05/18/2006
..~
"II! ~ .
.' ~:,'...
- .
City Council Agenda
Date: 05/18/2006 6:00 PM
Location: Council Chambers - City Hall
Welcome. We are glad to have you join us. If you wish to speak, please wait to be recognized, then
state your name and address. Persons speaking before the City Council shall be limited to three (3)
minutes unless otherwise noted under Public Hearings. For other than Citizens to be heard regarding
items not on the Agenda, a spokesperson for a group may speak for three (3) minutes plus an
additional minute for each person in the audience that waives their right to speak, up to a maximum
of ten (10)minutes. Prior to the item being presented, please obtain the needed form to designate
a spokesperson from the City Clerk (righthand side of dais). Up to thirty minutes of public comment
will be allowed for an agenda item. No person shall speak more than once on the same subject
unless granted permission by the City Council. The City of Clearwater strongly supports and fully
complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Please advise us at least 48 hours prior
to the meeting if you require special accommodations at 727-562-4090. Assisted Listening
Devices are available. Kindly refrain from using beepers, cellular telephones and other distracting
devices during the meeting.
1 Call to Order
2 Invocation
3 Pledge of Allegiance
4 Introductions and Awards
4.1 Service Awards
5 Presentations:
5.1 Proclamation - June as National Homeownership Month
5.2 Proclamation - Safe Boating Week - May 20 - 26,2006
5.3 Proclamation - Public Works Week - May 21 - 26, 2006
5.4 Presentation - Award to the recipients of Youth Sportsmanship Award
6 Approval of Minutes
6.1 May 4, 2006
7 Citizens to be Heard re Items Not on the Agenda
Public Hearings - Not before 6:00 PM
8 Administrative public hearings
- Presentation of issues by City Staff
- Statement of case by applicant or representative (5 min.).
- Council Questions
- Comments in support or opposition (3 min. per speaker or 10 min. maximum as
spokesperson for others that have waived their time).
- Council Questions
- Final rebuttal by applicant or representative (5 min.)
- Council disposition
8.1 Approve the applicant's request to vacate the north 268.65 feet of the 10-foot drainage
and utility easement lying along the east property line of Metes and Bounds Parcel
Number 32-05, located in Section 19, Township 29 South, Range 16 East, (a.k.a.
501-529 South Belcher Road), subject to conditions, and pass Ordinance Number
7615-06 on first reading, (VAC2006-05 Ellis and Company, Inc.).
8.2 Approve the applicant's request to vacate the 30-foot utility easement retained over the
vacated portion of State Street that lies between Lots 9 and 20 of EA Marshalls
Subdivision, (a.k.a. 1390 Sunset Point Road), and pass Ordinance 7651-06 on first
reading, (VAC2006-08 Pathways Community Church).
9 Quasi-judicial public hearings
Staff states and summarizes reasonsfor recommendation (2 minutes).
Applicant presents case, including its testimonyand exhibits. Witness may be
cross-examined (15 minutes).
Staff presents further evidence. Ma~e cross-examined (10 minutes).
Public comment (3 minutes per speakeror 10 minutes maximum as spokesperson
for others that have waived their time).
City Council discussion, andmay question any witness.
Applicant may call witnessesin rebuttal (5 minutes).
Conclusion by applicant(3 minutes).
Decision.
9.1 Approve the Petition for Annexation, Future Land Use Plan Amendment from the
County Residential Low (RL) Category to the City Residential Low (RL) Category and
Zoning Atlas Amendment from the County R-3, Single-Family Residential District to the
City Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District for 1212 Claire Drive (Lot 8, Block
A, Stevenson's Heights Subdivision in Section 10, Township 29 South and Range 15
East); and Pass Ordinance 7618-06, 7619-06 & 7620-06 on first reading.
9.2 Approve the Petition for Annexation, Future Land Use Plan Amendment from the
County Residential Urban (RU) Category to the City Residential Urban (RU) Category
and Zoning Atlas Amendment from the County R-4, Single-Family Residential District to
the City Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District for 1969 N. Betty Lane (Lot 1,
Lange's Replat of Brown's Subdivision in Section 3, Township 29 South and Range 15
East); and Pass Ordinance 7621-06,7622-06 & 7623-06 on first reading.
9.3 Approve the Petition for Annexation, Future Land Use Plan Amendment from the
County Residential Low (RL) Category to the City Residential Low (RL) Category and
Zoning Atlas Amendment from the County R-3, Single-Family Residential District to the
City Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District for 1824 Marilyn Drive (Lot 13,
Block G, Carlton Terrace First Addition Subdivision in Section 5, Township 29 South
and Range 16 East); and Pass Ordinance 7624-06, 7625-06 & 7626-06 on first
reading.
10 Second Readings - public hearing
10.1 Adopt Ordinance 7607-06 on second reading, annexing certain real property whose
post office address is 3076 Cherry Lane into the corporate limits of the city and
redefining the boundary lines of the city to include said addition.
10.2 Adopt Ordinance 7608-06 on second reading, amending the future land use plan
element of the Comprehensive Plan of the city to designate the land use for certain real
property whose post office address is 3076 Cherry Lane, upon annexation into the City
of Clearwater, as Residential Urban (RU).
10.3 Adopt Ordinance 7609-06 on second reading, amending the zoning atlas of the city by
zoning certain real property whose post office address is 3076 Cherry Lane, upon
annexation into the City of Clearwater, as Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
10.4 Adopt Ordinance 7616-06 on second reading, establishing the Mobile Home Transition
Program; Amending the Community Development Code; providing a Level Three
procedure for determination that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable
facilities exist for the reloation of mobile home owners; providing for qualifying
governmental action; providing for applicant responsibilities; providing for council
action; providing forconditional final decision; providing standards for review; amending
the Code of Ordinances to provide for supplemental rental assistance payment fund;
providing for an alternative mitigation option; providing for rental assistance payments
to eligible individuals.
City Manager Reports
11 Consent Agenda
11.1 Approve the Interlocal Agreement between Pine lias County and the Cities of
Clearwater, St. Petersburg and Largo, to mutually hire a consultant to conduct a Nexus
Study for Affordable Housing needs of the County and Cities, with the City paying for
12% of the study's cost and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same.
(consent)
11.2 Authorize settlement of all workers' compensation claims of Claimant, Thomas
Stubblefield, in their entirety to include medical, indemnity and attorney fees for the
sum of $45,000 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent)
11.3 Ratify and confirm the City Manager's approval of the First Amendment to Station
WSJT 94.1 Sponsorship Agreement to co-promote the Smooth Jazz Fest Concert on
April 21, 2006 and April 22, 2006, located in Coachman Park. (consent)
11.4 Approve a work order to McKim & Creed of Clearwater FI. (EOR), in the amount of
$203,400 for the Well 78 and Well 23 Improvement Project, project number
05-0078-UT, and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same.
(consent)
11.5 Approve the final plat for "HAROLD COURT TOWNHOMES PHASE II" located at 607
Indiana Avenue, south of Turner Avenue. (consent)
11.6 Approve the final plat for "THE TOWNHOMES OF ANTIGUA BAY" located at 808
Osceola Ave, at the intersection of Osceola avenue and Nicholson Street. (consent)
11.7 Approve the final plat for "HIGHLAND GLEN" located at 2045 Highland Avenue, which
is approximately % of a mile north of Sunset Point Road. (consent)
11.8 Approve the Grant Agreement with the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) which provides reimbursement of project costs up to $481,100 and award a
construction contract to Rowland, Inc. of Pinellas Park, Florida, for the Del Oro Groves
Reclaimed Water System Installation and Water Main Replacement (04-0022-UT) in
the amount of $3,667,030.68, which is the lowest responsible bid received in
accordance with plans and specifications and authorize the appropriate officials to
execute same. (consent)
12 Other items on City Manager Reports
12.1 Approve a Maintenance Memorandum of Agreement with the Florida Department of
Transportation, District Seven, so that aesthetic improvements can be made to a
portion of SR 60 (the east entrance to the Memorial Causeway Bridge and 770 feet
west of the Memorial Causeway Bridge) and adopt Resolution 06-29 authorizing
execution of said Maintenance Memorandum of Agreement.
12.2 Provide guidance to staff on the configuration of the Skycrest neighborhood traffic
calming project.
13 City Attorney Reports
13.1 Adopt Resolution 06-30, amending Development Agreement between City of
Clearwater and Executive Corporation of Clearwater, Inc..
14 City Manager Verbal Reports
15 Council Discussion Items
15.1 Very Important Pets
16 Other Council Action
17 Adjourn
J-
u
Interoffice Correspondence Sheet
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Cyndie Goudeau, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Follow up from May 15, 2006 Work Session
COPIES: William B. Horne, City Manager
DATE: May 16, 2006
AQenda City Council Meeting 05-18-06: Agenda provided.
Minutes 6.1 Minutes from City Council Meeting 05-04-06: Item added to agenda and paperwork
provided.
12.2 Provide guidance to staff on the configuration of the Skycrest neighborhood traffic
calming project. Additional information provided (maps and accident
statistics) .
13.3 Adopt Resolution 06-30, amending Development Agreement with Executive
Corporation of Clearwater, Inc. Copy of Development Agreement provided to
councilmembers (CM, ACMs, CA previously provided).
Geri Campos ULI Power Point Presentation
CD provided to Councilmembers, Bill Horne, and Garry Brumback.
Michael Delk ULI Power Point Presentation
Emailed to Council this morning.
1 of 1
u.
o
>-
>-
u
Interoffice Correspondence Sheet
To:
Mayor and Councilmembers
From:
Cyndie Goudeau, City Clerk
Bill Horne, City Manager; Garry Brumback, Asst. City Manager; Rod Irwin,
Asst. City Manager; Pam Akin, City Attorney
CC:
Date:
May 18, 2006
Agenda Packet for 05-18-06
RE:
The following changes/additions are provided:
. Item 13.1 - Adopt Resolution 06-30 amending Development Agreement with
Executive Corp of Clearwater, Inc. "Final" revised Development Agreement
provided, please replace.
Memo to Council for 05-18-06 CC Mtg - revisions.doc
City Council
@,,,,,,,..,w,...,,Agenda CoverJ~!,~m"or.!.!!.~!JI!I_"".__,@.~...,..~",,,.,_,,~,,_,,~__
ENS -
Bf I
Tracking Number: 2,025
Actual Date: 05/18/2006
Subject I Recommendation:
Approve the applicant's request to vacate the north 268.65 feet of the 10-foot drainage and
utility easement lying along the east property line of Metes and Bounds Parcel Number 32-05,
located in Section 19, Township 29 South, Range 16 East, (a.k.a. 501-529 South Belcher Road),
subject to conditions, and pass Ordinance Number 7615-06 on first reading, (VAC2006-05 Ellis
and Company, Inc.).
Summary:
Applicant is seeking the vacation in order to redevelop the existing site, Gulf to Bay Plaza.
A flexible development case was reviewed by the Development Review Committee on January 5,
2006.
Progress Energy and Bright House Cable have no objections to the vacation request. Verizon and
Knology have facilities in the easement and will need to be compensated by the applicant any
costs associated with the relocation of their facilites.
In order to protect the utility company interest in this easement, the vacation ordinacnce has
been conditioned to provide for proof that the applicant has relocated to the satisfaction of the
owners of the utilities at the owner's expense with a six month time limitation which will sunset
the ordinance if not met.
The City of Clearwater does not presently have utility facilities in the easement portion proposed
for vacation.
Public Works Administration has no objections to the vacation request subject to the proposed
conditions.
Originating: Engineering
Section Administrative public hearings
Category: Vacation of Easements and Rights of Way
Number of Hard Copies attached: 3
Public Hearing: Yes
Advertised Dates: 04/06/2006
04/06/2006
Financial Information:
Review Approval
Glen Bahnick
04-20-2006
16:50:37
Cvndie Goudeau
05-05-2006
13:44:57
Michael Ouillen
04-20-2006
17:06:20
Garrv Brumback
Bryan Ruff
Bill Horne
City Council
_"~Benda = Cove-:_M~"!!!"~!:!!IdU_I!!".",,_=,,,,
05-04-2006 13:35:44
04-25-2006 13:01 :52
05-04-2006 20:16:33
ORDINANCE NO. 7615-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER,
FLORIDA, VACATING THE NORTH 268.65 FEET OF THE
10-FOOT DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT LYING
ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINE OF METES AND
BOUNDS 32-05, LOCATED IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 29
SOUTH, RANGE 16 EAST; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, Ellis & Co., L TD, owner of real property located in the City of
Clearwater, has requested that the City vacate the drainage and utility easement depicted
in Exhibit A attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that said easement is not necessary for
municipal use and it is deemed to be in the best interest of the City and the general public
that the same be vacated; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The following:
The North 268.65 feet of the 10-foot drainage and utility easement lying along the East
property line of Metes and Bounds Parcel number 32-05, located in Section 19, Township
29 south, Range 16 East, subject to the following condition:
This vacation shall not be effective until the applicant has submitted to the City Engineer
proof that all existing utilities lying within the easement portion to be vacated have been
relocated to the satisfaction of the owners of said utilities and at the sole expense of said
applicant. If this condition has not been met within six (6) months of the date of approval
of this ordinance, this ordinance will thereafter be null and void in all respects as though
never adopted.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall record this ordinance in the public records of
Pinellas County, Florida, following adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Bryan D. Ruff
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7615-06
Location Map: Ellis and Company, L TO
..-
0
LO
ci
c.j
D ST
z DO ~I UJ w
<( ~ >
~ WHITMAN ST <(
01 I~ 0:::
~~ 0 CHAUCER ST 0 z w
0 ~ ~
~I I~ -l
UJ ~
>
~ SHELLEY ST z w
0:::
~I I~ SHELLEY
GULF TO BAY BLVD
PROJECT
0 SITE
0:::
DO 0 ~~! w
>
~ <(
JAFFA PL w
-l
~I 10::: -l
5>
z
w
BASCOM WAY 0 0
w
zl 10:::
cr: GROVEWOOD w RD c
~I I!I II I-
0
~ 0
MINNEOLA RD a::
DR S
BURNICE
~ Clearwater N City of Clearwater
W.E
Public Works Administration / Engineering
(j~ Vacate the North 268.65 feet of the 10-foot drainage and
~ .
utility easement lying along the east property line M&B
32-05.
Ordinance 7615-06 Drawn By: S.K. Reviewed By: S.D. Scale: N.T.S
DWG. NO V AC 2006-05 Grid # 299A S-T-R 18-29s-16e Date: 02/14/06
Exhibit A Map: Ellis and Company, L TD
33 610 576 578
577
60S SHELLEY ST
22/07
~
<I)'r ~~
50 ~o ~'r 23/02
33 4 ~.f. 23/14 23/15 ......
cJ- ~v l() ~.,. ..... 23/18 23/19 24/0
-
(j~v. (\")
(j~ N
33 33
Ii!
GULF- TO-SA Y SL VD
Ii!
32/04
Vacation Requested
By Applicant
32/03
33 36
10'
Drainage & Utility Easement
32/02
32/01
+-
32/121
100-13
PHASE
3
~
a:::
~
o
iD
IXl
CI)
32/05
TURNER'S.
PROFESS/aNA
PHASE
2
PHASE
4
~ Clearwater N City of Clearwater
W4fE Public Works Administration / Engineering
Vacate the North 268.65 feet of the 10-foot drainage and
U~ s utility easement lying along the east property line M&B
~
32-05.
Ordinance 7615-06 Drawn By: S.K. Reviewed By: S.D. Scale: 1" = 200 ft
DWG. NO V AC 2006-05 Grid # 299A S-T-R 18-29s-16e Date: 02/14/06
City Council
~,,9~nda f<~~er Memorandum
~rs - a
B.d
Tracking Number: 2,071
Actual Date: 05/18/2006
Subject I Recommendation:
Approve the applicant's request to vacate the 30-foot utility easement retained over the vacated
portion of State Street that lies between Lots 9 and 20 of E.A. Marshalls Subdivision, (a.k.a.
1390 Sunset Point Road), and pass Ordinance 7651-06 on first reading, (VAC2006-08 Pathways
Community Church).
Summary:
The applicant, Pathways Community Church, is seeking vacation of the easement to allow for
future construction of a youth center.
Progress Energy, Bright House Cable, Knology and Verizon have no objections to the vacation
request.
The City of Clearwater has no utilities in the subject easement and no apparent need for this
easement in the future,
Public Works Administration has no objections to the vacation request.
Originating: Engineering
Section Administrative public hearings
Category: Vacation of Easements and Rights of Way
Public Hearing: Yes
Advertised Dates: 05/04/2006
05/11/2006
Financial Information:
Review Approval
Glen Bahnick
Brya n Ruff
05-01- 2006 14:41:46
05-05-2006 13:43:55
05-01-2006 15:38:46
05-04-2006 13:36:51
05-02-2006 08:56:26
05-04-2006 20: 17:26
Cvndie Goudeau
Michael Guillen
Garrv Brumback
Bill Horne
ORDINANCE NO. 7651-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER,
FLORIDA, VACATING THE 30-FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT
RETAINED OVER THE VACATED STREET RIGHT-OF-
WAY OF STATE STREET LOCATED BETWEEN LOTS 9
AND 20 OF E.A. MARSHALL'S; PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Pathway Community Church, owner of real property located in the
City of Clearwater, has requested that the City vacate the utility easement depicted in
Exhibit A attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that said easement is not necessary for
municipal use and it is deemed to be in the best interest of the City and the general public
that the same be vacated; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The following:
the 30-foot utility easement retained over the vacated street right-of-way of
State Street located between Lots 9 and 20 of E. A. Marshall's, as recorded
in Plat Book 3, Page 44, of the Official Records of Pinellas County, Florida.
is hereby vacated, and the City of Clearwater releases all of its rights in the servitude as
described above to the owner of the servient estate thereto.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall record this ordinance in the public records of
Pinellas County, Florida, following adoption.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Bryan D. Ruff
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7651-06
Location Map: Pathways Community Church
.. .. .. ... ..-..-..-..-..-..-....-...
ST
~T
ST
ST
ST
D
ST
(u
Cl
0::
~
<(
'0
S2 1Il
~ Clearwater N City of Clearwater
W4fE Public Works Administration I Enoineerina
o~ Vacate the 3D' utility easement retained over the vacated
~ .
street r.o.w of State Street located between lots 9 and 20
E.A. Marshals Sub.
Ordinance 7651-06 Drawn By: S.K. Reviewed By: S.D. Scale: N.T.S
DWG. NO V AC 2006-08 Grid # 2518 S-T-R 03-29s-15e Date: 04/17/06
Exhibit A Map: Pathways Community Church
.....~
(p)
) / L-
I
Cl EA~:"f/"~~ ..... ......~.....~
~ ...l..___ _\ ~I;'/ ~;/.....
IT ~.F
l ,~u ,U I
I I
~
o
Vacation Request
s: AP~v~
7//////,,////
.r ~-~ ;/;// 1. I
#(;1 Utility Easement i
r d@nag
I
E.A. MARSH 4LL
SUB
3-44 +
20
--
o
~ ___'\" .Jr...-::
...,.- /
I~"'" 1./"
~/'V
~~ 0
~~
BYRAM DR
SUA SE1i
H:'=: ~ :'NlDS
, '1V,~3
53'47
~
q:
~
i
~
WILSON RD
SU^SET
HIGHJ iANl) S ..
UNIII:i ~
41 70
,- -I-
L _l-
I
I
o
,,~~~. '~.. .... ,. .. .....
1dll
~ h ~~
I'YI~OO
~ Clearwater N City of Clearwater
W.E Public Works Administration I Engineering
u~ Vacate the 30' utility easement retained over the vacated
~ I street r.o.w of State Street located between lots 9 and 20
E.A. Marshals Sub.
Ordinance 7651-06 Drawn By: S.K. Reviewed By: S.D. Scale: 1"=200ft
DI/VG. NO V AC 2006-08 Grid # 2518 S-T-R 03-29s-15e Date: 04/17/06
..
o
..
City Council
w.,,__,., Agel!~,a Co~.~r Memorandum
PLD
q.!
1
Tracking Number: 2,065
Actual Date: 05/18/2006
Subject / Recommendation:
Approve the Petition for Annexation, Future Land Use Plan Amendment from the County
Residential Low (RL) Category to the City Residential Low (RL) Category and Zoning Atlas
Amendment from the County R-3, Single-Family Residential District to the City Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) District for 1212 Claire Drive (Lot 8, Block A, Stevenson's Heights
Subdivision in Section 10, Township 29 South and Range 15 East); and Pass Ordinance
7618-06, 7619-06 & 7620-06 on first reading.
Summary:
This annexation involves a 0.158-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the north
side of Claire Drive, approximately 260 feet west of Stockton Drive. The property is contiguous
with the existing City boundaries to the north and west; therefore, the proposed annexation is
consistent with Florida Statutes with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is
requesting this annexation in order to receive sanitary sewer and solid waste service from the
City. It is proposed that the property be assigned Future Land Use Plan designation of
Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
The Planning Department determined that the proposed annexation is consistent with the
following standards specified in the Community Development Code:
The proposed annexation will not have anadverse impact on public facilities and their level
of service.
The proposed annexation is consistent withthe City's Comprehensive Plan, the Countywide
Plan and the Community Development Code.
The proposed annexation is contiguous toexisting municipal boundaries, represents a logical
extension of the city boundaries and does not create an enclave.
This annexation has been reviewed by the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) staff in accordance
with the provisions of Pinellas County Ordinance No. 00-63, Section 7(1-3), and no objections
have been raised.
Please refer to the attached report (ANX2006-01001) for the complete staff analysis.
The Community Development Board reviewed this proposed annexation at its regularly
scheduled meeting on April 18, 2006 and unanimously recommended approval.
Originating: Planning
Section Quasi-judicial public hearings
Category: Annexations, Land Use Plan and Zoning
Number of Hard Cooies attached: 0
Public Hearing: Yes
Advertised Dates: 04/18/2006
05/18/2006
06/01/2006
City Council
~ COV,,~,~ Memorandu~"_.,,,,_~,~..~~
Financial Information:
Review Approval
Steven Brown 04-26-2006 07:33:07
Cvndie Goudeau 05-05-2006 13:47:57
Gina Clavton 04-27-2006 16:00:01
Garrv Brumback 05-04-2006 14: 16:07
Leslie Dougall-Sides 04-28-2006 11:29:23
Bill Horne 05-04-2006 20: 12:22
ORDINANCE NO. 7618-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA,
ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED 260 FEET
WEST OF STOCKTON DRIVE, CONSISTING OF LOT 8, BLOCK
A, STEVENSON'S HEIGHTS, WHOSE POST OFFICE ADDRESS
IS 1212 CLAIRE DRIVE, INTO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF
THE CITY, AND REDEFINING THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE
CITY TO INCLUDE SAID ADDITION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the owner of the real property described herein and depicted on the map
attached hereto as Exhibit A has petitioned the City of Clearwater to annex the property into the
City pursuant to Section 171.044, Florida Statutes, and the City has complied with all applicable
requirements of Florida law in connection with this ordinance; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The following-described property is hereby annexed into the City of Clearwater
and the boundary lines of the City are redefined accordingly:
Lot 8, Block A, Stevenson's Heights, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Plat
Book 34, Page 13, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida
(ANX2006-01 001)
Section 2. The provisions of this ordinance are found and determined to be consistent
with the City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. The City Council hereby accepts the dedication
of all easements, parks, rights-of-way and other dedications to the public, which have heretofore
been made by plat, deed or user within the annexed property. The City Engineer, the City Clerk
and the Planning Director are directed to include and show the property described herein upon the
official maps and records of the City.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption. The City Clerk
shall file certified copies of this ordinance, including the map attached hereto, with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court and with the County Administrator of Pinellas County, Florida, within 7 days after
adoption, and shall file a certified copy with the Florida Department of State within 30 days after
adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7618-06
ORDINANCE NO. 7619-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE
CITY, TO DESIGNATE THE LAND USE FOR CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED 260 FEET WEST OF
STOCKTON DRIVE, CONSISTING OF LOT 8, BLOCK A,
STEVENSON'S HEIGHTS, WHOSE POST OFFICE
ADDRESS IS 1212 CLAIRE DRIVE, UPON ANNEXATION
INTO THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, AS RESIDENTIAL
LOW; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the amendment to the future land use plan element of the
comprehensive plan of the City as set forth in this ordinance is found to be reasonable,
proper and appropriate, and is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan; now,
therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The future land use plan element of the comprehensive plan of the City
of Clearwater is amended by designating the land use category for the hereinafter
described property, upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, as follows:
Property Land Use Cateqorv
Lot 8, Block A, Stevenson's Heights, according to Residential Low
the plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 34, Page 13,
Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida
(ANX2006-0 1001 )
Section 2. The City Council does hereby certify that this ordinance is consistent
with the City's comprehensive plan.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, contingent
upon and subject to the adoption of Ordinance No. 7618-06.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No.7619 -06
ORDINANCE NO. 7620-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY
BY ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY 260 FEET WEST
OF STOCKTON DRIVE, CONSISTING OF LOT 8, BLOCK
A, STEVENSON'S HEIGHTS, WHOSE POST OFFICE
ADDRESS IS 1212 CLAIRE DRIVE, UPON ANNEXATION
INTO THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, AS LOW MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LMDR); PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the assignment of a zoning district classification as set forth in this
ordinance is found to be reasonable, proper and appropriate, and is consistent with the
City's comprehensive plan; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The following described property located in Pinellas County, Florida, is
hereby zoned as indicated upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, and the zoning
atlas of the City is amended, as follows:
Property
Lot 8, Block A, Stevenson's Heights, according
to the plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 34, Page
13, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida
(ANX2006-01 001)
Zonina District
Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR)
Section 2. The City Engineer is directed to revise the zoning atlas of the City in
accordance with the foregoing amendment.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, contingent
upon and subject to the adoption of Ordinance No. 7618-06.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7620-06
CDB Meeting Date:
Case Number:
Owner/Applicant:
Location:
Agenda Item:
April 18. 2006
ANX2006-0 1 00 1
Wallace Vinson
1212 Claire Drive
F2
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
REQUEST:
(a) Annexation of 0.158-acres of property to the City of
Clearwater;
(b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential
Low (RL) Category (County) to Residential Low (RL)
Category (City of Clearwater); and
(c) Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential District
(County) to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR)
District (City of Clearwater).
SITE INFORMATION
PROPERTY SIZE:
6,822 square feet or 0.156 acres
(65 feet wide by 105 feet deep)
PROPERTY USE:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
Single-family dwelling
Single-family dwelling
PLAN CATEGORY:
Current Category:
Proposed Category:
Residential Low (RL) (County)
Residential Low (RL) (City)
ZONING DISTRICT:
Current District:
Proposed District:
R-3, Single-Family Residential (County)
Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) (City)
Staff Report - Community Development Board -April 18, 2006 - Case ANX2006-01001 Page 1
SURROUNDING USES:
North: Commercial property
South: Single-family residence
East: Single-family residence
West: City of Clearwater sewer facility
ANALYSIS
This annexation involves a 0.158-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the north side
of Claire Drive, approximately 135 feet west of Betty Lane. The property is contiguous with the
existing City boundaries to the north and west; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent
with Florida Statutes with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this
annexation in order to receive sanitary sewer and solid waste service from the City. It is
proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Low
(RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
I. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES:
Recommended Findings of Fact
Water and Sewer
The applicant receives water service from the City of Clearwater. The property is currently on
septic and if approved sanitary sewer service will be provided by the City of Clearwater and the
City has adequate capacity to serve this property. The closest sanitary sewer line is located in an
easement along the north side of the parcel. The applicant has not paid the City's sewer impact
and assessment fees and is aware of the additional costs to extend City sewer service to this
property.
Solid Waste
Collection of solid waste will be provided by the City of Clearwater. The City has an interlocal
agreement with Pinellas County to provide for the disposal of solid waste at the County's
Resource Recovery Plant and capacity is available to serve the property.
Police
The property is located within Police District IT and service will be administered through the
district headquarters located at 645 Pierce Street. There are currently 65 patrol officers and nine
patrol sergeants assigned to this district. Community policing service will be provided through
the City's zone system and officers in the field. The Police Department has stated that it will be
able to serve this property and the proposed annexation will not adversely affect police service
and response time.
Fire and Emergency Medical Services
Fire and emergency medical services will be provided to this property by Station #51 located at
1720 Overbrook Avenue. The Fire Department will be able to serve this property. The proposed
annexation will not adversely affect fire and EMS service and response time.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - April 18, 2006 - Case ANX2006-0 1 00 1 Page 2
Recommended Conclusions Of Law
The City has adequate capacity to serve this property with sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire
and EMS service. The proposed annexation will not have an adverse effect on public facilities
and their levels of service.
II. CONSISTENCY WITH CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: [Section 4-604.F.2]
Recommended Findings of Fact
The Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Future Land Use Plan map
designate the site as Residential Low (RL). It is the purpose of the.RL category to depict those
areas of the County that are now developed, or appropriate to be developed, in a low density
residential manner; and to recognize such areas as primarily well-suited for residential uses that
are consistent with the low density, non-intensive qualities and natural resource characteristics of
such areas. Residential is the primary use in this plan category up to a maximum of five (5)
dwelling units per acre. Secondary uses include Residential Equivalent; Institutional;
TransportationlUtility; Public Educational Facility; Ancillary Non-Residential and
Recreation/Open Space.
The proposed annexation is consistent with and promotes the following objective of the City of
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan:
2.4 Objective - Compact urban development within the urban service area shall be promoted
through application of the Clearwater Community Development Code.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The property proposed for annexation is contiguous to existing city boundaries and within the
City's urban service area and will be located in the RL category. The proposed annexation is
consistent the City's Comprehensive Plan.
III. CONSISTENCY OF DEVELOPMENT WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE AND CITY REGULATIONS: [Sections 2-1001.1. & 4-604.F.5.]
Recommended Findings of Fact
The site is currently zoned R-3, Single Family Residential District in Pinellas County. The
applicant proposes to rezone the property to the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR)
District. Under the current LMDR zoning district provisions, a minimum lot width of 50 feet
Staff Report - Community Development Board - April 18, 2006 - Case ANX2006-0 1 00 1 Page 3
and a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet are required. The subject site is 65 feet wide and
6,822 square feet in lot area.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The subject property exceeds the City's minimum LMDR dimensional requirements and is
therefore consistent with the Community Development Code.
IV. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COUNTYWIDE PLAN:
Recommended Findings of Fact
There is no change requested in the Countywide Future Land Use Plan designation for the site,
which will remain Residential Low (RL) with a maximum density of 5 dwelling units per acre.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
No change is proposed for the Future Land Use Plan designation of the property proposed for
annexation and the use and density of the property is consistent with the current designation.
V. CONSISTENCY WITH PINELLAS COUNTY:
Recommended Findings of Fact
Pursuant to Pinellas County Ordinance No. 00-63, the Pinellas Planning Council staff has
reviewed this annexation and determined it complies with all applicable ordinance criteria.
Pinellas County Ordinance No. 00-63(1)(a) requires that a proposed annexation be both
contiguous to the existing municipal boundaries and compact. This site is contiguous with the
existing City boundaries to the north and west and represents a logical and appropriate extension
of the existing boundaries. The compactness standard requires that the annexation not create an
enclave or a serpentine pattern of municipal boundaries.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The annexation of this property is consistent with this standard and no new enclave will be
created. In summary, the annexation of this property is consistent with Florida law.
VI. CODE ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS:
There are no current code enforcement violations or any code enforcement history on this site.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - Apri118, 2006 - Case ANX2006-01001 Page 4
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including sanitary sewer,
solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service
level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and is
consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance No. 00-63 regarding voluntary annexation.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following actions on the
request:
(a) Recommend APPROVAL of the annexation ofO.158-acres to the City of Clearwater;
(b) Recommend APPROVAL of the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan
classification; and
(c) Recommend APPROVAL of the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning
classification pursuant to the City's Community Development Code.
Prepared by Planning Department Staff:
Cky Ready, Planner II
Attachments:
Application
Location Map
Aerial Photograph
Proposed Annexation
Future Land Use Map
Zoning Map
Surrounding Uses Map
Site Photographs
S:\Planning Department\C D B \Annexations \ANX - 2006\ANX2006-010011212 Claire Drive Wallace
Residence\ANX2005-01001 StalL Report. doc
Staff Report - Community Development Board - Apri118, 2006 - Case ANX2006-01001 Page 5
Location Map
Owner Wallace Vinson
Case:
ANX2006-0 100 1
Site:
1212 Claire Drive
0.158
Land Use
Zoning
PIN: 10-29-15-85446-001-0080
From:
RL (County)
R-3 (County)
To:
RL (City)
LMDR (City)
Atlas Page:
269B
^-
, "
" '....
') /"
c" / / "-
"/ "
/ '
/ /
/ /
, /
, /
',/
1--'
r- ~-~, ~ .
I ~ I"'L_
1_- ~-"'""__
Comm rial
1707
~1(J3 1_ r:; r-,
~-L i~~_-j _--
FAIRMONT ST
,-----------"]
L.-__________J
_J
,.--...., /"--....,
/ 'I '
f \ f \
\ C oty: \ f :
" 1 0 ..../
....-- ....--
----I
I
I
I
I
I
____J
,-'\
\ I
,_/
/CleapWater
f \ f \
\ Fa~ility )
,---..... ,....--""'/
,,""-----....
Existing Land Use Map
Owner Wallace Vinson Case: ANX2006-0 1001
Site: 1212 Claire Drive Property 0.158
Size (Acres):
Land Use Zoning
PIN: 10- 29- 15-85446-00 1-0080
From: RL (County) R-3 (County)
To: RL (City) LMDR (City) Atlas Page: 2696
p
1-----------,
L----------WA TER
_J
/"'---', /'---',
f \ f \
( I ( I
\, r/(J, //
--- ....--
----I
I
I
I
I
I
____J
(-'\
\ ,
,_/
,....-.....,
/ \
f \
I I
\ J
\ f
, /
.........--....
---
/;' ,
, ,
I \
I I
\ I
, I
.........--""/
-----
/- ,
Future Land Use Map
Owner Wallace Vinson Case: ANX2006-0 1001
Site: 1212 Claire Drive Property 0.158
Size (Acres):
Land Use Zoning
PIN: 10-29-15-85446-001-0080
From: RL (County) R-3 (County)
To: RL (City) LMDR (City) Atlas Page: 269B
@
2 X 2 Map
Owner Wallace Vinson Case: ANX2006-0 100 1
Site: 1212 Claire Drive Property 0.158
Size Acres):
Land Use Zoning
PIN: 1 0-29-15-85446-001-0080
From: RL (County) R-3 (County)
To: RL (City) LMDR (City) Atlas Page: 269B
/....
, ....
f" ">
> / "-
" I I "-
"/ ....
/ '
/ /
/ /
.... /
.... /
....,./
-1
1-----------1
L___________J
_J
----I
I
I
I
I
I
____J
1-'\
\ I
,_/
--,
/' ....
I \
f \
I I
\ I
\ I
'....__...../
/,,,,--...,
I \
f \
I I
\ I
\ /
,....--....
""--......,
/ \
I \
I I
I I
\ I
\ /
.....---.....
--,
/" ....
I \
I \
I I
\ I
\ I
........--"'/
/,..-----,
Proposed Annexation Map
Owner
Wallace Vinson
Case:
ANX2006-01001
Site:
121 2 Claire Drive
0.158
Land Use
Zoning
PIN: 10-29-15-85446-001-0080
From:
RL (County)
R-3 (County)
To:
RL (City)
LMDR (City)
Atlas Page:
269B
r
/,
, ,
I" ">
> / "-
c.. / / .....
...... / "
/ /
/ /
/ /
" /
'J
1--'
r- ~_J' gj. C
I ~ I"'L_
1__ "1._,..-,...
c
LMDR
r.;
l-"--~ i-'
1___->> ..-__
,-----------l
L___________J
_J
----,
I
I
I
I
I
____J
"....-.....,
/ \
I I \
, I
\ I
\ I
\ /
,---....
--,
/' ,
I '
, \
, I
\ I
\ /
,....--"
,.....0.,
\ I
,_/
--,
// ,
I \
I \
\ I
\ I
,........__",,/1
,,----.....,
Zoning Map
Owner Wallace Vinson Case: ANX2006-01001
Site: 1212 Claire Drive Property 0.158
Size (Acres):
Land Use Zoning
PIN: 1 0-29-15-85446-001-0080
From: RL (County) R-3 (County)
To: RL (City) LMDR (City) Atlas Page: 269B
r
1. 1212ClaireDrive
3. facing west from 1212 Claire Drive
2. facing south from 1212 Claire Drive
4. facing east from 1212 Claire Drive
ANX2006-01001
1212 Claire Drive
Wallace Vinson Property
e.e. : f L..D I
Aerial Photograph
Owner Wallace Vinson Case: ANX2006-01001
Site: 1212 Claire Drive Property 0.158
Size (Acres):
Land Use Zoning
PIN: 10- 29- 15-85446-00 1-0080
From: RL (County) R-3 (County)
To: RL (City) LMDR (City) Atlas Page: 2698
City Council
==.._ Ag.~.!:!.~a CO~~.!:,....~.~.!!!,~..!:.!!..~=~=~!!L......"'..m_=......,m=
PL~ 2-
g,;)
..
o
Tracking Number: 2,067
Actual Date: 05/18/2006
Subject / Recommendation:
Approve the Petition for Annexation, Future Land Use Plan Amendment from the County
Residential Urban (RU) Category to the City Residential Urban (RU) Category and Zoning Atlas
Amendment from the County R-4, Single-Family Residential District to the City Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) District for 1969 N. Betty Lane (Lot 1, Lange's Replat of Brown's
Subdivision in Section 3, Township 29 South and Range 15 East); and Pass Ordinance 7621-06,
7622-06 & 7623-06 on first reading.
Summary:
This annexation involves a 0.234-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the
southeast corner of Betty Lane and State Street. The property is contiguous with the existing
City boundaries to the north; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Florida
Statutes with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in
order to receive solid waste service from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned a
Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Urban (RU) and a zoning category of Low
Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
The Planning Department determined that the proposed annexation is consistent with the
following standards specified in the Community Development Code:
The proposed annexation will not have anadverse impact on public facilities and their level
of service.
The proposed annexation is consistent withthe City's Comprehensive Plan, the Countywide
Plan and the Community Development Code.
The proposed annexation is contiguous toexisting municipal boundaries, represents a logical
extension of the city boundaries and does not create an enclave.
This annexation has been reviewed by the Pinellas Planning Council (PPe) staff in accordance
with the provisions of Pinellas County Ordinance No. 00-63, Section 7(1-3), and no objections
have been raised.
Please refer to the attached report (ANX2006-01002) for the complete staff analysis.
The Community Development Board reviewed this proposed annexation at its regularly
scheduled meeting on April 18, 2006 and unanimously recommended approval.
Originating: Planning
Section Quasi-judicial public hearings
Cateoory: Annexations, Land Use Plan and Zoning
Number of Hard Copies attached: 0
Public Hearing: Yes
Advertised Dates: 04/18/2006
05/18/2006
06/01/2006
City Council
Ag..~.!:!.,~~ C~~!~~!:,,~.~.!!!,~.!:!.!:!~"~.!n-=""",,~_"""Mm
Financial Information:
Review Approval
Steven Brown 04-26-2006 07:34: 18
Leslie Douaall-Sides 04-28-2006 11:31 :36
Bill Horne 05-04-2006 20:13:18
Gina Clavton 04-27-2006 14:48:23
Cvndie Goudeau 05-05-2006 13:47:18
Gina Clayton 04-27-2006 16:00:34
Garry Brumback 05-04-2006 14: 17:58
ORDINANCE NO. 7621-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA,
ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF NORTH BETTY LANE AND STATE
STREET, CONSISTING OF LOT 1, LANGE'S REPLA T OF
BROWN'S SUBDIVISION, WHOSE POST OFFICE ADDRESS IS
1969 NORTH BETTY LANE, INTO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF
THE CITY, AND REDEFINING THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE
CITY TO INCLUDE SAID ADDITION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the owner of the real property described herein and depicted on the map
attached hereto as Exhibit A has petitioned the City of Clearwater to annex the property into the
City pursuant to Section 171.044, Florida Statutes, and the City has complied with all applicable
requirements of Florida law in connection with this ordinance; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The following-described property is hereby annexed into the City of Clearwater
and the boundary lines of the City are redefined accordingly:
Lot 1, Lange's Replat of Brown's Subdivision, according to the plat thereof,
recorded in Plat Book 24, Page 74, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida
(ANX2006-01002)
Section 2. The provisions of this ordinance are found and determined to be consistent
with the City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. The City Council hereby accepts the dedication
of all easements, parks, rights-of-way and other dedications to the public, which have heretofore
been made by plat, deed or user within the annexed property. The City Engineer, the City Clerk
and the Planning Director are directed to include and show the property described herein upon the
official maps and records of the City.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption. The City Clerk
shall file certified copies of this ordinance, including the map attached hereto, with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court and with the County Administrator of Pinellas County, Florida, within 7 days after
adoption, and shall file a certified copy with the Florida Department of State within 30 days after
adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7621-06
ORDINANCE NO. 7622-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE
CITY, TO DESIGNATE THE LAND USE FOR CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF NORTH BETTY LANE AND STATE STREET,
CONSISTING OF LOT 1, LANGE'S REPLAT OF BROWN'S
SUBDIVISION, WHOSE POST OFFICE ADDRESS IS 1969
NORTH BETTY LANE, UPON ANNEXATION INTO THE
CITY OF CLEARWATER, AS RESIDENTIAL URBAN;
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the amendment to the future land use plan element of the
comprehensive plan of the City as set forth in this ordinance is found to be reasonable,
proper and appropriate, and is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan: now,
therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The future land use plan element of the comprehensive plan of the City
of Clearwater is amended by designating the land use category for the hereinafter
described property, upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, as follows:
Property Land Use CateQorv
Lot 1, Lange's Replat of Brown's Subdivision, Residential Urban
according to the plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book
24, Page 74, Public Records of Pinellas County,
Florida (ANX2006-01002)
Section 2. The City Council does hereby certify that this ordinance is consistent
with the City's comprehensive plan.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, contingent
upon and subject to the adoption of Ordinance No. 7621-06.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7622-06
ORDINANCE NO. 7623-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY
BY ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NORTH BETTY LANE
AND STATE STREET, CONSISTING OF LOT 1, LANGE'S
REPLAT OF BROWN'S SUBDIVISION, WHOSE POST
OFFICE ADDRESS IS 1969 NORTH BETTY LANE, UPON
ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, AS
LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LMDR);
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the assignment of a zoning district classification as set forth in this
ordinance is found to be reasonable, proper and appropriate, and is consistent with the
City's comprehensive plan; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The following described property located in Pinellas County, Florida, is
hereby zoned as indicated upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, and the zoning
atlas of the City is amended, as follows:
Property
Lot 1, Lange's Replat of Brown's Subdivision,
according to the plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book
24, Page 74, Public Records of Pinellas County,
Florida (ANX2006-01002)
Zonina District
Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR)
Section 2. The City Engineer is directed to revise the zoning atlas of the City in
accordance with the foregoing amendment.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, contingent
upon and subject to the adoption of Ordinance No. 7621-06.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Ordinance No. 7623-06
I
I
CDB Meeting Date:
Case Number:
Owner/Applicant:
Location:
Agenda Item:
April 18. 2006
ANX2006-0 1002
Marie Honorat- Telfort
1969 N. Betty Lane
F3
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
REQUEST:
(a) Annexation of 0.234-acres of property to the City of
Clearwater;
(b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential
Urban (RU) Category (County) to Residential Urban
(RU) Category (City of Clearwater); and
(c) Rezoning from R-4, Single-Family Residential District
(County) to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR)
District (City of Clearwater).
SITE INFORMATION
PROPERTY SIZE:
10,200 square feet or 0.234 acres
(68 feet wide by 150 feet deep)
PROPERTY USE:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
Single-family dwelling
Single-family dwelling
PLAN CATEGORY:
Current Category:
Proposed Category:
Residential Urban (RU) (County)
Residential Urban (RU) (City)
ZONING DISTRICT:
Current District:
Proposed District:
R-4, Single-Family Residential (County)
Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) (City)
Staff Report - Community Development Board -April 18, 2006 - Case ANX2006-01002 Page 1
SURROUNDING USES:
North: Open Space/Recreation area
South: Single-family residence
East: Single-family residence
West: Single-family residence
ANALYSIS
This annexation involves a 0.234-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the southeast
comer of Betty Lane and State Street. The property is contiguous with the existing City
boundaries to the north; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Florida Statutes
with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to
receive solid waste service from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future
Land Use Plan designation of Residential Urban (RU) and a zoning category of Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR).
I. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES:
Recommended Findings of Fact
Water and Sewer
The applicant receives water service from the City of Clearwater, and the property is currently on
septic. Sanitary sewer service is not currently available in this area.
Solid Waste
Collection of solid waste will be provided by the City of Clearwater. The City has an interlocal
agreement with Pinellas County to provide for the disposal of solid waste at the County's
Resource Recovery Plant and capacity is available to serve the property.
Police
The property is located within Police District IT and service will be administered through the
district headquarters located at 645 Pierce Street N. There are currently 65 patrol officers and
nine patrol sergeants assigned to this district. Community policing service will be provided
through the City's zone system and officers in the field. The Police Department has stated that it
will be able to serve this property and the proposed annexation will not adversely affect police
service and response time.
Fire and Emergency Medical Services
Fire and emergency medical services will be provided to this property by Station #51 located at
1720 Overbrook Avenue. The Fire Department will be able to serve this property. The proposed
annexation will not adversely affect fire and EMS service and response time.
Staff Report - Conununity Development Board - April 18, 2006 - Case ANX2006-0 1 002 Page 2
Recommended Conclusions Of Law
The City has adequate capacity to serve this property with solid waste, police, fire and EMS
service. The proposed annexation will not have an adverse effect on public facilities and their
levels of service.
II. CONSISTENCY WITH CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: [Section 4-604.F.2]
Recommended Findings of Fact
The Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Future Land Use Plan map
designate the site as Residential Urban (RU). It is the purpose of the RU category to depict those
areas of the County that are now developed, or appropriate to be developed, in an urban low
density residential manner; and to recognize such areas as primarily well-suited for residential
uses that are consistent with the urban qualities and natural resource characteristics of such areas.
Residential is the primary use in this plan category up to a maximum of seven and one half (7.5)
dwelling units per acre. Secondary uses include Residential Equivalent; Institutional;
TransportationlUtility; Public Educational Facility; Ancillary Non-Residential and
Recreation/Open Space.
The proposed annexation is consistent with and promotes the following objective of the City of
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan:
2.4 Objective - Compact urban development within the urban service area shall be promoted
through application of the Clearwater Community Development Code.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The property proposed for annexation is contiguous to existing city boundaries and is within the
City's urban service area and will be located in the RL category. The proposed annexation is
consistent the City's Comprehensive Plan.
III. CONSISTENCY OF DEVELOPMENT WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE AND CITY REGULATIONS: [Sections 2-1001.1. & 4-604.F.5.]
Recommended Findings of Fact
The site is currently zoned R-4, Single Family Residential District in Pinellas County. The
applicant proposes to rezone the property to the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR)
District. Under the current LMDR zoning district provisions, a minimum lot width of 50 feet
and a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet are required. The subject site is 68 feet wide and
10,200 square feet in lot area.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - April 18, 2006 - Case ANX2006-0 1 002 Page 3
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The subject property exceeds the City's minimum LMDR dimensional requirements and is
therefore consistent with the Community Development Code.
IV. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COUNTYWIDE PLAN:
Recommended Findings of Fact
There is no change requested in the Countywide Future Land Use Plan designation for the site,
which will remain Residential Urban (RU) with a maximum density of 7.5 dwelling units per
acre.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
No change is proposed for the Future Land Use Plan designation of the property proposed for
annexation and the use and density of the property is consistent with the current designation.
V. CONSISTENCY WITH PINELLAS COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 00-63:
Recommended Findings of Fact
Pursuant to Pinellas County Ordinance No. 00-63, the Pinellas Planning Council staff has
reviewed this annexation and determined it complies with all applicable ordinance criteria.
Pinellas County Ordinance No. 00-63 requires that a proposed annexation be both contiguous to
the existing municipal boundaries and compact. This site is contiguous with the existing City
boundaries to the north and west and represents a logical and appropriate extension of the
existing boundaries. The compactness standard requires that the annexation not create an
enclave or a serpentine pattern of municipal boundaries.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The annexation of this property is consistent with this standard and no new enclave will be
created. In summary, the annexation of this property is consistent with Florida law.
VI. CODE ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS:
There are no current code enforcement violations or any code enforcement history on this site.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - April 18, 2006 - Case ANX2006-01002 Page 4
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services solid waste, police, fire
and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service level. The proposed
annexation is consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas
County Ordinance No. 00-63 regarding voluntary annexation.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following actions on the
request:
(a) Recommend APPROVAL ofthe annexation of 0.234-acres to the City of Clearwater;
(b) Recommend APPROVAL of the Residential Urban (RU) Future Land Use Plan
classification; and
(c) Recommend APPROVAL of the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning
classification pursuant to the City's Community Development Code.
Prepared by Planning Department Staff:
Cky Ready, Planner II
Attachments:
Application
Location Map
Aerial Photograph
Proposed Annexation
Future Land Use Map
Zoning Map
Surrounding Uses Map
Site Photographs
S:\Planning Department\C D BlAnnexationslANX - 2006IANX2006-01002 1969 N Betty Lane Honorat-Telfort
Residence1ANX2005-01002 StalL Report. doc
Staff Report - Community Development Board - Apri118, 2006 - Case ANX2006-0 1 002 Page 5
1. 1969 N. Betty Lane
3. Facing west from 1969 N Betty Lane
5. Facing south from 1969 N Betty Lane
2. 1969 N Betty Lane
4. Facing north from 1969 N Betty Lane
6. Facing east from 1969 N Betty Lane
ANX2006-01002
1969 North Betty Lane
Marie Honorat- Telfort
OS/R
1333
Zoning Map
Owner Marie Honorat-Telfort Case: ANX2006-01002
Site: 1969 N. Betty Lane Property 0.234
Size (Acres):
Land Use Zoning
PIN: 03-29-15-49986-000-0010
From: RU (County) R-4 (County)
To: RU (City) LMDR (City) Atlas Page: 251B
Proposed Annexation Map
Owner Marie Honorat-Telfort Case: ANX2006-01002
Site: 1969 N. Betty Lane Property 0.234
Size (Acres):
Land Use Zoning
PIN: 03-29-15-49986-000-0010
From: RU (County) R-4 (County)
To: RU (City) LMDR (City) Atlas Page: 251B
a: a:
Q Q
MARSHALL ST
~DiD DiD: ST
~ ST
D:'~DRLTON I
-. TANGERINE
ENGMAN I ST
001
LA SAllE ST
'I~D
I~~
ST
Location Map
Owner Marie Honorat-Telfort Case: ANX2006-01002
Site: 1969 N. Betty Lane Property 0.234
Size (Acres):
Land Use Zoning
PIN: 03-29-15-49986-000-0010
From: RU (County) R-4 (County)
To: RU (City) LMDR (City) Atlas Page: 251B
RlOS
RloS3
I
Future Land Use Map
Owner Marie Honorat-Telfort Case: ANX2006-01002
Site: 1969 N. Betty Lane Property 0.234
Size (Acres):
Land Use Zoning
PIN: 03-29-15-49986-000-0010
From: RU (County) R-4 (County)
To: RU (City) LMDR (City) Atlas Page: 251B
Open Space Recreational
1333
Existing Uses Map
Owner Marie Honorat-Telfort Case: ANX2006-0 1002
Site: 1969 N. Betty Lane Property 0.234
Size (Acres):
Land Use Zoning
PIN: 03-29-15-49986-000-0010
From: RU (County) R-4 (County)
To: RU (City) LMDR (City) Atlas Page: 251B
R<" ~ P L-D L
Aerial Photograph
Owner Marie Honorat-Telfort Case: ANX2006-0 1002
Site: 1969 N. Betty Lane Property 0.234
Size (Acres):
Land Use Zoning
PIN: 03-29-15-49986-000-0010
From: RU (County) R-4 (County)
To: RU (City) LMDR (City) Atlas Page: 251B
ater
City Council
. Agenda_.~,9ver Memorandum
PLD 3
q~3
Tracking Number: 2,068
Actual Date: 05/18/2006
Subject / Recommendation:
Approve the Petition for Annexation, Future Land Use Plan Amendment from the County
Residential Low (RL) Category to the City Residential Low (RL) Category and Zoning Atlas
Amendment from the County R-3, Single-Family Residential District to the City Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) District for 1824 Marilyn Drive (Lot 13, Block G, Carlton Terrace First
Addition Subdivision in Section 5, Township 29 South and Range 16 East); and Pass Ordinance
7624-06, 7625-06 & 7626-06 on first reading.
Summary:
This annexation involves a 0.169-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the west side
of Marilyn Drive, approximately 280 feet south of Woodring Drive and 320 feet north of
Morningside Drive. The property is located within an enclave and is not contiguous to existing
City boundaries; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County
requirements with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation
in order to receive sanitary sewer and solid waste service from the City. It is proposed that the
property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Low (RL) and zoning
category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
The Planning Department determined that the proposed annexation is consistent with the
following standards specified in the Community Development Code:
The proposed annexation will not have anadverse impact on public facilities and their level
of service.
The proposed annexation is consistent withthe City's Comprehensive Plan, the Countywide
Plan and the Community Development Code.
The proposed annexation is located within anenclave and its annexation will reduce such
enclave.
This annexation has been reviewed by the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) staff in accordance
with the provisions of Pinellas County Ordinance No. 00-63, Section 7(1-3), and no objections
have been raised.
Please refer to the attached report (ANX2006-01003) for the complete staff analysis.
The Community Development Board reviewed this proposed annexation at its regularly
scheduled meeting on April 18, 2006 and unanimously recommended approval.
Originating: Planning
Section Quasi-judicial public hearings
Category: Annexations, Land Use Plan and Zoning
Number of Hard Copies attached: 0
Public Hearing: Yes
Advertised Dates: 04/18/2006
05/18/2006
06/01/2006
i,j".
o
..
City Council
=m,._,~enda '~.C!mver M~~~I!!,~!!u I!!"
-
l)'~
Financial Information:
Review ADDroval
Steven Brown 04-26-2006 07:35:12
Leslie Douaall-Sides 04-28-2006 11 :34:39
Garry Brumback 05-04-2006 13:37:39
Gina Clavton 04-27-2006 14:49: 16
Leslie Douaall-Sides 04-28-2006 11 :35: 13
Bill Horne 05-04-2006 20:18:11
Gina Clayton 04-27-2006 16:01: 13
Cyndie Goudeau 05-05-2006 13:43:11
ORDINANCE NO. 7624-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA,
ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED 280 FEET
SOUTH OF WOODRING DRIVE AND 320 FEET NORTH OF
MORNINGSIDE DRIVE, CONSISTING OF LOT 13, BLOCK G,
CARLTON TERRACE FIRST ADDITION, WHOSE POST OFFICE
ADDRESS IS 1824 MARILYN DRIVE INTO THE CORPORATE
LIMITS OF THE CITY, AND REDEFINING THE BOUNDARY
LINES OF THE CITY TO INCLUDE SAID ADDITION; PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the owner of the real property described herein and depicted on the map
attached hereto as Exhibit A has petitioned the City of Clearwater to annex the property into the
City pursuant to Section 171.044, Florida Statutes, and the City has complied with all applicable
requirements of Florida law in connection with this ordinance; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The following-described property is hereby annexed into the City of Clearwater
and the boundary lines of the City are redefined accordingly:
Lot 13, Block G, Carlton Terrace First Addition, according to Plat thereof as
recorded in Plat Book 43, Page 39, Public Records of Pinellas County,.Florida
(ANX2006-01003)
Section 2. The provisions of this ordinance are found and determined to be consistent
with the City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. The City Council hereby accepts the dedication
of all easements, parks, rights-of-way and other dedications to the public, which have heretofore
been made by plat, deed or user within the annexed property. The City Engineer, the City Clerk
and the Planning Director are directed to include and show the property described herein upon the
official maps and records of the City.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption. The City Clerk
shall file certified copies of this ordinance, including the map attached hereto, with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court and with the County Administrator of Pinellas County, Florida, within 7 days after
adoption, and shall file a certified copy with the Florida Department of State within 30 days after
adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7624-06
ORDINANCE NO. 7625-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE
CITY, TO DESIGNATE THE LAND USE FOR CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED 280 FEET SOUTH OF
WOODRING DRIVE AND 320 FEET NORTH OF
MORNINGSIDE DRIVE, CONSISTING OF LOT 13, BLOCK
G, CARLTON TERRACE FIRST ADDITION, WHOSE POST
OFFICE ADDRESS IS 1824 MARILYN DRIVE, UPON
ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, AS
RESIDENTIAL LOW; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the amendment to the future land use plan element of the
comprehensive plan of the City as set forth in this ordinance is found to be reasonable,
proper and appropriate, and is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan; now,
therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The future land use plan element of the comprehensive plan of the City
of Clearwater is amended by designating the land use category for the hereinafter
described property, upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, as follows:
Property
Lot 13, Block G, Carlton Terrace First Addition,
according to Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book
43, Page 39, Public Records of Pinellas County,
Florida (ANX2006-01003)
Land Use CateQorv
Residential Low
Section 2. The City Council does hereby certify that this ordinance is consistent
with the City's comprehensive plan.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, contingent
upon and subject to the adoption of Ordinance No. 7624-06.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7625-06
ORDINANCE NO. 7626-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY
BY ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED 280
FEET SOUTH OF WOODRING DRIVE AND 320 FEET
NORTH OF MORNINGSIDE DRIVE, CONSISTING OF LOT
13, BLOCK G, CARLTON TERRACE FIRST ADDITION,
WHOSE POST OFFICE ADDRESS IS 1824 MARILYN
DRIVE, UPON ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, AS LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(LMDR); PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the assignment of a zoning district classification as set forth in this
ordinance is found to be reasonable, proper and appropriate, and is consistent with the
City's comprehensive plan; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The following described property located in Pinellas County, Florida, is
hereby zoned as indicated upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, and the zoning
atlas of the City is amended, as follows:
Property
Lot 13, Block G, Carlton Terrace First Addition,
according to Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book
43, Page 39, Public Records of Pinellas County,
Florida (ANX2006-01003)
ZoninQ District
Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR)
Section 2. The City Engineer is directed to revise the zoning atlas of the City in
accordance with the foregoing amendment.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, contingent
upon and subject to the adoption of Ordinance No. 7624-06.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to fQrm:
Attest:
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7626-06
CDB Meeting Date:
Case Number:
Owner/Applicant:
Location:
Agenda Item:
April 18.2006
ANX2006-0 1 003
Shaip A vdullahu
1824 Marilvn Drive
F3
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
REQUEST:
(a) Annexation of 0.169-acres of property to the City of
Clearwater;
(b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential
Low (RL) (County) to Residential Low (RL) (City of
Clearwater); and
(c) Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential District
(County) to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR)
District (City of Clearwater).
SITE INFORMATION
PROPERTY SIZE:
7,350 square feet or 0.169 acres
(70 feet wide by 105 feet deep)
PROPERTY USE:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
Single-family dwelling
Single-family dwelling
PLAN CATEGORY:
Current Category:
Proposed Category:
Residential Low (RL) (County)
Residential Low (RL) (City)
ZONING DISTRICT:
Current District:
Proposed District:
R-3, Single-Family Residential (County)
Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) (City)
Staff Report - Community Development Board - April 18, 2006 - Case ANX2006-01003 Page 1
SURROUNDING USES:
North: Single-family residential
South: Single-family residential
East: Single-family residential
West: Single-family residential
ANALYSIS
This annexation involves a O.169-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the west side
of Marilyn Drive, approximately 280 feet south of Woodring Drive and 320 feet north of
Momingside Drive. The property is located within an enclave and is not contiguous to existing
City boundaries; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County
requirements with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in
order to receive sanitary sewer and solid waste service from the City. It is proposed that the
property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Low (RL) and zoning
category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
I. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES:
Recommended Findings of Fact
Water and Sewer
The applicant receives water service from Pinellas County. Sanitary sewer service will be
provided by the City of Clearwater and the City has adequate capacity to serve this property. The
closest sanitary sewer line is located in an easement along the east side of the parcel. The
applicant has paid the City's sewer impact and assessment fees and is aware of the additional
costs to extend City sewer service to this property.
Solid Waste
Collection of solid waste will be provided by the City of Clearwater. The City has an interlocal
agreement with Pinellas County to provide for the disposal of solid waste at the County's
Resource Recovery Plant and capacity is available to serve the property.
Police
The property is located within Police District ill and service will be administered through the
district headquarters located at 2851 N. McMullen Booth Road. There are currently 56 patrol
officers and seven patrol sergeants assigned to this district. Community policing service will be
provided through the City's zone system and officers in the field. The Police Department has
stated that it will be able to serve this property and the proposed annexation will not adversely
affect police service and response time.
Fire and Emergency Medical Services
Fire and emergency medical services will be provided to this property by Station #49 located on
Sky Harbor Drive. The Fire Department will be able to serve this property. The proposed
annexation will not adversely affect fire and EMS service and response time.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - April 18, 2006 - Case ANX2006-0 1 003 Page 2
Recommended Conclusions Of Law
The City has adequate capacity to serve this property with sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire
and EMS service. The proposed annexation will not have an adverse effect on public facilities
and their levels of service.
II. CONSISTENCY WITH CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: [Section 4-604.F.2]
Recommended Findings of Fact
The Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Future Land Use Plan map
designate the site as Residential Low (RL). It is the purpose of the RL category to depict those
areas of the County that are now developed, or appropriate to be developed, in a low density
residential manner; and to recognize such areas as primarily well-suited for residential uses that
are consistent with the low density, non-intensive qualities and natural resource characteristics of
such areas. Residential is the primary use in this plan category up to a maximum of five (5)
dwelling units per acre. Secondary uses include Residential Equivalent; Institutional;
TransportationlUtility; Public Educational Facility; Ancillary Non-Residential and
Recreation/Open Space.
The proposed annexation is consistent with and promotes the following objective of the City of
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan:
2.4 Objective - Compact urban development within the urban service area shall be promoted
through application of the Clearwater Community Development Code.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The property proposed for annexation is located within an enclave within the City's urban service
area and will be located in the RL category. The proposed annexation is consistent the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
III. CONSISTENCY OF DEVELOPMENT WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE AND CITY REGULATIONS: [Sections 2-1001.1. & 4-604.F.5.]
Recommended Findings of Fact
The site is currently zoned R-3, Single Family Residential District in Pinellas County. The
applicant proposes to rezone the property to the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR)
District. Under the current LMDR zoning district provisions, a minimum lot width of 50 feet
and a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet are required. The subject site is 70 feet wide and
7,350 square feet in lot area.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - April 18, 2006 - Case ANX2006-0 1 003 Page 3
1-
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The subject property exceeds the City's minimum LMDR dimensional requirements and is
therefore consistent with the Community Development Code.
IV. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COUNTYWIDE PLAN:
Recommended Findings of Fact
There is no change requested in the Countywide Future Land Use Plan designation, which will
remain Residential Low (RL) with a maximum density of 5 dwelling units per acre.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
No change is proposed for the Future Land Use Plan designation of the property proposed for
annexation and the use and density of the property is consistent with the current designation.
V. CONSISTENCY WITH PINELLAS COUNTY:
Recommended Findings of Fact
Pursuant to Pinellas County Ordinance No. 00-63, the Pinellas Planning Council staff has
reviewed this annexation and determined that it complies with all applicable ordinance criteria.
Pinellas County Ordinance No. 00-63(1)(b) provides for the voluntary annexation of property
that is located within and reduces an enclave on the effective date of the ordinance. The subject
site is located within an enclave, is noncontiguous to city boundaries and reduces the enclave.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The property proposed for annexation is located within an enclave and its annexation will reduce
such enclave; therefore, the annexation of this property is consistent with Pinellas County
Ordinance No. 00-63.
VI. CODE ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS:
There are no current code enforcement violations or any code enforcement history on this site.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including sanitary sewer,
solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service
level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and is
consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance No. 00-63 regarding voluntary annexation.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - April 18, 2006 - Case ANX2006-01003 Page 4
1__ --------
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following actions on the
request:
(a) Recommend APPROVAL ofthe annexation ofO.169-acres to the City of Clearwater;
(b) Recommend APPROVAL of the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan
classification; and
(c) Recommend APPROVAL of the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning
classification pursuant to the City's Community Development Code.
Prepared by Planning Department Staff:
Cky Ready, Planner IT
Attachments:
Application
Location Map
Aerial Photograph
Proposed Annexation
Future Land Use Map
Zoning Map
Surrounding Uses Map
Site Photographs
S:\Planning DepartmentlC D B\Annexations\ANX - 2006\ANX2006-01003 1824 Marilyn Drive Avdul/ahu
Residence\ANX2006-0 1003 StalL Report. doc
Staff Report - Community Development Board - April 18, 2006 - Case ANX2006-0 1 003 Page 5
Aerial Photograph
Owner Shaip Avdullahu Case: ANX2006-0 1003
Site: 1824 Marilyn Drive Property 0.169
Size (Acres):
Land Use Zoning
PIN: 05-29 - 1 6- 13554-007-01 30
From: RL (County) R-3 (County)
To: RL (City) LMDR (City) Atlas Page: 264A
Future Land Use Map
Owner Shaip A vdullahu Case: ANX2006-0 1003
Site: 1824 Marilyn Drive Property 0.169
Size (Acres):
Land Use Zoning
PIN: 05-29-16-13554-007-0130
From: RL (County) R-3 (County)
To: RL (City) LMDR (City) Atlas Page: 264A
Existing Land Uses Map
Owner Shaip Avdullahu Case: A NX2006-0 1003
Site: 1824 Marilyn Drive Property 0.169
Size (Acres):
Land Use Zoning
PIN: 05- 29- 1 6-13554-007-0130
From: RL (County) R-3 (County)
To: RL (City) LMDR (City) Atlas Page: 264A
Location Map
Owner
Site:
Shaip Avdullahu
1824 Marilyn Drive
Land Use
Case:
Property
Size (Acres):
ANX2006-0 1003
0.169
Zoning
PIN:
05-29-16-13554-007 -0130
To:
RL (County)
RL (City)
R-3 (County)
LMDR (City)
Atlas Page:
264A
From:
Proposed Annexation Map
Owner Shaip Avdullahu Case: ANX2006-0 1003
Site: 1824 Marilyn Drive Property 0.169
Size (Acres):
Land Use Zoning
PIN: 05-29-16-13554-007-0130
From: RL (County) R-3 (County)
To: RL (City) LMDR (City) Atlas Page: 264A
Zoning Map
Owner Shaip Avdullahu Case: A NX2006-0 1003
Site: 1824 Marilyn Drive Property 0.169
Size (Acres):
Land Use Zoning
PIN: 05-29-16-13554-007-0130
From: RL (County) R-3 (County)
To: RL (City) LMDR (City) Atlas Page: 264A
1. 1824 Marilyn Drive
3. facing east from 1824 Marilyn Drive
5. facing north from 1824 Marilyn Drive
2. 1824 Marilyn Drive
4. facing south from 1824 Marilyn Drive
6. 1824 Marilyn Drive
ANX2006-01003
1824 Marilyn Drive
Shaip Avdullahu
...
o
,.
City Council
Cover Memorandum
Tracking Number: 2,050
Actual Date: 05/18/2006
Subject / Recommendation:
Adopt Ordinance 7607-06 on second reading, annexing certain real property whose post office
address is 3076 Cherry Lane into the corporate limits of the city and redefining the boundary
lines of the city to include said addition.
Originating: City Attorney
Section Second Readings - public hearing
Category: Second Reading
Public Hearing: Yes
Advertised Dates: 04/22/2006
Financial Information:
Review Approval
Pam Akin
04-21-2006
16: 19:09
Cvndie Goudeau
05-04-2006
08: 53: 31
CA
lC> \
ORDINANCE NO. 7607-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA,
ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF CHERRY LANE, APPROXIMATELY 135 FEET
WEST OF MCMULLEN-BOOTH ROAD, CONSISTING OF A
PORTION OF METES AND BOUNDS 22/28 IN SECTION 16,
TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 16 EAST, WHOSE POST
OFFICE ADDRESS IS 3076 CHERRY LANE, INTO THE
CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY, AND REDEFINING THE
BOUNDARY LINES OF THE CITY TO INCLUDE SAID ADDITION;
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the owner of the real property described herein and depicted on the map
attached hereto as Exhibit A has petitioned the City of Clearwater to annex the property into the
City pursuant to Section 171.044, Florida Statutes, and the City has complied with all applicable
requirements of Florida law in connection with this ordinance; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The following-described property is hereby annexed into the City of Clearwater
and the boundary lines of the City are redefined accordingly:
THE EAST 75.00 FT. OF THE WEST 386.05 FT. OF THE NORTH 110.00 FT.
OF THE SOUTH 220.00 FT. OF THE SOUTH ~ OF THE SOUTHEAST ~ OF
THE NORTHWEST ~ OF THE NORTHWEST ~ OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP
29 SOUTH, RANGE 16 EAST. (ANX2005-12039)
Section 2. The provisions of this ordinance are found and determined to be consistent
with the City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. The City Council hereby accepts the dedication
of all easements, parks, rights-of-way and other dedications to the public, which have heretofore
been made by plat, deed or user within the annexed property. The City Engineer, the City Clerk
and the Planning Director are directed to include and show the property described herein upon the
official maps and records of the City.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption. The City Clerk
shall file certified copies of this ordinance, including the map attached hereto, with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court and with the County Administrator of Pinellas County, Florida, within 7 days after
adoption, and shall file a certified copy with the Florida Department of State within 30 days after
adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7607-06
,...._J-I
I ~.J~_
, ~I l~j
1__1..1 I_J
I c'
I ",I
-l_J
I---I~ I--~
I I I ,
-i._J -lTI
(:'J
-,.-.- r'_
J 1 11.0 11-'--1 I L_-,
~ ~_ __~J ~'_~
rl~LI
I~ /il '
- 1
L......-l.J
r-------I
1 I
I I
1 I
1 L,
I 1
, rJ
: I
'I 150
L______J
I-~r-~
l-$.jjUl
co
g
1--'
" i
L.....::! Ll-
KENTUCKY A VE
--~
1-"
_I
-,
-~
,--...,
I I
I I
I I
I I
'-__I
r-.... ....._
( 'l_J
\ ~20o-1
" -,
" I
, I-J
''''-...-...:--
Q
It
i:
o
o
CI:l
:2:
LIJ
...,J
:5
::E
u
::E
.-_:5'.....,
I '
I 12~J">
~ l (~~\
Ll.../<,_>
,\ ......' ......"\ ......"'", ......... .......... .....""'\
(\\ \< '\. '\...(' \,,'\ (l-\' ...
,/ \, " ~ , ) \ ') \" \ ,
,^\.-;.\...~"\~\, <,~~...(\ /~\"'''''/-,\_~':~
> ,> \, ~ ,( ,,. ,
\ ) \ ), ,)> ), >'\,-
'.........) --/ \".. '........... '........ ..../
/'-"\........_\ /",\/'-"\ ..../~,//-,<.r-, """""',,/-', <'
, '), \' /\ '\., " t /
'/""""....../ "" t \ '\/ /..... /\ ;;.. '" \ \ ,
"Jj
I I
Lr-J
Ir---I 1--' (--I.
r--' I 213,'
~2051 1,2191 ' 225'
I r , I
I 1 , I I I
I ~ , 211,:' ~ 217: i 223~
I -
300 ,1207~ ~ I
\ [ 2151 I l
I I, L_:?~ [ 221\
'-__I l__J ,___I
Proposed Annexation Map
Owner William & Vickie Collins
Site: 3076 Cherry Lane
Land Use Zoning
From: RU (County) R-2 (County)
To: RU (City) LMDR (City)
Case:
Property
Size (Acres):
ANX2005-12039
0.189
PIN:
16-29-16-00000-220-2800
Atlas Page:
292A
City Council
Cover Memorandum
Tracking Number: 2,051
Actual Date: 05/18/2006
Subject / Recommendation:
Adopt Ordinance 7608-06 on second reading, amending the future land use plan element of the
Comprehensive Plan of the city to designate the land use for certain real property whose post
office address is 3076 Cherry Lane, upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, as Residential
Urban (RU).
Originating: City Attorney
Section Second Readings - publiC hearing
Category: Second Reading
Public Hearing: Yes
Advertised Dates: 04/22/2006
Financial Information:
Review Approval
Pam Akin
04-21-2006 16:19:48
Cvndie Goudeau
05-04-2006 08:54:56
(~A J-
Ie) ,J
ORDINANCE NO. 7608-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY, TO DESIGNATE THE
LAND USE FOR CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF CHERRY LANE, APPROXIMATELY 135 FEET
WEST OF MCMULLEN-BOOTH ROAD, CONSISTING OF A
PORTION OF METES AND BOUNDS 22/28 IN SECTION 16,
TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 16 EAST, WHOSE POST
OFFICE ADDRESS IS 3076 CHERRY LANE, UPON
ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, AS
RESIDENTIAL URBAN (RU); PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the amendment to the future land use plan element of the comprehensive
plan of the City as set forth in this ordinance is found to be reasonable, proper and appropriate,
and is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The future land use plan element of the comprehensive plan of the City of
Clearwater is amended by designating the land use category for the hereinafter described
property, upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, as follows:
Property
THE EAST 75.00 FT. OF THE WEST 386.05 FT. OF
THE NORTH 110.00 FT. OF THE SOUTH 220.00 FT.
OF THE SOUTH ~ OF THE SOUTHEAST 1;4 OF THE
NORTHWEST 1;4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1;4 OF
SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 16 EAST.
(ANX2005-12039 )
Land Use Cateqorv
Residential Urban (RU)
Section 2. The City Council does hereby certify that this ordinance is consistent with
the City's comprehensive plan.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, contingent upon
and subject to the adoption of Ordinance No. 7607-06.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7608-06
I
I
R~
, I
l_..--",
.".
r J
I ~.J r-~-
1 ~, : ~U
L_rJ LJ
: ~1
-L_J
,---I g
I 1
~- ,
C_,
r-------,
I '
, I
I I
, L,
, ,
, _J
: RldL
, I
, I
L_______
150
'"
~
--,
,--,
'I I
I.J
~J
KENTUCKY A VE
I
.....
Ci)
>-
'c:(
a1
r-, ....._
I ~_J
l ~260-1
/ -
,
,
"....-L_SJ-
,--...,
I I
I I
I I
I I
'___I
I
VE
RU
300
Future Land Use Map
Owner
William & Vickie Collins
Site:
3076 Cherry Lane
Land Use
Zoning
From:
RU (County)
R-2 (County)
To:
RU (City)
LMDR (City)
I
Q
Cl::
~
o
o
a1
~
III
."J
."J
:::l
:e
u
:e
,..._:5'/\
, '
I 12~)"'\'\>
l ~("\
1..."....... <,_/>
,\', (/\ ..../\\,/""\ <""Yo)" ,.../''\<..-.........
\....> t \\ \', ')\ '\\" \ \
\/, ) .....,.,l-..J V~\ \............... _ \ " .....\
,^vr.ir.~~..\ (/_, " ,~-:-^-
(n WI.. ~\~ \~, >'" ~
\.......> '-./ \........ ~_...../ \.... -' '\.......
,RU
l.....-J 0
- OJ
1--'
r~ 205 1
, -
, -
"207 r'
1 "
L__I
"'--1 ....--,
I 2131' 11219'
I' I'
I IRM' ,
I 211;1 L 2171
... I I I
J I.. I' I
: 2Oij! ~2151
~--~ 1__J
(--I.
I 2251
, I
, I
I 223,'
I L
r 2211
1-__1
Case:
Property
Size (Acres):
ANX2005-12039
0.189
PIN: 16-29-16-00000-220-2800
Atlas Page:
292A
City Council
_..~mm~,~a..~cov!,.~~,~.~morandu 11!'~'.m.__"..__'''''...=.mm'
Tracking Number: 2,052
Actual Date: 05/18/2006
Subject / Recommendation:
Adopt Ordinance 7609-06 on second reading, amending the zoning atlas of the city by zoning
certain real property whose post office address is 3076 Cherry Lane, upon annexation into the
City of Clearwater, as Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
Originating: City Attorney
Section Second Readings - public hearing
Category: Second Reading
Public Hearing: Yes
Advertised Dates: 04/22/2006
Financial Information:
Review Approval
Pam Akin
04-21-2006 16:20:21
Cvndie Goudeau
05-04-2006 08:55:55
LA 3
10.3
ORDINANCE NO. 7609-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY BY ZONING
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF CHERRY LANE, APPROXIMATELY 135 FEET WEST OF
MCMULLEN-BOOTH ROAD, CONSISTING OF A PORTION OF
METES AND BOUNDS 22/28 IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 29
SOUTH, RANGE 16 EAST, WHOSE POST OFFICE ADDRESS IS
3076 CHERRY LANE UPON ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, AS LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(LMDR); PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the assignment of a zoning district classification as set forth in this ordinance
is found to be reasonable, proper and appropriate, and is consistent with the City's comprehensive
plan; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The following described property located in Pinellas County, Florida, is hereby
zoned as indicated upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, and the zoning atlas of the City is
amended, as follows:
Propertv
Zonina District
THE EAST 75.00 FT. OF THE WEST 386.05 FT. OF
THE NORTH 110.00 FT. OF THE SOUTH 220.00 FT.
OF THE SOUTH ~ OF THE SOUTHEAST ~ OF THE
NORTHWEST ~ OF THE NORTHWEST ~ OF SECTION
16, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 16 EAST. (ANX2005-12039)
Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR)
Section 2. The City Engineer is directed to revise the zoning atlas of the City in
accordance with the foregoing amendment.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, contingent upon
and subject to the adoption of Ordinance No. 7607-06.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7609-06
I
r--bJ ~
I ~ I~I
I_..J) Lr'
- r- r'_
J I I~ ,..-, I L_,
~ r' -~i ~,_..J
I~ 8~- ~ ~
r-------I
I I
I I
I I
I L,
I I
I rJ
I 1
I I
I I
I I
L______-'
o
150
1--'
'I I
I..J
_I
'--1
I I
I I
'-__I
....
CI)
>-
'iC(
CQ
r-, __
( "'--L_,
\ 200 I
/ -,
" I
',....'-_sI.J
LMDR
300
VE
,-_5''''',
I \
l12~'!"'~v\
I ~(\
....\: <,-",,>
,\ /'\ /'\ /"''\ /... ....... ....""
\\( ~l/\ ," , < >,,/ <,< ....
()M/ls~ "'\....\,'
\,/ \. {\, ..,.')\" '....
, '~<'_\v(,,_\\~~~~
\, ,) <, .>Sf:'~') '~, ').... ~
\,........> ,-/ \"" 'c_...../ ,_- \..../
(---,
1--' , 2131'
1:;'2051 I r
J ~ 1211S
'~fY>>-R
---,
,12191
I I
I I
S217i
r I
J 2151
l 1
L__......
(--"I.
I 2251
, I
r I
I 223,'
I ,
r 221l
'___I
Zoning Map
Owner William & Vickie Collins
Site: 3076 Cherry Lane
Land Use
Zoning
From:
RU (County)
R-2 (County)
To:
RU (City)
LMDR (City)
Case:
Property
Size (Acres):
ANX2005- 12039
0.189
PIN: 16-29-16-00000-220-2800
Atlas Page:
292A
City Council
""",._",. . AQ!!nd a J;;ove..~"..~,~,!!!,~,!:!,!:!.!;!.~.!!!..,..,_...."_..,,,...
Tracking Number: 2,074
Actual Date: 05/18/2006
Subject / Recommendation:
Adopt Ordinance 7616-06 on second reading, establishing the Mobile Home Transition Program;
Amending the Community Development Code; providing a Level Three procedure for
determination that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable facilities exist for the reloation
of mobile home owners; providing for qualifying governmental action; providing for applicant
responsibilities; providing for council action; providing forconditional final decision; providing
standards for review; amending the Code of Ordinances to provide for supplemental rental
assistance payment fund; providing for an alternative mitigation option; providing for rental
assistance payments to eligible individuals.
Originating: City Attorney
Section Second Readings - public hearing
Category: Second Reading
Public Hearing: Yes
Advertised Dates: 05/06/2006
Financial Information:
Review Aooroval
Pam Akin
04-21-2006
16:21:02
Cvndie Goudeau
05-04-2006
08:56:57
CAL-J
rO.4
ORDINANCE NO. 7616-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER
ESTABLISHING THE MOBILE HOME TRANSITION PROGRAM;
AMENDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE
4, DIVISION 2, GENERAL PROCEDURES, TO ADD
SUBSECTION 4-202A.26; AMENDING COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE 4, DIVISION 6, TO ADD
SECTION 4-610; PROVIDING A LEVEL THREE PROCEDURE
FOR DETERMINATION THAT ADEQUATE MOBILE HOME
PARKS OR OTHER SUITABLE FACILITIES EXIST FOR THE
RELOCATION OF MOBILE HOME OWNERS PURSUANT TO
FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 723.083; PROVIDING FOR
QUALIFYING GOVERNMENTAL ACTION; PROVIDING FOR
APPLICANT RESPONSIBILITIES; PROVIDING FOR
STATUTORILY REQUIRED COUNCIL ACTION; PROVIDING FOR
CONDITIONAL FINAL DECISION; PROVIDING STANDARDS
FOR REVIEW; CREATING CODE OF ORDINANCES CHAPTER
34, SPECIAL FUNDS, ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 34.01 THROUGH
34.12; PROVIDING FOR SUPPLEMENTAL RENTAL
ASSISTANCE PAYMENT FUND; PROVIDING FOR AN
ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION OPTION; PROVIDING FOR RENTAL
ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS TO ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, regulates mobile home park
tenancies and intends to balance the basic property rights of park owners with the
housing needs of mobile home owners renting sites within mobile home parks; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Clearwater (Council) is empowered
under Chapter 166, Florida Statutes, to enact ordinances for the benefit of the safety,
health and welfare of the people of the City; and
WHEREAS, in an attempt to strike an appropriate balance, Section 723.083,
Florida Statutes, specifically restricts the ability of a local government to take any official
action, including rezoning, that would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home
owners residing in a mobile home park without first making an affirmative finding that
there exist adequate mobile hame parks or other suitable facilities for the relocation of
mobile home owners; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Legal Affairs, Office of the Attorney General,
specifically found that a finding of adequate or suitable facilities per Section 723.083,
Florida Statutes, "be appropriate to the financial and other needs of the specific
population of mobile home owners"; and
Ordinance No. 7616-06
WHEREAS, the Council finds there is a scarcity of affordable housing in the City
of Clearwater and Pinellas County, which limits the amount of affordable mobile hame
parks or other suitable facilities available to mobile home owners subject to removal or
relocation as a result of a mobile home park redevelopment; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that applicants often lack sufficient information
about the financial capacity of individual mobile home owners within the park needed to
allow the Council to determine the existence of adequate or suitable facilities for the
relocation of eligible displaced mobile home owners; and
WHEREAS, the failure of an applicant to provide competent substantial evidence
sufficient to support the Council's requisite finding under Section 723.083, Florida
Statutes, of available adequate or suitable facilities within the financial means of mobile
home owners removed or relocated as the result of a rezoning or other official action,
standing alone, represents a justification for denial of rezoning or other official action;
and
WHEREAS, the recent widespread conversion of mobile home parks to other
uses, and the resulting potential removal and relocation of mobile home owners,
present separate and immediate short-term needs that must be assessed under
Section 723.083, Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that there exists an essential nexus between the
legitimate City interest of complying with the statutory requirement of ensuring adequate
affordable housing for mobile home owners under Section 723.083, Florida Statutes,
and the voluntary rental assistance payment option set forth in this mobile home
transition program; and
WHEREAS, the Council further finds that there exists the required degree of
connection between the voluntary rental assistance payment option and the ability to
ensure adequate or suitable facilities for mobile home owners impacted as a result of a
park redevelopment; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 723.083, Florida Statutes, the absence of
adequate or suitable facilities for the relocation of eligible mobile home owners
displaced as a result of a rezaning or other official action requires denial of rezoning or
other official action; and
WHEREAS, the Mobile Home Transition Program, as proposed and
implemented herein, is intended to supplement the existing methods by which an
applicant can meet its statutory burden under Section 723.083, Florida Statutes, and
this additional voluntary method will simultaneously assist eligible mobile home owners
to secure adequate or suitable facilities; and
WHEREAS, offering a voluntary rental assistance payment option to the
applicant is specifically designed to address, and substantially relates to, the need to
2
Ordinance No. 7616-06
assure the affordability of adequate or suitable facilities for those mobile home owners
who might be removed or relocated as a result of the governmental action; and
WHEREAS, the availability of such rental assistance option in the manner and
by the procedures provided in this ordinance addresses the needs of the specific
population of mobile home owners who will be removed or relocated by a rezoning or
other official action approval that triggers the provisions of Section 723.083, Florida
Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the Council deems it appropriate for the applicant to set aside an
amount sufficient to ensure the ability of eligible mobile home owners to secure
affordable facilities and maintain affordability for a period of up to two years; and
WHEREAS, less administrative fees, all funds provided by the applicant and not
used to provide rental assistance to individual mobile home owners should be returned
to the applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Council's specific intent is that, regardless of the source of the
funding, any voluntary monies paid to support a Section 723.083, Florida Statutes,
finding are to be paid directly to the City or its designee and not to the individual mobile
home owners, and no funds from the program are to be construed as a payment by the
applicant that would otherwise disqualify the mobile home owner for payment by the
Mobile Home Relocation Corporation provided for under Section 723.0612, Florida
Statutes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CLEARWATER, that:
Section 1. The foregoing "Whereas" clauses are hereby incorporated as
legislative findings in support of this Ordinance.
Section 2. The Clearwater Community Development Code, Article 4, Section 4-202,
Applications for Development Approval, is amended by adding subsection A. 26 to read as
follows:
26. If approval of the application would result in the removal or relocation of
mobile home owners residing in a mobile home park as provided in Florida
Statutes 723.083, the application must provide information sufficient to show that
adequate mobile home parks or other suitable facilities exist for the relocation of
the mobile home owners. Mobile Home Owners shall be defined as those
persons who own their coach but rent a lot space within the subject property and
are subject to the provisions and protections provided for in Chapter 723, Florida
Statutes. The application shall include the following information:
1. The total number of mobile homes in the park that are owned by mobile
home owners; and
3
Ordinance No. 7616-06
2. Monthly rent charged for each space occupied by a mobile home owner;
and
3. A list of the names and mailing addresses of the present mobile home
owners within the subject property. This list should identify those units that are
suitable for moving and for which only vacant replacement lots will be identified;
and
4. Household profile for each owner-occupied mobile home within the park,
including number of adults, number of children, and whether pets have been
allowed in the park. Replacement units identified should be suitable for similar
household profiles; and
5. A list of other mobile home parks or other suitable facilities with vacant units
available at the time of application that are of a similar cost profile to which
owners residing in the subject property could reasonably expect to relocate. This
list will include, at a minimum, name and address of the park, park contact name
and phone number, the number of vacant spaces available and the cost of those
spaces, park guidelines on age and condition of acceptable units, number of
rental units available and the cost of those rentals. All parks or other suitable
facilities must be located within a ten-mile radius af the subject property and
serve the same age, household, and occupancy profiles as the subject property.
6. Any other information that the Applicant deems necessary to demonstrate
that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable facilities exist for the
relocation of the mobile home owners.
Section 3. The Clearwater Community Development Code, Article 4, Division 6,
is amended by adding Section 4-610 to read as follows:
Section 4-610. Governmental action affecting mobile home owners.
A. Purpose and applicability. It is the purpose of this section to establish a
procedure for determining that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable
facilities exist for the relocation of the mobile home owners pursuant to Florida
Statutes 723.083 (hereinafter referred to as "the Determination"), when an
applicant has filed for rezoning or any other official action that would result in the
removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in a mobile home park
other than a resident-owned park. This section shall apply to any application
for Level One, Two or Three approval that would result in the removal or
relocation of mobile home owners residing in a mobile home park other than a
resident-owned park, hereinafter referred to as a Qualifying Official
Governmental Action ("QOGA"). Resident-owned parks involved in legally
sanctioned and voluntary applications for changes of zoning are specifically
excluded from the provisions of this ordinance. Level One or Two approvals
shall be contingent upon the Determination required herein. If the Application
4
Ordinance No. 7616-06
includes more than one Level Three approval the hearing shall be conducted
concurrently.
B. Application/initiation requirements. An application for Level One, Two or
Three approval that would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home
owners residing in a mobile home park other than a resident-owned park, shall
include such information as is applicable in Section 4-202(A).
C. Staff review and recommendation. After the community development
coordinator has reviewed the application with the development review committee
in accordance with the provisions of Section 4-202(C) and (D), he shall send a
written report and recommendation to the community development board, with a
copy to the applicant, setting forth a recommended Determination of approval,
approval with conditions or denial and the grounds for such recommendation.
D. Community development board review/recommendation. Upon receipt of
the recommendation of the community development coordinator, the community
development board shall conduct a public hearing on the Determination request
in accordance with the requirements of Section 4-206 and issue a recommended
order to the City Council setting forth the board's findings in regard to whether
the applicant has demonstrated that adequate mobile home parks or other
suitable facilities exist for the relocation of the mobile home owners based on the
standards set forth in Section 4-610 G. and may include any proposed
conditions.
E. City Council review/decision. Upon receipt of the recommended order of the
community development board, the City Council shall conduct a public hearing in
accordance with the provisions of Section 4-206. If the Council is satisfied that
the evidence indicates that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable
facilities exist for the relocation of the eligible displaced mobile home owners, it
shall make a finding of such and the condition for approval shall be met. If the
Council is not satisfied that the evidence indicates the existence of adequate
mobile home parks or other suitable facilities for the relocation of the eligible
displaced mobile home owners, the finding shall state such and the QOGA shall
be denied or approved conditionally as provided in subsection F. below.
F. Upon determining that there is a lack of competent substantial evidence to
support an affirmative finding under Section 723.083, Florida Mobile Home Act,
the Council may grant a conditional approval under the following conditions:
1. The Applicant shall deposit monies into the Supplemental Rental
Assistance Payment Fund (Chapter 34, Article I, Code of Ordinances)
for purposes of assuring that rental assistance is available for all
eligible mobile home owners for whom affordable mobile home parks
or other suitable facilities cannot be identified, and
2. The full Supplemental Rental Assistance Payment amount must be
deposited prior to issuance of any permits for the site, and
3. No notice of eviction for change of use of property shall be given or
effective unless the mobile home park owner shall have first paid to the
5
Ordinance No. 7616-06
City an amount equal to the City's actual out-of-pocket cost to qualify
mobile home owners and provide initial counseling times the number of
owner-occupied mobile homes located in the mobile home park as
provided in Article 34 of the Code of Ordinances, and
4. No later than the date the notice of eviction for change of use is given
to mobile home owners, the Applicant will notify mobile home owners
of their rights under Article 34 including possible eligibility for rental
assistance payments if affordable replacement or relocation facilities
cannot be identified.
5. Alternatively, an Applicant may provide an alternative means of
meeting the requirements of Section 723.083 by addressing in a
manner acceptable to the Council any affordability gap, using the
criteria defined herein, between the cost of the identified replacement
unit and the affordable rent as published by the State of Florida's State
Housing Initiative Partnership Program for the mobile home owner's
household income category. Any such alternative means shall meet the
spirit and intent of the Supplemental Rental Assistance Payment Fund.
The granting of such conditional approval pursuant to this section will provide a
presumption that the provisions of Florida Statutes, Chapter 723.083 have been
satisfied.
G. Standards for review.
1. The proposed Determination is consistent with and furthers the goals,
policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan and furthers the
purposes of this Development Code and other city ordinances and
actions designed to implement the plan.
2. The Council shall review all information provided and shall make its
decision based on substantial and competent evidence.
Section 4. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Clearwater is hereby
amended to create Chapter 34 Special Funds, Article I Supplemental Rental
Assistance Payment Fund, to read as follows:
Article I. Supplemental Rental Assistance Payment Fund.
Section 34.01 Purpose.
The Supplemental Rental Assistance Payment Fund ("Fund") is intended
as a resource to assure that affordable mobile home parks or other suitable
facilities will be available for mobile home owners who are removed or relocated
as a result of a rezoning or any other official action as provided in Florida
Statutes 723.083 hereinafter referred to as a Qualifying Official Governmental
Action ("QOGA"). Payments from this Fund do not provide a relocation payment
or any other form of compensation to mobile home owners. If the Applicant for a
QOGA cannot identify adequate mobile home parks or other suitable facilities
6
Ordinance No. 7616-06
that are affordable to the impacted mobile home owners, the payment will be
used to provide temporary rental assistance to qualified mobile home owners.
Section 34.02 Applicability.
An Applicant who has been granted a conditional approval under Section
4-610 of the Clearwater Community Development Code and who has not
provided an alternative means of meeting the requirements of Section 723.083
acceptable to Council, shall make payment into the Fund as provided in this
Article.
Section 34.03 Replacement housinq profile.
The Applicant shall provide information specified below to establish a
replacement housing profile for the mobile home owners residing in the park. For
purposes of this Article "Mobile Home Owners" shall be defined as those
persons who own their coach but rent a lot space within the subject property and
are subject to the provisions and protections provided for in Chapter 723, Florida
Statutes. The following information shall be provided:
1. The total number of mobile homes in the park that are owned by
mobile home owners; and
2. Monthly rent charged for each space occupied by a mobile home
owner; and
3. A list of the names and mailing addresses of the present mobile home
owners within the subject property. This list should identify those units
that are suitable for moving and for which only vacant replacement lots
will be identified in subsection 5 below; and
4. Household profile for each owner-occupied mobile home within the
park, including number of adults, number of children, and whether pets
have been allowed in the park. Replacement units identified in
subsection 5 should be suitable for similar household profiles; and
5. A list of other mobile home parks or other suitable facilities with vacant
units available at the time of application and that are of a similar cost
profile to which owners residing in the subject property could
reasonably expect to relocate. This list will include, at a minimum,
name and address of the park, park contact name and phone number,
the number of vacant spaces available and the cost of those spaces,
park guidelines on age and condition of acceptable units, number of
rental units available and the cost of those rentals. All parks or other
suitable facilities must be located within a ten-mile radius of the subject
7
Ordinance No. 7616-06
property and serve the same age, household, and occupancy profiles
as the subject property.
Section 34.04 Payment into Fund.
A. Calculation of Deposits. The amount to be deposited into the
Supplemental Rental Assistance Payment Fund by the Applicant will be
calculated by the City or its designee using the following methodology:
1. Identify the units occupied by mobile home owners and unit size based
on number of bedrooms; and
2. Identify the weighted average lot rent for owners in the subject mobile
home park; and
3. Identify the weighted average rents for similarly sized rental units in
Clearwater; and
4. The per-unit amount to be deposited is based on the gap between the
weighted average monthly lot rent and the weighted average monthly
rent for similarly sized apartments in Clearwater; and
5. The per-unit amount defined in subsection 4 above, is multiplied by the
number of owners in the subject property, who have not voluntarily
signed a waiver of their Chapter 723.083 protections, and by the 24-
month maximum assistance period; and
6. To determine the total deposit required, the amount calculated in
subsection 5 above is multiplied by a factor of 1 .15 to meet
administrative fee requirements.
B. Administrative Fee. Funds deposited with the City to provide rental
assistance payments are subject to a fifteen percent (15%) non-refundable fee to
cover the cost of program administration.
C. Form of Pavment. Deposits to the Supplemental Rental Assistance
Payment Fund will be made payable to the City of Clearwater or its designee.
The City or its designee will calculate the deposit amount required based on an
economic profile derived from information provided by the Applicant as provided
herein and other housing cost data. The full Supplemental Rental Assistance
Payment amount must be deposited prior to issuance of any permits for the site.
The deposit may be cash or an irrevocable letter of credit issued by a major
financial institution in favor of the City of Clearwater, in a form approved by the
City or its designee and from which solely the City is authorized to draw upon for
rental assistance as provided herein as needed. Any cash shall be deposited in
an interest-bearing account, with the interest accruing to the benefit of the
8
Ordinance No. 7616-06
Applicant. Any letters of credit shall be for a period of one year provided,
however, that the City may draw on such letter of credit if it is not renewed for an
additional year not later than thirty (30) days prior to its expiration. The Applicant
may substitute cash, in whole or in part, for the letter of credit from time to time.
The letter of credit shall be reduced in amount to the extent that the Applicant
substitutes cash therefore.
D. Advance of Rental Assistance Payment. If Applicant posts a letter of
credit pursuant to Subsection C above, City shall provide Applicant with a good
faith written estimate twenty (20) days prior to commencement of a calendar
quarter of the total amount of rental assistance payments and administrative
costs anticipated to be required for such quarter, less any funds remaining from
prior payments by Applicant. The Applicant shall advance such estimate amount
to the City within ten (10) days of receipt of such estimate, failing which the City
may draw such amount under the letter of credit. If within the ten (10) day period,
Applicant objects in writing to City's estimate, Applicant and City shall meet to try
to resolve the matter within thirty (30) days after Applicant's objection, failing
which the City may draw on the letter of credit.
E. Payment prior to Notice of Eviction. No notice of eviction for
change of use of property shall be given or effective unless the mobile home
park owner shall have first paid to the City an amount equal to the City's actual
out-of-pocket cost to qualify mobile home owners and provide initial counseling
times the number of owner-occupied mobile homes located in the mobile home
park. Such sum shall be used by the City or its designee in determining whether
mobile home owners qualify for rental assistance payments hereunder and shall
be fully creditable against any sums payable pursuant this section.
F. Return of Excess Funds. Any Supplemental Rental Assistance
Payment funds deposited by the Applicant and any interest earned thereon and
not used as rental assistance payments will be returned to the Applicant within
ninety (90) days following the end of the rental assistance period. The
administrative fee is not refundable.
Section 34.05 Housino Counselino. Mobile home owners requesting rental
assistance must agree to receive housing counseling services as a prerequisite.
City or its designee will provide individual housing counseling services to
determine the housing needs and level of affordability of the mobile home owner.
Rental assistance payments will be used as a resource only when affordable
mobile home parks or other suitable facilities have not been identified by other
means. Affordable replacement housing may be located for the mobile home
owner without the need for rental assistance. Every attempt will be made to
place mobile home owners onto suitable waiting lists and identify other strategies
that will remove them from the rental assistance program as expeditiously as
practicable.
9
Ordinance No. 7616-06
Section 34.06 Applicant Identification of Replacement Unit. For each mobile
home owner within the subject property who requests rental assistance
payments, Applicant will identify a replacement unit in a mobile home park or
other suitable facility located within ten (10) miles of the subject property.
Replacement units must be decent, safe, and sanitary, and meet Pinellas
County's Housing Quality Standards and City of Clearwater Housing Code.
Nothing herein shall prevent a mobile home owner from accepting a replacement
unit outside the ten-mile radius if the mobile home owner so chooses.
Section 34.07 Supplemental Rental Assistance Payments. Rental assistance
payments are available for qualified mobile home owners for whom affordable
replacement housing has not been identified. The amount of the rental
assistance payment shall be sufficient to cover the gap between the rent of the
identified eligible unit and the mobile home owner's affordability. Affordability will
be based on gross household income, adjusted for household size as defined by
the State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program (SHIP), Section 420.907 et.
seq., Florida Statutes, using the rents published annually for the SHIP program,
adjusted for utilities.
Section 34.08 EliQibility for Rental Assistance Payments.
In order to be eligible for rental assistance payments, mobile home
owners must meet the following criteria:
(1) Be an eligible owner of a mobile home as defined in Chapter
723, who was renting a space in the subject property prior to
initiation of the QOGA request, and continuing to rent such space
from such date to the filing of a complete application for assistance.
(2) Has not been offered an affordable replacement unit, as defined
herein, in another mobile home park or other suitable facility.
(3) Has an affordability gap, using the criteria defined herein,
between the cost of the identified replacement unit and the
affordable rent as published annually by the State of Florida's State
Housing Initiative Partnership Program for the mobile home
owner's household income category.
(4) Is a full-time resident in good standing as evidenced by being
current in rents and other fees due to the park owner, unless such
rents and other fees are being withheld due to a bona fide Order by
a Court of Law pending resolution of legal action.
(5) Has provided complete and accurate information in the
Application for Rental Assistance described herein.
10
Ordinance No. 7616-06
(6) Has completed the housing counseling prerequisite and
complied with all recommendations provided by the housing
counselors.
Section 34.09 Applications for Supplemental Rental Assistance. Mobile home
owners requesting rental assistance will be required to complete an Application
for Rental Assistance in a form acceptable to the City or its designee within 90
days following receipt of notice to vacate the property or final approval of the
zoning change, whichever is later. Information contained in the application will be
used to determine household affordability and housing need, and should include,
but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Name, age, total gross household income, places of
employment, sources of income, household assets, number of
persons in the household, dates of birth, and social security
numbers; and
(2) Mailing address, residency status, number of bedrooms in the
current mobile home; and
(3) Documentation establishing the applicant as an owner of record
for the mobile home per Chapter 723; and
(4) Monthly or weekly costs of pad rental, park utility fees, and
other charges collected by the park owner from the mobile home
owner; and
(5) Any special needs of the residents of the unit relating to
handicapped accessibility; and
(6) Signed forms authorizing verification of income/asset
information provided.
Section 34.10 Review of Application. Applications will be reviewed by City staff
or its designee to determine the affordability and housing needs of the mobile
home owners. Failure of mobile home owners to provide timely, accurate, and
complete information will make it impossible to determine housing needs and
affordability and may render them ineligible for rental assistance. All applications
are subject to the Public Records Laws of the State of Florida.
Section 34.11 Rental Assistance Payments Are Made to the Lessor. Rental
assistance payments will be made to the Lessor on behalf of the mobile home
owner. No payment will be made directly to any mobile home owner, guardian, or
family member of a mobile home owner.
Section 34.12 Term of Rental Assistance Payments. The rental assistance
payment benefit period must be consecutive and cannot exceed 24 months.
11
Ordinance No. 7616-06
-urunrn- -
Section 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or provision of
this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of
competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not be construed to render the remaining
provisions of this Ordinance invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 6. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Pamela K. Akin
City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
12
Ordinance No. 7616-06
ED- 1
City Council I
II '
"m_.m._~g,!!nda,=~o~~m!:_~,~!!!,!?~!:!!,nd u m mm,"_~,,~m_=,=_=m"="=_~_
Tracking Number: 2,064
Actual Date:
Subiect / Recommendation:
Approve the Interlocal Agreement between Pinellas County and the Cities of Clearwater, St.
Petersburg and Largo, to mutually hire a consultant to conduct a Nexus Study for Affordable
Housing needs of the County and Cities, with the City paying for 12% of the study's cost and
authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent)
Summary:
The City, along with Pinellas County and the Cities of St. Petersburg and Largo have agreed to
jointly fund the cost of conducting a nexus study of affordable housing needs within our County.
Pinellas County is taking the lead on this study.
The objectives of the study are to:
- Provide an unbiased analysis of the projected need for new units of affordable housing (rental
and ownership), under varying levels of household income and purchase price/rent. The level of
detail to be provided under the study must be adequate to demonstrate the need for creating new
units of affordable housing by distinguishing between the discrete categories of (i) new affordable
units needed due to the future commercial/office/industrial development; (ii) new affordable
housing units needed due to average influx migration patterns and/or normal growth with the
populations, taking into account the loss of affordable housing through mobile home park
redevelopment and conversion of apartment units to condominiums; and (iii) new affordable units
needed as a result of the continued construction of market rate and luxury housing.
- Provide the structure for a legally defensible basis/nexus for the adoption of an inclusionary
housing ordinance by: demonstrating the link, if any between the development and
redevelopment of any properties in the County for the full range of residential, commercial,
industrial and institutional uses allowed under the Pinellas County Countywide Plan and the
demand for affordable housing; demonstrating the effect of a lack of affordable housing on the
general welfare of the public; and providing a basis methodology for computation of fees to be
paid in-lieu of affordable housing construction under an inclusionary housing ordinance.
- Provide the structure for a legally defensible basis/nexus for the adoption of a commercial
linkage fee ordinance by demonstrating the link, if any, between future
commercial/office/industrial development and an increasing need for new units of affordable
housing.
- Provide analysis and the structure for a legally defensible basis/nexus for the adoption of an
ordinance or a commercial linkage fee, or some hybrid thereof, as it relates specifically to
mixed-use projects containing both residential and commercial components.
The RFP was issued on April 12, 2006. Proposals are due to the County from respondents by May
2, 2006. The City's share of the cost will be 12%. Pinellas County estimates that the cost of the
study will be around $50,000. The City will also have two seats on the Committee that will be
reviewing and selecting the consultant.
Originating: Economic Development and Housing
Section: Consent Agenda
Category: Agreements/Contracts - with cost
City Council
_"_~enda c9ver.Memoran~.!:!~m
..
..
u
Public Hearino: No
Financial Information:
~ Purchase
Bid Required? No
Bid Exceptions:
Other Government Bid
Other Contract?
Pinellas County Purchasing is handing the bidding for this study
In Current Year Budoet?
No
Budget Adiustment:
No
Current Year Cost:
$6,000.00
For Fiscal Year:
10/01/2006 to 09/30/2006
Total Cost:
$6,000.00
Not to Exceed:
$6,000.00
Approoriation Code(s)
0181-99421-582000-554-00
Comments
Amount
Review Approval
Howie Carroll
04-17-2006
Tina Wilson
05-04-2006
Geraldine Camoos
04-25-2006
Cvndie Goudeau
05-04-2006
Bryan Ruff
04-27-2006
14:53:46
09:35:35
11:43:05
14: 17:35
09:31:20
RE: r-])- I
II. l
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into this _ day of
,2006, by and between PINELLAS COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of
Florida, the CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, the CITY OF LARGO, and the CITY OF
CLEARWATER, collectively referred to as "the Parties."
Witnesseth:
WHEREAS, this Agreement is entered into pursuant to Section 163.01, Florida Statutes,
also known as the "Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969"; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of PINELLAS COUNTY ("BCC")
established the Community Housing Workgroup ("Workgroup") to make findings about the need
for affordable housing in PINELLAS COUNTY; and
WHEREAS, the Workgroup identified three specific strategies for alleviating the
affordable housing shortage: inclusionary zoning; a Housing Trust Fund; and development
regulations; and
WHEREAS, a commercial linkage fee was identified as a potential source of
capitalization for a Housing Trust Fund; and
WHEREAS, on October 18, 2005, the Workgroup findings were presented to the BCC,
and by Resolution 05-238, the BCC recognized an affordable housing shortage and established
the Pinellas County Community Housing Program; and
WHEREAS, the Parties hereto now desire to mutually hire a consultant to conduct a
nexus study for affordable housing; and
1
IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual terms, conditions, promIses, covenants and
payments set forth, the parties agree as follows:
1. PINELLAS COUNTY RESPONSIBILITIES:
1.1 PINELLAS COUNTY shall competitively solicit for the consulting contract
pursuant to the Pinellas County Purchasing Code and any relevant federal
regulations covering procurement for services in order to obtain a nexus study for
affordable housing; and
1.2 PINELLAS COUNTY shall award the contract, based upon the reVIew and
recommendation of a group composed of delegates of the parties hereto; and
1.3 PINELLAS COUNTY shall coordinate the signing of the contract between the
Parties and the consulting contractor selected to do the analysis; and
1.4 PINELLAS COUNTY shall be responsible for the administration of the
consulting contract; and
1.5 PINELLAS COUNTY shall coordinate billing under the consulting contract by
receiving invoices from the selected contractor and directing each party to remit
their portion of an invoice directly to the contractor. At no time will PINELLAS
COUNTY advance funds on behalf of another party to cover contract costs; and
1.6 PINELLAS COUNTY shall retain any public records created as a result of this
Agreement and the consulting contract in accord with the Florida Public Records
Act, Chapter 119, Florida Statues.
2. MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITIES:
2
_u___ ---,
2.1 Each party shall participate in the selection of a contractor consultant by
designating a delegate to sit on the selection committee, which will then make a
recommendation to the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners; and
2.2 Each party shall pay, as follows, the cost of the consulting contract to be obtained
to conduct a countywide nexus study for affordable housing: PINELLAS
COUNTY 61%; CITY OF CLEARWATER 12%; and CITY OF ST.
PETERSBURG 27%; and
2.3 Upon notification from PINELLAS COUNTY that an invoice amount is owed to
the contractor, each party shall timely remit its payment directly to the contractor
in accordance with the Florida Prompt Payment Act, Fla. Stat. ~ 218.70, et seq.,
and notify PINELLAS COUNTY that payment has been remitted; and
2.4 Each party shall cooperate fully in any contractual disputes that may arise as a
result of this Agreement, bearing any related costs pro rata.
3. AMENDMENTS: This Agreement may be amended in writing by consent of the
parties hereto.
4. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Agreement and any amendments thereto shall become
effective upon filing with the Clerk of the Circuit Court, Pinellas County, Florida and
shall expire upon the delivery of the Nexus Study for Affordable Housing to the
Parties, and proper payment therefore.
5. TERMINATION: Any party hereto may terminate its participation in this Agreement
by notifying the remaining parties in writing not later than thirty (30) days prior to the
effective date of its withdrawal. A withdrawing party remains responsible for its pro
rata share of any costs already incurred up to the effective date of its withdrawal.
3
6. NON-APPROPRIATIONS: The obligations of the Parties as to any funding required
pursuant to this Agreement, shall be limited to an obligation in any given year to
budget and appropriate from legally available funds, after monies for essential
services have been budgeted and appropriated, sufficient monies for the funding that
is required during that year. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties shall not be
prohibited from pledging any legally available non-ad valorem revenues for any
obligations heretofore or hereafter incurred, which pledge shall be prior and superior
to any obligation of the Parties pursuant to this Agreement.
[The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank}
4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by
their duly authorized representatives on the day and date first above written.
THE CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA
ATTEST:
By:
Rick Baker
As Its Mayor
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:
City Attorney (Designee)
By:
Assistant City Attorney
[The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank}
5
CITY OF LARGO,
A Florida municipal corporation
ATTEST:
By:
City Manager
City Clerk
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
City Attorney
[The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank}
6
Countersigned:
CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
By:
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
William B. Horn II
City Manager
Attest:
City Attorney
City Clerk
[The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank}
7
PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political
Subdivision of the State of Florida, Acting by
and through its Board of County Commissioners
ATTEST:
KEN BURKE, Clerk
By:
By:
Kenneth T. Welch, Chairman
Deputy Clerk
REVIEWED AND APPROVED SUBJECT
TO PROPER EXECUTION:
Office of County Attorney
8
City Council
_". Agen~a c~.ver Memoranlt~!!1_~.,~,_,~."=
f\N ,
II. d
Tracking Number: 2,063
Actual Date: 05/18/2006
Subject / Recommendation:
Authorize settlement of all workers' compensation claims of Claimant, Thomas Stubblefield, in
their entirety to include medical, indemnity and attorney fees for the sum of $45,000 and
authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent)
Summary:
Mediation was held on April 11, 2006, and it was agreed to settle Claimant's claims, subject to
Council approval.
.Claimant, a firefighter for the City of Clearwater, sustained work related neck injuries on June
18, 2003, August 23, 2004, and December 22, 2004. As a result of the injuries the claimant
had two neck surgeries and sustained a permanent physical impairment with permanent
physical restrictions precluding his return to work as a firefighter.
.The Claimant retired as a consequence of his WC injuries, and is receiving a work related City of
Clearwater disability pension in the amount of $3,068.11 per month.
This settlement, if approved, will not affect the disability pension.
.The Claimant continues to receive active medical treatment for his injuries.
.Settlement of this claim is recommended as being in the best interest of the City by the City's
Claims Committee, the Risk Management Division, and the City's outside counsel, Mark Hungate.
Originating: Finance
Section Consent Agenda
Category: Agreements/Contracts - with cost
Number of Hard Copies attached: 0
Public Hearino: No
Financial Information:
~ Operating Expenditure
Bid Required? No
Bid Exceptions:
Sole Source
In Current Year Budget?
Yes
Budget Adjustment:
No
City Council
""._,<~enda <;;9~~!J1emor~E,,~,,!!m
Current Year Cost:
$45,000.00
Annual Operating Cost:
$45,000.00
For Fiscal Year:
10/01/2005 to 09/30/2006
Total Cost:
$45,000.00
Not to Exceed:
$45,000.00
Appropriation Code(s)
590-07000-545800-513-000
Amount
Comments
workers' compensation claims of
Claimant, Thomas Stubblefield,
$45,000.00
Review Approval
Maraie Simmons
Dick Hull
04-14-2006 17: 18:01
05-05-2006 13:39:56
04-17-2006 11:02:20
05-04-2006 08:59:32
04-17-2006 15:44:38
05-04-2006 20:24:09
Cvndie Goudeau
Tina Wilson
Garrv Brumback
Bill Horne
City Council
~_,~~~a. Cover ~"~~,,QI!~m~~"~
Pc\- K - C}
/1-3
Trackina Number: 2,075
Actual Date: 05/18/2006
Subiect / Recommendation:
Ratify and confirm the City Manager's approval of the First Amendment to Station WSJT 94.1
Sponsorship Agreement to co-promote the Smooth Jazz Fest Concert on April 21, 2006 and April
22, 2006, located in Coachman Park. (consent)
Summary:
The City entered into an agreement with WSJT 94.1 on September 29, 2005, to co-promote and
produce a music concert as part of the Clearwater Fun 'N Sun Festival, which was presented at
Coachman Park on April 21, 2006 and April 22, 2006.
Ratify and confirm of this item puts conditions in place to address City conditions such as:
1. Inappropriate language by staff
2. Venue size
3. Sales taxes
Primary responsibilities of WSJT dealt with event promotion.
Staff is recommending that the Council ratify and confirm this action.
A general agreement will be brought forward to Council on June 1, 2006 to cover future shows
prior to their occurance.
A copy of the First Amendment to Sponsorship Agreement is available for review in the Official
Records and Legislative Services Department.
Originating: Parks and Recreation
Section: Consent Agenda
Cateoorv: Other
Number of Hard Copies attached: 0
Public Hearina: No
Financial Information:
~ Other
Review Approval
Kevin Dunbar
05-04-2006
13:06:30
Bill Horne
05-09-2006
10:16:24
Cvndie Goudeau
05-09-2006
13:47:09
Garry Brumback
05-09-2006
07:52:15
".... ..........,.....
t/. , Y II ;'
,~ ,f'l_
-l
11.3
FIRST AMENDMENT TO STATION WSJT 94.1
SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT
This Amendment is made and entered into this day of ,
2006 ("Effective Date") by and between WSJT 94.1, 9721 Executive Center Drive, Suite
200, St. Petersburg, FL 33773 ("hereinafter "WSJT") and the CITY OF CLEARWATER,
FLORIDA, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, (hereinafter ''Vendor'') (each
individually referred to herein as "Party" or collectively as the "Parties").
WHEREAS, the Parties entered into that certain Station WSJT 94.1 Sponsorship
Agreement ("Agreement") dated September 29, 2005, (attached hereto and made a part
hereof) and now agree to amend the Agreement as provided for herein; and
NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are
incorporated herein by reference.
2. It is understood that WSJT and the Vendor will co-promote the festival on
April 21, 2006 and April 22, 2006, known as "Smooth Jazz Fest Concert" in Coachman
Park, located at 301 Drew Street, Clearwater, Florida. It is understood that this will be a
paid event open to the public and that WSJT is the title/presenting sponsor of the event.
3. It is also understood that the Vendor has a sound policy for its concerts
which absolutely must be adhered to and Vendor reserves the right to implement its
policy at its discretion. The policy set by the Vendor mandates that the music for this
festival at Coachman Park must be completed by 9:00 p.m.
4. It is also understood that the Vendor has established safe capacity limits for
Coachman Park. For this festival a maximum of 12,500 tickets will be sold through
Ticketmaster and/or day of show.
5. Lewd, Obscene or Violent Behavior. WSJT shall comply with all applicable
Federal, State and local law while occupying the Venue for the Event. No lewd, indecent,
or obscene conduct or language shall be included in activities or events presented by
WSJT, its affiliates, respective officers, directors, employees agents and representatives
(collectively 'WSJT Representatives") or any of their successors or assigns. In addition,
WSJT Representatives shall refrain from encouraging illegal drug usage. WSJT hereby
recognizes that any such references or encouragement will reflect negatively on the City
of Clearwater and may be in violation of law. WSJT further agrees that the Vendor or its
agents may, in their discretion, order WSJT to immediately vacate the Venue if WSJT
fails to cure any of the following: (a) if the Event is indecent or obscene in violation of law;
(b) if employees or agents of WSJT engage in disorderly conduct as provided by law or;
(c) if the actions of WSJT incite violence, threaten or result in an immediate breach of the
peace as provided by law. Further, WSJT agrees that WSJT Representatives shall not
use the word "Fuck", or any variations thereof, at any time during the Event. Any such
use shall result in a monetary fine of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) per
occurrence and shall be deducted as a penalty expense from WSJT revenues to be paid
hereunder, prior to the Vendor's issuance of such revenues due.
6. Public Safety, Interruption or Termination of the Event. WSJT agrees that it
will at all times conduct its activities with full regard to the public safety, and will observe
and abide by all applicable regulations and requests by the Vendor and all other duly
authorized governmental agencies responsible for the public safety. Duly authorized
representatives may enter the Venue at any time and on any occasion without any
restrictions whatsoever. All areas of the Venue shall remain under the control of the
Vendor. Further, Vendor shall retain the right to cause interruption of any performance in
the interest of public safety and to likewise cause the termination of such performance
when in the sole judgment of the Vendor such act is necessary in the interest of the public
safety.
7. The Vendor, as part of its partnership with WSJT, will utilize its
Ticketmaster account for the sale of tickets to the Smooth Jazz Fest Concert. The
Vendor, upon receipt of the final settlement from Ticketmaster, will deposit the check into
the Vendor's events development account. The Vendor will then issue a check to WSJT
for the amount of the check minus any deductions outlined in the agreement or
additionally agreed upon by the promotions department for the station.
8. This paragraph hereby sets forth the State Sales Tax responsibilities of
each partner in regards to ticket sales for the April 21, 2006 and April 22, 2006 Smooth
Jazz Fest Concert.
. State tax is collected by Ticketmaster on all tickets sold through Ticketmaster and
is included in the gross sales amount reported by them.
. The check received by the Vendor from Ticketmaster is the gross sales amount
collected by Ticketmaster, including State Sales Tax, deducting other applicable
Ticketmaster fees.
. Said gross sales amount (including the sales tax), is the amount WSJT will use in
calculating and paying the State Sales Tax, which is their responsibility.
. Any sales tax generated on any tickets sold directly by WSJT is also the
responsibility of WSJT.
· The Vendor shall not be responsible for the payment of any sales tax whatsoever.
9. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and
year first above written.
COUNTERSIGNED:
CITY OF CLEARWATER
By:
By:
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
William B. Horne, II
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ATTEST:
By:
By:
Laura Lipowski
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
ATTEST:
WSJT 94.1
By:
By:
Name:
Name:
Title:
ater
City Council
~,~=.~~~r'~ma cO~~,~,,~~,~!!!oral!~,,~,,!!l-,.m.,.,_m.,.w
E"g -3
(. .L.{
I .
Tracking Number: 2,062
Actual Date: 05/18/2006
Subject / Recommendation:
Approve a work order to McKim & Creed of Clearwater FI. (EOR), in the amount of $203,400 for
the Well 78 and Well 23 Improvement Project, project number 05-0078-UT, and that the
appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. (consent)
Summary:
The City of Clearwater's Wells 23 and 78are part of the wellfield network providing raw
water to the City's Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment Plant No.1. Over the past several
months, well 78 has experienced a reduction in production and an increase in drawdown, and it
was noted that Well 23 had minimal drawdown and low chlorides and may be able to provide
increased capacity with no net impact to the water quality.
To bring Well 78 back to producing water atDr near its original condition, Well 78 will be
hydraulically cleaned and the existing well pump will be replaced with a stainless steel
submersible well pump and a PVC Certa-Loc column pipe.
A specific capacity test and analytical testingon the subsequent water quality will be
conducted on Well 23 and a raw water pipe system model will be run to assure increased
production from this well will not impact the production of the other wells in the network.
McKim & Creed, an Engineer of Record (EOR),was selected to provide all of the above
services including submitting a letter for the Water Use Permit Reallocation to the SWFWMD in
the amount of $203,400.
The improvements will becompleted by April 2007.
A mid-year amendment will transfer $203,400.00 ofbudget and water revenue from the
Capital Improvement Program project 0315-96748, Water Treatment Facility, to 0315-96750,
Well Rehabilitation to fund this work order.
A copy of the work order isavailable for review in the Official Records andLegislative
Services office.
Originating: Engineering
Section Consent Agenda
Category: Agreements/Contracts - with cost
Number of Hard Copies attached: 0
Public Hearing: No
Financial Information:
IyQ.e..;. Capital Expenditure
Bid Required? No
City Council
,__ Agenda cO~~I~~~!11orJ!,!:!,~!J.,!!I
Bid Exceptions:
Sole Source
Budget Adjustment:
Yes
Budget Adjustment Comments:
See Summary Section
Total Cost:
$203,400.00
Appropriation Code(s)
0315-96750-561300-533-000
Amount
Comments
$203,400.00
Review Approval
Glen Bahnick
Garry Brumback
04-12-2006 11:36:30
04-19- 2006 12:38: 17
05-04-2006 20:20:35
04-18-2006 10:08:42
05-05-2006 13:41 :23
04-19-2006 08:06:51
05-04-2006 09:00:22
Brvan Ruff
Bill Horne
Michael Quillen
Cvndie Goudeau
Tina Wilson
...... .. -... -.-.-
.,
~" ENj-3
II . t...J
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION
McKIM & CREED WORK INITIA nON FORM
DATE: April 4, 2006
City Project No: 05-0078-UT
M/C Project No:
1. PROTECT TITLE: Well 78 and Well 23 Improvements
2. SCOPE OF WORK:
SUMMARY
The City of Clearwater's Well 78 is part of the wellfield network providing raw
water to the City's Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment Plant No. 1. Over the past
several months, the well has experienced a reduction in production and an increase
in drawdown. To investigate the reduction in flow, representatives from McKim &
Creed visited the well site and operated the well pump under different head
conditions. The results of our work indicate that Well 78 needs to be cleaned in an
effort to regain productivity.
In an effort to bring Well 78 back to producing water at or near its original condition
McKim & Creed proposes to hydraulically clean the well. In addition, with the
decision to upsize pumping capacity at Well 81, there will be a negative impact on
the pumping capacity at Well 78 that needs to be addressed by upsizing the pump
and motor. This work will include the design and construction to replace the well
pump with a stainless steel submersible well pump and a PVC Certa-Loc column
pipe. It is anticipated that some of the existing above ground piping can be reused
with the proposed plan. McKim & Creed will complete a computer simulated
hydraulic model of the existing system to develop parameters for the selection of
the new well pump for Well 78.
In addition to Well 78 improvements, it was noted that Well 23 had minimal
draw down and low chlorides and may be able to provide increased capacity with
no net impact to the water quality. This will be verified by conducting a specific
capacity test and analytical testing on the subsequent water quality. However, to
assure increased production from this well will not impact the production of the
other wells in the network, a raw water pipe system model is required to assess the
potential impacts. In addition, this model will be utilized to assess the potential
impacts from the nine proposed wells in the City's Well Expansion project. This
work will be done concurrently to the Well 78 cleaning and testing.
Once all the well cleaning, testing and modeling are complete, the Water Use Permit
will be modified to reallocate the permitted flow quantity from each well to
maximize the production of the system.
Well 78 and Well 23 Improvements
April 4, 2006
Page 2 of9
The following Scope of Work is proposed:
SCOPE OF WORK
Task 1- Clean and Investigate Well 78
A. Hold a project kick-off meeting. Provide a project schedule with a list of
milestone tasks for discussion with the City of Clearwater. Schedule and tasks to
indicate that length of time the well will be off line. McKim & Creed, Hausinger,
hydrogeologist, and the City to attend the meeting. At the start of the project,
Hausinger to perform a short term specific capacity test with existing well
pumping equipment.
B. Hausinger to remove the existing vertical turbine pump. Hausinger to perform a
video log of the well to confirm length of casing and depth of the well.
Hausinger to the clean and chemically treat Well No. 78, perform follow-up
suite of geophysical logs: long-short normal resistivity, static and pumping fluid
resistivity, and static and pumping flow. Downhole water samples will be
collected using a downhole sampler. Hydrogeologist will observe the sampling
and geophysical logging procedures. The downhole samples will be analyzed
for chloride, sulfate, IDS, iron, arsenic and corrosivity (Langlier Index). We
anticipate that three downhole samples and one pumping composite sample will
be collected and analyzed. Hausinger to acid treat the open-hole section of the
well with hydrochloric acid. Spent acid will be neutralized with soda ash and
discharged to the municipal sewer system. The video survey will be reviewed
by the hydrogeologist to evaluate the condition of the casing and the borehole
wall. The borehole geophysical logs will be analyzed by the hydrogeologist to
delineate the depths of the producing zones in the well and the relative
contribution of each zone to the total flow from the well. The water quality data
will be reviewed to assess the water quality profile.
C. McKim & Creed will prepare and furnish a letter report describing the
procedures and results of the well investigation and recommendations will be
prepared and submitted to the City.
Task 2 - Well 78 Design/Build Services
A. Under Task 4, McKim & Creed will model raw water piping for WTP No.1 to
size new Well 78 submersible pump. McKim & Creed will select the largest
pump for Well 78 that will have the least affect on the operation of the other
nine (9) existing wells and five (5) proposed wells that are connected to WTP
No.1 raw water piping.
Well 78 and Well 23 Improvements
April 4, 2006
Page 3 of9
B. McKim & Creed to develop construction plans and specifications for the
replacement of the pump for Well 78 per City standards. The design will also
include civil site, mechanical, and electrical/instrumentation work relative to
installing the new well pump. McKim & Creed to attend Well 78 progress
meetings as necessary. McKim & Creed to prepare and submit PCDOH permit
and Building Department Permit.
C. Hausinger will mobilize/demobilize to well site, furnish and install 316 SS
replacement submersible well pump (approximately 500gpm at 260' TDH),
furnish and install 6" Certa-Lok column pipe with 6" SS check valve, furnish
and install one 6" 316 SS well head, furnish and install electrical modifications to
include light pole, power panel, generator receptacle, redevelop and rerun the
specific capacity test after the new SS submersible pump is installed, chlorinate
well and collect samples, complete. Water quality analyses to be performed by
Southern Analytical Laboratories.
D. McKim & Creed to provide forty (40) hours of inspection services. McKim &
Creed to provide periodic engineer site visits. McKim & Creed to perform final
inspection and prepare Engineer's Certification for submittal to the PCDOH.
Task 3 - Well 23 Video Logging and Production Testing
A. Hausinger will mobilize to well site, pull the existing turbine pump and riser
pipes from the well, and deliver to the City's yard for storage. After pump is
pulled, Hausinger will run a 4-hour step test to determine well capacity and
provide static and dynamic geophysical logs of the welL Following well testing,
Hausinger will prepare a Color Radial View video log of the well for the entire
depth of the well. Once all the testing is complete, Hausinger will reinstall the
VLS turbine pump back into existing well head and cWorinate well for sampling
through temporary discharge piping. 20 bacteriological samples will be collected
and analyzed and the results forwarded to the Department of Health for review
and approvaL Upon written approval from the Department of Health,
Hausinger will re-assemble the discharge piping and place the well back into
service.
B. After all the testing is complete, a technical memorandum outlining the findings
will be produced and provided to the City.
C. If during the course of the work it is determined that a new pump is desired or
repairs to the old pump are required, then these will be completed as additional
services.
Well 78 and Well 23 Improvements
April 4, 2006
Page 4 of9
Task 4 - Raw Water System Hydraulic Analysis
A. McKim & Creed has done some preliminary modeling on the City's raw water
system supplying Water Treatment Plant No.1 (WTP), but has not completed
the same for WTP No.3. As such, the original model for WTP No.1 will be
updated and the City's GIS information will be imported for the WTP No.3
network. In addition to the existing system, the nine (9) proposed well
expansion sites and piping will be integrated into the hydraulic models. After
the base model is complete, a copy will be forwarded to the City for review and
comment on network arrangement and sizes.
B. Once the model network has been completed and reviewed, the existing and
proposed pump curves will be integrated into the model.
C. Work with City staff to coordinate pressure and flow readings within the
existing networks and use these to calibrate the models.
D. With the completed models, McKim & Creed will run up to a total of 40
scenarios for both WTP No.1 and WTP No.3 raw water systems to make the
following determinations.
· Run a calibration baseline with the existing pump curves, pipeline
sizes, and realistic pump drawdown conditions for each system to
establish calibrated baseline conditions.
· With the calibrated models, run a scenario for each system using the
permitted flow forced into the model to determine the design head
conditions at each pump. Check this run against known water
quality, draw down, and production data.
. With the calibrated models, run a scenario for each system using the
estimated flow at each site that produces acceptable water quality
within the current total system permitted capacity forced into the
model to determine the design head conditions at each pump.
· With the calibrated models and proposed additional well network,
run a scenario for each system using the permitted flow and the
proposed flow forced into the model to determine the design head
conditions at each pump.
. With the calibrated models and proposed additional well network,
run a scenario for each system using the actual flow and the
proposed flow forced into the model to determine the design head
conditions at each pump.
. Lastly, run up to 20 additional combinations and permutations of the
model, adjusting pipe sizes, parallel mains, proposed pipe routes and
adjustments to Well 78 and 23 based on field findings in an effort to
make recommendations for the existing system improvements and
Well 78 and Well 23 Improvements
April 4, 2006
Page 5 of9
proposed system design criteria. Various pipe network
configurations may be evaluated based on modeling results.
E. Compile the model findings into a draft letter report containing screen captures,
figures of the recommended piping network, well allocations, and system
recommendations for City review and comment. Upon receipt of City
comments, review and respond to City comments, revise model and compile a
final letter report. Recommendations will be based on optimizing the existing
wells to achieve their current total system wide permitted capacity and to obtain
0.25 MGD from the proposed wells. If the City elects to increase pumpage out of
the existing wells based on the results associated with the chloride cap increase,
additional modeling may be necessary and is not included in this scope of work.
F. The proposed modeling does not include water quality analysis. If during the
course of the work the City would like to develop a water quality model, this
can be completed as additional services.
Task 5 - Water Use Permit Reallocation
A. Once the modeling effort is complete and the City concurs with the
recommended well allocations, prepare a Water Use Permit letter modification
to re-allocate the existing well permitted capacities to maximize the system
production to the known water quality limitations. Any permit fees will be paid
by the City.
B. Upon receipt, McKim & Creed will respond to one request for additional
information (RAI) from the SWFWMD.
C. This effort will have to be completed around the chloride cap letter mod and the
permit application for additional flow. Depending on scheduling, this may be
incorporated into the application for additional flow.
3. PROTECT GOALS - WORK PRODUCTS:
Well 78
. Letter Report discussing findings and recommendations from Well 78
cleaning, logging, and water quality analysis (3 copies)
. 50% Design Plans and Specifications for Well 78 Design (5 copies)
. 100% Design Plans and Specifications for Well 78 Design (5 copies)
. Rehabilitation of Well 78
. New 5S submersible well pump, PVC Certa-Loc column pipe, wellhead and
site improvements complete.
Well 78 and Well 23 Improvements
April 4, 2006
Page 6 of9
Well 23
. Production testing results (1 copy)
. Video Log (1 copy)
. Draft Letter Report discussing findings and recommendations from Well 23
video logging, and capacity testing (3 copies)
. Final Letter Report incorporating the City's comments (3 copies)
. Bacteriological Test Results
. Department of Health Permit
Hydraulic Modeling
. Base model with existing system and proposed improvements
. Draft Letter Report discussing findings and recommendations from the
modeling scenarios (3 copies)
. Final Letter Report incorporating the City's comments (3 copies)
Water Use Permit
. Modification Letter with supporting documentation.
. RAI Response
All final design documents, specifications, and project reports need to be submitted in
electronic format prior to project close-out.
4. BUDGET
The services outlined herein will be performed for a Fixed Fee of $203,400 in
accordance with the Engineer of Record Contract, distributed as outlined below;
Task 1- Clean and Test Well 78
Task 2 - Well 78 Design/Build Services
Task 3 - Well 23 Logging and Production Testing
Task 4 - Raw Water System Hydraulic Analysis
Task 5 - Water Use Permit Modification
Total
$40/325
$96,850
$21,700
$32,125
$12,400
$203,400
5. SCHEDULE
We propose the following schedule to complete the tasks as outlined below:
Task 1 - Well 78 Investi~ation
. Clean and Test Well 78
. Well 78 Test Results
. Draft Letter Report Submittal
. City Review Comments Received
. Final Letter Report Submittal
Weeks after NTP
6
8
10
12
14
Well 78 and Well 23 Improvements
April 4, 2006
Page 7 of9
Task 2 - Well 78 Desi~nlBui1d Services
. 50% Design Submittal
. City Review Comments Received
. 100% Design Submittal
. Furnish and install new well pump
18
20
24
36
This schedule is based on the approach that Task 1 and Task 2 will occur one after
the other.
Task 3 - Well 23 Video Logging and Production Testing
. RemovefTestNideo Well
. Technical Memorandum of Findings
8
10
This schedule is based on the approach that Task 3 will occur concurrently to Tasks
1 and 2.
Task 4 - Raw Water System Hydraulic Analysis
. Update/Popu1ate/Ca1ibrate Model
. Complete Model Analysis
. Draft Letter Report Submittal
· City Review Comments Received
. Final Letter Report Submittal
8
12
16
18
20
This schedule is based on the approach that Task 4 will occur concurrently with
Tasks 1 and 3 and before Task 2.
Task 5 - WUP Reallocation
. Compile Data into Letter Modification
. Submit Letter Modification
. Respond to RFI
24
28
34
This schedule is based on the approach that Tasks 5 will occur after Tasks I, 3 and 4
are complete and concurrent to Tasks 2.
6. STAFF ASSIGNMENTS:
City: Glenn Daniel, Rob Fahey, Lan-Anh Nguyen
McKim & Creed: Jeff Lowe, Norman Scally, Dan Cote, Bryan Nicely
7. CORRESPONDENCE/REPORTING PROCEDURES:
All McKim & Creed Correspondence shall be directed to Jeff Lowe. All City
correspondence shall be directed to Glenn Daniel, with copies to Lan-Anh Nguyen
and Rob Fahey.
Well 78 and Well 23 Improvements
April 4, 2006
Page 8 of9
8. INVOICINGIFUNDING PROCEDURES:
Please invoice monthly for work performed as detailed in McKim & Creed
Continuing Contract.
Charge this work to City Code No: 0315-96750-561300-533-000-0000
Invoices will be transmitted to the City of Clearwater, Attention: Marty Pages, 100 S.
Myrtle Ave., #220, Clearwater, FL, 33756-5520, or p.o. Box 4748, Clearwater, FL,
33758-4748.
9. ENGINEER CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify as a licensed Professional Engineer, registered in accordance with
Florida Statute 471, that the above project's site and/or construction plans meet or
exceed all applicable design criteria specified by City municipal ordinance, State, and
Federal established standards. I understand that it is my responsibility as the
project's Professional Engineer to perform a quality assurance review of these
submitted plans to ensure that such plans are free from errors and/or omissions.
Further, I accept that the City's Final Inspection for a Certificate of Occupancy does
not relieve me of my own quality assurance review. I hereby certify that all facilities
have been built substantially in accordance with the approved permit design plans
and that any substantial deviations (described in attachment) will not prevent the
system from functioning in compliance with the requirements of applicable
regulatory authority.
This certification shall apply equally to any further revision and/or submittal of
plans, computations, or other project documents that I may subsequently tender.
10. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None
PREPARED BY:
McKim & Creed:
A. Street Lee, PE
Vice President
Date:
CITY:
Date:
Michael D. Quillen, PE
City Engineer
Well 78 and Well 23 Improvements
April 4, 2006
Page 9 of9
u.
o
~
U~
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION
WORK ORDER INITIATION FORM
Attachment II All
CITY DELIVERABLES
FORMAT
The design or survey plans shall be compiled utilizing one of the following two
methods.
1. City of Clearwater CAD standards.
2. Pinellas County CAD standards
3. Datum: Horizontal and Vertical datum shall be referenced to North American
Vertical Datum of 1988 (vertical) and North American Datum of 1983/90 (horizontal).
The unit of measurement shall be the United States Foot. Any deviation from this
datum will not be accepted unless reviewed by City of Clearwater
Engineering/Geographic Technology Division.
An AutoCAD LandDesktop 3.0 or later drawing file with all dependent files shall be
submitted. NOTE: If approved deviation from Clearwater or Pinellas County CAD
standards are used the consultant shall include all necessary information to aid in
manipulating the drawings including either PCP, CTB file or pen schedule for
plotting. The drawing file shall include only authorized fonts, shapes, line types or
other attributes contained in the standard AutoDesk, Inc. release. All block
references and references contained within the drawing file shall be included. Please
address any questions regarding format to Mr. Tom Mahony, at (727)562-4762 or
email addresstom.mahony@clearwater-fl.com
~ All electronic files must be delivered upon completion of project or with
100% plan submittal to City of Clearwater.
City Council
."_'"~m~gend!!'''~OV~~'''~'~!!!~~~C!'!:!'~'~'!!!=_''''M_''''''';0=..
EI'B-~
n.s
Tracking Number: 2,076
Actual Date: 05/18/2006
Subject / Recommendation:
Approve the final plat for "HAROLD COURT TOWNHOMES PHASE II" located at 607 Indiana
Avenue, south of Turner Avenue. (consent)
Summary:
* This is a replat of lots 5 and 6 and part of lot 10, Marshall and Brandon's Sub., and lot 10
block 20 Magnolia Park. and consist of approximately .35 acres.
* The property is within the city limits of Clearwater.
* The final plat will create 8 Townhome lots
* The proposed project was approved by DRC on June 30th, 2005
* The property is zoned as Downtown
* A copy of the plat is available for review in the Office of Official Records & Legislative Services
Originating: Engineering
Section Consent Agenda
Category: Plat Files
Public Hearing: No
Financial Information:
Review Approval
Glen Bahnick 04-24-2006 16: 10:35
Garrv Brumback 05-04-2006 09:00:58
Glen Bahnick 04-25-2006 08:53:34
Bill Horne 05-04-2006 20:21:17
Cyndie Goudeau 05-05-2006 13:40:44
Location Map
~
w
c:r
o
D ~~D D D~I IJ~;~::VE
w w ffi HENDRICKS D
~D ~~~D i"'1 D Cr D~
~D~D I I D~c:J
~ 1011 PARK I D~D~
PIERCE ST D " PIERCE ST
Dt: LANKlI\1 D Q ~
RT ST [] I ~I D D~
~~D -a~D D D\~
o DiD I RO~:::TNUT ST \ - PR~~;C:
D
~Dw
...J "
Z
Peach ~
o
PINE
wD~
> 0
<(
DRUID RD
I I
JASMINE
ST
CLEVELAND
TURNER
D
PINE
D
DD
ST
PINE
(\ Crescent
~D
1II
J:W
I
DRUID
RD
JASMINE
WAY
City of Clearwater
Public Works Administration / Engineering
~ Clearwater N
w.' Harold Court Townhomes Phase II
o~
~ s S.K. Reviewed By: T.M. Scale: N.T.S
Drawn By:
Grid # 2958 S-T-R 16-29s-15e Date: 04/24/06
WAY
'"
l'i 13
II.
-..
....
H!
al ...
a.: ~
-'--
...
lI)
~
I/)
..
III
~
::t
~
.... ::t'~'
.....0::1
III ... 0
.....~lI)
CI) '"' OJ
~.. '" <II;
:t~~~
a.~lI)~3
'ft::t I(
vI 0 ).'
LLlCle...
~~~~
OIll~O
:t oa c:( lI)
~""I/)~
s:~..""
::s; :z: lI) III
O~~~
~~G!t'
.... cO ~ l!!
~~~i
Ol/)j.;~
"l/)i ""
",...~o
Q9~~
..,J~""~
0...""...
~""o
a:: Q, ~
~1lIl::i
.... II:: III
.... c:( ~
~
,.:
~
o
III
...
~
~
~
~ ~
i ~
W ~
I ~
: ~
~ ~
~ i
~ i i
~ ~ ~
~
~
l!l
I::
"
:;
l!l
~
I::
"
:;
~
i~
~
I
~
~
" ~
"
~ ~~
; ~i
l!l ~'"
-' ~i"
~ ~~
~ ~~
l!l ~g
i i!
~ ;f
~
<<
~
~
~
l!l
~
~
u
~
:;
~
I
ljljffi
,,~~i!
~~G~
ct<(~W
itto'g~
z~~~
gj:!;Vlloj
~~;~
~~~m
l!l~~Sl
VlI1l:l~
~$~~
:s!~Zlj
ii"':;~
i(~e:g
~I~:
~":2$
":~R!l
~~l!l~
2~ljlj
~:~~
~9~,.:
~~;b
~f5;:!:""
U~~
VlI-~15
U~~
~~~~
1Ii~,,~
i~gi
~~~3
~I-VlZ
2h~ .
~~;el
~~~m~ g
ffil:l~~l!l 3
~~~$~ W
I- ~ ~ ~~ :
;Clollj~ w
~~~h :
~~~;~ ~
....z~::.....
;~~~~ !
i!I~l!lIlll!l ~
~
-
oJ
~~
..~
~~
."
~
!
.. ~~
~ .~
~ !i
l!l
I ~ ~
~ ~ ~
u l!l ,
~ '" '
~ ~ g
~
d
I::
~
~~~
~ZZ
i~g
a"'i
~i"
~~
l;l~l!l
m~~
i3~~
....A.(JQ.
i~~'''1
'2
~~
~~
~~
,ffi
ffi~
~~ ~
~~ ~
g N
3l!l
<<W
~~
g~~
~w<
~rl
l!li5
li:~
~~~
~:;:~
~~~~I
l!l.~
~~~
iJ~~UI
r~~
~".{
!~~!
~
~
~lIi
~~
~~
ZF
;i
~:
w~
~a
o~
~~
~~
eX ~s
'" Zz
i! :;~
~ ~~
c ~~
! ~~
I'\~
<<ll
S S'"
<L 8"
~ E~
- "
~ ~~
c oa
o ~~
e 1-10:'
~ ~:;
:Ii ~
~ ~~
~ ~~
~ ~~
~~
~ w~
~ ~~
~
~
I::
::I
~
::I
~
~
~
~
<<
u
~
-
~
~
~
~
~
i i
I~
~
~
i~
~~~
Ie W
~"'~
::I~i
OW
~~~~
!N~i5
~~;~~
~iile;~~
."'~~"
J~ia~
~~~l!l!ll
~g:~5~
~
~
.
~
i
~~.~
FI'I~~ .
r' ~~o~~~
.~8 ~~::s!d~
~~ l!l do~~.
IV) ~ G w&lRi
.~ ~ ~~~~~u
~lil W ~~~~~~
~~ ~ w~ua;lii~
. ~ ~ ~~~~.~~
,,~~ ~gdl::~~
g~ ~ ~~~~~~
l!lz ~ ~~l!l~3~
~~g ~ ~i5~~~l'Ig
~ ~ ~iili~"'~1ll
\1. ~ ~\1 l!l~~~
g~ ~ ~A!i~~~tl
~V) ~ ~~~5;~~
w~ ~ ~~~:I)l~;
~:s! Ii i51.~~~~'::
03 'F ~ ~Y.l~tii~
Fill 5 ~ F9:O!:i:G.
e[ z w j!:~f.a
flw ~ i5~.o~h
~:' ~~~~~~~
~ri ~~ ~~~~~~;
~ ~ ~: ~~~~~~i5;
I!i . ~~ ~I!!~ ~iill'>
e~ ~l!l ~ ~ \1~~
i: ~~ ~hi~~~
~~ a~ i5l!l ~~~~
~. ~~ ~~~l<fi~1::
~~ So :;~~~~ffi~
~~ mZi I::~ w~gw
~u ~ ~ ~i" ~'"
IDII:! It J~!J;r:;Clio~
~l/) v)o oo(u ,~VI~
:. ;:::~ ~~~~i~;j
~~ ~~ ~~~~~~'"
~ ~~ !~ ~~hi"~~
~ ~ iil N~ ...~l'>~~j;lz
~
~
~
~
~
~~
~~
~i
ffi'l'
ffis
~!
~w
l!l~
l'l~
~~
fie
m~
~O
i'l~
.~
;5
~~ ,
l!l~~
~~~
~~~
~~~
15~...[
~~~
~<~
~~;
2~i!
a~g
:~~
~I!i~
~~~
~~~
~~~
;~~
~~~
~~~
;~~
wZ'
~~~ ~
~ S~; !
~~~ 3
I ~~~ ~
.~
i" ~"
. ~~
VI~~~
~~~~
~.~ ....
ffiw.e
~l!:.~i"
~1"W.g
~~~f3g
ort;a..3~
~~gl!l;
h~~~
ii~~lcto
iil~i:~
\1ri~~~
.I!!~ F
~~~ w
~~t5:
~~~ii
~h~~
~~~~~
~~o~i
~-~~
~it".l!l~
Ifll.l'I~~
iSm~:
~h&!~
n~~~
~~ffib,""
m~%""'O
~ffiil!l~
~U~~
'. ~g~~~
~ ~:--~5
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
~ ~~i~:
Fiilo~"
i ~~~o~
~ Il'>~~e
a _ ~~~;
~
~
.
~
~
.
~
~
~
.
~
iils
~~l;l
i5,*~
'G~
J~~
~ii
Io/<<:s!
~
!
~
l!l
~
~
~
"
"
!
~
~
l!l
~
~ ~
" N
~ ~
;s ~
~ ~
~ ~
a ~
l:I l!l ~
~i ~I 2
~~
~~ ~
::~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~
; ;; ~ ~
~ G ~~ S b
~ ~~:; ~ ~
i~ ~i!I ~
~ It% )-f! >-
l!l l!ll!l ~~ 2
~ ~e ~~ ~
; ~g ~~ .
~ ~
E I ~ ~~
~1 ~~~~g
!~ i~~U
. i h~~!.
i~ ~~~.
w ~
3.~
~ No
tl'~~ (j~m
'.." rv 0"
... \-<- Wm
.:s m-,
~~
~
~w~
~ie
~i~
~,,~
!l~1
~:;:s!
~l!lu
!~~
,,~~
"g~
l!l3\1
~I;
~5~
",~2
,,~~
SOi"
:;~~
w~w
il::~
~~~
"~i
i'u
(g~~
'i~
~i!I~
~~:
~~~
~h
~!l:s!
!i'"
l'lZ~
i~i
U
::I
~
,
~
ri
~
~ ~
fi: !!! i ~~ lri
~ ii ~ ~~ ~~
~ ~ I:: :;s ~~
~ 2 g ~3 i!~
w ~ l! .u ~~
~ ii Z ~~ j;l~
· ~ II I:; l!lo
o a.. f5 %w z
~ ~ i\ ~i" w~
~ ~ ~ !; I~
~ i" ~ U ~iil
~ ~ ~ I~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~a
~ ~ ~ :~ ~~
~ Q It: zZ nlS
i b ~ ~~ · \1
~ ~ ~ ~~I i~~
g i5 "j;? ~..~
~ ~ ~ ~8~-~~
~ m ~ o~~~~~
~ ~ :c ~~io~~
o <: ~ "I ~..~
J::. ~ ~. VI. cr.
I w ~ t; ~;<Ie~
~ ~ g~e~~.
o 0 ffioiil~Affi
o ~ ~ ~'.w~G~
~ ~ ~~1=o~~
~ ~~~ ~~s~~:
~ ~~~ ~~~~;~
~ ~Qtx ~S~~~5
~ ~<~ i!~~~~b
j zVl~ ::J1.o.~2::Jlj
~ ~~~ ~~~~~~
-l u,,' 0" "~"
"<>~iil!!!~~~~g",~
l!lz rilli~~23w~2
i~~~;~z\1~~d
~~%.~o(o(~zu
~~~i~~wi"'~~~;~~
~i"~o",,,, i5~~",
s~!~~~ ~lliF~
5. . ar:2acciCD~i~
~ "~:~nn:!~=
C5 i!i~~w8wt;:Sw~o
~ :;~:~~i~a:~~
~
.
~
~
l'>
i
.
; ~
ri~
~~
.~
ii l!l
'~ '
i~ ~
,,~ I
~~
~a w
.~ ~
~i ~
.:.: !i ~
! ~;;;
~ ~a ~~ ~
1! ~~ ~i'l Z
: ~~ ~~ ~
is ~:; ~~ ~
~ ~g H I
~
~
"
z
~
2
&!
~
~
..:
w
~
~
~
~
<
<
.
3
<<
l!l
'"
~
~
~
!i
..
t!i ~
Q.
..
.w
lll:z:
Q.1t)
""'
It)
~
III
..
LU
Cl
~
~
.... ~'~'
.... 0 ;:)
LU iiio
CI) S I/)
Ci~'l:
:$CllQ,5!
" ;:)It) 3: It
a. 1/)0
,,, ~ ~ ~
vI 0 ~ >-'
LU ~e,,",
:E ~ ~~
OCll~O
:r: '" "l: I/)
;c: ..,J III ~
S~.. ..,J
:s; :t I/) LU
Ol/)~~
It...ll
~ ~GIt'
.... iii ~ ~
e:~~~
""'" "l:~1t
o IIllt~
1\ ~ ..,J
"'" 0 Cl 0
~L1.
~..,J ):0
....I ~..,J >-
0,,",::11::
:3"l:0
0:: Q, "
~ lU~
.... It LU
" "l: Cl
~
,.:
~
o
Cll
""'
~
---(.z
I. ~ ~
'" t 1D.
i- I"
m! ~
4~
.
--i- - -- - - ~
~
u
<
~ lQ
------
~~mb
o i~
~ ~
~
g
!2
d
r-
~
g ...
~
)1l
OJ
ill
,oo'SZ].OO,l)O.OON
~ ~
g I~ I III ~
'" i
,lIlrBll.OO,lllUlOS I .oo'&ll.Dll,llO.OllS
~ ~ ~
lQ ~ 'Ii lQ lQ
- __l'l_ - -~ - - -<fir - 1- - -~- - -I
I t; ";4
~ ~I
ii~
~ii\
I
aola.;.l....IDId
r<<lISVlI08OS S,r<<xl1ft'm1'll"lHSllYfI
L101
.ZS'g ~ ~
3.00.00.005
lIIl"""""'''''''''
; ~J.
'ot
"#*,~"H"~"I-
i
-I
''''
~
I
II aij 11
It Iii 1'1'
I.F;';.~~~'"'"~
fj err
Ii i
rl 1!
i r!
1 Ii
........_~__..,,_l
....MV"W1tt
~ 6
.00'" l.OO....... U g
l! l! <
lQ lQ ~
Ii II) ~ ~
i i
,oo'SZ ]JKl,lXLOOS
l! l!
lli ~
lO 10 ~
l,oo-sz ]JlD,oo.oos1 ,(8'01
I .QlrVl l./lDl'l --
I:::; !:II
1 I
3.S: ~.Zt.S:ON I
~
LZ Xl'td . I )Q)8 lY1d H3d A.Wl ;tJ l~ ,o(rtg
3'nN3'A v VNVIGNI
~
ill
O!
~
o
z
.
~ II'i go
Z II ~
z ~~J
(; ,..:~~
: ~I~j
~ Iliie
o I!
Q.
;..
'"
,.:
:2
f-<
~ ~
::J ~
o -
u ~
~
o ~
...l i
o l!5
~ i
.( ~
:t
'!
'"
N
ill
r
OJ
<D
Z
c ~
~= ~~~aJE
~~ ~~!~8
~1! ~~~ru~
~~ ~5t'l~.
L ~ ~u:~~]
~i ~ i~n
~ w ru'" ~u.
~ ~
W aJ
~.~
~1O
010
( \ .~m
'...J om
(:k::' ~#
~ 10m
...) ID...J
~~
I
, 1
I ~ iJ..
I a}
I
I H~
I
~._._._._._~_.- I~~
I ...
-~=
I I~.
, o~
I Hi
I ~~~
, g ~f~
I ~n !~j
r i ....ooi"'" hJ
, "'--
I !~ 15 ~lb
~ ~~ ~_E
, "'1 ~!~
'-----i.- !!EU i~
I ~J II! z ...:l5.
4l H~
I .
I i 3"~ Iii
I
I .~I
I
I ~ll
I ~ I ;
I ~J!
I II.
, nl
,
I
, (I
I
L__ i;i
----
i -
i! ~
i i 'j
~ ~ i
i i ~
! I i~
z I h
I Ij..~
H ~H i~
U~ j! ) Ii
. .1 .1 . ..
IbUIU
...I ~ c . 4 ~
.
City Council
<<_<~I!~a c~~ver ~.emoral,!,~.,~'!!!.'m_~.'''_''~,~,
~NJ-5
Il.b
Tracking Number: 2,077
Actual Date: 05/18/2006
Subject / Recommendation:
Approve the final plat for "THE TOWNHOMES OF ANTIGUA BAY" located at 808 Osceola Ave, at
the intersection of Osceola avenue and Nicholson Street. (consent)
Summary:
* This is a replat of multiple lots in the Sue Barco Subdivision that will create 8 town homes lots.
* The property is within the city limits of Clearwater and is approximately 1.3 acres.
* The proposed project was approved by DRC November 11, 2004 and CDB on January 18,
2005.
* The property is zoned as Downtown
* A copy of the plat is available for review in the Office of Official Records & Legislative Services
Originating: Engineering
Section. Consent Agenda
Category: Plat Files
Public Hearing: No
Financial Information:
Review Approval
Glen Bahnick 05-01-2006 12:43:38
Garrv Brumback 05-04-2006 13:35:01
Michael Ouillen 05-01-2006 15:40:53
Bill Horne 05-04-2006 20: 15:08
Cyndie Goudeau 05-05-2006 13:45:55
Location Map
PROJECT
SITE
"".A D D A w
~rrnu~' /~R
U U $ MINNE C;)O
MARSHALL
L-
o
..c
L-
etS
I
ST
City of Clearwater
~ Clearwater N Public Works Administration / Engineering
..' The Townhomes Of Antigua Bay
o~
~ . S.K. T.M. N.T.S
Drawn By: Reviewed By: Scale:
Grid # 2778 S-T-R 09-29s-15e Date: 04/24/06
~
-<
=
-<
;;;J
C-'
~
~
z
-<
~
o
00-
~
~
o
==
z
~
o
~
~
==
~
:"b~ QC/}
b~~t;~~
,..I i: cc~~.... ~
6~e~~~
~~~5~~
~i~~~~~
~<oiX~O~
<<~~ZC/}
00<(000
~~~e:~~
=,.J<O-O
1\I'lJ.L.t.L1Z0;z.
~~jQZ~:j
<I""Uo tI)
..JZO~oj
Q5>-~~<
<~...d::~<o
tnC/}e"..LMcotn
~< lJ,l Z ,.J
t:;...I=:q~~<
~~~;;~~
::;c:;:90~
IJJlIi~:a~~
Oz Cla::f-oQQ
<~f-V1:Z;Z
~@~~~~
i5~j~~~~
::;)-011)....0
~~:cUJ~,.J
o'\:;)=~oo
~~~~~~
:r;::M<-lW:.J,.
~~z5~~ .
~~~;:~~~
f- ":Z~c::IO:::C:
o::;:;~oo~e
Sgj~~5~
-=<-..JOO
S~Q~~~~
V)..J~OL.l.la::O
ciQ..~CI:l~UJ~
lJ,.l?;z~t/)~al
~8~E=~5~
~CllJ,;Z::EC/}"
~~:~<~~
II.lU!-OZ;:
~~~~~O~
6~;::~~~
>-8<~l.L.("Jo
I-~;Z:;JO~=:
-~Z(l)E-Z~
u:I::lo~ZJ.\.l
~~zu:;8~
,..l<<~f-:.LlO
~..J~CC<~!-
~~~~~~~
~~~:~~tj
~~f-~~<a
~i~~f2~<
~_I-<..;z;.<
8;~<r:;~
"O...lC""l""o
~~~~t;~
~i~g9~
..JO~O<Z
:tii~Z~O
o~c:~o~
~;~~ffi~
;::;)~OZlJ.l
C/}CIlOZ~~
x8~=u~
f-:(or-t;f-<
~=~~~z
QWu;z::t:o
~~~Q~~
-l....;,.J~otii
u..M<>Z>
~~gQ~Q
/.Ll<'"":5t-::c
;J~o~g~
::~~<...,=
<g~~b~
""'u.,"lO....lLioo
CO~l.?QO
:c~~<<E~~
a::-Ul";r.Q
L&JI-Q~OZ
O:::::!:QOa::<
-< li:~~u.l~:
o<..Jb~~
~~~..J8g
"'<(...
,
u
i
l~
~
-' I
u
"
"
8
...
6
5
-'
~
"
~
..
o
~
:0;
e::
~
u
~
h
i~
~,.o
~
~
l,'
j"
.~
~~
lA
il
]:1
H 0
~ !:!
H~
<(
...0
<:i
",3
~o..
"'>=
~~
<"
",0
oU
x",
~j
0-'
"''''
~~
....
-'"
~~
~~
::~
",0",
~c3
-0..
"'0
~>-
"'...
u
u
~]
ii.!
..~
- ~
:-!!
{~
-~
.h
Ii
i~
~~
:.:1
:1!~ ~'
~~i ~
~:;~ ~
o.X, 0 ...
Ul ~ ~
H~ ! ~
l
j ~
e ~
~ ~
u
..
.,
i1:
ii1
1:
.,
..
~ s
'" .,
~ ~
i ~
t u
ja~,
.It
hll
.b,;litl
H~"
~Jlf
J.a1.IiI..:
HH
U:i
t~j1
~lH
!ut
l';iJl
3 ~h;
s~lfi
~ 5 ~,;t ~
~ ~ j~l I
~ - .,
~ ~ ~H
~
~
~'
j~
"11
E~
~~
o!
;ji<
!
=~
.~
!J
I
il
1
~~.
.i~
~.!
,J
""
i
z
.
f
o
,..'"
~g
.....
~~
z<
00
vii!!
~~
;0,'
~~
:5
,,-
gffi
~~
~o
:~
iJ.
i.s
:-
i
I
"
"
i
11
II
I
I
I-
i!
. ;
~J.
~i
~'i
!~
~.!
l~
taj
fh
tH
.lip
J-:l~
...
lj
~~J
"i?!
~H
sh
IH
.a
h~
~
ip
ilhi
':'h
iihi
[H;~
.:l~ "lI'
i ~ji!
n1r
liii~
I..<IJ
na
llh~
11tH
- [ '. ~
J'lI!
. !l~:
;i)h
11111
~i~h
I !
'h
I .. N,
~~i
''.In
~~9;..
",iSa:s
I!~~'"
!jj~~
I~
!<.II
i~
.~
iSl~
~~
c~
~~
..<
!c;~
~~
~s
~~
;s~
g~
~
~~
~g
~~
>"
..~
~;:
~:;;
~~
u
~
~~~ c:
:so;:: ::
j.1z..:iiv;
N ~~~~~
~ :~~~:g
- ~~~g~
f-< ~QOwUl
~ ~~~~~
tI:l ,.j~",...:1
,
is
....
<<5
~j
~~
~~
~~
~-
~
~
~
..
~
~
I
I
liS
It
1~5
I~~
!~~
i~i1
i~
19
~
I~
I"
,~
'"
v
Z
;5
..
"'
v
U
<(
0..
o
Z
~
<(
;:;:
"'
ti:
z
8
i
"
,.
..
j
~
i
~
Ii~
i!~
'f~
~<
2 j
1 ~
...,l!
"
'"
]'
J
J i~
l J!
~~~J~ ~';1 ~f.;
?f~ .w_~,!;.= ~'I:'l ~
~.;~!;& h ~ u<;
.:;: lt € ~"'2Z ::: \I,~
~!; ~ n oS >,'Sv
:H~ · ~ .. ,~ ~ ~~
-k~~ilPS l.~
~].f'!.'=~I~ ~"..
gSj~~~H "J~
;iI;'..i" ~'H
~H~A I !I~ ~~ i
q ~ 1 ~ ~'Q. j ~ ~
;;sj~~o is l'I. g~ ~
1'0<'0"'0 !f~l! d i
- ~~ ~",..:;;~ l .~~ R'
~ ::>:!l:o:!.Ei~~] 'gp:
'~~c.~;J"" cU "Oi5....
~~~iH~n f~~~
~~~B:t~~l~ .!;J!J
z ~ ~o;s i... &..Ei~ 'i .g....
o H:aUdliE dc~
~ ~~~a~..'8 f~~8 .
~ 1noUiJH 'iH ~
~ ~8~C~E~e! ~<~~ ~
"
~
~
~
:<!:l
~~
~~
i'e
e~
~~
~~~~~
~~M~
it~~;l$
~::!~~ 3
~;,~~~ ~
"~~~t:; ~
a~...~<<: ,,-'"
~it~(;~ o~
'1~~~~ ~~
7--'" v~
~~~~ ~~
~~~~~ ~~
~~~~~ ~i
1<""" "-
~ '~i~~ ~~
c -It~g o~
~ ~ ~~~; ~~
:t ~~~~~~~~
8 ~ ~.~ 5 0~~~ :~
"'i Ii: ~ ~cx~ ;...21:
~ ~ elR~~~~ "*
~ 5 j: ~~~~f.~ ~~
~ ~ @ ~~~~~~ ~~
J.
1
~fj~~~
.~~~=
~~~~;;;~'
i:r..i-!
.~~~<
~~~;~
~.~~i!
~q~~;
l~~~~
JSg~~
~i~~~
Q .;z~~
l~~~~
~ ~ i!!
~ ~ ~ ~~i
~ ~ ~ ~ ~2~
... ~ A: 5 ~~~Q
~ ~ t ~a~;~~
~ ~,' z ffi~~.~"
~ :: ~ ~s~~~~
~
z
0 ~
~
<
. e~. ~
~ N <(C1CJ::: !ii
~ '" g~~ ..
;< ~ ~~~~!~
~"'i5'" ~ <~ ~ !:!
Z:So:~ . 0 ~~S~;;:~
<( IIoRt='1Il
~u~...~ ~ N i~~~ge
~~~~~ 0 1Il-z,rol Z
'" ~ ~.!g~[j
0( z " II .J~lI'l"la,::J
~~~~~ ~ ~ - ~ .,
:Bra~rI} OJ ~
-;a
"'1:l~0:0( () 1 ::c:
3"'U~Q Vl 1
~~"'O~~ 1 rJ)
... ",U 1
:l..~~~~ 1
~i50"~'" 1
o(~~~,:S ~ 1
1
~:z",:OCl}~ 1
:5~;:Z;= 1
illo:o[;l"i5 1
lS~;::f-oiS= 1
~0(3~U 1
"'~~...~~ 1
1
:;: ....3;]0: 1
> U'J~fC=>~
3~~~~~ 1
-< 1
",lioo",~ 1
= 1
i~~Ug 1
-< 1
8~8~5 1
~ ="'~t;::lu 1
~~S~~~ 1
'-' 1 ffi':z:'
1 ,..,.', !~ ~~
O\_U NCI} 0( 1
~ Nllo.laoOrl:l~ ...8 . ~
o.~Orl,l~ 1 ~ "'I "-
~ ;E ~ ~o
h~[;l3... ~o: 1 ~ 9' ~ ~~
~~ . ,
Z ~8~~~e 1 ~ ~ 0 i~ ~~
~g I z ~
-< g~=~...; .I"6f ~.
~~~,,~= ~6 ~ ... ~ ~~
~ 6!!l!:i~~tiJ g3 ~ ..
0
0 ~~S~~~ ...
0'"
,," .:z~ "'.. ~ .IIi'O"
i:~~"0 ..z
00. ...-
-<~..~~~ .... ~ ..
~ ~~~~~~ 5l" " ..
"'I: <J ~ 0
=s ~~ ~ ...
a..z~tiJ~ 00: ~
...~~ 0 ~;:i " ,99',,(
0 o.:~"'~~ ~d ~
= i::zo-<. ;::... ~
u=~~s::f uO
Z r.t.i!>E-I;I.:lQ i:l~ w
~~::l~~~ u ()
~.. ,
~ ~~C:i~; ,fUl"OI ~ci:::
....E::l~15 o~..
0 ~s~o..~ g
~ ~~..F~ ww
z=~ ..... ~~fri
6"~"'~~
~ ~3t;~3~ .~ ~~~
= "''''''gi:1~ ~~ "'-....
~~i~~~ 0 CUJZ
~ ~ ffi
..
..... ==i '"
O~~~[ilii < ~~~
S",,,,o:;:[;l ~
t;85~~!; ~
[;lu "'~~ t
!-O'"':o.~ ~ 9 ~
i5e~~~i5 ~ ~
~~..~~~ "'~
~<
"'o~~~6 I~~~ 5~
~b
~!!l !i~ o~~'" z~
~~.o;:~~ ~ ::i2S~~ o~ ~
~i~ii ~ t~
~~~~~U Q iii!~ ~
0 U...J:I
llo.:~~~ ~ ~~~8~ ;z ,;j~5~ ~
'" " ~~
<r.;lA.~~ ~ 0 ~~~~ ~~ e~
~~8~~ ~~?~~ ~ ~~~f:
.~ .. " ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~
S::l:>o: 0( ~ a:lOo:Z
~~::li5 ~~~~ gj~~n~
~o( ~o ~ ~~~~~ V,lUW~ =~ n.~~
III" I <1lI~~ ~~1C...u
0(~~3~ ..c.o tIl~Ua:
"158~
~"'l;!
..
1---.-
I
!
City Council
_....,,_~,,!:!.~a c~,~~r ~emora ~.~....!::!,.!!I_"',..'.._""m~'.~~ ,.
..
ate!
Tracking Number: 2,078
Actual Date: 05/18/2006
Subject / Recommendation:
Approve the final plat for "HIGHLAND GLEN" located at 2045 Highland Avenue, which is
approximately Y4 of a mile north of Sunset Point Road. (consent)
Summary:
* This is a plat of metes and bounds track 21/06 and 21/07.
* The property is within the city limits of Clearwater and is approximately 4.4 acres.
* The final plat will create 66 townhome lots.
* The proposed project was approved by DRC on August 4th,2005.
* The property is zoned as Medium High Density Residential (MHDR)
ENj-b,
11./
*A copy of the plat is available for review in the Office of Official Records & Legislative Services
Originating: Engineering
Section Consent Agenda
Category: Plat Files
Public Hearing: No
Financial Information:
Review Approval
Glen Bahnick 04-28-2006 10:28:28
Garrv Brumback 05-04-2006 13:34:25
Michael Quillen 04-28-2006 10:56:20
Bill Horne 05-04-2006 20:14:17
Cvndie Goudeau 05-05-2006 13:46:35
Location Map
ST
is
D
a::
PROJECT
SITE
SOUVENIR
ALGONQUIN
<(
u
WilSON
I
RDj
SUNSET
ELIZABETH
LA
POINT
RD
SPRING LA
I I a:: a:: a::
0 0 0
THAMES LA
I Iii
JOEL LA
City of Clearwater
Public Works Administration / Engineering
~ Clearwater N
..' Highland Glen
o~
~ $ S.K. Reviewed By: T.M. Scale: N.T.S
Drawn By:
Grid # 252A S-T-R 2-29s-15e I Date: 04/24/06
.----i
w
<>
<:
a.
i
I
I
o
z
'.(
...J
a.
-
l'l
:I:
.,
Z<
~'"
~:;a
.3
"''''
Z .
6~
Z "'0
~ .,<.>
G l:;~
~'"
Q ....~
Z !n'"
< [::!o!
...... =~
::c: !;:~
c..'l oe;]
...... zel
::c: f;j<.>
..",
",0
~t
:::;'<'>
..
.,
<
'"
:I:
!;:
o
Z
'"
:I:
..
'"
o
Z
o
i=:
'"
o
...
<
e-:
.,
<
'"
:!;
I;:~~
~i!sffig
tjillls
I~~~
~1I!;;>f
~~~l!;
g~~~
SUisl ~
!~;t } ~
~i~~~
8"g
~!10!
~ wil~
o ;!O 51
g: l!;~i1!":
~ ~ ~~~ l!;
'" ~l!;"'g ~~
o ~ i5..~1i! ~!i
~ ~ ~ !~~~ fSlt
< 0 Ii: ;ll~~", :Ii
<.> ~ l5 "';;>l!;~1II ~~
~ ; ~ ~:I;i n
g
I;gS
~l!;t
d~
~;gl!;
gi!s~
S~~
i~~
~ ~~! ~
'" Ililllll
i: ~~~
'" l!;",li
o 5'"
~ ~~i
o i!s!!l'
~ ,Jl.., ~~~
~ 5~i
5 ! i : l!;
5 l!; l!; Ii! ~
!;: IO! ~ Iii !5
!:l ~ g tl!;M
~
I
I
~
~
~
m
~I
~ ~~e
~ ~i!s~
~ i6z
~ u~~
<.> g~..
~ ~I~
~ hi
~ !~~
i~~~l!;~ ii~ ~ ~ ~~ i~g ;g u
~~~:~i~~i~ ~~i~~~~3~I~i~ ~l!; I~~ ~
!~~~li~I!~i ~~j...~~.;:~~i!~~. ill !.! ~
i !11!ii!!li lliiliiillii! liji!l Ii
~ a~I~~~~IIl!; ~j~I~~~~i!s~_~i ~!;;>j~~ ;~
~ ;!~~~i!~U ~Uiid!~U3; !!;~I~ :~
~ !~~~~ll~;~~ nn~:;~i~~li ~!ll~;~ ~~
1:] O~~! '~l!;Q'" ~Uiij~li"'iu~ ~ ~ ~il g~
~ iiddl~n ;d~g~~l!;i~g~ ~~d~; ~:
~ ~~~~Iil~~~i ;1!;~~~II~i!: ;;~~~: ~~
~ ~~S i~~~~~ Ill~i~ie~~~~l!;~~ i~!~~li ~~
fw !!~~~~'" ~~u~g~d~8l!;~ ~w~I~~ ~~
~ II;iil!I~I~ ~~~I~:i~II~I~ ~I!;i; ~:
.;!Oc .i ~I ~~~ ~ ~
l!;Sl 15 ~I!! !:l- ~ 0{ 1;1 i~ c ~
'"l, ~~ ~ ~~d~i;!! ~,/~~ l!;!i~~j~~
~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~:!~~~I~~~:~ ~~~i~;I5~
l!;~~ ~~ ~~ ~ :~~~l!;~~~I5~"'~l!;~~Si>lj;gl!;~~
2;!O~~ ~j ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~!~~!8~~iBii~~~~
~~ l!;~ l!;~ ill~ ~~ "~~I!!C!2~ IlISi!s;::~~
~~~! ~~ ~~ I :~~~gl!;;~l!;l!;~~~~~~~~~~~~
~",Cl!; f mil ~ ~G!!lh~ i~31'~l!;"'l!;g~~'!'<ll!l
:i~~ ;!O~ i~! ~i;~~~;!O!~~~~;!i2:*~~~g
~~~~ ;~ z~ ~ !2~l!;~~~~;W~~~~~z~~&l!;~~~
~~~; ~~ ;~ i i~2!~~:~~~;i~~i~~~~~~~
~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~l!;~~~l!;l!;;~!j~I~~~~~
~ff~ ~~~ ~~ i!sl~~i~i~~~~~ Sl~~ ~~~~~
15 .~~ Sl~1 Sl~ ~!i.: ~~~~-j;i~~i~"~;" il!;bg;"
i~~ ~~~ ~~ l!; ~3~~~~ :~~; .l!;~~!2~~!2~g~
....,~ _j!o- :l'j: ~",,~I-'-.. j:~~~f~ ~~<Cw Uj!
~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~5~i~i!s:~~;!O!~~l!;;~~i~
~~2g i!s~~ l!;~ ~ ~~~I~~~~ili!.~~s.~=1!!8~~~
~I=~ ffi~; ~~ . i ~li~~!I~~~&~~~I~~;:!~~~
~ c;!O ~~l!; !!e~ ~ ~. ~~815;"cll1eS~IlI~;,.i!s IllG!1;"~
~~~~ ;!ONI ;!ON~ I IN~~~~i~~~;2~~~~3:~llIel:
~ ~~ ~~,!. l!;c;!OIl1~;!O:e cl!; U:l!~~ ~~
~i~~ j ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ i3g~~~;~~~!g~~~~~2l!;~~2
~
~i~h
1i;li~~
iil~~
:lli~
~~~~~
~jii~
~;Siij
d!~~~
5 ~~ji~~
~ I~hi~
~ ~~~~~~
~ ~~i!il~1
o "'i;~~l!;
~ ~~~i~~
&l ~~~d~
~
$
i
iil
~I
b
; I
I I
I ~ ~ ~
i~
~~
~I~~j~ i~~~~I~ l!; ~;;~
~~II~~ ;i!l~i! I ~~!:
I~~~I~ ~~~s~~~ ~ liii
~'"~ ~ ~~i!s~~~ g ~l!;
I~~ ,I ~~illli~~ ~ i~~1
~o~~~ .~e;U~i ~ I!'U'
~~~~g~ il~~~~; III ~~~!
l!;~il!;~~ ~~:~;i~ ~ ~~~i!s
ig~ill!~ S ~~ i!slll P ~~~g
~!~il~ li~~!~~ ~ iii~
III"", ~ ~!!ii. ~. ~ ,g~~
~NS~ . !~ ~ N.
~~~s ~~ ~l!;~I~~~ ;;>~ ~I~~
~~~~Si! ~~ ~~i~. i~ illl~~
tj~~~i"'i!s ~I~o~e;~~ ~ ~Q~~
s~I~~I~~ ~g~~~~~~ I~ S~i~1
~~~~~ '" ~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~
I~~r~ ~ ~~j~ill~ ~~ ~~~,
;;>~~~~~ ~ !~~~ ~ 5~ ~~e~
~I:!I;~ I;s~~il! ~! Illi
~Ii
IU
;g~i
l!;1;
hh
!!~~
lII>lh
t~lll~
e~~
~M~~
~ie;i
IQ"':~
"'-~'"
!j~~
II!Z ~
~~h
':I~~
u;;> ~~
~~ 3~
I
~ i
I II
~II ~ )1
~
i ~
i ~
~ ~
!-
~liil:
h~~il~
~~@~~!
~!I ~Ilij
U~ 1 i
~I ~~Hi ~
DIIII,!I,
IntllllOl1
~e ~ ~ i ~Ii!
~ g~~ ~IS~;~lh
~ :!i !';;n~;~
! ~~i ~~i!s~~~~!!
! i!! ~II~II~!~
; 1:1 ;~~:I:~~!
~ i~; ~;I~li!i~
~ ~~~ ~~ ,i~~g%~
, ;~l li~~~~@~~
; ii!s~ ~I~~~;I~~
, III lill:e1i!
~ ;;1 ~i~;~i;~;
!~ s~ii !~;;~~;!il.
Ii i~i!si ~!~~~~~~~
l! I ~ I
~ r ~ I
; ; ! !
:;.j
'"
el
<.>
~
~
o
<.>
'"
o
'"
"
Z
O!
~
o
.,
'"
'"
III
~~
;~
~i
l!;u
J
~~
~
~i
"
~~
ii
~~
"'~
,:.; III ";'
Z ~8 ~
; ~ g
g i P~I
~ ~ l!; ~~~
~ l!; ~ ~i~
~ ~ g ~~~
i ,
i
~
I :
; !
~ I
wucr .
""""".. MWS
/.AMJS(;QtrAltil.""'(t1JQAll!Et;lIil1S8OOICllClJI.
"AtE 4K P\&.CRrCOiIlDS r:FPNlLASca.wn: ~
288.25'
U!I;II i
iil!i i
~; ~ ...,
b~~
I~~ I
ii~~ I
n:
d~ I
I~
I~
1
I:
I~
il
.~
Ib
.~
Ii
I~
I; ~
': I
y ; ~
I I ~
I ~
I a
I L
I "" b-
_i
~I ~ s~~
-I ( m
I !~~
I n~
I ~ **~
~~ - i - - J - - - - - - -
!~i
t];
J' .u. JNIJ IlAMJDWICl CASOl(1O'T
N 89'03'2"- w
_Zl"XT_
_.11IllT, T _2U.IlIT_ _~ -,
I I I
I IOLO"" 1 ~ . ~ j I
;i~ II ~ ~ · :
~.~~.~~!!. 1~~~~i~i~i2; - f
~ G G I:~:~ ~ " " "G I
2 I': ~ ... rtnllTYCA boT}" I
n ~~- n~r-F'1---- -- --- - _~n -n-.".ih
"'00' "'00' ....,..,' "or 80:: D:oo; .. "'(j)' "'+ IRA: .c.~"g! I
"llMnr~~~ LANDSCAl'fElSJlDtT ::; i I
D'Q.lI:SM'lIImrANIJ SEllERIJJIJ1'(~
.llMfDWIa' ~f
'Uf' ....'" N.,ror.........
_~~_ ~ _~w_"~ ~ : _ I ~
: _I NlI9~ror... 11.111' i
I I'"
! i 1 ".<r,Tm~" 7t.1f' ~
~ 1'l ~
II ~ .., 8:
: ~ ~ .,..,7'0/... 7l7r r
I ~ T
(j)' ~~ ~~ ,...-1 ~' . ~
..,1'Ot 75.JJ' 11 ~ H ."1'0,' .. 11.711' I
It. ~
: ~ ~ 'r ~
$ ""1'Ot"c 75.JJ" I "m.nn"w 1l7ll'
t-l
~
~
1
I
I
I
ci
Z
t-
5
a.
~
~
~d ~
___L__"
..,~
1
1 "rot""
45.15 lfJ.IJU 2V.0l
---f---
~d 8
~
,.;
CfJ
i:J
~
- i~ ~!
~- . __,a _~
8
~
8
~
8 8
~ ~
.~!~i
~
. i
'"
"
Z
...
c::
==
....
::>
o
CfJ
co
'"
0..
53
CfJ
~~
~~
....
"'...
~~
Z ~[!5
"'0
~ CfJu
G ~~
Q ::::-~
Z ~~
j E~
::= !2~
c.; o~
...... Z:l
::= !:Ju
.......
...0
O~
~O
~ ~ I
i ~iII i ~ I- ~
b il~la I I!~; Iv
! ns; 101 t
~f i~!11 I II~;!!!
i- ;h~t ~ ~Iih i
at !:~I~ ~ l,i;;!1
ill al~b! f ~;e~.I~
,j! ;I~;~_ w !I!~~~!
;;; lilill ! il;!i!~
""'''''~
H'
f
I
j ~
, i1i
~
18
I~
N8r.l1"Ol-" 11.14'
seem,"! l5.JJ'
~ 2 a '8
~ s...,..,', "'M ~: ~
~ :8~
. I ~~
s,,"nn"c ~JJ' 10.,
,,~ " ....,.
~ ,-""., 'OJ' : ~
.. :
~:! 1~
~_s'::~Uf:~~~1i~
-J'-.l'DIl.MC~~j:,
. I ~
- I ~
$,"1"OI"C ~JJ' I
~:o! : 8
!.~8I7mlt"'"t-~ IIii!
_ + 1 ..;;~ uo< ::-"'_1. J !
-= 'h--l 5
I rlMlf1P/.IlE~rJ ~ 8
: ~ i i
~ Ii- ~! ."',..,~. nn' ~ i
g~dl I a .--~. U I i
~ i ;~I ~ I ;. ",-'. n'" J - ;f
E.~ I ~ = ! I q~
Is 1....__.. n., . _ ~(
-~p- " I
_ _ l N...,1'OI.... lur r :;1 B
I ..., ~
~" :8_ ~: ~ II g
~ s....7'O,., ,...,. I ~ .~.!-_ __.'.:.~uo<~~U~~ ~
~ ,....:., ,,,,; :~. !~r-- '";;;uo<';';~1 I
S '" ;1'8 I N_Srm".. 1U4' I I
~ I ~ ,
SS'S-'- 150M I ~:!2 a ~
U I N.,nn"W 7ur ~ ~
'" :~ ~! " ll~
5al~-'''' .. ... I N .'7'01" If 11.11- 5ii ~
20.0ff 2O.DI/ z....S'
II .! S ~
; II'" ~!
~ ~ ~ ::11 I ~; ~ .....7'0':. n'.'
~ ~ It:! ~ ~::~ ~ :'N.8II.,TOI-.. 19_!IIl'
;,~ ; I:: ~ -~? "
G ~~I ~ ~ 'LJi ~ ~: .",""'. ,.".-
.___ L_ __ ___'-Ii; ~ I 0
"l u7' 211m' ;;;; 7tlOtf "Nt'.J..t' - I t'I
S '"tal" c t 1aJZ' UNlCWOOD DRIVI I s "'7'01'" E "24'
1RAC7"A" 1RACT'C~
~~~~ I.M05CN'fCASaOr ~ i"
------~~~------m~---~---
____..~_n_ ~~ -~ ~~- -".:"_~IT"';~Ci .~~ ;: =,I~"'-""- --"~:"'-: I -
;, I ~~ ~ : ~ !
i 1; d. i; II lIi" ~ I~ ~
.. ~ 1...>:,1: · :t :t · 2 = I I ~
!~[~!.i~qrt~i~i~i ~ ~ H i
n____n_ . __n: .. . n' . __n-:13 J)
".- 2S'~ ..,"':'. =~~~~ ~.=-':' .':,,'" J /
..... / ~-' -~ "'~ .w .w -. _~ __ __ U~
~ SMN J;. =-r:;~ 'ft ~ H NCIt1MIDr 'If (T ::X;Jlm_1x""
I 4I/lWNMC{~l~~TYE.ASDeIT(P) /
SVItSET HIGHlNG Ulf1 , PLAT 800ir 41. PAIX IS PNUAS CXItlItTr, ~
~
iol
~I
~o;
~I
..~
!I
~~
I
I
I
I
I ~
b
I ~~A
ilW
I *~~
bbil
I !~I
.~Iw
I Ih~
~h~
~-~
I
~ I
~ i I
! ~~ I ~ ;
! ~~ I h
; I! r-----U--
~:oC."'-
....
CfJ
-<
'"
:=
...
c::
o
Z
w
i
S
~
-TOIT ".11'
~'"""._....
^. ~ ~
~ ~
.
~
~
8
'"
:=
...
...
o
Z
o
~
o
0..
-<
I
~
I
;
,
~
~~~ ~QO~~B~DB
j!j
I
!
I~I
U~~
-i:~
~.. tsl
. ..
" .~
l!
"
w"
w"
1
City Council
_",,_~g.!!nda C~ver Memorandum
ENg-8
/1,5
Tracking Number: 2,049
Actual Date:
Subiect / Recommendation:
Approve the Grant Agreement with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
which provides reimbursement of project costs up to $481,100 and award a construction contract
to Rowland, Inc. of Pinellas Park, Florida, for the Del Oro Groves Reclaimed Water System
Installation and Water Main Replacement (04-0022-UT) in the amount of $3,667,030.68, which is
the lowest responsible bid received in accordance with plans and specifications,
Summary:
This item consists of constructing approximately 32,500 LF of reclaimed water transmission
and distribution piping, 2,100 LF of water distribution, and the associated service piping by
horizontal directional drilling. This item also consists of the construction of a new reclaimed water
pump station, the East Plant Reclaimed Water Pump Station, at the City's East Advanced
Wasterwater Treatment Facility.
The construction contract time is 300 calendar days.
Construction is expected to start in May of 2006 and be complete by February of 2007.
This project is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies set forth in the City of
Clearwater's Comprehensive Plan.
McKim & Creed, the engineering design consultant for this project and an Engineer-of-Record
for the City of Clearwater, has provided written recommendation to award the construction
contract to Rowland, Inc.
This project is being funded in part by a grant from the Southwest Florida Water M'anagement
District (SWFWMD). The Cooperative Funding Agreement between the city and SWFWMD includes
reimbursement of up to 50% of the cost of design, permitting and construction costs for pumping,
transmission, and distribution of reclaimed water, up to a maximum of $3,185,000.00. This
project is also being funded in part by a grant from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The Grant Agreement between the City and EPA includes reimbursement of 55% of the project
costs not to exceed $481,100.00.
Resolution 04-36 was passed on December 16, 2004, establishing the City's intent to
reimburse certain project costs incurred with future tax-exempt financing. The projects identified
with 2006 revenue bonds as a funding source were included in the project list associated with
Resolution 04-36.
Sufficient budget for interim financing or funding with 2006 Water and Sewer Revenue bond
proceeds when issued is available in project 0378-96759, Water Main Phases 15-16-17 in the
amount of $243,656.05.
Sufficient budget and revenue are available in the Capital Improvement Program projects
0315-96739, Reclaimed Water Distribution System in the amount of $3,217,344.63 of water or
sewer revenues, 0315-96664, WPC R & R, in the amount of $206,030.00.
There is no cost to the City associated with the grant agreement portion of the agenda item.
A copy of the contract is available for review in the Office of Official Records and Legislative
Services.
Originating: Engineering
Cateoorv: Construction Contracts - Public Works Originating
Public Hearinq: No
Financial Information:
City Council
~~!,da C~ver Memoral1ct~m
Type: Capital Expenditure
Bid Required? Yes
Bid Numbers: 04-0022-UT
In Current Year Budaet?
Yes
Budget Adjustment:
No
Current Year Cost:
$3,667,030.68
Total Cost:
$3,667,030.68
Appropriation Code(s)
0315-96739-563800-533-00
Amount
$3,217,344.63
Comments
0315-96664-563800-535-00
$206,030.00
$243,656.05
0378-96759-563800-533-00
Review Approval
Glen Bahnick
05-08-2006 15:23:53
.-=Rs', ErYJ-8
if t>
:5
l~ :t
.~1.t ,..;:..o~
4-t ~~RO'-O;'C'C
u. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT NOTICE
/1.8
RECIPIENT NAME AND ADDRESS:
Mahshid Arasteh, P.E.
Administrator
City of Clearwater
1650 N. Arcturas Avenue, Building C
Clearwater, FL 33765-1945
Grant No. XP-97495304-2
o Assistance Agreement Offer
o Assistance Amendment
o Increase
o Time Extension
D Decrease
D Administrative
Enclosed are two copies of an Assistance Agreement offer from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
To accept this offer, please carefully review any terms and conditions, sign', and return one original copy to the
following address within three weeks2 of the mailing date on the Assistance Agreement:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
GRANTS MANAGEMENT OFFICE
61 FORSYTH STREET, SW
ATLANTA. GA 30303
ATTN: Shirley Grayer
The other original should be retained for your official records and copies distriblfted within your organization as needed.
Please note. funds will not be available for draw until we receive your countersigned acceptance of this offer.
To assist you with your post award management responsibilities. please see "Reporting Forms and Guidance for
Administration of Your Assistance Agreement'." This document contains important post-award reporting requirements
and instructions on how to receive payments. To view this and other EPA grant-related information. visit our Region 4
Grants Office web site at:
www.epa.gov/region4/grants/
Please reference the EPA Assistance Number on all future correspondence regarding this Assistance Agreement. If you
have any questions. you may contact the Grants Specialist identified above at
(404)562-8416 or Qrayer.shirley@epa.Qov
, Must be signed by authorized representative as shown on the Assistance Agreement Offer
signature block or formally authorized delegate.
2 Failure to countersign and return within three weeks of the mailing date may result in withdrawal of this offer.
3 Please contact your Grant Specialist if you need a paper copy of this document.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
Grants Management Office
XP - 97495304 - 2 Page 1
.
ASSISTANCE ID NO.
PRG I DOC ID IAMEND#
XP - 97495304 - 2
TYPE OF ACTION
Augmentation: Increase
PAYMENT METHOD:
Reimbursement
Send Payment Request to:
Dorothy Rayfield, Water Management Division, 404-562-9278
PAYEE:
DATE OF AWARD
. ... il <;,..,1.'.
::--''''''',+ q~,J ,':;U;.,'
MAJW:.IG DATE
Ni!\( 1ft 'Y.1ffi:
ACH#
40149
~..~.:<5-'i.O S'T4~
i ~ :u
{~~
'\;41. 1>P.(jt~"#
RECIPIENT TYPE:
Municipal
RECIPIENT:
City of Clearwater
1650 N. Arcturas Avenue, Building C
Clearwater, FL 33765-1945
EIN; 59-6000289
PROJECT MANAGER EPA PROJECT OFFICER
Todd Petrie Mario Machado
1650 N. Arcturas Avenue, Building C 61 Forsyth Street
Clearwater, FL 33765-1945 Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
E-Mail: tpetrie@c1earwater-f1.com E-Mail: MachadEl.Mario@epa.gov
Phone: 727/562-4960, ext 7221 Phone: 404-562-9338
PROJECT TITLE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGES
Special Appropriation Water Infrastructure Grant
u.s. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Grant Agreement
1650 N. Arcturas Avenue, Building C
Clearwater, FL 33765-1945
EPA GRANT SPECIALIST
Shirley Grayer
Grants Management Office
E-Mail: Grayer.Shirley@epamail.epa.gov
Phone: 404-562-8416
This action provides additional funding in the amount of $660,300 to the City of Clearwater for improved water infrastructure projects. These funds will support
the Del Oro Groves Reclaimed Water Expansion project located in the Crystal-Pithlachascotee Watershed. This action also extends the projecVbudget period
to October 10, 2008.
BUDGET PERIOD
01/01/2004 - 10i10/2008
I PROJECT PERIOD
01/01/2004 - 10/10/2008
TOTAL BUDGET PERIOD COST I TOTAL PROJECT PERIOD COST
$3,250,546.00 $3,250,546.00
NOTE: The Agreement must be completed in duplicate and the Original returned to the appropriate Grants Management Office listed below,
within 3 ca~enjar weeks after receipt or within any extension of time as may be granted by EPA Receipt of a written refusal or failure
to return the properly executed document within the prescribed time, may result in the withdrawal of the offer by the Agency. Any
change to ~he Agreement by the Recipient subsequent to the document being signed by the EPA Award Officia~ Which the Award
Official determines to materially alter the Agreement, shall void the Agreement
OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE
The Unit'1d:~;tate'i. acting by and through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), hereby offers Assistancer'Amendment to
the ____ ... City of Clearwater for 55.00 % of all approved costs incurred up 10 and not exceeding _
$1,787,800 .__ lor the support of approved budget period effort described in application (including all application modifications)
cited in the Project Title and Description above, signed 08/28/2003 included herein by reference.
ISSUING OFFICE (GRANTS MANAGEMENT OFFICE)
ORGANIZATION/ ADDRESS
AWARD APPROVAL OFFICE
ORGANIZATION! ADDRESS
U.S. EPA, Region 4 .
61 Forsyth Street Water Management Division
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 61 Forsyth Street
...--.. Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
/ / TH~UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY THE US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SIG ~;ml'Yt~~ I i';:~~~:r~J~.~~~i~~~~;dministrator I.'~~TE(, ,; ~..
L. /Thfs agree~~Ubject to applicable U.S. Environmental Protection Agency statutory provisions and assistance regulations. In
accepting this ::lward or amendment and any payments made pursuant thereto, (1) the undersigned represents that he is duly
authorized to act on behalf of the recipient organization, and (2) the recipient agrees (a) that the award is subject to the applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Chapter 1, Subchapter B and of the provisions of this agreement (and all attachments), and (b) that acceptance of
any payments f:onstitutes an agreement by the payee that the amounts, if any found by EPA to have been overpaid will be refunded or
credited in full to EPA.
SIGNA lURE
BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT ORGANIZATION
I TYPED NAME AND TITLE
Mahshid Arasteh, P.E., Administrator, Public Works Dept.
I DATE
EPA Funding Information
XP - 97495304 - 2 Page 2
FUNDS FORMER AWARD THIS ACTION AMENDED TOTAL
EPA Amount This Action $1,127,500 $ 660,300 $ 1,787,800
EPA In-Kind Amount $0 $ $ 0
Unexpended Prior Year Balance $0 $ $0
Other Federal Funds $0 $ $0
Recipient Contribution $ 922,500 $ 540,246 $ 1,462,746
State Contribution $0 $ $0
Local Contribution $0 $ $0
Other Contribution $0 $ $0
Allowable Project Cost $ 2,050,000 $ 1,200,546 $ 3,250,546
Assistance Program (CFDA)
66.606 - Surveys - Studies - Investigations and
Special Purpose Grants
Statutory Authority
Appropriations Act of 2002 (PL 107-73)
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 (PL
108-447)
Regulatory Authority
40 CFR PART 31
Fiscal
Site Name DCN FY Approp. Budget PRC Object Site/Project Cost Obligation /
Code Organization Class Organization Deobligation
- VX61 07 06 E4C 04VOQDT 202B51E 41.83 660,300
660,300
XP - 97495304 - 2 Page 3
Approved Budget
Program Element Classification (Construction) Approved Allowable Budget Period Cost
1. Administration Expense $0
2. Preliminary Expense $0
3. Land Structure, Right Of Way $0
4. Architectural Engineering Basic Fees $0
5. Other Architectural Engineering Fees $0
6. Project Inspection Fees $0
7. Land Development $0
8. Relocation Expenses $0
9. Relocation Payments to Individuals & Bus. $0
10. Demolition and Removal $0
11. Construction and Project Improvement $3,250,546
12. Equipment $0
13. Miscellaneous $0
14. Total (Lines 1 thru 13) $3,250,546
15. Estimate Income $0
16. Net Project Amount (Line 14 minus 15) $3,250,546
17. Less: Ineligible Exclusions $0
18. Add: Contingencies $0
19. Total (Share: Recip 45.00% Fed 55.00%) $3,250,546
20. TOTAL APPROVED ASSISTANCE AMOUNT $1,787,800
XP - 97495304 - 2 Page 4
Administrative Conditions
The following Administrative Condition is added:
12. EPA PARTICIPATION
This award and the resulting ratio of funding is based on estimated costs requested in
the application. EPA participation in the final total allowable program/project costs
(outlays) shall not exceed the statutory limitation 55% of total allowable program/project
costs or the total funds awarded, whichever is lower.
Proarammatic Conditions
All Programmatic Conditions Remain the Same
,~~o S1~,..
.;)... '~
,.; ......... 'u
~ ... ,z:
i. .~. Ict. Ul
o ~
\ >!:
~.... ,p
.~( PA01~C.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D~C. 20460
JlJN 6 2005
OFF!CE OF
WAiER
MEl\10RANDUM
SUBJECT:
Award of Grants and Cooperative Agreements for the Special Projects and
Programs Authorized by the Agency)sFY 200 PP?fro..p~'..iO~Act
., )/'/
James A. Hanlon, Director #(,. ./'V"'"
.,./J/. / .\/'. .
Office of Wastewater ManagelIlepf(42
TO:
WatetManagement Division Directors
Re~ion~ I - X
FROM:
PURPOSE
Thi~ metho~dum provides inJortp3tiort ~dgtiidelines,onhowth,eEtivi1"()nmental
Protection Ageric.y:(EP A) will award and adniinlster grants andcooperafive agreements for the
special proJects:8.Ild'programs identified inthe S~~teiirt4Tribal As~istagGeGf~t$.(ST AG)
accoulit ofthyAg~Dcy'sfiscal year (FY) 2Q05 Apprqpriations Act. .
BACKGROUN))
. TlleEP A.se,ction of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, (I? .,':6. 108-447); also
referredto~.theAgeDcy's FY 2005 Appropria(ipn~Act,include!).$3Q9;9~?~OQPjl1..tl:1e STAG
account for (j66.water, wastewater <llid~ol1ii<l\\f:l~~r infrasttA(;tiitepr9jectsal1d~{(jithe Long
Island Sound Rist~ratioll' Prograrn~ AlsoitiCluaooas sep~elinei~~s'in,t;he<Sl'AGacc~)Unt
were$$Q,OOO,OQO for the United States-Mexici>n9r,derProgrnm an4$4~;9,Q9~,QQOfotthe Alaska
Rurarand~atj~e Villages Progtaril.TheConsoli(h1t~d Appropriati<>I1~.tS..(;t;~OO$ also contains
an across theboarCl rescission of 0;80 percenl exCept for defense, miiitarj'ct>:11sttUction or
supplemental appropriations. The O,gOpercentre.scission applies tOal19(m~ fupds included in
the STAO.ac(;o\Uit. .. ..
The specific requirementsgQvenring the award of the special projects and programs are
contained in the following documents: the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, the
Conference Report (H. Rept. No. 108-792), the House Report (H. Rept.No~ 10&674)) and the
Senate Report (8. Rept No. 108- 353} The specific requirements contained in these documents
have been incorporated-into this memorandum.
tntemet Address (URL) . hllp:llwMv.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable .Prinledwittl Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled PlIper (Minimum5O"~ Postconsumer coolent)
2
THREE PERCENT SET-ASIDE
The Agency's FY2001 Appropriations Act (p. L. 106-377) inc1uded a provision stating
that the Administrator may use up to three percent ofthe ammmt appropriated for each earmark
to fund State, Corps of Engineer or contractor support for the management and oversight of the
special projects. This means that the set-aside monies cannot be usexI to pay for EPA staff or
travel expenses. EP A issued a formal policy memorandum on September 27, 2001, that provides
information and guiddineson how the Agency will implement the three percent set-aside
provision. 1 .
. The three percent set-aside provision is pennanent statutory authority which means it
applies to all post-FY 2001 special Appropriations Act projects including those listed in the
STAG account oftms yeai'sAppropriatioIls Act. However, the three percent set-aside provision
does not apply to funds appropriated for specific programs, such as the Long Island Sound
Restoration Program, the tJhitedStates-Mexico Border Program and . the Alaska Rural and Native
Villages Program.
PJlOJECTS
The Conference Report that actorn.P ani ed the Agency' s FY 2005 AppropriationsAct
identjfied two projects fimde<LfrO:rn monies appropriated for thel1nitedStateS-Mexico Border
Program. These two prpj~~t&willpeiJ:\Varded aIld administered withijltl1eg1,lidelines and
provisions contained in ili1s,memorandum~
Attachment 1 identifies1h-e6()7~atI:naTks listed in the st.AGacCQUIltand the two projects
fuildedfrom monies. appropriated fOf the I}nited States~Mexic:6BotderProgr3Jl1. Attac~eri.t\
als(j shoW's the origfua1amount-~mprqpri~t~ for each project,)lsweIlas the actual amount
availa.ble for grant awa:rdafier!b~t~clif9ti9Ilc1ue to the O.80percentrescissionandthr~ percent
set-aside provision} .
WiththeexceptioD.orF.arrriark 'Nillnber 133 for ColumpusWater Works, CqlUIribus;
.cieotgia, which will beawarded~dad.ri1inistered by theOfficeorW:ater in Headquarters~ 111e
special projects identified m A1ta<::brnentl will be. awarded andad.II1inisteredby the Regional
Offic~~ The delegation ofautpotityU20QTN 516), issued on September 28,2000 (Attachment
2), ,is listed in Chapterl;DelegatlonNumber 1-102, of EPA'sDelegatiohMailuaL ~ . .
delegation of authority transferred the authority to award grants and cooperative agreemeIlt~ for
funds included in the STAG acco:unttothe Assistant Adniinistrator for Water and the Regional
I This document is available on the internet at www.cpa.go;/oWmllllab/owm0318.pdf.
2 States that choose to perform tbe necessary construction oversight activities for the plamring, design. and
building phases of a project at their own expense may request to havetbe three percent set-aside funds assignedto
the respective grant recipients within their States. Headquarters will transfer the necessary funds to the Regions for
this purpose after the formal review and approval of the State's request.
3
Administrators. Accordingly, the Regions and Headquarters havetlle necessary authority,
effective the date of this memorandum, to award grants and cooperative agreements for the
special projects and programs identified in the STAG account of the Agency's FY 2005
Appropriations Act.
COST-SHARE REQUIREMENT
The FY 2005 Confer~nce Report language that precedes the listing ofthe 667 STAG
eannarks(H. Rept.No. 108-792, at p. 1568) states that:
The conferees have provided $309,925,000 for a targeted progtam making grants
to cCiI11Ihlmities for the construction of drinking water} wastewater and storm
water infrastructure and for water quality protection.. As inP3$t Years, these gnmts
shall be accompanied by a cost-share requirement whereby 45 percent of a
proj ecf scost lstl1e responsibility of the community or .entity -receiving the grant.
In those fewc3seswhere such cost-share requiremci.'itPpses' a particular financial
burden ontbe reciPient community or entity; the conferees support the Agency's
use of i1$ lopg~st?Ii4ing gni dance for financial, capabj1hy assessments to determine
reductions or waivers from this- match requite111ept., . .
With the exception of the limited instancesinwhi6h ana,pplicant meets.the
'criteriafora'Wa:iv~r;the conferees 4av~proviQ~ I10Jp.orethatl550/0 ofan
individual pr()ject'.scosts, regardless oftlle amollritappropriatedbt:1oW, The
pbrase"terins~and99nditions" referenced inthebiillanguag;e includes the
. ..maximuin 55%fed~piJ share, as weU.as.the.intend~.l'~jpi~ts,.an<.rthe specific.
projectdescription$, asiistedbelow.
. .
The f€Wortl3IigJ.iageqwy allowsthe Agency toappr9Y~VI~v.ersto the45perceIJt
matching requirementtnatare based on. financial capaoilityA~.~~. A~6rdingIY.:Ourpq1icWfor
th.~projects listed in A-ttachInent 1. is that grant applicants w}l1.heexpected to ..1'ay for 45 lJ,*cent
of the proj ectcosts, lIIl1essthere is specific Ian81lagemtheConrer~PeE.eport9x ApprQpri~tions
Act that specifies. a differelitmaiching requirement or a waiver to the matching reqllitem,enris.
approved based on financial capability issues. .
Furthermore, in those situations where thedescnptionin the COnferen~e Report .
explicitly defines the scope of work of the project, the Federal.share ofthegrant will be limited
to 55 percent of the estimated cost for completing the scope ()fworkdescnbed, regardless of the
amount appropriated for llieproject, unless a waiver tothematchirig requirement is approved
based on financial c~pa:bi1ityissues. This means, in some instances., that the grantamoufit will be
less than the 3JI1ount appropriated for the project and that some funds will not beobligited.The
disposition of any such unobligated grant funds will be detennined by Congress.
4
WAIVERS TO THE MATCHING REQUIREMENT
In March 1997, EPA published CombinedSewer Overflows -- Guidancefor Financial
Capability Assessment and Schedule Development.3 This financial guidancedoc1.lmeIltincludes
a process for measuring the financial impact of current and proposed wastewatertreatn:lent
facilities and drinking water facilities on the users of those facilities, and establishes a procedure
for assessing financial capability. The process for assessing finan~ial capability contained in that
document wa~ initially developed in the 1970's and has been extensively tevisedbascdon
EPA'sexperience i:i1 the construction grants, State Revolving Fund (SRF), enfotcement and
water quality standards.programs.Theassessment process requires theca.lculatjonof a financial
capability indicator. TheAgency approves waivers in those cases where the financial capability
indicator shows that the project W01.ud result in a high financial burden on the users of the
facility.
Exceptions to the 45 percent match requirement must be approved by EPA Headquarters.
All requests for an exception should be prepared by the EP A RegionalOtIicesusing information
provided by the grant applicant. The reqtu~st mu;stinclude the infOrmation cotitainedin Chapters
Uland 1Vofthe Financial Capability Assessment guidance document~ The requests, including
the necessary supporting documentation and appropriate background material, ihouHlbe
submitted to the Dlte~toT. Office ofWastewaterMan,agement. (Mail Code 4201M),USEPA,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. .
FEDERAL FUNbSAS A SOURCE OFMATCHING FUNDS
Federal funds from other ptogramsmaybe'used as all or part of the match forthe special
projects onlyifthestattite authonzingthose programs specifically a11ow$ the futids to be used as
a match for other Fcdcralgrants, AdditionaUy,the other Federalprogiams niustallowtheir .
appropriated funds to be used for the planning, deSign. and/or construction ofwatet, wastewater
or groundwatet ii1fraStructure projects. ListedbeI~w are the majdr'Federi\.lpio~<Uns"Yhose ghuit
or loan funds can'beitsed to provide all or part of the match for the special projects:
. Dep~rtm.eilt_QfAgriculture, Rur~I D~velopment program,
. Depart.n'1ent of Housing and Urhan Development, Community DevelopmentBlock Grant
program, and.
· Appalachian Regional Commission grants.
3 This document is available on theintemet atwww.epa.gov/owmlpdfslcsofc.pdf.
4 All of the fmancial data used 10 calculate the financial capability indicatClT must be indexed to UJe same
year. The Bureau of Labor Statistics' web site (www.bls.gov/cpiJ) contains an "Inflation Calculator" that .....ill
automatically perform this function.
..- - --".--..--.,---...------- --.- ..----.----..--------.-..---
5
As previously stated, Federal funds may be used as all of part of the match for other
Federal grant programs only if the authorizing legislation includes such authority. Since the FY
2005 Appropriations Act does not include such language7 the special Appropriations Act grant
funds cannot be used as a source of matching funds for other Federal programs.
LOANS FROM: A STATE REVOLVING FUND AS ASOURCE OF MATCHING FVNDS
The Agency provides funding fpr two separate State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan
programs, the Clean Water StateR-evolving Fund(CWSRF) program and the Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program. The Agency has takena,ctions that allow particular
sol,ltces offunds from the two SRFprograms to be used as asolitce of the local match.
Specifically, the Agency issued the following two documents:
. Aclass deviation from the regulatoryprovisiotls of40 CFR 935.3125(b)(l). The claSs
4eviation/issued,August 16, 2001, pertains to the CWSRFprogram.
. ApolicymemoraIidum designated as DWSRF OA-OL 11iep6licymemorandum,6issued.
October 10, 2001 ,pertams to the DWSRF program.
The class deviationanclp9licy gocwnent listed,ap9V~ ~llo:wSt:ateSJU' progr8.i11s to use
therion':Federal an<:1non-State'rriatch share ofSRF funds to provide loans ,that can beusedas;the
bJatchforthespecialprojects. Thenon.:Federalfunds il1Cluaerepay.ment~ interest earnings ~d
bond propeeds. Thenon...Stateniatc;:hshare (Le., the overmatch) is any State contributiont6the .
'SRF above the statutorily required 20percentmatcb~
The use ~faloai1 from allS~toprovide part?r al19ft4e ffiatch{ora specialproj~Us,a .
$t~te SRF program agency'depi~ioJi~ However, the action rriustbe consiStt4it with establishoo
St:atepolicy,guidelinesand procedutesgoverningtheuseofSJ{Flo~.Projects that receive
SR.F as$istance muSt al!)o ~dheretoF ederal CWSRF orPWSE!'pr6graril r<<}uire:rnel1t$ r~l~ting
16eligibilityandprioritii~tion, . . ,.
F:RE~AWARD COSTS
The Grants Administration Division (GAD) issued a policy'memorandum (GPl 00-02) on
March 30, 2QOO. thatappli~ 10a11 grants, iIicludingspecial ApPrOPrjfltioriS Act projects awarded
on or after April 1, 2000. Additionaliy, a clarification to the policy memorandum (GPI 0Q.,.Q2(a))
was. issued by GAD on May 3, 2000. Thetwomemoranclarevised the Agency's interpretation.of
a provision contained in the general grant regulations at 40 CFR g31.23(a) concerning the
approval of pre-award costs.
5 This document is available on the intemet at www.epa.gov/ov.mlmablowm0324.pdf.
6 This document is available on the internet at www.epa.gov/owmlmab/owm032S.pdf.
6
In essence, the GAD memoranda state that:
"Recipients may incur pre-award costs [up to J 90 calendar days prior to award provided
they include such costs in their application, the costs meet the definition ofpre-award
costs and are approved by the EPA Project Officer and EPAAward Official."
The award official can approve pre-award costs incurred more than 90 cal~ndat days prior
to grant award, in appropriate circumstances, if the pre-award costs are in conformance
with the requirements set forth in OMB Circular A-87 and with applicable Agency
regulations, policies and guidelines.
The GAD memoranda state that the award official can approve pre-award costs incurred
prior to grant awardi:i1 appropriate situations if the approval of the pre-award costs is consistent
with the intent of the requirements for pre-award costs set forth in OMB Circular A-87 and are in
conformance wit.h Agency regulations, polici~andguic1elines. The following two situations
meet these requirements:
· Any allowable costs incurred after the start of the fiscal year for which the funds were
appropriated but beforegtant award (for FY 2005 projects, this date is October]. 1004).
· Allowable facilities planning anddesighcosts associated with the constructionportlons
of the projectintluded inthe grant thatwerej!)curredbefore thest~rt ofllie :fiscaly~ for
which the funds-were appropriated (for FY2005 projects, this date is October 1.2004}~
Accordingly, effective April 1, 2000, the Regions have the authority to approve pre~awardcosts
for the two situationsdeschbed above~ AnY apptoval,.ofcourse, is contiI1g~nt on thciRegiomu
Office detennination that the pre-award costs in questiouare 'in conformance with the applicable
Federallaws,regulatioris and executive orders thatgovernEPA grant awardsandareallowaQIe,
reasonahle and a116cableto the project;.
The Regions should not approve any pre-award. costs for speci al Appropriations Act
projects, other than those that involve the two situ*tionsdisc).lssed above, without written
approval from Headquarters. Tberequest, with sufficient supporting documentation~sl1ouldbe
subm.itted to the Director, Office o.fWastewater Management (Mail Code 4201M),U8EPA,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. The Office ofWaStewatet
Management will consult, in appropriate circumstances, with the Grants AdmiIifstratiort Division
and the Office of General Counsel. Ifappropriate, a deviation from 40 CFR g31.23(a) will he
processed and issued.
LA \VS, REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
A listing of the Federal Laws and Executive Orders that apply to all EPA grants,
including the projects authorized by the Agency'sFY 2005 Appropriations Act, is contained in
7
Attachment 3. Some of the authorities only apply to grants that include construction, e.g., EO
13202 as amended by EO 13208. A more detailed description of the Federal laws, Executive
Orders, OMB Circulars and their implementing regulations is contained in Module No.2 of the
EPA Assistance Project Officers Training Course which is available through the Regional Grants
Management Offices.
The re~ulations at 40 CPR Part 31 apply to grants and cooperative ag;reements awarded t<:,
State, local, and Indian tribal goye:punenUi. The regulations at 40, CFRPart 30 apply to grants
with nonprofit organizations and with non-governmental for ptofitetltities. In appropriate
circumstances, such as gtantsfordemonstration projects, the research and demonstration grant
regulations at,40 CFR Part 40 can be used to supplement either 40 CFR Part 30 or Part 31.
The Agency issued a memorandlim7 in January 1995,.concerriingthe applicability of 40
CFR Part 29 (Intergovernmental Review) :tothe special projects authorized by the Agency's FY
1995 Appropriations Act. Thaf l11emorap,d;Ulll also applies to tbe;speCialproJects 3\lthorized by
the Agency's FY 2005 Appropriations AcL .,
. . The Davis-Bacon Actdoesnqt apply to grants awarci,edundertbe .aJlthonty of the
Agency's FY 2005 ApproprialionsAct-becau~ the Act dbesopthic1ude lClIlguage that makes it
. apply" H:owever, ifFY 2005 fur1d$are~usedto sUpplement fundii)g ofacohstructlon contract that
in.Cluqes(JJean Water Act TitleIIiequiteillents (e~g.,contracts awar.C1erllJD,derthe construction
grams otcoastal cities programs);theertpretontractissubject t6D~vi$..::E~_al::ol1 Act requirements,
including the J:'lOrtion funded with FY20Q5 timds~
SPECIFiCENVIRONME1'lTAt REQUIREMENTS
. The,NatioIial EnvironIiientalPolicyAct-(NEP A) apd ollien:elevantajJplicable statutes
and Executlve.Orders, such as the EndMgeted Spetie~ Act (ESA),;~pplYJQ(qe special projects
;,\uthotizedby the Agency's FY 200SAFPropriations Act.rtheappHcableNEPA. regulations are
theCouncilofEnvirorrinenta,lQuality'$'ijnplementing regulatiopsat 400F:R. Parts 1500-1508
aiid EPA;s NEPA regulationsat40-CFR.Part6; Subparts A~P.8-
The Agency issued a meinoraridum(Attachment 4) on January 20, 1995,conceming
NEP A compliance for the specialproj~tsauthorized bytheA~encysqfY 19.95 Appropriations
ACt. .Thatmemorandum also applies. tathe special projects authorized by the Agency's FY 2005
App:tQpriatioos Act.
7.TI1is document is available onthe internet atwww.epa.gov/o'hwmab/owm0326.pdf.
S EPA's regulations at 40 CFR Part 6, Subpart E, while they do not apply to these special Appropriations
Act projects, may provide additional guidance.
8
The development of information needed to detemlinecompliance with NEPA and other
cross-cutting Federal requirements is an allowable cost that can, and should, be included :in the
scope of work of the grant if not performed prior to grant award. These activities can be funded.
on an incremental basis, by awarding a grant that onlyinc1udesthese activities, or as partofthe
entire project (i.e., planning, design and construction) with the stipulation, in the form ofa grant
condition, stating that EPA will not approve or fund any work beyond the conceptual design
point9 until the applicable requirements of such authorities have beenmet. The Agency issued a
memorandum (Attachment 5) on July, 29, 2003 that contains a model grantcondiiion thatshOl.I1d
be used in this situation.
It should be noted that NEPAand other cr9ss-cutting Federal requirements that apply to
the major Federal action (i.e., the approval and/or funding of work beyond the conceptual design
point) cannot be delegated. Although EPAcan fund the grantee or state/tribal development oran
Environmental Information Document (EID) or other analysis to provide supporting infohf.iati~l1,
EPA has the legal obligation to issue the NEP A documents, to sign NEPA determinations. and to
fulfill other cross-cutting Federal requirements before approving or paying for designaml/or.
construction. .
Wben both EP A and another Fedenil agency are funding the same project, the agenCies
may negotiate an agreement for <me to be thel~ad agency forpetforIlIing grant oversight and, ,
management activities, inc1udingthoserelatedto NEPA and other cross-cutting Federal ..
requirements. The lead agency can be the one whichiis providing the most funds for the,pr'o,ject,
orthe agency that provided the initial filndS for the ptoject.. . Ifan environmental impact sUitc:nnent
(BIS) is required, EPA should be a co-lead or cooperatingagencysothatitcanadopttpeEIS
without recirculating it. IftheprojectrcquireSanenvlronmental assessment (EA),.EPA ma~use
the other agency's EA asabasisfor its finding of no sigrlific:,uitImpact(FONSI), providedljPA
has independently reviewed the EAand agrees with the analysisanp circulates the FONS:l~9
attached EAfor the requisite 30 day cOIllll1entperiod. . Note that EPA may not use a catego.rical
exclusion of another Federalage;ncy urtlessEP A' s regulations at40CFR Part 6 also providef'or
thecategoncal exclusion.
OPERATING GUIDELINES
The authority for awarding grants forthe special projects listed in Attaclunent 1 and the
United States~Mexico Border Program is Consolidated AppropriationsAct, 2005. (P. L. 10S..
447). The authority for awarding grants for the Alaska Rillal and Native Vil1<c1ges Program is
section 303 of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 (p. L. 104-182). The authority
for awarding grants for the Long Island Sound Restoration Progrro:n is section 119 of the Clean
Water Act as amended by the Long Island Sound Restoration Act (LISRA), Title IV of the
Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000 (P. L. 106..457).
9 Completion of conceptual.design is essentially the same as completion of facili1y planning as defined in
EPA's Construction Grants prosram.
9
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for the special
Appropriations Act projects is 66.606 "Surveys, Studies, Investigations, and Special Purpose
Grants." The Integrated Grants Management System (IGMS) code for the special projects is XP,
titled "Water Infrastructure Grants as authorized byEP A Appropriations." The Object Class
Code (budget and accounting information) for the special projects is 41.83. Applicantsshould
use StandardFopn 424 (Version 7/03) to apply for the. grants.
Location ofProiect
To be able to report on environmentaland public health benefits, the Agency has decided
to collect, and store in an appropriate database, the geographic locationfor grant funded
infrastructure projects. Accordingly, all special project grants authorized by the FY2005
Appropriations Act should include a tennandcondition statmgthat locational information must
be submitted. For most projects, the specific information needed is the National Pollutant
. -' . . ..
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) number(s}or the Safe DnnkingWaterJrifonnation
System (SDWIS)number{s). EPA's information technology (IT) systems willuse.theNPDES
and the SDWISnunibers todetenninethe specificgeograplric p~ameters.oftheprojectFor .
those situations where WDES and 5DWIS identifiers are not appropriate, theJongitude and
latitude of the project should be provided.
Grants to Nonprofit Or~atiizations
Fbnds appropriated under the STAG accountc~, if the situationwattant$,Hbeuse4for
grants to nonprofit .()tg~izations.. However, gtapts ~;,irinotbeayi~ded toanQu,propf
organization classified by the IntemaJ Revenue Service as .a~501tc)(4) organizati6.nun1ess that
organizationcertifiestha.tit will Dot engage in 19bbyiPgactiyities, even with tli~ito'WnJunds (see
P. L 104.65 -... r.-obbyipg Disclosure Act of 1 99,S). Thera,tiona1e {or ariy aV/ard tp_~l1o#profit
organizatfonshould be clearly explained. suitably documented, and includedm the proJect file.
Additionally; EP A Order 5100.810, "EFAPo}icypn ~ssessingCapabilitiesofNon';;Pr9:fit
Applicants forMaJ].agiIlgAssistance AwatdS,"a,ppliesto fundil1g:pa~kages/.filnclipg ..
recommendations submitted to the Grants Management Offices art or after March 31, 2005.
Grants to Private For-Profit Entities
Funds appropriated under the S1 AG accOlmt may be used for grants to private for.profit .
entities, such as a privately owned drinking water company, when the language contained in the
Conference Report clearly indicates that intention. The specific requirements for awarding a
grant to aprivate for-profit entity will be addressed when there is need to award ~uch a grant
10 The Order is available on the EPAintranet at http://intranet.epa.gov/ogdlpolicyIOrder/5700_8.pdf
10
Grant Recipient
The intended recipient of the grant funds listed in Attachment 1 can, in the appropriate
circumstances, refer to any ofthe following: a governmental or non-profit entity, a non-
governmental for-profit entity, the geographical area where the project will be located, the
geographical area that will benefit from the project, or the name of the project. For example, if
the earmark designation is a county, the funds could, in certain circumstances ap.dwith the
consent of the county, be awarded to a governmental entity or entities withinthe county. In any
such situation, the intended recipients, and the amount each is to receive, should be confirmed by
. the sponsoring congresspersonor senator.
Ownership. Requrrements
With the exception oisman, on~siteldecentralized wastewater treatment SysteIlls~ which
are discussed later in this section, only wastewater and drinking water infrastructure facilities that
are or wHl be owned by the grant orsubgranfrecipient are eligible for giant funding. This mlfclDS
that house laterals (the sewer line from the collection system to the house):and dtink:iitg water
service lines (the line n-o:mthe drinking water distribution system to the hOilse)must be owned
by the grantee or snbgrantee in order for. these facilities to be eligible forgrantfiulCling; The
oWIle~hiprequirement applies to newconsti1,1ction, as well as the iehaQilitation of existing
facilities, and to infiltrationlinflow correction aSsociated with existing sewer lines;.fuclurling
hom;e laterals.. The grantee or su.bgranteecan have ownership by either fee sllnple title,byihe .
issuance of anenfotceablee<,lSelllerit with right of access. oi otl1ci." suitable aut'hQrity su~ha~ari
ordinance assuring right ()faccess for suchpurposes asinspectio~~ monitQring,bu,ildi1:1g,
operation, rehabilitation aild replacement.Sincetbe granteeorsubgranteehas ownerShip of
these facilities, the grantee orsubgrantee w6~ldcbe responsible fortbeopehition$ and
maintenance of those facilities fc>r the life oftl1ose facilities. Additionally, th.egrantee or
subgranteecould not transfer ownership ofthefacilities to any entifyWithoutwritten approval
from EPA. .
In thos.e rare situations whereagr3J.1torsubgrant is awarded toa~oVemmental or
nonprofit entity that does not have the legal authority to own or operate;4rinkirig water,
wastewater, or groundwater protectionmfrastructure facilities, and the grant includes the
construction or acquisitionofinfrastrucmre facilities, that entity cantrnnsfer ownership of the
grant funded infrastructure facilities with the approval ofEPA.Inall caSes, the teceivingentity
must have the managerial and le~alc3.J>ability t6 assume all of the relevant responsibillties
associated with the ownership of an EPA grant funded infrastructureJacility, including any
special conditions contained in the original grant agreement. Generally, EPA's approval to
transfer o\vnership should be incorporated into the grantawaro document In the fonn of a sp~ial
term and condition.
11
On-Site Systems
For small, privately~owned, on-site/decentralized wastewat~r treatment systems, such as
a septic system, an eligible applicant may apply for a grant tobriild or renovate these privat~Iy-
owned systems. In such cases the applicant must:
. demonstrate that the total cost and environm{lntal i:I;npactofbuilding thedecentra,lized
system will be I ess than the cost of a conventional syste~
. certify that ownership by a public entity ora suitablenon-profitorganization(suchas a
home owners' association or cooperative) i8not feasible and list the reasons,
. certify that the treatment facilities will be properly operated and maint:rinedfor the life of
the facilities, and
. provide assurance of access to the systems. alan reasonable times forslJchputpQses as
inspectipn, morutoring,building, operatio:n~ reluibjJitatioIl.aD.dreplaceIIlent. ..
Intennunicipal Projects and Service A~eernents
Although a special Apptopriauons Act granfmayhe:::/.watdedtoone entity. the Successful
. ()perations of tbegrap,t. fund.ed projeCtma:ydepend on the su.pporland cOQPeration oJ other
entities, Il)1irricipali~ie~ QruWitydistricts. This. isespeciany~vtQ~i1twbe~ .0ne.~n1ityisprp~djpg
wastewater trea~ent serVIces or supplyingdrinkii1.g water "to another entitY., AceordiUgly';cfor .
projects involvinginteracuonsbetweentwo ormol"eentities~the applicantshouldproViCl.e
~snninces that the.gri1nt fuli:cledprojecfwillfunctioll as ilitendecl f6dl$exp:e~~~d life. Ade.qpate
assurance may be met through the creation of special servIce'districts, regionall.zationofsystcrns;
or intermunicipal service agreements. . .... . . . .
Special service districts and regionalizatlonof systems are considered to be obllgations in
. perpetuity to serve the custo.mersof the newly cr~tedauthQtitya:n.d alltomaticallymeeUhe,
eXpected lifetime requirements. Theintennunicipal serviceagr~~eritorcontiact is a legal .
document for cooperative ventures betWeen se.parate enthies.botnofwhich wish tocoriMue
. .
functioning with a large degree of independent control in therrrespective.serviceareas~Such
agreements will need to e~tfmd for a minimum nU1l}ber ()fy~sfor aJ1EPAfi1nc:l~dp.r6iecUope
considered Viable. For the purposes of special AppropriatioJisAct projeCts, EP Awill accept the
following contract lifetimes as meeting the minimum standatdl1:
11 The anticipated useful life of the facility components is based on the low end of the assumed service life
foritems in EPA's Construction Grants Program and past experience with the award and administration of special
Appropriations Act projects.
12
ITEM
LIFE (Vears)
.
Land
Permanent
Wastewater/Water Convevance Structures: collection systems,
pipes, interceptors, force mains, tunnels, distribution lines, etc. 40
Other Structures: plant buildings, concrete tankage, basins,
lift statIon and pump station structures, inlet structures, etc. 30
Wastewater and Drinking \VaterProcess Equipment 15
.
Auxiliary Equipment
10
A shorter time frame may be accepted if suitably justified and approved by EPA.
Non;.ConstructioD Costs
The scope of work Qf a grant may include planning, design and administrative activities,
and the cost of land. .Landneed notbean "integral part of the treattnehtptQt~ss"asin the Clean
Water Act Title 11 construction grantprogram.I!owever,all elements included wtthiilthe scope
of work of the STant mustconfoi1i1 to therequirernents of 40 CFR Parts300t 31. This means, if
plartn.ing~ deslgliand ridmim::>ti'ativeacti\'itiesa:r:e included in the grant, tbeprocureinent ofthose
servic~~and the contracts mustcofu.ptyWitbtheapplicable sections of'Pms30 or31. .If land is
inclu<l.e<1, tlwrewi.ll be a Fed.eralinterestjnth~Jand regardless of whenitvi~spurchas~dandthe
purcnasetnu$tbe (musthave beeri)in aGcoroariceWitb the applicable sectiopsQfPatts 300r 31
and the Uniform Relocation Assi$tance:and RealPtoperty Acquisitionregulaiions for Federal
and Federally a.ssisted programs at"49 CPRPa:rt24.
Refinancing
Fundsapptopriated for the special projects may not be awarded solely torepay:loans
receivedrroma State Revolving Fundal' othermdebtedness unless there are explicit instructions
to do so in the Appropriations Act or accompanying reports, or the facts of the case are such that
this is theonIywaytoawardthe.fbndsihat were appropriated for the_project. Any request to use
special Appropriations Act grant funds to repay a loan, in whole or in part, must be approved, in
writing. by EPA Headquarters. Therequest, with sufficient supporting documentation, should be
submitted to the Director, Office of Wastewater Management, (Mail Code 4201M), USEP A,
1200 PeIlllsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, D;C. 20460.
13
Definitions
.In the context of determining that the scope ohvork of the grant is in conformancewith
the project description contained in Attachment 1. the word "water" can be considered to mean:
drinking water. wastewater. stonnwater or combined sewer overflow. Furthennore, the words
.'and" & "or" as used in the project description are intercbangeable~ Additionally, the phrases
.'sewerproject," "sewer improvementst "sewer upgrade," "sewerdevelopment,". "sewer
expansion," "sewer system," "plajltproject," "plant llpgrade,"or"plant expansion" are
considered broadeno'ugh to include all aspects of the upgrade, expansion and development ofa
c01llplete wastewater treatrnent.systern as defmed at 40 CFR~35.2005(12). Comparable phrases
concerning the project descriptions for drinking water facilities ~hould be similarly interpreted.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS liNDER EP A ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS
lntroduction
EPA Order 5700.7 J 1., "EnvitolUIlentalResults Under Assistance. Agreements," applies to
aU non-compe.t.itivefunding pack~geslfun. '.' din.grecomri1end~tjons Stil:>Il1itt~.to the Grants . .
Map,agement Offices .after January 1,2005. The Order tequires,EP A Pr()gram Offices to: 1) link
proposed,~sistanceagreement~to the Agency' s Strate.&ic Plan!Gover:n.ment Perfonnanceand
. Results Act(GPRA) artbitectute;~)~s1lre that outPlltsand, t~tlJ,emaX~um. extent practi(;.~ble~
outcomes are a.l?propriatelyaddressed:in assistance agreementworkplaris13and fundmg
reCbinrtiendatibns; and. 3)ensgrethatprogress in achieVingagreed;;.upon outputs and outcomes is
adequately addressed in recipieJ1tplt>gres$ rep()rtSancli,l~yan4edT,[1onitbring. activities.
. TheStrategicPlan1GPRA Architecture.
EPA's 2003StrategicPlanJ4 sets but five ltiilg4enngmilsthrQugh 200S: Each of these
five goals lsstippqited by aserleso:fobjectivesand sub:'objecnvesthaH(tentify, as preciseiyas
possible, what environnieritalOl,ltCOl11esor resultstheEPAseeksJoachieye within a definedtiine
frameusingreso:prces expected to be available. The~>'bjectives andstib~o1:>jectives establlslied in
EPA'sStrategic Plan are part oftP.e "GPRA architecture';thadsused to measure the EPA's ..
progress in meetingitssttategicgoal~.
12 The Order is available on the EPA nitranet at http://intranetepa.gov/ogdlpolicy/Order/5700.7,pdf
13 Throughout this section, the tenn "work plan" is used for convenience. For construction projects;
outputs/outcomes are nonnallyincludedin a Facility Plan, PrelirninaryEngineering Report, or an Enviromnental
Information Document. In many cases these documents may not exist at the time of grant application, In those
situations the development of the documents will be included in the scope ofwotk oftlIea~sistance agreement.
14 The Strategic Plan is available on the internet at 'WW'rv.epa,gov/ocfo/plan/2003sp.pdf
14
Program offices must include in the funding package for a proposed assistance agreement
a description of how the project fits \....rithin the EP A's Strategic Plan1GPRA architecture. In
developing the aforementioned descriptions, a project officer must list all applicable EPA
strategic goals and objectives and, where available, sub-objectives. The project officer mlJst
ensure that the Program Results Code(s) (PRc;s) listed on the commitment Ilotice is consistent
with the selected strategic goals, objectives and sub-objectives. The Strategic PlanlProgram
Results Code Crosswalk, which surmnarizes the strategic goals, objectives, sub-objectives, and
the PRCs for everyEPA assistanceagreementprogram, is attached to AppendixA 9f EP A Order
5700.7.
Outputs and Outcomes
The term "output" rneansan enviltmmentalactivity, effort, and/or associated work
products related to an environmental goal or objective, that will be produced. or provided over a
period oftime or byaspecified date. Outputs111ay be quantitative or qualitativebutI11ust be
measurable during an assistanceagreementfunding.period. Outputs reflect the products and
services provided by the recipient, bufdoll04 bytheri1selves, measUre the prQgr.anunatic or
environmental results ofal') assistance agreeIll~t. Ef{amples of outputs fof Special
Appropriations Actprojects.are:
.
Number of additional homes.(()t~~uival~ri~)provid.ed adequatew~tew~terti~atmeIlt
(can be centralized or decentralized).
.
Nutnber ofadditionalhornes(oregllivaJel1fs)providedsafe drinkingwa:t~. .
.
PercentimprQvement ininfrllstructurereliabilltyand maintenaI1Ce(e.g~.~onec_tional1d
distribution:systern.improyeQ1en,t$. P11D.1.P replacement, iInprovementSat wast~Wa.ter
treatITIent Qrdrinkfugwatet fa.~iiitiespllWt, u.pgrad~.. expansion, integrity.reduttl6h of
infiltration/iiifloW'.etc. ).
CapaCity. (MGD) cfilewly. COnstrllctedwfiStewater treatment plal1t~
.
For expansion of an existili.g wastewater treatment plant, increase in capacity (MGI)} of
plant.
.
For upgrade of an existing waStewater treatrrieIlt p lant~ new level of treatmerttptovided.
.
Storage (MG) providedbynewlyconstrocteddrinking water tank.
.
Storage (MG) provided by new reservoirs.
.
Population served by new construction,
15
Feet of sewer lines replaced.
· Feet of sewer lines extended.
· Feet of water lines replaced.
· Feet of water lines exteI).ded.
· Wet weather improvement:
Estimated number()fcombinedsew~r .0verflows(CSQs)reduced.
Estimated amount (e.g-;itnillion gllllonsper year)oflintreated wastewater not
discharged as a result ofCSO improvements;
Number of sanitaryseW~roverflows teducecL
Stom waterirnprovemetits;
· Environmental restoration#nprovei11~nts.
.:Enhallced security improvements lQwastewater .01'. drinking water.facilities.
. . ..
. . ".
.Jlie-tenn"outcomc" we~thef:esult.<effectorcons~qiI~l1~efuatWill occur from Cgrryl~g
outaneIl.vlrorunental programoraqtivity that is relatedtomtenVii-01'in1~talor programmatic-
goalotcibJecfive. Outcom~ maybe;envirollmental, beh~vi()ri:U~pei:\Jlli"J~lated or prograxn:rnatic .
. i#I),atl#~,)nil$t be quantitatiYe.._~<l mily notnecessfujly b~~~l."Hevij.1:>l~~#biI1 an assistance
.agreem:entfutlding period. There_ar.e two maJor typesofol1tctJme5 ..end:9titcomes and
:i~feLJJ.~c1iateou.t(;omes.End otit~9m~s.:~te the desireclendClr111tpna1~]~~:~ltsofaprojector .
..-p#>gr?i,rt, TPey represent results:~atle,g<J :t9enyjrpnm~n~1l1?~blj~_Ae3:!ffii#1pr9vernent.
Intermediate outcomes ateoutcomestha.tareexpectedtole13.<ft~.~dotit. c.())nes but are not
. Ui~~ty~~ends.u Giventh~ttij~~peLolItcomesofan,assi$t@ceagreementmay not o6curl,1n~1 ..
.af'ter the'asststance agreeTI1ent filn~ipgperibd, jnteIIll~dia~e9PtC;Qwe$f~aJii~(tduring the futldi,ng.
period are an important way torneasureprogress in achieviIig,t;m.dou{CCl111es.
., . -. -. ...
. .. .
. ... . .
~rogramoffices mustinc.luqeinthe funeHng paclcage(or~ptopos~assistance agre.el1)eht
. al::l~1,\t~c.e that the program offi~e.llasteviewed, or willreYi~w,tli~~sisbU1ceagreerilent Work
plan~~andJhat the work plaIlincludesjor-wiUinclude, well;,.qefined'o:U9?utsand~ to thernaXimtim
extent practicable, well-'defined outcomes.
The CWSRF program is In theproeess 6ffinalizing a ''Benefits Assessment" format for
individual projects, see Atiachment6, This fonnat can be usedtomeasure'.outcomes" forthe
~ial Appropriations Act projects. Accordingly, the Regions can'ill~lude the infonnation
containedinItems 1,2, 3, and 4 ofAttachmertt 6 as a means fottneasuring and reporting
15
See Footnote 13, supra.
16
outcomes.16 The measurement of environmental outputs and outcomes is in the developmental
stages. The Regions will be informed of changes as they occur.
Examples of Acceptable Descriptjons In Assistance Agreement Funding Packages
The folloWing are examples of acceptable descriptions in assistance agreement funding
packages:
Example 1:
This projectsupports Goal 2 (Clean and Safe Water); Objective 2.2 (protect Water Quality),
Subobjective 22) (lntprove Water Quality ona Watershe,d Basis). The overailgoal of the
project is toprovide adequate wastewater treatment seiVices for those areas of the Gominunity
with fai/i1Jg on.csite SEiptic systems, The Project Results Code (PRC) assignedUJthefimdingfor
this projectis202~51;e whiGh is consistent with thestrcitegtc goal/objectivelsubjective.The
(name 01 Division/Bttmch;' in(ftegion..-J has reviilvedqie work plann for this"projec!(lnd
determilledtha!it contains well-definedoutputs, and to the maximum extent practicable, well
defined oulc(}mes. "
Example 2:
This projettSttp]JPits.-~oaI2 (Clftall and Srif:":Jf1flter), ..ObJeqtive.2.1 (Protect Hzl1jlq.n Health),
Subobjective.2.1,J.(}Vater Safe>toDrink}. Theoverallgoaloftheproject is toldweftne{;lT,ioiint
oj arseniC in:Jbe.4/:!i:zl;:i~gwq.texto meet revis~dpeml~(reqyir~m?nts; The ProjectR.C$ults Code
(PR C) assign(!(Lto.Jh~iundin~fQi t/zisproje.d is 2QJl!51~Wh.i(;h. i~ consistefttwthJhes.trat~iit;.
goal/objectiW/subjective. . TJze(nameof Division/Brallc:h)in(Region~ Will rrnew th"i! work
plan/8 forthis'pr:9j~€t:tJ.1Jdwilldet.ermin.etha.tit conta;ns~(!li.dejined outputs, andilothe ..... .
maximum extent ;p.tttctieaOIe, well-.defmed ou.ttoirl~sWb({rJth~emeasures. ar~4~eloPe4. .Th~.e
measures.wiltbe.r.levelCJped'durir.lg:the planrtin~ portlonoJthe:wcmt. Additioilfi/ly, ElM, wijl }lot
fund any deslgn(Jrp'qn~trpcti(m}Vorkuntlt thes.em~qSjlreswe accepted.
EPA Reviewof'Rec.ipientFerfonnance Reports
". .".
EP A Order$700.7 estabIisheSrequitementsforprogra,moffice revieW of consttuctiop
and non-cq:nsJ:ructioninterimand fmalrecipientperfonnancereports for progress in achie'V~g
outputs arid Qutt()niescontainedin a~istance agreement work plans. Under 40 CFRParts30and
16 GPRA reporting in the SAAP database system is also requited for tbeNEPA.compliance program and
project offiterslNEPAeootdinatbrs Will need ioreportout on environmental outcomes for the NEPAprogramin
addition to tbereportingneeded for grants.
.]7 See Footnote 13, supra.
18
See Footnote 13, supra.
17
31~ EP A may require recipients to submit performance/progress reports as frequently as quarterly
but rio less frequently than annually. These regulations also require recipients to provide the
EP A with an acceptable final perfonnance report at the end of aproject.
The review of recipient performance reports is largely the responsibility of the EP A
projectofficer. The project officer must review interim 19 andfina120 perforina.nc~ reports to
determine whether they adequately address the achievement of agreed-upoDoutputsloutcomes,
inc1udingproviding a satisfactory explanation for insufficient progress or a failUre to meet
pl@:ned~CcoInplishments. This review Illustbe documented in the offIcialproject file. If a
report does not adequately address the achievement of outputS/outcomes, the project officer
should seek further explanation from theIecipient and require appropriat~corrective action.
AdditioJl~llly,ariy mitigatiolJ. measures that sbouldbe implernentedon the project as determined
thtoughthe NEPA analysis should be reviewed as part ofthe performance reports.
A\Vard officials must usethefol1ow~g-special conditions in all assistance agreements
requ.iringpetformance reports to provide a.comparison ofactualaccol11pIishments to ~greed-
uponoufputsloutcomes:
Required special C011ditions lor a~sisUmceagreemenis to State ahdloeal ,~overnments:
. In!,ii;Cqrdtmce with 40 CFR.J3JA(}~tJzerecipient agreestosubmitpeiformance reports that
indudebrief information oTteach pfthe folIo-wing areas: 1)0 ~ompari.50on of actual
aceompllsnments to the outptuslou.icomes:established In theassls:tance'.Qgritement work plan
fQrtlurp~riod; 2) the reasonsfors.lippcigeifestablishedoutp~it$loutciii1ie$were not met; and
3}a4ditioiuil pertinent inforilfationf iTzciudrn~ Wheli'a1?propriat~;(InalysiSa.ndinformation of
cosj'o.lif!TtUns or highun#costs.
. .
bi'tl.cCordance with 40 CFR- $3L4Q{d), iheiecipient agreesto,in.fgrm,EPAas soon as
pro.bi?illS,delays or advetse;eolJd{(totlS.beCome knownwhi~hW1iltfiaterig.liyimpafr the
..abi]iiyt911leet the outputs/i/utc()1fzMspecifi~dinthe t7.Scsistafic'!pgreefnentWork plan.
. .
. . ".
Requ}relspecial conditions forassistanceagreementsto institutions ofbif!hereducation and
ot~ern(:ift-")rofit or~allizati6ns."
In accordance with 40 CFR ff30.S1(4).the,recipientagrees to inClude ill performance reports
submitted w,!der this agreement brlefiiiformatlorT on eacli 6fth,'efqllowing area&O J) a
19 For construction prcjects, on-Site technical inspections and certified percentage of construction data meet
the interimreportmg requirements, see 40 CFR'pl,4tl(c).
20 For construction projects, the fmal inspection. report or other finnl performance report should include a
comparison of the actual outcomes/outputs with those incorporated into the assistance agreement.
18
compansonof actual accomplishments to the outputs/ou/comes specified in the aSsistance
agreement work plan 2) reasons whyanticipated outputs/outcomes were not met; and 3)
other pertinent information. including. when appropriate, analysis andinfonnation of cost
overruns or high unit costs;
In accordance with 40 CFRj30.51(j). the J'ecipient agrees that iiwiilnotify EPA of
problems. delays or adverse cOnditioilS which materially impair the ability to meet the
outputs/outcomes specified in the assistance agreement workplan.
Advanced Monitoring
EPA Order 5700.7. directspro,gram offices, when conducting on-site reviews or desk
review$ underEP A Order 5700.6 Al ~Policy Oll Compliance, Review and Monitoring-, tC>lhclude
an assessment of the recipient's progress in. achieving the outputs and outcomessetforthinthe
assistance agreement work plan? I . Ifthe assessment revealssjgnificantproblems inm~etfug
agreed~upbn outputs/outcomes, the project officer must tequire the recipient tp develoPJmd
implement an appropriate corrective action plan. The re~ultsoftheasses~l11ent rn.ust be .
documented in the Grantee Compliance Database in a format determined by the Directot()fthe
Grants Administration Division..
., , . -' - '. .' ..
. . . - . - .
NEWINrrIATIVE
This section describes the Ag~~y':s plan for impJ~nie:i1ting()h~newinitiative.
. . .." ..". - .
Cbriforinance with Combined Sewer ()verllow Control Policy
. EPA's Combined Sewer Ovmlow tOIltroI.(CSO) poliey22 is a national frainewoikfor
contro} of esos throughtheN~t:io~l Pblhitant Discharg~EJimimi.~loQ$ystem (NPDES). .T:be .
policy was signed by the A$niriisti;lt9t 011 APril 11, 1994.f#ldWasin.~Qrpomtedirito la'o/:gythe
W e~ Weather Water Quality Act of200.0, which was enactedasp3I:1o:f theConsol1dated
.Approprimions ActforFY20Ql(P:.L, 106..$54). ThepurposeQftheCSQpolicyis toco()rdinate
fuepIanning, selection, design and iIIipleineritationofCSO mahagegIent practices and controlS. to
implement therequirementsoffueClean Water Act (CWA).
One of the elemen~ of the C$Qpolicy is the developrn:ent()faJong-tenn controlpl!iIl. If
aJemg-tenn control plan has been reviewed and approved by the NPDES pennitting ag~cy, tbetl
any eso work or activities inCluded in the scopeofwork ofaspecialAppropriations Act project
should be in confonnance with that plcm. If a long-tenn control plan has not been approved by
the permitting agency, then any special Appropriations Act projecnh~tinc1udes fundingforCSO
. " . - . . .
21 See Footnote 13, supra.
22 The CSO policy is available on the internet at w.ww.epa.gov!npdes/cso.
19
work or activities should address the development, including timing, ofa long teoo CSO control
plan.
PROJECT SPECIFIC GillDELINES
The FY 2005 Appropriations Act and Conference Report contain a number of provisions
related to individual projects. The following discussion describes the Agency's interpr:~tation
and planned implementation of these provisions.
Guam and Virgin Islands Proiects.
Earmark Number 146 and EarmarkNurriber41 1 in the Agency's FY 2Q05Appropriations
Act provide, respectively/'$250,000 to the Guam Waterworks Authority forwater and .
wastewateririfrastructure hnprovemen:tsil1 the Territory of Guam," and "$250.000 to tpe
. . .
Government of the Virgin Islands for wastewaterinfrastructureiInprovementsin St. Groix~
Virgin Islands."
. .
The OI11i1ibusTer.ritories Act of 1977 (P, L 95~134)authorlzes Departm~tsand
. Agencies to award grants to Ins1;ilar Territories, such asOuamaIidthe Virgin IslandS,V(jtllQ~ra
matching requireIllent. . Bis,torically. EPA hasexe. rcj~edttlls (liscietion~ Ciuthority@"d..ilwarded.
fund~ to the Il1sular Territories without any matc1ijngrequirem~t.The Agency llitendSto
continuethls_practice. Accordingly, the FY 2()Osspecial A.pprQpriations A~tP:rQJec~,f.or;Gu,am
and the VlrgfnIslands can he awarded witholltaI11~tc~ng requii:;*lllent. Ho"\Veyei~.the:EY 2005
AppropriatiOl'ls Act also states thatthegr:antfWlqsfo:tGuapim\istbeused "fotw:itter'~(}
wastewater infrastructure improvements in the TerritoryofGu<imtandthe graIittUndsfor the
Virgin Islandsmusibellsed "for wastewater infr'astnlctute.imprOVenientsirt Sf: C~ofx.? Vll.'gin
Isl~ds~" Ac~ordingIy, sq)(ifategrants. IllllSt he~w(lI:4ea.l~ <3uaI1laIldtileVirgiii.Jslamis
specifically for these activities. . .
rROGRAMS~ECIFIC GUIDELIN)!:S
The. Agency's FY2005 AppropriationsAct and,~CbmpanYingreportscQiit~h.!~n1.unber
.ofrequitements for the United States-Me:xic()BorQeiPro~. the Alaska Rural and Natlve
Villages Prograill, and the Long Island Sound Resto-ration Program. This section describes the
A,gency's interpretation and planned implementatjQn()fthose>r~qui~merits.
United States-Mexico Border Program
The Agency's FY 2005 Appropriations Act provides $49,600,000, aftenescission, for:
. . . architectural, engineering, planning, design, construction and rela~edactivities
in connection with the csmstruction of high priority water and wastewater facilities
in the area ofthe United States-Mexico Border, after consultation \\'ith the .
appropriate border commission.
20
The scope of work for grants awarded for the United States-Mexico Border Program must
conform with the language contained in the Appropriations Act and the grant file shouldinc1ude
documentation that describes the results of the discussions and consultations with the appropriate
border commissions. In large part, EPAprovides grant funding to the Border Environmental
Cooperation Commission (BEeC) fortheJ>foject development assistanceprogra1i1 (pDAP) and
the North Ame.rican Development Bank (NADBank) for the BorderEnvirorunental Infrastructure
Fund (BEIF);in these cases, the sub grants from BEeC and NADBank should contain similar
documentation.
The Conference Report identifies two projects that are to be.ftmdedbymonies provided
fortbe United States-Mexico BorderPIqgram: "$5,000,000 is for continuation of the EI Paso,
Texas desalination and water supply ptojed,and $2,000,000 is for the Brownsville. TexaSwater
supply project:' The Bro'.vnsvi11e and EIPasoprojects will be awarded by the EPARegion VI
Office and administered within the provisions, including the 45 percent rnatching requirement,
contained in thismemoranduni.
EPA cost participation on projects funded from the United States"M<;xlcb Border
appropriation item (with the exqeption ()fthetwo projects identifiedabbve) will be decided ona
project:-bY-PIoject basis. The EPA costsharewi11 depend ona numberoffa~tb:rs which hav~
beenseparately.defmed within the cOn.text ofthe United Stat.es-:-Mexico BQrderProgram.
On May 12~ 1997,theAgencyissued amemorandum23 conce~g~'Program RequiretTIent$ .
forMexican Border Area Projects Funded under the Authority of this Ag~~Y's FY 1995i 19.96
.. and 1997 Appropriations. Acls." That'memotandum also applies to theljnitedStates-Mexico
Border Areaprqjects funded under tbe.authorityofthe Agen.cy's FY 2005 APpropriations Act..
Alaska Rural alid Native Villages Program
. . '-
TheAgency'sFY 2005 Appropriati.ons Act provides$44,64Q,000, after rescission.
. for grants to the State of AlaSka to address drinking water and wastewater.
infrastructure needs of rurala.nd .A1aska Native VillageS: Provided. That, . ofthes~
funds (1) the State of Alaska shall provide a match 0:f25percertt, (2) no more than 5
percent of the funds may be used lot administrative and overhead expenses, and-(3)
not later than October 1,2005 -the State of Alaska shall malceawards consistent with
the state wide priority list established in 2004 for all water, sewer, waste disposal,
and similar projects carried out by the State of Alaska thatarefundedundetsection
221 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.c, 1301} or the Consolidated
Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.c. 1921 et. seq.) wIDch shall allocate not
less than 25 percent of the funds provided for projects in regional hub communities.
23 This document is available on the internet at www.epa.gov!owrn!mab/owm0327.pdf.
21
Item (1) above means that the State of Alaska must provide $14,880,000 as its share for. the
program. Items (2) and (3) above are selfexplanatory and do not require any furtl1erexplanalion.
Additionally, the Alaska Rural and Native Villages Programfuhds may be used to pay for
activities specified in the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996, (P. L. 104-182, Section 303), .
specifically: "training, technical assistance, and educational programs relating to the operation
and management of sanitation services in rural and Native villages." These include the Rernote
M<lintenance Worker (RMW) and the Rural Utility Business Advisory (RUB A) programs.
Prior to awarding any grants under the Alaska Rural and NatiyeVillages Prograri:1,Region
10 shall develop.a "Plan QfAction" (plan) in consultation \viththe Office of\Vastewater
Management. The Plan shall include steps to remedy the fiscal and program management
deficiencies outlined in tbeEP A Inspector General's AuditofSeptertlber 21, 2004 (Report No.
2004-P-00029Y4 ciJ:ldthe OMB Program AsseSSment and RatingToo~ (PART) reviewS of the
program.
Long Island Sound Restoration Program
Earmark 'Number 293 in the STAG acco\lnt of the Ag~JlcY'$ FY 2005 Api)f()priatio~s4~t
provides "$4,000;000 Jor wa,ter quality iilfrash1J.Cture hnproyements for Long IslandSouild,New
York." The Agency intends to adnllni'ster thisearmaikusing !beLong Island SoundPtogtam .
Guidelines issued on May 6, 2002. These guidelines entitlep."Award oflnfrastnJctur~Gf;~ts to
Implenient the Long Tsland $oundCompreheilSive COnServatio,rl@:d Management Plart'~.Wete
de~elopedtoimplementthe Lbnglsland Sound RestorationA~l(LISRA)7Title'IV of the
Estuaries and Clean WatersActof2000(p. L. r06-457);'I'hefilpas,after the reclu,~tiQi1.;diI~to
the 0;80 percent rescissiori~dtlfret! percent set~asideprovisicil1, Will he awarded a.s gi:'a1'1ffi (cithe
$t~tes of New Yorkand ConnectIcut in accordance Withalloc3.tlon ptoceduresestablishecLbythe .
. Lon$ ISland Sound ManagementConference. The Long Island SQund Progran1'bas eJ,$ep@ite ..
Catalog ofF ederal D()me~ticAssistanc~ (CFDA) l1l1111ber whiqhis' 66.43 7. .
GRANTSMANAGE:MENT
Grants awardedundet the authority of an Appropriations Act are subject to assistance
agreement regulations, OMB cost principles and Agency policies. The grants must be a.warded
and managed as any other aSsistance agreement . .
The Grants AdmiIristrationDivi~ion (GAD) has developed Grants Policy Issuances (GPls)
to assist project officers and program offic~ in fulfilling and underStanding their responsibilities.
Two OPIs tbat are directly related to the award and management of Special Appropriations .Act
24 This document is available on thcintemet atwww.epa.gov/oiglreportsl2004/20040921-2004-P-
0OO29.pdf .
.25 This document is a~ailable on the internet atwww.whitehouse.gov/ornblbudget/fy2006/pmalepa.pdf
22
projects are GPI-03-01-Attachment VI "Policy and Procedures for Funding Assistance
Agreements" and GPT-OO-OS "Cost Review Guidarice.,,26
On November 14, 2003, GAD disseminated GPI-04-03 entitled "PerfoTlllance Standards
for Grants Management" This memorandum requires that performance standards established for
projectofficers and tbeir supervisors adequately address grants management responsibilities.
EPA Order 57OD.6 Al, issued January 8, 2004,27 streamlines post-award mauagementof
assistance agreements and helps ensure effective oversight of recipient perfonnanceand
management. The Order encompassesboth the administrative and progranun.. aticaspects of the
Agency's financi?,1.aSsistanceprograrns, It requires each EP A program officeptovidinR
assistance to develop and carry out a post-award monitoring plan, andcondu~basicmonitoring
forevery award. Frol1lthe programmatic standpoint, this monitoringshoulderisiIresatisfa9tiori
of five core areas: {l)tompliance with all programmatic terms and conditions; (2) correlation of
the recipient's work plan/applicationahdactuaJprogress under the award; (3).availabilityof
funds to complete the project; (4)propermanagement .of and accounting for eqUipment
purchased undeiilieaward;and (5)~oI:llpliancewi~hall. statutory and regulatoiy:req,uirementsof
theprograrn. Ifdl.lringmonitoringit is determined thatthere is reasonto believe,that the grantee
has committed or commits. fraud, waste~d/orabuse,then the projectofflcerriiu~tcontactthe
Office of the InspectorGeneral. Adv(lJlGMJllonitoIirlg activities rntI!)tbe4o~urrieritedin.the
oUicialgraht fiIc~and the grantee compllancedatabase. The EP A Order applies tothe)?!oj.ects
identified in Attachment 1.
In addition to the general reQl1iremeiltscOhtainedin the EPAOfder.thefollowing.fYpes of
activitl es, whichar.edirectly reIate<LtocoIlStrJl Gti on proj eets, should pc:; cOIl~id.eredijJ tl1e
development ofa'post-:a"YardUloni!Ptingpl~~ . .
-Review periodic pay.mentrequests.
- Conductintenm inSpections..... ...
-Re~ewch~ge ordersarld. claims..
-Review and apl>rovefmaLpaymeI1trequests.
- Analyze enviromnental review dbCUinentsfor NEP A-compIiaI1ce>if~arisappropriateat
this time (as applicable to Regjons where the project officer also undertakes the
NEPAresponsibilities).
_ Deternunetbatlliepfojectiscap8;ble of meeting the objectives for\vhichit
Was planned,.designedand built.
26 These GPls are available on the EP A intranet at
http:tlintralletepa.gov/ogdlpolicyn . O-GPl.GPI -03~O 1-5 ;htm and
http://intranet.epa. gOY /ogdlpolicyn .O-GPJ-GPI-OO-05,htrn
27 The Order is available on the EP A intranet at http://intranet.epa.gov/rmpoIicy/adslorders/5700_6Al.pdf
23
Many ofthese activities can be performed bya State, the Corps ofEngine~rs or a contractor, and
as such, are eligible forfu:i1ding under the three percent set-aside provision.
A work group consisting of staff from the Regions, the Office ()fWater, and the Office of
Grantsand'Debannent has been established for the purpose of developing recommendations for
alternative reporting procedures that would comply with the requirements of EP A Order 5700.6
AI. The scope of the work group will be expanded toincludedeveloptnent of recommendations
for alternative reporting procedures th.af \yjllcol11ply with the requirements contained in GPl~OO-
.05 ~~CO~t':Review Guidance."
AGENcY COALS FOR COMPLETING ANDCLOSI~GOUl'P:llOJECTS
On June 10, 1997, the Agency issued a strategy fOT administratively completing and closing
outtheremaining construction grant pr,oje~~28 AchniIiistr'ative c(jI1u:>let!on: takes place when a
fmroail(Utis requested; or ifafjnal audi1 is Dot tequireq, when the r61Jowing has been achieved:
a:ll'thegrantconditions have been satisfied, a fin.alinspectionhasbe~.perfoimed, the final
payment'has been reviewed andprocesse~,andprojecrperforman.ce~~stMdatds.Z9 bave bef;n
acqieyed. Closeout takes place v,rhen , a-close6ut letter is sent tothe~ttecipient. The June to,
1997 strategy document established the goal of. administrativelYCOI11pletingpost FY 1991
construction grapt and speCi(lIJ1Pprpprtit#(mstkfproject~ whhitJ,fiY~Yea.ISof grant award, and
cl()sing'()l1~ constructiongrantan4~p'et::i(liAppropriaiioils'A cipriJjiciswithin seven years of .
gt'liI1t#ward. Accordingly, all rutilregr;mtaWards, exteptinthose circum:$iaI)ces where the
co~p;l~xities or size offueprp]ectdi'ctate otherwise, should incl11gescheduJes that are in
cOl1fQrmance with the natiol}iUigoals,
.PROJECT OFFICER RESf,ONSIBI.LJTI:ES3o
. ..
The project officers mustreviewthegrantapplicatil)n to <let~imine that:
the scope ()fw6rk6f1he_graritis.cl~tlyde6'I1ed;
the scope of work isinconforrnance with ,theprojectdesc:nption containediP
Attachment 1; . . . . ..
ther~ is a clearly statedenvitonmel1tal or public he?ltb, objective;
28 In a memorandum dated May 6,1999, the Agencyissuea supplemental guidance providing clarification
to thecompletionlc1oseout strategy.
29 Project perfonnancestandards are defined at 40 CFR 935.2005{33).
30 "Asslstance AdministrationManua~ 5700 Chg 6; Part 1, Section 02, Roles and Responsibilities" is
available on the EP A intra net at http://intranet.epa.gov/nnpolicyiads/transmanuals.htm
24
work plansJ1 contain weIl-defmed outputs and, to the maximum extent practicable,
well-defined outcomes, and demonstrate linkage to the Agency's Strategic Plan
goals; objectives, and subobjectives;
the~e is areasonable chance that the proj ect will achieve its objective(s);
the environmental review documents arebr:EPA-compliant, if that is appropriate at
thistime (as applicable to Regions where the project officeralso undertakes the
NEPA responsibilities); and
the costs arereasonahle, necessary and allocable to the project
Grant applications should be processed ina tim.elymanner, but the applications should be
carefully reviewed and the grant awarded only when it is Prtldept to do .so. AdditionallY, tl1e
Regions may imposereasonablerequijements t1r(oughgrant conditions in those situations
consideredriecessary.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT RESOURCES
You should.invite State agencies to participate .as..much.as possible in the pre:':applicapo;ri.
application review ,and.grant. ~iltninistration proc~s~
Legislative language in the Agency's:IT 1997 Appropriations Act authorized the use_of
Titl. e. n d.. .e.obligati.ons.... fi.o. ..r S.t.a. ..te 3.. dm... inistration of..s..p. }x. i.3..JA....ppro.... p.....TI...atio.n. s. A.c.twastew..... ......ater.p.f. o....~ectS,
coastal/needy citie~ projects aIldq>nstruction grai1~projects~Theguidance docufnenton.llie
implementation of this provision. was issued by the Dil'ector. Municipal Support DiVisj9ltOn
December 3, 1996:32 .. . .
Th.e interagency agreement (lAG) with the Corps of Engineers was recently~en(i~clt()
allow the lAG funds-to beusedJorthe adllllnistr,atioTI;9Versigllt andmanager:nen~ ofa11special
Appropriations Act projects, indudingthoseinvolving. . drinking. water and other waterrelat.-ed
. '. '. - - '. . -, .
projeCts.
States may also usefuudsawarded under Section 1$)6 of the Clean Water Act(p.L~,92-
5OQ) for activities associated with these specialprojectsprovjded Section 1()6pl'ogranl():f"ficials
. -. '. .. .
agree.
The Agency'sFY 2001 Appropriations Act states that "the Administrator:ni~YJlseup..to 3
percent of the amount of each project appropriated to administer the management and oveti;ight
ofconstruction of suchprojects.thrcugh ccntracts,a11ocationto the Corps of Engineers, .orgrants
to States.'" A discussion of the three percent set-aside provision is contained on page two oHms
memorandum.
31
See Footnote 13, supra.
32 This document is available on the internet at \vww.epa.gov/owmlmab/owm032&.pdf.
25
REVIS10N OF LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN PREVIOUS APPROP~'fJONS ACTS
The Agency's FY 2005 Appropriations Act amended the following STAG eannarks:
The project description for Earmark Number 471 (FY.2003) for the Town of Mercer,
Wisconsin was changed to "water infrastructure improvements."
Earmark Number 22 (FY 20Q4) Was changed from "$400,000 to the West Lauderdale
County Water and Fire Protection Autl?ority, Alabama forconstnmtion of a water
treatment plant" to "$200,0(i0 to Jackson County, Alabania fOT.Wa.tel'system
jn~provements and $200,000 to the City of Musc1e Shoals, Alabailla ror water and sewer
infristtucture improvements."
.,... The project description for EartparkNlJinber 15~ (FY 2(04) tathe City of Burlington,
Illinois was changed to "'water and Wastewater infrastructure improvements."
n~designated recip~etit for Eatm~kNurnber 9 (FY 2002)w~~:h~ge<:1from the
."SOutheast Alabama Re$1oiiaI Water Authority" to the "Southwest Alabama Regional
Water Authority." .
. .
EannarkNumber 103 (FY 20(2)w$changedfrom .'$S.OO,QQO for;RockFaIls, illinois..
w~stewater treatment improYem~ts;'to"$$OQ,OOO fortlieCity6tChi~o, Illinois for
)y~terinfrastmcWre improvemeri~,at the Thonias Jeffer~oI\ ari.4LakeVi~w Pumping
Stations. "
- Jhe. designated r~pi~Ilt for~<1PnW~ Nltmb~484.(FY.2()P4}'VAAcbang~cJfrom
'"Norfolk" to <'Portsmou$i"Vltgima.
. .
Thedesignatedrecipiellt tOl'E:arill~NuJ1lber 283(fY2()Q4)wilSchCli;lg~dfrom the "CitY
of Kalispell, Montana" tothe~'Fl}lthead County Water and Sewer District No.1 -
:evergreen."
..- The designated recipiertt for EarillatkNumber139 {FY2003}was .ch~gedfrom the
<~State of Hawaii iIealthDepartmettti~to the "C()~ty ofH~waiir
Eantlark Number 148 (FY 2004)waSchariged from "$1.000.900 foiOahu County. and
Kauai County, Hawa.iifor waterinfrastrucfureimprovements..:to "$1.000,000 forthe
replacement of cesspools in 'Hawaii, $250,000 to the City and Count)' of Honolulu for
Varona Village, $500,000 to the County of Hawaii and the remainder to the Housing and
Community Development Corporation ~fHawaii.". .
EannarkNumber 388 (FY 2004) was chartgedfrotn "$1,500,000 to the City of Lawlon,
Oklahoma for the Southwest 'Water Treatment Plant" to "$1,500.000 for the Southwest
26
Water Treatment Plant in Lawton, Oklahoma for water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements."
The project description for Earmark Number 46 (FY 200l) to Lewes, Delaware was
changed to <<wastewater treatment improvements."
The designated recipient for Eaimark Number 409 (FY 2004) was changed from '~eCity
of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Water Department" to "the Philadelphia Water
Department!'
The designated recipient (or-Earmark Number 265(FY2004)was changedfr()ID
"Franklin County," Mississippi to the "Okhissa Lake SewerI>istrict."
The project description foi"Eannark Number 322 (FY20()4)to the Village ofBndicott,
New York was changed to ''Wastewater and waterinfrastructureimprovements."
.Theproject descriptioI1 forEannark Number 173 (FY 2004) to the ViltageofArmihgto~
lllinoiswas changed to"planriing, design and constructionofasanitary sewerpro~ect/'
Earmark Number 184 (FY2004) was changed frOlll"$~SO,()OO to be diyided equally
betWeen Vanderblligb Gounty and the Citj()fEva:nsville, Indiana for Pige(mCreek
wastewater systemim.proveD1ents" to "$250,OOQt{) Vandefhurgh Countyorth~CitY{)f
Evansvi1le,InQianafor Pige~n Creek wastewater sy~epijI):lptoYements."
ACTIONS
If you h~venot alrea,dYddneso, you and your staff should initiate discussions with the
app.ropn.' ate grant applicail.ts.. to dive. 1.op.. a detailed.s. c. o. p... eo.f.w.'....o. r.k......31J.d.....to.,....ex. plai.n..... ..t.h.....e.,...gr::u:r..... ........j.,.......
appljq:ltion and review pr()ces~,A.dditionally, the grant applit>@~sho~lQbep~ovideq.With<icop~
ofWs memorandum pri6tto ,gta:ritaward to ensure that the applicant is on notice of'th~ ..
applicable requirements before th,egrant is awarded. .
If you have anyquestionsconperning the contei1tsofthistlie1l1()rand~, you mayconUict
me, or have yoUr staff contact Benjamin J. H,arnrn, Chief,JvlunicipalAssistanceB.ranch,
Municipal SupportDivision,at (202) 564-0648.
Attachments
cc: Municipal Construction Program Managers, ;Regiot;lS I-X
Regional 1--.TEPA Contacts, Regions I -X
Mark Tedesco, Long Island $ound Office, Regionll
Marcia Combes, Alaska Operations Office, RegionX
AT AC... ........,.. .... N 1
T.HME,T .
1
SPECIAL WATERANDWASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJEiTS (STAG ACCOUNT)
INCLUDED IN EPA'S FY 2005 APPROPRIATIONS ACT
Line Budget Earmark Designation Earmark Rescission Set Aside Grant Description
Item# Code Amount Amount
"." ". ,.' ". ...,
Connecticut
Meriden, City of . for the City Center Initiative Flood Control
92 GlO 150,000 1.200 4.500 144.300 and Demolition .
93 AXl New Britain, CitY of 300,000 2.400 8,900 288,700 for water infrastructure improvements
Southington, City of . for the Southington Water SuPPlY
94 AX' 500,000 4.000 14,900 481,100 Improvement Project
95 GEG Stamford. Citvof 200,000 1,600 6.000 1 92,400 for storm water Infrastructure imorovements
96 GUW Groton. Cilv of 350,000 2,800 10.400 336,800 forwater and sewer line extension
478 GaG Bristol, City of 300;000 2.400 8.900 288,700 for water infrastructure imorovenients
479 GBW EastHampton, Town of 300 ,<loa 2.400 8.900 288,700 for drinking water infrastructure
improvements
480 GQD Stamford 250.000 2.000 7,400 240..600 fora waste-to-energy project
B total 2,350,000 18,800 69,900 2.261,300
Massachusetts
Boston, City of 10 continue efforts to address deteriorating
220 GEU 200.00l) 1.600 6.000 192,400 groundwater levels in !he Greater Boston '
area
TQWf)s of Braintree, Holbrook and . for water and wastewater infias1ructurEl
221 GW Raf1doIPl'l 200.000 1,600 6.000 192,400 improvements . .
222 AUH Ciiff:ls of Fall River and New. 950;QoQ 7.600 28.300 914,100 for combined sewer overflow projects
Bedford
223 Ol5 Lawrence. CiN of 200,000 1,600 6,000 192,400 for combined sewer overflow mitioalion .
leomister, City. of for the Rockwell Village revitalizallOo
224 GVU 400,000 3.200 11 ,900 384.900 inltiative for water infrastructure
improVilmenls
225 GJR Essex Cou ntv 250,000 2,000 7,400 240,600 for wastewater Droiecls for communities
226 OBA Pioneer Valley Planning 500,t>QO 4,000 14,900 481,100 for the Connecticut River combined~r
COmmission in West S6rinofleld overflow , .
531 Gay BristolCounty 250;000 2,000 7,400 240.600 for the Combined Sewer Overflow
Abatement Proiect . .
532 OBA Pioneer Valley Planning Z50;()O{) 2.000 7,400 240,600 for combined sewer overflow aba~emen~ln
COIl)mission !he Connecticut River .
9 total 3,200,0'00 0 25,600 95,300 3;079,100
., Maine. ..' .
..
212 GMO Wiridham, Town of 200,000 1,600 6,000 192;400 for wastewater infrastructure ImorOVements
213 GVS Brewer, City of 500,000 4.000 14.900 481,100 for the. sewer imorovements proJect .
Greater Limestone ...c Wastewater Treatment Facilill.e5 to: .
consolidate and replace antiquate<1was~
519 GaV 450,000 3,600 13,400 433,000 wa ter coDeclion and trea!mentfacilltie$ at
the LOring Development Authority (LDAland.
. CariboU Utilities District [CUD] .
InOianTownship TMbal ....,'.'. ... for the flrstphase for expansion of CUI:rerd. .
520 GD4 ~emment 250iO:Q<> 2,000 7,400 240,600 ISCloon system to provide adeouateca1iaatv
Machias, Town of for replacement o.f sewers and comp~lloilof
521 GGV 300;QqI) 2.,400 8,900 288.700 deficiencies .at existing aging wastewater
- treatment plant
5 total 1,700,OpO 13;600 50,600 1,635,800
New HamDshlre
254 AXH Nasllua, CitY of 150.000 1;200 4,500 144,300 for wastewater infrastructure imoTovements
255 GN2 New Hampshire Department of 1QO;OOO 1;600 6,060 192.400 for sewer system expansion In Frallk\il'l
EriViiOnmeniaJ Servic~s
256 003 . SOmerworth, Citvof 200;000 1,600 6,000 192.400 for Wastewater infrastructure imorovements
566 AsK Berlin WaterWorks In Berlin 6oO;~OO 4.800 17,9O(l 577 .300 for drinking water diStribution system
improvements .
567 AXH Nashua Combined sewer 400,000 3,200 11,900 384,900 for CSO treatment and abatement
Ovetflow proiect in Nashua
New Hampshire Department of to develop a septaQll treatment facility
568 QY9 Environmental services 400.000 3,200 11.900 384,900 based at the wasteWater treatmentfaCility in
Frankfin
569 GYA Troy 200,000 1,600 6,000 192,400 for a wastewater and water improvement
program
570 QBG Manchester New Hampshire 400,00() 3,200 11.900 384,900 for Combined Sewer Overflow project in
Manchester
571 GDT Rochester 200,000 1.600 6,000 192,400 for Route 108 sewer ~ne extension
Somersworth for the sewerage improvement program to
572 003 150.000 1,200 4.500 144,300 pro~1de upgrades to the wastewater
treatment plant
573 GRE Bristol 200.000 1,600 6,000 192.400 for wastewater system imorovements
574 GYB Mnton 150,000 1,200 4.500 144,300 for a water stol'Cl(1e tank replacemenlProiecl
STAG FY 05 List Final revisedZ.xLS
~~~ru~jJ~'t~~}tll!@tQ.wg;'*'~~r~'&2~~jittt~~ !~~.!t;;.i\:;''ji;~~l~~ ~~~~~~m.f~1i ,ft~~jf~~*-lf~'1iFi"?VK~~GiIi:;;:~110~:;~~:f~'$1ft~-~
257 GW1
258 GMZ
25!lGSZ
...,
260",,1,.
261 GN4
262 QVL
57.6 GRG
ST(9~Y .
t1tOtal.
271 .GW3
272~5
272 ewe
274GN7
275G,W4
27~ .J.>>N
m:.GNB
278 GW5
.. ",-'-
279 ONE
280 (3W8
2f!1. '<3N9
.282 OOY
28$ (;;1'.18
284 GNA
285 .GW7
286 GNC
287 GND
288 AME
289 GTD
290GW9
291 QVffl
New Jersev
ParsiPPanv, TowrtslliDOf
WildwoOd, City of
New Jersey MuniciparUblities
Authority
Passaic Valley Sewl'lrage
Commission
Beroen Countv UtililiesAuthoil'ht
New Jersey MeadoWland~ '
Commission
,T ownshio of ParSiooanv"Trov
Bayonne. City of
New York
Brookhaven, City c;jf.
Chenango County Aglicultimll
Society of Chenarnl<rCOuniv ..
Schulver. Town of ...
BridClewater. Villaail,d., " .
Spril19Port and Fleiniii.s~ 'TQi.Vns.of
Rockland Go!Jilty
....
Deoosil, Villaoe of ..
BI60mino Grove. Town Of
Sea Cliff. Village of'
Mamarone Villaos .of
New CasUe, TownqJ
Osweoo. Citv of
WamelVille Water DiStriCt in
Wamerville .. .
CheektOWilCi3, TOWTIof
Erie Water AuthorltyJor the Town
of Newstead and Wlagepf
WlIliamsville
TownNillaoe of East Rochester
Dutchess County Waletand
Wastewater Authoriiy In Hyde
Par1<
OnondaQa lake
Monroe County Water Autholitv
Wayne County
Wayne County Water and Sewer
Authority
STAG FY 05 List Final revised 2.XLS
1000,000
250,000
250,000
400,000
100.000
300.000
500,000
1.250;000
4,050,000
200.000
100.000
125,000
200.000
200,000
.
300,000
250.000
250 000
300.00,0
110,000
150.000
250,000
275,000
250.000
650,000
200,000
1,000.000
12,000.000
4.000,000
900.000
600,000
8,000
2.000
2,000
3,2()()
800
2.400
4,000
10.000
32,400
1,600
800
1.000
1,600
1.600
.
2,400
2,000
2,000
2,400
900
1.2DP
2,000
2.200
2,000
5.200
1,600
8,000 .
96.000
32,000
T200
4.800
29,800
7.400
7.400
11.~
3,000
8;900
.14,900
37;200
120,500
6,000
3.000
. '3,800
6.000
6.000
8~~
7,400
7;4()O
8,fIDQ ,
3;300
4.m
7,400.
8,200
7,400
19;300
s.ooo
29.800
357;100
119000
26;800
17;900
962.200 for waler infrastructure imnrovements
240,600 for storm sewer outflow reconstruction.
240 600 for the Peninsula at 6ayonne HarbOtWalf1r
, Infrastructure Imorovement PrOiec!
384 900 for the Combined Sewage Overflow
. Program
96.200 for wastewater infrastructure imorovements
288 700 for the Hackensack Meadowlands
, Ecosvstem Restoration
481,100 for water infrastructureimorovemeills
1 202 800 ~or water and wastewaler infrastryc1ure
, . Improvements . .
3,897,100
192,400 for storm water infrastructure imotCIvements
96,200 for upgrades to the waler and seplicu.
sYStems .. .
120,200 for water sYStem imorovements
192400 for water infrastructure improvementS'.
192 400 ~or water and wastewa!,er infras!nicture
, Imorovements . ..
288 700 for the Westem Ramapo sewer extension
. and water reuseoroiect -'
240.600 fot waslewaterlhfrastructure improvements
240,600 for wastewater Infrastructure imorovemenls..
288 700 for lhe Sanitary SeWer System InfraStri)(:ture.
. Development and Manaciement cirOiect
105,800 for sewer sYStem io'-orOvel1lerilS
144300 for the Phase 11 Storm Water Compila~
, Prooram .
240.600 for sewer overfJowsvstem imoroVemems
264,600 for awaler and sewerprojec;t
240.600 or the Plant No.3 overflow. retention facillh'-
lor Water infrastructure lmprovemet\lS
625.500
192,400 for sewer infrastructure imorovements
for wastewater li'1frastructure improvements
962,200 .
11,546,900 for continued clean water imorovements
3,849.000 lor the Eastside WaterTrealmentPrcliect
866 000 for construction of a waterline along North
, Geneva Road
577 300 water infrastructure improvements inlhe
. Town of Huron
3
292 ANI Drinking water infrastructure 4,000,000 32,000 119,000 3,849,000 in the New York City Watershed
needs
293 oao LonQ Island Sound. New York 4,000.000 32,000 0 3.968.000 for Waler aualitv infrastructure
294 GNK Jamesville, New YOOt seWer 1.000,000 8.000 29.800 962,200 for Water quality infrastructure
proiect imDrovemenls
295 GT7 Elbridoe, Town of 350.000 2,800 10,400 336,800 for the construction of a waterline
296 A5E Onondaga County of, 500,000 4,000 14,900 481,100 for water and wastewater infrastructure
DeDartment of Communitv imDrovements
297 GNG Cayuqa Counlv in VictoiV 500.000 4,000 14.900 481,100 for water infrastructure improvements
583 GCX Babylon. Town of 400.000 3,200 11.900 384,900 for the Oak Beach Park Slorrnwater
Manaoement Proiect
584 GYC Orange County Water. Authority. 300,000 2,400 8,900 288,700 for wastewater infrastructure Improvements
Goshen
585 GT9 Plattsburg. Town<>f 300,000 2,400 8,900 288,700 for wastewater infrastructure improvements
30 total 33,660,000 269,300 882,800 32,507,900
Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico for drinking water irifrastructure
366 GPG 4.000,pO{j 32,000 119,000 3,849,000 improvements to the Me1ropolitano
communitvwater svstem in San Juan
1 total 4,000;(100 32,000 119,000 3,849,000
Viroln Islands
Government of tile Vir9inlslands .. for wastewater infrastructure system
411 A80 250.000 2,000 7,400 240,600 improvements in 51. Croix
1 total 250,000 2,000 7,400 240,600
40 Region 2 Totals 41,960,O()O 335,700 1,129,700 40,494,600
~liih~1!;~1~~~ik~7~~ii R_~Uiny.~~J?-lr~j~tifi~-t;~~~~7;~.~~~;~, ~.~{~zt~.~ilj:J.~~~~ ~:'~F,~~ ~~~![if~~~ ~~i:t~!~~!{~t;:l~~W%~~~\~~~':~~;';j~~~~~1~~~~
District of COlumbIa
97 GSV District of ColLlmbla GOVernment 500,000 4,(01) 14,900 481,100 for drinking water infra!;tructurtl
imorovements to address lead problems
1 iotal 500,000 4,000 14,900 481,100
Delaware
I 98\OWO Wilminaton, Cilv of 400;000 3,200 11,900 384,900 for wastewater infrastructure imorovements.
I 4811owo Wilminaton 250,000 2,000 7.400 240,600 fot wastewater infrastructure Jmocovenients.
I 48:2I~XO Ocean VIew, Town. of 250,000 2,000 7.400 240600 fot wastewater infrastructure improvements
3 total 900,000 7;2(1() 26;700 866.100
Marvland .
-,
214 AW5 Salisburv, Citvof .. 250,000 . 2,000 7400 240,600 for wastewater infrastrUcture imorovements
215 QCP CambridQe, Cilv.of 250;000 2,000 7,400 240,600 for wastewater irifraslTucliueimorovemenls
216 COM Elkton.Cilv of 250 000 2,000 7,400 240,600 for wastewater infrastructure imprpverneiits
Prince George'$C9unty. .. for the !-ivable Community InltillUve In
217 GVT 100.0Qo 800 3,000 96.200 Brentwood, North 6ren~, Edmonston
. : and CottaoeCilv .
Prince George's:GOullty ; for the Anaeos\ia Trash Reductiori Program
216 GMR 250;~ 2,()~ 7,400 240,600 and Removal of Boatable T~h fl)r1h~
.. . Cities of BrenlwoOd ilndBiriKirlston
219 GMO YMCA CamoLetls.lriEdoewater 500;000 4,000 14,900 481,100 for Water infrastructure .lmprovllments ..
522 GOT ChesaoeakeBeach 250;000 2,000 7,400 240.600 for .Wastewater .lnfrastructure Irririr'ov8ments
523 COB Indian Head 250,009 2.000 7.400 240,600 for wastewater lnfrastruClUrillmlirovemen15
524 QQM Elkton 500;000 4;000 14,900 481,100 for. wastewaterinfrastrtlc:ture I!1ipl'Q\iil3rrienlS
525 005 HurlOCk 250;000 2,000 1.400 240.600 for Wastewater InfraslructUi'einillrovemertlS
526 GR1 Kent Island . 750 000 6.000 22.300 721.700 for.wastewater infraslructui'elmDrOvernents
527 GXX Easton 250;000 2.000 7400 240.600 for wasteWater infrastruCllJreirrillroverrietllS
528 GR4 Cumbel'land 750 000 6,000 22,300 721,700 for wastewater infr;lstructorelmpl'lM!ments
529 GQX Frostburo 500;000 4.000 14.90.0 481,100 for wastewater infrastructure. imriroverriertts
530GXY Brunswick 250.009 2000: 7,400 240,600 for wasteWater infrastrucl1!re ilnproVernents
15 total 5,350,OOP 42,tulO -158,900 5,148,300
Pennsvlval1la
3~ AN4 Allegheny County- 1.000,000 MOO 29.800 962,2QO tor the 3 RivetS Wet Weather
DernOOstration Project.
353 GWl Sharon. Citv of 100.000 800 3,000 96.200 for the Budd Street sewer line replacement
Philadelphia. City of to c;ontinue the planning; design, and
354 GP8 500,000 4.000 14,900 481,100 construction of innovative storin-vtater
management solulior1s
Cheltenham ,. ownship to continue the planning. de~, and
355 GE8 500,000 4,000 14.900 481.100 construction ofinnovalive storm-water
management solutions
Beaver Falls MUIlicipaJ Authority for wastewater infraslrutlureimprovements
356 QCS 250,000 2.000 7,400 240,600 to theSig Beaver Treatment FaciUty in Big
Seaver,
357 GPB Harrisburg, City of 250,000 2.000 7,400 240,600 for the Harrisburg Advanced Waste.....ater
Treatment Facilitv
358 QC2 Wyoming Valley Sanitary 350,000 2.800 10,400 336,800 for the Wyoming Valley Combined Sewer
Authority in wYominQ Valley Overflow Projectl .
STAG FY 05 List Final revised 2XLS
4
359 GPA Ugonier Townshio 200,000 1,600 6,000 192,400 for the Uaonier Townshio sewaQe proiect
GWr> South Hills Area Council of 250,000 2,000 7,400 240,600 for the South Hills Area. Storm Sewer
360 Governments Proiect in AlleghenY Countv
361 GWO Clarion Area Authority 250,000 2,000 7,400 240,600 for the Fifth Avenue seVlerfine replacement
oroiect in Clarion.. .
362 GP7 Nelson Township Authority 500,000 4,000 14,900 481,100 for water infrastructure improvements In
Nelson
363 QKG Lancaster, City of 250.000 2,000 7,400 240,500 for the water treatment membrane proiect
364 Gz.2 Yor1\ City Sewer Authori~ 200,000 1,600 6,000 192,400 for the Clean WOller Demonstration Project
inYorll
365 GG2 Kulpmont-Marion Heights Joint 500,000 4.000 14,900 481,100 for sewer infrastructure improvements
Municipal Authority in Kulpmont
609 GGF Municipalitv of Penn Hills 200,000 1.600 6,000 192,400 for the Madison Avenue StormSewei'
610 GYJ Nesquehoning Borough Authority, 200,000 1.600 6,000 192,400 for a water main replacement
Carbon Countv
611 GJD Mercer County Regional Council 200,000 1;600 6,000 192,400 for the Shenango Valley ~rNVater
of Govemments Imorovement Proiect . .
612 qYK Berwick. Industrial Development 200,000 1.600 6;000.. 192,400 for the sclnit~ry storm watersy~~m .
Association, Berwick
613 GRR Johnstown, City of 200.000 1,600 6,OQO .192,400 for water and sewer improvemenlsallhe
Point Stadium multi-usefadlllv.
Three Rivers Wet Weather . to develop innovative, cost~!fective
614 AN4 Demonstration programii'l 1,500.000 12,000 44,600 1.443,400 solutions to Olssist muhlc;ipanli(ls-lQeli1r1iOllte
A1leQheny County sewer overflows .. ..
61.5 QQC Derry Township Municipal 250,000 2,OQO. 7,4()0 240,600 for wastewater treatment planriJ~ades,
. Authority in HerShey . .... .
61'6 ..c. . Hermitage, City of City of Sharon; for Mercer County Sariltary$eWer.and
A~.. and Borouah of $ha.rllsville 250,000 2,000 7,40() 240,600 Water Treatment oroiecl . .
6.17 QKG Lancaster. City 01 250,000 2,000 7,500 240,500 for water infrasltucturemoro1ieri1erJt$
618 J;3BV Newport Borough Sewer Authority 250,000 2.000 7.40(! 240;600 for storm and sewer WaIer~paratlOi1
. ioNewoort
York City Sewer Authority in York . for wastewater coJlel;til;in$)i$~n) .
6in 9C1 250,000 2,000 7,40,!) 240,600 imorovemenls. . .. . .
6~O 13!iT Pocono Township in Tannersvllle 250,OQO 2;000 7.400 240,600 for the Route 611 Corridorsewer line
construction.: ..
.26 tOtal 9,100.000 72,800 ;l70,9qQ ~756,300
Vlralnla ... ....
.. 399 QC3,.. Smyth Countv ' .. 250.000 2,OQO ... .7,400 .., .. .240,600 .for Wastewater infraslructUreJmoroyerilenls
.... 400 GX1". Hanover County .. 300,000 .. 2,400 ...... .8;900 ". .. 288,700 for wastewater infrastruClure'linoriWernents.
.. Fauquier County for a sewage treatme[it,plclrif!o;1JW.
401 9ffl:i ... 150.000 1~20Q 4.500 ... ..144,300 CaUeWCalverton area. . ... ....
;4.()2 QMP Dale Service Corporation irJ. Dale 750,000 6,000 .22,399 721,700 for wastewater infraslr'llttlira. k1}~ElUl~~'
ICitY
403. GPP Isle ofWiQht Countv , 100,000 . 800 3,000 .. 96,200 for water infraSltuctUiehniiltS...
A04 G)(2 Halifax. Town of 500.000 4;000 14;900 ,.. .481 100 for water infrasltuctureJmt ertts..
405 oce Franklin Countv 1,000,000 8000 '29,aQO 962,200 for water infrasltucM'BJri'iiiDv .1$' .
.406 QCX Auvanna County 500.000 4,000 14;900 481,100 for waterinfraslructureiriil royei'ileritS...
407 GX3;.. Brooknea Town of 1,000,000 8.000 ..29;800 ... ,. '.962,200 for water infrasltuctiJre:'ln1i rovemelits' ......
Nelson County ,. for water and wasteWat~.infrai.\i:Ul:;tj.ire
41>8 QsR.. I,. 218,000 1 ;'7CO 6;5:00 .. 209,800 imorovements ., ..'..,....;::... ... .
409 ooU. toPillsvlvanlaCountv .+. 682;000 5,500 20,300. .. "656,20() tor water inft'astructureiri'iOl'O\ll'neolS ..
,.., Eastern Shore. qf Virginia Public ... ...... .". ~ for wastewater infrasti\JgiJil(l~iJt~
410 98$. Service Authority in 200.000 1.600 6;@ 192.400 ..,
..... NortI1hampton COUnty ..
Alexandria. City 6fVirginia al1d .. MOP for water infrastructui'8unproviill:!)entS,i(i.tl'!e
412 <JT2. Arfinaton Countv . ..... ... 1,000;000 29,800 962,200 Four Mile Run waterShed . ..
Fairiax County Waler AuthoritY ..' for the drinking wat!lrti:lfra$ltll$~
.~9 A1F 4oo,OQO 3.200 11.9OQ 384,900 improvements associated~WitIl:theEIildriC
., Rerrabi6ty project. ,.'... ~
.... .
650 OCG. Caroline COunty 300,000 2.400 8;9001. 288,700 for the Dawn Wasteyr.Jlet.Tre~tmenrDr0i6et
65:1 9YV Norfolk, City of '400;0(j~ 3.200 11;900 384,900 for the Norfolk sewer ai1~W.a:te( .
Infrastructure Replace(nlinf .....
1~toial 7,750,000 62;000 230,800 ... 7,457,200
West Virainla
427 o.TA KClnawha County Commisslon. 200,000 1,600 !>,CiOO 192,400 for the Upper FishetSBraiiChlGuthrieWater
Kanawha COunty Project . .. .. .... .
428 GPv Braxton County Development 200.000 1;600 6.000 192.400 for the Curry Ridge WaterLiIieExtensiOn
Authority Development Authority . .
429 GOD Marshall County Public Service 1,000,000 8;000 29;800 962,200 for water and wasteVr.iterinfrastructui'e
District #4 improvements . .. ..
430 GPX Jane Lew Public Service District 100,000 800 3,000 96,200 for water and wastewater
in Hamson Cou~ty
431 OPZ Ple:lsanlS County Public Service 1,500,000 12,000 44,600 1.443.400 fUt waler and wastewaterinlraslnJclure
District improvements
STAG FY 05 List Final revised 2-XL$
--. - -- --- ------- --
5
432 GX8 Grant County Commission 480.000 3,800 14,300 461,900 to extend water service to the Deep Spring
area
Shinnston. City of - for water and wastewater infrastructure
433 GPW 900.000 7.200 26,800 866,000 improvements
434 GX9 Pine Grove. Town of 750,000 6,000 22,300 721.700 for water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements
435 G01 Fairmont Sanitary Sewer Board 1,000,000 8,000 29,800 962.200 for water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements
436 GEG Petersburg, City of 2,374,000 19.000 70,600 2,284,400 for water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements
437 GXB River Road Public Service District 101,000 800 3,000 97,200 to extend water service on National Church
Hollow Road
438 G03 T aylorCounty Public Seivice 935,000 7.500 27,900 899,600 for water and wastewater infrastructure
District improvements
439 GQ4 Taylor County .commission 833,000 6.700 24,800 801,500 for water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements
4-40 GXA Cameron, City of 1,000,000 8,000 29.800 962,200 for water and wastewater infrastructure
improvemants
441 G02 Hammond Public Service..Dislrict 55.000 400 1,700 52.900 for tha t.azear's Lane water proJect
Canaan Valley Institute. 10 work in conjunctionwiththll HiQhlandS
442 GXC 1,840,000 14,700 54.800 1,770.500 Action Program for an InnovatiVe:
wastewater demonslrationprogr;m1 in
Canaan Vaneyin Tucker CoUnty
16 total 13,268,1>00 106,100 395,200 12,766,700
n Region 3 Totals 36,868,000 294,900 1,097,400 35,475.700
Rii6lb'~~~l~~%.:~t~_~*~'~~~;1!f! ~l4i~~~~~~- ~~!J;~~'\W~ ij~$1~~~~~l,~ ;~~11~~4~h7ilit~- ,~~f~f,~t~~~~,~:;~t.~:-~-!.t~~~~~l!i;~~~~~~)~,!
Alabama
I 11GKL Falkville, City of ' 400,000 3,200 11,900 384,900 for sewer Infrastructure improvements;
2 GUJ Albertville, Citvof c. 750,000 6000 22.300 721,700 for sewer infrastructureimcrtivemelils:
3GKN Boldo, City of 180,000 1.400 5.400 173.200 for water infrastructure imorovements
4 GUl Addison. City of' 200.000 1.600 6,000 192,400 for sewer infrastructure ImprovementS
5 GKP Lamar County 220,000 1,800 6.509 211.700 for infrastructure Improvements to the
Lamar County Reservoir .
6 GUK Arlev, City of 350,000 2.800 10,400 336.800 fo~ water infrastruttureim:tlr'Ovemellls
7 QMR Eva, City of' 200,000 1600... 6.000 192,400 for sewer infrastructure1mDrovements
8 QEU Guin, Citvof 200,000 1.600 .. 6.000 192,400 for water infrastructure Inil:ifovemenls
9 QPB Phil Camobell, CitVof 250,000 2;000 7,400 240,600 for walerinfrastructure iml'lrcivemei'lts.
10 QDY Blount County . .. 500.000 4,000 ". . 14,900 481.100 for water infrastructureimnrovenientS
..
11 GKT DeKalb.Jac)(SailWai",SuppfY. 500.000 4,000 14,900 481,100 for constniction of a Wat.ertrealrilent plant
District in Ider:. . .
<3T2 Fort Payne ... ..,.. 150,000 1,200 for a pump stational WillSValleylhduslrial
12 4;@O 144,300
. Park ..
13 GUM Helena Utility:eoardln J-leleria 250,000 2,000 7,400 240,600 for sewer infrastructure ImllfQve.ments
14 OES Jackson, CitY of " 250,000 2,000 , 7;4po 240,600 for water and wastewalerinfraSb:ucliire
. . :"' imcrovements . '.
15 QNS Athens, elt... .of . 200,000 1,600. 6,000 192,400 forwaslewater infrastructure.lmpt'OV'ements
16 QHC Lawrence Countv . 500,000 4,000 .' 14,900 481,100 forlhe6ankhead FOfllslWater PrOlact
17 QEK Huntsville, CitvOf .. 250,000 2,000 7.400 240,600 for waterlnfrastructllre ~ments
Hartselle Utilities . ... , for wastewaterinfras~JInpi'oVements
18 GE9 400,PQO 3;200. 11 ;9QP 384,900
.. .,. ir'l Hartselle
Harvest.MortroviaWater;Sewer. for a master plan to Bccomp1ishlhe
19 (3KR and fire Prot~ij 100,000 800 3.090 96,200 estabflshment of a sewe(systeffiWitf1in the
.,.,... . service area
.. Limest()neCourlty W;1Wa~ for water infrastructure Improvemellls
20 QER Sewer AuthoritY. .. .. . 3oo,ooQ 2,400 8,900 288,700
21 QUe Waterworks Boaids()fth~ToWns 400,00(1 3.2000 11,900 384,900 for waterinfrastnJcture Impn:lVerne$
of Section .al1dOullon
22 GT3 Scottsboro Water\yoik$.~er. 500.000 4.00() 14.900 481.100 for CQIlstructlon and JWabilitalion ora
and. Gas BoartlbtSctiitsbOi:O. sanitarY sewer collectiOn syStem
Sheffield, City of . for water and waslewater lnfrasliucl.ure
23 GKZ 600.000 4,sOO 17.900 577,300 improvements
24 CEO West Morgarl-Easttawrence 200,000 1.600 6,(i00 192,400 for water and wastewater system
Water and Sewer Authoritv infrastructure improVements
25 AQ3 Jackson County 50,000 400 1.500 48,100 for water and wastewater infrastnJcture
improvements
26 COG Muscle ShoalS, City of 400,000 3,200 11.900 384,900 for water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements
27 GKW Community of Overtook Hills in 100,000 800 3,000 96.200 for wastewater infrastructure improvements
Dallas County .
28 QP3 Fulton. Town of 100,000 800 3.000 96,200 to construct a wastewater treatment facility
2S GKX Red Level. Town of 150,000 1,200 4,500 144,300 for Phase" water infrastructure
improvements
STAG FY 05 List Final revised 2.xLS
6
30 GKU VaJJey~ City of 150,000 1,200 4.500 144,300 to purchase Langdale Mill and Fairfax
Utilization Plan I
GUO Mmerville WC!ler' Authority (Clay 100.000 800 3.000 96,200 for water infrastructure improvements iei
31 CountYCommissjOo) MilIerville
32 GL1 Smiths Station Water Authority 200,000 1,600 6,000 192,400 for waterinfrastruclure imnrevements
Piedmont. City of Water and UliIilies Board to extend water
33 GKY 30.000 200 900 28,900 lines to the Terrapin Cove/BordenSprings
area in Clebume County
OLB Coosa valley water Supply 800.000 6,400 23,800 769.800 for development ofa surface water supply in
444 District SI. Clair Countv.
445 GOS Utilities Board of the City of 750.000 6.000 22.300 721,700 for water and sewer upgrades and
HeleOa . . construction
446 G07 Clebume County Commission in 600.000 4,800 17.900 577.300 for county water expansion in Cleburne,
Heflin Countv
447 GXO Randolph County Commission in 60.0.000 4,800 17 ,900 577,300 for county water expansion in RarJdolph
VVeidoWee County
448 Ooy ale.:!i'lt County Water Authority in 450,000 3.600 1;3.400 433,000 for development of a county water supply
One<>nta fine
449 GXG Fortf>ayne. City of 750..0QO 6.000 22,300 721,700 for water and sewer improvements in fort
. .' _. Payne . . .. . .
Wl;lstMorg;loJEastLawrence for water and sewer improvemenls
450 GXE Water arid Sewer Authority in 250,009 2,000 7,400 240.600
DeC<ltut. ..
451 GXF lillnai' County Commission in 300;000 2.400 8,900 288.700 for the Lamar County Water Supply Project
venion
41 total 13;630,000 109,QOO 406.000 13,115.000 .
GeOroJil
130 GV:2 A1banv;GitVof 900,000 7.200 26.800 866.000 storm water infrastructure Imorovements
131 GLY ArTlericus; City of 400,000 3.200 11,900 . 384,900 for sewer serYice exoansion
132 GV~ Atlali~.Oi~of 1,Ooo.OQO 8.009 29.800 962.200 forthe McDaniel Basin Cotribiried$ewer
OlierfloWSeoaration oroiecf . .. .
134 GLX Plairis,CitV:;Of 250,000 2,000 7.400 -240 600 for waterJnfraslructure imoJ'OVem$l'Its- .
135 GLV ~arqrc:le; c:ityOf 100;000 . 800 3,000 96.200 for waler and Wastewater infrastructure
moro~~ts .. .
136 G~ Thomasville. OilV of . 100;000 800 3,000 96.200 for extension of Sewer lines
137 GLU MC:lI.iIlrie/CilYOf. . 150,000 1,200 4'500 144.300 for. wastewater infrastructure imorovements
131l GY~ ::;\!lJ}!fiei'Y~le. .Cilyof t50.00q 1.200 4.500 144,300 for w;ater and wastewater lrifraslructure
lri'ioroiteme;'ils .
GI.z P91"GqIi?~ 200;OO!) .. forlhePolK County wastewatei'CoIlectiOO
139 1.600 . 6;000 192.400 System . . . .. . .
140 AXX R6svven:CitYof 250,000 2;000 '7.400 . 240,600 for the BkfCreek WatershBdproiElct:_ _
141 QKU, Atlanta.Onv Of 150,000 6,000 .22.300 721,700 for wastewaterilifrastruclure 1rri6rovementS
142 GlU MOUltrie/City Of 750;000 .. 6,000 22.300 :c' 721,700 for wastewaterl"fi'aStrucluteirriotClVei'n&nts
.. .. ~~~~t1~rth Geotgia for wate(intrasbilctureimprovementsln
143 9~ 700,Q(j9 5.600- 20,800 .613,600 NOrth AtlciritaMetrooofatan Area .
Byrtmit::!ti;Of --'" . .. for water iIDdwaslewater il'lfrasti\JctlJi'e
144. qvj- 15p;00!> 1~qq , 4,500 .. .144.300 imorOvenleOts -. .
-.- ,.,.
,~~y..,.. S.()(:ial~if<;I.,Cl~of '. 7.400. . .. forwater..3nd-wastewater .infrastfui;tur'e
14? .., .. :Z!W,;Q(!g 2.000 240,600 imo'rovemenls ..... ..... .
. .
486 GDS ,. Atlilma;.CitV of - ,250,000 2.000 7AOO 240,600 for the west area .combined sewer,or'oiect'..
4SZ GQK EalQi'ilOi1;,Citv of. . . 25Q,OOO 2;000 -7;400 - . 240;600 forwasteYialerinfrastrUCtUrfiIrriPtOVementS
488 GEe F<!~~;Cilyof . ......2~,OOO, . . ,2;OOQ 7,400 :240;600 for was~ewaler InfrastnlCllJreilTlp~~ts ....
.18 t6lar ~;8~,~ 54-,80CI .203,800 -~.591,400
. .-. FlOi'lda, .. .. .
..n Ta.fIi<i.ilSprings.<:;ity of -- for water an~ wa~ewaleritlf~~V'ui;tl,lra
99 oijO ...
2~()io.@ 2,Q9Q 7.40() 240.600
imProvements ..
100 GlL . GaineSVille. OilY Of . 200..0.00 1'600 6,000 192,400 for the deD()t reaional stOl'l'Tl water Dark
., Q@soPUl1ty for the Chassahowitzka Area WasteWater.
101 am 250.bOt) 2;QqO 7,400 240.600 CoUectionand 'DrlnkingWaler Distribution
.. SyStem .. . . . ... .. ..,
102 OEM HiUsbpltlugh COunty . ~OO .QQ.(J 1.591) 6.0qe 192,400 for the HiJ1s9orou9h CouiltyAllematiye
WaterSllnnlies--Phase III ...
103 Gl!l .. ..: MiaiTIFBeach, .CilY Of 750,000 6,000 22.300 .721,700 for.stOl'm YiaterTnfraslructurelnilirovements.
104 QWS KeyWest.:Citvof 250;000 2,000 ,. 7,400 240,600 for slormwater infraslrucfureiiftDrOv~nts
. 105 au Pemroke Pines. CilV of 200;00() 1.600 6,000 . 192;400 for water treatment exoansion
106 GIN H(Jri:Jeste<ld, City of .254>;00.0 2,000 7.400 240.600 for water 3.nd wastewater infrastructure
imoltlvermmts . . . .. . .
s<>uthseminole & North Orange for the replacement of wastewaler pipes and
107 GLM CountyWaslewaler Transmission 150.000 1.200 4.500 144,300 mechaoiC<l1 equipment . .
AuthOrity
108 GLK SOuthwest FloridaWaler 200,000 1,600 6.000 192,400 for the Peace River & MyakkaRiverWater
Management District Initialive in Polk County
109 GUG Wellington. Village of 300.000 2,400 8.900 288.700 for the reconfiguration of storm waler
system project
110 GLO Sarasola, County of 350.000 2,800 10.400 --:-336,800 for wastewater infrastructureimDrovements
STAG FY 05 List Final revised 2.XLS
111 GUN
112 GLS
113 GFY
114 GLP
115 QDV
116 QLY
117 GUX
118 GUZ
119 GLR
120 GLT
121 GUY.
122 GLQ
.
123 C?EW
124 AY6
125 GZg
126 GHv
127 QDT
...
128 GV1
.
129 GLW
483 QWS
484 G:?<P
485 AY6
34 tolilJ
. .:
195 GMG.
196 GVQ
.197 GMF
1.98 ove
199 GML
200 GMI1
20'l~;
2()2GMf\!
203,9f<,M
204 GMM
505 ax,V
506 GG4
.
507GOR
508 GQN
509 GXT
510 GOP
511 GXV
512 GQW
18 total
241 GMS
242 GVY
243 GMX
Rivera Beach, Citvof
Windennere. Town of
Miami Gardens, Cily of
Bunnell. City of
Sl Johns County
Escambia County Utility Aut/Joiity
Davenoort, CitV of
Lakeworth. CitY. of ..
Davie, aN of
South Central Regional
Wastewater Treatment and
Disposal Board .
Starke,Citvof
Osceola Countv'
SI. Johns Rivei' Water
ManaClementDiSbict
Soulhwesl.Flori<!aWaler
ManaoemenwiStrict ...
Southwest Florida Water..
ManaoemenloiStnCt
Southwest Florida Waler
ManaQement District
Clearwater.' City of
Tampa, City of .. ....
.... ..
Treilsure Island;CitVof
Kev West, CiNof
SoiJth F1oridaWater:MallagElmen
District bkeReciioriWiltlii: . .
Treatment Plant .. ..
SouthWestFloridawa~ ..
ManagemeritbistriCtin TamPa.
Kentuckv,
North MiddletOWl);Tewnof ......
Sheohlmlsville,CltVot> ' .
Hillview,. CitY. of..:;c, ,:
Louisville! J effei"$or!'Couritj'.. ..
Metrotx:ilit3ii'seviei'ciistriCt' :
Louisville/Je(f~~l).~ntY.
Metrooofltan'8ewer'Oistiltf.
LouisVlllerJeffEl~()~:Cop!1!y'
Metroocilitansewer'Olstnct
WhltesbuTSJ.Citi~... .
.. ......
peny Countyfis<;aJ~'!!1
Hazard . .....
Morehead, CityOf .....
Jamestown.CitVof
Bowlit:1g Green,q'tyOf,
Hardin County'Vl'?l~rDi$tri~;tr-lo~
2inHilroinCOOnN.... ..... .........
City of Elklon. Kentucky . ...
:
Breckinr'idQeCOuntV ....
l3ullilt CoUntY .. '
Callowav COunty .. ... . ....
Cadiz-TrioO Countv
Marshall County
Mlsslssicol
Mississippi Band.ofChoC~w
Indiilns, Neshoba COuntY
Lamar County
.
Belmont, atv or
STAG FY 05 List Final revised 2.xLS
200.000
200,000
250,000
200,000
500,000
250,000
350,000
200,000
200.000
300,000
300,000
500,000
2.500.000
4;000,000
1,200,000
300,001)
.5OO,dOCl
1 ;300.000
500;000
300.000
~
300.000
'250.000
.11,~50.00Cl
.
150,000
..100,000
...100,000
55D.ClOo
. .225,000 .
,.
225,000
70(),OOO
.... 1;200,000
tOO.()OP
150,000
2,000;000
750.(){)O
500.000
,250,000
250,000
250.000
250,000
250,000
8,000,000
200,000
300,000
500,000
534;400
.:.
4.500 .....144.300 forwalerandseweritriorovemelits
3;000 ..:.. '96.200 for stormWatercomPl1anca.:,'"
..3.000 ......... .96,200 fortheHiII\tjewStOrm~t:compliaiit;e..
'1~.499 .......... ...529,200 ~a:tniCtagtavity,,jnte,r~p~~~
6,7...00 '. '216.500 foi'.wast~tei'ir1fJ:as~lmpi'OVemenlS
. ..... .' In Beecl1WpodVII!iroe:" ........ -
216 500 forwaSteYiaWlnr~ti'\ic:l:\,!rij(iJi)~r:oyetnents
. ' at Canoe.lane. ,'.' . . . .:... '
20;800 . .,673,600 for cOnsfruc:tklr1ora.was~~~ ~nl .
.. :. .:.;. "" :".. plant u.. ..
35700 .. ... 1154 700 forthetqrJstJl!djonOf~Wa,ste~
.... ,.:. .... treattnentolant ".. ..: ......... .
~A<w. ..... 96,200 :S~:,:~~~:=':;i()r!~rji
4;500144,300 for theW3ter treaIn1Emtblai'lt,:,
59 500 I 1924.500 for tha;t)l?UthCeJ1~I\<S!ltucIo/V{C\ter
... ...' ,. . InficisliuctureP;:oJect,....... . .
22.300 -721,700 ~~_~a~~~~li~~~l8iriliitl
~Y>>' .. .. . .
481 100 for.. the. ~er p. ",Iiln ...t' ,~p<!!1siOl1..3fld.$eWer
.. Line Extensiont-'l"OieCt
..240.600 for waterinfrasltUetUi'ff'imt}rciVements
240,600 forwaslewaterinfrastnlctureimprovements.
. 240,600 for tne Citvi:lfHazelWasle:Watel'SYStem
240,600 for Waler' infraslruclurejmorriitel'l1enls
240 600 !or drinking. watericlraStriidui'e
, Improvements .
7,69B,OOO
1.600
1,600
2,000
1.600
4,000
2,000
2,800
1.600
1,600
2,400
2,400
4.000
20,000
32.000
9,600.
2.400
4.000
10,400
4,000
2,400
2.400
2,000
143.600
1,200
'800
800
4,400 ..
1.800
1;800
5.600
9,600
800
1.200
16,000
6.000
4,000
2.000
2.000
2,000 --.-
2,000
2.000
64.000
1,600
2.400
4,000
6,000
6,000
7,400
6,000
14,900
7,400
'10,400
6.000
6,000
8,900
8,900 ....
14,900
74.~OO
119,000
35,100
6,~
14;9i:iQ
38,700
14 ;900
9,nOO ....
..
7,~
. ~.'tO.~
14,9O(J
7,400
7,400 . ..
,7,400
7;40Q
7,400
.. .
2$8,000
6,000
6.900
14,900
7
192,400 for the storm water manaaement Dlan
192,400 for storm water manaoement imorovemenls
240600 for water, wastewater, slormwater;and
, sewer infrasliutture improvements
192 400 for lhe WaSleYiater Col~tioJ:1. Treatment
, and Disoosal System Rehabilitation Proiect
481 100 for the College Park Drainage Improvement
. Pro1ect In Wesl Auoustine
for Wastewater 1 reatrnentlWater
240,600 Reclamation Partnership in:Escar'nbia
County ...
336,800 for wastewater infrastructure improvements
192,400 for water infrastruclvreimorovei-nents.
192,400 forwatermainreolacel'lient
for the 1 00% Waslmva~rRE!use Project in
288,700 the CiUes ofDeiray BeaCh llndBpyflton .
Beach
288,700 for the Water QtiilfitVlr'llDroVerJientPtciQram
481.100 for drninaoe bilsiriimorovei'riEirifs
2 405 600 for waterir1fr;lslruchJ,Il!!mprpiie~n\s 11l
. ... , Central and EastFlOrlda .
3.849000 for continuation Qf~Ta!npaJ:l!lyReservoir
. .. Proie.cl ..
1.154 700 for Tampa Bay ~~'~i~~.vyat9J:~
, . Downstream AucunentatlonPrcileCt:
288700 for lhePea~River~f)d"'~~k~:RiVer
, WatershedRestoraliot'lJOItiallV8.
.- 481'100 -for,'the ~~S~~ef~.~ncrReC;1aitr~.e~:r'Water.
. " InfrastructurePriifect . .
1,250,900 for sedii-nentrernovaIJr;omestua~esOf!he
.. headWaters at~ canalS. ..
481,100 for wastewater ancfs1lwei: svstemuoorades
288,600 forstormwater.irifra$trUcttJre.iri'll)~
for water imprQvEll!'lerlW
.."288,700 ' .
240.500 for the, Tampa e.ay~e51ionaIReclaiJiied
. waterorolect.. . ....-,.: ...
1.7;272,000 ; . ..
192 400 for an Academic_Wetlands andWellands
, MjtioalionProiect
288 700 ~or water and sewer infrasltuclure
, Improvements
481,100 for wastewater infrastructure improvements
8
244 GMW Pontoloc, Citv of 500,000 4.000 14.900 481.100 for waslewater infrastructure imorovements
QW2 Tchuta 500,000 4,000 14,900 481,100 for waler and sewer infrastructure
541 improvements
542 G'r'2 Brookhaven. City of 500,000 4,000 14,900 481,100 for wastewater infrastructure improvements
GR6 Sherman, City of 500,000 4,000 J4,900 481.100 for water and sewer infrastructure
543 improvements
G'r'3 Oxford, City of 1,300,000 10,400 38,700 1,250.900 for water and sewer infrastructure
544 improvements
FOrest. City of 750,000 6,000 22,300 n1,700 for water arid sewer infrastructure
545 GHH improvements .
546 GR5 French Camp, Town of 250,000 2,000 7.400 240,600 for wa.ter and sewer infrastructure
imorovements
10 total 5,300.000 42,400 157.800 5.099,800
North Carollna
298 GWA Landis. Town of. 250.000 2,000 7,400 240,600 for water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements
HameU County, to instaU pump stations and a forcemain as
299 GNL 200;000 1,600 6.000 192,400 part of a central wastewater trea~nl
rehabilitation oroiect .
300 GNJ Towns of BiscOe,$tar. and.Trov 200.000 1,600 6,000 192,400 for the Montooment Countv SewElr Proiect
301 GWe Towns of Hamlel"ROcldnahiim 200..000 1,600 6,000 192,400 for wastewater infrastructure imoto\leinents
302 GNF Famwille, Town of 200.000 1,600 6,000. 192,400 for wastewater infrastructure iinprovemenls
303 GWC Cities of East Ari::adia. Bolton and 150,000 1.200 4,500 144.300 for a regional waler system
Sandvfield .
304 GNH Wendell. Town 'of 200.000 1,600 6,000 192.400 for the Buffalo Creek Interceotor proiect
305 All. ChaHotte,CllYof 250,000 . 2,000 7,4.00 240,600 for the wastewater blanl exoansion
306 GTB Aoex. Town of . 200,000 1,600 6,000 192.400 for wastewater Infrasti'ucture Improvements
Wake County . for water infrastructure Improvf:lments.ln
307 GNR 1,500.000 12,000 44,600 1,443.400 cooperation with the Town or C8ryand
. Durham County
308 Ql,.8 Orange County SOO,OOO 4,OQO 14,SOQ 481,100 for water and wastewater infrastructure
. ImProvements .
309 GNN Orange Water andSeWi;lt 650,000 5,200 19;300 625,500 fora water reuse project.
Authoritv (OWASA)
310 Gf;T HillSbOrough, Town of 2oo,OOl) 1,600 . 6,000 192,400 for water and wastewater Infrastructure.
imoto\lements. .
311 GNM Eastern Band ofc:tie(Okee 880,000 7,oop 26,200 846,800 for water infrastructure. improvemi;lnts'in
Indians Cherokee
312 GNP McDOwell CoUntY 1,000,000 8,000. 29;80.0 962,200 for water infrastructure. jmnroveinenls
313 GV4 East Soencen'. Town of 100,000 800' 3,000 .. 96,200 for water and. sewer rehabilitation oi'oieCt
586 GRM WashinotonCOllnlV 500;000 4,000 - - 14.900 481,100 sewedmorovements
587 apw MooresviUe.Ci!.Ycof 600,009 4,800, 17~900 577,300 for water infrasti'ucture improvemeJiI$
1B tQJaf 7.780,OQO 62,200 .",. 231.900 7,485,900
South Caronna.
370 GWO . Lake. CIty of 250,()OO MOO for water and wastewater infrasti'uc:tllnt
2,OOR 240,600 imon:ivemeriis :
Mount PleasanlWalerWoikS .. forlheMQunl Pleasant WaterWi;itksRural
371 ORA 150,000 1. .2OQ 4,5,0(:1. 144.300 Roads GravitY Waslewater'Extens!()f)'
Proiecl
Qax Myrtle Beac1t~ . . for a new slOnn water drainag~. sy$rn
372 .. ... Redevelopmenl(;OiDoration 5OO.QOl) 4,QCiQ 14;$Q() 481,100
373 GPe Towns 01 Olat' and Govan 750,000 6,000 ... 22,300 721,700 for water infrastrUcture iinDrovemElnts
Wellford. city. of ,. Of sewerlWastewaterlnlraSliuctiJre
374 GPE 300.000 2,400. a.wo. 288,700
.' improvements
375 GWR Chester CounlY~wer Dislrict 400.000 3.200 11,900 ~84.900 for wast~ter infrastructurejmpro,!ernents
in Lando .
376 GPD Rkloeland. Towilof 200,000 1.UO.0 &,OOQ 192,4QO for the Waoon Branch Water ProJect
628 GYM ChartestonCI"W' 250,000 2,000 7.4QO 240,600 for a Wastewater Tunnel Replllcern(lnl
ProleCt .
Kershaw COllllt}t, Ksn;hawJor the 1-20 Corridor InfrasWcture
629 G~Y 250,000 2.0OQ ?,4PO 240.600 Project~WasteWater Treaiment Piant
ExoanSlon
630 GYQ Chester Sewer Dis.trict 800.lioo 6,4(jo 23,800 769,800 for water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements
631 QW6 Ker$haw County 1,000,000 8.000 29,800 962.200 for wastewater infrastructure Improvements
11 total 4,850,000 38.800 144 30Q 4,666 900
Tennessee
377 9P9 Franklin, City of . 125,000 1,000 3,800 12t) ,200 for water system improvements to the
Watson Branch Watershed
378 GWS Pikeville, City of 150.000 1.200 4,500 144,300 for the PikevillelBledsoe County Water
Improvements Proiect
Hampton UliIity District In LIttle for water infrastructure improvements
379 GWW Milligan/Fish Springs Community, 125.000 1,000 3.700 120.300
Caner County
STAG FY 05 Ust Final revised 2.xLS
9
380 GGE Tusculum. City of 125,000 1,000 3,700 120.300 for first construction phase of a wastewater
treatment plant
381 GVN Bean Stalion, City of 50,000 400 1,500 48,100 for wastewater infrastructure imorovements
382 GPI Roane County 100.000 800 3,000 96,200 for water infrastructure improvements
383 GPK Sprino Cily 200,000 1,600 6.000 192,400 for water and sewer line replacement
384 GWU Anderson County 250,000 2,000 7,400 240,600 for water infrastructure improvements
385 GPH Dayton, citY of 400,000 3,200 11,900 384,900 for flocculalionand seltlino basins
637 GRU Pikeville, and Bledsoe County, 750,000 6,000 22,$00 721,700 for water infrastructure Improvements
City of Pikeyille
638 OEP Watauga River Regional Water 500,000 4,000 14.900 481,100 for planning and construction of re9ional
Authori1v, Carter County water infrastructure facilities
639 GRW Walden's Ridge Water System. 750,000 6.000 22,300 721,700 for watednlrastructure improvements
Hamilton County
12 tolal 3,525,000 28,200 105,000 3,391,800
162 Region 4 Totals 67,885.000 543.000 2,021,200 65,3:20.800
~ ::'~'i';J'i~H~tWi~~~t~~r R~gJP:fi.'~:1f;iftt,::,h;:;0;S'~i1;~~t fAe}i~li#~1~ ~~~t~1?m ~!i~'il~r1~;~ ~1fM!4;~~Rft~~~~ri-~~~ ::~'~~~7/r~~~-~r~';.'?i-'f:{:4:Wl~~~~W:2t~Ji~t~t~~.:u-~
lIiinols .
152 GM4 Lockport, City of 15O,oO~ 1,200 4.6,00 144,200 for water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements
153 A2T Johnsburo, Villaoeof 450,000 3,600 13,400 433.000 for wastewafer infrastructure improvements
154 OV4 Lake County Storm 'Hater. . 300,000 2,400 8,900 288,700 for the Lake County Watershed Plan in Lake
Manaoement CommunitY County .
155 GVC SHvis, City elf 200,000 1,600 6,000 192,400 for water infrastructure improvements
156 GVB Newark, Villaoe of 200,000: 1,600 6,000 192,400 for wastewater infrastructure imnroverrients
157 GM6 Paw Paw. 200.000 1,600 6,000 192,400 fOr cOnstruction of an elevated.water
storage tower
158 GVD Annawan, Village.of 200,OpO 1,600 6,000 192,400 forwatei' and wastewaler infrastructure
improvements .
GT6 Salt Creel<. Sanitary District in .'. for 'Hater.and wastewater infrastructu.i'e
159 Villa Park 650.000 5.200 19,400 625,400 imorovements . .. .
160 GM5 Villaoeof EaSt Hazel CreSt 300.000 2,400 8.900 288,700 for water infrastructure imorovel11ents ,.
161 GVE LexinQton, Citv of 200,000 1,600 6,000 192,400 for wastewater infrastructure imDI'OVements.
162 A90 Lake County 400,000 3,200 11.900 384 ,900 for wastewater infrastructure jmpi'o~nts.
on the Des Plaines River ...
163 OU6 Peoria, Cltvof 500,000 4,000 14;900 481,100 for slormwater manaoemenl.
164 <3""9 Banorwille. VilIageof 54~;sp~ 4,300 16,200 522,000 for storm sewer improvements in
8roadm(lO( HeiClhts .
165 GM6 Arenzvme, Villaqe of 500,000 4.000 14,800 481200 for water infrastructure imDrovemeht$':
165 GVF Aroenta, Viliaoe or 500,000 4,000 14,800 481,200 for waler infrastructure imrfrovemenlS' .. .
167 GM7 North Pekin, Villaoe.of 500;000 4,000 14,800 481,200 for water infrastructure improi!emeiit$' .. ., "
168 GVH Sprino Vallev,.Cltvof 351;500 2,900 . 10,700 343,900 for water infrastructure. improvements
169 OV5 Viroinla.Citv.of 250,000 2,OQO 7)100 240.600 forwaler infrastructure Impro\llilments
nit GVG Pek.in. City of 500;000 4,000 14;900 481,100 wasteWater infrastructiJreimon:iVE!ments
171 OXN Lincoln, City' of 250.000 2,000 7.;400 240,600 to repair and slip line PulaSki Stteets~
line . ...
172 ORB La Granoe, YiUaoe or 350,000 2,800 10400 33$,80'0 f<< water infrastructure improVements'.'
173 ClSN Fox River Grove. Village of 550,O()() 4.400 16,400 529,200 f<< Phase Usewer plant InfrastJ:Uctur:e
improvements . . .
174- QXY $llelbvville, Citv of 250,000 2,000 7,400 240.600 for wastewater infrastructure Improvements
175 OMY Breese, City of .,. 250.000 2,000 7,400' 240,600' for construction of the. Breese WailirPlant
176 GMB Mazon, Viltaoe of 100,000 800 3000 96,200 for water infrastructure Imorovemerils
177' GMA WiD County 2OO,6(jO 1,600' 6.000 192,400 for the feasibility study for 5ar)ltaryalSlric:t
exoanslon
493 ~ Effingham, CityOl 5OO'~OOO .. for drin!<ing water infrastructure
4,000 14,900 481,100 improvements
494 QFA Monmouth. Cltv of 500,0'00 4,000 14,900 481,100' for wastewater infrastructure imoroVements.
495 GOL Olympia Fields, Viltageof 500;000 4,000 14,900 481,100 for waslewaterlnfrastructure Improvements
Franklin Park; Village of . for water and wastewater.infrastructuAt
496 GDF SOO,OO() 4,000 14;800 481,200 improvements ., . .... .
3() total 10,85.0,000' 86 800 323;1 no 10,440 100'
Indiana
Marion, City of for water infrastructure improvenlents
178 GVJ 300,000 ' 2.400 8;~O' 288,700 associated with the Water Loop project in
Grant County
Crawford, City of for the design and constructionph~Of
179 GMD 20'0.000 1,60'0' 6.000 192,400 the Crawfordsville Eastside Sanitary Se~r
. Project
180 GYL Frankfort, City of 500',000 4,00'0 14,900' 481,100 for construction of the Eastside
Drainage/Detention Facility
181 GME Indianapolis, City of 150,000 1.20'0 4,500' 144,300 for sewer rehabilitation in northeast
lndianaoolis
182 AWB Evansville. City of 300,000 2,400 B,900 283,700 for the Pioeon Crook Enhancement Proiect
STAG FY 05 List Final revised 2XlS
10
GVK New Castle, City of 200,000 1,600 6.000 192,400 for the sanitary sewer and sanitary
183 forcemain oroiect
184 GMC Lowell. Citv of 330.000 2,600 9,900 317.500 for construction of additional waterlines
185 GVN Hebron, City of 400.000 3.200 12,ObO 384.800 for water infrastructure imorovements
GSR Marion. City of 1,000,000 8.000 29,800 962,200 for the Marion Waler Loop and Deer Creek
497 Proiect
GOO Southport, City of 100,000 800 3,000 96.200 for downtown infrastructure and drainage
498 SouthportJMarion. County improvemenls
10 total 3,480,000 27,800 103,900 3.348.300
Mlchlnan
227 AK9 Wayne County 900,000 7,200 26,800 866,000 for the Rouge River National Wet Wealher
Demonstration Praiect
228 ASX Grand Rapids, City of 500,000 4,000 14,900 481,100 for combined sewer overflows.
229 QFV Genesee County Drain 250,000 2,000 7,400 240.600 for the Northeast ReUd Sewer/Kearsley
Commission Creek Interceotor oroied in Genesee
230 GMU Detroit. City of 35<l,000 2,800 10,400 336,800 for the Wood mere Sewage PumpSlatioil
Rehabililation
231 QOZ Oakland County Drain 1,000,000 8,000 29,800 .962,200 for Evergreen-Farmington Sanila,ry SeWer
Commission Overflow control projectin FamirriglOll Hills
Oakland County Drain tor Footing Drain/Sewer Lead Excess Flow
232 GSW Comniission 500,000 4,000 14.900 481.100 Prevention demonstrationprojecliri
. Waterford
Oakland' County to idEmtity and eliminate sewage
233 GM)' 200.000 1,SOO 6.000 192,400 contributions from older urban area~1rt the
Clinton River
234 GVX Westland, City of 200,000 1,600 6,000 192,400 for water infrastructure imorovements....
235 GMV Macomb County and St Clair 650.000 5.200 19.300 625.500 10 implement a comprehensive water quality
CountY monilonrll:J oroaram
236 GMT Br.ahton TownShip 300.000 2,400 8;900 288,700 for a water1ineconstruction
237 GTE Livingston COunty Drain 300,000. 2.400 8,900 288;700 for drain construction in Llvingsten'CoUrity.
CommIssion ' .
238 GVW L'Ansa TO'J'mshlp 25<l,OOO 2.000 7;400 240.600 for water and seWer infrastruc:ture
imorovements .
533 GFD Beni;;n}Erbor. Cltyer 1,000,000 B,OOO 29.800 962.200 for water Infrastructure' imbrpllemeots.
534 Gal SemyT~shiD ' . 500,000 4,000 .. 14,900 481.100 for sewer infrastructure improvemerits
535 QOI Sa~ina~'\ CiN'of 500,000 4.000 14;900 481.100 for sewer infrastructure imriroverlients
MarombCourrty Depattl11ent:of: .. . . ... 962,200 for sewer infrastructure improvements
536 C?R3 Pt.;bfItW:II'lo;s 1,000.000 8.oo(j 29;80()
16 total 11.400,000 67.200 250.100 8,082,700
Mjnn<>sota . ..
239 GOO Roseau, GiN 01' _.n. 250,000 2,0()0 .7;400 240.600 for stonn water infrastnicture lnibrovenientS
240 GH2 Min,ne-af.,?lis, Citvpf . 600 000 4800 17,900 577.300 for the combined sewero\terflow ,.
537 GXZ Minnesota Slate:UniVerSityln 150,000 1,200 4;60.0 144.200 for water infrastructure improvem~ri~
Moorhead
538 GAl Dviuih; "';i~;of 300.000 2 ,400 8,900 288,700 for wastewater infrastructurelnipr(lilements
539 GH2 Mmil;;),~R01!'.CilVof " ::..".. 300,000 .2.400 8.900 288,700 for combined sewer overflOYiJnioroVemBnlS
DOluL'l <::1dW~!ltertJ:I;.a~,. for was.tewaler lrifrastrUcll,Jrejtf!pri:l'ieme"ts
540 Gyl Supcr,o;' SanltaryOlsbietJ(i 25<l.000 2.000 7.400. 240,600
Duluih.. Clty Of ,.
6tOtll 1 ~850,OQO 14;600 55; 100 1,780.100
Ohio _. .,
315 GWE LOraln.Cltyof 150,000 1. ;200 4,500 144,300 for wastewater infrastnictureirnprovenients
316 GNQ BUller 'county 1W,OOO 1.200 4;500 . 144,300 for the Butler Countv Watenme
GNO North ::-'mltJrriore. ViH~ge:Of . for the Water Street Combined~sev,.~(
317 300,000 2.400 8;90() 288.700 Separation Project .. .
318 GWF Hlck~, Village Of 300,000 2,400 8;900 288.700 for the Hicksville Wastewa!erTteatlllent
- Plant Proiect . ...'
. 319 GNS Del1~~, CiN of 300,000 2.400 8,900 288.700 for the SewerSeoaration Proieg ,
320 GWO Circle-;ille. City .of 750,000 6,000 22;300 721.700 for sewer infrastructure improVementS
13urr-O:ilkRegioll8l WaterDlstn<;t ~ for water Infrastructure imprOveinents'in
321 GW 1,000.000 8;000 ' 29.800 962,200 Pem CountY . .. .
aSG Gr'Je;:~f.1 Ccunly . for water and wastewater infrastnicture
322 550.000 4,400 16.400 529,200 imorovements .
323 GNV Loga,i' Elm School Disliict 5<l,OoO 400 1,500 48,100 for water infrastructure improvements in
Circ\evine . .
324 GNT Lancaster GampUs of Ohio 220.000 1.800 6.600 211,600 for water infrastructure improvements in
University . Lancaster
325 GWG F airtield County 155,000 1;200 4,700 149.100 for water and wastewater InfrastruCture
improvemems
326 AQO Northeast Ohio Regional seWer 350,000 2,800 10,400 336,800 for the EasterlyJOoan Brook Watershed
District Pollution Abatement PrOtect
327 AY7 Toledo. City of 1,000.000 8,000 29;600 962,200 for wet weather flow and wastew;lter
infrastructure improvements
:328 CHX Ottawa COllrttv 1,000,000 8.000 29.BOO 962,200 for water infrastructure imorovements
~29 <3T4 Sandusky. City or 1,000,000 8.000 29.800 962,200 for wastewater infrastructure iniorovements
STAG FY 05 List Final revised 2:XLS
330 GWH
331 AWQ
332 GFB
333 GNW
334 GNU
335 QFO
336 GEl
337 GWJ
338 GP5
339 QR4
340 GP2
341 QNZ
593 GRJ
594 GYO
595 GRN
596 QE3
597 GYE
598 GRK
599 GYF
600 GT5
601 OFO
602 GRP
37 total
420 GX6
421 GSU
422 GPR
423 GPY
424 GX5
425 QFl
426 GX7
665 ACJ.l,
666 QFl
r
, 667 GZ1
10 total
109
Ashtabula County
Jackson County .
Guemsev Countv
St. Marv's Municipal Govemment
Urbana University in Urbana
Delphos Municip~1 Govemment
Metropolitan Sewer District of
Greater Cincinnati
Wooster; City of
Hayesville,Villa~e of
Canton.Cilv.m
Trumbl.lll~nty,Sanitary
Enoineer
Columbiana G()urlty
.
MuskihgtimWatershed.
Conl;eniancyDlStrlct,.Garroll
COUlity .... .
Villaoe of Racine MeinsCountv
Celina,Cilvof .
Akron. City ?f:
.
Parma, Citycif
Deliance COI1r:ltyCorrtrJ1i~iolJ8rs,
Defianeearldr>atlldlno' COunties
JeffersoneountYWateraild
SewerDjslli~...Jefferson.Cbunt\l
Tri.Counly~u..aIWatef.ant:l.
SeWer-District; Washingtl:ln,
MordailaridN08l8,eountles
Delph~. ~e!'1.9l1Yj)fPtltna.m .
and Van'WertCOUntieli
Coming;Vill<l~Of
Wiseonsi1i
Sun Prairie.Citv of
AnUQo,Cny'6/"
Vesper .CilyOf
Boyd, CitY9f-
,
350,000 2.800
50,000 400
550,000 4.400
500,000 4,000
625,000 5,0.00
500,000 4,000
550,000 4,400
500,000 4,000
500,000 4,000
500,000 4,000
150,000 1,200
250.000 2.000
300,000 2,400
500,000 4,000
750.000 ..6;000
400,000 3,200
300,000 2:400
200,000 1,600
175,000 1AOQ
.
175,000 1,400
100.000 .- 800
100,OOQ
. 15,300.QOO
890
.c..122,400:::
.,..,...:
:1;200
14;~,.
10,400
1,600
16,400
14;900
18,600
14,900
16,400
14,900
14,900
14,900
4,500
7.400.
8.900
14.900
22,300
11 ,900
8,900
6,OO()
5,300
5.300
3,000
3,000
45G;100
4,500
55.100
25,700
44.600
3,000
~,900
14;900
29,800
29,800
17,800
231100
1,419,400
11
336 800 for the .Rock Creek Village Waterline
. ExtenSIOn
48,000 for water infrastructure imorovements
529,200 for a water line extension
481,100 for wastewater infrastructure improvements
601 400 for storm.drainage and water and sewer line
, construction
481 100 for the Tri-County regional water system in
, Oelohos
529 200 for the sani~ary se:",er overflow
, demonstration proiect
481100 for stormwaler infrastructure improvements
, along Beall Ave
481 100 ~or water and wastewater infrast/:1Jcture
.' Improvements
481,100 for water infrastructure imoruvements
144 300 for installation of the Maplewood Park sewer
, system in Hubbard Township
240 600 for water infrastructure improvements to the
, Buckeve Water District
for the Atwood COnference Center Water
288,700 TreatmentPlant Improvernen,ts
481; 100 for water treatment olant imorovements
721,700 for the Water Treatment Plant Prolect
384 900 for CombineoSewer Overflow
, . Improvements Proiect
288,700 for City Sewer Reolacement Proiect
192.400 for Auglaize River Sewer Project
168,300 forCrestviewlBelvedere Sewer Project
for Tri-Gounly/Noble County Water
168,300 Interconnect Project
96 200 for Tri-CpuntyRegional Water System
, Project.
96 "00 forWaSleWSter System Improvements
" Projecf
14,721,500
144,300 for wastewater infrastructure imorovements
1 780 100 for water and wastewaterinfraslfucwre
, ,.. improvements
829 400 for wClterand wastewater infrastructure
, Improvements
1 443 400!or water and. waSle.water infrastnlcture
. . improvements:
96,200 for wastewater infrastructure Imorovements
192,500 for ~terinfrastructurekn~ements
481100 for syster'nl; planning and water
'. infrastructure. .linorovements
962,200 for sewer infrastructure Improvements
962,200 for wat$rintrasfructure lmnrovementsand
577 400 !or water and~astewater infrastni(;ture
, ImprovementS.
7.468,800
45,841.500
i~ti~'ft~~~il1'fj;~~~@t R!~~~~4~:,~~}~~g~ r~~~~~ l1~~;~.~~~~1:~ ~~~~~ ,~~'1t~~~~~~~~~~t.~~~~~
34 GKV
35 GAY
462 QUC
463 COM
4 to tal
205 GGT
206 GVR
207 AQ8
Scott; ToWri',Of'
Racin&.qlY9,f.
WaukeSha.qtyt:lf
..... . ..
M1J\Naukee.~ti'opoUlah
$ewi;!rage Oisii1cl
Racine; CitY Of .
SLlriPrai~,'~pf
"
, .
Reglon$T~1S
Arkansas
Favetteville; City (If
FaulklletC()lmlypubUc. Facilities
Board
Fort Chafee Redevelopment
AUth6rilvill Bar1inQ/Fort Smith
Fayetteville, CilY of
Louisiana
Monroe, Cily of
Slauohter;Villaoe of
Wesl Balon Rouoe Parish
ST AG FY 05 List Final revised 2.XLS
150,000
1.850.000
862.000
..
.6;9OQ
1.500,000
100,000
200,0q9
500.009
1,000,000
1,000,000
600,000
7.762,000
47;642,900
12;00(1
'- 800
1;~Q
~.. .
.~;ti09 .
.. ~;9<?9
MOO
4;8o(i
62~100
..381/100
..
250,000 , 2,000
250,000 2,000
-.c
600,000 4,800
250,01)0 2,000
1,350,1)00 Hl800
150,000 1.200
200,000 1,600
200,000 1,600
7.400
7,400
17 ,800
7,400
40,000
4,500
.6,000
6,000
240,600 for. water infrastructure Imorovements
240 600 for Lake Conway Sewer Improvements in
. Faulkner County ,
577.400 for water infrastructure improvements
240,600 for wastewater infrastruclure improvements
1,299,200
144 300 for the Monroe Waste'.valer Improvement
, Prooram in Monroe
t 92,400 for wastewater infrastructure improvements
192,400 for waslewater infrastructure improvements
12'
208 OMJ Shreveport, City of 250.000 2,000 7,400 240,600 for the Municipal Water Distribution Syslem".
. Backflow Prevention
209 GMP Shreveport, Citvof 200,000 1,600 6,000 192.400 for watershedorotection ..
South Central Planning & for water and wastewater infrastruclore
210 GeZ Development Commission 500,000 4,000 14,900 481,100 improvements in New Iberia.St.Charles,
Morgan City, SI. 6emard andSt. Jairi~$
211 QR3 Slidell. Citv of 250,000 2,000 7,400 240,600 for stann water Infrastructure improvements
513 GOU Rapides Parish 600,000 4.800 17 ,900 577.300 for wastewater infrastructure.imorovements..
514 OMZ 5l Charles Parish 400,000 3,200 11,900 384,900 for wastewater infrastructureimproitenients
515 A08. Jefferson Parish 406,000 3.200 11.900 . 384.900 for Water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements
SiB GXU Bastroo, City of 400.000 3,200 11,900 384,900 for wastewaterinfrastruclure improvements
517 OK7 Hammond, City of 400,000 3.200 11,900 384.900 for waStewater infrastructure ilTil>rOvements
Gx\t.I Grand Isle, City of . 3.200, for drinking water infrastrucllJre
518 400,000 11 ;900 384.900 improvements
13 total 4,350,000 34.800 1ZMO~ 4,185600
New Mlixlco
263 GNp Lortlsburo, CitY of 100,000 800 3,000 96,200 for water. infrastructure improvements
26:4 OGG, .. Bavard, Citv of 100;000 800 3,000 : '96,200 for theFt Bavard EfftiJentReuSeSVstem
265 001...;' Ruidoso Downs. City of .. .. ,.. 1.50,000 1,200 .. 4,500 ..',.. . 1.44,300 for wastewater infrastructureimDroYement$
266 GHZ . Elephant Butte citY of ... 150.000 1.200 4,500 144,300 for wasteWater Infrastruclureimorbvements .
267 A2Y loslunas. Cltv of 150,000 1,200 4,500 .144.300 10 build a sewer interceotor1ine. .
268 AVK 5Soanola, Cilv of 150,000 . 1.200 4AOO 144,400 for wastewateririfi'astructore..JnjbrOitements .
269 GW2 Tiieras, Citv of 200;000 1.600 6,000 .'92,400 for water infrastructure imorovemeribl
270 AVK Bemalillo County 200.000 1,600 6,000 192,400 for the Soilth and North \Yilter'ahd ...
Wastewater infrastructureimpmvemerits .
57t Avrs Albuquerque and Countypi' 1.600,O(l0 12,800 47,600 1.5:}9.600 for the Valley Ulili~es project
Bemamlo. City cif
.. ..: Espanola, City of 1.000,0<10 8,Qoo 29,800 . for water and wastewatertrealnient
579 ,M<. 962,200 infrastructure .
580 GRF KIrtland, CiN .of 900,000 7.200 26;800 .. 866,000 for Phase 1 ofasewer$v~em:oroiect
581 O$S Los Lunas, Vlllaoe of .. 500;000 4.000 14,900 ,.:.. , 481,100 for th9inlerceritor $i3~r fine Proiect:
~2 GRH Clovis, City of . 250,000 . 2;000 MOO .,' 240,BOO for Wastewater infrasWelureimproveinerils
1.3 tQtilI 5,450,OQO 43;600 16VWO 5.244,000
. Oklahoma . I..
342 GP6 MarlOw, City of 100;0Q() 800 3;00Q :96.200 for Y@ter andwaslewaterin.frastrudura
lmprovenieritS . . .., ,. ..
343 Gp;{: .: :Suloher, City of .0.\. 200.000 1,600 6.000 192,400 for wastewater infrastructore imorovemems . .
344 GG5; .c Seminole, City of 1;000.000 ' a;ooo :29;800 962;200 for woller infraS:Wi::lure.JfiioiinienielltS . .,
345 GNZ,. Meeker, City of , 80.000 600 2;400 i..... 77 000 7 ., .. :..
346 GWK .. Skiatook 100.0.00 ~Qo 3,0()0 96,200 for water and.. sewerlJ:if'rastrUct\Jre..
. ' .._~~. Itnorovemerils . . . - -,
.5.tola"- MaO.PiOo. . U;800 44;200 1;424,000 .,.
.
... texas
........ J.. ...
386 GWX.. Houston, City ()f 150;000 1;200 4;500 144,300 for water. Infrastructure Imbrovements
387. GAL' UbertY HHI Cllv of ,. 250,000 2.;000 7;400 240,600 for thecentrnl CitY sewefSVSten'l~iect . '
.. Auf> Brazos River AUthority for the Braioislffiivascita Watershed' . .
~~ 75.0.0.0. aDO 2;36" 72,100 ManagementProi~ctiJ'n:o!taenifGOontV .'. .
. . ' .,
..Brazos River Authority : ; fOt the WestFort 6eOc:!COtJnty8ll9~1
3~~ 917. 100,O()P 800 3;9Q() 00,200. Wa~~Treatment FacliitYj!l~FOrt:~
. ,.. .... CoOn .
39() QT7". Fort Bend County 500.,0.00 4;000 14.900 ..-. 481.100 for Water inffaslructurelmorove.mems . :.
391. OGH. .., Bosaue Countv . 350.000 2.800 .10AOP .... .. 336.800 for. \Vater Inft'asttUctureiti'ri:il'ovemeiitS .
392 GWY Weatherford. dtV cif 250;000 2.0.00. 1.'100..., 240,600 for.water infras1rudure improvements
393 GWZ Pharr. Citvof 25D~000 2,00.0. 7,400 240.,600 for wastewater InfrastrudUnllfuDiriVEimenls,
394 GPfiF . Alvin. Citv of 150~OOO 1.200 .. 4,500 ., 144.300 for W;ater IntraStructUreiri\bro\iElmemsH
395 aVN EJ Paso Water. Utilities 250,000 2,000. 1 '10.0 240.600 for..Waterinfiastruct:uril.erimiisl6rilrt'.Et Paso..
396 $l=iM San AntonioWaterSystem ... 150;0(>> 4;@~ 144,300 for ilia Espada ROad ~we{Prrijei:t1ri San
.~- . 1,200 Antonio ,..... . .
397 GeY Austin. City of 50.0,000 4.000 14;900 481;100 fot thenoINitn,/cWralsanltarysewer.
. , overflow prevention Di'oiect: .
640 GRX San Antonio Water system 500.000 4.000 14,900 481.100 for~~lnfraStrUctul'e lmProvel1l~l!tS at
Ken SA .
64:1 GYtJ Lower Rio Grande Vall.ey . 650,000 5,200 19,300 625,500. for the Lower Rio G~ndeMorillo Oraln
. . RehabilitatiOn oroiecl . ... ..
642 GRZ Canyon Lakes WatetReuse 80.0.,000 6.400 23,800. 769.800 for Construction related costs 10 the water
Project in Lubbock sYStem infrastructUi'e . .
643 <3$1- Abilene Brekenridge Resei'Voli' 350.000 2,800 10..400 336,aoo fordOnking water infrastruclUre
,project In Abilene .
644 GYT Pharr Wastew.aterCollectJcjn 40.0,000 3.200. 11,900 384,900 to I.Jpdate1I1e wastewater system
System in Pharr infrastructure
645 GSN Brekenrid(le, Citvof 300.,0.00 2.400 9,000. 288,60.0 wastewater and sewer infrastructl.Jre oroiect
646 GSM HiJlsboro. Citv or 50.0.,0.0.0. 4.0.0.0 14,90.0. 481.10.0. wastewalerand sewer infrastructure oroiect
US...M El Paso for continuation {If the deSalination and
5,0.00.0.0.0 40..000. 0. 4.960.,0.0.0. water supply project
STAG FY 05 List Final revised2.XLS
13
for the water supply project -
US.M Brownsvllle 2.000,000 16,000 0 1,984,000
21 total 13,475,000 107,800 192,800 13.174,400
56 Region 6 Totals 26,105,000 208,800 569,000 25,327,200
='"2'. :";'.;;>.,,:
:~,.,~: --" --.';<-
Iowa
186 GVM Des Moines, City of 150,000 1,200 4,500 144 ,300 for storm water infrastructure improvements
to the Closes Creek Watershed
187 GMK Storm Lake, City of 250,000 2,000 7,400 240,600 for water infrastructure improvements
188 OXU Postville, City of 250.000 2,000 7,400 240.600 for the completion of the Postville
wastewater facility.
189 A7P Mason City,Cityof 500,000 4,000 14,900 481,100 for completion or the Mason City water
treatment plant
190 GVO Fl. Madison, City of 450,000 3.600 13,400 433,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements .
191 QA2 Ottumwa, City of 450,000 3,600 13,400 433,000 for the South Ottumwa Sewer Separation
proiect
192 GMJ DavenPOrt, Citvof ....... ... ... 500,000 4,000 14,900 481,100 for the Wests ide Diversion runnel
499 GOO Fort. Madison. CitY'of 500,000 4,000 14,900 481,100 rOf the Waier Treatment Plant.
500 GXR West Burlington. City of 500,000 4,000. 14,900 481,100 for the Iowa Army AmmunilionPlailt
Improvements
501 OA2 Qttumwat. CitVof 1,500,000 12,000 44,600 1,443,400 for the seoaration of combined sewers
502 GOS Davenport, City. of 500,000 4,000 14;900 481,100 for water infrastructure improiiements
11 total 5,550,000 44 400 . 165,200 5,340,400
Kansas
I Mission, City of . for constrUclionandaxpansion of astonn
193 GT8 250,000 2,000 7.400 240,600 water flow manaQamentsystem
194 GVP Harper, C.itvof 350,000 2.800 .. 10,400 336.800 for water Infrastructure Improvements
503 qxs Abilene,City of 1,000,000 60001 29,800 962,200 for constnJction of a waStewaten$lment
. I. .. plant
504 GHD Hutchinson. CitY ,of 1,500,000 12;000 44.600 1,443.400 for groundwater remedlationanqtreatment
projects .
4 tala I 3,100,000 24800 92,200 2,983,000
Mfssourl .
245 QPZ Joplin, City Of 350,000 2,800 10,400 336,600 for the Crossroads Parallel S~Phase4
uOQrades .
Sl Louis.,City'of .,. .. ... Oepa~en~orpublic Utililie,IS,fo.r.1he
246 GCE 200,000 1,600 6,000 192,400 ColumbiaJ:3j)ttoms WellfieldOeve!opment
.. water proiecllrlSt. louis
247 GVZ Clarence CantlOliWholeSale 25OiooO 2,000 7,400 240,600 for water infrastructure improvements in
Water CommiS$iOn ,. Monroe Co\lIitV .
248 GJF Duckett CreekS3iiitarv District 250,000 2,000 7,400 240,600 for wastewater infrastructure Improvements
547 GR7 Kansas Cilv n.._... .:... 1,500;000 12,000 44,600 1.443.400 for water .arld wastewater inrrastrUclLire
...
548 QPZ Joplin. City of.. 667.500 5!5oo 20;000 661,500 for tl1efinalpl:lase of theCr:oSsr~s
... Parane! Seli.oerproiect .. _.d
549 GY5 Milan, City of. . 1,312,500 10;SQt) 39,100 1,262.900 tor the MilanWa\er Ouality-Treiltment
.. Pi-oiect. .."
Clarence Call1J(l!l~~lll to el'pandtl1e existing W3tertrealit!ellt
Water eolTll1'il#lOn. ..< capacity ftl)rn 5 milfion gallonsto7;5rnil1ion
550 GR9 1,000,000 8,9Oq 29,800 962,200 gallonS peiday and to irl(;lude .<;bilnectiilg
the Mal:Oli~nty PWSD #1. ami ~ CitY of
Wel1sville.tottm CCWWC trilnslili.s$on
,.. system
EnvironmeritaIReSO\lme$ to mitigate. point source poll\.llion,issues In
551 GY7 Coalition . 1,000,000 8;()()p 2Q,800 962,200 distresse(feommunitiesthafbcii-der table
RockLak8
Springfield. City:of for wasteWater treatment plant
improvements including lhede~and
552 GR8 1,00Oi()00 8:006 29,800 962.200 construcli.on Of infrastructtire .foi' removal of
nitrogenfi'j)m.the treilled wasteWater
etnuent liMimproved anaerobicdigesler
.. facilities lhiittreat solids from the
10 total 7,550,000 60,400 224,800 7,264,800
Nebraska
250 GN3 Uncoln. City of 300,000 2;400 8,900 288.700 for waler and wastewater infrastructure
improvements
251 QGU Omaha, Citvof 550,000 4,400 16,400 529,200 for the Cornbine.d SeweraCje Overflow
QGU Omaha, City of .. 866.000 for the ccinstruction of combined sewer
557 900,000 7,200 26,800 separation svstems
558 GY8 Uncoln, City of 350;000 2,800 10,400 336,800 10 upgrade the Theresa Street and
Northeast Wastewaler Treatment plants
4 loUll 2,100,000 1 G,BOO G2,SOO 2,020,700
29 Region 7 Totals 16,300,000 146,400 544,700 17 ,608,900
STAG FY 05 list Final revised 2.XLS
14
I I
~~gl'ii'J.1;8'\t:W:Fi;~;;:i,0j;'~;r,~ .., ,..,., ., ..., ;~;~~:~)~~~'iLtt;.~~t::}':t : .,"" ,.
"c'/. ..'. ., ..,.... T,;;'.'~:;;':.'
Colorado
GUU Jefferson County 250,000 2,000 7,400 240,600 to implement a new storm water
90 improvement proqram
91 GW Ourav; City of 250.000 2.000 7,400 240,600 for water infrastructure improvements:
471 GXK Trinidad, City of 300.000 2.400 8,900 288,700 for the Trinidad Wastewater Improvement
Proiect
472 GQF Ba\lflEild~ Town of 250,000 2,000 7,400 240,600 for the construction of a water storaoetank
473 GQH M<incos Water Conservancy 250,000 2,000 7!400 2~O,600 for waler supply facility renovation
DistriCt
474 GXL. JdahOSnrinos, Town of 250,000 2.000 7.400 240,600 for water dlsbibution facilitv renovatiOn
475 GQJ EldoradO Sorinos, Town of 250,000 2,000 7,400 240.600 for imorovino wastewater treatment.
476 GUV Ourav 950,000 7,600 28,400 914.000 for water infrastructure Improvements
477 GXM Jefferson County 250.000 2,000 7,400 240,600 for stonnwater collection system
improvements ..
9tolal 3,000,000 24,000 89;100 2;886,900
Montana
249 GN1. Rosooyn Corpor;ltlon in Butte 150;000 1.200 .4;500 144;300 for a waste recovery frommuniciJ)al waste: ..
. treatinentolant .. ... : .,_. ..-....
553 GY6 Bozeman, City of 1,000,000 8,000 29,800 962,200 for water infrastructure imorovements
554 QW3 MiSsQuriRNer Water Project, 1,000.000 MOO .29,800 962,200 for a water treatment project
Helena
555 GRD Gl8saoW, Citv of. 500 000 4,000 ,- 14,800 48t.200 for water Infrastructure imorovementS.
556 GT1 SeelevLake5ewer DistriCt 750,000 6,000 22,300 721;700 for wastewater IOfrastructureimprOvllrtients
5. total -. 3,400,OQQ 27.200 101;200 3.271 600
North Da1<:ota
314 GFX D~i1slake,Cilv of . 150,OOQ 1,2QO 4,5OQ . 144;3OQ for the Devils lake water line
I 5M QHF .. Gtaftotl;Citvof 1,000;000 8.000 29;800 962;200 for the Grafton Waler TreatmentPlailt
589 GFX Devils. Uke;Citvof 500.000 4;000 14;800 481;200 for water infraslr\lctUte improvements ..
590 QWE Riverdalli.CliVof 250.000 2,000 7AOO 240,600 fOr the ReqionalWater TreatmeritfaCllitv
591 GGM Dk;k~t.RUraJWater Users 25O,oOg 2,060 7,406 ~40;600 for the Southeast Regional Expansibtl
.. AssoCiation In$outheasv Proiect
592 GRL Maridail,Citym 25O;Q()() 2~OOO 7APO 240,600 for drinking water infrastructure
improvements
6iq~l 2,400,000 1!t200 71 ;300 2,309.500
$ciuth:t)akota " ;:. ...
. ..
632 A2F . Hliron;;CitVOf 1,500.000 12.000 . 44600 f.443400 Jor waterinfras.tructure improvements .
63.3 GYP GreenVa1Jev-SariiIaN District. 600,000 4;800 17,800 :571 ,400 for water infrastructure imp.fov!lmimts.
634 GRV-: TVridal, CllVof 400,000 3;200 12,000 38,g800 for waler infraStructure irrioiowmenfs
635 GYR Milbarik 300~000 2;400 8;900 288;700 for waslewaterinfrastructiJre ,ImprovementS
63;~,h .' ~i~t9i1 3OO,(){)O 2,400 ..8;900 ~288,700 for stormwaterlmprovenienls
.1M.omi..... 3.1oo;OQ(l 24;aoO 9~2oo 2;983;000
.~, .
I 443IG08:.~._ -. Chevenne, ciiV Of 350,000 2.,800 10.400 336;800 for wastewater infraslrudurelnlprovemerrtS,;
1~-- ..:. .. 350;00.9 2;800 = 10;400 336;800 ..
- utah ..
., .... 149an;City '. .~~ forWciter and wastewater infril$ttuCtijre'
~~8 Gp:q~ 150;1)0(l 1;;1{)(j ~:4;soQ 144,3(){) jmprovementsfQt Phase I and fi'orme'
... .. NOrthwest parkProiect .- . .. ..' .
..... f1C)l~dl!Y. citY of . '.::'... .... .. . for water InfraslJ:ucturn itnpro"emer!~
652 GsK 300;000 2AOO 8.900 288;700 asSociated with !he Wayman$tOffflDTaio
... project . . ,.
MaQtls Water Comp any an. ... . . for water IntrastruCtUte iniPiOveriiEirit$-
653 GYw IriiProvenieilt DIstrict, Magna 500.000 4.090 14;800 481~00 associated with the pefcl1kitate& arseillc,
.. ...- . . treatment D~nt
654 GSJ tooarr,CitVof 400;000 3aoo 12.00() 384~000 for water infrastructure irnntovementS .
.- ~~'CitY ., -. for waler infrastructure iniprpyeriiel:)lS
655 Qf>~ 400,000 3,200 11,9(10 384;900 3..S.sociated wi~ the Judge iirid piroTUrinel
.- treatinentplant
656 GAg Rivertoo,Cjtv of 400,000 3;200 12,000 384,800 for water infraStrUcture inilirovemenlS
651 GC1 Oram. Citv;of 400;000 3,200 12;000 384,000 for waterinfrasltucture mi:irovemi3'ntS .
Jijrdap Valley Wat.er -. for the Groundwater Extraction and
65.8 QG6. conservancY District 100.000 800 3,000 96;200 Treatment Remedial oroiect.. ..
CHD ~ndY City for drinking wat.er and storm water ..
659 1,000.000 8,000 29;800 ~,200
. infrastructure improvements
s total 3,&!iO,OOO 29,200 108,900 3;511;900
35 RegionS Totals 15,900,O(!0 127,200 473;100 15,299,700
'"e!;'.'~: ',~'" r~g:;~:.ttt"~~~~t5'~\:'::~::"!r0( : ~~.:':"::.......~x- :;~ '~~~~lr~'~$:~r. ~;:;;~~~f~~~5 .~:~~2'11-i~?t~~$~; 'i';": -. " M-,,:.'~ ,..~.;";;,.".:.
. --': ,_. ....._--.--.--....._.. "'.".;<;.;'~
ArJrona
I 3fjQRM Goodvear.GilV of 200,000 1,600 6,000 192,400 or waler infrastructure improvements
I 37 QJ6 AvOndale, Cilv of 250,000 2,000 7,400 240.600 for wasteWater infrastructure improvements
STAG FY 05 List Final revised 2.xLS
15
SB GUR Chandler, City of 150,000 1,200 4,500 144,300 for the Chandler Arsenic Mitioation Program
39 GL3 University of Arizona, College of 1.000.000 8,000 . 29,800 962,200 for the US.Mexico Border Environmental
Pharmacy Protection Prooram
40 QQ1 Stafford. City of 250,000 2,000 7,400 240,600 for construction of a wastewater treatment
plant
41 GUQ St. Johns, City of .~ 500,000 4,000 14.900 481,100 for new water transmission pipeline
construction
6 total 2,350,000 18,800 70,000 2,261,200
California
42 GUP Rialto, City of 150,000 1.200 4,500 144,300 for water infrastruclure improvements
Box Springs Mutual Water for installation of a sewer system
43 GL2 Company of the City of Moreno 250,000 2,000 7,400 240,600
VaOev
44 GL5 Oxnard, City of 200.0,00 1,600 6,000 192,400 for the Headwor!<.s Expansion Project and
Redwood Tnmk Proiect .
Modesto Project, City of for the neighborhood storm water. sewer.
45 QH6 150,000 1.200 4,500 144,300 and water.infraslructure project (NInth Street
Corridor Storm Drain Projectr
46 QJ8 Orange County Sanitation District 600,000 4.800 17 .900 577.300 for wastewater infrastructure improvements
in fot.lntaln Valle .
47 GUS Laouna Beach, Citv .01 500,000 4,000 14,900 481,100 for ememencv sewer reoairs .
48 GL4 Solana Beach. City of 1,000.000 8,000 29,800 962.200 for wastewater treatment iinprovemimls in
-.. the municipal sewer svstem ..
49 GE5 Roseville, CltVof 250;000 2,000 7,400 240,600 for water infrastructure imoroverilerits .
50 GUT Monrovia. City of 400,000 3,200 11.909 384.900 for water and wastewater jnfr;istrucfuie
imorovement
51 AVN Cities of Arcadia and Siena 1,000.000 8,000 29,000 962,200 for the Joinl Water Infrastructure
Madre. Restoration Prooram
52 GEF City of East Palo Alto 200,000 1,600 6;oQQ 192.400 for th.e storm water infrastructure
improvements ..
53 QXA Monterey County Water 350.000 2,800 10,400 336,800 for \he Salinas Valley Water Projeclin
Resource Aoencv Monterev Counlv
54 A9W Sweetwater Authority 100.000 800 3,000 96,200 for the water quality moniloringin Chtila
Vista .
55 GKS EISegundO 250,000 2,000 7AOO 240,600 for W<lstewater infrastructure improvements
for Smoky Honow .. . .
56 QHO Reddino, Cilv of 350,000 2800 10AOO 336,800 fOr water infrastruclureimorovemenls
San Diego County Water .. 750;000 for the County Water Authority RegiOi)aI
57 GOA Authority 6,000 Z2.30Q 721,700 Seawaler Desalination lnitialivein:~n
58 aSQ Brisbane; City of 350,000 2,800 10.400 336,800 for water and wastewater infrastructure
... improvements
59 .GL6 Bighorn Desert Waler, Agency 100.000 ,800 3~OOO 96 .200 for water infraslnictui'e improvements'in
YuccaVallev . ,
60 OAY San Bemardino. CHvcif 450,000 3,600 13,400 433,000 for Lakes and Stream ProieCt
61 QHY Hesperia, CTtVor 250.000 2,000 7.400 240.600 for walerinfrastructure Improvements
62 GZN Lake ArrOwhead,Citiiot 200,000 1,600 6,000. 192,400 for the Communitv Services District
Mission Springs Water DistrlCl, for the Groundwater ProtectiOll,'S!Jpply
63 A31 500.000 4,000 14,900 481.100 EnhancemenVReuse PrograininDil~i:lHol
, . SprinQS
64 GL7 Bahnino, Gilv of. 450.000 3,600 13,400 433,000 for the Brinton Reservoir -
65 ~ Hi-DesertWater DistriCtb'lYucca 300;000 2.400 8;900 288.700 for the Warren Valley Recharge Facilit)t .
Vallev .. ,.
66 .GLA Santa Ana Waters@dProject 300.000 2,400 8.900 288,700 for the Santa Ana RegionaUIite~tor
Authority (SARI) Enhancement
67 GL9 San Jose. City of 200,000 1,600 6,000 192,400 for water and wastewater inffjlstructLfi'e
limorovements . ..... - ,
68 005 Sacramento. City of 500.000 4.000 14.900 481~100 for combined sewer system improverJ1Elilf
rehabilitationproiect
69 GJE Castaic Lake Water~ 250.000 2,000 7.400 240.600 for wastewater infrastructure improvements
70 GZS Barstow. City of 250.000 2,000 7.400 240.600 for a sewer masler plan implemeniatioi'l
I proiect
71 QH9 Victorville, Citvof .. 250.000 2,000 7 ;400 240.600 for water infrastructure imoroVemenlS
72 GZE California State University, 200.000 1,600 6,0()0 192,400 for the Center for Urban Environmental
Dominquez Hills Research in Carson ,.
73 QIA Brea, Cilv of 200.000 1,600 6.000 192.400 for sewer infrastructure improvements
74 GLC Mission Vieio, Citvof 200.000 1,600 6.000 192.400 for lheOso Creek Barrier Proiect
75 AXe Vallejo. City of 300,000 2.400 8,900 288.700 fOr the Mare Island Sanitary sewer and
Storm Drain Improvement Project
76 Gl8 Norwalk, City of 250.000 2.000 7.400 240,600. for the BalancinQ FacilitY Proiect
n GlB Slrathmore Public UUrnv- Districl 150,000 1.200 4,500 144,300 for a wastewater treatment Plant
78 QVJ Folsom, Citv of 250,000 2,000 7,400 240.600 for the sewer rehabmtation project
79 QlF San Francisco. City of 1,000,000 8,000 29.800 962,200 for water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements
80 GC4 Santa Clara Valley Water Dislricl 800,000 6.400 23,800 769.800 in Santa Clara Countyfor Perchlorate
CleanllP .
STAG FY 05 List Final revised2.XLS
16
Westminster, City of. 200,000 1,600 6.000 192.400 for the Westminster Water Quality Pilot
81 GER Project
GLF Huntington Beach, City of 300.000 2,400 8.900 288,700 for the Wintersberg Channel UrbanRun.Off
82 Treatment
83 GLG Downey, City of 250,000 2.000 7,400 240,600 for storm water infrastructure improvements
GZ7 Municipal Water District of 150,000 1,200 4.500 144.300 for an Orange County water reliability study
84 Orange County
85 GLH Orange County Sanitation District 200,000 1,600 6,000 192,400 for a new secondary treatment facility in
Fountain Valley
86 OIZ Eurka, City of 250.000 2,000 7,400 240,600 for the Martin Slouoh Interceotor
Gardena, City of 250,000 2.000 7.400 240.600 for water and wastewater infraslructure
87 GHL improvements
aa GAA Santa Monica. Citvof 250.000 2,000 7.400 240,600 For water infrastructure imorovements
. Sonoma County 200,000 for the Monte Rio sanitation project in Monte
89 GLE 1.600. 6,000 192,400 Rio
464 GC4 Santa Clara Vallev Water District. 300.000 2.400 8,900 288,700 For oerchlorate Qroundwater c1ean.up
Inland Empire Perchlorate TaSk 300.000 2.400, 8.900 288,700 lor the Wellhead Treatment of Perchlorate
46.5 GJZ Forte Contaminated Wells
466 GXH Santa Ana, Citv of 400,000 3,200 11.900 384,900 for East arid West Reservoir Uooracre5
San Jose, City of 500,000 4;OQO 14,900 481,100 for North San Pedro Water and seWer
467 GeE . . infrastructure improvements
I 468 alz Eureka. Cilv of 500.000 4,000 . 14,900 481.100 for the MartirlSlouoh Interceptor Proiect
Metropolitan WaterOistricf.of for the City of Ontario Final Designfpr
469 GXJ Southem California 200,000 1.600 6,000 192,400 Wellhead Treatment for PerchJoratl! and
Nitrate
470 QIS Laguna Beach, City of 400,000 . 3.200 11900 384,900 for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
snobl 18.850,000 150 aoo 561,200 18.138,000
Guam
146. QHW Guam WalerworksAuthority 250,000 2,000 7,400 240,600 for water and wastewater inlrastfuctur9
. .. . improvements
1lotal 250,000 . 2,000 7,400. 240,600
..
Hawaii
147 aUK Maui County Department of 150,000 1,21)0 4.500 144,300 for the iead reductiOn in UpcountryMatiiin
Water Suoplv Uocountrv Maui
489 GOM S1ate of Hawaii 250.000 2 ;Ot:lO 7,400 240.600 for uP9rada and expansion oftmLSand
.. Island WastewalerTreatment Pmnt
$500,000 to theCOliri!:y;of Hawau fOt wastewater infrastructure improvements
49.0 QHS. and $500, OOOto.theHc.~iig 1.000.00(1 aMI) 29;8QO 962.200
and CommuriilyDev~jopmerit
Corpornlion of Hawaii,
3.10131 1,400,000 . .11.200 41 700 1,347,100
Nevada . ..
252 AT! Fallon. City.o( .. 400,000 3.200 .. 11,900 384,900 fOt wastewater infrastructure improvements
253 AWl . Henderson, Cltv:Clf 400.000 . . 3;200 11,900 384,900 lor wastewater lnfrastructure.jmQr6Veiilf!rits
559 GRA Las Vegas Val~yWa~r 400.000 3.2~ 11 ,900 384.900 for water.infrastruclure.imprCiVemerit$
DislrictlSear-c:hJliltiL .
560 GEM Clark CotJnty R!3~ma.tipri 400.001) 3;~~ 1'.!3<ll? 384.900 for wastewater infrastructure imprO.vemenls
Dislricll$earChlicihf .
561 GRB Reno City of .' 250;000 2;000 7.400 240,600 for sewer infrastruc:tureimorovemerils
562 OOW Soanlsll SorInas .. 300.000 .. 2>400 8.900 288,700 for the. NilrnteRernoval ProJect. .
. ..
North Valley Le(ljlT!o!t~1daI . .. '" for water infrastructure improvements
563 aRC Recharge Projel<t.b:l:~ol1h.. 200.000 +J300 ... . 6.600 192,400
Lemmon Valley . . . . ..
564 QTN Virain VaHevWaterO;stiid 250.000 .. 2.000 7.400 240.600 for water infrastructure imorovemimts
565 ONS Carson City 200;000 1;500 6,000 192.400 fori'eservoir linina
9.total 2,BOO,OOO .22400 83;3()0 2.694,300.
74 Region 9 Totals 25,650.000~ . 205.'200 .. . 763;600 24,6B1,200
,.
t~~,t~~~~~~~!~- mm!~i;f.1tQ~~~1e~~i~~~~f~ fg.~~~~~,~tf~~~ !l1~..kt!?J.~~~~1~;!:;!:.~~\iff:~ ~~~1~~~~:.;;.;::~Sti}\~t~~i~tl~4J1.~.;J
.. .
Alaska
452 OIK Girdwood, Inc. 1,000,000 8.00Q 29,800 962,200 for water and sewer exoansion in. Girdwood
453 G09 Municipalilv ofAncfioi;ji:le, 1,300,000 10,400 38;700 1,250,900 for Sand Lake Waler EXtensiOn
454 GQB Matariuska-SusitriaBorOUoh 300.000 2;400 8.900 288,700 for water wells for Gorsuch Lake
455 ola wasilla, Cilv.of 1,100.000 8,800 32,700 1 ,058,500 for sewer eXDansion
456 AY8 Valdez, City of 750,000 6,(1)0 22,400 721.600 to replace septic systems with sewers and
wells with citY water
457 OIJ Ketchlkan.City of 400.000 3,200 11.900 384,900 for Mountain Point Sewer System
458 GOC $kaqway, Cilv of 250,000 2;000 7.600 240,400 fOr water svstem uoorades
459 OOF Wrangell, Citv of 425,000 3.400 12.600 409,000 For water and sewer uoorades
460 GOA Nome~ City of 800,000 6;400 23.800 769,800 for water and sewer uP9rades for Old
Federal Building . .
461 GWT Setdovia. City of 600,000 4,800 17.900 577 ,300 for water and sewer upgrades
10 total &,925,000 55,400 20&.300 &,6&3,300
!QM!2
5T AG FY 05 List Final revised 2.XLS
17
148 GYA Caslleford. City of 200,000 1,600 6,000 192.400 for water infrastructure improvements
149 GVA Castlefon:l, City of 450,000 3,600 13.400 433.000 for water infrastruclure improvements
150 GV9 Twin Falls, CiNOf 600,000 4,800 17,900 577 ,300 for wastewater infrastructure imorovements
151 GM3 Pocaleno, CilY or 750,000 6,000 22,400 721,600 I for water infrastructure. improvements
491 A2S Burley, City of 2,000,000 16,000 59,500 1,924,500 10 continue work on a Wastewater
Treatment System Proiect
492 GXQ Pocalello, City of 1,000,000 8,000 29,800 962.200 for Day Street Division Water System
Improvements
6 total 5,000,000 40,000 149,000 4,811,000
Oreoon
347 GP3 Portland, City of 150.000 1,200 4,600 144,200 for water and wastewater infrastructure
Imorovements
348 GWN Sweet Home, Citv of 150.000 1,200 4,500 144.300 for wastewater infrastructure .imorovements
349 GP1 Salem, City of 150,000 1,200 4,500 144.300 for the Peak Excess Flow Treatment Facility
for Sanitarv Sewer Overflows
350 GP9 Klamath Falls City Of 200,000 1,600 6.000 192,400 forwaslewater infraslJ'u<;ture imorovemants
351 GWM Rainier, Cllvof 150,000 1,200 4.500 144 ,300 fo(waslewater infrastructure imDrrivemenls
603 aUG Warrenlon, City of 250,000 2,000 7.400 240.600 for continued work on the munlciP<lhYateir
ouifall
604 GRS Rainier, City of 250,000 2;000 7400 240,600 for awaslewaler treatment plant
605 GYH Coauille, Citv Of 250,000 2,000 . 7,4{)0 240,600 for a waslewater treatment olanl
606 GP9 Klamath Falls 250.000 2.000 7,400 240,600 for pre1inlinary work on wastev(clter
treatment improvements .
i 607 GRQ Coburo; city of , 300,000 2,400 8,900 288,700 for .waStewater in Ira structure imoi'ovements
I 608 GWM Raii1lei'.Cityof 300,000 2,400 8;900 288,700 for wasl9'/fllter infrastructure irilproveiT1ents
11 total 2,400,000 19,200 71 500 2 309,300
Washlmrtoi1
413 GPU Chehalis. City of . 150,000 1,200 4,600 144,200 for water infrastructureimprovemei1ts
414 QUS Tacoma,Cijy of 1,000.000 8,000 29,800 962.200 for an integrated storm water systllm:for
Salish!!n housino develoPment . .
415 GPS Carson. City of 200,000 1,600 6,000 192,400 or water infraslruclureli'nprovenients
416 GPT Oak Harbor.Citv.of 200,000 . 1,600 6.000 192.400 forwaler infrastruCture improvements
417 GX4 Uniontown, Town of 150,000 1,200 4,5Od 144,300 for wastewater infrastructure imoroVein!1li1ts
418 GPT leirie. T6WnOf 250,000 2;000 7.600 240.400 for water infrastructure imorovements
419 OXl Lak~.Ci~of 150,Q()() 1,200 4,500 144;300 for the Americant.aka Gardens industrial
Sewer Extension
660 GYX Battle Ground,Cltvof .. 400;000 3,200 11 ;900 384,900 for sewer infrastructure imPrOvements
Port of Wana WaHa . for UwBurbank Water$yslem ---"
661 GY'I 750.00P 6,000 22.400 721,600 imorovements
Kennewi~,Cityor . ..- for drinking water.infrastructul'e .-.
662 GSP 500.Q()() . 4,000 14,800 481.200 Improvements ,..
..
663 .GSO Skamania County Public Utilities 500,000 4;000 14,800 481,200 for Water infrastructure imprC)vemenil>
District in Carson . .. .
664. GYl. Squaxin IslandTtibe 'in She.Jton 250;009 2.000 7,600 240,400 for wateraod wasteWater infi'astrUCtlJt'e
improvements
12 total . 4.500;000 36,000 134,500 4.329;500
39 Realon1O:Total .. 18,825~.O 150,600 561,300 18,113,100
~ 29,800 962,200 . or its BiOSOlic:ls FIOt.'rlJ'll'ol:JghTl'lIlIlMPtlill9
TreatmentOe!TioristratiOn.Project .
1 HQ Total .1 ;000;000 8,000 29,800 962.200
.
I 56!) I National Totals 317.085,000 2,536,500 9,114,100 3OS,434.4!l0
ST AG FY 05 List Final revised 2.XLS
A.... . 'AC'.HM...'. NT 2
.. .
. , . -' .. ... ".' . -
.-. .. - .' - . - . .' '. .
,.' ' - - .. " .
, " ._ . ."' dO ,".... ..
;, . . - . - - . -, .. .. - .
. "- . - - ..,'," .,. . ,
. .- . , . -'
. ... '," .
...........TT........... ....'. ..E..
. .' . ;-.' . .. -. ~.-- . ... . . -.' -'
.. .
DELEGATIONS MAN1JAL
1200 TN 516
09/2812000
GENERAL, ADMINISTRATIVE, AND MISCELLANEOUS
-102. Grants .and Cooperative Agreements for Water Infrastructure Projects or Other
Water ResolJ!Ce Projeels:from Funds Appropriated for the State and Ttibal .
A~iStance Grant Account or ~eEnviroDmentiil Programs and Manageznen~
A(xount .
AUTIlORITY. To approvcand administer grants and cooperative agreements.lorvfciter
nutastructure proj~or other waterre~urceprojeCtsftom fundsappropnatcxJ for the '
S~teand TnolllAssistance Grant Accountorfl1~~vironmentaJ Programsartd
:Management Accoilptor any succesSor accounts, mcluding a project .authOrized Py
Section 510 of the Water. QUality Act .of 1987, FL. 100-4. 101 .Stat. 7.80,EPA's'PY 199~
.Appropriations Act (p.L. 1 01-507), ~and3t.lYsUbsequentpubliclaw;. and loperfornl 9tl1eJ:"
ClCU~ties' necessary for the effectiveadmlnistrauoDoftllose grantsand,~ratiye .
agreements.
2. . 1:0 WHOM DELEGATED. The AssistantAdmini$tr;l.torforWatet.andRegi()J:]~
Admfuistratots.
3. .RBDELEGA110N Al.J'fHOlUTY.
a. .'1'he authoritygrantedio tlle ltegionalAdminisira.tor may be redelegafedto !lje
Division])irector levCl,or eqniya1ent,.andno~iUrther. .
b.
J"h. C.3. uthQritygr.3nted t6the AsSi:StaQt AdminiStrator for Water.maYredel~gai~(rJo
the.Of.fic~:DiI~toJ'JeY~~~or.Cquival~tana~Qfurther. ..... . . ..'c' . ... · ......
4.~ATIONS.
8. Except asprovi4~, in ~below, ,t.bi~4el~,gat:ioP ~liesonlytotbo~~t$,i11id. .
COOperative agre:dllenl$.forwhich autl1pritylsprovidc4excl~sivelyina~~
other thari.il1ede.anWatetActorthe,S~eDrlri1cing Water Act(e~g~amatU~e.
makingapjm:ipmti6nstotPeState..~.Tpp~1~stanCcGrlmtAcCo~.#i~.~
EnvironmenWPrograms.andMana.g~~entAccoun~ or my sUc:Cess.ot adcO'LlJl~)l
b, .Awards aJ:es-ubjecUo guidance issued by the Office of the Comptroller ,or pttbe
Office ofWaterQr 'its Compollent9ffices. .
c. This delegation also applies to grants andeooperative a~entsJorpipJec:ts
descril>edin. and pursuant to the 1987 Watet~ty AcrSectio.n 51Ot.~ amended
by EP A's 1991 Appropriations Aet(P.L. iQl-so7), as arrteIl4ed.
l_
a. Authority to execute(sign)' these financial assiStance agreements is delegated to
the Regional AdministIptors under Delegation 1-14; Assistance Agreerri.ents;
5. ADDITIONAL'REFERENCES,
b. 40 CFR Part 31;
c. 40 CFR Part 40fotDemonstrationgrants;
d. 40 ern Part 35,Stibpart K;. and
e. EP A Assistance AdniiIiiStration Manual.
. ..
. . ATTACHMENT 3, ..
LISTING OF CR{)SS-CUTTING
FEDE~AumORl11ES
FOR SPECIAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT PROJECI'S
EnvIroIimental Authorities
ArcheologiCal and Historic Pn:SerVaUoriAc;Pub. 1.. 93-291, as amended
CleanAirAct, Pub. 1.. 9s..95~ asamendec:l
CleariWa.ter Act, Tittles nI,IV andV~ Pub.L. 92~500,as amended
Co.ast.al :a!lTria Resources Act..l>ub~ I...97-34~l
Coa.stalZoneManagementAct,Pub~ 1.. 92.;583. as amended
Endangered Species Att,Pub.L 93~20S,asaincnded.
EIm.ronmental Justice, Executiv~ .~.1289g
f1QOdPlain.~anag~tm4 ~~qve..~.:11988astlJnend.~.by~eciJtlv~Orde;r
12.14~
.PrP~on fJfWetJanc:1s> Exei::tifiveOrd(:ill99f)asl$ertded by Executive Order
12$8 .
. .
. . .
fai:in13ndP.rotectionI>>olicyA~}lJ1b.l.. '~~9$
. .
tru;band Wi1dlife CoOIdiriaI:ion Act,Pub~.I... 85l,(j24.asamended
;MagnUnsOn~tevens~isheti':,CoIiserY;;tf;i(~~:faij(:1.~eot Act,.pqb~..L..94;26S
N~tlcma.1Enviromn~taIP()liCy,Act,~.L.gl-'1~. ,
Nationa11:lisWric Preservation Act,F@.L.89-65S,.aS.amended
SafeDririking Water Act P:tihi-c 93--543; asamende4
Wild and Scenic Rivets Ac~ l"ub. 1.. 90.;S4>as ame:nded
Economic and Miscellaneous Auth9riti~
o
Debarment and Suspension, Executive Order 12549
..... ---~-_.-. ..-..- -.- .--'-..' -,----_. ,._.,._~".-,--,-,-,._--
2
Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act, Pub. L.89 -754,
as.amended. and:B:xecutiveOnier 12372
Drug-Free WoIkp1aee Act,. Pub. 1..1 00-690
GQye;o:nnenr~eutra1ityTQWaid Contractor's Labor Relations. Exootitive; Order 13202$
amended byExecutiveQr4~ 13208
New RestrictionS on Lobbying, SectiQn 319 of Pub. 1.. 101-121
PiubJ,'bitionsrelating fuVio1a.tionsofthe Clean WaterA~OtClean AirAct with reSpect to
FedCZ"alCOIitracts,~ts,oil()~under Section 306 of~Cle~ AiiAcbmd Sectio~
508 of the Clean WaterAct,and Executive Order 11738.
'Unifonn:RelotatioIl mid Reat Property AcquisitionPtiiicies Ad, Pub. 1,.91.;646. as
~~~ .
CivilRigbts; NODdiscrilnlna1ion, Eq"!lal..Employmept OppoJ1lsn1ty ft'Qthorities
.' -..- . .....' .
AgeI>iSqlmil'l~~~~Pp,b; t. 94-135
... .... .. ,. .
EqualEinpioymeil:it~~~~ecuti'Ve Orderl124$
Section 13of.thec1eariWtaeiAC4 Pub. L. 92-500
-. .' .: '.' '.- . , . --'.....'...,.~.' " '. ..'. :--,.:;',- ...... ,,- . ,
S.ection50:1of~lt~ji~iUfu~Qn Ac;t,Pnb.L 93"Ji!2s~1~~t~1>yE~ecutiveOri1!:J:S.
11914 and 11250 . .. . . . . . .. . ..
Title VI of~CivilRigJrtsAct.Pub. L 88--352
J)iSadvantaged.lJusip.~:~P~lJ>~~~thorities
EP A'sFY 1993 Appri>pria,tiPtiSAct.Pub. 1... 102..389
Section 1~ 'of~Sxri,a.1lJ311mt1essAdministra.tion R~naildAmcndmc::nt~
Pub. L. 100-590 ...
Small, MinoriiY and W omertOwned Business Entetprlses.:EJtecutivecm:len 11625.
1213R and1243:l
, .
ATTACHMENT 4
~S7~~
j^1i
~ $(12 .,
~ . .'. .. ~
~~. .... ~ it
~,~~
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY
WAsHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JAM 20 1995
0FFJa: OF
ENFoRCEl.ENl' AND
~ASSUfWlCE
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
NEPA Guidance 'for 'Special Wastewater Treatment. Prpjects
in the FY9~ APP:c:OPeri:.....1on.. B~.... ._ .
Richard .E.. Sanders;a.. ~
Director ... , ....
otfice of Federal.. .ctivities (22.52)
NEPA Coordinators
SUBJECT:
TCl:
!l'h~1>urposeof .t.his1'i1~or.aildUlll is t.o. provide$UidaJl~e on the
r~~:1ir(!il1entt; . .for;. compl;;{ancewith the National Enviroroilen,t.al .
Pp.ti~yAct,(NEl?~)for ,i:;pe.cialpr.9jects authoriZed for; )~~A ~al'lt.
1:~d~n,g-~Yt:heFY9 5 Afli>r()priatioJ:)sAc;:t (Act). Tile .~ . ..
i:l~prpP-ria~~tl~no7t~ar"lr1()n~t.tof:und speci,al wasteWater.t1:-eati1ent
pro~ec~s'it;ien~ifie;c:lJ::jYCbilg,;r:~~si~ . Each region ha.s~p:t"oj e~qn
tij.1:;. ~lj,:.;;'t. .T.he IJ:st i~i1'lcl~9~'in the att<.\Chec:} (:opy P:f:the
gliigl!SilcelDeJIlorandum prepared 'pytheOffiee of WaterMC!~ag~ent
(~l.~.
. .... dTheqWl'!.lIlemora.hduntintl~cat.esthat HEPA appl~es 'to.a~l.'O:f
tl,i.es~pt-9jects e~wero:t:het:bre~t:o '~.:fundladas Cl,aan Wi1,:!:~}.ct
(<;w~).sg~ion.194(b).(:J)...c1~ClnwcilMo~~roj~cts. ~~sg ~'I)r~la. a.~e
ex~ptedfrOJll NEI'~Uridert4Ie'~~1\' t3ectio~ 5i~ (e) .. The 9f}~fce of
Gen~-r;al.'90UJ:1sel .. (OGc)ha~ 'prepar~d an "Analysis of .~A
a~~:ti.c::JiPi.lA~ .:t()spec::~~l,;m:-~l1~~tatii:h()rized by. FY .1:!:i9?
1\$>pz.o,~1i~~tioris Act.." 'Thls.analysis!salso attached..
OFAGu'idallce to ReqionalltEPAC<:>Qrdi nators
'.. .AniIldepend~t. EPA~A,~nalxsisfor the non;-demonstrat.ion
projects. is:r~ir!O!d "Inad<:'li:t;io!l, o~er crOS$~c~tt~9', fe~~l
statut:~, ..~\1Cll as-t:he~d<l:n9ered.. SpeC1e$ Act and1::.helfat:;j,;Clll~;,
Hi~t:())::lc. preservationAet;a.+So a~ply to these J?roj'ects.The
cc)uncilon lmvirc:m~ental. IDlali:t:,:y's (CEQ) Ni;PA r~;I.~:tionsdo not
al1o~EPA. to . adopt a ..sta't~ .ana.lysis. . However, , tile. NEJ?.A
reguia'tions. do require ag~ncies..to "cooperate with. state and
lOCa,lagencies to the fullest extent possible toreduC:e
@ ~dl'R~l'dabl.
_".;oli'~.""''''J>09"'''''
. . .....,;.:..........lS~nc~df<l>O/
dupl:ication between NEPA ana.' state' ~nd' local' requirements "
(40.CFR 1506~2). ,There ~re severalways'the~egions can use the
'existing i,nfonnat,ion 'and <;lssessm?nts' for these projects a~ ,'; .
sUlllJi1a-rized below and as discussed in' greater .'detail in the .'. '.
attached OGC analysis. .. In 21:11 casesl EPA mus't independentlY'-, '
evaluate the' state documentation'and reviawprocess and is
responsible for the accuracy of the NEPA documentation and the '
adequacy of th'e p:rocess (40 C!R 1506..5). , '
'. Where 'states 'have performed environmental reviews under
NEPA-:-like. statutes or,pu.rsua-nt:to .s:ta'tt-e' RevQlying Fun~ : . ,
J:?egu.;tatibns" ,EPA 'can incorporat.e,'~but: .not, si.l1\ply. adopt, the
state an~;tysis into ,,~e .A~ency's' NEP~: analysis.._ '. ' ": ,,;,,
." . ,.~.' .. .... .' .~a.... ..~-_~-:.. . . ..... ~-..-:.... ..~'.... . .,..:. . :.4..
. Where .s,tate reyieis, have 'found' no significant i.1npcicts ,and
ID?A approves"of that finding and the . state process, 'EP~ may'
i::;sue an enyironmen,tal assessment (EAt:sunon~i2:;inq and ,., ..'
referencing the stateanaly'sis' and. an accoiopanying Finding'
o~ No' Si9l1ifican'f. Impact' (FONSI) .' ' , ....
. Wh,ere':s:tate ,review.s 'have' found significa~t iJnp~ct.s or EPA.
,independently, deterDlines that there are sigrii.~ii::ant impacts;
EPA lnust ,i~sue a not,ice o~ intent 'and proceeq wi.th an' - .
environmental 'impact statement (EIS) and'recqrd.of decision
(ROD) .in accordanC:E:! with the AgenCY/s'regulations' at 40 em
Part 6. :' "'~.
. . Where consf:rUctiq!i .of. projects .is complete or near1y
co~pleted', a'~EP~analysis will not have~o pe ,done. .
. where .conatructi.on h<ss' started andth.e. prq:) ~ct is not
nearly completed; a ~A analysis is~requirea and a .
noti.fica.tion ofinteni:; to pursue an' .independent' analysis
lDust be .sent 'to the 9rcpl~e.' , . - .. .
. where proiectt::l to he.fwlded.bave beenongpinl;J 'for 'seve3;"al.
year~,additional' ass.e~SJIleI;1t Jiiay n()t, .~'rec;r:Ui;e~if, prior~ .
f~deral ~~AdQ~entationhas addresseq th~P9~~onsof .~~
project to befunQed'bY :the FY95 -aran1:'- ~e regipnwi1,l' ..
neea to, assure that since the previousass:~~~ri:t.: . l.)t)1ere
are no substanti<\I. chang~s. in the . proposed. 'ac;tlQn telev~t
to en'Viromnentalconce:tns ,or 2) the.rearenos.~.gnificant.
new circumstances or information relevant to'env~r9nmental
concerns and bearing ~n the proposed a6:t:ion ~:t l:tsilnpacrt;.~..
If theNEPAanalysls' was carried,out Ullder'ap ear~iei:' ' .
constrUction grant action and. is no longer adeql,1at~ or .the
:,p-;-p:ject has' not previously. been assessed'}:)y EPA, -it: will: be:-
nec~ssary to issue either an EA/FONSl or an ~IS/ROD. The'
regulations app3;.icable to tbese ,special, project;'grants' are the
CEQ<requlations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and. EP~'s :NBPA '.. . ','
regulations (40 CFRPart 6; ,~ubparts A-D)..' EPA's regulations "a,t
40' CFR,Part 6, Subpart E, :while they do not ,apply,to .the~e ',:,."
special proj.ect: grants, lIlayprovide addi~ional ~iftance.,' ,." ",1:1-..
. ~. ,. . '-s, ',.' ...... '.. ....t. ... "... ,~--'..'..'. '--- ,";,. . ":.:' '~'-"~.::-..
-..: :. We. <;m~~c~pate' .that. addit;l.onal..1.5sues, or sUb-~sslles:1I1ay'ar.ise}
w!iic~:: are . not'~~ny ti:-~ated' in.. 'thisc;renera~ .guldanc~ ~ ~:emcira;idu:ii:i':::-:!
'.These shou;l;:4 ,be,; brpught . 'to . our attention. as.' - soori' ~s 'pb~sJ'ble):;~-:,':rri;;
.!'idditionj 'We na'<le scheduled a 'teleconference ,Qn '. Tuesday;, . JabUiu:y:
24,i995 frOlXt'J.1.:00".a.'lII~ .to,.12:ob noon eastern. staiidard:.timeto~:."_
dfscussth,?--s. 'gU:i~a.nCe:' .and'addi ti.onal: ii?sues 'or concerns~-wi th .. tb~" ,',
proCess. ~e ca11:in :nUmber is.. (202)' 260-'-4257. ~e :logk. :fo~_
!-o,'your,j?~icip~ti~n..' Pl~se 'inform,John..G.~~ (20~1.2~O-;59~P).. .
1.:(",YO\1 or. 'Y.o~, s1:-aff .:WiJ.:l;not.~ on :the :cal1. ..'.. ....: . . - '.- .
Atta'ctriaerits,: ..:'.. .:~.: .
.~t:.t#t~:~~~}i~~
.,' :,'!:Ed ,Gross;;, OWH'i":
~ ,..' '.. -'. '.- -"," ". -. ".;.-~'
.~
.\'
:"
'~'~--?ri~1 :",l.? ~'J.~~
.'<.'~- i;;4:~i<i~.:'
:r'}:"A'~:
~,:;;tz:;.~:~;;~~~~
ATTA'CHMBNT5
#<(\'i.rrS7..~
ift'o
~~~
o '_ _.' , 0
_ " ,_' 1:
~ - -..
"r . .... ..- #
~"""'i - ,l=:ROt~t"J'
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL'PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUl 2 9 L\ll3
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Con(JitioningGrants for Water lnfrastructU:re Projects Prior to NEPA Reviews'
AnneNCirtonMiller7-Director~ . ...~.... ... .... ....
OffiCe ofF~IA~.tht;ti_ !)
~lftk
;,. ~ .
FROM
James A. HaiJloll,bireelor
OfliceofWastewaterManage
..... .... . - . .
EPANEP A CQmpllttnCe Coord- . tors. Regionsl-X
Wat,etDivision:Directors.Regi 11$J -X
- ~purp()~ofthis tn,~otan4\lIDis to alert you to1he~Cmn!=ofll reccntcoutt ..~..that' .
wm affectbo\VY~l;l~egIaJl~Jorthespecia1projectsaward~U1der1heatiJhorltyor:the.. > ....
Agt;nc}'~s Appro~~QnsA~..- . ... . ..
TO:
In thC)an~.:20, 19.9$mem()raiidum, "NEPA Guj~f'()rSP<:cia1:Wa,s1ew~~:;r .
Proje,ct$ in theF)' J~5Appt'9piiati()DJ3ilJ;" RiCha:rdE.:. Sanr;1e~p~Vi&dgui~onh~....
E:'PA would .cortipIy.:.Witl;ltbe.~ati.oJ1alEnvironmeIltalPoJic;:y,Act~A)forthespecl~wBler
inftastruCtui'c: o-ecisauthorl~&in1heAen ..'sFY 1995A.'....-ationsActWithCO.
=::Ht=~T:-:~~~=~;;t~~~
poHcydirection (~,~Ato~pIi~ror:aJloft)le specia1p~; ipc:1UdiDgd,riiikirigWi.~. ..
storm'vaterandgrO~ei~oninftastrUcture proj~. .. . . . ... ..
Followingibt:is~()f the 1995memorimdum,tbe OffiCe or:Fe.Cf~ A!=tiViti~(()F'A)
detenniriedthat~onscorildawaJ'dgran~. for special Appio:~\i()J)SAdproja:ts bd'~
~pJeting a NEf!\~viewifthegr.iJlt award contained ~condition~~1hat~AWOi1id:n~
fundanywork~9D4itheconceptual design pointuntiJ compleiionof1heRpplicabJe. ..... .
requhementSofNEPA and6thereroSs--cutting statutes sUch as~Eridan~emJSpeci~Act.'I'bis
guidance basbeeri~cfuorializedin~ "STAG'Guide1ines"~annuanyby tlle Ofl,ieeof
WaStewater Manageinent(OW1Q. We have developed the atta~model grant conditipn(v.ith
optionallanguage'dependingon the situation ofaspecificgratit)thatcan tJe.lised toset omtbc.
spetific restrictions the grnnteewould agreeto,wben EPAawarosa grant thai iQc1tides activity
beyond conceptual design before the NEP A reviewis completed.
Inl"met Acldn>$S(URL). hllp:l/....ww.~goy
Recy<l~lOCycb~ ./"rinIedwah v~ o. BasedWcs on Recycled PllpH~lJI11 30% ~
_._ ___________w.___. ___._....-.._.._~... .-...... .-. ~.. ---.-. --
2
In a recent court case, CARE v. EPA. No. 03-0417 (D.D.C.April15, 2003) involving a
NEPA challenge to a local sewer proj;Ct to be funded in part by an EP A grant, the court
s\JggeS1ed that ifEPA had awardedthespeeial AppropriatioosAct grant prior to completing the
NEP A review. the entire project, even the part being constructed with local funds.>might have
been considered a Federal projectandstibjecttotbe NEPAreqUiremen1S. This cOuld have'
resUlted in the CQJJrt enjoinin&llie endreproject penQingcon'lpletion oftbeNEPAreview. This
court case raises the risk that projeclscould ~ssfuliy be challenged undf:'r NEPA when EPA
awards grants that include a grant condition statingtbatEP A will not fund any work, beyond the
conCeprual design point until theNEPAPtOcesS is completed. ACcordingly. wereci:lnuncild that
you iriformgrantees of this. potential issue if a c:ondiu()ned grant is being considc:red.
. Underthe STAG Guidelines Re&.ions,m2)' ~e separate planning .gtarltsto special
Appropriations Act projectredpierits. 1p.e .collrtS consistently have held that Federalaetions that
iIwolvl,: only planning activities :arenotSpQjecttONEPA. AlthoughaWlU'ding twosq>amte grants.
(one forplanningactivities and onefora1lotbepl,~tivitieS)inYolves more paperwork,wc:
~mm~dtbat the Regions co!l$iderusm&' this approach. .
TheOfEce-QfGeneral Counsel (OGC)basco~ in this memorandum. If youbave
nnyql1~ons(:onccming1he conl~nts()f~Sl1l~9UmdUIp.YO~may contact us, of~vl:Your
staff~orikct1oe Montgomery (202~S64-7~S7)inOFA, MarilynKuray (202"~6+3449).inOGC.
,..-....-.- . -. '..' . ... ... ....... .. - - ". ..
.orIiartyMcGee (202-564-'061Q}iIl.OWM:.
Atblchment
, cc:RichardKQblman
MODEL GRANT CONDmONS
ToBehic1uqed in STAG Grants AwaRJed Befote
Completion otEnvironmentalReview onder the National EnvlronmentaJ Policy Act
In:drndionsror~jectOmeers~ .
FPTproJects .thatbavcnotpro~~dbeyond conceptual designfpr.iortogr;mt awlird, iIlcJude the
introductorypatilgrapb.s and~ as appropriate. the two paragtaphs.~hoeI~.~tionl."
Forprojettstbat bavcfStarted d~lc:d design or construction prlortOtb~~9f:th,efiSC3l,ear
f9rwhicll thefi$dS w~e apprt>Piiat~ include the introc1ucl()ryparagfaph~an4.thcPanlgraph
]~eled ''Option:2.'" . . . .. .. . ..
Foi" projects .that.startedd~']ed'd~igi1 or construction after thifSWt,oftheJiscalyear for which
the funds were .apJiJ'i)juiaW!..bull>eforC completionofthe~e;:itali'eVi~p.ri>Ct#ithc
RegiC?n$b()iild~ther; . ..- . . . .
Aw2rt1~in~tIi1en~'81~tthat only inchtdesp1annlng:a~tivjti~.. Atnmt for'~
remaiJlderoftbc.Pf?jectwou1a Ye.awarded afterthcNBP:1\~ciotSand<ither
re1Cvairtantlioiitic;sh~cbeeilmC4Or, . ......
. ..
.. .
.. ..
~::=:~~~eprojeCt after~e,~A.~cmis,andother
NnA'C~m1>iianet: .
fe~::=:~:,;t~~~~~~~:-.t;~~"-
. .
. .
..~rec::=:::Jte~~~~=:=..;;r~r~=tiCn
analysiS of the aJtematjvecs 3OOtbeenvitonmental.iinpaCts otfb~prOjC4t. The,~11~JIl11Stpe,()f
sUffiCient sc6pe300,detiiliOenaoleEPA toperfom1 an enmDIDtmt:4imew tinaer.NEPAand.
()fue:iFederal environInerit31 st$lteS.'
tConceptnal design is essentiaJlytbe s;u:oe ll$ faeilityp1atxrifugasdCfintdm:EPA'SCoDStnIctiol1 ~
program.
2
Option 1: (To be used ~or projects thatbave not progressed beyond cODcephlal design
. prior t() grant award)
The recipient agrees not to take any action on the project bey~>nd conceptual desim ~hiclirig
but Dol limited to, ~g the preparation ofplansantlspC(;jfications. purchasing lanel.
advertising or awarCling design and/or COlillnlctlOD COntIacts..initiating construction C)['
requcstingreimbursement from EP A foreostsassociatedwith silch actioDS unblsucbtIme as
EPA bas cOIn:pleted itsenviromnental review in accordance with~A and 40 C.FJ'{,Pa.rts6
aDd 1500 ~.mm~ COmpletion of this review wiUbeevideneed by the issuance ofa~*&Orica.l
Exclusion (CE); 1heconclllSionoflbe Finding of No SigpificantImpllCt (FONSI)probess,OTtl1e
isSuance.ofaRecordClfDeclsion (ROD). .
The reeipientagreesthat,upon cciIIipletioDofthc ~A :ie"liew. design and conStructiQDSMUbe
nridertakm iIlacfOrdance With the fesults.ofthati;eview., inchJiHng but not 1imitedto, ~e
~plementatiOtrQfJ)1easures.~A iden1i.ti~ as~bletomitigate the envirollID~itnp~
of the project. EBA ~esthe tight touni1at~termiJ)ll1ethisgr.mt intheevent~~jpient
fails to . comp)y with tbiscondition,in accordanceWith40C..F 14 Section 31.43.
Option~: (T1)~usedfotpnjjects1h~tbav~s~oo~eti.a~ed~esign or C()Dstru#iollpri~..
to tlJest3rt of1be fiscal yearfor;'l'Vb;kl1thelUbd$w~,re appl"()p:riat~d) ..
Tbe recipientagre~ to cooperate with 1beEP Amoject officer to establish the~~".
~edui-estobefondwedto ensure thattheNEJ>.kCn~e:iiialri:view procesSjS(:(jrilpletedm
ac.~cewith~Aand40 C$R.I'~6'a1'ld150<iet~.ci>~pletionof~~~ -~Pe
eYidencedQY tbei~ofl:l Categorica1:EXc:1uSion(CE).,1l1ec9riclosioil or~~g()(~o.,
SignifiC3Ilt1mp~t,(F01\l$I)~; or.tl1eisSl,JaDceofaltCC1;lroofDecision.(I{Q:D). .. .
~trtnOre,tbei'ecipiem:a~ to implciJ)ent reaSonablcjn~ to niitigatetbe
en.Yironri1e~t~timpai#ofthiptOject.. .. ..
EPAwlllnot approyeorfund IIDY worlcbeyondtlle<:oncep~~~ignpoint untiltM~~
ftquiremct1ts andotbe:r relevant authoritiesl1a~e ~.IIl~ .M.liiti()11311y. EPA~~~c #g\It
to uriilateraI1yterminatCthis grant in tbe event the:re-qpi~,fails.tocomp1y withUPs~ti~iD.
accordance with 40 c.y.R.Section 31.43. .
ATTACHMEN'T"6 .
~
.~
~
~
~
q
c:)
C"'~
I
t3
cq
r-.:
(I)
.5
w
.P")
.0
...a:
dO.
e::
o
..11-
tri
.UJ
e::
n:;)
..~
w.
.:E,
I&.i
,.a:
o
U
I
1-
Z
w
:&.
.~
II)
11..I
II)
II)
<
II)
E
11..I
Z
uJ
al
u.
c:
If)
~
u
~
<:
.0 .
'011I
c: u iii
ftl ~ 13
u:> 0 CIJ
Z ~ ~
00. e
Eii 0.
:= L.. ~
tt;,g .9-
o r:: ~
Q.I 0 ::J
'5. :p E
10
BE
.l2oE
cc
=;
~-5
.2CIJ
u'"
.E~
sf
:=.01
t:::6'
'00
0>-
<=11)
:elii
8.~
~ .11>
...<
.eft
"0 '0
Q1C
II> co
::;1-0
Q.ICIJ
~t)
=llJ
.~...g.
t)~
~B
~~
OllJ
~.;:
.!!!CIJ
:.c: .c
.....'C
'5lil
6~
!~
>(Z
u .
:Cui
.elll
'tlQl
.!!!
ClJOl
e:c
<j
. 0
VI=
l!!.e
:lCIJ
lap
.0>
Eg
Q.I'O
iSc:
.....::1
::Joe
0."
"'01
>c:
;$!~
(11=
QI",
g~
.!!!~
.J::o
.1- Ul
CIJ
U
c: .
roCIJ
,g:g
>~
10-
E~
e:1O
~~
_CIJ
C1J.c:
0.:=
.E:.l!1
we:
lUCIJ
.~ E
C:E
.20
....u
='...
.v <II
<II.s::
x....
ClJo
C-o
me:
.210
"'01
01.:
Q1~
E~
..~
GJQ
:S<ii
~'t)
ro='
'U,E
lDcu
'f:a
~.!!
iiI).
:;) .
~tl
~Q1
~e
.5 Q..
.c:CIJ
\Ie
III ='
III 0
L.\II
.12 t:
..t-
.. >0
'00.
c;C
100
e:
M'"
o
--
N_
~ro
....e
.0
oR
~o
"'CIJ
::I...
"'10
~.c
E(I')
01'0
....c
CIllO
c....
E~
0'"
.U4
.
E
!IJ
....
III
>-
III
111
..c:
.... 0
?;
.!:! ~
"iij
III Z
e
0
13
='
'0 0 0 0
f!
VI .r-
01
e: c:
~ .l'-. l"- S
ro c e .0.
.!:! 0 .0 ....
'P .:P'. C
U 3 10 .CIJ
Ii:: u E
u ..2 .2 cu
cu .16. jij tll
0. ,10
II) .;..J ..J e:
.11) 0 0 IQ
~ ~ ~ E
01 .1- 1- '0
e 01..'0 :CIJ
C .cu 1!
c." .'D. 'tl
II)
III VI In .CU .CIJ
- CIJ 1jE' ....
.c... 10
~."O C: .0. ..~
11I."0
01 co JU .ro .JU
0 o.
0 ifo!#.
.g
...J~'
....iJt, .
.....
WI
11
.1II
..,..,.
0'
-.;;.
.A.
l:ll
c:. .
I;
.~..~
..'0 :~'.~ .,
-.:E"-
.~U
'--
'-
'i
...
o
...
o
..,
<<I.
'C.
s
~8
."'-"
:ti:
.CiJ
I3
.J::
,0.
'0
III
III CIJ
III :5
:I .....
'tl II) 0
lIJ ~..!!!
-:;; :::> 10
C -gg,
.2' '!;: ~
III 'y ....
1lI 1:=
'tl .Ql ~
- :GO"
o _'
. ..,..
c>- CD B
o 'tl .c: co":
;:;.0 ... ~ .11I
E-e 5 CIJ-E
B2 IL:SW
111.11I . 1110
e .~'> .~...
~ "0 ftl't: ~
OCII.'OlU
c'tl ;S.....E
E"G! ~~a
t;- VI... n
llJlO C1J31a..
.....llJ X.::I
Bz .8 ~.o;
c.c CIJ.,,:c
2~:giE~
. ID u"'-
gE=o'~
- '0 ~ lDlO
'$u /0. C:o:=
..a'" -
.;:g 'iii ~tf
~..'tI ~ U ~
.O.C co CIJ..o
U III ::E 5l- 5.
:-i
:"!,,:
'.GJ
~
10
"'0 "0
i:: 0
.o.i
: :::W c..
; 8 .oJ
...111 e:
.dj 01
E
lid
..0.
.11I
a:
i; '~..'
..,;.
1:1
QI
'E'
Q. .
Q1,vt-
fl~
0&
::E
e: 10
S c
E{g
10-
c:1L
me:
.0 Ul
~~
l/)-
;:B
U~
ii
U 'tI tD
.~
11
CIJ. X
'E'.
Q, . ...
~>
....
:s~>
.>- 0
'C.g;zo
.0..... .:>
'$ tjlll \3M
II.> .~ 1:J
e -S ~. olt.
o..~ IV.~
~. 'E;S
.. .Ol.."" 10
c5l!!B....
10 ~ C:.H
ell> BQlH
lj:: II) VI ~
';;~~g~
~ en..............,
~Bze=
.aJ fO = C'L .
:ll U III 01 H
Ll/)IVUH
Q.I:E'US
....., ...... J:: 0
.5ZUIIlJol
e
o
P. ..- ..
eOODOO
o
1;;
.Q.1
a::
~-
i
f'
I.
i
I
i
!:
,
l.
Ii
,.
I
I
I
I
I:
i
l'
I
I
~.
i
I.
r
t
!~
F
II
~
I'
f'
t
r
I;
.co
....x
-0
~.c
.c:..!!!
u.c
- ...
:E~
::IU
C.1II
....c
04,)
~~
;!;:a.
'iCE
g.1iI
L.~
.fl::l
fCltl
3:::1
...
>-....
ell)
lOe
CIJ'C
'0-
;>11)
o .11I
...>
o.e
.... 0.
g$
Ills..
iU-____
o c:
'00
t1~
~.o
O.
... .
P."l}
C1J.l;::
.cQl
..I:
~Q.J
......0.
c 0 0 0 0 0 0 tJ r; 0
w
0 0 '0 0, 0 '.(i) '0 '0. .0 0
'P
ItJ
L-
a D 0 0 tJ "..; :D D 0 ,-,
.. Q W
II)
llJ .,0;, .'Q; ~; '0;, "?- '0;" .il,. .g. 0;,
.~ ,
0 ;'i51 d 10 [] d :D 0 r.-;
'W
I: P '0' 0 .9 .0 ~:: 0 o.
0 ,
.13 ..
.CJ d 0 .0 p [J 0 IJ 0 0
'"
o. ""; .~ ,~ A 'i:i,. .R,;, ;A" :G,.. ,Co.
..
c...
, ..
,
, ..
c:.
; , c. :g
......
0 'fcl
:;:; 11) ..~
CD. ..1..,;..: :!~
>- IV.. f .-
.~ ~ ~. "- u :g
v
III ,~ E.. .,1:1 ..Q).
.a1 =,. t; .0.. 0-
W <I) .QI .c tl ';5 , Yl '"
:l L' CIJ ..c: .(I). .C 'iU IV
(11 C; .~ Ii: .11I 0 .Itl III
'1) .... .10: .... .... 'co in;
'10' '.10. C .u
111 :3:' "-,-". 01 O. '~ .iiJ ... Q)
.... .s; '<II +,. .... 1:i '9-.
III ..... .10 .1.1 ,13
0. .s::; .3: ~ .1tI.
j C. . en ID '0' J I
:s;;(: !is .:1:, .E .:c: B .... ..~
III c: c;. -ti E .8 ~~ .4.1
:s::: .c:.
'llI. .1:~ ':..C. :'0 'to. 1:. ,CIJ . ... ..,
0 .0' tit ,u .~ 0., :(J) ~. 0 0
o
....
c:
'0
=
c
o
c.
III
...
~
~
M'
s:
..1
In'
l:I.
Z
lJ>
Co
,g
'U
J!!
~
c:.,
.GJ.
S
10m
..c .......
.., ..&..'
>-
.Q
'0
.<<1
.~
III
III
C
o
.-p
III
'5
c.
.0 .
AU
"" CIJ
elF
:I Po:
*
PC
.......
1II
lU
;::..
'tl~
:1:0
.:1 .e
tl .....
.e ;i;
~s
'0 .JV
BE
III
III
..
....
"''0
B c>
.~. E
III
~
111
III
~
....
o
III
E'tl
::s.!!!,
'0 e
> 0.
*
N
.'0.
.CIJ
.... ~
01
~
{E
'0
U
.GJ
'~
,~.
;::::
o. . .... .
HOOODO
AI . ',',
.....
e
I).
) "-,:,; "
~~
~i:h ~
H:t~ "
t;:"i' .
i-~E- ~
~lj! :
";jo'
;.~,
'1i;:
~~~ :
ii::.~ -;-'
:r.:;....,
~i:- ':
~}
1~~ ,~
m-~:;;
..._~ .
~:.,.
'"4;-"!.
-0
00.
.~.
,\""..:.
..~
.CIJ--
~
~E:"
f
I
r
I.
I
In,.,
t
00 l. ..o~
,...... t ..'';;;;~
.1IJ. l ~]~
f'Qf~ ':0 tJ [ ;
~ 15 E .&.~s'l ~~:
III -tS. . fl' ~.. t ~
.;'5 ~ s ii~'.d 11E-'
H~~! C d IIi
~ ~ ~ ~ i5 De ~'M ,'!
.B z > CIJ .~ ~ 4)!lI W . 1:
{i 8 1 ~ ~ .~. ~ ~:. . [) " ~
E 1:I.E E 1:1 =c.~. .1 '5
.. .!; .?; .Ci' ~ 0. E'O. . ~
o e = = e E 0 .a.. III
...0.IIIJll.c.8tlv.. Q,
i.!! 5- g..!! 1IJ ~~. ..... E
E.s:: "" ... .r:; > .... ctI. ....,0
.... IV .IV .... 1IJ c. ':l:i
ClJVl......... ",:2'iC~ .1lJ
~ 8 ~ ~ 8 ~. E "'0 I E
a. 0 0 .!l... . ;g
E ~E
HID .c u lC1l
* j C
I....
I .;. QJ
i 0 E
! g. ro
I ex: z
!
i
j
t_M_.
tI'l
DEFINITIONS and DATA SOURCES for the Core Benefits Measures
o.
a. Project name and tracking #s
Enter-the project name and the number used to track the project in your state CWSRF
prograin. If additional tracking InformatIon is required, enter "a," "b/" "'Ci" etc. For
exampJe,lftheproject number refers to the loan and this only one of three projects under
thatlban, .dlfferentfate the projects as "aT" "'b,"'and "c/O If the project received a previous
CWSRFloan, note the tracking nUl"0ber of the original loan/prOject.
b.. Pern1ittype'&nl.imber, waterboqy J:OI12-digit. HUe, otherl()<:ation. info.rrnation
perroittype.w'iIIus,uaJly be."NPDES/ but roaybegroundwater or la!1d.discl1arge..,Please
alsO enterawatert.Jody ID #, a HUe: (hydi"bl()glcunlt code) number, or some ot!J~r
geographic !nformation for the. affected waterbody{les). This Is espedally . Important if the
facility that thepr;oject affects does not haveapemiit or it the project affects a V'iaterbody
or waterbodlesotherthan the receiving waterbody for this facility. Apermitnumber itself
shouldaflow states apd EPA to ~ccess this Information. This Information wlll~lIowEPA to
aCcess Cldd'itional information abOut: thewatetbody .from otherdatasol.m:es; Waterbody 10
#'s ate part of the Nattonal Hydrography Dataiet.{NHD) and are available through map
Intertac:esQn:ttl~Ef'Aand USGs. websltesi as are HUes. state environmental orl1'lapplng
agencies callalso often provide thlsinf~rmation. .
c. . CvvSR-F,I~'hamC)unttotbeprC)ject... .
Enterthe;f;lf*~,l!ntlo~l1ed to f1l1anq!th~~pedflC;project. This may differ fromthet~tanoan
amountlf~l::ieloanflnanCes mult.ipleprpjectS; . .
. .
"..To~l,CWSRP loan amo\lnt,aride:lCeeutlon date
Ent:ertnet"h~l loaqamount andtt:le date9filoanexectitlon.
X~te..est..atet:lJldrepaymel1t p~f;lpd: ... . .. .. ... .
EPAWiJll.Is~ttli~irifprmatlon andmar1<~td~tatoc(jmpute estimated. l?Orrower Sayings d\,le
to the CWSRFiotereStrat:e subsidy_ .:Report me final Interest rate tMatlnt:;:ludes any fees to
best:capturetheborroWers. realizedsavlrlQS. .
e.f\lIt1~pr~ie~ca,tegorles for t:he loan .. . ... .. . ...
Thl!iI~:1:ne::sln1pI~sty.lay.to descri~.9 proJ~c;t. ..~~.).Jsehere allo\o'lstep()Wqgf~f.~
Il1cllV.lp.u~r.proj~ctS~t@t.oft:en r~elveJll1~n9ngJl"orn~.a..slngleCWSRfJq~lJ,t~9~.~~rately
catalOQuirtg:OenefIt.$Jriformatlon~ Select all&tegories that applytc)-the pro~tt;(nbtalt
cat~goi1es\th.atappiy to the loan)~ (Theelectl'Qnlc version. makest;hlsm~easier,)
No.te:)f:theProj~c:tfn~\Jcles multipler~IM$~tegories (next pa9~)j.pl~~c;()jj~i<l~.
reJiPrtlfl9 . pr9ject~~ allOCated tc) ea~t:lNIM$~teg()ry. . ThlsciptlonC5I.St~pwilfhelp EPA use
environmental benefits inrormatlonto the cjreatest.effect.,
Category
I Secondary treatmel':)~ and best practicable wastewater treatment technology.
II Advanced treatment.
nIA Infiltration/inflOw. correction.
IlIB Replacement and/or majorn~habllitation of existing sewer systems.
IVA New collector sewer systems and appurtenances. .
IVB New Interceptor sewersystenis and appurtenances.
v Correction of combined sewer-overflows.
VI Munldpal storm water management programs pursuant to NPDES permits.
vn Nonpolntsource projed:S related to
A agriculture activIties
a anImal agriculturai activities
C forestry activities
o development: roads, buildIngs; etc
E 'ground water pc>llutlon . .
. F boating and marInas
G niinlng and quarrylng'actlvities
X. Recycled waterdis1:nbutloil
H Id.le,andUnd~nJsed Industrial sites
Ipeti-oleUi"i1orcherrilcat tanks
Jsanltarylandfllls '
Kstreambanklshoteline modification, .
dams,w~tlandfdpClrianlmprovemeht:s
l rehabjJjtatlon/r~placement of Individual
otcommi.mlty sewage disposal systems
1. ,
ljseJ' population s(!rved .. . . . . . .
Enter the number ofpeoplethat;the:Proj~ct serve.$(lrrectlY :~i1dft:iE!J1J.ll"!lber of people
.eurrently connected tQ thepermlttecl JadUty orsysteOlthattheCWSro: prOj<<tlll1prov~~ 1.
:this rnforma,tlon has f1otl:>~n i.Jp(I~t~'~;>nthep~rrnit.'~r;;elitJY/tQ~'appllc:aht should be a~l,a
fr;> provide it easily; . .. . . . .
. .. .
. Examole: A project thatsiIllPlyex,te,lids sewerlinestO,al'leidh,J:>orhciOdthat wasJortnerJyori
.septlc: would orilyreglster1:I1~:PPpWatJoJl()f tlJ.athelghbO~hoocl ~se,tved directly. I&l .. .. .
.Improyements thro\.lghoutth_eS)i$tem,tl)C1t .ano~the'.trea.tmeJ)t:pli:!Tl~:tQmalnt.aln caPCldty
..forthe newlyconnecteqriefghbor1190d,/lpweyer, WOl,ltp~g($tertlle;entlre:PopulatlOh
. cOnnected to that fadlftY.~~~~tvAA;~),jc;tlY. I.l)both.:~~roRJ~~'~/w~would. enter the
entlre population cQoneGted'to<tbec:rodlltylntt'lefacIlJtY61~jjk. 1l1vs for the ,latter ease, we
enter the entire populatlbncoi"i@ecJtothefacllitY .1fl.J:jQthbl~i1kS. ,. . . .
... . . .
2.
Volume of wastewatertreatedlprocessed
For the project,.enterth.e flow that It directly affects. This figure could be equivalent tathe
entry for the facllity(les), the designf!ow obtained from the engineering plans or updatecl
permit for the fadlity. When f1qw c::annotbe accurately calculatedfofeach phaseo! a
phased project, divide the final resulting Clffected flow and design flow by the number of
antldpated loan commitmentS and report the quotient for each commitment year.
Example 1:
A CWSRf loan funds rehabilitation of two pump stations, each of which processes 8% of
total flow to the treatmentfadlity. Enter 16% ofthe total flow f()r the project and enter the
total design flow for the facility. .
Examole 2:
A CWSRFloan funds 1&1 repair designed to only affect 5% of flow but is designed to .reduce
wet weather flow by 12%. Because this project Is not predominantly a wet weather
project,wewouJdcount the 5%. (If Is was a wetweather project, we woulp count the
12%.) Enter the total design flow for the faclfitv,
..
3.
a. Improyement or maintenance of water quality'. . .. . .
To contribute to water quality improvement, a project must reduce pollutantloadingtcHhe
receivln9\'i9terbody. A project that simply sustains the treatment capacity of a faqilty
countsforwa.ter quality maintenance. Findthlslnfonnatlonlntheengineerfng .i:lnc.llor
envlronrn.ental revIew do~uments for a projecL It may be wise to.confirrnpre~proje<::t
pollutantl(),<ldings witblnformatlon from the most r~cent Discharge Monitoring ReportS
(DMRs), C5ee also 3d.) . .
,...
b. C:f:)mpliCl~~
Use the~rigin.eeringan(.J.environmental revle'o'l d()cuments, th.e. DMRsj <lndthe permit (r:nost
IikeIY~NPDFS;permit,butalso possibly a reuse,recn<lrge, orland discharge pehnlt)jalQog
witha:nya~r1jlpistr(3t1"e,cOnsent, or courtoi-derS. . Any project that eliminates nsk.ol
noncOmpliance cati be counted as having marntalnedeompllance.
C.Is~}i~'CJffected 'sLiiface water or 'grQui1dwat~r' meetlngstandards,imp,cltred,
ort~rea!fmed? . . .... ... ... ....u . ... .. ..'
Che<;kthti~l1rface wat~ror thegroundwatel" box. Acc€$S the napieof the r€i:e1vihSj .. .,.,
watE:r~~yftQI'Tl the penn1t otanother s~te,da~ system{()r a dlfferentaft'e~edwatei1?9dy
for ahdrip()Jn~source:pr()ject or other project).'ThenJoQk Itup 011 the .3g3(ci)ilT1~!red..,
watersJlstioronastcl~e'groundwaters list, to learn If It Is meeting standafOs, Imp~lr~'or
thl"eatenedior not assessed. . ..
d.D6esthls project allow the system to address a TMDJ,.. aJlocationor \V~ter~,,~d
roi3n~gementpla"? . .
Becall~eTMPL Implementation Is incomplete and NPDES permits are only reneweQ~very ,
flVey~a~"jtwm be necessary to contact the stateenvlronlj1ental agency's TMDL prn~eto
leamlfthe receiving waterbody has an approv~ TMDL. If It does, refer ba!=kto tlJe
englrieeiibgaJ'ld environmental documents to see If the CWSRF~funded project reQUteq the
spedfledpoButantsin the TMDL In some cas~/thlsTMDI.. information wHl alreadyb~
attached t9the permit. Projects on impaired waters do NOT automaticany address ~..TMDL
In the Chesapeake Bay watershed and others, states are Implementill9 watershed.. ..
management plans that will prevent the need for a TMDL Check with 'the appropriate state
offices to peterrnine whether the project helpslmplemei1t such a plan.
For projects on waterbodles without TMDlsormanagement plans. or for projects that do not
help meetlhe goals - often pollutant-spedflc - of such efforts, check the N/A box. A
project may address both TMDLs and il waterShed. management plan - check both boxes.
Examole:
On a nutrient impaired stream, a new wastewater treatment plant replaces a smaller early-
19805 POTW and the aging septic tanks ofa few subdivisions. In the next few years, its up~
to-date treatment processes will improve pollutant removal effiCiency.. Because state or
local planning has targeted the area for development, however, the plant Is designed and
permitted for a higher level of loadings to the stream than the existing POTW . Average
effluent loadings over the lifetime of the plant will besigniRcantly greater than those from
the old POTW.
a. Check the N/A box. The project will degrade, not maintain or Improve, water quality.
b. Check the box for achieves comoHance.since the project will comply with stricter permit
limits. . . ..
c. The receiving waterbody Is Imoalred.
d. Although a TMOl has been submltt:ed to i:PA for the stream, the permit does not contain
any allocations. The TMOl program office, however, quotes a projected allOcation figure
for nutrlemts that the new fad I ity does meet. Check the pro1ectedTMOL allocation box.
4.
Contribution to protection or restoratipn of designated. usesC in the receiving
water body. .
If the project maintains 01' lmprove~ wilrer.quaJity or, ilS In.tll.e cas!'!ofth~ex~HnplefQt
measure 3, Jncreas~effluentl()adln9sbU1: m~ts ItS permit, It Is con~rlb\JtlnatoDratect;lon
ofthe 'uses you find whE!n matching panutantS~ 'Uthe projecn~du~es (ociolngs'i;lfa ...
pblltitantthat Islmpah1nga designated use (303(d) list), theprojed<:ontributes to
r~Cirath;)IiQf that use. . . .. . .. .
WhilE! some project benefjt5arebetterdescrlb~d aslnfri:!~l1,Icture,irnprpverTlel)t,WE! sh()uld
ma~e .aneffort-to the exten~:thatUie :doCumen~tion allows~t6 Unkprojed:}jenefitsto.the
affected waterbody of the facllity/syStem~. . ." ... . - ... ..... ..
Whlleltmay be obviouS In some cases, we. can' syst:ematlcaflylln!<aprojecttOiJ~ofthe
affected waterb.ody . ,First. lclentify the: pollutants that the prpj~c;.t:f~movesJfom~;lnfluelit
sewa.ge(deslgnandenvlronm~t~d r~vlew~QqJn1etj~) ;:mq~t<shQwiip (I) 'the wat~
quality Crlteda for ther~celvll1gWatet.b~Y's'uses(\'later QU9UtY $floal'dS database} and
outComes. The 'design .objectiveS for tlie prt}Jectwll1 make It dear whld:\ polll./t?lnts are
targeted and will often mentJonuses/lJutc:omes that~re driving the pro~~~Qnly mark
LJs~/outcomes that arE! explicitly aqtiressed()r $trt;>ngly Jnfe~b.ytheplaJ)niJlg,andC!e>lgn
documentatIon. Ifthese docume,nts da notspedfy uses/o~om~j Jllar~th.O?ethat t:he
proj~ct signifiCantly . aff~cts. Forthed.e~igrlatl:!d l1~i sp~fYon~ and,onlyon~prjmary use
that drives tile water quality goals .of thE! projec:t; If ,appllcable.IJ Specify "'other" for
additioi1aluses. .
~ Note that EPA will report this measure uslng<tsummary use/outcome list:. It may make
sense far states to record the measure usIng theJrowrt establisheq statedeslgnated uses;
EPA would then work With states to equate state uses with EPA reported summary uses.
For the pllot effort, the form wUl prOVide a summary use/outCOll1ellstwith space for states
to enter additional uses and outcomes.
n If two separate uses moreaI' less equally contribute to the project's gaals, make a nate.
The electronic form will have a separate option for this.
--- -.--.----...--.---.-.-.- -.-- ---- -.---.-- --- ----.-- -.- - -- -
For projects that address, for example, a sewag~spill that does not flow Into the receiving
waterbody, we assurne that the "other public health" outcome ~tegory Is most appropriate.
Examole: .
A project renovates a POTW and installs post-secondary chemlcalphosphorusremova~
equlpmenttocomply wIth new TM DL allocations. The. recelvlnQ waterbody Is temperature
Impaired for Its designated use as a cold waterflsheryand IsaJSo bacteria-Impaired for its
use of primarycontact.recreatlon. The project rec!uces effluent loadings of BOD, TSS,
ammonia, and- phosphorus. Because these pollutan~ areHst~ Inthe Crtterla for the
receIving waterbtidY'stwo designated uses, the proJect protects both uses. Beq:l~ethe
TSS redtictlonwillaffectthe listed bacteria Impalnneritj. the project: contributes to
restoratlon:of the primary contact recreation use. But because the project did not change
effluenttemperature,itwlll not be credited with resto ring Jhe cold water fisheryUse.- . .
Nonetheless, thecoldwaterfishery Is the primary usefor tnls_waterqody because Its more
stringerit wat€l'qui:\IIW criteria drive efforts to redu~ JCladi1)9S. Do notmarkaoqltlonal U~
that are no~ explldtly addressed or strbnglylriferr~ In the planning/design dOc\Jmentatfon,
even If project Improvemel1tsihcldentally protect these uses (e.!]. agriculture).
Additional 1m DOr1;Slflt:. comments
It Islmportanttota\(e eV,eryreasonable step to.accuratelyllnklQan dollars spent for a
Project tottle uses/ou;con)es that the project benel'its~Wecan J'areIYmeasur~prc>tectic)Tl
or -restoratlonoffishlngor recrea_tlonaf uses.OI1 the scaleofaslngle<=WSRF proj~i;lnc:l.. the
associated affectedwaterbpdy. State assigned designated uSe!; and accorripanyln~ water
quality qiteria allow Us to IInkthe load.ln9 reductionsfrol11aCWSRFproject toflshing,
swlmmlng,ancl otherlJsesof and outcomesforaffectedwaterbodles.
r
P~IL
-
U.~
City Council
Agenda C,9ver Memorall~,!!,~"".,..,"",,,_,,,,,,
Jd'\
Tracking Number: 2,079
Actual Date: 05/18/2006
Subject / Recommendation:
Approve a Maintenance Memorandum of Agreement with the Florida Department of
Transportation, District Seven, so that aesthetic improvements can be made to a portion of SR
60 (the east entrance to the Memorial Causeway Bridge and 770 feet west of the Memorial
Causeway Bridge) and adopt Resolution 06-29 authorizing execution of said Maintenance
Memorandum of Agreement.
Summary:
On March 2, 2006 the Council approved a Maintenance Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for
the same purpose,
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has since informed staff that the MOA previously
approved by the Council was utilizing the incorrect MOA and the appropriate version of the MOA
needed to be approved.
Staff has reviewed the substituted agreement and recommends approval.
There are no substantive changes, just utilization of the correct FDOT MOA.
A copy of the Agreement is available for review in the Official Records and Leglislative Services
Department,
Originating: Parks and Recreation
Section Other items on City Manager Reports
Category: Other
Number of Hard Copies attached: 1
Public Hearing: No
Financial Information:
Type: Other
Review Approval
Kevin Dunbar
04-27-2006
14:07:08
Garrv Brumback
05-04-2006
13:39:30
Laura Lioowski
05-04-2006
10:25:08
Bill Horne
05-04-2006
20: 19: 13
Cvndie Goudeau
05-05-2006
13:42:27
RESOLUTION NO. 06-29
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER,
FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE A DISTRICT SEVEN HIGHWAY
BEAUTIFICATION MAINTENANCE MEMORANDUM OF
AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (FDOT), PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, State Road 60 (Memorial Causeway) serves as the major
thoroughfare to Clearwater Beach for residents and tourists daily; and
WHEREAS, FDOT owns State Road 60 right-of-way consisting of road
improvements, medians and grassed areas abutting thereon located between the east
entrance to the Memorial Causeway Bridge and 770 feet west of the Memorial
Causeway Bridge; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has maintained this portion of State Road 60
for over 30 years; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater desires to further improve and beautify this
right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to authorize the City Manager to execute a
District Seven Highway Beautification Maintenance Memorandum of Agreement in
order to meet the City's long-range goal of beautifying and maintaining the Memorial
Causeway, now, therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to enter into a
District Seven Highway Beautification Maintenance Memorandum of Agreement with
the Florida Department of Transportation.
Section 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
day of
,2006.
Frank V, Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Laura Lipowski
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Resolution No. 06-29
Kf', ?l~ \
l
MOA 01-06
DISTRICT SEVEN HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION
MAINTENANCE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
TillS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of the day of
2006, by and between the STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, a
component agency of the State of Florida, hereinafter called the "Department" and
the CITY OF CLEARWATER, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, existing under the
Laws of Florida, hereinafter called the "City".
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the Department owns State Road 60 (Court Street and Memorial Causeway)
right-of-way consisting of road improvements and grassed areas abutting thereon located between
Court Street at Oak A venue Oak A venue and Memorial Causeway 770 feet west of the bridge in
Pinellas County, Florida (the "Project Highway"); and
WHEREAS, the Department has responsibility for operation and maintenance of the State
Highway System; and
WHEREAS, the Project Highway is beautified by improvements which enhance its aesthetic
quality; and
WHEREAS, the City has agreed to install and maintain those improvements in accordance
with the provisions below; and
WHEREAS, the Department is authorized pursuant to Section 335.055, Florida Statutes to
enter into contracts with counties and municipalities to perform routine maintenance work on the
State Highway System within the appropriate boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto recognize the need for entering into an agreement designating
and setting forth the responsibilities of each party in maintaining the improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City has authorized its officers to execute this Agreement on its behalf,
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual benefits that flow each to the
other, the parties covenant and agree as follows:
1. The City shall install and maintain those improvements to the Project Highway as
specified in the Construction Plans and Specifications attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and the
Maintenance Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "B", all of which are hereby incorporated herein and
made a part hereof by this reference and all of the work in connection therewith being hereinafter
referred to as the "Project". Except as pennitted in this agreement, the City shall not modify the
Project without prior written approval of the Department.
2. In the event that any portion of the Project is at any time determined by the
Department to not be in conformance with all applicable laws, rules, procedures and guidelines of
the Department, or is determined to be interfering with the safe and efficient operation of any
transportation facility, or is otherwise determined to present a danger to public health, safety, or
welfare, said portion shall be immediately brought into departmental compliance at the sole cost and
expense of the City.
3. The Department recognizes that the City must comply with Section 166.241, Florida Statutes.
This Agreement shall not be construed to modify, in any way, the City's obligations under those
statutes.
4. Maintenance of the Project shall be subject to periodic inspections by the Department. In the
event that any ofthe aforementioned responsibilities are not carried out or are otherwise determined
by the Department not to be in conformance with the applicable Project standards, the Department
may terminate the agreement in accordance with paragraph 1O(a).
5. The Department's Area Maintenance Office shall be notified forty-eight hours in advance of
commencing any scheduled construction or maintenance activities. Emergency repairs shall be
performed without delay and the Area Maintenance Office notified immediately. The Area
Maintenance Engineer with responsibility for the roadway within this Project is Mr. Brian Bennett,
P.E., located at 5211 Ulmerton Rd., Clearwater, Florida, telephone number (727) 570-5101.
6. Prior to any major Project construction or reconstruction activity, the City shall submit plans
of the proposed work to all utilities with facilities within the limits of work for their review and
comment. The City shall resolve any conflicts and/or concerns raised by the utilities prior to
commencement of such activities. Prior to commencing any field activity on this project, the City
shall notify all the utilities of their work schedule enabling facilities to be field located and marked to
avoid damage.
7. If the City desires to position vehicles, equipment, or personnel, or to perform maintenance
activities closer than fifteen feet to the edge of pavement, or to close a traffic lane, Maintenance of
Traffic shall be in accordance with the Project plans and all Departmental Maintenance of Traffic
Regulations. The permittee shall have Maintenance of Traffic certified personnel supervise the set
up and operation of such Maintenance of Traffic devices at the site of the construction or
maintenance activity.
8. The Department will require the City to cease operations and remove all personnel and
equipment from the Department's right-of-way if any actions on the part of the City or
representatives of the City violate the conditions or intent of this agreement as determined by the
Department.
9. It is understood between the parties hereto that any or all of the Project may be removed,
relocated or adjusted at any time in the future as determined to be necessary by the Department in
order that the adjacent state road be widened, altered or otherwise changed to meet with the future
20f5
criteria or planning of the Department. The Department shall give the City notice regarding such
removal, relocation or adjustment and the City shall be allowed sixty calendar days to remove all or
part of the Project at its own cost. The City will own that part of the Project it removes. After the
sixty calendar days removal period, the Department may remove, relocate or adjust the Project as it
deems best. Wherever the City removes improvements pursuant to this agreement, the City shall
restore the surface of the affected portion of the project premises to the same safe and trafficable
condition as existed prior to installation of such improvements.
10. This Agreement may be terminated under anyone of the following conditions:
(a) By the Department if the City, following fifteen working days written notice, fails to
perform its maintenance responsibilities under this Agreement.
(b) By the City following sixty calendar day's written notice.
(c) By the Department following sixty calendar day's notice.
11. Within 60 days following a notice to terminate pursuant to 1 O( a) or 1 O(b), if the Department
requests, the City shall remove the Project and restore the Project premises to the same safe
condition existing prior to installation of the Project. If the Department does not request such
restoration or terminates this Agreement pursuant to 1 O( c), the Department may remove, relocate or
adjust the Project as it deems best.
12. To the extent provided by law, the City shall indemnify, defend, and hold hannless the
Department and all of its officers, agents and employees from any claim, loss, damages, cost, charge,
or expense arising out of any act, error, omission, or negligent act by the City, its agents, or
employees, during the performance of the Agreement, except that neither the City, its agents, or its
employees will be liable under this paragraph for any claim, loss, damage, cost, charge or expense
arising out of any act, error, omission, or negligent act by the Department or any of its officers,
agents, or employees during the performance of the Agreement.
When either party receives notice of a claim for damages that may have been caused by the
other party in the performance of services required under this Agreement, that party will immediately
forward the claim to the other party. Each party will evaluate the claim, and report its findings to
each other wi thin fourteen working days and joint! y discuss options in defending the claim. A party's
failure to promptly notify the other of a claim will not act as a waiver of any right herein.
13. The Department's District Secretary shall decide all questions, difficulties, and disputes of
any nature whatsoever that may arise under or by reason of this Agreement, the prosecution, or
fulfillment of the service hereunder and the character, quality, amount, and value thereof; and his
decision upon all claims, questions, and disputes shall be final and conclusive upon the parties
hereto.
14. This Agreement embodies the entire agreement and understanding between the parties hereto
and there are no other agreements or understandings, oral or written, with reference to the subject
matter hereof that are not merged herein and superseded hereby.
3 of 5
15. This Agreement may not be assigned or transferred by the City, in whole or in part without
consent of the Department.
16. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State
of Florida.
17. All notices, demands, requests or other instruments shall be given by depositing the same in
the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified with return receipt:
(1) If to the Department, address to District Landscape Architect, at Florida Department
of Transportation, MS 7-1200, 11201 N. McKinley Drive, Tampa, Florida 33612-
6456 or at such other address as the Department may from time to time designate by
written notice to the City; and
(2) If to the City address to Michael D. Quillen, P.E" City Engineer, City of Clearwater,
100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, Florida 33758-4748 or at such other address as
the City from time to time designates by written notice to the Department.
All time limits provided hereunder shall run from the date of receipt of all such notices,
demands, requests and other instruments.
40f5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the
day and year first above written.
CITY OF CLEARWATER
a municipal corporation
of the State of Florida
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
By:
By:
James V, Moulton, Jr., P.E.
Director of Transportation Operations,
District Seven
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
By:
William B. Home
City Manager
Attest:
Cynthia E. Goudeau (SEAL)
City Clerk
Attest:
Executive Secretary
(SEAL)
Legal Review:
Legal Review:
Laura Lipowski
Assistant City Attorney
Office of the General Council, District 7
...
o
..
City Council
~w_~_".".~~!!w cov~"~..J1.~..!!I~~a nd u m
E"5~7
CB Id, d
-
II
Tracking Number: 2,082
Actual Date: 05/18/2006
Subject / Recommendation:
Provide guidance to staff on the configuration of the Skycrest neighborhood traffic calming
project.
Summary:
The 60% plans called for six single lane roundabouts on Cleveland Street between Lake Drive
and Aurora Avenue. Prior to the 90% plan review staff recommended that only two roundabouts
be built on Cleveland Street, The two locations would be Saturn Avenue and Corona Avenue,
One reason for this recommendation is that Cleveland Street is a minor collector carrying 7000 -
8000 vehicles per day and that volume has been steady over the last 15 years, Installing six
roundabouts in 0.9 of a mile would severely restrict its use as a collector, The other reason is
due to serious cost increases from an order of magnitude of $1.8 M to the latest cost estimate of
$2.95 M,
Originating: Engineering
Section Other items on City Manager Reports
Category: Other
Public Hearing: No
Financial Information:
IyQe..;. Oth e r
Review Approval
Michael Quillen
05-04-2006
14:51 :29
Bill Horne
05-04-2006
20: 10:57
Cvndie Goudeau
05-05-2006
13:49:04
Garry Brumback
05-04-2006
15:41 :06
1"3-1
DATE_OF_CRASH ON_STREET_NAME
3/16/2002 CLEVELAND ST
5/19/2004 CLEVELAND ST
11/9/2002 CLEVELAND ST
1/23/2003 CLEVELAND ST
11/11/2003 CLEVELAND ST
5/22/2003 CLEVELAND ST
8/15/2003 CLEVELAND ST
12/7/2004 CLEVELAND ST
11/12/2004 CLEVELAND ST
4/30/2003 CLEVELAND ST
9/3/2002 CLEVELAND ST
2/21/2003 CLEVELAND ST
3/12/2004 CLEVELAND ST
10/29/2004 CLEVELAND ST
1/22/2002 CLEVELAND ST
10/17/2002 CLEVELAND ST
12/28/2002 CLEVELAND ST
1/7/2004 CLEVELAND ST
6/1/2004 CLEVELAND ST
8/20/2002 CLEVELAND ST
4/12/2003 CLEVELAND ST
6/19/2002 CLEVELAND ST
4/12/2004 CLEVELAND ST
11/8/2004 CLEVELAND ST
3/13/2003 CLEVELAND ST
12/12/2002 CLEVELAND ST
6/21/2003 CLEVELAND ST
5/11/2002 CLEVELAND ST
4/27/2003 CLEVELAND ST
11/5/2003 CLEVELAND ST
5/28/2004 CLEVELAND ST
7/4/2004 CLEVELAND ST
6/13/2002 CLEVELAND ST
7/15/2002 CLEVELAND ST
12/8/2002 CLEVELAND ST
1/31/2003 CLEVELAND ST
9/18/2003 CLEVELAND ST
10/31/2003 CLEVELAND ST
10/28/2004 CLEVELAND ST
12/21/2003 CLEVELAND ST
3/5/2003 CLEVELAND ST
11/19/2003 CLEVELAND ST
4/2/2002 CLEVELAND ST
7/2/2003 CLEVELAND ST
3/22/2003 CLEVELAND ST
5/12/2004 CLEVELAND ST
8/23/2004 CLEVELAND ST
6/3/2004 CLEVELAND ST
5/22/2003 CLEVELAND ST
4/15/2002 CLEVELAND ST
6/25/2002 CLEVELAND ST
AT_STREET_NAME
N ARCTURAS AVE
N ARCTURAS AVE
N AURORA AVE
N AURORA AVE
N AURORA AVE
N AURORA AVE
N BELCHER RD
N BELCHER RD
N BELCHER RD
N BELCHER RD
NCIRUSAVE
N CIRUS AVE
N CIRUS AVE
NCIRUSAVE
N CORONA AVE
N CORONA A VB
N CORONA AVE
N CORONA AVE
N CORONA AVE
N CORONA AVE
N DUNCAN AVE
N DUNCAN AVE
N GLENWOOD AVE
N GLENWOOD AVE
N GLENWOOD AVE
N HERCULES AVE
N HERCULES AVE
N HIGHLAND AVE
N HIGHLAND AVE
N HIGHLAND AVE
N HIGHLAND AVE
N HIGHLAND AVE
N JUPITER AVE
N JUPITER AVE
N JUPITER AVE
N KEENE RD
N KEENE RD
N KEENE RD
N KEENE RD
N KEYSTONE DR
N LAKE DR
N MAIN AVE
N MARS AVE
N MARS AVE
N MARS AVE
N MERCURY AVE
N MERCURY AVE
N METEOR AVE
N NIMBUS AVE
N SATURN AVE
N SATURN AVE
rv/
R~ \.).~
DISTANCE DIRECTION
o
o
o
o
o
30 W
o
o
30 W
200 W
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
75 E
40 E
80 W
o
20 E
40 E
o
o
o
o
15 E
20 W
50 W
o
o
o
o
30 E
35 E
50 W
o
100 E
100 W
o
o
150 E
o
o
o
o
o
o
1/15/2004 CLEVELAND ST
8/29/2004 CLEVELAND ST
6/18/2003 CLEVELAND ST
8/27/2002 CLEVELAND ST
12/15/2003 CLEVELAND ST
12/22/2004 CLEVELAND ST
6/9/2003 CLEVELAND ST
9/12/2003 CLEVELAND ST
2/28/2002 CLEVELAND ST
2/21/2003 CLEVELAND ST
4/11/2002 CLEVELAND ST
10/17/2002 CLEVELAND ST
9/6/2003 CLEVELAND ST
4/3/2002 CLEVELAND ST
3/7/2004 CLEVELAND ST
2/10/2002 CLEVELAND ST
9/23/2002 CLEVELAND ST
5/2/2003 CLEVELAND ST
9/3/2002 CLEVELAND ST
9/1/2002 CLEVELAND ST
6/24/2002 CLEVELAND ST
3/17/2003 CLEVELAND ST
6/25/2002 CLEVELAND ST
8/13/2004 CLEVELAND ST
6/5/2003 CLEVELAND ST
1/30/2003 CLEVELAND ST
11/29/2003 CLEVELAND ST
9/1/2004 CLEVELAND ST
9/13/2003 CLEVELAND ST
3/22/2002 CLEVELAND ST
6/21/2003 CLEVELAND ST
3/17/2003 CLEVELAND ST
10/3/2002 CLEVELAND ST
8/2/2004 CLEVELAND ST
8/8/2002 N AURORA AVE
6/30/2002 N BELCHER RD
7/25/2002 N BELCHER RD
9/27/2002 N BELCHER RD
10/28/2002 N BELCHER RD
4/30/2003 N BELCHER RD
5/17/2003 N BELCHER RD
6/9/2003 N BELCHER RD
8/25/2003 N BELCHER RD
10/14/2003 N BELCHER RD
1/9/2004 N BELCHER RD
2/22/2004 N BELCHER RD
1/18/2002 N HERCULES AVE
3/19/2002 N HERCULES AVE
4/3/2002 N HERCULES AVE
4/25/2002 N HERCULES AVE
6/26/2002 N HERCULES AVE
2/4/2003 N HERCULES AVE
N SATURN AVE
N SATURN AVE
N SATURN AVE
N ST ARC REST DR
N ST ARC REST DR
N ST ARCREST DR
SARCTURAS AVE
S ARCTURAS AVE
S AURORA AVE
S AURORA AVE
S COMET AVE
S CORONA AVE
S CORONA AVE
S DUNCAN AVE
S DUNCAN AVE
S DUNCAN AVE
S GLENWOOD AVE
S HERCULES AVE
S HIGHLAND AVE
S HIGHLAND AVE
S JUPITER AVE
S JUPITER AVE
S JUPITER AVE
S KEENE RD
S LAKE DR
S LAKE DR
S MAIN AVE
S MARS AVE
S NIMBUS AVE
S ORION AVE
S SATURN AVE
S SATURN AVE
S ST ARCREST DR
S ST ARCREST DR
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
Cl-EVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
o
o
16 E
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
30 S
o
o
o
51 W
12 W
45 E
180 W
5W
30 W
200 W
o
20 W
o
o
o
100 W
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
3/15/2003 N HERCULES AVE
3/22/2004 N HERCULES AVE
8/4/2004 N HERCULES AVE
9/21/2004 N HERCULES AVE
12/15/2003 N HIGHLAND AVE
5/19/2004 N HIGHLAND AVE
7/7/2004 N HIGHLAND AVE
7/8/2004 N HIGHLAND AVE
6/2/2003 N HIGHLAND AVE
2/8/2004 N HIGHLAND AVE
6/1/2004 N KEENE RD
6/14/2004 N KEENE RD
6/18/2004 N KEENE RD
10/10/2004 N ORION AVE
9/17/2003 S BELCHER RD
4/10/2004 S BELCHER RD
11/16/2002 S HERCULES AVE
12/13/2004 S HERCULES AVE
1/16/2002 S HIGHLAND AVE
4/15/2002 S HIGHLAND AVE
9/27/2002 S HIGHLAND AVE
4/30/2003 S HIGHLAND AVE
9/7/2003 S HIGHLAND AVE
10/18/2004 S HIGHLAND AVE
11/21/2004 S HIGHLAND AVE
12/22/2004 S HIGHLAND AVE
3/4/2004 S HIGHLAND AVE
11/6/2003 S JUPITER AVE
10/11/2004 S KEENE RD
10/19/2004 S KEENE RD
11/24/2004 S KEENE RD
9/21/2002 S MAIN AVE
11/3/2004 S MAl N AVE
6/11/2003 S MARS AVE
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
LAURA ST
LAURA ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
PARK ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
CLEVELAND ST
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
-
-,
~"
-,
=,
"""
co
Q)
I....
<(
0)
c
E
co
'-'
u
E
co
I....
I-
......
en
Q)
I....
U
>.
.::t:.
(j) li1
r
.-.... "Sg
o
.:
e
I&~
~"'~'
~~
it~-
,,~
.".
""
,-
'f.;:)Otii
I
I"
~
~
~
~.~.'.~i8.j,.." _,:T- . I'~:T~_ .... 'i':' m_~L!L!1"~19"n - ~
2 '1 F- '-11-- .': -.'~;~II:,- I.
' -I i ~ ---;;;- -;;;;;;-.~---' .
~ A:' -' ~-=--~ --~ "1 ~i
(/~ [iJ 11__, J! -I"
, /1 I'~:~ ,- ,'=", :--I~ 7"' I C"1j
~..'. -_I': __. IJiD~;~:~
1)/-1 ,=.: , ," ..' '.c..i, '..c.' "-,,. "c i:tl~ 11=+.:"1
~\ " I ~. fSII"i'jiTI'jIHfl'II'I11!"" . ! 1 I
. \/~ ,"'_,' ,.c!~I.ltIJI"I;.~;r".1 L,i~0~jlT~ ," ..i'mm!";'
~....:\ \\J ':=i1'" ~.. .. ',' 'nB'" -11":'1'''''' I
K:b' I-- t-+ --H-+-H I-+- 1-, . _ _I
~.. ~ I 1.1. .1.,.., 'I I 11'1 l I l.oU' . .....~
1m i" ." ~ .,:: : .',':::= " '1::::::1),
I ,,111 - _.
H.'-.1U
~~j~m
VI
~
~
...
~
~
c::.I.
-::.
<;l,
.
- IF . i ", . , 'l'J cm-r= i
- " ~~W~
. ~
- '[' '1'", I ..11 ,"~ 1- :"
;'llr;=':,'::' I.. B" ,II'_~
l.iU :_"" . - '! '!'I';; ''','' ': "l]'l=t
n' ~, .... "', :~: ", ,': : : :',:' ~':::i""":" J,1
1 ~ :, ' .., :., , " " ,'. -L:;:1j~
t,: F:::::: :,"liEr I)i' ,: ' :.. ::,:1 -, ~'l"''' I 'j
H=~ I.. "d. .. . .J,llbb;=, 'II" _ =]'
f-rl ~ ....1' 'I" 1- 1- "" JJ-
lE (;- ....... -I . ... ..,..~ -
~-";I - I ' · - ." "r ":' 'm . ":1 '
~n :::1:,," :'~~..:u
~ cjl '" ,'", . I.., ~'"""~
\- ~ : :.~ "'1' i'l I - ..." . JQI-I~ "-~. "1""1 ~
"\';~ "I,i.J., ~,- ~!'.',I.i'~I?...: <_:'_.
~--I -1
lnLJ ::: - ~ 1111; I ~ I I 1 h .~.i. I ~I ...,
~..~,.}.._._~ i!~~, ,";. ","j'i' 11-_ ., ., II " . . ~_M"" . -'1' 4
, II 'r.J C', Hi' ?
~la~- _: b:.::.... I'~-. - -, .: ::1. ::'::. ~ ~)'fJE.;-;"I..--i ~~=fh- $
l_ITlll' - - ~-! ~, - I" ~ iJ,aj - i m-9 II~~
! I~__m-" .) .:. i. ...' .. ." .~.." '; ~'A-~'Y
IJj iA.=f "'~' ,,'!" 'I' i _ ,- ..,...'" 'I.. '.. '. ~". , "!' "''-'_'1 '" . 1-
~-----J j 'i:, -F- JITJl i :t
~w= ""'~ :'.:,' '; iri-i'lli~ 'H,(t>
~~~~[ ril~Bn~ ~
, mR' :,. ,; I.~ .:,: ;~ ' , ~ J i;i!,i
III P, ", ~~....:_-g ~I 1=t 1.j-0.~ Ii :~ f-" ---r~ f]'Fli
Q) r-J,I--= ;:::;~ r J- ~ 1:- __-t - 1\1" I" .l~ . r=-i1I "ir
.{ ~ ~ -4 ,;' .. . .., " . I f--i - l, ,I "::i.
.~o~~ ;~:::..'".~ '--", ~- I, '~.~......'I"; - <j
I,;-IS- . : _ I' r.:-rTTl
6::ltiJ
I -:~ m:i. -I. .', - I ~'m
lE ,~-::;: -- i -..=~ l '~
,'! ~'~=; I~r='i I ':-,!,\
lfl~d~~ j " I:~~
>". . ~,^."" .....~ ~ --:.,.. ~ ~-~ ~ ;0
~ f.1.'f.Lb,"_i ~~ i-",'U'T'l"i-!!D'l'U'J"1 '1"1 i11 '"~
~
~
~
~
.
.
~~ '[jJ: . ~'m"=:ll'll'q"'I~.,'~
rt~ ~ ~' c .J"c~>--=~ I . '- , ~';;J
i~/~ Q':LJ I:. ,I!: jl ~. j
I ~ ~.~~ !'~~ m_,. =-- If' Ii /~
'~/,,/~'I ., ',,' ,.. .!' L_ ~ C'I.I ~
- ~, '" - ;c,~~ "C3:E=el 1
: "~: : -. ~- -1- - ~,.: '~~,!, l. ,J:;l ~- ~iE-li~ 1-
~ "I I ~ ".l-J~i~.H3JiCIIITP-Lill ~lrJ-' J I
~ \'V:~ ~_.- ~ in '.:..... i[I~IJ--=IL1_~Ll~ill i___ ~ ~~ ~-~~ --:;' I
I~~ H ., '1y11" ~ I - '-', ..' '1.. '.'.1. 'I' , ':':IL""I" "'. ~.-
'=r-C~ r-l I... JtJrt i '. . . " ,I " , ,"!fL, '''''' . -I :::
T1.", "..,J..~. ,0, "1' 'I' 'I' '.-";: = "'.: 'I' ' , .': I.' ',""" 'j f
LJtJL.,__ -I ! . ..., .>.. I, ;0 I; ~ Ii... .' 1 i u. ~I '~:=t
~'IT~ JITi"!'I" r+'j' 1'" ",''''IEEE.1 L -I ~-+
1&.,l.I-I 1. .i.: ., LJ .~~_.I .1" ,,', jilL .. '... iT -j ~
, . ~......~..'....."...~[l"~~':" :,:',~,;. '= r~ 'J:: ,::', , : :~.I.F.~':.i::C~g' r-I
;;&Z... ~~I . "."",. """".~,
~: ~ :~;'i'l~ ~ II'~ i ".,',::: :'.I~riii Ill'
~.~...~ - I.: - ,I , , , , . _ -, J "". 1., I
i:t:.~ ~ I . - - '1)( , -",., - :,""" · ~..bJ
~'~ ':'1::.,:II~" ::rfitJC
~ l~. ..'''~ - .. I . . , " ... ..... ~ -. C---k..
1 . "I, 1\ \ .,." , , '.'" ': II -I J, '-, ,
s=~ ===1" . .... ,.:,1" ,I.", If;.I, 1.1 II~' 'lE-t-::.
f.-~'5ij. ~
~-T A ~ ~. . ., , 'I'! 'I' '1,,'-1 =f'$lll" j lIT
~j ...~ . -, I , ., , ...T" , "".." "" -i r::-""
: =-- 'I' , T 1" - ~..,' . 'I' Jnl..' ... :: II "3=:::i..[-
~:.~I~l',:,';" '~;~'
:.[d"~R'"'''' I...:=l~
. . m_ c=;~
~~r 1 i!;-. . '" 'i""" .. . ., '1'1 ' , "r-: I
~ -?~.. . ~ :,~.. 'I' : "- . : :1 : ::~l.': f: " y' ~'*..."..C...;'T'~'I"~.. ~
I ~ ~, i .'.. .1, J J 1.1 I. v~LJ
n--:: ~ ~,
LL-.J ~I~-; ..,. t tl _!1 l! Ii II,ir~ m.
'--.J 1~1 I - I . .IT I J W
~tr' II " .. . : < " " ",J ,- ,," . - ~
8~,F ~2 ~ · ~i; ~ ~ 'IJj tL
~ <i1W_.. ~ ~:':-;i n:', I ~ ~.7T..'
hJ ~ I=t!fl'- :: .......:. ;:.J : II, , R ~E
B.. -. p l=t=::j~"m ~ .. ~ ~- .;;; i-' I=j - '
" ~m: II: Fi
r :- < : ~ .J n ", "" i;~
j ~'~~ R . - I, ~
00 ~HJ' t~ ~I e~ , :::'":~.'.'..'.~~'.j;
~h ffim~:; J ,~.I I, ~,11,
~ rf1 Ef5 b~~ ~ I~: .r: tJ'~~t"[jirr i'l i~' 'I :'d'~ 1~'ll t-F:
4
-2-
~
III
~
~a. -?~
~ .!:
E
lii
U
o
IE
~
I-
)~
~
.
,:""!Il
~" ld.~
Skycrest Traffic Calming - Traffic Calming Design Charrette
Cleveland Street
Two major concerns were expressed about the operation of Cleveland Street:
. Use of the center turn lane for passing
· Speeding
Construction of either a continuous median or sections of median will eliminate use of the center lane for
passing. Medians will also help to moderate vehicle speeds.
To moderate vehicle speeds and improve safety at intersections, roundabouts are the only devices that
will handle the high traffic volumes on Cleveland. Therefore, roundabouts are placed al~:lng Cleveland
:Street to slow vehicles, reduce crashes that are occurring, and reduce speeds of vehicles on cross
streets.
. The roundabout at Aurora Street is intended to slow vehicles as they enter the neighborhood.
. The roundabout at Corona ~venue is intended to make crossing movements for children
safer at Skycrest School and facilitate school bus-turning movements onto Cleveland Street.
Evaluation with a roundabout template shows there should be adequate right-of-way to '
construct a basic roundabout at the intersection of Cleveland Street and Corona Avenue that
would facilitate turning movements of school buses.
. Roundabouts at the intersections of Lake, Duncan and Saturn to replace signals at
intersections are intended to reduce the current crash rate.
. Traffic calming by means of the roundabout at Meteor Street was added because of the
distance between the roundabouts at Aurora Street and Corona Street.
The distance between the Keene Road extension and Orion is quite small. Because of the relationship of
Orion Avenue to the school, the median on Orion Avenue is extended to Cleveland Street. This treatment
will reduce traffic volumes around the school and eliminate cut-through traffic on Orion Street.
Lake Drive
Observations of Lake Drive indicate that there were a number of drivers cutting across the double yellow
lines on the curves, and hence they were able to speed. Medians will prevent this behavior and thereby
lower speeds.
Mini-roundabouts for Lake Drive and Grove Street will slow traffic as it enters the Skycrest community
from Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. Counting the roundabout at Cleveland Street and lake Drive, that would
make six slow points for vehicles traveling on lake Drive from Gulf-to-Bay to Drew. Residents also
requested on-street parking and additional landscaping for Crest Lake Park.
Kevstone Street Drive
A number of Skycrest residents recommended installation of the triangle islands that were part of the,
original subdivision plan, but inspection of the existing road network and lot layout revealed that they do
not conform to the original plan and it is not physically possible to build these triangular islands,
A diagonal diverter at the intersection of Rainbow Drive and Keystone Street will eliminate cut-through
traffic. Local traffic would still be able to enter and exit the neig ~ borhood using a slightly indirect route.
Through-traffic would be diverted on Rainbow Drive. Cut-throl~lh traffic would be eliminated on
Keystone Street.
~.
",';'
~ainbow Drive
Observations of the traffic flow along and across Rainbow Drive showed that the north-south traffic is light
and the through-traffic on Rainbow is minimal. Its seemed at times there were more bicycles on Rainbow
Drive than any other mode of transportation. To discourage traffic cutting through the neighborhood
using the north-south streets, the Skycrest residents recommended realignment of the stop signs on
north-south streets to face north and south rather than having them all face the direction of Rainbow
Drive. This arrangement will create certainty in relation to stop controls. However, this treatment
removes any disincentive to drivers who wish to speed along Rainbow Drive.
It is anticipated that when Rainbow Drive is divided into two separate streets by the Keene Road
extension, through-traffic on Rainbow Drive will be virtually nonexistent. In the eve':!t that some drivers
still speed, roundabouts are placed at two locations that were observed to be heavily used north-south
streets: Duncan Street and Meteor Street. Bicyclists will appreciate this configuration because they will
be able to continue using Rainbow Drive for bike rides and will not be forced to stop at every intersection.
Other Skvcrest Network Streets
A traffic count by the City of Clearwater staff showed that streets with traffic signals at Drew Street, Gulf-
to-Bay Boulevard or Cleveland Street carry twice as much traffic as those streets that do not have traffic
signals at intersections. To control vehicle speeds on north-south streets between Rainbow Drive and
Cleveland Street, mid-block medians with tree wells are placed on all through-streets.
Field observations found a fair number of vehicles parked on all streets with the exception of Cleveland
Street. In some cases these vehicles were parked up on planter strips. On-street parking is a very good
traffic calming tool, in that it physically narrows the street and visually makes the street appear shorter:
On-street parking is recommended, along protecting parking spaces with tree wells. Additional tree wells
can be added at any time. Some concern was expressed about increasing the accident potential of
children darting into traffic from between parked cars. The traffic calming team found that most vehicles
were currently parked off streets and they think it unlikely that streets will be filled with on-street parking
8uch that those parked cars would significantly lessen sight distances. In other words, the occasional car
parked on-street will not unduly block motorists' ability to scan for children.
Residents made several suggestions for gateway treatments at several entrances to the neighborhood.
The Traffic Calming Team is not in a position to design or estim.ate the cost of these types of devices
because the range of such treatments is so broad. Gateway design is best undertaking as partnership
projects between the city and residents, separate from the traffic calming project.
Mayor Frank Hibbard and Council Members,
When the residents of Sky crest neighborhood designed our traffic calming plan, it was to
address our problems of speeding and aggressive driving. We understood that the six
roundabouts on the Cleveland, Skycrest Corridor would also reduce crashes, but at the time
we did not know the full extent of the crashes that were occurring,
A report by the City on crashes at six intersections within the Skycrest Corridor examined
39 crashes in 36 months, including two fatalities. The report concluded that with
roundabouts 27 of the crashes, or 69%, would probably not have occurred, the rest would
have been only half as likely to occur, and the fatalities would likely not have occurred. We
feel this dramatic reduction in crashes is compelling reason to construct the six
roundabouts.
But the City's report considered crashes at only the six intersections to be converted to
roundabouts. The Skycrest Neighborhood Traffic Calming Tech Team recently looked at
crashes for the entire Corridor. We paid the Police Department to research this and produce
a report. The police report shows 294 crashes in the corridor over a period of 50 months, or
one crash every five days, with 78 injuries and two fatalities. Upon further review we
subtracted the crashes at the intersections of Belcher, Hercules, Keene, and HigWand to get
a more realistic figure of the calming corridor, there were 104 with 36 injuries. The history
of fatalities has continued with two more fatalities. We feel this level of crashes, injuries
and fatalities is unacceptable for a lovely residential street that runs through the heart of our
neighborhood.
To estimate the crash reduction of the combination of roundabouts and median treatments
for the corridor, we drew on results of a corridor project in Golden, Colorado, which
utilizes roundabouts and median treatments. The Golden public works director reported a
crash reduction of 60.44% and a reduction in injuries of 94.38%. as well as reduced
severity of crashes. We want the time to come when our public works director is reporting
on the result of building the medians and six roundabouts in the Skycrest Corridor.
Applying The Golden corridor results would mean 63 fewer crashes on Cleveland street
over the same period and a dramatic reduction in injuries, as well as considerably reduced
severity of crashes and injuries. Achieving such substantial reductions in danger,
destruction and suffering in our neighborhood is important to us.
The six roundabouts along Cleveland Street will slow vehicles, reduce crashes, and reduce
speeds of vehicles on cross streets. Each roundabout has a specific purpose:
The roundabout at Aurora Street is intended to slow vehicles as they enter the
neighborhood, so that high speeds don't penetrate deeper into the neighborhood.
The roundabout at Corona A venue is intended to make crossing movements for
children safer at Skycrest School and facilitate school bus-turning movements.
The roundabouts replacing signalized intersections at Lake, Duncan, and Saturn are
Intended to reduce the crash rate, so the current crash rate does not continue. The
Roundabout at Lake Ave. will also provide safe crossing to Crest Lake Park for
children, older pedestrians and those who are infirm.
The roundabout at Meteor Street is intended for traffic calming because of the
distance between the roundabouts at Aurora Street and Corona Street, so that the
excessive speed now occurring will be substantially reduced.
Design of Skycrest Traffic Calming plan is 90% complete. The Traffic Calming Program is
funded by the City Council for the express purpose of funding this and other neighborhood
traffic calming plans. We would like this project to proceed intact to completion, including
all roundabouts and median treatments on Cleveland Street.
Attachments:
1. Status Report by the insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a non profit
organization funded by the Auto Insurance Industry, This report laments
missed opportunities when roundabouts could have been built but weren't
and the negative consequences that will result. There is also a very relevant
sidebar entitled Florida Community Gets It Right.
2. A tri-fold brochure by the Federal Highway Administration promoting
roundabouts.
3. The Skycrest Corridor crash report produced by the Clearwater Police
Department.
Skyrest Traffic Calming Tech Team
2 Status Report, Vol, 40, No, 9, Nov. 19, 2005
been to
improve
traffic flow
and reduce in.
jury crashes by as
much as 75 percent
compared with intersec-
tions controlled by stop lights
or signs (see Status Report, May
13, 2000; on the web at www.iihs,
org) , But only about 1,000 roundabouts
have been built in the United States.
"Transportation engineers, like every-
body else, generally go with what they're
used to, and what they're used to on U,S.
roads is constructing standard four-way
intersections equipped with stop signs or
signal lights. Doing this means missing the
benefits of roundabouts, so we'd like to
encourage officials to consider roundabouts
earlier and more often in the roadway plan.
ning process," says Richard Retting, the In.
stitute's senior transportation engineer and
author of two new studies that suggest how
to overcome traditional impediments to
building roundabouts.
One impediment is logistical: It can be
costly and disruptive to tear up an existing
intersection and replace it with a round-
about. The easiest way around this is to con-
struct the roundabout to begin with, before
an intersection with a traffic light or stop
sign is installed. Another roundabout oppor-
tunity is when an intersection with a signal
light is scheduled for major modification,
Institute researchers studied 10 intersec-
tions where roundabouts could have been
constructed but weren't. Instead local offi-
cials either outfitted the new intersections
with traffic signals or retained the signal
lights at intersections that were undergoing
major modifications, The researchers meas-
ured traffic volumes, monitored the number
of crashes that occurred, and estimated
vehicle delays and fuel consumption at the
intersections with the signals, Results were
compared with estimates of what could have
been expected with roundabouts instead,
A key finding is that vehicle delays at the
10 intersections would have been reduced by
62-74 percent, saving 325,000 hours of motor-
ists' time annually. Fuel consumption would
have gone down by about 235,000 gallons
per year, and there would have been com-
mensurate reductions in vehicle emissions,
The safety benefits also are considerable,
Previous research indicates that round-
abouts reduce crashes by 37 percent overall
- injury crashes by 75 percent - compared
with intersections that have signals, Apply.
ing these risk reductions to 5 of the 10 inter-
sections for which crash data were available,
researchers estimated there would have
been 62 fewer crashes over 5 years. There
would have been 41 fewer injury crashes,
"If only 10 percent of the 250,000 inter-
sections with signals in the United States
were modified as roundabouts, the national
safety and fuel saving benefits would be
enormous," Retting points out, "and you can
reap these benefits without as many logisti-
cal challenges if you 'think roundabout' from
the ~ery beginning of a (continues on p,4)
Status Report, Vol. 40, No.9, Nov, 19, 2005 3
FLORIDA COMMUNITY GETS IT RIGHT
When the first roundabout (above) was constructed in Clearwater, Florida, the communi-
ty's traffic operations manager wasn't a fan. "I'm an old signals and sign man, I never
would have believed this would have worked, but it has convinced me that roundabouts
do a remarkable job of accommodating all different kinds of users including cars, pedes-
trians, and bicycles," says Paul Bertels. He recalls that the multiple signal lights that had
controlled traffic at this location regularly brought vehicles to a halt and caused massive
backups, but now the traffic keeps moving.
Bertels wasn't the only Skeptic when this roundabout opened in December 1999. Opposi-
tion began before construction and continued for a while afterward. But once engineers
tweaked the design and motorists got used to the new traffic pattern, the complaints abat-
ed. In fact, Clearwater residents came to like the first
roundabout so much that they requested another
(below). They even collected $3,000 toward its
construction and then held a party to celebrate
when it opened (right).
Since then 3 more roundabouts have been
constructed in Clearwater, and 7 more are
being designed. All 10 of them were pro-
posed by local residents.
4 Status Report, Vol. 40, No.9, Nov. 19,2005
(continued from p.3) roadway project, for
example when new housing or shopping
developments create the need for roadway
construction, Then it can be less expensive
to construct a roundabout than to install
'. traffic lights. Plus the developers may be
required to fund the roundabout construc-
- tion as a condition of zoning approval.
Initial opinion may be an impediment:
Study after study, including the Institute's
most recent one in northern Virginia, indi-
cates the benefits of roundabouts in reduc-
ing both crashes and traffic congestion, Yet
roundabouts frequently run into opposi-
tion, especially before they're constructed.
opposed. These proportions changed con-
siderably right after constru~tion, as motor-
ists began getting used to the roundabouts,
Then only 36 percent said they were op-
posed, and the proportion in favor increased
from 36 to 50 percent.
"It might not sound like much of a victo-
ry to find out that half of the respondents ex-
pressed their approval for roundabouts. But
the first follow.up surveys were conducted
soon after motorists began navigating this
new form of traffic control. Roundabouts
weren't yet routine," Retting explains, Opinion
surveys conducted more recently show
growing approval. More respondents now
Message for transportation officials:
"What these two studies teach us is simple.
Just build them. Go ahead and construct a
roundabout where it's appropriate, and do it,
if possible, when a roadway is first engi-
neered," Retting advises, Especially in sub-
urban areas where population growth and
housing development are escalating and
new roads are planned, officials would do
well to consider roundabouts,
"Don't let initial opposition get in the
way," Retting adds, "Many U.S, motorists
aren't familiar with roundabouts yet, so
they're wary of them. But once the round-
abouts are built, the traffic flow and safety
VAil, COLORADO: TOWN WITHOUT SIGNAL LIGHTS
Before the first roundabout was constructed in Vail, Colorado, ski season traffic was leaving vis-
itors and local residents alike wanting to ditch their cars and just ski into town. Now traffic at
every exit from an interstate highway entering Vail is governed by a roundabout. The result is
that traffic backups have largely disappeared.
But the process wasn't easy. The first proposals for roundabouts were resisted. Warren
Miller, a local filmmaker, protested in the newspaper for six months. Still two roundabouts
were built in 1995, and the opposition diminished as motorists got used to the new traffic
patterns and noticed that vehicles were moving more smoothly. The newspaper published
letters from Miller, who admiUed he had been wrong. With public support, two more round-
abouts opened in 1997, Now Vail is known as a town without signal lights,
Besides enduring fewer backups, motorists benefit in terms of safety. Greg Hall, director of
public works and transportation, says crashes were reduced by about 20 percent from 3 years
before the first roundabout to 3 years after. Injury crashes have gone down 85 percent. And despite
initial concerns that bicyclists and others wouldn't adapt to the roundabouts, there has been only 1
crash involving a bicycle in the 10 years since Vail opened its first roundabout.
Institute researchers conducted tele-
phone surveys of residents in three commu-
nities in New Hampshire, New York, and
Washington State where intersections with
stop signs or traffic lights were being
replaced with roundabouts in 2004, The
opinion surveys were conducted before the
roundabouts were built and twice more,
about six weeks after construction and then
about a year later.
Fifty-four percent of the survey partici-
pants initially said they opposed round.
abouts. One-third said they were strongly
say they like the roundabouts, while fewer
say they disapprove,
Previous before-and-after surveys have
revealed similar turnarounds in public opin-
ion (see Status Report, July 28, 2001; on the
web at www.iihs.org).This is because many
motorists find out, through their own ex-
perience, that vehicles generally flow more
smoothly through roundabouts than
through intersections controlled by traffic
signals. Delays are reduced, [n many cases
there's no need to stop at a roundabout,
just slow down.
benefits turn people around, even people
who weren't enthusiastic from the get-go."
For a copy of "Continued reliance on traf-
fic signals: a case study in missed opportu-
nities to improve traffic flow and safety at
urban intersections" by C. Bergh et. al and
"Traffic flow and public opinion: newly in-
stalled roundabouts in New Hampshire,
New York, and Washington" by R.A. Retting
et aI., write: Publications, Insurance Insti-
tute for Highway Safety, 1005 North Glebe
Road, Arlington VA 22201, or email publica-
tions@iihs.org.
.....:;
-:l-'Z
-,zz-
~o~~ w
>za..a. (!)
00:::::::::: <(
........----................ U)
.,...,zz C/)
WLUWWa:::WW
C/)U)C/)C/)I-:2
:J::>:J:JI-I-
co OOaJ aJ<(()
<(<(<(<(:2<(
ClOOO...Jt--
...J..J...J...J_Z
IIII~O
()UU()()()
~~ --~~ w - ~ b ~~"~C/)
a.e~ ~ wwC/)C/)OO(!)(!)z C/)o(!) I-..J (!)'o~-C/)
:::::-,z I- 00~~a:::a:::00@ ~5~ ~..J ~3:z~Ow
000 ~ a::: a::: a::: a::: uua:::a:::1- (!)ua.zz ~ OC/)C/) z~
ZZZ oO(!)(!)U()a.a.<( 0 <(<( :JC/)C/)OOv
<(<(<( ~~ C/)C/)OOOOzz~ ~I-~~~ ~ ...Jwwa:::a:::o
<<<I-~()() ooa:::a:::I-I---<( I-~~ Zw Wa:::a:::()ua:::
U()()a:::~IIZWWa.a.C/)C/)I-I-a.. a.30~~ wC/)...JWGG()Ua.
~~~:JWWWOUUZZ:J:JOZOZLUC/) ~-,ZLULU m:J~~0009~
~~~o:J>>C/)zz--"-' (!)..J...J...J 00 a::: a:::aJ a:::a:::1-1-
...J..J...JUa:::OOa:::<(<(~~~QQ~~Z...J...J...JWWWW<(~~a.a.C/)C/)~
<(<(<(uuwwwaJaJl-l-l-l-l-l-l-z555a..a..~~~a.wzz~~z
zzz-..J...J..Ja.a:::a:::C/)C/)C/)C/)C/)C/)C/) .. ~~a:::~a:::<(4~~
~:o:=- ;;;:-It -;:!- m -CQ Cl -::>-::> W W W W W W W 3= G C) C)- ZZ 0 0 w a::: <( f-=:c :cl- :cl- I-:c !;:
~~~<(~<(<(<(I-I-~~~~~~~O:J:J:J:J::>_-Ol-() ~LU
a:::a:::a:::a:::Z~~W~~OOOOOOOa:::a:::a:::a:::a:::~:J:J..JXC/)QQQQ~~
UU()I-<(OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLULULU~~~~~~
_z_Z ~ z_zfuz -,z~~ LU=~~~Z
3a~~ w_-,z ~ a:::o--,=~~-,zzU)3:aC)C)zz a::: ~I-I-I-I-I-
...J..J...J...J~ O~~~I-::>>S<(I-I-~~~~~~~o:J:J:J:J:J_~w U:C:C:C:CIW
IIII~~Oa:::a:::a:::a:::a:::<(<(w~~oooooooa:::a:::a:::a:::a:::a::::J:Jga.C/)C)QQQQ~
()U()()()()()()U()UUOClOOOOOOOClOOOClOOOOOOLUWLU~~~~~~
L.-\
l,~
r-...J
'Z)
~
...., ....,
z -, z
~ ~ :>
~ > en
C/)enooC)(!) C/)
ill~a:::a:::oo -,...., en w ~
C/) a:::a:::uua:::a::: U)U)~~~C/)C/) @~ C/) a::: a.z,
C/) C)C)uua.a. ~'o a::: C/)oG:::::
~ ~~oooo~~ ~U)~z~ ~~C) O~LUa:::@~&~-,
a::: C)()ff~~1-1- ~O~U)OOG ~a~ ~~~ffi~a.~LUW~~
~ ~. ~m~~;;;~~~ ~5~~55~ I- (,')ua. ~~~oo~a.~~'o
W ~ <( a.C)>>>>>~ C)()Q.C)uua. Z oo~ uuuf~l-~oo~z
~za:::~ ~~z<(a:::a:::a:::a:::a:::a::: oo~ooo~~w f~I-OIIIZ~OLU~~~~
~~:S~~~~~ffi~~~~~~ f~~f~~~~~ z~~~~~~~~~~gg~~
I-E<(~a:::~~~~~~~~~~ ~~z~~~zu~ >>>>>>~~~~:JC2C2~~
Z()~~:S~w()oa:::a:::a:::a:::a:::a::: I-I-I->>~~C)~ a:::a:::a:::a:::a:::a:::a:::~~~C)~~aJco
wl-w:J<(w...J...Jl-ooooooz555a:::a:::a:::a:::~Z :s:s:s:s:s:s:souo~~~<(<(
O~~OQgQ~~LUWWWWWO<(<(<(~~~~O~O(!)c)Gc)c)G~~~~:cO()OO
UC/)C/)...JZC/):C~C/)~~~~:2~C/)enC/)u)I-I-I-I-=<(...Ja:::a:::a:::a:::a:::a:::a:::a:::a:::a::: LUW==
Uc/):JO<(Wwzena:::a:::a:::a:::a:::a:::a:::enC/)en<(<(<(<(:JoO:J:J:J:J:J:J:J<(<(<(~:C:C:CI
<(<(OO:ca.a:::><(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(ooooaJmooooaJaJaJaJOOooaJ~()U()mU()OU
:c::r::r:
- WLUW Z_Z
~ m:ca..~>...J_Z _....,ZO>>>--' ~~_Z
~N~~~~~~ -=-'~ZZO--'Z__ZZ 1-0Gc)c)~c)c)~~~~ ()()BB
ul-a:::a:::a:::a:::a:::~<(~~~~~~en~~~~~~1- <(..Ja:::a:::a:::a:::a:::a:::a:::a:::a:::a:::..JWLU...J...J
u U..J..J...J...J...Jz o a::: a::: a:::a:::a:::a:::a:::C/) c/)c/) <(<<(<(00 O:J:J:J::>:J:J:J <(<(<(w:c::r::c:r:
<( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <(<( <( <( <( <( CO 00 00 aJ 00'00 00 00 00 aJOO 00 CO aJ 0 U U () () () 0 ()
V
\-Ij
,..-t-
'-..l..
C/)C/)
C/)C/)C/) a:::
WW 0 a.
C/)a:::a::: z C/)
W ~(!)C) <(C/) ~ 0
U ., GOO w~ W
Z Z C/) Oa:::a:::~~w W a::: enC/)
<( -C/) C/) W a:::a.a.ZLU...J Z C/)a::: WW
. I- OC/) ~ - a::: C/) ~ a.ZZoom ~ ~:J -~
C/) Zw () <( LU:JZ -_...JenO:J () a::::JC/)
U)ffi C/)a::: Z~ () ffi -,Q ~Z~~~~ o~ffi() ~"ffi
~<( C/)(!) wO 0 W ...JO ~I- 1-00 I I a:::UOO Z~I
WC/) ~O ~~W~ ...J Oa::: O:S~ ~~:EZZ~ 1-:Ea:::1- ~Ol-
~OZ G~ a:::-()a::: ZQ Za:::a.. ZO() >WWOOI- ~Wa..C/)g3:z0
OWO...JO :2W~<(<( >Ia:::WZI-Z 05Wl- wa.>C/)C/)Z C/)>Z:JOOO...J
w -a:::Z W a:::wa. >WwN -z- I a. a:::a:::W C/)O-. ...J
O:::ZC/)<(a.- ...JIOa. O>I-~O~:J"W()Z:JC/)C/)C/)WW~a..<(LUZZZ~~<(
a.. a:::1- a::: COI- LU> OOI--()..Ja:::I-() LU,:J:J:Ja.a.,:JO 0001-1-1-
..Ja:::WLUZW OOO:cj ZW<(()U<( ZZ(!)~C)OOOOOI-GWZ_--ZZZ
<(Wa.O-...J~a:::I-OI-<( O...J~I--UOLU<(ZLUZUUUWWZZWOI-I-I-WWW
ml-~OOI-~a:::~C/)za.~oC/)m C/)~~ZO~O~~---I-I-W~ZOOOOOOO
~Z~~WIO ~~LULULU~~<(=-~:J<(-O...Ja.Ia.a..a.ZZ...JI Z:J:J:J---
~~~C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~
_.,2 I
OOOU Zl-
Z:J:J:J::;...,O
....Wo..> .... ~OOOUU()
mrom~~~C\J~g~=~v~~m~~~roo("')v("')v~....("')("')("')~~>....a:::mcooocouu()
"~~v~~v~~~~~~m~~~m.....,...,..~~romm<(<(<(<<(<(<(
en
U)
~
>
(!)..J~
<(00
I-g:UIj
ZZO
~OC)
OUZ
I-U-
c/)-s:
-~O
I-~
C/)<(o:::
00::: I
...JI-I-
(!) ~
<(UD
1-1-1-
U)
000
LULU
C/)a:::a:::
C/)a:::t9
W:JO
a:::Ua:::
~UQ.
OOZ
a:::1--
a..enb
~~Z
0::: a::: 0::
LUWLU
...J...J..J
s:~s:
000
a::: a::: a:::
a.. a.. a.
_.,z
~3:3:
000
a::: a::: a:::
a.. a. a.
C/)
C/)
W
a:::
C/)OG
fi3a:::0
a:::()a:::
GUa.
OOZ
a::: 1--
a.C/)1-
Z::JO
_-'z
000
:J:J:J
~~;?
~~LL
_...,2
000
:J:J:J
;i;?;i
LL~u..
ww W w a:~ ~o~
~w w w C!>~ ~~z
~~ w a: ~ OZZ ZZZ
>> waC!> G ~-Q 000
~~ wa:o ~~~ ---
00 a:oa: 9 zo~~~~~
<(<( C!>o~.... _z...Jo...J...J...J
uJuJ oOz ~~ ~>->-Qwoooz
00 a:~-~~o W~~>I>>>>
C!> ~ ~ w ~ 0 ~ -' > > ,n C) >
zz ~owww>-m--vwwwwo
~~ ~'ZI~~O~bb~a:~~~O
-0-0 - - ~ -li:- tL -<,:l-~H:-~a. -~<-w 12-0; -fl.-a;-ffi
a:~twwwww<(~~ww~-'<(<(<(a:
IIWIII~a:a:a:Z~~<(WWuJW-
~~~~~~~~~~~>>~~~~~~
_,z
ZZZ
_,Z !z a: 000
,z~tttww <( _zw ~~~w
~~oowww~w~~~~~~o~~~a:
OOWIII_a:a:a:Z__>>>>>>
~~~I-I-~I-I-I-I-~>>>>>::>::>;:>
oo
, Ooo
..., zcncn WW
Z ~cnw wa:~ w
, ~ww w~~ w
~ ~ a:~ w~O w w w
,~~e.!>e.!> ~o~ cnw a:(/) w
~~~wwoow C!>o~ ~woe.!>(/)o ~ w ~
W(/)a:a:a:a:~~ffi ~oo~~0e.!>~5~~5ffi~Q~cn a:~ ~Q~
cnena:~e.!>e.!>zza: ~Q,f~~wa:oe.!>o~GO-,-""zen08wen _...,z
uJwBB~~--C!> _,z ~oa:o~oozooozzz~5a:owO www
ffiffioo~~~wo ~~~~,zC!>o~~I--~~zoooC!>o~I~5 ddd
oooozzoda: ffi~ffi>->->-oo~~w~~wi~~~ooz~C!>o ~~~
5 h: ~ ~ ~ ;: ;: [fi [fi ~ ~ (ij.Gj (ij ffi ffi ffi ~ 3 b ~ ~ Z Z ~ ~ M:! ~ ~ f ~ ;: ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ g!
UZZ~~~~>>~~(/)W(/)~~~~""Z~~~~@~enwen~~~~~enzenroen
~-- wWZo~~~<(<(<(C!>C!>e.!>---~a:~~~~ wz~w~~~
m~~~~~~ffiffi~-,QQQ~~~~~~ttt~~~QQQ~~~ww~~QQQ
oowwwwww~~ ~QgO<(<(<(~I-~~~~oow-~g~222ooo-,g~~
ommmmmm~~~o~~~~~~ooo~~~~~g~~~~-'-'BGB~~~~
~momomomommoowwwwW~~~OOOOOOOO~wwwc::(<(c::(---~enwen
wO OWW~~~~~uJuJWIIIIIIIIO~~~I-I-I-~~~~~~~
a: a: a: a: a: a: a: a: a: roen en en en en 00 en enw en en en en 00 en en 00 en en en en en en en en en en en en
_,z z
- ~~~~~~_...,z_...,- 2Q2
o-=...,~zz mmmooo~~~~~g -'-'-'
~mmmmmm ~ ...,zxxxoooooooo~_...,Z<(<(<(I_...,~_...,z
WOOOOOO>>moWWWuJWWIIIIIIIIO~~~~I-I-~~~~>>>
~a:a:a:a:a:a:a:a:enwenenwwenenenenenooenen(/)wenwwwenwenenenwwenwen
en
en en
a: en ..., en w
W en zZ w en a:
o w -0- en a: ene.!>
z a: w > ene.!> wO
w (!) -' >Z wO a: ~a:
~ ~oo 0 00 a:~ ~ w (!)~ ~
~ w~~ I ww e.!>~ ~Q, 0 oz ~,
~~O w a:~ a: oz ~...,Z~ ~ ~- ~z ~
xen(!)Zo > a:~ <( za:- enenen~ 0 ~~ zz en
~mo-o z ~~ 0 O~b ~~~oS M zO ~oo 0
a:a:~~ow ~~ a ~zz QQQc::(...,~; _Z o~~ ~ a
ffig~~~o~5 00 ~ :5~~w555zz~<( ~~~~~::5~ ~~z
I- _c::(..., 1-1- ~I- o~~o 00<($ ~~~-OOozo~~
enfl-~I-~Wz enw9~z>~~U5~~~enenzc::( 00...J~>5w~woo
(; Z 0 tt tt tt o'w ~ ~ 0 ~ Q Z 8 8 ~ ..J ...J ...J ffi ffi ~ ~ () () ~ a: w w Io Z ~ U.
W-ZIII~~ zzz>-~O wooo~~a:a:w a:a: OoO()OO_~
a:~~~~~w~o~~~jc::(~~~IZZZ(!)(!)(!)(!)0a:0080ZZWzIwa:~
O~~OOO><(a:a:a:a:c::(~OzZ~<(<(<(Zzzz<(wmm O~~~O~I-Ww
~~u.zzzoa:<(~~~(!)~Zww~ooooowwoow~00~z--~enz~~1-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>>lli~~~~~~~ill~wwo~~~~ffi~~~~
U.(!)(!)(!)(!)(!)a:IIIII~~~~~~~~-'~~~~~~ZZZOOO~~<(~~~
I-
r (f)
_z en ~ zz w w
U.~ ...,za:<( Z a: Z <(...,~~ 0 wz_z Z ~I-
~<(<(~<(<(C::(~N~""O<(O~_Z cncncncn(!)a:_z~woo 0 00
1-~~~~I-~~<(~~~~U."">>~-""Z~~~~cn~()()O~a:a:DOI_~a:
~(!)(!)(!)(!)(!)0IIIII~~~~~~jjj~~~~~~zzzooo~~~~~~
C")
I a",
~i
,-d ()
~ Q)
/" E
~ F
~ ()
-f ()J Q)
~3 ~ -l: ~
.2 ~- F
r- T~
If) U
~ 2~ *,
I 'E. -_ 0
~ j"'lO.. ~ ~,
~ .6S g:
<0" ~ ...
<.J cl; ~
<r::.ct: E
.p:J
:# :il:.~ Z
.~ n::
d ~ ~ 0
+ -t 0 ...
~ .~g ~
<? ~ ~
CJ)
lL.
()
~
~
~
~
~ t)
.t. ;;-
~ '::-
,J <=t
1: -t-
~ <t
SLf-
~
~
~
:il
~
)
fJ
,-
I,.-
~
~CJ
j>
)
I
~
~
t.
~
E.
~
~
2
~
~
~
~.,
, J
c:
o
:p
'00
o
a.
l/)
~ 0
-- ~
:t ~
~ 'C:
<t a.
~
-..n
v
,J~
,'2
..I:
+
- -
,]
'tt"
.Q
, ...
.-
ZZ
ww
Z
W
Z
W
()
<(
> () '>
:iE > <c.. ~
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
>zz>zzzz>zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
:iEwW:iEwwww:iEWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
mromMm~~mN~Mmro~~MroM~MM~mroM~MN~m~M~~m
~o~-M.~m-m~m~~~~m~m~~m~~-m~mM~~-mM~~
MMNMMM~NNMNMMMMNMNNNNMMNNMNNNNMNNNM
l/)
l/)
Q)
...
'0
'0
<(
()
c:
~~~ ~w ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ w ~ ~~~~ ~~
0000 wo> OWoOo~<(<( 0 W<( ~~wwoCJ)oc ~<(ow
ZOz >z<( n::>zn::zCJ)ooCJ)~z >oow CJ)o>zon::z CJ)oon::>
::iz::i~<(::ic~n::<(::in::::ic~wOO::iw<(w~ooz<(~zn::::iwown::<(
W~W<(~W~OOW~WWW~ 50w~~5~~z::i~w::iww~~5wffi
~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ wGj ~ ~ ~ ~ ~<( ~ ~ .~o..a wGj~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~<( w> ~ ~ ~
~ ~o ~~w~"w" n::ww" ~w - ~u~w" ww~
()u()()()u:r:wmo~m~~<(:r:Gj~:iEc:r:u:r: d<( um~:iEW:r:m,
~o~zw~z~zz~z~uzz~~zzzzzdooo~oz~zdoozz
<(z<(<(oo<(o~oo<(o<(oocu<(ocoocczc<(~o<(ccocc
o ozzczuzzczczzzcczzzzzz<(zo ZoZZzzz
<(w<(<(<(<(<(o<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(z<(<(<(<(<(<(<(w<(<(w<(<(<(<(<(<(<(
o ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ z ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 w ~ ~ <( 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w > ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ w ~ ~ ~'-'
n::~n::OOOOn::oo<(oooon::wn::>OOOOwn::OOOOOOCJ)oo><(oon:: OOn::OO>OOOOCJ)
n::on::con::cwoon::on::<(oo>n::ococc<(~on::~cn::o<(coc
W2wzzWz>zzwzw<(zz<(wzzzzzz~zw<(zwzzzzz
:r:~:r:::i::i:r:~<(::i::i:r:::i:r:oc::i::iz:r:::i::i::i::i::in::o::i:r:~::i:r:::in::::i::i::i
~:r:~ww~w~ww~w~~wwQ~wwwww~~w~aw~w~www
w~w~~w~~~~w~w~~~on::wGj~~GjGj<(~~w:r:-Gjw~<(Gj~Gj
m:r:m~~m~~~~m~m<(~~ m~~~~~CJ)~~m ~m~CJ)~~~
zOOCJ)uuooUZUUZUZZUUZZUUU()uzzuzzuzuzuuu
N~~N~m-m~omMNoromro~-~ ~~ roMomNmro Nro-
_O_ON_~OO~NO~OON~~O~-MNOM~M~~O-ON-M
mo~m~romm~mm~~MMo~~~ro~~ro~mmmNmoo~~roro
NN_~_~N~~-~~NO~~-N-OMN~N~NNMNOMro-NN
N~~oo~mm~NM~m~ooroNo~:.~m~~~M~N~m~Moo
N~~NN~~~~N~~~~N~~~~~m~~ro~~~~~~~~~~N
MMm_N_mM~mmM.oro ~N ~ ~~ ~~o~roro- ~ m
~MOM~N-~M-MM~MN~M~moNN~m-oMMM-ON~~~
.."....""..""....,," ,. "_" "O"~" "M"..........,,~ "0"
roN~~roNNmo~-~~mN"om"m..m-"NmmMm~N..~..N
__~~M-MOMON~~-M-N~N~~~MM-~NNN~O~OON
"""""...."",,"""" "M" ..~ "N" "0"""""" "N "-"
m m N m ~ ~ ro ~ 0 m N m L() m m .. ~ _ .. 10 ., 10 ro .. ~ m N ~ - N ro -. N ,. ro
~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~~m~~ro~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m~
NNNNN NNNNNNNN NNNNN NNNNNNNN
~ggggg~~~gggggggg~~~~gg888~88888888
o ~ ~ ~ N ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ N !:' ~ ~ ~ N 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ C:! ~ C:! C:!
~ m ~ ro ~ _ ~ ~ ~ _ m ~ .:!:- ro m m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ 10 ~ - ro 0 M 10 m 0 ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ("t) ~ :!:: :!::: N :~: N ~ :: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :t:: ~ :!:: ~ C:! t:: !: :!:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :!::
_ _ _ _ _ _ N ~ N N N ~ l~J ~ M M M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 10 ~ 10 m m m m ~
\. .\ \'- ~ \. J
\. \, l ~ 1
ZZZZ_Z_ZZZ_Z_Z_Z_ZZ__ZzZZZZ_ZZ_Z2Zz
""""""""~",,, """"",
888888e8e8e8888eee8888~88Beee8e8g8~
<( <( <( <(, <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( "*,,:t: <( <( <( <( <( <( <( ,.<( <( <( <( :r:
I
Mro~-~IO~OIO~N-molOoMro~romlOmm~mroNro~-mNroM
_M_mM~~~rorolO-~~~mmromN~~roNM~IO-ION~NMNM
ro~lOmom-NMmmoMION~romm-omMMMM~mmroMlOmom
O___NNMMMM~~~~~~~rorommmoo--NNMMm~~rom
0000000000000000000000-------------
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
00000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
roro~~~m~~~o~Nm-roNroM m rolO _~~NroMO IOIOM
_lOoN~~lOm-IO~Nro~~olOmoNM~o~Mmm-N-NMroMro
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
00000000000000000000000000000000000
mm~roN-NMIO-mNmrommNNNMM-IO~~~~-rooMlOmolO
O___NMOOO--NNN--NOOOO---NNO--N-NNM-
______NNNNNNNNMMM~~~~~~~~~IO~~lOmmmm~
00000000000000000000000000000000000
i
<
.f
""
~
!
>>0 >>
~~ f- ~~
~ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ_ZZZz
OOWWWWWWWWWWW~WWWWW~wwww
u >
~ ~
zzzzz
wwwww
z>
w~
>
~
z
w
u
<(
zz
ww
~~m~~~M~~~M~N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~M~~~~~~NN
~VVVVVMMVMmVvMvvMV~V~VM~MV~~mV~o~~mmm
MMMMNM~MMMNMNMN~MMMNNMMMN~~NNMMMNNNNN
en
o
o WOf-~ ~ f-~f- f- f-f-W~~ OO~ WOO
<(I><(OOO~ <(Woo~OO 00 0000>0000 W<(<wW.>. <( <(
O~<(OO~~ O~OWO ~~O~ ~OO<(OO~~OOO~<(~OW>O
m,OO~ZOO ~ 0 z>z~<( z W_ZZOOZZ~ ~~Z OO<(~ ~
~P<(~~WZooWO~~~~OO<(~~O>~~~W~~O~~~~~W ~<(~
W~~WW~~O>>~WU OZ~W~<(~WW~WWZ~WW~~~~W~W
:C~~:C>UWZ<(~~>O~ZO~>~ZO>>a>>~~:c:c~~aO:CO:C
U IU t; U LU ~ ru ~ z W :c LU Z LU ~ ~ W W W 0 ~ LU LU ~ LU W W :c u U W :c ~ 0:: U 0:: U
illto::illd~~w~~~d<(dworudruO::o-~ddwddru~mill~~woill~ill
mu<(m OOU>~~:CW >U~ ~ <( :c ~:cmm~:c:cum<(m
ZOooZOOOOWZZOOO>OLUZUOUZZOOZOOUZZ~OZZOOOOZZ
.. Z ~ Z<(Z~ Z zz ZZ Z
OOOO<(O~UOOO<(Z<(UOOZ<(OOO<(<(O<(<(OOOO<(OOOOOO
Z~ZZOZ OZZZO o::OZ OZZZOOZOOZZZZ ZZZZZZ
<(~<(<(<(<(W>Z<(<(<(<(OO~<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(~<(<(<(<(<(<(
~~W.' ~~O~<(<(~~~OOO~<(f-W>OW>f-f-OOf-OOW~~~<(~~f-~~~
00' 00000::00 WooooOO~o:::U)WOO<(~ OOOOo:::~OO~o::>OOOOOOOOOOOOCJ)OOCJ)oo
Oi OOo::OO>OCO~~W>O ~<(OO~~O~o::<(OOOWOOOOOO
Z~ZZWZ~<(ZZZW~~~Z~W~ZZWWZWW~ZZZ~ZZZZZZ
~O~~~~:c~~~~~~~~ZO~~O~U~~~~~~~~~~~a~~~~~~
W~WW~W ~WwW~~<( W~~ZWW~~W~~-WWW~WWWWWW
rupruruillru~~rururumo~~ruoill~ruruillillruillill~rururuwrurururururu
~~~~m~:cu~~~m~ooo~umo~~mm~mm~~~~:c~~~~~~
ozuozozzouuzzzoouzzzouzzozoozuuuzouuuuu
I
'I
M~O~~~ ON~mIDMM NNrom ~NM~ ~mm~~ro~~NO
NN~~~~M~~O~ONOMmO~MO~O~N~M~~~NV~~~~OO
..".."" ..~...."...... ..VN........~...... ..NV...."...."........
o'q-mMMID ..~~OIDroO~.. ..MOON~ ..~~NV.. "mm~~~o~~O"""
~N~NN~~MMNN~~~~roO~N~~OMONOV~N~~OM~~NO
.......... "N.."........ "M~""""O""" ..~~....................
ro~~~~ro ..~~m~ID~~" ..m~N~ ........rom~.. ..N~~~~~~M~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~mW~~N~m~~~~o~~~~~~~~~~~
N~~rom~ mmo~oo~v ID~N~ OM~ID ~oNmro~~om~~
O~OOO~~~MN~O~O~~~OMNIDM~~OOO~~~N~NONO~
............N...."...... "OV........~"......~.."..................
vvID......O~ ..MNmV~VO" ..~"""OON ..~V~...... ..~"""~"""ONmN......mN
~M~~~NmVMOM~~MV~M~MOm~~N~~~O~~~NOON~~
.......... "N............ ,,~~""""~""""O"""""""""""
~ID~~N~..ID~roO~MID....~~~~,,~~~O..N~O~~~O~N~N
~~~~~~N~~~~~~~~~~~N~ro~~~~ON~~~~~~~~~~
!
, \ \' \. \ ~ \\ \
ZZ ZZZZ_~Z~ZZZ2=ZZ_~~ZZ~ZZ~ZZZ_2
~~O~~~ ~~.........~.~...~..~.~~~
U:U ~ U U U ~ U U U U U U U U U U U ~ U U U U U U U U U U U U U
U'U!::: U U U _ U U U U U U U U U U U - U U U U U U U U U U U U U
<(<(:c<(<(<(:c<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(:C<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(
\
~
NNNN NNNNN NNNN
N NNNN NNNNNNNOOOONNOOOOONNOOOO
O~OOOONNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNOONNNNNOONNNN
~'.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ '_ ~ ID t'I ...... _ _ ~ M ~ ~ 0 M V ~ ~ N M m m ~ ~ ~ ~ M ro m ~ ~ ~ ~
~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 25 0 0 25 25 25 ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: C'J C'J C'J C'J C'J C'J
......;~ co ro co ro m m m m m m m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T'" ~ ~ T'"
:
O'~ T'" m N N ~ ~ M ID M ~ m ID m N ~ 0 M ~ ~ M ID M M ~ 0 V ~ ~ M ID ro 0 N ~ ro
v'ID V M 0 ~ ~ m ID V ro 0 ro ~ 00 ID T'" N ~ MOm 0 N ro ~ m M T'" ~ ~ ~ ro ID N N ~
IDm~~MroM~M~romT"'~~rommNooNMIDIDm......oomT"'T"'N~VOOmO
OI'T'" N N M M ~ ~ ~ ~ ID ID ~ ~ ~ ~ ro m 0 ~ T'" ~ T'" T'" ~ N M M M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMOOO
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNMMM
010 0 0 0 0,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
0000000000000000000000000000000000000
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
. ~"" , , " "'- '" " \ " " , , \. , \' "", '" '''''' 'It". '- , \., ,,,......
~~~MmN'~mmOO~O~OID~NN'mIDMM\m......~ro"""T"'.IDOOO~
~OOT"'~ID~m~m~roNoNoIDID~O~O~~N IDMMID~m~MmMN
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNMMM
000000000000000000000000000000000000
ro~IDN~~M~M~~OMv......~roT"'mmNN~IDo~mONNMT"'OONM~
.O~T"'NNOONNNNMOOT"'~NMOOT"'T"'~T"'MOO~~T"'~NNNNN
~oooorooorommmmmmmOOOOOOT"'T"'~T"'T"'T"'T"'NNNNNNNN~T"'~
~IOOOOOOOOOOOOT"'T"'~~~~~~~~~~T"'T"'T"'T"'~~T"'~~OOO
~
11
,i
I
<X:
::E
>
::E
Ozz
C>WW
" >>
< ::E::E
ZZZZZZZZZZ
UJUJUJUJwwwUJwUJ
~ m ~
ZZZ~UZZZ
L1.!UJUJ~<X:UJUJUJ
>
::E
ZZZ
UJUJUJ
~
z>
w::E
ZUZ
UJ<X:UJ
>
Z
>
::E
~
ZZZZZ
UJUJUJUJUJ
~roMN~~MM~ro~~OO~OOOMNOON~M~~o~mOO~NM~~OOO~~
~m~~~Mmm~~~~~~~~m~~m~~~M~~~M~mmM~~~~m
MNNNNNNNNM~NMMNNNNNNMNMNNMNMNNNNNMM~N
,
,
I-
I-WUJI- ~ WUJ ~~UJ O~WI-I-~~W~~ ~~ ~
W~~~I- b O~UJUJ OO~UJ~O~WWOO~OOI-UJ 00 01-
~.. 0 W Wwz zW>> ~~ >~~ OO~~WZ~OO> Zz ~W
uJ zffl Zo w::Swc(C(UJ~~o<(~~ozz~~w ~0c(1- UJ~o
>;::s~~::S~~~~w~~~~UJw~~UJw~::S::SwUJ~~UJ~ww~::Sw~wz
<( IZ w :::> :::> w ..J 00 > ....... (;j ..J .............. ":I::I:..J.......:I::I:..J UJ UJ :I: :I: ..J > :c ..J :::> 0 > :I: ::s
~~. (;j~0~UJ(;j~~~~~~~~<(';'~~a~~~a(;j(;j~~~W~~~~~~~;~UJ>
~~~W~ -u~~UJ..J:::> wW_..JwW_~~UJUJ uww-..Ju".......w
..J0U:I:<X:U~U ~O:I:OO::Emm:I:omm:I:UUmm:I: m~zw ~::Em~
ZZOWZ~UZ~ZZZZZZZZZZWZZOOZWZ~ZUZ(;j~~WZU
oo~00<X:00C(o<X:0000000oooo33oo0C(ooo~<X:<X:ooo
zz.......zz zZozwzzzzzzzzzzz..............zzzozzzuo ZZZ
<X:~w<X:<X:~<X:<X:C(C(~<X:<X:<X:<X:<X:<X:<X:<X:<X:<X:<X:UJ>UJ><X:<X:<X:C(C(<X:<X:o<X:~<X:<X:<X:
1-1-~I-I-C(UJI-OI-~I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-~~I-I-I-Ol-w>l-zo<(I-I-UJ
ww.......ww >w~w~wwwwwwwwwww..............www~w W<X:~ WOO>
OQozooffl<(o~ooooooooooooooozozooo~o~oUJ~~oo<(
zz zz~~Zwz ZZZZZZZZZZZ zzzUJz~z>UJ~zzz
::s::s~::s::sao::s5::i~::s::s::s::s::i::s::s::s~::s::s~~::s::s::s5::i0::s~5~::s::s~
UJw~UJUJ~~UJ~wUJUJwwUJwUJUJwUJUJUJ~~UJwUJ~UJ~UJ~~Uwwl-
(;j~~(;j(;jw:::>(ijw(ij~(;j(ij(;j(;j(ij(;j(;j(;j(;j(;j(;j~~(;j(;j(;jw(ij:::>(;j~UJ~(;j(ij<X:
~~:I:~~:I:<X:~m~~~~~~~~~~~~~:I:~~~~m~<X:~..Jm<X:~~w
U0ZUUZZUzuzuuuuuuuuuuuzzuuuzuzuzzwuuz
~\ ~1O~~~roNO ~~~~m~~~~OOO~~~OO,,""~ ~~MNm ~
~~MM~~N~,,""O~OMN~NN~~N~NNM~NO~~OO,,"",,""M~OroM
"M".... ,.',.,.. "~...""'.."......"....""..".. '.M..".'" """"..
ro I'..: m 00 ro """ ~ ~ 0 ~ ,. ro """ 0 ~ ~ 0 ro ~ ~ m N ro """ 10 M ~ ~ ~ .' ~ ~ N ~ M ., 0
M~1MIO~M,,""NMO~N~MO~~,,"",,""0001O~~N~~N~~~~~M~~
OO~~~~OM~~OO~mOOOONMM~~m~~~N~OO~OO~~~NmmN~M
~ro~~~~~~~~m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m~~~~NV~
~ 00 ,,""rooo~ ~,,""mMro~o~OmO,,""M~O~Nm ,,""~~'NOM~
N~,,""IOO~N,,""M,,""O~~~OO~,,""O~~N~,,""M~M~~O~OMO,,""MM
"~~""~"""""""""""""""""""""""" "M..............
m....~m..~OOOO..~MM~-.:tM~NM~"""~ro~~roN~..~"""O~mN~
,,""~N~N~"""-.:tOM"""~-.:t"""-.:t-.:t,,""NMN,,""~O~,,""M-.:tO-.:tOOMNNOO~M
~~;'~~~NM~~~M~~ON~MM~~M~O~~~~O~M~W~~N~
~rom~~oo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OO~~~~NN~
,
M~~ ~~~ ~M~MM~ MMMMMMMM ~MMM . ~~M
OOOMMOOO~MOOOOOOMMOOOOOOOO~OOOO~~MOOO
0000000000000000000000000000000000000
NN~OONNNOO~NNNNNOO~NNNNNNNONN~NOOONNN
O~,,""~~~~~~~M~~~N~~~N~~~~OOO~~~N~~~~~~ro
M~~~~,,""NNM~,,""~,,"",,""NNN~,,""~,,""NNMMMN,,"",,""NNlOmm,,"",,""~
~?~(:\j(:\jNNN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i.~\ \ .) \ ~ \.' \
z~zzz__zz_zzzzzz_zzzz_zzzz_zzz_zz_zzz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
upuouuuuuuuuuou~uu~uuuu~uuuuuuuuo~u~l-u
u~uuuuuuuuuuuuu-uu-uouu-ouoouuououu-u
<x:<x:<x:<x:<x:<X:~<X:<X:C(<X:<X:<X:<X:<X::I:<X:<X::I:<X:<X:<X:<X::I:<X:<X:<X:<X:<X:<X:<X:<X:<X:<X:<X::I:<X:
:!
ooIM~~mroM~~,,""NIOON~~MO~~,,""N-.:tOO~m,,""OOO,,""Mo~romro~
o ',~ ~ ~ m 0 ~ ro m ro m N ~ -.:t """ 0 m m ro ~ ~ 0 """ ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ """ M ~ ~ ~ m """ ~
~,)~ ~ 0 """ m ~ ~ ~ ~ -.:t ~ m m -.:t ~ -.:t ~ -.:t CO 00 00 m """ ~ """ M ~ ro M M ~ 0 0 N (() m
N'N N M M M -.:t -.:t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CO ro m m moo,,"" """ """ """ N N M M -.:t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0,'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ ~ """ """ ~ """ ~ ~
M'M M M M M M ~ ~ M M M M ~ C") M ~ M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
0000000000000000000000000000000000000
JO'.'.i.OOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
'NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
j' '\ \" \. \. \ \ \ ~ \ , \" \ \ \ \ '\ \ \ \ '\. \.\. \ 'I, \." \ \ \ \ '\.'
NNON~-.:toco~mm,,""m~ONNmNoom~,,""orooo-.:tm~oco~~oo
~M~N~,,""M~~O"""-.:t,,""NW,,""~~OIO,,""ro~Mm~-.:tromC")~~M~N~~
,~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '? ~ ~ '? '? ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <';I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,. ,. ~
~MMMMMMMMMMM~MMMMMMM~MMMMMMMMMM~MMMMM
~OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
~,,"",,""~~~~rM~M~~~N-.:tN-.:tN(()~~~OOON~~NN~mm~~ro
~MMOO~NNOO~,,"",,"",,""NNOO,,""~~NNMMMO~,,""NNOOO~~,,""
~~,,""NNNNNMMMMMMMM~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IO~~~~(()~
~OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
~
1---
!
1
'1
\
~ >
::E
ZAZZZZZZ
UJLltlUJUJUJWUJW,
,
i
> ZZ >>
::E UJW ::E::E
ZZZZ>>ZZZZZZ>ZZZ
UJUJww::E::EWWWWUJW~WUJW
>
::E
ZZZZ
UJWUJW
ZZ
UJUJ
>
::E
ZZZ
UJWW
~~~~oo~~m~~oomN~~oooo~~~~oo~~oo~~~~~~m~~~~~
~~~M~m~~-.:t~"""-.:tM~"""-.:tM~-.:tm~-.:tMM~~-.:t~-.:t-.:t-.:tO~-.:t~~~
M~NMNNNNMMMM~NMMMNNNMMNNNMNMNNMNNMMNN
W 1-1-1-001-1- 1-1- 0 1-1-1-1- 0 ~ 1-1-
> row~<x:~row I-roro I-<x: rowrow <X: UJo wro
W <c I- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UJ 00 0 b w ro 0 I- c:i 0 0 0 I- LU I- 0 ~'I-' UJ 0 0 UJ
>0 WZZZ~~ZZ~OZZ>O~roZZZZ ro>w~ UJ ro~ZZ>
~~.~~::Sj::Sffiffi::S::S<x:~::S::S~~ffi~::S::S::S::S~~~~~ffi~~~~<X:::S::S~
~:::> ::SUJUJUJ:I::CUJUJZWUJUJ UJ:I:::SUJUJUJUJ <(::S~::i:I: I-..JUZUJW~
~~~UJ(;j(;j(;j~~(;j(;j~(ij(;j(;j~(;j~W(;j(;j(;j(;j~~UJ~w~~ffl~~~(;j(;j~
<X:W..J>~~~UJW~~O~~~~~UJ>~~~~..J<X:><(>UJ..J~~I-O~~<X:
ro:I:UJ~UUUmmUUuuUUzum~UUUUUJ~~W~mwuIrouUUro
Z~>UOOOWZOOz~OOro~ZUOOOO>zuroUZ>ZZZZOOZ
~UJ ZZZ ZZ ~ZZ ~ ZZZZUJ W zz
OO~O<X:<X:<X:OO<X:<X:O~<X:<X:O~OO<X:<X:<X:<X:~OOOOO~OOOO<X:<X:O
ZZUZOOOZZOOZ OUJZ ZZUJUJOOUZZZZZUZZZZOOZ
<X: <X: 0 <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <x:<X:UJ <X: > <X:UJ<X:<X:>> <X: <X: 0 <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: 0 <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X:
I-I-Z00001-1-001-~0<(1-~1-0<(<(OOZI-0I-UJ>I-ZI-I-I-I-001-
roro<x:<X:~~~WW~~W"""'~roro"""'W<X:row~~<x:ro<x:ro ro<x:wrororo~~w,
oowQ~~~OO~~O~~<X:O~oQ<X:UJ~~WOQOC(~OWOOOO~~O
ZZ>~UJWUJZZWUJZ~UJ~Z~Z~~~UJUJ>Z~Z z>ZZZZUJUJz
~~<(UJ:I::I::I:~~:C:C~..J:I::::>~..J~W:::>:::>:I::I:C(~W~ ~C(~~~~:I::I:~
..J~ZZUUU..J..JUU..J:CUI-..J:I:..JZI-UuUZ..JZ..JO..JZ..J..J..J..JUU..J
UJW_UJ~~~UJW~~UJ ~UUJ UJWU~~~_WWUJ~UJ_WUJUJUJ~~UJ
~~~UJUJWUJ(ij~ww~QUJ~(;j~(;jW~UJUJUJ~~W~:::>~~~~~~WUJ~
~~~~mmm~~mm~:cm<X:~:I:~~<X::I:mm~~~~<x:~~~~~~mm~
UlzzzzzuuzzuzzrouzuzzzzzzurouzuzuuUUZZU
ro" oomN~omm~rom"""-.:t~~N~~m~N~,,""oooMmm-.:t~~MoNMN
~m~~Mooo~~ONNOMOO,,""OMOM~,,""M-.:tO~N~NONN~MO
~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
..9.................................................................... ..
rol.~i~~M~o~ro~NoNM~,,""~ooororoMN~ooNro~~,,""~M~~~~
.,- ;... ~ .,- .,- .,- .,- T""" T""" T""" N N N T""" .,- N .,- or- .,- or- .,- .,- .,- .,- .,- or- .,- .,- .,- .,.- N .,- .,- N .,- .,- or-
M mm-.:t~ ~ro~~,,""mN~mM ~mN~N~M,,""~~~~ Mo~m
~~~~-.:tO~N-.:t"""-.:t-.:tOM~~~(()MNM,,""OM~MMOM,,""NM~~MOO
..(()........N....................~~N........................M........
m "Mm,,""~ ..~~~oo~m~mMM.... ..NOO~"""~roro~MO~ ..,,""~~M
M~"""~MON~~-.:t""""""~O~N"""N~"""O~NO""""""ON~MNIO"""~~O-.:t
..M........N....................O"""N........................~........
~.."""~NM..-.:t~~~OO~MMO~......OO~NN"""~~~O"""o~..o~~~
.,-r~.,-.,-.,-m.,-.,-T"""N.,-N.,-.,-N.,-mmro.,-.,.-.,-.,-.,.-.,-T""".,-.,-.,-N.,- .,-.,.-.,-
i MMMM MMMMM
M~M MM MM ~MMMMMMC")oooomooooo
O~OMOOMOOMMMMMoooooooooooooooooo
obooooooooooooooOOOOOONNNNONNNNN
N~NONNONNOOOOONNNNNNNN----N-----
~~~~roro~~~N~~~~N~~~roN~ro~~~Mm~~~~~
N~NN,,""Nm,,""NNM~t:::m,,""~,,""~,,""N-o-o-o-o-o-o~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~'~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ' , , , N~
(()W~~~~oooooommmmmmmmmmm~,,""~,,""~~~~~,,""~"""
" \ \ ,\ \ \ 1~
Z~ZZZZZZZZZ~ZZZZZ_Z_Z_ZZZZZ_Z-OZ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~
U~UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU~UUUUUUU
UCUUUUOUUUUUUUUUUUUOOUUU-OUUUUUU
<X: X <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X:<X::I: <X: <X:C(<X: <X: <X: <X:
,-.:t ~
-.:too
000
ONN
~N~
m,,""~
- --
~""" ~
~
~1~MOOMM~~OO-.:t~M~N~~m~M~~MNMro-.:t~~MMOIOMMOO
~mN~N~~~ro~orooo~M~mM~~o~,,""M~oMmoomro~~~~~~
N,,""~Moo~m~~M~~ooOM~~~OONM~NM~ooM~NM~~~~rooM
(()~~~romo~NMMMM-.:t~-.:t~~-.:t~~~~oororomm,,""~NNNoO~~
~r~~,,""~NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNMMMMMOOOO
B~BBBBB~B~~BB~BBBBBBBBBBBB~BBBBBBg~gg
0'1000000000000000000000000000000000000
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
j
\../ ,\\.\\.\\\,-\\..,\,,\,\ \.\'\,,\\'\\',\ '..... '
M 1\ N ro ~ 0 'M ~ ~ -.:t """ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ N 00 M \ -.:t ~ m N -.:t Nom ~ -.:t ~ ~ ' 0 ~ ro ~
~~~oo~ooMoro~~roNOM-.:t~~~IO~roromM~~ro~~M~~O~~~
~ I,. ~ ~ ~ '7 ~ C? <';I '1 C? <';I C? <';I <';I,? ~ ~ ~ q> C? <';I ~ ~ ~ C? ~ <';I ~ ~ C? ~ I';" ,. '1 ~ '1
MIM M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M ~ -.:t -.:t -.:t
0,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 000 0
~;""" ~ N 00 ro 0> ~ ~ N ~ m ~ m N M <D ~ 00 N ~ 00 -.:t <D m ~ ~ """ 00 m N ~ ~ ~ m N ~
NNNO~NO~NOOOOO,,""~,,"",,""~NOO~NNMO~NN~~,,""OO~~
(()'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 00 00 m m m m m m m m m m moo 0 0 0 0 ~ """ ~ ~ N N N ~ ~ """ ~
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO""""""~~~"""""""""~"""~~"""OOOO
> >
::E ::E
>zzzzz
::EUJUJUJUJW
> z
:E UJ
zzz~zzzz~zz
WWUJ~UJWWUJ~WW
u >
<X: ::E
zzzzzzz
UJUJWUJUJWUJ
>
::E
>>
::E::E
zzzzzzzz
WWWUJWUJUJW
ro~~~ION~m~~rooo~~~~o~mo~mO~O~N~N~~~~ro~~~
~~M~~-.:t~-.:t-.:t"""~-.:t~mo-.:t~~~m~-.:t~-.:tmM,,""mN~m~M~mM~
NMNNNNMMNMNNNNMMNMMNMM~NNMNNNMNMNMNN~
I-
~I-~ ~I-~~W~~WUJ~~ ~UJOOUJ~~ I- ~~ ~~
O~O~ O~OO~OO~~<(O~~~~~~O~~~I-<(~~WOO~<(O
~z~C(~I-~z~~o~~~o~~oooooo~o::sofflffloz~~~offl~
..J::SUJz<(w..J::S..J..Jz..J..J~z~..Jzzz~~~wzUJz~~~::sz..J..J~~..J
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
d~UJ:::>~::S~~~d~ddUJ~~d~~~UJUJUJUJ~u~I-UJUJ~<x:ddUJUJ~
omoUw~U~:I: ::E:C<X: ~~~~~~m:I:o:I:W:I:~uro ~:c~
~fuzzz~~O~~z~~wzz~uuuzzzzzzzwzzOZ~~zZ~
<X:~ooo~<X:~C(<X:O<X:<X:OOO<X:OOOOOOOO<X:OOOO~O<X:<X:OO<X:
o-zzzu, ozcozzzozzzzzzzzUJzzzz.......zoozz
<x:W<X: <X: <X: oUJ>w>UJ <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: > <X:C(<X: <X:UJ<x:<x:<x:<x:<x:UJ
O~I-I-I-Z<(~c(OI-OOI-I-I-OUJ>OW>I-I-I-I-I-~I-I-I-I-><(I-OOI-I-~
~.rorow<X:ro w~w~~wwro~ <X: rorororow~rowrow ro~~wrow
~~OOOUJUJ~w~O~~ooo~~Q~oooooOOoooo~O~~ooUJ
W zzz>~~~UJzwUJzzzw"""'~~zzzzz zzzZ~ZUJUJzz~
:I:~~::S::SC(:::>..J~:I:::S:C:I:::S~::S:I:zUJO::S::S::S::S::S~::S::i::S::S~::S:I::I:::S::S:::>
~~UJUJw~~~~~W~~UJwUJ~~m~UJwUJUJUJmWwwUJ~UJ~~WW~
UJ~>>><X:UJ~wUJ>wUJ>>>UJOUJUJ>>>>>~>>>>w>UJUJ>>UJ
mF~~~::E:C:I::I:m~mm~~~mu~::E~~~~~C>~~~~::E~mm~~I
zzuuuzzzzwuzzuourowzzuuuuuwuuuuzuzzuuz
I
I
:t
~~M,,"" -.:t0~ ~~O""" roNMNmNO~ o~mo OOmOmmM 00
~M~~m,,"",,""NMONOIO~~M~M~NIO~-.:tO,,""NNroo~-.:tO~Nm~~
., ,,' 0' " 10 '0 ., 0' ~ 0' 0' " '0 0 .' 0' " . 0 '0 .' " " ~ .. " 0' " 0 ., " '0 " '0 ., ~ ., M
~t~m..OO~..MmmM..~~m~~O~N..~M~~..roNroO~(()..~..
M~JMVIOIO~~ro~,,""N~O~~~~NN~-.:t~N~O,,""m~V~NMNmMm
........M......O........~................"""........"""............O..~
~I'-N-.:t..MON..~~~~..rom~oom~OOO..~~~N..~"""NroOro..~..
~r~~OO"""NNm"""~""""""OO"""~""""""~"""~NN~~~"""m~N~~"""~m~(()
m~o~ ~om ~M~O ~Om~N~M-.:t OO~~ MM,,""~~O N
~~N~m-.:t-.:tN~-.:t~~M~N~O~MOO~roOM~N-ONMNN~"""~O
........O......M........~................~......MO............N..~
O~~"""..N~~..~roM~..Nm~~~~O~..~MN....Mm~~M~..m..
~~~"""(()-.:t~~m~~NMMMO~NMMN~MOO~m"""N~"""~O~~~M
........1O......~........0................0......0"""............0"0
~<O~M..NOOO..~NMO..~OO-.:t~~M~O..~MIO....MOO"""~O~..M..
~~~~ID~~N~~~~~~~~~~~~~N~~~~~ro~~~~,~OO~~
~~~ -.:t~~~-.:t-.:t ~-.:t~~-.:t ~-.:t-.:t~ -.:t-.:t~~-.:t~
OOO-.:tOOOOOO-.:tVOOOOO~~~OOOO~~V.~OOOO~~OO
OgOOOoooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOdOOOOOOaoooo
N~NONNNNNNOONNNNNOOONNNNOOOOONNN~OONN
N~~~N~~~N~~~~N~~O~~~~~roro~~~~~~~~~~~~~
N~Nt::,,""~,,""~NN~OO~~,,"",,""N,,""~M~,,"",,""Nt::t::roN~~NN~~~NN
~ ,,,,,- ~ "'" --- ......... ........ -.... ......... -... -... ........ -... ......... -... ....... ........ ......... -... ........ ........ ........ -... ........ -... ........ -... ........ -... ""-....~......... ........ ........ -...
N:N N M M M M M M M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (() ~ ~ (() ~ ~ (() ~ ~ ~ 00 00 ro ro ro roi m m m m
,
ZZ~~ZZ~@~Z~ZZZ~~~ZZ~ZZZ!..::~ z~~z~~zz~z
~i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ..., ~ ..., ~ ~ ..., ..., ..., ...,
U,U U U U U U U U () U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U ~ U U U U U U U U U U
O:U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U!:: u u u u u UU U U U
<x:<x:<x:<x:<x:<x:~<x:<x:<x:<x:<x:<x:<X:<X:<X:<X:<X:<X:<X:<X:<X:<X:<X:<X:<X:I<X:<X:<X:<X:<X:~<X:<X:<X:<(
~
~m~~oo~~~~O-.:tm-.:tM~ro~OM,,""ro~~IONroo~moroN~o~rom
~~OMOO-.:t~OO-.:t_omroOO-.:t~,,""~~M~~-.:t~~~M~~-.:t~m~,,""~~m
~Im ~ 0 ~ moo ~ ~ 0 N V ~ M M -.:t ~ (() ro ro 00 """ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 N ~ M N ~
~,~ 10 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m m m N C") M M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ro ro 0 0 """ N M M M M ~ 10
ooooooooooooo~,,""~,,"",,""~~,,""~,,""~~~~NNNNNNNNNN
-.:ti ~ ~ -.:t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -.:t -.:t V ~ ~ ~ ~ -.:t ~ ~ ~ ~ -.:t ~ ~ ~ ~ -.:t V -.:t ~ ~ ~ -.:t -.:t -.:t ~ ~
010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nl N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
.' \. \,'-.....'\ \ \. ~\ \. l\ '\ L'\\ ,"" '\\.\ \.\.\ "", ,\
N; &.l N 0 0 ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ """ 00 \ 0 0 ~ ~ N ~ ro mom M ~ m ~ ~ 0 10 N
~NO-.:t,,""mNOOO~-.:tMmro~mO~(()~,,""~~(()~m~-mO-.:t~M~(()O~
~'?~~~~,.,.~'?~~~~'?'?'?'?'?~'?'?~~~~~~~~~~~'?~~~
~-.:t~-.:t-.:t~-.:t-.:t~-.:t-.:t-.:t-.:t~-.:t~-.:t~~~~~-.:t~~~~VV~~~~~~~~
QOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
N~~~N~~~NMlOrooNmmO,,""~M~~rooo~~ooNVMMm~~~,,""~
~NNO~~~~NNOO,,""~_~NOOO~,,""~NOOOOO,,""NNMOONN
NNNMMMMMMM~-.:tv~~~~~~~~~~(()~~~rororooororommmm
0000000000000000000000000000000000000
> > ~ u > > <X: >
::E ::E::E <X: ::E::E> ::E
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
UJUJUJUJUJwwUJWUJwUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJwwUJwUJUJUJUJUJUJwUJUJUJUJUJ
ro~~M~~"""~~~~-.:t~~~M-.:t-.:t~MMroro~~~~~M~MN~OO~_,,""
~.mm~~N-.:t-.:tm-.:t-.:tM-.:t-.:tmmm~m~~Mm-.:t~..N~-.:t~-.:t~M-m
N~NNMMMNMNNN,,""NMNNNNN~,,""MNMNNN~N~~NMMI-N
oi UJw 001- I-UJ 1-01- I-I-UJI- 0
<x:~ w >>1- <x:~roUJro>UJ w<x:w wro>ro <X:
o~~~~~ ~~C(~~QQo~o<(~ oQo~~ ~ ~ zozo~o~Q
~~ UJ 000 ~~z zoo z~zo I-C(UJ Wz ~
~~~~~~~~~o~~~ffiffiS~::S~~~::Sffi::S~~roC(~~ ::S::S~::S~ffi
5g~~~~~~~~~~m~~~:I:~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
~~>C>>>~~>~UJ~wwUJ~~~~UJ<X:~UJ~w>..Jo<x:> ~~W~>UJ
~~. ~I~~Om~~:I:u~mmUIU~::E::EUmU~~Wu~~ UU~u~m
ro uzuuz uwzozzzozozzz~z~zu~wzu ~~zouz
0, ooooo~ooo~ooo~o~ooo<x:o<x:oodOOOI-C/)<X:<X:o~oo
z~zzzzzuzzz"""'zzz z zZZoZozz zzz ooZ zz
<X:P<X:<X:<X:<X:<X:oC(C(<X:UJ<x:<x:<x:~<x:~<x:<x:<x:<x:<x:<x:<x:<x:o<x:<x:<x:o<x:<x:<x:~<X:<X:
1-~0I-ool-zOI-I-~I-I-I-C(1-1-1-1-1-0I-oI-0~1-~9~00~~9~
ro~<x:ro<x:<x:ro<x:<x:wro"""'rorow 00 wwro~ro~ro<x:"""'wUJ"""'..J~~W .......w
o~oooOowooooooofflofflooo~o~oowoooUJ~~offloo
z~~z~~z>~zz~zzz~z~zzzUJzUJz~~zz~>wUJz~~z
::s UJ::SUJUJ::SC(W::i5..J::S::S5:::>::su::S::S::S:I:::S:I:::sww5::SUJ~:I::I:::S:::>UJ::S
w~mwmmwzmwwaUJww~UJ~UJUJUJ~w~UJm~wwmu~~UJ~mUJ
~oUJ~wUJ(;j~UJ~~_~~~W~I-(;j~~w~UJ(;jUJ~~(;jUJowUJ(;jUJUJ(;j
~~~~~~~~~~~:I:~~~:I:~ro~~~m~m~~~~~~~mm~:I:~~
uzzuzzurowuuzuuuzuzuuuzurouwzuuz~zzurozu
~~~~~C")~~-.:t Mm ~-.:t~~ ~"""~ m ~ M,,""N~ mCO~MmM
N~OMIO~MO~~N~~O~M~MM,,""~MOm~~-.:t,,""N~MMONN~,,""
..................N....~........""".........-.:t..O........"""............
oNm;gN(t)~roO..mO..Nm~N..NNOO..ro..N..~ro-.:t~..OOOO"""~~
~;.c:-:!..~;.~c::!c::!~c:-:!;.~~~~~~~~~;gc:-:!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
M~MNm~mNOO..~~..~OOO-.:t..~~~..OO..OO..M-.:tOON..~N~~m"""
~~~~~~~~~OO~~o~~~~ro~~~~~m~ro~~~~VN~~N~~
OOON~N-.:t~ m OO~O~N M ~O""" 00 M m~~m OOOMm~ro
-.:t '~ MOM ~ M NOm -.:t 0 M ~ ~ 00 M m 10 0 ~ 00 ~ """ """ ~ M """ 0 0 ~ -.:t M ~ 0 0 ~
.........'....M..~..........O "M......N..~..IO.... ,...~............
NM~~~~m..~..ro~N~~..M..NMo..m..~..rom~N..N~ooN~ro
(t)~~Mo~~m-.:t~MO-.:t~~~N MMMMM~~MMMOO-.:tM~O~N
........"" "N". ,....... "M" ......O..M "1O.....'..N.....'......
NNNNOO~~..<O..-.:t~MM<O..M, ~~..(O..~..NM~.......o~~m~o
""""""~~"""""""""m"""~"""~N""""""m"""~ ~~~"""ro~~""""""~"""NN~""""""~~
~~-.:t-.:t~ .-.:t-.:t -.:t-.:t-.:t-.:t
g~88888~~~g8g~8gg8
0;0 N N N N N 0 0 0 N N NON N N N
~~~ro~ro~~~~N~~~N~NN
m~"""~~NNM-.:tro"""NN~~"""NN
~:~~~a~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(J')f(J) or- ~ ~ ~ T""" ~ T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" .,..- T""" T"""
~: ~ \" \, '\ , "\\
_'Z z z _ z z _ z z z _ _ Z _ _ Z
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
~UUUUUUUUUUUUUOUU
~'<.( <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: C( <X: <X: C( <X: C( <X: <X: <X: <X:
~' ~ ~ ~ ~ LO III ~ ~ ~ 10 ~. ~
OOOO~~LOOOOOOOOIOOOIO
000000000000000000
NNNNOOONNNNNNNONNO
----NNN-----N-N--N
~~~~N-~-~~~~~~N~~~M~
~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~
~~~~~N NNNNNN(:\jMMM~
\. '\~ ""\ \.
Zzzzzz_zzzz-_z--z_z
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -, -,,~, ~ ~
~I-UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUI-~UU
_UUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-UU
:I: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X::I: <X: <X:
~
'oo~~m-.:t~N~<OMm-.:t~roMmoNMM~N~~~<ON~-.:t~O,,""~OO~O
~~~roO~~M~~~ro~M~M~,,""M~O~~-.:troNM~o~M~~mm~
.....~~OO(O~~M<ooro"""Mooro~~N~~m~OOMNOOO~.~OMMO~
~~~~rooommmOO,,""NNNMMO~~,,""NNM(t).~~~.~IO~~roro
NNNNNNNNNMMMM~MMMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
~~~~-.:t~.~-.:t-.:t-.:t.~-.:t~~-.:t~~~~~~~~~~LO~~~~~~~~
8 8 8 8 8, 8 g 8 g 8 8 g 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 g 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
~NN~N,,""m-.:tN ~O~OOM~-.:t om~ ~ ~ ~mNN mM~~,,""~
M~mNmNM~~MM~mm~OOMOM,,""(()O-.:to~~~~m~~MM~N
N~~MNM,,""MmNN ~,,""~NmN~NroNroN~~,,""N~ M~NMM~
1 I I I I 1 I . I I I I" I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I ""'f I I · I I I
,~~~.-.:t-.:t.-.:t-.:t~-.:t~~-.:t~-.:t-.:t~~~~~IO~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0000000000000000000000000000000000000
mo~comoomM-.:troN~-.:t~NMNNMrooNmN~~~~~mON~~M,,""~
~M~~,,""NNOOO~NNO,,""~NNO~NNNOOO,,""~,,""~NNNO~MO
mooooo~,,"",,""~,,"",,""NNNNN~,,""~~~NNNNNNNNNNMMM~
O"""~~""""""""""""""""""~"""~"""~~~OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I
I
\
maJ
> >
z ::E
> >z > Z
::E ::EUJ :2 UJ
zzzzzzzuzzzzzzu
UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ <X: UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ, UJ I-
> ::E
::E I-
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
zzzzz~zzzzzzzzz
U.IUJU.lUJUJ~UJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJ
z
U.I
o
~ro~O~oM~m~~No~oo~ro~,,""(()M~O~~OOOOOIO~MN~OOOO~OO
-.:tv -.:t~mM-.:t~~m~mO~-.:tM-.:t~-.:tM"""-.:tm-.:tm-.:tm-.:t~~mN~Mm~
NMmM~N~NM~N,,""NMMNN~MNMI-NNMNNNN~~N~NM~1O
i ~ 00
o 0
. I- Z UJ I-
w~ ~ ~ro ~~ ~~~ >I-~~~ ~ ~ ~~ro~~ UJ
~OUJOOI- 001-00 OOOUJ ~OOOOOI-<(OOOOC(O~OO ~
ro~~Z~ro Z~ro~~ ~~z~ O~ZZZWro~~z~ro~::sZ~I-O
~ffiz::S~~ ::SUJ~ffiffi~ ~ffi::Sd~~::s::S::S::S~~~~~~~ffiUJ~ffiw~
:::>L~UJUJ~ UJ>~:C:I:O UJ:cUJ <( WUJUJUJ~:::>WUJWUJ:::>:I:>UJ:I:O..J
U0:::>>Z..JUJ (;jW..JWUUZ zu(ijOW~>(;j(;j(;j..JUJI-Zz(ijz~UW>UJUZ:I:
~~I-WUJ ~ ~~~ w~~z~~UJ~~~ UUJw~w~~~ ~~C>
UJW<X:~W~ du>wUJ..J UJwu<X:~UJ~uuu>~UJwuwUJUJudUJm-
:I:mro~~~ o~mmUJ ~m w..J~U W<X:~~ ~:I:mo m>~
z~zozu ozuzz~ zz~>zzo~~~dwzz~zzzzozwz
obo~oo~~<X:ooo~~oo<X:z<(oo~<x:<x:<x:oooo<x:ooO<X:~OdO
zzz zz oWzzzu ZZo zz.......ooozzzzozzzUJwz z
<x:<x:<x:~<x:<x:o<x:~<x:<X:<X:oo<x:<x:<x:o<X:<X:UJ<X:<X:<X:<X:<X:<X:<X:c(<X:<X:<X:~><X:o<x:
1-~1-<(~o~0~WI-I-Z~1-1-0~1-1-~000UJI-I-1-01-1-I-zC(~~1-
rororowro<X:..J~~>roro<X:..Jrow~~roro.......~~~>wrow~rororo row.......ro
oooUJooUJ~OOC(ooUJwoo~~oooz~~~C(ooo~ooog<x:o~o
zZZ~Z~>UJ zzz>>zzUJ.......zz UJwUJzzzzwzzz~~zC(z
::s~::sa::SUJ~:I:~~::S::S<(~::S::S:I:~::S::S::SI:I::I:~::S::S::i:I:::S::S::SUJ~::Sw::S
wUJUJ~UJzouz~wwwuUJwu~UJUJ:I:uuu:::>wUJwuwUJUJ~uUJ~UJ
~~~UJ~lliMm~~~~~m~~mo~~~mmm~~~(;jm~~~~~~~(;j
~~~I~~Nm~OO~~..J~~~m~~~ImmmOO~~~m~~~~<x:~~~
uouzuw~wrozuuzguuzzuuwzzzroUUUZUUUZZUZU
m(()mN~ -.:t~~00 ~-.:t(()~-.:t~~rooo,,""~~~mN~~ ro~~~ ~
~M~MNO-.:t~~OO~~NOOO~,,""~OOM~O~OMM~~MNN~~~
, ." " ., " 10 " ,. " .. .. 0 .. " ,. ,. ,. " ,. ., ., " ,. .. ., " ,. ,. ,. .' 0 " .' ,. ,. 0 "
.,...-.:t~00~ ..~~roroM ..OroIOO~~~NroOO,,""M~m,,""~~~ ..,,""~O(()..OO
M~~MNN~~-.:t~NmMM~~NM,,""NNONIONMM,,"",,""N~,,""~~~,,""M
..........N..........O....................................~........M..
O.MOOmm ..~NOM~ ..M~OONMM~(()OOOO~OroM~~~~ ..~~N~..~
~~~~~ro~~N~~O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N~~~~O~
lO~m~ ~-.:tN"""O"""mOM""""""m~Mo~MOro"""O-.:tN~ ro~~,,""m~
~~"""M~~O~OOM~OM_~~N"""NMOOMMOOMN"""~"""M~OOO
~~MN~~~Mro~OO~NMo~~~m~~~~~mOON~OO~~~O~~~N
ffi~~~~~~;.~;.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
, ,(() ~ 00 ~ " ~ N m M M M """ ~ ~ """ N N~~ ~ ~ ~ N 0 ~ N ~ 0 N ~ ,. M ~ """ ~ ~ 0
f""'- '~ 'lIE'""" ,- or- f'-.. ~ or- ~ or- ~ N ,- ~ ,- ,- ,- '-'.'- ,- ,- ,- ,- ,- ,- ,- ,- ,- ,- ,- ,- ,- ,.- T""'" ,- ,- ,-
; ~
~~IO~IO~~~~ 10 : ~~~IO~ ~LOLO~IO~~~O
~;O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 10 0 10 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8\~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 8 8 ~ 8 8 8 8,;8 g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g 8 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~f:O (0 in (0 (:\j ~ 0 in co ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ s;:! 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N (:\j ~ ~ ~ ~
!:e:l:!: :!: ~ ~ ~ :!:: ~ ~ ~ ~ :!:: ~ ~ :!:: ~ Sf! t::iQ2 ~ :!:: :!:: ~ ~ ~ ~ t:: ~ :!: ~ :!: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 25
~.I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [",-, ~ ~ ~l~ ro ro ro ro 00 ro m m m m m m m m m m m ~
, ~
Ot ~ \ ~ ~ \\ \
WiZ z z z z z z _ z _ z z > Z Z Z ztz Z Z Z Z Z Z - Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z - Z
~!~ ~~~~..~...>~.~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~
U!U ~ U U U U U U U U U U U U U U u,u u u u u u u u u ~ U U I-~ U U U U U U
u.. u _ u u u u u u u u u U u u u u u~ u u u U u u u u U !:: U U - U U U U U U
<X::, <X: :c <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <Ct <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: :c <X: <X: :I: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X:
I
~~-.:tMN~~M~"""o"""mMN~N~M~~oo~m"""mooN~M~~~OO~M
Mi mOO,,"" 0 ~,~ ~ 0 ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N M ~ ~ ~ M m ~ N ~ ro ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 N N """ ~ co
~o~~~m~~M~mm~-.:t~m"""N~(()~~MroMmoNooo~~~oo~
~mmoo~NNMMMM~~~(()~~~mo~"""~NNMM~-.:t~~~~~~~
ooo"""""""""""""""~~"""~~"""""""""~~"""~NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
~1O~~~~~~~~IO~~~~~IO~~~~IO~~~~~~~~IO~~~~~~
0000000000000000000000000000000000000
~oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
_lNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
; ',,\ ,\' \,,\\,\\\' \\'\\.,',\ ,\\\ \ 1 \ \\\.~'
~~~roN ~m~~ooo~M,,""~O(()~ONN~N~~~O~O\OOO~OOM~
o~roMNM~~~m~~~~N~,,""OO~IO,,""~~MNoo~roo~~,,""~~~OM
~~~~~~~~'?~~,.~~'?~~~~~'?'?~~'?~~~~~~~~~~~~
~1O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IO~~~~~~~~IO~~~~~~~~
0000000000000000000000000000000000000
~O~~~N~o~ro~,,""m~~~co~mNo~o~o~~m~~~NN-.:t~~M
O~~NN,,""~NNNOOO~OOOOOO,,""~NNMOOO~~~NNNNNN
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~oooorororooommmmmmmmmmmo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo~
\~
z
UJ
>>> >
~::E~ ::E
z>zz~zz
UJzUJw~UJUJ
> >
::E ::E
> > zz > Z <X: >
~ ~ Ww ~ w ~ ~
zzzzzzzzz~uzzzuzzzz:z~
UJUJwUJUJUJUJUJUJ~<X:UJUJUJ<X:UJwUJwUJ~
>>>
::E::E::E
m~~~ ~
uuuzzz
<x: <x: <X:UJUJw
~~M~ -.:toom-.:t~~~~~~~~-.:tN~ ~N ~~O ~O~NNMMOO~
~-.:tmM~~~-.:tm-.:t~~m~M-.:tM~m~~I-~mNI--.:t.M~ml--.:tmNmmmM-.:t~
NC")NNI-~NMNMN,,""NNNMNNNC") MN MN~ MN~NNNNNM
o~ I- I- Ow UJ wI-I- I- I- wI-I- 0
<x:W roUJW <x:>W> >roro ro roUJ I- >roroUJ W<x:
00 O~O~~~O~~<(~C(oO~O ~~~~O~~~~<(OO~~~~~
~Z ZOZ OO~roOroC(UJZZC(Z OO~ ZOOZOUJZZOOO 0
ffi~ ::Sz~~~~ffi~z~<x:~::S::Sz::S~~~z~::S~z::s~~::S::Sz~~ffiz
:I:UJ UJ::SUJ::sww:c:::>::s:::>zl-wUJ<X:UJC(UJw~::SUJ..J::SWWl-ww::SUJ..J:I:::S
u~ ~:I:(;jwZZU~:I:~~w(;j(;j~(;jzzz:::>w~:I:W~zro(;j(;j:I:Z:I:UW
~~ d~~(;jllillimwQUJo~dd:::>d~llilli~(;jd~(;j~lli~~~~lli~~(;j
mV :I:~~~~m:C:I::I:U~ 0 ~~~OO~ :I:~U~~~~:I:~:I:m~
ro@ ~zouzzzzzzzz~~z~zrozzu~zuozrooorozzzu
o~rn<x:o~ooooooooo<x:<x:o<x:ooooo<x:oo;oo~~ooooo
z~woz zzzzzzzzzoozozzzzZozz.......zz zzzzz
<x:We <x:UJ<x:<x:<x:C(<x:<x:<x:<x:<<x:<x:<x:<x:<x:<x:<x:<x:<x:<x:<x:<x:wC(<x:UJw<x:<x:<x:<x:<x:
I- (5.., ~ c5 I- ~ 0 I- I- .... "'" I- I- I- 1-- 0 0 I- 0 I- I- I- I- 0 0 I- 0 ~ I- I- ~ ~ I- I- I- I- 0
ro~..J~row<x:wwrorowwww~~w~wrorow<x:~ro<x:"""'wool-rowrororo<x:
o~w~oUJQoooooooo~~o~ooooQ~oQozoowUJooooQ
ZUJ>wz~~zzzzzzzZUJwzwzzzZ~UJZ~ zzw~zzzz~
::S~~~::S~~::S~~::S::S::S~::S55::S5::S::S::S::S~~::S~~::S::S5~~::S::S::S~
UJ~u~UJ~UJUJUJwUJUJUJUJUJ~~UJ~wUJwUJUJ~UJUJ~wUJ~~UJUJUJUJw
~WMW~WW(;j(ij(;j(;j(;j(;j(;j(;jUJW~W~~~(;jWW~UJ-(;j(;j=W~(;j~(;jUJ
~mNm~:I:~~~~~~~~~mm~m~~~~~m~~:I:~~:I::I:~~~~~
UOO~ZUZZUUUUUUUUZZUZUUUUZZUZZUUZZUUUUZ
~~~M~ mo~o M~,,"",,""~MmN~~"""~"""-.:t-.:tmroroMmN,,""~~O
~I.OM~-.:tOMNNN~OM~,,""~,,""M,,""N~~IOO,,""NN~M-.:t~~~N~M~
;'~~~~OO~~OOO~~M~~~NOOmOOMM~NMmM~NOOOO~~N~mOO
~~;.~~~;;.~~~~;.~~~~~~~~~~~;.~~~~~~~;.~~~~
..ro~~~O..M-.:t,,""ro..~,,"",,""~N~~m~~M~oNro~NM~~~~N~~
m~~~~NmN~N~~~~~N~~~~~~~~N~~~N~~~~~~~~
~~~~m ~m~M M~ ~ro~N~O~~~~NOro~roN,,""~roN~M
~NO~~NOOOM~M~N~ro~M~ONMMN~N~MNM~NN~~N~~
~~mOO~~~M~O~~N~ON~~~O~roOO~~NNN~mO~~OO~~
~MMNON~NO~N-.:tOO~~~OONOOOM~~,,"",,""~~,,""~~M~,,""M
~~M~~OO~~~OOM~M"~O~~~~~~N~~N~~O~O~~O~N~
ro~~~~~roN~~~O~ mN~~~~~~~~~~~~N~~~~~~~~
~lolt) ~~L(.)LOI.l1l ~I.O~
OOO~OOOOO~OOO ~~W~(()~~ ~~w~m ~~~(()
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO~OOOOOOOW~OOOOo~~~~OOOO
NNNONNNNNONNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
~~~~~~~~ro~ro~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NN~,,""~~,,""NN~,,""NN~ O~N-.:t~~~_~~OO,,""M-.:t____M~~N
---------NN-NN ,,"",,""NNNNNNN~~NNN,,""MMro~~,,""N
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~NNNNNNNMMMMMMMM
o \ 0 \. \ ,\ 0 \ \ \\ \ \ \
UJZ_ZZUJ~ZZ__UJZZ_ZZ_Z_ZZZZZZ_ZZZ__ZZZZZ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UUUUUUUUUUUUUJI-UU~I-UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
UUUUUUUUUUUUU_UU_UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
<X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X:<X::I: <X: <X::C <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X: <X:
m~~MOOOOM~-.:t-.:t~MM~ON~OM~~IOON~m,,""~M~~NNMm~ ~
o~~~mo~oN~oro~m~lOm,,""~Omm(()m~ro~M~~~roM~mmro ~
OO~,,""N,,""N-.:tM~mM~~N,,""rorom,,""NNNOOOONN~~OON~~mM~~N ~J
~~oorommmoooNNNMOOO,,""NNNNNN-.:t~-.:t~~~~~IO~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ggggggggggggggggggggggg
0000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
, ;. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \, '\" \ \ \ , \ \ , , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ,
,,""~OOO~(()\NN-.:tOO\~~O~MMOO,,""~m~M~mNNM~~ro~mroro~
~;~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ m ro ro ~ MOm ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ 00 0 N ro N ~ N ~ ~ N ~ ~ mom
~'?~~~'?C?"~~~<9~~~'?~~~~~~'";'?'?"';''?~''~~~~~~~~
~,~ ~ ~ ~ 10 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (() ~ ~ (() ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (() ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <0 ~ ~ (() ~
0:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~,~ """ ~ ~ """ ~ M ro ~ ro """ ~ ~ ("') 0 ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ N N ~ ro ~ M -.:t """ M M CO M ~ ~ N
N,N M 0 """ ~ """ N NO""" N N M 0 ~ """ N N N N N 0 0 """ ~ N N N 0 0 0 0 ~ """ ~ N
doO~~~,,"",,""~NNNNN,,""~,,""~~~~~NNNNNNNMMMMMMMM
~~~~~~~~~,,"",,"",,"",,""~OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
,\
d
Similarities and differences between
the Golden corridor and the Skycrest Corridor
The Golden big-box retail corridor is a larger and busier 4-lane facility with only four roundabouts and
those are multi-lane roundabouts. Tlie Skycrest Corridor will be a smaller, lower-volume 2-lane street
thou~h a residential district and will have six 1-lane roundabouts.
The Golden corridor presumably had crashes occurring with left-turn conflicts into parking lot entrances
acr09s two lanes of opposing traffic. The new medians probably eliminated many of those crashes but
not ~II because there is still one median opening each block, The new roundabouts are 2-lane
roun~abouts, which probably experience higher speeds and more crashes than 1-lane roundabouts.
,
A sirnilar or greater crash and injury reduction could reasonably be expected with six 1-lane roundabouts
on our smaller, lower-volume, 2-lane street with six low-speed 1-lane roundabouts, The Golden corridor
did r~t incorporate traffic calming between roundabouts and is four lanes wide; speeds should be much
lower between roundabouts on the new Skycrest Corridor due to the landscaped median and visually
narrowed lanes,
There will be more than one median opening each block on Cleveland Street, but left-turning traffic would
con~ict with only one lane of low-volume, slow-moving opposing traffic. The faux red brick in the median
opet;lings will provide continuity of the traffic calming effect of the visual narrowing of the two lanes,
Similarities
Bot~ are corridors with medians and a series of roundabouts in less than a mile,
~.
Differences
Golden Corridor
Between intersections
4-lane street, two lanes each direction
More traffic
Higher speeds between intersections, Environment
is big-box retail parking lots.
One median 0 enin between intersections
Lefttturning traffic crosses two lanes of faster
oncomin traffic
Mo I severe crashes and injuries between
rouli1dabouts due to hi her seeds of 4-lane street
I
At irlltersections
4 rdundabouts
Roundabouts are large, 2-lane roundabouts (more
crashes and higher speeds than 1-lane
rou~dabouts)
j
I
II!
[:
Skycrest Corridor
2-lane street, one lane each direction
Less traffic
Lower speeds between intersections due to traffic
calming between intersections: one lane each
direction; vegetated median; faux red bricks in
median openings; environment is residential
landsca ed ards
Man median 0 enin s between intersections
Left-turning traffic crosses only one lane of slow-
movin oncomin traffic
Less severe crashes and injuries between
roundabouts due to lower seeds
6 roundabouts
Roundabouts are small, 1-lane, low-speed
roundabouts with circulating speeds of 11-13 MPH
and crosswalk speeds of 14-16 MPH
>
.....
.-
c
~
E
E
o
u
.
en
en
Q)
-
.....
o
-
co
en
Q)
>
~
:i =
~~
...0
'" ~
4. ;j .5 8 8
o ~...s 4-1 tn
~~~g~
~C'dQ)..o~
u .., ~ C'd ~
~.~ .... 0'-
""d ;j g'2 So
~.,g-{;l ::l~
.., C'd .., 8 c...
~ -g,~ 8.5
rJ ::l ~ 8 '"
c... 8~ .... ~
1:1 C'd ~ g~
~ on c... >-. C'd
Q.j c:: 0... 0 ~
-S'~ ~ E .a
o on..o ::l ..,
~.~ c: ~ ~
"3zfio~
.- Q.J 4-1 <u
~ 5 -a 4-I-C
.- 0 0 ;!--<
g~~t~~
.- ""d .., 8..::l..o
5 3 ~ 8 .... ~
::l 0 fi'- g 8
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
;j
o
~
::l
o
....
...c:
....
oj '"
u ..,
'0 ~-g.
OJ 8.-
....c::'O"'O
....-""d
.9 -;;I ;
~ ~ en
a1 ~.~
~.~~
u >-.'"
tSC'd"E
d C'd ~ c...
~ b rD '-I
oo~cE
""d .... O...c:
~::Q~8
o"'..o~
Vi >: 0:;;-
....
OJ
.... ..,
~..o
.., ....
~ 8
...c: 0
....<t:
""d
3 '5
8 0
'" ....
on~
.9 ;:;
u ....
.... ....
'o~
E'c
""d C'd
.., on
.... ~
-a~
8 8
8 ~
~ 1: ..,i
C'd .... ::l
'" ""d 0
~~..o
.... '" '"
C""d""d
<t:~~
..,~ g
~.~ '-t
c ....
c
~ 0
:~ E
-;::-Nc()~
>
g ~
.~ u
.~ tS
- ....
~ ~
~!
~";':
:r:e-
~~
:{l \;j
~:a
...... C'd
~~
~ >
'J:: C'd
~~
~cr
~g
~~
i:i:d:
~~
~:r:
~u..
i::
~ 0
~z
t"l rt
n"' :E
~ Si>> ':::J"
:. ~ a ~
~~' i= r+
~ ~ g. (ii'
" 0-
.g g !:ll
.;;;' rt '""l
S t;;. 0
" po c:
g g ;::,
5' ~ Q.
::: ::: !:ll
p"po C'"
-,'::< 0
t"l t"l
p" -. c:
q Ci ,..
ffi ~ .~
o ....
::!:l5'
~ ~
en ~
~ ;4
g o'
=' ;:3
0..:::
~ ~.
p"
o
g
'" Q)
CD Ul 3 3' CD -I
~arCDs:.3~
-<-'~CD~g
ct5 <6" (1) Ul ~ (Q
~~~3~::r
Q.m'<ro<"Q
(t) CJ) < OJ 0
DDCD3::JD
~o~~a.~
~ ~. CD ~ ~ g-
(j)CJW""""I(Q(fl
. CD -0 Q) (1) to'
0,) "Q (J) ~. ~~
:J 0 ..-+ N
?-~ffi~o
=+; ~< < ~
::JUl~CDo'
co..o:::JCl>
@~~fig
(/) ..., 0.. ill C
~s.o~ur
..., S,.:J 00
-:::. -< Q) ~. Q)
~3~di~
Q 0 0 en Q)
'-' <..-+ (J)
CCD:J(J)=":
::J -< ~ ~<
~. 0 ..., c Q.)
::~gag
ifi(jj~g-~
32:;a;3
CD~:J~&
'i' Q)
(i)
wen
~ -.
0'"
o ~
::J -
~CD
[~
::J
D .-+
Q. ~
::J Ul
.-+ CD
'" ~
o
::J
8
~
~-
D
o
~-
Ul
::i'
.-+
OJ
~
0'
::i.
~
Ul
CD
~
5'
::J
!"
OO::1J
o 0
o C
::J ::J
",,0.
~. ~
D 0
o S
5" ..
Iii
::Q
Q
t:
~
~
0-
Q
t:
(it
<n
Q)
~
~)>
.S!.-
f""t .........J Q.. -
P";:;Jp, '""l
~ '" 'i' 0
_. S'l" .-
lit"l=''''
n" ,q ;::,
, g",<; Q.
g S>>
5' C'"
(1q 0
s- c:
" r+
!}, t/I
....
D... :::.r
~ !:ll
_. <
5: (I)
en
rt r+
o :::.r
::: (I)
'" t/I
S'l (I)
t"l
e.
@
'"
~
5'
C'l
"
. 0
fJ >-1 S
=' ~ ~
~ Pl ~.
~~a
~,~ ~
(1q 0 I'>
=' ,..,., rt
ftM!;
~ ~(I)
~ Q.
0-(1
::: E-
M '"
p"....
" ....
.; 2
" 0..
ft~
o 0..
,..,., rt
< P"
n n
~~
n(1q
~ ~
::;1
_, ~ ffi
g IU n
o ~ 0..
po S !h
o n ~
;:3 ;:3 t"l
n rt a
~ S o'
po '" ::l
0...:: ....
t"l C-
o ::l
i=(1q
::l en
.... po
n ::l
Ii 0..
0'....
() po
~~'
_, 0..
~ _.
'"
::!:l-
~ 8-
, '"
~
....
"
t"l
rt
rt
....
po
Eli
t"l
.-+ .-+
3~~~~
~ ......coo
Q.l -< ,:::; c OJ
....., "'0 _" :J C
CD CD :J 0.. (J)
-< S. 5" ~ ~
"2. () c' 0 :::r
~Q.-<SCD
~ ~ <n" en" g
- o' (j) Q) -<
CD :J C --.,
~:::g<g.~
(f) :::r oj .-+ <
~~32CD
~ ~ 0)' :3 ~
~::J-<~;3.
ffigCi3~~
::1oD.OO
o ~ 2j () <
:TQ)CD~CD
CD (f) !=L ~ Q
-s Q) CD C
-<m3~-g
16(J)Q)CD:J
CIl~TO<D
~;~;~
8 ;~ ~ ~
~ t6. 8 ~ ~
g' ~ ~ ~ ~.
~ ~ o' ~::t
:J ::J .-+ 0
0. ,Ul 3
r
~
:,-
Q)
::J
0..
2'
:3
'TO
g ~.
<c ::J
::J'<O
Q) ~
(3 ~.
c<O
::J ::J'
0..-
Q)
a-
o
S
::::-
c::,:"
(1)
<n
.
-
(I)
!:ll
r+
c:
'"'l
(I)
!'!
o
,..,.,
"
='
~
(j
. . 0
S
~~8
'" po t:
@-Etl=
IW () _.
:1. t"l ~
::e.o-
po S ~
::l _, ::l
~::l&,
f;l (1q 11
"0
~.
. ~
~Vl.....g
3. ~ if ~ ~~
n _. rt _. rn
~ @ ~.~ ago ~
_. ....- _. (.n t:s ro
(t> ~~ (;l e. ~
o 0 ~ a,n
;;>,..,.,p..s.g
~. ~ S ~.;'
~ g e:;. 0.. S
n ~ g ~ g
..00..'" po""
i= po ::l =' ....
_. 0- po 0
"0 0 ::l po
S i= t"l < -,
t"ll rt (b (b ~
~ _. n ;J .....
...."'0(1qe.
'-'N~n-
V\"'O~
0...:: ,..,.,::l
" v.o..
po V1 ....
:;t '" 0
0"0
opo
o ~.
"0
"
....
~
po
....
~ trl
. .~ e3
;;o::r......i= · t"l . .. 5a
n ~. S t"l u:> iii" . 0 t-'
0..::r"O a. 0 =' :r:::;o>> t"l o:E · · · · ~.
;:;::l:3 g 0.rt ~ ft~e:", ~ ~U:>'-Jc:'"
ft i= < _. S5::; 11 i= '" 0'" :;:' ~ ~? 0\"0 '"
S ft::l o,e:.."O rig.... g P" 0 o.i>--~rt ~
~ 0- "0 _,::H ~ '" po "0 '" -. (t> S5 :::! 0 l!!
"n::: 0 ::l t"l o..rt(1q n P"D...:;: o'o...po....
o..~ffiif~::!:l~~g~~: ~~;:;'c5
0' ,..,., 0 a. ~ ~ ::!. ~ ~ ~ ,,"0 on g..::1. ~
.... n::!:l 0 n ~ < .... ::!. S fg ::l t"l 0 0
~ ;:t> 0;:3 5' '" ~ 0 ~ 0 0.. ::!:l a,::l ~
~ E ~ ~.... f{l ~' 2.. '" @ ;., 5' g 5' e-
(1q ::l o'=""> 0.. ii:l (t> 0 ~ :1, t:" ....
~ '" ~ = "0 _.::;' Q
... en .... a' Eli ....,..,., .... ., 0.. 0 ::l -!::, p.
~ ~'~ t"l S ~ ~ ~ 5'~ ~ g
... "t: f;l en 0.. 0 u:> (;i 0.. -,
'" ~ ~ "2 ~ ::l "'2' 0 8- ~ g ::l
t"l!} "'~ p..S po....~;;r>
a, ...... o' (Jq "0 ::l iii'::r rt
o "'<: ,,"::r ::l(;l~
~ p.. ~~O't"l rt
rt ::!. 0.. ~ OJ ~'
if ~ @ ::::g..
rt ;;l ~ ~ (;l
if M -,
8. 8 g
n ~ a
po ~ a
.... -.
o
~
OJ
(I)
;::,
(I)
-
;::;:
t/I
o
-
!:ll
n
o
~
::i'
c
o
c
Ul
()
o
C
::J
CD
o
o
()
^
~
(ji.
CD
'""l
o
c:
;::,
Q.
!:ll
C'"
o
c:
~
~
~
n
<-
~
~
o
~
....
::r
n
......
o
-.<
"
'"
....
5'
1
Wilson, Denise
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
elizabeth france [eaf5054@earthlink,net]
Sunday, May 14, 2006 9:58 PM
City Council; Horne, William; Irwin, Rod; Brumback, Garry
Campos, Geraldine; Delk, Michael; Clayton, Gina
Traffic circles on Cleveland Street
~
t.c.ltr_14may-
2006,doc
I have attached and also copied below a letter of my concern about Staff
recommendations for the removal of four traffic circles from Cleveland Street.
I understand that there is a Council Work Session this afternoon, and I would
appreciate their receiving this as early as possible Monday morning.
Thank you for your assistance,
Elizabeth France
14 May 2006
From: Elizabeth France
1629 Cleveland Street
Clearwater, FL 33755-6102
To: Mayor and City Councilmembers
City Managers
Since 1954, I have been a resident of Clearwater and have lived on Cleveland Street,
between Lake Drive and Keystone, within the Skycrest neighborhood since 1974. I love
Clearwater and have been for several years quite excited about its promise of
revitalization and redevelopment for the future. Additionally I was pleased that a super-
majority of Skycrest residents supported a petition for Traffic Calming to improve safety
for traffic and pedestrians using our roadways and sidewalks.
A few years ago Cleveland Street went from four lanes to three lanes (the third lane being
a turning lane, but often used as a passing lane by those drivers in a hurry). Over the
years we have become accustomed to the sound of screeching brakes, motor vehicle impacts,
and sirens. With the opening of Keene Road, we noticed that the traffic seemed to
increase in
volume. Not only does it take longer to exit either of our driveways to enter Cleveland
Street, but often we see westbound traffic back up eastward to 1614 Cleveland Street when
the
traffic signal at Lake and Cleveland for east-west traffic turns red. This never happened
in the past.
Skycrest is a residential neighborhood. We are surrounded primarily by commercial areas.
Our Traffic Calming project was designed after much study. Changes and dilutions were
made at the 30% and 60% design stages. Now as the 90% design was issued, some of the City
staff has recommended that four of the six traffic circles be removed from Cleveland
Street. They are too costly! Cleveland Street, as the prime linear corridor of the
'Skycrest neighborhood and as a feeder into the redeveloping downtown, has great potential
to enhance its part of the periphery of the downtown. It would behoove the City to
promote the safety and aesthetics of Skycrest.
To reduce the traffic circles on Cleveland Street by 67% is to emasculate the program
entirely. From Highland Avenue east to Belcher Road, there are twenty-four (24) streets
intersecting Cleveland Street. There are some Traffic Lights at these intersections and
the remaining have STOP signs. It is not uncommon for people to run STOP signs and RED
LIGHTS. Traffic lights are not the solution for safety. A recent example is that at
Duncan and Cleveland on a Sunday afternoon, a neighbor was driving east on Cleveland when
1
another vehicle ran a red light at Duncan. She had extensive hospitalization for many
broken bones and is still trying to recover.
The T~affic Calming project for which we have awaited and worked
helped improve the safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
at the last moment because of cost, the program is to be gutted.
feeble excuse. a€reMoney can always be found.a€D
in good faith was to have
a€land then I hear that
I look upon this as a
Skycrest is a large neighborhood. We have a lovely park with a great dog park, both of
which are visited by people from allover the City and surrounding areas in the County.
We do not have a place for our many youngsters to play a€"they often play in the streets
that are less heavily trafficked. Recently I read in the newspaper how the residents of
Morningside are grousing about what they want for their remodeled and updated recreation
center. Hmmm, updating their nice recreation center, and all we want in Skycrest is
safety and assurance that the City will not remove four of the six traffic circles on
Cleveland Street.
I have generously given of my time over the last few years in an effort to work for
various improvements within Clearwater and within Skycrest, often giving up valuable time
with family because I thought it was for the greater good. So the cost of safety is too
much for Skycrest? What is it I just dona€mt get? Maybe each of us needs to re-evaluate.
Please do not allow the elimination of four Traffic Calming circles along Cleveland
Street.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth France
Cc: Gerri Campos, Michael Delk, Gina Clayton
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
Impact Study
Conversion of
Three Signalized Intersections and
Three Stop-controlled Intersections
to
Modern Roundabouts
on Cleveland Street in Clearwater, Florida
Ken Sides, PE, PTOE, AICP
Project Manager and
Principal Author
King Engineering Associates, Inc.
'I
:ii
/.
""
, /1
",
.
I
,
,r~'\
:1
'(.,
~)
I
'~
,I
/
i
I
,I
",)
I
.
l
I
,....;/,.,1
~
~
I
I
I
I
Impact Study
Conversion of
Three Signalized Intersections and
Three Stop-controlled Intersections
to
Modern Roundabouts
on Cleveland Street in Clearwater, Florida
Executive Summary
This study examines the impacts of converting three signalized intersections and three
stop-controlled intersections to modern roundabouts.
Five areas of impact are examined: traffic impacts, safety impacts, environmental
impacts, social impacts and cost impacts. To the extent practical, impacts are
quantified. Where possible, impacts are also monetized.
Sixty-nine impacts are identified and evaluated: sixty-four in non-monetary terms and
five in monetary terms.
The impacts expressed in monetary terms are factored into a comprehensive benefit-
cost analysis resulting in a Net Present Value of $39,492,884and a Benefit/Cost Ratio of
34.5.
Analysis of the impacts expressed in non-monetary terms resulted in a Non-monetary
Benefit/Cost Ratio of 44.
In the absence of a well established, authoritative precedent, this study also sets forth a
comprehensive approach to identifying and examining the impacts of converting a
conventional cross intersection to a modern roundabout.
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 2 of 105
! ~I
"."
:1
'"',
(I
'-';--
.
I
I
~I'''\
/'
-"':<
t)
J
\
~'I
.?" .'-
I
\
I
,I
,,)
I
'I
I
3
"",.:",,;"
I
I
I
,
I
;
I
~
Table of Contents
I. Introduction ................................ .........................,.......,............................. .... ...........................8
A. Purpose of the Study......... ............................................ ........ ...'............. .............................8
B. Precedence for the Study..................................................... .................................. ............8
C. Guiding Principal....................................................... ............. ..'..........................................9
D. Need for the Study............................................................................................................. 9
E. Background and Context...................... ......................................... .........................,.........10
F. Definition of a Modern Roundabout................................................................................... 11
II. Traffic Impacts..................... ..............................................,........................................,.... .....14
A. Impact on Traffic Flow.......................................................................... .................... ........ 15
1. Free flow.... ............. ....................................... ............ ..................... ... ...........................15
2. Computer modeling software.................................... ................................ ...................,.15
3. Peak Hour level of Service.............. ........... ....................... ............................... ............16
4. Delay........................... ...... ........ .......... ............... ........,............................... ....... ....... .....17
5. longest Vehicle Queue...................................... ............................................ .......... .....17
6. Operational impact..............................................................................................,......... 18
B. Impact on truck traffic............................................,................................. .........................19
1. AutoTURN..........................................................,.......,... .................. ...........................,.19
2. Fire trucks.........................,....................................................................... ..................,.20
3. Solid Waste trucks....,................................................,.................................................. 21
4. Commercial trucks.....................................................,.......,.......................................... 21
5. Summary of truck impacts .......................................................... ,.............. ,................... 22
C. Impacts Related to Keene Road....................................................................................... 22
D. Impacts on the Street Network......................................................................................... 23
E. Future Growth.........................................:..........,.............................................................. 23
E. Impacts on Non-motorized Traffic Flow..................... .........:..............................:...............24
F. Impacts on Traffic at Skycrest Elementary School............................................................24
G. Miscellaneous Traffic Impacts.......................................,......"....,..,.................................. 26
1. Physical and right of way features..... ........ ....................................................................26
2. Current and planned site development features.. ................................. .........................26
3. Certain community considerations......................................,.................... ......................26
4. Traffic management strategies ....................... ............ ,... ,...,.......,.................................. 26
5. Projected public transit usage........... ................................................... ......................... 27
6. Intersection treatments ...................................................................................... ............27
7. History of public complaints........................................................................................... 27
8. Number of other roundabouts in the jurisdiction ............................................................27
H. Possible Contraindications ........................... ................................................ .................... 28
1. Physical or geometric features contraindicating construction or operation.....................28
2. land use or other traffic generators that could interfere ................................................28
3. Other traffic control devices along intersection roadways ..............................................28
4. Bottlenecks on intersecting roadways.. m.................................... .................................. 29
5. Sight distance observations...................... .................................,. .................................29
6. Platooned arterial traffic flow.................. ...................................................... ............. m. 29
7. Heavy use by persons with special needs................................... .............. .................... 30
8. Recent safety projects to benefit older drivers............................................................... 30
9. Emergency vehicle coordination.........................................,..................................... ..... 30
10. Emergency evacuation route coordination................................................................... 30
11. Railroad crossings.................................................................................... ...................30
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 3 of 105
t
'.
*)
I
I~".
_S'
I
F')
'1
-,,-.
;~)
~
t
i
.~.'",
I
, '>~
:~
;
,I
",)
I
I
I
'\
<,;",,,,}
I
I
",..>
I
.
I
-
12. Other problems........................................................................................................... 31
III. Safety Impacts... .....,.... ..................... .... .......................... .......................... ...........................32
A. Impact on crashes................................ ...................................................................,........ 32
1. Studies of crash frequency and severity.......................... ..............................................32
2. Why roundabouts are safer.......................................... ..... ........................................ .... 33
3. Impact on user behavior. ......................................................................................... ...... 35
4. Impact on crash frequency.....:............................................................. .........................35
5. Impact on crash severity................... ..............................................,.. ....... .....................38
B. Older Users..................... ............................. .................................................................... 39
1. Older users at risk......... ,................................................... ............................................39
2. Older users at intersections........................................ .:.............................................. ...40
3. Demographics of older users..,........................................................ ............ ..... ............ .41
4. Profile of older users.................................................................................... .................42
5. Impact on older users.....................:................................. .............................................44
C. Non-motorized Users......................................................... .......................................... .....45
1. Pedestrians..................................... ............................................................................. .45
2. Older pedestrians..............................,... ...... ................................................. ......... ........50
3. Children.................................................. .............. .,........................................ ...............51
4. Bicyclists and skaters.................................................................................................... 52
5. Mobility impaired users...........,.....................,.......................................................... ...... 52
6. Visually impaired users ........................................................... ........ ..............................52
7. Cognitively impaired users ................,................ .....,............... ........ ...................... ........ 57
8. Complexity..............................................................,..................................................... 58
IV. Environmental Impacts .................,...............................,...................................................... 59
A. Impact on Fuel Consumption................,........................................................................... 59
B. Pollutant Emissions....... .......................,........................................................................... 61
1. Effects on humans..,......,.............................,................................................................ 61
2. Effects on plants and animals...... .................................................................................. 62
3. Effects on other living and non-living things...................................................................62
4. Scale of effects........................"...... .......................,..................................................... 62
5. Economic effects....... .............,..........,............,........,..................................................... 63
6. Aesthetic effects................................,..........,..........,..........,.......................................... 63
7. Impact on emissions............. ............,..........,.......................... ......................................63
C. Tree Impacts.................................................,.................................................................. 64
D. Landscaping Impacts..... .......................,........................................................................... 66
E. Aesthetic Impacts..............................,.............,..........,..........,.......,.................................. 67
F. Impact on Character of Street............ ........................... ....... ............................................. 69
G. Impact on Noise..............................., ..............,............. ..........................,. .......................69
H. Impact on Neighborhood and City ...... ..............................................................................70
V. Social Impacts ................................................................,..........,..........,............................... 71
A. Social Origins of the Project.............................................................................................. 71
B. Public Acceptance........ .................................................................................................... 72
C. Equity Impacts.............................,........,....,.....,..........,................ .....,...............................74
D. Travel Impacts. .. ............................................................................................................... 74
E. Health Impacts......................................,.....................,.....................,............................... 75
F. Impacts on residents' health ..........................,.,.............................................................~.. 75
G. Long-range impacts.......... ...... .........................,.......,... ..........,.......................................... 75
VI. Cost Impacts.. ....................................., ..............,..........,..........,.....................,.................... 77
A. Costs to the City of Clearwater......................................................................................... 77
1. Capital costs................................................................................................................. 77
2. Operations and Maintenance costs............................................................. ..........,....... 78
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in ,doc
Page 4 of 105
J
:1
")
:I
.,
I
~
It
;";a
,~
")
~
~-
'I
I
"I
,,~}
'I
:"
I
~;'f::::::\
"<:;;:,,}
I
I
,/:"t,...
I
.
I
I
B. Costs to Society.............. ...............................,.................... ..............................................79
1. Fuel costs.............. ......... ............................................... ................................................79
2. Cost of Delay......................................................... ................................ .....................,.79
3. Cost of crashes.................................................................. ........................ ...................80
a~ ~uman caoital costs ~.
o on-recomoensaore costs society 81
c omprenenslve costs
4. Noise impacts............................................,........................................... .......................83
C. Benefit-Cost Analysis................................... .........,. ......,...... .............:.............. ........... ..... 84
1. Impacts evaluated in non-monetary terms.................... ................................................. 84
2. Impacts evaluated in monetary terms......................................................... ...................88
3. Sensitivity analysis......................... .................................................... ..... ................. ..... 90
4. Robustness....................................................................... .............................. ..............92
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 5 of 105
'~
, 'I~'
A"
i
.
I
.
i
'''1.
I
')
~
rl
,.
:)
f
I
}
~.=-.
I
OJ
I
I
.,)
,;.;,j)
I,"",
~..>
I
f "
I
I
I
}
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Roadway Cross Slopes.... ...................... ............................................................. .................. ..... 12
Figure 2. Modern Roundabout Compared to Old Rotary .......................................................................... 13
Figure 3. Design Vehicles...................,....................,.........................,....,.,.............".........,.............,.,....,., 20
Figure 4. Skycrest Elementary School Congestion Scenarios .................................................................. 25
Figure 5. Corona Avenue Roundabout "Coned-off' .................................................,................................ 26
Figure 6. Vehicle/vehicle Conflict Points ....... ............. ...................................,.................., on..................... 34
Figure 7. Fatal Crash Involvement by Age ................................................................................................ 40
Figure 8. Acacia Roundabout on North Clearwater Beach ....................................................................... 42
Figure 9, Pedestrian Fatality Rate v, Vehicle Speed .................................................................................46
Figure 10. Impact Speed v. Pedestrian Injury ....,...................................................................................... 47
Figure 11. Pedestrian Crossing Hazards...........,................ ~.................. ............................................ ........ 48
Figure 12. Pedestrian/vehicle Conflict Points ........ .................................................................................... 49
Figure 13. Independent Researchers Comment on Clearwater's First Modern Roundabout................... 54
Figure 14. Some Blind Access Features in Clearwater ...........................................................................,.56
Figure 15. Drive cycle during a stop at traffic signals ........................................................................,....... 60
Figure 16. Crosswalks Were Relocated to Minimize Tree Impacts........................................................... 64
Figure 17. Crosswalk Treatments........................."..,.,.................,.,.,.,."., ,..,..."..,........................,............ 68
Figure 18. Median Treatments ..,....,.,.,.,........,.......,.,..... "......,..,...'........,.,........,.......................,.,., ,....,...... 69
Table of Tables
Table 1. Impact on Peak Hour Level of Service (LOS) ............................................................................. 16
Table 2. Impact on Average Peak Hour Delay (seconds) ......................................................................... 17
Table 3. Impact on Longest Vehicle Queues (feet) ................................................................................... 18
Table 4. Annual Vehicle-Hours of Delay, .......................................................... ......................................... 19
Table 5. Truck Turning Movement Impacts ,...................'.......................................................................... 22
Table 6. Nearby Arterials Along the Cleveland Street Corridor................................................................. 30
Table 7. VehicleNehicle Conflict Points ......, ...,................,.....,..,.,..,..,.,.,.,...".....................................,...... 34
Table 8. Crash History (36 months)...........................,.,.,..,........................,.............,.,....,... ,......,.. .........,.,. 36
Table 9. Crashes That Typically Would be Prevented by a Modern Roundabout (36 mo.)...................... 37
Table 10. Injuries Associated with the Prevented Crashes (36 months)................................................... 38
Table 11. Age Demographics.. ...............................'................. ................................................................. 41
Table 12. Typical Vehicle Speeds (MPH).............. ..................................................................,................. 47
Table 13. PedestrianNehicle Conflict Points .................,.......................................................................... 49
Table 14. Pedestrian Exposure .......................,......,.,.,."....,.,..,......,...................,.. ,...,..,...............,.......,..,. 50
Table 15, Pedestrian Exposure ........,."...".,....,.,...".,." "......".,......,.,............,..,., ,....,..,....,...,.,.,.,..."......,.. 50
Table 16. Measures of Complexity............ ..........................................................,..................................... 58
Table 17. Annual Fuellmpact........".,.,.,.,.. ..... ..........................,.. .............."............,........'.'..,.....,.,..,..,..... 60
Table 18. Emissions Impact (Kg/yr),.,.,.,......... .............,..,....,.,..,., '...,...,.,.,.".,.,., ,.,...,.,..,.,......,.,.,...,.....,.,... 64
Table 19. Alternate Roundabout Geometries ...................... ...................................................................... 65
Table 20. Tree Impacts..............,...,..,.,.,....,......................,........................,........................,..............,."..., 65
Table 21. Trees Lost to Roundabouts ................:.......................................,........................ '............ ......... 66
Table 22. Roundabout Capital Costs........................................... ............."........,.....,...........,.............,...." 78
Table 23. Annual Operations & Maintenance Costs ................................................................................. 79
Table 24. Average Comprehensive Crash Cost per Injured Person ......................................................... 83
Table 25. Traffic Impacts Expressed in Non-Monetary Terms .................................................................. 85
Table 26. Safety Impacts Expressed in Non-Monetary Terms.................................................................. 86
Table 27. Environmental Impacts Expressed in Non-Monetary Terms.....................,............................... 87
Table 28. Social Impacts Expressed in Non-Monetary Terms ..................................................................87
Table 29. Impacts Expressed in Monetary Terms..................................................................................... 89
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in ,doc
Page 6 of 105
C".
;J
')
::1
,.
rt
Ir
,
'"'\
J
:)
1
)
c:.
~
"I
J
i
I
,.)
~I
~I
;I
",~,'
,,,)
I
~
~
.
j
I
1
I
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
APPENDIX G
APPENDIX H
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX J
APPENDIX K
APPENDIX L
APPENDIX M
APPENDICES
AutoTurn plots
Crash schematic diagrams
Table of USA school roundabout locations
Intersection rules
Tree walk tech memo
Endorsement from Skycrest Neighbors
Complaint letter to Mayor Aungst and reply; Letter to City Manager Horne & reply
Sarasota MPO resolution
Vermont resolution
Benefit-Cost Analysis Calculations
Overview of the Four-Mode Elemental Model used in aaSIDRA
Lineville Road roundabout letters from principal and sherrif
Overview of the Four-Mode Elemental Model used in aaSIDRA
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 7 of 105
~I
/
(I
i
I
,
" '
j
~)
t
"1
<I
.'-'. .
,\
I
I
.~
I
,,)
-
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
)
I. Introduction
A. Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to enumerate and evaluate the anticipated impacts of
converting six intersections to low-speed modern roundabouts.
The six intersections are along Cleveland Street in Clearwater, Florida, where Cleveland
intersects with Lake Avenue, Duncan Avenue, Saturn Avenue, Corona Avenue, Aurora
Avenue and Meteor Avenue, going from west to east. The first three intersections are
signalized and the last three are 2-way stop controlled.
B. Precedence for the Study
There are well established and authoritative warrants1 for installin~ traffic signals but not for
removing signals, nor for prioritizing intersection improvements, nor for placing modern
roundabouts at new intersections, nor for converting existing signalized or stop-controlled
intersections to modern roundabouts. In short, there is no well established procedure for
converting a conventional cross intersection to a modern roundabout. This impact study
sets forth a comprehensive approach to evaluating the impacts of converging a conventional
cross intersection to a modern roundabout.
In performing this evaluation, this study is guided in part by three documents:
· User Guide for Remova/ of Not Needed Traffic Signa/s3
This 1980 user guide suggests a procedure for replacing signal control with stop
control. The User Guide provided the methodology used to evaluate removal of
several traffic signals in Pinellas County during the 1990's, including the signal at
Court Street and Lincoln Avenue, which was converted to stop control.
The User Guide suggests a set of criteria for the removal of traffic signals to be
replaced with stop control, and "the development of the criteria was based largely on
the actual impacts resulting from traffic removals across the United States."
1 A warrant is a set of conditions prescribed by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
The Millennium Edition (June 2000) of the MUTCD lists eight warrants for installation of a traffic signal
and recommends a signal not be installed unless at least one warrant is met, and maybe not even then:
"The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic
control signal," (Chapter 4C),
2 Hillsborough County Intersection Improvement Master Plan, National Annual APWA Conference, San
Diego, CA, Bernardo Garcia, PE, and John Seals, PE, August 2003
3 User Guide for Removal of Not Needed Traffic Signals, JHK & Associates, FHWA Implementation
Package FHWA-IP-80-12, November, 1980
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 8 of 105
"'I
ijl
~'.
")
(I'
'<:~.
.
I
I
j~
\-,1
I")
J
'. )
~I
"
~I
I
I
,.
';-.-4:.;;./
-
i
0\
I
""";"':"i}
-,<;;3
I
. ,"
;:,:,
I
j
I
-
In keeping with the broader perspective the traffic engineering profession and society
in general have developed since 1980, this impact study encompasses the1980
criteria within a broader range of considerations and, of course, is concerned with
replacing the three signals with modern roundabouts, not stop signs.
· The Florida Roundabout Guide4
This 1998 guide suggests a set of factors to consider when choosing and justifying
locations for siting modern roundabouts. As with the 1980 User Guide, this 1998
guide document examines a smaller, narrower range of factors than this impact '
study. One of the contributors to the Guide is an author of the present study.
· The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control (MUTCD)5
The 2000 Edition of the MUTCD essentially repeats the guidance of the Florida
Roundabout Guide.
· Roundabouts: An Informational Guide6
This 2000 guide constitutes a compendium of contemporary knowledge of modern
roundabouts, oriented toward application in the United States.
C. Guiding Principle
A guiding principal for the present study is set forth in A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets (the 1994 AASHTO Green Book): "Emphasis has been placed on
joint use of transportation corridors by pedestrians, cyclists and public transit vehicles.
Designers should recognize the implications of this sharing of the transportation corridors
and are encouraged to consider not only vehicular movement, but also movement of people,
distribution of goods, and provision of essential services."7
To this end, the present study encompasses not only the impacts and values traditionally
considered but also emergency and commercial vehicles, the whole spectrum of users, the
environment and society.
D. Need for the Study
The User Guide for Removal of Not Needed Traffic Signals explains the need for studies
such as the present one by noting that:
"Traffic control devices are used at intersections to regulate the flow of conflicting traffic
streams. Since the traffic signal provides the strongest form of at-grade intersection control,
4 The Florida Roundabout Guide, 2nd Edition, Florida Department of Tr~nsportation, May 1998
5 MUTeD Millennium Edition, June 2000
6 FHWA Publication No, FHWA-RD-00-067, June, 2000
7 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Foreword, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1994
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in .doc
Page 9 of105
J
-'"
'I'
..':,
/')
~:I
.~-
A
"
I
I
"',
J
,~')
>~:"-'.:<':':''"
~
:,
1
I
:.1
i
..........j
I
I
'I
,"(,<,.,.".!
I
I
I
1
f
I,
,~
the general public has erroneously assumed traffic signals are a panacea for intersection
operations and safety problems.
"Traffic signals now enjoy a high status among many segments of the public, elected
officials, and public administrators. The popular belief, although often unsupported by
evidence, is that signals somehow enhance traffic safety and improve traffic flow conditions.
Given this popular bias, the practical reality is that signals are considerably harder to
remove than to install. Additionally, the removal of a traffic signal often involves political and
institutional considerations as well as technical factors.
"The purpose of the signal removal criteria and decision process is to provide ... a strong
technical and factual basis for reaching, supporting and defending final decisions."a
This counsel is offered by Christopher Kinzel: "For the American roundabout enthusiast, the
present climate and future opportunities are exciting. More roundabouts are being studied,
planned, designed and built in the U.S. than ever before, and a track record of success is
being compiled that should fuel an even greater willingness on the part of public agencies to
consider innovative applications for roundabouts. Care must be taken, however, to ensure
that in the fervor to expand roundabouts' prevalence, inappropriate applications continue to
be avoided. A thoughtful, analytical justification process should accompany the decision to
install every roundabout."g
The present study examines the impact of six planned modern roundabouts as alternatives
to other forms of traffic control existing at six intersections. The Florida Roundabout Guide
notes that "Roundabouts have many advantages, most of which center on the limitations of
the other three intersection control alternatives which include traffic signals, two-way stop
control, and all-way stop control. The advantages are related to:
· improved intersection operation;
· lower accident rates and severity;
· lower costs; and,
· environmentalfactors.,,10
The present study examines these and other factors in detail.
E. Background and Context
Conversion of the six conventional cross intersections to low-speed modern roundabouts is
part of the neighborhood vision created by 80 Skycrest residents participating in a traffic
calming design charrette sponsored by the City of Clearwater in the summer of 2000. The
six intersection conversions are part of their overall plan for their neighborhood, the Skycrest
Traffic Calming Plan,11 which includes traffic calming treatments at other locations in
Skycrest.
8 Florida Roundabout Guide
9 Roundabouts: The Evolution of Revolution, Christopher Kenzel, P.E., writing in the July 2002 Transport
Line, "A Technical Publication of HDR"
10 Florida Roundabout Guide, p. 1-5
11 The Skycrest Traffic Calming Plan is in Appendix _ .
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 10 of 105
J
i
"')
t
.
I
I
i
:)
J
:1
"
i
,I
,j
I
.,_..1
j
J
,
;'i.~'i.C<>j
I',
,;:"
I
i
)
I
,
-
The residents' purposes for converting these six intersections to modern roundabouts were
to calm traffic, make the intersections safer and more friendly for all users, including
pedestrians, bicyclists, children and older and handicapped users, and to gain the aesthetic
enhancement landscaped roundabouts can bring to a neighborhood.
The Skycrest Neighborhood Traffic Calming Design Charrette is described further under
Social Impacts in the section on Social Origins of the Project (p. 71).
F. Definition of Modern Roundabout
A modern roundabout is a circular intersection with a central island that prevents vehicles
from passing through the intersection in a straight line. Modern roundabouts are common in
Europe, the United Kingdom and Australia and began appearing in the United States
beginning in 1994.
Modern roundabouts are not the same as the older, large rotaries and traffic circles, often
greater than 300'. in 'diameter, such as those built in New England and New Jersey earlier in
the last century. As the FHWA roundabout Guide states, "Those designs enabled high-
speed merging and weaving of vehicles. High crash experience and congestion in the
circles led to rotaries falling out of favor in America after the mid-50's."12
The characteristics that distinguish a 1-lane modern roundabout are: 13
· Vehicles entering a roundabout on all approaches must yield to vehicles already in
the circulating roadway; there is a yield sign at each entrance to the roundabout.
(Traffic circles sometimes use stop control or signal control, or give priority to
entering vehicles.)
· Circulating vehicles are not subject to any other right-of-way conflicts. Once a
vehicle enters the circulating lane, it has priority over vehicles approaching on the
entrance lanes. (Some traffic circles impose control measures within the circulating
roadway. )
· Modern roundabouts have raised splitter islands on all approaches, part of the
deflection scheme and an essential safety feature to separate traffic moving in
opposite directions and provide refuge for pedestrians.
· No parking is allowed on the circulating roadway.
· No pedestrian activities take place on the central island,
· The speed at which vehicles are able to negotiate the circulating roadway is kept
under control because the geometry of a modern roundabout deflects their path first
to the right to enter the roundabout, then to the left to circulate around the central
island, then to the right again to exit the roundabout.
12 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, p.2
13 The Florida Roundabout Guide, 1998 Edition, Florida Department of Transportation, p, 1-3
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in .doc
Page 11 of 105
'J
I
....,c.'y.
I
.
,
I
p
j
~)
I
~"'~!
'~
~,
I
}
~I
, "
,j
~
I
i
, '\
I:
'~~:~
I
.1
'1
1\
,; J
II
\
;i
Additionally, like all of five Clearwater's existing modern roundabouts, the six planned
roundabouts incorporate another design feature for speed control: negative superelevation.
That means the circulating roadway is not banked into the curve-as superhighways are, in
order to assist high-speed traffic-but rather is banked the other way. A 2% slope down to
the outside of the circulating lanes provides both drainage and a driver sensation of higher
than actual speed, which, causes the driver to drive more slowly for a comfortable ride.
Sloping the circulating roadway away from the central island also makes the central island
more visible to approaching drivers, another safety feature.
The figure below illustrates three ways of designing roadway cross slopes, depending upon
the application.
Figure 1 . Roadway Cross Slopes
Sloped on Both Sides Superelevation Negative Superelevation
[ Insert diagram of ordinary [ Insert diagram of banked [ Insert diagram of
crowned roadway profile] roadway curving left. ] circulating lane curving left.
Label 2% ]
Straight roadway, crowned for High-speed curve, banked to Modern roundabout
drainage assist high-speed traffic and circulating lane, sloped
provide for drainage away from the central island
to keep vehicle speeds
down by increasing the
sensation of turning, and
also provides drainage
An example in contrast with the above list of roundabout characteristics is St. Armand's
Circle in Sarasota, Florida. This is a large traffic circle anchoring an upscale shopping
district. It has parking on the circulating lanes, a park for pedestrians on the central island, a
stop sign within the circulating lanes, and one leg gives priority to entering traffic-all
features not found at modern roundabouts.
The figure below illustrates the difference between an older rotary and a modern
roundabout.
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in .doc
Page 12 of 105
"~I
I
"')
::1
,
I
I
'~
:I
r)
''''',):.
~
~-
,.
i
)
I
, 1
'.' j
",,;..>;;"~.
I
.,^,.,,~l'
I
:).
}
,I
^ ~-,
<eSe")
I
I
j
)
I
'~
-
Figure 2. Modern Roundabout Compared to Old Rotary
[ Insert photo of modern rbt under construction within huge rotary. ]
Photo of modern roundabout under construction within the old rotary it will replace
The figure above shows how much smaller a modern roundabout is than the older rotary it is
replacing. The significant differences in entry and exit geometries are readily evident. The
large size and tangential entry/exit geometries of the older rotaries contributed to their high
speeds, frequency and severity of crashes and frightening user experience.
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 13 of 105
~I
)
J
;
,
~
t
,
J
j
'")
'>>1
~
J
,I
i
)
~
I
I
I
I~
, )
<)
I)
IS
II. Traffic Impacts
This section examines the traffic impacts of converting the six existing intersections to modern
roundabouts.
All six of the existing intersections are conventional cross intersections. The Florida
Roundabout Guide states that "There are many locations in the state that could benefit from the
installation of a roundabout as an alternative to the more conventional intersection control
methods."
Three of the existing six intersections are signalized. The Highway Design Manual states that
"many have the misconception that traffic control signals installations provide the solution to all
traffic problems. This is not true. Traffic control signal installations typically reduce the overall
capacity14 of the intersection, delay motorists, and often increase the frequency of rear-end
accidents."15 '
Although the charrette vision specified the six planned modern roundabouts for their traffic
calming safety benefits, the Guide also notes that "Roundabouts can efficiently handle particular
intersections with decreased delay16 and greater efficiency than traffic signals."
The Guide further notes that "Traffic signals cause unnecessary delay for many reasons,"
including: 17
. The need to provide a minimum green time to each movement in every cycle creates
time intervals in which no vehicles are entering the intersection.
. The "lost time" associated with startup and termination of a green phase detracts further
from the amount of time that is available for moving traffic.
. Left turns that take place from shared lanes impede the other movements in the shared
lanes unnecessarily.
. Heavy left turns, even from exclusive lanes, require dedicated phases that rob time from
the major movements and increase the total time lost due to startup and termination of
traffic movements.
. Many signal violations occur at higher speeds, leading to severe crashes.
14 Capacity is "The maximum rate of flow at which vehicles reasonably can be expected to trafverse a
point on a lane or road during a specified period under prevailing traffic, roadway and signalization
conditions; usually expressed as vehicles per hour. From the Florida Roundabout Guide Glossary
15 Highway Design Manual, Revision 39, Section 11.3.1.3, March 15, '2002
16 Delay is the additional travel time experienced by a vehicle or pedestrian with reference to a base travel
time (e.g. the free-flow travel time). From Glossary of Road Traffic Analysis Terms, Rahmi Akc;;:elik,
August 2002.
17 The Florida Roundabout Guide
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 14 of 105
jl
')
}
:1
"J
I
~
.
,
J
,
'")
I
"
"I
,.~
.1
\
I
I
)
~
I
i
e
I.,...
'd~\.
I~
, )
i':
.;
)
. Permitted left turns and right turns on red introduces additional conflicts. The single
most challenging aspect of conventional intersection design for older drivers is
performing left turns during the permitted signal phase {steady green ball).18
. Signals are mechanical devices that occasionally fail and provide no control during
power failures.
Modern roundabouts overcome all of these disadvantages. There is no sequential assignment
of right-of-way and therefore no wasted time. Left turns are not subordinated to through traffic.
Because the signal is nonexistent, so are signal violations (red light running). Because vehicles
enter under yield control instead of stop control they have lower headways and higher
capacities. Loss of power makes no difference since there are no electrically-powered control
devices to fail.19
A. Impact on Traffic Flow
This section examines the impact on traffic flow of converting the existing six cross
intersections to modern roundabouts.
1. Free flow
Because the form of traffic control is the yield sign at entry, a modern roundabout allows
traffic to flow through the intersection without stopping whenever there is no conflicting
circulating traffic; that is, to flow freely through the intersection. In contrast, a traffic
signal presents the red ball to two approaches at all times, and that traffic must stop and
cannot turn left or go through, even in the absence of any other traffic. With the
moderate traffic volume20 at these intersections, much of the off-peak traffic will flow
freely through the roundabouts.21
At the three 2-way stop-controlled intersections, traffic already flows freely on the
through street, Cleveland Street, but all side street traffic must stop. To make a left turn
or through movement, side street traffic must wait at the stop sign until gaps in both
directions of Cleveland Street traffic occur simultaneously. Side street traffic will
experience improved flow with the roundabouts, particularly at peak hours.
2. Computer modeling software
The engineering field has successfully reduced many forms of engineering analysis to
methodologies embodied in software and makes heavy use of modeling software to
evaluate existing systems and predict the performance of planned systems. In the
United Stares, the performance methodology for the analysis of conventional
18 Older driver challenges are examined further in the sections on Older Users (p. 39) and Older
Pedestrians (p. 50).
19 The Florida Roundabout Guide, 1998 Edition
20 Traffic volume is the number of vehicles passing a given point on a street during a specified period of
time. From Glossary of Road Traffic Analysis Terms, Rahmi Akcelik, August 2002.
21 Even with the much greater volumes at the Clearwater Beach Entryway Roundabout, most vehicles
experience free flow most hours of the year. The major exception is during Spring Break, especially
daytime on Spring Break weekends, when a 2-mile parking lot queue extends through the roundabout.
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 15 of 105
^'I"
, "
;1
j
I
I
I
"'"
I
~
M,:.itili1
~
~I
i
''')
..I
)
'I
, J
I "",J
,I
"I
.
-- '\
"",,,;~,;l
I
I
~
"~I
')
~
~
intersections is described in detail in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), and those
procedures have been adopted by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for
assessing the level of service (LOS) on state highways.
Although methods of roundabout modeling have been developed in other countries,22
the Highway Capacity Manual does not provide a model for the evaluation of
roundabouts. But as the Florida Roundabout Guide notes, "The Australian methods are
most compatible with the computational structure that has been developed in Florida for
comparing other control modes" and "in addition, the Australian method is based on
analytical methods while other methods, such as the British method, tend to be more
empirical in nature. In general, analytical methods are more transportable internationally
because they depend more on mathematical relationships and less on observed driver
behavior.
"Therefore, the Australian methodology will be adopted as the basis for roundabout
performance analysis and the use of the SIDRA23 software will be encouraged for the
purpose of general evaluation of roundabout performance and comparison with the
performance of the alternative control modes. ,,24
aaSIDRA version 2.0.3.217, the current version of SIDRA with the latest upgrades, is the
intersection modeling software used for the present study.
3. Peak Hour Level of Service
Level of Service (LOS) and Delay are the two primary measures of traffic flow, as seen
from the driver's perspective. Level of Service is a measure of the delay, both stopped
delay and geometric delay,25 experienced by drivers at a controlled intersection.
The table below compares the computed Peak Hour LOS for the three signalized
intersections versus the planned replacement roundabouts, as computed by aaSIDRA.
Table 1. Impact on Peak Hour Level of Service (LOS)
Intersection with AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Cleveland St. Signalized Roundabout Impact Signalized Roundabout Impact
Lake Av A A 0 B A +1
Duncan Av A A 0 B A +1
Saturn Av B A +1 B A +1
22 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide lists six software packages with the capability to perform
operational analysis of roundabouts, p, 97.
23 aaSIDRA-the current version of SIDRA-is software for modeling intersections and alternate
intersection treatments first released in 1984. In use in 75 countries, it is recognized in the USA by the
US Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), the FHWA roundabout Guide and the Florida Roundabout Guide.
Version 2.0 is fully compatible with the HCM but goes further by providing information on air quality and
queue lengths, and is finer-grained and more accurate than HCM because its analyses are performed on
a rane-by-Iane basis rather than the coarser-grained, less accurate approach-by-approach analyses used
by HCM,
24 The Florida Roundabout Guide, pp. 3-1 and 3-2
25 Stopped delay is <definition>. Geometric delay is <definition>.
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 16 of 105
1
,I
il:ti
~'"
tit
I
I
i
:)
1
~
#~
~91
:j
)
"I
""-,~..)
I
:.
I
I:
..
I
j
)
I
,
I I
I J
The table above shows the peak hour LOS will be improved by one grade to the highest
level, LOS A, for four of the six peak hours, for an overall average improvement of +0.67
grade LOS.
The table shows existing LOS is already quite good at peak hours. This is because of
the moderate traffic volume on Cleveland Street, the low volume of turning movements
and the low side street volume.
Even at relatively low volumes modern roundabouts are able to improve on the operation
of signalized intersections. A major reason for the improvement is the elimination of lost
time. Another is the ability of side street vehicles to enter the intersection in gaps in the
main street traffic, gaps that are available at roundabouts but are unused at signalized
intersections.
Off peak, most vehicles will experience free flow through all six roundabouts. The LOS
was not modeled for the three stop-controlled intersections but will be improved for side
street traffic making left turning and through movements, particularly at peak hours, for
the reasons explained earlier in the section on Free Flow (p. 15).
4. Delay
Average vehicle delay is the sum of the overall delay experienced by all drivers
averaged over all entering vehicles. 26
The table below compares the Average Peak Hour Delay for the three signalized
intersections versus the planned replacement roundabouts, as computed by aaSIDRA.
Table 2. Impact on Average Peak Hour Delay (seconds)
Intersection with AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Cleveland St. Signalized Roundabout Impact Signalized Roundabout Impact
Lake Av 9.9 6,7 -32% 10,5 7.0 -32%
Duncan Av 9.4 6.6 -30% 10.6 6.7 -30%
Saturn Av 10.2 6.8 -33% 11,3 6.8 -33%
The table above shows that the delay will be reduced by about one-third at all peak
hours.
Delay was not modeled for the three stop-controlled intersections, but roundabouts will
reduce delay for side street traffic making left turning and through movements,
particularly at peak hours, for the reasons explained earlier in the section on Free Flow
(p. 15).
5. Longest Vehicle Queues
26 Cite a source for definition
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in .doc
Page 17 of 105
,I
\
p
'.
,~iI
,I
,
.
,
".
~il
;::::::?
,
'"')
~
1
,..0,0,0,.1
I
j
-)
I
)
:~
i
i
.
!
e
,
OJ
I)
I
)
A queue is a line of vehicles waiting to proceed through an intersection. Slowly moving
vehicles joining the back of the queue are usually considered part of the queue. The
internal queue dynamics can involve starts and stopS.27
The Longest Vehicle Queue is the longest expected vehicle queue of any approach lane,
and is another measure of traffic flow as seen from the driver's perspective.
Long queues are all too apparent to the driver near the end of the queue, who can
plainly see the distance to the signal ahead, a direct source of driver frustration.
The table below compares the Longest Vehicle Queues for the three signalized
intersections versus the planned replacement roundabouts, as computed by aaSIDRA.
Table 3. Impact on Longest Vehicle Queues (feet)
Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
with
Cleveland St. Signal Roundabout Impact Sign al Roundabout Impact
Lake Av 138' 3D' -108' -78% 163' 34' -129' -79%
Duncan Av 133' 29' -104' -78% 175' 36' -139 -79%
Saturn Av 169' 33' -136' -80% 194' 42' -152 -78%
The table above shows the Longest Vehicle Queue is shortened more than three-
quarters at all peak hours.
In addition, comments from the public about Clearwater's other roundabouts-
particularly the Clearwater Beach Entryway Roundabout-have indicated that
roundabout queues are less aggravating to some drivers than signal queues. In a signal
queue, frustration builds over time as the vehicle sits motionless awaiting the green
signal, especially when the cycle is repeated before getting through the intersection. In
a roundabout queue, traffic is more or less continuously moving forward in a "dribbling"
fashion. The sense of motion and progress seems to take the edge off the frustration of
delay, and of course roundabouts never experience cycle failure.28
The Longest Vehicle Queues were not modeled for the three stop-controlled
intersections. Side street traffic volume is low but what queues there are will be shorter
with roundabouts for the reasons explained earlier in the section on Free Flow (p. 15).
6. Operational impact
Operational impact is expressed in terms of person-hours of delay to the driving public.
The table below compares the predicted annual vehicle-hours of delay for the three
existing signalized intersections versus the planned replacement roundabouts, as
computed by aaSIDRA.
27 Queue definition from Glossary of Road Traffic Analysis Terms, Rahmi Akl;elik, August 2002.
28 Cycle failure is <definition>
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 18 of 105
,
<I
:,')
~I
.
I
,
i
:)
t
":,
'~,t
I
)
I
,,)
I
'I
:.
j
I
i
'I
I
!
~
Table 4, Annual Vehicle-Hours of Delay
Intersection with
Cleveland Street
Lake Av
Duncan Av
Saturn Av
Roundabout
5,088
8,722
5,467
19,277
Impact
- 3,127
967
- 3,056
- 5,222
Signalized Intersection
8,215
7,761
8,523
24,499
Totals
The table above shows an annual savings of 5,222 vehicle-hours of delay as a result of
converting the three signalized intersections to modern roundabouts.
Delay to the driving public was not modeled for the three stop-controlled intersections.
Side street traffic volume is low but what delay there is will be shorter with the
roundabouts for the reasons explained earlier in the section on Free Flow (p. 15).
Since the cost of delay is borne by the public, this impact is examined further under
Costs to 'Society in the section on Cost of Delay (p. 79).
Separate from operational delay is the impact on travel delay caused by crashes. The
cost component of this impact is accounted for later, as discussed under Cost Impacts in
the section on Comprehensive Costs (p.82).
B. Impact on truck traffic
This section examines the impact on truck traffic of converting the six cross intersections to
modern roundabouts.
1. AutoTURN
AutoTURN is a software package used for the design and evaluation of vehicle turning
movements.29 AutoTURN was used during the geometric design process to verify
vehicle access through the six planned roundabouts.
AutoTURN has a built-in library of standard vehicles, including the SU truck. The
standard SU truck was used as the design vehicle30 for the six planned roundabouts.
AutoTURN also has the ability to model custom vehicles as defined through user input of
key parameters governing the vehicle's track, including wheel base, width, track,
maximum steering angle and front and rear overhang dimensions. AutoTURN was used
to model the swept path of certain large vehicles through the six roundabouts.
The figure below shows two of the four design vehicles specified in AutoTURN to design
the six roundabouts.
29 By Transoft Solutions Inc, Version 4.0 was used for this study.
30 "Design vehicles are selected motor vehicles with the weight, dimensions, and operating characteristics
used to establish highway design controls for accommodating vehicles of designated classes. For
purposes of geometric design, each design vehicle has larger physical dimensions and larger minimum
turning radius than those of almost all vehicles in its class," From the AASHTO Green Book, 1994, p. 19
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 19 of 105
J
',I
~
(I
..
I
I
'''j''
. ,
t
"
I,,'
. ~ ! ~ : : ~ ' Ii:;'
-~ -.
)
""
':"..-
o~-
_{J
)
j
,)
:1
~)
'~
"
;-*
:,.
/')
~"""'-"".--_.
'-
,
I
j
I
I
J.
Figure 3, Design Vehicles
[Insert AutoTURN image of the Fire Dept [Insert AutoTURN image of the SU design
design vehicle. ] vehicle. ]
Fire Department 100' Skyarm Design Vehicle SU Design Vehicle
by Pierce Manufacturing, Inc.
The figure above shows the specific parameters specified in AutoTURN for the design
vehicles. The other two vehicles inputted into AutoTURN are two vehicles owned by the
City of Clearwater Solid Waste Department, examined later in the section on Solid
Waste Trucks (p. 21).
2. Fire trucks
The largest, least maneuverable vehicle in the Fire Department fleet is the 100' Skyarm
apparatus. The parameters for this vehicle were obtained from the manufacturer and
inputted into AutoTURN. The resulting swept path plots demonstrated that this vehicle
will have no difficulty negotiating all movements through the six planned modern
roundabouts without need to mount any of the mountable curbs.31
Clearwater's Fire Department has experienced no difficulty or undue delay with the
City's current five modern roundabouts, four of which are 1-lane roundabouts similar to
the six planned for Cleveland Street. All told, the Clearwater Fire Department has
almost eleven "roundabout-years" of experience with modern roundabouts.
The six planned roundabouts may incorporate the FOOT roundabout central island curb
to minimize any tire scuffing, as shown in the figure below.
Figure
<Insert FOOT Index 301? Type RA.>
The figure above shows an easily mountable curb which may be suitable for the central
island.
31 See Appendix _'
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in .doc
Page 20 of 105
,
/1
^")
~I
*'t
I)
I
J
'-,
,I
l
"-,
:1
:',""
-:~u:
1
.
}
.1
. 1
......-/.
.1
'.1
i
)
~
rI
,
I
I
"'j
,
3. Solid Waste trucks
The Solid Waste Department uses six types of trucks. The parameters for the two
largest, least maneuverable trucks were obtained by King Engineering by direct
measurement at the Solid Waste facility off Hercules Avenue.
· The Mack Roll-off truck is the Department's largest, least maneuverable truck by a
substantial margin. This truck will be phased out by the time the six planned
roundabouts are constructed and will not be replaced by a similarly unwieldy truck,
so by agreement with the Solid Waste Department it was eliminated from
consideration as a design vehicle.
· The Sterling Roll-Off truck is the Department's second largest, second least
maneuverable truck and will be retained in the fleet. This truck is used to transport
dumpsters, mainly to/from commercial sites. Modeling the swept path of this truck
with AutoTURN demonstrated that at the intersections with Corona, Meteor and
Aurora there was a trade-off between tree preservation and left-turning movements
for the vehicle. This trade-off is examined further under Environmental Impacts in.
the section on Tree Impacts (p. 64).
· All other Department vehicles are more maneuverable than the SU design vehicle
and therefore will experience no difficulties negotiating the six planned roundabouts.
4. Commercial trucks
Most commercial trucks will be accommodated because the SU truck is the design
vehicle for the roundabouts.32 Cleveland Street is not a truck route and most vehicles
are more maneuverable than an SU vehicle, including SUVs and pick-up trucks
The FDOT Green Book states that "If a significant number or percentage (5 percent of all
the total traffic) of vehicles of those classes larger than passenger vehicles are likely to
use a particular street or highway, that class should be used as a design control.,,33
Since SU trucks represent only 1.78% of total traffic on Cleveland Street,34 using SU as
the design vehicle is a conservative approach.
Trucks larger than an SU represent only 0.18% of total traffic on Cleveland Street.35
One of the largest of these, the WB-50,36 is a semi-trailer with a typical wheelbase of 48'
and is accommodated by the six roundabouts for through movements using the truck
aprons. WB-50 turning movements are not accommodated, but this presents no
32 SU stands for Single Unit truck, "The SU design vehicle characteristics are suitable for all single-unit
trucks and small buses; the control dimensions for its minimum turning path suffice, for a number of buses
and truck combinations no in operation," From the AASHTO Green Book, 1994, p. 23
33 Florida Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction and Maintenance for Streets
and Highways, <Edition, date>, Topic #625-000-015, p. 3-.
34 Traffic study by Adams Traffic, March 25, 2004
35 Traffic study by Adams Traffic, March 25, 2004
36 The WB-50 design vehicle is linearly all-inclusive of the truck tractor-semitrailer combinations in use."
From the AASHTO Green Book, 1994, p. 20
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 21 of 105
:-
:i...:.)'.~.
,'.
!"~
<I
.
I
I
/")
~I'
v:
,~
~
(1
problem since there are parallel major arterials (SR 60 and Drew Street) only two blocks
on either side of Cleveland Street.
5. Summary of truck impacts
The table below summarizes the impact on truck turning movements:
Intersection
with Cleveland
St.
Lake Av
Duncan Av
Saturn Av
Corona Av
Meteor Av
Aurora Av
"1
-,
j
\
I
,J
.
.
~I
I
'J
I
I
j
I
)
I
j
Table 5. Truck Turning Movement Impacts
Fire Dept.
Skyarm
Apparatus
No im act
No im act
No im act
No im act
No impact
No im act
Solid Waste
Dept. Sterling
Roll-off
No im act
No im act
No im act
No left turns38
(none are
needed)
SU
Semi-Trailer
WB-50
No im act
No im act
No im act
No im act
No impact
No im act
No left turns.
No right turns.37
Through movements track
across the truck apron.
The table above shows SU trucks and all Fire Department vehicles can make all turning
movements at all six planned roundabouts. The Solid Waste Department's Mac Roll-off
truck cannot turn left at three intersections but does not do so now and does not need
that capability in the future.
C. Impacts Related to Keene Road
When the Skycrest Traffic Calming Plan was created, it took into account the pending
widening of Keene Road from two lanes to six, which has now been completed. Left turn
lanes on Cleveland Street at Keene Road will not be shortened. With the conversion of the
three signalized intersections on Cleveland Street west of Keene Road to roundabouts, east
bound traffic will flow freely most hours of the day until it encounters the signal at Keene
Road. Eastbound queues will not increase due to the roundabouts. The queues will be
longer than they were before the widening of Keene but converting the six intersections to
roundabouts should have no impact on the queue lengths because the flow is the same with
or without roundabouts.
Depending on the philosophy used to allocate green time at the Keene Road signal, vehicle
queues on Cleveland'Street will increase or decrease accordingly irrespective of whether
roundabouts or signals are used to control traffic on Cleveland Street.
If green time allocation favors Keene Road then eastbound queues at Keene Road may
increase and back through the roundabout at Saturn Avenue. If vehicle queues extend to
the Saturn roundabout, courteous drivers will not block the roundabout while less courteous
drivers may iIIegally39 block the eastbound entry into the roundabout. The eastbound entry
can be signed with a DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION sign to remind drivers of their legal
37 Some skilled WB-50 drivers may be able to execute a "squared-off' right turn using the truck apron, but
AutoTURN does not show this maneuver as possible.
38 Due to the vehicle's poor turning radius,
39 Florida Statute
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in ,doc
Page 22 of 105
I
. .)>>'f
/1
/'~
;1
fI)
I
I
f"j
t::::..
:,"')
(I
'~l
J
1'1
oj
'.
I
~
I
.
~
~
4IJ
I
j
"
I
i
.~
responsibility not to block an intersection and help maintain excellent flow for the northbound
side street traffic entering the roundabout from the south on Saturn.
Westbound queues on Cleveland Street at Keene Road will be' unaffected by the three
roundabouts east of Keene Road because it is the allocation of green time at Keene Street
that will be the sole determinant of vehicle queues.
D. Impacts on the Street Network
The six planned roundabouts will not have an adverse impact on the street network or vice-
versa. Sight distances and the proximity of signals and arterials are examined further under
Traffic Impacts in the section on Traffic Impacts Associated with Possible Contraindications
(p. 28).
Sight distances for cross streets are likely to increase slightly because a few trees close to
the intersections will be removed for various reasons (see discussion under Environmental
Impacts in the section on Tree Impacts, p. 64). The lower vehicle speeds at roundabouts
typically allow shorter sight distances than at cross intersections. Typically, the sight triangle
at a roundabout is a 150 foot triangle to the left only.
E. Future Growth
A typical assumed life-cycle period of a intersection project is twenty years, during which
time traffic typically grows and that can affect the operation of the project
The AASHTO Green Book states that "New highways or improvements of existing highways
usually should not be based on current traffic volumes alone, but consideration should be
given to the future traffic expected to use the facilities. A highway should be designed to
accommodate the traffic that might occur within the life of the facility under reasonable
maintenance. ..40
Traffic volume projections in Pinellas County are the responsibility of the Pinellas County
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Using computer modeling software,41 the MPO
projects a traffic volume increase of only 10-12% on Cleveland Street through Skycrest out
to the year 2025.
The MPO projects such slight growth for Cleveland Street because: it is a residential
collector street that terminates at Belcher, not a through street; the area is built out; there is
no vacant land left; there are no re-development plans for this area; and any re-
development would most likely duplicate existing land uses.
Because the projected 2025 traffic volume is still less than 50% of the capacity of the six
roundabouts, there will be no substantial difference in their operation. Therefore, the design
40 AASHTO Green Book, 1994, p. 58
41 <Get name and version from Ramon Solis>
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 23 of 105
'.
0'''-,
~. .,-,<,.
(Ii
fl
"~
~I
t.:_
fi
I
I
"i-
:.
(
,;<>,
.'~
',2__\.i'
.1
~
~.
:"
j
\"""'\
,
I
1
",~l
I
I
i
',J
I
I
I
I
-I
~
Iife42 easily extends beyond 2025. A longer design life, such as forty years or longer, would
not be unreasonable in the case of this project, given the expected stability of the setting.
Design life is discussed further under Cost Impacts in the section on Sensitivity Analysis (p.
90).
A mile and a half west of Skycrest, Cleveland Street becomes the main street through
downtown Clearwater. But Cleveland Street is not the main traffic feeder into downtown;
that function is handled by a diagonal section of State Road 60 that intersects Cleveland
Street one third mile west of the west end of the Skycrest project.
State Road 60 continues through downtown Clearwater to Clearwater Beach by way of the
Memorial Causeway. Currently, the traffic passing through downtown to the beach dwarfs
the traffic traveling to downtown as a destination itself. That distribution of traffic will change
radically when the new Memorial Bridge opens in 2006 and all the beach-bound traffic is
diverted around downtown via the 1-way pair of Chestnut and Court Streets, which will
connect to the new Memorial Bridge.
The City of Clearwater intends to redevelop downtown after the Memorial. Bridge. Plans
include streetscaping and cul-de-sac'ing Cleveland Street, mixed land uses, 1200 residential
dwelling units and a cinema multiplex. A new library on the bluff overlooking Clearwater
Harbor opened in 2004. The MPO has not project what, if any, effect re-development of
downtown Clearwater may have on traffic volume in the Cleveland Street corridor through
Skycrest.
E. Impacts on Non-motorized Traffic Flow
Bicyclists riding in the street will experience the same flow as described above for motorized
users. Pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, and bicyclists riding on the sidewalks will
experience an improved level of service and less delay with the roundabouts. Most of the
time non-motorized users will experience less delay at the roundabouts than at the three
intersections currently controlled by signals because they will be able to cross as soon as it
is safe to do so and they won't have to wait for permission from a signal before crossing
even when no vehicles are present.
At Clearwater's four existing 1-lane modern roundabouts, level of service and delay for non-
motorized users are essentially LOS A and zero, respectively, almost all the time.
F. Impacts on Traffic at Skycrest Elementary School
The intersection of Cleveland Street and Corona Avenue is located at the SE corner of the
Skycrest Elementary School property. Twice a day the streets are congested as buses and
parents arrive/depart to drop-off/pick-up students and students on foot arrive/depart.
During these two daily periods, crossing guards at Cleveland and Corona must stop
motorized traffic in both directions to prove safe passage across the street for schoolchildren
42 Design life is the number of years into the future while the intersection operates satisfactorily
considering increases in traffic demand volumes), From Glossary of Road Traffic Analysis Terms, Rahmi
AkCfelik. August 2002.
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in .doc
Page 24 of 105
'I
~.
/"\
C:.}f
I
41
~
I
i
")
~
,I
~l
:.
~
,I
!
I
,j
I
',I
'I
'.)
I
a
i
~
I
\
i
I
j!
on foot. Traffic wanting to make left turns and Corona traffic wanting to cross Cleveland
must wait for gaps in traffic on Cleveland in both directions to occur simultaneously, as must
all traffic wanting to make left turns. Both these problems delay the vehicle wanting to make
the movement as well as vehicles behind it, worsening an already congested twice-daily
situation. Both problems will be eliminated by the modern roundabout at Corona so traffic
flow will be improved.
The figure below compares the two scenarios.
Figure 4. Skycrest Elementary School Congestion Scenarios
[ Insert diagram of existing scenario. ]
[ Insert diagram of planned scenario. ]
Current Scenario
Planned Scenario
The figure above illustrates how the planned roundabout will ease congestion at drop-
off/pick-up periods.
Also during these two daily periods, Corona Avenue becomes one-way southbound in the
section from Cleveland Avenue north to Drew Street. A sign on the NE corner alerts drivers
with a flashing light that is activated during the two periods.
With all the vehicle and pedestrian congestion during those periods, it's easy for a driver to
not notice the flashing yellow sign before turning north or not at all. Left-turning eastbound
drivers on Cleveland Street who are paying attention to judging the gap in oncoming
(westbound) traffic and fail to notice the sign until partway through their left turn find
themselves awkwardly stopped at a cock-eyed angle in the wrong lane, with nowhere to go.
A vehicle in this .position cannot proceed forward north on Corona, is in the wrong lane to
proceed east on Cleveland, and can't execute a U-turn. Any approaching traffic further
blocks the vehicle from moving.
The roundabout at Corona will eliminate this problem, too: the crossing guard will simply
"cone off' the north exit with yellow traffic safety cones for the duration of the 1-way period.
Drivers noticing the cones at the last minute can simply continue around the roundabout at
11-13 MPH and exit gracefully at any of the other three roundabout exits. Additional
flashing signage east and west on Cleveland Street will give drivers better advance warning
than they have now.
The figure below illustrates the placement of traffic cones to block circulating vehicles from
exiting to the north during student drop-off/pick-up periods.
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in ,doc
Page 25 of 105
,I
.:,
, ~
t
c\
.,
J
I
I II 'c.
{:
k;
r~
:~I
{-:"-":"":,,,,,
'<'" l
~~,
:,
:If<
,.
i
I
1
-,,<>-"iF'"
,I
.-
'1,1
f
-,,\
:':~..:;;:,~_.l
I
I
I
)
I
,
~
Figure 5. Corona Avenue Roundabout "Coned-off'
[Insert diagram showing the vehicle movement past the
cones. Also show the 4 crosswalks and which two have
crossing guards??]
<Show existing awkward situation>
Dots depict cones placed by the crossing guard.
The figure above shows the simple way the roundabout supports the one-way rule in effect
during two periods daily on school days.
G. Miscellaneous Traffic Impacts43
1. Physical and right-of-way features
~ Impacts associated with physical and right-of-way features are minimal and are
examined further under Environmental Impacts in the section on Tree Impacts (p. 64)
and elsewhere in the section on Cost Impacts (p. 77).
2. Current and planned site development features such as adjoining businesses,
driveways, etc.
~ The planned six roundabouts will not adversely affect existing or planned site
development features, or vice-versa, but the low-speed environment,
pedestrian/bicyclistlskater-friendliness, enhanced alternate mobility and aesthetic
corridor enhancements will contribute to the attractiveness of developments, as will
the ease of making U-turns and concomitant improved access.
3. Certain community considerations such as a need for parking, landscaping character,
etc.
~ The planned six roundabouts will not adversely impact parking, or vice-versa. The
project landscaping will be compatible with and enhance the character of the
Cleveland Street corridor, as examined further under Environmental Impacts (p.69).
Community impacts are also examined under Environmental Impacts (p. 70).
4. Traffic management strategies that are (or will be) used in the area
~ Twice annually the City of Clearwater uses Crest lake Park and the strip of
Cleveland Street between Lake Avenue and Highland Avenue, as well as portions of
the side streets on Crest, Glenwood and lake, as an assembly area for major
parades. Cleveland Street is closed off the day of the parade and vehicles are
positioned in the roadway without regard to normal traffic flow directions. The Parks
43 The Florida Roundabout Guide suggests considering these miscellaneous factors when siting a
roundabout, p._,
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in .doc
Page 26 of 105
~,
:,
'~'i'
<:~
f-'
o
,
a
:~.t
\/,,1
'~
:1
)
~'.
".
:.
"
~
"'....-
,I
"
'.
")'
'~
tI
.
I
J
I
,
I
1
_-7
Department has determined that the planned roundabouts need no modification to
accommodate the process of parade assembly, because the mountable splitter
islands and mountable truck apron at the Lake & Cleveland roundabout will allow the
float vehicles sufficient access and mobility.
. The only accommodation needed for the floats is to avoid high vegetation on the
medians between Highland Avenue and Lake Avenue.
With the coming re-invention of downtown Clearwater, parade frequency will
increase to as many as one per month, although most of these will be walking
parades without major float vehicles and will be similarly unimpacted by the planned
roundabouts.
5. Projected public transit usage
);> Experience with Clearwater's four 1-lane roundabouts has demonstrated they
present no problems or special considerations for transit vehicles. The Acacia
Roundabout on Clearwater beach has bus stop benches at both ends of the south
leg crosswalk and these stops are used by both the Pinellas Suncoast Transit
Authority (PST A) buses and the (rubber tired) Jolly Trolley trolleys. The roundabout
at Martin Luther King, Jr., Avenue and Palmetto Avenue has a PSTA shelter at the
entry for the south leg. The low-speed environment associated with these modern
roundabouts facilitates the operation and safety of the bus stops.
School buses routinely traverse Clearwater's four existing 1-lane roundabouts with
no difficulty. A school bus stop is one block west of the roundabout at Martin Luther
King., Jr., Avenue and Palmetto Street. Students use the roundabout to get to/from
the bus stop daily with no safety or operational problems. Some students in the 14-
16 age range have been observed spurning the crosswalks, preferring instead to
walk across the truck aprons, but the low-speed environment of this modern
roundabout is sufficiently forgiving that this behavior does not appear to present a
safety problem.
6. Intersection treatments used at adjacent intersections
);> The planned six roundabouts will have no adverse affect on adjacent intersections,
or vice-versa. Nearby intersecting arterials are discussed further under Traffic
Impacts in the section on Possible Contraindications (p. 28).
7. History of public complaints that suggest a need for traffic calming
);> The planned six roundabouts are part of the larger Skycrest Traffic Calming project,
which originated with public requests for traffic calming and complaints of speeding,
aggressive driving and children at risk. The roundabouts were proposed by
residents of Skycrest and are responsive to Skycrest residents' complaints. The
origins of the project are examined further under Social Impacts in the section on
Social Origins of the Project (p. 71).
8. Number of other roundabouts in the juriSdiction that would make drivers more familiar
with this type of control
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in ,doc
Page 27 of 105
I
,;.;.i
'I
,,~
:1
~
VI
I
I
I
"')
~
'.
'.
I
)
,I
~,-)
I
I
I
, )
'<i;""""
'i
.,
I
j
"
I
,
.~
>- Experience with Clearwater's 1-lane roundabouts and the experience of other
communities has demonstrated that "By their nature, roundabouts are self-educating.
The combination of geometry, signs and markings are' instructive to drivers."44 The
design features of low-speed modern roundabouts force drivers to slow down and
pay attention the first time they encounter the roundabout and every time thereafter,
and drivers have demonstrated no problems adapting to the four 1-lane roundabout
already built in Clearwater. This holds true for the Acacia Roundabout on north
Clearwater Beach, where the population demographics are heavily skewed toward
older residents, discussed further under Safety Impacts in the section on
Demographics of Older Users (p. 41).
H. Possible Contraindications45
1. Physical or geometric features that could make the construction or operation of a
roundabout more difficult
>- There are no physical or geometric features that could make the construction or
operation of the six planned roundabouts significantly more difficult.
2. land use or traffic generators that could interfere with construction or cause operational
problems
>- There are no land uses or traffic generators that will cause operational problems for
the six planned roundabouts. The impact of the roundabout at Cleveland & Corona
on the traffic generated/attracted by Skycrest Elementary School is examined earlier
under Traffic Impacts in the section on Impacts on Traffic at Skycrest Elementary
School (p. 24).
In order to minimize impact on John F. Kennedy Middle School, construction of the
1-lane roundabout at the southwest corner of the school (Palmetto Street & Casler
Avenue) was scheduled during the summer session and completed before school re-
opened in the fall. This approach worked well and will be repeated for the
roundabout at Cleveland and Corona to minimize impact on Skycrest Elementary
School.
3. Other traffic control devices along any intersecting roadway which would require
preemption
)> The six planned roundabouts will have no adverse affect on preemption of other
traffic control devices, or vice-versa.
44 Comparison of Alternate Intersection Control, Blackmarsh Road / Hamilton Avenue / Blackler Avenue,
City of St. Johns, NL, Canada, Mark Lenters, April 26, 2004
45 The Florida Roundabout Guide suggests considering these factors when siting a modern roundabout
and states "A contraindicating factor for selecting a roundabout as an intersection control device would be
any condition that might reduce the effectiveness of a roundabout" (p, 2-3).
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 28 of 105
"'1-
, ~
j
~i~~'~'
"';o::IL
"""'0--
I
I
I
:~)
11
: '0-::<.,:.:</
,I
., J
"
-i
,I
i
"4v",..J
I
I
~
~
I
I
I
)
I
!
-
4. Bottlenecks on any of the intersecting roadways that could back up traffic into the
roundabout
}> Eastbound Cleveland Street traffic stopped at the traffic signal at Hercules Avenue
could queue back as far as the planned roundabout at Cleveland & Aurora, located
about 250 feet west of the stop bar at Hercules Avenue. If selfish drivers choose to
stop in the roundabout instead of stopping short of it, they will temporarily and
illegally block the minor northbound traffic on Aurora Avenue from entering the
intersection, the same as can occur with the existing stop-controlled intersection.
This problem won't exist outside of the PM peak hour. To alert drivers and
encourage considerate behavior, DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTON signage will be
placed on the eastbound approach to the roundabout.
Similarly, eastbound Cleveland Street traffic stopped at the traffic signal at Keene
Road could queue back as far as the planned roundabout at Cleveland & Saturn,
located about 450 feet west of the stop bar at Keene Road, and similar signage will
be placed to alert drivers and encourage considerate behavior. This topic is
discussed further under Traffic Impacts in the section on Impacts Related to Keen
Road (p. 22).
Although none of them are reached by a traffic signal queue, experience with
Clearwater's other 1-lane modern roundabouts have demonstrated that the
phenomena of vehicles temporarily blocking a roundabout is not a significant
problem because it does not present a safety problem or more than a transient,
minor operational problem.
Clearwater's one 2-lane roundabout, the Clearwater Beach Entryway Roundabout,
experiences major operational disruption on Spring Break weekends when a 2-mile
long queue forms at the South Beach parking lots and extends several blocks and
then through the roundabout all the way back across the Memorial Causeway to the
mainland shoreline and beyond, as it has on holiday weekends for decades. Even
under these extreme conditions, the roundabout continues to move cars and operate
effectively, better than the nine intersections it replaced (three of them signalized).
5. Sight distance observations
}> No sight distances adversely impact the six planned modern roundabouts, or vice-
versa.
6. Platooned arterial traffic flow on one or more approaches
}> Platooned arterial flow will not adversely impact the six planned' roundabouts, or
vice-versa.
The proximity of other signals is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the
roundabouts or vice-versa. Cross traffic should not experience any significant
increase in delay when platoons of vehicles from a signalized intersection pass
through the roundabouts. The further from signals a roundabout is located, the more
dispersed the platoon becomes, the more the headway between vehicles increases
and less delay is experienced by side st'reet traffic. The great majority of the time,
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 29 of 105
",I
>7
f
'~
:'1
~
I
I
~'\i}:;i"
I
"
~
','I
~.
I
')
,j.;
~
.~,..j,)"
I
"~.""
I
! )
I
,......._...,,~:'I
.I
"",f?
I
I
i
oj
I
-
;;1
cross street traffic will experience minimal or no delay at the six planned
roundabouts.
The table below gives the nearby intersecting arterials along the Cleveland Street
Corridor. All of these arterial intersections are signalized.
Table 6. Nearby Arterials Along the Cleveland Street Corridor
Arterial
Highland Avenue
Keene Road
Hercules Avenue
Belcher Road
Distance and Direction to
Nearest Roundabout
1,350' East
750' West
340' West
3,050' West
Nearest Roundabout
Lake Avenue & Cleveland Street
Saturn Avenue & Cleveland Street
Aurora Avenue & Cleveland Street
Aurora Avenue & Cleveland Street
There are also traffic signals along the parallel arterials to the north and south, Drew
Street and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (SR 60), respectively.
7. Heavy use by persons with special needs that could suggest a requirement for more
positive control
~ There is no known heavy use by persons with special needs. Considerations of
users who are children, older or impaired are examined further under Safety Impacts
in the sections on Older Users (p. 39) and Non-Motorized Users (pAS).
8. Recent safety projects in the area to benefit older drivers
~ There are no projects in Clearwater specifically to benefit older drivers, although
Clearwater's five low-speed modern roundabouts provide a number of benefits to
older drivers. Consideration of older drivers is examined further under Safety
Impacts in the section on Older Users (p. 39).
9. Emergency vehicle operations coordination requirements
~ The six planned roundabouts will have no adverse impact on emergency vehicle
operations and coordination, or vice-versa. The Police and Fire departments
participated in the project at its inception in the Skycrest Traffic Calming Charrette.
Consideration of fire vehicles is examined further in the section on Fire trucks (p. 20).
10. Emergency evacuation route coordination requirements
~ The planned six roundabouts will have no adverse impact on evacuation route
coordination, or vice-versa.
11. Railroad crossings in the vicinity46
~ There are no railroad crossings in the vicinity of the six planned roundabouts and
therefore no impacts.
46 This contraindication is suggested by Guide to Modern Roundabouts, PENNDOT Publication Number
414, Michael Baker, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, May 2001, p, 8
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 30 of 105
'I
I
)
<,
"<ii,
C
~j'i"
'I
tJ
:I
%~''''
(10"',\,
,I
11
.x)
I
/1
)
'I'
.,-;
~' '!
,I
,j
',,<;~'
I
..
'.
i
"I
,)
~
;,
I
j
\
I
I
12. Other problems that have been identified
~ None.
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 31 of 105
)1
I)
:1
.'
h~~;
..
,.
~
"
,
J
I
"')
pi
C~)
:1
)
I
,,-..;-.-,,"'
,.
i
)
~
I
-'-4/?
I
i~
4t:IF
I~~
)
I'J
(
,
I')
III. Safety Impacts
This section examines the safety impacts of converting the six existing cross intersections to
low-speed modern roundabouts. Safety impacts on both motorized and non-motorized users
are examined.
In the United States, among adults aged 15-44 traffic crashes are the leading cause of death
and injury, according to a 2004 FHWA Brief.47
Intersection safety is a serious and growing problem in the United States. The FHWA Brief
states that "In 2002 approximately 3.2 million intersection crashes occurred, representing 50
percent of all reported crashes. Twenty-two percent of total fatalities occurred at or within an
intersection environment." "The number of fatal motor vehicle crashes at traffic signals is rising
faster than any other type of fatal crash nationwide.,,48
The Brief also notes that "roundabouts can perform as well as, or even better than, signals in
managing both vehicle and pedestrian safety at intersections. This is particularly true where
traffic volume is relatively low,,,49 which is the case at the six intersections to be converted to
modern roundabouts.
A. Impact on crashes
This section examines the impact on crashes of converting the six cross intersections to low-
speed modern roundabouts.
1. Studies of crash frequency and severity
The FHWA Informative Guide to roundabouts notes that "Many studies have found that
one of the benefits of roundabout installation is the improvement in overall safety
performance. Several studies in the U.S., Europe, and Australia have found that
roundabouts perform better in terms of safety than other intersection forms.,,5o
Because the six planned modern roundabouts have been designed using the low-speed
Australian design philosophy, studies in Australia are perhaps the most relevant of the
foreign studies. Australian studies show a mean reduction in all crashes of 41-61% and
a reduction in injury crashes of 45_87%.51
Roundabouts and roundabout studies are scarce in the United States, but a 1998 study
of eight U.S. conventional cross intersections converted to single-lane modern
roundabouts, the fatality crash rate dropped 51 %, the injury crash rate dropped 73%,
and the property-damage only (PDQ) crash rate dropped 32%?
47 <Verify> The National Intersection Safety Problem, FHWA, April 2004
48 The National Intersection Safety Problem, FHW A, April 2004
49 The National Intersection Safety Problem, FHW A, April 2004
50 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, FHWA, p. 103
51 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, FHWA, p. 112
52 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, FHWA, p. 23
Copy of Impact sludy,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 32 of 105
)1
)
'J
,.,j
',,~.
,
:a
~
.
,
,j
:,
.j
)
~-I'
~..'
,.,
I
I
I
I
)
I',
1
,.....,}'
I
I
f
I~
I')
A 2001 study of 23 U.S. intersections converted from stop sign or traffic signal control to
modern roundabouts found crashes were reduced by 40% and injury crashes by 80%.53
A 2000 U.S. study54 found conversion of three urban, signalized intersections to modern
roundabouts resulted 'in a 32% reduction in all crashes (68% in injury crashes), and
conversion of 44 urban, stop-controlled intersections to one-lane modem roundabouts
resulted in a 61% reduction in all crashes (77% in injury crashes). Overall, 24
conversions resulted in a 90% reduction in fatal and incapacitating injury crashes.
The State of Maryland has built more than 25 modern roundabouts. A 2001 study of
eight one-lane modern roundabouts in Maryland, most of them constructed as
alternatives'to signalized intersections, showed a 64% reduction in crashes, reduced
severity of crashes, and an 83% reduction in injury crashes in the first year after
installation. 55
The City of Golden, Colorado, converted three intersections to roundabouts and added a
roundabout at a forth intersection. A comparison of the crash history for the 3 years
prior to conversion to the 28 months after found that crashes per million miles declined
60.4% and injuries per million miles declined 94.4%.56
A 2003 study of twelve US. urban stop-controlled cross intersections converted to single-
lane roundabouts conducted for the New York DOT found an 80% reduction in injuries, a
67% reduction in PD057 crashes, and an overall reduction in crashes of 69%.58
2. Why modem roundabouts are safer
Some reasons for the increased safety performance of roundabouts are:59
. Roundabouts have fewer conflict points in comparison to conventional intersections.
A vehicle/vehicle conflict point is where the paths of two vehicles cross.50
The figure below compares the vehicle/vehicle for cross intersections versus
roundabouts.
53 Safety Effects of Roundabout Conversions in the United States: Empirical Bayes Observational Before-
After Study, B,N. Persaud, R.A. Retting, P.E. Garder and D, Lord, Transportation Research Record 1751,
2001
54 Crash Reductions Following Installation of Roundabout in the United States, Bhagwant Persaud, et.
aI., Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2000
55 Maryland Roundabout Safety Experience, Office of Traffic and Safety, Maryland State Highway
Administration, October 2001
56 Dan Hartman, Director of Public Works, Golden, Colorado, 2004
57 Property damage only
58 Operational and Safety Performance of Modern Roundabouts and Other Intersections Types,
Eisenman, S., Josselyn, J., List, G., and Persaud, B., Project NYSDOT-C-01-47, October 2003
(unpublished draft reported in a draft chapter of the ITE Intersection Design Safety Toolbox, Chapter 2,
Designing and Operating Safer Roundabouts, Jacquemart, Georges
59 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, FHWA, p. 103
60 "Vehicles are finite objects, no two of which can simultaneously occupy the same space without
unpleasant results." From Fundamentals of Traffic Engineering, 14th Edition, Homburger, et. aI., Institute
of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkley, 1996
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 33 of 105
/,
j
"o/,~,
'I'
'"
~'
t:;;;~}~,
:?:",,:,~::)i,~
w~'
,-.:__;L.
'",,:},,'f
I
I
C)
f
~
~I
I
)
I
.j
-
'.1.
/....._n
i
"'&
"'i;:;)
I
I
i
I
\
~
Figure 6. Vehicle/vehicle Conflict Points61
Conventional Cross Intersection Roundabout
[ Insert diagram of conventional intersection [ Insert diagram of roundabout with
with vehicle/vehicle conflict points. ] vehicle/vehicle conflict points. ]
32 Vehicle/vehicle Conflict Points. 8 Vehicle/vehicle Conflict Points.
The most lethal conflicts are in the center of All the most lethal vehicle/vehicle conflict
the intersection points are eliminated.
The figure above shows that converting a conventional cross intersection to a
modern roundabout reduces the number of vehicle/vehicle conflicts from 32 to 8, a
75% reduction. No other form of intersection re-design reduces vehicle/vehicle
conflict points to this degree.
Of the eight vehicle/vehicle conflict points in a modern roundabout, four are rear-end
crashes. The remaining four are low-speed, low-angle, low-energy merge crashes
between circulating vehicles and entering vehicles, as depicted above in figure
above.
· Converting a conventional cross intersection to a modern roundabout eliminates the
most lethal conflicts: left-turn, head-on and right-angle crashes, as depicted in.
Figure 6 above.
The table below compares the number of vehicle/vehicle conflict points at each
existing intersection versus the planned roundabouts.
Table 7. VehicleNehicle Conflict Points
Intersection with Planned
Cleveland St. Existing Intersections Roundabouts Impact
Lake Av 32 8 -16
Duncan Av 32 8 -16
Saturn Av 32 8 -16
Corona Av 32 8 -16
Meteor Av 32 8 -16
Aurora Av 32 8 -16
Total 192 48 -144
61 Modern Roundabouts, Wallwork, Michael, PE, 1996
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 34 of 105
I
rl
')
~I
.,
I
I
i'~
%
J
1
. }
~-
~-.
1
-
,j
,I
.
j
"")
-~..-ii>
~
fJ
I
I
)
I
,
..I
}
The table above shows converting to the six planned rOl;lndabouts will eliminate 144
vehicle/vehicle conflict points.
· The low vehicle speeds associated with modern roundabouts allow drivers more
time to react to potential conflicts. Events play out over a longer time, giving
intersection users more time to perceive, think and react to avoid a crash.
· The similar speeds of most vehicles traveling through a roundabout reduces crash
severity compared to a conventional intersection.
3. Influence on user behavior
This section examines the influence of intersection type on user behavior, one of the
major determinants of safe operation.
Modern low-speed roundabout design forces drivers to slow down and pay attention. In
contrast, a signalized intersection allows drivers to pass through the intersection at
speed without so much as glancing to either side to check for cross traffic even though
there is no physical barrier to prevent cross traffic from impacting in a potentially lethal T-
bone crash. Worse, the green-yellow-red ball sequence tempts drivers to speed up to
try to beat the red signal, rather than slow down, the exact opposite of safe behavior.
Pedestrians tend to become impatient and not wait for the pedestrian crossing signal.
Many pedestrians don't bother to even press the pedestrian button, preferring to attempt
crossing multiple lanes of high-speed traffic at the first apparent opportunity. In contrast,
a roundabout presents frequent opportunities for pedestrians to cross safely during gaps
in slow-moving traffic. The crossing distance is shorter, and safe gaps are easier to
judge in slow-moving traffic.
4. Impact'on crash frequency
This section applies a methodology for determining the impact the planned roundabout
conversions will have on crash rates. The first step is to obtain recent data on the crash
history.
The most recent 36 month history of police crash reports for the six intersections was
obtained from the Pine lias County Crash Data Center at the Pinellas County
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).52 The Crash Center also provides a
summary sheet for each crash which includes a schematic depiction of the crash; those
sheets are found in APPENDIX B.
Although crash prediction models have been developed for signalized intersections, no
such models exist yet for U.S. roundabouts and driver behavior.53 There are several
alternate methodologies to predict post-conversion crash rates from the pre-conversion
crash history. One approach is to apply the empirically researched safety performance
prediction model derived in the United Kingdom. However the model is UK-based and
not necessarily applicable to drivers, driving conditions, or crash reporting procedures in
the United States. In addition, this methodology does not take into account the specific
52 While not necessarily 100% accurate, this is the best data available.
63 Roundabouts: An Informative Guide, p. 122
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 35 of 105
~,
j
")
:1'
]:]1'11:
..
,
,
I
,
-")
:.
J
',~
:::"::'.
')
,I
,,)
'-I
.,.,,;,...J
;1'"
t;....../c.
i
,)
I
I
I
,
I
individual characteristics of the crashes that have actually occurred at the intersections
in question.
An alternate methodology is to apply crash rates obtained elsewhere, such as from large
foreign studies or small domestic studies, to the crash history. These rates are available
for both total crashes and injury crashes. This methodology is convenient because it
involves simply applying gross crash rates to gross crash totals, but, again, does not
take into account the nature of the specific crashes in the crash history nor the crash
reduction features of the geometry of modern roundabouts. In addition, crash rates
taken from foreign studies may not apply in the United States, and crash rates from
domestic studies may be based on sample sizes too small to be reliable or confounded
with data from multiple-lane roundabouts.
The methodology employed for the present study involves examining the individual
police reports for each of the crashes in the crash history and making a determination as
to whether and how each crash would have been affected by the geometry of the
planned modern roundabouts. The crashes were classified into seven categories
according to how they would have been affected by a low-speed modern roundabout.
The table below gives the past three years of crash history, divided into the seven
categories.
Table 8, Crash History (36 months)
Collision Category
Backing Out of Out of
Right- Left- Vehicle Side- Control Control
Angle Turn (drivewav) Rear End swioe #1 #2 Total
18 5 4 7 3 1 1 39
The table above shows a total of 39 reported crashes have occurred at the six
intersections in the past 3 years, or more than one reported crash a month.
Because of the geometric nature of the roundabouts, it is observed that most of the
collisions that are identified in the crash history are preventable for the following
reasons:
. Right-angle and left-turn crashes cannot occur in roundabouts because those
conflicts don't exist in the design of roundabouts, so those 23 crashes can be
prevented.
. In the low-speed environment of a low-speed modern roundabout, the driveway
crashes and rear-end crashes are unlikely to occur. A conservative 50%
reduction of these crashes is assumed.
. The three sideswipe crashes would likely not have occurred because of the
geometry of a 1-lane roundabout. A conservative 50% reduction of these
crashes is assumed.
J
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in .doc
Page 36 of 105
I
,
)f
t
, '1
(,I
/~
o/"",.v.
J
I
I
i
:'1
~
~I
i
')
I
')
;1
,,,j
'J
:-
\
.
',)
'I
t!J
..
.
.
,
,f(
~
I
il
· The out of control crash #1 is unlikely due to the low-speed corridor created by
the series of six planned roundabouts and the planned medians along Cleveland.
A conservative 50% reduction of these crashes is assumed.
· The out of control crash #2 was a case in which a DUI driver approaching the
intersection passed another vehicle, lost control of his vehicle and crashed into a
tree on the left side of the street. A single roundabout ahead would by itself
prevent most drivers from attempting a pass but not necessarily an alcohol-
impaired driver, but because the planned project creates an entire low-speed
corridor with six successive roundabouts and the roundabout splitter islands
extend into a series of medians it is not possible to attempt to pass, let alone
crash into a tree on the other side of the street, so this crash is considered
preventable.
Applying the above determinations to the crash history results in the table below.
Table 9, Crashes That Typically Would be Prevented by a Modern Roundabout (36 mo.)
Collision Category
Backing Out of Out of
Right- Left- Vehicle Rear Side- Control Control
Angle Turn (driveway) End swipe #1 #2
Crash history 18 5 4 7 3 1 1
Reduction 100% 100% 50% 50% 100% 50% 100%
Eliminated 18 5 2 3.5 3 .5 1
crashes
The table above shows the likely reduction in crashes had these six intersections been
modern roundabouts.
As is the case in almost ever state, the police crash reports were coded with the KABCO
injury scale to classify crash victims as:
K - Killed
A - Incapacitating injury
B - Non-incapacitating injury
C - Possible injuries
o - No apparent injuries (property damage only, or PD~)
Note that while the accuracy of KABCO police reporting is not 100% reliable for reporting
internal injuries, the reliability for reporting fatalities is virtually perfect.
Summing the injury data from the prevented crashes gives the table below.
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 37 of 105
11
.,.._;'-i':V
iI
>i^
><>;i
o
I
I
i"
""
1,_-
,,~
~
..-
j
i
"~
.'l;~
I
~I
)
::1
"J
I
fi
"
j
)
I
'j
,
Table 10. Injuries Associated with the Prevented Crashes (36 months)
K A B C 0
Incapacitating Non-incapacitating Possible No Apparent
Fatalities Injuries Injuries Injuries Injuries (PDO)
2 0 8.5 5.5 19
The table above shows the injuries associated with the crashes that typically would be
reduced had the six intersections been modern roundabouts. This table will be referred
to later under Cost Impacts in the section on Cost of Crashes (p.80).
Note that the reduction in injuries enumerated above is due purely to crashes being
prevented; this analysis does not factor in any reduction in the severity of the crashes
that do occur at low-speed modern roundabouts. However, there are several reasons
why severity of the crashes that do occur is also $ignificantly reduced at modern
roundabouts, as discussed in the next section below.
5. Impact on crash severity
The two primary factors determining the severity of a crash are the speed and the angle
of impact.
a) Speed
Speed is a large determinant of crash severity because the energy of a vehicle
increases with the square of the speed. In other words, a vehicle traveling 20 MPH
miles per hour has not twice the energy it does at 10 MPH but rather has four times
as much energy, or two squared (22 = 4).
The exponential increase produces very large energy levels even at moderate
speeds. A vehicle going 40 MPH has sixteen (42=16) times the energy as it does at
10 MPH.
The more energy to be dissipated, the greater the damage. This same exponential
relationship is seen in the graph of Speed v. Pedestrian Fatality Rate (p. 46) and the
graph of Impact Speed v. Pedestrian Injury (p. 47) discussed under Safety Impacts in
the section on Non-Motorized 'Users (p. 45).
Because energy increases exponentially with speed, the low speeds achievable with
low-speed modern roundabout design are critical reason for safety.
The geometric constraints that modern roundabouts impose on entering vehicles
forces them to slow down and keeps them slowed.64 At Clearwater's four 1-lane
modern roundabouts, typical circulating speeds are 11-13 MPH and typical speeds at
the crosswalks are 14-16 MPH. At these low speeds, vehicles have only a small
fraction of the energy they would at higher speeds typical of conventional cross
intersections.
64 Discussed in the section on Why Roundabouts Are Safer (p. 33)
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in ,doc
Page 38 of 105
'"I
"1\
f
/ '1
j
'I'"
'."
I
-"'I''''
<;<
,
"i_.
~
':1
c,
j
I
},
,J
,I
.]
''''''''0;'./
"I
'I
j
I
I
j
)
I
'?
-
b) Angle of impact
The angle of impact is also a major determinant of crash severity. Head-on crashes
of two vehicles are typically lethal for all occupants because the closing speed is the
sum of the two vehicle speeds.
T -bone crashes are typically lethal for occupants of the side-im'pacted vehicle
because vehicles are subject to deformation in the side, the impacting vehicle
intrudes into the passenger compartment and strikes occupants, and humans do not
tolerate blows to the side of the head well.
Head-on and side-impact (T-bone) crashes cannot occur at modern roundabouts
because the geometry of the roundabout does not include paths that cross at those
angles, as described earlier in the discussion of conflict points under Safety Impacts
in the section on Why Modern Roundabouts are Safer (p. 33).
Humans do not tolerate blows to the side of the head well, injuries that are common
in side-impact crashes. Blows to the side of the head caused by side-impact crashes
are considered such a national problem that the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHST A) has recently announced a Notice of Proposed Rule Making
(NPRM) that would substantially upgrade the agency's side impact protection
standard.65
The lower the angle of impact, the less severe the crash, especially when vehicles
are traveling approximately the same speed. Merging crashes are low-angle
collisions. When the speed of the merging vehicles is quite low, the energy of the
crash is as well.
As described earlier in the section discussing conflict points under Why Roundabouts
are Safer (p. 33), the two ways vehicle paths cross at a modern roundabout are as
low-speed merge collisions, and rear-end collisions. The merge collisions occur at a
very low angle of impact, and the rear-end collisions at the lowest possible angle of
impact, zero degrees.
Because the geometry of modern roundabouts reduces both the speed and angle of
impact and therefore the energy of impact, the collisions that do occur are typically much
less severe than at cross intersections and consequently the injuries are typically much
less severe.
B. Older Users
This section examines the statistics that reveal the extent to which older users are at risk as
drivers, the performance profile of older users, Clearwater's demographics, and the
implications for intersection design.
1. Older users at risk
65 Docket No. NHTSA-2004-17694
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in ,doc
Page 39 of 105
I'll
I ~.
.f"":':'''''.-
/.
/,
I
I
I
."''')
I
This section examines the performance profile of older users and the implications for
intersection design. '
Older users are at heightened risk, partly due to increasing fragility with age. Older
adults are in the highest risk category for crashes in terms of crashes per number of
miles driven.66
Using NHSTA data in the Federal Accident Reporting system (FARS), the figure below
shows the rate of involvement in fatal crashes versus the age of the driver.
Figure 7. Fatal Crash Involvement by Age
~
~..,
.
..~.
,u')
I
).
.}
...
"',,;.,,';'"
I
::,.
..J
I
:..)
I.
\1:,__,___
I
1
'\
f
.~
,
[ Insert FARS bathtub graph of age v, fatality rate per 100 M miles]
Beginning at age 60, involvement in fatal crashes rises sharply.
The bathtub-shaped line in the figure above shows that traffic fatality rates are fairly flat
from early adulthood through middle age until a discontinuity at the 55-59 age group,
when there is a sharp increase followed by a very steep rise beginning at the 70-74 age
group.
And older roadway users are at increasing risk. Between 1991 and 2001 the number of
Americans aged 70 and older killed in traffic crashes increased by 27 percent and
crashes involving at least one older driver increased 20 percent. 67
2. Older users at intersections
Older users are especially at risk at intersections. A 2001 FHWA report states that "The
single greatest concern in accommodating older road users, both drivers and
pedestrians, is the ability of these persons to negotiate intersections safely."
Thirty-eight percent of pedestrian deaths among people aged 65 and older in 1998
occurred at intersections. For drivers 80 years of age and older, about half of fatal
crashes occur at intersections, compared with 23% or less for drivers up to 50 years of
age. In other words, older drivers are about twice as likely to be killed while driving
through an intersection than younger drivers.68
A current FHWA Brief states that "Elderly drivers do not deal with complex traffic
situations as well as younger drivers do, which is particularly evident in multiple-vehicle
66 Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older Drivers and Pedestrians, L. Staplin, et. aI.,
October 2001, FHWA publication FHWA-RD-01-051
67 Designing Roadways to Safely Accommodate the Increasingly Mobile Older Driver, The Road
Information Program, July 2003
68 Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older Drivers and Pedestrians, L. Staplin, et. aI.,
October 2001, FHWA Report No. FHWA-RD-01-051
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 40 of 105
j
j
~
"
a
I
/,",)
I
,"""\
~:::::;:i:)'
l
I
i
}
I
\
;
I
,,,,,j
I
'I
}
..f
I~
'I.
,
.ow'
I
j
I
1
,
crashes at intersections. People 56 years and older have a higher probability of causing
a fatal crash at an intersection, and about one-half of these fatal crashes involved drivers
who were 80 years and older. ,,69
A current FHWA Brief states that "Drivers 85 years of age and older are more than 10
times as likely as drivers in the 40-49 age group to have multi-vehicle intersection
crashes.,,70
3. Demographics of older users
The increase in older drivers killed in traffic crashes is occurring as older Americans form
a greater portion of the overall population. The segment of the population aged 65 and
older grew nearly twice as fast as the total population between. 1990 and 2000, and by
2020 one in five people will be aged 65 or older. 71
In addition, older Americans are more mobile than ever, with the number of licensed
drivers aged 70 and older increasing ,32 percent from 1991 to 2001. Since 1995 their
level of driving as measured in minutes per day increased 28 percent and the number of
miles driven per day increased 20 percent.72
The size of the older generation is projected to double over the next 30 years, and
Americans aged 85 and older are the fastest growing part of the population. Florida
leads the nation in the proportion of its population aged 65 and over?3 And in 2001,
Florida led the nation in the number of older drivers killed in traffic crashes?4
Local demographics make the user profiles presented above especially relevant to
intersection design in Clearwater. As shown in the table below, Florida has a higher
proportion of population aged 65 and older than does the nation and Clearwater's
proportion is higher yet.
Table 11. Age Demographics75
Jurisdiction Aged 65+ Compared to Nation
United States 12.4 % 1.0x
S1. Petersburg 17.4 % 1.4x
Florida 17.6% 1.4x
Clearwater 21.5% 1.7x
69 The National Intersection Safety Problem, FHWA, April 2004
70 The National Intersection Safety Problem, FHWA Brief, April 2004
71 Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older Drivers and Pedestrians, L. Staplin, et. aI.,
October 2001, FHWA publication FHWA-RD-01-051
72 Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older Drivers and Pedestrians, L. Staplin, et. aI.,
October 2001, FHWA publication FHWA-RD-01-051
73 Designing Roadways to Safely Accommodate the Increasingly Mobile Older Driver, The Road
Information Program, July 2003
74 Designing Roadways to Safely Accommodate the Increasingly Mobile Older Driver, The Road
Information Program, July 2003
75 2000 Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in ,doc
Page 41 of 105
"I
"':1
..
J
I~^\
I
.
I
I
OJ
;J
""
.1
.,..,~
'}
'.
:':"
,
'.1'
,,,. .
I
,I
j
""^'.'.'j
~}
I
...""}
:.
I
I
I
I
I
)
~
'7
Pinellas Countv 22.5% 1.8x
Dunedin 29.9% 2.4x
Clearwater Beach 31,9% 2.6x
The table above shows that 21.5% of Clearwater citizens are aged 65 and older, a figure
1.7 times greater than the nation generally. Florida and Pinellas County also have a
higher proportion of older citizens than the nation as a whole, and nearby Dunedin has
almost two and a half times as many 65+ citizens proportionally.
In addition to the population over sixty-five, sixteen percent of Clearwater's population is
too young to drive (<16)/6 for a combined fraction of 37.5%-more than a third of the
population that is ,not in the prime of driving life.
Some areas of Clearwater have much higher proportions of older persons. The
population of Clearwater Beach is 31.9% aged 65 and older77, or 2.6 times the national
figure. Interestingly, the residents and business owners of Clearwater Beach became
the first citizen group in Clearwater to ask for a modern roundabout when the Beach
Association made a formal request to the Clearwater City Commission on-and backed
it up with a donation of $3,000 to encourage the City to follow through.
Beach residents even threw a street party to celebrate the day their new roundabout
opened, a rarity for any intersection project. That roundabout, the Acacia Roundabout
on North Clearwater Beach, has been in operation since December of 2000 with no
problems. The photographs below show the Acacia Roundabout and some of the street
partiers celebrating the opening.
Figure 8. Acacia Roundabout on North Clearwater Beach
[ Insert aerial photo] [ Insert photo showing older [ Insert photo of partiers group
partiers and wheelchair] on splitter island ]
Looking South Beach Residents Celebrating Opening Day by Throwing a Street
Party
As described later in the section on Public Acceptance (p. 72), the Clearwater Beach
citizen's request has subsequently been followed by requests from seven other
Clearwater citizen groups for roundabouts in their neighborhoods, including Skycrest
residents.
4. Performance profile of older users
This section examines the performance profile or "operating characteristics" of older
users.
76 2000 Census, U.S, Bureau of the Census
77 2000 Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 42 of 105
:1
;j
"""
~
/1
i
;.
I
I
I
:')
~
.
"'"
"
i
I
)
"",;V"
.
I
:I
)
I
'iI
.
~tt\#
I
j
I
,)
~
The AASHTO Green Book states that "An appreciation of driver performance is essential
to proper highway design and operation.,,78 The same could be said of all transportation
corridor users, including users of local streets such as Cleveland Street.
Older persons differ from their younger selves in man~ ways that bear on roadway
design for both driver and pedestrian usability, including:7
· Diminished acuity, the ability to discriminate high-contrast features
· Yellowing of the eyes' lenses and increased density, which makes seeing in low light
conditions more difficult
· Diminished contrast sensitivity, which makes it harder to distinguish an object from
its background. Additionally, persons over 60 have an increasing risk for developing
cataracts and other conditions that reduce contrast sensitivity.
· Increased sensitivity to glare, which diminishes the ability to see in the presence of
oncoming headlights, at night, or in the presence of sun glare in the daytime. Glare
introduces stray light into the yes; it reduces the contrast of important safety targets.
· Slower dark adaptation, which diminished the ability to see targets when moving
from areas of light to dark
· Loss of limb strength, flexibility, sensitivity and range of motion, needed for tasks
such as rapidly shifting the right foot from the accelerator pedal to the brake pedal or
arm movements to steer around obstacles
Of particular relevance to safely negotiating intersections are these changes that come
with age:80
· Narrowing of the visual field, which diminishes the ability to see objects in the
periphery, such as signs, signals, vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists
· Restricting of the area of visual attention, which diminishes the ability to see
potential conflicts in the periphery and to discriminate relevant from irrelevant
information. Both abilities are necessary for responding quickly and appropriately to
a changing traffic scene. Restrictions in the area of visual attention can lead to
"looked but didn't see" crashes, where a stimuli can be detected, but cannot be
recognized and understood sufficiently to permit a timely response.
· Decreased motion sensitivity, which diminishes the ability to accurately estimate
closing speeds and distances and is needed for judging gaps to safely perform left
78 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, p.42, American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, 1994
79 Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older Drivers and Pedestrians, L. Staplin, et. aI.,
October 2001, FHW A publication FHW A-RD-01-051
80 Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older Drivers and Pedestrians, L. Staplin, et. aI.,
October 2001, FHW A publication FHW A-RD-01-051
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 43 01'105
I
1
p
.
I
t
,
I
l
.,
',I
,
,
'1
j
I
~ .l
~~""",
I
)
~'I
i
I
e
I,;,'
'0-'"
.
I
\
I'
)
turns at conventional cross intersections with oncoming traffic or to cross an
intersecting traffic stream
. Decline in selective attention, the ability to filter out less critical information and
continuously re-focus on the most critical information, such as detecting a lane-use
restricted message on an approach to a busy intersection or detecting a pedestrian
crossing while watching oncoming traffic to locate a safe gap
. Decline in divided attention, the ability to perform multiple tasks simultaneously and
process information from multiple sources
. Decline in perception-reaction time (PRT), the time required to perceive a situation,
evaluate. it, decide what response is appropriate and make a vehicle control action
such as steering or braking. PRT increases disproportionately for older motorists
with increase in complexity of the driving situation.
. Decline in working memory, the ability to store, manipulate and retrieve information
for later use while driving ,
. Loss of head, neck and trunk flexibility, needed to rapidly glance in each direction
from which a vehicle conflict might be expected when approaching an intersection
According to the AASHTO Green Book, all "Drivers often commit errors when they have
to perform several highly complex tasks at the same time under extreme time pressure."
"Speed reduces the visual field, restricts the peripheral vision, and limits the time
available to receive and process information.,,81 Older drivers are even less able to
perform flawlessly under these circumstances.
In short, older persons need reduced demands to accurately judge gaps in fast
oncoming traffic. They need less complicated situations to interpret than when they
were younger. They need more time to perceive and evaluate situations, more time to
make decisions, and more time to take action. They need less demands on their ability
to quickly perform wide visual scans of rapidly changing situations. All of these needs
are helped by lower traffic speed and less complexity, two design features of modern
roundabouts. Reduced demands, reduced complexity and more time to react benefit all
intersection users.
5. Impact on older users
The AASHTO Green Book states that "There is agreement that elderly road users
require mobility. and that they should be accommodated by the highway's design and
operational characteristics to the greatest extent practicable. Thus, designers and
engineers should be aware of the problems and requirements of the elderly, and
consider applying app~cable measures to aid their performance. ,,82
81 AASHTO Green Book, 1994, pp. 46-47.
82 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and streets, p.42. American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials. 1994
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in .doc
Page 44 of 105
"
,;1
~
,
.
~
J
I
')
~I
' )
:.
,
I
-
-
.,>;..,/,i
'-
".:;;;Yf.
J
.
~
I
-;
I~.~
. l
I)
<':'<lJ..",\,
:J
These findings reinforce a long-standing recognition that driving situations involving
complex speed-distance judgments under time constraints-the typical scenario for
intersection operations-are more problematic for older drivers than for their younger
counterparts. Other studies within the large body of evidence showing dramatic
increases in intersection crash involvements as driver age increases have associated
specific crash types and vehicle movements with particular age groups.
By 2020 the 65 and older age group will grow to roughly one-fifth of the population of
driving age in the United States. In effect, if design is controlled by even 85th percentile
performance requirements, the "design driver" of the early 21 st century will be an
individual over the age of 65.83 This demographic fact has profound implications for
intersection design.
The FHWA roundabout Informational Guide states that "Roundabouts designed for low,
consistent speeds cater to the preferences of older drivers: slower speeds; time to
make decisions, act, and react; uncomplicated situations to interpret; simple decision-
making; a reduced need to look over one's shoulder; a reduced need to judge closing
speeds of fast traffic accurately; and a reduced need to judge gaps in fast traffic
accurately."84
C. Non-motorized Users
This section examines the performance profiles, or "operating characteristics," of several
categories of non-motorized intersection users and the implications for intersection design,
1, ,Pedestrians
The AASHTO Green Book states that "A pedestrian is any person afoot, and
involvement of pedestrians in traffic is a major consideration in highway planning and
design. Pedestrians are a part of every roadway environment, and attention must be
paid to their presence in rural as well as urban areas.,,85
A 2002 study noted that in the United States definitive statistics are lacking ,for
pedestrian safety at roundabouts, although the study also noted an Australian study and
a Scandinavian study found that roundabouts are safe for pedestrians. The research
applied three alternative approaches86 to assess pedestrian safety at roundabouts and
found "the results suggest roundabouts are safe with respect to pedestrians."8?
Since the arrival of modern roundabouts in the United States in the mid-nineties, some
pedestrian data has accrued. The Montpelier, Vermont 1-lane modern roundabout has
been in operation for 8.5 years with one non-injury pedestrian crash and several
83 Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older Drivers and Pedestrians, L. Staplin, et. aI.,
October 2001, FHWA Report No, FHWA-RD-01-051
,84 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, p. 32.
85 AASHTO Green Book, 1994, p. 110
86 Case study analysis, statistical analysis, and simulation analysis
87 The Effects of Roundabouts on Pedestrian Safety, John Stone, et. aI., The Southeastern Transportation
Center, University of Tennessee - Knoxville, August, 2002
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in .doc
Page 45 of 105
-,
.'
'I
,,,~
:1
Q
I
,
,<:)/.:0'
;1:'"
~
..
f~
,71
/'1
I
"p
~.
j
)
I
""",.,.".:-~
C~d~j
-
~,
.
;,)
t
sa
'<<f?
I
~
')
I
I
,)
pedestrian struck at 30 MPH is eight times more likely to die than at 20 MPH, and
sixteen times more likely if struck at 40 MPH.
A 1998 study (not included in the NHST A study) examined the relationship between
pedestrian injuries and vehicle speed.94 The figure below depicts the study findings.
Figure 10. Impact Speed v. Pedestrian Injury
[ Insert graph of Impact Speed v, Pedestrian Injury ]
1998 Transportation Research Board study (TRB 1636)
The shape of the graph in the figure above is very similar to the two graphs in the
preceding figure, again demonstrating that even moderate vehicle speeds of 20-30 MPH
are very dangerous for pedestrians.
Because the six roundabouts are designed for vehicle speeds well below 20 MPH, the
fatality and injury rate should be low for pedestrians struck by vehicles.
The speed limit on Cleveland Street is 35 MPH. A recent traffic study95 on Cleveland at
Skycrest Elementary School found that 150 vehicles per day exceed 44 MPH.
The table below compares typical motor' vehicle speeds at the existing intersections
versus the replacement modern roundabouts.
Table 12. Typical Vehicle Speeds (MPH)
Intersection with Existing Conventional Modern Roundabouts96
Cleveland Street Cross Intersections
(through movements) Circulatina At Crosswalks
Lake Av 30-45+ 11-13 14-20
Duncan Av 30-45+ 11-13 14-20
Saturn Av 30-45+ 11-13 14-20
Corona Av 30-45+ 11-13 14-20
Meteor Av 30-45+ 11-13 14-20
Aurora Av 30-45+ 11-13 14-20
94 Method for Estimating Effect of Traffic Volume and Speed on Pedestrian Safety for
Residential Streets, Davis, Gary, Transportation Research Record 1636, 1998, pp. 110-115.
95 Traffic study by Adams Traffic, March 25, 2004
96 Roundabout speeds given in this table are typical, not the highest speeds attainable, and are based on
typical speeds observed at Clearwater's four existing 1-lane modern roundabouts and similar low-speed
modern roundabouts elsewhere. Even in a modern sports car, it's difficult to exceed 20 MPH at the
crosswalks at Clearwater's existing four 1-lane roundabouts.
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in .doc
Page 47 of 105
)1
\
J
J
I
~
,
~
~
')
,
~J
wi
"~~}
I
.')
I
)
~,
J
i
I)
I
I
;I
i
\
-,
j
Roundabouts have fewer pedestrian/vehicle conflict points in comparison to
conventional cross intersections. The figure below compares the pedestrian/vehicle
conflicts in the two intersection configurations.
Figure 12. Pedestrian/vehicle Conflict Points 100
Conventional Cross Intersection Roundabout
[ Insert diagram of conventional intersection with [Insert diagram of roundabout with
pedestrian/vehicle conflict points. ] pedestrian /vehicle conflict points. ]
24 Pedestrian/vehicle conflict points. 8 Pedestrian/vehicle conflict points. The
Driven~ are looking left. conflicts where drivers are looking left while
turning right don't exist.
The figure above shows that converting a conventional cross intersection to a modern
roundabout reduces the number of pedestrian/vehicle conflicts from 24 to 8, a 2/3 or
67% reduction.
The table below compares the number of pedestrian/vehicle conflict points for the
existing intersections versus the planned replacement roundabouts.
Table 13. PedestrianNehicle Conflict Points
Intersection with Planned
Cleveland S1. Existing Intersections Roundabouts Impact
Lake Av 24 8 -16
Duncan Av 24 8 -16
Saturn Av 24 8 -16
Corona Av 24 8 -16
Meteor Av 24 8 -16
Aurora Av 24 8 -16
Totals 144 48 - 96
The table above shows the six planned roundabouts will eliminate 96 pedestrian/vehicle
conflict points.
The shape of the roundabout is significant, too, because pedestrians cross in front of
vehicles while the driver is still looking forward. Because of the splitter islands,
pedestrians have much less exposure at a roundabout, where they must cross only one
direction of traffic at a time, and their distance and time exposure to cross only one lane
is shorter than crossing two lanes of opposite flow as they must at a conventional cross
intersection.
100 <Name of Paper>, Wallwork, Michael, PE, <date>
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in ,doc
Page 49 of 105
I
,:1
f
i,J
.
~
~
,
g>"
-
~
"1
'"
~I
I
,J
I
I
I
)
.
,I
i
f!)
I
I
.-/
I
')
I
)
The table below compares two measures of pedestrian exposure at the existing
intersections versus the planned replacement roundabouts.
Table 14. Pedestrian Exposure
Inter- Number of Contiguous Lanes Number of Directions of traffic
section Pedestrians Must Cross Pedestrians Must Cross at Once
Approach Exist- Round- Exist- Round-
Ing About Imoact Ino About Impact
E 3 1 - 2/3 2 1 -%
W 3 1 - 2/3 2 1 -%
N 2 1 -% 2 1 -%
S 2 1 -% 2 1 -%
The table above shows a significant reduction in the number of contiguous lanes
pedestrians must cross to get across the street at each approach to the intersections.
Even more significant is that the splitter islands eliminate having to cross opposing
directions of traffic at once.
2. Older pedestrians
The performance profile or "operating characteristics" of older users has already been
examined earlier in the section Performance Profile of Older Users (p. 42). This section
examines specifically older users who are pedestrians.
Crossing distance is especially important for older pedestrians, who walk more slowly
and thus are exposed to traffic for longer periods of time.
The table below compares the existing intersections versus the planned roundabouts for
two measures of pedestrian exposure.
Table 15. Pedestrian Exposure
Inter- Pedestrian Crossing Distance (typical) Older Pedestrian Crossing Time (sec.)
section @ 2.8 ftIsec* (typical)
Approach Exist - Round- Exist- Round-
Ino About Imoact Ino About Impact
E 40' 14' -26 112 39 -73
W 40' 14' -26 112 39 -73
N 28' 14' -14 78 39 -39
S 28' 14' -14 78 39 -39
* Older Driver Highway Design Handbook, FHWA
The table above shows that the pedestrian exposure distance and exposure time are
reduced about two-thirds at the east and west legs and reduced by half at the north and
south legs.
Older pedestrians are exposed for 73 fewer seconds at the east and west legs and 39
fewer seconds at the north and south legs. Clearwater has 1.7 times the national
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 50 of 105
'1
f
)
;J.
I
D
,
,
~I
-;
,
)'
'I
:~
I
.
)
J
,
.,
i
')
.;;!J
,
I
..
I
:c.
I
I
proportion of population aged 65 and older, as discussed earlier in the section on
Demographics of Older Users (p. 41).
3. Children
This section examines the performance profile or "operating characteristics" of
pedestrians who are children.
A current FHWA report states that "Almost one-forth (23 percent) of children between
the ages of five and nine years who were killed in traffic crashes were pedestrians.,,101
Compared to adults, children have a narrower visual field, less ability to isolate sounds
and determine the direction of approaching traffic by auditory cues, and less ability to
judge closure speed. Children cannot understand complex situations or focus on
multiple thoughts at once. They have a drive for constant motion and once in motion,
have a compulsion to complete the motion. They are more prone to fearlessness and
less able to perceive risk. Children assume adults will assure their safety; they live in a
self-centered world where fantasy is mixed with reality.102
In Clearwater, 16% of the population is younger than 16, as mentioned earlier in the
section on Demographics of Older Users (p. 41).
Because of their low-speed, uncomplicated design, one-lane modern roundabouts can
be significantly easier for children to use safely and significantly more amenable to the
drivers who must see and avoid them, than cross intersections.
Of particular interest are the safety impacts for schoolchildren walking to school,
because the roundabout planned for the corner of Corona & Cleveland is on the
southeast corner of the Skycrest Elementary School property, as discussed earlier under
Traffic Impacts in the section on Skycrest Elementary School (p. 24).
A 2003 study for the New York DOT reported on a project in Howard, Wisconsin, where
installation of two roundabouts near an elementary school and a middle school calmed
traffic sufficiently that students were allowed to resume walking and biking to school.103
Letters from the principal and sheriff's office for this school are found in APPENDIX L.
The one-lane modern roundabout in Clearwater in front of John F. Kennedy Middle
School has been in operation for one full school year with no reported safety problems.
101 The National Intersection Safety Problem, FHW A, April 2004
102 Trail Intersection Guidelines, Wayne E. Pein, University of North Carolina Safety Research Center,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Prepared for the State Safety Office, Florida Department of Transportation
103 Operational and Safety Peiformance of Modem Roundabouts and Other Intersections Types,
Eisenman, S., Josselyn, J., List, G., and Persaud, B., Project NYSDOT-C-01-47, October 2003
(unpublished draft reported in a draft chapter of the ITE Intersection Design Safety Toolbox, Chapter 2,
Designing and Operating Safer Roundabouts, Jacquemart, Georges
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 51 of 105
')
/'\
:-
,i
~'I
~Y
I
"
0"1'
"
J
'>j
i#
;t
~
)
)1
II
>
)1
I
4. Bicyclists and skaters
Bicyclists and skaters (especially novice skaters) have yet other user profiles 104 and
present further challenges to intersection design. Both have a strong motivation to keep
moving to conserve their kinetic energy, Novice skaters are on the edge of control,
including adults just learning to skate on roller-blade skates. Like pedestrians, bicyclists,
skaters and especially wheelchair users are much less noticeable to drivers.
Because of their low-speed, uncomplicated design, one-lane modern roundabouts can
be significantly easier for bicyclists and skaters to use safely and significantly more
amenable to the drivers who must see and avoid them, than cross intersections.
5. Mobility impaired users
This section examines the challenges mobility impaired users must face at intersections
and the impacts for them of converting the six existing cross intersections to low-speed
modern roundabouts,
The AASHTO Green Books states: "For the designer to adequately provide for the
handicapped pedestrian, he must be aware of the range of impairments to expect so that
the design can provide for them. In this way the mobility of this sector of our society may
be greatly enhanced.,,105
The AASHTO Green Book states that "For the designer to adequately provide for the
handicapped pedestrian, he must be aware of the range of impairments to expect so that
the design can provide for them. In this way the mobility of this sector of our society may
be greatly enhanced. "106
The AASHTO Green Book states that "Ambulation difficulties range from persons who
walk unassisted but with difficulty, to persons who require aid from braces, canes, or
crutches, to persons confined to a wheelchair. ,,107
Because of their low-speed, uncomplicated design, one-lane modern roundabouts can
be significantly easier for wheelchair and cane users to use safely and significantly more
amenable to the drivers who must see and avoid them, than cross intersections.
6. Visually impaired users
This section examines the challenges visually impair users at intersections and the
impacts for them of converting the six existing cross intersections to low-speed modern
roundabouts.
The AASHTO Green Book states that "Pedestrians with very limited vision require
special consideration. Intersections are the major threat to their safety,,,108
104 Trail Intersection Guidelines, Wayne E. Pein, University of North Carolina Safety Research Center,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Prepared for the State Safety Office, Florida Department of Transportation
105 AASHTO Green Book, 1994, p._
106 AASHTO Green Book, 1994, p, 121
107 AASHTO Green Book, 1994, p. 121
108 AASHTO Green Book, 1994, p. 121
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in .doc
Page 52 of 105
'I
j
I
I
D
,
,
".)if
-.
.
)
,
J
~.
,,,I
)
q'
...""...}
I
j
I
J
I
~
I
)
I
';
?
,
Signalized intersections are problematic for pedestrians who cannot see or who cannot
see well. A 2000 survey queried orientation and mobility specialists regarding the
problems students with visual impairments were experiencing at signalized intersections.
98% of respondents indicated that their students sometimes had difficulty knowing when
to cross; 97% indicated students sometimes had difficultly aligning to cross the street;
and 94% indicated students sometimes experienced difficulty using pushbuttons.
Much of the difficulties students experienced arose from confusing, masked or missing
aural cues that students needed in order to assess the intersection, to orient themselves
and for wayfinding. As vehicles become quieter, the challenge is greater. The report
concluded that "Increasing complexity of intersection design and signalization are
unquestionably decreasing the safety and independence of pedestrians who are visually
impaired. ,,109
Most of the safety, mobility and access advantages low-speed modern roundabouts offer
to non-motorized users generally and pedestrians in particular, would seem benefit
intersection users who cannot see well or at all. However, pedestrians with visual
impairment are a special case. The primary issue identified so far seems to stem from
lack of aural cues~r at least lack of the same cues available some of the time at
conventional cross intersections-coupled with the need to identify gaps in traffic.
At roundabouts as at all intersections, drivers are required to stop for pedestrians in the
crosswalks when present, just as they are required to stop for stop signs and red lights
when present. At all five of Clearwater's modern roundabouts drivers can be observed
stopping for pedestrians who are in or at the crosswalks and exchanging friendly waves
with pedestrians. Drivers are often observed stopping even before pedestrians have
arrived at the crosswalk. This civil driver behavior is attributed to the low vehicle speeds
and other factors and is generally not observed elsewhere in Clearwater, except on
Gulfview Avenue, where vehicle speeds are also low.
As with signalized intersections, the fact that quieter vehicles are gaining market share
increases the challenge. "The sound of the continuous flow of traffic in the roundabout
and on the roundabout approaches masks the audible cues used in orientation and
wayfinding so that gap identification cannot be accurate at all locations at all times."110
Designed and built back in 1999, Clearwater's two-lane roundabout incorporated many
features known at the time to be helpful to all non-motorized users, including persons
with impaired vision. The intersection handles as many as 58,000 motorized vehicles
per day, but is also used by as many as 8,000 non-motorized users per day of all sorts,
including pedestrians, bicyclists, skaters, older persons, children, handicapped persons,
tourists, families and infants in strollers, and it was an important design goal to make it
as friendly and comfortable as possible for non-motorized users.111
109 Addressing Barriers to Blind Pedestrians at Signalized Intersections, Billie Bentzen, Janet Barlow and
Lukas Franck, ITE Journal, September 2000
110 Roundabout Accessibility Summit, Draft Proceedings Version 2.0, Institute of Transportation
Engineers, October 29, 2002
111 Assessing the Clearwater Beach Roundabout, Ken Sides, PE, 70th Annual International Conference of
the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2000, Nashville, Tennessee
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 53 of 105
.
I
;.l.
"I
8
I
.,
dV"
I
:)
~
-
I
>>
I
')
~
'''<.:.i./
I
1
i
#).
~;::::..:-:::
~
fJ
I
\
I
)
I
)
,
The figure below gives quotations from independent blind-access researchers
commenting on the Clearwater Beach Entryway Roundabout.
Figure 13. Independent Researchers Comment on Clearwater's First Modern Roundabout
"We appreciate the commitment of the City of Clearwater to
provide an exemplary roundabout including features that
make it accessible to and usable by persons with
disabilities. The design includes a number of excellent
features, including separation of the pedestrian and
vehicular way and landscaping which prevents persons who
are blind from inadvertently crossing the streets entering the
roundabout at locations other than the crosswalks. "
__H__
Letter to the principal author from Lukas Franck, Chair,
Janet Barlow and Billie Louise Bentzen, Environmental
Access Committee, Association for the Education and
Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired, Division
Nine - Orientation and Mobility, July, .1999
.
"The greatest roundabout ever
built in the United states is on
Clearwater Beach, Florida,"
Roundabouts and Pedestrians
with Visual Disabilities: How
Can We Make Them Safer?, Lal
C. Wadwa, Ph.D., Head, Civil
and Environmental
Engineering, James Cook
University, Australia,
Transportation Research
Baord,82nd An(lual Meeting,
January 2003, Washington,
D.C.
Since designing and building the 2-lane roundabout commented upon above, the City of
Clearwater has designed and built four 1-lane roundabouts.
Persons with impaired vision must execute four tasks at modern roundabouts:112
· Locate the crosswalk
· Detect a safe gap in traffic
· Locate the splitter island refuge area
· Locate the correct walkway to either continue their path or locate the adjacent
crosswalk to cross the next leg of the roundabout
All of Clearwater's 1-lane roundabouts were designed to include several features helpful
to pedestrians who cannot see, as will the six planned roundabouts: curb-return ramps
are included because "curb-return ramps with returned edHes aligned with crosswalk
direction offer useful cues for establishing a line of travel", 1 3 and the at crosswalk cut
through the splitter islands will continues this guidance mid-way across the street,
leaving only about 14' of unguided crossing on either side. Consistency in the location of
112 Guide to Modern Roundabouts, PENNDOT Publication Number 414, Michael Baker, Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation, May 2001, p. 16
113 Pedestrian Access to Modern Roundabouts: Design and Operational Issues for Pedestrians who are
Blind, Bulletin, Federal Access Board
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 54 of 105
"'I
1
)
,",
<"
I
I
i
:)
,
I
,. )1I
I ",
!'t
"
I
, ')
~
,
I
~
'j
I
I'~~
~F"/-'.'--.
i
)
I
j
I
crosswalks and shape of splitter islands can make it easier to find the crosswalks. Each
crosswalk will be illuminated by a dedicated street light.
The technique of stamping concrete to create the required ADA-compliant truncated
domes detectable surface at the bottom of the pedestrian ramps has been found to be
highly problematic in terms of getting an acceptable consistency of surface, dome height
and concrete hardness,114 and there is no color contrast with the surrounding concrete.
A number of recent installations by others in the Tampa Bay area show inconsistent and
mostly poor results, and even when the domes are well formed they have shown a
tendency to chip off soon atter installation.
Seeking a superior solution, the City of Clearwater arranged for a vendor demonstration
of a prefabricated tile accepted exclusively by the City of San Francisco. The
demonstration showed that use of the tile product gives a consistent high quality
installation without demanding high skill on the part of the installer or inspector.
In addition, the tile product is a bright yellow color, easily seen and providing a strong
contrast with the surrounding concrete. Of the ten million visually impaired people in the
United States, only 1.3 million are legally blind and only an estimated 260,000 are totally
blind.115 Studies have show this tile product to provide superior aid116 for persons with
impaired vision. Research indicates that safety yellow is especially visible and is
strongly preferred by many people having low vision.117 These findings were confirmed
by Florida DOT research.118
The prefabricated tile product has another feature specially designed for persons who
cannot see: it produces a "hollow" sound detectable by a blind person using a long
cane, and was rated significantly higher than other tested products in this respect.119 All
in all; "By far the largest number of participants chose Armor Tile as particularly easy to
detect" based on both objective and subjective measures of detectability based on
surface texture, sound-on-cane-contact and visual contrast.120 ,
The figure below shows the prefabricated truncated dome tile demonstration installation
and the use of curb return ramps at the 1-lane modern roundabout at John F. Kennedy
Middle school in Clearwater.
114 Detectable Warnings: Synthesis of u.s. and International Practice, Billie Louise Bentzen, Ph,D., Janet
Barlow and Lee S. Tarbor, Accessible Design for the Blind, U.S. Access Board, 12 May 2000, p.78
115 E-mail communication from Janet M. Barlow, Certified Orientation and Mobility Specialist, May 19,
2004
116 XXXX - cite study
117 Detectable Warning Suifaces: Color, Contrast, and Reflectance, Billie Louise Bentzen, Ph.D., Tina L.
Nolin, Ph.D., Randolph D. Easten, Ph.D., Accessible Design for the Blind, U.S. Department of
Transportation, September 1994
118 A Florida DOT Field Evaluation of Tactile Warnings in Curb Ramps: Mobility Considerations for the
Blind and Visually Impaired, R.G. Hughes, Highway Research Center, University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill, 1995
119 Detectable Warnings Evaluation Services, Appendix C, Billie Louise Bentzen, Ph.D., and L.A. Myers,
Crain & Associates, Sacramento Regional Transit District, p. 11 '
120 Detectable Warnings Evaluation Services, Appendix C, Billie Louise Bentzen, Ph.D., and L.A. Myers,
Crain & Associates, Sacramento Regional Transit District, pp. 11, C-2
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in ,doc
Page 55 of 105
,
'I
, )
#1
fI\.
"
,
.
i
:)
~
!l
'I
)
I
0.>
I
""".~}
I
'I
j
'J
I
I",.,
).
E1
i
)
I
\
I
,j
Figure 14. Some Blind Access Features in Clearwater
[ Insert photo of curb return ramp at JFK Rbt [ Insert photo of Armor-tile demo installation]
]
Vendor demonstration of the Armor-tile
Curb return ramp at roundabout in front of prefabricated truncated dome product. 26 City
John F. Kennedy Middle School staff and personnel from other agencies
observed the installation, arranged by Citv staff.
The January 1998 organizing meeting of the ITE Committee on Accessible Intersections
for People who are Blind or Visually impaired identified the need for "more than
anecdotal information about difficulties that visually impaired persons experience at
signalized intersections." Research efforts are under way for roundabouts,121 too, and
121 The City of Clearwater has been present at the forefront of research into making roundabouts friendlier
for persons who cannot see. City staff, including the principal author, received the three authors of the
2000 ITE paper on June 24,1999, for an evening until midnight of discussing the design of the Clearwater
Beach Entryway Roundabout, including dinner at a restaurant with an overlooking view of the project
under construction. A follow up letter from the guests is quoted in Figure _'
In 2000, the principal author proposed a daylong technical conference devoted solely to a case study
presentation of the Clearwater Beach Entryway Roundabout and that the conference be held at the
Clearwater Beach Hilton, where attendees could observe the operation of the roundabout from their hotel
room balconies. The Transportation Industrial Alliance (TIA) agreed to present the conference and the
University of Florida T2/L TAP Center agreed to host it (Technology Transfer / Local Technology
Assistance Program, an FHWA program). The TIA is a public service program created to advance the
exchange of new, useful transportation technologies and end-user applications among America's local
agencies.
The T2 Center advertised the conference nationally, The conference was held September 20, 2000, and
drew attendees from as far away as California and Alaska, including several blind attendees and blind
access experts. City informally discussed with them ways roundabouts might be made friendlier for
persons who cannot see.
On November 20, 2000, the principal author of this impact study responded to a request e-mail from Dr.
Richard Long at the Department of Blind Rehabilitation at Western Michigan University (WMU) with an e-
mail identifying nine circular intersections in the Tampa Bay area and providing an evaluation of their
potential suitability for research Dr. Long's team was organizing under a grant from the National Institute
of Health (see Appendix -->, The note included this strong recommendation, "Of the nine candidates
above, I think by far the best for research purposes is the Acacia Roundabout ..,", At that time, the
Acacia Roundabout was a month from completion.
The WMU team did come to the Tampa Bay area and this impact study principal author spent a Saturday
assisting with the research trials in the field. [Insert B&W photo of researchers in rain] By then it was
already evident the Acacia Roundabout is very pedestrian friendly for sighted pedestrians. Clearwater's
only one-lane modern roundabout at the time, the Acacia Roundabout, offered the researchers a rare
opportunity to study a pedestrian-friendly, low-speed one-lane roundabout with typical circulating speeds
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in .doc
Page 56 of 105
I
j
''''')'
t,
";'
I
I
--\
<I
,J
~
'a
~'-"
<'i*
'",I!
<')
I
<)
~
I
",/
I
i
,J
I
I"A<
"
i
)
I
j
-
may ultimately yield additional design guidance to enhance the accessibility of low-
speed modern roundabouts for person who cannot see.
The 2000 study notes that many of the tasks required of a visually impaired person to
cross safely and independently at signalized intersections are easier at familiar
intersections; the same may prove true of low-speed modern roundabouts.
A roundabout in Montpelier Vermont has been used for more than eight years by a
visually impaired lady. Crossing Cleveland Avenue at the existing stop controlled
intersections presents a significant challenge for visually impaired persons because they
must select a gap in traffic that is coming from two directions and then cross three lanes
where drivers are known' to be traveling at more than 45 mph. When the intersection
have been converted to modern low-speed roundabouts, pedestrians will. not have to
cross two lanes of high speed ,traffic but a instead single lane of traffic that is moving
slowly through a roundabout. The conversions to roundabouts should therefore provide
a considerable improvement in mobility for visually impaired pedestrians who want to
cross Cleveland Avenue.
7. Cognitively impaired users
This section examines the challenges cognitively impaired users must face at
intersections and the impacts for them of converting the six existing cross. intersections
to low-speed modern roundabouts
The AASHTO Green Book states that "People with mental impairment are unable to
drive and are therefore often captive pedestrians. To help ensure the correct response
from these pedestrians, including young children, the pedestrian signals or other
pedestrian-related facilities must be simple, straightforward, and consistent in their
meaning.,,122
There is little or no research on the challenges cognitively impaired users face at
intersections in general and modern roundabouts in particular. Clearwater's
roundabouts all have visually and texturally emphasized crosswalks which make it more
apparent where to cross safely.
The typical 11-13 MPH circulating speeds and 14-16 MPH speeds at the crosswalks are
much less lethal in event of a crash than even moderate vehicle speeds. The low
speeds give drivers more time to detect and compensate for pedestrian errors, and
drivers are not pre-occupied with judging gaps in high-speed traffic.
A recent FHWA publication states that "An intersection is, at its core, a planned point of
conflict in the roadway system. With differing crossing and entering movements by both
drivers and pedestrians, an intersection is one of the most complex traffic situations that
motorists encounter. Add the element of speeding motorists who disregard traffic
of 11-15 MPH and typical speeds of 14-16 MPH at the crosswalks. The team chose not to study the
Acacia Roundabout, however, opting instead to study and publish research performed at higher-speed
roundabouts in Tampa and 2-lane roundabouts.
122 AASHTO Green Book, 1994, p. 122
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 57 of 105
'''I''
, "
I
, )
t
~
bj
I
I
i
.:)
~
I
j
'.
'j""
"'>
J
"
,I
I
')
,~.
I
I
j
}
.1
\
J
-
:w
controls and the dangers are compounded." "Driving near and through intersections is
one of the most complex conditions drivers will encounter.",,123
As discussed earlier in regard to users who are older, children or visually impaired,
cognitively impaired users may also benefit from the less complex operating
environment of a 1-lane modern roundabout. The next section discuses impact on
complexity of the intersection environment.
8. Complexity
Complexity of an intersection is a factor that affects all users but disproportionately so
users who are older, children, or who are mobility, visually or cognitively impaired. This
section examines measures of complexity as applied to the existing cross intersections
and the planned replacement roundabouts.
The table below compares four measures of complexity for the existing three signalized
intersections versus the planned replacement roundabouts.
Table 16, Measures of Complexity
Intersection Signalized Intersections, Number of Roundabouts, Number of
with
Cleveland Color Signal Signal Phase Color Signal Signal
Street Phases Codes Heads Bulbs s Codes Heads Bulbs
Lake Av 8 24 0 0
Duncan Av 2 3 8 24 0 0 0 0
Saturn Av 8 24 0 0
Totals 2 3 24 72 0 0 0 0
The table above shows a significant reduction in the complexity of the intersections
when converted to modern roundabouts. The roundabouts have no colors to decode, no
phases to track, no signal heads to observe, and no bulbs to monitor for change.
A fifth measure of complexity is the number of conflict points. As shown earlier,
converting the cross intersections to roundabouts will reduce pedestrian/vehicle conflicts
by two-thirds.
A sixth measure of complexity is the number of rules that must be known and
understood to use an intersection safely. The table in APPENDIX D compares the rules
for signalized intersections and roundabouts. As shown in the table, there are
approximately two dozen rules governing the operation of signalized intersections,
compared to one rule for 1-lane modern roundabouts. And which rules apply at any
given instant change at signalized intersections every few seconds, whereas the one
roundabout rule never changes.
123 The National Intersection Safety Problem, FHWA, April 2004
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 58 of 105
.cl'.
.'
J
l*}
(I
w
I
J
r\
~I
()
~
~-
j
\
'I
..,.
.1
l
i
-",,<>>,~"
I
,.
)
,I
'~)
~
~
J
(.
'>
I'
,
,~
IV. Environmental Impacts
This section examines the environmental impacts of converting the six existing conventional
cross intersections to modern roundabouts. Impacts on fuel consumption, pollutant emissions,
trees, landscaping, aesthetics, the character of Cleveland Street, noise, Skycrest and the city
are considered.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 declared it national policy "to use all
practicable means and measures... to create and maintain conditions under which man and
nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements
of present and future generations of Americans."124
The 1994 AASHTO Green Book states that "The effects of the various environmental impacts
can (and should) be mitigated by thoughtful design processes. This prin'Ciple, coupled with that
of esthetic consistency with the surrounding terrain or urban setting, is intended to produce
highways that are safe and efficient for users and acceptable to nonusers and the environment.
"A highway necessarily has wide-ranging effects beyond that of providing traffic services to
users. It is essential that the highway be considered an element of the total environment.
Environment as used herein refers to the totality of man's surroundings: social, physical,
natural, and manmade. It includes human, plant, and animal communities and the forces that
act on all three. The highway can and should be located and designed to complement its
environment and serve as a catalyst to environmental improvement.
"The area surrounding a proposed highway is an interrelated system of natural, manmade, and
sociologic variables. Changes in one variable within this system cannot be made without some
effect on other variables. Some of these consequences may be negligible, but others may have
strong and lasting effect on the environment, including the sustenance and quality of human life.
Because highway and design decisions have an effect on adjacent area developments, it is
important that environmental variables be given full consideration.,,125
A. Impact on Fuel Consumption
This section examines the impact on fuel consumption of converting the six cross
intersections to modern roundabouts.
Internal combustion engines waste fuel while idling at red lights and consume fuel
voraciously while accelerating from green lights. Having neither red nor green lights, and
providing mostly free flow off peak hours, modern roundabouts extract less fuel from
motorized vehicles than do signalized intersections.
Fuel consumption was modeled using aaSIDRA software. aaSIDRA uses a four-mode
elemental126 drive-cycle model for estimating fuel consumption, operating cost and pollutant
124 Public Law 91-190, January 1,1970
125 AASHTO Green Book, 1994, Foreword p. xlviii and p. 131
126 See Appendix _ for an overview of the four-mode elemental model used in aaSIDRA
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in .doc
Page 59 of 105
J
:1
~
"I
I
,
~
~I
,
'.
,.~,
:<1'
/'" -
~
,~.
, )
-
~\i"<.j~
I
;>
I
I
'j
I
I
i
.)
I}
emISSions for all types of traffic facilities, including roundabouts and signalized
intersections. The four drive-cycle modes are acceleration, deceleration, idling, cruise, as
depicted in the graph below.
Figure 15. Drive cycle during a stop at traffic signals 121
[ Insert Figure 3.1 from Operating cost, fuel consumption, and emission models in aa SIDRA and
aaMOTION]
This graph depicts the motion of a vehicle stopping at a red light, as modeled in aaSIDRA
For each lane of traffic, aaSIDRA constructs vehicle movements through the intersection as
a series of cruise, acceleration, deceleration and idling elements as shown above,
distinguishing between stopped and unstopped vehicles as well as light and heavy vehicle
characteristics. Fuel consumption, cost and pollutant emissions are calculated for each of
the four modes of driving, and the results are added together for the entire driving
maneuver.
Converting a signalized roundabout to a modern roundabout can substantially reduce fuel
consumption because of the elimination of the red light and along with it most of the time
spent idling the engine and most of the accelerating from a dead stop, the two engine states
that deliver the worst fuel economy in terms of miles per gallon. During most hours of the
day most traffic flows freely through a roundabout, and even vehicles that come to a dead
stop seldom wait long before being able to enter the roundabout.
The table below compares the fuel consumption of the three signalized intersections versus
the planned replacement roundabouts, as computed by aaSIDRA.
Intersection with
Cleveland Street
Lake Av
Duncan Av
Saturn Av
Table 17. Annual Fuel Impact
Fuel Consumption (gals)
Signalized Intersection Roundabout
131,400 127,896
135,780 129,429
149,796 11,388
416,937 399,237
Fuel Impact
(gals)
- 3,504
- 6,351
- 7,884
- 17,739
Totals
The table above shows a total annual savings of 17,739 gallons of fuel achieved by
converting the three signalized intersections to roundabouts.
121 Operating cost, fuel consumption, and emission models in aa SIDRA and aaMOTlON, Rahmi Akcelik
and Mark Besley, December 3, 2003, 25th Conference of Australian Institutes of Transport Research,
University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
I)
')
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 60 of 105
".
.
.
)
"
tit.
,*-"
I
a
,. )
~I
~")
~
:.
:;;.
"I
)
,I
)
,,'
.....-..:;~
I
~I
J
I
I
')
.1
)
,
I
The fuel impact for the three unsignalized intersections converted to roundabouts was not
modeled but should be a slight savings.
The impact on fuel consumption will be examined again later under Cost Impacts in the
section on Fuel Costs (p. 79).
B. Pollutant Emissions
The air in Pinellas County is so polluted from motorized vehicle, power plant and other
sources that the Environmental Protection Agency has classified the Tampa Bay air basin
as "Maintenance" status since 19_, although with gradual air quality improvement it is
expected it will achieve reclassification as "attainment" status next year.
A 2002 Pinellas County report notes that "In most cases, air pollution frequently affects
those who are least prepared to protect themselves, namely children and the elderly." Most
of the air pollution generated within Pinellas County comes from transportation-related
sources. Automobiles contribute approximately 50% of the total emissions of oxides of
nitrogen [NOJ in Pinellas County.128
NOx and CO are precursors to the creation of ozone. In Pinellas County, "Stagnant high
pressure systems, coastal recirculation patterns, high surface temperatures, relatively low
surface wind speeds and abundant sunlight, which provides the solar radiation necessary
for the photochemical process, are key factors in the formation of tropospheric ozone."
"Stationary high pressure systems create inversion conditions where the air becomes
stagnant and allows ozone precursors to accumulate. Our proximity to the coast and the
various effects caused by the migration of convergence zones and thermal contrasts in and
around Tampa Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, results in recirculating wind patters promoting
the accumulation and regional transport of ozone precursors."129
1. Effects on humans
Air pollution has substantial deleterious effects on humans:
· "The respiratory system is particularly susceptible to effects ranging from short term
coughs to the possibility of lung cancer or pulmonary emphysema. Complications
with chronic diseases, such as bronchial asthma and chronic bronchitis, arise as a
consequence of air pollution. Persons suffering from heart disease are adversely
affected by the increased effort required to get oxygen into the blood. Sulfur oxides
and misted sulfuric acid have particularly severe effects. The health effects of all
photochemical smog products have not been completely determined. They are
known to irritate exposed mucous membranes, such as the eyes.
128 2001 Air Quality Annual Report, Air Quality Division, Department of Environmental Management,
Pinellas County, Florida, December 2002, p. 1
129 2001 Air Quality Annual Report, Air Quality Division, Department of Environmental Management,
Pinellas County, Florida, December 2002, p. 2
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 61 of 105
'I
1
".
*~'-
#!
I
I
i
')
'J
,1
l
I
. ")
I
)
,
"'.'~""-
'I
I
,
)"
J
I
a
i
}
,
.,
· "Smog can cause irritation of mucous membranes and headaches and, in the case of
long-term exposure, lung lesions. Smog effects may be exacerbated by the
presence of S02 and/or particulates, and are aggravated by exercise.
· "The effect of carbon monoxide (CO) on health and performance of humans is of
special concern. Under adverse weather conditions, CO will remain in the vicinity of
where it was emitted for some time." 130
Transportation-related sources account for over 98% of all CO pollution in Pinellas
County.131
2. Effects on plants and animals
Air pollution is likewise deleterious to plants and animals:
· "The types and severity of effects on vegetation varies with different plants and the
concentration of contaminants. Leaf vegetables, grapes, and citrus trees suffer loss
in production and reduced growth in the presence of ozone, PAN's, S02, and N02.
· "The effects on animals are similar to human effects; however, small animals are
bothered more. A major concern is the cumulative effect of toxic substances, such
as arsenic and lead. Ingestion of deposits on plants by foraging animals can lead to
loss in productivity from illness, and even death.132
3. Effects on other living and non-living things
Air pollution has adverse effects on other living and non-living things:
· "Acid rain has a wide-ranging adverse impact on soil and water quality, the latter
especially in lakes. The pH level of water can drop sufficiently after rainfalls
containing even small amounts of sulfuric acid to injure or kill aquatic life.
· ''The accelerated corrosion of metal is a primary effect. Building stone, in particular
marble, deteriorates more rapidly due to the attack of S02, N02 and related acids.
Paper and leather are embrittled by S02. Rubber is severely damaged by ozone.
Fabrics, both natural and synthetic, ad are adversely affected. Paints and similar
coatings are damaged."133
4. Scale of effects
The effects of pollutant emissions range from local to global:
· "CO effects are frequently confined to within .4km of the source; the others
accumulate on an air basin scale."134
130 Fundamentals of Traffic Engineering, Chapter 30
131 2001 Air Quality Annual Report, Air Quality Division, Department of Environmental Management,
Pinellas County, Florida, December 2002, p. 2
132 Fundamentals of Traffic Engineering, Chapter 30
133 Fundamentals of Traffic Engineering, Chapter 30
134 Fundamentals of Traffic Engineering, Chapter 30
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 62 of 105
<"Ii
.
i
0)
,,5
LV
~
I
I
0'~
~
)
J
.:}
,l
.
I
')
..,
~";f
,I
~I
f;
1
,,:;,;;,1
I
a
I
'\
}
.1
"
.
· On a global scale, CO2 and NOx are global heating ("greenhouse'J gases, or primary
contributor to global warming and climate change.135
Being a coastal community, Clearwater benefits from "prevailing coastal winds that
assure thorough transport of air parcels above the county and our relatively flat and
coarse topography provides ample mixing and dilution of CO. Thus, elevated and
sustained ambient CO concentrations in Pinellas County are uncommon."136
5. Economic effects
The 2001 Pinellas County report states that "Sustained exposure to air pollution can
result in high morbidity rates and premature death" and "Although the major economic
impact from air pollution includes the costs associated with medical treatments,
morbidity, and reduced productivity, air pollutants are capable of causing significant
economic impacts in other ways" such as removal and disposal costs for remediation of
air toxiCS.137
6. Aesthetic effects
The 2002 Pinellas County reports notes that "Aesthetic effects may include intangible
factors that can not be'easily quantified. Air pollution can result in impaired visibility,
excessive amounts of dirt and sootl38 and nauseous orders that decrease personal
comfort and enjoyment of the environment."139
7. Impact on emissions
Although motorized vehicles are classified as a "mobile source" of pollutant emissions,
intersections act as a point location or "source" of pollutant emissions because internal
combustion engines operate less cleanly when decelerating, idling or accelerating than
at steady speeds. Signalized intersections force motorized vehicles to do more
decelerating, idling and accelerating than do roundabouts.
The table below shows the emissions impact resulting from converting the three
signalized intersections to modern roundabouts, as computed by aaSIDRA.
135 Fundamentals of Traffic Engineering, Chapter 30
136 2001 Air Quality Annual Report, Air Quality Division, Department of Environmental Management,
Pinellas County, Florida, December 2002, p, 2
137 2001 Air Quality Annual Report, Air Quality Division, Department of Environmental Management,
Pinellas County, Florida, December 2002, p, 2
138 Dirt and soot were not modeled for this study.
139 2001 Air Quality Annual Report, Air Quality Division, Department of Environmental Management,
Pinellas County, Florida, December 2002, p, 1
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in .doc
Page 63 of 105
I
I
")
"I
i)
,
I
~
<)
1
,J
1
I
j
")
,~
,,~j'
J
,j
j
,)
I
I
i
I
J
I
)
Table 18. Emissions Impact (Kg/yr)
Totals
HC
-123
-149
-184
-456
CO
-1,314
-2,716
-4,818
-8,848
Pollutant
NOx
-26
-61
-105
-193
CO
-4
-5
-7
-16
2
2,048
4,312
3,584
9,444
Total
-43,511
-57,238
-78,691
-179,440
Intersection with
Cleveland Street
Lake Av
Duncan Av
Saturn Av
The table above shows a total annual emissions reduction of 179,440Kg of pollutant
resulting from converting the three signalized intersections to modern roundabouts.140
The three stop-controlled intersections were not modeled.
C. Tree Impacts
The round shape and size of the roundabouts and associated sidewalks will encroach on
the root systems of several nearby trees. Good design practice allows some flexibility in
locating the pedestrian crosswalks, particularly with Cleveland Street's moderate traffic
volume and consequently less frequent, shorter queues.
A multi-disciplinary team 141 was formed and went on a "tree walk" to visit every site in the
project that might have tree impacts. Each impacted tree was evaluated for: health, vitality,
structure, remaining life, value to the neighborhood, status in City policy, and susceptibility
to trauma imposed by the project.
By judiciously relocating some of the crosswalks it was possible to minimize the impact on
_ trees, as illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 16. Crosswalks Were Relocated to Minimize Tree Impacts
[ Insert portion of CAD drawing showing
crosswalk into tree]
[ Insert photo of saved 48" oak]
The original design required removal of a
significant tree.
This valuable 48" diameter oak was saved by
relocating the pedestrian crosswalk.
140 Traffic volume on Cleveland Street is moderate and side street volume is low; heavier volumes would
have produced even greater emissions reductions.
141 The team consisted of Certified Arborist, the City'S Landscape Architect, two consulting Landscape
Architects, two consulting Professional Engineers, and the Project Manager, The Certified Arborist is a
long-term resident of Skycrest and was selected by the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Tech Team to
represent the neighborhood on tree matters.
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 64 of 105
)1
)
'\
;1
,
1>1
,,~
~
,
,
I
:>-
t
")
,
1
))>,
}
,...,..".....,
I
-I
,_,.'..n_:_.'"
,~"")
"
I
,
j
>)
t: 0
..
I
i
i
~
The figure above demonstrates how attention to tree impacts coupled with flexibility in
design significantly reduced the negative impact of the project. The Tech Memo resulting
from the Tree Walk is in APPENDIX E.
Designing the roundabouts at Corona Avenue, Meteor Avenue and Aurora Avenue to fully
accommodate the Solid Waste Department's Sterling Roll-off truck 142 would have meant
removing eight valuable trees. But the Solid Waste Department determined that they
ordinarily never make left turns at these intersections and if they ever do need to take the
truck into this residential area-for instance, to retrieve a dumpster at a house demolition-
they can easily take alternative routes on Drew St. or Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., or even use the
roundabouts by running over the mountable truck aprons and splitter islands.
Accordingly, alternative roundabout designs were developed to spare the eight valuable
trees, as shown in the table below.
Table 19. Alternate Roundabout Geometries
Intersection Alternate A Alternate B
with Cleveland Impacts Impacts the
St Corner 8 Valuable Trees Sterling Roll-off Vehicle
NW Remove a 16" oak
Remove a 12" oak
Corona Av SW Remove a 24" oak No left turns without driving over
NE Remove a 48" oak mountable curbs.
SE Remove a 24" oak
Meteor Av NW Remove a 10" oak All other turns OK.
SE Remove a 24" oak
Aurora Av NE Remove a 16" laurel oak
The table above shows 8 valuable trees were saved by the alternate roundabout
geometries.
But several other trees will unavoidably be lost to construction of the roundabouts, as shown
on the table below.
Table 20. Tree Impacts
[ Insert tree impact table, ]
[ Caption ]
142 The Sterling Roll-off truck is discussed in the section on Solid Waste Trucks (p, 21)
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in ,doc
Page 65 of 105
)1
)
..
,.
)
I
:)
fj1
,
~
~
:>
J
""'\
~I
,
j
j
The table above shows a total loss of 19143 trees, some of them valuable. To put this
number in perspective, the table below compares it to rough estimates of the number of
trees in the right-of-way in the Cleveland Street corridor through Skycrest, and to ROW trees
within the project boundaries.
Table 21. Trees Lost to Roundabouts
Number As %age of Trees in ROW in As %age of Trees in ROW
Cleveland Corridor within Proiect Boundaries
19 - % - %
[ Caption ]
The table above shows the proportion of trees lost to the roundabouts is a very small
proportion of the trees within the right-of-way along the Cleveland Corridor or within the
project boundaries.
Loss of these trees will be mitigated by the addition of more trees in the six roundabout
central islands and in the medians to be constructed along Cleveland Street as part of the
project. How many trees will be added will be determined later in the design process, but
the planting area in the medians is 10' wide and the total length is 1200 linear feet, enough
for as many as possibly 40 trees to be added to the corridor, spaced at 30' intervals. The
six roundabout central islands can accept one large tree each.l44
,I
}
.'-->>"
'-'
:1
i
J
I
I
j
}
I
-
Cleveland is a canopy street, but there are stretches where the canopy trees are missing on
one or both sides. In those areas, canopy trees will be planted in the median and in 20
years will produce gracious shade. In the stretches of Cleveland.Street where the canopy is
intact, smaller, complementary trees will be planted in the median.
D. Landscaping Impacts
The AASHTO Green Book states that "Landscaping should be provided for' esthetic ...
purposes in keeping with the character of the street and its environment.l45
The Florida Roundabout Guide states that "Landscaping should be an integral part of the
design of roundabouts on both the state highway system and local road roundabouts. Both
the central islands and the approach roadways present an opportunity for landscaping. This
landscaping should be designed to increase the efficiency of the roundabout while improving
safety and enhancing the aesthetics of the area.
"The central island of a roundabout provides an opportunity for landscaping enhancements
which other intersection treatments would not provide ... Landscaping for the roundabout
should be a feature in the design and not simply an enhancement undertaken after the
143 Figure not final
144 There may be other opportunities in the project to plant trees elsewhere besides in the Cleveland
Street corridor, such as in the 3 oval medians, in the medians along South Lake Drive, possibly in one in
the medians on North Jupiter Avenue, since the existing roadway is 30' wide leaving a 10' wide median
with 9' of green space width (part of a tree well/median combination).
145 AASHTO Green Book, 1994, p. 486
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 66 of 105
~I
J
:"1'1.
~1
o
.
t
It
,
~i';'
.1
,;-,.;~'
',",
'I
~.
'J
I
i
I
;,"","
\~
i . ,
f)
s <'''''';';;;'
~
~' J
11,..",'
J,_ }
I
'I'
. 1
r-,JI'
construction of the roundabout. It should adhere to all safety requirements while, at the
same time, it is increasing the efficiency of the intersection treatment.
"Carefully planned landscaping can enhance the safety of the intersection my making the
intersection a focal point and by lowering speeds ... The lateral restriction and funneling
provided by the splitter island encourages the driver to reduce speeds. Landscaping along
the approaches can be designed to enhance this effect.,,146
The central islands for the six planned roundabouts create 3,932 square feet of new planting
area where currently there is asphalt. The planned medians on Cleveland Street create
another 19,920 SF for a total of 17,853 square feet of new planting area in the Cleveland
Corridor. In addition, the existing right-of-way around the planned roundabouts is available
for possible plantings. In all, the project creates 26,705 SF of new planting area in the
Skycrest neighborhood in place of asphalt.
E. Aesthetic Impacts
This part of Cleveland Street passes through a residential area known as Skycrest. The
street is graced with oaks and other large trees along both sides which form a canopy over
the street for much of its length through Skycrest. Cleveland Street is Clearwater's only
"canopy street" and is considered one of its most beautiful streets.
The project will have aesthetic impact beyond the significant landscape impact.
The roundabout central islands will be mounded and landscaped, the truck aprons and
splitter islands will be paver bricked and ornamental lighting will be installed, as has been
done with the existing 1-lane roundabouts, where the aesthetic impact has been received as
positive.
Instead of paver bricks for the pedestrian crossings, the City is investigating the use of a
new product, DuraTherm, which may provide an equally good or superior crosswalk for
lower installation and maintenance costs. In areas of high . water velocity, the sand bed
under paver bricks in crosswalks may be subject to flushing.
The figure below compares the two crosswalk treatments.
146 Florida Roundabout Guide, pp. 5-4 and 5-5
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in .doc
Page 67 of 105
\1
\ .
\, \
I
I
/.)
.-",_,.c....._,_;
I
c,
,-~
'.
,"""
,I
:1
-,
'-.
;j
)
-I
J
,,/
-
..
-
I
f
I
,I
Figure 17. Crosswalk Treatments
[ Insert vender photo of DuraTherm crosswalk.
[ Insert photo of paver crosswalk] Swap in Ken's photo when the vendor does a
demo installation in the Tampa Bay area. ]
Photo of a crosswalk using paver bricks at the Vendor photo of a crosswalk using the
roundabout in Clearwater DuraTherm treatment
The figure above shows both treatments add visual and textural contrast to the crosswalk.
In addition to the impact of the roundabouts themselves, the significant new planting area on
the Cleveland Street medians will have a major aesthetic impact on the corridor.
On the North Greenwood Corridor enhancement project, paver bricks were used to create
an at-grade "visual median" to fill the access gaps in the raised median, as shown in the
figure below. A similar treatment along Cleveland Street in the project area would reinforce
the traffic calming effect generated by "visual narrowing", as it has on Martin Luther King, Jr.,
Avenue in North Greenwood. In addition, visually continuing the median through the
median gaps supports the use of generously-wide median driveway cuts to minimize impact
homeowners along Cleveland Street. Providing for the wider, low-impact driveway cuts
results in some long stretches with no raised median at all, making the visual median that
much more important.
The City is investigating the use of an imprinted asphalt product shown in the figure below to
create the same effect as on Martin Luther King Avenue, but at potentially lower cost for
installation and maintenance. In fact, the money saved by cutting back the raised medians
for the generous driveway gaps will cover most of the cost of the imprinted asphalt at-grade
median.147
The photos below show how contrasting color and texture create an at-grade "visual
median" in the gap between raised medians.
147 Cutting back the medians to provide generous driveway cuts saves an estimated $97,559 in
demolition, concrete and landscaping costs, or 73% of the cost of imprinted asphalt across the entire
width of the median cuts.
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in ,doc
Page 68 of 105
1'1
,~
~
~
4
4
.
f
1
'1
~
II
\
~
~-
'"""",1'
~I
I
3
~I
I
-.....>'
41
"
~
I
I
I
Figure 18. Median Treatments
Photo of the at-grade paver treatment between Vendor photo showing at-grade imprinted asphalt
raised medians on Martin Luther King Avenue in median in Agusta, GA
Clearwater
The figure above shows both treatments for creating at-grade "visual medians" are effective
in demarcating the "lane" area between raised medians and thereby visually narrowing the
travel lanes on each side of the median. Visually narrowing travel lanes to calm traffic is the
purpose of the at-grade visual medians, and will help keep down approach speeds to the six
planned roundabouts.
F. Impact on Character of Street
The portion of Cleveland Street in Skycrest is a shady, tree-lane mostly residential street
with tree canopy for much of it. The planned roundabouts and median were designed to be
both compatible with the character of the street and enhance it. Generous median cuts will
afford easy accessibility to all the existing driveways along the street. With lower traffic
speeds, shorter or non-existent intersection queues, much more greenery and markedly
fewer instances of excessive speeding, it will be an even more pleasant street to live along.
G. Impact on Noise
The AASHTO Green Book states that "Pollution from vehicles in the form of noise must also
be recognized by the highway designer. Noise is unwanted sound, a subjective result of
sounds that intrude on or interfere with activities such as conversation, thinking, reading, or
sleeping. Sound can exist without people-noise cannot. II 148
"Modern automobiles are relatively quiet, particularly at the lower cruising speeds, but exist
in such numbers as to make their total noise contribution significant." Because the
amplitude of the noise varies with highway design features, the designer must "therefore be
concerned with how highway locations and design influence the vehicle noise perceived by
persons residing or working nearby."149
148 AASHTO Green Book, 1994, pp. 37-38.
149 AASHTO Green Book, 1994, pp. 37-38.
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in .doc
Page 69 of 105
"J
I
i
-
,
!I
~
)
1
~)
%,-
~:-".
',%"
,~I
~i
"
,.;Hi'
,,1
I
j
1
)
,
~
I
\
I,
I
The AASHTO Green Book further notes that "Noise produced by automobiles increases
dramatically with speed," 150 Because the project will reduce the number of vehicles
traveling at excessive speeds along the Cleveland Street corridor, particularly at the six
intersections with roundabouts, there will be less noise generated by speeding vehicles.
In addition, vehicles generate more noise when accelerating from a stop than at idle or
steady speed. Because the three roundabouts replacing signalized intersections will reduce
the number of vehicles accelerating from a stop, these intersections will generate less noise
from that source. At the three stop-controlled intersections replaced by roundabouts, the
number of side-street vehicles accelerating from a stop will be reduced, but there will be
offsetting noise from vehicles accelerating mildly as they leave the roundabout.
Noise is examined further under Cost Impacts in the section on Noise Impacts (p. 83).
H. Impact on Neighborhood and City
The Florida Roundabout Guide states that "Not only can roundabouts prove to be an
efficient and safe treatment for intersection control by they provide a unique opportunity for
aesthetic community enhancement. An emphasis on the importance of community
enhancement in conjunction with our transportation system is clearly illustrated by the
support contained in the recent Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA)."151
The portion of Cleveland Street in Skycrest is much beloved by Skycrest residents and
considered a major neighborhood asset, much like Crest Lake Park, a park bordering the
street. As Clearwater's only canopy street and one of the city's loveliest, the street is a
favorite of many outside Skycrest. The planned roundabouts and medians were designed to
preserve and enhance the character of the street for all who use it to enjoy. Motorists level
of service at the three signalized intersections will be improved while mobility and safety for
most users will be improved at all six intersections.
Cleveland Street continues west past Skycrest to become the main street for downtown
Clearwater. When the new Memorial Bridge to the beach opens, Cleveland Street
downtown will be reinvented with streetscaping and landscaping as a low-volume,
pedestrian-friendly environment comfortable for visitors to downtown. New hotels,
restaurants, a cinemaplex and 1200 dwelling units are planned to reinvent downtown itself
to a vital business and after-hours district. The gap between the part of Cleveland Street
enhanced by the planned roundabouts and the downtown part of Cleveland Street, starting
at Missouri Avenue, is 0.8 mile, so any synergistic effect between the two projects may be
weak or nonexistent, but it shouldn't be negative.
150 '
AASHTO Green Book, 1994, pp. 37-38.
151 Florida Roundabout Guide, p. 5-6
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 70 of 105
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
i
I
:1
,
I
j
I
I
)
I
t
~
I
\
:J
I
I
~
V. Social Impacts
This section examines the social impacts of converting the six existing intersections to modern
roundabouts. Considered here are the social origins of the project, public acceptance, equity
impacts, travel Impacts, Impacts on neighborhood health, Impacts on residents health, and
Long-range impacts.
A. Social Origins of the Project
The project enjoys strong buy-in, ownership and consensus among stakeholders. These
social impacts were achieved through use of a design charrette152 at the beginning. The
design charrette is a highly inclusive, participatory, compressed and visual public meeting
format. Participants in the Skycrest Traffic Calming Design Charrette attended a 3-4 hour
training class at the first session on a Saturday morning, where they became qualified
citizen-designers. Applying what they had learned, they worked together to create the
Skycrest Traffic Calming Plan at the second session. The engineers validated the plan in
the field the next morning.
At the third and final session, charrette participants came to agreement on the final form of
their design, based on field observations from the engineers. The police and fire
departments participated in all three charrette sessions and were available to answer
questions, but only residents performed the actual design work. Buy-in was automatic
because it was their own work product.
The six roundabouts, medians and all other elements of the project were proposed by the
residents themselves; none by City staff or its consultants.
Management of this project differs from the typical public works project, which usually
follows a "top-down" path in which the need and design of a project is conceived by
government staff, then presented to the public stakeholders, and followed by construction if
opposition is not too strong.153
This project followed a "bottom-up", path in which stakeholder residents did the work of
preliminary design and consensus-building themselves, followed with continued involvement
of them and other stakeholders during the engineering design phase.
Resident participants in the charrette formed two teams at the conclusion of the charrette.
The Consensus Team launched a multi-month effort to explain their plan to the rest of the
neighborhood and generate consensus. City staff played no role in this effort, other than
generating the petition 154 form for their use. When they had collected signatures of support
. from at least 65% of the property owners in the project boundaries, the project became
152 The traffic calming design charrette process is described in detail in a paper, Surviving Traffic Calming
with Charrettes, given at the ITE 70th <verify> International Conference in Irvine, California, and is found
in Appendix _'
153 The ultimate top-down approach to public works projects as practiced by Robert Moses in New York
City is described in The Power Broker by Robert Caro
154 A sample page from the traffic calming petition is in Appendix
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in .doc
Page 71 of 105
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
-
I
,
I
~
eligible for the City's Work Program. City Commission approval for the design Work Order
was unanimous.
The Traffic Calming Tech Team represents the neighborhood during the design and
construction phases. They review the engineering plans for faithfulness to the charrette
vision and keep their neighbors informed of progress and any design changes that arise by
necessity.155 After reviewing the 30% plans and briefing the Skycrest Homeowners
Association, the association issued a strong statement of support for the project.156
Evaluating tree impacts was important to the neighborhood but requires specialized
expertise. To represent the neighborhood's interest, the Tech Team enlisted a Skycrest
resident who is a Certified Arborist and intimately familiar with the area and issues, having
just retired from a 3D-year career with the City.
The Fire Department is also kept in the loop by way of the standard plans review process. A
total of _ AutoTURN plots157 were generated to demonstrate to the Fire Department that
their apparatus would be able to negotiate the six roundabouts without difficult. Credibility
with the Fire Department has already been established with the four 1-lane roundabouts the
City has previously constructed.
Similarly, the Solid Waste Department is kept in the loop through the plans review process,
including _ Auto-Turn plots 156 of their vehicles.
Skycrest Elementary School staff was informed of the plan to build a modern roundabout at
their SE corner last year and reviewed the 30% Plans when they became available recently.
A member of the Tech Team and the Project Manager jointly gave a presentation on the
roundabout at a regular meeting of the School Advisory Committee (SAC), a group
representing parents.
Many roundabout projects have had an immediate social impact the moment they are
proposed in the form of controversy and some never gain enough social or political support
to overcome opposition. The bottom-up approach and continuing involvement of
stakeholders in the project appear to have engendered social acceptance of a project whose
nature has generated divisive controversy in other U.S. communities. This level of social
acceptance has been achieved at a cost of zero City staff time spent "selling" the project to
the public.
When the project is constructed it will have additional social impacts. The Cleveland Street
corridor through Skycrest will feel calmer, safer and more comfortable to residents and
users, especially non-motorized. Mobility of all users will be enhanced, especially non-
motorized users. These are measures of quality of life for "livable communities",159
B. Public Acceptance
155 The guide explaining the role of the Traffic Calming Tech Team is in Appendix_.
156 The Skycrest Neighbors statement is in Appendix _ '
157 The fire apparatus AutoTURN plots are in Appendix_.
158 The Solid Waste Department vehicle AutoTURN plots are in Appendix_.
159 <citation>.
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in ,doc
Page 72 of 105
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
-
I
I
A 2002 study found that "The large reduction in the proportion of drivers strongly opposed
to roundabouts suggest that opinions of even those with strongly held opinions can be
influenced by exposure to modern roundabouts."160
This phenomenon has occurred in Clearwater, where highly publicized and prolonged public
disapproval of Clearwater's first roundabout was followed only six months after opening fo
the roundabout by the first citizen group requesting a second roundabout be built, also on
the beach. That request was subsequently followed by nine more citizen groups requesting
low-speed modern roundabouts be built in their neighborhoods. Seven of these groups
obtained signatures of support from 65% or more of property owners in the area (one of the
groups obtained signatures of 98% supporting their two modern roundabouts).
Besides the requisite 65% approval of Skycrest property owners, the six planned
roundabouts have also received a strong endorsement from Skycrest Neighbors, the
Skycrest homeowners association (see APPENDIX F). Only one complaint has been
received (
160 Public Opinion and Traffic Flow Impacts of Newly Installed Modern Roundabouts in the United
States, Richard Retting, Greg Luttrell and Eugene Russell, ITE Journal, September 2002
~
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in ,doc
Page 73 of 105
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
~
-
I
I
I
~
APPENDIX A).
Communities near Clearwater are moving to embrace modern roundabouts, too. Across the
Bay to the east, Tampa has four and across the Bay to the South, the Sarasota MPO Board
has passed a resolution recommending that roundabouts be considered whenever a n
intersection is a candidate for signalization (see APPENDIX H). This resolution is similar to
one passed by the Vermont legislature in <year> (APPENDIX I).
c. Equity Impacts
As described earlier, the planned six modern roundabouts are part of the Skycrest Traffic'
Calming Project. A 1999 study by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI) found that
"Traffic calming tends to provide the greatest benefits to pedestrians, bicyclists and local
residents, while imposing the greatest costs on motorists who drive intensively (Le., as fast
as possible). Traffic calming tends to increase horizontal equity161 by reducing the external
costs imposed by motor vehicles and improving the balance between different uses of public
streets. Traffic calming tends to increase vertical equity162 because it benefits people who
are physically, economically and socially disadvantaged, while imposing the greatest
benefits on relatively wealthy, higher mileage drivers,,,163
D. Travellmpacts
The 1999 VTPI study also notes that "There is considerable latent demand for non-
motorized travel. That is, people would walk and bicycle more if they had suitable
conditions" and that "Traffic calming can be an important part of Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) by creating streets that are more suitable for walking, bicycling and
public transit.
"Residents in neighborhoods with suitable street environments tend to walk and bicycle
more, ride transit more, and drive less than comparable households in other areas.
"Another study found that walking is three times more common in a community with
pedestrian friendly streets than in otherwise comparable communities that are less
conducive to foot travel.
"Better walking and cycling conditions are particularly important for people with disabilities,
the elderly, and children, who are more dependent on non-motorized travel and often have
difficulty crossing busy traffic. As the population ages, a greater portion of the urban
residents are likely to walk and cycle for transportation and recreation.
161 Horizontal equity refers to the distribution of impacts among people or groups considered to equal in
wealth and ability. From Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts, Todd Alexander Litman,
Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 7 December 1999, p. 22
162 Vertical equity refers to the distribution of impacts between people or groups that differ in wealth and
ability, with the assumption that people who are disadvantaged may require greater public resources.
From Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts, Todd Alexander Litman, Victoria Transport
Policy Institute, 7 December 1999, p. 22
163 Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts, Todd Alexander Litman, Victoria Transport Policy
Institute, 7 December 1999, p. 22
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in ,doc
Page 74 of 106
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
~
"A reasonable assumption is that traffic calming which significantly improves walking and
cycling conditions can increase non-motorized trips in an areas by 10-20% from what would
otherwise occur, and that half of these trips substitute for motor vehicles trips." 164
Whether change of that magnitude is likely to occur in Skycrest is not evaluated in the
present study, but somewhat similar reasoning has justified federal CMAQ165 grant funding
for four upcoming Clearwater projects: a pedestrian bridge over Mandalay Channel to the
beach, a pedestrian walkway over McMullen Booth Road for the East-West Trail, and a trail
along Druid Road to connect the Pinellas Trial with the future Progress Energy Trail.
Together, these grants are expected to funnel about $10 million in federal funding to
Clearwater, predicated on the assumption that a significant portion of nearby parallel
motorized trips will leave the motorized vehicle behind and take the trail instead.166
Simil~rly, construction of the six planned roundabouts may contribute to more trips to Crest
Lake Park, for instance, by foot or bicycle and fewer by motor vehicle.
E. Impacts on neighborhood health
The increased comfort and mobility of non-motorized travel in a traffic-calmed neighborhood
can lead to increased neighborhood interaction because more hospitable streets encourage
street activities and community interaction. The 1999 VTPI study notes that "Public streets
are an important component of the "public realm" where people can meet in a neutral space.
Street environment conditions affects how people interact in a community. Traffic calming
helps make public streets lively and friendly, encourages community interaction, and attracts
customers to commercial areas," The Improved urban environment may also encourage
urban infill that reduces sprawl. 167
F. Impacts on residents' health
A sedentary lifestyle has a significant deleterious effect on health. The improved pedestrian
mobility and access provided by the six planned roundabouts can encourage more walking.
168
G. Long-range impacts
The Charles A. Mcintosh, Jr. Award of Distinction for Outstanding Achievement in the
Community was recently awarded169 to the City of Clearwater for the North Greenwood
164 Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts, Todd Alexander Litman, Victoria Transport Policy
Institute, 7 December 1999
165 CMAQ refers to the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program.
166 The CMAQ program provides $1 billion annually in funding for transportation projects, many of them
trail projects justified using the same assumption.
167 Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts, Todd Alexander Litman, Victoria Transport Policy
Institute, 7 December 1999
168 Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis-Safety and Health Costs, Todd Litman, Victoria Transport
Policy Institute
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in ,doc
Page 75 of 106
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
-
I
I
,
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
j
Transformation, a collection of four projects in the North Greenwood community: a new
recreation and aquatics center, a new branch library, rehabilitation of 25 diverse-income
apartment buildings, and the North Greenwood Corridor Enhancement Project. The corridor
enhancement project includes a low-speed modern roundabout at the corner of Palmetto
Street and Martin Luther King, Jr., Avenue and is central to the transformation, as the three
other projects occupy three of the roundabout's four corners. The roundabout is also the
hub of medians extending up and down Marten Luther King, Jr., Avenue.
The six planned roundabouts on Cleveland Street will transform that corridor, too, with six
times as many roundabouts and _ times greater length of median as the North Greenwood
project.
The transformed Cleveland Street corridor could become a showcase urban project which
may attract regional and possibly national attention, and could conceivably influence the
conception and execution of similar projects elsewhere.
169 by the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 76 of 106
I
I
I
.
.
i
.
I
,
-
I
,
I
-
I
,
-
I
,
i
VI. Cost Impacts
This section examines the cost impacts of converting the six existing intersections to modern
roundabouts. Costs to the City and to society are considered, concluding with a benefit-cost
analysis (SCA).
The preface to the FHWA Economic Analysis Primer states that "Although the idea of
comparing the benefits and costs of transportation projects on a dollar-to-dollar basis has long
appealed to decision makers, the application of economic analysis to such projects is often
neglected in practice. Agencies may believe that transportation benefits and costs are too hard
to quantify and value, or too subject to uncertainty to provide meaningful guidance. Fortunately,
an expanding research base on economic methods and values, improved modeling of traffic
and uncertainty, and more powerful desktop computers have made the widespread use of
economic analysis for highway projects an attainable goal,"170
A benefit of performing a benefit cost-analysis is that "The discipline of quantifying and valuing
the benefits and costs of highway projects also provides excellent documentation to explain the
decision process to legislatures and the public," but "most agencies do not consider the full
range of costs and benefits when conducting their analysis."m
The foreword to the 1984 AASHTO Green Book states that "Cost-effective design is also
emphasized. The traditional procedure of comparing highway-user benefits with costs has been
expanded to reflect the needs of nonusers and the environment.,,172
The scope of the 1994 AASHTO Green Book "is wider than that of previously published
MSHTO guides." Among other things, "The traditional procedure of comparing highway-user
benefits with costs has been expanded to reflect the needs of nonusers and the
environment. ,,173
Similarly, the present study conducts a more comprehensive examination of cost impacts than
was traditional before1984.
A. Costs to the City of Clearwater
1. Capital costs
Capital costs are non-recurring and include the cost of design, right-ot-way (ROW)
acquisition and construction. The design costs are already established but the costs tor
right-ot-way acquisition and construction have to be estimated.
170 Economic Analysis Primer, FHWA, Eric Gabler August 2003, p, 5
171 FHWA Encourages Economic Analysis of Transportation Projects, The Urban Transportation Monitor,
October 17, 2003
172 AASHTO Green Book, 1984, Foreword, pp. xlvii
173 AASHTO Green Book, 1994, Foreword, pp. xlvii-Ixviii.
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in .doc
Page 77 of 106
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
.
i
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
~
Very little right-of-way was needed for Clearwater's existing five roundabouts. No right-
of-way acquisition at all was needed for the two roundabouts on the Beach and the one
at Baker & Drew. The Florida Department of Transportation transferred title to the City
at no charge for all the right-of-way needed for the Clearwater Beach Entryway
Roundabout. The owner of Gr~enwood Apartments donated 3200 SF of right-of-way for
the roundabout at Martin Luther King, Jr., Avenue & Palmetto Street and the Pinellas
School System donated _ SF for the roundabout in front of John F. Kennedy Middle
School. Of the remaining needed right-of-way, most was acquired in return for minor
concessions rather than cash.
A total of only 91 square feet of right-of-way need be acquired for the six planned roundabouts. A
nominal $5,000 is assumed for right-of-way acquisition for the six planned roundabouts. This
figure is conservative; actual ROW acquisition costs at the four previous 1-lane roundabouts was
much lower.
The City of Clearwater has recent experience constructing four similar 1-lane modern
, roundabouts, and the cost of the one most similar174 to the planned six roundabouts is
the basis for the construction cost estimate below.
Table 22. Roundabout Capital Costs
Design 175 ROW Acquisition Construction (each) 176
$55,398 $5,000 $173,726
The table above gives the non-recurring costs for the six roundabouts. These figures
are used in the benefit-cost analysis, discussed later in the section on Benefit-Cost
Analysis, sub-section Impacts Evaluated in Monetary Terms (p. 88).
2. Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs
Operations & maintenance costs for signalized intersections include the cost of power
for illumination, signal bulbs and control equipment, the cost of bulb replacement and
maintenance of the detection loops and control equipment.
Nationally, costs typically range from $3,000177 to $5,000 annually, depending on the
climate, cost of electricity and the complexity of the intersection (number of signal heads,
detection loops and controllers). The Florida DOT suggests an annual average
maintenance cost of $2,150 per intersection, not counting the cost of power.178 On an
annual basis the typical costs are loop replacement, electricity, globe replacement and
signal controller quarterly inspections. Replacing signal heads every ten years and the
controller every ten years or so are additional costs, as is a rebuild every 20 years,
typically on the order of $80,000. Since the Florida climate is mild, power is relatively
inexpensive and the existing signalization at these intersections is simple, a conservative
174 The roundabout at Palmetto Avenue and Casler Street '
175 Part of a July 18, 2003, Work Order agreement between the City of Clearwater and King Engineering,
Inc.
176 Year 2002 cost, adjusted to current year in the section on Benefit Cost Analysis (p. 84 ).
177 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, FHWA Publication No. FHWA-RD-00-067, June, 2000, p.76
178 2002 Transportation Costs, Office of Policy Planning, Florida Department of Transportation, March
2003,p.17
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in .doc
Page 78 of 106
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
~
~
.
!
I
I
i
,
figure of $2,000 annually is a reasonable estimate, or $6,000/year for all three signalized
intersections. Operations and maintenance costs for the three unsignalized
intersections is conservatively considered zero for the cost-benefit analysis.
Operations and maintenance costs that are additional for roundabouts are mainly the
cost of landscaping. The similar but slightly larger Acacia Roundabout is under private
contract for landscape maintenance for $740/year so that figure is used here as a
conservative estimate, or $2,200/year for the six roundabouts.
Both cross intersections and roundabouts have costs for roadway illumination, signage
and pavement marking. These costs can be considered part of roadway costs rather
than intersection costs and anyway are roughly comparable for the two configurations,
so they are ignored in the benefit-cost analysis.
The table below compares the annual maintenance cost for the existing signalized
intersections versus the planned replacement roundabouts.
Table 23, Annual Operations & Maintenance Costs
Existing six cross intersections
Six planned roundabouts
$ 6,000/year
$ 2,220/year
The figures above are used in the benefit-cost analysis, discussed later in the section
on Benefit-Cost Analysis, sub-section Impacts Evaluated in Monetary Terms (p. 88).
B. Costs to Society
1. Fuel costs
Table 17 in the earlier section on Impact on Fuel Consumption (p. 60) gives the fuel
consumption impact of converting the three signalized intersections to modern
roundabouts.
Assuming a nominal fuel cost of $1.50/gallon, the fuel savings from converting to
roundabouts translates to an annual fuel cost savings of $26,609 for the three signalized
intersections. This figure is used in the benefit-cost analysis, discussed later in the
section on Benefit-Cost Analysis, sub-section Impacts Evaluated in Monetary Terms (p.
88).
Fuel costs for the three unsignalized intersections was not considered because fuel
consumption was not modeled for these intersections, but should be slightly improved by
converting to the three planned roundabouts.
2. Cost of Delay
The FHW A roundabout Guide notes that "The operational benefits of a project may be
quantified in terms of the overall reduction in person-hours of delay to the public. Delay
has a cost to the public in terms of lost productivity, and thus a value of time can typically
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 79 of 106
I
I
I
,
.
I
I
I
.
I
.
,
I
i
I
I
I
i
,
-
i
I
~
~
I
1
.,
I
I
I
be assigned to changes in estimated delay to quantify benefits associated with delay
reduction."179
Table 4 (p.19) shows an annual savings of 5,222 vehicle-hours of delay as a result of
converting the three signalized intersections to modern roundabouts. At a nominal cost
of $11.20 180 per vehicle-hour, this translates to an annual savings of $58,486.40.181
This figure is used in the benefit-cost analysis, discussed later in the section on Benefit-
Cost Analysis, sub-section Impacts Evaluated in Monetary Terms (p. 88).
The cost impact on delay to the public due to converting the three unsignalized
intersections was not examined because the three unsignalized intersections were not
modeled, as discussed earlier under Traffic Impacts in the section on Operational
Impacts (p. 18). There should be a slight cost savings from reduced delay at these three
intersections.
Separate from operational delay is the impact on travel delay caused by crashes. The
cost component of this impact is accounted for later, as discussed later under Cost
Impacts in the section on Comprehensive Costs (p. 82).
3. Costs of crashes
The economic consequences of crashes are substantial and long-lasting. This section
examines the components of the economic impacts of crashes and estimates the impact
of converting the six intersections to modern roundabouts.
a) Human capital costs
In the year 2000, 41,821 persons were killed, 5.3 million persons were injured and
27.6 million vehicles were damaged in motor vehicle crashes in the United States.
The economic costs of these crashes totaled $230.6 billion. Included in the losses
are lost productivity, property damage costs, medical costs, rehabilitation costs,
travel delay (caused by crashes182), legal and court costs, emergency service costs,
insurance administration costs, premature funeral costs and costs to employers.183
Individual crash victims pay only about 26 percent of these costs. The remaining
$170 billion, borne by society, is paid from public revenues, by private insurers and
by third parties such as charities and health care providers. Costs paid out of public
revenues are funded by taxes from the general public. Costs paid by private
insurance companies are funded by insurance premiums paid by policy holders,
most of whom are not involved in crashes. Even unpaid charges are ultimately paid
179 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, FHWA Publication No. FHWA-RD-00-067, June, 2000, pp.74-
75.
180 Revised Departmental Guidance Memorandum, Emil H. Frankel, Assistant Secretary for Departmental
Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation, _ <date?>
181 in _ <year> dollars
182 Travel delay caused by operational impacts is examined under Traffic Impacts in the section on
Operational Impacts (p. 18), and its cost is accounted for under Cost Impacts in the section on Cost of
Delay (p. 79).
183 The Economic Impact of Motor Crashes 2000, Lawrence Blincoe, et. aI., NHSTA, May 2002
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in .doc
Page 80 of 106
I
I
,
,
.
!
I
I
i
.
.
.
j
~
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
l
I
by users of health care facilities. In short, society at large pays nearly three-fourths,
of all crash costs that are incurred by individual motor vehicle crash victims.184
Almost 9,000 persons are killed annualr in intersection-related crashes, which cost
society more than $90 billion annually.18
b) Non-recompensable costs to society186
The human capital costs detailed above are the economic costs that result from
goods and services that must be purchased or productivity that is lost as a result of
motor vehicle crashes and do not represent the intangible consequences of these
events to individuals and families, such as pain, suffering and loss of life.
"Economic costs represent only one aspect of the consequences of motor vehicle
crashes. Persons injured in these crashes often suffer physical pain and emotional
anguish that is beyond any economic recompense." "For an individual, these non-
monetary outcomes can be the most devastating aspect of a motor vehicle crash."
"The family and friends of the victim feel the psychic repercussions of the victim's
injury acutely as well."
"A significant number of people experience mental disorders as a result of being
involved in a motor vehicle crash ... and there is an additional number of people not
injured or not involved in the crash who also experience some of the same
disorders. "
"In addition to the possibility of physical injury as the result of a motor vehicle crash
behavior or emotional changes can occur when a person experiences a motor
vehicle crash. These emotional experiences can be feelings of terror, helplessness
or fear of dying. These feelings can result on a psychological reaction that can have
a major impact on a person's life, independent and separate from the physical
outcome of injury."
"A preliminary estimate of the incidence of these disorders, believed to be a ,
conservative lower bound, is that at least 31,000 people have post traumatic stress
symptoms at one year post injury and at least 62,000 people have major depressive
symptoms at one year post injury, with some overlap of these two populations.
There is evidence that the actual incidence is likely to be much higher."
i) Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is the experience of psychological stress after
being exposed to a traumatic situation and includes four clusters of symptoms:
· Re-experiencing, where the perso'1 recalls the traumatic situation
184 Ibid
185 Championing Innovation, Gene Fong, et. aI., Public Roads magazine, Jan/Feb 2004
186 This section draws on The Economic Impact of Motor Crashes 2000, Lawrence Blincoe, et. aI.,
NHSTA, May 2002
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in .doc
Page 81 of 106
I
I
,
1
I
;
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
I
I
~
;l
.
"
I
I
I
,
[
· Avoidance, where the person attempts to minimize exposure to the stimuli
that evoke the re-experiencing
· Numbing, where the person exhibits inability to care for others
· Hyperarousal, where the person experiences sleep disturbance, irritability or
outbursts of anger, difficulty concentrating, hypervigilance and an
exaggerated startle response
Post traumatic stress disorder is a very persistent condition and the prognosis is
not favorable.
The data suggest that between 10 and 30 percent of the people treated in an
emergency room as the result of a motor vehicle injury experience post traumatic
stress disorder at one year post injury, and for those treated at trauma centers the
range appears to be between about 20 to 40 percent.
ii)Major Depressive Episode
Major Depressive Episode is a type of mood disorder with symptoms of depressed
mood, loss of interest, or diminished ability to derive pleasure from everyday
activities, plus some mix of other symptoms such as change in weight or
sleeplessness.
For persons treated in a trauma center, the percentage with major depressive
episode at one year post injury appears to be in the 40-50 percent range.
c) Comprehensive costs
The comprehensive cost is "a method of measuring motor vehicle accident costs that
include the effects of injury on peoples lives. This is the most useful measure of
accident cost187 since includes all cost components and places a dollar value on
each one. Comprehensive quality of life cost values are estimated by examining risk
reduction costs from which the market value of safety is inferred. The 11
components of comprehensive cost are: property damage, lost eamings, lost
household production, medical costs, emergency services, travel delay,188 vocational
rehabilitation, workplace costs, administrative, legal, and pain and lost quality of
life.,,189
Note that lost quality of life costs do not represent real income not received nor
expenses incurred, as explained earlier in the section on Non-recompensable Costs
to Society (p. 81).
187 Emphasis added
188 Note that travel delay caused by crashes is separate from travel delay caused by operational delay.
The travel time component of operational impacts are examined earlier under Traffic Impacts in the
section on Operational Impacts. (p, 18) The cost component of operational impacts are examined earlier
under Cost Impacts in the section on Cost of Delay (p. 79)
189 Motor Vehicle Accident Costs, Technical Advisory T7570.2, FHWA. October 31,1994
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in .doc
Page 82 of 106
I
I
I
I
I
-
~
!
I
'.
.
,
I
I
I
i '
I
i
j
,
I
I
I
1
-j
~
The National Safety Council recommends that estimates prepared using the
willingness-to-pay methodology should be used for benefit-cost analysis when
feasible. A misnomer, willingness-to-pay is derived from market data and refers to
the costs people actually pay to reduce safety risks, not necessarily what they are
willing to pay.190 If they had to, people might pay more in order to obtain the safety
benefits; therefore using market-based data is a conservative approach.
The National Safety Council (NSC) classifies crashes into five categories for the
purpose of assigning comprehensive costs. The most recent NSC comprehensive
crash costs are given in the table below.
Table 24. Average Comprehensive Crash Cost per Injured Person 191
Incapacitating Non- Possible No
Death incapacitating Injury
Injury Injury Injury (PDO)
$3,470,000 $172,000 $44,200 $21,000 $2,000
The table above gives the comprehensive costs according to the severity of the
injuries as classified by the KABCO system described earlier under Safety Impacts in
the section on Impact of Crash Severity (p. 38).
The NSC crash cost data above and the injury reduction impacts presented earlier in
Table 10 (p. 38) are used to estimate the major economic impact to society of
converting the six intersections to modern roundabouts, as discussed later under
Cost Impacts in the section on Monetary Benefit-Cost Analysis, sub-section Impacts
Evaluated in Monetary Terms (p. 88).
4. Noise impacts
The combined effect of the six planned roundabouts and the planned medians will lower
traffic speeds in the Cleveland Street corridor from Glenwood to Aurora. The
roundabouts will lower speeds through a combination of geometry, negative
superelevation and landscaping, as explained earlier under Safety Impacts in the section
on Why Roundabouts Are Safer (p. 33). The medians will lower traffic speeds through a
combination of visual narrowing, vertical curbs on the left, and landscaping.
A 1984 EPA study found that reduced noise from reduced traffic speeds increases
adjacent residential property values, with a 5-10 MPH reduction increasing property
values by about 2%.192
Conservatively assuming only a 5-10 MPH speed reduction and applying it to only the
homes on the four corners of the six planned roundabouts, and assuming a nominal
190 Motor Vehicle Accident Costs, Technical Advisory T7570.2, FHWA , October 31, 1994
191 Estimating the Costs of Unintentional Injuries, 2002, National Safety Council. NSC figures are
adjusted to 2004 dollars later, as discussed under Cost Impacts in the section on Benefit-Cost Analysis
(p.84).
192 Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Application of Traffic Noise Insulation Measures to Existing Houses, M.
Modra, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1984
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in ,doc
Page 83 of 106
I
I
I
I
1
I
i
-
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
,
-
I
I
I
I
'!i
average property value of $150,000, gives a total property value improvement of
$72,000.
If the above assumptions were applied to all the approximately 110 properties in the
corridor, the increased property value due to noise reduction alone would total $330,000,
not counting any impact on property value of the median landscaping and imprinted
asphalt.
Because, the increased property value mainly impacts just the property owners and not
society as a whole 193 or even the neighborhood as a whole, this impact is excluded from
the benefit-cost calculations in the section on Monetary Benefd-Cost Analysis, sub-
section Impacts Evaluated in Monetary Terms (p, 88).
C. Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA)
Previous sections have identified and examined a number of impacts that are expected to
result from converting six conventional cross intersections to low-speed modern
roundabouts. In this section, those impacts that are favorable are classified as "benefits"
and unfavorable impacts are considered "costs."
The Benefit/Cost Ratio is simply a way of expressing the relationship between the benefits
of a project and the costs. The FHW A Economic Analysis Primer states that "Benefit-cost
analysis (BCA) considers the changes in benefits and costs that would be caused by a
potential improvement to the status quo facility.
"SCA attempts to capture all benefits and costs accruing to society from a project or course
of action, regardless of which particular party realizes the benefits or costs, or the form these
benefits and costs take."194
Whenever practical, impacts have been expressed in quantitative terms. When possible,
the impacts expressed quantitatively are also expressed in monetary terms. Fuel impacts,
for instance, are expressed in both gallons and dollars.
1. Impacts evaluated in non-monetary terms
Of the 69 impacts examined in this study, 64 have been expressed in non-monetary
terms. These impacts are listed in the following four tables.
The table below lists the thirty-three traffic impacts that have been evaluated in non-
monetary terms.
193 Aside from the increase in the tax base.
194 Economic Analysis Primer, FHW A, August 2003, p. 17
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 84 of 106
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
!
.
,
.~
Table 25. Traffic Impacts Expressed in Non-Monetary Terms
Area of Impact
Free flow
Level of Service (LOS) (p.16)
Delay (p.8)
Queue length (p. 17)
Delay to the driving public (P. 18)
Truck traffic (p. 19)
Keene Road (p, 22)
Street network (p,23)
Future growth (P. 23)
Non-motorized traffic (p.24)
Skycrest Elementary School (p.24)
Physical and right-of-way features
(p, 26)
Current and planned site
development features (p, 26)
Certain community considerations
(p, 26)
Traffic management strategies (p,
26)
Public transit (p. 27)
Adjacent intersection treatments (p.
27)
Public complaints (p. 27)
Other roundabouts in the
iurisdiction (P. 27)
Physical or geometric features (p.
28)
Land use or traffic generators (p.
28)
Other traffic control devices
reauiring pre-emption (P. 28)
Bottlenecks on intersecting
roadways (P. 29)
Sight distances (p. 29)
Platooned arterial traffic flow (p.
29)
Heavy use by persons with special
needs (p. 30)
Safety projects to benefit older
drivers (p: 30)
Emergency vehicle operations
coordination reauirements (P. 30)
Emergencyevacuation (p.30)
Impact Cost =C
Benefit = B
All intersections users prefer to stay in motion;
1 prefer not to have to come to a stop; and B
prefer not to be stopped and waiting
2 Improved +0.67 grade B
3 Reduced by 1/3 B
4 Reduced by % B
5 Reduced by 5,222 person-hours B
6 No significant adverse affect -
7 No impact -
8 No impact -
9 No impact -
10 Reduced delay B
11 Improved mobility B
12 Improved Level Of Service (LOS) B
13 Improved congestion management B
14 Improved 1-way operation on Corona Avenue B
15 No adverse impact -
16 Enhanced attractiveness of the corridor will B
benefit developments.
17 No adverse impact -
18 No adverse impact -
19 The low-speed environment facilitates public B
transit safety and environment.
20 No adverse impact -
21 The project is responsive to the complaints. B
22 No adverse impact -
23 No adverse impact -
24 No adverse impact -
25 No adverse impact -
26 No adverse impact -
27 No adverse impact -
28 No adverse impact -
29 No adverse impact -
30 No adverse impact -
31 No adverse impact -
32 No adverse impact -
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc Page 85 of 106
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
!
I
I
i
i
,
I
.
,
-
Table 25. Traffic Impacts Expressed in Non-Monetary Terms
Impact
33 No adverse im act
Cost = C
Benefit = B
Railroad crossin s
The next table lists the sixteen safety impacts that have been evaluated in non-monetary
terms. Some impacts are listed more than once because they impact more than one
group; those impacts are marked with an asterisk (*) when have already been numbered
earlier in the table. '
Table 26. Safety Impacts Expressed in Non-Monetary Terms
Area of Impact Impact Cost = C
Benefit = B
34 Fewer crashes B
35 Less severe crashes B
Motorists (p.32) 36 Most lethal crash tvoes eliminated B
37 Vehicle/vehicle conflicts reduced bv % B
38 Increased non-motorized travel ootions B
. Increased comfort and mobilitv B
Pedestrians (p. 45) 39 Much lower, safer vehicle soeeds B
40 Shorter crossing exoosure distance/time B
41 Pedestrian/vehicle conflicts reduced bv 2/3 B
42 Less complexity B
43 No left turns in front of oncoming traffic B
44 Less demanding time-constrained decisions B
Older drivers (p.39) Lower demands on vision, flexibility and
45 reaction time B
46 More time for other drivers to compensate for B
older drivers' errors
Older pedestrians (p,50) . Increased comfort and mobilitv B
. Shorter crossing exoosure distance/time B
. Less complexity B
. Much lower, safer vehicle speeds B
Child pedestrians (p. 51) . Shorter crossing exposure distance/time B
. More time for drivers' to compensate for B
children's errors
. Increased comfort and mobility B
Bicyclists & skaters (p.52) . Much lower, safer vehicle speeds B
Mobility impaired users (p.52) . Shorter crossing exposure distance/time B
. More time for drivers' to compensate for non- B
motorized users' errors
Pedestrians with impaired vision (p. . Less complexity B
52) . Much lower, safer vehicle soeeds B
47 Missing aural cues sometimes available at C
signals
. More time for drivers to compensate for B
visually impaired users' errors
I
j
I
,
~
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 86 of 106
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
,
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 26. Safety Impacts Expressed in Non-Monetary Terms
Area of Impact Impact Cost = C
Benefit = B
Curb return pedestrian ramps, splitter island
48 crosswalk curbs and superior installed B
truncated domes surfaces help wayfinding
. Less complexity B
. Much lower, safer vehicle speeds B
Cognitively impaired pedestrians More time for drivers to compensate for B
(p,57) . coanitivelv impaired users' errors
49 visually and texturally emphasized crosswalks B
make it more apparent where to cross safely
The next table lists the six environmental impacts that have been evaluated in non-
monetary terms.
Table 27, Environmental Impacts Expressed in Non-Monetary Terms
Area of Impact Impact Cost = C
Benefit = B
Fuel Consumption (p. ) 50 Save 17,739' gallons over 20 years B
Emissions (p.61) 51 Reduced by 3,746,444 Kg over 20 years, B
Reduction of global warming gases
52 Lose 19, gain 6 Wi us 1,390 LF of 10' median B
Trees and plants (p.64) for more trees)19
53 Increased shade and habitat B
3,932 SF of impermeable surface replaced
Stormwater (p. ) 54 with planting area in central islands (plus B
another 13,920 SF in medians)
Noise (p.) 55 Reduced noise B
The next table lists the ten social impacts that have been evaluated in non-monetary
terms.
Table 28. Social Impacts Expressed in Non-Moneta'ry Terms
Area of Impact
Cost = C
Benefit = B
B
B
B
Aesthetics
56
57
58
Impact
Gain six attractive roundabouts
Enhance character of Cleveland street
Com atible with character of Cleveland Street
3,932 SF of asphalt replaced with planting
area in central islands (plus another 13,920
SF in medians
B
Landscaping
59
195 The medians are referenced here because both the roundabouts and the medians are part of the
same project and both are integral to the planned corridor treatment. Although the medians are joined
seamlessly with the roundabout splitter islands, their cost is not considered here,
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 87 of 106
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
i
I
i
-
I
I
,
Table 28. Social Impacts Expressed in Non-Monetary Terms
Area of Impact Impact Cost - C
Benefit = B
60 Improved mobility for all users B
61 Increased neighborhood interaction B
Community Improved urban environment encourages
62 urban infill that reduces sprawl B
63 More hospitable streets encourage street B
activities and community interaction
Reduction in injuries, trauma, suffering, pain,
Crashes 64 emotional anguish, and emotional and mental B
disorders
The preceding four tables list 64 impacts expressed in non-monetary terms: 44
providing a net benefit, 19 having no adverse impact, and one being a cost.
Perhaps the most straightforward way to compare the non-monetary benefits and costs
is to construct a kind of net present value (NPV), as follows
Non-monetary NPV = (number of benefits) - (number of costs)
= 44-18
= 26
Another way is to construct a kind of benefit/cost ratio, as follows
Non-monetary Benefit/Cost Ratio = Number of Benefits
Number of Costs
= 44 = 44
1
Both methods above implicitly assign equal weight to all non-monetary impacts.
These 64 non-monetary impacts are ignored in the Monetary Benefit/Cost Ratio
evaluation in the next section.
Four of these non-monetary impacts also have a monetary consequence which is
factored into the Monetary Benefit/Cost Ratio discussed below. Fuel savings, for
instance, has both an environmental impact due to a reduction of fuel consumption and
an economic impact due to the money saved not purchasing fuel. The three other non-
monetary impacts with secondary monetary impacts are operational impacts, crash
impacts and reduced noise.
2. Impacts evaluated in monetary terms
The FHWA roundabout Informational Guide states that "Economic evaluation is an
important part of any public works planning process. For roundabout applications,
economic evaluation becomes important when comparing roundabouts against other
forms of intersection and traffic control, such as comparing a roundabout with a
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 88 of 106
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
,
i
~
~
signalized intersection. The most appropriate method for evaluating public works
projects of this type is usually the benefit-cost analysis method.,,196
The methodology used to calculate the monetary benefit/cost ratio is standard
engineering analysis for intersection projects. This is the same methodology used by
Hillsborough County to evaluate 400 signalized intersections to prioritize safety
countermeasures and is an updated version of the procedures adopted by the Florida
Department of Transportation for calculating benefit-cost.
Of the 69 impacts examined in this study, 5 have been evaluated in monetary terms.
These impacts have been amortized over the 20 year life of the project and the future
impacts were converted into present worth. A spreadsheet with the calculations is found
in APPENDIX J.
The nominal 20-year life-cycle is a conservative assumption, since at the projected rate
of growth the six planned modern roundabouts should function quite well into the
foreseeable future.
The five impacts expressed and evaluated in monetary terms are listed in the table
below.
Table 29. Impacts Expressed in Monetary Terms
Area of Impact
Costs to the
City of
Clearwater
Impact (2004 dollars)
Cost = C
Benefit = B
$ 1,740,398 C
$ 3,780 C
$ 26,609 B
$ 58,486 B
$ 2,656,989 B
Reduced Costs
to Society
65 Capital costs (design + ROW + construction)
66 Annual Operations and Maintenance (0 & M) Costs
67 Annual fuel costs
68 Annual cost of delay
69 Annual comprehensive costs of crashes
The table above lists five impacts expressed in monetary terms. Construction costs are
hi,storical and have been adjusted to base year 2004 dollars using the formulas below.
Current year cost = (historical year cost) x (1 + k)(current year)-(historic year)
Where k = 3.5%197 annual adjustment factor for construction costs
The same formula was used to adjust the other historical cost data, using j as the
adjustment factor,
where i = 3% annual adjustment factor for consumer costs
Future benefits are inflated, discounted and summed to arrive at a present value.
196 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, p. 70
197 2002 Transportation Costs, Office of Policy Planning, Florida Department of Transportation, March
2003,p.17
Copy of Impact study,r96-handed in ,doc
Page 89 of 106
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
~
,
I
~
I
I
Future benefits are inflated for each year of the project life cycle according to the
standard geometric cash flow series formula below.
Ak = Ak-1(1 +rt-1
k= 1, . .. ,n
Where r = rj + rTG
rj = 3% = inflation rate
rTG = 0.45% = rate of traffic growth
The standard formula for discounting was used to discount the series of life-cycle costs
and benefits to present value,198
N
PV = L Ad1/(1 +j)t]
t=1
Where PV
t
A
N
j
= Present Value
= year of life-cycle analysis period
= amount of benefit or cost in year t
= 20 = length of life cycle (years)
= 7%199 = discount rate
Perhaps the most straightforward way to compare monetary benefits and costs over the
life cycle is with the Net Present Value200 (NPV), as follows
Monetary NPV= (benefits) - (costs) = $ 39,492,884
The other most widely used measure to compare benefits and costs is the Benefit/Cost
Ratio,201 as follows
Monetary Benefit/Cost Ratio = Present Value of benefits = 34.5
Present Value of costs
The monetary Benefit/Cost Ratio shown above is substantially greater than unity, or one.
Although the project was proposed by and is supported by Skycrest residents for its
traffic calming benefits, rather than its economic benefits, a project with a monetary
Benefit/Cost Ratio greater than 1.0 is generally considered worth doing on the basis of
economics alone.
3. Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis is an accepted procedure for exercIsing models-including
engineering and economic models-to see how they behave when the inputs are varied
198 Economic Analysis Primer, Eric Gabler, Office of Asset Management, FHW A, August 2003, p.12
199 Economic Analysis Primer, FHWA, August 2003, p. 13
200 Economic Analysis Primer, Eric Gabler, Office of Asset Management, FHWA, August 2003, p,23
201 Economic Analysis Primer, Eric Gabler, Office of Asset Management, FHWA, August 2003, p,23
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in ,doc
Page 90 of 106
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
.
t
I
.
I
within normal ranges and to identify any inputs that alter the outcome significantly more
than others.
Because the benefit-cost analysis involves factoring in assumptions-however
reasonable-about the future, it may seem somewhat speculative to some. The FHWA
Economic Analysis Primer states that "In some cases, agency personnel are skeptical
about the accuracy of the BCA due to perceived uncertainties in measuring or valuing
costs and benefits. In reality, there is much more substance to economic analysis
techniques and values than is generally understood. Where uncertainty does exist, it
can usually be measured and managed. It is helpful to remember that sound economic
analysis reduces uncertainty. Not doing the analysis only serves to hide uncertainty
from decision makers. "202
There is an accepted way to manage the risk, and "The traditional means by which
analysts have evaluated risk is through sensitivity analysis. "203 What sensitivity analysis
does is allow "the analyst to get a feel for the impact of the variability of individual inputs
on overall economic results.,,204
A sensitivity analysis was performed on the BCA model and established the following:
· The BCA model is insensitive to normal variations in most of the input factors.
· Assuming a reasonable 3D-year life-cycle would produce a significantly higher
Benefit/Cost Ratio.
· All economic projection models are sensitive to the assumed inflation and
discount rates. The inflation rate adjusts for the effects of inflation of the value of
the dollar over time and the discount rate adjusts for the time value of money.
The benefit-cost analysis uses a nominal discount rate of 7%, because "The U.S.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) currently requires U.S. Federal
agencies to use a 7 percent real discount rate to evaluate public investments and
regulations.205 The 3.5% adjustment factor for historical construction costs is
taken from a 2004 FOOT guide.206 Varying these factors within normal ranges
does not substantially alter the outcome, however.
The factors with the most influence on the cost/benefit ratio are the comprehensive costs of
crashes. Fortunately, many economic "models make use of cost of injury data and much
extended effort has been expended developing reliable data. The U.S. Government has
been sponsoring research to develop reliable comprehensive cost of crashes data since
1982207 and the NSC data used in the cost/benefit ratio calculations is among the latest and
most authoritative data available. Comprehensive costs data is discussed earlier under
Cost Impacts in the section on Comprehensive Costs (p.82).
202 Economic Analysis Primer, FHWA, August 2003, p. 17
203 Economic Analysis Primer, FHW A, August 2003, p. 30
204 Economic Analysis Primer, FHW A, August 2003, p. 30
205 Economic Analysis Primer, FHW A, August 2003, p. 13
206 2002 Transportation Costs, Office of Policy Planning, Florida Department of Transportation,
March2003, p. 17
207 Motor Vehicle Accident Costs, Technical Advisory T7570.2, FHWA , October 31, 1994
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in .doc
Page 91 of 106
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
.
.
.
I
i
~
Economic models of this type are highly sensitive to severity of injuries. For that reason,
it may be tempting to invent crashes or injuries that never happened in order to alter the
Benefit/Cost Ratio, but introducing fake data to affect the outcome is obviously wrong.
Likewise, deleting crashes in order to alter the Benefit/Cost Ratio would be improper
because the fact is the crashes and associated injuries that occurred did occur and
wishful thinking will not change that reality. The likelihood of crashes and injuries is
unchanged under the status quo so in the absence of improvements to the intersections
there is no basis for arbitrarily assuming a particular crash type or crash outcome will not
reoccur.
4. Robustness
A project with a monetary Benefit/Cost Ratio greater than 1.0 is generally considered
economically viable. The BIC Ratio here is more than thirty times greater and in addition
there are 44 non-monetary benefits.
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in .doc
Page 92 of 106
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
APPENDIX G
APPENDIX H
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX J
APPENDIX K
APPENDIX L
APPENDIX M
APPENDICES
AutoTurn plots........ ... ........ .................... ... ........ ... .......... ..... ..... ... ... '" ... ....... ....... ...... ... ....... 94
Crash schematic diagrams..... ....... .......... .......................... ...................... ................. ........ 95
Table of USA school roundabout locations ...................................................................... 96
Intersection rules.............................................................................................................. 97
Tree walk tech memo.............. ................... ......... ...... ........................................ .... ........... 98
Endorsement from Skycrest Neighbors..... ................... ............ ......... ...... ........................ 99
Complaint letter to Mayor Aungst and reply; Letter to City Manager Horne & reply..... 100
Sarasota MPO resolution......... ...... ...................... ............................. ...................... ....... 101
Vermont resolution .... ............. ......................................... ................................................ 102
Benefit-Cost Analysis Calculations................ ............................. ................ ....... ............. 103
Overview of the Four-Mode Elemental Model used in aaSIDRA ........................104
Lineville Road roundabout letters from principal and sherrif ................................105
Overview of the Four-Mode Elemental Model used in aaSIORA........................ 106
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in .doc
Page 93 of 106
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
I
~
I
I
I
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in .doc
APPENDIX A AutoTurn plots
Page 94 of 106
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX 8 Crash schematic diagrams
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in .doc
Page 95 of 106
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
~
I
I
I
APPENDIX C Table of USA school roundabout locations
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in .doc Page 96 of 106
I
I
I
~
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
,
I
I
'I
APPENDIX D Intersection rules
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in .doc
Page 97 of 106
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX E Tree walk tech memo
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in .doc
Page 98 of 106
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;.
I
I
APPENDIX F Endorsement from Skycrest Neighbors
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in .doc Page 99 of 106
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX G Complaint letter to Mayor Aungst and reply; Letter to City Manager
Horne & reply
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in .doc
Page 100 of 106
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX H Sarasota MPO resolution
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in .doc
Page 101 of 106
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
APPENDIX I Vermont resolution
I
I
I
,~
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in .doc Page 102 of 106
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
I
APPENDIX J Benefit-Cost Analysis Calculations
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in .doc Page 103 of 106
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
BCA Inputs
A. COSTS TO THE CITY
(1) Capital Costs: One-time Cost of Rbts.
Year of costruction cost data 2002
Construction cost per rbt. $ 173,726
Number of roundabouts 6
DeSign cost (2003) $ 55,398
ROW acquisition (2004) $ 5,000
ata 2002
Is $ 6,000
ts. $ 2,220
(2) O&M Costs. Yr. of d
Ann. cost to maint. 3 signa
Annual cost to maint. 6 rb
B. COSTS TO SOCIETY
(3) Fuel
Fuel cost (pe~gallon) ...I~ .--17,17~5309
Annual fuel savings (gallons) .
(4) Delay___.. . .
Cost ~ata for yea!, ..~~ 2002
Hourly cost of travel delay $ 11.20
Trav~1 del~l'_r~ductn-"-{~rs/yr) ..~ 5,222
(~) Crash~ .______. ____
_____Q()mpre~ensi"_~ggsts of Cr~~_hes
NSC data for year
------....----...---.--------.
K Death
-------------------- ,.._~_._-----
A l!lcapa~itating Injury
~Non~incapicitating Injury
C Po~siblel_njury ___
O~()lnjury_____ n . _
$
$
$
$
$
2002
3,470,000
172,000
44,200
21,000
2,000
~nnuai Faclm's for Adjusting Historic Costs to
Current Year 2004
~~ ---
Consumer Inflation Rate (i) _ 3.00%
~~nstruc~olllnflation Rate (k) 3.50%
Factors to calculate PV of Total Ann. Benefits
Year of Construction 2005
------- --~-_.._-_._-
Project service life (N) (yrs.) 20
Annual Inflation Rate (rj) - 3.00%
Annual TraffiC Growth-{r TG )-- ---0.45%
--~..__._----_._--~-_._-
An~.I:lClllnflatio~ Factor (r) 3.45%
Anl1~~1 Dis~()u.!lt Rate U) 7.00%
BCA Calculations
---.
Construction cost of 6 rbts.
adj. to current yr. by (k) $
DeSign cost adjuste y (r j) $
Right-of-Way acquisition $
PV cost of 6 roundabouts $
--. -
1,116,595
57,060
5,000
1,178,655 -,
-- Adjusted-to current year by (i) ..~
Annual O&M ben~!it ~L~ 4,010
Adjusted to currentlear by (i)
Annual Fuel .cost savings $ 26,609
Annual1".ravel Delay sa~ings $ 62,048.22
Total annual
pr:.eventable d_elay benefit $ 88,657
Comprehensive costs of crashes,
adjusted to current year by (rj)
~..._____.____ __._n___
K Dea!~__ $ 3,6~_1,323
~nlncapacitatinglnju_ry_ $ 182,475
!!_ Non-inca~:Jl1ju_ry $ 46,892
C Possible Il1jury___ ___L~.?,279
o No Injury $ 2,122
----~-- ----.-.
C.-Crash History worksheet =:J
------ ---~~_=J_ ..~.~_~
Total crash prevention ~ I
b~nefit (current year.!_ Jl~656,9~!1
[Jotafannual benefits J$ 2,749,656l
----------~-~ ~------
l Anfi5mzeOVeITife-cycJe worKsneer.. ...J-
....-----.-------T----- .._M..____
~ benefit of 6 rbt~ l~ 40,671,539 I
Benefit Cost Analysis Outputs
~:~:~~~~;!::i~.PV) = t 39,492,:~_r_~~;;:~~fr:~~~bouts- - - -~ 4~:~~~~~:1+ -J
Skycrest rbts seA rev19.xls - Inputs & Outputs
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
Present Value of Life-Cycle Amortization
Year of Life- Future Benefits Discounted Gas Savings Pollutant
Cycle Calendar Year Adjusted for Inflation Future Worth (gals. ) reduction (Kg.)
1 2005 $ 2,749,656 $ 2,749,656 17,739 179,440
2 2006 $ 2,844,519 $ 2,658,429 17,819 180,247
3 2007 $ 2,942,655 $ 2,570,229 17,899 181,059
4 2008 $ 3,044,176 $ 2,484,955 17,980 181,873
5 2009 $ 3,149,200 $ 2,402,510 18,060 182,692
6 2010 $ 3,257,848 $ 2,322,800 18,142 183,514
7 2011 $ 3,370,243 $ 2,245,736 18,223 184,340
8 2012 $ 3,486,517 $ 2,171,227 18,305 185,169
9 2013 $ 3,606,802 $ 2,099,191 18,388 186,003
10 2014 $ 3,731,236 $ 2,029,545 18,470 186,840
11 2015 $ 3,859,964 $ 1,962,210 18,554 187,680
12 2016 $ 3,993,133 $ 1,897,109 18,637 188,525
13 2017 $ 4,130,896 $ 1,834,167 18,721 189,373
14 2018 $ 4,273,412 $ 1,773,314 18,805 190,225
15 2019 $ 4,420,844 $ 1,714,480 18,890 191,081
16 2020 $ 4,573,364 $ 1,657,597 18,975 191,941
17 2021 $ 4,731,145 $ 1,602,602 19,060 192,805
18 2022 $ 4,894,369 $ 1,549,432 19,146 193,673
19 2023 $ 5,063,225 $ 1,498,026 19,232 194,544
20 2024 $ 5,237,906 $ 1,448,325 19,319 195,420
0 $ - $ - - -
0 $ - $ - - -
0 $ - $ - - -
0 $ - $ - - -
0 $ - $ - - -
0 $ - $ - - -
0 $ - $ - - -
0 $ - $ - - -
0 $ - $ - - -
0 $ - $ - - -
0 $ - $ - - -
Present Value $ 40,671,539 370,364 3,746,444
Benefits = (Benefits)_
(@ year n) n 1
X (1 + Inflation Factor)
Present Worth = (Crash Benefits) X 1/(1 + j)n
Benefits (@ year n) n
Where
Year (n) = 1,2,3,...
Inflation rate (r) = 3.45%
Discount rate U) = 7.0%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
I
I
I
Classification of Crashes at Six Intersections in the Cleveland Street Corridor for 36 Month Period
Pre- NSC Comprehensive Cost $) Crash
Date of Cleveland ventable K I A I B I C I 0 Prevention
Crash & Type of Collision Crash? 3,681 ,323r 182,475146,892122,2791 2,122 Benefit
-....---~-'~
1-07/08/00 Meteor RightAngle ___ 100%_f--__ _ 1 $ 46,892
08/08/00 Corona Rear End _ ~()% 1 $ ___~~
08/12/00 Saturn Right Angle 100% _ _1-+---__+---$ 22,279
08/31/00 Saturn_ Bigbt Angle 100% _____ ~ 1 $ _ 22,279
11/02/00 Aurora Right Angle 100%_ f-_1 ~__!~
12/14/00 Corona Left Turn 100% 1 $ 2,122
.,----
02/03/01 Saturn Left Turn 100o~ ---f-- 1 $ 2,12~_
02/17/01 Duncan Left Turn 100% 1 $ 46,892
-- ----
04/09/01 Saturn Right Angle 100% i-- 1 $ 2,122
06/14/01 Corona RightAngle 100% 1 $ 2,122
- -f----~-
08/07/01 Aurora Out of Control 100% 2 1 , $ 7,409,538
--- ----- ----- --
10/03/01 Lake Right Angle 100% 1 $ 46,892
----- --1---------
10/09/01 Lake Bi9!:!L.A.ngle_ 100%_ ____!...... ~2,122
10/09/01 Saturn Right Angle 100% _I--- ___ _1_ J_~~
01/22/02 Corona Right Angle 100%~__ 2 $ 93,78.i..
02/10/02 Duncan Left Turn 100o~_ 1--__ ---f--- 1 $ 2,122
02/20/02 Corona Backing V~hicle 50%+_~__ 1 $___ 1 ,O~
~28/02 Aurora Right Angle ___ _.JQQ% ______+-____ __ l_I-~__b!.~~
04/03/02 Duncan Right Angle_ 1 OQ~ ____ _ _ 1 $ ~~
04/15/02 Saturn Right Angle _ 100% __ ______ ___ ___ f--___f---1__J__~~
~J'~~~turn _ Sideswipe 100% ___ ______ __ 1 ~_ 2,12~
06/19/02 Duncan Rear End 50% 1 $ 11,139
____ ------1--------- -- n___ ------1---- -- -----
06/20/02 Lake___ Backing "-ehicl~ _____ 50% __ ___ ____~ _1._~,061
06/25/02 Saturn__~ig!!t Angle _ 100% ___ ___ 1 $ 2,122
08/08/02 Aurora__-':3acking \/~hicle50% _ ___ 1 $ 1,061_
08/20/02 Corona Out of Control 50% _____ ____ 1 $_.1.061
09/28/02 Aurora Backing Vehicle _50% ___ ______ --I-- 1 t___ 1,06_'!.i
10/17/02 Corona Right Angle 100% _.J.._+-_____+___+-_$ 46,892:
10/17/02 Corona Sideswipe__1.QO%--I--~---+--- $__46,892
c-1H09/02A~~~_ Right Angle 100%____ f--- 1 $ 2,122
_12/28/02 Corona Right Angle _ 100~_______ 1 $ 2,122 .
01/23/03 _~ror~_ Right Ang_l~ 100% _____ 1 $ 22,279 I
01/30/03 Lake Rear End 50% 1 $ 11 , 139'
---- ------- ------ ----- ---- -- -- ----+-----
02/21/03 Aurora Left Turn _ _ __ 100%______ _____ ___1___I----__J_ 22,279_
()3/05/03 La~e___ Rear End__ 50% _______ 1__ 1-__$ 23,446'
03/17/Q~~~turn ___~End__ 50%_ ___ 1..L_~Q~_
J!..4/12/0~ Duncan Rear End ____ 50%_ ____ 1 $ 11,139 _
OS/22/03 Auror~ Sideswipe 100% 1 $ 2,122
---------- -- -------
~/05/03 Lake_I3_~~_End n _ 50%____ _ _ , l...__$..__~~.1
Total
39
2
o
23
10
7
Total for 36 months $ 7,970,966
Annual benefit $ 2,656,989
Skycrest rbts seA rev19.xls --- Crash History (2)
Printed 5/11/20065:58 PM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
~
.
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX K Overview of the Four-Mode Elemental Model used in aaSIDRA
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in .doc
Page 104 of 106
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
APPENDIX L Uneville Road roundabout letters from principal and sheriff
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in .doc
Page 105 of 106
I
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
j
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX M Overview of the Four-Mode Elemental Model used in aaSIDRA208
The four-mode elemental model is applied in aaSIORA as follows:
. Traffic performance is different in each lane of traffic at intersections. aaSIORA
calculates the fuel consumption, operating cost and pollutant emission estimates for
each lane of traffic separately.
. In each lane, the model is applied to queued and unqueued vehicles separately
according to the proportion queued estimated by aaSIORA. For unqueued vehicles, only
the cruise and geometric stop components apply. For queued vehicles, aaSIDRA
determines the "drive cycles", distinguishing between major stops, queue move-ups
(stops in queue) and geometric stops (slow-down or full stop in the absence of any other
vehicle). These drive cycles are very different for different intersection types (signalized,
sign-controlled, roundabout), for different signal phasings (one or two green periods in
the cycle), for yield and stop control, and for different congestion levels.
. If the approach and exit section cruise speeds are different for unqueued through
vehicles at traffic signals and priority movements at unsignalized intersections, they are
considered to be subject to an acceleration or deceleration during their travel.
. Orive cycles are defined by the initial and final speeds in each element of the driving
maneuver. Approach and exit cruise speeds, intersection negotiation speeds and queue
move-up speeds are used for this purpose. Some of these speeds are specified as input
by the user, some are calculated by the program according to the intersection geometry
and traffic congestion levels, and some default parameters are used where applicable.
. The drive cycle information is used to calculate acceleration and deceleration times and
distances for each element of the drive cycle individually. Effective cruise distance,
cruise time and idling time are calculated using this information as well as traffic
performance estimates (delay, number of stops). The drive cycle information is also
used to calculate different delays (stopped delay, queuing delay, geometric delay,
control delay, etc), which are reported to the user along with the proportion stopped
(proportion queued for a more precise term), effective stop rate, queue move-up rate,
etc.
. The fuel consumption, emission rates and operating cost values are calculated for each
element of the drive cycle individually using the statistics derived as explained above.
The results are added together for the entire queued vehicle maneuver, and then the
results for queued and unqueued vehicles are aggregated.
. Fuel consumption and emission rates are calculated from a set of equations which use
such vehicle parameters as mass and fuel/emission efficiency rates, as well as road
grade and relevant speeds (cruise, initial, final).
. In the above process, light and heavy vehicles are treated separately with different
parameters (e.g. different mass, different acceleration and deceleration characteristics).
208 Overview information provided by Akcelik & Associates, publishers of aaSIDRA software
Copy of Impact study.r96-handed in .doc
Page 106 of 106
ater
City Council
~a =~over Me!!l~randum
CA-S
/3 .1
Tracking Number: 2,080
Actual Date: 05/18/2006
Subject / Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution 06-30, amending Development Agreement between City of Clearwater and
Executive Corporation of Clearwater, Inc..
Summary:
A Development Agreement between the City of Clearwater and Executive Corporation of
Clearwater, Inc. was entered into on May 31, 2005 concerning development of 44.2 acres
formerly known as the Clearwater Executive Golf Course. The Agreement was subsequently
amended by Resolution No. 05-15. The developer has requested a further amendment to
Section 5.1.2 to clarify that the agreement will become effective upon conveyance of the
property to either Beazer Homes Corp. or assigns. The purpose of the amendment is to
accommodate proposed financing arrangements. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the
amendment and since the proposal does not amend any terms required by statute or Code has
determined that it may be accomplished by Resolution.
Originating: City Attorney
Section City Attorney Reports
Category: Agreements/Contracts - without cost
Number of Hard Copies attached: 2
Public Hearing: No
Financial Information:
Review Approval
Pam Akin
04-26-2006
08:21:38
Cvndie Goudeau
05-04-2006
09: 15: 12
RESOLUTION NO. 06-30
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER,
FLORIDA, APPROVING AN AMENDED AND RESTATED
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER AND EXECUTIVE CORPORATION OF
CLEARWATER; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater entered into a Development Agreement with
the Executive Corporation of Clearwater on May 31, 2005, which was subsequently
amended by Resolution No. 05-15; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater is desirous of approving a further amendment
to said development agreement with Executive Corporation of Clearwater, Inc.; now,
therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The Amended and Restated Development Agreement between the
City of Clearwater and Executive Corporation of Clearwater, Inc. a copy of which is
attached as Exhibit "A" is hereby approved.
Section 2. The City Clerk is directed to record the Amended and Restated
Development Agreement with the Clerk of the Circuit Court in Pinellas County no later
than fourteen (14) days after the agreement is executed. The applicant for the
Amended and Restated Development Agreement shall bear the expense of recording
the agreement.
Section 3. The City Clerk is directed to submit a recorded copy of the
Amended and Restated Development Agreement to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs no later than fourteen (14) days after the Development Agreement is
recorded.
Section 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
day of
,2006.
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Resolution No. 06-30
AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
("AGREEMENT") is dated , 2006, effective as provided in Section 5 of this
Agreement, and entered into between EXECUTIVE CORPORATION OF
CLEARWATER, INC., a Florida corporation ("OWNER"), and the CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida acting through
its City Council ("COUNCIL"), the governing body thereof ("CITY").
BfQII~b~:
A. Sections 163.3220 - 163.3243, Florida Statutes, which set forth the
Florida Local Government Development Agreement Act ("ACT"), authorize the CITY to
enter into binding development agreements with persons having a legal or equitable
interest in real property located within the corporate limits of the City.
B. Under Section 163.3223 of the ACT, the CITY has adopted Section 4-606
of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code ("CODE"), establishing
procedures and requirements to consider and enter into development agreements.
C. OWNER owns approximately 44.2 acres m.o.1. of real property
("PROPERTY") in the corporate limits of the City, more particularly described on Exhibit
"A" attached hereto and incorporated herein.
D. OWNER or its successor, desires to develop the Property as a town home
community, consisting of not more than 280 units, generally conforming to the concept
plan ("CONCEPT PLAN") shown on Sheet 1 of 2 on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and
incorporated herein.
E. The PROPERTY currently has a land use designation of Recreation/Open
Space and is zoned OS/R.
F. In order to develop the PROPERTY, consisting of 44.2 acres, with up to 280
residential units, OWNER has requested that the City place the following on the
PROPERTY: (i) a land use designation of Residential Urban (7.5 units/acre) and (ii) a
zoning designation of MDR (Medium Density Residential).
G. The CITY and OWNER have determined that it would be mutually beneficial
to enter into a development agreement governing the matters set forth herein and have
negotiated this AGREEMENT in accordance with the CODE and the ACT.
__ . -, I
-'r I no \ r'E..v" Sf- C"
13. \
H. The CITY has found that the terms of, and future development orders
associated with, this AGREEMENT are consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan and
the CODE.
I. On May 31, 2005, the CITY and the OWNER entered into a Development
Agreement, which the parties wish to amend and restate in its entirety as set forth
below.
STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT
In consideration of and in reliance upon the premises, the mutual covenants
contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto intending to be legally bound and
in accordance with the ACT, agree as follows:
SECTION 1. RECITALS
AGREEMENT.
The above recitals are true and correct and are a part of this
SECTION 2. INCORPORATION OF THE ACT This AGREEMENT is entered into in
compliance with and under the authority of the CODE and the ACT, the terms of which as
of the date of this AGREEMENT are incorporated herein by this reference and made a part
of this AGREEMENT. Words used in this AGREEMENT without definition that are defined in
the ACT shall have the same meaning in this AGREEMENT as in the ACT.
SECTION 3. PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS AGREEMENT The PROPERTY is subject to this
AGREEMENT.
SECTION 4. OWNERSHIP The PROPERTY is owned in fee simple by OWNER.
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE/DuRATION OF THIS AGREEMENT
5.1 This AGREEMENT shall become effective as provided for by the ACT and shall be
contingent upon
5.1.1 Obtaining final approval, and effectiveness of a land use designation of
Residential Urban and a zoning designation of MDR as requested on the PROPERTY;
and
5.1.2 Conveyance by OWNER of the PROPERTY to Seazer Homes Corp., a
Tennessee corporation, or assigns.
5.2 This AGREEMENT shall continue in effect until terminated as defined herein but for
a period not to exceed ten (10) years.
SECTION 6. OBLIGATIONS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT
2
6.1 Obligations of the OWNER
6.1.1. The obligations under this AGREEMENT shall be binding on OWNER,
its successors or assigns.
6.1.2. At the time of development of the PROPERTY, OWNER will submit
such applications and documentation as are required by law and shall comply with the
City's CODE applicable at the time of development review.
6.1.3.
PROPERTY:
The following restrictions shall apply to development of the
6.1.3.1 The PROPERTY shall be developed substantially in
conformance with the CONCEPT PLAN. The estimated population density and maximum
building intensity are shown on the CONCEPT PLAN. The locations of the ponds and
roads shown on the CONCEPT PLAN are approximate and may change as a result of the
requirements of applicable regulatory agencies or other design considerations.
6.1.3.2
Building height shall not exceed 35 feet (two stories).
6.1.3.3 The architectural style of the town homes to be constructed
on the Property shall be substantially as shown on the renderings attached hereto as
Exhibit "C."
6.1.3.4 The landscape buffering for the westerly side of the Property
adjacent to existing residential development shall be substantially as described on
Sheet 2 of 2 on Exhibit "B.". Building setbacks shall meet the requirements of the CODE
and may be located in whole or in part within the landscape buffer.
6.1.3.5 The OWNER shall construct at its cost an extension of a turn
lane on Countryside Blvd. as shown on the CONCEPT PLAN and shall post the security
therefor as required by CODE ~4-606 G.1.e.
6.1.3.6 The OWNER shall grant (i) a utility easement for water serVice
five (5) feet on either side of the constructed water lines on the PROPERTY and (ii)
simultaneously with vacation by the CITY of that portion of the easement recorded in
O.R. Book 4223, Page 1502, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, a
replacement easement that relates to the remaining active wells operated by the CITY
on the Property.
6.1.3.7. The project to be developed on the PROPERTY shall not have
vehicular access to Laurelwood Drive.
6.1.3.8 On the west side of Enterprise Road, the OWNER shall
extend north to the project entrance (+/- 400 feet) the existing SB to WB right turn lane
at the Enterprise Road/Countryside Blvd. intersection, all at the OWNER'S cost.
3
6.1.3.9. The OWNER shall buffer any residential structures located
opposite the entrance to the Tampa Bay Water property to the east with a six foot high
opaque fence, so as to diminish any adverse impact of headlights of vehicles exiting the
Tampa Bay Water property.
6.1.3.9. Egress from the PROPERTY onto Enterprise Road shall permit
only a right out movement. Ingress into the PROPERTY from Enterprise Road shall
permit right in and left in movements.
6.1.4 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the PROPERTY,
Owner shall record a deed restriction encumbering the PROPERTY, which deed
restriction shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney (which approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld) and which will generally describe the development limitations of
this AGREEMENT. The deed restriction shall be perpetual and may be amended or
terminated only with the consent of the CITY, which consent shall not be unreasonably
withheld.
6.2. Obligations of the City
6.2.1 Concurrent with the approval of this AGREEMENT, the COUNCIL shall
promptly process amendments to the land use plan and zoning
designation for the PROPERTY as set forth in Recital F above, all in
accordance with the CODE.
6.2.2 City will approve site and construction plans for the PROPERTY that are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the CONCEPT PLAN and
that meet the requirements of the CODE.
6.2.3 The City shall consider the vacation of the easement recorded in O.R.
Book 4223, Page 1502, of the Public Records of Pinellas County,
Florida.
6.2.4 The final effectiveness of the redesignations referenced in Section
6.2.1. is subject to:
6.2.5.1 The provisions of Chapter 125 and 163, Florida Statutes, as they may
govern such amendments; and
6.2.5.2 The expiration of any appeal periods or, if an appeal is filed, at the
conclusion of such appeal.
SECTION 7. PUBLIC FACILITIES TO SERVICE DEVELOPMENT The following public
facilities are presently available to the PROPERTY from the sources indicated below.
Development of the PROPERTY will be governed by the concurrency ordinance
provisions applicable at the time of development approval. With respect to
4
transportation, the concurrency provisions for the proposed development have been
met.
7.1. Potable water from the CITY.
7.2. Sewer service is currently provided by the CITY.
7.3. Fire protection from the CITY.
7.4. Drainage facilities for the parcel will be provided by OWNER.
7.5 Reclaimed water from the CITY, if available.
7.6. Solid waste from the CITY.
SECTION 8. REQUIRED LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERMITS The required local government
development permits for development of the PROPERTY include, without limitation, the
following:
8.1. Site plan approval(s) and associated utility licenses, access, and right-of-way
utilization permits;
8.2. Construction plan approval(s);
8.3. Building permit(s); and
8.4. Certificate(s) of occupancy.
SECTION 9. CONSISTENCY The CITY finds that development of the PROPERTY
consistent with the terms of this AGREEMENT is consistent with the City Comprehensive
Plan.
SECTION 10. TERMINATION
10.1. If OWNER'S obligations set forth in this AGREEMENT are not followed in a timely
manner, as determined by the City Manager, after notice to OwNER and an opportunity
to be heard, existing permits shall be administratively suspended and issuance of new
permits suspended until OWNER has fulfilled its obligations. Failure timely to fulfill its
obligations may serve as a basis for termination of this AGREEMENT by the CITY, at the
discretion of the CITY and after notice to OWNER and an opportunity for OWNER to be
heard.
5
SECTION 11. OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS
11.1. Except in the case of termination, until ten (10) years after the date of this
AGREEMENT, the PROPERTY shall not be subject to downzoning, unit density reduction, or
intensity reduction, unless the CITY has held a public hearing and determined:
11.1.1 That substantial changes have occurred in pertinent conditions existing
at the time of approval of this AGREEMENT; or
11.1.2 This AGREEMENT is based on substantially inaccurate information
provided by OWNER; or
11.1.3 That the change is essential to the public health, safety or welfare.
SECTION 12. COMPLIANCE WITH LAw The failure of this AGREEMENT to address any
particular permit, condition, term or restriction shall not relieve OWNER from the
necessity of complying with the law governing such permitting requirements, conditions,
terms or restrictions.
SECTION 13. NOTICES Notices and communications required or desired to be given
under this Agreement shall be given to the parties by hand delivery, by nationally
recognized overnight courier service such as Federal Express, or by certified mail,
return receipt requested, addressed as follows (copies as provided below shall be
required for proper notice to be given):
If to OWNER:
Executive Corporation of Clearwater, Inc.
5260 South Landings Drive, Ariel #704
Fort Myers, FL 33919
With copy to:
Timothy A. Johnson, Jr., Esquire
Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP
911 Chestnut St.
Clearwater, FL 33756
If to CITY:
City Council of City of Clearwater
c/o City Manager
112 South Osceola Avenue
P. O. Box 4748
Clearwater, FL 33756
Properly addressed, postage prepaid, notices or communications shall be deemed
delivered and received on the day of hand delivery, the next business day after deposit
with an overnight courier service for next day delivery, or on the third (3rd) day following
deposit in the United States mail, certified mail, return receipt requested. The parties
6
may change the addresses set forth above (including the addition of a mortgagee to
receive copies of all notices), by notice in accordance with this Section.
SECTION 14.
INTENTIONALLY OMITTED.
SECTION 15. MINOR NON-COMPLIANCE OWNER will not be deemed to have
failed to comply with the terms of this AGREEMENT in the event such non-compliance, in
the judgment of the City Administrator, reasonably exercised, is a minor or
inconsequential nature.
SECTION 16. COVENANT OF COOPERATION The parties shall cooperate with
and deal with each other in good faith and assist each other in the performance of the
provisions of this AGREEMENT and in achieving the completion of development of the
PROPERTY.
SECTION 17. ApPROVALS Whenever an approval or consent is required under or
contemplated by this AGREEMENT such approval or consent shall not be unreasonably
withheld, delayed or conditioned. All such approvals and consents shall be requested
and granted in writing.
SECTION 18. COMPLETION OF AGREEMENT Upon the completion of performance of
this AGREEMENT or its revocation or termination, a statement evidencing such
completion, revocation or termination shall be signed by the parties hereto and recorded
in the official records of the CITY.
SECTION 19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT (including any and all Exhibits
attached hereto all of which are a part of this AGREEMENT to the same extent as if such
Exhibits were set forth in full in the body of this AGREEMENT), constitutes the entire
agreement between the parties hereto pertaining to the subject matter hereof.
SECTION 20. CONSTRUCTION The titles, captions and section numbers in this
AGREEMENT are inserted for convenient reference only and do not define or limit the
scope or intent and should not be used in the interpretation of any section, subsection
or provision of this AGREEMENT. Whenever the context requires or permits, the singular
shall include the plural, and plural shall include the singular and any reference in this
AGREEMENT to OwNER includes OwNER'S successors or assigns. This AGREEMENT was
the production of negotiations between representatives for the CITY and OwNER and the
language of the Agreement should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and should
not be construed against any party hereto. If any term or provision of this AGREEMENT is
susceptible to more than one interpretation, one or more of which render it valid and
enforceable, and one or more of which would render it invalid or unenforceable, such
term or provision shall be construed in a manner that would render it valid and
enforceable.
SECTION 21. PARTIAL INVALIDITY If any term or provision of this AGREEMENT or
the application thereof to any person or circumstance is declared invalid or
7
unenforceable, the remainder of this AGREEMENT, including any valid portion of the
invalid term or provision and the application of such invalid term or provision to
circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not
be affected thereby and shall with the remainder of this AGREEMENT continue unmodified
and in full force and effect. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if such responsibilities of any
party thereto to the extent that the purpose of this AGREEMENT or the benefits sought to
be received hereunder are frustrated, such party shall have the right to terminate this
AGREEMENT upon fifteen (15) days notice to the other parties.
SECTION 22. CODE AMENDMENTS Subsequently adopted ordinances and codes
of the CITY which are of general application not governing the development of land shall
be applicable to the PROPERTY, and such modifications are specifically anticipated in
this AGREEMENT.
SECTION 23. GOVERNING LAw This AGREEMENT shall be governed by and
construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida without regard to the
conflict of laws principles of such state.
SECTION 24. COUNTERPARTS This AGREEMENT may be executed in counterparts,
all of which together shall continue one and the same instrument.
Section 25. TERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. The Development
Agreement entered into by the parties on May 31, 2005, is hereby terminated.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereto executed this AGREEMENT the date
and year first above written.
[End of Substantive Provisions, Signature Page to follow.]
8
WITNESSES:
EXECUTIVE CORPORATION OF
CLEARWATER, INC., .'
a Florida c. o. rp. o.~ration ./
. Y / /7
- B~~~-... ~
. ~'"\Q\.A~~~"'J S. Lee Crouch
President
;\ ~~
Cou ntersigned:
CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
By:
William B. Horne II
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY
~ OF LEE
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this \~ ~CL\...{\
2006, by S. Lee Crouch, as President of EXECUTIVE CORPORATION OF
CLEARWATER, INC., a Floriduorporation, on bfihalf of the corporation, who 0 is
personally known to me or who l:tI produced ?L- ~ l _ as identification.
'. .:,-.r.~:r~t. GINGER SA
A, . ~ MY AKHAUSEN
./' .:~.~ COMMISSION # DO 466230
;. i',~~XPIFlES: August 28, 2009
, ..;~:"I'I/ NOlllry '/Jubllo Underwriters
----......------
Print Name: .~.. >c'\~? ",/ "BS;\".~(J.."Gl\..'-{J.tj;./.)
\:. ~_\.... ~ ~;.' \ ( ."":s~..... \~~\.C:t:\.\/~._., t~.J.....,---
'" "\) l/ '-..' (~ --
9
STATE OF FLORIDA
CITY OF PINELLAS
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
, 2006, by Frank V. Hibbard, as Mayor of the City of Clearwater,
Florida, who D is personally known to me or who D produced
identification.
Notary Public
Print Name:
STATE OF FLORIDA
CITY OF PINELLAS
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
, 2006, by William B. Horne II, City Manager of the City of
Clearwater, Florida, who D is personally known to me or who D produced
identification.
Notary Public
Print Name:
Exhibits:
A Legal Description of Property
B Concept Plan
C Building Elevations
05/12/0607:58 PM.
45403.108701
#359033 v2 - BeazerlCountryside/Development Agreement (Amended)
10
( Deleted: 05/12/06 04:53 PM
'. . ...
. .
"., , ,
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
A tract of land lying in Sections 30 and 31, Township 28 South, Range 16 East, City of Clearwater, .
Pinellas COWlty, Florida and being more particularly described as follows:
C011M:ENCE at the West 1/4 Comer of said Section 30; thence nUl South 0019'55" East, along the
west line of said Section30, for 444.65 feet; thence South 89055'13" East for 50.01 feet to the POINT
OF BEGINNING; thence continue S~uth 89055'13" East for 1558.45 feet to a point on the \yest line of
"Dunedin Industrial Park" as recorded in Plat Book 64, Page 76, Records of Pinellas County, Florida;
thence South 0004'47" West for 937.36 feet to the southwest comer of said Plat; thence South
89055'13" East, along the south line of said plat, for 247.55 feet to a point on the westerly right-of-
way line of Enterprise Road; thence 16.61 feet aJong the said westerly right-of-way line and the arc of
a curve that is concave to the northeast, having a radius of895.00 feet, a chord length of 16.61 feet and
a chord bearing of South 9027'20" EaSt to a point of compound curvature with a curve that is also
'concave to the northeast; thence 261.09 feet along the arc of said curve having a radius of330.00 feet,
a chord length of 254.33 feet and a chord bearing of South 32039'10" East to a point of tangency;
thence South 55019'05" East for 345.77 feet to a point of curvature of a curve of a curve that is
concave to the southwest; thence 96.09 feet along the arc of said curve having a radius of 170.00 feet,
a chord length of94.82 feet and a chord bearing of South 39007'31" East to a point of tangency; thence
South 22055'56" East for 143.70 feet to a point of curvature of a curve that is concave to the northeast;
thence 286.62 feet along the arc of said curve having a radius of 405.00 feet, a chord length of 280.68
feet and a chord bearing of South 43012'18" East to a point of reverse curvature with a curve that is
concave to the southwest; thence I 02.23 feet along the arc of said curve having a radius of250.00 feet;
a chord length of 101.52 feet and a chord bearing of South 51045'54" East to a point of compound
curvature with a cUIye.that is COncave to the west; thence 49.17 feet along the arc of said curve having
a radius of 30.00 feet, a chord length of 43.85 and a chord bearing of South 6054'15" West to a point of
tangency, the same point being on the northwesterly right-of-way line of Countrysi~e Boulevard;
thence South 53051 '32" West, along said right-of~way line, for 592.43 feet to a point of curvature of a
curve that is concave to the southeast, thence 1059.47 feet along the arc of said curve having a radius
of 1960.00 feet, a chord length of 1046.62 feet and a chord bearing of South 38022'24" West. thence
. , ,
leaving said right-of-way line, North 67006'44" West for 164.15 feet; thence North 10030'36" West for
674.31 feet; thence North 62054'47" West for 114.19 feet to a point on the arc of a curve that is
concave to the northwest; thence 98.14 feet along the arc of said curve having a radius of 490.00 feet,
a chord length of97.97 feet and a chord bearing of North 21020'58" East; thence South 85055'13" East
for 382.97 feet; thence North 53018'37" East for 254.00 feet; thence North 10004'50" West for 228.53
feet; thence North 36015'14" East for 111.61 feet; thence North 14028'28" West for 444.10 feet; thence
North 58015'59" West for 446.79 feet; thence South 74034'52" West for 206.75 feet to a point on the
arc of a curve that is concave to the southwest; thence 37.09 feet along the arc of said curve' having a
radius of 590.00 feet, a chord length of 37.08 feet ~nd a chord bearing of North 17013'11" West;
thence North 62012'34" East for 288.57 feet; thence North 3059'27" West for 431.05 feet; thence North
44005'26" West for '445.53 feet; thence South 79028'45" West for 983.07 feet; thence North 0019'55"
,Vest for 393.61 feet to the POINT OF BEGll-JNING.
~
f
t
..
IloJ
>
E=
e~Z
~ S ~ ~
~Or-..
~u=-l
~ r. f;tJ..
~ - u.
f/} .:l i
;;.. 0 7. ~
~~8
~
;J
o
u
~
II
&1
~l
~I
~ ::
c l i.
.$l H'!J
~ ';l '; i t i . .
j $ i ~"-!l ~.i! q
... -= ... ~i ~U~~ ~ l~i
:n l! , ~ i
.?i Q I ~ 1
." -.: .. " ,iePl ; I ~
;; ~ 5 '" ~ , n ~
~ .. ~ .. .1 tl~
5 oS '" ;; ~ ;: l;j~i
" r... ~ " ~ t ~~l
~' ::.c 1 - - :s j~ i I ~! ;"'1
,. i .. := ... ... ~ q ~ i 1 " i 1 !
" 03 " .!!!, .. .. ~ i It ti i
:! " ~ (j "c , ~i. $ i ~
1 ~ .. .. ::: ::: S I r ~-;lj~ i ~il
. .., ~ 0 ~ .! ., .
.. :.0 ;". ~; ~I 1 ; f~ :
c8 .:l .... IX ~ f ~ 1- f
~ ,. .. .... .... ." 1: .... II; " '" 1 ~'I H~H li ..1
, i ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ; : j-~
'" '" ';f.! ;..J I' ~ i Ii ~
Z " IS " Q '" '" i .. .
~ '" I: ;:l, Q, Q, I ;:l, ':l ift 1] a ;;i 1 ;H
':::' .. 'it f E " ~ ::: f~ i ! i .' H ~
~ c .;: J:t '! lilf! , h~
"- '" t:) c.. c.. !~ ~ 1 t .
, .
~ t. i '!!-"" Ir~l .. n i ., .
; i U h$il:' Ii . 1; !
,g H ti '" j .if ~. ::J
!:oiJ A qJa, n
s. . I 1 , . olt
~ ~I h ll.' i h~~5 ~j ~ ~h
l~ i .;;t ~ ' !l ..;~ ~ Ali.;
::1 ~'iiij ~% :;l~
...:1$ .. ., . > ~ ...
..
~
J
~
i
~
Ii II
IIIII i
i 8 ~d
i rt
I I ~ I "I
i ~ t
... I
~S ~< "-~ I ~~
it j:1 ~ if! .!<~~,'t' '---+ Ii ~li
II . .
...Ai
~I ~1
:il -'!
". j ..~
II -~-' ~
il
I
II
II
it I' !~
~ oj ~~
H i~J ~I
il ~!1 ~8
- '''-::---
I~
fi
...
~
~!I
Ii Ui
II ~l
'I :;,
I
.
I
a~ I
i" ,
.~ I;!!
.. .-l:I
. ....~ -- 21 j;1
=1 ; di
U II
.'1
.
I
I
~~
~i
'.
I
~I
if I! !]
~1 .11 gal
I! ;11 ~II
---~--
II
II
i
i
~I
~I
I
I
~
~
~~
~~
\t~
..
Ii
]1
. J1
i'l
~I
.
~
rIJ
~~
88
~u
ge3
~
~u
~e
~z
r-1<
~s:
-~
~~
~~
~~
OU
U
..
fj
ii
"iii
ifi
;1
..
l
(
"f
15
~11l
..~
g~
f
~~
a!
h
'/':l
f.~S
~" .
. ';
"
~.
,,-
ll~"
.li~
t~~
$~~B
....ltll
ni~
it,:",
..g t!
~2i.~
!li!A
ll<'
,.t.~
~"o
i~~
~~:;
~a
;;r
;;.;
b
n'
~i
t~
!!.
U
~~
~
o
"""l
t"'"
~
o
c:
...
6'
~
tr:I
f
!!
o'
:::s
EXHIBIT "e"
Page 1 of 2
"T]
a
a
tTJ
-
C"O
<
e
.....
o
==
i I
-:
i"
-:
f.
lIB.
__I:
"
()
o
c
~::s
m~~
t-t.....c VJ
t:rj -:J .. ·
<<:0..
;I> l'T1 (1)
~z ~
om 0
z~ ~
o
=
r./}
(I)
~ ~,
: ,"
: ~; -'
"
.' ~ i
.
~O:i
~~
... \ '.~
..
.. f""\
r:.~
I(,t-
F ~
(~
~ ::0
.) g
~~
, ,
t .'.
,-
., .
. '.
"';
,. :;tl
: (:l
::;
~
(';l
-::
::;.
c
::1
-,
r'
r;,)
'<
o
S
EXHIBIT "Cn
Page 2 of 2
..
,-I
[--
"T1 !- 1
""'I
! [---
ni
<:
~.c
-I
-I
Ell
n
o
~
O\a
C~
~ ~ V1
tT1...., - .
< <: 0..
>- tT1 0
=:z -1
Om 0
Z::j ~
><;
:2::::$
:r
o
t::
en
(1)