HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 13, 2012 Joint Meeting Agenda PacketCS061312
NOTICE
There will be a Special Joint Meeting of the CITY COUNCIL of the City
of Port St. Lucie and the ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMMISSION on June 13,
2012, at 9:00 a.m., at the Port St. Lucie Community Center, 2195 SE
Airoso Boulevard, Port St. Lucie, Florida.
AGENDA
1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER TOD MOWERY, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
JOANN M. FAIELLA, MAYOR, CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE CITY COUNCIL
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROADS
A. WALTON ROAD
B. ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY SAFETY ORDINANCE
C. MIDWAY ROAD - EASEMENT ACQUISITION
D. TRAFFIC SIGNALS - PRIMA VISTA/ST. LUCIE WEST BOULEVARD
4. DEVELOPMENT
A. INLAND PORT
B. AIRPORT
C . CRA
D. IMPACT FEES
E. UTILITIES
5. QUALITY OF LIFE
A. CODE OVERLAY ZONE - PRIMA VISTA - RIVERPARK
6. OTHER ISSUES
7. ADJOURNMENT
NOTICE: No stenographic record by a certified court reporter will be made of the
foregoing meeting. Accordingly, any person who may seek to appeal any decision
involving the matters noticed herein will be responsible for making a verbatim
record of the testimony and evidence of said meeting upon which any appeal is to be
based.
AS A COURTESY TO THE PEOPLE RECORDING THE MEETING, PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES.
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR & CITY COUN5�1
FROM: GREGORY J. ORAVI�C,tMANAGER
SUBJECT: SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF JUNE 13,2012
ITEM 3A, WALTON ROAD
DATE: JUNE 8, 2012
It is my understanding that this item has been placed on the Agenda by Councilman Kelly in
order to explore the possibility of St. Lucie County turning over ownership of Walton Road to
the City of Port St, Lucie, as has been done with other rights -of -way, such as Lennard Road.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
6A
DIVISION OF ENGINEERING
MEMORANDUM
12-56
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Faye Outlaw, County Administrator, MPA, ICM
FROM: Michael Powley, County Engineer I +
DATE: June 5, 2012
SUBJECT: Joint Meeting —Walton Road
Walton Road
Walton Road extends from US-1 to Indian River Drive. For discussion purposes, Walton Road can be
broken into three distinct links. Please see the attached graphical representation of the three links.
The first link is the Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) portion of Walton Road which begins at US-1
and extends eastward to Village Green Drive. The City's CRA is situated on the south side. The road was
reconstructed (but not widened) by St. Lucie County last year. The County coordinated with the City
closely during the design phase of the roadway. We also incorporated their color and plant palettes into
our improvements. The City also maintains this portion of the roadway for us.
In addition, the second link from Village Green Drive to Lennard Road is being widened by the County
from two lanes to four lanes. This project will be completed by June 19, 2012.
The third link, from Lennard Road to Indian River Drive, remains two lanes.
Attachment
cc: Lee Ann Lowery, Assistant County Administrator
Don West, Public Works Director
s
Lo
l�l a�I 9'li W
y '
GREEN
ly �,
P
Alyr
,••... 4 € r• iy--_ -- --_. ___... _.__
e iT.iF r4i71 S
IL
J 'yam l41
r
n D C'
IVA
a � t r �' g�„7'�.;y 'F r• k _ - YJ �i- per •
'a. 'fit. �' �3x �� �. r �.. - m • �. � ;Y. � '
_t.
Af
- r -
�E �
Ilk d,.-
bb/MJIZ711 1b:4'J Ilzts11b14d CITY MGR & CRA OFC PAGE 01/24
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR & CITY COON L0
FROM: GREGORY J. ORAVE , ITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF JUNE 13, 2012
ITEM 3B, ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY SAFETY ORDINANCE
DATE: JUNE 8, 2012
Enclosed, please find background information which you may find useful in your discussion
with St Lucie County on this subject As you may recall, at the meeting of October 10, 2011,
the City Council considered proposed Ordinance No. 11-65, concerning the subject, and
decided not to pursue it, electing to have the Police Chief "monitor the street vendor sales, and
bring it back if he thinks it is necessary".
If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
nb/Ud/1b11 lb:4J /1:eU/1b248 CITY MGR & CRA OFC PAGE 02/24
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 2011
ADuACENT TO .HOGPEN SLOUGH (H-16 CANAL); PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE
The City Clerk read Resolution 11-R68 aloud .by title only. Vice
Mayor Bartz moved to approve Resolution 11-R68. Councilwoman.
Martin seconded the motion. The City Clerk restated the motion
as follows: for approval of Resolution 11-R68. The motion passed
unanimously by roll call vote.
12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a) DISCUSSION OF ORDINANCE 11-65, PROVIDING FOR THE
AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 71 TO ADD SECTIONS 71.03 THROUGH 71.08,
PORT ST. LUCIE CITY CODE; SPECIFICALLY, SECTION 71.03, INTENT;
SECTION 71.04, DEFINITIONS; SECTION 71.05, FINDINGS AND
DETERMINATIONS; 71.06, PROHIBITIONS; 71.07, SEVERABILITY; 71.08,
PENALTIES; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
The City Manager said, "This is the ordinance regarding
solicitation on highways. A month ago this was brought before
the Council for First Reading, and at. that point the Council
tabled it and asked it be brought back in one month for further
discussion. One month has occurred, and it is back on the
Agenda." Mayor Faiella. stated, "I went to the County
Commissioners' meeting on Tuesday night, and apparently there
was a meeting between the County Commissioners and a. Committee.
We thought a decision was going to be made on Tuesday night, but
it wasn't.. It is back in Port St. Lucie's court, as the County
Commissioners were all over the place with this. I don't want
the City to look bad regarding this decision. If the issue is
safety, then it should be seven days a week, and not six. days a
week. They indicated six days instead of seven days was better
than nothing. There is no factual proof that the solicitations
are causing accidents. There was one accident, and that person
was let go. I feel that at the present time we should monitor
this for the next six months, and move on. I highly respect the
veterans, but there are people out there in camouflage that do
not have the veterans' badge. I don't believe that we should be
babysitting people, or the government should :indicate who to
give money to. I don't feel that government should be
interfering with that. We should monitor it for the next six or
seven months, and see what happens. I don't feel that it
warrants a ban at the present time." Councilwoman Verger stated,
"I agree with you.."
Vice Mayor Bartz said, "I'm willing to go with the six months. I
had a nice discussion with Mr. Brunjes about some of my concerns
Ub/Ud/1b11 1b:4y r/2871b248 CITY MGR & CRA OFC PAGE 03/24
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR FETING MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 2011
regarding some of the newspaper sales. I let him know that I
have not seen it in a while, but I saw a gentleman with a child
that was probably ten or eleven years old sitting in a. chair in
the median. Mr. Brunjes indicated that it wasn't allowed, and. it
wouldn't happen again. I have the utmost confidence in our
discussion in the fact that these people want to keep their
jobs, and they understand what the requirements are. I don't
think anybody wants to hurt their employment, but the concern
about safety is still going to be a concern. If we want to hold
off for six months and review it at that time, my best guess is
that everybody will be on their best behavior and we won't have
a problem and in six months we won't have to worry about it.,,
Councilwoman Martin said, "I agree with that, and. I also agree
with when it comes to policing people on the street, that people
have to make their own decisions regarding who they are going to
give their money to. If we are going to talk about public
safety, it would have to be an all or nothing issue with me. I
also haven't seen any data to support it. This initiative was
put forth by the county, so it will be interesting to see how
they move forward with it. They only had one discussion about it
and were not in a position to make a decision at that time."
Councilman Kelly said, "If you want to wait six months, that is
fine, but it doesn't put it to bed tonight. It is going to come
back in six months, and I don't think that putting vehicles with
people on the street is a good. idea. Maybe there has only been
one accident, and I hate to say it, but• another one is going to
happen. I think the compromise of having no solicitations for
six days and just on Sunday is better than nothing. Six days of
people off the street is better than. nothing. Jf everybody
collected money like the newspaper vendors, it would be safer.
They have a requirement where they don't go in the road. other
people don't, they go in between the cars. It isn't just the
camouflage guys, but there are dozens of people that are out
there all of the time. I'm reluctant to go along with it, but if
that is what the Council.. wants to do, we have bigger fish to
fry. I don't think huge trucks and campers are good with people
walking in between them all. of the time." Mayor Faiella said, "I
caution them, as they know what is at stake. I have no facts
proving that they are causing accidents, so I can't say it is a
safety issue on th.ei,r. part." Councilman Kelly commented, "They
are just accidents waiting to happen. if somebody gets hurt, or
God forbid there is a death, it will get pinned on us."
Councilwoman Berger asked, "Are you looking to p-ot this to bed
forever, or until somebody brings it back up again and. not put a
six-month mark on. it? We don't want it to come back every six
months and spend time on it." Mayor Faiella advised, "I prefer
6
Ub/Ut5/2b12 lb:4J //28/1b248
CITY MGR
& CRA OFC
PAGE 04/24
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR
1EETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 10,
2012
Chief Reuther monitor it. If he feels that there is a potential
problem, then he should inform the Council or the City Manager.
Chief Reuther, has there been a problem except for the one
accident?" Chief Reuther replied, "No. I haven't seen any of the
newspaper people not comply with the rules that have been set
forth. I think they understand. what the rules are. It is
something that we will continue to monitor. If it becomes a
larger issue, obviously, I will bring it forward." Councilman
Kelly pointed out, "It Js not just about the newspaper people,
as they are the ones that comply. It. is everyone else and you
have seen them; they walk in between the cars for 100 yards." It
was the consensus of the Council to have Chief Reuther monitor
the street vendor sales, and bring it back if he thinks it is
necessary,
CATHER.INE LAVALLE said, "I'm a veteran and a Port St. Lucie
resident. I have seen the problem not just with people who say
they are veterans and who are soliciting on the streets, but
even with our firefighters who are trying to do a great job
dodging in between traffic and knocking on people's windows,
People are throwing money out the window, and it has been a
problem, so waiting six months is not the answer. Are we waiting
for an accident to happen before we take action? It is just like
putting a traffic light in after we have already had an accident
or a death. Are we waiting for those kinds of things to happen
before our City takes action? If we don't take action, the
county will take action. They are going to readjust their
ordinance to say that they have to abide by the Florida Statute,
and one of those is misrepresenting a veteran. I think it should
be all or nothing. Otherwise, it will be a. free-for-all on
Sundays. It will open up the floodgates, in my opinion. I would
like to encourage the Council to please consider doing
something, or it is going to keep going back and, forth from the
City to county, and nobody is going to make a decision. Port St.
Lucie is the one who actually initially brought it up, and I was
thankful for that. The county appeared to be waiting until
somebody else made the decision. I'm very happy that the City
Attorney's office brought this ordinance up before you. Thank
YOU."
Mayor Faiella. stated, "I want to commend staff for doing an
excellent job in putting this together and getting the
information. I know it took a Jong time. The county has not made
a decision, and they do not know where they want to go with
this. They are sti.1.1 negotiating, and they are all over the
place. If the issue is safety, then it should be seven days a
week and not just six days a week."
7
bb/17tl/2b12 Ib:4J //28(15248 CITY MGR & CRA OFC PAGE 05/24
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR FETING MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 2011
BOB BRUNJES, President of Scripps Treasure Coast Newspaper,
said, "I have gotten to know some of the people that represent
us on Sundays. They have relayed to me some of their stories,
and how they use this income to pay their bills. There is a
little bit of an overreaction to try to regulate this. There is
really no hard data to indicate that there is a safety issue.
Scripps is concerned about the health, safety, and welfare of
all of our citizens. We will, be monitoring our program very
closely. I can't speak for the others, but we will have a safety
program in place. We have been involved in this for 12 years and
have a pretty good track record. Thank you."
THOMAS LADOMIRAK, resident, said, "One of my concerns is that
those people can be a distraction. I have tried to turn a corner
and am distracted by someone spinning a. sign. if you stop to
look at it, it could cause an accident. I suggest that they wear
reflective vests and should have a City license, so that you
know who they are. I'd. like to see a requirement on the
charitable contributions of 75% to the agency to help whatever
cause that they are funding."
WENDY ANGIONE, resident, said, "I want to say what a fabulous
job the firemen have done in every county. In this economy, a
lot of times people are more apt to give fire fighters money
than the Shamrocks. I think just walking in Publix parking lot
is dangerous, as people ru.n you over anywhere in this town. I
have never had anybody run out in front of me to sell something.
I want to speak up for the Muscular Dystrophy Association,
because it is a good cause and they have done so many good
things for my daughter. A lot of younger people need these jobs,
as some of the older people aren't as keen with their reflexes.
We have to look out for the younger people, so that they have
jobs. Thank you for letting me speak from my heart."
JOSEPH PATRONIE, resident, said, "Consider stopping it on.
Friday, since it is payday. Just about every other day there are
70,000 to 100,000 automobiles passing up and down US 1. Why
don't you keep the collectors and all charities stationary at
traffic lights? There are a number of automobiles going by, so
they should do fine. I would not eliminate the number of
collectors, because they need the money and we need the
charities."
b) BILL INTERNATIONAL, INC., CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
INSPECTIONS FOR LOUTUS POND REK D, #20.110088, TIME AND EXPENSE
CONTRACT ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $241,012.80, CONTRACT PERIOD IS 300
CALENDAR DAYS, FUND 403-4126-5688, ENGINEERING
8
bb/b8/2b12 lb:4y /1281lb248 CITY MGR & CRA OFC PAGE 06/24
ORDINANCE 11-65 PIATE
/12/ii
Vol10(1
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE
FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 71 TO ADD
SECTIONS 71.03 THROUGH 71.08, PORT ST. LUCIE CITY CODE; SPECIFICALLY,
SECTION 71,03, INTENT; SECTION 71.04, DEFINITIONS; SECTION 71.05,
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS; 71,06, PROHIBITIONS; 71.07, SEVERABILITY;
71.08, PENALTIES; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE. DATE
WHEREAS, Section 316.008, Florida Statutes, authorizes the City Council to
regulate roads within the City of Port St. Lucie, Florida; and
WHEREAS, the City of Port St, Lucie City Council finds that persons displaying
advertising in roads, distributing materials or goods to occupants of motorized vehicles
in roads, or soliciting business or charitable contributions from the occupants of
motorized vehicles in roads is hazardous to public safety and impedes the normal,
orderly, and safe flow of traffic; and
WHEREAS, the City of Port St. Lucie seeks to provide for the safety of its
citizens by prohibiting transactions involving occupants of motorized vehicles on public
roads within the City of Port St. Lucie; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that passage of this Ordinance will further the
interest of the health, safety, and general welfare of the public.
NOW, 'THEREFORE, THE CITY OF PORT ST, LUCIE HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION 1: Port St, Lucie City Code Chapter 71 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Section 71.03. Intent
It is the intent of this Ordinance to protect the health, safety and general welfare
of the citizens of the City of Port St. Lucie, to assure the free, orderly, undisrupted
movement of motorized vehicles on public roads within the City of Port St. Lucie. This
Ordinance is not intended to control traffic, as that term is defined in Chapter 316,
Florida Statutes. This Ordinance is intended to apply evenhandedly to all persons who
engage in the activities proscribed herein, regardless of their message. This Ordinance
is intended to be narrowly tailored to serve the significant government interest of public
safety, and to leave open ample alternative channels of displaying advertising,
distributing goods and materials, and soliciting business and charitable contributions.
Page 1 of 3
06/08/2012 16:49 7728715248 CITY MGR & CRA OFC PAGE 07/24
ORDINANCE 11-65
Section 71.04. Definitions
"Roads" shall include streets, shoulders, roadbeds, medians, and all other ways
open to travel by operators of motorized vehicles within the City of Port St. Lucie. This
definition excludes private roads and roads that are open to motor vehicle travel.
Section 71.06. Findings and Determinations
The City of Port St. Lucie City Council hereby finds and determines that mixing
pedestrians and temporarily stopped motor vehicles in the some space at the same time
is inherently dangerous, and that the combination of the high volume of motorized
vehicles and congested roads in the City of Port St. Lucie and persons engaging in
advertising, distribution, or solicitation that is directed at motor vehicle occupants on
those roads is hazardous to public safety, both for occupants of motorized vehicles
located on public roads and for persons engaging in such advertising, distribution, and
solicitation.
The City Council further hereby finds and determines that the prohibitions set
forth in this Ordinance are narrowly -tailored to serve the significant interest of promoting
and protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the Citizens of the City of Port St.
Lucie, and that said prohibitions leave open ample alternative channels of
communication.
Section 71.06. Prohibitions
1, No person shall be upon or go upon any road for the purpose of displaying
advertising of any kind or distributing materials or goods or soliciting business or
charitable contributions of any kind from the occupant of any motorized vehicle located
on public roads of the City of Port St. Lucie
2. No person shall be within four (4) feet of the edge of the road for the
purpose of distributing materials or goods or soliciting business or charitable
contributions of any kind from the occupant of any motorized vehicle located on public
roads of the City of Port St. Lucie.
3. The language in this Section is intended to prohibit the activities described
above only when they are directed by pedestrians toward occupants of motor vehicles
that are on the traveled portion of public roads that are open to traffic — the term
"traveled portion" includes travel lanes, turn lanes, and other portions of the road that
Page 2 of 3
bb/b8/2UEZ lb:4y /72tillb248 CITY MGR & CRA OFC PAGE 08/24
ORDINANCE 11-65
are generally used for motor vehicle travel. This Ordinance is not Intended to prohibit
activities such as advertising, distribution of goods or materials, or business or
charitable solicitation that is directed toward pedestrians on sidewalks.
Section 71.07. Severability and Applicability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance
is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction,
such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 71.06. Penalties
1. Pursuant to Section 162.22, Florida Statutes, any person convicted of
violating the provisions of this Ordinance shall be punished by a fine not to exceed
$500, by imprisonment not to exceed 60 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
2. In addition to the penalties provided by subsection (1) of this Section, any
violation of this Ordinance shall be subject to appropriate civil action in a court of
appropriate jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 162,30, Florida Statutes.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days after its final
adoption.
PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Port St. Lucie,
Florida., this day of , 2011.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE
BY:
Joann M. Faiella, Mayor
ATTEST:
Karen A. Phillips, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Roger G. Orr, City Attorney
H-,%A0N10rdir*M1OR01NAN0E NO $011c4806A In me ROWAN
Page 3 of 3
06/08/2012
16:49 7728715248
CITY MGR & CRA OFC
PAGE 09/24
CITY
COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES SEPTEMBER
12, 2011
10. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
a) ORDINANCE 11-65, PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT . OF
CHAPTER 71 TO ADD SECTIONS 71.03 THROUGH 71.08, PORT ST. LUCIE
CITY CODE; SPECIFICALLY, SECTION 71.03, INTENT; SECTION 71,04,
DEFINITIONS; SECTION 71.05, FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS; 71.06,
PROHIBITIONS; 71.07, SEVERASILITY; 71.08, PENALTIES; PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
RICK CRARY, Attorney for Scripps Media said, ".I. represent
Scripps media, and Don Hornbeck is the Circulation Manager. we
object to the form of this ordinance, because it is an all or
nothing' ordinance that we feel would needlessly put 16 street
vendors out of work. The ordinance is based largely on the
position that was taken in St. Petersburg in a case that was
upheld where they took a very radical all or nothing approach,'
but other communities, such as Jacksonville and Pasco, have not
taken that approach. If the City has a genuine safety concerns
about how street vendors operate, then those could be specially
tailored to an ordinance to address that rather than simply
banning all street vendors. I have had a fair amount of
experience myself purchasing from street vendors. I was
concerned the first time I bought a paper at an intersection
whether the light would change, but I found that the people that
I bought from are very professional, They look constantly at
whether the light is going to change and I've never had a
problem with holding up traffic. The gentleman I generally
purchase from had time to tell me a joke. He is a regular
standup comedian, which makes it an enjoyable experience. If you
pass this ordinance, that gentleman could stand in the median
and tell me a joke, but could not sell me a paper. It is
important to remember that we are talking about first amendment
rights of the press. Freedom of the press is one of our most
essential rights and included within that is the right of
distribution. Cases have been upheld where if newspapers don't
have the right to distribute it doesn't make much difference if
you publish. There are many other ways for papers to sell, but
this has been a time-honored tradition of street vending. In the
St. Petersburg case, it looks like the court just closed its
eyes to the evidence of whether or not there was really a
problem or a safety concern. They just said it makes common
sense that there is a safety concern. If you have someone who
could be killed or injured in a bar, you don't close all of the
bars, you police better. There are certain things that can be
done here. You can limit the street vendors where they can't
walk across to another lane. They can just step a couple of feet
over and make sales when there is a red light, so there are
bb/btl/2b12 lb:4J //28/1b248 CITY MGR & CRA OFC PAGE 10/24
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETntr, MINUTES SEPTEMBER 12, 2011
things that you can do to police this without infringing on the
first amendment. If you pass this ordinance, someone could stand
out there with a sign protesting the loss of a job, but he
couldn't hand you a newspaper. They can do standup comedy or
have a cross and preach that the world is about to end, because
the local government is infringing on the first amendment, but
they couldn't raise up a paper and show it to you, much less
sell it to you, because under this ordinance that might be
advertising. There are important messages and jobs. Do not
infringe upon this activity. I'm implying that our rights and
freedoms under the first amendment and the bill of rights is a
messy business and sometimes we have to put up with some
inconveniences, but it is worth it. if it is 'all or nothing,'
then, I say, nothing.' However, I think we could come to some
accommodations."
DON HORNBECK said, "I'm a resident of Port St. Lucie and I'm the
Director of Circulation and Sales for the Scripps Company in
Florida. I'm here to urge you not to ban the sale of the Sunday
newspapers from the City's rights -of -way. Currently, it has been
permitted on Sundays during daylight hours as long as it is done
in a safe way_ There are 16 people, many of whom are here
tonight, that get their income from this program.. It helps them
pay their mortgages, car payments, and groceries. With
unemployment in St. Lucie County at 13.8t, 1 strongly urge you
not to take away their much needed income. These folks sell.
almost 2,000 Sunday papers to Port St. Lucie residents who enjoy
the convenience of picking up their Sunday newspaper in this
fashion. with the challenging local economy, we need to be
creating more opportunities for folks to make a living, not
taking opportunities away. These folks have weathered the storm
so far in our economy and they are doing the best that they can
to earn that income. Our Sunday newspaper hawking program
started in the year 2000 and it has gone through 607 Sundays,
which is over 36,000 hours of selling the newspaper. Those hours
would equate to me working my full -tame 40 hour -a -week job for
almost 19 years. During that 12 year period, there has been one
safety accident involving a street hawker. When those of us at
the newspaper found out that the hawker disregarded a required
safety condition we immediately terminated that contract. I
called Mr. Oravec the next day to let him know. Our emphasis has
always been on safety and we are proud of the record the program
has shown during the past 12 years. On September 3, 2011, an
article in the St. Lucie News Tribune stated that according to
Allstate, Port St. Lucie ranks as one of the safest driving
cities in the nation. Local newspapers perform a vital everyday
service to the communities that they serve. After the hurricanes
bb/btl/2b1'2 lb:4J 1/28115248 CITY MGR & CRA OFC PAGE 11/24
CITY COUNCII. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 12, 2021
in 2004, when folks were without power and in need, the street
hawkers handed out free newspapers on the street corners so that
our City, county, and state governments could communicate where
supplies were and what services were available. I urge you to
allow this long established program to continue and not
eliminate the much needed income that these folks earn."
STEPHANIE GLAVIN said, "I'm with the local Muscular Dystrophy
Association, and I want to thank all of you for your continued
support.. we are here tonight to address our concerns with the
total ban ordinance that is.proposed and is going to be up for a
vote. As you know, the St. Lucie County Fire District and IAFF
Local 1377 participates in the `Fill the Soot Campaign' every
year to benefit the association. if the ordinance and total ban
is passed as is, it would be absolutely devastating to our
mission and the services that we provide to our- local families
in Port St. Lucie. The Fire District and Local 1377 raised
$39,000 last year, and within the last five years they have
raised $282,000. Those numbers obviously show the community's
support as well. The 'Fill the Boot campaign' is our single
largest fund raising program on the Treasure Coast, and
firefighters nationwide are our number one sponsor to the tune
of $27.2 million this year alone. These funds that we raise
provide research service to our local families, and all of the
money raised does stay here locally. We understand why the
proposed ordinance has come about, and we are hopeful that we
can work together .on a solution to allow us to continue raising
these lifesaving funds for our families."
BRANDY MILLER said, "I'm also with the local Muscular Dystrophy
Association, and the Director of Business Development. I wanted
to share with you exactly what it would mean to lose these
funds. Last year alone the St. Lucie County firefighters raised
$39,000, and in- the last five years, they raised $282,000. The
highest year was over $60,000 in one year. In an economy that
has not been doing well in the past, they have raised $39,000-,
and we have 375 firefighters. If you break that down .per
firefighter, they have raised about $104. If we were take the
firefighters off of the street corner, we would move them, to the
big box locations such .as Publix, Lowes, Home Depot, the mall,
etc. We have had this partnership with the International
Association of Firefighters for 57 year. The 'Fill the Boot
Program' is done all across the country. We have done a number
of studies. This isn't the first time a proposed ban on street
solicitation has come about. We are familiar with a number of
different ordinances that have been adopted to continue to allow
firefighters to collect funds. if you were to take them off the
bb/ ft/ 2b12 1b: 4y / /2U T1b248 CITY MGR & CRA OFC PAGE 12/24
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 12, 2011
streets that would be $20 per firefighter. Therefore, they would
raise about $7,500, which means we would have a loss of $31,500,
and that is substantial. We were doing some quick calculations
to give you an idea. The $31,500 loss would be 15 repairs to
wheelchairs, leg braces, and communication devices; nine
children that we .would send to MDA summer camp; 11 clinic visits
to meet with neurologists; 14 physical respiratory and speech
therapy consultations; 18 support groups; 122 minutes of life
saving research; and 20 flu shots. That's would be the services
we could not give to families who live .in Port St. Lucie. That's
just from the $39,000 that was raised last year, which was
raised in a time when the economy is hurting: If you take away
the opportunity for the firefighters to collect, you're taking
away thousands and thousands of dollars in future years."
Ms. Glavin noted, "One of the solutions we would like to propose
for discussion is an ordinance. We have worked with other
counties and cities. There's one that's been used in Alachua
county for the -past three years. It's a total ban for most of
the year where no one can collect, but for a designated four -day
weekend everyone can collect. That way it is content neutral
where it doesn't exclude anyone. As far as public safety is
concerned, this proposed solution. . . Mayor Faiella pointed
out, "I'm sorry, but your time is up. I have to allow other
people to speak."
BOB BRUNJES, President and Publisher of Scripps Treasure Coast
Newspapers, stated, "The contractors we have out on the streets
hawking our papers actually have business licenses. There's
sales tax that is paid on the papers sold. I have been very
involved in the business development on the Treasure Coast in
St. Lucie County and the other two counties that we serve. I'm
really big on creating sustainable jobs for our community. I
think that's what we need going forward. At this time to take
this type of action, take these 16 people off the street, and as
a result take food off the table. . . . Hopefully, there can be
some kind of accommodation made here to. . . . If it's all or
nothing, we vote nothing. in talking to some folks, I understand
that safety is really the issue that brought this to the
forefront. Port St. Lucia has the safest roads in the state as
it is. At a time where unemployment has double digits, we have
safe roads. we need to preserve jobs. I'm hoping there's some
kind of accommodation that can be made."
GARY MICHALO'WSKI, Scripps Newspaper, Circulation and Sales
Department, stated, "The ordinance as I understand is all about
safety. The Newspaper Street Sales Program is all about safety.
bb/Ud/1b11 lb:4J II16/1b14b CITY MGR & CRA OFC PAGE 13/24
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 12, 2011
They are all wearing a yellow shirt tonight, and on the back of
that shirt is a safety message. Before they sell a newspaper
they have to agree to certain safety rules in order to be able
to participate in the program. They are not allowed to sell to
motor vehicles when the light is green. Under no circumstances
are headphones or any type of ear device is to be worn that
impairs their ability to hear .any oncoming traffic that they
can't see. Safety shirts identifying the product that they are
selling are required to be worn.at all times. if .they don't have
a safety shirt they are not permitted. to sell. They should never
sell to a moving vehicle, and they are to stay on the median or
side of the road. If they enter the paved roadway they are
subjected to being ticketed or fined. They are to remain at the
location that they are assigned and are not to wander off to
another location, because every time that they cross the street,
it increases their chances of injury. When they are done selling
they are to use the crosswalk to get to the side of the road.
They are to be alert to their surroundings at all times. They
are.not to impede the flow of traffic to solicit a sale, and
they are to keep their newspapers secure, as blowing newspapers
will cause littering and a safety hazard. Harassment of
motorists will not be tolerated. They agree to all of these
points before we allow them to sell a newspaper. Their whole
program is designed around this, because they understand that
there are safety issues."
Its an effort to complete this request prior to 2:00 p.m., the
below speakers have not been transcribed.
Bob Brunjes
William Dolaw
Robert Hall
Rick Szumski
Mayor Paiella said, "I need more information, so I'm not ready
to vote on this tonight. If we could table' it, then we can
decide on the pros and cons of it. I'd be willing to do that . ".
Councilwoman Berger asked, "When are the County Commissioners
expected to look at this?" Mr. Mowery replied, "it will be held
in October. The first ordinance is set for firs reading on
October 6, 2011. The City of Port Piece is hoping to do it soon
thereafter. The basic premise is that if something was adopted
that it would be in a time frame so that we didn't have one
community doing it now and another doing it six months from now.
It is to all be done in a fairly similar time frame. This really
hasn't been discussed by the County Commission at this point, so
bb/b8/2b12 "1b:49 /12871b248 CITY MGR & CRA OFC PAGE 14/24
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR DIETING MINUTES SEPTE14ER 12, 2011
it is not- as though -we have been actively developing and
discussing it. It will be coming up, and there will be a lot of
discussion. we will be meeting with the same groups that you
have, and Bob Brunjes is a friend of mine. I appreciate his
position, and love hearing his comments. I appreciate. having.
Scripps within our community, and love the aspect that they have.
provided. There, is one issue that we are working •on." Councilman
Kelly pointed out, "It was one that was generated by the public,
and not by you or me. we will table it to November, and let- you.
guys take the heat for the next couple of weeks.".. Councilwoman
Martin asked; "How long are we tabling it•for? ►1.The. Ass istant
City Attorney replied, "There is a meeting Wednesday with
Scripps, and it will be attended by the Sheriff►s•office and the -
county. The City of Fort Pierce and Chief Baldwin send their
regrets, but their thoughts are basically the same as ours."
Councilman Kelly clarified, "Fort Pierce doesn't have to do
anything, because• they already have that ordinance." The
Assistant City Attorney advised, "Their position was that the
statute already prohibits commerce of any kind with moving
vehicles. It -is a little bit of a broad reading of. the statute,
but it arguably fits with their position." Councilman Kelly
said, "I'd like to table is for at least 30 days. That will give
the -Legal Department a way to try to accommodate some people or
not."
Councilwoman Martin moved to table Ordinance 11-65 for 30 days
to the meeting of October 10, 2011, and bring it back as a
discussion item. Councilman Kelly seconded the motion. The City
Attorney inquired, "Do you want to put it on as a first reading
item, or do you want it back on for discussion?" Councilwoman
Berger stated, "I agree. I need more information too, so I'd
like to have more discussion or at least get with staff to see
what Alachua and Jacksonville are doing." The Assistant City
Attorney clarified, "The other one is the four -day Labor Day
thing." Councilwoman Berger said, "Alachua does the four -day
Labor Day, and basically it is a free for all. Generally, the
bad apples are not going to come out on Labor Day ,and challenge
the firefighters on the corner to try to get a couple of
dollars. I thought this started because we had some bad apples
out there, and it `was less about safety. I guess -that is the
route we need to take. I wish that we could come up - with
something else." Councilman Kelly questioned, "How do you
determine which are the good ones and which are the -bad ones?"
The Assistant City Attorney explained, "The problem lies in your
trying to make that determination. when there is an attempt to
make that determination that is when we find ourselves in a
constitutional violation position." Councilwoman Berger said, "I
bb/bpi/1b11 lb:4J //123/1b14t3 CITY MGR & CRA OFC PAGE 15/24
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING lMMMS 3EPTZMER 12, 2011
would remind the Council that is what the calls were that. were
coming in, and they were pointing at certain groups and saying
here is why they think this. we are dealing with an issue that
was started as a result of listening to those concerns. If we
believe that they are real, then it needs to be .followed up on,
and not finding other reasons to make -this happen." Mayor
Faiella clarified, "You said another county is doing it for four
days." The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative
and said, "Labor Day weekend, and I believe it is Alachua."
Mayor Faiella asked, "How does that constitute . . . ? If it is
a safety- issue, it is safety all year round. It is not only for
four days." The Assistant City Attorney commented, "I see an.
issue with that. I agree.". Councilwoman Martin remarked, "They
are saying that the road is safe for four days and not for . the
rest of the year." The Assistant City Attorney explained, "If
you have that many.people selling stuff in the road, there is no
vehicle traffic moving." Mayor Faiella said, "if we are dealing
with safety, then it is 365 days a year." The Assistant City
Attorney pointed out, "The one weekend doesn't help the
newspaper vendors at all." Mayor Faiella stated, "I have a
problem with punishing everyone for a selective group. I just
cant do it." Councilman Kelly clarified, "we are tabling it for
discussion."
The City Clerk restated the motion as follows: for approval to
table Ordinance 11-65 for 30 days to the meeting of October 10,
2011, and to bring it back as a discussion item. The motion
passed unanimously by roll call vote.
bb/Ub/1b11 lb:4J tI:Zb/1b24$ CITY MGR & CRA OFC PAGE 16/24
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine Page 1 of 2
Select Year: i 2011, Go
The 2011 Florida Statutes
Title XXI II Chapter 316316 View Entire Chapter
MOTOR VEHICLES STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL
316.2045 Obstruction of public streets, highways, and roads.—
(1) It is unlawful for any person or persons willfully to obstruct the free, convenient, and normal use
of any public street, highway, or road by impeding, hindering, stifling, retarding, or restraining traffic or
passage thereon, by standing or approaching motor vehicles thereon, or by endangering the safe
movement of vehicles or pedestrians traveling thereon; and any person or persons who violate the
provisions of this subsection, upon conviction, shall be cited for a pedestrian violation, punishable as
provided in chapter 318.
(2) It is unlawful, without proper authorization or a lawful permit, for any person or persons willfully
to obstruct the free, convenient, and normal use of any public street, highway, or road by any of the
means specified in subsection (1) in order to solicit. Any person who violates the provisions of this
subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s..7.7.5..082 or s.
775.083. Organizations qualified under s. 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and registered pursuant
to chapter 496, or persons or organizations acting on their behalf are exempted from the provisions of
this subsection for activities on streets or roads not maintained by the state. Permits for the use of any
portion of a state• maintained road or right-of-way shall be required only for those purposes and in the
manner set out In s. 337,4Q6.
(3) Permits for the use of any street, road, or right-of-way not maintained by the state may be
issued by the appropriate local government, An organization that is qualified under s. 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code and registered under chapter 496, or a. person or organization acting on behalf of
that organization, is exempt from local requirements for a permit issued under this subsection for
charitable solicitation activities on or along streets or roads that are not maintained by the state under
the following conditions:
(a) The organization, or the person or organization acting on behalf of the organization, must
provide all of the following to the local government:
1. No fewer than 14 calendar days prior to the proposed solicitation, the name and address of the
person or organization that will perform the solicitation and the name and address of the organization
that will receive funds from the solicitation.
Z. For review and comment, a plan for the safety of all. persons participating in the solicitation, as
well as the motoring public, at the locations where the solicitation will take place.
3. Specific details of the location or locations of the proposed solicitation and the hours during
which the solicitation activities will occur.
4, Proof of commercial general liability insurance against ctaims for bodily injury and property
damage occurring on streets, ,roads, or.'rights-of-way or arising from the solicitor's activities or use of
the streets, roads, or rights -of -way by the solicitor or the solicitor's agents, contractors, or employees.
The insurance shall have a limit of not less than S1 million per occurrence for the general aggregate,
http:llwww.leg.state.fl.t(slStatutes/index.cfm?App,. mode=Display_Statute&Search—String--... 6/8/2012
bb/UU/:M11 lb:4y //28/15248 CITY MGR & CRA OFC PAGE 17/24
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine Page 2 oi'2
The certificate of insurance shall name the local government as an additional insured and shall be filed
with the local government no later than 72 hours before the date of the solicitation.
S. Proof of registration with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services pursuant to s.
M 405 or proof that the soliciting organization is exempt from the registration requirement.
(b) Organizations or persons meeting the requirements of subparagraphs (a)1.-5. may solicit for a
period not to exceed 10 cumulative days within 1 calendar year.
(c) All solicitation shall occur during daylight hours only.
(d) Solicitation activities shall not interfere with the safe and efficient movement of traffic and shalt
not cause danger to the participants or the public.
(e) No person engaging in solicitation activities shall persist after solicitation has been denied, act in
a demanding or harassing manner, or use any sound or voice -amplifying apparatus or device,
(f) All persons participating in the solicitation shall beat least 18 years of age and shalt possess
picture identification.
(g) Signage providing notice of the solicitation shall be posted at least $00 feet before the site of the
solicitation.
(h) The local government may stop solicitation activities if any conditions or requirements of this
subsection are not met.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to inhibit political campaigning on the public right-of-
way or to require a permit for such activity.
(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1), any commercial vehicle used solely for the
purpose of collecting solid waste or recyclable or recovered materials may stop or stand on any public
street, highway, or road for the sole purpose of collecting solid waste or recyclable or recovered
materials. However, such solid waste or recyclable or recovered materials collection vehicle shall show
or display amber flashing hazard lights at all times that it is engaged in stopping or standing for the
purpose of collecting solid waste or recyclable or recovered materials. Local governments may establish
reasonable regulations governing the standing and stopping of such commercial vehicles, provided that
such regulations are applied uniformly and without regard to the ownership of the vehicles.
History.—s. 1, ch. 71-135; ss. 1, 13, ch. 76-31; s. 1, ch. 87.378: s. 61, ch. 93-207: s. 29, ch. 96.350; s. 2, ch. 2007-43.
Note.— Former s. 316.103.
Copyright 01995.2012 The Florida Legislature • Privgsy statement . Contact Us
http,//www, leg. state.fl.us/Statutesti.ndcx,cfm?App_modv--Display_Statute&Scarch_String=... 6/8/2012
db/08/2U12 1b:49 7728715248 CITY MGR & CRA OFC PAGE 18/24
Page 2 of 6
Gregory J. 0.ravec
Assistant City Managa
121 SW Port St. Lucie Boulevard
Fort St. Lucic, FL 34984
(772)344-4371
(772) $71-5248 (fax)
From: Gabrielle Taylor
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 3:19 PM
To: Greg Oravec, Roger Orr
Cc: 'Katherine Barbieri'; 'Kemerson.CFP@city-ftpieree.com'
Subject:
See below Att. Gen opinion that casts doubt on whether the Fla. Legislature has sufficiently cured the
constitutional deficiencies of the earlier s.316.2045, but resists issuing a definitive opinion thereon. Rather, the
opinion is limited to a determination of whether there has been state preemption.
Gaby
Florida Attorney General
Advisory Legal Opinion
Number: AGO 2007.50
Date: November 7, 2007
Subject: Municipalities, solicitation on public highways
Ms. Pamela K. Akin
Attorney, City of Clearwater
Post Office Box 4748
Clearwater, Florida 33758-4748
RE: MUNICIPALITIES - SOLICITATION - ORDINANGSS - kZVWT9 - ROADS AND STREETS -
operation of statutory amendment on local ordinance prohibiting solicitation on
public roadways. s. 316.2045, Fla. Stat.
Dear Ms. Akin,
As attorney for the City of Clearwater, Florida, you have asked for my opinion on
substantially the following question:
Does section 316.2045(3), Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 2007-43, Laws of
Florida, preempt a City of Clearwater ordinance prohibiting the solicitation of
donations for charitable, religious, educational, benevolent, or any other
purposes?
The City of Clearwater prohibits, by ordinance, anyone from approaching a motor
10/14/2011
bb/b8/1b11 lb:4y !/18/1b248 CITY MGR & CRA OFC PAGE 19/24
Page 3 of 6
vehicle being operated on a publicly -owned street for the purpose of soliciting or
attempting to solicit from the occupant of the motor vehicle donations of money or
of property of any kind for charitable, religious, educational, benevolent, or any
other purposes. The city does not issue permits or any other exemption from the
prohibition.[1] You have asked whether amendments to section 316.2045(3), Florida
Statutes, that were adopted during the 2007 legislative session, apply to the City
of Clearwater which absolutely prohibits solicitation, or whether the statute
applies to municipalities and counties where soliciting is currently authorized by
Permit.
initially, it is important to note that the regulation of the right to solicit
contributions on public roads raises First Amendment Coasideratione. The right to
solicit contributions to a charitable or political cause is protected by- the First
Amendment.[21 In a public forum, such as the streets, time, place, and manner
restrictions on the exercise of First Amendment rights will be permitted if they
Hare justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, . . . are
narrowly tailored to aerve a significant governmental interest, and . . they.
leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information. "[3)
Section 316.2045, Florida Statutes, has been challenged on First Amendment grounds
and found to be unconstitutional. In Blecboff v. Florida,141 the federal district
court adopted the report and :recommendation of a United States Magistrate holding
section 316.2045, Florida Statutes, facially invalid under the First Amendment. The
court said that the statute preferred the viewpoints expressed by registered
charities and political campaigners by allowing ubiquitous and free dieeemination
of their views, but restricted discussion of all other issues and subjects. My
review of the legislative history surrounding the most recent amendments to section
316.2045, Florida Statutes, does not indicate that the Legislature recognized the
court's holding in Bischoff or sought to address the infirmities in the statute.
However, this office has no authority to either declare a statute unconstitutional
or advise noncompliance with a legislative direction or mandate.[&) Thus, my
comments are limited to a consideration of the questions you have asked, I.e.,
whether amendments to section 316.2045(3), Florida Statutes, that were'adopted
during the 2007 legislative session, apply to the City of Clearwater which
currently enforces a policy that absolutely prohibits solicitation on local
roadways.
Section 316.2045, Florida Statutes, makes it unlawful for any person to willfully
obstruct "the free, convenient, and normal use of any public street, highway, or
road" by approaching motor vehicles traveling thereon.[6] Pursuant to subsection
(2) of the statute, it is unlawful, without proper authorization or a lawful
permit, for any person to obstruct traffic in order to solicit.[73 The state has
authorized local governments to issue permits for solicitation activities on local
streets, roads, or rights-of-way.[8) The statute recognizes certain exceptions from
the provisions of section 316.2045 for solicitation by organizations qualified
under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal'Revenue Code or registered pursuant to
Chapter 496, Florida Statutes.
Section: 316.2045(3), Florida Statutes, was amended by Chapter 2007-43, Laws of
Florida, to provide:
"Permits for the use of any street, road, or right-of-way not maintained by the
state may be issued by the appropriate local government. An 2ggai izatijon.tha_t_is
qualified under s, S0:L(o)(, .f__.o£..,t1?Q =nterrial Rever►�se_Cade_,aapd„_registered under
chapter 496, or a_pgglg!A,.or.._orgarcfza,tion._actfng..ora_,behalf._oi'.that..osgarii�atio�� is
exempti from local regu sementq for a uermit issued under this subsection for,
_ _ .._._.._..__,....._.._.._..._..........___.._,._...._.._. ----
charitable solicitation activities on or
along_,streat� o_,,a,,eda..that, are„.trot
........, __ . _.__.____.._.._____..__.............. .. ._
maintained by the skate.. under. the...follloaing_conditions :.
_(a) l!h organization „os theme®rson or o�saiaationact ng, _onbehalf , of the
organixatio;►,, , mu®t-provide all . of the following to the local govQx�rmQx�t s
10/14/2011
06/08/2012 16:49 7728715248 CITY MGR & CRA OFC PAGE 20/24
Page 4 of 6
1; No £Queer than 14 calQnda.r days pr;Lox to the proposed so] Citation.,.. Ghatname ,and
address of the, -person„ orgm.ization that will,_pergorm_,the solicitation and the
name_ and. address of the _organ zgt;Li Chat will reeeiv_e Funds from the solicitation.
,reniQaP and comma�nk,_ a_,_pjan,.4pr, the_safety of a]l..persons�articipaCing,,,in
_._-....
the solicitation•,,,, as, well., as the, motoring ,public,, at the-.locations_where . the
solicitation will_, take _Rlace.
3.,_ Specific details of the loaation, _or ,locations of the proposed solicitation„anA
that hour* during which the solicitation activities will occur.,
4,,•..PX4of,,,of,,,commerCxal„geneeral„liability_insuranpe against claims for bod31_j► ;wary
and property_aamaga.,,occt�rriag on ,s,treeta�,-_=oacis�_ or rights -of -way _or_arising from
the col citor,'s_,activit or use of the streets,. roa-,ds. of xi -pf-way„by,..:the
itor or the solicitor's a9eixts,,,,cor►txaCtoXa,,...as_ employees �Ths�ineurance_shal],
have a limit,of not less than„„-,yl „pA .A on rer__occur;ence-, or the xier6�]. Aggr_agat®.,
The�certifi_cate o£- insu;saes shall name the loca-__gover�rment as errs,, additional
nsur®d and shall be filed withthe local
gooazasme�G,_no,,,1a�,.,.t1�an_?2_..houss b®fore
the date of the aolkc
Proof of. registration with the.Dpartmet ofAgiculireaConeur89;:V _eicae.
pursuant_to s.496,.,405, or,•,pr..... that, the_soliciting crganizat.ion- isexeQ pt,from the
regiatration secluresent.
(b)--, Organisations or �ereoszs-meating.�the recuirements of subp
solicit for a period not to exceed 10 Cusau� At.vgs days•-_wittsia_i,,, calendar�rear�
(g) All solicits•�ion,.shall:,.,.oC,ct�-dur_�.ag dayllght,_hour's,_onl�r= ••
(d),_„Soli citation„ activities shall not interfere with the �safra and efficipAt,
_...... -.___....,___-,,..
movement of traffic and shall no cause..-.daoge+xto ,the,�sartiic pants os the 4c,_
J, No person Q�c agxzxgi ri,, golf ci ration activities shall„ persist after solicita_ta.on
has been derli®d,,-act inademandinng or harassing manner,,, or
use. an__sourul_or voice -amplifying a aratus or device,,
(� All aeraoas eartieipatinga.x�, Vie_ eol,a citation -,shall^ bat„at least 18srears of age
and shall possess picture identif eat&gnt
(g} Sigggge providir►a notice of t110 eoli.cxtatioR.. aha11,_be sated at least 500 foot
before the site of the_,soliatatf.on,.
(h}. xh� 1.oGaI_gov��nantma�,•stop solicitation activities if az�yrWcoxxdi..tioas or
re cements of this subsection are not, apt,,"
Chapter 2007-43, the "Iris Roberts Act" (underlined above) is intended to exempt
certain nonprofit organizations from permit requirements related to obstructing
streets or roads for solicitation purposes: to establish conditions that certain
nonprofit organizations must meet in order to solicit charitable donations on or
along certain streets, roads, and rights -of -way: and to authorize local governments
to halt solicitation activities if these conditions are not not -[9j
By using the word "may" in the first sentence of the statute, the Legislature has
granted local governments the discretionary authority to issue permits -for
solicitation activities on streets and roads not maintained by the state. (l0)•The
"iris Roberts Act" then preempts those local governments that have adopted a permit
requirement for the solicitation of charitable contributions. Nothing in the act or
in the legislative history surrounding adoption of this uwndment reflects a
legislative intent that local governments having no permit program and currently
prohibiting all solicitation must allow solicitation. To read the amended statutory -
language to allow only charities and political campaigners to solicit could,
arguably, subject the statute to federal constitutional challenge as violating
First Amendment free speech rights and Vouxteenth Amendment equal protection
rights.[11) As the court held in the Bischoff case, "(flaoially the Florida statute
prefers speech by e. 501(c)(3) charities and those who are engaged in political
speech." This problem would continue to be reflected in a city policy prohibiting
solicitation except, as required by erection 316.2045(3), Florida Statutes, by
charitable, religious, educational, or benevolent organizations.
in sum, it is my opinion that section 316.2045(3), Florida Statutes, as amended. by
Chapter 2007-43, Laws of Florida, does not preempt a City of Clearwater ordinance
10/14/2011
Ub/1Qd/Zb12 lb:4b /12811b248 CITY MGR & CRA OFC PAGE 21/24
Page 5 of 6
prohibiting the solicitation of donations for charitable, religious, educational,
benevolent or any other purposes on publicly -owned streets. Rather, the statute is
addressed to local governments that have adopted a permit system for solicitation
activities on non -state maintained roadways. I would strongly suggest that the
Florida Legislature revisit this statute to consider the First Ameiadman.t problems
raised by the Biseboff case.
Sincerely,
Hill McCollum
Attorney General
EM/tgh
------------------------------------------------------
El] This office must presume the validity of duly enacted local legialation. See
Ops. Att'y Gen. Fla. 02-79 (2002) and 95-32 (1995) ; Cf. PiokeriZ.l 'tr. Schott, 55 So.
2d 716, 719 (Fla. 1951) (duty of beverage director to observe the law as he found
it until in a proper proceeding its constitutionality is judicially passed upon).
No comment is expressed herein regarding the validity of the City of Clearwater's
ordinance.
(2] See, e.g., V122age of Schaumburg v. •Citixons for Setter Environment, 444 V.S.
620, at 632, 100 S. Ct. 826 at 834, 63 L. Ed. 2d 73 (1980), rehesr;.ng denied, 445
U.S. 972,
200 S. Ct. 1668, 64 L. Ed. 2d 250 (1980), in which the Court stated that:
"Charitable appeals for funds, on the street or door-to-door, involve a variety of
speech interests . . . that are within the protection of the First Amendment.
Soliciting financial support is undoubtedly subject to reasonable regulation but
the latter must be undertaken with due regard for the reality that solicitation is
characteristically intertwined with informative and•perhaps perauas1va speech
seeking support for particular causes or for particular views on economic,
political, or social issues, and for the reality that without solicitation the flow
of such information and advocacy would likely cease,"
[3) See Clark v. Community for Creative Non -Violence, 460 U.S. 288, 293, 104 S. Ct.
3065, 3069, 82 L. Ed. 2d 221 (1984); Association. of Community Organisations for
Reform Now v. St. Louis•County, 930 F.2d 591 (8th Cir. 1991).
(4) 242 F. Hupp. 2d 1226 (M.D. Fla. 2003).
[5) Cf. Ops. Att'y Gen. Fla..03-32 (2003), 78-64 (1978), and 77-99 (1977); see
geaerally Dalton Corparation v. Batley, 336 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1976).
[6] Section 316.2045(1), Fla. Stat.
(7] Section 316.2045(2), Fla. Stat.
[8) Section 316.2045(3), Fla. Stat., states that "[p]ermits for the use of any
street, road, or right -of -may not maintained by the state may be•issued by the
appropriate local government." Permits for the use of state -maintained roads or
rights -of -way are con.trO).led in a. 337.406, Fla_ Stat.
[9] See Hill Details, HB 99 - Charitable Public Solicitations, General Bill,
"Charitable Public Solicitations."
[10] See City of Miami v. Save Brsckell Avenue, Inc., 426 so. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA
1983), and Pixel v. Clevenger, 285 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) (the Word "may"
10/14/2011
bb/IOU/ ZUi2 ib:4J !IZUtib24U CITY MGR & CRA OFC PAGE 22/24
Page 6 of 6
when given its ordinary meaning denotes permissive term rather than mandatory
connotation of the word "shall"). And see Summary Analysis, HB 99, Mousse of
Representatives Staff Analysis, dated January 23, 2007 ("Local governments have the
authority to issue permitze for solicitation activities on non -state maintained
roadways.").
[11) See Bischoff v, Florida, 242 F. Supp. 2d 1226 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (Florida
statute prohibiting obstruction of public streets, highways, and roads [s.
316.2045, Fla. Stat.] was content -based and vague, and therefore violated First
Amendment free speech rights; statute facially preferred the viewpoints expressed
by registered charities and political campaigners by allowing ubiquitous and free
dissemination of their views, but restricted discussion of all other issues and
subjects).
10/14/2011 '
Ub/Ut1/2b12 1b:4J II2tl/1524b CITY MGR & CRA OFC PAGE 23/24
- "N
on..,
A ,I:.. t . n. +:.r•`: +la:':'' E"�' ", <� '- ,. I„ �, ; ': �:' � is � � ."', ' . ' •"'i; ::l";w'w'xs�+'^ ^+.y; i . ,
�; salesOa►dsiA;,�.
mow;•,. ..n, Rr: •. ' .., i; ,'1'1!.�a
sti
'a . • ,� �• ledthe is- C shu6e zen i4ids, .� .,
.'�Odruitcil tab to'itd afe' - '
�h.disccisaien.: 'so�ateioas :•tiliaarit��; �:•<-
Oct.10 me so ci bificials
Po>i�"'r�l'ucl�� tffies: g Lc safetyaadl}mpedethe;'..=�ed:dlale;
ded i�iogr"+�d;,; ;1' toccomnao- oftrsffic�.{;
+gicnnps.dce Mayor Batt% .qi4,fh,'CindaBaiiiwasabsent,. ddto coantyyoPil;�otlae1-••: Zprolu-blasvendors •
aIized ita pro�tased oOe J, yam, vexdesagocJble sola�rta Z+c
eff r°lic bnsiaesa ystruplii`
oes into ect, that d►onld'haa.' ro�dsw7�tlxecityto,sellgoods+ directed towa:tdpedesWMskvn-::... ' ::`
endors from. making ioaiiside orcollecx chatitable.cottt'bations sidewal'ks.•. ' : y
LOCAL •
ROADSIDE Several employees 'of lieved the. ordinaace war.
from IA Sckipps Treasure Coast beingproposedbecauseof .
Newspapers, including the the individuals who were
•com any's president and posing,as veteran$. .
ordinance would ptobibit publisher, Bob Brunjes, Mayor JoAnn' Faiella
firefighters fmm collect- said an all-inclusive ban said she didn't • want 'to
ing donations for the' Fill would •put d6 street ven- punisheverybodybeooase
the Boot" campaign. The dors out of work. They . of one.geoup.
Musculai Dystro by As- said the ordinance would Assistant, City Attor-
sociat'ion ;has. had along, , prohlbit Sunday; sales of.. , .ney,Gib.delle Taylor sod
partnershhi�pp with the'ha»: .alaiost.2.000.newspapdrg Ihere'are'some areas,•in- .
temationaL sociatibn ot'' •to motorists. eluding Alachua County
Firefighters The%+efight-, Discussion of the •batii:. -and . Jacksonville, that
ers'.asswciutigsbs1tec began.' after indiviifivals .filzv,�sniiilas ordinances.'+
itsd#svr:� • dessed In -military usii' ..bart.alloai;cti acconanao- '
'' :qtr e' £oims:started it tfsi :rS 'said :Al
ghtas ,; err•; • :o�ni'ietRare`Coast; saaads :' : tali nu�rtty allows' sb-
thrt'ius' :; r .::
,y: ;,, for veoe*aris.; moans flt' a "free:.for
Aisoaat3ii: �,-datis:':� 1 > ,
"Prlt';,fhe'�o��''-� ;»:`• .,+.. tibh' �lip'��e-�• •':a3�; 'a%ag four daps of
p0 dga `by'ficripps 3'rea-... '.t�i,,13gerr tYysq we�cead:
wii $refighters stead sure 'CoastNewspapers . 'auve''vee; .slue said t3tat
m inknections•or at' of -the ggrroouups —and oth- does=Qittg to -help the
sh ' centers hol trg' 'ers— showed bat in�some' newspaper eskers.
-`boots.-•` ask'peo-•"' cj4sesoalyaportionaFthe "t�s.at►•all-or-nothing
ppletoihraw=,The= money colle�cted,actually, shuationU'.My oonioa;"
donation's fnriilxftearcb,• 'beneiitedveteransortheir ahesaid.
medical ' equIA m t .and} farriires,, Ciey W • s said there
activ s.ior 3�uecq-* ' City +Councilman • Jack. •,.;ti ,00 tances•ofso-
lai Ssoci n: -We11y said Monday, 't7re':. Ilicitoi�,gef ghitbycars..
alt�d be devastat proposed ban came' about "This' is under public,
ingtoourmission,andthe &bmpdbliccomplairrtsre- safaty;'and'I don't know
services tiveprovidetothe cabedthroughpbonecalla • 'how we.tlo�fwoneandaot
residents'ofS t'St.1ucie;' andemails. 1, the-,athett",,City Council -
Glavin sardif-the city bans ' But CouncilwomanUi- , woman.5hannon Martin
roadside solicitations. chelle Berger said she be- said.
Ub/ b8/ 2b"12 1 b: 4y / 128715248
I , �
for
■A Idi,wayto•id&es8,pukietweeras
I Iti
idiid
as iv,�r.•,t�tat 1>as •.caused � few ;pro�flenos';--::aiod
a}waowe�£t�e' • ' " de:suggestedbysotrie��ocal�af-
s:ni•p��;�'L-;�.F',.Y,'Lri�S1a'—.'�:�If'.
v.
. equipment• • , r , ... 'for+ttxe�ssvaatacac.�Last
year, ior� ovi%iag raecians Bad
the roadway collected '$39.t100 for the •association.
CITY MGR & CRA OFC PAGE 24/24
d�'ON tri oar'musstost'�rnt•�+e'-
vide to'the,remdes,� tuc"
-the cop d' i at•tts S91m,
ptm
Zess»e�a er
b3►� W. ,
Unftrimi�Ed'':.' .r+ ..;.i'"r'L•�..,r. +ii�r '.!•
lows a Aai d ,a
a'•tlIitewamiess•nureattcramis e r
ti4a 1SlOtNlCie. , _ • .. ._X.'. _.. . i
rea50w ;for'ie'baa� =tl
Ympe+���trl
•ecdatal',evitle�ea�f Sa
presea,�ted-Wvkdi e
actit► S'' ro:b '�
.�OiOCG�C,T �SbGbtt�, „
for
bons to contiaue them 6bUtiv'ALJQW is a ,.fq
Better yet, $ StoLtid�'tiS "on:
. ties — job .retenti`on and •creation'— aad'a'baa oa
vendors woui'd:do',justlbe
WAS Sunday, October 9,2011'4) SCRIppS TREASURE COAST ME•WSPAP:E-RS » SL
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Katherine Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney
C.A. NO: 11-0996
DATE: October 4, 2011
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 11-024 - Road Right of Way Safety
BACKGROUND:
The St. Lucie County Sheriffs Office has requested the Board of County Commissioners consider
prohibiting activities from being conducted on the right of way of public roads to assure the free, orderly,
undisrupted movement of motorized vehicles on the public roads. The ordinance would prohibit any
person from going upon any road in the unincorporated County for the purpose of distributing materials
or goods or soliciting business or charitable contributions of any kind from the occupants of any motorized
vehicle located on the public roads of St. Lucie County.
The ordinance also prohibits any person from being within four (4) feet of the edge of the road for
the purpose of distributing materials or goods or soliciting business or charitable contributions of any kind
from the occupants of any motorized vehicle located on the public roads of St. Lucie County.
This ordinance has been provided to both the City of PortSt. Lucie and City of Fort Pierce Attorney's
Office. Port St. Lucie has indicated that they will be proceeding with a similar ordinance, which has an
anticipated effective date in October 2011.
The passage of Ordinance No. 11-024 will further the interest of the health, safety, and general
welfare of the public.
Permission to advertise Ordinance No.11-024 was granted by the Board of County Commissioners
on September 6, 2011. The Notice of Intent was published in the News Tribune on September 21, 2011.
RECOMMENDATION/CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt Ordinance No.11-024 and authorize the Chairman to sign
the Ordinance.
KB/cb
H:\Memos\K6-AgendaM ertro-0rd.11024PH.wpd
Respectfully submitted,
f44-�
Katherine Barbieri
Assistant County Attorney
ORDINANCE NO. 12-007
(f/k/a Ordinance No. 11-024)
AN ORDINANCE CREATING CHAPTER 17, ARTICLE VII, ROAD RIGHT-OF-
WAY SAFETY ORDINANCE; PROHIBITING PERSONS FROM DISPLAYING
ADVERTISING, DISTRIBUTING MATERIALS OR GOODS, AND SOLICITING
BUSINESS OR CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS, FROM OCCUPANTS OF
MOTORIZED VEHICLES LOCATED ON PUBLIC ROADS OF ST. LUCIE
COUNTY; PROVIDING FOR TITLE; PROVIDING FOR INTENT; PROVIDING
FOR DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS;
PROVIDING FOR PROHIBITIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FORPENALTIES; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, Sections 125.01(1)(m), Florida Statutes, authorizesthe Board of County Commissioners
to regulate roads within St. Lucie County; and
WHEREAS, Section 125.01(1)(w), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Board of County Commissioners
to perform acts that are in the common interest of the people of St. Lucie County, and to exercise all
powers and privileges not specifically prohibited by law; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners findsthat persons displaying advertising in roads,
distributing materials or goods to occupants of motorized vehicles in roads, or soliciting business or
charitable contributions from the occu pants of motorized vehicles in roads is hazardous to public safety and
impedes the normal, orderly, and safe flow of traffic; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Legislature has determined that the failureto prohibit certain activities from
being conducted on the right-of-way of state transportation facilities —such as the free distribution or sale
of any merchandise, goods, property or services; the display or solicitation for free distribution or sale of
any merchandise, goods, property or services; or solicitation for charitable purposes — endangers the
health, safety, and general welfare of the public by causing distractions to motorists, unsafe pedestrian
movement within travel lanes, sudden stoppage or slowdown of traffic, and rapid lane changingand other
dangerous traffic movement; and
WHEREAS, St. Lucie Countyseeks to provide forthe safety of itscitizens by prohibiting transactions
involving occupants of motorized vehicles on public roads within St. Lucie County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners findsthat passage of this Ordinance will furtherthe
interest of the health, safety, and general welfare of the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ST. LUCIE
COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Underlined passages are added. -1- Remek4h'engh passages are deleted.
ARTICLE VII. ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY SAFETY ORDINANCE
Section 1-17-70. TITLE
This Ordinance shall be entitled the St. Lucie County Road Right of Way Safety Ordinance
Section 1-17-71. INTENT
It is the intent of this Ordinance to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of
St. Lucie County, to assure the free, orderly, undisrupted movement of motorized vehicles on public roads
within St. Lucie County, and to provide for safetyin the interest of pedestrians and occupants of motorized
vehicles located on public roads within St. Lucie County. This Ordinance is not intended to control traffic
as that term is defined in Chapter 316, Florida Statutes. This Ordinance is intended to apply evenhandedly
to all persons who engage in the activities proscribed herein, regardless of their message. This Ordinance
is intended to be narrowly -tailored to serve the significant government interest of public safety and to
leave open ample alternative channels of displaying advertising, distributing goods and materials and
soliciting business and charitable contributions.
Section 1-17-72. DEFINITIONS
"Roads" shall include streets, shoulders, roadbeds, medians, and all otherways open to travel by
operators of motorized vehicles within St. Lucie County. This definition excludes private roads and roads
that are not open to motor vehicle travel.
Section 1-17-73. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
The Board of County Commissioners hereby finds and determines that mixing pedestrians and
temporarily stopped motor vehicles in the same space at the same time is inherently dangerous and that
the combination of the high volume of motorized vehicles and congested roads in St. Lucie County and
persons engaging in advertising, distribution, or solicitation that is directed at motor vehicle occupants on
those roads is hazardous to public safety, both for occupants of motorized vehicles located on public roads
and for persons engaging in such advertising, distribution, and solicitation.
The Board of County Commissioners further hereby finds and determines that the prohibitions set
forth in this Ordinance are narrowly -tailored to serve the significant interest of promoting and protecting
the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of St. Lucie County, and that said prohibitions leave
open ample alternative channels of communication.
Section 1-17-74. PROHIBITIONS
1. No person shall be upon or go upon any road for the purpose of displaying advertising of
any kind ordistributing materials orgoods orsoliciting business or charitable contributions of any kind from
the occupant of any motorized vehicle located on public roads of St. Lucie County.
Underlined passages are added. -2- St dekthreegh passages are deleted.
2. No person shall be within four (4) feet of the edge of the road for the purpose of
distributing materials or goods or soliciting business or charitable contributions of any kind from the
occupant of any motorized vehicle located on public roads of St. Lucie County
3. The language in this Section is intended to prohibit the activities described above only when
they are directed by pedestrians toward occupants of motor vehicles that are on the traveled portion of
public roadsthat are open to traffic—theterm "traveled portion" includestravel lanes turn lanes and other
portions of the road that are generally used for motor vehicle travel. This Section is not intended to
prohibit activities such as advertising, distribution of goods or materials, or business or charitable
solicitation that is directed toward pedestrians on sidewalks.
PART B. TERRITORY EMBRACED
The provisions ofthis Ordinance shall embrace all public roads that are open to motor vehicle traffic
within the unincorporated boundaries of St. Lucie County, including state roads, interstate ramps and
county roads.
PART C. SEVERABILITY AND APPLICABILITY
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, that if any
section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this Ordinance be held invalid, the remainder of the
Ordinance shall not be affected.
PART D. PENALTIES
1. Pursuant to Section 125.69(1), Florida Statutes, any person convicted of violating the
provisions of this Ordinance shall be punished by a fine notto exceed $500, by imprisonment not to exceed
60 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
2. In addition to the penalties provided by subsection (1) of this Section, any violation of this
ordinance shall be subject to appropriate civil action in a court of appropriate jurisdiction.
PART E. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
The Clerk is hereby directed forthwith to send a certified copy of this ordinance to the Bureau of
Administrative Code and Laws, Department of State, The Capitol, Tallahassee, Florida 32304.
PART F. EFFECTIVE DATE
Pursuant to Section 125.66, Florida Statutes, a certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed with
the Department of State by the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners within ten (10) days after
enactment by the Board of County Commissioners. This Ordinance shall become effective when the
acknowledgment is received from the Secretary of State that the Ordinance has been duly filed.
Underlined passages are added. -3- Sk weltlhren.h passages are deleted.
PART G. ADOPTION.
After motion and second, the vote on this ordinance was as follows:
Chairman Chris Craft XXX
Vice Chairman Chris Dzadvosky XXX
Commissioner Tod Mowery. XXX
Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson XXX
Commissioner Paula A. Lewis XXX
PART H. CODIFICATION.
Provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated in the Code of Ordinances of St. Lucie County,
Florida, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or other appropriate word, and
the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention; provided,
however, that Parts B through G shall not be codified.
ATTEST:
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this day of 2011.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
Deputy Clerk Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNESS:
BY:
County Attorney
Underlined passages are added. -4- Stedelethiaugh passages are deleted.
ORDINANCE NO. 12-007-a
(f/k/a Ordinance No. 11-024-a)
AN ORDINANCE CREATING CHAPTER 17, ARTICLE VII, ROAD RIGHT-OF-
WAY SAFETY ORDINANCE; PROHIBITING PERSONS FROM DISPLAYING
ADVERTISING, DISTRIBUTING MATERIALS OR GOODS, AND SOLICITING
BUSINESS OR CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS, FROM OCCUPANTS OF
MOTORIZED VEHICLES LOCATED ON PUBLIC ROADS OF ST. LUCIE
COUNTY; PROVIDING FOR TITLE; PROVIDING FOR INTENT; PROVIDING
FOR DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS;
PROVIDING FOR PROHIBITIONS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, Sections 125.01(1)(m), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Board of County Commissioners
to regulate roads within St. Lucie County; and
WHEREAS, Section 125.01(1)(w), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Board of County Commissioners
to perform acts that are in the common interest of the people of St. Lucie County, and to exercise all
powers and privileges not specifically prohibited by law; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners finds that persons displaying advertising in roads,
distributing materials or goods to occupants of motorized vehicles in roads, or soliciting business or
charitable contributions from the occupants of motorized vehicles in roads is hazardous to public safety and
impedes the normal, orderly, and safe flow of traffic; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Legislature has determined that the failure to prohibit certain activities from
being conducted on the right-of-way of state transportation facilities — such as the free distribution or sale
of any merchandise, goods, property or services; the display or solicitation for free distribution or sale of
any merchandise, goods, property or services; or solicitation for charitable purposes — endangers the
health, safety, and general welfare of the public by causing distractions to motorists, unsafe pedestrian
movement within travel lanes, sudden stoppage or slowdown of traffic, and rapid lane changing and other
dangerous traffic movement; and
WHEREAS, St. Lucie County seeks to provide for the safety of its citizens by prohibiting transactions
involving occupants of motorized vehicles on public roads within St. Lucie County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners finds that passage ofthis Ordinance will furtherthe
interest of the health, safety, and general welfare of the public; and
,WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicle Traffic Crash Statistics
Report 2010 demonstrates a significant reduction of m otor vehicle traffic crashes on Sunday during daylight
hours; and
WHEREAS; the Florida Department of Highway 11 Safety and Motor Vehicle Traffic CrashStatistics
Report 2009 demonstrates "a significant reduction of motor vehicle traffic crashes on Sundays during
Underlined passages are added. -1- Strucktivaurl passages are deleted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ST. LUCIE
COUNTY, FLORIDA:
ARTICLE VII. ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY SAFETY ORDINANCE
Section 1-17-70. TITLE
This Ordinance shall be entitled the St. Lucie County Road Right of Way Safety Ordinance
Section 1-17-71. INTENT
It is the intent of this Ordinance to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of
St. Lucie County, to assure the free, orderly, undisrupted movement of motorized vehicles on public roads
within St. Lucie County, and to provide for safety in the interest of pedestrians and occupants of motorized
vehicles located on public roads within St. Lucie County. This Ordinance is not intended to control traffic
as that term is defined in Chapter 316, Florida Statutes. This Ordinance is intended to apply evenhandedly
to all persons who engage in the activities proscribed herein, regardless of their message. This Ordinance
is intended to be narrowly -tailored to serve the significant government interest of public safety, and to
leave open ample alternative channels of displaying advertising, distributing goods and materials and
soliciting business and charitable contributions.
Section 1-17-72. DEFINITIONS
"Roads" shall include streets, shoulders, roadbeds, medians, and all other ways open to travel by
operators of motorized vehicles within St. Lucie County. This definition excludes private roads and roads
that are not open to motor vehicle travel.
Section 1-17-73. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
The Board of County Commissioners hereby finds and determines that mixing pedestrians and
temporarily stopped motor vehicles in the same space at the same time is inherently dangerous and that
the combination of the high volume of motorized vehicles and congested roads in St. Lucie County and
persons engaging in advertising, distribution, or solicitation that is directed at motor vehicle occupants on
those roads is hazardous to public safety, both for occupants of motorized vehicles located on public roads
and for persons engaging in such advertising, distribution, and solicitation.
The Board of County Commissioners further hereby finds and determines that the prohibitions set
forth in this Ordinance are narrowly -tailored to serve the significant interest of promoting and protecting
the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of St. Lucie County, and that said prohibitions leave
open ample alternative channels of communication.
Section 1-17-74. PROHIBITIONS
Underlined passages are added. -2- StroeletMeug' passages are deleted.
1. No person shall be upon or go upon any road for the purpose of displaying advertising of
any kind or d istributi ng materials or goods or soliciting business or cha ritable contributions of any kind from
the occupant of any motorized vehicle located on public roads of St. Lucie County.
2. No person shall be within four (4) feet of the edge of the road for the purpose of
distributing materials or goods or soliciting business or charitable contributions of any kind from the
occupant of any motorized vehicle located on public roads of St. Lucie County.
3. The language inthisSectionisintendedtoprohibittheactivities described aboveonlywhen
they are directed by pedestrians toward occupants of motor vehicles that are on the traveled portion of
public roadsthatare open to traffic —the term "traveled portion" includestravel lanes, turn lanes, and other
portions of the road that are generally used for motor vehicle travel. This Section is not intended to
prohibit activities such as advertising, distribution of goods or materials, or business or charitable
solicitation that is directed toward pedestrians on sidewalks.
Section 147-75EXEMP,TION
1. Persons engaged inadvertisingI,distributionorIsolicitationonSundavduringdaylikhthours;
(a), The person engaging in roadway solicitation'does not persist or initiate further
a solicitation has been denied, ignored, or rejected;'.
(b) The person engaging in roadway' solicitation does not act in.zidemanding or
harassing manner, ncluding,`but not limited to knocking. on ,or,touching any
(c) The person engaging in roadway solicitation does not request or cause a motorist
„,, clj The person engaging in roadway solicitation does not use any sound or voice
(e) The person engaging in roadway solicitation is at least 18 years of age;:
(f) _. The person, engaged in'roadway solicitation shall possess state -issued picture
identification on his or her person at the time of the solicitation;
(g) The person engaging in roadway solicitation shall wear a high -visibility vest at the,
(h) The person engaged'in roadway, solicitation shall not be wearing any earplugs or
Underlined passages are added. -3- 5trdektMeugl passages are deleted.
(I) _ No perso11 h engagingin roadway solicitation shall cause delay of any length to any
motorist with the right to,proceed on the Broadway.
PART B. TERRITORY EMBRACED
The provisions of this Ordinance shall embrace all public roads that are open to motor vehicle traffic
within the unincorporated boundaries of St. Lucie County, including state roads, interstate ramps and
county roads.
PART C. SEVERABILITY AND APPLICABILITY
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, that if any
section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this Ordinance be held invalid, the remainder of the
Ordinance shall not be affected.
PART D. PENALTIES
1. Pursuant to Section 125.69(1), Florida Statutes, any person convicted of violating the
provisions of this Ordinanceshall be punished by a fine notto exceed $500, by imprisonment notto exceed
60 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
2. In addition to the penalties provided by subsection (1) of this Section, anyviolation of this
ordinance shall be subject to appropriate civil action in a court of appropriate jurisdiction.
PART E. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
The Clerk is hereby directed forthwith to send a certified copy of this ordinance to the Bureau of
Administrative Code and Laws, Department of State, The Capitol, Tallahassee, Florida 32304.
PART F. EFFECTIVE DATE
Pursuant to Section 125.66, Florida Statutes, a certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed with
the Department of State by the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners within ten (10) days after
enactment by the Board of County Commissioners. This Ordinance shall become effective when the
acknowledgment is received from the Secretary of State that the Ordinance has been duly filed.
PART G. ADOPTION.
After motion and second, the vote on this ordinance was as follows:
Chairman Chris Craft XXX
Vice Chairman Chris Dzadvosky XXX
Commissioner Tod Mowery XXX
Underlined passages are added. -4- SNurkthaws' passages are deleted.
Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson XXX
Commissioner Paula A. Lewis XXX
PART H. CODIFICATION.
Provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated in the Code of Ordinances of St. Lucie County,
Florida, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or other appropriate word, and
the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention; provided,
however, that Parts B through G shall not be codified.
ATTEST:
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this day of 2011.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
r3'E
Deputy Clerk Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNESS:
BY:
County Attorney
Underlined passages are added. -5- 5kroek-khreagh passages are deleted.
DIVISION OF ENGINEERING
MEMORANDUM
12-60
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Faye Outlaw, County Administrator, MPA, ICMA JC
FROM: Michael Powley, County Engineer Mvp
DATE: June 8, 2012
SUBJECT: Joint Meeting — Midway Road
Midway Road Widening
The design of the widening of Midway Road from Selvitz Road to 25th Street is currently underway with
the acquisition of needed right-of-way and easements a critical task. To date, the County has already
acquired or has under contract 15 (83%) of the 18 total properties required. Construction is anticipated
to begin in early 2013.
There are currently three activities associated with the acquisition of easements from the City of Port St.
Lucie, although no agreements have yet been finalized. West of Selvitz Road, ownership of Canal 103 is
shared by St. Lucie County and Port St. Lucie; they own the south half and we own the north half. Our
current plans for the widening will pipe a portion of the canal. In the future, we hope to extend our
widening to Glades Cut-off Road. The piping of Canal 103 will also be necessary in that future project.
In order to accomplish this construction, we are requesting an easement over Port St. Lucie's portion of
Canal 103.
A second easement is associated with the City's potable water master meter at the southwest corner of
Midway Road and 25th Street. The master meter lies within an existing easement. We have purchased
the parent tract for one of our stormwater ponds. The City has requested to increase the size of the
easement to include a portion of the parent tract. To date, no definitive dimensions have been
provided. We support this request and have shared this information with them on more than one
occasion.
Finally, the County's widening project will improve the intersection of Selvitz Road. South of Midway
Road, Selvitz Road is owned by the City. We have coordinated our improvements with them. In our last
visit, they requested ten -foot shared -use paths on both sides of Selvitz Road. (The County is
constructing a similar shared -use path on the south side of Midway Road.) The request for the shared -
use -paths on both sides of Selvitz Road will require additional land. However, the needed land is in an
open tract of land owned by the City. We are requesting an easement to construct the requested
amenities and avoid acquisition. The attached Midway Road Proposed Easements presents this
information graphically.
Attachment
cc: Lee Ann Lowery, Assistant County Administrator
Don West, Public Works Director
10
+si ,A be � �� 6� °-�L' � 'flu " F �— 5 •
Ll
uj LL
W 0
�w
F
' uj
co
aQ
uj
• r a-�
a or
or
-
I ♦ eNr i
M la
US H19
if
(7
r• r. is y
RAA•1 :k i x ,
16
' N w y
t G •I 1 �..5
O e
ui
J co
ui w
Jr s
o'Z
rl
Q w7t'}► }
-'y f W �• j� F8 ityrl�°� �L�• �' a •�y
J _ 6 IL
�F T - PL �'�''� �-�v, /3 �� 4 , �r �"•� 'r° F 'Ir w �' k
r) ,
Lj—
..ir
3C
PROPERTY ACQUISITION DIVISION
SUPPLEMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: JoAnn Riley, Property Acquisition Manager 1 4,_
DATE: June 11, 2012
SUBJECT: Midway Road — Easement Acquisition
St. Lucie County is in the process of acquiring right-of-way needed to widen Midway Road from
Selvitz Road East to South 25t" Street. The proposed design is a four (4) lane divided urban
section with a 6' sidewalk on the north side and a 12' multi -use path on the south side. The
footprint for Midway Road will need to accommodate in the future two additional lanes in
accordance with the St. Lucie County's Long Range Transportation Plan.
The County needs to acquire a Right -of -Way Easement from the City of Port St. Lucie over the
south portion of Canal 103. The project design provides for the installation of a box culvert
within the existing Canal 103. The area to be piped is approximately 1470-feet in length, The
additional Right of Way Easement will accommodate the proposed travel lanes and multi -use
path.
The County had an appraisal prepared on the 48.5 feet Right -of -Way Easement by Daniel Fuller,
MAI of Fuller-Armfield-Wagner Appraisal and Research, Inc. The appraised value of the Right -
of -Way Easement according to Mr. Fuller is $15,000.00. We have attached a copy of the
Easement Valuation determined by Mr. Fuller and a location map.
If you have any questions, I will be happy to discuss the same.
Attachments
EASEMENT VALUATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION — Easement to be Acquired
The proposed easement encumbers the total 1.635 acre subject, thus the legal
description is found in the previous Legal Description section.
DESCRIPTION of the AREA of the EASEMENT AREA
The easement will encumber the total 1.635 acres of the subject previously
appraised, thus the description of the area of the easement is not repeated.
Existing Easements
As previously discussed, the subject is encumbered with an easement to the
NSLRWCD, encumbering the total subject, but physically the canal appears to
encumber approximately 50% of the subject's depth of 48.5 feet.
I am unaware of any other easements within the area of the proposed easement, but
your attention is directed to Ordinary Limiting Conditions #5.
Proposed Easement
Features of the proposed easement are summarized as follows — with a copy of a
draft of the easement found in the following Exhibit.
• Easement will be Permanent and Perpetual.
• Easement is to be used "for roadway, sidewalk, pedestrian, storm water
management and drainage purposes, including piping of the storm water drainage
conveyance system, including but not necessarily limited to installation and
maintenance of improvements for said purposes".
• Grantee shall maintain the easement area, "including any and all improvements
made or constructed over, under, across or upon the easement area, and shall
bear the full cost, expense and responsibility for any and all maintenance, repair
and replacement of the improvements in the easement area".
FULLER-ARMFIELD- W AGNER
EFFECTS OF THE EASEMENT
• The easement permanently encumbers the subject and appears to add an
additional encumbrance to the property.
• Apparently the NSLRWCD retains the existing easement for drainage but the
proposed easement appears increase the use of the area allowing the County to
use the area for road tight of way, pedestrian access, and utilities
• It appears via the proposed easement the County takes responsibility of
maintaining drainage, including installing a culvert in the area of the open ditch.
• The proposed easement further encumbers the underlying fee owner's use of
the property to almost zero.
• The grantee will maintain the easement area and all of the improvements within
the easement,
HIGHEST AND BEST USE — with Easement in place
The subject physically remains the same size, etc. after the easement is in place as
before the easement. The physical use remains similar to before the easement as
does the legal use of the property. Finally, the financially feasible and maximally
productive use remains the same, utilized in conjunction with the Midway Road right
of way and its ancillary uses.
Conclusion of Highest and Best Use — with Easement in place
In my opinion, the highest and best use of the subject with the easement in place is for
Midway Road right of way and its ancillary uses.
VALUATION
The easement covers the total 1.635 acres of the subject, sharing the area with
another easement to the NSLRWCD.
The averse value of the fee simple interest in the subject "as is" with the
NSLRWCD easement in place was previously established at (rounded) $30,000.
Research did not produce sales for a direct comparison of similar properties, 100%
encumbered with permanent and perpetual easements as previously outlined, thus
analysis of the rights acquired are first required to assess the rights acquired.
FULLER-ARMFIELD-WAGNER
VALUATION (continued)
• While the easement acquires a partial interest, the additionally diminution of the
use to the remaining underlying fee owner is relatively significant, equating to the
transfer of a majority of the rights of use to the two easement holders.
• While the proposed easement holder can install improvements associated with
public use requirements such as roads, utilities, and drainage etc., improvements
as presently exist in the neighborhood, the easement holder is required to install
improvements to maintain the existing drainage, and thus the easement holder
does not obtain physical as well as legal use of all of subject.
• Also, the easement holder is required to permanently maintain all of the
easement area and improvements within the easement area which long term
could be a negative to the easement holder.
• In summary, while it appears the easement transfers a majority of the rights of
use, the easement also limits use by requiring the holder to maintain the existing
drainage, and maintain the total property. Therefore, it is my opinion the rights
transferred via the easement document are less than 100%, and while another
easement encumbers the subject, previously estimated to equate to 50% of the
fee interest, the proposed easement, in my opinion, equates to encumbering say
50% of the remaining encumbered interest.
Acquiring 50% interest calculates to a value "as is" of: $30,000 x 50%= $15,000.
Conclusion of Value
In summary, in my opinion, the market value of the easement as proposed, as of
April 27, 2012, is:
FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($15,000)
FULLER-ARNMELD-WAGNER
zQ
w
0
N
C6
N
N
N
Q
T
a
Q
M
O
O
O
CV
O
O
O
O N
O a)
u-
O
O
Al
0
r
AR L
oa 7-Lln13S r ~
U
U
-._. 1�
V
cim
J
Y
J
O O IS0
Ob SNINN3f
v SOOMCU
m
3
_0 4) o �(
ca .v S'CP�
�P�
o sN�NE
E
a> co
o m o
U w w ,
d M�
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
FROM: GREGORY J. ORAVEC, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF JUNE 13,2012
ITEM 3D, TRAFFIC SIGNALS, PRIMA VISTA(ST. LUCIE WEST BLVD.
DATE: JUNE 8, 2012
As you may be aware, the City of Port St. Lucie and St. Lucie. County have jurisdiction over
various segments of Prima Vista/St. Lucie West Boulevard. As a result, St. Lucie County
currently maintains and operates the following signals at the edge of the City's boundaries: 1)
the western intersection of 1-95 and St. Lucie West Boulevard; 2) Airoso and Prima Vista; and
3) Floresta and Prima Vista. The State of Florida has requested that a single agency maintain
and operate the signals at the 1-95 interchange, and, St. Lucie County staff has advised that the
single agency should be the City. City staff concurs provided that certain needs are
addressed, but would also like to request that the signal at Airoso be turned over to the City
because. we believe we can improve traffic flow in the area through integration. If we were to
be granted this additional signal, it begs the question —should the signal at Floresta also be
conveyed at the same time given that the City intends to improve Floresta Drive in the future?
If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
3U
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of County Commissioners
Through: Faye Outlaw, County Administrator, MPA, ICMA7wvFrom: Don West, Public Works Director MVP P/3
Date: June 5, 2012
Re: Joint Meeting - Traffic Signal Operation for 1-95 Interchange with
St. Lucie West Blvd.
The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Traffic Operations Engineers have requested
assistance from the City of Port St. Lucie to operate the interchange traffic signal that controls
traffic flow from Interstate 95 onto St. Lucie West Boulevard.
The traffic signal is located on State right-of-way, within the 1-95 Interchange at St. Lucie West
(southbound) exit. The nearest traffic signal is less than 1,000 feet to the east, at the
northbound exit of 1-95. There are no traffic signals located to the west of the interchange. The
signal is currently operated as a stand-alone signal by the County Traffic staff.
FDOT is recommending that a synchronized traffic signal would perform best if it is coordinated
with the adjacent City of Port. St. Lucie traffic network. The signal timing could be coordinated
to maximize efficiency for overall traffic flow. This would help to eliminate the problem of
traffic backing up on the exit ramp onto Interstate 95 during periods of peak demand.
The attached letter dated January 19, 2012, from Jonathan Overton, FDOT Traffic Systems
Engineer, documents the recent discussions amongst the City, County, and State Engineers. The
FDOT has offered to design and install a traffic signal communication interconnect line and
upgrade the controller assembly at no expense to the City to facilitate the operational transition
of the signal to the City traffic network. The County has no objections to operation of the signal
by the City, and supports the recommendation by the FDOT Traffic Engineers.
BOARD OF
COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
January 24, 2012
Jonathan Overton, P.E.
District Traffic Management Systems Engineer
District 4
3400 West Commercial Boulevard
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
Subject: State Section 94000
1-95 Interchange with St. Lucie West Boulevard
Interchange Traffic Signal Operation and Maintenance
Dear Jonathan:
PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT
Road & Bridge
Division
Traffic Operations
St Lucie County is in receipt of your letter dated January 19, 2012 with reference to the above
subject.
St. Lucie County concurs with your findings and agrees that a single agency should operate and
maintain the signals at the St. Lucie West Boulevard/1-95 interchange as part of a network of
coordinated traffic signals.
St. Lucie County feels that this interchange should be maintained and operated by the City of Port
St. Lucie.
7rely,
Ann M. Amandro, Traffic Operations Supervisor
St. Lucie County Traffic Operations
AMA/sb
cc: Kim Graham, Assistant City Engineer, City of Port St, Lucie
Paul Johnson, Manager of Traffic Operations, City of Port St. Lucie
Don West, Public Works Director
Michael Powley, St. Lucie County Engineer
Don Pauley, Road & Bridge Manager
Mark Plass, FDOT
Jose Guerrero, FDOT
RECEIVED
JAN 2 l 2012
Public Works
St. Lucie County, FL
CHRIS DZADOVSKY, District No. I • TOD MOWERY, District No. 2 • PAULA A. LEWIS, District No. 3 • FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, District No. 4 • CHRIS CRAFT, District No. 5
County Administrator — Faye W. Outlaw, MPA
2300 Virginia Avenue • Fort Pierce, FL. 34982.5652 - Phone (772) 462-2511 - Fax (772) 462-2363
website: www.stiucieco.org
Florida Department of Transportation
RICK SCOTT 3400 West Commercial Boulevard ANANPETARD, P.E.
GOVERNOR Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 SECRETARY
RETARY
January 19, 2012
Ms. Kim Graham, PE
City of Port St. Lucie Engineer
121 SW Port St. Lucie Boulevard
Port St. Lucie, FL 34984
Ms. Ann Amandro
County of St. Lucie Traffic Signal Manager
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, FL 34982
SUBJECT: State Section 94000
I-95 Interchange with St. Lucie West Boulevard
Interchange Traffic Signals Operation and Maintenance
Dear Ms. Graham and Ms. Ann Amandro:
The purpose of this letter is to follow-up our January 13, 2012 telephone discussion and to
request that the traffic engineering divisions in the City of Port St. Lucie and in St. Lucie County
agree that the City will assume the operation and maintenance responsibility of the traffic signal
at the intersection of St. Lucie West Boulevard and I-95 southbound off -ramp. The objective is
that a single agency will operate and maintain the signals at the St. Lucie West Boulevard/I-95
interchange as part of a network of coordinated traffic signals.
To facilitate this operation and maintenance responsibility change, the Department will design
and install a traffic signal communication interconnect line on St. Lucie West Boulevard
connecting the traffic signals at the I-95 southbound and northbound off -ramps, upgrade the
signal controller assembly at St. Lucie West Boulevard and I-95 southbound off -ramp to suit
city's signal system preference, and upgrade the interchange intersections' vehicle detection
system to reflect video detection systems.
www.dot.state.fl.us
Ms. Kim Graham
Ms. Ann Amandro
January 19, 2012
Page 2
We understand that both the County and City will consider this proposal and respond to the
Department with their respective position. Thank you for your consideration and we look
forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Overton, P.E.
District Traffic Mgmt. Systems Engineer
District 4
JO:jol
cc: Paul Johnson, City
Mike Powley, County
Mark Plass, FDOT
Jose Guerrero, FDOT
Section file
BOARD OF
COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
Kimberly Graham, Civil Engineer
City. of Port. St. Lucie
121 S.W. Port St. Lucie Blvd
Port St. Lucie, Florida 34984
Re: Temporary Signal at St. Lucie West Blvd. & I-95, Southbound Exit
Dear Kim:.
PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT
ROAD & BRIDGE
August 3, 2006
This letter is a request for the City of Port St Lucie to assume_ maintenance and operational
control of the signal at the above location.
Attached is a copy of Phone Notes dated June 7, 2005 wherein, the conversation was with regard
to the City of Port St. Lucie taking over the maintenance and operational control of this signal. If
the City of Port St. Lucie assumes the maintenance and operational control of this signal, it
would help alleviate the rush hour problems by allowing you to co-ordinate the signal with the
existing signal at Peacock and St. Lucie West Blvd., to assure sufficient gaps.
St. Lucie County would allow the City of Port St. Lucie to use the controller assembly and
related signal equipment until such time that the mast arms are installed at this location.
If you are in agreement with this, we would appreciate your response in writing.
Should you have any questions please contact me at 772-462-2848 or Gene Snedeker at
772-462-2831.
S' cerely,
Ann Amandro
Traffic Operations Supervisor
AMA/sb
Attachment
cc: Ray Wazny, Assistant County Administrator
Donald Pauley, Road & Bridge Manager
Gene Snedeker, Traffic Systems Analyst
Signal Group
File
JOSEPH E. SMITH, District No. 1 - DOUG COWARD, District No. 2 - PAULA A. LEWIS, District No. 3 - FRANNIE HUTCHINSON. District No. 4 - CHRIS CRAFT, District No. 5
County Administrator - Douglos M. Anderson
2300 Virginia Avenue a Fr. Pierce, FL 34982
Public Works: (772) 462-1485 a FAX (772) 462-2362
Division of Engineering: (772) 462-1707 Fax 462-2362 • Division of Rood G Bridge: (772) 462-2511 FAX 462-2363
Division of Building 6 Inspections: (772) 462-1553 Fox 462-1735 e TDD (772) 462-1428
www.co.st-lucie.fl.us
❑�❑ Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
PhoneNotes
To: John Spivey, FDOT Fort Pierce
From: Ron Hildebrand, P.E., Kimley-Horn and Associates
cc: Scott Morton, Kolter Corporation; Scott Herring, P.E., St. Lucie County;
Kim Graham, P.E., City of Port St. Lucie
Proj.: 049105004, Interstate 95 Southbound Off -Ramp at St. Lucie West Boulevard
Date: 6n105
Re: Design Modifications for the Traffic Signal, FDOT Permit No. 04K490-0031
Today I talked to John Spivey of FDOT's Fort Pierce Operations office to let him know about a change in
the upcoming signal design and to ask about FDOT's permitting requirements. The following items were
discussed:
1) In May, Scott Morton informed me that he had spoken to Kim Graham and asked if the City would
allow the temporary.signal to remain in service until St. Lucie West Boulevard is widened. The
reason for Scott's request was that Kolter is trying to avoid the expense of procuring and installing
mast arms now (as originally permitted), only to have one of the mast arms (a double -arm
assembly) displaced by the widening. The widening is already in the advanced stage of design and
is expected to be under construction in the near future.
2) Kim Graham discussed Kolter's request with Scott Herring of the County. The County is willing to
leave the temporary signal in place if the City takes over maintenance and if Kolter replaces the
controller assembly and gives the existing controller assembly back to the County. The City agreed
to those conditions and then granted Kolter's request to leave the temporary signal in service, but
reiterated the original requirement of installing the interconnect/communication he to the Peacock
intersection.
3) Kimley-Horn is revising the Signalization Plans to show the existing signal to remain and the
existing controller assembly to be replaced and returned to the County. The interconnect/
communication line will remain shown as originally proposed and permitted The revised Plans
will be issued to Kolter, FDOT, the City, and the County in the next few days.
4) John Spivey indicated that we will not have to submit any revised paperwork for the Signal Permit,
but that we need to submit a copy of the revised Plans to him for FDOT's file. We should also
submit a copy of these Phone Notes to document our conversation, so that the personnel involved
with the inspection of the interconnect/communication will be aware of the modification.
5) John said FDOT's Fort Lauderdale office will not be involved with the modification, nor will there
be any further Plans review.
6) Record Drawings (As -Built Plans) will still be required from the Contractor at. the completion of
construction, per the original Permit requirements.
Kinley-Horn will proceed with the revisions based on this information.
H:\049105004\wpNPhoneNotesTSpivey07Jun05.doe Page 1 of t
Florida Department of Transportation
JEB BUSH TRAFFIC OPERATIONS -DISTRICT 4 JOSEABREU
GOVERNOR 7900 Forest Hill Boulevard SECRETARY
West Palm Beach, Florida 33413-3342
Telephone (561) 432-4966, Ext. 1120
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 4, 2003
TO: Plass; P.E., District 4 Traffic Operations Engineer
FROM.,Mark
Roy J. Smith, Area Traffic Studies Specialist, W. Palm Beach Operation Center
COPIES: Don West, P.E., Director of Public Works, St. Lucie County
J. Scott Herring, P.E., Assistant Manager, St. Lucie County
Walter B. England, P.E., City Engineer, City of Pt. St, Lucie
Kimberly Graham, P.E., City of Pt. St. Lucie
Howard Webb, P. E., FDOT, Morteza Alian, P.E., FDOT, Sam Al -Turk, P.E., FDOT,
Rick Mitinger, P.E., FDOT, Jonathan Overton, P.E., FDOT, Larry Kelly, FDOT,
Jackie Thomas, FDOT and File
SUBJECT: State Section 94001; State Road 9 (1-95)
At St. Lucie West Boulevard (Southbound Exit 121/63c), SLMP 7.890,
City of Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County
TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AUTHORIZATION REQUEST
I. ORIGIN AND NATURE OF REQUEST
This authorization has been requested by Scott Herring, P.E., Assistant Manger,, Public Works,
Road and Bridge Division, St. Lucie County.
II. FACTS OBTAINED BY THE OFFICE AND FIELD STUDY
A.) Road Description:
St. Lucie West Boulevard at State Road 9 (I-95) is currently a two lane, east -west arterial
roadway at this intersection, with separate right turn storage lanes to enter onto I-95. State Road
9 (I-95) southbound exit ramp has a single lane approach to St. Lucie West Boulevard. This
approach has a channelized exclusive right -turn lane and an exclusive left -turn lane, currently
under stop sign control.
B.) Posted Speed Limit:
The posted speed limit along St. Lucie West Boulevard at Interstate 95 (exit ramps) is 35 MPH.
www.dot.state.fl.us ® RECYCLED PAPER
Mark Plass, P.E.
December 4, 2003
Page 2
C.) Nearest Traffic Signal Location:
The nearest traffic signal to the east is approximately one-half miles (S.W. N.W. Peacock
Boulevard), and there are no traffic signals to the west of the subject intersection.
D.) Data:
Traffic data may be found in the West Palm Beach Operations Center, Traffic Operations office.
III. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the existing and anticipated traffic volumes due to the ongoing commercial and
residential development in the vicinity of Interstate 95, Warrants la, b, 2, 3, and 6 of the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices are satisfied. Therefore, it is recommended that a fully
actuated traffic signal compatible with City of Port St. Lucie's signal system be installed at this
intersection.
IV. ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION
The City of Port St. Lucie will design, construct, operate and maintain the traffic signal in
accordance with the standards of the Florida Department of Transportation and the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Millennium 2000 Edition.
V. ENFORCEMENT
The Florida Highway Patrol, the St. Lucie County Sheriff's Department and the City of Port St.
Lucie Police Department will provide adequate enforcement of this traffic control device.
Reviewed by:
Richard N. Mitinger, .E.
Assistant District Traffic Operations Engineer
Approved by: 4
Mark Plass, P.E. -
District Traffic Operations Engineer
R1S/ms;St.Lucie W est•SR9. aut
a
Date
1 S
Date
STUDY LOCATION:
REQUESTED BY:
STUDY TYPE
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 4
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS OFFICE
TRAFFIC STUDY SUMMARY REPORT
State Road 9 (1-95) at St. Lucie West Boulevard, Southbound Exit 121/63c
(SLMP 7.890), City of Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County
Scott Herring, P.E., Assistant Manager,
Public Works Road and Bridge Division, St. Lucie County
BEGIN DATE
March, 2003
COMPLETE DATE
December, 2003
PERFORMED BY: Progressive Design and Engineering, Inc. (PD&E), 10891 La Reina Rd. Delray
Beach, Florida.
STUDY FINDINGS: The existing and anticipated traffic volumes, geometrics of the roadway and the
safety aspect of the operation of the intersection were reviewed, with respect to traffic signalization
warranting criteria.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the existing and anticipated traffic volumes and the safety aspect
at the intersection.of SR 9 (I-95 — Southbound Exit 121/63c) and St. Lucie West Boulevard, it is
recommended that a fully actuated traffic signal, compatible with the City of Port St. Lucie's signal
system be installed at this intersection.
ACTION TAKEN: Traffic control signal authorization submitted for approval in November 2003.
APPROVED BY:
7
NAME: !�
J
Richard N. Mitinger, P.E., SIGN / SEAL
Assistant Distr' t affic Operations Engineer
NAME:
Mark Plass, P. E.
District Traffic Operations Engineer
DATE: %2 ar,0)i
4A
COr�
UNTY
F
LORI
D
A -�►-
Planning and Development
Services Department
Planning Division
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Faye Outlaw, County Administrator, MPA, ICMA-
FROM: Mark Satterlee, AICP, Direct
DATE: June 5, 2012
SUBJECT: Joint Meeting - Florida Inland Port Update
To date, no applications related to the Inland Port have been submitted. As was recently
reported in the newspaper and consistent with my ongoing conversations with Mr. Preston
Perrone, Project Manager, the land owners anticipate submitting before the end of 2012. It is my
understanding that Mr. Perrone's group is working to secure a developer and potential end
users along with negotiating access to the railroad prior to making application. Staff has heard in
meetings with representatives of the Governor's office and the FDOT, that the State of Florida
will not be "selecting" inland port sites and that the market will determine the location, or
locations, of inland ports or multimodal facilities. It appears that the Inland Port property owners
are trying to secure market position prior to entering into the land use entitlement process with
the County.
up
Planning and Development
Services Department
Airport Division
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Faye Outlaw, County Administrator, MPA, ICMA-
FROM: Todd A. Cox, CM, Airport Manager
DATE: June 4, 2012
SUBJECT: Joint Meeting — 2011 Airport Master Plan Update
Background:
The Master Plan Update for the Airport was completed in August 2011. This update was undertaken by
St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to identify a long range, orderly direction for
Airport development which will yield a safe, efficient, economical, and environmentally acceptable air
transportation facility.
The study commenced in January 2009. A series of Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings and
public workshops were held about the future plan. In October 2009, the final TAC meeting was held to
obtain input on the proposed future development at the airport. Four alternatives were recommended.
Based upon a vote of attending TAC Members (13 out of 15 members) as well as input from tenants and
the public, it was recommended that future airport development should be focused on Limited
Commercial Passenger Service. Additional recommendations included:
• Preserve on -airport land for future aviation development;
• Identify areas for non -aviation development;
• Implement Next Generation (NextGen) procedures to support noise mitigation;
• Protect on -airport environmentally sensitive areas, and;
• Improve surface access and develop the Airport as a Multi -modal facility.
After additional public meetings, the BOCC ultimately approved the TAC recommended development of
Limited Commercial Passenger Service with areas preserved for future growth.
Key Items:
• A certificate is not required for maintenance or cargo type activities or for aircraft charter
operations conducted in aircraft with nine seats or less. A Federal Aviation Regulations Part 139
Airport Operating Certificate is required to accommodate any type of scheduled passenger
service or regularly scheduled charter operations in aircraft with more than 10 seats. The
Airport does not have such a certificate.
Airport Master Plan Update
June 4, 2012
Page 2
• Depending on the type of operations to be conducted, consideration will need to be given in
strengthening the current primary runway to meet weight demands for the types of aircraft that
would operate at the Airport. Currently, the runway weight -bearing capacity for both Vero Beach
and Stuart -Witham exceeds 105,000 pounds for dual -wheeled aircraft, whereas, the strength of the
Airport's main runway is 60,000 pounds.
• Strengthening for light -weight commuter -type operations would not be needed. However,
strengthening would be needed for limited cargo -type operations and maintenance repair
operations of aircraft that exceed the 60,000 pound threshold. This existing limitation has an impact
on the current and future development opportunities that could yield additional revenues to assist
the Airport in maintaining financial self-sufficiency.
Airport Businesses:
Per the 2010 Florida Airport Economic Impact Study, conducted by the Florida Department of
Transportation, the airport provides over $164 Million in total economic activity for the area, employing
over 1,300 citizens. There are currently 70 aircraft hangar and business tenants that utilize the airport.
Approximately 31 business tenants provide a broad range of services (such as aircraft
maintenance/storage, flight training, business/corporate travel, restaurant, air taxi/charter services,
medical transport, missionary flights, ground support equipment repair, specialized aircraft parts
manufacturing, emergency/rescue, etc.), thus providing continued demand for skilled labor.
The airport has one Fixed —based Operator, Aircraft Property Partners, LLC., that provides leases to the
majority of the businesses on the airport and fuel and maintenance services. The airport is also home to
US Customs and Border Protection, St. Lucie County Sheriff and Fire District support facilities, Fairwinds
Golf Course, Civil Air Patrol and Aviator College of Aeronautics.
Projects•
Many of the short-term, required development projects that were outlined in the master plan update
have either been completed, are currently under construction, or are in the design stage. However,
none of these projects increase the weight -bearing capacity of the main runway. The following provides
a snapshot of specific projects:
Project Description
Project Status
Security Fencing Improvements
Ongoing
Electrical Vault Upgrade
Complete 2009
Rehabilitate Taxiway B, includes markings
Complete 2012
Rehabilitate Taxiway C (C-8, C-7, & C-6), includes markings
Ongoing
Rehabilitate Taxiway A, includes markings
Complete 2012
Realign Taxilane D-1, includes Holding Pad
Scheduled 2014
Construct Taxiway D from Taxiway A to Runway 28L Threshold
Scheduled 2014
Design/Rehabilitate Airport Administration/Terminal
Ongoing
Design/Rehabilitate Customs and Border Protection Facility
Ongoing
Wildlife Hazard Assessment & Wildlife Hazard Management Plan
Ongoing
2012 Airport Marketing & Business Plan/GIS Study
Awaiting FDOT Grant
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL --
FROM: GREGORY J. ORAV�/CAY MANAGER
SUBJECT: SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF JUNE 13, 2012
ITEM 4C, SOUTHERN GROVE CRA
DATE: JUNE 8, 2012
A resolution amending the Community Redevelopment Plan to include Southern Grove within
the City's Community Redevelopment Area is scheduled for public hearing on June 25, 2012.
The proposed amendment was transmitted to St. Lucie County in February and remains
unchanged. I will be present at the meeting to address any questions or concerns.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
4C
Planning and Development
Services Department
Planning Division
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Faye Outlaw, County Administrator, MPA, ICMA
FROM: Mark Satterlee, AICP, Directo
DATE: June 5, 2012
SUBJECT: Joint Meeting — Southern Groves
Recently, the City of Port St. Lucie moved to expand the existing Community Redevelopment
Agency (CRA) boundary to include the Southern Groves DRI. The current CRA boundary is
located along the U.S. 1 and Prima Vista corridors within the Civic Center commercial node.
According to documents prepared by the City, the lack of anticipated development in the
Southern Groves DRI is undermining the City's large infrastructure investment there. In the
City's view, the lack of users is causing the infrastructure to deteriorate and also making it
difficult to repay bonds issued to build the roads and utilities.
The City determined that this situation created by the severe economic downturn established
conditions that met the criteria in state statute for declaring the area suitable for CRA expansion.
The City is proposing a 50% increment be dedicated from future tax revenue to support
"redevelopment" of the area and help repay the bonds. As such, 50% of applicable future ad
valorem tax revenue assessed by the County and generated in the area would no longer come
into the County General Fund.
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR & CITY COU
GREGORY J. 0 FROM: RAV; %Cl Y MANAGER
SUBJECT: SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF JUNE 13,2012
ITEM 4D, IMPACT FEES
DATE: JUNE 8, 2012
The City is currently engaged in the process of procuring a consultant to review the
appropriateness of City impact fees. One. of the administration's goals for the review effort is
to achieve balance between the objective of having development address its impact with the
objective of ensuring that the cost of impact fees is not so high that it puts the City at a
competitive disadvantage with other jurisdictions. We often hear that our impact fees are too
high, but we would like to put this assertion to the test. It would be interesting to learn if St.
Lucie County is exploring this subject, as many of our competitors in Florida, such as
Hillsborough, Pinellas and Orange Counties, do not seem to impose the same level of county
and municipal impact fees.
If you have. any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact
Mo.
HE
Planning and Development
Services Department
Planning Division
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Faye Outlaw, County Administrator, MPA, ICMA-CM
2
FROM: Mark Satterlee, AICP, Direct - r'°
DATE: June 5, 2012
SUBJECT: Joint Meeting — Impact Fees
Currently, the following seven impact fees are collected in unincorporated St. Lucie County:
• Roads
• Parks
• Schools
• Fire/EMS
• Public Buildings
• Libraries
• Law Enforcement
The Board of County Commissioners sets the rates for all but the School and Fire/EMS impact
fees. Dr. James Nicholas has been assisting the County with developing and updating the
County's impact fees since the first road impact fee was adopted in 1986. County impact fees
are updated every few years to insure that they are based upon the most recent local cost data.
The Road, Parks and Public Building fees were updated and took effect in 2010. The Library
and Law Enforcement fees were most recently updated in 2011. The updates resulted in
increases to the Road, Parks, Library and Law Enforcement fees. The Public Building fee
decreased. At the time of adopting the updates to the Road, Parks and Public Building fees, the
Board elected to phase in the changes with a step in April 2010 and one in December 2010.
Every year, the County's Impact Fee ordinance allows them to be adjusted based upon the
Consumer Price Index. The most recent update in September of 2011 resulted in a 1.6%
increase.
Also, in September of 2011, the County and City of Port St. Lucie executed interlocal
agreements wherein the City resumed collecting County Road, Parks and Public Building
impact fees. The County agreed to a 50% credit of County Road Impact fees inside the City.
The County also agreed to consult with the City on the expenditure of County impact fees
collected in the City and where possible to expend the Road impact fees on roads such as
Midway, Rangeline, Lennard, Glades Cutoff, Walton, Prima Vista Boulevard and St.
James/South 25th Street.
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR & CITY COUN I
FROM: GREGORY J. ORAV C, TY MANAGER
SUBJECT: SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF JUNE 13, 2012
ITEM 4E, UTILITIES
DATE: JUNE 8, 2012
Attached, please find the memorandum of June 8, 2012, from Jesus A. Merejo, Utility Systems
Director, entitled "The Past, Present, and the Future of Port St. Lucie Utility Systems". The
memorandum may provide you with interesting discussion points to explore at the joint
meeting.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Gregory J. Oravec, City Manager
FROM; Jesus A. Merejo, Utility Systems Director
�
SUBJECT: The Past, Present, and Future of Port St. Lucie Utility Systems
DATE: June 8, 2012
The Past: The Utility's first water treatment facility, the Northport Water
Treatment Plant, was constructed by General Development Utilities (GDU) in
1959. The facility, which included a 150,000-gallon steel ground storage tank,
was built to serve the early phases of the River Park community and a small
commercial plaza adjacent to U.S. Highway #1.
The Southport Wastewater Treatment Plant was constructed in 1961 to
specifically serve the Sandpiper Bay golf resort/hotel, and the homes General
Development Corporation intended to build surrounding the resort's three golf
courses.
Subsequent to GDC's and GDU's bankruptcy filings in 1990, St. Lucie County
acquired the Utility through a "quick take" action, but a dialogue was opened
between the Port St. Lucie and the County in 1993 that ultimately led to the
1994 transfer of the Utility from the County to the City. At that point in time,
the util.ity had 17,228 water customers and 10,800 wastewater. customers.
Approximately 2,500 of those customers lived in the unincorporated County and
less than 20% of the geographical City had water and wastewater service
available.
The Present: Upon assuming ownership of the Utility, the City embarked on a
multi -phased water and wastewater expansion program that resulted in potable
water being made available to 100% of the City and wastewater collection
service beingavailable to approximately 98% of the City.
The Utility has the ability to treat and distribute a total of 41.65 million gallons
of water per day from its two state-of-the-art water treatment facilities. On
the wastewater side, 18 million gallons of wastewater can be collectively
treated at two facilities and an equal amount of reclaimed irrigation quality
water can be produced daily.
The number of customers served has soared to more than 65,000 water and
more than 46,000 wastewater accounts.
Strategic planning has brought us to the point that we have extensive
underground infrastructure, ample water and wastewater treatment capacities,
and water storage facilities to successfully serve today's customers. To
Gregory J. Oravec
June 8, 2012
Page 2
continue our successful operations, we must undertake looking beyond the next
10-15 years and instead consider needs 50-100 years from now.
Long-term Future: It is estimated that by 2060, the City's daily drinking water
demands will be 70.29 million gallons per day. Our current 20-year Water Use
Permit issued by South Florida Water Management District only allows us to
withdraw 51.513 GPD (6 MGD from the Surficial Aquifer and 45.513 from the
Floridan Aquifer). By 2060, more than 18 MGD will have to come from sources
other than aquifer wells.
As part of our 50-100 year strategic planning window, we have already
conducted feasibility studies on ocean water desalination, surface water
systems, ASRs, and capturing wasted water. Study findings have determined
the following:
Ocean Water Desalination: The biggest advantage of this type of
desalination is the unlimited source of raw water from the Atlantic Ocean.
The drawbacks are numerous:
a. Property acquisition for a treatment facility
b. Environmental permitting issues including extremely long lead
time of 10 or more years
c. Costs for a subaqueous crossing of the Indian River
d. Costs of nearly $250 million to construct a 20 MGD treatment
facility
e. Estimated operating costs exceeding $16 million per year
Fresh water sources will become more scarce, advances in desalination
technology will continue to be made, and 50 or more years from now,
ocean water desalination may eventually become a viable water source
for the Treasure Coast
Surface Water Systems Once considered only as links in drainage and
flood control systems, it is believed surface water reservoirs will become
a vital source of our future raw potable water supply. Advantages include
the fact that annual operating costs for a 20 MGD facility would only be
approximately $6.4 million per year, nearly $10 million less than a desal
facility. There are currently two major drawbacks to surface water
systems:
a. The amount of property needed to provide adequately sized
lakes or water storage reservoirs
b. The limited time surface waters are available during the year
Gregory J. Oravec
June 8, 2012
Page 3
Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells: Surplus water from a variety of
sources can be pumped deep into earth into what is known as an ASR
well. Surplus treated water is stored in an ASR well until needed; for
example, during a period of seasonal drought. The stored water is then
"recovered" by pumping it out of the well and distributed to customers.
The City currently has a permit from the Florida Dept. of Environmental
Protection that will allow us to pilot test and determine what, if any,
drawbacks there may be to ASR's in our area. Models have already
indicated the Floridan Aquifer in our Locale is favorable for storing large
volumes of water (potable and/or reclaimed water) in an ASR well
system.
Capturing Wasted Water: Each day during the rainy wet season (6
months), approximately 243 million gallons of water spill over the S-97
water control structure that is located on the C-23 Canal along the City's
southern limits. That water Is considered to be "wasted water" and in a
given wet season, more than 44 billion gallons of water that could be
captured and treated to drinking water standards is instead allowed to
travel downstream and discharge into the Indian River Lagoon. The
major drawback to capturing wasted water is adequate reservoir storage
sites, but there are many benefits including:
a. Help meet future 70.29 MGD water demands
b. Reduce stresses put on the Surficial and Floridan aquifers
c. Help the City meet growing regulations for the reuse of water
d. Help meet EPA's requirement to reduce nutrient loading in
stormwater before it leaves the City
e. Reduce freshwater discharges and negative impacts to the
Indian River Lagoon including reducing the amount of nitrogen
and phosphorus going to the Lagoon
Looking out 50-100 years, a well run utility will need to utilize multiple water
sources. Final decisions about what water resource paths to follow do not have
to be made immediately, but because of the planning, lengthy regulatory
permitting, and property acquisitions required decisions should not be delayed
for 20-30 years.
Other long-term issues that should be given consideration and discussion now
include:
1. Increased interconnection with local utilities and perhaps even
expanding to include interconnectivity with Indian River County and
Martin County. This could include construction of a potable water
trunk line along I-95 to encourage the sharing of water resources.
Gregory J. Oravec
June 8, 2012
Page 4
2. Construction and operation of a regional wastewater sludge processing
facility. Options could include treating the sludge to create fertilizer
or even waste to energy processes.
3. Expanding the use of reclaimed water beyond irrigation. This could
even lead to treating wastewater to drinking water standards..
4. Regionalization of utility service
Short-term Future: There has been little dispute about the City's utility service
area (USA) so Long as it is confined to the limits outlined in the 1994 Utility
Transfer Agreement. However, as the community has developed and is
projected to develop, it has become more and more evident that the ability
exists for the City to easily provide service to areas outside of the 1994 USA
limits. This ability particularly applies to areas south of Midway Road that are
west of Rangeline Road such as parcels along Rangeline Road that are adjacent
to the City's expanded corporate limits. Resolution of conflicting service area
boundaries is desirable. Such resolution will aid all of the local utilities in their
longterm strategic planning.
Here are three suggestions that can possibly resolve the issue:
• Option 1 — The County can amend the 1994 agreement to allow PSLUSD
to encompass the disputed area.
• Option 2 The County can amend the 1994 agreement to grant the
PSLUSD the ability to serve south of Okeechobee Road/State Road 70 and
south of Midway Road.
• Option 3 — The County, EPUA, and PSLUSD can evaluate the current
service areas in order to see what is the most efficient way to provide
service to our county residents, resulting in amended agreements.
The attached maps detail the areas in Options 1 and 2.
If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this matter,
please let me know.
/dr
c: Bradley E. Macek, Asst. Utility Systems Director
Daniel M. 'Segui, Deputy Utility Systems Director
Donna M. Rhoden, Utility Safety & Public Affairs Mgr.
4E
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
UTILITIES DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)
THROUGH: Faye Outlaw, County Administrator, MPA, ICMA-CM
FROM: Laurie Waldie, Utility District Director
DATE: June 13, 2012
SUBJECT: Joint Meeting / Port St. Lucie Utilities (PSLU)
St Lucie County Utilities acquired General Development Utilities (GDU) through an eminent
domain proceeding.
In 1994, the County executed a Utility Transfer Agreement, transferring the water and
wastewater system acquired from GDU to the City of Port St Lucie.
In February 2004, the County entered into a Bulk Water and Wastewater Agreement with Fort
Pierce Utilities Authority (FPUA) for service to portions of the County service areas. This
agreement gives FPUA an exclusive right to provide bulk service to any portion of the County
service area.
In March 2005, the County submitted to FPUA a five (5) year notice of intent to construct
County -owned treatment plants. This notice left in place the existing bulk agreement. In order to
terminate the existing bulk agreement, the County would need to submit to FPUA a fifteen (15)
year notice.
In March 2008, the County obtained a Water Use Permit (WUP) from the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD) allowing for the daily withdrawal of up to 22,230,000 gallons
(22.23 MGD) of raw water from the Upper Floridan and Surficial Aquifers for treatment and to
supply potable water to SLCU customers. Please see the attached Exhibit 1 map submitted as a
part of the WUP application.
The existing WUP allows for 11,310,000 gallons (11.31 MGD) of water to serve SLCU
customers in the southwest and central potions of SLCU service area.
On May 17, 2011, the BOCC discussed utility regionalization, both the challenges and
opportunities.
cc: Lee Ann Lowery, Assistant County Administrator
Don West, Public Works Director
T 34
T 35
T 36
T 37
R37 R3B R39 R40 R41
ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA N
Legend
A
®A lication
Application Sections Map Date: 1/7_.4/2008
:-
_ • - �'_ Application Number: 061129-11
4 Permit Number: 56-00406-W
Project Name: ST. LUCIE COUNTY PWS
f"
.-ram..
EXHIBIT 1
IJiles
r
z
r
WWI
i
.,,
_..
w fON fYmn
t Wx
x
i 1
5A
TO: Board of County Commissioners (n
THROUGH: Faye Outlaw, County Administrator, MPA, ICMA- ^"
FROM: Mark Satterlee, AICP, Director
DATE: June 5, 2012
SUBJECT: Joint Meeting — River Park Area Code Enforcement
As seen in the attached map, River Park is an area of unincorporated St. Lucie County
surrounded largely by the City of Port St. Lucie. The section of Prima Vista Boulevard from just
west of Airoso Boulevard to the North Fork of the St. Lucie River has been a continual focus of
code enforcement for County staff. Most of the properties fronting the busy road are small
1960s vintage single family residences whose owners no longer reside in the homes. As rentals,
they are a continual maintenance issue possibly because the owners cannot command higher
rents due to their frontage on a very busy road.
Nearby residents frequently register complaints about property maintenance along the road and
are often confused about which jurisdiction is responsible for the complaint. Recently, Code
Enforcement staff created the attached flier and distributed it in the neighborhood. This recent
effort has resulted in property maintenance improvements. However, permanent improvement
will likely be a function of a future land use change should it ever occur.
PRIMA VISTA — The attached flyer was distributed in March and Code Staff began citing
properties for non-compliance on April 1. The following is a summary of the effort as of May 31,
2012:
• 40 properties cited along Prima Vista Boulevard and Entrada
• 12 properties mowed and cleaned prior to code sweep
• 5 extensions granted
• 11 of 40 cases resolved to date
• 14 cases being scheduled for August Code Enforcement Board
-a--
w
IL Jw,
14
Unincorporv-
-shad,
(non
0 4-C
K
mt 4n
kyellow shaded area)m
River Park areal
91.
PRIMA VISTA BOULEVARD AREA/
RIVERPARK NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTY
MAINTENANCE SWEEP
In the month of March, St. Lucie
County Code Enforcement staff
is proactively sweeping the Prima
Vista Boulevard area for potential
code violations
This month, St. Lucie County Code Enforcement is conducting a series of
inspections throughout the Prima Vista Corridor area. This effort is intend-
ed to alert owners and renters of property maintenance issues as well as
help stem declining property values that may result from poor property
maintenance. Code Enforcement will be looking for violations of the fol-
lowing:
• Unserviceable Vehicles
• Outside Storage/Junk, Trash, and Debris
• Overgrowth / High Grass
• Property Maintenance issues such as broken windows, discol-
ored, chipped, stained paint, and mildew along with other viola-
tions pertaining to maintenance.
St. Lucie County Code Enforcement encourages local residents to contact
us regarding potential property maintenance violations in the neighbor-
hood. County staff is also working with staff from the City of Port St. Lucie.
Violations we receive occurring inside city limits will be forwarded to the
City for action. Thank you for your attention and assistance.
Let's help keep St. Lucie County looking good!