BCC Minutes 04/08/1994 J (w/Naples City Council)Naples. Florida, April 8, 1994
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners ~n
and for the County of Collier, and also acting ae the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on th~e date at 4:30 P,M. in JOINT SPECIAL SESSION in
Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE-CHAIRMAN~
(Absent)
CITY OF NAPLESs
MAYOR:
VICE MAYOR:
Timothy J. Constantine
Betrye J. Matthews
John C. Norris
Michael J. Volpe
Burr L. Saunders
Paul W. Muenzer
Alan R. Korest
Marjorie Pro/man
Fred Tarrant
Ronald M. Penn~ngton
Fred L. Sullivan
(Absent) Peter H. VanArsdale
ALSO PRESENT: Ellis Hoffman, Deputy Clerk; Nell Derrill, County
Manager= Ken Cuyler, County Attorney; George Archibald, Transportation
Services Admtn~etrator; Jeff Perry, MPO Coord~nator~ Diane Helling,
Planner and Dr. R~chard Woodruff, C~ty Manager.
April 8, 1994
· e" Comaleeloner Volpe and Council #a~ber VanAredale &b~ent
Tape #1
~'VAT.,UATXON AND R,EC01~NDATI0~ ON MAINTENANCE O~ TRA]~IC PLAX OPTX01~
]K)R USE DURXNCl ~ NXDENXN~ OF U8 41 - 00RDON RZVZR ~RZIXIZ$ - ]'DOT TO
BE ADVISED THAT FOUR LAHE 0FTXON MXLL BE UTZLZZ~D
Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on
April 4, 3994, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the
Clerk, a Joint meeting was held concerning the Gordon River Bridge
Renovation.
MPO Coordinator Perry announced that in attendance are represen-
tatives from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and mem-
bers of the consulting design firm that will be providing the design
work for the widening of the Gordon River Bridges from 6 to 8 lanes.
Mr. Perry explained that two options will be presented with regard
to handling the traffic conditions during the construction period of
this project. He requeste~ that the two options be evaluated and that
a recommendation be forwarded to FDOT as to what is preferred locally
during the construction period.
Mr. Allen Schrumpf, of Dyer, Riddle, Mills, Precourt, Inc. advised
that his firm will be responsible for the design of the 8 laning of
U.S. 41 from Goo~lette Road to the intersection of Davis
Boulevard/Sandpiper.
Mr. Schrumpf remarked that the only median openings within the
project will be at Riverpoint Drive and the westerly entrance of the
Wellsley Inn/Olive Garden property.
Mr. Schrumpf noted that an evaluation has been completed with
regard to maintaining three lanes of traffic during construction ver-
sus maintaining two lanes of traffic during construction. He related
tha~ the two options have been evaluated based on four criteria:
constructability; construction duration= traffic level of service
during the construction period; and safety issues.
Mr. Schrumpf pointed out that the existing bridge is an original
two lane structure that has been widened on each side to provide for
Page
three lanes and sidewalks.
Mr. $chrumpr referred to graphics depicting the 4 lane option and
the 6 lane option. He Indicated that widening for the project will
take place on the north side of the road and there will be only inci-
dental work taking place beyond the right-of-way on the south side of
the roadway.
Mr. $chrunpf etated that the 4 lane option will result in the tra-
vel lanes being compressed into two lanes eastbound and two lanes
westbound with sidewalks on both sides.
Mr. Schru~pf reported that the 6 lane option during construction
will present many problems. He noted that the work will be done in
three major stages: removing the existing median~ taking out a small
portion of the existing bridge and building a new bridge sufficient to
carry the three westbound lanes; and taking out another emal! portion
of the existing bridge to maintain the remaining lanes.
Mr. Schrumpf advised that the findings of the study Indicate that
the 4 travel lanes allow many more constructability options, affords
the contractor a larger area to work and the ability to keep materials
on site. In addition, he noted that most of the removal of the
existing bridge and pile driving can be done from a barge in the
water.
Mr. $chrumpf pointed out that from the standpoint of construction
duration, the G lane option would take an additional year or more to
complete. He stated that traffic congestion would oontinue for a
longer period of time. He announced that construction coots would be
increased due to the various elements relating to the length of the
contract, i.e. rental of space, offices, insurance, etc.
Mr. $chrumpf called attention to the traffic Levels of Service
(LOS). He revealed Chat under the · lane option, with modifications,
LOS "D" can be attained during the peak season at the intersection of
U.$. ·1 and Ooodlette Road. He advieed that an acceptable level of
service cannot be attained during the construction period at the
intersection of U.S. ·l and Davis Boulevard. He noted that only 6
Page 3
April 8, 1994
lanes would yield an acceptable LOS for that Intersection.
Mr. Schrumpf reported that the 4 lane option has several features
that the 6 lane option does not have. He cited that the existing
sidewalk on the north side of the structure cannot be maintained with
6 lanes. Additionally, he indicated that the existing concrete median
can be maintained only during the 4 lane condition. He divulged that
the 6 lane concept is 1~ narrower than the 4 lane concept.
In summary, Mr. Schrumpf advised that the constructability of the
4 lane staging is better than that of the 6 lane etegtng~ construction
duration of the 4 lane option is better than that of the 6 lane
option~ traffic LOS is somewhat better with the 6 lane staging,
however, if a diversionsty route is created by using Airport Road and
Pine Ridge Road, 10~ of the traffic could utilize those alternate
routes.
The following persons spoke with regard to this Item:
Kim Kobza
Ralph Martin
Diane Flagg
· John Reble
Dr. Woodruff advised that the Fire Department will provide a fire
boat and fire helicopter during construction.
Commissioner Norris ~oved, ssconded byCo,~tssloner Hatthew~ ~nd
carried 4/0, to recommend the · lane option to the FlorldaDep~tlent
of Transportation.
Council Member 8ullivan~ovsd, seconded by Council Member
Pennington, to rsco~en~ the · l~n~ option to the Florida l)eplrtment
of Transportation.
Council Member Tarrant stated that he is not opposed to the idea
of a new Gordon River Bridge. He advised that he is opposed to City
residents bearing the expense of that bridge since this is clearly a
state project. He Indicated that he believes It is a mistake to
repair or rebuild the Gordon River Bridge until a new bridge has been
put in place.
Upon call for the question, the ~otlon carried 6/0.
Page 4
April 8, 1994
?,: Ztma #3B
~ DESZ~ ~ ~R ~ SEC~ OO~N R~ ~ ~ A~Z~TZON
FOR ~ZN~ VZA CZ~/CO~ ~ACT ~ CO~ZO~
Transportation Services Administrator Archibald stated ~hat
~tem ~o a follow up to pr~or Board and Council action and ~nvolve9 the
second Gordon R~ver Bridge concept. He remarked that th~ ~ al~o a
follow up to the fatal fla~ otud~ ~d ~oll traffic otud~ which were
recently completed.
Mr. Archibald reported tha~ the next phase of tht~ project t8 the
Preltm~nary Development, Environmental (PDaE) Stud~. He remarked tha~
the consuitor, CH2M H~ll has submitted a series of do~ento which
have been reviewed by o~aff.
Mr. Archibald revealed that staff is reco~end~ng that ~he Board
and Council consider moving ahead with the steps of flna~z~ng the
contract ~d the PDaE Study which w~ll provide some ke~ ~nforma~on
ftnalizlng the all~ment relative to the project.
Mr. Archibald explained tha~ the economical benefit to be gained
from this S~udy Is being able to preserve the right-of-way for ~ha~
ailment for the second Gordon R~ver Bridge If the f~d~ng
can be answered.
Mr. Archibald pointed ou~ that the agenda packet outlines the
activities to be performed, breakdo~ of the man hour costs and
bre~do~ of ~he activities by cost. He announced tha~ the total cost
of the PDaE ~8 $364,136. He no~ed that $~1,025 relates ~o contingent
~tem8 ~d hopefully, w~11 no~ be neceesa~.
Mr. Archibald recessed ~ha~ consideration be g~ven to the
contract approva~ process for the PDaE, reco~zlng tha~ the funding
for same has traditionally been between the impact fees collected 2n
the City and the County. He suggested that consideration be g~ven
using reserves in those ~mpact fee d~et~lcts for purpose of funding
th~e project on a 50-50 share basle.
M=. Archibald reported on the review of the temporary b~dge con-
Page 5
April 8, 1994
cept. He announced that he believes this Is a very appropriate con-
cept to consider. Ne explained that the consultant has provided
backup, contained in the agenda packet, relating to the activities,
design and permitting costs. He revealed that it has been learned
that obtaining environmental permits for a temporary bridge will be
confined to a very short period of time. He advised that the utiliza-
tion of a temporary bridge is not feasible and therefore, this concept
is not economically viable.
Commissioner Norris stated that before this contract is let in the
amount of 8364,000, a decision needs to be made as to whether this
project will be moving forward and how It will be funded. He cited
that he prefers to go forward with the tell concept and that an
interlocal agreement be entered Into between the City and County for
any shortfall.
In response to Commissioner Constantine, Mr. Perry advised that
there Is no direct need for a Toll Authority for the City and County
to decide to build a tell bridge. He remarked that there Is likely to
be a conflict with the general law that allows county commissions to
create author/ties by resolution, if elected officials are placed on
the Toll Authority since there will be a dual office issue. He
suggested that the way to get beyond that problem, Is to have the
legislature create that authority.
Council Member Pennington and Commissioner Saunders echoed com-
ments made by Commissioner Norris with regard to both entities com-
Litting to proceeding with building the second bridge across the
Gordon River prior to reconstructing and widening the existing
bridge.
Commissioner Saunders suggested that a request be made to the DOT
-to work with the City and County In making a commitment that the
second crossing be constructed prior to the reconstruct/on of the
existing bridge.
The following persons spoke with regard to this Atemr
Bill Neron
$oseph Studs '00K O~OPAG£ 07
Page 6
April 8, 1994
FDOT Secretary David May auggeeted continuing the activities asso-
ciated with the design of the current bridge while DOT ie continuing
Its path of the final decision prior to letting the contract.
Mr. ~orm Feder of DOT announced that the schedule provided Is
assuming the use of no federal funds. He indicated that the nature of
the PD&E tea modified program which does not qualify for federal
funds.
evaluation of the second Gordon River crossing; that ataf£ be directed
to find away to finance and construct the second 0crdon River
crossing prior to the reconstruction of the existing Gordon Rivor
Bridge; that the funding mechanism for the eecondGordonRivor
crossing potentially include · toll plaza and any other funding mechm-
n~ that staff can eva~uate; that DOT continua their efforts in
p~anning and designing the reconstruction of the axisting crossing;
and staff to continue to evaluate the potential for · temporar~
crossShe.
Council Member Tarrant questioned whether the state would reim-
burse the City and the County for the PD&E work, to which Mr. May
replied that the PD&K Study is not developed in accordance with
federal standards and therefore, there is no mechanism for reimbur-
sement.
Commissioner Constantine remarked that he has no problem com-
nitting to building the bridge and directing staff to Investigate and
determine the funding sources. He cited that he does not concur with
the delay of construction of the U.So 41 project until the other
bridge is completed.
The motion died for ~ack of · second.
ComR~seAoner S·unders moved, aaco~dodbyCom~tooto~erhtthewB and
carried 4/0, that a second Gordon R~ver crossing be constructed prior
to the reconstruction of the existing bridge with the understanding
,oo
Page 7
April S, 1994
~ $tudF be funded for evaluation of the Gordon River crossing; that
the funding jchanta fo~ the ,econd ~or~n R~ croee~ ~tent~ally
the reco~t~ct~on of the existing crossing.
C~c~l ~m~r Pe~tn~on ~d, leco~e~ ~ C~ctl ~r ~orlst
~d carried 6/0, t~t a second Oordon River cro~ng be conerected
pr~or to the recollection of the ex~et~ br~ w~th the
~ecte~ t~t the P~ S~ ~ f~d fo~ ~v~l~t~on of t~ 0oran
R~r c~oee~ng~ t~t the f~d~ng ~c~s~ fo~ the second ~o~n R~r
crossing ~tent~ally ~nclude a toll pI~a ~d ~y othe~ f~d~ng ~c~-
n~ t~t staff c~ ~l~te~ ~ t~t ~ continue its ~fforts ~n
pl~ng ~d ~el~ng the reco~t~ct~on of the ~st~M c~oes~ng.
There being no further business for ~he Good of the Co~ty, the
· ee~ng wa~ adjourned by Order of the Chair - T~me: 5s35 P.~.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/E][
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DIST~TS UNDER ITS
CONTROL~,~'
h~hutes approved by ~he Board on
as presented m//
"~ '[_or as corrected
09
Page 8