Item H08County off Monroe
ELj »moo
� i G�,
�
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
/� ri � ��
Mayor George Neugent, District 2
The Florida. Ke Sew',
y
i
Mayor Pro Tern David Rice, District 4
; -== :'„ j y
Danny L. Kolhage, District I
Heather Carruthers, District 3
Sylvia J. Murphy, District 5
County Commission Meeting
May 17, 2017
Agenda Item Number: H.8
Agenda Item Summary #2875
BULK ITEM: Yes DEPARTMENT: Planning/Environmental Resources
TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Mayte Santamaria (305) 289-2500
N/A
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of a resolution prioritizing local applications for the 2017
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP).
ITEM BACKGROUND:
The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) announced on February 20, 2017 the 2017
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) application cycle. The TAP is federal funding available
for non -motorized transportation that is administered through FDOT. The current application cycle
was open until March 31, 2017.
As part of the application review process, FDOT requires local priority rankings be approved by the
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). Two applications were received for
projects within Monroe County. A selection committee, consisting of representatives from Monroe
County, ranked the applications based on the criteria found within the FDOT application.
Criteria for scoring the projects included:
1. Project safety improvements for bicycles riders and/or pedestrian.
2. Intermodal transportation linkages improvements, including those that will provide access
to transit stations and/or facilities.
3. Mobility enhancement or community development for disadvantaged groups (i.e. children,
the elderly, the poor, those with limited transportation options, and the disabled).
4. Contribution to local funding or the completion of previous phases of project development.
5. Neighborhood or community quality of life improvements, improving environmental air,
noise, water quality, and/or reducing the need for single occupancy vehicle trips.
6. Community support, including minutes of public meetings, newspaper clippings, petitions,
letters of support from local business owners, property owners, nonprofit organizations,
political leaders and other groups.
The recommended prioritization of the 2017 applications is as follows:
1.-Rowell's Waterfront Park (walking/bike path to connect to the Florida Keys Overseas
Heritage Trail) $1,000,000
2. -Florida Keys Overseas Heritage Trail Connection at Cudjoe Gardens $400,000
Upon approval by the BOCC, the prioritized list will be transmitted to the FDOT for funding
consideration and inclusion in the FDOT 5- Year Work Program.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
June 15, 2016- Approval of staff recommendations for the 2016 TAP application cycle.
May 20, 2015- Approval of staff recommendations for the 2015 TAP application cycle.
June 11, 2014- Approval of staff recommendations for the 2014 TAP application cycle.
August 21, 2013- Approval of staff recommendations for the 2013 TAP application cycle.
July 20, 2011-Approval of staff recommendations for the 2011 TAP application cycle.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
DOCUMENTATION:
TAP Priorities Resolution
TAP Prioritization Staff Report
Final Overall Score
Individual Scores & Ranking
Notice of Transportation Alternatives Program Application Cycle 2017
TAP Selection Criteria 2017
2017-TAP Application-FKOHT Cudjoe Connection
2017-TAP Application-Rowells Waterfront Park
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Effective Date: N/A
Expiration Date: N/A
Total Dollar Value of Contract: N/A
Total Cost to County: N/A
Current Year Portion: N/A
Budgeted: N/A
Source of Funds: N/A
CPI: N/A
Indirect Costs: N/A
Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts: N/A
Revenue Producing: If yes, amount:
Grant: YES
County Match:
Insurance Required:
Additional Details:
REVIEWED BY:
Mayte Santamaria
Completed
Steve Williams
Completed
Jaclyn Carnago
Completed
Budget and Finance
Skipped
Maria Slavik
Skipped
Assistant County Administrator Christine Hurley
04/26/2017 9:20 AM
Mayte Santamaria Completed
Kathy Peters Completed
Board of County Commissioners Pending
04/24/2017 2:46 PM
04/24/2017 3:24 PM
04/26/2017 8:51 AM
04/21/2017 4:39 PM
04/21/2017 4:39 PM
Completed
04/26/2017 10:11 AM
04/26/2017 2:52 PM
05/17/2017 9:00 AM
RESOLUTION NO. -2017
A RESOLUTION OF THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY,
FLORIDA PRIORITIZING THE 2017 TRANSPORTATION
ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM APPLICATIONS.
WHEREAS, The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) opened the 2017
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) announce the application cycle on February 20,
2017. The Transportation Alternatives Program is federal funding available for non -motorized
transportation, which FDOT administers; and
WHEREAS, FDOT requires local priority rankings be approved by the Monroe County
Board of County Commissioners as part of the application process; and
WHEREAS, two applications were submitted for consideration for funding by FDOT:
Rowell's Waterfront Park, requesting $1,000,000; and FKOHT Connection at Cudjoe Gardens,
requesting $400,000; both within the unincorporated areas of Monroe County; and
WHEREAS, a committee consisting of representatives from Monroe County ranked the
applications based on criteria found within the FDOT application; and
WHEREAS, the ranking of the 2017 applications is based on a 100 point scale: where
Rowell's Waterfront Park received an overall average score of 75.6 and the FKOHT Connection
at Cudjoe Gardens received an overall average score of 69.3; and
WHEREAS, given the average scores, the committee recommended Rowell's
Waterfront Park receive a ranking of 1 and FKOHT Connection at Cudjoe Gardens receive a
ranking of 2; and
WHEREAS, at a public hearing, the Board considered comments from citizens wishing
to speak on the matter; and
WHEREAS, the Board fully supports the funding of both applications;
Page ] of 2
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA.-
1. Monroe County prioritization of the 2017 Transportation Alternatives Program
applications is as follows:
1. Rowell's Waterfront Park - $1,000,000
2. FKOHT Connection at Cudjoe Gardens - $400,000
2. Requests the Florida Department of Transportation provide Transportation Alternative
Program funds in the upcoming FDOT District Six 2018/2019-2022/2023 Five Year
Work Program for Monroe County as requested by the applicants.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida,
at a regular meeting of the Board held on the 171h day of May 2017.
Mayor George Neugent
Mayor Pro Tem David Rice
Commissioner Heather Carruthers
Commissioner Danny L. Kolhage
Commissioner Sylvia J. Murphy
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY
(SEAL) Mayor George Neugent
ATTEST: KEVIN MADOK, CLERK
Deputy Clerk
MONAPE COUNTY' A^ ,TTOFtNEY
AP LEIDVEDAS FORM:
ASSISTANT OUN—Y A17ORNEY
Date �%/ .Z4
Page 2 of 2
MEMORANDUM
Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources Department
We strive to be caring, professional, and fair
To: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
Through: Christine Hurley, AICP, Assistant County Administrator
Mayte Santamaria, Sr. Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
From: Barbara Valdes -Perez, P.E., Transportation Planner
Date: April 21, 2017
Subj ect: Prioritizing of applications received as part of the 2017 Transportation Alternatives
Program.
BOCC Meeting: May 17, 2017
Background:
Historically, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District 6 opens an application cycle
for Transportation Alternative Program (TAP) funding when federal funds are available to local
governments to fund improvements that create alternatives to transportation for the non -motorized
user. TAP is federal funding for programs and projects defined as transportation alternatives, which
includes planning, design or construction of on and off -road pedestrian and bicycle facilities,
infrastructure projects for improving non -driver access to public transportation and enhanced mobility,
and similar projects. The process for obtaining TAP funding for transportation projects is competitive
in nature. Proposed projects are evaluated and ranked based on a specific set of criteria developed by
FDOT. Part of the criteria includes local prioritization. Monroe County is an area outside of a
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); therefore, the County is responsible for establishing
priorities for projects within the Florida Keys. Subsequently, all applications submitted by jurisdictions
within Monroe County must be evaluated and ranked by the Monroe County Board of County
Commissioners. A committee consisting of representatives from Monroe County reviewed the
applications submitted for consideration and ranked the applications based on criteria found within the
FDOT application guidelines.
This year, FDOT invited the local jurisdictions to submit applications for projects that can be
developed for Fiscal Year 2022/2023. Two applications were submitted for local prioritization. A
summary of each project follows.
2017 TAP Applications
Rowell's Waterfront Park, Key Largo
Monroe County requests $1,000,000 Phase 1 construction of a 2.25 acre Overseas Hwy/Heritage
Trail rest stop and vista. FDOT previously awarded $149,000 in TAP funds for the project design.
Phase I construction includes a walking/bike path to connect to the Overseas Heritage Trail; an off-
1
highway parking lot; rest rooms; drinking fountains; an informational kiosk with lighting; and new
landscaping.
2017 TAP Request: $1,000,000
Previous Awards: $149,000
Jurisdiction Match: $0
Total Project Cost $1,247,000
Florida Keys Overseas Heritage Trail (FKOHT) connection at Cu(tjoe Gardens
Monroe County requests $400,000 for the design and construction of approximately 800 feet of
asphalt trail to connect Drost Drive with the FKOHT crosswalk. This trail will allow the Cudjoe
Gardens neighborhood, south of US 1, to have safer access to the trail located on the north side of
US 1.
2017 TAP Request: $400,000
Previous TAP Awards: 0
Jurisdiction Match: 0
Total Project Cost $400,000
Review
Both projects were submitted to FDOT for funding and on April 28, 2017 FDOT will determine the
feasibility of the projects. The projects were ranked by a committee of representatives from Monroe
County. The applications were ranked by each member of the committee based on the six criteria
provided below:
1. Project safety improvements for bicycles riders and/or pedestrian
2. Intermodal transportation linkages improvements, including those that will provide access to
transit stations and/or facilities.
3. Mobility enhancement or community development for disadvantaged groups (i.e. children, the
elderly, the poor, those with limited transportation options, and the disabled).
4. Contribution to local funding or the completion of previous phases of project development.
5. Neighborhood or community quality of life improvements, improving environmental air, noise,
water quality, and/or reducing the need for single occupancy vehicle trips.
6. Community support, including minutes of public meetings, newspaper clippings, petitions,
letters of support from local business owners, property owners, nonprofit organizations, political
leaders and other groups.
7. Prioritization:
b) Monroe County Projects — Top priorities identified by the Senior Director of Monroe
County's Department of Planning and Environmental Resources Department and BOCC
Resolution.
2
The overall score is based on a 100 point scale. Each committee member scored each project based on
the six criteria listed above, assigning points as allowed for each measure. This accounted for 85
points. In accordance with criteria number seven, the Monroe County Planning and Environmental
Resources Director assigned the remaining 15 points. The same six criteria used individually were
assigned a value, which totaled 15 points. The final score for number seven scored by the Planning
Director was then added to the individual scores from each committee member. The total scores from
each member were averaged.
Recommendation
The Monroe County Rowell's Waterfront Park received an overall average score of 75.6 and the
FKOHT connection at Cudjoe Gardens received an overall average score of 69.3. The FKOHT
connection at Cudjoe Gardens scored lower based on the lack of local funding contribution. Based on
the average score and discussion, the rankings were finalized by the committee. The recommended
prioritization of the 2017 TAP application cycle is as follows:
1. Rowell's Waterfront Park - $1,000,000
2. FKOHT connection at Cudjoe Gardens - $400,000
Upon approval of the resolution by the BOCC, the prioritized list will be transmitted to FDOT to be
included as part of the agency application review process. If selected for TAP funding the projects will
be included in the FDOT District Six 2018/2019-2022/2023 Five Year Work Program.
3
4-• LA
� c
aj
OLL-
VU
CJ
Y
ro
V) d
30 i
r�
i
T
m
aj
L
O
?=
"
i
(W
C
aC)
L
(U
C
L
QjY
�~
C
'a
O
-
O O
Ln
Qj
4-
CDai
m
(D ru
O
O
LD
0
C
(U
u
-Q
C
Q
L
• �
o a�
� a�
ro
U `QJ
uj
aJ
N
N
ai
a
p -0
o
M a
c °
O
Q
LA_-
c
c
O
itf
3
°
o
O0
O
CL
Q5
Q
L�
aj Q
to
C Ln
N
Q C
u �--
Z
N.I
'^
a
bO ul
v
�
-I
>
Q�
a=
O
C
tG -6
mO
L
Q
'AL
3 O
O
;}
Q
V0
v
a
m
Q
v
LI;
Q
L
c U
n, u
CL
Q
o
4-a
E�
4 c
N
C
_
O
> C
WC
CQj
r
C
C
C
C
Q m
U
"6 C
�Qa
J
°
ai
>
(U O
_
Q
w' o
�-
+,
v rn
Q
L
n
a'.1 +.+
a fl
o
o
2
o ao
O
LA Q
-0 SZ
a
c
v 0
0�
WZ_3
0
L
vC
O
C
s ro
L
vCL
i
O�
Qa
o
a
O
Qn Ln
a
Q
u
c
"a
C
o
o
E
C LnC
O rl
L i
O
C
C 01
L
rn
>
+, `-`
i
+, y
ra
E
cm•
c v
C
c
C Q1
a]
Z
QC1
GCL
Q
G=
O
O
CL C
O
Ln
u
O
O 6
`fj
`!
ate+
+L-� L
C
v=
O
u41
Ln Q C
C C
a,
o
c
o
c
0 o
o
o w
Ln
O C
�- �
L
o
c o Ln
o c m
N ra
aj
L
v
L
4-1
L
L C
O
aJ C
4 O
4-
O
C
qA
y
O
p
Ul
a
O
u
Z (G
U O O
a C
;°
a�
r-i V1
M d
Ln cr
� In hQ
^ Li r'o
� d
14-1
d
v
V
1
\.
Q
�
a)
C
C C C
C
a
Ln i Liz
Q
4J U)
� a
O
= 1 r)
U�
U
Y
� d
4-'
C
1
O41
a
R
a
4-
0
�
�
L
C
L
a
E
a
O O
CA
i
M
m
,
a
L
v
L
4
CL+
a
O
N
b« 1
+
0
0)
N
0
C
—
vi a)aT+
-0
v
oE
N
j
•O
O
a
-0
U
O
rfl
4-1Q
+,
U 4--
a
>
y
-
a0
o
a
-a
a
E
MD Q
L
O
Q
C
C
O >,
C
—
3
O
a
O
y
> C
Q C
O
C
`~ 0
Q
a-
m .°
CL°
'o
a
U +
L11
to
Y
"O O
aT�
4--
°
Q
to
C
L N
CLC
O O
U +-�
u,
a
�
a
� --
M m
v O
LJJ
C
ro
Ln
O
C _
Ln
m
O CL
V7 L
+�
>
Gi
+
a
Q
E +
a t!
O
o
4 `-'
o
� CL
c U
a
a
a °
tLa
C
O
Q
� a
.0
a m
Op
+O-aj
C
>
W
V
'6
> E
E
F
Y
m
� CLL
_w
aj�
Q
L
C)
CC
=
Q
_
C
>
Vl
U
w°
Q
L
J
Q
L
> .�
a Q
Q
E
4- L
a
a
"a
a
u
Q
°
°
U
O QA
0 0%
W�
V] 0
W
�
o
a
'N
= O
Q
a
Ul,
_ L
0
O
L
tiD Y
L
L
O
E 0
O
6-0
ai
a
C
L
Q O
LA
�
C O
Q
OA
>-
*-'
r_
Q a
a
—
C Ln
U V)
C
C
C
a
'o p
E
O ci
°
° s
u Vs
a
} "
� +�
}
�'
c a
4 C
Q
Q
" "
O
CL
Ln °
C
cuQ
vC
4'
4L
-
O
U 4-1
VO C
C
O
O O
•0
p
O Lu
a
�
C
C Ln
m�� co
N M
ai
Q
cn
sLn
O
t
y0
tw to
O
a
4- °
°
+
o CL
Q c m
VT
CL
+,
m
O
°
U
z
a
U o- O
C
a � C
�
O
3
ni n
ri Q
�
ui 07
� �
a to
H
t�D
+J N
m C
C a
0
L o
00 .F
U
4 pp
Lp
Y
L
N a
c
---
0 L
ru
a
�
'}
o
T
L
a
C
a
L
4—
ate-+
Q
O
L
0
Q
O
a
i
aj
a;
v
ro
a
Ln
=
n
Ln
o
N
u
L
-a
a
CL
@
O
0_2
C
O
a
a
0
ro
.O
Y
Q
to
U
aj
>
a
C
aC
0
O
�+
_0
C
O
L
O
n
Q
Ln
u
=
C
0
C
a
_o
_
c
Q
C1
+
to
•=
Q
= O
a
u
+�
[n
L
=
Ln
='
`°
Y
6
°
�
❑
�
L
�-
N
0
u
0
'ZI
a
nan
,�
_j
a
> -
ro
a
O
LJ,I
O
C
o
a
a
^
u
0
cn
s
m
o
3
L
a
V
VI
a
txo
r
m
V)
a
0
c
U
a
O
O
_
+vsJ a
v�
�
Q
a
O
Z
Qa
.�
o
a
m
O
O
O
CL
E'
>-
=
Y
c
_
\
_
C
_0
0
a _
a
L
a-+
v
E�
_
Q�CL
aia)
Q
a
o
3
Eo
u
O
J
72
>
o
Q
� 0
Q
m
a
�,
o
��
_Wo�,
a
W
`Li
o
°J
_
?
CL
v
Ln
a
+,
o —
m
=
V
L
o
u
Qm
+-+
E
L
C
L
•L
C
L
0
a-aj
to
a
CL
0
vi
a
c
Ur1
"
n
_
_
C
O
0
a
v,
ra
vO
>
�
i
?
—
E *�
_
=
ate-
C
G
a
0
C
a
U
O C
L
LO
Q
Q-
C
O
U U
0-0
O
Q
C
E
Ln C
O
0 -0
Q
ro
-
rul-I
O
Ln
O
=
L
O p
7-
C
c
0
w
-0
a
o
C
Q
z
=
va
c
>
O
ro
m
a
v1
s
L
_I_-m
2
+�
e4
u
•Q
w
4-1
C
0
++
c�i�
C
GA >-
+
L
0
to
Q
LO
C
cn
L
_O
N
Ni
C.
�
�!•1 cr
l
0i
v
w
1-
a:D
[n
H
= O m
OY aJ
o
U V
`�
Q
l
Q
x
vE �-
v _
as
a,
4-
0
C
•�
O
m
O O
L
4`
t
� m
aJ m
o
+,
—
O
Ln
- .Q
u
—
fa
a
u
°
M
,�,�
+�
Qj
v w
aicu
>
c
CL �
-
0
C
i
V7
to QL
L
= Q
Q
Q
41
C
0
C
EL
O �,
_
O
>
OO
a
d°
-_�
=O
Lnm
O
CL
O
Qm
LMa)
�
C 0aj
41
w
@Ln
m
Ln
—m
�
W
O
4'-
C
in
{p
o 'n
L Q
_
o
m
t
m
t
3 O
v
*'
a
a
E
a� �o
O oc
Ln
a,
z
u
v m
o
aJ Co
O0
•C
'�
L
C
E 7
a
w C
'O
=
_
++ 4 �
_
'
O
aJ
, C
aCJ
C L
C
a
E m
OL m
a o-
u
=
a c
m a,
a
aJ
O C
U
3 O
aJ
N
CL
m
a
a,
r
a
�
- on
o C
O_
CL
aJ
O
O
0
aJ
y
LD
W
O
s
`= L
c_ O
u
:E=
�
•�
4
O
cy
a1
OD
O
a
o CL
3
O
C Ln
L C
O
C
Qj
7 O
f—
`•''
`
_
C
U Ln
. .
a)
ro LA
}, 4 +
C •D
s�
E [10
C ai
C
ate+ C
C aJ
O
O)
a
u
O ._
GJ
�^
7
O E
M
C
Q =_
N
W E
O
L
L-
-O
¢ C
In O
C
p
L
m
C
O L
LnO =
=
'Ct
C '3
v
O
�
O O
` �
-o
E O_
LL
O
.p "O
m
-o
O r
�
C Ln
m •S—L°
++
Ln
C)
E a
O
C
O
�
O
W
C
hQ
+
O Q
L
.O = m
LnL
o
V
z m
V Q. o
a� _
+�
c-I
rV fA
Cr7 cL
'*t
Ln O'
l0 u1 ha
I� _� LPI
I-
FDOT
Florida Department of Transportation
RICK SCOTT 1000 NW I I 1 Avenue RACHEL D. CONE
GOVERNOR Miami, FL 33172-5800 INTERIM SECRETARY
February 20, 2017
Ms. Aileen Boucle, Executive Director
Miami -Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization
111 NW 1 Street, Suite 920
Miami, FL 33128
Mr. Roman Gastesi, Jr., County Administrator
Monroe County
1100 Simonton Street, Suite 205
Key West, FL 33040
Subject: Transportation Alternatives Application Cycle - 2017
Dear Ms. Boucle and Mr. Gastesi:
The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is pleased to announce the Transportation
Alternatives application cycle for 2017. The FAST Act (§ 1109; 23 U.S.C. 133(h)), which was
enacted on December 2015, eliminated the MAP-21 Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) and
replaced it with the Transportation Alternatives Set -Aside (TA) under the Surface Transportation
Block Grant (STBG) program. The new TA grant program provides funding for all projects and
activities that were previously eligible under TAP. It allows for a variety of smaller -scale
transportation projects, including: pedestrian and bicycle facilities, recreational trails, safe routes to
school projects, community improvements such as historic preservation and vegetation
management, and environmental mitigation related to stormwater and habitat connectivity.
Agencies are invited to submit applications for projects that can be developed for Fiscal Year
2022/2023. Miami Dade County MPO and Monroe County Planning and Environmental Department
are responsible for forwarding this announcement to municipalities within their respective
jurisdictions. New projects are typically programmed in the new fifth year of the Department's
Tentative Work Program (2023).
Due to the success of prior year application cycles, TA allocations have been assigned to approved
projects through Fiscal year 2021/2022. However, circumstances might change for some projects;
therefore, be aware that depending upon a project's readiness and the availability of funds, projects
may be programmed in earlier fiscal years. Funding is subject to the availability of federal funds and
annual spending authority approved by the Florida Legislature.
The TA is administered through the FDOT District Six Program Management Office. All Miami Dade
applications must be submitted to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and FDOT by
March 31, 2017. All Monroe County Applications must be submitted to FDOT and Monroe County
Planning & Environmental Resources Department by March 31, 2017.
www.fdot.gov
Ms. Aileen Boucle
Mr. Roman Gastesi, Jr.
February 20, 2017
Transportation Alternatives Application Cycle — 2017
Page 2 of 2
Thank you for your continued partnership with our Department. Please contact Harold Desdunes at
(305) 470-5464 or Aiah Yassin at (305) 470-5485 if you have any questions.
Sincerel ,
c
James Wolfe, E.
District Secretary
Attachments: Transportation Alternatives Application
Transportation Alternative Evaluation Guidelines- Selection Criteria
cc: David Henderson, Miami -Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization
Christine Hurley, Monroe County
Mayte Santamaria, Monroe County
Judith Clarke, Monroe County
Harold Desdunes, P.E, Florida Department of Transportation
Mario Cabrera, P.E., Florida Department of Transportation
Linda Glass Johnson, Florida Department of Transportation
Aiah Yassin, Florida Department of Transportation
Lisa Colmenares, Florida Department of Transportation
Curlene Thomas, Florida Department of Transportation
FDOT
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT VI
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM (TAP)
SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA
2017 CYCLE
APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS SCHEDULE:
• TAP Workshop:
■ Miami Dade MPO Agencies: March 1, 2017 in the CITT Conference Room, 101" Floor, 111 NW
First Street, Miami 33128. (10 am to 12 pm).
■ Monroe County Agencies: TBD in BOCC Meeting Room Second Floor, Marathon Government
Center, 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, FL 33050.
• Application deadline:
ACTIVITY
DATE AND TIME
CALL FOR APPLICATIONS
February 20, 2017
MPO AGENCY APPLICATION WORKSHOP/MONROE
COUNTY AGENCIES CALL IN
March 1, 2017 From 10 am to 12 pm
APPLICATIONS DEADLINE
March 31,'2017
AGENCY PRESENTATIONS
April 28,'2017
APPLICATION SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS:
Miami -Dade County: send one (1) original Application and ten (10) hard copies to David Henderson at the MPO address
below AND one (1) electronic copy of each application to: aiah.yassin@dot.state.fl.us, cc: alfredo.reyna@dot. state .fl.us
and xiomara.nunez@dot. state.fl.us
Monroe County: send one (1) electronic or disc copy and five (5) hard copies to Mayte Santamaria at the Monroe County
address below.
MIAMI DADE COUNTY MPO
MONROE COUNTY
David Henderson, TAP Coordinator
Mayte Santamaria
Miami -Dade County MPO
Sr. Director of Planning and Environmental Resources
111 NW First Street, Suite 920
Planning & Environmental Resources Department
Miami, FL 33128-1999
2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 400
Office: (305)375-1647
Marathon, Florida 33050
Email: dhenderson@miamidadempo.or
Office: (305) 289-2500
Email: Santamaria-Mayte@MonroeCounty-FL.Gov
FDOT
Aiah Yassin, LAP Administrator
Florida Department of Transportation
District VI -Adam Leigh Cann Building
1000 NW 111th Avenue, Room 6112A
Miami, Florida 33172
Office: (305) 470-5485
Email: aiah.yassin@dot.state.fl.us
FDOT
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT VI
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM (TAP)
SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA
2017 CYCLE
General Criteria for Selection
1. No more than $1 million of TAP funds will be awarded to any single project in any single application cycle, and no
more than $3 million dollars of TAP funds will be awarded to any single project. Applicants whose project costs
will exceed $1 million must demonstrate that they have the additional funds to complete the project.
2. No more than 3 applications per department can be submitted. If your agency is submitting more than one
application, please rank the applications based on your agency's priority and needs.
3. The Application package should consist of the following:
a) Completed application (may not exceed 15 pages)
b) Attachments, exhibits, typical sections, plans, and letters of support (may not exceed 15 pages)
c) Report of all previous funding awards and the status of the each project.
4. The following must be identified in your application:
a) Right -of -Way needs and status, including easements
b) Environmental and cultural resource analysis
c) Permitting requirements
Note: Please be advised that all questions on the application should have a response. Failure to respond to all questions
will result in a disqualification of the application. Should you feel that a question is not applicable to your project, please
respond "not applicable."
ELIGIBLE CATEGORIES FOR TAP PROJECTS'
1. Construction, planning, and design of on -road and off -road trail facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non -
motorized forms of transportation, including sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian and bicycle signals, traffic
calming techniques, lighting and other safety -related infrastructure, and transportation projects to achieve
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990
2. Construction, planning, and design of infrastructure -related projects and systems that will provide safe routes for
non -drivers, including children, older adults, and individuals with disabilities to access daily needs.
3. Conversion and use of abandoned railroad corridors for trails for pedestrians, bicyclists, or other non -motorized
transportation users
4. Construction of turnouts, overlooks, and viewing areas
5. Inventory, control, or removal of outdoor advertising
6. Historic preservation and rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities
7. Vegetation management practices in transportation rights -of -way to improve roadway safety, prevent against
invasive species, and provide erosion control
8. Archaeological activities relating to impacts from implementation of a transportation project eligible under title 23
of the US Code
9. Planning, designing or constructing boulevards and other roadways largely in the right-of-way of former
Interstate System routes or other divided highways
1 Please use FHWA Guidance for more information on eligibility
http://www.fhwa.dot.�ov/environment/transportation alternatives/guidance/guidance_2016.cfm#Eli�iblePro�ects
FDOT
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT VI
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM (TAP)
SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA
2017 CYCLE
10. Any environmental mitigation activity, including pollution prevention and pollution abatement activities and
mitigation to:
a. address storm water management, control, and water pollution prevention or abatement related to
highway construction or due to highway runoff, including activities described in 23 U.S.C. 133(b)(11), 328(a),
and 329; or
b. reduce vehicle -caused wildlife mortality orto restore and maintain connectivity among terrestrial or aquatic
habitats
11. The recreational trails program under 23 U.S.C. 206 of title 232
12. The safe routes to school program eligible projects and activities listed at section 1404(f) of the SAFETEA-LU:
a. Infrastructure -related projects
b. Noninfrastructure-related activities
c. SRTS coordinator. SAFETEA-LU section 1404(f)(2)(A) lists "managers of safe routes to school programs" as
eligible under the noninfrastructure projects
13. Planning, designing, or constructing boulevards and other roadways largely in the right-of-way of former Interstate
System routes or other divided highways
ELIGIBLE PROJECT SPONSORS
A. Local government: Local government entities include any unit of local government below a State government
agency, except for an MPO. Examples include city, town, township, village, borough, parish, or county agencies
B. Regional transportation authority: Regional transportation authorities are considered the same as the Regional
Transportation Planning Organizations defined in the statewide planning section (23 U.S.C. 135(m))
C. A transit agency: Transit agencies include any agency responsible for public transportation that is eligible for funds
as determined by the Federal Transit Administration
D. A natural resource or public land agency: Natural resource or public land agencies include any Federal, Tribal, State,
or local agency responsible for natural resources or public land administration. Examples include: State or local park
or forest agencies; State or local fish and game or wildlife agencies; Department of the Interior Land Management
Agencies; U.S. Forest Service
E. A school district, local education agency, or school: School districts, local education agencies, or schools may include
any public or nonprofit private school. Projects should benefit the general public and not only a private entity
F. A tribal government
G. A nonprofit entity responsible for the administration of local transportation safety programs: Examples include a
nonprofit entity responsible for: -a local program implementing construction, planning, and design of infrastructure -
related projects and systems that will provide safe routes for non -drivers, including children, older adults, and
individuals with disabilities to access daily needs; and safe routes to school program
z https://www.fhwa.dot.ov/environment/transportation alternatives/guidance/guidance 2016.cfm#RecreationalTrails
FDOT
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT VI
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM (TAP)
SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA
2017 CYCLE
H. Any other local or regional governmental entity with responsibility for, or oversight of, transportation or recreational
trails (other than an MPO or a State agency) that the State determines to be eligible, consistent with the goals of
this subsection.
REVIEW PROCESS:
Miami -Dade County:
• FDOT Technical Review of applications for
project feasibility
• Results sent to MPO for Project Committee
review and ranking
• Presentation of priority projects to the FDOT
Scoping Committee
• Approval of MPO program priorities by MPO
Governing Board
FDOT TECHNICAL REVIEW Evaluation Criteria (100 points):
Monroe County:
• FDOT Technical Review of applications for project
feasibility
• Results sent to Monroe County to review and rank
projects.
• Presentation of ranked priority projects to FDOT
Scoping Committee for final selection and
recommendation to the Monroe Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC).
• BOCC's approval of priority projects to program in
FDOT's Work Program.
1. Overall application completeness and accuracy (5 points)
2. Ability to implement the project (50 points):
a. Scope implementation feasibility (20 points)
b. Project schedule accuracy and detail (15 points)
c. Permitting identification and status (5 points)
d. Environmental considerations (10 points)
** Please note: Environment impacts may affect your total project cost and budget. Should you need
assistance assessing the budget considerations that should be given to environmental impacts, please
reach out to our team prior to submitting your application. **
3. Project Cost Estimate (15 points):
a. Information provided to validate cost estimate (5 points)
b. Accuracy of the estimate ranging from order of magnitude estimates to an opinion of probable costs using
unit prices, including estimates for required professional services including environmental compliance
with NEPA (10 points)
4. Previous Funding/ Administrative Performance (30 points)
a. Agency responsiveness (5 points)
b. Accuracy of estimates as compared to actual costs (5 points)
c. Meeting schedule commitments (5 points)
FDOT
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT VI
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM (TAP)
SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA
2017 CYCLE
d. Level of compliance with state and federal regulations (5 points)
e. Maintenance of LAPIT (5 points)
f. Invoicing timeliness and accuracy (5 points)
Once FDOT reviews the applications, the Technical Evaluation results are forwarded to the MPO Review Committee
or to Monroe County.
COUNTY AGENCY PROJECT EVALUATION (100 points):
1. Project safety improvements for bicycle riders and/or pedestrians (15 points)
2. Intermodal transportation linkages improvements, including those that will provide access to transit stations
and/or facilities. For applications in Miami -Dade this includes the Strategic Miami Area Rapid Transit (SMART) Plan.
(15 points)
3. Mobility enhancement or community development for disadvantaged groups (i.e. children, the elderly, the poor,
those with limited transportation options, and the disabled) (15 points)
4. Contribution to local funding or the completion of previous phases of project development (10 points)
5. Neighborhood or community quality of life improvements, improving environmental air, noise, water quality,
and/or reducing the need for single occupancy vehicle trips (15 points)
6. Community support, including minutes of public meetings, newspaper clippings, petitions, letters of support from
local business owners, property owners, nonprofit organizations, political leaders and other groups (15 points)
7. Prioritization (15 points):
a) Miami -Dade County Projects —Top priorities identified by
a. MPO's Citizen's Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) (5 points)
b. Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) (5 points)
c. Transportation Aesthetics Review Committee (TARC) (5 points)
b) Monroe County Projects — Top priorities identified by the Senior Director of Monroe County's Department of
Planning and Environmental Resources Department and BOCC Resolution (15 points)
FDOT PROJECT PRESENTATIONS (100 points):
Project presentations are scheduled for the MPO and Monroe County ranked projects. The District VI Scoping
Committee scores each project up to 100 points.
Prioritization (25 points)
Up to 25 points awarded for MPO and Monroe County agency prioritization: The top ranked project from each county
agency receives 25 points, the second ranked receives 24 points, the third ranked receives 23 points, etc. The final
ranking is submitted to the MPO TAP Coordinator and to Monroe County for Board Approval. All applicants will be
notified of the results.
FDOT
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT VI
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM (TAP)
SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA
2017 CYCLE
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
Projects prioritized in this funding cycle are programmed into the FDOT 5-Year Work Program. Project sponsors work
with FDOT to execute project funding agreements in a timely manner.
Project sponsors must enter into a Local Agency Program (LAP) agreement with FDOT prior to the start of any work
for which they wish to be reimbursed. The LAP will control the project funding process. Project sponsors must have
or obtain LAP Certification in order to qualify for project funding'. Funds spent by the sponsor before execution of a
LAP Agreement cannot be reimbursed by FDOT. LAP projects must meet federal requirements, standards and rules
and procedures governing federally funded transportation projects, including right-of-way certification, environmental
review and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance. Local Agency Program information can be found at:
www.dot.state.fl.us/projectmana�ementoffice/lap/.
3 State and federal agencies are generally exempt from the certification requirements of this section. This is due to the fact that state and federal
agencies undergo extensive annual auditing protocols by both state and federal entities which are available for department review as needed.
However, a District may request a state or federal agency obtain certification or recertification as needed.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT VI
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020/2021
2017 Application Cycle
A. APPLICANT INFORMATION
PROJECT SPONSOR: Monroe County
CONTACT PERSON: Debra London
TITLE: Project Manager
ADDRESS: 102050 Overseas Hwy
CITY / STATE / ZIP: Key Largo, Florida 33037
PHONE: 305-453-8754
EMAIL: London-debra@monroecounty-fl.gov
Agency LAP Responsible Charge: Judith S. Clarke
TITLE: Director of Engineering Services
EMAIL: Clarke-Judith@monroecounty-fl.gov
PHONE: 305-295-4329
PROJECT SPONSOR'S LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM (LAP) CERTIFICATION STATUS i
❑ Not LAP certified, but will seek certification
❑X Currently LAP Certified / LAP certification date: 2009
B. PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT TITLE: Florida Keys Overseas Heritage Trail (FKOHT)connection at Cudjoe Gardens
PROJECT LOCATION: Cudjoe Key, Monroe County, FL
ROADWAY NAME AND/OR NUMBER: US1 Right of Way
PROJECT BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Design and construct approximately 800 ft long- 10ft wide asphalt path connection to
FKOHT crosswalk to/from Drost Drive
FOR FDOT USE ONLY
Application Complete
❑YES
❑ NO
Project Eligible
❑YES
❑ NO
Implementation Feasible
❑YES
❑NO
Include in Work Program
❑YES
❑NO
1 All Agencies will be recertified according to the Local Agency Program Manual Chapter 2, for more details
htt www.dot.state.fl.us ro rammana ement LAP Current CHAPTER%202 2015. df
Page 1 of 7
Revised: November 2017
C. TAP QUALIFYING ACTIVITIES - PROJECT CRITERIA
Select the Transportation Alternative activity that the proposed project will address. Please select one activity that
represents the majority of the work proposed. Eligible activities must be consistent with details described under 23
U.S.C. 101(a) (29) and 213(b). (Note: selecting more than one activity does not ensure or increase eligibility.)
1. ❑X Construction of on -road and off -road trail facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non -motorized forms of
transportation, including sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian and bicycle signals, traffic calming techniques,
lighting and other safety- related infrastructure, and transportation projects to achieve compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
2. ❑ Construction, planning, and design of infrastructure -related projects and systems that will provide safe routes or
for non -drivers, including children, older adults, and individuals with disabilities to access daily needs
3. ❑ Conversion and use of abandoned railroad corridors for trails for pedestrians, bicyclists, or other non -motorized
Transportation users
4. ❑ Construction of turnouts, overlooks, and viewing areas
S. ❑ Community improvement activities, which include but are not limited to:
a) ❑ Inventory, control, or removal of outdoor advertising
b) ❑ Historic preservation and rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities
c) ❑ Vegetation management practices in transportation rights -of -way to improve roadway safety, prevent
against invasive species, and provide erosion control
d) ❑ Archaeological activities relating to impacts from implementation of a transportation project eligible
under Title 23
6. ❑ Any environmental mitigation activity, including pollution prevention and pollution abatement activities and
mitigation to:
a) ❑ Address storm water management, control, and water pollution prevention or abatement related to
highway construction or due to highway runoff, including activities described in sections 133(b)(11), 328(a),
and 329 of Title 23; or
b) ❑ Reduce vehicle -caused wildlife mortality or restore and maintain connectivity among terrestrial or
aquatic habitats
7. ❑ SRTS program -eligible projects and activities listed in section 1404(f) of the SAFETEA-LU:
a) ❑ Infrastructure -related projects
b) ❑ Non -infrastructure -related projects
c) ❑ Safe Routes to School Coordinator
d) ❑ An SRTS application is attached this application - mandatory
8. El Planning, designing, and constructing boulevard and other roadways largely in the Right -of -Way of former
Interstate System routes or other divided highways
9. ❑X Recreational trails program3
z A boulevard is defined as a walkable, low speed (35 mph or less) divided arterial thoroughfare in urban environments designed to carry both through and local
traffic, pedestrians and bicyclists. Boulevards may be long corridors, typically four lanes but sometimes wider, serve longer trips, provide pedestrian access to land,
may be high ridership transit corridors, are primary emergency response routes and use vehicular and pedestrian access management techniques. Curb parking is
encouraged.
Page 2 of 7
Revised: November 2017
H.8.g
FD
D. PROJECT DETAILS
U
1. Roadway Classification
❑X State Roadway ❑X Federal Aid Roadway
CL
❑ Local Roadway ❑ Other
2. Project Termini
d
Begin: mm 20.7 FKOHT crosswalk End: mm21 Drost Drive Project Length: approx. 800 feet E
3. Are the location map and aerials attached (required)? 0 Yes ❑ No
O
�a
�a
4. Provide the Scope of Work and identify any items attached: Environmental Assessment, engineering design,Cc
permitting services, construction and construction engineering and inspection services to construct an asphalt path
�s
to/from FKOHT crosswalk to Drost Drive — 10 feet wide by approximately 800 ft long
❑ A more detailed scope of work is attached
❑ Conceptual plans are attached to this application Cc
❑ Typical section drawings attached
CL
�a
5. Are there any Design Plans for the project? ❑ Yes ❑X No
If yes, are Design Plans updated to Current Standards and Existing Conditions? ❑ Yes ❑ No
a) What are the dates of the Design Plans?
b) Who is the Engineer of Record? Provide contact information:
co
6. What is the Project Schedule? July 2019 — Consultant Acquisition ; September 2020 - Environmental Analysis and
c�
Report Preparations; December 2020 — Plan Preparation January 2020 — Plans submittal;March 2021— FDOT
Review and Permit Acquisition; July 2021— Bid for Construction September 2021— Bid Award ; January 2022 —
Notice to Proceed ; July 2022 — Estimated Project Completion
0
The schedule should include, at a minimum, consultant acquisition, plan preparation, environmental analysis and report U
preparations, plans submittal, FDOT review of project documents and permit acquisitions. Click here to enter text. 0
❑ A detailed project schedule is attached
U
7. Describe the project's existing Right -of -Way ownerships. Identify when the Right -of -Way was acquired and how
ownership is documented (i.e. plats, deeds, prescriptions, certified surveys, easements) FDOT easement to be
�
obtained
❑ Attached is documentation of any Right -of -Way ownership documentation
Cc
8. Is Right -of -Way acquisition proposed? ❑ Yes ❑X No
CL
CL
a) If yes, describe the proposed acquisition, including expected fund sources, limitations on fund use or availability, 0-
and who will acquire and retain ownership of proposed Right- of-Way4: Click here to enter text.
b) Will temporary construction easements be required? ® Yes ❑ No
If yes, please describe: FDOT ROW 04
as
E
3 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/transportation_alternatives/guidance/guidance_2016.cfm#RecreationalTrails
4 All right-of-way acquisitions must comply with State and Federal rules, regulations and procedures. <
Page 3 of 7
Revised: November 2017
Packet Pg. 2068
H.8.g
FD
9. Identify any permits that might be required: FDOT ROW easement permit, SFWMD
❑ Please attach any copies of obtained permits
E. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
"
Coordination with the Federal High way Administration and the State Historic Preservation Officer will be required by
CL
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Ls
1. Did your Agency perform an environmental assessment for the project? ❑ Yes
❑X No
2. Does your Agency have a historic preservation planner? ❑ Yes
0 No
E
If yes, please provide contact information: Click here to enter text.
0-
0.
0
3. Is your proposed project located within or adjacent to a locally designated historic property or a National
Register
of Historic places -listed historic site? ❑ Yes
❑x No
CU
If yes, have any historic properties/places received Florida Department of State
Historic Preservation Grant funds? Attach any preservation agreements, ❑ Yes
❑ No
<
covenants, or easements related to these properties.
CU
CL
4. Are any archeological sites or Native American sensitive sites or areas located within or adjacent to
your project?
2
❑ Yes
0 No
If yes, please describe: Click here to enter text.
5. Has there been outside coordination with any Federal or State Agencies for this project?
0 Yes ❑ No
00
El
If yes, please provide documentation and describe: FDEP indicated they did not have funding for project;
Florida Division
of Historical Resources determination of no resourses within project limits (see attached exhibits)
as
6. Are there any parks, recreation areas or wildlife or waterfowl refuges? ❑ Yes
0 No
0
If yes, please describe:
0
7. Are there any navigable waterways? ❑ Yes
0 No
If yes, please describe: Click here to enter text.
8. Does the project have any wetland impacts? ❑ Yes
0 No
LL
If yes, will wetlands mitigation be needed? ❑ Yes ❑ No
0
CU
If yes please describe: Click here to enter text.
CL
9. Has your agency reviewed the project for potential protected species/ critical habitat impacts?
0 Yes
❑ No
8
If yes, please describe: US Fish and Wildlife IPAC Resource list reviewed with no critical habitat identified.
c4
10. Has your agency reviewed the project for potential contamination that could affect the area?
❑X Yes
❑ No
E
Page 4 of 7
Revised: November 2017
Packet Pg. 2069
If yes please describe: A search of FDEPContamination sites within 1/2 mile of 20950 Overseas Hwy, Cudjoe Key ,
FL . Cleanup types: ALBrownfields {Petroleum ASuperfund AOther Waste Cleanup resulted in no sites
identified. An environmental assessment to identify contamination sites will be part of engineering scope and a
determination will be made since french drains may be required for the project.
11. Are there noise sensitive areas? ❑ Yes ❑X No
If yes, please describe: Click here to enter text.
F. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION INFORMATION
Attach documentation requested below as Exhibits to this application. List Exhibits here: D3-Cudjoe Key Aerial FKOHT
and Mile Markers, Aerial Image mark up in red of proposed path footprint, Street View of Drost Drive and US1, E3 -
Florida Dept of Historical Resources No Resources letter, E9- USFWS IPAC list excerpt; E10 - FDEP No Brownfield sites
Cudjoe Key, F4- Project Support and FDEP emails, F6- Monroe County projects FDOT LAPIT, FDOT Final Acceptance
letter US1 Shared Use Path ; G2- Cost Estimate
1. Which project phases are included in this funding request?
❑ Planning Activities ❑X Project Development & Environment
❑X Study Preliminary Engineering/Final Design Plans ❑X Construction
❑X Construction Engineering & Inspection (CEI)
Who is proposed to execute the following tasks of the project? Check all applicable boxes:
PLANNING
PD&E
DESIGN
ROW
CEI
® Applicant's Staff
❑ Applicant's Staff
❑ Applicant's Staff
❑ Applicant's Staff
❑ Applicant's Staff
❑ Consultant
® Consultant
® Consultant
❑Consultant
® Consultant
❑ FDOT
® FDOT
❑ FDOT
Note: The Design consultant and Construction Engineering & Inspection (CEI) consultant shall not be the same if Federal funds are granted and
used for either phase - Refer to Chapter 18 of the LAP Manual requirements regarding the use of consultants .5
2. Are there any related project work phases that are already complete or currently underway? Please describe:
FDEP FKOHT trail crossing did not provide Cudjoe Gardens neighborhood safe access from Drost Drive
❑X Previous seegments of this project were constructed as LAP projects or JPA under the following Financial
Management numbers: FDOT currently has a road improvement project on Cudjoe Key in this area.
3. Have any public awareness activities or community meetings been held? ❑X Yes ❑ No
If yes, please describe and provide supporting documentation: Cudjoe Homeowners Association requested project and
met with Monroe County Planning Department
4. Is there public and/or private support for the project, for example: petitions, written endorsements, resolutions,
letters of support, etc.)? ❑X Yes ❑ No
If yes, please describe and provide supporting documentation: Cudjoe Gardens Homeowners Association requested
project ( see emails attached as exhibits)
5 Refer to LAP manual at htt www.dot.state.fl.us ro rammana ement LAP LAP TOC.shtm
Page 5 of 7
Revised: November 2017
H.8.g
FD
S. What is the proposed maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the project when completed? Please
describe: Monroe County will maintain
6. Is there any other specific implementation information that should be considered? ❑x Yes ❑ No
N
If yes, please describe and provide supporting documentation: Monroe County recently finished the US1 Bayside Shared
Use Path FM 434689/G0281 and intends to use the same FDOT approved design standards for the proposed Cudjoe
OL
Gardens trail connection.
�s
CL
d
E
0
0.
�a
�a
CU
�s
CU
CL
�a
00
c�
as
0
U
0
0
L)
0
U-
8
sad
CU
CL
8
Cq
E
Page 6 of 7
Revised: November 2017
Packet Pg. 2071
G. COST ESTIMATE
1. Attach a detailed cost estimate, broken down into FDOT typical pay items, to allow for verification of eligible
project costs. Provide an engineer's estimate using FDOT's Basis of Estimates Manua16. Include your basis/
reasoning justifying your cost estimate.
❑X A detailed cost estimate is attached
2. Provide a summary of estimated costs for the work being proposed
A detailed project cost estimate must be attached to this application '
Planning Activities
$
Project Development & Environment Study (including environmental assessment for minor
improvements, including Programmatic & Type 1 Categorical Exclusions)
$15,000
Design Costs/ Plans Preparation
$55,000
Permits (including application fees, mitigation and permit acquisition work)
$500
Construction
$284,936
Construction Engineering and Inspection activities (CEI)
$45,000
Other Costs (describe)"
$
Total Estimated Project Cost
$400,000 rounded
3. PROJECT FUNDING
TAP FUNDS REQUESTED
$ 400,000
PERCENT TAP FUND
100%
LOCAL FUNDS ALLOCATED
$
PERCENT LOCAL FUND
0 %
TOTAL AMOUNT REQUESTED
$ 400,000
TOTAL % ALLOCATION
100 %
6 Use the following links to access the Basis of Estimates Manual as well as historical cost information for your area:
htt_p:(jwww,dot.state.fl,us/pro_grammanagement_/Estimates/BasisofEstim atWBOEManual/BOEOnline2016DRAFT.shtm.
htt www dot state fl us s ecificationsoffice Estimates HistoricalCostlnformation HistoricalCost shtm
P..//...... ...... ....... ......................................................../....P................................................................/...................................../................................................................................................../..........................................................................
7 Please use FDOT Basis of Estimates Manual for your proposed project Basis of Estimates Manual
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/programmanagement/Estimates/BasisofEstimates/BOEManual/BOEOnline2Ol6DRAFT.shtm
8 FDOT does not allow programming for contingency costs. Any contingency costs should be accounted for using local funds.
Page 7 of 7
Revised: November 2017
uope:podsueJ_L LWZ : GLOZ) uoi;o9uuo:D oofpn:D _LH0N=1-u01;e311ddV dV_L-LWZ :;uGwt43e;;V
Am
---- ------
I hereby certify that the proposed project herein described is supported by Monroe County BOCC L
(municipal, county, state or federal agency, or tribal council) and that said entity will: (1) provide any required funding
match; (2) enter into a maintenance agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation; (3) comply with the
Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Acquisition Policies Act for any Right of Way actions required for the project,
(4) Comply with Local Agency Program Manual during all phases of the project, (5) comply with NEPA process prior to
construction, this may involve coordination with the State Historic and Preservation Office (SHPO) prior to construction.
(Not at time of application) and (6) support other actions necessary to fully implement the proposed project.
I further certify that the estimated costs and/or failure to follow through on the project once programmed in the Florida
Department of Transportation's Work program included herein are reasonable. I understand that significant increases in
these costs could cause the project to be removed from the Work Program,
Name (please type or print): Judith S. Clarke
Title: Director Engineering Services
Y
Signature: /1) I/,
-2
Date.
If vou have anv questions about this application or need assistance. please contact:
District Local Agency Program Administrator
Phone: (305) 470-5485
Aiah.Yassin Pdot.state.fl,us
David Henderson
Miami -Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization
Phone: (305) 375-4507
dhenderson@rniarnidadempo,org
Mayte Santamaria
Monroe County
Phone: (305) 289-2500
Email: Santa me ria-M ayte@ Mon roeCo u nty-FL.Gov
FOOT Local Agency Program Manual
http://www,dot,state.fl,us/progranirnanagement/LAP/LAP TOC,shtirn
FDOT PD&E Manual
http://www,dot,state.fl,us/emo/pubs/pdenian/pdemaril,shtrTi
Basis of Estimates Manual
1111 IN 111 1 Ill
Page 8 of 7
Revised: November 2017
Application Question D3
a
a,
m
O
O
C7
n
0
N
u'
Ul)
E
cry
Ln
0 Fn
Application Question E3
No Cultural resources
This record search is for informational purposes only and does NOT constitute' a
project review. This search only identifies' resources recorded at the Florida Master'
Site File' and 'does NOT ,provide project 'approval from the Division of Historical
Resources. 'Contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical
Resources at 850-245-6333 for project review information'.
March 14, 2017 '"Florida
WMaster Site.^
Debra London File
Monroe County Engineering Department
102050 Overseas Highway, Suite 229
Key Largo, Florida 33037
Phone: 305.453.8754
Email: London-Debra(aD,monroecounty-fl.gov
In response to your inquiry of March 14, 2017, the Florida Master Site File lists no previously recorded
cultural resources found in the following parcels of Monroe County:
The portions of Township 66S Range 28E Sections 29 and 30, shown within the outlined area on the
corresponding map.
When interpreting the results of our search, please consider the following information:
• This search area may contain unrecorded archaeological sites, historical structures
or other resources even if previously surveyed for cultural resources.
• Because vandalism and looting are common at Florida sites, we ask that you limit
the distribution of location information on archaeological sites.
• While many of our records document historically significant resources, the
documentation of a resource at the Florida Master Site File does not necessarily
mean the resource is historically significant.
• Federal, state and local laws require formal environmental review for most
projects. This search DOES NOT constitute such a review. If your project falls
under these laws, you should contact the Compliance and Review Section of the
Division of Historical Resources at 850-245-6333.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding the results of this search.
Sincerely,
Alannah Willis
Archaeological Data Analyst
Florida Master Site File
Alannah.Willis@dos.myflorida.com
500 South Bronough Street • Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 www.flhentage.com/preservation/sitefile
850.245.6440 ph 1 850.245.6439 fax SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us
Application Question E9
SGAI;eUJG;IV uoi;e:podSUeJ-L LWZ : GLOZ) UOI;oeuuo:D oofpn:D 1H0M=I-u0I;e3IjddV dV-L-LWZ :;uGwt43e;;v
12mo
Local office
South Florida Ecological Services Field Office
(772) 562-3909
(772) 562-4288
1339 20th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960-3559
https:././ecos.fws.gov./ipac/location/K3PSPHZFUZCEBAK6G2KGPW2XO4./resources 3/17./2017
Application Question E10
CL
E
0
0.
CU
r_
CU
0
CL
T-
m
C14
CO
(D
0
L)
0
0
0
�e
U-
CL
04
a
(D
E
nz rn�q y rn
U `v y t
a �
U 3
vY= yi
wz mm
a Td
O v >
a, o m
W
U7 z
cZWv
Q 2E - a
U E z
o z �c W
Jo Ro
oa I0
z o N
O w Ei o
_ T E w
n 2 E in`v
2E
w '
6E w
u m c U
0 W v
�U7 O �O
16
E
16
E
E
3
E
2
E
S
W
E
O
Application Question F4
CL
E
0
0.
CU
r_
CU
0
CL
T-
m
C14
CO
(D
0
L)
0
0
0
�e
U-
CL
04
a
(D
E
SGAI;eUJG;IV uoi;e:podsueJ-L LWZ : SLOZ) UOI;oeuuo:D oofpn:D 1HON=1-uO1;e311ddV c1V_L-LWZ :;uGwt43e;;V
From: Schemper-Emily
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 4.25 PM
To: London -Debra
Subject: FW- Access to Heritage Trail from Cudjoe Gardens
See below — Mr, Irnig's request, and also some correspondence with DER about their inability to do the project due to
funding, the designated FKOHT corridor, etc.
Emily Schemper, Ai
Comprehensive Planning Manager
Monroe County I Planning IS Environmental Resources Department
2798 Overseas Highway, State 400, Marathon, FL 33050
305.289,2506
From: Dr. David R Imig [rnailto:irnig(brnsu.edL
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 10:31 PM
To: Clarke -Judith
Subject, Fwd: Access to Heritage Trail from Cudjoe Gardens
Hi Ms. Clarke - This is David Imig from Cudjoe Gardens. I'm sure that Mr. Fate's email below will make sense
to you, at it says to me is that the concern of the residents of Cudjoe Gardens falls outside of their area of
responsibility as pertains to Cudjoe Garden residents accessing the Trail, Seems a bit strange to me given that at
one time some unit had plans for providing access. However, given Mr. Fate's suggestion to contact you, that is
what I am doing. Would there be a time that we could meet to discuss this matter. I would be more than willing
to contact George Neugent and discuss this matter if you think that would be helpful. I await your response.
Thank you. Regards, David Imig
Dr. David R. Imig, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
imig!q_msu.edt - i - 517-256-0654
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Pate, Eric" <Eric.PateP
,dep,state.fl.us>
Subject: RE: Access to Heritage Trail from Cudjoe Gardens
Date: February 1, 2017 at 4:25:23 PM EST
To: "imiggrmsti.eClu" <imig(cDmsu.edu>
Cc: "Murray, Sine" <Sine. Murrayqadep.state.fl. us>, "Matson, David"
<David. lMatEMn(&_deP.state.fl.us>, "Guarino, Michael" <Michael, GuarinoPdep,state,fl. us>, "Post,
James" <James, loostljc�dep.state.fl us>
ll�
UTNUT)
SGAI;eUJG;IV uoi;e:podSUeJ-L LWZ : SLOZ) U01;o9uuo:D oofpn:D 1H0N=1-u01;e311ddV dV-L-LWZ :;u8wt43e;;V
T
1pq
Thank you for your interest in the Florida Keys Overseas Heritage Trail. It's great to hear that people in the
neighborhood are thinking of ways to improve trail access.
From your analysis provided below, it seems that a sidewalk or other type of formalized path on the ocean side of US1
connecting Colson Dr., Sawyer Dr., and [frost Dr. with the FKOHT on the ocean side of US1 further to the south, would
improve neighborhood access to the trail.
In this instance, the designated FKOHT corridor does not connect to Colson Dr., Sawyer Dr., or [frost Dr. Since it does
not, we are not able to provide the requested bicycle and pedestrian facilities that would connect to street further to
the north.
I know that Monroe County has assisted with the development of a bike/ped path when the FKOHT is located on the
other side of US1 in Key Largo, as to what role they played, I'm not sure. Perhaps they can assist with the coordination
with FDOT.
Please consider attempting to get back in touch with Ms. Clarke to let her know that the proposed sidewalk would fall
outside of the FKOHT corridor.
Thank you for reaching out to us and please let me know if you do have anymore questions related to the FKOHT, I'd be
happy to help the best I can.
Office of Park Planning
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Recreation and Parks
enc,pate(Wep,state,fl.us
Office: 850.245.3057
Cell: 850.556.9724
From: Post, James
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 2:21 FRI
To: Dr. David R. Imig <imig@rnsu,ec1U>
Cc: Guarino, Michael <Michae1.Guarino@dep.state.fi.0 >; Matson, David <David. M atso n@ dep.state,fi. us> Murray, Sine
<Sine.MurraYPdep,state.f1,us>
Subject: RE: Access to Heritage Trail from Cucljoe Gardens
I have forwarded your request to the Office of Park Planning but based on our limited funding and extensive
FKOHT needs I strongly recommend pursuing this issue with Monroe County.
Application Question F6
CL
E
0
0.
CU
r_
CU
0
CL
T-
m
C14
CO
(D
0
L)
0
0
0
�e
U-
CL
04
a
(D
E
SGAI;eUJG;IV uoi;e:podSUeJ-L LW : SLOZ) U01;o9uuo:D oofpn:D 1H0N=1-u01;e311ddV dV-L-LWZ :;u8wt43e;;V
Local Agency Name MIKoe Co.no,
District 06
Welcome - DEBRA LONDON
F_rFDOLTN(
PPOC Name Judch Clarke
Lotcei Agency Update
LAP Agreement
APL06
'Acal Agency
LOCZ1 Agency ContractG r- m M5 Fef ,ta As
Select a Contract
Local Agency Contract Detail
.....................
Local
FDOT Project X
V Agency FDOT Project
Project Description
Federal AkM
AR-RA323B
Contract S a
1 APLGKO 426182-1-58-01
BAYPOINT BE *904140 AT PALM OR-VE ISADDLEBUNCH
Local Agency Contract 0
APUROD
KEY;,
Contracting Method
COOPETITWELY B D
APL7601 426182-1-68-01
BAYPOINT SIR *904140 AT PALM DRIVE ISADDLEEIVNCH
A of Bidders
KEY)
Local Agency Original Contract Amount
IL, An 54 3 Wr
APN7500 426355.1 E8.01
GEIGER KEY BR#9041 10 ON BOCA CHICA ROAD
Local Agency Current Contract Amount
> 13O.A113 00
4 APN7501 4215355,1-68-41
GEIGER KEY BRIMISN 10 ON BOCA CHiCA ROAD
Local Agency Landscape Amount
AQE31 430193-58-0
OLD AIR 940 LEG A BE, DGE* 904310 REHAB
Prime Contractor FIDO 4
592426906
AQE3101 430193-1-68-01
OLD ED 9411 LEG A BMDGEN 904311I REHAB
Prime Contractor Company Name
Charley Too pink, A $or,% Ink
AGOBO-38 431917-1-38-0 1
CARD SOUND RD BRIDGE OVER INURACCASTAL
WATER WY i BRIDGE 9 904996:
Prime Contractor Contact Name v.: _w Chamw Toplarm 8 Gone
AN 386 4280-64.1-38-01
AD 5 OVRSEAS HRT TRL & SCENIC HWY - VISTAS AT
DBEIMBE SMALL BUSINESS STA&OiDi
VARIOUS LOCATIONS
FDOT Notice of Concurrence to Advertise Date
AN Be 00 430121-2-58-01
NO NONE KEY BRIDGE BRIDGE4904320
Local Agency Advattist Date
OGI 0 WK)
ARD00-68 430121-2-58-01
NO NAME KEY BRIDGE BRIDGE4904120
Local Agency Planned Letting Date
ARP58 43551111-38-01
MONROo 'COUNTY LOWER KEYS SCENIC HOiHINAY
Local Agency Letting Dale
0:1012009
VIEWING AREA
FDOT Notice of Conmarmnce to Award Date
' ARCRI 4361566
PIGEON KEY RaUJPIBRIDGE* 904400 REHAB
Local Agency Contract Execution Dale
11 19-2005
00281 434689-1-58-01
ED GOVERSEAS HWY PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER
MARVIN D ADAMS',JVATERAWy
Local Agency Notice to Proceed Date
11 I S120O
G0281-CEI 434609-1-68-01
SR GICIVERSEAS HWY PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER
Local Agency Construction Begin Date
11. 30,1200")
MARVIN D ADAMS GIATERINAY
Local Agency Estimated Construction Complete Date
03MR2010
GG:26
GARRISON MGv.,r BRIDGE AT PALM, AVE It NO
Lso at Agency Actual Construction Complete Date
0542 Ar 2 0 t 0
ROOSEVELT BLVD form 904020
Questions us SASWPAns!
Please
FD9T TV
R� fl
Florida Department of Transporh.our Office of. nfor, Sysunra
Ransil Tootincam Probm les or the Sara ce, Back
I ,
1-866-955-4357
https-://www3.dot.state.fl.us/LocalAgencyProgram/LocalAgency.... 3/10/2017
FDOT Final Acceptance letter USI Shared Use Path
MEMORANDUM
Date February 25, 2016
To Ana Alvarez, District Six Federal Aid Coordinator
From Barbara Espino, District Construction Manager/Construction LAP Coordinator yf
Copies Mario Cabrera, District Construction Engineer; Ana. mari Martinez., District
Financial Services Manager; Aiah Yassin, District LAP Administrator; Debra London,
C,lark. Briggs, Judith Clarke, Monroe County, Brian Kelley, CEI; Construction Al)L
Audit Team, Project Files.
Subject Monroe County
CIGP - Bayside Trail, Key Largo (MM 99.8) to (MM 106.1)
Final Acceptance Memorandum
FM No.: 424197-2-58-01
FDOT Contract No.: A
Contractor: Construct Group Corporation
Attached please find the following documents indicating that the project has been completed,
accepted and in substantial completion:
* Final Material Certification
* Final Invoice with Project Certifications
Any pending invoices may be processed and accepted accordingly. Should you have any
questions, please feel free to contact my office at (305) 640-7405.
Attention: Barbara EQ14no FDOT District Construction Mangywer/Construction LAP Coordinator
wwor.dot. state. fl,us
Application Question G2
Project Cost Estimate
Item No.
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Extended Amount
101-1
Mobilization
1
LS
$ 37,500.000
$ 37,500.000
102-1
Maintenance of Traffic
1
LS
$ 10,000.00
$ 10,000.000
102-3
Comm Mat Drive Maintenance
50
CY
$ 30.00
$ 1,500.000
104-10-3
Sediment Barrier
1000
LF
$ 5.00
$ 5,000.000
110-1-1
Clearing/Grubbing
1
LS
$ 25,000.00
$ 25,000.000
110-4
Remove Exist Concrete Pave
20
SY
$ 84.00
$ 1,680.000
110-7-1
Mailbox F & I single
1
EA
$ 250.00
$ 250.000
120-1
Reg Excavation
1000
CY
$ 28.00
$ 28,000.000
120-6
Embankment
1000
CY
$ 20.00
$ 20,000.000
160-4
Type B stabilization 12"
1000
SY
$ 20.00
$ 20,000.000
285-701
Optional base group 1
200
SY
$ 20.00
$ 4,000.000
327-70-1
Mill Exist Pave
300
SY
$ 5.00
$ 1,500.000
334-1-13
Superpave Asphalt Traffic C
50
TN
$ 350.00
$ 17,500.000
337-7-32
Asphalt Friction Course Traffic CFC 9.5 Rubber
35
TN
$ 400.00
$ 14,000.000
425-1-521
Inlets DT Bot Type C
2
EA
$ 5,000.00
$ 10,000.000
443-70-4
French Drain 24"
40
LF
$ 300.00
$ 12,000.000
520-2-4
Concrete Curb Type D
50
LF
$ 36.00
$ 1,800.000
522-1
Con Sidewalk Ramps
50
SY
$ 86.00
$ 4,300.000
527-2
Detectable Warnings
65
SF
$ 66.00
$ 4,290.000
570-1-2
Performance Sod
5000
SY
$ 8.00
$ 40,000.000
580-1-2
Landscape Complete Large Plants
1
LS
$ 15,000.00
$ 15,000.000
706-3
Reflect Pave Markers
25
EA
$ 232.00
$ 5,800.000
700-1-11
Single Sign Post
4
AS
$ 674.00
$ 2,696.000
700-1-50
Single Sign Post Relocate
1
AS
$ 500.00
$ 500.000
700-1-60
Single Sign Post Remove
1
AS
$ 500.00
$ 500.000
711-11-123
Traff Stripe White 8"
106
LF
$ 10.00
$ 1,060.000
711-11-124
Traff Stripe White 12"
106
LF
$ 10.00
$ 1,060.000
Construction Estimate
$ 284,936.000
Environmental Assessment / Design
1
LS
$ 70,000.00
$ 70,000.00
Permits
1
LS
$ 500.00
$ 500.00
Construction Engineering and Inspection
Services
1
LS
$ 45,000.00
$ 45,000.00
$ 400,436.000
rounded to
$ 400,000.00
r�
CL
0
0
43
E
0
CL
cta
CU
r_
�S
0
CU
0
CL
eta
c14
co
c�
0
Qd
0
L)
0
0
C�
0
LL
8
0
CL
8
04
a
Q
E
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT VI
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020/2021
2017 Application Cycle
PROJECT SPONSOR: Monroe County BOCC
CONTACT PERSON: Chris Rivera TITLE:
Project Manager
ADDRESS: 1100 Simonton Street., Room 2-216
CITY / STATE / ZIP: Key West, FL 33040
PHONE: 305-292-4523
EMAIL: rivera-chris@monroecounty-fl.gov
Agency LAP Responsible Charge: tc; uw—
TITLE: cl'Ok he!� to t,xt
EMAIL:
FH1NE: oickher- tc, COr"t rfIxt
PROJECT SPONSOR'S LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM (LAP) CERTIFICATION STATUS'
El Not LAP certified, but will seek certification
X Currently LAP Certified / LAP certification date: 2009
PROJECT TITLE: Rowell's Waterfront Park
PROJECT LOCATION: 104550 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, FL 33037
ROADWAY NAME AND/OR NUMBER: Highway LIS1
PROJECT BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Create a walking/biking trail with bathroom and off street parking
FOR FDOT USE ONLY
Application Complete
OYES
El NO
Project Eligible
OYES
El NO
Implementation Feasible
OYES
ONO
Include in Work Program
OYES
ONO
1 All Agencies will be recertified according to the Local Agency Program Manual Chapter 2, for more details
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/oroararTirnanagemerttLAPJ_Cu reZp CHAPTER%202 2015.pdf
Page I of 7
Revised: November 2017
FD
Select the Transportation Alternative activity that the proposed project will address. Please select one activity that
represents the majority mfthe work proposed. Eligible activities must beconsistent with details described under 23
| U'S'C'101(e) (29) and 213(b).(woue:selecting more than one activity does not ensure o,increase eNm/b08ty')
1. IX Construction of on -road and off -road trail facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non -motorized forms of
transportation, including sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian and bicycle signals, traffic calming techniques,
lighting and other safety- related infrastructure, and transportation projects to achieve compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
2. Z Construction, planning, and design of infrastructure -related projects and systems that will provide safe routes or
for non -drivers, including children, older adults, and individuals with disabilities to access daily needs
3. El Conversion and use of abandoned railroad corridors for trails for pedestrians, bicyclists, or other non -motorized
Transportation users
4. M Construction of turnouts, overlooks, and viewing areas
S. 0 Community improvement activities, which include but are not limited to:
a\ O inventory, control, orremoval ofoutdoor advertising
b> LJ Historic preservation and rehabilitation ofhistoric transportation facilities
c\ LJ Vegetation management practices in transportation rights -of -way to improve roadway safety, prevent
against invasive species, and provide erosion control
d\ [] Archaeological activities relating to impacts from implementation of a transportation project eligible
under Title 23
6. [l Any environmental mitigation activity, including pollution prevention and pollution abatement activities and
mitigation to:
a) L] Address storm water management, control, and water pollution prevention or abatement related to
highway construction or due to highway runoff, including activities described in sections 133/bV11), 328(e),
and 329 ofTitle 23;or
b) El Reduce vehicle -caused wildlife mortality or restore and maintain connectivity among terrestrial or
aquatic habitats
7. [] SRTSprogram-e|i@ib|e projects and activities listed in section l4O4(f)ofthe SAFETEA-LU:
a\ [l Infrastructure -related projects
b1 [] Non-|nfrastrumture-re|atedprojects
c) LJ Safe Routes toSchool Coordinator
d\ El AnSRTSapp|icadonisattachedthisapp|ication-mnandatory
8' 0 Planning, designing, and constructing boulevard S2 and other roadways largely in the Right -of -Way of former
Interstate System routes or other divided highways
2 A boulevard is defined as a walkable, low speed (35 mph or less) divided arterial thoroughfare in urban environments designed to carry both through and local
traffic, pedestrians and bicyclists. Boulevards may uelong corridors, typically four lanes but sometimes wider, serve longer trips, provide pedestrian access mland,
may be high ridership transit corridors, are primary emergency response routes and use vehicular and pedestrian access management techniques. Curb parking u
encouraged.
Page 2nv7
Revised: November 20o
H.8.h
Liu I
Q. PROJECT DETAILS
1. Roadway Classification
State Roadway ❑ Federal Aid Roadwaya
El Local Roadway ❑ Other
0-
a
Project2. ii
cu
CL
Begin: July 2023 End: October 2024 Project Length: 18 months
<
E
3. Are the locationaerials c (required)? M Yes ❑ No
I�
�a
14. Provideidentify items attached: Attachment
as
® A more detailed scope of workis attached
cu
® Conceptual plans are attached tot is application
°
❑ Typical section drawings attached
a
5. Are therei r j c? El Yes No
a
If yes, are Design Plans updated to Current Standards and Existing Conditions? El Yes ❑ No
a) What are the dates of the Design Plans?
cu
b) Who is the Engineer of Record? Provide contact information: Click hereto enter text.
6. What is the ProjectSchedule? Attachment C
04
The schedule should include, at a minimum, consultant acquisition, plan preparation, environmental analysis and report
preparations, plans submittal, FDOT review of project documents and permit acquisitions. r
co
❑ A detailed project schedule is attached
0.
7. scrib the project's existingi ownerships. Identify i--acquired and how
ownership is documented(i.e. plats, deeds, prescriptions,certified , Attachment / Deed
L-
❑ Attached is documentation of any Right -of -Way ownership ocu entation
�a
+ Right -of -Way acquisition ? 0 Yes ® No
) If yes, describe the proposed acquisition, including expected fund sources, limitations on fund use or availability,
ir
and who will acquire and retain ownership of proposedRight- f- a4::?
I
Will temporary construction easements be required? El Yes No
0
If yes, please describe:
Cc
CL
entify any permits that mightrequired: Local permits will be obtained0.
❑ Please attach any copies of obtained permits
E. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
s https://www.fhwa.dat.gov/environment/transportation alternatives/guidance/guidance 2016.cfRecreationalTrails
4
All right-of-way acquisitions must comply with State and Federal rules, regulations and procedures.
Page 3 of 7
Revised: November 2017
Packet pg. 2094
H.8.h
FD
Coordination with the Federal Highway Administration and the State Historic Preservation Officer will be required by
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
0
1. Did your Agency perform an environmental assessment for the project? ® Yes
❑ No
. Does your Agency have a historic preservation planner? ❑ Yes
® No
0
CL
If yes, please provide contact information: cii, r< ner�, t() e �
. Is your proposed project located within or adjacent to a local) designated historic property or a National Register
p J J g p Y g
2
of Historic laces -listed historic site? ❑ Yes
No
CL
If yes, have any historic properties/places received Florida Department of State
E
Historic Preservation Grant funds? Attach any preservation agreements, ❑ Yes
❑ No
covenants, or easements related to these properties.
�a
as
. Are any archeological sites or Native American sensitive sites or areas located within or adjacent to your project?
C2
ElYes
No
°
If yes, please describe: cis, '..
0
. Has there been outside coordination with any Federal or State Agencies for this project?
❑ Yes ® No
CL
�a
If yes, please provide documentation and describe:CU
. Are there any parks, recreation areas or wildlife or waterfowl refuges? ❑ Yes
® No
If yes, please describe: corn ,here tr" eorei text
cis
LO
co
7. Are there any navigable waterways? ❑ Yes
® No
If yes, please describe: cli,:k here ro e? ext
om
oes the project have any wetland impacts? ❑ Yes
® No
If yes, will wetlands mitigation be needed? ❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes please describe: r 1i, !� ;,.e e "o ecter te;<r
�a
. Has your agency reviewed the project for potential protected species/ critical habitat impacts?
ElYes
No
0
8
if yes, please describe: c,'ick ircr;e ro paler rear
0
CU
1. Has your agency reviewed the project for potential contamination that could affect the area?
�s
ElYes
Z No
CL
<
If yes please describe: clirk hlxt
om
8
11. Are there noise sensitive areas? Yes
No
If yes, please describe: dick he;,,_, to eott.,, I-ext
E
F. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION INFORMATION
Page 4 of 7
Revised: November 2017
Packet Pg. 2095
Attach documentation requested below as Exhibits to this application. List Exhibits here: Click here to enter text.
1. Which project phases are included in this funding request?
[] Planning Activities [] Project Development &Environment
[] Study Preliminary Engineering/Final Design Plans Construction
Who is proposed %mexecute the following tasks mfthe Check all applicable boxes:
PLANNING
PD&E
DESIGN
ROW
CEI
• Applicant's Staff
E Applicant's Staff
El Applicant's Staff
0 Applicant's Staff
E Applicant's Staff
• Consultant
N Consultant
0 Consultant
ZConsultant
19 Consultant
Note: The Design consultant and Construction Engineering & Inspection (CEI) consultant shall not be the same if Federalfunds are granted and
usedfor either phase - Refer to Chapter 18 of the LAP Manua I requirements regarding the use of consultants.5
2. Are there any related project work phases that are already complete or currently underway? Please describe:
Preliminary engineering/Final Design Plans
N Previous seegments of this project were constructed as LAP projects or JPA under the following Financial
Management numbers: Design
ve any public awareness activities or community meetings been held? Yes No
|fyes, please describe and provide supporting documentation: Exhibit 1
4. Is there public and/or private support for the project, for example: petitions, written endorsements, resolutions,
letters of support, etc.)? N Yes El No
If yes, please describe and provide supporting documentation: Exhibit 2
5. What is the proposed maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the project when completed? Please
describe: Monroe County will maintain
there any other specific implementation information that should be considered?[] Yes N No
If yes, please describe and provide supporting documentation:
5 Refer to LAP manual at http�/jvvwvv.dot.state.1l.us/plgkE�mrnaiiagement/LAP/LAII, FOC.Shtrn
Page sovr
1. Attach a detailed cost estimate, broken down into FDOT typical pay items, to allow for verification of eligible
project costs. Provide an engineer's estimate using FDOT's Basis of Estimates Manualr. Include your basis/
reasoning justifying your cost estimate.
W A detailed cost estimate is attached
2. Provide a summary of estimated costs for the work being proposed
A detailed project cost estimate must be attached to this application
Planning Activities
Project Development & Environment Study (including environmental assessment for minor
improvements, including Programmatic & Type 1 Categorical Exclusions)
$22,000.00
kresign Costs/ Plans Preparation
$149,000.00
Permits (including application fees, mitigation and permit acquisition work)
Total Estimated icroject Cost
$1,346,000.00
TAP FUNDS REQUESTED
$ 1,000,000.00
PERCENT TAP FUND
100%
LOCAL FUNDS ALLOCATED
$ 247,000.00
PERCENT LOCAL FUND
(Vickhlrc �o %
TOTAL AMOUNT REQUESTED
$ Clic i( h u (,,, i tc,
TOTAL % ALLOCATION
Click
6 Use the following links to access the Basis of Estimates Manual as well as historical cost information for your area:
7 Please use FDOT Basis of Estimates Manual for your proposed project Basis of Estimates Manual
h1tp://wwxx.dot.state.Ous/prognammana0ement/Estimates/BasisofEstimates/BOEK8anua|/BOEOnUne2O16DRAF[shtm
8 FDOT does not allow programming for contingency costs. Any contingency costs should be accounted for using local funds.
Page 6m7
Revised: November 2017
FD
H. Certification of Proiect Sponsor
| hereby certify that the proposed project herein described issupported bv Monroe Counly
(municipal, county, state orfederal agency, ortribal council) and that said entity will: (1)provide any required funding
match (2) enter into a maintenance agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation; (3) comply with the
Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Acquisition Policies Act for any Right of Way actions required for the project,
(4) Comply with Local Agency Program Manual during all phases of the project, (5)comply with NEPAprocess prior tm
construction, this may involve coordination with the State Historic and Preservation Office (5HPO) prior to construction.
(Not at time of application) and (6) support other actions necessary to fully implement the proposed project.
I further certify that the estimated costs and/or failure to follow through on the project once programmed in the Florida
Department of Transportation's Work program included herein are reasonable. I understand that significant increases in
these costs could cause the project to be removed from the Work Program.
Name (please type or print): Chris Rivera
Signature -
Date: 3-29'2017
If you have any questions about this application or need assist a nce, please contact:
District Local Agency Program Administrator
Miami -Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization
Mayte Santanaria
Monroe County
Phone: (8O5)289-25D0
Email: Santa ma ria-Mayte@ MonroeCounty-FL.Gov
FDOT Local Agency Program Manual
Basis of Estimates Manual
Page rvfr
Ilk
de
A
>1
cu
County of Monroe
"lie Florida Keys
off„` ,co
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Mayor Heather Carruthers, District 3
y�RL• 1 .r mi
Mayor Pro Tern George Neugent, District 2
Y g g
Danny L. Kolhage, District 1
David Rice, District 4
Sylvia J. Murphy, District 5
Detailed Scope for Rowell's Waterfront Park.
Grant will provide funding for Phase 1 construction of 2.25 acre Overseas Hwy/Heritage
trail rest stop and vista to include:
1. Connect Walking/bike path to Overseas Heritage Trail.
2. Construct Off highway parking lot.
A. Parking lot to include ADA compliant parking.
B. Parking lot to have designated RV/Trailer spaces.
C. Parking lot to have limited lighting.
3. Rest Rooms.
A. ADA compliant rest rooms.
B. Drinking fountain.
C. Informational kiosk with lighting.
4. Landscaping.
A. Landscaping to include native and non-invasive
species.
Phase 2 will be funded through a separate grant.
V
I
M 1* 14
�t
rq W
rl r4 N 1, 0 0 r4 N M -4 r4
.0 N rq LO T-4
o o 0 0 0 0 0
F-
M M M M
P% r4 r4 r4 Cj
rq M M M N\\\ "® 't lzt lzT
N N M N LM 0 M M r4 "t r4 ti
N rq eq eq rq rN rj C4
1, M eq
rl w r4 0 0 Lf) -q 0
-, UD Ln Ln -� -� �q q -, -- " N 0
to c U:) 00 1.4 a) al --
rq rq rq QI w o o 0)
3: 22
LL. LL I.L. I-- F- F- > Li
LL F-
:I.
M 4A M m m m m m m Ln CA >
13 "a Cc M M
-0 0 0 u 13 Ln
r04 L n of r 4 voi !r I --* rl r04 VO4 No C04 � I �H rH Ln N T-1
li IN In ll� Lq
ri N In I rl . . . . . . ri I
74 r4 r1l N m m m m m 19t rr Rr � � Irr "I � mr -T
I
I
7R&C1110
December 19, 2013
u:SV1)rEMS�stilwd.largosum,is( a-mnuraccoumy(V 2-clean)
PREPARED BY:
Theodore R. Stotzer, Esq.
c/o 550 S.W. 12"' Street, Suite 550
Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442
Docu 1967520 02/04/2014 9:01AN
Filed & Recorded in Official Records off'
MONROE COUNTY AMY H6AVILIN
02/04/2014 9:01AM
DEED DOC STAMP CL: Krys $35,000.00
RECORD AND RETURN TO: Doc# 1967520
True Title Agency, Inc. Bk#1 2669 Pgq 1958
PO Box 420321
Surnmerland Key, FL 33042
File Number: 2013-458
Parcel Identification No. 00508200-000000, 00508210-000000
STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED
THIS STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED is made as of the S Q� day of ,
2013, by LARGO SUN VISTA ACQUISITION CO., LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
having its principal place of business at 550 S.W. 12"' Street, Suite 550, Deerfield Beach, Florida,
33442, hereinafter called the GRANTOR, to MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political
subdivision of the State of Florida, whose address is 1100 Simonton Street, Room 2-205, Key
West, Florida, 33040, hereinafter called the GRANTEE:
(Wherever used herein the terms "GRANTOR" and "GRANTEE"
include all the parties to this instrument and the heirs, legal
representatives and assigns of individuals, and the successors and
assigns of corporations)
WITNESSETH, that the GRANTOR, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN AND
NO/100 (SI0.00) DOLLARS and other valuable considerations paid, receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, alien, remise, release, convey and confirm
unto the GRANTEE, all that certain land situate in Monroe County, Florida, viz:
Tracts 1 and 2, HIGHLAND SHORES, according to the map or plat
thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 39, of the public records of
Monroe County, Florida.
Property Alternate Key Nos.: 1626015 and 1626023
This conveyance is subject to taxes for the year 2014 and all subsequent years; covenants,
conditions, restrictions, limitations, easements and agreements of record provided, however, that the
foregoing shall not operate to reimpose the same.
TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in
any way appertaining.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same unto the said GRANTEE in fee simple.
Dock) 1967520
Bko 2669 P90 1959
AND the GRANTOR hereby covenants with said GRANTEE that the GRANTOR is lawfully
seized of said land in fee simple and that the GRANTOR has good right and lawful authority to sell
and convey said land and that the GRANTOR hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will
defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the GRANTOR has caused these presents to be executed in its
name, by its proper officers thereunto duly authorized, the day and year first above written.
Signed, sealed and delivered
in the presence of-
Name:j
V- A
Name:
STATE OF tVj k (24kt. ', N )
COUNTY OF
LARGO SUN VISTA ACQUISITION CO., LLC
By: SVMG KEYS ACQUISITION CO., LLC,
The foregoing; instrument was sworn to and subscribed and acknowledged before me this
621 of j;�;� ., 201_�, by MARK A. PAPAK, President of SVMG KEYS
ACQUISITION CO., LLC, sole member of LARGO SUN VISTA ACQUISITION CO., LLC, on
behalf of said limited liability company. He is personally known to me or has produced
as identification.
K'MBA. PAPAK
KIMBERLY
Notary Puhiic - Michigan NOTARY PUBLic
Oakland County �. 1
My Comm. Expires August 19, 2017 Name: , rrl b r i t: �'F ,
MONROE COUNTY
OFFICIAL RECORDS
I& Terramar Environmental Services, Inc.
1241 Crane Boulevard
Sugarloaf Key, Florida 33042
' (305) 393-4200 terramar@bellsouth.net
Memorandum
Date: May 20, 2014
From: Philip A. Frank
To: Patricia Smith, Transportation Program Manager, Monroe County Public Works/Engineering
Re: Rowell's Marina, Review of Conceptual Redevelopment Plan and environmental and regulatory
considerations
The Rowell's Marina property includes tracts 1 & 2 of Highland Shores on Key Largo. The property is
approximately eight (8) acres and also includes two smaller tracts of sovereign lands (Parcel A-1 and B-1)
located along Florida Bay (Figure 1). The majority of the property is disturbed, developed uplands with a
includes a man-made boat basin and riprap revetments along the shoreline of Florida Bay. The property
was recently purchased by Monroe County and will be developed as a public park facility.
At the request of the Monroe County Engineering Department, we evaluated the environmental regulatory
requirements associated with implementation of various options described in the Conceptual
Redevelopment Plan, Option "F", for the Rowell's Marina property prepared by E-Sciences and dated
November 08, 2013. The objective of the analysis was to identify the environmental restrictions and
permitting requirements associated with proposed shoreline and basin improvements identified in the
Conceptual Redevelopment Plan and site reviews with Monroe County staff.
A site review was conducted with Patricia Smith, Transportation Program Manager, Monroe County
Public Works/Engineering on April 30, 2014. The shoreline portions of the site were inspected and
various components of the Conceptual Redevelopment Plan as well as other potential shoreline
improvements discussed. The focus of the site review was on shoreline and basin improvements as the
remainder of the site is disturbed uplands with minimal environmental restrictions.
In assessing the impact of environmental regulations on the development potential of the property, the
primary regulations referenced were the Monroe County land Development Regulations, specifically
Chapter 118 -Environmental Protection. Regulations established by the South Florida Water Management
District (SFWMD), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) are also relevant to this property, however it is acknowledged that Monroe County
regulations regarding shoreline development are generally the most specific and restrictive.
Site Conditions
The site conditions of the property were evaluated and the following general areas along the shoreline
identified for consideration (see attached site photos):
Family Beach : There is an existing "beach" area located along the southern end of the property adjacent
to Florida Bay identified as the Family beach on the Conceptual Redevelopment Plan. This area is
approximately 75' along the shoreline of Florida Bay and is a sandy/rocky shoreline with a gentle transition
into adjacent shallow waters. The area is low in elevation with sparse vegetation including scattered
Page 2 of 12
buttonwood and Australian pine. We believe the area to be an upland habitat type, however the area does
exhibit characteristics of disturbed wetlands, with low elevation and wetland plant species present (e.g.
Conocarpus erectus, Paspalum vaginatum, Borrichia fi^utescens), However, the lack of apparent
hydrology and the presence of non-hydric soils suggests the beach area would not be classified as a
wetland habitat type. Verification as to the status of this area as a disturbed salt marsh wetland with the
State of Florida (SFWMD or FDEP) should be conducted in order to establish the legal status of this area.
South Basin Wall: The southern wall of the boat basin extends appx. 95 feet and forms the southern limit
of the basin. This section of the basin shoreline is densely vegetated with red mangroves along its length
forming a continuous mangrove fringe composed of relatively mature mangroves.
South Jetty: The South jetty extends appx. 160' along Florida Bay and forms the southern boundary of
the basin abutting the bay. The South jetty is composed of limestone riprap and supports sparse to
moderate mangrove growth along its length. The mangroves along the South jetty include larger clusters
of relatively mature red mangroves interspersed with open areas along the riprap.
North Jetty: The North jetty extends appx. 190 feet along Florida Bay and forms the northern boundary
of the basin abutting the bay. The North jetty is composed of limestone riprap and supports sparse red and
black mangrove growth along its length. Mangroves on the North jetty are uniformly small in stature and
widely scattered.
North Basin Wall: The North basin wall is approximately 80' in length and forms the northern limit of
the basin. The North basin wall is composed of small limestone riprap and flowable fill forming a
continuous bulkhead.
Inland Basin Wall: The Inland basin wall forms the interior limit of the basin and is composed of a
concrete cap extending over the northern 280' of the basin interior. The southern 120' of the basin interior
wall is a vertical cut into caprock with no improvements. There are no mangrove resources or wetlands
along the northern 280' section and only a small amount of vegetation present in the southwest corner of
the basin where the interior wall meets the south basin wall.
Small Pond: The small pond is a shallow man-made tidal pond appx. 60' x 35' and 2,000 sf in area and 1-
2' in depth. The pond it tidally connected to the basin by a small culvert (and possibly to Florida Bay
beneath the boat ramp). The pond supports small red and black mangroves and buttonwood along the
shoreline, and small amounts of Shoal grass ( a seagrass) were observed in the pond. No fish were
observed in the pond, however the area is accessible to the basin via the culvert. Due to the small area,
limited flushing ability and shallow water depths, water temperatures in the pond are subject to extremes,
likely becoming quite hot in the summer.
Boat Ramp: A 15' wide boat ramp is present at the northern extent of the property, adjacent to Florida
Bay.
Basin: The boat basin is appx. 400' x 90' in area and based on limited investigation, is in excess of 20' m
depth. A 50' wide access channel extends appx. 50' into Florida Bay. Based on the depth of water and
limited flushing in the basin, it is unlikely that seagrass resources are present within the basin.
Conceptual Redevelopment Plan Components
Boat Slips - The development of boat slips within the boat basin would require permitting through the
County, SFWMD/FDEP and USACE. Because the improvements indicated in the Conceptual
Redevelopment Plan are limited to boat dockage and do not include dry storage and commercial facilities,
these improvements would not be considered a marina by the County definitions. The basin has adequate
water depths and development of boat dockage would be allowed. It is anticipated that benthic resources
Page 3 of 12
(e.g. seagrasses or corals) are absent or minimal within the basin, thus environmental restrictions on the
development of the vessel docking facility would not pose an obstacle. The development of boat slips for
dockage should be a straightforward permitting process.
Perimeter Walkway - The Conceptual Redevelopment Plan identifies a walkway extending around the
perimeter of the basin, including an elevated section built over the jetty riprap revetment/breakwater as
well as the upland sections along the inland basin seawall. Construction of the walkway along the interior
basin will have negligible environmental impacts and will not be difficult to permit.
The walkways over the jetties will be more complicated as mangroves are present along the jetties. The
North jetty supports relatively sparse, low stature mangrove growth and impacting these mangroves, if
necessary to construct the walkway, would be allowable under County, State and Federal regulations with
appropriate design, justification and mitigation. Mitigation for mangrove impacts is based on square foot
impacts using various models to determine the final mitigation fees, and judging from the limited
mangrove growth on the North jetty, mitigation fees would not be excessive.
Development of walkways over the South Basin Wall and South jetty are greatly complicated by the
presence of well -developed mangrove growth along the shoreline of the basin and along the jetty. The
environmental justification for impacting these mangroves will be difficult to establish considering that
there are viable alternatives that provide for public use while still preserving these larger more functional
mangroves. Justification of environmental impacts through avoidance and minimization analysis is a
requirement for State and Federal permitting when impacting coastal mangroves.
As an alternative to a marginal walkway around the basin along the southern basin wall and over the South
jetty would be construction of a pile -supported floating dock located along the inside edge of the basin.
The advantage of this design is that it would allow access around the basin for boat docks and public
access and could be constructed with minimal impacts to the mangroves, basically pruning of lateral
branches in most cases. Pruning of mangroves in man-made boat basins is an allowable action that is
relatively easy to permit through FDEP.
Basin Backfill and Re -Configuration - The Conceptual Redevelopment Plan identifies backfilling a
portion of the basin at the southern end to expand the Family Beach area, resulting in the elimination of a
section of the South jetty and a reduction in the overall size of the boat basin. Backfilling of man-made
basins is generally an allowable activity as deep basins are known for being sources of poor water quality.
In addition, seagrass resources in the deep portions of the basin are unlikely to be present. Permits to
backfill any portion of the basin would be required from the State of Florida (FDEP / SFWMD) and
USACE, as well Monroe County.
One potential downside to backfill of the southern portion of the basin would be impacts to shoreline
mangrove resources. The mangroves at the southern end of the basin along the South basin wall and also
along portions of the South jetty are relatively mature and would require permits for removal with a
mitigation requirement. The environmental justification for removal of these significant stands of
mangroves could also be difficult to justify. A defensible reason for removal of the mangroves would need
to be developed along with a consideration of project alternatives and an analysis of avoidance and
minimization measures that were considered. The fact that the property already has significant upland area
as well as reasonable access to the water does not support a needs analysis for backfill of the basin and
removal of the mangroves. That said, with proper documentation and justification, permits from
FDEP/SFWMD and USACE could potentially be obtained for the elimination of the mangroves in
association with backfill of a portion of the basin.
The configuration of the access channel and basin entrance should not be modified. The existing access
channel and basin entrance is located in a dredged area and boat traffic should remain focused in this
Page 4 of 12
deeper area. Any relocation of the basin entrance away from the current location would direct boats into
shallow areas of seagrass and/or hardbottom habitat.
Family Beach Area - The area identified as the Family Beach on the southern end of the property could
be improved and enhanced to establish a "perched beach" similar to the public beach area at Founder Park
in Islamorada. The area is historically not a natural beach, therefore placement of beach sand would need
to be "perched" above the shoreline and retained in a manner that would prevent migration into the
adjacent waters. Additional shoreline development including gazebos would need to conform to Monroe
County requirements regarding shoreline setbacks and accessory structures along shorelines. Removal of
any non -mangrove vegetation in this area would be regulated by Monroe County and a vegetation survey
would need to be prepared as part of the application for development.
As discussed above in site conditions, the general area is low in elevation and has characteristics of
disturbed wetlands with low elevation and some facultative wetland species present. Verification as to the
status of this area as a disturbed salt marsh wetland with the State of Florida (SFWMD or FDEP) should be
conducted in order to establish the legal status of this area. If portions of the area are determined to be
disturbed wetlands, this does not preclude development including placement of sand. Permits for
development in highly -disturbed salt marsh wetlands are generally straightforward to obtain. That said is
it our opinion that the area inland from the Family Beach is not a wetland as it lacks appropriate hydric
soils and evidence of hydrology.
Small Pond - The small pond presently serves minimal ecological function; the area is small, fragmented
and surrounded by development, and has a minimal hydrological connection to the basin. The mangroves
present along the perimeter of the pond are small and poorly developed. Seagrass resources in the pond
are minimal and likely ephemeral depending on season. The Conceptual Redevelopment Plan identifies
elimination of this small pond to establish shoreline amenities. Elimination of the pond will greatly
expand the useable area in the vicinity of the pond as Monroe County requires setbacks from man-made
water bodies "including manmade canals, channels, and basins" that further limit improvements in the
vicinity of the pond.
Elimination of the pond would require FDEP/SFWMD and USACE permits, as well as permits from
Monroe County. Because the resource values in the pond are low and the area small, obtaining permits for
elimination of the pond for a public purpose should be relatively easy to obtain with appropriate design,
justification and mitigation. Monroe County allows filling of man-made ponds such as this per the
provision if "the county biologist determines that such filling will not have a significant adverse impact on
marine or wetland communities".
Boat Ramp - The Conceptual Redevelopment Plan identifies improvements to the existing boat ramp to
establish a water access area and kayak launch area. Elimination of the boat ramp and restoring a sloped
contour of the shoreline would allow for improved water access. Alternatively, the boat ramp could be
rehabilitated and improved as a kayak launch while retaining the footprint of the structure and adding
stairs, railings or other safety improvements.
The removal or repair of the boat ramp would require permits from FDEP an d the USACE, but these
authorizations are generally easy to obtain when the existing structure is in place and functional.
Water Observation Platforms - hi order to provide for public access to Florida Bay and develop a unique
water -based recreational opportunity on the property, the addition of water observation platforms was
discussed. Water observation platforms are basically elevated walkways with terminal platforms for
recreational use, but with a prohibition on mooring of boats. Water observation platforms are generally
developed in areas where water access is desired and boat mooring is prohibitive due to water depth, or is
not desired.
Page 5 of 12
Monroe County has specific standards for the development of water access structures:
• Oriented approximately perpendicular to the shoreline;
• Designed to terminate in water no deeper than six inches at MLW or begin the terminal platform
no farther than ten feet beyond the waterward extent of mangroves;
• Designed so that the top of the decking is elevated at least five feet above MHW. A ladder or
steps may be added for swimming access only in the absence of seagrasses or hardbottom
communities;
• Designed with a terminal platform that does not exceed 160 square feet. The terminal platform
may include a non -enclosed gazebo that does not exceed 100 square feet in area;
• Designed with handrails and designated by signs that state: "No Mooring of Motorized Vessels
Allowed."
In addition to Monroe County requirements, permits from the State of Florida (FDEP, SFWMD) and
USACE will be required. State permits may require submerged lands authorization in addition to
regulatory approval, and factors including the Public interest will be evaluated. Given that this is a public
park facility, we do not anticipate difficulty in justifying the public purpose and benefit. Mitigation for
minimal anticipated impacts to benthic habitat mat be required depending on the specifics of the structures
and their locations.
The exact number and configuration of potential water observation platforms was not discussed, but 1-2
structures along the North and South jetties, and possibly one near the boat ramp, would be a great asset
for the property and allow the public to appreciate and access Florida Bay with an un-obstructed view
(Figure 2). There are existing gaps in the mangrove cover along the South jetty that would allow
construction of water observation platform walkways to occur without impacting mangroves.
Suggested Basin / Shoreline Enhancements
Channel markers - The entrance channel to the basin could be fitted with a set of gated channel markers
to clearly identify the access channel and entrance and also to support regulatory signage regarding the
status of the park. Permits for channel markers are relatively easy to obtain and require regulatory
approval through the U.S. Coast guard and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
Flushing cuts / culverts - Tidal flushing and enhancement of water quality in the basin could be improved
through the installation of two (2) flushing cuts or culverted connections in the corners of the basin facing
Florida Bay. Two connections in either seaward corner would greatly improve flushing and the
hydrological and biological connections between Florida Bay and the basin and result in a net overall
improvement of water quality within the basin. This could be a relatively low cost environmental
enhancement involving simple removal of riprap and placement of pre -cast culverts. Sizing and design
inverts for the hydrological connections can be calculated by a civil engineer. Permits for this
enhancement would be easily obtained as a net improvement to water quality would be realized.
Mangrove maintenance - In order to preserve the impressive views of Florida Bay, trimming of the
shoreline mangroves should be implemented. Left un-maintained, the shoreline mangroves will increase
in height and depts along the shoreline, eventually impacting the viewscape. To lose the impressive views
of Florida Bay at this location would be a disappointment. Permits to trim mangroves are easily obtained
through FDEP and the work can be performed by local Professional Mangrove Trimmers.
Recommendations for Short Term Actions
The following are recommendations for short-term actions to improve the property and prepare for a more
comprehensive improvement program:
Page 6 of 12
• Coordinate with FDEP on the status of disturbed wetlands on the property. As discussed above,
there are areas in the vicinity of the Family Beach that have characteristics of disturbed wetlands.
FDEP should be consulted through the informal wetland delineation process to establish the status
of any questionable areas.
• Regulatory approval from FDEO and USACE to fill in the Small Pond should be obtained. This
will involve the preparation of permit applications and coordination with agencies as needed to
obtain permits. Wetland fill permits can be a lengthy process, and starting this process early will
avoid delays later during master plan implementation.
Approval from FDEP to maintain the mangroves along the shoreline of the property should be
obtained. FDEP is the sole agency regulating trimming of mangroves. As stated above,
maintenance of an un-obstructed view of Florida Bay is a priority on this property. Obtaining a
mangrove trimming authorization from FDEP in the short term will allow the County to maintain
the mangroves to acceptable heights and avoid future issues where mangroves increase in height
without maintenance.
Figure 1. Limits of the Rowell's Marina property, Mile Marker 104, Key Largo
Page 7 of 12
Figure 2. Conceptual view of shoreline enhancements discussed during the site visit, April 30, 2014.
Page 8 of 12
Photo of the "Family Beach area showing the cleared shoreline with rocky beach adjacent to Florida Bay.
Photo of the beach area showing vegetation upslope of the beach area. This vegetation is typical of disturbed areas
and includes a mix of non-native and native plants.
Page 9 of 12
Photo of the South basin wall and a portion of the South jetty showing the well -developed mangrove fringe along the
South basin wall.
Photo of the entrance to the basin and portions of the North and South jetties. Smaller mangroves on these jetties are
visible in the photo.
Page 10 of 12
Photo of the northern portion of the interior wall of the basin showing the existing bulkhead.
Photo of the southern portion of the interior wall of the basin showing the un-improved shoreline. The mangrove
fringe along the South basin wall is visible in the background.
10
Page 11 of 12
Photo of the North jetty showing the scattered, low -stature mangroves growing on the jetty.
Photo of the North basin wall. A portion of the small pond is visible to the left in this photo.
11
Page 12 of 12
Photo of the small pond showing mangroves along the pond perimeter.
Photo of the boat ramp.
12
Parks and Recreational Advisory Board (PRAB)
Special Meeting — Rowell's Marina
Meeting Summary — October 7, 2013
Murray Nelson Govt. and Cultural Center, Key Largo, Fl.
Members Present: Commissioner Present: Sylvia Murphy
Steve Miller, Chairman
Dr. Jim Boilini, Co-Chair/Member
Staff Present:
Roman Gastesi, County Administrator
Kevin Wilson, Public Works & Engineering Division
Rosa Washington, Staff Liaison to Board
Robert Glassmer, Building, Parks and Beaches
Guests Present:
Members of the local community and other interested parties, please see attached sign in sheet.
Approximately 50 attendees. A copy of the meeting recording is available upon request.
Meeting
Call to Order: Chair Miller called the meeting to order at 6:00pm. No quorum present.
Self -Introductions
Chair Miller welcomed all to the meeting, introduced Co -Chair Boilini and Commissioner
Murphy.
Chair Miller explained that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board is an advisory board taking
input from the community, making sure that the Commissioners hear the recommendation(s) of
the community.
Mr. Gastesi expressed his welcome to the group and shared that he had a short presentation for
the group.
Chair Miller yield the floor to Mr. Gastesi.
Mr. Gastesi started his presentation by sharing that Monroe County has a tentative agreement for
$5,000,000, with the current owners of Rowell's Marina, contingent on a clean title, clean
environmental assessment and an operational plan which was something that was added by his
bosses, the Commission. The Commission has asked for an operational plan within 90 days, and
the seller has agreed to wait until all requested items are in place.
Mr. Gastesi explained that operational plan is something that he and the BOCC do not really
know what it will look like because it is something that has never been done before in his
U:\Public Works\Solid Waste\Parks & Rec Board.3\Park and Rec\RowellsWeeting Summary 100713Rowells.doc
Page 1 of 4
Parks and Recreational Advisory Board (PRAB)
Special Meeting — Rowell's Marina
Meeting Summary — October 7, 2013
Murray Nelson Govt. and Cultural Center, Key Largo, Fl.
County. The operational plan should show the Commission that this property should sustain
itself, and it is not going to cost the County a lot of money to operate. The charge that has been
given to the PRAB is to help come up with ideas that can help this property sustain itself. Ideas
were submitted to Mr. Gastesi and were incorporated into his presentation.
Mr. Gastesi stated that the idea is to bring to the table such ideas as public/private partnerships,
clubs, whatever will help to enhance the property to the community's liking, without costing the
County a lot of money.
Mr. Gastesi yields the floor to Mr. Wilson for his report on the property, and said that he would
answer any questions as the meeting progresses.
Environmental Assessment
Mr. Wilson stated that a Level 1 environmental assessment was completed and the property has a
clean bill of health, no Level 2 assessment recommended. There was an environmental
assessment done about 5 - 6 years ago which stated that the only potential liability of the
property were two above -ground storage thanks that have not been used in a long time, are still
on the property and will be removed. There is no evidence of any spillage from the tanks, even
with all the community events and parking.
Mr. Wilson went on to explain that Level 1 assessments normally looks for ground oil spills,
below ground storage tanks, and none of those things were found on that property. The only
things that were pointed out were a couple of oil spills that occurred within half mile of the
property and have no significant bearing on this property.
Co -Chair Boilini stated that he has a copy of the environmental report if anyone wants to see it.
Presentation
Mr. Gastesi suggested that Mr. Wilson review with the group unsolicited ideas received from the
public and interested parties in the last couple of weeks.
Some of the ideas are:
Big open green space, parking, marina, some facility out by the highway, converting area to the
left of the marina to a beach.
Tents for community events, small tents for individual concessions.
Upgraded boat ramp.
Destination casino plus other concessions.
U:\Public Works\Solid Waste\Parks & Rec Board.3\Park and Rec\RowellsWeeting Summary 100713Rowells.doc
Page 2 of 4
Parks and Recreational Advisory Board (PRAB)
Special Meeting — Rowell's Marina
Meeting Summary — October 7, 2013
Murray Nelson Govt. and Cultural Center, Key Largo, Fl.
Keep area as open air festival.
Mr. Gastesi remarked that only half of the property was being shown in the presentation for open
space because in the past that is what has been used when it's been leased, about 3 '/z to 4 acres.
Co -Chair Boilini asked, "How many acres total are in the property? How many acres north of
the road?"
Mr. Wilson responded that the property is about 8 acres distributed about evenly between the
north and southern half of the property. Most festivals use only the northern half for the big
things and US 1 southern half for parking; the southern side by the water tends not to be used for
anything.
Mr. Gastesi shared with the group that as part of the contract one of the things that will have to
be figured out is what to do with the floating docks on the property.
Florida Community Trust funds will not be used for this property; it will be Florida Infra-
structure Sales Tax funds will be used for this property.
Co -Chair Boilini explained that Florida Community Trust funds were used to purchase Key
Largo Community Park, and those funds are somewhat restrictive as to what activities you can
have at the property. So, if you want to have for -profit vendors/concessions and as much activity
as possible at that property then, the best thing is to stay away from those types of funds.
Mr. Wilson stated that with certain permits the Florida Community Trust will allow the
community to do certain events or activities.
Mr. Gastesi explained that the State of Florida sales tax is six percent; in Monroe County we
have an additional one cent Infrastructure Sales Tax, plus an additional half a cent for the school
capital fund, that's what makes our local sales tax seven and a half per cent. In November 2012,
the Infrastructure Sales Tax was extended to 2033. So, 55-65% of the five million dollars used
for the purchase of Rowell's Marina are from taxes paid by visitors, which gives the County a
good bang for our bucks.
There was a question from a meeting attendee as to how quick the County would recoup the
funds.
Mr. Gastesi stated that there is a question as to whether it is possible to recoup the five million
dollars or not.
Mr. Gastesi feels that done correctly the five million dollars can be recouped, but it may take
twenty to thirty years, it depends on what the County and residents want to do with the property
He believes that as an asset it can be done.
UAPublic Works\Solid Waste\Parks & Rec Board.3\Park and Rec\RowellsWeeting Summary 100713Rowells.doc
Page 3 of 4
Parks and Recreational Advisory Board (PRAB)
Special Meeting — Rowell's Marina
Meeting Summary — October 7, 2013
Murray Nelson Govt. and Cultural Center, Key Largo, Fl.
Mr. Gastesi also explained that Commissioner Carruther's concerns is that she does not want to
see the money go towards building boat ramps, restaurants and other amenities that the public
wants. Commissioner Carruthers believes that anything done at that property the County should
be able to recuperate over time.
Mr. Gastesi suggested that the County/residents may want to consider becoming more
enterprising in having people and organizations pay to use County owned land. There are other
communities have partnered with private entities to build amenities and make it more of a market
place.
Public Comments
Most comments were in support of the community friendly development of the property, with
green open space. Many of the attendees voiced the opinion that retaining an open view of the
water should also be a primary consideration in developing a plan for use of the property. Audio
is available upon request.
There were some concerns expressed by the representatives of Tamarind Bay Condominium
Association, Inc., Mr. Robert Stober, Esq., with Hershoff, Lupino & Yagel, LLP. Their concerns
were related to noise, lighting, security, traffic and future use of Rowell's boat ramp.
Misters Gastesi and Wilson assured the group that the County intends to be a good neighbor to
the best of its capabilities.
There were also some concerns expressed by attendees regarding taking the property off the tax
roll.
Mr. Gastesi informed the group that currently the County collects $10,800 per year. Depending
on how the County puts the business model together the County could collect substantially more
than $10,800. He further shared with the group that there is a tenant on the property that also
maintains the property and pays the current owner $1,000 a month.
Most of the meeting attendees agreed that it would be a great opportunity if that property would
have beach access.
Meeting adjourned at 7:48 PM.
Next meeting: Monday, November 4, 2013 (& Murray Nelson Govt. Center at 6:OOPM.
U:\Public Works\Solid Waste\Parks & Rec Board.3\Park and Rec\RowellsWeeting Summary 100713Rowells.doc
Page 4 of 4
Thoughts on the Purchase and Use of Rowell's Marina.
By Tim Bricker
30 year resident of the Upper Keys
852-4844; 766-0437; TBric52@aol.com
89 N. Bay Harbor Drive, Key Largo
Say NO to leasing a portion of the waterfront to private enterprise for development as a restaurant.
Why? Existing Key Largo restaurants do not need the County providing bargain terms to future
competition; said terms possibly including the provision of extending utilities to the site, at County cost,
favorable lease agreements, etc.; a structure of that type, requiring paved parking area, would partially
obstruct the bay view from the public.
Say NO to marina improvements that would facilitate over -night or in -water boat storage use. Why?
Again, it competes with existing private marine and in -water boat storage facilities; improvements
needed would be expensive, including but not limited to slips, dockage, boat ramp or hoist, bathhouse,
and dock master's building.
Say NO to building a fixed/permanent amphitheater. Why? A fixed/permanent facility, making use of the
natural terrain for seating, would end up partially obstructing the bay view. Event promoters can
continue to bring in portable stages, and the public can continue to bring folding chairs and blankets for
seating. A fixed/permanent facility, with ensuing maintenance, is an unnecessary expense.
Say Yes to General Site Improvements. These would include bathroom(s), electric and water utility
extensions, a playground, a running track, a picnic area with shelters, a dog park, and open areas for
recreational activities. The primary use of the site would continue to be special events sponsored by
local organizations. Fees collected would generally cover costs. The marina would need improvements
for day use, including installation of a boat ramp or hoist, along with a dock master's building. User fees
would generally cover costs. Public Works and/or the Parks & Recreation Departments could find some
use for the existing storage building, probably requiring some improvements.
Say YES to purchasing Rowell's Marina for $5 million. Cleared bayfront parcels of this size are rare. The
alternative (keeping it on the tax rolls) will someday (?) lead to a multi -family development. As a public
facility, will it generate revenue? Which County parks generate revenue?
The cost of removing existing hazardous materials should be the responsibility of the Seller.