HomeMy WebLinkAboutJoint Meeting Minutes 06-07-2007BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
JOINT MEETING WITH CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE
Date: June 7, 2007 Convened: 2:05 p.m.
Adjourned: 3:45 p.m.
County Commissioners Present: Chairman, Chris Craft, Doug Cowazd, Paula A. Lewis,
Charles Grande, Joseph Smith, absent
Port St. Lucie City Council: Mayor, Patricia Christensen, Vice Mayor, Jack Kelly,
Michelle Berger, Christopher Cooper, Linda Barts
Others Present: Doug Anderson, County Administrator, Dan McIntyre, County Attorney;
Don Cooper City Manager, Roger Orr, City Attorney, Theresa Fontana, Asst. County
Attorney, Millie Delgado-Feliciano, Deputy Clerk
TOPIC: CONFLICT RESOLUTION
The County Attorney advised the Boazd they met with city staff in an attempt to resolve
the issues. They were not resolved and this is why they are meeting today.
Chairman Craft asked if the city would look through the bulk water agreements and see if
there is anything the city could do or would like to do in order to work the issues out.
Chairman Craft addressed the issues the City of Port St. Lucie has regazding the lines of
the utility item # 4.
Mayor Christensen stated the rates would be based on today's cost she believes.
The City Manager stated they would be based on today's rates.
Chairman Craft addressed # 18 where it talks about future projects and update of
additional capacity needed by St. Lucie County. He then alluded to # 19 and stated this
can be negotiated and he believes the Boazd would be amenable to this as well. It gives a
five year out clause, which means the county cannot construct a utility within 5 yeazs
without notifying the city. He believes these aze the key issues.
The City Attorney stated he has not looked at the documents. He stated 164.1055
Chapter 164, point for the record, the meeting is to attempt to resolve the conflict and he
asked the County to define the conflict and outline what the litigation would be.
The County Attorney stated the dispute is who is allowed to provide water in the area.
The City believes it is theirs and the County believes it is theirs. The City cannot
provide the service without the County's consent.
The City Attorney responded by saying they aze not providing water in that azea. The
City adopted an Ordinance extending the boundary 5 miles out. The City would not
provide the service unless the County approved. So he is at a loss at to what the purpose
of the conflict is and what conflict they are trying to resolve.
Com. Craft stated when the utilities was transferred to the city there were restrictions in
the agreement that the city would not extend boundazies regazdless what the statute says.
Com. Coward requested the county clarify that they are not trying to make a profit.
(bad static in the recording cannot make out Com. Craft's comments).
Councilman Kelly commended Com. Craft for attempting to resolve the issue. However,
he felt there was only one issue and that was "who will own the lines". He would
support it today if the agreement remains the same (the one offered to the county prior to
today). He does not see an advantage to sell the county bulk water. He does not wish to
see anymore houses out there anyway. He believes the water problems will get severe.
The City has made an offer and he would support it to this point however, he has those
concerns with the water availability.
Com. Craft asked why the city must own the lines.
Councilman Kelly stated he would not enable the city to lower their control of the water.
(bad recording static)
Com. Craft questioned who installed the lines.
The City Manager stated the contract the lines, but city personnel is on site 24/7.
Councilman Kelly stated they county can have growth control and the city the control of
the water.
Com. Coward stared h would keep an open mind, but cannot take a position yet. He
recommended continuing the dialogue between the two entities.
Com. Grande stated he id not wish to formulate an opinion, but he is afraid the county
may be pushed into developing its own utility. He does not like the idea of the county
becoming a municipal utility provider. He would rather have the city sell the water to the
county.
Com. Lewis stated she believes they are here. (bad static).
At this time a break was taken to discuss matters with staff.
Councilwoman Berger, expressed her concerns with establishing a water district in the
future and then they are not able to pay. She does not see the water district defined as a
water district in the statute.
Com. Craft stated they are talking about moving forward without going to court he
believes it is not necessary.
Councilman Cooper stated he was concerned with being able to protect the wells. He
does not want more roof tops he would like to see more commercial and industrial. He
has concerns with ownership of the lines and what the city could get back out of this.
He asked what was the big issue on the city providing utilities south of Midway Road?
Com. Craft stated the city can have the security of the wells and the water and the city
can be the exclusive bulk provider and draw the line down Midway Road with the
exception of the Fairgrounds. The County is looking to have total control of their
destiny.
( Bad static) unable to make out comments.
Councilwoman Berger stated the fact remains the city can provide water within 4 months
that is the bottom line. She does not believe the city is forcing the county to make the
choice of being their own utility.
Com. Craft asked if the customers outside the boundaries get a surcharge.
The City Attorney stated they are given the choice of either being assessed the surcharge
or annexing into the city. If they chose to annex, they do not get the surcharge of 25%
this is the current City policy.
2
Bad static (cannot make out comments)
Com. Craft recommended scheduling another meeting in hopes of keeping this out of
court.
Councilman Cooper asked if both the city and the county should not be considering
consolidating services at this point in time. He recommended letting FPUA service the
north end and the City the south end of the county.
Councilman Kelly stated he believes they had a right to go out 5 miles regardless of any
agreements.
Ms. Fontana, Asst. City Attorney (Utilities) stated they feel they are in the best position
to offer the service and the best price and it is important to protect their assets. She stated
she did not believe they had a cause for action. She believes they do not have any
damages the county can sue for.
Com. Craft stated he still hopes they can have an additional meeting.
Councilman Kelly stated her comments were not of an elected official, he believes her
assessment is correct but not the comment to go ahead and sue the city.
Com. Craft asked what would be the outcome if the county moved forward with the
utility.
The City Manager stated they would have to go out and challenge the county affecting
and threatening the wells and water supply for over 160,000 residents of the city.
Com. Coward stated he wanted to work out a bulk water agreement and if the county
cannot work out a deal with the city, then he would want to move forward to have the
county have their own utility and he wished to make that clear.
The Board members were asked if they wished to have another meeting.
Councilman Kelly stated he did not have a problem with scheduling another meeting.
Com. Coward stated he was not very optimistic and the council would assist in resolving
the issue, but he would be willing to meet again, but he is not optimistic it will get
resolved.
Com. Lewis asked there were time frames.
The County Attorney stated they are beyond the time period but they can be extended it is
up to the parties.
Com. Coward stated he did not see the rush since the Allied issue has been resolved.
Councilman Cooper stated it may be beneficial to go to mediation and present the issues
to the mediator.
Com. Craft stated he believes one of the reasons why they are at this point is because
staff is handling this issue rather than the officials.
The majority of the Board's agreed to meet again.
3