city of port st. lucie city council regular...

1

CN041111

CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES

APRIL 11, 2011

A Regular Meeting of the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Port St.

Lucie was called to order by Mayor Faiella on April 11, 2011, at

7:00 p.m., at Port St. Lucie City Hall, 121 SW Port St. Lucie

Boulevard, Port St. Lucie, Florida.

1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

Council Members

Present: Mayor JoAnn M. Faiella

Vice Mayor Linda Bartz

Councilwoman Michelle Lee Berger

Councilman Jack Kelly

Councilwoman Shannon M. Martin

Others Present: Jerry A. Bentrott, City Manager

Gregory J. Oravec, Assistant City Manager/

CRA Director

Roger G. Orr, City Attorney

James Arnold, Neighborhood Service Director

Edward Cunningham, Communications Director

Marcia Dedert, Finance Director/Treasurer

Joel Dramis, Building Official

Pam E. Booker Hakim, Senior Assistant City

Attorney

Daniel Holbrook, Planning & Zoning Director

Jesus A. Merejo, Utilities Director

Karen A. Phillips, City Clerk

Charles W. Proulx, Parks and Recreation

Director

Brian E. Reuther, Police Chief

Patricia Roebling, City Engineer

Gabrielle Taylor, Assistant City Attorney

Carol Heintz, Deputy Clerk Supervisor

3. INVOCATION & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The City Clerk gave the Invocation, and Mayor Faiella led the

Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 11, 2011

2

4. PUBLIC TO BE HEARD

MIKE DI IANNI – COUNCILWOMAN BERGER’S ATTITUDE

Mr. DiIanni said, “I have sat here for the last five or six

months, and I’m basically going to be talking to Councilwoman

Berger. The attitude and the way you spoke to the City Council

and the City Attorney is very disturbing. We had a group of kids

here to see how the City Council runs. If that’s the impression

that they walked away with, shame on us all. At the end of all

of those remarks, you looked at someone in the audience and

grinned and winked. That bothered me even more. It was like a

show, and this is not a show. This is City business, and it has

to do with getting this City back in line, getting jobs,

reducing taxes, and creating sales for homes. That’s what this

is all about. If we can’t work together, then you should resign.

If you can’t work together, someone should resign. All of you

need to resign.”

LAWRENCE E. STUCK – WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT/SAWGRASS LAKES

Mr. Struck stated, “I’m here to discuss the issue of the

Wastewater Treatment Plant at Sawgrass Lakes. I was told by the

Utility Department that I would receive updates, and I have not

received one update from anyone. My wife is ready to pull her

hair out of her head because of the noise. I want to know what’s

going on, and when it will be resolved, so that we can continue

with our lives.”

STEVE CARROLL – BRING BACK THE POLICE/JOBS

Mr. Carroll noted, “I want to renew my five cents a day, keep

the bad guys away. That’s what it would cost to bring back the

15 cops. It would actually cost less, so we might want to think

about that. We keep hearing about jobs from everyone. We had

all kinds of presentations tonight on jobs. The jobs we invested

this money for, and it’s a lot of money, were jobs for the

citizens of Port St. Lucie. We have gotten a lot of high tech

stuff where people came from the outside, because we didn’t have

the labor force. In the future when people come and they promise

jobs, and it’s always some pie-in-the-sky figure, you might want

to beware if they start using words like ‘maybe,’ ‘might,’ or

‘could.’ If the moon and stars are right this might happen. But

if it doesn’t, we have to live with it for a long time. You have

to be careful. The devil is in the details. It all looks good up

front, and everyone is cheering. When the curtain opens and you

see what the real play is, sometimes you don’t like it.”


3

ARLENE BROWN – THANK YOU

Ms. Brown remarked, “This is a thank you. I have been a member

of the Treasure Coast Builders Association for a little over 15

years, and I have had the benefit and pleasure of the

association with the Building Department of the City of Port St.

Lucie and how well they’ve worked with the Treasure Coast

Builders Association, the builders, and trade partners in the

Association for a number of years. Last year, the foreclosed and

distressed properties were coming on the market with no permit

for work that had been done. I had a personal experience with

one of those properties with a relative of mine. I called the

Building Department, and through my relationship with Mr. Dramis

and Mr. Reisinger, they told me it wasn’t an impossible task to

figure out what to do with this. They sent me off in the right

direction, and as a result the work that was done was done with

a permit. The Building Department has put together an amazing

program for the benefit of the realtors in our community. They

have realtor assist e-mail for the benefit of the realtors, so

that if the realtors have a property that they question and need

an answer right now, they can get it straight from the horse’s

mouth. They e-mail it, and it comes back to them. They have the

most wonderful PowerPoint presentation. It’s fun and

informative. They have spoken so far to over 200 realtors in six

offices. I would like to thank Mr. Dramis, Mr. Reisinger, and

Ms. Russell for putting together a killer program.”

CARL IKEN – CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 28, 2011

Mr. Iken said, “At the last City Council meeting, I came before

you to inform you that the City Attorney lied to this Council

and misled this Council. This was confirmed by the Mayor at that

meeting who was present, and then it was reconfirmed by

Councilwoman Martin who heard it from the Assistant City

Attorney. My overall concern is that the Council didn’t address

it with the City Attorney. He’s a licensed Florida state

attorney. He’s acting in the official capacity as an advisor for

the City Council when he sits at the dais, and he provided false

information to this Council. I understand that Councilwoman

Berger and others on this Council have a strong dislike for me,

and I’m okay with that. I also understand that Councilwoman

Berger and Councilman Kelly were upset that the meeting in

question even took place, that the City Attorney and Mayor

Faiella shouldn’t have had that meeting. As elected officials

charged with representing the people of this City in a

professional manner, it’s your responsibility to put your

personal feelings aside and look at the facts presented to you.


4

At the last meeting it was confirmed that during the March 21

Special City Council Meeting the City Attorney intentionally

misled this Council and didn’t tell the truth. As the City

Attorney he is paid very well to provide this Council with the

facts and truth about situations involving his actions and words

as City Attorney. Instead of focusing on the fact that the City

Attorney lied to this Council, the Council tried to justify his

lie, because of their dislike for me or the homeowner that’s

involved in this case.”

Mr. Iken continued, “Councilwoman Berger chose to ignore the

fact that she had been lied to by the City Attorney, and

proceeded to scold the Mayor for daring to live up to her

campaign promises and have an open door policy with the

residents of the City. Councilwoman Berger even went as far as

to add an agenda item to the end of the meeting, so she would

have even more time to scold the Mayor and personally attack

myself. I once again ask this Council to address the issue of

our City Attorney lying on record to this Council. We can’t

afford to overlook this matter as it greatly diminishes the

integrity of the City. I’m aware that some of you will still try

to make this out about other matters, or make excuses as to why

the City Attorney lied to the Council. Even with all of the spin

and excuses, it’s clear that this Council was lied to by the

City Attorney. The only thing that should matter is that he

lied. To make it simple for everyone to understand and to remove

all of the distractions, I’m going to put it a different way. At

a meeting in the City Council office, the City Attorney said A.

When asked by Councilman Kelly on March 21 if he said A, the

City Attorney said no. At the last meeting the Mayor who was

present at the initial meeting confirmed that the City Attorney

did indeed say A. It was further confirmed by a conversation

Councilwoman Martin had with Assistant City Attorney Taylor that

the City Attorney did indeed say A at that meeting. Therefore,

the City Attorney lied to this Council and to the people of this

City. The only question remaining is what the City will do with

this information. The way I see it you have two choices. You can

hold the City Attorney accountable, or you can continue to make

excuses and justify it with spin and innuendos. I hope each of

you has the character and integrity necessary to hold the City

Attorney accountable for his actions. I understand you may not

like the messenger, and I’m okay with that. But as

professionals, look past your contempt for me and look at the

facts. This is not about me or anyone or anything else. It’s

about our City Attorney violating his duty to the City Council

and to the people of Port St. Lucie. I urge you to do what’s

right, and not what is easy.”


5

PTBH/COUNCIL COMMENTS

Councilwoman Martin said, “I want to address Mr. Struck. A

couple of weeks ago, we had a tour of the plant and found that

the noise is from a deodorizing unit attached to the new

building that holds the sludge. It was determined that after the

building was done and the deodorizing unit was put in that the

blower and fans on that unit were creating the noise. We were

there with the Utilities Director Mr. Merejo, and we explained

that we were looking into the situation with regard to

containing the noise. Currently, Mr. Merejo has asked for a

proposal on ways to contain the noise. He said that we should

have that proposal within 30 days.” Mr. Merejo stated, “The

consultant has been hired, has been to the facility, and will

have a recommendation within 30 days. Then we will proceed with

how we’re going resolve the issue.” Councilwoman Martin noted,

“On the tour you had also said that we would have to get another

independent person in to review that, because of state

guidelines and regulations.” Mr. Merejo commented, “We have to

go through the permitting process to make a change to what has

already been done. We’re hoping to have everything fixed by the

end of June or early July.” Councilwoman Martin asked, “Until

that time, do we have any other way to cut down on the noise?”

Mr. Merejo replied, “No. At this time, we have not provided you

with any feedback, because there was nothing to report since the

last time we met. By next week, we will give you an update on

where we’re going and any future recommendations we may have. We

really have to wait until we receive something back from the

consultant who was there last week.” Councilwoman Martin pointed

out, “As soon as anything comes back from Utilities, I will keep

you and all of the residents informed as to what’s going on.”

Mr. Stuck asked, “Is there some kind of tent they can put over

it temporarily to baffle the noise?” Mr. Merejo replied, “At

this time we do not want to modify it, because that could end

the warranty we have on the unit. We do not recommend putting a

Band-Aid on it at this time. We will do everything possible to

address that issue as soon as possible.”

Councilman Kelly remarked, “I want to address the City Attorney

allegation that was brought up. I don’t know where Mr. Iken gets

his information, but to say that I, along with Councilwoman

Berger, was against that meeting is not true. I never gave any

indication to anyone privately or publicly that I was against

that meeting. I’m the one who did ask the question. I do believe

that it was taken out of context. I heard the Mayor say when it

was brought up again in her conversation, when it was asked if

the City Attorney lied, I heard her say, ‘No, not it that way,


6

it didn’t happen.’ That’s what I heard the Mayor say. Now, if

you take it out of context, it’s a whole different story. I have

worked with this man for 11 years, and he has never once lied to

me. His integrity is higher than anyone else I know. I get angry

with him when he doesn’t give me the answers I want to hear, but

as far as his integrity, it’s second to none. I’m sure people

make mistakes, but I think the man was taken out of context. I

didn’t hear the Mayor say that he lied.

Councilman Kelly continued, “The other gentleman who spoke about

Council people getting passionate about what they think, if

someone thinks there’s a policy deviation or a policy change and

they want to put it on at the beginning of the meeting, they can

do that. As far as grimacing or wincing, I’ve been here a long

time. I didn’t get along with another Mayor for many years.

There were many times that I grimaced, winced, rolled my head

back, and threw my hands up in the air. I did the same thing

with the Mayor after him. I’m sure it will happen with this

Mayor doing it to me. This Council is no different than any

other Council we’ve had. There are going to be differences and

people get passionate. I’m not taking sides with anyone. We have

to work as a team. Sometimes, you think something is wrong and

you get a little passionate. Mayor, I did not hear you say that

the City Attorney lied. I hope that’s the end of that one.”

Mayor Faiella noted, “I don’t know what transpired on the 21st

when I was not here, but the question was ‘Did the City Attorney

state that?’ Ms. Taylor was in the room and said that there

would not be a proceeding unless there was a permit pulled. That

was the conversation we had. I even turned around to Mr.

McKeever and said, ‘How long would it take you to pull the

permit?’ I don’t know what happened afterward. There was

something going on with Ms. Taylor and him with the permit. When

I left for Tallahassee, there was no permit pulled, and that is

where we left off. Whether the permit was pulled or not, I don’t

know where it ended afterward. Was it the beginning of December

or February when we met with Mr. McKeever?” The City Attorney

replied, “I think it was January.” Mayor Faiella pointed out,

“That was the extent of the conversation. If he pulled the

permit would there be a nuisance abatement proceeding. Is that

correct?” The City Attorney replied, “We gave him dates, and we

followed it up with an e-mail to him answering questions that he

asked to be answered. We gave him a series of dates, deadlines,

and milestones that he had to meet. He did not, and we initiated

the nuisance abatement process when those milestones passed. The

dates were in February, and that meeting might have been in late

January.”


7

5. PROCLAMATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

a) PROCLAMATION – CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE VOLUNTEER MONTH

The City Clerk read the Proclamation. Mayor Faiella presented

the Proclamation to Lana McClain and Maureen Puglisi. Ms.

McClain said, “I’m not here to collect this Proclamation for me

or for Volunteer St. Lucie who I represent. I’m here

representing all of the volunteers in Port St. Lucie and St.

Lucie County. We all know the importance of volunteers.

Volunteers help things keep going. They’re supporting blood

drives, food drives, and they bake cookies for the kids at

school. They’re Girl Scout leaders and Boy Scout leaders. They

lead youth groups, support their churches, and all of our

organizations. Volunteers come out in disasters. We have at

least 70 active volunteers right now at the Civic Center.” Ms.

Puglisi stated, “Thank you for recognizing volunteerism. We

could not get by at the Civic Center without the help of the

volunteers.”

b) PROCLAMATION – CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH

The City Clerk read the Proclamation, and Mayor Faiella

presented the Proclamation to Chris Robertson. Mr. Robertson

said, “Castle has been around for 30 years, and this past year

there have been 198 children who have died from child abuse or

neglect in the State of Florida. Those 198 children could have

been the next Council person, the next Mayor, or anyone of these

fine community members, but they did not have a chance to speak

for themselves. Castle is here to spread awareness, to put our

Memory Field of Flags out there to speak for those children.

Every year, we put the flags out, go from county to county, and

we have dedication ceremonies. We have speakers and clients that

are extremely courageous who talk about what Castle has done for

them. Without everyone’s help in the community, this problem

will still grow. The Treasure Coast, and especially Port St.

Lucie, is double the national average for children dying of

abuse and neglect. If we don’t step up and make a difference,

it’s going to continue to grow year after year. Five years ago

we put the Memory Field out there with 73 children. It’s now up

to 198 children.”

ADDENDUM ITEM

e) WALGREENS AND THE DIABETES RESEARCH INSTITUTE WALK FOR

THE CURE DAY – STEVE FLYNN


8

The City Clerk read the Proclamation, and Mayor Faiella

presented the Proclamation to Steve Flynn, and noted, “I had the

pleasure of walking with all of you yesterday for two miles. We

had over 500 people, with people from 14 other cities around

Florida participating.” Mayor Faiella asked, “How much did we

raise?” Mr. Flynn replied, “Between the business sponsorships

and the community coming out, we raised probably over $5,000.

The goal is $1 million throughout the state, and right now we

have raised over $400,000, and we’re going until the end of the

month.”

c) SPECIAL PRESENTATION – WYNDCREST DD FLORIDA, INC.

UPDATE, JOHN TEXTOR, CEO/CHAIRMAN

Mr. Textor presented a slide show and said, “In terms of our

employee count and based on our projections, which some thought

were aggressive, we’re supposed to be at 90 employees in our

animation studio by the end of this year. We’re already at about

243. We’ve expanded our business model, because we have been

really surprised by the quality of the town locally. Just with

Port St. Lucie and Treasure Coast employees alone, we’re higher

than what our aggregate projection was going to be for the year.

You have it on the schedule as Wyndcrest DD Florida, Inc. To

make things easier, we went through a name change. That entity

is now known as the Digital Domain Media Group, headquartered in

Port St. Lucie. We’re working on two summer blockbusters in Port

St. Lucie as we speak. The original stories are developed in

Port St. Lucie. That group started to grow much more quickly

than we expected, because of some of the key people we hired

from the Disney Animation Studio in Orlando. We outgrew our

space at Tradition Square very quickly, so we took over a

65,000-square-foot building from Liberty Medical. We put about

$600,000 into the retrofit of that building to make it work. We

have a couple of years on the lease, and we might stay there

even after our facility in Tradition is built. This allows us to

grab people with digital media capabilities at the high school

level, put them in our ‘Boot Camp,’ which is anywhere from a

five to ten week training program, and they can contribute at a

high professional level on this expanding marketplace. We were a

500-job proposition expecting all of those people to be in the

animation studio. Now we think we can add at least 500 jobs in

the conversion of 2-D films to 3-D stereographic films. We had a

job fair and probably 120 to 150 of those people came out of

that job fair.”

Mr. Textor continued, “We should be at about 400 employees by

the end of 2011, which puts us well ahead of our original


9

projections. About 36% of the people there today were coming

from outside Florida before accepting these jobs. That number is

a little misleading, because I think about 20% of those people

had ties to Florida. About two-thirds of our people were Florida

residents at the time of hire. Of course, 96% of those people

are from Florida, and 4% are from other states. Either we’ve

left them in training positions in California, or they are

people who are planning on moving. Among those Florida

residents, 23% were from the City of Port St. Lucie, 40% are

generally from the Treasure Coast, and 60% come from other

communities in Florida that are coming into this area.

Approximately 50% of our people have chosen to live in Port St.

Lucie, or they were already living here. There are a number of

people who chose Ft. Pierce or Jensen Beach. Of the non-Treasure

Coast people 20 of those people are now commuting from Palm

Beach every day. We have a number of people who will commute in

for the week and then go back to their homes on the weekends.

The large majority of our 243 are between the ages of 21 and 30.

We have 12 who are under the age of 20. We have approximately

100 people in the 31 to 50 age bracket. With reference to our

contracted companies, 88% are from the Treasure Coast. We have

about 120 people on site every day, and 82% of those workers are

from the Treasure Coast, with a vast majority being from Port

St. Lucie. During the final stages of construction, we will have

a substantial increase in the number of workers on site.”

Mr. Textor stated, “Whether we stay in the facility on the east

side of town or build more near our studio on the west side of

town, just to house the 3-D stereoscopic division we’re going to

have to have a similar construction project, because it looks

like that group may grow faster than our original animation

studio. We did acquire extra land at Tradition, so we’ve got the

ability to build on site there as well. We just hired 80 people

within the last 45 days, and of those 80 people I bet 65 were

from the Treasure Coast. The IRSC program is great. They’re

turning out good graduates. I think we have about 35 people from

there. We hope to have our studio complete by the end of this

year.” Mayor Faiella noted, “You said something to me last

weekend pn the phone. You said that you didn’t realize what

talent we had here. That was quite interesting.” Mr. Textor

commented, “I thought it would take a lot longer to develop. I

believed that at this stage two-thirds of our employees would be

from LA. We have been very pleasantly surprised at the talent

that’s here in this area. In our first Boot Camp, we brought in

50 people. We expected that one-third of those people would wash

out. Of our first 50, we only had four people who didn’t qualify

at the end of that program. About 90% of the people we bring


10

into these Boot Camps from largely local sources have been

working out well for us.”

d) SPECIAL PRESENTATION - 2010 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL

FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR), FINANCE

Mr. McBee said, “The City’s financial statements present fairly

the financial position and activities of the City for the 2010

year. You will see within the basic financial statements the

City’s Statement of Net Assets or balance sheet for the year,

which shows the City had ample resources to cover its current

obligations. However, I will point out for the year ending 2010,

the City did incur an operating deficit in excess of $3 million

in the City’s General Fund, which brought the fund balances down

to about $12.5 million. The other item I refer to is the

Management Letter, which is our comments we found during the

course of our audit procedures. The current year’s Management

Letter has reference to our recommendation that the City should

consider using the services of an independent financial

consultant. This is as it relates to certain activities in

regard to higher level financing or investment transactions and

items of that nature. Sometimes the City gets its advice from

the same party who’s selling them the financial package. I have

prepared the general recap of pertinent data of the City’s

activities as it relates to prior years and also to other cities

of comparable size, population, or revenues. As you look at the

balance sheets, we’re comparable to where we were last year with

the exception of the deficit that was incurred within the last

year of $3 million. The revenues were relatively comparable to

prior year, as well as the expenditures. However, there was

little fluctuation, and we put those comparisons on a per capita

basis. The Water and Sewer Fund held relatively constant for

2010 as compared to 2009, whereas the Stormwater Fund increased

its revenues and correspondingly increased the net bottom line.”

Mr. McBee continued, “From there we compare the City with other

cities of comparable size, and how they relate as far as

governmental revenues, tax revenues, and intergovernmental

funds. We’re sizeable above other cities with reference to long

term debt. However, the bulk of that is the special assessment

debt, which is mainly from the expansion of the water and sewer

system and a few of the special assessment districts that were

set out there to develop an infrastructure for various expansion

areas within the City. Page 12 compares the ad valorem taxable

assessed value of the City to other cities of comparable size.

We’re holding relatively constant in comparison there as well.”

Councilman Kelly noted, “We had a Retreat last summer and I got


11

corrected. We have a lot of money tied up in the SBA Funds,

which is like our checking account with the state. The money got

frozen. We still have in the neighborhood of $10 million or $11

million in that fund. Is that money spent? Can you explain

that?” Mr. McBee replied, “The SBA Fund was where the City

previously had parked most of their current financial resources,

because it was readily available, it wasn’t time dependent, and

had a relatively good return for liquid assets. Whenever the

financial meltdown happened, it was subsequently discovered that

many of their assets were backed in the derivatives and items of

that nature.”

Mr. McBee stated, “There had to be an allowance made for

collection of those monies over the course of a longer term as

opposed to immediate needs. Therefore, the fund was split into

two different segments, where upon one was currently available

and the other would be available as resources came into the SBA

Fund. I will point out that the City’s Finance Department had

done the bulk of their due diligence. The bulk of the City’s

funds that went in there was approximately a day or two before

the SBA shut things down. The $155 million bond issue from the

Southwest Annexation District had sizeable dollars, and those

dollars were moved up into the SBA Fund. However, the City

Manager’s Department and the Finance Department called there

prior to confirm that everything was fine, and they got the okay

that everything was fine. Three days later things weren’t fine,

so the City had many dollars tied in the SBA Fund. Currently, we

rate that down every year based on what’s determined to be

available and what’s being recognized as write offs.” Councilman

Kelly noted, “We did call because we heard rumors, and we were

assured by officials there that there was nothing wrong. It has

been a tremendous burden on the City, but we still have a good

credit rating. We were prepared.” Mr. McBee commented,

“Fortunately the City is in a situation where there are other

dollars available. They shuffled monies within the various funds

and borrowed funds for current needs whenever a large project of

that nature comes up, and payback as the draw downs come down on

Fund B from the SBA.” Councilman Kelly pointed out, “It was 33%

of our ad valorem tax money that got tied up.”

Councilwoman Berger remarked, “I appreciate your comments about

the independent financial advisor, and I know that’s a

conversation the City Manager and I had in the past. I look

forward to making those changes.” Councilman Kelly moved for

approval. Councilwoman Martin seconded the motion. The City

Clerk restated the motion as follows: for approval of acceptance

of the CAFR. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.


12

6. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO AGENDA AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Councilwoman Martin moved to approve the Agenda. Councilman

Kelly seconded the motion. The City Clerk restated the motion as

follows: for approval of the Agenda. The motion passed

unanimously by roll call vote.

7. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA

a) APPROVAL OF MINUTES – January 18 and February 22, 2011

Zoning Appeals, February 2, 22, 2011, March 7, 2011

b) TERMINATION OF DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS,

LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 2318, PORT ST. LUCIE SECTION THIRTY THREE,

TRC #289, MARJAN, INC., CITY IS OWED $5,912.18, LEGAL

c) MELVIN BUSH CONSTRUCTION, INC., AMENDMENT #19, CHANGE

ORDER #1, CITY WIDE CULVERT REPLACEMENT AND SIDEWALK

CONSTRUCTION, EAST LAKE VILLAGE DRAINAGE REPAIR IMPROVEMENTS,

#20070008, $2,604.65 FOR A NEW CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $28,793.55,

AND 21 ADDITIONAL CALENDAR DAYS FOR A NEW TOTAL OF 51 CALENDAR

DAYS, FUND 401-4105-5340, ENGINEERING

d) PROPOSED CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE, LOT 8, BLOCK

2388, PORT ST. LUCIE SECTION THIRTY-FOUR, 114 SW MILLBURN

CIRCLE, $42,000, PROPERTY NEEDED FOR THE REVISED BECKER ROAD

WIDENING PROJECT PHASES 2 THROUGH 4, STEGEMAN

e) WAIVER OF BID PER SECTION 35.11(A), EMERGENCY

CONDITIONS, CENTRIFUGE REPAIR AT GLADES WASTEWATER TREATMENT

FACILITY, ANDRITZ SEPARATION, INC., #20110057, $31,447, FUND

438-3513-5630, UTILITY SYSTEMS

ADDENDUM

f) FERRY ENTERPRISES, INC., AMENDMENT #1, ADDITIONAL

MOWING AND TRIMMING ALONG VILLAGE PARKWAY BETWEEN TRADITION

PARKWAY AND BECKER ROAD, $37,688.85, #20060116, CONTRACT PERIOD

IS DECEMBER 1, 2006 THROUGH NOVEMBER 30, 2011, WITH AN OPTION

FOR AN ADDITIONAL 5 YEAR PERIOD, FUND 104/401-4127-5341, PUBLIC

WORKS

Councilwoman Berger moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Vice

Mayor Bartz seconded the motion. The City Clerk restated the

motion as follows: for approval of the Consent Agenda. The

motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.

8. SECOND READING, PUBLIC HEARING OF ORDINANCES


13

a) ORDINANCE 11-11, REZONE 1.13 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED

ON THE EAST SIDE OF BAYSHORE BOULEVARD BETWEEN DUVAL AVENUE AND

DUXBURY AVENUE FROM RS-2 (SINGLE FAMILY) TO I (INSTITUTIONAL)

FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS RMP ENTERPRISES, P10-164; PROVIDING FOR

AN EFFECTIVE DATE, QUASI JUDICIAL

The City Clerk read ordinance 11-11 aloud by title only. Mayor

Faiella opened the Public Hearing.

STEVEN CARROLL said, “I was here for the First Reading and there

was this ‘Throw up the hand. We can’t stop this. We can’t do

anything.’ I’m a disabled person and I do a lot of disabled

rights work. Are these houses going to be ADA compliant? You’re

making a residence into a commercial building. I suggest you

look at the ADA law on this, because you could change this and

the feds could come in and slap you hard. They could really make

some problems for you. I don’t see where these people would be

exempt. They’re on disability if they’re drug rehab.” The City

Attorney replied, “As I understand, these are treated as

residential structures. If they pull permits, they will

certainly have to comply with the ADA regulations at that point.

They’re not City structures, so we won’t be looking at that

issue from the City’s point of view. They will have to meet the

regulations, but not the City.” Mr. Holbrook stated, “As a part

of the discussions that we initially had, staff did review and

discuss the ADA issue. The way that’s addressed is that if this

is approved, the applicant has to come back with a Site Plan for

the property. That property has to be in compliance with all

City rules and regulations, one of those being the Florida

Building Code. ADA requirements are established there. That will

address the issue when they come forward. As an outcome of the

Planning and Zoning Board meeting, one of the neighbors was very

specific in requesting that they maintain their existing fence.

If that’s the pleasure of Council, it was one of the comments

from the neighbor, and I would request that it be specifically

mentioned as a separate motion for approval. We did discuss that

they plant additional landscape to bring it up to City

requirements.”

There being no further comments, Mayor Faiella closed the Public

Hearing. Councilman Kelly moved to approve Ordinance 11-11, with

the change proposed by our Planning and Zoning Director on the

fence. Councilwoman Martin seconded the motion. Councilwoman

Berger stated, “I did want to mention that I spoke with our

staff, Ms. Hakim, in reference to this and some other

outstanding litigation that was from outside the area. Putting

that out there now, if it’s going to come back for Site Plan


14

approval, seems like a disconnect to do it during the zoning

time.” Mr. Holbrook noted, “It’s not a request of the applicant,

but the applicant has agreed during our past meetings publicly

at the Planning and Zoning Board to be in compliance. The Site

Plan process is not a public hearing process. It is conducted as

a public meeting, and that’s the difference. Code does require

that Council approve, if that’s Council’s desire. Whether it’s

done at this meeting or a separate meeting, it can occur either

way.” Councilwoman Berger asked, “Will it still go before the

Planning and Zoning Board?” Mr. Holbrook replied in the

negative. Councilwoman Berger asked, “Is it because it’s with

the state that they get a pass?” Mr. Holbrook replied, “Code

doesn’t require this to go to the Planning and Zoning Board due

to the size of the project.” Councilwoman Berger pointed out, “I

know we’re moving forward, because that’s where we need to go

and it’s mandated. However, from a perspective of a homeowner it

does concern me, and I would like to get in front of the

delegation next year to talk about putting larger groups of

properties together like this. To me, it becomes a compound.

It’s no longer just a residence that you’re trying to make sure

we make available within our City. If you’re a neighbor that

lives across the street from that, and all of a sudden we have

six or eight lots that are coming together, it would be a big

concern. Apparently, we have no say in that matter.” Mayor

Faiella remarked, “I will absolutely note that.” The City Clerk

restated the motion as follows: for approval of Ordinance 11-11,

and to include the request to maintain the fence. The motion

passed unanimously by roll call vote.

b) ORDINANCE 11-21, AMENDING SECTION 150.704.10 OF PORT

ST. LUCIE CITY CODE 150, “BUILDING REGULATIONS, CORRECTION OF

SCRIVENERS ERROR IN ORDINANCE, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE

The City Clerk read Ordinance 11-21 aloud by title only. Mayor

Faiella opened the Public Hearing. There being no comments,

Mayor Faiella closed the Public Hearing. Vice Mayor Bartz moved

to approve Ordinance 11-21. Councilwoman Martin seconded the

motion. The City Clerk restated the motion as follows: for

approval of Ordinance 11-21. The motion passed unanimously by

roll call vote.

c) ORDINANCE 11-24, PROVIDING FOR THE ABANDONMENT OF A

PORTION OF AN EASEMENT AFFECTING LOT 16, BLOCK 2192, PORT ST.

LUCIE SECTION THIRTY THREE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE




15

Mayor Faiella closed the Public Hearing. Vice Mayor Bartz moved

to approve Ordinance 11-24. Councilwoman Berger seconded the



roll call vote.

9. OTHER PUBLIC HEARINGS

There was nothing scheduled for this item.

10. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES

a) ORDINANCE 11-18, ANNEXING A PORTION OF ST. LUCIE

COUNTY, FLORIDA LOCATED GENERALLY WEST OF RANGE LINE ROAD, SOUTH

AND EAST OF GLADES CUT-OFF ROAD, AND DIRECTLY NORTH OF THE C-23

CANAL (P09-66); PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS OF ANNEXATION; AND

PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, QUASI JUDICIAL


Faiella asked that the vote for Ordinance 11-18 be held until

Ordinance 11-25 is heard, so the votes can be together.

c) ORDINANCE 11-25, PUBLIC HEARING, AMENDING THE

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE TO INCLUDE A

LARGE SCALE AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR A PROJECT

KNOWN AS KENNEDY GROVES, INC., BAY HILL HOLDINGS, LLC, SOUTHERN

FRUIT GROVES, LLLP, AND MABEL GROVES, LLLP (P09-129), TO CHANGE

THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM A COUNTY DESIGNATION OF AG-

5 (AGRICULTURAL – 5) TO CITY FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS

RESULTING IN APPROXIMATELY 5,079 ACRES OF HI (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL),

1,000 ACRES OF OSC (OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION), AND 1,060.13 ACRES

OF UTILITY, FOR A PARCEL LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A, AND

GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF RANGE LINE ROAD, SOUTH AND EAST OF

GLADES CUT-OFF ROAD AND NORTH OF THE C-23 CANAL AND MARTIN

COUNTY LINE; PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY’S URBAN

SERVICE BOUNDARY LINE; PROVIDING FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE

INFRASTRUCTURE AND FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENTS; PROVIDING THE

INVALIDITY OF ANY PORTION SHALL NOT AFFECT THE REMAINING

PORTIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE,

P09-129

The City Clerk read Ordinance 11-25 aloud by title only. Mr.

Holbrook said, “I want to give everyone the information that

both Comprehensive Plan Amendments are First Readings before the

City Council, and if the Council elects to approve at First

Reading it allows staff to send both applications to the State

of Florida and other jurisdictions that will be impacted. This

is a preliminary step. Once the state issues their Objections,


16

Recommendations, and Comment report it will come back to the

City. The City will have to address those issues, and then it

will come back for a final public hearing. As part of it, one of

the state requirements does require that anyone who wishes to

speak, and this is for state record, that they do need to sign

in. We need to send this off for our Comprehensive Plan

Amendment. I encourage everyone to do that.”

A recess was called at 8:20 p.m., and the meeting resumed at

8:35 p.m.

PRESTON PERONI, Chief Financial Officer, Kennedy Groves, and

Project Manager for the Intermodal Campus, said, “The landowner

members of TCIC are Kennedy Groves, represented by the Kennedy

family in Vero Beach; Southern Fruit Groves and Mabel Groves,

the Caruso family in Orlando; and Bayhill Holdings controlled by

the Falcone Group from Boca Raton as their managing partner. The

principles of these companies and other strategic partners are

in attendance tonight. (Clerk’s Note: Mr. Peroni presented

background information on each of the landowner members,

referencing their companies and business operations).”

JONATHAN FERGUSON stated, “The First Reading is to annex 7,139

acres into the City. Of that, there is a proposal to change the

land use on 5,079 acres to Heavy Industrial, 1,060 acres to

utility, and 1,000 acres to Open-Space Conservation. The idea is

to develop it as the TCIC, which is an Integrated Logistics

Center, sometimes referred to erroneously as an Inland Port. An

Integrated Logistics Center is much more than an inland port.”

RICHARD PENSKY, Public Policy Manager and consultant to the Port

of Palm Beach, noted, “We’re at the tail end of the global trade

market, and we really don’t fit. That’s going to be changing in

the future. The South Florida market is from Orlando south.

That’s about 11 million people and that’s an attractive

marketplace. The Panama Canal is being expanded to get goods to

Florida faster and cheaper. The previous routes to the South

Florida market would take 24 days, and had to be handled three

or four times. In 2014 when the Panama Canal is opened, cargo

will arrive here in 19 days, and be handled only once or twice.

That increases a shipper’s bottom line, and that’s what they’re

looking for. There are some media reports that the Port of Palm

Beach has dropped out of this process. That’s not true. The Port

of Palm Beach started this process four years ago. Our role was

to enter into an MOU with the Panama Canal and promote the idea

that Florida was going to be receiving cargo like the rest of

the east coast. The only thing we dropped out of was in the


17

selection process. We originally had selected a Florida Crystal

site along the Everglades, but we no longer choose to partner

with them.”

Mr. Pinsky continued, “Without landside warehousing logistics

facilities to compliment pier side terminal operations, major

ports of entry such as Miami will not be successful in

attracting the trade routes needed to preserve, let alone

increase, its market position. Several ports such as the

Virginia Port Authority have designated inland ports, which

allow far more effective sales and promotion of their port

system as a two-part solution. In the absence of an inland

counterpart to Florida’s port system, it’s felt by many in the

industry that Florida may find itself unable to effectively

compete in the long term with the other Atlantic ports of entry

despite South Florida’s geographical superiority to both the

Panama Canal and the emerging nations of Latin America. We would

encourage you take a leadership role in helping establish a

dedicated inland port, which would allow a more complete

logistic solution to be offered to the beneficial cargo owners

whose business can bring great benefit to your region. Right

now, there is nowhere in the South Florida region for cargo to

go. You have a ship that could potentially stop with no place to

unload their cargo. Our job is going to be to capture and keep

it here. That’s our goal. The Governor of the State of Florida

and the Port of Palm Beach were instrumental in creating a

Trade and Cargo Show Study, which the Florida Chamber of

Commerce Foundation just completed. The Governor, prompted by

that study, committed $50 million this year to take Miami to 50

feet to accept a ship. That’s wonderful except we have no place

to put the cargo when the ship stops. The cargo is either going

to South Carolina, New York, Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina,

or it could go to Florida. That’s depends a lot on having a

location.”

Mr. Pinsky stated, “Miami-Dade is totally built out. Miami’s

goal is to take the ship, and take the cargo by train. You have

the Everglades. There’s nothing going on. Broward is totally

built out. The homes go right to the edge of the Everglades. The

first chance you have an opportunity to put a logistics center,

a destination cargo area, is Palm Beach. That’s the Florida

Crystal site. I don’t know where Martin County would put it. The

first opportunity to take cargo off the port in Miami and take

it to a place to unload it is really effectively St. Lucie

County, because of the rail line. That’s what makes Port St.

Lucie such a unique, desirable, and attractive location. It is

certainly the hope of making this supply chain work. In 2015,


18

Florida has to be ready for cargo. If we’re not ready in 2015,

kiss it goodbye. The Panama Canal is going to open in 2014. For

the first time ever in the history of the United States, cargo

will be coming to the east coast of the United States. By 2013

the Port of Miami will be at 50 feet ready to receive a ship.

However, to plan for 2015 the shippers have got to know that

something has started, that Florida is ready to receive cargo.

They have to know that by mid-2012. In 2012, we have to have a

site selected. Phase 2 of the Trade and Cargo Study that will be

undertaken by the Florida Chamber of Commerce Foundation will be

where to locate a site. There are only two sites in the entire

state of Florida that are even close to being considered. One is

at the western side of Palm Beach County off the lake between

Bellglade and Southbay, and the other is in St. Lucie County.

One has rail, and one does not.”

Mr. Pinsky noted, “The Florida Chamber will come up with one or

two recommendations, and St. Lucie County and your City should

really want to be at the front end of that curve. Right now,

there’s a very small window of opportunity.” Councilwoman Berger

commented, “Under full disclosure, Mr. Pinsky and I have worked

together on some other statewide initiatives in the past. Do you

know if anyone other than this City and its representatives

received a similar letter from that organization?” Mr. Pinsky

replied, “I don’t know, but I’m 90% sure this is the only entity

to receive this letter in the state of Florida.” Councilwoman

Berger asked, “When you say the one that’s out west by the

western part of Palm Beach County, are these two sites solely

being considered for the Palm Beach initiative, Miami and Palm

Beach, or statewide?” Mr. Pinsky replied, “The Port of Palm

Beach will be receiving presentations from both Florida Crystals

and the TCIC team. They will be requesting an update. When they

do the next phase, I’m confident that the Port of Palm Beach

will be asked for our opinion. We are not with a particular

site. We didn’t drop out of the process. We just no longer

associate with that particular project. When I talk about two

sites, I’m referring to the Florida Crystal site and this

potential site in St. Lucie County.” Councilwoman Berger

commented, “This seemed to me to be a very important survival

piece for the Port of Miami in order for them to continue to

move forward on what success looks like for them after the

dredging. Tell me more about the survival of Miami and how we

now play a role in the state’s future.”

Mr. Pinsky pointed out, “I can’t speak for the Port of Miami,

but I know their port director would say that they’re very

successful, and they want to be more successful. The opportunity


19

to present itself to receive cargo for the first time will be a

new opportunity for Florida. Jacksonville may be another option

in the future, because permitting and dredging wise they might

be slightly ahead of Savannah. The Governor made a decision and

the legislature is following suit to pick Miami as the port of

entry. Yes, Miami will be depending upon a destination cargo

center. You have an opportunity tonight to become an

international brand.” Councilwoman Berger remarked, “There’s a

conference coming up, and I’m looking forward to seeing what

role we can play in that. Part of what I found in doing the

research is this information about basically a nationwide

initiative right now. I looked at Texas, and the fact that

they’re competing for the same thing right now as well. When

you’re saying that they’re going to be coming to the east side

of the United States, are those just the containers that are

meant to be shipped to this side, or are you saying that they’re

going to come here instead of going to Texas?” Mr. Pinsky

replied, “Texas is a different model, because they can’t come

into Long Beach and effectively get to the Dallas-Fort Worth

market. Huston’s Inland Logistics Center is rail based, and

they’re very successful.”

Councilwoman Berger said, “I’m really trying to understand the

broader perspective. Who are we in competition with? My job is

to make sure that I look out for the best interest of the City

and to protect the City. In order to make that decision, I’m

trying to understand the scope of not only this project, but how

large it is nationwide, and how many other cities are out there

being given the same types of letters we received from other

agencies to try and promote their ports. The Texas port is very

big, and they plan on getting cargo from the Panama Canal as

well.” Mr. Pinsky stated, “It’s a different marketplace.

Virginia has one port. Florida has 14 ports. It’s easy for

Virginia to have a letter written to Virginia, because they only

have one inland port. New York, North and South Carolina, and

Georgia have one port. Florida has more of a challenge to decide

on how cargo is going to come in, and where is it going to go.

It takes a governor and legislature to say ‘We’re going to

settle the argument.’” Councilman Kelly noted, “I know you’re an

expert on all of this, but what you just heard is opinion and

speculation. I can’t go through every page of this backup

material. I relied on four or five other individuals that are

just as learned as this man. I was told, and what he left out,

is that most of this extra. . . . No one says there’s going to

be a lot of extra stuff coming through the Panama Canal.”

Councilman Kelly continued, “Right now, Walmart is down 25% in


20

their distribution. A number of places are down 25%. We have an

economic crisis, and one of the reasons is because we don’t have

jobs. It’s easy to yell jobs and try to get something like this

through. Whether he is right or not, it’s his opinion. I have no

paperwork to back up what this gentleman just said. I’m told

that the area in Florida who already has it in the works is

Tampa Bay. It’s closer, and they’re going to get most of this

cargo. From lobbyists I’ve talked to, the Governor is going to

be sympathetic to Tampa Bay, because they’re mad at him over the

bullet train. That’s speculation also. What he just gave you is

his opinion and speculation. A number of these ports are only

five hundred or six hundred acres. Just like this letter from

Jones, Lang, and LaSalle, no one writes a letter like this

unless they’re asked. It doesn’t make sense to have a letter

come from California. There’s nothing concrete on what you just

heard. I have no backup material about what this man said. The

people I’ve talked to disagree with what this gentleman just

said. I do not believe that time is of the essence, because the

economy is down. Quite frankly, it bothers me that I’m going to

have ships coming through the Panama Canal and bring me more

stuff from Japan, Korea, and every place else. If you want to

put money into something like this, let’s make something. I’m

all for the concept. I’m for the concept of 35,000 jobs, but not

this one.”

Councilwoman Martin stated, “In our e-mails that we’ve been

getting on the reports from the state legislature, one said that

the Governor didn’t commit $50 million, but $77 million for the

Port of Miami. That’s not speculation. That has been done.”

Councilman Kelly noted, “That’s Miami.” Councilwoman Martin

commented, “That’s right. You can’t say it’s speculation, that

there’s no concrete evidence when, in fact, there is evidence of

that. That money has been earmarked for that.” Councilman Kelly

pointed out, “I didn’t speak of the Port of Miami.” Mr. Ferguson

remarked, “There are a number of recent studies showing that

Florida can capture this trade if it improves its ports the way

they need to be improved. Tampa is not in the game, because they

will never be able to get to 50 feet, which is the depth needed

for the ports. They have too many environmental issues. They

will get some traffic, but not the traffic that we’re talking

about. The property is located in south central St. Lucie

County. It’s on the Martin County line, adjacent to the

southwest border of Port St. Lucie. It has just what it takes to

be an Integrated Logistics Center to serve South Central Florida

and the southeast United States regional market. The site is

uniquely situated in South Central Florida, because of the

traffic engineer’s planning deciding that St. Lucie County was


21

going to be where the two main north/south arteries in Florida

were going to converge as they headed south, and as they go

north where they would diverge.”

Mr. Ferguson continued, “It also has available vacant land close

to the existing railroads that go up the east coast of Florida,

unlike the counties to the south that are either built out or

too far away. This is not an inland port. An inland port is

simply that. It’s a port facility where you move the container

traffic away from the highly congested seaport areas where land

is limited and expensive, and move those container management

operations inland, and you have a port facility. It has customs

and all of those attributes that go with a port. We’re talking

about just that, a rail yard, an inland port, plus Integrated

Logistics Centers. It’s where the distribution and light

manufacturing centers can be located, because they’re close to

where the containers are handled. There have been comments that

the inland ports are only 300 to 1,000 acres, but this is not an

inland port. This is an Integrated Logistics Center. You want

all of your facilities to be able to operate in a relatively

enclosed area, so they are not impacting the neighboring

properties. As the trucks leave the containment yard and go to

the distribution centers, they are staying on site. We have

sufficient land and transportation road and rail. In the last

couple of years, the City of Port St. Lucie’s Comprehensive Plan

was amended to identify the fact that it has less than the

optimal amount of industrial land within its City boundaries.

There are general planning formulas where the City should have

somewhere between eight and twelve percent of its land area as

industrial land. The City currently has roughly 3%. You’re short

of adequate industrial land, and the industrial land you have is

scattered throughout. It will serve its purpose, but there’s no

way that it could serve the purpose of providing for an

Integrated Logistics Center.”

Mr. Ferguson asked, “What attributes can the City add to an

integrated logistics center? One of the key ingredients is a

workforce. You have a large, qualified, or trainable workforce

that is looking for work. Port St. Lucie probably has one of the

largest, diverse, available housing markets, if not in Florida,

in the United States. It has moderate, reasonably priced

housing, and high-end housing. It has approved plans for

additional housing to hit all of those markets. You need people

to fill that housing. The people who are filling that housing

need jobs. You have excellent universities and schools in this

area who have provided letters of support. You have an active

union leadership that has created apprenticeship programs. This


22

will provide jobs for those trained individuals. You have the

necessary infrastructure. Solid waste and other utilities are

available. You have that infrastructure in place to provide

those services to the TCIC site. Police and fire will be taken

care of as part of the detailed site planning. It’s available.

What do you get by annexing this property into the City? You get

to control the future of this property. This project has had a

cross-section of community support that is unparalleled by any

other project that I’ve ever worked on. We have support from

education, the workforce, and community leaders. If Miami is

going to be a player in the international game, they will find a

site and shoehorn it into the process and make it work. It won’t

be as good a site, and it will cost many more dollars to make it

work.”

Mr. Ferguson stated, “There’s an issue about taxes and benefits

to the City. If the City annexes the property this summer, and

it’s on the tax roles as of January 1, and nothing happens on

the property in 2012, it continues to operate as it’s currently

operating. Its values are as its values are today, and the City

adopts the same millage rate next year as it adopted this year.

The City in 2012 will receive approximately $42,000 from this

property. There will be no additional services provided to the

property next year over and above what the City is providing to

the property today, which is nothing. The projected build out in

five years is roughly 4.5 million square feet of distribution

center site, a large portion of the rail yard, and an

interchange hub. Based on conservative evaluations of the value

of those improvements, based on the current millage rate of the

City, the City would receive gross tax revenues of roughly $2.5

million. Moving out ten years, working on roughly 12 million

square feet of distribution center, based on conservative

values, using conservative land values, the gross tax revenues

to the City in 2021 would be roughly $4.8 million. Roughly, it

costs the City $.25 for every dollar of tax revenue that it

receives to provide services to industrial land.

Industrial/Commercial land is a money maker for local

governments. Of the $2.5 and $4.8 million, 75% of that goes

straight to your bottom line to pay for services for other

residents in the City.”

Mr. Ferguson noted, “We have heard lots of grumbling about jobs.

Everyone comes in preaching jobs. We understand that. We had to

identify with the Department of Community Affairs what the

ultimate build out on the site is. We have a policy that you

would be adopting that limits build out to 40 million square

feet. That’s a 30-year build out. The newspaper reported 36,000


23

jobs, and everyone is grumbling about that number. That’s a huge

number. That number came from build out in years, and simple

mathematics of 40,000 million square feet times 900, the upper

reach of the range jobs per million square feet, you get 36,000.

We have also said in everything that we provided to the City

12,000, which is the low end, which is 300 jobs per million

square feet times the build out of 40 million square feet. We’ve

broken the job growth down into a tighter time frame. When this

gets approved tonight and it goes forward, comes back to you and

you approve the land use, and it goes through the process,

realistically we are looking at two years for the construction

jobs, because that’s what it takes to get through the land use

approval, the rezoning, the permitting, and the site planning.

We wanted to make it understood that this was not creating jobs

tomorrow. You have two types of jobs, construction and

permanent. Construction jobs are going to ramp up starting in

about 24 months. You will have roughly 800 to 1000 jobs in the

first phase. Conservatively, we’re looking at 1.5 million square

feet of distribution center being constructed every year for the

next 30 years.”

Mr. Ferguson commented, “More important are the permanent jobs.

This is a ten-year projection based on 12 million square feet of

distribution center. It depends on the level of automation,

whether you’re at the 300 or at the 900 range. Walmart

Distribution Center is roughly 1.1 million square feet. It has

employed a high of 800 people. It’s currently employing about

600 people. It’s mid-range. Those are the direct jobs. Those are

jobs created by the facilities on site. We’re not making it up.

We’re not blowing smoke. The numbers can be crossed check with

the experts. They are real. We have the facilities to do the

retraining necessary for a broad range of jobs at these

facilities. This is a long-term project that can provide jobs

for the next generation. Your Utility Department is looking to

the future. They are looking for build out of the City and the

water supplies that they’re going to need. There is a draft

Annexation Agreement that’s not on the agenda tonight, but in

that agreement we have agreed to donate cost free 17 well sites

to your Utility Department to provide potable water to the City.

That water has a tremendous value. Potentially, it could be in

the millions of dollars.”

Mr. Ferguson pointed out, “There is also the added benefit of

the 7,139 acres. Over 2,000 acres are going to be set aside for

Open-Space Conservation and for Utility uses. The utility use is

to recharge lakes and the FP&L transmission lines that run

through the property. The Open-Space Conservation lands were

identified by staff, and they pushed that we set those aside now


24

up front as part of the land use process, because they are

primarily native habitat. They have not been disturbed as most

of the property has been disturbed by the ongoing agricultural

activities. Florida has a window of opportunity. Processes take

time and for Florida to be ready for the cargo that’s going to

come through the Panama Canal, it’s today folks. If Florida is

going to be ready for cargo, Florida needs to identify an

Integrated Logistics Center for the Port of Miami to take

advantage of, which means that TCIC needs to be open at the same

time that Florida is ready for cargo, which is the end of 2014

or the beginning of 2015. For TCIC to be open, it’s important

that the shippers be notified as to where the stuff is going,

which means that construction has to begin in mid-2013, so that

the shippers will know where to start planning to send the stuff

when the TCIC opens. For construction to begin, we need

financing. You can’t get financing without City approval. We

will need those by the end of 2012 or the first part of 2013.”

Mr. Ferguson remarked, “To get those, we need to start the

permitting and design phase. Before we do that, we need to get

our land use approved, which is what we’re here talking about

tonight. To get the land use approved by the end of this year or

early fall, we need to transmit the Department of Community

Affairs tonight. We are not pressuring the City Council to rush

into a decision. We are pressuring the City Council to make a

decision, so that Port St. Lucie can be the Integrated Logistics

Center open when Florida is ready for cargo. So yes, we are

asking the City Council to make a decision tonight, but it’s not

an arbitrary date. This is to make sure that Port St. Lucie is

out in front of any other potential site that is even thinking

about providing the services for the Port of Miami and Florida.

We urge you to vote yes on the First Reading of annexation, and

we urge you to transmit to the Department of Community Affairs

to get the state’s opinion on whether or not this site makes

sense for an integrated logistics center, or it makes sense to

change the land use to Industrial. We would respectfully request

an opportunity to very briefly address any comments raised

during the public hearing.”

Mayor Faiella said, “I want to recognize Commissioner Craft,

Commissioner Mowery, former State Representative Adam Fetterman,

and former Commissioner Charles Grande.” Councilman Kelly

stated, “I would like to refute what Mr. Ferguson just said.”

Mayor Faiella asked, “Can we wait, because I really want to get

through this?” Councilman Kelly replied, “It’s your call, but

they have had almost an hour. They have an entourage of people

here, and I have nothing. I’m against this. The man has said


25

things that are not true. I would like to refute some of those

things he just said that I think are important. I won’t take

long. If you remember when he started off, and I’m not looking

for a reply, because I’m speaking to my Council, he asked why

Port St. Lucie. He said we had the infrastructure, the roads,

the rail, water and sewer, and a great Utility Department. We do

not have the roads. We have one road, it’s in bad shape, and

it’s a two-lane road. Range Line Road is it. I understand we

have one rail, and I don’t know if there’s a place for the rail

to turn around. You know what we’ve been going through with

water and sewer with our plans for the next 15 to 20 years. We

are not going to have enough water in 20 years the way it is

right now. For him to show all of those wells, I’d be fighting

him if they were in the county, because it takes away from us. I

don’t want a lake that’s on their property. I want to own my own

lake. I don’t want to give that control to anyone.”

Councilman Kelly continued, “There’s no infrastructure like this

man said. He said the support is overwhelming. I don’t know what

you have, but all I have is 12 square miles. I should have a

volume of e-mails from the people in this City. I think I

received a half dozen. I know that most of the letters I

received were from people who were asked to write to us. I don’t

see the support. Then you go to the ‘ifs.’ I can’t believe he

said that if we annexed this next year we would have a windfall

of $42,000. It’s going to cost more for our people to answer the

telephones regarding questions about this annexation. It’s

$42,000 and he called it a windfall. I will go out the ten years

at $4.8 million. Walmart is not paying taxes for ten years, or I

think it’s on a sliding scale. If you want Target to come in

with a distribution center, they’re going to want all kinds of

incentives. They’re going to be looking for ten years of free

taxes. The other gentleman said that his wouldn’t cost the state

anything. That bothers me. We received millions of dollars for

Digital Domain and the biotechs. We’re getting nothing from the

state. There’s no funding. These are all ‘ifs.’ If this happens,

I will have 35,000 jobs. It’s nothing but ‘ifs.’ Regarding the

construction jobs, am I going to have people coming here from

Broward County building this, or am I going to get local people?

A $42,000 windfall? Wow.”

Mayor Faiella opened the Public Hearing.

LARRY PELTON, representing the Economic Development Council,

said, “We realize that this is a very complicated project and

all of the answers aren’t there. To answer those questions, they

need to get moving with it. We passed a statement of concept. We


26

conceptually support the project that you’ve seen tonight. We

don’t have a development plan or a finance plan that we could

scrutinize. We can say from an economic development perspective

that we would absolutely support the attraction of companies and

the types of jobs that would accrue to this project. We would

take an active role in trying to recruit companies that would

locate in this project, should this project become a reality.”

Councilwoman Berger stated, “I appreciate you said that you

conceptually approve it, because this goes beyond just tonight’s

conversation. How do you feel about how this project may work

with or conflict with the projects that we’ve already

established? The EDC, St. Lucie County, and Port St. Lucie have

really worked hard to make something special happen in that

region. Part of me is concerned about moving forward on a

project like this. Does it sabotage what we’ve already done?

Does it change it in any way?” Mr. Pelton replied, “There could

certainly be comparative conflicts, but the nature of the jobs

and the nature of the types of industry that they’re saying

they’re going to go after are not the kinds of companies that

would be attracted into the Tradition development.”

Mr. Pelton continued, “We’re trying to get companies that are

allied, that we can attract as a result of the investments that

we’ve already made. Those are in the science and technology

fields. I don’t think that’s going to be a competitor in any way

of the Intermodal Campus, nor do I think the Intermodal Campus

would be a competitor for the types of jobs it will attract in

Tradition.” Councilwoman Berger stated, “We had talked about the

fact that this would really round out nicely what we’ve already

started bringing here, offering a different type of job for a

more well rounded diverse group. How about for conflict of the

road system? How do you think that will work with new

conversations that are happening about the increased traffic on

Becker Road and possibly the addition of Crosstown Parkway being

built to go out west?” Mr. Pelton replied, “I don’t have a

professional opinion on the infrastructure. I would certainly

think that there would have to be infrastructure improvements.

Any DO for a project of this size would require that private

investors pay for those road improvements. I don’t know if it

would create an inconvenience, but I would think that would be

something that you settle with the developers going forward. My

opinion is that this is all going to come back to you, and

you’re going to control the destiny of this project. You’re

going to be given ample opportunity to make certain that you

minimize negative secondary impacts that might accrue as a

result of this project.”


27

COMMISSIONER CRAFT, St. Lucie County, said, “We have

agriculture, tourism, and the building trades. We’ve seen in the

latest economic times what that has done to our economy. We’ve

been hit harder than most areas of our nation, because of the

lack of diversity. Today, we have an opportunity, and something

we should consider. I’m not saying that there aren’t issues that

are going to come up, but it deserves its chance in front of us

to hear and find out whether or not we can be an international

competitor when it comes to the trade industries. I’m not

speaking on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners. I’m

speaking on behalf of me. My Board has not taken a formal

position on this. Our staff did make some comments to the City

approximately two years ago on some of the concerns that we

have. There’s a community that’s adjacent to these properties

that needs great attention to make sure that proper buffering

has taken place. There are major concerns with the road

infrastructure as well as the utilities. However, all of those

things are worth the discussion, because of what this could

potentially mean to our economics in St. Lucie County. If we get

it right, it could be the biggest economic boost in St. Lucie

County’s history. If we get it wrong, it could be the exact

opposite. We’re putting this in your capable hands to make sure

that we’re looking at it from every aspect and doing what’s

right for our community.” Mayor Faiella asked, “Why isn’t the

county adopting this project?” Commissioner Craft replied, “The

only thing I can say is that they didn’t bring it before the

county. I’ve discussed the project with the land owners, and

these land owners are currently part of this. They’re in

agriculture. They understand the changing economics of our

state, and that we have to do something if we’re going to be

able to continue to be competitive.” Mayor Faiella noted, “I’m

hearing that the county doesn’t want it, it’s not a suitable

project, and it belongs in the City.” Commissioner Craft

commented, “The county has not taken a position on this one way

or the other. I think it’s worth the discussion, and I’m willing

to participate in any part of the discussion. This project is in

my district. I’ve had multiple conversations with the neighbors

out there. I will be before you to make sure that their issues

are being taken care of. I generally make it a policy to stay

out of your business, but this is of such great importance to

our community that I felt I should come and speak.”

Councilman Kelly pointed out, “I did speak to each Commissioner

about a year and a half ago, and I think that at that time you

and maybe one other are the only ones who would even hear about

it. They did not have the support. Since they have a new County

Commission, I don’t know what it would be now. Two of them were


28

even more offended than I am that they would even bring it in.”

Commissioner Craft remarked, “We didn’t have a public discussion

about this other than at one board meeting where Mr. Ferguson

asked for a letter of support. At that time, there was no

support, because we didn’t have enough information. You can

review the tape. That was the only discussion that I’m aware of

that the county had.” Vice Mayor Bartz said, “I know that you’re

saying you haven’t taken a formal stand at this point, but

certainly if we determine that we’re going to go forward with

it, this is going to have a very large impact on the county and

on your county roads. I really believe that we need to sit down

together as county and City. If you were doing it and it was

affecting my City, I would want to be involved.” Commissioner

Craft stated, “I would offer you my staff to make sure that we

are communicating those issues that the county has to make sure

that any impacts that the county would incur, we were at least

trying to make sure that we’re compensated for it. I think the

communication between our boards is better than it has ever

been, and it’s only going to improve. I fully expect to be

working with you on this project and every other project that

involves both of us.”

Vice Mayor Bartz noted, “I think there are so many things that

are going to heavily impact the county that all of the

Commissioners need to be involved, and their input needs to come

to the table. If we have a lot of truck traffic, where is that

going? Where are we going to fuel up? I would like to feel

confident that we can sit down, if this goes forward, and talk

about the real impacts that this is going to have, so that we’re

all protected.” Commissioner Craft commented, “If it does move

forward it should not just be St. Lucie County. The City of Ft.

Pierce should also be at the table” Vice Mayor Bartz pointed

out, “And Martin County as well.” Commissioner Craft remarked,

“If we want to take it one step further, all four governing

bodies met together for the first time, so there is a

willingness and we will work with you, but I wanted to make sure

that I spoke this evening for Chris Craft, and that it at least

deserves the discussion we’re having right now.” Councilwoman

Berger asked, “Can you give some idea of what the history looks

like on the area around the airport? Did you create that campus

area around the airport?” Commissioner Craft replied, “We have

two industrial parks there, Airport Industrial Park East and

Airport Industrial Park West, and there is approximately 2,000

acres north along Indrio Road. A great deal of that property is

being set aside for mitigation. We currently have plans of

placing one of our utility facilities out there for a water or

wastewater treatment plant. It could potentially compliment this


29

as a secondary use, but I don’t think it’s going to be able to

handle the kind of traffic that this would produce.”

Councilwoman Berger said, “I wrote a term down that Mr. Ferguson

used earlier and that was ‘shoehorn.’ Are we trying to shoehorn

it in somewhere? We have a lot of acreage out there so that’s

not a problem, but since we don’t have a lot of infrastructure,

I’m wondering if we’re trying to shoehorn this in between what

we do have. I believe that your district also encompasses Port

St. Lucie residents that are west of I-95. Is that right?”

Commissioner Craft replied, “It depends. It’s very scattered in

that area.” Councilwoman Berger stated, “It’s important to

continue to put that out there to our citizens who may not be

here tonight, because they don’t think it affects them. The

Crosstown Parkway from I-95 going west will be widened and have

24/7, 18 wheelers with this kind of project.” Commissioner Craft

noted, “I have not had the phone calls or e-mails from those

folks. They look to you to deal with City issues, and they look

to me to deal with the unincorporated issues, not that they

don’t sometimes overlap.”

AMBASSADOR NEIL L. SIEGEL said, “I’ve had a career in Florida of

building very large economic-driven developments. I’ve also

worked in government. This property is unique and it’s all about

location. It has the ability for it to provide access in a

manner in which other properties do not have. We’re here tonight

to have a debate, to create a healthy dialogue. However, that

dialogue needs to be a partnership, and not an adversarial

relationship. It needs to be a partnership that exchanges

information, so you as the governing body can make intelligent

decisions as to what is good for your City. Tonight, we ask you

to allow that process to continue, to allow you to vote. The

heart and soul of America was manufacturing and we’ve lost that.

How do we bring that back to this country? We bring it back with

projects like this. You will have offices, distribution centers,

industrial, and manufacturing. We talked about how this will be

financed. I’m already dealing, because of my relationships of

doing large-scale developments like this, speaking to large

financiers who want to be part of this project. There’s

uncertainty, because it’s not defined. However, we work with

them as we go along, because it’s about the entitlements and

approvals. We feel we have worked well with your staff. Our

focus tonight should be about vision. If you vote no tonight,

you deny the ability to have that dialog to see whether it is

good for the City or not. It’s about all of you that have a

fiduciary responsibility to your City to determine where you

want to be ten years from now.” Councilman Kelly stated, “Your


30

resumé is excellent. You did use words like ‘if’ and ‘vision.’

Are you being compensated for being here this evening?”

Ambassador Siegel replied, “No, I’m not compensated at all. I’m

an investor in this project. I’ve been allowed the opportunity

from the land owners to be part of what I think has to be one of

the most important initiatives in the State of Florida. I

understand free trade agreements. I understand that I’m not

being paid, and I hope to be a responsible owner with the land

owners in making sure that we’re responsible to you, if we have

the ability to go forward.”

BOB SCHAFER, St. Lucie County Chamber of Commerce, read a

Resolution of support from the St. Lucie County Chamber of

Commerce into the record.

ADAM FETTERMAN said, “I come to you tonight as a resident of

Port St. Lucie, and as someone who did have the honor of

representing the people in the State Legislature. I’m in support

of this project and ask that you transmit it to Tallahassee for

review, because that’s the responsible and proper thing to do

for the people that you represent. I’ve seen the faces of

families who are having a hard time making ends meet, that are

without jobs, and that have seen from the federal government on

down handouts to corporations to get jobs created. I have

supported many of them, because that’s what you need to do to

get the job done. The one we’re talking about today of job

creation is one that has a number of shiny moving parts. You’re

being presented an opportunity to create jobs. All that’s being

asked of you is a land use change to give agricultural folks an

opportunity for a project to go forward for further review,

discussion, and debate. I have supported Torrey Pines, VGTI, and

Digital Domain, and believe those were necessary for the future

of our community, for the jobs that my six year old may have

some day. Once again you’re being asked to be visionaries, but

this time I don’t see the cost to you. I don’t see the downside

to you, when you will continue to control how this project

evolves. We miss the economic diversity of folks who are looking

for blue collar work. In the audience today supporting this

project are union members, developers, school teachers, and

washed up politicians. Where else do to you pull together that

kind of group except when the idea makes sense? I’m here

tonight, because I’m urging you to do what’s right for the

people you represent, and give them an opportunity at a living

wage in a real job right in their backyard.”

SANDRA LESTER, resident, said, “We had a home in the area of

Twylite Terrace where a land use change went about. We


31

petitioned to change the land use, so we ended up with a

convenience store across the street. Our property values went

down and crime went up. We moved out of the City as a result. We

invested money in the Treasure Coast Airpark to get away. We had

two and a half acres in a controlled area. We’re in an

agricultural area and we love it. We’re very disappointed to see

that, again, the City of Port St. Lucie is going to annex land

right next to our property that we invested in and that we are

now upside down in. To do this again to us is a personal thing.

I have to respect Councilman Kelly. He has hit the nail on the

head, but there’s also something else. We have people who have

been in the agricultural business here forever, they’ve been

doing a good job, and we need that. We are losing farms rapidly.

Where are we going to get food if we keep changing all of our

good agricultural land into industry? That’s a point that needs

to be brought up. I’m disappointed that this is what you want to

do, and it’s all for the almighty dollar. It isn’t to be good

for us. It isn’t to make Port St. Lucie better. It’s for the

almighty dollar. I’m hoping that you can see through it, that

you can see through all of the infomercial techniques that you

have had thrown at you. I’ve watched your faces as you’ve been

enthralled by the presentation. Get through that and look at the

facts. Miami is a sensible place to have a port. It makes

absolutely no sense at all to transport those containers this

far. If you talk to anyone at the Port of Miami you will start

to realize that this is the case. I’m not an economist, but I do

think that’s something that needs to be brought up. You need to

see through the smoke and mirrors. There will be a major impact

on Tradition. It’s destroying the lifestyle here.”

JAMES RICH, resident, stated, “I’ve just completed eight years

on the City’s Planning and Zoning Board. I took the job very

seriously as an unpaid volunteer, and I think I made some very

good decisions on the Planning and Zoning Board in helping to

shape the City. Are there some decisions I would like to take

back? Absolutely, when you find out things after the fact. This

project is one of those unique opportunities that doesn’t come

around very often. It’s not a done deal. There are baby steps

that have to take place. I’m asking to go to the next level.

Let’s approve this tonight. You will have plenty of opportunity

to object to it if you feel compelled to. When we looked at this

in February at the Planning and Zoning meeting, we had letters

from the Stuart/Martin County Chamber of Commerce in favor, and

they passed a resolution. I have James Neill who is a property

owner out there in favor of the project. Workforce Solutions and

the Marine Industry Association are also in favor, as well as

the Indian River State College Board of Trustees. I take their


32

advice and recommendations. I look at the possibility down the

road in the not too distant future of possibly exporting

American made goods. I don’t know if it’s part of the plan, or

they are able to do that legally, but I would like to see the

reverse of not so much coming in, but maybe a number of our

goods going out. Let’s take it to the next level.” Councilwoman

Berger asked, “Are you speaking for yourself or the Planning and

Zoning Board?” Mr. Rich replied, “I’m a former member. I just

finished my eight years, so this is on my time. I’ve never been

before the City Council on any project. That’s how passionate I

feel about this project.”

KAREN HAROLD, resident, commented, “I’m relatively new to Port

St. Lucie, but I’ve come with 11 years experience in the Chicago

Land Planning and Zoning. We had a project like this proposed to

us, and we voted no. Another city came along and voted yes. We

lost all control of the Site Plan and the county roads. We had

nothing to say, because another city voted yes. I urge you to

take control and vote yes tonight. You will have further

opportunity to view the Site Plan, look it over, and make

changes. You won’t have it if you vote no.”

FRED COOK, resident, pointed out, “I also served almost nine

years on the Planning and Zoning Board. Do we take one step

forward and do something that’s worthwhile for this City, or do

we take three steps back, because it may or may not work? Let’s

do the right thing for the City, the county, and for the

citizens of this community. Say yes to this request. Send it on

to Tallahassee. Let them look at it and come back with whatever

they want.”

JAN CHINNERS, resident, remarked, “My home backs up to what you

want to annex. This is taking away my dream. Right now, we are

already affected by bad roads. What kind of impact would

thousands of vehicles have? You’re talking about $42,000. My

home would depreciate more than that. I think that when all

things are considered at the end of the day, we are an area of

people and people should come before all else.”

WILLARD LESTER, resident, said, “I to live in the Treasure Coast

Airpark, and it’s pretty hard to come up against all of these

mirrors and smoke. I heard things here that are absolute

baloney. When they’re talking about this wonderful Intermodal

Campus, it’s a filthy pit. I’ve been in several intermodal ports

that have become hubs for crime, the air is filthy, because

diesel locomotives and trucks do nothing but spew pollution into

your air. If you think this is going to be a wonderful and


33

pretty place, give it up because it’s not. I have spent hours on

the phone with the Associate Director of the Port of Miami, and

he told me in no uncertain terms that it’s too far to send

cargo. We would not consider sending cargo to Port St. Lucie. He

also told me that 90% of this proposed increase in cargo is

slated to be distributed south of Lake Okeechobee. He pointedly

said, ‘Why would we want to move it north of Lake Okeechobee to

distribute it south of Lake Okeechobee?’ I haven’t heard any of

these things come out of these guys. All I’ve heard here is a

lot of guys who want to get their property from the value of Ag-

5 land to the value of Heavy Industrial. They haven’t mentioned

any of these other little points. Also the rail here is totally

incapable of handling what they’re talking about. You’re going

to have to have massive rail work done. They’re too far from the

highway entrance, and you’re talking millions of dollars to

connect to the highways. This is not a good location. Another

thing that the Port of Miami gentleman told me was that they

would not consider shipping cargo much more than 20 miles to a

distribution hub, because it’s too expensive, and rail is not

the primary way to move cargo. It’s by ship. It would be much

cheaper for them to move cargo north by ship rather than to let

it off in Miami, move it by rail to Port St. Lucie, and then

redistribute it backward. That is absolute nonsense. You’re not

hearing the truth, and I want you to understand that. When you

make a decision, can you go back on that decision? I think

Councilman Kelly said that you can’t undo what you do. Before

you make that decision, you need to take into consideration

what’s going to happen to your western development for

Tradition. Do they want to be across the street from an

intermodal port? I don’t think so. That’s going to have a

tremendous impact on that. Those people went forward with the

idea that they would be supported, but now all of a sudden

they’re going to be back stabbed. I know you don’t care much

about us tucked out there at Treasure Coast Airpark, but we will

be in the middle of this. They showed us buffer plans. Well the

buffer plans were what they had to give us by law. They could

not land lock us, so they had to buffer us all the way to Glades

Cut-Off Road. They allowed no distance between our community and

the west or the south. They were constructing buildings to our

south border. Before you make this decision that may be

irrevocable, talk to these people in the cargo business.”

DANNA SMALL said, “I thought Commissioner Craft said it well.

Take the next step forward in the process. There are a number of

concerns, but you’re not giving anything away yet. If you don’t

move forward, you don’t know what’s going to come back. This is

something that needs to move forward and be given the


34

opportunity.”

PASTOR BRYAN LONGWORTH said, “If this project were coming to the

Council and asking for millions of dollars in tax money, I would

be the first to oppose this. However, this is a project where

they’ve said they’re going to pay for the costs. As long as

they’re willing to pay for the impact that this is going to

cause, I would ask that this would be put forward and that a

vote of yes would happen tonight. The #1 driving factor in

growth and economic development, investment, and the value of

property is jobs. Without jobs you have Detroit. With jobs we

could have a haven where even in an economic downturn we could

have some positive things happening. With the biotech jobs, I

heard that our people aren’t qualified for these types of jobs.

Yet the jobs that we’re talking about with this project are jobs

that out of work construction workers can do. People are selling

everything they can possibly sell to see if they can pay their

rent. These people need jobs. This could turn our City around,

and it could provide extra revenue for the City, which is much

needed. The investors are smart people, and they’re going to be

investing millions of dollars here. If they didn’t think this

was going to work, they wouldn’t do it. If this doesn’t work, I

see little harm that’s going to happen from this. I would

encourage you to move this forward to the next step.”

JEANNE REID, resident, stated, “I have looked at all the papers

in your notebooks, and my interest was in the rail line traffic.

They were not in those papers. I requested to see the traffic

analysis of the rail lines, and I didn’t get any response. I’m

still interested in where those reports are, because this is

serious if they’re going to use these rail lines. I’m interested

in how long the cars are going to be, how many daily trips there

are going to be, and how the fire and rescue is going to get

across those tracks. There’s a school there that has nine

grades. What if they need rescue and fire? They said there was

going to be fire and rescue in the port. Well, they’re not going

to take care of the community. I see in the report that there

are going to be 12,000 daily trips of trucks and cars. I can’t

even phantom that. I know that Tradition, Indian River, and the

Becker Road area have not been notified. Neighbors I know

haven’t been notified. If they weren’t touching the border of

where this is taking place, they weren’t notified. They don’t

have a clue, and that includes the Torino area. Anyone that

crosses railroad tracks is going to be affected, and they don’t

even know it yet.”

JORGE ARRIZURIETA, resident of Miami, noted, “I’m here in my

capacity as the former US Executive Director at the Inter-


35

American Development Bank. Think of it as a world bank for Latin

America and the Caribbean. I also served as the President of the

Florida FTAA, which is ex-Governor Bush’s initiative to bring to

Florida the permanent secretary of the Free Trade Area of the

Americas. The reason why I begin my comments by citing those two

roles is because they’re totally relevant to the decision you’re

making tonight. In the case of the FTAA, Florida’s trade reality

of Latin America and the Caribbean speaks for itself. We are the

largest trading partner with every country in Latin America and

the Caribbean. That trade reality isn’t going to change. It’s

going to continue to grow and will be a significant part of the

economic development of our state. (Clerk’s Note: Mr.

Arrizurieta read excerpts into the record from an Opinion

Editorial he wrote that was published in papers throughout

Florida over the weekend). I recognize the decision here tonight

is a difficult one. All I suggest is that you make the decision

tonight to consider the opportunity you have to be part of the

process as this moves forward by allowing your City to

participate. The state will make a decision on which locations

to actually identify. If you as a municipal body support the

initiative, you will be able to influence how that project may

move forward, and you will be able to place your City in a

significant opportunity for the future.” Councilwoman Berger

said, “In your article you had referenced multiple cities as

options. I know that Port St. Lucie was one of three in your

article.” Mr. Arrizurieta stated, “The reality is that the

interest for these distribution centers for this opportunity is

way beyond this community. The interest exists because of the

reality of Florida’s economic and trade reality. We will be

competing, if you allow yourself to compete, in that process.

This land has qualities that the others who are competing do not

have, especially those competing from this part of the state.”

Councilwoman Berger asked, “Did you submit your article to the

newspapers in those cities as well? I’m guessing it was a press

release type of situation where you submitted it to the local

news organization.” Mr. Arrizurieta replied, “The article was

actually distributed statewide as an opportunity for the state

to accept the policy initiative of Governor Scott, and,

specifically, for this community to accept that reality and try

to support something that will be of significant benefit.”

Councilwoman Berger noted, “You being the champion of the

statewide initiative from Governor Scott, the same article was

statewide so that it would influence those other locations that

we may or may not be competing with should this move forward.”

Mr. Arrizurieta commented, “I saw it published in the Miami

Herald, as well as in your local papers. I’m not sure where else


36

it was published, but the purpose of me writing the article was

to place on the table a very significant economic development

opportunity the state is embarking on that will be of

significant value potentially to a couple of different cities

around the state. I think it was an effort intended to put the

issue on the table in a way that helps your residents appreciate

the significance of this vote tonight.”

A recess was called at 11:00 p.m., and the meeting resumed at

11:10 p.m.

SEAN MITCHELL, resident, said, “This is the worst economic

downturn in my lifetime. We have unemployment in this county of

over 14%. I don’t speak on behalf of the Workforce Board. I sit

on the Workforce Board, the Contractors’ Licensing Board for the

county, and I also represent thousands of apprentices and

journeymen, their building and construction trades of the

Treasure Coast. I support this concept. I’m not saying that I

put my rubber stamp on it. There are many questions. Looking

forward, if everything is done in its proper perspective, I

support the idea. There are a number of things you have to do to

make sure that this is done properly, but if it’s done properly

it can be a great thing for everyone. Not everyone who lives in

this City is college material. There’s still a middle class,

what’s left of it. We’ve spent so much time and effort on

different things that have been built in this City. If we do

this properly, it could be a shining beacon.”

LYZA HEFFERNAN, resident, stated, “I’m a construction manager

and my husband is a truck driver. Last week my husband worked 12

hours. That’s through no fault of his own. We could use a few

almighty dollars. What is the risk to the City for what’s on the

table tonight? What is the negative result of tonight’s

decision? It sounds to me like what we’re risking is a fairly

large number of tax dollars in property taxes for this area. The

worse possible case scenario is that this falls through, and we

end up accepting a lesser tax rate for this property. We

shouldn’t focus on the best possible case scenario, but we

shouldn’t focus on the worse-case scenario either. We need these

jobs. It sounds like it’s going to happen somewhere. I’m asking

that you to make it happen here.”

PHILIP DIMARIA, resident, noted, “I’m here to speak against

Ordinance 11-18 and its companion Ordinance 11-25. I would urge

this Council to do the same. This is more than a smoke screen

for a land use change. This intermodal center is not going to

happen here or anywhere. It’s all about a land use change to


37

make that land more valuable to the landowners, so that

subsequently they can sell it off. It’s out of character with

the area. All of the other issues have been addressed. We know

nothing about what’s going to happen with the rail lines. Where

are the representatives from the Port of Miami? How come they’re

not here to speak in favor of this? I would urge this Council to

reject these ordinances and the make-believe jobs that aren’t

going to happen anyway.”

ADVAN K. ALGHITA commented, “This is a very meaningful project

and deserves all the time you are giving to it. I’ve been in the

engineering/planning business for 40 years. I was involved in

the Everglades Restoration project. I agree with the

presentation and all of your questions. I have no problem with

the zoning change.”

JOHN AULD, SLC Commercial, said, “Florida and the City are

lagging behind the nation in our recovery. The rapid growth of

the population in the City and the tax base in the last decade

is attributed to the housing boom. That’s how we got to where we

are. Cheap lots and available housing attracted buyers,

builders, developers, speculators, and many trades’ people. The

boom is over and we’re in a bust. Jobs are the answer. We need

jobs now and in the future to ensure that the City continues to

develop and evolve. I’m speaking from a mega view of the city.

As a former president of the St. Lucie County Economic

Development Council, I confirm that we have been and continue to

be very competitive in seeking and developing jobs. But we’re in

competition. The Treasure Coast Intermodal Campus promises to

bring jobs to the City. That’s what we need. This City Council

has a history of courage to make the tough decisions that are

important to the future growth and welfare of this City, and I

encourage you to have that same courage tonight, and vote yes on

both of these propositions.”

APRIL PRICE, resident, said, “I understand transportation. I

understand what this campus could mean to this region. This

could be huge. Will it be huge? I think it will be. If we don’t

move forward on it tonight, we won’t have the opportunity to

know. We need jobs. I ask you to seriously consider the positive

impacts that this project can bring to this City, and continue

to move forward on it. We need this project to be successful. I

encourage you to continue the process.”

NICK MANCIE, resident, “I work in Boca Raton in the

transportation industry, and I don’t represent anyone here.

Because my mom was single and on welfare, I went to work on a


38

dock. I drove a truck to the point where I became the Vice

President of Operations after college by going through the

transportation industry. I made something of myself as many of

you have here. I was given the opportunity at an entry level. It

would be nice to have something in my community to drive to. I’m

driving over 160 miles a day. We’re talking about a simple vote

to learn more. It’s learning more about what this is going to

bring. I know there are a number of ‘ifs,’ but as many of you

have said when you’re running your campaigns, ‘If I were elected

I will. . . .’ Whatever it may be, let’s bring this to a vote.

Forget the 36,000 jobs or the 12,000 jobs. If it brings 1,000

jobs isn’t that worth it, especially with the number of people

who are out of work in this City? Even if it isn’t all Port St.

Lucie employees, residents being employed, there’s still an

effect from this county, and the residual effect is positive. I

urge you not to make a decision on what’s going to happen ten

years from now, but make a decision as far as let’s learn more,

and let’s make that vote yes to consider annexing it.”

JANICE DI IANNI, resident, “Wherever you go in Port St. Lucie,

it says to Keep Port St. Lucie Beautiful. I was for this project

when I first walked in. I understand that jobs are very

important to people, and we need to have things motivated.

However, when I saw those canisters I think of the New Jersey

Turnpike. I see those canisters on that Turnpike. They are

filthy. The entire place is disgusting. Granted it looks

beautiful. It all nice and new, and we’re going to have all of

these jobs. What happens in 20 years or 30 years? What happens

when things start to get dirty, and those canisters start lining

up? Who’s going to maintain those roads? Is it going to be

turned over to us? They will put the money out, and they will

pay for this and that. Eventually it’s going to come back to us.

Be careful what jobs you bring into the area. Port St. Lucie is

beautiful, and I want to keep it that way.”

STEPHEN MELESKI, “I have training in economics and in the late

70’s and 80’s I worked at the US Department of Transportation.

One of the things we learned back then was the concept of the

intermodal, and this concept has been kicking around for 30

years or more. There’s only one inland port operating today in

Virginia. The Panama Canal is going to be enlarged. No one

really knows how much new traffic is going to flow through

there. In international shipping, more of the tonnage is in oil

tankers and dry bulk carriers. The container shipping industry

is way down in volume. If they’re going to double the capacity

through the Panama Canal, it doesn’t mean container traffic is

going to be increased at double the rate. The Economic


39

Feasibility Study that so much of this is based on needs to be

questioned. A lot of the data in that study that’s driving

everything tonight is probably data coming before 2008 and the

world economic implosion, so a lot of these numbers need to be

looked at. Another big issue will be China. China has been

producing so much. What’s on the horizon for our Chinese trade

is them changing their currency and putting it in a floating

capacity. When the Chinese start to float a relative to the US

dollar, the trade is not going to be so great. It’s all going to

be reduced by currency issue. I hope our Council doesn’t annex

so much land and provide a few people the economic benefit of

changing from AG-5 to Heavy Industrial zoning for thousands of

dollars. When you vote tonight, think about all of these people

who have all the data, but there’s no one from the railroads.

How is the traffic going to get from Miami to Glades Cut-Off

Road? That’s a crucial link in this concept.”

NICK PREBLE, stated, “Mr. Pinsky said that the Port of Miami

gets all of their cargo from the Middle East, Europe, or

whatever. I used to boat down there, and there’s a lot of cargo

coming in with these funny symbols on the side. It looked like

Chinese to me. Secondly, it was said that the community is for

this. I thought I read that we didn’t want it, and that the

Planning and Zoning Board voted against it. To me that’s the

community. Although I’m against this, we should go to the next

step. I would like to see you add to the vote that these guys

will guarantee they will combine these four properties, so they

can’t get your approval, rezone it, split it up, and do what

they want with it. There’s no guarantee that these guys are

going to build it and they’re going to come. This isn’t a

corporation.I wouldn’t put this kind of money into something

without some guarantees. They’re saying that they’re going to

put millions of dollars into this, and we know they’re coming.

However, they’re not here tonight. If they wanted it so bad,

they would be sitting next to these guys. You’re being shammed.

Have any of you called Miami, and asked if they’re coming? Does

this make sense to you? This might be the biggest project to

ever hit this county, and I’m asking if you have done your

homework.”

GEOFF KENWORTHY said, “I really have newfound respect for you.

If this is a typical day at the office, my hat is off to you. We

have some pretty large guns here tonight, and they have

definitely been impressive. I would like to bring this

discussion down to the local every day level that I would like

to operate at. The four landowners would like to change the

zoning. To that I would say ‘Why not. Why not do it.’ Why


40

shouldn’t these men have the ability to gain as much value from

their investment? And by moving this from Agricultural to Heavy

Industrial you would certainly be giving them that ability to

sell to any bidder to use that land in any way they saw fit.

What is the cost to the City, the residents, and to the growth

and future of this City? Are the City Council members willing to

make that sacrifice for the benefit of a few landowners, so they

can benefit a maximum profit from their holdings? I ask each of

you to consider since the inception of this elaborate and costly

marketing scheme, what, if any, benefit has the City realized

thus far. Have you personally received assurances that this

project is real and viable? How many years will it take before

the tangible positive revenue will flow into the City treasury?

I heard it was two years away, and for $42,000 a year that’s not

a whole lot. These landowners have requested concessions from

you from its inception. They have asked for concessions and

fees, and yet, they’re only going to return $42,000 a year in

taxation. Why have the landowners requested these concessions?

Perhaps it is a grand scheme. Perhaps that’s all it ever was and

ever will be.” By changing the zoning to Heavy Industry,

initially, the City will inherit 7,000 acres of absolutely

nothing. There will be no increase in revenue for your coffers.

There will be no increase in jobs. There will be no increase in

property value, and quite honestly the opposite will occur.

Those homes that are adjacent to this project will lose. There

will be an immense impact on Tradition. I’m surprised the

presentation tonight didn’t discuss the minimum projected

traffic in and out of that area through Gatlin and Becker. Over

9,548 minimum is what they projected at the Planning and Zoning

Board meeting. This has tremendous impact in that vicinity and

throughout the City. Please don’t lose sight of the future. The

economy will recover.”

STAN DZIEDZIC said, “I would like to request that you table this

vote, because it doesn’t seem like you have all of the

information that has been discussed by the people who oppose

this. The people in the Tradition and PGA areas have not been

notified. They’re getting shortchanged by this being rushed

through. Who’s going to pay for the roads? I don’t see 36,000

jobs coming. I think there’s a lot of speculation, and the

carrot for you is bringing jobs. What’s the downside? Are you

going to have real jobs, or is this just some smokescreen where

they’re going to split this property and sell it for something

else? I think you should look at all of the alternatives.”

GLEN COLLINS stated, “I think that land should remain

Agricultural. I’m all for jobs, but this is just smoke and


41

mirrors for a last ditch effort to save their investment. They

paid too much for it. I don’t think any of this industry is

going to come here. It’s too far out and doesn’t make sense. I

would urge you to table this and research it more.”

JENNIFER WHITING read a list of organizations throughout St.

Lucie County and the Treasure Coast who have given their support

for the project in written form, and said, “It’s highly unusual

to have your constituents stay this long in support of

something, and there are a number of people here tonight who

want to support this project.”

STEVEN CARROLL, said, “The Planning and Zoning Board defeated

this twice five to two. If you’re shipping cargo, are you going

to go to Miami, put it on a train, and then a truck to take it

somewhere else? You’re going to go up the coast as close as you

can. The Governor, when asked how 30,000 jobs would be created,

he didn’t have an answer. Tonight, they told you about the port

in Texas. That port has a direct railroad to Mexico and truck

traffic. It’s a watermelon to an orange. No one showed up at the

Planning and Zoning meetings to support it. I’m shocked to see

all of these people tonight. Now all of a sudden it’s a Savior.

It’s not a Savior, it’s a scam. If you bring it into the City

you’re stuck with it. We heard the roads won’t take the traffic.

Are we going to build new roads? Who’s going to pay for that?

When you look at it all, the Planning and Zoning Board summed it

up when they said it wasn’t viable.”

There being no further comments, Mayor Faiella closed the Public

Hearing.

Councilman Kelly said, “I do not support definite maybes. They

put the City at risk, especially one of this magnitude that

guarantees no benefits to the City, and only expounds wishful

thinking. All of the things we buy from Korea and Japan and

everywhere else come to California. There are three major ports

there, and it serves all of the United States. We have five or

six ports on the east coast that serves the east coast of the

United States. There are ports in Canada that are virtually

going out of business. Do you think we’re going to be moving a

lot of things by truck if diesel fuel is $6 a gallon? The Port

of Miami is going to help a lot. What are we charging these

folks to come into the City? Nothing. There are no guarantees.

Nowhere in the backup do they promise jobs. All they promise is

wishful thinking. There’s no funding for anything. When you run

for office or whatever you do, you better make sure you have

credentials. We look at the credentials of the people we put on


42

Planning and Zoning. Where are the credentials here? I’m not

putting anyone down. We grow and make more food than any other

country. That’s a commodity that you can’t lessen. The people

who live in the Airpark have nothing to worry about, because

it’s not going to happen. If they annex this tonight, you’re

never going to see this.”

Councilman Kelly continued, “If we did bring this in, there

would be no benefit, because it’s not going to happen. If you

bring in Target, you have to give them ten years tax free. Where

does the $4.5 million in tax money come from? It’s not there,

because we’re going to give it away to bring them in. I have

been trying to get rail information for two weeks from someone

and he can’t get it. Who’s going to build that extra rail?

Where’s the loop going to be? Just the rail alone is going to

cost millions of dollars. Who’s going to pay for it? We received

millions of dollars from the state for Digital Domain and those

other jobs. Where’s the money for this? There is none. I don’t

want to table this. This started in September 2009. That’s when

they applied for their petition to come into the City. It

already went to DCA. A number of people don’t come here for

support or against, because they think we’re going to do the

right thing. DCA is not the same as they used to be. They don’t

live here. It’s not their decision. It’s the City Council’s

decision. Is this good for the community? This is not good for

the community. It’s wishful thinking. There’s nothing there.

These folks, if they come into the City, are going to sell it

and they’re going to be gone. There’s no Unity of Title. Three

months after you do it, one of them can decide they don’t want

to be part of the Intermodal Campus and skip out. They could put

a gasoline refinery in there. It’s Heavy Industrial. Be careful

what you wish for.”

Vice Mayor Bartz stated, “I’m also concerned about the Unity of

Title and that there is no commitment by the landowners that

they’re willing to commit to the City that they’re going to stay

in this together. I’m also concerned about the residents who are

near the railroads and have not even been thought about. I know

there were a lot of numbers thrown around tonight, but I’m going

to take the average of 9,000 projected trips. That’s a truck

every 9.6 seconds. That’s a big impact. That doesn’t just impact

the City. It impacts the county, both to the north and south. It

was explained to me that rather than pay taxes, there’s a

vehicle out there where you can let your taxes be paid through

tax certificates, and, therefore, you save your money.

Unfortunately, I feel it’s a loophole to get out of paying. If

you can find one loophole, how many others are we looking at? I


43

want jobs here, but I want to do it right. This is an

opportunity for it to go to DCA and have them take a look at it.

I feel strongly that if that’s the way it goes then we need to

make a concerted effort as a Council to talk with our

neighboring city and county to see what the impact is. I don’t

think the impact has been touched, and the dollars that are

involved in taking care of that impact. We have no place for

these trucks to fuel every day. We don’t have the proper road

infrastructure. We obviously have a problem with the rail system

as well.”

Vice Mayor Bartz continued, “Everyone keeps saying that it’s not

going to cost the City anything. Bet me. Someone has to pay for

those roads, and so far I have not seen anyone prepared to step

up to the plate and truly pay for those impacts. We are with

residents who are unemployed, and if I understood correctly

we’re not putting anyone to work for at least two years. In the

meantime if we have to pay for the infrastructure, who’s paying

the taxes to pay for that? That’s us, and that’s every one of

you. I know there’s a rush to get this done, but I’m not

convinced that this is the ‘know all, end all.’ I’m worried

about the impact on Tradition, the roads we have out there, and

the things that we’ve worked so hard to get. I really believe

that looking to the future is a big part of our job. If we

always look at the here and now and never look at the future,

I’m afraid of what we would become.”

Councilwoman Martin stated, “I’m going to support this going

through for transmittal to DCA. I do believe it would be

irresponsible of us as a Council not to let this go forward and

not to see what the ORC report would come back with. You can say

that the devil is in the details. Maybe while we’re waiting for

the report to come back from DCA, we can have that conversation

with the county, with other Councils, with the landowners, the

residents, and do some workshops with staff to look at the

impacts and the concerns more closely. We need to look at every

aspect. Although there are considerable impacts, the risks are

low considering what the potential possibilities could be. I’m

going to support going through with transmittal process.”

Vice Mayor Bartz said, “I don’t disagree with you, and I

certainly understand where you’re coming from. I just want to

make sure that if we go through with this that we do address all

of those issues. I want to set a definite date to meet with the

counties and allow them to talk to us about what’s missing and

what the impacts are to their areas. If this goes through and I

support it, it doesn’t mean that it’s a done deal. All it does


44

is give us an opportunity to follow up with all of those

people.”

Councilwoman Martin stated, “I agree with that. I also have a

concern that if we don’t look at it and let them go to the

county, what are our impacts going to be. We’re going to have

impacts as the City of Port St. Lucie and it goes back to

control. Through this process and us having the control,

everything has to come back to Council through Planning and

Zoning, through the PUD process. We maintain those controls on

what happens. If we’re getting impacts and we have no control

over what’s going on, I don’t think that’s a good thing to

have.”

Vice Mayor Bartz noted, “If the shoe was on the other foot and

it was the county taking care of this, I would want to be at

their meeting asking about our residents, our roads, our

impacts, and our interchanges. I just want to make sure that we

have all of those things on the table, and that the landowners

understand that if this goes through tonight this is not carte

blanche for you go ahead. We all have our concerns. There are a

number of details to be worked out, and some of them are not

small.”

Councilman Kelly commented, “This has been to DCA, it got

rejected, and came back with six major points. The No. 1 point

was that there’s no need. That land isn’t going away. It’s

always going to be there. You’re not going to have any control

if you don’t have Unity of Title whether you do it in the City

or in the county. They can split up and do whatever they want.

We should have talked to Martin County before tonight.”

Councilwoman Martin pointed out, “They already put a half

million dollars into it. We didn’t let them come back and do it

for free. They paid the money in order to do it.” Councilwoman

Berger remarked, “I realize that the agreement for the

annexation is just a draft, but I do have a question about Page

6 of 27 under Property Development and Intended Uses. Under

Intended Uses, you’d think that it would speak directly to the

Intermodal Logistics Center, and it does. However, it says that

the property ‘may’ include an Intermodal Logistics Center, with

an intermodal transfer facility, including an interchange hub

and associated administrative facilities, and a distribution

center, including distribution warehousing, manufacturing

facilities, and associated support services. Such uses shall be

consistent with the heavy industrial utility.’ The only definite

under that property development piece is that they ‘shall’ be

Heavy Industrial. I’m wondering why we allowed the word ‘may’ to


45

be in there, when the whole time we’ve been talking about this

project that previous Councils and this Council has said that

this is something we would entertain if it were for this

specific type of project. Putting the word ‘may’ in the

Annexation Agreement is carte blanche. My question is about

‘may’ versus ‘shall,’ and I’ve been on here long enough to know

that makes a big difference.”

The City Attorney said, “The ‘shall’ is dealing with consistency

with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation. Once it has

that land use designation anything that goes on that property

must be consistent with that land use designation. I believe the

‘may’ language is the indication of what they intend to put

there, which would be consistent with that language.”

Councilwoman Berger stated, “I understand the ‘shall,’ but I

don’t understand the ‘may’ when we said from the beginning that

it’s going to be the Intermodal Logistics Center.” The City

Attorney noted, “The ‘may’ indicates what they intend to put

there. The bottom line is that once they’re annexed, once

there’s a Comprehensive Plan land use designation on it, they

legally can develop it not any way they want, but they can

develop it other than the Intermodal, as long as it is

consistent and complies with the land use designation. There is

no guarantee that’s what it will become.” Mr. Holbrook

commented, “There are a number of items before the Council

tonight. Obviously, the ordinance that annexes the property in

the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is both a map amendment and a

text amendment. As part of the text amendment under the second

policy, it actually goes through the uses which are included and

defined for this Heavy Industrial project. That’s giving you the

scope of uses that can be included. I think that if it’s the

Council’s desire, it’s a draft agreement. If that’s something of

concern, the applicants are here and I think they hear it. Staff

is here as well, and those changes can be made.”

Councilwoman Berger pointed out, “We have these very successful,

very credentialed businessmen that come with a history of doing

great projects. We are in a position to make a decision that may

make this project go away. It doesn’t mean that these

businessmen don’t have a great concept. The concept itself and

the conception of this concept has the potential. As the EDC

says, ‘Conceptually, this is a great idea.’ I don’t have the

luxury of saying that this is a good concept. This is the

easiest thing to vote on since I’ve been elected. Do you know

why? Because in ten years or fifteen years from now if this is

screwed up, we’re all going to be gone probably. However, it’s

the citizens who will still be living here, and possibly some of


46

the staff who will have to deal with these issues. These are

ongoing decisions. How do we pay for this? We’re talking about

maybe two years out before jobs start rolling in, two years out

before we see our $4.2 million. In the meantime that’s a lot of

acreage that our police are going to have to patrol, and I’m

sure $4.2 million is not going to go very far operationally for

making sure that people can patrol these areas. I sat on a

committee not too long ago where we were discussing that we were

going to pay for maybe 12 resource officers in schools. If we

can’t pay for protection within the schools, how are we going to

pay for the services that need to go out on 7,000 acres outside

our boundaries? The money is not going to come in right away, so

we’re going to have to make that payment. That doesn’t have

anything to do with the infrastructure that has to be put in

place. Will Miami be contributing?”

Councilwoman Berger continued, “I know the Annexation Agreement

is not in front of us now, but it’s just not together. It’s as

good as it’s going to get, and I’m not sure it’s good enough.

I’ve been a proponent of moving forward in the past, but as

Councilman Kelly said, we have heard from DCA. Commissioner

Craft said that it’s not the same agency it used to be. We don’t

have the enforcement arm that we could look to for help to make

us understand what the impacts are going to be. Commissioner

Craft also said that the intensity of this project is going to

be too big to be next to the airport. When is the last time

you’ve been out there? It’s pretty industrial. My district does

go out west, north of Crosstown, but out west. Who knows if that

will change in the future? We do have new redistricting

happening. Councilwoman Martin’s district is to the south of

Crosstown, so you and I will be sharing, at least for the next

two years, the concerns that will be building out there. It’s

going to be a completely different City when this is done. My

concern is at what cost. I still have to represent the people

who live here, and I’ve been to cities to get an idea of what

this looks like. I tried to find an intermodal area that is

around the first ten years of development that might resemble

us, but I couldn’t find one that I could visit. I’ve made the

phone calls. If you get someone on the phone, they’re not going

to let you use their name as Councilman Kelly had stated. Trying

to get an elected official from any of these outside cities to

call you back is not easy either. These are all things that

concern me, because as elected officials you know that if you

put your name out there it’s going to end up in a newspaper

article somewhere.”

Councilwoman Berger continued, “I don’t know how the success

stories got submitted as our backup, but it was very good. The


47

success stories all have something in common, and that’s how

these things originated. Where did this concept come from? What

was the driving force that created a successful intermodal

agency? In just about every one of them, it was a local need for

railroad. It was driven by needs locally to expand the railroad.

For instance, the Dallas area rapid transit system needed some

expansion, so from there it moved into the next level of how to

make that better, and that idea expanded. It’s the same thing

everywhere else. It was either conversion or a redevelopment

agency. There are no examples that say it’s a success and

started because some landowners thought it would be a good idea

to change the land use and possibly create some jobs. It’s a

great idea. I just wish it was next to the airport. I’m not a

county commissioner, so I have to deal with what’s in front of

me and what’s with the City. I have to consider how I’m paying

for the agency that I have now. I’m trying to keep a sustainable

City. There has been discussion on police versus sheriff’s

deputies. We have been doing this for years. This City can’t

continue with these kinds of stretches unless you’re talking

about actually raising the taxes, or eliminating some part of

the agency that can then free up some revenue. I don’t want to

do either of those. I don’t think we can afford to do this. I’m

not convinced that there are 36,000 jobs. I’m pretty sure I

heard there were 12,000 that may come in two years. We created

this industry that’s so localized, because we were building.

When that went away, now we’ve got this problem. Are we going to

create a problem in the future that’s bigger than we can handle

to fix the problem from the last decade? I keep hearing Doug

Coward saying that growth doesn’t pay for itself. I won’t

support this to move on tonight. I came in here tonight not

knowing which way I was going to go, and I have been swayed very

heavily back to this side. I don’t see a win after tonight, and

I really fear we won’t be able to back out.”

Councilman Kelly said, “I’m not signing off on anymore municipal

bonds for anyone. The City can’t afford to go into debt or co-

sign on anymore loans, and that’s what we would have to do. We

would have to co-sign municipal bonds. We would have to find

money, and we would have to give that ten-year freebie to bring

Target here. There is no $4.6 million. There’s no business plan,

because there’s no money. There’s no funding.” Councilwoman

Berger stated, “We have had quite a number of good business

plans in front of us over the last couple of years. We have had

some very smart business people in front of us who presented the

plans, and they were solid plans. We are seeing some good

results from some of them, but we know we have some issues

coming up. When we voted for many of these things, such as the


48

Southwest Annexation issues, that may be an additional couple

million dollars that we may be absorbing and more millage. Those

were great business plans. They were backed by Tallahassee. They

were backed by the state. We have some of the same players

involved.” Councilman Kelly noted, “But there’s no business

plan. When we built the Crosstown Parkway and went out for the

vote and got 89% of the voters who voted, the critics asked why

we didn’t get the permits first. That’s not the way it works

with the state. The state says that you have to have the

funding. I don’t want them to put us through this. They don’t

have the funding. There’s no business plan and no money, and I

move to deny Ordinance 11-25. Councilwoman Berger seconded the

motion, and commented, “I was hoping to hear your comments as

well.” Mayor Faiella pointed out, “Ever since this came up, I

have investigated, did my analysis, talked to people, and

investigated myself. We do need a well balanced job corridor in

Port St. Lucie, and I’m in agreement with Vice Mayor Bartz. If

we do pass this, we should go to the next level. Five years down

the line, I don’t want someone else getting this project and us

kicking ourselves, or the county getting it and we’re in a mess.

I just feel that I would give it a chance, as long as later on

we all sit down. Again, it has to come back to Council. If the

annexation falls through, what’s the protocol? I know we can’t

de-annex land, but does it fall back to Agricultural land?”

Mr. Holbrook replied, “If the annexation is approved, it will be

in the City limits. If the Comprehensive Plan as proposed with

the policies that are in there is approved, the second to the

last policy is one that the applicants haven’t enjoyed, but

that’s what was known as the reverter clause. It does two

things. If by 2020 this project hasn’t moved forward, then staff

is going to do two things. It will prepare a text amendment to

create an Agricultural land use and that will be a map amendment

to change the subject land back to AG. With that policy, it

would bring it back to Council for their consideration in 2020.”

Vice Mayor Bartz asked, “If nothing happens, doesn’t it stay as

AG land? Even though it has the designation of Heavy Industrial,

it is taxed as AG land.” Mr. Holbrook replied, “I can’t speak to

the taxing issue.” The City Attorney responded, “It would be

taxed as long as it remains in Agricultural use.” Councilwoman

Martin stated, “It’s AG in the county now, and there’s not much

service required. If it’s AG in the City, what more service is

going to be required than what’s already out there?” Councilman

Kelly replied, “I don’t think the Sheriff would agree with you.”

Councilwoman Martin noted, “Maybe that’s a conversation I need

to have with the Sheriff, but I still don’t see where the

service would change considering it’s AG land.” The City Manager


49

said, “The motion was for Ordinance 11-25, and we should

probably deal with Ordinance 11-18 first.”

a) ORDINANCE 11-18

Councilman Kelly said, “I will withdraw my motion, and move to

deny Ordinance 11-18.” Councilwoman Berger seconded the motion.

The City Clerk restated the motion as follows: to deny Ordinance

11-18. The motion passed by roll call vote, with Councilman

Kelly, Vice Mayor Bartz, and Councilwoman Berger voting in

favor, and Mayor Faiella and Councilwoman Martin voting against.

c)ORDINANCE 11-25

Councilman Kelly moved to deny Ordinance 11-25. Councilwoman

Berger seconded the motion. The City Clerk restated the motion

as follows: to deny Ordinance 11-25. The motion passed by roll

call vote with Councilman Kelly, Vice Mayor Bartz, and

Councilwoman Berger voting in favor, and Councilwoman Martin and

Mayor Faiella voting against.

b) ORDINANCE 11-23, PUBLIC HEARING, AMENDING THE

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE BY AMENDING

FIGURE 7 AND FIGURE 8 AND THE ASSOCIATED TEXT OF THE STATUTES;

PROVIDING THE INVALIDITY OF ANY PORTION SHALL NOT AFFECT THE

REMAINING PORTIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN

EFFECTIVE DATE, P11-014



Mayor Faiella closed the Public Hearing. Councilwoman Berger

moved to deny Ordinance 11-23. Councilman Kelly seconded the

motion. Councilwoman Berger stated, “I withdraw my motion.” Mr.

Holbrook noted, “This ordinance is very important. It’s a staff-

initiated ordinance that is generated from the Engineering

Department and it’s dealing with Crosstown. This is coming from

comments that have been received by the feds, the state, and

other agencies where we need to take out specific route

crossings and show a generalized study. Staff does recommend

approval of this application.” Councilwoman Berger moved to

approve Ordinance 11-23. Councilwoman Martin seconded the



roll call vote.

COUNCIL RULES: SECTION 9. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS (J)


50

The City Attorney asked, “Can we have a motion waiving the

Council Rules regarding the Witching Hour? We have been

consistent with the rule, because the rule said that if you

complete whatever agenda item you’re on, if you go past 11:00

p.m., the other agenda items would be tabled to another meeting.

The last section of the Council Rules allows that you may waive

the rules, but it does require a motion.” Mayor Faiella stated,

“That was the last public hearing, so if we want to table d) and

the rest of them to the afternoon Council meeting next week, we

could do that if it was a consensus of the Council.” Vice Mayor

Bartz noted, “If we’re going to do that, the only thing I would

request is that we look at Item 13 e), because we’re talking

about the City’s 50th Anniversary. By waiting until next week, we

may be cutting it too close.” The City Attorney commented, “The

clerk also pointed out that Item 10 d), Ordinance 11-27, has

been scheduled to advertise.” Councilwoman Berger remarked,

“Let’s just power through.” The City Attorney asked, “For the

record, can we have the motion to waive the rules?” Councilman

Kelly moved to waive the Council Rule for the 11:00 p.m. curfew

for this meeting. Councilwoman Berger seconded the motion. The

City Clerk restated the motion as follows: to waive the

Council’s rule on the 11:00 p.m. curfew. The motion passed


d) ORDINANCE 11-27, AMENDING CHAPTER 153: LANDSCAPING;

LAND CLEARING OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF PORT ST.

LUCIE, FLORIDA; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE

The City Clerk read Ordinance 11-27 aloud by title only. Vice

Mayor Bartz moved to approve Ordinance 11-27. Councilwoman

Berger seconded the motion. The City Clerk restated the motion

as follows: for approval of Ordinance 11-27. The motion passed


11. RESOLUTIONS

There was nothing scheduled for this item.

12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

a) DISCUSSION REGARDING THE BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE’S

DIRECTION AND MEMBER STATUS, MAYOR FAIELLA

Mayor Faiella said, “The Budget Advisory Committee is looking

for direction, and I wanted to put it out there for discussion

on what to do next.” Councilwoman Berger stated, “I did speak to

my representative. I’m glad she didn’t resign. When this


51

committee came together, I wanted a cross section of the

community to be represented. My thought was that they could look

at something more than just the numbers part of it. I wanted to

gain their insight as to what they wanted from a livability

standpoint. In the beginning I did voice that.” Councilwoman

Martin noted, “They do need some direction and scope, and I

would like to ask Council, if not tonight, to at least think

about it as to what kind of scope we can give them. In the few

meetings that I’ve been to, I’ve noticed a lot of redundancy.

I’ve noticed that staff has been doing a lot of the things that

they have suggested, and some things that we have already been

working on. Although we do have a good cross section and there’s

a lot of knowledge on the HR end, what I’m not seeing is that

these members don’t understand the difference between public and

private, or they’re not getting the concept. They don’t

understand or they don’t want to understand that whatever

happens in the private sector can’t always funnel through to the

public sector. I’m really seeing that more and more as I attend

these meetings. They’re of the mindset that you can just set

these policies and guidelines, and that things don’t have to be

negotiated, and bargaining unit contracts don’t come into play.

They’re kind of all over the place.”

Councilwoman Martin continued, “I just read the minutes that

came out today, and several of them said that they want some

kind of direction and scope. I think that we as a Council need

to come up with what the direction is. The resolution was very

vague. I understand why Council put it in place as a

transparency issue, but when you don’t have a scope and

direction you tend to go all over the place and have that

redundancy. Maybe that redundancy is because they got wind of

some of what staff was working on, so they decided to take it

upon themselves to work on it. We really need to think about

where we want them to go from here.” Mayor Faiella noted, “They

did a great job the one time I watched them, and staff has put

things in place when it came to the insurance plan. They were on

target on quite a few things, which the City had already put in

place. They want to know what we want them to look into.”

Councilman Kelly pointed out, “I agree with Councilwoman Martin

and Councilwoman Berger, but what we told them is vague. I was

under the impression that each member we appointed was going to

meet with their appointee. What did we do with the two At-Large

members? Do they meet with the Mayor?” Mayor Faiella remarked,

“I was told the Chair.” Councilman Kelly said, “I met with the

fellow I appointed, and I told him about the one thing I wanted

him to look at. I asked him what happened to that, and he said

they had the chairman of that department come and speak to us,


52

and he said it wasn’t viable, and that we couldn’t do that idea.

I asked him if he could see if it would save us money, and all

he said was that it wouldn’t just by speaking to the head of

that department. It’s probably one of the best committees we’ve

ever formed, and I wouldn’t change my appointment.”

Councilman Kelly continued, “For example, if you tell them we

have this vehicle that serves us well, but the cost of gasoline,

the maintenance of it isn’t right. What should we do to make it

run better and more efficiently? They say that we should tune it

up more, buy cheaper tires, or whatever. That’s what I want. But

when they come back and tell me to sell the vehicle or lease

one, I know that if I lease that vehicle I lose control of the

vehicle. It doesn’t belong to me. Do you want them to look at

selling the vehicle? If you want them to look at everything,

that’s fine. I want them to look at making the vehicle run more

efficiently, because I want to own the vehicle. If it’s serving

me well and I want to be more efficient, that’s the way I would

like them to look at things.” Councilwoman Berger stated, “If

there’s a consensus that there was a thought process where we

should be meeting with our respective representatives or

appointees, and we basically tell them what we want them to do,

then in my mind it takes away from the concept of having a cross

section of the community, and having their own mind. I don’t

want my representative to say everything that I say. Why bother

having a committee? If we’re saying that we’re empowering them

as a citizen of the City of Port St. Lucie to be part of this

process, and to really dig in and give us some advice, then I’m

all for it. I just don’t want to be telling everyone what to

say.”

Vice Mayor Bartz stated, “When we put this committee together,

we told them or asked them to take a look at everything, and

that nothing was off limits. I think they’ve done that. They put

a lot of work, time, and dedication into that. We don’t have to

take their suggestion and make it policy. We don’t have to agree

with everything they say, but I think we have to applaud them

for taking that job seriously. That committee can be very

valuable. We just need to remember that they’re working hard.

They should be getting some direction. We can all go to those

meetings when time allows, but I think they’re doing the job we

asked them to do.” Councilwoman Martin commented, “I agree

they’re doing the job, but in doing the job the tone becomes

very negative. When I witness what goes on and the negativity

toward staff, and what has been done in the past, it seems like

there’s a lot of rhetoric that goes on about what has been done

in the past, but there’s not much acknowledgement as to what we

are doing or have done as a City to try and change things, and


53

to try to change the disparity. From what I’ve seen, they are

continuously focusing on that. I think there are other agendas

out there, and that maybe the agenda is making it more of a

political issue or self-serving purposes other than doing what’s

there for the overall good of the City and the community. When

you have a board that has continuously asked for direction and

scope, I’m not saying that I want to tell them what to say. I

like free thinking and getting ideas from other people, because

we all know we can’t come up with great ideas all the time. With

the absence of scope and direction, we’re going to continue down

the same path. I know that it takes a lot of time from staff,

and when I say a lot I mean hours and hours. We’re talking hours

out of a department head’s day when they could be doing their

normal jobs.”

Councilwoman Martin continued, “Then you have members of the

committee, who most recently started saying that the City

Attorney didn’t have to come, the City Manager didn’t have to

come, nor Mr. Collins, as well as Mr. Pollard. In essence, what

they were saying was, ‘Although you’ve been doing the budget for

the City of Port St. Lucie for X number of years, maybe you’re

not doing it right. Maybe you should look at this.’ We have

these professionals in place that have been doing their jobs and

are professionals. We as a Council rely on them for their

professionalism. I’m not saying that their ideas are not good

ideas to look into, but the constant negativity and the way that

they conduct themselves a lot of time, I don’t believe is in the

best interest of our citizens. I really do think that we need to

think about what kind of direction and scope they need to be

given, and not in the sense that I want them to say what I want

them to say.” Vice Mayor Bartz pointed out, “I don’t disagree

with you at all. We need to set that up. Initially, we told them

that nothing was off the table, and having been on the county’s

budget committee, I can tell you that also got very contentious

at times, because you have a number of strong opinions, and a

number of business people that think you can do everything in

the public sector the same way you do it in the private sector.

There’s a learning curve there. Should we have a lot of staff

there? We need our City Manager there. Occasionally they’re

going to ask for a department head. Overall, they’re there to

give those suggestions, and their questions should be able to be

answered then. Certainly those suggestions should be coming

back. I don’t have a problem with giving them direction, but I

do think it’s a big learning curve for them.”

Mayor Faiella remarked, “Just keep in mind that they’re an

advisory committee. It still comes back to us. We vote on it.


54

They were geared to give advice and give both sides of the

story.” Councilman Kelly said, “Let them look at everything. Let

them look at selling the car. I still would like them to meet

with us individually, and report at the last meeting before the

Retreat. They should bring their ideas to us twice a year for

consideration at those Retreats.” Councilwoman Martin asked,

“Are they going to revisit the same things they’ve been looking

at?” Vice Mayor Bartz replied, “Yes. They’re going to revisit

what they have looked at, because they’re going to be able to

tweak those things. I would agree to table this and think about

it.” Mayor Faiella commented, “It’s on the table again for them

to look at the Police Department. If we say they can look at

everything, that’s something that will come back on the table.

They feel they weren’t given ample time to show the PowerPoint

presentation.” Councilwoman Martin pointed out, “They gave the

presentation.” Mayor Faiella remarked, “Not the way they wanted

to do it.” Councilwoman Martin said, “If they want to change

what they want to do. . . .” Mayor Faiella stated, “We have a

couple of members who are upset about it.” Councilwoman Martin

noted, “I understand that. They may have been upset that day,

but I had one of the members call and say that they felt they

were going beyond their scope with certain things and that they

needed direction.” Vice Mayor Bartz commented, “We talked about

tabling this until Monday in order to talk about what scope and

direction we wanted to give.”

Councilwoman Berger remarked, “I haven’t been to a meeting in

about four or five months. If you have any recommendations, I

would be happy to look at them. I don’t think we handled what

happened before appropriately. If we would have handled it

differently we may not be where we are now. I know you spoke

with them, and I read the minutes. I didn’t see anything crazy

or compelling that would make it so ugly for them to have to

take out a slide. I wish they would have just come and given the

presentation they were going to give, and then we could have

just moved forward on making a decision. They feel as though

there’s a story that hasn’t been told, and they want to get

their time out in front. If it’s not something that we want to

move forward on, let’s be honest with them. If you choose not to

take their advice, be ready to defend your position as to why.”

Mayor Faiella asked, “Are we going to table it?” Councilwoman

Berger replied, “Yes, but you’re going to bring back

recommendations as to what we want.” Mayor Faiella asked, “Do I

have a motion?” Councilwoman Berger replied, “So move.” Vice

Mayor Bartz seconded the motion. The City Clerk restated the

motion as follows: for approval to table Item 12 a) to the

Council Meeting of April 18. The motion passed unanimously by


55

roll call vote.

13. NEW BUSINESS

a) BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE REAPPOINTMENTS, DISTRICT 3

REAPPOINTMENT REQUEST FOR DIANE BRYANT; DISTRICT 4 REAPPOINTMENT

REQUEST FOR CHARLES D’AGATA; AT-LARGE MEMBER REAPPOINTMENT

REQUEST FOR DANIEL KUREK, ALL TO SERVE TWO-YEAR TERMS, BEGINNING

APRIL 19, 2011, THROUGH APRIL 19, 2013, CITY CLERK

Councilwoman Martin moved to approve the reappointment of Diane

Bryant. Councilman Kelly seconded the motion. The City Clerk

restated the motion as follows: for approval for the

reappointment of Diane Bryant, District 3 representative to a

two-year term beginning April 19, 2011 through April 19, 2013.

The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.

Councilman Kelly moved to approve the reappointment of Charles

D’Agata. Councilwoman Berger seconded the motion. The City Clerk

restated the motion as follows: for approval of the

reappointment of the District 4 member Charles D’Agata to a two-

year term beginning April 19, 2011 through April 19, 2013. The

motion passed by roll call vote, with Councilman Kelly, Vice

Mayor Bart, Councilwoman Berger, and Mayor Faiella voting in

favor, and Councilwoman Martin voting against.

Councilman Kelly moved to approve the reappointment of Daniel

Kurek. Vice Mayor Bartz seconded the motion. The City Clerk

restated the motion as follows: for approval of reappointment of

At-Large member Daniel Kurek to a two-year term beginning April

19, 2011 through April 19, 2013. The motion passed unanimously

by roll call vote.

b) CITY WELCOME SIGNS, APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT AND INSTALL

ENTRY FEATURE WELCOME SIGNS COMPLETE WITH LANDSCAPING,

IRRIGATION AND SOLAR LIGHTING, $10,000 OF KPSLB FRANCHISE FEE

FUNDS AND $750 FROM ST. LUCIE NORTH HOA FOR THE SELVITZ ROAD

PROJECT, PUBLIC WORKS/KEEP PORT ST. LUCIE BEAUTIFUL

The City Manager said, “This is a proposal for Keep Port St.

Lucie Beautiful to erect Welcome Signs at four locations in the

City. The accompanying memo indicates Selvitz Road and Midway,

East Torino and Midway, Gatlin Boulevard east of I-95, and

Tradition Parkway west of I-95. The approximate total is

$10,000, and we request authorization to use the Keep Port St.

Lucie Beautiful funds to do this project.” Councilwoman Berger

moved to approve Item 13 b). Councilwoman Martin seconded the


56


approval of Item 13 b). The motion passed unanimously by roll

call vote.

c) NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS)

EMERGENCY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM, E-8 CANAL DRAINAGE

IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT AGREEMENT #69-4209-11-1768, PROJECT COST

APPROXIMATELY $2,000,000, FUNDING COST MATCH 75% NRCS AND 25%

CITY, PUBLIC WORKS

The City Manager stated, “We have received an NRCS grant, which

is a 75%/25% match. We need to match 25% for approximately $2

million worth of drainage work. The accompanying memo explains

that there are nine subprojects. This should take that E-8 Canal

to I-95. We have been working through a variety of grants to

upgrade the E-8 Canal, and we do recommend approval.” Vice Mayor

Bartz moved to approve Item 13 c). Councilwoman Martin seconded

the motion. The City Clerk restated the motion as follows: for

approval of Item 13 c). The motion passed unanimously by roll

call vote.

d) WAIVER OF BID PER SECTION 35.04 (C), FOR GOOD CAUSE

SHOWN, HECTOR TURF, INC., PURCHASE EQUIPMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF

THE SAINTS GOLF COURSE, #20110047, $50,042.97, FUND 421-7250-

5644, PARKS AND RECREATION

The City Manager said, “This is the replacement equipment at the

golf course. These bids are from the National IPA Cooperative

Purchasing Organization, and we do recommend purchasing the

equipment in the amount of $50,042.97.” Councilwoman Martin

moved to approve Item 13 d). Vice Mayor Bartz seconded the


approval of Item 13 d). The motion passed unanimously by roll

call vote.

e) REQUEST TO WAIVE FEES FOR THE USE OF THE CIVIC CENTER,

FOR THE TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL, WHICH WILL

RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH THE CITY’S 50TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION,

ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

Mr. Oravec stated, “This is a request and it came via letter

from both Mr. McAfoos and Vice Mayor Bartz serving on the

Executive Committee of the 50th Anniversary Celebration. It

requested the City’s consideration to assist the Treasure Coast

International Film Festival to conduct their International Film

Festival during the same time as the 50th Anniversary

Celebration. I asked if it was concurrent or part of the


57

celebration. Mr. McAfoos told me it was part of the celebration.

As you know, we have been very selective about providing any

type of fee waiving at the Civic Center, and that’s why it’s

really an issue for the Council. There is no staff

recommendation on this. I can only recall two instances of a fee

waiver, and that was for the celebration itself and for the Law

Enforcement Games.” Mayor Faiella asked, “What is the amount of

the fee that we’re talking about?” Councilwoman Berger replied,

“It’s $1,790.” Vice Mayor Bartz noted, “It’s not normal for us

to waive fees. This is a group that has worked with the

Celebration Committee, and has done the docudrama. This will

just be an added feature of the celebration.” Councilwoman

Martin commented, “In essence, we have already waived the fees

for this.” Mr. Oravec pointed out, “Because the weekdays are

off-peak times, staff does provide a discount to anyone during

those times in order to garner additional business. However,

this rental includes a Saturday, and that’s traditionally peak

time. Staff does not give any break off the normal rental rate.”

Councilman Kelly asked, “How many days are we talking about?”

Mr. Oravec replied, “You’re talking Thursday, Friday, and

Saturday.” Councilman Kelly said, “I don’t have a problem with

it.” Mr. Oravec stated, “Mr. McAfoos’ letter stated that a

certain number of tickets would be provided to residents.”

JOE GARAFALO said, “We’re going to have two screening rooms. You

can hold 100 seats per screening room, so we’re going to give at

least 30 seats per screening. We’re going to have 22 showings.

We’re talking about giving approximately 660 tickets to the

public. The other thing that we’re going to have is seminars,

and they’re free. We’re bringing film makers and film production

company representatives from around the country. The whole idea

of us coming together is so we could showcase the City.”

Councilwoman Berger moved to approve Item 13 e). Councilwoman

Martin seconded the motion. The City Clerk restated the motion

as follows: for approval of Item 13 e). The motion passed


f) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE

AND RANGER CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES, INC. FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT

OVER THE CONSTRUCTION OF BAYSHORE BOULEVARD, LEGAL

The City Attorney stated, “We held a meeting with the

representative from Ranger Construction. The City Manager was

present, and in the course of the conversation an offer and

acceptance was made to resolve this case. We are recommending

settlement, which brings that litigation to an end. The City


58

Manager has identified the funds for the settlement, and that

will also make them eligible to bid on City work pursuant to the

settlement. The settlement is for $1 million.” Councilwoman

Martin asked, “If we didn’t, what would be the continued cost of

litigation?” The City Attorney replied, “I don’t know. The

complaint was filed a year plus ago. I believe the most direct

answer to your question is that our own people would say that

they’re entitled to an amount that is not very far south of this

number. We did try to mediate it, but we were unable to get

there. They were stuck on an issue regarding the importation of

fill that we were unwilling to settle on. Essentially, this

settlement recognizes that the issue came out of a lawsuit, and

they were settling on a number that was very close to what our

own people said they would have been entitled to, but for that

other fill issue.” Vice Mayor Bartz moved to approve Item 13 f).

Councilwoman Berger seconded the motion. The City Clerk restated

the motion as follows: for approval of Item 13 f). The motion

passed by roll call vote with Vice Mayor Bartz, Councilwoman

Berger, Mayor Faiella, and Councilwoman Martin voting in favor,

and Councilman Kelly voting against.

14. DETERMINATION OF EXCUSED ABSENCE

a) VICE MAYOR, LINDA BARTZ, MARCH 28, 2011

Councilman Kelly moved to approve Item 14 a). Councilwoman

Martin seconded the motion. The City Clerk restated the motion

as follows: for approval of Item 14 a). The motion passed


15. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

There were no comments or discussions for this item.

16. ADJOURN

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1:45

a.m.

________________________________________

Karen A. Phillips, City Clerk

________________________________________

Carol M. Heintz, Deputy Clerk Supervisor

city of port st. lucie city council regular...

Documents