HomeMy WebLinkAboutInformal Minutes 08-25-2009BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
INFORMAL MEETING
Date: August 25, 2009 Convened: 1:30 p.m.
Adjourned: 4:41 p.m.
Commissioners Present: Chairperson, Paula A. Lewis, Charles Grande, Doug Coward, Chris
Dzadovsky, Chris Craft
Others Present: Faye Outlaw, County Administrator, Lee Ann Lowery, Asst. County
Administrator, Dan McIntyre, County Attorney, Lauri Case, Utilities Director, Marie Gouin, OMB
Director, Debra Brisson, Parks and Recreation Director, Don West, Public Works Director, Beth
Ryder. Community Services Director, Millie Delgado-Feliciano, Deputy Clerk
INDIAN RIVER ESTATES MSBU
The County Administrator gave an overview and stated she had received various concerns
presented by the Indian River Estates residents regarding the MSBU utility charge.
She informed the Board they had incurred a base utility change when the consolidation took
place with north county. She requested the Board consider completing the rate study started
last year and believes the study will tell where the base utility charges should be.
Com. Craft asked if the funds had been identified to complete the study.
The County Administrator stated she had a discussion with the Utilities Director and they have
identified the funds in the utility budget.
She stated there would need to be formal action at a Board meeting in order to approve
moving forward with the study.
She also advised the Board the study will cover all systems with the exception of South
Hutchinson Island.
Com. Grande stated he would like to have the opportunity to meet with the consultant.
COMPREHENSIVE ROOF TOP
Com. Coward recommended holding off on any new projects due to the economic stimulus at
this time. He believes staff needs to continue with priority issues and hold off for a couple of
months.
FT. PIERCE FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT
The draft bill that was presented to the Board was reviewed.
Com. Dzadovsky stated he has a problem with the unilateral control and asked if there would
be a County Commissioner on the Water District Board.
The Water District representative, Mr. Femintell stated the plan was to build the infrastructure
and deed it to the local government.
Mr. Flip Gates, Ft. Pierce Farms addressed the roads.
Com. Coward stated the proposal is an important and necessary step and doing it in perpetuity
was not necessary. He believed a time frame should be designated so that the District can
have the borrowing power needed. He believes they need to clearly define what the scope
should be and tweek the language. He would like to have a consensus and move forward.
Com. Grande stated he believes there is a major difference involving the roads and stated no
one has made any assumptions. He was looking for work on the flow ways not roads or
bridges . He stated he is not sure everything in the TVC should be financed through this
authority. He believes this goes beyond a few tweeks and moving ahead. He stated he would
challenge the District to come up with a fixed date of when they want to be extended to. He
believes a 30 year extension would be over what they require.
Mr. Trias stated he does not think it will work with anything less than 50 years due to the canal
repairs that will be needed. He stated these are major issues especially when it comes to
hurricanes and bad weather. The other issue is that most of the NC projects are dead and only
one is existing . The funds spend would be to fix the canals.
Mr. Gates stated they cannot implement the flow ways without the cooperation of the
developers or the CDD's.
Com. Coward recommended tweeking the language making it clear and incorporate the water
quality and clarify that they want them to be partners to build the flow way.
Mr. Gates stated that as it stands now, Ft. Pierce Farms can only tax 25 per acre and this is not
enough to do anything.
It was stated that Board would consider an extension of 50 years not in perpetuity.
Com. Grande stated he would prefer 30 years.
Com. Craft stated his concern with the canals and urban boundaries, the Kings Highway canal
and east.
Com. Lewis stated it sounds like they are heading for another workshop rather than a proposal.
Mr. Trias stated he would work with staff to clarify and bring back a revised bill in time for this
year.
The Board concurred with Mr. Trias' recommendation.
The County Administrator advised the Board they would schedule a workshop in October.
WESTERN LAND STUDY PROPOSAL
The Growth Management Director made the following power point presentation on the
Western Land Study Proposal.
There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
2
0
C
CD
C_
CD~
Q
n
•-+
~U
Q
C
.~
o
>, O
~ ~~ ~
Q~ Q
U Q '~
.O ~ 0
~ U C
W~ J
C
O
N
.Y
U
~
O
~
(n ~
• L
~
+~
~ ' ~
N ~
> +-~
~
_
(~ ~ N ~ Z
~ U) C N N
X O 1..~.. ~ F-~ ~
c v c
~,
~ n ~ ~
~ c ~ ~ _
~ ~ ~ ~
W
~ •~
(O Q
'~
. .~.d Q
> ~ ~ Q .~
N
^`
W ~
Q
Q~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Li
~ V~ N ~ 0~
~ .~ Q N ~
W Q W :C c
j U Q Q. L.L
c'~n ~v ` W C
a ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O
~ ~>~ ~ 'i >
t[f N
> O ~ N
Z ,
~J ~-- Q ~
N
C
U
U
~U
J
L
.~
^~
W
^~
W
a~
c
N
Q
• • • • • • • •
- t - _ 3 ,,, -mss ~_~ ~..
~_
i _ T
y
4
i
3-i ,r e' -- F - ~. k '- c _
~? ~~T
___._ ,_. _ _- - _ --- __ - . ~ - q - --_ - - - - - - --
a ;~~ t~ f _
..,_
.... r
~.
,.
~-
- ~ =
~ ~ ~ ~
,_,, O O Q
C ~ ~ ~ N ~ C'T
~ n ~ CD r+ ~ (~!~
~ ~ ~~„ (n ~ -O C7
~ CD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ty CD ~ O
~ C) ~ ~
~ C t~ ~ ~ CQ O
~O ~. ~ COD 00~
. O
C ~ O ~ CD
t/~. ~ ~ Q p
~ ~ ~ ~~
O p < Sy N
_ iy ,..t,
O ~ ~ ~ O
O ~, CD
~ O ~ ~.O
O ~ ~ Q
CD ~ :-~ CD
~ ~ ~
CD ~
,-,.
~ ~
~' ~~
~ o
<'
rn
•
~ ~~
~ ~ ~
~~~•
X~~
~. Q.~
~ ~- ~
~ CD ~
N ~ ~~
O ~. O
CQ
O ~. O
O~ ~
ivC~D~
~ ~
~~ ~
~~~~
~~~
N ~ _~
r+~
~ ~.
COi~ cD 'O
CD -'' O
~ C N
~ CD ~
~' ~ O
O Q -~
~~ ~
~ ~' r
n~ ~
~o~.
Q
C
a
0
c~
.N
Q
0
V
L
^~
~~
U
O
_~
.v
L
4-
U
.~
O
C
O
U
N
.~
U
•
c~
.o
(~
C6
~~~
L
W
O
C~
~W
W
-~
C~
y-
O
.O
O
w
~~
~
~ ~
~
O ~
~ ~
4- ~
O -
p
~ ~+-
Q '`''
Q
~ .
~ .~
~
~ ~
- U
~-
~ ~ ~
c~ ~
~ ~'
~ V
C~
4 ~
~ p
-
~
~ ~
~ O
4 ~ j CCS
~ V
~ +r N
.-
~
~ ~ ~ ~
~
U ~
~ _
~>C
~ i
0
U ~
LL •..
C6
•
N
f+
0
Q
V
-1-+
4-
..
O Q Q~
.~
r`
~ ~ ~ ~L
`~ (~ ~ _
O O
~ .V ~ ~ ~
.~ L
'L ~ V
~^~ OcOn~' O ~
.~ v~ ~.. ~ O O cvn O
~~ O Q~•~ N O
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
O
O ~ ~ -~ N to ~ 4--
~~ j OU~ ~ O
~ ~- > cn
~ Oj ~ ~ O O :+_, ~
~,~ ~ O-~ (~ ~ ~
OsL~cn Cll
O~'~ Q(~~~=~
~~ N ~V~'~~- O
_ ._
~~ NV~~O~ N ~O
Qv.J~C1.Q~~UW~.
• • •
• •
~~ ~_ :.
.__ .
.:
~;-
.~.~
~~
w
•.+
n
L
-~
4-
0
-j
U
ca
Q
._
O
U
.~
•
. 0
L
U
L
L
0
U
N
O
O
._
c~
-~
U
O
.~
c~
a~
U
'~
•
.~
I
. O
~--+
U
C6
.~
._~
.Q
tCS
a~
L
.~
Q
C~
U
L
.,C
L
0
,O
L
U
~ c~
• ~ -~
~~
L
L
Q y-
~~
C~ ~
~ ~
-E--+
~~
_~
_~ ~
Q
~ .~
(~
~~ ~
~~
~ ,>
~~
L- O
~. Q
~ Q
o ~
U ~
~~'~
.~
~ O
~ ~
C:
~M.
~ ~
~- ~
-
4 ~. "
~
~'~E. ~
1' 4 ti
_
Y 7 _
L~J
^~
~+
4~
._
D
o~
N
C
C
O
O
U
0
U
U~
4--
O
O
c~
U
y_=
O
U
~O
O
U
U
~O
•
C
•
.,~~
P
COMPREHENSIVE PROPOSAL FOR ADDRESSING
PLANNING ISSUES IN THE WESTERN LANDS
St. Lucie County
Proposed Scope of Services
Project Team
• Project Manager:
• Co-Project Manager:
• Public Involvement:
• Economic Analysis:
• Land Design & Facilitation
• Natural Systems Expertise:
• Review of Dev., Agri, & Conservation
Practices
• TDR & Rural/Ag Expertise:
• Agriculture Expertise:
• Development, Finance & Planning:
• Land Use Amendments:
Component Lead
Marie L. York, FAICP, Univ. of Florida
Gene Boles, FAICP, Univ. of Florida
Marie L. York, Jean Scott, David Barth
William Stronge, Ph.D., Marie L. York
o eob Burchell (Advisor)
Ramon Trias, Trias and Associates
David Barth, Jay Exum, Glatting
Jackson
Jean Scott, Strategies for Livable
Communities
Tom Daniels, U. of Pennsylvania
Peter Spyke, Arapaho Citrus Mgmt
Tim Hernandez, New Urban
Communities
Team Members, St. Lucie County staff
Other Participants
• 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
10.Drafting of a land development code
11. Adoption of amendments and code
Proiect Back4round
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 Z: Overview of rural development, 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
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)
li
Bud4et
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