Agenda 06/10/2014 Item #11E 6/10/2014 11.E.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to consider funding options for the resumption of the landscape
beautification program for designated arterial and collector roadways.
OBJECTIVE: To consider funding options through either Commission District Municipal
Services Taxing Units (CDMSTUs) or an increase to the Unincorporated Area General Fund
(111) for the specific purpose of resuming the implementation of the Collier County Landscape
Beautification Master Plan for arterial and collector roadways.
CONSIDERATIONS: On April 22, 2014, Agenda Item 10B, the Board of County
Commissioners (Board) approved a motion to direct staff to evaluate funding mechanisms as a
means to address the shortfall in revenues that prompted the beautification program to be placed
on hold. There are two traditional funding scenarios where additional revenues could be
generated that would comply with a rational nexus test for the expenditure. They are outlined as
shown below:
Option 1: The expansion of the existing Unincorporated Area General Fund (111) at a taxing
increment that would facilitate resuming the program at an execution level that a majority of
the Board supported.
The table below provides a reference for the impacts associated with several revenue generation
scenarios ranging from $2,000,000 to $5,000,000 in program funding. The table also shows the
incremental millage rate required within the Unincorporated Area General Fund to raise the
additional revenue shown within the table below. With this option, the program would be
initiated and continued until the annual maintenance burden surpassed the revenues.
Taxable Value Monthly Impact at Monthly Impact Monthly Impact Monthly Impact
$2,000,000 at$3,000,000 at$4,000,000 ' ° at$5,000,000
$100,000 $0.42 $0.63 $0.84 $1.06
$200,000 $0.84 $1.27 $1.69 $2.11
$300,000 $1.27 $1.90 $2.53 $3.17
$400,000 $1.69 $2.53 $3.38 $4.22
$500,000 $2.11 $3.17 $4.22 $5.28
Incremental
Millage Rate
Increase 0.0507 0.0760 0.1014 0.4567
This option would restart the entire program and initiate the beautification plan on a first in first
out basis as has been done historically. The attached master list depicts the remaining projects
and the approximate anticipated costs. It should be noted that these estimates are based on older
projects. Design, construction and maintenance costs have been escalating since these were
developed.
t
Packet Page-404-
6/10/2014 11.E.
Option 2: The creation of CDMSTUs at a taxing increment that would facilitate resuming
the program at a level that the Commissioner of the District supported and that was
ultimately approved by a unanimous vote of the Board.
Sample individual district breakout maps with the funding needed are attached for reference.
These maps indicate that some of the roadways are split between commission districts. For the
purpose of the analysis, common roadways were split evenly for funding consideration. A
conflict occurs with this option if one district is created and an adjoining district is not.
Sample impact tables below break out the District 1 revenue generated and the corresponding
impact based on household taxable valuations. The impacts in other districts will vary and those
impacts are documented in a separate attachment.
District 1 Revenue Generated Millage Increase Monthly Impact for each
$100,000 in Taxable Value
$500,000 0.1176 $0.98
$1,000,000 0.2352 $1.96
$1,500,000 0.3528 $2.94
$2,000,000 0.4705 $3.92
The corresponding District 1 table below provides the monthly impact based on taxable
valuations ranging from $100,000 to $500,000. The target of$10 a month was discussed at the
prior Board meeting and is highlighted below for discussion.
Taxable Value Monthly Impact at Monthly Impact Monthly Impact Monthly Impact
$500,000 at$1,000,000 at$1,500,000 at$2,000,000
$100,000 $0.98 $1.96 $2.94 $3.92
$200,000 $1.96 $3.92 $5.88 $7.84
$300,000 $2.94 $5.88 $8.82 $11.76
$400,000 $3.92 $7.84 $11.76 $15.68
$500,000 $4.90 $9.80 I $14.70 $19.60
The choice to proceed with either option is a policy decision.
Should the Board choose the Unincorporated Area General Fund (111)option, funding would be
available in FY2015. The size of the program may require additional program management costs
associated with project delivery,maintenance and accounting.
If the Board chooses to proceed with option 2, revenues will not be available until FY 2016.
Option 2 would also require an adjustment of the Fund 111 millage rate within the new
CDMSTU boundary to remove the existing maintenance burden and include it within the
CDMSTU rate.
Packet Page-405-
6/10/2014 11 .E.
FISCAL IMPACT: Initial design and construction costs are approximately $285,000 per mile.
Maintenance costs in perpetuity are currently approximately $43,000 per mile.
The following graph depicts the historical millage rates within the Unincorporated Area General
Fund since FY 2007.
Property Tax Rates-MSTD
Unincorporated General Fund
1.0000
0.8069
0.8000 0.6912 0.6912 0.7161 0.7161 0.7161 0.7161 0.7161
0.6000 -
0.4000 _
0.2000 -.... _.._ _........ ..._.. ___...
0.0000
FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney, is
approved from a discussion standpoint as to form and legality, and requires majority vote for
direction. As part of the discussion,the County Attorney would like to note the following:
Florida Statutes Sec. 125.01(q)provides in relevant part as follows:
"125.01 Powers and duties.—
(1) The legislative and governing body of a county shall have the power to carry on county
government. To the extent not inconsistent with general or special law, this power includes, but
is not restricted to, the power to:
(q) Establish, and subsequently merge or abolish those created hereunder, municipal service
taxing or benefit units for any part or all of the unincorporated area of the county, within which
may be provided... municipal services from funds derived from service charges, special
assessments, or taxes within such unit only." (emphasis added)
Based on the highlighted language, I am comfortable with establishing a Landscaping Municipal
Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) for a particular Commission District, provided that all funds
expended in furtherance of such landscaping (including ongoing maintenance costs) are collected
from taxes within that Unit.
Establishing a Commission District Landscaping MSTU, then subsidizing it with revenues
derived from other Districts, could raise the legal challenge that the municipal service provided
(landscaping) is not being paid for from funds derived within such unit only. Whether that
challenge would be successful is uncertain.
Packet Page-406-
6/10/2014 11 .E.
One approach to eliminate this issue would be for the Board to set County-wide base landscaping
standards (which could be funded from general funds), and limit the Commission District
Landscaping MSTUs for enhanced landscaping services. -JAK
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management Impact associated
with this Executive Summary.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board reviews the options presented by staff and provides
guidance to the County Manager.
Prepared By: Nick Casalanguida, Administrator, Growth Management Division
Attachments: 1) Uncompleted Program; 2) District Breakout Maps; and 3) CDMSTU Funding
Breakout
Packet Page-407-
6/10/2014 11 .E.
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 11.11.E.
Item Summary: Recommendation to consider funding options for the resumption of the
landscape beautification program for designated arterial and collector roadways.
Meeting Date: 6/10/2014
Prepared By
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst,Community Development&Environmental Services
6/3/2014 11:27:22 AM
Submitted by
Title:Administrator-Growth Management Div,Business Management&Budget Office
Name: CasalanguidaNick
6/3/2014 11:27:23 AM
Approved By
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst, Community Development&Environmental Services
Date: 6/3/2014 11:41:06 AM
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title: Executive Secretary, Transportation Planning
Date: 6/3/2014 12:53:50 PM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney,
Date: 6/3/2014 1:08:03 PM
Name: IsacksonMark
Title: Director-Corp Financial and Mngmt Svs, Office of Management&Budget
Date: 6/3/2014 2:09:35 PM
Name: OchsLeo
Packet Page-408-
6/10/2014 11 .E.
Title: County Manager, County Managers Office
Date: 6/3/2014 3:13:39 PM
Packet Page-409-
6/10/2014 11 .E.-
E o
S.• cu cJ O O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O o 0
v v CO CO CO M 0) O d 't (.0 0 O CO CO
O R N co CO- co- co- CO N N--- O ti d
C CO CD CO C0 O 7r c0 Ln d ti N r
CU n' N co N- CO O O CO c0 O) O) 0 r
a
U } a 44 CY Ln Ln Lo- co- co- Ln Ln C.0 co
{f} EA €& Eg 69 Efl Eg (ft 69 EA- Eg Eg Eg
1111m C LL CZ
Iraq c
r f6 o a o 0 0 0 co co
° o o O ° O ° ° O o o O_
E U p a co co co o co o N co O co O
,....e.-1
O co N co M N O (0 O co r--- (fl CO
es! o (19- fA , fA co
64 EA Ef? fA
C
nil.
a0O O O O
erioa 4.1).
a) o O O O O O O o O 00 O O co a E ;.., u L() Lf) in U) O O O
Vi c6 N I: a) d' N N co 0 O) N N
O N N r-
-:1- co I� r CO M M O) co
CO 7 N r CO r d
V O N M C0 N M O O O �-
V
a' E C) O O co p O C) o O O O
L V C H in o °0 co o Lo co o O in C) co O°_
cn �n C p N Lf) N Ln C j O CO-
CV 0) Cr) O-
W... 'C 4A p Ln r CO r N- N O O) r N-
�! C O L1S U CO 0 N co r co Ln
® C 3 V ow N N Eg Eg tg N Eg NN- Eg Eg Eg
�n,
0
Clip ...F rts
41 DD O in O N O co O d' r N- r 0
Gib 2 N CO M M r I` N d' I` O r N et
T
V O -c
C f 0 N d- _
E `^ H co co O) CA O) O N N r r r
0 LL 2 0 O O O O O r r r � -j C j
^� S 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 r r r
00 0 w N N N N N N N N >-
W eV
•
()
i _ Q)
CO = ,-
(1) O C
_ -o a) I C3 O 0 0
> c
a
mr; til 442 co To
a) -cs
Cia CJ _ '' O a)m t. C a) a) O O
o CU N 0 v ca_ °) Ln B ° o s
o W --(7)- E'
6� a U m Q o C o
D > E
j (1 a) o c c a)
{..r 2 O U .1 l "O > N
i c 7 cu n D ° ?cu } t -0 Y L C .� -0 _0 on co -a -ti
(Da) (Da) > > m C Q m •a) > c >
tf) Y r m mE N — 2 — m m a m
>
C J
4..• a J o 0 a _c as Q as c a) as > o_ cn ^ a) c
Z — E E ' c Q c O c i > a > -6 = -) = m H
® ' C C , _ 'NU OZ 0) 0 u) J 0 u Ow 00 OE UH 00
u) I—
L
..LL r r t- r
r r r r r r
r r r — Packet Page 41 0 r r
r r r r r T. r r r
r r
- i.. I I _ -
f
6/10/2014 11 .E.CD
E = o
U) o O o o O o o O O t„ ' ti
L < O O o O O o O O o 0
U M ('7 co CO Cr) CO N N N-
O CO ti CD O CO O (D-
a) o
+' r LO r CO CO-
Lo CO CO
▪ •c r (N CO LO LO CO (C) CD
Cs) cfl (D (fl (.6 co (. (.6 co- CO
U 5 yg. 64 64 64 64 64 64 EA EA co
rmi C
0 C1 co
+- +-� O O O c) O O O O O
o Ln o o rn O up
!• R� • c� (0 (o N O r co co co NI
69 69 69 69 609 69
0
0 o 0
1 > o O O O O O O O O O LC)
LC) Lt) O lf7 I) In O O lf)
e U
l� N f� Ln N N N 00 O 0
•n": y P ►- .4' (N Lc) I() N 0) -r 0 CO
�q' N Lt) OD N (N CO CO O r
C) c r r Ni- (o co in- Lo
L^ 0 V 64 64 EPr 69 64 69 69- 64 LC)
CI CU r
•E r....6 O O 0 O O O O O O O O
V o —_ c) 0 0 0 0 o O o
L_ (.j 4,7'; O (7)- Ln Lf) O o Lo O I1)
g� Q} N LcS - t ti r= o o o N
oo
c .�J 0 a) Eft f • 69 64 69 64 EA 64 EA-
0
.v-
....• a) N O Ln Ln O O co O In co
L NI
et r r (ei N N O N O LL5
r r
CO N
r r
..1- O
U 0 0 N a � � N N O O O
rr� o Ill c CO
CO CO _ O O O
t— LL �— r r 0 0 N N N
til ® LL LL LL CL D-
Ii
U 03
CV � - L -. o d- c Z u) (o E c 0
i� .."°° y U D- U) • -o c a) E (o
o E o > c O >- V
d _L c � � �Z _ J "-Es Lc) 0 O)0) Z
ti; 0 a) O 0 775
9 V a) G_
0 a) u= >' m ifs E Q T "Z .4,--,,, W 13 IL)
[�� ass o ?> � � o E ° c� CCL
..� i- (..) c r p) L 0 Co 0 In CO L1.1 G
b.� +a
%._ a) 71- �? c .c m ci 0_ (n a D' rn c� L J O
C) 0 'O +r - m c -0 � Y 0 o 0 o a�i >- Q Q U
C rn E D'3 > d O s Q o m c o 2. a3 I-
d m Z �- I a) L IY co 0_ a) in u) 0 —I
O ' Q = V) '> co f_ co c i co c Q) U) a) 3 i O ._. c m I-
v) 0 a) co O a) COO �- 0 (o o a) >- x c ,,.. 0 0 0 a O
4", I— C/) D 0 D 0 D' < D > Z >- O Ln w d o CD Z z CO I—
0
—c 2 r r r r r r r r
= do r r r r r r r r
r r r r r r r r
Packet Page -411-
6/10/2014 11 .E.
Comm.Fiala Comm.Hiller Comm.Henning Comm.Coyle Comm.Nance
Millage Rate to Raise
$500,000 0.1176 0.0288 0.0644 0.1438 0.1157
$1,000,000 0.2352 0.0575 0.1289 0.2876 0.2315
$1,500,000 0.3528 0.0863 0.1933 0.4313 0.3472
$2,000,000 0.4705 0.1150 0.2578 0.5751 0.4630
Monthly Property Tax Dollar Increase for each$500,000 of Revenue to be Generated-Comm. Fiala
Taxable Property Value $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000
$100,000 $0.98 $1.96 $2.94 $3.92
$200,000 $1.96 $3.92 $5.88 $7.84
$300,000 $2.94 $5.88 $8.82 $11.76
$400,000 $3.92 $7.84 $11.76 $15.68
$500,000 $4.90 $9.80 $14.70 $19.60
$600,000 $5.88 $11.76 $17.64 $23.52
Monthly Property Tax Dollar Increase for each$500,000 of Revenue to be Generated-Comm. Hiller
Taxable Property Value $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000
$100,000 $0.24 $0.48 $0.72 $0.96
$200,000 $0.48 $0.96 $1.44 $1.92
$300,000 $0.72 $1.44 $2.16 $2.88
$400,000 $0.96 $1.92 $2.88 $3.83
$500,000 $1.20 $2.40 $3.59 $4.79
$600,000 $1.44 $2.88 $4.31 $5.75
Monthly Property Tax Dollar Increase for each$500,000 of Revenue to be Generated-Comm. Henning
Taxable Property Value $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000
$100,000 $0.54 $1.07 $1.61 $2.15
$200,000 $1.07 $2.15 $3.22 $4.30
$300,000 $1.61 $3.22 $4.83 $6.44
$400,000 $2.15 $4.30 $6.44 $8.59
$500,000 $2.69 $5.37 $8.06 $10.74
$600,000 $3.22 $6.44 $9.67 $12.89
Monthly Property Tax Dollar Increase for each$500,000 of Revenue to be Generated-Comm.Coyle
Taxable Property Value $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000
$100,000 $1.20 $2.40 $3.59 $4.79
$200,000 $2.40 $4.79 $7.19 $9.59
$300,000 $3.59 $7.19 $10.78 $14.38
$400,000 $4.79 $9.59 $14.38 $19.17
$500,000 $5.99 $11.98 $17.97 $23.96
$600,000 $7.19 $14.38 $21.57 $28.76
Monthly Property Tax Dollar Increase for each$500,000 of Revenue to be Generated-Comm. Nance
Taxable Property Value $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000
$100,000 $0.96 $1.93 $2.89 $3.86
$200,000 $1.93 $3.86 $5.79 $7.72
$300,000 $2.89 $5.79 $8.68 $11.57
�, $400,000 $3.86 $7.72 $11.57 $15.43
$500,000 $4.82 $9.65 $14.47 $19.29
$600,000 $5.79 $11.57 $17.36 $23.15
Packet Page -412-
6/10/2014 11 .E.
District 1 : Commissioner Fiala
1 €¢-
IGOLD e TE K
iiiicn
DIO gm.. INTERSTATE 75
IN o
D�
o
N
x
0
J
D3
W is
•
-J
0
U
FJlarco o TAM/ M/
1 0 rRC
CO
G
a .74----- _
Legend �.�
Unimproved_Roadways_District_1
Landscape_Improvements selection National Geographic. Esn. DeLorme HERE.UNEP-WCMC, USGS,
NASA, ESA,MET!, NRCAN,GEBCO,NOAA, increment P°Corp. -,
Date Road Unimproved Segments Design & Maintenance
Completed Miles Construction Costs Costs
$285,000/Mile $43,000/Mile
2009 Collier Blvd (US 41 East to District Line.) 4.25 $ 1,211,250 $ 182,750
2010 Santa Barbara Extension (Rattlesnake to 1.30 $ 370,500 $ 55,900
District Line)
2013* Collier Blvd. (Davis to District Line)* 3.25 * $ 463,125 $ 69,875
2013/14" US 41 /951 Intersection Improvements 1.00 * $ 95,000 $ 14,333
2013/14 Collier(US 41 to Fiddle_is Creek) 1.50 $ 427,500 $ 64,500
TOTAL 11.30 — $ 2,567,375 $ 387,358
Denotes Cost Split with Commissioner Districts
Ccilfity- C4:rt4.-tity
Packet Page-413-
6/10/2014 11 .E.
District 2: Commissioner Hiller
BONITA BEACH RD - Bonita
Springs ;
r ,..r,.. s n.•
I
WIi.GINS PAS-=,-,...-D
111TH AVE 1 IMMOKALEE RDk
■
.z-
,
•
F z p
Q p V A DERBILT B E.'CH.RD
1-->
1
• O � ' 6• cc 1-- 9
Legend f
SEA AT'yD_ f. PINE -IDGE RD
• Un improved—Roadways_District_2 = f'
t
amounts,
improvement_in_progress_District_2
National Geographic,Esri, DeLorme,HERE, UNEP-WCMrCT'EUE 1 ,VD
Landscape_Trees_District_2 NASA,ESA, MITI, NRCAN,GEBCO, NOAA, incremer6t P Corp.
Date Road Unimproved Segments Design& Maintenance
Completed Miles Construction Costs Costs
$285,000/Mile $43,000/Mile
Airport Pulling(Vanderbilt Beach Road to
Prior to 2001 Immokalee Road 2.00 $ 570,000 $ 86,000
Vanderbilt Beach Road(US 41 to Airport Pulling)
Prior to 2001 Not in 5 Year Plan 2.00 $ 570,000 $ 86,000
Orange Blossom (Airport to Livingston Road)
2002 Not in 5 Year Plan 0.30 $ 85,500 $ 12,900
2006 Goodlette Frank(VBR to Immokalee Road) 0.50 $ 142,500 $ 21,500
TOTAL 4.80 — $ 1,368,000 $ 206,400
* Denotes Cost Split with Commissioner Districts
Co e County
Packet Page-414-
District 3: Commissioner Henning/10/2014 11 .E.
11THAV °N u��•.4 RD —
--'' \
O
>
VA DERB Y T BEA H RD z ■ II:-BILT BEACH RD EXT m
d r' > Z
;> I- ,- O
., z OLDEN GATE BLVD W —
., - Z
H- = w
,, -H
PINE RIDGE RD
ix
O H
tL Z
o
• m
. s Q .a Q.
.�. L._
� ' ter;
z
H ,,,„,,,,,
.,., ,_,....,..„..,... ..,... ,„.........„. ,_ o
`'ti r-
.
4,,,Z,41,-,..,4, '. RA. • RD �_
d !end
�ViSBLVD Q
,m Improvement_in_progress_District_3
a Unimproved_Roadways_District_3
a
CC E iig
Landscape_Trees_District 3
\ 4.-,
, igkt
Co eY county
National 'eographic, Esri, DeLorme, HERE, UNEP WCMC,USGS,
NASA, ESA. METI, NRCAN,GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp.
Date Road Design & Maintenance
Unimproved Segments
Completed Miles Construction Costs Costs
$285,000/Mile $43,000/Mile
2008* Immokalee Road(Collier Blvd.to District Line)* 2.00 * $ 285,000 $ 43,000
2009* Collier Blvd.(GGB-Immokalee) North* 3.00 * $ 427,500 $ 64,500
2009 Santa Barbara(District Line-Davis) 0.70 $ 199,500 $ 30,100
2009* Santa Barbara(Davis Blvd-District Line(I-75)* 1.86 * $ 265,050 $ 39,990
2009 Santa Barbara(District Line, 1-75-Copperleaf) 1.34 $ 381,900: $ 57,620
2009 Santa Barbara(Copperleaf to Logan) 1.00 $ 285,000 $ 43,000
2013* Collier Blvd. (Davis to District Line)* 3.25 * $ 463,125 $ 69,875
2013/14 Davis Blvd( Radio Road to Collier Blvd) 0.70 $ 199,500 $ 30,100
2013/14* Collier Blvd. (Davis to Golden Gate Canal)* 1.10 * $ 156,750 $ 23,650
2013/14* 175/951 Intersection Improvements* 1.00 * $ 95,000 $ 14,333
2014 Davis Blvd Radio Road to Santa Barbara 2
( ) 2.74 $ 780,900 $
117,820
2017* ;Davis Blvd(County Barn to Santa Barbara) 0.76 * $ 108,300 $ 16,340 /...1
2017* ;Collier Blvd. (Green to Golden Gate Blvd)* 2.00 * $ 285,000 $ 43,000
Pine Ridge Road(1 median west of Logan to
2002 951) Not in 5 Year Plan 2.00 $ 570,000 $ 86,000
TOTAL 23.45 — $ 4,502,525 $ 679,328
Denotes Cost Split with Con Packet Page-415-
6/10/2014 11 .E.
District 4• Commissioner Coyle
.f.2_ < ,, .9 Z
_ ❑,
"t , r s.' 11'i PINE RIDGE RD
Q
CC GREEN BLVD
TC
ad g a w
G
-
al
CI_
fl,:.fr41T:,,::,-A3.„4,r,ai,-p,,,-,a ?e 0>
a . �'
0
" ' to RAI O RD
CC
rem 4 m ❑
-4 f W: # t a� '1,i Z
vs»i.+ter
CO 11,
07_11 RAVI : VD
iY
Q
CO
r y-,v .tea � "' m
,+At,"` 4 2rx
cn
�� ��� RATTI =SNA:emmeassiimas:i HAMMOCK RD 74.
Legend .
llOIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIP
U n im proved_Roadway s_D istrict
Landscape_Trees_District_4 ' ,.
National Geographic,Esri,DeLarme, HERE,UNEP-WCMC,USGS,
NASA,ESA,METI,NRCAN,GEBCO,NO increment P Corp.
Design& Maintenance
Date Road Unimproved Segments
Completed Miles Construction Costs Costs
$285,000/Mile $43,000/Mile
2009* Santa Barbara(Davis Blvd District Line(I-75)* 1.86 * $ 265,050 $ 39,990
2017* Davis Blvd(County Barn to Santa Barbara) 0.76 $ 108,300 $ 16,340
TOTAL 1.86 — $ 265,050 $ 39,990
* Denotes Cost Split with Commissioner Districts
4 t t7 my
Packet Page-416-
6/10/2014 11 .E.
District 5: Commissioner Nance
F�OPODA INTL --. - - rr
AIRPORT :82 z
N `_, Ili
co
CR 846
H
co B
IMMOKALEE RD 0)
Bonita Sprin
1 OIL WELL RD
•
,„,.:14„..., w
_ ,,,,, _-� � INTERSTATE 75
'il 41 _ 0 /
lirtAI PO (I)
ta
J
0:1
J
sly
' ' 'RCO -'
TAMIAMI TRL E
Lege 'd
/
IP Lan.scape_Trees_Distric
. National eographic, sn,'DeLorme, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS>,
Unimproved_Roadways_District_5 NASA, ESA. METI, NRCAN,GEBCO, NOAA, increment F'Corp.
Date Road Design & Maintenance
Completed Unimproved Segments Miles Construction Costs Costs
$285,000/Mile $43,000/Mile
2008* Immokalee Road(Collier Blvd.to District Line)* 2.00 * $ 285,000 $ 43,000
2008 Immokalee Road(District Line to 43rd) 6.50 $ 1,852,500 $ 279,500
2009* Collier Blvd. (GGB-Immokalee) North* 3.00 * $ 427,500 $ 64,500
2012 Oilwell Road(Immokalee to Everglades) 4.40 $ 1,254,000 $ 189,200
2012 Oilwell Road(Everglades to Camp Keis) 7.10 $ 2,023,500 $ 305,300
2013/14* Collier Blvd. (Davis to Golden Gate Canal)* 1.10 * $ 156,750 $ 23.650
2013/14* 175/951 Intersection Improvements* 1.00 * $ 95,000 $ 14,333
2017* Collier Blvd. (Green to Golden Gate Blvd)* 2.00 * $ 285,000 $ 43,000
TOTAL 27.10 — $ 6,379,250 $ 962,483
_
* Denotes Cost Split with Commissioner Districts /•,'*
Coo*r ' off .: ,
Packet Page -417-