Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutInformal Minutes 10-27-2009BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA INFORMAL WORKSHOP Date: October 27, 2009 Convened: 1:30 p.m. Adjourned: 4:45 p.m. Commissioners Present: Chairperson, Paula A. Lewis, Charles Grande, Doug Coward, Chris Craft, Chris Dzadovsky Others Present: Faye Outlaw, County Administrator, Lee Ann Lowery, Asst. County Administrator, Dan McIntyre, County Attorney, Diana Lewis, Airport Director, Mark Satterlee, Growth Management Director, Millie Delgado-Feliciano, Deputy Clerk SILVERLINE PLASTICS- the Grants Coordinator addressed the Board and provided information on this new company. Silverline Plastics has purchased the land and building of a prior plastic extruding company that had closed. The property is located on Enterprise Road in an area in close proximity to the county's Public Works site on Edwards and Oleander. Enterprise Road runs parallel to Oleander to the west. Silverline intends to make an approximate $6 million capital investment with $1 million for land and $5 million for building improvements and equipment. Land acquisition has been completed. Silverline projects employing 24 employees during their first year of operation, 36 during the second year, and 44 during the third year and thereafter. The average wage is projected to be $15.69 per hour. This is below the County's average wage of $ 16.97. 1GIG: If awarded a JGIG grant, the grant would be in the amount of $72,600 allocated over a three year period. AD Valorem: If awarded an Ad Valorem Tax Abatement, the abatement would be in the amount of $146,250 provided over a period of six years on a declining basis. There are two concerns with this company, first their wage is below St. Lucie County's average wage and the second is they normally give abatement to bring businesses to the County; this company is already based in St. Lucie County. This company purchased the existing business called Freedom Plastics. Com. Coward addressed this issue and stated this company was not aware of the incentives the county had to offer prior to locating here. They are committed to rehire those existing employee and expand their operations. He is in favor of doing what they canto assist them in the same manner they assisted the previous owner. Com. Lewis stated in light of the present situation, they could possibly make an adjustment to the job growth incentive plan. Com. Grande stated he does not see anything to incent here and they are an existing company. He felt they were almost saying "thank you for coming". He only sees a long range impact. He does not see the benefit and stated there would be fewer dollars available to use towards other incentives for new companies to come here. They will make a business decision over time to stay here or not. Com. Craft stated the money being used in the tax abatement program is a deferral from taxes they are paying. Com. Coward stated the only financial commitment Yhey have made is the purchase of the land for a million dollars and their indication in their business plan is, their desire to invest $5 million over the next two year however he does not see this guarantee in this economy that they will move forward with a $ 6 million investment. He believes they are interested in the investment but he believed the company sees the incentives giving him the ability to fulfill the business plan. He believes it's fair to provide them with comparable incentives. Com. Lewis stated she believed the job incentive program requires them to be here for 15 years otherwise the county will be refunded. She believes this would keep things in place for the next 15 years. Staff advised the Board they had made some of the capital investments but not the total $6 million. Com. Dzadovsky requested the County Attorney provide legal issues regarding any parameters with this program. The County Attorney stated the county's program the job incentive program is county created and county funded the rules are decided by the Board of County Commissioners and have a lot of flexibility. The ad-valorem program is state mandated approved by the voters and there are certain parameters that must be met. There are different programs that have different rules. Com. Dzadovsky asked if they had presented the idea of the business raising their wage to the county required level advising them the difference was less than what they would be receiving in incentives. Com. Lewis stated this may be worthwhile to consider especially since the wage is so close to the county requirement. Com. Coward stated he does not believe they have ever waived the minimum threshold, they have raised the level but not waived it and he believes they should not waive this threshold. Com. Craft questioned if there was not a requirement in the JGIG that a percentage of the employees be St. Lucie County based. The Grants Coordinator stated there are additional points awarded if they are St. Lucie County based but there are no requirements. The Grants Coordinator recommended this be approved due to today's economy and needing the jobs. He believes it would send a message to other companies they wish to incentivize. Com. Craft stated if they are going to receive both incentives they must meet the highest threshold available. Com. Dzadovsky stated he would like to ask the company about the $1.28 difference. Com. Coward stated maybe there should be a compromise it being not to give them both of the incentives. He recommended offering them the tax abatement and not give them the JGIG if they do not increase the wage. The County Attorney stated they could not offer them the ad- valorem tax abatement outright. The county would need to have a public hearing and approve an ordinance. We can tell them we would accept the application but it would be subject to a public hearing. The JGIG does not require a public hearing. 2 Com. Dzadovsky stated the idea is to put people to work. The $1.28 per hour difference in these types of jobs makes a big difference and they should ask that question if they would be willing to increase the wages. The idea of incentives was to create economic diversity. Com. Craft stated he believed the company should meet the minimum threshold to receive the incentives. Com. Lewis stated she would like to make sure they are looking at the right figures. It was the consensus of the Board not to lower the threshold. SENATE BILL 360 The Growth Management Director addressed the issue and provided the following information for the Board to review. He advised the Board staff has spent a considerable amount of time analyzing the Bill. The Growth Management Director provided the following background information. In response to passage of SB 360, staff has formed a Working Group to evaluate the provisions of the bill, determine their impact on County proceedings and develop recommendations on implementing the various components therein. To date, staff has recommended a "wait-and-see" posture to the Board as clarification has been sought on how the bill is to be implemented or interpreted, and for resolution to a constitutional challenge brought by several local governments- including St. Lucie County. A September 24, 2009 webinar update sponsored by the City of Weston on the status of the constitutional challenge to the bill indicated that it is unlikely that there will be a resolution to the challenge in 2009. As the window for applying for the statutory extension ends on December 31, 2009, and with no resolution to the challenge appearing in the near-term, staff recommends the Board consider setting policy for the further processing of SB 360 extension requests. There continues to be a debate around the state concerning the extent to which the extension provision applies to local development orders and permits. The current consensus view is that while the extension provision is poorly worded, it does apply to locally issued development order and building permits. This is the general opinion provided by the Florida Association of County Attorneys Growth Management Committee. The extent to which each jurisdiction interprets and/or implements the extension provision appears to be a local decision. This is based, in part, upon the written opinion of the Department of Community Affairs in their written policy statement on the extension provision. That statement includes the following quotation. All other requests for statutory extension must be found to be in significant compliance with all approved development order conditions of approval no later than December 31, 2009. Applications found to be substantially compliant with the conditions of approval will have a Growth Management Order prepared memorializing the extension. The extended project is then entered into the GM and/or Building Permit database for further tracking and monitoring. A draft Growth Management Order is attached. Statutory development order extensions will be granted for two years from the date of County approval expiration 3 +~~ .~~ .r Should staff be unable to determine if a request for statutory extension is not in significant noncompliance, the item may be referred to the BOCC for action. Should a request be denied by staff, any appeal would be to the BOCC. Staff recommends statutory extension and LDC extensions run concurrently. Once the statutory extension expires; there is not eligibility for a further LDC extension and those wishing to pursue the project must reapply. Included in the Growth Management order and building permit extension letter Memorializing the statutory extension will be language advising that St. Lucie County is a party to the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of SB 360. Should the lawsuit be successful and SB 360 is ruled unconstitutional, the extension provided there in will be void. Staff recommended the Board review and discuss the draft SB 360 statutory extension policy and provide further direction on implementation. "Local governments will have to determine the scope of the statutory extension for local government-issued development orders or building permits except those that pertain to developments of regional impact." Seventeen requests for extensions have been received so far and it is estimated there are approximately 60 projects potentially eligible as their expiration date falls within the statutory window. Staff has conducted a preliminary analysis of the conditions of approval for each request and created a tracking matrix. To date, one request for extension has been denied for falling outside the statutory window. Also, one request has been determined to be in significant noncompliance with the conditions of approval and that has been established through the issuance of a letter. Staff has provided a response letter to the other requests acknowledging receipt of the request and stating that the County will follow up when an extension policy has been set. The Building Division estimates that there are approximately 750 building permits that may be eligible if extensions are granted for all permits, including those that are not associated with a project having FDEP or SFWMD permits. Draft SB 360 Extension Procedures Based on the preceding, staff has outlined the following SB 360 statutory extension procedure: Applicants for potentially eligible development orders and building permits must provide a letter to St. Lucie County no later than December 31, 2009 requesting the extension and provide the information required under Section 14, subsection3. Staff is also recommending a fee of $500.00 to cover the cost of reviewing and processing the extension requests. A $75.00 fee is proposed for extensions of building permits not associated with a development order. Staff will evaluate each request and make a determination of whether the application is substantially in or out of compliance with the conditions of their development order or building permit. In general this review will consist of evaluating each approving document for timely addressing of conditions of approval. Failure to timely meet conditions of approval. Failure to timely meet conditions of approval that involve dedications of right of way, installation of required infrastructure, code enforcement violations or non-payment of proportionate fair share are examples of substantial non-compliance. 4 Applications found to be in significant noncompliance will be issued a warning letter, notice of violation, and/or be subject to initiation of formal enforcement as applicable. The letter will provide a compliance date of December 31, 2009, past which the application will be determined to be ineligible for the statutory extension. The Growth Management Director recommended a 2 year extension and provided the draft letter as follows: DATE NAME ADDRESS CITY, STATE ZIP RE: TWO-YEAR STATUTORY EXTENSION PROVIDED BY SENATE BILL 360 TO THE SCHEDULED EXPIRATION DATE TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT ###### The St. Lucie County Code Compliance Manager has reviewed the request for building permit extension timely submitted and in accordance with the provisions of Senate Bill 360 on behalf of (Property owner/contractor), and has made the following determinations: 1. On, XXX, 2007, the above building permit was issued and is scheduled to expire on XXX, 2008. 2. On, June 1, 2009 Florida Governor Charlie Crist, signed into law from the 2009 Florida Legislature, the Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 360, 2nd Engrossed version, more commonly known as the "Community Renewal Act" (the "ACT"). 3. Section 14 of this Act provides that in recognition of the 2009 real estate market conditions, any local government issued development order or permit that has an expiration date of September 1, 2008 through January 1, 2012, may be eligible to be extended and renewed for a period of two (2) years following its date of expiration. 4. Section 14 of the ACT further provides that the request for statutory extension be timely made in writing by December 31, 2009; identify the specific authorization for which the extension is requested, the intended use of the extension and the anticipated time frame for acting on the authorization. 5. Further, pursuant to Section 14 of the Act, the request for statutory extension must be reviewed by Code Compliance staff and found not to be in significant noncompliance with the original St. Lucie County development order and building permit. 6. Any extension granted pursuant to Chapter 2009-96, Laws of Florida (SB 360), is the result of the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners' good faith interpretation of SB 360. By accepting this extension, the applicant acknowledges that there are portions of SB 360 that are ambiguous, and that there are contrary interpretations of SB 360. The applicant also acknowledges that the constitutionality of 56360 has been challenged. Accordingly, by accepting this extension, the applicant agrees to hold St. Lucie County harmless in the event a court of competent jurisdiction determines that the extension granted by St. Lucie County were not legally granted, or in the event that the extension is subsequently revoked based on the constitutional challenge to SB 360. 7. This statutory extension is exclusive of and runs currently with any request for approval extension that may be provided by the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. Any Land Development Code extension must be applied for, reviewed and approved in accordance with the provisions of the land Development Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 14 of the Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 360, 2"d Engrossed version, more commonly known as the "Community Renewal Act" of 2009, the above building permit has been found to be eligible for and consistent with the provisions contained in Section 14 of SB 360 such that the approval granted under that building permit is extended for two years and shall now expire XXX, 20. 5 Sincerely, Christopher Lestrange Code Compliance Manager Building Official Cc: Permit File AIRPORT RENT ABATEMENT The Airport Director advised the Board she had received 3 requests for rent abatement. A survey from area airports was done asking if they had given or considered giving rent abatements. Key Air, a Fixed Base Operator on the Airport, currently has two leases with the Airport. One lease is for an existing FBO operation that they had assigned from a previous tenant. The other lease is for undeveloped property that they planned to develop with a new terminal and hangars. Key Air has notified the Airport that they are requesting a three year total rent abatement on the undeveloped parcel along with a delay in their development plans or that they would cease rent payments on this property on November 1, 2009. The impact to the Airport budgeted revenues for FY 2010 will be $321,708. Under the terms of the lease, if Key Air defaults on their lease for non-payment, the County can terminate the lease and retain the security deposit of $60,925. In addition to this impact, the other FBO, Volo Aviation, has requested a reduction in their annual CPI adjustment from 5% to 2.4% due to economic conditions. ASI, a company in the Airport Industrial Park, has also requested rent abatement, although there was not specific amount requested. These budgets for rent abatement would have a significant impact on the Airport's budget and the ability to provide the local match of $485,600 for a project in the FY 2010 Capital Program, the Taxiway C Rehabilitation project. A Pavement Management Report prepared for FDOT in February 2008 indicates that Taxiway C is in fair condition northwest of Taxiway D, but is in poor condition to the southeast of this point so will need to be rehabilitated in the 2012 time frame. Per the FDOT staff, the Airport cannot delay executing the Taxiway C grant for another year. If not used, the $1,942,400 grant will go back to FDOT to use for another project. Due to the Key Air notice that they intend to stop rent payments on their undeveloped parcel lease if they are not granted a three year abatement of the rent, staff is not in a position to support any rent abatements at this time. Unless the Board directs otherwise, staff will prepare a response to Key Air that their request for three year rent abatement will not be considered. It is staff's position that the Key Air lease for the undeveloped parcel be terminated if they default due to non-payment and staff will be prepared to take this to the Board for consideration. Staff also intends to proceed with the Taxiway C project unless Key Air defaults and the Taxiway C project will have to be cancelled because planned local match on this project will need to be used to backfill the revenue loss from Key Air's default. If Key Air does not default, staff would consider a recommendation to the Board in December for possible tenant rent abatements using the Project Reserves of $101,000. If Key Air defaults in their payment for the undeveloped parcel, this would impact the Airport's budget. Com. Grande questioned if staff saw any advantage to giving an abatement. 6 The Airport Director indicated she did not see any advantage and felt it would set a stage for precedence. The County Administrator stated a few weeks back she was approached by VOLO regarding their ability to absorb the 5% CPI and how it would impact their sub-tenants. She thought they would be in a better position to consider what they could do to help the tenants at the Airport due to the economy. Her initial thought of providing some type or relief in getting the letter from Key Air, she stated the $321,000 is factored into the Airport's budget, should they not be able to pay it will create a deficit in her budget for operations and that would need to be filled in some way by coming back to the Board and provided out of contingency money. It is not a recommendation she is inclined to bring to the Board. She recommended placing the taxiway project on hold and with the $485,000 general fund local match tied to the grant funding she is not sure if the Board wants to keep it on hold. If they hold to their position and staff brings an item to the Board to terminate the lease, keep the deposit and place the property out for lease, however, she is not sure how quick they would be able to obtain a tenant this year to put the funds back into the budget. Com. Dzadovsky questioned the increases for lease holders and how the Board would follow this. The County Attorney stated the Board could under certain circumstances say they would like to have a uniform rate for all the tenants and go back and do a lease modification with proper language otherwise the terms would apply. Com. Craft stated his concern was with Key Air. He is sympathetic but he does not see how they can extend what they are looking for with VOLO sitting there and paying significant amounts at this time. If they extend the request to Key Air, then VOLO will request the same and it would go in a circle. The VOLO representative advised the Board they have 5 vacant buildings at this time. Com. Dzadovsky stated simple business is if they cannot pay their rent, the deposit is taken and go forward ending the situation. Mr. Brad Kost, President of Key Air, addressed the Board and stated when they put forth the letter requesting consideration delay to construct the facility it was based on the economic situation and the Airport infrastructure. They are paying a considerable amount of rent and more even so what is due and are paying more than VOLO on vacant land they cannot use. Com. Craft stated Key Air knew the condition of the Airport without any commitment from the County. Mr. Kost stated the five year plan indicated strengthening of the pavement. The Airport Director stated in the 2002 Master Plan !here was no indication that they would increase the pavement strength over the 60,000 lbs., and this was in effect at that time. Mr. Kost stated they were asking for an extension they do not wish to abandon the plan or project and are committed to investing the dollars. Com. Craft expressed his concerns with other tenants coming forward and requesting the same. Mr. Kost stated their project is a particular development project and for them to delay the project makes sense for all involved. Com. Coward stated he was not interested in tying up property for 3 years with no real commitment and believes there will be other opportunities coming their way. 7 The Airport Director stated Key Air paid 1lcents a square foot for the undeveloped parcel. This was deal because they were given 19 months to get their project underway. What is going to come into play according to lease, is the rent will increase as of December 1St to 23 cents a square foot. When Mr. Kost gave them the letter initially, staff said they would entertain a one year delay in increasing the rent to 23 cents, leaving it at 11 cents delaying their construction schedule for one year. Staff did not receive a response to that and then Key Air advised them they were requesting three years or would walk away. Mr. Kost advised the Board it would be very difficult at the present time to construct the facility today. He stated his company was still dedicated to this project and would appreciate any consideration. Com. Craft stated he was comfortable giving staff direction to work this out and hopefully agree on something and bring it back to the Board. The Airport Director stated her concern was the grant from FDOT with a match and she was afraid to lose it. This is a taxiway project that had been identified. They would be able to push it out further and apply for another grant and change the name. She stated whatever she works out with the tenant will affect her budget and she does not wish to cause an impact on the general fund. Com. Grande stated we should not be basing our inrreases on the CPI. LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION ISSUES The Grants Coordinator addressed the listed legislative issues. He stated the St. Lucie County Legislative Delegation will hold its annual delegation meeting on Friday, November 20, 2009 from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at the St. Lucie County Commission Chambers. Anyone who wishes to have a local issue introduced for the 2010 Legislative Session must submit the issue to each member of the delegation no later than Tuesday, November 10, 2009. The Board is being asked to provide direction to staff regarding issues to be presented to the St. Lucie County Legislative Delegation at its upcoming meeting, November 3, 2009. County Jail Housing State Prisoners They presented this issue 3 years in a row and have not received a response due to the state budget and he does not anticipate any action this year, his recommendation is that it not go forward. Medicaid Nursing Home Billings This issue also was presented for a number of years with no action. They received notification by the Association of Counties this issue will be coming forward this year possibly. The Community Services stated the Agency for Health Care Administration has proposed increasing the monthly share that the County currently provided for Medicaid Nursing Home billing from $55.00 to $202.00 per month per client. This increase would represent an increase of over 247%. Any increase in the per client share would severely impact the County's budget. The aging population and the population growth have increased the County budget responsibility without any change in the $55.00 share. Therefore, it is very important that the current required level of responsibility remain constant or decreased and not increased. The Community Services Director stated while they do have stimulus dollars, however this money will run out. While they have stimulus dollars they cannot increase it, but this money will run out in 2010 and if it goes forward again it will cause an impact on the county budget. 8 State Housing Initiative Program and Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund Two programs that have been funded by Trust Funds that were established through user fees are the State Housing Initiative Program and the Transportation Disadvantaged program. These two programs provide vital services that assist our most vulnerable citizens with a hand up than a hand out. St. Lucie County urges our delegation to only allocate the SHIP and the TD Trust Funds for those two programs and not divert the funds to the general fund. Additionally, the repeal of the cap on the Housing Trust Fund is necessary to keep the SHIP funding as a viable source of funding for housing the elderly, the infirm and our essential workforce. It was the consensus of the Board to keep this issue on the list. Potential new issues: Rate of inmate hospital billing -recommend this go forward he believes the Board has drafted a resolution regarding this issue. Com. Craft stated lie would like to advise them they want the Medicaid rate. He would like for it to be noted the cost savings figures to the taxpayers. He believes this is an important number the delegation needs to see. He recommended drafting a resolution to be adopted by the Public Safety Coordinating Council and then submit it with them. Offshore drilling -Com. Coward stated this is something they do not want but would like to promote renewable energy and ask the state to adopt the RPS and give them an actual solution than just focusing on what they know. Senate Bill 360 The Growth Management Director addressed the Board (his beginning comments were unintelligible) He addressed strengthening governmental coordination for extra jurisdictional impacts if they are not going to put the DRI back in the process and requested they require it to go to the RPC for mediation and secondly adopt the ability to (unintelligible) and thirdly to diminish the DCA's role. LOCAL PREFERENCE ORDINANCE The Management and Budget Director gave an update on the impact and the status of the regional reciprocity issue for St. Lucie County in Martin, Okeechobee and Indian River counties. She provided a spread sheet indicating the Bids/RFP using the local preference ordinance. It indicated on the spread sheet the majority of the bids are being award to local companies. Indian River has adopted their local preference and the reciprocity and extended it to SLC, Okeechobee, Osceola, Brevard and Martin counties. Martin County had extended their local preference ordinance and reciprocity to Indian River, Palm Beach, and SLC and Okeechobee counties Okeechobee has a local preference ordinance but it only extends to their own area businesses. She has contacted them to see if they would extend it or provide for reciprocity. FAA POLICY ON RUNWAY REHABILITATION 9 Com. Dzadovsky requested to review where they are today with the issue. He addressed identifying the need which is to refurbish the runway because it is in poor condition. Second, applying for grants that will help them to achieve those repairs. They need to reach a threshold in regards to what it will cost, the estimated amount and the match to achieve the grant. The FAA provides 90% of the funding the other 5% from the county and 5% from FDOT. The original amount was $ 4.2 million this means the county would need $210,000 as a 5% match. The Airport Director stated the 2002 master plan talks about 60,000 lbs. They talked about increasing the capacity on the new runway not the existing runway. It talked about taxiways being constructed at 60,000 lbs. capacity and this was only a discussion at the master plan meeting. Com. Dzadovsky stated the current discussions are the gross weight may be something they want to do. The Airport Director reminded him that this was only in draft form. Com. Dzadovsky informed the Board that it is the FAA's position in order for them to consider an increase in gross weight an environmental assessment must be done as well as a needs assessment. Com. Craft questioned if it is a policy or a requirement. The Airport Director stated it is a requirement. Com. Dzadovsky stated although there are certain segments there still is the opportunity to move forward differently if it is in the best economic sense of the project. There are options available as to how the process takes place. The Board has not had the ability to have a discussion because the FAA requires the 6 steps and there is no way to do it outside of these steps. Com. Craft stated he differs because he believes they have the ability to increase the strength of the runway and add the asphalt. The problem is the FAA will not permit them to advertise the increase of the weight so the money invested the county would not get the benefit because they would not be able to allow aircraft over 60,000 Ibs to use it. Com. Dzadovsky stated he believed they could do steps 1-3 bring 6 to number 4 and take 4, 5 which is the environmental and needs assessment after the fact. Com. Craft stated we are in the middle of airports that have greater weight and the FAA may not want that and they may have a different strategy. Com. Dzadovsky stated he is only asking for someone to look at the circumstances today. They have not been able to have a conversation to get that far. He would like to save the tax payers money in years 3 and 4 or however long it will take to get to that process. Com. Grande stated there has not been a vote by tht Board to increase it and maybe they will, however they need to make that decision. This should be something that goes to the FAA. Com. Craft stated this was what Com. Dzadovsky was asking for today. Com. Coward stated the Board needs to have a policy discussion on this issue. He would like to educate himself better and would like to know what the impact would be to the surrounding communities, acceptable to businesses and find out how they feel about it. Also, he stated if the master plan indicates a certain amount of weight, how do they increase or improve it. They may need to modify the master plan in order to legally pursue it. 10 The County Attorney advised the Board they need to stay consistent with the airport plan. This is a county driven plan and has to go to the FAA for approval. He asked if they could modify a part of the plan. The Airport Director stated they have an airport layout stating they have a runway at 60,000 and if the Board wished to change it, they could adopt a new layout to change it, however, the FAA will be asking what is the justification and then an environmental analysis must be done. Com. Lewis stated at the Airport Conference in Miami, this was a topic of discussion and it was felt it was needed to move forward with the rehabilitation now, knowing the other issues (assessments) would be coming in the future. Com. Coward stated if they were going to do things that were not consistent with the master plan they need to go back and revise it. This is the process they are in presently and this will be the document to decide what it will be in the next five years. Com. Coward advised the Board he was hesitant to move forward with the investment prior to having all that is necessary in hand, i.e. the community's approval. Com. Craft stated there are indications from the committee that they are interested in increasing the strength of the runway. The Airport Director stated in chapter 4 it states that due to the availability of the aircrafts and changes in manufacturing 90,000 Ibs may be the appropriate number in the future but they do not see it within the first five years, they see is within the five and ten year time frame. Com. Coward asked if it could be pushed out further. Com. Dzadovsky questioned the sun setting of the grant. The Airport Director stated they had to bid the project in May of last year in order to apply for the grant. They had a 180 day window, the prices were guaranteed for that time. In September when they received the grant, they had already used 90 days of those 180 days. Staff attempted to try and get the project done. The tenants stated if they could not have this project done by Thanksgiving; there would bean economic impact on them. This is where they are today and are supposed to start this project by the end of this week, so they do not have additional time to change. Com. Dzadovsky questioned if they had talked to the contractor to see if the numbers would hold for the next 6 or 9 months and also talked to tFie tenants been given the option to wait for six to nine months when tourism is not so hectic. The Airport Director stated they have not had discussions with the contractor. With the grant they had discussions with the FAA about this issue, strengthening the runway versus rehabbing it, they were advised they got the grant and it competed against the other requests for grants because they had a rehab project not a pavement strengthening project. If we are holding it to strengthen it, then they would need to go back to the FAA. With the tenants, they have been vocal about this project and if it cannot be completed by Thanksgiving then they will wait until next summer. Com. Dzadovsky recommended having a review done due to the set of circumstances around this issue and have the FAA give us a letter that under no circumstances they will not do anything more than this. He would like to be able to say in the future they have done everything possible. 11 Com. Grande stated the Feds would not fund this project and the State would not put any funds towards anything that was not a re-hab project. Increasing the scope of the project may jeopardize it. They are not investing in growth projects and the runway needs re-hab now. Com. Coward stated the project is geared up and ready to go and is needed right now. He does not know how we would achieve all the reviews required within 6 months and address the existing need. Com. Lewis stated she had the same questions as to what does the weight mean and would like a picture of the various models of the aircrafts so that she would know what they are talking about. Com. Dzadovsky asked if core samples have been taken of the runway to see if we would meet or exceed the level. He believes when it was constructed it was to a pretty hefty level since it was for military use. The Airport Director stated the designer for the runway did an analysis based on 60,000 Ibs aircraft and when he ran the model again at 80,000 Ibs aircraft he realized it was a small amount of increase in the pavement that would allow you to go up to 80,000. Com. Dzadvosky stated he felt the runway was at an extremely close to another level. He believes the FAA should take a look at circumstances in order to say taxpayer's money down the road. Com. Craft stated he did not have a problem stating his position to the FAA asking to change their general rules for everyone but not strictly for St. Lucie County. Com. Grande stated he looked at what was serving the Bahamas and this area and he believed it would not fit on the 60,000 Ibs limit. Com. Dzadovsky stated he would like a letter of rejection to be in the record. He does not have any documentation as to what the FAA has stated. Com. Grande expressed concern with requesting this letter and the fact it may jeopardize the project. Com. Craft stated if an analysis needs to be done, it would not matter. He believes they have done well in building a relationship with Orlando and Washington, D.C. and he believes this is how they manage to get their projects through. Com. Dzadovsky stated he was not attempting to ensue authority or go outside he was looking to change the order of how the process was completed. Com. Coward stated he felt it was not fair to put this totally on the FAA and if this was such a priority issue, why was this not worked over the last several years when they were seeking the re-hab dollars. Com. Dzadovksy stated he felt what moved it was the core samples and they were not done five years ago. It was just recently the information was made available. Com. Craft commented on the fact they have an interesting year ahead, to the figure of an 11.5% reduction as brought forth by the Property Appraiser, and requested the Board send a letter to the cities to schedule a meeting to have a discussion on what this figure means to them and how it may impact the county and how they can work together in different aspects of their business to help curb costs. He expressed his concern with the cities dropping a service the county may have to pick up. 12 Com. Coward requested an update be provided on the green position that was approved and asked if it had been advertised. The County Administrator advised the Board it had not been advertised as yet. The County Administrator stated she would like to advise the Board of her thought process regarding this position. They have cut back on staff and will need to look on how to adjust the workload. Com. Coward addressed the vacant Asst. County Administrator's position and felt it should be filled to assist in the workload. The County Administrator advised the Board she was having a difficult time considering staffing up with 2 Asst. County Administrator's knowing where they may be in the year 2011/2012. She has restructured and re-named the green position and will be bringing it to the Board, but she has purposely held off on the Asst. County Administrator's position. Com. Craft stated he wished to talk to the County Administrator and see if it is necessary to hire another Assistant County Administrator and if she has concerns about our budget or if we need to use the funds for other places that may be hurting the county worse than filling that position. Com. Coward expressed his concern with burning out the County Administrator and the Asst. County Administrator. He believes they do need to have a dialogue regarding this position. The County Administrator stated she had a problem with the Asst. County Administrator's position moving forward knowing the numbers and where they maybe headed. She hopes to have a discussion with the Board regarding the numbers before she is comfortable with putting this position out in the street. She in good conscience cannot move forward at the moment with this position. She advised the Board she would be walking around to each Board member regarding the restructuring of the green position in the near future. There being no further comments to be made, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. 13 N N N N N N r ~D r W r - V r 01 r In r A w r ;" Ql Vt A w N r O •' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rn \ ~ \ 00 \ p ~ 70 D m m * ~ ~ N ~ r nri O V r m m A ~~. c \ O o \ \ t n \ \ \ \ \ ~ m D ~ ~ O O O O O O O O r^ ~ v 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o M O D m O v+ Z ~ m ~ ~ ~ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ~ ~ ~ , p O O O O O O O O C O 7 ~ C N < ~ m G N N< y h m~ v rn 0 N N l-1 v O Z v v ~ O ' ~ p i O rp o y o_ O O a p ~. O ~ v~ ~, ~ m n N d~ 7 ~~ m N rn ~ o ' ~ • ~ ~ p ~ N p+ f-1 n O 3 r x n o v O ~ v n 3 a ~ ~ o v D Cl ~ o < o a _ ~ ~ ~ C ~ m ~+ ~ N 3 m d ~ 'Z v ~ of .O+ p v O ~ O O ni O O• m F N ~!+ ~ C ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ rp rC v (D rD v N rD v v N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O 3 N ~ pl 3 pl > OJ > OJ > p) > ~ o ~ M ~ m v+ r a N ~+ ~ n O N ~ r N r W r N a oo C A r V r N ~ ~ x C O A " N ~ C A d ~ ~ ~ ~ - 7 0l rD ~ H 3 d O ~ ~ m , .. N '* O O j c < rp O' ~' O 7 O 7 O ~ 00 O O O '~ N p0 7 to •* T X n n O p0 7 ap N ~ O m N N 7 H ~ O y, e+ ? S rD ~ ~ S C > x > O x a x x m ~ rp ~ ' 3 m ~ ~ ~ fD 3 ~ ~ . . rp D ~ ~ O ~ oo pi r c > > < ~ , rD < v0+ ~ 7 O p < O W ~ N p fto o ~ ~ 0 v 7C m ~n > C ti. ~ N 7 7 O ~+ O O c ~ ~ c A n a D ~, A y C o O ~ d ~. r- r ~ ~ ~ S ~ 7 x ~, ~ o • m 3 01 - o •* rp ~.. r r r v D ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ r rn \ ~ N v+ \ r \ r \ N r r m JO l0 lD w O N 01 V V 01 lD O O O T \ N \ N \ N \ N \ N \ N \ N \ N \ N \ N \ N \ N ~ O O 0 0 O O O O 0 0 O O D O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ V V 00 Ol V V W Ol V In Ol l0 ~ i " ~ ~ m m i m ~ m O D r p H ~ 1I~ r p N ~ ~ N IA r p VI N H N '~ ~ O O O O ~ O V O O O O O O ~ p ~ O V V OD O1 Oo Q1 V In 01 l0 ~ ~ O r r N ~ O N N N N W N O r r N Ul lfl N ~-' W lG Op W N V O 1 l r Oo r V1 O V1 A l0 ! v m x r r r r r r D ~ r N N \ W r r V N t N r r ~ _ r \ N t0 \ N O \ N O \ N N \ N r \ N V \ N \ N D \ N l0 \ N O \ N ~O \ N O O O O O O O O O O O O O Z O lD O lD O l0 O 00 O lp O tD O l0 O 00 O 00 O V O 00 O lD o c z m g ~ ~ m - _ O ~ Z O r r r r N T OO lG V A O N A N N V1 r r n ('1 Z 0 o c ~ o ~ 0 3 d ~ m m ~ A o Z O N O O O O O O O N O N ~ ~ 7 Z ~ O y p p ~ ~ ~ Q ~_ ~ ° ' r D ~ O 7 o ~ ~ ~ oa rp cn - ~ 3 rp o ~- ~ o n ~ ~ a n 3 3 y ci rp rr ~ v d n .: K ~ rp ?< < ~• • x- rp .* ~ ~+ ~' n ~ O .pir fl d N ~ ~ ~ rp O ~ ~ O O m s a 3 0' ' ~ ~ : o' p °° ~ ~ rp ,,, fD ~ ~ rp ~ ~ w' (D O O .~ ~ 7 n ~< K n '~ O~ n .~ ~ _ j 7C N ~ `° N ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ° rp ° 3 ~ o o n _ rD j ~ c ° ° 3 A c ? ° O °__ ~ 0 o0 O ° ~ ~ ~ N h ~ ~ ' i d ~ y pl = 00 . -r 3 ~ ° ' N o ? C 3 eY o 2 n y 01 _ O ~ - r c N O ~ o ~ H ~ ~ v ~ ~ pi n O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O- ~ .-. o a s n m r p 3 O Z ~ 3 ~', o ~+ 3 c~ ~ m ~ ~ v ~ z ~ ~ ~ a - ~ '~ > ' ~ ~ v+ z > f O c~ ~ C N p r ~ n ~ ~ ~ F ~ ~ O o i ~ o < ~ 0 ~ m O ry O n Z ~ d O r N v m r rp c x O '~' ~' ~ Oi Oi r O r O r r r O lG N O C N y r N \ W r N r r _ Q~1 7 .~v O r \ lO \ O \ N \ r \ V \ lD \ O \ tD \ * ~ * O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O r r r r r O r r r r r O O i0 r O r O rn v m m c x I u' ~ m r r r r Q~ C ~ N Z r N l0 N O N N r N V N l0 N O N l0 N 7 O O O O O O O O O O r r r r I r r r r r r r r r O r O r r W W O m x m //Z~ VJ O Z ^m k.J m D N l ~_ 0 v 0 CO 0 O T 'O v! Q W ry~ V W LL Z Z W H X w C'7 m ~, .~ ~ ~, O 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N c ~ W \ O \ \ \ ~ Z 0 C ~ ~ C 7 0 ~ \ 111 \ 01 .\-~ N 11 f+1 W ~ ` M X 7 111 w a 1n •--~ ti O .--i ~ O ti ti O .•-i ~ O N N O O N N N N N ~ O tD C ti ~ O tf ~ L O f0 \ to 00 ~n O C 7 N ~ 01 . -I 1 j '~ N ~ ~ O ~ X 7 y N p w a v~ .~ Z N ~ ~ C ~ F V p C - f0 w `n tv ~ ~ O ~ 3a ~ ~mY o°ov ~ _ V p ~ ~ L Q a v d o H (7D ~ p ~ ~~ 3 00 ° J p m n a c C ~ v '^ .` fO o ~ 7 L (0 T U U Z 7 Y L. L N w N F n~ H- ~ c c .n ~ .~ o v m ~O n o v a w w O -O U L m` T ~ Z~ ~~ •N N c~ O L L7 ~ ~ c L 7 L y H Y L ~ in d C O i~ O V H w Q F ~ N a ~ G1 C C C .~ -O O O Q ~p 00 O 7 G1 ~ T C C ~ ~ W C O ~' c m v ~ 7 v ~ ~ v y v ~ oN `n cc _ ~ +_' ~ -O Y U m C t0 ~ > Y m ^ "- m O +0+ C Q u y "> w N YO -O O O O ~ N _ O N p v m ? O y O O +' to ~- c N ~~ ~' ~' u O N n L n N ~ ~ d d > 'O w 7 O Q O ? ~ O C ~ j ~ 'O N ~ ~ O ~ ~ 3 a N w L v ~ C ' ~ u H Z ~~ u G1 ~ N a w i1 O ~ N a n C 7 x w U C Gl d 0 Y N . - N • ' C N c O ~ N c ,,, c v 0 O p w p p L ~ O ~ vi ' T L O ~ vi O T ~ . ' « ~ n~ ' o v :o o ~~ o v 3 '~ ~ o •~ v a c o v a 0 3~ O o ~ 0 C E N L fa L C E O O .O+ 1p L E E LL O 'O U F- V L d f U 1' d ~ v7i d v7i U lY d d d Gl ~ v7i Ou 1' d A d w ~ Q O O O O LNL O O ~ a ~ ~ w i W F J ,. CG 0 d Z ~ Z O O o m m .~ v1 o m v .~ w N N a--1 N ~-i r-I r-I N O Z ~ O - W ~ CO ~ ~ Z ~O Z U 01 01 01 O1 O 00 1~ W 01 Q1 00 Z O O O O O O O O ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N \ N \ N \ N \ N \ N \ N \ = F \ 1!1 \ 00 \ O \ 111 V 1~ lD 10 l0 t0 Q1 Q ~ w N L! i--I O\1 N r\-1 ti N ll \ fY1 i--I '\-I rl 0\0 N W N 0\0 \ ('A a--1 O\1 W ~ N '-I O1 N f~ ~ 01 1!1 M V 111 ~ Q t/l V ~ N e-I O ~ N.1 ~ ~ O N O O O , ~ O O O 0 l7 ~ ~ ^ n n n 00 l0 1l1 1 Q1 1 t ~ w O O O O O O O O O O O LL ~ VI VI N N N VI N N VI N a~ v v v v v v v v v v v Q O s ~ z z ~ ~ ~ oc z ~ z n n n ~ oo ~c u1 r~ rn m 1n ~ O O O O O O O O O O O Q O O O O O O O O O O O ~ N N N \ N \ N \ N \ N \ N \ N \ N \ N \ w O \ <n \ 00 O 1A V 1~ l0 N t0 l0 C1 C' W d F ,y \ ,y \ N \ N \ \ f~'1 H \ e-i \ N \ \ ~"~ \ ~"~ N \ a Q 1n m .~ 1n N ao 1n m Q ~ ''' o c N T N O ~ ~ v E U `~ O~ 01 u N u ~ y ~ O ~ C uj o21 _ ~ a ,, ' o2S O ~a v m '^ c O ` c O Q Y N ~ ^ 7 vl '6 C ~n ~ ~-+ C n ~n -O 01 N 1n C to 'y1 O a~-+ Y O lD r' OU 7 ~ ~ (0 C ~ N v1 w w a "C ` ~ t0 C 7 ~ ?, to N O v ~ O w = O Q 7 T U Y ~ . C > _ ~ E 1 p ~ L f0 LL n W N ~ £ 7 C 7 - _ £ C ,~ 'ti O O 'O C N v X O ( w O l/1 ~ ° m Y ' T m e 10 '~ ~ ,n v v f0 x u c w ~ 0 c ~ ~ w C ~ N 'O c 7 - m m N y n ,v y w ~ w L N O Q O 3 00 N N w C 00 +-' ' Y ~ v O C c v O ri ~ p Q1 ~ ~ c ~, •y1 3 v- 'O pp G1 c 'in c 7 ti E j ~ n o 1n C ~ ~ ~ ~ rn lD > m ~ o u oo ~ 3 ~ ~ a v Q n r o '° N c ni F Ol ~ t0 ~ U I~ l0 00 00 H H N U H .~-1 N d .--I v o a ,,, ~ ~ c 1o c ro c m ~ ~ a a a ~ O a c a c N in in Za ~ . c i c ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ii d ii d w Q N ~ ~ U an i N + w ~ a m D c c 1n m ~ c a ~ ~ ~ ~ Q C O 7 C v'^i O C ~ O U ~ C ~ d ~ O O 'V O m ~ W m ~ Z ~? - c u v •~ T _ ~ y ~ C G/ L u O O1 E c O O ~ N ? `1 QiJ Y H C 7 7 ~ t0 ~ L O v n Y 17 ~ ~ a ~ u a w x x t a u ~¢ a w ~ U v ~ d 7 N O~ O O O O O O O O m Y ~ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z w ~ Z O m O LL w ~ 01 Q1 Ol 01 Ql Ol Ql O1 w w O O O O O O O O Q ~ d U H ~.•~ e-I e~-1 \ 01 \ l0 \ n \ Q1 1' C' ~ 01 lD 00 l0 '-I N fT1 ~ 111 l0 1~ W 01 ~ e-/ H '-I N N A a W n m 0 (D (D 7 v N a c~ n a 0 0 0 0 N O CO * a 0 m 0 0 N O O 9# wa}I 00 ~ W W W ~ W W W ~ W W ~ ~ W W W ~ v ~ O ~ ~ ~p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ O ~ ~ O T 0 cfl 0 cfl 0 cD 0 cD 0 cfl 0 co 0 co 0 co 0 co 0 co 0 co 0 ca 0 co 0 co 0 cfl 0 cfl 0 c4 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 Ti C 0 O 0 07 0 O 0 d7 0 O 0 O 0 ~ 0 v 0 ~ 0 V 0 J ~ W ~ ~ A C JI O . C ~ N W Ui O v 00 O N Ut O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cn a m v s~ o_ ~ ~ ~ sp ~ ~ v Sp ip a a m ~ o ~ ~' ° ~ m ~ W v v W ~ ~' W ~ W ~ o ~ ~' o~ ~ c ~ ~ ~• ~_ o ~ a cn ~' m ~: m a co ~ ~ a cn a co ~ ~ a co m m ~ rn ~ ~• o ~ ~ 3 ,~ o m m m m ~ w ~ r cn ~ 'v n 'v m cn -~ ~ cn G') oo ~ n _o ~o r 1 ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ n x ~ c~ r ~ 1 ~ ~ m 0 -^ ~. ~ ~ , C ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. O ~ ~ y ~ cn ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~' m ~ v ~ N ~ CD ~ CD ~ Ro ~ o_ f D (~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ fD o o ~ o ~ c ~ ~ C) ° ~ m ° ~ m u o c z rn~ D ~ n > ~ ~. ~ c D s a ~ m ~ ~ o n ~ o D a cn n N cn n ~ O ~ ~ p •p' O N cD n d ~ O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m N m D m ~ m ~ ~ -'gy °~ ~ ~ TI O N O •'• = p cn 7 • d TI O N. p ~~ ~ ~ ~ _. v ~ ~, n o' m ~ a D m N v v ~. a ~ ~ -p ~. o m' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 Q. ^ ~ Q Q ~ l ~ j a ~ l / o n m _I c n ° a a m ~ r C~ ~ n~ ~ o o~ o - ni a ~ 00 a ~ a ~ n ~ ~ i ~ cn ~ rn in ~' m r 0 v o m m m m m m m m o m m c~ m m c~ m (n to to O O N to p N N p N N N ~ cn (n fp 7 n C N fD a o d ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ * ~ m ~ a ~ ~ ~ Z ~ -~ ~ ~ -~ Z ~ Z ~ ~ W ~ vOi n O vOi ~ cOn N ai N O ~ m O p ~ p p ~ m ~ m m * m * a a o g g m ~ ~ v m a a + °- °- o a * a a ~ •J d N 0 d C'1 C Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z W O Z ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O * O p y W * ~ Q 0 1 d 1 Q •J ®~~',N AUTOMATED SERVICES INCORPORATED August 19, 2009 Ms. Diane Lewis Saint Lucie Colrnty 3000 Curtis King Blvd. Fort Pierce, FL 34946 Dear Ms. Lewis: i i Commercial rents everywhere have plunged as companies downsize and go out of business. Rent: reductions and vacancy rates are near record. level highs and rising. Everything we read tells us unemployment rates will rise more as other businesses, small and large file for• bankruptcy, leaving more large spaces empty. As of July of this year, our revenues are down 44% from last year. Unfortunately, we have had a fe~v lay offs but have been able to keep most of our• employees working with a few less hours per week. We are.aggressively quoting for new work but it takes time to secure new work and takes more time to figure out how to produce new parts and make a profit. Our expenses continue to rise, electric is at an all time high, multiple insurances required by our lease continue to rise each year, health care costs alone rose more than 25% this year. Unfortunately, we had to pass part of tFrose increases along to our employees because we just could not withstand the increased costs alone. We understand the county probably has it's own problems and we are not alone. Because of our long standing relationship with the county, we ask that the county extend temporary rent reductions. Please let us know what the county can do to help us. Sincerely, r,,..- ~- y ~;-.: /'/Gif','~I ~'~~~ G J. "Mark Bradshaw ' President, Automated Services Inc. 2700 Industirial Avenue Three Airport Industrial Parlc Forr Pierce, Florida 34946 Fax 772-461-9731 Phone 772-461-3388 0 KEYAI R Tuesday, October 13, 2009 Diana D. Lewis, A.A.E. Airport Director St. Lucie County International Airport 3000 Curtis King Blvd. Fort Pierce, FL 34946 i t; f 3 Re: Sublease Dated as of May 16, 2008, between St. Lucie County (the "County") and Treasure Coast Aircraft Management, LLC (by assignment from Mobarak Aircraft, L.L.C.) ("Treasure Coast°) for Premises consisting of approximately 50 acres (the "Development Parcel") at the St. Lucie County Intemational Airport (the "Airport") Dear Diana, As you are aware, with respect to the Development Parcel, Treasure Coast has previously requested the abatement of rent and an extension of the deadline to begin construction/permitting of improvements for each of the First, Second and Third Phases of the Development Parcel. :In the current economic environment, there is currently no demand for the development of new airport facilities at this Airport. In addition, there is no financing available for such improvements or facilities. Accordingly, the purpose for which we entered into the sublease for the Development Parcel has been frustrated. We request (i) that the rent for the Development Parcel be abated for thirty-six months, commencing on November 1, 2009 and (ii) a thirty-six month extension of the deadline to begin construction/permitting of improvements for each of the First, Second and Third Phases of the Development Parcel. It is our hope and expectation that this thirty-six month period will see an improvement in the economic environment, including the demand for new airport facilities and the ability to finance such improvements. Please be advised that, in the event that you are unwilling to grant these requests, we are prepared to cease making the rent payments under the sublease for the Development Parcel commencing on November 1, 2009. We appreciate your time and your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Brad D. Kos President, CEO Key Air P: 203-575-4400 F: 203-575-4544 bkost@keyair.com KEY Al1~ LLC 3 Juliann Drive, Suite 701, Oxford, CT 06476 203.264.OE0`i tel 203.264.0215 fax ~ "~lo Aviation FOR Pierce, LLC ~~ 2982• curtls Klnc Fort PieFGe, fL 34946 (800-446-7$30 { van~~m• 1~~ ~~., v~~~ n,,•;~fi~,. t;.c 15 October 2009 Faye W. Outlaw, MPA County Administrator, SLC 2300 Virginia Ave, Fort Pierce, FL 34982 Re: Annual CPI Adjustment Ms Outlaw: This letEer is per your request far a review of the proposed land lease increase as calculated by the CPI published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Consumer Price Index for U.S. C1ty Average, June 2008). We are asking for a reduction in the praaosal of a S 02% increase to a 2 4% increase in light of current economic conditions. ~ ~ ~ - As we had •previously discussed, this has became the toughest year for us and many of our sub-tenants. Per many of our sub-lease contracts, that have been previously approved by the BOCC, this increase, as .published, is to be ,passed through. A smaller increase wiU assist us in keeping down costs and reduce our need to cut back further. Unfortunately, the only certain method for us to reduce costs is by cutting staffing. This is not something we wish to entertain. The sub-tenant leases that are currently tied to the coupty's CPI calculation are: Missionary Flights International Aircrafit Ground Equipment Freedom Aviation Manufacturing .Propeller .Parts Market Aircraft Parts Market Turbine Works KJS, Inc .Aircrafx Repair Station Sorrell Aviation Wolfenden Enterprises Bryant, Mike BCE Houck Enterprises (Aviator Flight College) Tradewinds Flight School We appreciate the co ideration. Kin L ds, Ch ' opher liambleton Cc: Diana Lewis, SLC Airport Director Michael Allen, CFO, Volo Holdings Brian Ciambra, C00, Volo Holdings October 23, 2009 Summary of Current Treasure Coast Airport Rent Information AIRPORT COMMENTS Vero Beach International Has not been asked by tenants and has made no changes. If, however, Airport there were expressed interest by multiple tenants, they would consider. Based on their current lease arrangement, their CPI went from zero to sometimes negative. Those tenants with a negative CPI adjustment had their rents reduced and those with zero CPI changes kept their same rents. Month to month tenants have just been filing their 30 day notices to terminate their leases. Sebastian Airport Have not given any abatements or adjustments. The City of Sebastian, however, is working on a tax abatement program that would reduce taxes by 10°'o for a specified period of time. Tampa Airports Authority For their large FBO tenants, a rebate check was issued to the tenant, based on 3% to 3.59'0 of the gross received from the previous year. They issued the rebate checks so that the rental values and fee structures associated with their lease would not change. Smaller tenants, those with just land leases, were not given any abatement or credits, and are not being considered for any rebates or adjustments in the future. Witham Field -Stuart Offers no abatement or credit of any kind. Has not considered it. Did have a tenant release portions of their rented land back to the Airport. Fort Lauderdale Executive Does not offer any abatements or credits. They would consider the possibility of abatements if the interest was all encompassing. They do have a new tenant that has had problems in getting financing for construction. They have allowed their construction timeline in the lease to be extended, however, no abatement or adjustments have been given for rents. The tenant pays their rents, including recent CPI increases. Okeechobee County Offers no abatement or credit of any kind. Has not considered it. Their Airport rents are very cheap so do not feel there is any impact to tenants. County is working with airport to offer incentives or tax credits to possible future tenants, just as they are working with other County departments.