The URL can be used to link to this page

Backup Documents 09/29/2008 W Board of County Commissioners Workshop Meeting BACK-UP DOCUMENTS September 29, 2008 *.~... -. '. " - ...~" .=. -- AGENDA September 29, 2008 9:00 a.m. BCCI East of951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study Workshop 3rd Floor Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building Tom Henning, Chairman, District 3 Donna Fiala, Vice-Chairman, District 1 Frank Halas, Chairman, District 2 Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner, District 4 Jim Coletta, Vice-Chairman, District 5 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISIDNG TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2004-05, AS AMENDED, 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. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Introduction and Overview - Mike Bosi 3. Presentation from Horizon Study Master Committee - Mr. BiU McDaniel, Chairman, East 951 Horizon Committee 4. Commentary on Horizon Study Public OpinionlData Collection - Mr. Chuck Mohlke, Fraser & Mohlke Associates, Inc. 5. Presentation of the Bridge Study - Mr. Nick Casalanguida, Director, Transportation Planning Department 6. Presentation of the Collier Inter-Active Growth Model (CIGM) - Dr. Paul Van Buskirk, Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc. 7. Public Comment 8. Adjourn INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA REQUEST FOR LEGAL ADVERTISING OF PUBLIC HEARINGS (i) To: Clerk to the Board: Please place the following as a: o Normal legal Advertisement (Display Adv., location, etc.) o Other: ********************************************************************************************************** Originating DeptJ Div: Comprehensive Planning Department Person: Marcia R. Kendall Date: 91I5/08 Petition No. (If none, give brief description): E951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study Public Participation Master Committee Presentation to the Board of County Commissioners, they findings on the E951 Services & Infrastructure Petitioner: (Name & Address): N/A Name & Address of any person(s) to be notified by Clerk's Office: (Ifmore space is needed, attach separate sheet) N/A Hearing before X BCC BZA Other Requested Hearing date: SeDtember 29. 2008 (Based on advertisement appearing 7 days before hearing. Newspaper(s) to be used: (Complete only if important): X Naples Daily News o Other o Legally Required Proposed Text: (Include legal description & common location & Size: See Attached Companion petition(s), if any & proposed hearing date: N/A Does Petition Fee include advertising cost? X Yes 0 No If Yes, what account should be charged for advertising costs: III IJ8JI~QI00-00000 y- C;-DOO'8-=1 l (00 R<Vie~ttL q~'(,of Division Administrator or Designee Date List Attachments: Advertisement being requested DISTRIBUTION INSTRUCTIONS A. For hearings before BCC or BZA: Initiating person to complete one coy and obtain Division Head approval before submitting to County Manager. Note: If legal document is involved, be sure that any necessary legal review, or request for same, is submitted to County Attorney before submitting to County Manager. The Manager's office will distribute copies: o County Manager agenda fIle: to Clerk's Office o Requesting Division o Original B. Other hearings: Initiating Division head to approve and submit original to Clerk's Office, retaining a copy for me. *********************************************************************************************************** FORCLERK.'~?~v~W~Ffio&'at<OfPubliehearieg,~ Dat<A_'~ II> ~ September 17,2008 Naples Daily News 1075 Central Avenue Naples, FL 34102 Attn: Leoals@Naplesnews.com Advertising Requirements Please publish the following Advertisement on Sunday, September 21,2008 and furnish proof of publication to the attention of Ms. Marcia Kendall, Comprehensive Planning Department, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104. The advertisement must be placed in that portion of the newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements appear. Please reference the fOllowing on ALL Invoices: DEPARTMENT: COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING FUND & COST CENTER: 111-138317-649100-00000 PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER: 4500087160 ACCOUNT NUMBER 068778 Notice of Public Meeting East of 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study Public Participation Master Committee Collier County, Florida Monday, September 29, 2008 9:00 A.M. The East of 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study Public Participation Master Committee will provide a final report to the Board of County Commissioners on the Collier County East of CR 951 Services & Infrastructure Horizon Study. The meeting is open to the public. Time: Location: Purpose: Monday, September 29, 2008 9:00 A.M. Collier County Administration Building at 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112, Collier County, Florida The East of 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study Public Participation Master Committee will provide to the Board of County Commissioners a presentation on the Collier County East of CR 951 Services & Infrastructure Horizon Study Any questions: please contact Mike Bosi, AICP, Community Planning Manager michaelbosi@collieroov.net BCC - E951 Horizon Committee Update to BCC 9/29/2008 Page 1 of1 Teresa L. Polaski From: kendall_m [MarciaKendall@colliergov.net] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 8:57 AM To: Minutes and Records Cc: Brock, Mary Subject: BCC - E951 Horizon Committee Update to BCC 9/29/2008 Attachments: Public Meeting Notice - Naples Daily Neews CR951 Horizon28.doc; Ad_Request_ Slip _E951_Horizon_BCC _9 _29 _ 08.pdf There is currently no back-up to go with this advertisement request, however, you will be provided with a copy of the agenda packet document when supplying to the BCC next week. Any questions, please feel free to contact me at the number below or email. Hard copy will be sent via interoffice mail to both Clerk office and County Manager Office. Thank you. <<Public Meeting Notice - Naples Daily Neews CR951 Horizon28.doc>> <<Ad _ Request_ SI ip _ E951_ Horizon _ BCC _9_29_08. pdf>> Cordially, Marcia Marcia R. Kendall, Senior Planner Comprehensive Planning Department Phone 239-252-2387 Fax: 239-252-2946 Email: marciakendalI@colliergov.net "To Exceed Customer Expectations" ATTENTION: Be advised that under Florida's Government-in-the-Sunshine law, information contained within this email becomes public record, unless protected by specific exemption. The law provides a right of access to governmental proceedings and documents at both the state and local levels. There is also a constitutionally guaranteed right of access. For more information on this law, visit: Florida's Sunshine Law 9/15/2008 ACCT. #1230 September 15, 2008 Attn: Legals Naples Daily News 1075 Central Avenue Naples, Florida 34102 Re: Notice of E951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study Public Participation Master Committee Meeting Dear Legals: Please advertise the above referenced notice on Sunday, September 21, 2008, and kindly send the Affidavit of Publication, in duplicate, together with charges involved, to this office. Thank you. Sincerely, Teresa Polaski, Deputy Clerk P.O. #4500087160 Notice of Public Meeting East of 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study Public Participation Master Committee Collier County, Florida Monday, September 29, 2008 9:00 A.M. The East of 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study Public Participation Master Committee will provide a final report to the Board of County Commissioners on the Collier County East of CR 951 Services & Infrastructure Horizon Study. The meeting is open to the public. Time: Location: Purpose: Monday, September 29, 2008 9:00 A.M. Collier County Administration Building at 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112, Collier County, Florida The East of 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study Public Participation Master Committee will provide to the Board of County Commissioners a presentation on the Collier County East of CR 951 Services & Infrastructure Horizon Study Any questions: please contact Mike Bosi, AICP, Community Planning Manager michaelbosiaD.colliergov. net COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA REQUEST FOR LEGAL ADVERTISING OF PUBLIC HEARINGS To: Clerk to the Board: Please place the following as a: o Normal legal Advertisement (Display Adv., location, etc.) o Other: ********************************************************************************************************** Originating Dept/ Div: Comprehensive Planning Department Person: Marcia R. Kendall Date: 9/15/08 Petition No. (If none, give brief description): E951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study Public Participation Master Committee Presentation to the Board of County Commissioners, they [mdings on the E951 Services & Infrastructure Petitioner: (Name & Address): N/A Name & Address of any person(s) to be notified by Clerk's Office: (If more space is needed, attach separate sheet) N/A Hearing before X BCC BZA Other Requested Hearing date: September 29,2008 (Based on advertisement appearing 7 days before hearing. Newspaper(s) to be used: (Complete only if important): X Naples Daily News o Other o Legally Required Proposed Text: (Include legal description & common location & Size: See Attached Companion petition(s), if any & proposed hearing date: N/ A Does Petition Fee include advertising cost? X Yes 0 No If Yes, what account should be charged for advertising costs: 111-138317 -649100-00000 Re~~tlL Division Administrator or Designee q~'("or Date List Attachments: Advertisement being requested DISTRIBUTION INSTRUCTIONS A. For hearings before BCC or BZA: Initiating person to complete one coy and obtain Division Head approval before submitting to County Manager. Note: If legal document is involved, be sure that any necessary legal review, or request for same, is submitted to County Attorney before submitting to County Manager. The Manager's office will distribute copies: o County Manager agenda me: to Clerk's Office o Requesting Division o Original B. Other hearings: Initiating Division head to approve and submit original to Clerk's Office, retaining a copy for file. *********************************************************************************************************** FOR CLERK'S OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received: Date of Public hearing: Date Advertised: September 17, 2008 Naples Daily News 1075 Central Avenue Naples, FL 34102 Attn: Leoals@Naplesnews.com Advertising Requirements Please publish the following Advertisement on Sunday, September 21,2008 and furnish proof of publication to the attention of Ms. Marcia Kendall, Comprehensive Planning Department, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104. The advertisement must be placed in that portion of the newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements appear. Please reference the followino on ALL Invoices: DEPARTMENT: COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING FUND & COST CENTER: 111-138317-649100-00000 PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER: 4500087160 ACCOUNT NUMBER 068778 Notice of Public Meeting East of 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study Public Participation Master Committee Collier County, Florida Monday, September 29, 20089:00 A.M. The East of 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study Public Participation Master Committee will provide a final report to the Board of County Commissioners on the Collier County East of CR 951 Services & Infrastructure Horizon Study. The meeting is open to the public. Purpose: Monday, September 29, 20089:00 A.M. Collier County Administration Building at 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112, Collier County, Florida The East of 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study Public Participation Master Committee will provide to the Board of County Commissioners a presentation on the Collier County East of CR 951 Services & Infrastructure Horizon Study Time: Location: Any questions: please contact Mike Bosi, AICP, Community Planning Manager michaelbosi@collieroov.net Teresa L. Polaski To: Subject: legals@naplesnews.com 951 Infrastructure and Horizon Study Meeting Attachments: E951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study .doc; BCC Notice-CR951 Horizon28.doc Legals, Please advertise the following on Sunday, September 21, 2008, Thanks E951 BCC Notice-CR951 :1structure and Ser Horizon28.doc... Teresa L. Polaski, BMR Clerk III Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners Minutes and Records Department 239-252-8411 239-252-8408 fax (T eresa.Po laski@collierclerk.com) 1 Teresa L. Polaski From: Sent: To: Subject: postmaster@collierclerk.com Monday, September 15, 2008 3:13 PM Teresa L. Polaski Delivery Status Notification (Relay) Attachments: ATT200312.txt; 951 Infrastructure and Horizon Study Meeting 1;;1 ~ A TT200312.txt (231 B) 951 :structure and Hori This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. Your message has been successfully relayed to the following recipients, but the requested delivery status notifications may not be generated by the destination. legals@naplesnews.com 1 Teresa L. Polaski From: Sent: To: Subject: Pagan, Emely [EPagan@Naplesnews.com] Wednesday, September 17, 20089:58 AM Teresa L. Polaski Ad Confirmation Attachments: UASBFB.jpg UASBFB.jpg (32 KB) ublishing Sept. 21 Thanks, Em Thank you Date Publication Account Number Ad Number Total Ad Cost for placing your ad. 09/17/08 NDN 744100 1738781 $151.70 1 R~CEIVED NOV 0 3 2008 FiLED 41 COi !. 1'-1(" ;~'-,!_~'{TY r; 0 NAPLES DAILY N~NCE DEPT. -., . '" , ., , ,. RIDA Published Daih 2UU9 OCT 3 I Naples, FL 34102 M'I II: 55 // CLER;;uf COURTS Affidavit of Publication State of Florida BY. County of Collier ----,_o.c. Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared B. Lamb, who on oath says that they serve as the Assistant Corporate Secretary of the Naples Daily, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County. Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida; that the attached copy of the advertising. being a PUBLIC NOTICE in the matter of PUBLIC NOTICE was published in said newspaper 1 time in the issue On September 21 ", 2008 Aniant /urther says that the said Naples Daily ?\ews is a nev.'spaper Published at Naples, ill collier county, Florida and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and J ,cc counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of ] year next preceding the 11rst publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and afliant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discounl, rebate, commission or refund tor the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. j] ----i ( Signature of affiant) Sworn to and subscribed before me This 28'h Day Of October 2008 ~ ~ C\GJvJ)D (Signat re of ta publit\J FEI ';9.257832 ff:1:WX;~tf~~ . ~" ~"'>~'~', .. :s:~ -:.;.,."1.0 :&.'~~. ';/{,pll ""., JUDYJ,\NES CorrmlSsion DO 675029 Expires May 16, 2011 , rX';'d"jT~Tt;!l()vfJI"II>~lIrar.c9~.3B!j.70,9 Collier County East of County Road 951 Infrastructure and Services a..QIa Stu.dy S" , \' . ..".i'. S Prepared by Comprehensive Planning Community Development & Environmental Services 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, F134104 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Presentation to Board of County Commissioners (BCC) of the East of County Road 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study. OBJECTIVE: Request that the BCC review the East of County Road 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study; consider the position points provided for within the Public Participation Phase of the written report; provide Transportation with a directive related to the Bridge Study, as contained in Section to two of the final report; and review the Collier County Inter-Active Growth model and provide direct for the CIGM to be brought before the Planning Commission and Productivity Committee to provide a recommendation on the annual updating of the CIGM. BACKGROUND: The East of County Road 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study has been a four year long planning effort to assess the County's ability to accommodate growth within the County east of Collier Boulevard, County Road 951. The Horizon Study was initiated in June of 2004 by the BCC and was based upon the recognition of the need for a comprehensive, long range planning effort to evaluate the county's ability to accommodate growth and development within the area East of County Road 951. The Horizon Study is separated within two Phases. The first phase, the Preliminary Report, which the BCC heard at a May 24, 2006 workshop, identified three levels of service for each of the infrastructure and service providers within the Study area and attempted to allocate cost associated with the projected infrastructure and services outlay. The first phase of the project was a 24 month long assessment and development of three potential infrastructure and service provisions scenarios from the various infrastructure and service providing divisions/departments throughout the County. At the May 24, 2006 workshop, the BCC directed for the second phase of the Study to gain insight from the property owners of the Study area to assist in developing priorities for the County's future expenditures on capital infrastructure and services. To direct the second phase of the Study, the BCC created the Horizon Study Public Participation Master Committee. The East of CR951 Horizon Study Public Participation process, steered by the Public Participation Master Committee was a 23 month long process of public presentations designed to inform the general public of the specifics of the provisions of the various infrastructure and service providers, while professionally polling and soliciting input from the residents of the Study area in relation to their perspectives related to those identified potential growth outlays and the cost identified within the first Phase. As part of the public participation process, the Master Committee held two successive meetings to discuss the issue of Transportation planning. Like all components of the Preliminary Study, the Transportation component provided a working meeting to the Committee, which was held in Immokalee, and a public participation meeting. These meetings were held in December 2007, and January 2008. It was during these interactions between the Master Committee and the Transportation Department that the SEPTEMBER 29, 2008 HORIZON STUDY BCC WORKSHOP - 1 - benefit for a Bridge Study became apparent. As part of the discussions with the Transportation planning staff, the concept of increasing the mobility within the Golden Gate Estates through a series of strategically placed bridges resurfaced. During the 2003 update of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, the concept of bridging strategic locations within the Sub-district was promoted. These direct conversations between the Master Committee and Transportation initiated the Bridge Study detailed within Section II of this report. In addition to the public participation portion of Phase II, as well as the correlated Bridge Study, the phase was also comprised of the development of the Collier County Interactive Growth Model (CIGM). At the inception of the East ofCR951 Study, the BCC issued a policy directive that the study would not include a land use component. The intent behind the directive was that future land use changes should not be the impetus behind analyzing infrastructure needs in the area east of CR951. Although this intent was fundamentally sound in concept, generally accepted planning practices and principles recognize the need to link land use planning with transportation planning and other infrastructure needs. Based upon this recognition, the BCC at the May 24, 2006 hearing of the Preliminary Report, the BCC directed staff to enter into a contract with Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates to initiate the development of a land use modeling tool to assist with timing and locational decisions related to infrastructure and service provisions. The attached Horizon Study is segregated within three primary sections: Section I, the Public Participation Process; Section II, the Bridge Study and Section III, the Interactive Growth Model. The specifics of each of these sections are contained within the Horizon Study and provide the context for the recommendations within this executive summary GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The impacts to the Growth Management Plan are numerous. A number of the position points may lead to direct amendments of the GMP. Specifically, the position point calling for a re-examination RECOMMENDATION: That the Collier County Board of County Commissioners take the following action: For the Public Participation Process - The Committee request that the BCC take appropriate action on the individual position points advanced by the Horizon Study Committee when appropriate. . For the Bridge Study - Staff recommendation to adopt the Bridge Study and to proceed with construction of the bridges east of CR 951 as prioritized in the study subject to available funding. For the Growth Model - Staff recommends that the BCC provides direction for the CIGM to be presented to the Planning Commission for the PC to make a recommendation to the BCC regarding the annual update of the model. Prepared by Mike Bosi, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager SEPTEMBER 29, 2008 HORIZON STUDY BCC WORKSHOP -2- Table of Contents Collier County East of CR951 Infrastructure and Services Infrastructure Horizon Study Section One............................................lntroduction and Public Participation Process Pages 1-1 through 1-88 Section Two......... H' .............. ... ... ......................................._............... .............. B ridge Study Pages 2-1 through 2-45 Section Three...............................................Collier Inter-Active Growth Model (ClGM) Pages 3-1 through 3-57 Appendix Exhibit "All.......................................................... The Horizon Study Preliminary Report Exhibit "8N................................................ Collier Soil & Water Conservation District Submission to the Horizon Study Committee Exhibit 1/('1.......................... ................ National Multiple Sclerosis Society Submission to the Horizon Study Committee Exhibit "DN......."...................................Original Survey Distributed to 2,150 registered voters in the Study Area Introduction The Collier Board of County Commissioners at its June 29, 2004 meeting with a thorough recommendation from the County Manager recognized the need for a comprehensive, long range planning effort to evaluate the county's ability to accommodate growth and development within the area East of County Road 951. A strong emphasis was placed on the County's ability to provide the potential necessary capital infrastructure and services while maintaining the financial feasibility as set forth in the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) and the Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR). At that time, the County was experiencing tremendous pressures from the development community for new housing products throughout the urbanized and the rural portions of the County. Those development pressures have waned considerably due to both macro (global) and micro (local) economic factors, but the County with its unique combination of locational amenities is expected to more than double its current population at build- out. A majority of that growth is expected to transpire within the area east of County Road 951, and while the growth rate of the County has waned over the past two years, the longer term necessity of the planning effort has not. Moreover, the intention of the planning effort was to better understand how the property owners in the area East of County Road 951 viewed the potential growth within the study area, and how those residents felt that growth could best affect the levels of service for governmental infrastructure and service providers. These two primary factors resulted in the development of the Collier County East of CR951 Services and Infrastructure Horizon Study (the Study). The Study, to satisfy these two primary goals, was bifurcated within a phased process. The first phase, the Preliminary Report (Exhibit" A"), which the BCC heard at a May 24, 2006 workshop, identified three levels of service for each of the infrastructure and service providers within the Study area and attempted to allocate costs associated with the projected infrastructure and services outlay. The first phase of the project was a 24 month long assessment and development of three potential infrastructure and service provisions scenarios from the various infrastructure and service-providing divisions/departments throughout the County. To provide the base for the three potential capital outlays and costs associated with those outlays, the 2005 Build-Out Study, compiled by the Comprehensive Planning Department, was utilized. The 2005 Build-Out Study, based upon the development permitted by the regulatory structure of the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan, in place at the time of the effort, projected a county-wide population projection of 1,066,420 and for the Study area east of CR951, a population projection of 688,489. It was from the population projections contained in the 2005 Build-Out study that each of the options for infrastructure and services identified in the Preliminary Report were based. 1-1 The first level of service of the three identified within the Preliminary Report was identified as "Option One." Option One focused upon what would transpire in the subject area if no additional infrastructure or public services were added. The second level of service was identified as "Option Two." Option Two included different meanings, choices or options within the various subject areas. Option Two focused on the provision of infrastructure and services above what was currently available, but below an Urbanized level of service. The third level of service, Option Three, was the optimum level and in most cases provided an urban level of service for the study area. It should be noted that Option Three is the only option provided for by the Growth Management Plan within specific components of the Capital Improvement Element (CIE). For example, Collier County has an adopted level of service for County Parks, the provision of which, the only option is to maintain that premium level of service on a county-wide basis. For each of the identified service or infrastructure providing departments identified within Phase One of the Study, estimates of cost of providing their respective service at the various levels were attempted. Below is a summary of the estimated cost for the various identified levels of service. It should be noted that these were 2005 estimates based upon population projections and development trends and should not be construed as absolutes. Total Cost Summary $8,000,000,000 $10,000,000,000 $6,000,000,000 /$3,989,947,215 $4,000,000,000 " , $2,000,000,000 ./// $0 Option One Option Two Option Three 1-2 'Epftli$portatiop ~~~U.~,JlmiDes Potable Water Wast.ewater Libraries Schools. Parks & R~creation Emel\'gency S, erv, i~e$IEl\fS' ....I)"'.;:'.~';,<w,"it::,(A:....,' ..... . M~Cf ';, t& siW~. '"iy. ~~.,.~.~~~~~~ Eiw..".'.' ..'. .'''} Enforcement Correctional Facilities Total * Estimate excludes land cost Option One $2,500,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $57,027,000 $1,044,000,000 $101,000,000 Option Two $3,490,000,000 $145,573,000 $50,330,000 $95,243,000 $77,596,000 $1,044,000,000 $371,400,000 Option Three $3,940,000,000 $2,454,080,000 $909,360,000 $1,544,720,000 $99,086,000 $1,044,000,000 $755,200,000 $497,752 $81,495,000 $92,795,000 $184,474,839 $184,474,839 $184,474,839 $102,947,624 $102,947,624 $102,947,624 Option One Option Two Option Three $3,989,947,215 $5,497,486,463 $8,672,583,463 Based upon the three cost estimates provided for above, compared against a revenue estimate that fulfilled only the first option, Option One, the necessity for the second phase of the Horizon study was established. While both the cost and the revenue projects were based upon estimates, that most certainly will change as the macro and micro economic conditions evolve, it became obvious that the County, as it progresses towards build-out, will be faced with financial decisions regarding capital outlays for infrastructure and services often in competition against one another. Additionally, this is set against a current state political environment of a top down approach to government that has dictated numerous unfunded mandates, as well as inadequately analyzed financial restrictions, which have severely curtailed a local government's ability to raise the required revenue to accommodate growth and the associated infrastructure. As a result the BCC directed the second phase of the Study to gain insight from the property owners 1-3 in the Study area in order to assist in developing priorities for the County's future expenditures on capital infrastructure and services. To direct the second phase of the Study, the BCC created the Horizon Study Public Participation Master Committee. The Committee was comprised of fifteen (15) members of the general public and represented a broad base of citizens, business and property owners within the Study area. The East of CR951 Horizon Study Public Participation process, steered by the Public Participation Master Committee was a 23-month long process of public presentations designed to inform the general public of the specifics of the provisions of the various infrastructure and service providers, while professionally researching through a survey mailed to the residents of the Study area to obtain their perspectives related to those identified potential growth outlays and the cost identified within the first Phase. As noted, to direct the public participation process, the Horizon Study Public Participation Master Committee, a committee partially appointed by the BCC on September 26th and fully filled on November 28t\ 2006, was created by the BCC. The Master Committee, over a two year period beginning in the fall of 2006 and culminating in fall of 2008, met twenty-five times. With the exception of the first meeting and a December 2007 Transportation meeting that was held in Immokalee, the meetings were held at the University of Florida/Collier County Agricultural Extension office at 14700 lmmokalee Road. A more detailed description of the individual meetings and the Horizon Study Master Committee Public Participation process is in Section I of this report. As part of the public participation process, the Master Committee held two meetings to discuss the issue of Transportation planning. Like all components of the Preliminary Study, the Transportation component provided a working meeting to the Committee, which was held in Immokalee, followed by a public participation meeting. These meetings were held in December 2007, and January 2008. It was during these interactions between the Master Committee and the Transportation Department that the benefit for a study for potential bridges in the Estates became apparent. As part of the discussions with the Transportation planning staff, the concept of increasing the mobility within the Golden Gate Estates through a series of strategically placed bridges resurfaced. During the 2003 update of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, the concept of bridging strategic locations within the Sub-district was promoted. These direct conversations between the Master Committee and Transportation initiated the Bridge Study detailed within Section II of this report. In addition to the public participation portion of Phase II, as well as the correlated Bridge Study, the phase was also comprised of the development of the Collier County Interactive Growth Model (CIGM). At the inception of the East ofCR951 Study, the BCC issued a policy directive that the study would not include a land use component. The intent behind the directive was that future land use changes should not be the impetus behind 1-4 analyzing infrastructure needs in the area east of CR951. Although this intent was fundamentally sound in concept, generally accepted planning practices and principles recognize the need to link land use planning with transportation planning and other infrastructure needs. Based upon this recognition, the BCC at the May 24, 2006 hearing of the Preliminary Report, directed staff to enter into a contract with Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates to initiate the development of a land use modeling tool to assist with timing and locational decisions related to infrastructure and service provisions. The CIGM, a trademarked commodity, developed by Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates Inc., is designed to improve Collier County's population forecast methods and establish a growth modeling planning methodology projecting growth and development, particularly the amount and distribution of land uses and corresponding public infrastructure and services east of County Road 9511Collier Boulevard. The growth model is a Graphic Information System (GIS) planning/modeling tool which is developed using land use allocations provided for within the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) to the parcels that make up the Study area. As noted, as part of Phase I of the Study, Comprehensive Planning developed the 2005 Build-Out Study. The Build-Out Study, following the original design of the Horizon Study Preliminary Report, based population projections on the current zoning and Growth Management Plan regulations. The Build-Out Study as an attempt to project the maximum amount of development that could be permitted by the current regulations, did not attempt to determine the exact timing or location for future population growth, only what the potential amount of development and corresponding population could be based upon the regulations. The decision to develop the Collier Interactive Growth Model (CIGM) as an infrastructure modeling tool was influenced by the Model's ability to spatially and chronologically distribute growth towards build-out. Additionally, the decision to develop the CIGM was influenced by the recognition that large scale errors in the amount and timing of population projections can be quite costly to a community. An example is provided on a national level related to the baby boom, which began in the late 1940s and lasted until the early 1960s and produced huge increases in public school enrollments. In the 1970s many communities, based upon the huge increase in the school enrollments they had experienced during the decades of the 1950s and 1960s, made substantial investments in new school buildings, assuming the trends would continue into the foreseeable future. As a result, many communities found themselves with an overbuilt, underused school facility infrastructure in the 1970s. The development of the CIGM is designed to help mitigate this sort of problem in the County in the provision of infrastructure and services. The development of the Collier Interactive Growth Model, per the contract, followed an 18 month development schedule, which was extended an additional four months to reflect the adjusted time frame for the public participation phase dictated by the Horizon Study Master Committee. The data collection phase of the process was completed through the collaborative efforts of the consultant team and County Staff. The next stage of the 1-5 model's development was focused upon population forecasting by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) and the development of the specific sub-models per the contract. The sub-models are designed to assist in modeling for such areas as commercial square footage and industrial square footage needs, school facilities, parks, libraries, fire districts, emergency medical services and law enforcement. The sub-models are anticipated to complement the AUIR process and GMP in guiding and preparing for growth and development. The next stage of the development of the CIGM focused on the factors the model utilizes to determine growth and the intensity associated with future development. Communication between the consultant and staff was the key component of this stage of development. As indicated, as the model's development moved forward, information on assumptions for development were solicited from the various departments/divisions throughout the County. Additionally, the consultant team attended five Horizon Study Master Committee meetings to solicit suggestions from the Committee and to discuss the models' baseline information as well as the model's growth assumptions for the various sub-areas comprising the Study area. Additionally, the Model, through a contract modification request which appeared before the BCC on the April 8, 2008 agenda, has provided for the land use modeling required to update the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). This will allow for consistency between the two models and should better harmonize the County's infrastructure planning by bringing a common base to validate Transportation capital outlays associated with growth. A more detailed description of the Collier Interactive Growth Model is provided for within Section III of this report. This report is divided into three primary sections: Section I, the Public Participation Process; Section II, the Bridge Study and Section III, the Interactive Growth Model. In addition to the three sections which comprise the body, the report contains the following Exhibits: Exhibit "A" - The Horizon Study Preliminary Report, Exhibit "B" - Collier Soil & Water Conservation District Submission to the Horizon Study Committee, Exhibit "C" - National Multiple Sclerosis Society Submission to the Horizon Study Committee. 1-6 Section I The Public Participation Process Prepared by the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department The East of CR951 Horizon Study Public Participation process, steered by the Public Participation Master Committee was a 23 month long process of public presentations designed to inform the general public of the specifics of the provisions of the various infrastructure and service providers, while gathering information from the residents, property owners and business interest in the Study area in relation to their perspectives related to those identified potential growth outlays and the cost identified within the first Phase. Below is the list of meetings held by the Master Committee to carry out its purpose of soliciting public suggestions related to the Horizon Study and a summary of the general discussion at each of the meetings Horizon Study Public Participation Meetin2 Timeline and Summaries Time: Location: Purpose: Summary: Time: Location: Purpose: Monday, October 16, beginning at 7:00 P.M. Golden Gate Community Center, 4701 Golden Gate Parkway in Golden Gate City, Collier County, Florida The purpose for the introductory meeting was to review of the East of CR951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study and encourage discussion, an overview of the designated purpose of the Master Committee, and the adoption of rules and procedures for the transaction of business. The subjects of the initial meeting were orientated to the goals and purposes of the Horizon Committee. Commissioner Coletta opened the meeting and welcomed the newly appointed Committee members and provided a brief overview of the Board of County Commissioner's aspirations for the Committee. He clearly articulated that the direction the Committee was to take was to be steered by the Committee itself. Each Committee member introduced themselves to the group and listen to a staff presentation of the Preliminary Report. Bill McDaniel was appointed Chairman and Linda Hartman Vice-Chair by Committee vote. A decision to hold future meetings at the University of Florida/Collier County Agricultural Extension office was reached by majority vote. Monday, November 27, 2006 beginning at 6:30 P.M. Collier County UF/IF AS Extension Education & Training Center located at 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34120, Collier County, Florida The purpose for the meeting was to establish organizational protocol related to the Sunshine Law, public suggestions, goals and objectives, 1-7 Summary: Time: Location: Purpose: Summary: refinement of project time line, and future meeting schedule, location and subject matter. The initial portion of the meeting focused on review of the Sunshine Law applicable to Ad-hoc Committees. The meeting then transitioned to a discussion from the Committee members regarding their expectations, Examples: "Identify infrastructure needs east of CR951", "Soliciting the public's input is a function of the Committee, but not decisions", "Role is both information gathering and to make recommendations", Questions for the public should be fair, neutral and written well to get a response", "Concern should be getting the public involved", " Need to ensure responses from public are incorporated within the decision making process". Agreement was reached to develop a questionnaire based on Preliminary Horizon study. Agreement was also reached on meeting format - presentation from experts and staff, discussion by board, then public participation. Tuesday, December 19, 2006 beginning at 7:00 P.M. Collier County UF/IFAS Extension Education & Training Center located at 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34120, Collier County, Florida The purpose for the meeting was to discuss the development of the Collier Interactive Growth Model, by Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates and, discussion of staff's refinement of project time line, and availability and capability of the Horizon study web-site. The Committee welcomed the final two appointees and sat at full membership with fifteen members. The Committee heard a presentation from Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc., the consultant firm contracted to develop the Collier Interactive Growth Model. The Collier Interactive Growth Model is a supplemental planning tool that will be applied to the area east of 951 and some areas to the immediate west that are contiguous with 951 to forecast build-out population and distribution. The Model will forecast when and where growth will take place, and will facilitate planning to manage growth and its impacts, including recommendations for land uses by type and distribution in order to address the needs of the population over time. The Model will produce a population forecast to build-out in five-year increments. The County's own preliminary build-out population estimate for the area East of CR951 was 700,000. The Model will distribute the population through the study area and use the population allocation and distribution to work with various sub-models. The East of 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study Public Participation Master Plan Committee will be asked to review progress and provide comments and suggestions on a quarterly basis. The Committee offered a few comments related to the Growth Model presentation. For Example: "Will the time frame for the model's development allow for input from the Committee?"; "The community has quirks that will have to be addressed with some areas which will require all public services, while others will not"; "It will be a challenge to 1-8 Time: Location: Purpose: Summary: Time: Location: / integrate the RLSA overlay district within the model". In addition to the Growth Model discussion the Committee discussed a timeline of meeting schedules and topics to ensure all aspects of the Preliminary Report would be covered by the Committee. There was also discussion on posting updates to the Committee's progress on a web-site. Finally, it was concluded that the Committee needed to be driven by public suggestions and the importance to get those suggestions early on in the process. Monday, January 22, 2007 beginning at 7:00 P.M. Collier County UF/IFAS Extension Education & Training Center located at 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34120, Collier County, Florida The purpose for the meeting was for the introduction of the consultant team of Fraser & Mohlke Associates, Inc, to the process and the topic of the meeting will center upon a preliminary public opinion survey. The Committee was introduced to Chuck Mohlke, of Fraser & MoWke Associates Inc., the public opinion consultant firm retained by the BCC to assist in the public portion of the Phase II process. The consultant and the Committee discussed the various methods and approaches towards public surveying and began to establish the basis for research methods suggested by the Committee. The consultant passed out copies of the Golden Gate Restudy to review. Mr. Mohlke responded to a question concerning creating a questionnaire early in the process by saying he was, "cautious to prepare a preliminary questionnaire before directly inter-acting with the Committee. There needs to be an understanding of where the Committee wants to go before completing an initial survey." It was pointed out to the Committee that the developments in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area were required to be fiscally neutral to the county, but Levels of Service Standards (LOSS) are not dictated by regulations and such LOSS need to be identified. Mr. Mohlke noted there will be common questions for the entire Study area, but also unique questions related to meeting presenters or the sample group that will be surveyed. The Committee moved to have a questionnaire/survey prepared based on the Preliminary Report and Committee member preferences. The Committee indicated that their work must focus on asking the larger macro-level questions. The Committee was asked to review the Golden Gate Restudy and designate questions they felt important. A representative of the Sherriffs Office asked the Committee to keep in mind that the Sherriffs Office was seeking a way to ask the public about their desired services and the Sherriffs Office would like to work with the Committee. Monday, February 12, 2007 beginning at 7:00 P.M. Collier County UF /IF AS Extension Education & Training Center located at 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34120, Collier County, Florida 1-9 Purpose: Summary: Time: Location: Purpose: Summary: The purpose for the meeting was for the further refinement of the survey questionnaire as well as specifics of the upcoming public participation meeting. The Committee reviewed the process of the study research as outlined in the "Research Services Notebook", prepared by Fraser & Mohlke Associates, Inc., including the Research Methodologies, Questionnaire Development, Horizon Study Background Analysis, Study Documentation and 2005 Collier County Opinion Study. The consultant proposed that at a minimum the voters are broken out by zip code. Also, a sample plan for the survey will be reviewed at the next meeting showing the representative voters by zip codes. The discussion included several suggestions on how to carry out the study. Discussion ensued on questions to be included in the survey with the resolution that the choice of questions will be addressed at the next meeting. The Committee moved to accept the proposed research methodology. The motion passed 8-1. The Committee then moved to discuss the first staff presentation to the Committee from Public Utilities. It was decided that the first Public Participation Meeting would be held at the Agricultural Extension Multi-purpose room. The Committee provided direction for the order of the public participation meeting and requested that all media available be utilized to advertise for the meeting. Monday, March 19,2007 beginning at 7:00 P.M. Collier County UF/IF AS Extension Education & Training Center located at 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34120, Collier County, Florida The purpose for the meeting was for a preliminary presentation from Collier County Public Utilities and subsequent discussion concerning the upcoming April public participation meeting. Public Utilities provided a presentation focusing upon the cost estimates provided for within the Preliminary Study and the estimated $111,000 per parcel price tag associated with extending potable water and wastewater to the Estates. A number of Committee members suggested it would be better to bring a fire suppression system to the Estates and that gravity sewer will not work in Golden Gate Estates. Another member suggested looking at future development and requiring developers to pay water cost. Overall the Committee had severe reservations over the concept of extension of Utilities in the Estates, noting that there has been no environmental analysis undertaken on what the effect will be in the future with and without the water system being installed. The Committee recognized the need for more effort and co-ordination among local, state and federal government concerning the long term viability of the current well and septic system of the Estates. The remaining portion of the meeting focused upon the questionnaire to be distributed at the April Public Participation meeting. 1-10 Time: Location: Purpose: Summary: Time: Location: Purpose: Summary: Monday, April 16, 2007 beginning at 7:00 P.M. Collier County UF/IFAS Extension Education & Training Center located at 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34120, Collier County, Florida Collier County Public Utilities presented, for public discussion, various potential options for water and/or wastewater extension to portions and/or all of the Estates District. The meeting was the first Public Participation Meeting held by the Committee. Approximately 110 people attended. All other meetings to date, have been open to the public, but were not publicly advertised in the Naples Daily News as an invitation to the public to let their voices be heard on specific subject matter. Instead, the meeting dates were noticed in accordance with Collier County policy. The Committee Chairman provided an overview of the Preliminary Report and the mission of the Horizon Committee. Public Utilities provided a PowerPoint presentation of the cost estimates to bring potable water and waste water to the Estates and clarified that there was no intention to implement expansion. The Collier County Health Department representative stated that they regulate all of the septic tanks in Collier County and that it is their finding that with the new systems being installed there are no signs of ground water contamination. The Public expressed concerns over the costs of the project and indicated that water and sewer were not needed and that their interest lies with fire suppression. A straw poll was taken of all attendees and everyone indicated they were against the extension of utilities to the Estates and the cost associated with the project. Concerns were expressed by the public in attendance over health issues associated with septic tank infiltration into the water table and the aquifers related to development and the effect that development will have on the longer term viability of the current well and septic system. Monday, May 14,2007 beginning at 7:00 P.M. Collier County UF/IF AS Extension Education & Training Center located at 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34120, Collier County, Florida Collier County Parks and Recreation provided a preliminary presentation concerning potential park facilities to the master committee and the discussion of the 1 st Public Participation meeting. The Committee heard a presentation from Public Services Administration concerning the Park and Library components of the preliminary report and the manner in which the Department undertakes park and library planning. A person from the public commented that he would prefer more small parks than large ones; another person expressed concerns with safety in small parks. It was suggested that there are a large number of children within the subject area. More open public space in parks was also suggested. The Committee requested specific information for the next Public Participation Meeting. The Committee then discussed the April Public Participation meeting. A Committee member suggested that the County needs to address septic seepage, how these issues need to be 1-11 Time: Location: Purpose: Summary: Time: Location: Purpose: Summary: addressed, and that the issue of hiring personnel to review the potential problem should be included in the questionnaire. The Committee made suggestions to the public opinion consultant on the way that questions are written and noted that the questions should not ask how the County was doing. It was suggested that a meeting be held in Immokalee for those persons living in the northern section on the County. Monday, June 11,2007 beginning at 7:00 P.M. Collier County UF /IF AS Extension Education & Training Center located at 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34120, Collier County, Florida Collier County Sheriffs Office provided a preliminary presentation concerning potential facilities and services east of CR 951 to the master committee and a discussion ofthe upcoming Public Participation meeting. The June meeting centered on a presentation from the Sheriffs Office. The discussion was mainly on the internal planning process of the Sherriff s Office and the cost of providing service and the recognition that if a higher level of service was desired then there would have to be an increase in costs. The Committee requested information related to law enforcement staffing and calls for service within the study area be made available for the July Public Participation meeting. The Committee, after their interaction with the Sheriffs Office, discussed the questionnaire for the upcoming Public Participation meeting and provided specific instruction to the consultant regarding the questions to be utilized. Monday, July 9,2007 beginning at 7:00 P.M. Collier County UF /IF AS Extension Education & Training Center located at 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34120, Collier County, Florida Collier County Parks and Recreation Department and Sheriffs Office presented, for public discussion, various potential options for facilities and services in portions and/or the entire east of CR951 study area. The July meeting was the second Public Participation meeting focusing on Law Enforcement, Libraries and Parks. Roughly 50 people attended the meeting. Presentations were made by each respective department, after an overview of the Horizon Study was provided by the Committee's Chairman. The questions from the public regarding parks centered on specific locations for planned or existing facilities and the type of amenities available. The public had few questions related to libraries, other than how the location is determined. The discussion with the Sheriffs Office focused on the relationship between density and crime and the physical geographic realities affecting response times in the study area due to low density. Additionally, the cost of illegal immigration on the Sheriff's Office was discussed. Also, the Sheriff s Office current effort to build public safety facilities with Emergency Medical Services was stressed. The surveys distributed at the meeting revealed that the public had a number of preferences related to Parks, Libraries, and Law 1-12 Time: Location: Purpose: Summary: Time: Location: Purpose: Summary: Enforcement. Regarding the need for new parks and libraries within the next ten years to meet their needs, the public agreed strongly agreement that increases are necessary in both services. For Law Enforcement, the public identified 'grow houses", human and drug smuggling and traffic enforcement as the areas they were most concerned about. Monday, August 13, 2007 beginning at 7:00 P.M. Collier County UF/IF AS Extension Education & Training Center located at 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34120, Collier County, Florida Collier County Emergency Medical Services presented a preliminary presentation of various potential options for facilities and services in portions and/or all of the east ofCR951 study area. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) provided a presentation to the Committee at the meeting. The presentation focused upon the three levels of services provided for by the Preliminary report. EMS indicated that stand alone EMS stations identified in the third level of service proposed were not economically feasible based upon the projected impact fee revenue and ad valorum taxes. The discussion also focused on the Departments relationship to the independent fire districts. It was pointed out by the Committee that EMS's relationships with all of the fire districts needed to be standardized and the public only benefits when all departments work well together. The regulations within the Rural Lands, which require dedications for space for EMS, were addressed by the Committee. The public questions focused upon areas receiving the highest volume of calls and whether EMS had access to any of the GAC lands. The difference between Category "A" and Category "B" facilities in relation to the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) of the GMP was discussed and it was clarified that EMS is not state regulated and although addressed in the AUIR, it is not a component of the CIE. After the presentation from EMS, the Committee discussed the vacant position on the Committee and the need for the Chairman to address the BCC in relationship to the overall purpose of the Committee. A number of members felt that during the GMP amendment hearings before the BCC, the BCC was prescribing a different role for the Committee than what was understood by the Committee. The Committee motioned to have the Chairman dispel the notion that the Committee was making decisions related to the specific location of commercial lands within the Study area. Monday, September 10, 2007 beginning at 7:00 P.M. Collier County UF/IF AS Extension Education & Training Center located at 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34120, Collier County, Florida Collier County Fire Districts presented a preliminary presentation of various potential options for facilities and services in portions and/or the entire east of CR951 study area. At the September meeting, the independent fire districts, Big Island Corkscrew and Golden Gate Fire Districts provided presentations to the 1-13 Time: Location: Purpose: Summary: Time: Location: Purpose: Committee. The presentations centered upon the importance of locations of existing and new stations, access issues, design standards of new roads, and the manner in which the fire districts cooperate with each other for mutual aid. The issue of merger and the provision of one district County- wide system were discussed in great detail. The Committee was informed about the coat estimates such an effort would entail, with a higher cost within the first five years, but considerable savings in the remaining out years. The Committee suggested that the fire districts should be included within the early stages of roadway design and that this should be one of the recommendations going to the BCC. The Committee concluded the meeting by voting on the potential replacement candidates for the two vacant spots on the Committee. Monday, October 8, 2007 beginning at 7:00 P.M. Collier County UF /IF AS Extension Education & Training Center located at 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34120, Collier County, Florida Collier County Emergency Medical Services and Fire Districts presented, for public discussion, various potential options for facilities and services in portions and/or the entire east ofCR951 study area. The October meeting was the third official public participation meeting held by the Committee. Approximately 45 people attended the meeting and the focus of the meeting was EMS and the fire districts. The Committee Chairman provided an overview of the Horizon Study and presentations were made by representatives of both EMS and the fire districts. EMS stated that response times were 8 minutes in the urban area and 12 minutes in the rural area. The distinctions between owned and leased stations were discussed with the recognition that leased stations do not contribute to the inventory which impact fees are based on. EMS discussed why new stations were needed, as opposed to expanding existing stations. Response times are reflective of distance and as population growth increases in the east, new stations are needed to accommodate this growth. The same issue was echoed for the fire districts. Fire districts indicated that every station adheres to the National Fire Protection Association standards. The Committee recommended that EMS and the fire districts should be included within transportation planning. The public discussion focused on the advantages and disadvantages of an integrated county-wide fire and EMS system with EMS and the fire districts offering positives and negatives regarding such a merger. The two new members of the Committee, appointed by the BCC were introduced to the Committee at the meeting. Monday, December 10, 2007 beginning at 7:00 P.M. Career & Services Center located at 750 S 5th St. Immokalee, FL 34142, Collier County, Florida Transportation staff provided the Committee a draft presentation concerning long range road network improvements within the Study area. 1-14 Summary: Time: Location: Purpose: Summary: The December meeting, which focused upon transportation, was held at the Immokalee Career and Service Center. Transportation provided an overview of the three levels of service identified in the Preliminary Report and the difference within the system expansion and costs associated with each. The presentation stressed the importance of better co-ordination between land use planning and transportation. The mixed-use communities required by the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay is important in reducing the impact upon the transportation system by breaking existing, east to west transportation patterns during the morning peak hours and west to east transportation patterns in the afternoon peak hours. Concern was expressed over evacuation of rural residents due to limitations of current network. It was pointed out that the low density within the Study area did not make public transportation feasible. Currently the public transportation system transports people from Immokalee to the Naples and Marco Island areas. The Committee Chairman informed the group that Collier County was a donor county in regard to transportation, meaning the County pays into the system more than it receives from the State. Lack of road improvements in the Immokalee area were discussed against the many improvements that have occurred in the western portion of the County. Transportation Division staff indicated that long range plans for the State Road 29 expansion were to take the traffic around the Immokalee urban core. A number of the public expressed dissatisfaction with the idea of diverting traffic from the Immokalee urban core, indicating that increased traffic in the urban core would lead to increased commerce for the local economy. The importance of the development of the Immokalee airport as a cargo and transportation facility was stressed. The fact that impact fees would not be sufficient to maintain the transportation network's current level of service was addressed by the presenter. Monday, December 18, 2007 beginning at 7:00 P.M. Collier County UF/IF AS Extension Education & Training Center located at 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34120, Collier County, Florida Chuck Mohlke discussed the survey and the approach for survey distribution for Committee agreement. Additionally, Van-Buskirk and Associates provided an update to the development of the Interactive Growth Model, a modeling tool for various types of facilities and services in portions and/or the entire east ofCR951 study area. The second Horizon Study meeting in December centered upon a presentation from Van Buskirk, Ryfell & Associates and the progress of the Collier Interactive Growth Model. Discussion focused upon the baseline data utilized by the model to develop the Build-Out for the Study area. The baseline data consists of: Study encompassed 240 Traffic Analysis Zones, Baseline Inventory of 70,000+ parcels, Validated Preliminary Data: 28,246 single family homes, 31,535 multi-family units, 10,239,854 square footage of retail space, 3,711,352 square footage of 1-15 Time: Location: Purpose: Summary: Time: Location: Purpose: office/services space, 2,788,897 feet of industrial space, 11 elementary schools, 4 middle schools, 5 high schools. The Committee requested that data from parcels west of CR951 be removed from material presented to them at the next meeting to see a clearer picture of the Study area. The consultant described how the model accounts for swings within the economic cycle, and the implications to the rate of development by providing for a time frame of 50 to 100 years, which allows for the pattern of the economic cycle to ameliorate over such a lengthy time frame. Also at the meeting the Committee provide input to the public consultant regarding survey distribution strategy and specifics of survey questions. The Committee approved the addition of a presentation concerning Stormwater at the April 2008 Horizon Study meeting. Monday, January 14, 2008 beginning at 7:00 P.M. Collier County UF /IF AS Extension Education & Training Center located at 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34120, Collier County, Florida Transportation staff provided the Public a presentation concerning the long range road network improvements within the Study area. January was the fourth "official" Public Participation meeting held by the Committee and was centered upon Transportation. The presentation from Transportation focused upon the three potential outlays provided for by the Preliminary Study and the impacts of generators and attractors within the field of transportation planning. Three basic types of roadways were described showing the differences between a rural and an urban designed roadway highlighted to allow for the public participants to make choices as to what they felt was important to future roadway design in the Study area. The public was lead through an exercise of allocating a limited budget to design a hypothetical roadway, in order to determine what the preferences of the group were. The general consensus of the attending public was that functionality was more important than additional amenities, with only the basic amenities for the rural setting and mid-range amenities for the more urban settings of the Study area. A few preferences were expressed by the attendees from the surveys returned at the public participation meeting. These areas expressed as high priorities regarding transportation infrastructure were: providing for traffic signals at major intersections, adding lanes to improve road capacity and providing for signs and travel advisories on lane closures. Landscaping medians and street lighting were ranked as low priorities by the attending public. Tuesday, February 12, 2008 beginning at 7:00 P.M. Collier County UF /IF AS Extension Education & Training Center located at 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34120, Collier County, Florida Collier County Public Schools staff presented a preliminary presentation of various potential options for facilities and services in portions and/or the entire east of CR951 study area.y 1-16 Summary: Time: Location: Purpose: Summary: The first ofthe two Horizon Study meetings held in February focused on a presentation to the Committee from the Collier County School District. The presentation focused upon the methodology the District uses for school planning with the five, ten and twenty-year plans updated on a yearly basis to adjust for population growth. The difficulties of locating schools within the Golden Gate Estates are related to land assembly and access. Planning tools described by the presenter included tracking population by utilizing TAZ's across the County and estimating the number of students growing up in the grades through the Cohort Survival Method. Coordination with other public facility providers, in addition to developers, is critical to being able to "site" future schools. In response to a Committee question, the presenter stated the School District has a good rapport with the Parks Department and with the Sheriffs Department. Additionally, there is contact with the County's Water Management District, although the School District puts in its own wells and package treatment plants at each school site. The School District has been working with both the Fire Departments and the EMS Departments in regard to future schools. A point was made that the developments in the Rural Fringe and the Eastern Lands are required to provide acreage for future school sites. A reoccurring question from the Committee and the public centered on what the trigger was for the District to initiate the planning and construction of a new school. It is when an existing school reached 80percent of capacity. Tuesday, February 19, 2008 beginning at 7:00 P.M. Collier County UF/IFAS Extension Education & Training Center located at 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34120, Collier County, Florida The East of951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study Public Participation Master Committee held a working meeting to discuss the end survey and the development ofthe Collier County Interactive Growth Model. The second February Horizon Study meeting focused on an update to the development of the Collier Interactive Growth Model (CIGM). The consultant addressed the issues that were raised by the Committee during the December 18, 2007 meeting and presented the baseline information for the area exclusive to the east of CR951 area. The consultant stated they had reworked the Model's computer program to develop two areas; the first to incorporate market penetration, and the second to incorporate the revisions which were requested by the Committee. Additionally, commercial data was verified for the revised Model, as well as data for fire stations, school, community parks, and industrial parks. The Committee provided the consultant feedback concerning inaccuracies within the baseline data according to their knowledge of the Study area. The consultant stated sub-Models for commercial uses, schools, parks, and fire stations will be developed from the build-out scenario to determine the probable demand by the population for these facilities over time. The data 1-17 Time: Location: Purpose: Summary: output is in 5-year increments, and that the build-out is not a static Model and can and will be changed as development and regulations evolve. When questioned as to which area of t infrastructure build-out to target first, the consultant stated the influence of the private sector will help to rank the priorities and that infrastructure follows growth as closely as possible. The object of the Model is to try to forecast the population and demand as accurately as possible so that the infrastructure in place will achieve maximum utilization. The Committee pointed out that all infrastructure and service providing facilities should be more closely examined to see if there are similarly located facilities providing the same services; the County might not need to provide the same level of service immediately. It could be an important consideration during this particular penod of budgetary constraints. Monday, March 10,2008 beginning at 7:00 P.M. Collier County UF /IF AS Extension Education & Training Center located at 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34120, Collier County, Florida School District staff provided the Public a presentation concerning the long range school improvements within the Study area. The March Horizon Study meeting was an "official" Public Participation Meeting with a presentation from the School District. The public was provided the seven goals for school planning; Build space for students/programs - capacity; Coordinate with other departments; Update schools on a systematic schedule to address changing educational program needs; Provide funding for maintenance and renovation; Implement an instructional technology plan for each school; Provide for the systematic replacement of equipment and materials and Develop a fiscally responsible long-range facilities plan. Additionally, the methodology behind the Districts school population projections was described which includes the Student Generation Multiplier and Cohort Survival Methods. A question was asked concerning how students would be accommodated if there were no room in a particular area, and if students would be bused to another school. The presenter replied that if emollment does not exceed capacity; the building of a high school in a particular area may be delayed. If there is space available in an adjoining school, the students may be placed at that school. The School Board decides how to balance the District's school population. The majority of public questions included specific locations and issues facing individual school sites. When a question was asked about going vertical (with a second story) was a better solution than having to build a new school, the District representative stated a 2-story high school could go up to four stories and there is a prototype for a two-story middle school, but it is not successful for elementary schools because Kindergarten through second grade classes cannot be located on a second floor level. A question was asked concerning how land is selected for a new school and responded to by ]-]8 Time: Location: Purpose: Summary: stating a site feasibility study is performed. Other criteria examined included: What schools need to be relieved; What is the relationship of the proposed school to the existing community; What is the environmental impact of developing the land; What is the transportation network in the area - are sidewalks built or allowed? The presenter added that the State would not allow a School District to release funds unless the District could show that, at the time of opening, the proposed school would be filled to 2/3 capacity. This policy is set up as a reactionary response and that any change would have to come from the legislative level. Monday, April 14, 2008 beginning at 7:00 P.M. Collier County UF/IF AS Extension Education & Training Center located at 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34120, Collier County, Florida The Collier County Flood Plain Committee provided a presentation to the Horizon Committee of the work to date regarding watershed planning efforts and public awareness efforts. The April meeting was the Horizon Study's final (6th) Public Participation Meeting centered on Stormwater Management. The presenters for the meeting were the Collier Flood Plain Committee and Collier County Soil and Water District. The Flood Plain Committee provided a summary of its work over the past 13 months of its public outreach program designed to improve the FEMA flood zone rating for the County. One of the primary goals of the Flood Plain Management Plan was to improve the cost of flood insurance throughout the County and to assist in the safe development of areas prone to flooding. The public was asked to provide information related to flood issues near their homes to help complete the Committee's understanding of all the issues within the County. The presenter from the Collier Soil and Water District stated that water management is one of the most difficult and complex problems for the County and that a study to define the water shed issue is targeted for completion in 20 I o. One of the goals of the study is to define a "water shed" --- water quality and water quantity. Additionally, there is evidence to suggest the wetlands in Collier County have shrunk by 40 to 50 percent, and there can never be true "restoration" because the land can never go back to the way it was ("base natural condition"). The Soil and Water District is attempting to determine what the condition of the land was from a given point in time in order to explore what future possibilities might be. He stated that one of the missing components from Collier County's planning is a specific Land Management Plan. The presenter concluded by stating, The Soil and Water Conservation District is working to find a solution to the problem of retaining water, and it will be achieved through a combination of efforts with state and local agencies and by the regulation of discharge/run-off water. The meeting concluded with a discussion of the screening questionnaire and the Committee providing direction for a May 12, 2008 mailing date for the questionnaire. 1-19 Time: Location: Purpose: Summary: Time: Location: Purpose: Summary: Monday, May 12,2008 beginning at 7:00 P.M. Collier County UF/IF AS Extension Education & Training Center located at 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34120, Collier County, Florida The East of 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study Public Participation Master Committee held a working meeting to discuss the end survey and the development of the Collier County Interactive Growth Model. The May meeting for the Horizon Study provided for presentation from both consultants associated with the Study. The public research consultant provided an update for the mailing of the preliminary survey, Monday May 19, 2008. The Committee made a few modifications to specific questions within the survey and noted that the survey is a method of collecting information, and that it would not be a final determining factor in the Committee's recommendations. The Committee voted unanimously to move the June meeting out a week to allow for discussion of returned surveys. The Collier Interactive Growth Model (CIGM) consultant provided a final presentation on the baseline data and responded to the final Committee questions and concerns related to the information. The consultant indicated that the intention was to present the baseline data for the build-out scenario at the July meeting and that the data would cover what the build-out would be in terms of dwelling units and the square footage of commerciallindustrial area, among other topics. There was discussion concerning future potential credits generated within the Eastern Lands and the effect that would have on the Build-Out scenario, related to the number of credits allowed per acre for entitlement. County Staff stated there were discrepancies between the 2005 Build-out Study and the real time numbers generated from existing, approved projects. The differences would be factored into the Growth Model. Monday, June 16,2008 beginning at 7:00 P.M. Collier County UF/IF AS Extension Education & Training Center located at 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34120, Collier County, Florida The East of 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study Public Participation Master Committee held a working meeting to discuss the results of the screening survey and the development of the second tier survey. The June meeting for the Horizon Study provided for a discussion of the preliminary survey return response and direction as to the manner in which the findings of that survey were to be presented at the July meeting. The Committee arrived upon consensus to group the returned responses by zip code to allow for geographical interpretation of the results. Additionally, the Committee reviewed the individual position points compiled by staff and eliminated and refined the points to move forward for the final report. The Committee requested that the position points be 1-20 Time: Location: Purpose: Summary: Time: Location: Purpose: grouped by category, e.g. Transportation or EMS, and that the revised and categorized list be sent to the Committee before the July meeting. Monday, July 14, 2008 7:00 P.M. Collier County UF /IF AS Extension Education & Training Center located at 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34120, Collier County, Florida The East of 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study Public Participation Master Committee held a working meeting to discuss the results of the screening survey and the development of the second tier survey. The July meeting for the Horizon Study provided for a discussion on the manner in which the survey results are to be presented within the final report. The Committee requested that the returned responses be shown based upon zip code, showing the percentage of returned responses compared against the total number of surveys sent. 2,150 surveys were sent out, with 602 returned, for a 28 percent return rate. The discussion covered the patterns of significant responses revealed by the survey. Traffic signalization at major intersections received the highest level of importance designation from the respondents, with turn lanes at major road intersections the second highest issue to receive an important designation. It should be noted that all of the top five issues of importance were transportation related. The bottom five issues of importance related to water. The next topic of discussion was the upcoming August meeting where the Committee voted to have the meeting on the 18th of August and the Committee voted to not allow any public presentations beyond the standard 3 to 5 minute time limit. The final topic of discussion was the build-out results of the Collier County Interactive Growth Model (CIGM). The build-out results were distributed to the Committee and the consultant pointed out that the number of projected units and population at build out was significantly less that the 2005 Build-Out Study projected. The difference at build out was 180,000 less people projected for the Study area. The amount of square footage for commercial and industrial land uses was discussed, with a recognition that the amount of commercial square footage projected by the CIGM indicated that there would be a shortage of commercial square footage to support the projected population if the regulations existing today held steady. The final component of the CIGM discussion centered upon how the model determines market area for the various commercial categories, e.g. neighborhood, regional, commercial ect. . . . Wednesday, September 3, 2008 7:00 P.M. Collier County UF/IF AS Extension Education & Training Center located at 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34120, Collier County, Florida The East of 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study Public Participation Master Committee held a working meeting to discuss the 1-21 Summary: Time: Location: Purpose: Summary: results of the screening survey and hear a presentation on the Golden Gate Estates Bridge Study. The September 3rd meeting for the Horizon study provided for a brief presentation of the survey results tabulated in a table format with further sub-groupings by zip code and demographics. The Public Participation Consultant indicated that the results would be further refined with a narrative provided for the Horizon Study's meeting held on September 8th. Following the survey results, Transportation Planning provided a summary of the Estates Bridge Study to the Committee. As indicated the specifics of that particular study are provided for in a latter portion of this report. The Committee motioned to include the Bridge Study as part of the Final report to the BCC. Following the Bridge Study, the Committee heard a presentation from Dr. Sparks Lunney, Director, S.W. Florida Operations National Multiple Sclerosis Society. The presentation centered upon the increased health risks associated with increased air pollution related to increased automobile usage. The presentation was included to provide for the potential consequences of the completion of the bridge work contained in the Bridge Study. A copy of the paper (appendix C) presented to the Committee was unanimously approved to be included as part the Final Report at the meeting. After the presentation from Doctor Lunney, the Committee heard a presentation from Dennis Vasey of the Collier Soil and Water Conservation District. Mr. Vasey provided an overview and responded to questions regarding a letter sent from Soil and Water to the Horizon Study Committee urging the Committee to support the District's position advocating a county-wide surface water management plan that could augment the watershed management plan tentatively scheduled for 2009. The Committee by a vote of 10 to 1 agreed to include the letter from Soil and Water to the Committee as part of the Final Report to the BCC. The Committee as a last order of business, by a vote of 9 to 1 with one member abstaining, decided to stay on schedule with the September 29th presentation to the BCC. The Committee, by unanimous vote, added on additional meeting the week of September 22nd through the 26th to hear the presentation Chairman McDaniel will provide to the BCC at the September 29th Horizon Study workshop. Monday, September 8, 20087:00 P.M. Collier County UF/IFAS Extension Education & Training Center located at 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34120, Collier County, Florida The East of 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study Public Participation Master Committee held a wrap-up meeting to discuss the final presentation to the Board of County Commissioners scheduled for the 29th of September. The September 8th meeting for the Horizon study provided for a final presentation from the public research consultant to provide the final narratives and tables associated with the return survey responses. The 1-22 Committee voted unanimously to include the table narratives with the report going to the BDD at the 29th of September. The Committee also unanimously voted to have the consultant provide more descriptive narratives to the tables in the final public research report, which will be an attachment to the Horizon Study final report. The second and final agenda item centered upon the Committee's approval of the Position Points contained at this section of the Horizon Report. Each of the position points were reviewed and approved as presented or as amended by the Committee. The final action taken by the Committee was for a fmal, "unofficial" meting to be held at the agricultural Extension Center on the 23rd of September to allow for the Committee Chairman to give the presentation for the September meeting with the BCC to all Horizon Study Committee members interested. Screenine: Survev At the conclusion of the Public Participation meetings the Horizon Study Committee, through the public research consultant sent out 2,150 surveys to a sample of the Study area asking questions on infrastructure and services preferences and opinions. The map on the following page displays the distribution of the sample survey and the return rate for each of the voting precincts which comprise the study area. Following the map are tables of the returned survey and descriptive narrative of the information contained with those tables. The results of the returned surveys provided a portion of the basis and justification for the position points the Committee is providing to the BCC for their consideration. The distributed survey has been provided as Exhibit "D" within this report. Following the tables and narrative are the position points approved by the Master Committee which represent the areas of concern and opportunity voiced by the general public through the series of public meetings and distributed surveys. 1-23 l{) en 0:::(1) ~ 0-, LL::J 0(1) w ~o::: (1)>- <(w w> >-0::: ~::> ~~ ~ 0::: 0 t WW -0::: -'0- -' o o Q Z ~ .... z o ~ u u: in ~ U) ~ ~ :3~~~~~ o 12 l"") ...~ ;: ~ cry cr;,; ~ C('~*C:~CDD !z F'-- ;:: ;! en .- ~ DDI~ICJi /1' ( I J--- " II f I / ( ;1 ---------.---f /- ------ -'---------, [/ ( I J ( . e~~ ~~i .~~ ~~~ I ~ ~~~ Ii~~ ~~~ ! ~ ~ i! ~; h .. I~ o 1-24 Introduction The draft tables provided in this report of preliminary findings are based on the written responses of 598 persons living in zip codes defined as the Golden Gates Estates, from Immokalee directly south to Everglades City, Copeland, and Chokoloskee areas. The survey "COLLIER COUNTY WANTS YOUR OPINION" was sent to 2,150 persons, achieving an above-average response rate of28 percent. Regarding the zip code divisions on the table: to minimize confusion, Fraser & Mohlke Associates (F&M) has grouped zip codes that are in geographical proximity and have fewer responders. They are 34142 and 34143, the Immokalee area, and 34135 and through 34139, Everglades City and surrounding areas to the southeast. Each table is a summary of the answers to each of the questions in the survey. Tables demonstrate the actual number of responses from each of the zip codes or zip code groups and the percentage those actual numbers are of the total'. Tables also show the number of "No Answers" to each question A "base" table is included for each of the questions. For example, concerning statements 1 and 2, under "A. DRIVING ON COUNTY ROADS", the responses to statement 1. "Please tell us about how you got from your home to where you work and shop during the last 30 days", show the actual number of responses concerning driving and riding habits, and the percentage of that number to the whole. Below are the responses to the statements concerning the importance of specific entities associated with driving or riding on roads, such as the importance of traffic sig- nals and street lighting. These responses are shown according to the degree of impor- tance from 1 to 10 with 10 being the most important. For example 419 responders, or 70 percent said that traffic signals at major inter- sections were of MOST importance while four responders said they were LEAST impor- tant as one reads down and across the table. In the case of emergency medical services and law enforcement statements, responders were asked as well to circle a number from 1 to lOon a scale of poor to excellent. The base table is then shown with subsets demonstrating the median score of each zip code area representing the degree of importance. 1-25 These tables include cross-tabulation of respondent characteristics as shown on the left hand side of the table. For example, they include age cohort, persons per house- hold, and whether the household includes persons younger than 18 years of age. Subsets also include cross-referencing by type and tenure of residence and by the major roadways within the Horizon Study area, If a base table question has been answered without ambi- guity, a positive response indicated by all zip codes, then a subset table was not included. Above the body of each of the subset tables, each representing a single question, is the overall median for 598 responses. This median is noted as well under each of the statements in the survey. The median score for each of the zip code areas can be com- pared to the overall median score. Comparisons show the degree of importance ex- pressed by responders to each question in each of the zip code areas. For example, under the base table concerning driving on County Roads is a ques- tion concerning the importance of street lighting along the roads the responder travels regularly and a cross-reference table of age cohorts; a total of 158 responders were in the age cohort of 55 to 64 years. The overall mean expressed under the statement is 8.00. Of this age 55 to 64 years cohort, the total mean is 7.5, just below the mean for 598. Those in zip codes 34242 and 34143 and "Other" expressed a mean of 7, and those in zip codes 34135 through 34139 expressed a mean of 6. The other zip codes reflect the total mean- 8.00. Those zip codes mentioned above, brought the mean down one half a point. Responders were also asked pertinent demographic questions in order to under- score the range of survey respondents by gender, type of residence, tenure of residence, household size, and whether family members were over or under the age of 18. / 1-26 Question A. Base Table for Questions 1. and 2. Of the 598 responders, 545, or 91 percent, drive their own vehicle to work and to shop. Another 38 persons of those surveyed, or 6 percent, are driven by a family mem- ber, friend or neighbor. Eleven, or 2 percent, don't drive. Another 8, or 1 percent, ride a bike. Seven walk or ride a bus. Of the nine statements in this group, the following analysis is ordered according to the statement receiving the highest number of ratings of 10, rated the most important by responders arranged, and the statements receiving the fewest number of the highest rating of lain descending order. Added to this is a description of the numbers of re- sponders and percent of responders giving each statement a rating of 6 to 10, on the "Im- P?rtant" side of the scale. All question received a 50 percent or more rating by those who rated them at 6 or above, except landscaped medians. Of the 598 responders, 419, or 70 percent, rated "Traffic signals at major inter- sections" as ala, indicating that they believed this statement is the most important of the statements concerning driving on County roads. Those rating this statement at 6 or above on the scale of importance were 559 responders, or 93 percent, a clear "mandate" to provide and maintain major intersection traffic signals. Of the 598, "Right and left turn lanes at major road intersections" received the second highest most important rating by 381, or 64 percent, of the responders. However, when those responses from 6 to 10 and over are taken into account, 590 or 95 percent indicated that turn lanes at major road intersections were ofhigh importance. "Adding lanes to improve road capacity" was third highest in the scale of impor- tance, with 250 of the 598, or 42 percent of the responders, indicating this as a 10 as most important. Those rating it at 6 or above were 508, or 85 percent, ofthe responders. Of the 598 responders, 229, or 38 percent, rated "Street lighting near schools" as a 10 or most important. This statement received the fourth highest. Those rating this statement at 6 or above were 476, or 80 percent, of the responders. 1-27 Fifth highest in the scale of importance was the statement "Street lighting along the roads I travel regularly" with 214, or 36 percent, rating this as 10 on the scale. When those giving this statement a comparatively positive rating at 6 or above are taken into account, the total is 428, or 72 percent, of the responders. Of the 598 responders, a total of 153, or 26 percent, rated "Bicycle and pedestrian lanes on major roads" as the sixth highest on the scale with a rating of 10 or most impor- tant. Those rating this statement at 6 or above were 355, or 59 percent ofthe responders. The seventh highest was "Public bus transportation" with 152 or 25 percent rat- ing it a lOon the importance scale. Adding those rating it at 6 or above, the total is 358, or 60 percent. "Bicycle and pedestrian lanes on local roads" was rated as a 10 by 149 respond- ers, or 25 percent, the eighth highest with a rating of 10. But those giving it a rating of 6 or above were 332 responders, or 56 percent. Lowest rated in this group is "Landscaped medians" with 63 or 11 percent of re- sponders rating it as a lOon the scale of importance. Those rating it as a 6 or above were 269 responders, or 45 percent. This is the only question in this group that received a less than 50 percent favorable rating overall. Within this group of statements are subsets of tables that cross reference the statement by the responder's age, and the ages of family members. The subsets also in- clude these same questions analyzed by roads driven regularly and type and tenure of residence. Question B. Base Table for Questions 1. and 2. According to base table B, of the 598 responders, a total of 325 households, or 54 percent, have a well on their property that provides drinking water for their homes. An- other 313 households, or 52 percent, have a septic tank on their property providing wastewater disposal for their homes. Twenty-one percent of the 125 responders live in a development that provides water and sewer services. Another 48, or 8 percent, get water from a special district. Fourteen percent, or 82 respondents, get water. from Collier County. Another 1 ~8, or 20 percent, pay a fee for water and sewer services, and 10 or 2 percent don't know who provides water and sewer for their household. 1-28 Of 598 responders 171 or 29 percent indicated by circling a 10 on the scale of 1 to 10 that "A new potable water system is desirable in order to provide quality drinking water to residents living east of County Road 951 /Collier Boulevard" as most important. When considering those responders who circled a 6 or above, the number is 379 or 47 percent who believe a new potable-water .system is important. Of the total, 21 or 4 per- cent did not circle any number and are recorded as "No Answers". Those who circled 10, most imp0l1ant for the statement, "A new wastewater treatment system is desirable to provi,de a safe and sanitary method for collection and treating sewage created east of County 9511Collier Boulevard" were fewer than the first question, 158 or 26 percent. Those who circled 6 or above were slightly fewer than the previous question, 270, or 45 percent of the responders. Question C. Base Table for Questions 1. and 2. Question C. concerns parks and recreation. In answer to the first statement, 293 responders, or 49 percent, indicated that they themselves or someone in the family had used available recreation facilities at one or more County parks. Of the 598, 357 of the total, or 60 percent, indicated that a County park is within five miles of their residence. Considering the scale questions, when asked about the importance of County parks providing quality and adequate facilities for family use, 180 responders, or 30 per- cent, indicated it was most important. Those persons who circled a 6 or above were 394 responders, or 63 percent of the total. The second question concerning the need for new County parks with additional recreational opportunities east of County Road 951/Collier Boulevard received the sec- ond highest number of "1 Os", 139 responders circled 10, or 21 percent. However, those circling 6 or above were 292 responders, or 48 percent. Five percent, or 28 responders, had no answer regarding County park needs east of County Road 9511Collier Boulevard. 1-29 .-- ~,-- .. .....""...-...'--"._"."-,~" When asked if park facilities near their homes will meet their needs for at least the next 10 years, a total of 128 responders, or 21 percent, said this was most important to them. Of the total 41, or 7 percent, had no answer. Those who circled a 6 or above were 326 responders, or 55 percent, who were in basic agreement that park facilities near their homes will meet their needs for at least the next 10 years. Question D. Base Table for Questions 1. and 2. Regarding County Libraries, 392 responders or two-thirds said they or a family member had visited a library during the last year. In answer to a library being 5 miles or less from their homes, 284, or 47 percent, checked "Yes". Concerning the scale questions, a library located convenient to their neighbor- hood, received the highest number of "I Os", 197 or one-third of the responders. When considering those who circled 6 or above, that number was 393, or 62 percent. The second question regarding libraries nearby meeting family needs for the next 1 0 years: 171, or 29 percent, circled 1 0, as most important. Those who circled 6 or above included 393 responders, or 62 percent, almost two-thirds feeling that enough li- braries exist now to meet a I O-year need. Six percent, or 34 responders, had no answer. The third question regarding libraries serving the needs of families east of County Road 951 had the smallest number circling 10, 273 responders, or 46 percent. Again, 6 percent, or 35 responders, did not answer. Question E. Base Table for Questions 1. and 2. When asked about their use of public schools for community meetings or other recreational activities during the past year, 241 responders, or 40 percent, said they or a family member had attended a meeting or some other activity at a public school. Considering the number of those having a family member attending a Collier County public school for at least one year totaled 219 responders, or 37 percent, answer- ing "Yes". 1-30 Of the three questions in this group, providing bike paths and sidewalks close to school locations received the most circled "IDs", numbering 226 responders, or 38 per- cent. The number of those who circled 6 and above were 407 or 68 percent, a significant indication that responders think bike paths and sidewalks close to schools are very im- portant. Nine percent, or 53 responders, circled "No Answer ". Second in this group is the statement that schools are located convenient to the "neighborhood I live in", with 176 responders, or 29 percent, circling 1 0 as most impor- tant and 324, or 54 percent, circling 6 of above. Eight percent, or 48 responders, did not answer. Concerning the use of schools to support community activities and events, 169 or 28 percent circled 10. Of the 598 persons answering the questionnaire, a total of 362 re- sponders, or 61 percent, circled 6 or above. Another 38, or 6 percent, did not answer. Question F Base Table for Questions 1. and 2. When asked about emergency medical services, 242 responders, or 40 percent, said they have called Collier EMS for a medical emergency, while 295 or 49 percent had never called for help. Consequently, because so many had no direct experience with EMS, 287 responders, or 48 percent, had no answer to whether or not EMS provides high quality medical treatment to injured person, while 164, or 27 percent, circled 10 as most important. Those circling 6 or above on a scale of "Poor" (1) to "Excellent" (10) were 303, or 51 percent. lIthe "no answer" responses are taken out, the number of those an- swering this question is 311, and those circling 6 or above, is 303, or 97 percent. Of the 598, 278 responders, or 46 percent, had no answer to the statement that EMS responds quickly and efficiently when called, while 158 or 26 percent circled 10. Those circling 6, on a scale of "Poor" (1), to "Excellent" (10) and above were 308, or 52 percent. If the 278 who didn't answer the question are taken out, then the percent satis- fied, having circled 6 and above, 158, is 96 percent. The great majority of those with some experience with EMS, then, are satisfied with response time and quality of treat- ment. 1-31 Question G Base Table for Questions 1. and 2. When asked to rate the performance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office in re- sponding to calls for service "in your neighborhood" from Poor to Excellent, 82 respond- ers, or 14 percent, had no answer while 156 or 26 percent circled 10. Those circling 6 or above numbered 418 or 70 percent of the 598 total. If those who had no answer are not included, 81 percent indicated satisfaction with the Sheriff's Office by circling 6 or above on a Poor/Excellent scale of 1 to 10. Those who did not answer that statement "Investigating suspicious activity in your neighborhood" were 93 or 16 percent. Those who rated this question as a 10 num- bered 136 or 23 percent. Those who rated it on the Poor to Excellent scale as a 6 or above were 384 or 64 percent. When those who had no answer are not included, those circling 6 or above are 76 percent. Responders who answered these two questions ap- pear to be quite satisfied with law enforcement and investigations, 81 percent and 76 percent respectively. Question H Base Table for Questions 1. and 2. Of the 598 responders, 97, or 16 percent, have called a local Fire District because of an emergency while 423, or 71 percent, have not. When asked how important it is to locate a Fire Station in conjunction with other emergency agencies including EMS and law enforcement, 285 responders, or 48 percent, circled 10 as most important. Totaling up those who circled 6 or above on the scale, the number is 489, or 82 percent, indicating a general agreement that consolidation of first responder services would be important. The "No Answers" were 43 or 7 percent. The statement "Bridging over canals and linking dead-end roads near where I live are needed to improve response times for fire districts, EMS, and law enforcement" was circled as most important by 186 or 31 percent of the responders. Fifty-nine respondents, or 10 percent, did not answer. Those who circled 6 or above on the importance scale were 319 individuals constituting 53 percent or a majority of responders. Another 195 04 33 percent or one-third circled 1 through 4 on the scale of importance, indicating they did not feel bridging canals in the area was all that necessary to improve response time. 1-32 Question I Base Table for Questions 1. and 2. When asked about personal experiences with flood control, 107 responders, or 18 percent, said they have had flooding on their property during the past five years. Another 5 responders, or nearly 1 percent, said floodwater had entered their homes within the past five years. Another 66 responders, or 11 percent, said flooding makes it difficult to drive on the streets near their residence. Another 9 responders, or 2 percent, said flooding on their property had obstructed their wastewater septic system. Eleven, or 2 percent, said flooding had caused problems for their water-well system. But 453 responders, or 76 percent, said they don't have serious flooding problem on their property. Of 598, 103 responders, or 17 percent, agreed that it was most important by cir- cling 10, that flooding should be reduced on the roads they travel regularly. Those who circled 6 or above were 249 responders or 42 percent. Those who thought this was not important, circling 1, 2, 3, or 4 were 222 or 37 percent. Those who did not answer were 67, or 11 percent. When asked if drainage ditches on their property should be widened to control flooding, 68 or 11 percent circled 10 as most important. Those circling 6 or above in im- portance were 166 or 41 percent. "No Answers" were 78 responders, or 13 percent. Those answering on the "Not Important" range of 1,2,3, or 4 were 296 or 49 percent. Just 70 responders, or 12 percent, felt it was most important by circling 10, to in- stall new drainage culverts at intersections near their property. Those who circled 6 or above were 196 or 33 percent or one-third of the responders. The number of those who did not feel installing culverts was so important, circling 1, 2, 3, or 4, were 248, or 41 percent. Those who did not circle any number, or provided a "No Answer" were 88 or 15 percent. Responders were asked to check how often they drove certain roads in their areas. East/West Roads included, Immokalee, Oil Well, Randall Boulevard, and Golden Gate Boulevard. Of the responders 157 or 26 percent indicated that they traveled lmrriokalee Road every day to go to work or to shop; 275 or 46 percent indicated "Any Day" or spo- radic travel along Immokalee Road, and 55 or 9 percent said they never used lmmokalee Road. Nineteen percent did not respond. 1-33 Regarding Oil Well Road, 54, or 9 percent, indicated they used it everyday, while 158 or 26 percent used this road sporadically to go to work or to go shopping, and 190 or 32 percent indicated they never traveled this road. One-third, or 196 individuals, did not respond. Randall Boulevard had the fewest "Every Day" travelers, 53, or 9 percent, with 109, or 18 percent, using it sporadically and 218, or 36 percent, never traveling this road for work or shopping. Those who did not respond were 218 individuals, or 36 percent Golden Gate Boulevard had the most "Every Day" travelers of this east/west group of roads, 179 or 28 percent indicating that they travel it every day for work or shopping. Another 225 or 38 percent use it sporadically, and 62 responders or 10 percent never use Golden Gate Boulevard. Of the 598, 141, or 24 percent, did not respond. The North/South Roads queried about were County Road 951/Collier Boulevard, Wilson Boulevard, Everglades Boulevard, and Desoto Boulevard. County Road 951 had by far had the most "Every Day" travelers, 334 or 56 percent of the responders. Spo- radic travelers on this road were 194 or 32 percent, and 12 or a mere 2 percent indicated they never traveled County Road 951. Those who did not provide a response were 58 individuals, or 10 percent Regarding Wilson Boulevard, 50 responders, or 8 percent, indicated they use it every day, while 190 responders, or 32 percent, use it sporadically. But 165 responders, or 28 percent, checked "Never". Those who gave no answer were 193, or 32 percent Everglades Boulevard is traveled every day by 60 responders, or 10 percent, while 134, or 22 percent, of the responders use it sporadically. However 209 or 35 percent never travel on Everglades Boulevard. Those not answering were 195, or 33 percent Desoto Boulevard is the least used among these north/south roads, with 25 re- sponders, or 4 percent, using it very day; 66, or 11 percent, using it sporadically; and 278, or 46, percent, never using it Desoto also had the most "No Answers", 228 or 38 per- cent Demographic Information Of the 598 responders, 33 persons, or 6 percent, did not indicate their gender. A total of 288 responders, or 48 percent, were female, and 277, or 46 percent, were male. 1-34 In regard to the type of residence they live in: 57 responders, or 10 percent, did not indicate their type of residence. Another 44, or 7 percent, live in condominiums; 40, or 7 percent live in mobile homes; 7, or 1 percent, live in rental apartments; and 450 or 75 percent live in single-family homes. Regarding tenure of residence, 55 responders gave no answer; 42, or 7 percent, have lived in their residence since before 1986, another 49, or 8 percent, moved to their residence between 1986 and 1990; 63, or 11 percent, moved to their residence between 1991 and 1995; 112 responders or 19 percent moved to their present residence between 1996 and 2000; another 190 or 32 percent moved to their present residence between 2001 and 2003; and 87 or 15 percent moved to their present residence between 2006 and 2008. A little over 65 percent of the survey responders are relatively new, either to the surveyed areas, to a new home within the survey area or even to Collier County as a whole.2 were 24 years of younger; 25, or 4 percent, were 25 to 34 years of age; 77, or 13 percent, were 35 to 44 years of age; 13, or 19 percent, were 45 to 54 years; 160 or 27 percent were 55 to 64 years; and 188 or 31 percent were 65 or older Of household size and ages, 36 responders, or 6 percent, provided no answer; 117, or 20 percent, indicated that one person over 18 lived in his or her residence; 325 or 54 percent were 2 person households over the age of 18; 80, or 13 percent, were three per- son households over the age of 18; and 40, or 7 percent, were four person households over the age of 18. Another 55 responders or 9 percent provided no answer. Of households with family members under 18: 469 or 78 percent had no one un- der 18 years of age; 59, or 10 percent, had one household member under 18; 50, or 8 per- cent, had two persons over 18; 14, or 2 percent, had three members under 18; and 6, or 1 percent, had 4 household members under the age of 18. 1-35 ...... 1tiI/Oi._...........' 0) 0) 0) CX)M ~~ .0 ..-"" ~X mg o. .0 a.. a.: . CD ~ CO ~ <po ~~ BROWARO COUNl'f COLUER COUNl'f DADE COUNl'f COlliER COUNl'f z U) W Q o U 0- - N co 'C .E: o u: ;5- c: ::s 8 ... .~ (5 u ~ ~ z z is is u u ~ ffi o ::l ~ g ;;: ~ o z w C) W -J 11. N Ie ..J. ~ ~ ZZ 88 ffi l!i ~ ~ ;& ~ II) 62: 'l,fS ..... ~ ~ ~ ~\ IS(/) ~~ \ l58~ ~ 5!!If ~ ~ Iii z5 025 G'" ~~ >-'" 2jlX &:~ "'>- lflz -,'" ...::5 f!~ z'" i35" 1:'15~ 008 ~~~ ",>- u2 s:~ Cl.- ~~~ "!$!"- ~~ B~~ "'z.... <=> ~~~ Q..U~ ~~~ ~u r::1 't#.f."fJ.Co .,..--, i--- Ii o a. W a: > W > a: ~ (I) W at: Ioof cc"'"' zlS zoe 00 I-ta= t;~ W::l :;:)0 O'u >z CO :;:)" ....~ (I)~ za= o~ Noe !:j c .... 0 0:;:; ::c g: > j ....e z ::::>> o u a: W Ioof ...I ...I o U 00 o o t'II V> >- III -0 o M .... V> !2 <l> .r. .... 01 C .C: ~ -0 0. a .r. V> "C C III ~ L- a ;;:: ~ a > <l> ~ .r. ;;:: a .... <l> E a .r.--. .... ;:, i5 ~ >0 E<.o a~ ~~ b~ 0111) 6:5 >3: ;;::.Q a <lJ .r.oQ ~~ .82; flloQ V> <lJ ~5 w:::::: .... 11) ~"i5 fll (lJ ~6 = '- ,.., c ~ V> OJ ~ 0' .r. .... .~ ~ .... a ;;:: L- a ....- a .0 .r. 01 .(ij C .... a "C c OJ E fll ...- <l> ~ E u OJ V> E E B L... .2: (f) a V> .... E ~ f3 ~ ..0 C III E ;;:: > e a .0 "- > <l> "C E ~ ~ QJ .r. a > .... .... .C C .::,t, g. u ~ Rj 1ii .C: ;;:: 01"'0-02 '6.~:5ag. a. V)~..c o ::l L. V) .cci:.oa g~~~~ BB:g&~ o b .::,t,... .8 ~ -g -g 6 &j B ;;:: ;;:: ~ ~ g, .8.B G,"" B Qj ~ oj ~ i5 5~ 4-J >- ~ -0 ...... E .... OJ ~ -c -0 fll a .i: ;;:: -0 QJ QJ > > .C .C u u c o ',- c c C QJ <l> <l> := .r. .r. .c 0' $: $: $: ...- C l'll CII'" I,j 0 ..I- Gl~ ll. 0 -$! "if!. ;j. #- '# ;f. ~ LI"J r-... ~ r.... ~ T"""I ('Y") M M M co T"""I to 0 ~ ~ 1""'1 0'1 'tI CII . ..lII: III III <Xl ,.., ~ ~ ~ M ..... <Xl ,.... ..... ':: IJ 5: iii <Xl <Xl <Xl <Xl <Xl <Xl ra'" 0'10'10>0>0>0> rtJ (:. III III III III III III 01 C .0. 0. a .r. V> ... .8 ... a ~ L- a ;;:: ~ a > <l> ... <l> .r. ;;:: a ... 01 C '6 .i: C <l> .r. ;;:: ~ a > a .... ~ 10 V> 01 C i: ... 01 C .~ .2 ;e <l> .r. .... ..... a .r. u 10 <l> .... C fll t: a 0. E ;;:: a .r. <l> .... ~ <l> V> fll OJ '. c.C;' ....- ..., C Q 10<.0 t:..., &E: ~.g ~ ~ E~ <l> ;:, .r. c:: ... QJ ;:: ~ .p~ .~ g _ <J ~ ~' a c:: .... <lJ ,.., E: ......l!:l a.l!l <l> V) B"6 V> 11) fll QJ C I... o~ = '- N C a :p V> <IJ ~ 0' 1-0 Z..t CC Ii o ll. :EG'I ... co " II) III " 1'I N I- Z CC I- ex: o ll...t :E ... I- o Z o ~ ::t ~ "l: CII- III III III 1; rtJl- c c tl CII :l iii I]. ;~': :T'~ il5; . "lir' .E. < ,~,.j .1;,:; . i;l. I :~.~; ,~.,o " 1'I~ 1!'I...o. 'i;Q eX) mif! c " ~ ~.~ III N ..,. rf.. ....v M N ~~ III N "'if! ..... .... c:i "if! ..... l.O c:i "rf. " l.O c:i "l"rf. ..... 10 c:i .... ;,I!' .... i: .... COif! .0'10 IIlC' .... >- 1: fll :5 01 ~ Qj > ~ ... ...... V> 'C III e <IJ .r. .... 01 C a iii 01 C :p .r; ,g' .... <IJ ~ .... II) . v':? ,..,0 NO> ,.... III M ~~ <D M ,.... ~~ M ,.., ,.., ~~ III r...: r;;~ M III '" $~ v Ll1 ,.., ,.., ~# co .... M ~oe .... o M ~~ <Xl <D N ~~ N Ll1 u:i Q)"$. ..., III ..; co':? 0>0 III 0 o .... mrf. ltlO o .... III c: l 1l .5, 'C ~. I- o ........ III 'E i\}. .lj '.!9 . E ~. 1iP"i i',;:! ... J:: r 01 '!i? ;., ~; 1-37 ~ iit ~.... ..... M 'P '."':1. if! 1':0..... co' ...i .... Ib~ \~ .... ~if! co, ,... .~ ~'oe tt N ~~ 6 N P'loe o. Ill' c:i Nif! P'I. M' c:i ....rf. ..... .... c:i l'Ioe o II'l c:i "t .... ...; vi -0 10 a L- m u .2 c a V> <IJ C !2 C fll 'C tl <l> U - u in ~~ ,..,N 0> -.i N ~~ M III ~~ CI:1 o ..... ~~ III ,.... :;~ 00 <D ~~ III M ,.., ~~ o u:i ~~ M vi ~~ U'l V ~~ U'l N .,.., ~~ ..., III r-,j ~~ lIlO o ,.., moe lI'lo. o .... ~ I ~. 'tI. l~! B, ..~. l! Q,. iJ I. .!!! til c 1 .C. ~:~ C"'!I;' .,.i; " oooe ..... v. p. iii' ... :;l ~. lI'l. III iii .... &; if!. fri1 m ~rf. N o LIi .....rf. MOl' .... \Ci O;!. ......... 10 ... COrf. ;;1;. ...i Nrf. M M c:i ~rf. co' 10' M ~! ;..; vi C III '6 w E u <lJ 0. III u V> 'C C fll -J ~.ge 'l' u: o .... ~~ III <Xl -.i ~# v o ..... .... ~# <D M ai ~# o N 0> ~~ N N ..... ~# <Xl ,.., vi ~~ o ,.... ~~ o r...: ~~ ,..,,.., '" ,.., N o~ ""K 10 ..; ::~; . ;to ...; ~~ III 0 o ,.., t & -g' l!l III ~ [l!. g- :~~ o g bl ,~ il.... 2'. .:0, J:: ' .fff. ~ .... Vl ;'!'. [~~ . co, M. \0 if!. '\Cl.~ .,.i! ~' :g.# .,l;il: . Pi. .... ....~. 100 .N c:i ... .~.r!-. . 01. 10 \Ci ~rf. o N m O'Ioe .... II'l ......r :!; ~. "l" M N ~r!- . ... O. N ;;:1 if! .."'" .1I'l Pi ~~ II'lO O. ,... vi 'C fll a .... ... .!2, '" E C o V> (l) C .!'? c '" .C: ..., V> <lJ 'C W 0. U C fll <lJ U >- u iii [ri~ ,..,'" u: Ll1 N :;j rf.i ....N _.~: .':-:N. ~# o N ai 1I'l.::.e' M. !hi co; iii! ~~ N .... ,.., :r'! ..... ;~ CI:1 <D ;.if! ;',. 10 ':..Pl. ',..;, ~oe N Ll1 u:i ltloe o. r-;. 00' ~~ M ,.., ,.., Rrf. .... N ...i .... ~~ <Xl \0 N N;!. N.co 10 M ~~ .... u:i ....~ Mco .... iii ~~ <Xl <D <i N oe. N :8: M ~~ N V .... 1i3rf.; CO ~; ..... O'\~ ..., III ..; l'\I~ ....... Q t',j ~~ U'l0 o ,.., moe: lI'lg, .... G:.'. . o :c ~ 8- UI c. .~ U1, ,g.. j,! :c :::l Q; . , ( I ., ( :J i , ( L L ~ C L 0: C C " Z BROWARD COUNlY COLUER COUNlY DADE COUNlY m tn "C COlliER COUNlY .1:: W 0 C iI 0 ~ 0 Z ~ ~ (.) W :::J (!) z z 0 5 5 Q. (.) w (.) U ..J >- '" - ... 15 w N .~ ~ ~ 8 z (.) .... .... .... ~ 1 I '"' !! ; a; ::i ~ ~ z z g 8 ~ cr: <Ii ffi ~ ~ '" (.) g 6C: '~fS ~ .... .... ~ 0) ~ CX)(I) i~ .0 .... " ~x mg o. .0 0.0.: \ ~~~ ! t3~!Q' ~ z o Vi i5~ 1= tl~ "'5 1-'" l5~ ~;i =>1- "'z -'w <:5 ~~ 55p ~~~ o cOLJ zZo <<0 '" I- - 'd.t z. c." <g; 5~~ :;.:w OlO e~~ "'z"" <=> f;~j;! "'0< 0..00 ~\ ~~ 5~ ~r:Jf~ 8.... ....0 ~i (;JU r:ff v.'i.'/.V;O 1-38 ~ o D. IoU a:: > IoU > a:: ::) U') IoU a:: .... <(iii Zo Z< 09 ....... I-U') ~ Z IoU::) ::)0 au >z CO ::)Cl 1-:5 U')> ... za: 00 N" ....< a::~ 0.. :t: :n ~e z ::) o u a:: IoU .... ...I ...I o U co o o N Ol e .0. 0. o J:: '" '- ,f! '- o .>L '- o ~ '" o >- ~ W .J:: ~ B Ol e '6 c e C]) J:: ~ '" o >- B C]) '- 1'0 '" Ol e :5 Ol e .j: 52 :E C]) :5 .... o J:: U 1'0 W .., e 1'0 t o 0. .~ ~ o J:: ~ ~ W '" 1'0 C]) '. c.C' ..- .... e 0 1'0" t.... &E: ~.g .. '- ~~ E E: C]) :::> :5 c:: OW ri g Z-S:! .j: .~ - <.J ~ ~.., B :n ... E: ....~ o~ w V) m-t:: u <.J '" III 1'0 QJ 8~ " '-- N e o :p '" w '" 0' iii .ll: ... ", a. " c ", III .~ ~ fco :S Q.J "- , 0 .!!!(;) o c ,.g .!!1 ~a:J ...:E ",= ell ~ C ~ 010 C ':i:i J: ~ .... ell f U) III N .. CIl C ~ <!: II) I:: oq ~.~o; g ... t::lGll ... '<i \ORGlI ~ ,..j v.~ III v~Gi ti ... (Xl~GlI ~~ ~ :fl~GlI co ti "" Ill~O va:"" ,..j .... 1'1')~. ;it ti D.':':;: ~ 19 .: ::1.0-' 8!.:i oz ... c: ell l: & ~ o 'ii .Q VI 'tl III o .. cu .s: .. c o :) Ill: ~J -= Cl 'IS e .Ioj . i: III :i "- VI GI > 'i: Q g<Cl":!J ri8cxi c:i o .... "'*11\ ~ <'i 1"'1:f1O ~ .... ~~~ ~ <'i .... ~~(J\ ...'" .... .... \0 ~g;CO \0 " .... ~~&I! "'Clll o '" ~~ .... I.t) c:i ~..:..:c C:2ra 6~:S u....cu .:;% e w ~ w 0. "l) " c Q: ~ :::: o . \0 ~..II!. co'" rYi O~O o ti O\RGl "'- iii 8~Gl "'0 10 \0 ~~GlI .... ,..j "" "'~O '"II" 0\ ,..j ""~. ~ ,..j .;,.:.. ..; ~]j c; ::I o.!l: OFl U.... oz ... c: ~ & , I -I . "'~1Il III .. ... CIO. d o ... ~~~ 1"'18Gi ti o .... ~~::: '<I" <'i '.1 U1~~ 1'1') 1'1') .... ~~"! OClll 00 "" ~*oo ...~ " 'l- ::';~ClO ...0 "l- c:i '" ~Cl"::: ~ "':f ~ c:i ';";":":c .c: 2 ~ 6~:S U....G1 0% ~ e w ~ w 0. 1: ~ .9! = c (Q .!l ~ c: III :s! ~ . ~lGll; d. .0 ... ;;)~Gl .... 10 :::~III). N"" .: ""'1' ~ O~CIO ~~ iii '" .... .... ~#Gl ~, cO ... 1l1.~ ,..j ~B c; .8:1 oz. .... .: C ~ & .~ Gl ~ '2 I i ~ . ~Cl"1I'! N8Clll c:i o .... ~~CIO M :::*~ ~ "" ;:::~fD '" r.,j O?RO o o c:i '-D~" '" \0 '" ~~co rl~ c:i \0 ~~O\ 0'1 ..... oi '" o;t~Gl ~ ..; f\I~ 00 00 c:i .j,.;":":c C .r3 ra :::I 0-- 8~1l .:;% e W u '- W 0. 1: ~ .9:! = o (Q c: c .!!l it . 1-39 v ~.. ,.11'I (Xl . .... CIO ti o .... a.~1Il lI:l '<i N~Gl ~~Gl "'- cO. :5l~CIO \0 ,..j Il1 r;;~GlI 0\ d P'l VRGl .... '" ....#. ;j!j. d 1:1 -~.. ii' us.....I-' .... ! o . ... c: ~ & '2 f i~ 1 III . ~$iI! 810 c:i o .... l""1~1t) ~ ..... <'i ,..j O~O ~ o c:i :::~.,. '" r..j .... ~ ~.oo '" cO "l- ~~co 0'1 iii 1'1') o~c o o c:i o~ o o c:i ";";":":c C:.r3ra 6~:S u....cu .;:% e C]) u '- ClJ 0.. 1! ~ .9! = Cl (Q .s ~ Q . -0 C]) .. ~ o e- o u S e '" ClJ :5 w "0 '" U E -0 e 1'0 :c u '" ClJ -0 1'0 ~ ClJ > W Ol e '6 e ::J g ai '" ClJ "'0. 1'0 0 C])J:: '- U 1'00 W-o Efi5 E-o -0 e w!!! m~ u o e -0 Q):P '- ctI 1'0.. ~~ ...0. ~-o c: -01'0 :5~ co W I"'1w ri.>L o;t VI r<) 0 ,0 r--.:.! r<) 0 ...J:: o;tU 1"'1 _ ,"0 lI)C: 1"'11'0 ria:; vo. r<) 0 ",U 1'0,,- ~ 0 1'0 ~ ~;e o e u '" 0. E N ~ * u C]) -0 , '" '" -ClJ .~ "8 >-u wo. J::- f-N , -0 -Ow '--0 1'0 '- > 0 ClJ U - W ::l '- o c:l 0 '- e w-o =ro oJ:: U'" ---0 .-I- ll) 0 Q)J:: W -0'" 1'0 '" o 0 ct:J:: :c~ eUJ '" . OLl) Uo;t ....rl oo;t ..'" "'-0 1'0 e ., 1'0 ,S: 0'1 -0'" w'" ~o;t 1'0'" u _ 0", -;;;... -0'" -o;t 01"'1 J:: ~oo ",0 0'" J::o;t 1"'1 'Ol.O'" "'0 W... "'o;t ~1"'1 '- - -oLl) 100 1'0... CJio;t el"'1 ~t E... wo;t J::r<) .. - w'" 100 ",ri -o;t ~r<) .- .... '" 0 1'0 '" W W '--0 1'0 0 W u -00. 0_ UN 0. 1'0 - w N '- 1'0 -'- e w 1'0 fJ-e 5=> '" ~ ClJ * :5 ",- W :p :i:) c: 1'0 '" cr '- o VI w '" m > -0 W r: w CJI ..0 o '0 e o :p '" ..0 E '" '6 >- u e w '" cr ~ 1'0 "- o .. e .0 0. -0 E:!:! E~ ..a:; 1'0..0 0>'- c: 0 '>. QJ -> >-0 :t::.o cl'O 1'0 Ol '" e ~~ 0::: w 0 ~>- 1'0" >::: ro15 ctI 0..0 .. 0 Ol'- en :Cim !!! '" ClJ cr '- w '- e o 1'0 01", c ._ :.p Q) o '- e w WJ:: Cl~ ., ctI c:J:: 1'0" .- J:: -ou W '" :;: '" u ~ ~ u c c " .r c J: 1: s C L '- ~ C L 0:: C C '" Z BROWARD COUNTY COLUER COUNTY DADE COUNTY m U) "C ~ COWER COUNTY 01:: W 0 Q u: 5 ~ ED 0 0 w z 8 ~ ~ (.) ::::J W z z 8 C) ~ g is 0- w (J ..J i:< 15 - ~ N o~ o ~ i3 8 Z (J 1 ~ ! .... ~ .... ~ ~ ~ 0; III ~ ~ z z g 8 f5 .... ~ ~ " ~ ~'~I"S .... .... .... ~ C) ~ CX)('i) ~~ .0 ..... ..... ~x aJg 00 00 a.. a.: . \ &80 ~ ~$5 ..- oila' ~ ~ liI z~ 00 FOUl ".... ...." Ul5 >-'" ~~ lt~ =>~ Uli3 :i~ !.10 z'" i'i5p /!!i3~ o oOW ~~8 Ul >- - (J' -" z. ~~ l'l~~ :>=LaJ mO B~~ "'z.... <=> ~~i!! (LU~ ~\ LLIIl o~ 5~ ~r:*~ U) .... 00 .... .... ~~ GUV cf \l.f.iJ.CO 1-40 .... ~ o Q. W ~ > w ~ :;) tn W a: .... <CUi' Zc zcr: 09 ....... ....~ tnz w:;) :;)0 O'u >z CO :;)~ ....! tn> ... za: Oc ~ci a: g 0:;:; :z: gJ ~e; z :;) o u a: w .... ...I ...I o U 00 o o N Ol C .0. 0. o .c: III ... .E ... o ~ o ~ ~ o >- ~ QJ .c: ~ E Ol C '6 .c C QJ .c: ~ ;:I o >- o -'" ~ ro Vl Ol .0: 5 Ol C .~ .2 :E QJ 5 .... o .c: u III QJ i- 'u lIS Q. lIS U "tl nlO e~ nl QI ~ "" 0 lIS u QlVl > c: o .!!1 aa:l E::E o~ .... Q) III > QlO c: .!!! Dl c: :s "tl cr: ~ c: t! o 0. .~ ~ o .c: QJ -'" ~ QJ Vl III QJ '. c.C" ~'.... c: 0 ro'" -e.... &eo .~ ,g ~ '- ~15 E eo QJ ::J 5<:: o QJ rl g E-Sd .~~ , u 8...- B~ rl S .... ... O-ll! QJ '" Iii-<=: u u III III III QJ 6~ = '- N C o :;::; III QJ ;:I 0' III N "'1"1 ....-1 ".-I .,. II !"Ie .. 1Il I) ~ :i!:: "l c: q; O\~rA .~:5. g ... "~rA "'\0 ... ~ \O~II! 'It.... ...; ""~rA ..,.~ o ... <Xl~rA .~ :g. fil Ltl~1lI al~ ~ ~sco o ...; ... 'It;J1 ~ o ..... .. .... '~1i Ci .::1 o..! 8El oz .... c ~ &. ~ o 'ii .Q III "0 III o .. Gl .c .. r: o '" J' 'J I '. . .Ioij . i: III :i Gl .. III Gl > ';: Q ~~LI'! Ngal c:; o ., "'*cn Cl:l 'l- r<) r"l~'I""I 0\ 'l- ~~~ 'It r<) .... ~~Cft rlO f\I c:; 1.0 ~~CIO ., 'l- " .... V~&n ~.o ...; ~~ 0\ 0\ ..; ';";':':i::: &::19.., :::J 0'- 8~i ~% C QJ := QJ 0. 1:1 111 o It ~ :-:: o . m...~!I! :'8~ .0 o ... \O~~ to "i. o~o o O\~"" "- ..; ""~i11 9~ ..; \0 ~~rA to o l\I ,..,~o ~... ...; 'It * '''1 lI'l r.i '~.~.i:l ::I ""'.!. 8:1 oz .... c: Q) l:! &. '! I' . l!!l J . ~#Ch fY)O <:> c:; <:> -. ~~~ 'It M IJ)~~ "1 "., .... <Xl~0\ ~~ 'l' ~*cn ...-0 \() " 'l- ~*cn ...f\I 0) c:i 0) ~~~ ~1O ., ., t'Y)cf o Cl:l c:i ;..;..:.: C C .IS ra: ::J 0 ,_ 8~il ~% c: 1IJ := 1IJ 0. "E ~ ~ ~ .!l ~ c: ~ & . .~.~ Gli Ltlg o C) ... O\*ClI: ""!l) ~ M ;:~GO ... r'Ii "'~rA MID ... .0 ....;J1 rA. "'Il'l NOI ...; 'It g~1lI ...~ iii '" '3.~GO 01 ID cO ... "-~ ...; .i:.i.":': i: C:B.. 8=1 0:1: .... c GJ l:! &. tot lR ~ t i i o . ~~O\ NO o c:i C) ., ~~~ Cl:l 'l' D~O <:> <:> c:i '-D~~ f\I 1.0 r'Ii ~cfC\ rllO f\I c:i 1.0 ~~O\ 1.0 f\I oi f\I V~1Il ~oO ..; i")~ ., 0) ,., ~.:.:c C2ra 6~:S U....CU ~% C QJ := QJ 0. l! ~ oS! ::! o lQ c: o ,!a ~ . 1-41 ~ ~ Ill; ~8'- d C) .... O',#.co ::g 'f N~1lI ~ ...; \O~rA "'Il'l \D cO .Ltl ;Ie 0\ O\li) "., .... Il'l ,...~O\ 1I'l.... Q) o "., q.~o ID'" .... r.i "'~ ~ .... ~:i9 ij' ::10- 8El: 0:1:' .... c ~ &. '! I ~... t .... . ~~~ gllO c:i <:> .... M~C11 "., r<) a~c C) C) c:i ~~co \0 "., r'Ii .... ~~O\ 0) c:i 'l- p:~0\ 0\ iii 0) o~o o o c:i . C) ~ o C) c:i 1.,j':"':'i:: C!Sra 6~:S U....lIl .::% C 1IJ := 1IJ 0. l! ~ oS! ::! o III .a ~ Q . 1:) 1!:l I:' o 0. '- o u .0: c: ~ ll! 5 1IJ 1:) ;:I U .0: 1:) C III C '0 III ll! 1:> ~ Q) '- QJ > W Q) c: '6 C ;:I o t cV ;:I 1IJ Vl 0. III 0 ~-5 roO 1IJ1:) .c:c -'" ro .~ "0 1:> C (])~ ~ Vl Ill~ U .2 g cu:.,::i ... ro ro~ ~~ ...0. ;;!; -g' 1:) ro ~~ <Xl QJ M 1IJ ... .:,r. ;:!;.2 ,0 r-...:,r. M 0 ....c: vU M _ ,1:) \rlC fY) ro "'w vo. fY)0 VlU Ill.... 1IJ 0 ... ro :il ~f! o C u ;:I 0. E N g * u 1IJ 1:) . ;:IVl -1IJ .~ -g >-u lIJCL t:N .1:) 1:>1IJ :tiE > 0 ll! u ~~ <0 0 ... C lIJu =(lJ o.c: UVl ::;:2 1I1 0 o;-iji U Vl ro ;:I 00 cr.c: ~.~ c:1J) ;:I 0111 Uv ....rl ov ~M VlU ro c: 1IJ ro .~ Q") uM 2~ roM .2 l.O" ",rl :2;;;: OM .c: ~ 00" ;:10 ~~ ....fY) 0", VlO 1IJ... ~~ ... - Ull1 '00 Ill.... OlV .~ M ~~.. Erl lIJV .c:fY) ~ , 1IJ'" UO .2~ ~M - .... III 0 ro III 1IJ 1IJ ~"8 OJ u "8~ UN 0. ro N ~ ro '... C 1IJ ro 5f' p ;:I ~ OJ * 5 III 1IJ Z Z C III ~ CT ... o Vl 1IJ ;:I Iii > U 1IJ ~ 1IJ Vl Ll o .... o c o Z ~ Ll C +- Vl '6 >- u C QJ ::l cr ~ ro '0 ~ C .0 0. U E;;:! E~ -'"w roLl Ol... c 0 .>. OJ - > >-0 :=:.0 C ro ro Ol ;:I c: 0-= 1...2 0.... QJ 0 ~>- ro~ >:::: Ill~ OLl ~ 0 ~5. :Pro ~;:I 1IJ CT ... QJ ::; ~ ~.~ :g fLl C 1IJ 1IJ.c: 0:::; .. III c.c: Ill-'" ~g :E III ii 1: v ~ -S 6. c c " .C c J: > ... S C c '- ~ o U <Xl o o N 0) 0) 0) co('t) ~~ ,0 .....,.... ~>< cog dd ~a.: . CoD ..- CO ~i BROWARD COUNTY COLUER COUNTY DADE COUNTY COWER COUNTY z co "C "C .2 LL ~ ::::J 8 ~ ~ "0 () ~ ~ a Z o [3 ~ ei 15 ~ ~ 0 ..- "lit ..- ~ c z w C!) W -I ~ ... ... vi :j ~ ~ Z Z [38 ffi '" =l ~ g ~ ~ 0: en 6Z '~rs I"- ..- ..- ~ ~ ..- ~ ~ l/I z=> 00 F", tllj "'5 1-'" 15~ (1.-, ~~ "'z -,'" <~ OZ -0 z'" 55", ~153t o oOLJ :i~8 (f) I- t~ 0'" -" :r- ?(a ~g1:: ;:~ ",0 fl?:~ ",Z,", <::> ~~I!! o..o~ ~~~ r:P\J Of ~<c.~cO 1-42 Ii o D. w a: > w > Cl: ::,) U) w Cl: .... <lil ZQ zcc 00 ....= !:~ .,. z w;:) ::,)0 au >z CO ::,)\:J t-~ U)> ... z= oQ t:'J- QJ '- QJ .s:: S E Ol c :.0 .C C QJ .s:: S ::J o >- E QJ '- '" '" Ol ,!: :5 Ol C .~ S2 :e Q) :5 "- o .s:: u '" Q) -'-' C '" 'I: o c. .E s o .s:: 2 l': Q) '" '" Q) '. D.c- ->-i ~B '1:.... &E .E ,g ~:u 0"", E E QJ ::J :5<:: oQ) .-<8 E-S2 .~ .!; - u ~-LJ' .8~ .-<E ,,-.E:l o~ .S!v, "'..c: u u '" CtJ '" OJ 8~ = '-'- N C o :;:;; '" Ol ::J 0' iii "Cl III o "- L. o ..... III Ell) ,.... c . 01.0 III l!! III 0 C u IllVl - c: C ro III '6 .- (j) .l:i::E 11I_ llI- "Cl ~ III (j) 0.> o "Cl C III III U >- u m III N .. ClI ~~ I:: oq: ,:g *~ '<I"8l1i d' o ... ,....~~. MO'" t'! ~ \O~"! ~'1O ... '<t~C11 '<1"10 G:l c:::l .... ~~iO !'oil\") ;A LIl~lIlI CXlOl 01 d t'! Lt)~,.., "'... ... ... ... o~ o d ~":":'c; 5~'! 8El oz ..... r: ~ & ii o 'ii .Q III 'tl III o .. GI fi c o " I'.. 'J I s .! . i: III :; ~ III GI > 'i: Q ~*~ ...0 . ClGO c:i Cl .... f'..~1ft 19 rvi M~Ln ~ ..; ~*co .... "- rvi >-i ~*" ...'" "t >-i 10 ~RQO "- " >-i V~iI! I\")CIO Cl <\i a~ Cl Cl c:i ;,.;..:;c c:l'3.. g~:s U,,-G1 0% .., c: Q) u '- Ol 0. " III o It ~ - o . S,,.., I.cl 10 :~r~~ "': ... t'! l"'l~.lIlI ~ ... Q~ Q d .u':":c, r:19.m 8~1' oz ..... :0. ~ & ~ I. J:. :1 -I . "'*111 LIlQ _.. -'0 .~ o. Q ... ~~~ "':Sui c:i o .... \01'" rvi ~~\O "t rvi ego Q. c:::l IJ)~~ "t "'I ..; OI*,lIlI ~ iii ~*Lr! ~lD "I' ~~\D .-<&; " "t ~~CXJ ...10 It) c:i "'I ~~I'oo Cl:l >-i .... c* o Cl c:i 1,.;-=-=i: CElIO g~:s U,,-G1 .:::% c: Ol 1: Ol 0. "E ~ .!! :l .g .s ~ r: GI :!: o ~ . OI~~: ~8iA' c:::l o ... .CI'~..' ......,... II) rvi ::::~rio '" r-.j -'~1lI l"'l... '" Id :::~\O 1'01", ~ g~1lI -'0 I.cl ...., .'<t ~ \DC cn~ qj ... I\")~ 10 c:i l..:i"::"c' C19,! 5~'tl U....., oZ ... r: ~ & .... lR :~ ~1 1 I . ~~112 N:Sl'oo c:i o >-i ~~\O Cl:l "I' o~o o Cl c:i 1O~'" 10 <\i ~~" .-<~ ..; 10 ~~co 10 oi '" "It~Ul ~.,; ..; c~ o o c:i ';"':":"':c C:B" g~:s U,,-G1 ;;% c: Ol u '- Ol 0. "E ~ .!! :::! o CQ r: o ..!(! ~ . 1-43 1\")~1Il CXl ,.." -' . .. d o ... cn~\D ..... 0\ ~ N~O 8:'" ... ~ *' "I; ;:!:\D qj .~~,.., 01 ... It) C;~lIlI ... ... I\") '<t 8'; :2. ... l',j og Q. d .u..:.: j" r: 19 . 8':1 ~Z' c: ~ If ! I I l .... . ~*II! :SUl c:i o ... (V')~qo "- "'I rvi o~o o o c:i ~*I' 10 "'I <\i ... ~~r-.. >-i f\") qj "t ~~" ()) lli f\") o~c o Cl c:i c~ Cl Cl c:i ';";':":c 5 ~.! OF'tl U,,-CIl 0:[ .. c: Ol u '- Q) 0. "E ~ .!!! :::! o CQ .s ~ Q . -0 2 ~ o C. I- o U c: 'c: ::J Q) :5 Ol -0 ::J U !: u C '" .G o '" Q) -0 '" en I- Ol > UJ 01 C :.0 c:: ::J o l: ::J Ol "'~ '" 0 Ol.s:: I- U "'0 ~-g ~ It> .--0 U c: Ol "" ~~ o c: - 0 QJ:C; ro.[g ~~ ...0. "It - ",-0 C -0", fi5J1 co Ol '" Ol .-<~ "It'" '" 0 _0 ,,~ ",0 .....s:: oq-U '" .-0 II)C '" '" ~~ '" 0 VlU "'''- ~ 0 '" ~ ~~ o c U ::J 0. E N ~ ,. U Ol U. ::J VI - Ol "~ -g >-U Olo. ~N '-0 1: OJ It> 1: > 0 Ol U "3 f! o 0 ~ c Ol-o :.:: ItI 0.1:: U '" ~~ II) 0 (J)~ u'" '" ::J o 0 o::.s:: c'~ cVl ::J , Oll) U"It '0;; ~'" "'-0 '" c: Ol '" "~ 0'1 ~~ ..,oq- "'''' g w" ~~ -"It 0", .s:: e=: 00'" ::JO ~;; ,,-'" o \D- "'0 Q)... ~~ '- - -Oil) -00 "'.... Oloq- c:'" ~g" E... OJ "It .s::'" ~ . ~8 ~~ "~ ~ '" 0 '" '" Q) Ol '--0 '" 0 Ol U Uo. 0_ UN 0. '" - Ol N '- - '" -'- c: Q) '" :5-e o ::J ~ Q) * :5 vl Ol :;:;; :;:;; C '" ::J 0- I- o '" Ol ::J 10 > -0 Ol ~ Ol Vl .n o "- o c o :;:;; ::J .n E Vl :.0 >- U c: <Ii ::J e- ~ '" "- o C -6 c. u E:,::! E ~ ~Oj "'.n Ol'- c 0 .:;. Ol - > >-0 ~.D C '" It> 01 ::J C rr= '-10 0"- "- Ol 0 .:2>- "".., >:= rc~ o.n ~ 0 ga. :Pro !!! ::J Ole- '- OJ <:; ~ ~.~ ~ ~ c: Ol QJ.s:: 0:::; .. '" c.s:: ",,'" ~~ :a: '" t [ ( , ""j: ( J .. . C L " ~ C L c: c c: '" BROWARD COUNTY COWER COUNTY DADE COUNTY CO :c I COlliER COUNTY I:: .Q LL ::l g ~ C ~ Z /: /: c: W ::J z z 8 C) I!i 8 5 w U ..J ~ ffi ... .~ ~ ~ 8 :c U .... .. i ~ ;& 0: en ~~ U ~ ~ CIO~ ~~ ~ ~G .... ~ 6Z'l:I'S en m Q)C") ~~ C")o ,0 ..-r--. ~>< IIlg d . .0 D..~ I .... .... .... ~ \ ~~~ ! o2S!2' ~ z o ill z': 015 ~~ "',: >-'" ~l;j 2:-' ,,~ "'z -,'" <~ uZ z~ :c,: ~al1i o OClLJ ~~l5 '" >- - U' -" "'. ~~- ",~Li. :;:g: '" '" fJ~~ ",zr-. <=> f;~~ ~8~ ~\ u.(/) ow s~ ~df~ :g.... ....0 ~i GUV r::f \Iof.:/i>cO 1-44 ~ o A. W a:: > W > a:: ::::l (/) W a:: 1004 <(li) Zo z< 09 1004'" ...~ (/)z W::::I ::::lo O'u >z CO ::::l~ ...~ (/)> ... zo:: 00 [::tori c::g O:p ::E:m ~~ z ::::l o U c:: W 1004 ....I ....I o U CIO o o N 01 e .0. Cl. o .t:: Ul L. .E L. o ~ L. o 3: '" o >- Q) L. QJ .t:: 3: E 01 e '6 .C e Q) .t:: 3: '" o >- E ~ ro '" 01 .~ .t:: ... 01 e .~ .2 :E <lJ fi '0 .c u ro <lJ ... e '" 1: o Cl. .~ 3: o .c 2 ~ w '" ro w .. c.(3' ...;-'" e a "''''' 1:... gE ~.g ~ ... ~25 E E w ~ fit:: o <lJ ... ~ 5~ .~ l: ... 'u ~ -L..' .8&3 ... E .....l:J 019 <lJ Ul Iii-<: u CJ Ul '1l ro <lJ 6~ ~ '- Gi > /lie 1.0 .... ...co Ul l!! "tl 0 III u Olfl I. c: CII III .c'O .... QJ O\::E C o ~ ra ~ 0\0 C .... .c ~ .... CII CII I. .... CIl N c: o :;::;; Ul <lJ '" a >- ;: III :i Cl CII I. III N .. o ; :it III r:: ~ lO~.' o . 'it . d (;) .... {:;~1Il ... 'i- \O~.... 'II- ..; 'it~1Il 'it~ d ...., lO.;f.CIO ;;:.lR ~ lIl~\O lXl,., co d N ~~Cll o ..; ...., ,.,~ ;t d 1.; iij'-c~ 31:) .!!, 8El' o. ..... c: QJ U .f ~ o ] III "C III e Q/ .c .... c o 'l:J i J I ~ . i: III "'5 Q/ .. III Q/ > 'i: C ~~co ...0 o c:i o ...., "'~&n ;:J; <'"i M;#.'1"'4 ~ ..; ~~cn 1.0 <'"i ...., ~~oo ......., ...., ...., 1.0 lI1~Cll "'Cl:) 1.0 " ...., v~~ ""CIl o ~ .......~ ..., 11) c:i ';"';":":c erg" 6~:S U,,-Gl ;:::[ c: Q) U L. Q) 0.. 'l:J ra Q ll: ~ 6 . \0 .:It III .I'.:aci CO r.j o~o (;) c::i tl'~1Il .... CO vi ~liCll ....~ iii 10 ~*.... N .,; N ....~Gl (J; ..; ....~ e.. 10 c::i .L.i:~ C' C:.l9,! 8~1 o. ..... c: lU ~ & 1! " .J :::I i... 1 I . ~l~ .Cll o o ... ~~~ "'2 CO c:i o ... ~~~ '<t <'"i 1.Jlcf.\D ,., ,., ...., ~*O\ " "" R~CO .-."'" 1.0 " '<t ::;~" ..."" f') c:i f') ;~G\ " ..; ...., C'f)~ <:> CO c:i ~.:..;c c 2 fa ~ 0 .- 8=1: 0::[ +J e <lJ ~ W 0.. 1! ~ ~ cB ~ ~ r:: .g & . ....~Gl MO. N iii .;:: ~ <<I ""N I',j '<t g~"" ....0 iii N ~~<<I lE (jj ...., ~~ CO c::i 1.:;": C' C:.l9!! 8~1 PI: ..... c: III ~ & ... ~ .~ 1! J i j ~ . 81<<1 In'~ d (;) ... ~~~ NO" o c:i o ...., e::.~1Ii' CO r.; ~~co Cl:) "" ~~IQ N I',j o~c o o c:i I..O~O\ '<t 1.0 ~ ~~co ...~ c:i 1.0 ~~" ~ oi N V"~Ll1 ~\O ..; ?-tcfi '<t '<t c:i ';';':":c ci9ra 5~:S U,,-Q/ 0::[ +J c: W U L. Q) 0.. 1! ~ ~ := o CO r:: o .!:!! i . 1-45 ~~CIO c::i (;) .... tl'~Cll CO ~ ""~Gl (;) ...., \01f111l ....0 . "Cll (jj ~~Cll 10 ~ r--~.... lI'lco 0'1 d ,., "'"~.... ... r>,j ""';1. ~ d .u":":c c: .B .,. 5F'!:S U....II ~I: c: ~ & 1! I I ru . ~~VlI o c:i o ...., C"'l~&n " f') r.; o*c o o c:i ~~Ch ,., r>,j ...., ~~co f') cO ~ ~~" 0\ Lri f') o~c o o c:i c~ <:> o c:i ;';::"':c C:2ra 6~:S U,,-Gl 0:1: ..... e W ~ lU 0.. 1! ~ ~ ~ Q ~ J3 ~ Q . -0 2 l:' o Cl. L. a u e .E '" w .c ... w -0 '" U .!:" U e '" C o '" w U '" 2> w > llJ Ol .~ U e '" ~ oj '" W '" Cl. '" 0 w.c I- U "'0 W-o .c e ~ ro ~u U e <lJ~ ro~ U o e - 0 (liP L. '" "'... ~~ ...0.. ~i -0 ro ~~ OO<lJ 0') W ...~ '<t '" '" 0 _0 ,,~ M 0 ....s::: '<tU '" _u 1I1 e '" ro "'0:; '<t D- '" 0 UlU "'''- l':' 0 '" ~ ~:e o e u '" 0.. E N ~ * U W U . '" '" - QJ .s ~ >-u wCL ~N --0 U<lJ :t1"E > 0 w U 3~ o 0 ~e Wu ;..= lU o.s::: U'" ~~ Ll'l 0 o---ij UUl '" ::J 00 cr:.s::: ~Ji ::J 0Ll'l U'<t b~ ...0') "'u ro e w ro .~ m u'" 2;; ruM U _ 0<1) -;;;... ~~ 0", .s::: ~ 00'" ",0 ~:; '" .... 0<1)- UlO Q),... ~~ L. _ U'" -00 ru... 0I'<t eM ~i E... w'<t .s:::'" ~ - w'" -00 .2;; .~2 '" 0 '" '" w W ~"8 w U -oCL 0_ UN CL ru - w N I- - '" '>- c Q) ro -E-e o ::J ~ Q) * fi ",- Q) :;::;; :;::;; e '" '" cr L. o '" W '" Iii :> U w C w '" .0 o .... o e o :;::;; '" .Cl E '" '6 >- u c W '" cr w .t: '" "- o ~ c -0 Cl. -0 E:!:! E ~ ~o:; ro.o OIL. e 0 '>. OJ -:> >-0 ~L:l c'" '" 01 '" e cr= ~~ 0,,- W 0 .:2>- "'~ >== ro:Ci ro 0.0 ~o OIL. e Cl. :.pro .!2", Wcr L. W 5 ~ 01", e ._ :p w o l- e W <lJ.s::: 0:::; .. ro e.c "'~ ~-5 W '" ~ '" 0: f rJ :> ~ .0:: If: e c r- .c c I :> .... e '" o U L. ~ o U co o o N BROWARO COUNTY COLUER COUNTY DADE COUNTY COlliER COUNTY ctI "t:J "C .2 u. ;Eo C ::J 8 ... .~ 8 r: r: ~ z '-' 5 u ,.. 0:: IS !oJ ~ ~ :z: u ... ~ ... ~ 1 f ! o z w C> w -' ~ :; Ii ui 62: '~:rs .... ... ... ~ 0) 0) 0) COM ~~ .0 ..... ...... ~~ alal o. .0 a. a.: I ~ ... ~ ~\ l&.Ul OW ~..... U~ ~cJ<~ ~... 00 ... ... ~~ (;}JU f;$ ..,.'i.~cO 1-46 ~~ z z 55 u u ~~ u ~ ~ ~ CD"'" ~~ ~G ~ iii z5' 0<5 F", tllj "'5' ~~ "--l ~~ "'z -l'" <~ UZ -0 Zo:: i35'", I!:'~~ o cow ~~8 III >-' UZ -u :x- c.- ~g~ c~.... :>:LoJ alO 8~~ 0::%1'0 <::l 52" lX~1!:' a..u~ I- a: o Q. w a: > w > a: ~ (I) w a: 1-1 <Iii' Zo Z< 09 1-1'" t:~ VI Z w:) ~O O'u >z CO ~'" I-! (I)> z~ 00 ttci a: c 0:8 :J: ~ ~~ Z ~ o u a: w 1-1 ...I ...I o U co o o N 0\ e .6. 0. o .e '" "- .2 "- o -"" '- o ?; => o >- l': OJ .e ?; .8 0\ e U .;: e OJ .e ?; => o >- .8 l': '" '" en .s: :E en c: .~ .2 :E OJ :E "- o .e U '" OJ ... c: '" ~ o 0. E ?; o .e OJ ~ OJ '" '" OJ '. Cia- ...' .... c: 0 ",... ~.... &E: .~ .g ... "- ~.25 E E: OJ :::. :E c:: o OJ ri 5 5~ .~~ . u ~ ~.. .8 ~ ri E: ,,-1!J O.(!l OJ V) to.c: U u '" ltl '" OJ 6~ = '- '" c: o :p '" OJ => 0' c 00 ..1I1 III \0 t: OJ o "- ~8 CUl III c: ... .~ ....u !fl~ .c .!:! ~ ::a > ::10 Q. III N ~N ...... ...... ~ II Me .. QI ~~ ~ ~ .~.~~ g .... ~*Ift \0 .... -i \Oit:~ 'It ...; "'"~~ "'"~ <::i .... .~.*~ N.\O CO ~ 1I1*1O lXlQ) , K o "" 1I1*~ "'"0 o ...; .... 'It * ~ o .'u":'':':c: c .l!l ... 8:1' .oz ... c OJ ~ & 3 o Gi .Q III '1:l IV e QI .c .. c o 1 .0: J! i .... . ;: IV '3 OJ ... III III > ';: c ~~\O ri8 o o .... ""~iI'J ~ r'i (V')~.... .... I.t) .... ~~'-O I.t) r'i .... ~*" 0-<0 co o '" :=q~\O Lt) " .... V~2 a r-..j r"J"* .... a ,.; .;,;~c c.iSra :J 0 ._ 8:11 .::% c: OJ t: OJ 0.. 1:1 III o ~ ~ a . 8~...~ .....'It ..0 \0 ""*10 ""0'1 "" ...; "". ...,*~. ~. ...; ....~ \0 0. .&J~c C Jl! ,!It a i2)'.., U"..... : o . ..; C OJ .~ & '! II. I I i:= J . ~*\O '....q8 d o .... ~~'" Ma a o a .... \O~.l!f CO .n-i ~~&n '+;t r'i o~o o d ll)~1'o ;l; ...; C1'l*1O ~ lI'i ~~" .... co 'Ii R~" 0-<'" co " '+;t ~~\C 0-< co '+;t o €V) ~~O'J .... .... .... -.#. .... '" o ~.:.:c C:2", ::I 0'- 8:11 0% ... e OJ t: OJ 0.. l! !: ~ o CQ ! & c: ~ o ~ . C1'lIIft' ~81ii o o ~ ~*U1; .... . .Q).. . n-i :::~IO "" r-.i O-<;#!~ M.... .... ..0 :::~IO .N."" ~ g~1O 0-<0 ..0 "" v*~ cn~ ~ .... l'<)..~. \0 o b:~i:; 5 .l!l,!l, 8:1! .:: ,:Z' c: ~. & ... .~ ~: I cI ~ ,! . 1-47 gJ~Lf! "'810 o a .... :=:~&n co -i o~c o o o l..O*" ~ r-..j ~~" 0-<'" '" c:i '" [?;$\O "" oi '" ~~~ ~ .... fY)~ .... ~ ~.:..:.c C2ra :J 0 .- 8:11 0% ... e OJ U "- & l! ~ .!! ::l ~ ~ o ..\!! i . 1I1~1tl CD . 0-< 11;I, o 0.. .... ai~lIl. CO -i NaI!lI! :g,~ ...; ~~~ l2 Q:! Ltl.* ~ C\lll l'<) ~ [;;~IO Q) o l'<) "'"*GI \D .... I'\j ....83 o .... [; i;i C:. c.u' .. 8:11 oz' ..... J '! l i ...' i . gj~&n a a c:i a .... M::!<~ R. €V) r'i o~c o a c:i ......-l~" ri(b €V) r-..j .... ~~" €V) 00 '+;t ~~\Q 0\ lJ) €V) o~c a a c:i c#, a Cl c:i 1..:":':c C2ru 6~:.s u,,-cu ~% c: OJ t: &' l! ~ .!! ::l ~ J3 Q ~ Q . -0 2:1 !:' o e- o U .s: e => OJ :E OJ -0 => U .s: -0 e '" C o '" OJ -0 '" 2> OJ > llJ 0\ e U c: => e "- <Ii => OJ '" 0. '" 0 ~-6 "'0 OJ-o .e c: ... '" .~ -0 -0 c: OJ~ ... '" "'~ U o c: - 0 w:o "- "' "'... ~~ ritl. ;:!; -0' e -0", ~El 00 "' M OJ 0-<-"" ~ ~ ,0 r-...-"" M 0 0-< .e ~u M . .-0 lrJ c: M '" rio; ~o. I") 0 ",U "'''- OJ 0 "- '" :c ~:e o e u => tl. E N ~ .. u "' -0 . => '" -OJ U-o .S: 0 >-u OJ 0.. .e ~ I-N .u t:OJ "'t: > 0 OJ u 3~ o 0 ~ c: OJ-o :'=ro o.e U '" ......-0 0-<_ lrJ 0 m.e OJ -0'" '" => o 0 a:.e c~ cUJ => . OlrJ U~ "-..-< o~ ~I") "'-0 '" e OJ "' .5 Oi -00-< OJ"-< ~.~ "'M ~ \.0'" -;;;... -ori -~ OM ~ 00'" "'0 =>ri o~ .el") "- o ' \D "'0 OJri "'~ :ill") "- . -olrJ -00 "'ri en~ eM ~g Eo-< OJ '<I" .el") ~ , OJ'" -00 =>0-< -'<I" .~ : '" 0 '" U1 OJ OJ "--0 '" 0 OJ U -00.. o~ UN 0..'" ~OJ N "- . '" "- c: OJ "' E-e o => ~ OJ .. :E ",' OJ :p .:p c: "' => 0' lo- o '" OJ => to > -0 OJ ~ OJ '" .0 o '0 c: o :p => .0 E '" u >- U e OJ => 0' ::' "- '" '0 ... e .0 0. -0 .E :!:2 :6~ ~o; "'.0 en,,- c: 0 ">. w - > >-0 :'!::::'.o C '" '" Ol => e 0'= 1-~ 0,,- OJ 0 2>- ~~ m~ 0.0 ~o ~c. ~~ OJ 0' '- OJ 5 ~ g.~ ~~ e OJ OJ.e 0:::; .. '" c:.e "'~ ~~ :::;: '" u ~ e c c " .;; c J: ... !: C L ~ ~ C L 0:: c c: " 0') 0') 0') Q)C'? ~~ .0 ..- 1'00 ~~ mm o . .0 a. a.: I co _ 00 -- ~~ Z BROWARD COUNTY COLUER COUNTY m I "C .1:: 0 iI ~ ~ 0 w z 8 ~ ~ c: W ::::J Z Z 8 C) ~ 8 is w u ..J ~ ffi ~ .~ o ~ i3 8 z u DADE COUNTY COllIER COUNTY - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z g g 5 ~ ~ '" u ~ iIi 0: rri 6l: '~:I'S ..... - - ~ i\ ~ffi 5~ \ ~8Q ~ ~$~ - ll~!a' ~ ~ iiI z5 00 GlfJ ""u (1)5 >-ffi :5(1) &:;i iil>- -,i:'i <:i Q~ za:: OSC) l!ii3!1: o oOw zZo <<0 Vl >-' Q( z' ~~ :~G. ",0 8~~ a::z..... <::> ~~8 D..U~ ~~~cP r:}jU ~ 'Ilf.'fjcP 1-48 I- a: o a. w a: > w > a: ::) (I) w a: ~ <CUi' ZQ Z< 00 ~lt I-~ (l)z w::) ::)0 O'u >z CO ::)~ I-~ (I)> ... Zit oQ ~< a: c 0:8 ~ ~ ~e Z ::) o u a: w ~ -' -' o u 00 Q Q N en C Ci ~ o .<: '" '- .2 '- o -"'- '- o 3: :J o >- ~ OJ .<: 3: .8 en C '0 .C C OJ .<: 3: :J o >- il ~ '" fll en C ~ 01 C .j: .Q :E OJ :5 o ..c u '" '" ..., C '" t o Cl .~ 3: o .<: 2 ~ '" '" '" '" ". c.c- ...,- ... C 0 "'... t... gE: .~ .g tl ~ 0"", E E: Q) ::J :5 <:: o OJ .-; 15 E..92 .3: ~ .. "i:J ~ ~... S ~ .-; E: .....EJ o.l)J Q) II) 10-": u u Vl <lJ '" OJ 6~ : '- vi 'tI III e III u .20 eLl') 010 Xl f! e 0 .!!!~ e C III .!!! 'i: "0 .. Q) 1Il::E CIl "ge Q.~ 'tIO c III CIl ij > u ii N C o -z:; Vl Q) :J o III N Q ~ 'till 1::. "l: ~~.~ d Q .... I' .# <<I .....lYl .... ~ 10 # II! ~U'1 ...; V#'" vQ:J \0 d .... CO*", 001 N'I" ~ ~~.... \0 d ",. 111#.... v~. d ... "'.# Q " ...; Li .:.: c; C19.1 8:' OlE .... c ~ ~ ~ o G:i .Q III 'tl l'G o .. III fj C Q ~ I OJ t .5 . ;: l'G '3 III .. III III > "i: Q g~\O NO o c5 o ... r'-..cf.OO o Lr) r'i M~'" o Lr) ... ~~Ln Cl Lr) r'i ... ~*\CI .-;0 Lr) c5 \0 ~~\C) Lr) " ... ~~II! goo r\j l"<);i< C, II) ... ';";":':c C2" =' 0'- 8~'2 ~J: C Q) ~ Q) a. ~ .., Q Q: ~ ~ . 8~'" ......... :2 ~~lIlI co d '" l"'l~/.... 01 ...; 'I"~ III r'Ii L; ii. i:j e ......: 5 F!j-i. u.... o ' .:.,..I" e ~ ~ '2 J ,== 'I I . Co. ~-.n In . ... .... d Q "" ~~"'! ",gill c::) Cl ..... \D~lIlI co tri ~~~ 'I" r'i o~~ o d IJ)~\C '" l"<) C'I~G\ " iii ~~&n " '<i ~~\D .-;cc 'I" " 'I" ~#" .-;'1" '" c::) l"<) ~R" \0 .... .... ~~ \0 Cl ..; "L,.;":":i:: C:f3ra :::::I 0 .- 8~i OJ: ..., C Q) u '- <IJ a. 'E ~ oS! ::J Q III 2:l a I:: III ~ Q I.:l . .o~... iO o .. Ln d o "" O'l'#lIlI .....loQ tri :::~Ift .... r'Ii r::t;1Il ..... 10 ::=-~.~ N" ...; 'I" ~8';1I! .....\0" l{j g; f" c:ti .... ~..a; 01 ...; 1.;.:.:;: 5 J9 .I: oF!" u..... OE .... c ~ ~ ... III GI .~ l III J! :~ . ~~~ Nglll c5 <::> ... :::~co ~ " Cl c5 l..O~" <::> \0 r\j ~#'" ...~ 0\ Lr) ~~" o 0\ '" V;i<1ll ~ ..; 1.r}~ \0 ..... r\j ..., - c c19ra 5t9=ti u....GI ~J: C Q) U '- <IJ a. 'E ~ oS! ::J Q III c:: Q .!!! i . 1-49 .0 ~ "'. COo .' .....0'" d o .... C'I#.lIO ~ ~ N#G\ ~ ...; ~~&n 10 c:ti ~.~IO ...; III ~~.... 10 d lYl V#"" III ... r'Ii lYl# i6 ...; .L;.~ C< 519... 8~i .... c ~ ~ I I iii. . a::~~ g.... c5 Cl .... M~1n Cl l"<) r'i a~c <::> Cl c5 ::~qo <::> l\i .... ~~Ln '" " 'I" ~~~ ... IJi l"<) 0*0 Cl <::> c5 I"\J~ Cl '" l\i .L,;":':c C 2 ns ~F':S u.... Ql OJ: ..., C Q) U '- OJ a. 'E ~ .S/ ::J Q III .s ~ Q . " 2 ~ o a. '- o u C .c :J III :5 Q) " :J u .!: " C '" .c o '" Q) " '" 2> Q) > w OJ C '0 C :J 2 '- <Ii :J <IJ Vl~ '" 0 Q)'<: '- U "'0 ~~ ..., '" .~ '0 " C Q) '" ~~ o C - 0 aJ:C; '- '" "'..., ~~ .-;0. ~ ,,- C "'" ~~ 00 <IJ '" <IJ .-;-"'- V Vl ",0 _0 !'-"'- '" 0 .-;J:: vU '" - -" Ll)C ",,,, .-;0:; v~ "'0 ",U "'.... ~ 0 '" Vl ~~ o C U :J o.E N ~ * U OJ -0 . :J '" -Q) .E "8 >-U <lJo. ,=N u~ ri5"E > 0 Q) u -S~ o aJ 0 '- c:: <IJ-o .:= ro 0'<: UIn ~:E Ll)0 m-]5 "'" '" :J o 0 0:.<: i:- .15 c{J) :J OLl) Uv .....-; ov ...,'" In-o '" C I!l '" .s 01 -0'" 2;; "'''' u _ .9\0 In'" ~~ 0", .<: ~ co" :JO ~:; ...'" 0<0- "'0 Q).-; ~;; '- - ULI) Uo "'... OIV .~ r>l ~ 2,- EM OJ~ .<:'" ..., - 0)'" uO ~;; .~~ In 0 '" '" ~ OJ "'"8 Q) U -00. o~ UN a.", ~<IJ N '- '" '- C <IJ '" :5-e 9 :J ~ I!l * :5 '" '" :r:; :r:; C '" :J IT '- o '" I!l -=' '" > -0 <IJ ~ 0) In .0 o ... o C o Z :J .D E Vl '0 >- U C <IJ :J IT ~ '" .... o .., C o ~ :2 E~ E~ ..,0:; "'.0 OJ,- C 0 .:;:. Q) - > >-0 ~.o C '" '" 01 :J C 10"= o~ Q)o -='>- "'..., >= ro~ 0.0 ..., 0 g~ Z-ro !!2 :J Q) IT '- <IJ o ~ g.~ ~~ C <IJ <IJ.<: 0:::; .. co c.<: ","" ~~ ::;:'" u ~ .;: v c c , .r c :I Z S C L '- ~ C L ex: c c " BROWARO COUNTY COLUER COUNTY ttI I U) " 'I:: W (t Q g 0 ~ 0 }g Z ~ ~ 0 ::J W 8 ~ % 8 (!) ll. o is D.. w F;J u u -I ~ f5 - ~ N .~ I o :J 8 ~ 8 DADE COUNTY COlLIER COUNTY """ .. ... ~ Ie ..l. ~ ~ % % 88 !)1l:j -' 0:: gg ~ ~ 6Z'~::rS ~ """ ~ ,... """ """ ~ ~ COM ~~ 10 ..... ,... ~>< mg o. ,0 a..1i . \ ~8C ~ ~$S """ t) 2!1f ~ ~ %~ 00 F", u", "'u "'5' ~o:: ~lX R:~ :::l~ "'% -,'" <'" g~ %0:: 155'!,.> 1!!i5~ oOW ~~g "'~. 2{ :I: , Q.- < 15- 3~i:' ;>:l.AJ OlO fl~~ ~~,.... fu~1!! 0::0< Q.uo ~\ 1.1.(1) o~ 5~ ~d~rP CCl """ 00 ... ... ~~ (;\lV r:ff y.'i.~cJJ 1-50 t: o a.; w a: > w > a: ~ U) w a: t-I <till Zo Z< o~ t-I t-> U)t- WZ ~::I 0'8 >z CO ~Cl t-! U)> ... ZIX 00 Nc t-I c a: 0 0.. ::E:~ > :I t-e: Z ~ o u a: w t-I ...I -' o u co o o N 01 c .is. c. o .<:: '" .... .E 2; -t! o ;c '" o >- ~ Q) .<:: ~ B 0> C 'i5 .;: c Q) .<:: ~ '" o >- B ['! '" '" 01 C ~ 0> c .3: .2 :E Q) :S ... o -"= u '" Q) ~ c '" t o c. .~ ~ o .<:: 2l E Q) '" '" Q) '. 0.0' ~-... c 0 "'~ t:... gE: .~ .g ~ L.. ~J3 E E: Q) '" :S t: o <lJ .. :5 Z~ 3 .~ - u ~~ o ~ ~ E ~~ o.lll .l!! '" "'-t: u u '" '" '" <lJ 6~ < '- (Ij ~ ... III Do " C III III .!! 0 ...LI'l III . ...00 :5! QJ - .... , 0 III U -Vl o c:: o '" .c .- UU III <lJ ...::E Ill- Gl ~ C QJ cn> cO :;:; .c .2' .... Gl Gl ... .... en N C o :z:; '" OJ ::> o In ~~'~: '" ..; l":1 "'~CI\. .., &I : .... ~ in u :E Ia .. '~..~~O:" . ..~. ':: 1;":;....: l~.: :1"1" ~'I:lt: .18 '" ,.1!. !li. ; ..;..~, . o E Q) Q [;:;*ClO ..c C g .... U1~ClO Q) ... ..; M~CO .... lJ) ~g;CO '" <Xi ~~co i:!; r-,j ~ ~*CIO C '" 'l' '" ~~O\ ~ 0\ ... ~* ~ \0 <:::i ....-c C:2ra ~ 0 .- 8~1 OlE ~ c Q) ~ OJ a. ::::- .lll ~ "- o t!o!' mk; :0..\0 .....'" 10 a oa "'\0 :g~ " t: 1lI '" ~~ . :j~IiJJ i'" ~GD! ... P'l~. I IS. <'Ii a:l~:;: 'II" " :Ih ;:IliaD1 'It '" ' \0 ... "t. 0\;~1IO 1"1... ... ~ " ai. ~: 'II" I4i ...* :il I c:i ,~'Sj: .ol?I' ;u'15 : ~., 1 fr'.r."4 i'b! f~itl.~'.j ;;~(&:.:; . '8-~.,. ..ti!o'j',. .'. ..".. ;"':';:-1 & .... .~:',,-; ,.' 'I'""f~0) e., ~ 1.rJ~i' \0 N l.ti ~~O\ ~ <:::i lr) ~~~ "" 0\ N \D~O\ ~ '" 'Ci ...~ ~ ..... - c c: LS ra :::::J 0'- 8~1 ~lE c Q) ~ & ::::- .lll ~ "- o t!o!' m~ :0.." Ill'" ..... L.. t 0 "i:!; ;!Sii' Qj~ ~~ . ~~~ a. Cr-. <:::i a ... :3it.1IO. i......-8" g .... ,0./0 N__~"" r.; ... 3#11I 19 c:i f>\. ~~..." . "" Ill. a::i -i c:i' .... "'~III' <"1&1 \0 :!j ....~ "l ...; ,.... .....i g,~j1 o ~ l1i u '15 ii ... . C. ~. & t. 'k CIQ ,..' Ii- .I,;~..., '1'1 I I,f~j ~ .'~ li 'll iF. J'oo,'#:ID! -10. CO "Ii O'\~co " 0\ r-,j 'lt~.!III ~ <'Ii <1'~0\ " 0\ r-,j ~~O\ '" " ~~O\ ....~ ... "" ;:!:~CICt '" ~ 'l' N ~*C7\ " ~ 0\ ... r.')~ lJ) '" <:::i ~-c c 19 ftS :::l 0 ,_ 8~al ~lE c Q) ~ Q) 0- t 3! o .. Cl CO ..."" ..:s ~f oc.... .5 ~ .~~ ~~ III L.. r:: Q ~~ &l o ~ ~(3 '- . 1-51 8~0\ C"lg <:::i C ... ....c-;'" co c:i '''':~II!, ""kG\' ... c:i ... .~..~III co ~ "'1f1G1 M... co ~ .. # II!: 9\.11I. 'rI ..; ....~ 10 ~ oW ~ 'Cl CoB ..' ~~I: u l5 : ... c: ~ .f I .~. CIQ :i ~ oS -)1. ,I... If. , .-liiI J~ L.l\I CI":~ ..-.. u ;I;~~ , ,.,........ ;l! ~#;e, -:-'8.: g ... 1tl~.0 ....." .... -i. ~~co "'> ..; ~~O\ N r-,j ~~~ ~ 0\ ~~ClO ..~ Q) r..; "l ~~CIQ ...." Q) ..; '" ~Rcn C r-,j '" lr)of ~ .... ..; C to C ::J '0 .! 8~1 OlE c ., ~ Q) a. co ... c: III '5 ~ l:ll::::- 5~ ~~ 1lI 0 Eo!' 0'" oC~ .5 ~ l:llL.. c: 0 :~ ~ ...." cu " r::... Cl S ~~ . ~~Lfl vgClO <:::i C ... rS~ii' g .... i\D~~~; . -i ..#.... ... "l. ..;. ,~~r"; .oi :a~G\: .<:l ~- ~C-;III 'II" I4i ...... N'ifGl la ... :":'*., 10 ...;. ~ .. ';'.. .' ' ..~ ;~;]j,ii =,'0- y'~:I' ~l .... .f j ,t J. ..~.~.. ],.l IF:. .IJ ~!; r ::O!;i~: r'C~!~' ..~: :151. l~ ~..:~"i~ -0 2l '" 2; e- o u C 'c '" ., :S Q) -0 '" U .s -0 C '" C (j '" OJ -0 '" E' Q) > UJ 01 C 'i5 c '" ~ oj '" Q) '" c. '" 0 Q)'<:: .... U "'0 OJ-o Z ~ ,~ "'0 -0 C OJ '" ~~ o c - 0 QJ~ .... '" "'~ ~~ ..a. -;!:, -0- C -0", ~~ co Q) C"lOJ .....:.t. v oJ> C"l.2 _ 0 """ C"l 0 ..-"= vU C"l _-0 U'l C C"l '" ~]. C"l 0 ",U "'... ~ 0 '" '" ~~ o c u '" a. E N~ * u Q) -0 . ::> '" - OJ .~ -g >-u OJ a. -"=~ I-N -0 -0 Q) ....-0 '" .... > 0 Q) U "3 ~ o coo ~ c .,,, :.: rc 0'<:: U '" "-0 ..- U'l 0 0\'<:: OJ -0 '" '" ::> o 0 ct:.<:: Z- .~ cU'l '" . OLrl UV ~.. ov ~1"1 Ul-o '" c OJ '" .~ 0'\ -0" .,.. ~v "'1"1 U _ 0", ~.. -0" -v 01"1 .<:: - OJ", "'0 "'.. Ov ::'" o - '" "'0 Q).. ~;; ~ - -oLrl "0 "'.. o>v .~ M = <<:to.. "'0 E... OJ'" -E~ OJ" -00 "'.... -v .~ 2 '" 0 '" '" Q) Q) ~-o '" 0 Q) U -0 a. o~ UN 0- '" ~ Q) N ~ , m .... C Q) '" -E-e o ::> : GJ * :S ",- III :z:; :z:; c '" '" C- .... o '" OJ '" n; > -0 Q) > :u '" .0 o ... o c o :z:; '" .0 E '" 'i5 >- U C OJ '" C- ~ '" ~ o C .0 0. -0 E .-!:i ~ ~ ~ 0 ~o; "'.0 Cl~ C 0 ">. OJ - > >-0 :::!..o C '" '" 0> '" C ~~ 0... Q) 0 2>- "'~ >.:.: tC~ 0.0 ~ 0 01.... C C. ~~ Q) C- ~ OJ .... o c '" g.~ :g p; C III OJ-"= 0::; '" c-"= "'~ ~~ ~ '" 0) 0) 0) COM ~~ .0 - r-- ~~ COCO dd a.: a.: . <a_ 00 -- ~~ BROWARD COUNlY COWER COUNlY DADE COUNlY COWER COUNlY z fn W Q o (.) a. - N a:I "0 .C o u: ~ ::J o o ~ ~ z z 5 5 o 0 ~ ffi ~ ~ :r 0 - .. - ~ o z w C) W ..J ~ IQ ... .~ 8 ~ ~ ~ z z g 8 eJ ~ ~ '" o g ~ IX iii ~ - ~ 6Z.~!'S r-- - - ~ ~\ LL(I) o~ 5~ ~ - ~ ~ Iii z2 00 F=CIl [;ltj "':> >-'" :s!:j ~-J =..~ CIlZ -J'" <:I gi5 z'" li:>" ~~;s '" oct,J ~~g >- t. ~~ :r. ~~ !3~fi. >=t.aJ. ",0 fil~~ "'z.... <:> e~~ "'0< Q.Oc c#ar~ r;:JU r::f 't/.~'ilCO 1-52 t: o l:l. W cc: > W ~ ::l U) W cc: loot lilt..... z~ zcc o~ loot I-~ U)z W:::l ::lo au >z CO ::lCl 1-15 U)> ... Zit 00 Nci Iootc CC:O 0.. ::E:~ > ::I I-E: z ::l o U cc: W loot ...I ...I o U co o o N 0. c .is. c. o .e '" ~ .2 :s -l! o ~ :;J o >- :!' .. .e ~ E '" .!: -0 'I: c .. .e ~ :;J o >- E :!' '" Vl '" C ~ 0> C .~ .2 :E OJ -5 ... o .e u '" OJ ~ C '" 1:: o Q .~ ~ o .e 2 ~ OJ '" '" OJ " c.C' .;-'" C 0 "'... 1::... :5.E: .~ .g tl~ 0-", E E: OJ " .e C ~'" ... 15 ~~ .~ .~ _ u ;::~ B ~ ...E: ...~ olS ~'" "'-<:: u u VI '" '" '" b~ . '- N C o '" Vl OJ :;J 0' f~~i"; ......8.,..: 1~~::8 ,-:-'~ 'ot .:~ ';""~;...; ..... . .~ i 'u III CI. III u 'a III 0 o~ "en III CII ~ ; 8 cutJJ > c o ID ~'2 E~ o ~ ,oJ cu III > ClIO c .!!! 01 C :0 'a cc ... o ~ :t III I:: 'lit ~l~: 81"'11 '15 z' .... c ~ .t ~ :E fa .. ~ I ~. ,I~ iiii... ~~. J! 15 '1- ,.i :t~'I; Ii ,. ~ '!II E CIl o ::g~~ ...0 o c:i o ... Ln~~ ... rri M~QI) '" 0'\ ...; ~~G\ N cO ~~cn " ... "<t ~~G\ '" -t N ~~oo '" 0; ... N~ ~ ~ ... .... - C C:J9tO ::l 0'- 3~1 0:[ ~ c .. l:: OJ a. ~ .:!! ~ "- o ~<i< ~ !-o N 'ot '- \0 0 00 ...'" ~~ ., c: &6 'lit!::. . ,io'..'I..iIi; :~~8~1 r :8' . 'OJ:..o. - ,!~,- ;v;:~;~; .; ...~~ lI) c.,j II) ;t!GI, lI) .,. ro: IIl;t!O! ....l!l...: ~ r ~ c;lll; .,. , ~ "'~O' . ~;~1 \0 c.., Q C c::i .~'ii'i;i: ..::S ... .II: 8 g,'1' 'I5z' ... c.. ~':: l'.' :...:1 ;;::'1 ~. '&; '."l!:.. , 1ili:: ~~:i. ,ai~ i~l".: ~..~ .. \C~CIO ~ "" -0 ....-t~ClO e, o ... Uj~cn '" N LJi ~~cn c:l c:i Lrl ~Rcn '<t 0; N '-P~,,! ::;:::11) -0 ...~ e, ~ ... .-1 c~i :;) 0 .- 3~1 0:[ ~ C OJ l:: '" a. ~ .[9 ~ "- o ~~ lB~ :0.." Ill'" 'ot '- ... 0 CIl'<t '1:1'" :5~ .. c: IU 'lItU '- . ~~~ ~oxi c:i o ... :$G1 .~ ~ .I"\~ c '" :.w'.:.:. i:: c..l!I.!I 8J!21 'I5z: l .r ..~. 1 ~ GO, . ~j~j: ~ II'" :Ii 'I~ l~ " 1-IIiI'.' ... ,~'ot..~." 't~' , . ~;;~i ;'"'8., i ,g '! ... g~Ch M~ c:i o ... ,,,,,.~.,, .13 . 'If O'l~CIO ::c 0'\ ~ "'~I'I ~ c.,j, 0"\*00 '" 0'\ ~ g$II!.; liO GI' :Pi ... ~~G\ N " ~~C\ ...~ ..; '<t o lR.. tn, ,., a. .. ..\0 to c::i '" r:!:~0\ "'l '<i N !:;;~GI iii lJ\ .... ~~G\ '<t 0; ... '1;)-,# N '" ... ~-c C191a ::s 0 .- 3~1 ~:[ c OJ l:: OJ a. t J! o ... o Cla ...~ lU~ ~~ ~':3 ...~ ~~ ~~ ~ 5 OLrl ~::;::: ll!. c: ~ ~ ...~ . 1-53 ;a~..,'iIi. '8 ... !1Il~~: "'. ... "";;11I ltI lI) c::i ~~G1 .... c:i ... ffl~G1 lI) g ~~~ <0 cO '" ....~.... .., Pi "'~ \0 ..; ~~" "'l <vi ~~~ N ~ ~~O\ "" 0; ~~G\ ..." \Q " '" ~~cn ..." " rri N ~~cn 0'\ ... N .......'$. " '" ~ - c c.rg rei gt2=6 U...llJ 0:[ ~ c .. l:: .. a. Cla ... I:: I'll :E t ~::::- 1::.[9 [~ CIl 0 e~ ON 0I::'<t .5 ~ l::ll'- I:: 0 .~ 0'\ ,~ '" -'<t CIl II 1::'" o 5 ~~ . ~~O\ ,,0 o c:i o ... r~"I-!II: 8 'ot 1i:l.'~tn1 8m .it\ !.;t;i!tO !'"l. .., ..; 'N.~GI ""8 c::i ... "'~.G1. IDc '" ~ '" lR CII' ,.,,, . 10-. .g '" .N~1ll \D ~ ....~ 1"\- lI). c:i [W"':';:"Ci c.l!IJ!: '8~1l: oz, .... c GO~ "'l .1; . 'I l: 1 :).. " " , . r.$;:~' :-1: oli~, :~'~ . .I~' - J"l, .. , :.... ,. ''''.' I.':~ ,.01', ia:i>' ld~ "-". .. -0 QJ e o E- o u c .2 :;J OJ -5 OJ -0 :;J U .!: -0 c '" ~ u Vl OJ -0 '" ~ OJ > UJ '" c 'i3 c :;J g oj :J OJ VI C. '" 0 OJ.e ~ u "'0 OJ-o .e c ~ '" .S '0 -0 C OJ~ tO~ .2~ Q.I:;:i ~ '" "'~ '" ~ ~Ci: ;$;-g -0 '" ~P1 co .. M OJ .... -"" ~.2 ,0 1'-"" M 0 ....e "U M ,-0 Ul C M '" ....0:; VCl. M 0 ",U "'''' ~ 0 '" ::c ~:e o c U :J a. E N ~ * u .. -0 , :;J '" - OJ .5] >-u ..a. .<:: ~ I-N "0 "0 OJ ~"O '" ~ > 0 OJ u ~ ~ III 0 ~ C "-0 ~1 U '" --- -0 ...- Lf) 0 ",.e OJ -0 '" '" :;J o 0 c;r:.<:: .c;-o~ cll1 :;J , OUl Uv ...... OV ~M "'-0 '" C .. '" !:'" -0.-1 ..... ~" "'M .Q I.D"- ",.-I ,,'" -" OM .<:: .. ' ",co :;JO 0'" .ev ...M o ' \Q "'0 ..... "'v ::JM ~ - -oUl "0 "'.-I ",,,. _~ M ~~"- E.-I OJ" .eM ~ , ..... -00 :;J.-I -v .~ : Vl 0 '" '" .. OJ ~"O '" 0 OJ u "00. o~ UN a. '" ~ .. N ~ . '" ~ c OJ '" .pi: 9 :;J ~ OJ * -5 ",' OJ '" '" c '" :;J cr ~ o '" OJ :;J 10 > -0 OJ ~ .. VI .0 o ... o c o '" :;J .0 E III 'i3 >- u c .. :;J cr .. ~ '" ... o ~ c .0 C. -0 'E ;;i :5 ~ ~o:; "'.0 O>~ C 0 0>. <IJ - > >-0 ~.c -:= '" '" '" :;J C 0':': L-~ 0... .. 0 .2>- "'~ ~:E '" 0.0 ~ 0 "'~ C Q 4:im ~ :J OJ cr ~ OJ 5 ~ g.!!! :g ~ c OJ ...e 0:; '" c.e "'~ :015 ~ 5i BROWARD COUNTY COWER COUNTY DADE COUNTY COllIER COUNTY ca :g o iI b c j o U .... .~ 15 U i z ~ o !D ~ ~ ~ ~ z z 8 5 u ~ f5 o :J ~ d '" u ... ~ ... ~ o z w C) W -l I!! -I. ~ c: <Ii 6Z1fS ..... ... ... ~ 0) 0) 0) . (") !r (")0 .0 .......... ~~ moo o. .0 Il.a.: . \ ~~~ ! (.)~!12' ~ ~\ lSf3 ~-1 (.)~ GJVr:R~ 8'" ...0 ~i GIlI.f ~ ~f..'/J.OJ 1-54 ~ ~ z z 88 ~ ~ ~ z u ~ ti (ij z:S 00 FOUl Uw "'u "'50 1-'" 15l:l ~-' ::>;:!: lIlZ -,w <'" UZ -0 z", i):Se> ~~;r; o oOl.J ~~8 ",>- u: _l "'- ~~~ ~-'~ ~ s:LrJ mO fil~~ ",zr- <::> e;~~ <>:0< Q.uo ~ o Do LLI 0:: > LLI > 0:: ::) en LLI 0:: .... <(...... z:g z< o~ .... ~~ enz LL1::l ::)0 au >z CO ::)~ ~~ en> ... za: 00 Nci ....c 0::0 0:0:; :t:lG >~ ~~ z ;:) o U l:lI:: LLI .... -I -I o U co o o N 0. c: .Ci '" o .s= '" .... .E .... o .>< 5 ~ '" o >- ::' OJ .s= ~ oS 0> E " .C c: OJ .s= ~ '" o >- E ::' '" '" 0> c: ~ 0> c: .~ E :E OJ -:5 '0 .s= u to OJ ~ c: '" t o '" ,~ ~ o .s= B E Q) '" '" Q) .. 0.(;' ~-.., ~.e t.., ge: .~ .g t:~ 0"" E E Q) ::. .t:: <:: ~ OJ 0<:: .-< 0 .t:: <lJ .~~ - u ~ ~.... E ~ .-< E ~~ O.l!l ~ '" :3"6 VI to '" <lJ 8~ , '- iii 'I:l III o .. .. o .... III E8 SI'- ~ ~ c u IIIVl - c C It) 11I'6 :S~ ell ~.~ G.I <lJ a. <3, 'I:l I C III G.I U > u iii '" c: o Z '" Ol '" 0' a ~ ~ c: "l: .~1J! 01 '" '" : .w ~ c~ !iP.I.., 8F!1; '251: ... c ~. l o E III Q J :..'15, j;.::~ t'l'\ , 15~ it~ f::a 1ft.... 'lOA r.1:~ i'. Cl*&l'! ~8&n c::i o ... U")~II) ... o-i ""'~Ln ... 0\ ... ~~co '" o;i ~~I.ft 'l' o '" 'l' ~~co o '" '<t '" ....~lIt, Ln 0. . ". '" ~ ~~\D ~ 0\ .., "''''' ; .." c::i ~l9i :J 0 .- 8:11 0:1: ~ c: Ol l: Ol 0. :::::- .fJ f2 "- co t!$ ~ [.0 '" .... '- ICl co 00 ......" :a~ " t:: III ::. :!2. . [l:)i~... :.....8... I" S-:-:"; ~ .. 'in ~...; , .&.;;' >0 'f ,....1J! " .Q .Q) ',.,,; 1/'1#". 'll"lg ~ Q\ .# G1' .....ltl'. .... ~ I' #~! ;,j Ici C:l~ C) c:i ......... .., iIJ~C 5 So .II, 8 F 'I' ''25.:i[ ... .. ci ~ l =:l' ~. ~"( iff I.Q) I:;.ClS. . ... Il.~ a~ 1ft"" il "11:.... ' . =#G1 ~ r< LJ')~cn ~ "1 vi ~~I' ~ ... Lll ~~" ~ 0\ '" \O;::RltI &\0 "1 .0 c~ o o c:i +.:i-c c:.Gra =:I 0'- 8:11 0:1: ~ c: Ol l: Ol 0. :::::- ..'!l f2 .... o r!~ m~ :10." ltl.., .... '- .. 0 .g~ 5" .... .. <:: Cl>::. ~~ . ~~" o c::i o .., \.O*-lD co "1 .0 ~~;: C! .., :O:flll}, ....01 ....' 10, ' c:i '" ,I' # " ......... . Itj ~ ~:t9,i:1 .8~ii ... c ~ l I 15 . ... . 1)' JEt bl'l 'liQ.: ~~c;i I"~'."';; it:' :."'" .I/'I~III' ,...... ..:, ,....... ....i , '8 ... ,,,'~tiO ,.. l'l. Q). '0,;.. ""~iI! ~" rii O\~...... 0\ 0\ N ~~ID ...; ... ::::j~r-. "1 " :#11}, ;';11I: ~ ' ~~~ .., N 'It' ~*O) :;; '<t '" e::~\O <:> '" '" ... I'\~ C) '" ....:f! ~ "1 c::i %119~ :J 0 .- 8:11 0:1: ~ c: Q) l: lli 0. .. II> ~ o .. o co "'", cu~ ~f2 .1::"- .5 ~ 01; C:"l 'S ~ :'::Li) III '- I: 0 ~~ !l!, ~ ~ ""!2 . ;;~,..... MO o c::i o .., O'~JI) 0\ 0\ N ;::::~~: '" c:i ... 'El.~lIt .10 ib I. "" ..; Itj ~;li!1D "":8 0\ '" .~.~ Q) .~ l'~'.'::": i:: '~J.I! Co! '25 ' j l t. '~ lID ... J ,.$ , '1<' 1- ;- ... :1 (JS , ;~ " ::8 ..8 i.i.& , Q Jel '!L :~~ ., 1-55 .f' ~ " ~;: 8 I,,~ ,,,;,'~=, '" I ..; '~~ pt C:i ~~\C .-<'" 0\ " "1 ~~fIO ...."1 0\ <vi '" ""#11}. ~III ...; ~~~ ... ~ '" "I;t~ o 0\ c::i ~JS~ ::J 0-- 8~11 0:1: ~ c: Ol l: OJ 0. co ... c: 1\1 'S a Q:::::- C:.fJ [~ II> 0 E;li! 0'" .I::'l' .5 ~ 01'- c: Q :~ ~ -'l' Cl> II 1:.... o !5 ~!2. . ~*~ v 0 . 010 c::i o .., ;~{~.lQ] :..... . ~ .: ,.. ..... l~'~~:' I 110'5 in, i.. ..~ .~, ~,71 ~~\C "1 o-i ~~:2 '" N ;""1111, : ~'\D; ~~~ 'l' 0\ N~f/1 J....~ c:i ... ',;):~."! 'l! IS . '..ltl'. '~ ~~ 10; 10 .0 "'," N.~~, 10 . ~. ~~q 'ijl C:i .'~:.-.... ... 1tj'C:: 'g'.o:1 ,ui,z; .. .j.... .' ... .. ,!:,. -I r I". oS__=::-. f~ i:E~~ :"'(.'i'; , .,..,. !,;~~ !~ .., lO...5i: I Mfa} ,:,.,.~: ~t ,.: " Ol ~ o E- o u c: 'e '" 0; -:5 0; " '" U .E " c: '" z- iJ '" 0; " It> ~ OJ > UJ "" c: :c c: ::J ~ ai ::J W '" 0. '" 0 o;.t:: .... U "'0 0;" .s= c: ~ .. .:: "'0 '0 c: Ol '" ro~ .2a Q):,o '- '" "'~ "':;; ~o: ;;!;-g '0 '" g~ to 0; I")Q) .-< .>< v '" I")E _ 0 "-,,, M a .-< .s= vU I") _ -" Lrl c: 1")'" ~~ ,.., 0 ",U "'~ ~ a '" ~ ~;e o c: u '" 0. E N~ * u Q) -0 , :J '" - Ol .~ -g >-u Q)o. ~N -0 -0 Ol '-"0 .. .... > 0 Ol u "3 ~ o 0 ~ C w"O ;.:;: 10 Ci.t:: U VI --- " ... - Lrl 0 ",.t:: Q) -0 VI III :J o 0 c<.t:: >-x cUi :J , Olll U<t ~.-< ov ~,.., "'-0 '" c: OJ '" .!: en -0'-< OJ ... ~<t ..,.., u _ Ew "'.-< ".-< -v OM ~ co'" "'0 ::J.-< 0" ::,.., o - w "'0 Ol.-< "'v ~M .... - "lll "0 "'.... 0\" .~ M :: v'" "'0 E.-< o;v :5 M.. Ol'-< ,,0 ::J'-< -" ,~ ~ '" 0 '" VI W OJ ...." '" 0 Q) U '00. o~ UN 0. '" ~ OJ N .... - '" -.... c: Q) '" -5-e p ::J * Q) * -:5 ",- Ol ~ c: '" ::J l:T 5 '" Ol '" ;;; > " lli 1:: Ol '" .0 a ~ o c: o .." ::J .0 E '" :c >- u c: Ol ::J l:T Q) oJ:: '" ~ o ~ c: -0 0. :2 E~ f5 ~ ~w "'.0 0\.... c: 0 ':;" <lJ - > >-0 ~.o c: '" '" C> ::J C cr;.:;: f-~ o~ Q) 0 .2>- ..~ ~~ .. 0.0 ~ 0 "".... c: 0. :t:O"'iti .!E ::J Ol c:r .... OJ 5 :5 ga .~ z OJ o .... c: OJ Ol.t:: o~ -:;; c:.t:: "'~ .- .c " u Ol ::J ~ '" ii ~ 6 < c " ~ I " !: C L. ~ ~ C L- a: c c N BROWARD COUNTY COLUER COUNTY DADE COUNTY COLliER COUNTY z ca "0 'C o Ii: ~ C :::::I 8 .... .!:e 8 ~ /: % % is is o 0 ~ ffi o ~ 15 is :J: 0 ~ .... ~ ~ o z w (!) W ....I ~ 0) c:oC') ~~ .0 .....,... ~x cog o' .0 a.~ . ~ /: /: ~ ~ 15 '" _ 0 ~ I>: U ~ :; 0: rri 6Z'~"S ,... ~ ~ ~ \ ~80 ~ ~$5 ~ (.) 3!!12' ~ is lil %~ 00 till) "'~ "'5 1-1>: fSIX ~~ ill I- Z -,'" <:s UZ -0 %1>: USe> l:!i'5~ CO~ ~~g ",> u :;: ~.. 0::5= <.'l~"- >=~ CD lD fill:.!!:. 1>:2.... <=> ~~I!! D.8~ i\ ~fi} ~~ O~ ~ ~ tJ1EIP' U)~ 00 ~- ~~ (;J1.f ~ ~'i:~cO 1-56 I- D:: o Cl. LLI D:: > LLI > D:: :;) CIl LLI 0:: H ct""' Z~ Zc( 00 HIX I-~ CIlZ LL1;:) :::10 aU >z CO :::ICl I-~ CIl> ... ZIX 00 Nci He D::c 0:0:; ::r:~ ~~ z :::I o u 0:: LLI H ..I ..I o U 00 o o N 0. c: .0. 0. o J:: '" ~ .E ~ o ,:,t 6 ~ '" o >- l':' OJ J:: ~ .8 en c: '0 .C c: OJ J:: ~ '" o >- .8 l':' '" Vl en c: ~ en c: .~ 12 :E OJ :5 .... o .c: u '" OJ ~ c: '" 1: o 0. .~ ~ o .c: ~ e OJ Vl '" OJ '. 0.0- ...;-.... c: 0 "'... 1:,., :5.~ .~ .g t; ijJ 0.Q E ~ OJ " J::t:: ~QJ ....a ~~ ~- '0 ~ ~-- .8 ~ ... ~ .....'!l 0.l9 .!!ill) ri"S '" '" '" QJ c5~ . '- N c o :;:; '" OJ '" Ct >- i: III 'S CI GI .. 'ii > r!2 "'<Xi ... III <ll 'tI L. III S Cll) .. c: GI '" .c'O ... <ll Ol~ c_ .2 [': III ~ ClO C .. .c .~ It) ... GI GI .. ... tIl ,,#tio ,II]~ ~ ~#.~. . Cl iii ... ....,. 11]\0 "".. ~ ~ ~ ~ r:: oq ...." . ~. ... .w-':":C: .g :!l III o G!..:-I. u" . 'l5 ' ... I ~ :c III .. ~ ...~ :1;;: '''is .j~ I~~:. Is .... ,~~ :l~; 'iii..... :~l!; ,is: !~..~': :... : E GI Q :..,.~. r", ..... g ... e:;~~ ",0" o c:i o .... :""'";11 1ft: . ~,.;: ... Ln*,...., '" .... N) :"':I!.II! : %! .... roi M~\D <> 0\ .~C. .N ~.. roi ... ~~I' "l oj ~~crJ ~ ~~crJ o -i "l ;;i~CIO G:i oi .... l"\lcf. "- "! .... ,j.;':';c C:.Gta ~ 0.- 8~"il .:::E c OJ ~ OJ a. ::::- .l9 (2 "- o l:!~ ~ ~~ '" ""'- \0 0 .e~ 19Z .. t:: III ::l ~2 . ';.,. -jlii: :S8~: g . ... i;.,~ ID ll:l ... co #II!. <0 Cl\. ..... " ... 't 11'>#. ""~ . ... "" .0\# .' MIt). . , .,. ~ "# ~, ;1; .0 QiII S c:::i: ';;;';:':c gl!l.L\!: 8J21' 'l5z ... . J i t;: 'Is '....1 ilQ; ,. ... lla ;!:~i~';;! ~. . j l~ ' :. .. ~~co c c c:::i c ... 1il:/e'Ci .k ..: \Q ~ I",O~OI ll:l .... .0 .-I~ClO IC ~ .... If)*0\ N "> '" ~~GO C .... It) ~~\CI '" "- 0\ "l \O~co '" "> ~ o~ <> c c:i ~-e t:~"' ::J 0 .- 8~"il ~:E c OJ u ~ a. ::::- .l9 (2 "- o ~~ m~ :0.." 11)'" "" '- o ~~ '1:1.... :S II .... '. c:: III " ~2 . :~,# Ie: .....S,.; g ... ""~1Il . <0" ... O!fl.C N ~_'.f roi ... ~ ~ GO: "- c:5 I\") o # 1ft M~r..: ~ .... :/ecil. ", " '" Il:) ~ ...#. R c:i z.:.:j; cl!lJll' 6~1 u. . 'l5 ' .... c .. ~ .f ,f Is . .... 1~ ..~ l~.. ,_~r l~::::, I,Ch ',.,. ~t~' .... . a~co 1"10 C c:i c .... ....~IIl' ~ O'lRcn 0\ '" O\~'-O "- 0\ '" ~~G\ "l " ~~CCl ...~ ... '<I' ~~~ ~1Il '>~ ~(2 .c:"- r:: 0 '- ~ 01'<1' r::"" 'S; -i ::::i..t'l .. '- g~ t!:;:j GI II Q,.... c:: ~::l ""2 . 1-57 i"..~.' ''''.- :", g ... .In ~~. '" ~ ~~~. '" c:i ... .O.:/e . III is) '" ...; <Il ~~. <::> gj ""#II! "'ID "" roi ...~ Il:) c:::i "'~ID ll:l c:i ~~~ <;t 0\ ::g~co ....'" 0\ " "> ~~ClO ",,,> 0\ oi "l ~~to .... '" '" "'t(f. <> '" c:i ~-c C:3 ra =' 0'- 8~i ~:E c OJ :: OJ a. <0 ... l: " :S .. &~ r::,:s ~~ III 0 Eo": O"l .c:<;t .5: ~ 01'- r:: 0 ,~ 0\ ~~ III II r::.... o 5 ~a '- . ~*QQ <1'0 o c:i o ... :.O.~"-:Ift' :~.'''1[ , ... '..~.... , ~~O\ "> oi .\01 1ft ; . ,..\ 1 'W; I . .' .iJi ;::~1D '" '" .~~ "1 roi '~~ 0. c:::i . ... m.i/i!. GO' .\D.~" III Ci. N::Ii!ID' m",. . \0 .0 ... N I:.::!i \0 . ...; ...#.; .l;l. c:i if-i;; ii: ::I .., Ill, 8~li 'l5z ... c .. .~ ""I!: I:: I , .l::, I I :or:, ;.s~ I~ ...'ls Jl'., !'i'.~,-" ,a : ~ 0.... ,I.... !...""'t . ;ISJti '!~" . .... . " OJ E o e- o u c .c ::I OJ :5 OJ " '" u .!;; " c '" ~ iJ '" OJ " '" e> OJ > w en c '0 c '" g '" OJ '" ~ '" 0 OJ.c: ~ u "'0 OJ" .c: c ~ '" .!:~ " c OJ '" ~~ o c - 0 w:;:i ~ '" "'~ ~~ ....0. <I' ' 1"1" C " '" ~:.vJ IX> OJ M OJ .... ,:,t <I' '" M 0 ,0 r-.,:,t M 0 .....c: <l'U M _ -" '" C M '" ~~ M 0 ",U "''''' l!: 0 '" '" QJ .!!:! "'O:!::: o c u '" a. E N~ * u OJ " . :l '" u~ .S 0 >-u OJ a. .c: ~ f-N " " OJ L" '" L > 0 OJ U :; ~ .~ 0 ~ c OJ" .:.:= ro o.c: U '" --." "'- ",0 ",.c: OJ " '" '" '" o 0 cr.c: >x cV; '" . 0'" U<I' ........ 0<1' ~M Vl" '" C OJ '" .= 0'\ ,,'" OJ'" ~<I' "'M u , Ouo -.-; Vl.... ""<I' OM ~ co" "'0 "'.... 0" J::M O\.f5" "'0 OJ", "'" lGM ~ - "'" "0 "'''' en" .E f'1 ="f "'0 E", OJ" .c:M ~ - OJ'" ,,0 "'.... -" .~~ '" 0 '" Vl OJ OJ ~" '" 0 OJ u "a. o~ UN a. '" ~<li N~ '" '~ c OJ '" -5-e 0", : OJ * :5 ",' Q) :;:; :;:; c '" '" CT 6 '" OJ :l <Q > " Q) ~ OJ '" .0 o .... o c o :;:; '" .0 :s Vl '0 >- u c W '" CT OJ .t: '" .... o ~ c (5 0. " E;,i :5 ~ ~(ij "'.0 en~ c 0 ':;" Q) - > >-0 ~..o ~ '" c '" OJ '" C 0"== l..~ 0.... W 0 ""'>- "'~ >:: "'~ 0.0 ~ 0 go. :Zro !l2 '" OJ CT ~ OJ o ~ g.~ :g~ c OJ OJ.c: 0:::; .. '" c.c: "'~ :.0-5 ~ ~ > OJ ~ '" U1 > " '" U1 c o N .c o r ~ c '" o U ~ ~ o U IX> <:) <:) N 0) ~ cot'? i~ .0 ...... ,.... ~x aJg o. ,0 0.0.: . U)... 00 ... ... ~~ BROWARD COUNTY COLUER COUNTY DADE COUNTY COlliER COUNTY rn w c o " Q. - N ca "0 'C o u: ;5 r:: ::::J 8 ... ,~ 8 I z ::;) g ~ 8 a.. F:I ~ ~ 2 2 5 is o 0 )- '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ... .. ... ~ 1 f ~ o z w C) ~ ~ ~~ @ ~ f5 ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ " uS 6Z '}:fS to- ... ... ~ ~\ ~(/) 5i \ ~~~ ~ oj!!f ~ ~ li'I 2~ 00 I=Ul u.., "'0 Ul:> ~'" ~lll R:~ :o~ Uli3 ~~ QO 2", 6>t> ~i33; o OOLJ ~~~ Ul~ g~ :I::::>. ~Q.~ 5g~ ~ :>=(.01.1 mO er=~ ",2"- ...::0 e~1!i "'00( a.<JQ ra.V rJf ~ Gulf r:f \1.f.:P.CO 1-58 ~ o Do W l:lII: > w > l:lII: ::;) (/) w l:lII: M CC...... Z~ ZCC 00 MIt ~~ (/)Z w::. ::;)0 O'U >Z 00 ::;)Cl ~Z (I)$: ... Zit OQ Nci li!g 0'- J:i >::1 ~e Z ::;) o U l:lII: w M ... ... o U GO Q Q N '" c: .0. 0. o J:: '" '- .E 6 ~ o ~ ::J o ,.. ~ <l1 J:: ~ E '" .s -e .C c: <l1 J:: ~ ::J o ,.. E ~ '" '" '" c: ;S '" c: .~ .2 :E <l1 ,s ~ o J:: U '" <l1 C '" ~ o 0. .s ~ o J:: II l':' <l1 VI '" <l1 '. 0.0- -,.., co "'.... ~,.., ~E s.g ~ '- ~15 E E <l1 :::J J:: c: ;: IlJ ... a fi..9:! .~ ~ ..'0 o , ... .... B ii M E ~~ olS IlJ Vl B"5 VI '" '" IlJ 6~ . '-- N c: o z VI Ol ::J 0' ui "l:l III o .. ;; u .20 CO 010 III III III '- c 8 ~(/) c c: III '" ";: :0 ... III 1Il~ lII= ~ t Q.> ~o C III III U > u = III :0. I 1ft .,j. ~~,~ ."Ilj. I .~ f!)# \0 co ~ M :E I'll .. :1. 1:;, ll:,a;, Ai3~> ,P. :~~ il'~ ~..:I.~..'~.~..-'.. ' I _. '. : ~.~~.. '.-.:~ ~.~ E III o ~~" c c:i c ..., ~~II! "'M 'D .;: v-~U'! "',... 'D .;: ;:::~O\ ~ r-i ..., ~~" "- r-i ,.., o~o c a c:i rri*" :d ,.; 'D "1* 0\ '<t '" .j,.J-C c: 19 to g~'ij U~Gl O:E ~ c: Ol ~ <l1 a. t ~ ...~ ~~ .c~ 0'0 ~~ .. N III . ~~ ... '- Ql 0 u.... c:0\ III II '1:1'" .~ c: t i5 ll:U '-- . '.~VJ ''''l~' i'g I .... i,;;.!.-r ...; , '.. #'"' '" co. ~ : '" ilPCI ..\0. .... 0; 1O#.1tl N", ..., ~ L~ ~...'P ;,.~.. , "". :0. f'" \0 \0 .... ...,# ~ ...; ~~~ a c:i a ,.., 'lD;Ie ~: ~ of. ,ID;je JIl. .... '" ..; :::;'~lO ~ ~ "';Ie,.... "'~ oi ,.., ....;Ie c ..., ..; -~ '~";. iJ.i . ..,.:;, · .:'ts ;J'#.. I:~ ..~I.I!~.... '.' , :,i. . ~~. . t.;~ ""~CQ 0\ "'" <vi N~N '"" '"" r-i ~~CIO "'" " ,.., ~~II) ~ .0 '" ;::::~'" R: '" ,.., g~r--. a:> ~ C'\I#. '" '" '" g .... .s~ ~ l!~ 0.... ~~ e;'; :g~ ~ 5 "'" III co e II =~ !a '-- . :..;::.: j'.': ..c,.... , ":::s-.e.;j. I :at5!li .'I5i: t' ~ I., ;-":~-':: ,8,111, .~~~. .1''& " ..j,..,.. .IR: :. i~_: :ILI~ :...i&l' :..Ii.'jkj h :~..i 1 'Z,.""'.'! l~f!. 00: 1'"'8 g ..., ~~tD ...c C c:i c ,.., U")~1f) ~ .;: M$!it :g ...; V~\D " IV) ~~~ '" c:i 5:$'" ~ .. Oi ., ~~\D "It r-i "It ~~" ,.., ,.; ,..., ~~&t) ,.., -i- '"' '""~ ~ '" r-i C 2 ~ ::I 0 ._ 8t:l .'::E c Ol ~ llJ a. o g ....:;:- .s~ IO~ ClI.... ClI 0 ....~ .. N ~~ ~:: 'lII: 0 ..'" Ill"" eii' ~'c: c: :::J ~~ . 1-59 ~'rJ! . 1ft :s .... "',#.-4 I ~. ..; :... *VJ . ~ ...; ID #111. ~Itl c:i ..., ~~Itl .... ~ ,.., '# III N:g 0; ,..., 1I'I;Ie.1ft .... \0 Q:) ....,;Ie R ..; !,W''':: c! ,5.l!l.l o .f?I' :~'15 I .... c GI l: & r[ ,-, ,aj' '....,]5 GI$ =~ ',I;..~. ,. .::~.. ?b ~Ja :il l~;''''' ~~~ c. Clll c:i C ,.., M~ClO "- '" <vi N~1ft ~\O '" r-i ~~" '" c:i '" gJ~U"I co '" r-i '" ~~O'J C <xi '" O'l*Ln ,.., ,.., c:i ..., r'<j~ " '" IV) ~19~ ::J 0 .- 8t:l .'::E c: llJ l:: <l1 a. e 02 III .Q '1:1 c::;:- 1lI~ ~~ ClI.... ... 0 .... $. i~ '1:1.... 'lII: 5 ta;:: e II ~'c: c: :::J ~a '-- . '~l'" .... ....,~., "" :N#II'/, 8". ..,: . lD l!D: lei ... .::J~.1li1 lei '1". C1\,#"" g cQ ... (Q~1ft 81ft' "" ...,. ...,#. O. o "" ~]ji 8~1 ~z c III l:! & ..,J..'..' . " ,.'. .", :l '.Qt';. ..I~.~~. !:':1 .'0; !..~'~ t1('~;,:, LI~~'i I. .~ ':':: )if-..;. .. ,e '0 <l1 ~ o e- o u c: E ::J IlJ ,s llJ '0 ::J U ,s '0 c: '" ~ u VI IlJ '0 '" E> Ol > W '" .!O -e c: ::J ~ W ::J Ol Vl 0. '" 0 1lJJ:: '- U "'0 "''0 J:: C ~ '" .!: "0 'C c OlE! 10~ u S2 5 w:+:i '- '" "'~ '" :;; ~Cl: ~ -g- 'C '" ~~ <Xl Ol l'1 Ol M -'" V VI l'1.2 _ 0 ,,-'" l'1 0 ... J:: vU l'1 ,-e LI) c: l'1 '" ~~ l'1 0 ",U "'~ 1:: 0 '" '" Cl) .~ '0::: o c U ::J a. E N ~ * U '" '0 . ::J VI - OJ .s -g ,..u <l1a. J::~ f-N 'C -e OJ '--e '" '- > 0 IlJ U - Ol ::J '- ~ 0 '- c <l1-e ;;:: It:I oJ:: U VI -... -e ...- LI) 0 ,,-,J:: Ol '0 '" '" ::J o 0 O::J:: c.~ cVl ::J ' OLl) UV ~... 0.... ~M VI-e '" c Ol '" .S CJ'I '0.... Ol.... ~v ",l'1 u _ OU) ~... -e.... -.... 0l'1 J:: _ 1lJ00 VlO "'... 0.... ;::l'1 o - U) Vlo Ol.... "'v aiM '- , -eLl) -eo "'... "'.... .S M =.,f" "'0 E... "'.... zr:. OJ.... -eO "'.... -.... gM .- "- '" 0 '" '" Ol <l1 '-'0 '" 0 Ol u -eo. o~ UN Q. '" ~ <l1 N '- _ ltl -... C <l1 '" -B-e p ::J * Ol * ,s VI- Ol ~ c: '" ::J c- 6 VI Ol .2 '" > -e <l1 1: IlJ '" .0 o ~ o c o Z ::J .0 E VI 'is ,.. U c Ol '" c- OJ .l:: '" ~ o ~ c 5 0. -e E,:; :5~ ~Qi "'.0 "''- C 0 ->. QJ - > "'0 ~..c <= '" '" '" ::J C 0"= ,-ro 0::: Ol 0 .2,.. ltl~ ~:E '" 0.0 ~ 0 ",'- co. zfii E! ::J OJc- ~ Ol o c:: '" g.~ :g ~ c Ol <l1J:: 0:::; '" c::J:: ltl ~ ~~ ::E '" ( L , ~ C L " c c " Z BROWARO COUNN COWER COUNlY DADE COUNlY as en "C ~ COLliER CDUNN 'C W 0 rf Q u:: g 0 $ 0 g Z ~ ~ U C W :;:, z z 0 C!) a. ~ is a- U w F:I u u ..J ~ ~ - ... N .~ ~ 15 :l: U ... ... ... ~ g l 1 l!! ..I. ~~ z z 88 ffi '" ~ ~ u ~ ;j!; Ii en 6Z'lfS .... ... ... ~ m m co('t) ~~ .0 .... ...... ~>< mg 0" .0 a..cL . \ l580 ~ ~$S ... o2~ ~ ~ 01 z::!!: 00 Fill u", wu Ill:> >-'" "'w o III &:;t i;il>- --'~ <::Ii 9~ Zo:: is>!.' ~ffi;a o oOLJ ~~8 III >- ' u; Xl ~a l39i;' ~ >=w ",0 fl~~ ~~,... ti~i!! 0::0< a.uo ~\ U-OO O~ 8~ ~rJf~ Cl:a _ 00 - ... ~~ Gtll.f r:fi 'IA'i..~CO 1-60 ~ GI: o A. W GI: >- w > GI: ::) en w GI: .... c(.... z:g zcr: 00 ....It t;~ wZ ::)::1 0'8 >-z CO ::)1:' ~~ en> ... zit oQ Nci .... c GI: 0 O:P J:m >- ~ ~e: z ::) o U GI: w .... ..J ..J o U CIO C C N 0> c: i3. 0- o .r; VI ... .E t ~ o ~ " o >- ~ OJ .r; ~ B 0> c: i5 ." c: OJ .r; ~ " o >- B ~ '" '" '" c: 5 '" c: .~ .2 ;e QJ 5 ~ o .c: u '" OJ .... c: '" t:: o 0- .~ :;:: o .c: ~ ~ QJ VI '" QJ ., 0.2 -.... C 0 "'.... t::.... gE .s ~ .... ... ~~ E E QJ '" Z ~ ;: ~ -E-S:! .~ .~ _ u ~ .......... c: o QJ .... EO ~2 OJ!! 2 VI "'-<:: u u VI '" III OJ 6~ = '-- '" c: o :;:; VI OJ " 0' III \O~1ll ~... tIl gLll .- " ~..o 1:: QJ o ... Q.O 1/1 U CVl III C .. l1J ""':0 1/1 <lJ ::I~ J:l_ U ~ :: QJ J:l > ::10 ~ .. o ~ :c: III I: "II: ~ :c ~ o ~ Q . 'J,." Il '~~:H :iJ. .m :81- I~ ~."2 .e., M*&n '" '" ...; ~~O\ "" oj ~~,... "1 '" 0:; ~~\D "1 .;. '" ~KClO '" 0; "'" c~ <:::> <:::> ci c~; ::l 0 .- 8~'2 ~:I: c: QJ U ~ e. :::;, .J;: ~ .... o i'.!c" ~ ~'<i '" "'" ... \00 oC ""<0 ~l .. <:: &~ "II:U '-- . "'.1#110 M~ .... ~ .,,~ In "'" 10 ....~. 0\ Q' ;'4.i'~ C S.5 .!! o f2 .1' u. '15 ' ... c: ~ ',f. Q ..~. . t;;. ~. :('Ct.... .CQ , .Q5 : .. ... ;7i'b ';'iV'. l~ ; . ..... e m 1#1-10. "~ r.i ~~ClC) "- ~ .... 10 f1lD. .... "'" " l.rJ~CO ... '" vi ~~.... \D ..; .. ~~\O C ci l.r) ~~LI'I .... 0; '" l..O~an ~ui '" .a ~~ co C r'-i ...-c c: 5 ra ::l 0 .- 8~'2 ~:I: c: OJ l: OJ e. :::;, J!! ~ .... o i'.!c" m~ ::.." 11\"'" .... ... t~ ""c 5" ... '. <:: Gl '" ~~ . ~~IC :5ui ci c .... \O~.., l.r) '" '<i ~~Illl r-i '":4 .~ f1.... 1Ji ~ g~\O' I() ~ :::;~,.. ~ II; N lY1'~ C ...,; 1:1'i9i::; ;~ o.!!: u~lI! "o.'z' ""' c: ~ ,f I ~ III ~. J,.,., .. ....ri~ ',Ii;~. :I~' ~...I'.~ . j~' : .la.. .1.... i..!., :~~ .so '..... e . .~.~.:~ ....15.;'.:; !,~: J ''';!!iIl: m "f. . :g~\O MO o ci c .... 0'*'" 0:; '" r'-i .#.ClI ~ ...,; Q'I~\D "I- '" '" ~t~ '" .... " ~~" ",0 Ln .... "I- ~*\D .... .;. '" ~~oo co '" 0; "'" I..O~ \D '" c~~ :::I 0 .- 8~'2 ~:I: c 1IJ E QJ e. t :!i! o ls GO ..." Q)~ ~~ ..c:.... o .5 ~ Q'<t' 1:"> 's 'J' ::::Ll) III ... I: 0 ~~ !~ o 5 .!a "- . 1-61 f~~IIl: C 810: ... .in~ !/'I ..... oi- ....f11n lQ Q :~#Ill! . ~ 01. e:> ... sr If III ..... ..; III '9'1#1'" ..,:g Rj .1#11i1 ~1lI "'i "'f1 lQ Q ~KU) "1 r...; ~~~ '" <\i ~~ctJ 0:; '" ~~,..... ....~ r--.; "" ~~\D ....'" co r...; '" ~~~ o '" '" \C~ ~ "l ~-c c.:9 RS :::J 0'- 8~'2 0:1: .... c " ~ " c.. CICl ... I: III 'S t CIl:::;' I:J!! g~ :>..... Gl 0 e;t: 0'" .co:; .5 g! 0,... I: 0 :~ ~ -", Gl 11 1:.... o S ~a '-- . ~~~ v:5ui ci o ... .....~.Jq' N. .- : ... 'C ~~ .~(D: ,~.; 'P#.lI!i ~..] . .;:. Or ~ II!, ;;;ID '" ~;~.Ill: ~.... oi "'::li!."'. .\0 1'( .. c . ~. ~~lD "l' ~ r:.l~ -~. .....f1 III 1,0 ..; u:":'::ci ~~.!!: l..I~1 cal' l.!!: I... c:. . Ii.:. J lif '. ;.....c;.. :18~ ~4'€i' ir~~ ~ i~ '~.a5-: li~~ ;.i;"B,' ,~a: e. " 2 ~ o e- o U c .1: " QJ 5 OJ " " 13 .s " C III C o VI QJ " III e> QJ > UJ '" .S' " c: " ~ ai " QJ '" 0- III 0 QJ.c: ... u III 0 QJ" .r; C .... III .S "t:I " c: OJ.!!! iti~ :s c: - 0 (l):p ... III Ill~ ~~ ....e. ~ ~- " '" ~~ co OJ '" OJ .-<.>t: V '" M.2 _ 0 r--.>t: M 0 ....r; vU '" - -" LrlC: ",Ill ....(ij V 0- M 0 ",U "'~ ~ 0 '" :fl ~;e o c: u " e. E N ~ * u OJ 'C . " VI - " .~ -g >-w QJe. .r:: ~ f-N 'C 'C OJ ..." III ... > 0 QJ u g ~ OJ 0 ~ c: <lJ" .:= ro c;.r:: U '" --- " "'- Lrl 0 a->.r:: OJ 'C <Il III " o 0 cx:.r:: ~,~ c:Vl " . OLrl UV ~... -0 v ....'" "''0 III c: 1IJ '" .~ 0' 'C... QJ.... ~v Ill'" .Q \0- VI'" '0'" -v 0", .r:: OJ - VI co ,,0 0'" .r::v ~'" o - <D "'0 OJ... ~;;!; ... - 'OLrl 'Co Ill", 0><1- .~ M ~g" E... OJV 5"" OJ'" ,,0 ,,'" -v .~ 2 '" 0 '" '" OJ QJ "''0 III 0 <lJ U 'Ce. 0_ UN e. '" ~ QJ N ... , III ... c: OJ '" -5-e 0" : (lJ * 5 VI- " :;:; ~ III " 0- l; VI 1IJ " '" > 'C OJ ~ 1IJ VI .0 o ~ o c: o :;:; ::J .0 :s VI 'C >- u c: OJ " 0- ~ III ~ o c: 'is "- '0 E"" :5 ~ ....0;; "'.0 01 ... c: 0 ':;" <lJ - > >-0 ~~ C III III 0> " c: 0-== l.-.~ o~ OJ 0 2>- Ill~ >:.= Ill.o III 0.0 ~ 0 01 ... c: "- :Ziti .!!! " QJ 0- ... OJ (j ~ g~ :;:; QI o ... c: QJ OJ.r; 0;;:: III c.c: Ill~ .- .r:: '0 U QJ " ~ '" rJ , " t- c: c " .;: c J: Z S' C '-' ... ~ B to o o N BROWARD COUNTY COllIER COUNTY DADE COUNTY COlLIER COUNTY U) W Q o o Q. - N m "0 "I: o u: ~ ;:, 8 ... "~ 8 ~ ~ s ~ 8 8 >- '" :s !:J ~ g .... 'lilt .... ~ o z w C) W ...J Ie ...l. ~ ~ Z Z g 8 15 '" cl ~ o ~ ;! a; r/) ~ ~ Z z 88 >- '" :s '" i:i 3 x 0 o llZ '~:rs ,... .- .- ~ 0) 0) 0) CO(\') ~~ .0 .... r- ~~ IDID O' .0 a..n.: . ~IS c1 ...'C.~cO Z lJl z~ 00 1=", u", "'u Vl5 0--'" ",,,, oil) ~~ VlZ -,'" <:>i oZ -0 z'" ~5" ~i:i~ o QOw.j zzo <<r ",>- 0" -0 x:.. ~2;~ ~~~ s.:W mO 6~~ "'Z,.. 0(::1 f:;~8 ",0< Q.uo \ ~~~ ~ uila' ~ ~\ LLrJ) oW 5~ ~r:litJS1lr:P U) .... 00 .... .... ~~ 1-62 Ii o a. w 0::: > w > 0::: :) U) w 0::: "'" c( z z 0..... "",a: 1-101I U)~ Wloll :)lIl O'~ >ffi CI- :)< I-~ U)ai z c:: 0.2 Nt; "'" ell 0::: ::J Oe ::t ~ Z :) o U 0::: w "'" ...I ...I o U GO Q Q N r,.. '" e: .~ E :E w :5 "- o ..: u 10 W l!:' 10 ::J o >- B .... e: 10 t:' o 0. E ;: ~8- ....;-..... e: 0 10-0.;, t:'..... gE E.g .... '- ~~ E E w :::. -5<:: OW .... ~ :5..92 ~ .~ , u ~.j.,j- B~ .... E ......l!! o-l!! W III 10-<:: u <.J Vl <n 10 W 6~ = '-'- -ci > ai ... ~ '0 u ...... ... an en " III o Cl: > .... C :l o U .... o .... III III Gl Cl C ~ III .... C Gl " 'Vi Gl ... o .... ... Gl .... III ~g g'ui :;: ~ c 0 .- u -6l1) e ~.!!1 .- "0 - ClJ ~::E CT';i5 " I- o ~ 00 Cl Cll " 'S; o ... Co o .... ... Gl "0 ... o .E Gl :c III ... 'Vi Gl "0 .!!! E Gl .... III > III ... Gl .... III ~ Gl :c III .... o a. ~ Gl C cC ('oJ e: o :;:; Vl 0) ::J 0' r-...~N Il'li>) .......,. to.; 'It ~~N ........ co ~ <Tl~CIO .... 0\ c:) ... o ~ otCll c: 'it "'If! ... co ..; li~i: 5 .l9.!!. Be.i. . O:li .... e ~ & t :;... .. i t 11 :t~/ .~... ll..... i1t' .. L..... . ~~N c:) C) ... ~~"'! M2N c; Cl ..... CO~M ..... 1I1 l'.,j ....~" "'l i:f ('f)~\&j ~ c; CO~I'! "'I'." 'It r.j ~~N ..... M ~~r'lI ....~ iii 'It ~~N ...." 1I1 M 'l- ~~~ ..... l'.,j \O~ co co '-< "L.j':"':c C2ns :J 0 .- 8t:] ~:E e: w l: w 0. 1II 01 ; II CIl CIl oS:! 'tj c: III oC: i ~qj Q,S ~o soC: ~ gE .lICE ~.g ;g-a Q,o ~~ 'C:s . ~.~.,D' ...._..~>.- ;.~. ... ~.~ 1ft. ..\0 . .i i if1~ ~ CIll' r;' , .~~,CIO ;..; ... ....;.0. .'17;" ...; ." o.~o c::i \O~CIO LI1 ~. .~. lr) ~. ~L .....-j... ;1:1ECc ::> e.!!. e F", U "-" lU ez .... c. CII. H & l. I 1J! ll;~:~ }'I . ....1, .. 'l~' "11I'1.: :.$.' :;, !1.:.... "~I!I . . .. ~~an Cl c; Cl '-< 01f.O o o c; M"$.Cft co co iii ~~lt) '-< 'l- 0\ !'oJ ~~Ch Cl 0\ 'l- 0*0 Cl Cl c; lJ)*-&n Cl co oi l'Y)~ ~ iii 1..:..:..:;: c 2 fa 5~:S U,,-1lI ~:E e: 0) u L. g' III E e qj 'O;;;s t 0 QoC: 'E ~ II S CIl ... ... 3 ~ c: lII'l:l CIlJ!l ~G ~-2 I:l,~ ;~ ~:s '~~ ...~ . o~o c::i N1f.ClI LI18l oi !oil \O~ &1 <0 ~ i9 li' :::J 0-; 8~1 .... c CII l:! & I ! If 11.....: fl. 11 ':t It '18'~;e g~, g. , .... ~1f.1tI ....0 o c; Cl ..... "~~ 0\ ...; OJ~", 1I1 "" \0 O.~.O <<:). ti InKSl 0\ M IX) ~ ~. oi ~~&n ~ \0 !'oJ ~8;Sl C) to.; .... ~~~ ~ " C\l rl~"'" 0\ "- c; ~~Lr) ~ " !'oJ co~ li) fV) \0 ;';':'::i: c 19 " :::::J 0-- 8t:] ~:E e: w l: w 0. ~ .l:! i ... ~ ~ 'l:l = III ! ; ... .e. Cll ~g llIoC: ~~ as ....9 . 1-63 O~1tI "'8'~ .10 g" ... O~:O C:i ...~~' <<:) c; .... N~" <<:) tS "'I N~O 0'" <<:) ti "'I .... ~.Sl. <<:) ti "';'I ....~.... <<:) .~ l:)~ ti ~~c e..19 II 5.ej- u... o .. .... c: ~ &. 11 II. 1.. I.- I :io. . . E.-.. t.8, . ..J t,E!" !:I .',: '0 Q) .... ~ o e- o u c .c: ::J W :5 w '0 ::J D .s: '0 e: 10 .?; iJ Vl W '0 10 E> w > w '" e: '0 e: ::J g ,v ::J Q) Vl 0. III 0 W..: L. u "'0 ~-g .... '" '::-0 'Oe: w 10 rt)~ u o e: - 0 OJZ L. III 10 .., ~~ ....0. ~-ci' e: '010 ~pj <Xl w M W .... .", ~ ~ _ 0 " .", M 0 .... ..: vU '" - ,'0 In e: ",10 ....0; vo. M 0 VlU 10,,- ~ 0 10 Vl OJ .9:1 1:):!: o e u ::J 0. E N~ * u Q) '0 . ::J Vl - 0) .s "8 >-u wOo ~N . '0 Uw :O"E > 0 0) U "S ~ o c:l 0 L. e: Q)'O =1'0 0": U Vl ~:E l/1 0 01-a; U Vl 10 ::J o 0 a:..: .?; .~ elf] ::J . 0l/1 UV ....."" ov ..,"" Vl'O 10 e: w 10 .~ 0'1 '0"" 23;; 10M u , 0\0 -;;;.... :s!; OM ~ ccj" ~~ f;:,; ..... 0\0' VlO W.... ~~ L. , ULr> '00 10.... ",v EM ~ ~' E.... ~;:'; .... , 0)"" UO ~~ "~2 tIlO 10 Vl l!:' OJ 1015 w u uQ. o~ UN 0.10 ~w N'- _ 10 'L. C W 10 -51: o ::J : cu * :5 r.il Q) ;;:; :;:; e: III ::J 0- L. o Vl W ::J 10 > '0 0) > L. W Vl .0 o "- o e: o :;:; ::J .0 E Vl '6 >- u e: Q) ::J 0- W .c 10 "- o .., e: .0 0. U Eo!:i :5~ ....0; 1O.n "'" e: 0 ">. <l.l - > >-0 ~.o C 10 ",,,, ::J e: cr= ~~ 0,,- 0) 0 ~.?; >'-= rc~ 0.0 .., 0 gCi :.uro .!!'! ::J w~ L. OJ 5 ~ g' -~ :g ~ e: 0) w..: 0:; .. 10 e:r:. 10.... ~~ ~ Vl ;; u , , , ., ( J .. ~ c '- , ~ c '- ex c c " 0) m ao('t) ~~ .0 ..... ,... ~x mg o . .0 a. a.: . I.... ....c ~i BROWARD COUNTY COlUER COUNlY DADE COUNlY COlliER COUNTY fI) W Q o o D. - N m 1:1 'C .Q u. ~ c: :::::J o (,) .... .!!2 (5 (,) ~ ~ z z 5 5 o 0 ~ ~ffi ~ :I: o z w C> ~ I .... .... i g i ~ ~ ... ... 0) ::i ~ ~ z z iHl ~ ~ g~ ~ 0: uj 6Z 1:1"8 ..... .... .... ~ ~\ ~(/l ~~ c.J ::I ~ ~ ii'i z~ 0'" 8~ "':> 1-'" lSlll 8.::;i =>1- "'z -,'" ...2 ~~ z", :1::> ~i:J~ o oOiJ ZZo ......0 ",>-' 0; -I :1:. ~~ ~~ft >=w ",0 8~~ ~~" fl;~1!! "'0'" <>.00 ~<*~ (;\ll.f cR \Af,:f.l.cO 1-64 1-0 .... ;f.' ~~ z.... .....0 ....N cl: ....10 ~ ~ ~ .0 0 N I:L ~i 2;0\ ::J~ ... . ~ Ln 0 <Xl -..; M CO OeB ~~ N.\l:lj Ln 0 M ui <D ..... ..o;f. ~~ ." llCI'.' ~ 10.. <Xl N N ~ 10 ~;f. ~~ II'l 0\ t') ~ 0 .0 Ln A. W r:t II'l C71;f. ~~ > ~C71 M .... Ln W cO r..: ti ~ ~# ~~ ::) u:l .... co 0 <D W a.i ..; ..; -i E c r:t 0 0) .... .11 .c E \O;f. ~~ c( >- ~ M Z c E 10 NII'l N 0) C. M Ln Z a.i "0 .... 0) -i -i E .0; 10 Cl 0 -- ~ w 0 c Ul .... ~ .c 0) a.i w 0 "0 g E I-N ....;1 ~~ t- ~ >- '-' 0) E '-' :p 0 t')llCI U) 0) 10 Z N W a.i u u :=J .c .... Ln W E .;:: .2 cl: III U) E >- >- ~ V ::). 0 '-' E 0 .... V '-' C O'~ .c "- Ul u ::> 0 'c 0 >- ro .... '-' 0 a.i '-' I:L.... llCI.;f. ~~ >W Ul V Ul U Ul E 0 5: '6 .... E 0) % \0(1\ ....0 el- l- 0. V ~ 0 u ... "0 <D :::10( .E Ul Ul ro .c 'S: I- cO <Xl 'C "0 .U 0 .... 0 t-~ I- >- 0) N N 0) V C V u E Ul z u:lai '-' Cl 10 C. W I- 10 10 '- Ul ....."$ gt .c 0 V ~ 5: 5: V 10 '-' '-' 5: l"l.., Z C '-' ~ 0 Cl V 10 E E Ul V ~ ~ II) 0 C Ul 5: <1.1 Ul .. 32 Ul e 0 u ~ .,; Lri N III 0) VI "- .c .~ "0 C QJ C q: .... Gl 'C =c "0 VI Ul V 10 a:: :I "0 C .S: V <1.1 VI '- ", 0' 10 U U 0) Cl llCI;f. ~~ 0 Ul 0 .~ ';:: '- .c '- 0) '-' C CU- 0\0 -- 0) c. ~ 10 .~ fill!! 1I'l0 LnO ::I: "0 t V 0) ~ 0 'S: '-' VI Ul 0) .2 III 0 .... .... 0) 10 '- '- Ul Ul a:ll- > e c. .c 0) 0) "0 0) :E t- o. J: '-' ~ ~ C "0 '-' 'S: z t c. c 0) <1.1 10 0) 'E V Ul Ul '- e .c :::I <1.1 >- E "0 "0 0) 0. '-' 't5 ' Cl 10 E '-' "- o c > 0 C. 0. C C 10 0 0 :s.:P~ e c 0 10 10 ~ .c ..c":"::' .~ 010::> U C. 0 Qj l- I- I- ~ uo Bill <1.1 <1.1 ~~S >- ~ > '-' ..... 0 10-. ..; III . r:t V 10 III "- 3: <1.1 0)'-' E c <1.1.8 .C11 CI j5ci:S!ii 19 "0 ~ 3: 0) 0 'E.E W c C 10 W c: I- 10 c:: .... 0 0 u V <1.1 "- ~ Ill"" o~ .: 0 0 .. :o:l .s:: > > 10 ::> E c-.. ..J ::> :p '0:; .iij ~ liH3!::: ..J 0 III Qj C. V >- C g..g - tl. >- cu w u U 10 0 :j'.ir". "Ow.... 0 :l ~ Ul ~ V <1.1 0. "0 Ul=Ln 0 CI '- I- 0 L... .- 00\ U ..... <{ <{ ..... <1J E~"O >- ......J::l GO Ci ..,- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E -10,,- t! 2~ ~ 0 c. cl!! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ :::l ~.a.~ ~ "0 c:: 10 III 0 III ~ 0 M .... M r-. o c:: 0 M M 0\ ~ r-. r-. ~ VIol; ..... ~I- ..; c.<1J -~.:J:! N 10 N 0 <Xl M 0\ .... E c:: .e..../;l:I ......cc .c III... U'l Ln N .... ..... .- 0 11II.r~ c ~::J ..... I:L 0 0) E 0 ~ ~.S! . ~..~ E u 0 Ee g';" ':tl c:-- Qj - -0 V III 0 .0 '1:1 0 jt~;B' .b:!<6J VI III : .... ,-,' ~ c ~ 0) .:.: fIl U'l M Ln <Xl N <Xl 0 c:: ".1:..:-;';: 2~QJ x U GI N .... N ~ co .... .... 0 llJ ..;~:.;;:: 0 Ill> M M .... .... ..... E 10"0"0 .0 ~: .... CII.~O\ 3: co w ~ I.' 0) v - .='1:1 J3m1a .c 0 ~ -.IlI-1ll ~~ ~ '-' <1.1 VI .~.O ro.c: c era: ~ 10 U 10 cu- U u 0 ill' VI <1.1 ~ fIl III <Xl <Xl co <Xl <Xl <Xl co VI III :o:l ;: -01; 3:ItlCl Ill'" (1\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ :!!-c 0) 10 U a:l~ Ln Ln Ln U'l Ln Ln Ln 10 llJ III >~ c 0) ~ 0) L... GI " e.s "0 .c 6~ :l <{ .S: <1.1 ~ .0( Q, Ul = '-- . . c C N C .... r C c: 0 0 :p :p Ul Ul 1-65 llJ <1.1 ~ ::> ---..... DADE COUNl'f COllIER COUNl'f BROWARD COUNl'f COlUER COUNl'f tI:l :c I: ..Q u.. b c: ::::J o o ~ .!!! (5 o 1: l: ~ z u 8 ~ !:j ~ ~ % U ~ ~ ~ ~ l:l: ~ z u g 15~ ::ill:: g~ c z w C) ~ l1. N Ie .... ~ rr: rJ) - . 0; ::i .... ~ ~ ~ /: l: ~ z o is u u ~ 15 o 3 ~ 0 u 6c: .~:l'S ~ 0) co('f) ~~ .0 ..... ...... ~X mg o. .0 c..li I ~ Vi ~~ 1= &l~ "'5 >-15 15", ~-' :::>;:! "'j3 -':IE ~~ z"" i:J5", ~i5~ o OO,! Z7 ... '" !,!l. %:E ~g;~ 13-'1;: >~ ",0 ol::l: ~Z~ ...:::> ~~j!! Q.8~ \ ~~~ ~ O~~ i I~ ~O ~i ~ ~tIflI$P oJU r:i \oI'i.':'ICO 1-66 I- cr:: o 0. W cr:: > w > 0::: ;:) U) w cr:: .... < z z 0..... I-Iln "'lIl: U)llI:: wee ;:)a.. O'~ >z Q::) ;:)8 .... u)u z g 0;; N VI 1-1 CII 0:::& 0...... :J: > I- Z ::::) o u cr:: W 1-1 ...I ...I o U 00 o o N :J o > o ..., > Ci 0. ro ..., ro .J:: ..., 3 o Qj .0 Vl Q) X o .0 Q) .J:: ..., Iij .:x u Q) .J:: U Q) Vl '" (l) p: ...... C o :p Vl Q) :J 0' vi .:x .... ro c. ?; C :J o U ~ o E .... o Q) C o ..., ro Q) ::c ~ .iij > ro Vl Q) ~ .u ~ C o :p ro ~ u ~ (l) p Q) "C E (l) 0 Vl .J:: :J >- ~ E .J:: E ~ 0 E .):: ~ ~ >= E E .s ~ Q) Itl g € Q) (l) E .... o 0 Vl E Vl- 0 .J:: C ..., "C C (l) o ..., E r3 N 0 ...... ~ .~ Vl -"'" Itl .... 0. Itl Q) 0. C .J:: >- o ..., ..., t; g' 5 / ell .1: 0 ~ :J U 0' 0 <( ...- c19 ell 0 ~.... QI... a. 0 (f!. ~ o 0 o I": 0'\ 0'\ '<t LIl '1:l QI . ':':1Il lJ ell QI> .c. u M l' 0'\ LIl N M QI- III III Ill'" =~ co co 0'\ 0'\ LIl LIl ". Cl C .~ ~ :E Q) .c ...... .... o .c u '" Q) ~ '" :J o > o~ ......0 1::.... ~2 0.... E"E '- e 3"" o ... .c~ ~ ~ Qj<:: ..., Q) e; 15 ~.9l Cie - '0 ~....'" .8 ~ ...... E .....E:! 0.l9 Q) /J) ~iJ Vl <1l '" (l) C ... p~ N C o :p Vl Q) :J ()' ....0 Z.-4 ;! cc: o a. :EOI ... j! l N;1. .." 'D' .G) I~ co ~.~." '0 N ...... " ;l3'!: .... \D ~.#. U'I' ':.;r In ...# \Do N c:i ...... <:t :=Jif ltI CO Pi M mil NltI co . ....N Z ~ o a..-4 :E ... .... o Z O:i ...;:. ~ .-t }on if ltIo N oi ... Q ~ l!:~ q: ~.~ m ,~, QI- III III ",'" =~ ~if ltIo o. .-t c o t; cu ~ .., u.. ~, . '11.>, =....E Ill.... :::1'"0 a'c . .11I "C. . .8'! at, . ~t... > a,; e.e ~i;(: i-.k.,.. "tr.., . .42,: ... ;~;~. ~~!y-~i s:;a; i:"o .J~;i,i ...!.~ .'..-:-0.'..1;_" ~# ......0 '=I: ...... N ~~ N Ltl ..0 :goe o l' ci ...... ~~ o l' Cl'\ ~# Cl'\ ...... ..0 ~~ ...... N N ...... ~~ N o Ltl ~~ Ltl co vi ~~ co ...... M ~~ l' M N ...... ;;~ \0 co ..0 ~~ LIlO o ...... ..., Vl >Itl E.!!:! .... ...... Itl '" (l) .... c,E ~Vl ",-0 ...,Q) Itl Q) ,cC ...,C Vl 0 (l)...... :p ro =~ u u ~~ ~Vl .... - ",> 0.= u E :5.B :J>. o.E~ _V'J -IoJ ro >.Q)Q) ~OJ> 5Eo 0- ...... ~~~ .~ Q) ~ '6EQ) uO,c .c...... . Pl~L .. .ltI..'. ('t'J. ' u; .,-l'iJl 111..., U'I !Ii ""'.~. ...".& .... \0. .....';Je ""1'1 ltI iii ....if "" ~ .... .... ....if "".lXl ..... iii "if Men .... <.9 0;1. MN o iii en# OM ......1'1 dO .... ~~ .~ lXl;1. eno LI10 .... '0 iii ~- : c.>- '0' 0- .>. 'B Eiill "0 J!.... ii.;;~. ,,:::1-0' :2.it:J i~.i~ 'CI, 11I.0\ B5:C' 011'1&' .j -ai. I . :j.t:'i '... :::I ... '81. b . . Iii Ci' ,;::!- , 11'1::-0. ;-e.&~i '.~ .r;t...~ J!:'~..g; ,c !l!.".! :::1.0'::::, a ~1!!, . :r.~' CII, If,k~;~ g~ ..... 1'1 M 1'1 ,,- ( l . ( ( l o c C r 1-67 Z BROWARD COUNTY COWER COUNTY DADE COUNTY (U :c J COlJ.IER COUNTY I:: 0 u: b c ID Z ~ l: l: c w 8 :::J z z 8 ~ Q. S a ~ N u L. >- ffi .~ i ~ 8 ... ~ I ... ~ I Ie ~ ;J. ~ ~ l:l: z z g 8 ffi l!i :J '" g ~ l: l: ~ z u 8 ~ f5 ffi ~ % U ~~.S 0) ~ ~~ .0 ~ ,... ~~ mm o. .0 a.. a.: . . to- ..... ..... ~ \ ~8~ ~ 5!!If i ~ iiI i5~ G~ l!f5 ~~ &:~ "'I- "'z -'W <~ ~~ i'i5~ ~i:53t o 00 . z- < '" U xL.. ~ ~15~ 3~li: :;.:~ ",0 8~~ "'z.... <'" ~~1!1 o-u~ ~\ ~i ~ar,prP s..... ...0 ~i ('jJU of y.E."'PcO 1-68 ti o a. w ~ >- w ~ :) U) w ~ .... <C Z Z 0.... ....IX ...w U)3: ww :)11) C)'cZ1 >-~ QI- :)CC ...3: U).:a z c 0.2 N'li: ....1II ~:1 Oe: ::!: ~ Z :) o u ~ w .... .... .... o U GO o o N ;.. Ol C .j: .2 :E "' ;5 "- o .c u '" w ~ '" ::J o >- B ~ c '" -e o a. E ~ l!S- ';-'" c 0 "''''' -e... ~E: S.g ~ '- ~~ E E: w ;:, :5'" o Q.J H ~ :S~ .~ .g , u o , H .... .8~ H ~ "- .... O-G w VI fii.c:: U u VI ltl '" Q.J 8~ = '- " ell .... III f u ell c:n III ~ ell 1II c:n C ~ III ell 1.0 .... " C III C o :e .!! '0 u 1.0 o ... ". 0" :s :a ell > E.!! ~~ 1lIa:a ~a..lJ1 ;~\Ci lII'OQ) "VB ;~~ .! ::R .~ 1ll"a3 III ~ :E elIIXiti " L.. .- >"' ~t:b 1.0 ~ Q.O oV .... ... ell 0 ::Et: III III .!:: ell VI ell " .!!! E ell .... VI > VI .... C CIl E .... III ell 1.0 .... 1.0 CIl .... III ~ CIl .... VI III ~ ~ CIl C CC N 10 o :0 VI W :;) 0' I/) t;.~N ......~ " 't ~~N ....... "" ~ ~~,,,, c:) .. cu o ~ :t: 1Il I:: oq: O\~ \0 r.i ~":':'i! !;; J9 II; -0'- B::1: oz ... c ~. & I f '15 t b :..,:.., EE Ii !l . ~~~ M8N o o ... CO~II! f'"N 't '" ...~" "l c:) cY)~\C ...., 0'1 o ~*N o M ~~N ....\0 Cl ~ ~~,... ....0 0'1 '" 't f',~""" \0 .... '" ~~ 't M .u":":c t:: 2 IV ::J 0 ._ 8~'i ';::1: 10 w U L.. ~ cu I:lI ; ~ 1Il .!! ~ I:: III .c:: i a.. e cu a.E :..,0 E.c:: ::.. g E .leE ~.g ~'i 2-c 1Il~ oq:;; . i~;~,."': g ;: '.........,.. 'LD' :i"ilf ~. ;- Gi:~; - , Itj'. . .... :lJl~O' ~~: ~l<i "'..eID ~..~ . 'r.i .... ....#,O "'"\0'"' o ...; "l O~O o c:i .0 #.G: 1Ill'j 'l: r.i ", ".~.. "l iii. .~'~..i::" :::I' :0 .!! 851i .2Zi c l I: tt il: .;1.' t~~., .~..~.~. ..:..:. . . ~~II! g\Cl o o ... o~o o o o M~G\ f'" f'" iii ~~\D co cO l'\I ~~co fg cO 'It- o~o o o o Ll)(f....... l'\I \0 oi 'I;t"#. 0'1 \0 '" ';";":":c C2ra ~~:s u~ III ';::1: 10 w U L.. W a. III E .gqj 1Il E e~ .~ ::.. ~ E 1Il .. .. ~ ~ I:: cu~ CIl.!l l~ ~.5! .!:It ;~ cui; ,~- e.!! t~ ...~ . Jo'~Iii; ;018';;' g ... "~"' " o~o c:) c:.o~... .co cO 1Il;:l10 -1\.004 \0 Ili .... o~o c:i NiiI!.dl III ~.. ,. ~ Q).' . to .~~'c: 8~' -I": ;Q ; ... . c ~. & I !:: II 1'1" ."1 It.. tj~ ...-! . :::,~~ ....8.0 o Cl ... 00* an o ...., \Q LJ1*~ 'It- 0'1 M ~RII! "In \Q l'\I ~~~ 19 '" l'\I ..-t~.... 0'1 f'" c:i ~~co lr) r-...: l'\I "'rfl. 0\ Cl r-...: .&-;":': C c19ra ~~:s u,,- cu .'::1: c w ~ w Cl.. ~ 'i t ~ III ~ c:: " .. .!l ; .. .e. III ~g Ill.c:: ::..::.. aE ...2 . 1-69 , e~Hlq: .GI o o ... c:l~O; o c:) -;i 0: 0" o c;:i ... N~'" o o c:) l'\I N~~; o c:i "'I ...~~ o c:) ... v;i II!, o co. o ~ o~ o c:) .i:,..=.: Cj c:..B fa; 5~ :sl u.... .Gl' oz, ... c cu l: &. 1 .... j. I . J .: 1.8 ~~ ~E. 12 11 II.... .,.. .. "0 23 ~ o e- o U c .r: :;) <l.l :5 "' "0 ::J U .!: "0 10 '" J::; o VI "' "0 '" 0, L.. W > UJ Ol 10 '6 e ::J o t: W ::J W VI Cl. '" 0 w.J:: L.. U "'0 "'''0 i3~ .;: ""0 "0 10 Q) '" Bpj o 10 - 0 Q):;::::i L.. '" "'~ ~~ ....0. V ' M'O C '0", ~~ co CI) M CI) .... .:,< ~ :g ,0 " -'" M 0 .... .c vU M , ,'0 IJ) 10 M '" ~~ M 0 VlU "'''- ~ 0 '" VI ~;e o 10 u :;) a. E N g * u W '0 . :;) VI - "' .S -g >-u wCl.. ~N . "0 -0 Q.J m"E > 0 w U ] ~ co 0 L.. C ""0 :'=('1) o.c U VI :::;:9 IJ) 0 "'ii -0 VI '" ::J o 0 a..c C.1:' IOU) :;) . 01J) Uv ~H ov ..,M ~-g W '" .!:: en -oH ~~ roM ~u) -;;;.... ~:; OM .c 3:;ro :;)0 ~:; ...M 010' Vlo C1).-. ID~ L , -o1J) -00 "'H o>V .S M ~ g' EH wV .cM ~ , wH -00 .2;; .~ ~ VI 0 '" VI W w ffi-g CI) u "8e; UN a. '" N ~ - '" -L.. 10 W '" .c.o o ~ ~ OJ * :5 Vi w :;0 :;0 10 '" ::J 0- L.. o VI w .2 '" > '0 Q.J c: CI) VI .0 o ~ o e o :0 :;) .D .L: .., VI '6 >- u c w :;) 0- W .l:; '" ~ o .., e '0 a. "0 .E :!:! ~~ ~(jj "'.0 0lL.. e 0 ">. t1l - > >-0 ;::.0 c'" ",0> :;) 10 0-:= L..fii 0::; W 0 ~C >= ro~ 0.0 ~ 0 go. ~~ "'0- L.. W 5 f5 g> .~ :g ~ 10 W W.c o~ .. '" c.c ",'" ~~ ::E VI Q f V ~ .;: {f c c " .1: C I .. S C l. L :.% c L ex: c c " en m COM i~ .0 .... ,... ~~ IDID 00 a: a.: . . 8- _0 ~i BROWARD COUNTY COLUER COUNTY DADE COUNTY COWER COUNTY (I) W Q o (,) D. - N ~ 'C o u: $ c :::::I 8 .... .~ o u ~ ~ z z 8 is l.) ~ !:! ~ ~ z l.) - .- - ~ ~~ ZZ is is l.) u 15~ ~~ o z w C> W -I I!i !i ~ ex; UI .~ ... ;lI; ~.~:rs r-- ... - ;lI; Cl\ i :!sUI ~~ o~ ~ ... ~ ~ ill ~~ ern llltl 5' t-'" ~lj! ~;;l "'t- rni5 -'~ ~~ z", is'',, ~i5~ oo~ 27 < fJ :I:::.: ~13~ ~~i: ~~ S~~ ",2"" <'" fl;~1!! "'0< o..UQ ~r7~cIJ (j>JIJ C'1 v.f....pcO 1-70 L: I- 0 :\O~,; .. $~ \O..~ /'IJ Z pj ,..,;... gj.~. <lJ ~ ..... .. ".! ....\0 >- N !'f!. ..... ~... co .~ VI N /'IJ 0 0- Cl. <lJ Z C\ ~cfL, co,g, ,.;,.~ .c 1"']0 \I). ..... 104 .11'I.. LI'l Cl Z- CO M N c: ? \0 Q': 'C c: ::> ::> ~,. -0 0 >- U CO u::"# . ~~ "".'~... ..... L. \Pro .;; ~ l'I'I- ._ LI'l :p 0 ~L LI'l .~ u !?Ct.,;::, M ... /'IJ U .... ....;l. : ro "- :' 0 c: ..... " N~. ID ,g, :~r If! 0 c: V 0 :p <lJ "'1(.1 O'l II'l /'IJ "0 ;;.. .~ \D co ~ .jjj .... .11'I r:..: iii u ~ LI'l f: O'l "- '" 't:l Ii 0 c: '" II) ~"$. 00 :S: ~.~ <lJ 0 "'1'1 N 0 <lJ <lJ Cl: co ..-! 0 0- .0 0 "! 0 >- z;- iti ..; Go ""' <lJ V <lJ > c: W E '" ::> Cl! .c 0 0 u U') ~~ tg~ CO"$. VI .... v.m >- L. <lJ 0 I"- 0 U 00 0 w c: ..... c:i c:i l:!i > 01 'jjj VI c: '" ... .... Cl! :p '- <lJ <lJ /'IJ 01 :l <lJ <lJ c: v ~#. v :S: CO"$. E >- ~ ..... 0 {I) <lJ co V "'" z;- c: 10 I"'] I"'l W 0 VI N N ... .c ..... Cl! ""' c: ::> VI <lJ t-I E '" 't:l c( E 2 'jjj M "'"~ LI'l :S: (JI~ ..... <lJ "'... ..... 0 z 0 '- .... ... U /'IJ 0 LI'l LI'! Z L. '- ei '" 0 0 N ... 0 ..... '- .... .... CIl .E '0 VI t-I ...I <lJ 0 ;E I- 0 '0 .c l- N v "$.. O'l :S: ~"$. {I) 0 0 u .u N'l"'l. ..... 0 .c VI Z 00 ...~. W % u ~ S 0 .... :l u VI .~ ei ,..j '.1'1 .>< :0 '0 O'CIl :0 :J 0 0 0- .c >u :J u Cl. .-! . g:"$. ~.~ ~.~. Q~ 0- z;- VI Z >- c: .!:e ... 10. .0 ..... ::> J5 11'I N 1'1 :l ::::) c: 0 I- \0 o:i ~. :J U :J 0 I- 0. 0- ... ..... 0 '- z {I) III u .~ Cl '- c: ~# co ~,* Z ~ '0 'ij .. ""l ;f C U .;; ~ ....~ lrl . .lg 0 0 '0 ~ ""l tl u II> 0 cO .0 cO N '- c: "0 0- .... GI /'IJ <lJ 'Ill: Cl! ::I -0 "0 E 0' <11 c: ~.."$. . 0 ..... <lJ 01 00 ~ .~~ ..... 'jjj :j:j c: GI- (J'I 0 :c ., .;; '3: III fa 11'I0 LI'l 0 1110 ::?: II> fa"" .0 0 0 VI VI E rtl{:. ... ..... ... >- 'E It> /'IJ :E I- ~ .c .c ::?: ::?: <11 Z L. .c :::::>> :J 'E 'E ..... 0 .... 0 >- ~ ~ 0 '- >- >- ..c:;":" U 0 E E u C :J '" .... ex: 0 .!: ,!: <lJ .8 W >- c ~ 0 Q) <lJ ~ .... ..... Cl c: c: It> .... -J >- i 0 0 :J E 'c B -J C. II> <lJ g.g 411 :J 0 GI E E :6 E .~ 0- :::I 0 0 u '" 0' UJ l1) B:u .a E ""' 0 U It> ""'.Q t u ~ ClO 15 ""- ~ ~ 1ii E 0 C fa 0 0 1::::l . GI .. 1: ;i; GI"" 0 N i 0 fa 0 ~::. M \0 o c:: 0- J: 0 0- N Qj III >. C. Gl GI .... 0 \0 ,~ c:: S ::> :"0 .c CI. Cl '<t M 0 VI .~ VI ~..!!! !;I 0 Q) 1... ..... -a. x 2~ VI .C 0 _ '0 c: 1,. .c "0 ~c: 0 l1 GI 0 Q) .::tl -VI .... 0'> .... ....:- ...,.'~ :;:; c: .c u GI '<t .... c:: /'IJ Q) ..... 0 III II! 7.:; u III > N N ..... E E > ro .c: .... it <lJ " .j!! ~ u .... .l!J 0'0 jo u 0 .s 0 c: ':is :c <lJ <lJ '" .c It> I. fa .c ro-<: c u VI i~~ u VI III ii u u Cl 4- .S:! <lJ VI <Xl <Xl VI III :w '8:["5- O~ ':!j!- VI "" O'l 0'> >8 I fa Cl <11 > II> rtl LI'l LI'l 1tI III ~;;! <lJ B :e.~ ~ <lJ I- .... GI VI ~ 8~ ::I ::l '" Q.. c I' l = '- : . . .- 0 .... , N , c: c: r 0 0 :p :;:; VI VI <lJ <lJ 1-71 ::> :2. N ,-_..._-~-,..~ . as :0 ~ u.. ~ ::s o (.) ... .~ '0 (.) I ~ ~ ~ ~ a Z o is u ~ f5 ~ g ~ ~ Z Z g is o >- '" ~ ~ ::t: U .~ - ~ m 0) CXI('l) ~~ .0 ~ ,.... ~x m~ 0" ,0 a..!i . . C&) _ 00 ii ctJU 0'< \I.'E'/.\rP BROWARO COUNlY COWER COUNlY DADE COUNlY COWER COUNlY - . - ~ Ie .... ~ ~ Z Z gg ~ ~ ~ ~ O:IE ~ ~ ~.~fS ,.... or- or- ~ ~\ lLlIl o~ 5~ \ ~ill ~ in ~~ ~~ "',. ~~ 0- g;~ "'j3 -':IE ~~ z'" (J5" j:!j3~ o Co" z- ~ VI 2,- ::t::::IE ~i5';; ~-,-' )~!;: ",0 fl~~ "'z.... ...'" f;:::IE11! "'~... "-Un ~ffi~ 1-72 ... 0 ~~,. .... :R ~.iI! z ... I"- 0 ;,.j.'~. .... 0 ....@. < U) Ii .1'1 cx:l ~' Ii') 1'1 . ,,~,,",''''- 0 c. ~~ ~$ ::E Cl\ \0 :R M 0 ... ~ ~L N N. 0 0 JIQ. ..0 ~, 00 ~.~; .... :R ("'; ~, co 0 'lnSO 1.11 c; iii, 1.11 '"' ::~,:~-. M cO .... " ;1;*.i 0 :R ~~ 1.11 0 U) -00 ", .0.' M .... .... -en . 0:> iii 1.11 .. Cl'\ I- " Lncfi! :R ~1f. It) \0 1.11 D:: (}. Mil] l"'J 0 1.11 1IO 0 00 IX? \0 >- iii 1I1 ~ Cl.. ..., c W ::l 0 ~ U In ;'b cfi! ~ $~ l'l1f. .... 10" > 0 0 V " 1.11 '"' W ..., g c:i 1Il .... ~ ro .... ... IJ) C1 :) C ot " " N :R ""'if. :~ .... N 0 (I) ot 0:> MCO CO <q ... W 1Il N M iii ..., ~ C IJ) .... " <C 'Vi tI'l 10 cfi! .... :R OJ. IJ) N N 0 ot(1l Z ~ I.- Ln .... ?.- M 1.11 \0 Z .... ~ .E ~ M ..0 0 III @ 1Il W .... .... >- IJ) l- e: .., c.i ~ ... N ~cfi! \0 :R ,~" c E .... 0 (I) ~ ::l 'u Z " 0:> .. 0\ W 0 0 ~ S ... \0 \0 a:l u J:: N N iii :) .... It) >- e:- O' ...I " E ro 0 I.- ~ IJ) E @ c. ... CO cfi! M :R :Git: > ..., 'Vi 0 ::E 'Ln \D 0 C z .:;: .J;: .S! ... 0 V ....Ln ". 1.11 ::::>> ::) VI 1Il :0 ... 0\ 0 c:i 0 .9:! ::l 0 I- It) 0. .... '~. 0 J:: 'E z (I) C1 ci :?: c u,cfi! 'It ~ ~~. z .E 1.11 '5 ... ,.., C s ! ......"'"1 0\ 0 C ~ ro ~ ..., \0 CO 0 J:: 0 . ,r.i II) I.rj N >- .., l.- e:: ~ E 0. .... l/I ~ ,!: 0:( ~ QI ,!: 0 0 ::l E C1 00'$ CXl :R a:J$ 0' IJ) c CU- $0 Cl'\ 0 0\0 ::r:: c 0 .3: VI.\! 1.11 0 LnO ..... ~ 0 C ...0 0 IJ) .2 III 0 ... .... ... > -0 00... E E IJ) :E I- ~ 0 .., VI ro IJ) Z I.- U ..:- .2 J:: ::::>> ::l ro .., 0 IJ) .!!! '0 0 >- >- I.- .., e:- J:: .:..:, U 0 1Il U C) ::l It) ~ ro .... 1II.... D:: 0 0. :e IJ) .3: 'il 0 w >- c IJ) IJ) .8 .~;l 0 J:: l; I.- IJ) l:'i .... .., 0 ..., ro .... E ...J >- .~ C1 C ::l E ~. 0 ro 1; ~, ...J C. VI c :::> ~~ J:: IJ) CU .C 0 >- 0 0. :l :::> U ,$: >-0 CD ~.. ro a 0 0 '- E.... ~= U <( .., .., .., QJ ~ I.- ' MlJ ro .Q j ~ co ;5 c E ro .si ....- :R :R ro IJ) IJ) Cl C III 0 0 1:: ~ c c c =: cu.... 1.11 Cl'\ 0 c: l~, -g'1:l Cl 0 u 0 LIl V 0. 1Il IJ) Ii N Qj ..... vi " E QJ :a' IJ)J:: lli cu... c: .;: .., .0 c- o 1.0 V 0 ~ l.- i:; ~ VI =: .E CD: IJ) 0 .Q! ]I'.. @ ~'~t; ~ x J:: l: If) u 0 'u ~.:' u -0 .0 '1:l o' := QJ , cu: ...; i;~:~ir .oel> 'rJ5 . ( Q) .lI: VI N V .... :::> c , J:: c: 0. " ..., u cu Cl'\ co 0 QJ If) ;1:. -, ';;.i ( cu > M N .., 1Il ->- j ~ iU') Iii .1:: .-< E };= I . III 171' J ~ U "- 2 ll" c E :~~~i i u 0 ~ ::l~ ~ IJ) IJ) '" ':5,.i~ J:: Iii c t.~ 0>- C u -t:: ~E S;~;b l cu- u U 0 IJ) VI:! CXl 0:> VI .. VI Cl'\ Cl'\ <1l ~ e.l: ~ .... ~>c; . ro III 0 LIl 1.11 ro IJ) VI o . IJ) cu.!; 6; .~ IJ) =... '- cu .:!31l '0 IJ) C ~ 6~ :l , C' u E :2;:QU' l = '-- i; .'~r"- . ;.- .'. a C .-< N C r:: " c 0 0 ',j:; -.:; 1-73 VI VI IJ) IJ) ;2, ::l ~._---~.--. -- 0) ~ co ('I) ~~ ('1)0 .0 ~ I"- ~x mg o. .0 0.0.: . CD..- CC .. .. ~~ BROWARD COUNTY COLlIER COUNTY DADE COUNTY COWER COUNTY U) W Q o o a. - N cu :c 5 u. $ c :::I o o ... .~ 15 o I w 8 j!j ~ ~ ~ ~ u >- '" 15 '" z ::J !j! g ..- ,.. ~ i I ! o z w C) W -J !! ~ ~ ~ ~ 15 '" ::; ~ 8 ~ ~ rr: <Ii ~'~fS .... ..- ..- ~ ~\ U-lfJ o~ ai \ ~~~ ~ o~!I2' i ~ iiI ~~ 1=", ~lj 5 >-'" ~lJl &:-' :::l;5 "'~ ~~ Slo z'" a5" I:!~~ ooQ z~ < GJ.V r;Jr t6J1cP oJV cf \if.:~CO 1-74 t- ~ o Q. w ~ > w > ~ ::J U) w ~ M c( Z ZI- OZ MW t-~ U)w Wu ::Jill:: 0'f2 >z OW ::J:t tiS zci o g N~ 1-1 VI ~ cu o ::l ::t~ ~ Z ::;) o u ~ W M ...J .... o u 00 o o N i..: .E (l) u IE o 1II it: .r:: (l) J::. <n >- .... C ::I o U L. ~ "0 u ..... o Q) u C /tI EO' 0'" 't: 0 (l)..... a.... ~ E ~.g o '- 1!JS .... E: Q) ~ 15'" L. <ll (l) '" 1II 0 ~~ c.~ . .u S...;- .s ~ .....E ......l:: O!:l Q) III tti..c: U u III "" III <ll c '- o~ : '- ..... c o :p III <ll ::I 0' l- e ill) ;I. \.0 ::Ii? Z ..t i~O\. M 0 '<t w i~"! ...... " ..J N ..J it> w i 1'1 N U I I >< 0\ r~.~. co ::Ii? w \.0 0 ,.... M I-~,: I ..... ..... co iN;j!. LI'l ::Ii? :0\ co Cl'> 0 Cl'> m co iii LIi i .... ..... " ;0;1.:' Cl'> ::Ii? 1~.:\D. ," '<t 0 Cl'> 1:'.:M ..... !';cO <Xi \D ,~ ;I. i ~ ! iii an 'Ot M ,P'l r11 ....,.... .... N N \.O#, o ~ .... ... "'# ....~ N Ill:: o o Q. t ~~ c:: q: 'N~ 110..... f',. r>i ... ClI- VI.:!! fa 0 all- 'co#, .0\ 0 111.0 ... c o ti ClI ::I ,.....;--. !.:J o >- :,6 .cu 'u ~., 51 !"i.. 'oa ilL f5' :~~ 'e (5 '-of .-g 0 :8:~.. .sr 01 ~ 11.. 1-_ . 1--';" ~~ N o \0 \.0# ~CJl I.D ,..:: ~~ \0 ,..:: ;:j~ ..... LI'l M ~~ co \0 N ~~ '<t co ..... ~~ LI'l - .S >- ..... .;; B III VI ::I o .u '0. VI ::J VI , Cl'O C 0 ~~ .2' 0 ~~ ~ .2' C Q) ""e . 1-75 Z BROWARD COUNTY COLUER COUNTY DADE COUNTY ctI U) "C I COWER COUNTY "C W ..Q Q u. 0 ;5- 0 ~ C Z ~ ~ U W ::J C) Go ~ z D. 8 w N 8 is u -J ~ ffi N '- .~ ~ ~ (5 :t: U 0 - .... ..- ~ 1 I '"' Ie ..l. ~~ z z is a u u ~ ~ i g ~ ;! ~ II) 0) ~ COM i~ .0 -...... ~x cog o. .0 c..a: . . 6l: l:rs ..... ..- ..- ~ ~ i ~ lil z:> oiS B~ "':> ~~ t-> =>~ "'z ->.... <~ !.!~ z", 5:>" ~~i!; or z. < '" !.!c. :t:~ "-2;" 5~~ >l.I.I ",0 fl~~ ~~" ~~~ a..u~ ~\ lL.II) ow ~.... t.J GVcIi~ s- _0 ~i ~15 Of y.f.YJ.CO 1-76 ~ o Q. w a:: > w > D:: :) (I) wUi' a::z t-e w C(, ZIIl Z~ OM t-e~ t-W (I) III W...l ;:)< O'~ >Q QW :)Z t-> (I)~ ZW O~ NW t-eZ a::W Ou,; ~C > .S! t-t: Z GI :) ::l O~ u a:: w t-I ....I ....I o U CO o o N lIJ ~ UJ .r::-- ..... ~ '3 ~ Q) 0 u..... c '" .~~ Q)Q, a.Q, x I\J Q)..... ..... I\J VI.c: "'..... 0.>0: I- 0 g-Q ><1> ~-S o~ .at: '" 0 VI.:.:: :J u - QJ Q).c: ..... u Q) QJ '" '" '" ll> Q) <1> ti:ct : '- .... c o ;p VI ClI :J a "'" - e III cu"'" U 0 ..I- cu.... D. 0 ." cu . ~1Il U cu cu> .1:. u cu- III III Ill.... rtl~ ~ ~ c o :i:i '" Q) :J C' .... X OJ c OJ .r:: .... o .... o ~ .... c OJ "C .Vi ~ j:; C :J :>. 0 u U ~ '" 01 C 1-. <II Q) Q) E .0 Q) Q) ro ~ u .r:: :0 OJ OJ E u '" .~ B lIJ "C ~ C UJ g E :G e I- .... o a. ..... Qj lIJ .r:: ~ I- UJ .E I- ~ ]l "0 ro u u "0 l- e ~ ~ ro Q) o u c ~ > cu '" '" ::l .r:: .r:: a rJ? t:. r-. l") "" l") c:i O'l "" "" N II) "" O'l N N <Xl <Xl O'l O'l II) II) ~ Q) > o Q) .r:: .... E ~.:.:.. :2~ g.s 3:...... g E >.e 3:'" oa; .r::-Q ~ g 2~ OJ t: '" 0 m~ o.~ . '0 o , .... ..... B~ .... E ....~ o <1l ClI~ ro.c: u u VI ll> '" <1> c '- p~ N C o ;p VI Q) :J rr VI ClI ;p ':;; B '" 01 c '3 ~ :E Q) .r:: .... B ti ClI 0. VI OJ '- .!:: lIJ ~ UJ .... o ClI u c '" E ~ ClI a. 1-0 z", lI.I -' -' lI.I U ~Q\ ~. .:..A' . ;:W'~!~: ,;.~,. co ..... ::::;~ .co . ;""; '''J;. ~ 1/. ~. N:. \0 In M.~.. o I/) :~ o:r rt'l~ o I/) ~ l"I M.#,' o II) o N M~ .... 0. .... ~.~ M M o a: o o D. t ~! c: oq: ~# r<.,0I "It . .10 "II' cu- III I\J Ill"'" rJ:J~ co'tl 0'10 lI'lo . ;o;.t. e o ~ cu ::l j ~ c CII ir >- u. l. CII "CI.. . ~~,;~ ~; ~"H i'~ u:i51 % 'Lo, w:.}:!- :. .. ~j.. .....N . ."It: 'US :1"1; :..-._, ~~ ....N "': r-. N ~~ o N o .... N,'lii/ lI'l:i:?, .."" ..)~1~ ';fi#- 0'\ ~ r-. ~t <Xl .... l") M-:!2. MO r-. .... N ..q-# r-. ~ a ~?F. r-. .... c:i T"""Irf, r-. .... c:i Orj. a ~ o N';J2. M M o Q;~ ""a, a, r--: "" ~# 11)0 o .... o ..... ..... C <II E ..... '" ~ ro u :c Q) E ~ ro :J CT .r:: 01 :Cui :G a "0 ~ '~ 2i a.~ ~.~ UJ ,S: u ~ .i: u c c . 'r c :I i ~ C L L ~ C L 0: C .C '"' 1-77 Z BROWARD COUNTY COWER COUNlY DADE COUNlY ctI UJ "0 ! COWER COUNlY 01: W 0 Q u: 0 iE c ~ z ~ ~ (.) c: w 8 :;, z z 8 (!) 0.. 5 a a. w N u u ...J ~ ffi - L.. N o~ o ~ ~ 8 :r - .... ... ~ Ie -L ~ Ii ~ ~ u) z z 1H~ ~ ~ u g ~ ~ 001 z z a a U u ~ f5 :!~ ~ g ~G :r u 6l: '~fS ..... - - ~ m coCO) i~ .0 - r-- ~x mg 00 00 0..0.: . . \ ~~~ ! o~!a' ~ ~ Iii ~~ 1=", u", wu "'s ~~ ll. ~~ "'i:j -'::Ii ~~ ~'" (JS~ j;!i5~ o oel' Z7 .. '" 0. -.... :r::li ll.l5 u 3~~ s.:1.r.I ",0 t;lr=~ !i~"'" ~~~ a..o~ 8- _0 ~i ~ r$ tJIiI$P oJV ar y.fjlCO 1-78 ~ o a. IU c:t >- IU ~ :::) U) IU c:t .... <t Z Z o ....-' 1-0 U)a: IU~ ;:)z 0'8 )00 00 :;:)9 I-u" u)... z~ 0'- Nt; ~~ Oe :c ~ z :;:) o u c:t IU .... ..J ..J o U 00 o o N " o >- B >- C. 0. '" ~ '" fi E 1'J ..; Ul B E ~ E ~ Qj ~ l'i :c ~ 3: ~.~t~2 ~~~R~ ~i.::E~>-~ ~ti ~:~ ~~~~~e WW.cWVlQ. ~-5~~E>- cn.!:nJE~~ C'5w 00 .~.~~~~V1 "'0 GJ tiJ ~ '::l E .e g ~ U) ~ :E ~..cVl.oi5e E>-evoua. a.~:5~~g' E cv g .c: ..c: ~ 2 0 -t t 8 g c: c: W (l) ii:: .~~~~Kg "'C rtI Vl .C g.c:~EE~ Q:: ~ lQ C C Q.l C ~ ! E 0 0 ;c .g~~.~~.s.c ut > "0 "'0 :0 ""C c:: CUroooooo ::::J .c: 0 0 0 0 "C 0' ti: G: Li: w: ...- C I': III'" ~~ III.... Il. 0 rJ2. cf!. en v <Xl <Xl " 0 .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ln ~ '" '!""4 M .....-t u1 .... "- ~ o OJ .0 '" W x o .0 W -5 " III. .lC Ul "- u 4J 0 Lt') III >- .... s;, u :g '" .... ,..., .... ~ Iii -'" u w .;:; ;.; ~i9 <0 <0 <0 <Xl co <Xl ~~~~:;:;e::~B:; .... c:: o :;::; Ul OJ " 0' ~ "0 c:: '" 01 c:: :0 o o -= '" u .2 01 c:: ~ '" 01 ~ " o >- B ~ '" III 01 c:: :s "" c:: .;: .2 S w fi "- o .;:; u '" ll.l ~ c:: '" 1:: o 0. .~ ~ o .;:; 1'J ~ OJ Vl '" W '. 0.0- ~-.... c:: 0 "'... 1::.... ~E .~ .g t; ~ 0"" E E w ;:, .;:; c:: ;;;'" .... a :E~ ~ " .. 'u ~~ B ~ .... E "-~ 0,l!J OJ Ul Iii.c:: U u Ul '" '" '" 8~ . '- N c:: o ..., Ul OJ " 0' 0. o .;:; Ul B '- o ~ o ~ .8 <lJ > '- "0 B w Ul " " o >- '" "0 '" e <lJ fi c:: o ~ U '" 0. ~ 1-0 Z'" c t= o Il. ZGl .. 00 .... 10 In 'If M N I- Z ~ o a.... Z .. I- o Z t o l :z: ~ "'t QI- 1Il.l9 I': 0 lICIl- c o ~ ::I :1 :g , 1:. 8 .. S :~ If '> ,e a J f'::f. .Q 1 ,f! "'0 .0 l~>. !:I' 13: ~ il. ".1:; -' .+-i ~.'r'4 .." il "":':... In r;; :;ilil . N o ...; "';1- ~.... o .. ~B'; co . ~~ " 0\ .... il l"lco .... ...; "';1- v\O co -0 ~il .\0 l"l ,..: .~# ~~.-~. ci l"l ~il I '..~' . "'i .... ilK il :"'8 .;.~ 8# ....N N r..: .... 0;1- "... .... ... .... ~~ ,..., . ~~; ~; ~~ " '" ~# ID l"l ,..: ~~ ,..., <i vil "'... O. .. ~~ o ..0 ::l~ '" iii ~# '" o c:i .... ID.rf. \O~ ... ... ~~ <0 . ~.~ o ..; ~~ .... ..0 Oil v", \0 lei ~~ <Xl vi ~t; ... ,..: ~~ ....,..., N c:i N .....;f. ::!; f:r ~ '8'l# .~ ~ ... ~~ '" ...; .... ~* ",0 o .... ilK ill. "'8 ... c:- '" :; 01 E c:: o w > .;: "0 ,I: .... ,ra .. I: III .c ;1 ''0 'e Ul "0 '" :: '" .c <lJ Cl c:: .2 '" Cl c:: :0 o o -= Cl c: 'u " '" <V 0:: .... .ra .~: i~ :; :~. :l . C::l'" r] "l;I :1 ~ C'. Ij'; :~ .... . 1-79 ~ e <lJ '" '" 'S c:: o '" ,. = ~ c.;:, o 0 .;:;:>, ~ ii <lJ<l: "0 0 ~ l1: ~.g ~ 6 o ;:, ~ 0 o :>, ""0 0"" ~ Ul g~ ~~ "'.. b~ "... ~~ 1Il-Cl "0 '" ~ ~ <lJ '" fS:S ~~ ~ 0 ",-", ~ ~ 0'S ; -0' -= 12 2"5 W III Ul '" ~ :s a.u:. . '- ,..., c:: o :;::; VI '" " 0' .. ~ z Ul " I': o a: vi s; 1:: o z .. III > Gl Z CI- 1IlJ! I': 0 lICIl- '*~ 'Ln 8: .... Ul "l:l ra o a: i 3!: 1;; I': W '0 J J.. l.. ;!~. -...~... ~# .c; .l'I,j v~. ~~. .~ il'i.~ Pl.", <ll u; '" ej.~ " oi CO;f.: ~g .... ... LI'l ~. j CD ... ~ ;3 .: ~'if!. O' N' g;' ~,; "'~ '.lti .'!t .':c.l.:.r.... ~~ ....N V ..0 N '$.cf2. ,..., o '" ~~ ...~ r.i ~~ ",0 o .... "0 '" (i ~ o ~~ ...~ ,..; '" ~~ ....~ ...; '" ~~ '" 0;; ~~ ...." '" r-.j "'l ~# ",0 o .... 1:' '" > <lJ :; o ID c:: o .!!! ~ ~oe ...:::: .... ,..., "E .IV-: . .> .J! :~ .i:~E C' .. :~ - .: g.~' NOf ~ ~~ N'" '" ICi '" ~~. "''It r\j. "II ~~ 'It C ...; ... ~..~. O. c:i ... ~~ '" ' ii;i III III "l;I ra ~ ~ w . 1:' '" > '" :; o ID .8 o Ul <lJ Cl ~* Nv: -0 ,., ~R ,..., c:i .... "'il ~.~ i:li ... ~# N'" '" r..: ,..., .Pl#, ~,~ R# ....,..., v cO N ~.:Ie. "II.1ii . ,'It. :":;~: ~~ ....~ 01 '" co .~. Cl\.. '" i ... ~# ",0 o .... -0 > ii5 1'J '" l? c:: <lJ '" o I..? ~ ~ %% S 5 U ~ 5 o g ~ U C) C) C) cae") ~~ ,0 ~,.... ~X m~ O' .0 a.. a.: , U) .... 00 .... .... ~~ en w Q o (.) Q. - N BROWARD COUNl'f COWER COUNl'f DADE COUNTY COllIER COUNl'f m :g ..Q u. ~ c: :I 8 .... .~ 8 ?: ~ % % 8 8 ~ ffi is =l x ~ ; .... ~ c z w C) ~ D. N I/) ~ ~ ~ % % 88 ffi '" - li1 ~~ ;z ~ 6Z '..1"8 .... .... .... ~ \ ~~~ ~ o ia' ~ % o iil ts~ 1=", ~tl "'5 .-a: 15 III 11. ~~ '''is ;i~ 20 !a: U"to ~iS30 ooR %7 ..' '" u I' 11.- "15~ ~~~ Clo e~~ ~~,... eil1l a:oo< c..Uo ~~ >J1IiPP (jJU elf >J,E'1-ICO 1-80 ~ o Q. W rt > W ~ :;:) In W..... rtID <~ z> ZIX O~ ....w t-;:) Inu W(I) :;:)w 0': >-' co :;:)IX t-I- In~ ZU OW N$ ....u.. D::J: o c ::t 0 ~~ Z :2 :;:)E: o u D:: w .... ...I ...I o U 00 o o N .;.; c: (I) E 1: 10 C. Q) -C ~ li: Iii u .2 I- :J o >- .s:: ..., .~ Q) u c: <l.> 'C Q) C. X <l.> ..., V1 III C. I- :J o >- ..., :J o ..0 III V1 :J 2.l <l.> V1 10 <l.> c: ,-j c: o :p V1 <l.> :J 0' /C o i = C1 .... c: Q) -C C "Vi o <ll ~ ex: III >- :J .., .., c: "in :3 >- 0 u U l5 III C\ c: I- <ll <l.> <l.> E ..0 <l.> <ll c: > III 2 '+- o <l.> <l.> V1 U :J c: to "Vi al t .c 'r: .., .., u V1 E a V1 <l.> a ~ ~ >- u: :5 ~ E .2 ~ 10 C. E Cii o .s:: .l:: I- c..E Cii -c .s:: ~ '- n5 .E u -c I- ~ ~ n5 IlJ u c: <l.> IlJ > > III III .s:: .s:: ...- CJ! Q) 0 ~I- Q), ... 1:1. 0 cf!. ~ N '<t N r-.. u:i 0 ,-j r-.. 'a Q) . .lII:1II 1.1 Q) eII)- 3:. V r-.. M 0' ~ eII- IIIJ! III 0 G:ll- a:> a:> 0' 0' Lfl Lfl ". ,-j Lfl 0' -c III &. >- .., c: :J o U "- o .., V1 10 IlJ C\ c: ~ V1 .., c: IlJ -c .jjj Q) l- I- .E V1 <l.> u .~ Q) Vl <l.> :J U Vl <l.> I- -c c: III Q) '- li: C\ c: '0 .:;: e c. .~ C\ c: .~ .2 :E <ll .s:: ..., '0 .r;;"':" u<::> Ill.... ~a '- Ill.... :J E: g.~ .8~ ~E 1::::. o c:: ~~ .- 0 s: Q) ~~ ... 'u ~...;- B ~ ,-j ~ "- ..... o.::! Q) '" ~"5 V1 III III Q) c: .... p~ N c: o :p V1 <l.> :J 0' 1-0 Z'" ~ IX o 1:1. :ECl\ ... 'la'#.' ;~~ '. .", . "It. co rs# "a:> co. N; ~' ~L~ . Ln. .Q:! Ln. " \D ~.~ ... o .of It) co# t'1lt1 M \ci v ...#. .... .... c:i M co#. v M ..4 I-N Z ~ o 1:1.... Z ... I- o Z ~;I ." .... ... .t? 'cf. ..." .... N ... ~~ c: 'lit ~$ ~ " QI- III III Ill'" G:l{; .~ ;I Lng .... C o t; CII = III r::: ' ~ Ill., CIIXl. ~i e;-.!! '. iJi~i :i'.;U;hj' . ~:4J':. , .'e .' .!i i-I'. -g~~ fii,jg J;'iiI~~' :a~CII ,a'1t Q .I!I,a:,9! U)CJ)'Q .:.~.~-Ui m: '1:1' 8.- !'!!.C' . .~~i.1 JW.o .' 'j-": .~;.=5 .- ,., ~~ ,-j0 .-I ,-j M co.~. \D .f;...:. "1. .... .... O'I,R, MO N Lfl 1.0 ~~ M o a:> ~~ N II) '<t ~~ a:> ,-j M ~~ 1.0 M Cl1 O'\?f!. T-f LJ"l ,-j LJ"l,R, MO Lfl co iii ~~ ,-j iii ~~ co -i .-I s::~ "- Cl:) 0; ~~ LJ"lO o r-I llJ.... Vl III c: -CC:1lJ III 0 E e~f:j "'O~... CQJE o/>c -collJ ltl I- 3: ~ E.!>! f{;; -g :S;:""'1ll .~ al vi' ;al:a c:<l.>W ltl c: _ VlCli.f1l -1-1:; ltl Ill'- lii<l.>t;: u > .- 1-="'C Q) ..... llJ ~~J: ~Ji~ .0, 3: III -cl-1lJ 'C a3 E COc;,p > <L f V: > 'E z V1 c: o N .C o :J: > ..... c: :J o U I- ~ o U a:> o o N 1-81 BROWARD COUNl'f COLUER COUNlY DADE COUNl'f COWER COUNl'f co "C "C o u:: ~ ;:, 8 L. "~ '0 u o z w G w ...J Il. N r= /: ~ ~ u >- 0:: 15 '" ~ ~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~ a:; II) /:/: ZZ g 8 ffi '" _ 0 ~ '" u ~ /: /: zz E 5 u >- 0:: ~ ~ :l: U 6l: .~rs ..... ... ... ~ ~ co(\') ~~ .0 ..- ..... ~~ aJaJ O. .0 a.. 0.: . ~ ~ ~ ~~ !:if:! "'u "'5 >-0:: 2jlJl ~-' ::>~ '''is -'::I ~i!j Zo:: i35", 1=!i3~ ~~8 ~. ~ ... cc ~~ c;JV'*~ (JJIJ cff \l<f..'f..\cD 1-82 <c [..il ~ [..il Q o U p.., >-< N .....:l <c f-< r:/) o p.., :>-< P:t r:/) >-< r:/) :>-< .....:l <c ~ [..il > ~ d <c p.., ~ o u rfJ. Z -< ~ ~ ~ ~ o z ........ f-< r:/) d f-< Z o u :>-< o:l Q [..il ~ ~ r:/) <c [..il ~ r:/) <c [..il u Z <c f-< ~ o p.., ~ ........ ~ o VJ [..il [..il ~ o [..il Q o N ....... 7 rr'J p.., N l'-- ....... ....... 7 M p.., ........ N f-< Z [..il :::2 [..il f-< <c f-< VJ CD;>, C ....... :..0 . U --0 cd -< g- - U c = 0\ == == 0\00 ~ :.a Q) 8 'U cd o ~ = ~.@ 8 'U:.a ~ <1) Q) ~ 8 8 (1)'U'U 8 t;j 8 'U :> :> cd ~ (1) o ;::l"3 ~ 0 0 _o:lo:l CJ:::::~ ~.g~ ~- 6~~ - Q) ~ - ,- o = = 00 ~ cd :.a Q) 8 'U cd o P::: == == 000\ o = ~ ~ 00 cd cd :.a:.a ~ (1) Q) cd 8 8 :.a ~ <1)"8-0 S cd .... ;> ~ ~~Q) o ;:l"3 P::: 0 0 =o:lo:l (1) ~ ~ ~-o~ --' 6~~ (1) ~ 6 --0 cd o ...... Ul <1) @ .... :9 Ul o 0= ..c:~ ~oo l- cd ~ (1) cd C:;-C; bD Q) .e ~ ....... ..... . (;beui .- ~ v @ Q) 0.. .0-0 'f ~ ~ Q .3 Q) ;>= 2~ o..cr. .5 ~ ro E:.a Ul Q) ~~ (;j ~ Ul 8 :.a Q) = 8 g~ 0000 Ul -0 cd ~ 8 ~ ..... ..c: .~ 'U i-' 'U Q) ;::l (1) 8 0 S'U;:2 'Ut;j~ cd :> 0 o (1) ~ P::::'"51-< (1) 0 0 ~ co .@" j.....8 o c;:; I-< ~ 'U Q) ~~ ,.:::~o Ul 8 :.a Q) ==8 =OUl >.Or--:~ ~ 0 cd I-< q ro:.a..c: :.a (1) 15 (1) S 0 S'U~ 'U@..c: cd ;> t o Q) 0 ~"3: (1) 0 0 (1) P:t '(;j"' ~ ..... "'- l::i "3C;:; ;::: 'U ~ S 8 ~ _p:::o - Q) ;> cd ...... i-' ........ Ul -0 cd o ...... (1)0 -:S~ bD QO ~ o ~ ~ .~ bD 'U ~ (1) '.;::1 ~ ,.... bb ~. ~ ~ o @ ~'"5 ..... b1) VJ (1) ...... = = 00 = Q)= ~ cd \0 ~ .. o ~ 8 .- 813 ........ 8 '"d 8 '"d t;j :> ,Q) '"5 o co Q) ~ o ~ (1) '"d o o 'U cd o I-< ..c: 15 o Ul tn::I:: o:'t ~ 0 u ~ . r 'U g ~ ....ot1 .. Q) = .ffi -5 ~ 13~Ul 8 ~ 8 '"d(1):.a cd -:S Q) 80 8 = o r--: = = r--:= ~ 00 ~ ro :.a Ul (1) 8 8:.a 'U (1) 8 S ~'U '"5 ~ o I-< o:l ~ o..c: i-' i-' o 0 Ul (1)- Q<C .~ ~ o Ul Q) ~ ~ ro ,- If) .or-- Ul Q)....o -0 .. &~ --o:.a c <J.) ro:;.'2 <J.) u~ ;>,ui Q-o .- cd co 0 ~ .... 1-83 = = r--: Ul ~ ro :.a Ul Q) 8 8 :.a Q) = ~ 8 ~ 8 ~~~ o 8 ;::l 1-<....... 0 i-' 'U Ul ~ Q)::I:: ~ 8 t --... 0 t1 ~ cd <n I-< Q) ~ (1) -~~ <cuo '"d cd o ...... ..c: i-' ;:l o Ul ~ I-< o ~ '"d 8 .....= UlO (1)>.0 ~ --... Ul t; ~ cd cd Q):.a ..... Q) <c 8 d ,S i-' cd i-' I-< o 0.. Ul ~ ro .00 UlIrJ ;::l>.O .n .~ 8 :O:.a ;:l Q) ~~ = = r--: ~t12bl) ~ Q) ro ~ (1) ~ 0'5- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~:> t1'Uo~ Q) ~ 0 (1) ~04-<~ 4-< a 0 4-< o 8 ~ 0 ~.~ b t1 .(;3 S c gs ~ 4-< b1) Ul (1) 0 c 'U U Q) :.a cd .8 g'en 8 cd (1) i-' ~ t I-< Ul bl)0Q)Q) .- 0.. Ul ~ UlejO--'" UlC..c:i-' ro .- f-< .~ >. Q) Q) Q)..c:'U'U ~ i-' Q) Q) ~ N :> Q).- ;>, 0 U c c;:; I-< ~ b1) ~ 0.. .s 0 cd 8 ~ () ~I""""l o (1) Ul c 0.. l-o ~;:l 8l'--:>Q) ......-4 ....--f ~ (""""l ....--f '"0 +:: 4-<7 cd 4-< OM 8 0 ~ ~ ..c: Q) I-< .... ~ U bl)roo8 (1) Q) t 'U-o..g;0 <J.)0~0.. .scroS 0.. c .- ~ .N ....., Q) ~ .5 0 ~ ] ;:l-oSON 1:H l-o i-' >. ~ cd 'U Ul c;:; ....... ;> ~'en ~ Ul Q) cd cd ro ....., '"5 ;>,..c: Ul co..... 0..'U (1) o:l'S S ro '"d ;::l (1) 0 ~ V rl 1--1 O""'c'""'....., ~c3 8 ~ ~ ~~8~~ >. ~ Q) bl) t1 '"' Q) Q) cd "'""0.0:>(1) 'U 0 ~'5b~ ~4-<COi-' Q)OcdN4-< :> ..c: '""'....... 0 cd.....,O-.:t b ::3 .......... ~ 0 bDM cd :::::Ul~cd'U Q) bl)'5- ~ ~ ~ c 0 cd cd Ul :.a Q) Q) ;>, 'U.- :> 'U .~ cd Ul Q) 0 s:: O~'"dQ;::l ~<J.)Q)6..8 o ::'N 8 ~ ~ ~.5 8 <C-o~"8~ "" '" cd +-' ~ ~ (1) ;> (1) "" Q)bl) ~ ..Q~ '"5 8 O~cdOl-o VJcd8P:to Position Points Master Committee After taking into consideration the individual public participation meetings and the survey responses, the Master Committee has arrived at specific position points in relations to the components of the Horizon Study. Below are the Master Committee's position points, which again, are based upon the two year conversation the Committee conducted with the general public of the Study area through public participation meetings and distributed surveys. Water The overwhelming majority of the public are not interested in the extension of water and/or waste-water to Estates, whether inside or outside of the current district boundary. The general public has expressed concerns over the long and short term effects of South Estates/Everglades re-hydration and restoration, on the Estates and other rural areas, both in terms of flooding and the effects on other natural systems. Based upon this concern, the County should consider a study by an independent hydro-geologist. The general public has expressed concerns over the long term effect of the build-out population and other growth factors on wells and potable water availability in the East of CR951 study area. Based upon this concern, the County should consider coordinating a study with the local and State agencies and an independent hydro-geologist to examine the issue of long term potable water sustainability. Transportation Bridges in the estates are a necessity to promote the transportation network and multiple bridge locations are necessary to not burden anyone location. This idea was part of the GGE Restudy Report in 2003 and is supported by the Horizon Study Committee. For arterial and collector roads east of CR951, landscaping at the time of construction is not a priority. Functionality is the most important factor within roadway design with only basic amenities. Sidewalks are not considered essential and lighting should be confined to major road intersections, county parks and schools. Existing and future arterial and collector roads should have multiple use paths. Bike and pedestrian lanes on roads are not the public preference. 1-84 Future road design standards need to take into consideration the semi-rural character of the Estates. For future roads in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) the rural cross section design should be the first option considered. The promotion of commercial and industrial land uses in the study area, which assist in altering the current transportation modal splits are necessary to reduce traffic congestion and trip lengths. The public has expressed a need for more consideration of emergency evacuation routes in future roadway planning. Fire The County should explore the feasibility of placing fire hydrants along existing raw water main lines within the Study area as a potential means of fire suppression. The public has expressed that the County exploring the feasibility of a fire suppression system only in the Estates with research into well-fed draw type hydrants in-lieu of an expensive loop system The Fire Districts should be included as a required part of an initial design review committee concerning construction of roads and new home developments. This would allow the Fire Districts to voice their concerns about design plans that do not provide adequate access for fire equipment and to suggest possible solutions before construction begins. Emen!encv Medical EMS LOS is best if it is a combination of the level 2 and level 3 options identified within the Preliminary Study, which called for a varied distribution of owned and co-located stations. Parks The public during the public participation meetings has expressed that neighborhood parks are incompatible with the semi-rural character of the Estates. Based upon the conclusion of neighborhood park incompatibility, the public has expressed a desire for larger Community Parks. The provision of the Level Three option identified within the Preliminary Report is desired for the Study area. Level Three provides for an urbanized level of service for parks for the Study area. It should be noted that the survey results expressed only limited support for new park facilities. General The public has expressed an interest for the County to explore the potential for consolidation of the Independent Fire Districts and Collier County's Emergency Medical Services. 1-85 Every effort to increase communication between divisions and departments within the County should be explored, as well as communication among the Counties throughout the region. An emphasis on better coordinated transportation planning is necessary, with cooperation from all other local, state and federal governmental throughout the region. The Committee would like to stress the need for continuous communication among the County, its departments and the large land owners within the RLSA Study area to ensure resources align with infrastructure timing and needs. The need for continuous communication also applies to the master planning efforts for the Sub-Elements (Golden Gate, Rural Fringe, Immokalee, ect.) of the GMP which comprises the Study area. The Committee recognizes the importance of the development of the Immokalee Airport as a regional transportation asset and supports all efforts to further the airport's development. Maintaining the semi-rural character of the Estates is important. The Committee recognizes the value of the Inter-Active Growth model as an additional planning tool to help guide the County's future capital infrastructure decisions, but cautions that the Growth model is designed to be used on a regional basis and not a site specific basis. The Committee, with the recognition of the importance of the issues identified by the general public during the Public Participation process, would encourage the Board of County Commissioners to consider appointing a 3 to 5 member oversight committee to ensure the issues identified are acted upon. In addition to carrying forward the issues and concerns identified by the Horizon Study, the oversight committee could oversee the integration of the Inter-Active Growth Model and its maintenance. The Committee with the recognition of the importance of the issues identified by the general public during the Public Participation process would also encourage the Board of County Commissioners to consider appointing a site specific committee to explore through public meetings the specific locations for future land use changes (new commercial locations in the Study Area) and infrastructure improvements. Final Conclusion of the Public Participation Phase As evidenced by the current economic and housing market conditions, the demand for housing for any given location will fluctuate over time. At the onset of the Study, the demand for growth was exceeding the County's service and infrastructure provider's ability to keep up with the demanded improvements. Over the last twelve months, those conditions have waned considerably, and based upon the County's reduced demand for Capital Infrastructure and Services, the benefit from this long range planning effort 1-86 would appear to provide the County with a longer period of time to react to growth related demands. Based upon the lack of new capital improvement projects contained within this year's Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), it would appear that the above conclusion will be validated. While the immediacy for new capital expansions has lessened, the benefits provided for within this four year long planning effort remain. Southwest Florida, with its subtropical climate, abundance of natural and man-made amenities and accessibility to national as well as international future residents, stands as a unique market. While the growth rates associated with most locations throughout this Country traditionally hold steady at a somewhat predictable level, the Southwest Florida market appears to be subject to a much more volatile cycle of expansion. Based upon the 2008 Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) population estimates, between 2000 and 2006, Collier County's population increased from 257,926 to 330,258 persons. This represents a 28 percent increase over a seven year period, or broken down annually to a 4 percent growth rate. This rapid run-up is a direct contributor to the current market conditions, but should also serve as a reminder as to the attractiveness of this location to individuals throughout the world as a potential site for a second home or a new place to call home. The Comprehensive Planning department, as well as the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research is of the belief that as the micro and macro economic conditions follow their natural cycles, the demand for new residential units throughout the County will continue during the next upturn in the national economic cycle. When these conditions do begin to materialize, due to the comprehensive nature of the East of CR951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study, the county will be much better equipped to align those services and infrastructure improvements with the demand of new residents and business. The Study has mandated that each of the County's infrastructure and service providers examine the long term needs of their particular organization, identify the potential obstacles to providing for those long term needs, and initiated the process of identifying solutions to these barriers. These providers had done this at first within Phase I of the Study as isolated units, but as the second phase of the Study materialized, those providers began to engage the other infrastructure and service providers to identify necessary collaborative efforts and opportunities. However, that collaboration was only an initial step in the Phase II process. Through the public participation phase of the Study, the identified potential collaborative efforts were expanded to include the residents of the east of CR951 area. Public Participation is necessary to better understand how the general public viewed priorities within capital improvements and services provided for by the County. Additionally, through representation on the Horizon Study Master Committee, the interests of the large land holders and the development community were well represented and those interest groups were also engaged in the questions of priorities for the future built environment. It is this discussion with all aspects of the Community that will stand as the greatest beneficial contribution of the Horizon Study. 1-87 The overriding message provided for by the Horizon Study is the continued need of, not only general purpose county government, but all sections (Constitutional Officers, Independent Fire Districts, large land owners, civic associates, eet.) within the Collier County social and economic strata, to continuously engage in the conversation of what each group would like to see the County become and identify the common grounds. It is through this type of engaged communication that Collier County may attain the sustainable future that the Horizon Study is seeking. 1-88 Co~:t: Qaunty - -- Transportation Services Division EAST OF 951 HORIZON STUDY FOR BRIDGES AUGUST 2008 - 2-1 '''''_.11I" .. _,.."_._"."M TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. East of 951 "Build-Out" Horizon Study Purpose Page 2 2. Evaluation and Selection Process Page 3 3. Public Involvement Plan (PIP) Page 7 4. Cost analysis Page 8 5. Final Rankings Page 9 -. 6. Recommendations Page 10 7. Appendix A-Bridge Map Page 11 8. Appendix B-Aerials of Bridges Page 12 9. Appendix C- Ranking Matrices Page 13 10.Appendix D-Public Comments Page 14 11.Appendix E- Public Information Plan Page 15 12.Appendix F- Cost Analysis Memorandum Page 16 East of CR 951 Bridge Report Page 1 ,., ,., East of 951 "Build-Out" Horizon Study Bridge Component Purpose The East of County Road 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study is a project that identifies three levels of service options for public infrastructure and service outlays for the area east of CR 951. These areas include public utilities, schools, parks, law enforcement, emergency services, fire, libraries, stonn water management and transportation. Of the services and infrastructure discussed, transportation and public utilities are the keystone elements. The locations of other services and institutions such as emergency and fire services, schools, parks and libraries depend heavily on locations of roads, potable water and wastewater lines. Decisions on capital infrastructure and service provisions cannot be made in a vacuum, and an intensive public paI!icipation program for the area east of CR 951 has provided a vision from property owners, residents, and other affected parties regarding identified infrastructure and public services needs. Through this process, the need for additional connectivity in the Estates was discussed and a recommendation was made that Transportation Services should work with other agencies to identify opportunities where additional connectivity could serve multiple purposes and agencies consistent with Objective 6.3 of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan approved as part of the Growth Management Plan which states: "In planning and constructing road improvements within Golden Gate Estates and Golden Gate City, Collier County shall coordinate with local emergency services officials to ensure that the access needs of fire department, police and emergency management personnel and vehicles are met.>> The Transportation Division's 5 year work program already identifies the need for bridge maintenance and contemplates new bridge construction. The Metropolitan Planning Organization's Long Range Transportation Plan update will include the infonnation collected from this study and the priorities adopted by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). The purpose of this bridge study is to identify, evaluate and prioritize new bridge locations that address emergency response time, mobility, service efficiency and public sentiment east of CR 951. East of CR 951 Bridge Report Page 2 2-3 Evaluation and Selection Process The study included several key steps: · Transportation staff identified potential new bridge connections from the existing roadway grid east of County Road 951 that was severed due to the canal system. o One approved bridge and seven possible locations for new bridges and three study areas were identified. A map was created depicting these bridges and study areas. It is important to note that Bridge 1 was shown as an approved bridge location as per the Growth Management Plan Golden Gate Area Master Plan and is not included in the ranking matrices. · Staff contacted key stakeholders, including the public that would benefit from the - connectivity and mobility provided by new bridges. o The stakeholders included: Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District (BCIFD), Collier County Emergency Management Services (EMS), Golden Gate Fire Rescue District (GGFD), Parks, Forestry Service, The Conservancy and Audubon Society, Public Utilities, Big Cypress Basin, Collier County School District, the Collier County Sheriffs Office and the public. · The evaluation process was broken down into four categories and corresponding criteria: · Emergency Response (Fire, EMS, Sheriff and Forestry) · Change in Response Time · Proximity to Agency (Insurance Qualification) Mobility and Evacuation (Transportation Services) · Increased evacuation options · Connection to existing or planned signalized intersections · Access to existing or planned arterials · Reduced trip length East of CR 951 Bridge Report Page 3 ... . · Service Efficiency (School District, Parks, Public Utilities and Big Cypress Basin) · School bus efficiency · Connectivity to existing or planned school sites · Connectivity to existing or planned park sites · Potential utility crossings and control structures · Public Sentiment · All of the above · Local knowledge · Quality of life ~ The stakeholders were asked to evaluate and rank the seven bridge locations as well as determine the best bridge location in the study areas based on the above criteria. After all rankings were completed by the outside agencies, staff compiled and evaluated the data. The original study included three "Study Areas" in which the outside agencies were to review and determine the best location for a bridge within that area. Additionally, a new bridge was also recommended. Based upon those recommendations, a new map was created with eleven (11) potential bridge locations. The agencies were asked again to re-evaluate the potential bridge locations and re-rank them. A Public Information Meeting was then held July 2, 2008 to solicit input from the community with the benefit of the agency stakeholder recommendations and comments. The four categories that were used in evaluating the potential bridge sites each have their own specific need and value to the community. The categories have been detailed below to provide more information on some of the considerations that were used in the evaluation. A detailed view of the rankings can be found in Appendix C. · Emergency Response In providing the rankings for the eleven bridge locations the various agencies making up the "Emergency Response" category (Big Corkscrew Island Fire District, Golden Gate Fire District, Emergency Management Services, Forestry Service and Collier County Sheriff's Office) were centered primarily on two components: time and distance. Decreasing response times can be a matter of life and death. The medical standard for response time is eight minutes as that is the time required in cases of cardiac arrest, if brain injury or death is to be avoided. For areas within the Estates that have a response time greater than 8 minutes, the addition of bridges is important to reduce those response times. East of CR 951 Bridge Report Page 4 2-5 When fighting a fire, every second counts in trying to contain or extinguish a fire. In the US, every year hundreds of thousands of structural fires occur, causing billions in damages. According to the most recent data available by FEMA, a residential fire is reported every 80 seconds, and while statistical data shows a significant decrease in civilian fire deaths and injuries, the number of fires in the United States continues on a steady rise. Therefore, distance to the fire is an important issue. The fire districts use a 5-mile drive distance as their measurement. By adding bridges it is anticipated the Insurance Service Organization (ISO) rating will decrease thus homeowners could see a reduction in their homeowners insurance from 10-40% as the new bridges would decrease response time and mileage to some remote areas. The ISO ranks properties on a scale from 1-10. If properties are within 5 driving miles of a fire station, the property is automatically ranked as a 9. If properties are outside a 5 mile driving distance, the property is classified a 10 which means there is no fire service protection and thus, those properties pay a much higher rate of insurance. Items which affect the ISO rating in reducing it from a 9, depends on staffing levels, staff training, apparatus, record keeping, etc. for the fire district. Currently properties within a 5 mile driving distance are ranked a 5 in the BCIFD's boundaries while properties within a 5 mile driving distance are ranked a 4 in the r;GFD boundaries. Estates properties outside the 5 mile driving distance are ranked a 10. Bridge 4 is the most important bridge for BCIFD as it would decrease response time by two minutes to some areas and would provide needed secondary egress for emergencies. This bridge also brings portions of areas on 20th Street and 220d Street into the five road mile range thus giving those property owners fire protection and potentially decreasing their property owner Insurance. Bridge 11 and Bridge 8 were the most important for GGFD. Bridge 11 reduced their response time by twenty seconds to some areas and Bridge 8 reduced their response time by three and one- half minutes to other areas with Vanderbilt Beach Road extension and connectivity to the north. Bridges 2 and 3 are ranked high for fire, emergency management and the sheriff as they would allow for a significant savings for mutual aid to the roadways off 16th St NE and 8th S1. NE. · Mobility and Evacuation While evaluating this category, staff considered existing roadways and signalized intersections as well as planned improvements. Staff also considered evacuation concerns that were evident from the recent and historical wildfires that have impacted areas east of CR-951. Bridges 2 and 3 located on 8th and 16th Street NE scored high based on their even spacing, existing connectivity to Golden Gate Boulevard and Randall Boulevard and their potential connection to Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension. They clearly establish a north south grid in the Estates connecting to three existing or proposed arterials. Bridges 6 and 7 located on 18th Avenue NE also completed an evenly spaced east west road that ties into an existing bridge network, two schools and would connect from Wilson Boulevard all the way to the Big Cypress DR!. Bridges 4 and 5 located East of CR 951 Bridge Report Page 5 2-6 on 4th Avenue NE and Wilson Boulevard (North of Immokalee) also complete the existing grid system. Evacuation is a function of providing an alternative or faster route in response or anticipation of an event such as hurricane or wildfire. The bridges noted above would provide secondary evacuation routes and alternative direction evacuation routes. · Service Efficiency Agency ran kings comprised of the public services category included publiC utilities, school district, Big Cypress Basin, and parks. Adding more bridges to the Estates will provide for more efficient public services to the area. The proposed construction of water and sewer plants, that provide sewer, . potable water and raw water require collection and distribution lines to and from facilities and homes they service. They would have the ability to take advantag~ of new bridges to span the canals along the chosen corridors. Bridges will also allow for better bus routes for schools resulting inincreased zoning flexibility and bus transportation efficiency. Ultimately this translates into cost savings by reducing bus route mileage and potentially allowing for pedestrian access to schools. · Public Sentiment The information gathered from staff and the outside agencies was presented to 'the public to consider and evaluate. The public was asked to consider emergency response and mobility while also considering how that would impact their quality of life. Local knowledge was also solicited and proved beneficial in the evaluation of Bridge 11 located on 14th Avenue SE. The public comments noted that there was an existing drainage control structure located on 20th Avenue SE that could be used in emergencies. It was also commented that a bridge on 10th or 12th Avenue SE might better serve the area with the existing and planned schools on the west side of Everglades Boulevard. There was also discussion that a bridge at 16th Avenue SE might prove useful since the Long Range Transportation Plan shows a future connection at that location. Comments from the public justified that location of Bridge 11 should revert back to a study area until such time that more information is available. In reviewing the public sentiments (Appendix D) there were several common themes that were consistent in their responses. · Support for better access, evacuation, emergency services, fire response and insurance relief · Concern for increased traffic, property values, and safety · Site specific concerns versus overall benefit and need East of CR 951 Bridge Report Page 6 2-7 Public Involvement Plan (PIP) A critical component of the Horizon Study is public involvement. It was decided that the value of the bridge component and the impacts to a more localized area would require its own PIP. A public meeting was held on July 2, 2008 at 7 p.m. at the Oakridge Middle School cafeteria with over 150 in attendance. Two weeks prior to the meeting over 1500 postcards were mailed to property owners on roadways where a potential bridge was identified. One week before the meeting, ads were placed in the Naples Daily News and Collier Citizen. Five days before the meeting, a variable message board sign was placed in the median on CR 951 and one was placed in the median on Golden Gate Boulevard announcing the meeting. News media also covered the meeting, with ABC-7 conducting an interview with staff and airing the story the day before the meeting as well as stories being printed .iD both the Naples Daily News and the Collier Citizen. Information regarding the bridge study was also posted on the Transportation Planning website along with a survey to gain public input. The input from the public information meeting as well as the survey information from the website were accumulated and are located in Appendix E. As mentioned above, due to concerns raised at the public meeting regarding the location of Bridge 11 on 14th Avenue SE, it was decided to re..evaluate the location of that bridge and turn it back into a study area. An additional 1100 postcards were then mailed to property owners on 10th Avenue SE, 12th Avenue SE, 14th Avenue SE, 16th Avenue. SE, 18th Avenue SE and 20th Avenue SE notifying the property owners that Bridge 11 was going to revert back to a study area. This was done so that these residents would have the same benefit of notification as the prior mailing group. A complete copy of the PIP documents and reporting can be found in Appendix E. East of CR 951 Bridge Report Page 7 2-8 Costs Analysis A brief cost estimate was prepared using the FOOT Bridge Development Report (BOR) cost estimating guidelines and the following exceptions are to be noted: · Estimating the bridge cost using the BOR guidelines is done after the completion of the preliminary design which includes member selection, member sizes and member reinforcing. No preliminary designs were available for these bridges. · The FOOT estimating process develops a cost for the bridge superstructure and substructure from beginning to end bridge. Costs for all other items including but not limited to the following were excluded from the costs: mobilization, operations costs for existing bridges. walls, deck drainage systems, embankments, fenders approach. slabs, load test and bank stabilization. The following assumptions were made for the type of proposed 2 lane rural and 4-lane rural structures provided in the study. · The bridge length was determined based on a typical canal bmtom width of 30 feet and 2.1 embankment slopes between 6-foot wild life berm at each end bent. The assumed bridge length is 101 feet. It was also assumed that the bridges will be single spans at each crossing. For canals, that may provide utility crossing, an additional bent was added to the cost. All bridges were evaluated using the AASHTO Type IV beam. Pre-stressed concrete piles were assumed based on typical foundations in Florida BRIDGE COSTS Proposed Design CEI Cost Deck Est. Total Bridge Cost/sqft Constr. Est. Cost Type Cost ($) ($) ($)* Cost ($) ($) 2-ln rural 135,608 77 ,504 135 775,035 988,147 4-ln rural 150,000 110,228 135 1,102,275 1,362,503 I 2-ln rural 145,608 77 ,504 135 775,035 998,147 w/utility 4-1n rural 160,000 110,228 135 1,102,275 1,372.503 w/utility Complete cost estimate information can be found in Appendix F. East of CR 951 Bridge Report Page 8 2-9 FINAL RANKINGS The public was asked to list the most important reason to add new bridges east of CR-951. They ranked their priorities in the following order: 1. Better evacuation and emergency response times for fire, EMS and sheriff 2. Better access and mobility 3. Better services for schools, parks and utilities EMERGENCY MOBILITY SERVICE PUBLIC RESPONSE EFFICIENCY Rank (fire, ems, sheriff, (transportation) (school district, parks, (rankings provided at forestry service) public utilities, big cypress PIP 7/2/08 ) basin #1 Bridge 2 - response time reduced 2 minutes - BCIFD Brid e3 Brid e5 Brid e2 #2 Bridge 3 - response time reduced by 2 minutes BCIFD Brid e2 Brid e8 Brid e3 #3 Bridge 4 - response time reduced by 2 minutes BCIFD Brid e5 Brid e6 Brid e6 #4 Bridge 12 - criticaltor wildfires for BCIFD/Forest Brid e 11* Brid e4 Brid e7 #5 Bridges 9 Forestry, EMS, GGFD Brid es 4 Brid e7. Brid e8 #6 Brid e 6 - Sheriff Brid e 7 Brid e3 Brid e9 #7 Bridges 7 (Sheriff) & 11*Sheriff/Forestry/GGFD Brid e6 Brid e2 Brid e4 #8 Bridges 8 &10- response time reduced by 3.5 minutes for Bridge 8 by GGFD (pending VBR extension and connectivity to the north Brid e8 Brid e 9 Brid e 12 #9 Bridge 5 - response time reduced by 2 minutes BCIFD Brid e 12 #10 Brid e 10 #11 Brid e 11* *Based upon public comments at the public information meeting, Bridge 11 was reverted back to a study area until further research is completed to detennine the best location for this bridge. The study area is shown on the attached map in Appendix A. East of CR 951 Bridge Report Page 9 "_1 0 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on agency rankings, staff evaluation, public ran kings and comments, Bridges 2 and 3 scored the highest. As such, it is recommended that these two are installed first and at the same time. By installing them together, it wilt disperse the traffic between the two adjacent facilities. Bridges 4, 5, 6 and 7 also ranked fairly high in all areas and should be considered the next logical locations for bridges as funding allows. Bridge 12 ranks high for emergency response but scores low in other areas. Staff would recommend that Bridge 12 is considered with the prior group as funding allows or seeks a modified design which may satisfy emergency response. Bridges 8,9, and 10 would be recommended as new roadways and schools are constructed. Funding may be from alternative sources. Bridge 1 is being constructed as part of the White Boulevard bridge replacement project. Bridge 1 was approved as per Policy 6.1.1 and Policy 7.3.1 of the Golden Gate Master Plan adopted into the Growth Management Plan December 2003. . Policy 6.1.1 .... In planning to increase the number of route alternatives through the Estates Area, the Collier County Transportation Division will prioritize the following routes over other alternatives: a. The extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road from its current terminus to DeSoto Boulevard. b. The development of a north-south connection from the eastern terminus of White Boulevard to Golden gate Boulevard. c. The development of a new east-west roadway crossing the Estates Area south of Golden gate Boulevard. . Policy 7.3.1 By 2006, the Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services, the Collier County Transportation Division, Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District, and other appropriate Federal, State or local agencies, shall begin establishing one or more of the following routes for emergency evacuation purposes: a. An 1-75 Interchange at Everglades Boulevard. b. Improved emergency access from Everglades Boulevard to 1-75. c. Construction of a north-south bridge on 23rd Street, SW, between White Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard. Construction of Bridge 1 is anticipated in 2010 subject to funding. After receiving many comments about the location of Bridge 11 J it was reverted back to a study area encompassing an area from 10th Avenue SE south to 20th Avenue SE. There was no clear consensus on the best location of that bridge. Until further study is completed, and funding becomes available, it is recommended that this bridge location remain a study area. East of CR 951 Bridge Report Page 10 2-11 APPENDIX A MAP - East of CR 951 Bridge Report Page 11 East of C.R. 951 Bridge Study 4.~5,f . . . JI ._:.... . . . .'f" ."...1. -,_,,.."AVE'tiE ; '",~vErve , !:,','w. . :NE _11,'.A~F';e i::ll ~. ~ a .?/rp--lV!!Jw:;. r r~I,t!''f"tl~ p "H..c.VE~'..'. .... j"~NW -:. MTi-IJ!\!~. ..... ~ .... olS'l'(!S J.wrNw:,.f/I..t,_ . .i,.li'!":Io'E'. 1ft · ,!i! -, 'f. /'NE i:"~ " .,- .. JTI1.;tENW ~ : "AiI~'.;f Q ~ ..".IL" . ... · "'-"'.90 1/Ji!l;"',1'-. . .. ":5 ., ,,_w ,Pi"'ji'li Il . . ....:11 . Il .. L"" - . + ~ ~ + (!) ::::,.. ~.i ; i i i P H ~ i ~ ~ ~; ~ r i ~ i i i S -ffi IS!~Io!..JfW Q~j\Rft'YD;r .111;. ="c..-D OR <.a.cYD.Jl '-'11:111!- ! ~ ~ :~ rj1l, ~,:: . IMMOKALEE RD E {t.fP" /'it ;: , "":': - - Q "" ~ Q:: " ~'7"fiD W ";!'.;f ~ ',f: ,."' .... ,;;t~O':I, ..:1: 0 ~ '" n"!~. " u.~ rNtif-l;,li';::N€ " 0 i> :<O:::'''~'/i: . ;g ~ . " ' S4'Tk . r~E ~ t l! l! 0"" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !i! ~ tl~TjJ~~'!!''>'i: 71"'.'\".':NE !!'e , c q . i! .. .'RD "i.'!: >;! ;,)1'. ." -1:>... ." ....---- .+ . . . . ....>ItEm; rAv~r.".. .t~- '~'~ -. ~- <; " j.';i'- i HE ,. .u ~ g ~ ~ 'Il'''' ~ ~ ~ d~ l ., :; 'l!>l.~ .;~ ...e""~~fc , NE ~ . " . ror",.<.vE;uE' ,_^> "F. .. J"iiJ,I,'.t!2rJ!Z tn-;., "E 6fH.;:. '0:;;: ..rTI"!.:".'E'4F. "" ",,~~'E ""= ~ ~ ID'" ;V ,;:: ...... -+.. .".-~ >= :ti~ t;E ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ -TI-:'!;'V~~W " I' c ~ . . . rr! Al..-E Sl10 . ~ ~ .' '" ~. :+ ,~sw 0 ~ l:n- ~ ~ ~- ~ - ':n aI 175 (U1der Stucry) ..............' Pol&nbal Bfidge:a _,.Fulwo__ as pet !he OID~ Mantlglll'Tll!1ll Pt.n Golden Gabr Area Master PIlIn. FoIlcyfi.l.1 and PolIcy 7--3.1 . ~"'"i.:., -. By- F;,. Oistrid:~BCIFO) ';I ~ ~ ~ ..... v, :r. ~ ~ ~ ~ ,. ~ +y. !..- ,..;, SE " q . ~ m. ',1rHJ.~'E SE ~ g ~ it ,: .. 0\ ,. 7' ~.. ~- ':'ilESE t ,;:; ;:: ::. . S€ Q i ~ ~ MTH..;vE'$E ~1'r:M~S;: 'R-I,,'.'f' i i-IAVeSE :-c>r"'-~>'E se: ...ws:- Ut:&- .~S!: ~~"". ~...EFt""o1~'E Q ~ lA' -..:...CSE '1If"~ 'ITf--WE ! ~ .:,v.:~ ..,....,.6,,;.. , o "l/"l'~"~'E re " ::""";-.-.,,,. ~'"'~...-!SE _._ -.11$.= c::a ... """", 0.. CI ~s=rvP 1:1 ~GtD~5S~d$~ ~ _..Stud,..... FM! YEAR PLAN N wttE S cafftrr County ~ - l#lderComtrucdon 200ll _"". _2011 ... _"" ""'lea . RtghtdW:JyPrqcc; liE . ~ "9 ~ ::;E 175 012 I I I Miles Collier County r,..nsportMlon SetVices DlvIslOtl July' 4. 2008 2-13 I 'I APPENDIX B AERIALS OF BRIDGE LOCATIONS East of CR 951 Bridge Report Page 12 GGEstates - BRIDGE STUDY BRIDGE 1 N BRIDGE 1 Location: 23rd St. SW 1 blk N of White Blvd Approx Canal Width: 110 ft I o I I I I , 50 100 I 200 Feet TSD _plot 08/06/08 2-15 GGEstates - BRIDGE STUDY BRIDGE 2 N A BRIDGE 2 Location: 16TH ST NE south of 10th Ave NE Approx Canal Width: 100 FT J I I I I I J o 87.5 175 350 Feet TSD _plot 08/06/08 2-111 GGEstates - BRIDGE STUDY BRIDGE 3 N BRIDGE 3 Location: 8TH ST NE south of 10th Ave NE Approx Canal Width: 80 FT I I I I I I I I o 87.5 175 TSO _scale 1000 plot 08106108 I 350 Feet 2-17 ._'"....~.. ON ... GGEstates - BRIDGE STUDY BRIDGE 4 N BRIDGE 4 Location: 47th Avenue NE Approx Canal Width: 110 FT I I I o 90 180 360 Feet TSD _scale 1000 plot 08106108 2-1~ GGEstates - BRIDGE STUDY BRIDGE 5 N BRIDGE 5 Location: Wilson Blvd south of 33rd Ave NE Approx Canal Width: 55-60 ft I I I I I I I I o 16,000 32,000 I 64,000 Feet TSD _scale 1000 plot 08/06/08 2-19 GGEstates - BRIDGE STUDY BRIDGE 6 N BRIDGE 6 Location: 18TH AVE NE (between Wilson Ave N & 8th St NE) Approx Canal Width: 60 FT I I I o 95 190 380 Feet TSD _scale 1000 plotOB/06/08 2-20 GGEstates - BRIDGE STUDY BRIDGE 7 N A BRIDGE 7 Location: 18TH AVE NE (Between 8th St NE and16th St NE) Approx Canal Width: 140 FT I I I I I I I I I o 100 200 400 Feet TSD _scale 1000 plot 08106/08 2-21 GGEstates - BRIDGE STUDY BRIDGE 8 N A BRIDGE 8 Location: North end of 13TH ST NW into proposed VBR Approx Canal Width: 60 FT Exist PRIVATE BRIDGE I I I I , o 55 110 I I I I 220 Feet TSD _scale 1000 plot 08/06/08 2-22 GGEstates - BRIDGE STUDY BRIDGE 9 N A BRIDGE 9 Location: 16TH ST SE at the south end Approx Canal Width: 25 FT I I I I I I I I I o 85 170 340 Feet TSD _scale 1000 plot 08/06/08 2-23 ^'_..,......l_....itl> . ,_..,_...,......,~_h. GGEstates - BRIDGE STUDY BRIDGE 10 N A BRIDGE 10 Location: Wilson Blvd 5 Approx Canal Width: 130 FT I "I' I I I o 50 100 200 Feet TSD _scale 1000 plot 08106108 2-24 @tJ~n ~'W~ ~1Xn m fr.) ?IiJiJDD [sn ffi I o I 550 1 ,100 I 2,200 Feet BRIDGE 11_A- 10TH AVE SE N A BRIDGE 11_B - 12TH AVE SE .. BRIDGE 11_C - 14TH AVE SE BRIDGE 11_0 - 16TH AVE SE BRIDGE 11_E - 18TH AVE SE BRIDGE 11_F - 20TH AVE SE 200B_56_BRIOGE 11:d7 10TH AVE SE to 20TH AVE SE scale 6000 TSO 06Aug09_lrayM) 2-25 GGEstates - BRIDGE STUDY *~I~:'( ., , , ,. " BRIDGE 12 N A I I I I 0 50 100 BRIDGE 12 Location: 62th Ave NE (west of 40th St NE) Approx Canal Width: 70 FT I I I 200 Feet TSD _scale 1000 plot 08/06/08 2-26 APPENDIX C RANKING MATRICES .. East of CR 951 Bridge Report Page 13 2-27 FINAL RANKINGS Public was asked the most important reason to add new bridges to the Estates Number 1 reason was for better evacuation and emergency response times for fire, ems, sheriff Number 2 reason was for better access/mobility Number 3 reason was for better services for scholls, parks and utilities EMERGENCY MOBILITY SERVICE PUBLIC RESPONSE EFFICIENCY Rank (fire, ems, sheriff, (transportation) (school district, parks, (rankings provided forestry service) public utilities, big at PIP 7/2/08) cvnrp._<:;._~ b~-<:;.inl #1 Bridge 2 - response time reduced 2 minutes BCIFD Bridge 3 Bridge 5 ~ Bridge 2 #2 Bridge 3 - response time reduced by 2 minutes BCIFD Bridge 2 Bridge 8 Bridge 3 #3 Bridge 4 - response time reduced by 2 minutes BCIFD Bridge 5 Bridge 6 Bridge 6 #4 Bridge 12 - critical for wildfires for BCIFD/Forestry Bridge 11 Bridge 4 Bridge 7 #5 Bridges 9 Forestry, EMS, GGFD Bridges 4 Bridge 7 Bridge 8 #6 Bridge 6 - Sheriff Bridge 7 Bridge 3 Bridge 9 #7 Bridges 7 (Sheriff) & 11 Sheriff/Forestry/GGFD Bridge 6 Bridae 2 Bridge 4 #8 Bridges 8 &10- response time reduced by 3.5 minutes for Bridge 8 by GGFD (pending VBR extension and connectivity to the north) Bridge 8 Bridge 9 Bridae 12 #9 Bridge 5 - response time reduced by 2 minutes BCIFD Bridge 9 Bridge 12 Bridge 5 #10 Bridges 1 0 Bridge 10 Bridge 11 #11 Bridae 12 Bridge 11 Bridge 10 2-2R BRIDGE STUDY EVALUATION MATRIX- EMERGENCY RESPONSE NEW BCIFD NEW GGFD Emergency Forestry Ranking Ranking Services Division Sheriff TOTALS Bridge 2 4 3 2 11 1 21 Bridge 3 5 4 2 11 1 23 Bridge 4 1 7 1 11 11 31 Bridge 5 3 9 9 11 11 43 Bridge 6 6 10 7 11 1 35 Bridge 7 7 11 7 11 1 37 Bridge 8 11 1 4 11 11 38 Bridge 9 11 5 4 3 11 34 Bridge 10 11 6 6 4 11 38 Bridge 11 11 2 11 2 11 37 Bridge 12 2 8 11 1 11 33 w**NOTE: Brid Ie 1 not ranked-- already approved location/ Ranked #1 for Sheriff Rankings--1- is best; 12 is least Important 7/2/2008 Bridge 2 21 Bridge 3 23 Bridge 4 31 Bridge 12 33 Bridges 9 34 Bridge 6 35 Bridge 7 & 11 37 Bridge 8 & 10 38 Bridge 5 43 ems ranking received 7/2/08 2-29 BRIDGE STUDY EVALUATION MATRIX- MOBILITY Current Future Conn to Sign Chng In Trip Connectivity Connect Inter Length TOTALS Bridge 2 2 1 1 3 7 Bridge 3 2 1 1 1 5 Bridae 4 1 3 11 4 19 Bridge 5 4 4 4 4 16 Bridge 6 6 8 4 4 22 Bridae 7 5 7 4 4 20 Bridge 8 11 5 3 11 30 Bridge 9 11 10 4 11 .. 36 Bridge 10 11 11 4 11 37 Bridge 11 7 6 4 2 19 Bridae 12 8 9 11 10 38 *** NOTE: Bridge 1 was not ranked - already approved location Rankings--- 1- is best; 12 is least important Bridge3 5 Bridge 2 7 Bridge 5 16 Bridge 11 19 Bridge 4 19 BridQe 7 20 Bridge 6 22 BridQe 8 30 Bridae 9 36 BridQe 10 37 Bridaes 12 38 ,,- ~" BRIDGE STUDY EVALUATION MATRIX-SERVICE EFFICIENCY New School Public Big Cypress Rating Utilities Parks Basin TOTALS Bridge 2 7 11 5 5 28 Bridge 3 7 11 4 4 26 Bridge 4 2 4 10 1 17 Bridge 5 1 3 1 1 6 Bridge 6 3 2 6 5 16 Bridge 7 3 5 7 9 24 Bridge 8 5 1 1 8 15 Bridge 9 6 11 1 11 .... 29 Bridge 10 11 11 8 10 40 Bridge 11 9 11 11 11 42 Bridge12 11 11 9 5 36 **-* NOTE: Bridoe 1 not ranked - alreadv an approved brid~e to be built Rankings--1- is best; 11 is least important Bridge 5 6 Bridge 8 15 Bridge 6 16 Bridge 4 17 Bridge 7 24 Bridge 3 26 Bridge 2 28 Bridge 9 29 Bridge 12 36 Bridge 10 40 Bridge 11 42 2-31 n -<d; _.M_.""" -..........'" . "'''''r_.-' ......,...""'''"''. In l'II t: III ,g III II N....M :z: I/) 0 I/) ell U U III Gl I/) l\l ::: C ~ o 0 ~ 10M N ,.. . II) N N N N N N....M U U ... ... .... ... .... .... III- '*" .:! .. .. 1:: ClI ClI C N .Q 8 ~ 10 M ,.. . II) N N N N N ....NM 0- ... .... .... ... ... 0:: 0 .- '5 :iC ~ N N N N N .... N Cl C - III N M ... ....NM .9.~ J .... .... .... ... .... .... .... .... ~ o ClI Ul ... .~] J_ ~ N N N N N N N ... N N l'IIGlO~ .... .... ... .... .... ... .... .... .... ... ... ..... NM C!) E~'5 z ~ III co Z u ~.... N N N N N N N N N M ..-MN ::J ... .... .... ... .... ... .... .... <( is 0.:: (.) ....J f co ~ N N N N N => >- .... 10 It) M .... ... ... .... . ... .... ..-MM a.. 'tl .2. I >< 0.:: 'ii I- ~f ~ <( ... N .... Cl I/) U> .... ,.. ." . ... .... M M .... ... ... ~ E Z 0 >- I- III Gl 'tlVi N 0 ... <( Cl! .... lIIl ." ,.. .... N .... N .., . I/) ... N M.... => .!! l'II ....J Cll,! ~ c: W III ~ >- "5 C'II .... .., N N N N N N N N N N....C"') 0 Ul .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... => C .t:: I- .2- CI) w c: C!) of :c .... Cl N 0 l'II e ~ N .... M lIIl . I/) ." .... ... 10 .... .... C"') N a::: ::IE ::I m m ~ c ;g 0 I. e.... N 0 E NM~lnCD"'CO(l) .... .... .... ; - QI &jjjjjj &jj & III Ul :::J III U U II ~ :g :g ~ ~ :g :g ~ :g ~ :gl:g III u > U GI lXllXllXllXllXllXllXllXllXllXllXl W III CI) 2-32 't:l QI -:I f't:l ~j .. GI III II x: ,. Il. f~ III 0 0 .e'E~ III :I IO:E N....<')~",,,,CO...:: CII CO c: c 0 e~~N"""'~"'&nCO"'::CllCO ~.: x: o C III eliC~N"''''~''''''CD'''::CllCO 11I.)(. ::.::: 0 x: o - .2 it_ChClONC')~::~"'~It)'P ..; :E III CD.!! "'E..e.ChCONC")~::"""""~"''''' So: ..J 1! ~ a:~""M~~~~N~~~~ CD o ., .. ~ i c~~~~~~~~""~~~ 1: III :E :l ~~::~GllCO"''''NCO'''''''''' i! f ~ .. II) = CD ., U) >- 'c ~ ~ CII ~ IN .., a:> to- CD 1ft ",.... N ... 5i:g~ .- Q> 2-33 C") ~ C') ~C')C') ~C')C') ~ C') C') ~ ~C')N ~C')N ....C')N ..... N C') ~.... ..... ~C')C') .... .... ~ C') C') U) ~,~~~~~t!c;;~~g~S; 5 ........................................(I,IN.... l- E ~ III ! =;~...NCIIl""U>,..::Cft~U'lC"l i:E all a cnLL Gl III E'C III C "":I:;j ~ "C Gl "> E /'!o ... N CIIl CD C"l .., &I) ~ eft :: ~ III III OLL o ~~C>::...CIO...."'.....,~~"" o m 1:: ~ Gl.g '8:2 0::::':: CI> N C\l ~ ... .... ....CMCfttCM...CQM ~ >olll -g~~....N"',....,..,~....CIO::= "":I~ m ~ C III .c > o III "":I III ~ Q.5 :>>.:c o C o III It: 1:: .e .!! "aC'tNJt):::""',...CDaoCJ),,-~~ "> III 'C ~ c i';~~~~.~~~ CL ... N fI') 1ft 2-34 0.0>> ... N D:I ... ... .., ... .., .., .....,N .... N .., ....NN ... N .., ....N.., .....,N ......,N .... .., .., ..... N .., r-- ... APPENDIX D PUBLIC COMMENTS ...... East of CR 951 Bridge Report Page 14 2-35 C> Z 52 ~ ....>-t- ~oCf) c::;::>Z Ut-a:: Cf)W u..WU Oc>Z t-OO Cf)-U ~o::- WCC~ Z W ~ ~ o U U) c ~ Q) (,) c o u u..- U) - c Q) E E o u Q) "0 o U Q. u~ U) U) Q) ~ "0 "0 c( c o U) ~ Q) Q" <(- (,) lU .... C o U ~ c:: c:: III = - to) III Q. .5 m - c:: Q) E c:: o ... .s c:: Q) III III .!!1 lJ) Q) en "0 'r: .D ~ Q) c: = .~ ..:.:: 00; ~ c:: ~ 'E >.ro m U ~ to) ~:E ejg g>~ 'S: 0 ~~ E lIJ ~~ .... III o ;: 0..'0 o.m ~ e ....N ...J vi u.. :J 3:.g N U)u..- a .c:;_ (; '6 (") c<tl...J <tl8u.. 2: .- Q) a. lJ) lIl~.!!1 c: go Q. ON ro UNZ c: ~ 0:: ell '0 o Z M =Q) ~c. 168. lIJ ... -8.g .!!s::. ~'S Q) 0 > III WQ) cs::. 0- c.9 g 6 :3:::: o III c :J 8 0 ~ o Q) ;<-0 <( CD = ~ ...,. .. .....s::. eg-;;: -o's; $0 ~ .2'l .Q CD Q)O .D:2 .915 ~~ ..... CD CD.2'l 010 -0 c ~;:: ..... .D :J _0 C.D <tl ro 0 ~1Il15 ~EU) III CD Ii) Q)go o 0 C o U 0 .tl C :J ... Q) o Q) ..:.:: ~ "<t ...J u.. III CD C. Ctl Z ,..: ...,. (Q Q)O> > ~ <(CCo :Eo..... ~a.~ C CD > CD Ci.i "0 C ctl o ""? ~ e o o l.O :E 'i S CD N lJ) C Ctl 0 ~ ... .~ .~ 'i ~ z. ~ :~ U) ~ 1 ~ ~ CD ..:.:: eo::'iii ~ ";:: Q) III ::> ~.!!1.8 .8 C 11l c:: ~ ~ .8 III .2> ~E~~~ c.E~.E~ 0.g.l!l::JCJ) ""'u C...-O ~. IE -g to :; :g ro CD CD ~ 0 5-~xi.n"CC .:: -0 Q) Q) -0 ~ m Q) -0 Q) Q) .- EQ)i:g-;;~~ ......lX:-olllO -= 0 c III U o oS; t5 Q) Q) Gi >"C'C-olll> ol.OQ)CD::J<( :EQlCCQ).D m.g 11l "0'0 = ~._:'!:: III 00 ..,...cQ)s::...... -.Do..:.::uc: :3-CC::lIlo Q)O .... "'C~IOLOQ) g.QmQ)Q).D .- - s::. .Qi Ol"O UiN:..::2:2"S 13.2 (Q l5 15 ~ S!Q)3:Q)Q)lIJ ~..:.::"C..:.::..:.:: E=C'C==;: .- .... 0........... s::. -c: ... 'c -c Q) =1IlC:lIllll~ m Q) Q) Q) Q) ._ ~ .2;l.g g..g.gm<( Z '0 > ffi c: o ~ $: ..... (0 go N ~ C C :J ...J III .:.: .~ U) III o c~ c:: .!Q .5.2 ..Q ....z= mCDCl J: 'r: CD o .- .c-~ 0.5.2 .::: CD>(/'} ..: o (Q r- co CD III Q) U C Gl ::J C7 Q) III C o U s::. < E-Q) ...s::.c.::>Q) Ol.... o.'Sc.::>'" '5 :g;g -0 0 .... .g O.D?13 CIl III OLO <= :3Q5:Et::: ~ -"'0 n's::.:::I ~~.... ~t::oE 0..,. g::J lIJ e ;Q.~ .-....CIl.... CD E.... -0 CIl 0"0 lIlQ)CD C.D"OC 11l - Ul 11l -0 ';:: CD Q).... Q) (j 11':- - .c 0 o g.. IE 11;; is CD - .S;i?:.'CD CIls::.CIlUl lIl~~ g-lIl.DlIl Q)CD-oOl........O~ ~ ~ 5l .S; 2" ~ -;; ~ 'r: E m ~ 0 Ol "0 "C .D~,.......Ul-oQ)Q) o III 0 x (/) .;:: Cll C::J,S;iijOCDZ~ I 3: ~ wCi5 WU)Q) U)c15 ~~C> <(<(c: s::.s::.CIl - --0 ~~'O l.Oll)C> NN.... O>~M ...,....,.(") oX (/) ~:l;2 s::. III ~ ~ C ~ :s;2 13 ~ '-CIl ~ CllCllO 15 ..:.:: III .La 3: '0) ~ 5 Q) . ~ ~ ~ Ul 0 '5 ~ eo::OUiQ)a:CD""?St:: .:.:l~ "0 ro ~ 01:> ... CIl ....l~ ::0 13 -6 3 I!:::: c.D ~~.8:E~O~~& O-NM'OtLO(J:It--OO ~T"""T""""-~""-"-~"" W:>UJUJ z:>zz Q) (/) CIl CD > - > > <((/)<(<( s::.s::..r.s::. ............... - r-O>t--t-- ...,.....NN OlOl.Ol.O r-(J:I(Q(O ~C"')..---r- NN"<t"<t 2-36 .s::. - (0 ..... 15 ~ CD E s::. 'Ss::. ~1:9 ...s::. Gl- ..c;Q) t::~ :::10 .... .... .8 ,1:J ..?;- .8-gg III CD Q) -g~ ~ Gl 0 ~ .... c- GQ) ....Q)c~ .....Q)Q).D Q) CXi ~ Q) Ov CIls::. :gn;~; .c Cll ... 0 c:.c.gE 0- :;;;g"2.~ ct1 -=::::: 5 ,- ~ · co 3: III >1Il"OC: ~~ffi~ .g:g~m LO.c.!2':: 1::::: i:::..... co E.Q Q) 0 Q) ec.D-lIl - Cll I.?;- "C .- -g45"'E3lg :E0c... IIlC-OQ)lIl .8o-:;...E lIl::::OlllQ) ~jj~g g~lIl.g8 .... Q),;:: 0 ~$~.DiE Cll CD';:: _ m c:3t.D<(~ 6' $ CIl Z LU~W3:~ U)9Z(/)c. ~gCi.iU5~ ...J"O"Es::. =z~:CCi5 ~goNt-..... MOl..... 00 .....M~M.... M'Ot(OLO(o I~ III en Q) (/) III C CD.... 0 CO>~lIlCJ lJ)en_=Q) ~ .c U) W 'jj; J: ai =t .5 ~ ()Cl-,~U ~O""'NM ....NNNN c6 oS e fS c e ::J (/) .S fS ::J "0 CIl ... "0 C CD CIl :::I U (/) Q) ... Q) ... ~ (/) ~ W -0 CIl e 0- .5 .9 "0 CD "0 Q) Q) - c: 'S Q) .c ffi .8 ~(/).s 0- :'Q~E ... c CIl .Dos::. . 0- lIJ ... E~.g ~~1ij- c: (/) ;: 0 O-O_"1:l UCll-ccn g~~Q) LU W ~ WW Q)LUZZ ~ZCIlQ) - >> U)....<(< s::.Cf) -s::.t--N (O....co<o ....OOr-r- oOcogo NLOCJ)~ ~l.O(,,)M w a. 0 ... 15 ~~tro ~~Ul15 c: '- CIl - :elX:"Eii: CD ~ 5 ..: ~""?....I:i: "<tLOCOr- NNNN C> z 52 u ~ ~>-.... ~oen o::::)z n....c::: .....(I,)W U.WO oc>z r-OO (1,)-0 <(0::00 LL/CO.... Z W ~ ~ o o ... .E I/) Q) 6 'r;t I/) E C I: j I~ & G) IS 1ij ~ ,g ~ UI 1ij 15 ~ 8. ... :: C ~ C I~ co .0 UI CD - I/) .::.:. CD .~ ~ > ::l l!! it: ~ :2 co .0 0 CD ... ~ C .!2 ...... .8 I: .0 UI 'C :8, , -g .~ CD I: CD E 1:1 .0 C ... .9 "3 - co .!!! CD co -c CD l!! E .5 0 CD .~ to J: I/) & C nl CD 0 I/) I/) ~ 0 .t3 ,g ~ Ig ~ 1:1 1) in C CD I~ (") 0 C CD E 'C a:: 'C ! e ~ l!! CD i'5 CD CO E I: ~ 0) 0 I: - ~ :2 :2 UI > l!! 'C co .::.:. I/) ~g 0 10 ~ (,) :.c: ... (3 ~ ! N E 1:1 1:1 .0 :2 .6 ~ (,) ~i ::l .8 11 CD 'C -g I/) ~ .0 ,g .~ CD :2 ... 0) CD 'C .E u Ui ~ S :5 "8 'C ... IE ~ 1:1 'C .9 . - 1:1 'C CD sa I/) .sl CD ~ I/) :g CD CD - .0 C ~ 1 co 1:1 .... E! UI :0 1:1 co .c ... .!!! I/) Cii co t1:l a. '"-';': a. UI co ~ J (fJ CD CD -g s::. UI '. C CD ~ ~ (fJ :5 CD ::J W C ~ .9 ~! CD c ~ (,) CD 'jjj IS I/) I/) ~ 1:1 0 .::.:. (lI ~ IE ~ 1:1 UI nl C U. ... a. ~ m ~ :2 '1:; t1:l I~ ~ c 1 CD ::J ~ C g 0 0 ell I/) > E co e .::.:. '5 ~ ~ ... <C ._ <( W .lo: C m .5 CD .0 1:1 I: E I: co UI 'S; CD :8 ~ e 0 ~~ ::J en CD (,) 1:1 IS N :5 ~ 10 .5 51 '1:; (fJ CD 0 ..... :;: 0 'C 'C CD 8 :1 i~ Ig 10 1:3 c (fJ - co Ig- CD I: ~ Cii '0 CD ~ 0 0 C ::J ..... E .... CD nl J: a 'C "8 ...... UI ~ C CD (,) o I/) ro I: ~ .... W I: ! -E .::.:. 'in :;t: j co J: :2 nl 11 :5 c co nl ::J E 1:1 0 e > .c ,- -c .5 II) I~ I/) "8 '1: ~ ... 'i 0 - 'C .8 I: ~ co 8 co CD 0& 0 ::J (,) CD .0 ..... II) 18 N II) .0 CD ~ ~ ::J Cii ..0 ... ~ :5 I/) C E I/) J: ~ ~ 1ij -g .9 sa ..... c CD , CD c: .:2 iii nl I'~ CD !::: o t1:l VI J: CD .s nl ~ I/) > m ~ - II) 0 CD CD CD CD ... Lt) ;~ Qi CD 0 :2 ::J co ~ 'C >- C ~ .s I: .0 g (,) I: ... ... J:! CD !:::: ::J s::. ..... II) ~ sa co E t CD ~ :5 ~2 m to E I: :2 e IE ... g -g j ~ ~ J: E VI E ell I: I~ ~ ::J ~ .s - , CD t 0.5 > .... '5 ::J ::l C 'Qj 0 'C - f 'C .g i i , ~ .0 ~ ~ CtI II: '5 &0 'C ELt) ro I: "i ,S; E E a~ ..... nl ... -0 'u CD .~ 'C ... !:::: CD t CD!::: .E ... ~ I/) 'C .g .0 CD ~ 'C 'C CD .sl ,~ CtI 'C CD -g - ~ ~ .0 .5 ~ .s I~ CD c: .0 ~ g .0 I: > ~ E ~ ::J CD (,) CD 10 nl I/) I/) 1 0 ;:l .8 ~ .0 8 CD CD co ~ :2 CD 'C VI ~ ) .5 CD 'C .8 c VI :2 I: CD .s 1:1 ::J I: "5 CD c ... UI ~ 'C 'C ~ 'C I/) I/) CD ... VI ... c: 8 It. .g CD .5 1'0 ~ 'C "3 CtI;:) ~ 'C .0 CD ~ Ol I/) CtI o .. '0 ~ c: ~ I/) c: 0 1:1 ~ 0 CtI J: I/) ::l C e ~ 1'0 CD ell I/) I/) ~ I/)~ I/) U) (lI ~ :2 ~ .lo: is 'j e E .j ~ ,!!2 s::. I/) ~ (,) 'i: ro 'C c .lo: ~ I/) ... 0 'j Ig .r:::. I/) 'g e I/) 'C .- J: 1'0 ~ CD 'I:; 8 .s ;::2 .... .0 (lI .c I/) 'C55 > ::l .0 CtI .2 ~ CD Lt) 'Ot - ..... I/) I: Lt) U) 0) III CD 1ij III J:! ... UI .... III I~ I: 'C I/) I/) :c I/) ,. ell CD.o CD Ilt. ~ ~ ~ 1l l! ~ Il! I CD ... UI > Lt) - UI Qi III .0 m ~ 15 U) CD m c: -g .::.:. ~c :g?: CD E CD 'C I~ CD I~ I/) c: (,) E l:3 'C i: 'C 'C 'C ~ 'C I.~ c 'C 'C co ::l co :g CD CD :g e ;::::E I CD .6 ,- III '5 '1:; 'C 'C '1:; 3: III 'C 'C: (,) CD E! CD 0 E 0- c "'J: .0 0 .5 CD <( Z .0 CO a /Xl CO .0 en 0 CD CO 0 ... .0_ I/) W Z Z Z Z Z LU CI.i W W W W W ~ CD 'C 'C Z ~ ~ 0 > > w en ~ 3: en (I,) 3: z (I,) W ::l (I,) 3: w i:i5 z 3: 55 ai co QJ en CD ~ Z CD (I,) co c CD i:i5 w c c CD ~ Z CD ~ ~ I: ~ ~ I: 1U ~ (I,) z ~ ~ CiS ... CiS ... CiS 0 0 CD I: en 0 0 'C <( ~ ~ s::. ~ ~ :5 J: .t:. UI :5 .!t! c en .t:. 3: 3: s::. ~ :5 ...... ;; :5 ~ :5 3: :; co 3: co :; Lt) :5 0 05 .... N 3: ...... 'Ot ..... co .... ...... ...... ..... 0:: 'r;t N 'r;t N 0 0 U) .... ..... ~ 10 (") ..... 0 ..... ..... 'r;t 0 .... 0 N ..... ..... .... 'r;t 'r;t (") ...... 0 ~ ..... 'r;t (") U) ...... ~ ..... 0 ~ co ~ ..... 0) ..... co ...... ...... ..... (") ~ to ...... 00 N co 0 ~ ~ ~ 'r;t U) N N N (") (") ..... ...... ..... (") N (") M N N ..... M ..... ~ ~ ~ u.. .2- III I: C CD III ~ ... 00 I: ~ ...'C I/) CD CD 't:l ~ I/) U) ~ .~ 4i 'E 'C =:: e .0 ... ... <C C C c: ~ c: .t:. CD .5 1'0 l5 C2 E j CD co ClI co :i2 'C E .....l III I/) ~ I/) I/) I/) :l .lo: .::.:. ... i 'a3 UI :2 CD E UI ~ ~ co ~ ~ ::J i .~ s::. CD ~ U. c: 1Il i 'C I/) I: I: ~ 0 0 I/) ...J CD co CD 0- ~ ~ III c: CO <( c: Ji 8 CD J: ~ :::c :::c I/) in .....l 0:: 3: LL 1Il III ii J: 0- J 't: CD u.. CD ii CD I 0 co g I/) c e :::c ~ 'C ~ ]! ~ ~ VI -g ..., E ~ 1.L c: ~ CD e :s c: III C IS S c ~ - 'S; "l5 c: .0 E CD ~ ::E c: ~ CD E 0 2 E III ~ 1Il 1Il 1Il co ::l S III 1Il a 1'0 z Ci5 ~ ~ .t ~ 1Il 1Il ~ 0- < 0- 0 ..., 0 ..., a::: Cl ..., W ...J 0 ..., :::; .... z ..., 00 0) 0 .... N M ~ 10 ~ ...... ~ 0) ~ ..... ~ (") ~ 10 co ...... co 0) ~ ..... ~ ~ ~ 10 :g ...... :8 ~ N N M M M ('I') ('I') M M 'r;t 'r;t 'r;t 'Ot 'r;t ~ 'r;t Lt) I/) Lt) 2-37 ,.,' ,.....~,...'_._ ,_".~I"'I<IIiIi". '. ,"_..._...,- "", Cl Z 2 o ~ ,->-t- ~ooo o::::::lZ Ot-O:: OOW U.wo OClz t-oO 00-0 <(0::- UJcof!? Z UJ ~ ~ o {) (Q ~ (Q 16 ~ - .!: II) I.- - C 4) 4) iii "0 (Q 'in en 4) '6 l.- e 0 - "5 4) ~ - en - Q) B 0 en N ;:) .!: I.- .!a 0 en s::; 1.0 II) as 4) .~ ~ 8 ..... "0 ... cu B 'C co l.- LL CD i5 Q) "0 :::: G> in"' en lD > Q) en .c 0 c 0 ... E E CD ... .E 2 tJ Q) Cl III .c E 1: Cl c i "0 .g S lD "0 "5 "0 ~ $ 0 ~ c c ~ 0 (Q ~ c II) (.) It) - t/) . ,g IE ,... <0 ! :g :5 ::,e, e c ~ ::!i! "<t" tJ - CD ..... - I.- .5 Q) :;:; Iii .c ;:) .! tJ C 0 G> E in 0 Q) .c Q) c t/) ~ II) co .c c 4) ..... co t/) "0 0 c 8 ...... ~ E tJ 0 I~ en Q) 'a II) 8 "0 .9 tJ G> .e Q) IE :g tJ C CD .e G> CD J 0 c cu s::; co c (,) .!Q ::,e, J= i CD ~ 0 I ~ C > c ,... ..... ..... ~ co a; 0 .!a N ! .8 "0 "0 := "0 E .~ '<t 'C ~ - ~ - ..... , "0 "0 t:J .c C -c "0 C') 1: 'l: s::; 0 0 0 1: I.l') CD CD co C/') "0 "0 "0 CD C') UJ W UJ W S en en w f/} 0 s UJ en c c 00 c Z 00 Q) CD G> CD CD G> 00 Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > ..... ~ <( f/) s::; s::; en s::; s::; ~ :5 :5 - co G> (5 :;; ~ ...... co 0 N co ..... ...... 0 ...... ..... ...... N ~ 0 I.l') 0 ..... 0 C') I.l') ..... <0 N ~ I.l') co C') co ; C') 0 0) 0 co co 0 ...... "<t" "<t" ''It ..... CO) CO) ''It ::,e, II) en ~ Q) :c: 1: ts tJ (Q ~ G> :=- ;:) :~ c co c ~ (Q 16 <( E ~ ;:) s::; s::; ;:) CD S s (I) ~ ::I: co Q) c ~ 1::: ~ :0 en co co co c ~ C <( c 1XI '6 1XI 0 .~ ~ .;:: c :5 G> CD 10 ~ co II) en (Q ::,e, Q) ~ 0 'C ~ ;:) ;:) a.. ..., ..., ..., ...J 0 ...... N C') "<t" I.l') co ,... co 10 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 -- 2-38 APPENDIX E PUBLIC INFORMATION PLAN .... East of CR 951 Bridge Report Page 15 2-39 Postcard sent in June for July 2 Public Information Meeting- approximately 1500 sent Postcard sent in July after Public Information Meeting- approximately 1100 sent 2-40 Collier County : East of CR 951 Bridge Study Page 1 of 1 .,.".,_.... East of CR 951 Bridge Study EAST OF C.R. 951 BRIDGE STUDY A study is in process to determine locations where bridges may be built in Golden Gate Estates to connect roads that will Improve traffic mobility, improve services, allow for faster response times for emergency services and improve evacuation routes. Twelve sites have been suggested so far to the East of 951 Committee to be considered for potential bridges following input from agencies such as Collier County EMS, Corkscrew Island Fire District, Golden Gate Fire District, Collier County Parks and Recreation Department, Collier County Public Utilities DiviSion, Collier County School District and the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Transportation Services Division's 5-Year Work Program and the Metropolitan Planning Organization's Long Range Transportation Plan. recognize the need for bridge maintenance as well as new bridge construction. Locations deemed as potential sites for bridges at this point went through an evaluation and ranking process based on the following criteria: ..... o Existing and future connectivity; o Change in response time for emergency services; o Impact on roadway network Level of Service (LOS); o Connection to planned or existing signalized intersections; o Change in trip length; o Impact to the roadway being connected to the bridge; o Access to. existing and planned school sites; and o School bus efficiency. After all rankings are completed by the outside agencies and the public, Transportation Planning Department staff will compile and evaluate the data, provide cost analysis as well as review the impact on the community. A final report and recommendation will be made to the East of CR 951 Committee in August and then it will be included in the East of CR 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study as well as provided to the Board of County Commissioners in September so they can adopt a priority list. Click btiC..to view map with proposed bridges. 1f you have questions, please call1isa Koehler at 252-8192 or email heratllsakoehler@collieraov.net Updated July 25, 2008 http://www.colliergov.net/index.aspx ?page=2451 817/2008 2-41 Collier County Government Transportation Services Division Transportation Engineering and Construction Management Department 2885 S. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Contact: Connie Deane Community Liaison 239-252-8192 or 8365 June 23, 2008 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING The public is invited to attend a brief presentation and review the displays for Collier County Transportation Planning Department's East of County Road (CR) 951 Bridge Study Tuesday, July 1,2008 7p.m. Oakridge MiddleScbool 14975 Collier Boulevard Naples . Staff members are conducting this bridge study to investigate possible north-south and east-west roadway connections to improve evacuation routes, decrease emergency response times for rue. emergency services and law enforcement. help improve traffic mobility and improve services to the area. . After the briefpresentatioll. staff will be available to answer any questions. All are welcome to review the study displays and talk with staffmembers. Members of the Board of County Commissioners may be in attendance at this public information meeting. For more information, call Principal Planner Lisa Koehler at the Collier County Transportation Services Division at 239-252-8192 or e-mail LisaKoehler@colliergov.net. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding. you are entitled, at DO cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department located at 3301 East Tamiami Trail. Naples, Florida, 34112. (239) 252-8380; assIsted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the County Commissioners' Office. ### Eileen O'Grady 2-42 Collier County Government Transportation Services Division Transportation Engineering and Construction Management Department 2885 S. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Contact: Connie Deane Community Liaison 239-252-8192 or 8365 June 25, 2008 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE East of 951 Bridge Study Requests Residents' and Visitors' Input at Public Information Meeting on July 1 -- A study is in process to determine locations where bridges may be built in Golden Gate Estates to connect roads that will improve traffic mobility, improve services, allow for faster response times for emergency services and improve evacuation routes. Twelve sites have been suggested so far to the East of 951 Committee to be considered for potential bridges following input from agencies such as Collier County EMS, Corkscrew Island Fire District, Golden Gate Fire District, Collier County Parks and Recreation Department, Collier County Public Utilities Division, Collier County School District and the Collier County Sheriff's Office. To gather further information a public information meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 1 at 7 p.m. at Oakridge Middle School, 14975 Collier Boulevard., Naples. There will be a brief presentation at 7 p.m. followed by the opportunity to review displays and discuss potential bridge sites with staff members. Residents and visitors are welcome to attend and encouraged to participate. The Transportation Services Division's 5-Year Work Program and the Metropolitan Planning Organization's Long Range Transportation Plan recognize the need for bridge maintenance as well as new bridge construction. Locations deemed as potential sites for bridges at this point went through an evaluation and ranking process based on the following criteria: o Existing and future connectivity; o Change in response time for emergency services; o Impact on roadway network Level of Service (LOS); o Connection to planned or existing signalized intersections; o Change in trip length; o Impact to the roadway being connected to the bridge; o Access to existing and planned school sites; o School bus efficiency; and o Cost. -more- 2-43 East of951 Bridge Study Requests Residents and Visitors Input at Public Information Meeting on July IlPage 2 of2 After all rankings are completed by the outside agencies and the public, Transportation Planning Department staff will compile and evaluate the data, provide cost analysis as well as review the impact on the community. District 5 Commissioner Jim Coletta encourages community members to attend the meeting on July 1 in order to have a say in this important study. "We appreciate the input we have received thus far from emergency service responders and other agencies," said Coletta. "Since so much of Golden Gate Estates includes dead end roads that stop at canals, there is a great need to bridge some of those canals to provide better emergency services as well as evacuation routes in case of tires like we saw only last month that created such havoc and devastation for so many." A final report and recommendation will be made to the East of951 Committee in August and then it will be provided to the Board of County Commissioners in September so they can adopt a priority list. Members of the Board of County Commissioners may be in attendance at this informational public .... workshop. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department located at 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, 34112, (239) 252-8380; assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the County Commissioners' Office. For further information please contact Transportation Planning Department Project Manager Lisa Koehler at 239-252-8192. ### [News Media: If you have any questions, please contact Community Liaison Connie Deane at conniedeane@colliergov.net or either 239-252-8192 or 8365; or Public Information Specialist Eileen O'Grady at 213-5801 or eileel1ogradv(@,colliergov.net] 2-44 Bridges not yet crossed: naplesnews.com Page 10f2 naplesnews.com Bridges not yet crossed By KENNETH COSTEllO Wednesday, July 9, 2008 Plans for 12 connector bridges in the Golden Gate Estates received mixed response, July 1, as nearly 150 people attended the East of 951 Bridge Study meeting at Oakridge Middle School. Objections ranged from lifestyle impacts to air quality concerns, while other residents urged officials to move ahead with the bridges as quickly as possible. "This is the bridge that should be built first," Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association member Peggy Whitbeck said of the connector proposed for the south end of Wilson Boulevard and Frangipani Avenue. That bridge is part of a corridor proposal that would connect Wilson south to Landfill Road. The meeting was led by members of the Collier County Transportation Planning DepClttment as part of the East of CR 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study, which has been holding meetings over the last two years to secure public input on community service needs such as police, fire, EMT's, roads, bridges, schools, libraries and parks. The bridges are proposed for 23rd Street SW over the Golden Gate Main Canal, the north end and the south of 16th Street NE, the west end of 45th Avenue NE, the north end of Wilson Boulevard, west end of Jung Boulevard, bridge connecting 16th Ave.nue NW to 16th Avenue NE, the north end of 13th Street NW, the south end of Wilson Boulevard, bridge over the main canal on 14th Avenue SE and a bridge proposed by the Big Corkscrew Fire & Rescue District at 62nd Avenue NE. According to Nick Casalanguida, director of transportation planning, the purpose of the meeting was to obtain public feedback from residents. The 12 locations have already been evaluated by the Collier County Sheriff's Office, Division of Forestry, Emergency Medical Services, the school district, fire districts, public utilities, parks and recreation and Big Cypress Basin. According to Casalanguida, there has never been a road grid in the Estates, primarily due to the number of canals. Most of the roads dead-end at the canal. "First responders have said that response times are longer due to the lack of bridges," he said. "We would like to build multiple bridges, so one street will not have to bear the burden of increased traffic." Proponents said the May 29 wildfire in the Estates highlighted the need for multiple connections to improve emergency response access. Others, such as Jeff Stivers, also were opposed to building multiple bridges. "We chose to live on a dead end street. We did not want through traffic. We wanted less traffic and less crime," he said. "1 knew the limitations of the traffic system when 1 moved here, people's lack of planning to get a quart of milk or a loaf of bread should not require the county to build more bridges." Stivers agreed that pOlice and fire need better access and recommended that single lane bridges be built and gated for police and emergency access only. Gates for emergency access only and speed bumps to slow traffic were discussed when the last major connector bridge was build on 13th Street SW in 2002. Both ideas were ultimately turned down. Emergency http://www.naplesnews.comlnews/2008/jull09/bridges-not - yet -crossed/?printer= 1 / 8/7/2008 2-45 THE COLLIER INTERACTIVE GROWTH MODEL .(CIGMl EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Prepared for: The Collier County Board of County Commissioners And The Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department C -er County ~ '- .~ - -- By: Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc. 100 Estero Boulevard, Suite 434 Fort Myers Beach, Florida 33931 Phone: (239) 463-3929 Fax: (239) 463-5050 Webpage and EmaiI: www.interactivegrowthmodeI.com September 29, 2008 @ Copyright 2008 by Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc., all rights reserved. Reprint permission must be requested in writing from Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc. Interactive Growth Model™ is a registered trademark. 3-1 Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc. Planning Consultants 100 Estero Boulevard, Suite 434 Fort Myers Beach, Florida 33931 Phone: (239) 463-3929 Fax: (239) 463-5050 Visit our Web page and Email addresses at: www.interactivegrowthmodelcom Charter Members Al1rerican Plam.ing Association and American Institute of Certified Planners September 29, 2008 Michael Bosi, AICP, Community Planning Manager Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Re: Transmittal-The Collier Interactive Growth Model (CIGM) Executive Summary Dear Michael: We are pleased to submit this Executive Summary on the development, assumptions, conclusions and use of the Collier Interactive Growth ModeJ (CIGM). Collier County now has this powerful and proactive planning tool along with an extensive database that can be used to update the County's Growth Management Plan and better assess the effects of future land use decisions. You will also be able to update data and other information easily through on-going access to our software and assess the implications of alternative "What-if" growth management scenarios. We believe the hard work that went into the development of the ClCM will reap benefits beyond those contemplated in our original contract with the County. If the opportunity presents itself in the future, we would be pleased to continue offering similar services on an as-needed basis. A separate document, The CIGM Technical Appendix contains the data spreadsheets and other information that was used in the development of the CIGM and is found at the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department. Your steadfast participation and that of your fine staff, particularly Beth Yang, and other deparbnent heads, particularly the staff of the Property Appraiser who provided extensive parcel data queries, was greatly appreciated. We also want to thank The Horizon Study Committee for their valuable input, and the County Commissioners and the County Administration for their support throughout this important project and for their vision and understanding of its worth when its development was first discussed. We wish continued success to you and to Collier County's planning efforts. Sincerely, D~~~~~ Creators of the Interactive Growth Model™ 3-2 Section 1 General Overview Historical Background and Perspective On May 24, 2006 the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) was presented the preliminary report of the East of County Road 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study. The preliminary report was the identification of three levels of service options for public infrastructure and service outlays for the area east of CR-951. During the presentation, the BCC provided staff with the direction to incorporate a land use model, specifically a Collier County Interactive Growth Model (hereafter CIGM) into the study to refine infrastructure planning in all areas lying generally east of CR-951. At that time, staff was instructed to enter iflto contract negotiations with Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc. (hereafter VBR) to determine population and its distribution over time to build-out. This would integrate the findings of the studies cited above and create such a growth model to address the growth expected in that area in the future and to optimize the return on public investments. The original study area is approximately 1,210,618 acres or 1900 square miles. This is an area slightly larger than the state of Delaware, and includes six distinct districts within that total. It includes all land east of CR-951, with the exception of Marco Island. (See Map 1) In subsequent discussions with County staff, it was agreed that all lands abutting CR 951 on its west side would be included in the interests of good and logical planning and at no additional cost to the County. The Everglades were also included as this represents a significant portion of the study area. The six districts include: Golden Gate Estates north of 1-75 (51,200 acres); the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (93,600 acres); the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (195,846 acres); the Immokalee Urbanized Area (16,992 acres); the South Golden Gate Estates Natural Resources Protection Area (NRPA) (16,992 acres); and federal and state lands (821,620 acres). Each of these districts contains specific regulations as to the manner, intensity and type of development permitted. Map 1 TIle CrGM Study Area N I SOtUTE'; COlliE'l'("MuHy Cou\preheU6ivl!" PliU11ling Dl"p<UtnH!Il\t ~il~~r'~~~':~~=:~~=:''':ri=~~';l~~c:'.%=~~: ;::annatll'I'lt IS tDlsaCl1/I1cy or"1llidtt ~..t4l1! IVI!~ dlIlty,lR.mIdlll: Kantli'JdlIJlICl"lhe il'llwr-.!i~n". ;:hi. ""P. e~...~ oml..ons rNy o~r_1h'''t Q;hf CCunIj' CWItWIt be t>RI tIIIb/I! fOflnli~all'I1hll "'"1,.10.... du~1D int><....... ~n of..... inlo.......... onlhl5lr1lop Flun aU<a:llheCoIief Coll'Ky" CO,.,.....rhemi~ PlNlM'",g OePlrtrnu;tMt, .ny",,<< IUM ~ll"'~"iltU""-"" "II;. ......wlha dlt5...S!d It; gulz il 3-3 The 2005 Residential Build-Out Study, compiled by the Comprehensive Planning Department, projected a population of 688,489 for the study area. In 2005 it had a population estimated at 71,000. However, subsequent, and more current information, led VBR to forecast a build-out population of 442,537 persons. Collier County presently employs a population forecasting method characterized as traditional straight-line population projections. This heretofore accepted methodology had been sufficient until recently, when the County's 2005 Residential Build-out Study projected a build-out scenario, but did not forecast its timing. The study indicated what build-out conditions would be, but not when they would occur. The results of the build-out study underscored the need for Collier County to develop a more effective method to keep pace with its growth. An improved approach was needed to link population growth with capital infrastructure expenditures, while balancing the growing demand for public services with limited tax dollars available. With the unique characteristics of the area's six sub-districts, and the number of residents projected in the future, capital infrastructure and public service decisions will shape the sustainability of future development and the efficiency in which infrastructure and public services are provided. To better gauge the timing and manner in which the area will develop and the necessary decisions related to public capital outlays for that development, the Board of County Commissioners directed Staff to incorporate a land use component into the study. In researching firms that provide land use studies to municipalities and counties, Staff identified, VBR as the only firm whose trademarked and copyrighted product, Interactive Growth Mode!TM (IGM), could provide the modeling needed to satisfy questions related to future growth in the study area. VBR developed the technology in their Interactive Growth Model, ™ that has proven effective in dealing with these growth management situations. This planning firm is the sole source provider of this specialized modeling application, staff training in its use, professional support and eventual proprietary licensing. Staff determined that the VBR product and its services are a unique planning model and the only one in the United States that is capable of meeting the County's requirements. The Interactive Growth ModeITM uses the population forecast as a key input element and distributes the population, in five-year increments, over time to build-out. It can also be applied to commercial corridor allocation models, comprehensive plan updates, economic development, and Traffic Analysis Zone updates. The Interactive Growth ModeITM can be used to determine the timing and location of utilities, school facilities, park and recreation facilities, fire stations and the data for a community's budget allocations to mention just a few. It can also be used to demonstrate "What If?" scenarios of alternative growth management policies and decisions of the community, allowing the implications and results of different planning decisions to be studied. 3-4 This project, The Collier Interactive Growth Model, (CIGM) consists of developing, testing, and implementing a population forecasting model for accurate forecasting in five-year increments to build-out. Once a forecasting model is determined, the project proceeds to designing, developing and implementing a Collier County Interactive Growth Model to forecast when and where growth will take place, the apportionment of land uses to meet the needs of the population, and the characteristics of the population. This model is a tool for a comprehensive growth management strategy for the entire area. Collier County also selected seven sub-models of the IGM, including: commercial, industrial/wholesale, school facilities, open space, fire/EMS, law enforcement, and affordable housing. These sub-models were used to determine the need and extent of each category, commensurate with population growth over time and their optimal locations. There are numerous growth management implications associated with the Collier County Interactive Growth Model. The primary function was to identify land use issues before they become problematic. The CIGM can help ensure that the right parcels are available to meet the current and future demands for neighborhood, community, and regional shopping centers. This is a smart growth concept associated with sustainable development, which was the focus of the County's Community Character Plan, Toward Better Places. One fundamental aspect of "Smart Growth" and "Sustainable Development" is the concept that residents should not have to travel great distances outside their neighborhoods to shop. To do so increases demands on roadways, and infrastructure, and increases travel costs. The CIGM will be utilized by staff to ensure that the various subsets of land uses necessary to maintain a healthy sustainable economy is provided for within the future development for the East of CR- 951 Study Area. Through this monitoring, the BCC can make appropriate demands upon petitions for future development and determine policy decisions to guide that development. Another major function of the CIGM is better management of appropriations in future fiscal years. The CIGM can be used to pace timing and identify advantageous locations for expenditures and acquisitions of land for parks, water and sewer facilities, fire stations and the like. This allows Collier County to use their resources for the maximum benefit of its citizens. The CIGM will be a management tool to assist in updating the Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) and Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of the Growth Management Plan. Further, as the population increases east of CR 951, the CIGM will help to formulate recommended Growth Management Plan amendments, in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan as well as the Future Land Use Element. 3-5 Incorporating the CIGM into Collier County's planning efforts places the County on firm statutory ground. Other governmental jurisdictions are using the Interactive Growth ModeFM for comprehensive planning purposes. Bringing it into their decision- making processes has received no negative feedback from the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). A change in population methodology as set forth in the Capital Improvement Element and Future Land Use Element may require a Growth Management Plan Amendment - which must be explained and supported by data and analysis. This could be provided for by the CIGM. Section 2 Overview/Basics of the CIGM The Purpose of the CIGM, Its Goals, Assumptions and Key Objectives The purpose of the Collier Interactive Growth Model (CIGM) was to: forecast the spatial distribution of the County's population over time, to build-out and to forecast the apportionment of land uses to meet the needs of the population, in the most cost effective manner. The specific goals of the study included: · Accurately forecast population over time to build-out in the study area · Forecast when and where growth will take place; · Determine if there will be sufficient land uses designated to support the characteristics of the population; · Determine the need for supporting land uses by type and intensity; · Forecast the timing and spacing of supporting facilities such as schools, parks, commercial centers and fire stations; · Train staff on CIGM operations and annual updating procedures; · Provide data for graphic interpretation of CIGM results. To create the CIGM and have it become operational dealing with an immense area, numerous sub-area studies and complex interrelationships, assumptions had to be made with regard to the year 2007 baseline scenario which carried on throughout the model's development. These major assumptions included: · The study area consists of all the land lying east of CR 951; · The study area was divided into 172 zones (Traffic Analysis Zones). With some adjustments, each zone was inventoried for current development and built-out development based on the legal yield based on the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the County's Growth Management Plan; 3-6 · The CIGM applied a series of algorithms to solve problems. An algorithm is a procedure to solve a problem that may have many solutions. Once the parameters are defined, the algorithm will produce a solution; · The parameters for the school sub-model are the current level of services, school plants by type, plant capacity, timing of plants and the students generated by school plant over time in order to determine the timing and location of facilities. (When sub-model parameters change, the CIGM is adjusted accordingly and all new data is processed through the software. The CIGM is therefore a dynamic model. The 2007 baseline scenario is based on current levels of service, and as these change, the CIGM data changes); · The parameters for the recreation and park sub-model were the current level of service for community and regional parks; · The parameters for the commercial sub-model were the ULI guidelines and the current market in the study area for neighborhood, community and regional commercial centers; · The parameters for the fire station sub-model were the ISO standards and requirements of fire stations for a Class 1 rating; · The demographic model was developed applying the ratio method and regression analysis to comparable counties in different stages of development; · The service area for schools, parks and fire stations, and the market area for commercial faciltiies are the study area limits as of 2007. The Interactive Growth Model,TM created by Dr. Paul Van Buskirk, and owned by VBR, was the planning tool used to create the CIGM. It consists of data and formulas that simulate and forecast the distribution of growth. It also describes and explains the relationship of key demographic and economic variables. The IGMTM is interactive, i.e., when one of the key variables is changed, it shows the influence on the other key variables. The key objectives needed to address the goals of the study described above and the development of the CIGM included: 1. A current inventory of development and demographics by Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ); 3-7 2. The creation of the build-out inventory of development by type and intensity and the forecasting of demographics by T AZ; 3. The disaggregation of the study area into 172 T AZ which comprise approximately 70,000 individual parcels of land, to enable the handling of over an estimated one million bits of data; 4. An accurate population forecast (the Population Forecast Model); 5. The design and development of sub-models selected by the County; 6. The design and development of criteria and formulas for the spatial distribution of development over time; 7. Data output by T AZ's in five-year increments to build-out. The output data that resulted from the objectives described above were then translated into graphic interpretations (shown later in this report). These are for use by the County for presentation purposes to reach the widest possible audience with varying levels of technical expertise. Section 3 Population Forecasting The Importance of an Accurate Build-out Population Model The starting point of any long range planning effort in a community begins with an accurate population forecast that is projected to build-out if possible. Through its consultants, Collier County prepared the aggregate population of the county to its build-out in five-year increments. Future land uses need to keep pace with population growth through time, as do the concurrency of the public services needed by that population. The fiscal costs associated with providing those services need to be known to protect and foster quality of life. The aggregate projected population of Collier County in five-year increments was a key input to the Collier County Interactive Growth Model (CIGM). The CIGM had the capability to distribute that population over time to build-out. With the knowledge of the distribution of population over time comes the ability to determine when and where support services and land uses need to be, and to provide them in the most efficient manner. Collier County will reap the benefits of the CIGM as an important planning tool for long range planning. The County will also be able to consider alternative 3-8 "what-if?" growth scenarios using the CIGM to address changing times, values, circumstances and the fiscal requirements associated with them. To summarize, the benefits of an accurate build-out population model includes: · Creating a benchmark build-out population scenario based on current policies, i.e. zoning, land use plan in order to test and compare alternative scenarios. · Disaggregating the study area into manageable sub-areas (172 T AZ (Traffic Analysis Zones, which consist of over 70,000 individual parcels of land) provided opportunities to test alternative scenarios to determine spatial development impacts. · Having the ability to test the need at build-out and the intervening years, for the general apportionment of land uses, their amounts and distribution to meet the need of residents. For example, how many acres of parks are needed to meet park standards at build-out for the population? Or, how many acres of shopping areas are needed to meet the demands of the population and how should they be distributed to reduce vehicle trips and trip lengths? · Possessing a planning tool to achieve and maintain that which is important to the County's residents. In effect, the desirable build-out scenario can be used translated into actionable goals and objectives in revisions to the County's Comprehensive Plan that can be measurable up to build-out. · Acting as a clearinghouse to determine positive and negative effects, of most planning activities at build-out. For example, parks, schools, commercial centers, utilities, etc. · The Population Foreca$t Build-out Model was a major first step and critical input into the development the Collier County Interactive Growth Model. The CIGM distributed the population as a function of time and is a valuable planning tool to help the County plan for its growth over time, such as the apportionment and reapportionment and distribution of land uses, consistent with population growth and the timing of a level of services consistent with growth and its accompanying fiscal implications. Collier County Population Forecasting Like many other counties in Florida, Collier County has experienced significant growth since 1980. During that 26-year period, Collier County grew from a population of 85,971 in 1980 to an estimated population of 314,649 in 2006, a 365 percent increase. In light of this reality, it was determined, by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, that there was a necessity, to accurately forecast population over time for the short and long-term planning horizons. This ensures that infrastructure is ]-9 neither prematurely advanced nor allowed to fall behind population demand. Infrastructure can be the road network, utilities, schools, recreational facilities and public services. It is well known that the cost to "catch up" infrastructure far exceeds the cost of being proactive to more accurately meet the demands as they occur. For example, to invest public capital to replace infrastructure before the term of its useful life, i.e. 20 years due to over-utilization, can result in negative returns on public investment. Likewise, over-estimating population could result in large-scale capital investment that is underutilized with little beneficial returns. There are more accurate applications and methodologies to forecast aggregate population growth than the typical linear extrapolation. The Collier Interactive Growth Model (CIGM) distributes the forecasted growth over time and provides for direct application of traffic models, for example, to forecast the need and location for current and future improvements. Similarly, the timing of utilities and a host of demands, i.e. retail and office space, recreational facilities, schools, fire stations, etc., can also be more accurately assessed as to size and location over time. Forecasting Methods The following methods were reviewed to determine which would be most applicable to forecasting the Collier County population and the study area, for the short and long term. These methodologies included: . Cohort Component Model · Simple Curve Fitting or Extrapolation Model · Exponential Model · Gompertz (Sigmoid or Logistic) model. Cohort Component Model This method" ages" the various age groups or cohorts in the population into the future and applies the appropriate birth and death rates. It also requires an estimate of the level of in-and-out migration. This method can be quite accurate when forecasting population up to 10 or 20 years into the future where in-migration is not the major growth factor. In the cohort component population projections: births, deaths and migration are projected separately by applying cohort specific rates of population divided into age and gender cohorts. However, when high levels of in-migration and second homes are expected over long periods of time, this model becomes less relevant because it focuses on the aging of the current population, while providing little assistance in forecasting the critical rate of in-migration. This model is sophisticated and expensive and will not accurately forecast long-term growth for Collier County. 3-10 The Cohort Survival Method adjusts figures from the last census forward by age and gender groups year by year to the date of the forecast, with separate adjustments made for each of the three major components of deaths, births and net migrations. This method is used by the U.S. Census Bureau and many state agencies to forecast population. Research has shown that this method has historically underestimated growth. For example, the Census Bureau used this model in 1975 to forecast the population for Florida in the year 2000 and underestimated the population by three million. Its accuracy increases for large communities with slow growth and a shorter term. It disaggregates the population demographically but not spatially, and it has no upper limit of growth. Research has demonstrated that the logistic (sigmoid) curve is accurate for long-term forecasting. For example, a Belgian mathematician named Verhulst, using this method, predicted in 1840 what the population of the United States would be in 1940. His forecast was off by less than 1 percent. The CIGM Model does disaggregate the population spatially, and applies demographic and economic forecasts as well as the development of land resources by type and intensity. Simple Curve Fitting on Extrapolation Model This method plots past population levels over time in a time series and then extends the line or curve by regression analysis into the future to forecast population levels. In the early stages of growing communities growth curves are often linear. Merely extending that linear curve into the future greatly underestimates future growth. Likewise, for communities in their mid-stage of growth, the extrapolation of the growth curve into the future greatly overestimates future growth. Another shortcoming of this method is that long-term limits to growth (build-out) are not factored in. Therefore, this model is not the most appropriate for Collier County. Exponential Model An exponential trend is one that is increasing at a constant rate of change each year. This compounding effect of a constant rate of growth can result in astronomical increases in forecasted population in the long term. While this type of trend in growth may exist for a period of 10 years or even 20 years, in fast growing communities it cannot sustain itself for long terms. This model would be misleading for forecasting long-term growth for Collier County. 3-11 Sigmoid Model Many biological populations (like cities and counties) tend to grow at a rate over time that simulates a logistic or Sigmoid Curve. In the case of the Sigmoid Curve, population growth increases at an increasing rate over time until it reaches an inflection point, then the increase in population growth is at a decreasing rate until it reaches upper growth limit. One of the key variables in this growth equation is its upper growth limit (build-out). The upper limit for large-scale counties such as Collier County can be precisely defined by querying the parcel database and, then, calculating the total number of housing units that can be built. The number of housing units can be translated to population. The Sigmoid Model is a more scientifically sophisticated variation of an extrapolation model and should be more accurate than other methods for forecasting short and long-term growth for Collier County. The Sigmoid Model, as illustrated in Figure 1, shows the upper limit, inflection point and the rate of growth. For example, the population increases at an increasing rate up to the inflection point, then the population increases at a decreasing rate to build-out. It should also be noted that the greatest increase in population takes place prior to and after the inflection point. The straight lines shown in that figure show what happens if a portion of the growth curve is extrapolated as is often done in unsophisticated population models. The results are an over or underestimate of growth which results in the" costs" associated with such extrapolations. Figure 1 Typical Sigmoid Curve 90,000 P 80,000 0 70,000 P U 60,000 L 50,000 A T 40,000 I 30,000 0 N 20,000 10,000 Overestimated Growth Upper Limit Greatest Population Increase Typical Erroneous Extrapolation o I 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 YEAR 3-12 Historical Analysis of Growth in Comparative Counties For Forecasting Future Populations The Consultants researched several counties and selected three that were comparable to Collier County and constructed actual growth curves. These counties have build-out populations and other key characteristics that are somewhat similar to Collier County's. Simulation modeling was done to determine if the Sigmoid Model is relevant for Collier County and which growth curves would best simulate that which would be constructed for Collier County. To do this, VBR compared significant characteristics of Collier County to other counties that have striking similarities and were nearing build-. out. The Florida counties of Broward, Sarasota and Palm Beach were best suited for this evaluation. (See Tables 1 and 2). Figure 2 Location of Comparable Counties ~~t~.7~:~i:J~~?i:'~>:;;_. ( _ l " '.>. I 1_ \ cr. -,,- ~ -r,;:::L'.or- -,- ..-'_ .._. ,.~ 1 ~"F---" ; L' '.." "-I.- ~.J\) .~''''; "1.,,,",. ::J...- t:::::.:.:..f :7" . ....Lj/H ~ r, ~ """ . T'-.... __ LJ.:. r '<!'j' \.".,..-.. .... -. ~\ T1 c'Y\ . ... 1. - ..... ". '....... ..~ i ,.. '. 'i.. (~6#~;'-; \" ~--r'r . '. '-:r,--t"\\ .'{./ 'C... ~'" ,:,,,.1 ~... p~ . ;' ..?~~)):~)~ __I.....:r.lir.~"" .......'.., I ..;- ,',1, . )-'~L:'~~\ ~~. ~..~~ \;:E, -;~tl\ \Jt-_. '.. ...... ! \1 :.:.j. I ..... ) '. '~. .,"It I ...... \ . ~"'~) J I .... ..... · I 'J ~ \.....lltI,. .~. ........ / ~\;).I ' \.""'-';"<'7::' ~;,,/ SourcE': ViUl BuskU"k, Ry{ft>J and ASR(....ciate.... IIlC. Table 1 CIGM Historical Population of Comparative Counties County Year 1930* 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2006 ** Gollier 2,883 5,102 6,488 15,753 38,040 85,971 152,099 251,377 314,649 Sarasota 12,440 16,106 28,827 76,895 120,413 202,251 277,776 325,957 369,535 Broward 20,094 39,794 83,933 333,945 620,100 1,018,200 1,255,488 1,623,018 1,787,636 Palm 51,781 79,989 114,688 228,106 317,909 535,409 863,518 1,131,184 1,274,013 Beach *Began with 1930 Census because these counties were created between 1909 and 1923. ** Estimated population. The growth of Collier County between 1980 and 2006 was 365 percent. By comparison, the growth of Sarasota, Broward and Palm Beach counties was 183 percent, 176 percent and 238 percent respectively. While all of these are significant in terms of population growth over the 26-year period of time, it should be understood that each of these counties are at different places in their growth curve. For example, as indicated in Table 2, Broward and Palm Beach counties are at 85 percent and 87 percent respectively of their build-out, while Sarasota County is at about 51 percent. Therefore, since they '\_H have both passed their respective inflection points, the growth curve for Broward and Palm Beach counties, should flatten further, over the next 7 to 11 years. The growth curve for Sarasota should continue on its steepest slope and begin to flatten after it reaches its inflexion point. Broward and Palm Beach counties were included as valuable comparables because they are beyond their respective inflection points and provide insights and lessons that were important in the development of the CIGM. Specifically, they provide a historical perspective of growth characteristics of nearly built-out counties. Table 2 Characteristics of CIGM Comparative Counties Year 2000* Counn Name Facts Collier Sarasota Broward Palm Beach Total Area in 2,305 725 1,319 1,993 Square Miles Year Established 1923 1921 1915 1909 Avg. Household 2.39 2.13 2.45 2.34 Size (PPH) Median Age 44.1 50.5 37.8 41.8 % Population 65+ 24.5% 31.5% 16.1% 23.1% Per. Cap. Income $31,195 $28,326 $23,170 $28,807 in 1999 Dollars Median Household $48,289 $41,957 $41,691 $53,701 Income in 1999 I Dollars # Housing Units 144,536 182,467 741,043 556,428 Beachfront? Yes Yes Yes Yes Nearest Large Fort Myers Tampa Ft. Lauderdale and Miami Palm Beach Airport Location Build-out pop/yr. 950,223/2055** 725,000/2050/Land 2,117,038/2015/ 1,600,OOO/2019/Land Use Plan based on Land use /Land Use Plan Use Plan, Zoning and Zoning plan or Zoning? Property Appraiser Current % of Build- 37% 51% 85% 87% out pooulation Park acreage/ % of 1,623 acres/ 25,558 acres/5% 14,023 acres/1.6% 6,107 acres/O.5% total 0.1 %*** unincorporated area Sources: US. Census, Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Ine. and Planning Departments of the cited counties. * All facts year 2000 except as noted. ** The year 2055 is forecasted to be ninety percent of build-out. *** For consistency of application, the percentage of 0.1 percent does not include the state and federal parklands such as The Everglades as part of park acreage, but does include its acreage when calculating park acreage as a percent of the total unincorporated area. This could be_misleading if not understood. Sixty-three percent of the County land area is in state and federal lands. 3-14 While no two counties are mirror images of one another, the ones that were selected had key similarities to Collier County as shown in Table 2 above. Some of these included: · Incorporation year . Persons Per Household . Per capita income · Water/sewer availability . Year 2000 median age · Year 2000 percentage of the population over 65 · Similar R2 values and similarity of coefficients . Waterfront county From the population growth of the various counties in Table I, VBR plotted and performed a regression analysis on those individual historical populations that produced a curve for each of them. From each curve, coefficients were developed which to determine the total shape of the curve. If the coefficients of the growth curves of the various communities were reasonably close to Collier County's then it would validate the shape for Collier County. The coefficients for the counties were as follows: Collier Sarasota Broward Palm Beach .069143992 .050979349 .073516697 .078490777 The R2 value is a coefficient of correlation, which is the deviation of a population point off a perfect sigmoid curve. A value of 1.0 is a perfect curve with all points falling on it and the closer a community's R2 value is to 1.0 the more reliable the curve. The values for these communities were as follows: Collier .8161 Sarasota .9493 Broward .9535 Palm Beach .9071 These vqlues were all close to 1.0 and were deemed reliable. 3-15 Figure 3 below shows graphically the actual growth curve for Collier County as it approaches a build-out population of 950,223. The growth of Collier County has followed the classic Sigmoid Curve. Figure 3 Figure 4 below shows the composite growth curves of all 4 comparative counties. Figure 4 3-16 The growth curve for Collier County in Figure 3 looks different as it is shown in Figure 4. The explanation is that in Figure 4, which is a composite of four counties, all have different maximum populations. In order to portray the curves of these counties in one graphic in order to determine their general shape and accommodate all of their maximum populations, the result is a skewing of the curves. All of the growth curves are Sigmoid Curves and they are all accurate when compared to Table 1, that indicates the time period and the population at that time. The growth curve for Collier County in Figure 3 is its true curve, unencumbered by others. Selection of Forecasting Method and Results of Forecast for Collier County The Sigmoid Model has demonstrated its accuracy in forecasting population over time for fast-growing counties such as Collier County. As indicated above, the growth curves of comparable counties were all strong sigmoid curves. Further, the R2 values and similarities of the coefficients support Sigmoid Curves. Other characteristics such as year of incorporation of the counties, persons per household, per capita income, water and sewer availability, median age, and population over 65, are not all exact but all have similarities. Taken together, they would indicate that in these counties, the Sigmoid Model is most appropriate for forecasting population over time. The data collection and analysis of this study provided the information in support of the selection and application of the Sigmoid Model to accurately forecast future populations for Collier County. That information is as follows: 1. The estimated build-out permanent population of 950,223 persons as the upper limit of growth independent of other data; 2. The historic population data from the u.s. Census; 3. The estimated population from the parcel data bank for 2007; 4. The traditional growth pattern that is common in support of future growth. Forecasting Results The Sigmoid Model that illustrates the forecasted results of the population, over time for Collier County and applies the data outlined above is shown in Figure 1 above. Table 3 shows the forecasted aggregate population of Collier County from 2000 to the estimated 90 percent of build-out year of 2045, and on to build-out, in five-year increments. 3-17 Table 3 Collier County Population Forecast to Build-out Year Population 2000 251,377 2005 313,358 2006 314,649 2010 389,700 2015 470,890 2020 552,327 2025 629,355 2030 698,274 2035 756,937 2040 804,785 2045* 842,475 2050 871,354 2055 893,019 2060 909,014 2065 920,684 Build-Out 950,223 Source: Van Buskirk, Ryffel, and Associates, Inc. * 90 percent of Build-out. Findings It may be concluded from the historic analysis of population growth of the Florida counties studied and from other data in this section that the Sigmoid Curve best represents the population growth of all four counties including Collier County over time to build-out. Further, given the upper limit of population (build-out), the scientific application of a Sigmoid Model can accurately forecast future population over the short and long term in Collier County. 3-18 The Role of the Population Model in the CIGM The CIGM is population driven, and all other aspects of the model begin with the population over time to build-out in five-year increments. The role of the Population Model is best understood by considering the differences between it and the CIGM and its sub-models. The Connection between the Population Forecast to Build-out Methodology, the Interactive Growth Model, ™ and Sub-models The Population Forecast to Build-out Model is the beginning step in the development of an Interactive Growth Model. The resultant product is a forecast of the aggregate population, in five-year increments to build-out and serves as a key input to an Interactive Growth Model and thereafter to any requested sub-models. One of the end products of the Interactive Growth Model™ is the distribution of the aggregate population in five-year increments to build-out. The population distribution is by sub-areas of the community such as Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ's) in Collier County's case. Moreover, the variables that were built into the CIGM were those that are important to the County. With the basic CIGM completed, it can be used later to develop "what if?" growth management scenarios. These can be used to demonstrate the effect of alternative land use decisions as input to short and long term budgetary considerations, to update the County's Land Use Plan as it relates to the study area, and as input to create additional sub-models in the future. Section 4 Disaggregation of the Study Area To properly manage the planning processes for an area as large and complex as this one, there was a need to divide it into smaller areas. The most logical division was Traffic Analysis Zones. These are areas used by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) as their basis for transportation modeling and collaterally as a basis of recommendation for distribution of federal funding of road projects. Thus, the use of TAZs serves to provide multiple benefits beyond its use in the CIGM. Map 2 below shows the location, identification number and extent of the 172 T AZs that comprise the study area. 3-19 Map 2 Disaggregation of the Study Area into T AZs I 388 I TAZ with 10 Number o Study Area "c.._ County Boundary ---- Coastline - Major Roads 43.::, x:c N ~ ! h:: T'::' fl\: co, i~ .L "72 I~,\- .,",..~.".J?J_..",... M... .,.".~.,,__._ "...._.._,-~' F,,, I / This map IS for plannrng purposes only and does not represent any commITment by Collier County as to Its policies or resources There were several sources of data used both pUblic and pervate and Collier County cannot attest as to ItS accuracy orvalidity While every effort was made to accurataly depict the Information on thiS map. errors and omissions may occur. Therefore Collier County cannot be held liable for InCidents that may result due to Impruper use of the Information on thiS map. Please contact the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department With any questions regarding thiS map or to review the data used to create it Sotu'ce: Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, rnc. 3-20 Se~tion 5 Population Distribution to Build-out Table 4 Study Area Population Forecast 2007-Build-out* Year Population 2007 79568 2010 89910 2015 117916 2020 153631 2025 191329 2030 230283 2035 269814 2040 308560 2045 343071 2050 371180 2055* 392562* 2060 407970 2070 418623 2075 430524 2080 433628 Build-out 442537 Source: Van Buskirl<, Ryffel, and Associates, Inc. *90% of Build-out In the interest of a clearer understanding, the population forecast output data shown above, was converted to visual representations that are more easily interpreted. By way of example, Maps 3 to 12 shows the population distribution and intensity in the years 2007, 2010, 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050, 2060, 2070, 2080, and Build-out, respectively for the entire study area. Likewise, Maps 13 to 22 show the RFMUD and GGE areas and Maps 23 to 32 show the RLSA and Immokalee areas during those same time intervals. The various degrees of green shadings on these maps represent the percentage of build-out population of each T AZ at the particular 10-year interval. This was done in 10 percent increments with greater populations shown in darker shading. 3-21 Map 3 Population Distribution, Year 2007 Collier Interactive GroVt'th Model ~---...I Year 2007 -' Population: 79,568 ~~__ :..~L _J- ~I I I__L_-" -- -../' I 1 -" O~~ -c.""'Y8&omdory e....". ~f Percent BuUd-oul 0.00 10.00 IQIIIliKlOl ~..lIII_I(l,ll'"oo IUlll ~DO_~Jl' ~D.DlI_100' 100011 ~.Ol.!O.N_._U'.lD1lI1 3a.lll.40Jlt_70.01.U.OO foIRP"."dC......""~OI\....., Soo,.,.,'" \"""r,.,<I:ukfic'tJ..I"",'A,.,.,,,,,.,l<-<.li..- MapS Population Distribution, Year 2020 Collier Interactive Growth Model Year 2020 Population: 153,631 ~ ~~~--- N :.."U).. J J II".., I I I I I i -" ,0""'" '-';~'O'.IIlIlIO)' co...". "; OD01000:iillll...U1l5000.100"D.DD '~.>>1 ~1le_~.D1 '000.10.111 1II1l.Dll 2'a-'l'.3U._IoG.lIl.1Q,OO ):l,Q1-.a_<Hl_~.Dl.tGOQ NI\P.......clCal,...,..\I........' ~lI;\\...\.iII,6l\,1""1'r.\.IM_INl$~".ll.lf Map 4 Population Distribution, Year 2010 I Collier Interactive Growth Model ?~J I Year 20101 Population: 89,910 .~. ' . , ". ..~- I I N , .' I " I "J~:_...~_J " .'-~ --~ 0....... -- t.-...tJ....-y c...... ~,.' PeruntBulld.oul ~OO-IUlO _ IM1.~D,OO_IIl.o1.SIlOO 1Il0'.:lt,DO_.Jll.50>>O_IiO,lII..OO.1KI 2lI01.)O.GO_..O'.7U1G I'Lal'~O_._1Cl,OI_IO_QO NAP"_<IC.........-..;........... 'iou.,...V.w.f;n.l-,.l<,r,\.!IOI.""t..o..n..,....u..w. Map 6 Population Distribution, Year 2030 Collier Interactive Growth Model Year 2030 Population: 230,283 ~ ,: -" 0..... -'.'-"'"111.......01)' ,...ltft. l' f:/ .k 't''' :.'1 L_~. E:~~$€~~;-,;~ , ~erc.n19ulld-01Jt QOO.l0_00_",.QI.SQ.QQ.IO.Q\.!Q,OO \Q,OI-2UHl_!>O,QI.50U.'llIJ)I.'OHIQ ;Jl!JI.~Ug_'ll.al.70,Og :IO.Ol-..,GO.,0,O\.IO,GO MlPl\...dC....."1IIian}lfn. ~""-. 1'""Buol,;,d< RvUr-lIll\,j~<>Oill....lu.: 3-22 Map 7 Population Distribution, Year 2040 Collier Interactive Growth Model Year 2040 Populaaon: 308,560 ~.C,: ~ ~~ CJIIl"AUl -CounI~a.....-v -c..._ ql PereentBulld-out UO.II.DII _~.Dl-'U'_IC.Ol''IQ.1I'II 'll.Ol-:nI,lU.JII.llI-...DO_IO.O,oHlO.1II ,"olO.ol.:JQ.D._..DI-.o.oO g.A..U.II._fD.D"IO.OD s..urr~ "'all fI..Il''1lk r,rt/~l ;,,,d l."~"'~l~ L... Map 9 Population Distribution, Year 2060 Collier Interacllve Growth Model Year 2060 Populallon: 407,970 ~ " ~,. 0"'" _Ql.....y.o~ --- CMdM {,l PI":""' Bulld-Out qltCll0.llll_~D1'OOO_IIlI.Dl.oDQ 10.01-20.. _~,01'U,OO_to.ol'100,GIl ~_.,31.01.30.._Rl,DI.10,OO i81l!!>>.OI.4Il.1lll_llI,D'.IO.oo IiflPAlrldClIlll",vlti..AHII St>lD"<,,-V,..,SllsJ.ld:.RviioeltmdAUCIC.1lts "",", MapS Population Distribution, Year 2050 Collier Interacave Growth Model Year 2050 Populallon: 371,110 ~.. 0"''''' -~""",--v Co...... Pere.nt8ulld-Out OOO.'....._4lI.111.!O,I>>_...".H.IlO lMl.a.oe.,o.o1.IGOfI_IlUII-'OD.1IO :IIl.oI.UJlO_.lI.Ol.10,OD 1I.o1.4D.GII_nl.o,.ao.oo NIlP...W'ldC.....~IIi""""... S<>,.......V."'r..III:ui:.R\"1l~1"".1.....J.<<>.1I... b1.: Map 10 Population Distribution, Year 2070 Collier Interactive Growth Model Year 2070 Population: 418,623 ~~ D~ -~IJ.~ c.....n. ,i Perunl Bufld..out '. UO.IO'OO_.jIJ.OI.5II.QO..Ul...'OO fII.Ql.20..._1O.0t.MO,0&_IO.bl.1I1O.IIO lOA"~U._41l.01.jI.tlO 1M; lU'.4D.ot_1D.lII+u.oo I~RPAlndC",",IVIllI"''''''' .",,,,,,,,, \.....fllUl.....kr.rll...1II."IA."'-I.'I~..1.... 3-23 Map 11 Population Distribution, Year 2080 Collier Inleracllve GroWlh Moclel Year 2080 Population: 433,628 0"""" -Countyl........ory --.eo....... ~~ . Percent Bulkl"()ut ~llO'la.ID_IO.oI'MI.IIIl_IO_01'9GOO 10.Jll.:!ll.llO.._Ol''''__.l'G,OI.,oooa 2D.OT.:tIl_000.a.Ol_1D.DO Imr~k IO,01-.tll,OO.1OCI.IO.00 s""",, \'.Illl\uI:mt.!:::'tld.....dA..."'i.>l~'_l.l\I: Map 12 Population Distribution, Year Build-Out ColUerlnleraclfve GroWlh Model Year Build-Out Populalfon: 442,537 ,. , , ~.. 0......, -c.""'Yll_ory c.._. '1; Percent Bl,llld..out Doo,ua_KlOlUOO.IlI.11I'OOCl lGo'::e.Gt_~alI1iIlO'_1IO"'100GO !Il.Jll.:lUIO_Rl.o'.ruo~ )IUI,'Ula _llI.~l.IG.~C '~RPA"",dC"'Urval;on"'." -;"1lI~. v." !l...~...t: r.,'f:j..l .....1 .4...",~......, 11\( The followin2 maps show the RFMUD and GGE areas. Map 13 Population Distribution, Year 2007 Collier Inleractlve Growth Model RFMUD and GGE Year 2007 Population: 34,919 (, ;., 1<", -, .... . .. :",. ' ' ~.. .....~..?~. 00<"'" ..,,~~r. ... =::..~ '~:~:~;~. Pet~em Builct.Q1It , ,'. ~ O.\>C-l0.00 _ oW.ol'~.lIll_..Jll.M.OO IO_01.20.oc_to.oll_iMO.toJll_1OC,DO !Oo'_~l>Il_".o,.,.o_"" . JllOl.tO,OO.70.81-8GOn I.jfIPA...dC""W/"."""... -oL.:-_ I j i , i I ---=-------.-5=.--- I ---... --.-..--,...... ..- _......._-----~. ..--.. ...-.-----..-..--.... -.. ===-.e::!"_~==.::."'=_~--==.::~- i ::;"m.".l:-iUlfl".Iar1'.[:xtl<<l1lll(\""",,~.]ur Map 14 Population Distribution, Year 2010 Collier Inleraetive GroWlh Model RFMUD ancl GGE Year 2010 Population: 39,701 I J I I ~ " '.",,~ I I I .... ..':~,. ,01'1'101l.O ..~-: .l>,/..~. ;-U~IEINn:lary 'f, ~. I.---c...... . ... .,'"f Perc,n' Blllld<lUl IUlG-1DO"..l.Cl.Dl.!IOJlD_IU_OI.'IUD lD_n'.lo,oo.joQ.DI.iO,OO.OO.o"",o.(IlI ;lIl.Pl-l~.0lI_IiO.Ol.700ll 3O.01'~IOO_70.01.811.~~ I '. St>""e V.,U B....bIl:. P..d.~I.....-I A""'<'I.,t~, I... 3-24 I!: 0 " " 0: "\ ~ .I, ~ " ,".g :,~;! ~ it, Map 15 Population Distribution, Year 2020 Collier Interactive Growth Model RFMUD and GGE Year 2020 Populatton: 58,633 f;'. "-50\ "'.,~!... d......, ':,..ff.' -'~""~~" ., '.: f:;. ON"n. -",.'~l'~ Percen' BuUd..oUl, ';_,'" O,CO-1C-OO_.Uf-SUO_Ill,OloN.GD 1O.01-2G,00.,II.01.,,__..oI.,0000 2ll1l1-JO.oo_1O.01.7C.DI X1,Dl..-aOO.UI.Ol.,ua $<I"'..... Vau Jl,ul:id;,r.:.vfirl "",I _~"""'at~~, Jnr Map 17 Population Distribution, Year 2040 Collier Interactive Growth Model RFMUD and GGE Year 2040 Population: 90,247 ,F. " ,'/ (1', .' '1 ~ '::/" ,;. Al.SA. "'j..~'" d....~ "'".....f.4' ==:....~ "\ <....Ir- .....'" Plrunl Bullct-out \ .....:.~ Jr. G.0CI-1C.lID_.w..l..iMl.lO_...GI_tG.oG IIUI-lO."_ KlAI.M_ _.Ul.\OIUIO ,~j 2llJl-IUO_....I.lIlJlO IM30_01...0,DV_1ll.01.1MI.1IIb s..'IIT~' v"", U....h.-l.:, r.J'tl..1 oriel ..l._"",'I~. fur Map 16 Population Distribution, Year 2030 Collier Inleractlve Growth Model RFMUD and GGE Year 2030 Population: 76,954 , '( .! \ ',.., ff', 1 ,~ I'ILSA - ",,!It;. 0......, ,~:r.;f. l -C'8IIrltylollllHr) 1 ,: 'If-. CM.... '.~ 'f;. ~ . P.rcenlBulld.out :i:! '-/Ill_lUll _.....~1.l\lI,GII_..0'_N.n lU1.~G.IJt_<<I.Ol.5CI.H _ ..OI'lllll.OO 2Ul.JO...._tll.ll1.111.110 3O.DI..0.....7G0II1.1O.00 Map 18 Population Distribution, Year 2050 Collier Interactive Growth Model RFMUD and GGE Year 2050 Population: 99,516 ,~ ~ I ~~:. 1!, .,~ t ':'~~f~ CJ"M~ ",~.r-1!. -=:........, .~ .: 'ir-If" ( . P.rcenl Bulld4;>ut :- : 'J;l 0.110-111.00 _...,.oHWI.o....Ol.IIIM1 ID.Ol-~.lllI_IO.o1.".oo.to.ll"10G~ >>.OI-3U'0.taJll.,D.1IIl B'!tlIOJIl..U10..OJH..c.oo Sol'lro". \'~""...I:id, F,I.a.l iIIld A.....,i~Io'$.11lt 3-25 Map 19 Population Distribution, Year 2060 Collier Interactive Growth Model RFMUD and GGE Year 2060 Population: 105,219 . . , 1;7g ~'" 1". DflFI.I,W :~'~:'~I """",C_,hu""lIy" 1- C,,"no I :~-'~'i:r' Pue.nt Bllild..oLfl ~ ~. ."r D,DD.ID,DOB...ot-50lNI.IUI1.'UI IO_Dl'ZOOll_SO.oI'5G-OG_~JlI.IOD.. ::ll.Ol.lII00.'Ul.70MI )(l.1I1.UOO.7Il.ll1.....0 s..U1w\'..u'f;I.<I<ill,P_'.fI.l.....t..._l~.h"- Map 21 Population Distribution, Year 2080 Collier Interactive GroVllth Model RfMUD and GGE Year 2080 Population: 109,954 ., ~'..~ ., f' ,~ "f':',~'..,. c::ll'l'1oM) \:. ......,t i. =~~ ~'~\.;~' P..lrfn18ulld.oUl l' '."'f IlJlQ.10.......Dl.5CIJ11l.......... 10.01':lUll.'IUI1.'UO.1O.D1.100" '2Il.lll-}O.DII_.UU.1C1.0II G1l:r.:rJ<l"".O,OO_TII.(11'~"II.. s,.1Il\.-.;\--aUe\lSI,ui;..ryud....u....~\ln..lw- Map 20 Population Distribution, Year 2070 Collier Interactive Growth Model RFMUD and GGE Year 2070 Population: 108,311 ., , , ~.~ ~" 0...... -~rl~"".., c.....~. s.....,... \",," f.l1I.~od.R\,tl.l.II"1 A"'D';;~", Ill, Map 22 Population Distribution, Year Build-Out Collier Interactive Growth Model RFMUD and GGE Year Build-Out PopulaUon: 114,451 0...... ":'?:(.r, -~=:-"\ . .J'r. Percln,Bullcl-Out -....y 0,00-10.l10........"'..._..'OI_... ID01.1(l,lICI_ IUI-W"_."'.'OMll 3l0'.lO_0ll_.U1_10,H iSiXl.o,.O_DO_1Uj.aailll Sonn.'P' Yu fIo"~'lI'l r.,.b.l.... ;\."o.,"'~ I... 3-26 The followin2 maps show the RLSA and Immokalee areas. Map 23 Population Distribution, Year 2007 Collier Interactive Growth Model RLSA and Immokalee Year 2007 Populallon: 22,917 ~.. ~'~~I I ----~ " . ~ I "'rcem Bulld...out lUllI-10M _.j(!.lI1-r.a.llD_IIO.01.IO.llCI "-1I~ lD.Ol-lIUIO. '1UII-M.OO.ICI.o1. 140'" CJI'I'Ml..ll ,..:lO.II1.~'.ao_".o1.7I.GO _C''''Ul11...~ ":;~~ 3lIJ11.~It.lllI_71UI_.DJlO NI'lP,I..ndC....wYlllion...... =:.~=-=~5.~~':t:E'SR ~az.7:;::,~"t...::.r::t."*:=5F~ S"lIl'-' V;a" l';1l.lad" f:.vtld ...,,1 A""n.at.s.lt~. Map 25 Population Distribution, Year 2020 Collier Interactive Growth Model RLSA and Immokalee Year 2020 Population: 60,208 ili I Perunl Bulld.ollt Il.lJll.IO.Otl_~J:ll.r.a,lHI_lIIl.llI_"'OO II:LS"" IDJll.211,Dt_!oIl.DI.iCUlll.'IU'.I,D.llG ClI'lF~1u) ::::.r ~.D\->>.Dt_to.l)1"UI' -t....~'t6""""-'Y _JlI.o,..60,OO.7e.01.ta.oO 1.I'lAA...clC.......""'"........... ~~i€k~~~~:. ~...."..,\.""lIl\.I.arl;.r:lIli.."",L..ISO''t>tft II... Map 24 Population Distribution, Year 2010 Collier Interactive Growth Model RLSA and Immokalee Year 2010 PopUlation: 25,538 ~.).:~: i J " " -""'--- I I rl.M.'(~^,;.l: .<(1 J I I . v. I P,rclIl'It8ullcl-Qut UO.1D,OO_-lOAI.n.o...lI.Ol-tUo II:LSA lo.ol'20,OO_SU1.40,U../UI1.100,llll c:JRFMl.O JlI.0'.:HIAO_1IO.01.14JlD -CG\IIIlyIOUl\IIltlI 3O.01.41l,OO.70.Dl_ta.OD ...RP.....nllC.....,......OIl....... ~~~~~~~-:. ~.....~. \.~,,~u.un, r:~ltd....dA"',"ut..,h". Map 26 Population Distribution, Year 2030 Collier Interactive Growth Model RLSA and ImmokaJee Year 2030 Population: 109,638 I PtlcenlBulld.out o.pO.lO'O._40.01.~D.fO_..lI1.fO.lIG IILSA lCl.OI-20__tD.G1_WAIO_IO.II1_10UD c::IN"loIl.D lIUI.l0.0._fMUI.7UlD -e-J)'ltMlMt<y m Xl,1Il-tO_0lI_7CI,GI.IUD NIl""'.rodCOIl____Ar... i ~~~~~~~~~:. i ~nn'" \-",..,1\""",1:. Ryli.l ",,,l A....'~11.J, '"' 3-27 Map 27 Population Distribution, Year 2040 Collier Interactive Growth Model RLSA and Immokalee Year 2040 Population: 168,248 O.DI.IMO_-IO,Dl_S(l,DO_to.ol_f(),OO 1'lL~ ID.Dl.~OOO_IO.oj.5Q..oD_.;J,II".lDO,ODDIlFMl.O ~.DI.3MQ_~.O'-iD,0II -c~e_ory :llI.Ol-40,CIII _ l(I.O~ -1lO,OO ~1't~"',""dCcn...~-wIi.",I>I.... ';(>..""" V~.. E",,~...k P.yfitl """ A""",,"l.Ok< hl< Map 29 Population Distribution, Year 2060 Collier Interactive Growth Model RLSA and Immokalee Year 2060 Population: 246,543 D.n_'O_DD _-IO.".IWl-"'_..</..H.110 !Ol,.v. IDD\.2DO~_1ILDI.~.IIll_ID~I"IllI_ll<l CJ"'~ :!OD).lOOO_ill,01.711,OQ _COUI\Iy.......a.ary i r r;Ei Xlfl1..000_:r.,O,.tlUII NRPA.nde__bonku. So,=,.. v..., ~lSl:irl:. Jl),if~l "",\ Avooatn. J", I =--=~=-~='t:'!-:9E:_ I :?;:;;:'iii~~~T,,",,:=1"'- I Map 28 Population Distribution, Year 2050 Collier Interacllve Growth Mod~ RLSA and Immokalee Year 2050 Population: 217,620 ODO,'UO_-IGlIl.MI.oO.IO,Ql.to.llD "'$A lQD'.ID~_5UI.6G_DO_!O.o'.10ll.OO c:JIIFUI..O :'::::::::::::::::: ~PA'MCon=::..--v ~~~~~~~:. S",m"~, '-.", Bm\:i.tl. R>'il'"l.."t A~I.... J", Map 30 Population Distribution, Year 2070 Collier Interactive Growth Model RLSA and Immokalee Year 2070 Population: 260,123 ! Ptr..enl BlllhH>ld O.0ll-lD.lllI_40.o1-5GJID_.,.oI_t.lJlO M.$A IDD'.lD.DU_~_DI.IUIO_M_Ol.'OlI.OO c:J~ 2Il.ll1-JnI'O_IiO.Dl.1D.OO -COlIIlI\iB_aoy- '~iU;' ..Ql-.0.Ol_ llI.Il1.ID,OO ..RAAIl'IdC..._........,"'.. =;:.~$=i.7;!;,:a.~!:V'.=:& =-F&-~-::.~.::~;:~=- "io~>"P. \.~" 1'....brL R'".,... ",...1 ,.\..,,,;......,. h,,- 3-28 Map 31 Population Distribution, Year 2080 Collier Interacllve Growth Model RLSA and Immokalee Year 2080 Population: 266,656 Pllrl;:lntllulld.out 0,00-10.00 _~.OI-5II.o0_..at_'Uo "IIA IO,Ol-20.ot_5lI.Q1-6II.".,o.nl-10l1_OC DWMIXI :l.IL01_10,PO.4I1I.ol.n.llll _Counlyl.unclory )Q,01.41,OC.70_01_n.OO IiRP....hdC""_"'8IIon....... SOtU'f.., \'.... a........". r:."I/.I;1I1<1 .ol,....l~;\l... I,.. Map 32 Population Distribution, Year Build-Out Collier Interacllve Growth Model RLSA and Immokalee Year BulJd-Out Populallon: 269,759 P..unt Bulld.out O,OI.lUO.40.lII.IO,OlI_IOAI.tO,Oo .."Sbt. 10,O\.noO_IIO.lII.'U1._lO,ol.looan c::JN't.llQ Zll,O'.30,OO_IlD.lI.fO.oO -C~""hd-.y lO,Ol.40.oo_70.01.U,OO NRP...dC""..NIIlj........... Sonl~.- \,,,.. Bnl'f:nk r.\.tI.1 .IId A..-o,,,,.m Ill': 3-29 Section 6 Existing (Baseline) and Build-out Land Use Inventory The Collier County Future Land Use Element (FLUE) was the basic tool for forecasting future development. Over recent years, the County's planning staff developed a series of growth management tools including studies, strategies, overlays and area master plans that further subdivided the FLUE into the following sub-areas: · Rural Fringe Mixed Use District · Rural Lands Stewardship Area · Immokalee Area Master Plan · Ave Maria Town Master Plan · Golden Gate Estates Master Plan (Estates) · Mixed Use and Interchange Activity Center Sub districts · Davis Blvd Mixed Use District · Industrial District · Urban Residential Fringe Sub district · Urban Residential Sub district · Existing Zoning Consistent with FLUE · Rural Settlement Area Sub district · Residential Density Band · South Golden Gate Estates NRP A · Conservation Designation · Crew Natural Resources Protection Area (NRP A) · Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary When taken together, these districts and sub-districts were intended to cover all of the land in the study area and its potential use for future development. The development of the Collier Interactive Growth Model (CIGM) took these studies into account and divided the geographic areas they represent, into T AZ' s so that they could be queried for a build-out analysis. Where it was logical to do so, VBR further consolidated these areas into the final categories that were used throughout this study (shown in Tables 5 and 6 below), and included: · Urban Residential Subdistrict · Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict · Urban Coast Fringe Subdistrict · Rural Settlement Area · Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) 3-30 Map 33 Interactive Growth Model Study Area Future Land Use Map Collier Cou nty n AG"'ICUI.T\ll!,lIolIFlVftA.LMllC~O UU OISrJII'CT RUIUlINCUI5TR1A1.D1S'f1IiIICT RUl'l.lllS~mEMENTARI!c"CISTl'lICT o IItI.HUl. FI\INGE MIXED USE DlSTftlCT REct[MNGL.ANPS 5&1D1HGlAND$ >>"~-,1 NeUTRAl C"COR;CUl.1VRAll JIIUI'tAl Cll!!$IGr..-.TlON AGRICULTURAL I RURAL MIXED USE DISTRICT --_.CQIlS1"AI."lIGI(Io4I.2A"C~ ..". TIUo""ICCOl>lGESTI~N90LJNO,lo.RV DJJFl:PORTN:llSE"J'~ a~1Uft4RE9OUIlCEP~TEcrlOt...JlE;o(IffIPA. : OO'YSllCREllOI\1E.......yTJlI..NOtEREOEVaOPIllENTOVEIl(..O.V c:J RUF'..:..L L'NOS S'T'f:W,l.R(:5ttIP AAe.<.CVERlJo'l' ~\JR8,jotl.RVfl.l.l.FP.INGETRAN5t7IO~jZOl'EOVERL.Al1 c::lNORlH BEllE MEloOE OVEFIL4Y CO~'SER'/ATI:lI'loeGI:;;N...TIC>N 1~'CORI'OR.ATeo.oF!E.>.$ 'LI '--, .- 1;- -- " " ~ ~ o .', " '" x " " -----l \ \, ~ \ \ \. '--------- j ---'" ; " :j Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department 3-31 · Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) · Mixed Use Residential Subdistrict . Industrial · Immokalee · Golden Gate Estates · Golden Gate Estates Natural Resources Protection Area (G.G.E. NRP A) · Conservation Table 5 indicates the results a consolidated current existing inventory. The data sheets of the current inventory by individual TAZs may be found in the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department in the document entitled CIGM Technical Appendix. Similarly, the results of a consolidated build-out inventory are shown in Table 6 based on the limits of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan. The data sheets of the build-out inventory by the individual TAZs may also be found in the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department in the same document. The amount of data from which the CIGM was created, numbers in an estimated over one million parts. This data is now in the hands of the County Comprehensive Planning Department and from it, all the visuals contained in this report were created. This data is in tabular and spreadsheet form. It is necessary to recognize that as the variables change, the population forecast and various distributions will change. The CIGM is therefore, not a static model, but rather a dynamic one. 3-32 TableS CIGM 2007 e..eline[Exisling Conditions) Moo", P"~..rtoy Urbtln UrlIon UrlIIn RUN. RLSA RfMUD Mind Indultrll. Immobile. Golden 1M.!. e.n......lon Tola' R..ld R..iI. eooll SotU,ml n\ Un <loti NRPA SUbdlotriol F''''" Frin,. A... Rllld. E,Iot.. Subdlltrtct Subdlotrkl Subdl.trtct (MRS) Dolt Aer.. 1308 12::;85 17124 2804 208563 88302 524 1165 16811 54241 S0048 641114 1094388 - 647 802 903 1115 193 983 270 0 2791 10614 92 144 18554 IIIIF 933 2744 5755 0 122 533 683 0 3362 0 0 514 14646 SfINFT..., 1580 3546 6658 1115 315 1516 953 0 6153 10814 92 558 33200 ilEllm. 0 0 I 1 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 9 Behoof. EI'm. Au.. 10 12 67 55 154 'Mid. 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 School. MId.Acnl 92 80 23 76 271 'Hlth 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 Schul. High Acr.. 0 80 44 0 124 Communit)' 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 63 30 0 0 110 PIlrksAcru fI....n Aer.. 4 15 SO 0 0 61 5 0 162 8 0 12 317 Rlla.Ff 10081 28733 234590 0 0 235532 67475 0 1093133 40607 0 12046 1722197 Olllu Aen. 8 9 12 2 0 2 0 0 34 0 0 0 67 otftce ff 24321 4001 54645 8021 0 18618 0 0 203723 0 0 0 313329 CommercII' 12 24 62 2 0 63 5 0 196 8 0 12 384 rotol Aerts Co ",m.reit I 34407 32734 289235 8021 0 254150 67475 0 1296856 40607 0 12046 2035526 rolal sF' Indultrlll 11 34 9 28 SO 13 1 30 117 4 0 0 297 A.c.n. Indu.trlolSF 58108 372671 421 10776 68273 11971 3959 221292 1203213 363 0 0 1951047 Hoter 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 8 0 189 0 249 Moftl UnH. Ho'" 0 0 0 0 5 0 6 0 1 0 10 0 22 Moh. Aens Ho1.lIMotel 15711 2206 56958 74875 Fr 'FI" 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 3 0 0 9 S.flont fh Station 0 2 1 0 0 4 1 0 2 10 0 0 20 Aerts FI" Slo1Ion 0 12949 4639 0 0 3357 7726 0 14833 30035 0 0 73539 FT' 'Shtrill 1 1 Sflltlon. Sherif 3 3 a"1Ion Au.. Shuff 38000 38000 81It1on ". Abbe.rvlltJanc Used in rlbla Above Ind Elsewh.rt #SF IIMF SFIMF Tot.1 #Elem. S<:hools #Mid. Schools M-iigh Schools Retail FT2 Office FT' Commercial FT2 Number of single family Number of multifamily SIlgle family and multifamily lotal unils Number ol e1emenlary schools. Number ol middle schools Number of high schools. Rela il building floor area Office building floor area Combined retail and office-floor area 3-33 Table 6 CIGM Build-out IItl!or PlonlO.,,~y Urltln Urlton Urlton RUI'II RUlA RfMUO MIr.d Induotrlol Immokll" Oold.n O.O.E. ConslI'Yltlon Toll 1 Roold. RIIld. Cool! Sltalmlnt Uoo Olio NRPA Bubdlobi.t Fring. Frlng. Ar.. Ruld. Est.te, Bubdlotrkt Subdistrict Sub dlotrkt (MRS) 0011 Aor.. 1308 '2385 17124 2804 203589 88302 524 1165 21784 54241 50048 641114 1094388 - 2280 4825 4704 3548 48343 12435 385 0 10393 25382 127 597 112957 - 1712 4548 10415 0 53800 6680 919 0 10345 0 0 514 8B859 8fllllf Totol 3992 9373 15119 3548 102143 19115 1304 0 20738 25392 127 1111 201816 IllElom. 0 0 I 1 7 3 0 0 4 3 0 0 19 8.hoo" Eltm. Acr.. 0 0 10 12 105 45 0 0 67 65 0 0 304 ilMld. 0 0 1 I 7 3 0 0 I 1 0 0 14 Schools Mld..lcr.. 0 0 92 80 217 93 0 0 23 76 0 0 581 '"Ugh 0 0 0 1 7 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 Schools High .lcn. 0 0 0 80 '20 120 0 0 44 40 0 0 704 Community 0 0 0 17 604 90 0 0 63 30 0 0 B04 PtiriuActlC Rdlll ACt" 15 144 46 14 351 76 . 18 335 23 5 8 1028 RollA Ft' 162806 1571427 495495 155727 3822390 828185 .2471 138198 3652506 254826 56628 84942 11198187 OffiCI Acre. 8 78 25 8 199 41 2 10 181 13 3 4 554 ottIc. Ft' 87865 846153 266805 B3B53 205B210 445946 22869 106722 196673. 137214 30492 45738 6029793 CommercII' 23 222 70 22 540 117 6 28 516 36 8 12 1582 Totol Acres Commerclll 250407 2417580 76 2300 239580 5880600 1274130 65340 304920 5619240 392040 87120 1306BO 172279BO Total Sfl 'ndulI'ill 11 61 14 2B 350 145 0 812 1231 0 0 0 2652 Aerts InduotriolSF' 143748 797148 1B2952 365904 4573800 1894860 0 10611216 16086708 0 0 0 34656336 HoloW 0 0 0 0 1300 150 52 0 31 0 lB9 0 1722 Mot.1 Unls Hotd 0 0 0 0 43 5 6 0 1 0 10 0 65 Mot.1 Acrts !Wir. Station. 0 I 1 0 6 4 I 0 2 3 0 0 18 Fire Btlflon 0 2 1 0 18 13 1 0 2 9 0 0 46 Acres Fit. 0 12B49 4639 0 240000 15357 7726 0 14833 30035 0 0 109539 S"Uon n> oSh.ri1I 2 3 S.tion. Shorlf 6 9 Stafi.n Acr.. Shorlf 78000 114000 SlItion Fr Abberviltions: Und in Tltbl, AbovI Ind EIStwhcre #SF ~F SFIMF ToIal HElem. SGh0015 mJlid. Schools #High ScMools Retail FT2 OfliGe FT2 Commercial fT2 Number 01 Single family Number 01 mulliamtly Sing(e family and muttifamily tolal un its Number of elementary scho~s Number of middle schools Number of high schools Re1:i1il buildinglloor ar~ OIlfGe building 'Ioor area Combined retail and oJlice floor area 3-34 Section 7 The Sub-Models One of the unique features of the IGMTM is the ability to create a myriad of sub- models and to incorporate those that are of importance to a specific community. In Collier County's case, the seven sub-models below were selected. These sub-model results are based on current levels of service. The objective of the sub-models was to forecast the timing and spacing of facilities (schools, parks, commercial centers, industrial parks, law enforcement and fire and Ems stations.) and to determine if sufficient land has been allocated in accordance with the guidelines of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan. The strategy is to optimize the opportunities in the planning and development of the Towns, Villages and Hamlets of the Rural Land Stewardship Areas (RLSA) and the Villages of the Rural Fringe Mixed Used District (RFMUD) as well as the Activity Centers. It should be noted in the Map series 34 through 57 below that only the baseline year of 2007 and the build-out year for a particular sub-model are shown and they are graphic representations of the locations of various facilities at those two time intervals. They are graphic representations of the information in Tables 7 through 12. For those interested, the maps of the intervening years may be found in the CIGM Technical Appendix located at the County's Comprehensive Planning Department. School Facility Sub-Model This sub-model was developed to determine the optimal placement and number of future school and plant facilities to meet the needs of the population over time. The CIGM determined the optimal spatial distribution of future schools based on zones, time, and demographics. The supply model was in accord with local levels of service for school plants by type and enrollment. Figure 5 below indicates the student population at elementary, middle and high schools from the year 2007 to build-out. 3-35 Figure 5 Public School Population 2007 and Build-Out 90000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 o Elementary School Middle School High School Total School Population Source: Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc. i 1iil2007 . Build-Out J Map 34 Public School TypelDistribution 2007 - RFMUD/GGE Collier Interactive Growth ModeJ RFMUD and GGE ----~ IMMOKAlEE RO Year 2007 CR 8 ~ Ii' ... '" :? " " I I I --j . e""""l_rySd.<><>1 N i !~~~~jJ~~~~:..1 . Hilll>s.:~...,1 ClIlF"'UO I I'IlSA I :__~' TAl -C""",,.IlOU".'1 Map 35 Public School Type/Distribution at Build-Out - RFMUD/GGE Collier Interactive Growth Model RFMUD and GGE . . . - CR 8 . I .~ I I . e.n-111Y Sdooa . H~.s.:~....r N I_ AA2007E11is1inll$(;"wh c:J IlFMUO "" ""TAl. -Courllr8ou/ld.ry ~~~~~~~~ 3-36 Map 36 Public School Type/Distribution 2007 - RLSA/Immokalee Map 37 Public School Type/Distribution at Build-Out - RLSA/Immokalee Collier Inleracllve Growth Model RLSA and Immokalee Year 2007 Collier Interaclive Growth Model RLSA and Immokalee Year Bulld.Out . .r- -, -,....-1. --;- ~ l~_r> - ~ IMMOKALEE RD I l~ I __~ . __L ) ~ , . fo4iIf>5'~~D1 RLSA c:J RFMUO C.-:JTA2 -Coul\ty8clu~oW)' c- ~ oJ I I : I....J · IMMOKAlEE RD. :.. .1 I . . I 1. . . . . CRI3SS ~ '" '" "' CR S5a . I. .-- .1 1 I I .1, ~ '" Bi =-=75'==:.=.~::::t.-7~..S'L =-=:=~--=S:="~~5="'?- . I. "'''''' ,... Mi..s.:tIod eHi.-,SchoDl . : _. A1I:007E.i.ing&h...l~ I , RlSA CRfMUD c::::Jv.z -Cnunlrllound.'Y . =:..'::;~=.=-;.?.::~-=-==t=..5. ~~~:-E..;p~~. .!OD\\I:r" V~'" ['.,,1W1.:. F_v.u~l o1I'ld A..<>dalu. h\c """"0': \'a" EhlllQrl.;, R\'lIf'1....,,1 AIS<>o.lIIU, In< Table 7 below indicates the timing of schools facilities from 2007 to build-out, by school type and by their optimal locations (T AZ) of those facilities. It also indicates the aggregate shortfall of facilities over time. Table 7 Studv Area Schools 2007-Build-out bv T AZ Location Year TAZ Elem. Middle High 2007 433 HS* 2007 434 MS* 2007 435 ES* 2007 418 ES 2007 411 ES 2007 408 ES 2007 398 ES MS HS 2007 394 ES 2007 391 ES MS 2007 343a ES MS 2007 241 ES 2010 217 ES MS HS 3-37 Year TAZ Elem. Middle Hi~ 2010 222 ES 2015 387 ES 2015 418 ES 2015 400b ES 2015 224 MS HS 2020 387 ES MS HS 2020 224 ES 2020 386d MS 2025 386c ES HS 2025 397 ES MS 2025 225 ES 2025 389 MS 2030 389 ES 2030 386c ES 2030 388a MS 2030 225 MS 2035 389 ES 2035 388a ES HS 2035 355 ES MS 2040 388a ES HS 2040 383a ES 2040 383a ES MS 2045 383a ES MS 2050 383a ES HS 2050 421a ES 2050 421a ES MS 2055 383a HS 2070 421a HS Build-out No Additional After 2070 Total 31 16 11 Need 42 22 11 Shortfall 11 6 0 Source: Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc. *ES Elementary School, MS Middle School, HS High School The current school facilities in the study area, future sites designated by the school district, designated land uses in the future towns in the RLSA and opportunities in the villages in the RFMUD, have the potential to provide for 31 elementary schools out of 42 needed to serve the population at build-out. Likewise, there would be provisions for 16 middle schools out of the 22 needed. There are sufficient high school sites to meet the need for 11 high schools. The shortfall in elementary and middle schools are in the Immokalee and Golden Gate sub-districts of the FLUE. The CIGM produces the data of school age children by school plant spatially and over time to determine the optimal selection of sites for the shortfall. 3-38 Park/Recreation Sub-Model The park sub-model forecasts the demand for park and recreational space by the various park classifications of community and regional parks. It also forecasts the timing of facilities and their optimal locations in five-year increments to build-out. The CIGM determined the best spatial distribution of parks based on service area, time and demographics. This model may be updated every five years for scheduled capital improvement programs. The CIGM provides the tool to help determine whether sufficient land has been allocated, consistent with the population over time, to determine any deficiencies, and to then suggest any future land use plan amendments for future acquisitions. The CIGM can also provide input for a master recreation plan and can test or revise existing master plans. Demographic trends from the CIGM can then be used as inputs to design recreation programs. Figure 6 Park Demand Acrea2e 2007 and Build-Out 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 o Park Demand In Acres I 02007 . Build-Out I Source: Van Buskirk, RyffeI and Associates, Inc. 3-39 Map 38 Community Park Locations 2007 - RFMUD/GGE Collier Interactive Growth Model RFMUD and GGE IMMOKALEE RD Year 2007 . . Com",""'''' I CJIlFIolUC :;'" I -eou.....tO\Jodo'Yl ~~~t.~~~~.d:f~ ---...-_..._--~_._. Map 40 Community Park Locations 2007 - RLSA/Immokalee Collier Interactive Growth Model RLSA and Immokalee Year 2007 o ~ <D if> W o I~ '" 1 ~ il ~ i ,~ i ,-~ J . . c-.m.nIC) P",. illS"" CJ.'''MUO C.::1l.lo1 -c.o""'Joll"<,mdo'Y . ~.=::1:..-~'::::"'::;'':=:r_''':'::'::::''::r;:;.~ -.....-..--------..-. ~.;.-=~::'"~"'=t".l!:==- -_....__...__....._.~.. 5<>,,"~ v"" l'<osJ;irk [:.'.Ud 4IId :-I",>c,o'n. Ln< Map 39 Community Park Locations at Build-Out - RFMUD/GGE Collier Interactive Growth Model RFMUD and GGE Year Build-Out . '''.KAlE; RD. .L CR B .! . .e.........nIlyP1oIlo . 200, hiotiogCOIMlUIlit, h,~ c::J RFMUO RLSA jTAZ -Counl/8""ndlf'i ==Z5===:..;:E.::r:~=_::L ......._..._-,--~.._.._..__.._.. ......--..---...---.....-- -----...----......-. Map 41 Community Park Locations at Build-Out - RLSA/Immokalee Collier Interactive Growth Model RLSA and Immokalee Year Build-Out 't,cF SF? 82 C" . · m N ;;;.' 1 ~ .' -.. 1 ~..'.'.. ".-.... ........ '.... CRB4B ..._-~ -, ~ . { .' . . .. · · J . . IMMOKALE~ RD. ., '1 .L_! · . o '" '" '" W o <3 '" w ~ . . .' . CR 858 N '" '" GOLDEN TE BLVD eeo""""m,-Poll . ~DD7=_9C""""""ilyhlk ,,~ c:JIU'tAUD r-=:Jm -COul'lljOl!....n...'Y . ~~~~~~~~~ I ,;.,.~,'. '.....8~'1.gj.;. ",-ft~J(I..,l."I_(1i\1... h..- 3-40 Table 8 indicates existing and new parks to build-out, by type, timing and their optimal locations by T AZ. It also indicates the shortfall of facilities over time Table 8 Study Area Parks 2007-Build-out by T AZ Location Community Regional Year TAZ Park Park 2007 241 CP* 2007 391 CP 2007 399 CP 2007 432 CP 2007 433 CP 2007 433 CP 2020 387 CP 2025 388a CP 2030 389 CP 2030 387 CP 2035 388a CP 2035 386c CP 2035 217 CP 2040 383a CP 2040 389 CP 2040 225 CP 2045 383a CP 2045 388a CP 2045 397 CP 2050 421a CP 2050 383a CP 2050 355 CP 2055 383a CP 2060 421a CP Build-out No Additional After 2060 Total 24 0 Need 29 4 Shortfall 5 4 Source: Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc. *CP = Community Park The County is required to provide community and regional park facilities to serve the population. The standard of 1,2 acres per 1000 population for community parks and 2.9 acres per 1000 population for regional parks has been established. However, there 3-41 are no standards for a community or regional park module. The CIGM applied a community park module of 18 acres, which is the average community park size of the current community parks in the study area. The results of the CIGM indicate that there is a shortfall of 5 community parks in the study area needed to serve the Immokalee and Golden Gate sub-districts of the FLUE. As indicated in Table 8, currently there are no regional parks in the study area with the exception of a 2.3 acre boat ramp at the end of Lake Trafford Road. The FLUE and its guidelines do not provide a land uses category for regional parks. The CIGM provides the data for the distribution of the population, over time, to determine the future optimal location and timing of regional parks. However, a module or standard for the size of a regional park needs to be established. The state of Florida has suggested a regional parks guideline of 250 acres as a standard. Fire/EMS Stations Sub-Model This sub-model of the CIGM determined the optimal timing and location of fire/EMS stations. The CIGM forecasted the distribution of the population over time as well as the location of other facilities such as schools, commercial centers and industrial parks, and their proximity to fire stations. The criteria for the location of fire stations were those established by the Insurance Service Office (ISO) for service area and response times. This sub-model can also be used to develop a Fire station/EMS master plan for the acquisition of future sites and to explore other acquisition opportunities (i.e. the location of commercial centers in which the developer can provide adequate space for dual usage). Also, a utility master plan can be overlaid on a fire station/EMS sub-model graphic to determine the timing of distribution of water lines for fire fighting. This will aid in the timing and location of schools, commercial uses, and other facilities in relation to the adequacy of fire protection. 3-42 Map 42 Fire/EMS Station Locations 2007 - RFMUD/GGE Collier Interactive Growth Model RFMUD and GGE Year 2007 'I 'I L-~ eRe ii' 0- 0: o "- 0: <i ......IEMSSlau" c:::JRFMUO filS'" :"~~~.,1' t_",TA2 -C"IIfIIyB""....1'jI ~~~~!5~~ $......"". \'..., ....w~. R.vl.i~l....d A_"",...._ h... Map 44 Fire/EMS Station Locations 2007 - RLSA/lmmokalee Collier Interactive Growth Model RLSA and Immokalee Year 2007 ~ N ffi -r- ~ o ~ OJ '" W o t ~ '" --1 ffi I~ i=cc GOLDEN TE! BLVD CR 858 ~ N a: '" .&,FlrateI.lSSIIIIi"" IlL$A c::JRFMUD CJTAZ -C<IlI'1tt'a"'~"'t:I . ~~~f~.. Map 43 Fire/EMS Station Locations at Build-Out - RFMUD/GGE Collier Interactive Growth Model RFMUD and GGE eRe o :l OJ -p:~ ~- <( <:) 0: W :> __ w r.. I .. Fl,.OSSlol"" .... 2007Eil;"""F~"'W$&"ion c::J RFMUD flLSA Map 45 Fire/EMS Station Locations at Build-Out - RLSAfImmokalee Collier Interactive Growth Model RLSA and Immokalee Year Build-Out ~, t ...'.;~ ~.e.46.. , :': .~ _ _ _ _ H ,.i. _ i... i '. J . IM~KALEE RD ... ~ '" '" w o ~ '" '" w ~ CR 658 ~ N 0: '" GOLDEN BLVD .... Rr.aASSll~1III A2D07&i.lingFirItlELlSStaliQ'l "'.. c:JRFMUD -c..u~j'60~",;.')' 1"J1AZ . ~~~~~~- 5o\U'I:~_ Villi I!\W::i.I.t~ Ryllfl olJId A"OtJolte5, IN 3-43 Table 9 indicates the location of existing fire and EMS stations by the TAZ in which they are located. It also indicates the optimal location of future fire stations, by year and the T AZ where they would be optimally located. It also indicates that a shortfall should not occur. Table 9 Study Area Fire/EMS Stations 2007-Build-out bv T AZ Location Year TAZ Fire/EMS Station Fire Station 2007 236 EMS Station 2007 345a Fire Station Fire Station 2007 351 EMS Station 2007 360 Fire Station 2007 394 Fire Station Fire Station 2007 396 EMS Station 2007 401a Fire Station 2007 418 Fire Station Fire Station 2007 426 EMS Station 2010 387 Fire/EMS Station 2015 426 Fire/EMS Station 2015 403a Fire/EMS Station 2020 390b Fire/EMS Station 2020 388a Fire/EMS Station 2020 217 Fire/EMS Station 2020 361 Fire/EMS Station 2025 386d Fire/EMS Station 2025 389 Fire/EMS Station 2025 411 Fire/EMS Station 2030 388b Fire/EMS Station 2030 225 Fire/EMS Station 2035 409a I Fire/EMS Station 2035 397 Fire/EMS Station 2040 383a Fire/EMS Station 2040 355 Fire/EMS Station 2045 383a Fire/EMS Station 2050 421a Fire/EMS Station Build-out No Additional Required After 2050 Total 27 Need 27 Shortfall 0 Source: Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc. 3-44 For a Class 1 rating, according to the Insurance Services Office (ISO), all sections of the study area with hydrant protection should be within 1.5 miles of a fully equipped engine company. The distance is measured along an all-weather road. At build-out, most areas in the study area with the exceptions of Preservation, Conservation and Golden Gate Estates, would be served by a public water supply. There are sufficient land uses in the towns and villages in the RLSA, in the villages of the RFMUD and in the activity areas to meet the needs for 27 fire stations for a Class 1 rating. However, those areas without a public water supply like Golden Gate Estates, have a Class 9 rating. There are several options available to provide them with fire protection, but in all probability they can be raised to a Class 8B rating. Most communities are co-locating their Fire Stations and their EMS Stations. The service area of a fire station on average in the study area, has a similar population size as an EMS station, therefore it makes good sense to co-locate. The CIGM co-located all future fire and EMS stations. Commercial/Service Sub-Model The commercial! service model was created to determine the demand for neighborhood community, and regional commercial centers, which includes retail and office space. This helps determine their optimal locations, required as a function of time and population and as a result of disposable incomes of the population. This sub-model provides guidelines for the apportionment of future land uses for commercial services and office space, and identifies deficiencies or surpluses of land designated for commercial use. This sub-model also provides important inputs to any revisions of the County's Land Use Plan and can be updated annually from data queries. l_..1lli Figure 7 CommerciaVOffice Floor Area Supply And Demand - 2007 500000 3500000 3000000 2500000 2000000 1500000 1000000 0- Retail Supply Retail Demand Office~ c~':\t,. , ~-" "".7 Office Demand Total Supply Retail/Office Total Demand Retail/Office Source: Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc. Figure 8 CommerciaVOffice Floor Area Supply And Demand - Build-Out 50000000 45000000 40000000 35000000 30000000 25000000 20000000 15000000 10000000 5000000 0- Retail Supply Retail Demand Office Supply Office Demand Total Supply Retail/Office Total Demand Retail/Office Source: Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc. 3-46 Map 46 Commercial Centers By Type/Location - 2007- RFMUD/GGE Collier Interactive Growth Model RFMUD and GGE Year 2007 J 1) CRa C.., :.~::(..., .,. ,," '\. ~, . ,./l in .~ ;. :l_:~\,~ .._ . ~ ., ~ Neighb,ubo<:>dC4nl<l' . CorrlmuftitvContor . Reg;o..IC_' c:JRFMUD .". :.=.JTAZ -c..wnty....."...'Y I' -...-..--.-.----..--".. . ~~:C~..a~~~E~:::' Map 48 Commercial Centers By Type/Location - 2007- RLSA/lmmokalee Collier Interactive Growth Model RLSA and Immokalee Year 2007 ~~I j~~~~: ~ l ){ J ' /) I I - I i c~l j IMMOKAlEE RD i o ~ CD "' Ul o Cl a: Ul :- Ul CR 858 :<l a: "' t,-::.c:="",-~-,--. GOLDEN IE BLVD ~'-boIhlW>.c.rm" . ComrrII.InIl'tc... . llt1Jh>n.,c..t.. "L'''' c::::JAFWD r:::1T,o,z r--- 1; _COullly....."...1)' . ~~~~~~~ Map 47 Commercial Centers By Type/Location at Build-Out - RFMUD/GGE Collier Interactive Growth Model RFMUD and GGE I ..~l . CRB r~ , i NooiQllbcI,IIto<>dCe,,'. . Convnun~C.h!" . Roglon..C...... . ,t,I12oaie.islingCom.....'cI..CNlr.'" c:JRFt.1\Jo RLS'" C-:'.iTAl _C...hI)'8""~d~ ,!~~~~~~~~. Map 49 Commercial Centers By Type/Location - at Build-Out - RLSA/lmmokalee Collier Interactive Growth Model RLSA and Immokalee Year Bulld-Out · ~ . I ffi J ~'~ ~' I CRB46 "-"'e ~ t . ~ .L_ I r')-' - _ ___..I. i IMMOKAlEE RO . . . . ~ CD '" Ul o "' '" a: "' ~ ,Cl 1 ffi , > w 1::0:':; GOLDEN tMlgIobolllndc.nt.o, . CoIMl\lIll~C.,", . RepianaIC...... . ...2DlliE......,C--..":i.IC""I.... ,,~ c:::J RFMUD r-!TJ\Z -Co\I~B..,n.1l' j . ~~~~~=E~:. s.,'1J'I:I'VIWBOIIJ:u"kr.\'1l1i'Iall.\A_ciatub"lC 3-47 Table 10 indicates the location, by TAZ, of existing and future, optimally located commercial centers by type and the timeframe in which they will be needed to serve the growing population. Table 10 Study Area Commercial Centers 2007-Build-out By Type and T AZ Location Year TAZ Neighborhood Community Regional 2007 417 NC* 2007 396 NC 2007 359 NC 2007 408 NC 2007 357 1/2 NC* 2007 403 1/2NC 2007 232 1/2NC 2007 220 1/2NC 2007 345a CC* 2010 387 NC 2010 217 CC 2015 217 NC 2015 235 NC 2015 387 CC 2020 387 NC 2020 386d NC 2020 402 NC 2020 359 CC 2025 213 NC 2025 390 NC 2025 225 NC 2025 386d CC 2030 389 NC 2030 388a NC 2030 225 CC 2035 388b NC 2035 383a NC 2035 397 NC 2035 389 CC 2035 383a RC* 2040 397 NC 2040 383a 2NC* CC 2040 388 CC 2045 383a NC CC 3-48 Year TAZ Neighborhood Community Regional 2045 355 NC 2045 421a NC 2045 397 CC 2050 355 NC 2050 421a NC 2050 355 CC 2050 421a CC 2055* Total 28 13 1 Need 33 14 1 Shortfall 5 1 0 Source: Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc. *NC = One Neighborhood Center, 1/2 NC = One half of a Community Center, 2NC = Two Neighborhood Centers, CC = One Community Center, RC = One Regional Center The categories of neighborhood, community and regional centers describe the commercial centers that serve the population. The size of the site and the market to support them was determined from an analysis of these commercial centers in Collier County. The CIGM demonstrates that the FLUE guidelines can provide 28 neighborhood commercial centers, 13 community commercial centers and 1 regional center. However, for the towns in the RSLA and the Villages in the RFMUD the spatial location of these centers need to be addressed as to specificity, in order to meet the needs of the market. The shortfalls have been identified to be in the Immokalee and Golden Gate areas by the CIGM. R.ISA The commercial centers account for 30% of the commercial land to meet the needs of the population. As Figure 8 demonstrates, there is a demand for 45.5 million square feet of commercial building area at build-out for the study area and a designated supply of 17.3 million square feet at built-out for the study area. However, the Towns in the RLSA have designated large town centers to include commercial uses but not the amount. If an amount was specified, it could meet a substantial part of this shortfall. 3-49 Industrial Sub-Model The industrial sub-model is not a demand model based on the demand of the population. Rather, it is a design model determined by the community's policy makers. The CIGM design is one scenario based on economic diversification. One economic objective is to insure employment opportunities for future residents. In the early and intermediate stages, a community is developing a large portion of its labor force in construction and construction related business. As the community matures, construction opportunities diminish and are replaced with opportunities in manufacturing, research and development and services. In order to meet this objective, industrial or tech parks are needed. Another objective for industrial development for a community is to diversify its tax as well as its economic base. The CIGM needed to determine an industrial module to assess if there is sufficient land designated to meet theses objectives. It assumes a module of fifty-acre tech parks to illustrate this sub-model. The results are that if a fifty-acre tech park is allocated in each town in the RLSA, there would be sufficient industrial land to meet these objectives. Figure 9 Industrial Floor Area 2007 and Build-Out 5000000 35000000 30000000 25000000 20000000 15000000 10000000 Industrial Floor Area ~07 .Build~ Source: Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc. 3-50 Map 50 Industrial Park Locations- 2007 - RFMUD/GGE Collier Interactive Growth Model RFMUO and GGE Year 2007 !~ -, . lnduotri.,Pwk CJI\"rAUO ",u r..--jTAZ _eowOlylkunlltry I~~~~~~~~:. Map 52 Industrial Park Locations - 2007 - RLSA/lmmokalee Collier InteracUve Growth Model RlSA and Immokalee Year 2007 m N 0: <J> ~ir"L:~ , 'r, -, I , 1 I -: J · IMMOKAlE~ RD /- CR 858 ~ '" 0: W it m N 0: "' I.. · ;,:.... ... . J::]JlFI.IUD OrAl -Counl)llwllc/a1y . ~~~~~~~~ So>'...r~ v.,,, ",..I:iJ1; l=,.U~1 Mr'l AUO<i:Itu.w Map 51 Industrial Park Locations- at Build-Out - RFMUD/GGE Collier Interactive Growth Model RFMUO and GGE Year Build-Out CR. . Indll"I"P",~ .2Oll7E>:i4n1l1Mu....1P.'k c::J ~FMUD "'~ f---...JT.I.Z -CcrfjrrtyB...,,~ ~~~Tf~~'. S<>lI/."', V~... p'ul;ir1:. !l.'.tkl....,l A................lI.. Map 53 Industrial Park Locations - at Build-Out - RLSA/lmmokalee Collier Interactive Growth Model RLSA and Immokalee Year Build-Out c,'i' ~<F . SA 82 ~ . I " ..~.~. , . J · IMMOKALEE RD .' . . . . CR 8S6 m N 0: "' \ .......lriIIP.'k .:iIlI07E>I....,1lnduslrioIP.... filS" 8:UD -C""l)'lI......., . ~~~~~~~ S!l,lT<p,VIW8...k1fJ,:.Ryll.lamIAt5<lrilltuW 3-51 Table 11 Study Area Industrial Parks 2007-Build-out by T AZ Location Industrial Park Industrial Park Year TAZ (50acre module) Year TAZ (50acre module) 2007 383a IP* 2040 230 IP 2007 398 IP 2040 230a IP 2007 410 IP 2040 410 IP 2007 413 IP 2040 383a IP 2007 428 IP 2040 397 IP 2015 387 IP 2045 426 IP 2020 426 IP 2045 230 IP 2020 230 IP 2045 230a IP 2020 410 IP 2045 421a IP i 2020 386d IP 2045 355 IP 2025 426 IP 2050 426 IP 2025 230 IP 2050 230 IP 2025 230a IP 2050 410 IP 2025 , 389 IP 2055 426 IP 2025 217 IP 2055 230 IP 2030 426 IP 2055 410 IP 2030 230 IP 2055 230a IP 2030 230a IP 2060 426 IP 2030 388a IP 2060 230 IP 2035 426 IP 2060 425a IP 2035 230 IP 2065 426 IP 2035 230a IP 2065 411 IP 2035 410 IP 2070 426 IP 2035 383a IP 2070 425a IP 2035 225 IP i 2075 426 IP 2040 426 IP 20BO 425a IP Build-out No Additional Required After 20BO Total 52 Need 52 Shortfall 0 Source: Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc. *IP Industrial Park Law Enforcement (Sheriff) Sub-Model The CIGM identified the need for 7 Sheriff's Department sub-stations at build-out to serve the population of the study area. The FLUE does provide the opportunity for these sites as determined as to timing and location by the CIGM in accordance with their standards. 3-52 Map 54 Sheriff Sub Station Locations - 2007 - RFMUD/GGE Collier Interactive Growth Model RFMUD and GGE Year 2007 f- ~--,- CR. I I I ,.J o or '" z ::> 0- >- or o 0- <( * Sh.rifSUIISl.tloto OllhlUD IIl5A l~Jrll.Z _Co~nIy8C\J"'ry ...i..... Souru: v"" Ihul;iri;. r..\'U~1 MctA.t<I<i.'lI~._1w ~~~.E.~~~~~:' Map 56 Sheriff Sub Station Locations - 2007 - RLSA/Immokalee Collier Interactive Growth Model RlSA and Immokalee Year 2007 /, ~I 1.~-+_ ~ , c , " J J IMMOKALEE R D o ~ '" U1 W " ~ '" ffi 1;; ~ '" or en I' CJ:~:~o OrAl _~8.....do.,. * Sh..INSUbIilIliOll s . ~~~~1i~ So:l'Ln'"t:Vil&l.BIId;irI:.ll.y~tlI'I<I_"'n"tio1lH-lII<' Map 55 Sheriff Sub Station Locations - at Build-Out - RFMUD/GGE Collier Interactive Growth Model RFMUD and GGE r-- Year Build-Out r:1 CR. _ , ",J o It '" ;: ::> 0- ,- or o i} '< *SI"!#JSIIb~"'lon *2001Ea:in"llSh..itr$ubSbIiCll1 N c:JIlFMUD IlLSA Dtll.Z _Co~~"""n""y ~':;;f€~~~1~~ S."IIW, Ynll S,w::uk RrUe! all.' An<'<i.llf', hr Map 57 Sheriff Sub Station Locations - at Build-Out - RLSA/Immokalee Collier Inleractive Growth Model RlSA and Immokalee Year Build-Out ~, ! ~,'..., , " '.' .: .'-.', "';"~':-"" :,' ~.,,'46 '. ,-- _! i ';) ",' J-;- "" .', IMMOKALEE RD ! * " o ~ '" OJ W o ~ '" or w 1;; CR 856 ~ '" or en * Sheol/!$.estolion *;ZOO'Emllr\lf$h"IlSolbSlllllan IIlSA C"""" ClT-U. ; ~. -CcUfll)'''''''''''r, . ='''::Z~:;:i;:.=.:?.:::'"1:'::-~!?..s:" ~~=-~.::='~.:$~- 5o......t ~..'" 8ud;i,rl:, Rl'ltfloQ'hi ....U<>nilIU.lII<' 3-53 Table 12 Study Area Sheriff Sub Stations 2007-Build-out by T AZ Location Year TAZ .. Sheriff Sub-Station 2007 351 Station 2007 405 Station 2015 383a Station 2025 390b Station 2030 217 Station 2035 355 Station 2040 225 Station Build-out None Required After 2040 Total 7 Need 7 Shortfall 0 Source: Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc. Mfordable Housing Sub-Model It was the purpose of the affordable housing sub-model to determine the pro-rata share (percentage) of affordable housing units to all new units within the study area. This would be based on future growth to build-out as determined by the CIGM. A review of the findings.contained in the Affordable Housing Workshop presentation on March 4, 2008 to the BCC provided valuable insight in making this determination. To be certain, we are in a period of difficult economic times and the real estate market has experienced a significant decline, making many units in the general real estate market more economically attractive. While some may be able to take advantage of these bargains many more cannot, resulting in a real estate market that is a moving target. With what is purported to be the highest county Area Median (Household) Income (AMI) in Florida, (at $63,900) it should be expected that affordable housing could be a major local issue. To begin addressing this issue at least part, it. must be what reasonable percentage of total housing units should be affordable. In Collier County, the target group is those households earning between 35% and 120% of the AMI. These households are considered to be If cost-burdened" because they spend more than 30% of their income on housing, including principal, interest, taxes and insurance, or rent and utilities. In the workshop mentioned above, it was learned that in the year 2007, there was an affordable housing need of 10,461 units and 6,208 available, leaving a deficit of 3-54 4,253 units on a county-wide basis. Table 13 shows the breakdown of the AMI groups and the portion they represent of the total affordable need of 10,461 units in 2007. Table 13 AMI Groups by Number and Percent of 10,461 Needed Units in 2007 AMI CatelWTV Number Portion of Afford. Need Percent Portion of Afford. Need 35% 3,812 units 36% 50% 2,292 units 22% 60% 1,573 units 15% 61-120% 2,784 units 27% Total 10,461 units 100% To determine the percentage of affordable housing units that should be made available, on a pro-rata basis in the study area, the total 2007 county-wide need of 10,461 units was compared to the total county housing units in that year. The estimated u.s. Census has indicated a total of 192,043 units. This translates into 5.4 percent. This percentage was then applied to the study area's total number of dwelling units, in five- year increments to build-out as forecasted in the CIGM. Table 14 shows results of the allocation. Table 14 Study Area Mfordable Housing Units Needed 2007-Build-out* Year Study Area Total Study Area Pro-rata Time Net Additional Population Dwelling Units Interval Affordable Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Needed Between Needed @ 5.4 Previous and Current Percent Time Interval 2007 79568 32781 1770 N/A 2010 89910 37039 2000 230 2015 11 7916 49744 2686 686 2020 153631 66619 3597 911 2025 191329 84523 4564 967 2030 230283 102910 5557 993 2035 269814 121704 6572 1015 2040 308560 140083 7564 992 2045 343071 156327 8441 877 2050 371180 169429 9149 708 2055* 392562* 179294 9682 533 2060 407970 186339 10062 380 2065 418623 191180 10324 262 2070 425789 194412 10498 174 2075 430524 196539 10613 115 2080 433628 197929 10688 75 Build-out 442537 202107 10914 226 Source: Van Buskirk, Ryffel, and Associates *90% of Build-out. 3-55 The column in the table entitled, "Pro-rata Time Interval Affordable Dwelling Units Needed at 5.4 Percent" is the result of multiplying the column entitled "Total Study Area Dwelling Units" by 5.4 percent. The result of this would be the number of affordable units that should be made available during the time interval indicated in the "Year" column. As an example for the year 2065, 10,324 affordable units are indicated. That means that between the years 2007 and 2065, 10,324 affordable units would have ideally been made available. The meaning of the column entitled "Net Additional Dwelling Units Needed Between Previous and Current Time Interval" shows the number of units that would have to be constructed in any of the time intervals assuming that all those required in the preceding time interval were available. Theoretically, or if determined by County policy, if the affordable units were not available, the deficit would be added to the following time interval(s). To determine if the 5.4 percent factor is reasonable, we reviewed the situation in one of the study's comparable counties. By utilizing the procedure described for Collier County, we performed the same analysis for Sarasota County. The Director of Housing and Community Development there agreed that the methodology was appropriate. The affordable housing need factor there was 4.2 percent which appears close to Collier's 5.4 percent. It gets closer however, when it is recognized that Sarasota County only addresses affordable housing needs up to 80 percent of the Area Mean Income (AMI) while Collier County addresses up to 120 percent of the AMI. It would be safe to conclude that if the 80 percent was increased to 120 percent in Sarasota County, their percentages would be nearly the same as Collier's. Conversely, as shown in Table 13, in Collier County, there was ~n AMI category of 61-120% that represents 27 percent of the total affordable need. It was unfortunate that the 80% AMI was not differentiated within that group for purposes of comparing it to Sarasota County. However, if everything above 80% were removed from the affordable count, in Collier County, just for purposes of comparison, we believe that the percentages of affordable need would be very close between the two counties. Overall CIGM Conclusions The following is an overview of the conclusions of this report: · The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the County's Growth Management Plan is a sophisticated and progressive plan that addresses multiple environmental and development issues that results in a series of complex approaches to address 3-56 these conflicts in the best interest of current and future residents. The FLUE best represents future development in the study area. The CIGM had to integrate the multiple disciplines (i.e. schools, parks, etc) and multiple development scenarios (RLSA, RFMUD, etc) into a dynamic model that evolves over time. The CIGM met that challenge. · The CIGM estimates that the population for the study area in 2007 was 79,568 and forecasted it to be 442,537 at build-out. The forecasted population at build- out for some of the key sub-districts are: RLSA 210,632; RFMUD 34,837; Immokalee 59,127 and for Golden Gate Estates (GGE) 79,614. · There are sufficient opportunities provided in the FLUE for land uses designated for schools, community parks, commercial centers, industrial development, fire and ems stations and sheriff sub-stations to meet the needs of future populations with the exception of Immokalee and the Golden Gate Estates. It is anticipated that the current development of the Immokalee Master Plan will address these needs. · Golden Gate Estates is a unique low-density residential development. One strategy to address the shortfalls is to disturb the land uses in GGE as little as possible. For example, to locate the sites for facilities on its periphery in which the service area is sufficient to penetrate GGE so that the coverage provides the necessary level of services. · For the towns and villages in the RLSA, a level of specificity needs to be established in the development of their plans for land uses and the spatial distribution to insure that the needs of future populations are met. For example, if there is a need for two elementary schools, it is important that the future sites be spatially located to serve their neighborhoods. The CIGM provides the data to assist in this endeavor. · The FLUE does not have provisions for a regional center. Given the forecasted build-out population of the RLSA and Immokalee of 269,759 persons, it would call for a regional center to support a regional hospital, a regional shopping center, a regional park, etc. · The CIGM needs to be updated annually in order to manage growth, identify development and demographic trends, assist in the apportionment of land uses to meet the needs of future populations and to determine and monitor the impacts of growth. 3-57 ."",-, :,ier East of . . ,~,.:rVlces "'(""', , Table of Contents Section Page 1. Introduction 2. Transportation 3. Public Utilities 4. Park and Recreation 5. Schools 6. Stormwater Management 7. Libraries 8. Fire Districts 9. Emergency Medical Services 10. Sheriffs Office 11. Chapter 189 Districts 12. Summary of Estimated Cost 13. Land Use 14. Public Participation 15. BCC Direction 16. Level of Service Menus 3 11 18 28 32 36 45 49 52 57 60 62 63 66 67 69 - 1 - EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES 2005 Build-Out Study Transportation Modeling Spreadsheets East of County Road 951 Utilities Study Industrial Needs Analysis - 2- PreliminaTV Report Collier East of CR 951 Services & Infrastructure Horizon Study I. INTRODUCTION Collier County stands at an important crossroad in its prospective development for the area east of County Road 951 (CR951). Development decisisms related to capital infrastructure and public services will provide a blueprint for future growth in the area. The BCC can dramatically improve the future of the built environment in the east of CR951 study area and the entire county by making sound decisions at this critical point in time in determining capital infrastructure needs and the provisions for public services. The Collier County East of eR951 Services and Infrastructure Horizon Study (the Study) is a two.phase process which attempts to focus on the most important elements of this blueprint. The intent of this Preliminary Report in Phase I of the Study is to identify three levels of service for each of the respective service subject areas. The first level is identified as "Status Quo." Status Quo means what would transpire in a subject area if no additional infrastructure or public services were added. The second level is called "Intermediate." Intermediate can have different meanings, choices or options within a specific subject area. An intermediate option could involve a political policy decision, a decision constrained by extraneous factors, or a variety of other contributing factors. The third level is called "Premium." Premium is the optimum level and in many cases involves an urban level of service that is the only option available within a specific subject area. For example, Collier County has adopted levels of services in its Capital Improvements Element and Concurrency Management System where the only option is to maintain that premium level of service. Decisions on capital infrastructure and service provisions cannot be made in a vacuum, and an intensive public participation program for the area east of CR 951 should provide a vision from property owners, residents, and other affected parties regarding identified infrastructure and public services needs. Phase II of the Study will center on public participation. As well, capital infrastructure and public services east of CR 951 must take into consideration the implications on the rest of the county, so that deficient infrastructure and public services are not the byproduct of the planning effort. Of the services and infrastructure discussed, Transportation and Public Utilities are the keystone elements. The locations of other services and institutions such as emergency and fire services, schools, parks and libraries depend heavily on locations of roads, potable water and wastewater lines. At this time, Long Range planning projects have been received by the Transportation and Public Utilities Divisions that have helped identify the potential location and cost estimates for the provision of future infrastructure. To some extent, the locations of other public services and institutions will follow the infrastructure provision of those critical areas. To understand the infrastructure needs and the challenges associated with satisfying those needs for the Study area, an overview of the physical and the Growth Management Plan (GMP) regulatory characteristics of the area is essential. The Study area is approximately 1,210,618 acres, with six distinct districts comprising that total. These districts are the Golden - 3 - Gate Estates north of I-75, the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, the Immokalee Urbanized Area,,~.the South Golden Gate Estate~ Natural Resources Protection Area (NRPA), and Federal and State Lands. Each of these district's physical and regulatory characteristics will be summarized below. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is identified on Future Land Use Map. This District consists of approximately 93,600 acres, or 8 percent of the Study area. Significant portions of this District are adjacent to the Urban area or to the semi-rural, rapidly developing, large-lot North Golden Gate Estates platted lands. Agriculturat land uses within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District do not represent a significant portion of the County's active agricultural lands. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District provides a transition between the Urban and Estates Designated lands and between the Urban and Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) and Conservation designated lands farther to the east. As of June 2002, the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District consisted of more than 5,550 tax parcels, and included at least 3,835 separate and distinct property owners. Alternative land use strategies were developed for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, in part, to consider these existing conditions. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District employs a balanced approach, including both regulations and incentives, to protect natural resources and private property rights, providing for large areas of open space, and allowing, in designated areas, appropriate types, density and intensity of development. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District allows for a mixture of urban and rural levels of service, including limited extension of central water and sewer, schools, recreational facilities, commercial uses and essential services deemed necessary to serve the residents of the District. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is separated into three specific areas, Sending Lands, Neutral Lands, and Receiving Lands. Sending Lands are those lands that have the highest degree of environmental value and sensitivity and generally include significant wetlands, uplands, and habitat for listed species. The permitted uses within the Sending Lands are limited to a narrow list of permitted and conditional uses and the regulations allow residential density at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 40 acres or one dwelling unit per lot or parcel of less than 40 acres, which existed on or before June 22, 1999 (lots <5 acres which existed as of October 15, 1974 or January 5, 1982, depending upon location). Neutral Lands have been identified for limited semi-rural residential development. Available data indicates that Neutral Lands have a higher ratio of native vegetation, and thus higher habitat values, than lands designated as Receiving Lands, but these values do not approach those of Sending Lands. Therefore, these lands are appropriate for limited development, if such development is directed away from existing native vegetation and habitat. A lower maximum gross density is prescribed for Neutral Lands when compared to Receiving Lands. Additionally, certain other uses permitted within Receiving Lands are not authorized in Neutral Lands and the area allows a maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 gross acres (0.2 units per acre). Receiving Lands are those lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District that have been identified as being most appropriate for development and to which residential development units may be transferred from areas designated as Sending Lands. Based on the evaluation of available data, these lands have a lesser degree of environmental or listed species habitat value than areas designated as Sending and generally have been disturbed through development, or previous or existing agricultural operations. Various incentives are employed to direct development into Receiving Lands and away from Sending Lands, thereby maximizing native - 4 - vegetation and habitat preservation and restoration. Such incentives include, but are not limited to: the TDR process; clustered develo];2JI1:ent; density bonus incentives;_and, provisions for central sewer and water. Within the Receiving Lands the base residential density allowable is one (1) unit per five (5) gross acres (0.2 dwelling units per acre). The maximum density achievable in Receiving Lands through the TDR process is one (1) dwelling unit per acre, with a minimum project size of 40 contiguous acres. This maximum density is exclusive of the Density Blending provisions. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, as noted, llas been regulatory constructed to steer development away from environmentally valuable land and to the areas designated Receiving Lands. The areas designated Receiving will be the areas which will require the greatest outlay for infrastructure improvements. Within each of the four Receiving areas, the FLUE allows the development of a single Rural Village, which by regulation must be located where public infrastructure exists or is planned, and shall have direct access to a roadway classified by Colliet County as an arterial or collector roadway, or access to the Village may be via new collector roadway directly accessing an existing arterial, the cost of which shall be borne entirely by the developer. Additionally, a Rural Village may only be approved after demonstration that the Village will be fiscally neutral or positive to county taxpayers outside of the Village. These provisions of the regulations will ensure that the highest intensity development allowed by the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District will have in place or identified the means for funding the capital improvements necessary in maintaining the Level of Service (LOS) required by the GMP. The 2005 Residential Build-Out Study anticipates a total of 57,644 people or 19,433 dwelling units for the RFMUD. This population amount will require extensive infrastructure to satisfy the demands of the anticipated population, but the regulatory component within the FLUE provides for a means in which the most intense development allowed within this District, Rural Villages, are required to provide the funding for the capital improvements necessary to maintain the County required adopted level of service for public facilities and services. The Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) includes a total of approximately 195,846 acres or 17 percent of the Study area. The RLSA generally includes rural lands in northeast eollier County lying north and east of Golden Gate Estates, north of the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and Big Cypress National Preserve, south of the Lee County Line, and south and west of the Hendry County Line. Approximately 182,334 acres of the RLSA is privately owned. The RLSA protects natural resources and retains viable agriculture by promoting compact rural mixed-use development as an alternative to low-density single use development, and provides a system of compensation to private property owners for the elimination of certain land uses in order to protect natural resources and viable agriculture in exchange for transferable credits that can be used to entitle such compact development. The strategies are based in part on the principles of Florida's Rural Lands Stewardship Act, Chapter 163.3177(11) F.S. The Overlay includes innovative and incentive based tools, techniques and strategies that are not dependent on a regulatory approach, but will complement existing local, regional, state and federal regulatory programs. All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet specified criteria set forth herein are eligible for designation as a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA), except land delineated as a Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA), Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA), Water Retention Area (WRA) or land that has been designated as a Stewardship Sending Area. Land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the suitability criteria and other standards described in Group 4 - 5 - Policies. Due to the long-term vision of the RLSA Overlay, extending to a horizon year of 2025, and in accordance with the guidelines established in Chapter 16;1.3177(11) F.S., the specific location, size and composition of each SRA cannot and need not be predetermined in the GMP. In the RLSA Overlay, lands that are eligible to be designated as SRA generally have similar physical attributes as they consist predominately of agriculture lands which have been cleared or otherwise altered for this purpose. Lands shown on the Overlay Map as eligible for SRA designation include approximately 74,500 acres outside of the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) and 18,300 acres within the ACSC. . Because the Overlay requires SRA's to be compact, mixed-use and self sufficient in the provision of services, facilities and infrastructure, traditional locational standards normally applied to determine development suitability are not relevant or applicable to SRA's. The last sentence of the preceding paragraph, taken verbatim from Policy 4.2 of the FLUE, is of critical relevance to the aim and purpose of this Study. All development that is to transpire within the RLSA will originate with the creation of a SRA and by policy all newly created SRA's must provide for, or have available, the necessary infrastructure to maintain the county's adopted level of service. This requirement is further expanded upon by Policy 4.14 of the RLSA, which requires that SRAs must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. Also, the policy requires that no SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation. Furthermore, Policy 4.18 of the RLSA requires each RSA to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year based on a costlbenefit fiscal impact analysis model acceptable to, or as may be adopted by, the County. The 2005 Residential Build-Out Study has allocated a population projection for the RLSA of 389,183. Please note that this population figure is not static and will be market driven based on economies of scale in the RLSA and the rest of Collier County. This number accounts for 57 percent of the 688,489 persons projected for the Study area projected by the Build-Out Study. Over half of the growth which will transpire within the Study area will, by policy, be required to be financially neutral or positive to the County, and be required to provide for the development's proportionate share to fund the necessary improvement to maintain the County's accepted level of service. This reality heightens the need underlying this Study, efficient and detailed coordination between the County's future infrastructure plans and the emerging SRA's located within the approved Chapter 189 Districts or other proposed SRA's in the RLSA. Golden Gate Estates north of I-75 comprises 51,200 acres or 4 percent of the Study area. Unlike the above described SRA's and Chapter 189 Districts where infrastructure costs are paid up-front by new development, through proportionate share assessments, impact fees, or other payments, and the impact on the local tax base is limited, the Golden Gate Estates does not present the same opportunity. This is due to an inefficient allocation of dwelling units on larger parcels of land. With the average lot between 1.14 - 5 acres, the provision of urban levels of service could be construed as cost prohibitive due to distance being a primary component to cost. Based upon the 2005 Build-Out Study, more than half of the estimated 27,607 dwelling units are built. All new dwelling units will be assessed impact fees, but at the current rate, based upon the existing infrastructure deficit, the amount generated by the - 6 - impact fees is not expected to satisfy the total infrastructure costs for the area. In particular, the extension of potable watet,.and wastewater to a portion, or all of, the Estates may be a future potential project of need with no identifiable funding source. In addition to the lack of potable water and wastewater provided to the Estates, the allocation of only one type of land use, residential, presents another dilemma to the district. During the recent amendment of the Golden Gate Master Plan, four additional Neighborhood Centers, which average 5 acres in size, were created. Unfortunately due to the size, location and the regulatory demands related to landscaping, parking,_open space, setbacks, drain fields and/or on-site package plants and environmental preservation requirements, the Neighborhood Centers are not anticipated to meet the commercial demands of the Golden Gate Estates residents. In order to adequately address commercial needs in the Estates, commercial Activity Centers or Sub-districts of a minimum 40 acres will be necessary in numerous locations. Additionally, the increased commercial centers would provide destinations that would significantly reduce the trip lengths in the localized area around the commercial centers. The commercial land use that is necessary to adequately address the needs of the Estates is somewhat of a dilemma as the provision for larger commercial land uses is inextricably intertwined with a need for urban level of service for potable water and wastewater that currently does not exist in the Estates One of the goals of the second phase of this study is to poll the residents within the Estates to determine their desired level of service compared against the cost associated with the particular desired level of service. One of the primary questions the BCC must consider is whether to offer a rural or urban level of service to the Estates property owners. Subsequent to the second phase of the Study, periodic analysis must be undertaken of the aquifer providing potable water from wells to monitor for contamination of the aquifer. The Immokalee Urbanized area comprises 16,992 acres or 1.5 percent of the Study area. The Imrnokalee area is unique compared against the other sub-districts within the Study in that an urbanized level of service has been demanded of projects, and the area has an existing water and sewer district. New developments within the Imrnokalee urbanized area are required to extend water and wastewater to the project and contribute their proportionate share to ensure levels of service are maintained. The South Golden Gate Estates Natural Resources Protection Area (NRPA), south of I-75 comprises 31,360 acres or 2.7 percent of the Study area. The majority of the parcels within this sub-area have recently been acquired by the State of Florida as part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The primary goal of the Plan is to restore a more natural flow of water to the Everglades, which will ultimately result in a long-term, sustainable water supply for South Florida. To date, the State has acquired close to 100 percent of the land needed for the initial Congressionally authorized project. As part of the Plan, the geographic area of the Southern Golden Gate Estates (SGGE) will be flooded to restore the natural flow way to the area. Based upon this fact, the infrastructure needs for this sub-area is projected to be nominal. The Federal and State Lands comprise approximately 821,620 acres, or 70 percent of the total Study area. These acres currently are designated eonservation by the Future Land Use Element. The overall purpose of the Conservation Designation is to conserve and maintain the natural resources of Collier County and their associated environmental, and recreational and economic benefits. All native habitats possess ecological and physical characteristics that - 7 - justify attempts to maintain these important natural resources. Barrier Islands, coastal bays, wetlands, and habitat for listed species deserve particular attention because of their ecological value and their sensitivity to perturbation. It is because of this that all proposals for development in the Conservation Designation must be subject to rigorous review to ensure that the impacts of the development do not destroy or unacceptably degrade the inherent functional values. The GMP does not allow residential development on publicly owned lands, except as accessory to a conservation use; and the vast majority of the conservation designated lands are in public ownership. Due to this restriction, the need for future infrastructure is extremely low. I ~ " 0 Rural Fringe Mixed Use District I. Rural lands Stewardship I Area Subdistricts of Study Area [] 7.73% . South Golden Gate Estates Natural Resources Protection Area D Federal and State lands 067.87% o 4.23% . ~ 0 1 .40% \ '-.2.59% o Golden Gate Estates north of '-75 o Immokalee Urbanized Area Each of the above sub-districts which comprise the Study area have been briefly described for their physical and regulatory characteristics; to give further context to the Study, population projections from the 2005 Build-Out Study (Exhibit A) generated by the Collier Comprehensive Planning Department has been assigned to the Study area. This population assignment will further complete the picture of the demand which will be levied upon each infrastructure or service provider within the Study area. The population projection for all areas east of CR 951 at theoretical build-out is 688,489 persons, or 65 percent of total county-wide build-out. This compares with the present population estimate of 71,000 persons, or 22 percent of the total estimated 2005 County population. The below text has been extracted from the 2005 Build-Out Study. The 2005 Residential Build-out Study entailed an analysis of undeveloped lands to determine likely future residential development, combined with existing residential development, to project the total number of dwelling units and resulting permanent population. The Study reflected one plausible development scenario, one that neither reflected the maximum development potential nor the minimum development potential. There were infinite number of possible scenarios due to the many variables involved and, therefore, a degree of conjecture was inherent to the analysis. The variables included future occupancy/vacancy rates; future - 8 - persons per household ratios; the type and density/intensity of future development requests and approvals; and possible future regulator)t. changes. Projections of future development location, type and density/intensity were made for general planning purposes; as such, the projections should NOT be relied upon as creating an absolute expectation of future development approvals. The Study is a planning tool, not a blueprint or vision for future development order approvals by the BCe. Due to the numerous variables involved in the build-out analysis, the data in the Build-Out Study should not be used to predict dwelling unit or population totals at the level of individual Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs); rather, the more TAZs that are aggregated, the greater the confidence in the resulting projections. This is especially true for sparsely developed areas of the county where there is little, if any, established development pattern, which constitutes the majority of the Horizon Study area The objective of the Build-out Study is to project what the dwelling unit and population counts will be, and their distribution, at build-out; it is not to predict when build-out will occur. However, if the countywide annual average growth rate since 2000 (5.05%) were to remain steady into the future, build-out could occur as soon as 2026. Staff does not anticipate that build-out will be achieved in about twenty years, for three reasons: 1) past experience has shown that the growth rate will vary over time, especially during cyclical economic downturns (think of the early 1990's - Collier County's growth slowed down, albeit not as significantly as most other parts of the country); 2) different areas of the county experience different growth rates; and, 3) as build-out is approached, the growth rate will decline significantly. Additionally, the latest population projections prepared by the Comprehensive Planning Department (in 2004) project the countywide permanent population in 2030 at 739,700. Estimated Buildout Total Dwelling Area Units Total Population Naples 27,252 40,971 Marco Island 18,271 41,004 Everelades Citv 550 744 Incorporated Snm 46,073 82,719 Immokalee 38,798 1 04,483 Coastal Urban area 246,368 426,064 RLSA-Rural Lands StewardshiD Area 132,283 389,193 RFMUD.Rural Frinl!e Mixed Use District 19,433 57,644 - 9 - GGE East of CR-951 & Rural Settlement Area 27,607 81,517 GGE West of CR.951 3,430 9,865 All of GGE & Rural Settlement Area 31,037 91,382 NOTES: GGE = Golden Gate Estates. Naples figures per 1994 Urban Area Buildout Study, Phase 1. Marco Island figures per 1996 Marco Island Master Plan. Inunokalee figures per 1991 Inunokalee Area Master Plan. East of CRlSR 95l excludes lmmokalee. Coastal Urban area: from Gulf of Mexico east to approximately] mile east of Colllier Blvd.; from Lee County line south to Gulf of Mexico. The above areas are such that, with the exception of the unincoporatedJincorporated areas, no combination will equal the countywide sum. Population Projections by District for Study Area I I. hnmok.ee I j I :1 IIlil RLSA-Rural Lands I i Stewardship Area I 110 RFMUD.Rural Fringe),,: Mixed Use District ! ! , I ! 0 GGE East of CR-951I . & Rural Settlement ! Area I __._---.-J I 400,000.------- 350,000t-- 300,0001--- 250,000+---- ! 200 000 t-- --- 150:000t----- , 100,000r-..--._~= 50,0001---- 01-= =-- Population Based on Comprehensive Planning 2005 Build-Qut Study What follows are the possible outlays of each infrastructure and service providers correlated to the three possible levels of service identified by this Study. - 10- II. TRANSPORTATION Collier County Transportation Division Collier East of CR 951 Services & Infrastructure Horizon Study Summary Attached to this East of CR 951 Transportation Study Summary (Exhibit B) are three spreadsheets that specifically delineate three levels o(needs for roadway within the Study area. The project summaries contain cost estimates in today's dollars for studies, design, mitigation, construction, right-of-way acquisition and contingency funds. The corresponding maps identifying the three LOS and the proposed number of lanes are contained within the body of this report on pages 15-18. Although the intent of this project is to plan for transportation projects for new development east of CR 951, the county's transportation network is not constrained by CR 951 as a physical boundary. The entire transportation network can only be analyzed from the perspective of function when taking into account the existing network, planned/financially feasible projects and the projected needs that will exist at both 2030 and the projected build out year of 2050. The transportation system improvements for the east of CR 951 study are broken down into three levels (status quo, intermediate, and premium) with specific projects set forth in the attached maps and spreadsheets. Levell - Status Quo The status quo level is based on the existing Long Range Transportation Plan and some of the conceptual roadways that are currently being planned through an assumed build-out year of 2050. The total cost of the roadway improvements east of CR 951 is $2.5 billion. The primary determinant of total costs are based on the per lane mile cost for studies, design, right-of-way acquisition, construction, construction engineering inspection and mitigation associated with specific projects. However, cost adjustments have been made for some of the projects that are further along in the production process. To determine the status quo level of projects in the east of CR 951 Study, the Transportation Division analyzed the entire County needs network to ensure that the revenue necessary for projected status quo needs was not in excess of the total impact fee production capacity of the County through build-out. As a point of beginning, the County's residential build out projections were used to project the total number of future residential units. These units that would be built will in-turn produce about $1.4 billion in road impact fees (in today's dollars not including recent fee increases that have not been enacted yet). When the projected commercial impact fees are included in the road impact fee calculations, assuming no additional changes in the amount of commercial land use acreage county wide, commercial impact fees will add an additional $1.1 billion in road impact fees (in today's dollars). Therefore, the status quo level for reasonableness purposes does not exceed the rough $2.5 billion dollar estimate. Obviously, there are projects that will be funded with state and federal dollars as well as opportunities to get grant funding to supplement this estimate, but it should be emphasized that the funding for status quo level is limited to projected impact fee - 11 - revenue. Other revenue sources considered in the potential revenue stream for the status quo level include, but were not limited to gas..taxes and ad valorem taxes. The justification for not including the aforementioned gas tax and ad valorem revenue sources in the status quo calculation is apparent when analyzing the existing countywide roadway network. These revenue sources were not included in the status quo calculation as it is apparent that these revenue sources will be necessary for roadway and bridge maintenance, landscaping and transit. For example, future maintenance and reconstruction costs that will not be impact fee eligible are the replacement of County maintained bridges. The County has 100 eounty maintained bridges currently on our roadway system with 16 of those bridges with an age of over 50 years. Fifty years is usually considered the functional life of a bridge that was built prior to 1970 (newer bridges from the 1970' s on were built with a 75 year life span). Of the 100 bridges, 70 are projected to need replacement prior to 2050. The status quo level of roadway needs through 2030 and 2050 will have LOS problems in many areas. The overall travel operations of this network show a total of 11 million vehicle hours traveled with over 9 million vehicle hours of delay. An analysis of the 2030 and 2050 modeling indicates that there are still obvious LOS problems in the areas listed below. The arterial roadways in areas identified as a problem are where the volume to capacity ratio's are well over 1.0 with average daily volumes over 100,000 vehicles per day: · Immokalee from CR 951 to Oil Well Road · Camp Keais Road from Oil Well Road to Immokalee Road · CR 951 in the 1-75 to Davis Boulevard area · Oil Well Road from Randal Boulevard to Camp Keais Road · SR 82 from SR 29 to the Lee County line In order to solve some of the aforementioned LOS problems, the next two levels include the widening of parallel facilities and construction of new facilities as most of the existing arterials are at their assumed maximum through lane standard. These improvements as set forth in the spreadsheets include widening roads to their maximum through lanes, new parallel routes, and/or overpasses/flyovers. The Status Quo level is graphically illustrated on the map on the following page. Level 2 - Intermediate A medium level of roadway improvements was then developed to add some parallel and new facilities to try and lower the amount of delay across the transportation system. Facilities that were added include better interconnecting roads in Golden Gate Estates and in the Immokalee area to he1~alleviate modeled congestion. These added roadways include; Wilson north to 47Th A venue, 8 Street and 16Th Street between Green and Randal, a Golden Gate Boulevard Extension to try and alleviate congestion on Oil Well and Immokalee Roads, a Carson Extension down to Immokalee to help alleviate congestion on Camp Keais, and an Overpass at eR 951 and Immokalee, and new Interchange at Davis Boulevard and CR/SR 951/I-75 to relieve congestion on both of those links. - 12 - The projected cost of the medium level is $3.49 Billion, $990,000,000 above expected generated revenue, which would stilll]J)t- address all of the needs east of CR 951 and would still have a roadway system that would operate below current LOS standards. And more specifically, there would still be failing links along Irnmokalee Road, Camp Keais, Oil Well Road, and SR 82. To satisfy the LOS deficiency the network was modeled for the premium level. Level 3 - Premium The premium level of roadway improvements includes the roadway improvements that are needed to attempt to solve the LOS problems identified in the previous two levels with a 2050 modeling effort based on the 1,066,000 build-out scenario. The premium level is estimated to cost $3.94 billion for roadway improvements east of CR 951, $1,440,000,000 above expected generated revenue. The premium level includes; overpasses and/or flyovers at four locations based on high volume intersections, road connections with new bridges in the Estates (including alternatives with 3 lane sections in 60' ROW corridor and unbalanced lanes) and ten new alignment alternatives. The addition of new parallel facilities was modeled to try and limit the need for multiple overpasses, although a reduction in network would require overpasses to be considered at remaining major intersection locations. The ten new alignments are preliminary and could change upon further study. However, the outright removal of one or more of the new roadway alignments causes the need to increase capacity on the other existing and planned routes, which would include widening (possibly beyond our current maximum of six lanes) or overpasses to create additional capacity that is needed. The bicycle/pedestrian improvements assumed for east of CR 951 are included within the roadway project costs and will range from sidewalks and bike lanes to asphalt pathways on the more controlled access facilities. The level of landscaping that would be included has not been determined. The roadway projects cost includes stormwater treatment for the roadways at a rough estimate of 3 acres for two lane miles of added capacity. The one area of uncertainty regarding the overall project cost estimates is the mitigation costs that are going to be needed to widen and build new roadways in the eastern portion of the County. For example, it has been estimated that 25% of the cost estimate for the CR 951 Extension project will be just for mitigation (roughly estimated as $90 million for the project from Immokalee Road to Bonita Beach Road in Lee eounty). The premium level was modeled and the overall network operations indicate 7 million vehicle hours traveled with just over 5 million vehicle hours of delay. This represents a 40% reduction in vehicle hours traveled and a 40% reduction in hours of delay from the status quo level. There are still problem areas (Oil Well Road and SR 82 for instance) and the analysis also raises the issue of land use and what could be done to split the commute from the eastern part of the County (i.e. half of the trips to Naples and half of the trips to Immokalee for work as well as other commercial related trips). Based on the analysis, staff recommends three additional tasks to better define the vision for east of CR 951 and to help alleviate existing and future congestion. The first additional task would be to determine short-falls in overall commercial, retail and industrial land uses and to then determine the placement that would best serve the population - 13 - while helping to reduce the travel distance and therefore delays in the transportation system. Secondly, staff recommends coordinating with the RPC, the State and Hendry eounty to better replicate future conditions in the northeast portion of the County. We currently have a joint model with Lee County but have recently heard the major growth potential of Hendry County (and a possible new toll facility through the center of the state) and need to model this to better address the future needs of SR 29, SR 82 and the County roads in those areas as well as determining if the conditions in the center part of the County change as a result of modeling these changes. Thirdly, staff needs to do some type of environmental screening (such as the ETDM - Efficient Transportation Decision Making process) to coordinate proposed alternatives with environmental stakeholders to identify problem areas and possible solutions and alternatives to those problem areas. Below is the cost summary for the three LOS options identified and on the following three pages the graphic representation of the three LOS. The Status Quo cost option was generated based upon an estimated $2.5 Billion generated from collection of future impact fees, it should be noted that $990,000,000 Million for Intermediate and $1.44 Billion for Premium are above the expected $2.5 Billion generated has not been linked to a specific funding source. ,--- i I I j $4,000,000,0001 $3,500,000,000! $3,000,000,0001 $2,500,000,000 I I $2,000,000,000.1 $1,500,000,0001 I $1,000,000,0001 $500,000,0001 $0 Transportation LOS Cost Summary Status Quo Intermediate Premium $2.5 Billion expected from future impact fees, future gas tax and ad valorum revenue utilized for bridge and existing network maintenance - 14 - COLLIER COUNTY EAST OF CR 951 STUDY STATUS QUO LEVEL I ! LEE COUN1Y j ..... ..... ~ 0:: " i: :<, ! ('II WELL ('PO )-=-~:'I , "1 v.,1 --'---7' T.....~~OY:J.!.=E"::).:' ",..r_~ - ~ ~ 1 ,..."'....... . .~.]~~"'''' '"~ '" ",_J , . ~i e /I_J q; E ~ il .j 29 C!l8S~ /^' -- tjI)L!It-"'/ r, .!1-; PI \'D~_< ii. ., r ~I -'[r--m""~l .,' . .:. IlL"H) l:....1 I I I ! /#'> 1-75 f EVERGLADES lNTERCHANGE ~ ~ .,;: .\,pr t- !1'\LM JU} Legend Number of L.anes CR 9511 US 41 OVERPASS - 2 Lanes Facility - 4 Lanes Facility ~ 6 Lanes Facility ~ - 15 - COLLIER COUNTY EAST OF CR 951 STUDY MEDIUM LEVEL LEE COUNTY .nfHAVI', IMMOKALEE} CR 951 INTERCHANGE .. - :::_\10KA!==?~ "f!" A~ ~ J ~ V~... 1'1 ....,=-. -, ---- -. A ~::!~~, j .!.o.P_ PI ",I) l";'IJ fL. UD" .'" .~II'B!.'." ,. iL......, . R A~, '.>^ '1 .1!LY! ,j I I &"I!l AV~. 'f' :U' . I: :\"I_.d-.f. ~ :;- ... ~. " l, ' j ',.'U L..'~r ,1"- "'. ":~1 ,- 't" . L" ,.' ." ',i", . I - S-.-- ... DAVISlI.7511.75 INTERCHAN';E 7 o,!o.p.r I I'.~LMP" CR 951 } US 41 OVERPASS ~ p ;. 2: ,r, ""' ~ '" '. ;. ~j "', 61 J 29 ..~~' C~,~5:ol . ._../ ~I :::> ~ :;; ..J :a '- ~ t: ;~ --e:J- ~. 1-75 } EVERGLADES 'tHERCHAHGE Legend ~g Number of Lanes - 2 Lanes F3cility - '" Lanes Fac 'ty ~ 6 L'les F3C11ty - 16 - COLLIER COUNTY EAST OF CR 951 STUDY PREMIUM LEVEL C'~"UWJQ Lee County ( J'l?,:TJ,'?::::~1"lIlUi .j;'"U".\'F. ,....:: W1C.l RTJ j ~ ~ ,. .; .. ~ ~ :.ti ~ ~"'llr~ I"'R :~1 ,~.....,...- P" -.:=:;JF. ;: "'-:-1-'r": n.~."""" r.~"<"l" r,,, ~ ~ ~ ~ ,-_.'" -'--0'-- l-1H\UGUDISSL\l) ~TIRC!U.'"GE 29 Legend Number of lanes - :2 L.arle5 Foci ity t - 4 Lares Faci ity 6 Lanes "acll~1 - 8 Lar,e" Faa i~)' - 17 - III. PUBLIC UTILITIES Collier County Public Utilities Division Collier East of CR 951 Services & Infrastructure Horizon Study Summary The infrastructure and services needs in the area East of CR 951 include potable water, wastewater and solid waste. With respect to potable water and wastewater, the current District boundary includes a small portion of the East of CR 951 area. The East of 951 Study area is comprised of three distinct land use districts, the Rural Fringe, the Eastern Lands, and the Estates. The future development that will occupy the Rural Fringe and the Eastern Lands, per existing regulation will develop as individual hamlets, villages, and towns. Many of the hamlets, villages and towns will be located within a 189 district or be developed with a proposed Community Development District (CDD), subject to BCC approval and created with the express purpose of providing a public financing mechanism for public infrastructure and services without competing with other County providers in a portion of the currently undeveloped RLSA and Overlay. For the last remaining land use district, the Estates, there is no mechanism in place to assume the responsibility for financing the public infrastructure such as potable water and wastewater. To better gauge the cost associated with the financing of the water and wastewater extension to the Estates, the Public Utilities Department commissioned a study through the consultants Greeley and Hansen, LLC. From this study costs have been associated with the three levels of services identified throughout this report. Three levels of service for County-provided services were considered as follows: · Status Quo · Intermediate Service · Premium Service A. Potable Water and Wastewater Level-I-Status Quo. This level of service is the continued use of septic tanks for wastewater treatment and individual private wells for potable water service. The cost associated with this level of service is zero, but as additional users draw upon the aquifer and influence the groundwater with individual septic fields, the long term viability of this option is called into doubt. Level-2-Intermediate Service. As noted, the Public Utilities Department has received the, "East of County Road 951 Utilities Study," (Exhibit C) a work produced by Greeley and Hansen, LLC, as a basis for determining the cost associated with the levels of service required of this Study. The Utilities Study is focused upon the extension of potable water and wastewater infrastructure to five square miles (sections) of Estates zoning along the east side of CR 951 from Vanderbilt Beach Road to one mile south of Golden Gate Parkway. From the cost estimated to provide the services to the project area, costs are extrapolated to cover the entire Estates area. The project area can be seen on the map titled, "Public Utilities Project Area," found on page 23. It is the yellow area east of 951. The estimated cost to provide both water and wastewater to the five section area, as well as a cost projection per parcel is shown on table one below. - 18 - Table One Total Cost Cost per Parcel Supply and Treatment eost $ 6,936,000 $ 4,070 Element Distribution Cost Element $31,779,000 $23,230 30% Contin enc $11,615,000 TOTAL $50,330,000 Collection Cost Element $66,264,000 $48,438 Treatment/Disposal Cost $ 7,000,000 $ 5,117 Element 30% Cantin enc $21,979,000 $16,067 TOTAL $95,243,000 $70,000 GRAND TOTAL $145,573,000 $107,000 I~ I Project Area - 5 Sections (East of CR951 within Water & Sewer Disctrict) L For identifying an intermediate level of service four options are presented. This first option would be for the limited extension of water and wastewater to the Estates district. Under this option, only the Estates sections that are currently inside of the Water-Sewer District boundary, or the project area, would have water and wastewater extended. The total cost associated with this option is $145,573,000, or $107,000 per parcel as shown on table 1. Another option for the intermediate level of service would be for the extension of water only to the entire Estates area (approximately 80 square miles). Under this option, the cost is $909,360,000, (80 sections X $11,367,000 per section for water service) or $41,485 per parcel. The basis for the costs for this option is the water service costs shown on Table Two on the following page. 160000000 ' 140000000 120000000 100000000 80000000 I 60000000 40000000 20000000 o $145,573,000.00, 1--- Total Estimated Cost - 19 - 0------11 I ,I o Total Estimated Cost [ '1 I Potable Water I , Ii III Total Estimated Cost ;,1 Wastewater , Ii I oTot.1 Estlm.ted Cost ,i] I Potable/WasteWater II L_____ __ The intermediate service costs are sUIl1Illarized as follows Cost of Service Option Description 1 Water and Wastewater service to project area (5 sections within Water-Sewer District) 2 Water service only to entire Estates area (80 sections) Total $145,573,000 Per Parcel $107,000 $909,360,000 $41,485 A third option for intermediate water service to the Estates that has not been evaluated is a fire service only water system. There are several alternative methods that could be considered for a fire service only option as follows: · Fire service only pipelines that extend into the Estates from existing potable transmission mains; A system consisting of "dry" hydrants and water mains connected to surface water sources, such as canals or ponds; A system of wells and storage (ponds or ground storage tanks); Fire system only water mains constructed near the east boundary of the existing Water-Sewer District with locations for filling tankers or fire trucks; or Combinations of the above. . . . There are several critical issues that need to be considered III order to evaluate these alternatives as follows: · Permitting; · Capital and operations costs; · Legal; · System maintenance responsibilities; · Funding mechanisms; · Property acquisition; · Property Insurance; · System Reliability; Fire Department concerns; and · Impacts to existing water demand and supply. Upon further direction, a study can be undertaken to evaluate this option. It should be noted, that the Utilities Division can only participate for projects within the Water-Sewer District. The Fire District may need to take the lead for options such as non-potable dry hydrant systems A fourth intermediate utility service option to the Estates that has also not been evaluated is service to areas eligible for commercial activity by the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. This could include extensions of transmission mains for water and wastewater service or consideration for new treatment plants. Many of the same issues listed above for the fire service only option are applicable to this option and would need to be evaluated if further consideration is recommended. Level-3- Premium Service. In accordance with the scope of services, proposed "premium service" water and wastewater facility layouts have been developed and sized based on the County's Level of Service (LOSS) standards that have been adopted with the current water and wastewater master plans. Water main layouts are based on providing potable water and fire - 20- service to all residents. Wastewater service is based on providing conventional gravity wastewater service to all residents with pumping stations at appropriate locations. Both systems would be connected to the existing infrastructure. Area two below is the blue cross hatched area in the "Public Utilities Project Area" map. Table Two Total Cost Cost per Section $1,387,100 Cost per Parcel * $5,062 Supply and Treatment Cost Element Transmission Cost Element Distribution Cost Element 30% Contin enc TOTAL $110,968,000 $80,080,000 $1,001,000 $3,653 $508,459,440 $6,355,743 $23,196 $209,852,240 $909,360,000 $2,623,153 $11,367,000 Collection Cost Element Transmission Cost Element Treatment/Disposal Cost Element 30% Contingency $1,060,221,760 $13,252,772 $48,368 $16,000,000 $ 200,000 $ 730 $112,000,000 $ 1,400,000 $5,109 $356,466,560 $ 4,455,832 $16,262 TOTAL $1,544,720,000 $19,309,000 $70,471 $111,956 GRAND TOTAL $2,454,080,000 $30,676,000 * Average of 274 parcels per Section The total cost associated with full water and wastewater service to the 80 section (the number includes the five sections currently within the District boundary without service) of Estates zoning within this Study is $2,454,080,000, (80 sections X $30,676,000 per section for water and wastewater service) or $111,956 per parcel. - 21 - ,- $2,500,000,000 I $2,000,000,000 I $1,500,000,000 $1,000,000,000, I $500,000,0001 I I $0 l Potable & Wastewater to all of North Golden Gate Estate Area Total Estimated Cost for Estates East of CR951 .J If J Total Estimated Cost Potable Water II r: i-- I I II I II II I) Total Estimated Cost i: ;1 I Wastewater I. I' I II I I ii o Total Estimated Cost II Potable/WasteWater Ii --__JI ! r- Per Parcel cost of Potable & Wastewater to all of North Golden Gate Estates $120,000 $100,000 ' $80,000 $60,000 ' $401000 ; $20,000 $0 Total Estimated per Parcel Cost for Estates East of CR951 - 22- --]1 o Total Estimated Cost i Potable Water per parcell, I I!;] Total Estimated Cost Wastewater per Parcel :1 I, o Total Estimated Cost I, Potable/WasteWater per II I Parcel I: Ii 1 :1 L---------------I I 10 - i " 15! 1+ I ~ L' ..a K.. Jt-. :g - ~! .. .. I-;-~.... , --.. Puhlic Utilities District Boundarv & Proiect Area R 2.5 E R .2.6 E R 21 E t ,. .. ... J_..__ ~ ..if .y~ \.~. . ;I \.1 iJ" ~\--oa-=- ' 1S '" ~ .. ~~I ". .. \}" -I u\ \~~.. ,~. \\i . :~~} , 'I . t:o.. --::.,..... " .!-. ~~ \\. ~r . h r~, .. , " ~~ 7 u -i 17 2S ~ ~.='~ ~ ", ___~~:r.'.;..- .. '" .. ~- " .. .. .. .. .. .. n 1I1 \ o c::'. t-' '""":l " '"I . I :-~---:l . u. ~ U4 i~ ,.....,.. 11 10 ............,.. un ~ I I. .. I I<L-j. .. ~ilI.;..' ",'Y.::<) ~6< <..>4 : .'I~~ ~~~:~1 ~~~;~. f~~~ a '""":\ ~ ~ I ..a .. ... - .. ~ ~ x "-< CJ. o ",.... n _~:~ ~/ - ~~ ~; ~ .. ,. ~ a u. '110 "1+ .. \ U l\ l~ ,,~/ - ....:~ :.: 41~~. -:~ ' .1....1..1 ~ ,. I~-';ll ".I' ,,~ ..il ~ ..~, I.. .. '" ,. l'~_ _ .. ..~ .. " \~)_ :.I ~, ~ ~ y 35 \), , . . 4 ~....... "' ! . I Sl " " .. """"-'" .. ..~~ . J ;n LEGEND fNEr:c'~,.~.l'" m.Pfimif.'f'I:"'R :re'tW'.ft~.~'~'U ~wi~:~~~~l'S urtUlIU $lWY \~ . , ../ ,,~~/ " \\~~: "'. ~, ~ i-.\ ~ .~ ~ ~~~.. ~~ " ..f " iA .~{~( ~j~ j; .,f. .~. , V" ~ ~ \~.~ 1/. . (.J ,. :" ~. ..X~ '\\~~~ ! ~~11~" ,. " Y~:W~~';;"~aFji{ d ~~ 'f ~.:;:.:~~\-j) .:il~ -Vl -...... .,.1 " ,,~ ,.~ -.- @EJ .. '!;." (:In Of' ""PLES Fau. :zll!:rnI~I\JIll!:" C1U,WKTllIEE 3EA"I~ MEA II EAST OF C.R_ 951 STJDY . . ~. -~ .~ ~ U '" .. J- R 28 E u . . ~ .::;;;1 4 ..~ !l! ~. ?a ~ ... .~ ~ ---; o ~ ;;; '" ~ . 2l! E R 27 E COLLIER COUNTY GOVERN~IH PUSL.IC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPAftTMEN'l SEPTEMBER 2005 R 2& E ""..L_Y AND HAN..N Iot.e:o R 26 E - 23 - b. Solid Waste Management Department OBJECTIVE To characterize the current solid waste system and related services and to describe the conceptual framework for evaluating system enhancements to meet population growth projected east of CR951. BACKGROUND Starting in December 2000, the County embarked on an ambitious program to address existing solid waste management issues and to search for progressive solid waste solutions in the intermediate and long-term to address future needs. Through this work, the County has made many significant achievements, including, but not limited to: .. Improved the Landfill Operating Agreement with Waste Management, Inc. of Florida (WMIF); .. Remedied recurring odor management issues at the Naples Landfill (Landfill); .. Diverted biosolids/sludge to an out-of-county disposal facility; .. Diverted construction & demolition debris (C&D) to an out-of-county disposal facility; Ii Assessed the feasibility of developing a landfill gas-to-energy (LFGE) project at the Landfill; Ii Performed a rate structure assessment on a full-cost accounting basis; III Initiated an artificial reef construction project using clean C&D; .. Implemented a Mandatory Non-Residential Recycling Ordinance; I!l Issued a Grease Trap Waste Processing Request for Proposals (RFP); · Issued a Municipal Solid Waste Processing (Gasification) RFP; 'I Issued a Source Separated Organic Waste Processing RFP; I!l Renegotiated its Franchise Solid Waste Collection Agreements with WMIF and Immokalee Disposal Company, Inc. (IDC). Current Initiatives include: 'I Conducting a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) Feasibility Assessment; · Developing a LFGE project to beneficially utilize landfill gas; .. Upgrading the scale house and related facilities at the Landfill; and · Upgrading the existing recycling centers. Many of the County's initiatives are focused on preserving disposal (airspace) capacity at the Landfill. CONSIDERATION Current Service Level (as of October 1, 2005) Levell-Status Quo Collier County provides a high level of solid waste service at a relatively low cost based on recent surveys of other Florida County's. The following sections describe the general services managed by the County - 24- Solid Waste Collection The County is divided into the following two service districts: 1. Service District I is managed by WMIF and includes the majority of unincorporated Collier County (excluding the Immokalee area); and 2. Service District II is managed by IDC and includes the Immokalee area. The residential collection services include: II Garbage Collection 2X/week (unlimited); II Recycling eollection IX/week (one 64-gallon recycling cart in Service District I and two 18-gallon bins in Service District IT); .. Yard Trash Collection IX/week (up to 10 bundles); " White Goods Collection IX/week; II Brown Goods Collection IX/week; II Electronics Collection IX/week; II Tires Collection IX/week; and II Battery Collection IX/week. The cost per household for fiscal year 2006 is: .. $153.70 in Service District I; and " $144.26 in Service District II. The difference in cost per household relates to the use of 64-gallon recycling carts in Service District 1. The solid waste collected in Service District I is disposed of in the Landfill. The solid waste collected in Service District II is transferred from the recently closed Immokalee Landfill to the Okeechobee Landfill. All recyclables, while the property of the County, are managed by WMIF and IDe. Non-residential properties are also services by WMIF and IDe. The rates for solid waste collection service are established each year by the County via an annual rate resolution. Non- residential recycling service is not regulated by the solid waste collection franchise agreements. Recycling Centers Collier County operates three recycling centers, located in Naples, Marco Island and Carnestown. These centers are available to residents at no charge, while businesses may use them for a nominal charge. Landfills Eustis Landfill The Eustis Landfill, located on Eustis Avenue is a closed, unlined, County-owned landfill, which stopped accepting waste in 1987 and was officially closed in accordance with Florida Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP) requirements in 1992. - 25 - lrnrnokaiee Landfill The Immokalee Landfill, located on Stockade Road, is operated by WMlF. It commenced operations in 1982, and closed in [2004], and now operates as a Transfer Station. Navies Landfill The Naples Landfill is owned by the County, and operated by WMlF. The Naples Landfill is a 312-acre, Class-I Solid Waste Management Facility. The Landfill has been in operation, receiving solid waste from the County, since 1975. Four of the six cells have been filled and closed. One cell is currently utilized for yard waste processing, and one cell is currently utilized for landfilling. The 2004 AUIR model for landfill space shows the County running out of existing space in 2025. Level 2- Intermediate While an intermediate level of service has not been identified for solid waste disposal, within the below premium level of service, 7 options are presented. The first two, landfill expansion and new landfill, are identified as the least cost prohibitive and for the basis of this Study can be construed as the intermediate level of service. Level3-Preminum The County, through the development of its integrated solid waste management program, has established a sound foundation upon which to plan enhancements and new infrastructure and programs to manage future growth. While the various initiatives already established have resulted in a decrease in per capita waste disposal, per capita waste generation continues to Increase. The projections are based on the AUIR model. Assuming that the Build Out population of 1.06 million in 2030. A growth factor of 5% was added to the model in 2010. With this growth factor the population in 2030 is 1.10 million. With this scenario the County will run out of currently permitted landfill space in 2023. Disposal/Conversion With the recent closure of the Immokalee Landfill, the Naples Landfill remains as the only in- County disposal option. To meet the solid waste management needs of the growing community, future disposal options are required. Based on revised growth projections, the AUIR now indicate that capacity at the Landfill will be depleted by 2023. However, there are many options available to the County to effectively manage the future solid waste stream. Some examples and the corresponding per ton processing cost ranges are identified below: · Landfill expansion (No direct cost increase to $20/ton increase); - 26- It New Landfill ($40 to $60/ton); It MSW composting($50 to $70/tou.);- It Out-of-County disposal($60 to $80/ton); It Waste-to-Energy (WTE) ($80 to $llO/ton); II GasificationlPyrolosis ($60 to $lOO/ton); It Emerging technologies (e.g., ArrowBio) ($60 to $lOO/ton); Based on the AUIR model, the County should start planning for the next "core" waste management system within the next five years and be_poised for implementation by 2013. It should be noted that vertical expansion of the Landfill may not result in any additional costs. However, further analysis of the Landfill is required to ensure that this is achievable. Studies could also be performed to assess the range of costs for out-of-County disposal as well as for implementing non-disposal options such as MSW composting, WTE, GasificationlPyrolosis, or any emerging technologies. In any event, it is likely that the next solid waste management system will be more expensive than the current and projected costs associated with disposal at the Landfill. Recvclinf! Centers In following the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan three additional Recycling Centers would be constructed in the areas of growth. The construction of the additional recycling centers would help offset the amount of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) being sent to the landfill and thus prolonging the useful life of the Naples Landfill. A Recycling Center is currently being planned to be built on County owned land in Orange Tree. The cost of this facility will be $1.5 - $2 million. A facility near the Ave Maria growth center would require the acquisition of 3 -5 acres of land and would cost approximately $300 - $500 thousand and an additional $1.5 - $2 million to construct. The costs would be similar for a facility built in the Eastern Estates/Big Cypress growth center. - 27 - IV. PARKS AND RECREATION Collier County Parks & Recreation Division Collier East of CR 951 Services & Infrastructure Horizon Study Summary The Collier County Parks and Recreation Department has developed costs for three levels of capital improvement in connection with the build-out scenario: "status quo," "intermediate," and "premium." Status quo assumes continuation of cooperative development of sites with the School District and improvement of sites within the current inventory. Intermediate assumes continuation of cooperative development of sites with the School District and improvement of sites within the current inventory and establishes a rural level of service standard for community and regional parks. Premium assumes continuation of cooperative development of sites with the School District and improvement of sites within the current inventory and maintains the current adopted level of service standard for community and regional parks. LEVEL 1: STATUS QUO This level involves: a) cooperative improvement of school sites b) improvement of undeveloped community park land in inventory c) improvement of undeveloped regional park land in inventory Project: Unit Cost Total a) Cooperative development of 8 school sites b) Development of 1 community park! c) Development of 2 regional parks2 $750,000 $6,000,000 $15,000,000 $15,000,000 $40,000,000 $80,000,000 TOTAL $101,000,000 The resulting additions to the developed inventory are: 8 school sites 1 community park 2 regional parks I Manatee Community Park 2 Orangetree Park and Kaufmann (Vanderbilt Ext.) property - 28 - LEVEL 2: INTERMEDIATE (RURAL) This level involves: a) cooperative improvement of school sites b) improvement of undeveloped community park land in inventory c) improvement of undeveloped regional park land in inventory d) purchase and development of community park land at a rural level of service e) purchase and development of regional park land at a rural level of service The rural level of service standards will be approximately 2/3 of the current adopted standards: .75 acres per 1000 population LOSS for community park land 2 acres per 1000 population LOSS for regional park land @ $750,000 @$15,000,000 @$40,000,000 @$200,000 @$15,000,000 @$200,000 @ $40,000,000 $6,000,000 $15,000,000 $80,000,000 $53,000.000 $45,000,000 $92,400,000 $80,000,000 TOTAL $371,400,000 The resulting additions to the developed inventory are: 8 school sites 4 community parks 4 regional parks 3 Manatee Community Park 4 Orangetree Park and Kaufmann (Vanderbilt Ext.) property 5 At .75 per 1000516 acres are needed. Credit is given for 171 acres in inventory and 80 acres to be available through school sites. 6 At 2 per 1000 1377 acres are needed. Credit is given for 212 acres in inventory and 703 acres to be acquired through cooperative agreements. II Manatee Community Park - 29- LEVEL 3: PREMIUM (URBAN) This level involves: a) cooperative improvement of school sites b) improvement of undeveloped community park land in inventory c) improvement of undeveloped regional park land in inventory d) purchase and development of community park land at the adopted level of service e) purchase and development of regional park land at the adopted level of service The adopted level of service standards are: 1.2882 acres per 1000 population LOSS for community park land 2.9412 acres per 1000 population LOSS for regional park land @ $750,000 @ $15,000,000 @ $40,000,000 @ $200,000 @ $15,000,000 @ $200,000 @ $40.000.000 TOTAL The resulting additions to the developed inventory are: 8 school sites 8 community parks 7 regional parks $6,000,000 $15,000,000 $80,000,000 $127,200.000 $105,000,000 $222,000,000 $200.000.000 $755,200,000 12 Orangetree Park and Kaufmann (Vanderbilt Ext.) property 13 At 1.2882 per 1000887 acres are needed. Credit is given for 171 acres in inventory and 80 acres to be available through school sites. 14 At 2.9412 per 10002025 acres are needed. Credit is given for 212 acres in inventory and 703 acres to be acquired through cooperative agreements. 19 Manatee Community Park - 30- --- ----I ! Parks & Recreation Cost Options _$ 7.5_5,200,QO_Q $800,000,000 $700,000,000 $600,000,000 $371,400,000 $500,000,000 $400,000,000 .. $300,000,000 .1 $101,000,000 $200,000,000- $100,000,000 . $0 ., L___. Status Quo- Add 8 school, 1 community, 2 regional parks Intermediate (Rural)- add 8 school, 4 community, 4 regional parks Premium (Urban)- Add 8 school, 8 community, 7 regional parks - .___,__, ____. _J - 31 - V. SCHOOLS Collier County School District Collier East of CR 951 Services & Infrastructure Horizon Study Summary The Collier County School District has recognized_ and responds to the significant growth occurring in areas east of 951 by constructing new schools and acquiring lands for future schools within and immediately adjacent to the Golden Gate Estates and Immokalee areas. There are a few important factors that must be considered when planning future schools and their placement throughout the county. The School District, in accordance with Florida Department of Education requirements, prepares a five year Capital Improvement Program. In addition, the District also prepares a 20 year Capital Plan. The planning processes to prepare these documents allows the School District to effectively address changing enrollment patterns, development and growth, and sustains the facility requirements needed to support high quality educational programs. The approach to the task of responding to the Collier East of CR951 Services and Infrastructure Horizon Study is to provide brief summaries of existing conditions or "status quo" which includes future schools projected through 2025 as documented in the School District's Capital Plan: 2005-2025, and estimated additional needs or "premium" conditions based on a recent build out estimate of 688,489 provided by Collier County Government. This response will not include an "Intermediate Response" for the following reason. The School District is mandated to provide an education to all school age children that seek a public education. Therefore, the School District must respond by providing permanent or interim temporary facilities to meet the demand and an "intermediate" or "no build" response to the demand for public educational services cannot be considered. It should be noted that these estimates provided below are meant as very rough estimates. The size of schools and their student capacities are approximate and based on current prototypes and policies of the School Board and the Department of Education. Also land costs are not included since there is very little data on land use, roads and land availability in areas that may convert from agricultural uses to new towns and villages. These estimates will have to be refined upon adoption of the Public Schools Facilities Element (PSFE) by the BCe prior to March 1, 2008. The PSFE, per its statutory mandate, must contain a financially feasible concurrency management system. The BCC and the School Board are charged with the responsibility of developing the PSFE as a collaborative effort that serves the best interest of both governing bodies as well as current and future residents of Collier County As mentioned, this study calls for three graduated responses to growth, the first being "status quo" or leaving things as they are today. As noted above, this is contrary to State and Federal mandates to provide public school facilities. Therefore a no build scenario for this area is not possible to provide. Level one analysis, therefore will include existing conditions for the area. Level 2 will not be addressed and Level 3 or "Premium" will include the cost estimates for meeting the student demand for population of 688,489. - 32- Levell - Status Quo Within the geographic area of the study there are a total of 13 existing schools. Some schools west of CR 951 currently have attendance boundaries that extend into the study area, but they are not included in the total since it will be unlikely that they would continue to serve those areas as populations increase and new schools are opened in the area. Of the 13 schools there are two high schools, three middle schools and eight elementary schools. The School District 20 year Capital Plan includes two new high schools, four new middle schools and 7 elementary schools. Since the Capital Plan was adopted three additional schools have been identified and will be added when the Capital Plan is updated. Sites are being secured at this time and they are for the Ave Maria Development. There will be one elementary, one middle school and one high school added. Therefore based on the approved 20 Year Capital Plan and recent additions to accommodate the impact of Ave Maria, there will be 3 new high schools, 5 new middle schools and 8 new elementary schools by the year 2025. Level 2 - Intermediate (Not applicable) Level 3 - Premium Given a total build-out estimate of 688,489, an estimated 72 schools would be needed for the study area. Below is the number of existing schools, number of planned schools by 2025 and the number of additional schools needed to accommodate the build out estimate. School Type Existing Planned Additional Estimated Costs Total by 2025 Needed by in 2005 Dollars Schools Build-out Year (Does not include Estimated land costs) as Needed at Build-out Year Elementary 8 8 27 486,000,000 43 Middle 3 5 8 198,000,000 16 High School 2 3 8 360,000,000 13 Total 13 16 43 1,044,000,000 72 The estimated costs of providing 43 additional schools is $1,044,000,000 in current dollars. The total number of schools is based on current capacities of existing schools and the number of students per total population Countywide. Currently, 12.9 percent of Collier eounty population is attending Collier County Public Schools. The percentage of students to population is higher in Golden Gate Estates, approximately 18%. But, for the general purposes of this study the more conservative number is used, since the rural areas may likely develop similarly in densities and community types as in the Urban Area. - 33 - $1,200,000,000 $1,044,000,000 $1,000,000,000-1 I $800,000,000 : I ! i I 1$486,000,000 $360,000,000 $600,000,0001 * $400,000,000-1 $200,000,000 - i I $0: $198,000,000 $198,000,000 8 i ____________l High School $360,000,000 8 Total $1,044,000,000 ' 43..____J * Excludes Land Cost - 34- FUTURE SCHOOLS LOCA TI ON 1\1AP COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS I ! ! i : El.Da-;p..'TARY "f st..HOC.IL "ROO . ~'O16 ::SC~~1foo" m" . ItlCil ....:,( HOCH 'U;; ;: ~ ~ " .J EAST-SOUTH IMMOKALEE i ->~~~.j- e 1/ ~~.lg ,.. ~_~l ~ i 11 J i , I \ .......,}"."""" 1 ~ " TRA~' K-2.ND GRADE SCHOOL MARCO Ist.A1\'D ;:!l- L I: " t I; f: ,: I~ I, 1; 1. Ii '. ~~::? . cW 1 'I--T PI.ANNING C;OMMUNtn&S ~OlL"!ilIi C:OUNTY jll!LOAtDA UNSITED SCHOOLS ...L~ .' ".'.' , .... ,";..~, -.t. ...~"l , ' " eol '. '-' ',. ;....~ "T- ' ,,,!:-..,. !' ' . ....-c:. '.' .. .::" r~', __ ,. -,~':"_ ..;"'-,:"F': '.. '. ;;-5-"". El. r.... -;.~ 1~ ::'.}PaL F<;:iTlL1;'_111 i':' .. ~',~:'" . i :;~....i"', D} ;., J"'~ :'11 ;':..0 "1.,-(;..1- . iyj ;:-;.:; ':", E$: _ ~ ' (1:'1 .:,'~"f, ':,,-I?! .'. I). ':'JH ='0 I!) :J~ :~;- ~.p ;" 'If' ~~' ,... r, ,~ I . I ,--./~ 1 "\ -_...0'1 I -----L ! .CHOC'1. TT'P'D I"t....".,.,.Q C:;Q"",,,Uttlrr AI"I"RQJCI""....T. YaAR .d... - 'i I I '. I I I / ~ -'. J ~ ,. ,; ~ lo..UIl4 Wf.~~.....-n..!.... - 35 - VI. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Collier County Stormwater Management Collier East of CR 951 Services & Infrastructure Horizon Study Summary The land incorporated into this evaluation consists primarily of northern Golden Gate Estates, the recently established Stewardship Land Areas to the east of Golden Gate Estates, and the Belle MeadelNorth Belle Meade area. The next few paragraphs will discuss northern Golden Gate Estates (north of 1-75). NORTH GOLDEN GATE ESTATES Existine: Conditions The Golden Gate Estates drainage system was designed in the early 1960' s under the concept of draining a large cypress wetland area to create relatively dry land for rural residential development on typical five-acre lots. The roadway network was established to connect typical mile long residential streets at quarter mile spacing. Housing was to be constructed on an elevated foundation system. Drainage was provided by roadside swales connecting to a canal system designed for a 1O-year/24-hour storm event. Potable water was to be provided by shallow wells while individual septic systems (slightly mounded above the wet season water table) disposed of wastewater. The basic development patterns in Golden Gate Estates have remained the same for over forty years. Shortly after construction of the Golden Gate Estates canal systems in 1962-63, it was observed that excessive drainage was having a negative impact on existing vegetation in some areas, resulting in unusually dry conditions that also impacted fire conditions and water supplies. A series of weirs were installed to reduce the over drainage. During periods of wet weather, typically each summer, much of the land was slightly above the canal water levels, but was inundated during periods of heavy rainfall. Road construction was typically at grade or slightly above grade, resulting in frequent problems, especially where the roads traversed existing sloughs or wetland flow ways. Roadside swales were not sloped to drain toward the canals, they simply followed the topography. A rapid invasion of exotic aquatic vegetation quickly reduced the effective capacity of the canals. By default and in conjunction with a settlement agreement with the developer, the County assumed responsibility for maintaining the roads and canals. As more land owners began to build houses, the demand for increased maintenance services brought about changes in the County's efforts. Also, numerous lot splits created smaller, narrow, building lot sizes and more impervious area than originally designed. The placement of fill pads for building homes on these narrow lots often created long continuous restrictions to existing sheet flow drainage patterns. Stormwater facility maintenance was not seriously undertaken by the County until 1983 when the Water Management Department was established. Hydrilla and other aquatic vegetation had grown so dense that some of the canals were "mowed" using floating harvesters to cut through - 36 - the dense masses. A program of aquatic herbicide applications was established to kill back much of the vegetation and re-establish flow conveyance capacity. Level of Service In 1989 the Level of Service for stormwater management was defined by a qualitative analysis of compliance with desired objectives for flood control, water quality and groundwater aquifer recharge. How well those objectives were met was based upon the 1O-year/24-hour design storm event for the Golden Gate Estates area. Of the seven (7) drainage sub-basins within Golden Gate Estates east of CR-951, six (6) of them had an adopted level of service level "D" and one had an adopted level of service "C". Each of these sub-basins was determined to meet the criteria for water quality and groundwater aquifer recharge, but only one met the desired level of flood control. Level of Service "D" indicates that during the design storm event, flooding can be expected to spread outside the limits of the canals, inundate yards and streets, and in some locations be deep enough to enter houses. Level of Service "e" indicates that during the design storm event, flooding can be expected to spread outside the limits of the canals and will cover the streets and yards. Level of Service "B" indicates that during the design storm event, flooding can be expected to spread outside the limits of the canals and will cover some areas of yards. Level of Service "A" indicates that during the design storm event, the waters will be contained within the banks of the canals. The continued development of Golden Gate Estates east of CR-951 has had an impact on all three areas of evaluation criteria for Level of Service. The eounty made many improvements to the residential streets and swales, and Golden Gate Blvd. has been totally reconstructed as a 4-lane urban cross section highway from CR-951 to Wilson Blvd. The Big Cypress Basin has provided increased levels of maintenance to the canal systems and modified several of the weirs to maintain higher dry season water table elevations, while simultaneously passing peak wet season flows at lower elevations. All of these efforts have some effect on total stormwater quality and quantity leaving the area as well as groundwater aquifer recharge. Future Buildout Issues As development in Golden Gate Estates continues toward total build-out, several issues affecting level of service are worth considering at this time. · design storm event · elevation · increasedJhardened impervious area · loss of floodplain storage capacity Design Storm Event - The original drainage design for Golden Gate Estates was a 1O-year/24- hour design storm event. Based upon a very rural, southwest Florida environment where large land areas were frequently inundated by standing or slowly flowing water for long periods during the summer "wet" season, it was understood by many of the initial residents that the Estates were nothing more than a "drained swamp" that could be expected to have standing water during the summer. As more and more people began to buy land and construct homes, the demand for increased drainage to prevent the "flooding" likewise increased. Many people - 37 - purchased land in the Estates under the assumption that their roads and yards would be dry similar to an urban residential area. The County's level of service for urban areas is based upon a 25-yearI72-hour design storm event. This event produces a greater rainfall over a longer duration. The impacts of a 25- yearl72-hour rainfall event on the Golden Gate Estates area would overwhelm the existing drainage system for several days before the excess runoff could discharge out of the area. Should there be a desire to begin the process to improve the system to adequately handle the 25-yearI72-hour design storm event; there are several major obstacles that would need to be addressed. The primary obstacle would be where to put all the excess stormwater runoff, and how to get it there quick enough to prevent massive flooding. There are two major outlets for the north Golden Gate Estates area, the Main Golden Gate Canal discharging west and the Faka Union Canal system discharging south. In the Main Golden Gate Canal area, much of the land along the western portion of the system has already experienced near build-out conditions and there is a great concern that the canal already discharges excessive amounts of fresh water into the brackish Naples Bay. In the Faka Union Canal system, the receiving body is the Picayune Strand Restoration area which has undergone extensive analysis by the SFWMD and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and has an identified allowable discharge into the Picayune Strand Restoration area. The SFWMD is currently designing the large stormwater pumping stations that will provide capacity equivalent to 100-year/120-hour design storm peak flood stage conditions in the year 2000 when the project was initiated. However, the SFWMD has repeatedly emphasized that the Picayune Strand Restoration project is not a flood control project and they are not planning improvements to the canals north of the pump stations. Elevation - The elevation of existing homes and the relatively flat topography are two issues of importance when considering storm water management and possible changes. The typical Golden Gate Estates home is built on a fill pad with a slab elevation either 18" or 24" above the centerline of the road in front of the house. The design of the septic drain field also has a major impact on determining the elevation of the house slab. Through the years the FDEP's interpretation of the rules for determination of the wet season water table has changed, with more recent construction having higher elevations to meet the minimum clearance distance below the bottom of the drain field. However, older homes were often constructed at substantially lower elevations, so increased wet season water table elevations or peak stormwater stages can cause failures to older septic system long before frequent flooding becomes an issue. IncreasedlHarden lmpervious Area - The continued development of houses and related facilities in Golden Gate Estates increases the amount if impervious surface (roofs, driveways, pools, asphalt roads, etc.) and hardened surfaces (compacted house pads, lime rock driveways, etc.) that causes an increased amount of stormwater runoff. Initial design assumptions of a typical small house on a five-acre tract for Golden Gate Estates drainage are being exceeded. This increased runoff puts an additional strain on the conveyance capacity of the roadside swales and canals. Loss of Floodplain Storage Capacity - The placement of large amounts of fill onto the relatively flat topography creates impediments to sheet flow and eliminates areas where stormwater runoff previously could be temporarily stored. North Golden Gate Estates is not - 38 - technically identified as a floodplain on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agenc.y: However, it is important to o_hserve that as more and more land is impacted by fill, the stormwater is displaced onto remaining vacant tracts or onto older developed tracts that aren't filled quite as high. This places another strain on the existing drainage system of swales and canals and can result in higher peak stages that can affect septic drain fields and houses. Related to this issue, the SFWMD considered the increase in runoff from impervious area at build-out when designing the Picayune Strand Restoration pump stations, but did not consider the loss of existing surface storage volume as the topography changes from the numerous fill pads and filled yards. THE STEWARDSHIP LAND AREAS OUTSIDE OF GOLDEN GATE ESTATES The proposed development of the Stewardship Land areas to the east of Golden Gate Estates will be based upon meeting current urban development criteria in compliance with the current rules of the SFWMD. Development projects will be designed using detention areas for water quality treatment and gradual release of this treated stormwater through control structures with regulated discharge rates that will maintain wet season groundwater elevations. The peak rate of discharge from these developed areas will not exceed existing discharge rates, and usually will be less. The potential for increased total volume of stormwater discharged may become an issue in certain situations. Large wetland areas will be preserved and possibly utilized for temporary storage of treated stormwater. The impact of development in the Stewardship Land Areas is not expected to create problems for the north Golden Gate Estates area. Careful coordination will need to be maintained between the County and the SFWMD to account for the total discharge flowing south toward the Picayune Strand Restoration area pump stations. BELLE MEADEINORTH BELLE MEADE AREA Existing Conditions Belle Meade is a large area of land containing undeveloped, scattered rural residential, urban residential, and agricultural land east of CR-951, south of 1-75, west of the Picayune Strand Restoration area (south blocks of Golden Gate Estates), and extending south of US-41 to tidal, estuarine waters north of Marco Island. Most of the development areas are located along the western fringe (east side of eR-951) and along both sides of US-41. Along US-41 the predominate development was agricultural, but extensive urban residential and some commercial have replaced some of the agricultural land uses. The northern and east central regions are basically undeveloped with vast areas of wetlands interspersed with scattered uplands. The North Belle Meade is simply an extension of the Belle Meade area north of I-75, with north Golden Gate Estates to the north and east, 1-75 to the south, and various other land uses, including the County's landfill to the west. The region is basically undeveloped with vast areas of wetlands interspersed with scattered uplands. There has not been any single overall organized plan for the various development and drainage features within the Belle MeadeINorth Belle Meade area. The two major drainage features are the canal along the east side of CR-951 and the canal along the north side of US-41. Both of these canals were excavated as sources of fill to construct the adjacent roads, with no specific design storm capacity. Within the agricultural, rural residential and urban residential - 39- developed areas there are numerous drainage canals, ditches and lakes, but most of these are privately owned and maintained. In the mid 1980's a Water Management Master Plan was prepared for this area, and it identified areas proposed for conservation, areas for development, and major drainage facilities that would be needed to make development possible. This report was not well received by either the land owners or the environmental community. The existing, limited drainage features typically become overwhelmed during above average wet season rains and then function to over drain some portions of the area in the dry season. A canal system, somewhat following the recommendations of the old Belle Meade Water Management Master Plan, was designed south of US-41 to provide some flooding relief to lands immediately adjacent to the north side of USA1. This canal system has been incorporated into the backbone drainage outfall system of the large Fiddler's Creek development. Level of Service The Belle MeadeINorth Belle Meade area covers several drainage basins and sub-basins identified on the County's Drainage Atlas maps. Level of Service "D" is common throughout the area, based upon limited conveyance capacity for a 25-year/3-day design storm event. Continued development within this area will not improve the Level of Service without the development and implementation of a stormwater master plan. Future Build-out Issues In 2003, the County and the Big Cypress Basin developed a scope of services for the preparation of the Belle Meade Stormwater Master Plan. The County did not fund the study, so the Big Cypress Basin agreed to provide funding for the study with the County assuming responsibility for permitting and construction of identified improvements. That study is being finalized in 2006, and it will be a very useful tool in the development of the required watershed management plan for this area. Issues that have been identified in the preliminary drafts of this Belle Meade Stormwater Master Plan include the impacts of the Picayune Strand Restoration project, water quality and quantity in the CR-951 canal and the large agricultural areas, possible rehydration of North Belle Meade utilizing excess water in the Main Golden Gate Canal, and possible restoration of flow ways through the large agricultural area as future "village style" residential development is constructed in the agricultural area. PLANNING DECISION ISSUES This East of CR-951 Horizon Study has been prepared to discuss the major planning issues that will impact the health, safety, and welfare of the many development activities that will occur over the next 10-15 years until most of the area is built out. Following this East of CR 951 Stormwater Management Summary is a map of the Collier County Drainage Basins as prepared by the CDES Environmental Services Department. Initial consultations with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), and Big Cypress Basin have identified subject areas that warrant consideration in the study. These subject areas are consistent with - 40- objectives and policies set forth in the County's Growth Management Plan (GMP). The areas that warrant consideration include county watershed management _plans, stormwater infrastructure improvements, water quality in the study area and receiving water bodies, and the coordination of planning efforts that deal with stormwater and water quality. The BCe has prioritized the County's watershed management plans at the recent EAR-based amendments adoption public hearing on May 15, 2006. Stormwater management is a component of the broader watershed management efforts and will be essential to support implementation of the resulting watershed management plans. The BCC recognized the systemic problem with the County's watershed management planning in the County's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) that was found in compliance by the Florida Department of Community Affairs. The BCC directed Comprehensive Planning staff to create a new policy that would promote intergovernmental coordination between the County and other agencies involved in watershed management and planning. In furtherance of this policy, the BCC directed staff to extend the date for the completion of all county watershed management plans. More specifically and applicable to the East of CR951 Study area, the BCC directed staff to develop policies to ensure that watershed management plans are incorporated into wetland protection strategies within the Estates Designation and Rural Settlement Areas, as well as all other areas in the County. It could be difficult to prepare Watershed Management Plans for all of the eounty's watersheds at the same time given resource and staffing constraints. Fortunately, some of the watersheds in the County are already the subject of planning, either under the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (e.g., Southern Golden Gate Estates) or under the Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan process (e.g., Naples Bay), and the County's Plans can be coordinated with these plans. Planning decisions that will impact the direction and focus of watershed management plans need to be made in advance. Stormwater management system improvements are broken down into three levels (status quo, intermediate and premium) with specific projects set forth in each level where applicable. North Golden Gate Estates Level 1- Status Quo This level of planning effort recognizes that the existing Level of Service allows for some house flooding to occur at the 1O-year/24-hour design storm rainfall or higher. Emphasis would be placed only on maintenance efforts while allowing the Big Cypress Basin to make improvements to the primary canals and weirs as it deems necessary. The previously discussed issues of increased impervious/hardened area, placement of fill within the floodplain, and impeding natural flow ways will potentially increase flooding depths, duration and frequency, but Level of Service would remain at the "D" level. Cost would be minimal beyond normal maintenance costs. Level 2 - Intermediate This level of planning effort recognizes that the existing Level of Service is not desirable and improvements to stormwater management facilities need to be made to achieve a Level of - 41 - Service "B". The design storm event would continue to be based upon a 1O-yearI24-hour design storm event, but peak stages would be limited to minor yard flooding, and streets and houses would not be flooded. This improvement to the Level of Service could possibly incorporate the construction of stormwater storage areas to serve each residential street, road and roadside swale reconstructions, elevating selected houses, re-establishment of flow ways blocked by continual fill pad construction, construction of large pump stations to discharge excess stormwater from the Main Golden Gate Canal into the North Belle Meade area, limiting the placement of fill for development activities, etc. Costs could be anticipated to reach $200- 300 million, based heavily upon the acquisition of land and/or easements to allow room for constructed improvements. Due to the spatial extent of this area, a long term program of construction would need to be developed to allow for a reasonable achievement of success at a reasonable level of funding. Level 3 - Premium This level of planning effort recognizes that the existing Level of Service is not desirable and improvements to stormwater management facilities needs to be made to achieve a Level of Service "A" for the 1O-yearI24-hour design storm event, or possibly a Level of Service "B" for the 25-yearI72-hour design storm event. It recognizes that it may not be possible to achieve the satisfactory Level of Service based upon the 25-yearI72-hour storm event due to physical and environmental permitting constraints. The types of possible facilities would be similar to the Level 2, but could be expected to be greater in number and extent, including the consideration of above ground pumped detention storage areas. Costs could be anticipated to exceed $300 million based heavily upon the acquisition of land and/or easements to allow room for constructed improvements. Due to the spatial extent of this area, a long term program of construction would need to be developed to allow for a reasonable achievement of success at what would probably be a high level of funding. Stewardship Land Areas Outside of Golden Gate Estates Since this area is just starting to develop, it will be designed to comply with current stormwater management requirements and will address areas where existing agricultural lands may need to be restored to pre-existing conditions to promote water quality and regional sheet flow conditions. This report does not propose to address issues for these areas. Belle Meade/North Belle Meade Levell - Status Quo This level of planning effort recognizes that the existing Level of Service "D" allows for some house flooding occurring at the 25-yearI72-hour design storm rainfall or higher. Emphasis would be placed only on maintenance efforts and requiring new development to provide Level of Service "B" while not creating more severe flooding outside their property boundaries. Level 1 would place the County in the position of possibly not following up with implementation of recommendations in the Belle Meade Stormwater Master Plan which is currently the only funded stormwater management plan or planned program to address existing and future water within the Study area. The status quo level would continue to rely upon - 42- federal and state programs to address stormwater management problems/issues when funding becomes available with no capital outlay..by the BCC Level 2 - Intermediate This level of planning recognizes that the existing Level of Service is not desirable and improvements to stormwater management facilities need to be made to achieve a Level of Service "B" to those areas that are and/or will be developed while also providing protection against over drainage of those areas that will be reCDmmended for preservation/conservation land usage. Level 2 recognizes the potential for conflicting interests in that there may be areas of valuable mineral extraction (rock); that there may be areas where flowway restoration may conflict with individual development interests; and that the ultimate water quantity and quality to be discharged into the tidal estuarine area north of Marco Island may require different stormwater management planning direction than that currently being considered. Because there are so many variables and options that could be considered in this Level 2, and recognizing that many of the stormwater management issues may be addressed by development, no cost estimate was prepared. Level 3 - Premium This level of planning recognizes the need to provide for a Level of Service "A" to those areas that are and/or will be developed while also providing protection against over drainage of those areas that will be recommended for preservation/conservation land usage. Level 3 recognizes the need to preserve most of the undeveloped areas and restore severed flow ways north of US- 41. Because there are so many variables and options that could be considered in this Level 3, and recognizing that many of the stormwater management issues may be addressed by development, no cost estimate was prepared. The map on the next page shows the locations of Collier County Drainage Basins. The area of the East of CR-951 Horizon Study is located within, but does not include all of the land within, the following drainage basins: · Main Golden Gate Canal Basin · Henderson Creek Basin · Fakahatchee Strand Basin · Faka Union Canal Basin · Southern Coastal Basin - 43- legend D Drainage Basins Barron River Canal Basin MiCfJR fJ~,,^ '<Jus Co '1SI'I/ e '1Si~s Data Souroe: Aerials - Colier County Properly AppJaiser Created By GIS COES I Enviroomenlal Services G:IGtS_TmpICC_Drain,mrd G:Vmages\Maps&AertalsICC .Drainjpg Date:9111U5 - 44- W+E S I o 5 I 10 I 20 Miles >- C :J o o u Iii ?; ~ In L.28 Tieback Basin Gator Hook Strand Basin >- c o I~ ,U ro o cbfiier County -~-...,...."'~--,~~-----. VII. LIBRARIES Collier County Public Libraries Collier East of CR 951 Services & Infrastructure Horizon Study Summary Contained within this East of 951 Study Summary are two spreadsheets that list library locations with proposed facility sizes and the book collection needs. Costs of both construction and books are listed in 2005 dollars. Levels of service include the Status Quo, Intermediate, and Premium. The Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) directs the Library to maintain .33 square feet per capita and 1.75 books per capita. Libraries are not subject to statutory concurrency management requirements and service levels are not mandated. For the purposes of this study, The following standards were used: Status Quo: 1.75 books per capita and .20 square feet per capita. Intermediate: 1.75 books per capita and .27 square feet per capita. Premium: 1.75 books per capita and .33 square feet per capita. Although the intent of this project is to plan for service to the new county residents who are expected to live 'East of eR/SR 951', the Library recognizes that the majority of Library patrons visit libraries other than the one closest to their home, as well as the closest library. Some facilities, therefore, may be geographically located 'west of SR/CR 951', but provide service to those living 'East of SR/CR 951'. The South Regional Library will be located just west of SR/CR 951, but will provide service to the large populations moving into the East of951 and U.S. 41 south area. This projection provides 353,878 square feet of Library space for the 1,066,420 projected residents of Collier County. Emphasis was on construction East of 951 and on facilities like the South Regional Library that would provide primary service to this population. Levell - Status Quo This level of service for facilities includes all existing library facilities, three planned and budgeted construction projects, and two projected library facilities. The planned facilities are: the South Regional Library; the Golden Gate expansion; and the meeting room addition to Marco Island. The projected facilities are: Orange Tree and Fiddlers' Creek. This level of service for book collections includes purchase of books for the additional 700,000 people projected by this study, at the current collection level of 1.75 books per capita. The average cost of a book is currently calculated at $25. Costs: Facilities: $25,800,000 for 86,000 square feet .20 square feet / capita - 45 - Books: $30,625,000 for 1,260,000 additional books _-. 1.75 books / capita Other Materials: Currently budgeted at about $7 per square foot. Cost for additional square footage is about $602,000. Total Cost: $57,027,000 Level 2 - Intermediate Service at this level assumes the libraries previously discussed still exist. The following additions are built: Immokalee - 5,000 square feet Estates Branch - 10,000 square feet Everglades City - 2,000 square feet South Regional - 30,000 square feet Orange Tree - 2(),dOO square feet Books per capita remain at 1.75. No additional book purchases are made for this level of serVIce. Costs: Facilities: $20,100,000 for 67,000 square feet .27 square feet / capita Books: No additional books over Status Quo level 1.75 books / capita Other Materials: Currently budgeted at about $7 per square foot. Cost for additional square footage is about $469,000. Total Cost: $20,569,000 above Status Quo cost Level 3 - Premium Service at this level assumes the libraries previously discussed still exist. The following additions are built: Immokalee - 20,000 square feet South Regional - 20,000 square feet Orange Tree - 20,000 square feet Fiddlers' Creek - 10,000 square feet Books per capita remain at 1.75. No additional book purchases are made for this level of servIce. Costs: Facilities: $21,000,000 for 70,000 square feet .33 square feet / capita Books: No additional books over Status Quo level 1.75 books / capita - 46- Other Materials: Currently budgeted at about $7 per square foot. Cost for additional square footage is about $490,000. Total Cost: $21,490,000 above Intermediate cost r-- -.----- i Library Cost 2005 Dollars $80,000,000 $100,000,000. $60,000,0001 i $40,000,000,1 $20,000,000 $0 J". I Level 1 - Status Quo Level 2 - Intenrediate I, Level 3 - Prenium IlJ Library Cost 2005 Dollars $57,027,000 $77,596,000 $99,086,000 Books Needed for East of 951 Study C 11' C P b1' L'b o ler ounty u lC 1 rarv Library Books Librarv Books Librarv Books Status Ouo Intermediate Premium 1.75 books I No addition to Status No addition to capita Ouo Status Quo Books Need for Build-out Population Increase 1,260.000 of 700,000 people 0 0 Cost of books for additional 700,000 Ipeople $30.625,000 $0 $0 Cost I book = $25 (2005 prices) The Library also purchases audiovisual from ad valorem dollars. Items purchased include periodicals, videocassettes, DVDs, audio books, musical CDs, and electronic databases. In FY06, approximately $900,000 is budgeted for these items. This is approximately $7 per square foot for other library materials. - 47- Library ConstructIOn OvervIew Library Construction Status Quo Total Square Libraries Footal!e Planned Library Construction Intermediate Total Square Libraries Footage Planned Library Construction Premium Total Square Libraries Footage Planned Headquarters 42,000 Headquarters 42,000 Headquarters 42,000 Naples Branch 35,851 Naples Branch 35,851 Naples Branch 35,851 Vanderbilt Beach 7,000 Vanderbilt Beach 7,000 Vanderbilt Beach 7,000 Golden Gate 24,000 Golden Gate 24,000 Golden Gate 24,000 East Naples 6,600 East Naples 6,600 East Naples 6,600 Everglades City 900 Everglades City 2,900 Everglades City 2,900 Marco Island 16,345 Marco Island 16,345 Marco Island 16,345 Immokalee 8,000 Immokalee 13,000 Immokalee 23,000 Estates Branch 11,182 Estates Branch 21,182 Estates Branch 21, 182 South Regional 30,000 South Regional 60,000 South Regional 60,000 Orange Tree 30,000 Orange Tree 50,000 Orange Tree 70,000 Big Cypress - 0- Big Cypress - 0 - Big Cypress 30,000 Fiddlers Creek 10,000 Fiddlers Creek 10,000 Fiddlers Creek 20,000 Total Sq. Ft. 221,878 fotal Sq. Ft. 288,878 Total Sq. Ft. 358,878 SQ. Footal!e includes: SQ. Foota2e includes: SQ. Footal!e includes: FY07: MI - 4,000 sq. ft FY16+: 1M - 5,000 sq. ft. FY16+: IM -10,000sq.ft. FY07: SR - 30,000 sq. ft FY16+: EB - 10,000 sq. ft. FY 16+: OT - 20, doo sq. ft. FY07: GG - 17,000 sq. ft. FY16+: EV - 2,000 sq. ft. FY16+: FC-10,000sq.ft. FY16+: FC - 10,000 sq. ft. FY16+: SR - 30,000 sq. ft. FY16+: BC 30,000 sq. ft. FY16+: OT - 30,000 sq. ft. FY16+: OT - 20,000 sq. ft. (86,000 sq ft total) 67,000 sq ft total) (70,000 sq ft total) 0.21 sa ft / capita 0.27 ft / capita 0.34 sa ft / capita Construction Construction 86,000 Planned 67,000 Construction Planned 70,000 Planned $ 300 Cost/sq.ft. $ 300 Cost/sq.ft. $ 300 Cost/sq.ft. Construction Costs / Construction Costs / Construction Costs / $ 25,800,000 Level $20,100,000 Level $ 21,000,000 Level Population at Build-out = 1,066,420 Square Footage Required @ .33 sq. ft. I capita Square Footage Needed for Premium Level = 223,000 sq. ft. Total Constructions for Premium Level = $66,900,000 - 48- VIII. FIRE DISTRICTS Collier County Fire Districts Collier East of CR 951 Services & Infrastructure Horizon Study Summary F.( r... 4~:rh. I:J~n: Fi ;. ) l..,_.~ ._.~_'_; _0.._"_'-"--'.1 OQ.:lIP>>:' 1','{C"I,j 1 'o.j,," 1 a. BIG CORKSCREW ISLAND FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT (Source: letter dated August 1, 2005, FROM Chief Rita Greenberg to Property Owners, Developers, Collier County, Public Schools) The Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District is seeking to secure properties for future growth and development. Insurance Services Organizations (ISO) provides insurance companies with a Fire Protection Class Number (1-10), and their ideal situation is to have a Fire Station every 3-5 miles. The District encompasses 197 square miles, which is ISO Terms equates to 39.4 stations. While the District understands that this does seem a bit ludicrous, the District attempts to provide its citirlens the best possible coverage within our means. Properties associated with a Fire Protection Class of a 10 are considered to be "uninsurable" by many carriers; because a 10 from ISO means that there is no fire protection available. Other carriers have awardedlrec1assed these properties as a 9 because they fall into the boundaries of the Fire District. Currently the District's rating is a Class 5 if the residence is within 5 road miles of the .. 49.. fire station and a class 10 outside that 5-mile limitation. The insurance premium charged is directly related to the Fire Protection Class. number, and the difference between a Class 5 and a Class 9/1 0 can be hundreds of dollars and in some instances the carrier will not even write the policy. The growth that Collier County is facing poses an interesting problem in regards to the above _ as a large part of this growth is in the rural part of the County. The District is currently looking to secure 3 parcels of land for future use to help reduce those areas considered to be "uninsurable" (see map on following page). The location of the 3 areas is key to the success of this goal as well as continuing to provide efficient and effective service to the Districts residents and property owners. The 5 year plan and map of the district that are attached, are representative of the growth/development that the County anticipates, within our District boundaries. The map shows existing facilities what we have determined to be suitable locations for future facilities based on call load, response time, anticipated growth and the 5-mile window for insurance classifications. A site located in the vicinity of CR 858 and Desoto Blvd is an ideal location for our next facility - it centralizes current development and some future development amongst our existing facilities. A 5-10 acre tract would be ideal - it would allow for a full-scale administrative facility, a 24-hour operational facility, a training facility and possible a maintenance facility as well. Other sites could be as small as 1 1;4 - 2 Y2 acres. Based upon an estimated $200,000 - $325,000 per acre land acquisition cost associated within the District, a cost range of $1,500,000 to $4,875,000 for land acquisition is projected. The future cost of construction has not been determined, but best estimate would indicate that construction costs and equipment will exceed land acquisition costs by a minimum factor of three. A comprehensive cost analysis for future fire district facilities have not been provided as the Fire Districts are special districts with their own taxing authority, which is outside the scope of Collier county's ad valorum taxing authority. Currently it is taking up to 18 months to obtain permits and an approved SDP, and an estimate of 6 months to a year for construction (a process of at least 2 years), if the process runs smoothly. Therefore it is the District's goal to secure properties in advance of utilizing them, with the intent of having the permit process completed and construction underway (if not completed) as the need for services arises, not after it has already happened. b. GOLDEN GATE FIRE DISTRICT The Golden Gate Fire District has been an active participant in this Study. Information for this preliminary report is pending an independent consulting product, which will help determine future Levels of Service and locations. Additional coordination will follow its receipt of the Transportation and Public Utilities outside reports. c. IMMOKALEE FIRE DISTRICT (No response received to date) d. OCHOPEE FIRE DISTRICT (No response received to date) - 50- without additional resources allocated. The current operating costs for these 4 stations are roughly estimated to be $497,752 per year.. Level 2 - Intermediate Once we have identified that the growth plan calls for 45.7 EMS units to keep up with growth, there are only a certain number of things that can be done to minimize the fiscal impact. Chief among these is co-location. By co-locating our stations with other emergency agencies we have saved as much as 40% on capital expense of the structure itself. There is also the possibility of long-term leases with other agencies. There is however at least one major disadvantage with this model if widely implemented. Currently when a call comes in, both EMS and Fire will typically respond to certain calls as most Fire Depts. have at least Basic Life Support capabilities. If they are both responding from the same building, there is no opportunity for one or the other to arrive significantly faster. They will effectively have nearly identical response times. This affects both the response time as well as the overall effectiveness of inter-agency cooperative response agreements. So a trade-off of sorts must be considered. Does the 40% savings of up front capital costs outweigh the less efficient performance of monies spent for every year after? Additionally, it must also be noted the fire stations are often planned for and located due to issues such as "fire loads" rather than emergency call volumes and therefore may not be placed where an EMS station would be best utilized. Also included in this level are 2 stations that include remote storage for Emergency Management resources and some limited office space. These would be located in the northeast quadrant of the county to provide for a more uniform presence throughout the county as well as serving as a backup for some services in the case of a disaster involving the EOC itself. Lastly, an additional helicopter added to our Medflight program is warranted at a cost of 4 million for the helicopter itself and an additional 3 million for the building and equipment (fueling systems, EMS flight equipment, etc.). Depending on whether the Collier County Sheriffs Office Helicopter was still located at the Naples Airport as it is now, it is possible that Medflight Two could be located with Medflight One as a cost saving measure to prevent having to build another hanger at another location. This combines several equipment costs, but hurts overall response as well as increases the probability of loosing both aircraft in a disaster involving the airport. Level 3 - Premium Finally, while not adding additional units beyond what is called for in the AUIR, the premium EMS service would feature each unit in its own station. These stations would be spaced as evenly as possible while taking into account Fire Stations, population centers, and traffic concerns in order to maximize response effectiveness from every agency. Where density warranted it, some savings could be realized by locating more than a single unit in a station. This is likely to be true in parts of Immokalee as well as some of the larger planned villages. A map of what this premium service might look like is included; however, due to an understandable lack of reliable data from other agencies and depts., it should be taken as only a very rough guide at this point. Additionally, it is assumed that these stations will go up - 53 - gradually as needed and that response time studies could drastically alter their placements to fit real world needs. In this option the second helicopter is located at or near the Immokalee Airport giving us Medflight response capability on opposing sides of the county. Costs (in 2005 dollars, includes land cost) Levell -Status Quo Yearly operating cost for 4 existing Stations = $497,752 Total $497,752 Level 2 - Intermediate 41 Fully Equipped Ambulances = $7,995,000 est. 20 Fully Equipped EMS Stations = $ 36,000,000 est. 19 Co-located Fully Equipped EMS/Fire Stations = $24,700,000 est. 1 Fully Equipped EMS St wi Emergency Mgmt Space = $ 2,000,000 est. 1 Fully Equipped EMS St w/satellite EMS admin/training facility. = $3,800.000 1 Fully Equipped Hanger and Helicopter = $7,000,000 est. Total $81,495,000 est. Level 3 - Premium 41 Fully Equipped Ambulances = $7,995,000 est. 41 Fully Equipped EMS Stations = $ 73,800,000 est. 1 EMS satellite training and administration building wi remote Emergency Mgmt capability = $ 4,000,000 est. 1 Fully Equipped Hanger and Helicopter = $7,000,000 est. Total $92,795,000 est. I I I 1 1 EMS Cost Including Land Cost $100,000,000 $8j~495,OOO $80,000,000; I $60,000.0001 I I $40.000.000.1 i $20.000,0001 I $0 I' Level 1 - Status [ Le~1 2 - I L I 3 P . 1 I ! eve - remlum 'I I ._?uo I Intermediate _ ;":~;i~:~~~;~~~t .,,';."'.~,. .,. - 54- ,- Rou~ placement of EPtI Untts I: BulJdout ,~.~'-.-T , .,.)lI! 8111e slars are eldsli1g links, Red Me proposed IIlIlts, o , . 52 175 ,__.._,--w<~ ,'---' ._".'" .- ?II 0.:; J.?i I 93 -. W' 1144 'j . 3m 143 ..--.''-....--.'-.,----.,-. :16t ,y/ .. ',~ j i, rv \), ,i , "- --~_~AMITllt ,".--. ._-~. f^"U'-M1lltE _..0 -~------~-.._--_.---- -"" &3 ' ') <.\' 'P~erjsshotJd be CIXl1ideredti!/iylpeaJilive duflolinled road, Ianduse, and svei1l:lility infD '~ \ - 55 - !acement on GAC Lan(~- Unit 43 Trade 30 r II, l' "" I I\'IMOKALIE lID Unit 91 Track 10 I:" < z ~ ,oj o z e~ ~ iII- 1'1- ~- tj o~ V..iNDIll.Bn. T BEACH RD ~ Z PINE RIDGI RD lXT t:l ~ tll r.( ~ "'n;r"7i.;E'!N~Jil'tr.1f ..;; Pl 8 Ill, l' "" I' .J ~ ,$<" ."., ,,', Unit 73 Trade 116 1'1 -0- -~- ill -0- -2- -w- e " ".P.1.-",,:j.'.l:~L2:iS'~;H{' Q ll:i 101 101 ~ ~ o ~ ~ Unit 47 Track: 1 R/.W DALL 8 LV 0 .-' Unit 17 Track: 105 =~:. ~ -~- -~- lqTHAVEHE Unit 14 Trade 121 OOLDEt'i GATt BLVD W f II II ~ i- VI J: ~ I Unit 194 T r~k: 85 - 56 - ~""H..wE WE IMMOK.41n RD I Unit 43 Tracie 83 \ \ \ ~ \ t \ CU!I -z e ~~. _ill -~ W Q l 18TH .4.VE WE Unit 73 Track: 33 12THAV E ~ E -,r+- 1()1'H.4.VE~E-1- Unit 73 Track: 103 ~ ~ ~ III ~ -< iol o ~ ~ 101 =+= - C511ier COUn: ~-~~";"-,"';""'..,,,:-~- x. COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Collier County Sheriff's Department Collier East of CR 951 Services & Infrastructure Horizon Study Summary The Collier County Sheriff's Office (CCSO) is dedicated to bringing the best possible law enforcement services to the residents of Collier County. In conjunction with providing law enforcement services, the CCSO is responsible for providing adequate correctional facilities in Collier County. The CCSO task in the East of CR951 study area is consistent with the overall objective of continuing to provide the best law enforcement services possible and maintaining adequate correctional facilities. The CCSO was involved in the stakeholders group from the inception of the study. The LOS for law enforcement services and correctional facilities are set forth with specificity in the 2006 impact fee ordinance for law enforcement and the 2006 impact fee ordinance for correctional facilities. Please note that the most recent AUIR established LOS for law enforcement and correctional facilities. The CCSO minimum LOS standard for Law Enforcement is 2.13 officers (1.96 officers in 1999) per 1000 population. The impact fee calculation and the new derived LOS standard assumed that Collier County's population would double in size between 2005 and 2025. Furthermore, the 2005 impact fee ordinance for law enforcement states the "planned improvements in the Law Enforcement Facilities Master Plan and Capital Improvements Element are fully or partially necessitated by new development." The Law Enforcement Impact Fee Ordinance also states the "the Board and the Collier eounty Sheriff's Office have developed a Law Enforcement Facilities Master Plan, which includes the Law Enforcement facilities to be constructed and provided on a pro rata basis to new development paying the law enforcement impact fee." The Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study indicates that the total capital cost per police officer is $140,258. Included in the total cost calculation are total land costs, total building costs and total equipment costs necessary for each additional officer. The total capital cost per function resident was determined at $298.75. This figure was derived by dividing the Total Capital Cost per Police Officer ($140,258) by the LOS (Officers per 1000 Functional Residents) (2.13 Officers). The study also contains a cost component for capital expansion expenditures. For the purpose of the east of CR951 study the 2005 Law Enforcement Impact Ordinance and associated study are hereby incorporated by reference and provide the rational nexus for the levels of services provided for law enforcement as set forth below. The proposed impact fee for law enforcement to be decided upon by the BCC on May 23, 2006 sets the rate for a single family 1,500 square foot house at $325.86 and the rate for a multi-family structure at $236.38. The 2005 AUIR established that 3.2 beds per 1000 population would be the level of service for correctional facilities. The 2005 Correctional Impact Fee Study has supplemented this methodology for calculating LOS for correctional facilities. The recommended change was the elimination of the "beds per 1000 population" method with a change to building square footage as the objective measure. The "Correctional Impact Fee Study" is incorporated by reference and provides the rational nexus for the levels of service for correctional facilities as set forth - 57- below. The revised impact fee for correctional facilities was approved by the BCC on May 9, 2006 at a rate of 0.1067 per square feet fpr a single family home and 0.058.4 per square feet for a multi-family home Levell - Status Quo Status quo would leave law enforcement capability and correctional facilities as they are today. This is contrary to the County's adopted Impact Fee ordinances for Law Enforcement and Correctional Facilities, and the Law Enforcement and Correctional Impact Fee Studies. The status quo level is clearly unacceptable as the County would not be in compliance with its adopted impact fee ordinances. This level would assume that the degradation in law enforcement services and correctional facilities is acceptable, which would be contrary to providing a substantial and proportionate benefit to all Collier County residents. Level 2 - Intermediate The intermediate level of service could involve a variety of short-term solutions or stop gap measures that are necessary during interim periods of time while the CCSO is in the process of maintaining its premium level of service. It would be disingenuous to provide possible short term scenarios when the overall objective of maintaining the premium level of service for law enforcement and correctional facilities is set forth by impact fee ordinances and incorporated into the AUIR. Level 3 - Premium The only acceptable level of service for law enforcement and correctional facilities in the area east of CR 951 are the levels of service that are established for the entire county by impact fee ordinances and accordingly incorporated into the AUIR. These levels of service are referenced above with the substantiating ordinances and studies incorporated by reference. Levels of service for law enforcement and correctional facilities in the East of CR951 study area must be consistent with the overall objective of continuing to provide the best law enforcement services and correctional facilities that are possible. Based upon the total capital cost per function resident being determined at $298.75, and the estimated population growth of 617,489 above the current estimated 71,000 for the area (688,489 projected for Study area at build-out), the estimated cost of providing the GMP required level of police service to the Study area is an estimated $184,474,839. It should be noted that based upon the proposed Law Enforcement Impact Fee to be decided by the BeC on May 23, 2006, the estimated revenue generated by the increased fees, $64,939,164 would not cover the estimated cost of providing service resulting in a revenue shortfall of $119,535,675. Based upon the 3.2 beds per 1000 population requirement for correctional facilities, the 617,489 new residents projected for the Study area will require an additional 1,976 beds. The cost associated with the 1,976 additional beds, based upon the $52,099 per bed cost associated with the Naples Jail addition, is a total estimated cost of $102,947,624. It should be noted that based upon the Correctional Facilities Impact Fee approved by the BCC on May 9, 2006, the estimated revenue generated by the impact fees, $35,488,068 would not cover the estimated cost of providing service resulting in a revenue shortfall of $67,459,556. It should be noted that the estimated impact fees generated for both Law Enforcement and Correction Facilities were derived from an estimated 123,298 new single family units at 2,000 square feet and 104,752 - 58- new multi-family units at 1,500 square feet, and did not factor potential new commercial and industrial square footage for the area. ,---------. I Law Enforcement and Correctional Facilities Cost Estimates $300,000,0001 $250,000,000 I $200,000,0001 $150,000,000 $100,000,000 I I $50,000,000i $0.1 Law Enforcement Correctional Total Facilities $100,427,232 estimated generated from impact fees *Law Enforcement wlill have an estimated $119,535,675 revenue shortfall *CorrectionaR Facilities will have an estimated $67,459,556 revenue shortfall - 59- XI. CHAPTER 189 DISTRICTS Chapter 189 Districts Collier East of CR 951 Services & Infrastructure Horizon Study Summary In 2003, the BCC adopted Resolution 2003-380 that led to the enactment of a legislative bill creating an Independent Special District (under Chapter 189, F.S.) known as the "Big Cypress Stewardship District." Likewise, the BCC adopted Resolution 2003-381 that led to the enactment of a legislative bill creating an Independent Special District known as the "Ave Maria Stewardship Community District." In both instances, the creation of these districts cited an express purpose of "providing public infrastructure and services within the RLSA and Overlay for the development of anticipated rural villages, towns and hamlets." In addition, both 189 districts were created with the express purpose of providing a public financing mechanism for public infrastructure and services without competing with other eounty providers in a portion of the currently undeveloped RLSA and Overlay. However, the creation of each district did not include provisions that addressed the integration with existing, proposed or potential Collier County public infrastructure and services. It would appear that in many instances Collier County's public infrastructure and services will be inextricably intertwined with both the Big Cypress Stewardship District and the Ave Maria Stewardship Community District. For example, it would appear that countywide transportation improvements should be coordinated with each 189 district to maximize the efficiency of the countywide transportation network. Likewise, coordination with the county's Public Utilities Division, Fire Districts, the Sheriff's Department, Parks and Recreation Department, Library Department, EMS, other county departments, and state and federal agencies will be necessary to avoid duplication of services and maximize economies of scale of services provided by eollier County. Preliminary discussions with representatives of the 189 districts have occurred with various county divisions/departments and as a part of the East of CR951 stakeholders group. All parties recognize the necessity to coordinate Chapter 189 district public infrastructure and services with Collier County and other government agency public infrastructure and services. One of the main impediments that could affect coordination is the timing of respective infrastructure and services that will be provided by the 189 districts, eollier County and other government agencies. Although timing of public infrastructure and services would appear to be a possible impediment to proper coordination at this point in time, it is in the best interest of all affected parties to coordinate infrastructure and services to maximize economies of scale in terms of the cost/benefit ratio for all taxing entities. The Chapter 189 District Analysis is broken down into three possible levels of services as follows: - 60- Levell - Status Quo No coordination beyond the existing developer contribution agreements and interlocal agreements previously entered into between the Chapter 189 Districts and Collier County. Level 2 - Intermediate There are numerous intermediate scenarios that could exist with respect to coordinating Chapter 189 District public infrastructure and services with Collier County and other government agency public infrastructure and services. At a minimum, coordination and interlocal agreements (where applicable) should be entered into with Collier County's Transportation Division, the appropriate fire district and the eollier County Sheriff's Department. Level 3 - Premium Maximum coordination will occur between representatives of the Chaper189 Districts, Collier County and other government agencies to maximize economies of scale related to all public infrastructure and services. Interlocal agreements related to public infrastructure and services will be entered into that will accrue to the benefit of all of Collier County. Developer Contribution Agreements will be considered when it is in the best interest of all affected parties. - 61 - XII. Summary of Estimated Cost For each of the identified service or infrastructure providing departments identified within the Horizon study, estimates of cost of providing their respective service at the various levels have been attempted. Below is a summary of the estimated cost for the various levels of service identified. It should be noted that these are estimates based upon population projections and development trends and should not be construed as absolutes. Transportation Public Utilities Potable Water Wastewater Libraries Schools* Parks & Recreation Emergency Services EMS, Med Flight & Emergency Managment Law Enforcement Correctional Facilities Total * Estimate excludes land cost 1-- i $10,000,000,000i , I $8,000,000,0001 I i $6,000,000,000 I $4,000,000,0001 $2,000,000, 000 Ii $0 Status Quo $2,500,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $57,027,000 $1,044,000,000 $101,000,000 $497.752 $184,474,839 Intermediate $3,490,000,000 $145,573,000 $50,330,000 $95,243,000 $77,596,000 $1,044,000,000 $37] ,400,000 Premium $3,940,000,000 $2,454,080,000 $909,360,000 $1,544,720,000 $99,086,000 $1,044,000,000 $755,200,000 $81,495,000 $184,474,839 $92. 795 ,fV\() $184,474,b~ $102,947,624 $]02,947,624 $102,947,624 Status Quo Intermediate Premium $3,~89 ,947 ,215 $5,497,486,463 $8,672,583,463 Total Cost Summary $3,989,947,215 r' , . ! ...~. . _.~:_. ,f.:i ~~~k'</~:("i;: ' -- --~ --.'-.---, l!~,672,583,463 Intermediate Premium ',I ';~i~;'-'/":"'~i"'l"~~'>f"f"'.,':r.-/ r;., Status Quo - 62- XIII. LAND USE IMPLICATIONS Collier East of CR 951 Services & Infrastructure Horizon Study Summary At the inception of the East of CR951 Study, the BCC issued a policy directive that the study would not include a land use component. The intent behind the directive was that future land use changes should not be the impetus behind analyzing infrastructure needs in the area east of CR951. Although this intent is fundamentally sound in concept, generally accepted planning practices and principles recognize the need to link land use planning with transportation planning and other infrastructure needs. The County's Transportation and Public Utilities Division's recognized this necessity when trying to project future infrastructure needs for roads, potable water and sanitary sewer. More specifically, the Transportation Division opined "it is incumbent upon the Transportation Division to model land use scenario's that may be possible to reduce the demand on the entire countywide roadway network, and therefore lead to a reduction in the overall number of additional new lane miles." Likewise, the Public Utilities Division opined "without a portrayal of the Land Uses in the areas to the East, it is not possible for Public Utilities to speculate on the cost to serve in the outlying areas." Both Divisions have provided detailed outlays for each level of service identified within the preliminary report, but recognize the limitations inherent to the projections due to the absence of a land use component. Furthermore, discussion among county staff and other stakeholders identified the need for additional commercial, office and industrial land uses in the study area. The identification of the need to link future land use with infrastructure needs warrants revisiting the original policy directive that the East of CR951 Study not include a land use component. A recently completed Industrial needs analysis "Exhibit C" provided to the Collier County Economic Development Council (EDC) by Russ Weyer of Fishkind and Associates, indicates that based upon conservative population projections that an additional 3,685 acres of industrial zoned land will be needed to satisfy the workforce demands by 2030. Bob Mulhere of RW A, Inc., Bruce Tyson of WilsonMiller, Inc., and Brian Goguan of Barren Collier, Inc., also contributed to the Industrial needs analysis. Whether the exact number of acreage needed is 3,685 acres or another number, the reality is that additional industrial acreage is needed based upon the expected population growth and the percentage of the workforce employed within industries specific to industrial zoning. With a majority of the County's future population growth projected for the Study area, it should be expected that a majority of the necessary new industrial acreage would be located within the Study area. However, the establishment of industrial land use and zoning districts are often fraught with concerns and therefore the creation of future industrial land use and zoning districts are normally subject to public policy decisions of the governing political entity. It should be noted that the Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) application for the Town of Ave Maria, the first within the RLSA, allocated zero acres to industrial of warehouse use. This absence of industrial acreage allocation could have significant implications upon the structural basis of the County's future economic mix, as well as potential detrimental impacts upon the transportation networks if construction/landscaping/maintenance facilities are displaced from the residencies they serve. - 63 - A future land use modeling component to the Study is essential to coordinating the planning, placement and cost associated with the infrastructure required to accommodate the County's future industrial needs, in addition to the commercial and institutional needs of the Study area. In furtherance of the possibility of including a land use component, future land use has been addressed in conformity with the three levels set forth in the other areas of the study. Levell - Status Quo Pursuant to prior BeC policy directive, the Study would be undertaken without a land use component. The public participation portion of the Study would be a presentation of the cost identified within this preliminary report of each identified level of service to determine the public's preferences in relation to their costs. This level would allow for a limited utilization of mapping to be integrated with the public participation phase; with infrastructure cost options being the primary data presented to the public. The Level of Service Menus are contained within this preliminary report beginning on page 69 and provide an example of the level of service options which would be presented during Phase II. Level 2 - Intermediate A cursory review of existing land use patterns will be undertaken. The purpose of the review will not involve an analysis of spatial land use needs in the study area. Instead, the primary focus of the analysis will be to identify potential commercial, office, industrial and civic/institutional square footage needs without any detailed location analysis. This exercise will be similar to the Industrial needs analysis recently completed for the Economic Development Council (EDe), in that for each subset of need, such as office, commercial and civic/institutional will be projected based upon population growth with no spatial allocation preformed within the projections. This intermediate level would allow for a more comprehensive description of future conditions of the area to be presented to the public, with an expanded utilization of mapping to be integrated with the public participation phase. The intermediate level would project infrastructure cost options tied to fixed mapping being the primary data presented to the public. Level 3 - Premium A Land Use model will be developed for the entire study area. This analysis will include the inventory of all existing land uses in the study area, an analysis of the need for additional commercial, office, industrial, institutional and other appropriate land uses in the study area, as well as the GMP regulatory environment of the subdistrict within the Study area and the sitting of specific land uses which are warranted based on the need to service existing and future development currently permitted by the County's Future Land Use Map/Element. This level would allow for the most comprehensive description of future conditions of the area to be presented to the public and the greatest utilization of mapping to be integrated with the public participation phase. This level would provide infrastructure cost options integrated with flexible mapping to be the primary data presented to the public. Additionally, staff believes that this growth model would serve beyond the scope of the Horizon study and stand as a tool; to the infrastructure and service providers as they continue refine their long range plans for the Study area, and to the Board of County Commissioners as you assess the byproduct of the - 64- regulatory framework of the Study area and identify deficiencies, such as lack of industrial allocation in shaping future policy decisi~m.s. Specifically, Staff has identified the @/nteractive Growth ModezTM, a population and growth modeling methodology developed by the planning consulting firm of Van Buskirk, Ryffel & Associates (VBRA), based in southwest Florida, as a land use modeling tool which could accommodate the unique circumstances presented by the divergent subdistricts of the Study area. Its population-based modeling program combines a highly specialized forecast-to-build- out method with various modeling components (publk services and commercial/industrial uses especially) to spatially distribute future land uses and allocate spending. This combination of applied mathematical capabilities and allocation modeling makes this product unique with the combination of Excel and ArcView able to produce maps easily understood by the public. Additionally, the consultants create a model which is unique to each of its customers. For example, the Cape Coral /GM is different from the Lehigh Acres /GM. The Collier County model would be different from theirs. Because the growth model is truly interactive, it becomes more unique in use to each jurisdiction over time. It is responsive to changing conditions such as local and regional expansions and contractions. Plus, it can be used to demonstrate various "What If' scenarios of alternative growth management policies and decisions. The /GM incorporates factors drawn from the very elements comprising the Collier County Growth Management Plan - particularly those found in the Future Land Use Element, the Capital Improvement Element, and the Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR). Typical inputs to the model include the comprehensive plan, current land use and zoning, the future land use map, parks master plan, transportation and utilities master plans, schools, GIS information and census data. In all, some 50 variables are considered with the results displayed in graphic and tabular formats. The model projects when certain public facilities should be provided - including transportation improvements, fire and EMS stations, water and sewer plants, and so forth - and where they should be located. The model also ranks as an invaluable budgeting tool, as spending is anticipated for these public facilities at the pace development occurs - concurrent with market fluctuations. This real time ability to change planning scenarios to affect budgeting decisions, and to change spending scenarios to affect planning decisions, are features that would provide beneficial to the Horizon study as it progresses to the public participation stage. - 65- XIV. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - . Collier East of CR 951 Services & Infrastructure Horizon Study Summary The East of CR951 Study is based on broad planning practices and principles with an expressed purpose of allowing property owners in the study area to take advantage of the planning process while envisioning its future and turning that vision into reality. In furtherance of the visioning process, property owners will be encouraged to provide exhaustive public input with respect to all possible public, quasi-public and private infrastructure and services alternati ves/scenarios. The demographics in the study area is comprised primarily of individuals within the Estates subdistrict and the Immokalee Urbanized area. The Estates, the larger of the two in terms of area and population, is characterized as a diverse and dynamic population growing at a rate far exceeding growth rates in other parts of Collier County. There is a direct relationship between growth and demand for infrastructure and public services. However, the types of infrastructure and levels of service that property owners in the study area will demand has yet to be determined. Therefore, infrastructure and public services alternatives have been developed as talking points for property owners. The cost component will be presented to property owners as a factor in their consideration of the desired levels of service. Public presentations will be coordinated through Collier County's Communication and Customer Relations Department with support from appropriate county divisions and departments, other governmental agencies providing level of service alternatives and Chapter 189 districts that have a direct impact on the study area. Notice of these presentations as well as pertinent background information will be communicated through property owners associations, press releases and Channel 11 features and bulletins. Numerous public presentations and open forums will transpire with the express intent of providing property owners and residents an opportunity to understand the infrastructure and public services alternatives that are possible in the study area. Property owners and residents will be provided numerous opportunities to offer critiques and support for those alternatives. The diverse population in the study area will require the translation of documents into Spanish and Creole. Furthermore, public presentations will require on-site translation into Spanish and Creole. Verbal comments will be recorded and transcribed to verify the validity of the desires of property owners and residents. Written comments will also be solicited at each public presentation and property owners and residents will be provided with written contact information for Comprehensive Planning Department staff as the means to forward subsequent written comments. The East of CR951 study is the mechanism to help property owners and residents determine what infrastructure and public services will be either desired or warranted in the study area. Property owners in the study area will have a special role. The study envisions a polling process to determine the infrastructure and public services preferences in the study area. Furthermore, the polling process will contain cost provisions that will allow property owners to make informed decisions. The polling process will take place prior to the drafting of the final East of CR 951 report. - 66- xv. BCC POLICY DIRECTION-AND ISSUES Continue to Phase II: The identification of needs and concerns of owners and residents should occur as early as possible in the long range planning process. Optimally, a variety of community forums and venues should be used to obtain the perspectives of owners and residents. A successful planning process is dependent on transforming community ideals into community action. The Estates subdistrict comprises the area with the largest percentage of existing residents within the Study Area. The Immokalee subdistrict contains the other statically significant population base within the Study area. Both of these areas have been through recently, or are in the process of completing, an overhaul to the master plans for the respective areas. In 2003, the County, through the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Community Audit Research Report captured the opinions of a percentage of the Golden Gate Estates residents. While this input included some participants west of CR951, a majority of the respondents lived within the Study area. The Community Audit Research Report revealed diverse opinions and choices of preferences for the future of the area, but it did not correspond those preferences and choices to the cost associated with each. The Immokalee area, through the Immokalee Area Master Plan Visioning eomrnittee, is presently gathering data, holding meetings and workshops, and reviewing development regulations to address potential changes related to the area. As noted, both of these areas have been through recently, or are in the process of completing, an overhaul to the master plans for the respective areas. What is unique about the upcoming public participation phase is that cost estimates will be associated with the options presented to the public to provide for a more detailed understanding of the options presented, not only in relation to the subdistrict, but in the context of the overall Study area. Upon consideration of the many factors involved in the process, the BCC should determine whether it is desirable to move beyond the preliminary aspects of the Study, and poll the community with respect to various infrastructure and public services. The BCC may wish to identify specific types of infrastructure or services where such polling is suitable. The final product of the Study will be a report to the BCC indicating community preferences on these items. Land Use Aspects: One foundation for this Study to date has been an analysis based solely on current zoning and land use patterns. Preliminary comments from the Public Utilities Division as well as the Transportation Division have suggested that it is virtually impossible to provide accurate needs assessments and financially feasible alternatives without a land use component in the Study. Section XII of the preliminary report assessed three levels upon the question of incorporating a land use study to this Horizon Study, staff is seeking direction from the BCC as to which of the three options concerning the land use component should be pursued? Level One - No Land Use Study. Level Two - A study to identify potential land use short-falls without spatial allocation of land uses. Level Three - Development of the Inter-Active Growth Model for the Study area. - 67 - Outsourcing: Although preliminary and future information pertaining to infrastructure and public services has and will be provided by County staff, the fundamental question is whether an independent consultant facilitating the public participation phase would best serve the interests of property owners, residents and the County. Past experiences with Naples Park and Vanderbilt Beach community planning initiatives suggest that an independent assessment of the study area would validate findings of fact and remove the perception that County officials or staff overly influence the outcome. County staff would in any case will provide a role in providing information and analysis. The BCC should provide policy direction as to the level of involvement by staff in the Phase II process. The question of outsourcing is intertwined with the BCC's decision upon the land use component to the Study as both consultant driven processes could be undertaken simultaneously. Is the BCC's direction for the County to retain an outside consultant to facilitate the public participation phase? Level of Service As detailed within the initial portion of this preliminary report, the Study area is comprised of various and distinct subdistricts; Golden Gate Estates north of 1-75, the Rural Fringe, the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, the Immokalee Urbanized Area, the South Golden Gate Estates Natural Resources Protection Area (NRP A) and Federal and State Lands. The Golden Gate Estates north of I-75, the Rural Fringe, the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, the Immokalee Urbanized Area are the areas which are programmed to accommodate the majority of the future population within the Study area. Of the four areas, only the Estates subdistrict will grow through individual building permits. Developments within the other three areas will primarily transpire through the submission of Planned Unit Developments (PUD), rezones, SRA's and SDP's which will attempt to concentrate the spatial arrangement of development in an efficient manner to promote an urbanized level of service for the future residents. The Estates, being a large lot pre-platted community of over forty years in existence, does not promote such efficiency. Within the Level of Service menus created for the public participation phase, a number of service providers did not provide an option below the required AUIR or GMP level of service. As noted, the spatial arrangement of the pre-platted lots within the Estates creates a situation that is cost prohibitive to provide the area with urbanized services. Staff is seeking direction from the BCC to determine if level of services for the Estates below the accepted AUIR or GMP Urban level of service is acceptable. During the public participation phase if the options presented did not fit what certain individuals envisioned for the future of the area, the sense of a true choice could not be accomplished. The level of service menu created for Public Utilities for the extension of potable water and wastewater contains this no change or do nothing option. This option, if directed by the BCe could be included to all level of service menus. Staff recognizes that this no change option may be unsustainable, but does recognize it may be the opinion of a number of residents with the area. Below is a sample of the level of service menus based upon the Study's infrastructure options. - 68 - XVI. LEVEL OF SERVICE MENUS Public Utilities - Potable Water = Please select only one option Status Quo: No expansion of potable water to Estates District East of CR951 Additional users continue to draw upon the aquifer and influence the groundwater with individual septic fields, the long term viability of this option is called into question. Total Cost: $0 Check if Desired Intermediate: Expansion of potable water to 5 section project area of Estates District within Study area !, Vanderbilt Beach Road ;1; Total Cost: $50,330,000- Cost per Parcel = $37,000 Additional revenue required through increase in Impact Fees, Ad Valorum tax, or other means such as Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) Check if Desired - 69- Premium: Expansion of potable water to all of Estates District east of CR951 . ~:I ,~ 2B 2' Vanderbilt Beach Road ", ----------. u' U" Total Cost: $909,360,000- Cost per Parcel = $41,485 Additional revenue required through increase in Impact Fees, Ad Valorum tax, or other means such as Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) Check if Desired -70 - Public Utilities - W astewater ~ Please select only one option Status Quo: No expansion of wastewater to Estates District East of CR951 Additional users continue to draw upon the aquifer and influence the groundwater with individual septic fields, the long term viability of this option is called into doubt. Total Cost: $0 Check if Desired Intermediate: Expansion of wastewater to 5 section project area of Estates District within Study area Vanderbilt Beach Road )~ J.f. .il 1)3. Li4 n :./~ "" 175/CR9511nte,,,,,tion ~.. j 'n; .'!~ ;1 .'4' Total Cost:$95,243,OOO- Cost per Parcel = $70,000 Additional revenue required through increase in Impact Fees, Ad Valorum tax, or other means such as Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) Check if Desired - 71 - Premium: Expansion of wastewater to all of Estates District east of CR951 Vanderbilt Beach Road -i ------------ - -1 ;;''5 29 17 ", .:!..'. ., " - J~ cr." 17 5/CR95l Intersection Total Cost: $1,544,720,000- Cost per Parcel = $70,471 Additional revenue required through increase in Impact Fees, Ad Valorum tax, or other means such as Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) Check if Desired - 72 - Parks and Recreation - Please select only one option Status Quo: This level involves: d) cooperative improvement of school sites e) improvement of undeveloped community park land in inventory f) improvement of undeveloped regional park land in inventory Project: Unit Cost Total a) Cooperative development of 8 school sites b) Development of 1 community park c) Development of 2 regional parks $750,000 $6,000,000 $15,000,000 $15,000,000 $40,000,000 $80.000.000 TOTAL $101,000,000 The resulting additions to the developed inventory are: 8 school sites, 1 community park, 2 regional parks Check if Desired Intermediate: (Rural) This level involves: f) cooperative improvement of school sites g) improvement of undeveloped community park land in inventory h) improvement of undeveloped regional park land in inventory i) purchase and development of community park land at a rural level of service j) purchase and development of regional park land at a rural level of service The rural level of service standards will be approximately 2/3 of the current adopted standards: @ $750,000 @$15,000,000 @$40,000,000 @$200,000 @$15,000,000 @$200,000 @ $40.000,000 $6,000,000 $15,000,000 $80,000,000 $53,000.000 $45,000,000 $92,400,000 $80.000.000 The resulting additions to the developed inventory are: 8 school sites, 4 community parks, 4 regional parks Check if Desired 20 Orange tree Park and Kaufmann (Vanderbilt Ext.) property 21 At .75 per 1000516 acres are needed. Credit is given for 171 acres in inventory and 80 acres to be available through school sites. 22 At 2 per 1000 1377 acres are needed. Credit is given for 212 acres in inventory and 703 acres to be acquired through cooperative agreements. - 73 - Level 3- Premium (Urban) This level involves: f) cooperative improvement of school sites g) improvement of undeveloped community park land in inventory h) improvement of undeveloped regional park land in inventory i) purchase and development of community parkland at the adopted level of service j) purchase and development of regional park land at the adopted level of service The adopted level of service standards are: 1.2882 acres per 1000 population LOSS for community park land 2.9412 acres per 1000 population LOSS for regional park land @ $750,000 @ $15,000,000 @ $40,000,000 @ $200,000 @ $15,000,000 @ $200,000 @ $40,000,000 TOTAL $6,000,000 $15,000,000 $80,000,000 $127,200.000 $105,000,000 $222,000,000 $200,000,000 $755,200,000 Additional revenue may be required through increase in Impact Fees, Ad Valorum tax, or other means such as Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) The resulting additions to the developed inventory are: 8 school sites, 8 community parks, 7 regional parks Check if Desired 23 Manatee Community Park 24 Orangetree Park and Kaufmann (Vanderbilt Ext.) property 25 At 1.2882 per 1000887 acres are needed. Credit is given for 171 acres in inventory and 80 acres to be available through school sites. 26 At 2.9412 per 10002025 acres are needed. Credit is given for 212 acres in inventory and 703 acres to be acquired through cooperative agreements. -74 - Libraries - Please select only one option Status Quo: 1.75 books per capita and .20 square feet per capita Planned facilities are: the South Regional Library; the Golden Gate expansion; and the meeting room addition to Marco Island Projected facilities are: Orange Tree and Fiddlers' Creek Total Cost: $$57,027,000 Check if Desired Intermediate: 1.75 books per capita and .27 square feet per This level assumes no increase of books per capita and the above libraries are carried forward with the following additions built: Immokalee - 5,000 square feet Estates Branch - 10,000 square feet Everglades City - 2,000 square feet South Regional- 30,000 square feet Orange Tree - 20,000 square feet Total Cost:$$ $77,596,000 - Additional revenue required through increase in Impact Fees, Ad Valorum tax, or other means such as Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) = $ $20,569,000 Check if Desired Premium: 1.75 books per capita and .33 square feet per capita. Service at this level assumes no increase of books per capita and the above libraries are carried forward with following additions or new facilities are built: Immokalee - 10,000 square feet Big Cypress - 30,000 square feet Orange Tree - 20,000 square feet Fiddlers' Creek - 10,000 square feet Check if Desired Total Cost:$$ $99,086,000 - Additional revenue required through increase in Impact Fees, Ad Valorum tax, or other means such as Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) = $ $42,059,000 - 75 _. Emergency Medical Services - Please select only one option Status Quo: No additional facilities planned to service the projected population, yearly operating cost of 4 existing stations Total Cost: $497,752 Check if Desired Intermediate: Satisfies GMP requirement with 45 units provided, but decreases potential response time with 19 Co-located facilities. . 41 Fully Equipped Ambulances = $7,995,000 est. . 20 Fully Equipped EMS Stations = $ 36,000,000 est. . 19 Co-located Fully Equipped EMS/Fire Stations = $24,700,000 est. . 1 Fully Equipped EMS St wi Emergency Mgmt Space = $ 2,000,000 est. . 1 Fully Equipped EMS St w/satellite EMS admin/training facility. = $3,800.000 . 1 Fully Equipped Hanger and Helicopter = $7,000,000 est. Total Cost: $81,495,000 - Additional revenue may be required through Check if increase in Impact Fees, Ad Valorum tax, or other means such as Munici Desired Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) to satisfy cost Premium: Satisfies GMP requirement with 45 units provided with greatest level of response time due to each unit in an independent station. . 41 Fully Equipped Ambulances = $7,995,000 est. · 41 Fully Equipped EMS Stations = $ 73,800,000 est. · 1 EMS satellite training and administration building wi remote Emergency Mgmt capability = $ 4,000,000 est. . 1 Fully Equipped Hanger and Helicopter = $7,000,000 est. Total Cost: $92,795,000 - Additional revenue may be required through increase in Impact Fees, Ad Valorum tax, or other means such as Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) = $11,300,000 Check if Desired - 76- Exhibit A 2005 Build-Out Study preliminary findings preliminary findings 2005 RESIDENUAL BUILP-OUT STIIDY The 2005 Residential Build-out Study entails an analysis of undeveloped lands to determine likely future residential development, combined with existing residential development, to project the total number of dwelling units and resulting permanent population. This Study reflects one plausible development scenario, one that neither reflects the maximum development potential nor the minimum development potential. There are an infinite number of possible scenarios due to the many variables involved and, therefore, a degree of conjecture is inherent inihis type of analysis. The variables include future occupancylvacancy rates; future persons per household ratios; the type and density/intensity of future development requests and approvals; and possible future regulatory changes. Projections of future development location, type and densitylintensity are made for general planning purposes; as such, these projections should NOT be relied upon as creating an absolute expectation of future development approvals. This Study is a planning tool, not a blueprint or vision for future development order approvals by the BCC. Due to the numerous variables involved in this build-out analysis, the data in this Study should not be used to predict dwelling unit or popufation totals at the level of individual Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs); rather, the more TAZs that are aggregated, the greater the confidence in the resulting projections. This is especially true for sparsely developed areas of the county where there is little, if any, established development pattern The objective of this Build-out Study is to project what the dwelling unit and population counts will be, and their distribution, at build-out; it is not to predict when build-out will occur. However, if the countywide annual average growth rate since 2000 (5.05%) were to remain steady into the future, build-out could occur as soon as 2026. Staff does not anticipate that build-out will be achieved in about twenty years, for three reasons: 1) past experience has shown that the growth rate will vary over time, especially during cyclical economic downturns (think of the early 1990's - Collier County's growth slowed down, albeit not as significantly as most other parts of the country); 2) different areas of the county experience different growth rates; and, 3) as build-out is approached, the growth rate will decline significantly. Additionally, the latest population projections prepared by the Comprehensive Planning Department {in 2004} project the countywide permanent population in 2030 at 739,700. Attached is a spreadsheet depicting the projected dwelling units and population at build- out for the entire county and various sub-parts. A few observations: 1) The area lying east of Collier Boulevard, mostly rural lands and the semi-rural Golden Gate Estates, is projected to contain the majority of the county's population (almost 55%) at build-out. 2) The Immokalee urban area has a significant growth potential. Much of the Immokalee urban area is comprised of undeveloped land or land in agricultural uses, not unlike the coastal urban area 30 or so years ago. 3) Not surprisingly, the percentage of the county's population within the incorporated areas will continue to diminish in size (about 7% at build-out, barring significant annexations or incorporation of new cities). Methodoloav The Collier MPO, Metropolitan Planning Organization, adopted its version of the 2000 Census Traffic Analysis Zones in 2004. The MPO consultant produced a TAZ map with I preliminary findings preliminary findings accompanying dwelling unit and populs-tion data, the foundation of whi~h is the 2000 Census. Graphics and Comprehensive Planning staff then split many of MPO's T AZs into sub- TAZs (so as to allow for the annual compilation of data by various geographies, e.g. Planning Communities, as required by the Future Land Use Element and the Inter- local Agreement with the Collier County School Board). This resulted in year 2000 dwelling unit and population counts by TAZ. This also allowed staff to derive the ratio of persons per total dwelling unit (PPTDU) by TAZ - simply divide the population of each TAZ by the number of dwelling units in that TAZ. For each TAZ in which there were no dwelling units or population, staff assigned a PPTDU-ratio from a comparable TAZ. Next, Comprehensive Planning staff manually reviewed all residential building permits from 2000-2004 (roughly 15,000 permits) for which a Certificate of Occupancy was issued so as to identify the 2000 TAZ location of each dwelling unit(s). These dwelling units were added to the 2000 data to derive a 2004 dwelling unit count by 2000 T AZ. Using the PPTDU ratios, staff calculated the population for 2000-2004 by TAZ, then added that to the 2000 figures to derive the 2004 population by 2000 T AZ. This 2004 data is the base year data for the Build-out Study. Staff then reviewed each T AZ to determine the number of approved but un-built dwelling units, using Property Appraiser aerials, parcel data, and assessment maps; zoning maps; and, the February 2005 PUD list For urban-designated properties containing "unzoned" land - typically zoned A, Rural Agriculture, staff predicted the number of dwelling units, if any, that might be approved via a rezoning, based upon the assumptions noted below. For properties in the Rural area, staff predicted the number of dwelling units that might be built, also using the assumptions noted below. Staff did not re-analyze the Immokalee community, the City of Naples, or the City of Marco Island. Instead, staff relied upon the build-out figures from: the 1991 Immokalee Area Master Plan for Immokalee, Phase I of the Urban Area Build-out Study (1994) for Naples, and the 1997 update to the 1994 Build-out Study for Marco Island. Assumptions In preparing this Build-out Study, several assumptions were made for various areas of the County, as stated below. Coastal Urban area 1. Assume EAR-based Growth Management Plan amendments will be approved to eliminate some density bonuses within the Density Rating System, and to limit density to a maximum of 4 DU/A in the Coa~al High Hazard Area. As a result, all properties to which the Density Rating System is applicable and for which a future rezoning is assumed, assign a density of 3 or 4 DUlA - no utilization of density bonuses is assumed. 2. In the Urban Residential Fringe, assume density capped at 1.5 DU/A; that is, assume no Transfer of Development Rights from the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. 3. For most properties for which a future rezoning is assumed, and for PUDs where the dwelling unit type is unspecified, assume 50% will be single family and 50% will be multi-family. 4. Assume PUDs will develop at their maximum approved density (with only one exception). 5. Assume properties designated to allow commercial zoning will be rezoned to commercial, not residential. 2 preliminary findings preliminary findings Golden Gate Estates 1. For all parcels large enough to be subdivided, e.g. 5-acre tract, assume 75% will subdivide. 2. Assume properties designated to allow commercial zoning will be rezoned to commercial, not residential. Rural Frinae Mixed Use District (RFMUD) 1. Assume four Rural Villages will be developed, the maximum allowed. 2. Assume the Rural Village to develop in the Receiving area on the south side of Immokalee Road and west of Wilson Blvd. will be the minimum size allowed, 300 acres. 3. Assume the Rural Village to develop in the Receiving area on the east side of Immokalee Road and north of Golden Gate Estates will be the median size allowed, 900 acres (the mid point between the minimum of 300 acres and maximum of 1500 acres). 4. Assume the Rural Village to develop in the Receiving area in North Belle Meade will be the median size allowed, 900 acres. 5. Assume the Rural Village to develop in the Receiving area on the north side of US- 41 East will be the median size allowed, 1400 acres (the mid point between the minimum of 300 acres and maximum of 2500 acres). 6. Assume all Rural Villages will be developed at the median density allowed, 2.5 DU/A (mid point between the minimum of 2 OU/A and maximum of 3 OU/A). 7. Assume the dwelling unit mix in each Rural Village will be 50% single family and 50% multi-family. 8. Assume the pending Growth Management Plan amendment (CP-2004-4) will be approved to create additional TDR bonuses. ' 9. Assume the pending Growth Management Plan amendment (CP-2004-2) will be approved to re-designate 232 acres from Neutral Lands to Sending Lands and Receiving Lands, located south of Immokalee Road and west of Wilson Blvd. Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) 1. Stewardship Sendina Area (SSA) Credit Assumptions: a. Assume 95% of Flow-way Stewardship Areas (FSAs), Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), Water Retention Areas (WRAs), and Rezones will become SSAs. b. Credit calculations are based on mean values for each stewardship type. c. Credit calculations are based on layers removed to Ag 2 (on average). d. Restoration Credits for designation (R1) will encompass 75% of land area. e. Restoration Credits for completion (R2) will encompass 50% of land area. The above entitles 56,365 acres of Stewardship Receiving Area, approximately 76% of "open area" (20% In Area of Critical State Concern - ACSC). 2. Stewardship Receivine Area (SRA) Assumptions: a. Assume Towns, Villages, Hamlets and Compact Rural Developments (CROs) will develop at 3000, 700, 80 and 80 acres, respectively. 3 preliminary findings preliminary findings b. Assume Towns, Villages, HamlEtls.and CROs will develop at densIties of 3, 3, 1.5 and 1.5 DU/A. c. Assume the mix of SRA type by acreage will be 50% Town or Village, and 50% Hamlet or CRD. d. Assume a total of 5 Towns and 16 Villages. e. Assume the dwelling unit mix will be 50% single family and 50% multi-family. 3. Development outside SRAs: a. For "Open lands" outside of the ACSC, assume: 12% Agriculture and 12% Baseline development. b. For "Open lands" within the ACSC, assume 40% Agriculture and 40% Baseline Development. Assume no baseline development inside Flow-way Stewardship Areas, Habitat Stewardship Areas, or Water Retention Areas. RLSA BUILD-OUT SUMMARY SHEET Open Areas (not within ACSC): Ave Maria 4 Towns 16 Villages Hamlets/CRD Baseline Agriculture Subtotal Acres DU~ 4,995 11 ,000 12,000 36,000 11 ,200 33,600 26,115 39,173 8,259 1,652 8.259 70,828 121,425 Open Areas (ACSC): Village 500 (2) Village 300 (5) Hamlet/CRD (10) Baseline Agriculture Subtotal TOTAL RLSA 1,000 1,500 1,000 6,765 6,765 17.030 87,858 3,000 4,500 1,500 1,353 10,353 131,778 2005 Residential Build-out Study G, Comp, David, 2005 RO. Study dw/March 2005 4 summary by area Estimated Buildout Area Total Dwelling Units Totdl Population Naples 27,252 40,971 Marco Island 18,271 41,004 Everglades City 550 744 Incorporated Sum 46,073 82,719 Immokalee 38,798 104,483 Coastal Urban area 246,368 426,064 RLSA-Rural Lands Stewardship Area 132,283 389,193 RFMUD-Rural Fringe Mixed Use District 19,433 57,644 GGE East of CR-951 & Rural Settlement Area 27,607 81,517 GGE West of CR-951 3,430 9,865 All of GGE & Rural Settlement Area 31,037 91,382 East of CRlSR 951 (Collier Blvd.) 213,754 688,489 IUnincorporated Area 424,425 I 983,701 I I COUNTYWIDE 470;498 I 1,066,420 , NOTES: GGE = Golden Gate Estates. Naples figures per 1994 Urban Area Buildout Study, Phase I. Marco Island figures per 1996 Marco Island Master Plan, Immokalee figures per 1991 Immokalee Area Master Plan. East of CRlSR 951 excludes lmmokalee. Coastal UrbBll area: from Gulf of Mexico east to approximately 1 mile east ofCoillier Blvd.; from Lee County line south to Gulf of Mexico. The above areas are such that, with the exception of the unincoporated/incorporated areas, no combination will equal the countywide sum. Prepared by Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department, March 2005. 2005 Build-<:>ut Study - TAZs and areas,xls G, Camp, Buildout Study 2005 dwlMarch 2005 WORKING DRAFT summary by area detailed WORKING DRAFT EstimClted Builclnut Dwelling Est 1111 dtL'd Bull (lOll I Popula lion UllIts SF MF Total Area SFDU MFDU Total DUs PODuliJtio PoouliJt PoouliJtio Naples 9,059 18,193 27,252 14,762 26,209 40,971 Marco Island 8,655 9,616 18,271 19,560 21,444 41,004 Everglades City 139 411 550 334 409 744 Incorporated Sum 17,853 28,220 46,073 34,656 48,062 82,719 Immokalee 19,040 19,758 38,798 57,959 46,524 104,483 Coastal Urban area 97,219 148,799 246,368 217,633 208,431 426,064 RLSA-Rural Lands Stewardship Area 66,403 65,879 132,283 220,772 168,421 389,193 RFMUD-Rural Fringe Mixed Use District 12,702 6,731 19,433 41,085 16,559 57,644 GGE East of CR-951 & Rural Settlement Area 25,496 2,111 27,607 77 ,326 4,191 81,517 GGE West of CR-951 3,097 333 3,430 9,158 707 9,865 All of GGE & Rural Settlement Area 28,593 2,444 31,037 86,485 4,898 91,382 136,362 253,268 426,618 688,489 IUnincorporated Area 204,058 I 220,016 I 424,425 I 580,5751 403,1261 983,701 I 1 COUNTYWIDE 221,911 I 248,236 I 470,4981 615,2321 451,188 11,066,4201 NOTES: SFDU = Single Family Dwelling Unit MFDU = Multi-Family Dwelling Unit GGE = Golden Gate Estates Naples figures per 1994 Urban Area Buildout Study, Phase I. Marco Island figures per 1996 Marco Island Master Plan, Immokalee figures per 199 I Immokalee Area Master Plan, East of CRlSR 95 I excludes Immokalee, Coastal Urban area: from Gulf of Mexico east to approximately I mile east of Colllier Blvd.; from Lee County line south to Gulf of Mexico, The above areas are such that, with the exception of the unincoporated/incorporated areas, no combination will equal the countywide sum. Prepared by Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department. March 2005. 2005 Build-out Study - TAZs and areas.xls G, Comp, Buildout Study 2005 dw/March 2005 GGE W. of 951 2000 EST. 8/0 DUs EST 8/0 POP TAZ SFDU MFDU TotalDUs SF Population MF Population Total Population 158 109 82 191 373 193 566 166 97 - 97 291 . 291 16'1 169 - 169 411 . 411 1'1'1 264 7 271 804 17 821 1'18 204 9 213 596 15 611 181 268 13 281 798 26 824 182 310 11 321 941 20 961 18'1 237 14 251 698 26 724 188 201 15 216 661 32 693 190.1 47 4 51 138 7 145 191 327 126 453 920 257 1,178 192 84 - 84 269 . 269 193 176 'I 177 510 . 510 194 260 6 266 763 20 783 195 317 45 362 907 93 1,000 195.1 27 - 27 77 - 77 sum 3,097 333 3,430 9,158 707 9,865 GGE We~t of CR-951 NOTES: SFDU = Single Family Dwelling Unit MFDU = Multi-Family Dwelling Unit GGE = Golden Gate Estates TAZ = Traffic Analysis Zone CR-951 a!k/a Collier Blvd. Data should not necessarily be considered accmate for a single T AZ; it is considered most reliable when multiple contiguous TAZs are aggregated. Prepared by Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department, March 2005. 2005 Build-out Study - T AZs and areas. xIs G, Camp, Buildout Study 2005 dw/March 2005 GGE E. of 951 & Settlsment Area GGE East of CR-951 & Rural Settlement Area 2000 EST. 810 DUs EST 8/0 POP TAZ SFDU MFDU TotalDUs SF Population MF Population Total Population 212 289 - 289 897 - 897 213 532 - 532 1,743 - 1,743 214 618 3 621 2,088 16 2,104 215 711 5 716 2,275 27 2,302 216 648 58 706 2,085 145 2,230 218 237 - 237 707 - 707 218.1 352 5 357 1,050 27 1,077 221 217 12 229 638 29 667 222 4,256 79 4,335 14,227 129 14,356 225.1 32 - 32 95 - 95 231 247 9 256 646 33 679 232 285 7 292 834 28 862 234 590 15 605 1,943 36 1,979 235 299 8 307 964 14 978 236 435 6 441 1,426 23 1,449 237 946 2 948 2,875 - 2,875 238 249 - 249 782 - 782 238.1 337 8 345 1,058 29 1,087 238.2 30 - 30 94 - 94 239 201 - 201 519 - 519 240 297 - 297 915 - 915 241 193 7 200 618 17 635 241.1 34 - 34 109 - 109 390 2,774 18 2,792 7,397 89 7,486 391 1,478 - 1,478 4,629 - 4,629 391.1 26 - 26 81 - 81 393 974 10 984 3,014 48 3,062 393.1 25 - 25 77 - 77 394 1,593 16 1,609 4,707 46 4,752 395 615 11 626 1,808 31 1,839 396 1,218 22 1,240 3,676 106 3,782 398 1,254 604 1,858 3,115 1,107 4,222 399 2,217 1,206 3,423 6,167 2,211 8,378 400 1,287 - 1,287 4,066 - 4,066 sum 25,496 2,111 27,607 77 ,326 4,191 81,517 NOTES: SFDU = Single Family Dwelling Unit MFDU = Multi-Family Dwelling Unit GGE ~ Golden Gate Estates T AZ = Traffic Analysis Zone CR-95l alk/a Collier Blvd, Data should not necessarily be considered accwate for a single TAZ; it is considered most reliable when multiple contiguous TAZs are aggregated. Prepared oy Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department, March 2005. 2005 Build-out Study - TAZs and areas.xls G. Compo Buildout Study 2005 dw/March 2005 RLSA Rural Lands Stewardshl Area RLSA III : . . :.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378 32 3 35 49 3 52 378.1 1,660 1,656 3,316 2.554 1623 4,177 379 927 924 1,852 3,014 1,479 4,493 380 76 79 155 343 158 501 381 2,864 2,869 5,734 12,890 6,313 19,203 382.1 1,067 1,061 2,128 4,802 2.335 7,137 383.1 14,223 14,214 28,436 49,779 31,270 81,049 383.2 357 356 713 1249 783 2,033 386 1,956 1,942 3,897 3,694 5.825 9,519 386.1 530 529 1,059 1,002 1,588 2,589 386.2 - - - - - - 386.3 1,564 1,564 3.129 2,955 4.693 7,648 386.4 955 954 1,909 1,803 2,861 4,665 387 6,727 6,727 13,455 23,546 14,800 38,347 387.1 138 138 275 481 303 784 387.2 148 148 296 518 326 844 387.3 127 127 255 446 280 726 388.1 1,422 1,422 2,844 4,977 3,128 8,106 388.2 1,041 1041 2,083 3,645 2,291 5,936 388.3 55 55 110 193 122 315 389 3,823 3,823 7,645 13,379 8,410 21,789 389.1 - - - - - - 390.1 445 445 889 1.186 2,199 3,384 390.2 2,008 1,526 3,534 5,355 7,546 12,901 392 1,523 1,547 3,070 5,331 6,704 12,035 392.3 607 607 1,214 2,124 2,629 4,753 409.1 849 849 1,699 4,065 2,848 6,913 419 2,989 2,983 5,972 15,443 8,617 24,060 421.1 8,588 8,594 17,183 20,208 24,828 45,037 421.2 38 38 75 89 109 197 422 1,672 1,669 3,341 4,458 4,821 9,280 425.2 4,265 4,262 8,526 13,594 6,974 20,567 426.1 98 98 196 462 330 792 426.2 16 16 33 78 55 133 427 2.407 2,407 4,814 11,370 8,111 19,481 430.1 1,205 1,205 2,409 5,690 4,059 9,749 sum 66,403 65,879 132,283 220,772 168,421 389,193 NOTES: SFDU = Single Family Dwelling Unit MFDU = Multi-Family Dwelling Unit TAZ = Traffic Analysis Zone Data should not necessarily be considered accurate for a single TAZ; it is considered most reliable when multiple contiguous TAZs are aggregated. Prepared by Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department, March 2005. 2005 Build-out Study - TAZs and areas.xls G, Comp, Buildout Study 2005 dw/March 2005 East of 951 2000 EST BIO DUs EST. BIO POP TAZ SFDU MFDU Total DUs SF Population MF Population Total Population 212 289 - 289 897 - 897 213 532 - 532 1,743 - 1,743 214 618 3 621 2.088 16 2,104 215 711 5 716 2,275 27 2,302 216 648 58 706 2,085 145 2,230 217 655 403 1,058 1.659 879 2,539 218 237 - 237 707 - 707 218.1 352 5 357 1,050 27 1,077 219 108 3 111 332 7 339 220 1,790 2,202 3,992 3,855 842 4,697 221 217 12 229 638 29 667 222 4,256 79 4,335 14,227 129 14,356 223 335 - 335 994 - 994 223.1 44 - 44 131 - 131 223.2 112 - 112 332 - 332 224 180 12 192 534 16 550 224.1 60 2 62 178 3 181 225 1,217 1,145 2,362 3,610 1,561 5,172 225.1 32 - 32 95 - 95 227 560 - 560 1,661 - 1,661 227.1 59 - 59 175 - 175 227.2 81 - 81 240 - 240 228 104 9 113 314 12 327 228.1 128 - 128 387 - 387 229 362 9 371 944 11 955 229.1 75 - 75 196 - 196 230 - - - - - - 230.1 - - - - - - 231 247 9 256 646 33 679 232 285 7 292 834 28 862 233 - - - - - - 234 590 15 605 1,943 36 1,979 235 299 8 307 964 14 978 236 435 6 441 1,426 23 1,449 237 946 2 948 2,875 - 2,875 238 249 - 249 782 - 782 238.1 337 8 345 1,058 29 1,087 238.2 30 - 30 94 - 94 239 201 - 201 519 - 519 240 297 - 297 915 - 915 241 193 7 200 618 17 635 241.1 34 - 34 109 - 109 343 542 1,169 1,711 1,028 1,466 2,493 343.1 - 3 3 - 4 4 343.2 1,630 1,504 3,134 3,091 1,886 4,976 343.3 3,158 4,920 8,078 5,988 6,169 12,156 344 361 1,272 1,633 402 1,438 1,840 345 139 1,036 1,175 147 1,075 1,222 345.1 43 979 1,022 46 1,016 1,062 c 2005 Build-out Study - TAZs and areas.xls G, Comp, Buildout Study 2005 dw/March 2005 East of 951 East of CR-951 Collier Blvd. . . t : - . :.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . 346 461 1,036 1.497 424 978 1,402 347 39 50 89 94 49 143 348 32 30 62 59 25 83 349 246 508 754 289 251 540 350 45 249 294 100 227 327 -:'C"l 139 411 550 334 409 744 ."..IJJ.. 352 12 1,632 1,644 . 3,732 3,732 353 2 . 2 3 . 3 353.1 147 514 661 200 543 744 354 32 95 127 46 47 93 355 2,856 1,864 4,720 13,090 7,100 20,190 355.1 15 . 15 69 . 69 355.2 . . - . - . 356 26 18 44 104 35 139 357 1,020 1,570 2,590 2,774 2,153 4,927 357.1 1 ,523 291 1,814 4,143 399 4,542 357.2 165 15 180 449 21 469 358 273 618 891 1,092 462 1,554 358.1 21 - 21 84 - 84 359 313 322 635 1,252 241 1.493 359.1 - - - - - - 360 293 796 1,089 1,172 595 1,767 360.1 38 1 39 152 1 153 361 519 507 1,026 1,223 1,003 2,227 361.1 20 - 20 47 - 47 362 1,133 639 1,772 4,532 478 5,010 362.1 - - - - - - 365 242 239 481 510 319 829 367 10 - 10 21 - 21 378 32 3 35 49 3 52 378.1 1,660 1,656 3,316 2 554 1,623 4,177 379 927 924 1,852 3,014 1,479 4,493 380 76 79 155 343 158 501 381 2,864 2,869 5,734 12,890 6,313 19,203 382 19,040 19,758 38,798 57,959 46,524 104,483 382.1 1,067 1,061 2,128 4,802 2,335 7,137 383 383.1 14,223 14,214 28,436 49,779 31,270 81,049 383.2 357 356 713 1,249 783 2,033 384 385 386 1,956 1,942 3,897 3,694 5,825 9,519 386.1 530 529 1,059 1,002 1,588 2,589 386.2 - . . . - - 386.3 1,564 1,564 3,129 2,955 4.693 7,648 386.4 955 954 1,909 1,803 2,861 4,665 387 6,727 6,727 13,455 23,546 14,800 38,347 387.1 138 138 275 481 303 784 387.2 148 148 296 518 326 844 2005 Build-out Study - TAZs and areas.xls G, Compo Buildout Study 2005 dw/March 2005 East of 951 2000 EST. 8/0 DUs EST 8/0 POP TAZ SFDU MFDU Total DUs SF Population MF Population Total Population 387.3 127 127 255 446 280 726 388 388.1 1,422 1422 2,844 4,977 3,128 8,106 388.2 1,041 1,041 2,083 3,645 2,291 5,936 388.3 55 55 110 193 122 315 389 3,823 3,823 7645 13,379 8,410 21,789 389.1 - - - - - - 390 2,774 18 2,792 7,397 89 7,486 390.1 445 445 889 1,186 2,199 3,384 390.2 2,008 1,526 3,534 5,355 7,546 12,901 391 1,478 - 1,478 4,629 - 4,629 391.1 26 - 26 81 - 81 392 1,523 1,547 3,070 5,331 6,704 12,035 392.1 75 75 150 263 325 588 392.2 0 0 0 0 0 1 392.3 607 607 1,214 2,124 2,629 4,753 393 974 10 984 3,014 48 3,062 393.1 25 - 25 77 - 77 394 1,593 16 1,609 4,707 46 4,752 395 615 11 626 1,808 31 1,839 396 1,218 22 1,240 3,676 106 3,782 397 1,898 1,251 3,149 5,451 2,294 7,744 398 1,254 604 1,858 3,115 1,107 4,222 399 2,217 1,206 3,423 6,167 2,211 8,378 400 1,287 - 1,287 4,066 - 4,066 400.1 - - - - - - 400.2 40 - 40 126 - 126 401 - - - - - - 401.1 240 257 497 489 924 1,413 402 315 - 315 905 - 905 402.1 - - - - - - lO2.2 - - - - - - 403.1 1,138 1,137 2,275 3,495 2,653 6,148 403.2 - - - - - - 404 405 406 407 408 409 409.1 849 849 1,699 4,065 2,848 6,913 410 411 412 413 416 417 418 418.1 f 2005 Build-out Study - TAZs and areas.xls G. Comp, Buildout Study 2005 dw/March 2005 East of 951 East of CR-951 Collier Blvd. t t t : - . :.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419 2,989 2,983 5,972 15,443 8617 24,060 420 420.1 420.2 421 421.1 8,588 8,594 17,183 20,208 24.828 45,037 421.2 38 38 75 89 109 197 421.3 422 1,672 1,669 3,341 4,458 4,821 9,280 425 425.1 425.2 4,265 4,262 8,526 13,594 6,974 20,567 426 426.1 98 98 196 462 330 792 426.2 16 16 33 78 55 133 427 2,407 2.407 4,814 11,370 8,111 19,481 428 429 430 430.1 1,205 1,205 2,409 5,690 4,059 9,749 431 432 433 434 435 436 sum 136,010 116,541 252,552 425,294 260,783 686,077 NOTES: SFDU = Single Family Dwelling Unit MFDU = Multi-Family Dwelling Unit TAZ = Traffic Analysis Zone maroon TAZ # = Immokalee urban area All data for Immokalee entered on TAZ #382, pmk TAl # ~ RLSA '.,>,'! I RFMUIJ Immokalee figures per 1991 Inunokalee Area Master Plan. Data should not necessarily be considered accurate for a single T AZ; it is considered most reliable when multiple contiguous T AZs are aggregated. Prepared by Collie/" County Comprehensive Planning Department. March 2005. 2005 Build-out Study - TAZs and areas.xls G, Comp, Buildout Study 2005 dw/March 2005 RFMUD Rural Frin e Mixed Use District RFMUD III : . . :.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 655 403 1,058 1,659 879 2,539 219 108 3 111 332 7 339 223 335 - 335 994 - 994 223.1 44 - 44 131 - 131 223.2 112 - 112 332 - 332 224 180 12 192 534 16 550 224.1 60 2 62 178 3 181 225 1,217 1,145 2,362 3,610 1,561 5,172 227 560 - 560 1,661 - 1,661 227.1 59 - 59 175 - 175 227.2 81 - 81 240 - 240 228 104 9 113 314 12 327 228.1 128 - 128 387 - 387 229 362 9 371 944 11 955 229.1 75 - 75 196 - 196 230.1 - - - - - - 355 2,856 1,864 4,720 13,090 7,100 20,190 355.1 15 - 15 69 - 69 355.2 - - - - - - 356 26 18 44 104 35 139 357.1 1,523 291 1,814 4,143 399 4,542 357.2 165 15 180 449 21 469 358.1 21 - 21 84 - 84 359.1 - - - - - - 360.1 38 1 39 152 1 153 361.1 20 - 20 47 - 47 362.1 - - - - - - 365 242 239 481 510 319 829 367 10 - 10 21 - 21 392.1 75 75 150 263 325 588 392.2 0 0 0 0 0 1 397 1,898 1,251 3,149 5,451 2,294 7,744 400.1 - - - - - - 400.2 40 - 40 126 - 126 401 - - - . - - 401.1 240 257 497 489 924 1,413 402 315 - 315 905 - 905 402.2 - - - - - - 403.1 1,138 1,137 2,275 3,495 2,653 6,148 403.2 - - . . - - sum 12,702 6,731 19,433 41,085 16,559 57,644 NOTES: SFDU = Single Family Dwelling Unit :MFDU = Multi-Family Dwelling Unit T AZ = Tnll'fic Analysis Zone Data should not necessarily be considered accurate for a single TAZ; it is considered most reliable when multiple contiguous TAZs are aggregated. Prepared by Collier Count)' Comprehensive Planning Department. March 2005, 2005 Build-out Study - TAZs and areas.xls G, Comp, Buildout Study 2005 dw/March 2005 Coastal Urban 2000 EST BIO OUs EST. B/O POP TAZ SFDU MFDU Total DUs SF Population MF Population Total Population 1 9.059 18,193 27.252 14,762 26 209 40,971 ALL 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 51 52 53 S6 57 58 61 Coastal Urb~n Area of Napks 2005 Build-out Study - T AZs and areas.xls G, Comp, Buildout Study 2005 dw/March 2005 Coastal Urban Coastal Urb~n Area 2000 EST. BIO DUs EST BIO POP TAZ SFDU MFDU TotalDUs SF Population MF Population Total Population 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 73 232 1,002 1,234 464 1,677 2,141 74 - - - - - - 75 36 165 201 76 129 205 76 126 706 832 278 567 845 77 147 287 434 366 266 632 78 200 668 868 239 665 904 79 204 528 732 311 674 985 80 29 580 609 39 429 468 81 508 297 805 903 347 1,250 82 342 973 1,315 611 946 1,558 83 37 132 169 48 96 143 84 212 629 841 303 502 805 85 296 296 592 462 370 832 86 373 374 747 582 468 1,049 87 883 441 1,324 2,469 738 3,207 88 462 330 792 865 305 1,170 89 320 254 574 499 318 817 90 412 438 850 772 405 1,177 91 1 3 4 a 4 4 92 4 - 4 7 - 7 93 228 698 926 206 887 1,093 94 1,108 87 1,195 3,270 90 3,360 95 301 882 1,183 766 981 1,747 96 287 206 493 873 306 1,179 97 - - - - - - 98 36 86 122 121 129 250 99 132 82 214 196 74 270 100 85 92 177 148 73 222 101 330 272 602 536 213 749 102 130 127 257 142 87 229 103 231 164 395 578 258 836 104 425 131 556 1,055 296 1,351 105 496 107 603 1,172 286 1,458 106 154 201 355 160 130 290 107 303 212 515 650 277 927 108 481 143 624 1,012 278 1,290 109 621 139 760 1,248 301 1,549 112 - - - - - - 113 503 575 1,078 809 392 1,201 114 560 913 1,473 1,599 982 2,581 115 670 1,085 1,755 1,576 1,078 2,654 116 669 930 1,599 1,760 1,846 3,606 117 - - - - - - 118 a - - - - a 2005 Build-out Study - T AZs and areas.xls G, Compo Buildout Study 2005 dw/March 2005 Coastal Urban 2000 EST. 8/0 DUs EST 8/0 POP, TAZ SFDU MFDU Total DUs SF Population MF Population Total Population 119 198 170 388 664 217 871 119.1 125 221 346 413 282 695 120 205 320 525 309 188 497 121 122 206 1,493 1,699 420 1,640 2,060 123 19 284 303 43 373 416 123.1 124 67 500 567 114 606 720 124.1 . . 125 438 567 1,005 966 769 1,735 126 - . - . - . 127 1 191 192 1 121 122 128 208 528 736 396 529 925 129 441 1,461 1,902 650 1,242 1,892 130 79 424 503 84 347 431 131 141 1,016 1,157 269 759 1,028 132 702 2,034 2,736 898 1,716 2,614 133 189 698 887 373 452 825 134 18 104 122 40 73 113 135 25 837 862 28 768 796 136 . 553 553 . 1,106 1,106 137 144 750 894 209 352 561 138 94 628 722 126 269 395 139 258 164 422 802 295 1,097 140 277 197 474 503 210 713 141 51 10 61 80 9 89 142 43 42 85 68 38 105 143 87 63 150 281 120 401 144 281 205 486 412 177 590 147 645 682 1,327 1,361 811 2,172 148 604 379 983 1,591 733 2324 151 443 297 740 1,263 420 1,683 152 1 . . 153 345 539 884 843 950 1,793 154 31 - . 155 180 179 359 360 168 528 155.1 297 - 156 21 . - 157 1,183 1,173 2,356 4,141 2,581 6,721 158 109 82 191 373 193 566 158.1 357 215 572 1,221 507 1,728 159 911 1,003 1,914 2,803 1,448 4,250 160 799 962 1761 1,570 1,350 2,920 161 784 967 1,751 2,412 1,571 3,983 162 63 4n 540 224 723 947 163 380 809 1,189 304 552 856 164 516 236 752 1,399 425 1,824 165 1 - 1 2 - 2 166 97 - 97 291 . 291 167 169 . 169 411 . 411 168 316 332 648 505 333 838 Coastal Urban Area 2005 Build-out Study - T AZs and areas.xls G, Camp, Build out Study 2005 dw/March 2005 Coastal Urban Coastal Urbcn Area 2000 EST. 810 DUs EST 8/0 POP TAZ SFDU MFDU Total DUs SF Population MF Population Total Population 168.1 297 293 590 475 294 768 169 399 150 549 603 135 739 170 580 856 1,436 929 1,140 2,069 171 357 687 1,044 813 1,039 1,852 172 813 1,863 2,676 1,851 2,818 4,669 173 182 122 304 275 110 385 174 182 122 304 275 110 385 175 74 368 442 168 641 809 176 . 180 180 - 106 106 177 264 7 271 804 17 821 178 204 9 213 596 15 611 179 987 953 1,940 2435 1,552 3,987 180 1,128 1,338 2,466 2,782 2,179 4,961 181 268 13 281 798 26 824 182 310 11 321 941 20 961 183 1,039 1,063 2,102 1,903 1,207 3,110 184 993 478 1,471 1,793 542 2,335 185 652 1,033 1,685 1,116 928 2,044 186 670 929 1,599 1,355 994 2,348 187 237 14 251 698 26 724 188 201 15 216 661 32 693 189 . - . . . . 190 251 856 1,107 737 1,498 2,235 190.1 47 4 51 138 7 145 191 327 126 453 920 257 1,178 192 84 . 84 269 . 269 193 176 1 177 510 .. 510 194 260 6 266 763 20 783 195 317 45 362 907 93 1,000 195.1 27 . 27 77 . 77 196 . - . . . . 197 357 199 556 1,282 638 1,920 198 11 53 64 36 153 189 199 580 290 870 2,139 630 2,768 200 27 358 385 74 1,013 1,088 200.1 . 126 126 . 357 357 201 235 249 484 749 733 1,482 202 379 277 656 1,383 750 2,133 203 169 93 262 559 321 880 204 248 366 614 632 983 1,614 205 120 224 344 331 505 836 205.1 . 51 51 . 115 115 206 230 237 467 844 708 1,552 207 319 568 887 1004 1,907 2,912 208 284 573 857 845 483 1,328 209 672 210 882 2,094 771 2,865 210 236 111 347 783 353 1,136 211 362 126 488 1,116 379 1,495 220 1,790 2,202 3,992 3,855 842 4,697 221 217 12 229 638 29 667 230 . - . . - - 2005 Build-out Study - T AZs and areas.xls G, Comp, Buildout Study 2005 dw/March 2005 Coastal Urban 2000 EST. 8/0 DUs EST B/O POP TAZ SFDU MFDU Total DUs SF Population MF Population Total Population 231 247 9 256 646 33 679 232 285 7 292 834 28 862 233 - - - - Q - 240 297 - 297 915 - 915 241 193 7 200 618 17 635 241.1 34 - 34 109 - 109 244 432 670 1,102 144 96 240 245 463 1,384 1,847 904 841 1,745 245.1 125 116 241 244 71 315 245.2 98 97 195 191 59 250 246 528 427 955 1,375 956 2,331 247 394 2,045 2.439 684 2,278 2,962 247.1 125 290 415 217 323 540 248 306 1,372 1,678 612 833 1,445 249 490 920 1,410 823 994 1.817 250 376 749 1,125 759 979 1,738 250.1 7 - 7 14 - 14 251 123 961 1,084 467 1,197 1,665 252 548 1,070 1.618 1,461 2,025 3,487 253 156 1,668 1,824 530 1,693 2,223 254 232 675 907 519 1,132 1,651 255 - 1 1 - 2 2 256 49 451 500 91 627 718 257 624 911 1,535 1,468 1,198 2,666 257.1 65 268 333 153 352 505 258 349 240 589 666 569 1,235 259 561 369 930 968 916 1,884 260 - - - - - - 261 - - - - - - 262 - - - - - - 263 - - - - - - 264 808 2,960 3,768 1,721 6,218 7,939 265 469 1,680 2,149 716 1,457 2,173 266 217 278 495 417 730 1,147 267 440 814 1,254 684 1,553 2,237 270 267 396 663 805 922 1,727 271 4 317 321 8 263 271 272 349 142 491 841 248 1,089 273 274 394 453 847 747 340 1,087 275 329 365 694 974 425 1,399 276 153 141 294 495 546 1,042 277 234 195 429 542 273 815 278 69 228 297 132 241 373 279 545 512 1,057 1,021 572 1,594 280 295 778 1,073 762 1,182 1,944 281 229 433 662 563 430 993 282 221 1,053 1,274 427 1,121 1,548 283 5 115 120 7 134 141 284 37 937 974 72 1383 1,455 287 133 145 278 397 254 651 Coastal Urb.:n Area 2005 Build-out Study - T AZs and areas.xls G, Camp, Buildout Study 2005 dw/March 2005 Coastal Urban 2000 EST. BIO DUs EST. BIO POP TAZ SFDU MFDU Total DUs SF Population MF Population Total Population, 287.1 21 501 522 63 878 941 288 95 64 159 377 197 573 288.1 109 347 456 432 1,066 1,498 289 44 201 245 151 276 427 290 50 35 85 124 88 212 291 95 734 829 241 874 1,115 292 281 223 504 422 217 639 292.1 85 85 170 128 83 210 293 147 203 350 471 717 1,188 294 1.237 763 2,000 3,022 2,691 5,713 294.1 834 456 1,290 2,037 1,608 3,645 295 216 367 583 504 874 1,378 296 311 662 973 516 898 1,415 297 298 8 12 20 8 9 17 301 98 685 783 172 846 1,018 302 781 1,286 2,067 1,481 1,487 2,968 303 359 1,678 2,037 589 3,212 3.802 303.1 42 465 507 69 890 959 304 350 932 1,282 359 1,098 1,457 305 549 2,834 3,383 1,647 3,500 5,147 306 943 2,310 3,253 1,041 2,839 3,880 307 546 224 770 2,619 970 3,589 308 519 110 629 2,234 446 2.680 309 794 932 1,726 1,303 784 2,088 310 32 478 510 51 494 546 310.1 478 364 842 767 376 1,144 311 661 1,099 1,760 1,339 1,247 2,586 312 351 375 726 907 600 1,S07 312.1 560 560 1,120 1,447 896 2,343 313 260 260 520 173 269 442 313.1 152 153 305 101 158 260 313.2 87 - 87 58 - 58 313.3 6 - 6 4 - 4 314 ::1 ' 3.G55 ::H' 1 ::L:~7i 19,560 21,444 41,004 31 - .- j Ii..:: ::' ,~. ." '.' -~. 3,,:: ~- -r,'- JL.j -"~ 3 2.~~ 326 254 165 419 317 122 439 .) ... j ~ 129 4 133 158 3 161 ". , ..- _. ..' Coastal Urb2n Area ADofMI 2005 Build-out Study - T AZs and areas.xls G, Camp, Buildout Study 2005 dw/March 2005 Coastal Urban 2000 EST. BID DUs EST. BIO POP. TAZ SFDU MFDU TotalDUs SF Population MF Population Total Population 333 33., 337 33B 339 340 343 542 1,169 1,711 1,028 1,466 2,493 343.1 - 3 3 - 4 4 343.3 3,158 4,920 8,078 5,988 6,169 12,156 344 361 1,272 1,633 402 1,438 1,840 345 139 1,036 1,175 147 1,075 1,222 345.1 43 979 1,022 46 1,016 1,062 346 461 1036 1,497 424 978 1,402 357 1,020 1,570 2,590 2,774 2,153 4,927 358 273 618 891 1,092 462 1,554 359 313 322 635 1,252 241 1,493 360 293 796 1,089 1,172 595 1,767 361 519 507 1,026 1,223 1,003 2,227 362 1,133 639 1,772 4,532 478 5,010 366 399 370 769 1,241 888 2,129 368 808 805 1,613 1,703 1,073 2,777 369 850 . 850 1,792 - 1,792 370 - 313 313 . 417 417 371 528 392 920 1,260 585 1,845 372 483 50 533 882 57 939 373 273 365 638 674 566 1,240 374 178 650 828 299 676 975 375 353 613 966 485 526 1,011 376 452 655 1,107 430 394 825 377 198 197 395 189 119 307 403 604 603 1,207 1,855 1,407 3,262 sum 97,219 148,799 246,368 217,633 208,431 426,064 Coastal Urbcn Area NOTES: SFDU = Single Family Dwelling Unit MFDU = Multi-Family Dwelling Unit T AZ = Traffic Analysis Zone Coastal Urban area: from Gulf of Mexico east to approximately I mile east of Call1ier Blvd.; from Lee County line south to Gulf of Mexico blue = Cil)' of Naples All data for Naples entered on TAZ #1. All data for Marco Island entered on T AZ #317, Naples figures per 1994 Urban Area Buildout Study, Phase L Marco Island figures per 1996 Marco Island Master Plan. Data should not necessarily be considered accurate for a single T AZ; it is considered most reliable when multiple contiguous T AZs are aggregated Prepared by Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department. March 2005, 2005 Build-out Study - T AZs and areas.xls G, Comp, Buildout Study 2005 dw/March 2005 Exhibit B Transportation Modeling Spreadsheets -";"'--'''''''''''''''''___"'_'~'"'~' ~''''''''__~''''''''',"-''''''.'__''H " '. ~~!~~~~~~e~II~~~~~!~~!~~~!~~~~i.~ I i~~i.~~~~~R~~~i;~~~~Si~~N~~i~~~ ! ~ u ~"f g g ~g Ii ~. i 0\1 iti ;3" ~l u g ~~ ~~ r.i 5 ~~ g g it 0 Ii Ii i ;3 0 -< ~ g I n llf ::1 Ii .. " " ~ u ~1 g ~ g g ~i b ,.; J;j 11 ~ 5 u" ~~ U g g q J;jlif 11 t 5::i c "' a< ~~ g !l ~ E a i!lS' N ~ ~ i 0 "'0 " ~< ~ U g 0 0 ;::3 ,; ~,.: :( ::i ~~ ~ ;3" ~ c U o:o:u ~l g u g~!l ~ ~ it E ~ :!i~ ~cn.o ~ .. ~~ - ;30 o::i- uu ~< n !lie U. 0 ~ 3 ~:!! gf~ ~o :! i ~ c .. 00"' "u ~~ U ~ ::l !l~g ~E ~" Pi...:. E " ""' " 5 "' ~~ H g g g ~ >= 0 ~ :;f :! ~ ~~ ",0" .. 0 .. N~ U~ !l 11 !l g q IIi ri t: , ~ " co 0 0 u ;::1 !l ~ ~~ !l !l ~ it 0 Ii ,; rot";- " N i ~ 5 " c~ g ! g Ei J;j ~ ;3 c:C3() "" ~li! ~U U !l ili ::~cn "N ~ 9 " ~ ~ "0 ,,<2 0 " e. 81 ~ ~ ~r :! a !; ...".: ;! ,,_a I't:~ija:: c :;1 U~ uu ~ :i it~ .N~ ri~:!irf ,; J!f w ~uc~~"" .. c 0 f ~l H~liln~ g !l !l " .~..r:;t"':N ~ '* ~ - as f j !----:-- ~ ~~G ~~ e ~ ~ ~q~~~U~~o!i '~ u 0 ~'" S c ~ wom t 0 o"~ I ~~li I ~~~el ~ ~ j ~ j ~s~~c I" ~S~i~U~r~~!~si~i3m~]~1ilS!;~~ : ..~ :s=~.~ '~I S olos .",~ ~ ~~~ ~ e 5 ~g~.~gJjJ~!~ ~~si.ij~! ~f~o:m~ ~z 0 >~ o~- v.1 m~ij!~.c J ~~ei:~~ '! "'~~~~!~"~uuilg~o: ~~jj"i~Jj",u~. i~~~~!~~~ii~~~~~;~~.!'~~~~ta~~~ J ~o~'ooaggoo~~~~....""io~~i~~ ,,~~~ ~o_>uu ~ew U~~~0>O w _W0 W~ " 1* ~~!!~!!!~!!!!!!!!~!!!!~!!!!!!! c !!! ijn~U J.. ~:Eu"" _ ~1:'~~~~~5 ~ j j~!'!I~:~~?I~I~~"~ ~ li -I E~ 5 ~] ~ : ,; i ~.i . ~J ~ ~ 5 E] : I i i 0 ~J : l " " . 5 EJ ! ~ I II ~I \ 5 o. . ~~ ii ! I ~i , .. ,; . E] a 5 0 EJ I '"' I " - , ~J . J -i ~ ~ E~ .. J ~i ~ q lia 5 -I u ~ * E~ J:io( . il -i ~ 2 E~ ij .. . ~I ! !~ I ;; " ll" ::f a ij ij !!I ! I if . ~ ~ if . 0 0 " 0 !!i ~ ! i! I . ~ fi .. t 5 ij au . -~. ! U ~ ;; qif ". ~;i ~ , ~ 5 Q E] i J : " t! 0 a . a ~H . : ~ ~ ::t i ~ il. 0 -i ~I . ! ! ~.i if Ii a . ~I .. ~ ! ~ oa ~ . -i n ! ~ ~ ~. "" ~ I ~- e 5f~.i Jj~i=j~ 1 Jl ~ is;~~I~ssJ>i j!~a~ .1 ~ fil~it.s!!iiil~!1iS ~ I i~J]jll~1iJ:il~f~! dl ijt.s'~ f~ i >~g, H ~~!~ . 1. !:!!~!!!!!!!!!!!!! II ~l ! ~Hfl!n .. j ~ i " ~~~~~~~~~e~a~!~~~~~~!~~!~~~~~~!l~!~ljl~~I.i I i~~=.~~ ~;i~~=;R~Ii~~~~m:;jN~:~t~~~~t~~:;f~t~ ! !i ::i ::i ~i ~ I ~ ~ ti 1:i :f Ii ~ ~ u .~ ~ I ~~ :i :i " ~ " " 13::i" u ~"f I ~ I ~~~ I q Iii ~ ~N5r ~ ::i " ::i l:j~ ~ I I it~ i ~ ~~ 13 13 C 0 "'" ~~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ U I ~o Ii llf " .... a ~i " C ,,::i ::i ::i::i "' ~~ I !l U ~ U I ~ ~i ,.; ,.; t:"~ t tt g , " ~ ::i .. 00 u" ~~ ~ u ~ ~ U I ;:0 :i fig >i "':roi ! ~i 0 <:i ::i 1301< I< "'"' 0 :?I ~ ~ g IU g U ~ ~ ~i .. 'Ii ~ :!N~ g "N ,.; t 0 I<C .." " ~< ~ U ~i! g ~ tI ~. ~,.: ......r: :of ::i ~ ~ 0 0 u" "u oc ~~ U U ~ ! u ~ 1t~ :t~ or.; ,.; "" Ii ::i - ~ 05 uo C "' ~ ~ ! U ! g in ~l! :( lli": ~ ,.;g ~ (j 0 .. c"' 0 ~i g ~ lil ~~ ~ ~ ~ E Ii :} ::I ~ " 13 ""' " ::i 0 " ~! - 8 U ~ g !l ~ Ie ~i ~ ri< ~~ ~~ - ill !l ~ ~~ ~ari" t - ~ "' 00 0 0 u -i ~~ i I ~~ i !l ~ E :;i .,: " " :t' '" -- ~ I< U - - 0 0< g I q g fi N t - - 13 tc5r::i ",0 -- "'U ~u U it~:;! ;:;!!~ N": ~. - - 9 " 13 ~ " -- "c " c; ! ~ ~ g i1 og ., ~E ~. ti N If ~ ;h -- " " " -0 :;1 !iU ! !i '" i;j it~ "".r(;?- g !! ~(30~~~c - ~~ ~HH!~ ~n - . it~ ..~~~~ . 5 ~ IJ-.-~ i '''''0 . ~ 1 ~'a. !g ~ .~m!l"ij~ f] u. i Bo~a~ s Is . S ~ ~i!~~~l~j ~j=f~II~~lf&j~~~~li:!~!mm~jll 1l. ~ U .!! 11:..- '0 ES~.! .!~zD: 1Jx'mc <1 0", gO .... .. f ~111!il1!;I!lifi!lj!il!lj!li'!lij:ljlji , is 1;; 2:~1~w"wc~~g~" ~& ~"j~~fjI5~.. 4~~." " ~~ij-~~~~ i.~uU~~i~~X .~~ -~~t~ ~~~>>~ ~ ~ ~~~~; ~~;;~:. ~ o~~~~> . ! S ~ ~j~~8g558~~~3~~~~iu~S!1~j~~~~~I~~~5~~~j ~~ f ~ c J ~ e. ~ ] l~ ~ 1l ~ Ji fUhU ~'::..~~~i ~u)OSo<<..J'" i ~.. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ll~f~~~~~l!~l~l~~~~~~ wwv~~"v..""""~""~"w""O"".....O~..NNN~OO ! i 1!~~I~l!~!~!!~l!=~~~mllll~!.. ~~~ ~.~~.~.~ m.~ .,ut_.~ _ ! ~ e] ~ ~ ~ .~ il. = ~~ . rj 0 -~ ! . q " 0 ~I I ! ~ 0 ~l . ! ~ ~ 0 ~I ! ~ I ;; ~ ~ ~j ~ I if " 0 ~ ~l , ! i! ~ ~ I:! ~o 0 5 ~I H ~ ! I t 0 0 .1 I I " ~~ .. :i if oc 5 0 . ~] n ~ 3 I ~ .... ;; :r c ~J ! ! 0 0 -1 ~ I ~ E~ " ~! E~ 0 ~ -1 ! ~ , E~ ~ 5 ~ ~1 ! . ! E~ " .. " ~ 5. 0 ~ -i u I I I E~ " " :I " t ~o 5 0 ~ ~! I" i! 11 . 11 E~ :f:l " ~ ~ . 0 0 c 5 c li 0 N~ ~ I I I ! I ~ q . PI .. " ~ 0 cO 0 ~ ~H ~ ~I ! ~ ~ EJ:i .~ 5 ~ . . 0 Ei . ! ~ I I I ;; . I! ~ c 0 0 0 0 .n ;; ! I q'" .. 'Ii ,; - 1i ~o c 0 ~J u ~ ~ ~ 11- 0 c ~i ! I I E~ .. " 00 . . E1 u I Ii ..'" .,; ~ ii J ~ ;;. j /!! ~t~ ii ~i!l;t i iji- I} 5uffi~ ~ i! S .1- a sa H I ~iii~s;~sif~jU!~~;f 6!Eff~ . SJjSi~i- lfSSso!l : Sf ! ~!Ii~Jilij ifi~l~!itJjijl' I li~!1Ii~JSljJj~f);j~!g!5~1 ~ J . ~ . ! " t. !!!~!!!!:!~!!!!!!!!!!!!~!! f I f &5 Afhdl ~IUlC::EU'C"'" J~!~~~!S~~~~~~~~~I~!~~I~~t~~~~lll~~!tl!ll~l!l!ll.& I d~~.~ N~~:~~~:~~~a~g:~~N~~1D~~~~~~~.~~:;j~~_~~!Q : " 5 5 5 ::i ~ !: I ~ ~~ it! ~~ iti EJ EJ ~i ~! \ E ~ ~ ~~ q ~~ t~ ~~ it! j ~~ ):0 ~ ~~ ~ c c ~c . ~ f~ .! " 0 0 ..c ~~ " ~~ >0 ~~ ::!1 it! 13 ;:~ ~ .. E " 5 0< g q !:! ::i ,,1313 :E~ SiU i::jg :::f!oi ~ u g :!i ~ u" U li:~ " ~ ::i 0 ~ N ~ ,.; C " ~ u ~ g g ,.; ~ !:i 13" 13 n g !:i:;( 11 5 ~ 13 ~ '" u uo g g g U ~ Ii g ~ tr.r ~ "0 " " " 0 U ~ g g iil li': :( :! ~ " ~ " 0 "u u" U g n ~ ~ :!i~ .. :!i~ .. ~~ - ~ uu uo c 0 U !lie g i ~_....: .. '" O"u 0 c .. 0 ~U ~ ~ III S "~~ .. .. " "'" " 5 " .. H g g g ~ ~- :;j :! c,,::i " ~~g iil "';~~f " 00 0 0 ~ ~~ ~ ~ .. ",.; " " 0: ~ "" in "" 9 " ~ ~ "0 u llil~ ~ ~ ~ !~ ""- iti :! N ,,-~ " " 0 ~~n~ g g !:i"":! ,.; ,.; .. ~uc~~~ 0 5513::i13::iB 5 n~u~~ ~ i. :'l " " ::i::i " g g n ! g ~ :'!- ,..:;! ~ ()(ia:: a:: a:: a:: 0::<<<< " UUlun I ~ ;t';uf-wFllio.CD-cttIlll- ~ N N 0 ~ 001:(11:: i n~~ !l " ..,..;roi.... 1Il- <<0::0000000 0 !HHHB ! ~ R metoo ~gU ,.; " Iii ~ 00 !! i g I I ~ ~ N ~ ~ ! 111 ~ m ! ~ -g ;! - - l3 f€ - ~ H~!:.~i&.u.~-;n Ii lL.a"'~r'JIll"'Nr.r:::!.. ID t; ~;Ii H !" r rrnl a:~~~~U;l~~~ ~$1 f~~ilmj1il~ji~ l!;-o: .o;\!.f'.!!,!i ."eil- ~~~ti~!~!~~~i~8 ti. .. ... .. 'il 41. l: ~e ~~E~&~JJJ~~~~~ t~ ~8!!~~8638m~Si 1 . ~-.-~ e I B ~ c~ ~ ~"O ; r~fljr-!-~~~i~~i]~JII-i~5J!~Eil- ; ~=~~~l-i&Si~~ ..j~~ss>~ ~i~w"~1~6 uosls,.~:l ~~!s 311.1i:Jli>,i~f~~.~i ~ - ~:! i 0 1(5 G) ~ 0.... = &.::1 , ~ 1; 1,<... c (I . ...!: ~Ig:.i-J !ci~:~~gi:~~miB~I~iwj~;~ 0 3~!~~ul~j!!~u~;~jjc~!d~~!lll~l5j- ~~~;I~]!r~E;!~ll~Ij~!~~~~~f~~~~~ ~J '" " ~.~ !.:i i g Ul flihH ~C:.~~~~l1 ~If/)Q ::ioa:=-,~ J !!!!~~~!!!~~.~~~.~.I"!t!!!!!t!~!!~~~~~~~!~~~.. ~~ ~~.~~~;;;;.~:;m~:~~~~;~;;w;;~;~;;~;~~~~~;~~~oo ~l ~ ~j ---= ~j '1 ---= - ~l ~ ~j fj ~i ~ gi ~~ ~i ~ -ll ~o ~ E1 ~ J EJ 5 ! ~i ! f.:~ EJ ~J f.:~ EJ B oj ! f.:~ It jl~~~J~~~~!~~~~~J!~~~~~I!~~I~'~ B ~ ~ B ~ . ~ 0 . ! ! . . ~ i . . : 5 . ~ ! ~ . 5 \ ~ ! ~ ,; B 5 B : ~ ~ . " t 0 . . : . ~ Ii ;; . . . : : : : '"' ;( . Ii c ! ! . . ! ~ ~ ... B ~ It B 5 : g .. . 5 5 " 5~~i513 B ~ ~ ! H.B : . '" :ii g-=r::1~' :i B il. . 5B ;; ! .. ~ U I:i ~1 .,; ~ . c . 1Z1Z1Za:Q::' . Ej ~ ! ~~!H g . :; - B. . .. 0 B .. . -HI. ~ H ! . iiI g f.:~.~ .. :i .1" .. 5 5 CQDgQ . -f I g UIH ~ f.:~ ~ ri.........J,.j o. 0 . .. c t'i!U . Ii. ill! ! .iNN ::I " .... " . 0"'11I.....10 . ~J I ~ !Un . . . ~J I '"' ~ . ~ Ii ~ Ii ~ ! ! ;; a g ~ ~ Ii ~ c ~ . -li.!.. ~ ! f.:JI!'"' ~ i' I-----' J g . ~ ~:. - sjI~ ~. 1 1: ~ ~~II!.~ 11,"j ~ i. =. ~.jI t J. ~<<r ~! ~ ~~ ~~ilZiS~j.' j"1 · w~~...I...sl!ir.'B;j! ~J~l ~~. ] tl !j!'lffiiil~111!lfiiii~'lli~iill _ j ~U~ IH! h!.l.u~Hhjw~Uk f J. ~!!!!!!!!!!!::!~!!!~!~:!!:~~ I ~ AlIi JfU~~~' ~IOC:E(JGl:"'.J .- Exhibit C East of County Road 951 Utilities Study COlliER COUNT'(WATER-SEWER DISTRICT ~;;S=)i'?r~~~;i '!l:::=;.:f.~.t~~~ East of County Road 951 Utilities Study 28 3:00 FEBRUARY 2006 GPI..L.V AND HANSIiN LLe COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT East of County Road 951 Utilities Study GREELEY AND HANSEN LLC 28 3:00 February 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Pae-e Section 1 Executive Summary..... ...................... ...... ............. .., ..... .............................. ............................. 1 1.1 Introduction................. ... ................................................. ...... .......... ....................... ....................... 1 1.2 Summary... .......... ...................... ......... ............................. ...................... ..................... .... ........ ....... 1 Section 2 Project Scope and Description ............................................................................................... 5 2.1 Project Scope.. ........... ................ ................... ............................................... ........... ....................... 5 2.2 Development of Costs ............................ ...................... ................................................................ 5 2.3 Existing Utilities and Infrastructure within Project Area ................................................. 6 Section 3 Design Criteria - Water Distribution System .................................................................... 7 3.1 Design Criteria ....................................... .......... ......... ...... ........... ................ .................................. 7 3.2 Hydraulic Modeling ......................... .......... ............ ........................ ............ ........... ............. .......... 7 3.2.1 Modeling Parameters............ .......... ........ ......... ..... .... .................................. .................. 7 3.2.2 Modeling Simulations................................................................................................... 8 3.3 Hydraulic Modeling AnalysIs .................................................................................................... 9 3.4 Recommended Water Distribution System Layout.............................................................. 9 Section 4 Water Distribution System Project Costs ......................................................................... 10 4.1 Preliminary Project Costs ........................................................................................................ 10 4.2 Cost per Customer ..................................................................................................................... 10 Section 5 Design Criteria - Wastewater Collection and Transmission System.......................... 11 5.1 Design Criteria ............ ........ ..... ................... ...... ..... .................................................................... 11 5.2 Recommended Wastewater Collection System Design...................................................... 11 Section 6 Wastewater Collection and Transmission System Project Costs................................. 13 6.1 Preliminary Project Costs ........................................................................................................13 6.2 Cost per Customer ..................................................................................................................... 13 Section 7 Permitting and Property Acquisition................................................................................. 14 7.1 Permits ...... .................................................. ........................ .......................................... ............... 14 7.2 Property Acquisition.............. .................................................................................................... 14 7 .2.1 Water Distribution ......................... .................. ............. ......... ........ ............. ................ 14 7 .2.2 Wastewater Collection. .............. ........ .............. ........ .... .......................... ................ ..... 14 Section 8 Projected Expansion Costs of Water and Wastewater Utilities Throughout Golden Gate Estates.. ......... ................... ..................................... ............ .............. .... ........................ ....... 15 8.1 Preliminary Water and Wastewater Distribution System Design.................................. 15 8.2 Projected Costs for PROJECT AREA (East of CR 951 within Water Sewer District) 15 8.3 Projected Costs for AREA 1 (West of CR 951 within Water Sewer District) ................ 15 8.4 Projected Costs for AREA 2 (East of CR 951 outside Water Sewer District)................ 16 TABLES 3-1 Project Area Residential Water Demand 3-2 Estimated Population Densities and Annual Average Daily Water Demand through 2030 4-1 Preliminary Water Distribution System Cost Estimate 5-1 Project Area Residential Wastewater Flow Rates 5-2 Estimated Population Densities and Wastewater Flow Rates through 2030 6-1 Preliminary Wastewater Collection System Cost Estimate FIGURES 2-1 East of C.R. 951 Study Areas 3-1 Project Area Water Distribution System Layout 5-1 Project Area Wastewater Collection System Layout 11 Section 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction On August 12, 2005, the Collier County Public Utilities Engineering Department (PUED) authorized Greeley and Hansen to perform an engineering study to identify water and wastewater facilities and costs necessary to serve the Golden Gate Estates Area, within the current Water- Sewer District boundary, east of County Road (C.R.) 951. Three levels of service were initially identified by the County for this study as follows: . Premium; · Intermediate Service; and . Status Quo Only intermediate service (water only) and premium service (full water and wastewater service) were analyzed. 1.2 Summary According to the Draft 2005 Residential Build-Out Study prepared by the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department, the build-out population for the Golden Gate Estates area is approximately 91,000 residents. The year that build-out occurs was not forecast in the study. The area east of CR 951 is projected to contain the majority (approximately 55%) of the County's population at build-out. Layouts for the installation of water distribution and wastewater collection systems within Golden Gate Estates were developed for the Project Area. The Project Area consists of approximately five square miles within the Water-Sewer District east of CR 951. Golden Gate Estates comprises approximately 80 square miles of Collier County east of CR 951. Cost estimates for water and wastewater service were developed to serve the Golden Gate Estates area east of CR 951 within the Water-Sewer District boundary (Project Area). The costs were used as a basis of costs for providing water and wastewater service to all of Golden Gate Estates. The cost estimates have been divided into three areas as follows: · Areas in Golden Gates Estates within the Water-Sewer District and east of CR 951 (Project Area); · Areas in Golden Gate Estates within the Water-Sewer District and west of CR 951 (Area 1); and · Areas in Golden Gate Estates outside of the Water-Sewer District and east of CR 951 (Area 2). All of the above areas are shown on Figure 2-1. Cost figures for the above areas are also divided into four elements for water utilities and three elements for wastewater utilities as follows: Water: · Raw Water Supply Cost Element - Cost to construct raw water supply facilities (wells, pumps and pipelines). · Treatment Cost Element - Cost to construct water treatment facilities. · Transmission Cost Element - Cost to construct required transmission mains from the water plant to the distribution system. · Distribution Cost Element - Cost to construct water distribution mains and appurtenances. Wastewater: · Collection Cost Element - Cost to construct wastewater collection systems. · Transmission Cost Element - Cost to construct wastewater transmission systems from the collection system to the water reclamation facility. · Treatment Cost Element - Cost to construct treatment and disposal facilities. The water and wastewater cost estimates for the above three areas are: PROJECT AREA (East of CR 951 within Water Sewer District) ESTIMATED WATER COSTS Total Cost Cost per Customer Supply and Treatment Cost $6,936,000 $5,070 Element Distribution Cost Element $31,779,000 $23,230 30% Contingency $11,615,000 $8,490 TOTAL $50,330,000 $37,000 ESTIMATED WASTEWATER COSTS Collection Cost Element $66,264,000 $48,438 Treatment/Disposal Cost Element $7,000,000 $5,117 30% Contingency $21,979,000 $16,067 TOTAL $95,243,000 $70,000 GRAND TOTAL $145,573,000 $107,000 2 ~. AREA 1 (West of CR951 within Water Sewer District) ESTIMATED WATER COSTS Cost per Section Supply and Treatment Cost $1,387,100 Element Distribution Cost Element .- $6,355,743 30% Contingency $2,322,853 TOTAL $10,066,000 ESTIMATED WASTEWATER COSTS Collection Cost Element $13,252,772 Treatment/Disposal Cost Element $1,400,000 30% Contingency $4,395,832 TOTAL $19,049,000 GRAND TOTAL (Per Section.) $29,115,000 The .estimated cost per customer for water and wastewater utility service in Area 1 would be similar to the cost per customer for the Project Area. AREA 2 (East of CR 951 outside Water Sewer District) ESTIMATED WATER COSTS Cost per Section Supply and Treatment Cost $1,387,100 Element Transmission Cost Element $1,001,000 Distribution Cost Element $6,355,743 30% Contingency $2,623,153 TOTAL $11,367,000 ESTIMATED WASTEWATER COSTS Collection Cost Element $13,252,772 Transmission Cost Element $200,000 Treatment/Disposal Cost Element $1,400,000 30% Contingency $4,455,832 . TOTAL $19,309,000 GRAND TOTAL (Per Section.) $30,676,000 Development patterns within Area 2 are platted as 2.5 to 5 acre lots as with a majority of the Golden Gate Estates area. Therefore, the five sections used in this study are considered representative of all of Golden Gate Estates. The Water-Sewer District boundaries would need to be expanded to provide water 3 and wastewater utility service to Area 2. If road extensions and development are planned for Area 2, the County should reserve 30-foot wide utility corridors along all major roads for water and wastewater facilities. The cost per customer for Area 2 would be substantially higher than in the Project Area based on the current parcel density. These cost figures are capital costs for providing Golden Gate Estates with the infrastructure and facilities necessary to provide intermediate or premium service and do not include costs associated with maintenance of the system. Areas north, south and east of Golden Gate Estates are not part of this analysis. Areas north and south of Golden Gate Estates are considered sending areas which make utility construction very difficult. The areas to the east of Golden Gate Estates are considered Rural Lands Stewardship Areas (RLSA). RLSA lands are governed under Chapter 189 rules which state that local self-governing lands are receiving lands and are required to have water and wastewater service; however, such service does not have to be provided' by the Collier County Water-Sewer District. 4 Section 2 Project Scope and Description 2.1 Project Scope The scope of services for the East of C.R. 951 Study is comprised of an evaluation of utilities required to provide- only water service or water and wastewater service to the Golden Gate Estates area east of C.R. 951 and within the current Water-Sewer District boundary. This area (the Project Area) comprises about five square miles (sections) along the east side of C.R. 951 from Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension to one mile south of Golden Gate Parkway. More specifically, this area is located within Range 26, Township 49, Sections 2, 11, 14, 23 and 26, and bounded on the north by Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension, on the east by the Golden Gate Main Canal and the Cypress Canal, on the south by the Golden Gate Main Canal, and on the west by the CR 951 Canal. The Project Area is shown in Figure 2-1. Three levels of service for the project area were considered. These include: · Premium Service - full water and wastewater utility service; · Intermediate Service - water utility service only (no wastewater utility service); and · Status Quo - continued use of individual private wells for water service and septic tanks for wastewater treatment. Under the status quo level of service, there would be no provisions for County services. For wastewater service, an intermediate level of service does not exist. For water service, an intermediate level of service was considered to provide water service only. In accordance with the scope of services, preliminary water and wastewater facility layouts have been developed and sized within the Project Area based on the County's Level of Service (LOS) standards that have been adopted with the current Ordinances and water and wastewater master plans. Water main layouts are based on providing potable water and fire service to all residents. Wastewater service is based on providing conventional gravity wastewater service to all residents with pumping stations at appropriate locations. Both utility systems connect to the existing infrastructure. Layouts and costs for water and wastewater service have been developed for the five-section area described above. In addition, water and wastewater facility layouts and costs have been developed for two sections in Golden Gate Estates east (outside) of the Water-Sewer District Boundary. 2.2 Development of Costs Capital costs for the infrastructure required for water and wastewater service within the Project Area are calculated to provide for the "intermediate" and "premium service" described above. All cost estimates are based on 2005 5 ," dollars and are based on similar, recent local projects. The costs included in the estimates are based on providing facilities necessary to serve the build- out population in accordance with the Draft 2005 Build-Out Study prepared by the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department. 2.3 Existing Utilities and Infrastructure within Project Area All of the existing residents within the Project Area currently utilize private septic tanks for wastewater disposal and private wells for drinking water. The Project Area has paved roads with the exception of 1st Avenue NW and 3rd Avenue SW. These two roads are unpaved west of Weber Boulevard. Cleared right-of-way areas are located on both sides of all roadways. Overhead electric is used to supply power to the residents. Buried cable lines are located throughout the Project Area. Within the residential Project Area, there are a variety of public and commercial facilities. The Project Area also contains existing 42, 36 and 30- inch water transmission mains. 6 Section 3 Design Criteria - Water Distribution System 3.1 Design Criteria The design criteria for this study were developed in accordance with Collier County standards and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) rules and regulations. The water distribution system has been hydraulically modeled to maintain a minimum pressure of 50 psi under peak hourly flow (normal operating conditions) and a minimum pressure of 40 psi under maximum day flow (fire flow conditions). The preliminary layouts and costs for the Golden Gate Estates water distribution system are based on 185 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) water demand and fire flows as outlined in Section 1.2 of the Collier County Standards Manual. Based on the Draft 2005 Residential Build-Out Study, it is estimated that 2.8 persons per parcel will be living in the Project Area at build-out. There are a total of 1,368 parcels within the Project Area. Therefore, it is estimated that the annual average daily demand CAADD) for the residential dwellings will be approximately 715,000 gallons per day (gpd) at build-out. The AADD for the Project Area is shown in Table 3-1. The projected population increases and the corresponding AADD in five- year increments for the Project Area are shown in Table 3-2. System layouts and costs of the water distribution system are based on systems constructed in accordance with Collier County Utility Standards. 3.2 Hydraulic Modeling The Collier County KY Pipe 2000 model was used as a basis in developing the preliminary distribution system for the Project Area. The KY Pipe 2000 hydraulic model includes a database of information defining new and existing transmission mains, junctions, tanks, pumps and valves within the Collier County utility infrastructure to simulate operating conditions. 3.2.1 Modeling Parameters The water infrastructure requirements required to provide service to the project area at build-out conditions were developed by evaluating the County's transmission system under the following flow conditions: · Annual Average Daily Demand CAADD) - the total water supplied in one year divided by the number of days in the year. 7 · Maximum Daily Demand (MDD) - the maximum quantity of water supplied in a single day during one year, equivalent to 1.3 times the AADF. · Peak Hour Demand (PHD) - the maximum quantity of water used in a single hour during a one-year period, equivalent to 2.6 times theAADF. The range of acceptable flow velocities under various flow conditions is generally considered to be 2 to 8 feet per second (fps). Under average flow conditions a velocity of 3 to 6 fps provides the lowest operating costs. High velocities can result in excessive head loss, thereby increasing pumping costs. Low velocities result in longer travel times, making it difficult to maintain adequate residual levels of chlorine, which can lead to poor water quality. Using the parameters above, it was established that the acceptable range of velocities in the distribution system network should be 2 fps to an absolute maximum of 8 fps under any simulation. 3.2.2 Modeling Simulations Operating conditions at the discharge water treatment plants were simulated by modeling the plants with pressures of 80 psi. This pressure value was based on information received from Collier County regarding the typical operation of the high service pumps located at the existing plants. Pumping stations necessary to provide water to the Golden Gate Estate distribution system are the Carica, Manatee, Capri and Vanderbilt pumping stations and are modeled as follows: · Pump stations were modeled using pump curves provided by the County. Firm pumping capacity was used (largest pump out of service) . · Maximum day and average day demand conditions were modeled without any pump stations operating. · Peak hour demand conditions were modeled with at least one pump operating at each pump station. · C Factor was assumed to be 135 for all pipes. · The Vanderbilt pump station was designed for use III fire flow conditions only and was included in this analysis. 8 3.3 Hydraulic Modeling Analysis Each model run was analyzed to ensure that velocities throughout the transmission system were within the acceptable range. The minimum system pressure was also checked to see that it satisfied the County's level of serVIce. The Golden Gate Estates distribution system. was also modeled to ensure that the pipe layout and size provide reliable service to customers while meeting the County's established level of service at the proposed build-out populations. 3.4 Recommended Water Distribution System Layout Figure 3-1 shows the water distribution system layout for the Project Area. The preliminary distribution system layout includes approximately 103,000 linear feet of 8-inch water main and 57,800 linear feet of 12-inch water main. These mains would be supplied by existing 30, 36, and 42-inch transmission lines. The water distribution system also includes various required appurtenances such as gate valves, air release valves, fire hydrants and water meters. 9 Section 4 Water Distribution System Project Costs 4.1 Prelimina_ry Project Costs A preliminary estimate of construction costs for the proposed Project Area water distribution system is shown in Table 4-1. The estimate has been prepared based on recent, similar projects. The total project cost for the water distribution system in the Project Area is $31,779,000. 4.2 Cost per Customer Based on service to 1,368 existing parcels, the cost per customer is estimated to be $23,230 for the Project Area water distribution system. Based on unit costs in the 2005 AUIR, the additional per customer cost for water supply and treatment is $5,070. A 30% contingency cost has been added to the estimate. Therefore, the total estimated cost per customer for the water distribution system in the Project Area is approximately $37,000. 10 Section 5 Design Criteria - Wastewater Collection and Transmission System 5.1 Design Criteria The design criteria for this study were developed in accordance with Collier County standards and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) rules and regulations. Force mains have been sized to provide a desired flushing velocity of two and one-half feet per second with a minimum allowable velocity of eight feet per second. The wastewater collection and transmission system is based on 145 gpcd for all residents located within the Project Area. Peaking factors were applied to establish the firm pumping capacity for each pumping station. Using the "Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities" as released by the Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers, 1997 ed.; the peaking factor was obtained using the following equation: Peaking Factor = (18 + (p) 112) + (4 + (p) 1/2); where P = Population III Thousands Based on the Draft 2005 Residential Build-Out Study, it is estimated that approximately 2.8 persons per parcel will be living in the ProjeCt Area at build-out. There are a total of 1,368 parcels within the project area. Therefore, it is estimated that the annual average daily wastewater flow rate for the area will be approximately 561,000 gpd at build-out. There are several commercial and institutional facilities located in this area. These facilities are included in the tabulation of estimated wastewater flow shown in Table 5-1. Table 5-2 shows the projected population and wastewater flow increases in five year increments for the Project Area. All wastewater collection and transmission system layouts and costs are based on systems designed and constructed in accordance with Collier County Utility Standards. 5.2 Recommended Wastewater Collection System Design Figure 5-1 shows the preliminary wastewater collection and transmission system design. There are currently no County wastewater facilities adjacent to the project area. However, the 2005 Wastewater Master Plan Update includes recommendations for budgeting and planning-level locations for the following wastewater improvements: (1) Construction by Year 2010 of a new 16-inch diameter force main in Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension along the northern boundary of the project area. This force main will convey wastewater flow to the Vanderbilt Beach Road Pumping Station and ultimately to the North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF); (2) Construction by Year 2010 of a new master pumping station east of the 11 project area and a new 12-inch diameter force main in Pine Ridge Road ExtensionlWhite Boulevard routed through the project area; and (3) Construction by Year 2012 of the new East Central Master Pumping Station and Pretreatment Facility east of the project area. The wastewater collection and transmission facilities for the project area are proposed to connect to future planned wastewater improvements. Facilities planned for Golden Gate Units 3 and 4 (Township 51, Range 26, Sections 2 and 11 respectively) would pump to the proposed 16-inch diameter force main in Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension. Facilities planned for Units 27 and 28 (Township 51, Range 26, Sections 14, 23 and 26) would connect to the proposed 12-inch diameter force main in Pine Ridge Road Extension/White Boulevard. Due to the generally flat topography of the project area and the relatively long distances between street intersections, the need for two duplex pumping stations on each east-west street is recommended to convey the wastewater to the County's wastewater transmission system. A single pumping station per street, while hydraulically feasible, would require numerous sewer and pumping station excavations to depths greater than 12 feet, resulting in higher dewatering and construction costs. The Project Area has been divided into four areas, each containing eight to twelve pumping stations. One pumping station in each area would serve as a master pumping station in order to reduce the need for larger pumps and force mains throughout the area. 12 Section 6 Wastewater Collection and Transmission System Project Costs 6.1 Preliminary Project Costs A preliminary estimate of construction costs for the proposed Project Area wastewater collection and transmission system is shown in Table 6-1. The estimate has been prepared based on recent, similar projects. The total project cost for the wastewater collection system in the Project Area is $66,264,000. 6.2 Cost per Customer Based on service to 1,368 parcels, the cost per customer is estimated to be $48,438 for the wastewater collection system. Based on unit costs in the 2005 AUIR, the additional per customer cost for wastewater treatment and disposal is $5,117. A 30% contingency cost has been added to the estimate. Therefore, the total estimated cost per customer for wastewater service in the Project Area is approximately $70,000. 13 Section 7 Permitting and Property Acquisition 7.1 Permits The following permit applications will need to be prepared for the installation of the new utilities discussed throughout tMs study: · Collier County Right-of-Way Use · FDOT Utility Permit · FDEP Notice of Intent to Use the General Permit for Construction of Water Main Extensions for Public Water Systems · FDEP Notification/Application for Constructing a Domestic Wastewater Collection/Transmission System · SFWMD Right-of-Way Permit 7.2 Property Acquisition 7.2.1 Water Distribution Based on the water distribution system layout for the Project Area, approximately 31 acres of land would need to be acquired within an existing South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) right-of-way. Based on the usability of the land, a cost of $100,000 per acre was assumed. The total cost for water distribution system property acquisition within the Project Area is $3,100,000. 7.2.2 Wastewater Collection Based on the wastewater collection system layout for the Project Area, approximately 37 pumping stations and 4 master pumping stations are required. Using previous land acquisition figures, approximately 15 acres of land would need to be acquired to accommodate the construction and operation of the pumping stations. Based on usability of the land, a cost of $200,000 per acre was assumed. The total cost for wastewater collection system property acquisition within the Project Area is $3,000,000. 14 Section 8 Projected Expansion Costs of Water and Wastewater Utilities Throughout Golden Gate Estates 8.1 Preliminary Water and Wastewater Distribution System Design The East of CR 951 Utilities Study analyzed utility development for the Project Area (sections 2, 11, 14, 23 and 26). Since these sections are similar in size and layout to the entire Golden Gate Estates area, the Project Area costs were used as a basis to develop future water distribution costs and wastewater collection costs throughout all of Golden Gate Estates. The total estimated cost for the expansion of water and wastewater utilities to the Project Area is $98,043,000. There are five sections within the Project Area. Therefore, the cost per section for water distribution and wastewater collection is approximately $19,609,000. Based on the 2005 AUIR, the following costs for the supply, treatment and transmission of water and the transmission, treatment and disposal of wastewater are shown below on a per section (per square mile) basis: Cost Element Water Cost Wastewater Cost (Per Section) (Per Section) Water Supply and Treatment Cost $1,387,100 N/A Element Transmission Cost Element $1,001,000 $200,000 Wastewater Treatment/Disposal Cost N/A $1,400,000 Element 8.2 Projected Costs for PROJECT AREA (East of CR 951 within Water Sewer District) There are existing transmission mains available within the Project Area; therefore, the transmission cost element is not included in the overall costs for water/wastewater utility expansion in this area. There are five sections located in the Project Area. The total cost for water and wastewater utility expansion within the Project Area is $145,573,000. 8.3 Projected Costs for AREA 1 (West of CR 951 within Water Sewer District) There are existing transmission mains within Area 1; therefore, the transmission cost element is not included in the overall costs for water/wastewater utility expansion in Area 1. There are thirteen sections located in Area 1. The total cost for water and wastewater utility expansion within Area 1 is estimated to be $378,495,000. The estimated cost per customer for Area 1 would be similar to the cost per customer for the Project Area. 15 - 8.4 Projected Costs for AREA 2 (East of CR 951 outside Water Sewer District) Development patterns within Area 2 are platted as 2.5 to 5 acre lots as with a majority of the Golden Gate Estates area. Therefore, the five sections used in this study are considered representative of all Golden Gate Estates. The potential exists for concentrated development zones such as rural villages. The Water-Sewer District boundaries would need to be expanded to provide water and wastewater utility service to -Area 2. If road extensions and development are planned for Area 2, the County should reserve 30-foot wide utility corridors along all major roads for water and wastewater facilities. Area 2 would also require the installation of transmission mains, therefore, the transmission cost element is included for both water and wastewater utility installation. There are 75 sections located in Area 2. The total cost for water and wastewater utility service within Area 2 is estimated to be $2;300,700,000 to serve the entire 75 square mile area. The cost per customer for Area 2 would be substantially higher than the cost per customer for the Project Area based on the current parcel density. 16 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT East of CR 951 Utilities Study Table 3-1 Project Area Residential Water Demand Greeley and Hansen LLC 28 3:00 February 2006 '. Build-Out Build-Out Section Number of Build-out Persons Per LOS Demand AADD AADD Parcels Population Parcel (gpcd) (QPd) (oom) 2 239 667 2.8 185 123,.3.95 86 11 242 744 3.1 185 137,640 96 14 315 915 2.9 185 169,275 118 23 303 862 2.8 185 159,470 111 26 269 679 2.5 185 125,615 87 TOTAL 1,368 3,867 715,395 497 Average Persons Per Parcel = 2.8 gpcd = gallons per capita day gpd = gallons per day gpm = gallons per minute AADD = Annual Average Daily Demand I- Z UJ ::2 l- I- a:: z <( UJ a. ::2 w z a a:: CJ UJz > - o a:: CJ i:tJ >- Z I- - Z CJ => z ow u U) a:: ~ UJ t:: ::J~ ....J I- o => u u ::J al => a. >- ., ::s - en m CI) ~ :;:: ;:) o M o N -= Cl ::s o .... -= I- ., c ra E CI) c .... CI) ~ .2- 'i;j c CI) Cl r:! CI) > < iTi C'lI ~ M c CI)< j5., ra c I- ra m CI) :;:: Ow c CI) C c o :;:: ra "3 Co ..... In en a:: (J - o - m ra w Cl.. II I -, It) Q X '" - l') Q ..; ~ ~ ... r-- 0 - l') 0 N c 0 - r-- III <0 '3 co c. ..; 0 c.. - - It) g i It) "t ..... ~ ~ co <0 It) N - 0 N C 0 l') - III co '3 <0 C. ..; 0 I a. t- o c X r-- co Q ~ ~ ~ <0 0 - N - 0 N C 0 N - III 0 '3 ." C. ..; 0 a. - Ow It) ....Jo C '5" ..,. ....Jo C "!. c. ~ CN ~ S 5l ~ <.0 C co - co ::s In Iii ..... - 0 C "C Q) N 0 CLL. ~ r-- mo ..... '3 "t >'0 l') (l) .. c. - (") 0 (l)oo c.. l!:!N -- <9 - 0 c ::c <.0 ..... ~ c. r::i ~ co In 0 - .... 0 C N 0 0 <0 ~ l') ., '3 .... CI) c.. ..; - 0 ra D.. E :;:: ?- m 0 w c '5" '" ra ..,. c c. uS e ~ ~ ..,. < In - It) - u CI) g- .0 N C .... 0 ;g Cl.. - III '" '3 N c. 0 D.. - it) VI ~I ~ 0 :, q 0 c ..... c: Z N 0 ::J ~ Cl :; z ::; ...I co UJ 0 .VI <0 ~ llJ ~I ~J I I -- 0. C a. ~ 32 :5 ro -g III E " 0 .2- 'ro 0 " 0> >- III III Q; '" 0 > '" <( => ~ ro '" '" ~ c: ~ c: c: .Q <( a; ro ~ Cl 0 0 :::, R ~ 0 '" o ro COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES 6f>JGINEERING DEPARTMENT East of CR 951 Utilities Study Table 4-1 Project Area Preliminary Water Distribution System Cost Estimate Greeley and Hansen_LLC 283:00 February 2006 Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Construction Cost 1 Mobilization 1 .LS $ 517,775 $ 517,775 2 Maintenance of Traffic 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 3 Raw Water PiDelines in ODen-cut Trench Furnish and Install 8" Water Line and FittinQs 103,200 LF $ 65 $ 6,708,000 Furnish and Install 12" Water Line and Fittinos 57,800 LF $ 100 $ 5,780,000 4 Water Main Valves Furnish and Install 8" Gate Valve 126 EA $ 3,500 $ 441,000 Furnish and Install 12" Gate Valve 60 EA $ 5,000 $ 300,000 Furnish and Install 36" Gate Valve 2 EA $ 30,000 $ 60,000 5 Air Release Valves Furnish and Install New Air Release Valves and Appurtenances 150 EA $ 4,500 $ 675,000 6 Fire Hydrant Assemblv Furnish and Install Fire Hydrant Valve, Piping and Hydrant 105 EA $ 6,500 $ 682,500 7 Water Meter Furnish and Install 1" Water Meters and Meter Boxes 1,368 EA $ 3,000 $ 4,104,000 Furnish and Install all Materials for Water Service Connection (long and short connections) 900 EA $ 1,500 $ 1,350,000 8 Testing Permanent Bac- T Samplinq Points 32 EA $ 2,000 $ 64,000 CONSTRUCTION COSTS: $ 20,782,275 20% CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY: $ 4,156,455 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE: $ 24,938,730 15% PLANNING, DESIGN, INSPECTION AND ADMINISTRATION COSTS: $ 3,740,810 ESTIMATED PROPERTY ACQUISITION COSTS: $ 3,099,174 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE: $ 31,779,000 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT East of CR 951 Utilities Study Table 5-1 Project Area Residential Wastewater Flow Rates Greeley and Hansen LLC 28 3:00 February 2006 Number of Build-out Persons Per LOS Flow Build-Out Build-Out Section AADF AADF Parcels Population Parcel Rate (gpcd) (gpd) (com) 2 239 667 2.8 145 96,715 67 11 242 744 3.1 145 107,880 75 14 315 915 2.9 145 132,675 92 23 303 862 2.8 145 124,990 87 26 269 679 2.5 145 98,455 68 TOTAL 1,368 3,867 560,715 389 Average Persons Per Parcel = 2.8 gpcd = gallons per capita day gpd = gallons per day gpm = gallons per minute AADF = Annual Average Daily Flowrate t- Z W ~ t- t- a:: z <C w 0. ~ W Z Cl a:: <:l w z > a:: Ow <:l w ~ a ::> z o w () (/) [Ii ~ ::::i ::::i ..Ji= 0::> () () ::::i III ::> 0. >- "CI j - en Ul Gl ~ :;:; ::J .... It) ~ c:: (.) - o - Ul III W .... Gl ; Gl - Ul ~ ~ "n; C Gl 01 ~ Gl > ~< It) CD :lS III J- Cl M Cl N ..c 01 j e ..c J- Ul Gl - III c:: ~ o u: iii j c c < "CI C III Ul Gl :;:; "in c Gl C C o :;:; III :i c. o a. "CI S III E :;:; Ul W III III < - U III "0' .... a. Ow ...10 ...10 lj3N III c: III :c "CI c: III >. Gl Q) ~ (!) It) II. " .... ~ ,... a- 0 S IS c C') c N c 0 ;l ,... <U CQ '3 ClO a- ..; 0 0. It) II. i C') 0 c ~ :s ;t It) It) N C N C i C') ClO '3 CQ a- ..; 0 0. c II. " '" 0 a- "':. ~ ..!:!! ,... c It) 0 N 0 N C 0 - N <U C ~ II) ..; 0 0. II) II. " ~ ~ a- 0 i::' ..!:!! ~ III 2 on ..... .Q Cl (I) N C U. 0 0 ;l ,... " .... 0 '3 M M a- ..; co 0 N 0. c II. - N ox ,... ~:s i "It 0 .... 0 N 6 i CQ C') ~ .... ..; 0 0. c II. i C') ~ M <15 ..!:!! N "It II) 8 N c .2 ~ 'lii '3 '" a- N 0 0. en II) '" ~ 0 :, t- o Z N 0 .... ::l Cl z :J ...l ClO W '" 3: 0 :, <D ~ C llJ 0 .... c: Q 10 ~ o 0.. S o :!2 :5 ll) ~ 0 li: '"' ';I Q '"' f '" .l!l 0 'c l;; -( :J c. " '" '" 0 ~ c: 0: ~ .!2 .::! a; ~ .:.. Q :J R -( 0 '" -( o ll) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES E=lllGINEERING DEPARTMENT East of CR951 Utilities Study Table 6-1 Project Area Preliminary Wastewater Collection System Cost Estimate Greeley and Hansen LLC 28 3:00 February 2006 Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Construction Cost 1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 1,145,386 $ 1,145,386 2 Maintenance of Traffic 1 LS $ 200,000 $ 200,000 3 Gravity Sewer System Construction Furnish and Install 8" DR26 PVC Sanitary Sewer lines in cuts less than 6 feet 52,450 LF $ 75 $ 3,933,750 Furnish and Install 8" DR26 PVC Sanitary Sewer lines in cuts 6 to 13 feet 72,300 LF $ 100 $ 7,230,000 Precast Concrete Shallow Manholes 164 EA $ 4,000 $ 656,000 Standard Precast Concrete Sanitary Sewer Manholes for Sewers in cuts 6 to 13 feet 218 EA $ 6,000 $ 1,308,000 4 Forcemain Sewer System Construction Furnish and Install 6" DR18 PVC Forcemain 84,000 LF $ 45 $ 3,780,000 Furnish and Install 8" DR18 PVC Forcemain 16,500 LF $ 65 $ 1,072,500 Furnish and Install 6" Forcemain Jack-and-Bore Crossinq 300 LF $ 235 $ 70,500 Furnish and Install 8" Forcemain Jack-and-Bore Crossing 400 LF $ 260 $ 104,000 Forcemain Interconnection 2 LS $ 10,000 $ 20,000 5 Wastewater Service Connections Funish and Install 6" DR35 PVC Sanitary Sewer House Lateral 1,368 EA $ 880 $ 1,203,840 6 Driveway and Roadwav Repairs Remove and Reoalce Concrete Driveway 8,200 LF $ 42 $ 344,400 Remove and Replace Street Pavement Surface 350,000 SY $ 15 $ 5,250,000 Remove and Replace Street Pavement Base 250,000 SY $ 14 $ 3,375,000 7 Pumping Station Installation Furnish and Install Pumpinq Stations 37 LS $ 350,000 $ 12,950,000 Furnish and Install Master Pumpinq Stations 4 LS $ 800,000 $ 3,200,000 CONSTRUCTION COSTS: $ 45,843,376 20% CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY: $ 9,168,675 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE: $ 55,012,051 15% PLANNING, DESIGN, INSPECTION AND ADMINISTRATION COSTS: $ 8,251,808 ESTIMATED PROPERTY ACQUISITION COSTS: $ 3,000,000 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE: $ 66,264,000 \ ,-~~- \:i- .\~ i--- I. ~ ~ I m: JZ ,~ ~ \\" :;0- ~ . t. . , i III , Q C. t-' '"">:j !: ... o '"">:j \.. c;; I., .. ~ ~ \; )'" \:,j. ~~~' -V ~ C):V~ " ~ ~.. .. ~ \~~.. i ~\\\ f1.i ..."., ~ ~ 0t" ')!:r ~ ... ,~-'!lL. 1,0 \' ) L, ..f'-.r-; r~ ""i Il" ... \y / ~~ ~~,. ~ 12 / - :- " V \'\ \~ ,"i A; "J:::- -;r;l L .. (CJi..~ ~ Y 1 " ~<\.7 ,. Y " \---y rT\' J ~( ;. .. ."'c.-. ) i 1(: \"'--~H 5 .}-1;~,,:~:-' ,J( . I k{t; \ I?\f;- ;,;-.i/.. ~~ A~ ; "i'-! O1l~14U !II: t:7 "; '/.~ II \..., -'"",,", " &...."..' ""., .- .~ R 25 E \ h .. . I .. ~ . rl_ \. \ ' I \ . ki?EI - ~ D ."....IIY A.D HA.... ... R 25 E ~ \::tj 'x ....... C') o o U) "' LE:GE:ND ~~lAc~f=NDARY GOUlEN OA Tt EIT A 1'D WilTS EAST or c:R Ill! AND GUT1IIK "WA'TUl SEWER DIS1IIICT~AIl!A .2 ;;; 1ftilWJ"lt1l GOl..DDt GAT[ ESTATES UNITI 1Na.UDED IN lAST OF at H1 Unl.InES SlUDY~PIlOJI:GT AREA CITY Df' NAPLES ...,. ........ .... OItANQ[ lREE SERVICE ARf.A '" U) t. I ,1 ~1 .,1 ~~. 1 \ t.~ ), ! 1~- R 26 E t . PI ... -.... " -~ 12 " " ,. " 12 IS .. .. I. JZ .. -=- ..:.. o;::'ll\,- " .. '" .. .. .. .. .. '" .. .. "'a .1 aA'RE~ .1 .. "" II I. .. .. I ~"I .. .. I. .. JZ to - .. . ~ I~I ~.\o.i ""~~ 1/ - '01 "ill ~ Ii' . 10 ~ Z .. .. .. .. __ 1-- . . - -- 11 , . .. ~ '" ..~ .. to 1. 01 ~ .. -- .. m JZ 1-... to 1__. .. .. .. to '" '" '" 1 '" ~. " "- 11K '" I. " 13~ JZ .. .. .. .. to EAST OF C.R. 951 STUDY AREAS R 26 E R 27 E .. " I. t. II .. .. .. 'D .. "" . Lo. "" t .~ i " .. .. .. '" .. .. II .. .. 'D .. .. .. "" -"" I. to " .. ~ '" .. 'D m ~. .. "" "" I. i '!!-" I. I . .. " ~". .- '" .. ,. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. III to .-.- III .. .. .. '" .. . I 11 12 .. .. to .. .. .. "11 .i 11 .. .. ..f I. ~. D .. --=-", ,~ lID .. .. , ~. . l~1D .. )'"- R 28 E FIGURE 2-1 '" , "' !: :5 '" ;;; N '" COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT EAST or C.R. 951 STUDY 28 3:00 FEBRUARY 2006 R 27 E R 2ll E FlGURE 3-1 SHEET 1 OF 3 ....~__...__ i .....g. ...-- -- ..- FOR ,i CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 2 FOR CO NTINUATION SEE S HEET 2 ~ _ PROPOSED WA~ _ _ _ "e.R MAIN EXISTING WA= ,e.R MAIN -<? EXISTING SEWER MAIN ~ EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT .,. PROPOSED FlRE ~ HYDRANT PROPOSED VM.VE mR..L..V AND MAN..N L.... PROJECT AREA WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM LAYOUT 1 600 FT I COLLIER ENGIN COUNlY PUB EAST gRI~~ DEPARTM~~ UTIUTIES 28 3:00 FES 951 UTILmES R~.2006 STUDY 800 1,1 I I 0 11 IIII 800 I 1"=800 FO~NTINUATION SEE SHEET 1 n;---, ~----]! I I ' 1_:=--: r-T-- -- I.- ..._~ I r-- TOWNSHIP 49S RANGE 26E I' ! ~ f.... -....- ---- J.._I~-' Ul " ~ I ~E j. ~::::=--1 . _-l....--._ II - . U-i-I-- L:=_ 1------...- i i I ~._..__.~-- ! PROPOSED WATER M~N - - - - EXISTING WATER MAIN FIGURE 3-1 SHEET 2 OF 3 '11 II' I i FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 1 , 111-~~~-= ... .-.-. ..__...----l I- "-.;"\;I I I --w I -", r i II , , C......"'i. -I- I ITII _ -" __ ~ r II.... i ~ 'I ! I- I I I I I ---.- I I 1 .-.-~' 1'1 'I I jT I I II, I U ' -"'j"'1 rIi' ".' ''--- ,!jfJ' - I I! I'. I ' I ' f ~ I I 1___.' : I I !~.:""f I I_ I: , II -1 !.... I I i I II,---r II ! i ! I II , I. . I ' -._- jl~-'~J Tl-,!"-~ . 1----- 1 J --- '~ ; ''l'" 1, l"\ .1- I, 'I! 1 [ ! !-'C~.'UI-LCI- ~M1t:1 '-- I 1-, II I ~----- j I; i I I --- - i..I--. - - ~--- I' 1" i 1 ; D ~ -- - - -.. ! - ~ 'ji 1 I Il"' [~ '4:J~ ,,~ 'li.l+ I I :J'- B I :'1 ~r~ b ~-I I II, IJ'! ;... i __ I 11__.1.... It;_- ~= ~ '~- I -...., I: 'I :'!'., ' i. , 1 I' '111.','" I, I' : ...,...... ~1 ,1. I I ;; ! I ~ FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 3 ,! i III L I I r11Ii:11j! f A " i liT' :1 11m :- 'II--A,! III I -...-.-..- -.- 1-------- . I.... -.-.-- v - ! I _..~ I H '- I[ ---..-- '-...- -- - ;iiiiii Il---.-- ----Il------- =------ I I ! 1---......- ;! -r---- ....-- -- ~ -1L+- F I- =~I I--.....J II! A I IIIL~= v;..._J .. ... FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 3 EXISTING SEWER MAIN PROJECT AREA WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM LAYOUT -<? EXISTING FlRE HYDRANT ~ PROPOSED ARE HYDRANT H PROPOSED VALVE IIR..L.V AND HAN..N LIoD 800 0 I1III1 r II1I 800 I 1"-800 1600 FT I COLLIER COUNlY PUBUC UTIUTlES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT EAST OF CR 951 UTIUT1ES STUDY 28 3:00 FEBRUARY 2006 TOWNSHIP 49S RANGE 26E FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 2 r" ~'..l .' 11' ..-..,~.-- .~ -- :, t----...-.-. , n111 ,i 1_'__ m!b] - ..If [0 l( III il '~~'~rM- " .'Ii ' j ;IJ=oof ,! I i ~=i ~D . I; ! ~ -j ~ -fhTl I II I !' 1'-1 i - l I J..__~._ I ' I . Tt l ! J~_ j ".!' ! ' ~t1lE ~=I':ili' ;LI_i \ I .~ 'ill II: ! I i I!!I ! 'c=~1i 'Ii+_ il!i I: 'I:,! :~r-- 'I 'I~i; 'r--: I: : : ; I let! I II'" I I, I I, I -,., \ 1 R-,lUUiu',1 . I ~~ i Ii! IJlll""",! II',' i " I' 'l,iUf'uJ' fI-----~ I' (1 ! i II: I ii, ,'i i It- i i I . i II i ' ;~..L ! I' ~ I I ,-.d u 1.( I' "\-! ! Iii! .I'i ; I -+ I ; I ! j ~~ ?~_ril~j 00 .', 10 I' ~ J~I ~ \e::.f:!J a ID~ ql, I:~] c Iillw ~jU_m IDmT~! .- ! .. \ ~"Ii i. ! i n: I EXIS"nNG 36. RAIt i I ...... ,I WATER IlAIN ~., 21----1' i~J -r-----/ III I I \ . i ,I ! II i ; 1,1 C'\,., '~ "'~,. '~" II ! I ! I ___-.1/ J ~ PROPOSED WATER ~N - - - - EXISTING WATER MAIN EXISTING SEWER MAIN -<? EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT ~ PROPOSED RRE HYDRANT H PROPOSED VALVE FlGURE 3-1 SHEET 3 OF 3 FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 2 ..~ _~LJ_L! I" III ! ' I I ; II i ; I ! i I II, I I i '-' , , I , -,., i I 1"'1 I i _1 C-.____.. I , ~ [-- .. Ll,.- ~---- -...... -..-.---.. I" -1-- '[ I I! '_J _f--' - ji!l.f ~_ " I,t-- , I ! ! i I PROJECT AREA WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM LAYOUT i : 1 i -L,50' SFWMO ROW FOR THE CYPRESS CANAL 800 0 IIIII111111 800 I '.-800 "R..L.V ANa MAN..N LL" 1 600 FT I -IT COWER COUNlY PUBUC UTIUTIES ENGINEERING DEPARTh1ENT EAST OF CR 951 UTIUTIES STUDY 28 3:00 FEBRUARY 2006 FIGURE 5-1 SHEET 1 OF 3 TOWNSHIP 49S RANGE 26E .---..-! LC- - ~+- ~"~ ~. @{~ i - ..~~'.\.. --... ---- . I l\ . : r- ~::- . I_____L____ ~RK_~19NE-_~j , --. I 1 II ---- -- ~;, Il.,,, .r- "--r. --L.J I ".~~~, I ~".:~ JJ! I ~ ~f- rr.~-r~r- _T-~~-j~ ., 'I I ~-; 1--"1-- I ....-. .-- -- I I ~---r-=-.t I frJ- I. I ~---- --.t I ._= .... .... _I- 1-_ .'.1_; .. _ ' ~ ._.~: _J -,,-,-.., -.....-. 1___ r---- ~ L~' {t,...~ "Iil.~_....' ~--.I I~::.. --.-------j I ---- ------ : I.. i~- Iii I l'T==--i ,~ =--=3 1--, --~-=t It I ~~ .~-~-~~ I ~~-~ 1-' 1lI11r---1 [----11__ _Lr=J~_l I I' I ; I -~.-- ... I 1--1 I,; I N-1 ' :~ ii-I WJ..lL;1 rmr d9 I'.. t illriThcr I I l- ;~i:c. "~ --.... . .._.....__.~ -..-- '-- I I ! '-1 ! I- Ii' I _I -'_ _I- I- I.l'_$ ~ 1 "'1 II I I ..-- il I I ~ 1------- r====--::::'- I I ~ I i ir-- 1---_ I ---I i ! j - ! l~ ~-' .--1 ~-- I . I 1-- -----;;;C wzw.o. . .. . iii FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 2 I!~- I I lr .1 ~ -,~:-~~-II I I '1-1 I ,'+f', 111~.llllL ~,.I ~---- I II! Ii / PROJECT AREA WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM LAYOUT I I BOD 0 1,IIII11111 BOD , 1" =BOO MANHOLE FLOW DIRECTION PUMPING STATION MASTER PUMPING STATION PROPOSED B" DIAMETER GRAVITY SEWER - - - PROPOSED B" DIAMETER FORCE MAIN - - -- PROPOSED B" DIAMETER FORCE MAIN .~..L.V AND HAN..N LLD .tJ.QIf; ALL PUMPING STATIONS SITES WILL REQUIRE MINIMUM 100'.100' EASEMENTS. ALL MASTER PUMPING STATION SITES WILL REQUIRE MINIMUM 200'.200' EASEMENTS. 1600 FT I COLLIER COUNTY PUBUC UTJUTIES ENGINEERING OEPARTMENT EAST OF CR 951 UllUTIES STUOY 28 3:00 FEBRUARY 2006 FlGURE 5-1 SHEET 2 OF 3 TOWNSHIP 49S RANGE 26E IT-: c--Tnr I H'!1! ~ I ) 'I .J.! II j J.--- ~.,-..~~ --t' F~' I_-~= 11 -' 1 llJ., II ,I=~ ~-T ~ -I 1 , I I ' I, ' , i I -- !..._ ...----- , -_---j == e-- ,-..k 'I' _-LJl i Ij', ---I I '_~ _ Iii 11' I 1--- J I ~ ~ .'. _1'1 1 I I I ~ l.. -n ,1 II _~-i-- LY ~ I 1 r I i I,' I 1-1 I 11 I,! . I ~~-- __I I I,. i~,_,,: II. ..,__1, , TJ'i I i l f- ~ '==:=! r i! I.: ,~,' j 111 ' Ll J ' ': I'J J ;--i, ......- f:== . ~=~ ill! I,. ' . I 'i I i I . I [-.-- rL=~: LU'I : I ,1 ---....--1 '! I I .---.----. , I ' ~C- , I I ~i6 : I I L !1 i. '__' -Ir-r'~ ~ I II,!'! ,'" I I :! <- ,- ii I--~ ~~~ [1d :! , 'I,TII II; I 'illj , ! : jr--~~= - IT JC - J' '1" I" '~1+l III I ,---- I . ~ ,L" ! I' ! I I' '1 ! ! I I ~-- I. I , ',",,, III 1lli--- ~~~,~ ~1.'1~1! !~I, Ii , Illi, I I I , ":;11 ,__I~;:Q ! :itjH~!jU'j:---;+ " . i , . r _J '---.-li.ttlH,. ,+ ' ~~T:R II ! III 'I II!! '! r,-t =j --I- i t H-' ~-1 ' ' lid I ! , I, '--' . ~.._~, 1 l.n._-'~I,T~m~1jE I :!.,~Cl!l,-r 1- II ! .. ~ LU'.2 'illl'ut I! ..1Ij l i 11I,'!-li 'I . - - ~_~ '" I , I I ~ 'I , _ _ " ___~ FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 1 I, ! i Ii i I f! ! FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 3 Wl.Etill . ~ PROJECT AREA WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM LAYO UT ~ ALL PUMPING STATIONS SITES WILL REQUIRE MINIMUM 100'.100' EASEMENTS. ALL MASTER PUMPING STATION SITES WILL REQUIRE MINIMUM 200'.200' EASEMENTS. MANHOLE n.OW DIRECTION PUMPING STATION MASTER PUMPING STATION PROPOSED B" DIAMETER GRAVI1Y SEWER - - - PROPOSED 6" DIAMETER FORCE MAIN - - - PROPOSED B" DIAMETER FORCE MAIN IIR..L.V AND MAN..N L.... . ~ 800 0 111111 II1II aDO I 1.~BOO 1600 FT I COLLIER COUNiY PUBUC UTIUTIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT EAST OF CR 951 UTIUTlES STUDY 28 3:00 FEBRUARY 2006 TOWNSHIP 49S RANGE 26E _ T==- "~-T I :~.:. I I I -r"-i-V. ' rrr'-Tf-l. I..LI ~Ef~: ~~:-" i ~I ~I- 1 ~ ~.~~i" I r ! ~Lt II I-T11IN~1 I I' I " , : ill -/ ' ! ...._I~li6 I L~ .__ ~~=~'i I III l , i "q-: II II, I " '-_ ",~~"l 'f I I; I! I .11 ! !! 'II Ii'! I ! f'r- I I i m'_" I ! E - 0 1Ji I FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 2 'Icl rl-l E -1'3 1 ..." Il'""1 ! ! I~ I : I (~ , I~.; I ; I I ) ; ,_l 'i =,-=-1 Il Iii I I I i , L . i I' li I'll -~, MANHOLE flOW DIRECTION PUMPING STATION MASTER PUMPING STATION PROPOSED 6" DIAMETER GRAVl1Y SEWER - - - PROPOSED 6" DIAMETER FORCE MAIN - - - PROPOSED B" DIAMETER FORCE MAIN ......L.V AND HAN..N LLD ~.~ ! r- i-I...... r?!~ I!~i~ ~G !E1.::-....[:: ~-~ ~.L~, ~ n..........' ! ~.;i ..J 1:,' "'\"---]'- ___I 7 1 L, -:~~:::~ ;--~ S?%"""- ;~i\)l ~]I .,0 . ! ;'B~D J\ '/} ~\~ o ~ ._~i1 CJ ! , f.. - ,-I 171 TIImr'3j---i .L.EGfMJl . - . '111 f-l.._..ll_ I, ~'''----T!I! ..j j ,'m.__ --ii, ==:1 -- '~IJrl ! .L-- - I , ! I 1-2~ I ! -...- - - : I. 'Ill i JI FlGUR.E 5-1 SHEET 3 OF 3 I I I- I - } ! -J-w=~ 'II F=- I, ~~J----- ~ i 1 Tr i , : i I II 1- i'l hll I---~--I. I I I! I! 'l: 4 . I!' 'I ! 1 I '1 ! . C 2 I 'j"W"f I .-<----- - I " I , ': I 1 _u-_Jr ~ _ l' ' ; I! ,ll~! ! 'I ;- L.;, iL f,JJ----- , r '-1 I ~[--.. I · I II! I II :,' II I I I I )1.1,- -.. i----- I I II I I_~J-+- m__._ j'+' I II ;f--": ....' . i I l.i' -1~ rr I ; I I I n:'''- i PROJECT AREA WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM LAYOUT .MQIE; ALL PUMPING STATIONS SITES WILL REQUIRE MINIMUM 100',100' EASEMENTS. ALL MASTER PUMPING STATION SITES WILL REQUIRE MINIMUM 200',200' EASEMENTS. BOD 0 IIIIII1I111 COWER COUNlY PUBUC lJTILlTJES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT EAST OF CR 951 lJTILITIES STUDY 26 3:00 FEBRUARY 2006 BOO I 1 "=BOO 1 600 FT I ,- Exhibit D Industrial Needs Analysis r,:] fl \ 0 t-.. t-.. ~ ~ r: ~ ~. 0 0\ \0 ~ .0 v-' t-.. V\ ~ ~ N'": X 0 ..f O~ i :-t~ ;- ~ - ~ 0\ ("() CO - co~ ~ CO \0 \!:I ~ ~ - --- ~ V\ 0 0 '" :J' ~ V\ 0 0 ~ N '"' d\ ~ ~ d\ :-t~ [", ,..... - --i -$ ~ 0 0 - ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 0 - ~ :-t :-t ~ \!:I 0 "" N') ',", t-.. 0\ 't 0\ ("() ,.. --l .$ :-t~ \CI \CI~ ~ CO ~ t-.. - N V\ \!:I - t:: V\ CO ~ ~ 0' 0 - M ~ ~ :-t ~ V' 0\ ~ 0\ V' D :-t~ ~ * 0 .0 ~ CO t-.. ~ - - ""'t" - ~ t-.. \CI ~ V\ CO 0 ~ ~ t-... 0 0\ ~ 0 0 ~ 00 V\ "" 0\ 0\ ~ f' c ..f ~ * $> r-..... 0 t-.. - - -.:j- ~ t:: ~ ..... g ~ r.n ~ '?' '+:3 ~ ~ '0 ~ b ""3 <:; ~ ~ 0.. S B 0 ~ A.i "'tj ~ <l) t b ---- ~ ..... -< r.n .a 1:" ,..S ~ ~ ~ 1 '0 Cl.c S l:l ~ 3 ~ -lo' 8 V) '+:3 ~ 0 ~ N a ~ 1 0 c; ~ b c; ---- ~ ~ ~ 'S i ~ d ;... b A.i ~ r.n c; S & Cl.c =' -< ;:: -lo' 1 ;::l <l) d ~ V) ~ 'E 0 "'tj ~ 1-1 V) '+:3 S ~ ,f ~ ~ ~ <l) 1 ..... 1-1 r.n ~ ;:: ~ ~ =' ~ 0.. & r.n 0 g ~ .~ 0.. - Z V) ~ u o ~ N ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ o ~ fJ II ~ o :-t o e'lI E.~ ::1 -=:;~ t).g ~~ .:=~ 5~ :f f ..c: Q) +-" ..0 .~ 0 ..... "'C "C Q) Q) "'C Q) ~ . C c'"OUJ CD Q) ~ "a.. ~ ct$ :::J Q) ~ 8 E UO+=D ctS "'C C) 0 cncc5 c ct1 :;:::; q_ "" ............, \ou "'C ,- (lj CD <D E J.... E1DQ5~ a't::: - C. a_ u c.. 00 om... E "C C <DOCO "0 () CO u CD u. C) 0 ..", C ...... 0> 0)._ C CO C c: .- <D "- c C J...."O(ljCD u:=:_~ <(:JCLro ..0 ..... (j) T"" <D "'0 CI) .1 , Ii ;..c,' () ~~;:; 0.,) ('~~~ (lJ hIJ I;."~ (I} ~ , E) ~ 4t rfj p:. ~ ,) C1,J , . t).:'~'\C; Qe' , . ~ \. j . (~) r~ ~) l") 4'\ \'''''1\1 ...;v.,'~Jl- ~. . '-1, ." ( ,,9 Q . r ) "~ (.) ~'(!) ( j 'l.. \~ I ( J fJ ,," o o o C\l I, 0' <0 /',' 0>. L{) o 0') co o 0) ..... ..... ,.- ..... l!) 0 ~ 8 C1") C\j I ..... o o ..... (j) L{) -.::t ,...... C\j 0 cJ C\I I U ~ 1) - '-.1,,; 0 - C1") 1:) C\I C\I D 0 0 C\I C\I I - - li := - - - L{) ..... 0 C\I i.:~,:_~::;: I- ~ ,'8~'~,~~ C') CD ~ ,.- I ! i I ,....:../ 'i;.1' ~ '~ _; l;- I o ...... o C\I o o o T"" o o o o ";" o o o C)l o o o C? o o o '1 I:: o :;:::0 ~O ::l0 Cl. _ o'<t a..'<t -I"- <1l 15 I- o C') o C\J Ol"-I"-~ o 0"> CO 0 0_ 1"-_ l!)_ 0 '<t '<t 0 . '<to">C')0 I"- 0 ..- o C\J '<t cD co o o COCO C\JOO '<t..-C\J cD a:j -.i COCOt() 0_..- l!)C')COCO~'<t'<tl!) C\JOl!)l!) ..-'<tCO o C\J ~l!)_~ ~~~ C\Joil!)l"-t--:co..-co ~coC\JI"-~~'<t Ol!)OC\J~ C\J'<t"-"-1"- o,,":q~1"- C\J~ro~<O l!) l!) l!)l!)COC\l~ ..-C')l!)..-C\J o CO, "!. O'l_ ..- C\J ..- I"- '<t . ~I"-C\J~ Ol"-COC\J~ ..-1"-00'l0'l o 1O_ l!)_ O'l_ 1O C\J '<t I"- '<t . Ol"-C\JCO '<t ..- 1O..- 01"- a 0 C\Jr-: '- C\J mC') >- Cll ", OC')I"- 1"-l!)C') I"-C\JCO cD to <0 '<t'<t'<t 1"-..- I"-C')I"- ..-01"- l!)0..- ....: 1"-- ..,f 0(1)'<t to ..- '<tC') u;~ ~I"-- tOC') '<t..- co ..- (1), ..,f '<t, '<t to '<t lO' o ..- I"- o r-: C\J C') l..:cccc-occ m .g 2 .Q.2 Cll 0 .Q >-<1l<1l1ij.:ffi.:ffi~m 3330033 g-g.g-g.~g-g- a..a..a..~xa..a.. Cii~UJUJ}g~ C ~ 1.. ~ c: "- Cll.20'WCll.2 E~'O;5E~ ~ 0 Ol.- Cll 0 ()$~.:ffig$ I::_.c::l__ $Og-"5$ I::Clla..OI:: Q) Ol (!J Et'O"5-cE ~'EO'3~ g~:QCJ:lg - '- oS - ?'- :::~CJ:l Q) Z 5 ~ 3 Cl. o a.. v, .~ ill c <( Ul "tJ CD CD Z ~ ... (tI a.. "ii '': - Ul ::I "tJ C ::::: III III CD C 'iij ::I a:J >. - c ::I o () ... ~ '(5 () ~"-LO o '<t (1) 00 o - 0"- '<t OCO'<ttOl'"-l"-co..-'<t'<t1'"- t()..-<;I'<;I'COCO1"-(1) 0">0'l O'l ..- 0"> '<t co ..- <;I' C'), 1O_ co_ cri"": ~ COl!)'<tl!)OC')..-1'"- lOl"-l!)OC\JtOC\JtO tOl!)I"-l!)COlOOl!) ~.. .,-" N ; C\J" T""""''' ,...... 0" C') ;::!?O'lC\l o C') (1) gO'l cO (1) ..-CO..-CO..-..-..-O I"-I"-COl!)OC\J to (1) 0">0 CO COOlOOCOlOC')OC')C\J O">C\JCOl!)'<tOC\JlO 100COOl"- '<tC\J'<tlO '<t'<t'<tC')l!)'<t0'll!) C')- "":..,f - - - ..-- ....: C\J - ..-- C\J ....: r-: C\J ~O..-C')COCO..-O">lOC')OI"-'<tCOC')..-O'lOI'"-"-C\JC\! o OC')..-tO..-'<t<;I''<t..-lOI'"-tO (1)COI'"-O(1)lOCO~ gO"> '<to'lCOCOI"-..-'<t~~~ '<tC')C')C')'<t(1)COv ~ cri cri "":"":N"":N"": cD ~ C\J O'lO">O">..-OC')tOCOO'<tO">OCOc\!(1)'<tCOO">'<tC\JC\J o '<tC\J..-..-I"-C\JO(1) 0"> co 0"> co lOCO'<tC\JO">I"-C')..- ~CO ~O">I"-~I"-,,-(1)q"!.~ ~~~~~~co~ (1) C\J ~..-O">O">'<tC\Jl!)O">I"-"-CO(1)lOCOCOI"-..-OCOCOlOC\J o. lO C\J C\J ..- I"- (1) 0 C') 0"> co 0 co 1O co 1O C') 0 I"- (1) CJ) ~co C\JO">I"-col"-..-C')q~~ C')C\JC\JC\JC')C\JCOO"> N M ~ T""""'~"- ~~~~N~ ~ C') C\J C')C\JCOI"-COCOOI"- 0">C\JC\Jl!)1O(1)0"> I"- l!)..-tOCOC\JC')O">lO cri cricricritON O..-O">'<t'<tC\JC')"-"-"-C')C\Jv l!)o">O>'<tC\JC\!C')OO">C')O>C\JCO COlO'<tCO 1"-'<tl!)..-1"-C')1O'<t T': <;1'- 1O- trl trl l!)- 0">- l!)- 0">- trl cri 1O- o ..- III ,0 c: 0' 00 ._ 0 Q.N E ::J en en <( #~#####~~#~##~~##~~ 100000000000l!)0000000 000000000000000000">0 od.'<t~(1)..-C')co~~d'<t~C\J~dN~ c go_c:~g E C'J 0 0 Ol rn~~ 0' ::2 (/) ~ (f,S! g' 0'8 :5 2oiiig~:oO' 'fij 0 C\/ 0 ~ g ::!I. a:: ~ ::l 0 _co ~ ~~ ~ 5~m~~=~ 50 ~ ~o ~_-cIll~(tI~i~ 0C\J~~ Cll~~UOCQ)o--oo O~ Co-O<1l o~o-o<~CJ)c:~x.- OONCllO:> s-oCO.~cuCD_Q)rn o --co> ,,-C/JoCll~CilQ)c:Ea.-~ O_~O'lt'OC\J"c-Q)c~CJ)_~_CJ)roC:C/J~m C\!O c:'--c:ooCJ)_-_c~ CiiJ:ou~ -05~I-Q)t'OOc:~Q)t'OCll"-Cii!~ ~E ~~~::l~i~~Qt'Oi5ECJ)CDc:O()('(lS-C~"C ~-5~~'-R(/)rnQ)IIl-Q) - c:l:: < ::lO'l~~Q)~~Q)~cuUJ~~crn.cUJ('(l~o oCUl::l- --~ Q)'W-o- "CQ)- ~~C:52$5~o('(lcCii~5E::li~o.c:O O'l-o->Q)~z-_Q),-'W"C-c_~O~::l <~()~>a::I-~E~a::a..::2<UJJ:<~ua.. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~-~----------------~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ w w ~ ~ ~ 00 0 00 W 00 0 0 ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~u-cu~~~c"Cu~cu~~uc~~u ~EE~=5~EEECECCE~E~~S o o o ~ 00 o 1'"-0">..-0 CO'<tI'"-C') C\!C') COo CO'<tc\!'<tC')"-(1)l!)'<t<;l'<;I'(O <;I'CO<;l'COCOCOI'"-I'-o<;l''<tOI''- N cD cO trl oi cri ....: a) en C\! - - cO COI"-.-COOlCOI"-..-<;I'l!) <;I' C')(o<;I'C\Jl!) ..-..-..- C\! - -, C\i <;I'o'<t C\! C\J N C\! to a) co co ..- o OCO..-O"> C\ICO 0 1"-0">..-<;1'..- CO l!)CO 100CO CO l!)..-C\1 <;I' C\lCOCO CO I"-C')COO> C')<;I'o"> co - ..-- cO oi cri l!)- ..,f r-: oi 1"-- '<t..-I'-oC')'<tI"-COOC\JC') C\J, 1O_ C\!. C\J C') ..- ..- ..- N 0">01"-0C') 1O <;I' l!) C\! 0"> 1O ..,f cO C\J- C\! '<t l!) C\! ..- OO<;l'..-U)C\J,-OC')I"-C')o">C\! C\!O">I"-OOl!)COI"-'<t..-O l!) CO CO I'"-<;I'C\J 0"><;1'0"> 1"-0"> <;1'- co' en a) cD C\J- ....: en cri ....: O">'<tC\!C\I'<tI"-COOc\/C') ~ ..q-... No. C\! C\I ,.- T- ,.- C\J" coo <;I' 0"> '<t- ..- C\I (")00"> to ..- I"- C\! C\J" cD <;I' '<t OOC')C')I"-COOlI"-C\!O<;l'COO COOCOlO.-'<tCOOOC')l!) tOtOC')COCO..-'<ttOO">C\JCO cD cD ..,f to" cO co' co" 1'-0- cD <;1" C\!(Ol!)'-..-COl!)O)..-C\1 ....--..M....T"""'..C\l,.- T'""-r- C\J- ..-0 '<t I"- C\!- o C\I l!)0l!) l!) .- to 0"> '<t- r-: C') C') ..- 000"> 0 C\J C\JOCOO<;l'CJ)I"-C') 0">0"> 1"-1OC\J(ol!)..-I"-C')l!) C\!O"> OC')tOC')COo"> C\!COCO 0' 0' cO 1'"-- to cO CO- r--: r-: <;1" C')1"-l!)..-C\I(Ol!)O)..-C\! "-.. ~ "-.. C\J T- ,...- T- C\J- ..-0 0"> C') en o C\! 1"-01"- co 1O o C') to cO (") C') ~ ,... OOOOOC\JOOOOOOOOO OOO..-OOOO">"-COOO COl!)OC\JOl!)lO..-O">O">tOC') oi l!)- 1"-' r--: 0" co - 1"-- cri '<t - l!)- en cO (oC:OCO"-I'"-CO<;l'..-O">C\J 1O I"-I"-COO">O">C\IC\!'<t<;l'l!) c:o ..,f l!)- ..,f cO 000 (0 co o co 0' cri I"- co U) l!) c.. E UJ L!") 0 ~ C\J 0 a.. u:: oooc:ooooooooooooo 0000">000000000000 l!) l!)l!) l!)0l!)C') (")(1)(")(1) C')C')C')C')C') ::<) u (f) #1ii~*~ O::lggg ~~ddo o I"- ~E 'E rf!.?ft.?ft.rfi 0000 0000 dddd 00..-0 ..- ?ft.'#.rf!.?f. gooo O~O ddod 0l!)C')C') ..- ~<ft. 00 00 od C')l!) rf!.?fl.rft.?fi,*- 00000 00000 ooood l!) C\! C\J 0' o o ~ 'E 8gg E ~:o::g OJ Ill_ 0' :E U;eUl S g -80 0' Q) 0'"00 ~ ~ - ~ 0 0 ~OUla:~ III 5 o~ 0 roo< ~ '- a 0 C\/Cll ~ $C\J-~Q) ~ ~O.c -u III ~~COO ~ ~oo Q) ooc: 0~C~O('(l~ o oO~cro mlll_ooC:8~E~ 00' oOmo> ~~O~OC_ Cll~ -0 0~"C0> C~00~0cnE~ OO_~OJIll~-C-OCll~~(f)-~~ic~ OC\lo CI-'- C (/J - --~ -0 ~-OCO~ Q)('(l0 n0Ciic~-Q)IllJ: Q)o ::JCll"C O~C cQ) Ill~t ~~C\/~--al~C\Io('(lmoE~C:IllCll-c 1ll3-~0~~0-~Q)~~Q)(/JgO'Ec: ~30l~~0_~~Eoc:WIll~cm.cW('(l ~0~0----- 0--0-"C ~~~cc:2SC~~IllCii-0C:E::l~~0 Ol-O('(l>~~=-C:Cll,-('(lunQ)to ~<:E():E>~I-~E~a::a..::2<wJ:<~ ~~tttttt~~~~~~~~t~~ ~ <IlUlCl/UlUlIllUl(/)UlUlUlUJUlUJIIlUl(/)<Il ~o ::l ::l ~ ~ ::l ::l ~ ::l ::l ::J ::l ::J ~ ::J ::l ~ ~ ::l ~ucu"Ccu-ccun-c-cuu"C"C~u ~EC:EEEEEC:EEE~EEEEEE .2 158 :::10 0.0 _N o.~ Q) c: U 0 x .- mro uiz; Q) g? u ._ .- E C"O gs~ .... u m= .J::.f:l _ :::I Oll. ~~ CijU5 :::I :::I "0"0 c: c: C')O~ CON~ ~""C\J .,f" cry"~- C')LOCO C\J....CO co' LOCOCO COC')o C')OO ...."aio> ....C')O C\l....0 ai O>LOC\l COO 0> LOC')"<t C\J'('jr.6 OC')I'- C\J,...CO r--: C')....C') coo>,... o I'- LO "-:"<t- 0" 0>C\J"<t ....,...C\l r--: I'-""LO O>OlLO CO,... I'- ,..: LO- cry" O>C\JCO ........C\J 1'-" OON LOO"<t O>C')CO ai ai ('j o C\J LO co LO CO 0" C') OOij OO~ (Y)C')'t] Ql Gl Z Qj ~ LL ~ IV :J C" f/) OJ ~ o ~ .. o S: cf2.?ft 00 00 00 LOLO o o o ~ CIl CD CIl :::I ~ .... ell a. CIl CIl Ol c: '(jj :::I .f:l .- C ell 0 CD c: .... .... ;,!(m o .c 0.... 1'-0 CIl CIl CIl CIl Ol Ol ...J...J OOQ~ (f)"<t QC\l ('1/ "<to co co co" 00 II) CO ('I/O QO ('I/o> o o ai 00 001l)C') ,... .... QLO ('1/ o' "<t C\l r--: OOQLO ,... LO 01'- Ncry" CO C\l r--: 00 LOC\l O"<t 0<0 C\l- C\l- LO <0 0" C') QC\l NO> o"<t N - <0 I'- <0 1'-- Ci3 "0 f- "0 o LL Ol .... ell :::l 0- (f) "0 CD 1i5 :::l '5' ~ .... .... ,... .... o 0_ o <0 0> LO o 0> co o 0> C\J C') ~ (Y) o o O. CO iri u ~ Q5 ll. u: CIl CD u ell .8 "0 CD "t CD > c: o u ~ U ell .... Ol a. Q) Ol - Ol (ij :::l 0- (f) o o .... ,... o .... , o LO LO 9 o LO .... o .... 9 o o I'- LO o C'}I o co o cp o o o CD 15 ~ '(ij > ~ CD OJ ell Ol u ~ "0 m c: o N Ci3 .;:: 1i5 :J "0 .E: OJ .S 1i5 'x ill ....... .... '(3 ~ e. --.. CIl :::l e- :::l (f) m OJ ell CD .... U ~ :~ ~..~"'.'..: . lli!1: '::s,~ gjl 0' (f2.(f.?f2. 000 000 000 C') t,Q.co tii .~ Ol E E o () ~"O .... Q) ..- ell c: '5 ll.~.f:l l200 m ,S o~ eft gJ tU tU CO CIl CIl tU ell OOlm 'eft g> g> ell CD CD (; t; ~<(<( 'n; '(ij '(ij WIDQ) cecece OOl'-l'-r.;l.;R (Y)OO><O ,g, ~ 0"1'-_~ 0 ~d';g 0 I'- <:t LOC')CO<O C\JOLOLO OC\l"<tLO C\l0>t6r--: "<tCON <0 OLOOC\J C\J~-r--r- 01'-0>-.:1: C\J (Y)....." <0 <OCOC\l LO ~~$CI;' o CO 1'-0> C\l ",t 0;- COlD"<t ~,... L:ccr- ~ .Q .Q ,g >-iiirottl "3"3::; c.c.o. 000 o..ll.o.. ~ 8 ~.2 E-= CD 0 u:,;: c: -tii C Q), E Q), ~ ~ ,i'\j j~!~.':.. z,li; ,11 I ~~ ~~~ :..Ij :J,' ,l~ 2ij; J~j v. '(jj >. (ij c <( III "0 Q) 1Il Z ~ .. ca Q,. (ij 'r: - III :J "0 C ::::: rn III (!) C 'w :J 00 >. - c :::I o U .. ~ '0 () ....LOOCO"<tCOI'-I'-CO,--"<I""<t1'- "<t(Y)lD...."<t"<t<OCOI'-(Y)O>O> ~ O>....O>"<tco,..."<t"l~<O (1')"'T"- v'" ~T-T'""'" COlD"<tlDOC'),--1'- LOl'-lDOC\JCOC\J<O COLOl'-lDCOlDOlD .,..:,... "," T-"' N ,-"' ~ 0 C') ;ROl o C') 80> cO C') C\J,--CO,--CO..- ,,-OI'-I'-<OLOON<OC')o>oco C')COOlDOCOlDC')OC')C\J OlNCOLO"<tONLO LOOCOOI'-..-"<t~~LO "<t"<t"<tC')LO"<tOlLO ~~ ~ ~~~ .,..:~&~~~ ~ C\I ;RO....C')COCO..-O>LOC')OI'-"<t<OC')..-O>OI'-..-NC\I ~O(Y)..-CO..-"<t"<t"<t..-LOI'-<O C')COI'-OC')LOCO..- 00> ~O>COCOI'-...."<t,..."l~ "<tC')C')C')"<tC')co"<t o C') cry" "-:"-:('j"':('j"-: r.D C') C\I Jcf2 o ~ :<:t C') OCOOllDC\lCOLOC') C\JC\JlD.... OLO"<tC\l"<tLO..-I'-COI'-O<O.... I'- "<tCOlDC\l"<tNI'-....COI'- r.6 ..-" ,..: 1'-- ..- - ('j N- N- CO"-CO<OLOC\lt'- OI'-O>LOOlDr I'- LO "<t "<t CO LO \ NN""N""N~r IIlP c: 0 00 ._ 0 Q.. "i E :J III III <l: o c gco8 o E C\l.Q 0 0 o Q) -ro~S'! ~ :2 "';Q) - OJ 8 0 Q) ........~ U ~2 c 08 0 _OUlQ)U1i8 .~ 8 ~ 0 ~ 8 :i ce .~ 5. g 08 ~ ~g ~.......~~~~~li~ .......0C\J........... ~tU.......uocQ)O E85 o 80~8~ u~o~g~.~(f)~~~; o 0 ~"O 0 > .~ CIl 8 Q) C\J Ul .... u E'o. . [i! 0.......~OJ~~"OoQ).E:N(f)-8~~cCIl~~ ~8CSf-CD~0(f)"o--c~ .~Oy5 OJ 0 .Q ~ OJ"o 0 C C OJ ~ CD Q5 tU ~ ~ I > E ....C\Ja-~Cll~~~mrooE(f)cm~uQ5u :::l-:::lUIIl~OCllroCD~(jjQ) .QU_coo< 3OJ~2Q) o.Q)EUillCllOJ ro..cWCll_u U c Ul :::l 0 ';;; CIl .- C Q) Cll U _ . U Q) -= - .- c: C - '''' c: Cll - -0 c E ~ ~ .n ..Cl ~c ~-~.=__o ~u ~~~~Jc..c OJ.- 0 Cll - Q) '" .5 Q) .... Cll"O"o Q) t 0 _ :J <~()~scc~5.E:LLccll.:2<(wI~LLOll. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --~-~~~~~~~~-~~~---~ CIl CIl CIl w m CIl CIl CIl CIl CIl CIl m CIl w CIl w w CIl ~ ~ ~ :J :J :J ~ :J ~ :J ~ :J ~ :J ~ :J :::I :::l :::l ~ :::l :J u~"O~~u~~"O~u~~"Ou"O"ouu~ EEEEEEEcEE.E:EEEEEcEE_ 00 OI'-CiJ.....OCO""'I'-C'?C\lC'?<OO CO""'C\I"'" C'?.....C'? 1.0""'''''''''''<0 ""'CO ""'CO COCO 1'-1'-""''''''01'- C\! cO cO ui oi C'"i - 0) C'?" C\! - cO COI'-.....COCiJCOt::.....""'LO "'" C'?CO""'C\lLO ............... C\I " "- N ""'O""'C'?O"'" C\I C\lCOC\l"'" C\I C\I""'.....C\I 1.0" oi ""," C'"i ..; CO COC'?LOCO .,..- -r-C\lT-<<!.. CO OOCO.....CiJC\I CO 1.0 CO 1.0 C\I CO COCO cO"': cOm ""'.....I'-C'? C\!. 1.0_ C\!. C\I COO 1'-0)....."",..... OCOCOLO.....C\I"'" I'-C'?COCiJC'?""'CiJ C'"i ui ""," 1'-" 0) r-: ""'I'-<OOC\lC'? C'? C\I" 0)01'-0 1.0 "'" C\I 0) ..; CO" C\I "'" C\I C'?LOCO LOCOC'? LOC'?O C\! "cO LO.....C'? ..... C\I ..... 00'<t 1.C)C\I.....OC'?I'-C'?O)C\I C\I 0) 1'-0 0 1.0 COI'-'<t..... 0 1.0 COCO I'-'<t C\l0)'<t0) 1'-0) ..; CO" C'"i CiJ" cO C\! ...: C'?" C'"i " CiJ'<tC\lC\l'<tI'-COOC\lC'? y-~C\lC\lC\I "-.,..-T- --- C\I" COO '<t CiJ ..; .- C\I C'?O CO I'- N '<t ..... 0)0)1.C)C\I .....COOCiJ C\l1.C)C'?'<t CO"C\I"NcO '<t0C'?1'- ...-C\lT'""'CD 1'-- OOC\lC'?CiJCOOC'?C\I'<tC\lLOC')C\lO COO)C')O'<t.-.-.-CO1'-0 C') CiJ1.C)'<tO'<tLO.-LO.-COI'-.- cO r--:- C\I" ..; ..; cO 1'-" 1.0" '<to CO- "cO LOC').-C')'<tC').....CiJC')'<t 0 C\l1'-C')"OtC\l.-......-C\IC\I "Ot C\I- C\! C\I- -<f C\l0 '<t I'- CiJ- CO C\I C\lOC\lCO I'-COCOCO C\lI'-CiJC\I cOC\!m"; I'-CO'<tO C\lC'?C\lLO '<t- ~OOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"O ~0000(j)00000000000000"' L01.C)LOLOOLOC')C')C')C')C')~C')C'?C')C')C')C')~ C') Q> Q> Z Qj Q> U. Q> ... 1Il :l l:T (/) Q> (,) ... a E 6 c: g o' :gO o EC\I 0 .Q 0 0 o ......C\lo Ol - <tt _~ 0 2!.. a :2 1i5~(f.)u 3: 0> _ 0 0 .$ 0'"00 u ~ :..: _ ~ 0 0 0 0 (f.) CD._ .c 0 a '~ g 2!.. 8. Kl 0 <( a: c: 5. g _0 ~ C\lCD S~~~~a2!.. 00 m ~g ~_~oooro~mc a 00 ~ a ~ ~ r:! -0 .2 00 S ~O E:t:: u 0 0- 0 CD 0 :> ~ :>..... .- (/) CD <ii ~ :;:: o 0 ~"O 0 :> .~ ~ g ~ ~ (f.) [:: "0 E:a. _ r:! O_2!..Ol<tt~"OO-CD C\I(/)_~(/)CDSC:(f.)(f.)CD~ C\I 0 C ~ c: (fJ ...... .- w ,- 0 c: -O~'- CD<ttO "OCD<ii~C=<ii~~I~'E- ~0:;::~~~~~6@~CEQ>c:<ttCD~C=~ 5C\1U0<tt~"'-:;:: ......0 (/)00 ~CD~ ~~~....<tt(f.)CD~~(f.)<tt~ll.J(f.)"~CD - EC:(fJ<( a~~::J- (f.).~Ec (f.)en~~~ll.J<tt...(,) .- .- c: c 0 '(ii C :t= .... <tt <ii .2 ~ 'E () ~ ""0 CD :.: O>.~ 0 <tt ~ Q) <tt =-= ..2 c: CD e <tt "0 -5 CD ~ 8 :5 -g <(:20:2Sa:~5E~a:~:2<(ll.JI<(~O~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (f.) (f.) (f.) W W W W (f.) (f.) (f.) (f.) (f.) W W (f.) W (f.) (f.) (f.) (f.) ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J "0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE5 "#.?f2.?f2."#-?flrf2.?fi.?f2.?f!.'#.?ft.rfl.cf. 0000000000000 0000000000000 0000000000000 1'-00 OOLOC')C')C'?1.C) .-..... ..... rfl.?ft. 00 00 00 1.0 cfi.cfi. 00 00 00 C\I (j2.;J<?ft. 000 ~oo 000 C\l1.C)1.C) CO o o oi o o co- ..... .- ..... ..... o o o c.o 0) C') ..... co" o o o cO <( CD ~ u:: 0- (fJ (f.) ~ () <tt .8 "0 CD 1:: CD > c: o () CD ~ .... CD a. Q) .2! ~ <tt ::J 0- (/) o o ..... ..... ~ ..... o o 1.0 ..... ..... 1.0 co o o 1.0 ..... o co o o o I'- C') ..... ..... ..... o Q> :0 ..!!! '(i1 > <( CD OJ <tt ~ :i. "0 Cj) C o N <ii "C: ~ ::J "0 c: OJ c: :;:: (f.) 'x ll.J ...... "1) :;:: CD e. --. (f.) ::J 0.. .... ::J (fJ Cj) en !O 2:! () <( "0 Cj) "0 CD Cj) Z w CD <:; <( QI 0 I'- I'- "'" .... '<t I'- LO C')O O">c.o ""'....I'-C')CO QOI'-LOC\I.........O">C'O N '<t- ..; ci -<f ...: . C'"i '<to">C')CO 0 r-... co co- 11')1 C') co c.o c.o .... LO c.o 0"> NOLOLOOOr-...C\I'<t OC\l'<tLOOOC\lf';-r-... N 0">" ui r-: 0">" ...: C\lo" '<tCOC\lO c.o 0 oc, QI LO 0 C\I C\I 0 0 0 C') N'<t..........O">COOCOC\l OI'-O">'<tVO)C')<?O N C'"i ...: co" co" C\I,- COCOC\lr-... LO c.o r-: o ..... C? 11')/ 1.0 co C\I C') LO ..-C"')lO.,..-,-O OCOC\lo">1.C)O"> N"--- .....l'-vO COI'-C\lv v C\I 1'-" 01.C)C') LOlOCO C\I<?C':!. ..... . C') ..... ..... QII'- c.o C\I LO co ,..r-... OO">1.C) 0 QlO 1.0 0">1'-0"> N---" vl'-vC'? OI'-C\lCO '<t C\I 1'-- o coco 000 C\lf';-f';- ..... , Cj) :0 (f.)..!!! ~ 2:!'(i1 fJ g ~ "5 0 Cj) a. ...... Ol o "0 <tt ~ Cj) CD --. 1::.... (f.) CD<ttCD9_.=l 2......>....._a. o 0 c: "0 '1) .... c::!2~OCD:.:::J O..........uc:Cj)(/) -OOCDOClCD ]>O....N-en ::J>~g_--.<tt a. <ii ~ .... .~ w ~ ~E<ttCj)-..2() .... Cj)::J a.gJ 8-<( c:<iiEg-al"O::JCD o1:~ Cj)C:(/)> :;::CD()~""o,CDfJ <tt E c: ...... 2:! c: Ol_ "5Cj) ~<<:I:;::~:l a. <:; 3:.~ ::J .!!2 .... E &:E~JigJj:i.8 - - '1) 'a3 e. E CD E 1:: <tt a.. Cll Cl Ol c: 'c c: <tt 0: >. E ::J o o .... ~ o o E o .... Ll.. (/) Ol ..... .2 ~ ro'O a:OlO) ctl Q....- OloO) ~~t; .....OlC\J oOM o co' LLo ct:~C\J ctlu(O Ol<(v ~ca~ 0(0 Of-:g o c . LLOO ~~~8 u-<io Q)O)vO ~~~~ 0" m to g:J U)M LO V .- ClJt'-- Q)<i U(O <(M ca o f- iii o f- C\J t'--vt'-- C\JMMt'--(O C\Jo)M<Xlt'-- t'--(OC\JOO C\J...-<Xlt'--t'-- M<Xlt'--<Xl(o MtO .- ~oood LOC\J 00) M<Xl ot'-- vM 00 M.- q.- 000 ~:;~rof2 ...-t'--<Xl to 0) ..-0 <Xl v (0 o)MOLOt'-- MMO)T-T- I!)t'--C')(OC\J 00...- . 0000 to~ (0(0 u:iv I!)C\J I!)vC\J C')0,j0) m<Xloo t'-- <Xl C') t'--<Xl(OO)<XlOC') (OO)toO)(O C') Ot'--Oo)M 0) C')OOVC\J M tOtO(OC')t'-- t'-- 0)0<Xl1!)C\J 0 C\JC')I!)...-O) to C\!oo...-o o 000 C\J1!)1!)0t'-- 0)<Xl1!) V (Ovv I!) OC\J(O 0) v...-I!) (0 0)C')t'-- I!) ...-C\JC\J 0) 000 q 000 0 <Xl t'--C')C\J to 0) <Xl toO C'1 or--:(OcriM C')C')..- (0 C\J.,..-C") 'r" C\J t'--C\JMOC\J VOl!) t'-- O)t'--M I!) ,-C").,- 1.O O)t'--v (0 C\J I!) .- 0) C')C') o 00 o v (O<XlvO)l!)v(OC\JC\J (Oooo)OM"':tOO~ <iu:iMMu:iC\Jocrit'-- O(O..-Ovt'--LO 0) vl!)(OC')C') v I!) v CIJ E Q) CIJ ca (/) (/) CIJ_ Q) Q) (/)'0 Q.Ol Q) Ol 5~ g-roc..Ol c ctl.....rg t:l ~ Q) g-Z <.9 ctl c...!!1 ~ .$ CIJ Q.E:! 'v ..... Z - c Z ctl .!:2 u.. J:3 w '5&5 ~Q)..c:Zo- c>- E-t::2 c32"51i5 ~ ~~ ctlU Eo 0 Q) 0 0 ctl ctl 0 :J -e .21 UZU<.9U)w~a:a:;::)c:o (00) 0)00 I!) I!)C\J C') 0) t'--C\J C\J..- OOC\J C')C')LO ~8:; (oC\Jt'-- O)Moo VC\J .- (0 mM LO 0) o I!).- C\JV o~ ~q C')C') ot'-- t'--tO ..-t'-- cT> U)i':l ca Ol :.;:; 0') c ctl 2 m o > 0-.<( ~ < C''i" ~ CD iii' "Q.. ::J 0 C CD en - en ... 0 0 -.J .p,. 3 3 w --" CD <D (j) J\:l en W Co 0 0 0 .p,. J\:l 01 ill <D <D OJ to OJ CD en CD -< CD ~ Collier 5011 & Water Conservation District Stan Weiner, Chairman 14700 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34120 ,'i'!~, ).... '~-~ .... .... :-d1:~~J ..... it. ,. .' ~" '.. ,...' August 14, 2008 Mr. William l. McDaniel, Chairman East of 951 Horizon Study Committee 3301 E Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 Dear Mr. McDaniel, Reference is made to the Collier East of CR 951 Services & Infrastructure Horizon Study Preliminary Report Section 3, Public Utilities, p.18-27. Your committee heard from county staff, and interested members of the public, addressing a myriad of issues and concerns that covers 1,210,618 acres of land area in the six distinct districts known as Golden Gate Estates north ofI-75, the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, the Immokalee Urbanized Area, the South Golden Gate Estates Natural Resources Protection Area and Federal and State Lands. As you write your report and get ready to present final recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners, Collier 5011 and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors, by unanimous vote at our regularly scheduled meeting August 14, 2008, wanted you to be aware of our thoughts on water quality and water storage requirements and opportunities for county residents. One vital piece of the water supply puzzle, not discussed in the public utilities sessions, was finding a place to store excess surface water during the rainy season to be used later, when It is needed. Reservoirs are one method currently used. However, the county's flat topography and ecologically sensitive canal, creek and swale systems, etc., pose challenges to the traditional approach of damming rivers to store water. Off-stream reservoirs, another option, avoid the flooding of these sensitive ecosystems but they typically have limited storage capacities. The Board of Supervisors advocates a concept utilizing a series or grouping of Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) wells to assist/augment a county-wide surface water management plan which, at the moment, does not exist! Your study might want to address this deficiency in view of existing storm water treatment, flood protection, water quality treatment and habitat restoration not pOSSible in the Northern Golden Gate Estates (NGGE) without a retrofit because there were no provisions made for surface water, storm water and floodplain management, water quality, etc. Thus, the need for a quick review. ASR is a mechanism for storing water underground through an injection well to be withdrawn in the future, through the same well, for beneficial purposes. Typically, water Is stored during times of excess supply for use when supplies are limited. ASR wells are capable of storing treated drinking water as well as treated or raw surface or groundwater. However, whether treated or not, water injected into ASR wells must meet Florida's drinking water quality standards. The level of treatment required after storage depends on the use of the water, whether for public consumption, surface water augmentation, wetlands enhancement, irrigation, saltwater intrusion barrier, etc. Because ASR wells proVide for the storage of water that would otherwise be lost to Naples Bay or the Gulf of Mexico or evaporation, it represents a crucial water supply management strategy for Collier County's future. See the notional ASR system we have attached for public Information. Stanley Weiner Supervisor, Seat 2 Dennis Vasey Supervisor, Seat 3 Michael Slmonik Supervisor, Seat 4 James Lang Supervisor, Seat 5 Phone: (239) 455-4100 Web Site: http://www.colllel.$wcd.org/ Facsimile: (239) 455-2693 To provide a reason why it is critical to evaluate surface water, storm water, floodplain management, water quality, etc., just look at past land modifications: the construction of Interstate 75 (1-75), a.k.a. Alligator Alley, County Road CR-846 (Immokalee Road), construction of major canal systems resulting in diversions of historical watersheds and drawdown of the surficial water table-that's the water source residents want protected so their wells don't go dry-and alternations of the county watersheds during construction of NGGE. Combined, they reduced approximately 2,386 acres of wetlands as compared to historic jurisdictional limits noted in the Horsepen Strand Conservation Area (HSCA) Phase 1 study. The construction of 1-75 has created a barrier "dam effect" for the southern portion of the HSCA. In these locations, wetlands have actually expanded from their historic limits, but have also been impacted in several locations from historic and ongoing agricultural practices. Phase I of the HSCA study provided insight for potential flood protection, i.e., habitat restoration and water quality enhancement. The degradation, due to ditching and piping, of the northern wetland areas can be overcome through rehydration; however, that could imply that areas planned for residential or commercial construction may be considerably less when restoration or surface water storage are properly considered. Marco Island has a good example of an evolving ASR program. They are currently utilizing seven ASR wells resupplied by surface water from Henderson Creek Canal and their pits on CR 951 north of US 41. It is apparent from Marco Island's experience that ASR wells could be an important component in a county- wide surface water management system to redistribute storm water, improve storm water management retention/detention, be a component in a county-wide surface water/storm water/water supply system or used to create a multi-use surface water management system that could: · Provide a storm water drainage system with greater volume capacity · Provide a method to spread-out excess storm water over a larger area to decrease flooding · Enable a county-wide "raw water" distribution system to areas in addition to Marco Island. Properly done, your East of CR 951 report could reinforce the need for a '-oun~-wide SUrfa~~(~w anagement stem' stress the imDortance of ASR wells, and J:equire t e inteQratio a retention I n components with the Big Cypress Basin canal system, etc. The Collier Soil and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors advocate the concept of a county- wide surface water management plan to: · Decrease storm water discharge into the Gulf of Mexico and · Reduce flooding in subdivisions with no surface water management systems. · Further, we believe that the general benefits of ASR wells are: o Ability to conduct long-term storage and recover this stored water during droughts, presumably when reservoir levels would be low o Not subjected to evapotranspiration and seepage losses o limited land requirement (one or two acre per well) resulting in significant cost savings compared to reservoirs o Can generally be located in areas of greatest water availability and/or need. A county-wide capability to manage storm water more efficiently, with little to none going to the Gulf of Mexico and Naples Bay, is a solution that could ensure that the cities of Ave Maria and Big Cypress have water, during drought periods, without requiring special permits to take water out of the surficial aqUifers. We hope that your committee will join us in advocating a county-wide surface water management plan that could augment watershed management plan development that should begin in 2009 and in promoting ASRs as a source of raw water supply. Stanley Weiner Supervisor, Seat 2 Dennis Vasey Supervisor, Seat 3 Michael Slmonlk Supervisor, Seat 4 James Lang Supervisor, Seat 5 Phone: (:239) 455-4100 Web Site: http://www.colllerswcd.org/ Facsimile: (:239) 455-:2693 There are three types of water used for ASR: potable water, reclaimed water and partially treated surface water. The permitting requirements depend on the quality of the water source and the quality of the water in the aquifer. An ASR system that stores potable water is fairly straightforward to develop since the water meets all the drinking water standards. Attention should still be given to the water quality resulting from the interaction between the injected water and the aquifer. There are several ASR systems that currently Inject excess potable water. These systems usually have an excess capacity ranging between 2 to 12 million gallons per day (mgd) during the wet season. The excess water is available during this period because irrigation use is low due to the wet conditions. The height of the dry season normally occurs over a gO-day period between the months of March and May. Permitting requires reclaimed water ASR projects to be located where the natural aquifer water quality is salty and unfavorable for potable use. Reclaimed water generally consists of water from advanced secondary wastewater treatment facilities. The treatment process is sufficient to produce water that meets all the primary drinking water standards but may have a few secondary water quality parameters that are exceeded. The secondary list includes nuisance parameters, such as odor and color. Use of reclaimed water for irrigation is a common practice, yet even with this use, it is common for a wastewater facility to dispose of up to 12 mgd of quality water during the wet season when demand for irrigation water Is low. The ability to store this water in an ASR system for later use would provide a significant benefit to county residents on well systems. Partially treated surface water is a new type of ASR that is in the early stages of study. Partially treated systems would divert and store a small fraction (typically 10% or less above a certain minimum flow) of surface or canal flow during the wet season. This water would most likely undergo filtration to remove particulate matter that may clog the well. Without further treatment the water may still contain low concentrations of microorganisms such as coliform, giardia and cryptosporidium that can be present in surface water bodies at times. Under current rules and regulations, microorganisms such as these would have to be treated prior to injection. However, the raw water quantities available during the wet season would exceed the remaining treatment capacity of virtually any existing potable water treatment system dictating that additional treatment capacity be constructed and that expense must be planned for before permitting. There is, however, some existing information that suggests these microorganisms may die off naturally in the aquifer during the storage period, either way, water needs to be retaIned for very long periods of time and considerations, in addition to the polyvinyl chloride pipe option presented during the public utilities presentation. The Collier Soil and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors support incorporation of raw water ASR wells on all public property-including school properties-would lower ASR well costs and because of location would effectively support a county-wide distribution node of significant public value and presnt a cost effective water storage opportunity for county residents. BY DIRECTION: ~ ,,/2 . " ; 1//i~ /./:ttf {f['U Kim Bucceri Administrator Attachment: a/s Stanley Weiner Supervisor, Seat 2 Dennis Vasey Supervisor, Seat 3 Michael Slmonlk Supervisor, Seat 4 James Lang Supervisor, Seat 5 Phone: (239) 455~4100 Web Site: http://www.colllerswcd.org/ Facsimile: (239) 455-2693 Aquifer Storage & Recovery-Notional Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) is a water-storage technology gaining acceptance by water-resource planners and scientists worldwide. Essentially, ASR involves storage of available water through wells completed into aquifers, with subsequent retrieval from these same wells during dry periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plan for Everglades Restoration known as the Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study (Restudy) relies heavily on ASR technology. In fact, the Restudy assumes over 1.6 billion gallons per day of water stored via ASR wells. As you can see by the magnitude of this number, the scale of ASR proposed in the Restudy is unprecedented. Recovery of water stored in ASR wells could provide great benefits to environmental, agricultural, and urban users. The following graphics are intended to acquaint the reader with the ASR technology, present the uncertainties of ASR implementation at this scale, and outline a plan to address these uncertainties. Many challenges face water-resource planners and scientists with respect to the ASR technology as proposed in the Restudy. A phased approach to ASR implementation is proposed to address technical and regulatory concerns. A wide variety of hydrogeOlogic, hydrologic and hydrochemical questions must be resolved prior to development of a truly regional ASR infrastructure. It is clear that the proposed ASR pilot facilities -- and the science necessary to evaluate the data from these facilities -- will be crucial to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of ASR as a regional water-storage option. What is AqUifer Storage & Recovery? ASR may be defined as the storage of freshwater in a brackish-water aqUifer through wells during wet periods for subsequent retrieval from these same wells during dry periods. The freshwater fOnTIS a bubble within the aquifer around the ASR well, and can be retrieved when needed. The Major Advantages of ASR include: · Minimal Land requirements (an acre or two per well) · Almost no evaporation or seepage losses (mixing losses instead) · Proven technology (up to 95% recovery) · significantly lower costs per gallon of water stored. Other major components of an ASR system: · A Suitable Source of Water-- The Critical Component of an ASR System · Two main sources of water for ASR are: o surface water, and o ground water. · In the Restudy 1 the focus is on USing surface water that is currently discharged to Naples Bay or Gulf of Mexico during the wet season. Collected water may need to be treated to meet state and federal standards for underground injection. 2008 Public Information Prepared By Collier Soil and Water Conservation Distrlct. ASR Wells Tap a Shallower Zone in the Floridan Aquifer Than Deep Injection Wells HlJWthlllr cmflrtif!l t&d~illW\"OTt' J\qLll..... __-_____._.__. _---- '. - .-'--"~ ~~'...~-~ -.--.- I ~-,.-.-.... ~~- _.- I I I, 'Uppe.r :Floridan AQI.rfeJ" I ! , I j I Middl!:' Ce>""'nin.g Unit J --- ~---~.~.~----- ~ .---- ...._.~.'" -._~ - ----, -~..-- - --~:c~::::~~- --jC=~~- u Ft Myers Labene VIE 51 ... .. ;::;'::;:..:::.,:'-:-.... '-:'..,~ ~,..../ - . ~ . II I $~MOJJl' A'll..... .-.---':) ... ---"'" Bould... iZonr lilf<., Ol-"",,,hob,,.. "\Neost Palm .,. c...<."l!l""""h,..",, l'AcT ,...J, l.' 11IIII _ ~"~:"_,.." ".) ~I~O III. -- ::: /00 I'J.()O 1100 1 :mo 11WO . 17'00 1'9(,0 2100 :-:<<JO The hydrogeologic characteristics of a successful storage zone include: Moderate permeability Confinement above &. below by low- permeability sediments Water quality as fresh as possible to minimize mixing ASR Physical Facilities .... ;';'11 This includes the ASR wells, pumps, piping, valves, electrical equipment and instrumentation. The aqUifer system in Collier County, Florida contains suitable storage zones, making ASR a viable storage mechanism. 2008 Public Information Prepared By Collier Soli and Water Conservation District. What are the principal uncertainties of ASR & how will these be addressed? .....-.1..1 1 =-'h:'.... ~ .~. .. · Compatibility of the injected water with the aquifer water · Effects of large volumes of injected water on the confining unit · Recovery efficiency Le. how much usable water will be recovered · The effects of the recovered water on the environment p. ,........ :l ~- (l " . (1 r: .;'j. . t'r: r rr 11 l., ~~ . . .. . ~--. .....' '""CO :.' ;.i' .">J~'l ri' ,\' L' '.t,,"'" \\""', . I :\\.;t ....c\v .: : , ': ;.. ?'i'. I .......,; }'I..>\,~,' . , 'rVQ (or . I ; ("'/.1J) I t ,.- IC'l'i(j "r-, J .' Cfr, "fc. r. . .,.\.\"' .\~ \;W~ To address this concern, a phased approach is proposed }'/uJsed'll'l'ri>.u'" to .IS/( }1I11'/~'''.Ient.(d.i.nl /,~ (~'OJJ_~ <',' v",i I'.' .,4i1;';:'.:~.. ..kj.,,;"'._':ll\i,;' ',,),i5>lI.ilMi,'I..liIllik >:l"4*".tl!"._~';;"'IAIllI"":~(;,;t!,'~~'l;l;,..",..I!t.:~j~";;;;~i\',1).;:Ml'I;;;:.~..,~,1'i:,r,:l..',t',ini(l'~-;~:,;M';;'~.'l::~;,1l;;I;;~:';-,C:" ",_.,','_' Geophysical logging "\ ',:11 ;,(">,1 l. \ ~.1VI \ n \'\ 1.1)( h 1""'1 JI.II.... 'j.)Jn'\ l~l"hll'..,n JI\-1p'ii-lP. ~ .1; Ot ( 11.1(' I 'II .::.;1':: Electronic probes are lowered into drilled boreholes to measure hydrogeologic properties with depth. ASR storage zones and confining units can be identified with this technology. --- Deere'L'if'} (it'.' cc..,.r,,-c 2008 Public Information Prepared By Collier Soil and Water Conservation District. Groundwater Modeling ',;Ji\lWr:, Groundwater modeling will be used to optimize the location and spacing of ASR wells to minimize excessive water level drawdowns or pressure build up. In addition, modeling can be used to estimate the movement of injected water within the aquifer system and thus predict the amount and quality of recoverable water. - ::.,\ .~ r ~ T I . ,- :r';'( '; 1 '1','1 .'1', '1', ~r ; ;i!] Geochemistry Detailed water quality analyses of the water to be stored (source water) and the native (brackish) water must be performed to identify and quantify constituents of concern. Geochemical modeling may then be conducted to determine if adverse chemical reactions might occur, such as reactions that might cause plugging of the ASR storage zone. 2008 Public Information Prepared By Collier Soli and Water Conservation District. .; ~ r. F Ir ia )(11 ;t.c n Ft rd, F F IT www.nmssfls.org rJ it.? National Multiple Sclerosis Society South Florida Chapter F,C Sf X 964' 'df drsparks.lunney@gmall.com August 18, 2008 WIlliam McDaniel, Chairman Collier County East of 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study Public Participation Master Plan Committee Enclosed please find a white paper entitled: Health risks associated with the Collier County Transportation Planning Department proposal to construct twelve bridges In the Golden Gate Estates sub-dMsion The enclosed paper is Intended to provide the Horizon Committee, and ultimately the Board of Collier County Commissioners, with a clear and cogent discussion of the health risks associated with the CCTPD proposal to construct twelve bridges in the Golden Gate Estates sub-dlvlsion. In accordance with the Americans WIth Disabilities Act the Committee is asked to provide reasonable accommodation of people with multiple sclerosis and others In the disability community by attaching this paper to the final report the committee forwards to the Board of Collier County Commissioners. Very truly yours, 1//---;--' , .,,..') ;' / " /' I //' ,/" "~~} ,,,../ ./-- (./'>; .-.- .P', ...-__ C"I' ,// r.... /.? ~. ----'/' Cc: Linda Hartman, Vice Chair, David Farmer, Thomas R. Jones, Krls Van Lengen, Kenneth Lynch, Timothy Nance, Stephen Price, Russel Priddy. Michael Ramsey. Douglas Rankin, Richard Rice, Christian Spilker, Mark Teaters, Clarence Tears, James N. Coletta, Commissioner, District 5 Health risks associated with the Collier County Transportation Planning Department proposal to construct twelve bridges in the Golden Gate Estates sub-division Dr. Sparks Lunney, Director for Southwest Florida Operations South Florida Chapter National Multiple Sclerosis Society OVERVIEW At a public meeting held by the Collier County of Transportation Planning Deparbnent on July 1st, 2008 a proposal was presented to construct a total of twelve bridges in the Golden Gate Estates sub-division. This sub-division is almost exclusively residential. Currently, residents of the sub-division account for much of the vehicular traffic. Due to its many unbridged canals, the sub-divlsion is largely unattractive for thru-traffic. The proposed bridging of twelve canals would create a grid which would allow, if not indeed, encourage thru-traffic. Current use of the roadways in Golden Gate Estates consists largely of Estates residents going to and from their homes to reach major arteries such as Immokalee Road, Randall Boulevard, Everglades Boulevard, Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard. The CCTPD plan would bring thru-traffic to the residential heart of the Estates. Residents would face increased levels of nitrogen oxide (NOx) from tailpipes. Ground Level Ozone, which results when tailpipe emissions react with oxygen and sunlight, would also increase. The diesel vehicles which will be speeding by are also a major source of particulate pollution.1 The introduction of daily thru-traffic into the residential heart of the Estates invariably will result in degradation of air quality by concentrating these emissions In this almost exclusively residential area. As traffic volume increases, thru-traffic will back up at major intersections with signals. 1 Natural Resources Defense Council http://www.nrdc.ora/health/effects/fasthma.asp Traffic will also back up on the huge number of dead end streets in the Estates as vehicles await a break in the flow of thru-traffic. REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE There is a large body of empirical evidence which clearly shows there are significant health risks associated with degradation of air quality. 2 In this paper, the focus will be three specific populations at risk: persons with multiple sclerosis, persons under age 18, and persons 65 and over. A Population At Risk is a sub-group of a given population which has an increased likelihood of a disease or other health issue. Persons with MS have known health risks associated with degraded air quality. A 2003 study in the journal Neuro-Epidemiologyassessed the relationship between air quality and monthly MS relapse occurrence and found that the odds ratio of the risk of a relapse onset was over fourfold when the concentration of inhalable particulate matter (PM10) was at the highest quartile. ,,3 MS is a progressive neurodegenerative disease. A 2004 report in Protective Strategies for Neurodegenerative Diseases noted that environmental factors can trigger inflammatory events in the central nervous system leading to increased neurodegeneration.4 2 The survey of research for this paper was provided by The Association for the Advancement of Applied Psychoneuro/mmunology. (AAAPNI). htto://www./ifecoachusa.com/aaaon; Founded in 2002, the organization has members in the US and Canada, Europe, Asia, Australia and South America. http://lifecoachusa.com/aaapnicurrentmembers Eignt AAAPNI members in the United States have provided educational workshops for people with MS on PNI and chronic health management for the S. Florida Chapter of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. AAAPNI has also provided research summaries and position papers on Issues related to MS to elected and appointed government officials and members of the health care professions. AAAPNI is a listed as a health psychology resource by the American Psychological Association http://www.health- Psvch.ora/resources.DhD 3 Neuro-Epldemlology, V22 No 1 2003 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.aov/pubmed/12566960 " Protective Strategies for Neurodegeneratlve Diseases, Volume 1035 published December 2004 Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sel. 1035: 117-132 (2004). dol: 10.1196/annals.1332.008 http://www.annalsnvas.ora/cai/contentlabstractl1035/1/117 Not only people with multiple sclerosis will be at risk. Persons under 18 and persons 65 and older are also a population at risk. In 2006, the U.S. Census Bureau reported a demographic profile for Collier County such that persons under 18 were 20.4% of the population and persons 65 and older 24.2%.5 The demographic breakdown for the Estates may differ somewhat, but assuming these data are reasonably representative, these two age groups would as account for nearly half the population in the Estates. Although it is not realized by many, children as young as two are diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. 6 Current estimates are that 8,000 to 10,000 American children have MS. 7 A large body of research shows degraded air quality results in significant health risks for persons under 18. Asthma is the most common chronic disease in thisd age group. Degraded air quality has been linked to many risks associated with asthma. Children who carried variations in two genes and lived within 75 meters (approx 250 feet) of a major road were up to nine times more likely to develop asthma than children who lived further away. 8 Major findings concerning asthma and persons under 18 include: (1) air Pollution increases the number of children who develop asthma, (2) air pollution increases flare-ups among those who have asthma, and (3) air pollution harms children's lungs for l;fe.9 10 11 121314 5 Collier County QulckFacts, U.S. Census Bureau http://Quickfacts.census.aov/Qfd/states/12/12021.html 6 Just the Facts - 2006-2007, National Multiple Sclerosis Society http://www.nationalmssocietv .ora/down load .aspx?id=22 7 Pediatric Information For Health Professionals, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, http://www.nationalmssocietv .org/for-professionals/hea Ithcare-professionals/pediatric- ms/index.aspx 8 "Microsomal Epoxlde Hydrolase, Glutathione S-transferase Pi, Traffic and Childhood Asthma." Thorax, 2007; doi: 10.1136/thx.2007.080127. http://www.sciencedailv.com/releases/2007/08/070820194635.htm 9 The Effect of Air Pollution on Lung Development from 10 to 18 Years of Age, N Engl J Med, 2004; 351:1057 - 1067 http://content.neim.ora/cai/contentlshort/351/11/1057 10 Association between Air Pollution and Lung Function Growth In Southern California Children, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Vol 166. pp. 76-84, (2002) http://airccm.atsiournals.ora/cai/contentlfull/166/1/76 Persons 65 and older are a population which has a number of health risks associated with degraded air quality. Persons age 65 and over have a significantly higher likelihood of having heart disease compared to those age 18 to 64 (31.1% vs. 6.2%). 15 In its 2004 statement for healthcare professionals, the Expert Panel on Population and Prevention Science of the American Heart Association advises air pollutants are associated with increased hospitalization and mortality from cardiovascular disease. 16 The American lung Association notes nearly 90 percent of deaths due to influenza or pneumonia occur in people age 65 and over. 17 Hospital admissions and deaths from pneumonia, COPO and other res~iratory diseases are all associated with air quality degradation. 18 19 2 For at least a 11 Respiratory Effects of Relocating to Areas of Differing Air Pollution Levels, Am. J. Resplr. Crlt Care Med., Volume 164, Number 11, December 2001,2067-2072 http://airccm.atsiournals.ora/cai/contentlfull/164/11/2067 12 The Effects of Ambient Air Pollution on School Absenteeism Due to Respiratory Illnesses, Epidemiology, Volume 12(1)January 2001 pp 43-54, http://www.epidem.com/ptlre/epidemioloav/fulltext.00001648-2001 01 000- 00009.htm:isessionid=LPGTX2CcpFG131 FJkSQ4zv11 W1 QVY271 rzsKdpwOSipXZYOQmv2W !982088527!181195629!8091 !-1 13 The Children's Health Study, California Environmental Protection Agency http://www.arb.ca.aov/research/chs/over.htm 14 Trafflc-Related Air Pollution and Asthma Onset In Children: A Prospective Cohort Study with Individual Exposure Measurement, National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIH), June 2008 http://www.ehponline.ora/members/2008/10968/10968.pdf 15 Statistical Brief #5: Medical Care and Treatment for Chronic Conditions, 2000, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), http://www.meps.ahcpr .aov/mepsweb/ldata files/publications/st5/stat05.pdf 16 Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease Circulation. 2004;109:2655-2671. http://circ.ahaiournals.ora/cQi/contentlfull/1 09/21/2655 17 Lung Disease Data at a Glance: Influenza and Pneumonia, American Lung Association http://www./unausa.ora/site/pp.asP7c=90/CLOOxGrF&b=1542727 18 The Effect of Ozone and PM10 on Hospital Admissions for Pneumonia and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A National Multlclty Study, American Journal of Epidemiology, 10.1093 http://www . ncbi.nlm.nih.Qov/pubmed/16443803 ?ordinalpos=1 &itool=EntrezSvstem2. PEntre z.Pubmed.Pubmed ResultsPanel.Pubmed DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed Discovery RA&linkp os=1 &loa$=relatedarticles&load bfrom=pubmed decade and a half, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have identified air pollution as placing persons 65 and over at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from a broad spectrum of diseases.21 Persons 65 and older are an especially at-risk population due to co- morbidity (having two or more diseases at the same time). ~proximately two-thirds of persons over 65 have co-morbid conditions. 22 Co-morbidity is a central issue in the management of chronic disease. Health outcomes are poorer for persons with anyone chronic illness if they fall victim to a second disease process. This is why management of chronic disease includes a focus on wellness and avoiding circumstances which increase the likelihood of co-morbidity. The leading cause of death for people with multiple sclerosis is pneumonia. Simply put, they are unable to survive both the neurodegenerative effects of multiple sclerosis and the effects of pneumonia at the same time. The insult to the integrity of the body's organs and systems is too great. 24 The impact of co- morbidity is not confined to persons with multiple sclerosis. Typically, the degree of morbidity, disability and mortality which results when a person has co-morbid health conditions is greater than the sum of the expected 19 Air Pollution and Hospital Admissions for the Elderly in Binningham, Alabama American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 139, No.6: 589-5981994 htto://aie.oxfordiournals.ora/ca i/content/abstract/139/6/589 20 Air pOllution and emergency admissions in Boston, MA, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2006;60:890-895 htto:/Iiech.bmi.com/cai/content/abstract/60/10/890 21 Populations at Risk from Particulate Air Pollution, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention April 29, 1994/43(16);290-293 htto ://www.cdc.aov/mmwr/oreview/mmwrhtml/00030615.htm 22 Chronic Illness with Complexity: Care of Individuals with Chronic Physical and Mental Illness UMDNJ Research Bulletin, Fall, 2007 htto :/Iwww.umdni.edu/research/oublications/faIl07/6.htm 23 Multiple Chronic Conditions: Prevalence, Health Consequences, and Implications for Quality, Care Management, and Costs J Gen Intern Med. 2007 December; 22(SuppI3): 391- 395. htto :/Iwww.oubmedcentral.nih.aov/articlerender. fca i?artid=2150598 24 Autoimmune Dlsease/Neuroblology Audio Digest Psychiatry Volume 33, Issue 24, December 21 at 2004 morbidity, disability and mortality which the two or more disease processes may be expected to cause separately. 26 RESPONSES The plethora of empirical evidence in the scientific literature noted above imposes a due diligence burden on Collier County Government to consider the health impact of the CCTPD proposal to bridge twelve canals in the Golden Gate Estates sub-division. Certainly, a study of the public health impact of thru-traffic and the concomitant impact on air quality should be completed prior to the construction of any of these 12 proposed bridges. To avoid the appearance of conflict of interest, this study should not be conducted by any Collier County agency, department or division. One objection which has been raised to an independent study Is that it would be an additional burden for tax payers. This need not be the case. I am confident that our area health care organizations such as NCH Healthcare System, Lee Memorial Health System, Physician's Regional Medical Center/HMA have on their staff persons with proper expertise who would participate in conducting such a study pro bono. This I believe would be equally true for the academic institutions of S.W. Florida such as Florida Gulf Coast University, Edison State College, Ave Maria University and Hodges University. Finally, I am certain that the National Multiple Sclerosis Society as well as many other voluntary health organizations such as the American Heart Association, American Lung Association, and American Cancer Society would, if asked, participate pro bono in assisting in conducting such a study. The study's findings could be that the implementation of the current CCTPD plan would not cause significant air quality degradation. At that juncture, the CCTPD plan can be implemented with the knowledge that the due diligence burden of considering the public health impact had been properly addressed. Conversely, the study's findings could be that the implementation of the current CCTPD plan would cause significant air quality degradation. If that were the case, the CCTPD plan should not be implemented. Moving ahead 25 Association of co-morbldlty with disability in older women: the Women's Health and Aging Study, J. Clinical Epidemiology, 1999 Jan;52(1):27-37. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.Qov/pubmed/9973071 in the face of these results would be unethical. Additionally, depending on wind conditions, air pollution generated in the Estates may well impact the air quali~ of the coastal areas of Collier County as well as parts of Lee County. 6 This could result in litigation which may place a substantial burden on Collier County taxpayers. Also, although difficult to estimate, the health case costs associated with air quality degradation would impose additional economic burdens on taxpayers. Modification of the CCTPD plan would be necessary. At the July 16th, 2008 meeting of the Home Owners Association of Golden Gate Estates, Dr. Jeff Stivers suggested that bridges be constructed as single-lane bridges with first responder access and emergency evacuation use only. 27 One objection to this is that a single-lane bridge is nearly as costly to build as a two-lane bridge. An alternative to Dr. Stivers' suggestion might be to build two lane bridges but to chain off one lane and use the remaining lane for first responder access and emergency evacuation use only. It is not the purpose of this paper to explore the universe of modifications to the current CCTPD plan which might be workable. This paper serves only to communicate that there is a significant risk that the CCTPD plan, if implemented without modification, may result in increased morbidity and mortality among residents of Golden Gate Estates. In his 7/22/2008 e-mail to the'members of the Committee my friend and colleague Dr. Don Williams said in part; liAs the Co-Director of The Association for the Advancement of Psychoneuroimmunology I am naturally aware that the decisions made regarding the development of our communities need to be sensitive to the needs of our most vulnerable citizens, e.g. seniors, the chronically ill and the vety young. I hope and trust that the Horizon Committee will take evety opportunity to become fully informed regarding health issues as the response to the bridge proposal is made. " People with multiple sclerosis and their caregivers have to struggle daily with things other people never have to think about Something as simple as a set of stairs can present a nearly impossible challenge. They live with a disease which has no cure. Like their fellows with other chronic 26 Generallsed additive modelling of air pollution, traffic volume and meteorology, Magne Aldrin and Ingrid Hobmk Haft, Norwegian Computing Center, P.O.Box 114 Bllndem, N-0314, Oslo, Norway http://www.Juftkvalitet.info/Files/reports! generalised additive modelling.pdf 27 Minutes. Homeowners Association of Golden Gate Estates, General Membership Meeting, July 16, 2008 illnesses, their quality of life, and in some circumstances even their survival, requires the broader community to be sensitive to their needs. This paper is being provided to you as you are the Advisory Committee charged lito assist the Board in facilitating the public participation component of Phase Two of the East of County Road 961 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study." The paper is intended to provide the Horizon Committee, and ultimately the Board of Collier County Commissioners, with a clear and cogent discussion of the health risks associated with the CCTPD proposal to construct twelve bridges in the Golden Gate Estates sub-division. In accordance with the Americans With Disabilities Act 28 the Committee is asked to provide reasonable accommodation of people with multiple sclerosis and others in the disability community by attaching this paper to the final report the committee forwards to the Board of Collier County Commissioners. 28 Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 f'ADA"]. as amended, TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE. CHAPTER 126 - EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES, Sec. 12101 Findings and purpose (8) COLLIER COUNTY WANTS YOUR OPINION Please complete this survey and return in the enclosed stamped reply envelope by May 30, 2008. Collier County needs your opinion on things important to you, your family and your neighborhood. We need to know what you think in order for county government to provide our residents with the facilities, services, and programs they desire. A volunteer committee of local residents has helped in developing this survey questionnaire. We have engaged the Naples research firm of Fraser & Mohlke Associates to conduct the survey. Please help us by completing this questionnaire! Your answers to survey questions will help us make accurate assessments of the current and future needs of our residents. We ask that you give serious consideration to each question and provide us with your opinion. Please answer them as best you can. Thank you for helping us to understand the opinions of our residents. A. DRIVING ON COUNTY ROADS 1. Please tell us about how you got from your home to where you work and shop during the last 30 days: (Check all the boxes below that apply to you): When I drive to work or to go shopping, I drive my own car or truck. When I ride to work or to shop, I am driven there by a family member, a friend or neighbor, or someone I work with. When I travel to work, I ride a bus and walk to and from bus stops. I ride my bike to go to work or to shop. I walk when I to go to work or to shop. I don't drive. 2. On a scale of 1 to 10, with "10" the most important, please rate how important each of the following things are to you when riding to where you work or for shopping (For each statement, circle one number from "I" TO "10"): NOT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT · Traffic signals at m~or intersections. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · Street lighting along the roads I travel regularly. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · Right and left turn lanes at 1JU\i0r road intersections. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · Bicycle and pedestrian lanes on roads near my home. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · Adding lanes to improve area road capacity. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . Landscaped medians. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . Street lighting near schools, libraries and parks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . Bicycle and pedestrian lanes on major roads. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 .9 10 · Public bus transportation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 B. WATER & SEWER 1. Please check all the boxes that apply to you: A well on my property provides drinking water for my home. A septic tank on my property handles sewage disposal from my home. I live in a development that provides water and sewer service to residents. I receive water and sewer services from a special district located near my home. I receive w,ater and sewer services from the Collier County Utilities Department. I pay a fee for water and sewer services to my home. I don't know who provides water and sewer services to my home. 2. On a scale of 1 to 10, how important to you are each of the following? (For each statement, circle one number from "1" TO "10"): NOT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT · A new potable water system is desirable in order to provide good quality drinking water to residents living east of County Road 951/Collier Boulevard. · A new wastewater treatment system is desirable to provide a safe and sanitary method for collecting and treating sewage created east of County Road 95I/Collier Boulevard. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C. COUNTY PARKS 1. Please check all the boxes that apply to you: During the past 12 months, someone in my family has used the recreation facilities available at one or more County parks. A County park is located no more than 5 miles from my home. 2. On a scale of 1 to 10, please tell us how important to you are each of the following? (For each statement, circle one number from "I" TO "10"): NOT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT · County park facilities should provide good quality recreation and adequate facilities for my use and my family's use. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · Collier County's public park facilities that are near my home will meet my family's recreation needs for at least the next 10 years. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · New County parks are needed to provide additional recreational opportunities for you and your family and others living east of County Road 95 l/Collier Boulevard. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 D. COUNTY LIBRARIES 1. Please check the boxes that apply to you or your family: During the past year, someone in my family has visited a County library. A County library is located no more than 5 miles from my home. 2. On a scale of 1 to 10, how important to you are each of the following in providing public library facilities for residents living east of County Road 951? NOT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT . Libraries that are located convenient to the neighborhood I live in. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . Collier County's public libraries near my home will meet my family's needs for at least the next 10 years. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . New public libraries are needed to serve the needs of my family and the other residents living east of County Road 951. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 E. PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1. Please check the boxes that apply to you or your family: Someone in my family has visited a Collier County public school for a community meeting or some type of recreational activity during the past year. Someone in my family has attended a Collier County public school for at least one year since I have been a resident of Collier County. 2. On a scale of 1 to 10, how important to you are each of the following in providing public school facilities for residents living east of County Road 951 ? · Schools that are located convenient to the NOT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT neighborhood I live in. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . Use of school locations to support community activities & events. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . Providing bike paths and sidewalks close to school locations. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Thank you for helping us to understand the opinions of our residents on transportation, drinking water and wastewater, and county parks and libraries. The two questions that follow are about emergency medical services and law enforce- ment. We want to know how you rate the performance of these important agencies using the same scale of 1 to 10. F. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS) 1. Please tell us about your past experience with EMS. (Please check only the box that applies to you): I have called Collier EMS to respond to a medical emergency. I have never called for help from EMS since I have been a County resident. (go to the next question G) 2. On a scale of 1 to 10, please tell us how you would rate the overall performance of EMS in respect to the following activities: (For each statement, circle one number from "I" TO "10"): POOR · EMS responds quickly and effectively when called for service. 1 2 3 4 5 EXCELLENT 6 7 8 9 10 · EMS provides high quality medical treatment to injured persons. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 G. LAW ENFORCEMENT On a scale of 1 to 10, please rate the overall performance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office for: POOR EXCELLENT · Responding to calls for service in your neighborhood. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · Investigating suspicious activity in your neighborhood. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 H. FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE SERVICES 1. Please tell us about your past experience with your local fire department: I have called for help from a local Fire District because of an emergency situation. I have ~ called for help from any Fire District since I have been a County resident 2. On a scale of 1 to 10, how important to you are each of the following in providing fire and rescue services for residents living east of County Road 951 ? (For each statement, circle one number from "I" TO "10"): NOT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT · Locating a Fire Station with other emergency agencies like EMS and a Sheriff substation is desirable to lessen the overall cost of operating these services. · Bridging over canals and linking dead-end roads near where I live are needed to improve emergency response times for fire districts, EMS, and law enforcement. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 L FLOOD CONTROL 1. Check all the boxes below that apply to you: I have had flooding on my property during the past five years. Flood waters have entered my home within the past five years. Flooding makes driving on the streets near where I live very difficult. Flooding on my property has obstructed my sewage septic system. Flooding on my property has caused problems for my water well system. I don't have serious flooding problems on my property. 2. On a scale of "1" to "10", with "10" the most important, please rate how important each of the following things are to you regarding local flooding and its impact on the roads you use to drive to work or to shop (For each statement, circle one number from "I" TO "10"): · Widening drainage ditches on my property to control flooding. NOT IMPORTANT 2 3 4 4 5 6 6 7 7 IMPORTANT 8 9 10 · Reducing flooding along the roads I drive on regularly. 2 3 5 8 9 10 · Installing new drainage culverts at road intersections near my property. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3. Please tell us more about the roads you travel on to go to work and to shop (For each road, check only the one box that applies to you): EastlWest Roads Check below how often you drive on these roads Any Day Every Day Monday-Friday Never North/South Roads Check below how often you drive on these roads Any Day Every Day Monday-Friday Never Collier Boulevardl951 Wilson Boulevard Everglades Boulevard Desoto Boulevard Immokalee Road Oil Well Road Randall Boulevard Golden Gate Blvd. Thank you for sharing your opinions on the facilities, services, and programs provided by county government. Your answers to survey questions will help us make accurate assessments of the current and future needs of our residents. In June, we will send you a follow up questionnaire. It will ask you questions about specific facilities, services, and programs that are important to you. Please complete it and return it. We appreciate all you and your family do to make Collier County a good place to live. OPTIONAL Last Name: First Name: Phone: Are you: 0 Male 0 Female Do you live in a: 0 Single-family home 0 Condominium 0 Rental apartment 0 Mobile Home How long have you lived at your present address? When did you move to this address? o Between 2006 and 2008 0 Between 1996 and 2000 0 Between 1986 and 1990 o Between 2001 and 2005 0 Between 1991 and 1995 0 Before 1986 Would you please tell us which age category applies to you? 065 years or older 045 to 54 years 025 to 34 years 055 to 64 years 035 to 44 years 024 years or younger Including yourself, how many living at home with you are over 18 years of age? DOne 0 Two 0 Three 0 Four or more Of those now living with you, how many are Jess than 18 years of age? DNone 0 One 0 Two 0 Three 0 Four or more