Agenda 12/02/2014 W (Marco Island) JOINT WORKSHOP AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AND
MARCO ISLAND CITY COUNCIL
JOINT WORKSHOP
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East,3rd Floor
Naples,FL 34112
December 2,2014
1:00 P.M.
Tom Henning-BCC Chairman; BCC Commissioner,District 3
Tim Nance-BCC Vice-Chairman;BCC Commissioner,District 5
Donna Fiala- BCC Commissioner,District 1; CRAB Chairwoman
Georgia Hiller- BCC Commissioner,District 2
Penny Taylor-BCC Commissioner,District 4
Larry Sacher- Council Chair
Bob Brown-Council Vice-Chair
Joe Batte-Councilor
Kenneth E.Honecker-Councilor
Larry Honig-Councilor
Amadeo R.Petricca-Councilor
Victor Rios- Councilor
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Ambulance Service
3 Funding for Arterial Roads
4. Goodland Road (CR 92A) Improvements
5. Park Impact Fees
6. Tigertail Beach Signage and Parking
7. Dredging of Collier Creek
8. South Beach Parking Garage
9. Continued Relationship Between the County and Marco Island
10. Public Comment
11. Adjourn
Notice: All persons wishing to speak must turn in a speaker slip. Each speaker will receive no more than three(3)minutes.Collier County
Ordinance No. 2003-53 as amended by Ordinance 2004-05 and 2007-24, requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying
activities (including but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board
Minutes and Records Department.
JOINT WORKSHOP
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AND
MARCO ISLAND CITY COUNCIL
December 2,2014
1:00 P.M.
I
INDEX
1. Ambulance Service
a. Summary
b. Executive Summary - 01/18/2014
c. County Manager Letter - 11/05/2014
2. Goodland Road (CR 92A) Improvements / Funding of Arterial Roads
a. Summary
b. Supporting Documents(13)
3. Park Impact Fees
a. Summary
b. Nabors,Giblin&Nickerson Opinion - 03/29/2011
4. Tigertail Beach
a. Summary
5. Dredging of Collier Creek
a. Summary
b. Executive Summary - 11/18/2014
6. South Beach Parking Garage (Proposed)
a. Summary
Joint Workshop December 2,2014
AMBULANCE SERVICE
ISSUE: Improved ambulance service on Marco Island.
BACKGOUND: Last year the BCC agreed to provide a seasonal unit each year from January through
April. Additionally,the County is now moving an ambulance from another location(usually Isles of
Capri) as soon as the Marco Island unit is dispatched. With these changes,Collier County EMS met
the level of service standard set by the Board (arrival in no more than eight (8) minutes ninety
percent of the time) every month since December 2013. Marco Island recently approached staff
about moving the start date of the seasonal unit to November. While response time numbers do not
necessarily support this request,the County Manager agreed to start the seasonal unit on December
1 as a gesture of goodwill in our strong working relationship.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: EMS will continue to monitor level of service in the Marco area as
well as county-wide and make appropriate adjustments as needed.
by Len Price,Administrator Administrative Services Division(11/07/2014)
Office of the County Manager
Mana
g
4� .? Leo E. Ochs, Jr.
3299 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 202•Naples Florida 34112-5746 (239)252-8383•FAX:(239)252-4010
November 5,2014
Mr. Roger Hernstadt,City Manager
50 Bald Eagle Drive
Marco Island FL 34145
Re:Seasonal Ambulance for Marco Island
Dear Nc
Pursuant to your request at the meeting that was held on October 27,2014 at the Emergency Services
Center and in the spirit of good city/county relations, I have directed EMS staff to move the in-service •
start date for the seasonal ambulance on Marco Island to December 1,2014.
The operational changes implemented by EMS staff over the past year improved response times on
Marco Island allowing us to meet our level of service standards every month(both in season and out of
season)since they began. While I am aware of the cases of concurrent calls on Marco Island,which
includes fire calls that do not always demand an ambulance,our reports show response times of eight
minutes or less at or over ninety percent of the time consistently since December 2013.
We have always enjoyed an excellent partnership with Marco Island Fire Rescue and hope that this
gesture will work toward maintaining and furthering our working relationships. As always, EMS staff will
continue to monitor response times and the level of service standards and will recommend changes
should they be warranted.
Sincerely,
Leo-E.Ochs,Jr.
County Manager
CC: Len Price,Administrator of Administrative Services
•
Dan Summers,Bureau of Emergency Services Director
Walter Kopka,Chief of Emergency Medical Services
01/18/2014
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to consider options for improved Emergency Medical Services
response times throughout Collier County
OBJECTIVE: To improve response times in EMS zones that are not meeting currently established level
of service response time standards and propose options to improve level of service standards in the rural
zones beginning no later than April 1, 2014.
CONSIDERATIONS: On December 10, 2013 the Board approved the 2013 Annual Update and
Inventory Report (AUIR) and the associated schedule of capital improvements. With respect to
Emergency Medical Services, the AUIR projected the need for five (5) additional EMS units (stations,
personnel, equipment) over the next ten (10) years to maintain the current level of advanced life support
(ALS) response time goals of 8 minutes travel time to scene 90% of the time in the urban area and 12
minutes travel time to scene 90%of the time in the rural area.
At the Board meeting of January 14, 2014, staff was directed to develop a proposal to achieve a county-
wide response time goal of 8 minutes travel time to scene 90% of the time. The following proposal is
designed to meet this objective in each EMS response zone.
East Naples (Zone 23)
a. Relocate one of the two ambulances located at City Station 1 (downtown Naples) to City
Station 2 (26th Ave N). The call volume in the northern half of the city is nearly 60% higher.
Relocating the ambulance will place the ambulance where a higher call volume exists, and
b. Relocate the ambulance at the EMS Station at Airport and Golden Gate Parkway (Station 24)
to East Naples Davis Blvd (Station 20). The call volume for this area is nearly four times more
than the Airport and Golden Gate Parkway area. Relocating the ambulance will place the
ambulance where a higher call volume exists. The City has expressed an interest to lease the
EMS space at Airport and Golden Gate Parkway (Station 24) and equip it with an ALS
apparatus, and
c. Relocate one of the two ambulances at EMS Santa Barbara Station (Station 75)to leased space
at Physicians Regional Medical Center-Collier Blvd. Physicians Regional Medical Center-
Collier Blvd is located in East Naples (Zone 23). This will improve response times in East
Naples (Zone 23). Additionally, East Naples Fire District has entered into an Interlocal
Agreement with Collier County. This agreement will add an ALS Engine to East Naples (Zone
23), improving response times. This program is anticipated to begin April 1, 2014.
d. Long Term: Construct a station at Hacienda Lakes (Lords Way and Collier Blvd) beginning in
FY 2017 on land donated to the County by the developer. The crews and equipment occupying
leased quarters at the hospital would then be moved to the permanent location.
North Naples /Bonita Shores (Zone 42 and Zone 43)
Add a unit (crew and ambulance) to EMS North Naples Station 44 or possibly North Naples
Station 45 to assist in response times in North Naples Zone 42. This would be a temporary
location until a permanent EMS station is constructed at Vanderbilt Beach Road and Logan
Boulevard in FY 2015.
Because North Naples Medic 43 runs 22% of their calls in bordering zones (i.e.: North Naples
Zone 44), placing an additional unit in North Naples (Zone 42) will keep North Naples Medic 43
in their own zone more often-thus improving response times in North Naples Zone 43.
Long term solution that would impact North Naples (Zone 42) as well as Big Corkscrew (Zone
10) and Golden Gate Estates (Zone 71) is to build a station and add a unit (ambulance, equipment
and personnel)to County owned land at Collier Blvd and Immokalee Road in FY 2018.
Marco Island(Zone 50)
a. Effective February 1, 2014 a seasonal ambulance will be added to Marco Island.
b. Effective January 15th an EMS operational change was made to improve response times for
Marco Island. When the ambulance(s) on Marco Island is busy, the ambulance stationed on
Isles of Capri will automatically move to Marco Island. This will improve response times for
concurrent calls on Marco Island. An ALS engine remains on Isles of Capri for responses.
The proposed FY 2015 EMS budget will contain funding for a seasonal unit on Marco from
January through April. It should be noted that 43% of the responses on Marco occur during
January through April.
Isles of Capri (Zone 90)
With the addition of a seasonal ambulance on Marco Island, an additional ambulance in East
Naples (Zone 23), as well as an additional ALS Engine in East Naples (Zone 23), the Isles of
Capri ambulance will be responding to at least 10% fewer out of zone calls. With the operational
change to send the Isles of Capri ambulance to Marco Island for coverage, response times for Isles
of Capri will be monitored every 30 days to assess Level of Service.
Big Corkscrew(Zone 10) -Big Corkscrew Island Fire Rescue area
a. Add a Collier County EMS Paramedic/ Firefighter to Big Corkscrew Island Fire Rescue
Engine 10, and
b. Relocate EMS Battalion Chief 82 (currently located in Golden Gate Estates) to Big
Corkscrew Fire Station 12 (Everglades Blvd and Immokalee Rd). This option requires further
work to determine feasibility and costs, and
c. Provide additional funding to guarantee full-time staffing for EMS Battalion Chief 81
(currently located in North Naples). This will assure Battalion Chief 82 is dedicated to the
rural area.
Immokalee (Zone 30)
Currently there are two ambulances located at the EMS Station on South 1st Street in Immokalee.
An improvement in response times for Immokalee can be realized if one of those ambulances is
moved to Immokalee Fire Department Station on Carson Road. This option needs to be further
explored with Immokalee Fire as well as renovation costs to the Immokalee Fire Department
Carson Road station.
Ave Maria(Zone 32)
Ave Maria (Zone 32) has the lowest call volume of all the EMS zones in the County- with a total
of 138 EMS responses in 2013. With the addition of EMS ALS resources in Big Corkscrew (Zone
10), potentially the Ave Maria ambulance will be responding to 12% fewer out of zone calls.
Ochopee (Zone 60)
Mile Marker 63 Station is under construction and is anticipated to be complete late 2014. This
station will be staffed full-time with an EMS paramedic responding with ALS apparatus/
equipment.
Golden Gate Estates (Zone 711
a. Effective April 1, 2014, add an EMS Quick Response Paramedic (QRP) to address LOSS
deficit in Golden Gate Estates (Zone 71), and
b. Effective FY 2015, replace QRP with a fully staffed transport unit, and
c. Exlore the possibility of a rapid response emergency center located at Everglades Blvd and
l0' Ave SE. Several years ago there were discussions between the School Board, Golden Gate
Fire District, Emergency Medical Services and the Sheriff's Office to build a station on land
owned by the School Board. This is a long term option that can be explored to affect Golden
Gate Estates (Zone 71) as well as the Everglades corridor of Big Corkscrew Fire District (Zone
10). This would be the ultimate and long term solution. Should this location became
available, the additional unit could be moved from Station 71 (Golden Gate Estates) to this
new location, closer to the high call volume area, and providing the ability to respond to
multiple locations (Golden Gate Estates and Big Corkscrew).
FISCAL IMPACT: Currently EMS Impact Fee Trust Fund (350) has borrowed $3,215,900 from the
General Fund in order to satisfy growth related public safety infrastructure debt service. All FY2014
appropriations within this impact fee trust fund are earmarked to satisfy debt service. Sufficient capacity
does exist within the General Fund to fund the $881,500 cost associated with the short-term option (time
frame April 2014) contained within this Executive Summary. This can be achieved through re-
appropriation of budget dollars where actual expenses are below budget and/or through redirecting certain
General Fund transfer dollars. This approach will have no impact upon budgeted General Fund reserves.
Recurring costs would be budgeted accordingly for the FY2015 and beyond. Exhibits 4 and 5 provide a
summation of the FY2014 pro-rated costs as well as the one time and recurring costs by appropriation unit
over time through FY2023 consistent with the AUIR.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney, and raises no
legal issues at this time. Majority vote is required for any Board action. -JAK
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation to consider the proposed report and provide direction to
staff.
PREPARED BY: Walter Kopka, Chief, Emergency Medical Services
Goodland Road (CR 92A) Improvements/Funding of Arterial Roads
GOODLAND ROAD (CR 92A) IMPROVEMENTS/ FUNDING OF ARTERIAL ROADS
ISSUE: Goodland Road (CR 92A) is in poor condition and is virtually impassible during peak storm
events. It is the only facility that serves the residents of Goodland and the maintenance and
operation of this facility is the responsibility of the City of Marco Island.
BACKGROUND: Over the past several years, staff has worked diligently with the residents of
Goodland to assist them with their desire to maintain safe access and egress via Goodland Road (CR
92A). Goodland Road is in poor condition and subject to storm surge flooding which makes its
unsafe to travel during peak storm events, especially during high tide.Additionally, Goodland Road
provides the only means of vehicular emergency services to the community of Goodland.
The majority of the operation and maintenance of Goodland Road is the responsibility of the City of
Marco Island.The assumption of that responsibility is documented through an interlocal agreement
dating back to 2002.
On July 30, 2002, Collier County (County) approved two interlocal agreements with the City of
Marco Island (City) under item 10D. Under those agreements, the County agreed to remit
$1,000,000 annually for a period of fifteen (15) years to the City for operations and maintenance of
specific roads and also allowed the City to retain the first $200,000 of road impact fees collected
annually.
Per the agreement recorded in OR BK 3095, PG 2883, Section III, Paragraph 2,the $200,000 annual
amount can only be used for capacity related improvements necessitated by development.
Consistent with this agreement and as required by the impact fee ordinance, impact fees cannot be
used for operations and maintenance and must only be used for capacity adding improvements.
(It would be my recommendation that we ask the City to provide an accounting of the past and
planned expenditures to ensure that these funds were used or are programmed for capital
expansion necessitated by growth.)
Per the agreement recorded in OR BK 3095, PG 2878,the County agreed to transfer portions of CR
92 and CR 92A as defined within the limits as shown on Exhibit A of the agreement. Relevant
findings relating to the history, disposition, condition, and correspondence relating to Goodland
Road are identified through the following review:
1. The original interlocal agreement dated January 19, 1999, transferred County roads to the
City except Goodland Road (CR 92A). There was significant concern from the residents of
Goodland that the City would not adequately maintain the road. Goodland resides within
County jurisdiction and does not pay City taxes.
2. The second agreement dated July 30, 2002, transferred operations and maintenance
responsibilities to the City under the following conditions:
a. Paragraph 1 identifies the limits and the scope of responsibility for the transfer of
roads.
b. Paragraph 2 stated that the transfer of ownership of Goodland Road would take
place two (2)years after the execution of the agreement.
c. Paragraph 3 transferred the operations and maintenance responsibilities over
immediately upon execution.
1
d. Paragraph 4 specifically states that "the City agrees it will not, in any way, impede
egress and ingress"to Goodland.
e. Paragraph 5 identifies that the County will make 15 annual payments of$1,000,000
for "the roadway segments set forth in paragraphs one and two above, and for all
roadways within the City as permitted under Florida Law."
f. The fiscal impact statement in the executive summary was very specific regarding
the intention of the County payments. Below is the pertinent excerpt:
The County will provide$1,000,000 dollars annually to the City of Marco Island for the
maintenance costs of County Road 92 (CR 92) also known as San Marco Road and
County Road 92A (CR 92A) also known as Goodland Road. Payments will be made on
March 31st and June 30th of each year for 15years for a total of$15,000,000 dollars.
The actual agreement was more forgiving with the restriction on expenditures.
Currently,there are three payments of$1,000,000 remaining.
3. When the item came before the BCC, it generated quite a bit of discussion over the
maintenance issue. Below is an excerpt from the meeting minutes when City Councilman
Mike Minozzi reassured the County of the City's intentions:
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:OKAY. Mr.Minozzi, thank you very much for bearing with us.
MR. MINOZZI: 1 thank you. For the record, Mike Minozzi, Councilman, Marco Island. First
of all I do want to thank you for bringing this entire issue up. I know that we were--at the
very beginning we were kind of unhappy about the way it was shaping up. But I think it
turned out to be a win-win situation for the County and for Marco Island.
And I wanted to express my support for the motion. And I just want to let our neighbors in
Goodland know that if we're going to make a commitment to maintain the roads. we
certainly are going to stand by our commitments. And certainly with Norm there to kind of
referee if anything needs to be done,certainly there will be no problem.
4. Following the transfer of Goodland Road, many attempts were made to encourage the City to
follow through on maintenance and a complete overhaul. In 2007, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator, contacted County Manager,Jim Mudd, and requested that that
annual payment should be noted with the statement requesting the City develop " a plan to
maintain until they can do the reconstruction that is really needed".
5. The City worked on that project and developed preliminary plans with Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc (KHA). The KHA plans indicated that the road would need to be raised. The
City has since abandoned that project and indicated that it would only resurface the road as
needed.
6. In the spring of 2014, I initiated an independent review of the road using our outside
consultant CH2MHILL. The report indicated that the road is in "poor" condition and require
immediate repairs. The report further states that the road should be elevated due to the
impact of the water intrusion in the base and pavement layers. The city responded to this
report by resurfacing two small areas. Road & Bridge staff conducted a follow up and took
additional pictures of the areas resurfaced. At this time, the road remains in poor condition.
The attached report and pictures document our findings.
2
7. Throughout this process,the Conservancy has opined that any reconstruction of this road will
be subject to their review due to the stipulated conditions of the Deltona settlement
agreement. I believe any construction that is contained within the limits of the existing right
of way may be exempt. The Conservancy is requesting that a hydrologic study is conducted
prior to any plans being generated for a reconstruction of the road. I do not object to the
study. However, I believe it can be conducted holistically with a phased program to develop a
complete set of plans to reconstruct this road. I suggest a concurrent approach, not a
sequential approach.
8. The City believes that the County has a proportionate share responsibility to the easterly
portion of Goodland Road within the County Limits. I would not object to our fair share. I
believe the County's obligations will be approximately 10%, give or take 5%, depending on
the limits and the scope of work. This could be easily resolved if the City is willing to develop
a joint scope of work with the County.
In conclusion, Goodland Road is in "poor" condition. The safe passage of emergency vehicles and
the day to day travel of Goodland residents are impacted by the condition of this facility. The road
requires a complete reconstruction as contemplated by the City's plans from KHA and as noted in
the C2MHILL report. KHA and CH2MHILL are both nationally and internationally recognized
engineering firms. The City is committed to operating and maintaining this facility by agreement.
The intent of that agreement and the testimony provided during its adoption indicate that the
primary purpose of the County's annual allotment is to take care of this road. There are only three
payments of$1,000,000 left and the reconstruction of this road may exceed$3,000,000.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: I would recommend that we exert our best efforts to come to a
cooperative agreement on earmarking these funds for a complete reconstruction of Goodland Road.
Should we be unable to secure the City's cooperation, I suggest we work with our Board and the
County Attorney's office to seek an alternative resolution that ensures that Goodland Road is
improved as soon as possible.
by Nick Casalanguida,Administrator Growth Management Division(11/21/2014)
3
Supporting Documents
Goodland Road (CR 92A) Improvements
1. Goodland Civic Assoc.Letter- 11/19/2014
2. CH2MHi11 Report- 06/2014
3. BCC Executive Summary(Item 10D) -07/30/2002
4. Interlocal Agreement(Road Transfer) - 10/01/2002 (effective date)
5. Interlocal Agreement- 10/01/1998(effective date)
6. Deltona Settlement Agreement-07/20/1982
7. BCC Minutes(Item 10D) -07/30-31/2002
8. BCC Executive Summary(Item 16B11) - 10/22/2002
9. Interlocal Agreement(Impact Fees) - 10/01/2002 (effective date)
10.Photos of CR 92A Road Conditions
11.Letter to Marco Island City Manager- 09/25/2014
12.Letter to County Manager Leo Ochs- 10/13/2014
13.JR Evans Engineering Proposal- 11/12/2014
GOODLAND CIVIC ASSOCIATION
P.O. Box 571, 417 Mango Ave
Goodland, FL 34140
Date: November 19, 2014
From: Dr. Gregory Bello, President, Goodland Civic Association
To: Commissioner Donna Fiala,
Commissioner Georgia A. Hiller. Esq..
Commissioner Tom Henning.
Commissioner Penny Taylor.
Commissioner Tim Nance
Cc: County Manager, Leo Ochs,
Growth Management Director, Nick Casalanguida.
Transportation Engineering Director, Jay Ahmad. P.E.
Subject: Goodland Road(CR92A)
Dear Commissioners,
I would like to take this opportunity to state the position of the Goodland Civic Association
regarding the condition of the subject roadway and the improvements that we feel are long
overdue. We as a Board have been in communication with the City of Marco Island for many
years concerning the condition of the roadway, and are thankful for Collier County's recognition
that the current situation is not acceptable.
As you are aware, Goodland Road is the only ingress and egress serving Goodland and as
such, we take the condition of the roadway very seriously. The current condition of the roadway
is such that it has standing water on numerous occasions throughout the year depending on tide
and wind conditions and was completely inundated during a tropical storm in August 2012. This
was not a high intensity storm. and a majority of the roadway was completely submerged. We,
as Goodland residents, are not voters within the City of Marco Island. but find ourselves at their
and their budget's mercy concerning the required improvements to this roadway.
We are in receipt of the June 2104 Engineering Study prepared by the engineering firm
CH2MHILL (Attachment#1). We understand that CH2MHILL is a nationally recognized and
respected engineering firm and concur with their findings (copy of report attached —Attachment
#1). We also have a copy of the preliminary plans that were prepared by Kimley, Home and
Associates under the direction of the City of Marco Island for the reconstruction of the roadway.
This plan called for the significant raising of current roadway elevations to help prevent
impassible conditions. We concur with the preliminary engineering plan's call to raise the
roadway. Additionally, we understand that with preliminary engineering plans, modifications to
the plans can be made to minimize the impacts to the mangroves within the CR92A right of way.
GOODLAND CIVIC ASSOCIATION
P.O. Box 571, 417 Mango Ave
Goodland, FL 34140
I would also take this opportunity to talk about the Conservancy of Southwest Florida's
(Conservancy) stated position on this roadway and the mangroves contained within CR92A right
of way. I can state unequivocally that the Goodland Civic Association is as concerned about the
existing mangroves within and outside of the right of way as the Conservancy. Our hope is that
they agree that the health, safety and welfare of our residents cannot become secondary to the
mangroves within the 100-foot right of way.
State Road 92A and subsequently Collier County CR92A was an established 100-foot right of
way as early as 1950; long before the days of the Mackie Brothers and the Deltona
Corporation's development of Marco Island (1965 92A ROW Map attached-Attachment#2).
We have reviewed the much discussed Deltona Settlement Agreement and can only come to
one conclusion; that this 100-foot right of way, known as CR92A, was specifically excluded from
the agreement along with other roadway systems, such as CR 92(copy of the settlement
agreement attached -Attachment#3). We also believe, and have discussed with County
engineering staff and other professional engineers, that a roadway design meeting the needs of
residents and visitors to Goodland can be accomplished with good engineering practices while
also protecting the surrounding environment.
Thank you again for your continued support of the residents of Goodland.
Sincerely,
4 /1-4464-2.4e-G�1
Dr. Gregory Bello
President, Goodland Civic Association
G • .y
0 o
1'1 , ,
,..14,7„0„ , mow .
I. ,. - 4.
. . ...
, ..... ,. ., ..v.,... .,.......,..b..
4
„it'll., ......
.....
. . .. ... ,.. ...._
_ .
... ...r.1 . ,
.............
. . ..... . .
....,
. ....
,,..
... .
4.. ,
y
Oar
.+ are
4/1 ,,, 171', ' ' '''V ",',
San Marco Roa,� ' '
4 -C
immiumi
ti �.
per' G
•aw
'
�; r ' r r�, N �� Angler Drive
.....,..
�-� —� � r.. 'V v^°w. :.fit ..
t r'
t a `, 1„Y 4 11 M
■ . ( 1 t
Pk •-∎-t' .
�,
. �,, - 'i, +,, .
4{}}
d
yp�
Asphalt Pavement Rating Form
•.1
RESTAURANTS Goodland Drive - Angler Drive to San Marco Road
wombs comnefts
Introduction
CH2M HILL provided pavement evaluation and
reporting services for Goodland Drive from San
Marco Road to Angler Drive(3223')in May 2014.
Goodland Drive is a two lane facility with a pathway Nom,
on the south side.The segment serves as the solitary
access point for the Goodland community.
A two-person crew trained in pavement distress identification procedures conducted a field condition survey
using Copier County's standardized evaluation procedure and ASTM D6433.Measurements,photos and Reid
data were collected on different types of distresses in the pavement.
Conclusion
The team rated the road 60 out of a possible 100 points.A rating of 60 represents a segment in POOR
Condition that requires very thick overlays. surface replacement,base reconstruction and possible sub
grade stabilization.The relative remaining service life is 5 to 10 years.This score is based on the excessive
occurrence of transverse cracks, longitudinal cracks, alligator cracks,presence of multiple patches,
depressions along the wheel path,edge of pavement damage, shoving,potholes and surface ravel.
Short Term Action Required:
The existing Goodland Drive(Angler Drive to San Marco Road)is in need of a variety of repairs. The
roadway requires immediate Milling and Resurfacing due to the poor condition of the riding surface.In
addition,the roadway is experiencing base failure in many locations which will require extensive repairs.
The pavement has reached a point where repairs are much more expensive due to the pavement section
deterioration(see Chart 1 below).
o
•
T,.
_. ,
>
in above would have a mrrumttrn value of 70 to I ''"
keep as many streets as possible requiring a thin
overlay or less.The upper wit would tend to € N
dose to upper range of the very good carte`
wilt+a p nt condition score of 85. "~•M
SS
4 =� i Asphalt Pavement Rating Form
mss.-.... Goodland Drive - Angler Drive to San Marco Road
The Shoulders along the roadway also require maintenance in many sections.In some areas.the gravel that was placed
along the edge of pavement is actually causing more problems by trapping water(see photo below).•7 , _
- - :T'17...-7::-'- ....iftiO"' •it:. ,---.. .. .-- 1,..„.
.0.• -, ,...,,,,::,:_,...:::,
..,,„_,• ;: .• ,.......r . .--... .„;. ....4.4 :,.,..-;-. .....-; .... •
,:,,;,,,---."..,..t.4,.-v$ .,,,„4•_,."4::'--;' ' '-.- " ' - ,-.-, w.,-*".
1 „le 4 Ally,r • i•,'` .,y 41
1 „a - J �+ .�'” 11 _ i . "r',..c, -•••';1x°'411 �,•-...0.e •'"4 -. • • ' .4i -X7^''4 a M
it .../ "
` .„r4„71: ,
err IV.",.+7'4-x► • '1r�
The roadway also requires Signing and Pavement Nmldngs replacement in many areas.
1
Additional Recommendations
• Roadway Safety Audit:
This segment of Goodland Drive(Angler Drive to San Marco Road)should be considered for a Roadway Safety Audit.
The horizontal geometry(multiple curves)of the roadway, non-standard superelevation. lack of paved shoulders. low
roadway elevation,ponding of water.clear zone issues due to extensive vegetation on both sides of the roadway
(which along with the horizontal curves limit sight distance). and lack of adequate pavement markings raise safety
concerns which should be addressed.
• Long Term Solutions:
Consideration should be given to raising the elevation of the roadway'to eliminate water crossing the roadway. reduce
water ponding at low points and minimize water intrusion into the pavement base layers.Superelevation of roadway
curves should be provided where applicable. Shoulders(8 foot with 5 foot paved)should be constructed'. Vegetation
should be removed*to allow sufficient clear distance/sight distance. (Note "Above solutions will have environmental
impacts which will need to be considered/managed/mitigated.)This will result in lower maintenance costs and a safer
roadway for the traveling public.
: Asphalt Pavement Rating Form
1 DI A"' +.+I
R.aT-,RANTS Goodland Drive - Angler Drive to San Marco Road
+was•: 'rte
14014•VW7X rK'
Transverse Cracks No Possible Causes Treatments
1 Reflection of shrinkage cracks Cut and patch
2 Shrinkage crack in bituminous Reconstruction of
surfacing base
Definition-Cracks formed perpendicular
to the center line of the road. Cracks are
prevalent throughout the segment
Cr) Longitudinal Cracks No Possible Causes Treatments
•= 1 Excessive traffic loading at Widen the
U t pavement edge pavement or
strength pavement
edge
W ` 'may 2 Poor drainage at pavement Improve drainage
edge and shoulder and shoulder
U_ ! _
4� 3 Inadequate pavement width Widen the
which forces traffic to dose to pavement
Q41 pavement edge
4 Insufficient bearing support Reconstruction
Definition-Cracks formed parallel to the
o center line of the road. Cracks common
along the wheel path.
711 1111111111111118111=
z
„itcdMt,o'' _..
.: ., i Asphalt Pavement Rating Form
RIES1AURANTS Goodland Drive - Angler Drive to San Marco Road
t
r WSJ•Ttli'JX MC'
1 ?
Alligator Cracks No Possible Causes Treatments
1 Excessive traffic loading at widen the
. edge pavement or
strength Paves
- — edge
2 Poor drainage at pavement Improve drainage
w: + , edge and shoulder and shoulder
4
-q;': _ ., 3 Inadequate pavement width Widen the
")` . 4� ,� which forces traffic to close to pavement
' . w t-. . pavement edge i.kr,' �'” a ,,. 4 Insufficient bearing support Reconstruction
4 ,,
Definition-Pattern of pieces formed by
cracks.As seen the picture above,the
segment has several locations where the
CO asphalt is cracked into several pieces.
O Patching
V
" .• t) 1►
W
f..• Definition-Patching is an area of pavement that been removed and replaced with patch
0 material.The high frequency of the patching throughout the segment is a useful indication
Zof the structural adequacy of the pavement.
1) 0 -"4411174/1111111111111/1
—x
Asphalt Pavement Rating Form
REST- NT$- Goodland Drive - Angler Drive to San Marco Road
Depressions No. Possible Causes Treatments
1 Differential settlement of sub Sub grade or base
grade or base materials reconstruction
2 Volume change of sub Improve sub-sod
grade due to environmental drainage and
influences reconstruct
. . 3 Settlement due to instability of Embankment
r --, embankment stabilization
'r. .
I' .
Definition-Localized areas with lower
pavement elevations. Depressions are
/� prevalent along the wheel path.
VJ
Edge of Pavement Damage No Possible Causes Treatments
•IMMO f 1 Inadequate pavement width Widen the
1 _ ___ .,— pavement--. - --it___' I
W .»_. 2 Alignment which encourages Pavement widening
•I �.rr.`"° 411 drivers to travel on pavement and realignment
U edge
16,471.,7 3 Inadequate edge support Shoulder
prevalent aloCD
litiow
• . 4 Edge drop-off Strengthen and. A
..Q level shoulder with
/ � ° road
W
4•■•I Definition-Difference in elevation between 5 Loss of adhesion to base Cut and patch
otraffic lane and outside shoulder- Edge drop bituminous overlay
off throughout the segment leads to loss of
Zquality nde and the channeling of water at
the edge of pavement leading to erosion of
shoulder.
munimmincosigiiimmil.
i -
Asphalt Pavement Rating Form
REs,.,,,a.NTS Goodland Drive - Angler Drive to San Marco Road
. UuriaS•�YYRtEN
SACK•�u3X V.
Shoving or Pushing No Possible Causes Treatments
1 Lack of bond between Cut and patch
wearing course and the
underlying layers
2 Low modulus base course Reconstruction of
base
3 The wearing course Bituminous oratkry
4 High Stresses due to braking Bituminous inous overlay
_.� and acceleration movements with stiffer mix
• t
Definition-Cracks formed parallel to the
center line of the road.Apparent in locations
r where there has been heavy braking.
V
Pot Holes No Possible Causes Treatments
•+ 1 Loss of surface course Patching
4 *
2 Moisture entry to base course Cut and patch
•MOM H ' • through cracked pavement
Vsurface•i47^., *� '� 3 Load associated disintegration Base
(1) . �., of base reconstruction
A
O Definition-Cracks formed parallel to the
center line of the road.Potholes are located
Z in isolated locations on the segment
reflecting failures in the pavement and
subsurface structure.
' .0.10410,. --,,
• -a w,� ; Asphalt Pavement Rating Form
I Goodland Drive - Angler Drive to San Marco Road
Asphalt Bleeding No Possible Causes Treatments
1 Excessive application of Apply hat sand to
binder with respect to stone blot up the excess
. size. binder
2 Paving over flushed surfaces. Apply trot sand or
I aggregate seal coat
3 Paving over excessively Apply hot sand
`+ primed stufaces.
•
-
Definition-Coloring of pavement surface
visible-especially near wheel path
Cr)
Q) Surface Ravel No Possible Causes Treatments i
1 Insufficient bitumen content Thin bituminous 1
U r " overlay y
2 Poor adhesion of bitumen Thin bituminous
binder to aggregate particles overlay
U due to wet aggregate
n 1 "' yy� 3 Inadequate compaction Thin bituminous
u or construction during wet overlay
,r^ T- ' .' " nit Q • A . weather
a) , ,...
x
O Definition-Cracks formed parallel to the
center line of the road.The surface binder
Z has worn in locations and loose particles
exist.
( ':---gi-:-.. s. As halt Pavement Rating Form.41
, Goodland Drive - Angler Drive to San Marco Road
.• _� . ..
tt, _Fit
' Striping and Pavement Marking
•re
Striping is in poor condition in many locations.In
addition,as seen on the picture on the left,there
are sections where the striping is completely
missing.
.,'r Raised pavement markers are missing in several
location.Without overhead igtthng on the
segment. pavement markers serve as the safety
Oomponent of the road that provides night time
guidance for motorist.
4g' , Signs
.+i.kixi
There are two speed limit signs in succession that
conflict each other regulation.The speed should
be set based on the design speed of the road.
(1) .
\ /
L
C ' ® 215
0 1 M D N
U
', Roadway Geometry
, �r
`��'i��� �^ Based on a cursory review of the roads
a ,,. . geometric it is apparent that the road does meet
(I) • . geometric design standards for superelevation.
Recommendation is to conduct a Roadway
Safety Audit(RSA)for the segment to identify
CO _ potential safety concerns.
(I)
•
Asphalt Pavement Rating Form
RETiTAURAJiT$, , Goodland Drive - Angler Drive to San Marco Road
11144I•31•:AO,
D•%• X
Asphalt Pavement Rating Form 60
Street GCODLAND DR
Segment SAN MARCO RD to ANGLER DR
Length(ft) 3223
Pavement Type
Defects
(Note A rate^.e Ct 0 indicates detect does not occu'i
1.Transverse Cracks 0-10 4
2.Longitudinal Cracks 0-10 6 Ai -g the Wnee'Pate
3 Alligator Cracks 0-10 5
4 Utility/Mechanical Cut(Patthin{l 0-10
5.DepreYgns/Sump/VWttto 0-10 z r'.1r,r cr...
//�J��♦ 6.Corrugatrons(R,Pple) 0-10 - - ---
WT Raveling,Edge of pavement damage 0-10
•ram
Ug.Shoving or Pushing 0-10
C9 Pot Moles 0-10
10 Asphalt Bleeding 0-5
•as
11.Polished Aggregate/Surface Ravel 0-5
4• -- Sum of Defects= 40
QOverall Condition Rating 60
Condition of Striping 0-5 4 M+ssing'n several locations
n� Condition of Curb 0-5 0 No Curb
1i/
♦� Number of Detection loops 0
O Number of Manhole Covers 0
Number of Water Valve Covers C
Z
Inspected Adam Eng. tee Approval & Tr
+�'r Printed On 6/2/2014
ti
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY,
APPROVAL OF TWO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND: FIRST, PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION
OF COUNTY IMPACT FEES BY THE CiTY GOVERNMENT, PROVIDING FOR THE
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN THE TWO ENTITIES OF ROAD IMPACT
FEES COLLECTED BY THE CITY, AND PROVIDING FOR REIMBURSEMENTS
FROM THE COUNTY TO THE CITY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE COLLECTION OF COUNTY IMPACT FEES OTHER THAN THOSE FOR
ROADS; AND SECOND, PROVIDING FOR RELINQUISHING JURISDICTION FOR
COUNTY ROADS 92 AND 92A TO THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND;
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
OBJECTIVE: To obtain approval from the Board of County Commissioners for two interlocal
agreements between Collier County and City of Marco island (City): 1). Providing for the
collection of County impact fees by the City government. providing for the percentage
distribution between the two entities of Road Impact Fees collected by the C:ty. and providing
for reimbursements from the County to the City for administrative costs associated with the
collection of County impact fees other than those for Roads, 21 Providing for the County to
relinquish jurisdiction over County Road 92 and 92A and obtain Board authorization for the
Chairman to sign the interlocal agreements on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners.
CONSIDERATIONS: The City of Marco Island was incorporated in 1997 by majority vote of
the eligible residents residing within the proposed City limits During Marco Island's transition
to the status of a municipality,representatives of the County and the new City mgt and discussed
numerous fiscal matters affecting both entities. Whereas, the City would take on the
responsibility of permitting new residential and commercial construction within the city limits. it
was necessary for the two entities to reach agreements on various issues related to the assessment
and collection of impact fees. Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of' Law and Ordinances
provides for the assessment of impact fees to provide a revenue source to partially fund capital
improvements to the County's various capital facility systems. These impact fees are assessed
for new construction in both the unincorporated and incorporated areas of the County.
In order to ensure that County impact fees would continue to be assessed and accounted for in an
expeditious and efficient manner,the two entities entered into an interlocal agreement on January
19, 1999. Among the provisions of the agreement, the City committed to the collection of all
applicable County impact fees as a condition for the issuance of a building permit. The
agreement stipulated that the City will retain 60%of the Road Impact Fees collected in each City
fiscal year and that the fees retained shall be used for capacity improvements and additions to the
transportation network necessitated by road impact fee construction.
AGEtblp TEM
JUL hit_I
3 C 2022
Approval of an Interlocal Agreement with City of Marco Island Page 2
! ` The County is required by law to ensure that impact fee expenditures are distributed
commensurate to impacts on public facilities created by new construction throughout the entire
impact fee benefit area. Road impact Fee District 4,of which the City of Marco Island is a part.
covers a large area generally extending south from Rattlesnake Hammock Road and east to the
southwestern part of Golden Gate Estates and along the west side of San Marco Road (CR 92)
beginning at its intersection with East Tamiami Trail(U.S. 41). In order to initiate a fresh review
of growth-related transportation capital project funding needs of the two parties, on June 25,
2002, the Board directed the County Attorney to draft a Notice of Termination pursuant to
Section VIII of the Agreement.
After negotiations, the County and the City of Marco Island agreed to the terms of the new
agreements as follows:
I J. The County will remit One Million Dollars [S1,000.000 00] per year to the City of Marco
Island from any available County funds annually for a period of Fifteen (15) years; Marco Island
will annually retain the first Two Hundred Thousand Dollars collected from Road Impact Fees
and Two Per cent (2%) of all other Impact Fees and remit the remainder to the County; and
21 The County will relinquish jurisdiction to the City for CR 92 and CR 92A within the
boundanes of the City, guaranteeing not to block access to and from the Goodland area.
FISCAL IMPACT: Termination of the previous interlocal agreement and adoption of the new
• agreements will ensure that there is a rational nexus between the public facilities system impacts
created by new construction and the geographic allocation of impact fee revenues for capital
— improvement project expenditures throughout the applicable benefit areas Since FY 99. the City
of Marco Island has retained more than SI 6 million in Collier County Road Impact Fees
collected as a condition for the issuance of building permits In the same penod of time. the
County has contributed nearly 5620.000 to the City for transportation capital projects. County
impact fee receipts over and above the 51.6 million retained by the City have been used to fund
these contributions. The County has also provided the City almost 571.000 in additional
contributions funded by gas taxes.
i t
The County will provide 51.000.000 dollars annually to the City of Marco Island for the
maintenance costs of County Road 92(CR 92)also known as San Marco Road and County Road
92A (CR 92A) also known as Goodland Road Payments wi:l be made on March 31" and June
30"h of each year for 15 years for a total of 515.000.000 dollars. Funds will come from
Transportation Services Funds (Gas Tax. Ad Valorem Tax and Impact Fees). The FY 03
Transportation Budget will need to be revised to include the 51.000.000 payment to the City of
Marco Island. This payment will offset any responsibility the County may have, now or in the
future, for capital improvements for any roadway segments within the corporate limits of the
City. The approval of this amendment will result in a savings to the County for maintenance
expenses for approximately five miles of roadway at a savings of approximately S10,000
annually.
As a result of these agreements.the future expenditures will be fixed except for the Two Percent
(2%j and the sums above the initial Two Hundred Thousand Dollars [S200,000.00J, for Roads
AGF,.NOa :.IFM
.)tit. ? •• 2C32
I t:
--
Approval of an Interlocal Agreement with Cnv of Marco Island Page 3
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Adoption of a revised interlocal agreement will
contribute toward ensuring that sufficient funds are available for capital improvement projects
identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the interlocal
agreements between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County (County) and the
{ City Council of the City of Marco Island (City), which provides for the collection of County
impact fees by the City government.provide for the distribution between the two entities of Road
Impact Fees collected by the City. and provide for reimbursements from the County to the City
for administrative costs associated with the collection of County impact fees other than those for
Roads and relinquish jurisdiction for CR92 and CR92A and that the Board authorize the
Chairman to sign the interlocal agreements on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners.
Also require the recordation of the two agreements.
PREPARED BY '-.L..,_ -� �..,..,A„ Date:111.-.).1�;.
Sharon Newrnah,Accounting Supervisor
REVIEWED BY: Nils 1 Date' �' Z. 2302_
Acgbiline Hubbard Robinson.
ssistant County Attorn y
REVIEWED BY: . ' f --x Date: 9/J>/: =-
oseph K Schmitt,Administrator
Corn -nay Development& Environmental Services Division
APPROVED BY: V:.�..r. — Date: 7/
N• . an E Feder. /MCP. Administrator
ansportation Services Division
AGEN1-%o 'E':
No.I rj 1) •
JUL 3 0 2D32
Pg. 5
iota: 3034411 OR; 3095 PG: 2878 me Fll 24.10
CLIU TO TU bOAeo UICOUID Io the OFFICIAL mom of COLLIIe COM, FL cartes 5.00
IltIIOFIICI Ill 11001 01/22/202 it 01:01FR MOT 1 BROCK, 1112
lit 1210
1NTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND AND COLLIER COUNTY
TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION OF PUBLIC ROADS
AND ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY WITHIN
THE CITY LIMITS OF MARCO ISLAND
This Interlocal Agreement between Collier County and the City of Marco Island made
this 4' day of , 2002, by and between Collier County, a
political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "County," and the City of
Marco Island, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as"City."
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, on Janu - e the City entered into an Interlocal
Agreement to transfer own hip of public roads and roa gh`is-of-way from the County to the
City; and
fit/
f
WHEREAS, the a - 01, I al A� .$xempted from said transfer of
jurisdiction certain sped adway segments. n ifi erein in Exhibit "A" to this
Agreement; and \
WHEREAS, the County and alit said exemption is no longer necessary or
desirable.
WITNESSETH:
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the above-stated clauses and
other good and valuable consideration received and acknowledged by the parties to be sufficient,
the County and City agree as follows:
1. The County does henceforth and in perpetuity, transfer the ownership and relinquish
responsibility to the City for the maintenance and operation of the entirety of County
Page t
OR: 3095 PG: 2879
Road 92 (CR 92) as it currently exists within the boundaries of the City as further
described herein and all appurtenances thereto, including, but not limited to its road
right-of-way, its traffic signs and pavement markings and its storm water drainage
culverts crossing under or along CR 92 from its westerly terminus at the intersection
of Collier Boulevard (SR 951) in a generally easterly direction to the western end of
the approach to the Goodland Bridge (Collier County Bridge Number 030184, a
distance of approximately 24,725 feet(approximately 4.7 miles).
2. The County shall relinquish and transfer to the City, two [21 years after the execution
of this agreement, all of its ownership to the entirety of County Road 92A (CR 92A),
( ( rte
also known as Goodlat Rpas tt=tfrla9, within the boundaries of the City
✓ may, T ..
limits.
i
3. Immediately upon ptof,# at, the County shall relinquish all of
its operation o pan �1' y r ie ma)nt nano of the entirety of County Road
92A (CR 92A al o known as Goo�id Roa 1,a$ it currently exists within the
boundaries of the C1tr':l`rtts, and all appu ces thereto, including,but not limited
to its road right-of-way,i'ta- c psi n and pavement markings and its storm water
drainage culverts crossing under or along CR 92A from its northerly terminus at the
intersection of San Marco Road(CR 92) in a generally southerly direction to the City
of Marco Island corporate line, a distance of approximately 2950 feet(approximately
0.55 miles).
4. The City agrees it will not, in any way, impede egress and ingress to the residential
and commercial currently unincorporated area known as "Goodland", an area located
at the southerly end of CR 92A,currently outside the corporate boundaries of the City
Page 2
OR: 3095 PG: 2880
and within Collier County, except for temporary closure for maintenance and
construction.
5. The County agrees to budget and appropriate on an annual basis and pay to the City
the sum of One Million Dollars [$1,000,000.00] per year for a period of fifteen [15]
years, in return for the City assuming, from October 1, 2002 and in the future, all
maintenance and operational responsibilities for the roadway segments set forth in
paragraphs one and two above, and for all roadways within the City as permitted
under Florida Law.
6. The City, subject to the limitations of Florida Statutes, Section 768.28, shall
indemnify and hold h l the Count It '9fficers and employees from liabilities,
damages, losses,/ nd.4Qsts;-to-the extent caused,by`\the negligence, recklessness, or
intentional wrongful wrongft+tviskTpdyKt-orthezeitraorsOns employed or utilized by the
i r - 4 r
City in the perlptm ce...9f Itt .A gitiNnt.
7. The County, sttct,to the limitattons° lf Florida ;Statutes, Section 768.28, shall
Indemnify and hold**less the City, its tfice s and employees, from liabilities,
damages, losses, and costs;- b =the negligence, recklessness, or intentional
wrongful misconduct of the County and persons employed or utilized by the County
in the performance of this Agreement.
8. The payments shall be made semi-annually, beginning with the first payment in the
amount of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) on or before March 31, 2003
and each March thereafter; and the second payment in the amount of Five Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($500,000) beginning on or before June 30, 2003, and each June
Page3
OR: 3095 PG: 2881
thereafter, until paid in full. The date and method of payments may be changed with
the mutual prior written consent of the parties.
9. The source of funding for the County for the payments due pursuant to this
Agreement shall be at the sole discretion of the County.
10. The effective date of this Agreement shall be October 1, 2002.
11. This Interlocal Agreement shall be recorded in the Public Records of Collier County.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed
by their respective authorized signatories.
.„D;,,I...T ..,tz.:, ;.,74d a a...--' ,,,,,,-,c\:1',.... ._\_;_fl's:..---.......-(...,?..*T .,, 7 - So-(3-2-
i' ATTT: \
rUittfit EAlf044,Clerk / 3; ,.., +�.„ ---` ;aura L Mari;City Clerk
. ' . . 1 :,‘I.Z : , ti 17* 49e,j. ■.‘7,, ' 5 ) ,\
' ''BY: , 1 16)t `;(1097 '.
' ,Deputy letk F? i= #� uty erk
BOARD OF COUNTY C•,y SSIONERS kITY OF IRCO ISLAND
COLLIER CO �� l ,FL+ 'qtr , t '' .
BY: '=.:.%s .. i " -,` ,. 3Y. ur"4"l
Jam•.Cpletta,Chairman ' W° E.Glenn Tucker,Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL APPROVED AS TO FORM & LEGALITY:
SUFFICIENCY:
S0,, 1,...k. 46 l.. 0/—
cq.' line Hu'bard Robinson Kenneth B. Cuyler
sistant County Attorney City Attorney
Page 4
, •:r *** -13k• 3095 PC N 2882 ***
,
I [0 c rim m
id . 1 0 n I,
po .... ,.., ,„
Iii 1 I a mil
. •#,,....."
.•irr: . s.
.-- -, )`• .i
' 1
Ir
i )■ 0 • ,• - , _, . -
o01 • ... -.\\'CA ''
r r
a i 3 • Z .ft 0'. 'r i,j7 in1111):. •••,;. .......„:\
.'`,‘-'is'7 `■ ;.- t c
I al 14111 Ci ' .1. . ._-S1c7-1,-^,Y•Ini -------- ;'.',..1,46, I
I
11. I ft
... ...
,..'.k.::`N,'''':\■\...,..)
\ '‘
,(' — It.....'-_,_,' '4.'7 .• ,b., , \ % \ k
I''.....
„."
..., _...._.........1_ji... ..2,L._,... -.1:...2g1: ". ...;.,_-"?' .<.s..■.-iis. ■ I \
it r ..-
Ag: '.....,'■,?.._.„-%-....,...''...,y, *--}•-z... •• ', i \
...---- „..„..---- ...6.;',.....„../I•` •••i....);.'"''•virCti7:‘,Ji r.'_i•-, ‘
„,.,...„--- ,n . . ; *"......„, • i 1---)k,..,—,--... .-• I
I •••—•*---------- 00-,2_,.., ,--.)-*IIS \VP3P-\\.01. -7.-::.-.)' ' ---- .--'' '',k_dr.- -,,,.,-,..-, . ....
II ! • ; „.- ogo_______ -7----7 7.1.6. : -<*.f:;-,-„,,,)\T.,,,,,A, ----------__:.> --if-,11,-.=__,_,L, ,_ ,i .,
41.0 :1-i
, k•-r--rir,r(""4:::,*\-"'".-..(---•-••:;'-'7 V\, -----',".;;;: ‘ ;-'' -
i•1 : ii i 4 , - 4,1.mr..... r,.....r JI-P-- • ; :n To..,••,:'..77.-•-". 6 47.„, , „ i ,
t ■ ' f L4„-.--N ivirns\ ".1.-- ,...11-s\c\clAi't....p......2.&-..,,,,,g,:•;::-.j.„,\!k:.. ,,,...,,,..:•-:----, .,,,,,•.--.- .... ....2;.. ,
i ' ,i • -__Ak...-- •W' ' __--) . .. __ II ,,..,_ 4,7---,:..?-;-•,:i--;•5_-4,-;,.. ...___\_.',_ ..,....„--, •c•:.•;,...,_ ,'
1,—. u ..•••.-.,, -.-•- ---7--, - _-•v,...--,=-_ o, e
i ii ""•■•.---;;;) VC:-.. ?_.....':" c u..\' ‘ i....t.:;,71 mi., 3.: ,_.:;... -sti.i.,-4.&, .. ,_•_ -,,:. ),,:-----::-!.t A.
15
, ,...:•-a:•■1\7- , •
,..il., ....J;J: ,.;:•
'‘,. ,';.,:.'''...- dr
-..., ..thz_ill....-- t; y....- --.-„-q,„4..„,:.0 ,. --:„. . --- --.,, .,:\.;,:-,,... .,
i / --, • .-. „„,„.-- u u 6
-- L- "............**--r-ir •••11 = ..rt )t... -., ...„2..-!...,,- .. .- ,
`• \-. i '' rt,'-(;"•41:\ ':`-',.:: ' - -': •'-• . : -:-•• La'ii,,'.--• '---",4\-'--,.. -.
I ,
, , -.••
..,_ •,,. • •:••- ,
i ' .•. ±.yli\1,,0 _, . 4. -111—•, . _';--,.
) '.!1 ,;•,--- -•2_■.: , , ;; . 4: . iv ,,, _____ —
/ ,..,........„ , ,,.. -, ,
, . . *... .--2
I kt/
I '''' •:::,•••1
:.
I :,.,,-.14, i I ' 'I :-.. . . ,n, _:-_J - I , , . ...."; .q„\-:' „ . -- _ --,•
' •::--- i ' i 111 11111'11 y .1■11 -.11 ::`;',. ' . (11.'' ,..' 't'..„-'(el, ,,,,
I ^ ( I* •-•.: -
ii -':7:94i ... ' '. ... .,•:-.44 •': 7 7:;,'-:114,- ;:e'':-:'",,''''..;;I'l.' 4' '.'''''. t\ ',,
,
i ,_4-74..jaw i•,....-_,..,../, ), ,...... „ ..L., tv.----).:(.,.•:. •„. 1 f 1 ...If 4
titai—
I '! '7-1 iii. • ,■ tr..•„.....A, , .'• ,---..,_ . . ,:i 1 ; . .
I !I -‘011. '111/1W-,•,-1.C".:,,. -4‘!7. t.,,,, r'•"*'; fl ? -... .L-,
..... ' -,
----'"10111°' ••••••••••••■•••••••••*. 1. „,,„;‘,.6t?'' ' A ', '.,„,„ '..•••;';' Z.--- I r,...,.. /
II . ...., / •..•..... '. .% • ar%401,:),..`•*...;!:.\\V4...'7," i 1 ,..''I,
‘ _____.-',/ V",..-A \ . .2'1 c'' ';/-//----0 ;1.: ? / '"•, ri ----■ --
1 .
---'r
- . • i \'i,-"7-‘7,'''‘.• v-,-s._-';77,4,-,,,--- • ..,\ f ,,./ A.-,/4 i -_-,• r I __ ,,-
' •-.......0'
.) \4-- \,\ --e•,,..`s,',.;'
. 7 • t I ,,,4, *,,, ),
—_
1...--'s• ---. C: ■"''
, ....... •\ i..).;:-...' I ■• .n r>rr. , ),-,•ID r__, -,
1 t • r-2.• • ...-- I. ■_-:._ )
--, i i-CT - , :.-.---\: i . 4,--,' ,--'" — --7.---_,---`1,
.", •\ "--•
,- .: if.,.L_, 1(i.,1 sk-4,.., ..,....- . __ ,
„...,,_ , ,. . ! .
1 ,... /. .0, .._ _-- L._ -:-...
- , .0. 4 , i
(
=:-'',-. -/ ,-- l ', ..-'-- .' 1 ..l •• -- ---- \‘,\ r::-.-:„-- , ....
•..._
- . , -...• ) • , ... , 1
: • ' ' '...."--01.0' ...."' •'‘,' .4........
(" ' 1 i 70# ./...-" ' 7? ".)1 I---'-, ''''.-
„- r , ,. s.--
I ...:-. 'i
---- (
,..”: \ ;.'/
. C-- „.../ ?
'-'■ i.. i
- r----- \i • I - ! 5
_„
••••• . , C---'''In- I I 1 ,_ , \ V i ___-,.-•-•--------"--------""\ -...:;; ..,
• Ni.....--. , . ) 1
/
----)
-. _,..„) •••••-•..7
.1 (.. ■':::-z...,.
112,A...,'\ /I r'AI''•-• r,
-r.
/ i i -L ..-... • r''' .••••-
' \"., ' \
A .1 ..' -..., i.---i • 11
" 'r
I.... r‘).‘...,..,,..21
3
,....,... /, 0
i k•.....s• \F C..., ..■.,'ID ‘)
7...........! ? ....)
r _ , •\ ittlY
Ail '..,' •; -,.,.....:.....•••:,,......„ • g 4-
,i) i ...,.,„.• . --,
itl 3 , S.i I j,-----,,- ,,• - Ar--
)'1\.,, • 4,...--1J ." .1
gil ,Jp"-- , ,,.....
.., --.-:- t___-- .--7-...7 -,‘____--ni
_.
hi c--- 1
I - (-) ,-- i ,t)
.... -...... . rd. .4 1
t ,,,----- -------- it
s r-- (......,..
— ri .(' 1 .-.^, ?.'Alei,EH' ■ '
r' r ,..., r— ‘. ''• -iii%1, -"'
". (
I
t 1 I ' ),Li;; '.-
it "---; Ilri
li
- .--' ,• .,.....
( IL.. t .r.
..•:•• .■
Ili'741111000`
-......... ,
“Net,IIIIIHX3
MIL
Beth: 2437031 OR: 2514 PG: 2918
CUU TO TH1 BOARD RICORDID to the OIIICIAL RICORDS of COLLIIR COUNTY. ?L RIC !II
I11fl101/IC1 ON PLOOR 02/19/99 it 03:1SP11 DWIGHT I. BROCK, CLIRK ^^?IIS :•"n
UT 1210
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT OF CITY OF MARCO ISLAND
AND COLLIER COUNTY TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION
OF PUBLIC ROADS AND ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY WITHIN
THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND
THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT made this 19th day of January , 1999, by
and between the City of Marco Island, a municipal corporation located within Collier County,
Florida,hereinafter referred to as"CITY," and Collier County, a political subdivision ot•the State
of Florida,hereinafter referred to as"COUNTY "
WITNESSETH :
WHEREAS, the area within Collier County identified as Marco Island became
incorporated as a municipal corporation known as the City of Marco Island on August 28, 1997;
and
WHEREAS,the CITY and the COVklifrh4y1r,Lwiirked CO cooperatively and agreed to do all
things necessary to transfer to the t 'I 'the jurisdiction of ptibLie•toads and the responsibility for
operation and maintenance within the right f-way of ptublhc road's within the CITY including the
maintenance and operation oUall bad4es,-dr inase,ensl npht Wee' lights, traffic control devices
including traffic signs, signals 'and pavement markings or v5 ifiin Cu h roads and rights-of-way;
and 5..
WHEREAS, this Agreement is.,ente exI,imo-in-eopaptittnee with Section 335 0415, Florida
jr i t
Statutes.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable
consideration received and acknowledged by the parties to be sufficient, the CITY and COUNTY
agree as follows:
1. Except for the entirety of County Road 92 (CR92), its (CR92) paved riding
and shoulder surface,its(CR92)road right-of-way, its(CR92)traffic signs and
pavement markings, its (CR92) storm water drainage culverts crossing under
CR92, Goodland Road (CR92A), and the Goodland Bridge, the jurisdiction of
all public roads and the responsibility for operation and maintenance within the
right-of-way for all public roads located within the boundaries of the CITY are
transferred from COUNTY to the CITY
1
*** OR: 2514 PG: 2919 ***
2 The jurisdiction and responsibility for maintenance and operation of all other
bridges, drainage easements, street lights, traffic control devices, including
traffic signs, signals and pavement markings on or within such roads and
associated road rights-of-way, including traffic "stop and go" signals on
County Road 92 and traffic control devices necessary to control intersecting
CITY streets or roads at their intersection with CR92, except the intersection
of Goodland Road(CR92A), is concurrently transferred from COUNTY to the
CITY.
3. The effective date of this Interlocal Agreement is October I, 1998.
4. This Interlocal Agreement shall be recorded in the Public Records of Collier
County.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the partie57kveritcyhay.e caused these presents to be executed
by their respective authorized signatorae %
DATE: //iii DATE Z— ! h' 9 °I. — ----
t ( f s I ,..r .) .ti ?
1 1 r..-
ATTEST: V"---,:.':'...7.: '` ' ='A TEST `,
DWIGHT E.BROCK,Clerk LAfRA LITlAN;Deputy Clerk
't. v ;,` r "'I
BY)S�/, F (
A st as to .. tr,�p, S
1 f_ ;
i �ttatt7r2 .v i
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CITY OF MARCO ISLAND
COLLIE COUNTY,FLORIDA CITY COUNCIL.
X1,71 �.k
BY: _ BY: 7 .. '..r t e.;, A' .I
P A S.MAC'K1E,Chai .oman DAVID 1 RANDT,Chairman
Approved as to form and legal Approved as to form and legal
sufficiency: sufficiency:
__
David C.Weigel,County rney Kenneth B. Cuyler,City rney
b:dda/agreanen&199WManv Yublw ROVAit 1ulerW.al Agrnnxm
2
4
UNIT, N
1
1
IIIII.
i
•,...1 .'A
—.
...
e
a00 ........—
'It ,
r4t4:-.,'Iir ., -* '-..di .., ,.... - • ',
)."... •
\vi
. ... .
. ),• ,
41, .4001111P
LINII 77
t .41111r ,
11441t:iyorif
, •
_
...4 .. .
". ,
S. . ......41•It li' : .
... '1111
.-
1.:.
••••
., •
:. .
4 ,
.,., 1111:. "...,........ . ,
. A (
\ 1 '
°API*:I,BAY MLA TIi ALIN.Y ..
Z.."
''''{•.°'`.:, '
.. .... JOHN S1EVEN S UWE'.
a )
In'
A
. .,A,t' II' . •
SARriELD BAY SINIII E FAMILY 'B V\''',. 0■."'"
-.
GPOCIL AND MAF$4A
'' .110i4 .
..
if 10
. -. .
•. %1.- ''-''-.'-i,A-- r_ -
- .
I
. ..
..... . .......00/ ... ,
...
- 'lliiPiii- ,, •..., -
.. 4,....
•
.C.FIR S ISL ANn
. '74141
LEGEND
011 IlitEIVATIC*1 .... ....Ca!...JL!„t,
AFIE A
N WA I EN ‘.. ....--"... SCALE N4 IAA ES
0 RtERET —. ......6.1.w.mos
a 114 1" 1
M5FAFADA04,
MO!..*0..•.
-...._ =
- _-_-
• • • 111.4 11.•••
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
THE DELTONA CORPORATION, )
)
Petitioner, )
vs . ) CASE NOS. 79-2!,71
) 3O-683
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF )
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, )
Respondent , )
and )
)
NATIONAL AUDUBON .SOCIETY, COLLIER )
COUNTY CONSERVANCY, FLORIDA AUDUBON )
SOCIETY, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE ;FUND, )
FLORIDA DIVISION OF THE IZAAK WALTON )
LEAGUE, BERNARD J. YOKEL AND )
DEBORAH P. COOK, )
Intervenors,
IN THE DISTRL.T COURT OF
APPEAL, FIRST DIS'_'R'CT,
STATE OF FLORIDA.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, )
)
Appellant/Cross-Appellee/Respondent,
vs. ) CASE NO. XX- 25
THE DEI.TONA CORPORATION, )
Appellee/Cross-Appellant/Petitioner. )
)
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
A?PEAL, FIRST DISTRICT,
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPART1`.ENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REG'JLesTION, )
A pp ella:tt/Cress-Appe.Iee/Respcndert,
vs. ) CASE NO. .'X-336
THE DELTONA CORPORATION,
)
Appellee/Cross-Appellant/Petitioner. )
)
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT,
STATE OF FLORIDA.
NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, COLLIER )
COUNTY CONSERVANCY, FLORIDA AUDUBON )
SOCIETY, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, )
FLORIDA DIVISION OF IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE, )
)
Appellants/Intervenors, )
vs. ) CASE NC. YY-76
THE DELTONA CORPORATION, )
Appellee/Petitioner. )
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
THE DELTONA CORPORATION, )
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NC . 80-1308R
STATE OF FLORIDA, DIVISION )
OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, )
Respondent. )
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL
AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT, made and entered into
this 20th day of July, 1982, by and between: (A) THE DELTONA
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business at 3250 S.W. Third Avenue, Miami, Florida, its
successors and assigns (hereinafter "DELTONA") ; (B) NATIONAL
ALBUDON SOCIETY, COLLIER COUNTY CONSERVANCY , FLORIDA AUDUBON
SOCIETY, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND and FLORIDA DIVISION OF THE
IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE (hereinafter "CONSERVATION INTERVENORS ) ;
(C) THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION OF THE STATE OF
FLORIDA ("DER") ; THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL MPROVE-
MENT TRUST FUND ("TIITF") ; THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AND
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA ("DVCA") ; THE SOUTH
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ("SFWMD") (the four State of
Florida agencies hereinafter referred to as "the State of
Florida") ; and (0) COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (hereinafter
Certain of the parties to this Stipulation and Agree-
ment are parties to various matters of administrative and
judicial litigation as are more fully identified herein. As to
such ;itigation parties, this Stipulation and Agreement shall
constitute an agreement among such parties setting forth the
bases and conditions for dismissal of the matters of litigation
identified herein. The appropriate litigation parties further
agree to file such motions or petitions jointly as may be
• necessary to implement this Stipulation and Agreement . With
respect to the parties hereto, this Stipulation and Agreement
shall constitute an agreement between Deltona and such parties
as to the substantive matters herein set forth.
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, Development of the Marco Island Community
was commenced by Deltona in 1964 within that area depicted on
Exhibit "A" attached hereto, constituting approximately 24,962
acres ; and
WHEREAS , the wetland portions of the Marco Island
area comprise a unique and irreplaceable resource located near 4
other environmentally sensitive areas, which are the subject of 1'`
state ownership, acquisition, regulation or control ; and the
disposition, in the manner set forth herein, of the real
property over which Deltona asserts ownership (constituting a
major portion of such wetlands) will preserve and protect that
resource; and
WHEREAS, the major portion of such real property,
approximately 13,914 acres, was acquired by Deltona (or its
then wholly owned subsidiary Marco ;stand Development Corpora-
tion) in 1964; a series of parcels, approximately 9, 136 acres ,
in 1968-69 ; and the final portion, approximately 1, 912 acres ,
in 1976. Title to the real property was patented directly into
Deitona 's predecessors in title by the United States or was
ceded to the State of Florida under the Swamp and Overflowed
Lands Act of 1850 and subsequently deeded to Deltona's
predecessor by the State of Florida, through TIITF. The entire
developeent at Marco Island consists of approximately 24,962
acres. Agencies of local, state and federal government have
been involved in the regulation of various aspects of the
proposed development of the subject property since 1964. The
presently undeveloped portion of Deltona's ownership consists
of approximately 19,444 acres ; and
WHEREAS, Deltona's development of Marco Island began
in 1964 with preparation of a master plan fcr its Pntire owner-
; ship. Thereafter, Deltona commenced construction of a fret
• - standing community on 8,509 acres. The master plan provided
for single family homesites , multi-family sites, school , park
sites, commercial sites, shopping areas, boating access and
beach utilization areas , arterial transportation systems and
} other planned community facilities. This master plan was
premised on transformation of bay bottoms and mangrove swamps
into a complex of fast land and canals through dredging and
filling; and
WHEREAS , Deltona's Marco Island community was
designed as a water-oriented, residential, retirement and
second home community and resort center intended to provide the
ammenities of a complete planned community. The original plan
included low to moderate density residential use, basic
shopping services, full utilities , land, water, and air access;
and
WHEREAS, as master planned, the original development
was divided into five construction areas: Marco River, Roberts
Bay, Collier Bay, Barfield Bay and Big Key. The five construc-
tion areas were subdivided as Marco Beach Subdivision Units
1-23. Unit 24 of the subdivision wat added in 1970; and
WHEREAS, when Deltona began development of the Marco
Island community environmental construction permits had a three
year time limitation. Therefore, Deltona applied for such per-
mits under a time sequence related to construction and delivery
schedules which were in turn related to obligations under the
contracts of sale; and -
WHEREAS, land sales registrations began in 1964, and
sales proceeded from that date such =hat Units 1-23 were sub-
.
scancially sold out prior to :970. Land sales registration
approvals for Unit 24 were obtained and sales ccmmenced in
early 197C with approximately 50Z of those lots under contract
when sales were discontinued in 1972: and
WHEREAS, Deltona sought and obtained other local ,
state, and federal development approvals for the construction
areas comprised within Units 1-24 and took other steps to com-
plete development including, but not limited to :
A. In July 1964, Deltona obtained Collier
County zoning approval;
B. On July 21, 1964, Deltona obtained Collier
County franchises for construction, operation and maintenance
of both sewer and water systems for the community.
C. In 1965, after required public hearing,
Delcona obtained and recorded in the public records of Collier
County, bulkhead lire approvals delineating permissible fill
areas for the entire community.
D. Between October 6, 1964 and January 22,
1965, subdivision plats for the Marco -Island community were
approved and recorded for Units 1-23.
E. In 1964 and 1965, Deltona posted subdivi-
sion development bonds with Collier County to guarantee con-
struction of platted subdivision approvals .
F. Beginning in 1964, Deltona conveyed and
otherwise dedicated or commited lands in the Marco Island
community for public or recreational use Such included dedi-
cation of church sites , conveyance of y 3I acres of prime '
gulf-front beach to Collier County, and the conveyance of Kice
Island with 21 miles of gulf-front beach pursuant to the herein
described "State Settlement Agreement . "
G. Beginning in 1964, Deltona sought and
obtained registration approvals from Florida and other states
for sale of subdivision lots in parts of the community.
Beginning in 1969, Deltona sought such approval from the newly
established Office of Interstate Land Sales Registration of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
H. After registration, subdivision lots *in the
master planned community were first offered for sale to the
general public in 1965, with varying contract delivery periods
extending as long as 83 years .
I. Construction commenced in the Marco River
permit area in 1964, and proceeded in Roberts Bay and the
Collier Bay permit areas in 1968-69 and to date.
J. In 1971, Deltona commenced construction of
the golf course and airport facility on the property identified
as Marco Shores Country Club. Prior to commencement of con-
struction Deltona notified state and federal regulatory agen-
cies which made site inspections and conducted investigations
after which construction commenced and was completed in late
1972 or early 1973; and
WHEREAS, in connection with the issuance of dredge
and fill permits for the third construction area, Collier Bay,
TIITF undertook a comprehensive review of all Deltona 's owner-
ship and development plans i_n the Marco Island area including
Units 1-24 and the balance of the company 's then unpla:ted
properties. Pursuant to that review the Governor and Cabinet
considered the environmental , social , economic, legal and
equitable issues involved in this long standing master planned
community; and
WHEREAS, based upon the foregoing review, the
Governor and Cabinet reached an overall decision ("State
Settlement") covering Deltona's Marco ownership , except that
acquired in 1976. TIITF agreed to issue a Chapter 253, Florida
Statutes , permit for construction and development of the area
described by the State Settlement. As a part cf that land use
decision, the TIITF required Deltona to eliminate major
portions of its property from future development and to deed
4,032 acres of land to the TIITF as a preservation area. Pur-
suant to the State Settlement, the TIITF issued Chapter 253,
Florida Statutes , dredge and fill permits. Deltona has con-
veyed thousands of acres of land to the TIITF and entered into
an agreement quit-claiming additional interest to the TIITF;
and
WHEREAS , DER issued state water quality certifica-
tions for Collier Bay, Barfield Bay and Big Key in April 1974;
no state water quality certification was issued for Unit 24;
and
WHEREAS, in April 1976, the United States Army Corps
of Engineers (the "Corps of Engineers" or the "Corps") granted
Deltona 's application for dredge and fill permits in the
Collier Bay area and, in recognition of the national interest
in preserving Marco Island wetlands, denied Deltona's applica-
tion for dredge and fill permits in the Big Key and Barfield
Bay areas . As a result of the failure to receive such federal
dredge and fill permits, Deltona has been unable to deliver
4, 264 waterfront homesites (plus 1, 625 multi-family units) to
contract purchasers. The denied area includes 2,908 acres of
environmentally sensitive mangrove estuary. The 1976 Corps of
Engineers denial also constituted the basis for a reasonable
inference that the Corps would similarly deny Corps permits to
dredge and fill in wetlands in the Unit 24 permit area consist-
ing of 5, 155 single family and 1 ,449 multi-family dwelling
units located on 3, 564 acres. The total number of single
family and multi-family dwelling units which Deltona had
planned for Barfield Bay, Big Key and Unit 24 was therefore
12,493; and,
WHEREAS, after denial of the Corps permits in 1976
Deltona purchased 1,912 acres of adjoining land, constituting
the north portion of Unit 30, in order to enhance i:s flexibi-
lity to deal with the consequences of such denial; and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 1978, Deltona received a
binding letter of vested rights status , (BLIVR 978-1010) , in
which the DVCA states that the company was vested with the
right to proceed with development of 33, 525 dwelling units
(less those previously constructed) located on platted areas
WHEREAS , on January 19 , 1978, Deltona received a
binding letter of vested rights status , (BLIVR 978-1010 ) , in
which the DVCA states that the company was vested with the
right to proceed with development of 33 , 525 dwelling units
(less those previously constructed) located on platted areas
1-24 and :elated beach properties . This vesting of the right
-7-
to proceed with development is only with regard to the develop-
ment of regional impact requirements of Section 380.06, Florida
Statutes ; and
WHEREAS, Deltona on May 3, 1978, submitted a joint
permit application to the DER and the Corps of Engineers which
permit application included all of Deltona 's remaining
undeveloped property in Marco Island and the vicinity. The
May 3, 1978 application has been through a series of modifica-
tions reducing the amount of wetland acreage subject co
development; however, the modified application still entailed
the dredging and filling of some 2,500 acres of open water,
mangrove swamps and fresh water wetlands ; and
WHEREAS, Deltona's May 3, 1978 application, as modi-
fied, was the subject of a Notice of Intent to Deny issued by
the DER and that application is now the subject of formal
administrative proceedings in consolidated cases styled, The
Deltona Corporation v. DER, et a1. , Case Nos. 79-2471 and
80-683; these cases raise a broad range of legal and factual
issues to determine whether Deltona is or is not entitled tc a
development permit under the rules and statutes governing such
permits, or whether Deltona is entitled to a variance from any
rules or statutes which might preclude issuance of the develop-
ment permit. A formal evidentiary hearing before an adminis-
trative law judge in proceeding No. 79-2471 took place in April
and May 1981; the resolution of these issues may take more than
a year; and
WHEREAS , Deltona has challenged the validity of
certain DER rules, culminating in an administrative order of a
hearing officer declaring certain of the DER 's rules to be
invalid and certain other rules to be valid. These rule
challenge proceedings are now the subject of DER appeals and an
appeal by conservation invervenors (whose motion to intervene
in the administrative proceeding was denied) to the First
District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, which have
been consolidated as State of Florida , Department of Environ-
mental Regulation vs. The Deltona Corporation. Docket nos .
XX-335, XX-336 and YY-76; Deltona has , in its cross-appeal ,
challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes , and the validity of DER 's
implementation of Chapter 4C3; and
WHEREAS , Deltona initiated proceedings in the United
States Court of Claims in which Deltona alleged that the April .
1976 denial of Deltona 's permit application by the Corps of
Engineers resulted in a denial of all economic use of the
affected property. The Court of Claims trial judge entered a
recommended order finding that' the Corps of Engineers ' denial
was an unconstitutional taking of Deltona 's property chat
requires payment of compensation to Deltona. The United States
Court of Claims reversed and found that the Corps ' April 1976
decision granting Deltona's Collier Bay permit application and
denying Deltona 's Barfield Bay and Big Key permit appli cations
did not constitute a taking and did not deny Deltona all
reasonable use of the affected property, Deltona Coro. v.
United States , 657 F.2d 1184 (Ct. Cl . 1981) . The U.S. Supreme
Court on March 22, 1982, denied Deltona's Petition for ':ric of
Certiorari (No. 81-1207) to review the decision of the United
States Court of Claims ; and
WHEREAS, Deltona also initiated proceedings in the
United States District Court, Middle District of Florida,
styled Deltona Coro . v. Alexander et . al . , and Environmental
Defense Fund, Inc. , National Audubon Society, Inc. , Florida
Audubon Society. Inc. and Copier County Conservancy,
defendants-intervenors, challenging the validity of the Corps '
April 1976 decision. On January 14, 1981 , the United States
District Judge granted final judgment in favor of the Corps and
conservation intervenors ; Deltona appealed the decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, :No.
81-5226, and a decision from that Court is pending ; and
WHEREAS, the Marco area ccmpriaes a unique and irre-
placeable wetlands coastal estuarine system, most of which is
subject to regulation by the State of Florida and the Corps of
Engineers :
A. The Unit 30 area constitutes the major
wading bird feeding habitat in southwest Florida, supporting
the only major rookery in southwest Florida.
1
B. The wetland portions of the Unit 21. area
adjoin the Rockery Bay National Marine Estuarine Sanctuary.
C. The wetland areas under Deltcna ownership,
constituting thousands of acres , contain basin black mangrove
forest, red mangrove forest and mixed mangrove forests which
are a major tantributor to the estuarine food web.
D. The wetlana areas under Deltor.a ownership
are a major nursery area for shrimp and marine juvenile
organisms of all description.•
E. The coastal estuarine system provides a
unique habitat for wildlife.
F. The wetland portions of the estuarine
system protect and enhance the water quality of the adjacent
bay areas.
WHEREAS, the Marco area is near Rookery Bay National
Estuarine Sanctuary, Aquatic ?reserve G-14, Collier Seminole
State Park, Big Cypress Swamp and other government controlled
environmentally sensitive areas ; and
WHEREAS, the acquisition by the State of Florida, or
related conservation organizations, of approximately 15, 000
acres of the estuarine property as described above, and as more
fully set forth in this Stipulation and Agreement, is deemed to
be a matter of great public interest; and
WHEREAS, the inability to complete the Marco
Community has adversely affected not only Deltora but thousands
of third-party purchasers; and
WHEREAS, in recognition of the legal , equitable, en-
vironmental , regulatory and conservation interests affected by
this unique development, the parties hereto deem it in their
individual and collective interests, as well as in the general
public interest, to resolve all outstanding issues and to
provide a speedy conclusion to the development issues now
pending before state and federal regulatory agencies ; and
Not: THEREFORE, the parties hereto . in consideration
of the mutual covenants and promises herein contained, agree as
follows :
1. The State of Florida hereby permits De._ona to
develop the real property depicted on Exhibit "P" attached
hereto, and labelled therein as "Development Areas" (the
"Development Areas") in accordance with the Conceptual Develop-
ment Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "C" (The "Conceptual
Development Plan") . The Conceptual Development Plan is a
statement of the general planning concepts to be employed in
the Development Areas . (The graphic pert-,ins of the Exhibit
"C" are for illustrative purposes only. ) Exhibits "E" and
are on file with the DER and should be incorporated by
reference for purposes of interpreting this Stipulation and
Agreement. (Illustrations only of Exhibits "B" and "C" are
attached hereto. ) "Development", as used herein, means altera-
tion of the land and topography, dredging, filling, placement
and construction of roads , utilities , installation of drainage
facilities , construction of residential and commercial build-
ings and facilities , as permitted under the terms of this
Stipulation and Agreement. It is the express intention of
Deltona and the State of Florida that this Stipulation and
Agreement shall serve to permit the development activi ties
herein identified within the Development Areas in accordance
with the Conceptual Development Plan without the necessity of
further approvals by them, except as specifically set forth
herein. However, this Stipulation. and Agreement des nct
obviate the necessity of obtaining the _following permits or
regulatory approvals :
A. Construction and operation of sewage dis-
posal facilities and solid waste disposal sites ;
B. Construction and operation of water treat-
ment and distribution facilities ;
C. Construction of entrances or driveways from
or onto state roadways ;
D. SF .D approvals and permits for consumptive
use of water and/or artificial recharge ; and
E. Collier County approvals as required
pursuant to paragraph 17.
2. No dredging, filling, drainage or destruction of
vegetation in areas outside the Development Areas is permitted
• under the terms of this Stipulation and Agreement .
3. Deltona agrees that the airport in Unit 30 is
restricted to a single development use as an airport and may
not be subject to residential; industrial or other commercial
use.
4. Subject to the conditions in Paragraphs 8 and 9,
the conservation intervenors expressly consent to and supper:
the issuance of permits by the State of Florida under Chapters
253, 380 (except as hereinafter set forth in ?aragraph 6) and
403 and by the SF MD under Chapters 373 and 403 for the
Development Areas in accordance with the Conceptual Development
Plan, as further refined in Exhibit "D" (the "Engineering
Detail Drawings") and Exhibit "E" (the "Conceptual Drainage
Design Criteria") .
5. Subject co the conditions in Paragraphs 8 and 9,
the conservation intervenors expressly consent to and support
the issuance of permits by the Corps of Engineers under Secticr.
10 of the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act, 32 U.S .C. Section 453,
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S .C . Section 1344
for the Development Areas in accordance with the Conceptual
Development Plan, as further refined by the Engineering Detail
Drawings and the Conceptual Drainage Design Criteria.
6. The parties hereto acknowledge that certain
final constriction plans (such as detailed bridge design,
detailed design of lakes and other drainage features) could nor
be produced prior to execution of this Stipulation and Agree-
ment . As to such matters, Delcona and the State of Florida
agree to the design concepts as shown on the Engineering Detail
ee
Drawings and the Conceptual Drainage Design Criteria. At such
time as Celtona has ?spared final construction mans for any
of the Development Areas cr any phase of a Development Area .
Deltona shall submit such plans to CFR, the SrMD. any other
agency as the DER may designate, and the Collier County
Conservancy (or such other representative entity as the
conservation intervenors may from time to time des ignate) , as
representative of the conservation interveners, for review to
determine whether such final construction glans are consistent
with the Engineering Detail Drawings and the Conceptual
Drainage Design Criteria. The Collier County Conservancy (or
such other representative as the conservation intervenors may
from time to time designate) , as representative of the con-
servation intervenors , shall have sixty (SOS days from receipt
of such plans in which to comment in writing :o Deltona anc he
State of Florida with respect to the conformance or noncon-
formance of such final construction plans to the Engineering
Detail Drawings and the Conceptual Drainage Desigr. Criteria.
Except as provided below in this Paragraph 6 with
respect to SP.:'MD, such final construction plans shall be deemed
approved by the agencies in accordance with this Stipulation.
and Agreement unless, within ninety (90) days £cllowine receipt
thereof, the DER or ocher agency designated by the DER, shall
provide written notice to Deltona of any inconsistency between
such final construction, plans and the Eneineerir.e Detail
Drawings or the Conceptual Drainage Design Criteria, specifying
in such notice those modifications to the final corsteucc_;r
plans as will conform such plans to the Engineering Detail
Drawings and the Conceptual Drainage Design Criteria . In the
event Deltona conforms its final oonstruceton pans in accord-
ance with such agency notice, such plans shall be deemed
approved by those agencies in accordance with this S_ipu:aticn
and Agreement .
in the case of SF'.:'SD 's review c: such final co n-
struction plans , the requirements o_f Chapter 372, Florida
Statutes . Chapter =.,03, Flcrila Statutes (to the extent dele-
gated to SFJND) , and the rules set forth in Chapter &OE FAC,
shall be deemed complied with as follows :
A. Deltora may file an application for surface
water management conceptual approval and shall file an applica-
tion, for a sur_a_e water management permit on the form or forms
prescribed by the Sr":MD for all Development Areas .
B. In any application, to SF?v , Deltona shall
respond to all items relating to surface water management :
provided, however, Celtena shat_ not be required to submit
information or data with respect to the suitability of the land
for the proposed use, er information or data with respect to
environmental impacts related to such proposed land use .
C. Based upon the information submitted by Celtcna
in any application, SFID shall grant or deny the application
in accordance with FAC Rule aC-E 1. 633. -.. ccrsiderina any
application submitted in accordance with this Paragraph 5,
SF MD shall consider only those items for which Deltcna is
required tc submit information in accordance with sub araaraph
3 above.
D. It is acknowledged by S W that various
portions of the Development Areas mar be the su'm2ec_ of
separate applications in accordance .nit: this Paragraph 6.
7. In reviewing Deltona's application in accordance
with this Paragraph 6, SFdMD will apply its then current regu -
lations with respect to surface water nanage=ent (excluding
chose items provided in subparagraph 3 above) . However . S=WM
acknowledges that Deltcra will no: fully comp ly with its
requirements for a surface water manazement permit for the
following areas: "Isle of Capri", "Ccodland Marina", "Barfield
Bay Single-Family", "John Stevens Creek and 3a:f..eld .3a;%
Family", and '`err s Island", which areas are identified on
Exhibit "3" hereto. Such areas encompass approximately 25C
acres of the 3, 53C total astiya:ad acres in the Deve.occenc
Areas . For such areas , Deltor:a will be =able t;, cemoly with
SFWM.D's present regulations with respect to retention../detention
storage and the limitation of post-development peak discharge
to predeveiopment levels . In the case of such areas , SFWMD
will grant surface water management permits in the event
Jeltona meets SFWMD 's other requirements , and in addition,
satisfactorily demonstrates that it has used all economically
reasonable design methods in an effort to substantially meet
SFXD 's requirements for retention/detention storage and
post-development peak discharges or to mitigate any potential
adverse effects resulting from its failure to meet fully
SFtJMD 's requirements.
7. The Secretary of the DER, or the S F MD Governing
Board, as may be appropriate to the issue , shall resolve any
dispute between the parties as to conformity of such final
construction plans with the Engineering Detail Drawings and
Conceptual Drainage Design Criteria. Any such determination
made or proposed by the Secretary or the Governing Board shall
constitute agency action affecting the substantial interests of
the parties to this Stipulation and Agreement , and entitling
• said parties to the hearing rights prescribed under Section
120. 57, Florida Statutes. All parties shall retain any other
administrative and legal rights , as provided by law, to contest
the agency determination as to conformance of such final con-
struction plans with Exhibits "D" and "E". This provision
shall not exempt Celtona from fully complying with the sub-
division regulations and other applicable county and federal
requirements with respect to such final construction plans.
8. The approvals by the State of Florida granted
herein in Paragraphs 1 and 6 and the consents by conservation
intervenors made herein in Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, are subject
to and shall not become effective until Deltone conveys to the 4.
TIITF, or its designee, all of the real property described on
"F" attached hereto.
Exhibit Such conveyance by Jeitona shall
be in exchange for a conveyance by the TIITF tc Deitona of
certain, yet to be designated, State owned real property (the
"Section 8 Exchange") . It is acknowledged by the parties
hereto that the acreage and the precise description of the real
properties to be exchanged by Jeltena and the TIITF is subject
to final approval by Deltona and the TIITF after satisfaction
of all regulatory requirements of the TIITF with respect to the
acquisition of real property by the TIITF. Such regulatory
requirements shall be deemed satisfied at such time as Deltona
and the TIITF enter into a binding contract for the exchange of
the real property. Zc the event the real property acquired by
Deltona in the Section 8 Exchange includes any wetland areas
which are within the jurisdiction of the DER or the Corps of
• Engineers , Deltona agrees that it will not seek permits to
develop such wetland areas . .
9. Deltona is also in the process of seeking the
approvals and permits required from federal agencies as are
legally necessary to permit the completion of development in
accordance with the Conceptual Development Plan. Zr. the event
all such federal approvals as are required are obtained,
Deltona shall convey to the TIITF, or its designee, as part of
the "Section 8 Exchange", the real property described on
Exhibit "G" hereto. Said conveyance shall be in addition to
the real property described in Exhibit "F". The real property
described on Exhibits "F" and "G" is graphically depicted in
green and blue on the illustration which is attached as Exhibit
"I" hereto. In the event all such federal approvals have not
been obtained at the time of the "Section. 8 Exchange", Deltona
may, at its option: 1) include all or a portion of the
property described on Exhibit "G" as par: of the "Section 8
Exchange"; or Z) withhold all or a portion of the Exhibit "C"
property from the exchange until such time as the federal
permits which Deltona must obtain are received. In the event
the property exchange is completed without conveyance to the
TIITF of all the real property described on Exhibit "C"
(pending receipt, or after denial of, the federal permits)
Deltona shall record restrictive covenants permanently
encumbering the lard described on Exhibit "C", (excepting that
portion of such land as has been conveyed by Deltona in satis-
faction of its obligations to purchasers under contracts
entered into prior to December 31, 1981) , which covenants shall
prohibit construction on, or alteration of the topography of
such real property. In the event Deltona does not include all
of the property on Exhibit "G" as part of the "Section 8
Exchange", the recording of restrictive covenants on such
property shall be deemed par: of Deltona 's obligations under
the "Section 8 Exchange".
10. Simultaneous with the ciostng of the "Section 8
Exchange" as described in Paragraphs 8 and 9 of this Stipula-
tion and Agreement , all permits and approvals granted in
Paragraph I shall become effective and Deltona shall have the
right to proceed thereafter in accordance with such approvals
to undertake development in the Development Areas consistent
with the Conceptual Development Plan, the Engineering Detail
Drawings, the Conceptual Drainage Design Criteria and in com-
pliance with the final construction plans as approved pursuant
to the terms of this Stipulation and Agreement. Exchange to
the State of Florida of the real property described on Exhibit
"G" shall not constitute a condition precedent to the approvals
granted to Deltona by this Stipulation and Agreement unless
Deltona receives all federal permits as provided in Paragraph 9
of this Stipulation and Agreement, in which event the Exhibit
"G" property shall be conveyed as herein provided.
11. This Stipulation and Agreement constitutes
approval of 14,500 dwelling units to be located within the
Development Areas . The location and mix of single-family and
multi-family dwelling units , the type, quantity and location of
roads , public facilities and other major improvements , as well
as other uses appropriate to residential subdivisions ,
including commercial, recreational and other uses , shall be
subsequently determined in accordance with zoning and subdivi-
sion regulations and a development order issued by Collier
County, Florida after review and recommendation by the
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) pursuant
tc Chapter 380, Florida Statutes , as hereinafter further
specified.
The parties acknowledge that the Marco develop-
ment has been the sub'ect of extensive study, principally from
the standpoint of environmental and related land use issues ,
but also with respect to ocher development issues. Deltona has
been in negotiation with the DVCA with respect to the binding
letter previously issued by the DVCA as well as subsequent
modifications and additions to the Marco development which, in
part, resulted in an agreement between Deltona and the DVCA
under date of August 8, 1980. This Stipulation and Agreement
supercedes the August 8, 1980 agreement.
• The parties acknowledge the statutory criteria
for review of developments ' of regional impact and have
addressed certain of such criteria, as well as the additional
public interest considerations which are represented by this
Stipulation and Agreement .
Deltona agrees that upon the effective date of
this Stipulation and Agreement, it shall abandon any and all
rights it may have in and to the previously issued TII:F dredge
and fill perils for the Barfield 3ay, Big Key and Collier-Read
areas , as well as the water quality certifications previously
issued for the Big Key and Barfield 3ay areas.
Deltona agrees that upon the effective date of
this Stipulation and Agreement, it will abandon the vested
rights status of the dwelling units located within the follow-
ing units of Marco Beach subdivision: 5, 9, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18,
19, 20 and 24; excepting therefrom those portions .of said units
located within the Development Areas, and those portions
located within the existing development of Marco.
Accordingly, with respect to development in
accordance with this Stipulation and Agreement , Deltona shall
be deemed to have complied with the recuirements of Chatter
380, Florida Statutes , and all regulations promulgated pursuant
thereto, as follows :
A. 2e:tona shall file an Application for
Development Approval (ADA) on the form prescribed by the SWFRPC
for all areas lying outside of Units : through 27, Marco Beach
subdivision and replats :hereof. Jnics I through 27 of Marco
Beach subdivision and any replacs thereof shall hot be regarded
as a portion of the development for purposes of the ADA.
Deltona will pay the appropriate fees for DR: review.
B . In the ADA, Deltona shall be required to
respond only to those items marked "required" on attached
Exhibit '"H". The parties acknowledge teat thcse issues to
which Deltona will not respond have been, and will continue to
be, addressed by the parties to this Stipulation and Agreement
in the manner specified herein. *
C. Based upon the information submitted by
Deltona in the ADA, as described in subparagraph 3 above, and
without request for additional information, SWFRPC shall issue
its report (recommended development order) at its first
regularly scheduled meeting which occurs following sixty days
from the date Deltona submits the ADA. Such report shall
address only those items for which Deltona was required to
submit information in accordance with 8 above.
Failure of SWFRPC to issue its report wi:nit. the
prescribed period shall be deemed general approval of the
project as described in the ADA, thereby fulfilling that
agency 's review requirements under Chapter 38C, Florida
Statutes , for the Marco Project.
D. Any appeal by the SWFRPC shall be limited
to those issues, with respect to which Deltona was required tc
submit information in accordance with subparagraph B above.
E. The total project will be reviewed within
the time limits set forth above . This Stipulation and Agree-
ment does not contemplate phased review by the SWFRPC.
F. The ADA shall be circulated for comment by
SWFRPC only to those agencies having ri
,,u sdictior. with respect
* This process is consistent with the procedures created by
the 1980 amendments to Chapter 380, providing for nego-
tiated agreements to reduce paper wor<, discourage unneces-
sary gathering of data and to encourage the coordinaticn of
DR; review with other federal , state and local permitting
and reviews .
to those items for which Deltona was required to submit
information in accordance with B above, and to the conservation
intervenors .
G. After a Development Order has been issued,
Deltona shall be required to comply with the provisions of
5380.06, Florida Statutes , governing annual reports and future
changes to the development.
Other than as set forth in this Stipulation and
Agreement, no further review, pursuant to Florida Statute 380
(or amendments thereto or regulations promulgated pursuant
thereto) , shall be required of this development.
12. This Stipulation and Agreement shall not abridge
the rights, if any, of the parties hereto to participate as
parties in any development of regional impact proceedings
contemplated by Paragraph 11.
13. A fully executed copy of this Stipulation. and
Agreement shall constitute all required permits and approvals
from the State of Florida for development in the Development
Areas in accordance with the Conceptual Development Plan, the
Engineering Detail Drawings, and the Conceptual Drainage Design
Criteria and the final construction plans. A fully executed
copy of - this Stipulation and Agreement shall evidence the
consent of the conservation intervenors to those permits and
approvals specifically enumerated in Paragraph 4 subject to
conditions set out in Paragraphs 8 and 9. No further authority
for the commencement or completion of development shall be
demanded or required of Deltona, except as specifically
provided in this Stipulation and Agreement. '
14. It is acknowledged by the parties hereto that
during the course of development certain conditions may occur
which necessitate modifications in the delineations of the
Development Areas contained herein, the Conceptual Development
Plan, the Engineering Detail Drawings , the Conceptual Drainage
Design Criteria or Final Construction Plans . Any such modifi-
cations shall be made only in accordance with the following
procedures :
A. Such requested modificatior shall be made,
in writing, by Deltona, with copies provided to all parties to
this Stipulation and Agreement. Such request shall include the
reason for such proposed modification.
B. In the event the requested codification
would (w) increase any Development Areas to include additional
wetlands , or (x) increase the maximum number of approved
dwelling units in any individual Development Area from that
provided for in Paragraph 11 of this Stipulation and Agreement ,
the modification shall be effective sixty (60) days after the
modification is requested, provided (y) the modification has
been approved in writing by the DER, the SFWMD, the DVCA and
Collier County, and (z) the modification has been approved in
writing by a majority of the conservation intervenors. Such a
requested modification shall not be effective unless the
conditions of (y) and (z) are met .
C. With respect to any modification request
other than as provided in subparagraph B above, said modifica-
tion shall become effective sixty (60) says after such request
is made to all parties by Deltona, unless written notice of
objection is received from the affected agency or agencies
("affected agency or agencies" means the agency that, absent
this Stipulation and Agreement , would assert primary regulation
over the requested modification) or from a majority of the
conservation intervenors within said sixty-day period, in which
case said modification shall not become effective unless and
until such objection is resolved by agreement of Deltona and
the affected agency or agencies and a majority of the conserva-
tion intervenors .
D. Notice of the effectiveness of any modifi-
cation shall be provided by Deltona to all other parties within
thirty (30) days following the effective date of such modifi-
cation.
15. Each party shall have the right to enforce
compliance with this Stipulation and Agreement or to enjoin a
15 . Each party shall have the right to enforce
compliance with this Stipulation and Agreement or to enjoin a
violation of the same administratively and judicially, and
nothing herein contained shall prohibit or restrict such right.
-21-
16. The administrative and judicial proceedings
which are the subject of this Stipulation and Agreement are as
follows :
(1 ) Deltona vs . United States of America, Case
No. 370-76;
(2) Deltona vs . Harsh, Case No . 81-5226;
(3) Maegio v. Deltona, Case No. 79-4665-Civ.-CA;
(4) Deltona vs . DER, Case No . 79-2471 ;
• (5) Deltona vs. DER, Case No. 80-683;
(6) DER vs . -Deltona, Case No. XX-335;
(7) DER vs. Deltona, Case No. XX-336 ;
(8) National Audubon Society et al . vs . Deltona,
Case No. YY-76; and
(9) Deltona vs. DER, Case No . 1308.
The litigation parties hereto do hereby stipulate and agree
that the above-described administrative and judicial proceed-
ings shall be dismissed with prejudice, subject, however, to
•the following:
A. With respect to proceedings 6, 7, 8 and 9,
the execution of this Stipulation and Agreement by all parties ;
3. With respect to proceedings 4 and 5 , the
execution of this Stipulation and Agreement by all parties , and
the effectiveness of this Stipulation and Agreement (and the
constituent approvals) as set forth in Paragraph 8 of this
Stipulation and Agreement ;
C. With respect to proceedings 1, 2 and 3, the
execution of this Stipulation and Agreement by all parties, the
effectiveness of this Stipulation and Agreement (and the con-
stituent approvals as set forth in Paragraph 8 hereof) and
receipt by Deltona of all approvals necessary for development
as herein described from the Corps of Engineers , the United
States Coast Guard, and any other federal agencies that may be
granted jurisdiction over such development between the date
hereof and the date of such dismissals ; and
D. With respect to all proceedings, the
expiration of any periods wherein third parties might appeal or
otherwise attack the validity of the approvals herein contained
or the app-oval of permi`s issued by the Corps of ?ngineers or
other federal agencies .
The parties hereto agree to file in the appro-
priate proceeding such petitions cr motions as may be necessary
or required to timely effectuate the dismissals in accordance
with the terms of this paragraph.
17, Execution by Collier County evidences the
County 's acknowledgement that the Comprehensive '.and Use Plat.
for Collier County classified virtually all of the Development
Areas designated on Exhibit "3" as "residential" land use. The
Comprehensive Land Use Plan will be automatically corrected to
classify to the appropriate Lesident:al designation these areas
previously platted , specifically, Barfield 3a•. ".ulti-Femi_ly and
Single Family, John Stevens ' Creek and Unit 2
Those areas
designated as Environmentally Sensitive on the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan and intended as development areas on Exhibit "B"
are concurrently designated as "residential" land use . Accord-
ingly, said areas may be developed in a canner not inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plant upon the granting of such zoning
ordinance amendments as are necessary to conform the ter.ing to
the Comprehensive Plan. For those areas shown as development
areas on Exhibit "3" and not appropriately designated on the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, De l tor.a w_l 1 submit applications
for amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plana The County
further recognizes the public interest served by preservation
of the wetland areas to be conveyed to the State, as well as
resolution of the ocher issues add,'essed in this Stipulation
and Agreement. The County shall expeditiously process all
pl
ap ;_;.ations made in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan
provided, however , nothing herein shall exemnt Deltcna from
compliance with Collier County zoning, subdivision and building
regulations and other requirements applicable to the develop-
ment P
ment described herein. Nothing in this Stipulation and
Agreement shall be construes as an advance appr;va. by Collier
County of the development ccntemelated hereby .
18. This Stipu_atior. and Agreement shall be binding
upon the successors , representatives and assigns of the parties
hereto .
IN WI NESS t.IEEREOF, the undersigned have executed, or
• caused this Stipulation and Agreement to be executed, as of the
day first above written.
THE DELTONA CORPORATION
By.
illgpedeQedZr____s
THE DEPARTMENT CF ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATIOti OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
By: I'°'
Its
THE BOARD CF TRUSTEES OF THE
INTERNAL
Li I`i?R 1NL':;D
OF TE STATE OF OL'E FLEORIDA T T?CST F
• By `�- ra /
tS
■
THE DE?ART;.ENT OF VETERAN AND
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OF THE STATE
OF FLORIDA
Byt 7.0 i•
/ ICS u
THE SOUTH FLORIDA ;LATER MANAGEMENT "
DISTRICT
/ 1`
B iJ . e .
Y: _/=. .. �' / ne
r. is
A
THE NATIONAL AUDU30N SOCIETY
t= ;_ By. 1 U.Usti.-- 6 V t 1.A..�
.: ._. . CS •L.
THE NAT►OVAL A:.:L'30N 30C: :y
� 1
By: t LA, AccA v t
�ts .L,_
THE FLOR:A :,d-3C`; SO _TTY
���•�„
-24-
THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSERVANCY
7
by: L� 1
Yts ,
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND
• 4
By is �1_� :1
THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF THE IZAAK
WALTON LEAGUE
$Y '
is /2jES
COLLIER COUNTY
rip
1
July 30-31, 2002
MR. PIRES: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other discussion? Okay. All
those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any opposed? The ayes have it 5 to
0. And before we continue on to the next item, we're going to take a
lunch break.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got 11 :30 time cert. Forgive
me.
Item #1 OD
TWO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND — RE:
COLLECTION OF COUNTY IMPACT FEES — APPROVED; AND
JURISDICTION FOR COUNTY ROADS 92 AND 92A —
APPROVED WITH SETTING ASIDE 92A AS COUNTY
OWNERSHIP FOR 2 YEARS BUT BEING MAINTAINED BY
MARCO ISLAND
MR. MUDD: It's the Marco Island item. It's 10-D.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're right. You're absolutely
correct.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I can try to speed this along just
a little bit. I know we have some speakers, don't we, Sue, on this
one? 10-D.
Page 99
July 30-31, 2002
MS. PHILSON: Yes, we do.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And let me speed this along from what I
know so far, okay, and what I've heard from the homeowners
association on Goodland and things like that. There's some concern
about taking County Road 92 Alpha that's within the city limits of
Marco Island and turning that over as far as maintenance and
ownership, and I think the ownership is the issue, of that road to the
City of Marco that stays within their city limits.
There is a move, a local move within that homeowners
association in that community that they would like to try to deannex
some of the land that went to the City of Marco in 1997 that pertains
to Goodland and their entry into their community.
And I would make a recommendation, and maybe we can cut
down on the comments, and if it's okay with them, that we leave that
as maintenance only of 92 Alpha. And we leave that in a
maintenance only category for a two-year period-year period of time.
And that gives them the amount of time that I need in order to go
through the deannexation, paperwork and legislation that they will
need to do.
And after a two-year period of time if they haven't been
successful or they're local movement in order to do so just teeters out,
then ownership and maintenance will revert back to the city, the City
of Marco Island within their boundaries. That would be my
recommendation as far as the agreement with the City of Marco on
the transfer of road.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I just add, Mr. Mudd, that
deannexation, I didn't even think of nor consider. But I have spoken
to the representatives from Marco Island, from City Council.
I've spoken with Mike Minozzi and I've spoken with Bill Moss
and they have no problem with us maintaining ownership of that
Page 100
July 30-31, 2002
portion of 92A that leads into Goodland. And they continue to
maintain it with the money that we're sending them. So I think that
all are in agreement. I've got my Marco Island guys back here and my
Goodlanders here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's make a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would make a motion that we
approve -- let's see. How do I want to say this? That we approve this
agreement, setting aside 92A as a continued ownership by the County
but maintained by Marco Island.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that correct?
MR. MUDD: Do we want to put a two-year stipulation in there
as far as ownership is concerned?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Two-year stipulation is good.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I second it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wait a minute. How come we're
getting --
MS. ROBINSON: Good morning, Commissioners. Apparently
there's --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: On the record?
MS. ROBINSON: This is Jacqueline Hubbard Robinson,
Assistant County Attorney. And I've been sitting here. And the
people in the audience were saying that they thought the motion that
reversed what they understood was to occur.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Keep 92A in the County; correct?
Right. And maintained by Marco Island?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why not? By the County. Owned
and maintained by the County. I'm at a loss now.
MS. PHILSON: I have four speakers, sir. Would you like one
of them to come up?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I withdraw my motion.
Page 101
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. I would like to hear what their
problem is with that idea.
MS. PHILSON: Edward Frommer. Edward Frommer?
MR. FROMMER: Yes. Hello. Can you hear me? Okay. My
name's Edward J. Frommer, past president of the Goodland Civic
Association and also chairman of the Extraction Committee that I'm
in charge of. What you see here is Marco Island, the city limits that
was made in 1997. And down here you see Goodland. The note of
history of this, you have go back to 1513 when Ponce de Leon landed
here and called the whole area Goodland.
Since 1542 when Desota got here, everybody's been trying to do
away with Goodland. But we love Goodland, and we're not going to
let anybody take our area. Specifically when Deltona came in here
with Collier and decided to develop this, one of the first things
Collier did was take the citizens of Marco Island and moved them
down to Goodland.
There's 50 historical homes in Goodland. The only ones left
besides Bill Colliers house on Old Marco and the Old Marco Inn.
Everything else has been destroyed of the history of Goodland or the
history of Marco Island. So what we would like and you see the line
where City comes down, imaginary line comes through here, comes
around here and cuts out Key Marco, which the County still has to
maintain the roads in Key Marco. It's a part of incorporated Collier
County.
The reason the line was drawn down here, was so the City could
cut Goodland out, because the first two times the vote went to make it
a city, the Goodlanders voted against it. They wanted to stay with the
County. They trust the County. What was done, what they did was
Gerrymandered in two marinas. One was known as Marco Shores
Goodland Marina.
Page 102
July 30-31, 2002
It came about the court settlement in 1984 between the Army
Corps of Engineers and the Deltona Corporation that this wetlands
there would be no more building because the Army Corps of
Engineers say they're not going to destroy anymore wetlands,
because the Deltona Corporation had designs to build this whole area
and also to go all the way out 92 to 41 . That was all going to be
homes until the Army Corps of Engineers interfere and had a court
suit and it got settled. There's to be no more building.
There's no sense of Marco Island coming down into Goodland,
except for the two marinas. They said they wanted rubles. Here's
some of the most expensive property outside of there in the County.
They're building a million to five million dollar houses on Key
Marco.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, sir. I have to ask you
some questions. This is Commissioner Coletta up here at the dais.
MR. FROMMER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm totally lost. Let me summarize
this for you and you help us through this so we understand exactly
what you're talking about. We're talking about an interlocal
agreement Marco Island where they get X number of dollars, and in
turn, they're going to maintain the roads; is that correct?
MR. FROMMER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We still own the roads.
MR. MUDD: No, hang on, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, forgive me.
MR. FROMMER: What he said.
MR. MUDD: In this interlocal agreement, the roads, the County
roads of 90 -- the County Road 92 and 92 Alpha that reside within the
city limits of Marco Island would be turned over for ownership and
maintenance to the City of Marco Island.
Page 103
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But the part that's in Goodland that is
outside of that is still the County?
MR. MUDD: The County, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. But 92A you said -- I made
a motion to keep in County ownership and maintained by Marco
Island.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 92 would go to Marco Island for
maintenance. The interlocal agreement would stand as is, but 92A
would remain for two years in the ownership of Collier County, but
maintained by Marco Island.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And the premise here is that two years
would give the opportunity to the Goodland homeowners association
to deannex the land that they think should belong to the County to
preserve their historical pass.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If I may speak?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, sir. Let me finish with one
speaker at a time.
MR. FROMMER: Mr. Coletta, in answer to that, what we're
saying is 92A, which comes all the way in --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
MR. FROMMER: -- and comes all the way down to new
County park that's going to built down there. It's all County. You
people invested five million dollars last year in Goodland. You
bought the land for the property. You put a new bridge in coming in
on 92A.
The NPO has appropriated $137,000 for bike paths that was in
Marco City's budget last year. And when they ran into problems, they
didn't do the work. They pulled it out of the budget. It's in the budget
Page 104
July 30-31 , 2002
this year. It runs out September 1st, six weeks. We still don't have
bike paths, even though the County has approved 137,000.
We're being treated like second citizens as far as we're
concerned. We're the same as the people on Marco, Port Royal or
anywhere else or Pelican Bay. We want control on what's going in
on our area. As Mr. Moss mentioned, he wants control of what
you're going to do on 951 that affects Marco Island. Whatever Marco
Island does and the County does affects Goodland. So we would
rather stay with the County and deal with the County.
Now, I would like this road kept County owned, County
maintained. Even though maybe two years from now if we don't
succeed in our extraction of the properties that we feel belongs in
Goodland. There's nothing down here that has anything to do with
Marco Island, except two marinas. This used to be Marco Shores
Goodland Marina. They changed the name to Calusa.
You approved a pub last year, Goodland Gateway. They
changed the name. It's now Calusa Village. Moran's Barge where
Tommy Barfield's Speakeasy, the ship ahoy bus, was changed to
Moran's Barge. Now they've just changed it again with plans to
Marco City to build a 112 foot high condo 300 feet long and they --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to
summarize to stop because you're way past your time.
MR. FROMMER: And they changed the name again. It's no
longer that. It's Harbor Place at the South Bridge. They're even
trying to do away with the name of the Goodland bridge.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Look, can you make your
final comment, please.
MR. FROMMER: We need you help. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And then we can go on to the next.
MR. FROMMER: We need your help.
Page 105
July 30-31, 2002
MS. PHILSON: The next speaker is Connie Follmer and she
will be followed by James Graham.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, don't go too far with the map.
Somebody may need that.
MS. FOLLMER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Connie Stagol Follmer, secretary, treasurer of the Goodland Civic
Association. And what Mr. Mudd was describing sounded pretty
much what we thought we were wanting. The County retained
jurisdiction of the roadway. But then our anticipation was that the
County would -- our hope was that the County would also continue
maintenance of the roadway.
And from what we understand from the motion that was made,
the intent would be that the County would continue jurisdiction of the
road but Marco City would be responsible for maintenance so they
wouldn't have to divvy up any of that money, that million dollars and
split it off. Initially, that kind of sounds okay.
But I just want to be sure that that doesn't make Goodland
subject to requesting and needing road maintenance and not being
able to get it, because that million dollars is not restricted in their use
at the Marco City. They can use that million dollars anywhere within
the city limits of Marco. And so that leaves the concern about, do we
get the maintenance when we need it? Just as to show you --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I hear you loud and clear on that.
MS. FOLLMER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's something that maybe.
MS. FOLLMER: Initially, the motion sounded great.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I interrupt you just for one
moment. I'd like to have Mr. Pfeiter stand up to the microphone over
here and address this particular situation. What kind of guarantees
Page 106
July 30-31, 2002
will we have that they maintain the roads at this end of the spectrum
rather than use it all internally within the city?
MR. PFEITER: Again, the City of Marco needs to speak to this,
the City of Marco Island. But specifically, they've assured us that
they will maintain it. The initial issue we put in that they maintain
access. There was added concerns and that's why we've now agreed
with what you have on the floor, which is that they would maintain it
but that we'd maintain ownership as ownership. We're going make
sure that they maintain it from the County's perspective as well as
Goodland's perspective.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, at the end of two years, if they
don't maintain it, do we have some way to be able to --
MR. PFEITER: Well, before that time, we're going to talk to
them. But there's nothing specifically written in here to maintenance
requirements. It's more on the City and the County working together
with Goodland.
MR. MUDD: There's a mandatory Staff review on an annual
basis in this contract that they talk about those different things as far
as the impact fee coordination is concerned. So that's a mandated
issue between two Staffs.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. FOLLMER: What would be our process in Goodland when
it does become time for maintenance to be done on that road? What
would be our process? Will we be contacting Mr. Pfeiter's
department or will we be calling Marco City to request maintenance
along the roadway?
We're happy for Marco City about this new interlocal
agreement, because they do need that additional funding to help them
with the roadways. The only part of that new interlocal agreement
Page 107
July 30-31, 2002
- that we had a problem with was how it impacted the village of
Goodland and that roadway.
MR. MUDD: Contact Norman and he'll get that done for you.
MS. FOLLMER: So you will be our contact if maintenance
needs to be done along the road?
MR. PFEITER: Yes, myself and my staff. And that would be
fine. And what I will tell you that what we're trying to do and I
appreciate Goodland's concern. That's why we're trying to make this
acknowledgement. But, essentially, we're tying to have the roads that
are within the City maintained by City.
For most residents, I realize you've got a special issue here. But
for most residents, that makes it clear who they can work with. But
in this case we'll work with the City. And if you need anything,
please call me.
MS. FOLLMER: Just as one more final point for your
`" Commissioners because this is blown up a little bit so that you can
see and a little bit better detail the tiny little area of roadway we're
talking about. Between this line and this line is a half mile stretch of
winding road. That's the area we're talking Goodland, Goodland drive
west or CR92 continues on into the village down to this point and all
of the roadways, approximately a 15 mile stretch of road still will be
maintained by the County.
So the County will still come into this area doing maintenance
down in this area. But Marco City now, under this agreement, will
come in and do maintenance on this road under the guidelines of--
taking it out of their budget, out of the million dollars.
Marco City will now have to spend money out of that million
dollars that you're going to be transferring over to them to maintain
this road over the next two years, even though the County will still
come in here and take care of to roadways within the village of
Page 108
July 30-31, 2002
Goodland. So that's why it initially didn't make any sense to us to
give over the maintenance of a half mile roadway to Marco City.
But if this is your intent and if Marco -- if the Village of
Goodland is able to contact the County anytime that we need
maintenance along that road, it will appear that it's probably a pretty
fine arrangement. I'm going to pass. So that's all I have to say.
Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wonderful presentation.
MS. PHILSON: The next speaker is James Graham.
MR. GRAHAM: My name is James Graham. I live in
Goodland. And I live on Palm, 656 Palm, and I've been there about
seven years now. And I'm here to talk about the history of that little
winding road. It's -- which we know there's a lot of history in
Goodland. It was pointed out that a lot of history of Goodland, which
was like Marco Island, has been taken away over the years. I am a --
- and so on all the residents of Goodland, we're County people.
We vote in, you know, Collier County residents, not Marco
Island City residents. We would like to have a good relationship with
the City of Marco Island. I would, anyways. I don't feel comfortable
right now because I don't feel like we're developing a good
relationship. The history of that winding road. I have some stuff
here, see if I can wing it here is fellow by the name of Petit, they
bought land, a family. I guess it goes way, way, way back.
This is history. This is historical stuff here. It goes all the way
back. And he had children and he needed to get his children on to the
road to get on the bus because they're going back and forth in skits,
you know, the rowboats, whatever you want to call them. And he
started and he was told if he built the road that they'll do something.
Anyways, he's got a wheelbarrow and a shovel and he started
taking the oysters shells and started creating a road. So all the high
Page 109
July 30-31, 2002
points, that why the road is winding, by the way, because he went to
all the high spots. There was a river somewhere around the foot of
the bridge, which we know as Goodland Bridge and the marina there.
There was like a river there.
Anyways, he was about -- I don't know. So the story goes, two
thirds -- or one third, I believe, away. And someone gave him a
truck, you know, a Ford truck, one of those old trucks. And they got
over with two skits and they put them together and they got the truck
over to Goodland Point, was the name of it at the time.
And he finished the road and kept hauling more shells, oyster
shells. And he was able to get his family, his children to be able to
go over a road rather than the other. That's the only road in Goodland
that goes in and out for the citizens and th residents, I should say, of
the County, not the City of Marco Island, the County of Marco
Island.
I feel, and the citizens fell, I believe, that that's our history. We
have history there, which you-all know it is a destination for people
to say, "Let's go, you know. I want to go to that point." Boy, am I
shaking.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're doing a great job. Keep
going.
MR. GRAHAM: And -- well, the bottom line is down at the end
of this thing, this whole story. The man did this stuff years ago. And
there was -- I've got it right here. That's funny. My last name is
Graham, but this guy's first name was Graham. And his name was
Graham, W-I-D-E-N Widen or Widen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Widen.
MR. GRAHAM: Whatever the word is. What is the word?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Widen. The old Widen family.
Page 110
July 30-31, 2002
MR. GRAHAM: Thank you. So I'm not the historian here, by
the way. But I'm trying to do my best. But anyways, he was told --
or the family down the road was told at that time if he finished that
road and then he did. And he got the children on the bus to go to
school. He was told and promised by that Commissioner Widen.
Mr. Petit was told that the County would maintain that road
forever. And the only way they can do that, my opinion, and I
believe the opinions of most people that are in the County where I
live, to delete that section of road. Which, by the way, it has two
names. It has Goodland Drive West, CR 92A. One name. The other
-- that's two names there. Goodland Drive West is one name and
92A is the other. And whether you realize it or not from what I
understand, I could be corrected on this, but that Goodland Drive
West runs all the way to that end -- thank you -- to that end. May I
continue? Only a few seconds.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wrap it up, sir.
MR. GRAHAM: Thank you very much. To the end of that
island to the other side. It doesn't stop at the border of the thing. It
runs right through Goodland, all the way through Goodland to the
other side. So what are you doing here? And that two-year thing, I
don't believe it for a minute.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well.
MR. GRAHAM: I think now and then you should delete this
from that and the rest is fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MR. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Commissioners.
MS. PHILSON: Next is Mr. Mike Barbush.
MR. BARBUSH: Good morning, Commissioner. My name is
Mike Barbush and I'm the president of the Goodland Civic
Association. I'd like to read a short statement and then. My name is
Page 111
July 30-31, 2002
Mike Barbush, president of the Goodland Civic Association. We
come before you this morning to endorse the interlocal agreement
between the County and the City of Marco Island with one exception,
for the reasons previously stated. Goodland has a historical,
emotional and a physical attachment to County Road 92A.
And we respectfully request that the County retain jurisdiction
of the entry road to our community. I'd like to thank Mr. Mudd and
David Weigel and Ed Caff from your Transportation Department for
supplying information helpful to -- regarding to the transference of
the jurisdiction. Let me also state that we have a good relationship
with the City of Marco Island.
This is in no way an advisory situation with the City of Marco
Island. We've been working with Mr. Moss, the City Council and a
Public Works Director, Vlad Resu for over a year on the construction
of a bike path down County Road 92A. There are three developments
in the future that will require a cooperation between the City and the
County.
The Barge Marina at the base of the Goodland Bridge the
approval and the approved PUD for Calusa Island Village and the
interconnects with the Calusa Yacht Club all in the planning stages
will require a good faith negotiations between the City and the
County. I lived on Marco and Goodland for 22 years. And I'm in the
construction industry on Marco Island everyday.
I believe the interlocal agreement will be an asset to Marco
Island to improve -- to continue with the capital improvements
already underway. And I believe it's a sound policy for County also.
We would like to see the jurisdiction of County Road 92A remain
with the County.
In March of 2002, the Goodland Civic Association voted to try
to get County Road 92A back into unincorporated Collier County.
Page 112
July 30-31, 2002
This long, difficult process will be accomplished with by going to the
State House of Representatives and the Senate and the Governor and
also the citizens of Collier County to approve such a request.
Retaining jurisdiction of County Road 92A is critical to this effort.
Please approve the interlocal agreement and retain jurisdiction to
County Road 92A for Goodland. Mr. Mudd's proposal is acceptable
to us. If the County owns the road and the City of Marco Island
maintains the road, that's a win-win for both of us. Marco has the
ability to use those monies for not only for the road but for also
capital improvements, drainage and those sort of things.
We're like this with Marco. We have to be like this with Marco.
And again, like I say, if Mr. Mudd's proposal is agreeable to ya'll, it's
definitely agreeable to us. The two-year window gives us enough
time to work with Burt Saunders and with Dudley Goodlette to find
out if we have some where to go with this, to get the road back in
unincorporated Collier County.
Our citizen Goodland are adamant about getting the road back
into the town. So my direction as the President of the Civic
Association is to follow through this. And this is just the beginning
of a long process to try to get the winding road, County Road 92A,
back into Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And don't forget your biggest asset,
Commission Fiala will be there for you.
MR. BARBUSH: Absolutely, without a doubt. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would ask Commissioner
Fiala to reinstate her motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry.
I thought I had it right the first time. But I'm going to try it again.
Page 113
July 30-31 , 2002
And that is that I would like to approve this interlocal agreement as
written except to delete Route 92A and keep that in the ownership of
the County but maintained by Marco Island for a period of two years,
and then we can come back and revisit it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And, you know --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we wrote, right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Thank you. Mike
Minozzi from the Marco Island City Council would like to come up.
And thanks, Mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we do, there's one problem I
have with the motion. It's worded in such way that we're bound by
the interlocal agreement dollarwise. And we may be bound to take
the road back over to pay to have it repaired from what I hear in your
motion. There's the part that gives me a little fear.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. No. No. Marco Island would
repair. Marco Island would maintain --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For two years?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But two years -- at the end of two
years --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then the road goes to Marco Island
or we work out some other agreement.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. But we're not bound by the
County. If it doesn't go to Marco Island, you take it back and start
paying for it without adjusting the interlocal agreement, because that
would be disastrous to have to start paying for it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. No. No. No. That isn't --
MR. MUDD: Let me help for just a second. Okay. There's two
interlocal agreements Okay. And I suggest you take them on one at a
Page 114
July 30-31, 2002
time. Okay. And let's get the road one done first, because that's the
most critical one and then we'll get to the impact fee one.
What the road agreement is, as it states right now, is that the
roads, County Road 92 and 92 Alpha, would be turned over, those
pieces of road that are located within the municipal boundaries of
Marco Island would be turned over to Marco Island for maintenance
and for ownership, okay, with a payment from the County of one
million dollars a year for 15 years.
Commissioner, what I think you said, okay, is that County Road
-- that's all stands firm, except in the case of County Road 92 Alpha.
In that particular case, that road segment would be maintained by
Marco Island. The ownership would stay maintained by Marco
Island for 15 years. And Connie Follmer has the point of contact with
Norm Pfeiter to come if they need any repairs so we can get with
Vlad Resu and get that fixed.
An ownership of the road would stay with the County for a two-
year period of time while Goodland Homeowners Association works
the details out for deannexation of that particular property along that
road back to the County. After that two-year period of time,
ownership would be revert back to Marco Island if they're effort is
unsuccessful.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But that leaves me still wondering
what about the dollar amounts?
MR. MUDD: It's okay at that particular juncture because they're
maintaining the road for that fifteen-year period of time no matter
who owns it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Regardless?
MR. MUDD: Regardless.
Page 1 15
July 30-31, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Minozzi, thank you very
much for bearing with us.
MR. MINOZZI: Thank you. For the record, Mike Minozzi,
Councilman, Marco Island. First of all I do want to thank you for
bringing this entire issue up. I know that we were -- at the very
beginning we were kind of unhappy about the way it was shaping up.
But I think it turned out to be a win-win situation for the County and
for Marco Island.
And I wanted to express my support for the motion. And I just
want to let our neighbors in Goodland know that if we're going to
make a commitment to maintain the roads, we certainly are going to
stand by our commitments. And certainly with Norm there to kind of
referee if anything needs to be done, certainly there will be no
problem.
Certainly, reasonable maintenance of these roads will be
something that we would do if we agree to do it. So, again, I just
want to make sure that our neighbors know that there is no problem.
We will maintain the road. Whether it turns out that we end up
owning the road or not owning the road, you know, that really is okay
either way. It doesn't make any difference.
We have no designs to do anything other than to keep the road
in good maintenance. And by the way, I just want to address one
point regarding the bike paths that gentleman made before. And, yes,
we did receive a grant to do bike paths. But that grant does not come
due, I believe, until '05 or '06. And we had originally, we had
attempted to push it up, you know, with an agreement earlier.
Unfortunately, it did get cut from the budge as many other
situations got cut from the budget. And so we're attempting to do it
again this year even though we will not get paid for it until '05 or '06.
So I just want to make sure that people understand that we are not in
Page 116
July 30-31, 2002
any way shorting Goodland in this case. We're actually doing --
we're actually paying money in interest to do this project well in
advance of what the grant was for. But we certainly do support your
motion. And I do want to thank you all of you for bringing this up.
Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you Mr. Minozzi. Okay.
Where are we at this point? We have a --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Call a question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's see. I'm sorry. I think I have to
close the public hearing if we haven't done that. We heard from all
the speakers?
MS. PHILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Close the public hearing. And at this
point we have a motion. And the motion is one part or two parts?
MR. MUDD: This is a one-part motion from what I --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was a one-part motion.
MR. MUDD: And this has to do with the turnovers of the
County Road 92 and 92 Alpha to the City of Marco in the exception
that County Road 92 Alpha will be maintained by the City of Marco
Island, will remain in County ownership for two years after which
time it will revert to the City of Marco Island unless there's been
some legislative deannexation of properties from the City of Marco in
that process.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And Commissioner Henning
seconded it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seconded it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-hum.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So is there any other
discussion on this motion? All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
Aye.
Page 117
IP •
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT RESERVES FOR MARCO L.AND PROJECTS FROM
TRANSPORTATION GAS
FISCAL YEAR 2002.
OBJECTIVE: To obtain the Board of County Commissioners approval of a budget amendment that
will appropriate funds from reserves to cover v projects
the were
budgeted in
fiscal yew y�2002 that the
City of Marco Island did not get
CONSIDERATIONS: As part of the fiscal year 2002 adopted budget,$500,000 was budgeted for the
City of Marco Island as a reimbursement for intersection improvements within the city limits. The City
Department Marco Island r to thoe end of the fiscal year. Transportati n was not able to encumber any funds for
Department pnor to
these projects since the contracts were not provided.
A new interlocal agreement was entered into between the City of Marco Island and Collier County to
allow for$1,000.000.00 on March 31 t and$500.000.00 on June 30`�oof each for ear for a period no annual
transfer of$500,000.00 on M
than 15 years.
A second interlocal agreement was also entered into between the City of Marco Island and Collier
County which allows for the City of Marco Island to maintain the first$200,000.00 collected each year
of impact fees and to remit to Collier County any funds above the$200.000.00.
The previous interlocal agreement allowed for the City of Marco Island to maintain 60%of all impact
fees collected and to remit any funding above the 60%to Collier County. Collier County was also
returning to the City of Marco Island approximately 40%each year to assist the City of Marco Island
with intersection improvements within the city limits. The City of Marco Island completed the
following projects with this additional funding:
San Marco Road/North Barfield Drive Intersection $353,517.56
CR 92&SR 951 Intersection Improvements $308,681.40
Funds in the amount of$500,000 were budgeted as a reimbursement to Marco Island for road
improvements within the City of Marco Island for FY 02. The City of Marco Ii lan iTeFueestting tha�3.iscal Year
$250,000.00 be carried forward into Fiscal Year 03 for projects they p
The total amount that will be provided to the City of Marco Island for Fiscal Year 2003 is as follows.
March 31,2003 $500,000.00
June 30, 2003 $500.000.00
Impact Fee Collections $200,000.00
Sub Total $1,200,000.00
Carry Forward Request $250,000.00(if approved by BC
J� N(?A 1TEM
Total FY 03 $1,450,000.00 No 1�
OCT 2 2 2002
Pg
0 4
FISCAL IMPACT: If the carry forward funds are approved by the Board of County Commissioners,a
budget amendment will be needed to transfer$250,000.00 from the Transportation Supported Gas Tax
Fund Reserves to bring the total of Transportation transfers to the City of Marco Island to S1,450,000.00
for fiscal year 2003.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT,: None
RECOMMENDATIONS: That the BCC review the request from the City of Marco Island and approve
their request and any n sary budget amendments.
PREPARED BY: nth DATE: /D/I/OZ-
t� l
S aroh Newman,Accounting Supervisor
Transportation Administration
,,f/1
REVIEWED BY: �-1.�.' ,144. , DATE: _ /��7Sf L
No E. Feder,AICP,Administrator
-bran ortation Services Division
AG1L6 ITEM
OCT 2 2 2002
Pg. 2
Rata: 3034472 OR: 3095 PG: 2883 RIC ?1E 37.50
CL11I TO TBE BOARD RICORDID in the OF?ICIAL WORDS of COLLIER CORTI, ?L COIIns 1.00
IRsR0??IC1 ITN FLOOR 01122/2042 at 01:09/N OMIMIT I. BROCR, CM
1TT ,214 1 O
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND
REGARDING IMPACT FEES
THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 30 7l4
day of S UL y , 2002,by and between Collier County,Florida(hereinafter
called the"COUNTY")and the City of Marco Island,Florida(hereinafter called the
"CITY").
WHEREAS,Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances
provides for the imposition of impact fees to provide a source of revenue to fund the
construction or improvement of parks and recreational facilities,the library system,the
emergency medical services system,roads,correctional facilities and educational
facilities system;and
WHEREAS,the impact fees provided by the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances and its Land Development Code are imposed in both the unincorporated and
incorporated areas of Collier County;and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and CITY are desirous of establishing a uniform
procedure for the collection of impact fees whereby impact fees shall be imposed and
calculated as provided in Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances,and such impact fees shall be paid to the CITY prior to the CITY's issuance
of building permits; and
WHEREAS,Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances
provides that the CITY may enter into an interlocal agreement with the COUNTY that
1
OR: 3095 PG: 2884
ion
provides for the collection of impact fees and the manner in which such impact fees shall
be collected and paid;and
WHEREAS,the parties agree that it is in the best interest of the COUNTY and
the CITY that impact fees imposed on new development be collected and accounted for
in an expeditious and efficient manner;and
WHEREAS,the COUNTY and the CITY agree that such efficiency can be
achieved by the collection of impact fees by the CITY issuing building permits within its
municipal boundaries.
WITNESSETH:
In consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other valuable
consideration,the sufficiency of which is agreed to by the parties,the COUNTY and the
CITY agree as follows:
Section 1. Agreement.
1. The above clauses are incorporated herein and made a part of this agreement.
2. The CITY hereby agrees to assist and cooperate with the COUNTY by collecting
impact fees within the boundaries of the CITY pursuant to Chapter 74 of the Collier
County Code of Laws and Ordinances.
Section II. Collection and Payment of Fees.
The CITY shall require,as a condition to the issuance of all building permits,the
payment to the CITY of all required impact fees imposed by the COUNTY or proof of
payment or credit for payment of all impact fees imposed by the COUNTY.
2
OR: 3095 PG: 2885
100
Section III. Road Impact Fees.
1. The CITY agrees to assist and cooperate with the COUNTY in collecting Road
Impact Fees on behalf of the County pursuant to Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code
of Laws and Ordinances.The CITY shall require,as a condition to the issuance of a
Building Permit within the boundaries of the CITY,the payment to the CITY of the Road
Impact Fees imposed by the COUNTY.
2. The CITY will retain the first Two-Hundred-Thousand Dollars, [$200,000.00],in
Road Impact Fees collected in the CITY during its fiscal year[October 1 through
September 30],which shall be used for capacity improvements and additions to the
transportation network which are necessitated by development in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances.
3. The Road Impact Fees collected by the CITY in excess of the first Two-Hundred-
Thousand Dollars[$200,000.00]shall be remitted to the COUNTY in accordance with
Section VII of this agreement.
4. Impact fees remitted to the COUNTY pursuant to this Section shall be used for
capacity improvements on CITY,COUNTY or State roads within or adjacent to the
{ existing or amended boundaries of Collier County Road Impact Fee District 4 pursuant to
Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Law and Ordinances.
5. Representatives of the CITY and COUNTY shall meet at least annually to
coordinate and prioritize their respective projects to facilitate and evaluate the
effectiveness of capacity improvements funded by the road impact fees.
3
OR: 3095 PG: 2886
1 O
Section IV. Other Impact Fees.
1. This section shall apply to Regional Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fees,
Emergency Medical Services System Impact Fees,Library System Impact Fees,
Correctional Facilities Impact Fees,Educational Facilities System Impact Fees,and other
applicable,subsequently adopted Impact Fees.
2. The CITY agrees to assist and cooperate with the COUNTY by collecting,as set
forth in Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances,within the
boundaries of the CITY, Regional Parks and Recreational Facilities Impact Fees,
Emergency Medical Services System Impact Fees,Library System Impact Fees,
Correctional Facilities Impact Fees,Educational Facilities System Impact Fees,and any
other impact fees that may be adopted by the COUNTY subsequent to the effective date
of this agreement.
3. The CITY shall require,as a condition to the issuance of a Building Permit,the
payment to the CITY of the Regional Parks and Recreation,Emergency Medical Services
System,Educational Facilities System,Correctional Facilities and the Library System
Impact Fees, as well as any other impact fees that may be adopted by the COUNTY
subsequent to the effective date of this agreement.
4. The CITY shall be reimbursed by the COUNTY for the costs incurred in the
collection of these Impact Fees in an amount equal to two percent[2%]per annum of the
amount collected for each respective Impact Fee as compensation for the annual
administrative costs of collecting these Impact Fees.
5. Both parties acknowledge and agree that the two percent[2%] reimbursed is
adequate to pay for the cost incurred by the CITY for the collection of these fees,
4
OR: 3095 PG: 2887
100
including any increase in bonding or surety costs that may result from the handling of
these additional monies.
6. The fees collected by the CITY for Regional Parks and Recreation,Emergency
Medical Services System,Education Facilities System,Correctional Facilities and
Library System Impact Fees,and any other impact fees that may be adopted by the
COUNTY subsequent to the effective date of this agreement,shall be remitted to the
County in accordance with Section VII of this agreement.
Section V. Developer Contribution Credits.
The City of Marco Island shall not grant any impact fee credits.
Section VI. Review Hearings.
Collier County shall conduct any review hearings requested by an applicant or an
owner pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances.
Section VII. Remittance.
1. Road impact fees collected by the CITY in excess of the first Two Hundred
Thousand Dollars[$200,0001 each fiscal year shall be remitted,without interest,by the
CITY to the COUNTY. Payments for the first and second quarters of each fiscal year
shall be remitted not later than April 15th annually. Payments for the third and fourth
fiscal quarters shall be remitted not later than July 15th and October 15th,respectively,of
each fiscal year.
2. All other applicable impact fees collected from developments within the city
} limits of Marco Island,except road impact fees,shall be remitted,without interest,by the
CITY to the COUNTY on a quarterly basis. The remittance of these funds to the
5
OR: 3095 PG: 2888
100
COUNTY shall take place no later than the fifteenth(15th)of the month following the
quarter of impact fee collection.
Section VIII. Term.
This agreement shall be for an initial term of twelve(12)months beginning
October 1,2002,through September 30,2003. This initial term shall be automatically
renewed for additional one-year terms commencing October 1 of each year and
terminating September 30 of the succeeding year unless one party delivers a written
notice of termination to the other party prior to August 1 of each year.
Section IX. Right of Review.
CITY and COUNTY shall each agree to cooperate and shall have the reciprocal
right to review the records of the other as to the receipt,allocation,and expenditure of
impact fees,including records regarding the issuance of building permits. All such
inspections shall be made upon reasonable notice and at reasonable times and places.
Section X. Amendments.
The COUNTY shall provide written notice to the CITY of amendments to
Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances and prior to the effective
date of any such amendment and shall provide a copy to the CITY of its Administrative
Manual pertaining to impact fees.
Section XI. Notices.
All notices required under this agreement shall be directed to the following
offices:
6
OR: 3095 PG: 2889
1 (H)
For the COUNTY: Office of the County Manager
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples,Florida 34112
For the CITY: Office of the City Manager
- 50 Bald Eagle Drive
Marco Island,Florida 34145
Section XII. Hold Harmless—COUNTY.
The COUNTY agrees to hold the CITY harmless from all liability,which may
result from the negligent performance of the COUNTY's obligations as set forth herein,
however this paragraph shall not constitutes a waiver of the County's sovereign immunity
pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 768.28.
Section X.W. Hold Harmless—CITY.
The CITY agrees to hold the COUNTY harmless from all liability,which may
result from the negligent performance of the CITY'S obligations as set forth herein,done
in accordance with the terms of this agreement.
Section XIV. This Interlocal Agreement shall be recorded in the Public Records of
Collier County.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and
year first above written.
7
*** OR: 309 P • 090 ***
ATTEST: CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MARCO ISLAND,FLORIDA
g: '-if____ BY: 9"X4...4. ti(e,-
Laura Litzan E. Glenn Tucker,Chairman
Deputy City Clerk
DATED:
<1'45;i ,i, { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
A�'� t-�.. ,:‘ 44:xectir,'.. Ot f{i . COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA
i ' . _6'04.411^ =
`l�e` ty Cletl�'=1� 9S' Ch'1 James N. Coletta,Chairman
s,, re on ly•
t.
Approved as to form and Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency: legality:
'_ wit.. .. _
< •feline Hubbard Robinson Kenneth B.Cuyler,
Assistant County Attorney City Attorney
•
8
COLLIER COUNTY ROAD MAINTENANCE
Goodland Drive(San Marco Rd to Angler Dr)
As of September 23,2014
Vi c. -
• _. >a
x
oo..
42404409: le*
r
ar �.s
�r �g tr .,,/ 1*�� 'alt
j14,1,,,
?g `yF F{ r i t,
,..474it
"+ ' �� ,, y s, ,y
;"''`+' . , +CM i
p
g i
-„, . ..., :.. ,,,..7,:...„,:,.. . /.1.04.0-e„,p01,,.... -_,,i.t..„:„ -,,,..7„. . .,„
1*,G...,3� it ':' j"-.- Y4 4. 'mot f -. ,,t,k', ,-- �..` Maf.�`
wX �,. •t !J'},"`V , --1• • _ • ,14"b'.'- � � �:`},�. •,,;:.. .tM t `g, - ,..,fi t " .`.
• >.,•,i f'.. , L. „ #� jam.?-',4,,', � .Mr Mme.." = L� `t st1. +ti + �a•
,r
r .
Legend ' `. trs .-� 'd".% t Il 1`��At' ! �;Y. . v, . a_,�•
�"'• -Patch locations ``' r ✓ , q, ' " t ,ham
7.a." .,u.,' r
.r.Poor Conditions - ?: ,a, ' f>•
. County Maintained Roads
* "x � ,�
w + firIr. •' O•
Maintained by Others(City.Private.etc} .r 4 'Y ,,y t`{
V,,,,>'.i': . ... w. .�-.5,,. .,.�.• . .. •..•.y,+. ,�`_. ... i..i.''•' .ors °�i.• ri�tti� t
rr. -
•
•
v4
� r .
r
•
!
„ w
. r e
w •
•
rav
•
rt '*w' '.,. a -... : ..' ^' • '' 1
t m'
•
•
•
•
•
9
•
•
•
•
•
•
tom," `
€, T!'., =
m fir e •:. ""P- j" `{ '4 . `'•
•
`x f � .;. `+e'er 'te r sit,I ,:4'.6,.-;�..''14‘,Y,24.,.°',;,-"�'!"r'
ti .:s
4A \� -• ♦ .p' 1 �* �
r
•
f
•
3 •
y
a '�� • ':• sf• / ,+' i '";•< f, i .
• > 1i ,c ;
_ '1,4;!..3';r:::"7,2'.l ` "q 1.4;.,' # / 'y ,- 't *�';.. a b.. x
r�
.+ "♦ �
�, a �• •! s.
'1" ;' ,..s ,!14 f ` r �.i• •- • •,..�'. ♦ "pry+s+GS, 5 ¢.,. . ;y
i
i
Vh11 ! .x• d« .
.,.s". --.
.. ►
Apo A
fv
.
« " 1 e •!..
•
:.
• t:
dr 3.fi 7' • a
T
�+g
3
•
•
r
ii
??7
•
,
4'
lois* .
•
.
• /)°fIC .
•
01-1-14‘
• Office of the County Manager
Leo E. Ochs, Jr.
rjUN t 3299 Tartaarni Trat1 East,Suite 202•Naples Fbnda 34112-5746•(239)252-8383•FAX(239)252-4010
September 25,2014
Mr. Roger Hernstadt,City Manager
City of Marco Island
50 Bald Eagle Drive
Marco Island,FL 34145
Dear Mr.Hernstadt:
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for meeting with me and Nick Casalanguida on Monday,
August 11,2014 to discuss Goodland Road repairs.
As a follow-up to our meeting,we would like to request your feedback on the CH2MHILL engineering
report we provided you.The report documents that the road is in"poor"condition.It identifies that short
term repairs are required immediately and that a long term holistic solution should be developed. I have
also attached copies of the 2002 executive summary and agreement that clearly recognizes the County's
annual payment of 51,000,000 is to be used to offset the maintenance responsibilities associated with
Goodland Road. These payments are set to expire in FY 2017.
In consideration of the magnitude of the repairs needed to Goodland Road,I am respectfully requesting
that the City formally agree to set aside the remaining future payments in an escrow account specifically
earmarked for Goodland Road repairs. You expressed that the County should also be committed to their
portion of Goodland Road. If we can come to agreement on this approach,I will recommend that our
Board commit to escrowing an amount proportionate to our segment of the project costs.Additionally,the
County will fully partner with the City in discussions with The Conservancy and other interested parties
concerning potential environmental impacts associated with the project.
I believe this will be a priority discussion topic when are elected officials meet. I am hopeful that we can
arrive at a joint proposal that is fair and satisfactory to all concerned. I believe the documentation is clear
and the safety of the Goodland residents necessitates a long term solution.
Thank you for your interest and consideration in this matter. I look forward to your reply.
Best regards,
r
Leo E.Ochs,Jr.
County Manager
O
44,
City of Marco L181=0
City d
•
October 13, 2014
Mr. Leo E. Ochs, Jr.
Collier County Manager
3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202
Naples. Florida 34112-5746
Dear Mr. chs, °
This is in response to your September 25, 2014 letter regarding Goodland Road.
We look forward to working with the County on this matter. I will advise the City Council of the
County's suggestion of escrowing money for the Goodland Road repair. However, I believe
that this is a matter for the elected officials to discuss at the forthcoming joint session.
As it pertains to the County's commissioned CH2MHILL engineering report, I cannot in good
conscience advise the City's elected officials to make any binding decision or consider
CH2MHILL's economic analysis or conclusions until such time as the project is defined and
accepted by the Conservancy.
Your letter correctly reiterates that the City agreed to maintain the road. We have and will
continue to honor that obligation. The City's portion of the Goodland Road condition is
consistent with other municipal roadways with the exception of Collier Blvd. which was
recently reconstructed.
I
Sincerely,
toger T. Hernstadt
/
City Manager
cc: City of Marco Island Council
City Attorney Burt Saunders
50 Bald Eagle Drive, Marco Island, Florida 34145
(239) 389-5000 <> Fax(239)389-4359
A
J <. EVANS E ` GINEE �=
November 12,2014
Mr. Roger T. Hernstadt
City Manager
City of Marco Island
50 Bald Eagle Drive
Marco Island, FL 34145
Re: SR 92A Hydrologic Study
Dear Mr. Hernstadt:
The City of Marco Island in conjunction with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida would like to better
understand the hydrogeology of surface and groundwater flow beneath and over State Road 92A,
located near Goodland Florida. State Road 92A restricts the natural surface water flow across mangrove
stands on either side of the road, and influences the water flow that occurs beneath and over the road.
Groundwater flow can be assessed by numerous methods,such as:
1. Analytic calculations using head pressures and aquifer hydraulic characteristics,
2. Flow estimates using three-dimensional groundwater flow modeling,and
3. Direct measurement of a saline water tracer using surface resistivity techniques.
Each of these options have unique benefits and limitations, but the increasing data needs for modeling
and tracer testing result in increased costs. The most cost effective method is to determine selected
aquifer hydraulic flow characteristics and corresponding head pressures on each side of State Road 92A
at selected locations, and calculate potential groundwater flow using the Darcy solution. This solution
will provide estimates of the ranges of potential groundwater flow beneath the road,and can be used as
a basis for more detailed studies such as modeling or tracer testing if desired in the future.
There may be other factors influencing flow into and out of this estuarine system. The complex system
could be creating a step tide condition where the incoming tide takes place over a significantly different
time frame than the outgoing tide. Step tide conditions can further complicate potential remediation
measures and should be known to adequately design a system to correct potential tidal flow conditions
across the road. Potential step tide conditions can be assessed with the use of continuous water level
recording over multiple tidal cycles.
We also recommend a water level tidal study (included in Task 3) to evaluate potential step tide
conditions at one or both of the sites. Continuous water level data recorders will be placed into
piezometers at the site (three at Site 1 and/or five at Site 2) and programmed to record water levels on
an hourly basis for a duration of one month. The data will be analyzed and hydrographs of water
elevation over time will be prepared to assess potential step tide conditions. Results will be
incorporated into the technical memorandum described above.
J.R. EVANS ENGINEERING
23150 FASHiON DRIVE STE 242 . ESTERO FL 33928 TEL 239 405 9148 r FAX 239 288 2537
WWW JREVANSENGINEER,NG COM
City of Marco Island November 12,2014
SR 92A Hydrologic Study Page 2
The City of Marco Island has indicated two areas of concern along this roadway. We propose to conduct
a groundwater flow study at these two sites. One area of concern (Site 1) is located between the
intersection of San Marco Road(SR 92)and Goodland Drive(SR 92A)where the study site consists of bay
waters to the east and mangrove forest to the west, separated by Goodland Drive. The other area of
concern (Site 2)is located in Goodland where the study site consists of bay waters/inlet to the north and
south, separate by mangrove forests and Good land Drive. The presence of bay waters/inlet both north
and south of Goodland Drive at Site 2 requires additional water level points(piezometers)to adequately
assess head pressures across a transect.
Task 1: Groundwater Flow Study
Proposed work elements will consist of the following:
• Advancement of one soil boring to a depth of about 20 feet below land surface(bls)with the use
of a drill rig to collect cuttings in the field,describe lithology, and determine aquifer thickness.
• Installation of three piezometers(shallow monitoring wells)across the transect at Site 1.
• Installation of four piezometers and a staff gauge across the transect at Site 2.
• Completion of one to two falling head permeability tests of piezometers at Sites 1 and 2 to
determine aquifer flow characteristics.
• Measurement of water levels from piezometers/staff gauge on two occasions during a tidal
cycle.
• Surveying relative elevations of surface water, land surface and the piezometers.
• Calculation of potential groundwater flow beneath State Road 92A at each area of concern for
each water level measurement.
• Provide a technical memorandum that will include methodologies employed to collect data,
results of testing, groundwater flow calculations, and assumptions/limitations of the
assessment
Task 2: Data Collection
• Gather and synthesize existing information on the Fruit Farm Creek restoration area.
Task 3: Surface Water Analysis and Restoration Plan
• A topographic and bathymetric survey will be completed in order to characterize the existing
conditions of the site. Hydrology and tidal flow within the areas of concern will be described
based upon the placement of three hydrologic monitor devices in the closest unimpacted
(control) creek system, the flowway into the mangroves from the existing single culvert, and a
third in the dead mangrove area. In addition, other biological, physical and permitting
constraints within the project site will be identified, including the presence of non-native
vegetation that will be removed as part of the final restoration plan. Once the site is
characterized, restoration alternatives will be considered via hydrologic modeling and evaluated
based on cost efficiency and likelihood of meeting project goals. A preferred alternative will be
selected and permit drawings prepared. Permit drawings are schematic in nature and are not
construction level drawings.
EVANS H
City of Marco Island November 12,2014
SR 92A Hydrologic Study Page 3
The cost to conduct the above work elements is a Lump Sum of $75,000 plus reimbursables with a
breakdown of cost as follows:
City of Marco Island: $60,000
Collier County: $15,000
Total $75,000
These services will be billed monthly on a percent complete basis. Reimbursables would be billed per
the attached Rate Schedule and as accrued.
Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
Josh Evans, P.E.
This Proposal Accepted by:
By: Date:
Mr. Roger T. Hernstadt for
City of Marco Island
EVANS
City of Marco Island November 12,2014
SR 92A Hydrologic Study Page 4
Hourly Rate Codes:
Principal Engineer $175
Senior Engineer $160
Registered Engineer $145
Planning Director $135
GIS Technician $125
Public Utilities Coordinator $125
Engineering Intern $115
Senior Technician $115
Construction Inspector $75
Administrative $50
Reimbursable Expenses:
Other Incidental Expenses: Actual Cost plus 15%
Plan Set Reproduction:Administrative Rate plus Actual Reproduction Cost
Mileage: Current IRS Mileage Rate
Expert Witness at 200%of Scheduled Rate
24X36 Black&White print $1.5/sheet
24x36 Color print $35/sheet
EVANS -- •
City of Marco Island November 12,2014
SR 92A Hydrologic Study Page 5
STANDARD BUSINESS TERMS&CONDITIONS
These Standard Business Terms&Conditions are attached to,and made part of,the Proposals and Agreements between 1.R.Evans Engineering,
P.A.and Client.
Limitation of Liability
J R Evans Engineering's services under this Agreement will be consistent with the Standard of Care for all professional engineering and related
services to be performed or furnished by 1.R.Evans Engineering.These engineering services shall be provided with the care and skill ordinarily
provided by members of the Engineering Profession practicing under similar circumstances. Upon notice to i.R Evans Engineering and by
mutual Agreement between the parties, 1 R. Evans Engineering will correct those services not meeting such a standard without additional
compensation
1 R.Evans Engineering and Client recognize that the project involves risk The risks have been allocated such that the Client agrees to the fullest
extent permitted by the law, J.R. Evans Engineering's total liability to Client for any arid all injuries, claims, losses. expenses, damages,
reasonable attorney's fees,and defense costs, arising out of or in any way connected to this project and/or Agreement from any cause or
causes,shall not exceed the amount of the fee charged for the specific service described.Such causes include,but are not limited to,1.R.Evans
Engineering's negligence,errors,omissions,strict liability,breach of contract or breach of warranty
Payments and Collection
invoicing will be provided on a monthly basis or at completion of the service-Statements are due and payable upon receipt.Client agrees to
carefully read all billing statements and promptly notify J.R Evans Engineering,in writing,of any claimed errors or discrepancies,within fifteen
(1S)days from the date of the statement.If J.R Evans Engineering is not notified by the Client in writing,it is presumed that the owner agrees
with the correctness,accuracy,and fairness of the billing statement.
Past due amounts may incur a late fee of 1%and 1 R Evans Engineering can upon giving 7 days written notice to Client,suspend services until
payment in full is received Retainers shall be credited on the final invoice.1.R.Evans Engineering is entitled to collect reasonable fees and costs,
including collection agency,attorney's fees and interest as required to obtain collection of any fees under the Agreement.
Reimbursable Expenses
Expenses for reproduction services, tourer fees,delivery, presentation materials, long distance phone calls, travel made on behalf of the
project, subcontractors, and any other out-of-pocket expenses incurred on the project are reimbursable to J R. Evans Engineering These
expenses will be billed to the Client at cost plus 10%
Permit and Application Fees
Client shall pay all permit and application fees required for the protect.
Letters of Map Change(LOMC)
If a LOMC is granted for the project area,1.R.Evans Engineering is not responsible(financially or otherwise)for any future LOMC's performed
by FEMA(and/or its contractors)or private consultants,whim could potentially modify the project area's Flood insurance Rate designation.
The VE flood zone removal guarantee shall become null and void and shall not be applicable in the event of the following- If the building(s),is
found by FEMA to have been constructed in violation's). of FEMA/NFIP floodpiain management rules/regulations in effect at time of
construction,and a cure for the violation(s)is not provided by the Client(or others representing the Client)to rEMA's satisfaction,and FEMA
subsequently denies or otherwise rejects the LANK application due solely to the outstanding violation(s).
Termination
This agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty days'written notice in the event of substantial failure by the other party to
perform in accordance with the terms hereof through no fault of the terminating party Irrespective of which party shall effect termination,the
Client shall pay J R Evans Engineering for all services rendered to the date of termination
Attorney Fees
Should litigation arise related to services under this Agreement,the prevailing party is entitled to recover reasonable costs including staff time,
court costs,attorney fees and related expenses
•
Mediation
J.R Evans Engineering and Client agree that all disputes or claims between them arising out of or relating to this Agreement made during
design,construction,or post-construction of the project shall be submitted to nonbonding mediation unless the oarties agree otherwise
Ownership of Documents
All documents,including electronic media, prepared by 1.R. Evans Engineering under this Agreement shall remain the property of 1.R.Evans
Engineering.These documents may not be used by Client for any other endeavor without the written consent of 1 R.Evans Engineering.
Delays
J.R Evans Engineering is not responsible for delays caused by factors beyond 1.R Evans Engineering's control including but not limited to the
production of contract documents, issuance of permits from any government or agency, beginning or completion of construction; or
performance of any phase of the work pursuant to this Agreement.1.R.Evans Engineering does not guarantee issuance of any permit.
EVANS
Park Impact Fees
Park Impact Fees
ISSUE: In Spring of 2014,staff met with representatives from the City of Marco Island (City) regarding
the possible expansion of a City community park using County regional park impact fees.
BACKGROUND: Collier County provides a wide variety of parks services and recreation facilities to
Collier County residents and visitors. For impact fee purposes, there is an important distinction
between "community" parks and "regional" parks. Generally, community parks are more modest in
the amenities provided and typically service only those residents who live in close proximity to the
park. Both Marco Island and Collier County provide community parks, the impact fees for which are
more limited geographically1 and are collected at a lower rate.2
Conversely, regional parks generally provide greater amenities and are enjoyed by all County
residents, including residents of incorporated areas, and visitors. Therefore, the County's impact fee
for regional parks is assessed on all new residential development within the entire county. This
ensures that new growth is receiving a direct benefit from the parks and recreation impact fee.This is
consistent with the methodology used to develop the current adopted impact fees. The following
definitions have been developed, in conjunction with the Parks Master Plan and Parks Impact Fee
Study,to describe the attributes of each park category.
• Community Parks provide open spaces as well as informal and programmed recreational
activities and playgrounds. These parks are conveniently located within a 4 mile radius of
developed residential areas and can accommodate organized sports.
• Regional Parks are destination oriented.These parks commonly offer a key recreational value
(scenic, environmental, cultural, or leisure-amusement). Amenities may include but are not
limited to beach,water activities, boat ramps, picnic areas, playgrounds, and sports complexes
(competitive venue).A sub-category of regional parks is Special Use Parks/Facilities,which are
oriented toward single-purpose use to serve a specific area or region as a whole, and are
generally located in diverse areas where people can access by car or other transportation
mode. Facility space requirements are the primary determinants of site size for passive
recreational activities. Typical facilities include natural areas/trails, historic resources,
campgrounds, playgrounds, multi-purpose courts, picnic pavilions/ shelters, gazebos,
community pools, beaches, boat ramps, piers and civic centers. Additional facilities may
include a zoo, a golf course or a botanical garden. Special use parks/facilities usually serve the
population within a typical 30-to 40-minute drive service radius of these sites.
Collier County has developed several regional parks on or near Marco Island, including Caxambas
Park, Collier Boulevard Boating Park, Tigertail Beach Park, South Marco Beach Access, Goodland
Boating Park, Mar-Good Harbor Park and Isles of Capri Paddlecraft Park,totaling in excess of 57 acres
of public regional parks.
Currently,the expenditure of Regional Parks Impact Fee funds is limited to growth-necessitated capital
expansion under the authority/ownership of the County. Each park listed above meets this test. The
City of Marco Island currently imposes an impact fee for community parks, for the construction of
growth-necessitated capital expansion under the authority/ownership of the City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: While specific information has not been provided regarding the
proposed expansion of a particular City community park,it is unlikely that the park would be classified
as a regional park without a significant recreational amenity,such as beach/boat access,sports venues,
etc. Therefore,the appropriate funding source for such an expansion is a community parks impact fee,
or other funding source identified by the municipality.
by Amy Patterson, Impact Fee Manager
1 County impact fees for community parks are collected from the unincorporated area,as opposed to the
countywide impact fee for regional parks.
2 The impact fee rate is generally higher for regional parks.
FORT LAUDERDALE
N ab o s 208 S.E.Sixth Street
TALLAHASSEE Fort Lauderdale,Florida 33301
(954)525-8000 Tel
Suite 200 • • (954)525-8331 Fax
1500 Mahon Dr 3e Giblin. *'�Tallahassee,Florida 32308
(850)224-4070 Tel Nickerson".��`"'°max
TAMPA
(850)224-4073 Fax Suite 1060
2502 Rocky Point Drive
Tampa,Florida 33607
T O `a E. S A 1: t. A i (813)281-2222 Tel
(813)281-0129 Fax
Reply to Tallahassee
March 29, 2011
Via Electronic and U.S. Mail
Amy Patterson
Collier County Impact Fee Manager
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
Re: Calculation of Impact Fees Utilizing State and Federal Park Land .
Dear Ms. Patterson:
Our firm has been requested to provide an opinion as to whether the County
may include park and recreational lands of the State of Florida and Federal
Government located within Collier County as part of its inventory of recreational
facilities for the purpose of calculating its parks and recreational impact fees.
Based upon our discussion, the County is requesting an opinion as to
whether it may include parks and recreational lands of other entities in establishing
its level of service and to utilize such standard in the calculation of the County's
parks and recreational impact fees. It is my understanding that the County has not
entered into any agreements with the State of Florida or Federal Government
relating to the funding of these facilities.
SUMMARY ANSWER
Collier County may not utilize State or Federal parks or recreational land in
establishing its level of service which will be used in the calculation of the
County's parks and recreational impact fees.
Amy Patterson
Collier County Impact Fee Manager
March 29, 2011
Page 2
General Discussion
Impact fees are charges imposed against new development to provide for the
cost of capital facilities made necessary by that new growth. The purpose of the
charge is to impose upon the newcomers, rather than the general public, the cost of
new facilities necessitated by their arrival. See City of Dunedin v. Contractors &
Builders Ass'n of Pinellas County, 312 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
Impact fees are a product of a local governments' home rule powers and are
imposed in conjunction with their power to regulate land use and their statutory
responsibility to adopt and enforce comprehensive planning. See Art. VIII, § 2,
Fla. Const.; City of Miami Beach v. Fleetwood Hotel, Inc., 261 So. 2d 801, 805
(Fla. 1972); Wald Corp. v. Metro. Dade County, 338 So. 2d 863, 868 (Fla. 3d DCA
1976). As the development of the requirements for a valid impact fee has been
through the exercise of local governments' home rule powers, their characteristics
and limitations are derived predominantly from Florida case law and not by
statute.'
•As developed under Florida case law, a valid impact fee must meet the "dual
rational nexus" two-prong test. First, there must be a reasonable connection or
rational nexus between the anticipated need for the additional capital facilities and
the growth in population. Second, there must be a reasonable connection or
rational nexus between the expenditure of the impact fee proceeds and the benefits
accruing to the growth that paid those proceeds. See Hollywood, Inc. v. Broward
County, 431 So. 2d 606, 611-12 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). See also St. Johns County
v. N.E. Fla. Builders Ass'n, 583 So. 2d 635, 637 (Fla. 1991).
' In 2006, the Legislature adopted section 163.31801, Florida Statutes, which
set forth certain requirements for a valid impact fee. The primary purpose of the
enactment was to memorialize certain standards which had been developed over
the years in the administration of impact fees.
Amy Patterson
Collier County Impact Fee Manager
March 29, 2011
Page 3
Under the first prong of the dual rational nexus test, the needs are
sufficiently attributable to new development when the need for additional capital
facilities is rationally related to the growth generated by that development. See
Hollywood, Inc., 431 So. 2d at 611. The second prong of the dual rational nexus
test requires that for a valid impact fee there must be a reasonable connection or
rational nexus between the expenditure of the fees collected and the benefits
accruing to the new development. See id. at 611.
Under the County's Land Development Code, a level of service is
established for capital parks and recreational facilities. These standards are 2.9412
acres per 1,000 persons for regional park land and 1.2882 acres per 1,000 persons
for community park land. It appears these levels of services are based upon the
requirements of the County's capital parks and recreational facilities. Similarly, in
the calculation of impact fees, the general procedure utilized in Collier County is
that an inventory of its parks and recreational facilities is prepared which then
establishes the existing level of service for parks and recreational facilities. The
impact fees are then calculated based upon that level of service.
Though there are also State and Federal parks and recreational facilities and
areas within the County which provide for the needs of the public, they are outside
of the County's system. In order that the facilities of another entity to be included
within the County's level of service for the purpose of calculating the parks and
recreational impact fees, there must be some legitimate authority for the County to
make expansions to that system. If the County has neither the ability nor authority
to make expenditures to the State or Federal parks and recreational system, then
the collection of impact fees based upon those proposed expenditures would
violate the second prong of the dual rational nexus test. For example, road
improvements on the state system may be included for the purpose of calculation
of transportation impact fees based upon cost sharing and advance funding
agreements with the State. However, where the facilities are totally under the
control of another governmental entity and there is no authority, either by statute or
agreement, for the County to perform such improvements, then the County may
not use those facilities in the calculation of the impact fees
Amy Patterson
Collier County Impact Fee Manager
March 29, 2011
Page 4
Thank you for your assistance. Should you require any additional
information, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
1 c._tet . 0
4 Gregor T. tewart
GTS:pad
cc: Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Tigertail Beach Signage and Parking
Tigertail Beach Signage and Parking
ISSUE: In 2012, Marco Island staff approached the Parks and Recreation Department about ways to
enhance the Tigertail Beach experience, to include developing signage on Marco Island to assist
visitors in finding this valuable resource.
BACKGROUND: The Parks and Recreation Department, with the assistance of City staff, placed
signage throughout the Island directing visitors to Tigertail Beach. Since the addition of these signs,
there has been a significant increase in visitor utilization:
Park Location FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 Increase Over Prior Year
Tigertail Beach 104,788 104,786 134,046 27.9%
South Beach 72,298 69,890 72,469 3.7%
County staff also met with the Marco Island Planning Commission and City Council regarding
suggestions for additional signage to assist visitors to Marco Island. These suggestions included:
• Directional (mileage) and informational (parking,activities)signs located off-island at
intersection of SR 41 and CR 951.
• Directional and informational signs along CR 951 and at the approach of Jolley Bridge.
• Improved signs at Kendall Drive (BEACH PARKING with an arrow) and South Beach Parking
areas.
• Improved directional signs in the Tigertail Beach parking lot to direct beachgoers to the larger
"additional"parking area and the additional beach access points.
• Signs that direct beachgoers to the"additional"parking area and new(not built yet)bathroom
at the southern end of the"additional"parking area.
• Informational signs on the approaches beach accesses points (possibly the distance to be
traversed).
• Once on the sand,after crossing the access point,directional and informational signs to direct
visitors south to the beach or to north to the lagoon.
Extensive work has occurred at Tigertail Beach during the last eighteen (18) months: the
completion of a major boardwalk renovation,the building of an additional bathroom at Boardwalk
#6, and work has begun on the renovation of the large parking lot. This last item includes adding
crushed shell to the parking lot, replacing the border material, and esthetic improvements. The
parking lot is expected to be completed prior to the beginning of this upcoming season. Also, there
are plans for further expansion of the bathrooms at Boardwalk #6, with an estimated completion
date of January 2016.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff will continue to work with the City of Marco Island to promote Tigertail
Beach in an effective and efficient manner.
Public Services Division(11/14/2014)
Dredging of Collier Creek
Dredging of Collier Creek
ISSUE:The navigability of Collier Creek.
BACKGROUND: Collier Creek is at the mouth of Collier Bay and connects the Bay to the Big Marco
River/Capri Pass and ultimately to the Gulf of Mexico. This area is one of the most ephemeral areas
within Collier County over the past ten (10) years. Approximately one-third of Marco Island
boaters use Collier Creek to access the Gulf of Mexico and the Esplanade area within Collier Bay.
This pass has been dredged twice within the past ten (10) years utilizing Tourist Development Tax
funds. Beach quality sand from these dredging events has been placed in the intertidal zone of State
property,seaward of the erosion control line.
On November 18, 2014, the BCC accepted a proposal from CB&I Coastal Planning & Engineering to
conduct a thorough analysis of the coastal processes at the Collier Creek entrance into Big
Marco/Capri Pass. There will be a particular emphasis on identifying the problems and potential
solutions, with the goal of reducing the erosion forces caused by the existing current pattern and
improving navigation.
Possible solutions include,but are not limited to,the following:
1. Channel realignment
2. Review terminal jetty modification (2012 FDEP Permit#030926-001-JC),
3. Higher,longer and sand tightened terminal jetty
4. Terminal jetty relocation and/or a second jetty
5. East channel bank/slope stabilization
6. Seawall toe protection
7. Modification of the Collier Creek and adjacent shoreline dredging plan.
8. Sand trap
9. Some combination of the above
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: CB&I Coastal Planning&Engineering will produce a report detailing
its findings,to include a historical summary,which can then be shared with stakeholders and used
to guide future actions.
by Gary McAlpin 11/24/2014
.i.,:;::: •..
-
f.L., -. -:. ';'• ' • ' ' 11'. ''41.1
•
ad Th.
...... -,
rCi 17-
:
Cti rr-,
„'
.,:': ' i
P -7-5 ..
. ..
'.r,... , - t#.0-1.,.'--) " ,_"1. ", • --",i, i
, .4,• .,
If)
.: -,„ ::.•`
s-1 lir . .• 4+41!+, A• -** , i
. ■ea iox4,,tt-t: \:: v-sl:'.,- 11
- .0 :1.3 14, •, !
..—.
, ..r, „
" I'''''''' .—,
.,...
...... .
. 4
1
,-- .
_ .
.....
. . • •4 .f.,."-''"r"%P432 c.•A''
- . . 1
14* .. i't. 44• •00040•0 4
li• •c . --
h.
■
. • ..e....-11 1w4 'I 0,,,,,m ' qr ,,,,\...;;,,,,...-.
V, lip •4 ts... - ,
--cV‘ .01 itifit fy . 1 • ' , !, , te- -
6.4hr
—II6 ■ '11. ,
4/, ,L. ;I N
-JE -a. ,at ,• .. ...o. , 414 11, ,,., P. , .A.w v. ■II , 0 . *
....o :t - ii• -,--e'-'_.,„4f4t . s.
-,- i I r. a o-'-`i& '' ir :04.1"`"
f 127: ri....: 1 1+ .• -..,...-++.1.1, ' ,+i •4P.: I 7 ' ''....r:'''
pit . ,,, . r 3 ‘,,,■I r ..... a "i 0
fyit. ,
tlilil. " ;, 4, .0' ' • - . ..6.14 ...1..,/-"c4-: .,
,,,-•
it j` .„•._..,....- - ' .. ,-
pz.... rt....-- .
,, 4 A' " - ,t ''';' 4•
. .
..., 0. •y- * A , 4. ..
. . .,..,, ,,,,,, - , 4
■ *- .041%
NIC,;,*•I,' 4,- . '
1 t . 1.7.; •i "
a
f
...,... --
ti Irl. •.. in —
.„...
'',' .51.'■ ■_ 4.'
at LO
,
*-• r. cr.
)1.1k
.., ....L. 1 4 i,,,,, ' ' Ar. .. ri.t • •
. .
....
. ; '• •
I.:
•
— -4
• .. ,,,- N,,r-,.. ,,\,.
- '
\ t.
Si
,T;
'te,\
•:.1."1\ .' \ '?
‘*•',.,_ a ,
lirji „. - 1
... c.-,
„..:, r....., - , „..v,
....,
4.. 4.
, , ,
-... 1 ... 1
L.,
., ..., •• .0 .
-
...... ..4.
r-.-..
. ..
0,
1
, . .
• ,t, , it.r ' ii1;; '',:; '''''.''.,4. 4‘
4'
a,
. ,. .. ,,...,.,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to accept a proposal from CB&I Coastal Planning & Engineering dated October
22, 2014 for Collier County Creek Feasibility Analysis, approve a work order under Contract No.
13-6164-CZ for a not to exceed amount of$59,807.44, authorize necessary budget amendment and
make a finding that this item promotes tourism.
OBJECTIVE: To accept a proposal from CB&I Coastal Planning & Engineering for Collier
County Creek Feasibility Analysis.
CONSIDERATIONS: Collier Creek is at the mouth of Collier Bay and connects the Bay to the
Big Marco River/Capri Pass and ultimately to the Gulf of Mexico. Approximately one-third of
Marco Island boaters use Collier Creek to access the Gulf of Mexico, and the Esplanade area
within Collier Bay. This pass has been dredged twice within the past ten (10) years utilizing
Tourist Development Council (TDC) funds. Beach quality sand from these dredging events has
been placed in the intertidal zone of State property, seaward of the erosion control line.
This area is one of the most ephemeral areas within Collier County over the past ten (10) years.
This study will analyze the coastal processes at the Collier Creek entrance to Big Marco/Capri
Pass; identify the problems and potential solutions. The goal is to reduce erosion forces caused
by the existing current pattern and improve navigation.
The work will include: a site visit and kick-off meeting to gather information from stakeholders,
a reconnaissance level field investigation, research of historic reports and summarization of the
area's history, analysis of the information and alternatives, and preparation for a report on
possible causes, solutions and cost sharing.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for the proposed work order is not presently included in the
budget. However, sufficient funding is available in Tourist Development Tax Fund (195)
reserves. A budget amendment will be necessary to move funds, in the amount of$59,807.44,
from reserves into new Project No. 90064. Funding for this project will not be requested for
reimbursement from any grantor agency.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan
related to this action.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: At the October 23, 2014 Coastal
Advisory Committee (CAC)meeting,this item was unanimously approved by an 8 to 0 vote.
At the Tourist Development Council (TDC) meeting on October 27, 2014, this item was
unanimously approved by a 9 to 0 vote.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: Pass and inlet maintenance is an authorize expenditure under
Collier County's Tourist Development Tax Ordinance No. 92-60, as amended. The CAC and
TDC must each make a recommendation regarding approval and a recommendation that the
project expenditure promotes tourism. The BCC may accept the recommendation or make its
own recommendation and finding. This item has been approved as to form and legality and
requires majority vote for approval.—CMG
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners accept a proposal from
CB&I Coastal Planning & Engineering dated October 23, 2014 for Collier County Creek
Feasibility Analysis and authorize a work order under Contract No. 13-6164-CZ for a not to
exceed amount of$59,807.44, authorize necessary budget amendment and make a finding that
this item promotes tourism.
Prepared By: J. Gary McAlpin, P.E., Coastal Zone Management, Capital Project Planning,
Impact Fees and Program Management Department
Attachments: A) Proposal
B) Work Order
South Beach Parking Garage (Proposed)
South Beach Parking Garage (Proposed)
ISSUE: Collier County presently maintains a seventy-space parking area at South Beach Park. The
area is often full during peak times of the year. In March of this year, Mr. Ray Seward of the Marco
Island Property Owners (MIPO) sent a correspondence to Commissioner Donna Fiala inquiring as
to whether the County would consider developing a parking garage at that site to alleviate the
parking issues that have occurred in and around that area.
BACKGROUND: In responding to Mr. Seward, staff met with the Marco Island Civic Association
(MICA), the City of Marco Island planning staff, and conducted research on the deed and PUD
restrictions on the property.A summary of key facts pertaining to the site are as follows.
• In July 1994, Point Marco Development Corp. conveyed ownership of the property on Swallow
Ave. that is maintained by the Parks and Recreation Department and restricted its use to
parking for the general public or a passive recreational facility. The deed restrictions also set
forth requirements as to fencing,landscaping and hours of operation at the site.
• The restrictions are in effect for ninety (90) years from the date of the deed unless revoked or
amended by written agreement between the Grantor, Grantee, Marco Island Civic Association
and Trustees. In the event that Point Marco Development Corp. (Grantor) does not exist and no
successor was named, then any amendment or revocation must be approved by a vote of at
least two-thirds (2/3) of the owners of dwellings of the property commonly known as Cape
Marco.
• Additionally,the deed also restricts the height of any building on the County's site to one-story.
Under the City's Zoning ordinance, any plan to build a structure higher than one story would
require a PUD Amendment. This would require a pre-application meeting, formal application,
design, public information meetings, and approval by the City. Any application for a PUD
Amendment would open the entire PUD up to comment and make the facility subject to updates
to current code requirements. As stated previously, this would also involve the approval and
cooperation of both MICA and two-thirds of the owners of Cape Marco.
Estimates of a potential parking garage configuration include a two bay structure with restroom
facilities similar to the Vanderbilt Beach garage providing a total of about 250 spaces on the three
levels. Given the popularity of visitors to Marco South Beach, this site would be a good fit for
structured parking, close to the beach, surrounded by mid-rise buildings and parking lots. The
existing tree lines on both sides would probably stay where they are. A preliminary budget
estimate for design and construction would be$4 million.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Should there be sufficient support from the City and those who would
be directly impacted by a new parking garage, staff would be happy, with Board approval, to
proceed with this project.
Public Services Division(11/12/2014)