The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 10/04/2016 W AGENDA BCC WORKSHOP MEETING October 4 , 2016 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners AO • r Ptozieso (i WORKSHOP AGENDA 5th Floor Training Room Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East,5th Floor Naples FL 34112 October 4,2016 1:00 P.M. Commissioner Donna Fiala,District 1-BCC Chair Commissioner Tim Nance,District 5-BCC Vice-Chair;CRAB Chair Commissioner Georgia Hiller,District 2 -Community&Economic Development Chair Commissioner Tom Henning District 3 -PSCC Representative Commissioner Penny Taylor,District 4-CRAB Vice-Chair,TDC Chair 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. 2017 Legislative Priorities 3. Public Comment 4. 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. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Legislative Memo - Proposed State and Federal Legislative Priorities for 2017 2. Legislative Memo - 2016 Federal Legislative Priorities - Update (09/23/2016) 3. Becker& Poliakoff- Annual Federal Advocacy Report (09/06/2016) 4. Section 338.26, Fla. Stat. (2016) - Alligator Alley Toll Road 5. Southwest Florida Promise Zone Document - USDA 6. Executive Order 16-150: Rural Areas of Opportunity 7. Section 339.2821, Fla. Stat. (2016) - Economic Development Transportation Projects 8. Exec. Sum. - Collier County Restore Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Project 9. National Council on Compensation Insurance Document (Workers Comp. Insurance Reform) 10. PILT Fact Sheet for Collier County 11. Pedestrian Bridge Crossing Feasibility Study C o er County Office of the County Manager LEGISLATIVE MEMO DATE: September 27, 2016 TO: Board of County Commissioners Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager FROM: Tim Durham, Executive Manager Corp. Business Operations Brandon T. Reed, Legislative Affairs Coordinator SUBJECT: Proposed State and Federal Legislative Priorities for 2017 This memo contains proposed state and federal priorities for the 2017 legislative cycle. It is based on prior Board direction; legislative needs identified by County staff in support of Board-approved programs and projects; ongoing or unresolved legislative issues from 2016; and legislative priorities shared with FAC and NACO. Our contract lobbyists/partners provided valuable input throughout this process, and they work very hard to continually identify and monitor legislative trends, issues, activity, and opportunities throughout the year. Once reviewed and approved by the Board of County Commissioners, the County's legislative priorities will guide all advocacy efforts in Tallahassee, FL, and Washington, DC,for the upcoming year. The following priorities are for the Board's review, consideration and input: Issues of Major Importance 1. Title: EMS Station at Mile Marker 63 Need: To provide a reliable long-term revenue stream to cover operating costs for the Collier County EMS Station at Mile Marker 63. (The current estimated annual operating cost is approximately$1.48 million.) Action: Amend section 338.26, Fla. Stat., so that Collier County can receive an incremental share of the toll revenue collected on Alligator Alley in order to operate the EMS Station at Mile Marker 63. (It may be possible to partner with Broward County to increase the likelihood of a statutory solution; Broward County has the same need.) 2. Title: Southwest Florida Promise Zone Need: To actively support the mission of the Southwest Florida Promise Zone(SFPZ),which is to improve economic opportunity through education; crime prevention, to include combating human trafficking; infrastructure improvements; and economic development. Action: Work with County staff and stakeholders to promote suitable Promise Zone(PZ) projects that will benefit Immokalee and the region. Facilitate coordination between County staff and our SFPZ partners. Provide administrative and research support to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, the lead agency for the SFPZ. Mobilize elected officials to support specific initiatives from the SFPZ. 1 9/26/2016 1:55 PM 3. Title: Rural Area of Opportunity(RAO) Need: To leverage the recently renewed Rural Areas of Opportunity(RAO)designation for Immokalee to secure State funding and access State programs. (On September 13, 2016, the BCC approved the required Memorandum of Agreement with the Department of Economic Development renewing the RAO program.) Action: Coordinate with County staff to maximize the preferences afforded through the Governor's RAO program. Use State funds secured through the RAO program to bolster PZ initiatives. 4. Title: Collier County Restore Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Project Need: To improve water quality throughout the entire watershed. This comprehensive and holistic project will reduce the harmful freshwater flows to Naples Bay, rehydrate 10,000 acres of the Picayune Strand State Forest,and restore historic freshwater flows to Rookery Bay. Action: Support staff in securing the necessary approvals and permits from State agencies to complete this transformational project. 5. Title: Workers Compensation Insurance Reform Need: To mitigate unfunded liabilities. The Florida Supreme Court recently invalidated the state's temporary total disability provision, ruling in Bradley Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg et al. that limiting benefits to 104 weeks is unconstitutional and creates a system that "no longer functions as a reasonable alternative to tort litigation." Further,the same court ruled in Marvin Castellanos v. Next Door Co. et al. that the Florida's attorney fee schedule is unconstitutional, as it hinders an injured worker's ability to obtain legal representation. To cover the projected impact of Castellanos, the National Council on Compensation Insurance Inc. subsequently proposed a 19.6% statewide average rate increase. In addition, NCCI has estimated that both cases present a potential unfunded liability to insured and self insured employer/carriers of$1,000,000,000. Both rulings present a significant cost impact to employers. Action: Amend Chapter 440, Fla. Stat.,to address the cost implications of the Westphal and Castellanos decisions to include a revised statutory cap on temporary total disability benefits at a level commensurate with objective, actuarially sound case data and/or in accordance with the severity of the injury. Further,we would request that the attorney fee statute be amended to allow for a reasonable plaintiff attorney fee,subject to a statutory cap with discretion delegated to the Judge of Compensation for special circumstances. 6. Title: Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Need: To enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety in Southwest Florida. Action: Endorse legislative and policy efforts that improve bicycle and pedestrian safety. 7. Title: Payment In Lieu of Taxes(PILT) Program Need: To continue receiving PILT funds. For more than 40 years, the federal PILT program has been used to compensate local governments for lost property tax revenues from federal lands. Collier County has 511,767 PILT entitled acres,which generated $1.33 million in FY 2016. Action: Mobilize our delegation to encourage Congress to fully fund the PILT program. Funding Requests(State Appropriations) 1. Title: Goodland Dr.Rehabilitation Need: To elevate Goodland Dr. (CR 92A) so that the only vehicular access to Goodland remains open during and after rain events. Action: Request$2.0 million in State funds for preliminary engineering and design work. Fund: Fixed Capital Outlay- Economic Development Transportation Projects - Road Fund 2 9/26/2016 1:55 PM 2. Title: Replacement or Rehabilitation of Eleven (11) Bridges in Eastern Collier County Need: To replace or rehabilitate eleven (11) bridges in eastern Collier County that are well past their life expectancy.These bridges are critically important to the local economy(agribusiness) and for providing access for emergency services vehicles. Action: Request for$500,000 is for construction. (State funds(RAO)will be used to leverage a request for federal funding.through the Southwest Florida Promise Zone.) Fund: Fixed Capital Outlay- Economic Development Transportation Projects- Road Fund 3. Title: Golden Gate City Outfall System Replacement Program (Phase I) Need: To improve the collection, treatment and conveyance of stormwater runoff in Golden Gate City;the stormwater system in Golden Gate City is 50-years old and in desperate need of rehabilitation. Action: Request$950,000 for Phase I construction. (There is a commitment of$950,000 in local matching funds.) Fund: Grants and Aids to Local Governments and Nonstate Entities - Fixed Capital Outlay Grants and Aids-Water Projects 4. Title: Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Waterline Upgrades and Fire Suppression Improvements Need: To upgrade the waterlines in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA, some of which are over 40 years old and undersized; and to improve fire suppression capabilities by increasing water flow and adding needed fire hydrants. Action: Request$750,000 for Phase II of this project. (Phase I was jointly funded by the City of Naples, $201,000, and the County through CBDG funds, $330,000. For Phase II, the County will match any State appropriation with CDBG funds and other sources.) Fund: Grants and Aids to Local Governments and Nonstate Entities - Fixed Capital Outlay Grants and Aids -Water Projects 5. Title: Pedestrian Bridge Connecting Gordon River Greenway Park with Freedom Park Need: To connect Gordon River Greenway Park with Freedom Park to multiply the recreational benefit of both parks. Action: Request$500,000 for design work. Fund: Fixed Capital Outlay- Economic Development Transportation Projects- Road Fund Issues to Monitor 1. Title: Inland Oil Drilling&High-Pressure Well Stimulation(Frocking) Need: To monitor legislation that could impact Collier County. It is unclear at this point if a bill on this topic will be reintroduced in 2017. It is also unclear what such a bill would look like. The activity remains essentially unregulated and permissible. A statewide ban is one possibility. Another possibility would be a moratorium until an independent peer-reviewed study is pre- sented to the Legislature for consideration at some future date. Action: Monitor and report on proposed bills pertaining to inland oil drilling and high-pressure well stimulation (fracking). 2. Title: Transportation Network Companies(TNC) Need: To monitor legislation that could impact Collier County. Last session comprehensive • legislation establishing minimum safety standards for TNC passed the Florida House 108-10, and a similar Senate bill made it through the committee process but died on calendar. It is anticipated that TNC legislation will be reintroduced in 2017. (The availability of safe and cost-effective transportation options are important to our visitors.) Action: Monitor and report on proposed bills pertaining to TNCs. 3 9/26/2016 1:55 PM 3. Title: Amendment No.2. Medical Marijuana Amendment 2, an initiative to legalize medical marijuana for certain debilitating diseases or conditions, is on the November 8,2016, ballot. A"yes" vote supports legalizing medical marijuana for individuals with specific debilitating diseases or comparable debilitating conditions as determined by a licensed state physician. A "no" vote opposes this proposal for legalization of medical marijuana, keeping the state's current more limited medical marijuana program in place. Amendment 2 requires the Department of Health to regulate marijuana production and distribution centers and issue identification cards for patients and caregivers. Financial Impact Statement: Increased costs from this amendment to state and local governments cannot be determined. There will be additional regulatory costs and enforcement activities associated with the production, sale, use and possession of medical marijuana. Fees may offset some of the regulatory costs. Sales tax will likely apply to most purchases, resulting in a substantial increase in state and local government revenues that cannot be determined precisely. The impact on property tax revenues cannot be determined. Source:Financial Impact Estimating Conference 4 9/26/2016 1:55 PM SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND BACKUP MATERIALS Co er County Office of the County Manager LEGISLATIVE MEMO Date: 09/23/2016 To: Board of County Commissioners Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager From: Tim Durham, Executive Manager Corp. Business Operations Brandon T. Reed, Legislative Affairs Coordinator Amanda Wood, Federal Lobbyist Subject: 2016 Federal Legislative Priorities - Update This memo serves as an update on the 2016 Federal legislative advocacy program in support of the Board of County Commissioner's priorities. Collier County staff and contract lobbyists provided a mid-year update on April 5, 2016. In addition to the items listed, Collier County staff and contract lobbyists have pursued approval of federal permit applications and federal funding for projects in support of the Board of County Commissioners objectives. TRANSPORTATION Collier County supports pursuing federal funding that embraces local discretionary transportation infrastructure improvements to SR 82 and SR 29.The regional facility on SR 82 has experienced a series of fatal crashes and is a major commuter and freight corridor connecting Lee, Collier, and Hendry counties and I-75. Today, Florida rates poorly in the nation based upon the rate of return for federal highway funding, getting back only 924 on every dollar. Collier County also supports an increase in its share of competitive and formula funding provided directly to local governments and Metropolitan Planning Organizations(MPOs). UPDATE: The final version of HR 22, Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), passed both the Senate and House and was signed into law by President Obama, establishing national policy for surface transportation project spending through 2020. To the benefit of Collier County,the FAST Act: • Increases the amount of funding available for locally-owned infrastructure by increasing funding for the Surface Transportation Program and making an additional $116 billion available for county-owned highway bridges. This additional funding more than repairs the 30 percent reduction in funding for locally owned infrastructure that occurred under MAP-21. • Acknowledges and utilizes the value of local decision-making by sub-allocating a greater share (up to 55 percent) — or roughly $28 billion — of the Surface Transportation Program to local areas and local governments. • Protects set-aside funding for off-system bridges, which provides over $776 million annually for bridges that are primarily owned by counties and other local governments. • Increases funding for the Bus and Bus Facilities formula grant program and creates additional competitive bus grant programs that will provide discretionary funding to further support County government bus purchases and bus facility investments. 1 Collier County supports legislation that would prohibit FEMA from de-obligating previously-awarded disaster funds that have been certified complete by the state for at least three years. Under current law, FEMA can de- obligate previously-awarded funding by reducing or canceling funds allocated. The de-obligation is an obstacle to sound budget planning and timely allocation that directly impacts the stability of Collier County. UPDATE: Collier County has worked with the Florida Congressional Delegation to insert bill language within the current FEMA reauthorization legislation. The amended language would change the three year window so that it commences once the Project Worksheet is transmitted, and not wait until completion of the final expenditure report for the entire disaster. This would be helpful in the event of future disasters. Collier County has worked with the delegation to amend the original bill to include language that prevents FEMA from recovering (deobligating) any payments made to a State or local government for disaster assistance after January 1, 2004. When the bill is enacted, FEMA will be prevented from recovering funds from the pending deobligations in Florida. Collier County is now working with Senator Nelson's office to introduce identical language in the Senate as well as an approach that would address this in the context of the annual appropriations bill. Collier County supports legislation that would clarify that local streets, gutters, and other stormwater infrastructure are excluded from the definition of"Waters of the U.S." Rule. Collier County also supports requiring Federal agencies to consult with state and local officials in identifying which waters should be federally regulated. The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers has sought to redefine "Waters of the U.S." in such a way that may result in the federal regulation of many county-owned secondary and tertiary systems. State-wide Florida's population growth is expected to increase 26% by the year 2030, which will bring an enormous number of water bodies in Florida under federal jurisdiction. UPDATE: The Senate Interior and Environment bill approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee on June 16 would block the implementation of the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, matching the House Appropriations Committee, which also marked up its Interior and Environment bill including a rider against WOTUS. Collier County now awaits floor consideration of the legislation. The WOTUS rule is currently under a judicial stay preventing implementation. WATER RESOURCES Collier County seeks a mosaic of funding sources to enhance Collier County's Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan, stormwater infrastructure, and aquifer storage and recovery project. Collier County seeks to secure a portion of the funds to be distributed through RESTORE Act implementation in addition to pursuing other potential federal grant and innovative financing funding sources. UPDATE: Collier County has identified the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Authority (WIFIA) as a key new resource for water infrastructure needs and met with the Environmental Protection Agency to introduce appropriate staff to Collier County's projects and learn more about this new funding mechanism. Recently the EPA released their regulatory agenda for the remainder of the year and announced that in October they will release their proposed rule for implementing WIFIA. The proposed rule will establish guidelines for the application process, selection criteria and project selection, as well as define threshold requirements for credit assistance, limits on credit assistance, reporting requirements, collection of fees and the application of other federal statutes, according to the regulatory agenda. FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR COLLIER COUNTY BEACH PROJECT Collier County does not currently receive federal funding through the USACE for shoreline protection. Most coastal communities throu•hout the state participate in a 50- ear federal •rant pro•ram for shoreline protection 2 with the USACE.The USACE conducted a reconnaissance report in 1992 and indicated favorable conditions existed for federal participation for shoreline protection within Collier County.In 2007, the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) authorized a Collier County Feasibility Study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a hurricane and flood damage reduction project in the vicinity of the Vanderbilt, Park Shore, and Naples beaches. However, no funding was appropriated to undertake this project. Collier County is requesting full funding be budgeted within the USACE budget to conduct a feasibility cost share agreement, project management plan, and a subsequent feasibility study in the upcoming 2017 Civil Works Investigations Work Plan.The total cost of this Feasibility Study will be approximately $3,000,000. If the Feasibility Study is authorized by the Secretary of Defense, Collier County's non-Federal cost share participation will not exceed $1,500,000. Proposed source of funding is Tourist Development Tax(TDC). UPDATE: The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed its version of WRDA 2016 (S. 2848) in late April on a 19-1 vote, and a month later the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee passed its version (H.R. 5303), a much slimmer basic infrastructure bill. Neither the pending WRDA bill, nor pending Energy and Water Bill included language that would move Collier County projects forward. Under the current earmark moratorium Collier County's delegation is prevented from inserting such language. Collier County is working to advance legislation introduced Rep. Tom Rooney that would remove Army Corps of Engineers projects from activities prevented by the earmark moratorium, which would then allow us to leverage Congressional support to advance this project. FEDERAL PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES (PICT) PROGRAM Collier County supports The "Payments in Lieu of Taxes" (PILT), which helps to offset losses in property taxes due to non-taxable Federal lands within its boundaries. The PILT program assists Collier County to provide essential services for both residents and visitors of public lands. Such services include road and bridge maintenance, law enforcement, search and rescue, emergency medical, fire protection, solid waste disposal and environmental compliance. Collier County supports robust funding levels for the PICT program to ensure vital services are maintained as Collier County's needs require. UPDATE: This summer, the House of Representatives considered the House Interior Appropriations Bill, which funds the Department of the Interior, the EPA and other related agencies and provides critical funding for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program.The Interior Appropriations Bill, as passed by the House Appropriations Committee, included full funding of $480 million for PILT, but was threatened by an amendment that sought to reduce funds made available for the PILT program. That amendment was unsuccessful and opposed by Collier County's delegation,which is well aware of the Board of County Commissioners support for PILT. PUBLIC SAFETY ON ALLIGATOR ALLEY Collier County supports efforts to make traveling across Alligator Alley from Miami to Naples safer. On November 6, 2014, the public safety center opened at mile marker 63. There are more than 250 calls a year requiring emergency response, mostly involving vehicle accidents, vehicle fires and medical calls. Research has shown that 73 percent of most of the incidents on that stretch of Alligator Alley happen within 10 miles on either side of the station. The state has committed to funding safety activities for 4 years, but additional funding is needed. Both, federal and state funds will be pursued to ensure safety efforts. (There may be BIA funding or USDOJ CTAS program.) UPDATE: Moving into Fiscal Year 2017, which commences October 1st, timing will be appropriate to work with local tribes to lay the groundwork for pursuit of federal funding through the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the US Department of Justice's Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation program. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN IMMOKALEE 3 Collier County's Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) was established in March of 2000 to support redevelopment within the Immokalee area. The CRA adopted the Immokalee Master Plan, which includes the all of the Immokalee Urban Designated Area. Through implementation of this plan Collier County seeks to encourage new business and job opportunities in international trade and distribution, agri-business, ecotourism, recreation and entertainment, and the construction industry and to develop and maintain an attractive, sustainable community with affordable workforce housing, parks and outstanding schools. Collier County would like to partner with the federal government in these efforts. UPDATE: The inclusion of Immokalee within the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council's successful regional Rural Promise Zone designation, demonstrates strong support of Collier County's Congressional Delegation. Through the designation grant competitiveness has greatly increased in pursuing federal grant programs related to economic development. Since the designation, Collier County received through the US Department of Agriculture an award of$130,000 for equipment for Immokalee's Accelerator. EVERGLADES RESTORATION FEDERAL INVESTMENT Collier County is a place of exceptional natural beauty and vast preserves that provide the basis for our community's deep appreciation for and interconnectivity with Florida's unique environment. The Everglades not only contributes to the quality of life for those residing in and visiting Collier County, but it contributes to the quality of life of the more than seven million residents that call south Florida home. Collier County has an interest in ensuring that the federal government is following through on its commitment to fully fund Everglades restoration, the largest environmental restoration project in the nation's history. UPDATE: While the delegation works on a bipartisan basis to ensure that the Everglades resources, provided in the President's FY17 Budget Request of $75 million, are maintained through the appropriations process, efforts are ongoing to increase funding for Herbert Hoover Dike repairs in light of the devastating Lake Okeechobee discharges and to push for related legislation: • Everglades for the Next Generation Act, which provides $800 million of emergency funding to expedite repairs to the Herbert Hoover Dike and requires completion of this critical project by December 31, 2020, four to six years ahead of current schedules. • Everglades Land Acquisition Act of 2016, which would set aside $500 million for the Department of the Interior to purchase land south of Lake Okeechobee. • Federal Partnership for Clean Water Land Acquisition Act of 2016, which creates a grant program to help states pay for up to 50 percent of the cost of land purchases to improve water quality and authorizes $750 million per year to fund the program. MUNICIPAL BONDS -TAX-EXEMPT STATUS Collier County seeks to preserve the tax-exempt status of municipal bonds. Tax-exempt bonds are valuable tools for Collier County that assists in financing the construction or improvement of schools, streets, highways, hospitals, bridges, water and sewer systems, ports, airports and other critical public works. Recent Federal efforts to cap or eliminate the deduction of interest on municipal bonds would significantly impact Collier County by increasing the costs of borrowing for local governments, likely preventing many infrastructure projects from moving forward. UPDATE: In 2014, President Obama has proposed capping the tax exemption of municipal bonds for investors, an idea that is still under consideration today. Other proposals have been made to subject municipal bonds to surtax, effectively taxing investors on a significant portion of municipal bond interest. It is expected that this proposal will be considered in the context of a larger tax reform package and continue to express the Collier County's opposition to this misguided approach. 4 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM SOLVENCY&IMPLEMENTATION While Congress has passed legislation delaying the implementation of portions of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, which would bring much needed relief to Florida's property owners, a long-term solution is still needed. Collier County supports a long-term solution that can bring solvency to the NFIP without unduly burdening homeowners, businesses and taxpayers. UPDATE: When it became clear that the 2012 legislation went too far in implementing drastic rate increased to ensure the solvency of the program, Congress passed the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 (HFIAA), which repealed certain parts of the previous law, Biggert-Waters, including putting limits on certain rate increases and updating the approach to ensuring the fiscal soundness of the fund by applying an annual surcharge to all policyholders. NFIP is due for a reauthorization next year, which will be a vehicle to make additional tweaks to NFIP and could impact rate increases.At this time, work has not begun on the reauthorization bill, but will likely commence at the beginning of the next Congress, in January. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 prohibits intentional discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. In addition, it also effectively obligates the federal government and any local government that receives federal housing funds to "affirmatively further fair housing." In the past, that meant maintaining vigilance against overt discrimination. A new rule from HUD has redefined "affirmatively furthering fair housing"to mean preventing racially or ethically disparate housing outcomes, even when the causes of those outcomes have nothing to do with discrimination.In effect,this new rule has the potential of making the federal government the preeminent zoning. It could empower HUD with the authority to review of all new Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), with the goal of forcing inclusionary zoning in order to qualify for HUD funding. UPDATE: In the early stages of debate on a hybrid appropriations package containing the Transportation-HUD and Military Construction-VA bills, one of the only preliminary amendments was Sen. Mike Lee's effort to withhold funding from any effort to carry out HUD's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule, which became final last August. However, Lee's amendment to defund AFFH was tabled by a vote of 60 to 37.This language has passed the House of Representatives twice and is expected to be considered in the context of a larger omnibus appropriations package this fall. Action Pending Developing '` Completed 5 BECKER &-' POLIAI<OFF MEMORANDUM TO: Collier County Commission FROM: Amanda Wood and Omar Franco,Becker&Poliakoff DATE September 6,2016 RE: Collier County Annual Federal Advocacy Report Thank you for the opportunity to continue to advocate on behalf of the Collier County in Washington, DC. Following is an update on our federal activities over the past year. Agenda Building Session and Draft Agenda Development To assist the County in setting short and long term federal priorities, the Becker & Poliakoff team travelled to Collier County for meetings with your department heads. This was an opportunity to explore all aspects of the County's priorities (funding for construction, services, federal permitting, etc.) Based on this information, we developed a draft strategy and federal agenda that has served as our work plan for this year. Meetings in DC Following approval of the County's federal agenda, Commissioner Hiller traveled to DC for meetings with the Delegation, White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, United States Department of Transportation, US Environmental Protection Agency, and US Army Corps of Engineers. Having the Commissioner here to personally advocate for the County's interests was invaluable and we had the opportunity to highlight and advance the following issues,among others: • Funding for transportation infrastructure through the TIGER and Fast Lane programs • Permitting for the Clam Pass dredging project • Innovative financing for County water infrastructure needs through the WIFIA program • Collier County's work in the area of human trafficking prevention • Economic development and infrastructure in Immokalee • FEMA appeals process and deobligation of funds FEMA We are working with members of the Florida delegation on language that would restrict FEMA's ability to de- obligate funds many years after a disaster. As you are well aware, they have recently been de-obligating funds as much as a decade after an event. If we are successful and this language stays in the FEMA authorization bill and or is included through the appropriations process, FEMA would only be permitted to audit and deobligate for three (3)years after a project is closed out by the grantee. Additionally,several new FEMA initiatives may impact the County,leading us to: • conduct outreach to FEMA and House and Senate Committee staff to provide feedback on your response to FEMA's effort to solicit input with respect to current and past disasters, funding levels and insurance proceeds • prepare an analysis of FEMA's newly-released disaster deductible proposal and potential impacts/likelihood of implementation • analyze the impact of FEMA proposed regulations regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13690,which creates a new flood protection standard for infrastructure projects that use federal money Funding Assistance Becker & Poliakoff has worked to identify potential funding sources for local projects including neighborhood revitalization,transportation infrastructure, public transit, and public safety needs. We are available to assist with reviewing the application, building political support, building an appropriate and effective grant budget and narrative,and assisting with drawdown of funds. Recently,we have • Identified, evaluated and share federal funding opportunities including public arts grants, USDOT Connectivity Design Challenge Grant and funding options for the Goodland Road project • Reviewed authorizing and appropriations bills and provided updates on Water Resources Development Act Florida projects in House bill and status of House and Senate appropriations activity related to the Everglades and the WIFIA program. Most recently we have reviewed the Administration's WIFIA implementation proposal and shared information on items of concern and timeline. • Worked on the scope of a potential local EDA project and conducted outreach to your EDA regional representative • Identified, evaluated and shared federal funding opportunities related to grants for the blind and visually impaired • Secured delegation support for County Justice for Families grant application, Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Grant,and Every Place Counts grant • On a related matter, we have prepared an analysis of and advocated for Rep. Rooney's legislation to permit Army Corps of Engineers project earmarks as well as provided frequent updates on the status and politics of the earmark moratorium Legislative Advocacy We continue to actively advocate for the County's position on legislative matters including the following: • Maintaining Tax Exempt Status of Municipal Bonds • EPA Waters of the United States Rule • Support for Federal Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program Permitting Activities Over the course of the year, we have engaged with the Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Services, and National Marine Fisheries Service and leveraged the interest of your Congressional Delegation to expedite approval of various permits, including those related to Clam Pass,the Pepper Ranch habitat credit project and the Tree Farm/Woodcrest federal permit. Promise Zone Designation We prepared and secure letters of support and timely calls to USDA and HUD from your delegation for your successful regional Promise Zone application. Following notice of the selection, we shared information with delegation on this Promise Zone designation success and its potential benefits, provided analysis of opportunities that the designation offers and the status of Promise Zone tax incentives proposal, and implemented a federal agency notification strategy. US Postal Service(USPS) We are working with Rep.Curt Clawson's office to coordinate a meeting between Arthrex and the USPS regarding the location of the USPS building in the new Arthrex campus. Rep.Clawson's staff has been in contact with the USPS and they will be communicating directly with Arthrex on this issue. The 2016 Florida Statutes 338.26 Alligator Alley toll road.— (1) The Legislature finds that the construction of Alligator Alley, designated as State Highway 84 and federal Interstate Highway 75, has provided a convenient and necessary connection of the east and west coasts of Florida for commerce and other purposes. However, this state highway has contributed to the alteration of water flows in the Everglades and affected ecological patterns of the historical southern Everglades. The Legislature has determined that it is appropriate and in the public interest to establish a system of tolls for use of Alligator Alley to produce needed financial resources to help restore the natural resource values lost by construction of this highway. (2) The Department of Transportation is directed to continue the system of tolls on this highway. Notwithstanding the provisions of s. 338.165(2)to the contrary, such toll collections shall be used for the purposes of this section. (3)(a) Fees generated from tolls shall be deposited in the State Transportation Trust Fund and shall be used: 1. To reimburse outstanding contractual obligations; 2. To operate and maintain the highway and toll facilities, including reconstruction and restoration; 3. To pay for those projects that are funded with Alligator Alley toll revenues and that are contained in the 1993-1994 adopted work program or the 1994-1995 tentative work program submitted to the Legislature on February 22, 1994; 4. To design and construct a fire station at mile marker 63 on Alligator Alley, which may be used by a county or another local governmental entity to provide fire, rescue, and emergency management services to the public on Alligator Alley; and 5. By interlocal agreement effective July 1, 2014, through no later than June 30, 2018, to reimburse a county or another local governmental entity for the direct actual costs of operating such fire station. (b) Funds generated annually in excess of those required to pay the expenses in paragraph (a) may be transferred to the Everglades Fund of the South Florida Water Management District. The South Florida Water Management District shall deposit funds for projects undertaken pursuant to s. 373.4592 in the Everglades Trust Fund pursuant to s. 373.45926(4)(a). Any funds remaining in the Everglades Fund may be used for environmental projects to restore the natural values of the Everglades, subject to compliance with any applicable federal laws and regulations. Projects must be limited to: 1. Highway redesign to allow for improved sheet flow of water across the southern Everglades. 2. Water conveyance projects to enable more water resources to reach Florida Bay to replenish marine estuary functions. 3. Engineering design plans for wastewater treatment facilities as recommended in the Water Quality Protection Program Document for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. 4. Acquisition of lands to move STA 3/4 out of the Toe of the Boot, provided such lands are located within 1 mile of the northern border of STA 3/4. 5. Other Everglades Construction Projects as described in the February 15, 1994, conceptual design document. (4) The district may issue revenue bonds or notes under s. 373.584 and pledge the revenue from the transfers from the Alligator Alley toll revenues as security for such bonds or notes. The proceeds from such revenue bonds or notes shall be used for environmental projects; at least 50 percent of said proceeds must be used for projects that benefit Florida Bay, as described in this section subject to resolutions approving such activity by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund and the governing board of the South Florida Water Management District and the remaining proceeds must be used for restoration activities in the Everglades Protection Area. History.—s.4,ch.94-115;s.2,ch.97-258;s.2,ch.2011-64;s. 15,ch.2014-223. �."cJ�NN1E57 Ftp i0 SOUTHWEST FLORIDA • ..7 • J RURAL PROMISE ZONES /,.... o=y i LAN10 �` SOUTHWEST FLORIDA SSGes .REAlSO REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL GOALS m t " �k. , Create Jobs Enhance Improve Reduce Crime Improve Economic Activity Educational Community Opportunities Infrastructure PRIORITY FUNDING ACCESS PROMISE ZONE AREA - =re?k Fi Promise Zones will receive priority ! xaF ' access to federal investments that Da.. further their strategic plans, federal I staff on the ground to help them implement their goals, and five full- \I time AmeriCorps VISTA members to `° recruit and manage volunteers and , a v'e,;- strengthen the capacity of the �F< Promise Zone initiatives. Promise Zone designations will have a term 7 A""'. of ten years and may be extended as . 3 , E necessary to capture the full term of availability of the Promise Zone tax incentives if enacted by Congress. Legend Promise Zone ii E USDA, ��E57F�p�iO Big Issues...Real Solutions s y° � Building Prosperity, High Paying Jobs, Vibrant rn -0 02 Communities and Global Competitiveness <'�,'1, pLANN�NGC• ��" SsoES • REAL 50�J USDA Southwest Florida ••• Third Round Promise Zone Designee About the Southwest Lead Organization: _ Plead ��-h,:hee Florida Promise Zone Arcadia r-4 -.N. __ Southwest Florida _ &gid Regional Planning Ve^15 t Council The Southwest Florida Promise Palmdale te«eaortt 4 Pod Meyaca Zone is located in Glades County, 'ecilMWebb .; } Stere Mement ,r Management Hall Giy Hendry County, and Immokalee Mea Mme , Mg4r4 Hayedpahoke Population: 76,348 Community in Collier County. Due ,-- I LaBelle Clea to the high rates of poverty and ` Belle G;ade )rtMyers unemployment, the region has = tebgnn�es 0.,,,,Poverty Rate: 31.20% developed a strategic plan that focuses on improving the qualityEstero Unemployment rate: of life.The plan is designed to Bonita Springs Ave � t2 15.65% provide new opportunities for Nonh Naples residents by leveraging their Google 5i ' Map date 62018 Google,NMI Key Partners: young population, low cost of Glades, Hendry, and living, and abundance of developable land.The Southwest Florida Promise The primary goals of the Southwest Collier Counties; Promise Zone include: Immokalee, FL Zone has developed concrete community;Glades strategies to train workers and fuel growth, provide resources to help •Growing jobs by developing an County, Hendry County jobAirglades Industrial Park, an and Immokalee Economic small businesses grow, develop Immokalee Airport, and An Development and Tourism markets for locally grown fresh food, Americas Gateway Logistics& Development Councils promote eco-tourism, and improve p Manufacturing Training Center and Chambers of educational opportunities in the community. • Creating eco-tourism attractions and Commerce;Southwest supporting small businesses Florida Workforce Development Board; Leadership and Goals throughout the region with technical assistance and funding Small Business Development Center; The Southwest Florida Regional • Preventing human trafficking by Immokalee Business Planning Council is leading the increasing law enforcement and Development Center; Promise Zone initiative for the region. educating at-risk youth through the Immokalee Foundation; With partners across the local "Slave Free" program Southwest Florida government and private sectors,the • Improving educational opportunities Regional Human Council hopes to leverage the region's by expanding the Immokalee Trafficking Council; abundant natural resources and Readers Program, the Career Glades, Hendry,and young, able population to make vast Development program and the Post- improvements throughout the Collier School Districts Secondary and Career Success Promise Zone. As the region struggles Programs of the Immokalee with a poverty rate over 30%, leaders Foundation are working to jumpstart economic activity in the region and improve • Upgrading water and wastewater safety and opportunities for residents. systems, public transit, roads and streetlights throughout the region June 2016 www.usda.gov/oromisezones �� ..7 --1 ...( E FLORID 1. tip � t Fay jt iler'N 0.4 41 1 ) 46. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA PROMISE ZONE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Southwest Florida Promise Zone(SFPZ), which covers Glades,Hendry,and the Immokalee portion of Collier counties,was designated by President Barack Obama in June 2016. The SFPZ is one of only four rural areas within the country that have received this competitive designation since 2014. The designation was received due to the SFPZ's high rates of poverty and unemployment(31.2%and 15.65%respectively),the strength of community partnerships, and a strategic plan aimed at improving the quality of life and providing new opportunities for residents. The goals of the SFPZ Strategic Plan center around creating jobs, enhancing economic activity, improving educational opportunities,reducing crime, and improving community infrastructure. The Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC)is the lead entity for the PZ initiative. It has over 40 years of experience of bringing together diverse partners to accomplish common goals. Glades, Hendry, and Collier Counties will serve as the Implementation Partners. The Southwest Florida Workforce Development Board, Small Business Development Center,Immokalee Business Development Center,Immokalee Foundation and the Southwest Florida Regional Human Trafficking Council were included in the initial application and are partners in this initiative. Additional partners from the public,private,and non-profit sectors are essential to achieving our goals and will be added as we move forward. GOALS SNAPSHOT Job Creation • Attract new businesses • Train residents for jobs and connect them with employers Enhance Economic Activity • Provide resources to help small businesses form and grow • Develop and market eco-tourism attractions Improve Eductional Opportunities • Expand educational programs • Expand career development programs • Expand post-secondary and career success programs Reduce Crime- Human Trafficking And Drug Intervention • Prevent recruitment of HT victims through education and events • Reduce HT through education of professionals likely to interact with HT victims • Expand drug and mental health treatment programs Improve Infrastructure • Enhance and improve public infrastructure throughout the Promise Zone STATE OF FLORIDA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 16-150 WHEREAS, although economic progress has been made in many areas, the growth and prosperity enjoyed by most communities in the State during the past 50 years have not extended into Florida's rural areas; and WHEREAS, these communities are stewards of the vast majority of Florida's land and natural resources, upon which the State's continued growth and prosperity depend; and WHEREAS, successful rural communities are essential to the overall success of the State's economy and quality of life; and WHEREAS, certain rural communities are struggling to maintain, support, or enhance job creating activity, or to generate revenues for education and other critical government services such as infrastructure, transportation and safety; and WHEREAS, the challenges faced by these rural communities threaten their well-being and viability; and WHEREAS, the Governor is authorized, pursuant to section 288.0656(7), Florida Statutes, to designate up to three rural areas of opportunity, upon recommendation of the Rural Economic Development Initiative; and WHEREAS, a rural area of opportunity, formerly known as a rural area of critical economic concern, is a rural community,or a region composed of rural communities, designated by the Governor, that has been adversely affected by an extraordinary economic event, severe or 1 chronic distress, or a natural disaster, or that presents a unique economic development opportunity of regional impact; and WHEREAS, the counties of DeSoto, Glades, Hardee,Hendry, Highlands, and Okeechobee and the cities of Belle Glade, Pahokee,and South Bay in Palm Beach County,and the area around Immokalee included within the Round II Federal Rural Enterprise Community located in northeast Collier County were designated on January 26, 2001, as a rural area of critical economic concern by Executive Order 01-26, for a period of five years, and the Rural Economic Development Initiative was directed to review the designation and recommend whether the designation should be continued; and WHEREAS, the Rural Economic Development Initiative met on January 17, 2006,and recommended the Governor continue the designation of the counties of DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, and Okeechobee and the cities of Belle Glade, Pahokee, and South Bay in Palm Beach County, and the area around lmmokalee included within the Round II Federal Rural Enterprise Community located in northeast Collier County as a rural area of critical economic concern; and WHEREAS, the counties of DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, and Okeechobee and the cities of Belle Glade, Pahokee and South Bay in Palm Beach County, and the area around Immokalee included within the Round II Federal Rural Enterprise Community located in northeast Collier County were designated on February 16, 2006, as a rural area of critical economic concern by Executive Order 06-34, for a period of five years; and WHEREAS,the designation expired on February 16, 2011, and the Rural Economic Development Initiative met on March 18, 2011, and recommended the Governor continue the designation of the counties of DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, and Okeechobee and 2 the cities of Belle Glade, Pahokee. and South Bay in Palm Beach County, and the area around Immokalee included within the Round II Federal Rural Enterprise Community located in northeast Collier County as a rural area of critical economic concern; and WHEREAS, the counties of DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, and Okeechobee and the cities of Belle Glade, Pahokee, and South Bay in Palm Beach County and the area around Immokalee included within the Round II Federal Rural Enterprise Community located in northeast Collier County were designated on April 22, 2011, as a rural area of critical economic concern, by Executive Order 11-81, for a period of five years; and WHEREAS,the Rural Economic Development Initiative met on February 19, 2016, and agreed to recommend to the Governor to continue the designation of the counties of DeSoto, Glades, Hardee. Hendry, Highlands and Okeechobee and the cities of Belle Glade, Pahokee,and South Bay in Palm Beach County, and the area around Immokalee included within the Round II Federal Rural Enterprise Community located in northeast Collier County as a rural area of opportunity, and the designation expired on April 22, 2016. NOW, THEREFORE, I,RICK SCOTT, as Governor of Florida, by virtue of the authority vested in me by article IV, section 1(a), Florida Constitution,and section 288.0656(7), Florida Statutes, do hereby issue the following Executive Order, effective immediately: Section 1. The area within the boundaries of the counties of DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, and Okeechobee and the cities of Belle Glade, Pahokee and South Bay in Palm Beach County, the area around Immokalee included within the Round II Federal Rural Enterprise Community located in northeast Collier County is designated as a rural area of opportunity. 3 Section 2. This area shall be a priority assignment for the Rural Economic Development Initiative. Section 3. On a case-by-case basis, the criteria,requirements or provisions of economic development incentives may be waived. Such incentives include, but shall not be limited to,the Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program under section 288.106, Florida Statutes, the Quick Response Training Program under section 288.047, Florida Statutes, the Quick Response Training Program for participants in the welfare transition program under section 288.047(8), Florida Statutes,,transportation projects under section 339.2821, Florida Statutes, the brownfield redevelopment bonus refund under section 288.107,Florida Statutes, and the rural job tax credit program under sections 212.098 and 220.1895, Florida Statutes. Section 4. Pursuant to section 288.0656(7), Florida Statutes,access to the assistance available under this Designation as a rural area of opportunity shall be contingent upon the execution of memoranda of agreement between the Department of Economic Opportunity, the governing bodies of the counties, and the governing bodies of the municipalities included within the area. Such memoranda of agreement shall specify the terms and conditions of the designation, including, but not limited to, the duties and responsibilities of the counties and municipalities to take actions designed to facilitate the retention and expansion of existing businesses in the area. as well as the recruitment of new businesses to the area. 4 Section 5. This designation shall be in effect for five years and will expire on June 27, 2021. The Rural Economic Development Initiative may recommend the designation be terminated or continued based on economic development progress from current base lines or upon performance under the memoranda of agreement. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of Florida to be affixed at Tallahassee, the Capitol, this 6,.'} 3 ''' 27th day of June,2016. r. mss. ( , \ .;,-",\,, , :, ,,.,, ;_-, r---2_,4,i/-• �! v . <- ;`' ATTEST: (f/t4fr --1 SECRETARY OF ATE 5 The 2016 Florida Statutes 339.2821 Economic development transportation projects.— (1)(a) The department, in consultation with the Department of Economic Opportunity and Enterprise Florida, Inc., may make and approve expenditures and contract with the appropriate governmental body for the direct costs of transportation projects. The Department of Economic Opportunity and the Department of Environmental Protection may formally review and comment on recommended transportation projects, although the department has final approval authority for any project authorized under this section. (b) As used in this section, the term: 1. "Governmental body" means an instrumentality of the state or a county, municipality, district, authority, board, or commission, or an agency thereof, within which jurisdiction the transportation project is located and which is responsible to the department for the transportation project. 2. "Transportation project" means a transportation facility, as defined in s. 334.03, which the department, in consultation with the Department of Economic Opportunity, deems necessary to facilitate the economic development and growth of the state. (2) The department, in consultation with the Department of Economic Opportunity, shall review each transportation project for approval and funding. In the review, the department must consider: (a) The cost per job created or retained considering the amount of transportation funds requested; (b) The average hourly rate of wages for jobs created; (c) The reliance on any program as an inducement for determining the transportation project's location; (d) The amount of capital investment to be made by a business; (e) The demonstrated local commitment; (f) The location of the transportation project in an enterprise zone as designated in s. 290.0055; (g) The location of the transportation project in a spaceport territory as defined in s. 331.304; (h) The unemployment rate of the surrounding area; and (i) The poverty rate of the community. The department may contact any agency it deems appropriate for additional information regarding the approval of a transportation project. A transportation project must be approved by the department to be eligible for funding. (3)(a) The department must approve a transportation project if it determines that the transportation project will: 1. Attract new employment opportunities to the state or expand or retain employment in existing companies operating within the state. 2. Allow for the construction or expansion of a state or federal correctional facility in a county having a population of 75,000 or fewer which creates new employment opportunities or expands or retains employment in the county. (b) The department must ensure that small and minority businesses have equal access to participate in transportation projects funded pursuant to this section. (c) In addition to administrative costs and equipment purchases specified in the contract, funds for approved transportation projects may be used for expenses that are necessary for building new, or improving existing, transportation facilities. Funds made available pursuant to this section may not be expended for the relocation of a business from one community to another community in this state unless the department determines that, without the relocation, the business will move outside the state or determines that the business has a compelling economic reason for the relocation, such as creating additional jobs. (4) A contract between the department and a governmental body for a transportation project must: (a) Specify that the transportation project is for the construction of a new or expanding business and specify the number of full-time permanent jobs that will result from the project. (b) Identify the governmental body and require that the governmental body award the construction of the particular transportation project to the lowest and best bidder in accordance with applicable state and federal statutes or rules unless the transportation project can be constructed using existing local governmental employees within the contract period specified by the department. (c) Require that the governmental body provide the department with progress reports. Each progress report must contain: 1. A narrative description of the work completed and whether the work is proceeding according to the transportation project schedule; 2. A description of each change order executed by the governmental body; 3. A budget summary detailing planned expenditures compared to actual expenditures; and 4. The identity of each small or minority business used as a contractor or subcontractor. (d) Require that the governmental body make and maintain records in accordance with accepted governmental accounting principles and practices for each progress payment made for work performed in connection with the transportation project, each change order executed by the governmental body, and each payment made pursuant to a change order. The records are subject to financial audit as required by law. (e) Require that the governmental body, upon completion and acceptance of the transportation project, certify to the department that the transportation project has been completed in compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract between the department and the governmental body and meets the minimum construction standards established in accordance with s. 336.045. (f) Specify that funds will not be transferred to the governmental body unless construction has begun on the facility of the business on whose behalf the award was made. The grant award shall be terminated if construction of the transportation project does not begin within 4 years after the date of the initial grant award. (g) Require that funds be used only on a transportation project that has been properly reviewed and approved in accordance with the criteria provided in this section. (h) Require that the governing board of the governmental body adopt a resolution accepting future maintenance and other attendant costs occurring after completion of the transportation project if the transportation project is constructed on a county or municipal system. (5) For purposes of this section, Space Florida may serve as the governmental body or as the contracting agency for a project within a spaceport territory as defined by s. 331.304. (6) Each governmental body receiving funds under this section shall submit to the department a financial audit of the governmental body conducted by an independent certified public accountant. The department, in consultation with the Department of Economic Opportunity, shall develop procedures to ensure that audits are received and reviewed in a timely manner and that deficiencies or questioned costs noted in the audit are resolved. (7) The department shall monitor the construction or building site for each transportation project that receives funding under this section, including, but not limited to, the construction of the business facility, to ensure compliance with contractual requirements. History.—s. 32,ch.2012-128;s. 18,ch.2014-223. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to review the status of the 2016 Collier County Restore Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan and to approve moving forward with Restore funding applications and continue project execution. OBJECTIVE: Obtain a recommendation for approval and concurrence to proceed with the 2016 Collier County Restore Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan which will reduce freshwater flows to Naples Bay, rehydrate approximately 10,000 acres of the Picayune Strand State Forest, restore historic freshwater flows to Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (Rookery Bay)and improve water quality throughout the entire watershed. CONSIDERATIONS: Collier County's Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan (CWIP) utilized ten(10) major studies and reports developed by various local, state and regulatory agencies over the past 15 years to reduce freshwater flows into Naples Bay,restore fresh water flows into Rookery Bay, improve water quality and re-hydrate approximately 10,000 acres of the Picayune Strand State Forest/South Belle Meade area by linking hydrologic and ecological restoration projects that will function on a regional basis. This project will allow the County to manage its natural resources in a more holistic, comprehensive manner. Additionally, this project will complement the bordering Federal CERT- Picayune Strand Restoration Project currently being executed by the US Army Corp of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District. Through previous studies and the most recent CWIP,the overwhelming consensus is that Naples Bay has been adversely impacted by an abundance of freshwater from the Golden Gate Canal and that Rookery Bay is adversely impacted by too little freshwater inflow. This project will begin to rebalance the two systems while rehydrating a significant portion (10,000 acres) of the Picayune Strand State Forest by reestablishing historical flow through the forest. This project would improve water quality and habitat restoration through a series of project improvements through the North/South Belle Meade areas, the Six L's agricultural area and Rookery Bay. Salinity levels in Naples Bay will be improved while also reducing nitrogen and phosphorous levels in the bay. Diverted flows to the Picayune Strand State Forest will rehydrate wetland areas, restore habitat and suppress the possibility of wildfires. Rookery Bay will benefit from habitat restoration and water quality improvements to the estuary. As a secondary benefit, by restoring the wet season flows to a more historical regime, the project is also recharging the aquifer which, in turn, helps to protect the water supply for the City of Naples and Collier County. In order to accomplish this plan, ten (10) viable projects have been developed into a comprehensive conceptual plan through 15%design definition. Staffs objective in developing this plan was to identify and address major issues that could stop this project; Create a project that regulators can permit; Develop a plan that can be accomplished in 10 years; and lastly develop a project that can be funded entirely with Restore funds. The expected project cost is approximately $32.0 million. Design, modeling, permitting and further scope development will be completed after funding is received. This activity is expected to take 2 years to complete. The projects affected are to various flow-ways, canals, roadways and the development of water quality master plans to areas located in the northern and eastern areas of Collier County. This Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan is being co-sponsored by Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. Rookery Bay's support will provide more leverage for FDEP to include this project in their next application package to the Restore Council for Component 2 funding. Rookery Bay has been involved from the very beginning of project development, is represented on the Technical Advisory Committee for Collier County Watershed Management Plans and this project is based on the modeling that Rookery Bay has recently completed. In addition, Collier County has worked diligently to gain the support and partnership with the following groups/organizations: • Audubon of the Western Everglades/Audubon Florida • Big Cypress Basin/SFWMD • City of Naples • Conservancy of Southwest Florida • Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission(FWC) • Fish and Wildlife Service • Florida Wildlife Federation • Collier County Watershed Technical Advisory Committee Collier County is projected to receive approximately $12.7M under the Restore Act Spill Impact Component (Component 3). These funds are expected to be applied to this Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Project. Funding applications through the Restore Consortium are currently being solicited. Collier County is expected to receive approximately $6M in Direct Component funds (Component 1). FDEP who is managing the Florida Restore Council fund (Component 2)has repeatedly said that project proposals that include matching funds from existing county funding sources are more likely to receive leveraged funds from other non-secured sources. Staff is recommending that the expected $6M from the Direct Component fund (Component 1) be applied to this Comprehensive Watershed Project to aid in securing the balance of required funding from the Restore Council (Component 2). A project solicitation and ranking occurred in 2014 for Direct Component (Component 1) funding. This solicitation and ranking was premature and lacked subsequent Treasury direction and guidance. Staff is recommending that the 2014 preliminary ranking be voided. The Restore Council (Component 2) is expected to open the next application cycle for project funding in the fall of 2016. Collier County will be submitting an application for the balance of needed funding of approximately$14M. Other funding sources that will be investigated will be the National Resources Damages Water Quality component, FWC funding with regard to inclusion of the project in the Florida Habitat Restoration strategy,and SFWMD with regard to the update to the Naples Bay SWIM plan. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Approval of this item is in accordance with the goals, objectives, and policies of all applicable sections of the Stormwater Management and the Conservation and Coastal Management elements of the Growth Management Plan. FISCAL IMPACT: Collier County is projected to receive approximately $12.7M under the Restore Act Spill Impact Component (Component 3) and approximately $6M under the Restore Act Direct Component (Component3). These funds are expected to be applied to this Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Project. Funding applications through the Restore Consortium are currently being solicited. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: Collier County Watershed Technical Advisory Committee has reviewed and approved this conceptual plan for funding solicitation on July 8, 2016, with a unanimous 6 to 0 vote. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney, is approved as to form and legality, and requires majority vote for approval. -JAK RECOMMENDATION: To approve moving forward with the execution of the 2016 Collier County Restore Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan and to direct the County Manager or his designee to apply for Restore funding and other grant opportunities. Prepared By: J. Gary McAlpin, P.E., Coastal Zone Management, Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management Division,Growth Management Department NCCI Estimates Florida Supreme Court Decisions Create Workers Compensation Unfunded Liability Potentially Exceeding $1 Billion NCCI has estimated that the combined total statewide unfunded liability related to the Florida Supreme Court's decisions in Emma Murray', Castellanos2, and Westphal could potentially exceed $1 B. This cost will be borne by insurance companies, individual self-insured employers, and employers with deductible policies(due to growth in out-of-pocket costs, or in other words, the amount that the employer agreed to pay on losses up to the deductible threshold). These court decisions are expected to increase overall system costs in Florida for certain accidents occurring prior to 10/1/2016. The unfunded liability relates to costs that cannot be recouped through revising Florida workers compensation rates. Therefore, the unfunded liability is an additional cost over and above the proposed 19.6% increase in Florida workers compensation rates proposed effective 10/1/2016. If the filing effective date of 10/1/2016 is delayed, the unfunded liability will necessarily grow. Background Two recent Florida Supreme Court decisions, Castellanos and Westphal, have retroactively changed Florida's workers compensation law. Prior to these decisions,the last Florida Supreme Court decision to retroactively change Florida's workers compensation law was Emma Murray in 2008. Each of the above retroactive changes in the law has resulted in additional workers compensation claims costs for certain claims. The chart below describes the type of claims retroactively impacted by each Florida Supreme Court decision. Case Date of Decision Effect of Law Before Effect of Law After Claims Retroactively Impacted Emma 10/23/2008 Attorney fee schedule Hourly fees As of 10/23/2008, open/re- Murray based on the percentage opened claims with accident of benefits secured dates between 10/1/2003 and 6/30/2009 Castellanos 4/28/2016 Attorney fee schedule Hourly fees As of 4/28/2016, open/re-opened based on the percentage claims with accident dates of benefits secured between 7/1/2009 and 9/30/2016 Westphal 6/9/2016 Temporary total benefits Temporary total As of 6/9/2016, open/re-opened limited to 104 weeks benefits limited to claims with accident dates 260 weeks between 1/1/1994 and 9/30/2016 Workers compensation ratemaking does not address the added costs associated with these claims because ratemaking is prospective.As an example,the rates approved by the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation in 2014 for use on a Florida policy effective from 1/1/2015 to 12/31/2015 were calculated based on the law in effect during 2014.An injury that occurred on 7/1/2015 is expected to be paid for by the premiums collected on the 1/1/2015 policy—even if the claim remains open for 20 or more years. When there is a retroactive change in the law that results in additional costs, there is no ability to go back and amend the 1/1/2015 Florida workers compensation rates in order to collect additional premium for the 2015 year. Nor is there any other current method for collecting additional premium for that 1/1/2015 policy. As a result, any additional costs incurred must be absorbed by the insurers that wrote those policies, or in the case of individual self-insured employers and employers with deductible policies, by each employer. On occasion, the Florida Legislature will change the law in response to decisions of the Florida Supreme Court. Any legislative changes to Florida law under this scenario would apply only on a going-forward basis. This occurred Emma Murray vs. Mariner Health Inc. and ACE USA, No. SC07-244("Emma Murray') 2 Castellanos vs. Next Door Company, et al., No. SC13-2082("Castellanos") 3 Bradley Westphal vs. City of St. Petersburg, etc, et al, No. SCI 3-1930 C Westphar) 106 E. College Ave, Tallahassee, FL 32301 Telephone: 850-322-4047 Fax: 561-893-5106 Chris_Bailey@ncci.com CONTACT: CHRIS BAILEY ©Copyright 2016 National Council on Compensation Insurance,Inc.All Rights Reserved subsequent to Emma Murray. After the Emma Murray decision on 10/23/2008, the Florida Legislature enacted a change to the attorney fee law which was effective on 7/1/2009. The retroactive impact of Emma Murray remained however for open or re-opened claims for accidents occurring between 10/1/2003 and 6/30/2009. Similarly, any potential legislative response to Castellanos or Westphal would apply on a going-forward basis and would not address the additional workers compensation costs for claims retroactively impacted. Retroactive Impact of Castellanos and Westphal Decisions Are Not Part of the Proposed 10/1/2016 Rate Increase On 6/30/2016, NCCI submitted to the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) an amended filing proposing an increase of 19.6% in Florida workers compensation rates effective 10/1/2016. The Castellanos component of this filing (+15%)addresses the expected first-year impact on Florida workers compensation system costs for accidents occurring on or after the proposed filing effective date of 10/1/2016. The decision in Castellanos is expected to increase overall system costs in the state for open or re-opened claims related to accidents occurring between 7/1/2009 (the effective date of the last reform to the attorney fee statute) and 10/1/2016. The Westphal component of this filing (+2.2%) addresses the impact on Florida workers compensation system costs for accidents occurring on or after the proposed filing effective date of 10/1/2016. The decision is also expected to increase overall system costs in the state for open or re-opened claims related to accidents occurring between 1994(the effective date of the last reform to temporary benefits)and 10/1/2016. As noted previously, the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Emma Murray also retroactively changed the law. That decision increased overall system costs in the state for certain accidents occurring on or after 10/1/2003 and prior 7/1/2009. Many of those claims remain open today. NCCI has estimated that the combined total statewide(including individual self-insured employers) unfunded liability related to the Florida Supreme Court's decisions in Emma Murray, Castellanos,and Westphal could potentially exceed$1B. If the filing effective date of 10/1/2016 is delayed, the unfunded liability will grow. This estimate of the unfunded liability does not consider the following: • Impacts related to the First District Court of Appeal decision dated 4/20/2016 known as Miles v. City of Edgewater Police Department related to claimant paid attorney fees • Subsequent year impacts, if any,that NCCI is unable to quantify An individual insurer or self-insured employer should not draw any conclusions as to its own unfunded liability from NCCI's estimate of the statewide figure. Each insurer's/self-insured employer's unfunded liability will vary based on many factors, including, but not limited to,the number and type of open claims, average claim costs, and claims handling practices. In order to place this $1 B figure in context, note that since the 2003 reform, Florida's annual statewide direct written premium volume(including individual self-insured employers) has ranged from a low of$2.4B to a high of$5.5B. In 2015, Florida's premium volume was$3.6B. 106 E. College Ave, Tallahassee, FL 32301 Telephone: 850-322-4047 Fax: 561-893-5106 Chris_Bailey@ncci.com CONTACT: CHRIS BAILEY ©Copyright 2016 National Council on Compensation Insurance,Inc.All Rights Reserved g C. . \ , () - -'-------L-- --. ---.4:z--,-i!-- -' - - 4, ' 'I.' --‘111111N1111- 1111' 1,, s � � ' '''''''‘'.:17-,-.: .. mac^ -. _ y _ '.o. -.s.wga. s-'�• _ IS J � -eca 2016 PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES (PILT COLLIER COUNTY, FL PILI RECEIVED, PERCENT OF PILT PILI ENTITLEMENT PILI AMOUNT PER FY 2016: ENTITLEMENT LAND: ACRES: ENTITLEMENT ACRE: m . , ` 2.6 FEDERAL LANDS, LOCAL COMM UNI , . 62.8%of counties with county governments n nationwide have federal land within their � r boundaries. Even though they are not able to ,,,, t,,Irit , „,„._ . , , ,. collect property taxes on federal land, county governments must still provide essential services for their residents and those who visit Wr these public lands each year. Such services //++ t i c include road and bridge maintenance, law .i. • or COUNTIES HAVE enforcement, search and rescue, emergency #,$ LAND/ medical, fire protection, solid waste disposal FEDERAL LAN and environmental compliance. t WITHIN THEIR BOUNDARIES Our ask: Counties urge Congress to provide k - full funding for PILT in FY 2017 and to ",ilf'tl ' support a sustainable long-term approach to financing essential local services in America's public lands counties. NOTES:NACo analysis of U.S.Department of the Interior data.PILT received,FY2016 represents the total of PILT disbursed during the fiscal year 2016. The total number of PILT entitlement acres reflects the number of acres eligible for PILT payments. PILT FUNDING CRITICAL FOR SERVICES INCLUDING: MOM CO ROAD AND BRIDGE LAW SEARCH AND EMERGENCY FIRE SOLID WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE ENFORCEMENT RESCUE MEDICAL PROTECTION DISPOSAL COMPLIANCE .. ` • �7 ' 41s t fere im.,z'�'N ' I/" `r I16aIr:._ — -- ,.,. {' 'a ' coni/IIACbDC]twLtter comINACoTWEETS I youtube.com/NACoVIDEO I linkedin.com/in/NACoDC f 1 x • 4SSACH ETTSAVENUE,NW ISUITE 500 I WASHINGTON,DC 200011202.393.62261 www.NACo.org i rj jr...) 177; D rrf ''' y i ,, j i rr 4 jr) ii,-.) ri ,..24J ,,...r J .1..)--.) .'''... .)-1 -1 -I --j . ...., , jt. 7.7,'s\ i i�- JSI Lj 1.0) Freedom Park to Gordon River Greenway Park Over Golden Gate Parkway I' 1 1 �.. a - iii �"�'-- WFif04E10 NAPLES i a . ra ,••R„ > f n r„ate1;ty .i`. —, Mkt . Mir 14111 � • Prepared for •,_ , „,..,,.......1... �-x„ , Collier County, Florida Project No. 60109.2 • C i+er County ., CI1� September 2015 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK OVER GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY /a 4 �1 wFi COW 10 MOILS t '-.. 44, ). . f - 1 . x " Prepared for Collier County, Florida Contract No: 13-6164 (ST) September 2015 C01112444, 0 Z•J� ..CENSE �O'�: ' No 54325 :<0 =* i * = _ 9/24/951 -;,-p". STATE OF ••'• �� , ,''•.F� O R10P•.•;\$Js• i,•,"/ONA. PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY Ch 2M#V FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 Table of Contents Sections Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 1.1 Project Location 2 1.2 Project Objectives 3 1.2.1 Background,Justification and Benefits 3 1.2.2 Feasibility Study Objectives 4 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5 2.1 Golden Gate Parkway 5 2.2 Public Transit 6 2.3 Pedestrian/Sidewalk Characteristics 7 2.4 Geotechnical Conditions 7 2.5 Drainage 7 2.6 Utilities 8 3.0 DESIGN CRITERIA 10 3.1 Horizontal Clearances 10 3.2 Vertical Clearances 10 3.3 Stopping Line of Sight Distance 11 3.4 Accessibility 11 3.5 Elevators 11 3.6 Aesthetics 11 4.0 Alternatives Analysis 4.1 Location Alternatives 12 4.2 Crossing Alternatives 13 4.2.1 Pedestrian Overpass 13 4.2.2 Pedestrian Underpass 15 Page i Ch244V PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 4.2.3 On-Street Crossing 16 4.3 Other Considerations 17 4.3.1 Constructability&MOT 17 4.3.2 Impacts 17 4.4 Alternative Crossings Comparison 18 4.5 Probable Construction Costs 19 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: Location Alternatives 12 TABLE 2: Alternative Crossings Comparison 18 TABLE 3: Estimate of Probable Construction Cost 19 LIST OF FIGURES FIG. 1 -Project Location&Vicinity Map 2 FIG. 2- Project Vicinity Aerial View 3 FIG. 3 -Looking West towards Freedom Park 5 FIG. 4-Looking East towards Gordon River Greenway 5 FIG. 5 -Bridge Culvert#030172 5 FIG. 6-Control Structure to the South 5 FIG. 7-Collier Area Transit(CAT) Bus Route 6 FIG. 8-South Sidewalk 7 FIG. 9- North Sidewalk 7 FIG. 10- Powerlines 8 FIG. 11 -Observed Utility Marker 9 FIG. 12- Eastbound Speed Limit Sign 10 FIG. 13-Westbound Speed Limit Sign 10 FIG. 14- Nighttime View of Dana Point Bridge,CA 11 FIG. 15 - Example of Hawk Treatment 16 Page ii PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY � �• FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1 - Alternative Crossing Locations EXHIBIT 2- Alternative Conceptual Bridge Sections EXHIBIT 3 -Overpass Option Layout EXHIBIT 4- Underpass Option Layout EXHIBIT 5 -On-Street Option Layout EXHIBIT 6- Overpass Rendering-Utilitarian Aesthetics EXHIBIT 7-Overpass Rendering- Mid-level Aesthetics EXHIBIT 8-Overpass Rendering-Signature Aesthetics (Concrete) EXHIBIT 9-Overpass Rendering-Signature Aesthetics (Tied Arch) LIST OF APPENDICES: APPENDIX A-Exhibits APPENDIX B -Site Photos APPENDIX C- Reference Photos of Other Pedestrian Crossings APPENDIX D- Miscellaneous Backup Data Page iii Ch Z11111, PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY: FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Collier County Growth Management Department,Transportation Engineering Division has initiated a feasibility study for a pedestrian crossing across Golden Gate Parkway in Naples, Florida. The proposed crossing will provide pedestrians with a convenient,safe route to traverse between Freedom Park, located on the north side of Golden Gate Parkway and Gordon River Greenway Park located on the south side of Golden Gate Parkway,just east of Freedom Park. The main objective of the study is to identify potential crossing locations, evaluate pedestrian crossing alternatives, define site constraints (geometry,utilities, environmental,etc.),within the project vicinity and prepare preliminary cost data.This report will be used by the county staff to evaluate crossing options and identify funding needs to advance the project to the next stage. Justification of the selected crossing option in the subsequent phase will need to carefully weigh the benefit and cost, combined with the level of anticipated use and potential safety considerations. The proposed location shall also address any safety and sight distance issues for vehicular traffic on Golden Gate Parkway. The primary benefit of the project will be to provide a safe crossing of Golden Gate Parkway. Four different location alternatives were compared for the purpose of this study (Ref. Exhibit 1). Alternative location 3 is midway between Freedom Park and Gordon River Greenway and is considered as the best possible location for further consideration. The focus of this study was to evaluate overpass, underpass and on-street crossing alternatives. The overpass option considered varying levels of aesthetics and pedestrian access features at each end (Ref. Exhibit 2). The potential layout consists of a stair and/or switch-back ramp access at the north terminus and a stair/elevator tower at the south terminus to minimize environmental impacts (Ref. Exhibit 3). Constructability & Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) is greatly simplified due to clear spanning of Golden Gate Parkway. Powerlines along the north side of Golden Gate Parkway will be impacted and three transmission poles will potentially need to be relocated further north to accommodate an overpass alternative. Due to drainage,geometric,functional,constructability,MOT,cost/benefit and a safety concern an underpass will need to be thoroughly scrutinized as part of subsequent phase of the project in conjunction with all the stakeholders(Ref.Exhibit 4). An on-street pedestrian crossing option (signal and crosswalk) provides an economical solution and one location was explored at Freedom Park as part of this study. (Ref. Exhibit 5) An overpass concept shall be carefully evaluated in conjunction with the on-street alternative based on anticipated level of pedestrian characteristics, use and available resources. Three varying degrees of aesthetics and accessibility options for an overpass alternative have been shown in Exhibits 6 thru 8. The probable construction cost for the overpass options range from 2.0 M to 5.0 M,whereas the on-street crossing provides the most economical solution at approx. 200K. Page 1 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY: C1112/144! FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located along the stretch of Golden Gate Parkway between Freedom Park(north side) and Gordon River Greenway (south side) in Naples, Florida. Golden Gate Parkway is owned and maintained by Collier County. The adjacent parcel to the south was recently purchased by Moorings,Inc.in April of 2014. The parcel to the north is owned by Collier County. Additional stakeholders include the City of Naples,which owns the sewer and water and Florida Power and Light(FPL)which owns the overhead electric in the vicinity of the project. Teco Gas, Century Link Cable,Summit Broadband,Comcast,FPL Fibernet,and Collier County own various utilities in the area. Potential wetlands exist along the southern and northern edge of Golden Gate Parkway. Bridge Culvert No. 030172 is also in close proximity of the proposed project. The Naples Zoo at Caribbean Gardens is immediately south of Gordon River Greenway. Naples High School and Coastland Mall are located just west of the project location. Figures 1 & 2 provide location map and vicinity details. 1.1 Project Location r Y air PROJECT zsth,Ave LOCATION ir CcIP4Ye C Naples High School `� _ Bear s Paw Country ► ,*I , Naples Ion at club Maintenance � ---- Caribbean Gartfenc i Arnold Ave l1 a`opef Way Merca^tliie Ave ,i ! , G,„ fior9eshoe tlf N Progress Ave ASE; Domestic Ave ! rn Horseshoe°, , .,, #fi ® z Ente 1.. 1 1 w i� Z ! a 'he Naples Beach , Air Hotel&Goll Clut Prospect Ave a , Ai. f ,, y U Naples Municipal Airport Ave Centra , t 0,-e S - North Ad jti C", Naples ca ^_° 5th Ave eq"t 7 n• FIG. 1 - Project Location &Vicinity Map Page 2 241146 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY: FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 . , Freedom Park x ' ■ w a u eltiik _ ‘ r' 45$g Gordon River Greenway FIG. 2- Project Vicinity Aerial View 1.2 Project Objectives This project is being explored primarily to provide a safe crossing of Golden Gate Parkway for pedestrians and bicyclists traversing from Freedom Park to the Gordon River Greenway Park. 1.2.1 Background,Justification and Benefits The Collier County Growth Management Department, Transportation Engineering Division has initiated a feasibility study for a pedestrian crossing across Golden Gate Parkway in Naples, Florida. The proposed crossing will provide pedestrians with a convenient, safe route to traverse between Freedom Park, located on the north side of Golden Gate Parkway and Gordon River Greenway Park located on the south side of Golden Gate Parkway, just east of Freedom Park. The main objective of the study is to identify potential crossing locations, evaluate pedestrian crossing alternatives, define site constraints (geometry, utilities, environmental, etc.), within the project vicinity and prepare preliminary cost data.This report will be used by staff to evaluate crossing options and identify funding needs to advance the project to the next stage. Justification of the selected crossing option in the subsequent phase will need to carefully weigh the benefit and cost,combined with the level of anticipated use and potential safety considerations. The proposed location shall also address any safety and sight distance issues for vehicular traffic on Golden Gate Parkway. Page 3 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY: �►�/� FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 1.2.2 Feasibility Study Objectives The objective of this feasibility study is to identify the opportunities and obstacles related to constructing a pedestrian/bicycle crossing of Golden Gate Parkway between Freedom Park and Gordon River Greenway Park. The study will focus on a pedestrian overpass (bridge), pedestrian underpass (tunnel) and an "on- street" crossing (pedestrian signal). The feasibility study provides a cursory review of the existing conditions and features within the study limits. The feasibility study developed preliminary construction costs for the viable alternatives for budget purposes. This feasibility study and alternatives analysis provided will form the basis for further refinement and development of alternatives during the subsequent phases of the project. Page 4 C #112/141, PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY: FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 Golden Gate Parkway The segment of Golden Gate Parkway between Freedom Park and Gordon River Greenway is a 6-lane facility classified as a divided urban arterial Class la based on Collier County's 2035 Needs Plan Level of Service(Table 10-4). The level of services is designated as"C"with an average annual daily traffic count(AADT)of 52,773.The roadway is posted 35 mph for westbound traffic and 45 mph for eastbound traffic. The Typical Section consists of three 12 foot wide travel lanes in each direction and a 12 foot auxiliary lane with right turn movement into Freedom Park as well as Gordon River Greenway Park and a 22 foot raised median. The raised median accommodates directional left turn lanes into the Parks. Stormwater runoff is conveyed by curb and gutter into a closed drainage system. -1. r v' 1 p FIG.3-Looking West towards Freedom Park FIG.4-Looking East towards Gordon River Greenway ♦ ae 111 4 wattit FIG.5-Bridge Culvert#030172 FIG.6-Control Structure to the South Bridge Culvert No. 030172 conveys Gordon River flow under Golden Gate Parkway at an approximate 29 degree skew. According to the available data,it is a 49.5 feet long multi- cell concrete box culvert structure constructed in 1963. It is listed as structurally adequate, has a sufficiency rating of 72.3 and is not posted for any load restrictions. A water control structure with Amil-gates exists on the south side. A guardrail exists at the approach end of this structure along Golden Gate Parkway for vehicular protection. Any proposed pedestrian crossing will need to minimize any impacts to this structure. Page 5 �� PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY: FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 2.2 Public Transit The Golden Gate Parkway - Goodlette Frank Road area is currently being served by Collier Rapid Transit(CAT) Route 25, shown in Lime Green, in Figure 5. A bus stop is located next to the westbound auxiliary lane into Freedom Park and will have to be accommodated as part of proposed improvements. Any proposed changes to the current bus stop location will have to be coordinated. .,," a ca [8L1�ER AREA TRANSIT. 4.14. S i ,, fud tQ i i _ 1 •a1 Ta ImmakalIM Q 1 M ..d4..P 2. BMd '' f..r4..w. I. d -..... - Q I..md.AnRwd I f ® a � 3 i a.., E ''m I [. Transit Bus Route 4.144,i 0. 25 bus stop within ; 9 Project Limits i4139 � � ism Nxy � t �� z 21 i . mz- rl 0 a s®.�sax 0 � h [ h n �_ S.hd- :F3A AIM I 1 ebt `�d \ ,40 �`o..nm I ii MEMM:MO rmsea-.cwa `ij ` e 3 rEr. W....n. s■ � ... .. cw,�wR....<�Ra .. ....s. fin.^ea^ , so�. �a^.x \\\...\\\ ,a'' y*\ 6,==„.... ^ ...e use.... O.* ` t 141,o.. 0==4.„.. `.44....,. Ta MaresIslwmtQ1, - e Ma] 14 FIG.7-Collier Area Transit(CAT) Bus Route Map Page 6 2441i PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY: FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 2.3 Pedestrian/Sidewalk Characteristics A five (5) foot sidewalk and eight(8) foot buffer area exists adjacent to the south side of Golden Gate Blvd as shown in Fig. 8, while a six (6) foot sidewalk exists adjacent to the north side of Golden Gate Parkway as shown in Fig 9.Pedestrian use can be characterized as moderate. Currently there are no designated pedestrian crossings within the project limits. There are no designated bike lanes and bikers currently use the sidewalk as seen in Fig 8. During the subsequent phase of the project, additional information including pedestrian and bicycle counts,mobility patterns and user demographics will be further analyzed. i .(ice t V '. ^err`.. . 1'1 lift -., NMI N : v maisiit— _ _. ,, it 001 FIG.8-South Sidewalk FIG.9-North Sidewalk 2.4 Drainage The urban roadway section conveys stormwater by curb and gutter to a series of inlets that receive runoff water from Golden Gate Parkway and conveys it through an underground system. Feasible alternatives will have minimal effect on the existing stormwater facilities. Although no new impervious pavement area is being added to the corridor, impacts (however minimal) to adjacent vegetation (uplands/wetlands) may require Permitting Agency (SFWMD-USACE) reviews. 2.5 Geotechnical Conditions A limited desk-analysis was conducted to assess anticipated soil conditions. Soils in this area are expected to be quartz sand with trace clay and shell to depths ranging from 5 to 10 feet below existing ground surface.Shallow limestone of the Tamiami formation can be expected below the surficial sands and extends to over 100 feet deep. The top of the limestone is very dense and locally referred to as caprock. Seasonal high ground water is assumed to be 2-3 feet below existing pavement subbase. Page 7 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY: M! FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 For purposes of this report, the following assumptions were made in order to develop "Order of Magnitude" costs. • The shallow limestone caprock may/will require pre-drilling but underlying limestone layers are suitable for conventional driven pile foundations or drilled shafts. • Caprock is difficult and costly to excavate which makes an underpass option less viable. A full geotechnical investigation will be performed during subsequent phases of the project. 2.6 Utilities A limited site review was conducted to identify utilities readily visible within the project area. In addition,a Sunshine State One Call of Florida (SSOCOF), design ticket was placed to identify members of SSOCOF within the vicinity of the design project. (See Appendix D). Potentially Impacted Utilities: • Florida Power and Light(Fig. 10) + ' High voltage Transmission lines exist along the north side of Golden Gate Parkway. Additionally, a distribution line is also present with a lower vertical clearance.The distribution line pole discontinues at the start of the Freedom Park auxiliary lane and appears to go underground further west. Any overpass option will require relocations. Potential signal poles will 41---• need to be coordinated with FPL to ensure proper OSHA clearance is maintained. FIG.10-Powerlines Other utilities within project area include: • Florida Power and Light Fibernet LLC Fiber (High speed fiber optic network to provide telecommunication support.) • Collier County Traffic Operations Section(Electrical and Fiber) • City of Naples (Sewer and Water) • Comcast(CATV) • Summit Broadband Inc. (Fiber Optic) • Teco Peoples Gas (Gas) • Century Link Naples (Phone &Fiber Optic) Page 8 2411,11, PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY: FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 FIG.11- Observed Utility Marker More detailed investigations, field surveys and utility locations will need to be accomplished during the next phase of the project. Page 9 21V14, PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY: C hFREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 3.0 DESIGN CRITERIA The proposed pedestrian overpass will be considered as a shared used path and will be 12 ft wide as required by FDOT PPM Section 8.7.1 3.1 Horizontal Clearances This segment of Golden Gate Parkway has a posted speed of 45 miles per hour(mph) eastbound and 35 mph westbound relative to the potential pedestrian crossing location. According to FDOT PPM Table 2.11.6,for µ design speed<45 mph,a minimum lateral offset of 16 feet is required from the edge of the outside travel lane to any bridge pier or abutment and 6 feet minimum from the : ' 4 traffic (auxiliary)lane. The existing median } width(approx. 22 feet)is not sufficient to meet the lateral offset requirements, therefore vehicular protection will be required for any piers constructed within the median. FIG. 12-Eastbound speed limit Sign L. rim'. r AT °OR ME FRAN ■■ n f t - .. FIG.13-Westbound speed limit Sign(heading into the left curve ahead) 3.2 Vertical Clearances According to FDOT PPM Table 2.10.1,the minimum required vertical clearance for a pedestrian overpass is 17'-6". Additionally according to FDOT PPM Figure 8.7.1, the minimum headroom/under clearance for pedestrians shall be 8'-0". Page 10 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY: C/121/41, FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 3.3 Stopping Line of Sight Distance There is no signal in the immediate vicinity of the proposed pedestrian crossing, therefore the proposed improvement is not anticipated to adversely impact stopping sight distance with the exception of Alternate Location 1. 3.4 Accessibility All features must comply with the Americans with Disability Act(ADA) requirements for accessibility per FDOT Structures Manual. 3.5 Elevators Elevators must comply with ADA and ASME A17.1-latest safety code for Elevators and Escalators subject to further analysis in the subsequent phase of the project. 3.6 Aesthetics Various levels of aesthetics will be explored as the potential project progresses. This will include structure type and integration of various elements for enhanced aesthetics. Landscaping and lighting can also provide significant enhancements and will have to be incorporated as desired. Aesthetic lighting can have a dramatic effect as shown below. i .., 41, ,` aw Illna ` ; �i . ►� 1:4.1!A P31NT h Figure 14 Nighttime View of Dana Point Bridge, CA Page 11 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY: FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 4.0 Alternatives Analysis 4.1 Location Alternatives Four potential locations were considered for the purpose of this feasibility study and are depicted in Exhibit 1. A variety of factors were considered in determining these location alternatives. These four pedestrian crossing locations provide varying degrees of access points and have differing benefits/impacts based on constructability, environmental impact, functionality and projected visual impact to pedestrians,bicyclist and the traveling public. Table 1:Alternative Locations Comparison Location Advantages Disadvantages Remark Alternative Alt. 1 Close to Freedom Park. Sight distance issues due to curve to the west and also existing Freedom Park.Farthest from Gordon River Greenway. Wetland impacts. Alt.2 Close to Freedom Park. Distance from Gordon River Improved sight conditions Greenway Park.Wetland relative to Alt. 1 impacts. Alt. 3 Splits the distance between Proximity to the existing Bridge Recomm Freedom Park and Gordon Culvert and water control ended River Greenway Park. structure to the south.Wetland Location Provides opportunity to impact. connect crossing pedestrian traffic to the Freedom Park boardwalk network. Provides minimal crossing distance to traverse the roadway section.Equal distance between parks.Aesthetic placement for landmark crossing. Alt.4 Proximity to Gordon River Farthest from Freedom Park. Greenway Park. Connection to Gordon River Boardwalk will require crossing Gordon River.Sight issue for westbound traffic exiting from Gordon River Greenway.Wetland Impacts. Page 12 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY: divvy"! FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 Based on the preliminary comparison Alternative Location 3 will be considered for the purposes of this feasibility study. 4.2 Crossing Alternatives The focus of this feasibility study was to compare the following three crossing alternatives ➢ Pedestrian Overpass (Ref. to Exhibit 3) ➢ Pedestrian Underpass (Ref. Exhibit 4) ➢ On-Street Crossing (Ref. Exhibit 5) The Pedestrian Overpass and Underpass were considered at Location 3 discussed above, whereas the on-street crossing alternatives were considered near the entrances to Freedom Park and Gordon River Greenway. The following is a discussion of these various options. 4.2.1 Pedestrian Overpass Access/Approach Configuration The Overpass Alternative at location 3 has adequate room to place ADA compliant switch-back access ramps at the north approach but a stair/elevator tower will be needed at the south approach,to minimize wetland impacts. Stairs - Cast-in-place or precast concrete stairs contained within an access tower with a roof are envisioned for the proposed project. Use of steel stairs is not considered desirable due to the outdoor nature of the project. Elevator-An elevator shaft with a lift to the overpass level. This structure would require a mechanical room for housing the elevator hydraulic and electrical equipment in conjunction with the elevator and elevator shaft structure. The mechanical room would be located directly under the end platform and its roof would serve as the landing for the elevator and stair terminus.The use of elevators does introduce some maintenance needs. Additionally, stairs would provide access from ground level in the event of power failure or for access for those wishing to walk. Ramps - These are commonly constructed with concrete pier columns and cap with concrete walkway, with handrail and fencing. This option for a ramp is a more traditional access for pedestrian overpasses. The decking is formed and poured in place. MSE wall can be utilized for ramps but creates edifices which tend to block the open view and do not appear desirable at the proposed crossing. Three different Construction Types have been evaluated for the pedestrian bridge crossing, based on review of similar pedestrian crossings, which satisfy varying Page 13 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY: �� FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 degree of aesthetic needs for the proposed structure. (Ref.to Exhibit 2 and 6 thru 9) Utilitarian Aesthetics (FDOT Level 1). This type of bridge will consist of conventional prestressed concrete girder type structure such as Florida I-Beams. A single as well as two span structure is possible. A two-span span structure will allow use of shallower beams but will introduce a median pier which will be in the clear zone and will require vehicular protection.The concrete deck would be poured in place with curbing,fencing,and railing system. The approach ramp to the north will provide ADA compliant accessibility,whereas the stair/elevator tower will provide ADA compliant access to the south. This option will be consistent with FDOT Aesthetic level 1 which is defined as, Level One:Consists of cosmetic improvements to conventional Department bridge types, such as the use of color pigments in the concrete, texturing the surfaces, modifications to fascia walls, beams, and surfaces, or more pleasing shapes for columns and/or caps. Mid-level Aesthetics(FDOT Level 2) This type of bridge will consist of a prefabricated or custom designed Steel truss type structure. A poured in place concrete deck with railing and fencing will be placed within the through box-type truss.This structure would be single span and will not require a pier in the median. The approach ramp to the north will provide ADA compliant accessibility, whereas the stair/elevator tower will provide ADA compliant access to the south. The access tower to the north will be slightly different than the utilitarian option in that it will also have a stair option and both the towers at each end will have consistent looks with a similar footprint and roof structure for enhanced aesthetics. Steel truss can be painted based on the selected aesthetic theme. This option will be consistent with FDOT Aesthetic level 2 which is defined as, Level Two:The emphasis is on full integration of efficiency,economy and elegance in all bridge components and the structure as a whole. Consideration should be given to structural systems that are inherently more pleasing, such as hammerhead or "T" shaped piers, oval or polygonal shaped columns, integral caps, piers in lieu of bents, smooth transitions at superstructure depth change locations,box-type superstructures,concealed drain pipes,conduits and utilities, etc. Signature Aesthetics(FDOT Level 3) This alternative will involve architectural input for carefully integrating the entire theme with careful attention to the neighborhood and an overall fit in the Page 14 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY: dim! FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 surroundings including use of landscaping and lighting. This type of bridge can consist of a signature concrete option or some iconic structure using a combination of arch shape and cable supported structure. This structure would be single span and will not require a pier in the median. The approach ramp to the north will provide ADA compliant accessibility, whereas the stair/elevator tower will provide ADA compliant access to the south. The access tower will serve similar purpose as the Mid-level option but will complement the finish treatments on the overpass superstructure while the entire overpass will showcase an integrated theme and will provide highest level of aesthetic appeal. This option will be consistent with FDOT Aesthetic level 3 which is defined as, Level Three:The emphasis in this level applies more to the overall aesthetics when passing through or under an interchange or at other sites such as historic or highly urbanized areas where landscaping or unique neighborhood features must be considered.The bridge itself shall comply with Level Two requirements.This level of work may require,at the County's option,a subconsultant(architect to consider adjacent building styles, and landscape themes)with the necessary expertise and credentials to perform the desired work 4.2.2 Pedestrian Underpass The desirable size of an underpass is 14 ft wide and 10 ft high as per FDOT Plans Preparation Manual Section 8.6.6. The seasonal high groundwater is likely 2 or 3 feet below the pavement sub-base and is subject to verification of assumptions from the original roadway design and groundwater data. The underpass will have to be partially depressed below the seasonal high groundwater table in order to minimize raising of Golden Gate Boulevard.An underdrain and pumping system will be required to keep the structure dry and functional at all times. This raises a pedestrian safety and maintenance concern. It is envisioned that Golden Gate Parkway profile will have to be raised approximately 10 ft with a crest vertical curve to accommodate placement of an FDOT cast-in-place concrete box culvert sections with considerations for waterstops (Ref.to Exhibit 2). Given the fact that the roadway profile will need to be raised, locating the underpass near alternative location 3 will necessitate reconstructing the at-grade connections at access drives to Freedom Park and Gordon River Greenway Entrances. This may also necessitate the replacement of Bridge Culvert No.030172 which conveys the Gordon River under Golden Gate Parkway. Moving the underpass to location 4 will help with the connection to Freedom Park but will be too close to Gordon River Greenway. According to FDOT PPM Section 8.7.1, Pedestrian underpasses are generally undesirable for safety reasons. Local law enforcement personnel should also be consulted to assure public safety, emergency accessibility in the case of an underpass option. Page 15 C112/11,1tPEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY: FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 A conceptual underpass layout which was evaluated is shown in Exhibit 4. 4.2.3 On-Street Pedestrian Crossing FDOT provides special signals to indicate when pedestrians may safely cross. These may be "ped-heads" attached to conventional traffic signals or pedestrian- only signals such as the "Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon" or "HAWK" signals." Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons may be inappropriate for this situation because the location near a curve, number of lanes and traffic volume. Coordination with the County to investigate opportunities to employ Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon "HAWK" signals or additional traffic signal options should be considered. MN" p,n + "R s +ityObiU FIG.15-Example of Hawk Treatment Page 16 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY: Ch 24114. FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 4.3 Other Considerations 4.3.1 Constructability&Maintenance of Traffic(MOT) The study included a limited analysis of MOT requirements for each option. The overpass option primarily involves construction of the access towers and ramps and bridge abutments which are outside of the Golden Gate Parkway typical section. There appears to be adequate room near each access to position a conventional crawler crane for any necessary pile driving and foundation work. Hydraulic cranes can be subsequently used to finish the poured in place ramp and tower construction. Bridge superstructure erection can be accomplished by delivering the beams along Golden Gate Parkway and using two cranes to pick the superstructure with nighttime closures. Any need for detour for this limited closure and associated traffic impact will have to be evaluated in the subsequent phase of the project. The underpass option will create the biggest challenge and will have the greatest impact on the existing 6-lane traffic. Raising Golden Gate Parkway will have to be accomplished in two or three phases by re-constructing one half at a time which makes it impossible to maintain 6-lanes of traffic and is considered prohibitive. 4.3.2 Impacts The proposed crossing will impact potential wetlands to the south. The exact delineation of jurisdictional wetlands is unknown at this time and will need to be investigated in the subsequent phase of the project. Use of an elevator tower in- lieu of a switch-back ramp aims to minimize these impacts to the south as discussed earlier. The proposed crossing will also have drainage and utility impacts. The biggest impact will be to the high voltage transmission lines to the north, as discussed earlier. At a minimum three of the transmission poles will need to be relocated to the north to facilitate construction of the north end of the bridge crossing. Impact to the lower voltage distribution lines can be minimized at the selected location. Detailed analyses and refinement of ramp,elevator and stair tower footprints will need to be conducted after more complete utility information is collected in the subsequent phase of the project. Page 17 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY: ch2Aw FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 4.4 Alternative Crossings Comparison The following table provides a comparison of the three crossing options using a qualitative grading criteria described below. It is evident that the Underpass option is not desirable. The overpass option provides an aesthetic and safer crossing alternative than the on-street crossing. In the subsequent project phase, the construction cost, utility and environmental impact needs to be carefully weighed against the on-street option with the level of anticipated use of the proposed crossing. TABLE 2: Alternatives Comparison Proposed Improvement Issue Overpass Option Underpass Option On-Street Option B C B Roadside Safety Bridge Towers/Ramps will be Guardrail needed to protect users from located outside Clear Zone MSE wall drop-off(s) Vehicle/Pedestrian Conflict Point B C C Pedestrian Safety Crime,Flood,Illumination,Railing Fall Climb/Fall Concerns Concern Vehicle/Pedestrian Conflict Point Future B D/F A AccommodationsCan add future lane if needed by Relocate MSE Walls,MOT,Significant Minor costs using barrier wall cost Constructability B D/F A Significant Issues-Lane and MOT Minor Lane closures Closures/Phased Construction Minor Issues Environmental B/C C/D A Impacts Ramp vs.Stair/Elevator Evaluation Wetland,Groundwater Pumping, will Determine Raised Profile-Noise Impacts No Issues C C/D A Utility Impacts FPL Transmission/Distribution Underground Utility Impacts 1800 LF Impact(s)Isolated location(s) N/S sides,Potential FPL No/Minor Impacts Ease of Use C B A Ramps Inconvenient/Circuitous Ramps Inconvenient/Circuitous Push Button:No Issues A/B D B/C Aesthetics Dependant on Type of Structure No signature appeal,MSE Walls, selected-"Landmark Consideration" Railings,Guardrails Typical Application C/D D/F A Construction Cost Dependant on Type of Structure Initial Construction and Long Term Minimal Costs selected-"Landmark Consideration" Maintenance Costs Significant B/C D/F A Maintenance Routine Inspection,Painting, Routine Inspection,Painting, Elevator/Ramp/Railing Ramp/Railing Maintenance,Pumping Minor-Typical Maintenance Maintenance System,Lighting,MSE Walls Grading Scale: A=Most Desirable B=Desirable C=Satisfactory D=Less Desirable F=Unacceptable Page 18 012414. PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY: FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 4.5 Probable Construction Costs The focus of this feasibility study was to compare order of magnitude budgetary costs for viable crossing alternatives. Cost data was also compared with available historical data from completed similar projects. Pedestrian overpass costs reflect the cost of access features and the bridge crossing. General contingency has been used to account for Mobilization, MOT and any site/civil work pertaining to the overpass alternatives. The cost estimates cover construction only and do not include costs of Right-of-way acquisition,subsequent design and construction engineering services or annual operating and maintenance expenses for the project. The costs of special safety and security features such as emergency call stations, closed circuit TV, audio surveillance, central station monitoring etc. are not included. Refer to Appendix D for preliminary cost backup information. TABLE 3: Estimate of Probable Construction Cost Crossing Option Description Probable Cost Overpass Utilitarian Aesthetics $ 2 to$3 M (FDOT Level 1) Mid-level Aesthetics $ 3 to$4 M (FDOT Level 2) Signature Aesthetics $ 4 to$5 M (FDOT Level 3) Underpass Golden Gate Parkway $8 M Elevated with phased construction On-Street Across from Freedom $200 K Park Across from Gordon $200 K River Greenway K=Thousands;M=Millions Page 19 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK OVER GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY APPENDIX A - EXHIBITS t LOCATION ALT. 1 1' ...". rnO i i f i I i i 1 LOCATION ALT. 2 1 I , / LOCATION ALT. 3 r 1 de Iblak F1 A Z 1 i m 0 0 m - r-' _ -- —1 o Z � LOCATION ALT. 4 1 -< rn ,= Z, r H n T y T y l 2 8'-0"Min.Ur. _ Wer __ k MI.IA 020 s `°o q -1z 1 ) �0 :C.!-1 ^ J I\ \ 3 a d o. T n 3 i '''''. \ m3 �o 1V �O-< a a 1.ro no '• 1. 3 n 10'_0"MM. tin - ovi II m m 1111. 1111 ;' 8'-0'Min.Cir. I I b � T m ,z IL\a �\ H z m D 1, 8'_0"Min.Ur. r o M mem I Q2, w li a m Wx 2 7Z1= 15 C7 0 7 DN man s i Z 14a ^_ o `°vm ur C _n Z y�� o 3 rn ',.i;x 3 F_m D g 1 (n o gm m a H W() O z iI I . 7,..,,..„..,,,, ,,,,,. ...: ..... . ., .... „ ..„,. :,...x,_ . . . 4,,. , ....... ..„ : ' . , . .. .: .,.. , ...,, 11 , ...-r. 1 ,.. , ,,,, , ,,.,....„..,. ,i ii ..„ , , .. , , . , , i :,.,., 1 , , , ., , ,, . . /1 d _o..„0 / 1 11_ : , ... , , ,. . . , , ., , 0, .,; , , >x 5 l'a i s 133'-6' SPAN o4 dif �� z . 1.1! ''''' , :i f 4, 1.: ox w O 3 i--J 1 4 I qi:1 ,^.. .' ,,. ...... ,........,. ,....* I' ..!. 3--- ,,, -- , 1, i 14 1 0 i I, 1 I I ' r ( I 1 1 1 11[11 I e 1 , ... -1 il 6 I . z > I r- 1 > c°D I '•." : 1 I 1 . . . z 0 I .., ti , IIII' , - , f ., I ' i I li Slot I Z r . ild r7-• '.4161 4 k • ., (i)M c n x , 0 1 1 H:74 Z ',.....".. .... "t. 0 C - i I • , ... :- 1 I 1 4 1 I 1110 i I. ! 11/ ! \ gos 1 frY II 00 0 x III , Ali I IFI - 11111 L 4. ' _ m mm -ix O= r 1 0i c IF , , Z W t I .' ','' '',,,;:'?,,,,;',;.tw,-- ail e E Y ...,f,„-1.„,;'..-e,.'''''.' . '.''' 9; Ca r«. f i Ati et. 1 ilk 4 1 1 it _ _ ,,, ,,,,„„,,,,2,,,,,.4,,,.., ,_,-4-, : ,itta. . 1 0 % s +x f} M A,,. M . x F2 > ' Z m w m k `h �� 3 \ .. . ..„ , , . —--., \ • . ., ., .... , _ . . .. .., .5. , . liwurt .. ... .,. .. . ... \ \ . it,•s, .. •ridgp 11111a.1 . . ..„ . . : I INIMIIIMI, . W4 1 NOON iiir4 1 4 'AIM \ : i A PP% N 4 1 pre \s,, ... 1 , r$0 . ailija 1 , .44' Zile Sibi:l 4 t, ill.1111 mill ! ill1N. ammo 1 ;.;fiLlgi . IIIIIIIIb . 1111111116 4,,,,I Nagmb 11:44.'4111 104-1w i 411111111 , A J. = i !Iiillill 4 ..4, rri /4, , 77 > 1 ' •• to...... .. Eg i m - -1..4\ •-i z # M ,A• , T i i K•:i- e 1 a, •L i IL i •11. IT 11111 1.4 < armor -44 rn r- > cr) m . . , .., . \- x 4, ..7.,..,,,,..2t, ,,t. ,_ r, ....:,,,-„:„.= x ° AR . _ �( 1111, it Ili ,.r e a i' :5' 1�1 v '-',),:-'?::::'1:1,:,-;.•.:'7 .,---,:-.--;''''':: ';'' 4 o m 73 (i) f1 '� w z 113 .,11 1 h ._ . m° m11: x m n c nO z m + 12 ,, \ \ I • \ ,. al 11 d \ ' IIt I '1111 tish..a Agoy itm .. al1 atO 4 : is vemori 1 i. . I h a • O a., v fif- k I kir a m *5' i t` i LI X 7 Or CO C 1 N ‘O D m T m g- I. n WZ PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK OVER GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY APPENDIX B - SITE PHOTOS CII PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAYSTUDYK PAR Collier County Project No. 60109.2 r. {+w '14'S#.i � 'j ray i `°'' It 4 k4 fit,•. «p b ' `( , --y. 4* .*.,it. ,fie;rw k Entrance to Gordon River Greenway t t .411 Entrance to Freedom Park C01#1 2IM. PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 ri• r.'4".,''.',-')Aib' ,/, ,., .i • 4.',,, a. t..,r... -,. a ' .€ s t Vegetation near Gordon River Greenway n. "4 y t u . 6 A.,3. -.- X. .„ �; t.�( k\ "'1•�r. a„t... _;.__...:.,:,......,-;;,,L-•411% rN ;.'it /4, 'yrr y� i 4 rjj� , . . ‘,. 'y ,• ,:-.,- , /A.&- ,, '.,'',4.4 .4,.• .--.:.-4,...____:.,..,--<, 1.:."'", /L,f(..',„,,N,.17' „"',' ,,,..'' .i 14.i.+.+� • , ,.fir, t' '0. so" Ye`, �� r A sf/ ((( . ``"y 't: '/ - :91'l�(j 5 ye . ,A* ! ,..t...„.., ..... 4,1) ,g Sok ,„t Y a ,� 4,,, ,27 ctit,l ,.�rj� . S. •• F *46,,k' ,r d ^a .I ' '-'0:`• ' '14 ;# :-. • -• ..'vi - , ' --.:, -"'I ,!* ', _ , r.'tti....', ' ' Ji '�. yea -•Jlr.. . .r,..a` '/, Vegetation along Golden Gate Parkway South Edge 21Wit. PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 • =j. • st V .« N • 4,4 47. View of Powerlines � � PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 1 4111 -Atrj Collier Area Transit Route 25 Stop CI2#144, PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY IFREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 lilt • ----"'.."1"i111.11111111.111011111.111.111111.1.- 44 Curve West of Freedom Park Entrance (Above) 41111N1 • Freedom Park Entrance looking East on GG Parkway CII PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 II; . " . ' ,' %. 1'4. �"r f u- ',Ili-,.r - ff *, fffit "( ." "a .. r., J. �� m ,diV. t, � X# MJi*lg : y 'N'� x 4 • a71;1 ( } • A lro � rt r. '. i ,;4 rd ,toris* :' :� y�� T:4I o �� N ,Z, `'dr4� ` tt ,34` 0 4 * '1 1' " c`3t ?4. k. , ..`— .; -*;-'. ' ''''),4, Xt...' - •kli.‘.. ..ic,FA'..le'imi,'Il‘'''''—'" ' \i4a,pt 4:1, 1,A'4,14,..,'.y } t.0 v'.k''' ',.:411•4 l i ,1e 1 a, 1 •' ir f" ' �„,$,42- 4." .4;:4.1..A,,,, -rRF•,#•A.�•'d -47;2.1.". .,...!..„?A'_,t , jai': i... g�4. �s .R. r1kA. } ,: ` A, it„p, }} 4 .f lw ] ,i, . :,,,,..„: .... . , , ?4,..,...4/, ,1_,,.. 4,... _., .c _ _ 4 ,,..,/1/4 ; , ,,.t _ , .. qs YT.Y 1 'A a j^ , *Y.',t'V.”' ',A.' -4;;41,. 4 s :dam+ ,' :.,;4 , ti.: 4 l'' q� „ -;i'14 Nit '�, ,, ., 't'” PS '''L„,..,,,.., > %„.12„.110.1:1:'::;°,4 '�� • it S� + '-•t �F''y , fr r,..'�i, ewe * a s' a• ir” s 4. r * . t r l „,;',,l, ,,.ik "`sit ,, ; __ `tea t a ' ., . t r 7 ryhdl.* C '#"d c t�" "i.a''..� V:9„' 8t',t .Y ...e 1 19'�,u Buried Fiberoptic Line CII Zi#/#11. PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 { A 4 4' -° . r .. Existing Roadway Lighting CIIPEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY 2/Vit FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 ^in Y t testi ,J .. -ri" ,nk ` J „per. " i ':;.; Wetland Vegetation South of Golden Gate Parkway '4, 0/,4.4 . 0 4.,..;k4 r 4 # '1' . tt 1 - ^ S 4'83' moi~ , ,_ 7 , "V aF ' ot •110' r `� t it' ' err • 71 , fiwr $ • � . b. ' ft At 7'' f4". i *$'4' - i.4 Y '' -n v• 1rt xY r. ..N:',-;„ ' +. L R PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK OVER GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY APPENDIX C - REFERENCE PHOTOS OF OTHER PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS C2 + PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 '1 . Lake Mary Pedestrian Overpass, Orlando, FL C#//1 24'I*• PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 ,y v2 t-,0 ' �r h. t IalirrIrrrr= «A ^l ..il -i " ' • •t - • Y - 447 'i r ► Op 1 6i ® _ --A - ; „ CII FREEDOPEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY M PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2STUDY f .,y ISI ( h ,111110 I ,1111111Illt mi3 .. fi_ _ . .. : f _ / - -: r' „r ____ Fttg a ,,,,,,„ ..._„„ ,, ,:„.„ ,,,..._ „..,- --„,.. .,,.....,„\,,,, „„ - -,- „ _ , ,_ , .. , , , ,_ , `as CII . PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 I'I 111 III III Offilliii ; 9 I ` Y1 4? Ch21,11. PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 • CIIPEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY 7A4i, FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 . ; o� R0111$fslk ". '�G4lliu10iunoli 1111111111131111:1111111111111 401 '00001 r411 ill at, _..,.. ,I.' '::011:-:P''''-' t ',*/a''..11 11 111Iliatnii11111 11111111111.111t , ', ,; _ x'- ., ir!fiat . Ate_ �� i • __ - 1 ' - s, -.a,«:: - 3.., --..,.,..6--....e -� i"y',5z I24 * PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 h 6. w. IlinirMill IL saniessa Tit4rrr % T,� i 0' lu1244#1? PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 2. Pacific Coast Highway Overpass, Dana Point, CA dizrift• PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 or 1 . I !' . t i bort lb' ID 41.011 icAre ' 4' Illi m.11 4e. iikw - I V4 rose • ti t iiiimpiptosinw - -Nr4.41Pw—.7, :t ''''''' ''' 441. -c7„. KGF CII24.14. PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 Cilf...... ., I24 • PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 3. W. Ridge Road Pedestrian Bridge, Rochester, NY CIIPEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY viiii,. FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 Alf r01 n. 1 a,, ' w i w a. 5. a ti ,5.-2.11, '�v �. jig j O M 1 'IPA i-1111y . i IIfi • . -. - . y CII PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 f� ., • , 2/11W PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 4. MOSI Pedestrian Overpass, Tampa, FL di 2fitt. PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 i414y ..,-, ..,4 - dam, x >"r { apt 1 '11111111111111111111111111 :, ' r I + _ } k i r f. 1 . I— FAt sf rf vq,,-1,- :,.., , il,,.....,, __. . .............. N.,,,-....• ... , _ . . . _ ,_ .mow.. - 0: -- wY� , . „.. / , . ...,,,s. '�lIU!lllllllllli .,.;`, , . ... ,. T, , ,..., _. at'ut 11.„, ..., , , ,„ :,. ._ . . Alt 7 , -IR . '. '.3- ., 0e44,11101". MB r & rorfn.+ �.r ....".."." r CIIPEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY Wt. FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 'r :77e �� 1 . rte"'". .., S:„ 1' ?� "mow 1; �1111111041 i�ilieit ', '‘''':''5;"414.''''''.?' e' ' `'YT} ?' '''-i'-''''' .� 'rts',g �tl b.4.-.-7.',-"'"Fs_.x*'.e�',i*.Yt'J�~ tS b• r t St S,} till i>>i:iia 41, 7v k ,+ `` >ttii�A�its � �i�ssiiis3i'i'i � 11 %. 1 r i , j. rl tef ` ky.. it 0144 SStospok ....s. 3 t it ,040 A ' . Po ' mits 0 44 . . FAIMIIML ........j. ' - - t,,,„:. 1140 etsepet ' fthiffea or Air II AEA, L 21 201 . 4.405* ir t ,. .x i a 4� 1110 111 1 � 2444 , PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 5. Curlew Road Pedestrian Bridge, Clearwater, FL C,111 24#11, PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 . , '.iia .. zg '4- .' S ._...... .. - , • `{ y'^Y.aY' "' W i111 ,ext e.jp ._> -.r wraY'n 'Alt .. ,_�..�:� _.. ....ice i..�.�J!�_:f� - e , , €rw ,.. .. 4. "e". f.'' , Ott` 4t':` ! tie.: *r .r. ; t I r= r n • -, * 1 ., . ' ;4 0. c -, : . l!riMF.11' ill.;:,,:!' ''-' AIL _..,.. _ ..,___ _ _ ''',716 ..,it. ii;' It' .,... litio !'i t _____.._,-..- -WI:-''' ' fir+" . C1/1 � PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 / .4111r- _ - -: �'.14 1 sir. N i. � r , Ch 24si• PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK Collier County Project No. 60109.2 6. Sample Info on Variety of Other Pedestrian Bridge Options �fi 4 k t'*d 4rwf }^w3 syr ?.pix $ ,a ,� 2 -.* 3 t t i xr ' 5�2 .`� a '; t s c r r �C b s'� 9 .rry 4 4¢,x.t�,'+N�" .e'$ .;x � :f `'? �;' to Yur�� p�t,k� � $.. 'r . Ii Maitland pedestrian bridge over I-4 (Proposed as part of 1-4 Reconstruction under construction) Under hung Floor Beam When clearance below the bridge is critical,this parallel chord style offers the shortest superstructure depth.An Under hung truss has its floor beams welded to the bottom of the bottom chords. It's best suited for pedestrian bridges with spans up to 70',but is available in spans up to 120'. 1111111611161— Ic -11.1 `' t !f'i' ' ilII 1% tk. 1/ , H-Section Floor Beam For spans up to 240',the H-Section is often selected for the most efficient superstructure.This parallel chord truss design has its floor beams welded to vertical members of the side trusses.As with all styles,the H-Section can be created with additional camber for a more graceful look. + s '" : r t. t w- Zr: ar xr r •^•- • 2* Bowstring With elegant top chords arching up from its base,the Bowstring is the perfect combination of visual appeal and design efficiency. Bowstring is available with spans up to 100'in an Underhung configuration and up to 200'as an H- Section. ' 'i. . i \ \ * 1 ._ f__.k Modified Bowstring Available in similar spans as the Bowstring,the Modified Bowstring is a more economical choice when an arched top chord is desired.The less-pronounced arch still adds some beauty to the superstructure,while keeping the budget in check. • '. 111111 4 t Box For grade separations and enclosed walkways,the Box style is the preferred choice as it allows easy attachment of fencing or glazing on the sides and/or top,when required.Numerous architectural screen, roofing and branding options can also be incorporated 4 I.l1itidii, ', l I I.d "'Y i_ ..'man:_ %% .r� I , ....... ....kb-- ,r Wcv'Ill rials i iP HOPTxe . .1 ;IRA515111%mar mat. $ ` a = fhZ.. t.s V.. v I' i . ' A= .' :ice. t `, ' „,. i • 1 eg ipi. . "rte i ^" _ Ci -n m . I L I t r vim !\*,..,, , ..,•-�..� I-. 'I...4111 .r +-- > ia i. I . .. • SW+ . . 1.1...1.1... may.'r • - �` I r Y' dRt' A'_ v 00 , v " s 001 +fes i ...4 . . .,. p .,.. „,- ,.., . .• .... ... , ' • -1 - 4 mipr . „.. .. . i 41111111501116.-' ..., • -7** - .-- L.,... . - . . _ 't,1,,,,,,.,. ,..... ..... . ,, ........ - '' ...41.11111111111M11111111M6*..., . , .;..,--..,...3-...,,,-?,...-,-. ...._.....-- ----7,..:,,,......------ __ If . . , --- 1 . --- ' --........ • ,;',„„,-,?,,!,-',.',,'1,,,,),',-•'..,`,.:,„;,2,,-;,,,,,,,„,:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,r, , '-.4.-' - , r , . . , -7-"7\---,4,--,5;--1-‘---- ,• ,- , ' ,r4 ' 1- A, - . , , .,. ilir A . 1t R .naiia�iiiiilii�f��fHlNilfi�l�lt/�i 'r:;t 'wit .7 � bf/igw` ; 41 _ r. iii• = • - .. .. sOr '— ot4 Ace . AtAr...._ ' : ,_rx —,.f.tAw•,IIT1 ,. ...1?'"A. -140 MEER/Ilk al-.. , 0 ,............ ;''';ff,f!,414:,- '‘,",'h 'N'''‘,111/111""ftritesoule '• p ,''11-•-.1:!. j"..i , it ...' ft . 4----i. 1 --' ' - . •.±..tt a -„ - - .... _.— ,,' - ,N. --• . .#0. i - -,. , -,, .,- ... . — -- - ;.--z.1'1...i•- 1'..7"'410; ',.,..",7:371..,1:7.; •,„,„..---- , .....___ .0 1 is mt e-,. - .. :.• nopm,.. ... .. 4.-..,,z . A A A A ,,; ----- ' --4. PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FREEDOM PARK TO GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK OVER GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY APPENDIX D - MISCELLANEOUS BACKUP DATA � 0o O 21111 CL rn y CD 5 ,' G t0 00 J 0) V1 P. co N . 3 Of ro QO n G4 0 E r' 0 - ink O rt _, rt W C to p) cn K ca CL 0 w , o 0 7 o CD C o 0- S Im ,- 0 cn rn O en O N 0 CD (/) m'CZ C O -o to O H — O rt co 0 C 0 O CD < v 0 O v c0 ~ 3 CD P' O K n O v in v .a 01 n fi o 3IT = n s N 0 Q 71 73 m n 3 3 0 �', a 3 v o -13 mm rt 0 cn O o O H 5 -a a' 3 7) CD w 0 0 CT A Z O �'I aD co n < XI C' o Gm oo o o -I v) n Oa N < D 0 o CD v O G) CD O' a °' •O 0 3 0 — 0 n o m < x .,• 7 0 3 co � 0 a 0, N C rt o O c 1 3 v zNn (D m (1.5 m n D a cn 0 v, 2 m 0 < C 3 < n (n CD 'a o - n m °' (D o oa o 5 ' Om -I cZocn 'S • rt X O 0 O 3 x N an d I11 K m m 4' cp 1 � a cD es w v o N 0 m o o Cl) 7:1 23 m O 0 = 0 CD 010 "Cr' , 3' =, A N c� CD O (76� C Cl) O fn M CO rtn o 3 o c_ ,,, Zr 3 • ] 3 0 0. rn � � Oco ,- r r r r r r m m Cr) cn C - -0 C 0 0 o• cn cn Cl) cn Cr) (n > > m m 7. o D 0 y x •G ciq O 6- D CD 2 y C 6 Q o CP c�D 0) W 3 y 2. 0 es _,. , -, -, - -, -, -, U1 co 7 O cD 0 O N G! rt n O p' A. O `G 0 rr 4' r7 'F' -69 63 63 4fl 6969 E9 0 SZ "�' O cr 01 J O O coCD O _ a Do . `o , C' cn J 0 O O 0 -co o o C cp n O O � o o co o o O o '.4- `C 4- EA 69 Es C.,. fl) N O EA cn Iv 69 69 N cin N O 0 `C (J (n 01 -• cn o J o 0) A Cl co , cn Z.,t `,3 N cn In J O O o o N O C* N > N V O O O O O in W �'* O G) cD g 01 QWD OO co O o 0 0 0 0 o B 01 N 0 O � o 9CD 0 18 -.'5. m 0 w Q rt fD G cD co V D) 0 A W N -+ (D 0 m CJ4 n Ft0'4 , rt o O• C 11) (D con o Z 8 c ° _ CO cn _� a, O n m m Z to cn CQ w D o o o o m C o sp o o ITI 6 E = o ,� ° p • ° n = j (D Cl) K rn c D � r CD rt. CD C CD O v 8Co SU•* O n CD y CD = < N OtDc n 3 ) mOO. aCD 1n C4 rt OO w p — a) -3 io n 0o ' ° a• a o O,-,• 3 O-. E 73 CD Cr C °'.w ?co a '0 • D 2 n v tA. = , D D X xi ° a Gm mr C -i —° ° _ aa `' ° 00 co ° m ° mn y � G)• m rt, . 7 °° ° H ° ° o - . (D Zrt o O )x w CD I D 3 co. m o a N. o m 0 O UOi n ° a m o. cn n �_ g m ° an o w c 3 < 0Z Cp n O "7. O d 7 O N C criN n o_ C v c Z U) IV " mP , no CP 77) z m p v vN � � D0o n n 5 mcr, C v_ 0 (2 ° + v CDD a 7- < n fn W ° o, co ,= CD = m r o n_ < Z Z G coso n Q ' D cia -0 C O n .. = u) u) u) u) u) u) > Ill (n (n 7 C Cn O 0 D D „ C .D o D p `1 rr N •.. o co CD ft is O - n co .0 0 _ o r.:),, c i9 - _, N 01 O 3 rt co rt 0 O N) • '< 0 0 0 p., Cl) rt (D 5 rt -EA 69 (ffl 6,n E9 -c/4E9 En Ncri v' W co 0) A 01 ( ¢ O Cxi 0 0 co W NW, z JO O O i ,:i7 ffl -EA N N Ca ‘43 CD O N69 69 cnn a) A O 2 rt << N (T A crlo (P co V O C) 00 N co a o w c 0o w o co 01 o am o N D ,,mss '� A W O o O O p O N 6) '* G) crt)) 'S fj W in CO O 0 0 O O 01 O 3 (P (Cl O CD CD z 211-0 w FD (D CD ro — -' co -• (D o O t0 co V c) N A co N -, CD 0 co oa3 'i+ ..t 8 as N rt cn DJ et n' ," WI n) a' M A VI Er Z w rr 0 0= ° w C v, w cp N' a to 0 Q o a o o C o sp a o (D ro o m rcn o a - 0 v h:=-- cn o CD o C.n 0 A N CD U) m o r m Cl) o _ O a m a) < y o a) m m 3 0 2 N 0 0 _ -i N C) 0 ) ? o Di . —0 j 4 N O n rtg. O O N -- co o cn .� o m 7 �CL m m n y O c tp tp N 3 N op m fCR Ci of) O - o tv E 'D N -0 O rt• R. ° 3 n * '� 0 -1 C y < 3 to CD 0 v D E. w D z C D Q. = > 0 c -0 - xxi a: y a o 0. O m -o o a 0 tD cn n p m o K a 0) -a o D o m n O O oro o m a a) D —1 -o x co m C) Q C7 O m ro • m �' m co o o a o Cl) o O n 23 XI �,.-en, g o — ? (� = a) " toci) .-r — .� (") O (D N (n a to 0. N O m 0 N 0 .'� ) O w C C 'O Q N 3 m = (0 CD . o Ni O 0 7CFri CD O(/) O 0. .g o p ( N 0 C * N * MI 0 7 n n 5 3 0 p Z (n ro ro is o a o 0 g to o m e c t0 m a m a) G c z n o iti o CD -o' x Q tD a• to x- CD D < O co iC O oCD () — o CD x of N o m m rt111 , CNi a)) 'G) D Zs a o3i o CO w to N .2 — v m x.: a < m n n m W °• w (n m c (0m r ro a, C 7 0) _< N p �: r r r- r r- r- r m m (n (n . y cz C n C. Cu Cu Cl) U) (I) (J) C/) > > m T ': O D p rt N C co O c n .;. (D NTS •• as a a' C. C C CD CA w r'. 0 to 01 O M S rD n o v� , rt 0 O 2' O. — • n rt ro ru 69 69 69 f1 cm) co¢' co WC.11 O O co 69 0 C 0 N O O C)i A O O O N DO CO ei) Q+ C 1 N J O O 00 O U7 O C. C? �' Cn CJ 01 O O O O O O ;. V O 4' 69 69 69 rt, C Dii ? W A 69 69 69 EA 69 6A A 0 0 O CD n — co U) W 01V O O V 0) co CD .C) 01 0) D) 0'. A CO j O A O Cn O Ocn O W N D 'o 0 A N O O O O O O O O O O CD M o N 0 cri 3 CP CA CD / 2 7• ƒ CL & § e — "i } g• CD cn A w / 0 CD i % \ \ § 9 a / 0 ƒ } s:1) = / c CL CA p CD a./// R E / \ @ § / R \ a / $ O a = n T.74= / § Cl) E $ - A) r \ / 0• n % / 3 � � 73m n - 0 U) � m ri-�' ƒ 7 . 0 o EX C \ * > Z ■ p 5 = / > 0' $ 03 03 � / � J = o CD ¥ 2 o _ ° Q a. s 0 o Ci \ \ \ e. ) § / $ * 0 / R \ n ® /'© k _ \\ \ o § 7 \ _ ® / m I ƒ § q y \ / \ « ] § \ / \ 0 S e m o 2 \ 9 o § a = ® 3 2 a X k n ƒ / § � « 0 & t + = moo co & o = ® e e. c e' _ z m m \ c2 e + E D a = e q � smm / / } 0 \ # s / o > % E = 6 = 22 / k' po o co - ZZ k • w ƒ Cl) 0 g > / §. 7 E f « q / ° \ s r / \ \ \ > E =` o > c • n = 7 « G o 0 \ i 0 Q f - / \ g 5 F / _. -. _, e § \ q g = E ,-.2 / ' c \ C cn ƒ ' a ± ± ± ± 2 p / O 0. ° ° w o 01 0 0 0 C ° . / $ % 0 / / o o \ / :11. \• ` / E \ 2 2 co0 c / \ / ® _ ® o \ III 7 § R $ / / / / 0 0 ,.4. 2 \ /0 0 0 0 ] « Ci) 71z 0 911110 0_ `° a i i i 3 col M< 0 O N i Git <C CO V O) th W N i 3 E a i7)' O co n. 0 m m H m > Q CD G) K o CD 0 -0 K C 73 w O �) m G7 m g 7 D 73 ZZ O v to m p O OZ G rt 0 v c G7 m D m v , 0 _ (r 0 D R. w m D g ` 3 m m m m � r mo tmn W Q XIm *.-0 o * Z v O m G c ° o -13 > > Z N -i X fl cp < o o r 1- rr D 0 073 rn Z cn (J) o co 0- co cr -co Z C a �7 Co (n O CD A co � � �- v nim �. c 5. a c * CD' I- c o 0 O � CD a a cn ( a o m a > ><-- ,-t-N (7 O m Qo p) O . o m c• 3 a O i o n o - o va ° a) c CDa(0 mo vQ. c q I CDG °' CL= - Qo m v �. 0- �' m C OO to m (Ic, , t) v "U c) u) o ti < m tn' v cn 0 z 7 ° 7 Q. O ^ O a) 7 N ca O C) `< �- 9- 7 C. c z 0 o v p a a ni m G) n - 0 0 3pr M cG m Gn o X a o = v z o G7 m 0 m = n 9 13 p m 3 �. O cn o ; c cn 0 7- a < o' m CD o cfl U o D FE 6 -0 x N X Cn CD 7 v CD �. O a CD CD N n N u,' C) m C a a Q 7 7 O o N 5 Z Z - N a0 OZ a TI TI (c. r r r r U) U) Cl) r r Cl) U) I- O D v 0 0 U) U) U) U) m U) U) m m 71 CA 0 v 0 i c o so O i i N O co - -� - O N v O O O O N N; cnO a 6 V) k) kA N 69 -69 nDW 0c0 O2b ffl V0 .6nO O ffl N W O O cc O Nd0 .4. OW O Cl co N O OO O C coD A' O A - O b b O OO O O OO OOON A -' O O ^"Ci O O O (') O O O 0 c c 69 69 CC) CD *A WW0 co V) - N 0 R3c) i O O 0) C) N R)O C o ) O O O O A o A 01 N co 0c WA co V O CO OD Q0 O ca O-COO W O V O O 0_ OO O O so -, O O O O O ..43.„.s. ti+ •1S z ; Z A p T ; I m mj Z T, G'i ^' t -y{ :—moi ,A' I. ;i�•3 v— -< j"".� O 1 D ,tri M ;-41 r 0 ^*ti... (4 v v m ...1!, i: �• .cr � D _1� �' g ..I t �� rn z1 ma t _ O S ii N y... , per.. � 1Z . ni to X m • D O .' s. m + t r tni m 33y O is ry,�! • g h }r .," Z CO P Z O 4'4* •. . [ d/' ? .4411 73 , . ...Ito..,.....: , . ... . 14, 03 S, ' lit**A",,,: .,1"Ar 1 i 1. m co73 ' ` / Z73 r 7_ • �.y� pt .r o o rr 0 0 ci!„)) Z Z i!!r :...''.. .., / ill ,'-'':: ID (j).....tola: /. _ Z -3 Dyr 111117 Z F > . .,„ ,, . ,: y . ..., r . ..4.... y ,.. . ,..,.. ,.„: 4; r , , x ,... O .„, 0 ...., 4,. . VT m - C m A 4� 1 '- : ' . cn o . • z - • - rn z .. ......- ... ...' -:,r '.: E 0 . . '