Agenda 05/24/2006 W
:,~,~
c~
C ~u:t1:~Y
. ", "!i~t ~
~',';i~,;::,,~:~.":;,-~~}~'::'.:4~~~~:"'~;(:'"';\;_\;~,-~~" w
Collier County East of CR 951 Services &
Infrastructure Horizon Study
For
May 24, 2006, Collier County Board of County Commissioners
Workshop
Prepared by:
Comprehensive Planning Department
Community Development & Environmental Serivices Division
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
239.403.2400
May 24, 2006 BCC Workshop
East of County Road 951 Horizon Study
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. Land Use
13. Public Participation
14. Question & Answers
15. BCC Direction
16. Concluding remarks
Table of Contents
Section
Paf!e
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 -
Preliminary 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 decisions 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 CR95 I 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 CR951
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 Capitallrnprovements 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 1-75, the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, the Rural Lands Stewardship
Area, the Irnmokalee Urbanized Area... the South Golden Gate Estates 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. Agricultural 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 develoJlIIlent; 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, has 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
Collier 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 Collier
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 163.3177(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 cost/benefit 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 1-75 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 wateJ:.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 l6,992 acres or 1.5 percent of the Study area. The
lmmokalee 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 Irnmokalee 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 1-75
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 Conservation 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.
Subdistricts of Study Area
!fi Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District
. Rural Lands Stewardship
Area
1m 7.73%
, . South Golden Gate
Estates Natural Resources
Protection Area
R Federal and State Lands
1l!!l67.87%
o 4.23%
o 1 .40%
.2.59%
o Golden Gate Estates north
of 1-75
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 jilture residential development, combined with existing residential development, to
project the total number of dwelling units and resulting pennanent population. The Stud)'
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~ 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
Everl!lades 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 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
East of CRlSR 951 (Collier Blvd.)
Unincorporated Area
I COUNTYWIDE
NOTES:
GGE = Golden Gate Estates.
Naples figures per 1994 Urban Area Buildout Study. Phase l.
Marco Island figures per 1996 Marco Island Master Plan.
Immokalee figures per 1991 Immokalee Area Master Plan.
East of CR/SR 951 excludes lmmokalee.
Coastal Urban area: from Gulf of Mexico east to approximately I mile east of Colltier 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
400,000,-- .
350,000 i
i
300,000+-
250,000' .
200,000-
150,000
100,000..
50,000"
0------'"
Population Projections by District for Study Area
I'~-Immokalee
I RLSA-Rural Lands
Stewardship Area
o RFMUD-Rural Fringe.
Mixed Use District
81,517
D GGE East of CR-951
& Rural Settlement
Area
Population
Based on Comprehensive Planning 2005 Build-Out 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. TRANSPORT A TION
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 of 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 County
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 Irnmokalee 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 overpasseslflyovers. 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 help alleviate modeled congestion. These added roadways include; Wilson north to 47Th
A venue, 8Th Street and 16Th Street between Green and Randal, a Golden Gate Boulevard
Extension to try and alleviate congestion on Oil Well and Irnmokalee Roads, a Carson
Extension down to Irnmokalee to help alleviate congestion on Camp Keais, and an Overpass at
CR 951 and Immokalee, and new Interchange at Davis Boulevard and CR/SR 951/1-75 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 stillIlPt 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 Immokalee 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 Imrnokalee Road to Bonita
Beach Road in Lee County).
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 County 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.
Transportation LOS Cost Summary
$4,000,000,000. ,.'
$3,500,000,000
$3,000,000,000
$2,500,000,000 !
$2,000,000,000
$1,500,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$500,000,000 ;
$0 _.~ '
Status Quo
Intermediate
Premium
$2.5 Billion expected from future impact feesl 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 COUNTY
=
:~
~
;;:
~
j~ 29
:.<
;...
<.
- '-' _.__!_'!..~~</".
.",,^' '"' '4--
'!lJL;\l-J_ ~-
."
31
.::1
",,/
.;
.. ~ t .
Cl
~
?
:7.
'7.
:::
~
/
1-75' EVERGLADES INTERCHANGE
~
Legend
';:\.H ,. P.-\~M RU
Number of Lt1nes
CR 951/ US 41 OVERPASS
29
-:2 Lanes Factll!"!
- 4 Lanes Facility ~
6 Lanes FaClIIt'.!
"'t".
',-~
:",41'.
- 15 -
COLLIER COUNTY EAST OF CR 951 STUDY
MEDIUM LEVEL
LEE COUNTY
IMMOKALEE I CR 951
INTERCHANGE
- .
~v.:>'!C'~=-::_2::?~ ~.
]"
~ "
____~ . :: \.... J'l..J'
~ " )U'~ ~l 1., -,.]1. "'1 \ J)
~
,1I11:!!''..' c'
,1:'; ...'-.": I Y
HL\'U
"
:4. DAVISIlJ5/1-l5
INTFRCHANGE
~
,; \EU l~o\LM P!\
.n fH .\Vf-.
I
I
ft.-\.!'I'.".I! lilV' q
.~ ......"..".!
or.
~
~J
"<
.~
;..
;:!
,1
18'1 H AV~. 1'\'
!
.t:>.l........L..
::::: j ~
>;'
"
l,,,
CR 9511 US 41 OVERPASS
~
~:4.
1.75/ EVERGLADES
INTERCHANGE
- 16 -
Legend
Number of Lanes
:.> L.',es F~1Cility
.: Lanes F 0-> t,.
6 L~nes F3C 11
'"
29
'"
~
<
,-.
('Il f(5S .../-.
---",""
29
~
COLLIER COUNTY EAST OF CR 951 STUDY
PREMIUM LEVEL
cc..~:l'.EW i'':)
Lee County
n.:xrK.\LEERr.
/----
f
4rv'-,""F.
: ""'!'~.:. IiJJ
~1:.\yll:"L ar.
1U.~I.:'fll.'\1::
'ilL'
--.,~."-
-
~'"
,,;,;.u.
.,'HT ;'1
.",-, "','Z
\
'\
\
ep,S.,
I
~
011.\1.0':1 t. f~
i"'Jt :~1
l{~':~~
,....,T r-'I
.,,,~w_~r'~.
l"~f ElllGL\llIS3Llll
r.TIRC1USGI
29
Legend
Number of lanes
- 2 ~Jres FO::I it)'
C(
.- 4LJ,,,, Fad ity
6 Lar,es "ad '"J
-6liJre.sFacii'i
- 17 -
~--,","-,,"'''I'<'
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 Cost $ 6,936,000 $ 4,070
Element
Distribution Cost Element $31,779,000 $23,230
30% Con tin enc $11,615,000 $ 8,490
TOTAL $50,330,000 $37,000
Collection Cost Element $66,264,000 $48,438
Treatment/Disposal Cost $ 7,000,000 $5,117
Element
30% Contingency $21,979,000 $16,067
TOTAL $95,243,000 $70,000
GRAND TOTAL $145,573,000 $107,000
Project Area - 5 Sections (East of CR951 within Water & Sewer Disctrict)
160000000
140000000
120000000
100000000
80000000 I
60000000 i
40000000
20000000
o
l]J Total Estimated Cost
Potable Water
. Total Estimated Cost
Wastewater
o Total Estimated Cost .
Potable/W asteW ater i,
Total Estimated Cost
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.
- 19 -
The intermediate service costs are sUl11Illiirized 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 In 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
GRAND TOTAL
$2,454,080,000
$1,001,000 $3,653
$6,355,743 $23,196
$2,623,153 $9,574
$11,367,000 $41,485
$13,252,772 $48,368
$ 200,000 $ 730
$ 1,400,000 $5,109
$ 4,455,832 $16,262
$19,309,000 $70,471
$30,676,000 $111,956
$80,080,000
$508,459,440
$209,852,240
$909,360,000
Collection Cost
Element
Transmission Cost
Element
Treatment/Disposal
Cost Element
30% Contingency
$1,060,221,760
$16,000,000
$112,000,000
$356,466,560
TOTAL
$1,544,720,000
* Average of 27 4 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 -
Potable & Wastewater to all of North Golden Gate Estate Area
$2,500,000,000
$2,000,000,000
$1,500,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$500,000,000
$0
Total Estimated Cost for Estates East of CR951
I. ____.
o Total Estimated Cost
Potable Water
. Total Estimated Cost
Wastewater
o Total Estimated Cost
Potable/W asteW ater
----...,.-~-._-....----- - _____,___ ___.._ ___n.__....____.__...____.,__......__ ._~_____________ __
Per Parcel cost of Potable & Wastewater to all of North Golden Gate Estates
Total Estimated per Parcel Cost for Estates East of CR951
- 22-
Public Utilities District Boundarv & Proiect Area
R 15 E
fit .2.6 E
R 27 E
t
m
~
\:~: ;,.:~
\ri. . ~ i
\'11):~ "
,;;~ ,
\\)Pl ~;i "_~_ ..
\11.. a: ,,'
.. \I ~ B
"\~
\\12 ~ " ~
~. . 1 ,.J: . 1\; ,
,\ ,oJi \
~I\ '
I fc.""
"
i...
..
,
tt,
~
~~
~
" ,
.~
"
..
'4 ,.
I-",,-~
~
. ..
.
"
%;: .
C:-J
c:
'"I
SI \,
'-:-r
u. ~
u~
,.
.
'-<
~
.
..
,.
'-'-
"I:l' /':~
~
...
.....^", ',.,,',>1
.( ..~~: 7~:t'
.J;I La..i
I'; ·
, -
on
~ (~~<
.....
o
'-r,
~ ~
-
~
tr-1
X
,--<
Cj
o
~ ..
\-" . \ :t J .~~ ..
\ .'4d .:~ '
\.i-1f)~' "
,,~ "!I_~
hi\\ I.. .. I~ "
a t'! a
, I
\" ~-
\: r\
~~~f-.-.~""'_' ,//..
_- 1 4'>/'/
1~ un."""'p .. 1.
~~
~? .
'..;;
>OK
n ~~_
..
" '...~.
.1 ~
:;
:i!
Ii
ll)~
~
U II
1& ~ l~
a .
i
~ "
51
.. i"""'-"
,,~
"-.. ,; ..
T'>-. ~... .
"
'l~
~.'
.J
1~ Ii 11
t
1i .i 14
~. ..
.. t:::~.j ..
LeGEND
"I~..
,. ....
ftt..,17
It.rn::a'\&:~_.,..
;;;
~ur~~"fllTE" ~
8\liW'w~r,~~'g _
OClLC&:N Q..lTli: UiiTAT..
~~WorituW IN
uflUll!S STUD'!'
,-_::---.. a
"U ~/ :~/1"1" ~ ~ " ..( "
,,;( ;--:f.S~V ~ f'i) . ~ I, ~.
~' r"'~~~~.:\ if. . J" 'n
, - '\', ~(\ ~ 1;t II It'" :
- . \'<P. '\. ~ ~' 1
\~~~t~~~~~;~1
~I ""'f'~ r ,_ "'~ / ;'ll!:: ~ "
. --'~'~' I~\~-
-....... '.
ClH Dr IoMPL,ES
FtlU..
:It::I'I\lIl;:l!: AI'If:'"
oCllU.WOIi: '1lE:E
3EA\lIli:E: AAf:oll
N
~
EAST OF C.R, 951 ST>JDY
R 28 E
_t
~
.
,~
.~
~
.
..
...
..
~
..
..
..~
~
~
". -~.
~. u~
~
...
~.
~
~
~
~
;;;
I'~
,,~
~,
--...
N
~
r-
J
R 25 E
R 26 E
R 21 E
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARThlEN'T
5EPTEWBER 2.(]a~
R 2& E
.....L..v AND HAN..N L!.C
- 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 CR95l.
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;
II Initiated an artificial reef constmction project using clean C&D;
II Implemented a Mandatory Non-Residential Recycling Ordinance;
" Issued a Grease Trap Waste Processing Request for Proposals (RFP);
II Issued a Municipal Solid Waste Processing (Gasification) RFP;
II Issued a Source Separated Organic Waste Processing RFP;
" Renegotiated its Franchise Solid Waste Collection Agreements with WMIF and
Immokalee Disposal Company, Inc. (IDC).
Current Initiatives include:
II 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.
CONSIDERA TION
Current Service Level (as of October 1,2005)
Level 1-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:
I. 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:
" Garbage Collection 2X/week (unlimited);
'" Recycling Collection lX/week (one 64-gallon recycling cart in Service
District I and two 18-gallon bins in Service District II);
I!II Yard Trash Collection lX/week (up to 10 bundles);
I!II White Goods Collection lX/week;
" Brown Goods Collection lX/week;
'I Electronics Collection lX/week;
" Tires Collection 1 X/week; and
"" Battery Collection lX/week.
The cost per household for fiscal year 2006 is:
iii $153.70 in Service District I; and
iii $144.26 in Service District II.
The difference in cost per household relates to the use of 64-gallon recycling carts in Service
District I. 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
Carnes town. 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 (FDEP) requirements in 1992.
- 25 -
lmmokalee Landfill
The Immokalee Landfill, located on Stockade Road, is operated by WMIF. It commenced
operations in 1982, and closed in [2004], and now operates as a Transfer Station.
Naples Landfill
The Naples Landfill is owned by the County, and operated by WMIF. 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 Iandfilling.
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.
Level 3- 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
mcrease.
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:
II
Landfill expansion (No direct cost increase to $20/ton increase);
- 26 -
II New Landfill ($40 to $60/ton);
II MSW composting($50 to $70/ton.);
II Out-of-County disposal($60 to $80/ton);
II Waste-to-Energy (WTE) ($80 to $llO/ton);
II Gasification/Pyrolosis ($60 to $lOO/ton);
II Emerging technologies (e.g., ArrowBio) ($60 to $100/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 compo sting, WTE, Gasification/Pyrolosis, 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.
Recvclinl! 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 Orangetrce 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 fUrallevel 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,OOO
$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.
11 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
Project: Unit Cost Total
a) Cooperative development of 8 school sites @ $750,000 $6,000,000
b) Construction of 1 community park 11 @ $15,000,000 $15,000,000
c) Construction of 2 regional parks1L @ $40,000,000 $80,000,000
d) Purchase of 636 acres for community parkland 13 @ $200,000 $127,200.000
Construction of 7 new community parks @ $15,000,000 $105,000,000
e) Purchase of 1110 acres for regional parklandl4 @ $200,000 $222,000,000
Construction of 5 new regional parks @ $40,000,000 $200,000,000
TOTAL $755,200,000
The resulting additions to the developed inventory are:
8 school sites
8 community parks
7 regional parks
12 Orangetree Park and Kaufmann (Vanderbilt Ext.) property
13 At 1.2882 per 1000887 acres are needed. Credit is given for 171 acres in inventory and 80 acres to be available
through school sites.
14 At 2.9412 per 10002025 acres are needed. Credit is given for 212 acres in inventory and 703 acres to be
acquired through cooperati ve agreements.
19 Manatee Community Park
- 30 -
Parks & Recreation Cost Options
...,..$l_55,2DD..OJlQ u
$800,000,000
$700,000,000
$600,000,000
$500,000,000
$400,000,000
$300,000,000
$200,000,000
$100,000,000
$0
Status Quo-
Add 8 school, 1
community, 2
regional parks
Intermediate
(Rural)- add 8
school, 4
community, 4
regional parks
- 31 -
-".,..~~~_.""",,",._- ....."". ,......-_..,...~,._.. .,-~
Premium
(Urban)- Add 8
school, 8
community, 7
regional parks
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 95 I 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 BCC 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
Hi2h 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 County
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
$1,000,000,000
$800,000,000
$600,OOO,OOOi
* $400,000,000
$200,000,000
I
, .,
1$486,000,000
$198,000,000
$0
II Cost in 05 Dollars $486,000,000
. New Units Needed at Build-Out 27
- ---
* Excludes Land Cost
$198,000,000
8
- 34-
$1,044,000,000
$360,000,000
$360,000,000
8
$1,044,000,000
.._____.__"___n____
43
FUTURE SCHOOLS LOCA TI ON MAP
COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS @
~!~
~'e
~:I
I
Ii ELEMENTARY'
.:. SCHOOL "R~
. lOI6
: MlUL>L.l:
, SCHOOL "00"
2<111
1I1U;
.s. IHX)[ "!-L
. ~'11IL
'"""'"
8
;;
'<
'"
;;
k
t;'
e
OJ
I
EA~rORTII
_.. .> A
SCHOOL 'J'"
:WI~
Bled;
l..;rH()()! "!1;)'-;'
L 'lCl'1
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL "0"
J"')
MIDDLE
SCHCXJ:L Hcr'
20"
EAST-SOUTH
TRACT K
K,2ND GRADE
SCHOOL
~--mIlUI.F-~ MARCO
SlHUUL 'HH" , ISLA"'D
CO,~ARTER ,.
.~
I
I.
I~
I.
I"
I;
.. ...." I <;"""
""" \. t-I
~;\~
err
:r .
(~t
l.~jl
I
UNSlTED SCHOOLS
"1"ANNI"~ COMMUNITY """I\~XIMATII .,.....1\
f;:;t ~
\;
~L!;.,,';::'~j I.........'. -........ E:!.:.. -:.. _ (1;:\
;;LEMErll..1PY "y:" io'",~ -~-;: r.to.l~-;" r"'l
.:t "
\.
I'
[l
fci;:.,
r:;:l
:~
(
;,' ~-_._~--
I;
!;
I
'.
- 35 -
AVA MARIA
hU:."MEiNTARY
SCHOOL "0"
20"
MIDDLE
SCHOOL "II'
:!O:!.
:U.8.
,
-~)
I
I
~
IMMOKALEE
/~~1i $!
'. I
-=:.~; !t"J- I
~ '-~~I
~r 'I
, I
'\
7-.~~c-
, ,
....",.. L.l
''1._, r
PLANNING (;.OMMUNlITlfiS
~Oll"Ut ~DUNTV
_LO"IDA
I
1.--1
I_~
I
I
I
)
~\
.lJlIlllIIlb<<lo.2W4
4:1Jd..~.dxdo~d...
VI. STORMW A TER 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 Meade/North Belle Meade area. The next few paragraphs will discuss northern Golden
Gate Estates (north of 1-75).
NORTH GOLDEN GATE EST A TES
Existin2 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 10-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 "C" 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 County 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-95 1 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 lssues
affecting level of service are worth considering at this time.
. design storm event
. elevation
. increasedlhardened 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-year/72-hour design storm
event. This event produces a greater rainfall over a longer duration. The impacts of a 25-
year/72-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-year/72-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 storm water 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 stormwater 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 Impervious 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 observe 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-95l, south of 1-75, west of the Picayune Strand
Restoration area (south blocks of Golden Gate Estates), and extending south of US-4l to tidal,
estuarine waters north of Marco Island. Most of the development areas are located along the
western fringe (east side of CR -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 1-75, 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-4l to provide some flooding relief to lands immediately adjacent to the
north side of US-41. 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-95l 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
infrastmcture 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 BCC 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 CR95 1 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 County'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-year/24-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-year/24-hour design storm event, or possibly a Level of Service "B" for
the 25-year/72-hour design storm event. It recognizes that it may not be possible to achieve the
satisfactory Level of Service based upon the 25-year/72-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 MeadelNorth Belle Meade
Level 1 - Status Quo
This level of planning effort recognizes that the existing Level of Service "D" allows for some
house flooding occurring at the 25-year/72-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 eXIstmg 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 recommended 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-95 1 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
~
W+E
S
Barron Rwer I I I
Canal Basin 0 5 10 20 Miles
>,
C
:l
o
o
u
ro
~
o
m
L-28 Tieback Basin
/i1iCiJI/
~n,,^
'vlis Co
~St~/e
~Sins
Gator Hook Strand Basin
i:'
c
6
o
c;
"()
t'il
o
Data Source: Aerials - CdlierCo,"ty Property Appraiser
Created By GIS CDES I Environml!l1t~ Ser.ices
G:\GIS _ TmpICC _Drain.mxd
G:VmageslMaps&AenalsICC _Drain .jpg
Dale: 911105
c~~le~ County
--'. "~'..---.,.-..-..-....
- 44-
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 CR/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 - 20,000 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:
lmmokalee - 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
Library Cost 2005 Dollars
$0.
r
I
I
l~_
I
f
,-~
$100,000,000
$80,000,000
$60.000,000
$40,000,000
$20,000,000
Library Cost 2005 Dollars
$57,027,000
$77,596,000
$99,086,000
Books Needed for East of 951 Study
C II' C P bI' LOb
o ler ounty u lC 1 rary
Library
Books Library Books Library Books
Status Quo Intermediate Premium
1.75 books / No addition to Status No addition to
capita Quo Status Quo
Books Need for
Build-out
Population Increase
of 700,000 people 1,260,000 0 0
Cost of books for
additional 700,000
people $30,625,000 $0 $0
Cost / 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 Footage Planned
Library Construction
Intermediate
Total Square
Libraries Footage Planned
Library Construction
Premium
Total Square
Libraries Footage Planned
II
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 Total Sq, Ft. 288,878 Total Sq. Ft, 358,878
sq. Footage includes: sq. Footaee includes: SQ. Footaee includes:
FY07: MI - 4,000 sq. ft FYI6+: 1M - 5.000 sq. ft. FYI6+: 1M - /0,000 sq. ft.
FY07: SR - 30,000 sq.ft FYI6+: EB - 10,000 sq.ft. FY 16+: OT - 20,000 sq. ft.
FY07: GG - 17,000 sq. ft. FY16+: EV - 2,000 sq. ft. FY16+: FC - 10,000 sq. ft.
FYI6+: FC - 10,000 sq. ft. FY16+: SR - 30,000 sq. ft. FY16+: BC 30,000 sq. ft.
FYI6+: OT-30,000 sq. ft. FY16+: OT - 20,000 sq. ft.
(86,000 sq it total) 67,000 sq it total) (70,000 sq it total)
0.21 sq It / capita 0.27It / capita 0.34 sqIt / capita
Construction Construction
86,000 Planned 67,000 Construction Planned 70,000 Planned
$ 300 Costlsq.ft, $ 300 Costlsq.ft. $ 300 Costlsq.ft.
Construction Costs I Construction Costs I Construction Costs I
$ 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
r---- --.
I
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 citizens 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 awarded/reclassed 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 9/10 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 lA - 2 Yz 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-
"
,< .
>-?
CORKSCREW ISLAND FIRE CONTROL AND RES'CUE DIST
Existing and Potential Ldcations
1
,.
!
f:"..J _ (,}'U' .;Ll......~
~ :..J '_ '" ,..~ I . r I
fY 1.?1 '. rl~\"'\i.j. -,~ p
&\(:.1 L; h.,
I
c(;~nCf ~ ':::"'i 1...,ill"\C:
. "{l.J ~w C'Y'iJt,Y6
i I. Ie 'Ill Cl;.~'I'L. \.~
+'""l'L.ll.l!'1
, " 1
'\1"'1"""'-" -,.11.,....
.... I!"""". j...J... ....\ ':..,.
~.:.Te. .
iX. ~Ibi\',tl~
I
-,
I
t'!. i : A"'. I 2 ~ ~ l
.'" 1......_ ..
.~-7~, p~3()I,
s\h~: q, ~.J.lr'
'l"llV~.j.=.t (. ._
'J\h:.CS: 'I ~ ]~.
J
I'(-i~~r
r:1iin
}
"
. ~":-.......j
...--..".....
"
I
I ,
l~
I
.; j
~I',
~. '~
...
.. -,;,1
/
. ~. ., i: ; .
:;- ~I " '1
{ 'f",. '''~ .,
~1
~ ,..:':-..... : ..... :."
"
,
:~~t...'~~~ ~ ~"
. -";..'. ." ;~ l
~.,":'r
~.,j $0
.'
",' .
. "--''''='\-
,
-
~:
I
.......J','
11-10;
...:.
. ,
T "
...
;:."'"
-'-
1
-4"
...
"
l _.~. ~. ,.~ - . I .
. .' :1::
;. ':::: " :: I
I n
!
. '. ,i.'
~-: ~ .! ; ;.2~".,~
:. ..:
~ I II
" : ~
I":.
- __I
'.
;,
,
~
.,
'.
\
'J
"
.....
:<
" :., .., :.' '"
,',. ,.; ~_...-::::-_..l,-.,y _. oj' , I ".. j'
,- -.-, .,.' _'~ . ~::. :.-:_ . _ _ oft:. ~
! ....~~... - -
:-;;~" ~;:.~.. -. I' ;; -~,.,,: ';-:~~..~~.~.~~
'. .' .."ir .:, Ii.:. . .: "":- u
.lI\. ;_'_ I L ~. . . ~
I ~ ~ .
rl'<. 'I'I:~ '..... . . I
-:c.~ - ...."'. I
.' " ~ ~..:. .:;':'~:,: '1 ,.
. - :':f -:~..;..:~ . -'.:
. :);. :''':'. hili: .J:: ..
..~a r',
"
.. ,.... ~..., ..,'.. 4
---~ - - . ~ . ....'
...~:, a... ~~: ~ =:J..~:1 '"
'. ;~~~~:
'. ."". 7.'~i'J .
-." . . ,.
o _,...... ~
.. ... .f' . .-' -'.".
~ :.: :.-~_", ::-~:',C~' .~.~~::f'- ~- ~ ~.~ -"
, .......c.
.' I
.,
'"
I " I :
i I
')
.. -.:. I.
l...:. I I . tc.:..J
',~ ..
'.. ..,.
~ _. .
. .-.. ......
';!
. ~:::~""'-4
,...-", ..,................ I
, ' . . .....
- 51 -
IX. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services
Collier East of CR 951 Services & Infrastructure Horizon Study
Summary
The Bureau of Emergency Services for Collier County is dedicated to bringing the best
possible emergency services to the residents of Collier County. Our approach to the task of
responding to the Collier East of CR95l Services and Infrastructure Horizon Study is
consistent with that mission.
Although this report will cover both Emergency Management and Emergency Medical
Services, we will be focusing mostly on EMS, as it will have the greatest growth moving
forward towards build-out.
There are a few, but important, factors that must be considered when planning future resources
and their placement throughout county. The foremost is the Growth Management Plan. For
EMS this means that in order to maintain concurrency there must be at least 0.000068 EMS
Units per Capita or approximately 1 Unit for every 15,000 people.
The EMS per capita factor must be considered in conjunction with the 2005 Build-out Study
for East of CR95l, which provides estimated populations for each of the Traffic Analysis
Zones (T AZ). The combination of these zones results in a projection of 617,489 new residents
within the Study area. Once divided by the above mentioned 15,000 we get the result of 41.16,
representing the number of new EMS Units needed to satisfy the Growth Management Plan.
As per the instructions for this study, EMS has provided 3 different levels of response to
growth. Status Quo, Medium, and Premium. There are some differing considerations contained
within the options as to the placement of units and stations that will affect both fiscal impact
and department performance.
It should be noted that these placements are meant as very rough estimates of probable or
optimum locations due to very limited landuse, roads, and land availability, and land cost data.
Special considerations for certain areas such as the Ave Maria project may provide for some
opportunities that may warrant some flexibility in order to reap both fiscal and performance
benefits previously unplanned.
Levell - Status Quo
As mentioned, this study calls for 3 graduated responses to growth the first being "status quo"
or leaving things as they are today. As noted above this is contrary to the BCC's AUIR
directive and would clearly make the EMS performance measure of an 8 minute emergency
response to calls 90% of the time impossible to meet. Currently, the 4 stations located east of
951 meet this measure 71 % of the time, despite it being a mostly rural zone. Although call
volumes, traffic and other concerns cannot be accurately predicted for buildout, it can be
reasonably concluded that this percentage would greatly deteriorate as population increased
- 52 -
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 EMSlFire Stations = $24,700,000 est.
I Fully Equipped EMS St w/ 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 w/ remote Emergency Mgmt capability =
$ 4,000,000 est.
1 Fully Equipped Hanger and Helicopter = $7,000,000 est.
Total $92,795,000 est.
EMS Cost Including Land Cost
$0
$92,795,000
$100,000,000
$80,000,000
$60,000,000
$40,000,000
$20,000,000
o Cost in 05 Dollars
$497,752
$81,495,000
$92,795,000
- 54 -
Rough placement of EMS Untts ci Buildout.
Blue slars are exisling unks, Red are proposed units.
S2
175
.J
..
N
0:
t>)
S3
.
143
744
'-\
. ,~
8J
. PlecemerlsslOOdbe amdered lijiy ~aIi\e due tolimled moo, landure, and a\5illlJlliIy ~Io
- 55 -
-
Placement on GAC Landr
Unit: 18 Trade 116 II
-"'~
-~-
III
-0-
~~-
-UJ-
"'
==+=
Unit: 43 Trade 80
OOTH.il.VENE
~
101
101
~
~
o
~
~
Unit 47 Trade 1
1(1
to-
~
Rl.N DALL B LV D
IMMOK.slLII lID
Unit 97 Trade 10
Unit 17 Trade 105
18TH AVE NE
",~I
!=\
~-,
0_
=~:. ~
-~-
I:
-~-
. lOTHAVENE
Unit 14 Trade 127
t"
~
z
M
-l
o
Z
~
Z
YANDIRBn. T EUCH RD
GOLDIN GATE BLVDW
PINI RIDGI RD EX! r=l
~ f I ! II
= Unit: 194 Trock: 85
::al
!:l
ol ~
ol
8 f0-
Il
1(1 I:
to- ~
~
I
- 56 -
Unit: 43 Trade 83
CRS58
\
\
~
\
~
\
-z
"'
~~.
_Ill
-~
UJ
"'
Unit 73 Trade 83
12TH AV ENE -rl-
tOTHAVENE~
Unit 73 Track: 103
Q
~
~
w
S
-<
ol
~
~
101
= C~l!ie~ County
~-,~-".". ....".". "~'.--"-o.=_:-=-':'-
--r-
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 CR95l 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 County 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 for a single family home and 0.0584 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 7l,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 BCC 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.
Law Enforcement and Correctional Facilnies Cost
Estimates
$300,000,000
$250,000 ,000
$200,000,000
$150,000,000
$100,000,000
$50,000,000
$0
Law Enforcement
Correctional
Facilities
$100,427,232 estimated generated from impact
fees
Total
*Law Enforcement will have an estimated $119,535,675 revenue shortfall
*Correctional 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 County
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
Collier 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, Collier 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 Collier County Sheriff's
Department.
Level 3 - Premium
Maximum coordination will occur between representatives of the Chaperl89 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.
Intermediate
$3,490,000,000
$ I 45,573JJOO
$50,330,000
$95,243,000
$77,596,000
$1,044,000,000
$371 AOO,OOO
Premium
$3,940,000,000
$2,454,080,000
$909,360,()()O
$1,544,720J)OO
$99,08h,OOO
$ I ,044, OO(), ()()()
$755,200,()OO
Status Quo
$2,500,000,000
SO
$0
$0
$57,027,000
$ I,044,()OO,0()()
$IOI,OOn,ooo
Transportation
Public Utilities
Potable Water
Wastewater
Libraries
Schools*
Parks & Recreation
Emergency Services
EMS, Med Flight &
Emergency Managment
Law Enforcement
Correctional
Facilities
$92.795.e)(\{\
$184,474.8.. /
$81,495,000
$184,474,839
$497,752
$184,474,839
$102,947.624
Premium
$102,947.624
Intermediate
$102,947,624
Status Quo
$3,989,947,215
$5,497,486,463 $8,672,583,463
Total
* Estimate excludes land cost
Total Cost Summary
$10,000,000,000
$8,000,000,000
$6,000,000,000
$4,000,000,000 '
$2,000,000,000
$0
Premium
Intermediate
Status Quo
- 62-
XIII. LAND USE IMPLICATIONS _
Collier East of CR 951 Services & Infrastructure Horizon Study
Summary
At the inception of the East of CR95 1 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 CR95l 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 BCC 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 (EDC), 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 decisiens.
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 (public 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 Arc Viewable 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 IGM. 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 Imrnokalee 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 CR95l 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.e
- 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 lmmokalee 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 Imrnokalee Area Master Plan
Visioning Committee, 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 (NRPA) and Federal and State Lands. The Golden Gate
Estates north of 1-75, 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 BCC
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
)~ , ,- I ..1 I .,. V%~~
I ; 'm~;"'>;/:'
PJ" .... .//.....-: /...
2 .;' '/;{;%'% >; ~~/~%:
UJ -:........ ,,/.,//,' ~ .I".,,/.A / ~yr/)/,~,,'" ./
f~W2;; ///~;;:~~~
.::~~~/~,{...::/;:%i~;~0~
LU t~~/'.~~??~~
. ,'" ...{// .,. ~%";>a:" .' r.. "
.,' . .... / ,/..." ..... ... .r. ./ I
... ,~/:;~/,/ 7' ~
(11,' _;?7}~2%0/;.>;/::~J
- - - ~~~ "~~;'~~r{//r
:I' i 4-' I r1 I~~/:;f .'" ,!
~' I ";, F.~
'''-''~4'' ~---:-1.."
:.-~ :.~,-- PROJECT AR~A-~
:" r . I
J"
V anderbilt Beach Road
I75/CR951 Intersection
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
----------.
.":1
2'€f
29
p
~~
~-~
"
.1.~
2'
Vanderbilt Beach Road
",
"
[75/CR95] Intersection
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 - Wastewater - 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
):> I ,. '~/
, ,- I .., I ,)'~'0'
T~ /~;;:~71~/?;~
ui ~; %;:>:I""/': "/',.s: ~/7"<"
I>~;' '/';///> .... / / ," '-:/>
t::'~ .' ~7;":: ,"" ./ '".,~
."~. %~< ....~~~;//-:<:~,~ /:;~
UJ // /,'//,<5Jj/:-'l,-'/" // /<~~,
.... /;:::.;;....;:{:;;;.... /~/;;:;.<;;;
" /-:'//' '~-
t;;/ ~;;t/:..' ~ ~-?I.
.- - - ~~;:"f1~~q
:n ". I "1 ;}~~~>.... ;'1
_ (/7' J;~/),.l(0 "~J--1
~:"
~.' . ."....... "il."
',. ~ -i~' ~
:'~~. --"""-P'~JJECT ~RE~;~
;:" I I I
j~
I7 5/CR951 Intersection
Total Cost:$95,243,000- 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
~j~ :' -" I '~:~ .~ {/"r'/~
_'.J B? " ~? ~," ~'/ .~/...? /'''-
I -:4'" . /?"/..// /)
_ :. 01/,',;':: //'/ ", ' '//<,
~ r -' . I . I ~ AA/ ,/'" / ;; " ,;..
,[ '/ /~. /..., ~
~ 11 ....... .......... -- /':>' / .... ... J' -' ....' ./ -'
~ - t - - !- --~-Fzii:~~>f~:~;'i~.'>; :<, ,;/~~:> :/,.~~/
, ~ ;:/:>/' ///,/'. ///":"/ " wt'. /<In, f, 461/
I 1 "-, ./ ':M" ,:';~~ />' / // / ' ;;%'- ' /';/< /,,//:'/, /', ,',
.,. /';:7~dd /:,.;.' -' //. // ,//"//
-.--..'" t - - ,.. .-'~, '/;'<--::1" oj />/'<;k/<;::!
I~ 1" ....... i . 7 !i%i~~;~. :.0r~~J::~~~>7///
j -L-..- - -'%;;'>>k'//1 ,'///"////// /////
2) , 1i - ," '," r~*~~'. ,,) ll{:;~i~~;'~i:~:~~~~:
1,""--;, ,"'"' ' ,I, ,~ --~////,// ,////y,/// ,/ /, / /// /
- -I~ ~""4 ~1~;2<J>:;~" >1:';%1 />f;.2~(/~';~:/ /<X:('/ x~',y
~,.. /...~,/.. / /.....nX7/'// ?-:-""}/ "/ ,..r,
" v/;: // ,/ <// / ///,:/,/. /L.LL'2)'>/ '/:: /. ',' '// ' , / /
'!.>~""d~ ',/ '7/ ;//// '77}7/ ,/. /'/', "';'//;'
I j- - -1- - !/ '/ / ,,1,;:', ,>l%'/h~:r'~~; ~>/~' // ///1(///
" / ~),~~/OlJ;o~ (If' //'/I?O.'/ m> "~/,J>Y?/:
r I .11 I ~ ~:~/< "',/-:"//"~~.t;,,/r/~/;f~~//;r~/-//';h'//"'/'
J//// .... '/' / z/// ;..t/////..-///r /'//" /r
I .,.40'" /_"//"~'''/'7/7~ ' u'/'
r:"j-'. """? ,/ ,;,/, "/.'"' /Y//'/./'</~"/ "/ ,j///--:/)',./ ',,/ /<..../'l
1)J ,~,~~f),~ ,(~~%?~;:+~r;%1~:;.;%:;;~~~;f0;~f~~~*;~:;~~
'//' ,)'/4;;; '/ ",:,;;...:::"AREA 2W<,//;.0),,,:??;"",,,,/" "
, /rT/~ / / ~// ,/'/, ,,,'/ / 1;:;' // "( /.',/ ~,/ 1
.""/'//"//'//'/ "'/"/' -"~/'/"'/'/'''''' '" ///'l
"""'/./.. /'.'...... /~'/ /".( .... r r .? . .... ~ ,/' ... ......., , /..,_ ...,
t'''' Ir.......///./...//I/... ,/,..,'/.{J'l" ,./"J!.'....~>/.../ /")''':/'r/w-/'''}'''>//~</''~~ '
.. /.<r ,.""V//I""." r ~ ,/// ~A/ r /../ 'WV'" / ~.~V" ' .
':>-;<< ~ :// :/1;: /~ ~" / ;'. /.-::;....., f' ;;;..,;~ /Y'~<>/,//'// ~'L'/' </,~> "",~ ;%
. "" ' / ~/'J' / //" / ' , / ' ........... _ "",.;:/::/ T / ~." ,-
(7)~ .... .../ //.<:--............~ /c';-..w...... :~Xr/ .,.r" r "7'/
, ')1 ";"f//~:';; //~ '1' I I .,'w "',f ,iII91' 19;>.'
... . ~:/.. ,,/1".../" /'r' 1J ,....J_.....'/ '~/ ~//~'>. //'/'J
~''''' /, //1/'" ... // r/ '/r/ .. "-../.....
,-I - - ......>~r.. ........ ,-'... - l--- ',' /~, ,/'./ /'
~ · V',JI~/ . 1 -I / " , ,/" , " ,
~ I H t;/;;"/JIt '" >'." " H /}';""",,~ /., ~ .>~ 1
~~-~, -t- L 1- ~;~~J0;?J )~!1:j
1 i '>(" '-"l 2; , 2' I ,6 I ,/<,~~~~;';;';,~y~>;;
-\l-,---t- - ----. <-- f",..e /. ,"'/
J. 'I I /'iN.... ' J' '/~i'n;~~/' /'
~I i I ~~)~ 15 I // ~/~,..,~Z/,'.. "',/,/~.
" PROJECT AREA~~'L~'''' "'~"~;~~) 'i&i_
or' r I 0 I I
0" 1 , I[ . I 1 I ' I 1
0-'
rl7"
Vanderbilt Beach Road
I75/CR951 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
Proiect: 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 Orangetree 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 park land 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
$ 7 55,200,000
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 availab]e
through school sites.
26 At 2.94]2 per 10002025 acres are needed. Credit is given for 2]2 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 EMSlFire Stations = $24,700,000 est.
. 1 Fully Equipped EMS St w/ Emergency Mgmt Space = $ 2,000,000 est.
. 1 Fully Equipped EMS St w/satellite EMS admin/training facility. = $3,800.000
. ] Fully Equipped Hanger and Helicopter = S7,000,000 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 w/ 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 BUILD-OUT STUDY
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 in this type of analysis. The variables
include future occupancy/vacancy 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 density/intensity 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 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
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 2(04) 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).
Methodoloay
The Collier MPO, Metropolitan Planning Organization, adopted its version of the 2000
Census Traffic Analysis Zones in 2004. The MPO consultant produced a T AZ map with
preliminary findings
preliminary findings
accompanying dwelling unit and popul~tion data, the foundation of which is the 2000
Census, Graphics and Comprehensive Planning staff then split many of MPO's TAZs
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 Coastal 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 DUtA; 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 Frinoe 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 DU/A and maximum of 3 DUlA) ,
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 Sendino 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 Receivino Area (SRA) Assumptions:
a. Assume Towns, Villages, Hamlets and Compact Rural Developments (CRDs) will
develop at 3000, 700, 80 and 80 acres, respectively.
3
preliminary findings
preliminary findings
b. Assume Towns, Villages, Hamle.tsand CRDs 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
AQriculture
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,n8
2005 Residential Build-out Study
G. Comp, David, 2005 RO, Study
dw/March 200S
4
summary by area
Estimated Buildout
Area Total Dwelling Units Total 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 ofCR-951 3,430 9,865
All of GGE & Rural Settlement Area 31,037 91,382
lEast ofCR/SR 951 (Collier Blvd.)
213,754 I
688,489
IUnincorporated Area
424,425
983,701
ICOUNTYWIDE
470,498 I
1,066,420 I
NOTES:
GGE ~ Golden Gate Estates,
Naples figures per 1994 Urban Area Buildout Study, Phase L
Marco Island figures per 1996 Marco Island Master Plan,
lmmokalee figures per 1991 Immokalee Area Master Plan
East ofCR/SR 951 excludes Immokalee,
Coastal Urban area: from Gulf of Mexico east to approximately I mile east of Colllier Blvd,; from Lee COWlty line south to Gulf of Mexico,
The above areas are such that, with the exception of the WlincoporatedJincorporated areas, no combination will equal the cOWltywide sum,
Prepared by Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department, March 2005,
2005 Build-<lut Study - TAZs and areas,xls
G, Comp, Buildout Study 2005
dw/March 2005
WORKING DRAFT
summary by area detailed
WORKING DRAFT
Estimated Buildf)Ut Dwelling Estimated Buildout Population
Units
SF MF Total
Area SFDU MFDU Total DUs PODulatio PODulat PODulatio
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 ofCR-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
424,425 I 580,575 I 403,126 I 983,701 I
IUnincorporated Area
204,0581 220,016 I
tCOUNTYWIDE
221,911 1 248,236 I
470,4981 615,2321 451,18811,066,4201
NOTES:
SFDU ~ Single Family Dwelling Umt
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 1991 Immokalee Area Master Plan
East of CRlSR 951 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
GGE West of CR-951
2000 EST 8/0 OUs EST 8/0 pop,
TAZ SFDU MFDU Total DUs SF Population MF Population Total Population
158 109 82 191 373 193 566
166 97 - 97 291 - 291
167 169 - 169 411 - 411
177 264 7 271 804 17 821
178 204 9 213 596 15 611
181 268 13 281 798 26 824
182 310 11 321 941 20 961
187 237 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 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
sum 3,097 333 3,430 9,158 707 9,865
NOTES:
SFDU ~ Single Family Dwelling Unit
MFDU ~ Multi-Family Dwelling Unit
GGE ~ Golden Gate Estates
T AZ ~ Traffic Analysis Zone
CR-951 alkJa Collier Blvd,
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 - TAZs and areas.xls
G, Comp, Buildout Study 2005
dw/March 2005
GGE E, of 951 & Settlement Area
GGE East of CR-951 & Rural Settlement Area
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
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-95! a/k/a Collier Blvd,
Data should not necessarily be considered accurate for a single T AZ; it is considered most reliable wben multiple contiguous T AZs 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
RLSA
.
2000 EST BIO DUs EST BIO POP
TAZ SFDU MFDU Total DUs SF Population MF Population Total Population
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
382.1 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 1,249 783 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 1,041 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
R
NOTES:
SFDU ~ Single Family Dwelling Unit
MFDU ~ Multi-Family Dwelling Unit
T AZ ~ 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, BID 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
119 108 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
"l23.t 44 - 44 131 - 131
223.2 112 - 112 332 - 332
224 180 12 192 534 16 550
""41 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
2:::7.1 59 - 59 175 - 175
227.2 81 - 81 240 - 240
228 104 9 113 314 12 327
12'7. "1 128 - 128 387 - 387
:~. .~ . ._~
') ",; '.~; 362 9 371 944 11 955
:~ 2 q ~:1 75 - 75 196 - 196
230 - - - - - -
BiLl - - - - - -
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
2005 Build-out Study - TAZs and areas,xls
G, Comp, 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
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
351 139 411 550 334 409 744
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
35502 - - - - - -
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
3<50.1 38 1 39 152 1 153
361 519 507 1,026 1,223 1,003 2,227
3<51.:1. 20 - 20 47 - 47
362 1,133 639 1,772 4,532 478 5,010
362.1- - - - - - -
36~i 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, Camp, Buildout Study 2005
dw/March 2005
East of 951
2000 EST, 8/0 DUs EST, 8/0 POP
TAZ SFDU MFDU TotalDUs SF Population MF Population Total Population
387.3 127 127 255 446 280 726
388
388.1 1,422 1,422 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 7,645 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
1;2". 75 75 150 263 325 588
,':~; 9 " . --', 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
:'~ 9:' 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
.'c,.,... - - - - - -
.,:,:,', 40 - 40 126 - 126
1- c: - - - - - -
I,C':"j 240 257 497 489 924 1,413
.n,;; 315 - 315 905 - 905
402.1 - - - - - -
I".,... :.:, '; - - - - - -
1",;.1 1,138 1,137 2,275 3,495 2,653 6,148
.; '.:,".;' - - - - - -
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
2005 Build-out Study - TAZs and areas,xls
G, Compo 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
419 2,989 2,983 5,972 15,443 8,617 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
T AZ = T raillc Analysis Zone
J
maroon TAL # = Ill1ll1okake urhan area
PII1I, r!v RI~)A
,,'I II,!,
Immokalee figures per 1991 Immokalee 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,
All data for Immokalee entered on T AZ #382,
Prepared by Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department, March 2005,
2005 Build-out Study - TAZs and areas.xls
G, Camp, Buildout Study 2005
dwlMarch 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 Urnt
MFDU = Multi-Family Dwelling Unit
T AZ ~ Traffic Analysis Zone
Data should not necessarily be considered accurate for a single T AZ; it is considered most reliable wlien multiple contiguous T AZs 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
Coastal Urban
Coastal Urban Area
2000 EST, BID DUs 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 f4u
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
56
57
58
61
2005 Build-out Study - T AZs and areas.xls
G, Comp, Buildout Study 2005
of Napks
dw/March 2005
Coastal Urban
Coastal Urban Area
2000 EST. BIO DUs EST. BIO POP.
TAZ SFDU MFDU Total DUs 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 - 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 - - - - - -
2005 Build-out Study - T AZs and areas.xls
G, Camp, Buildout Study 2005
dw/March 2005
Coastal Urban
Coastal Urban Area
2000 EST, BIO DUs EST BIO POP
TAZ SFDU MFDU Total DUs SF Population MF Population Total Population
119 198 170 368 654 217 871
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 2,324
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 1,761 1,570 1,350 2,920
161 784 967 1,751 2,412 1,571 3,983
162 63 477 540 224 723 947
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
2005 Build-out Study - TAZs and areas,xls
G, Camp, Buildout Study 2005
dw/March 2005
Coastal Urban
Coastal Urbcn Area
2000 EST, 810 DUs EST, BIO 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 2,435 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 1,004 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, Camp, Buildout Study 2005
dw/March 2005
Coastal Urban
Coastal Urban Area
2000 EST 810 DUs EST 810 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 - - - . - .
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 1,383 1,455
287 133 145 278 397 254 651
2005 Build-out Study - TAZs and areas.xls
G, Comp, Buildout Study 2005
dw/March 2005
Coastal Urban
Coastal Urb2n Area
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 1,507
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
',:i; 3655 ......tt ; -,. 19,560 21,444 41,004
.: "
:l,:
I:"".'.
:: "
~::,
I:: ,:,
I:, ..'
~:,' '
:' ,,:
326 254 165 419 317 122 439
" ,,'
:,
. .. 129 4 133 158 3 161
,
, ,
"
,
All of MI
2005 Build-out Study - T AZs and areas,xls
G. Camp, Buildout Study 2005
dw/March 2005
Coastal Urban
Coastal Urbcn Area
2000 EST. BIO DUs EST. BIO POP.
TAZ SFDU MFDU Total DUs SF Population MF Population Total Population
333
334
3~""
.) ,
338
339
3~O
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 1,036 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
NOTES:
SFDU = Single Family Dwelling Unit
MFDU = Multi-Family Dwelling Unit
T AZ ~ Traffic Analysis Zone
Coastal Urban area: from Gulf of Mexico easlto approximately I mile east ofColllier Blvd.; from Lee County line south to Gulf of Mexico
blue = e'l) 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 I
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 - TAZs and areas,xls
G, Camp, Buildout Study 2005
dw/March 2005
Exhibit B
Transportation Modeling
Spreadsheets
-
cig~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~=g~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~;~~~~~~i;~~
<l
~s~E~~ig~ g
it~<oi~Mt.Or-:NN <oi
o .lIIl: g-;f-
"C ;; ~o ll) J em (I)
p~g~~~:J~~ s i ~ i ~~ ~
ex '.!!lIJcln"'CII:!l::woCDO 0 lUeS E oenle =
~~~i~!~~~c~~~~~;~~~~~ ! ~s~~c~
~sm~~~w~~~~oo~~c~~~~~~s~o~So~i~
a:!~~s~~~~~;i~S~~l~s~~,iji~~~i~~
g: .~ 8 .91 E ~ .g E ~ ~ -g ;: !.5 E ~ ;. ~ ~ a ~ Q. ~:t: ~ E: ..J S ~ ~
~a~~€~cE~mmooSE~;o~~-go~~~cis~oo~
>~~u~~~;~S$~Em~~c~~~:;=;au~~~zu
~~~~~,w~w~~llg~~~~~I~~~I~}~~U~~
~;~~;~~~~;~~ia~~~~~~;~~a~~~~e~;
2=E~==~~~~~t~~~~~am~=EEt~E~~~~~
~81~88oo6~~~~i~~~~~~8E~~jE~~jw~
on C
01 ~
>- 0
lL E
<l
...'C
01 ~
>- 0
lL E
<l
r'> C
01 ~
>- 0
lL~
N'C
01 ~
>- 0
lL~
N 5
>- 0
lL E
<l
o C
01 ~
>- 0
lL E
<l .
...'C
~~
>- 0
lL E
<l
'" C
;: ~
lL~
,... C
>= ~
lL E
<l
...'C
>= 5
~ lL E
"" <l
C
~
~
~
0
'" on'C
>-
5 ):a
C lL E
~ <l
~
~
~
0 ... c:
e. ;:5
lL~
r'> C
>=5
lL~
N'C
>=5
lL E
<l
U
~~ ~
lL~ Ii
'"
u
0'C 0
0
;: 5 0
lL~ ::i
u "''''
a:uu
g~g ~O;:!;
S:8co
>OM' ~~cn
lL~on
0 ~ U
...J a: ii2
~gi 0 ... ...
0 ::! in
~!I'- g- ~ ti
'" u_
a: 0 a:ii2ua:
~5g~~
r::!";N~
u 9~
ii2uoii2ca:a:
O~OQ
g~:s:g
M'cD.oM"
NN
11..
.~E
o ~
.tz
o
a
~
a
g
(/)
uo::i3
ggg
~~~
~c<<u
g~~g
aiNt:~
o
'"
u
o 0
o 0
o 0
g g
ua:
00 0
00 0
00 0
g~ ::;
'"
u
0 0
0 IS
0
.; .;
... CD
(] 0
0 0 0
~ 0 0
01 ...
11f .; N
...
a: a: '"
u
0 0 0 0
IS IS IS IS
.; ~ ::i <;j
ua: (]
00 0 g
gg 0
0
NO N ~
Nr'> ... ...
U "'''' 0 a:
uu
0 00 g 0 0
0 00 Ii: ~
0 0'"
oO ~~ N ~ E
...
(]
0 a:o
0 00
~ ISIS
oO 0"':-
...
(30:: '"
a:a:u
00 g~~
g~
~~ ~cncO
-'" uo
uu
00 00
~!i/ li:le
~~ ~~
0 "' ooa:
~ 0 000
on li:NO
"!. r'>0
... 01 ~~~
a: a: a: u
00 0 0
00 IS IS
ON
";..,f :!f ::i
(IJ 0
0 0
Ii: on
'"
a:
0 0
0 ~
0
:!f ~
0
0 0
0 ~
01
.; ~
",-
ou
00 ~
00
...0 ,...
M'g ~
0
~
~
a:
0 0
IS 0
01
g- oO
,...
(/)
IS CD
on g
ii
0
0 0
0 l;;
on
N IS
0
0
0
.;
01
~
~
o
o
o
.;
01
a: 00 0
0 00 0
,... 00 Ii:
N N~
oO N~ N
a:
0
0
~
a: a:
~g
"'0
NN
a:o
00
IS Ii:
N"':
0
...
10
oO
o
w
..
o
II.
o
ill
o
Ii:
u
f ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!~~~~~~~
~~ WW~WW~~~~~~~~~~~~w~m~~O~~~~~~O
::
on
~
N
g
it
::l
'"
~
r'>
'"
~
..
u
C
~
C
..
'C
.~
:;;
on
o
.~ &i3
.2 ~ ~ j
~.~i~~~:a
:::I=i!50~g-
Jcn c :& (.) Q:: II _
~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.3
~
C
o
.~
o
! ~
o ~
>-1Il
o e
q
~C
q
.
..
j
l-
e
J
..
o
~li
q
...li
q
~]
E]
~j
MC
q
Nli
~ 0
~
.-5g
Ei~
05
q
OI~~
Eo::;
~
~5
~~
"'5
q
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I
i~~~~~M~~~~~~m~~~~~ i
01i
~i
~5
q
~1i
q
...1i
~ 0
~
~1i
~ 0
~
~5
~ 0
~
;5
1;: 0
~
:15 I
q
u
N5
q
o
o
.
:If
~1i
q
u
o
~
N
o
::j
::i
uo
00
gg
::i'"
u
o
o
N
'f.
u
"''''
o
o
i!i
00
O~
ON
~-
c 0 u
o
o
N 0
N 2'
o
o
o
:If
u
o
o
o
o
o
.... ~.
u
;)
'"
cu
o
i!i
00
~:i!
"';';
o
o
;!
u '"
o
o
~
o
o
~ ~
'" 0
o
..
o
o
~
o
'"
50:
og
~~
'"
o
N
:If
o
o
o
o '"
Ii
.,;
~
E!
'"
~5 n
Eo "N
~2
~.. .,; l!:
~~ If~~c~
~~t~~i ~~~~~~; =1
~~~0~~ ~~jE~sl~~~~
uw ~~s~;~i~s;~~1o!!~~:
1~ f~jJIJj~i!;i~3jg~;~
~!~~5i:S3~~j~~~sj~~
>~~~~jo~~:J~ j:~i3~
~€==.._o=~~".~l.~".'"
UU"PUo.-S"'. ';l!:E''Sl!:
~~~5!&t~~~jij ~~~~~
.
i!
0."
o
o
'"
...... "'Ill "'''''''' '" OIl <II "''''''' '" "'''' '" '"
~~ss~~~~~s~~~~s~~s
~~~ww~~~w~~~~~~~~~
~
u
~
o
':i
u
o
o
:-
o
..
'" u
o
o
o
~l ~
o '"
o
o
~ 0
..; ~
o
o
o
o
~
o
':i
o
o
~
o
..
o
o
~
o
o
~
::i
o
o
~
~
~
::i
~ ~
~. g
N
'f.
o 0
~
~ ~
~ ~
o
o
N
~-
o 0
o 0
. N
..; ~.
o
o
~-
o
N
M
'"
o
o
N
Ii
~
.,;
o
o
~
i
..
j
~. '"
g z. ~
. g ~;;
ini~~i
~ii)~lo~~=
II . II II II 1/).'1"
Xctlc::l!Oll::...I
~
I-
g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
ONm~_~~~~_m~~~_NmN~Mm~~N_M~~.NNM_~mmN~O~ N
~~_m.NNNNma~N~.MM~~~mN~NN_ M.m.M~MNNN ~ ~
0:
o
:!f ~ ~ ~ J g-:-~
~J~~O .!~ ~] ~~~~ ~ ~
_qm~~O=:w s i u 0 ~U~~' S go ~
~~~~~~~~~~ ~:~~N&}~ ~ S~~ci~ ~ n~~ .~~
~om~q.5~r~~ C]~~~~~~~ ;.;~;ciS~~~~~~ xi~~
a;~~~~~~~~ i~~~5~~so3;i~~~~~~~~8~5mm~~~~
~~~ ~m~~o~~_E~~SiSc~~~~m ~.mou~i.S~oss~~
~~U~~~~Eo~ ~-ES~~~~o~=mt~E~ci;~~O~Eo05~~m
~e~!~~t~~~~~;S~~8i~~~~E:~oOci~~~~;Ei~€€~~
~~!~~~~~~~~E~~~!i~~~~~i~~~~i5~~j~i~~il~j
<~~------c~=c-uo____~~~we~~~=m_~~~o=~>o~
I~o~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~o~~c~o~~~~~o~~~o~c~o
~o~ioo~0--i5-0-0<<~~<<ww<<<<ioEE~~~~EE~~;~~~~~~~~~~EE
wo_>uu ~0<<~U~~0W>U UW~~_WW~W~~~W_m_NQ_
I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
a~ w~vWw~v~~vv~~mv~w~w~~OVVV~V~VOV~V~NNNOO
~ 5
,. 0
"".1
.."
... ~
,. 0
"".1
~~
,. 0
"".1
..."
~ 5
"".1
t;;5
,.0
....1
0"
... ~
,. 0
"" E
<l
~~
,. 0
"".1
.. 0:
:;: 5
"".1
.."
;: 5
"".1
~~
,. 0
.. "" E
" <l
0:
..
..
~
0
.<:: ",,,
I-
,~ ;: 5
0: "" E
~ <l
0
-;
..
li
'0 .."
e. >= ~
... E
<l
~ ~
"".1
..."
;: ~
"" E
<l
'"
u
" 0
>= ~ ~
M
"" E on
<l
U
0" 0
;: ~ g
N
... E N
<l
U "''''
a:uu
-0 N:i;&
~~~ ."" ..
""Eon ~~c)
<l
0 a: '"
...J u
~!~ 0 '"
~ ::!
~ci ~ ::!
uo::
a: ",0
-000
....3g:~
~~"Ng
01::: 90::
",uo",oa:a:
:g3~E~~~g~
iti..f~MU;"":NN
1l $
.~ ~
Q:Z
]
~
'Ii
::;
'" ('j u
u
0 0 0 g
g. g 0
0
'!f. Q ~
... '"
u
0 0
g g
~ ~
U a: a: "''''
uua:
0 g 0 ~~~ 0
0 g li!
0 0
Q ~ ~ "'~o ~
... ~...'"
U a: ('j
g 0 0 g
g g 0
g ~ :;" on
::!
U ('j 0 0 a: a:
0 ~ 0 ~ 00 0
0 ~ 00 g
0 on 0
Q g N ..16 E
'"
a: 0 <<t3 u "''''
uu a:
g 0 00 0 0'" 0 0
0 00 ~ 00 g 0
0 on 00 00 '"
M M "":N l!f ...[..f :;" !
~... ......
a: '" U '" II) 00
ua: u
0 00 ~ 0 g 00 g
g 00 g 00
00 ... ~U!. ..
~ ~:;f M ~ ~... !
0 ('j U uoe.:: a: a: a: 0
0 0 0 goo 0 00 0 0
~ g g og~ lii gg 0 ~
0
on '4 ~ cOC'oioi :;" NN M !
... ~
0 a:o II) a: a:
0 00 00 0
0 gg 00 0
... "'.. 0
M o....~ ....:....: ~
..
ua: a:u 0 0 00
00 00 0 0 00
g~ l<l~ 0 ~ 00
:;} "''''
~~ choO ..( NN
-
VU uo 0 a: ou
00 00 0 0 00
~~ ~le lii. 0 00
0 "'0
u:l.n oi"": ..( M~
"'... '" ...
u 0 II) oa: 0
'" 0 ~ 00 0
0 :g ~g '"
0 ... ...
~ ..( N .,..:...;
u a: a: a: u 0 a:
0 gg 0 0 g 0
0 0 '" 0
0 ~C"t 0 0 on '"
'!f. "'.. :!l. ~ N ~
a:u 0 II)
..'" ~ 0
.... ~
.....
~an
a: 00 0 0
0 00 0 0
0 00 ~ ~
o. ...~
~ NM N N
a:
g
N
a:o
.. 0
a~
N"":
~ a:
~ 0
g
,.: N
..
O:OUO: a:
0'1""00
OMOQ
O,...MO
McDltfo
"''''O'l
~
'"
on
w
'"
o
00.0
ggg
o"'on
..(
~
on
'"
~
:;f
o
;;;
~
'"
..
'i
';;
~
'"
..
0:
o
1!
..
o
! rJ
~r1J
c: ~
c..2 8.~
.2~ ~al
~t.~~~~i
>J~E!i8~it:)
~I;' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
s~:~:~!~!~~~~~gi~~!~~~::!!~, ~ I
ON~~_~ON~~~~~NmN~N~~Nt~~~:~
~~N~~~~~~~NO ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~
.... ~ ~ ~
<:;
oS 0
.. 0
q ...: ..
<:;
~S 0 0
0
q ~. ~
'"
~S 0
0 0
q .. ..
'"
~S 0
0 0
tj ~ ~
0
~S 0
~ ~
q
<:; 0
~S 0 0 0
0 0 0
M M
it 0 :!f .; ;i
~
<:; <:;
~l . 0 ~
~ ~ l!i Ii
0: il
~S 0 0
I 0
0
it 0 ::! ::! :;;
~
<:;'" '" <:;
..S ~g 0 0 0
0 0
q 0 ~
~:;:. ;i l!i ~-
0 0:
~S 0 g 0
0
q M M
g Ii
00 il 0 '"
~S ~~ 0 0 0
~ .. ~
it 0 ".. ~ " ;i :2
~
0
~S g 0
0
Eo ~
.; .;
~
'" 0
. ~S 0 0 0
0 0 0
j q :; '"' ;;
~ ~j
;;
0
0 <:;
<oS 0 ~ ~
Ej 0
" ~ ~
~ il
"
~S 0 g 0
0 0
q ~ ~ S-
<:; <:; <:;" '" <:;
~] 0 0 ~~ g 0 ~
0
0
~ ~. ,; :;f ,; ;
~ il '" <:;
"0
MS 00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
q 0" ~ ~ ~
~N ~ ~ ~
0 '" 0 ~ 0 <:; 0:
"
..S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 .. 0 0 0 0 ..
q .. 0 ~ .
~ ~ .. ~ ...: ~
<:; 0: 0<:; 0 <:;
-58 0 00 g 0
0 00 ~ ~
qg 0 ....
::! -;;\ .. ~ ~
~ 0: '" 0
oS 0 0 0
<0
q .; .. ;i - I(!
0 0 0: '" 0
~~g 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
~.i ~~ .. 0 ~
" '4 ::1 Ii
<:;0: 0 0
~S ~i 0 0
0
~j ~
~... ~ '4
0 0
~S 0
<0 <0
~ 0 .. " .;
~~
00 " "
<oS 00 0 ~ 0
00 .. ..
q ~~ ..
NN. .;
0
~ g !!I..
~1 I~~~ ffiffi~ ! 8
:~~ .= oo:sN5 . SSE U l!
~:E<<~]~ oE~~~n ~l ~~si ~~~
M5~~~d6=~~~~1~~i~d~~~:~ i~~ Ii
u . 3~;J1::ci.2~5,g::~> :ua:OcjQ: ~$Q ~t r~;E :I
.~~ ~u~:~~i~s~~c~~lg~;~~~jJ~w.2$ ..
,tz ~~1~5~1~55~~S~~;s~g~~~;~.2j~
1~!Jlg~g~~.JI~~ilg~I~~g~]i~ 0
~ii~ifj~Cii~~a~~i~~~~~j~'~ jj
~~-5~U~~~e~jsjf<<~~<<!~~g~~jm ~!l,
~>o wo ou ~wo~ u . >
(:.
..
..
e.
.
is'
0:.
"''''Ill III "'''' lIllll"'''''''lIl on on '" III "'''' lIl",,,, '" "''''''' '"
EEEESSEESESSESSSSSSSSESEEE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~mm~~~~~~
..
c: ~
j ~ &;
c:-s ~~
~.~f!JC1l.
_ oO~::l
~(I) ~ u a: II _
<1>1111" U 110'):;
~f/)o::!ua:..J..J
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ON~~~~~~~~~~~~C~NCN~MC~~~~~.NNMM_OOM~CNN~~OO~OM
~O_M.N NN~~~~Nm~MMO~OmN~NMC.C~MM~__M~NMNN~_N_~O
",1:
N "
>- 0
...~
...1:
N "
>- 0
...~
M1:
N "
>- 0
... E
<l
N1:
N "
>- 0
...~
~g
>- 0
u.~
I
c>1:
N "
>- 0
...~
",1:
;:5
...~
",1:
;: 5
...~
,,1:
;: g
...~
0 <01:
"
li ;: g
0 ...~
"
0
.<:
>-
.E
C '" C
~
0 ): 5
-;; ...~
0
..
0
e.
...1:
;: g
...~
MC
;: g
... E
<l
N1:
~ "
>- 0
u. E
<l
U
1: C>
;: g 5:
... E :;f
<l
'"
0
c>1: C>
>= g g
...~ !:t"
U "''''
0::00
a'Eg Nf!;&
c>"C> '" <0 '"
>Ori' ::~ci
...~'"
0 U
..J 0:: U 0<
~~~ ~ <0 <0
::! l;;
>- 0 ~ ~ ...:
...~ ...
!!: "''''
0:: 0 Ct:UOD::
U
C>
C>
C>
on
"
'"
0
C>
C>
C>
:!f
UO::
OC>
OC>
OC>
ci"':
N
0::
g
on
U 0
C> ~
:il
'" M
'"
0 0:: U
~ C> C>
C> g
C>
M ::: !:t"
UO:: '"
0
C> C> g
C>C>
C>C>
~~ <;;i
U U U UO 0::
g g C> OC> ~
C> gg
C>
,,; g '4 ~N ~
<0
U '" '"
0 0
C> C> C>
C> :il C>
"!. C>
N :!f ,,;
<0
5B(j(j()<SC3 '"
0
COQOCOC) C> C>
OOOQOOC) C> C>
ON<l)IQOON C> C>
"{f/S~"':rxjtO"': :of ~
N....NN ~
0:: 0:: 00 0::
C> ~ C>O 0 g
C> C>C> C>
C> ct O~ C> <0
~ :of "~ Iii ~
"''''
OUo::c::o::a:a:::o::o:: 0::
ogoogoogo, C> C>
goS~og~O:& C> C>
C> '"
it...ttO..(.tfcilZiafllf :of ~
N N
0 '"
OUo:::o::
C> ~g~~ ~
g
or ,.f"':ri,..: .,;
'"
a:::O:::CCCOQCQ 0
~ggiig~g~ C> C>
C> ~
C>
""~NN~N"Nt''-or: M ,,;
"
UtnD:::CO
~~g~~
~ M N
N
co
'"
::
~
C>
CO
'"
or
M
N
C>
C>
C>
..
'"
C>
C>
'"
'"
~
C>
'"
.;
::!
C>
N
'"
...:
'"
C>
:il
on
"
~
'"
M
0
"
0
'"
<0
C>
g
~
M
'"
C>
!
-
N
'"
C>
;f
00
C>CO
C>C>
"''''
NN
0::0 '"
C>O C>
C>O 5:
c>c>
~...: ~
O::U 0:: UO:: 0::
C> C> C> C>O g
C>C> C> C>C>
C>C> C> C>'" N
.000 M cOM .,;
MN M~
-'" UO
00
n C>C>
5:~
cD.o m"':
MN M
'" 0 0 0
00::0 fJl
CO C> C> C> :g 5: C>
C>C>C> ~ N
NC>C> N M
M~~ on ... or ~
0::0:: 0:: (j
C> C> C> C>
C>C> g C>
C>N C>
M"; g or
N
C D:d3
g~g
"'''C>
N~~~
0:: 0:: 0
g C> C>
C> 5:
C>
g ~
0
g
N
M
'" 0
oU
C>C> C>
C>CO 16
<OC>
Mg ~
0:: '"
C> C>
C> C>
C> N
~
fJl
C>
5:
0
C>
5:
or
0:: 00 0
C> C>C> C>
" c>c> 5:
N N~
.. NM or
0::
C>
C>
"!.
~
0::0::
"'C>
MC>
<OC>
NN
0::0
C>C>
gO!
N''''':
0
s~gi~ g~~g ~
it ~ '~fN~ M~~M It)-
U 9 ~ -
0<000<0::0::0:: 00. 0 5-:t-l!l _
<l)'Eg~g:&ggg gg g J. J ~ 0 0:: M
og~~""~CaN~OIt) ~ e. ~ ~ C~ ~o ~8
it~";~M~"':NN="; j u ~ u ~ 00 ~~~ ~ ~O ~C
.... ~-m-VQl ~ ~N &,i ~-~- ~ ~-e-!-E ~ ~ ~-8-i =cn-6.8 0 . = ~_ ~
U~~o~!~~Ea ~C~m~~~~:~ O~~O~a~~~~~!!C ;~~;ooE~~ ~
W-~~~~~>O~ SS~m;~m~c~i_~S;O~~ O~=OO~~_>!~~:0S~? ~
aW!~~S0W.~ =~EO!U~~SOO,=~~~U~~~U~O_-O~~SC=O~~OaO ~
IX'!!!"O ~m~' O"'~CII.!E+:OSliSc:Zo::l.,.Nca:O():;::~CII.s;~-:i~Q)~o_io_..... aa
~~u~~~i~o~ ~~-EO~~~OO~~~~ci~-~~~~E=mE~~~oog~~g~~ ~
~8~~~~~S~~~O~~S~~8~~i~~S~ci~i~0~~;s~5~S~~~~~~EE_~5 0
>~: ~~>'" ~'0E ~mu~~ ~t~WO~N<<Z O~0Q)ECIIC-~",N>W U~- !
~~~~~~~~~~o~~:gw~5i~~o~~~~~~u~~~:~~~je~:i~~~i~IX~_
Ie ~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~i~~~~~~~~~~:~5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
o.e~ ~~~~ooo~-=~o-~IX~i~1X0WlXlXi~eE~~~~lXi~~:~~i~i=~~~~tt~~~EE
oou_>uu 0 OooW~>U~~OO0>U uW~W~~W~~~WIX~~~~~N.....~~~~C_
~
~
g
E
l'!
0..
(,) 1J) 1J) III III ell 1II <Il
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!~~~~~~~~~~i~!~!~~~~~~~~~~~tj
~~ wW~~W~~v~~vvv~W~~~v~vvOvV~~VOVV~VV~~NNNNvNNvOO
:: I
'"
M
~
~
or
~
o
! ~
o m
>-In
C g
.2 ~~
c ~ ~ ~-g
~.2'.2>>~3:~~
J~ ~ i <3 ~ ~ ~
~1~~~~~~.5
J
~
~~!!!i~~!!~!~!~~~=$gg~~~g!!;g.: I
o~t~.C~~~.~N~~~~.N~..~~~~~:.Q ~
~ ~~~ N~ ~~~ N~ ~~. M.__
- - - - -
.,:
1i
;;:5 ~ 0
0
N
1;: 0 ,.: ,.:
~
0
~5 0 0
0 0
~ 0 N N
~ ~ ~
0:
w5 0 0
0 0
~ 0 ,,; ,,;
.i
0:
N5 0 0
~ 0 ~ ~
~f-
0
~5 : ~
~ 0 ~
.i
0 0
~i 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 M M
:!i .; ;!
.i
:;5
1;: 0
.i
0: 1i
~5 0 0 0
1;: 0 l ~ r:! ti
.i
0 " 1i
u
:;.5 0 0 ~ 0
0 0
.. ~ N
1;: 0 ~ :l g
.i
0 0:
-5 0 0 0
0 0
~ 0 ,.; 0 fi
.i g
C 0: 0:
05 ~ g g 0
0
..
q ,.; ;! ~ ::f
0
~5 g 0
Eo .; .;
.i
c c
. ~j 0 0 ~
0 0
~
~ ... ~ :l
.
~ N5
e q
0
0
~5 0 ~
..
q ~ ~
0 0
~1! 0 0 0
0 0
~j 0 0
::f t s.
" 0 0: 5tj55iJ 0
u
Ej 0 0 0 000011;I 0 0
0 0 0 g~~gg 0 0
g:- .; ~ Fi~::{~!i N ~
0 1i 00: 0: 00 0
M5 0 00 0 00 0 0
0 0 00
E~ ~ 00 .. 00 0 ..
::f ~~~ ~.t! ;! ~"
0 0 c a::o::o::o::r:r: 0:
N5 0 0 0 ggggg 0
0 0
q ~ .. "''''11)11)0 0
.; ~::~M~M" ~ ~
1---1-
00: 0: cc c 1i 0:0: 0:
-5 00 0 00 0 00 0 ~
00 00 00
NO
E~ ~cO ~ P lD~ .; ; ~~" .; a"
0 coooo c
05 0 ggggg 0 0
0 ItlOOClInIt'l ~
q ~" N:":MMf") ~
cc C 0: cc c
Ei NO 0 ~ 00 0 N
00 0
M~ N ow
,.;,.; I;' ri"; ;
.i
0: 0: 1Illlllllllln '"
~5 0 0 ~!~!! ~ ~
~ 0
~~ N
:i ti
c
N5 0 0
0
q ,.; 0
,.;
c !il '"
~5 .Ji! g i!! 0
~
Eo -Ill,.; .; .. ,.:
~ l"' :
is R ~ c
~s iJ..~ ~ . ~~ ~ g
;ig: ~ ..~~s sg: e Ue ~
~~O::In~ ~E~ ~ 10:: ~ .j~Sj~ ~ ~
f!! O:i"'~~ fiei.~ ~"'jo:ess~o~ is~~ .s;
u
w u 00 awo~.!=~ a illS .- ~o I i
11 . ;Hwi-S~s;;s>O:oo:~;; 0 o;H~~a ~~ e>U.flt'
" e 0 ;H'~J -" S~O"'"i~--- e~ ~ ..
III f i ~~1~~~~E8ESO s!!~~ls 6wSS; J
u. ~jt8 :3~~S~i!~ ~!~5i;1;~BS 1
0
I ~~~i1g~3J~~i~J65f~~~~"'lij~ji
~fi~~jl~~~~~~~~~~i~jj~",j~'~~ ~
" ~~~~~i~~ljm~~j~~~~~ ~~$iS~~~
'" ...
1!
t:
..
..
e.
~
e
.t
.
i.
~!!~~~!~!!!!!~~!!!!~!!!!!!~g
~ K~
j j n.
AU~~H
~IIlO::EOD::...t....
Exhibit C
East of County Road 951 Utilities
Study
<,-
-
COlliER COUNT'( WATER-SEWER DISTRICT
East of County Road 951 Utilities Study
283:00 FEBRUARY 2006
aRIiiIiiLRY_ANC HANSIiiN LI..C
-
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 Page
Section 1 Executive Summary.,......."....,..".,.,." ,.. ,.."."..,..."",.., ,."...,..,... ,..,. ,................,...,..... ...."..,...", 1
1.1 Introduction, ...,.,.................,...,.....,.., ,.., ,."..,.."."..,.., ,."....,.., ,.".., ,......,.,. ,.... .,.,.,..."."... ,. ..,..."",..,. ]
1.2 Summary".., ,..,..,. ..,..., ,..".,.,.....,...,.., ,..,.......,.....,... ,.........,.,....................,..........".., ..."..".,.""..,.... ]
Section 2 Project Scope and Description ..............................................................,.....,.......................... 5
2.1 Proj ect 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,............................................,.,...... ] 1
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..",..,...."...,...,..,......,...,..,.,....,.."..........".,.. ,....,..",.,...,....,........,............,.... ] 4
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
-
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%)
ofthe 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 ofthe 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 W ASTEW ATER 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 (AADD) 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 (AADD) - 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
the AADF.
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) 1/2) +- (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
Extension/White 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 ExtensionlWhite
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 this 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
Number of Build-out Persons Per LOS Demand Build-Out Build-Out
Section AADD AADD
Parcels Population Parcel (gpcd) (gpd) (gpm)
2 239 667 2,8 185 123.395 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
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
PUBLIC UTILITIES E.NGINEERING DEPARTMENT
East of CR 951 Utilities Study
Table 4-1
Project Area Preliminary Water Distribution System Cost Estimate
Greeley and Hansen LLC
28 3:00 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 Pipelines in Open-cut Trench
Furnish and Install 8" Water Line and Fittings 103,200 LF $ 65 $ 6,708,000
Furnish and Install 12" Water Line and Fittings 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 Assembly
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 Sampling 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
283:00 February 2006
Number of Build-out Persons Per LOS Flow Build-Out Build-Out
Section AADF AADF
Parcels Population Parcel Rate (gpcd) (aDd) (aDm)
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
UJ
::r;
t-
t- 0::
i:5 if
::r; UJ
z Cl
0:: C.9
UJ z
> 0:::
o UJ
C.9 UJ
~ ~
Z z
6 UJ
u CIJ
ffi ~
:J :J
~ i=
o :::l
U U
:J
CD
:::l
a..
>-
'C
::::I
-
tJ)
m
CD
~
:;::;
::')
Cl
M
Cl
N
J:
Ol
::::I
o
..
J:
?-
m
CD
-
C'Cl
c:::
~
o
u::
..
CD
l
CD
-
m
C'Cl
3:
~
"iij
c
CD
Ol
f
CD
~~
11')_
.!!! ~
J:l C
C'Cl C
1-<
'C
c
C'Cl
m
CD
:;::;
.in
c
CD
C
c
o
:;::;
C'Cl
:;
c-
o
c..
'C
CD
-
C'Cl
E
:;::;
m
W
C'Cl
e
<
....
11')
en
c:::
U
....
o
-
m
C'Cl
W
-
CJ
CD
"0
..
c..
OeD
:JO
c:
Q)
Ul
c:
co
J:
"0
c:
co
>.
Q)
CD
~
C>
It)
u. '[ ...
c .....
0
~ ~ <0
It)
0 -
M
0
N c
:8 .....
IV <0
'3 ..,
e. ..;
0
0-
It)
U. :s M
c 0
e. -i
~ ~ M
It)
It)
N
0
N C
0
i M
..,
:; <0
e. ..;
0
a..
0
u. :s Ol
c .....
e. ~
~ ~ 0
It)
0
N -
0
N c
.2 N
'l\i 0
:; It)
e. ..;
0
0.
It)
0 u. :s <0
C Ol
N ~ e. 0
i::' ~ ~
co
::J It)
.. ...
.c 0
Q) N C
LL 0
0 :; .....
...
~ :; M
("') e. ..;
co 0
N 0.
0
U. :s N
c .....
e. i,
~ ~ ""
~
0
N C
:8 <0
IV M
'3 ...
e. ..;
0
0.
0
U. :s M
c M
~ e. cQ
~ N
""
It)
0
0
N C
:8 ;1;
IV
:; Ol
e. N
0
0.
It) t/) It)
CIJ ""
0 ::, q
t- o C
Z N ....
::>
CJ
z
:J
-I ..,
W t/) ...
3: 0 ::, M.
C IXI C ...
-
<:
o
ji;
:;
0-
o
a..
'5
o
32
'5
o::l
~
E
~
0
0:
~
23
>- 0
Cll :;,n
2J Cl \l
>
Oc li; .(
::J 0- "
0> "' ~
a <: c
.!2 c
a; 0; .(
~ (!)
Cl ""
Cl
::J R ~
Cl C>
o
o::l
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
PUBLIC UTILITIES EblGINEERING DEPARTMENT
East of CR 951 Utilities Study
Table 6-1
Project Area Preliminary Wastewater Collection System Cost Estimate
Greeley and Hansen LLC
283:00 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 Roadway Repairs
Remove and ReDalce 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 Pumpina Station Installation
Furnish and Install Pumping Stations 37 LS $ 350,000 $ 12,950,000
Furnish and Install Master Pumping 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
~
\ h
~.~t I
.\
~~.
i~. ~~
.. .
<
.
2lI .
\~ I
\\D :;'"~
i\.
.1 .
,I,
,: .
<:;1
......
'--....
t-'
'":r:j
~
o
'":r:j
~
ttJ
'x
......,
Cl
o
iil
l-
LEGEND
:;;
W"TElt-SEWER
DIS11UCT IOUNDARY
GCIUlEN GATE ESTATES
UNITS EAST OF CR N1
AND OUTSIDE Of WATER
SEWD DISTlUCT-AJIlEA 2
00Ul[H QAn: !ST"ltS
UNITS WEST Of' ClII tal
-.... ,
OOLDI:N GATt ESTA.nS
UNITS INClUDED IN
EAST Of CR IIlI1 UTJLJUES
S1UDY~P'llO.IECT .......
CITY OF NAPLES
,au.
IERVtCE ....
OAANCE TREE
SDtVICE AREA
N
"'
.III.....V AND HAN..N ...
R 25 E
\
$
.
~.
(~ :
~-
\\,
\
\ .
-+-(
\' ''/'/
\..
\
~
-
Z'.XI
D
R 25 E
.-
~ "
I.
2lI~'2lI
,,-;-~
I \"'-.
R 26 E
R 27 E
..
t
..
..
2lI
2lI
'"
I
;}
IJ"
.
....
..
"
t
1
,)
I
"~
..:~
'"'1
17
..
"
17
"
..
I
II)J ..
"
..
"
24 II :liD
----..~
~.~
"'-
2lI
2lI
"'\
2lI
2lI
'"
2lI
"
,.
,. I
~~: ' I ~A'RE~ '1 I'
e
"
'"
10 11 12
"
I
t"l
u
-
211
2lI
..
.
,.
l~
~ r:=.,- ~~ 2:".;\
-- ~ . ~
,. V it; 2
_.-.-ta 4) J;
..
10 l=
z
::>
"
"
'"
"
___. "l:!7~.~
~I
, ..\0.0
l&~~
\
!
~"
..II ~
I~ ..
""~
2lI
~ .
11
Oti
~ 14
I~"
. ) I "
l..~" D
"" v(
\ ~
\~ ,)"
~ )..
\
~~..~'- .'
\\ ~- ~~ .,~;
~\ ~, \'
\\~-'.k ..
~~,
\\("11 ~\2lI
~"\\\ ') ~ c.,. _ /
111D\n>:: '()j ^'-" \ ~;:~ " "'/
~ :'~h'II,.?;:l \' V
r,{-. . ' 'r$"t .jJ>-2..i\fC:...,- \,,! . .
/1, /' ~ --~'\, V ~
V ~~ ~.'" 1 i'
'Irp ~ (I ;~~-~~" /L ' frO
'<0 \\--"\~A -.., -:f /.,
i'-, ",~~1- '1') $;'~. r" J.. )"
17 '0fT\;, ~..:. l''1l ~~""r)~ ,
.' j ),1" (~\"',5;~ Ii t ~;\.p'~ .JI
:i Eyel \ ""{G ';-:'lr {),'\YZ~ .J/'~i5<7~;:Y .
t';;;>, "., ft. Jo "''-\' \' ~ f
....,--- -- l....^ ''\........ :' I'--< \ . ~~-.... 't,......
... '''''.''''''''''''''..;-
" -.......
"
..
..
..
2lI
..
"r~ 'I"
~,
'-
"..'
"
'"
i
f/
',",
,..
" ,
I
1115
~,'
" ,.',
11
17
."'"
.",
"
""
" I
.
"
"
"
2lI
..
"'
"
[\'
u
EAST OF C.R, 951 STUDY AREAS
R 28 E'
FIGURE 2-1
"
,.
"
D
"
~
.--
~
"
,.
.. ---.
iil
"
"
2lI
~11
i
"
"'
:;;
"
..
. '
\eo
~"
"'
f;l
"-
,
r
r
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
EAST OF C.R. 951 STUDY
28 3:00 FEBRUARY 2006
R 26 E
R 27
R 28 E
FIGURE 3-1
SHEET 1 OF 3
I i I I
JI+~~. ,\Ji .......... ~19 --Hi
~ ~...~ ! t9r~ I!'-\
-"r'..- i \ r.._.~--L "-"-. ~[J EXISTING 10" POTABLE .~
\ t-~-f-.-.=:~~~ktr-POTA8LE~mmA VANDE~8EA~~IL' - d W~~Mi;ON COR~:~L_
~'~.- '~L!, t J I III r~T/T'Plm _T=~=T
......... ~:~ ': I ! I IE 'LN : , ~!~: ~I. i 1..L~m~.m _ mm::__
f L~-~ r~ .#. l I I mTHT' I' 1 ~-
-; ===j ;.--- I .. '.m'['T;." II jmm.m I ......
. ,-..- .... .
. ---:-- '1-.;- ~ . i', i : III j I : I --.
lU~ '~. ! 1; ~ll ! '~9L' '}-
, , ,_~ , ;..-.....~.. ~ '.,...fl I..:. "1 . ~tlli'il i' -~. ~
T.I., ;0.... m..~.-...~.~.I:. i!1'1' ....1 I : II. ~'..I,.....', ':..I\.L '" '" I ! I ..mm~
., ._m._~ I _ I. I! I . II,
rli:~~irl.! r1IUIUi.Ll =
It I 1.1 f~~' 1 t -I ' ~_ - m;.ml ! , \ I ,L
!-i:~ m_j I J I I _" I fm 1
rn--+\. - ... . ^IY' ~.
~. rJ '-I I! LJJL:
...........--~-..-~..~..
. 1: r--LI1 ~. m.m.1 i A I I, ~I I ! I : I ~
1...i.=11 r- 1=:1"11 I' I 11+ttJ-tI, i flTI tTD
, ': Imm I I LJ ...L....L..........._.___
,""-r-l I" I ~ I ~ I
I ~1-1
.---
I
I
....----+---
...._______--1==
m'."
". !. i.. ' '........
: i' [' !
i Ii....!
I _L~ ~
I!! '!
. '. : '...~---'.
' " . ['
I ..LJ.Lm ....
m ~
,- -
-
._~
I
,
....m
A
I~
! , iA
I I
f---...
I
'i
r ~
I
,.....
FOR cONTINUATlON SEE SHEET 2
FOR CONTlNUATION SEE SHEET 2
~
PROPOSED WATER MAIN
- - - - EXISTlNG WATER MAIN
EXISTlNG SEWER MAIN
-<? EXISTlNG FIRE HYDRANT
-+ PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT
H PROPOSED VALVE
PROJECT AREA
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM LAYOUT
800 0
11 I II 1111 II
800
I
'"=800
, 600 FT
I
COLLIER COUN1Y PUBUC lITlLlTIES
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
EAST OF CR 951 UTIUTlES STUDY
28 3:00 FEBRUARY- -2006
GA..L.V AND HAN..N LLa
,
.---
TOWNSHIP 49S
RANGE 26E
, L I,. '11. I'
I Ii, i
L_L_
r'I-;~! Imfl \1
i ic- I I . ! I J~ i 'i II ! . I I
I i I I II I
v=r-rffli r i I Iile i I I :
e___L. __ _J -._..
II I~! ' ,1\ I'
, Ii' ! I
i , I II i I: I
, ,
I I
!i I n Ii
. ~I'~!L II!.I '1'" ';
ii" I , I' I
Ii li:1 I
r' I "11; ;
IIJIJ1:1 :11....._1 :
FIGURE 3-1
SHEET 2 OF 3
FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 1
FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET ,
Vb"'''-llf.'' ..----..-- h
! ..-..-.--~IL-
! i---- I ~.....J-
;
I r-r- ,
_ '_ _.1 .1, I
lITO I~, i i
~_.' ,~=ft7 i ~ ! ._
'.. - :~.----;: I II
"I, , I
='
1 !, I ~l
r[-~
'~l.___
-..............-'
.-~~...._........
~'" .............
..._m~""'_'_
i i I~-
n~.
IF==~
='.....-'.
.----
i 1
i I
.......1....1.
....
~I
I<<
I--
I I;
...-..--..--
'I
,./
/. ....
"..."-"
-
1...,..--
ir"
t
r..--..-
-r-.... ! I
1 'I
I,et: I I I!
~~..Ii
~---=~--:TIII
......-..----; 'l' i
. , j ,
II'" ".._...
II<l: I
'1
I
1ft/Jill I. i~_ ""
_ l~wJrulJ
'i\ ~I
'Ii tii
J[TII['!III, I! II
._L......! I
I
i I...,
II r,
i ! i
,\
~ .. --.. :;
~, c= u.
1m l-+-L ;- !F-
II;--ir=t~ '-", ,~--I ,
~ FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET :3
,...,
'H'''_' ~
_...._.___. ..Fe _
- -
-.......-..-
i;~~
~
Ii
1+--"-
Ij---
I
J-I
,
J
-......---
-....-..............-
I'
Ii
II
r~
..~
- 41
--:
I
;
~
I
--" I
-
,"..'- -...
.... ~
I I -L I
,
PROPOS EO WATER M~N
FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET :3
- - - - EXISTING WATER MAIN
EXISTING SEWER MAIN
-<? EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
... PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT
H PROPOSED VALVE
DR..L.V AND HAN..N ......
PROJECT AREA
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM LAYOUT
800 0
I II I II I I I I I
800
I
'"=800
1600 FT
I
COLLIER COUNTY PUBUC UTIUTIES
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
EAST OF CR 951 UTILITIES STUDY
28 3:00 FEBRUARY 2006
TOWNSHIP 49S
FOR cOrr:.UATlON SEE SHEET 2 RAN G E 26 E FOR cONTINUA~O~ SEE SHEET 2
~-..~'-' ....D F---I'-'-lllfIT1~'-llrlTmTl!: ..ilTTT-TT.....---j----- W-..I_J-!l
dW-~~~ F::::~ Will r:! ] III I! I iii' Ii' III
:: ,~. I" I ~: 1+ !,ILL..l~+~....l
'~~ ",b t----m-.. . ~~ i I ill ':, 'illl! I' '.[-v
P f_-A~. i ." ': I '......_.._ _L :
::lH --. -.- .
lel, Ii: "I ! : I " ! I' i I ·
1:=Yl=-' I.: II ... ,L:~:;".
c(--- I.
- I I
I-
I
I
~ ...
~"
.,>,~~~
". ." .
....r 11) I
~~rtl'~"1...
...... I.
J'}? I JI
~~ JVI
~k!J;
. ; .------..
~I'I'I,I 1 I
'". ' '. ' , T!~.'.,-. ""I'. 1 "_
,: II ' .
!tdJi~, : ':'l " I
ImH ',1
r~~!.. ~i ·
D . II I IA' I I , A I
II!!' I ",.l~.' ~9.It1 Fl'. I! I"
7: ill.,! "'f'-' i !
illjCKJm:!: [I I I '
~I I
/ r'-' ...\,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
! EXISTING 36.Jw. :. I ''1
" II WATER hAAJN i: ,I i I
2-l====1 I i
--I '
I i
e(
.----
-
i-------
-~
Ie(
.in>
mru
!....._J3
I
\
Ai
i
, I.;:.... -
I
:1-
I
I '
I
I
L'50' 5FWMO ROW FOR
THE CYPRESS CANAL
.1
I'
.1
II
LEGEND
PROPOSED WATER MAIN
- - - - EXISTING WATER MAIN
EXISTING SEWER MAIN
-<? EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
-. PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT
H PROPOSED VALVE
PROJECT AREA
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM LAYOUT
800 0
I I II II I I I I I
IaR..L.V ANa HAN..N LL'"
800
I
'"=800
1 600 FT
I
FIGURE 3-1
SHEET 3 OF 3
I i'l
k.:-:.~..__......, ......---.-:
~~-
~.._-- --
1-----_.......
i------. ..----.- ---
--
....
-. _____1_
..___..-L__
-....--...-
--
..+...
COll.IER COUNTY PUBUC UTIUTIES
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
EAST OF CR 951 UTIUT1ES STUDY
28 3:00 FEBRUARY 2006
FlGURE 5-1
SHEET 1 OF 3
\
i
I
.. ....m.Lm .. ..m'
I
I
..-...-.-"1
I
!
1
!
mm!
TOWNSHIP 49S
RANGE 26E
\ I _1\\ \ '.,<, -~
'__m_mm.~___. 'i.l".J ~\
!----~ \ ..m rl' I'I!I
\----_\ \ ~'. ~"
II ..__..._1...___...__...._....\...~!3~I?T9Nt:....
I I
I .
I L__.._.
~
-It
bm--.,
~----:j
,
~i ....._____..--
....-...- ..;
........._......~
..--......-----.
i
I.H
.......--.--.-
j
11_ r-~
J~__....~.
~n~~J
I 1 l~_~_~~ ..11_1
~u-=rl
llJ
N-
:_-~- ;
-.,
- -
-_..---.. - --=-~
- -~
FOR CONTINUAllON SEE SHEET 2
~
PROJECT AREA
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
LAYOUT
.IiOll:;
AlL PUMPING STAllONS SITES WILL REQUIRE
MINIMUM 100'x100' EASEMENTS. AlL MASTER
PUMPING STATION SITES WILL REQUIRE
MINIMUM 200'x200' EASEMENTS.
~
.
MANHOLE
flOW DIRECTION
. PUMPING STATION
iii MASTER PUMPING STATION
PROPOSED 8" DIAMffiR GRAVI1Y SEWER
- - - PROPOSED 6" DIAMffiR FORCE MAIN
- - - PROPOSED 8" DlAMffiR FORCE MAIN
GR..L.V ANa HAN..N LLCl
800 0
IIIII II1II1
800
I
, "=800
1 600 FT
I
COLLIER COUNTY PUBUC UTIUTIES
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
EAST OF CR 951 UTILITIES STUDY
28 3:00 FEBRUARY 2006
. .~.'I'..,ii~rli ...
. I .., . I
enlr!,1 j i H"
-.', !llli'.. !!~
~ti.t~~:,j-: i
fI- I i .11 I I;.. :
.----.--..- I'. I
g Ii. III -
I I
. 1
FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 1
Tb=~ c:-Tr-...j I
t :-~ '..:.L.. _~ -t~",
-H~.::=- m
li=;d ~i~~. '
~J-l ,_
T~ =_-= 11
I' ~~: -t3~lL
Ij,~- -:,;,' I
fgl,l ~=--_
,
f:I, I
il 1-===
IG~I ---
E N...S~
:~i
.
=-8 [~i+~tJ
_gSQ!] ..
~-~ .
R, ~;::=-.,..< It
,.-..--
. c-p
C-
rjt
FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 3
~
.
FIGURE 5-1
SHEET 2 OF 3
TOWNSHIP 49S
RANGE 26E
I
-L
~ In! i i 11 ! -15
._"_.'~'
.--'L...--' -
...----.-----11-
----~
1
I
I
II 17
I
; 1'-"-
.~ !.~~ ! i.1 ~lri!-
I..II'+'I+H-L_=-JI~
I ! r 1II1 r--n-.
I'I il! iDqlil I, 11"T:' rd-- ..
j ..JTl+~.,. .' .".',._V1 ~jj 11! 1_ il dl=m.~._....I".___~-
i. II ill lilll Ilm__~~:=
. · h'I_[ ii, i ~_=
, I. rr---
.I---~==
[-,-
I
i----- -
.m___m.___
____.______m._
rbIJ L r
i ~iEI I
.L, : I . -~r""+
.I.m-- -....,. ..m-..... '. '", .. '.', ... 1.=1=. I I,.
I il2' 7, · I, H2lJJii !. III' !. I - -~--u'--l' I
. ~ ~ I ! i I!' l i JJ": I
i i 1,_~.L,"'m i' ._...____.-l-..--
.
PROJECT AREA
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
LAYOUT
llilIE;
ALL PUMPING STATIONS SITES WILL REQUIRE
MINIMUM 100'.100' EASEMENTS. ALL MASTER
PUMPING STATION SITES WILL REQUIRE
MINIMUM 200'.200' EASEMENTS.
MAN HOLE
FLOW OIRECTlON
PUMPING STATION
MASTER PUMPING STATION
PROPOSED 6" DIAMETER GRAVITY SEWER
- - - PROPOSED 6" DIAMETER FORCE MAIN
- - - PROPOSED 6" DIAMETER FORCE MAIN
GRIiiIiiLIiiV ANa HAN8liiN LLC
.
~
600 0
III II I IIII1
COWER COUN1Y PUBUC UTlUTIES
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
EAST OF CR 951 UTlUTIES STUDY
28 3:00 FEBRUARY 2006
800
I
1"=600
1600 FT
I
FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 2
TOWNSHIP 49S
RANGE 26E
.-......
~'~r.!tlli[..j-.-~
:..lLL~ .-" . ~-
..20--'
~I~ --[[J --
i'~I- 3-- \---) =-~---
c- III - ---
~!2j; -- --
'~iIJ~
~~'.~~:rn~
~riL;i ~.~ h
TIT~ II I
~tck~J
---r-IJl
l.:c:::--'--.j !
~~
~~,,\
--d ~\ ~
""_---'TI'
~fJI
~Bm
-'\ /}i
~\~lY
o
In>
~:-~M
gl~; ~ CJ
m.-........
~~~ -;
r4J tr-r;
IJ2Nbc,.c"{.;
.ITCII."Y\J-""-1
-1--.----!'-
( I
, . 1lffQ' . -..'.,------m-r----,. "T-'-'---~,' 11 .
-,-, - I IIII[ i i II. I!.,. i I ill'.. I i..--l--_L~-.-
--.-- ' ! III I I III II I I
Tl i :, i :{. ' T11' , ' I' 'ttL~~ I ']'(---1-' II
t<;...13 "1 ' 'W4 I
- I 11__1 - ~ -" -- ::t' : ,- - :~-
i 1 ! I I! '- \..-}, i i i I':
, _"]' -,I lll~~-" I i) I .~'~
liT Ti II 1. I,. III ~ : ,
I ; II I: I I I !
9:17 ; 'J ' 1_. ~(-IB 1__
11i11 I , '!I " , IT
, '~j~II~J
_.L_ ,fL. '
I - ~IJn~Jli_~' I I!
1! I~-,~I!I~
~ III1 I !lllllllrll'~: 2
--W! i ,J!~'i
::' II'" , lli';~dl
I I
!
!
I I
..-
-
---j
; r=
i
_ ..J-..
- -r-j'
'10 -'" E1- 3
- ...
(~
I. ""'-
"-"
! i
)1 ,_1
--1 1.--
= 1---=-==---1 I \
! I!
I ,I
i i I
I "
i I I
MANHOLE
FLOW DIRECTION
PUMPING STATION
MASTER PUMPING STATION
PROPOSED B" DIAMETER GRAVITY SEWER
- - - PROPOSED 6" DIAMETER FORCE MAIN
- - - PROPOSED s" DIAMETER FORCE MAIN
ClRIiIiLIiY ANa HAN8liN LLQ
.l.EGEMQ.
.
-
.
~
. .
. .
. .
. .
..................-...-.-
i I
l.i' -1~
I
PROJECT AREA
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
LAYOUT
SOD 0
I I I I I II II I I
BOO
I
1 "=SOO
FIGURE 5-1
SHEET 3 OF 3
I
[~
....,..L.".~.
) !
I .
......'--ar......,..,-...
...... ....--...-. .....-...-
I
I
I
I
,
-...
11-
A-.
'-V
.tlQIE;
ALL PUMPING STATIONS SITES WIll REQUIRE
MINIMUM 100'.100' EASEMENTS. ALL MASTER
PUMPING STATION SITES Will REQUIRE
MINIMUM 200'.200' EASEMENTS.
1 600 FT
I
COLLIER COUN1Y PUBUC UTIUTIES
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
EAST OF CR 951 UTIUTIES STUDY
28 3:00 FEBRUARY 2006
Exhibit D
Industrial Needs Analysis
...-....
,-
('-J
,~
l i
~
f-J
rr;
C~
ci.:
, 0
0 h h * .... ~ - ~
0 C\ \0 .... -D Of"',
0 h '^ .... .... Nl -,.
"f 0 i ....~ .:J"..,
~ - ~:~
C\ Nj
00
oo~
Nj 00 \0 \0 .... ~ ~
0 ~ '^ 0 0 " .::J
('j '^ 0 0 ('j ;j T
~ '^ t.:: ....~ c-,
~ -'
00 ('j 0 ~
\.0 0 -
oo~
~ 0 ('j ('j 0 0 - -.
.... .... C\ \0 0 ;? ""
0;; ....r "<t C\ Nj '-1
:;. .... ...0- ...0- :D .~
00 ('j h - N
'^ \0 ~
t.::
'^ 00 ('j Nj '^ 0 -, ~
Nj :.? .... .... 0 ~ ''''. Nj
00 C\ '^ C\ ""' -D
....~ h * O~ .D '"0
00 h ~ -
....r '-
t.::
h \0 ('j lI'\ 00 0 - -
t--.. 0 0\ ~ 0 0 00 00
'^ '^ C\ C\ ('j '"' 0
"f t.:: * :;. r-: c-',
0 t--.. - ~
....r ('j
t.::
~
S ~
...... '" ~ 'Z'
.... Q,) ~ '0
~ t)
"'3 C';l G:l
0.. B ~ Q,)
0 B
0... '1:l ~ ---
Q,) Q,) < V)
~ - ....
t3 I-< 'Z' ..a
i ~ ~ '1:l ...... ~
d d ~ (j
0 I-i 0 ~
...... ~ .... (j rJ)
.... 0 b N B ~
~ 0
"'3 - ~ ";j ---
0.. ~ ~ ~ 'J:: V) ~
0 ~ .... 1
0... V) <
s s- o.. =
S ";j .... ] Q,)
d Q,) rJ) Q,) ,5
~ '1:l ~ - r.r.,
...... s OJ:) Q,)
.... Q,) ~
~ .... Q,) .g ~ 1
- '" I-<
-' ~ ~ = ~ Q,)
0.. V)
0 g ~ g. .~ ~ =
0... - rJ) ~ u
o
~
('j
~
o
N
o
N
o
l"l
~
o
N
o
i-I
o
l"l
Q)
.c
o
+-'
'"C
Q)
Q)
C
Q) -c (/)
C Q) Q)
~ '0. .c
co ::J Q)
~ 8 E
OO+-'
~'"C C) .
en C C C
Cft"t+:iO
ioU +-' +:i
co 'U .- ~
Q) Q) E :to...
EQ5<D~
:!::: - 0.'-
~ E'U ~
Q) 058
'Uow
Q) ,^ C) 0
..,,/ C +-'
C) C)._ C
ro C C .-
(]) .- C C
:t....'UctjQ)
o==_~
<(::JQ.ctj
e .0 . +-'
..c
+-'
3:
'"C
Q)
'U
Q)
(j)
,-
CD
'"C
(j)
(....~
.~
--
U
q:::
0;
()
-
C)
~
~
. '
,.....
~
~
.
~
u
OJ
,
,....
--:
-
..J
-,
'-.,.J'
~
Q.)
10fJ
~
t1)
f '
-
u
.<
o
~
o
\"'1
I
o
8Ji,i.'J:<C
o
N
,...
,...
..... '
. !
o
Ci)
o
C\J
,...
,...
o
o
.....
CJ) L{)
'<t C\J
I"'- 0
C\J C\J
[
c\
l"
- 0
Ci) ,~ C\J
'C'
C\J 1" 0
0 C\J
C\J
I
o
CD
CJ)
.-
I
I
!
Ci) I~
L{) CD
0 (Y)
0> .....
,
~-~~
o
,...
o
C\J
I
I
I
I~--- I
I
I
-L-
---J
o
S2
~
o
o
o
,....
o
o
o
o
,....
,
o
o
o
C}l
o
o
o
'?
o
o
o
1
e
o
~o
-0
:J 0
Cl. _
o V
0.. V
_I"'-
C1:l
"0
I-
o
(t)
o
N
g[;;[Oe;!2
Ol"'-LOO
- - - 0
V V 0 '
vO)(t)O
I"'- 0
LO(t)ooCOcf
NOLOLOco
~ N. v. LO. N
~~l;j~
CO I"'-
~~;:~cf
o 1"'-_ 0). v. r:::
N (t) ..- CO '
~OON~
LOLOOONe;!2
o~::Go;N
C\J ...--........- ~ r:
~I"'-N[ry
OI"'-CONcf
..-1"'-00)0)
~ LO. LO. 0)_ LO
3r:::~cx:i
V ..-
LO..-
01"'-
00
Nr--:
(ijN
Q)(t)
>-
~
o
N
V
c!i
CO
o
o COCO
NOO
v..-N
CO" a:l ~
COCOLO
0..-
vvLO
..-VCO
(t)LOOO
a:l .cx:i
O)LOv
00..-
0(t)1"'-
I"'-LO(t)
I"'-NOO
c!iu'i<6
vvv
1"'-..-
1'-('1)1"'-
..-01"'-
LOO..-
- r--: ~
o ('I) v
CO ..-
v ('I) 00
"-v"-
LOvC"l
~r--:..t
CO ('I) v
v"-
V
CO
V
u'i
o
..-
I'-
o
r--:
N
('I)
(ijCCCC-oCC
Q) Q .Q .Q ,Q <D ,Q ,Q
>-lQlQCtS]!<UJgm
(5 -
a. 5. ~ 8. Cl. 5. 5.,
o 0 0 C1:l ~ 0 0
o..o..o..'-xo..a..
<DXW-Q)
C1:l U W C1:l U
Co:lo-:-(f)c'-
<D .EalmO
E:!:2 E ~
<D 0 ~.2 Q) 0
t3S:ffi!Qu3:
e_J:::Je
.$()g-5~
a3 ~a.. 0 C5
Ero"S"'OE
E:E03Q)
g~32c:og
~ Q) 'S
Q)a..c:o
z e
o
~
'S
Cl.
o
0..
v.
~
(ij
C
<(
III
"'C
Q)
Q)
Z
.llI:
"-
ell
ll.
(ij
"i:
-
III
:l
"'C
C
"Ji
III
Q)
c
'in
:l
m
>-
-
C
:l
o
()
"-
~
"0
()
e;!2~~~~~~[O[O~C;;O!;O!;I"'-
goO) ..- 0) V 00 V ('1)_ LO_ co.
ci r:ri"': ~
V
OOLOvLOO('l)..-1'-
LOI"'-LOONCONCO
COLOI'-LOOOLOOLO
or-" .,..:: N -r-'" N .,...- -r-'" 0-
('I)
cf~~~~~~oo~c;;g[ryl;jCO~~~~~~~~
~O) LOOOOOI"'- v~~~ vvv('l)LOvO)LO
00 M"":: ~ ""::~N""::N"":: ~
C"l N
e;!2gC;;~~~~~~~~r:::~CO~~~g~~~~
gO) VO)OOOOI'-..-V~~~ V('l)('I)('I)V('l)OOV
~ r:ri r;r) ...:...:~...:~~ c!i
C"l N
~o)o)o)..-O(t)COCOOVo)OCON('I)vCOO)vNN
b~N~o;r:::~R~~~~~ ~re~~~l;j~o;
~ r:ri r;r) - - - ..-- ...: ~ ...: ~ ...: ..,f
(t) N
~..-O)O)vNLOo)l'-,,-OO('l)LOCOCOI'-..-OCOOOLON
o L{) NN..-I'-('I)O ('1)0)00000 LOOOLOC"lOI"'-('I)O)
~oo NO)I'-COI"'- (t)q~~ C"lNNNC"lNOOo)
r;r) r;r) ...:~...:~...: ..,f
N N
C')
('I)NOOI'-OOOOOI"'-O..-O)vvNC"l..-..-..-C"lNv
O)NNL{)LO('I)o)I"'-LOO)O)vNNC"lOo)C"lO)NCO
LO..-COOONC"lO)L{)COLOvOO I'-vLO..-I"'-('I)LOv
r;r) r:rir;r)r;r)u'i~ "':..,fu'iu'i u'iu'imu'imu)r;r)u'i
o
00
o 1"'-00..-000vl'-('I)NC"l coo
COvNvC"l..-(t)LO-.:tvvCO
v 00 vOOOOCOI"'-I"'--.:tv 0 I'-
N- c!i <6 u) m r:ri ...: 0). r:ri ~ - 00-
OOI"'-..-COo)OOI"'-,,-vL{) V
C"l.CO_V_N LO_ ..-..-..- N
N
vOv
N N
N N
u'i m
co co
OOCO..-O)NCOOl'-o)..-v..-
COLOOOLOOOOCOLO..-Nv
NCOOOCOI"'-C"l co 0) C"lvO)
<6"':c!imr;r)u'i..,fr--:mr--:
v"-l"'-C"lvI"'-COONC"l
~~~N~ ..-..-..-
N
0)0
LO
N
..,f
N
N
1"'-0C"l
V LO
0) LO
a:l N.
V LO
00
v..-LON..-O(t)I'-C"lO)N
No)I"'-OOLOOOl'-v..-O
LOOOOOl'-vNO)vO) 1"'-0)
..,fa:lr;r)mco-~"':r;r)r;r)"':
O)vNNvI"'-COONC"l
..-_ V_~N N
N-
C"l00)
co ..-
I"'- N
~ <6
V V
..-
000
V
0)
..,f
..-
N
OOC"lC"lI"'-COo)
OOOCOLO
COCOC"lCO
c!i co- v- <6
NCOL{)..-
"-.. cq, ,..-.. C\I
~
I"'-NOvOOO
vCOOOC"lLO
OO..-vCOO)NOO
00- a:l 00. r--: c!i ..,f
..-COLOO)"-N
..- ..- ..-
..-OLOOL{)
V L{) ..-
I'- co 0)
~ v" 1'--
o C"l C"l
N
OOO)ONNOCOOvO)I"'-C"l
o)o)l'-L{)NCOLO..-I'-C"lL{)
NO)O(t)CO('l)COO)NCOOO
0" 0" a:l r--: u) 00- 00. r--: r--: v-
C"ll"'-LO..-NCOLOO)..-N
""'": Cf).. r-... C\J 'r-' 'r-'
~
..-0
0)
C"l
r;r)
o
N
1'-01'-
00 LO
o C"l
u) a:l
C"l C"l
OOOOON
000..-
OOLOON
m u) r--: 1"'--
CO 0000..-
1"'-1"'-000)
v-u'i..,f
000000000
oooO)~cooo
OL{)LO..-O)O)COC"l
o"a:lr--:r;r)..,fu'ir;r)a:l
1"'-00v..-O)N LO
o)NNvvLO 00
a:l
000
co co
o 00
0" r;r)
I"'- 00
L{) LO
D..
E
WU')
Q) N
a..
000000000000000000
00000)000000000000
U')LOLOLOOL{)C"lC"lC"lC"lC"lC"lC"lC"lC"lC"l
C"l
it
~cf
00
"_ 0
aN
E
:l
III
III
<(
~cf2."#.?ftcJ.cfl?ft.
LOOOOOOO
0000000
ciciv..r<o"'~
cftrfl.ct.?ft
OLOOO
~OOO
coci..r..t
0-
(f}
(fi. eft ;f. ?f oe 'OS!. Ci) cf. cf.
ggg~gg-5gg
N..rciN",ciecici
..- Oe
rt-cJ2.
00
00
cici
N
"",!fl.,#-
000
000
M~L{)
"S
o
32
's
co
~
Q)
z
o E ge~g
o E NQoO
o OJ ~iii ~~
~ :2 .....;(],)
OJ 0 -0 0~..!!2 ti ~ S2
C _0 Q) enQ)U15o
.~ 000 ~ g 'Ri g ~ a: ~ ~ 00
o ~ ~ ~ >N "OOJ~
_0 ~ ~~ en >en~C(f}li~
00 Q) ene Q)_"'OQ)oroEQ)C
000~0(ij Q)~~uOSU(f}E ~Q
o 0 Q)O> U:JOo~0-5 <D!~?
o O~"OO> ~~_oOJOUl~"OE~_~
O_~OJC1:lN"O-Q)' ~~Q)Q)CCWUlUJ
No C....~eO(f} ~ES2(f}C1:l oQ)c
~o~~I-Q)C1:lge~Q)mOJcroQ)~I,S2E-
!0;2~i~~.Qiiii~EQ)e(ijOJ"'OC"'O
:JNUuC1:l....0 iiiQ)U.~<D(f}O()ce(f}Q)<(
3~E~~I-Cl.~EuWUlOJe~5WC1:l....u
.g ~ ~ 2 (5 'ia ~ :-e 0 ~ "ia ~ ~ E g "ia uJ -g ~ 'is
OJ.~oC1:lJ::~~~-cQ)eC1:l"O"'O<Dto_:J
<(2()~5a:I-~c~a:a..~<(WI<(~Oa..
~~~~~~~ff~~~~tf~t~~f
". Ul Ul en <Jl en en en en en e1) (j) (j) en Ul Ul (J) en en (f)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
uO"O"OUUUUUDUU"O"OU"OU"O"O"'O
,- ~ -= c .._ ,- c c: .f: c __ c c c: c: s;: c c:: c: c::
(f..?fcficf.
0000
0000
cicicici
1"'-00
'if..cf..(/!.cJ2.
0000
0000
cicicici
OOLOC"l
..-
?J.*
00
00
cici
C"lC"l
?f2.?fcf!.cf.
0000
0000
cicicici
L{)L{) N
-
e
o E Oe25
o E ~ ,Q 0
o 0) -ro~
~ ~ "-:0>
C OJ 0 0 _,!!2ti~
o e og 0 20UlQ)U
~ ~ ON 0 ~g~a:'~
"- O:J O~ ~ >N-"OQ)
~ _0 ~ ~~ en >~C1:le(f}
C 00 OJ we Q)_"OUlGroE
0_0. 6g~0(ij ~~_ug~~~c___
~o g~~g5 ~~g'~Oen'~"O~-
000_~OJC1:lN"O-<De~~~mQ)5e~
NO ~~eOoo _U(f}__
~-o~~I-<D~Oe"OQ)"iae~-Q)C1:l~
~~0;2~i~~o~iiieEQ)Q)~(ij~
-:JNuuro.... -~ _Om(f}OO-"'O
ro=-2C1:lenl-8.wC1:lQ)~~OJ ,'- e~
~B~~~~ m~Egw~C1:lEiiiJ::W
oo~'-eeo'iae~'-C1:l"ia~eEgiuJ-g
OJ'~ 0 C1:l .s:::. ~ ~ :+:; .E ,S:; Q) e C1:l "0 "0 <D t 0
~~~O~5a:~~E~a:a..~~WI~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~wmoo~~~w~~woo~~oo~~oo~
~~~~~-5~~~-5~~~@~~-5-5-5
~CCCCECECECCCCCCCCC
C') 0 '<t 0 0 0 '<t -r- 0 -r-
CO C\I '<t (') '<t -r- 0 ..-
'<t ..- C\I 0 C\I -r- 0
.,f C')- .,f N .,f '7
C') lO 0::> 0::>
C\I ..- 0::> 0::>
0::> cO
lO CO CO 0 0 In CO 0
CO C') 0 N 0 0 lO lO
C')_ 0 0 0 0 0_ O?
cO 0) N 0)
..- C') 0 0
C\I ..- 0 0
cO 0::>'
en lO C\I 0 0 0 C\I 0 0 0 0 0 I'-- ~r ..- lO 0 0::> '<t CO I'-- I'-- CO ..- '<t '<t I'-- 0::> lO '<t lO 0 C') ..- I'--
0::> 0 en N en CO lO ..- C') 0 en w;" '<t C') lO -r- '<t '<t CO CO I'-- C') en en lO I'-- lO 0 C\I CO C\I CO
lO C') '<t 0 '<t en O? 0 0 I'-- lOO 0 en ..- en '<t 0::> '<t C'), cq CO, CO lO I'-- lO 0::> lO_ ~ lO
N CO. N ct5 C\I '<t- .,f - 0 cv) .,f C\I- 6
C\I o ' ..- ..- -r- ..- -r- C\I -r- ..-
0 C') I'-- I'-- '<t en C') ,~ C')
C\I ..- CO CO I'--
r--: 1'--- P.,
" Vi
, ,
,\',."
C') ..- C') 0 0 In C') lO 0 lO lO MUI~ en C\I -r- CO -r- CO ..- ..- 0 I'-- I'-- CO lO 0 C\I CO C') en 0 CO
0::> en ..- ,.. ..- 0 0 0 C\I o lO lO '0 C') C') CO 0 lO 0 0::> lO C') 0 C') C\I en C\I CO lO '<t 0 C\I lO
0_ I'-- lO 0 lO en I'-- C}I 0 C\I'<tlO 0 en lO ~ 0::> 0 I'-- '<t "!. '<t_ lO. '<I:. '<I:. '<t C') lO '<t. en lO
.,f 6 N 6 C\I - - - 0 C')- .,f C\I- r--:
..- enlOl'-- ' ..- ..- ..- ..- C\I ..-
en C\I '<t '<t '<to::>C\I CO C\I
C\I C\I CO ,C')
1'--' r--: j" ',',
':;i~~~
I'-- -r- lO 0 0 0 lO CO 0 CO 0 wo~l~ 0 -r- C') CO CO ..- en lO C') 0 I'-- '<t CO C') -r- en 0 I'-- -r- C\I C\I
en en lO ,... lO 0 0 C\I -.::::t r- 'r'" 0 0 C') -r- CO -r- '<t '<t '<t ~ lO I'-- CO C') CO I'-- 0 C') lO CO ~.
co. ..- I'-- 0 I'-- en ~ 0 I'--en'<t 0 en '<t en 0::> CO I'-- ..- ..- C'), '<t. '<t. ~ C') C'). '<t C') 0::>
Lei cv) N cv) C\I . . . 0 cv) cv) N C\I-
-r- C') ..- CO ' , ..- -r- ..- ..- CO
en C\I CO CO COCOC\l CO C\I
-r- ..- C\I C\I lO C')
1'--' r--: ~,~'
0 0 C\I 0 0 lO C\I C\I 0 0 lO lO HI' 0 CO en lO C\I 0::> lO C') ..- C\I C\I lO -r- CO ..- CO CO lO C\I I'-- ~
lO 0 '<t 0 '<t C') ..- C') CO 0, 0 0 lO '<t C\I '<t lO ..- I'-- 0::> I'-- 0 CO -r- 0 I'-- en lO 0 lO CO
en C') CO 0 CO CO. 0 ~ I'--en 0 I'-- '<I:. CO. lO C\I '<t. C\I I'-- ..- ~ 1'--. I'-- lO '<t '<t CO lO CO
0::>- cO C\I C\I N C') C\I '<t- 0)' 10 CO ..- ..- r--: -r- C\I C\I C\I C\I' C\I- '<t- C\I- .,f C\I -r-
0 C\I lO lO CO ~'<t: ,'~ ~
CO lO CO CO '<t
6 6 ::~t;;
C') C')
0 0 "2 0 0 x ,0 x Cii c c c
:::> 0 0 o~ 0
cry C') o. 0 0 0 Q) 0 .g 0
"C 0 0 0 >- ~ ~
Ql CO 0 0 0 ..!!!
Ql C') CO CO ::s ::s :i
Z a. a. a.
- 0 0 0
Ql a.. a.. a..
Ql lli Q)
X X LL. ... 2
0 0 Ql Q) .~ E 0
0 0 ... u (])
0 0 III <( iij E :g
0 0 ::s c (]) 0
lO lO l:T Q; <( u s
CJ) a..
III .s "
Ql u: "C co
()
... Ql E ,~;
0 0 Ql (])1
0 :!;;: (]) (ij Z c'
0 ... :is .lIl: C5 ~'aJ
8 0 2 ...
3: CIl ..!!! (]) III Q'~'
,~ ~ 'm E Q" E,et:
:is 0 U > E iij ~':I
::so CIl ctJ <( 'I: Q) it;;j
2!"
0.0 (]) .8 (]) 0
CIl () -
_C\I ::s OJ III ii,
a.~' "0 ctJ .:.:: "0 ::s
(]) c .:.:: (]) (]) Cii (]) "C
U 0 Cii 1: U c '5 c I'
x ~ Cii a.. 0
(]) a. (]) <( N ..Q ::::::
CIl '0 > - CIl III : ~
en (ij c "0 :S! CIl 0 0 III
CIl I- 0 (]) (]) Ql
(]) (]) Q) I
U .!: C '0 U c C ,0 X J:
0 8- iJi o. 0 '0
'~ E .~ (]) "i'
0 U N :J ('j (\j
"0 ::I LL ::s
(]) <( ..Q ctJ Cii (J) CIl CIl CO
Cf) (]) CIl ('j (\j
Q; g c Cii .... .;:: :J "0 >- . ~:'"
'm 0 (]) Ul e- (]) (]) -
..r::. :is ]i C ::I a. ::I ':j2. OJ OJ c j~:
6 :J 0- 0) "0 ::I (\j ctJ ::s ~4
a.. X Q; Cf) .s Cf) a:l ~ ~ 0 "
~ ~ 0 ..r::. "0 2 (]) CIl U U ()
0 6 (]) (]) OJ OJ a:l <( <( ... .'
Ul Ul I'-- Ul Cii C a:l ~ v,
::I ::I CIl CIl ::I ~ (]) Jg 'm ~ ~i'"
"0 CIl CIl '5' ::I U 0) '0
"0 (]) (]) 0- 'x (]) (])
.s E ...J ...J <( Cf) w <( a: a: a: (,)
. . .. .. . _ ... .. n " .. .. .. ~
-" . " '~> f',' ,," ..'. ".' !..~:,"~,:O"..,;", ..~~ :'r~~~:~:~:,,:
, ~~ .' "','" 1"'~ t-,-
, 'II , ,,~i~'"
,~. . : l' .:'~~:,~~i~.~~
j
~~
00
._ 0
- .
c..C\I
E
::s
(/)
(/)
<(
#~~~~~~~#~~~~~~#~~#6~
lOOOOOOOOOOOlOOOOOOOoc
oo~oooooooooooooocnoo
oO'<t~~~ C')COlOCOO'<t'<tN~ON~O
C
:J
t
..:
l:
G
(
(j
o
8 ~ ~.~ g 8
o OJ -- 1ti ~ 01_
8 :2 -
g' 08 8 20'~~8~o
'iJi 0 C\I 0 ~ 8 ~ a: '~ :J 0
::I 0 8 >C\I "0 QJ 0.0
o 0 C\J-; >~cocJ)_C\J
~8 ..r::. ~u en - a.
~oC\l~~ CIlC (])~"OC/)um~n~
oO_om Cllmu>_00S8(j)oE ~Q
o oooC\JIDoO> u....o ~- <lJmc-
> >CIlo<lJ....oL~2:"OE-"~
o C\I ~ "0 '::: ::I 0 8 Q) ID C 0. _
~~-OJ~8~0<lJC~(j) u(j)mcCIl~~
- 00 Co ,~ I- <lJ - 0 (j) '0 C >' _, Cii 0
- 'O.u 0 C c (j) ro <lJ ::: <U ~ 1:: ::r: ? E
~~~2~ro~~2ro~~~~~Uro~~ffi~
~-~~W~Oo.w~uID~oo~ - ~-
~ {J);:: - <D r.n .92 ~ c W ~ g; _ ro E LL ~ ' .' ~
~,!:~~~~c~o-roCii-c~gro~~c...r::.(j)~
~ C ro ..r::. - ro c 0 ro - ~
~~8:2s~~Sc~~~:2~~~~~6~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~moooooo
::I ::I ::I ::I ::I ::I ::I ::I ::I ::I ::I ::I ::I ::I ::I :J ~ - _ ::I
'O"O"O"O"O"O"O"O"O"O"O"O"OD"O"OD D'O
CCECCECCEEcccr-cc ccr-
t:
C
'u
~
c
c
C
C
C
LL
f':
~
if.
Q:
to
f
~
c
S
00
o~m~OOO~~MNMmO~O~MO~
m~N~M~M~~~~m N N~N~
~OO~OOOO~~~~~O~ N N~~N
N~m~m~~m~N -00 ~ m~~~
oo~~~moo~~~~ ~ m ~M~OO
Mm~N~ ~~~ N ~N~OO
--- N 00-
oom~mNmo~o>~~~
m~oo~OOO~~~N~
N~OOm~M~O>M~m
m~~m~~~r--:-mr--:-
~~~M~~~ONM
C\!.~_N_NM_
N
0>0
~
N
~
N
N
~O
~
m
00
~
M~~
~mM
~MO
N - 00
~~M
~N~
00'<1' ~(\JT""OM~MO>N
Nm~OO~OO~~T""O
~OOOO~~Nm~m~o>
~c6~mmN~-M-~~
m~NN~~~ONM
~_~_N_NN_
N
000
~
m
~
~
N
MO
~
~
N
~
O>O>~N
~0000>
N~M~
~-N-N~
~OM~
-r-C\J~CO
~-
OONMO>OOOMN~N~MNO
OOmMO'<t~T""~OO~OM
O>LD~O~~T""~~OO~~
~ r--:- N ~ ~- m ~- ~- '<t- 00- - ~
~M~M~M~())M~ 0
(\J~M'<tN_~~,-(\JN ~
NNN- ~
NO
~
~
m
~
N
NONOO
~0000~
N_ ~_ ())_ N
~ (\J 0> ~
~OO~O
NMN~
~-
~OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
NOOOO())OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
LDLDLDLDOLDMMMMMMMMMMMM
M
~#~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~
gggggggggggggggggggg
oooooooooddooodoodoo
~oo OO~MMMLD~ N N~LD
a -::: ocuQ'
~ 0000
g E 8+=~~
8 .g> ,~~~
5' ..:::: cn~U)u
[ g ~ g 1* g'~ ~ .~ :g g
a ::l 0 ~ 8 C1l 0 <( co 0.0
~o ~ 8~ ~8~~(f)a8
00 co ooc ~~"OoooC1l~coc
5' 0 ~ 5' ~ 0) ~ o~ ,S! g <(c ,~ c5i c :g ~..8
~o oocoo> o::l ~ ~ o)'VCOm
O 08_0> ~ooo~ooo~"O = ~
N ~ coco80)cocEo.~....
0~~~C1l8"05'0) N(f) O(f)C1lCOOO)OO
800c~~Q)~oOO"O--c'- ~Ooc
o 0 c c .$ ~ Q) 2: ctl ~ t: I 'S; 'E
0)0'-2CO"O~NgmC1l~EmCC1lO)"O~"O
53 N tJ () ro ~ - - Cii '00 0) (/) ,Q () - c ,l); <(
~~5~~~~OOctl~woo~c~~~C1l~u
,g ,~ ~ c 0 'iU ~ :f ~ ~ ro ~ ~ 'E g ';€ 00- "8 J:l15
~._Octl~~C1l=_CO)~C1l"O"OO)tO_::l
<(:2:():2:~~~Sc~~~:2:<(WI<(~O~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--------------------
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
::l ::l ::l ::l ::l ::l ::l ::l ::l ::l ::l ::l ::l ::l ::l ::l ::l ::l ::l ::l
"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0
cccccc~c~cccccc~~ccc
~
o
o
m
o
o
00-
'C
CIl
'C
CIl
CIl
Z
-
CIl
CIl
U.
~
III
::::J
c-
en
CIl
f:?
o
:!i:
...
o
==
~
,-
,-
o
o
o
~
0>
M
~
00_
o
o
o
00
<(
~
0)
~
it
0-
00
00
0)
~
o
C1l
.8
"0
0)
t
0)
>
c
o
o
0)
o
C1l
Q5
0.
'Q)
2
0)
~
C1l
::l
0"
(/)
o
o
T""
~
0_
~
.
o
~
,-
~
'9
o
~
o
~
'9
o
o
~
M
,-
,-
,-
,
0)
::a
~
'(ij
>
<(
0)
~
tll
0)
o
<(
"0
0)
C
o
N
~
Cii
::l
"0
C
~
C
~
'x
w
~
....
:Q
1ii
8-
00
::l
2-
::l
(f)
0)
~
C1l
0)
o
<(
010 ~ ~ ~ ,- ~ ~ ~
C')O())~~~~MOO
~0_~_~_C\!.'":~~~
~ "" 0 ~ ,- M,-
~())MOO
~ 00
00
It)I M 00 ~ m ,- ~ m ())
NO~~OO~N""
~N_~_l.ClO_O_Nt-;-~
~~~gs~ C}f
~ 0_
00
01 LD 0 N N 0
N~~~())~
O~())~~())
N----
M'-~~
~OON~
~ ~
~
OOM
O~N
M~O
C}f
It)/ ~ 00 N M LD
"'M~~~O
OOON())~())
N----
,-~~O
OO~N""
~ C\!.
~
O~M
~~~
N ~ M_
~
,
01 ~ m N LD 00
,..~O())LDO
OLD~())~())
N----
~~~M
O~N~
~ N_
~
00000
000
Nt-;-t-;-
0)
::a
c oo~
o ~ '(ij
~ ~ ~
~ .8 ~
o "0 tll
~ O)~ ---
~rotu 00
00~~'13~
c~~8~i5c75
000 000)
~~O~N~~
~ ~U____m
5. ro 0) C1l .!!! 00 Q)
~CO)<ttQ5~~0
..... ::lo.::lt:'<(
croEg'Q)"O::l0)
g C ~ "0 0) .E (/) .:::
-o)uo)~~~~
~ E .E Cii ~ .S: C1l 'S
5.. ~ s: ,~ ::l ,~ ~ E
0(0)"0 O"X u::l
~.EZ<((f)W<(()
c
0)
E
t
tll
Q.
0)
o
~
.S:
c
c
C1l
0::
~
C
::l
o
()
~
o
()
E
o
u:
~
......
:Q
1ii
8-
U)
~
o~
.~ "0
cr:QJOlC\J 1'--<;/'I'--I'--CO<OOlCOOC')
eIlQ..r-C\JC')C')I'--<O<OOlCOOl<O C')
QJoR~ffi~2~g~g~~ ~
;;:CiioC\Jr-COl'--l'--coco<oC')1'-- I'--
.......i)jC\JC')COI'--CO<OOlOCOl!)C\J 0
oOC')8co :::~d~:::~ CO
Lf:5cioci cia cicio ci
O:::~C\Jl!)
eIl<.J<Oo
~:;~8
<t:wOl~
~OCOO
of-28
o
Li:50ci
Q5
u
<t:
C\JC')
OlCO
co
I'--r-
C')0l
OC')
r-l!)
;;6
r-<OI'--OlC\Jl!)l!)OI'--
<;/,COl!)l!)OlCOl!) <;/'
I'--COCOOl<O<;/,<;/, l!)
oCO<;/'<OOC\J<O Ol
C')0l!)1'--<;/'r-l!) co
C')0lr-.....0lC')1'-- l!)
1'--C')<OC\Jr-C\JC\J Ol
00 ciOOO 0
cicici ooci 0
C')I'--C')
COl!)O
-io-i
C\I Ol
C')
co
~0
l!)<;/'
l!)C\J
l!)<;/,C\J
C')(',j0l
0coo:i
I'-- co
C')
COI'--C')C\JCO
OlCOCOO~
cir--:<ooiC')
C')C')..... co
C\J C')
C
ell
<.J
ell
>
CDOl <;/' 0 <OOl 00
~~~~~~~~
o-C;;co~~~~~
UJC') l!)1'--C\J0lC')
<;/'C\I <;/'
C\JI'--C\J
l!)~0
~~~
I'--Oll'--
COC\J
C\J
C')OC\l
l!) I'--
C') l!)
..... l!)
<;/' co
l!) r-
Ol
Cii
o
f-
C')C')<OCO<;/,
O<OCO~
co-il!iC')
o o CO.....
<;/'<;/'l!)<O
Oll!)
OC')
cr:il!i
O~
C')C')
~<OC\JC\I
~COOI'--
C\Jcioir--:
I'--l!) Ol
<;/' l!)
<;/'
.....
U)I'--CO
CD-i0cr:i
UCO l!)
<t:C') Ol
Cii
o
f-
E
~!2~U)"O~~~U)
CD -eIlell-CDCeIl-(UU)
CD ~ ftz (') fto...5] ~ 19 tl ~
~ <.Jz~ cZZell~LLtfJW S;;
oU) ~QJ:f; 0- C
E~€c:Q'5U)~~~eIlU
Eo 0 CD 0 0 co ell 0 ::J -e .~
-UZU(')UJw::?::cr:cr:::JQ')
r-
C\J
l!)r-
C\J<;/'
ol!)
C')g
~cr:i
01'--
I'-- co
I'--
0->
UJ~
Cii CD
~~
CD
o ~
o..<t:
~ <
~
n' OJ'
::l
('[) ()
"2- ('[)
c -
....,
(/) 0
(/) --J .j:>. 3
0 w .....
3 5D Q) N
0
CD W CD 0
(/) .j:>. N 01
0' CD CD
llJ
OJ OJ
(/)
(Q CD
CD
-<
('[)
~