Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Documentation_Miscellaneous_Tab 5_5/12/1997
S / Memorandum To: Finance & Administration Committee Members . From: Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager / - Date: May 8, 1997 Subject: Village Council Priority to Increase the Cost of Holding (Vacant) Land; Agenda Item At your last meeting wherein the above referenced subject was discussed, held on December ' 5, 1996, the Committee Members requested the Village Manager to pursue using the powers of the Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District upon determination that the new recreation facility powers of the District apply to cultural and/or civic projects . Additionally, the Committee Members requested that additional research be done on assessment projects for provision of a new road between Village Boulevard and Tequesta Drive and for landscaping Old Dixie Highway. The information from the Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District, which is attached hereto, indicates that the District Attorney believes that the powers of the District may possibly be used for the provision of a civic auditorium wherein "recreational" activities are held. In regard to the additional research desired for the provision of a new road between Village Boulevard and Tequesta Drive, the Committee Members were primarily interested in ascertaining the different sequences of events that would need to occur in order to make the road a reality and the approximate time to complete each sequence. In regard to your questions pertaining thereto, attached hereto, please find a copy of a memorandum relative to the same from Al Oslund, Coordinator, Stormwater Utility and Capital Projects . In regard to the possible landscaping of Old Dixie Highway, the Committee Members requested a copy of the procedures for landscaping County roads rights-of-way from Palm Beach County. A copy . of Palm Beach County Streetscape Standards is attached hereto for your review. Additionally, information relative to Beautiful Palm Beaches, Inc. State and County Thoroughfare Beautification Grant Program was requested. This information is also attached for your review. Lastly, the Committee wished to ascertain the legality of assessing FEC Railroad property. Attached is a copy of the Village Attorney opinion in this regard. The Village of Tequesta has no legal impediment to levying a special assessment on railroad properties other than right-of-ways . If the property s contemplated by the Village of Tequesta is indeed a railroad right-of-way, however, the issue as to whether such an assessment is legally proper may rise. This concludes the information that was requested by the Committee. I have taken the liberty of also providing you with the original packet of information provided to you in December of 1996, since it has been some time since this issue was reviewed, in order to familiarize you with the previous information provided. I look forward to reviewing this with you at the Committee Meeting. TGB/krb Attachments bradford\050897.sam • k r <' NORTHERN PALM BEACH COUNTY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT r 357 HIATT DRIVE, PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA 33418 • 561-624-7830 • FAX 561-624-7839 /• / /ENDANGERED EVERGLADES KITE Village of Tequesta FEB 1 8 1997 Village Manager's Office February 12, 1997 Tom Bradford, Village Manager Village of Tequesta 357 Tequesta Drive Tequesta,Florida 33469 Re: Village of Tequesta Inquiry Regarding Northern's Powers Relating to Cultural and Civic Facilities Letter from Caldwell&Pacetti Dated 2/06/97 Dear Tom: Enclosed please find a copy of the letter as referenced above. After you have had an opportunity to review this letter, please call me so that we may discuss same. Very t ly yours, /� /- 1 G 1 � Peter L. Pimentel Executive Director PLP/acm Enclosure ®PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER LAW OFFICES CALDWELL & PACETTI MANLEY P. CALDWELL, JR. SUITE 300 RETIRED KENNETH W. EDWARDS 324 ROYAL PALM WAY ARTHUR E. BARROW CHARLES F. SCHOECH PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33480-4352 MADISON F. PACETTI MARY M. VIATOR TELEPHONE(561)655 -0620 1914-1994 BETSY S. BURDEN WILLIAM E. CORLEY, III TELECOPIER (561)655 -3775 PLEASE REPLY TO NICOLE J. MONSEES POST OFFICE BOX 2775 JOHN A. WEIG PALM BEACH, FL 33480-2775 February 6, 1997 Peter L. Pimentel, Executive Director NORTHERN PALM BEACH COUNTY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 357 Hiatt Drive Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33418-7106 Re: Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District Subject Matter: Village of Tequesta Inquiry Regarding Northern's Powers Relating to Cultural•and Civic Facilities Dear Pete: Pursuant to your request and based on the inquiry by Mr. Thomas Bradford, the Village Manager for the Village of Tequesta, I have reviewed Northern's enabling legislation in order to determine . whether or not Northern has the authority to provide cultural and/or civic facilities. As you are aware, there are two (2) Sections of Northern's enabling legislation that should be considered in determining whether or not Northern can construct cultural/civic facilities of the nature identified in Mr. Bradford's letter,these two provisions are as follows: 1. Chapter 89-462, Section 2.(2)which authorizes Northern "to construct, operate, and maintain parks and park facilities as part of a Water Management Plan of a unit of development..." 2. Chapter 95-489, Section 2.(1) which authorizes Northern "to provide, construct, operate, and maintain community or public preserves,playgrounds, amphitheatres, and recreation and sport areas and facilities,including,by way of example but not limitation: trails, courts, and athletic structures and fields, together with acquisition of such equipment and apparatus required or related thereto..." As you will note, neither of the above two provisions contain the terms "cultural" or "civic" as it relates to authorized facilities so an interpretation of the terms "parks and park facilities" and i . "amphitheatre,... recreation and sport areas and facilities" is required to determine if they could apply to cultural/civic facilities. In giving an interpretation of the above terms, Mr. Bradford's inquiry should be separated into two parts, one dealing with whether or not Northern can construct civic buildings of a public auditorium nature with the other being the construction of a theater. This separation is important since I think a court would consider a theater to be more in line with the fine arts, i.e., plays and concerts, and probably not an authorized facility that Northern can construct since the terms "parks and park facilities" and "amphitheatre,... recreation and sport areas and facilities" as used in Northern's legislation seem to me to be in a context more aligned with physical/sport types of activity. I considered Mr. Bradford's suggested interpretation of the word "recreation" as used in Section 2(1) of Chapter 95-489 but I believe that the use of this term is more likely to be construed as relating to a physical/sport activity, especially since the examples that follow are of that nature. Whereas,his inquiry as to a civic facility in the nature of a large auditorium may possibly be the type of structure that Northern is authorized to construct under its legislation. My reasoning for this is that, when I looked up the definition of the term "amphitheatres" in my Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary one of the definitions given was "a very large auditorium". Keeping in mind that Mr. Bradford did not limit or specifically identify the anticipated uses of such an auditorium, I am assuming for the purpose of this memorandum that it would be used for many activities including those of a physical nature, for example: ballet, gymnastics, tournaments and sporting events, all of which uses appear to be clearly authorized for construction of a facility under Northern's enabling legislation, as well as possibly the production of theatrical works (for ex. plays and concerts) which probably aren't. Assuming all of these various types of activities would be carried on in such an auditorium,this raises the question as to whether or not Northern may construct a facility which would be used for a varied number of purposes may of which are clearly authorized by Section 2(1) of Chapter 95-489 of Northern's enabling legislation, whereas others may not be so clearly authorized if this Section were to be strictly construed as limiting Northern's construction activities to physical/sport type of facilities. I believe a very good argument could be made that Northern is entitled to construct such a multiple use facility since most amphitheatres (large auditoriums) are used for a number of different types of events and to assume the Legislature's intent was to permit Northern only to construct an amphitheatre to be used solely for physical/sport activities and prohibit all other uses of the amphitheatre when its not needed for these physical/sport activities is not realistic. In conclusion, it is possible that Northern may be authorized to construct an amphitheatre (enclosed large auditorium) provided its usage is not strictly limited to theatrical types of events (for ex. plays and concerts) but, as you might expect, it would be in Northern's best interest to obtain a specific judicial ruling on this matter when or if it submits a Plan of Improvements which contemplates the construction of such a facility. • 2 CALDWELL & PACETTI Naturally, if you should have any questions regarding the above, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, Kenneth W. Edwards KWE/mac 3 CALDWELL & PACETTI VILLAGE OF MEM . UM TEQUESTA • t • . JAN 1 5 1997 Tuesday, January 14, 1997 Village Manager's Office To: Thomas Bradford, Village Manager From: Allan Oslund , Coordinator Storm Water Utile./Capital Projects cc: Gary Preston, Director of Public Works Subject: Construction Of New Road Between Village Blvd. and Tequesta Dr. As per your memorandum dated December 10, 1996 following is the approximate sequence of events that must occur in order to develop this project: • Determine the exact horizontal location of the road. The first step in this phase is to make an on site visit using an aerial map and sketch in the location desired on the aerial map. Next have the site surveyed to the extent necessary to determine the boundary and any conflicts ,encroachments, utilities Etc. This step maybe somewhat difficult as we do not own the property in question. There are ways around this as set forth by Florida Statutes for Surveying. Next set the horizontal location of the centerline of the road and place it on the boundary survey. This essentially develops A preliminary site plan for review purposes. This includes determining the exact roadway configuration (Right-of-way, sidewalks, pavement type, Pavement slopes, Easements, curbing and speed limit). Approximate time frame = 45 Days • Prepare legal description(s)with the assistance of an attorney to begin the quick take condemnation of the property. There are certain procedures which must be followed which the attorney will assist us with. Approximate time = 90 days minimum If this is contested it could take a year or more thru the Courts. • With the use of the legal description(s) have the site appraised, Approximate time frame = 30 days • By now we will be having discussions with the property owner in regards to various concerns they may have concerning our intentions. Once all concerns by the owner have been brought to A closure we most likely will need to develop A Resolution for the Village Councils approval. Approximate time frame = 30 days • Village Council awards Design and Construction Contract to Engineering firm. Approximate time frame = 30 days • Engineering firm produces preliminary design plans for Village Staff review and comment (DRC). Engineer submits Permit and Plans to D.O.T. Approximate time frame = 120 days. • Review Preliminary Plans with Property owner. Bring Owner comments to (DRC) review meeting. • Conduct (DRC) review Committee meeting. Approximate time frame = 45 days. • Engineering firm incorporates (DRC) comments into plans and submits to Village for final approval. Approximate time frame = 30 days. • Submit final Design Plans to South Florida Water Management District (S.F.W.M.D.) for review. Approximate time frame = 90 days. • Distribute Final Design Plans to various Village Departments for review and approval. Approximate time frame = 10 days. • Advertise for Bids and award Contract. Approximate time frame = 60 days. • Give Notice to Proceed and complete the construction of Project. • Approximate time frame = 120 days. It should be noted that these time frames are based under normal circumstances and may vary substantially depending on the complexity of the design and Permitting requirements. Some of the Bullet items listed above may be worked on simultaneously. yyeti C ,, ps I ;ji _- ,--,=___ L ORIp January 23, 1997 .._.._-__". _ _` I • Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager Department of Engineering Village of Tequesta and Public Works PO Box 3273 • P.O.Box 21229 Tequesta, FL 33469-0273 West Palm Beach, FL 334 1 6-1 229 (561)684-4000 RE: PROCEDURES FOR LANDSCAPING COUNTY ROAD RIGHTS- OF-WAY. http:llwww.co.palm-beach.fl.us . Dear Mr. Bradford: • In response to your inquiry on the subject matter we have enclosed a copy the Palm Beach County "Streetscape Standards" and a Permit Application. "Streetscape Standards"should address all of your procedural questions. Please Palm Beach County feel free to duplicate this material as your needs require. Board of County Commissioners Any construction or landscaping(including related irrigation)within County rights- • of-way requires a permit from the County's Land Development Division. Burt Aaronson,Chairman Landscaping on adjacent private properties (such as railroad rights-of-way) Maude Ford Lee,Vice Chair would need to conform to "clear zone" and "safe sight distance" requirements as set forth in the "Streetscape Standards". Karen T.Marcus Carol A.Roberts If you should have any further questions of Traffic Engineering please contact Andy Hertel at 684-4030. • Warren H.Newell Sincerely, Mary McCarty Ken L.Foster OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER Charles R. Walker, P.E. County Administrator Director-Traffic Division Robert Weisman,P.E. Ill, CRW: •' :JAT:meo Attachments: Palm Beach County Streetscape Standards; Landscaping Permit Application. pc: George T. Webb, P.E., County Engineer G. H. Frakes, P.E., Assistant County Engineer File: Mun. - Village of Tequesta General - Landscaping H:\traffic\jat\tequesta.lsc "An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer" OD p74.'printed on recycled paper V Palm Beach County Streetscape Standards • 1111 (11111 alfMI Iml•MM • NI% • March 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1 - 1 OBJECTIVES 1 - 1 . . SECTION 2 PALM. BEACH COUNTY ROAD CRITERIA 2 - 1 • PERMITTING PROCESS 2 - 1 - 2 - 2 SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE 2 - 2 - 2 - 8 PLANTING STANDARDS Non-Mountable Curb Median 2 - 9 - 2 - 10 Mountable and Uncurbed Median 2 - 11 - 2 - 12 Roadside Clear Zone . 2 - 13 Swale Area At Roadside 2 - 14 Outside Sight Triangle 2 - 14 Utility Clearance • 2 - 14 Irrigation 2 - 14 SECTION 3 STATE ROAD CRITERIA 3 - 1 - 3 - 2 SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE 3 - 3 DESIGN CRITERIA RELATED TO 3 - 4 - 3 - 6 HIGHWAY SAFETY SECTION 4 INFORMATIONAL PLANT LIST 4.- 1 - 4 - 2 Large Palms 4 - 3 Small Palms 4 - 4 Large Trees 4 - 5 Medium Trees 4 - 6 Small Trees 4 - 7 Shrubs and Ground Covers 4 - 8 SECTION 5 COST ESTIMATE FOR PLANTING 5 - 1 Low Cost Planting Concept 5 - 2 - 5 - 3 Moderate Cost Planting Concept 5 - 4 - 5 - 5 High Cost Planting Concept 5 - 6 - 5 - 7 SECTION 6 MAINTENANCE Maintenance 6 - 1 - 6 - 3 Traffic Control 6 - 4 - 6 - 9 a INTRODUCTION The purpose of this manual is to provide uniform minimum standards for the design, installation and maintenance of all landscape within public streets and roads under the jurisdiction of Palm Beach County. The standards established by this manual are applicable to all new development and where feasible to existing public rights of way where landscape improvements have been designed. These standards will be applied to the extent that legal, economic and environmental considerations allow. OBJECTIVES Provide uniform minimum standards for landscape within county road rights of way and general information for landscaping in state road rights of way as,required to meet specific development approval conditions imposed by the Board of County Commissioners. Contact the Florida Department of Transportation, Permit Department. (407) 683-4646 for specific details and requirements for planting in state road rights of way. Provide guidelines to assist in the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the public using the roadway system. Provide a planning tool for the development of landscaping within public rights of way throughout Palm Beach County. Provide Landscape Architects,County Officials, related professionals and other interested parties with guidelines for landscaping within county road rights of way and provide information for landscaping within state road rights of way. Provide Palm Beach County Engineering Department guidelines for reviewing right of way landscape plans as submitted by the public or other government agencies. Provide uniformity along roadway corridors with an informational plant palate for consistency with desired criteria for growth characteristics. Provide safe landscape installation and maintenance procedures. • 1 - 1 PALM BEACH COUNTY ROAD CRITERIA The following criteria should be considered when designing landscape plans for county right of way.projects. The intent should be to landscape the medians and roadside with approved plant materials and conform to all standards already set forth in the Unified Land Development Code. The County Engineer shall retain final authority to approve or disapprove any street and right of way landscaping plans and maintenance requirements with respect to safe and proper engineering practices. All approvals shall be subject to any conditions imposed by the Department of Engineering and Public Works. PERMITTING Permitting for projects within Palm Beach County rights of way shall be applied for through the Land Development Division, Permit Section. The following list sets forth the minimum requirements for submitting plans to landscape within Palm Beach County maintained rights of way. 1. One application, available from the Land Development Division, Permit Section. Six sets of plans folded in eights. Maximum plan size is 24" x 36". 2. The plans shall be drawn to a minimum scale of 1" = 20' (which coincides with Palm Beach County roadway plans) and indicate the right of way lines, existing pavement, curbing, intersecting streets and driveways, and drainage facilities, traffic control devices and other utilities. 3. The plans shall indicate type, size and location of proposed and existing landscaping. Horizontal dimensions of the landscaping from the edge of pavement or face of curb shall be provided. 4. The plans shall be sealed by a Landscape Architect and indicate on each plan sheet "All landscaping and above ground structures shown hereon are designed and are to be installed and maintained in accordance with Palm Beach County Streetscape Standard Manual with regards to safe sight distance and roadside clear zones". 5. Sight distance lines at intersections (including driveways) shall be indicated on the plans, as determined by this manual. Landscaping within sight distance lines shall provide a clear sight distance between 30" and 8', measured from the adjacent road pavement. 6. Trees and plants placed within the right of way shall conform to the desirable growth characteristics as set forth in the informational plant list section of this manual, subject to approval by the office of the County Engineer. 2 - 1 PERMITTING - Continued 7. Grouped plantings (including tree trunks) shall be arranged so they do not collectively present sight distance obstructions. 8. Indicate on the plans the proposed method of irrigation.* 9. Submit a cost estimate (materials and installation) for the landscaping. If an irrigation system is proposed, submit 5 copies of the plans sealed by a Landscape Architect. The irrigation plans shall indicate the items as noted in #2 above. Should there be any question regarding the above information, contact the Land Development Division, Permit Section. SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR COUNTY ROADS Safe sight distance triangles shall be provided in accordance with County Design Manual standards. Extended safe sight distance triangles shall be required in individual cases when the County Engineer determines that intersecting street alignments or,other factors are such that the standard safe sight distance triangles are insufficient to ensure appropriate minimum stopping/crossing sight distances, in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation, Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction and Maintenance for Streets and Highways (Green Book) criteria. All landscaping within the required safe sight distance triangle areas or extended safe sight distance triangles shall be planted and maintained as follows: Safe sight distance triangle areas shall be planted and maintained in a way that provides unobstructed visibility at a level between thirty (30) inches and eight (8) feet above the pavement surface of the adjacent roadway. Vegetation located within safe sight distance triangle areas shall be trimmed so that no limbs or foliage extend into the required visibility area. Within safe sight distance triangle areas, vegetation which obstructs visibility shall not be planted, nor shall improvements or devices such as bus benches or shelters or newspaper vending machines be installed in a way that creates a traffic hazard. 2 - 2 SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR COUNTY ROADS Continued -- Landscaping shall be located in accordance with the roadside dear zone (see Minimum Width of Clear Zone Table, page 2 - 13) provisions of the Florida Department of Transportation, Green Book as amended. No parking or vehicular use areas shall be permitted within the required safe sight distance triangular areas. All landscaping planted within .the safe sight distance triangle area shall be perpetually maintained by permittee. The following diagrams illustrate the road conditions and proper sight triangles for each situation. The County Engineer reserves the right to impose extended sight distance requirements as deemed necessary to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the public. — . — STREET — 1--- • EDGE OF PAVEMENT 10' PROPERTY U E N SAFE SIGHT CORNER (TYPICAL) it DRIVEWAY CONNECTION TO STREET 2 - 3 • SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR COUNTY ROADS - Continued • INTERSECTION OF • (PROJECTED) PROPERTY LINES _ STREET CL EDGE OF PAVEMENT Y XO L 1- 0.' " EXTENDED SAFE SIGHT PROPERTY LINE �� itDISTANCE TRIANGLE Q ccn SAFE SIGHT CORNER (STANDARD) 0 X = 40' for intersections of two thoroughfare plan streets. X = 25' for all other street intersections. 0 Standard safe sight corners to be included as part of right of way. Q Extended safe sight distance triangles may be required to be established by Restrictive easement per Section 8.29.E, with additional distance (L) as needed to provide required stopping and turning sight distance per Section III, F.D.O.T. Green Book. STREET INTERSECTIONS 2 - 4 SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR COUNTY ROADS - Continued USE FOR 2 LANES UNDIVIDED CENTER UNE 7- EDGE OF PAVEMENT o— o— ® -�— . �— +r+r# z iwAPI fy 4J (X) (X) 8s. • Notes: = REQUIRED AREA FOR SIGHT DISTANCE If no center line striping exists, measure to the center line of the pavement. Stated distances apply to both 'T' and four way intersections. Stated distances also apply at signalized intersections. 2 LANES UNDIVIDED • Posted Speed Limit Required Side Street/Drive Sight Distance (X) 45 MPH 470' 40 MPH 420' 35 MPH 360' 30 MPH * 300' 20 MPH ** 200' * Assume 30 MPH if speed limit on a local street is not posted. ** In certain situations on residential streets, it may be impossible to provide 300' of sight distance due to existing conditions. In these situations, this reduced sight distance may be used. Source: Florida Department of Transportation, Green Book 2 - 5 SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR COUNTY ROADS - Continued USE FOR 3 LANES UNDIVIDED LANE LINE \\\_\_\</— EDGE OF PAVEMENT 4- . o- MD71 t -0i (X) (X) 4 = REQUIRED AREA FOR SIGHT DISTANCE • Notes: If sight line extends beyond the limits of the turn lane pavement widening, measure to the center line or edge of pavement, as appropriate. Stated distances apply to both 'T' and four way intersections. Stated distances also apply at signalized intersections. 3 LANES UNDIVIDED. Posted Speed Limit Required Side Street/Drive Sight Distance (X) 45 MPH 500' 40 MPH 440' 35 MPH 390' 30 MPH * 330' * Assume 30 MPH if speed limit on a local street is not posted. Source: Florida Department of Transportation, Green Book 2 - 6 SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR COUNTY ROADS- Continued T USE FOR 4 OR 6 LANES DIVIDED EDGE OF PAVEMENT o- o- MEDIAN fi MEDIAN .000 �r.ezzeizzi (X) (X) 8f Notes: SI HT DISTANCE FOR Stated distances apply to both "T' and four way intersections. Stated distances also apply at signalized intersections. 6 LANE DIVIDED r Posted Speed Limit Required Side Street/Drive Sight Distance (X) 45 MPH 650' • 40 MPH 575' 35 MPH 510' 30 MPH 440' 4 LANE DIVIDED Posted Speed Limit Required Side Street/Drive Sight Distance (X) 45 MPH 580' 40 MPH 525' 35 MPH 470' 30 MPH 400' Source: Florida Department of Transportation, Green Book 2 - 7 SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR COUNTY ROADS - Continued USE FOR 5 LANES UNDIVIDED LANE UNE EDGE OF PAVEMENT o— o- o- ,/— o- p d p d . 7 --iindrce,r4r- ,(44024....ro•-• (X) (X) . .... 84 V , = REQUIRED AREA FOR SIGHT DISTANCE Notes: Stated distances apply to both 'T' and four way intersections. Stated distances also apply at signalized intersections. 5 LANE UNDIVIDED Posted Speed Limit Required Side Street/Drive Sight Distance (X) 45 MPH 550' 40 MPH 490' 35 MPH 430' 30 MPH 375' Source: Florida Department of Transportation, Green Book 2 - 8 PLANTING STANDARDS ON COUNTY ROADS Non-mountable Curb Median Within Safe Sight Triangle OF ROADWAY \\ \I / \\ F \I • / ,,,__/----- ,,-/ f/..,k ill Iii q- ' -; • .V,,---4„, . t!,/ /, .6 sg • A, TREE OR PALM RA d (ANY SIZE) 6�� giii • )16.... ,41 r. , .-1,h;,, ' wviVikt. f\visa ,gjilipli a i'•L'` E✓ BOTTOM OF CANOPY REQUIRED 13'-6" WHERE CANOPY CLEAR TRUNK 1 t k OVER HANGS ROAD ., 10 per_ 1 O co M -----ti :711 1,4:-.�1•�Fib .:'1:r:5s w v; •{,.-; ; .n,•,.. • .. ,.S.wv�'r: .:-:`ry ' :y.,1 —TOP OF GROUND COVER TYPICAL SECTION TREE SETBACK — GRASS STRIP ALLOW FOR MATURE TRUNK CAUPER (SEE CLEAR ZONE CHART, PAGE 2 — 13) Planting within sight triangles requires that the plants do not block visibility. The diagrams illustrate in section and plan view a typical median which falls within a sight triangle. Drivers of vehicles on the crossroads and within the sight triangle must be able to see each other throughout the entire limits of the sight triangle. Trees and palms of any caliper, as long as they can meet all the setback requirements, may be used within sight triangles. They shall be spaced no closer than 20' on center. Consideration for mature canopy and trunk caliper shall be taken into 2 - 9 PLANTING STANDARDS FOR COUNTY ROADS - Continued account when planting large shade trees and palms. They may need to be spaced further apart to allow for future canopy development. The bottom of the canopy shall be maintained at 8' of clear trunk as measured from the pavement adjacent to the median or roadside, as appropriate. , Ground covers and shrubs shall be low growing,which at time of maturity will not exceed 30" in height or shall.be varieties that can be appropriately maintained at 30" or less. Grass strips shall be a minimum width of two feet for maintenance of planting areas. This area will allow maintenance workers a safe area in which to perform routine maintenance operations. Non-mountable Curb Median Within Safe Sight Triangle \117. 4, 4‘ot, i i I il I 14 y'03 '. I %/ , 4 TREE PLANTING SETBA« II ILb /% MEASURED FROM FACE I ' a ,` OF CURBITO FACE OF i TREE TRUNK (ALLOWING k. a., I 4 FOR TRUNK MATURITY) ' 1 6"lit�,G TREES WITHIN' SIGHT Ii. •/X`�2 2' GRASS STRIP TRIANGLE SHALL BE "ram►` i MINIMUM A MINIMUM OF 20' I4f% I ON CENTER I GROUND COVER /J . Illi % Ilk, . � aTREE OR PALM '�Ll �/(ANY SIZE) I (�_ / tr IL I- I I PAVEMENT 4.111 I L MEDIAN 1 I PAVEMENT WIDTH VARIES 2 - 10 PLANTING STANDARDS FOR COUNTY ROADS - Continued Mountable Curb and Uncurbed Median Within Safe Sight Triangle OF ROADWAY • SMALL TREE OR PALM (4" CALIPER OR LESS) '-� d BOTTOM OF CANOPY �� 13'-6" WHERE CANOPY ' ,��► OVER HANGS ROAD 1 j r' �- REQUIRED '� CLEAR TRUNK •L;� ,, / co :� �n D� —TOP OF GROUND COVER — GRASS STRIP • TYPICAL SECTION Small trees and palms shall be used within mountable and uncurbed medians. Tree and palms which are 4" in caliper or less measured at 4' DBH (diameter measured at breast height) shall be considered small and may be used within the medians The plant material within these areas shall be maintained so that they do not over hang into the travel lane. Any portion of the tree which over hangs the travel lanes shall be maintained with a 13'-6" vertical clearance, otherwise no encroachment will be permitted. 2 - 11 PLANTING STANDARDS ON COUNTY ROADS - Continued Mountable Curb and Uncurbed Median Within Safe Siaht Distance Triangle il ' 7' 1\117 , / 4 t Al 1 I ilA i I �� MAINTAIN CLEAR TRUNK �/� HEIGHT AT 13'-6" WHERE N / / CANOPY OVE HANGS ROAD AIL I /r , I /f!�� * I . TREES WITHIN SIGHT � �• 2' GRASS STRIP. TRIANGLE SHALL BE i MINIMUM A MINIMUM OF 20' ON CEN TER I /�/ I GROUND COVER 4/ � I ;, iv .: TREE OR PALM ki f� (4" CALIPER pR LESS) �. I /I L° PAVEMENT MEDIAN PAVEMENT WIDTH VARIES 2 - 12 • PLANTING STANDARDS FOR COUNTY ROADS - Continued Roadside Clear Zone The roadside clear zone is that area outside the traveled way, available for use by errant vehicles. Vehicles frequently leave the traveled way during avoidance maneuvers and due to loss of control by the driver or due to the collisions with other vehicles. The primary function of the clear zone is to allow space and time for the driver to retain control of his vehicle and avoid or reduce the consequences of collision with roadside • objects. This area also serves as an emergency refuge location for disabled vehicles. The width of the clear zone should be as wide as it is practicable. The minimum permitted widths are given in the following table. These are minimum values only and should be increased wherever feasible. In rural areas it is desirable and frequently economically feasible, to substantially increase the width of the clear zone. Where traffic volumes and speeds are high, the width should be increased. The clear zone on the outside of horizontal curves should be increased due to the high probability of vehicles leaving the roadway at a high angle. Minimum Width of Clear Zone DESIGN SPEED, MPH TYPE 25 60 OF AND 30 35 40 45 50 55 AND • FACILITY BELOW ABOVE MINIMUM CLEAR ZONE, FEET 14 ARTERIALS 14 ARTERIALS 18 ARTERIALS 24 ARTERIALS 6 LOCAL 6 LOCAL 10 COLLECTOR k COLLECTORS & COLLECTORS &COLLECTORS & COLLECTORS RURAL 6 10 COLLECTOR 10 COLLECTOR 14 ARTERIAL ADT < 1500 ADT < 1500 ADT < 1500 ADT < 1500 18 ARTERIALS 18 ARTERIALS 24 ARTERIALS 30 ARTERIALS 14 ARTERIALS 14 ARTERIALS & COLLECTORS &COLLECTORS k COLLECTORS h COLLECTORS ADT Z 1500 ADT Z 1500 ADT 2 1500 ADT Z 1500 URBAN * 2 4** 4** 4** 4** N/A•• N/A•• N/A•• * From face of curb (6" type 'D'or 'F9 **On projects where the 4'foot minimum offset cannot be reasonably obtained and other alternatives are deemed impractical, the minimum may be reduced to 2 1/2. o Use rural for urban facilities when no curb & gutter is present. 00 Curb and gutter not to be used on facilities with design speed > 45 mph. Note: ADT in above table refers to design year ADT. Source: Florida Department of Transportation, Green Book 2 - 13 PLANTING STANDARDS ON COUNTY ROADS - Continued Swale Areas At Roadside Swale areas which may be planted must adhere to the minimum width of clear zone chart, (see page 2 - 13), and clear visibility when in sight triangle, (see pages 2 - 9 - 2 - 12). All previous requirements apply as to non-mountable and mountable curb areas. Outside Sight Triangle Medians and roadsides which do not fall within sight triangles must adhere to the same tree planting setbacks, (see minimum width of clear zone chart, page 2- 13). Trees may be planted closer together and do not have to maintain 8' of clear trunk. Shrubs and ground covers may exceed 30". Placement of trees in these areas should take into account the mature canopy and caliper. Utility Clearance Important consideration shall be given to the location of overhead utility lines which may pass over the medians to be landscaped. They directly impact tree and site selection. Large Palms should be planted at the average frond length plus 2'for minimum clearance from utility lines. Large trees shall be setback 30' from power lines. Medium trees shall be setback 10' from power lines, depending on the tree selected. Small trees and small palms can be planted adjacent to and under power lines. Careful consideration shall be taken when selecting plant material. Trees planted in the wrong location can cause a wide variety of problems, most of which can be alleviated by taking into account the mature size of the tree selected. Underground utilities.shall be given the same consideration as overhead utility lines. Drainage pipes, exfiltration trenches, water lines, fiber optic cable, etc. are just as important and shall be located prior to any installation of plant material. Offsets from these utilities will be reviewed on a case by case basis. Tree type and placement are critical to the project being approved. . Every effort shall be taken to be sensitive to the location of the existing utilities. • Irrigation Irrigation systems shall be designed so that they meet the "Palm Beach County Water and Irrigation Conservation Ordinance". Irrigation shall be restricted to the hours of 5:00 PM to 9:00 AM. The system shall be operated in such a manner as not to waste water by over spraying impervious areas. Automatic irrigation systems shall be equipped with a water sensing device which will automatically discontinue irrigation during periods of rainfall. High flow shut off valves are recommended to be installed, so that a break at the head would cause a disrupted flow to the damaged head. This would help conserve water and minimize the water in the roadway, but still allow maintenance workers to locate the damaged equipment. 2 - 14 STATE ROAD CRITERIA The following criteria set forth in this manual shall provide guidelines for the design and installation of landscape along state roads using information derived from publications of the State of Florida. State road criteria are more stringent than county criteria as related to setbacks and sight triangles along rights of way. Design Notes: 1. The information shown on this index is intended solely for purpose of landscape development and maintenance, and Is not intended to be used to establish geometric design, right of way, speed control, signing, marking, lighting or signalization, or to establish roadway and roadside safety except as related to • landscaping. 2. Sight distance (d) is measured from the center of the intersection along the major highway (see diagram page 3 - 3). SIGHT DISTANCE (d) UNIT OF Q DESIGN SPEED CLEAR SIGHT MPH d _ 55 1450' 10' 45 950' 35 590' STOP BAR iNSET General Notes: 1. Details are based on the AASHTO 'A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets; Chapter IX, Cases Ill and IV. 2. Details apply to rural and urban highways and streets. 3. Details also apply to skewed intersections and where vertical and/or horizontal curves are present. 4. a. The limits of clear sight define a corridor throughout which a clear sight window must be preserved. See WINDOW DETAIL. b. Clear Sight must be provided between vehicles at crossroad stop bars and vehicles on the project at any point within dimension "d". Source: Roadway and Traffic Design Standards, Index 546, 1992 3 - 1 STATE ROAD CRITERIA - Continued c. Clear sight is provided by a sight line originating 3.50'above the pavement at drivers eye level and ending 4',above the pavement at the vehicle observed. 5. The corridor defined by the limits of clear sight is a restricted planting area. Drivers of vehicles on the crossroad and vehicles on the project must be able to see each other clearly throughout the limits of "d". Plants within the restricted areas are limited to selections as follows: Ground Covers Plant selection of low growing vegetation which at maturity does not attain a height greater than one foot below the sight line datum. Trees and Palms Plant selection of a mature trunk diameter 4" or less measured at 6" above the ground. Canopy or high borne foliage shall never be lower than three feet above the sight line datum. These selections shall be spaced no closer than 20 feet. 6. If, in the Engineer's judgment, landscaping interferes with the line of sight prescribed by these standards the Engineer may rearrange, relocate or eliminate plantings. 7. Plants shall never obscure signs or signals. Window Detail wT OF wT OF CLEAR Staff CLEAR SIGHI-N **014:6‘ I I • BOTTOM OF I z, CANOPIES SITE ME DATUM TOP OF a,�.�4. GROUND COVERS I w — SEE GENERAL NOTE 4c PAVEMENT t The intent of this standard is to provide a window with vertical limits 3' above and 1' below the sight line datum, and horizontal limits defined by the limits of clear sight. Source: Roadway and Traffic Design Standards, Index 546, 1992 3 - 2 SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR STATE ROADS CROSSROAD ; SEE INSET ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: •:•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••:4:••• •••••• :: • •• -...--- •41" 43m. , LO3 Q ROAD UMIT OF CLEAR SIGHT UMIT OF CLEAR SIGHT f 2 LANE UNDIVIDED — SIGNALIZED OR STOP SIGN CONTROLLED c. CROSSROAD SEE INSET (a'. LO3 4.• 7.= Q ROAD UMIT OF CLEAR SIGHT UMIT OF CLEAR SIGHT • f MULTILANE UNDIVIDED — SIGNALIZED OR STOP SIGN CONTROLLED q_ CROSSROAD al SEE INSET .......... • am "- 033 p33 033 c. ROAD MEI -0` UMIT OF CLEAR SIGHT UMIT- OF CLEAR SIGHT MULTILANE DIVIDED — SIGNALIZED OR STOP SIGN CONTROLLED Source: Roadway and Traffic Design Standards, Index 546, 1992 3 - 3 DESIGN CRITERIA RELATED TO HIGHWAY SAFETY Rural & Urban Freeways and Rural Arterials & Collectors (Design speed of 45 MPH or greater and projected ADT-20 YR- of 1500 or greater) Clear Zone (CZ) Design Speed Travel Lanes Auxil Lanes & Ramp Footnote 1, 2, 3, 9 60-70 MPH 36' 24' 55 MPH 30' 18' 45-55 MPH 24' 14' Trees: Dia > 4" DBH Outside clear zone. Desirable criteria recommended for • freeways. When offset established, care shall be taken to avoid blocking sight distance to roadside signs. Rural Arterials & Collectors (Design speed of 45 MPH or greater and projected ADT-20 YR- less than 1500) Clear Zone (CZ) Design Speed Travel Lanes Auxil Lanes& Ramp Footnote 1, 2, 3, 9 . 60-70 MPH 30' 18' 55 MPH 24' 14' 45-55 MPH 20' 14' Trees: Dia > 4" DBH Outside clear zone. Rural Collectors . (Design speed of 40 MPH or less and rural locals - all speeds) Clear Zone (CZ) 14'standard: 10'minimum from edge of both travel and Footnote 1, 2, 3, 9 auxiliary lanes. Trees: Dia > 4" DBH Outside clear zone. Urban Arterials & Collectors (Design speed of 30 - 50 MPH - without curb and gutter) Clear Zone (CZ) Design Speed Travel Lanes Auxil Lanes & Ramp Footnote 1, 2, 3, 9 50 MPH 24' 14' 45 MPH 24' Footnote 5, 7 14' 30-40 MPH 18'Footnote 7 10'Footnote 8 Trees: Dia > 4" DBH Outside clear zone. Source: Roadway and Traffic Design Standards, Index 700, 1992 3 - 4 DESIGN CRITERIA RELATED TO HIGHWAY SAFETY - Continued Urban Arterials & Collectors (Design speed of 30 - 50 MPH - curb and gutter) Clear Zone (CZ) 4'from face of curb. On projects where the 4'minimum offset Footnote 1, 2, 3, 9 cannot be reasonably obtained and other alternatives are deemed impractical, the minimum may be reduced to 2.5' Bridge piers normally will be 16'min. from edge of travel lane. At locations where immediately adjacent development such as buildings, etc. provide less clearance, bridge piers can be placed to provide clearance less than 16'. Adequate sight distance for crossing maneuvers at intersections should be provided. Trees: Dia > 4" DBH 4' minimum from face of curb where curb height is 6" or greater. 10'minimum from driving lane when curb height is less than 6" or when curb height has been reduced by resurfacing. Clear Zone Footnotes 1. Standard values are to be used for all new construction projects. These values may be reduced only where individually justified to mitigate critical social, economic and environmental impacts or to lessen excessive right of way costs. Standard values are also to be used for'reconstruction projects; however, values down to AASHTO minimum may be used where individually justified due to critical social, economic and environmental impacts and/or excessive right of way costs or when existing roadside obstacles are not considered hazardous as evidenced by field review and by accident history or accident potential. 2. Where accident history indicates need, or where specific site investigation shows definitive accident potential, clear zones for rural and urban facilities (without curb) should be adjusted on the outside of horizontal curves in accordance with Table 1 (Sheet 2 of 2). 3. The use of barriers or other safety treatment is to be considered if clear zone requirements are not provided. 4. Vacant. 5. May be reduced to low speed condition criteria (30-40 mph)if conditions more nearly approach those for low speed. Source: Roadway and Traffic Design Standards, Index 700, 1992 3 - 5 DESIGN CRITERIA RELATED TO HIGHWAY SAFETY - Continued 6. Vacant. 7. 10'in medians where median curb Type E is used: 4'from face of curb where curb height is 6". 8. 4' from face of median curb where curb height is 6". 9. When a frontslope steeper than 4:1 encroaches into the clear zone, a clear runout area is to be provided at the bottom of the slope in accordance with Fig. 3.2 of the "Roadside Design Guide", 1988. 10. See " Structures Design Guide", 1987, Chapter 2, for further details. Source: Roadway and Traffic Design Standards, Index 700, 1992 3 - 6 INFORMATIONAL PLANT LIST The following plant list has been provided for your information and is not all inclusive. The landscape architect and designer should be sensitive to the geographic area in which they are working. Material which does well in the southern part of the county may not do well in the northern and western parts of the county. The trees and palms were chosen for their commercial availability, longevity and growth • characteristics. The shrubs and ground covers listed were selected based on their overall height. The height restriction within the sight triangle area for shrubs is 30", as measured from the adjacent roadway. Plants which grow taller than 30", but can be maintained at the required height, may also be planted within the sight triangle. Outside the sight triangle, shrubs may be used which reach a greater overall height than 30". Desirable Plant Characteristics The following plant characteristics are desirable and should be considered when selecting plant material which has not been included in the informational plant list. Some acceptable characteristics include: Strong wood Limited leaf drop Slow growth Undesirable Plant Characteristics The following plant characteristics are undesirable and should be considered when selecting plant material which is not included on the informational plant list. Some unfavorable plant characteristics for roadway plantings are as follows: Weak and brittle wood Excessive leaf, fruit and flower drop Invasive root system Edible fruit Rapid Growth Trees which are prohibited by Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code shall not be used. These include melaleuca, brazilian pepper, australian pine and earleaf acacia. Ficus, silk oak and rosewood which are classified as controlled plant species shall not be used. In those medians and roadsides which are being upgraded, these species should be removed and more suitable plants installed in their place. The informational plant list is comprised of trees, palms, shrubs and ground covers. The plant material is listed by common name with the scientific name listed below. The height range and drought tolerance were taken from the South Florida Water Management Xeriscape Plant Guide II. The other categories are as follows: 4 - 1 INFORMATIONAL PLANT LIST - Continued Cost Rating The cost rating refers to the installed cost for each plant on the informational plant list. There are three categories high, moderate and low. • Street Value The street value refers to the aesthetic value of trees and shrubs which will help define the roadways system within Palm Beach County. There are four categories; high refers to the most desirable of plant characteristics, moderate refers to material which is considered suitable, low refers to material which may be used, but shall be used sparingly and out refers to material which shall be used outside the sight triangle. Maintenance Value The maintenance value refers to the amount of maintenance required to keep the project maintained as permitted. There are three categories high, those plants requiring the most maintenance, moderate, those plants which require average maintenance and low, referring to those plants which require the least amount of maintenance. • 4 - 2 INFORMATIONAL PLANT LIST -Continued LARGE PALMS COMMON NAME/ DROUGHT COST STREET MAINT. BOTANICAL NAME HEIGHT TOLERANT RATING VALUE VALUE Paurotis Palm * 15-25' Mod Mod Out** Low Acoelorrhaphe wrighti Alexandra Palm 40-45' Very Mod High Low Archontophoenis alexandrae Blsmark Palm 30-60' Very High Low Low Bismarkia nobils Blue Latania Palm 20-50' Very High Low Low Latania loddigesii Chinese Fan Palm 20-30' Very High Low Low Uvistonia chinensis. MedJool Date Palm 60-90' Very High High Low Phoenix 'medjoor Senegal Date Palm 25-35' Very High Low Low Phoenix reclinata Solitaire Palm 15-25' Very Mod Mod Low Ptychosperma elegans Royal Palm * 50-70' Mod High High Low Roystonea elata Sabal Palm * 45-70' Very Low Mod Low Sabal palmetto Queen Palm 40-45' Mod Low High Low Syagrus romanzoffiana Windmill Palm 20-40' Very High Mod Low Trachycarpus fortunei Washingtonia Palm 50-80' Very Mod High • Low Washingtonia robusta * Denotes plants native to Florida ** Denotes material which shall be used outside the sight triangle 4 - 3 • INFORMATIONAL PLANT LIST - Continued SMALL PALMS COMMON NAME/ DROUGHT COST STREET MAINT. BOTANICAL NAME HEIGHT TOLERANT RATING VALUE VALUE Pindo Palm 10-15' Very High Mod Low Butia capitata European Fan 5-10' Low High Our Low Chamaerops humilis • Sliver Palm 10-20' Very High Mod , Low Coc cothrinax argentata Pygmy Date Palm 10-20' Mod Mod Out** Low Phoenix roebellni Majesty Palm 15-20' Low • Mod Mod Low Ravenea glauca Needle Palm 3-5' Mod Mod Our Low Rhapidophyfum hystrix Dwarf Palmetto * 5-7' Very Mod Our Low Sabal minor Saw Palmetto * 6-15' Very Low Our Low Serenoa repens Thatch Palm * 15-25' Very Mod Mod Low Thrinax spp. Christmas Palm 15-20' Very Mod Mod Low Veitchii merrillii * Denotes plants native to Florida ** Denotes material which shall be used outside the sight triangle • 4 - 4 INFORMATIONAL PLANT LIST - Continued LARGE TREES COMMON NAME/ DROUGHT COST STREET MAINT. BOTANICAL NAME HEIGHT TOLERANT RATING VALUE VALUE Black Olive 40-50' Low Low Mod Mod Budda buceras • Gumbo Limbo * 40-60' Very Low Mod Mod Bursera simaruba Satin Leaf * 30-40' Very Mod Mod Mod Chrysophylium olviforme Green Buttonwood * 30-40' Very Low High Mod Conocarpus erectus Queen's Crepe Myrlte 30-45' Very • Mod Mod High Lagerstroemia spedosa Redbay.* • 50-60' Very Mod Low Low Persea borbonia Slash Pine * 80-100 Very Mod Low Low Pinus ellotii Laurel Oak * 60-100' Very Mod High Low Quercus Iaurifola Live Oak * 50-60' Very Mod High Low Quercus virginiana Mahogany * 35-60' Very Low High Low Swietenia mahogani Chinese Elm 40-60' Very Mod Mod Low Ulmus parvifolia 'drake' *Denotes plants that are native to Florida 4 - 5 INFORMATIONAL PLANT LIST - Continued MEDIUM TREES COMMON NAME/ DROUGHT COST STREET MAINT. BOTANICAL NAME HEIGHT TOLERANT RATING VALUE VALUE Pitch Apple 25-35' Very Mod Mod Low Clusia rosea Pigeon Plum * 25-30' Very Mod Mod Low Clusia diversifolia Seagrape * 20-30' Very Mod Low Low Clusia uvifera Dahoon Holly * 25-30' Very Mod Mod Low Hex cassine Black Ironwood * 20-30' Very Mod Mod Low Krugiodendron ferreum - Madagascar Olive 20-30' Very Mod Mod Low Noronhia emarginata Jerusalem Thorn 20-30' Very Mod Low Mod Parkinsonia aculeata * Denotes plants that are native to Florida 4 - 6 INFORMATIONAL PLANT LIST - Continued SMALL TREES COMMON NAME/ DROUGHT COST STREET MAINT. BOTANICAL NAME HEIGHT TOLERANT RATING VALUE VALUE Silver Buttonwood 15-20' Very Mod Mod Low . Conocarpus erectus var'sericeus' Stoppers * 15-20' Very Mod Low Low Eugenia spp. Crepe Myrtle 15-20' Mod Mod High High Lagerstroemia indica Tree Llgustrum 15-25' Very Mod High Low Ugustrum japonicum Orange Jasmine 15-20' Very Mod Mod Low Murraya paniculata • Wax Myrtle * • 15-20' Very Low High High Myrica cerifera Oleander Standard 15-20' Very Mod Mod Low Nerium oleander Kopsia 15-20' Very Mod Mod Low Ochrosia elliptica * Denotes plant that are native to Florida 4 - 7 INFORMATIONAL PLANT LIST - Continued SHRUBS AND GROUND COVERS COMMON NAME/ DROUGHT COST STREET MAINT. BOTANICAL NAME HEIGHT . TOLERANT RATING VALUE VALUE Blue Daze 10-12" Mod Low Mod High Evolvulus glomerate Bush Daisy 24-36" Mod Mod Mod High Gamolepis chrysanthemoides Beach Sunflower* 12-24" Very Low Mod High Helanthus debits Dayilly 12-36" Very Low Mod High Hemerocallis spp. Dwarf Yaupon Holly 24-36" • Very Mod High Low Ilex vomitoria 'shillings' - Wax Jasmine 24-36" Mod Low High Mod Jasmine volubile Shore Juniper 12-24" Very Mod High Low Juniperus conferta Lantana 24" Very Mod Mod High Lantana montevidensis Liriope 12-24" Low Low High Low Liriope muscari Dwarf Plttosporum 24-30" Mod Mod High Mod Pittosporum 'wheelers dwarf Indian Hawthorn 24-30" Low Mod High Low Raphiolepis indica - Oyster Plant 12-24" Very Low High Low Rhoeo spathacea Purple Heart 10-14" Very Low High Low Setcreasea pallida * Denotes plants native to Florida 4 - 8 • • COST ESTIMATE FOR PLANTING CONCEPTS The low cost planting concept is designed to be the basis for the moderate and high cost landscape concepts. This is to emphasize the concept of layering. Material can be chosen for a low cost planting concept and built upon to create a more expensive landscape design. The concepts shown are one solution to a median of this size and shape. Medians and road sides differ in width and shape to the one used for this demonstration. This should be taken in consideration when reviewing the following • concepts. The following cost estimates were prepared according to standard nursery practices by . using prices for installed material (current prices prevailing at time of publication). Installed shrubs and ground covers average two times the wholesale cost for three and one gallon material. The trees and palms range from a few dollars per foot to several hundred dollars per foot depending on size and species. The initial installation of an automatic irrigation system will cost on average twenty five cents per square foot of area to be irrigated. There are mainly two underground irrigation systems which are being considered for this application. One type of system is considered a standard for the industry. This type of system sprays plant material and grass by mist heads which pop-up while in use and retract while not in use. The other is a drip irrigation system. The difference is that with drip irrigation there is no visible water being sprayed on plants or grass. Instead, water is delivered directly to the root system by a series of underground tubes or pipes. It should be noted that the above mentioned per square foot cost for irrigation does not include the cost of connecting the system to the water supply, nor does it include the cost of the water used. Irrigation costs can vary widely with consideration such as: Initial Costs Operational & Maintenance Costs Fees (Impact & Permit) Water Irrigation System Installation Electric Well & Pump Repairs Jack & Bore/Open Cut These and other relevant factors will need to be considered when designing an irrigation system, and evaluating initial start-up and on-going expenses therewith. Maintenance costs vary according to plant material selected and amount of sod to be mowed. Material which does not need a great deal of pruning or nutrients, is less costly to maintain than those materials which require a more intense maintenance schedule. 5 - 1 LOW COST PLANTING CONCEPT COMMON NAME SIZE PRICE/UNIT QTY TOTAL Trees and Palms Sabal Palm 10-12' C.T. $ 125.00 13 $1,625.00 Mahogany 12' Ht. $ 100.00 5 $ 500.00 Shrubs and Ground Covers Hibiscus 3 Gal. $ 9.00 24 $ 216.00 Indian Hawthorn 3 Gal. $ 9.00 16 $ . 144.00 Liriope 1 Gal. '$ 3.00 14 . $ 42.00 Sod and Mulch Sod $ .18 3,300 S.F. $ 594.00 Mulch $ 27.00/C.Y. 3 C.Y. $ 81.00 Total $3,202.00 The associated planting concept shows a typical 200' section. It would cost an average of sixteen dollars ($ 16.00) per lineal foot for a low cost planting scheme. Maintenance It would cost on average $ .20 -$ .25 per lineal foot to maintain the median for the period of one month or $ 2.40 -.$ 3.00 per lineal foot for one year. Price includes weeding, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. Current prices prevailing at time of publication, January 1994 5 - 2 • • r mole=roe VAR -- - MOWN CUM MO elms mrr-r-rrrTTTTr-rr-rTT- T-rr rnrrr-rT- Tr1-77T r-r7-rTrrrTTrTr-rrr-rr-r-r-m a =:i c= Paul— rleM Wit MM..,MM.., t Iwae r��mi. t suit r i_, e+•'� eaa mi. Ul A b to • it Was r. to Lc- rr => [ Merry yea rrema MOM M►rmew A _ Mal HAM O r.MeeMn rw�aeMr CRCrMa�r► —rMOeM/ —_M.remrr L LL_L_LLL_L LLLL_L L_L_LL_Ll_LLL_L L_LLL_L L_LLL_L L_L_LL_L L_L_LLL_L1_LLL_L1_LLL_L L_L_LL_L LJ f IN f�Rle LOW COST PLANTING CONCEPT I � yGL MODERATE COST PLANTING CONCEPT Trees and Palms • Sabal Palm 10-12' C.T. $ 125.00 13 $1,625.00 Mahogany 12' Ht. $ 100.00 5 $ 500.00 Shrubs and Ground Covers Cocoplum 3 Gal $ 9.00 112 $1,008.00 Crinum Lily 7 Gal $ 20.00 24 $ 480.00 • Hibiscus 3 Gal. $. 9.00. 24 $ 216.00 Indian Hawthorn 3 Gal. . $ 9.00 96 $ 864.00 ' Liriope 1 Gal $ 3.00 14 $ 42.00 Sod and Mulch Sod $ .18 2,500 S.F. $ 450.00 Mulch $ 27.00/C.Y. 14 C.Y. $ 378.00 Irrigation $ .25/S.F. 3,600 S.F. $ 900,00, Total $6,463.00 The associated planting concept shows a typical 200' section. It would cost an average of thirty two dollars ($ 32.00) per lineal foot for a moderate cost planting scheme. Maintenance It would cost on average $. 25 - $ .30 per lineal foot to maintain the median for the period of one month or $ 3.00 - $ 3.60 per lineal foot for one year. Price includes weeding, fertilizing, mowing, trimming and testing the irrigation system. Impact fees and operating costs, such as electric and water, are additional. These costs should be considered when budgeting for landscape improvements. Current prices prevailing at time of publication, January 1994 5 - 4 • 1 I I I . r aolalc=Mrr.0 MOM OM NM 11.17101 r-rr-r-r-171 7- 17-771-1- -rTrrr-rTr-r7- Tr TTTTTTTTr-rrT rrr7-rTr-r-r-rTf-m a CIn a CAI: K_:i 1 -i O0IY LLi 0007401—, UK0 COMMAS B /a l AWL PAM l rNisN �!IO 0000—. ' / M ►Iuii � Iua nu.r t k _ A."! oir.ti-,z. _ _ ma•.! - 7,..v,:immegr,p7,‘..aw46-• - --C-4):-' ,ist Ai ----, -iiiipli.'-.: 4,.... . in MOr LY 000 La, •—ALLY U L0800 ? Mual Ma Orpl ION 00II081 YMQCMI —YYpeM/ :M C ■maxallt —r IM11rIOM —IiO�M IY�If•0�I1 mameGAVI l I L_L1_LLL_L_LLL_L1_LJ L_u_LLL_u_LLL_LL_LLL_L1_LLL_u_LLL_u_LLL_L1_LLL_L1_L.LL_U J ly MODERATE COST PLANTING CONCEPT y �' MIA M rl•I HIGH COST PLANTING CONCEPT • Palms Sabel Palm 10-12' C.T. $ 125.00 13 $1,625.00 Mahogany 12' Ht. $ 100.00 5 $ 500.00 Shrubs.and Ground Covers Cocoplum 3 Gal. $ 9.00 112 $1.008.00 • Crinum Lily 7 Gal. $ 20.00 24 $ 480.00 Hibiscus 3 Gal. $ 9.00. 24 $ 216.00 Indian Hawthorn 3 Gal. $ . 9.00 96 $ 864.00 Liriope 1 Gal. $ 3.00 414 $1,242.00 Shore Juniper 1 Gal. $ 3.00 250 $ 750.00 Sod and Mulch Sod $ .18 1,000 S.F. $ 180.00 Mulch $ 27.00/C.Y. 25 C.Y. $ 675.00 Irrigation $ .25/ S.F. 3,600 S.F. $ 900.00 Total $8,440.00 The associated planting concept shows a typical 200' section. It would cost an average of forty two dollars ($ 42.00) per lineal foot for a high cost planting scheme. Maintenance It would cost on average $ .35 - $ .37 per lineal foot to maintain the median for the period of one month or $ 4.20 - $- 4.44 per lineal foot for one year. Price includes weeding, fertilizing, mowing, trimming and testing the irrigation. system. Impact fees and operating costs, such as electric and water, are additional. These costs should be considered when budgeting for landscape improvements. Current prices prevailing at time of publication, January 1994 5 - 6 - a i , r omann la rut DOOR!a.0 Me•rtn• rTrrrrrr-r-r-r-rr-rrTTr 'rTIMI-rTr-rr- Tr-r-r-rTr-1-177r-rr-rTr-MITr TIT-r'm a ® c OMIM MY --, 0E001141 ---, Min OWN IR1 M7M wns— _/ I r — w COOPUN NAM•MM WM.411� W4 NUS W4.MY - -' }� V / WYI wniwl un11Ik111111141III 4`i R. ri1■1!iiiiii11111•;11�IIIHl�11111P.i ICtil rs li0' t5niiiiiiCni:1iiiii 'iva'+ " •80 t41250.1 • 1114'u^ `c11111111111:!ICIh � 11l. INl1!Illllll a!!n=:11fn1,111.::•Ih �1' r2s. ( •"•'T r 11, _ s •�.. ,1.-.r1` `—! ,L- i� s ..•I:ilIf1111.:1:i1111111YC'CS7 k 1 .ee I�...d LOOK LOCK wr MIKE CONWU —OVUM UN OXdYM 010!J.�OI .OIM wa11�OM — t _,.. ......... nwoa NS JI NOLO wrww —MJMI wrmdw YrOCbn .w00uR :�■�� —YMIOOMI. 1•—IIMn.MT PIM PALM 1 I L_L1_LLL_L1_LLL_L1_LLL_LL_LLL_LL_LLL_LL_LLL_a_LLL_L1_LLL_LL_LLL_LL_LLL_LL_LLL_LI] /© � R'�j' HIGH COST PLANTING CONCEPT CMS M PIK MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS Plantings shall be maintained to provide required visibility and conform to all the required setbacks as permitted by Palm Beach County. Watering Requirements Watering is probably the most critical concern with regards to maintaining healthy plant material. The amount of water to apply at any one time varies with the weather, drainage • conditions and water holding capacity of the soil. Proper watering techniques should provide even and thorough water dispersal to wet the entire root zone but not to saturate the soil. Avoid extremes in watering. Light, frequent watering is ineffective and produces shallow root systems. Excessive watering which keep the root zones saturated may kill the plant material due to the lack of available air to the root zone. A typical rule of thumb is that turf areas should receive on average a minimum of 1" of water per week, with an equal or lesser amount for trees and shrubs, depending on their individual water usage. Ideally, watering should be done on a consistent but limited basis (3 days a week) for longer periods of time (45 to 60 Minutes ) to establish deeper roots. Of course, this is dependant on the individual irrigation system, the gallonage capacity of each individual zone, and the individual water requirements for each plant species. Fertilization Requirements Due to the poor shallow soils of the South Florida area coupled with heavy rain fall during the growing season, available nutrient levels for landscape material is very low, therefore nutrient amendments are essential. The following are general guidelines for fertilization application. Palms General application amounts: for palms under 8' ht. - 2-5 lbs. per application. for mature palms - 5-8 lbs. per application. A typical formula to use is 1/2 lb. of fertilizer per two feet of overall height, up to about 15 lbs. for a mature specimen (greater than 30' in height). Turf Area Turf areas should be fertilized with a complete fertilizer (16-4-8). Application of ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate should also be applied as follows: 6 - 1 MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS - Continued Complete fertilizer(16-4-8)in Mid-September and Mid-February at 8 lbs. per 1000 sf., apply ammonium nitrate at 3 lbs. per 1000 sf. in Mid-April and Mid-October, and apply ammonium sulfate at 5 lbs. per 1000 sf. in Mid- June. Trees and Shrubs • Trees and shrubs should be fertilized at least four times a year at the same application rate as turf areas. It is very important to use a fertilizer that is at least a 50% organic base with a slow release 6-6-6 or 8-8-8 composition. Plants should be watered at least 48 hours prior to the application of the fertilizer. Application of the fertilizer should be done on top of the mulch and should be watered in thoroughly, making sure to remove any fertilizer that may have settled on foliage. Mulching Mulch shall be applied by hand to a depth of 3". Typically mulch shall only be required when less than an inch of existing mulch remains. Mulches can be applied at any time of the year, but should be applied if needed in conjunction with the fertilization of the trees and shrubs. It is recommended that the soil under the much be watered just prior to the mulch being laid and watered down again prior to application of any fertilizers. After years of mulch accumulation has significantly raises the levels of the beds it may be necessary to remove the upper layers of the residual mulch and cultivate any remaining into the soil. Pruning No major thinning shall occur until after the second growing season following planting. Major thinning shall then commence on an annual basis during the period from the first of December to Mid-February (except for some shrubs as specified). The cutting and removal of deadwood, sucker growth and diseased or injured limbs shall be conducted on a regularly scheduled basis (at least monthly from March through October) by qualified personnel conducting an inspection of all plant materials. Shade and flowering trees shall be thinned from the bottom up and from the inside out. Lower branches detracting from the intended character of a tree, all cross branches and excessive branches near the core of the tree shall be removed. Where two double leaders occur and only one is desired, one leader shall be removed, the smaller or the larger depending upon the desired effect. 6 - 2 • MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS - Continued Where branching joint is very narrow there is a greater potential for breakage, therefore one branch shall be removed depending on the desired effect. In general, the shape of the tree can be preserved by maintaining main branching (providing joints are wide enough and by removing weaker side branches. The desired growth habit in landscape planting beds shall be such that shrubs of the same species shall develop into a single mass and be kept separate from adjacent masses of other species. Further pruning information is provided in the Palm Beach County Land Development Code, Article 7.3 H. 6 - 3 TRAFFIC CONTROL FOR INSTALLATION & MAINTENANCE Traffic control operations for installation and future maintenance shall be in accordance with the current Florida Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction and Roadway and Traffic Design Standards, Index 600. The 'Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices' (Part VI) as well as the attachments herein. There shall be no obstruction of the travel lanes Monday through Friday between 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM with the exception of local and subdivision roads. No time restrictions for Saturday or Sunday. The permittee shall meet with Palm Beach County's Traffic Inspector prior to commencement of initial installation of landscaping. The following criteria must be followed during construction within the road right of way. Sianinq Signs may be portable or temporary but shall be not less than 1'from the ground. All advance warning signs shall be not less than 48" x 48" Except in emergencies and during daylight activities, all signs shall be high intensity. Barricades and Cones All barricades shall utilize high intensity sheeting. Cones shall be a minimum of 28" high, and clean and free of foreign matter, to offer the highest target value. Traffic control devices shall not be mixed. Flaagers and Vests The flaggers shall be trained as set forth in the M.U.T.C.D. All personnel shall wear a high visibility orange vest when working within the right- of-way. Flashing Arrow Boards Flashing arrow boards shall be used on any three lane or larger roadway where traffic is being channelized or diverted, or as directed by the Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering Department. 6 - 4 TRAFFIC CONTROL FOR INSTALLATION & MAINTENANCE - Continued Flashing arrow boards shall be Type B or C, as per M.U.T.C.D. Traffic Signals No material shall be disturbed within 6' of a traffic pole or within the specified distance of a guy wire and anchor to a depth greater than 2', unless approved by and coordinated with Palm Beach County Traffic Operations. Contact Traffic Operations, 24 hours in advance of any excavation. Failure to comply with the above, shall result in the prime contractor incurring all costs incurred as a result of damage to the traffic signal installation. These costs shall be paid 30 days from date of invoice. See figure below. RESTRICTED EXCAVATION AREAS AROUND TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLES 14'0 1 13%.4. 4-0'I 6'-0' 14%.0. . I `••. ••••••••.• ••••••••0o••. IDLE 1e I. :vv.. {i 4 ••.:• ►••••X0:If WY 1IRE AND ANCHOR LOAD TOP VIEW 3/r—__. IFS /' - SPAN ME ���� ASSEMBLY �N•;•;•••; swumtar TO OE DISTURBED • 3/8' REOUIRED ACi1RiER i 6. 00.1 4'-0. 6'-0' 4'-0. 4'—O' Y 21 4'— GROUND i I R:3i i .. o S.:•. •• .. .•i • 6i i i L ❖M►•i•••i i�.••�•. • i••••• i.••••••••••• i••••••••••• i�4i�iii•iii•i•i•i•i! i•i•i •i•iiiiiii • •••.:••••••i•••••.•••••••••••••.4 .:....••i..•••••••.•••••••.. CROSS SECTION VIEW N.T.S. 6 - 5 TRAFFIC CONTROL FOR INSTALLATION & MAINTENANCE - Continued RECOMMENED TAPER LENGTH AND DEVICE SPACING APPROACH SPEED LIMIT MINIMUM TAPER LENGTHS MAXIMUM DEVICE IN MILES PER HOUR FOR LANE WIDTH * SPACING IN FEET 10 FT. 11 FT. 12 FT. 20 70 75 80 20 25 105 115 125 25 30 150 165 180 30 35 205 225 245 35 40 270 295 320 40 45 450 495 540 45 • 50 500 550 600 50 55 550 605 660 55 60 600 660 720 60 65 650 715 780 65 2 * L = 60 FOR S OF 40 MPH OR LESS: L = WS FOR 45 MPH OR MORE. L IS THE TAPER LENGTH. W IS THE WIDTH. S IS THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT. TAPER LENGTHS ARE ROUNDED TO NEAREST 5 FEET. 6 - 6 TRAFFIC CONTROL FOR INSTALLATION & MAINTENANCE - Continued .ziI z IW 4W4-2L CLO ,� w2o—s � I SED • • tiolo? • W20-5 a (• NOTES: 1� SIGNS ARE TO BE LOCATED IN ADVANCE OF THE CONES OR BARRICADES. I } ALSO MOUNT SIGNS IN MEDIA. ARROW BOARD SYMBOL: • = CONES OR BARRICADES L.-J WORK AREA I <1=2 TRAFFIC FLOW I • NOTE: TO FIND THE TAPER LENGTH FOR CONES OR BARRICADES, SEE CHART. I a IDENTICAL TREATMENT MAY BE GIVEN 4 4 TO BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD IF ♦ CONDITION WARRANTS IT. T • • 6 - 7 TRAFFIC CONTROL FOR INSTALLATION & MAINTENANCE - Continued • W4-2L 4#÷;iaol W20-5 I 4 CLOSED LJ 1 W20-5 NOTES: 3 al SIGNS ARE TO BE LOCATED IN • I ADVANCE OF THE CONES OR ..I BARRICADES. ALSO MOUNT SIGNS IN MEDIA. �I ARROW • BOARD C z • W J • r LU 0- • SYMBOL: • = CONES OR BARRICADES • L_.J WORK AREA • • <1=1 TRAFFIC FLOW NOTE: TO FIND THE TAPER LENGTH FOR CONES OR BARRICADES. SEE CHART. IDENTICAL TREATMENT MAY BE GIVEN TO BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD IF z CONDITION WARRANTS IT. 0 w 6 - 8 TRAFFIC CONTROL FOR INSTALLATION & MAINTENANCE - Continued II II III II bb b b_ P I I i / / I 1 /;// �/ "RROW- WORK • BOARD , ,=��< >k j --- •d • •-� AREA y N.-A\�k� d f s��� " Xv' N �� - / / ,•• 4v4_2L * 'S S W20-5 It" W2O-5 • NOTES: I I I I I SIGNS ARE TO BE LOCATED IN ADVANCE OF THE CONES OR I I I I BARRICADES. ALSO MOUNT SIGNS IN MEDIA. I I I I SYMBOL: • = CONES OR BARRICADES r__J WORK AREA NOTE: IF NECESSARY, BARRICADE OFF THE LEFT TURN LANE AND LEFT-MOST THROUGH LANE TO MEET THE REQUIRED MINIMUM TAPER LENGTH. TO FIND THE TAPER LENGTH FOR CONES OR BARRICADES, SEE CHART. 6 - 9 • /9± crtf Palm Beach.County Board of County Commissioners Mary McCarty, Chair Ken L. Foster, Vice-Chairman Karen T. Marcus Carol A. Roberts Warren H. Newell Burt Aaronson Maude Ford Lee This publication is printed on recycled paper. In accordance with the provisions of ADA, this information may be requested in an alternate format. Contact Palm Beach County Department of Engineering and Public Works at (407) 684-4030. Atqf Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners Mary McCarty, Chair Ken L. Foster, Vice-Chairman Karen T. Marcus Carol A. Roberts Warren H. Newell Burt Aaronson Maude Ford Lee • tot 1'! This publication is printed on recycled paper. In accordance with the provisions of ADA, this information may be requested in an alternate format. Contact Palm Beach County Department of Engineering and Public Works at (407) 684-4030. LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION-PERMIT SECTION DATE: NAME OF PERMITTEE: ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP CODE: • CONTACT PERSON/REP: PHONE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME/LOCATION. IF THIS PROJECT HAS A ZONING PETITION NO.,PLEASE INDICATE IF THIS CONSTRUCTION IS TO COMPLY WITH A ZONING APPROVAL CONDITION: RESOLUTION NO. , CONDITION NO. IF THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED A PLAN REVIEW(PR)NUMBER, PLEASE INDICATE: ITEM REQUESTED:(CHECK CATEGORY FROM BELOW)A .13 .0 ,D The applicable fee indicated for Category A is a total amount. Fees indicated are due upon submittal of plans. There may be an additional fee due other than the application feg • , indicated for Categories B.C or D and will be due when the permit is picked up. D A) ON-SITE DRAINAGE REVIEW- 1 application,3 copies of plans and 1 copy of drainage calculations(plans and calculations sealed by an engineer)-$260 fee for commercial site drainage, $65 per dwelling unit for residential site drainage B) RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION (Utilities)-1 application,4 copies of plans sealed by an engineer,$25 application fee (5 copies of plan if a bridge attachment is proposed) C) RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION (includes anything except utilities and landscaping)- 1 application,4 copies of plans sealed by an engineer,$25 application fee D) LANDSCAPING/IRRIGATION IN RIGHT-OF-WAY-1 application,6 copies of plans sealed by a landscape architect,$25 application fee You may not apply for more than one category on each application,and the required plans shall accompany each request. • Maximum plan size is 24"x 36",folded in eighths. Plan sizes 8 1/2"x 11"and 8 1/2"x 14"do not have to be folded. • Checks payable to: THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Any questions call: Land Development Division,Permit Section at(561)684-4086. MAILING ADDRESS AND LOCATION: Palm Beach County Engineering Land Development Division,Permit Section 160 Australian Avenue Airport Hilton Center-Room 302 West Palm Beach, FL 33406 Ref:H•PERMITS.PIIt1FORMSIPERMITAPP • Revised 03/7)2/95 OFFICE USE ONLY M/F S/S JONES, FOSTER, JOHNSTON & S TUBB S, P. A. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS FLAGLER CENTER TOWER Village�j 1 e(�jl�sta 505 SOUTH FLAGLER DRIVE B. ELEVENTH FLOOR HENRY .UUENTHAL LARRY N ALEXANDER JOHN MICHAEL I MOOR WEST PALM BEACH,FLORIDA 33401 JAN1 7 1997 CARL ANGELOFF JOHN BLAIR McCRACKEN i 2.1982 M.TRACEY BIAGIOTTI SCOTT L.McMULLEN HARRY AL SON JOHNSTON CLAY C.BROOKER DAVID PRATT P.O. BOX 3476 1 5-1983 JOYCE A.CONWAY JOHN C.RANDOLPH • MARGARET L COOPER STEVEN J.ROTHMAN WEST PALM BEACH,FLORIDA 33402-3475 Village M R.B CE JONES EDWARD DIAZ PETER A.SACHS gana Manager's Office 1 o-19gg REBECCA G.DOANE D.CULVER SMITH M (561)659-3000 CHRISTOPHER S.DUKE SIDNEY A.STUBBS FAX:(561)832-1454 L C.WOLFE H.MICHAEL EASLEY ALLEN R.TOMLINSON 1933.1991 SCOTT G.HAWKINS JOHN S.TRIMPER THORNTON M.HENRY BRIAN K.WAXMAN WRITER'S DIRECT LINE: RETIRED PETER S.HOLTON H.ADAMS WEAVERWILLIAM A.FOSTER MARK B.KLEINFELD - OF COUNSEL, L.MARTIN FLANAGAN JACK A.PUSCO January 16, 1997 • Mr. Thomas G. Bradford • Village Manager Village of Tequesta Post Office Box 3273 Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 RE: Village of. Tequesta Assessment Projects and the FEC Railroad Our File No. 13153 .1 Dear Tom: This is in response to . your letter dated December 30, 1996, regarding the above referenced subject. Florida statutory law does not appear to place any restrictions on . levying special assessments upon railroad property specifically. However, Florida case .law is inconsistent with regard to whether a railroad right-of-way, as opposed to other property owned by a railroad company, may be levied by a special assessment. The- Supreme Court of Florida, in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. City of Winter Haven, 151 So. 321 (Fla. 1933) , held that a railroad right- of-way contiguous to a proposed street improvement is subject to imposition of special benefit assessments for its proportion of the construction costs . Notwithstanding this decision by the Supreme Court, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. City of Hallandale, 288 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974) , stated that "railroad property other than the right-of-way is subject to special assessments where it is specially benefited by a public improvement." Id. at 292 . The Fourth DCA' cited the Supreme Court decision of, Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. City of Gainesville, 91 So. 118 (Fla. 1922) in support of its statement. Upon review of this decision by the Supreme Court of Florida, it , appears that the Fourth DCA incorrectly interpreted the holding. : The Fourth DCA' s decision nevertheless remains good law. Accordingly, there is some confusion in Florida as to whether railroad right-of-ways may be subject to special assessments. Mr. Thomas G. Bradford January 16, 1997 Page 2 In summary, assuming no local ordinance speaks to the contrary, the Village of Tequesta has no legal impediment to levying a special assessment on railroad properties other than right-of-ways. If the property contemplated by the Village of Tequesta is indeed a railroad right-of-way, however, the issue as to whether such an assessment is legally proper may rise. Please call me if you have any questions . Sincerely, JONES OSTER, JOHNSTON & STUBBS, P.A. ohn C. Randolph JCR\ssm Enclosures • JONES , FOSTER , JOHNSTON & S T U B B S , P . A . 4 151 So. 321 Page 1 (Cite as: 112 Fla. 807, 151 So. 321) ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. therein. v. CITY OF WINTER HAVEN(three cases). [5] CONSTITUTIONAL LAW C= 68(4) 92k68(4) Supreme Court of Florida, Division A. Legislature and not judiciary determines whether expense of public improvement shall Nov. 18, 1933. be borne by whole community or by district immediately benefited. Three separate suits by the City of Winter • Haven .against the Atlantic Coast Line [6] CONSTITUTIONAL LAW C= 68(4) ' Railroad Company. From adverse decrees, 92k68(4) defendant appeals. Power to determine whether property assessed to pay cost of local improvement is benefited Reversed, with directions. by such improvement is legislative, not judicial. [1] MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS G=, 469(1) [7]MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS c 495 268k469(1) 268k495 Front foot plan of apportioning cost of Generally, determination of city governmental municipal street improvements assessed authority that abutting property on line of against abutting properties alleged to have street improvement assessed under statute in • been especially benefited is valid exercise of proportion to its front footage has received legislative power. special benefits equal to assessments is conclusive against collateral attack. [2] MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS C=z, 469(1) [8]MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS C= 495 268k469(1) 268k495 Front foot plan of apportioning cost of Where local assessment because of inequality municipal street improvements assessed becomes extortion and confiscation, courts against abutting properties alleged to have have duty to interfere. been especially benefited may be applied to railroad properties only when benefits are [9] MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS substantially proportionate to assessments, C;=. 469(1) essential requirements of Constitution and 268k469(1) statutes are observed, and no abuse of Front foot plan of apportioning costs of delegated power appears. municipal street improvements assessed against abutting properties alleged to have [3]MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS C= 466 been especially benefited is applicable to 268k466 railroad rights of way. Specially assessed property which is or may be • enhanced in value by improvement when [10] MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS made is subject to assessment in proportion to C=. 562(1) • benefits it will likely receive from execution of 268k562(1) work. Where railroad promptly protested against application of front foot rule to its property [4]MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS G= 466 and advised city that it would resist paving 268k466 assessments railroad was not guilty of lathes General enhancement in value of locality as a or estopped from attacking assessments in suit whole in which improvement is to be made to foreclose liens. F.S.A. § 170.01 et seq.;. may be considered in determining probable Sp.Acts 1925,c. 11300, § 2. benefits in making an apportionment of benefits to individual properties situated [11]EQUITY C= 239 Copr.®West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt.works WESTLAW • 151 So. 321 Page 2 (Cite as: 112 Fla. 807, 151 So. 321) 150k239 foreclose liens. F.S.A. § 170.01 et seq.; On general demurrer, allegations of ultimate Sp.Acts 1925, c. 11300, § 2. facts in answer to bill must be taken as true (Acts 1929, c. 13660, amending *809 **322 Appeal from Circuit Court, Polk Rev.Gen.St.1920, § 3124). County;H. C. Petteway,judge. [12] MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS A. E. Kay, of Jacksonville, •and T. Paine C 2 567(4) Kelly, of Tampa,for appellant. 268k567(4) In suit to foreclose paving assessment liens, Henry L. Jollay, of Winter Haven, for railroad's answer showing by allegations of appellee. ultimate facts that city's application of front foot plan resulted in unjust discrimination and DAVIS, Chief Justice. confiscation of railroad's property without due process held not demurrable. F.S.A. § 170.01 These three appeals by the Atlantic Coast et seq.; Sp.Acts 1925, c. 11300, § 2; Acts Line Railroad Company present the question 1929, c. 13660, amending Rev.Gen.St.1920, § whether or not, under the circumstances set 3124. up in an affirmative answer interposed to bills of complaint brought to foreclose certain [13] MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS unpaid street paving assessment liens imposed C> 469(1) by the city of Winter Haven, the railroad 268k469(1) company is entitled to judicially resist the City is not limited to strict adherence to front foreclosure of the liens, in so far as they are foot rule in every apportionment of benefits sought to be enforced under an application of made by it. F.S.A. § 170.01 et seq.; Sp.Acts the so called 'front foot' rule as a measure of 1925, c. 11300, § 2. determining the benefits to the burdened railroad property, occasioned by the street [14] MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS paving improvement. C=. 562(1) 268k562(1) The material portions of the railroad In suit to foreclose special assessment liens, company's answer, to which a general defendant may, in absence of waiver or laches, demurrer [FN11 interposed by complainant plead substantial and fatal errors of judgment was *810 sustained by the chancellor, were by city in apportionment of benefits. F.S.A. § allegations to the following effect: That, in 170.01 et seq.; Sp.Acts 1925, c. 11300, § 2. making the assessment upon which the city's lien was entered, the city had not undertaken [15] MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS to assess the special benefits received by the C. 567(4) railroad company's property on the basis of, 268k567(4) and giving consideration to, the peculiar In suit to foreclose special assessment liens, character and use to which such assessed answer showing excessive apportionment of property had been dedicated by the railroad benefits, as distinguished from void company as a public service corporation; that assessment, should be allowed to stand. defendant's business was that of an interstate F.S.A. § 170.01 et seq.; Sp.Acts 1925, c. railroad carrier affected with a public interest, 11300, § 2. but the city had made its assessment of such property simply by dividing the total cost of [16] MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS the street improvement by the total lineal C=, 570(2) front footage of the railroad property on the 268k570(2) street improved, thereby applying to the If special improvement liens were validly assessment of the railroad property the same entered, but for excessive amounts, excess is 'front foot'rule that it had followed in making subject to judicial annulment in suits to assessments against owners of other kinds of Copr. a West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S.govt. works WESTLAW 151 So. 321 Page 3 (Cite as: 112 Fla. 807, *810, 151 So. 321, **322) property abutting, abounding, adjoining, or Acts of 1925, Laws of Florida, and chapter contiguous to the street improvement, such as 9298, Acts of 1923. The bill of complaint was that devoted to use for mercantile businesses not defective in form or substance to set up an and the like; that the railroad company had equitable right under such statutes. Therefore duly protested against such manner of the defendant's general demurrer to the bill of assessment of its railroad properties, and had complaint was properly overruled. duly notified the city that it would contest the legality of any certificate of indebtedness or So the question to be decided on this appeal other assessment which the city might make recurs on the proposition: 'Did the railroad by its arbitrarily following the 'front foot' company's answer to the bill of complaint rule; that the city, through its governing body, show an equitable defense to it sufficient to did not make any attempt to ascertain the withstand the general demurrer to such special benefits, if any, resulting to the answer filed by the complainant city.' railroad property by reason of the making of the street improvement, but had sought to [1][2] The finally accepted statement of the impose upon the railroad company, as an law of this state on the subject of municipal abutting property owner, as assessment for special assessments of railroad properties for benefits solely in proportion to its front foot- part of the costs of street improvements, made age on the street being improved, despite the under chapter 9298, Acts of 1923, supra, is to fact that all of the assessed railroad company's be found in the opinion written by Mr. Justice abutting property was used exclusively for Strum for this court in the course of his railroad purposes and solely for a right of way rendition of this court's ultimate decision on for the carriage of goods, wares, and the'merits of the appeal dealt with in the case merchandise as a public carrier upon its line of Atlantic *812 Coast Line R. Co. v. City of of railroad *811 from Richmond, Va., to Lakeland, 94 Fla. 347, text 386, 115 So. 669, Bartow, Fla., and beyond; that the improved text 683. streets and avenues intersected the railroad company's right of way at right angles, and In that case it was held that the 'front-foot' that the railroad company had caused to be plan of apportionment of cost of municipal built and constructed, entirely **323 at its street improvements, assessed against own expense, crossings of an adequate nature abutting properties alleged to have been at said intersections;that the improved streets specially benefited by the improvements, is, and thoroughfares in question were the main within itself, a valid exercise of the legislative public thoroughfares of the city of Winter power to make and spread such special Haven, and that, although the railroad assessments, and that the plan may be utilized company's right of way properties abutted on even as against the abu- • properties of the improved streets, the nature of the railroad companies. But it was also railroad property was such that it was not way of limitation on the power admitted to susceptible of special benefits as contemplated exist that such plan, when actually applied to in the city's scheme of assessments for the railroad properties, would be recognized by the costs of the improvements to the streets, hence courts as conclusive only so long as the special the liens predicated on such assessments were and peculiar benefits inuring to the railroad and are unenforceable and incapable of being property required to bear the burden of a foreclosed against the railroad company. 'front foot rule' assessment are substantially proportionate and equal to the charge laid FN1 At the time this ruling was made, the statutes against such property to pay for the provided for demurrers to answers in chancery. See improvement, and provided that, in the chapter 13660, Acts of 1929, amending section utilization of the 'front foot' plan, and in its. 3124, Rev. Gen. Stats. execution, the essential requirements by the Constitution and of the statutes are observed, The bill of complaint shows that the liens and no abuse of the delegated power appears. were imposed under chapter 11300, Special Copr. a West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works WESTLAW 151 So. 321 Page 4 (Cite as: 112 Fla. 807, *812, 151 So. 321, **323) [3][4] The view usually taken on the subject determine whether or not the property as to what property is subject to .special assessed to pay the cost of a local assessment for public improvements is the one improvement is benefited by such from the standpoint of enhancement in the improvement is legislative, not judicial. Speer market or utility value of the real property v. Mayor, etc., of City of Athens, 85 Ga. 49, 11 affected. If specially assessed property is, or S. E. 802, 9 L. R. A. 402; Sheley v. Detroit, 45 may be, enhanced in value by the Mich. 431, 8 N. W. 52; Moody & Co. v. improvement when made, it is subject to an Spotorno, 112 La. 1008, 36 So. 836; King v. assessment in proportion to the benefits it will City *814 of Portland, 38 Or. 402, 63 P. 2, 55 likely receive from the execution of the work. L. R. A. 812. And generally the determination And, in determining probably the work. And, of a **324 city governing authority that in determining probably the locality as a abutting property on the line of'a strict whole in which the improvement is to be made improvement, assessed by authority of statute may be taken into consideration in making an 'in proportion to its front footage, has received apportionment of benefits to the individual special benefits equal to the assessments, is properties situate therein. It is *813 on this conclusive against all collateral attacks. theory that a railway contiguous to a proposed Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Taber, street improvement has been, in almost all the 168 Ind. 419, 77 N. E. 741, 11 Ann. Cas. 808; •) , American jurisdictions, held subject to Hammett v. Philadelphia, 65 Pa. 146, 3 Am. imposition of special benefit assessments for Rep. 615; Allen v. City of Galveston, 51 Tex. its proportion of the costs of constructing 302;Daily v. Swope, 47 Miss. 367. special street improvements, since it is recognized that a line of railroad serving a [8]But it is also equally well recognized that municipality whose population will likely be a local assessment may so transcend the limits enlarged, and whose volume of business may of equality and reason that its exaction would be increased through such improvements, will cease to be a tax or contribution, and become necessarily receive an indirect benefit through extortion and confiscation, in which cases it enhancement in the value of its line in that then becomes the duty of the courts to protect locality, although the direct benefit to the the person or corporation assessed from immediate contiguous property itself may be robbery under color'of a better name. Allen v. comparatively small. Davis v. City of Drew, 44 Vt. 174; Sands v. City of Richmond, '—Clearwater, 104 Fla. 42, 139 So. 825; Atlantic 31 Grat. (72 Va.) 571, 31 Am. Rep. 742; Coast Line R. Co. v. City of Gainesville, 83 Broadway Baptist Church v. McAtee, 8 Bush Fla. 275, 91 So. 118, 29 A. L. R. 668. See, also, (Ky.) 508, 8 Am. Rep. 480; King v. City of note to Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. Portland, supra. v. Minot, 37 A. L. R. 221; 25 R. C. L. 117; Northern Indiana R. Co. v. Connelly, 10 Ohio [9] The theory of the law which justifies an St. 159; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. City of assessment for street paving to be determined Seattle, 46 Wash. 674, 91 P. 244, 12 L. R. A. ' strictly on the basis of the 'front foot rule' as a (N. S.) 121, 123 Am. St. Rep. 955; Chicago,M. permissible means of apportionment of cost is & St. P. R. Co. v. City of Janesville, 137 Wis. undoubtedly as soundly applicable to railroad 7, 118 N. W. 182, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1124, and rights of way properties as a premissible notes. legislative plan of cost apportionment as it is to other classes of property not belonging to, [5][6][7] It is for the Legislature and not the or used for,railroads. judiciary to'determine whether the expense of a public improvement shall be borne by the But, as this court has pointed out, the 'front whole community, or by the district or foot' plan, while not inherently an unjust and neighborhood immediately benefited. Raleigh inequitable method of arriving at an v. Peace, 110 N. C. 32, 14 S. E. 521, 17 L. R. apportionment of costs, may prove such a plan A. 330;'Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 548, 17 S. in actual practice as against railroad Ct. 966, 42 L. Ed. 270. And the power to properties. For example, a railroad company, Copr. ©West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works • WESTLAW • 161 So. 321 Page 5 (Cite as: 112 Fla.807, *814, 151 So. 321, **324) from its very nature, in all likelihood would cases, the governing authority adopted the not derive any special benefit at all from *815 'front footage' rule as the method of a mere paving project carried out in a remote determining and prorating benefits. subdivision, in a sparsely settled section of a small town; also its tracks and properties [10] According to the facts set up in the connected therewith may be abutting to all answer of the railroad company, the the streets that are ordered paved and paid for application of the 'front footage' rule to its by means of a special assessment levied properties involved in these cases, dedicated to against the abutting, specially benefited public use solely for railroad purposes in properties. On the other hand, the paving of a carrying on its transportation business street in a developed section of a city, abutting through the city of Winter Haven, amounts to the railroad's rights of way and tracks in such an abuse of power by the governing authority developed business center, may so add to the of the city, in that the application of such rule surrounding property values, and so improve to its properties results in an arbitrary the general business values of real estate in imposition of a burden not at all based on any the vicinity, including the business value of just proportion of benefits that it could the railroad line at that point, as to warrant possibly derive from the execution of the work an assessment on the abutting railroad involved in the improvement for which properties of exactly the same kind and assessments have been spread. character as might be placed against other kinds of property abutting the improvement. The answer further shows that the railroad company promptly protested against the So the polestar for deciding every case like method of assessment adopted, and that from that here presented is a determination the very first it made known to the city whether or not the special and peculiar officials that it would resist as unlawful and benefits inuring to the property required to unjust to it the imposition of any assessment bear a special assessment for the entire costs whatsoever against its properties, if based on of a local street improvement have been an application of the 'front footage' rule that substantially, proportionally, and equally laid the city had adopted for application to other and spread against all of the properties that abutting properties. may be required to pay. a specially assessed part of the cost of the improvement made. So the railroad company is not guilty of laches,nor estopped in its defense,by a failure Section 2 of chapter 11300, Special Acts of to object before the work was done, because it 1925, Laws of Florida(similar to chapter 9298, did object to the fullest extent of which it was • Acts of 1923, the general law on the same capable, short of instituting litigation of an subject), provides that special assessments affirmative character, in advance of the city's may be made by the governing authority of attempt to enforce its assessments against it Winter Haven against properties deemed to be in a suit in which it is required by the statute specially benefited, in proportion to the to be made defendant. **325 So the doctrine of benefits to be derived therefrom, said special Abell v. Town of Boynton, 95 Fla. 984, 117 benefits to be determined and prorated So. *817 507, is not preclusive of the defense according to the front footage of the respective that was attempted to be interposed in this properties specially benefited by the case, in so far as estoppel and laches is improvement 'or by such other method as the concerned. governing body of the municipality may prescribe.' The issue and sale of bonds on the strength of these particular assessments was done by *816 The record shows that, as concerns all the city of Winter Haven subject to the the property assessed by the city of Winter general liability of the municipality on such Haven with respect to the improvement for bonds, should the special assessments, or any which special assessments were made in these • of them, either be not imposed or be not Copr. °West 1997 No claim to orig.U.S. govt. works WESTLAW 151 So. 321 Page 6 (Cite as: 112 Fla. 807, *817, 151 So. 321, **325) collected in season. Section 11, chapter 11300, be no defense. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. supra. Under section 14 of the same act, it is City of Lakeland, 94 Fla. text 397, 115 So. also provided that, if any attempted 669, supra. This is so because, as was held in assessment be vacated or annualled by the the case just cited, the power of the legislative judgment of any court, the city should have authority is not measured or limited by what power to take all necessary steps to cause a is fair, just, equitable, or reasonable in a new assessment to be made in accordance with practical sense, when that authority, by law. Thus section 14 of the act is a statutory competent action, and without any abuse of recognition of the rights of protestants to power, has been fit to impose the burden of object, and to seek to have corrected in the assessments, unfair in a practical sense, but courts, alleged• abuses of power and not in excess of the permissive power substantial errors claimed to have been exercised. committed by the governing authority of the city in the unvarying application of the 'front So the answers in the cases now before us, as footage' rule universally and without we construe them, go beyond a mere challenge exception to all properties, including those of the wisdom, fairness, or policy of othe city's properties so situated that the application of governing authority in its execution of the the rule to them might, and likely does,result powers conferred upon the city of Winter in a burden substantially in excess of any Haven by chapter 11300, Special Acts of 1925, special or peculiar benefit reasonably expected and chapter 9298, Acts of 1923. Therefore the to be derived from the improvement. answers contained a substantially good equitable defense that should not have been [11][12] Construed as an entirety (although held bad on the demurrers of the complainant it is no model of good equity pleading on the thereto. propositions attempted to be asserted as defenses to the foreclosures), the answer of the [13] Under chapter 11300, Special Acts of defendant railroad company in each of these 1925, the power of the city of Winter Haven to cases sets up sufficient allegations of ultimate make apportionments of cost as a basis for facts from which it can be discerned, if the special benefit assessments was not limited to allegations are taken as true (as the general strict adherence to the 'front footage' rule as demurrer admits them to be), that a burden to every apportionment of benefits made by it. amounting to an unjust discrimination in a It was within the *819 power of the city's legal sense, and amounting to confiscation of governing authority to employ a different rule the railroad company's properties without of apportionment in dealing with specially *818 due process of law, may follow the situated properties, such as railroad inflexible. utilization by the city of Winter properties, if the facts, circumstances, and Haven of the statutory plan by which conditions of such specially situated properties substantially the whole cost of paving the required the employment of some other abutting streets was imposed upon the apportionment method, in order to avoid the • abutting properties, including without resultant imposition of an excessive or modification the railroad properties of the unlawful burden on properties of such peculiar defendant, that the answer alleges to be use, character, and situation that the 'front differently affected and differently benefited, footage' rule could not lawfully be applied to if at all, by the improvement than the other them in the particular instance. properties abutting on the identical street paving. [14] When not barred by waiver or lathes, substantial and fatal errors of judgment The mere fact that the answer might alleged to have been committed by a city in complain of the imposition of,a burden which executing to delegated statutory power to is simply unfair in a practical sense, but not determine and apportion benefits as a basis for amounting to unjust discrimination or special assessments for public improvements confiscation in a legal sense, would admittedly may be set up in defense to the attempted Copr. °West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works WESTLA\V 151 So. 321 Page 7 (Cite as: 112 Fla. 807, *819, 151 So. 321, **325) foreclosure by the municipality of the this opinion. particular special assessment liens into which it is fully alleged such fatal and substantial Reversed, with directions. errors of judgment have been carried, in the course of the municipality's having the WHITFIELD, TERRELL, and BUFORD, amounts of the liens determined and entered JJ., concur. of record as charges to be enforced against the specially benefited properties by foreclosure of ELLIS, J., concurs specially as per opinion such liens. attached. [15] And, even though a defense as set up in BROWN, J., absent and not participating on an answer may go only to the extent of account of illness. showing an excessive apportionment of benefits, as distinguished from an ELLIS,Justice(concurring). apportionment unauthorized and void in its entirety if the answer be taken as true, the I agree to the conclusion reached in this case answer should be allowed to stand, and to on the authority of the decision in Atlantic avail the defendant in the foreclosure as far as Coast Line R. Co. v. City of Lakeland, 94 Fla. in law and equity it ought to avail him. 347, 115 So. 669, 678, and the opinion prepared by me when that case was .first [16] Courts of equity, when called upon to submitted and on the rehearings and the enforce by foreclosure proceedings statutory opinion of Mr. Justice Brown, text 399 of 94 municipal improvement liens imposed on Fla., 115 So. 687, 688. property for special assessments to pay the **326 cost of public improvements, must The answer in the instant case sets up, a enforce the liens for the *820 amounts for clear defense to the attempted exercise of the which they were entered, if the liens were power by the city of Winter Haven. The views entered by the municipality in strict expressed in those opinions are not out *821 of accordance with the terms of, and procedure harmony with the defense set up in the required by, the statute authorizing them. answer which avers that the city had not But, if the liens be found to have been undertaken to assess the special benefits lawfully entered, but for amounts in excess of received by the railroad company;that the city the constitutional powers of the governing had made its assessments simply by dividing authority of the city as applied to the facts of the total cost of the street improvement by the the particular case before the court for total lineal front footage of the railroad consideration, the excess only is subject to property; the city not only did not assess, but judicial annullment or restraint, since, in refused to ascertain what special benefit, if granting relief of this kind, the courts are any, accrued to the railroad property, and that exercising judicial power to the extent only of the nature of the property was such that it was protecting property rights from, unjustified not susceptible of special benefits as exactions and extortions, not as a means of contemplated in the city's scheme of interfering with that which was done within assessments. the limits of power conferred. In Mr. Justice Whitfield's concurring The decrees appealed from are reversed, opinion in that case he said: A 'special with directions to overrule the demurrer to the assessment must not be arbitrarily imposed or answers, permit the answers to be reformed to apportioned even if property is specially present the defense attempted to be asserted benefited by the improvement.' Mr. Justice therein by repleading the same in the form Strum concurred in that opinion, and Mr. required by the 1931 Chancery Act(Acts 1931, ' Justice Strum's opinion, referred to in the c. 14658), and to thereafter have such further majority opinion in this case, was on the proceedings as may not be inconsistent with question whether a petition for a rehearing Copr. ©West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works mimmommEmi WESTLAW 151 So. 321 Page 8 (Cite as: 112 Fla. 807, *821, 151 So. 321, **326) should be granted. A reconsideration of the case on its merits was not before the court and not necessary to be made. Mr. Justice Brown, in an able opinion, concurring in the views of the writer, said: 'Both the statute and the construction given to it by the court in this case indicate that abutting property cannot be assessed for the cost of street improvements in- excess of the special benefits conferred.' In the original opinion in the Lakeland Case the writer said that chapter 9298, Laws of 1923, under which the assessment was made in that case, was not inconsistent with the doctrine recognized by this state 'that whatever assessments may be made against private property for local public improvements must rest upon a proper and fair consideration of the special benefits flowing to the property abutting upon or adjoining the improved street.' The answer in this case affirmatively shows that there was no 'proper and fair consideration' of the special benefit flowing to the property abutting upon the improved street. The majority opinion in this case holds the answer to be diffident and in that conclusion I agree. • END OF DOCUMENT Copr. ©West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S."govt. works mEmeima WESTLAW • - Shepard's PAGE 1 Date of Printing: JAN 11, 97 SHEPARD'S Citations to: 151 So. 321 Coverage: View coverage information for this result Headnote Analysis Citation No. Same Text ( 112 Fla. 807) Same Text ( 114 Fla. xxv) 153 So. at 843 181 So. 383 , 384 3 2 So. 2d 879, 882 3 D Distinguished 53 So. 2d 875, 880 55 So. 2d at 914 10 219 So.2d 417, 419 3 293 So.2d 781, 783 8 293 So.2d 781, 783 16 385 So.2d 1069, 1071 8 D Distinguished 385 So. 2d 1069, 1072 10 444 So.2d 37, 38 3 114 Fla. 350, 351 132 Fla. 406, 408 3 147 Fla. 445, 453 3 33 F1a. Supp. at 190 Idaho 720 P. 2d 197, 203 Wyo 247 P. 2d 660, 661 Copyright (C) 1997 Shepard's; Copyright (C) 1997 West Publishing Co. • WESTLAW 288 So.2d 291. Page 1 (Cite as: 288 So.2d 291) FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY The railroad sought to have the city enjoined COMPANY, Appellant, from collecting certain special assessments v. levied against the railroad's property for CITY OF HALLANDALE, a municipal sanitary sewer benefits. A summary corporation organized under the laws of judgment was entered in favor of the city. Florida, Appellee. Several years before the present suit was No. 73-43. filed, the City of Hallandale, acting pursuant to F.S. Chapter 170, F.S.A., created 'Sanitary District Court of Appeal of Florida,Fourth Sewage Improvement District No. 3' the area District. improved being described as: 'All that area west of Federal Highway(U.S. Jan. 18, 1974. No. 1) East of the Florida East Coast Railway, and bounded on the north and on Railroad brought suit to enjoin city from the south by the corporate limits of the City collecting certain special assessments levied of Hallandale.' (Emphasis Supplied.) against the railroad's property for sanitary In due course, the area within the district sewer benefits. The Broward County Circuit specially benefited by the improvement was Court, Louis Weissing, J., entered summary assessed and the improvement completed. In judgment in favor of city, and railroad every instance of a resolution or notice, the appealed. The District Court of Appeal, property within the improvement district to be Owen, C.J., held that a material issue of fact assessed was described as above set forth. existed as to whether the two parcels in Appellant's two parcels were assessed question were part of railroad right-of-way, $4,988.02 and$524.95,respectively. precluding entry of summary judgment. (1)[2] Appellant's suit sought (1) a Reversed and remanded. determination that such assessments were • invalid and(2) an injunction against the city's [1] MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS efforts to collect the same. The two parcels € 425(1) assessed were each 50 feet in width, one 268k425(1) extending 1250 feet south of Hallandale Beach Railroad property other than its right-of-way Boulevard, and the other extending 130 feet is subject to special assessments where it is north of the same street, both parcels being specially benefited by a public improvement west of Federal Highway (U.S. No. 1) And immediately east of the railroad's tracks [2] JUDGMENT C=, 181(32) within the corporate limits of the City of 228k181(32) Hallandale. The issue was (and remains) 44. In suit by railroad to enjoin city from whether the description used in the collecting certain special assessments levied resolutions and notices included or excluded against railroad's property for sanitary sewer these two parcels. The parties are in accord benefits, a genuine issue of material fact that the description was not intended to existed as to whether the two parcels in dude the railroad's right-of-way, as such question were part of railroad right-of-way, generally would not be subject to special precluding entry of summary judgment. assessment for local improvement benefits. At the same time, appellant concedes that *292 E. R. Buzard, St. Augustine, for railr oad property other than the right-of-way of pp► A, appellant. is subject to special assessments where it is specially u c unprovemenL. Charles A.Finkel, Hallandale,for appellee. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. City of. 11413 , _ Gainesville, 1922, 83 Fla. 275, 91 So. 118. A k4 ,ie OWEN, Chief Judge. Thus, the issue is narrowed to whether the ptpuGi tea; two parcels in question were a part of the o F sratter Copr. ®West 1997 No claim to orig.U.S. govt. works WESTLAW 288 So.2d 291. . Page 2 (Cite as: 288 So.2d 291, *292) railroad right-of-way. We are of the opinion. that this is factual question. In support of its motion for summary judgment,the city offered in evidence a plat of the area and the affidavit of the city clerk to establish that this particular property consisted of a block of lots adjacent to the right-of-way, which lots were available for use for depot or other commercial *293 or . industrial uses. Opposing such was the evidence offered by the appellant railroad including its valuation maps, property returns to the Florida Department of Revenue, and affidavit of one of its officials from which it could be inferred that the property was, in fact, a part of the right-of-way. There was thus presented a genuine issue of a material fact. While the trial court might have been justified in concluding that the appellee's evidence was more persuasive on the issue, nonetheless disposition of the case via summary judgment was error. Reversed and remanded for father proceedings. WALDEN and CROSS, JJ., concur. END OF DOCUMENT Copr. ©West 1997 No claim to orig..U.S. govt. works WESTLAW • 91 So. 118 Page 1 29 A.L.R. 668 (Cite as: 83 Fla. 275, 91 So. 118) ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. matter of street paving, it is presumed or v. assumed that all property abutting on a street CITY OF GAINESVILLE. to be improved will be benefited, and upon that theory such special assessments are Supreme Court of Florida. permitted without having to establish that the property will be benefited. Feb. 22, 1922. 4.Municipal corporations a 438 Suit by the City of Gainesville against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. From Street improvement assessments are upheld a decree for the complainant and from orders on the ground that adjacent property is overruling the demurrer to the bill and enhanced in value equal to amount of sustaining exceptions to certain portions of the assessment. Assessments for street answer, the defendant appeals. improvements are upheld on the ground that the adjacent property upon which the cost of Decree reversed. the improvement is assessed is enhanced in value to an equal amount to the sum assessed (Syllabus by the Court.) against it, and that the owners have_received a peculiar benefit which the citizens do not 1. Municipal corporations 425(1) share in common. City may charge railroad's property 5. Constitutional law C= 70(3) abutting street with proportionate part of paving expense. A city may charge a railroad's Whether abutting property owners will be property that abuts, fronts, or borders on the benefited by street improvements is a side of a street with its proportionate part of legislative question. Whether the owners of the expense of paving the street upon which property abutting on a street will or will not such property abuts,fronts, or borders. be benefited by street improvements is a legislative and not a judicial question. 2. Municipal corporations€ 425(4) 6. Constitutional law€ ' 70(1) Railroad assessed for paving between rails cannot be further assessed for proportionate Municipal corporations« 495 part of remaining paving cost. Where a railroad whose tracks run longitudinally Courts will protect the constitutional rights through the center of a street has been of landowners from arbitrary legislative action assessed the cost of paving between the rails of levying special assessments for street its track and for two feet on either side, it improvements. Where there has been an cannot be further assessed for a proportionate arbitrary and unwarranted exercise of the part of the residue of the cost of paving the legislative power to declare that certain street. property will necessarily be benefited by street improvements, or where there has been some 3. Municipal corporations 439 denial of the equal protection of the laws in the method of exercising it, the courts are Property abutting street may be taxed for open to protect the constitutional rights of paving without establishing that the property landowners from arbitrary and wholly will be benefited. The theory of special unwarranted legislative action. assessments for improvements is based upon the, doctrine that the property against which CONSTITUTIONAL LAW a 70.1(12) the assessment is levied derives some special 92k70.1(12) benefit from the local improvement. In the Where there has been an arbitrary and Copr. ®West 1997 No claim to orig.U.S. govt. works WESTLAW 91 So. 118 Page 2 (Cite as: 83 Fla. 275, 91 So. 11S) unwarranted.exercise of the legislative power property upon which the cost of the to declare that certain property will improvement is assessed is enhanced in value necessarily be benefited by street to an equal amount to the sum assessed improvements, or where there has been some against it, and that the owners have received denial of the equal protection of the laws in a peculiar benefit which the citizens do not the method of exercising it, the courts are share in common. open to protect the constitutional rights of landowners from arbitrary and wholly MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS a 439 unwarranted legislative action. 268k439 The theory of special improvements is based MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS €ram 495 on the benefit from the improvement derived 268k495 by the property assessed, and it is presumed or Where there has been an arbitrary and assumed that all property abutting on a street' unwarranted exercise of the legislative power will be benefited by its improvement, and to declare that certain property will upon that theory special assessments are necessarily be benefited by street permitted without having to establish that the improvements, or where there has been some property will be benefited. denial of the equal protection of the laws in the method of exercising it, the courts are **118 *276 Appeal from Circuit Court, open to protect the constitutional rights of Alachua County;James T. Wills,judge. landowners from arbitrary and wholly unwarranted legislative action. R. A. Burford, of Ocala, and W. E. Kay, of Jacksonville,for appellant. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW€ 70.3(14) 92k70.3(14) - . Robert E. Davis, of Gainesville, for appellee. Whether the owners of property abutting on a street will or will not be benefited by street BROWNE, C. J. improvements is a legislative and not a judicial question. The city of Gainesville, acting under the provisions of an amendment to its charter MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS = 425(1) approved June 6, 1911, sought to impose upon 268k425(1) the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, A city may charge a railroad's property that whose tracks extend longitudinally .along a abuts, fronts, or borders on the side of a street part of West Main street in that city, the with its proportionate part of.the expense of burden of paying all the cost of paving paving the street upon which such property between its rails and for two feet on each side abuts,fronts, or borders. thereof, and also a proportionate amount of the remaining cost of the paving. The railroad MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS a 425(4) company voluntarily paid the cost of paving 268k425(4) between the rails of its track and for two feet Where a railroad whose tracks run on each side thereof, amounting to over longitudinally through the center of a street $8,800, .but refused to pay the special has been assessed the cost of paving between assessment of $19,624.61 as a proportionate the rails of its track and for two feet on either part of the remaining cost. The city thereupon side, it cannot be further assessed for a sought to enforce the payment of the proportionate part of the residue of the cost of $19,624.61, with interest and attorney's fees, paving the street. by bill in equity. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS a 438 A demurrer, setting up several defenses, 268k438 among which is the unconstitutionality of the Assessments for street improvements are act of the Legislature amending the charter of upheld on the ground that the adjacent the city'of Gainesville in 1911, was overruled. Copr. ©West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works WESTLAW 91 So. 118 Page 3 (Cite as: 83 Fla. 275, *276, 91 So. 118, **118) The defendant then filed its answer, portions railroad track or tracks *278 are extended *277 of which were stricken on motion of the or laid longitudinally along any portion of complainant. The cause was heard on an any street, between and within the agreed statement of facts. boundaries thereof, such track shall,for the purposes of this section,be held and treated A final decree in favor of the complainant as property fronting or abutting upon the was entered, from which, and the orders said street, and entitled to be assessed for overruling the demurrer to the bill and such proportion of the costs of grading, sustaining exceptions to certain portions of the paving, or improving said street on each answers, an appeal was taken to this court. side of such railroad track or tracks as any other property fronting or abutting upon [1][2] The appellant contends that the said street, without regard to the.character amendment to the city charter, and the of ownership, title, or possession of the ordinance enacted under it, whereby it is owner or owners of said railroad tracks in sought to charge the railroad:company with a the soil upon which the same is laid and proportionate part of the expense of paving constructed.' **119 West Main street in addition to the cost of paving between the rails of its tracks and In 1912 the city of Gainesville adopted an for two feet on each side thereof, are violative ordinance providing for the paving of certain of section 12 of the Declaration of Rights of parts of West Main street, over which the the Florida Constitution, and of section 1 of main line of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad the Fourteenth Amendment to the runs longitudinally in about the center of the Constitution of the United States, in that it street,for the entire distance of the paving. seeks to deprive the defendant of its property without due process of law, and denies to the It also provided: defendant the equal protection of the laws, 'In making the assessment of the cost of and as against the appellant such acts are said paving the Atlantic Coast Line unconstitutional and void. Railroad Company, a corporation using and occupying a railroad track and right of way If the assignments of error raising these along the middle of said street, shall pay questions are upheld, it would be idle to the cost of the paving between the rails of discuss the other questions presented, as there its said track and for a distance of two feet is no use lopping off branches, when it is on each side thereof, and shall also be necessary to destroy the tree at its root. assessed as the owner of property fronting or abutting upon each side of said street in The amendment to the charter of the city of the same proportion as other property • Gainesville approved June 6, 1911, from abutting or fronting upon said street shall which the city seeks to derive authority for be assessed for the cost of such work.' charging the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad with one-third of the cost of the pavement in The question here presented does not 711Is addition to the cost of paving between its embrace the right of a city to charge a rail- ��s6 as tracks and for two feet on each side thereof, is road's right of way that abuts or borders on a N oT as follows: street, with its proportionate part of the *279 APPuceB 'Every railroad crossing any street shall be expense of paving the street upon which the required to pay the costs of paving between right of way fronts, abuts, or borders. Such a the rails of each of its tracks and two feet right seems well established. Peru & on each side thereof, and where any Indianapolis R. R. Co. v. Hanna, 68 Ind. 562; railroad track or tracks are extended or Indianapolis & V. Ry. Co. v. Capitol Pay. & laid along or side of any street, such tracks Const. Co., 24 hid. App. 114, 54 N. E. 1076; shall, for the purposes of this act, be held Paterson & H. R. R. Co. v. City of Passaic, 54 and treated as property fronting or N. J. Law, 340, 23 Atl. 945; Northern Pac. R. abutting upon said street; and where any Co. v. City of Seattle, 46 Wash. 674, 91 Pac. Copr. ©West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works 11111 WESTLAW 91 So. 118 Page 4 (Cite as:83 Fla. 275, *279, 91 So. 118, **119) 244, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 121, 123 Am. St. Rep. of and control over it, while in this case the 955. This is questioned in some jurisdictions. general public still have the use and do use Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. City of the entire street. The right of way in that Milwaukee, 89 Wis. 506, 62 N. W. 417, 28 L. case was perpetual, while here it is for only R. A. 249. a limited time. The land in that case was to all intents and purposes the railway In Northern Pac. R. Co. v. City of Seattle, company's property, while here the fee, as supra, which is relied on strongly by the well as the right of control, belong to appellee, the railroad company had an others. Other **120 differences between abutting right of way varying from 60 to 100 the cases will readily occur to the mind,but feet in width, with a single track located on these are sufficient to show the want of the side adjacent to the street. This property, similarity between them.' City of Seattle v. like any other property situated on the side of Seattle Electric Co., 48 Wash. 599, 94 Pac. the street and abutting thereon, would 194, 15 L.R. A.(N. S.)486. unquestionably be subject to the paving assessment; but it was urged that, as it had The authorities hold with great unanimity been granted to the railroad as a right of way, that, where a railroad track runs it was not subject to be so assessed. The court longitudinally through the center of the street, said: it is not subject to special assessments of 'Except for appellant's occupancy, no paving improvements on such street. Chicago, suggestion would be made that the land M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. City of Milwaukee, 89 was not benefited by the improvement, or Wis. 506, 62 N. W. 417, 28 L. R. A. 249; City that it would not be subject to the of Allegheny v. Western Pa. R. Co., 138 Pa. • assessment. The particular use of the land 375, 21 Atl. 763;Louisville& N. R. Co. v. City cannot affect its liability to assessment. of East St. Louis, 134 M. 656, 25 N. E. 962; Abutting property cannot be relieved from City of Seattle v. Seattle Electric Co., 48 the burden of a street assessment simply Wash. 599, 94 Pac. 194, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) because its owner has seen fit to devote it 486; Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Road to a use which may not be specially Improvement Dist. No. 6 of Little River benefited by the local improvement. The County, Ark., 256 U. S. 658, 41 Sup. Ct. 604, benefit is presumed to inure, not to such 65 L. Ed. 1151; Indianapolis & V. Ry. Co. v. present use, but to the property itself, Capitol Pay. & Const. Co., 24 Ind. App. 114, affecting its value.' 54 N. E. 1076. After this decision the city of Seattle sought *281 We fail to find.a case where a railroad to impose a part of the expense for street whose tracks run longitudinally through the improvements upon a street car company center of a street, and has been assessed and whose tracks extended longitudinally along paid the cost of paving between the rails of its the street, and the case of Northern Pac. R. track and for two feet on either side, has been Co. v. *280 City of Seattle, supra, was relied further assessed for a proportionate part of the on as authority. The Supreme Court of residue of the cost of paving the street. Washington, in deciding adversely to the city's contention, said: In the case of South Park Commissioners v. 'The case of Northern Pacific Railway Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co., 107 Ill. 105, the Company v. Seattle(Wash.) 91 Pac. 244, is court said: not in point here. The right of way in that 'It is apparent• from the foregoing case abutted upon the street. It was no part statement, the only question presented for of the street itself, and was not an determination is, whether 'the right of way additional burden upon the street. The of occupancy, franchises, property and right of way and track was also the private interests of the appellee, in Michigan property of the railroad company in the Avenue, are, within the meaning of the sense that the company alone had the use acts above cited, 'contiguous property Copr. °West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt.works immummi WESTLAW 91 So. 118 Page 5 (Cite as: 83 Fla. 275, *281, 91 So. 118, **120) abutting upon such avenue,' for no other larks, cat birds, martins, bull bats, description of property is authorized to be swallows, thrushes, whippoorwills, assessed. It does seem to us the very woodpeckers and wrens, when it is a statement of this question furnishes its own matter of common knowledge of all of us solution. It is clear that nothing but some . who have had the hunting instinct well tangible object or thing can, with propriety, developed and have been observers of wild be said to abut on a street or avenue, and it life, that, all these mentioned mate and is not pretended the subject of assessment raise their young from year to year in in this case is anything of the kind. If the many instances upon the same section, if interests or rights assessed can be said to not the same forty-acre tract, and that act have any corporeal or physical existence, so has received the sanction of the Supreme that they could, with any propriety of Court of the United States in the case of language, be said to be contiguous to or Missouri v. Holland, 252 U. S. 416 [40 Sup. abutting upon anything, they must be Ct. 382]64 L. Ed. 641 [11 A. L. R. 984].' represented by the avenue itself, and, as is well said by the Appellate Court, it would With regard to the Migratory Bird Act(U. S. be a legal solecism to say the avenue was Comp. St. § 8837),this question was not before contiguous to and abutted on itself.' , the court and was not passed on. It is the contention of the city that even if it As to the Volstead Act (41 Stat. 305), the was without previous authority to assess the decision of the Supreme Court of the United railroad company for a proportionate part of States in sustaining its constitutionality is the cost of paving West Main street, in excess conclusive only on the subject of beverages, of the cost of paving between the rails of its and as to such the Volstead Act and the tracks and for two feet on each side thereof, decision of the Supreme *283 Court of the the amendment to its charter by the United States sustaining that feature of it are Legislature of 1911 gave it full power so to do. responsive to the'demand of 'the prevailing morality or strong and preponderant opinion.' *282 This presents the question of the power Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U. S. 104, of the Legislature to apply a rule of taxation, 31 Sup. Ct. 186, 55 L. Ed. 112, 32 L. R. A. (N. the only basis for which is the existence of S.) 1062, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 487. It is not certain physical conditions, to property not in authority for the proposition that legislative the same physical condition or situation. In bodies have power with regard to all physical other words,to declare a thing to be so that in facts, to declare a thing to be so which is not fact is not so. so. Another authority counsel might have cited, but did not, is that of the monk Counsel for appellee seeks to meet this Gorenflot, who at the instance of Chicot, the question in this way: Jester, solemnly christened a chicken a carp, 'In the Volstead Act, intoxicating liquor is in order that he might partake of it on Friday defined to be any liquor containing alcohol without violating his religious obligations. in excess of 1/2 of 1 per cent., when it is known by the experience of mankind that It may be contended that the amendment to liquors of an alcoholic content far greater the charter did not declare a railroad track to than the percentage mentioned are not be abutting property, but only that it should intoxicating. But the right of Congress to be assessed as abutting property. That seems fix the quantity of alcohol as declared by to be a distinction without a difference, but the Volstead Act has been sustained by the assuming there is a difference let us see where United States Supreme Court, in the case it will lead. of Rhode Island v. Palmer, 253 U. S. 350 [40 Sup. Ct. 486, 588]64 L. Ed. 946. If the Legislature may empower a city to. 'Again, Congress has declared that certain **121 assess any property within the city for birds are migratory, viz., turtle doves, field the cost of a street improvement without Copr. e West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. worksMEMEMEM WESTLAW • 91 So. 118 Page 6 (Cite as: 83 Fla. 275, *283, 91 So. 118, **121) regard to whether the property actually abuts amount not exceeding the amount of such on the street or not, by merely empowering it benefits. The owner of the property is to assess it 'as property abutting on the therefore under this theory no poorer by street,' then the Legislature could authorize a reason of the entire transaction, as the city to levy a special assessment on property assessment only takes from him the abutting on other streets than the one equivalent of part or all of the special improved. Perhaps this may be done; but, if benefit which the public improvement has property other than that actually abutting on conferred upon him; or to state it in the improved street is assessed for such another way, the special benefits conferred improvements, the presumption of benefit on him by the public improvement from the improvements which attached to land compensate him or more than compensate abutting on the street vanishes, as such an him for the amount of the assessment assessment could only be upheld by showing which *285 he .is obliged to pay.' Page & that the property derived actual benefit from Jones, Taxation by Assessment, § 11. See the improvements. authorities cited. 'Paving a street which has already been • [3] The whole theory of special assessments . acquired for the use of the public is an for improvements is based upon the doctrine improvement for which local assessments that the property against *284 which the may be levied, since it facilitates public assessment is levied derives some special travel upon such street, makes it easier, benefit from the local improvement. In the pleasanter and more economical, and gives matter of street paving, it is presumed or better access to the adjoining and abutting assumed that all property abutting on a street property, and accordingly it confers both a to be improved will or may be benefited, and general benefit to the.public at large and a upon that theory such special assessments are special benefit to the adjoining and permitted without having to establish that the abutting property owner.'Id., § 314. property will be benefited. Northern Pac. R. 'Assessments for street improvements are Co. v. City of Seattle, 46 Wash. 674, 91 Pac. upheld on the ground that the adjacent 244; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Barber Asphalt property upon which the cost of the Pav: Co., 197 U. S. 430, 25 Sup. Ct. 466, 49 L. improvement is assessed is enhanced in Ed. 819. value to an amount equal to the sum assessed against it, and that the owners [4][5] A further presentation of the have received a peculiar benefit which the authorities on this subject is illuminative: citizens do not share in common.' Quill v. 'Local assessments' 'are charges assessed . City of Indianapolis, 124 Ind. 292,text 299, against the property of some particular .300,23 N. E. 788, 791(7 L.R. A. 681). locality because that property derives some 'The true reason that property which is not special benefit from the expenditure of the benefited in an especial degree should not money collected by the assessment in be assessed is to be found in the very addition to the general benefit accruing to nature of the assessing power. The only all property or citizens of the right which the Legislature possesses by commonwealth.' Elliott on Railroads, p. virtue of its power to assess, is to assess 188. property benefited by a public 'The theory underlying the doctrine of local improvement in proportion to and not assessments of the first type, which is held exceeding the benefits conferred by such by the great majority of the courts, is that improvement. To use such a power as a the value of certain property is enhanced justification for a tax levied upon property by an improvement of a public character, which is not benefited by the improvement the property thus receiving an especial and for which the assessment is levied, would peculiar benefit; and that upon such be to attempt to support by the theory of property a part or the whole of the cost of the power of local assessment, an exaction such public improvement is assessed to an which has none of the elements of the local Copr. ®West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works WESTLAW 91 So. 118 Page 7 (Cite as: 83 Fla. 275, *285, 91 So. 118, **121) assessment. Another reason that property the cost, such determination is not not benefited cannot be assessed is found in conclusive.' Page & Jones on Taxation by the constitutional provisions which forbid Assessment, § 553,pp. 896, 897. the taking of property *286 except by due process of law.' 'Taking under guise of A special assessment for benefits is a mode taxation or of that branch of that power of of levying upon particular property and taxation known as local assessment, in charging it with a local burden, with reference defiance of the essential elements of such to the peculiar and specific benefit to such power, is a taking of property without due property by reason of the improvements. process of law.' Page & Jones on Taxation When such assessments are levied upon by Assessment, § 549. See Oregon & C. R. property bordering upon an improved street, it Co. v. City of Portland, 25 Or. 229, 35 Pac. is assumed or presumed that such abutting 452, 22 L.R. A. 713. property receives a peculiar benefit from the 'While the statements found in many of the improvements that justifies special cases would seem to imply that the contributions being paid by the abutting Legislature has sole and exclusive owner in addition to and exclusive of the discretion in the determination of this general tax which he pays as one of the question, it is nevertheless clear that there general public. 5 Corpus Juris, 819, and are some limits to such discretion. If no authorities there cited. such limits exist, the power of local assessment would be but another name for That the question of whether the owners of arbitrary exaction and confiscation. What property abutting on a street would or would these limits are is not clearly established. not be benefited by street improvements is a It may be impossible to state them in legislative, and not a judicial, question, is well accurate and precise terms. It has been said settled. Prior v. Buehler & Conney Conat. that the Legislature has a wide range of Co., 170 Mo. 439, 71 S. W. 205; Smith v. discretion in determining what property is Worcester, 182 Mass. 232, 65 N. E. 40, 59 L. especially benefited and that the courts R. A. 728; Duncan v. Ramish, 142 Cal. 686, 76 will interfere only when it is shown Pac. 661; Chicago &A. R. Co. v. City of Joliet, conclusively that the Legislature is wrong 153 Ill. 649, 39 N. E. 1077; Chicago & N. W. in making the determination which it has Ry. Co. v. Village of Elmhurst, 165 Ill. 148, 46 made. Another form of stating the N. E. 437; People ex rel. Scott v. Pitt, 169 N. restriction which exists upon the power of Y. 521, 62 N. E. 662, 58 L.R. A. 372. the Legislature to determine what property is benefited, is that the court can ignore Such special assessments, when levied on such legislative determination only in a property that actually abuts on an improved clear case. It is said to be conclusive in any street, are sustained by the courts without case admitting of a substantial difference of regard to the question of whether or not a opinion. Another form of expressing the particular piece of property abutting thereon same idea is that the question of benefit to derives any benefit from the improvements, the property owner is not a judicial upon the presumption that such property must question unless the court can plainly see necessarily be benefited, and that the benefit that no benefit can exist and this absence it derives from the improvements are peculiar of benefit is so clear as to admit of no to its *288 location as property abutting on dispute or controversy by evidence. It has the street. In determining the proportion of been said that the determination of the the expense for street improvements that each Legislature is conclusive except in abutting piece of property must bear, the city extraordinary cases presenting a manifest must adopt a fair and reasonable rule of abuse of legislative authority. If the area apportionment, and it has been held, and it is which the Legislature has *287 determined the rule in this state, that what is known as **122 to be benefited by the improvement the front-foot rule is fair and reasonable one is so small that the benefits cannot equal for distributing the expense of the Copr. ©West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works WESTLAW • 91 So. 118 Page 8 (Cite as: 83 Fla. 275, *288, 91 So. 118, **122) • improvement. Where this rule or some other Houck v. Little River Drainage District, fair and reasonable one is adopted, the act of 239 U. S. 254; Myles Salt Co. v. Iberia the city in the exercise of its legislative Drainage District, 239 U. S. 478; Gast discretion will not be disturbed by the courts. Realty Co. v. Schnider Granite Co., 240 U. But where there has been an arbitrary and S. 55. And see Bi-Metallic Investment Co. unwarranted exercise of the legislative power v. State Board of Equalization, 239 U. S. or some denial of the equal protection of the 441,445,446.)' laws in the method of exercising it, the courts 'We do not mean to say that if in fact it are open to protect the constitutional rights of were made to appear that there was an ' landowners from arbitrary and wholly arbitrary and unwarranted exercise of the unwarranted legislative action. That this view legislative power, or some denial of the is abundantly supported by the decisions of equal protection of the laws in the method the Supreme Court of the United States brief of exercising it,judicial relief would not be extracts from a few will demonstrate. accorded to parties aggrieved. The facts of this case raise no such question.' Hancock In Branson v. Bush, 251 U. S. 182, 40 Sup. v. City of Muskogee, 250 U. S. 454, text Ct. 113, 64 L. Ed. 215, it was said: 457, 39 Sup. Ct.528, 530(63 L. Ed. 1081). 'The subject was carefully re-examined and 'We do not understand this to mean that the law restated in cases so recent as . ' there may not be cases of such flagrent Wagner v. Baltimore, 239 U. S. 207, and abuse of legislative power as would Houck v. Little River Drainage District, warrant the intervention of a court of 239 U. S. 254, with the result that the rule equity to protect the constitutional rights as we have stated it was approved, with the of landowners, because of arbitrary and qualification, which was before implied, wholly unwarranted legislative action. The that the legislative determination can be constitutional protection against assailed under the Fourteenth Amendment deprivation of property without due process only where the legislative action is of law would certainly be available to 'arbitrary and wholly unwarranted,' 'a persons arbitrarily deprived of their flagrant abuse, and by reason of its private rights by such *290 state action, arbitrary character is mere confiscation of whether under the guise of legislative particular property.' And see Withnell v. authority or otherwise.' Wagner, Inc., v. Ruecking Construction Co., 249 U. S. 63, Baltimore City, 239 U. S. 207, text 219, 36 69; Hancock v. Muskogee, 250 U. S. 454, Sup. Ct. 66, 70(60 L. Ed. 230). 457; Embree v. Kansas City Road District, 'But as is implied by Houck v. Little River 240 U. S. 242,250. Drainage District if the law is of such a 'The decisions relied upon by the company, character that there is no reasonable Norwood v. *289 Baker, 172 U. S. 269; presumption that substantial justice Myles Salt Co. v. Iberia Drainage District, generally will be done, but the probability 239 U. S. 478; Gast Realty Co. v. Schneider is that the parties will be taxed Granite Co., _240 U. S. 55, are not in disproportionately to each other and to conflict with the rule but plainly fall **123 the benefit conferred the law cannot within, and are illustrations of, the stand against the complaint of one so taxed qualification of it.' in fact.' Gast Realty Co. v. Schneider Granite Co., 240 U. S. 55, 36 Sup. Ct: 254, In Embree v. Kansas City & Liberty 60 L. Ed. 523. Boulevard Road Dist., 240 U. S. 242, 36 Sup. Ct. 317, 60 L. Ed. 624, it was said: [6] The Atlantic Coast Line Railroad's 'A legislative act of this nature can be _ roadbed and tracks not being property successfully called in question only when it abutting on West Main street, the is so devoid of any reasonable basis as to be presumption which attaches to abutting essentially arbitrary and an abuse of property, that by reason of its situation it is power. (Wagner v. Leser, 239 U. S. 207; necessarily benefited, does not apply to the Copr. ©West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works sommommino WESTLAW • 91 So. 118 Page 9 (Cite as: 83 Fla. 275, *290, 91 So. 118, **123) railroad's property. Property other than that Upon this point the Supreme Court of the abutting on an improved street cannot be United States, in the case of Gast Realty & made to bear a portion of the cost of the Investment Co. v. Schneider Granite Co., 240 improvements of such street, exclusive of the U. S. 55, text 59, 36 Sup. Ct. 254, 255 (60 L. general tax which it pays as part of the Ed. 523), said: general public, unless it is made to appear 'It is enough to say that the ordinance that it derives some benefit proportionate to following the orders of the charter is bad the amount assessed against it. upon its face as distributing a local tax in grossly unequal proportions not because of By the method adopted by the city of special considerations applicable to the Gainesville to pay cost of paving West Main parcels taxed but in blind obedience to a street, the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad rule that requires the result.' Company was required to pay $8,833.19 for paving between the rails of its tracks and for Here we find a blind obedience to the rule two feet on each side thereof; one-third of the provided for in the amendment to the charter, remainder of the entire cost to be paid by the which from common knowledge of legislative city of Gainesville from funds derived from the procedure with regard to the *292 enactment sale of street paving bonds, and two-thirds of of local laws was passed by the Legislature at the remaining cost was to be paid by special the instance of the people or the authorities of assessments against property actually the city of Gainesville. This resulted in a local abutting on West Main street, and by the tax being levied in grossly unequal Atlantic Coast Line Railroad. By this method proportions, and it is neither excuse nor the railroad was assessed for the further sum defense to invoke the legislative authority. of*291 $19,624.61, and the abutting property owners on each side of the street were assessed In the case of Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. the same amount. In addition to these v. Road Improvement Dist. No. 6 of Little assessments the railroad is subject to be taxed River County, Ark., 256 U. S. 658, 41 Sup. Ct. in common with the general public to pay its 604,text 605, 65 L. Ed. 1151,the court said: proportion of one-third of the cost paid for by 'Obviously the railroad companies have not the city from the proceeds of the sale, of city been treated like individual owners and we bonds. It is thus sought to make the railroad think the discrimination so palpable and pay, in addition to its portion of the general arbitrary as to amount to a denial of the taxes in common with all other property in the equal protection of the law. Benefits from city of Gainesville, the sum of$28,457.80 out local improvements must be estimated of a total cost of $67,706.08 for the entire upon contiguous property according to some street. standard which will probably produce approximately correct general results.' It is a matter of common knowledge that lots in a city approximately the size of Gainesville The charter provision for levying against the are seldom less than 75 feet deep, and are property the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad a frequently more than 200 feet deep, and these special assessment equal to that levied against lots were assessed for the same amount per abutting owners on either side of the street, in front foot as the Atlantic.Coast Line Railroad addition to the amount paid by the railroad for was assessed, for a space about nine feet wide. paving between the rails of its tracks and for two feet on each side thereof, was 'arbitrary It is contended by the appellee that in and wholly unwarranted,' and by reason of its adopting this method of levying the special arbitrary character is a mere confiscation of assessment against the Atlantic Coast Line the railroad's property, and is an arbitrary Railroad it followed the order of the and unwarranted exercise of the legislative amendment to its charter as adopted by the power amounting to a denial of the equal Legislature of Florida in 1911. protection of the laws, and is therefore unconstitutional and void. Copr. ©West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works minunimm WESTLAW 91 So. 118 Page 10 (Cite as: 83 Fla. 275, *292, 91 So. 118, **123) The decree of the chancellor is reversed. use the street for its railroad track is, within the limitations imposed by the paramount law TAYLOR, WHITFIELD, ELLIS, and WEST, for the protection of private rights, subject to JJ., concur. the fair burdens resulting from the exercise of the sovereign police and assessment powers of *293 WHITFIELD, J.(concurring). the state, whether exerted directly by statute or indirectly through the medium of duly The tracks of the railroad company, by authorized action by the municipality. The permission granted or acquiesced in, as a right exertion of the police power is subject to of way easement,run longitudinally for nearly applicable limitations contained in the federal a mile along the center of a street of the and state Constitutions, that are designed to municipality. By previous regulations secure private rights against an arbitrary, acquiesced in, the railroad company paid for unduly oppressive, or unjustly discriminating paving the street covering the spaces between exercise of governmental authority. 5 R. C. L. the rails of the railroad track and also two feet 195; 19 R. C. L. 802. Where the police power is on each side of the rails. invoked to conserve the public peace, safety, health, or morals, its exercise is not ordinarily By authority of a statute which purports to controlled by considerations of correlative authorize for street paving purposes the pecuniary burdens and benefits. When the proportionate assessment of the railroad governmental power is exerted to conserve the tracks 'as property fronting or abutting upon mere public convenience, comfort, each side of said street,' the municipality by improvement, progress, or economy, its ordinance assessed against, the railroad**124 exercise should have some fair relation to company an amount equal to one-third of the mutual compensations or correlative property remainder of the cost of the street paving in burdens and benefits; and, when the power is addition to the entire cost of paving the space exerted through legislative action, between the rails of the railroad track and two presumptions of its proper exercise may be feet on each side thereof. The railroad indulged by the courts in the absence of facts company declined to pay the additional and circumstances that repel presumptions. assessment, and a decree was rendered against See Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. City of it for an amount to cover the added Goldsboro, N. C., 232 U. S. 548, 34 Sup. Ct. assessment. On appeal the company, invokes 364, 58 L. Ed. 721; State v. Jacksonville St. R. the contract, due process, and equal protection Co., 29 Fla. 590, 10 South. 590; Great provisions of the federal Constitution. Northern R. Co., v. Minnesota ex rel. Clara • City, 246 U. S. 434, 38 Sup. Ct. 346, 62 L. Ed. Apparently the railroad tracks do not 817; Northern P. R. Co. v. State of Minnesota materially impair the sue of the street by the ex rel. City of Duluth, 208 U. S. 583, 28 Sup. public. Ct. 341, 52 L. Ed. 630; Pacific Gas & E. Co. v. Police Court, 251 U. S. 22, 40 Sup. Ct. 79, 64 There is nothing to indicate that the . L. Ed. 112; Oklahoma R. Co. v. Severn railroad company will directly or indirectly Paving Co., 251 U. S. 104, 40 Sup. Ct. 71, 64 derive any benefit or advantage from the L. Ed. 168; Erie R. R. v. Board of Public additional heavy assessment; and the added Utilities Commrs., 254 U. S. 394, *295 41 Sup. burden does not conserve the public safety, Ct. 169, 65 L. Ed. 322. Municipal regulations health, or morals, even.if the assessment had not specifically authorized by statute should been made for that purpose. Benefits to the be reasonable as well as constitutional. Curry company's property rights cannot be assumed v. Osborne, 76 Fla. 39, 79 South. 293, 6 A. L. in view of the facts that appear. No benefits to R. 108; 19 R. C. L. 805. As to the scope of the the company to accrue from the additional state police power, see Conger v. Pierce burden is alleged. County(Wash.) 198 Pac. 377. *294 The right of the defendant company to Even where public morals, health, and Copr. ©West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt.works • • WESTLAW 91 So. 118 Page 11 (Cite as: 83 Fla. 275, *295, 91 So. 118, **124) safety are not involved, a wide latitude is The power to tax for governmental purposes is allowed the Legislature in making or not involved. The assessment being made for a authorizing assessments for public public municipal purpose, **125 but not for improvements with special benefits, where its purposes of governmental administration, nor action is not palpably unequal in results or for purposes to conserve the public safety, unjustly discriminating and burdensome peace,health, or morals, and as no appreciable without any accruing benefits or is not property benefits can accrue to the company, arbitrary and wholly unwarranted. See Myles the assessment is in effect a'taking of property Salt Co. v. Board of Com'rs of Iberia & St. without compensation, in violation of organic Mary Drainage Dist., 239 U. S. 478, 36 Sup. law. See Village of Norwood v. Baker, 172 U. Ct. 204, 60 L. Ed. 392, L. R. A. 1918E, 190; S. 269, 19 Sup. Ct. 187, 43 L. Ed. 443. Withnell v.Ruecking Construction Co., 249 U. S. 63, 39 Sup. Ct. 200, 63 L. Ed. 479; Branson END OF DOCUMENT v. Bush. 251 U. S. 182, 40 Sup. Ct. 113, 64 L. Ed. 215. The railroad company does not own the land in the center of the street on which its tracks are laid, as in Oklahoma Ry. Co. v. Severns Paving Co., 251 U. S. 104, 40 Sup. Ct. 73, 64 L. Ed. 168. See, also, Louisville &N. R. Co. v. Barber Asphalt Pay. Co., 197 U. S. 430, 25 Sup. Ct. 466, 49 L. Ed. 819. The specific assessment in this case is not for the privilege of using the street or to conserve the public morals, health, or safety; and it is manifestly unjustly discriminating in its burdens. Under the particular facts, the greatly increased burden imposed upon the company, to pay for paving one-third of the ,remainder of the street in addition to the • entire cost of paving the space between the rails of the railroad track and two feet on each side thereof, has no just relation to any special or general benefits of convenience, or otherwise, that can result or accrue to the *296 company from paving the street, and the assessment as made does not conform to controlling provisions of organic law. See 8 McQuillin's Municipal Corporations, Suppl. § 2043, and authorities cited; 4 Dillon's Municipal Corp. (5th Ed.) § 1451, and notes with citations; Gast Realty & Improvement Co. v. Schneider Granite Co., 240 U. S. 55, 36 Sup. Ct. 254, 60 L. Ed. 523: Kansas City So. Ry. v. Road Imp. Dist. 6, 256 U. S. 658, 41 Sup. Ct. 604, 65 L. Ed. 1151, decided June 6, 1921;8 McQuillin's Mun. Corp. § 2050. The assessment complained of was not made to facilitate access to trains or to afford safety from passing trains or locomotives, and no considerations of health or morals involved. Copr. °West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt.works innimms INNEimm WESTLA'U Village of Tequesta FEB ? 6 m7 !! _ f Village Manager's Office Memorandum To: Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager P From: Gary Preston, Director of Public Works � • . Date: February 25, 1997 Subject: Beautiful Palm Beaches Grant Information for Old Dixie Highway Landscape Project Per your recent request, please be advised that I contacted Ms. Malissa Booth, Executive Director, Beautiful Palm Beaches, . Inc. , concerning the above referenced. Ms. Booth advised that the Village will receive a 1997 Grant Application during the month of May. The completed Grant Application must also include ten (10) copies of Plans with cost estimates prepared by a licensed Landscape Architect . The Village may apply for a 50-50 matching Grant but most projects receive less than that amount . Ms . Booth also informed me that Beautiful Palm Beaches, Inc. , does not award Grants unless the government agency allocates funding in the amount of 100% of project cost. I have attached a 1995 copy of the Grant Application with instructions and requirements for your review. In 1996, Beautiful Palm Beaches, Inc. , awarded the total of $377, 000 . 00 to eleven (11) of the fifteen (15) government agencies that applied for the Grant. The largest Grant went to West Palm Beach for. $119, 000 . 00 and the smallest Grant went to Wellington for $15, 000 . 00. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me. GP/mk Attach. ho, ili 'Yo e, • X�'' 1.1 .L. � L , �_._ 4 JViiagflZequesta Villa MIYaMan 1 1 19 9 5 May 1, 1995 a er's Office To Interested Parties: Beautiful Palm Beaches, Inc. (BPB) is pleased to announce our .1995/1996 State and County • Thoroughfare Beautification Grant Program (our program's second year). Two granting agencies, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), have designated BPB as program coordinator. • As an affiliate of Keep America Beautiful, Inc. (KAB) and Keep Florida Beautiful, Inc. (KFB), Beautiful Palm Beaches, Inc. initiated the organization of Palm Beach County's 'Adopt-a-Highway' (state roads) and "Adopt-a-Road" (county roads) litter abatement programs and recently coordinated, in cooperation with the Solid Waste Authority (SWA), the °Great Florida Cleanup" in Palm Beach County for the second consecutive year. Beautiful Palm Beaches, Inc. has also been successful in facilitating the budgeting of a new funding source, in excess of two million dollars over a five-year period which began in 1994 to assist in the beautification of State and County Roadways throughout Palm Beach County. BPB has been delegated the responsibility of facilitating and administering the grant application process for these funds. The enclosed application has been developed to solicit and review candidates in order to make final recommendations to the BCC and the MPO for receipt of these beautification dollars. Beautiful Palm Beaches is seeking applications from organizations, municipalities and other government entities interested in applying for matching funds to implement roadway beautification projects. If you have a project that meets the criteria qualifications as stated in this application, please complete the application and submit as follows: Submit 10 copies of completed application package with supplemental documents to be received by 4:00 pm on June 30, 1995. (Late and faxed applications will be ineligible.) Beautiful Palm Beaches reserves the right to request additional information. Mail to: Beautiful Palm Beaches, Inc. If you are interested in attending P.O. Box 1309 a pre-application meeting to West Palm Beach, FL 33402-1309 review a sample application, please call Malissa Booth at the Hand deliver to: Beautiful Palm Beaches, Inc. number below, so we can Attn: Malissa S. Booth, Executive Director determine if a meeting is do Solid Waste Authority of PBC warranted. 7501 North Jog Road West Palm Beach, FL 33412 • Please contact Malissa S. Booth, Executive Director, at(407)686-6646 with any questions you may have. • Sincerely, Jeff Koons, President Jo Ellen Leisinger, Chairperson Beautiful Palm Beaches, Inc. BPB Grants Advisory Committee • • b _ = KEEP Page 1 of 4 BPB Application Form (BPB Use Only: No. Application Form PALM BEACH COUNTY THOROUGHFARE BEAUTIFICATION GRANT for review and recommendation by Beautiful Palm Beaches, Inc. Grants Advisory Committee I. APPLICANT INFORMATION Note: Refer to Attachment A for'Application Instructions & Requirements'and to attachment'B'for "Qualification Criteria". A. Name of Applicant: B. Type of Organization: (LocaVState Government, Non-Profit, Educational Institution, Homeowner Association, etc.): C. Name and Title of Applicant's Contact Person: Address: Zip: Telephone: Fax: Federal Employer Identification Number(F.E.I.N.)of Applicant: As the duly authorized representative of the applicant, I hereby certify that all parts of the application package have been read and understood,that all application requirements have been-met,that all information submitted herein is true and correct and represents the desire and intent of the applicant to install the proposed project according to the plans, specifications, and costs attached herein. Authorized Executive Officer of Applicant: Title: Telephone: Address: Signature: Selected Applicants will be required to sign a Grant Agreement with(BCC or MPO) prior to initiation of any work on the project.ANY WORK PERFORMED ON THE PROJECT PRIOR TO WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GRANTING AGENCY IS INELIGIBLE FOR REIMBURSEMENT UNDER THIS PROGRAM. Project monitoring will include periodic inspections and a post-audit by Granting Agency. Following certification of acceptance by the Granting Agency, care and maintenance of the project will be monitored.The applicant shall agree to provide BPB with five (5) color slides best showing the installed project supplemented by a brief close-out report within 30 days of completion. . • Page 2 of 4 BPB Application Form II. PROJECT INFORMATION A. Thoroughfare name (State Road#if applicable)/project name: B. Describe the project's location and boundaries: C. Site Acreage of Project: • D. Linear feet of right-of-way frontage: E. Identify if project is on a State or County Thoroughfare (verify with Andy Hertel of Palm Beach County's Engineering & Public Works (407)684-4030 or with Carl Higgins of F.D.O.T. (305)777- 4200. F. Identify who owns or controls the property to be planted. Clearly show public rights-of-way; easements, and private lands on attached plans. IF THE PROPERTY IS NOT PRESENTLY OWNED BY THE APPLICANT,ATTACH DOCUMENTATION FROM THE OWNER AUTHORIZING THE APPLICANT TO PLANT&MAINTAIN THE PROJECT. G. Attach 10 copies of each (with the exception of only one set of slides to be provided in 8 1/2'x 11" pocket holder): (1) Project location map and aerial photo with five color photographs and five color slides (same views) of project site keyed to aerial photo and labeled with project name and view orientation. Photos to be attached to aerial or to 8 1/2"x 11"sheets in application. (2) Detailed construction documents (planting plan, planting list, and specifications). Site factors which influence long-term survivability and safety should be shown on plan: overhead and underground utilities, curbs, sidewalks, signage, R/W's, easements, driveways,turn lanes and traffic visibility sight lines and clear zones as per current PBC Streetscape Standards and/or F.D.O.T. index 546&700. Please include a directional arrow and scale (minimum 1"=20'), and vicinity sketch on plan. Plans must be folded when submitted. (3) Detailed cost estimate for installation material, labor and follow-up maintenance during the first 6 month establishment period. (4) Detailed annual maintenance plan and budget to ensure applicant understands maintenance commitment(not eligible for grant or use as match). • • Page 3 of 4 BPB Application Form (5) Written description of how the project benefits the public, environment, and meets the Beautification Grant Qualification Criteria. (6) Demonstrate public and/or private support of the project. (Written endorsement, resolution, financial donations or other means.) H. Name, phone number, address and professional registration number(s) of Project's Consultant Landscape Architect of record (personal or firm). I. Name, phone number, address and contact of entity who will commit to the perpetual care and maintenance of the beautification project(after the installing contractor's warranty period). J. Name,title, phone number and address of applicant's designated representative who will be supervising the installation planting and 6 month maintenance establishment period. • K. Utilizing the following chart, explain the total cost of the planting project and how it will be funded. Only include costs eligible for this requested grant and the matching funds related to materials and labor for vegetation and supportive irrigation and planting materials (soil, amendments,fertilizer,tree staking, mulch, soil backfill or top soil). No"Hardscape Costs"are allowed. No continuing annual maintenance costs are allowed. (6 month maintenance establishment costs are eligible for county BCC Grant only). UTILIZING THE OUTLINE OF THE FOLLOWING CHART,A SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED BUDGET MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION.ALL COST ESTIMATES MUST BE EXPLAINED. BE AS SPECIFIC AS POSSIBLE, showing specification for size etc. at installation, quantities, unit costs of material, unit cost to install, and total cost for each item. Cost totals must clearly relate to summary chart costs below. Identify if costs are wholesale or retail, or in-kind/volunteer/donated materials and labor. r . Page 4 of 4 BPB Application Form SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS: (rounded to the nearest dollar figure). Note: L & M= Laborand Materials 50%Maximum of , 50%Minimum of Total Project Costs Total Project Costs A B C BPB Grant Requested Applicant's Match* Other Match* Grants, Donations etc. Summary of Eligible Grant Project Costs (to be paid for by the grant). $ 1.Vegetation&Planting Materials (fertilizers etc.) 2. Planting Labor to install $ 3. Irrigation System(L&M) $ 4.Water by truck during installation (L&M) $ Total Eligible Grant Costs: $ Circle: BCC or MPO Grant+ Summary of Matching Project Costs 1. Vegetation&Planting Materials $ (fertilizers etc.) 2. Planting Labor to install $ $ 3. Irrigation System $ $ 4.Water by truck during installation (L&M) $ $ 5. 6 month Establishment Period Main- $ $ tenance (L&M)include truck watering 6.Tree Grates $ $ • 7.Other(identify) $ $ Totals in Columns B+C $ $ Total Matching Funds: $ Total Project Cost (Add Columns A+B+C): $ If a project is to be phased, clearly delineate phases by number and area on the plans. Only phases to be installed using this year's grant cycle funding and match require a detailed cost estimate which should correlate to the Summary of Project Costs shown in the chart above. • ' Define sources &timing of availability of all matching funds (by attachment). + Identify applicant's intent to receive a County BCC or State MPO grant. • Page 1 of 3 Attachment "A" ATTACHMENT A - APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS & REQUIREMENTS PALM BEACH COUNTY THOROUGHFARE BEAUTIFICATION GRANT prepared by Beautiful Palm Beaches, Inc. Grants Advisory Committee I. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS: Please complete all items in this application following specific instructions carefully.All attached typed pages must be 8 1/2"x 11" ; attached sketches, plans, and maps must be no larger than 2'x 3'and at an appropriate scale with appropriate legends. Plans reduced to a legible scale are acceptable. Place the application form (Application Information and Project Information)first in your application package preceding other exhibits.The • cover to the application package must identify: 1)Thoroughfare Name;2) County or State R/W; 3) Identify request for County BCC or State MPO Grant;4) Contact name and phone numbers of Project Applicant and of Landscape Architect; and 5) Submission date. II. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS: 1. Applicants are required to submit five slides and five photographs of various views of the proposed project site (labeled with project name and view orientation and keyed to an aerial photo of site).Only one set of slides, but 10 sets of photos are requested.Applicants who receive grants are also required to submit five slides of the completed project. Applicants may also submit a video of the proposed project site, and completed project. 2. Submitted landscape planting plans must be 100%complete with revisions allowed after the award of the grant related to either: (1) project re-phasing resulting from receipt of fewer grant dollars than requested or(2) changes in design required by Palm Beach County or Florida Department of Transportation during the permitting of improvements. Such revisions should be prepared by the applicant and agreed to by Beautiful Palm Beaches and the granting entities (BCC &MPO) before Grant Agreements are formally executed. • 3. Submission of irrigation plans are not a requirement with grant applications, however, landscape plans must note a guarantee that 100%irrigation will be provided by the applicant via an underground irrigation system, unless planting concept uses a totally xeric(drought tolerant) plant palette, resistant to auto emissions and using backfill of native soils and mulch. Submission of irrigation plans with your application package will show the°project's readiness to move forward" and therefore improve chances of selection, and is therefore encouraged. Irrigation plans will be required by permitting agencies, if non-xeric planting is proposed. Note that many"xeriscape" plantings are not totally drought tolerant, so require some irrigation.Totally xeric (Drought tolerant) plantings are difficult to sustain in highly trafficked urban streetscapes and will be carefully evaluated. 4. Grant funds are paid out on a reimbursable basis, after project installation. 5. Projects installed (or portion thereof), prior to written authorization from the granting agency will be ineligible for reimbursement. 6. Grant funds will be available for use in late 1995 after approval and written agreements are executed by your organization and the granting agencies (BCC or MPO). Page 2;of 3 Attachment "A" Application Instructions 7. Grant funds can be used for the installation of trees in existing sidewalks, if permitted by the regulatory authority that has jurisdiction, but not for demolition or construction of"hardscape" items, such as sidewalks, pavers, curbs, walls, fences, etc.Tree grates are permitted as a Matching Project Cost. 8. The first six (6) months of maintenance (establishment period) may count toward matching of County BCC grants on county or state thoroughfares, but not toward matching of State MPO grants on State roads. MPO Grants are intended for state roads only. 9. Depending on their specific requirements; municipal, state and federal(S.B.A. and ISTEA)funds can match County BCC Grants; exception,the State MPO Grants cannot be used to match County BCC Grants. 10. Depending on their specific requirements; municipal and federal (S.B.A. and ISTEA)funds can match State MPO grants. No other state funding sources can be utilized to match State MPO grants. 11. County BCC grants can fund projects on designated County thoroughfares within or adjacent to a county or state right-of-way(R/W), even such roads traversing through municipalities. Properties to be planted that are outside of the R/W must be contiguous to the R/W and within 100'of that R/W. 12. State MPO grants are to be utilized for landscape improvements within a State thoroughfare right-of-way, not adjacent to a right-of-way. 13.The use of In-kind services, including donated material and labor,will be allowed to apply toward matching funds for state and county thoroughfare projects. 14. All materials, labor, and maintenance costs itemized as a BPB Grant request or as matching funds (whether provided as in-kind services/materials or provided using other allowable grant sources or paid as cash by applicant) can only be costs related to "softscape" landscape items (such as vegetation, and supportive irrigation, mulch, backfill soil, top soil,fertilizer,tree staking etc.). Items related to"hardscape" (paving, fences,walls,fountains, signs, etc.) are not eligible for inclusion in this BPB Grant application. Design, permitting and construction administration are not eligible costs. 15. Minimum requirement for plant stock are Florida Grade No. 1 or better and must be so specified on plans, as per Department of Plant Industries Grades &Standards (most current edition). 16. Submit a detailed annual maintenance plan and an estimate of annual maintenance costs (not eligible for grant or match) to ensure applicant is aware of annual maintenance costs. `',.. - 1\, • Page 3of3 Attachment "A" Application Instructions • 17. Applicants are to document authorization to plant and maintain the project if the project site is property owned or controlled by an entity other than the applicant. Obviously, such authorization would be conceptual in nature, pending the satisfaction of F.D.O.T.'s, PBC's or another entity's permit requirements. Such authorization letters can be obtained from: Mr. Andy Hertel or Mr. Carl Higgins Palm Beach County Engineer F.D.O.T. Landscape Architect for County roads for State roads • (407)684-4030 (305)777-4200 • • • _ a • Page 1 of 2 Attachment "B" ATTACHMENT B - QUALIFICATION CRITERIA PALM BEACH COUNTY THOROUGHFARE BEAUTIFICATION GRANT prepared by Beautiful Palm Beaches, Inc. Grants Advisory Committee CRITERIA CONSIDERED BY BPB GRANTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE: 1. Cost Sharing. State MPO Grants cannot match PBC's Grants. MPO Grants are only for State roads while PBC's BCC Grants can be utilized for state roads,although County roads may be given • preference. No other state giant can match MPO state grants. Project material and installation cost below refers only to planting, irrigation and related items (not hardscape items). (2-10 points if applicant providing more than a 50% match or ineligible if not met.) A. State MPO Grant. Only applies to projects within a State thoroughfare R/W. A minimum of 50% of the project material and installation cost shall be funded by the applicant. Other grant funds (some limitations may apply) may count toward matching funds. Maintenance costs and consultant design fees may not apply toward grant request or to matching funds. Funds will be paid out as reimbursables. Home Owner Associations cannot own/maintain the project unless they execute maintenance indemnification and removal agreements which the County (or municipality) may require in order to obtain FDOT permits on behalf of the HOA. B. County BCC Grant.Applies to State or County Thoroughfares inside of R/W or contiguous to and within 100'of that R/W.A minimum of 50%of the project material and installation cost shall be provided by the applicant. Donated materials, in-kind labor, cost of the first six months maintenance establishment period or other grant funds (some limitations may apply) may count toward matching funds.Consultant design fees and annual maintenance costs may not apply toward matching funds. Funds will be granted as a reimbursable.A well established Home Owners Association may own own/maintain the project: 2. On-going Operation &.Maintenance(0 &M) Costs.The applicant must arrange for and commit an entity to provide ongoing 0 & M and liability coverage such as a Municipality, Special District or established Home Owners Association. (Ineligible if not met.) 3. Design Quality. Projects that incorporate xeriscape concepts, low maintenance materials and safety strategies within a high aesthetic design solution will be given preference (see Palm Beach County Streetscape Standards Manual for guidelines). (1-30 points) 4. Location on State or County Thoroughfare.Only projects within Palm Beach County, beautifying property within or adjacent to a designated thoroughfare right-of-way, are eligible. Projects within the ROW will be scored higher under Visibility of Location below. (Ineligible if not met.) 5. Visibility of Location. Highly visible locations within Palm Beach County on major corridors, identifying a municipal entry gate or near public buildings, landmarks or attractions will be given preference, especially those projects within the ROW versus adjacent to the ROW. (1-15 points) 6. Mitigation of Road Impacts: Projects which propose to screen undesirable views or reduce noise and other visual or physical impacts of the roadway are encouraged. (1-15 points) • • -. _-. h(' Page 2 of 2 Attachment "B" Qualification Criteria 7. Immediacy of Project. The project's readiness to move forward will be evaluated, including completion of landscape construction plans and commitment of resources. Submitted landscape plans must be 100% complete (with a guarantee of 100% irrigation unless the planting proposed is totally xeric). Applicants commencing installation of the project without a written authorization from the granting agency (BCC or MPO) will be disqualified. (1-20 points) . 8. Registered Landscape Architect. A Florida registered Landscape Architect experienced in roadway planting and streetscape standards shall be required to sign and seal the construction documents • submitted with the application and the final permit drawing. (Ineligible if not met.) 9. Completeness & Clarity of Application. Application or drawings too incomplete to evaluate, or use of inaccurate information, costs, etc. will cause the application to be considered for ineligibility. (Ineligible if not met.) (1-10 points) BPBGRANT.DOC 051095 • i' t , ,40 t_ Memorandum To: Finance & Administration Committee Members From: Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager -2/ Date: November 25, 1996 Subject: Increasing the Cost of Holding Vacant Land; Cost Estimates for Various Projects; Agenda Item At the last meeting of the Finance & Administration Committee, the Committee Members requested that staff prepare cost estimates for certain projects in order to ascertain the cost of assessments for each. In this regard, staff prepared cost estimates for the following projects : • New roadway and landscaping from Village Boulevard to Tequesta Drive, primarily on Dorner Land - $911,533 • Streetlights for Old Dixie Highway - $4,000 • Streetscape for Old Dixie Highway - $329,000 • Water Main Extension - none needed • Tri-Rail Passenger Station (land for station and parking) - $697 , 500 If the Village were successful in proving a direct benefit to the vacant property owners in question, those primarily abutting the east side of Old Dixie Highway, on a per acre basis the cost to the applicable landowners would be as follows : 1 . New roadway and landscaping - $27 ,216 . 44 per acre. If financed for 15 years at 6% interest, including 2% estimated issuance cost, the cost per acre would be $2 , 858 . 33 per acre per year. Landowners : Dorner Trust - 30 . 884 acres Post Office Property - 1 . 069 acres Tequesta Branch Library - 1 . 069 acres The Flame Restaurant - .47 acres . 2 . Streetlights for Old Dixie Highway - not feasible for assessment. 3 . Streetscape for Old Dixie Highway - $5, 330 . 35 . If financed for 15 years at 6% interest, including estimated 2% issuance cost - $559 .80 per acre per year. • 1 Landowners : Dorner Trust - 44 .58 acres Tequesta Branch Library - 1 . 069 acres Post Office Property - 1.069 acres Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - 15 acres apprx. 4 . Water Main Extension - not applicable for assessment . 5 . Tri-Rail Passenger Station* - $14, 928 . 73 per acre . If financed for 15 years at 6% interest, including estimated 2% issuance cost, the cost per acre per year would be $1,567 . 85 . Landowners: Dorner Trust - 44.584 acres Post Office Property - 1 . 069 acres Tequesta Branch Library - 1 . 069 acres. * State law requires assessments for parking facilities to be approved by those property owners proposed for assessment. This project should be recalculated at $3 . 75 per acre and at a .total of 5 .5 acres (239,580 square feet) pursuant to Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority letter dated November 4, 1996, copy attached. If, somehow, all of the above projects could be shown to benefit all of the above referenced properties, the one-time per acre assessment would be $31, 162 .09 . If financed for 15 years at 6% interest, including estimated 2% issuance cost, the cost would be $3, 272 . 71 per acre per year. In this scenario, the property owners would be: Tequesta Water Department - 15 acres apprx. ; Dorner Trust - 44 .484 acres; Post Office Property 1 . 069 acres; Tequesta Branch Library - 1 . 069 acres; The Flame Restaurant - . 47 acres . When analyzing these scenarios, the reader should keep in mind that Section 4 . 02(4) of the Village Charter only allows the Village to temporarily borrow up to 80% of a project cost in anticipation of the levying of assessments . Therefore, since the Village would not necessarily have the funds available to finance these projects, the timing of the projects would be critical relative to the 80% borrowing limitation referenced above and the estimated date of receipt of the assessments from the tax collector or other source chosen by the Village Council . We will be happy to answer any questions that you have in regard to these cost estimates . TGB/krb cc„=11/112596.sam 2 Interest Vision ( Amortization Schedule Loan or Annuity .Variables : Start Date: Nov 4, 1996 End Date: Nov 4, 201: Start Payment : Nov 4, 1996 No. of Payments : 15 Start Interest: Nov 4; 19.96 Interest Rate: 6 . 000% Payment Freq. : Annual Initial Principal : $929764 . 00 Compound Freq. : Annually Payment Amount: $95731 . 07 Days in Mo./Yr. : Actual No. Balloon: $0. 00 Payment Mode: In Arrears Amortization Method: Simple Int. Payment Interest Interest No. Date Amount Amount Rate/Yr. Principal Balance Nov 4; 1996 0 . 00 0. 00 0 . 000 0 . 00 929764 . 00 1 Nov 4, 1997 95731 . 07 55785 . 84 6 . 000 39945 . 23 889818. 77 '2 Nov 4, 1998 95731 . 07 53389 . 13 6 . 000 42341 . 95 847476. 82 3 Nov 4, 1999 95731 . 07 50848 . 61 6 . 000 44882 . 46 802594 . 36 4 Nov 4, 2000 95731 . 07 48155 . 66 6 . 000. 47575 . 41 755018. 95 5 Nov 4, 2001 95731 . 07. 45301 . 14 6 . 000 50429 . 93 704589 .02 . 6 Nov 4, 2002 95731 . 07 42275 . 34 6 . 000 53455 . 73 651133 .29 7 Nov 4, 2003 95731 . 07 39068 . 00 6 . 000 56663 . 07 594470 . 21 8 Nov 4, 2004 95731 . 07 35668 .21 6 . 000 60062 . 86 534407 . 36 9 Nov 4, 2005 95731 . 07 32064 . 44 6. 000 63666 . 63 470740 . 73 10 Nov 4, 2006 95731 . 07 28244 . 44 6. 000 67486 . 63 403254 . 10 11 Nov 4, 2007 95731 . 07 24195 . 25 6 . 000 71535 . 83 331718 .27 12 Nov 4, 2008 95731 . 07 19903 . 10 6. 000 75827 . 97 255890 . 30 13 Nov , 4, 2009 95731 . 07 15353 .42 6 . 000 80377 . 65 175512 . 64 14 Nov 4, 2010- 95731 . 07 10530 . 76 6 . 000 85200 . 31 90312 . 33 15 Nov 4, 2011 95731 . 07 5418 . 74 6 . 000 90312 . 33 0. 00 Interest Vision Amortization Schedule Loan or Annuity Variables : Start Date: Nov 4, 1996 End Date: Nov 4, 2011 Start Payment: Nov 4, 1996 No. of Payments : 15 Start Interest: Nov 4, 1996 Interest Rate: 6 . 000% Payment Freq. : Annual Initial Principal: $335580 . 00 Compound Freq. : Annually Payment Amount: $34552 .24 ✓ Days in Mo./Yr. : Actual No. Balloon: $0. 00 Payment Mode: In Arrears Amortization Method: Simple Int. Payment Interest Interest No. Date Amount Amount Rate/Yr. Principal Balance Nov 4, 1996 0.00 0.00 0.000 0. 00 335580. 00 1 Nov 4, 1997 34552 .24 20134 . 80 6 . 000 14417 . 44 321162 . 56 2 Nov 4, 1998 34552 .24 19269 .75 6 .000 15282 . 49 305880. 06 3 Nov 4, 1999 34552 .24 18352 .80 6. 000 16199 .44 289680. 62 4 Nov 4, 2000. 34552 .24 17380.84 6 . 000 17171 .41 272509 . 22 5 Nov 4, 2001 34552 .24 16350.55 6 .000 18201 . 69 254307 .53 6 Nov 4, 2002 34552 .24 15258 .45 6.000 19293 . 79 235013 . 73 7 Nov 4, 2003 34552 .24 14100.82 6 .000 20451 .42 214562 . 31 8 Nov 4, 2004 34552 .24 12873 .74 6 .000 21678 .51 192883 . 81 9 Nov 4, 2005 34552 .24 11573 .03 6.000 22979 . 22 169904 . 59 10 Nov 4, 2006 34552 .24 10194 .28 6 .000 24357 . 97 145546 . 62 11 Nov 4, 2007 34552 .24 8732 .80 6. 000 25819 .45 119727 . 18 12 Nov 4, 2008 34552 . 24 7183 . 63 6.000 27368 . 61 92358 . 56 13 Nov 4, 2009 34552 .24 5541 .51 6 .000 29010. 73 63347 . 83 14 Nov 4, 2010 34552 .24 3800.87 6 .000 30751 . 37 32596 . 46 15 Nov 4, 2011 34552 .24 1955.79 6 .000 32596.46 0 . 00 Interest Vision Amortization Schedule t 'I Loan or Annuity Variables : Start Date: Nov 4, 1996 End Date: Nov 4, 2011 Start Payment: Nov 4, 1996 No. of Payments : 15 Start Interest : Nov 4, 1996 Interest Rate: 6 . 000% Payment Freq. : Annual Initial Principal : $711450 . 00 Compound Freq. : Annually Payment Amount : $73252 . 86 Days in Mo./Yr. : Actual No. Balloon: $0 . 00 Payment Mode: In Arrears Amortization Method: Simple Int. Payment Interest Interest No. Date Amount Amount Rate/Yr. Principal Balance Nov 4, 1996 0 .00 0 . 00 0 . 000 0 . 00 711450 . 00 1 Nov 4, 1997 73252 . 86 42687 . 00 6 . 000 30565 . 86 680884 . 14 2 Nov 4, 1998 73252 . 86 40853 . 05 6 . 000 32399 . 81 648484 . 33 3 Nov 4, 1999 73252 .86 38909 . 06 6 . 000 34343 . 80 614140 . 53 4 Nov 4, 2000 73252 . 86 36848 . 43 6 . 000 36404 . 43 577736 . 11 5 Nov 4, 2001 73252 . 86 34664 . 17 6 . 000 38588 . 69 539147 . 41 6 Nov 4, 2002 73252 . 86 32348 . 84 6 . 000 40904 . 01 498243 .40 7 Nov 4, 2003 73252 . 86 29894 . 60 6 . 000 43358 . 25 454885 . 15 8 Nov 4, 2004 73252 .86 27293 . 11 6 .000 45959 . 75 408925 .40 9 Nov 4, 2005 73252 . 86 24535 . 52 6 . 000 48717 . 33 360208 . 06 10 Nov 4, 2006 73252 . 86 21612 . 48 6 . 000 51640 . 37 308567 . 69 11 Nov 4, 2007 73252 . 86 18514 . 06 6 . 000 54738 . 80 253828 . 89 12 Nov 4, 2008 73252 . 86 15229 . 73 6 .000 58023 . 12 195805 . 77 13 Nov 4, 2009 73252 . 86 11748 . 35 6 . 000 61504. 51 134301 . 25 14 Nov 4, 2010 73252 . 86* 8058 . 08 .6 . 000 65194 . 78 69106 . 47 15 Nov 4, 2011 73252 . 86 4146 . 39 6 . 000 69106 . 47 0 . 00 Interest Vision Amortization Schedule t Loan or Annuity Variables : Start Date: Nov 22 , 1996 End Date: Nov 22, 2011 Start Payment: Nov 22 , 1996 No. of Payments : 15 Start Interest: Nov 22 , 1996 Interest Rate: 6 . 000% Payment Freq. : Annual Initial Principal : $1976794. 00 Compound Freq. : Annually Payment Amount: $203536 . 17 Days in Mo./Yr. : Actual No. Balloon: $0 . 00 Payment Mode: In Arrears. Amortization Method: Simple Int. Payment Interest Interest No. Date Amount Amount Rate/Yr. Principal Balance Nov 22 , 1996 0 . 00 0.00 0 . 000 0. 00 1976794 .00 1 Nov 22 , 1997 203536 . 17 118607 . 64 6 . 000 84928 .53 1891865 .47 2 Nov 22, 1998 203536 . 17 113511 . 93 6. 000 90024 . 25 1801841 .22 3 Nov 22, 1999 203536 . 17 108110 .47 6 . 000 95425 . 70 1706415 .52 4 Nov 22, 2000 203536 . 17 102384 . 93 6. 000 . 101151 . 24 1605264 .28 5 Nov 22 , 2001 203536 . 17 96315 .86 6 .000 107220 . 32 1498043. 96 6 Nov 22 , 2002 203536 . 17 89882 . 64 6. 000 113653 . 54 1384390.42 7 Nov 22 , 2003 203536 . 17 83063 .43 6. 000 120472 . 75 1263917 . 67 8 Nov 22 , 2004 203536 . 17 75835 . 06 6 . 000 127701 . 11 1136216.56 9 Nov 22 , 2005 203536 . 17 68172 .99 6 . 000 135363 . 18 1000853 . 38 10 Nov 22 , 2006 203536 . 17 60051 . 20 6 . 000 143484 . 97 857368.41 11 Nov 22 , 2007 203536 . 17 51442 . 10 6 . 000 152094. 07 705274. 34 12 Nov 22 , 2008 203536 . 17 42316 . 46 ' 6 . 000 161219 . 71 544054 . 63 13 Nov 22 , 2009 203536 . 17 32643 .28 6. 000 170892 . 90 373161 . 73 14 Nov 22 , 2010 203536 . 17 22389 . 70 6. 000 181146 . 47 192015.26 15 Nov 22 , 2011 203536 . 17 11520. 92 6 . 000 192015 .26 0 . 00 F MEMORANDUM TO: Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager FROM: Gary Preston, Director of Public Works 4I• DATE: October 31, 1996 SUBJECT: Preliminary Cost Estimates for Potential Special Assessment Projects in Central Business District On October 2, you requested that I prepare a preliminary cost estimate for five (5) potential projects in the Tequesta Central Business District. For each of the five (5) attached projects, I have as follows : 1) Provided your request as written in the October 2 Memorandum 2) Provided a brief written response to your request and; 3) Provided the preliminary cost estimate for each project . Per the attached Memorandum, Al Oslund has provided all roadway proposals in item one (1) and all Tri-Rail information in item five (5) ; Tom Hall has provided a memorandum for item four (4) . - PROJECTS - (See Attached Pages) Thomas G. Bradford • October 31, 1996 Page 2 - 1) Cost Estimates for New Roadway and Landscaping Your directive per the October 2 Memorandum: Cost estimate for building a road from the southern terminus of St . Jude Drive to Tequesta Drive with a roadway link connecting to the same running from Old Dixie Highway to this roadway located immediately south of the Tequesta Branch Library. I . would estimate the right-of-way for this roadway to be 60 feet to include all appropriate sidewalks, curb, gutter, striping, reflectors, signage and appropriate streetscape plan. For streetscape cost estimates, duplicate that used on Tequesta Drive from U.S. One to Old Dixie on a linear foot basis, less the Royal Palms. Response: Per our recent discussion, I have also included land acquisition cost, estimated condemnation expenses, engineering fees and contingency. COST ESTIMATE ITEM COST 1) Land Acquisition 99, 000 sq. ft. 0$3 .50/sq. ft. $346,500 2) Condemnation Expenses $ 40, 000 3) 5 Ft. Sidewalk, 2300/lineal ft. @$10.00/lineal ft. $ 23, 000 4) Type F Curb & Gutter, $8 .00/lineal ft. x 4600 $ 36, 800 _ 5) Storm Sewer, 2, 000 lineal ft. @$30.00 $ 60,000 6) Compacted Subgrade, 10,000 sq. yard @$2 .00/sq. ft. $ 20, 000 7) 8" Lime Rock or Cocina Rock, 10, 000/sq. yard @$7 . 00 $ 70,000 8) Left Turn Lane (Old Dixie Hwy. ) , 110' Storage Lane $ 20,000 9) 1-1/2" Asphalt, 523 tons @$75.00/ton $ 39,233 10) Signage, Striping, etc. , Lump Sum $ 10,000 11) 5400' x 4' Landscaping (Trees, shrubs, sod, clearing/ grubbing and irrigation system) $136, 000 12) 12 Streetlights (No fee per FP&L) 0 13) Engineering and Permitting $ 42, 000 14) Contingencies $ 68, 000 TOTAL $911,533 Thomas G. Bradford October 31, 1996 Page 3 - 2) Streetlights for Old Dixie Highway Your directive per October 2 Memorandum: Streetlights for the east side of Old Dixie Highway from Tequesta Drive to the northern Village boundary. Response: Florida Power and Light (FPL) advises that eighteen (18) Cobra Head Luminaire would be required for this project. COST ESTIMATE ITEM COST 18 Cobra Head Luminaire $4, 000 Thomas G. Bradford October 31, 1996 Page 4 - 3) Streetscape for Old Dixie Highway Your directive per October 2 Memorandum: Streetscape from Tequesta Drive to County Line Road using the Tequesta Drive Design from U.S. Highway One to Old Dixie Highway on a per linear foot basis. Response: The Old Dixie Highway has sufficient right-of-way for an extensive Streetscape plan. Due to the speed limit for Old Dixie Highway (40 MPH) a total of 2, 000 feet of F curb must be installed for driver's safety. COST ESTIMATE ITEM COST 1) 2, 000' F Curb @$8 .00 per foot. $ 16, 000 2) 8, 400' x 6' (Average) Landscaping (Trees, shrubs, clearing/grubbing, sod and irrigation system $248, 000 3) Landscape Plans $ 25, 000 4) Contingencies $ 40, 000 TOTAL $329, 000 f , Thomas G. Bradford October 31, 1996 Page 5 - 4) Water Main Extension Your directive per October 2 Memorandum: Check with the Water System Manager to determine if there are any water main extensions or replacements that are needed in the Tequesta Central Business District, primarily along the Old Dixie Highway corridor or the Village Boulevard corridor which are potential assessment projects. If such water main extensions or replacements exist, please have detailed cost estimates provided for the same. Response: See Thomas C. Hall attached memorandum dated October 31, 1996 . COST ESTIMATE ITEM COST No Extension or Replacement Required 0 Thomas G. Bradford October 31, 1996 Page 6 - 5) Tri-Rail Passenger Station Your directive per October 2 Memorandum: Contact appropriate officials of the Tri-Rail Organization to request information indicating to you the amount of land needed to accommodate a standard Tri-Rail passenger station. Additionally, ascertain the amount of land needed for a traditional Tri-Rail passenger station for parking of passenger vehicles. Upon ascertaining the referenced square footage for the passenger train station and for parking, provide me with the same and I will advise the Committee of the cost of this concept at current Florida East Coast Railway land sale quotes ($3 .50 per square foot) . Response: Per the attached * Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority Transit Development Plan 1995-1999, the north extension (Jupiter/Tequesta) would require a 400' x 20' passenger station with parking for 500 vehicles. 0 (*) Plan is presently being revised. COST ESTIMATE ITEM COST Station & Parking (Land Acquisition Only) 185, 000 sq. ft . @$3 . 50/sq. ft. $657, E00 Condemnation Expenses $ 40, C00 TOTAL $697, 500 GP/mk Attachs . c : Al Oslund, Coordinator Stormwater Utility Thomas C. Hall, Water System MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Preston, Director of Public Works FROM: Al Oslund, Coordinator Stormwater Utility 07 DATE: October 28, 1996 SUBJECT: Extension of St. Jude Drive to Tequesta Drive And Link Westerly to Old Dixie Highway I have completed my review of the costs associated with the above referenced project, the assumptions being: 44 ft. Pavement width 1650 L.F. of new pavement 650 L.F. of Pavement Widening 8" of Rock Base 12" Stabilized subgrade Following is the cost estimate excluding streetscape, right-of-way acquisition, water and sewer. At such time as the land use and density is determined, a lift station and force main will need to be installed at the Developer's expense. 1) 5 ft. Sidewalk 2300/lineal ft. @$10.00/ lineal ft. $23,000 2) Type F Curb and Gutter $8.00/lineal foot x 4600 $36,800 3) Storm Sewer 2,000 lineal ft. @$30.00 $60,000 4) Compacted Subgrade 10,000 sq. yard @$2.00 $20,000 5) 8" Lime Rock or Cocina rock 10,000 sq. yard @$7.00 $70,000 6) Left turn lane (Old Dixie Hwy) 110' storage lane $20,000 7) 1-1/2" Asphalt 523 tons @$75.00/ton $39,233 8) Signage, striping, etc. Lump Sum $10,000 9) Engineering, Permitting Lump Sum $40,000 10) Contingencies at 15% $45,000 TOTAL $364,033 USE $365,000 AO/mk /J/ 6-,-) 4-- ,1 /J LJ 11J/- j .f 4- 7 : ).t/ 7 w•��..,,.ti — — w,oT ,... TyPc 'Ic .,,a I if. . C r›. P ) IB,• /4sG J 'I Z 1.511' ;r,o of-,_ / s .#N$Pt,• . 1 Z ''Sea ae..a I - • . .i` -//p/F.U,A ' , 7-301r1/c64¢ I • ' .. T /L N� s P^r 11 Z .,sump ° ._ • /JOw /-q4ve/ilE•v? 7.7i914.4 C.. /G 5-a . Memorandum To: Gary Preston, Director of Public Works & Recreation From: Thomas C. Hall, Water System Manager Date: October 31, 1996 Subject: Central Business District Projects The following is in response to Item No. 4 of the Village Manager's Memo to you dated October 2, 1996, regarding the above. At the present time, no extensions or replacements are planned for the two corridors indicated in Mr. Bradford' s memo. We are, however, planning to upgrade the water main from Village Blvd. to the Water Treatment Plant along the Old Dixie Highway when independence from Town of Jupiter is achieved. This section of water main will be enlarged to meet the hydraulic needs of our entire system and not specifically related to the Central Business District . Water main extensions to serve the downtown area will be the responsibility of those developing within that area and sizing can only be determined when the water demand and specific uses are established. Should you have any questions, please let me know. . TCH/mk • Board of Directors Village of Tequesta Rick Chesser Tri-County Betty T. Ferguson Commuter Rail Authority NOV 0 6 1996 Allen C. Harper act: Village Manager's Office Marie Horenburger November 4, 1996 Ed Kennedy Wendy U. Larsen Lori Nance Parrish Carol A. Roberts Mr. Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager Village of Tequesta David Rush PO Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive Gilbert M. Robert Tequesta, FL 33469-0273 Executive Director RE: Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority (Tri-Rail) Planning Activities/Tri-Rail Station Dear Mr. Bradford: In response to your letter dated October 28, 1996, regarding Tri-Rail future planning activities, in particular, dimensions and/or amount of land needed to accommodate a typical Tri-Rail station,the following is a breakdown of the approximate land required: Parking: approximately 5 acres (allotment of 500 spaces at 100 spaces/acre) Station: 0.5 acres for a double track station Please note that site situations may vary, and that Tri-Rail is actively pursuing joint development partnerships at its station sites. Should you need any additional information, please contact me or Fran Jones of my staff. Sincerely, • Beth !tan Director of Planning and Development BB/frj cc: Gilbert Robert 305 South Executive Director Andrews Avenue Suite 200 Jeffrey Jackson • Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Deputy Executive Director • Customer Information A. James Nadaskay 1-800-874-7245 Director of Engineering & Construction Executive Offices PBCo/IetterslTequesta.itr (954) 728-8512 T RI-COUNTY COMMUTER RAIL AUTHORITY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1 1995 - 1999 Prepared fon • • Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority • Fort Lauderdale, Florida • Prepared by: Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida Tampa, Florida • , I t AIL_ z WQa ' r M ti I ' CUTR ) I = , i 1 e S I ors IL $ • : . ' In conjunction with: 0 it t4 Wilbur Smith Associates 2 i Columbia, South Carolina g atr; z ,?. 0 I- - ' July 1994 `� --- _ TO' d ZOO' oN ZS: 5 96, QS 100 c..n)-oszo-)nti : rT ,:ncm7rh- Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority (Tri•Rail) 305 S. Andrews Avenue ' • Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (305) 728-8445; (305) 728-8512 Fax (305) 763-1345 . ; . • • Executive Director. Gilbert Robert Project Manager. Jeffrey Jackson Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, ENB 118 Tampa, Florida 33620-5350 • (813) 974-3120 Suncom 574-3120 Fax (813) 974-5168 Director. Gary L. Brosch Project Manager. Daniel K. Boyle . Project Staff: Ronald Sheck • Suzanne Dieringer Shelly Happel Deinis Hinebaugh Nilgun Kamp • Perry Maull Rebecca Rahimi • Tiffany Turner • WilburSmtth Assotlate 1301 Gerivals Str4et :. National Bank Tower, 13th Floor _ Columbia, South Carolina 29201 . • • (803) 7i38-0580 • ' Fax (803) 251.2922 • I Project Director. Richard S. Taylor • ZO' d Z00' oN SS: 6 gh, nc 1 -n afin,_aqc-,n47: n* --- I ` TABLE OF CONTENTS • List of Figures vii List of Tables xiii' Preface xvii Executive Summary xix Recommendations xxii Actions to be Taken Immediately xxii. Actions to be Taken within the Next One-to-Two Yeara xxv Actions to be Taken within the Next Two-to-Three Years xxviii Actions to be Taken within the Next Four-to-Five Years xxix Chapter One: Introduction 1 History 1 Commuter Rail Market and Demand 2 The Transit Development Plan : 3 Organization of this'Report i • 4 Chapter Two: Demographics 7 Population and Population Density 7 Population Age Characteristics 11 Transportation Disadvantaged Population ' 15 Income Characteristics = 16 Vehicle Availability i 1 I. . . . { . . . . 21 Employment Characteristics .r: . ' 25 Travel to Work ! 25 Travel Time to Work ; . . 26 • Means of Travel to Work 33 i i 1 . • 20' d ZOO' oN 2S: 6 96. 0s _DO L`hhl_Q9o-,n•. : rrT Hnc,ii7rh777 I Ni•ruut. I RANSIT DEVELOPMENT FLAN, 1995.1999 a Chapter Three: Goals and Objectives 37 Introduction 37 Agency Goals i 39 Departmental Objectives 47 Administration and Finance 47 Marketing 48 • Operations 50 Planning and Development 51 Operations Planning 51 Transportation Planning 52 • Grants Development/Administration 53 Capital Improvement Program 54 Project Development Management 54 Security 59 Security • • 59 Training and Safety 59 . Risk Management 59 General 60 Transit-Related Goals Identified In Other Sources 80 Land Use Element 61 Traffic Circulation Element 62 Mass Transit Element 63 Intergovernmental Coordination Element 65 Traffic Circulation 65 Mass Transit 68 • Capital Improvement Element 69 Mass Transit Element 70. , Land Use 77 , • Transportation I ; : • 7� 1 , 1 , i. Chapter Four: Tri-Rail.Service Evaluation 81 Tourist and Visitor Activity , 1 81 ' . CBD Parking Supply and Cost 82 Fort Lauderdale I • 8:2 Miami 133 Identification of Deficient Roadways • 84 • ii tr0• d ZOO* ON VS: 6 96. O ' 110 ~�_-oRo-Jnr+: rtT .,;,o..,,,�,- 1 I r nvua: yr No'dI I GPI I S smook l t • Palm 6eich County 85 Browaht!County 85 Local Officials/Community Leader interviews 85 Percepticins • 86 1 Improviitents 87 Policy issues 88 Interview Summary 88 Citizen Advisbry Committee Focus Groups 89 Focus Group Assessments 90 Focus Group Suggestions 91 On-Board Survey 91 System Overview 92 Survey aiysis • 92 • Summa of Survey Results - Demographic Information 97 Age 97 • Gender 97 Etfnit Origin 98 Anhui) Household Income 98 • Auto Ownership 98 • Educational Attainment 99 Summatyj of Survey Results - Travel Behavior 99 ' Average Trip Length 99 Station Activity i 99 . Trip Purpose 100 • Modes of Access and Egress 100 Fare Type by County of Boarding 100. ;Patron Assessment of the System 100 Summary of Performance Assessment 104 i Comparison of User Satisfaction Ratings . . 113 I . .Conclusions and Summary 114, ' Tri-Rail Peer and Trend Review - . . 1.15 Introduction • - j 115 Commuter Rail Systems ; • . 116. System Profiles ! . 116 i . Peer Review 120 Performance Indicators . 124' . . El SO' d Z00. oN 17S: 6 • 96, OS 1D0 ot7t72-oao_)n+, : (TT mn�w,,,,,--- !I iffectIveness Measures 130 Efficiency Measures 134 1'ri-Rail Operating Trend Analysis, 1989-1992 140 Performance Indicators 140 thfectiveness Measures 144 : Efficiency;Measures . 146 Summary of Peer and;Trend Findings 150 Feeder Bus Service Evaluation •• • . . . 150 Evaluation of Feeder Sus Service 150 • Feeder Bus System Performance 151 Feeder Stirvice Alternatives 156 Taxi N Vanpbols 155 158 Results of On Hoard Survey Related to Feeder Bus Service 159 • Demographics 159 User Satidfaction, Fare Type, and Frequency of Use 159 Tri-Rail Plc-n-Ride Lots 162 Chapter Five: Ddfnand Estimation and Needs Assessment 165 • Population Grliwth, Trends and Forecasts 165 Tri-Rail arid Local Transit Ridership Trends 167 Peer System Population, Service, and Ridership 169 Tri-Rail Gbwth Potential 170 ; • Chapter Six: Trl ail Scenarios . • 177 Status Quo , Li 178 Core Corridor!Pocus . , ; 180 . Service Extent8ion . 182 I Summary . . I I • 184 i Chapter Seven: l'hi-Rail Transit Development Plan: Direction and Pecommandations 185 Direction and Vision 185 • Findings and hecommeridations 187 Actions tome Taken Immediately 187 • Actions tabs Taken within the Next One-to-Two Years • J 190• d • iv 90' d ZOO' oN SS: 6 96, O2 1710 afir>>_ooa_ ,,,-•" •_-- ••+-•�. yr vvnionl0 • MIllimomor • 1. • Actions to be Taken within the Next Two-to-Three Years 193 Actions to be Taken within the Next Four-to-Five Years • 194 • • I • Chapter Eight: Capital Improvement Program Cost Estimates 197 A. Corridor Track improvements 198 B. Signal/Train Control - 202 C. Stations . D. TCRA Staff Planning and Engineering 1 ' 20 4 211 E. Service Extensions 211 F. Maintenance Facilities • • 214 G. Roiling Stock. 215 H. Miscellaneous Items 218 I. Feeder Service 219• J. Grade Crossing improvements 219 K. Right-of-Way Maintenance ' ' 220 • L. Airport Intermodal Connections 220 . M. Capital Improvement Program Contingencies • •• • 221 • Capital Improvement Cost Summary 221 Chapter Nine: Future Options 227 Capital Improvement Program Funding Options 227 Existing Sources of Tri=Rail improvement.Funde 228 Federal Funding Sources 232 State Transportation Trust Fund Revenue Sources 235 Sufficiency of State Transportation Trust Fund Revenues 237 State-wide Motor Fuel Taxation i 239 State General Fund Revenues 242 State of Florida;- General Fund Revenue Sources i Anticipated Bost f'Tri-Rall Services Extensi9jn and Improvement Options 243 •Potehtiai Fur1ding Qptions for the Proposed Capital improvement Program 245 F.assenger Fares J 245 l - Federal Assistance Funds 247 State Assistance Funds ' � • � 248 j - Ilocai Option Taxes Funding of Other Commuter Railroads 248 • (dentification'of Funding Options I 255 i 255 • • Ella ... ..... 20' d .700' oN SS: F 95, ns 1710 o+, ')-oQo-Inn: nT ,ln�,1-:,.,c,77,,. /� .. . vrvrglGPlI rtAiii 7VV0,13/UV 1. Option A: Traditional STTF Sources , , 256 Option B: Increase State-wide Sales and Use Tax 257 Option C: Dedicated State Lottery Receipts 257 Option D: Contribution from Local Option Taxes 257 Option E: Increased Passenger Fares 258 Option F: Metropolitan Transportation Authority 260 • Financing the Tri-Rail Capital Improvement Program } 261 Pay-as-you-go Basis of Financing the Capital Improvement Program 261 Accelerated Program Phasing through Revenue Bonding • 262 Summary of Tri-Rail Funding and Capital Expenditures (1989-2000+): Funding Conclusions • 264 ' Appendices ' • 267 Appendix A: Interview Questions 269 • • . Appendix B: Focus Groups•Guide 273 Appendix C: List of Definitions: Peer and Trend Measures 279 . • • • • • • If ;: • i i • . 'i VI 80' d ZOO. oN 9S: 6 96 , nc 1 :10 4t74-7 J-opo-J 0+, : r" ,� vPPAPTeR r"iarrr: CAPITAL.IMPROVEMENT COSTS • CrtJ • CHAPTER EIGHT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COST ESTIMATES • The Tri-Rail Transit Development Plan identifies planned servr'ce developments and a • number of capital improvements or investments anticipated between FY 1995 and 1999. The planned service developments include; . , • • • Extension of commuter rail service at both ends of the current West Palm Beach-Miami route. 1. North on CSX to the site of the new Veterans Administration Hospital. . .. ., • • :li • 17.` . • • . • 2. • South from the existing Miami Airport terminal to a new site which is anticipated •. to be a shared facility with Amtrak.. . . . .. .... .. . . : . • Minimum hourly service for a maximum 50 trains per*day: • ... , I . • . • • • Increase in service frequency upon completion of the currently programmed signal and double-tracking efforts; plus whatever additional sidings are needed to permit peak- • • hour.service. at 30-minute intervals: and hourly-service.during the balance,of:the • •weekday. • ' . •.;: . • . .. •C. i' ' r::: <, _ , •..• : . • Opening of new statio s on the existingroute..and oip the •• I i I Iproposed route �xtension�. Cost estimates were prepared for both the plannsd and/br needed capital p improvements based on the service assum tions presented above that include:the:following items: i1 • I 1 • ..i 1 • A. Corridor Trick Improvements; B. Signal/Train Control: C. Stations/Parking Expansion; • •- 197 60' d 7.00' oN 9S: Er-- TRI-RA•L TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN., 1995-1999• • • • D. Station Improvement Design, Engineering, and Planning; E. Service Extensions; F. Maintenance Facilities; 1 O. Rolling Stock; H. Miscellaneous Items; • . I. Feeder Services; J. Grade Crossing Improvements; • • K. Right-of-Way Improvements; L. Airport Intermodai Connections; and . • • M. Capital improvement Program Contingencies. : . • . • These Items are described, assumptions presented, and costs developed in the following • sections. • , A. CORRIDOR TRACK IMPROVEMENTS . in 1992 Deleuw, Cattier and Company prepared a Master Plan for Double-Tracking the state-owned corridor between West Palm Beach and Miami for FDOT that addressed many • of the planned service developments anticipated byTri-Rail in the future;••The resultant plan ' subdivided the corridor between milepost(MP)969.7(northeast of the passing track at West Palm Beach)and MP 1037.70 (the location of the proposed new Miami Airport station)into nine segments based on planned lend of dotabie-track and/or universal crossover Interlocking locations (see Figure 8-1). These segments are numbered from south to north beginning with the planned extension to the new Miami Airport station:-For this study, a segment has been added(Segment 10)for the track segment from West Palm Beach to the proposed VA Hospital extension. The segments and. their associated mileposts are'presented in Table 8.1. These segments and the Improvements Identified in the master plan' form the basis for the corridor'a'track improvementsi • :i•• • ; • i. •:: ;) ! 1 I • . . • • ,. . . • . , •.:I.. •.!,; r;. r! )r,} ,Irt�' . �•.:,;� .. . i I • ... • •• . . • ; ,....;'. I' 'ir' tki �rr•�il- '�., ir. •i:��r'1: i(!i eq.• M • i • • iti::7 j::.: . 7.1 • 'Master Plan for Double Tracking West Palm to Mama,prepared by DeLeuw, Cattier and Company, 1992. • ' 198 01 ' d 7.00' 0N IS:S gh, nc TO oati)-gszo-lnt* : rtT Figure`8-1 •• • ' e - - — , Track, Signal and Station "'P'49'' • Improvements1"-)' West Palm Beath Station I • f" Palm peach Airport Station • • • • t�977.06 — — like worth Station • I • -' Boynton Beach Station . 1 : • 49 -- - - A`� ... Delray Bad,Setion . .. .. • • A • I y �Y K»So Batna • • 5oca RatonStatica "" (Yamato Road)* • :10444415 •.- Raton/loath Statlop PAW ttueR coupnY • I OWAItD COUNTY __.... .. • .^ 5�,�(Cj) ��1 Deerfield Beach saaott • MP balsa .. — _ r PoetttattoBeach Station t; ' ••••1-'--' ' t V. ' I ' � Cypress Creek Shtloal • • I • Legend • MP 701113 ��- Existin - ila Station• g Td Rail 'Pi t$uderd Route New rover , l: .,• i • r. f1 .1, dt� ,< Ct7:.114'tat t,n. 1 .. . .�.-- • Planned Extension'` . ' I ,. i F• C+I' '''.le Airport Station .. : o tvGamk Airport . ►. . . I . . r %Sheddafl Stint 5ht� . M -Modal Center . - ,• . ::. •;. .•; ,:stingStaHone •;� I.. . •..:.•:' 1�1019.9 _; i C` Hollywood Stat;On'•'.%t•' • . Existing n••: :ivy, saowAaacoutrrY'•, • 1 t I i DAoi co inTy- ' " ' �.... ;.i •,, . , . ., .•,,. . 1 L>P `Mtge ( :•;1: ,.. r C1.deaSrNon1�,,, ,''�: . ' • xposts in' ' viii .V. •.r:l ;t. : ) . t,,i • , ' I : i•' 1 CS Systorn MP Io32.lt • t?pia sttb`oq ;�/ :I.ti si' :; Gst • • Ms -oI St re on' I • Boca Raton Yarnato ' Road Station to be, ' • I 'I . • Replaced by kip 1031,34 ;V rowel Airport Stadon N Boca Raton North i and South Stations i r a .+ e • Mang • MaAlryoet/MulMmndaijentet,,„ ,,. vL T T • d Z00' ON 8S: F 05, f;C 1 In a+,t,1-000- rtT _-- TRI-RAIL TRANsiT DEV!LGPM!NT PLAN, 1995.1899 . • ( ) - ..1 • • Table 8-1 Master Plan Segments mciii.e°�` 'A'r:•.Boglnning:': • Ending: i • •. •• . : ;:. MIIiost_' . p .•,-• . , Milepost ' .. 1 1037.40 1038.54 • i 2 1036.64 1031.42 • • 1 3 1031,42— 1019.90 r • 4 1019.90 1012.15 • • • L S .1012.15 1003.53 ' . a _ 1003,83 998,45 • 7 995.45 988.29 . 1. e 988.29 977.06 • , 9 • ; 977.05 • • ': 069.70 . • 10 969.70. " 963.00 •• • . Source: DeLeuw, Cather and Company,Corridor Master Plan • Track improvement Scheduling. It is understood that FOOT plans to begin double-tracking• • the corridor with Segment 5 between MP 1012.15 (southeast of Carman) and MP 1003.53 (northeast of pompano) in 1994, Table 8-2A includes the track segments expected to be double-tracked by the year 1999. The other segments will be addressed in the raid-range ' time period in the year 2000 and beyond, as noted in Table 8-2B. Track Configuration: The location of the second track, alignment, and construction • • i materials are as proposed in the Master Plan for Double-Tracking West Palm Beach to Miami, . prepared for FOOT in 1992 by DeLeuw, Cather and Company, with, the exception .of crossovers. The master plan recommended Universal N . 20 crossovers every 10 miles. i • t However,'for this. effort; Universal No. 20'crossovers would be installed.every five miles., Midlevel Bridge;,In addition to the track'improvements discussed above, a new midlevel i ; two-track drawbridge Would be constructed at the New River crossing to replace ttie`existing I I i at-grade drawbridge as presented in.the-master plan. 1 . i 1 ' . { I • • , • i . .. . ,i... i •; I 1 , �. r�I'.. a ••• ! ).�'II1, :l i . • •I • II • :• .1ol1.) •.:.' • ' i .. ( !Ii' . I,•. i . •• zoo _.... .-. ....... ... . .... ZT • d Z00' °N 8S: 696, 0c 1710 ohr, ,_oc.:_ ,n.,. n. vrviru cm Liuni; i*rrr L IM1PROVEMEIYT ‘i12373 V� 1 k. Cost Estimates. Cost estimates for each double-track segment were prepared based on a quantity take-off of the costs shown onlhe DeLeuw, Cather and Company master plan modified, as described above.. Because the unit costs were In 1992 dollars, a 4-percent inflation factoi was applied to the unit costs. • in addition, as there are numerous details necessary for construction that are not identifiable at this level of planning, a contingency of 30 percent has been added. Design,'construction management, and project management are also factored Into the estimate at ! percent, 8 percent, and 3 percent respectively. The 'estimated cost of implementing each of the segments is summarlxed In Tables 8-2A and 8-28. .. • . • . ,. . . Table 84A • • Estimated Cost of Corridor Track Improvement ' ' 1995.1999 Capital Costs " • - Fivs Year Plan "` "' ' ' ' • �:•'3e merits: ` :�.:-.a:.4 p 4.,._... w. $t t Da .:. ++��,, _ itlrttm•, •Co" . 31 . . !7 �.r:V .,. Yo Q3t4: ^":;:;„t• ,,,.� t�;�: �i; ,LOd. >rt .b;- ' 3 MP 1019.90 to 1031.42 1995 . 28,971,273 ' 5 MP 1003.53 to 1012.15 '• • 1995 ' 125,518,029 ' _ 1 MP 1036.54 to 1037.4 1995 3,236,923 10 . . 'MP 983A to 969.7 1995 - 3,000,000. S • 2 MP 1031.42 to 1036.64 . 1998. ' . _ . , . 14,994,718 • i 1 g MP 996.45 to 1003.53 1998 ... 19,613,043 ' Total " S94,333,988 • .includes track and signal. . Source: •Compiled by Wilbur Smlth,Assodates, January 1994 . , • . 'j .. . �.. :.,• s;1j •t..' •'• •..i.:..i: .. . . . .. .. .' .'. . .:f' .:i 11Vl.: ;:r'•:'4". .'ii:) I .�\.': • ;I' ''I'! :. . . .:',. • • ii !. ....1 h!•, .• 1C .,• . .. . . • . . . ''r'/;.•! 1/4-.!Al `,.-, �•.(: ; .• . . • 1 201 • ct ' d Z00' oN 6S: 6 o5 , rnc inn ahr0-oQ()_)r,,, : mT _ -_ • TRI-RAIL TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN,.1 99 5-1 99 9•• • ' • • ' Table 8-2B Estimated Cost of Corridor Track Improvement Year 2000+ Capital Costs Midrange Plan• • Estimalited.0 ost. 4 MP 1012.15 to 1019.90 • 2000+ $ 19,687,571 7 MP 988.29 to 996.45 240+ 21,775.456 . 8 .MP 977.05 to 988.29 • 2000+ 31,043,231 : 9 MP 989.70 to 977.05 • 2000+ • 24,365,069 • • New River Midlevel Bridge 2000+ 49,517,964 • Total $146,279,311 • Source; Compiled by WBbur Smith Associate6,January 1994 • • :-r„ . • . B. S1GNAL/TRAIN CONTROL • • : Description. A new microwave transmitted signal system.adaptable for future cab signaling in logomotives to allow train speeds in excess of 79 mph would be installed.-.This includes new wayside signals as needed and'additional crossover`'signals as previously discussed. In addition, approach circuits at grade crossings would be lengthened to,permit the higher • speed of operation, the interlocking at iris would be improved:to allow better on-time train • performance, and a train annunciator system would be installed to improve passenger safety ' at each station. !:n•i? . :s: . . � I Assumptions Although th} corridor mhster plan proposes to.signalize all crossings within the corridor, it was assumed.fdr the purposestof this estimate that only those crossings identified in the FDOTs 1993 request for ISTEA Section 1010 Stage 2 funding for the next six years would have new warning devices installed. Stage 2 funding refers to • i crossing slghal installation and enhancements. I • A new,control center would be constructed. • A new communication system would be installed. • A new midlevel drawbridge over New River would be constructed. . 202 t'T ' d Z00' °N 6S: 6 96, 0 1710 Qnr, 0-0R4-Jnt,:rt- %nnrlcn VArI1AL IMPROVEMENT VESTS ,. • D. TCRA STAFF PL.ANNiNG AND ENGINEERING Currently, Tri-Rail staff members are spending a great deal of time planning and securing engineering plans and estimates for current and planned capita! improvement programs. Based on existing plans and those projeded for the future, funding would be required to address capital improvement planning and engineering efforts. Thus, it is proposed that funding for such efforts be included in the capital improvement program estimate,. • Cost Estimates. Estimates for station planning, engineering, and design needs were assumed at 8 percent of station and parking expansion costs. • . • E. SERVICE EXTENSIONS The following assumptions were made concerning the three proposed service extensions. • • VA Hospital-Extension - ' . •. • • Station.-The new station would initially cost$1,5 million to open in 1995. This cost,has been included In the station improvement section:and in Table 8-4A. Future upgrades to the station are scheduled beyond the five-year timeframe of this study and are estimated at $2.28 mdlion. This midrange cost item is shown in Table 8-5. . • • Land Acquisition - Tri-Rail has estimated that a site large enough to accomnnodate 600 parking spaces V! uld*efe to fie ac timed,'at a,cost of$$.4 • minion. This cost has been inctudedin Table 8-4A: • Track The main track.between MP4SdL 8®. nd MP 983'.0 and:both the sidings 1. .i. .. .. . • .. ''at Northwood ands Dyer war be at an infiaf cdst'of $3 million, as • '` •reviousl shown in Table -3A: a co.St of futdre`tracici.upgrade would be $11,291million, shown in Ta include grade crossing upgraded to eliminate,the need to sound engine warning horns and converting ' croasiri '�Surfa'ces'to qrubbe '."' •�'' 9 rubber-type panels: The storage tracK rrently used by C_ SX on'the 'east' side of the'niainGne'at'the'northeast;of Dyer would be • •i• • . .� .�':% it` , ^::�� ... . !1' ; , ' ,. 211 SZ ' d Z00' oN 0(1: 01 9E, (r anti)-000_ )nr:/T N . TRI-RAIL TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 199571999 • • L - • upgraded and extended to provide for a station platform and storage of one train set. • • • Signals - The same signal logic and methodology as presented by DeLeuw would be used for the service extension. These costs are included in Table 8-5. • • Airport Extension.. • • , The airport extension has been included in the track, signalization and station costs presented above, since this extension is considered part of Tri-Rail's core corridor. • Jupiter Extension • • Stations - Four single 400-foot fully covered platform stations would be constructed along the route. . • Land Acquisitions - Four sites would be acquired for station and parking facility construction. • • Parking - Parking facilities that would accommodate 500 vehicles would be constructed at each station. • • Connection C struction•-The existing connection track between the siding at Northwood d the FEC would be upgraded with.136#..CWR and concrete ties. Approximately 1,000 feet of new 136#CWR track on concrete ties would • be constructed to.;provide a. northbound.• connectio with,•the FEC at approximately M 297.38,forming. a s: Tri-Rail would I then make.use of FEC's west track fdr 4.83 mils to Lake Park'(MP 292.55).• • , .. �. ,; •,;.%/9.1.1 . currently the end of double-track. • Main Track Construction'-•From Lake Park, a,second main track would be constructed 15 feet from thi existing;main;on the,old roadbed of the now • removed second!track to Camp Murphy South,,(MP 280.9) at Jupiter. Main' track constructed on the FEC right-of-way would be constructed of concrete • • :111E1 9I ' d Z00' oN T O: OT 96. 02 1JO 9 -4gq-lnh: n T .•�cA��, �,, • CHAPTER EIGHT: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT'COSTS eN cr`J crossties spaced 24 inches on center and new 136*CWR.. Construction would --- - - — -----take-place on the other side of the existing main track, depending.on which.......- side the former second track was removed when this segment was converted I 'to single track. At least ten inches of crushed stone ballast would be Installed • beneath the ties. • • Turnouts and Crossovers - Currently, the FEC has No. 20 turnouts at both • • Lake Park and Camp Murphy South. The proposed track conflguratlon.would • , • convert Lake Park.to a'universal No. 20'crossover location. South Camp Murphy would be converted to a single No. 20 crossover. In addition, at the Ihslfway point, approximately 6.85 ,miles, another universal No. 20 crossover would be Installed. All turnouts would be constructed of new 138#material on concrete switch ties.. . • • Bridges - There are six Iodations where new bridges would be required, provided the FEC would permit usage of the now unused west side of the . double-track drawbridge over the Loxahatchie River at Jupiter. it was assumed for the purpose of this,estimate that the FEC wouid••permit the use of.this • structure and that'no repairs would be needed for the proposed operation. Five of the remaining six locations would be short, low-level fixed-span bridges. It was assumed that concreto ballast deck structures like those proposed by DeLeuw in the corridor would be used. The remaining bridge;approximately 100 feet in length, spans the Earman River: This bridge was assumed to be a deck plate girder structure like its single-track counterpart • Right-of-Way - Throughout the length of the corridor, the right-of-way is sufficient for the proposed work as it is presented. Thus,•.no.. fight-of-way purchase was anticipated at this time, except for the 1,004 footsegment of ew track needed to construct the northbound connection with the!FECJ Howeer, ' , some allowances.may, be required if the fiber-optio cable installed djacent to • • .the..track has to be relocated. Ii • • •I , . . ' i I • I • Earthwork - Earthwork should bd minimal between Lake Park and Cimp • Murphy South,unless some widening is needed to permit 15-foot track centers. segment at Northwood would require a The connection +`r�new roadbed. • Eel ZT ' d Z00' °N TO: OT 96. Os !JO an+7)-000-)nr: rT qncW7, h77� TRi-RAIL TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1985-1999 . . • • Grade Crossings- Grade crossings would be upgraded to eliminate the need to sound engine warning horns, and crossing surfaces would be a rubber-panel type extending two feet(minimum) beyond the edge of pavement at eachlend. An additional three feet of crossing would be added for pedestrian use when no paved walkway is present. • Layover Track -A layover track would be constructed on the west side of the track at Jupiter to provide storage for one train set. The track would be of • timber construction with a No. 10 turnout on concrete switch ties in the main line. • It should be understood that all materials end construction on FEC right-of=way would have to conform to FEC standards or be approved by the FEC. • Signals - The same signal logic and methodology as presented by DeLeuw would be used for the extensions. • Cost Estimates. Cost estimates were prepared for each of the service extensions based on the assumptions discussed previously. Tri-Rai sources provided costs related to stations, land acquisition, and parking facilities. Track and signal estimates wire prepared based on unit costs taken from the DeLeuw estimates and adjusted for Inflation. A 30-percent factor for contingencies and additives was also included. The short-terra costs for the Miami Airport . and VA Hospital extensions have been included in previous sections. The midrange cost for the VA Hospital and Jupiter extensions is summarized in Table 8-5. F. MAINTENANCE FACILITIES Capital improvements to the maintenance facility at Hialeah yard were identified Trani three .. sources: A list of short-term capital improvements that Tri Ralf committ4d to perform for • Herzog; : : - The FOOT Southeast Florida *Rail Corridor Project Master Flan.list.for the. years • . • • 1992.1997; and, " 214 8I ' d Z0O' °N ZO: OT 96, 02 Ian al • - Tri-County CommuteTz,i112.,/:+ruplt-ilic,),ri,!% (51 Vi U- ii .‘'' ) tIAR p $ 1s90 , GEE Existing & EN rr,�, Corridor Evaluation SFRC .to FEC • i • Summary Report I • i . i• . I , i February 1994 . 1 ' t i• I t Post-It•Fax Note 7671 DMe AVMS II' 111 ' To AL. O o t-u a v rrD ld A a ON Be m err • coJD'#• -reQu r�s-r a Co. a i 3 ' 1 . • Phone w a+ t Phone II , 'Fa" (sat) Silo CMS, F,X P I HARRIS Frederic R. Harris, Inc. i i CONTENTS • • Faze i Introduction 1 • 1.0 Purpose of Ev$uatlon 1-0 2,0 Description of Corridor Alternatives 2-0 3.0 Corridor Evaluation 3-0 4.0 F.E.C. Negotiations -Future- 4-0 "Tables 1.1 Summary of Alternatives • • 2-4 3.1 Positive and Negative Attributes 3-2 • • Figures 1.1 Location Map 1-3 2.1 Downtown 2-5 • 2.2 Northwood • 2-6 2.3 Lewis Terminals 2-7 • • • • • t � ; • . • • Corridor Ewbrativse —SFRC so F.E.C. - IItroductioa • t , 1. INTRODUCTION This evaluation report considers three existing railroad corridors in Palm Beach County which would allow the Tri-Rail system to expand service onto the F.E.C. railroad tracks north of First Street. This expansion would allow Tri-Rail to pervice traffic generators north of the West Palm Beach central business district as well as the populous corridor parallel to Dixie Highway, Alt. Al A and 1-95. This report is organized into the following sections. Section 1.0 Purpose of Evaluation This section discusses the current Tri-Rail system, potential northerly extensions from the existing northern terminus and potential railroad corridor connections between the SFRC and the F.E.C. Section 2.0 Description of Corridor Alternatives This section provides an illustrated photographic aerial and analysis of the operational considerations of the three SFRC to F.E.C.corridor alternatives. Section 3.0 Corridor Evaluation This section evaluates the positive and negative attributes of the Downtown, Northwood and Lewis Terminal corridors. RECOMMENDATION The findings of this evaluation study indicate that the Downtown and Northwood corridor are the most feasible alternatives"for connecting the SFRC to the F.E.C. railroad corridor. This conclusion is based on the availability of the existing railroad ] ROW and the operational considerations involved in transversing the connector corridor. Future actions beyond the scope of this study include: • s Obtain detailed information on the two preferred corridor alternatives. This information should include land use, environmental considerations, utility data and traffic impacts. • • Prepare conceptual plans depicting the Modificatioiss to the existing corridor i alignment required to accommodate Tri-Rail's operations. These conceptual plans should be accompanied by order of magnitude costs. • • . 1 • Corridor r yr ,,, —SFRC o F.E.C. i • Evaluate the two preferred corridors as the relate to the goals of the City of West Palm Beach and Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plans and the Northwood Community Redevelopment Area. • • Obtain consensus from TCRA, FDOT, the Florida East Coast Railroad, City of West Palm Beach and Palm Beach County on a preferred alternative. • November 18, 1993 MPO - encouraged Northwood crossing. • November 29, 1993 City of West Palm Beach - encouraged Northwood crossing. • • • • • • • • • I 1t i 1 • • • • • Corridor£wruarion -SFRC to F.E.C. 1 ' I Section 1 1.0 PURPOSE OF EVALUATION 1.1 Current Tri-Rail System • Tri-Rail is cuneutly a 67-mile commuter rail line:serving the Dade-Broward-Palm • Beach tri-county area. The rail line utilizes the CSX railroad tracks, acquired by the Florida Department of Transportation in 1089, which roughly parallel I-95. This rail corridor is now referred to as the South Florida Rail Corridor (SFRC). Thepresent northern terminus of thesystem is the West Palm Be li ac Station sharing the site with Amtrak. The present southern terminus Is in the City of Hialeah at Okeechobee Road and State Road 112 just north of the Miami International Airport (MIA). In the near future the system will be expanded in the north approximately seven miles to the new V.A. Hospital located In Palm Beach County at the Bee Line Highway and Blue Heron Boulevard and south approximately. one mile to Miami International Airport at NW21st Street. Presently fifteen stations exist within the Tri-Rail system, this number will increase to nineteen stations once the approved extensions and new stations are complete. • 1.2 Long Range Extensions - Palm Beach County Two possible extensions of the Tri-Rail system in Palm Beach County which involve existing railroad corridors include: 1. Extending service north westerly along the CSX railroad tracks to traffic generators such as the North Palm Beach County Airport and Pratt & Whitney. 2. Extending service north easterly along the F.E.C. railroad tracks to traffic generators such as the Port of Palm Beach, regional 'hospitals and commercial development in northeast Palm Beach County and potentially to southern Martin County. , This report discusses only the extension long the F.E.C. railroad right of way. 1.3 SFRC to F.E.C. - Corridor Evaluation l • 1 Three existing rail corridors have;been identified between First Street and Blue , Heron Boulevard for providing access for Tri•-Rail from the SFRC to F.E.C.. All three corridors are existing railroad rights-of-way. The three corridors are • listed below and are shown on Figure 1.1. , Corridor Evaluation -SFRC to F.F-G • I - 1 I ' Section 1 I 1) Downtown (parallel to First Street) 2) Northwood (approximately two blocks north of 25th Street) 3) Lewis Terminals (in the area of 8th Street to 15th Street In Riviera Beach) There are several objectives and anticipated benefits which together define the purpose of the proposed corridor connection between the SFRC and the F.E.C.. • To provide a rail corridor connection that allows Tri-Rail to gain access to traffic generators in northeast Palm Eeach County and Martin County. • • To utilize an existing railroad ROW to accommodate the proposed corridor connection. • To provide a safe corridor connection which minimizes travel time for Tri-Rail. • To minimize traffic impacts to the local collector and arterial ' streets. • To minimize impacts to the adjacent land uses by offering potential development incentives; that support transit. • • To provide northern Palm Beach County with a North/South commuter system through rail, linking a East/West feeder bus system. •• • • To allow the implementation of "Node" development patterns, stressed in the recent North County Growth Development forum. • To assist in potentially tieing the Port of Palm Beach with the interuiodal center through surface rail. • • • • Corridor Erorledo. -SFRC to 11.4e 1 - 2 ■ •i % new F�.4. C " 1 1 I MA Thi/r ICE CH if W iat. el I ' 2 r ILL 111\\ : (Lic I - PQA sew. `'�� 1 PALM BEACH GARDENS . 1-1 g �. �Ovrt/iL O t~ 1 iret..5 N r `+ ORTHLAKE • . ,, t ti .z k O'N i t7 . I PARK �� i i Ilin1 { $.R_AIA�/ PROPOSED VA � T. _ IIPi- HOSPITAL STATIC 1 I C2 U LE_WIS TERMINALS 1 t illAT OF 'AN � c* ;II:W 45th .y iz1YF `k i / P :N NNORTHWOOD- 2 , .- wcf � L. 25th/27th ST. vp(ill Lfi� i W 5 litii. ! 7 . ,.:P_ r ��r7�fr�iuwri . . . . i : . . ,_, . ! : : II% .. 1.4 • . cHoe /1 0iLZ DOWNTOWN . -rf IlitiIE 1 I tt 1 I I W.P.S. STATION . I Figyre 1.1 LOCATION MAP - CORRIDOR EVALUATION - SFRC to FEC PALM BEACH COUNTY I.FLORIDA . (I) linTOSCAM waive 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES The three corridors are shown conceptually on the following aerials (Figure 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 . The design criteria which was used to analyze these corridors included the minimal allowable radius and travel speeds for Tti-Rail's trains. The design criteria'is as follows; • Minimum radius of a curve: 350' • Travel time estimates based on 15 m.p.h. ' • Push/pull "turn-around" movement for Tri-Rail system takes 10 minutes A summary of the alternatives appears in Table 2.1. 1 2.1 Downtown Corridor This is an abandoned corridor which use to service the City of West Palm Beach Water Plant and Flo Gas Corporation. Portions of the railroad track has been removed from this corridor. The Downtown corridor, which is approximately .47 mile in length, is the most southerly of the three corridors under consideration. It is located on the north side of First Street and joins the SFRC just north of the Tamarind Ave. and First Street intersection. The connection of this corridor with the F.E.C. is north of First Street in the vicinity of new Palm Beach Courthouse. • ' The land uses south of the corridor are commercial and office relating to the central business district. The land uses north of the corridor arc general commercial and multiple family residential with significant areas of land that are vacant. The alignment of the railroad within this corridor follows the previous railydad alignment. This railroad alignment consists of three grade crossings. These are located at Tamarind Ave. and First St., Sapodilla Ave. and Rosemary Ave. There arc two curves within this alignment. The radius of the two curves are 375'and proposed at 450' where it would join the SFRC track. • This alignment allows maximum capture of!ridership. • 2.2 Northwood Corridor • This corridor is located in an older established industrial arca. The use of the railroad to service this industrial..area appears to be minimal with the exception of a parked railroad car on the western terminus at the SFRC. Co►rteor E'otnartoi -SfRC go t.E.c. 2 - 1 5ai:a _ The Northwood corridor, which is approximately .47 mile in length, is located approximately 1.5 miles north of the Downtown corridor. The connection of this corridor to the SFRC is by two wyes located north of 25th Street. Tile existing corridor connection to the F.E.C. is by a wyc to the south located at 25th Street and the F.E.C.. The land uses adjacent to corridor are industrial. The Evergreen Cemetery is located northwest of a proposed wyc that would be necessary to connect this corridor to the F.E.C. in a northern direction. The corridor area is also within the limits of the proposed City of West Palm Beach Northwood Community Redevelopment Area. 1 The alignment of this corridor follows the established wyes for the SFRC. In the area of Tamarind Ave the alignment would have to be shifted to the south to allow for a 350'radius around the southeast corner of the Evergreen Cemetery. The wye heading north to the F.E.C. is a new railroad alignment. There are six grade crossings with the alignment connecting the SFRC to the F.E.C. in a northerly direction. It appears that the only grade crossing having some impact would be the one located at Tamarind Avenue. The minimum radius of the two curves is 350'. - This alternative would not provide uninterrupted service to the 7 million square feet of office space downtown and the Good Samaritan Hospital. . i 23 Lewis Terminals Corridor • • This railroad corridor connects the SFRC to the F.E.C. through an established industrial area which consist of large parcel developments. This existing railroad • corridor is maintained and used to service the fronting industrial users. • The Lewis Terminals corridor, which is approximately 2.26 miles in length, is located approximately 4 miles north of the Downtown corridor. The connection tp the SFRC is by the wyes at the Mission spur and the connection to the'F.E.C. would be by a proposed wye located at 17th Street and Old Dixie Highway. The land uses adjacent to the majority of the corridor are industrial uses with a significant amount of undeveloped parcels. There is an area which abuts the railroad • • tracks that is community facilities. This area consist of a neighborhood ipark and school. • • Corridor Evaluation —SFRC to F.E.C. 2 - 2 5<aic+a The alignment of this corridor follows the established railroad all except for the wyc tying the corridor to the F.E.C.. The area needed to accommodate this wye would involve the taking.of commercial parcels with frontage on Old Dixie Highway. There arc six grade:crossings along this corridor. Three of the six crossings are minor grade crossings. The three major crossings include Old Dixie Highway, Australian Avenue and Inlet Boulevard (8th Strect). The minimum radius of the six curves is 050'. • This option would further decrease uninterrupted service to the Port of Palm Beach. • • • • • • • i • • • • Con•idar,Evaluation -SFRC w F.E.C. 2 - 3 • Figure 2.1 Summary of Alternatives J Issues - Alternatives Downtown Northwood Lcwis Terminal Right of Way • Existing railroad corridor • Existing railroad corridor • Existing R.O.W. for railroad Corridor Alignment • Length of corridor 0.47 mi Non-active Railroad corridor • Non-active railroad • 700' of relocated railroad • Active railroad corridor • 600' of new railroad corridor • 600' of new railroad corridor • Length of corridor 2.16 mi • -- • • Length of corridor 0.47 mi m m m • to Land Availability 400' of new railroad corridor • 600' of new railroad corridor • 600' of new railroad corridor __ connecting to the north is is zoned for industrial use is zoned for industrial use z zoned General Commercial Presently vacant. Presently occupied, o (CC) z N - - D Operational -- • Travel Time: 1.88 min • Travel Time: 1.88 min • Travel Time: 8.64 min D Considerations • 3 at-grade crossing (if • 5 at-grade crossing • 6 at-grade crossing o push/pull movement to north 5 • Push/pull movement to north • Push/pull movement to south D .grade crossings adds 10 min. to travel time adds 10 min. to travel time • Push/pull movement to north _ adds 10 min. to travel time. A Urban-Area • ' • Residential area zoned MF 20 Existing Industrial Corridor • Existing IndustrialUl Interface just to the north of corridor • Old Northwood Industrial co • ---- — Park district (Proposed o Northwood CRA) to Environmental . •. • .--Property takings • Evergreen Cemetery • Property takings Considerations • Residential area • Property takings Notes: Travel Time based on 15 m.p.h. .. 2 - 4 .. Sea be 7 i • 0 CORRIDOR EVALUATION The evaluation criteria for this study is based on the following: 0 j • The,availability of existing railroad ROW i } • The land availability for additional required ROW it . • Operational considerations including travel time,grade crossings and push/pull movements , . • Potential service area f • • Urban—Area interface (Land use impacts) ; • Maximizing ridership potential This conceptual evaluation did not include a detailed technical investigation, Therefore no comparison <it of costs or detailed operational issues are considered as evaluation criteria. Thii;evaluation establishes positive and negative attributes which were derived from material summarized t . for each corridor in Section 2. These attributes are presented in Table 3.1. The Downtown and Northwood corridors stand out as ' Likely candidates for connecting the SFRC to the F.E.C.. The three outstanding positive attributes of these corridors are: 1 : 1) Travel Time of 1.88 minutes for crossing from the SFRC to P.E.C. ! E _ i , 2) Service area includes traffic generators such as Good Samaritan Hospital, St. Mary's 1 • Hospital and Port of Palm Beach 1 ( .. 1 - 3) No or little existing railroad operations within the corridor I 4) Maximizes ridership/without effecting travel time i '. . I . . if • Corridor&emotion -SFRC to F_EG 3 - 1 i 4. o - - . Table 3.1 N o ri Corridor Evaluation — SFRC to FEC ' 0 -6- Positive an Negative Attributes i o - o M C 0 • pr... • __- _ .. Downit va__ Northwood Lewis Termites] 8 B. n Positive Positive Positive s. ., . Normal pusb/pult operation- —• • Normal push/pull operation art improvements . Service to ares north of Dlue Naas Blvd. t • Coavenicnt travel throe • Convenient travel time w/i tproveanads 2'o . Service to Good Samaritan ilusp.area • Service to St.Marrs di Pon area `°. • /Wractivaaroa ' -' ' - • Vacant Iced available construct northern Wye " -+ �. • No additional private real estate acquisition _• CM Impacts 1 Negative , Negative Negative • Y'.r. • Tamarind Traffic Impacts • Reverse entree required • Reverse nova require! -•g'o _ • 3 grade arosings • Inconvenient travel lime . Inconvenient travel limo a . Residential/Business impact-- • Private real estate acquisition . Unattractive area W g_ • Parting garage Issue • Unattractive area • Freight conflicts • e . • S grade crossings - • 6 grade crossings c. - • Private real stale acquisition required— t . Redueud service area naW ar rro p • P O 0 r1 ' o _ P A A °� Tri-County 4111111 c1 Commuter Rail Authority HARRIS • Frederic R.Harris, Inc_ • ! : arrLdor Irmairatisn-SritC so/LC 4- 1 , r TRI,COUNTY COMMUTER RAIL AUTHORITY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1995 1999 Prepared for: Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority Fort Lauderdale, Florida Prepared by: Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida Tampa, Florida I , CUTR i • • ' to conjunction with: Wilbur Smith Associates Columbia, South Carolina July 1994 1 Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority (Tri-Rail) 305 S. Andrews Avenue ' Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (305) 728-8445; (305) 728-8512 Fax (305) 763-1345 • Executive Director. Gilbert Robert Project Manager Jeffrey Jackson • Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, ENB 118 Tampa, Florida 33620-5350 (813) 974-3120 Suncom 574-3120 Fax (813) 974-5168 • Director. Gary L. Brosch Project Manager: Daniel K. Boyle Project Staff. Ronald Sheck • Suzanne Dieringer Shelly Happel • Dennis Hinebaugh Nilgun Kamp Perry Maul! • Rebecca Rahimi Tiffany Turner • • Wilbur`Smith Associate• 1 I . 130i Gervais Striet National Bank Tower, 13th Floor Columbia, South Carolina 29201 (803) 7'38-0580 • . Fax (803) 251-2922 • Project Director. Richard S. Taylor 014 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures vii List of Tables xiii Preface xvii Executive Summary Recommendations xix Actions to be Taken Immediately xxii xx Actions to be Taken within the Next One-to-Two Yearsii' Actions to be Taken within the Next Two-to-Three Years :ow xxviii Actions to be Taken within the Next Four-to-Five Years xxix • Chapter One: Introduction History 1 • Commuter Rail Market and Demand 12 The Transit Development Plan 3 3 Organization of this:Report • 4 Chapter Two: Demographics 7 Population and Population Density • 7 Population Age Characteristics 11 Transportation Disadvantaged Population • 15 • Income Characteristics , Vehicle Availability i ' f 16 Employment Characteristics• r 21 ' 1 25 ' Travel to Work i . . . • .,.; • 25 Travel Time to Work + . 26 Means of Travel to Work r i I 33 1111 y t' • Palm Beach County Broward County 85 Local Officials/Community Leader Interviews 85 Perceptions 85 • Improvements 86 3 • Policy Issues. 87 Interview Summary 88 Citizen Advisory Committee Focus Groups 88 Focus Group Assessments 89 Focus Group Suggestions 90 On-Board Survey 91 System Overview 91 Survey Analysis 92 • Summary of Survey Results - Demographic Information . . 9 Age • • - • 97 97 Gender 97 Ethnic Origin 98 • Annual Household Income 98 • Auto Ownership • 98 •• Educational Attainment 99 Summary of Survey Results - Travel Behavior 99 • Average Trip Length 99 Station Activity ; 99 • Trip Purpose 100 ' Modes of Access and Egress 100 • Fare Type by County of Boarding 100 • Patron Assessment of the System 100 • Summary of Performance Assessment 104 Comparison of User Satisfaction Ratings 113 ;Conclusions and Summary i 114• Td-Rail Peer and Trend Review 115 • • Introduction 115, Commuter Rail Systems • 116 System Profiles • 116 Peer Review 120 Performance Indicators I • 124• 11111