Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Meeting Minutes 08-14-2006 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA SPECIAL MEETING Date: August 14, 2006 Convened: 6:05 p.m. Adjourned: 1:20 a.m. Commissioners Present: Doug Coward, Chairman; Frannie Hutchinson, Joe Smith, Chris Craft, Paula Lewis Others Present: Ray Wazny, Asst. County Administrator; Faye Outlaw, Assistant County Administrator; McIntyre, County Attorney; Mike Brillhart, Strategy & Special Projects Director; Robert Nix, Growth Management Director; Vanessa Bessy, Environmental Lands; Lauri Heistermann, Deputy Clerk Opening comments were made by Mike Brillhart, Strategy & Special Projects Director 1. PRESENTATION Presentation By County Consultant/MSCW Inc. on the rural Land Stewardship Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Land Development Regulations. A presentation was given by MSCW Inc. James Karas, Planning Team Manager addressed the Board. He reviewed MSCW’s credentials. He stated that there are about 193,000 acres that are west of the urban service boundary. Of that there are committed acreage, which are consumed by preserved wetlands some DRI’s, the Rurals Lands Stewardship program, conservation and lands dedicated to the comprehensive everglades restoration program. He stated that they looked at the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Land Development Regulations. ESSENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS 1. Jim Karas stated that a Countywide vision avoids piecemeal decisions about land patterns, USB, RLSAs, conservation areas, etc. He stated that they had been discussed with the applicant and staff that they have based the Rural Land Stewardship proposal on Comprehensive Plan and the work of the Committee for the sustainable Treasure coast. They have suggested that after 5 years there be a review. He informed the Board the MSCW’s recommendation for this issue would be that until the county adopts a long-term (50 year to buildout) western area vision, no more than one SRA shall be approved (CPA) 2. The next issue addressed was the size of the SRA to ensure sustainability and financial feasibility. He stated that the policy recommendation would be that the minimum size should support an elementary school. 3 The next issue addressed was sufficient SRA size and density to encourage diversity and range of housing prices. He stated that this was not addressed in the proposal other than stating that housing affordability follows the guidelines that are consistent with DCA rules. 4. The next issue addressed was SRA forms should avoid sprawl. In Stewardship receiving areas sprawl should be avoided. He stated that thier policy recommendation would be to omit or limit approval of Hamlet and CRD’s; Ensure SRA’s are large enough and show in Master plan (CPA). 1 5. Jim Karas Stated that the SRA Master plan should present enough detail so character is clear. He stated that the applicant has described the sections of the proposals , which do provide some master plan detail and have added a provision about phasing in what they call context zones. Jim Karas stated that MSCW’s recommendation would be that before and SRA is approved, require Master Plan which shows: Land uses with densities & Intensities; residential areas; public spaces & schools; streets town core; commercial and employment centers; towns, villages, hamlets, CRDs; open space and conservation; buffers; parks & recreation. DRI Master Plan could suffice. 6. The next item addressed was to integrate an SRA into county transportation system. Jim Karas, stated that MSCW’s policy recommendation would require DRI proecess if exceeds threshold, and specify rural road design standards (LDR). 7. Recreation and open space should be maximized and consistent within SRA’s. Jim Karas, stated that MSCW’s policy recommendation would be to increase the threshold to 40 – 50% in all forms of SRA; include stormwater areas (LDR). He informed the Board that right now the standard is 35% and they are considered collectively with the stewardship sending areas. 8. The next item addressed was to assure coordination among governments and interested public. Jim Karas, stated that MSCW’s policy recommendation would be to require DRI process if exceeds threshold, thereby using DRI notification process (LDR). 9. The next item addressed was improve credit scoring system to apply county wide. Jim Karas, stated that MSCW’s policy recommendation would be to expand indices to countywide applicability (land cover, species, soils, etc.) (LDR). 10. The next item addressed was to improve scientific validity of stewardship credit systems. He stated that the applicant had taken careful and extensive research from accredited biologist and applied professional planning judgement in deciding on some of the values and some of the relative values that are assigned to some of the credits. Jim Karas, stated that MSCWs policy recommendation would require the use of best available & professionally accepted model (e.g. FWC Integrated Wildlife Habitat Ranking System) (CPA). 11. Jim Karas stated that natural resource value for stormwater areas were limited. He stated that it is not the intention to create to habitat with the stormwater area. He stated that MSCW’s policy recommendation would be to limit or omit stormwater pond resource credit, but count it toward open space in SRA (LDR). 12. The next issue was to ensure SRA and SSA compatibility. Jim Karas stated that this should be addressed in both the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Land Development Regulations. He stated that a sending area should not be used as a buffer to a receiving area. Jim Karas stated that MSCW’s policy recommendation would require the SRA to include buffering adjacent to SSAs; include in Master Plan (CPA & LDR). 13. The next issue was to protect public investment by ensuring SSA commitments are met. 14. Jim Karas stated that ample time should be given for public participation and staff review. He stated that the applicant has time frames cited in the Land Development Regulation. Jim Karas stated that MSCW’s policy recommendation would be to delete the timeframes (LDR). 2 DESIRED IMPROVEMENTS 1. Jim Karas stated this issue was to ensure adequate park and recreation space in an SRA. Jim Karas stated that MSCW’s policy recommendation would be to expand parks and recreation assessment to include public lands inventory (LDR). 2. Jim Karas stated that this issue was to ensure high quality Master Plan in an SRA. Jim Karas stated that MSCW’s policy recommendation would require a professional team with specified accreditation to prepare Master plan (LDR). 3. Jim Karas stated that this issue was to encourage non-regulatory tools to promote good planning in an SRA. Jim Karas stated that MSCW’s policy recommendation would add form-based, graphic development examples (LDR). 4. Jim Karas stated that this issue was to encourage viable commercial/retail in desired areas. Jim Karas stated that MSCW’s policy recommendation would be to revise commercial/retail floor area ratio to count residential above (LDR). 5. Jim Karas stated that this issue was to encourage environmentally friendly construction. Jim Karas stated that MSCW’s policy recommendation would be to encourage “Green” construction standards such as LEED model (LDR). 6. Jim Karas stated that this issue was to balance policy making authority of future BOCC’s. Jim Karas stated that MSCW’s policy recommendation would be for SSA Amendments & condemnation within SSA’s, amend language to avoid binding future BOCC’s. Commissioner Coward asked if this issue had been resolved. Jim Karas stated that he was not sure if it had been completely satisfied or not. Dan McIntyre, County Attorney stated that most of the issue have been resolved. He informed the Board that the applicant would be proposing something to the Board this evening. 7. Jim Karas stated that this issue was to promote agricultural sustainability. Jim Karas stated that MSCW’s policy recommendation would be to provide additional credits or other incentives to retain agricultural activities (LDR). Commisioner Craft asked if a fee could be applied that could go back to Adam’s Ranch, so that the County would not be looking at adding new credits and new development rights, therefore Adams Ranch receives a funding mechanism to allow them to stay in agriculture that is totally unrelated to the County Rich Unger stated that a public purpose must be established by a CDD. The idea of credits was recognition of the fact that you can set aside agricultural land and have it not be developed. 8. Jim Karas stated that wetland creation from uplands has demonstrated low success rates. Jim Karas stated that MSCW’s policy recommendation would be to limit credit for wetlands created from uplands (LDR). 3 OPTIONAL IMPROVEMENTS 1. Jim Karas stated that this issue was to improve the County’s Comprehensive Plan as guiding policy, while LDR is implementation detail. Jim Karas stated the MSCW’s policy recommendation would be overtime, shorten RLS section of CPA; lengthen LDR as needed for sufficient detail (CPA & LDR). 2. The next issue was promote wildlife corridors. Jim Karas stated the MSCW’s policy recommendation would be to award credits and provide design standards for wildlife corridors (LDR). 3. This issue was to include meaningful agricultural sustainability incentives. Jim Karas stated that MSCWs policy recommendation would be to omit cross-reference to Right-to-Farm Act; superfluous (CPA). 4. This issue covers general language improvements. Jim Karas stated MSCW will provide other comments and editorial suggestions upon request. Mike Brillhart stated that staff concurred with suggestions and recommendations and asked that the Board consider them this evening. Commissioner Smith referred back to page 8 essential improvement issue number 7. He asked why 40 – 50 % was important. Rich Unger stated that 40 – 50 % is not the essential element. What they are trying to recognize is the land that is set a side in a development serves a different function than land that is preserved or conserved in a sending area. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT/STRATEGY AND SPECIAL PROJECTS Consider Ordinance No. 06-031 adopting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to establish the Rural Land Stewardship area (RLSA) Overlay zone (Exhibit A) – Consider staff recommendation to adopt Ordinance No. 06-031. 3. GROWTH MANAGEMENT/STRATEGY AND SPECIAL PROJECTS Second reading of Ordinance No. 06-030 adopting land development regulations to apply to property generally located within the Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay Zone boundary (Exhibit A) – Consider staff recommendation to approve and adopt Ordinance No. 06-030. Mr Cox of the development team asked the County Attorney, as it relates to both the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code, because the Comprehensive Plan is a legislative matter and the Land Development Code is Quasi Judicial how they should be handled. Dan McIntyre, stated that there are two separate ordinances and the Quasi judicial disclosures will need to be made and two public hearings will need to be held. Mr. Cox stated that they would make their presentation to cover all the points that were raised together. He requested that anyone that wishes to speak be sworn in. The Board gave their disclosures for Quasi Judicial purposes. The Clerk swore in the witnesses that wished to speak regarding the Land Development Code. 4 Mr. Cox stated that there were a few items that they had not been able to incorporate solutions such as the 35% open space in the SRA Mr. Cox stated that the goal is to protect and conserve agricultural lands. Promote agricultural viability. The original size requirement by the legislature for a Rural Land Stewardship was 50,000. This is the minimum size that was allowed. The legislature in 2004 changed the minimum size to 10,000 acres to promote the use of the Rural Land Stewardship programs on less than countywide basis. Anita Jenkins, Lead Planner, Stewardship Program, addressed the Board. The first change she addressed was reformatting the stewardship credit worksheet. Policies to review the program no later than the five year anniversary was a request made by MSCW and this had been incorporated. Also limiting the number of SRA’s prior to the five year review to three SRA application, and MSCW said they thought it was reasonable. Requiring additional visioning prior to the expansion of the pilot program additional language was added on visioning, to the Comprehensive Plan, and LDR’s. They have agreed to reference back to Chapter 11 for all of the review processes. They have removed all of the language and the time frame for the review process, and just simply refer back to Chapter 11. The proportions of the towns, villages, hamlets and CRDs were revised to no more than 3 hamlets and CRD’s per any village or town. They have clarified the requirements of the Master Plan and have added quite a bit of detail on page 34 of the Land Development Code. At the request of MSCW they revised the current land use and wetland boundaries to be shown on an SRA plan and also allowed the residential above the retail to be counted toward the SAR. She stated that these were the major issues. Anita Jenkins reviewed the revised stewardship credit worksheet. She stated that it had the same information with the natural resource index factors and there values. It also breaks out the agriculture index factor and the land use values associated with the existing zoning on the properties. They then go through the detailed instruction list and provide the formulas for calculating the credits. Anita Jenkins reviewed natural resource index values and photographs. Commissioner Coward questioned the 1.4 threshold in other policy related matters. Anita Jenkins stated the 1.4 is important in directing growth away from important resources. The policy of not developing in greater than 1.4, you may have an area that is open, but because of policy you can not develop in these little areas, they have to be preserved. Mr. Cox stated that the policies that were going to be addressed were policies 1.19, 1.20 and 1.21 on page 6 of tab number 1. Anita Jenkins stated that there was a meeting held on July 25, 2006 with MSCW and the County staff and they agreed to a five year review of a pilot program, visioning is important. They agreed to limit it to 3 SRA’s prior to the 5 year review. Cloud Grove will be 1 SRA and Adams Ranch would like to support their foundation with a CRD that would provide for a research and education for agriculture, natural resources and their foundation and potentially do some eco-tourism. Commissioner Coward stated that this is how the policy is currently written, however, there was a recommendation from Mr. Paddison from Thousand Friends of Florida, to pull out the CRD completely and make a policy that would allow for the eco-tourism and educational facility to occur in the sending area opposed to creating a generalized category as a receiving site. Anita Jenkins stated that if it is a sending area then you all have a natural resource index factor potentially over 1.4. If you can not develop on any area that has a natural resource value of anything greater than 1.4 you would have conflicting policies. Commissioner Coward stated that there was very high quality environmental resources within the 12,000 acres of sending, but there were also some marginal working agricultural landscapes that would fall below the 1.4 threshold, so there would be the opportunity to put the eco-tourism facility somewhere within the sending area. 5 Mr. Cox stated that you can’t be both a sending and a receiving area. He stated that when talking about the CRD, that Mr. Adams would like to create, it would be in an SRA not in a sending area. He stated that right now the stewardship, if approved, only covers Adams Ranch and Cloud Grove. If there is a CRD, the CRD by definition has to be on an open area of Adams Ranch and could not be anywhere else. Commissioner Coward stated that they were mixing two concerns together to justify not doing either of them. The original recommendation is that this is a pilot project and only do one receiving area. Then it is being said that it can’t be done because a secondary classification needs to be incorporated so that the overall objectives can be met. He stated that he did not feel that there should be multiple SRA’s occurring after the initial pilot project has taken place, before the community has the opportunity to review this. Mr. Cox stated that on the pilot project the 22, 000 acres of Adams Ranch and Cloud Grove is the pilot project. Within this there will be one SRA, which will be the town on Cloud Grove. The other SRA that is anticipated would be an SRA on Adams Ranch to do a small CRD. Commissioner Craft referred to the size an SRA should be to ensure sustainability. He stated that you need to have a minimum size in order for a community to be sustainable. Commissioner Coward concurred. Anita Jenkins stated that they used performance standards for item number 2. Any SRA that is submitted to the Board, must run a fiscal impact model, because the hamlet may have very few fiscal impacts to the residents. Commissioner Coward stated that in reviewing policy 4.16 on page 18 it states that the receiving site must demonstrate that as a whole it will be fiscally neutral or positive to St. Lucie County at the end of the first ten years of development and every five years thereafter. Anita Jenkins stated that the ten year is a re-review. She stated that the fiscal impact model includes both capital and operational costs. Commissioner Coward stated that policy number 4.16 should be written more clearly. Commissioner Hutchinson stated that it made mention that the model methodology would be consistent with the fiscal impact analysis model developed by the State of Florida. She stated that in reviewing the State of Florida it is very clear and specific. Mr. Cox referred to policy number 4.16 after A & B. Commissioner Coward recommended that it be placed in the introductory statement. Commissioner Coward also requested that the School Board issue also be addressed. If there is a small sub-division of 100 houses it would probably not trigger expanded roadways, unless it is on a remote area on a dirtroad. This will still cause the School Board to send buses out into the agricultural area. He asked if there had been input from the School Board. Anita Jenkins stated that they had met with School staff. Mr. Cox stated that they did not plan to build a hamlet within the pilot program, then perhaps you could take the hamlet out, then you could look at it in the future. Commissioner Coward stated that this provision would create urban sprawl. Commissioner Hutchinson stated that she did not have a problem eliminating the hamlet. Mr. Cox referred to policy 1.19 and 1.20. With the Adams Ranch Cloud Grove Boundary, there is 22,000 acres. You can not do anything outside the 22, 000 acres unless there a future Comprehensive Plan amendment. 6 Commissioner Lewis stated that she would prefer to go with the policy recommendation that there is no more that 1 SRA, minus the 50 year planning horizon. Anita Jenkins addressed number 5. The Master Plan, additional detail had been added. An SRA Master Plan is much more detailed than a DRI Master Plan. Rich Unger stated the before you create the SRA you should have some idea of what it is going to be like. Mr. Cox referred to Page 34 & 35. Letter J, K, I, M, N, O , P, and Q. Rich Unger asked at what point in time the Master Plan would be presented. Mr. Cox stated that this would be part of the SRA application process. Mr. Cox stated that if the County does not agree with the Master Plan they do not have to approve the SRA. Commissioner Coward asked that the procedural issue be addressed with the timing of the two. He questioned where the language was that says that the Master Plan is concurrent with the consideration and approval of the SRA. Anita Jenkins stated that it is the first sentence of E. on page 33. Commissioner Coward referred to item j. He asked if they would see some details on how the neighborhoods would be layed out. A unidentified team member addressed the Board. He stated that the minimum requirement is that you have to show the form of development that you would end up with. Robert Nix addressed the Board. He referred to Page 57 item 8. He voiced his concerns. Rich Unger referred to J & K, on page 34 and 35. Mr. Cox stated that the SRA Master Plan will be the entire property. The level of detail would only be for the first phase of construction. There would be an entire SRA Master Plan that would lay out in detail each of the items, with each of the context zones, town core, town center, neighborhood general and neighborhood edge, which are the four context zones . He stated that the SRA Master Plan should have some illustrations in it. Commissioner Coward asked if the Community Park would be identified. Mr. Cox stated yes. Anita Jenkins stated that the context zones are in the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code. The context zone starting from the town core, which is the most dense and intense and going through the town, neighborhood general, and neighborhood edge, defines specifically what the intent characteristics of each area is. Mr. Cox referred to the narrative description of the context zone starting on page 38 behind tab number 3. Rich Unger stated that the context zones are defined and they are showing them on the plan. Commissioner Smith referred to Page 56 under the Land Development Regulations, letter C, regarding waste water and water systems. He asked if this was permitting a package plant. Mr. Cox stated that they had been working on some revised language that the intention is that St. Lucie County or another Government would provide those services, however in the event that St. Lucie County or that Government are not yet a position to do so the developer would provide them, subject to consultation with St. Lucie County or that utility. Then there would be, as part of the SRA approval a agreed upon formula for determining how that could be conveyed to that public utility in return for payment and price. 7 Anita Jenkins addressed issue number 6, policy recommendation of requiring the DRI process. She stated that they would not recommend any policy that would contradict statute. They have also added additional language to address the road design standards. Anita Jenkins addressed issue number 7, open space threshold of 40-50% policy recommendation. She stated that at this time they had not made any change to the 35%. She stated that they had considered the Rural Land Stewardship Program as a whole with public benefit not only to those that may live in Cloud Grove, but the public benefit being to all of St. Lucie County. Open space provides great public benefit. With the preservation of Adams Ranch the project as a whole is over 80% open space and the 35% of the town of Cloud Grove exceeds the level of service standards that are currently adopted in the Comprehensive Plan of .5 acres per 1000 population. She stated that they had amended the hamlet and the CRD at the request of staff to be equal to that level of service that you currently have adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. The 35% open space and the community parks that are required exceeds what is currently adopted as the level of service. Anita Jenkins addressed issue number 8, DRI process policy recommendation. She stated that they would not recommend anything that would contradict the statute. Anita Jenkins addressed issue number 9, expanding indices to countywide applicability policy recommendation. She stated that this is something that the Board may want to consider if the program is expanded, but not at this time. Anita Jenkins addressed issue number 10, improve scientific validity of stewardship credit system. Anne Redman, Wilson, Miller stated that in developing the scientific basis for the stewardship credit system they looked at a number of areas such as the Florida GAP report, Strategic Habitat Conservation area recommendation, South Florida Water Management District, Florida DEP, etc. She stated that they also looked at national wildlife inventory data, Florida natural areas managed to lands data, save our rivers, and input from the land owner as to their land management practices. She stated that they also reviewed all the Florida natural areas element occurrence data. They took models and data and tailored it to the conditions to St. Lucie County. James Karas MSCW concurred. Commissioner Coward requested information on the wildlife corridor. Anne Redman stated that the wildlife corridor was a very active part of the design of the habitat stewardship area. Commissioner Coward asked if the ranking criteria incorporated wildlife corridor. He asked if you would get rewarded if you were setting aside habitat conservation areas that furthered the ecological greenway concept or wildlife corridor. Anne Redman stated yes. Commissioner Coward asked if there were specific size and widths incorporated in the plan. Anne Redman stated no. Commissioner Coward stated that we should be looking at this now and trying to incorporate it into what were moving forward with. Anita Jenkins stated that one thing that the Board may consider, for the receiving side, is if a wildlife corridor is provided at the time of application then that corridor does not require stewardship credits. This would be an incentive to provide the corridor. Commissioner Coward stated that it may not only be on the receiving side, it may also be on the sending side. In order for them to qualify there should be some basic parameters that this does meet what the County does define as an important wildlife corridor. 8 Anita Jenkins stated that if you wanted to consider the sending area, at the time of application, if they can demonstrate that they are providing that wildlife corridor by policy you would receive 2 extra credits per acre. It would need to be demonstrated at the time of SSA application. Anita Jenkins addressed issue number 11. She stated that water retention areas that are part of an agriculture operation may produce or generate credits. Commissioner Coward referred to page 9 policy 3.9. The language that he was referring to was the WRA’s as described are areas that have been, and may continue to function for, agricultural, surface water retention. He stated that when he read surface water retention that is coming from the urban area, he reads this as stormwater that is related to the urban area. Anita Jenkins stated that it is stormwater that is related to Adams Ranch in agriculture areas. She stated that these are areas that are designed by the ranch to retain the water to control the water passing through the ranch and needed for the ranch operation. Commissioner Coward stated that the WRA’s may be incorporated into the SRA’s. Anita Jenkins stated that if they are incorporated into a receiving area they are then not a sending area and do not generate credits Commissioner Craft stated that the 1 square mile retention area at Cloud Grove has been identified as having habitat on it. He stated that it does have value if it is chosen to be used. If it is not chosen to be used, then it would be used for drainage for Cloud Grove, then the value would no longer exist, so it could not be used anywhere else on the property. Commissioner Coward requested that the paragraph be cleaned up. Anita Jenkins addressed issue number 12. Anita Jenkins addressed issue number 13, the use of financial performance guarantees and protecting a public investment by ensuring SSA commitments are met. She stated that she was not clear on what public investment MSCW was referring to because Adams Ranch is protecting Adams Ranch at no coast to the public and will continue to be stewards to the land. The steward agreement that is recorded is enforceable by both the owners and all parties that are recorded with the owners. She stated that she disagreed with the statement from MSCW. Jim Karas, MSCW stated that they felt that the performance guarantee was a commonly used tool in that it offered additional safeguards. Commissioner Coward asked what if the creation of wetlands or upland habitat were to fail. Anita Jenkins stated that if they were to fail they would not receive the credits for restoration. Commissioner Coward stated that you may not find out until 5 or 10 years out that they failed and the credits would have already been generated and build on another site. Anita Jenkins stated that at the time of restoration you do the restoration plan and then the restoration has to be deemed viable by the agency that are running with the SSA. PUBLIC COMMENT Pat Murphy, President, Hoyt C. Murphy Realtors addressed the Board. He stated that he was hopeful that this would pass. Jim Alderman addressed the Board. He stated that he was speaking in favor of adoption of this plan. He urged the Board to approve the plan. 9 Bob Bangert addressed the Board He stated that this program would be an excellent direction to follow, however he voiced some concerns regarding the Rural Land Stewardship Program. The amount of open space required in the stewardship receiving area and more thought give to wildlife corridors. No maximum size for Cloud Ranch. He stated that he would not be in favor of hamlets in this program Eric Draper addressed the Board. He stated that this is a perfect opportunity to conserve ranch land. He stated that he would encourage the Board to approve this program Flip Gates, President of Visions of Fort Pierce addressed the Board. He stated the Visions of Fort Pierce supports the transfer of development rights to SRAs to any type of unit that you have to be able to do this. Eric Haenni addressed the Board. He stated that it would be beneficial to have the 3 SRA’s. He stated that he would like to see this move forward. Thom Jones, President Seacoast National Bank addressed the Board. He stated that he would like to urge the board to vote yes. Michel Minton, committee member with the Sustainable Treasure Coast addressed the Board. He stated that if the Board approves this concept they will have taken a bold and progressive step and will be commended for that. Peter Perry addressed the Board. He stated that he was in support of the Land Stewardship Program. Corinne Frederick addressed the Board. She encouraged the Board to approve the Adam’s Ranch Plan. Michael Brown Sr. addressed the Board. He stated that he was in favor of this plan and encouraged the Board to move ahead. Jim Russakis addressed the Board. He recommended that the Board vote in favor of the plan. Robert Swift addressed the Board. He advised the Board that he was in favor of the plan. Tom Babcock addressed the Board. He stated that he was in support of this program. Carlton Ward Jr. addressed the Board. He advised the Board that he had produced a slide show of the Adam’s Ranch. END OF PUBLIC COMMENT Commissioner Smith suggested modifying the plan so that they could have 60% open space in this issue. Mr. Cox stated that 60% open space would not work. Commissioner Coward asked Mr. Cox to elaborate. Mr. Cox stated through creating the program the cost of purchasing the easement of Adam’s Ranch, is a private cost. One of the benefits of Adam’s Ranch is that it is not contiguous. Adam’s Ranch is 16, 000 acres of contiguous land of which 12,000 acres, which will be the first sending area at no cost to the public. In order to do this there are design flexibility issues in terms of taking Cloud Grove, has no natural features and has limited habitat value. The 35% open space minimum for that town is a commitment that is able to be made with the protection of Adam’s Ranch and all of it is one piece. 10 Commissioner Coward stated that if the Rural Land Stewardship Program were not enacted what would happen as it relates to the development rights that are on this property. He stated that right now the Comprehensive Plan, while it does call for more development outside the urban service boundary in these rural areas, than he would have wanted to see, there are specific provisions that site plans that come in at over 8 dwelling units is required to set aside 80%. Right now there is an 80% threshold in place for large developments in rural areas without increasing the number of units. He stated that they should exceed the 80% threshold and not meet the same standard. Mr. Cox stated that his belief is that there would not be an Ag 5 PUD. Adam’s would not propose it, Cloud Grove would not propose a PUD. He stated that he would urge the Board to support the program and work with it so that the 12, 000 acre is permanently protected. Commissioner Coward stated that he did support this program, however he wanted to make sure that the way it is written is done in a high quality. He stated that he did not believe that 35% open space standard on Cloud Grove is that higher standard. He stated that he believed that you could achieve more open space on that site. Commissioner Craft stated that the 35% goal needs to be raised. Mr. Cox stated that the 35% is not a goal it is a minimum. Commissioner Craft stated that what he is looking for with a town is a minimum size and a maximum size. It is much easier to achieve that maximum size when there is larger set asides more open space surrounding the town that gives the natural buffer for the next property over. Mr. Cox stated that the minimum is 1,000 acres for a town the maximum is 5,000 acres. Commissioner Craft stated that the adjacent property owners are going to try in some way to associate themselves with Cloud Grove. Commissioner Coward stated that the Board had not moved the Urban service boundary, nor had they given free density outside the urban service boundary. Commissioner Hutchinson recommended re-looking at the state statute that set the program up. Commissioner Coward stated that they had not even discussed the multiplier. He asked how many additional units they were talking about creating. He stated that what we give is as important as what we get. Commissioner Lewis stated that the county needs to include property like the Adam’s Ranch. She stated that she did not want a community that out prices normal folks. She stated that she was not sure she would want to look at 80% open space or even 60% open space. She stated that she was not sure that some of what was being asked for was reasonable. She stated that they need to look at everything they want and decide what they are willing to give. She stated the plans she has her to this point she is willing to give to get Adam’s Ranch. Commissioner Smith concurred with Commissioner Lewis. Commissioner Craft asked if the public spaces were considered as part of the open space. Mr. Cox stated that no buildings of any type are considered open space by definition. Commissioner Lewis asked if there would be some improvements made to the reservoir. Mr. Cox stated that they are working on that, however it will not generate anymore credits. Commissioner Lewis stated that it is hard for her to visualize 35%. Commissioner Coward addressed the issue of affordable housing. 11 Mr. Cox referred to the Goal, Objectives and Policies 4.21 and 4.22 on page 19. He stated that there is no minimum percentage requirement for affordable housing in that policy. He read policy 4.21 to the Board. He stated that there is an absolute requirement that it be in the SRA and the exact amount of affordable housing would be determined by the DRI process. Commissioner Coward asked what the minimum requirement is through the DRI process. Mr. Cox stated that they had not done the analysis yet. Commissioner Coward stated that they had worked diligently with the alternative growth management strategy to make sure that there was a minimum in place. He stated that he believed that it was 8% with additional incentives if the developer was able to exceed that. He requested more clarity. He would like to know what the base line is. An unidentified team member stated that there is no base line amount. The methodology that is used by the State, in evaluating affordable housing issues, on development of regional impact is based upon need. It is the process of evaluating the supply against the demand, which yields the answer on a project by project basis. Commissioner Smith asked what determines low, very low and middle income. He stated that there are homes within the County that are 40-50 years old that would fulfill the requirement. An unidentified team member stated that the methodology that is used excludes anything that would be characterized as substandard housing. The determination of the supply is based on what is the information in the public domain in property appraisal studies and multiple listing surveys. Commissioner Craft asked where it was outlined. An unidentified team member stated that is sited in 9J-2.048. An unidentified team member stated that if you look in the definitions of adequate and affordable housing in the Land Development Regulations which is in the front of the LDR’s. Mr. Cox referred to the Goal, Objectives and Policies, Page 20. He stated that there has to be affordable housing as part of the SRA. Mr. Cox referred to Page 19 policy 4.21 the first sentence, which references the statute. Commissioner Coward asked staff if they were comfortable with the language that was written. Faye Outlaw, Assistant County Administrator stated that she did not believe that staff had reviewed it. Mr. Brilhart stated that he did not believe that Community Services had reviewed this policy. Commissioner Coward stated that it did not specify that it needed to be provided on site, but that it needed to be provided. He asked if they had any objection to adding language that states so that all adequate housing is provided on site. Mr. Cox stated that they would have no objection that. Anita Jenkins clarified the fiscal impact model that is required as part of the receiving area application. Commissioner Smith addressed the Green Building. He referred to the word encourage. Mr. Cox stated that it would be encouraged within the community and they would work with staff independently to create a county wide standard on energy efficiency. 12 Anita Jenkins stated that these are construction standards that are more appropriate in building code rather than in the Land Development Regulation. Construction standards for buildings should be applied to a building code rather than a land use. Commissioner Smith stated we are doing something special and significant with this plan because it does deal with the environment and preserving land. He stated that he felt that this would be a good opportunity to build green in this community. Mr. Cox stated that the difficulty they have is prior to the completion of the design is the commitment to the construction standard that is evolving. Commissioner Craft addressed the utilities issues. He stated that the original proposal did not give the option or did not turn the utilities company over in any fashion, whether it was a sale or just handing it over to the county in the original proposal. He stated that they believe that they have come to an agreement and it can be further refined as the process goes on. Mr. Cox stated that there was language in the Comprehensive Plan that they had been working through for the past year that would essentially say that any multitude of providers could provide those services. The language that they had been re-evaluating was to centralized water and sewer. They could be provided either by a private utility service, the developer, a community development district, an independent special district, Ft. Pierce Utility Authority or other Governmental entity. The expectation was that as part of the SRA process they would know exactly who would provide the utility service. What they have now is a proposal that would say St. Lucie County Utilities or another governmental utility provider, if located within it service territory, per agreement with the County. He stated that they are not talking about whether there would or would not be service they are talking about who provides the service. What was put into the policy was that it could be constructed, owned, operated and maintained by a private utility established by the developer provided, 1) that they would consult with St. Lucie County Utilities to ensure compatible systems, 2) the SRA designation by the BOCC contingent upon a binding agreement that will establish the terms by which St. Lucie County Utilities could at the option of the County at a date certain in the future purchase those. As part of this they would design a plant in conjunction with the County and agree as part of the SRA process to a future purchase option, in the terms by which that option could be exercised. Mr. Cox referred to subsection 2 and instead of it tying to the SRA designation that the parties shall work to reach an agreement on the terms by which it would be purchased. An unidentified team member stated that what they are still sorting through is when in the process the actual formula is arrived at for the acquisition. Part 2 talks about how those terms would be negotiated as part of the SRA designation. He stated that the concept needs some more thought and study. Commissioner Craft stated that this is his number one concern. He asked if the utilities could be left out and be brought back. Mr. Cox stated that there is not a requirement in the Comprehensive Plan to say that this provision has to be in the Comprehensive Plan. Dan McIntyre Stated that the utilities issue needs to addressed. Taking it out and just saying it has to be provided does not solve the problem. From the County prospective it might make it worst and from the developers perspective it might make it worse. If the Comp Plan existing says you can’t do it, it does not solve the problem. He stated that the Board is sensitive to the provision of utilities outside the urban service area. He stated that what is trying to be said is that the County or some other government entity will provide this, but if we can’t do it in a timely fashion the developer has the right to go ahead with it. He stated that he did not believe that County staff was trying to take anything from the developer, but try as well not to have the rate payers pay twice. An unidentified team member stated that it is desirable to have a process. Commissioner Coward stated that this was an important issue and he was uncomfortable being asked to make a decision on this topic. He stated that there are several issues that need to be further refined. 13 Commissioner Lewis questioned the language that stated at a date certain in the future we shall acquire water and waste water utilities. She stated that we don’t know when we would be able to do that. She also stated that the SRA designation by the BOCC shall be contingent upon a binding agreement at a date certain. She stated that if we don’t have a date certain than we can’t proceed under this particular agreement. An unidentified team member stated that one of the terms that would be worked out in the binding agreement referenced are the specific points in time, when the County would have the opportunity to purchase and what the terms of purchase would be. Commissioner Craft stated that it is his goal to make sure that this would not stay a private utility company. Mr. Cox stated that instead of it being contingent on the SRA, if it was simply stated that 1) would stay the same, compatible system so that they could connect up 2) would simply say an agreement to establish the terms by which St. Lucie County or other government utility shall provide. Dan McIntyre stated that he would work with Mr. Powell to come up with some language that could be proposed. Commissioner Smith addressed the Green Building issue. He asked how many acres the receiving area of Cloud Grove was. Mr. Cox stated 5,000 acres. Commissioner Smith asked how many homes could be built. Mr. Cox stated the minimum of 10,000 and the maximum of 12, 500. Commissioner Smith stated that he had an opportunity to do research on what the best practices are which are U.S. Green Building Council and the LEED Certification Process. He stated that he had an opportunity to go to some conferences and here about them. He stated that they had an opportunity to be a leader in this issue. In San Francisco, for energy, on a 93 acre parcel at the hunter point navel ship yard, which is a project that is being done in cooperation with lennar of Northern California. They are going to mandate that 1600 of there residential units, 300,000 square feet of commercial and retail space be powered 100% renewable energy. This is cost competitive power for current and future development. This is either hydro power, solar and other type of renewable energies. He stated that if they are able to do this for 1600 homes, just to say that they are going to do green energy, what is so difficult about asking for a guarantee that the community will be built green or you will guarantee it will be with green building technologies. Mr. Cox stated that the trouble isn’t that we will use green building technologies it is whose standards do you use and how do you measure. Commissioner Smith stated the United States Green Building Council. Mr. Cox stated that it is not a standard that exists in a Florida Building Code. He stated that there is a group called the Florida House that is researching and trying to get people interested in building these homes. Using certain building products can lower the energy needs but adds a certain amount to the costs. He stated that there is not a uniform standard within the State of Florida. Commissioner Smith is asking that they follow a Federal Standard. This way they do not have to worry what Florida is doing. He stated that they can be a leader in the Country. He stated that on the news for an average 100% green building home it averages about $4,000 more, however, it more than pays for itself over the life of the home. He stated that there is a U.S green building certification, he stated that he did not know what there standards are and he did not believe that it is a uniform standard. Commissioner Smith asked if someone from Lennar could provide information. 14 Mr. Cox stated that the consultant was hired and they made recommendations. A meeting was then held with a consultant and the County staff. The County staff stated that they felt it was a building code issue. He stated that he did not believe that there were green building standards anywhere in the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan or in the TVC. Commissioner Smith stated that there was no where in the Comprehensive Plan that talks about Rural Land Stewardships either. Commissioner Hutchinson suggested putting in language that if the County adopts a green building plan that they would start to adhere buy it buy some form or fashion. Commissioner Coward stated that the Board has the ability to ask for a higher standard. He stated that there could be a broader policy that says that we will develop green building technologies and they will be forthcoming either through the land development code or the building code. He stated that he felt there should have more consideration for this issue. Jim Karas, MSCW addressed the Board. He stated that they did ask that the applicant consider green construction standard such as the LEED model. Rich Unger stated that LEED (Leadership and Energy and Environmental Design) is also working on standard for LEED neighborhood developments. Robert Nix stated that there are building orientation that we can do in our codes. He stated that the concerns that they had is that was if you apply structural solutions, which would have to go through the Florida Building Code process and go to the State and be approved by the building commission that certifies local amendments to the Florida Building Code. Non structural solutions can be adopted locally. Commissioner Smith stated that in Broward County they are building a new Government Library that is 100% green building council standards and also looking for LEED certification. Mr. Cox stated that they could use language that says encourage and explore. He stated that currently there is not an understood standard. Commissioner Smith stated that he felt that there are standards that are well known throughout the state and country. Commissioner Coward stated that there had been some discussion in the past on the difference between stewardship agreement and conservation easement. He stated that the proposal is to create a stewardship easement. Dan McIntyre stated a conservation easement is typically done where you do not allow much use such as building or bulldozing. It prohibits any type of development. It really is a negotiated process. Stewardship easements you are trying to define what can and can’t be done. It is very similar to a conservation easement. Commissioner Coward asked who would be party to the easement. He stated that they had seen transfer development rights programs in other locations where the units were transferred off, the land went into public ownership and a future public entity decided that the land should not remain public open space, so they changed the easement. He stated that they have assured the local residents that they would provide another layer of protection so that this could not happen. He referred to page 3, perpetual stewardship easement agreement. He voiced his concerns with yet another government entity. He stated that he felt it should be a land trust whose mission is conservation or consistent with this overall message. He asked if the applicant would have an objection to a national land trust. 15 Mr. Cox stated that the statute provides for the entities that are listed or a statewide land trust as a potential holder of it. The Adam’s are going to put a Stewardship easement on there property that will permanently restrict certain uses. The easement will run in favor of the County and in favor of the Department of the Agriculture. It is also going to have a Stewardship Sending Area agreement that is approved by this Board that prohibits the change. There is also a policy that states once you have removed land use layers you can’t put those land use layers back. Commissioner Coward stated that a future Board could change that policy. He stated that he would rather have a non-governmental entity in addition to having the County commission. Mr. Cox stated that he would rather have a government that is subject to the people and there vote, than a non governmental organization that is not. Commissioner Coward stated that it should be a national land trust or a state wide land trust. Commissioner Hutchinson stated that there are other options other than the DEP and a statewide land trust. Commissioner Coward stated that there are 3 statewide governmental entities and statewide land trust. Mr. Cox stated that the statute has the identical language that is in the policy. Mike Adam’s addressed the Board. He stated that they are agricultural based and have a good relationship with the Florida Department Agriculture. Anne Reddman, Wilson, Miller addressed the Board. She stated that having a land trust as an easement holder is an excellent option. She stated that you can’t mandate that a land trust will become an easement holder on any given piece of property. Mr. Cox stated that with the easement and the stewardship approval you have the protection. Commissioner Hutchinson stated that there is a level of distrust with government and agriculture. Commissioner Craft stated that he felt this issue was being addressed through the agencies that were listed. Commissioner Coward referred to page 5 policy 1.15. He asked for clarification. Mr. Cox stated that the only place you can use stewardship credits is an SRA. The reason for this is you could create the credits in an SSA and transfer them to a person or an entity who could hold them and wait to sell them. Commissioner Coward stated that he would like to have this paragraph clarify this issue so that it was understood that it could only apply to SRA. Mr. Cox stated that language could be added, but could only be used within an approved SRA. Commissioner Coward referred to the overlay zone of 22,384 acres. This is all the properties that are going to be involved in the pilot project. The first one being the SSA which is the sending area. He asked what the total acres they were sending units off of were. Mr. Cox stated that the total for Cloud Grove was 12,000 acres. Commissioner Coward stated that the way he looked at the original proposal, was that they were going to strip off the development rights on a sending area and transfer that to a receiving site. What has been done through the process is basically create not only multipliers or incentives on the sending areas but on the overlay zones. Mr. Cox stated that this is not a transfer of density units program. He stated that the program would be better for the County without the limitation based on a multiplier, policy 1.18. 16 Commissioner Coward stated that he has no problem if they are rewarding preserving the environment or agriculture. To take the entire Adams Ranch acreage, apply the 3-1 and then bring back 900 units back onto the property, he stated he had a problem with. It should only be applied to the areas that are going to be protected. Mr. Cox stated that he has looked at this and changing it does not work. If the credit matrix is changed the program is not going to work. Commissioner Craft asked what does not work by adjusting the credit matrix. Mr. Cox stated that they would have to go back and adjust all of the credits and all of the circumstance to get to the same result. He stated that there are 22,000 acres with a proposed receiving on Cloud Grove, town of 5,000 acre with 12,000 units, maximum of 12, 500. The first sending on Adams Ranch to create that will be about 12,000 acres. There will be about 4500 acres left. Commissioner Coward referred to page 10, policy 3.11. where it states to the extent any new landfills are sought to be constructed in these hydrologically significant habitat or water retention areas. Commissioner Hutchinson stated that the way she read it is that this forbids a government entity from coming in and using eminent domain for the issue to site utilities or landfills. Commissioner Coward stated that they did not resolve the issue of the compact rural development. There are still provisions for the compact rural development. Rather then a new category to send units to that they are not happy with, on a small scale, to try and address the desire of the Adam’s family as it relates to eco-tourism as some type of a policy. Mr. Cox stated that they could take the policy and define the compact rural development and address the eco tourism facility for purposes of pilot program and limit the CRD to that use. Commissioner Coward stated that it is currently categorized now as a town, village or smaller development. Then you get into retail and office, schools and other issue. He stated that he did not believe that it belongs there. If it is a specific type of use that is fully compatible with the agricultural and environmental use of the land then allow permitted use with either the SSA or the SRA. Anita Jenkins stated that the uses would need to limited within the SSA. Mr. Cox stated that if you have a development activity it would have to go through the site review process. Then they would further restrict what is a CRD, rather than defining out of the system, then it would have a review process and it would go back to the Board for approval as opposed to being a permitted use within it. Commissioner Hutchinson stated that she was comfortable with that. Commissioner Coward stated that he wanted it to be written specific to the intended purpose. Right now it is a new category as a receiving site for these credits that are being created and is broadly written. Commissioner Hutchinson referenced page 55 under tab 3. Anita Jenkins stated that they could accommodate both by removing the reference to the hamlet and CRD from Rural Land Stewardship figure 5 and approving on policy 4.6.4 where they would better clarify the uses that would be allowed in a CRD. Commissioner Coward referred to policy 4.6.2. He stated that there was a requirement in a town to have a certain number of square feet per person provided for community parks. He asked if this was also the case for a village. He referred to page 13 and 14. He stated that under the towns you have 1 community park with a minimum size of 200 square feet per dwelling unit. It states that there will be public green spaces, but it does not define how much. 17 Anita Jenkins stated that the community park is a park that is larger in size providing active ball fields and soccer fields. A village of that size would have to provide parks and public open spaces, but not at the size of a community park. Commissioner Coward stated that if you look at figure 5 you can have as many as 1,000 acres and up to two units to the acre maximum. Robert Nix stated that the standard that they are proposing is lower than the standard that is in the current Comprehensive Plan. In a town of 25,000 the current standard would require 125 acres, this standard is about 49 acres. Anita Jenkins stated that they were provided the level of service standard from County staff, which was .5 acres per 1, 000 population Commissioner Craft asked if we were using the same definitions to describe the size of a town and a village, in here, as we are in the TVC. Mike Brillhart stated that they had sent the consultants a copy of the TVC’s Land Development Regulations and also the chapter out of the Land Development Code that had definition specific. Under the town and the village definitions, those were not modified to be specifically consistent with the TVC. Commissioner Craft asked if they could be made consistent. Mr. Cox stated that the TVC definition of a village is 1 neighborhood in the countryside. The definition of a village in the stewardship is a form of SRA in primarily residential community with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall support a mixed use village center to serve a the focal point for the communities support services and facilities. Commissioner Coward addressed ingress and egress, transportation issues. He stated that they had talked in the past about the roadways that would be required as a part of the new town and the impact on surrounding land use. There will be significant implications on putting four lane highways through agricultural areas outside the urban service boundary without good land use planning in place. He stated that he did not feel that they have adequately addressed the ingress and egress issue. Robert Nix stated that this is something that would be evaluated on the DRI application, but it would create substantial need for road improvements. Commissioner Coward stated that would be evaluated in the DRI but that there is language in here that precludes connectivity to the surrounding area. Mr. Cox stated that when it was presented without the restriction on the connection the Department of community Affairs specifically, in their report said, we want you to restrict the ability to connect to areas that aren’t within the stewardship. He stated that there will be multiple exits from each neighborhood to the interior roads within the town. The policy says that it is excepted that you can connect to a regional transportation system from other locations in the town, but what you can’t do is connect to the development right next door that is not in the program. Commissioner Coward stated that there is no plan for the rural western areas, but yet it will be needed for this project and any future ones. He stated that the way it was written now, he was not comfortable with. Anita Jenkins stated that she wanted to clarify community parks. She stated that she reviewed County staff comments from August, 2005. She stated that the level of service for community parks is not .5 it is 5 acres for 1,000 population. This requirement using this math is 54 acres for a community park for a town and with stewardship it is 55 acres. 18 Commissioner Coward stated only in the towns and not the villages, however you have agreed to incorporate that same language in both. Anita Jenkins stated yes. Robert Nix stated that a town of 10,000 dwelling units will have an estimated population of 25, 000. 5 acres per 1,000 is 125. Commissioner Craft asked if this was per resident. Robert Nix stated that it is population based. So if you have 25, 000 people you multiply 5 by 25 you get 125. Commissioner Smith recommended some language for the green buildings. On page 57, Item H. As it is the goal of Rural Land Stewardship to protect and conserve natural resources and agriculture, applicants, this is the additional language recommended, will cooperate with St. Lucie County as it investigates green building technology and considers adopting green building standards. Applicants will strongly encourage environmentally friendly infrastructure techniques (like green building design and technology) best practices and emerging technologies. Commissioner Coward asked the Board if they have the comfort level to make an approval tonight, as opposed to providing sufficient time to deal with the utility issue, minimum size of towns and villages, language changes for green building technologies, affordable housing component, letter from the School Board supporting the proposal, letter from the Fire District supporting the proposal. There are a number of important entities and issues that are just not quite there. He stated that he is strongly in support of the project and he would like to see it move forward. He requested input from the rest of the Board. Commissioner Hutchinson requested a specific list of the issue to be addressed. Commissioner Coward stated that the issues were the utilities, the minimum size, the hamlet had been eliminated , the CRD was going to have revised language, the minimum size still has not been defined. Commissioner Hutchinson asked the minimum size of what. She stated that the hamlet was being dropped and just revising the CRD so that it would not be a permanent residential. Commissioner Coward referred to figure 5. He stated that if you look a village it could be a small as 100 acre and the consultant is recommending a minimum of 600. Commissioner Coward stated that it would be nice to see additional correspondence from other entities that will be effected by this growth. He stated that normally they see a letter stating that issues of concerns have been addressed. Commissioner Coward stated that another important issue that needs to be addressed is ingress and egress. Commissioner Hutchinson asked what a continuance would do to the applicant time frame Mr. Cox stated that there is a concern with the time frame. He stated that Mr. Adams has certain things that needs to be finished by the end of the year. He stated that there is a timing issue. Commissioner Hutchinson asked what the steps will be that will require additional public input, and public comment. 19 Mr. Cox stated that the Stewardship Sending Area application would be filed and reviewed by staff. It would then go to the Environmental Advisory Committee for comment and then there would be a public hearing before the Board. On the Development side, there would be a development of regional impact application, which would be submitted to the County and the Regional Planning Council. It would then go through the sufficiency requirements and through DRI review. There would also be a stewardship receiving area application that would go through staff review, Environmental Advisory Commission, Planning and Zoning Board and Board of County Commissioner or public hearings. Commissioner Hutchinson stated that in following the DRI process that also gives the additional agencies like any DRI, time to weigh in. Commissioner Lewis stated that there are two issues, specifically utilities and the green building technologies that there was language presented that was not finalized. She suggested coming back in two weeks. Dan McIntyre stated that the meeting be continued until tomorrows meeting, August 15, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter and then at that point it be continued to a further date time certain. Commissioner Lewis addressed the issues she had that were of importance that still needed to be addressed. Utilities language, the green building technologies language, minimum size of towns and villages, ingress and egress, school district, fire district, law enforcement. Commissioner Coward requested Community Services weigh in on the housing. It was moved by Commissioner Craft and seconded by Commissioner Hutchinson to continue ordinance no. 06-031 and 06-030 and upon roll call motion carried unanimously. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 1:20 a.m. ________________________________ Chairman, Board County Commissioners __________________________________ Clerk Circuit Court 20