Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Item D7
D.7 County ®1 �/�OI�®e �� c��' ° BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS lrl "' Mayor Sylvia Murphy, District 5 -Ile Inorida Keys Mayor Pro Tern Danny Kolhage, District 1 Michelle Coldiron, District 2 Heather Carruthers, District 3 David Rice, District 5 County Commission Meeting February 20, 2019 Agenda Item Number: D.7 Agenda Item Summary #5215 BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: Information Technology TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Alan MacEachern (305) 295-5110 TBD AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion and Direction Regarding a Privately Owned Tower Proposed to Be Built on Cudjoe Key to improve communications Keys wide for cellular service; Very high frequency (VHF); and Public Service Hand-held radios. ITEM BACKGROUND: The item was previously discussed as item D11 in the December 13th, 2017 BOCC meeting and then as part of item D13 in the May 16th, 2018 BOCC meeting and finally as item H5 in the November 20th, 2018 BOCC Meeting. During the November 20th, 2018 meeting, the BOCC directed staff to agenda a further discussion for the January, 2019 meeting in Marathon so the Board could obtain answers to questions posed in November. Staff has summarized that meeting and the email summary is attached. Further, staff has worked with the tower developer, the tower agent, and the Sheriff s Office to gather information to respond to the BOCC questions. The proposer requested a postponement to February, 2019 to give them additional time to respond to the BOCC questions. Staff has attached several documents provided by tower representatives. Additionally, Mr. Mark Pallans, who has consulted on behalf of the Sheriff s Office Public Radio/Tower network for many years will present a report on the public safety applications for the proposed tower. Mr. Pallans will also be available to answer additional technical questions that may arise during the discussion. The cost of that report and Mr. Pallans' travel fees are being split equally between the Sheriff s Office and the BOCC. The Tower Proposer, Mark Pallans and Monroe County Sheriff s Office will discuss the benefits of the proposed tower with regards to Public Safety. Packet Pg. 958 D.7 The Planning and Environmental Resources Department has provided a memorandum outlining the various Comprehensive Plan and Code amendments needed to allow the tower as proposed. There are two settlement agreements related to the property from previous uses and owners. Staff is working with the legal department to determine whether those two settlement agreements are binding on future development. The attached documents are labeled with a preface of May for documents included in the original May meeting, a preface of Nov for additional documents added for the November meeting and Feb for those newly introduced or updated for this meeting. Among the Feb attachments is the 2020 Strategic Plan: Community Input Report. In this report, communications ranked 96 out of 8 concerns. It was higher among lower keys than upper keys residents. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: During the December 131h, 2017 BOCC meeting, staff was directed to find appropriate expertise to validate whether the proposed tower would have solved communication issues post Irma. During the May 161h, 2018 BOCC meeting, Mr. Horan and Mr. Baker presented a desire to build the tower and their belief that it would benefit the county. The BOCC asked for a follow up agenda item in July in order to respond to that belief During the November 201h 2018 BOCC meeting, the proposed tower was discussed and the BOCC asked for a follow up agenda item in order to further discuss the benefits. CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: DOCUMENTATION: Feb - 2020 Strategic Plan Community Input Report Feb - 2020 Strategic Plan Priority Ranking and Raw Data Feb - Proposer Provided Sample Tower Commercial Costs Feb - Planning Env Resources Memo 2-5-2019 Feb - November Meeting Questions and Responses Feb - Pallans Associates Background 12-18 Feb - Mark Pallans Resume 2-19 Feb - Mark Pallans Report Feb - 5G Article Feb - ATT Press Release For Small Cell Deployment on BPK Feb - Proposer Provided Presentation Feb - Proposer Provided Renderings Feb - Proposer Provided Renderings Context Packet Pg. 959 0 Feb - Planning Memo Exhibits Feb - Proposer Provided FAA Approval 1049 Feb - Proposer Provided Cudjoe Key, FL - 700 MHz Coverage - 4 Sector Cellular (1,000' AGL) Feb - Proposer Provided Cudjoe Key, FL-700 MHz Coverag-4 Sector Cellular (350' AGL) No Skycell Feb - Proposer Provided Cudjoe Key FL-700 MHz Coverage-4 Sector Cellular (600' AGL) No Skycell Feb - Proposer Provided Cudjoe Key 900 coverage Feb - Proposer Provided Vhf Marine coverage Feb - List of Agencies Nov - Proposed Cudjoe Key Tower - Executive Summary Benefits May - Proposed Cudjoe Key Tower Talking Points - Proposer Provided May - Proposed Cudjoe Key Tower - site plan May - Proposed Cudjoe Key Tower - Marathon ASR Application A0871380 May - Proposed Cudjoe Key Tower - EMail Addendum May - Proposed Cudjoe Key Tower - December BOCC Meeting Request May - Proposed Cudjoe Key Tower - ASR Registration 1061464 May - New Tower Proposal Presentation May - New Tower Implementation in Monroe County FINANCIAL IMPACT: Effective Date: N/A Expiration Date: Total Dollar Value of Contract: N/A Total Cost to County: Current Year Portion: Budgeted: Source of Funds: CPI: Indirect Costs: Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts: Revenue Producing: Grant: County Match: Insurance Required: Additional Details: N/A REVIEWED BY: Alan MacEachern If yes, amount: Completed 02/05/2019 1:43 PM Packet Pg. 960 D.7 Assistant County Administrator Christine Hurley 02/07/2019 1:43 PM Emily Schemper Completed Christine Limbert Skipped Budget and Finance Completed Maria Slavik Completed Kathy Peters Completed Board of County Commissioners Pending Completed 02/07/2019 1:46 PM 02/07/2019 3:39 PM 02/07/2019 3:46 PM 02/08/2019 10:19 AM 02/07/2019 3:51 PM 02/20/2019 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 961 The greatest strength of the process is found in the number of participants and the opportunity provided to allow freeform feedback (rather than simply multiple choice from a preselected list). This qualitative data, while often unwieldy and certainly more time consuming to review, provides the deepest insight into our community's concerns and priorities. V. Key Findings - The 2017 community feedback highlighted the priorities of the community including the top concerns: • Traffic/Road Safety/Pedestrian Safety • Affordable/Workforce Housing • Growth Control/Overdevelopment/Lack of Open Space • Water Quality • Wind Insurance Rates In the months following Hurricane Irma, the Office of Strategic Planning (OSP) attended a variety of meetings with individuals and groups throughout the community. Additionally, the OSP assisted with the facilitation of six Emergency Management Townhall Meetings to discuss the response and recovery efforts. During these conversations with the public, additional priorities emerged. • Building for Resiliency • Hardening of Infrastructure including Cellular and Utilities • Monroe County Planning/Building/Code processes Overall Ranking of these Priorities during the 2018 Community Input Process: 2018 Ranking of Priorities by Respondents Affordable/Workforce Housing Growth Control/Overdevelopment/Lack of... Traffic on US 1 & Road Safety Water Quality Wind Insurance Rates - Building for Resiliency Hardening for Infrastructure such as Cell... Plan ning/Building/Code Compliance... 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 4 1 P a g e Ranked Priorities Community Responses Number 1 Priority as ranked by the Community in the Online Community Survey: GEC) #1 Affordable/Workforce Housing 150 34% Building for Resiliency 10 2% Growth Control/Overdevelopment/Lack of Open Space 111 25% Hardening for Infrastructure such as Cell Service and Utilities 19 4% Planning/Building/Code Compliance Processes 17 4% Traffic on US 1 & Road Safety 68 15% Water Quality 46 10% Wind Insurance Rates 20 5% 441 100% MK Affordable/Workforce Housing 39 34% Building for Resiliency 3 3% Growth Control/Overdevelopment/Lack of Open Space 30 26% Hardening for Infrastructure such as Cell Service and Utilities 1 1% Planning/Building/Code Compliance Processes 1 1% Traffic on US 1 & Road Safety 31 27% Water Quality 9 8% Wind Insurance Rates 2 2% 116 100% UK Affordable/Workforce Housing 66 25% Building for Resiliency 4 1% Growth Control/Overdevelopment/Lack of Open Space 83 31% Hardening for Infrastructure such as Cell Service and Utilities 4 1% Planning/Building/Code Compliance Processes 11 4% Traffic on US 1 & Road Safety 68 25% Water Quality 26 10% Wind Insurance Rates 7 3% 269 100% All Affordable/Workforce Housing 255 31% Building for Resiliency 17 2% Growth Control/Overdevelopment/Lack of Open Space 224 27% Hardening for Infrastructure such as Cell Service and Utilities 24 3% Planning/Building/Code Compliance Processes 29 4% Traffic on US 1 & Road Safety 167 20% Water Quality 81 10% Wind Insurance Rates 29 4% Total 826 100% 951Page Number 2 Priority as ranked by the Community in the Online Community Survey: GEC) #2 Affordable/Workforce Housing 80 8% Building for Resiliency 34 8% Growth Control/Overdevelopment/Lack of Open Space 70 16% Hardening for Infrastructure such as Cell Service and Utilities 43 10% Planning/Building/Code Compliance Processes 21 5% Traffic on US 1 & Road Safety 105 24% Water Quality 51 12% Wind Insurance Rates 39 9% 443 100% MK Affordable/Workforce Housing 29 25% Building for Resiliency 5 4% Growth Control/Overdevelopment/Lack of Open Space 23 20% Hardening for Infrastructure such as Cell Service and Utilities 7 6% Planning/Building/Code Compliance Processes 6 5% Traffic on US 1 & Road Safety 26 22% Water Quality 15 13% Wind Insurance Rates 5 4% 116 100% UK Affordable/Workforce Housing 18 7% Building for Resiliency 10 4% Growth Control/Overdevelopment/Lack of Open Space 63 23% Hardening for Infrastructure such as Cell Service and Utilities 15 6% Planning/Building/Code Compliance Processes 17 6% Traffic on US 1 & Road Safety 73 27% Water Quality 49 18% Wind Insurance Rates 24 9% 269 100% All Affordable/Workforce Housing 127 15% Building for Resiliency 49 6% Growth Control/Overdevelopment/Lack of Open Space 156 19% Hardening for Infrastructure such as Cell Service and Utilities 65 8% Planning/Building/Code Compliance Processes 44 5% Traffic on US 1 & Road Safety 204 25% Water Quality 115 14% Wind Insurance Rates 68 8% Total 828 100% 961 Page I Number 3 Priority as ranked by the Community in the Online Community Survey: GEO #3 K Affordable/Workforce Housing MK 50 11% Building for Resiliency 30 7% Growth Control/Overdevelopment/Lack of Open Space 50 11% Hardening for Infrastructure such as Cell Service and Utilities 56 13% Planning/Building/Code Compliance Processes 34 8% Traffic on US 1 & Road Safety 87 20% Water Quality 72 16% Wind Insurance Rates 58 13% 437 100% MK Affordable/Workforce Housing 9 8% Building for Resiliency 11 9% Growth Control/Overdevelopment/Lack of Open Space 24 21% Hardening for Infrastructure such as Cell Service and Utilities 8 7% Planning/Building/Code Compliance Processes 10 9% Traffic on US 1 & Road Safety 19 16% Water Quality 17 15% Wind Insurance Rates 18 16% 116 100% UK Affordable/Workforce Housing 29 11% Building for Resiliency 19 7% Growth Control/Overdevelopment/Lack of Open Space 37 14% Hardening for Infrastructure such as Cell Service and Utilities 22 8% Planning/Building/Code Compliance Processes 21 8% Traffic on US 1 & Road Safety 57 21% Water Quality 53 20% Wind Insurance Rates 32 12% 270 100% All Affordable/Workforce Housing 88 11% Building for Resiliency 60 7% Growth Control/Overdevelopment/Lack of Open Space 111 13% Hardening for Infrastructure such as Cell Service and Utilities 86 10% Planning/Building/Code Compliance Processes 65 8% Traffic on US 1 & Road Safety 163 20% Water Quality 142 17% Wind Insurance Rates 108 13% Total 823 100% 971 Page Online Community Survey Results for Top Priority: #1 Priority LK MK UK ALL Affordable/Workforce Housing 34% 34% 25% 31% Growth Control/Overdevelopment/Lack of Open Space 25% 26% 31% 27% Traffic on US 1 & Road Safety 15% 27% 25% 20% Water Quality 10% 8% 10% 10% Wind Insurance Rates 5% 2% 3% 4% Planning/Building/Code Compliance Processes 4% 1% 4% 4% Hardening for Infrastructure such as Cell Service and Utilities 4% 1% 1% 3% Building for Resiliency 2% 3% 1% 2% 100% 100% 100% 100% Online Community Survey Results Combined with Presentation Results for Overall Top Priority: #1 Priority ALL Oline Zeet AVG Affordable/Workforce Housing 31% 17% 24% Growth Control/Overdevelopment/Lack of Open Space 27% 14% 21% Traffic on US 1 & Road Safety 20% 17% 19% Water Quality 10% 15% 12% Planning/Building/Code Compliance Processes 4% 7% 5% Wind Insurance Rates 4% 11% 7% Hardening for Infrastructure such as Cell Service and Utilities 3% 9% 6% Building for Resiliency 2% 10% 6% Combined Total In Order: #1 Priority Planning/Building/Code Compliance Processes 5% Hardening for Infrastructure such as Cell Service and Utilities 6% Building for Resiliency 6% Wind Insurance Rates 7% Water Quality 12% Traffic on US 1 & Road Safety 19% Growth Control/Overdevelopment/Lack of Open Space 21% Affordable/Workforce Housing 24% 981Page D.7.c David P. Horan From: Frank DiRico <reefclanfd@aol,com> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2019 2:02 PM To: David P, Horan Subject: Re: Proposed Tower - Commercial Costs David, Depending on what they deside to install, priceing will will range from. Equipment if relocated from another site is close to $0 New antenna 12 dB omni around $4000.00 Installation buy current service provider should be around $12,000.00 Tower work not required due to elevator. Tower rent 2,500.00 per month for single frequency, Frank DiRico 1 South Pelican Drive Key Largo FI 33037 970-768-3000 -----Original Message ----- From: David P. Horan <dph@horanhiggins.com> To: reefclanfd <reefclanfd@aol.com>; marklbaker <marklbaker@mail.com> Cc: David P. Horan <dph@horanhiggins.cam> Sent: Fri, Dec 28, 2018 2:18 pm Subject: RE: Proposed Tower - Commercial Costs Where did he get those figures? Are they semi correct? David Paul David Pattl Reran, Esq. HORAN & HI GGIN S, LLP 608 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 (305) 294-458.5 (Teleplione) (305) 294-7822 (Faesimile) From: MacEachern-Alan [mailto:MacEachprn Aland MonroeCaunty_FL.Gov] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 5:50 PM Packet Pg. 967 D.7.d MEMORANDUM MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT To: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners Through: Emily Schemper, AICP, CFM Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources From: Brad Stein, AICP, Planning and Development Review Manager Mike Roberts, Senior Administrator of Environmental Resources Date: February 5, 2019 Subject: Proposed 970-Foot Tall Communications Tower, Blimp Road, Cudjoe Key, mile marker 21.3, Bayside, Parcel ID#s 00115940-000100 and 00115950-000100 Meeting: February 20, 2019 I REQUEST The County BOCC requested that staff review a request to construct a new 970-foot tall wireless communications tower on the property shown below, near Blimp Road on Cudjoe Key (Parcel ID#s 00115940-000100 and 00115950-000100. On December 19, 2018 (higher quality paper plan submitted January 28, 2019), the applicant submitted a boundary and topographical survey, dated 11/12/99; a conceptual site plan, dated 11/12/99; a site plan — close-up view, undated; and tower details, dated 9/l/99; for a 970-foot tower on the site (submitted drawings attached as Exhibit 1). Subject Property with Land Use District and Proposed Features Overlaid (Aerial dated 2018) Planning and Environmental Resources Staff Memo — Cudjoe/Dirico Tower — 2/5/2019 Page 1 of 22 Packet Pg. 968 D.7.d The purpose of this Memo is to review the proposed tower against the requirements of the Monroe County Land Development Code. II BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Address: Vacant Land, Blimp Road, Cudjoe Key Legal Description: That portion of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 66 South, Range 28 East, lying West of the State Road, Monroe County, Florida. Parcel ID Numbers: 00115940-000100 and 00115950-000100 Property Owner/Presumed Applicant: Frank Dirico, C/O Industrial Communications and Electronics Inc. Agent (for current discussion purposes): David Paul Horan, Esq Size of Site: Parcel 00115940-000100: 7.5 Ac of upland and 23.45 Ac of wetlands, Parcel 00115950-000100: 10.01 Ac of upland and 20.94 Ac of wetlands; according to Monroe County Property Appraiser's GIS Data. Land Use District: Native Area (NA), Industrial (I) and *Sparsely Settled (SS) Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Designation: Residential Conservation (RC), Industrial (I) and *Residential Low (RL) *Note The property does have a very small portion zoned SS with a FLUM of RL, this area is not being considered for any improvements. Tier Designation: I Natural Area Existing Use: Wetlands, Vacant land, borrow pit and storage Existing Vegetation / Habitat: Wetlands, Mangroves, Buttonwood, Scarified Community Character of Immediate Vicinity: surrounded by Wetlands. III RELEVANT PRIOR ACTIONS: A. In 1991, the owner at the time applied for a Boundary Determination to interpret the boundary of the Zoning map to include parcels with ID#s 00115940-000100 and 00115950-000100 in their entirety as Industrial Zoning, rather than partially Industrial, and partially Native Area, as currently shown on the zoning maps. The Planning Director denied the request and interpreted the boundaries to be partially Industrial, and partially Native Area, as currently shown on the zoning maps. B. On July 16, 1998 the owner at the time, Cudjoe Enterprises, Inc., entered into a settlement agreement ("1998 Cudioe Enterprises Agreement" — Exhibit 2) to allow continued mining operations for 10 years and approve a restoration/reclamation plan. All mining and restoration were to be completed within 10 years of the agreement. This agreement was between DCA, the County and the property owner. The agreement included a requirement to execute a Conservation Easement on the property. 1998 Cudjoe Enterprises Agreement Excerpts: Memo to BOCC Page 2 of 22 Proposed 970 Foot Tall Wireless Communications Tower Packet Pg. 969 6. Renewal of Permits, Mr. Dirico will maintain and renew all required County permits during the term of this agreement. 11. 1, ,-- r rt,:� ( on and I ( UIT''C nterpr;-.e� ha-q ai-7CC," 10 TIONIsc the restoration atJ rceimmfion plan incorporated .1 - I 1'." -c-- ,:6 res(oration ptu:i i L-dLiLU 1") v,2 k:realiwn of inn c 'tu:1 8.6 acres of en.: 1,71,-CF�Tj s�mies habir.v through rcmval of existing bernis and fffl to surrountfing O. Thk� I �--�:LAA JX;; O.L .' COE has irnposcd specLid conditions upon the peMhV pft"nit renewal, in 0 li-anon vAth wildlife agencies, which fink restoration performance standards to a ,'iaic\l to the � date of the regukitory permits. Ciidinc F-trc-pri.ws is ir� arc in additk)n to tfx pLnt:1-is pLn, re.iiired by zhe 1991. �Ctllin r -Ja Agreer.tnt (Atacuncn( 5 of Exbit 1). we in -bit Li,,�onporatcdi the 3 of I 6 BioLj, :V. [,-I: A :1 is hwded to and shaU creaft cov,_naziL fl-C 'jjjr:. Ulj S11,111 '% biT7; ;'.U-OCS, 1-4d S -1"g —r hy [`us'. ,c hnCrvr.:Ses 'I JC,Jjj - -1'17 7= -- and shall promptly _ " ,%- ncnc �i The pubw records of NLfoe Coi pToofiZ7 recordai ---c r. to NfO:Iroe Cn un"F and the L)epaztjj-tit, '11jejuding the official re.c-orO.-, --�of Of'FCCOrda'iOr v-nn,'- be :111. ! PRfle XVhCTL- thiS rccoried, T -d. (3 rw)stau cp g-Tal !CRTOC ov cxecting samc iChe County ILI - -',L '),I[LeL,01- 61Q' dl N1.13.17peincill, RrC&Md SC---ViCt CCII'tfrl 2-9S 400. NIL-z�ithei:. 1--.L-)r'1d-3 to the "LPIC le Depp-ninent ()Uk Doi-devard. TaVahLLs<ct, F'ur'thi ,%;-'1h a copy to Lhe LXA KeysFleld Officr, Nlarat'710111 Reflo7;fl Scrv cc Ccnlcr, -1-7 96 11,"ijiwav, Suite212, MarathoT4 FL 33050, Restoration Plan (5/12/1998) (included in Exhibit 2): An agreement was executed with DCA and Monroe County in 1991, in which planting of vegetation along the berm is required following closure of quarry operations. An engineering drawing showing how this would be implemented was submitted by the operator at the time, Tarmac, Inc., and was incorporated into the County records Memo to BOCC Page 3 of 22 Proposed 970 Foot Tall Wireless Communications Tower I Packet Pg. 970 D.7.d (Attachment 5). This plan calls for planting 170 native trees at 10 foot centers along the western berm and 85 native trees at 10 foot centers along the southern berm. On a March 31, 1998 site visit, it was agreed that the planting of native trees along the berm would be continued along the eastern berm, to provide a visual buffer from the adjacent roadway. Therefore, the following planting plan is incorporated in the restoration plan for the Cudj oe Key Quarry: Boundary Length in feet # of trees West 1000 100 South 835 85 East 2,170 217 Total 402 Trees planted will be no smaller than 3 feet in height, and will consist of Buttonwood (Cococarpus erecta) or Seagrape (Coccoloba uvifera) on the west and south berms. Jamaica dogwood (Piscidia piscipula), Catsclaw (Pithecellobium unguis-cati), and Blackhead (Pithecellobium guadalupense) are added to the list of tree species which may be planted on the east berm. The special conditions also provide for possible eventual complete removal of the berm to surrounding wetland elevations, or continued removal of exotic vegetation, following cessation of excavation or any other use of the property. 3. Cudjoe Enterprises will provide, within 60 days from the date of regulatory permit issuance, a legally sufficient conservation easement to ensure that the identified wetland areas will remain in their natural state in perpetuity. The conservation easement will encompass approximately 8.5 acres of natural and restored wetlands. These areas will not be disturbed whatsoever by dredging, filling, land clearing, agricultural activities, planting, or other construction work. the permittee agrees that the only future utilization of the preserved area in question will be as a purely natural area. The agreed restoration plan was never brought to completion. C. On December 2, 1999, the owner at the time, Frank Dirico (also the current owner), executed a conservation easement on the property ("Conservation Easement" - Exhibit 3). The easement was recorded on December 6, 1999 in Book 1607, Page 1083 of the Monroe County Records. 1999 Conservation Easement Ex This easement is granted pursuant to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) Permit No. 198501133 (IP-EJ), Florida Department of Environmental Protection Memo to BOCC Page 4 of 22 Proposed 970 Foot Tall Wireless Corrununications Tower Packet Pg. 971 D.7.d (DEP) Permit No. 44-0150416-001-ES and the Agreement among Cudjoe Enterprises, Inc., predecessor in interest to Frank Dirico, Monroe County, and the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) executed July 16, 1998. It is the purpose and intent of this Conservation Easement to assure that the subject lands will be retained and maintained forever in the natural condition existing at the time of execution of this Conservation Easement. To carry out this purpose, the following right is conveyed to the Grantee, the DEP, the DCA and the ACE by this conservation easement: to enter upon the property at reasonable times to observe and inspect the property and to enforce the rights granted herein upon prior oral or written notice to the Grantor, its successors and assigns, in a manner that will not reasonably interfere with the use and quiet enjoyment of the property by the Grantor at the time of entry. The following activities are prohibited on the property subject to this Conservation Easement: 1. Construction or placement of buildings, roads, signs, billboards or other advertising, utilities, or other structures on or above the ground; 2. Dumping or placing of soil or other substances or material as landfill, or dumping or placing of trash, waste, or unsightly or offensive materials; 3. Removal or destruction of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation; with the exception of nuisance and exotic plant species as may be required by Grantee; 4. Excavation, dredging or removal of loam, peat gravel, soil, rock or other material substance in such manner as to affect the surface; 5. Surface use except for purposes that permit the land or water area to remain predominantly in its natural condition; 6. Activities detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, soil conservation or fish and wildlife habitat preservation; 7. Acts or uses detrimental to such aforementioned retention and maintenance of land or water areas; and 8. Acts or uses detrimental to the preservation of any features or aspects of the property having historical, archeological or cultural significance. The Conservation Easement hereby granted and the obligation to retain and maintain the land forever predominantly in the vegetative and hydrologic condition as herein specified shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the grantor and its successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of the Grantee and its successors and assigns. Memo to BOCC Page 5 of 22 Proposed 970 Foot Tall Wireless Corrununications Tower Packet Pg. 972 D.7.d D. On December 6, 1999, a 380 Agreement was signed between owner at the time, Frank Dirico, and DCA ("1999 Dirico 380 Agreement" — Exhibit 4), to incorporate a communications facility into the 1998 Cudjoe Enterprises Agreement. This agreement effectively amended the terms of the 1998 Cudjoe Enterprises Agreement between the owner, DCA and the County; however, the County was not a party to the 1999 Dirico 380 Agreement, and therefore never agreed to the change in terms to the earlier agreement. 1999 Dirico 380 Agreement Excerpts: WI-IERF.AS, Mr. Dirico has purchased the subject property to install a communications facility, rather than to continue the historic quarry operations, and WIICRFAS, the completion of installation of the communications facility will provide a "passive" use for the property which will have much less impact on surrounding natural and inhabited areas than would the continuation of limestone mining activities, and WHEREAS, Mr. Dirico proposes to incorporate the communications facility into the settlement agreement, NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings herein, o the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 0 L Use of Sit LO 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are incorporated herein and form a material part of E this agreement. 2. Scope of f Agreement. The Applicant stall seek Minor Conditional Use approval for L the project, consistent with the requirements of the Monroe County Code as applied by Monroe 0 m County. This agreement shall not be construed to grant development approval to the project, � c Rather, this agreement shall be construed to define wetland impacts, wetland and property line W tm setbacks, and required mitigation and restoration, as described in Exhibit 1, which shall apply if c Monroe County approves the conditional use. Restoration shall occur according to the schedule 2 tL in Attachment 5. However, all restoration shall be completed within 2 years of facility m W installation. c m E t c� r r Q Memo to BOCC Page 6 of 22 Proposed 970 Foot Tall Wireless Cornrnunications Tower Packet Pg. 973 D.7.d r, Renewal 0' Perrtijts tih D111cO 'All] 'tr.s,^rtAnrl JTIJ rr{t'�-A ;a:; :Cquircd C. unt-V permits d—, n6:ke t, r ,it this avreenient It f r >t: r t.,,nlzatt Kra! 3arnaliim 1. Mr ltr w';.rs agreed to rcvl5e the restoration and rec!L rriaation plan rr -orporated into thr .Scilic-,7crit restoration plan bt 1) wtt; irtVO1� c crc:tt � .11 ,_ 1 appromrnate;ly 10.325 cILrG w ;�tl ,s.i1 ;rr�rr:,tl ('ra?artFcrrd species hahritat through remo%ai i,r t�\_sting berms &M fill to surrounding z.�c-N:v:owi The 1998 settl+ernefit aWeeinertt emposGs skid + oNfitiM upon the prop:••°� wlu4h link restoration perfimnance clandards to a specific timetable related to the issuan<o lit regulatory pernuts, arid this schv brit i�, in,worlx)r,rtrd in bath the 1999 DFP permit and ACUL permit. Air Du:+co Is Ln awreemcn, ,.st'!i °`.: � condrl.cns.:herefOre, they are incorporated in the restoration plant (AttaCh-m-.9a , l i The 1999 Dirico 380 Agreement required the applicant to seek minor conditional use approval for the project, which was never applied for or approved. IV PRIOR COUNTY PERMITS: Permit History tables below: Parcel ID 00115940-000100 Permit # Date Issued Description 99102475 12-03-1999 Land Clearing 13101232 04-29-2013 Installation of new temporary electric & water (hose bibs only) for the duration of the Cudj oe Key sewer/wastewater treatment project... Planning approval for new temporary services (electric and water) and equipment and materials storage per Sec. 6-112. Site has a non- conforming industrial use. Storage of materials and equipment for public infrastructure project. Parcel ID 00115950-000100 Permit # Date Issued Descri tion A10190 02-10-1983 Excavate. Renew 6817A and 9220A 0 N N 0 E m m 0 c w ar c E c a m U- r c m E r r Q Memo to BOCC Page 7 of 22 Proposed 970 Foot Tall Wireless Communications Tower Packet Pg. 974 D.7.d A11479 02-24-1984 Renewal for excavation permit. Supplement to 10190A, 9220A, 6817A A13789 07-19-1985 Renewal of excavation permit. Supplement to 11479A, 10190A, 9220A, 6817A 16340A 09-29-1986 Renewal of excavation permit - supplement to 13789A, 11479A, 10190A, 9220A, 6817A 8810000981 05-26-1988 Renewal of excavation permit. Supplement to permits 916340A, 13789A, 11479A, 10190A, 9220A, 6817A 901000520 03-19-1990 Renewal of excavation permit 9881-981, 13789A, 11479A, 10190A, 6817A 97101186 08-27-1997 After the fact and to complete renewal of excavation permit. Supplement to 901- 510, 881-981,13789A, 11479A, 10190A, 6817A 99101984 08-17-1999 Renewal of annual excavation permit as per settlement agreement 00103414 08-18-2000 Renewal of annual excavation permit 9991-1984 02101637 05-09-2002 Renewal of annual excavation permit 9021-1637 as per settlement agreement V REVIEW OF PROPOSAL: Excerpt from submitted conceptual site plan: a� 0 N N 0 E m m 0 0 c w a� C C C ILL d U- C 0 Q Memo to BOCC Page 8 of 22 Proposed 970 Foot Tall Wireless Communications Tower Packet Pg. 975 D.7.d Excerpt from submitted "site plan (close up view)": I OLD SORROJ PIT 00erC8ED 6 W44 ,ANY I-CLI1115I G WC.L- (SEE DETAIL 6..1 V W.3e'TOIER kMN1DAT',C+N PAD P4^ 'OOM B wK— MciAKN- :14LL MC, EajFMN7 P.41 UN bNI04: WALL AQWC FERMETER �— O J awT5 DE EDGE Ci s / FRD B=Rr O N D P+--D a AWA I I EXIST GiRAAL ACM56 ROAD OLD BORROW PIT FsXrOWD a01" 50ED C4k^T-thlCATVONS 7CA&It AND W' . t0' ECJIFemEW1 OL LDNG GRAvEL AGESS ✓41vE Based on the submitted site plan, the proposed tower and guy -wire pads appear to be within the NA zoning district. The submitted site plan and survey depict boundaries between the NA and I zoning districts that are inconsistent with the County's current zoning map; staff has overlaid the proposed development area on the current zoning map on the following page: rn CD N U? N O E N N N V i O rn c LU a� c c cc a a� U_ r c m E r r Q Memo to BOCC Page 9 of 22 Proposed 970 Foot Tall Wireless Communications Tower Packet Pg. 976 D.7.d Subject Property with Land Use District and Proposed Features Overlaid (Aerial dated 2018) Green = Native Area District Blue = Industrial District Pursuant to Section 130-89. Native Area District (NA), new antenna -supporting structures are not listed as a permitted or conditional use within the NA district. The tower proposal is not consistent with LDC Section 130-89. Monroe County Land Development Code (LDC) Chapter 146 contains regulations specific to wireless communications facilities. Per LDC Section 146-2. Definitions., antenna -supporting structure means a vertical projection composed of metal, wood, or other substance with or without a foundation that is for the express purpose of accommodating antennas at a desired height above grade. Antenna -supporting structures do not include any device used to attach antennas to an existing building, unless the device extends above the highest point of the building by more than 20 feet. Memo to BOCC Pace 10 of 22 Proposed 970 Foot Tall Wireless Communications Tower Packet Pg. 977 D.7.d LDC Section 146-4 specifies which land use districts wireless communications facilities are permitted and with what type of approval. As shown below, new antenna supporting structures are prohibited within the Native Area District. The submitted site plan for the proposed tower shows the tower within the NA district. Subsection (b) provides an exception to the table within several zoning categories for county -owned towers. However NA is not a qualifying zoning district, and the proposed tower is not intended to be county -owned. Sec. 146-4. Uses by Land Use District. (a) Pursuant to Chapter 130, Article III, and except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, no wireless communications facility shall be permitted in a particular land use (zoning) district except in accordance with the table below: Land Use District New Antenna Supporting Structure Replacement of Existing Antenna Supporting Structure Collocation As Accessory Use Only Attached Facility Stealth Facility Satellite Earth Station AD Prohibited As -of -right As -of -right Minor Minor As -of -right CI Major As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right C2 Major As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right CD Prohibited Prohibited As -of -right Prohibited Prohibited Minor CFA Major As -of -right As -of -right Minor Minor Minor CFS Prohibited Prohibited As -of -right Prohibited Prohibited Minor CFS2 Major As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right Minor Minor CFV Prohibited As -of -right As -of -right Minor Minor Minor DR Major As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right I Minor As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right IS Prohibited Prohibited As -of -right Prohibited Major Minor MF Major As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right MI Minor As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right MN Prohibited Prohibited As -of -right Prohibited Prohibited Minor MU Major As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right Minor NA Prohibited As -of -right As -of -right Minor Minor Minor OS Prohibited Prohibited As -of -right Prohibited Prohibited Minor PR Prohibited As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right Minor As -of -right RV Prohibited As -of -right As -of -right Minor Minor Minor SC Major As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right SR Prohibited As -of -right As -of -right Prohibited Minor Minor SR-L Prohibited As -of -right As -of -right Prohibited Minor Minor SS Prohibited Prohibited As -of -right Prohibited Minor Minor UC Major As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right UR Prohibited As -of -right As -of -right As -of -right Minor Minor URM Prohibited As -of -right As -of -right Prohibited Minor Minor URM-L Prohibited As -of --right As -of --right Prohibited Minor Minor rn 0 N IV N 0 E m m 0 m c w a� c .E c a m U_ r c m E r r Q Memo to BOCC Pace 11 of 22 Proposed 970 Foot Tall Wireless Communications Tower Packet Pg. 978 D.7.d PD I Prohibited I Prohibited I Prohibited I Prohibited I Prohibited Prohibited Includes the following commercial fishing special districts: 1, 2, 8, 12, 13, 16 and 20. Includes the following commercial fishing special districts: 4, 5, 6, 7 and 17. Satellite earth stations proposed in this land use (zoning) district that are less than 2.0 meters it diameter shall be allowed as -of -right. (b) Within the following districts, new antenna -supporting structures may be permitted as a major conditional use, provided that the antenna -supporting structure is owned by the county and is used exclusively for nonproprietary public safety communications: CD, MN, OS, and PR. The proposal is not consistent with LDC Section 146-4. LDC Section 146-5 provides the specific development standards for new antenna supporting structures. Based on a review of the site plan and other information submitted by the applicant, the proposal would meet or not meet the standards as follows: Sec. 146-5. Development Standards. These standards shall apply to the following types of wireless communications facilities: (1) New antenna supporting structures. a. Approval criteria for new antenna -supporting structures. 1. Setbacks. (i) New antenna -supporting structures and the associated ancillary structures are not considered as utilities, and therefore must meet the environmental design criteria related to wetland setbacks pursuant to Sections 118-7 and 118-10; The proposed tower does not meet wetland and shoreline setbacks pursuant to Chapter 118. The proposed guy -wire pads are not consistent with the requirements of Chapter 118 of the Land Development Code. Specifically, the proposed pad placement is inconsistent with the regulations listed below: Sec. 118-4. Wetland Open Space Requirements. No development activities, except as provided for in this chapter, are permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, freshwater wetlands, freshwater ponds, or in undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands; the open space requirement is 100 percent. Sec. 118-10. Environmental Design for Specific Habitat Types. Memo to BOCC Pace 12 of 22 Proposed 970 Foot Tall Wireless Communications Tower Packet Pg. 979 D.7.d In addition to the general criteria set forth in this chapter, specific criteria shall apply to individual habitats as outlined in this Section. (d) Mangroves, wetlands, and submerged lands. All structures developed, used or occupied on land classified as mangroves, wetlands or submerged lands (all types and all levels of quality) shall be designed, located and constructed such that: (1) Generally. Only docks and docking facilities, boat ramps, walkways, water access walkways, water observation platforms, boat shelters, nonenclosed gazebos, riprap, seawalls, bulkheads, and utility pilings shall be permitted on or over mangroves, wetlands, and submerged lands, subject to the specific restrictions of this subsection. Trimming and/or removal of mangroves shall meet Florida Department of Environmental Protection requirements. (4) Placement of fill. No fill shall be permitted in any mangroves, wetlands, or submerged lands except: a. As specifically allowed by this Section or by Section 118-12(k) (Bulkheads, Seawalls, Riprap) and 118-12(l) (Boat Ramps); b. To fill a manmade, excavated water body such as a canal, boat ramp, boat slip, boat basin or swimming pool if the County Biologist determines that such filling will not have a significant adverse impact on marine or wetland communities; C. As needed for shoreline stabilization or beach renourishment projects with a valid public purpose that furthers the goals of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, as determined by the County Biologist; d. For bridges extending over salt marsh and/or buttonwood association wetlands that are required to provide automobile or pedestrian access to lawfully established dwelling units located on upland areas within the same property for which there is no alternate means of access. Such bridges shall be elevated on pilings so that the natural movement of water, including volume, rate and direction of flow shall not be disrupted or altered; or e. As approved for Disturbed Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Association Wetlands with appropriate mitigation as defined by the wetland regulations of subsection (e)(6) of this Section. (7) Vegetated buffer required between development and wetlands. Except as allowed in Section 118-7 (general environmental design criteria), a minimum vegetated setback of 50 feet shall be maintained as an open space buffer and shall be protected by a grant of conservation easement running in favor of the County for development occurring adjacent to all types of wetlands, with the following exceptions: a. If a 50 foot setback results in less than 2, 000 square feet of principal structure footprint of reasonable configuration, then the setback may be reduced to allow for 2, 000 square feet of principal structure footprint of reasonable configuration, provided that the setback is not reduced to less than 25 feet. Memo to BOCC Pace 13 of 22 Proposed 970 Foot Tall Wireless Communications Tower Packet Pg. 980 D.7.d b. On properties classified as scarified adjacent to wetlands, the wetland setback may be reduced to 25 feet, without regard to buildable area, if the entire setback area: 1. Is planted and maintained in native vegetation meeting the standards of a class D bufferyard or a bufferyard providing similar protection (Section 114-128 Bufferyard standards) with the exception that understory trees may be substituted for canopy trees; 2. Contains a site -suitable stormwater management plan approved by the County Biologist; and 3. Is placed under a conservation easement. In addition to the wetland issues outlined above, the proposed project is within the Species Focus Areas for the Lower Keys marsh rabbit and the silver rice rat. Based on the plans submitted with the proposal, the project would result in impacts to native habitat for these two species. In accordance with the Species Assessment Guides developed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service) the proposed impacts would result in a "May Affect" determination under the Endangered Species Act and will require the applicant to consult directly with the Service for authorization. [LDC Section 122-8 — Permit Referral Process] (ii) Any new antenna -supporting structures, equipment enclosures and ancillary structures shall meet the minimum setback requirements for the land use (zoning) district where they are located pursuant to Chapter 131 of this LDC; Per LDC Section 131-1. Required Setbacks., the non -shoreline setbacks within the NA district are as follows: Land Use District / Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Rear Yard Land Use Front Front Side Yard Side Yard (ft.) Yard (ft.) Yard (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) Native Area (NA) 25 15 10 5 20 Although the submitted site plan is not detailed/legible enough to accurately measure proposed setbacks from property lines, the tower and guy -wire pad/anchors appear to meet the non -shoreline setbacks from property lines required by LDC Section 131-1. (iii) New antenna -supporting structures constructed on properties that are contiguous to the IS, SR, UR or URM zones shall be set back from these zones a distance equal to 110 percent (110%) of the overall height of the antenna - supporting structure and antennas; and Does not apply Memo to BOCC Pace 14 of 22 Proposed 970 Foot Tall Wireless Communications Tower Packet Pg. 981 D.7.d (iv) New antenna -supporting structures shall be set back from the right-of-way of U.S. Highway I a distance equal to one-half (112) of the overall height of the structure and antennas. 2. Height. The overall combined height of any antenna -supporting structure and any antenna(s) attached thereto shall not be greater than 199 feet, unless allowed by a variance approved pursuant to Section 146-7. The proposed tower is to be 970 feet tall. It does not meet the requirement for height in Section 146-5. Pursuant to Section 146-7(f), the maximum height allowed by the variance is 330 feet. The proposed tower is not eligible for a variance to height through Section 146-7. 146-7()g No variance granted pursuant to this section shall be granted to allow an overall height greater than 330 feet. 3. Construction. New antenna -supporting structures shall have a monopole type construction only, and shall not be guyed or have a lattice type construction; except that AM broadcast facilities may have a guyed type construction. The proposed tower does not meet the construction requirement; the tower is proposed with guyed wires and lattice type construction. Not enough information was provided to determine if it meets the option for guyed type construction as an AM broadcast facility. 4. Structural integrity. (i) The entire antenna -supporting structure and all appurtenances shall be designed pursuant to the wind speed design requirements of ASCE 7-10, including any subsequent modification to those specifications; (ii) A new antenna -supporting structure shall be designed to accommodate the wireless communications equipment of other wireless communication service providers. The exact amount of additional equipment to be accommodated shall be agreed upon during a pre -application conference and recorded in the letter of understanding (LOU) resulting from the conference; and (iii) The antenna -supporting structure shall be designed to ensure that, in the event of structural failure, the facility will collapse within the boundaries of the property on which the facility is located. All owners of approved antenna - supporting structures are jointly and severally liable and responsible for any damage caused to off -site property as a result of a collapse of any antenna - supporting structure owned by them. Memo to BOCC Page 15 of 22 Proposed 970 Foot Tall Wireless Communications Tower Packet Pg. 982 D.7.d Not enough information was provided to determine if the proposed tower meets the structural integrity requirements (additionally, a pre -application conference as required by Section 146-5(a)(3), has not been applied for or held). S. Lighting. (i) Except as provided in subsection (1)a.5. (ii) of this section, no lights, signals, or other illumination shall be permitted on any wireless communications facility or ancillary structure unless the applicant demonstrates that lighting is required by the FAA or the FCC. (ii) Lighting may be placed in association with an approved equipment enclosure, but shall be placed only in accordance with the provisions of Sections 12-116 and 114-162. Lighting associated with an equipment enclosure shall remain unlit except when authorized personnel are present. Not enough information was provided to determine if the proposed tower meets the lighting requirements. 6. Collocation and combined antennas. (i) No antenna -supporting structure shall be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates that no existing wireless communications facility can accommodate the applicant's proposed facility through either collocation or a combined antenna; or that use of such existing facilities would prohibit personal wireless services in the area of the county to be served by the proposed antenna -supporting structure. (ii) Evidence submitted to demonstrate that no existing wireless communications facility could accommodate the applicant's proposed facility through either collocation or a combined antenna may consist of any of the following: (AA) No existing wireless communications facilities located within the geographic area meet the applicant's engineering requirements; (BB) Existing wireless communications facilities are not of sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering requirements; (CC) Existing wireless communications facilities do not have sufficient structural strength to support the applicant's proposed wireless communications facilities and related equipment; or (DD) The applicant demonstrates that there are other limiting factors that render existing wireless communications facilities unsuitable. Not enough information was provided to determine if the proposed tower meets the collocation and combined antennas requirements. 7. Color. New antenna -supporting structures shall maintain a galvanized gray finish or other accepted contextual or compatible color, except as required by federal rules or regulations. Memo to BOCC Pace 16 of 22 Proposed 970 Foot Tall Wireless Communications Tower Packet Pg. 983 D.7.d Not enough information was provided to determine if the proposed tower meets the color requirement. 8. Radio frequency emissions. The radio frequency emissions shall comply with FCC standards for such emissions. Not enough information was provided to determine if the proposed tower meets the Radio frequency emissions requirement. 9. Intensity requirements. (i) For the purposes of impact fee calculation, the floor area for a wireless communications facility shall be considered as only the total square footage of all equipment enclosures; and (ii) The following shall be considered as development area and shall be required to meet the setbacks and open space ratio requirements for the land use (zoning) district and/or habitat where they are located: (AA) The area beneath all equipment enclosures; (BB) The area of the antenna -supporting structure foundation at or above grade; (CC) The area beneath ancillary structures, excluding that which is beneath guy wires (if applicable); and (DD) The area inside the antenna -supporting structure framework. Section 130-164. Maximum nonresidential land use intensities and district open space., does not include a maximum floor area ratio specific to a wireless communications facility. The proposed equipment enclosure of 5,500 square feet appears to meet the maximum nonresidential intensity for the NA zoning district, 0.20 FAR, if permitted as Public Buildings/Uses. Exact area of foundations, ancillary structure(s), and area inside the antenna -supporting structure framework was not provided. Note: there is also a required open space ratio of 0.95 within the NA zoning district. Further information is required to made a final determination. 10. Security. Fencing, in accordance with Section 114-20, and/or anticlimbing devices shall be required to preserve security on wireless communication facilities. Not enough information was provided to determine if the proposed tower meets the security requirements. IL Landscaping. Landscaping and/or screening in the form of at least a class D buffer as drawn in the class D bufferyard figure in Section 114-128 shall be required around the development area. Memo to BOCC Pace 17 of 22 Proposed 970 Foot Tall Wireless Communications Tower Packet Pg. 984 D.7.d Not enough information was provided to determine if the proposed tower meets the landscaping requirements. 12. Signage. The only signage that is permitted upon an antenna -supporting structure, equipment enclosure, or fence (if applicable) shall be informational, and for the purpose of identifying the antenna -supporting structure, as well as the party responsible for the operation and maintenance of the facility, its current address and telephone number, security or safety signs, and property manager signs (if applicable). Not enough information was provided to determine if the proposed tower meets the signage requirements. 13. Aircraft obstruction. In addition to the provisions of Section 130-75, the overall height of a new antenna -supporting structure located in the vicinity of a private airport shall be limited by the following: (i) A 35:1 glide path ratio in the horizontal zone limiting the heights of new antenna -supporting structures to 150 feet within one statutory mile (5,280 feet) from the edge of the private airport primary surface; and (ii) A 12:1 glide path ratio in the conical zone limiting the heights of new antenna -supporting structures to 600 feet within one statutory mile (5,280 feet) from the edge of the horizontal zone. The Summerland Airfield may conflict with the allowed glide path. The applicant will need to provide additional information to demonstrate compliance with the aircraft obstruction requirements. 14. Adverse effects on adjacent properties and compatibility with community character. (i) New antenna -supporting structures shall be configured and located in a manner that is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity, and shall minimize adverse effects including visual impacts on adjacent properties pursuant to Section 110-67(2) and (3). The applicant shall demonstrate that alternative locations, configurations, and facility types have been examined and shall address in narrative form the feasibility of any alternatives that may have fewer adverse effects on adjacent properties or that would be more compatible with the character of the community than the facility, configuration, and location proposed. (ii) The following attributes shall be considered from vantage points within three miles of the base of the proposed antenna -supporting structure: (AA) Height; (BB) Mass and scale; (CC) Materials and color; and (DD) Illumination. Memo to BOCC Pace 18 of 22 Proposed 970 Foot Tall Wireless Communications Tower Packet Pg. 985 D.7.d At the time of this memo, no renderings or analysis of adverse effects on adjacent properties and compatibility with community character was provided. Not enough information was provided to determine if the proposed tower meets these requirements. (2) Submittal requirements for new antenna -supporting structure applications. The following documents shall be submitted: a. A completed application form and any appropriate fees; b. Three sets of signed and sealed site plans; c. A property card for the subject property from the county's property appraiser's office or a tax bill showing the ownership of the subject parcel; d. A form indicating that a property and/or antenna -supporting structure's owner's agent has authorization to act upon its behalf (if applicable); e. A signed statement from the antenna -supporting structure's owner or owner's agent stating that the radio frequency emissions comply with FCC standards for such emissions; f. Proof of an FCC license or construction permit to transmit radio signals in the county; g. A stamped or sealed structural analysis of the proposed antenna -supporting structure prepared by a licensed state engineer indicating the proposed and future loading capacity of the antenna -supporting structure; h. One original and two copies of a survey of the property completed by a licensed state engineer that shows all existing uses, structures, and improvements; i. Three copies of a vegetation survey or habitat evaluation index (HEI); j. Photo -simulated post construction renderings of the proposed antenna -supporting structure, equipment enclosures, and ancillary structures as they would look after construction from locations to be determined during the pre -application conference; k. Proof of FAA compliance with subpart C of the Federal Aviation Regulations 14 CFR part 77, Standards for Determining Obstructions to Air Navigation or Navigational Aids or Facilities; L A signed statement from the antenna -supporting structure owner agreeing to allow the collocation of other wireless equipment on the proposed antenna -supporting structure; in. If required by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, a letter indicating that the proposed antenna -supporting structure and appurtenances are in compliance with all applicable federal rules and regulations; and Memo to BOCC Pace 19 of 22 Proposed 970 Foot Tall Wireless Communications Tower Packet Pg. 986 D.7.d n. All other documentation, evidence, or materials necessary to demonstrate compliance with the applicable approval criteria set forth in this chapter, including where applicable: 1. Existing wireless communications facilities to which the proposed facility will be a handoff candidate, including latitude, longitude, and power levels of each; 2. A radio frequency plot indicating the coverage of existing wireless communications sites, and that of the proposed site sufficient to demonstrate radio frequency search area, coverage prediction, and design radius; 3. A statement by a qualified professional engineer specifying the design structural failure modes of the proposed facility; and 4. Antenna heights and power levels of the proposed facility and all other facilities on the subject property. A development application has not yet been submitted at this time. The submittal requirements above are included here for reference. (3) Pre -application conference. A pre -application conference is required for any new antenna -supporting structure. At the time a pre -application conference is held, the applicant shall demonstrate that the following notice was mailed, 15 days in advance of the pre -application conference (via certified mail) to all interested parties, including other wireless service providers licensed to provide service within the county as indicated on the list of wireless service providers and interested parties provided by the Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Department: "Pursuant to the requirements of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations, (name of provider) is hereby providing you with notice of our intent to meet with the Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Department in a pre - application conference to discuss the location of a freestanding wireless communications facility that would be located at (location). In general, we plan to construct a support structure of feet in height for the purpose of providing (type of wireless service). Please inform us and the Planning and Environmental Resources Department if you have any desire for placing additional wireless facilities or equipment within two miles of our proposed facility. Please provide us with this information within ten business days after the date of this letter. Your cooperation is sincerely appreciated. Sincerely, (pre -application applicant, wireless provider)" The required pre -application conference has not been applied for at this time. Memo to BOCC Pace 20 of 22 Proposed 970 Foot Tall Wireless Communications Tower Packet Pg. 987 D.7.d Sec. 146-6. Expert Review. (a) Where due to the complexity of the methodology or analysis required to review an application for a wireless communication facility, the Planning Director may require a technical review by a third party expert, the costs of which shall be borne by the applicant. Third party review is required as part of the review for any variance application submitted pursuant to Section 146-7. (b) The expert review may address any or all of the following: (1) The accuracy and completeness of submissions; (2) The applicability of analysis techniques and methodologies; (3) The validity of conclusions reached; (4) Whether the proposed wireless communications facility complies with the applicable approval criteria set forth in this chapter; and (5) Other matters deemed by the Planning Director to be relevant to determining whether a proposed wireless communications facility complies with the provisions of this chapter. (c) Based on the results of the expert review, the Planning Director may require changes to the applicant's application or submittals. (d) The applicant shall reimburse the County within five working days of the date of receipt of an invoice for expenses associated with the third party expert's review of the application. Failure by the applicant to make reimbursement pursuant to this section shall abate the pending application until paid in full. An application of this type/magnitude would be anticipated to require technical review by a third party expert. VI STAFF CONCLUSIONS: As identified above, based on the submitted plans and information, the proposed tower project is inconsistent with a number of regulations within the Monroe County Land Development Code. More information is needed to determine compliance with all requirements for a new antenna supporting structure. Staff is currently working with the legal department to determine whether or not the aforementioned settlement agreements remain binding, and/or whether a text amendment to the Land Development Code would be the appropriate mechanism by which the proposed tower could be approved for development, given its inconsistencies with the current adopted Land Development Code. VII PLANS REVIEWED: Memo to BOCC Pace 21 of 22 Proposed 970 Foot Tall Wireless Communications Tower Packet Pg. 988 D.7.d 1. Tower Elevation & Detail: Sheet S-1 prepared by Pacific 17, INC., signed by Kirk Zimmer, last revision dated September 1, 1999 2. Site Elevations: Sheet S-3 prepared by Pacific 17, Inc.., signed by Michael Cowan, last revision dated October 11, 1999 3. Site Plan (Close -Up View): Sheet 6 prepared by LawGibb Group, signed by George McDaniel, undated 4. Boundary and Topographical Survey: signed by Frederick H. Hildebrandt, last revision dated November 12, 1999 5. Survey/Site Plan: signed by Frederick H. Hildebrandt, last revision dated November 12, 1999 6. Boundary Survey by Caribbean Land Surveyors, Inc., signed Walter E. Venega, last revision dated February 3, 1997 VIII EXHIBITS: 1. Submitted plans (as listed above) 2. July 16, 1998 settlement agreement between DCA, the County and Cudjoe Enterprises, Inc. Includes Restoration Plan. 3. December 6, 1999 Conservation Easement. 4. December 6, 1999 380 Agreement between Frank Dirico and DCA. Includes Restoration Plan. Memo to BOCC Pace 22 of 22 Proposed 970 Foot Tall Wireless Communications Tower Packet Pg. 989 D.7.e MacEachern-Alan From: MacEachern-Alan Sent: Thursday, February 07, 201910:47 AM To: Hurley -Christine; 'David P. Horan'; 'Mark L Baker'; Darren M. Horan; Rice -Mike; White - Laura Cc: Schemper-Emily; Shillinger-Bob; Peters -Katherine Subject: FW: Tower discussion from 11/20 bocc Attachments: Feb - Proposer Provided Cudjoe Key, FL-700 MHz Coverag-4 Sector Cellular (350' AGL) No Skycell.pdf, Feb - Proposer Provided FAA Approval 1049.pdf, Feb - Proposer Provided Cudjoe Key 900 coverage.pdf; Feb - Proposer Provided Vhf Marine coverage.pdf; Feb - Proposer Provided Presentation.pdf; Feb - Planning Env Resources Memo 2-5-2019.pdf; Feb - Planning Memo Exhibits.pdf; Feb - Proposer Provided Sample Tower Commercial Costs.PDF; Feb - 2020 Strategic Plan Priority Ranking and Raw Data.pdf; Feb - 2020 Strategic Plan Community Input Report.pdf; Feb - ATT Press Release For Small Cell Deployment on BPK.pdf, Feb - Proposer Provided Renderings Context.pdf; Feb - Proposer Provided Renderings.pdf, Feb - Proposer Provided Cudjoe Key FL-700 MHz Coverage-4 Sector Cellular (600' AGL) No Skycell.pdf, Feb - Proposer Provided Cudjoe Key, FL - 700 MHz Coverage - 4 Sector Cellular (1,000' AGL).pdf Christine, Below please find your original email with my updated comments inserted to address questions that were listed to the best of my ability. I used red highlighting and white text to ensure the comments were easy to notice. Provided Mike and Laura & Mr. Horan/Mr. Baker/Mr. DiRico approve my responses I will print it and upload it to the agenda system. Mike / Laura, As you see below I have included information I received from you and Mr. Pallans in my responses below. In particular, reference the fact that other tall towers in the vicinity of the Cudjoe Key have no space available and thus it is not possible to replicate the benefits of a single tall tower with multiple less tall towers & the fact that Mark Pallans will be onsite and able to describe existing average cell phone coverage. Please review and confirm that you are comfortable with my responses (or provide more appropriate updates) and 1 will work with Christine to process this item. Please note that the item needs to be processed this afternoon — I will leave to it Christine to provide deadline information as her review is the next critical path step. Mr. Horan / Mr. Baker/ Mr. DiRico, Not being sure of Mr. DiRico's email address I haven't copied him here but would ask that you forward to him as appropriate. As you can see from below, I took Christine Hurley's email which summarized specific questions raised by Commissioners during the November meeting. I have taken the information you provided and added a preface of Feb to the title in order to make them more readable in our Agenda system for the Commissioners and the public. In order to make your review easier, I have copied all of those new documents to this email. Additionally, I reference Mr. Pallans' report which is currently in draft format and will be provided separately. I did this analysis quickly and to the best of my abilities based on the delivery of information — please review and provide feedback. Please note that the item needs to be processed this afternoon -- I will leave to it Christine to provide deadline information as her review is the next critical path step. Best Regards, Alan MacEachern IT Director Monroe County BOCC Information Technology Packet Pg. 990 D.7.e 102050 Overseas Highway, MM 102.5 Key Largo, FL 33037 Office : (305) 453-8792 Cell :(305)363-9109 Email : maceachern-alan@monroecounty-fl.eov Please note: Florida has a very broad public records law. Most written communications to or from the County regarding County business are public record, available to the public and media upon request. Your e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure. From: Hurley -Christine Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 12:57 PM To: Schemper-Emily; MacEachern-Alan; Stein -Bradley; Cioffari-Cheryl; rains-devin; Matthews -Kimberly; Gastesi-Roman; Hurley -Christine Subject: FW: Tower discussion from 11/20 bocc I watched the tower discussion: Items in turquoise are the items the BOCC or community asked questions about and asked for a report in January. Emily: Please: 1. ask agent to provide you renderings 2. Ask agent to provide you the land area and site plan showing their layout 3. Ask agent to describe exact use of land needed. He indicated living facilities for technicians, storage, etc. see items in green below. Alan: Please: 1. 2. What can we hang at 600' on existing towers that would provide similar benefit 3. Ask agent to provide you the cost for using the tower so they can analyze whether it would be cost effective once it is installed (see comments highlighted in yellowy - • Feb - Commercial .. Cellular limited — radio capable Would keep communications in public safety Federal agencies can be on tower, other agencies, he can put other people on the tower Can't reach Ocean Reef or parts of Key Largo Alan or Marty or Roman — how much connectivity would be addressed with this tower vs. the cows? Alan: microwave for MGC and Sheriff facility (this will give significant backup for when storms occur or when cable is cut (we have extended satellite on MGC in additional to portable satellite systems). We have not augmented the county in general (citizens). Packet Pg. 991 D.7.e They would be adding a new microwave internet connections which would be a 41h component. David Horan asked BOCC to: Direct staff to draft an amendment to change the tower ordinance that would say: in this avigational easement there can be a tower in excess of 350'. Specific to this location only. The market would then allow this tower to take over the old cell towers as they are torn down. FKAA — within suite of options to improve communications — looking to County if necessary Stuart (Sugarloaf Shores) — only if necessary cudjoe key quarry. Part of resolution allowed $18,000. Shelves were installed in mining site. mining until 2008. It's fully harvested. 5o acres is accessed at Bill Hunter —speaking for self. Groups will organize. Communities will be concerned .If built there will be applications that are beneficial. Resiliency and redundancy for certain agencies may work. They won't know if it is cost effective. Communication was lost for a short period of time in reality. Agencies are looking at how to do it better. What is cost benefit? Encourage more discussion on cost. Is it necessary? Talk to cellular experts before you consider this. Cellular is going smaller. Not bigger. • ' Phil Frank - Upper Sugarloaf 1998 Tower opposition. Groups will organize Gill Scott —Charter Boats — fish 320 days a year— safety and communications would be good for charter fishermen — VHF radio is used primarily Rick Ramsey — Sheriff — tower can help the 80,000 911 calls — 98% came by cell; fisherman use vhf — yesterday mission rescue 30 miles off -- sinking — before capsized, they got a mayday call out. Post Iram — were working on a quasi - redundant system if it survives a hurricane; rescue —1600 people use 1800 mhz system; regional task force — 700 mghz system for domestic security communications is in the works and that needs a tower $493,000 cost. This would be a Packet Pg. 992 D.7.e backup system because the radios can be programed to be be 700 mhgz. Range from Upper Mat to KW. Above upper Mat — need site to site. Lynn Tejeda — we worked on repairing lines. We have to connect via grid. Our control room has to see what is happening at stations and tie points. This was down because of no land lines and no cell lines. We went into archaic approach with satellite phones and the 800 mhgz was compromised so we did relaying of messages and it wasn't a good situation and it delayed restoration and it was dangerous. They need redundancy and resiliency — need fortified infrastructure (poles) and technology —communication. Based on devices communicating with control center. Allow it and Mr. Direico will build it. If not allowed he will release conservation easement and not build it. Alan: Intent: Discussion and Direction — at this point, we've discussed technical benefits and now there are other considerations that would need to be done to make this tower. Question: Is commission interested in asking staff to research what would be required to build it and presenting it back? Carruthers: Not convinced that building this tower is the only way to provide these services. Alan: Good better best. Multiple ways to achieve a goal of coverage area. Carruthers: Alan is looking at the technology issue — not a community issue. Kolhage — troubled by proliferation of towers and one this size 1 had study and presentation and conclusion was might be good but not substantial improvement What has changed? Laura White: Clarifying for Carruthers question: County owned towers are full. Cannot add bigger antennas and so the guideline by Federal govn can only have a certain number of items. In regards with Mr. Palin's report — he was talking about 800 system (he indicated tower would backup sheriffs system). Amateur radio would benefit. Rice — intent is we have enough info or not. Nearing questions from Carruthers and we didn't have answers. So see the need for more information. Michelle — District 2. Residents have concerns and I see benefits for boaters. Ramsey -- cell tower capacity at max for cell calls for 911. Asking Alan to tell us if we need this? Not ready to say change comp plan to allow. Rice: Alan: In addition to technical discussion, we can talk about benefits, but reality is there are other Departments that need to be involved. Get feedback from steps proposer should do to analysis of regulations and opinions. YES by BOCC. Murphy — whenever ready— plan for meeting in Marathon so everyone can attend. Planning can do analysis. Carruthers is not sure 2 months is enough time. Michelle: Would it be more fair to have it in KW? No. Roman: Ongoing conversation and we will address in January. Packet Pg. 993 D.7.e Commercial Costs.pdf ) Christine Hurley, AICP Monroe County Assistant County Administrator 305.289.2517 From: Williams-Jethon <Williams-Jethon@MonroeCounty-FL.Gov> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 201810:16 AM To: Hurley -Christine <Hurley-Christine@MonroeCounty-FL.Gov>; MacEachern-Alan <MacEachern-Alan@MonroeCounty- FL.Gov> Subject: RE: Tower discussion from 11/20 bocc Per your request, here's the video file you requested. httas://monroecountvfl-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/e/personal/williams-iethon monroecounty- fl_ gov/EuP2GAWIFoFltrltp9WdPJcBJ8-3JFBxbHsZvein7lodSQ?e=WNKKOd Jethon Williams II TV/Multimedia Manager • •,�t •ia,°..� 7: Mom .. �;mw, Monroe County Information Technology 1200 Truman Ave. Suite 211 Key West, FL 33040 Office: 305-295-5128 Mobile: 305-797-1028 Fax: 305-295-5105 PLEASE NOTE: FLORIDA HAS A VERY BROAD RECORDS LAW. MOST WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS TO OR FROM THE COUNTY REGARDING COUNTY BUSINESS ARE PUBLIC RECORDS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AND MEDIA UPON REQUEST. YOUR EMAIL COMMUNICATION MAY BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE. From: Hurley -Christine Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018 4:59 PM To: Williams-Jethon <Williams-Jethon@Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>; MacEachern-Alan <MacEachern-Alan@MonroeCounty- FL.Gov> Subject: Tower discussion from 11/20 bocc Hi Jethon. Would you mind clipping out -to me the bocc agenda item where they talked about the tower from 11/20 please. Christine Hurley, AICP Monroe County Packet Pg. 994 D.7.e Assistant County Administrator 305.289.2517 Q Packet Pg. 995 D.7.f Fallano A000ciateo COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS Company Background , `t+T Y �dene5b�r9 i h C +alk 4ele BeacM1 iaema joR MeaUe Bowling Gre.n El ` "N r � Fallane Aeeociatee COMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS 7753 LILY TROTTER STREET NORTH LAS VEGAS, NV 89084 702.657.0456 Packet Pg. 996 D.7.f INTRODUCTION Pallans Associates is a woman owned, small business corporation established in 1989 in Florida. Its headquarters are now located in North Las Vegas, Nevada. It has been honored with the designation of "Nevada Emerging Small Business". In 2016 Mission Critical Communications Magazine selected Pallans Associates a one of the nation's top consulting firms. Mark Pallans, its principal operator, recognized that smaller local government and public agencies need the same technical services as larger entities but, in many cases, the costs of these services were prohibitive. As a result the smaller communities have been forced to utilize the services of vendors for system design and development. This has resulted in systems which do not always reflect the users' needs but rather the thoughts and economic considerations of a vendor. By utilizing personnel with current, practical expertise Mr. Pallans believed that these agencies could be economically served. Pallans Associates provides consulting services in communications to local government agencies in a cost effective and timely manner. The associates are all professionals who are currently or have been full-time employees in the field of local government communications. They have been employed by major police, fire and local government agencies and therefore are keenly aware of the unique problems and conditions inherent in the local geographical, sociological and political environment. Mark Pallans manages the firm and selects the appropriate staff to best meet each client's needs. The Associates have expertise in fire, police and EMS radio communications, telephone systems, fire, police and EMS dispatch, data communications, E-911 operations and maintenance center and dispatch center design. None of the Associates has any affiliations with any manufacturers, distributors or suppliers of any equipment utilized in the projects nor will the firm recommend any brand of equipment without objectively comparing the equipment with similar items available on the market. The clients of Pallans Associates are, therefore, assured that the needed technical support is provided objectively and independently and that the best interests of the client are served. Since Pallans Associates has performed its services for many agencies much of the work of writing specifications, performing needs assessments, evaluating proposals and performing technical studies has already been developed and has been placed in computers. This considerably reduces the time necessary to perform these functions and therefore can dramatically reduce the costs to the client. WE FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO RE -INVENT THE WHEEL. Packet Pg. 997 D.7.f CUSTOMER SERVICES Regulatory issues - including rights of way, tower ordinances, FCC matters Wireless Systems Assistance — tower siting ordinances, carrier compliance with ordinances, coverage studies, validation of carrier plans and signal penetration into communities RF Exposure - analysis calculations to comply with FCC and OSHA FCC Licensing - we have the regulatory experience and expertise to assist in obtaining licensing for all communications requirements from broadcast through microwave. Site Development and Recommendations - provide analysis of existing communication sites and protection from electrical surges and lightning. Communications Systems Needs Assessments - We analyze what your current system has and lacks and then recommend what you should do to improve communications. RFP and Bid Development and Evaluation - we provide procurement documents that actually state what you want and minimize proposals filled with fluff and advertising. After proposal or bid submission we can effectively and objectively evaluate them in order to provide you with the best product. Communications Center and EOC Design - we help your engineers and architects by developing the communications aspects of new or renovated communications centers. We produce the latest standards and acceptable practices guides so your communications center contains state of the art facilities. Rebanding Assistance - Experienced in 800 MHz and NPSPAC rebanding including proof of performance testing, developing cutover plans and acceptance testing procedures Project Management -we can provide full project management functions or just act as your representative with the vendor project team Packet Pg. 998 D.7.f PROJECTS OF PALLANS ASSOCIATES 2017 - Present - Bermuda - Design, procurement and implementation of Island wide digital trunked radio system for all government users. 2017 - City of Tamarac, Florida - Analysis of County proposal to locate county towers within the City Determine if City towers will work and provide alternate site recommendations for County. 2016 - Present - Los Angeles Unified School District - Concepts, design and implementation of new radio systems for the District. Includes consolidating Police and other major systems into a single countywide P25 radio network. 2016 - Present - School Board of Broward County, Florida - Evaluation of current operations on the countywide public safety radio system with the goal of recommending the future direction of the Districts radio communications. 2015 - Present - Cayman Islands Ministry of Home Affairs Department of Hazard Management - Replacement of analog 800 MHz trunked radio system used by all public safety agencies on the Islands with a state of the art radio system utilizing digital technology. 2015-2017 — Cowlitz County, Washington - Assessment of County 911 communication capabilities and recommendations for improvements of coverage and performance. 2015 - Energy Northwest Power, Enercon Engineering, Richland, Washington. Assessment of communications capabilities of a secure facility and the design of an in building UHF distributed antenna system to link to a nuclear facility radio system. 2015 - School District of St. Lucie County, Florida - assist the District in selecting radio communication products for all schools. Determine the viability of DMR (digital mobile radio) as an acceptable platform for District communications. 2015 - 2017 - Martin County Florida and St. Lucie County, Florida - replacement of separate Motorola SmartNet radio system with a two county jointly operated P25 radio system. 2014 - Present - Columbia County, Oregon 911 Commission - Assessment of current radio system and recommendations for improvements of coverage and performance. Elimination of interference 2014 - 2015 - State of Nevada Department of Transportation - Replacement of statewide trunked radio system/ The Nevada Shared Radio system consists of more than100 radio sites over 110,000 square miles. Currently in Phase One, needs assessment, technology recommendation, estimated costs and funding mechanisms, implementation schedules. 2014 — 2018 — Los Angeles Unified School District — Rebanding of current 800 MHz radio system. Needs assessments and future growth planning for system upgrade and replacement. Design of new P25 Phase @ 700-800 MHz trunked radio system 2014 - City of Key West/ Naval Air Station Key West - Design assistance for video surveillance system and microwave radio licensing for Key West facilities Packet Pg. 999 D.7.f 2012-Present — Monroe County, Florida — Procurement of new P25 800 MHz public safety radio system. RFP through implementation. System implemented September, 2014. Ongoing consulting for system, technology and performance upgrades. 2013 — Martin County, Florida — Needs Assessment to demonstrate need to upgrade radio system to P25 technology. Next phase will include new system procurement and implementation 2013- Energy Northwest — Assist in design and implementation of UHF P25 in plant radio system for Columbia Nuclear Generating Station. Coverage estimates, antennas locations, signal penetration estimates. Resolved multiple issues related to FCC license applications. 2012 — City of Bemidji, Minnesota — Perform communications needs assessment for future communication growth of the City. Verified system performance and recommended future expansion of public safety systems. Verified narrowbanding compliance for FCC mandates. 2011-2012 Projects performed for L.R. Kimball Town of Cary, North Carolina: The Town of Cary, a suburb of Raleigh, had a SmartNet 800 MHz trunked radio system. Design of new 3 site simulcast P25 800 MHz radio system to replace existing single site analog system. Assisted with development of RFP, led City's evaluation committee, assisted in vendor selection an contract negotiations Permian Basin Regional Planning Commission — The PBRPC is a Council of Governments for 17 counties in west Texas. Assess the communication capabilities of these counties and to provide a growth plan to replace existing old analog radio equipment with new systems and equipment capable of interoperability with State of Texas P25 radio network. Included current system performance assessments, recommendations for the future, cost estimates and time lines for migration. Ozaukee County, Wisconsin; Waukesha County, Wisconsin; Milwaukee County Wisconsin - evaluate current County trunked radio systems and make recommendations for future growth either through system upgrades and replacements or joining with the State WISCOM radio system. Halifax County, North Carolina - Assess existing VHF and UHF County radio systems and recommend a future direction. Outcome was to keep existing systems, upgrade to P25 in the future and not to join the State of North Carolina Viper radio system except for local interoperability. Included RFP for future procurements of radios and infrastructure. 2011 — Cosmopolitan Hotel and Casino, Las Vegas, Nevada — obtained waivers for FCC licensing of specialized equipment. Performed all licensing functions. 2010-1012 — Monroe County, Florida - Developed a long term growth and migration plan to replace the County's out -dated existing communications network. Results include the recommendation to implement a P25 radio system on 800 MHz along with a new countywide microwave network. The next phase is to assist in negotiation and procurement of the new radio system. Packet Pg. 1000 D.7.f 2009-2011 - Nevada Hospital Association - Needs assessment for local and statewide communications capabilities and interoperability for all hospitals in the State of Nevada. Project consisted of interviews, inventories of capabilities and an assessment report. The end result was a recommendation report to be used as a guideline for all hospitals to implement inter -hospital communications and join the statewide communication network. Primary result was the implementation of interoperability practices for all hospitals and to begin long range planning to join the statewide radio network. 2004-2010 - Administrator of the state-wide Nevada Shared Radio System (NSRS) - an EDACS trunked radio system with more than 100 sites. Tasks included overall system operational management, system growth development, long term planning and coordination with user agencies. Results included successfully expanding the radio system, implementing secure multiple access points for key users to update their aspects of the network. The NSRS users include all state agencies, the Nevada Highway Patrol, NV Energy, Washoe County, University of Nevada (Reno and Las Vegas), Nevada Department of Transportation, City of Sparks, many Native American tribes, several federal agencies. 2005-2012 - Rebanding assistance for St. Lucie County, FL, Monroe County, FL, Martin County, FL, State of Nevada, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada Power, Sierra Pacific Power 2004-2005 - Martin County, Florida - Revise County tower ordinance to accommodate needs of the communications industry, the residents of the County and local public safety agencies. Assure compliance of new laws with State and federal requirements 2004 - City of Key West - In building amplifier system for Police Headquarters. Development of specifications, Request for Proposals, vendor selection, project oversight. 2003-2005 - Martin County, Florida - Oversight of construction of a new Sheriff's dispatch center, 911 center and Emergency Operating Center (as subcontractor to Architects Design Group) 2003 - St. Lucie County, Florida - Design and implement a new Countywide 911 system. Prepared RFP, evaluated proposals, assist in vendor selection and contract negotiations and oversee implementation and acceptance testing. 2002-2003 - Ocean Reef Club, Key Largo, Florida - Needs assessment for new public safety operations center with Fire, EMS and Security response with 911 capabilities. 2002-2003 — Martin County, Florida - Project Management for implementation of countywide Motorola ASTRO trunked radio system. This project will incorporate all County agencies. 2002 - City of Sunrise, Florida - Negotiate with Broward County for consolidation of municipal public safety radio systems into countywide radio system 2002-2003 - Key West Police Department, Key West, Florida - Assist in project management for construction and implementation of new police headquarters building, dispatch center and 911 center. Packet Pg. 1001 D.7.f 2001-2003 - Winter Park, Florida - Oversight of design and construction of new police dispatch center and 911 center and relocation of facilities. (As a sub -contractor to Architect's Design Group) 2001-2002 - Bercow and Radell, PA, Miami, Florida - Develop environmental studies, radio coverage studies and site justifications for location of commercial radio station tower in sensitive wetland areas. 2001-2002 - City of Sunrise, Florida - Needs assessment to determine the necessity of a new municipal radio system for all city departments. Develop alternatives for communication systems. 2001- Key West, Florida - Obtain new radio license for Key West Fire Department. 2001 - Key West, Florida - Review design concepts for new police dispatch Center. Review vendor contracts. 2000-2002 - Sarasota County, Florida - Provide technical and management assistance for expansion of countywide 800 MHz trunked radio system. 1999-2002 - Monroe County Sheriff's Office, Monroe County, Florida - Project Management for implementation of countywide trunked radio system. Consolidation of 3 public safety dispatch centers into one. Integration of Key West Police Department into County radio system. 1999-2001 - City of North Miami Beach, Florida - Assist the City in obtaining additional UHF radio frequencies for its public works radio system. 1999 - Monroe County, Florida - Needs Assessment and cost estimates for implementing countywide trunked radio system for the Florida Keys. Work includes procurement method recommendation. 1998 - City of North Miami, Florida - Design, procurement and implementation of a municipal parks department radio system. Work included system design, draft bid specifications, evaluation of bids, system acceptance testing. 1997-2002 - St. Lucie County, Florida - Project management for the implementation of a countywide trunked radio system. Work includes system design, contract negotiations and project management during the implementation Project Value: $12 Million (estimated) 1996-1998 - Government of The Bahamas - Evaluating proposals for 800 MHz trunked radio system, E-919 emergency telephone system and mobile data system. Negotiating contracts with selected vendor. Project management and system testing for duration of implementation. Contract oversight of CAD implementation vendor in conjunction with the mobile data project. 1996 - City of Coral Springs - Expert witness for City of Coral Springs vs. BellSouth regarding laying video cable in violation of franchise authority. 1995-1997 - Charlotte County, Florida - Advise the County on its future radio communications requirements. Performed needs assessments, system and user inventories, user interviews, coverage tests, etc. with the result being a recommendation for a countywide 800 MHz trunked Packet Pg. 1002 D.7.f radio system. Developed the justifications for sole source procurements. Negotiated the contract terms with Motorola. Project management for system implementation. 1995-1998 - Sarasota County, Florida - Assisting the County with project management of the implementation of its communication system. Providing contractor oversight, developing acceptance test procedures and issuing progress reports are included. Assist the County in negotiating a contract with Motorola for an 800 MHz ASTRO digital trunked radio system. 1995 - City of Atlantic Beach, Florida - Advise the city on its future course with regards to municipal communications systems. This includes needs assessments, system and user inventories, user interviews, coverage tests, etc. The end result will be a report which will recommend what forms of communications systems are required by the City as well as design concepts for the systems and dispatch centers and estimates of system costs. 1995 - St. Lucie County, Florida - Assist the County in determining its method of procuring a trunked radio system. Perform analyses to determine effectiveness of frequency ranges available in the 800 MHz spectrum (806 vs. 821 NPSPAC frequencies) 1995 - University Community Hospital, Tamarac, Florida - Prepare all of the radio system coverage maps and signal strengths to comply with State mandated requirements for qualification for an EMS Medical Communications radio station. State law requires that a registered professional engineer certify EMS radio systems. 1994-1995 - Clay County, Florida - Review the County's RFP for a countywide, all agency 800 MHz trunked radio system. Develop evaluation criteria. Perform technical, operational and financial review of the submitted proposals. Recommend vendor. 1994 - Collier County Sheriff's Office - Develop requirements for a new communications system to be utilized by all public safety agencies within Collier County. The tasks included an analysis of existing communications systems and development of operational requirements for a new communications system. The requirements document resulted in a in a publication which will be used as the basis of a request for proposals for the purchase of a new 800 MHz radio system to be used by all public safety agencies within the County. 1993 - Indian River County, Emergency Services Department - Assessment of existing radio systems which include VHF, UHF and 800 MHz trunking with the goal of determining what future path the County should take to upgrade all of its communications systems. The tasks included evaluation of all existing systems, a needs assessment of all users, a determination of future requirements, a set of alternatives (i.e. conventional or trunked), estimates of required trunking designs, cost estimates and funding alternatives. 1993 - City of Sarasota, Florida, Public Safety Department - Assessment of Operational and Maintenance Status of Sarasota Fire Department Radio System. 1993 - 1995 - Sarasota County, Florida, Emergency Management Department - Review and amend Request for Proposals for a Countywide 800 Megahertz Radio System for Use by All County Agencies. Advise the County Radio Communications Committee on technical issues and advances in communications technology (digital radio) related to 800 Megahertz. Assist the County in release of Packet Pg. 1003 D.7.f the RFP for the radio system and attend the pre -proposal meeting in order to answer technical questions posed by the vendors. Aid in the evaluation of submitted proposals and make a technical recommendation to the County Commission. 1992 - Henkels and McCoy, Engineers - Assist in evaluation of proposals for an 800 MHz trunked radio system for St. Lucie County, Florida. 1992 - School Board of Broward County, Florida - Assist the School Board in developing and implementing an 800 Megahertz trunked radio system. Develop coverage criteria for countywide radio coverage. Assist in Contract negotiations. Develop performance criteria and acceptance test procedures 1990-1991 - St. Lucie County, Florida, Emergency Management Department - Develop a Request for Proposals for an 800 megahertz radio system for the use of all County agencies and the St. Lucie County School Board. Develop evaluation criteria for evaluation of proposals. 1990 - Plantation, Florida - Validate design for expansion of City's 800 MHz police radio system including verification of sites and equipment. Packet Pg. 1004 D.7.f The resume's of some of Pallans Associates' primary consultants follows. Mark D. Pallans General Manager EDUCATION • Bachelor of Science in GENERAL BACKGROUND Electrical Engineering, Fairleigh Dickinson University Mr. Mark Pallans is a 40 year veteran of the wireless communications • Project Management field. His background includes the design of advanced radio Program, Clemson communications systems, needs analysis, and operational and • University Motorola, Tait and Harris technical consulting in the land mobile radio field, as well as well as P25 technology having worked in quality engineering in the land mobile manufacturing • DMR Technology industry. He holds a Bachelor of Electrical Engineering from Fairleigh • Motorola Smartzone Dickinson University as well as having extensive education in other Technology aspects of public safety and business. Much of his work has been for • Harris EDACS Technology government entities where he had to interface on a daily basis with • Harris Open Sky Technology Harris Microwave Program elected government officials high level business executives as well as Department of Justice staff level personnel. He is also a technology analyst providing technical Domestic Preparedness and financial assessments for investment firms. Terrorism Programs • FEMA disaster management SPECIFIC PROJECT EXPERIENCE programs AREAS OF Pallans Associates, Coral Springs, Florida, North Las Vegas, Nevada SPECIALIZATION • Needs assessments for updating communications systems • Long Term Planning and Project Development • RFP development Needs Assessment and • Design and implementation of public safety radio systems Solution Development • RF propagation studies and analysis Radio System Design • Radio system licensing and analysis of FCC rules Dispatch Center Design • Design analysis of communications centers and emergency • 911 System Design Technology Evaluation and management applications Strategic Planning • Developing funding sources for system procurements Procurement Support and • Develop training programs for technical support and users Vendor Negotiations • Budgeting communications programs WORKGROUPS AND • Project management for government communications related COMMITTEES procurements including multisite radio systems, mobile data systems • Former Chairman, APCO and wireless data networks Spectrum Management • Call center and Dispatch center design and implementation • Committee Editorial Board, Public • Management of 800 MHz rebanding programs for several counties and Safety Communications municipalities Magazine • Advising elected officials of technology advances, regulatory matters • IWCE Board member regarding towers, in -building communications and other technology Chairing FCC Region Plannir issues as requested q Committees in Florida, and Nevada L.R. Kimball — Radio and Wireless Technical Specialist PROFESSIONAL • Implementation of Missouri statewide P25 VHF radio system ORGANIZATIONS • Needs assessments and recommendations for multiple counties in • Life Member - Association of Public Safety Wisconsin resulting in migration paths to join statewide WISCOM Communications Officials network or upgrade and consolidate local systems (APCO) • Needs assessments for multiple counties in Texas resulting in 0Fellow of the Radio Club of developing Ion term migration plans to P25 statewide intern erabilit p g g g p p y America (current Director) networks National Region Planning Council (charter member) • Acquisition of VHF, UHF and microwave radio licenses for many jurisdictions including cities, counties and states LICENSES AND • Needs Assessments, RFP development, vendor selection for CERTIFICATES countywide and local 800 MHz P25 radio systems • FCC General Class Commercial Radiotelephone • Radio system design for counties and cities License • FCC Extra Class Amateur Radio License Packet Pg. 1005 D.7.f SEMINARS AND GUEST • Development of recommendations for consolidation on public safety SPEAKING services and 911 systems ENGAGEMENTS IwCE State of Nevada/NVEnergy Statewide Radio System — System • Radio for IT Managers, Administrator (EDACS) 2008 -2016 The Nevada Shared Radio System (NSRS) is a statewide 800 MHz trunked • Legal and Contractual radio system with more than 100 sites providing radio coverage of 110,000 Aspects of in -building RF square miles. It is a public/private partnership between the State of Nevada Amplifier Systems, 2006 ernm • How to Sell to Government, and NV Energythe State's largest electric utility. Work functions included: g y� 2003,2013 • Oversight of system growth planning including site development, • Moderator Of FCC vendor negotiations and vendor oversight. Regulatory Panel , 2000 • Reviewing contracts for vendor compliance. APCO • Public Private Partnerships in • Spectrum management of the system including licensing, 800 MHz trunked Radio determining and resolving interference issues, assisting in Systems, 2008 implementation of sites, performing coverage and propagation • Lightning Protection and analysis. Grounding, 2004, 2012 • Responsible for all FCC related regulatory matters affecting the • Project Management, 2003 • Meeting FCC and OSHA RF State of Nevada and NVEnergy. Exposure Requirements, • Design and development for system enhancement (sites and 2002, 2014 equipment) • Basic Radio Technology for • Management and licensing of all NVEnergy radio and microwave Dispatchers, 2002 systems with the FCC. • How tothe Impact of High Rise Building Impact • Meeting with user agencies to resolve and eliminate an technical or g 9 Y Construction on Radio operational issues that arise. System Performance, 2000 • Liaison to system vendor to manage ongoing system upgrades and • How Not to Implement new resolving technical issues. Communications Systems, 1999, 2016 • Developing and establishing maintenance programs across multiple p, g g p g p • Implementation and jurisdictions. Management of Multi- • Coordinating the statewide radio system databases utilized to Jurisdictional Trunked Radio approve users and site access abilities. Systems, 1996 • Implementation of Ordinances • Engineering site and equipment upgrades of radio and microwave to Protect Communications systems. Infrastructures From • Management of 800 MHz rebanding program for NVEnergy Interference Due To Development of High Rise including more than 4000 radios and 20 radio sites statewide. Structures, 1990 City of Fort Lauderdale — Telecommunications Manager PREVIOUS AFFILIATIONS • Operational management of all municipal communications systems • Design and implementation of municipal radio and telephone • Motorola, Inc. communication systems • RCA Institutes, New York • Applied Research Labs • Design and implementation of Fire Department telemetry system • Hudson Marine of Florida • Management of a 3 site simulcast trunked radio system serving five • Communications Systems cities, 4,000 telephone lines in several telephone switches International, Miami, FL • Digital and microwave system maintenance and design • City of Phoenix, Az • Technical oversight of the City's E-911 center and police and fire PUBLICATIONS radio communications center • Regular contributor to Public • Staffing and personnel management of both technical and Safety Communications administrative positions Magazine • Fiscal responsibility of $3 million plus budget • Articles for Law and Order Magazine • Administration of more than 700 cell phone accounts including • Primary author of FCC service oversight, billing verification and rate plan analysis Florida Region Plan for 800 • Regulation of cable TV franchising, rights of way for MHz telecommunications services, tower ordinances • Primary Author of FCC • Liaison to the industry in matters relating to the Telecommunications Nevada Region Plans for Act of 1996 both 800 and 700 MHz • Represent the City with local, state and federal government on communications related matters • Coordinate with wireless carriers to alleviate interference problems Packet Pg. 1006 D.7.f • Member of the Governor's Domestic Security Task Force • Chairman of FCC Region 9 800 MHz Committee • Chairman of FCC Region 9 700 MHz Committee Miami Dade County Telecommunications — Senior Communications Engineer • Design, development, implementation and management of a countywide EDACS public safety and local government trunked radio communications system, transit mobile data system and countywide microwave system • Needs assessments for network designs, Preparation of specifications, Technical evaluation of proposals • Design analysis, RF propagation analysis • Negotiation and implementation of vendor contracts • Develop and implementing user and technician training programs • Oversight of multiple vendors and their technical staffs Miami Dade County Police Department — Communications Engineering Manager • Design, development and implementation of a new countywide 800 Megahertz trunked radio system. • Management of the contracted vendors, Oversight of the Police Department's communications consultant • Technical oversight of Countywide police dispatch center • Technical oversight of Countywide 911 center • Liaison with heads of municipal governments (mayors and City managers) occurred on a regular basis • Budget preparation and audit, Staffing and personnel management City of Phoenix - Spectrum Manager (11/2003-8/2004) • Oversight of all FCC licensing for the City including radio systems, microwave systems, SCADA • Liaison to other municipalities and County government regarding FCC matters • Work with cellular companies to resolve interference matters • Secretary of FCC Region Planning Committee for Arizona Broward County, Florida - Communications Engineering Manager • Oversight of Radio Engineering Manager, Telephone Engineering Manager, Data Systems Engineering Manager • Long range communications systems planning and development • Design and implementation of government communication networks • Liaison to County elected officials to advise them about advances in technology related to communications • Oversight of Emergency Management Communications systems and staff • Development of 911 and Emergency Medical Service systems • Design and implementation of countywide 800 MHz trunked radio system Packet Pg. 1007 D.7.f Carl J. Rader Senior Consultant/Project Manager GENERAL BACKGROUND MS CIS University of Phoenix • BS College of New Carl Rader is a senior project manager. He brings over 25 years Jersey of experience in program administration, large public safety project • Clemson University - management, wireless RF communications systems engineering, Quality Assurance Techniques in computer systems, ESF-2 and staff/vendors management for Design/Construction public safety complex/EOC construction. Documents • RACAL-MILGO - Telephone and Mr. Rader is an accomplished public safety consultant with a Computer Modems substantial background in assisting and supporting local 0 DATA -PROS -T1 t' th t f b th t h' 1 d t' I carriers grnmm oveen s In e anagm een o o ec ca nlan opera Iona projects. He has built and managed technical systems including Awards 800MHz, 700MHz trunked radio, CAD, RMS, GIS and Mobile Data U.S. PATENTED implementations both as an employee of Ada and Broward INVENTIONS: Counties and as a consultant with L.R. Kimball and Tusa. Carl has • Electronics Navigation System: 4,383,259 and experience in construction technology and communications 4,590,570 projects, including high security and Homeland Security projects handling over $30 MILLION on Broward County's Public Safety Books and Articles Authored projects. His work involved project management, contract administration, telecommunications design, dispatch center, 0 "FUNDAMENTALS OF computer center and EOC design/construction, n/construction, building cabling com p g g g ELECTRONICS MATHEMATICS" plants, conduits and trunked radio system design, as well as Delmar Publishing planning, permitting, installation, antennas and transmission lines 0 "Broward County in site management. Florida Consolidates Public Safety Communication" In addition, he was also an adjunct professor of communication The International APCO and data systems at several Florida colleges and universities. Bulletin - Cover Story (APCO, May 1993) • "On Duty With Robo SPECIFIC PROJECT EXPERIENCE Partner" Communications Tusa Consultin g Spotlight (Law Enforcement • Senior Project Manager Senior Public Safety Technology, May 2012) • Communications Consultant and Project Manager AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION ADA County Idaho Sheriff's Office Senior Public Safety Communications Consultant and Project Project Management Manager, Director of Emergency Communications Support • Trunk Radio System Designer Division Simulcast Network • All E911 communications, engineering & PM, ESF-2 Design P2il TkMHMHl 5 Digital 700z,800z and analog • gg VHF • Tower Construction Fiber Optics • Broadband & HPD MDT's 0 Microwave Systems • Database management, CAD, AVL, MDT's and records CAD Systems GIS/AVL • LTE design • VOIP Packet Pg. 1008 D.7.f • Admin and Staff Management and training • ECPC chairman serving ADSO, and 5 Cities PD,EMS and Fire Service • Member of planning group for ADA County I T Directors L.R. Kimball Melbourne, FL Senior Project Manager- Public Safety Radio Systems — Computer Systems • Establish and prepare project schedules between client, technical and project personnel • Complete project budget forms for project bookings to include financial reporting • Lead the development of reports, analysis and project presentations • PM for Washington County UHF Trunked Radio System and Mobile Data System • Worked on Florida Public Safety Radio Systems in Coral Springs, Margate Coconut Creek, Palm Beach, Gainesville and Okeechobee Counties • Key Clients; Broward County, FL; Fort Lauderdale, FL; Ada County, ID; Coral Springs, FL; Scottsdale, AZ; Washington County, MD; Lee County, GA Broward Sheriff's Office Fort Lauderdale, FL Communication Systems Engineer • Management of the technical operations of the Broward Sheriff's Office 800 MHz countywide trunked radio system Broward County Government -Public works and Bond Projects Fort Lauderdale, FL Project Manager- Telecommunication Bond Program/Office Information Technology & Communications • Establish and prepare project schedules between client, technical and project personnel • Implemented new county wide 800 MHz trunked radio system • New dispatch center, CAD, Radio Voice & MDT's • Public safety building and EOC building • Developed and aided in the construction of facilities, towers buildings and rooftops, Computer -Aided Dispatch and GIS, E911 Dispatch Center for PSB, County -wide Digital Microwave System, Data Communication and Fiber Optic network, Mobile Data Terminals, Digital PBX and Facsimile, Video and Security, CATV systems etc. on a $28,000,000 Budget • Respond to disaster scenes to coordinate communications assets for responding Agencies • Develop core group of dedicated volunteers to assist with communications Packet Pg. 1009 D.7.f Richard Jenkins Senior Consultant GENERALBACKGROUND SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS: • Infrastructure development and expansion of over 30 EDUCATION years in the radio and telecommunication industry, including project and construction management with full . Bachelor of Arts in Administration, American P&L responsibility. College of Minneapolis • Proficiency in recruiting and hiring of field personnel • Cisco Systems Training • Motorola SmartZone coordinates the implementation and performance of Technology project teams. • Harris Microwave Program • FCC Spectrum Management • My diverse strengths include extensive knowledge of • IBM Managing Data -Comm the wireless industry, the successful implementation Systems • AT&T PBX Implementation and management of nationwide project teams, revising and Management and implemented operating procedures, which resulted • Multiple vendors' product Schools in a significant decrease in operating costs. AREAS OF • Extensive program/construction management SPECIALIZATION experience. • Public Safety local • Computer experienced in a wide variety of PC/VM government systems company specific p y s p c software. • Needs Assessment and Solution Development • Contributing author of the FCC State of Florida Region • Dispatch Center Design 9 Communication Plan for 700 MHz and 800 MHz •Technology Evaluation and Strategic Planning • Procurement Support and SPECIFIC PROJECT EXPERIENCE Vendor Negotiations Martin County Board of County Commissioners, Stuart, FL. wORKGROUPS AND COMMITTEES Radio Systems Manager • Implementation and management of County -wide public • Region 9 FCC 800 MHz Committee safety trunked radio system • Region 9 FCC 700 MHz Committee • Implementation of first Regional radio system in the state • Florida State lnteroperability of Florida Committee • Management of County radio shop technical and PROFESSIONAL administrative staff ORGANIZATIONS • Liaison to Count Department for issues relating to •Association of Public Safety y p g Communications Officials telecommunications, FCC regulations, tower ordinances (APCO) • Represent County with other state and local government LICENSES AND entities CERTIFICATES • Oversee implementation of new Emergency operations • FCC General Class Cmmeand dispatch center Lce sercial Radiotelephone • Manage FAA and FCC licensing Packet Pg. 1010 D.7.f Specialized Communication Technology Company, Hollywood, FL Telecommunications Consultant • Provided consultation for Cellular Realty Advisors, Inc. (CRA) in Fort Lauderdale as Director of Site Acquisition for wireless Broadband projects. • Wireless planning in all phases of site acquisition including preliminary site qualifications, A&E site walks, and final site design approvals. • Establish new business within the local government and private sector. • Coordinated construction projects with A&E and clients. • Training of personnel with new and installed radio/telephone system. • Managed radio/telephone communications systems for city/county agencies • Evaluate communications technology and submit recommendations. School Board of Broward County, Fort Lauderdale, FL Radio Systems Manager/Telecommunication • Directed/monitored countywide wireless communications using 800 MHz Public Safety Radio System with over 1,500 radios. • Oversee planning/development, construction, and maintenance • Vendor evaluation • budget analysis • project management for all trunked and cellular communications systems • Coordinated with vendors concerning, equipment, A&E and circuits. Motorola Trunked • Submitted specialized advice to Director on technological matter s process • Oversee AT&T PBX switches, associated equipment and software. The Miami Herald, Miami, FL Systems Network Coordinator • Coordinate multiple vendors for all communications installation, maintenance, hardware testing, and troubleshooting • Analyzed company equipment needs and provided support to maintain network and resolve operational/communications problems • Created short -and long-term budget plans • Created online user "Help Desk" to overcome hardware/software problems • Established Early Support Program agreement with IBM for installing 4381 Model Group 2 computers, resulting in early feedback on setup/operations • Established Systems Support Department, reducing online system outages. • Supervised daily operations/staff in areas such as workflow evaluation, planning, performance, and personnel development. Packet Pg. 1011 D.7.f PROFESSIONAL PROFICIENCIES AND EXPERIENCE Public Safety Communications • Manager of county government public safety communications systems including sheriff's department, emergency medical services and fire services • Responsible for all aspects of communications system design and deployment, including customer needs assessment, proposals/bid response development, and system deployment • Liaison to local and state government elected and appointed officials Project Management • Acted as both technical and program manager for many public safety and local government mobile radio communications programs encompassing specifications, design, implementation and program management • Managed both vendor and government resources to ensure successful completion of the projects Interoperability • Established interoperable radio systems for use between local, state and federal agencies. • Member of Florida Governor's Interoperability Committee Spectrum Planning • Active in regional spectrum planning for 700 MHz and 800 MHz Packet Pg. 1012 D.7.f Alan Tilles Shulman Rogers Gandal Pordy & Ecker, P.A. The clients of Pallans Associates often need specialized assistance with legal issues related to telecommunications law, FCC regulatory issues and telecommunications related business matters. Pallans Associates has a working agreement with one of the nation's leading telecommunications law firms. Founded in 1972, Shulman Rogers Gandal Pordy & Ecker, P.A. ("Shulman Rogers") is located in and has its main office in Potomac, Maryland. Over the past forty years, the Firm has distinguished itself not only as one of the most respected law firms in Maryland, but also boasts attorneys with substantial national and international experience across a wide range of legal subjects. Today Shulman Rogers is staffed by over 90 attorneys, 30 legal assistants and 77 other support personnel organized into six general operating departments: telecommunications, corporate, trusts and estates, real estate, commercial litigation and contingent litigation. Firm Qualifications. Experience and References Alan Tilles, head of the Shulman Rogers Telecommunications Department, has 28 years of experience in communications law, primarily in the wireless arena. In connection with his representation of municipalities and counties nationwide, Mr. Tilles has been at the forefront of efforts to build and expand robust and interconnected wireless communications networks so that first responders are able to communicate and to access critical information more effectively. The "bread and butter" of the Firm's telecommunications work is in the public safety communications area. Whether representing over 200 entities in their 800 MHz rebanding negotiations, creating rules for VHF/UHF narrowbanding, or finding spectrum for critical public safety communications, the Firm helps agencies ensure that reliable communications are always available for our nation's first responders. In addition to those services previously mentioned, the Firm has been retained by public safety entities to review Project 25 (P25) RFP responses, works to resolve interference issues and negotiates spectrum acquisition agreements. Shulman Rogers' demonstrated knowledge of communications laws and regulations, as well as its success in negotiating and drafting numerous agreements to facilitate the building and operation of complex communications networks, has led to the Firm's selection by dozens of municipalities nationwide to represent them in their public safety licensing communications activities, including the following; State of Alabama Hillsborough County, Florida Peoria County, Illinois Washoe County, Nevada State of Kansas Indian River County, Florida Leavenworth County, Kansas Raleigh -Durham Airport, NC State of Colorado Manatee County, Florida Lincoln County, Kansas City of Grand Forks, ND State of Washington Martin County, Florida Shawnee County, Kansas City of Columbus, Ohio Sacramento County, CA Monroe County, Florida City of Baton Rouge, LA Government of Bayamon, PR City of Denver, Colorado Orange County, Florida Harrison County, Mississippi Spartanburg County, SC Greater Orlando Airport Seminole County, Florida Mississippi State University City of Memphis, Tennessee Authority, Florida Henry County, Georgia City of Kansas City, Missouri City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee City of North Miami Beach, FL City of Honolulu, Hawaii City of St. Louis, Missouri Port of Seattle, Washington Packet Pg. 1013 D.7.g MARK D. PALLANS 7753 LILY TROTTER STREET NORTH LAS VEGAS, NV 89084 (702) 657-0456 mpallans@cox.net GENERALBACKGROUND Mr. Mark Pallans is a 35-year veteran of the wireless communications field. His background includes the design of advanced radio communications systems, needs analysis, and operational and technical consulting in the land mobile radio field, as well as well as having worked in quality engineering in the land mobile manufacturing industry. He holds a Bachelor of Electrical Engineering from Fairleigh Dickinson University as well as having extensive education in other aspects of public safety and business. Much of his work has been for government entities where he had to interface on a daily basis with elected government officials high level business executives as well as staff level personnel. Pallans Associates, Communication Consultants Consulting to local governments on public safety communication issues. • Develop long term communications growth plans for public safety communication systems • RFP development • Design and implementation of public safety radio systems • RF propagation studies and analysis • Radio system licensing and analysis if FCC rules • Design analysis of communications center and emergency management applications • Needs assessments for updating communications systems • Developing funding sources for system procurements • Develop training programs for technical support and users • Budgeting communications programs • Project management for government communications related procurements Specific recent major projects • Recovery analysis and recommendations communication upgrades for Monroe County, Florida after Hurricane Irma • Third Party Review of Nuclear Generating Station Radio system replacement specifications • Design and implementation of P25 UHF trunked radio system for Nuclear Generating Station • Procurement of a nationwide digital trunked radio system for Cayman Islands • Design, develop, procure, implement national public safety radio system for Bermuda • 800 MHz rebanding followed by upgrading/replacing countywide communications for the Los Angeles Unified School District • Developing and implementing regional P25 trunked radio system for multiple county use. L.R. Kimball — Radio and Wireless Technical Specialist • Implementation of Missouri statewide P25 VHF radio system • Needs assessments and recommendations for multiple counties in Wisconsin resulting in migration paths to join statewide WISCOM network or upgrade and consolidate local systems • Needs assessments for multiple counties in Texas resulting in developing long term migration plans to P25 statewide interoperability networks • Acquisition of VHF, UHF and microwave radio licenses for many jurisdictions including cities, counties and states • Needs Assessments, RFP development, vendor selection for statewide, countywide and local P25 radio systems • Development of recommendations for consolidation on public safety services and 911 systems State of Nevada/NVEnergy Statewide Radio System — System Administrator • Oversight of system growth planning including site development, vendor negotiations and vendor oversight. • Spectrum management of the system including licensing, determining and resolving interference issues, assisting in implementation of sites, performing coverage and propagation analysis. • Responsible for all FCC related regulatory matters affecting the State of Nevada and NVEnergy. • Management and licensing of all NVEnergy radio and microwave systems with the FCC. • Meeting with user agencies to resolve and eliminate any technical or operational issues that Packet Pg. 1014 D.7.g arise. • Liaison to system vendor to manage ongoing system upgrades and resolving technical issues. • Developing and establishing maintenance programs across multiple jurisdictions. • Coordinating the statewide radio system databases utilized to approve users and site access abilities. • Engineering site and equipment upgrades of radio and microwave systems. • Management of 800 MHz rebanding program for NVEnergy including more than 4000 radios and 20 radio sites statewide. • Chairman of FCC Region 27 800 MHz Committee • Chairman of FCC Region 27 700 MHz Committee City of Fort Lauderdale — Telecommunication Manager • Operational management of all municipal communication systems • Design and implementation of municipal radio and telephone communication systems • Design and implementation of Fire Department telemetry system • Management of a 3 site simulcast trunked radio system serving five cities • Implementation and management of 4,000 telephone lines in several telephone switches • Digital and microwave system maintenance and design • Technical oversight of the City's E-911 center and police and fire radio communications center • Staffing and personnel management of both technical and administrative positions • Fiscal responsibility of $3 million plus budget • Regulation of cable TV franchising, rights of way for telecommunications services, tower ordinances • Liaison to the industry in matters relating to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 • Represent the City with local, state and federal government on communication related matters • Coordinate with wireless carriers to alleviate interference problems • Member of the Governor's Domestic Security Task Force • Chairman of FCC Region 9 800 MHz Committee • Chairman of FCC Region 9 700 MHz Committee City of Phoenix • Administration of all radio and microwave licensing • Oversight of radio system upgrade to P25 • Representation for City at FCC and other legislative bodies • Liaison to other cities within Matricopa County for use of radio systems • Advior to City Council on cellular phone related matters • Member of FCC Region 3 Committee for 800 MHz licensing Miami Dade County Telecommunications — Senior Communications Engineer Miami Dade County Police Department — Communications Engineering Manager • Design, development, implementation and management of a countywide public safety and local government trunked radio communications system, transit mobile data system and countywide microwave system • Needs assessments for network designs, Preparation of specifications, Technical evaluation of proposals • Design analysis, RF propagation analysis • Negotiation and implementation of vendor contracts • Develop and implementing user and technician training programs • Oversight of multiple vendors and their technical staffs Broward County, Florida —Communications Engineering Manager Motorola Communications, Plantation, Florida — Senior Quality Control Engineer Communication Systems International, Miami, Florida - Service Manager RCA Institutes, New York, NY — College instructor Packet Pg. 1015 D.7.g PROFESSIONAL PROFICIENCIES AND EXPERIENCE • Public Safety Communications • Senior engineer with a major equipment manufacturer's Quality Engineering, Customer Engineering, Systems Engineering, and Systems Architect teams within their Land Mobile Products Sector • Responsible for all aspects of communications system design and deployment, including customer needs assessment, proposals/bid response development, and system deployment • Developed and successfully implemented advanced voice and data radio systems for major public utilities, State and Local Government agencies, foreign government and commercial organizations. These systems include simulcast and trunked technologies, data communications, microwave communications, 911 centers and integrated dispatch centers • Developed and presented technical and non -technical training for customers, and industry consultants on the features, benefits, and application of new technologies, products and systems • Interoperability • Established interoperable radio systems for use between local, state and federal agencies. • Member of Florida Governor's Interoperability Council • Through trade organizations, in the forefront of advancing interoperability education and implementation • Spectrum Planning • Chairman of the APCO Spectrum Management Committee • Providing education and information to public officials on the future of public safety spectrum utilization • Chairman of several FCC Region Planning Committees • Charter member and officer of the National Region Planning Council (800 MHz and 700 MHz) PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS • Life Member - Association of Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO) • Fellow of the Radio Club of America • National Region Planning Council (charter member) LICENSES AND CERTIFICATES • FCC General Class Commercial Radiotelephone License with radar endorsement • FCC Amateur Radio License, Extra Class WORKGROUPS AND COMMITTEES • Former Chairman, APCO Spectrum Management Committee • Editorial Board, Public Safety Communications Magazine • IWCE Show Advisory Board member • Former Chairman of the FCC Region 27 800 MHz and 700 MHz Region Planning Committees • Former Chairman of the FCC Region 9 800 MHz and 700 MHz Region Planning Committees • Member of Florida Governor's Domestic Security Task Force EDUCATION • Bachelor of Electrical Engineering, Fairleigh Dickinson University • Clemson University Quality Engineering Program • Clemson University Project Management Program Packet Pg. 1016 D.7.g • Motorola Smartzone Technology • Harris EDACS Technology (Technical, Operational, Management) • Harris Open Sky Technology • Harris P25 Technology • Motorola P25 technology • Harris Microwave Program • Department of Justice, Texas A&M Terrorism and WMD Programs • FEMA disaster management programs • USAF ECI-7 Officer's Training Program SEMINARS AND GUEST SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS IWCE • Radio for IT and Communications Center Managers, 2008-2019 • Radio Frequency Exposure Training 2019 • Lightning Protection and System grounding • Legal and Contractual Aspects of in -building RF Amplifier Systems, 2006 • How to Sell to Government, 2003, 2012, 2013, 2014 • Moderator Of Federal Communications Commission Regulatory Panel, 2000 APCO • Radio for Non -Technical Communication Managers and Directors, 2013 • Radio Frequency Exposure regulations and Safety 2016, 2010 • Lightning Protection and Grounding, 2012 • Public Private Partnerships in 800 MHz trunked Radio Systems, 2008 • Project Management, 2003 • Meeting FCC and OSHA RF Exposure Requirements, 2002 • Basic Radio Technology for Dispatchers, 2002 • How to Accommodate the Impact of High Rise Building Construction on Radio System Performance, 2000 • How Not to Implement new Communications Systems, 1999, 2011, 2016 • Implementation and Management of Multi -Jurisdictional Trunked Radio Systems, 1996 • Implementation of Ordinances to Protect Communications Infrastructures From Interference Due To Development of High Rise Structures, 1990 PUBLICATIONS Law and Order Magazine Public —Private Partnerships in Radio System Design Public Safety Communications Magazine Recovering from major Natural Disasters The Consumer Electronics Show - Products related to Public Safety Modern Communication Technologies Implementing and Managing 800 MHz Trunked Radio Systems Visualizing Radio System Coverage Using the FCC Form 601 800 MHz Rebanding Updates Monthly column Q&A for radio system users Packet Pg. 1017 D.7.h An Evaluation of the Proposed 960 Foot Tower on Cudjoe Key With Respect to Its Ability to Support Emergency Communications In the Lower Keys In March, 2018 Pallans Associates was requested to determine if a new tower placed on Cudjoe Key could enhance existing public safety communications. The primary conclusion of the report was that the tower would provide very limited benefit to existing capabilities. A recommendation was made that it be considered for future emergency use. After the County Commission reviewed the effects of Hurricane Irma and the County agencies prioritized disaster response requirements Pallans Associates was again approached to perform an analysis of this tower specifically relating to disaster backup communications, cellular phone support and marine use. The following report will show that; • This tower could provide wide area radio coverage of the Lower Keys for the Monroe County Sheriff's Office and Monroe County Fire -Rescue if the main radio system is damaged by a disaster • Marine communications (ship to shore) can be significantly enhanced on a continuing basis • Limited cellular phone service could be restored to the Lower Keys provided certain regulatory and technical issues could be addressed by the Federal Communication Commission • Other County agencies that utilize the MCSO radio system can also operate post -disaster. The existing Monroe County Sheriff's Office Radio System is a state of the art 800 MHz trunked radio system utilizing P25 technology. The system was commissioned in 2015 and is specifically designed for public Safety use. It utilizes nine radio sites along the Keys FIGURE 1 - COUNTY RADIO SYSTEM COVERAGE r 1 l'allan5 A000ciatco Analysis of Pror— A COMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS Packet Pg. 1018 D.7.h The Blue color represents the coverage from each of the sites. The green circles show the limits of each site's coverage. Each site has a radio tower that is anywhere from 200 feet to 300 feet in height. The typical range for an 800 MHz radio system with these antenna heights is from 12 to 15 miles in any direction The damage caused by Hurricane Irma caused failures of the MCSO radio system connectivity between sites and the master controller. Many of the sites stayed on the air using generators. Some sites had their antennas bent from the wind. The sites that remained operational could only transmit and receive within the range of each site. Countywide communications failed. The storm also damaged all regular phone lines, shut down cell phone operation, shut down power, cable television and internet service and all communications in general for both residents and the County government. The Proposed Tower The tower being proposed for Cudjoe has been in the planning stages for many years. It will be located on private land on the Key. The owner has already received approval from the FAA so it is not a hazard to aircraft. The site is located west of Blimp Road. Cudjoe Key has additional towers. One is 600 feet and another is 336 feet FIGURE 2 - CUDJOE KEY Tower Site 2 11allan5 A000ciatco Analysis of Pror— A COMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS I Packet Pg. 1019 D.7.h Using the Proposed Tower for MCSO Emergency Communication With antennas at 900 feet on the proposed tower and using the same type of directional antenna as on other sites of the MCSO radio system the coverage extends from west of Key West to east of Marathon, a total of approximately 50 miles. The model also shows that the coverage into the Gulf side and the ocean side extends out to 25 miles or more. The usable range is more since the signals do not just cut off but they get noisier and less reliable. Readable signals will probably extend to 30 miles of more. This site can provide a coverage umbrella over all of the Lower Keys. This type of operation would only work for emergency use since it is stand alone and uses conventional technology. That means only one user at a time could operate on each transmitter installed at the site. One repeater could be installed for police, one for fire -rescue and one for general government users. It would require user discipline to present interference. Even with this limitation it would provide adequate communication capabilities. All user mobile and portable radios would have these discrete frequencies installed and each dispatch center and operations center would have a base station with the frequencies installed. If the main dispatch center had this capability its base station could be connected directly to one of the dispatch consoles and then these emergency communications could be patched into the remaning portions of the radio system for more coverage. Figure 3 shows the mathematical model for a signal transmitting out to a Sheriff's radio Figure 4 shows the model of a Sheriff's radio transmitting back to the tower. It also indicates that the talkback range is actually greater than the talkout range by a small amount. Using the Proposed Tower for Marine Communication The coverage of this tower when used for marine radios is even more dramatic. The VHF radio spectrum is used for marine communications. One of the characteristics of VHF performance is that it only travels in a straight line so it is called "line of sight" transmissions. This means a VHF signal will only travel about 12 miles on the ocean. The typical base antenna is generally at an elevation of 100 to 150 feet for the Coast Guard. If that antenna is raised to a height of 850 feet the horizon is at a much greater distance. The model of coverage from the proposed tower for a VHF marine system shows a coverage area up to 60 miles or more. Using an omnidirectional antenna means that the coverage area could exceed 12,000 square miles. Figures 5 and 6 shows the modeled coverage for a VHF station on the tower at 150 feet and at 850 feet Using the Proposed Tower for Cellular Communication Cellular telephone technology is not conducive to being deployed from a single high site .It requires connectivity to a master system which controls every feature of the network. r 3 l'allan5 A000ciatco Analysis of Propose (-^ Aron v� COMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS Packet Pg. 1020 D.7.h The infrastructure required to operate a cellular system is massive in order to support literally millions of customers. Not all of the operating frequencies of cellular systems are capable of long distance communications. The Federal Communication Commission has strict technical and operational standards that must be met and, in general require low sites and low power. That being said, there have been discussions with providers relating to off shore telephone communications and the possibility of waivers from the FCC to conduct limited and localized cellular communications. One of the major issues is that such a system would be severely limited numbers of users. Figure 3 - Talkout from 900 Feet La [ Conch Ma ath�=� �� � 'y olong Beach arathon j6 West Summerlin Key f sck� 0 7 st ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- 4 11allan5 A000ciatco Analysis of Pror--- --" COMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS Packet Pg. 1021 Figure 4 - Talkback from 900 feet Flamingo --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- _ La [ — Conch K9Nn 9 O Ma a --�Kr olong Beach th. -- T M th911- t h� 7 arathon: C �-,,Bia nel<e,�S p L zst Summed in LY ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ 1 5 Pallario Aowciateo Analysis of Pror-----' COMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS I Packet Pg. 1022 Figure 5 — VHF radio coverage from 150 feet Figure 6- VHF radio coverage from 850 feet 11,qllario A000ciatco COMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS ------------ ------------ o CL 0 VH Sugar afl- R ne Key i C West Sumrrer sto� ------------ ----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- Lin, ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------- - - --- - n.h K Mar,tholony Beach % C a rathon 11,,Ane Ke Cudje, West Summe H Key O St ----------- ----------- ----- ------- -- ------------------ -------------------------------------------------- I ------------ LL E ii Analysis of Pror-----' I Packet Pg. 1023 D.7.h Impact on the Community Pallans Associates is very aware of the visual impact of towers on the surrounding community. Mr.Pallans has drafted tower ordinances for many municipalities and counties in Florida and has done on site analysis of lines of sight in communities to prevent significant impacts on these communities. Cudjoe Key already has a 600 foot tower and the federal blimp base with its aerostats that fly anywhere from 5,000 feet to 14,000 feet. The addition of a 900 foot tower, while it sounds dramatic is really not. The 600 foot tower demonstrates that beyond a distance of three to four miles the guy wires are not visible and the tower itself appears as a "pencil line" on the horizon barely above the vegetation. When on US 1 on Cudjoe Key the tower is not even visible due to the roadside vegetation. Driving east on US 1from Lower Sugarloaf Key the tower is visible when there is no vegetation alongside the road. The 600 foot tower appears as a pencil line at about half the height of the power lines along the roadside. This continues all the way to Cudjoe where the vegetation blocks the view. Driving westbound from Ramrod Key the tower does not appear to be visible. The demographics of Cudjoe Key were estimated by counting residential roofs on the island. Within one mile of the proposed tower there are 15 structures. It could not be determined if these are residences . From one mile to two miles there are approximately 350 residences, all are south of US 1. From two to three miles there are approximately 1300 residences. Most are south of US 1 with about 250 north of US 1 in a community on the eastern shore. There are approximately 100 residences on the eastern side of Upper Sugarloaf Key facing Cudjoe Key. The local vegetation screens the view of Cudjoe Key. 11allan5 A000ciatco Analysis of Pror— A COMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS Packet Pg. 1024 D.7.h Responses to Questions from Citizens Monroe County Mayor Murphy: Monroe County Commissioners: The BOCC will soon be considering whether to encourage a landowner to submit an application for land -use zoning and other code changes to permit the construction of a 950-foot tall communications tower on Cudjoe Key at Blimp Road, 1/4 mile from the Overseas Highway. Given the significant visual impact of such a tower, not only for those who live here, but for all travelers on our scenic highway, the undersigned organizations respectfully request that, before the BOCC again considers this proposal, County staff is tasked with the preparation of a comprehensive report which analyzes all of the potential costs and benefits of the tower. The report should cover in detail at least the following topics: What would be the actual benefits to emergency, marine, and other communications resulting from the tower? Maintaining public safety communications during and after a major disaster is of primary importance to the residents of Monroe County. The existing radio system is very robust and has built in redundancy that can keep the individual sites working as long as the antennas and towers are not compromised. There are nine sites from Key West to Key Largo. Each radio site covers approximately twenty to thirty miles of the Keys. The weakest links in communications are caused by external factors. Power is most important. If electricity is lost each site has a generator. During Hurricane Irma, two sites lost their generator power because the storm surge ripped the fuel tanks from their mounts. This shut down the sites causing total loss of communications over significant portions of the Keys. Also the Master Site that connects and controls individual sites for the radio system, and the main dispatch center, lost electrical power. These are located at the State Government Building in Marathon, FL. Due to the generator for that building failing after the storm and a lengthy response from their generator vendor ... the equipment was offline. MCSO Emergency Communications made a personal to FKEC who immediately restored power to the building.. A backup dispatch center had been brought up and was working in the EOC. Powering up the Master Site allowed most individual radio sites to again be connected together. The leased Master Site space has since been rewired and external power adapters installed. A dedicated portable generator and harness should be placed onsite in case of potential future outages. s Pallan5 A000ciatco Analysis of Pror— A COMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS Packet Pg. 1025 D.7.h Connectivity is the second most important aspect of communications. All of the radio sites, the dispatch centers and Key West are connected together through a cable based network to a master controller in order to provide countywide communications. If this network fails or if the master controller fails (there is a backup controller but it relies on the same network cabling) each site will continue to operate but they will only cover their immediate locale and there will be no countywide communications or interagency communications. By placing a tower on Cudjoe Key with antennas at heights over 900 feet the loss of the County radio system in the lower Keys will be mitigated because, at that height and that location, antennas will "see" from west of Key West to east of Marathon. If some standalone repeaters are connected to those antennas and the frequencies of those repeaters are installed in all public safety vehicles users throughout the Keys could switch their radios to the appropriate repeater frequency and continue communications throughout the area. The dispatch centers would have base stations that could be tied into the radio consoles. Once this is done then the emergency repeaters could be "patched" into the remaining network in order to maintain communications with the balance of the Keys. It is recommended that the backup frequency be licensed in the 800 MHz band. Conventional 800 MHz frequencies could be programmed into existing equipment that most Public Safety agencies already have on hand. Marine communications can also be significantly improved. Marine radios use the VHF (very high frequency) spectrum. VHF only works to the horizon or "line of sight". Marine stations speak directly between vessel and shore station. There is no intervening network. Most VHF base stations such as the Coast Guard typically use antennas mounted up to about 100 to 200 feet. Assuming a 100 foot tower this gives a maximum range of approximately 14miles (a coverage area of approximately 600 square miles). By placing the antenna at an elevation of 850 feet the range increases to approximately 46 miles (a coverage area of more than 6,600 square miles). - Are these benefits needed? Does sufficient redundancy already exist, given the County's ongoing post -Irma hurricane preparedness efforts? Could additional redundancy be added with updated equipment on existing towers or by other means? The short answer is yes, the benefits are needed. There is always need for improved redundancy and reliability when considering natural disasters. As previously mentioned, the County radio system has built in redundancy that has proved itself on a site by site basis. There is nothing within the system that can further enhance redundancy or reliability. There is no equipment that can be added internally to the radio system that will enhance reliability. Existing towers are strong as demonstrated by Hurricane Irma but their weak point is the actual antennas. In the case of Irma they survived but some were bent and some hardware needed replacement. Externally, redundancy can be enhanced by r 9 Pallan5 A000ciatco Analysis of Propose r-Ainn v� COMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS Packet Pg. 1026 D.7.h replacing the existing wired network with fiber optics and by implementing a County wide microwave network. There are Federal restrictions on the amount/weight of equipment that can be placed on each tower. This is referred to as wind loading. The MCSO radio system utilizes County owned towers in Key West (Courthouse), Stock Island (MCSO-HQ), Scout Key, Plantation Key (Courthouse). These towers are at or very near maximum capacity due to leased commercial vendors who also occupy the space. The remaining towers are leased space owned by either the State of Florida or a private vendor. Those are; Sugarloaf Key (Telcom Systems), Marathon (SOF), Layton (SOF), Tea Table Key (SOF-DMS), N. Key Largo (SOF). These towers are also at or very near maximum capacity. The Microwave dishes required to replace current connectivity average 4'-6'. A minimum of two dishes per tower is required, thus bringing the towers out of Federal compliance for wind loading engineering. - Are the agencies and entities that would potentially benefit from the tower actually committing to use the tower, or are they merely saying that they will consider using the tower as one of several possible communications solutions? Agencies have not been asked to commit to using the tower. If the plan to use the proposed tower proceeds the radio system users will all have emergency access to the system. They will be required to put the additional frequencies in their radios. The new repeaters will be provided by the County and, for the most part, the radio users only have to reprogram their units at minimal cost (probably less than $150 per radio) - Are the antennas envisioned for a new tower better than the antennas that experienced wind - driven alignment problems in Irma? Antennas and their mounts have maximum wind ratings. Short of a tornado embedding within the hurricane they should survive. The alignment problems after Irma reduced range since the antenna patterns were tilted. They did keep operating. Antennas were straightened and realigned in the months since Hurricane Irma. - What costs would be incurred by the County and other beneficiaries in connection with the construction and ongoing use of the tower and floor space in the communications building? Costs are currently being developed for the repeaters, antennas and installation. The external costs would be to add the repeater channels to user radios, which, as previously referenced is minimal. Space on the tower and in the shelter for any backup equipment would need to be negotiated with the tower owner. - How would the costs and benefits of a 950-foot tall tower compare with those of a much smaller tower or of other alternatives such as existing tower capacity, including on nearby towers that appear to be underutilized? There is nothing that can enhance reliability at existing sites. They will face the same problems as were seen in Hurricane Irma. The whole redundancy/reliability concept is based upon the fact that this site will provide a radio footprint that covers almost one 10 Pallan5 A000ciatco Analysis of Propose (--Aron v� COMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS Packet Pg. 1027 D.7.h third of the Keys and the overall costs of implementing the site would be dramatically lower than any option the County could develop, assuming there would be land available. The other antennas at the site are not underutilized. Most of the prime tower sites in Monroe County are already occupied, especially at the most desired heights for optimum coverage. It seems that towers that seem less than full may be older, requiring repair or demolition or are not located at a prime coverage location. - What costs would have to be incurred by end users of the communications benefitted by the tower? For example, our understanding is that the benefits to boaters would only be available to those who purchase new end -user equipment. As mentioned, the cost to end users is minimal. Just the labor cost to add the new frequencies. There is no cost to boaters. Their radios will not require any changes. The Coast Guard could actually just move their existing equipment to the new tower and continue their operations. - Is this the best location for such a tower, and would there be potential benefits to putting the project out for competitive bidding? Is a 'one time -one place' code exemption appropriate for a single property owner? Cudjoe Key is an ideal location for an emergency communications site. The fact that it is a private party that is implementing the project eliminates any need to search for a location that probably does not exist anywhere else in the Keys. The no fly area at this location is helpful in regards to aviation safety. The Proposed tower has already been approved by the FAA We ask that such a comprehensive and detailed report be prepared and made available for public comment well in advance of the BOCC's taking any action on this proposal. Respectfully submitted, Last Stand Friends of the Lower Keys Cudjoe Gardens Property Owners Association Island of Key Largo Federation of Homeowner Associations Sugarloaf Shores Property Owners Association r 11 Pallan5 A000ciatco Analysis of Pror— A COMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS Packet Pg. 1028 D.7.h 12 Pallan5 AowciatBo Analysis of Pror— A COMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS Packet Pg. 1029 5G's arrival is transforming tech. Here's everything you need to kn... about:reader?url=https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/what-is-r digitaltrends.com 5G's arrival is transforming tech. Here's everything you need to know to keep up Steven Winkelman 7-8 minutes What is 5G? Here's everything you need to know It has been nearly a decade in the making, but 5G is finally becoming a reality. Carriers started rolling out fixed 5G to select cities in 2018, and mobile 5G will start making appearances in cities around the U.S. in 2019, with much more comprehensive rollouts expected in 2020. Right now it seems like there are more questions about 5G than there are answers. People are wondering what 5G is, and if they'll ever see it in their city, while others are more interested in 5G smartphones. And of course, there's the debate about which carrier will have the best 5G service. If you have questions, we're here to help. Here's everything you ever wanted to know about 5G. How 5G works I of 7 2/4/2019 9:19 5G's arrival is transforming tech. Here's everything you need to kn about:reader?url=https://www.digitaltrends,com/mobile/what-is-5 Before we explain how 5G works, it's probably a good idea to explain what 5G is. There are a lot of specifics, which we talk about later in this post, but here's a quick primer. 5G is the next generation of mobile broadband that will eventually replace, or at least augment, your 4G LTE connection With 5G, you'll see exponentially faster download and upload speeds. Latency, or the time it takes devices to communicate with each other wireless networks, will also drastically decrease. Now that we know what 5G is, it's a good idea to understand how it works, since it's different from traditional 4G LTE. From spectrum bands to small cells, here's everything you need to know about the inner workings of 5G. Spectrum ECoverage comparison RATMan6 Itluapa9va covaraps wmpula- s<awio ti:-% Notes LTE not suited for mmWave deployment 2of7 Higher propagation loss at 3 5GHz 2/4/2019 9:19 1']....I�..L n— A/f7A 5G's arrival is transforming tech. Here's everything you need to kn. about:reader?url=https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/what-is-5 < 6 GHz G �,. . MR rk"u < t GHz + !LTESm Wiz ({t 0 1 1 01WO 0.16 GSMA / ITU compensated by Massive MIMO Beamform+ng Limited availability of spectrum below 1GHz limits performance Unlike LTE, 5G operates on three different spectrum bands. While this may not seem important, it will have a dramatic effect on your everyday use. Low -band spectrum can also be described as sub 1 GHz spectrum. It is primarily the spectrum band used by carriers in the U.S. for LTE, and is quickly becoming depleted. While low - band spectrum offers great coverage area and penetration, there is a big drawback: Peak data speeds will top out around 100Mbps. T-Mobile is the key player when it comes to low -band spectrum. The carrier picked up a massive amoun'` of 600MHz spectrum at an FCC auction in 2017 and is quickly building out its nationwide 5G network. Mid -band spectrum provides faster coverage and lower latency than you'll find on low -band. It does, however, fail to penetrate buildings as well as low -band spectrum. Expect peak speeds up to 1 Gbps on mid -band spectrum. Sprint has the mamority of unused mid -band spectrum in the U.S. The carrier is using Massive MIMO to improve penetration and coverage area on the mid -band. Massive MIMO groups multiple antennas onto a single box, and at a single cell tower, they I of 7 2/4/2019 9:19 5G's arrival is transforming tech. Here's everything you need to kn. about:reader?url=https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/what-is-5 create multiple simultaneous beams to different users. Sprint will also use Beamforming to improve 5G service on the mid -band. Beamforming sends a single focused signal to each and every user in the cell, and systems using it monitor each user to make sure they have a consistent signal. High -band spectrum is what most people think of when they think of 5G. It is often referred to as mmWave. High -band spectrum can offer peak speeds up to 10 Gbps and has very low latency. The major drawback of high -band is that it has low coverage area and building penetration is poor. Both AT&T and Verizon are rolling out on high -band spectrum. 5G coverage for both carriers will piggyback off LTE while they work to build out nationwide networks. Since high -band spectrum trades off penetration and user area for high speed and coverage area, they will rely on small cells. Small cells are low -power base stations that cover small geographic areas. With small cells, carriers using mmWave for 5G can improve overall coverage area. Combined with Beamforming, small cells can deliver very extremely fast coverage with low latency. 5G use cases Improved broadband The shift to 5G will undoubtedly change the way we interact with technology on a day-to-day basis, but it also has a serious purpose. It's an absolute necessity if we want to continue using mobile broadband. 4 of 7 2/4/2019 9:19 . 1']....I�..L n- A/f77 5G's arrival is transforming tech. Here's everything you need to kn. about:reader?url=https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/what-is-5 Carriers are running out of LTE capacity in many major metropolitan areas. In some cities, users are already experiencing slowdowns during busy times of day. 5G adds huge amounts of spectrum in bands that have not been used for commercial broadband traffic. Autonomous vehicles Expect to see autonomous vehicles rise at the same rate that 5G is deployed across the U.S. In the future, your vehicle will communicate with other vehicles on the road, provide information to other cars about road conditions, and provide performance information to drivers and automakers. If a car brakes quickly up ahead, yours may learn about it immediately and preemptively brake as well, preventing a collision. This kind of vehicle -to -vehicle communication could ultimately save thousands of lives. Public safety and infrastructure 5G will allow cities and other municipalities to operate more efficiently. Utility companies will be able easily track usage remotely, sensors can notify public works departments when drains flood or street lights go out, and municipalities will be able to quickly and inexpensively install surveillance cameras. Remote device control Since 5G has remarkably low latency, remote control of heavy machinery will become a reality. While the primary aim is to reduce risk in hazardous environments, it will also allow 5 of 7 2/4/2019 9:19 5G's arrival is transforming tech. Here's everything you need to kn.. about:reader?url=https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/what-is-_` technicians with specialized skills to control machinery from anywhere in the world. Health care The ultra -reliable low latency communications (URLLC) component of 5G could fundamentally change health care. Since URLLC reduces 5G latency even further than what you'll see with enhanced mobile broadband, a world of new possibilities opens up. Expect to see improvements in telemedicine, remote recovery and physical therapy via AR, precision surgery, and even remote surgery in the coming years. Remember Massive Machine -Type Communications? mMTC will also play a key role in health care. Hospitals can create massive sensor networks to monitor patients, physicians can prescribe smart pills to track complian _ , and insurers can even monitor subscribers to determine appropriate treatments and processes. IoT One of the most exciting and crucial aspects of 5G is its effect on the Internet of Things. While we currently have sensors that can communicate with each other, they tend to require a lot of resources and are quickly depleting LTE data capacity. With 5G speeds and low latencies, the IoT will be powered by communications among sensors and smart devices (here's mMTC again). Compared to current smart devices on the market, mMTC devices will require fewer resources, since huge nui ii ii✓i 6 of these devices can connect to a single base station, 6 of 7 2/4/2019 9: l9 5G's arrival is transforming tech. Here's everything you need to kn... about:reader?url=https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/what-is-5 making them much more efficient. 7of7 2/4/2019 9:19. 1']....I�..L n- A/f9C D.7.j News Release Big Pine Key First in Florida to Benefit from AT&T Small Cells AT&T Small Cells to Provide Better Connectivity, Lay Foundation for 5G KEY WEST, Fla., Feb. 12, 2018 — AT&T* is now giving Big Pine Key customers faster mobile internet speeds by deploying small cells. Big Pine Key is the first area in Florida where AT&T has deployed small cells. We're using small cells to densify our network. We have installed about 60 small cells on power poles in highly trafficked areas in Big Pine Key. By filling in our network with these small cells, we're bringing our customers closer to a point of connection. The result is a better, faster and more reliable experience. The use of small cells will also help lay the foundation for our 5G network. "We want our customers to have the best possible experience on our network," said Joe York, AT&T Florida president. "AT&T has the largest and most reliable network,** and we're providing stronger connections so customers can get the most out of their mobile devices — however they use them." We're using Centralized -RAN (C-RAN) network architecture to build our small cells. That means all the "brains" of each small cell will exist in one location. With this new design, our engineers can add more bandwidth to our network, and improve efficiency for hundreds of cell sites quickly and simultaneously. This design also lets us make network upgrades over software -based technology, which is key to our 5G future. We constantly invest in our network to give customers the high -quality services they need to stay connected. Residents in Florida can rely even more on their AT&T network to provide the best possible experience wherever they live, work and play. *About AT&T AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T) helps millions around the globe connect with leading entertainment, business, mobile and high speed internet services. We have the nation's largest and most reliable network** and the best global coverage of any U.S. wireless provider. We're one of the world's largest providers of pay TV. We have TV customers in the U.S. and 11 Latin American countries. Nearly 3.5 million companies, from small to large businesses around the globe, turn to AT&T for our highly secure smart solutions. AT&T products and services are provided or offered by subsidiaries and affiliates of AT&T Inc. under the AT&T brand and not by AT&T Inc. Additional information about AT&T products and services is available at about.att.com. Follow our news on Twitter at @ATT, on Facebook at face book.com/att and on YouTube at youtube.com/att. February 6 2019 Packet Pg. 1037 D.7.j ��'�'��mmrtmmnlUI1T(itl/Jll�� © 2018 AT&T Intellectual Property. All rights reserved. AT&T, the Globe logo and other marks are trademarks and service marks of AT&T Intellectual Property and/or AT&T affiliated companies. All other marks contained herein are the property of their respective owners. "Coverage not avail. everywhere. Based on overall coverage in U.S. licensed/roaming areas. Reliability based on voice and data performance from independent 3rd party data. For more information, contact: Kelly Starling AT&T Media Relations Phone: 561-301-1414 Email: kelly.starling@att.com February 6 2019 ellectual Property. All rights reserved. AT&T and the Globe logo are registered trademarks of AT&T Intellectual Property. Packet Pg. 1038 D.7.k FEBRUARY 20" 2019 PRESENTATION On December 13' the Commission heard personal testimony from representatives of entities ranging from our public critical emergency infrastructure (FKAA; Keys Energy; Monroe County Sheriff), to representatives of our commercial and recreational fisheries. All of us are aware that local law enforcement (City and County), plays a critical role in both law enforcement, emergency response alerting hospitals, etc. These entities have all voiced support for the construction of the tower. Their support clearly comes from a belief that we could (and should) have better infrastructure and redundancy within which to operate critical communication networks. This is not just a matter of being prepared for the next hurricane, it's about building more redundancy, more efficiency, quicker response time and much better economics than are now available and preparing for future advances in technology. Present and future technology is wireless driven and addresses quicker data speeds enabling more reliable and faster notifications combined with diagnostics to quickly address issues. Most importantly, this tall self -powered tower will provide significantly expanded coverage for hand-held and vehicle radio communications up the Keys and much further out to sea. Packet Pg. 1039 D.7.k Communication translates directly to quicker response time, more people helped and lives saved in emergency situations. The vertical space on the 950 foot tower allows placement of equipment from various public and private entities with the use of one central self -powered location. The alternative to our public agencies are numerous small self - powered towers up and down the Keys with less coverage, individual site maintenance responsibilities and no redundancy. The Cudjoe tower also allows for the flexibility to use existing towers as complimentary or linked locations This tall tower will eliminate the need to replace a number of our older existing towers that are now (or will be) structurally compromised. The coverage provided by this tower would be instrumental in the design of a microwave transport system to either augment fiber optic connectivity or be used as a fallback when fiber optic connections are lost. This tower would also have capacity for future growth. WHY MUST IT BE SO TALL? At the present, we lose SMM (Push to Talk) and VHF communication at 15 or so miles. This self —powered tower would provide reliable communication 24/7 out to 50 miles for all Aqueduct, Keys Energy, Sheriff, fishermen, ambulance, etc. N Packet Pg. 1040 D.7.k does. A 350 ft. tower only provides 21% of the coverage of a 950 ft. tower Let's not forget this isn't a new emergency services problem. After Andrew, we had absolutely no communication with the outside world. Because of the destruction in South Dade, the rest of the world thought the Florida Keys were obliterated, when in fact, we only saw normal tropical storm winds. Again, after Wilma and Irma, there were communication problems because we had failed to take make communication a major priority and take steps to resolve the obvious issues. So why are the agencies now appearing before the Commission and urging you to permit the tower. It is simple. Every agency lost communication during Irma. It was only then, when families were trying to return home, but services couldn't be timely restored because there was an inability to communicate with workers and service trucks that we started looking into how to prevent future communications loss. If you were one of the families stuck in the Upper Keys anxious to return home, communication was of major importance. If you were one of the families who stayed behind and were anxious to let family know you were OK, communication was of major importance. 3 Packet Pg. 1041 D.7.k The Aqueduct lost everything — their SCADA system is and was carried on the Verizon Network. Their cell towers are all connected by fiber optic cables. Most of those cables came down during the storm. The alternative to fiber optic connection between cell towers is microwave. With microwave or cable, each tower must communicate with the next tower in the chain. Each link in the chain must be self -powered and if a link goes down or the tower loses power and chain is broken. The FKAA and Keys Energy's alternative to using cell towers for SCADA is an AT&T Robust System of fiber optic self -powered microwave towers. The Aqueduct and Keys Energy alternative to a new Million Dollar SCADA system is a system of individual towers all self -powered. In the case of communication towers, size does matter! A 950 foot tower provides 8,000 square miles of reliable self -powered communication. A 350 foot tower provides around 1,600 square miles of communication. All of our providers of essential public services: power, water, law enforcement, ambulance, etc. have responsibility to our community. This tall tower will safeguard and improve our critical communication infrastructure. For each of our essential providers to proceed individually, it would involve an incredibly large expense for taxpayers and rate payers. 2 Packet Pg. 1042 D.7.k All of our local governmental agencies must analyze future expenses on a cost/benefit basis. The cost of this large self -powered tower is over 6 Million Dollars, but this is not a cost to taxpayers and rate payers. Doing the right thing and supporting this tower may cost a few votes in the next election, but it will save lives and it would provide communication in our next emergency. As you drive by Cudjoe, you may look over and see a tall tower. For some of our residents, public safety is less important than esthetics. Compare esthetics to public safety — the answer should be fairly obvious. Packet Pg. 1043 � 0 83m01 030011 M DJA 0 �7 LU w U, o T3 LU z LU 0 0 MLO 0 L. a. 0 mi ii I Packet Pg. 1044 1 aW i i r5r. RA Ig�o `i FI11: 4 1I I-i I I-1 � �Il1ll111��I � 1lf�LL 13--(Of tU f fry � r_ r 1. II D Packet Pg. 1045 ) ■ .■ m § | �r ) |�� k \ \ ■ . � � % ', � � � �� N g � � 7° �■|| .] / 4 |�| �\ ( |}|° � �u�amy]� � ` ( k | \« �) z \ƒ -& } e] § § \k - G §\ ) } o e\ ) 7 %)\ !a -/�) °a bIL 2 -2 (� , )z §k }\ � Packet Pg. 1046 Packet Pg. 1047 cK IL , I, I i 3 3 ii � hL�{at _ +r i K � 13 f ...... ry 13 UP 13 I Packet Pg. 1048 1 D.7.k ■�� Ell W rr /D/� VJ a g i a I 1 S d j�� � .I g I J `+ I I +'GPI U� C 4 i9.rpp�ay'd �g F J I�� x f f# i it Y ij5� ji f II, ei rl J 111 � � a j1j GF .l s it Packet Pg. 1049 D.7.k PRESENTATION AT THE COUNTY COMMISSION MEETING "TO BUILD OR NOT TO BUILD: THAT IS THE QUESTION" Sixteen years ago, Industrial Communications, proposed construction of a Cudjoe Key communications tower that would have provided state-of-the-art facilities for communications services, The construction of the tower would have resulted in the availability of a communications hub covering most of the Florida Keys and would have provided television, radio, VHF, cellular, and emergency (police, fire and other agency) communications. The entire facility would have been constructed to withstand major hurricane conditions. In order to build the tower, Industrial Communications purchased a large track of land containing a rock pit mining operation adjacent to the military balloon site on Cudjoe Key. The rock pit operation on the property was shut down and in order to address some environmental concerns, a conservation easement was conveyed to the State. That conservation easement is still in place. After the almost total communications breakdown during and after Hurricane Irma, I received calls from a number of people, including law enforcement and first responders, asking if my client might be interested in building the communications tower. I called Frank Dirico, owner of Industrial Communications and asked if he was still interested in building the tower. Frank told me he would look into it and call me back. Frank called back and stated that due to installation of fiber -optics (AT&T/Comcast, etc.) and proliferation of cell towers, the financial feasibility of building the new tower was "problematic". Upon looking into the matter and being aware of the importance of our emergency communications, Frank decided that (as a Monroe County resident), he would look into building a tower that would never fail and would provide Keys -wide communication. Building a 950 foot Packet Pg. 1050 D.7.k tower that will sustain wind loads of 180 MPH and gusts exceeding 200 MPH with a bedroom and kitchen inside a 12 inch thick reinforced concrete structure above FEMA flood level, two 100 kilowatt generators, fuel storage etc. etc. is very costly. Frank's construction costs are now estimated at over Six Million Dollars. Frank is committed to building the tower, but only if the County wants it. He insisted that I make it very clear that he will not fight anyone to build it. The tower already has approval from Army Corp, South Florida Water Management, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Federal Communication Commission and Federal Aviation Administration. The blimp site on North Cudjoe is the only Monroe County location where a tall tower can ever be constructed in the Keys. The entire area around the blimp site is a FAA NO FLY zone. The only regulatory obstacle to the tower is Monroe County Land Development Regulation 146.7(f). This regulation prohibits aM variance for a tower exceeding 330 feet. To allow the tower, it will require an amendment to the Land Development Regulations that is specific to this unique location. After Irma, our Sheriff's office, police, Keys Energy, and FKAA were all looking into secure, reliable emergency communication alternatives at a cumulative cost to Keys residents of Millions of Dollars. built: Here are some points that should be considered in deciding whether this tower should be This antenna and support structure will be located at the borrow pits on Cudjoe Key, off Blimp Road. The property is located within an FAA -mandated restricted no fly area and clearly marked on all aeronautical charts and Keys air traffic control warns all planes to stay well clear of this area. The property is zoned industrial. A wireless communications facility constructed on industrial -zoned land is considered a minor conditional use. 1) Packet Pg. 1051 D.7.k The antenna at the blimp site has already been approved by The Army Corp of Engineers, South Florida Water Management District, The Florida Department of Environmental Protection, The Federal Communications Administration, and the Federal Aviation Administration, and coordinated with The US Fish and Wildlife Service. A conservation easement is already in place on the property. Any private or public communication provider with antennas mounted at or close to the top of the tower will be capable of communicating as far as Lower Matecumbe. This distance may be increased based on the power and technology of each radio service, combined with stratospheric refraction. All recreational and commercial boaters will have service and reliable communication out to 50 miles. That's 8,000 square miles around the tower. The tower will provide co -location to any carrier that can be adequately accommodated. The tower will withstand a constant sustained wind load in excess of 180 mph and be capable of withstanding gusts exceeding 200 mph. Along with a fiber-optic link to the site, the tower could also provide redundancy through a satellite microwave connection to and from Dade County. At present, all AT&T/Comcast connection to the mainland is fiber-optic cable. As we have learned from Irma, we can't risk our lives on fiber-optic cables. The windowless support building at the base of the tower will have 12-inch thick reinforced concrete walls and be elevated well above flood level. It will contain living facilities for support technicians in the event of a weather event that requires prolonged maintenance at the site. Two 100 Kilowatt diesel generators will provide backup power to the private and public antennas on the tower. Fuel for 7 days will be stored on the site, and resupplied by helicopter during a prolonged power outage. None of you probably remember the outcry against putting the blimp site on north Cudjoe and years from now most of us will fail to remember today's opposition to the Cudjoe Tower, but unlike the blimp, all of us and our families will be thankful for the secure/dependable communications the tower will provide without our agencies spending Millions of Dollars. t] Packet Pg. 1052 D.7.k Finally, please do your own cost/benefit analysis on whether you should support this tower. The cost? Maybe a few votes in some future election. You will look north when passing Cudjoe Key and see tower and think about today's decision. All of our agencies experienced the breakdown in communication during and after Irma and upon investigation, they have come to realize that building their own secure dependable communications facilities is very, very expensive — that is a cost to us all, but your vote today shifts this cost to the benefit column. It is simple. The tower is either a cost or a benefit. If you allow it, Frank Dirico will build it and Frank will not see a profit during his lifetime. If you don't allow it, he will release the conservation easement, sell the property and go home and like all of us, wait for the next hurricane. E Packet Pg. 1053 �i m -JMMP—� a� 0 ANO U d O Q O + j d � r � f � V 0 r� N cn N cn a cn A r 0 o a t I r a 1 A ` ` f Packet Pg. 1054 D.7.1 (n O Packet Pg. 1055 VAI '^" ..,� MacEachern-Alan From: Darren M. Horan <darren@horanhiggins.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 4:17 PM L To: MacEachern-Alan; David P. Horan Cc: Hurley -Christine; Schemper-Emily; Rice -Mike; White -Laura; Mark; Darren M. Horan 0 Subject: RE: Cudjoe tower Y Attachments: 2O19020616O248.pdf m 0 W 0 U Alan, m O Please find the attached. The map was supposed to provide scale, however the ruler at the bottom was cut-off. For c some perspective, tower "2" is approximately .8 miles from the area of the photograph and the "proposed tower" is fi approximately 1 mile from the same area. To wit, towers "1" and "4" are approximately 2 miles away and tower "3" i approximately 1.5 miles from the bridge. to a� m Please let me know if this adds some clarity. 0 r m Respectfully , o Darren N1. Horan 0 .y N Horan 2 2 H1 ins x g� _ o U 608 Whitehead Street L Key West, Florida 33040 (305) 294-4585 (Telephone) (305) 294-7822(Facsimile) This e-mail, as well as any attachments it) same, is covered by the Electronic Communications Pri%acy Act, 18 USC Section 2510.2521 and is legally privileged it[:2 federal and state law, including but not limited to laws applicable to the attorney/client-privilege and other private matters. The information contained in this e-i > message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for use of the individual of entity named above. It' the reader of this message is not 0 intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination. distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received d communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone. The receipt by anyone other than the designated recipient does not waive the attorney/cl N privilege. nor will it constitute a wailer of the work -product doctrine. THANK YOU. to O Q O L From: MacEachern-Alan [mailto:MacEachern-Alan@MonroeCounty-FL.Gov] a Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 3:41 PM To: David P. Horan <dph@horanhiggins.com> IL Cc: Hurley -Christine <Hurley-Christine@MonroeCounty-FL.Gov>; Schemper-Emily <Schemper-Emily@MonroeCounty- FL.Gov>; Rice -Mike <m rice@ keysso.net>; White -Laura <Iwhite@keysso.net>; Mark <mpaIlans@pallansassociates.com t Darren M. Horan <darren@horanhiggins.com> Subject: RE: Cudjoe tower Q Mr Horan, D.7.n EXHIBITS to Planning and Environmental Resources Memo, dated 2/5/2019, regarding Cudjoe Tower proposal Packet Pg. 1058 D.7.n Exhibit 1 Submitted plans Packet Pg. 1059 I 110 _ h "-�, A'FIO A UIVOIWQV1 I uW1. al,na Ij OC6 I I Packet Pg. 1060 �W D.7.n uj -L! H, 1 e z 0 F Packet Pg. 1061 D.7.n \ ~d ft0 . B 2£ - )§ A2, )k� 2,( - �/\ !& )2 \ W} ®o %ao a 2 (j }%¥ (() �\ Packet Pg. 1062 ra it Ii I ME Packet Pg. 1063 ml OM 5. . . . . . . . . . . in Packet Pg. 1064 D.7.n I W rr Cn TT,— — h< —i o i R, ;rsrx ��p�,; yn� y.- W �r •f I I•; ;tiles . aaY, �f'�,, 3 i f�1: I✓�Jl, �,�IJ� � y 5 f •t� t iyt I 3 r � T - � S 'tom ..».•wf i { :t±;'i i t t a' LU Sg l O E GL •S. S. e a g � Q Vim$ 9rys ycya� ]��JI azQy_ Packet Pg. 1065 D.7.n Exhibit 2 July 16, 1998 settlement agreement between DCA, Monroe County and Cudjoe Enterprises, Inc. Packet Pg. 1066 D.7.n Meeting Date: 7/08/98 Bulk Item: Yes X No BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Division: Growth Management Department: N/A AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Authorization for the Mayor to execute, on behalf of Monroe County, a settlement agreement between the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), Monroe County and Cudjoe Enterprises, Inc. ITEM BACKGROUND: Monroe County's 2010 Comprehensive Plan prohibits new mining operations. The development order allowing mining operations at said location had expired and was not in effect on January 4, 1996 when the 2010 Comprehensive Plan became effective. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTION: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor to execute said settlement agreement. TOTAL COST: -0- BUDGETED: Yes No COST TO COUNTY: -0- AMOUNT PER MONTH PER YEAR APPROVED BY: County Attorney X OMB/Purchasing N/A Risk Management N/A DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL�o�OE-e.,f �—. �C.-- Robert L. Herman, Director of Growth Management DOCUMENTATION: Included X To follow Not required DISPOSITION: Agenda Item #: Packet P . 1067 County of Monroe Growth_ Management Division 2798 Overseas Highway Suite 400 Marathon, Florida 33050 Voice: (305) 289-2500 FAX: (305) 289-2536 C Ms. Carol Forthman, Director Division of Community Planning Florida Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32388-2100 and Ms. Sandra Waiters, Consultant 600 White Street Suite #5 Key West, Florida 33040 Re: Cudjoe Enterprises, Inc. Settlement Agreement Dear Ms. Forthman and Ms. Walters: Board of County Commissioners Mayor Jack London, Dist. 2 Mayor Pro Tem Wilhelmina Harvey, Dist. I Commissioner Shirley Freeman, Dist. 3 Commissioner Keith Douglass, Dist. 4 Commissioner Mary Kay Reich, Dist. 5 July 21, 1998 Please find enclosed a fully executed original of the Settlement Agreement between Monroe County, the Department of Community Affairs and Cudjoe Enterprises, Inc. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, r Isabel T. Reid, Senior Administrative Assistant Growth Management Division /ir Enclosure cc: Ja y. Hendrick, County Attorney (w/o enclosure) ,,Robert L. Herman, Director of Growth Management Timothy J. McGarry, Director of Planning Ross Alliston, Director of Environmental Resources Don Horton, Sr. Director/Building Official Patti Herman, Sr. Administrator/Assistant Building Official Dianna Stevenson, Biologist, Lower Keys Michael McDaniel, Growth Management Administrator, DCA Rowena Garcia, DCA Field Office, Marathon Packet Pg. 1068 D.7.n Z 468 707 656 US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for international Mail See reverse Sent to Ms Carol Forthman fM&Nul%55 Shumard Oak Blv Pode �hlahassZee, FL 32388-21 Postage $ Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt Showing Whom & Date Delivered Return Receipt Showing to Whom, Date, & Addressee's Address TOTAL Postage & Fees $ Postmark or Date 7/21/98 Z 468 ?07 �,57 US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mail See re Sent to Sandy Walters �U;White St. #5 d Post rc S & IP C er sF, TL 33040 Q Post�Fee $ Certir Special Delivery u7 Restricted Delivery Fee vg< Return Receipt Showing to Whom & Date Delivered a Return Receipt Showing to Whom, Date, & Addressee's Address O 0 TOTAL Postage & Fees $ Postmark or Date o` tL co a 7/21/98 0 a,; SENDER: I also wish to receive the I rn v a Complete items 1 and/or 9 for additional services. following services (for an 0 m a Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b. }s extra fee}: a Print your name and address an the reverse of this form so that we can return this K i 0) cald to you. ■ Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or an the back if space does not 1. ❑ Addressee's Address ` W C m permit. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery a Write "Return Receipt Requested" on the mailpiece below the article number. / fn E :Er The Return Receipt will show to whorl'the article wag -delivered and tho dote ,•-GOn5111t postmaster for fee. p, N 22 delivered. i a 3- Artici� Addrisspd to: 4a. Article Number S. aro orthman, Director Z 468 707 656 i tr Division of Community Planning L a M Florida Dept. of Community Affair 50 4b, Service Type 0 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd Registered ICJ Certified cc IL n Tallahassee, FL 32388-21-00 ❑ Express Mail ❑ Insured c ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ (.,._ I Li p 7. Date of Deii�� L 2 4 1998 �p N o p E 5. Rece y: Prin Name) S. Addressee's Address (Only if requested and fee is paid) i v 6. Si[ . _, , H Q 00 X T 2 PS Fs eceipt Packet Pg. 1069 D.7.n AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into by Cudjoe Enterprises, Inc., a Florida corporation ("Cudjoe Enterprises'); Monroe County; and the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs (DCA), pursuant to Section 380.032(3), Florida Statutes (1997). RECITATIONS WHEREAS, Cudjoe Enterprises is the owner and operator of property located in Monroe County, Florida, which is now, and has been for many years, used for limestone quarrying, commonly known as the Cudjoe Key Quarry. Cudjoe Enterprises purchased the subject property from CTB, Inc. ("CTB") on December 5, 1994; prior to that time, Tarmac Florida Inc. ("Tarmac") was the mining operator at the quarry. WHEREAS, Monroe County issued to Cudjoe Enterprises' predecessor in interest Mining and Excavation Permit No. 9010000520, and Blaster and User Permit No. 9010000519 for the Cudjoe Key Quarry, and issued extensions and renewals for these permits on March 20, 1990 WHEREAS, DCA filed an appeal of the extension of the permits, following which a Settlement Agreement was signed on March 21, 1991, placing additional conditions on the operations. WHEREAS, DCA, Monroe County, and Tarmac Florida, Inc. are signatories to the Settlement Agreement; WHEREAS, Cudjoe Enterprises purchased the quarry in 1994, and continued operations based on the fact that the Settlement Agreement authorized their continued operation of the quarry as long as conditions of that Agreement were met. WHEREAS, certain terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement relating to the duties and responsibilities of the parties are in need of further clarification; WHEREAS, Cudjoe Enterprises, Monroe County, and the DCA desire to amicably resolve issues in question now and for the future regarding Cudjoe Enterprises' right to complete the approved mining and excavation plans for the Cudjoe Key Quarry. t Packet Pg. 1070 D.7.n NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows: I. OuarryOperation 1. Geographic Scope. The geographic scope of this Agreement is defined in Attachment 2 of Exhibit 1. 2. Completion Date. All mining activities and restoration will be complete within 10 years of the effective date of this Agreement. 3. Zonins. All uses other than rockmining and related activities, present and fixture, of the subject property will be consistent with the zoning in effect at the time applications for any such use are submitted to Monroe County. 4. Dimensions. Due to a voluntary decrease in the desired area to mine, the final excavation size will be no larger than 33.5 acres (Attachment 2 of Exhibit 1), representing a reduction of 7.8 acres from that previously permitted. Correspondingly, property line setbacks will be modified to those shown on Attachment 2 of Exhibit 1. The depth of excavation will not exceed 60 feet. 5. Blastin . Cudjoe Enterprises will conduct no blasting operations without first acquiring all applicable permits from local, State or federal agencies. 6. Renewal of Permits. Cudjoe Enterprises will maintain and renew all required County permits annually during the term of this agreement. II. Restoration and Reclamation 1. Cudjoe Enterprises has agreed to revise the restoration and reclamation plan incorporated into the 1991 Settlement Agreement. 2. The revised restoration plan (Exhibit 1) will involve creation of more than 8.6 acres of additional endangered species habitat through removal of existing berms and fill to surrounding wetland elevation. 3. spgcial Con itio . The ACOE has imposed special conditions upon the pending permit renewal, in coordination with wildlife agencies, which link restoration performance standards to a specific timetable related to the issuance date of the regulatory permits. Cudjoe Enterprises is in agreement with these conditions, which are in addition to the berm planting plan required by the 1991 DCA Settlement Agreement (Attachment 5 of Exhibit 1). Therefore, these conditions are incorporated in the restoration plan (Attachment 3 of Exhibit 1). 2 Packet Pg. 1071 III. Miscellaneous D.7.n 1. Caveat. The parties acknowledge that they have entered into this Agreement solely in the spirit of compromise. This Agreement shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any party's position with regard to the proper interpretation of the Monroe County Code, and shall not be given precedencial effect with regard to any other permit issued by Monroe County. 2. Duplicate_ Originals. This Settlement Agreement may be executed in any number of originals, all of which evidence one Agreement, and only one of which need be produced for any purpose. 3. Enforcement. This Agreement may be enforced by any party as provided in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, or as otherwise allowed by law. In the event of breach of this Agreement, or if this Agreement is based upon materially inaccurate information, the Department may terminate this Agreement or file suit to enforce this Agreement as provided in Sections 380.11, Florida Statutes, including a suit to enjoin all development. 4. Scoi& of Autho ' . This Agreement affects the rights and obligations of the parties under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, authorized by this Agreement. 5. Entira of Agreement. The parties further agree that this Settlement Agreement contains the entire and exclusive understanding and Agreement among the parties and may not be modified in any manner except by an instrument in writing and signed by the parties. 6. Bindin Effect,• Recordation of A eement. This Agreement is intended to and shall create a covenant running with the land, and shall be binding on the parties, their heirs, successors and assigns. Within ten (10) days after the signing of the Agreement by all parties, Cudjoe Enterprises shall record this Agreement in the public records of Monroe County, Florida, and shall promptly provide proof of recordation to Monroe County and the Department, including the official records book and page where this Agreement is recorded. Proof of recordation shall be furnished by hand delivery or U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to Monroe County by directing same to the Monroe County Planning Director, Growth Management Division, Marathon Regional Service Center, 2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 400, Marathon, Florida 33050; and to the Department by directing same to the Growth Management Administrator, Florida Department of Community Affairs, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100, with a copy to the DCA Keys Field Office, Marathon Regional Service Center, 2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 212, Marathon, FL 33050. Packet Pg. 1072 D.7.n 7. Release: Costs and Attomas Fees. Each party hereto releases the other from any and all claims or demands arising out of the subject Agreement. Each party bears its own costs and attorney fees incurred in connection with this proceeding. 8. Effective Date. The effective date of this Agreement is that date when the last party hereto signs a counterpart of this Agreement. However, this agreement shall not be effective unless L all parties execute within 90 days of the first signature. c IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Agreement and have agreed Y to be bound by its terms. c CUDJOE ENTERPRISES, INC. ' By: �i'J 1-4 q Date:16 ~ /7 - Ron McPhall, President FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS By: Date: � — ` Carol Forthman, Director Division of Community Planning (SEAL) MONROE COUNTY ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK x LU o DEPUTY CL By ' ate: a� Mayor �a a a� U- APPROVED AS TO FORM = AND LEGAL, SUi+PiQ�IBrTOY E �BY a 4 Df5oc a Co Packet Pg. 1073 EXHIBIT May 12, 1998 CUDJOE ENTERPRISES, INC. Restoration Plan for Cudjoe Key Quarry The following restoration plan was developed through coordination with the following representatives of public agencies: • Steve Klett, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) • Charles Schnepel, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) • Phil Frank, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC) • Randy Grau, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) • Rowena Garcia, Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Location and Site History The Cudjoe Key Quarry is located to the north of U.S. Highway 1 on Cudjoe Key. The property is surrounded by wetlands on the north, south and west, and bordered by Blimp Road to the east. The quarry has been actively mined for limestone rock for many years. Wetland permits were issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (now Protection) in 1998 and the ACOE in 1989. Attachment 1 consists of Figure 2 in these permits, and shows the final excavation size approved at that time. It also shows required restoration work, which included removal of berms along the north and west property lines and two berm areas extending between the road right-of-way and the pit on the east, for the purpose of restoring full tidal connection to the wetlands within these berms and thereby enhancing the wildlife habitat value. All of this work was completed in accordance with the permits. One problem, however, was that the permits did not allow removal of mangroves, and, therefore, it was necessary for remnants of the berms to be left in place, which impedes tidal flow and reduces the effectiveness for habitat restoration. Cudjoe Enterprises, Inc, purchased the property in late 1994. The DEP and ACOE permits had expired in 1993 and 1994, respectively, and Cudjoe Enterprises retained Sandra Walters, Consultant (SW) to apply for new permits for expansion of the quarry. Several meetings and site visits with the USFWS and FGFWFC were conducted, and resulted in a revised site plan which includes substantially more habitat restoration than permitted previously. Attachment 2 consists of Figure 4 in the new permit sketches, which shows both the existing conditions and proposed changes to the site. The existing deep mine area covers a total of 18.411 acres. There is an existing fill pad which surrounds the deep mine, from which draglines remove material from the excavation, and berms presently separate the mine from surrounding wetlands. The final mine configuration would include excavation of two existing wetland areas onsite contained within the existing berm, located along the southwest and north boundaries. Both of these areas were scraped down during earlier mining operations and now possess little to no habitat value, and consist of approximately 4.187 acres. The majority of the existing fill pad around the deep mine area, Packet Pg. 1074 D.7.n consisting of 10.916 acres, which is completely scarified, is also included in the new mine configuration. This results in a final total deep mining area of 33.514 acres. The earlier permits approved a final deep mining area of 41.3 acres; therefore, the new plan is a 7.8 acre reduction from that previously permitted. Restoration Plan Two areas which were designated in the previous DEP and ACOE permits for muting will now be included in restoration plans for the site. One is located in the approximate center of the western boundary of the property, and the second is along the entire southern boundary (excluding a section of berm already removed as part of the earlier restoration work). The remainder of the mitigation project consists of removal of an upland berm along the southeast boundary. In addition, the two berms at the north of the property are Iocated approximately 50 feet further south than specified by the original permits, and they will remain in place, resulting in a small amount of additional mitigation acreage from that originally calculated. The total additional restoration, beyond that provided for in the earlier permits, is 8.654 acres. The specific fashion in which this restoration is accomplished is defined in Attachment 3. These conditions are derived from conditions developed for the pending ACOE permit, and are modified to provide for review and approval of certain terms by DCA and Monroe County, as signatory to this settlement agreement. These conditions provide for a specific compliance schedule for restoration linked either with execution of this settlement agreement or acquisition of regulatory permits, including a final survey and preparation and recording of a conservation easement for all lands within restoration areas. The conditions also provide for removal of mangroves and other wetland plants where they encroach on existing fill substrate to be restored to surrounding wetland elevations; clean up of the site; removal of all exotic vegetation on the property; and installation of additional culverts under the access road to the quarry. The final berm around the deep mine will include a littoral zone, as depicted in Attachment 4 (Figure 6 of new permit sketches), to provide some submerged habitat within the rockmine itself, and also to provide a shelf as a safety measure for wildlife or people to climb out of the mine. This safety shelf is also maintained throughout the mining process. During a March 31, 1998 site visit with biologists Rowena Garcia (DCA) and Phil Frank (FGFGWC), a concern was raised regarding lowering the proposed berm height to reduce the likelihood of invasion of exotic vegetation once mining is complete. Consultation with the engineer for the project, Paul Larsen, P.E., finds that reducing the berm elevation from 3 feet to 2 feet will still result in a 0.41 foot buffer for retention of the 25 year 3 day storm event, as required by the South Florida Water Management District MSSW Permit Manual. Therefore, this change will be made in the design before submittal to the regulatory agencies (see note on Attachment 4). An agreement was executed with DCA and Monroe County in 1991, in which planting of vegetation along the berm is required following closure of quarry operations. An engineering drawing showing how this would be implemented was submitted by the operator at the time, Tarmac, Inc., and was incorporated into the County records (Attachment 5). This plan calls for planting 170 native trees Cudioe Key Quarry Restoration Plan - Page 2 Packet Pg. 1075 D.7.n at 10 foot centers along the western berm and 85 native trees at 10 foot centers along the southern berm. On the March 31, 1998 site visit described above, it was agreed that the planting of native trees along the berm would be continued along the eastern berm, to provide a visual buffer from the adjacent roadway. Therefore, the following planting plan is incorporated in the restoration plan for the Cudjoe Key Quarry: Boundary Length in feet) # of Trees West 1000 100 South 835 85 East 2,170 217 TOTAL 402 Trees planted will be no smaller than 3 feet in height, and will consist of Buttonwood (Cococarpus erecta) or 5eagrape (Coccoloba uvifera) on the west and south berms. Jamaica dogwood (Piscidia piscipula), Catsclaw (Pithecellobium unguis-cati), and Blackbead (Pithecellobium guadalupense) are added to the list of tree species which may be planted on the east berm The special conditions also provide for possible eventual complete removal of the berm to surrounding wetland elevations, or continued removal of exotic vegetation, following cessation of excavation or any other use of the property. Cudjoe Key Quarry Restoration Plan - Page 3 Packet Pg. 1076 D.7.n ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment Description/Significance 1 Figure 2 from 1988 DEP permit and 1989 ACOE permit, showing previously approved excavation boundaries and restoration 2 Figure 4 from new permit sketches, showing new excavation boundaries and restoration 3 Special Conditions to Restoration Plan 4 Figure 6 from new permit sketches, showing cross section of final berm and littoral shelf around excavation 5 Planting plan from 1991 DCA settlement agreement Q Packet Pg. 1077 M Cy LAJ D U tz Al IAte HM Ln QZW E5 P zj- woo < o 0 0 5ot: 04 50 a. a ozz Ln Ii a. X IL W I u -C -C u 6N in r% 0 1 p I ,ti A ............ I Packet Pg. 1078 1 AT IAU 1-MI1- - M - D.7.n IS 0 10 0 Ia. E o z d D 0 z 0= V) im tz�j D V) Ln z 0 < P V) 0 :) ES Q� cy Z 0 C-) >- z Q 0 U.) 0 z < Z uj V1 CL C� Lj PZ V) V) 0 z 0 K) m < V) Z >- LU > 00 La of 5; V) 0 0 P x =) D CD z < 00 of < Cn 0 L- -j CL a_ 0 -j I-- ul rn N W < < x LU 0 (0 r n E Ln (0 00 0 2 Cd C5 co 4 tm a. r_ .2 lLCn 0 C a 0 C U- 0 H Cp E 7 v c u CL Q) " 0 z �: z Q) co) E o 0 0 U) Q) cn C) C -0 (u 0 CL 0 (n :3 .0 0 0 < C: _O a. o o- LZ LLJ mi M.: IE 5 I Packet Pg. 1079 1 ATTACHMENT Restoration Plans for Cudjoe Key Quarry SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. Cudjoe Enterprises, with the assistance of the Department of Community Affairs and Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, will work with owners of adjacent property extending from the southwest corner of the parcel which contains cement debris and a fill road, to obtain written permission for removal of these materials and restoration of the area to surrounding wetland elevations. (a) Within 30 days of the execution of this settlement agreement, Cudjoe Enterprises will provide a letter to the following two owners of property within the Unrecorded Plat of Sawyer Property on Cudjoe Key, which defines the Iocation, scope of work, time frame within which the work will be accomplished, and any other terms necessary regarding liability, etc., for execution by these owners to allow removal of the debris and fill road from the wetlands: • Ms. Janet Cates, owner of lots N, M, L and I • Associated Marine Institutes, Inc., owner of lots J and K (b) If, within 120 days of the provision of the letter to the adjacent property owners, the parties are unable to come to terms regarding permission for this work, then the restoration plan as provided for on Attachment 2 of Exhibit 1 will apply. However, if at any time prior to expiration of the 120 day period the adjacent property owners affirmatively refuse to grant permission for the removal of the debris and fill road in the adjacent wetlands, then the restoration described on Attachment 2 of Exhibit I will apply. (c) If the adjacent property owners do execute the permission letter within 120 days, then the restoration plan will be modified to substitute removal of the debris and fill road, as described in 1. Above, for removal of the vegetated berm along Blimp Road, as described in 6(a) below. In addition, replanting of the eastern berm will be removed from the restoration plan, as it will no longer be necessary because existing visual screening from the road will be left in place. 2. Cudjoe Enterprises will provide a survey, not more than 60 days after receipt of all State and Federal regulatory permits, of the mitigation area depicted on the Plan View of Existing Conditions signed on March 10, 1997 by Mr. Paul Larsen and representing 8.5 acres more or less (Attachment 3, Figure 4), or as modified by 1. above. 3. Cudjoe Enterprises will provide, within 60 days from the date of regulatory permit issuance, a legally sufficient conservation easement to ensure that the identified wetland areas will remain in their natural state in perpetuity. The conservation easement will encompass approximately 8.5 acres of natural and restored wetlands. These areas will not be disturbed whatsoever by dredging, filling, land clearing, agricultural activities, planting, or other construction work. The permittee agrees that the only future utilization of the preserved area in question will be as a purely natural area. (a) Cudjoe Enterprises will prepare the proposed conservation easement, including a legal description, to include scale drawings, of the area in question and furnish the same to the legal Packet Pg. 1080 D.7.n counsels of the Department of Community Affairs and Monroe County, for legal review and approval. (b) Within 30 days of approval by the Department of Community Affairs and Monroe County of the proposed easement,Cudjoe Enterprises will record the easement in the public records of Monroe County, Florida. A certified copy of the recording, plat, and verification of acceptance from the grantee will be forwarded to the Department of Community Affairs and Monroe County. The recording and notification to the Department must be made prior to the discharge of any additional fill authorized under Federal or State permits. 4. Cudjoe Enterprises will remove berms, roads and disturbed areas within the mitigation area to surrounding wetland elevations, as depicted in Attachment 3, Figure 4, for the southern edge of the borrow pit and the central northwestern portion, consisting of 5.717 acres more or less, , or as modified by 1. above, within a period of six months of receipt of all regulatory permits. 5. Cudjoe Enterprises will construct a containment berm along the south side of the proposed rock mine wide enough to accommodate heavy equipment. This berm will be completed prior to expansion of mining operations. 6: Cudjoe Enterprises will enhance the existing wetland along Blimp Road south of the entrance road into the rock nine and improve water circulation as follows: (a) The vegetated berm along the west side of this wetland, consisting of 2.937 acres more or less, will be removed and the elevation returned to the surrounding wetland elevations within a two (2) year period of receipt of all regulatory permits. (b) Six (6) twelve inch culverts will be placed under the entrance road into the rock mine as depicted on drawing entitled Location and Detail of Culverts Under Entrance Road, signed and sealed March 10, 1997 by Paul Larsen (Attachment 3, Figure 6), prior to expansion of mining operations. (c) All fill will be removed to wetland elevations, which may include removal of wetland plants which have encroached into the existing fill substrate. 7. A clean mining operation will be maintained to discourage the establishment of a black rat population. Existing piles of trash will be removed within 90 days of execution of this settlement agreement, in areas where no regulatory permits are required. In areas where permits are required, these materials will be removed within 90 days of permit acquisition. The site will not be used for storage, except for mining material and functional mining equipment used on the site. However, nothing in these special conditions will prevent Cudjoe Enterprises from applying for permits to store other materials allowed under applicable zoning. 8. All exotic vegetation, to include Australian pine and Brazilian pepper, will be removed from areas not proposed for mining within 30 days of acquisition of applicable permits. The site shall be maintained exotic -free over the life of the project. N Packet Pg. 1081 D.7.n 9. One of the following three alternatives must be chosen by Cudjoe Enterprises and implemented within two years after the expiration of the 10-year life of the quarry, or closure of the mining operation, whichever is earlier. (a) The berm surrounding the deep excavation will be removed to surrounding wetland elevations, if all regulatory permits can be acquired. In this case, the berm planting plan described in the restoration plan will not be required. (b) A new permitted use for the property will be in place, which will also provide for continued removal of exotic vegetation on the property. (c) A trust fund in the amount of $10,000 will be established for continued removal of exotic vegetation, with or in favor of an agency or organization acceptable to the Department that is willing to undertake the task of removal. 3 Packet Pg. 1082 ATTACH D, z O c 0 E � o > I i W m tD LO if? � re) i i i I I i i L_� N I : i N ! ..... L. Note: Elevation of berm will be modified to 2 feet. r- n C O U O cn Imo•; Q V Z Z 0 Q > LIJ cn c� z Un 00 cn 0 ao a �•, U m 7 °' o iz p z W O ~ o� 0x c o w m Y O Q N Q O W Q cc iF W UOf U �� 0 0 (LY a � - O a a� :a M tM d C i 4 M �' O t4 O .y N O U N N O t o t _ O O C a LV O CO LL- L. Q, p - LO '� E C Cn -C > L ...._ O EO C O d N 0-0 O� O 0 -«�-. C z Q) Ul C 0- d O E C c C a C V7 p C O f4 O Q) - _T •� Q� �.d y LO L d 1 43 Q d C d c 0 �' > � p � �.�� O -p> E L d 07 0 O L L E E c u E O d O O d a QaCD L Q Packet Pg. 1083 ATTACHM i 5_ a I 4 o • c� rr n e SSd tl g ter: z a e•- dam Zx� �iN p0 f..UU Packet Pg. 1084 D.7.n Exhibit 3 December 6, 1999 Conservation Easement Packet Pg. 1085 D.7.n MONROE COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CONSERVATION EASEMENT STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MONROE FILE # 1 1 5487 9 BK# 1 6 0 7 PG# 1 0 E3 3 RCD Dec 06 1999 04.53PM DANNY L KOLHAGE, CLERK KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that Frank Dirico, whose address is 1 South Pelican Drive, Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida, (Grantor) has granted to Monroe County (Grantee), a Conservation Easement in accordance with Section 704.06, Florida Statutes (1987), in and over real property in Monroe County, Florida, as set forth in the legal description and scale drawing attached as Exhibits A and B, respectively. This easement is granted pursuant to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) Permit No. 198501133 (IP-EJ), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Permit No. 44-0150416-001-ES and the Agreement among Cudjoe Enterprises, Inc., predecessor in interest to Frank Dirico, Monroe County, and the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) executed July 16, 1998. As used herein, the term Grantor shall include any successor or assignee of the Grantor, and the term Grantee shall include any successor or assignee of the Grantee. It is the purpose and intent of this Conservation Easement to assure that the subject lands will be retained and maintained forever in the natural condition existing at the time of execution of this Conservation Easement. To carry out this purpose, the following right is conveyed to the Grantee, the DEP, the DCA and the ACE by this conservation easement: to enter upon the property at reasonable times to observe and inspect the property and to Packet Pg. 1086 D.7.n FILE #11 5487 9 BK#1607 PG#1084 enforce the rights granted herein upon prior oral or written notice to the Grantor, its successors and assigns, in a manner that will not reasonably interfere with the use and quiet enjoyment of the property by the Grantor at the time of entry. The following activities are prohibited on the property subject to this Conservation Easement: 1. Construction or placement of buildings, roads, signs, billboards or other advertising, utilities, or other structures on or above the ground; 2. Dumping or placing of soil or other substances or material as landfill, or dumping or placing of trash, waste, or unsightly or offensive materials; 3. Removal or destruction of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation; with the exception of nuisance and exotic plant species as may be required by Grantee; 4. Excavation, dredging or removal of loam, peat gravel, soil, rock or other material substance in such manner as to affect the surface; 5. Surface use except for purposes that permit the land or water area to remain predominantly in its natural condition; 6. Activities detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, soil conservation or fish and wildlife habitat preservation; 7. Acts or uses detrimental to such aforementioned retention and maintenance of land or water areas; and 8. Acts or uses detrimental to the preservation of any features or aspects of the property having historical, archeological or cultural significance. W Packet Pg. 1087 D.7.n FILE #1 154879 BK# 16 0 7 PG# 1 0 8 5 The Conservation Easement hereby granted and the obligation to retain and maintain the land forever predominantly in the vegetative and hydrologic condition as herein specified shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the grantor and its successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of the Grantee and its successors and assigns. Nothing in this Conservation Easement shall be construed as a prohibition by the Grantor, its successors or assigns, or the grantee, its successors or assigns of exercising the transfer of any development rights authorized for this parcel, as designated by Monroe County, to any other parcel located within Monroe County which is not a part of the lands subject to this Conservation Easement. Nor shall this provision be construed as constituting pre -approval for development of that alternative parcel by the Grantee, the DEP, the DCA, the ACE or any other agency of the Federal Government. The terms and conditions of this Conservation Easement may be enforced by the Grantee, the DEP, the DCA and the ACE by injunctive relief and other appropriate available remedies, and Grantor consents that venue for such enforcement actions shall Iie exclusively in the Circuit Court of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, in Monroe County, Florida. Any forbearance on the part of the Grantee to exercise its rights in the event of the failure of Grantor to comply with the provisions of this Conservation Easement shall not be deemed or construed to be a waiver of the Grantee's rights hereunder in the event of any subsequent failure of the Grantor to comply. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto set Grantor's hand and seal on this day of 1999. 31 Packet Pg. 1088 D.7.n Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence: A rI (Print Name of Witness) In Witness (Print Name of Witness) FILE #1 .1 54879 BK#1607 PG#1086 Mark Baker, Power of Attorney for Frank Dirico, Grantor These covenants shall be recorded in the Public Records of Monroe County. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MONROE N� The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of .. . 1999 by Mark Baker, Power of Attorney for Frank Dirico. He is personally known to me or has produced ./2 . -. Z," ar 5'-�2i as identification. My Commission Expires: Yr JOANN KUSES A BONDED THaLt COMMMON # CC 707394 EXPIRES JAN 28, 2002 NQF f1 ATLANTIC BONDING CO., INC. 4 o(Seal) (Print Name of Notary Public) a Packet Pg. 1089 D.7.n FILE # 1 1 5 4 8 7 S Bit# 1 6 0 7 PG# 1 0 8 7 Legal Description WEZ No. 1: A parcel of land located in the East '/2 of the Northwest '/4 of Section 29, Township 66 South, Range 28 East, lying West of the State Road, Monroe County, Florida, and being more particularly described as follows: Commence at the Northeast corner of the Northwest V4 of Section 29, Township 66 South, Range 28 East; thence West along the North Line of Section 29 for 300 feet to the Westerly Right -of -Way Line of the State Road; thence South along the said Westerly Right -of -Way Line of the State Road for 2640.43 feet; thence West along the South Line of the East %2 of the Northwest '/4 of said Section 29 for 155 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence West and continuing along the said South Line of the East V:z of the Northwest '/4 of Section 29 a distance of 865 feet; thence North along the West Line of the East '/2 of the Northwest 'A of said Section 29 a distance of 237 feet; thence North 83°09'40" East a distance of 380 feet; thence South 58°48'32" East a distance of 288 feet; thence South 85054'39" East a distance of 188 feet; thence North 14°00'37" East a distance of 260 feet; thence East a distance of 35 feet; thence South a distance of 298 feet; thence South 30°49"31" West a distance of 86.12 feet to the Point of Beginning. Parcel contains 199,681 square feet or 4.58 acres, more or less. EXHIBIT A Page 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 1090 D.7.n FIL9 # 1 1 5 4 B 7 s BK#1607 PG#108 Legal Description WEZ No. 2: A parcel of land located in the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 66 South, Range 28 East, lying West of the Sate Road, Monroe County, Florida, and being more particularly described as follows: Commence at the Northeast corner of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 66 South, Range 28 East; thence West along the North Line of Section 29 for 1,320 feet to the West Line of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 29; thence South along the West Line of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29 for 915 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence South and continuing along the West Line of the East %2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29 a distance of 485 feet; thence North 65°32'45" East a distance of 240 feet; thence North 06°11 "33" West a distance of 375.84 feet; thence West a distance of 51.30 feet; thence North a distance of 27 feet; thence West a distance of 126.63 feet to the Point of Beginning. Parcel contains 88,328 square feet or 2.03 acres, more or less, and A parcel of land located in the East % of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 66 South, Range 28 East, lying West of the State Road, Monroe County, Florida, and being more particularly described as follows: Commence at the Northeast corner of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 66 South, Range 28 East; thence West along the North Line of Section 29 for 1,320 feet to the West Line of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 29; thence South along the West Line of the East %2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29 for 900 feet; thence East for 215 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence East a distance of 85 feet; thence North a distance of 350 feet; thence South 20°55'07" West a distance of 157.41 feet; thence South 08°04'33" West a distance of 205 feet to the Point of Beginning. Parcel contains 18,461 square feet or .42 acres, more or less. EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 1091 D.7.n FILE #11 54879 8K#1 607 PG#1089 Legal Description WPZ: A parcel of land located in the East %2 of the Northwest 1/ of Section 29 Township 66 South, Range 28 East, lying West of the State Road, Monroe County, Florida, and being more particularly described as follows: Commence at the Northeast corner of the Northwest V4 of Section 29, Township 66 South, Range 28 East; thence West along the North Line of Section 29 for 485.00 feet; thence South 269.00 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence continue South for 30.00 feet; thence West for 535.00 feet; thence North for 30.00 feet; thence East for 535.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Parcel contains 16,050 square feet or 0.37 acres, more or less. EXHIBIT A Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 1092 f _•� O S C, m: Y N0.c�i°'agoz � La p — — O :-J I� p 12L< I Z N y p(j �II ` 2D U a z DW j N a`o c M p Zaw4aW a a 00 ,rm WD,X 7 00 W Z L) A N3 to T a p 5 O U¢ m o ��Z— �E .t W w z o °7az 7 o ta! cn 5 0 4 [e \ a 5 U i o a 0-c(i 'n `\to c v to ii6S. g i dx 0. a n a a a'vOi ::ii=iei4;Ei � O O ° N ( ::r.• N V —J n Idn m \ I a u " c N 4 C G c uCM c: CcQ o a a ° 9 O V O O O R°° O U° rn U rn c n � '" m o r Vl ro v u m 8 ° p 'F •a tl u ay a n� u` ° n IE o u u u SF to N O H O O O ° 4 € '0 r, tp n O m e Y !2 Ol �r n :Zzt EI �+ ipli ii' ' °ii iiiiiieif .i.i."i".. .i 'i`ii ..•...•...,;i:::;:aie:iiii:e eii ou oo �o. �ME a ::::: MV 0 Or 40 v3 Q¢v 3 u u E u vIEo a° Q a. ou -0 °, o a u m u p o u o I> o° O N o u = x C Go 0N V U O° .w b 0. U1 {L 0. W lz D N N ° n -J ovE° N: O. "�' U o u tq C 'O to NN N ..u. ro [ n cnO cau° c T€ iv n E 3 to 0 0 st 3 roll o 31A v v u o ._ v y C I A 4# C i ry Y� M� MONROE COUNTY EXHIBIT R OFFICIAL RECORDS PAGE _ I 'OF D.7.n Packet Pg. 1093 D.7.n Exhibit 4 December 6, 1999 380 Agreement between Frank Dirico and DCA Packet Pg. 1094 D.7.n MONROE COUNTY AGREEMENT OFFICIAL RECORDS 3 Y This Agreement is entered into by Frank Dirico (Mr. Dirico) and the State of Florida, 3 Department of Community Affairs (DCA), pursuant to Section 380.032(3), Florida Statutes ' (1999). i 0 ,mot RECITATIONS 0 I � 0 CU WHEREAS, Mr. Dirico purchased the subject property commonly known as the Cudjoe Key Quarry, located in Monroe County, Florida which has for many years been used for limestone a 0 quarrying, from Cudjoe Enterprises, Inc. ("Cudjoe Enterprises") on January 5, 1999. Cudjoe L L Enterprises purchased the subject property from CTB, Inc. on December 5, 1994; prior to that r+ time, CTB, Inc. was the owner and Tarmac Florida Inc. was the operator at the quarry, and t WHEREAS, DCA, Monroe County ("the County), and Cudjoe Enterprises signed a ro- development agreement on July 16, 1998 for the purpose of clarifying terms and conditions in an c .L zo earlier Development Agreement between Tarmac, Monroe County and DCA signed on March12 1, M c 1991, and to resolve issues now and for the future regarding Cudjoe Enterprises' right to continue o approved mining and excavation plans for the Cudjoe Key Quarry, and WHEREAS, the 1998 settlement agreement specifies implementation of extensive N o environmental mitigation measures prior to expansion of the quarry on the subject property, r including creation of almost eight (8) acres of additional endangered species habitat through w removal of existing berms and fill to surrounding wetland elevation, and 0 E WHEREAS, Monroe County issued excavation permit no. 971-1188 to Cudjoe m Enterprises on July 24, 1998, which allows limestone quarrying to continue on the subject c property, and c� a WHEREAS, Mr. Dirico has purchased the subject property to install a communications Ui facility, rather than to continue the historic quarry operations, and E WHEREAS, the completion of installation of the communications facility will provide a c� "passive" use for the property which will have much less impact on surrounding natural and r a inhabited areas than would the continuation of limestone mining activities, and ME 1 J Packet Pg. 1095 D.7.n WHEREAS, Mr. Dirico proposes to incorporate the communications facility into the settlement agreement, WHEREAS, the northwest guy wire anchors for the communications facility must be located within an area that has been designated as red -flagged wetlands and deemed unbuildable z, based on the KEYWEP model adopted by the County and DCA; 3 WHEREAS, the 1991 and subsequent 1998 settlement agreements allowed mining within o� a� areas designated as open water which are also deemed unbuildable based on the KEYWEP model;Of i WHEREAS, the former agreements vest development impacts within environmentally aU sensitive areas now otherwise deemed unbuildable; u WHEREAS, this agreement reduces impacts to unbuildable areas and substantially c L increases mitigation requirements as compared to the former agreement; a a� WHEREAS, Section 380.032, F.S., authorizes the Department to enter into agreements for the purpose of effectuating the provisions and purposes of ..Chapter 380, F.S., and the �a Department has determined that this agreement meets that criteria; and o NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings herein, 2 0 the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: �a I. Use of Site c 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are incorporated herein and form a material part of .y this agreement. o 2. Scope of Agreement. The Applicant shall seek Minor Conditional Use approval for the project, consistent with the requirements of the Monroe County Code as applied by Monroe w County. This agreement shall not be construed to grant development approval to the project. E Rather, this agreement shall be construed to define wetland impacts, wetland and property line a� setbacks, and required mitigation and restoration, as described in Exhibit 1, which shall apply if a� Monroe County approves the conditional use. Restoration shall occur according to the schedule �a a in Attachment 5. However, all restoration shall be completed within 2 years of facility installation. a� E 3. Geographic Scope. The geographic scope of this Agreement is defined in Attachment �a 3 of Exhibit 1. a 4 Zoning. All uses other than mining, and the communications facility and related activities, present and future, of the subject property will be consistent with the zoning in effect at the time applications for any such use are submitted to Monroe County. Pa Packet Pg. 1096 D.7.n 5. Dimensions. The total impact area is being voluntarily reduced approximately an additional 2.4 acres from that committed to in the 1998 settlement agreement. Correspondingly, the project impact area will be modified as shown in Exhibit 1, Attachment 4, revised Figure 4. 6. Renewal of Permits. Mr. Dirico will maintain and renew all required County permits f a during the term of this agreement. 6 0 II. Restoration and Reclamation CO � 1. Mr. Dirico has agreed to revise the restoration and reclamation plan incorporated into the 1998 Settlement Agreement. c� i 2. The revised restoration plan (Exhibit 1) will involve creation of approximately 10.325 acres of additional endangered species habitat through removal of existing berms and fill to N surrounding wetland elevation. 3. Special Conditions. The 1998 settlement agreement imposes special conditions upon the property which link restoration performance standards to a specific timetable related to the issuance of regulatory permits, and this schedule is incorporated in both the 1999 DEP permit and ACOE permit. Mr. Dirico is in agreement with these conditions; therefore, they are incorporated in the restoration plan (Attachment 5 of Exhibit 1). iII. Miscellaneous 1. Caveat. The parties acknowledge that they have entered into this Agreement solely in the spirit of compromise. This Agreement shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any party's position with regard to the proper interpretation of the Monroe County Code, and shall not be given precedencial effect with regard to any other permit issued by Monroe County. 2. Duplicate Originals. This Settlement Agreement may be executed in any number of originals, all of which evidence one Agreement, and only one of which need be produced for any purpose. 3. Enforcement. This Agreement may be enforced by any party as provided in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, or as otherwise allowed by law. In the event of breach of this Agreement by Mr. Dirico of any of the material covenants or provisions hereof and Mr. Dirico's failure to cure any breach of any other provision of the Agreement after ninety days written notice, the Department may terminate this Agreement or file suit to enforce this Agreement as provided in Sections 380.11, Florida Statutes, including a suit to enjoin all development contemplated hereunder. If any provision of this Agreement is invalid or unenforceable with respect to any party, the remainder of this Agreement or the application of such provision to persons other than 3 Packet Pg. 1097 D.7.n those as to whom it is held invalid or unenforceable, will not be affected and each provision of this Agreement will be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 4. Scope of Authority. This Agreement affects the rights and obligations of the parties under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, authorized by this Agreement. 5. Entirety of Agreement. The parties further agree that this Settlement Agreement contains the entire and exclusive understanding and Agreement among the parties and may not be modified in any manner except by an instrument in writing and signed by the parties. 6. Binding Effect; Recordation of Agreement. This Agreement is intended to and shall create a covenant running with the land, and shall be binding on the parties, their heirs, successors and assigns. Within ten (10) days after the signing of the Agreement by all parties, Mr. Dirico shall record this Agreement in the public records of Monroe County, Florida, and shall promptly provide proof of recordation to Monroe County and the Department, including the official records book and page. where this Agreement is recorded. Proof of recordation shall be furnished by hand delivery or U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to Monroe County directed to the Monroe County Planning Director, Growth Management Division, Marathon Regional Service Center, 2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 400, Marathon, Florida 33050; and to the Department directed to the Growth Management Administrator, Florida Department of Community Affairs, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100, with a copy to the DCA Keys Field Office, Marathon Regional Service Center, 2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 212, Marathon, FL 33050 7. Release; Costs and Attorneys Fees. Each party hereto releases the other from any and all claims or demands arising out of the subject Agreement. Each party agrees to bear its own costs and attorney fees incurred in connection with this proceeding. 8. Effective Date. This agreement shall not be effective unless all parties execute within 90 days of the first signature. The effective date of this Agreement is that date when the last party hereto signs a counterpart of this Agreement. 4 Packet Pg. 1098 D.7.n IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Agreement and have agreed to be bound by its terms. FRANK 7.9, own ubject property By: Date: �� f ,��AYAcy M. G. RO SENTHAL Mark aker, power of attorney for Frank Dirico fi COMMISSION # CC S W216 -A _19�`W < EXPIRES JUN 10, 2000 aomeo T► Pu Of ATLANTIC BONDING CO., INC. Notary My Commission Expires: FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS By: Date: C-arei�-F�i, Director Divisio of Community Planning Notary My Commission Expires: PQEPAIZEt> -" : 5AN DeA wA -T Eas SANpt2A. WALTERS CONSULTANTS "NAV I Nmg, Beth Frost ;.; .*: MY COMMISSION # CC884492 EXPIRES March 1, 2003 .FI.; F�QP`BONDED THRU TROY FAIN INSURANCE INC L �] O, a) , O U 0 M Packet Pg. 1099 D.7.n EXHIBIT 1 FRANK DIRICO Restoration Plan for Cudjoe Key Quarry The following restoration plan was developed through coordination with the following representatives of public agencies: • Steve Klett, Jeanette Gallihugh, and Phil Frank, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) • Charles Schnepel, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) • Rowena Garcia„ Florida Fish and Game Conservation Commission (FFGCC) • Randy Grau & Ed Barham, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) • Ken Metcalf, Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) • Ed Koconis, Monroe County Location and Site History The Cudjoe Key Quarry is a parcel of land consisting of approximately sixty-two (62) acres located to the north of U.S. Highway 1 on Cudjoe Key. The property is surrounded by wetlands on the north, south and west, and bordered by Blimp Road to the east. The quarry has been actively mined for limestone rock for many years. Wetland permits were issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (now Florida Department of Environmental Protection, DEP) in 1988 and the ACOE in 1989. Attachment 1 consists of Figure 2 in these permits, and shows the scope of excavation approved at that time. It also shows the required restoration work, which included removal of berms along the north and west property lines and two (2) berm areas extending between the road right-of- way and the pit on the east. This restoration work was for the purpose of restoring full tidal connection to the wetlands within these berms and thereby enhancing the wildlife habitat value. All of this work was cjmpleted in accordance with the permits. One problem, however, was that the permits did not allow removal of mangroves, and, therefore, it was necessary for remnants of the berms to be left in place. These remaining berm remnants impede tidal flow and reduce the effectiveness the intended habitat restoration. Cudjoe Enterprises, Inc. purchased the property in late 1994. The DEP and ACOE permits had expired in 1993 and 1994, respectively, and Cudjoe Enterprises retained Sandra Walters Consultants (SW) to apply for new permits for expansion of the quarry. Several meetings and site visits with the USFWS and FFGCC were conducted, and resulted in a revised site plan which includes substantially more habitat restoration than permitted previously. Frank Dirico (Mr. Dirico) purchased the property on January 5, 1999, for the purpose of constructing a wireless communications facility instead of continuing the rockmining activities. As there was a moratorium in Monroe County on new wireless communications facilities at that time, pending completion of a new County ordinance governing these facilities, Mr. Dirico chose to proceed with applications for the original mining plan on the property, with the goal of 0 a Packet Pg. 1100 D.7.n incorporating the communications facility into the overall site plan and mitigation activities. Therefore, Mr. Dirico authorized the previous owner of the property, Cudjoe Enterprises, Inc., to submit applications to the DEP and ACOE. Cudjoe Enterprises continued to retain Sandra Walters Consultants for this purpose, and applications were filed in January 1999. DEP issued a permit for the project on April 12, 1999, and the ACOE issued a permit on July 26, 1999. Attachment 2 consists of Figure 3 in the 1999 DEP permit sketches, which shows the existing conditions onsite; and Attachment 3 consists of Figure 4 in the 1999 DEP permit sketches, which shows the changes to the site for mining purposes. The existing deep mine area covers a total of 18.411 acres. There is an existing fill pad which surrounds the deep mine, from which draglines remove material from the excavation, and berms presently separate the mine from surrounding wetlands. The final configuration of the rockmining .operation permitted by the DEP and ACOE would include excavation of two (2) existing wetland areas onsite contained within the existing berm, located along the southwest and north boundaries. Both of these areas were scraped down during earlier mining operations and now possess little to no habitat value, and consist of approximately 4.187 acres. The majority of the existing fill pad around the deep mine area, consisting of 10.916 acres, which is completely scarified, is also included in the new mine configuration. This results in a final total deep mining area of 33.514 acres. The earlier permits approved a final deep mining area of 41.3 acres; therefore, the plan depicted in Attachment 3 is a 7.8 acre reduction from that previously permitted. Mr. Dirico's wireless communications facility changes the site plan as shown in Attachment 4, which is a revised version of Figure 4 in the 1999 DEP permit sketches. The antenna -bearing tower would be located on the berm between the two (2) existing deep mine areas, with three (3) sets of gay wires extending to the east towards the entrance road, the south into the barren scrape down area, and the north just above WEZ #2. The tower foundation and support building will be built at an elevation of twelve (12) feet, exceeding the base flood elevation for the site. The southwest barren scrape down area will be permanently filled and will serve as a staging area for tower installation, as well as providing land for helicopter access to the property. Restoration Plan The 1999 DEP and ACOE permits designate for restoration two (2) areas that were included in the previous DEP and ACOE permits for mining. One is located in the approximate center of the western boundary of the property, and is designated WEZ #2 on Attachment 3; the second is along the entire southern boundary (excluding a section of berm already removed as part of the earlier restoration work, and is designated WEZ #1 on Attachment 3). The entire property has been surveyed, as required by the existing agreement and permits, and conservation easements for WEZ #1 and #2 are presently under review by DCA, the County and the ACOE. Upon approval, the easements will be recorded in the public records of Monroe County and the restoration work will be conducted. Cudjoe Key Quarry Restoration Plan - Page 2 Packet Pg. 1101 D.7.n A fill road extending into wetlands off the southwest tip of the property (designated Wetland Restoration Zone on Attachment 3) has already been removed to surrounding wetland elevation under the existing permits, restoring normal water circulation to many acres of wetlands. The two berms at the north of the property are located a short distance further south than specified by the ►- original permits, resulting in a small amount of additional mitigation acreage from that originally a calculated (designated as WPZ on Attachment 3). The total area in the permits designated for B restoration and enhancement is approximately 7.901 acres. (b To compensate for approximately 0.10 acres of additional wetland impacts which will result from ' unavoidable placement of the northwest set of guy wires for the communications facility in wetlands outside of the present rockmine area, an additional berm and barren scapedown area at the north end of the presently permitted for rockminin property p y p g—comprising approximately 2.23 acres and included in WEZ #3 on Attachment 4—will be returned to surrounding wetland 0) elevations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (F&W) and Florida Fish and Game Conservation Commission (FFGCC) have expressed concerns to the applicant that the proposed communications facility may have impacts on birds. The applicant has met with representatives of these agencies and has developed with them the following plan to address these concerns: • fund a study of the impact of communication facilities in the Florida Keys on birds, a not -for - profit corporation for which has been established • leave a section of the northernmost berm in place following restoration of the remainder of WEZ #3 to create an island surrounded by wetlands for a completely isolated tern and plover nesting site; • control access to a section of the existing northern berm as an additional nesting site; and • place visual marker balls on the lower portions of the guy wires. With inclusion of the nesting island, WEZ 93 will comprise 2.42 acres. The specific fashion in which this restoration is accomplished is defined in Attachment 5. These conditions are derived from conditions in the existing DEP and ACOE permits, and are modified to include the addition of the northwest guy wires and access road and additional mitigation, and to provide for review and approval of certain terms by DCA, as signator to this agreement. These conditions provide for a specific compliance schedule for restoration linked either with execution of this agreement or acquisition of regulatory permits, preparation and recording of a conservation easement for all lands within the additional restoration area. The conditions also provide for removal of mangroves and other wetland plants where they encroach on existing fill substrate to be restored to surrounding wetland elevations; clean up of the site, most of which is already completed; removal of all exotic vegetation on the property; and installation of additional culverts under the access road to the quarry (which has already been completed under the existing permits) and the northwest guy wire access road. The berm around the existing deep mine presently includes a littoral zone, as depicted in Attachment 6 (Figure :: of 1999 DEP permit sketches), to provide some submerged habitat within the rockmine itself, and also to provide a shelf as a safety measure for wildlife or people to climb out of the mine. This safety shelf will be maintained as is. Cudjoe Key Quarry Restoration Plan - Page 3 Packet Pg. 1102 D.7.n Attachment 1 2 3 4 ATTACHMENT LIST Description/Significance Figure 2 in 1988 DEP permit and 1989 ACOE permits, showing previously approved excavation boundaries and restoration Existing Conditions referenced to 10/98 survey, updating Figure 3 in 1999 DEP permit sketches Figure 4 in 1999 DEP permit sketches, showing new excavation boundaries and restoration Revised Figure 4, showing new site configuration with communications facility 5 Special Conditions to Restoration Plan 6 Figure 11 from 1999 DEP permit sketches, showing cross section of final berm and''littoral shelf around excavation Packet Pg. 1103 co } a Ln 0 LA � c7 >- Ln Y Ln l�J c r{ U � � I a O D.7.n ATTACH ENT 1 0�' d O I W Q j H It I O Z 2 CC O VO[ �pV[ O I I N 5L0c c) OZ- I I u z CL y JtrX L O ILaw� L. I a t I am � 1,01) I � ca tm I Iol c °I u u u y ry In o N O m L_ `l u C u < O < + n N o n c - a p cn J2 K W S a O � m � o o � � <t m a. m Iu_ I � d 1e.,\ ............ IPacket Pg. 1104 D.7.n J U N U U U � Q 01 0) O \ U-) C O O U O > X 00 0 0 O U (n c E a 0 O 0 a L Q FILE # 1 1 5 5 9 5 3 8K#1 15 0 8 PG#9 4 9 0 a ATTACHMENT 00 cd IVl�i `o c c Q7 N N d I C J N r r N U c v c w Q Q Q Q Q 0� I� 00 N cD Sp, E L .: 4) c t L N m 'D _N O N rn U J U C v a r. Q • 11 Fm Co Nul W o N m C C I v E O M17 C v u C (D V) L J aNi b C6 to C r' U: u Cu w a C:)N ;i C C (`0 CD C7 C m O ? } d 3N N m � N ATTAC H M z � o Q Wa -• m CM) -:E CQ C U a z o a o a Z \ O (� O r O V) OQ Z U W F V) 12 a j as ZW ono aa° �. oz V >- Z:1 5 w -a Y = i c Z V)W ° z a wao_o-:� O O J at ~ W O rn ZOrn U O' W z u a pq- d to C a Z Y O V a m c W o Q d O a E -- fi y r W w 2�`� O Co tr Z "a W Vr 5 V)0 CC \ Q Ci n u A o Q. n � z a. Q in a m D -a `O a of \o°'� U- a Qom. Ho o r ov 0 o c 6.9 c o x u u ino n p V a O h > a-Q O C C v u c .0 O .0 1 C > v p i C O C O nl p L p J U v-o no. c -_. ° O L — C u CL u o 3 > = N D v p v °V:'C ais`vo Y,1 p o �o•E o Eorn°u v 3r ^ o n a arivu u c � vl v E v) o Cl>1EoE U D > y U V M Z Co o u ° O ° E o c 5 v _'; C x p v vl u ' C v '> u o n C O O h C: O K L Co v E o o u .0 .E cDuE lj 'Uu M i °c° u v m O/ O _ Q1 u o v = d lL � 07 C O CO v v rn E> O m E u U jn v v I 7 M C u O o s [M® u C � C jn C u u V O O O n to °0 Ol a a o Co v C v v v C a 3 3 U C U O U Z o Z v o vo va O V, v O CL V,o O - o. o CL a a o O - x a V) a U- W 3 T Y m Ob c� Packet Pg. 1106 D.7.n FILE # 1 1 5 5 9 5 3 BK# 1 6 0 8 PG# 9 5 2 Restoration Plans for Cudjoe Key Quarry SPECIAL CONDITIONS ATTACHMENT 5 1. Conservation easements required under existing State and Federal regulatory permits and the July 17, 1998 agreement between the Department of Community Affairs ("DCA"), Monroe County ("the County") and Cudjoe Enterprises, Inc.: (a) A survey of the property was conducted on October 27, 1998 by F.H. Hildebrandt, P.E. (b) Legal descriptions, scale drawings, and legally sufficient conservation easements for onsite mitigation areas encompassing 7.4 acres of natural and restored wetlands were provided to DCA, the County and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("ACOE") for review and approval on October 8, 1999. These areas will not be disturbed whatsoever by dredging, filling, land clearing, agricultural activities, planting, or other construction work. Mr. Dirico, has specified in these conservation easements that the only future utilization of the preserved areas in question will be as purely natural areas. (c) Within 30 days of approval of the proposed easement by DCA, the County and the ACOE, Frank Dirico (Mr. Dirico) will record the easement in the public records of Monroe County, Florida. A certified copy of the recording, plat, and verification of acceptance from the grantee will be forwarded to DCA and the County. Tile recording and notification to DCA must be made prior to the discharge of any additional fill authorized under Federal or State permits. 2. Removal of the Wetland Preservation Zone located on property adjacent to the subject property, has already been removed pursuant to existing permits. 3 Mr. Dirico will provide a survey, not more than 60 days after receipt of all State and Federal regulatory permits modified pursuant to this agreement, of the northwest guy wire foundations and access road comprising approximately 0.1 acres, and the additional mitigation area labeled WEZ 43 on the Restoration Plan (Attachment 4). 4 Mr. Dirico will provide, within 60 days from the date of regulatory permit issuance, a legally sufficient conservation easement to ensure that the identified additional mitigation area will remain in its natural state in perpetuity. The conservation easement will encompass approximately 2.42 acres of natural and restored wetlands and upland bird nesting refugium. These areas will not be disturbed whatsoever by dredging, filling, land clearing, agricultural activities, planting, or other constriction work. Mr. Dirico agrees that the only future utilization of the preserved area in question will be as a purely natural area. The same procedure outlined in # 1 above will be followed. 4. Mr. Dirico will remove berms, roads and disturbed areas within the mitigation areas to surrounding wetland elevations, as depicted in Attachment 4 for WEZ #1, #2, and #3, as Packet Pg. 1108 D.7.n FILE #1155953 BK# 1 E m 8 PG# 9 5 3 shown on Attachment 4, within a period of six months of receipt of all regulatory permits. 5. Mr. Dirico will construct a containment berm along the northwest side of WEZ #1 wide enough to accommodate heavy equipment. This berm will be completed prior to any fill being placed in the southwest barren scrape down area. 6. Mr. Dirico will enhance the existing wetland along Bfimp Road south of the entrance road into the property, and improve water circulation on the property, as follows: (a) Six (6) twelve inch culverts have been placed under the entrance road into the property under existing permits. (b) Culverts will be installed under the northwest guy wire access road, as specified by required regulatory permit modifications. (c) All fill will be removed to wetland elevations, which may include removal of wetland plants which have encroached into the existing fill substrate. 7. A clean site will be maintained to discourage the establishment of a black rat population. Existing piles of trash have been removed. The site will not be used for storage, except for communications and mining equipment used on the site. However, nothing in these special conditions will prevent Mr. Dirico from applying for permits to store other materials allowed under applicable zoning. 8. All exotic vegetation, to include Australian pine and Brazilian pepper, will be removed from the property within 30 days of acquisition of applicable permits. 9. Mr. Dirico will maintain the property free of exotic vegetation in perpetuity. 10. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has expressed concerns to the applicant that the proposed communications facility may have impacts on birds. The applicant has met with Fish and Wildlife and has developed with them the following measures to address this issue: a) Possible bird collisions with towers —fund a study, designed and managed by the local U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office, of the impact of towers in the Florida Keys on birds. A not -for -profit corporation to oversee and conduct this study has been created. b) Possible impacts on birds which use the property for nesting, including terns and plovers —set aside, and control access to, a section of the existing northern berm as a preserve, and leave a section of the northernmost berm in place to serve as an entirely isolated and undisturbed nesting area, as shown on revised Figure 4. c) Place ball markers on the lower sections of guy wires, to aide in visual avoidance of the wires. 2 Packet Pg. 1109 .r D.7.n FILE # 1 1 5 5 9 5 3 ATTACHMENT BK# 1 E 0 8 PG# 4 5 4 — t t I N \ -j — � I 0 ui I� KA O � I V � W o in > 0 V)Z V) C 0o O Of o00 � U > > w .o ° ao (.5w F- z X W rn C O C o t0 m Vo v a _ p w Q '' W 0rn W p w O w d 0 0 z v0 o ~ z °) 0 u Me,! E� O v v v w C > o :3 � rn O w C •` O� v -° w C v 0 w CL _ fn o ° Lc z c� a o > tn N rn%- C.,c.v�o > > C° 7 o L O w w O -0 O (n w ' '-' : V) O C E o (7 w 'o n" Z) �o L. °0vcEcvavoc°o w o w ��.Q' to GD�in t- o Ci 0 C W (u a>i'w� ° E� °� vv — -Cv� o w w .N 3Ulu w�Ewl;c°�EEo ova,-vvv,,m°w zl: -0 1::2 n C m rn T 41 El MONROE COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS � � w D J 0 Packet Pg. 1110 .�' Mail Processing Center f Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Issued Date: 02/05/2019 Kevin P. Delaney Industrial Tower and Wireless, LLC. 40 Lone Street Marshfield, MA 02050 Aeronautical Study No 2018-ASO-22066-OE ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Antenna Tower Cudjoe Key Location: Cudjoe Key, FL Latitude: 24-40-20.11N NAD 83 Longitude: 81-30-06.30W Heights: 5 feet site elevation (SE) 1044 feet above ground level (AGL) 1049 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does exceed obstruction standards but would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s), if any, is(are) met: As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 L Change 2, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, a high -dual system - Chapters 4,9(H- Dual),& 12. Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number. It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e-filed any time the project is abandoned or: At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) X Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) This determination expires on 08/05/2020 unless: (a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. Page 1 of 5 Packet Pg. 1111 (c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Com D.7.o (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, wi in 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E-FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power except those frequencies specified in the Colo Void Clause Coalition; Antenna System Co -Location; Voluntary Best Practices, effective 21 Nov 2007, will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination includes all previously filed frequencies and power for this structure. If construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed, you must submit notice to the FAA within 5 days after the construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. A copy of this determination will be forwarded to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) because the structure is subject to their licensing authority. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (404) 305-6462, or mike.blaich@faa.gov. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2018-ASO-22066- OE. Signature Control No: 386742757-395484452 (EBO ) Michael Blaich Supervisor Attachment(s) Frequency Data Map(s) cc: FCC Page 2 of 5 Packet Pg. 1112 Frequency Data for ASN 2018-ASO-22066-OE LOW HIGH FREQUENCY ERP FREQUENCY FREQUENCY UNIT ERP UNIT 6 7 GHz 55 dB W 6 7 GHz 42 dB W 10 11.7 GHz 55 dB W 10 11.7 GHz 42 dB W 17.7 19.7 GHz 55 dB W 17.7 19.7 GHz 42 dB W 21.2 23.6 GHz 55 dB W 21.2 23.6 GHz 42 dB W 614 698 MHz 1000 W 614 698 MHz 2000 W 698 806 MHz 1000 W 806 901 MHz 500 W 806 824 MHz 500 W 824 849 MHz 500 W 851 866 MHz 500 W 869 894 MHz 500 W 896 901 MHz 500 W 901 902 MHz 7 W 929 932 MHz 3500 W 930 931 MHz 3500 W 931 932 MHz 3500 W 932 932.5 MHz 17 dBW 935 940 MHz 1000 W 940 941 MHz 3500 W 1670 1675 MHz 500 W 1710 1755 MHz 500 W 1850 1910 MHz 1640 W 1850 1990 MHz 1640 W 1930 1990 MHz 1640 W 1990 2025 MHz 500 W 2110 2200 MHz 500 W 2305 2360 MHz 2000 W 2305 2310 MHz 2000 W 2345 2360 MHz 2000 W 2496 2690 MHz 500 W Page 3 of 5 Packet Pg. 1113 TOPO Map for ASN 2018-ASO-22066-OE Page 4 of 5 I Packet Pg. 1114 1 N41 Sectional Map for ASN 2018-ASO-22066-OE • s s • r • r �• • +l • r • ■ • � • w Content Keys ; o a : 'ff6w R-291.6:- 0 1. r r � p• i • O (607 '0' (*� 0 w*..Jk wee NU I AIVI± or Class 'WEST NAS/BC)CA HI 10, CT -118 75 *A IS D.7.o WILDLIFE REFUGE C ISLANDSPINE 0 ) 3 T 502 '(3 � oV a c SUMMERLANDXEY COVE R6 04-25 Lois Key Page 5 of 5 Packet Pg. 1115 0 U� k • U� • �LO D 7: Packet Pg. 1120 D.7.t 0 N � C w E Y o m f w � o Q NO Q mm O Packet Pg. 1121 D.7.0 800 MHz Users: Mariners Hospital ER Fishermans Hospital ER Key West DOT Key West Utilities Key West Public Works Marathon Fire Rescue Customs & Border Protection Dept of State Dept of Homeland Sec FKAA Islamorada Fire Keys Energy Key Largo EMS Key Largo Fire Key West Fire Key West Police Monroe County Public Works Monroe County Fire Rescue Monroe County Sheriff's Office Miami Dade Fire State of Florida US Dept of Justice Florida Keys Ambulance NAS Boca Chica Key West Airport Fire Marathon Airport Fire Trauma Star r Q Packet Pg. 1122 D.7.v MacEachern-Alan From: Karen R. Horan <karen@horanhiggins.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 10:19 AM To: MacEachern-Alan; Darren M. Horan; David P. Horan Cc: Hurley -Christine Subject: RE: Cudjoe Tower - Agenda Item # --- Alan, We appreciate your help in outlining the "Executive Summary" you have requested for the November 20`h Commission agenda. The various interest groups that will benefit from the tower include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Law Enforcement a. US Coast Guard Florida Keys District (including INS) b. Florida Fish and Wildlife (Keys Sector) c. Florida Highway Patrol (Monroe County) d. Monroe County Sheriff's Department e. Municipal Law Enforcement (Coordination with other law enforcement agencies) f. Individuals needing to report criminal activity. 2. Emergency Services a. Hospitals, Ambulances (SMR, VHF and Cellular Communication) 3. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority a. The Aqueduct's Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition "SCADA" system that monitors pressures (leaks), valves, pumps, reserve water tanks, monitors remaining water reserves, etc. b. Communication (VHF and SMR) with FKAA vehicles during emergencies. 4. Electrical Power a. Keys Energy (using the same communication network as the MCSD) and Florida Keys Electric Cooperative (using VHF and SMR) with vehicles. 5. Commercial and Recreational Fishery a. At the present time cell, VHF and SMR (push to talk) range is lost approximately 8 — 10 miles from land. The Dirico tower will provide coverage to approximately 50 miles. This safety issue is not closely related to emergency services, but is a major concern to our fishing industry. Our power, water, law enforcement agencies, (immediately following the communications breakdown during and following Irma) have explored various plans that would provide dependable emergency communication. The solutions come at a high price to taxpayers and rate payers, but none of the various plans or proposals have the survivability of the proposed Dirico tower. Most of the various plans by our agencies are limited to "line of sight" and require multiple powered (repeater) stations. CONCLUSION i Packet Pg. 1123 D.7.v The proposed Dirico tower provides approximately 50 mile "line of sight" capability, is self -powered and when augmented by "line of sight" microwave from the mainland, it provides the most dependable emergency communication capability and is offered at the limited expense of placing individual agency antennas. Respectfully, David Paul Horan, Esq. (Dictated By David Paul Horan) Horan Higgins 608 Whitehead Street Kei West, Florida 33040 (305) 294-4585 (Telephone) (305) 294-7822 (Facsimile) Packet Pg. 1124 D.7.w Tower talking points We are proposing to construct a tower in the lower Keys that would provide state-of-the-art facilities for communications services. The construction of the tower would result in the availability of a communications hub in the lower Keys that can facilitate enhanced television, radio, UHF, cellular, and emergency (police, fire, and other agency) communications. The entire facility would be constructed to withstand category 5 hurricane conditions, providing for greater availability of communications before, during, and after a sustained weather event. 1. Location The proposed wireless communications facility will be located at the borrow pits on Cudjoe Key, off Blimp Road. 2. Who is building the facility? The project will be developed by long-time resident and philanthropist Frank Dirico of Key Largo. 3. Zoning The property is zoned industrial. A wireless communications facilities constructed on industrial -zoned land is considered a minor conditional use. 4. No -Fly Zone The property is located within an FAA -mandated restricted no fly area and clearly marked on the Miami sectional aeronautical chart. 5. Permitting authorities The project has already been approved by The Army Corp of Engineers, South Florida Water Management District, The Florida Department of Environmental Protection, The Federal Communications Administration, and the Federal Aviation Administration, and coordinated with The US Fish and Wildlife Service. A conservation easement has been created on the property, located outside of the development area. 6. Coverage area The proposed tower will be 300 meters AGL. The height will provide a line -of -site radius of 54 miles — any radio service with antennas mounted at or close to the top of the tower should be capable of communicating as far as Lower Matecombe, and up to 50 miles at sea in every direction. This distance is calculating by line of site, but will be increased based on the power, and technology of each radio service, combined with stratospheric refraction. 7. Co -Location for future carriers The tower will provide co -location to any carrier that we can adequately accommodate. 8. Wind loading The tower will be designed with a sustained wind load in excess of 180 mph, and capable of withstanding gusts meeting or exceeding 200 mph. 9. Redundant back haul Along with a fiber link to the site, the tower will also have a measure of redundancy by supplying a microwave backhaul to Dade County. This will be achieved with a network of microwave hops. 10. Ground facilities The windowless supporting building at the base of the tower will be constructed with 12-inch reinforced concrete walls, and be elevated above flood level. Facilities for supporting technicians will be provided in the event that a weather event requires prolonged maintenance at the site. 11. Back-up power 2EA 100 Kilowatt diesel generators are designed into the system to provide backup power to the carriers at the site. Fuel for 7 days will be stored on the site, with a provision to helicopter more in as needed during a prolonged weather event. 12. What we need To accommodate the proposed communications hub, the county will need to remove or replace the following from the Monroe County Land Development Regulations: "146.7 (f): No variance granted pursuant to this section shall be granted to allow an overall height of greater than 330 feet." Please consider these points when discussing the tower project. I will make myself available to explain the benefits of this project at any time, in any forum. I will also be attending upcoming scheduled commission hearings. Packet Pg. 1125 (aamol AoM aofpno posodoad BulpjeBoN uoi;oaai® pue uoissnosi®) ueld a;is - aamol AoM aofpno posodoad - Aepy :;uawyoe;;V � - q� '6u�uoZ �ua�ofpy • L ,J i ? c o � a �� d8 till i p a O O E O =r 0w `� i✓ C 00 O O ? �j o of aoo. of o o a o as A f$f$jgi .�pgp $[y bdSEt�`R1 a g u � .IPZ ° `o v N IfiY LH�o d�i� Fa c o� \ K O C a M � x B All go` It r cL a` t � r ° M ° to q;r f r s SS '6u!uoZ }uaoofpy ASR Application A0871380 D.7.y ASR Application Search Application A0871380 File Number A0871380 Registration Number NEPA Application Information Status Inactive Purpose New Mode Interactive n1I«ona Structure Type POLE - Any type of Pole Location (in NAD83 Coordinates) Lat/Long 24-43-03.4 N 081-04-07.2 W City, State Marathon , FL Zip 33050 Center of AM Array Heights (meters) Elevation of Site Above Mean Sea Level 1.0 Overall Height Above Mean Sea Level 42.4 Proposed Marking and/or Lighting FAA Style E FAA Notification FAA Study 2011-ASO-2453-OE r)xArmar Sk Contact Tnfnrmatinn FRN 0015991391 Owner Keys Wi-Fi, Inc. Attention To: Rick Richter 104 Palmetto Avenue P.O. Box PO Box 999 Taverier , FL 33070 Contact Richter , Rick Attention To: Rick Richter 104 Palmetto Avenue P.O. Box PO Box 999 Tavernier , FL 33070 Constructed Dismantled EMI No Received 01/10/2014 Entered 01/10/2014 Address 273 64th Street Ocean County MONROE Position of Tower in Array Overall Height Above Ground (AGL) 41.4 Overall Height Above Ground w/o Appurtenances 39.6 FAA Issue Date 04/16/2013 Owner Entity Corporation Type P: (305)852-8171 F: E: keyswifi@gmail.com P: (305)852-8171 F: E: keyswifi@gmail.com 0 Does the applicant request a Waiver of the Commission's rules for environmental notice? Is the applicant submitting an Environmental Assessment? http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UIsApp/AsrSearch/asrApplication.jsp?applKey=4234336&callingSystem=NNR&printable I Packet Pg. 1127 1 /23/2018 ASR Application A0871380 No No Is another Federal Agency taking responsibility for Does the applicant certify to No Significant environmental review? Environmental Effect pursuant to Section No Reason for another Federal Agency taking Basis for Certification responsibility for environmental review Name of Federal Agency Local Notice Date National Notice Date 01/14/2014 Authorized Party Richter, Rick C Receipt Date 01/10/2014 Comments Comments None Date 01/10/2014 Date Description None Pleading Type None Date Description None Type Description None Title Event New Application Received Existing Value Description 19 Requested Value Date Entered Date Entered CLOSE WINDOW D.7.y http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UIsApp/AsrSearch/asrApplication.jsp?applKey=4234336&callingSystem=NNR&printable I Packet Pg. 1128 D.7.z MacEachern-Alan From: MacEachern-Alan Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 7:48 AM To: County Commissioners and Aides Cc: Gastesi-Roman; Hurley -Christine; Wilson -Kevin; Shillinger-Bob; Senterfitt-Martin; Rick Ramsay; Rice -Mike: White -Laura Subject: FW: Technical Review - Proposed Cudjoe Key Tower Commissioners, I received a question regarding the proposed tower's impact on internet and telephone connectivity via microwave transmission and forwarded it on to Mark Monday night. He provided the response below in black italics: To address the concern about telephone and internet we have to consider how these services arrive at the customer's site. In the Florida Keys most services are provided via cable of one form or another. These are routed either by pole or underground. This includes "the last mile" where the service enters the customer premises. Any service provided by these methods is subject to flooding and wind damage. A microwave system on the proposed towers would allow signals (telephone or internet) to be transported to various points that could distribute the signals to the end users. However, even with these towers there is not a route that can bring the signals from the mainland. This problem arises because microwaves do not travel far. In a practical sense the range will not be viable after 40 to 50 miles. For high speed data this range is further reduced. That eliminates the use of the proposed Card Sound Tower which is more than 60 miles from the Marathon site and more than 80 miles from the Cudjoe Key site. An alternative would be to install a microwave system at all of the existing tower sites of the radio system and then hop the microwave signal along them to the Key Largo radio site and then to the Card Sound tower where it could be fed by the service providers on the mainland. If you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to reach out to either Laura or me and we will coordinate further with Mr. Pallans to ensure a timely response. Alan MacEachern IT Director Monroe County BOCC Information Technology 102050 Overseas Highway, MM 102.5 Key Largo, FL 33037 Office : (305) 453-8792 Cell : (305) 363-9109 Email : maceachern-clan_@monroecounty-fl._gov Please note: Florida has a very broad public records law. Most written communications to or from the County regarding County business are public record, available to the public and media upon request. Your e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure. From: MacEachern-Alan Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 5:10 PM To: County Commissioners and Aides Cc: Gastesi-Roman; Hurley -Christine; Wilson -Kevin; Senterfitt-Martin; Rick Ramsay; Rice -Mike; White -Laura Subject: FW: Technical Review - Proposed Cudjoe Key Tower Packet Pg. 1129 D.7.z Commissioners, During the December BOCC meeting, the board directed staff to review whether a proposed communication tower on Cudjoe Key would improve communications capabilities after another significant event like Irma (text of the meeting request attached as BOCC Meeting.docx). Laura White and the Sheriff's department has an existing relationship with a communications expert familiar with the Monroe County infrastructure (Mr. Mark Pallans) and Mr. Pallans has prepared the attached report (New Tower Implementation in Monroe County.pdf) for your review. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to reach out to either Laura or me and we will coordinate with Mr. Pallans to ensure a timely response. Best Regards, Alan MacEachern IT Director Monroe County BOCC Information Technology 102050 Overseas Highway, MM 102.5 Key Largo, FL 33037 Office : (305) 453-8792 Cell : (305) 363-9109 Email : maceachern-alan@monroecounty-fl.gov Please note: Florida has a very broad public records law. Most written communications to or from the County regarding County business are public record, available to the public and media upon request. Your e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure. From: MacEachern-Alan Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 4:12 PM To: 'MarkLBaker'; 'David P. Horan' Cc: Gastesi-Roman; Hurley -Christine; Wilson -Kevin; Rice -Mike; White -Laura Subject: Technical Review - Proposed Cudjoe Key Tower Mr. Baker / Mr. Horan, Attached please find the technical review of the proposed Cudjoe Key tower that Mr. Mark Pallans prepared for Monroe County. Should you wish to discuss it in further detail, please let me know and I will set up a conference call with Mr. Pallans at the earliest possible opportunity. Best Regards, Alan MacEachern IT Director Monroe County BOCC Information Technology 102050 Overseas Highway, MM 102.5 Key Largo, FL 33037 Office : (305) 453-8792 Cell :(305) 363-9109 Email : maceachern-alan@monroecounty-fl.gov Packet Pg. 1130 D.7.z Please note: Florida has a very broad public records law. Most written communications to or from the County regarding County business are public record, available to the public and media upon request. Your e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure. Packet Pg. 1131 D.7.aa BOCC MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2017 Item D.12 D12 The following individual addressed the Board concerning direction to staff to investigate and report to BOCC regarding the issue of a possible communication tower on Blimp Road property, Cudjoe Key, and how it could aid the County with emergency communication during hurricane aftermath such as we just experienced in Hurricane Irma: Rick Richter, representing Key West Telco. Kevin Wilson, Assistant County Administrator; Roman Gastesi, County Administrator, Bob Shillinger, County Attorney; and Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney addressed the Board. After discussion, motion was made by Commissioner Murphy and seconded by Commissioner Carruthers directing staff to bring in the experts in this field to study the situation and come back to the Commission with a response. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion: Mayor Rice: Let's hear the public speaker please. Pam Hancock: Rick Richter. They might not come up if I pronounce their names wrong. Sorry And he is representing Key West TelCo. Rick Richter: Hi, good morning, Commissioners. I would just like to say a couple of words on this project. I think it is in the early stages and I am excited to see what's going to come of it. I know this project down in that area has a long history in the keys I just want you to know you have a lot of local support and expertise available as the project goes forward and we look forward to seeing what the applicant comes up with. Thank you. Mayor Rice: OK. That's the only speaker, Pam? Pam Hancock: Yes, sir. Mayor Rice: Let me give a little background here. As we all know, during the storm, communication was one of our largest problems. And of course, one of the objectives that we are dealing with now is to establish some modifications whatever they may be, uh, to prevent that type of problem in the future. It was not fun, for any of us. And I did have an individual who came forward with the idea of building this tower, which he indicates would solve that problem for us. Now, I am not, nor do I think we have any experts in this room that can independently verify the fact that it would solve the problem. I see this as a very preliminary step to answer that question, and if the answer is yes, it would solve the problem. This alternative could become one of the choices that we have before us to resolve that risk in the future. It is certainly not a commitment to build a tower; it is simply to answer the question, would it do the job? And what I imagine the staff will need to do is to bring in experts in this field to study the situation and come back to the commission with a response. Packet Pg. 1132 D.7.aa Commissioner Carruthers: Obviously communication was a huge problem, but I need to know that building a tower of this height means that it's hurricane -proof. If that gets knocked over, we are still in the same boat. Mayor Rice: Yes. I would assume that that would be about the first question that would be addressed by any expert in responding to our question. There are many more issues, of course, but I think it's apparent that if it's laying on the ground, at the end of the storm, it is not going to be much help. So, we have a motion (Commissioner Murphy) and a second (Commissioner Carruthers). Mr. Kolhage? Commissioner Kolhage: Mr. Administrator, what staff person would be involved in this? Mayor Rice: I think it has engineering written all over it. Roman Gastesi: I'm not sure what the answer is to that —it would have to be multiple agencies because the sheriff operates the communication towers —I think it would probably be some combination of us, both engineering and planning, because I don't know the restrictions out there, plus emergency management would probably be taking the lead, if that's what we're talking about. But we'd have to interact with the sheriff's department. Commssioner Carruthers: What about IT? Roman Gastesi: And IT as well. Comissioner Kolhage: The reason why I ask is because we had an (offer?) from the HAM radio operators in this county, and they have an organization that deals specifically with emergencies. We should try to incorporate them, if we can, as much as possible. They're volunteers. Kevin Wilson: I think that is a reasonable request. In my humble opinion I think that the lead on this needs to be a combination of emergency management and the sheriff's office, because that is what we are talking about, is emergency communications. Commissioner Kolhage: OK. Mayor Rice: Well let me say, I would feel more comfortable if I left this meeting today, and we're talking about the county, not necessarily the sheriff's department, of course they are going to be a part of it. But who's going to represent the County Commission's interest, here? Who is going to be the person in charge? I think it is wise to know that. Roman Gastesi: Sure, that's always me, right? I'll be discussing it with you all. I'm the one responsible. Packet Pg. 1133 D.7.aa Mayor Rice: Yeah, and I think you know about as much about this as I do. Roman Gastesi: A big, tall tower. Mayor Rice: OK, we'll look to you, Roman. Commissioner Carruthers: Of course, now that we're talking about it, I have other questions. Is this tower going to be used for other commercial uses? When it is not being used for emergency management? Mayor Rice: I think that'll be one of the issues that will come out in the study because I would assume we would hire an expert who would probably spend quite a bit of time discussing the project with the individual who is willing to build it. That'll be a part of the report. Carruthers: Would this individual be willing to (carry?) fiber optic cable throughout the county, instead? Bob Schillinser: Mr. Mayor, we would like to point out some legal issues that are emerging on towers. Steve Williams: There is a whole new array of federal oversight that will allow the commercial use of the tower vs. strictly emergency use of the tower. They have 2 separate tracks of where you can go, what you can do, and restrictions, timelines, and federal oversight. So if it's strictly emergency, is goes down a greased path, when you open it up for commercial, it is a whole new set of standards. Commissioner Neugent: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Rice: Yes? Commissioner Neugent: Commissioner Kolhage talked about the ham radio operators and I don't know enough about it to know what the ham operators could have done for us when we lost our cell phones, which 90% of our communication takes place over a cell phone. And if this tower cannot provide some level of certainty that it's going to maintain our cell phones, which is out main line of communication, because we only had a few landlines that were available. And I don't know if ham operators fill that gap to establish that kind of line of communication between all the first responders and key essential personnel, and the county commissioners, and emergency management department. And just look at what happened to us when we lost our communication —I mean, we were dead in the water, and it was a terrible feeling not to know what all of our different groups were doing. And I don't think, and correct me if I misspeak, that the ham operators can fill that type of a situation. I think our focus should be on maintaining a line of communications with as many people as we can, and for me that's through cell phones and/or satellite phones. Packet Pg. 1134 D.7.aa Commissioner Carruthers: Well, I also think redundancy is important. And one ham operator who can get to somebody who does have service can do the same thing. Commissioner Neugent: I'm not saying they don't provide a service, I know they provide a service, but it's not the level of service that we need in the aftermath of a storm. Commissioner Kolhage: What we are talking about here is supplemental. It is not meant to replace anything. They can provide point to point communications, continuously, with generators and so forth, that is not dependent on lines, or any of that. But, it's only supplemental, and I just don't think we should turn away any offer of assistance. Commissioner Neugent: Oh, of course not, and they're operating 24/7 at the emergency operations center. Mayor Rice: Do we have any opposition? The motion stands approved. 4 Packet Pg. 1135 D.7.ab 1/23/2018 ASR Registration 1061464 ASR Registration Search Registration 1061464 -T- Mao Registration Reg Number 1061464 Status Granted File Number A0132803 Constructed EMI No Dismantled NEPA No ,ILella Structure Structure Type TOWER - Free standing or Guyed Structure used for Commu Location (in NAD83 Coordinates) Lat/Long 24-40-20.0 N 081-30-06.0 W Address BLIMP RD City, State CUDIOE KEY , FL Zip 33042 County MONROE Center of Position of Tower AM Array in Array Heights (meters) Elevation of Site Above Mean Sea Level Overall Height Above Ground (AGL) 1.5 318.2 Overall Height Above Mean Sea Level Overall Height Above Ground w/o Appurtenances 319.7 304.8 Painting and Lighting Specifications FAA Chapters 4, 9, 13 Paint and Light in Accordance with FAA Circular Number 70/7460-11 FAA Notification FAA Study 98-ASO-6675-OE FAA Issue Date 02/10/1999 FRN 0015315880 Owner INDUSTRIAL COMMUNICATIONS & ELECTRONICS INC Attention To: ENGINEERING DEPT 40 Lone Street Marshfield , MA 02050 Contact Delaney , Kevin P f Action Statue Status Granted Purpose Admin Update Mode Interactive 07/21/2000 A0132803 - Admin Update (AU) Owner Entity Type P:(781)319-1111 F: E: P:(781)319-1111 F: E: kevindelaney@induscom.com Received 07/21/2000 Entered 07/21/2000 http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=621365&printable 1 /2 Packet Pg. 1136 D.7.ab 1/23/2018 ASR Registration 1061464 02/23/1999 A0071950 -New (NE) Comments None Date Event 07/26/2006 FRN Re -association Letter sent 07/23/2001 Construction Reminder Letter Sent 07/21/2000 Registration Printed All History (5) 07/26/2006 FRN Re -association, Reference 517505 07/23/2001 Construction Reminder, Reference 148507 07/21/2000 Authorization, Reference 64582 All letters (4) CLOSE WINDOW http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=621365&printable 2/2 Packet Pg. 1137 6uipie6om uoi;ooaia pue uoissnosia) uoi;e;uosoad lesodoad aoanol mON - Aew #A wouayoe;;va) U) co M U r a O fA he c, H aa � IA I E C ed _ E o U ma CL 6uipie6am uoi}oaaia pue uoissnosia) uoi}e}uasaad lesodoad J9mO-L mON - Aew fSf 0 V o� xn to +- t tn • — c� � cs o� — s to o � � Jq � 0) O a E � o •- � U L OL mc ._ I— — L. 0 0 #A ;uauayoe;;� U) a, M U r a O fA Qa Z) Co ed U ma om 6uipie6oU uoi;ooaia pue uoissnosi(3) uoi;e;uosoad lesodoad aonnol mON - Aew 0 xn #A ;uouayoe;;N4) U) c U r a 0 H Qa � IA Z) E C ed E O U ma a 6uipie6aa uoi}oaaia pue uoissnosia) uOlMuasWd lesodoad aannol m9N - Aew CD LO CYO CD CYD "Zi- LO C] cY,cvzFzF, oc) m co N co ED N C.fl T N Cfl oc) N N U CO � UD N N co - N 4ugwLjoe44v4) U) r U r a O f H Qa � IA I E C ed _ E o U ma om #A cn 6uipie6oU uoi;ooai(3 pue uoissnosi(3) uoi;e;uosoad lesodoad aonnol mON - AM :; OMpe;;-va) N r U a O fA C E U CL N 6uipie6aa uoi}oaaia pue uoissnosia) uOlMuasWd lesodoad aannol m9N - Aew :}uauayoe};a ., r CL >� N O fA N LL V L = >, 1w • >�— —� }oo o IA o . C) 1w �v� �� �•—� N '� V O � L W V � �O � > N Z o•—.� O � � O T3 +- L. -0 O H 3:L. >LL o � �L. Os � � °� � O o H N a- X L cn 4— cn N +-- J o W cs L O L �_ O do+->,scs �' icon D kn+-� ��o�� a����oo cs o cs d of L s� 0 xn (3) xn of +- o o xn V •- V cn • - 'xn V L +-- N y- 0- > � N o N N I— O V UO +- +- +- I— cn V Q 13 13 13 13 Eallatio A000cia-tco COMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS i : 0 OW1191WA NO] � I MIA 11ME1 III 041PY&I NA ky, The proposer has indicated that, if permitted, its towers will support emergency communications for Monroe County. Pallans Associates, Communication Consultants, has been requested to determine if these towers would, in fact, adequately support the County radio system during a disaster such as the last year's hurricanes that devastated parts of the County. In addition, we have been asked to comment on other alternative communication solutions for use during emergencies. In order to determine if the proposed towers will benefit the County it is necessary to understand how the radio system operates and where its weaknesses, if any, lie. The current Motorola P25 trunked radio system was installed in 2015. It replaced the Motorola radio system originally purchased in 1999. The old system and its analog technology was obsolete and no longer supported by Motorola. The new system is completely digital, state of the art, with technology designed specifically for public safety use. Figure 1 shows the location of each of the radio sites. Radio coverage extends from Key West through Key Largo. All of the Florida Keys enjoy good public safety radio communications with the exception of the northern end of North Key Largo and areas of Card Sound Road where coverage is marginal. FIGURE 1 - MONROE COUNTY RADIO SITES ri 5. iW. iT.T-" LET All of these sites work together in order to provide countywide coverage for all radio system users. 1 I Packet Pg. 1144 1 Eallatio A000clateo COMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS How the Radio System Works All radio system traffic (voice messages) flows between all sites in the system. This allows users to communicate with each other no matter where they are in the coverage area. All of the radio sites are linked to the system "Master Site" through a leased T-1 data line. The computers at the Master Site control all communications between all of the radio sites. These computers determine which users can speak to each other and which sites should be activated for these conversations to take place. P25 is a standard developed specifically for public safety communications equipment users to communicate with each other using "Internet Protocol" or IP. This is the same technology that allows smartphones and computers to communicate with each other. What Are the Weaknesses Of The Radio System? Monroe County has relied upon radio towers for many years and all have survived multiple hurricanes. If a tower is lost then there would be no radio coverage in that portion of the County. Typical radio coverage from each radio site is 10 to 15 miles in each direction. Thus, the loss of a tower would result in no coverage for some 20 to 30 miles along the Keys. A more likely scenario is that the data lines connecting the sites will fail. The result is that control data will no longer be passed between radio sites and one or more sites will be isolated from the main system. The result is that one or more radio sites will lose the ability to communicate beyond its primary coverage area. The radio sites are designed to continue operating in their local area even when the control data is lost. Figure 2 shows how each radio site contributes to full coverage of the Florida Keys. If any site loses the network connectivity required for full county coverage then each site will only cover the indicated area. FIGURE 2 - FLORIDA KEYS RADIO SYSTEM COVERAGE I Packet Pg. 1145 1 Pallatio A0000latea COMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS The sites overlap each other to a small degree in order to maintain constant contact for units in the field. As an example of the impact to coverage if a site fails is shown in Figure 3. This simulation clearly shows the loss of coverage if a site such as Marathon fails. FIGURE 3 - FLORIDA KEYS RADIO SYSTEM COVERAGE WITH LOSS OF MARATHON SITE Can the Proposed Towers Benefit Monroe County Emergency Communications The proposed towers are located on the mainland side of Card Sound Road, in Marathon and on Cudjoe Key. The site information is shown in Table 1. TABLE 1 - PROPOSED RADIO TOWER SITES Site Name Coordinates Height (feet) Card Sound Road 25-22'18.83"N, 80-25'24.32"W 500 Marathon 24.717611N, -81.068667W 135 Cudjoe Key 24.672222N, -81.501667W 1043 The developer is proposing to construct these sites in order to lease space to commercial radio services and wireless service providers in order for them to serve the Florida Keys market. The developer has stated that these sites can enhance emergency communication services for Monroe County. Figure 4 shows the locations of the proposed towers with respect to the existing County radio sites. Two of the proposed sites are located near existing Monroe County tower sites. The proposed Cudjoe Key site is less than a mile from the Sugarloaf Key site and the proposed Marathon tower is less than a mile from the County's Marathon radio site. The Card Sound proposed site is located on the mainland. 3 I Packet Pg. 1146 1 Pallan5 A55oclat&5 COMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS FIGURE 4 - PROPOSED RADIO TOWER SITES Analysis of the proposed towers The following analyses of the proposed sites considers what the benefits to the County's emergency communications may be. Since Pallans Associates is not a structural engineering firm this document addresses only the potential County use of the towers and does not comment on the tower structures themselves. One issue that can be addressed is the tower construction standards to be used during the County approval process. TIA 222 is the industry standard. The new version, TIA-222H went into effect on January 1, 2018 and is currently being implemented nationwide. The standard addresses hurricane environments more than in previous editions. One overarching aspect to this report is that use of these towers may require a significant amount of additional communication infrastructure to be procured and installed at these sites. This will entail a substantial cost investment by the County unless there are agreements with the proposers to provide that infrastructure should the towers be approved. Because the County's primary radio system is so robust none of these three sites will benefit the County on a day to day basis but each of them could provide emergency coverage to sections of the County if the Primary radio system or parts of it fail in an event such as the 2017 hurricanes. Card Sound Road site This location is in Miami Dade County east of Card Sound Road and approximately 6.5 miles north of Alabama Jack's. It is proposed to be 500 feet tall. If it were equipped 4 I Packet Pg. 1147 1 Pallatiry A000ciatco COMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS with two backup radio channels this site could provide localized radio coverage from the northern tip of Key Largo south to approximately Tavernier. This coverage would include the Coral Reef Club, all of Card Sound Road and Highway LIS-1 from Florida City southward to Tavernier. This type of backup would not have any connectivity into the main radio system or and County facilities emergency operation centers. There are design concepts that can bring these remote communication points back into the remaining portions of the County networks but these concepts are beyond the scope of this report. Marathon Site By itself this site does little to support Monroe County. It is only about a mile from the Sheriff's Master Radio Site and is proposed to be onlyl 35 feet tall. It is likely that if the Sheriff's system is damaged by an event then this site also would be impacted. By equipping this site with equipment as described for Card Sound and with a directional antenna, it could prove standalone emergency coverage to the east almost to Layton. This type of backup would not have any connectivity into the main radio system or and County facilities emergency operation centers. There are design concepts that can bring these remote communication points back into the remaining portions of the County networks but these concepts are beyond the scope of this report. Cudjoe Key Site The proposed Cudjoe Key tower is approximately 1.8 miles northeast of the County's existing Sugarloaf tower. The proposed height of 1000+ feet could benefit the County since the Sugarloaf tower height is 371 feet. If a backup repeater was placed at 600 feet on the proposed tower, its emergency coverage would extend into Key West. Again, this type of backup would not have any connectivity into the main radio system or and County facilities emergency operation centers. There are design concepts that can bring these remote communication points back into the remaining portions of the County networks but these concepts are beyond the scope of this report. Another consideration for this site is that the County currently leases the Sugarloaf site from a commercial provider. If the proposers offered the Cudjoe site for County use at no charge then there would be a direct cost savings to the County. If the antennas were installed at the increased elevation the reliability of radio communications from Marathon to Key West would be improved on a daily basis. The three sites combined just for emergency use as described previously would have a coverage footprint as shown in Figure 5. They would provide reasonably good coverage for more than 60% of the Florida Keys. They would probably cover 80% of the Keys if noisy signals are considered. 5 I Packet Pg. 1148 1 COMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS FIGURE 5 - PROPOSED SITES AS SYSTEM BACKUP Conclusions As a communications consulting firm Pallans Associates can address the question of the value of the towers to Monroe County's communications infrastructure. The question of permitting construction versus the terms of the County's tower ordinance will be left to the attorneys. The technical analysis is the issue that this report addresses. The existing radio system proved its resilience during Hurricane Irma in September, 2017, one of the worst storms in history to strike the Florida Keys. The radio system did not fail, thus proving its resilience. Statistically this reduces the probability of a storm damaged radio system and also statistically lowers the value of the proposed towers for the County. Backup sites only benefit the County after a major disaster. It is something to consider. 2 I Packet Pg. 1149 1 `�sH \ Thomas H. Oehmke . Attorney 57 Two Turtles Lane• Key West FL 33040-7802 Tx 305.735.4044 LawMode( comcast.net LICENSED IN MICHIGAN 15 February 2019 Monroe County BOCC ATTN: Michelle Coldiron, Commissioner boccdis2@monroecounty-fl.gov 25 Ships Way Big Pine Key, FL 33043 Re: Cudjoe Tower 1000 Greetings Commissioner: Please know that I am representing only my own interests (though these are reflective of the concerns shared by some other neighbors), and not those of any association. After studying 170 pages in the BOCC February 20th agenda packet concerning the tower proposed for Blimp Road, there are four important conclusions: • A 1062' tower would not have prevented the MCSO communications problems caused by Hurricane Irma • 1999 Conservation Easement runs with the land in perpetuity, prohibiting new construction • County release of the Conservation Easement would violate the terms of the Easement itself, is contrary to the County's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and would likely invite litigation • Cudjoe Tower 1000 would condemn Bayside viewshed, a taking of a property right that could cost County $55 million over 10 years Existing Radio System Robust, Redundant The MCSO communications consultant Pallans concluded: "The existing radio system is very robust and has built in redundancy that can keep the [nine antenna] sites working as long as the antennas and towers are not compromised" [Pallans Report, BOCC Feb. 20th Meeting Packet page-1002]. The Pallans report found that communications were impaired during Irma for three preventable reasons: Fuel Tanks. A storm surge ripped two diesel fuel tanks from mounts [BOCC Pp-1002] denying fuel to generators. The solution is to elevate fuel storage tanks and reinforce mounts. Page 1 of 3 D Generator Failure. "Marathon Master Site that connects and controls the 9 individual [antenna] sites for the radio system, and the main dispatch center, lost electrical power ... [d]ue to the generator ... failing after the storm and a lengthy response from their generator vendor.... Master Site space has since been rewired and external power adapters installed" [BOCC Pp-1002]. The solutions are to:service all generators annually before hurricane seasons;strategically situate reserve portable backup generators; and place a dedicated portable generator & harness onsite. Antenna Alignment. "Existing towers are strong ... but their weak [points are] the actual antennas. [During] Irma they survived but some were bent and some hardware needed replacement." The solutions are to: replace hardware and reinforce existing antennas; and replace the existing wired network with fiber optics and by implementing a Countywide microwave network[BOCC Pp-1003]. 1999 Conservation Easement Prohibits New Antenna Construction A 1998 Settlement Agreement[BOCC Pp-1043] required a 1999 Conservation Easement [BOCC Pp-1065) that runs with the land forever and prevents new construction: The Conservation Easement hereby granted and the obligation to retain and maintain the land forever predominantly in the vegetative and hydrologic condition as herein specified shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the grantor and its successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of the Grantee and its successors and assigns. Cudjoe Enterprises/Dirico granted this Conservation Easement to Monroe County allowing the proposer: • To settle environmental disputes with Monroe County, FDEP and FDCA disputes over limestone mining and blasting • To potentially realize substantial charitable tax deduction • The right to build/lease two now non-conforming cell towers (336' and 600') In order to construct the Cudjoe Tower 1000, the Conservation Easement would have to be released by Monroe County back to Cudjoe Enterprises and Dirico [Fla. Stat. Ann. §704.06]. By its very terms, this Easement is tied to the land and continues forever. That is, the Easement language establishes that the County did not contemplate that this Easement should ever be released. An attempt by the County to release this Easement can be legally opposed by the Florida DEP, DCA and ACOE. Moreover, such release would breach the voters' trust placed in BOCC to preserve native beauty of the Keys. Monroe County would be seen as an "unworthy steward of the public land." In the future, who would ever consider granting a Page 2 of 3 conservation easement to Monroe County again? Ultimately, a release would give away a valuable public property right to the viewshed, mostly benefitting a single taxpayer. A release of the Easement contradicts many aspects of the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, for example GOAL 203 The health and integrity of living marine resources and marine habitat, including mangroves, seagrasses, coral reefs, other hard bottom communities and fisheries, shall be protected and, where possible, restored and enhanced. [§163.3177(6)d.2.d., F.S.; §163.3177(6)d.2.e., F.S.; §163.3177(6)d.2.j.,F.S.] Any aggrieved landowner can file a lawsuit to enforce the County Comprehensive Plan [FSA § 163.3215]. Government Taking of Community Viewshed A release of the Conservation Easement constitutes a condemnation of the Bayside viewshed of the Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge, a property right that would disaffect more than 1,000 property owners within 2-3 miles of Cudjoe Key[Pallans Report, BOCC Pp-1001]. A government taking of a property right requires just compensation. If 1,000 landowners have their viewshed diminished by a value of$50,000, then the BOCC should budget$50 Million to compensate for taking.Additionally, if these same landowners appeal their property appraisals, that could reduce taxable value by $50 million costing County $477,000/year in tax revenue, or$4.7 million over 10 years Final Note — Structural Integrity Cudjoe Tower 1000 is to be engineered to withstand 180 mph winds + sustained gusts of 200 mph. In the Lower Keys, Hurricane Irma fell within that range. With climate change, we might expect similar and, perhaps, even stronger wind speeds. When Irma's cousin next calls, and we all return from our mainland evacuation,we don't want to see the Cudjoe Tower 1000 sprawled on the ground ... or worse. Conclusion The BOCC should consider a motion to table further discussion of a new communications antenna on Blimp Road on Cudjoe Key(because other remedial actions suggested by the Pallans Report, if undertaken, can reinforce Monroe County's already robust radio system and enhance its redundancy) and to direct its counsel to cease any legal research into releasing the 1999 Conservation Easement. Sincerely, 1:40 H. 041..4 Thomas H. Oehmke Attorney Page 3 of 3