activities Mobile Command Post Purchase of Portable Bleachers by Parks (EQ02-229) Increase in Summer Programs So County Stadium Concession/Restroom Allstate Litigation Expenses Total used: Balance Available Supervisor of Elections Redis/Reapp Expenses Employee Break/Lunch Room project Balance Available After Proposed Action: G:\Budget\QUA TTRO\GENERAL \FORMS\AMENDM02,wb3 AMOUNT 1,107,452 $107,452 $5,648 $109,931 $18,000 9,554 9,450 6,000 $1,000 $100,000 5,348 20,000 $27,684 $500 $20,000 $40,000 $10,500 $134,000 $25,000 . 650,067 457,385 $160,000 $5,000 292,385 ,- '\w -' """'" ŒJ [GRlGI 1 -fm10< ~.ì ~-'ß r., L:Jj ~ ,'.t;!" , 1'-0" :., .., ~ , " '", 1 ~ ..~ ~~ 1 1 ~ J ,'-,' i , I 1 i r ~:2.'.<.'----"l f----- 5"0· " T '. -.:, c.......,.... .,...~!":. C~ìAAr' ~ l~T I i \ .i ..? ~ \ r TO: SUBMITTED BY: SUBJECT: BACKGROU~D: FUNDS A V AILABLE: PREVIOUS ACTION: RECOMMENDATION: COMMISSIOl'\ ACTION: ,..", AGENDA REOUEST ITEM NO. c-5A DATE: August 20, 2002 REGULAR [ PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [ X ] BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOCC - DISTRICT 4 Purchase ofHP Laser Jet 4100 PrinterlEquipment Request #02-244. On August 8, 2002, Information Technology Department provided a quote for a new printer to replace the current one which will be declared as junk. Funds are currently available in Commissioner Hutchinson's 2001-2002 budget and will be made available in Account #001-11104-564000-100. N/A Staff recommends the Board approve Budget Amendment #02-152, and Equipment Request #02-244 appropriating the funds in the amount of $1, I 03 to purchase Printer. [)C. APPROVED [] DENIED [ ] OTHER: ; I County Attorney: XX ;>/ Coordination/Signatures Management & Budget: xx--mfh&¡- Purchasing: Central Services: Finance: (Check for Copy only, if applicable) X PWorks Dept: Other ./ On& - "-' Anyone With a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the SI. Lucie County Community Services Manager at 561- 462-1777 or TDD 561-462-1428 at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting. ~ ..." ~,J(~ú: "_Jflll' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY 2300 VIRGINIA AVE FT. PIERCE, FL 34982 IT QUOTE DATE ESTIMATE NO, 8/8/2002 2282 NAME/ADDRESS Commissioner Hutchinson #17075 Attn: Liz Martin 1- DE I P.O, NO, TERMS QUOTE VALID UNTIL ! . 30 DAYS 9/6/2002 SCRIPTION QTY COST TOTAL - 1 1,078,00 1,078.00 25.00 25.00 ISA call Dartek @1-800-553-8223 Jeff Meath get it from Purchasing, send the ill place the order. Any questions ¡ , , , HP 4100 Printer SHIPPING VENDOR INFORMATION: Dartek Computer 175 Ambassador Drive Naperville, IL 60540 , NOTE: If you can order by V choose ex!. 4521 - Sales Rep: If you need a PO - When you VENDOR copy 10 me and I w give me a call @1179 I I I The goods and/or services as quoted hereon have been requested in the quantity and quality stated, TOTAL $1,103.00 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE ... ... - BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST FORM REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: OMB FOR DISTRICT 4- Comm, Hutchinson PREPARED DATE: 08/12/02 AGENDA DATE: 08/20/02 .+.;,,;;,"·:¡,i.i.'" .. ~~ , i.,.;j'¡..iHJ.î.t ,,;; ".;;; ... ··""'Li;¡: '.. TO: 001-11104-564000-100 Machinery and Equipment $1,103 FROM: 001-11104-54000-100 Travel $703 001-11104-551501-100 Office Supplies-Comouter $400 $1 103 REASON FOR BUDGET AMENDMENT: To purchase HP LaserJet 4100 Printer CONTINGENCY BALANCE: N/A THIS AMENDMENT: REMAINING BALANCE: DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: OMB APPROVAL: ÞJ# BUDGET AMENDMENT #: 02-152 DOCUMENT # & INPUT BY: G:\Budget\QUA TTRO\GENERAL\FORMS\AMENDM02,wb3 ~ m c £) m c: ~ ;; > ¡¡:: ~ m ¡¡:: z m .... z ;:ll :-:' m ~ IT1 :;! () 0 0 ß ii, ~ , ~ ~ s:: CIl ~ is' CIl 3 Õ CD ::3 ~ ... ~ ë;¡' 0- CD :5' CCl Cö en .Q s:: » :-I CD '" G')m, CD Cl. mOc: 0- zSo CD e-a- III »š:m fj¡ ;;omO CD mZO S O-tC: CD 2 c:;;oz ~ mm=<! CD enOJJ ~ a ;:ll -tc:o }l m 0 0 em» 0 :5' 0 ~~;;o c: CD ¡¡:: z .., ¡¡:: m."e .... ii, m "00 z :5' Z 0;;0." c: III C 0Cl ¡¡:: ~ m ì\)"'O lD .Q !=? oCñO m § ì\)oc: 1':1 (i) o~z III ß =<! ::3 Cl. ¡;io :§ »0 ::::: ;;oš: 0- CD Nš: 8 ~ ~ 0- Ot/) .... 0 CIl -t/) , iiì .... Cö ~- .... 00 .... Cl. ~ ...., oZ , § Nm CJ'1 ?:" ::0 ~ en 8 '? .... 0 0 ~ AGENDA REQUEST .",.J ITEM NO. C-Sb DATE: August 20, 2002 REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [X ] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): Administration Doug Anderson County Administrator SUBJECT: Amendment to Existing Contract With MCSi BACKGROUND: St. Lucie County obtained $120,000 through cable franchise fees for the purchase of equipment to broadcast the Board of County Commission meetings. Earlier this year the contract was awarded to MCSi for the purchase and installation of the equipment. With the additional changes to the configuration of the Commission Chambers, staff is recommending that the existing contract with MCSi be amended to include the following: $31,654,00 Projectors, Screen Microphones, Mixer Monitors, Speakers and Installation (approved by BOCC on 7/16/02) $11,212.08 Camera, Lens, Mount and Installation FUNDS WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE: 315-1930-564000-1608 Mach & Equip 001-1900-564000-1608 Mach & Equip ($31,654,00) ($11,212.08) PREVIOUS ACTION: None RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Contract Amendment and authorize the Chairman to sign the Contract Amendment as prepared by the County Attorney's Office [ ] APPROVED [ ] DENIED ~] OTHER: Pulled prior to the meeting. COMMISSION ACTION: Review and Approvals COU:1ty At.torney: Manage~ent & B~dget Purchasieg: O~iginat~ng Dept. Other: Other: Finance, (Check [or Copy only, if applicable) Eff, 5/96 ,...--- / '--' """ Agenda Request Item Number Date: ~ (p 0.-- 08/20/02 Consent Regular Public Hearing Leg, [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] Quasi-JD [ To: Submitted By: Board of County Commissioners Community Development SUBJECT: Request of Edwin S. Merritt and Richard Reitano for final plat approval for the site plan known as Raptor SID located on the of Header Canal Road , BACKGROUND: Edwin S. Merritt and Richard Reitano have submitted a plat for a 5-lot subdivision to be known as Raptor SID on a 71.115acre parcel. FUNDS AVAILABLE: N/A PREVIOUS ACTION: On May 14, 2002, the SI. Lucie County Community Development Director granted approval to the minor site plan and preliminary plat for Raptor SID. On May 7, 2002, this Board granted a waiver from the requirements of Section 11.02.09(A)(5) of the SI. Lucie County Land Development Code for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). RECOMMENDATION: Approve the final plat of Raptor SID and authorize its final execution, COMMISSION ACTION: 00 APPROVED D DENIED D OTHER - Douglas M, Anderson County Administrator County Attomey Originating Dept: Finance: Coordinationl Signatures Mgl. & Budget: Other: Purchasing: Other: '- /I \.,. ..."" Commission Review: August 20, 2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division MEMORANDUM To: Board of County Commissioners From: Dennis J, Murphy, Community Development Director Date: August 14,2002 Subject: Petition of Edwin S, Merritt and Richard Reitano for final plat approval for a 5-lot subdivision to be known as Raptor Subdivision On July 25, 2002, the St. Lucie County Community Development Director granted approval of a minor site plan and preliminary plat for a 5-lot subdivision for 71.115 acres of property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Header Canal Road in the AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/5 acres) Zoning District to be known as Raptor Subdivision. The associated final plat for this subdivision was received in the office of the Community Development Director on July 25, 2002. In accordance with the provisions of Section 11.03.03(0) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, you are hereby requested to approve the plat for the subdivision to be known as Raptor SID. This plat was determined to meet all applicable provisions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and Chapter 177. Florida Statutes on July 25, 2002. Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter. SUBMITTED: cc: Edwin S. Merritt Richard Reitano Ron Harris, County Surveyor Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney File ~ To: Submitted By: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: FUNDS AVAILABLE: PREVIOUS ACTION: RECOMMENDATION: OMMISSION ACTION: c;J APPROVED U OTHER '-' ....J Agenda Request C6b Item Number Date: August 20, 2002 Consent Regular Public Hearing Leg, [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ] Quasi-JD [ Board of County Commissioners Community Development Dept. ent Director Christensen Acres Subdivision - Final Plat Review On August 14, 2002, the Community Development Director approved CD Order 02- 0016, which granted Minor Site Plan approval for a 4-lot subdivision on 10.08 acres of land to be known as Christensen Acres Subdivision. This parcel is located on the west side of Christensen Road, approximately 617 feet north of the intersection of West Midway Road and Christensen Road.. There are no subdivision improvements associated with this project. On August 12,2002, the Board of County Commissioners approved a waiver of the Environmental Report for this Subdivision. Staff recommends that the Board approve the final plat for the subdivision to be known as Christensen Acres Subdivision, and authorize staff to proceed with its final processing. DENIED - Douglas M. Anderson County Administrator County Attorney. Originating Dept.: Finance: Coordination/ Signatures Mgt. & Budget: Other: Purchasing: Other: + I '-' ...I COUNTY COMMISSION REVIEW: August 20, 2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Administration MEMORANDUM TO: County Commission FROM: Community Development Director DATE: August 14,2002 SUBJECT: Consider final plat approval for Christensen Acres Subdivision On August 14, 2002, the Community Development Director approved CD Order 02-016, which granted Minor Site Plan approval for a 4-lot subdivision on 10± acres of land to be known as Christensen Acres Subdivision. This parcel is located at located on the west side of Christensen Road, approximately 617 feet north of the intersection of West Midway Road and Christensen Road. There are no subdivision improvements associated with this project. On August 12, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners approved a waiver to the Environmental Impact Report. Staff recommends that the Board approve the Final Plat for Christensen Acres Subdivision and authorize staff to complete the final processing of this Plat. SUBMITTED: CPSI ProjectslChristensen AcreslPlaVagenda cc: County Administrator County Attorney rr I ~~ II !~;~II H; . ~ I · 1 ¡ !I =i i ~~ 'I . i:¡I~ï ìil }~ ¡¡=¡¡ :... ~ 3)8 di <0--...... I¡ r '" iIr'~ E3 !. ~ IJ ~~U¡,~ I ~ ~n~~ t::J "-J:ì~ (I J [ II¡;IC L 0.;. ~ ~~ P5ð < ! I !,~ I i! I <l~~¡;"'q '" d ,,¡¡-- "@ . . ;t Þ\<r:!t" i i ·i~E3 z J ;1 'I I· . il·i. 'I >'" 7f I!::ïl .... ~~ ~~~ Fn -< i. J ~!ni i. rrt::. "'1 % I I ~¡æ~E3 ,.. II II If· ~~ " ! ~I;IJ'! ..~ Îi!Ð il 1 ,.~~~ InJ "'~8 t , ¡llli!' ;;~rn h J · I~~ .J ~ , I ¡ ;~ i£ ! i 1 . I I ·IJIJ!ï Ii .. qHi . Ii ~š r I¡ !g. ~ .1111 ~lit . .. lit lit llitll J ljtll I~ I,. if I pi I :1 ~i di ~bi · :;I¡II i t .f i ¡q f l~il 'r r I: I '" ~ .! . 'I I . i . ., 'f it I I, I· . .~ '11f . J f rJ a II I ,j J il d ' ~ ~ . JIll I~ . ~! 't II .. I "I .5' I ;ì _"I 1" Id ,. . JI " : J :i~! ~J ;a;; Ih... fi , ~ ¡ ~ ¡tj:¡ i! ~I· II lid , ~J. ~ 1,- . , I ! ·m!~= ;;1 ì J K II C I . .. \.or ¡------.. - i I~ Ii !, !! j ;¡ . 'I rr §i! I 'f ~; ilr lit lit ¡In ¡i ¡IIi ~i ihi I'll!! î ;~I£ i il.: i'S. ;fJt ¡I"I Hf. 'II! lhJ I f11lfl §i! ð,h· I ~¡ · Aï,l, llll ç~ l:jll ¡i , 11,.1.1 ,.~ ' JII 'J ...,-, hli, I· ;It ~. ~EI- 'iIS ft H~fl Ir'¡ 1J1.\' JI~I! Iii" - f I ÌI' ~~ J fll 1111it It. Ulli JHai 1("1 11 Ii frn~ -I -, tl fif ;š I' ~~~ q ~:ni ~ I!' ~Q ,llJ I l!¡ ~Q f ht ~¡: t:'" 1111 ~~ (- 1::11' i§ 1';:- 1 l.Z- ~I · ~I 'Ii \ · I!~ II" qll· I ~ !f i if h. t Ii ! "Ii ;:1 ¡~~.t~ I( U ì I'l! J~ f if f j 1,1 J"" ~ It · ill I (r~ lr f! r I~ L - 11 t J II if ... '-" ~ " " I , " l~ r; :1 'ï ""1.1_'_"'_ ------ " F _~i,-.-;(------------ ..= __ .~ ..., "" I .,.; I I· ~ - , ~ I j ! !¡l ::: .... ou c ~ ou ~- L > r '" '" 5 > ¡¡¡j!;i ~ -!lr~ r U~H '" -< ir~l! . ~ IIX1'UI8''NfI66}.Ji7 I I ¡ , i I I I , i ~ ~ .~ ~ ! , ¡ I I I j I I I 1 L --J._-'!L....!IL-.·--...ir-f.r.;¡:- _;:~ ---+ -~_-.--!......'!-_ ~·r _ _.. 1.-...... CHRISII:HSENROAC iI SOO"IlfI'Dl'E ~1£O' l I ¡ I I I I ¡ i I I I I ~ P. ~ I'< I I !< ¡= !, f; , ~ ~ . ~ " i I I , I I I ~. ¡;=¡¡ ~~~~8 :¡¡¡¡¡"',!1B ¡.,~~c::::J a.~~~::~ ~ ~~~~ q ~_ "'Z:~'""l Fn ~ ~æE3 ,>r (l::j ~'i: ¡:n E3 ~l:'$2¡ (q ~~g~ 8J ~' ~~~ In) ~ ~~8 "t¡ "¥~~ @ (l::j ...., ") I ~ " ¡i ¡i -¡-~- I " ¡: ! m ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ i - .....-f-~ ~ -r~" ~ .~ . gt;::; I!l~; ~ iU!.ö '¡ -, ! I ¡~ , . ~, I ¡¡ ¡¡ ~ ~~ II ~ To: Submitted By: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: FUNDS AVAILABLE: PREVIOUS ACTION: RECOMMENDATION: rY1 OMMISSION ACTION: ~ APPROVED D OTHER County Attorney Originating Dept.: Finance: '-' Agenda Request Board of County Commissioners Community Development Dept. ....I Item Number C & C- Oate: August 20, 2002 Consent Regular Public Hearing Leg, [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ] Quasi-JD [ ent Director Montoya 1 Subdivision - Final Plat Review On August 14, 2002, the Community Development Director approved CD Order 02- 017, which granted Minor Site Plan approval for a 4-lot subdivision on 83.2± acres of land to be known as Montoya 1 Subdivision. This parcel is located 1/2 mile south of the intersection of Carlton Road and State Road 70. There are no subdivision improvements associated with this project. On August 12, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners approved a waiver of the Environmental Report for this Subdivision. Staff recommends that the Board approve the final plat for the subdivision to be known as Montoya 1 Subdivision, and authorize staff to proceed with its final processing. DENIED Coordination! Signatures Mgt. & Budget: Other: Douglas M, Anderson County Administrator Purchasing: Other: -, . '-" ..,J COUNTY COMMISSION REVIEW: August 20, 2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Administration MEMORANDUM TO: County Commission FROM: Community Development Director DATE: August 14, 2002 SUBJECT: Consider final plat approval for Montoya 1 Subdivision On August 14, 2002, the Community Development Director approved CD Order 02-017, which granted Minor Site Plan approval for a 4-lot subdivision on 83± acres of land to be known as Montoya 1 Subdivision. This parcel is located 1/2 mile south of the intersection of Carlton Road and State Road 70. There are no subdivision improvements associated with this project. On August 12, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners approved a waiver to the Environmental Impact Report. Staff recommends that the Board approve the Final Plat for Montoya 1 Subdivision and authorize staff to complete the final processing of this Plat. SUBMITTED: CPS/ Projects/Montoya l/PlaVagenda cc: County Administrator County Attorney r-.... , i '-' ¡ ~ ] i 1 UIU~lí¡!~ if I. . r IIIUMa I¡~ Ii I ~ ~"" ~IJ! lull ~@ ! f ..! Ølll~uh ~ II~: ttlf¡f!Ht1I i ,.li!r }í¡ll. i.!hi i I~ P J~I~;i' iI I [!iiJ!~' ! iT" ¡rl I fl;~lnl! I . [Irll' I ,.~." rf I I I I i I I I ~ II U !H~ If eé Ii Ii 'I iI d il U 'I £1 I it I f ri I ì ...",¡ R Iliff ~§ t' i.1 !fitl'! I~ , "i. I¡I¡ .. ; ~ J J I¡Ii f fill ~¡¡ ~ i I ~ !l~ ~I ~f .~~ ~ : ln ~ë .. f 'hI , I !pí II· J hiI I .~ ~ illJ of - ie !~ft f~1 . '. f~'IIJI i' ¡ il~ r ·,tr .. £ (;1 . t( ,~ JHI j.lii II 1, ~ ~ ¡iUri ¡ 11;1 ¡: Ii t' iit' III r tnl· II f¡l ! hd !H Uln I~ i I r Iii m:1 5! I IJI·, lilli E f rl! 1·1'lli ~i Hi'll ~i !.;! ~il II:! ¡i . t 1(' r' I, Ii l·g l . I 'J t! I I ..I r f i hll ., '. t Uri f jlft ~ f III f,rli ~l II Is · tfJ. I ill ! ¡It¡ ì II ¡¡Ii ~ r'b f ,; !If¡ !!J¡t II ifli !~lill! Ji~i i§ i·· 11',1 I~hlill b~1 I¡II¡I~~ =~E~ . Illlit li!~., c -/ I ii~ 1ft I!~ I :¡ ~ I ""f - 11~1¡ l~! ~ ~~III 1l~1 !I=l J~l ~1;1i Iii . 111.1; ~i! ; ,;, H~ 3: o ï......m ::z: ~I~-{ z-~o < "-< ñ ~~¡> _ ,tn_ :z ¡;¡8::' - -~~....... ~ ~~JÈ x" ~~%fT1 » ;;l~,"CJ) "C ~~~--f ....~~:Þ ~~~--i > m CJ) I I I , I (I) I ~ ~ Pilf ~~ 'l rr i ~ ir ~ Ii I~ Ij I~ II ~! 'I ;; I § I --¡ ¡. ì ¡J t¡ i'¡ I¡I¡ t lit¡ , lilt¡ Il¡li t¡1l ~ ..-lllil;! ¡Iii ¡i III ~i ~il- ~I ~i ..... . ~ ¡fl I ~I : ¡i a . ~hl~ ti f rl ~ if i " .. -I' l "I' ,I J II I'\L,- ~ ;f I.hi ¡H- .1 '. - f ::';o.~~~~; I. It I iir; " " ", If I ~>n,;\f'l . ~n: ·II![ if Ii! i if i.. I ¥-'~'" í> Þ If f ~¡li. If If II II I' ">. ....\10' I r ~~,':> r. I II . I ..t I i d ~<- I . fIll ¡I..; tr If It r I ~¡ I "1 hi -I I .......0 r Jf&j .'1 Ii . _. i!~ I!L . ìw ~I ~ ~ ". r I~i!i;h~ hr. J!t' Ii · If · -0= [I U!!I i~ tl!i II t , I ~~ - "" JW r r ~ i dl! ì J i I i c . ¡._~ = · , I I L= -" j '-' r-- ...., (I It.,-",\ ,~ ! " ê ! * ~ , i ~ r~ ;: I ¡.. I f.! ~! ~¡ ~ I I I , : ; I .l.:.'~'!'2....1.~~~~L__ ,_ ¡Pi j~c, . ".. I" ¡ , ,,I , ~ j r I :~Iî E I t! I: . I ¡ , ~¡ ! ~I i;:¡ ¡~~ 1~~ ~ V) :J: :"""1 1'"1 --I f\) Cl -r-¡ f\) ¡¡:¡ ':il ;Itl¡·-~ ':':ti - jË~ . ; ~I II [:1 ~ ~ ~c.. ~~ ~¡;J 5 g~ ¡ ~ ¡i.:j ;:.... I ~ "i;¡ ;~ :l il::-~ ¡:¡ !2¡¡m~E I ¡ i j --_i';j:ì-'--"--- Ii !; ~t. ~' 'ti"Fis-"'~ËTð~ s;r I, ~: '-O;~~ ii _-;--~1~~.- ., H I' ¡1 ~I; q I ..,.,'""~,.. ; I' f< .. - õi(,o¡¡;-,i.ib:"';¡--- -. il-- r~ ! I . . .J " ¡ I I ...L i.1 ~ d_~~.:;,;- ~l: . ' "' '1 ii ij Ii 'Î I 'I I ~¿f~ ~ ~~: b 'l~ '::: ~j{ S 3: o ;6~Z ~~~--f :;~>-O :::~-< ::~þ cC>"", ~~~~ ~v- ~~znl ~:~CfJ .~:~--1 ~~7-Þ u:-l!<O--I ~ fTl (J') ,. ~ I f ~ , ~ ¡¡ i ~ ~ ~ r- ~ ·;::·lJ-~¡··· ~= I Ç":'ñ ; . , : I . : i ' " ) ~ '-' ..I Agenda Request Item Number Date: ê(pd August 20, 2002 Consent Regular Public Hearing Leg. [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ] Quasi-JD [ To: Submitted By: Board of County Commissioners Community Development Dept. SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: Montoya 2 Subdivision - Final Plat Review On August 14, 2002, the Community Development Director approved CD Order 02- 018, which granted Minor Site Plan approval for an 8-lot subdivision on 69± acres of land to be known as Montoya 2 Subdivision. This parcel is located 3/4 mile south of the intersection of Carlton Road and State Road 70. There are no subdivision improvements associated with this project. FUNDS AVAILABLE: PREVIOUS ACTION: On August 12, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners approved a waiver of the Environmental Report for this Subdivision. Staff recommends that the Board approve the final plat for the subdivision to be known as Montoya 2 Subdivision, and authorize staff to proceed with its final processing. RECOMMENDATION: COMMISSION ACTION: 00 APPROVED D DENIED D OTHER Douglas M. Anderson County Administrator County Attorney Originating Dept.: Finance: Coordination/ Signatures Mgt. & Budget: Other: Purchasing: Other: .. '-' ..., COUNTY COMMISSION REVIEW: August 20, 2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Administration MEMORANDUM TO: County Commission FROM: Community Development Director DATE: August 14, 2002 SUBJECT: Consider final plat approval for Montoya 2 Subdivision On August 14, 2002, the Community Development Director approved CD Order 02-018, which granted Minor Site Plan approval for an a-lot subdivision on 69± acres of land to be known as Montoya 2 Subdivision. This parcel is located 3/4 mile south of the intersection of Carlton Road and State Road 70. There are no subdivision improvements associated with this project. On August 12, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners approved a waiver to the Environmental Impact Report. Staff recommends that the Board approve the Final Plat for Montoya 2 Subdivision and authorize staff to complete the final processing of this Plat. SUBMITTED: CPSI Projects/Montoya 21PlaVagenda cc:. County Administrator County Attorney '-' -..I I , j , . HIt I, I:i~ =~ jm~ 2 ¥W f 1~ I - d HiU f =.." I rItj =~ IJ !:w ~J;¡;_- ~ =OL I - 1 Ij ! h II .1"1 ~:'J I~!~! " ~ "5~u ~J 1m tn: :!~ ¡ ~ I] I} ¡Ilf II !¡!- . .,)! ~; , ~, h Ii ~JIJ II f Ii h !i 'I 3i If Ii "J h H,: 11)1 ~ . J h !I U f I f !! . f] 1f Hi) sf HUI j !jl I~ J IJ 'J J' 'J I" . I~ . 111~ R. It I. .. II ifll II~I' II I C\J ,. I' I! 11'11 II t !I ~¡¡ ~ lL.. I~ Ii IS I ,p! !~ : Q IlH¡ IlU Ildj lid ..." 1111 f'! !lll frlfl f f-- ' ~I !f ~HJ ~i !,] ~H ~p d flfh ~ lJ.J = ~fJ. =u ! UJ --,.. (i:j o :::E ~5 H if Ij h ,. , tl "II Ii =í III H i~ ,d ði~"l! I ~.~~; f dih I n~l~ ~ UI;~ I i "I 112 , -'"d· i III~!I i ~Ibl! I ~..n Is r r~"1 " I ~!li~il II dn:; u ¡¡-I'I ill J!Ji ì , IJl. I H ~I iJ Ifi iJ J .hl! ' r:p' ;~ ¡hi J~ I, !;ff J II¡!I Ii·' "¡,f lit _I ¡ii!! m!1 ',' '1 )1 I" tl~ ~ (It I I f if ' llHi I¡~ ~~~ 111 ,Iii i ,- Ifi ; Ilf 'Ii l & '.. f f b '" ' I! ¡jfi U1 ì l 1! ;! Mil r1 'I~ Ii í !;!; J,It :If J 1 ~ !;Is '-.H ,J -< I Il!l J' ~I JjfiJ m J 1 ~ d Um i~ It ~lll ~ , .,. ili! , JI' I P" , IT'H' III ~ ~ìi I' ~ - f lil~1 - II; I',! ' I r -- i~ H '. ¡if ~ I ;:n ! l;j ~ ill i Ili&II,1 ur I ,. ilj I'·" fA ~fl i ..I I J I! -, '¡flUII ~ __ ¡. I.. I I;" , , iii 1 'fl . IlIi ! ' II:! I i ¡,·I,'I;1 ~ II Iii I ¡ 1 I 1,- .. · I' .. ¡'I: þ!I 'hI (Iii I . III · [of I ~ ,1'11 'II > II I If, ~ '~ Ii~ .' ! III ~jl .. ,; , , i II t" -- .t \01 , U fli' : ~¡a J ; ·ffj 1 ! . IIJlII}lj _ -! '1 I ~ It U IIJu~1 !~ Î £ ¡ IHP I I! Uti ;~ I~ .~II; q t~ I Ii I!l I !- ¡II ~ II !d !l111'1 ~ , a '2. a III Ö aa I f 2 I =¡ dlq I - ~j IHft : all : II t J lla .{tlltH f ~ ~ j r Ij I ~i Jln f ~i 1d~Hfn I ~ ~ lh, I S H, I ;.: ~ ~~ m~ - ~ _J ~ r- i I . I Ii i !I I i~ , !, 'i . ! (f) W ~ l--O'Ì....:~ <J:~3~ I-f-~'-'-- U~ c.n~t1.Þ::' W:;~g ã~~ C'\J-:Z::w C!!'=g ~~J <1::~~ . >-iðmr;. D~~~ r-~~~ :z:: Lolc;..:- .,g¡..---- C) ~ 2: C':l ~J 5"u, ~ ~if~ dilli ~I::-ffi ...~' 'Í: .. I:! I! I:! ,,' V'''.::-';:'' r' ";&:~'i! ._,r,·i3.v ''-.¡; :i " I, I, " !i " " " " , " !j " :¡ ;; t Ii Ii !. 1; ;¡ " ~ ¡: !:! i !i § ; i~ Cl i. I' ... ¡¡ q ¡d,' -- :1 I! I!! :~ 11 Iii ª !~ ¡ ~~ 1~_~ ~~i ¡ , //, , , ""''''' 'l~<l\:'-i.~~~ ~f;~---è. "';~i{ :3". / ( J ., I '--~-J ¡ i ¡ , -) tií! iii! ;-'¡~i, 1..- ¡ I, i =; . d, ~I ,- '------,-- I ~; ;¡ , I ; +----;------ - --·_!Ii'ã'ËÜ...--------~~ ! r I I ¡ i , , '- r- I I .... I...... . !5ð..J:!'" f ! -----j I i I ¡ ¡ ¡ I ¡ ¡ ¡ I i I ,,"!..WI ~ti1fr--'- , f--- t!_ -- -';,;a;..~;'~ -------?--..,,, _"",...... J---.---- '''''''''"'' .!of I I ~I '''I : / J j ;~ ....., > '" ox " ! ¡W< - i¡~,e ~ ;i~i! ~ î:.~~·~ ~ ,.~'... ~ ¡ . ! , ì ¡ ! ¡ ~ I I I I I j1:l'":~ur.![ ~-iiµ ,..~, I I I I J I I I I, ' I I! , H-l---- -1·~-·ï-· --_n'..-"'!llkf'l' rl ¡- : r¡ L I I Hr i 'Er-r ,.:_,¡I__L I: i , :;: ..¡ 1., 5~ ¡! ¡ " ' Ii! ¡ -r--·-T--··---i----~fUkv----·---- '-:.".1 I : !! . i ;:At· , ! I t I. ~l ! ¡ ~ //1 j!! ~ ~I I ¡ Y: . ì ~t-~- --!-Tiì-' '----.--...."" [...... . ~ : ;~i ~ ~ i ;;i¡ ¡¡ . I i3! ~ .1 ¡ !.~: : ~! I . ~~:: ;1.:> / i-- ----- ---- '--- r ¡- ------lii!'W!:.1'iîrn~ I , --.I ~ ..I :;! --..ow5i---¡:¡;niii"ii'---...· --. -I '! , . ' .1 'I .. '" w '" ., -, .~ , I I r t- ¡ ¡ I I I I i I , ,- ! . ---_;-ïiiï1U11.4l' èlJ Ô "J !/ "' ::r: (iJ , II ~ I ¡I II II ! 'I . -. '~ .f ~~ AGENDA REOUEST ...J ITEM NO. C.7 Date: August 20, 2002 Regular [ ] Public Hearing [ Consent [ X ] TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): County Attorney Heather Young Assistant County Attorney SUBJECT: Resolution No, 02-195 - Authorizing the Medical Examiner to Increase the Fee for Preparation and Issuance of a Cremation Certificate BACKGROUND: See c.A. No, 02-1216 FUNDS A V AIL.(State type & No. of transaction or N/A): N/A RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt proposed Resolution No, 02-195. [~APPROVED [] DENIED [ ] OTHER: COMMISSION ACTION: Coordination/SÎlmatures County Attorney ')~ t' /l<:rl't Originating Dept.: Mgl. & Budget: Purchasing: Other: Other: Finance (Check for Copy only, if applicable): '-" ...." INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney C.A. NO: 02-1216 DATE: August 13, 2002 SUBJECT: Resolution No. 02-195 - Authorizing the Medical Examiner to Increase the Fee for Preparation and Issuance of a Cremation Certificate BACKGROUND: The Medical Examiner of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit is required by Section 406.11, Florida Statutes, to prepare and issue a Cremation Certificate indicating the cause of death for each cremation performed in St. Lucie County. The current ten and 00/100 dollars ($10.00) fee for a Cremation Certificate was established in 1987, The Medical Examiner has requested that the fee be increased to twenty and 00/100 dollars ($20,00) effective October 1,2002, RECOMMENDATION/CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt proposed Resolution No, 02-195, as drafted. Respectfully submitted ~~r"ò Heather Y oun Assistant County Attorney Attachment HY/ Copies To: Concurring Staff Clerk Secretary Press Public '-' ....,¡ RESOLUTION NO. 02-195 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 87- 211, AS AMENDED, BY AUTHORIZING THE MEDICAL EXAMINER FOR THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT TO INCREASE THE FEE FOR THE PREPARATION AND ISSUANCE OF A CREMATION CERTIFICATE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners ofSt. Lucie County, Florida, has made the following determinations: 1, The Medical Examiner of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit (the "Medical Examiner") is required by Section 406.11, Florida Statutes, to prepare and issue a Cremation Certificate indicating the cause of death for each cremation performed in the County. 2. On October 20, 1987, this Board adopted Resolution No. 87-211 imposing certain fees and charges for services provided by the Medical Examiner, including a twenty and 00/100 dollars ($20.00) fee for the preparation and issuance of a Cremation Certificate, 3, On November 10, 1987, this Board adopted Resolution No. 87-242 which amended the fees charged by the Medical Examiner to reduce the Cremation Certificate fee to ten and 00/1 00 dollars ($10.00), 4, The Medical Examiner has requested authorization to increase the Cremation Certificate fee to twenty and 00/1 00 dollars ($20.00) in order to cover the increased costs of staff time to prepare and issue the Cremation Certificates since 1987. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida: 1. Paragraph 1 of Resolution No. 87-211, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: 1. The District Medical Examiner, in and for the Nineteenth District of the State of Florida, is hereby authorized to charge each funeral home a fee of ton ($10.00) twenty and 00/100 dollars ($20.00) for the preparation and issuance of a Cremation Certificate required by Chapter 106 Section 406.11, Florida Statutes. 2. This resolution shall take effect on October 1, 2002. 1 '-' ....; 3. All other provisions of Resolution No, 87-211, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect. After motion and second, the vote on this resolution was as follows: Chairman Doug Coward XX Vice Chairman Cliff Barnes XX Commissioner Paula A. Lewis XX Commissioner John D, Bruhn XX Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson XX PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this _ day of ,2002, ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: BY: County Attorney g:\ \atty\resoltn \2002\02-1 95,doc 2 \.r AGENDA REQUEST >..,J ITEM NO. c...B DATE: August 20, 2002 DDllWŒ!§iÌIIl.11lCfll1lfl rF@Jr the JlI.IliÌlUlne REGULAR [ 1 PUBLIC HEARING [ 1 CONSENT [Xl , TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: Pete Keogh Director, Parks and Recreation SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Approve purchase of Stadium seats/backs from American Seating Company as a sole source procurement and approval to use Investment for the Future dollars. BACKGROUND: As part of the annual safety reyiew of the seats/backs at T.J. White Stadium seating area, inventory is taken of damaged or worn seating. It has determined that 1 005 seats need replacement and 1273 seats need new backs. The cost ofthe project is $ 43,057.55. On July 23,2002, the Board of County Commission authorized a"term loan" to provide financing for Thomas J. White Stadium improvements. Funds from this loan will be utilized from the forthis project. FUNDS AVAIL.: 362-75201-563000-700 (Investment for the Future Sports Complex Improvement other than Buildings). PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Board of County Commissioner approve the purchase of 1005 replacement seats and 1273 replacement backs for the seating bowl at the T.J. White Sports Complex, from American Seating Company as a sole source procurement and approve staff to utilize $ 43,057.55 out of Investment for the Future funds. COMMISSION ACTION: CE: LX.! APPROVED [l DENIED [ 1 OTHER: County Attorney: ~ð'fvl Originating Dept: -- . to Finance: (Check for Copy only, If Applicable) Mgt. & Budget: ' Other: Purchasing Mgr.: I ~ Other: Eff,1/97 HI \AgenQas\'I'Jleat!Ot .wpd 08/13/2002 10:55 770'379:¿lb:> .......TI ~lf'I,.""II........ --.-.-' -.---. \.r ~ . . AMERICAN SEArING -eOMPANY FAX TRANSMiSSION Date: August 13.2002 To: Elaine Woociker .. Company: City of Port St. Lucie From: Tom Stratton Phone: 770-979-6738 American Seating Company Fax: 770-979-2165 1664 Holly Lake Circle SnellvUle, GA 30078 Subject: Scat Puts We will.fumish the followins seatS and backs for the American Seating Mode1406 chairs that you have installed Ilt me same price we quoted løst year, but with frei&ht charges included. SeatS Backs - 19" 64 61 20" 450 550 21" 450 597 22" 41 65 Total 1,005 1,273 .. Unit price $18.65 $19.10 Total .. $18,743.25 $24,314.30 Grand Total $43,057.55 ; Delivered. Color will be Number 1792 Blue as furnished on previous orders. Parts can be purchased under our florida State Contrø.Ct, if desired. r¡;;, t '- ...." JUSTifiCATION - fOR SOLrSOURCrPROCURr~rNT Based upon the Purchasing Manual, the proposed procurement described below is being procured pursuant to the guidelines on Sole Source Procurement. A good faith review of available sources has been made and there is only one source for the required supply, services or construction item. 1. We propose to procure the following: _To ....Pu~h~ Stadium_seats/backs_for _~J,:- Whit~ Stadium~ As yar':... o~ the_a~u...::" ~afe.!L.!.~iew ..!.....ilf ..!-h~.!!.eats/back ~t ..!-h~~tadium ¿¡eating area Linvento!y_is ~aken of damaged or worn seatting and replaced. ---------------------------------------------------- 2. As a sole source procurement from: Name of Company: __America~Seatinß....!:o~an~____ Contact name:_Jom -ªtratton __________ PhOne..170-979-673lL__ 3. The basis for this sole source determination and the reason no other vendor is suitable is: _~rigi~~~facturer~~~eplac~ent~___________________________ --------------------------------------------------- 8/7/02 Parks and Recreation/Sports Complex Date DeþartmenU . . ion , ~ ----- £ ---- ~rized Signature Note: 1. Enter description of goods or services to be procured. 2. Enter name of sole source contracting, 3. Enter the detennination and basis for sole source procurement. 4. Attach sole source letter from vendor and department. 5. Attach proposal from vendor with pricing. Administrative Manager Title Approved ( ><) Disapproved ( ) ,c!tt" ..---f¿¿;;¿ ---,.. PURëH~IRECTO"-- ~//IL -Od- ___-1-L_______ DATE re....ised 0512000 ..... ....,¡ ST. LUCIE COUNTY EROSION DISTRICT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS John D. Bruhn Di strict 1 Doug Coward District 2 Paula A. Lewis District 3 Frannie Hutchinson District 4 Cliff Barnes District 5 AGENDA August 20, 2002 1. MINUTES Approve the minutes of the meeting held July 23, 2002, 2, GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT CONSENT AGENDA 1. W ARRÞ,.NTS LISTS Approve Warrants List No. 43 through No. 46 2, PUBLIC WORKS South Causeway Island Shoreline Stabilization Project - Consider staff recommendation to approve Change Order No, 1 (543,580,16) ""ith Sunshine Land Design, Inc" approve Budget Resolution No. 02-03, and authorize the Chairman to execute the documents, \OrICE: All prDceedmgs before this Board arc electronically recorded. Any person who decides to appeal any action taken by the Board d I tht'sl...' meetings \vill need i.l fl'conl of the proceedings and for sllch purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings l~ Illíldc. Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the jJroceedint:~s will he granted an opportunity to cross-pxaminf' any individu<31 testifying during a hearing upon request. Anyone with a dis£lbilitV requiring accol11l11odation to attend this meeting: should contact the S1. Lucie County Community Services Manager at (561) 462- ] 777 or TDD (0,6]) 462-1428 alleast forty·eight(48) hours prior to the meeting. l "l. AGENDA REQUEST ITEM NO. ""t2 DATE: August 20,2002 REGULAR [ ] PUBLIC HEARING [ ] CONSENT [X] TO: ST. LUCIE COUNTY EROSION DISTRICT SUBMITTED BY(DEPT): ENGINEERING DIVISION 4115 SUBJECT: South Causeway Island Shoreline Stabilization Project - Handrail En ancement: hange Order No, 1 ($43,580.16) with Sunshine Land Design, Inc., increasing the total contract amount from $318,957,14 to $362,537,30 and increasing the contract time an additional 30 days to accommodate this change. BACKGROUND: On April 23, 2002 the Board approved the project budget and awarded a construction contract to Sunshine Land Design, Inc, in the amount of $318,957,14 for the South Causeway Island Shoreline Stabilization project. Grant funds from both FDEP (98SL 1) and FIND (SL-01-30) are being used to fund construction, A Notice to Proceed was issued to Sunshine Land Design on June 12, 2002, At the July 23, 2002 Board meeting, the City of Fort Pierce requested the County to enhance the handrail along the walkway similar to the railing along the City Marina, Based upon the proposal submitted by the contractor, the enhanced handrail would cost $72,576, or approximately $44,000 more than the original handrail. The Board agreed to share the additional cost with the City of Fort Pierce, At their August 5, 2002 Commission meeting (see attached letter), the City of Fort Pierce accepted the County's offer to share the additional cost of the enhanced handrail up to a maximum of $22,000, The County's share of the costs will come from funding allocated by the Board ($50,000-General Fund) towards this project during last years Capital Planning Workshop. Both the County's and City's share may be further reduced by 50% as FIND has indicated a willingness to cost share in the handrail enhancement with funds from an existing grant (SL-01-30), FUNDS AVAIL.: 184-3710-563000-36204; this account will include contributions from the City of Fort Pierce and from St. Lucie County Erosion District Reserves--Budget Resolution No, 02- 03 is also attached, PREVIOUS ACTION: October 23, 2001: Approved FIND Agreement SL-01-30 ($224,668) and Budget Resolution No. 01-004, April 23, 2002: Awarded construction contract to Sunshine Land Design, Inc., in the amount of $318,957,14, July 23, 2002: Board agreed to cost share handrail upgrade with the City of Fort Pierce, August 5,2002: City of Fort Pierce approved cost sharing (up to $22,000) handrail upgrade with the County, RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Erosion District Board approval of 1) Change Order No, 1 ($43,580.16) with Sunshine Land Design, Inc., 2) Budget Resolution No. 02- 103, and 3) the execution of said documents by the Chairperson. COMMISSION ACTION: ~ APPROVED [ ] OTHER: [ ] DENIED [x)County Attorney ~ [x]Originating Dept. Public Works ~ , Coord Inatlon/SIQnatures [x]Mgt. & BUdget~ [x]Co. Eng ~/(lf~' [x]Dept. Revenue Coordinator \i)fr\'\ [x]Finance Department (Grants)~ '-' RESOLUTION NO. 02 - 03 ""'" WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of the St. Lucie County's Erosion District's Budget, certain funds not anticipated at the time of adoption of the budget have become available from the City of Fort Pierce in the amount of $22,000 to share the additional cost of an enhanced railing at the South Causeway Park. WHEREAS, Section 129,06 (d), Florida Statutes, requires the St. Lucie County Erosion District to adopt a resolution to appropriate and expend such funds, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Erosion District of St. Lucie County, Florida, in meeting assembled this 20th day of August, 2002, pursuant to Section 129.06 (d), Florida Statutes, that such funds are hereby appropriated for the fiscal year 2001-2002, and the County's budget is hereby amended as follows: REVENUES 184-3710-337910-36204 City of Fort Pierce $22,000 APPROPRIATIONS 184-3710-563000-36204 Improvements other Bldgs $22,000 After motion and second the vote on this resolution was as follows: Chari man Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson Vice Chairman Commissioner Cliff Barnes Commissioner Doug Coward Commissioner Paula A. Lewis Commisioner John D. Bruhn PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED THIS 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2002. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: CHAIRMAN APPROVED AS TO CORRECTNESS AND FORM: COUNTY ATTORNEY "'" ..,.¡ ~ I I Y ~f ~ R I- PI I R ~I DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT City Hall · 100 North U.S. 1 · p, O. Box 1480 · Fort Pierce, Florida 34954-1480 Phone (561) 460-2200 · Fax (561) 466-5808 August 6, 2002 Ray Wazny, Director Saint Lucie County Public Works 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 Dear Ray: At the August 5 Commission meeting, the City Commission accepted the County Commission offer to share the additional cost of an enhanced railing at South Causeway Park. The city's participation would be a maximum of $22,000, with the understanding that city and county staff will continue to explore funding options from FIND and other applicable sources. Sincerely, ~a- c l~ ì / Ramon Trias, AICP Director r~ -:-,\-,l~~ Ï'J \ \ / / : -::::l I ,,,' I~ -..., i RT/ccg cc: City Manager Commissioner Coke ........-;_._.-...._._~ "'----'--"'- _..~...;;"._~._--,-; · . "w- ...¡ CHANGE ORDER ST. LUCIE COUNTY - ST. LUCIE COUNTY EROSION DISTRICT PROJECT: South Causeway Island Shoreline Stabilization (name, address) CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: No.1 INITIATION DATE: 8/8/02 TO (Contractor): CONSULTANT'S PROJECT NO.: n/a Sunshine Land Design, Inc. POBox 559 Port Salerno, FL 34992 ST. LUCIE COUNTY CONTRACT NO: C02-04-418 CONTRACT DATE: 4/23/02 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: (Additional sheet attached as Exhibit A - No) HANDRAIL UPGRADE: Original Handrail Handrail Upgrade Net Increase = ($28,995.84) = $72.576.00 = $43,580.16 The original (Contract Sum) was"."..". .,",.,.".,..,..,"""".."...,.""..,...,.",., $318,957.14 Net change by previous authorized Change orders , , , , . , , , , , . , , , , , , . , , , , . . , , . , , , , . , . , , . , , , . , , , , . , . . . . . " $ -0- The (Contract Sum) prior to this Change Order was ."....,....,....."."."..,.".,.,....".,." $318,957.14 The (Contract Sum) will be (increased) by this Change Order . . . . , , . , , . . , , , . . . , . . . , . , , . , , . , . , , , , . , , . . , , . , , , , , , . , . , . . , . . . . . . , , . , . , , , , . $43,580,16 The new (Contract Sum) including this Change Order will be ',."."...,........"."...,.,."".,. $362,537,30 The Contract Time will be (increased) for (HANDRAIL ONLY) by , , , , , , , , , . . , . . , . . . , , , . , , , , . . . , , . . . , , , , . (30) Days The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is: Funds Available: Account Number: 184804-3710-563000-36204 & 184-3710-563000-36204 The adjustment in Contract Price and/or Contract Time stated in this Change Order shall comprise the total price and/or time adjustment due or owed the Contractor for the work or changes defined in this Change Order. By executing this Change Order, the Contractor acknowledges and agrees that the stipulated price and/or time adjustments include the costs and delays for all work contained in the Change Order, including costs and delays associated with the interruption of schedules, extended overheads, delay, and cumulative impacts or ripple effect on all other non- affected work under this Contract. Signing of the Change Order constitutes full and mutual accord and satisfaction for the adjustment in contract price or time as a result of increases or decreases in costs and time of performance caused directly and indirectly from the Change Order, subject to the current scope of the entire work as set forth in the Contract Documents, Acceptance of this waiver constitutes an agreement between the County and Contractor that the Change Order represents an equitable adjustment to the Contract, and that Contractor will waive all rights to file a claim on this Change Order after it is properly executed, All work performed under this Change Order shall be performed in accordance with the contract specifications, Recommended: St. Lucie County Erosion District ArchitecVEngineer . 2300 Viroinia Ave" Ft. Pierce, FL 34982 Address Approved: St. Lucie Countv - Public Works Department St. Lucie County Department 2300 Viroinia Ave.. Ft. Pierce. FL 34982 Address By: Richard A, Bouchard P.E, Coastal Eng, Date Date By: RayWazny, P.E" PW Dir. Agreed To: Authorized St. Lucie County: 2300 Virginia Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL 34982 Sunshine Land Desion, Inc. Contractor By: Date POBox 559, Port Salerno. FL 34992 Address Approved as to Form and Correctness By: Date County Attorney , ~ j < 7/16/20(" ~:12 PM FROM: Fax Sunshine Land Design Inc TO: 1772~62-2362 PAGE: 001 102 '-" ...I . . . . · · Sunshine Land Design Inc PO Box 559 Port Salerno, FL 34992 · · · · · · · · To: Fax number: From: Fax number: Business phone: Home phone: Date & Time: Pages: Re: Richard Bouchard 1772462-2362 Timothy R Taylor 561 283 8944 561 2832648 7/16/20025:1221 PM 2 South Island Shore Line The fence can not be curved. it will be installed on small angles to accornadate the radius . ~, 7/16/2002 5:12 PM FROM: FaH Sun~h1ne Land Ðe~ign Inc TO: 1772462-2362 PAGE: 002 OF 002 ..... -..I . . PROPOSAL Sunshine Land Design 825 S.E. Cove Road Stuart, FI 34997 Phon.: 561 283·2648 Fax: 561- 283-8944 E-mail: mowond99422ftc:s.com S~brnitbid~;, St Lucie County ,. .. '.. ' Alten: Richard Bouchard :;,;;Þ:..,;m.-; SOUTH ISlAND SHORELINE --: ::.¡'hoftii,'BUS: (112)462-1710 :.·~·fâ.~~ 6usFax (712)482.2362 ll<!$crlpIÎÒrl; . :·¡ì1gi"'~riArci1il..t: >'~":¡¡,¡j.: ';;:. ·tevla(o": UNITS CTY. COST EXTENSION 1.._1. rt1~ tRi fsffs iAI: r-.¿ d"tLJFlilfln IIF1llaratiu, Install 42" powder coated rei with pickets per South Florida Aluminum and City of Ft Pierce lnll 1440 S 50.40 S 72,576.00 donilll'li Cost: see above Payable as fCllows: per contract Authorized Signature: TN, PI'OlO..1 ""*'I'1l......roitdlo t"-1lJl' il"1\O\t«8ll\tll'llitllln:¡O ~WfS AlIWlll\o(J,hall 1M lilU.~'d;lls Sp~1lIId anQ CII.;1I ((I111orm UIlbnd;llrd itlllustl)' pr.ocf~IS P~'RIs rid",", PIlf1hlliltxl¥e.ShtD III Su!lJeClID.ltem,s (lfllleflo<ilh ~lI'r. ~. 1'f¡IS Encf~an .aftraRII iRle."t..a tU$OOIIbl.ltjJlllfees Aec,pttd by: Date: SOUTH ISLAND SHORELINE xis Page 1 7/1612002 , " '-" ....J EROSION DISTRICT ST, LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA REGULAR MEETING Date: July 23,2002 Tape: 1 Convened: 9:52 a,m. Adjourned: 10:26 a,m. Commissioners Present: Frannie Hutchinson, Chairwoman, Doug Coward, Paula A. Lewis, CliffBames, John D, Bmhn Others Present: Doug Anderson, County Administrator, Robert Bradshaw, Asst. County Administrator, Dan McIntyre. County Attorney, Ray Wazny, Public Works Director, Don Wcsl. County Engineer, Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director, A. Millie Delgado, Deputy Clerk 1. MINUTES (1-1767) It was moved by Com. Bmhn, seconded by Com, Coward, to approve the minutes of the meeting held June 25, 2002; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 2, GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS Ft. Pierce City Commissioner Christine Coke addressed the Board regarding the South Causeway Park project and the proposed railing. Com, Coke requested that staff include the city in all permits and site plans which are within the city limits. She stated she felt there was a lack of communication between city and county staff. A site plan was approved and then changed without consulting the city ofFl. Pierce. The city was not notitied of the revision of the site plan, The Public Works Director gave an update on the project and the process they followed, He stated in November of 1998 they provided the City with plans for this specific project outlining all the dctails and a lettcr was received from planning indicating that they approved those plans. They proceeded with those plans to obtain the funding (FIND) and were able to get the funding for this shoreline improvement project and had been told and re-enforced that this project cannot be funded for esthetics. In early Mayor late April, the city did contact staff and indicate that they were going to hold up the building permit because they preterred a dilTerent design on the handrail and they asked that the sidewalk be widened by 2 feet. There was a discussion with the City Manager and he asked if we could obtain funding from our funding paliner for the esthetics and I advised him that we could ask, but, the likelihood of this would be slim and this was confirmed by our runding agency, On May I ill starr wrote a Idter to Ihe eily providing inlonmttion as well as asking them if the city would be willing to fund the approximate $53,000 in additional costs for the project. Staff did not receive a response to that letter and shortly after the May 1 ih letter, staff received the permit to constmct the project as it was originally designed, without the improved handrail and without the widened sidewalk. Having no response from the City Manager and having a pennit to constmct, we proceeded with constmction. Staff stated the question still remains, is the city is willing to financially participate in this project? An answer has not been received as yet. Com, Coward suggested the BCC making a commitment today to match the city dollar for dollar for any cost difference that there may be in regards to the suggested changes from their staff. r 1 , ~ ~ ...,,¡ The City Planner stated he felt this was a very good proposal and they would take it to the City Commission. Com, Hutchinson asked if the city would concede on the size of the sidewalk. The City Planner stated they would, Com. Hutchinson questioned if the railing would hold up the project? The Public Works Director stated he would contact the contractor and stop the process of ordering the handrail. There will be costs associated with this. Com, Hutchinson stated she was not comfortable at this time matching dollar for dollar since there is a big difference in the cost stated by the city as opposed to the cost stated by the county staff. -The county has $28,000 already allocated in the budget for the railing, Com. Hutchinson is not comfortable with any cost difference from the original pIaU, it is still taxpayers dollars, Com. Barnes stated he would be willing to match dollar for dollar since he would prefer to have a first class project the first time around. Com..- Lewis requested knowing the situation with the order before committing to increasing the amount for the railing. The Public Works Director stated the $53,000 included the sidewalk, the handrail would be approximately $44,000, the county's share would be $22,000 over and above the $28,000. Com, Coward suggested presenting this to the city and have them decide whether or not they wish to partner in with the county and if not, the county can proceed with what has been permitted. Staff was directed to approach the contractor to negotiate a conceptual change order at this point to accommc{date the city's interest and request city staff to place this on their agenda for the city to look at conceptually approving the sharing of the 50/50 arrangement and bring this back to the Board on August 13,200. ]. CONSENT AGENDA It was moved by Com, Bames, seconded by Com. Coward to approve the Consent Agenda; and, upon roll call, Illolion carried unanimously. I, WARRANT LIST The Board approved Warranl List No, 39-42. 2, PUBLIC WORKS 1999 Beach Renourishment Project- The Board approved Work Authorization No, 9 (C- 00-12-181) with Taylor Engincering, Inc.. ($48,096) for Underwatcr Video Mapping to Ground Tmth Potential Artificial Reef Site(s) and authorized the Chairman to execute the agreement. r 2 , . ~ . ""'" There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. Chairman Clerk of Circuit Court . 3 08/15/02 J;'';o:ABWARR FUND 184 TITLE \w- ST. LUCIE CO~~Y - BOARD ...,,¡ WARRANT LIST #46- lO-AUG-2002 TO 15-AUG-2002 FUND S~~~~Y- EROSION EXPENSES Erosion Control Operating Fund 974.60 GRAND TC?;'..:.c: 974.60 . PÞ.G2 1 PAYROLL 2,438.0:" 2,438.0:" "- 07/26/02 F7.ABWARR FUND 184 TI TLE '-' ST. LUCIE COUNTY - BOARD ...., WARRANT LIST #43- 20-JUL-2002 TO 26-JUL-2002 FUND SUMMARY- EROSION Erosion Control Operating Fund GRAND TOTAL: .. EXPENSES 1,075.94 1,075.94 PAGE 1 PAYROLL 0.00 0.00 08/02/02 "~l\BWARR FUND 184 TITLE '-' 'wIÎ ST. LUCIE COUNTY - BOARD WARRANT LIST #44- 27-JUL-2002 TO 02-AUG-2002 FUND SUMMARY- EROSION EXPENSES Erosion Control Operating Fund 181.02 GRAND TOTAL: 181.02 .. PAGE 1 PAYROLL 2,438.01 2,438.01 08/09/02 FZABWARR FUND 184 TITLE '-' ST. LUCIE COu~TY - BOARD "W/IÎ WARRANT LIST #45- 03-AUG-2002 TO 09-AUG-2002 FUND SUMMARY- EROSION Erosion Control Operating Fund GRAND TOTAL: .. EXPENSES 26,514.08 26,514.08 PÞ.GE 1 PAYROLL 0.00 0.00 ~ \..; ""*' A:UGUST 20,2002 6:00 PM BOARD OF COUNTY COMI\IISSIONERS I\1EETING AGENDA WELCOME GENER--\L RULES AND PROCEDURES Attached is the agenda which will determine the order of business conducted at today's Board meeting: CONSENT AGE\'DA- These items are considered routine and are enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commissioner so requests. REGULAR AGL"\DA ITEMS- Proclamations, Presentations, Public Hearings, and Department requests are items which the Commission will discuss individually usually in the order listed on the agenda, PUBLIC HE","RI\'GS- These items are usually heard on the first and third Tuesdays at 7:00 P.M. or as soon tht'reaf;er as possible, However, if a public hearing is scheduled for a meeting on a second or fourth Tuesday, which begins at 9:00 A.M., then public hearings "ill be heard at 9:00 A.M, or as soon thereafter as possible, These time designations are intended to indicate that an item will not be addressed prior to the listed time, The Chairman will open each public hearing and asks anyone wishing to speak to come forward, one at a time. Comments will be limited to five minutes, As a general mle, w-hen issues are scheduled before the Commission under department request or public hearing, the order of presentation is: (1) County staff presents the details of the Board item (2) COlllillÍssioners comment (3) if a public hearing, the Chairman will ask for public comment, (-l) further discussion and action by the Board, ADDRESSI\'G THE CO.MMISSION- Please state your name and address, speaking clearly into the microphone, If you have backup material, please have eight copies ready for distribution. NON-AGE\'DA ITDIS, These items are presented by an individual Commissioner or staff as necessary at the conclusion of the printed agenda. PUBLIC CmJ:\fE\'T- Time is allotted at the beginning of each meeting for general public comment. Please limit comments to five minutes, DECORL~f- Plt'ase be respectful of others opinion. r-lEETINGS- All Board meetings are open to the public and are held on the first and third Tuesdays of each month at ï:OO P.M, and on the second and fourth Tuesdays at 9:00 A.M" unless otherwise advertised. ~leetings are held in the County Commission Chambers in the Roger Poitras Administration _-\nnex at 2300 Virginia Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL 34982. The Board schedules additional workshops throughout the year necessary to accomplish their goals and commitments. Notice is provided of these w·orkshops. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St, Lucie County Community Services Manager at (561) 462-1777 or TDD (561) 46:2-1-l:2S at least forty-eight(48) hours prior to the meeting. '-' 'wII ßOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS John D. Bruhn Doug Coward Paula A. Lewis Frannie Hutchinson Cliff Barnes District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 wvvw,stlucieco.gov AGENDA The order of business will be as follows: 6:00 pm Item 1 Item 3 Item 4 Item R,5 Project "P" Additions August 20, 2002 ~ 6:00 P.M. 7:00 om ltem2A Public Hearings 5A through 5E Item 6A through 6C Item 7 INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE """"'. 1. MINUTES Approve the minutes of the meeting held August 13, 2002. H¡J(J({)"¡cl !5-o 2, PROCLAMÞ..TIONS / PRESENTATIONS R.5 A. Resolution No. 02-201 - Proclaiming the week of August 26, 2002 through September 2, 2002 as "Fire Fighter APp~tiOn Week" in St. Lucie County. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT t+p.prc:v "3 ~ CONSENT AGENDA ÆU1US Œ~!5b (P~) )\Ppro~. 6....0 ft'1()(.tð ~~. Authorization to Negotiate for Water and Sewer Service for Project "P" - Consider staff recommendation to authorize staff to negotiate an agreement \\ith --=P-5L--------------, and that the negotiated agreement be brought back to the Board for final approval. ApProvltd.. 5......0 3. 4, NOTICE: All Proceedings before this Board are electronically recorded. Any person who decides to appeal any action taken by the Boarll at these meetings will need a record of the proceedmgs and for such purpose may neea to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. Upon the requesf of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any' party to the proceedings will be granted tbe opportunity to cross-examine any indiVIdual testifying during a hearin~upon request. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the Sf. Lucie County Community Services Manager at (561) 462-1777 or TDD (561) 462-1428 at least forty-eight(48) hours prior fo the meeting. '- ..., REGULAR AGENDA AUGUST 20, 2002 PAGE TWO K~W~:·:'M1:¡M:(_Y\1FSiIDm'$~~'M-~. JiilWI@'tIJlIm!.1lIl' ~ .- 1IIfi,,_ )].~. ~ , PUBUC HEARINGS 'fj.! PUBLIC WORKS ~ SA, Demolition of Unsafe Buildmg /1808 Avenue "~Q' Fort Pierce, Florida - Pursuant to the proYisions of Article III of Chapter 2-5 the St. Lucie County Code of Ordinances and Compiled Laws, consider staff r omrnendation enter an order to repair or demolish the building by Un er.JibH 1, 2002, If the building is not repaired or demolished by N.:.. ~ubu~ 1, 2002, the County Shall demolish the building and assess the entire cost against the real property where the building is located. Hwè)~ S- 0 ~OO SB, Demolition of Unsafe Building / 2205 Elizabeth Avenue ort Pierce, Florida - Pursuant to the provisions of Article III of Chapter 2-5 of eSt, Lucie County Code of Ordinances and Compiled Laws, consider staff rec mendation enter an order to repair or demolish the builcling by.!tJð.':'lLlJ.-..-;-I, 2002, If the building is not repaired or demolished by w.. '<:.l-Y.~~r 1, 2002, the County Shall demolish the building and assess the entire cost against the real property where the building is located. -{1pPIÒW& 5--0 COUNTY ATTORNEY Sc. Ordinance No. 02-23 - Staff recommends that the Board consider adoption of the proposed ordinance creating Section 1-15-30.1 (Restraint of Dogs) to require dogs to be under restraint by lead or leash in County owned or leased =. rope~rtie or facilities, in the incorporated ~d unincorporated areas, Whi'f per1v~ w. ! ~ CŒl~IUNITY DEVELOPMENT LV ~f(WJ L I-Jen)-- ,ç;1:tJ- ~U1~ . 5D, Resolution ;\0. 02- 144/ Quasi- Tudicial / East Florida Primitive Baptist District Association, Inc, - Consider staff recommendation to approve the resolution granting a Conditional Use Permit to allow Educational Services and Facilities in the I (Institutional) Zoning District. Location: 3950 Juanita Avenue' _i \. ) ") 5E. Ordinance No, 02-015 / Quasi-Tudicial / Land Development Code / Non- Conforming Lots of Record - This is the second of two required public hearings on this matter. Staff recommends denial of the resolution. End of FllbZžc Hearings -H pµ Ò ~~ \ . eco~(4, _. -fn(~ j ~"""""",..,,""'''".. 11_..lI".'- "",l- .IllIí -- ð ( ¡f- () Enth7G ~ nb \w ,."", REGULAR AGENDA AUGUST 20, 2002 PAGE THREE 6. COUNTY ATTORNEY B, County Audit / Agreement with Berger, Toombs, £lam & Frank, Chartered - Cons.ider staff recommendation to approve the agreement and authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement. Appøved 6-0 Resolution No, 02-199/ Community Parks / Open Space Bond Referendum Ballot Question - Consider staff recommendation to adopt the resolution, authorize the Chairman to sign the Resolution and authorize staff to advertise a notice of the bond referendum election as required by state law. t'1~¡'() t[ eJ £5-0 A, 7. SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS Budget Amendment No, 02-149 - Consider staff recommendation to approve the budget amendment moving 5160,000 from General Fund Contingency into the Supervisor of Elections Transfer account to pay anticipated expenses associated with the redistricting and reapportionment. 8A)I~Õ /0 ----~~~~~ ~.~-~ ...- ~-=---~-~~,~~o.~~".=--~..~~__. ÜJ7ìUY\ ~WOì) ~. ftO) f '- .""" CONSENT AGEl'\DA August 20. 2002 1. WARRI\NTS LIST Approve warrants list No, 46, ') PlJ"BLIC WORKS A, South 7th Street Canal/Farmer's Market Drainage Improvements - Consider staff recommendation to approve Work Authorization No. 8 to the Agreement for Continuing Professional Engineering Services with Hazen and Savvyer, P.C, for the S. 7th Street Canal Crossing as part of the project, in the amount of S8,400, and authorize the Chairman to sign the work authorization, B. Road & Bridge / Equipment Request No, 02-240 - Consider staff recommendation to approve the equipment request for the purchase of a 60" 26HP Dixie Chopper Mower in the amount of 57,539. C. Road & Bridge / Equipment Request No, 02-242 - Consider staff recommendation to approve the equipment request for the purchase of a 48" Hand Squeeze Roll Applicator \\ith Air Cylinders from the lowest bidder, 3M in the amount of $3,132, D. River Branch Estates MSBU Water Z\Iain Project - Consider staff recommendation to accept the project and release the retainage in the amount of $7,686; deduct Change Order No. 1 in the amount of ($1,775.60), deduct ($40.00) from the contract for failed laboratory tests, make final payment to Barton Underground Construction I Inc, in the amount of 521,832. E. Road & Bridge / Equipment Request No, 02-243 / Budget Resolution No, 02- 207 - Consider staff recommendation to approve the equipment request and budget resolution for the purchase of a replacement 7KW Generator in the amount of $1,449, 3. PURCHASING A. Bid No. 02-094 / Fertilization Program for Thomas J. White Stadium - Consider staff recommendation to award the bid to Lesco, Inc., at the unit prices submitted, and authorize the Chairman to sign the contract as prepared by the County Attorney. B, Bid No, 02-101 / Pre-Employment Physical E..-.:ams & Drug Testing - Consider staff recommendation to award the bid to Absolute Testing & Consulting, Inc. At the unit prices submitted, and authorize the Chairman to sign the contract as prepared by the County Attorney. C. Extension of Contract No, C99-10-067 \\ith Dave's Communications, Ine. - Consider staff recommendation to approve the final one-year extension to the current contract through September 30, 2003, and authorize the Chairman to sign the extension as prepared by the County Attorney. '-' CO\'SENT AGENDA ACGUST 20,2002 PAGE nvo ""'" 4, PARKS .A!',fD RECREATION Budget Amendment No. 02-151 - Consider staff recommendation to approve the budget amendment to use S 5,000 from the Contingency Fund for improvements to the Employee Break/Lunch Room. 5. AD IvIINISTRA TION A, Equipment Request No. 02-244/ Budget Amendment No. 02-152 - Consider staff recommendation to approve the budget amendment and equipment request for the purchase of a HP Laser Jet 4100 Printer for District 4 in the amount of $1,103, ~ .B, 1){\Oì-l-01~ Change Order No, 2 to Existing Contract With MCSi -Consider staff recommendation to approve Change Order No.2 for additional media equipment in the amount of $42,866.08, and authorize the Chairman to sign the Change Order. 6. COl\!l\IUNITY DEVELOPMENT A. Final Plat Approval / Raptor SID - Consider staff recommendation to approve the final plat and authorize its final execution. B, Christensen Acres Subdivision / Final Plat Review - Consider staff recommendation to approve the final plat and authorize staff to proceed with its final processing, C. l\ofontoya 1 Subdivision / Final Plat Review - Consider staff recommendation to approve the final plat and authorize staff to proceed with its final processing. D, l\Iontoya 2 Subdivision / Final Plat Review - Consider staff recommendation to approve the final plat and authorize staff to proceed with its final processing. ï. COUNTY ATTORNEY Resolution No, 02-195 - Consider staff recommendation to adopt the proposed resolution authorizing the Medical E'Xaminer to increase the fee for preparation and issuance of a Cremation Certificate. 8. INVESTl\IE?\'T FOR THE FUTURE Thomas J. \Vhite Stadium Improvements - Consider staff recommendation to approve the purchase of 1005 replacement seats and 1273 replacement seat backs from American Seating Company, as a sole source procurement, and approve the use of Investment for the Future Funds in the amount of $43,057.55 for the purchase, \w ...., St. Lucie (:ounty Board of County Commissioners Announcements August 20, 2002 A. There will be a Ground Breaking for little Jim Bridge Boat Ramp on August 26, 2002 at 10:00 am. B. There will be a Erosion Workshop on August 26, 2002 at 2:00 pm in Conference Room 3. C. There will be a Community Wide Memorial Service held on September 11, 2002 at 7:00 pm in the St. Lucie County Chic Center. D. The 2002/2003 Budget Public Hearings Hill be held on September 12, 2002 and September 19, 2002 at 5:05 pm in the Commission Chambers, E, The election dates are as follows: Primary Election September 10, 2002 General Election November 5, 2002 ,. .. "W1I' ST. LUCIE COUNTY EROSION DISTRICT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS John D. Bruhn District 1 Doug Coward District 2 Paula A. Lewis District 3 Frannie Hutchinson District 4 Cliff Barnes District 5 AGEt"IDA August 20, 2002 1. MINUTES Approve the minutes of the meeting held July 23,2002. 11p¡Jro I'd 2, GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT CONSENT AGENDA 1. WARRANTS LISTS t<P P í'O~' Approve Warrants List No, 43 through No. 46 2, PUBLIC WORKS South Causeway Island Shoreline Stabilization Project - Consider staff recommendation to approve Change Order No.1 ($43,580.16) with Sunshine Land Design, Inc., approve Budget Resolution No, 02-03, and authorize the Chairman to execute the documents, NOTICE: All proceedings before this Board are electronicalll' 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. indhiduals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in, Any party to the proceedings will be granted an opportunity to cross·examine anl' individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Anyone with a c!isability requiring accommoc!ation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Senices ~Ianager at (561) 462- 1 i77 or TOD (561) 462-1428 at least forty-eight(48) hours prior to the meeting. ~ 'wf BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADDITIONS AGENDA August 20. 2002 REGULAR AGENDA County Attorney R-A.1 Agreement to Conduct Site Rerr:ediation Activities/Wal-Mart Stores East, LP (Project P) - Consider staff recommendation to approve the agreement and authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement. A-pptl:)\f\e.GL .!J-O R-A.2 Economic Development Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Ballot Question / November 5, 2002 General Election Ballot - Consider staff recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 02-116 and Resolution No. 02-196, and authorize the fhairman to sign the resolutions. /tpP/YJvui. (fes 02.-11~) ./- 1l.as 02-;9 (ç to;// áh/7fl£gh+ b!fCt af-~ !alLr~ð NOTICE: All Proceedings before this Board are electronically recorded. f:¡y person who decides to appeal any ilction taken by the Board at these meetings will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need t:- ensure that a verbatim rec()rd orthe proceedings is made. Upon the request of an~' party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing ...ill :-e S\l.·orn in, Any party to the proceedings will be granted the opportunity to cross- examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. An)-one \l.ith a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the Sl. Lucie County Community Services Manager at (561) 462-1 ì77 or TDD (561) 462-1428 at least forty-eight(48) hours prior to the meeting.