The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutInformal Packet 08-25-2009 - J AGENDA Tuesday, August 25, 2009 1:30 P. M. INFORMAL MEETING 1. CALL TO ORDER - COMMISSIONER LEWIS, CHAIR, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2. INDIAN RIVER ESTATES MSBU -UTILITY DISCUSSION: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 3. COMPREHENSIVE ROOFTOP SOLAR INITIATIVES: COMMISSIONER COWARD 4. FP FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT PROPOSAL: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 5. WESTERN LAND STUDY PROPOSAL UPDATE: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR 6. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT CONFERENCE ROOM #3 ROGER POITRAS ADMINISTRATION ANNEX 2300 VIRGINIA AVENUE, FORT PIERCE FLORIDA 34982 NOTICE: All Proceedings before this Board are electronically recorded. Any person who decides to appeal any action taken by the Board at these meetings will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceedings will be granted the opportunity to cross~xamine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Manager at (772) 462-1777 or TDD (772) 462-1428 at least forty~ight (48) hours prior to the meeting. z ~ T ~ O O r ~ ~ p D O ~ D ~ ~v O ~D ~ O cn ~ A r-r ~ N ~ m cn n• 'r1 ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~°o ~ 3 Z O L 0 . ~ O ~ Q Q~ ~ _ N ~ ~ U ca ~ L ~ Q, ~ ~ L. V ~ ~ Q ~ 4A O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • - ca rl 0 ~ ~ ~ M W ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ca a~ N ~ • - L O G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ a, ~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~ Q N ~ cn Q ~ aA V ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~N L ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O ~ ~ ~ a. ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ n N ~ O Q ~ LL. X ~ ~ O ~ cNn O O O ® a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ V ~ u.. ¦ ¦ ~ ~ ¦ ¦ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O ~ e-~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N T ~D O ~ ~ ~D ~ ~ ~ ~D ~ ~ c~ O ~D p ~ ~ ~D C cn. ~ ~ ~C p ~ .C ~ ~ rr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ * ~ _ ~ ° ~ N ~ ~ ~ `D o ~ ~ N ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ r7'1 ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° D < ~ ~ • ~ n rD r+ O ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ O ~ ~ _ Z '3 3 O ~ V ® ~ ~ I_' - V ~ ~ ~ Q ~ > a, o ~ o ~ ~ oo - W ~ ~ a, ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ O a-+ ~ b~ S O ~ Q ~ _ ~ ~ oo ~ V 3 ~ p o, ~ ~ N V u- O O a O ~ O .O ® ~ o a o ~ _ ~ ~ ~ O N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ . ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ® ~ ~ ca O - ~ O ~ V ~ ~ V ~ 00 OAauclx~DUe Cwnly ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 90 , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ rn \ ~ j ~ - ~ 1 - - c,~~ s ~ _ N i ~ a ~ a~ n , N - a 4' E i ~ K Kings HN'y 4 L° ~ ~ 3 L - II I r l S~ ` ~ `y m _ ~ ~ 25h S! `a v r' ~ ~ ~ 1Q SJWPP IS yD ~ ~~J ~mA N,1`~/.. - S' WAY ~ r _ , . m 'a ~ J \ ~ 4y ~ ~ ~ d ~d ~ ~ n ~ ~e~~ o ~ ~ ~ dm~ ~ nr ~ a 7 ~ fD ~ N ~ ~ Q .~i Z .Ti n C ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ 2t ~g°'° v, ~ m t~ ~ o to O ~ S n ~ H n ((b~~ M A ~ ~ ? ~ N p DC Q ~ O w m ~ ~ N O Z w = - p ~ Z Z ~ DC oc O ® ~ O ~ w ~ ~ ~ p ~ p W Z w Q ~ p OC z - O ~ I- ® - ~a ~ Z z ~ n o ®C - N J N p Q ~ ® = w V 0® ~ ~ ~ cn p Z w w J J p ~ ~ ~ Z w v p p w U w w w w 2 O ~ _ = w ~ p cUn cn ~ O -~~~_~~~~~~t~ O CD ~ CD O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C7 O ~C~D ~ ~ CD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n O n ~ ~ ~ ~ V) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CD O CD ~ ~ CD 0 0~ cD 0 0~ 0~ 0 CD ~ CAD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ pO ~ ~ a CAD ~ ~ 0 0 ~ tn_ CD CD O ~ ~ ~ ~ cj' ~ cD ~ cD ~ T ~ ~ n CD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O CD ~ ~ W ~.CD O C~p~~~ ~ ~ O O a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~•CD ~ ~ CAD ~ ~ CD 11 O ~ O ~ O ~ ~ ~ CD ~ O CD ~ ~-1. CAD ~ ~ r''' ~ ~ ~ O ~ € ` _ ~ ~ mod...-. r i ,,~z " ~y7 ' 9~ 2t f v :i:~, :i; D 1 ;-n Pf i ~ e ~I. ~ t°. r YIC Y - _ j-71_ 1~, ~I r . 'i . lyyyrna....~~. c c aaa^ asn~ ~'~~'~d Quc~ ^^acn fi=9raa ir3.J4~ CY j i. ~'fiC~ ~~~u ~ ig~ ~ ni ~d h 0 ~~t 9 ~`'1\. tf ,t f ? tl _ h t ~ Et{~ -;zE ~ ~ ~---t ~ r~ 'o ' "'f# i 1 f ~ FORT PIERCE FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT STRATEGIC PLAN Intent: In an effort. to promote orderly, safe, planned and desi~,ncd development, and. protect the natural environment, agriculture and open space ~i~ithin the boundaries of the District, the board of super,•~isors of the Fort Pierce Farms ~'4`ater Control District has prepared a Strategic Plan. The Strategic flan provides a clear path of action for District. activities, and prc~vities assistance to land oGVners and residents «=ithin the District. The; f'ollolving Coals, Objectives and Strategies allow for the practical and effective application oftime-tested. planning and management principles to the activities of the District, and for coor- dination with St. Lucie County, the City of Fort Pierce and the Fort Pierce Utilities Aud}ority. Goal 1.1: I~stablish a work program that supports and encourages a sustainable pattern of de- velopment that preserves agriculture, the natural environment and the quality of life in St. Lucie County . Objectiv=e 1.1.1: l~4anage drainage. s}=stem. Strategy 1.1.1..1: ~'taintain ownership and control of the exiting and. replacement. canal right-of -ways. Strategy l.l.l.2: Provide adequate maintenance to support historic land uses and development activities. Strategy 1.1.1.3: Participate in planning and designing flow ~~Says, and revie.~v plans as devel- opment is proposed. Objective 1.1.2: Review proposed development projects. Strategy 1. t.2.1: Allow a pattern of development that presen=cs rural character. Strategy 1..1..2.2: Integrate canals and drainage facilities into the design of Neighborhoods and Districts, though seamless landscape and public space planning strategies. Strategy L.I.Z.3: Allow public use and recreational activates adjacent to canal right-ot=ways. Strategy 1.1..2.4: Review feasibility of amcnitir_ing canal right-of=ways, and neighboring areas, consistent with the character of each Transect cone. 65 Goal 1.2: Establish a process of intergovernmental and interagency coordination. Objective 1.2.1: Coordinate with St. Lucie County. Strategy 1..2.1.1: Participate in planning efforts ta-ithin the District's area. Strategy 1.2.1.2: Provide assistance with the implementation of infrastructure projects. Strategy 1.2.1.3: Consider revising District. boundaries, compatible with adopted T~'C bt}undari~s, and consistent with County goals. Strategy :1.2.1.4: Collaborate with provision of water and sewer services. Strategy 1.2.1.5: C:oordinatc sits; plan review procedures ~vitll C:owity staff. Objective 1.2.2: Coordinate with City of Fort Pierce. Strategy 1.2.2.1: Provide inforn~ation to City Commission about proposed infrastructure pro- jects. Strategy 1.2.2,2: Coordinate site plan review procedures tivith City staff. Strategy 1.2.2.3: Participate in annexation discussions and proposals, as they pertain to District activities. Objective 1.2.3: Coordinate with Fort Pierce L'tilitics Authority. Strategy 1.2.3.1: Collaborate with provision of water and saver sen ices. Strategy 1.2.3.2: Provide input to FPUA during preparation of their yearly work. program and budget, for projects located in the FPFVVCD or affected by District activities. Objective 1.2.4: Coordinate with State government and legislative process. Strategy 1..2.4.1: Eliminate sunset provisions and consider adjusting boundaries, as needed. Strategy 1.2.4.2: Adopt plan. for emergency and disaster preparedness, ~vllich should include the use of long tcrnl financing for infrastructure repairs and improvements. Strategy 1.2.4.3: Draft proposed amendment to the District's legislation. as conditions change and new responsibilities are undertaken. ~G Goal 1.3: Establish programs far the public interest and benefit. Objective 1.3.1.: Pray°id~ public inf~irmation abaut FPF~4'CD activities and plans. Strategy 1.3.1.1: Prepare a yearly report tii-hich summarizes District activities. Goal 1.4: Tstablish programs that benefit property o~~~ners, in the public interest. Objective 1.4.1.: Provide incentives for projects that fon~=ard the intent and exceed. strategies of the FP~'VCD Strategic Plan. Strategy 1.4.1.1: Suppart efforts for flaw° ~vay design and construction. 67 N r~,~.l (Y1P~~lG, Z~rv~ REGULAR MONTHLY MEETING FT. PIERCE FARMS V7ATER CONTROL DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS October 8, 2007 Present were Supervisors Philip C. Gates,Jr. (by way of conference call; Steve Cassens and Rob Johnson, Attorney Frank Ii. Fee, III, Er_gir~eer Ray Garcia and Secretary Carol Donahue. Minutes of the Regular. Meeting held September_ 10, 2007 were approved. Mcticn was made, seconded and carried to approve the expenses for the month of Septenu~er in amount of $4, 311.03 with a transfer of $4,300 from Money Market to Checking. Tt:e Dish-lot's sunset date is 2017. In order to borrow money for future water and drainage needs the life of the District crust be .extended. Motion was made, seconded and carried that the District, through appropriate representatives, seek commitments from all members of the St. Lucie County Board of Commissioners favoring support of a Special Legislative Act converting the corporate existence of the District to perpetual in lieu of the existing sunset date during the year 2017, which, if successful, shall cause District to have appropriate legislation prepared f_or submission tc the Legi.s].ative Delegation. D'Ic;tion was made by Attorney Fee and carried to employ the f_ir_nt of Caldwell and Pacetti, LLP to represent the District at a cost of $225jhour or $250/hour if appearing before the delegation. The north St. Lucie River Water Control District is set tc sunset itz 7_019. It would be politically advantageous to convert both Districts at the same time. Motion was made by Supervisor Gates, seconded by Supervisor Cassens and carried to split the fee of ~~aldwell and Pacetti between the two Districts. ?rovaing cf canal rights of way will be starting soon. AVC sprayed on September 11th and 12th Canals 4 and 6 for hydrilla and water lettuce. On the 13th Canals 6 and 8 were sprayed for hydrilla and water lettuce. Canal 1 was sprayed on September 24th and October 8 for hydrilla. The Gates and Minton structures were cleaned of trash and trimmed by weedeater. Projects- under review are Visions at Indrio, King Leal Industrial Center, Legacy at Indrio, Emerson Green, Johnston Lakes, Taylor's Glen, Rocking Horse Ranch, and St. Lucie County Airport West Commerce Park and 25th Street/Juanita Ave Townhomes, SLC Airport West Commerce Park Phase 2, Indian River Trailer, Martin Office Building and SLC Airport Runway Expansion. The Airport Commerce Park permit was approved for drainage into Cana~_ 26. A Perpetual Easement was executed for the Canal No. 1 for ingress and egress, drainage, maintenance, stormwater runoff pretreatment prior to discharge into the canal. St. Lucie County shall submit to the District $250, OUO for the easement to be funded by grant r;~oney. Iwii t -i xi r~ fi3.r Y'~~z- }~~zc i nnc c }-r~ nn.r.~ }s.a Fr.:rn +-.lz•~. ~3 r~~r.~..:-. 1, o. mc*c, t- REGULAR MONTHLY MEETING FT. PIERCE FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS November 12, 2007 Present were Supervisors Philip C. Gates,Jr. Steve Cassens and P,ob Johnson, Attorney Frank H. Fee, III, Engineer Ray Garcia and Secretary Carol Donahue. Engineer Ray Garcia will be leaving the firm of Boyle Engineering. Tom McGcwan will fill the vacancy in the interim. Minutes cf the Regular Meeting held October 8, 2001 were approved. Motion was made, seconded and carried to approve the expenses for the month of Cctober in amount of $18,603.80 with a transfer of $18,600 f rom Money Market to Checking. Kenneth W. Edwards of Caldwell and Pacetti submitted an invoice in amount of $4,557.50 for legal services in preparation of proposed legislative revision. Motion was made, seconded and carried to approve invoice as submitted and transfer $4,500 from Money Market to Checking. Supervisor Johnson rnet with the Board or Cour?ty Commissioners and their views on extending the present sunset date of the 2017 of the District varied from nct taking over water responsibilities, wanting a five mar. District Board to stating the District was in a t.ransitior~ era and not necessary. A Strategic Planning Meeting has been scheduled for Ivonday~,~ November 19t to discuss the floway concept. Attorney Fee will submit a letter to St. Lucie County requesting placement on the December 4th agenda seeking support of a Special Legislative Act converting the corporate existence of the District to perpetual. AVC sprayed on October 22 for hydrilla on the main canal. On October 23rd Canals 1 and 5 were sprayed for grass, water lettuce, cattails and alligator weed. On October 24th Canals 5, 10, 12 and 13 were spz•ayed and on November 7th Canals 1 and 8 were sprayed. Mowing the the District Rights of Way is underway. Projects under review are Visions at Indrio, King Leal Industrial Center, Legacy at Indrio, Emerson Green, Johnston Lakes, Taylor's Glen, Rocking Horse Ranch, and St. Lucie County Airport West Commerce Park and 25th Street/Juanita Ave Townhomes, SLC Airport West Commerce Park Phase 2, Indian River Trailer, Martin Office Building and SLC Airport Runway Expansion. Draft Permit Certification criteria was presented Supervisors and . staff for review. The District has finished one project for St. Lucie River issues • Team grant for 2007 approximately $7,000 under budget, therefore propose adding vegetation removal along C-8 at approximately $10,000/$15000. For the 2008 year two items are proposed (1) Juanita Avenue Movile Home Park Stormwater Retro-fit, and (2) Canal bank modification at the Canal 1, Canal 4 intersection. ~D N ~D r o ~ ~ _ ~ n 0 m z 0 rC)OD-Ir~Zr'Oorn~~ ~ ~orn~p<rn~~c~c O ~ cn ~ N N ~ ~p ~ ~~cn ~ ~o~~ 3 rn ~ ~ ~o p~ ~~o ~ ~ o ~ cQ rn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~N ~ ~ _ ~ v ~ ? ~ a~ "0 ° ~ ~ ~.p° N ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ < ?1 ~ Z 'S N r Q. O D ~ ~co~ ~ ~ cn o ~v cn C ~ cQ ~ ~ ~ v ~ o ~ n a- ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~'o~z3 ~C7~ ~ O C~Q(D ~ O n O~~ CD ~ ~ CD ~ O - CD ~ ~ C ~ O ~ ~ p~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ V~~ ~ ~O O Q. ~ ~ CD Q ~ V ~ ~ O ~O ~ ~ ~ CD~~ N CQ _ ~ O ~ iU Q CD O ~ ~ Q ~~N (D ~ CD ~ CD ~ ~ O ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ r C7~ ~ can c°~~ c~u O ~ ~ X O ~ >C. ~ C~ C ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ CD ~ ~ N n O ~ ~ O O O O ~ C~ ~ O O 0 C~ CQ ~ p' O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ u,' O ~ ~ CD ~ O ~ cQ o ~ ~ c~ ~ _ cn ~ p ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ 0 CD o - ~ c~ ~ V ~rn n~cQD-~~r ~ oc ~ ~o~~ ocn o ~ cn p p~~~ BCD ~ O ~ n ~ ~ CD 0 CD ~ ~p ~ ~ ~ ~ CD ~ ~ ~ pC~DC~ O O p ~ n p ~p ~ v Q ~ rn ~ CD ~ Q^ ~p ~ ~ • ~ to CAD CAD ~ • ~ ~ ~ p ~p~ p gip. ~ ~ ~ ~ o~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o• ~ n• cn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ CD p S7 O /~wJ I _ _ ~ ~ ~ D ~ ~ n ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ CDC ~'p ~ ~ ~ Q. ~ CQ - ~ ~ cn c~ o ~~,~~o BCD O ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ Q ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o CD rn~ ooh' ~ ~ oo~ Q to ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ n Q~ O~~ ~ CD n O iv ~ p ~ to ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ Q CD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (p ~ CD ~ ~ O ~ ~ _ . CD _ . ~ ~ ~ V) ~ • • • ~ ~ ~ ~ O 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ c~ c~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ - C~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o v o ~ ~ o ~ o o ~ COMPREHENSIVE PROPOSAL FOR ADDRESSING PLANNING ISSUES IN THE WESTERN LANDS St. Lucie County Proposed Scope of Services Proiect Team Comuonent Lead • Project Manager: Marie L. York, FAICP, Univ. of Florida • Co-Project Manager: Gene Boles, FAICP, Univ. of Florida • Public Involvement: Marie L. York, Jean Scott, David Barth • Economic Analysis: William Stronge, Ph.D., Marie L. York o Bob eurchell (Advisor) • Land Design & Facilitation Ramon Trias, Trias and Associates • Natural Systems Expertise: David Barth, Jay Exum, Glatting Jackson • Review of Dev., Agri, & Conservation Jean Scott, Strategies for Livable Practices Communities • TDR & Rural/Ag Expertise: Tom Daniels, U. of Pennsylvania • Agriculture Expertise: Peter Spyke, Arapaho Citrus Mgmt • Development, Finance & Planning: Tim Hernandez, New Urban Communities • Land Use Amendments: Team Members, St. Lucie County staff Other Particiuants • St. Lucie County Staff • Department of Community Affairs • St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) • Indian River State College • Advisory Panel (Stakeholders, Administration, TCRPC, IFAS) Framework Summary The development of a framework for the western lands involves: 1. Assessment of current uses and trends (data collection, mapping, and analyses) 2. Literature review and overview of applicability of best practices 3. A significant public input process (modified American Assembly/charrette process (two sessions), focus group/educational forums, advisory committee, public hearings) 4. Creation of alternative scenarios 5. Evaluation of a transfer of development rights program 6. Fiscal assessment of the impacts of alternative scenarios 7. Recommendations for and selection of preferred scenario 8. Analysis for establishing aconservation-design based planning framework for consideration as the preferred scenario 9. Drafting of comprehensive plan amendments (along with supportive data and analyses) Marie L. York, FAICP (file 8/5/2009) 1 lO.Drafting of a land development code 11. Adoption of amendments and code Proiect Background This is a proposal to conduct a planning process for St. Lucie County that addresses fundamental issues regarding the future land uses of approximately 200,000 acres in the western part of the County. The basic goals of this effort are to consider new and innovative land use planning tools and strategies that: • protect and enhance property values • promote smart growth • foster continued agricultural production, and • insure cost effective provision of local government services through fiscal analysis. The premise for this effort comes from the County's commitment to smart growth and acknowledgement that a functioning network of agriculture, open space, and natural areas is essential for regional sustainability. In recent years, the Treasure Coast and its settlement patterns have been changing rapidly due to economic weakness in the agricultural sector combined with pressure from increasing land values and demand for development. Although the latter has abated due to the U.S. economic turndown, it is expected that in the long run growth will return as an economic driver in the Treasure Coast, especially if oversight mechanisms for growth management in Florida are eroded. In order to support its rural lands the region, through its Committee for a Sustainable Treasure Coast, adopted guiding principles for its rural lands: (1.) to develop a combination of tools and strategies that create an effective, functional, connected network of rural lands (open space, agriculture, and natural areas); (2.) to retain rural lands in such a way that it supports natural systems restoration; and (3.) to support a sustainable agricultural sector that contributes to the retention of rural lands and public purpose that justifies local, state, and federal support. To create a successful program for St. Lucie County it is important to investigate patterns of land uses that respect private property rights and provide opportunities for rural lifestyles and agricultural operations that are sustainable in terms of equity treatment for landowners, economic viability, infrastructure provision, water demand and usage, and environmental conservation. For a plan of this magnitude and scope and with such significant economic implications and environmental impacts, it is imperative that stakeholders and the public have a voice in creating a vision for the future of St. Lucie County's rural lands. Equally important is that such a vision be informed by an objective evaluation of the impacts of alternative futures, including the future of continuing with current policies and practices. Some of the key elements that are to be addressed in this process include: Marie L. York, FAICP (file 8/5/2009) 2 • Consideration of a natural systems (green infrastructure) plan • Resolving the definitions of open space in agricultural developments (percentages and arrangements) • Transportation and other public services to rural lands • Assessment of programs that utilize the transfer of environmental credits or development rights • Use of ecosystem payments for rural landowners that provide needed environmental services • Economic and land value analyses of alternative rural land uses This process is to include significant public participation, building upon previous efforts such as the Commission for a Sustainable Treasure Coast and the County's policies on Ag-PUD and the TVC. The consultant team will seek input from the stakeholders and public officials as to their perspectives regarding the best process for seeking public input. Suggested herein, however, is a proposal that includes a five-step inclusive public input process: 1. an initial series of educational forums (or focus group meeting) 2. a large public workshop--a modified American Assembly/charrette 3. reviews of progress and process by an advisory committee 4. a follow-up public workshop regarding final recommendations 5. the formal public hearing process before the Board of County Commissioners Being careful not to prejudice the outcome of the public input process, it is anticipated that the forthcoming recommendations may include the suggestions of a settlement pattern that addresses: • Retention of current local agriculture (cattle, citrus, nurseries) • Development of new agricultural opportunities or products • Conservation by design • Green projects (e.g.: solar and/or bio-fuel) • Green payments and funding sources (for environmental benefits for the common good) • A series of clustered developments (~~villages," "hamlets") • Transfer of development rights • Assignment of environmental values • Preservation of underlying uses allowed under current zoning It is anticipated that a successful program for the western lands will include a recommendation for meaningful "transfer of development rights" (TDR) program. Implementation of a marketable development rights transfer program will require background analysis that considers a tiered system, creation of incentives for the sending areas, and identification of appropriately located receiving areas. An evaluation of the concepts of establishing environmental credits may also be incorporated, with particular consideration being given to any potential drawbacks of such a system. Marie L. York, FAICP (file 8/5/2009) 3 There are several additional rural planning concepts that may be applicable to planning for the western lands of St. Lucie County. These include ~~New Ruralism," a relatively new movement that addresses preservation and enhancement of urban edge rural areas in recognition of their importance to the economic, environmental and cultural vitality of nearby urban areas. Another concept that may be suggested is a green payment program, whereby farmers are paid directly for environmental benefits through a governmental program. Agriburbia is another planning tool that integrates food production as an integral element in community design that supports a social network and contributes to economic viability. Conservation by Design is another approach that is designed to preserve healthy ecosystems. These various planning concepts will most likely have differing degrees of applicability to this area, given the particular composition of land uses in St. Lucie County. Marie L. York, FAICP (file 8/5/2009) 4 Scone of Services Task 1; Assessment of current uses and trends Data collection and GIS mapping of current uses (conducted by St. Lucie County staff in potential collaboration with IRSC) o Ownership o Size o Existing land uses o Zoning o Land values (inc. development potential under current rules) o Environmentally sensitive lands (public and private) o Historic hydrological systems (basic maps) o Current hydrological assessment (restoration, connectivity and valuation) (USF) o Capital improvement program (current & future infrastructure-roads, water, sewer) o Environmental assessment Lead: St. Lucie County staff Deliverables: above listed data and maps Additional deliverable (Consultant team and staff): Organizational meeting with consultant team and County staff for the purpose of: coming to agreement about data needs and availability, understanding expectations and respective responsibilities for the project as a whole. Task 2; Overview of rural deve/opment, conservation, and agricultural preservation tools (This serves an educational function and as background information for the public input process-this review will also identify educational speakers for particular topics for the public workshops. This review includes the efforts undertaken by other Florida counties including Collier, Sarasota, Lee, and Osceola. The topics to be evaluated would likely include: Alternatives to land development and value retention 1. Transfer of Development Rights 2. Environmental value assignment 3. New Ruralism 4. Conservation by Design 5. Natural systems conservation planning 6. Agriburbia 7. Conservation easements 8. Green Payment Program (and sources of funding); carbon sequestration 9. Cluster development (e.g.: Volusia County cluster ordinance) Marie L. York, FAICP (file 8/5/2009) 5 lO.Review of other relevant Florida counties agricultural lands practices and policies Deliverables: Written report of review and overview of viability of alternative strategies Lead: Jean W. Scott (with Gene Boles, Peter Spyke) Task 3: Fiscal assessment of current scenario (existing conditions) upon County services; as well upon landowners (Part I of two-part process, see Task 6) o Market demand for existing conditions o Land value retention o Impacts of public service provision associated with current scenario (e.g.: fire and EMS, sheriff, schools, transportation, well/septic systems) o Net costs of services and infrastructure not covered by fees and taxation o Net loss of agricultural lands (e.g.: production, tax revenue) Deliverables: • Meeting between project staff and County staff to establish framework • Assessment report (including spreadsheets, tables, figures and maps as appropriate) Lead: Dr. Bill Stronge with Marie L. York and Gene Boles (Advisor to project: Bob Burchell) Task 4: Solicit stakeholder and public input for vision based planning through amultiple-part process. The public and stakeholders will have opportunities to provide guidance and their collaborative viewpoints through amultiple-part process that includes: • a focus group (and/or series of educational forums) to educate, determine concerns and solicit opinions, which is to be followed by • a modified American Assembly/charrette for stakeholders and the public to make recommendations (full day) • an advisory group overview of the study process and progress • a follow-up American Assembly workshop to allow the public and stakeholders to comment on the preferred scenario recommendation • and the formal public hearings before the Board of County Commissioners. This format will allow participants to: • Understand the base line data and the long-term implications of that data for St. Lucie County's western lands Marie L. York, FAICP (file 8/5/2009) 6 • Learn from experts regarding land conservation planning and preservation tools • Seek community agreement on values and prioritize those values • Ascertain if values are being and will continued to be sustained or eroded • Propose a vision (or alternative scenarios) of what is desired that will sustain community values • Evaluate the tools that could be used for fulfillment of that vision and make recommendations The Public Visioning Process As listed above, this proposal suggests that the public input process include: an initial stakeholder focus group meeting (or series of educational forums), a large public workshop--a modified American Assembly/charrette, review of the process and progress by an advisory committee, a reconvening of the Assembly participants to review the preferred scenario, and the formal public hearing process regarding the final recommendations. The focus group (or series of educational forums) will be convened with primary stakeholders for the purpose of exploring viable economic possibilities for the western lands for understanding their issues. The second step would be to convene a large workshop, such as a modified American Assembly and charrette. This process is a public input mechanism whereby across-section of key players come together to learn about the issues, discuss their concerns in a face-to-face facilitated process, and propose options on critical public policy establishing a vision for the western lands. The modified American Assembly/charrette format gives participants an opportunity to understand the issues, learn of opposing viewpoints, express their own, discuss options and come to consensus on recommendations. Because the policy topic is well-defined in advance, this allows for research and its distribution prior to the Assembly. Preparations include identifying and inviting participants and developing a set of policy questions around the issues. During the Assembly, stakeholders break-out into groups to discuss issues and make recommendations. The following paragraphs describe the sequence in more detail. Background materials will be prepared in advance, based upon the review of best practices and collection of data (see tasks one, two and three). This is information will be available to participants prior to the Assembly. Upon convening, the process begins with opening comments and explanation, which is followed by presentation of the data and maps on current land uses, agricultural operations, environmentally sensitive lands, hydrology, habitat, etc. This, in turn, is followed by presentations on best practices or tools that could be used for developing a strategy that respects property rights while striving to meet smart growth objectives. The goals include the desire to protect important lands, foster continued agricultural production, and create sustainable development patterns that also support cost effective provision of local government services. Marie L. York, FAICP (file 8/5/2009) 7 During the Assembly/charrette, participants will be assigned to break-out groups, with equitable distribution of expertise or primary viewpoint within each group (for example: large agricultural operations or landowners, small agricultural operations or landowners, environmentalists, representatives of the development community, public officials, concerned citizens, etc., will represented in each group). In the facilitated discussions each group will address the questions before them, which have been prepared by the consultant team and staff in advance. The participants' responses will be recorded and in a reconvening of the whole group, a spokesperson for each will present their results. Building on the previous work, the next task is to seek community agreement on values, which are then prioritized and used to construct a community vision. This process builds upon the participants' previous discussions as well as their knowledge regarding the options and tools that had been presented in the background document and during opening presentations. This critical discussion will be designed to enable participants to understand their options and the consequences of their choices. It is also intended to give property owners a voice in assessing how values are to be retained. During this time facilitators and experts will be available to answer questions. Ultimately, the conclusion of the process involved creating a set of prioritized recommendations. This sets the stage for Task Five. Deliverables: • Identify major stakeholders with County staff and Commissioners, making sure that major stakeholders and across-section of viewpoints are invited • Reach out to key participants to explain the process and obtain buy-in • Convene one to three meetings with advisory committee for the purpose of identifying the major issues regarding the western lands and to discuss: o guiding principles and operating values o stakeholder presentations regarding agriculture operations o selections of speakers and other presentations o agreement on facts and data needs o preparation of questions/issues to be discussed o identification of stakeholder categories o identification of participants • Work with County staff to o market public participation workshops o assign group facilitators and recorders o distribute background analyses to participants • Host public workshop (the modified American Assembly/charrette) o Prioritize and summarize • Convene follow-up workshop • Create of a set of recommendations Marie L. York, FAICP (file 8/5/2009) 8 Lead: Marie L. York (with Gene Boles, Jean Scott, Tom Daniels, Ramon Trias, David Barth) Task 5: Produce a report that presents the conceptual master plan scenarios (most likely three) identifying major components based upon results of public workshops. Deliverable: Written report Lead: Marie L. York (with Gene Boles, David Barth, Jean Scott, Tom Daniels, Ramon Trias) Task 6: Fiscal assessment of alternative visions upon County services and landowners (this includes current scenario--see Task Three) for an anticipated maximum of three scenarios to be evaluated. o Market demand for alternative visions o Land value retention based on alternatives (impact upon landowners) o Relative impacts of public service provision associated with each scenario (e.g.: fire and EMS, sheriff, schools, transportation, well/septic systems) o Net costs of services and infrastructure not covered by fees and taxation o Net loss of agricultural lands (e.g.: production, tax revenue) Deliverables: • Meeting between key project staff and County staff to establish framework and agree upon responsibilities • Assessment report (including spreadsheets, tables, figures and maps as appropriate) Lead: Dr. Bill Stronge with Marie L. York and Gene Boles (Advisor to project Bob Burchell along with Tom Daniels) Task 7: Reconvene Assembly participants for ~/z day session to review and comment on the findings and if necessary, further refine the vision, recommend implementation strategies and comment on scenario preference, as applicable. Deliverables: Recommendation Report Lead: Marie L. York (with Gene Boles, Jean Scott, Ramon Trias, David Barth, and Tom Daniels) Marie L. York, FAICP (file 8/5/2009) 9 Task 8: Preferred scenario is recommended. Board of County Commissioners selects preferred alternative. Deliverables: Presentation of report and recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. Lead: Marie L. York (with Gene Boles, Jean Scott, Bill Stronge, Ramon Trias, David Barth) Task 9: Conduct analysis for establishing a specific transfer of development rights program, or similar conservation-design based planning framework, for the preferred scenario. Environmental credit system identified "Transfer of development rights" (TDR) program o Analysis and function of sending areas ¦ Agricultural opportunities ¦ Hydrological function ¦ Habitat ¦ Valuation of environmental land o Identification, analysis and function of receiving areas ¦ Minimum and maximum densities ¦ Implementation ¦ Design ¦ Transit opportunities Combination of best elements of a Transfer of Development Rights and Rural Land Stewardship program Deliverables: • Written report and presentation to the Board of County Commissioners Lead: Tom Daniels Task 10: Drafting of Comprehensive Plan amendments Deliverables: Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendments and supportive data and analyses. Lead: Marie York and Gene Boles (with Jean Scott, David Barth, Ramon Trias and Tom Daniels) Note: St. Lucie County staff will be responsible for identifying conflicts among policies and codes. Marie L. York, FAICP (file 8/5/2009) 10 Task 11: Adoption of amendments to be conducted by St. Lucie County staff with support of Project Team. Marie L. York, FAICP (file 8/5/2009) 11 r Bud e September 1, 2009 -February 9, 2011 Fixed fee contract for $465,049 Payment made upon completion of deliverables as per scope of services Personnel ¦ Claude E. Boles, Jr, PI $ 38,517 ¦ Graduate Assistants, (salary with benefits, tuition waivers as applicable) Lead Consultant (York Solutions, LLC.) $376,170 Sub Consultants (See scope of services) Direct Expenses $ 28,217 OF Indirect Costs @ 5 % of direct costs $ 22,145 Total Project Costs $ 465,049 Marie L. York, FAICP (file 8/5/2009) 12