1/13/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 104 PAGE CC Fund a significant portion of installation costs (subject to grant award, on a 50/50 basis with county finds). Provide some small amount of on-going maintenance funding (corresponds to what FDOT would normally spend to perform routine mowinghrimming maintenance of areas to be covered by special landscaping and to be maintained by the county or its maintenance provider). Apply for grant application. Enter into maintenance agreements with FDOT (subject to grant award) for existing Washingtonian palm and Seagrape plantings and new landscape areas, as grants are awarded. Contract out or perform maintenance in perpetuity. The most feasible funding source, according to the Public Works Director, is gasoline tax money. •Costs and Alternative Proposals Horizon estimates the following costs: Installation *Phase 1: installed and paid for by FDOT at a cost of approximately $90,000. •Phases 2 and 3: $225,000 (includes earthwork, irrigation, wells and electrical service to the wells, mulch and plant materials); 50% from Horizon and 501/6 from FDOT grants. Maintenance Phase 1: $ 7,880 per year Phase 2: $14,200 per year Phase 3: $ 9.500 perms Total: $31,580 per year (current dollars) The maintenance estimates provided by Horizon do not include: adjustments/maintenance/replacemem parts for the irrigation system (note: system could be disconnected or scaled-back after 1 year, after landscaping is established), electricity (energy) charges for use of well pumps. Maintenance estimates do include: annual re -mulching of plant beds and trimming of palms; quarterly fertilizing of all areas, vertical trimming of shrubs; monthly mowing of all sod areas and herbiciding all plant beds. Horizon proposes 3 alternatives for the conceptual plan, as follows: Proposal #1: Implement all 3 phases with 100% irrigation coverage as shown on the proposed plans. Maintenance costs would total $31,580 per year plus electrical (energy) charges for well pumps and cost of irrigation system adjustmerns/maintenancetreplacement parts. P or posal #2: Implement all 3 phases but irrigate the four I-95 median berrned planting beds only. Maintenance costs would total $31,580 per year plus other electrical and irrigation maintenance costs similar to Proposal #1 but lower due to scaled-back irrigation coverage. Installation costs would be reduced due to scaling -back of the irrigation system. Proposal #3: Implement Phases 1 and 2 only, without irrigation. Maintenance costs would be $22,080 per year plus cost of using watering trucks for the first year. Installation costs would also be decreased by the cost of the Phase 3 installation (emtrancelexit ramp plantings). Maintenance costs should drive the Board's decision, since installation costs should be covered by non -county sources. If the Board concludes that the species and design proposed (or as amended based on Board direction given at the January 13th meeting) can be properly maintained without an active irrigation system beyond the first year, then the maintenance costs of Proposal #1 would be virtually the same as Proposal #2, and would be roughly $32,000 per year after completion of Phase 3. However, if an active irrigation system is determined to be needed after the first year, then additional maintenance costs beyond the $32,000/year estimate would need to be funded by the county. •CONCLUSION At this time, the developer of a large commercial project adjacent to the I-95/SR 60 interchange is offering to design and contribute half of the installation costs for an interchange landscaping plan. FDOT staff has also indicated a willingness, through grants and use of yearly discretionary funds, to fiord the other half of installation costs. In staff s opinion, this proposal represents the county's best chance to begin upgrading interchange landscaping. At this time, detailed installation cost information (broken-down by phase) and maintenance cost estimates for on-going irrigation system maintenancelreplacemem costs and electricity charges are not available. Also, the highway beautification grant application and final landscaping plans have not been prepared. Staffs position is that the Board does have sufficient information to select a landscaping plan concept for the interchange, direct changes to be made in the proposed landscaping JANUARY 13, 1998 -48- 0 0