2019-02-11 CH agenda - Cedar Hammock CDD

CEDAR HAMMOCK

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

FEBRUARY 11, 2019 MEETING

AGENDA PACKAGE

Agenda Page 1

Cedar Hammock Community Development District

Inframark, Infrastructure Management Services

210 N. University Drive • Suite 702 • Coral Springs, Florida 33071

Telephone: (954) 603-0033 • Fax: (954) 345-1292

February 4, 2019

Board of Supervisors


Dear Board Members:

The meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Cedar Hammock Community Development District will be held Monday,

February 11, 2019 at 3:00 p.m. at the Cedar Hammock Clubhouse, 8660 Cedar Hammock Boulevard, Naples, Florida.

Following is the advance agenda for this meeting.

1. Roll Call

2. Approval of Agenda

3. Audience Comments

4. Old Business

5. New Business

A. South Florida Water Management District 1/9/19 Inspection

B. Preliminary FY2020 Budget Discussion

6. Attorney’s Report

A. Resolution 2019-03 Setting Public Hearing

B. Resolution 2019-04 Levying Special Assessments

7. Engineer’s Report

A. Draft Supplemental Engineer’s Report

B. Bridging Solutions Bridge Replacement Design Documents

i. Final Draft of RFP

ii. List of Bidders

iii. Bridge Location Exhibit

iv. Signed and Sealed Final Bridge Plans

C. Ingenium Bulkhead Replacement Design Documents

i. Forge Engineering Report of Geotechnical Exploration

ii. Banks Engineering Wall Replacement Layout

iii. Bid Tabs Bulkhead Walls

iv. RFP Timber Bulkhead Rehabilitation with Vinyl Sheet Pile Wall

v. Signed and Sealed Final Bulkhead Plans

vi. Rock Sounding Bulkhead #4

vii. Rock Sounding Bulkhead #16

viii. Rock Sounding Bulkhead #17 & 5

ix. List of Bidders

D. Quarter 4 2018 Water Use Compliance Report

8. Manager’s Report

A. Approval of the Minutes of the January 7, 2019 Continued Meeting

B. Approval of the Minutes of the January 14, 2019 Meeting

C. Financial Report

D. Follow-Up Items

9. Communication to Master Board

10. Supervisors Requests

11. Adjournment

The balance of the agenda is routine in nature and staff will give their reports at the meeting. In the meantime, if you have any

questions, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Justin Faircloth

Manager

cc: Dan Cox Brett Sealy Sam Marshall

Agenda Page 2

Fifth Order of Business

Agenda Page 3

5A

Agenda Page 4

South Florida Water Management District Environmental Resource Compliance Bureau Supporting Photo Exhibit

Prepared by: _____________________________________________________ Date of this Exhibit: ______________

Project Name: ____________________________________________________________________________________

Permit Number: _______________________ Application Number: ______________ Cost Code Number: ________

County: ______________________________ Service Center: ______________ Photo taken on: ________________

Photographer: ____________________________________________________ Purpose: _____________________

Direction of View: � North � Northeast � East � Southeast � South � Southwest � West � Northwest

Notes & Comments: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Emma Fain 01/25/2019

Cedar Hammock

11-01683-P 980727-6

Collier FTM 01/08/2019

Routine Site Visit

Homeless camp observed within the north portion of the conservation easement.

Emma Fain

Agenda Page 5

efain

Callout

Unauthorized activity within conservation easement

South Florida Water Management District Environmental Resource Compliance Bureau Supporting Photo Exhibit

Prepared by: _____________________________________________________ Date of this Exhibit: ______________

Project Name: ____________________________________________________________________________________

Permit Number: _______________________ Application Number: ______________ Cost Code Number: ________

County: ______________________________ Service Center: ______________ Photo taken on: ________________

Photographer: ____________________________________________________ Purpose: _____________________

Direction of View: � North � Northeast � East � Southeast � South � Southwest � West � Northwest

Notes & Comments: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Emma Fain 01/25/2019

Cedar Hammock

11-01683-P 980727-6

Collier FTM 01/09/2019

Routine Site Visit

Homeless camp observed within the north portion of the conservation easement.

Emma Fain

Agenda Page 6

Sixth Order of Business

Agenda Page 7

6A.

Agenda Page 8

1

RESOLUTION 2019-03

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE

CEDAR HAMMOCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION 2019-04, SETTING A PUBLIC

HEARING TO BE HELD FOR THE PURPOSE OF HEARING PUBLIC

COMMENT ON THE LEVY OF NON·AD VALOREM SPECIAL

ASSESSMENTS ON CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE

BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICT PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 190,

F.S., 170, F.S., AND 197, F.S.

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisor ("Board") of the Cedar Hammock Community

Development District ("District") has previously adopted Resolution 98-17, the Initial

Assessment Resolution, for implementing the limits, definitions, purpose, intent, location, nature

and estimated cost project improvements to be defrayed partially by certain non-ad valorem

special assessments on certain properties within the boundaries of the District: and

WHEREAS, the Initial Assessment Resolution provides for the portion of the estimated

cost or improvements to be defrayed by the non-ad valorem special assessments and provides

further for the manner in which such assessments shall be levied, when the levy shall occur, and

setting forth and designating the lands upon which the: assessment shall be levied, providing for

an assessment plat, the preparation of a preliminary assessment roll, and related matters and

WHEREAS, the Initial Resolution of the Board further provides for that notice and

conduct of a public hearing to consider the advisability and propriety of the non-ad valorem

special assessments and related project improvements, be affected providing for publication of

this resolution; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Initial Assessment Resolution 2019-04, a preliminary

assessment roll been prepared and allot the conditions precedent as set forth and applicable

provisions of Ch. 190, F.S., 170, F.S. 197, F.S. pertaining to the notice and conduct of the

aforementioned public hearing, has been satisfied and all related documents are available for

public inspection at the offices of Wilson, Barton, and Peck, 4511 Colonial Boulevard, Fort

Myers, FL 33912.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF

THE CEDAR HAMMOCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, COLLIER

COUNTY, FLORIDA:

1. There is hereby declared to be a public hearing to be held at 3:00 P.M., Thursday,

March 14, 2019 at Cedar Hammock Clubhouse, 8660 Cedar Hammock

Boulevard, Naples, Florida, for the purpose of hearing questions, comments and

Agenda Page 9

2

objections to the proposed non-ad valorem special assessments and the related

project improvements as defined in the preliminary assessment roll, a copy of

which shall be available for public inspection at the offices of Banks Engineering.

10511 Six Mile Cypress Parkway, Fort Myers, FL 33966. Affected persons may

either appear at the hearing or submit their written comments prior to the meeting

to the offices of the District Manager, 5911 Country Lakes Drive, Fort Myers, FL

33905.

2. Notice of said hearing shall be mailed to affected property owners at least twenty

(20) day. in advance of the hearing by first class mail and advertised in

accordance with Ch. 190, F.S., 170, F.S., and 197, F.S., as applicable. The

District Manager is hereby authorized and instructed to place said notice in a

newspaper of general circulation within Collier County pursuant to the

requirements of the Initial Assessment Resolution in substantially the form

attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.

3. This resolution shall become effective upon its passage.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of February, 2019.

THE CEDAR HAMMOCK

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DISTRICT

Attest:

_______________________________ ____________________________

District Manager Chairman, Board of Supervisors

Agenda Page 10

6B.

Agenda Page 11

1

RESOLUTION 2019-04

A RESOLUI'ION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE CEDAR HAMMOCK

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, OF COLLIER COUNTY, RELATING TO

THE IMPOSITION, LEVY, COLLECTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN

NON- AD VALOREM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO PROVIDE PROJECT

IMPROVEMENTS ON PROPERTY WITHIN THE DISTRICT CONSTITUTING THE

INITIAL ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION; DECLARING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS;

INDICATING THE LOCATION, NATURE AND ESTIMATED COST OF THE

PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WHERE COST IS TO BE DEFRAYED BY THE NON-AD

VALOREM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING THESE PORTIONS OF THE

ESTIMATED COSTS OF THE PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS TO BE DEFRAYED BY

THE NON-AD VALOREM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING THE MANNER IN

WHICH SUCH NON-AD VALOREM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS SHALL BE IMPOSED,

LEVIED AND COLLECTED; PROVIDING WHEN THE IMPOSITION AND LEVY

SHALL TAKE PLACE; DESIGNATING THE LANDS UPON WHICH THE NON·AD

VALOREM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS SHALL BE LEVIED; PROVIDING FOR AN

ASSESSMENT PLAT; AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF A PRELIMINARY

ASSESSMENT ROLL; PROVIDING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE

ADVISABILITY AND PROPRIETY OF SAID ASSESSMENTS AND THE RELATED

PROJECT IMPROVEMENT; PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OF SAID PUBLIC

HEARING; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION OF THIS RESOLUTION; PROVIDING

AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

WHEREAS, the Board has determined that it is necessary and desirable to repair certain

improvements, specifically lake bulkheads and bridges owned by the District as more

specifically described in the Supplemental Engineer’s Report attached as Exhibit “A;” and

WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the District shall defray the costs of the

project improvements by non-ad valorem special assessments ("special assessments",

“assessments"); and

WHEREAS, the Board is empowered by its charter and is authorized to provide the

project improvements, to issue special assessment bonds or notes and to amortize those bonds of

noes by the levy of non-ad valorem special assessments on property; and

WHEREAS, the District has ascertained and determined that special benefits shall accrue

peculiar to the parcels of property involved, over and above any general community-wide

benefits, from the systems, facilities and services constituting the project improvements, and that

the duty per parcel to pay these benefits shall be in proportion, that is, fairly and reasonably

Agenda Page 12

2

apportioned per parcel, as set forth Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by

reference; and

WHEREAS, the District has determined that the non-ad valorem special assessments

shall not exceed the special and peculiar benefits to the property.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF

THE CEDAR HAMMOCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. COLLIER

COUNTY, FLIORIDA:

1. This resolution is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 170 and Sections

197.3632, 190.021 and 190.022, Florida Statutes.

2. The nature and related aspects of project improvements, including the location of

the improvements, are as set forth in Exhibit" A", attached hereto, with more

specific drawings of plans and specifications on file in the offices of Banks

Engineering. 10511 Six Mile Cypress Parkway, Fort Myers, FL 33966.

3. The special assessments shall be levied on all lots and lands adjoining and

contiguous or bounding and abutting upon such improvements or otherwise

specially benefitted thereby and further designated by the assessment plat

hereinafter provided for.

4. The estimated cost of the improvements is $ (hereinafter

referred to as the Estimated Cost").

5. The particular non-ad valorem special assessments will defray approximately all

of the Estimated Cost, plus financing, related costs, capitalized interest, debt

service reserve and contingency.

6. The manner in which the assessment shall be made is as set forth in Exhibit "B ",

attached hereto.

7. At the referenced address of Banks Engineering there will be available for

inspection an assessment plat showing the land areas to be assessed. complete

with plans and specifications describing the project improvements, delineating the

Estimated Cost and these documents will be open to inspection by the public.

8. In the event the actual cost of the improvements exceeds the estimated costs, such

excess shall also be paid by the District from additional assessments on the

specially and peculiarly benefitted property on the assessment plat, or,

alternatively, from contributions from other entities, as and when authorized

specifically by the Board.

Agenda Page 13

3

9. It is hereby ascertained, determined and declared that the project improvements as

set forth in “Exhibit “A" shall result in special benefits peculiar to the parcels of

property involved, over and above general community wide benefit; it is further

ascertained, determined and declared that among the benefits so derived is the

added use and enjoyment, value and marketability of the property.,

10. It is hereby ascertained, determined and declared that the apportionment of the

duty of each parcel owner pay the particular non-ad valorem special assessment,

the subject of this initial resolution shall be based upon the total equivalent units

as set forth in the assessment methodology and related provisions of Exhibit "B"

so that, thereby. the duty to pay is fairly and reasonably apportioned so as not

exceed the amount of special benefit peculiar to each parcel of property.

11. Based upon this determination, ascertainment and declaration of special and

peculiar benefit to property and of the duty to pay apportioned in a fair and

reasonable manner, and limited by such, a determination, ascertainment and

declaration, the District Manager is hereby authorized and directed, with the aid.

of consultants. to cause to be made a preliminary assessment roll, as promptly as

possible, which shall show the lots and lands assessed, the amount of special

benefit peculiar to the parcels of property and the amount of the non-ad valorem

special assessment levied against each parcel of property, on a fair and reasonable

basis, and the number of annual installments as to which each such assessment is

divided.

12. Commencing within the year the non-ad valorem assessments are first levied, they

shall be paid in not more than twenty (20) annual installments.

13. Upon completion of the preliminary assessment roll, the Board shall adopt a

subsequent resolution, to fix a time and place at which the owners of the property

to be assessed, or any other persons interested therein, may appear before the

Board and be heard as to the propriety and advisability of the levy, the propriety

and advisability of making the project improvements, the cost thereof, the manner

of payment therefor, or the amount thereof to be levied against each parcel of

property the determination of special and peculiar benefits, and the basis for

reasonable and fair apportionment of the duty to pay.

14. The assessments will be collected utilizing the procedures of Section 197.3632,

Florida Statutes.

15. The District Manager is hereby directed to cause this resolution to be published

once a week for a period of two (2) weeks in a newspaper of general circulation

within Collier County.

Agenda Page 14

4

16. This resolution shall take effect upon its adoption.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of February, 2019.

THE CEDAR HAMMOCK

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DISTRICT

Attest:

_______________________________ ____________________________

District Manager Chairman, Board of Supervisors

Agenda Page 15

Seventh Order of Business

Agenda Page 16

7A

Agenda Page 17

Cedar Hammock Engineers Report Special Assessment Bonds Infrastructure

STATUS: Preliminary DATE: January 2019

SUPPLEMENTAL ENGINEERS REPORT

FOR

CEDAR HAMMOCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS

FOR REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGES AND BULKHEADS

JANUARY 2019

by

10511 Six Mile Cypress Parkway, Suite 101 Fort Myers, Florida 33912

Agenda Page 18



2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………..3 1.1 Description of Cedar Hammock Project…………………………………….…….3-4

2. PURPOSE OF THE ENGINEER'S REPORT…………………………………………..6

2.1 Purpose and Scope of the report………………………………………….………...6 2.2 report assumptions…………………………………………………………………....6

3. PROPOSED PROJECT…………………………………………………………………..7

3.1 Overview……………………………………………………………………………..…7 3.2 proposed project elements……………………………………………………………7

4. OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS………………………………..9

4.1 status of project approvals…………………………………………………………….9

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Location Map……………………………………………………………………….5 Figure 2 – Community Map Illustrating Facility Locations………………………………….8 Figure 3 – Cost Estimate Chart……………………………………………………………...10

Agenda Page 19



3

1. Introduction 1.1 Description of Cedar Hammock Project

This is a Supplemental Engineer’s Report prepared by Banks Engineering, the District Engineer for Cedar Hammock Community Development District (the “District”) for the District’s issuance of Series XXXX A-1 & A-2 Series Capital Improvements Revenue Bonds. The District was established by Collier County Ordinance No. 99-81 on November 23, 1999 and became effect on November 24, 1999. The District consists of approximately 417.3 acres within Collier County, Florida and lies within section 3, township 50 South, Range 26 East. The development lies just south of Davis Boulevard and west of Collier Boulevard. The District’s responsibilities include planning, financing, constructing, acquiring, operating and maintain the lakes and related stormwater improvements within the boundaries of the Cedar Hammock residential community (“The Community”). Additionally, the District has been granted the power to borrow money and issue bonds for the purpose of constructing and acquiring the improvements to the lakes and related stormwater improvements within the Community. The Community consists of approximately XXX single family units, XXX multi-family units, a golf course, a club house and associated infrastructure, and utilities. The Community’s stormwater infrastructure consists of 16 interconnected onsite lakes totaling approximately 74± acres. The stormwater infrastructure is permitted through South Florida Water Management District under permit number 11-01683-P. This Supplement represents a Supplement to the original Engineer’s Report Prepared by Banks Engineering Titled “Engineer’s Report for Cedar Hammock Community Development District” dated June 1999. Figure 1 depicts the location of the Project within the District’s boundaries. All project lands are located within Collier County.

Agenda Page 20



4

The District is governed by a (5) Member Board of Supervisors who are qualified electors and elected by qualified electors of the District. The Current Board is comprised of the following members: Norman Day Chairman Quentin Greeley Vice Chairman Gene Bolton Secretary John Martino Assistant Secretary Jack Rupe Assistant Secretary Management of the District is performed by Justin Faircloth, the District Manager, of Inframark, on a contractual basis. The District Manager oversees the operations and maintenance functions for the district facilities. The District has an office located at 5911 Country Lakes Blvd., Fort Myers, FL 33905.

Agenda Page 21



5

Figure 1 – Location Map

Agenda Page 22



6

2. Purpose of the Engineer’s Report 2.1 Purpose and Scope of the Report

This Engineer’s Report has been prepared to assist with the design, permitting, financing, construction and acquisition of infrastructure improvements to be undertaken by the District. This report will present a narrative description of the proposed work and present engineer’s estimates of costs for completing these improvements. The financing is expected to be in the form of one or more series of special assessment revenue bonds to be issued by the District. 2.2 Report Assumptions In the preparation of this report, Banks Engineering relied upon information provided by the District, the District’s Financial Advisor, the Underwriter, and others. While Banks Engineering has not independently verified this information, we do not have reason to believe that the information so presented is not valid for the purposes of this report. The following are specific sources of information that were relied upon in the preparation of this report. The following are specific sources of information that were relied upon in the preparation of this report. • Forge Engineering Inc. geotechnical report number

2893-003.01 dated October 30, 2018. • Ingenium, Inc. documents including sheet Pile Wall

specification, and design drawings. • Bridging Solutions plans: Cedar Hammock Golf &

Country Club Golf cart bridges – Holes #4, #5B, #7, and #10 replacement plans.

• Banks Engineering wall replacement survey cross sections, Golf Hole #4 (island), Golf Hole #4 (road), Golf Hole #5 (island), Golf Hole #5 (road), Golf Hole #16, and Golf Hole #17.

• Bridging Solutions Inspection Reports dated: November 1, 2016 and February 28, 2018.

Agenda Page 23



7

3. Proposed Project 3.1 Overview The capital improvements described in this report represent the present intentions of the Developer and the District. The implementation of any improvements discussed in this plan requires the final approval by many regulatory and permitting agencies including local, state, and federal. The actual improvements may vary from the capital improvements in this report. Cost estimates contained in this report have been prepared based upon the best available information at this time. The actual cost of construction, final engineering design, planning, approvals, and permitting may vary from the cost estimates presented. The following sections describe the elements that will be funded by the District. 3.2 Proposed Project Elements The Cedar Hammock CDD periodically solicits professional inspections of the bridges and lake bulkheads within the community. Past reports have suggested repairs such as replacing wear decking a railing on the bridges and replacement of deteriorated boards on the bulkhead walls. The suggested repairs have been previously completed. These reports also typically estimate the useful life expectancy of the bridges and bulkheads before complete replacement will be needed. The most recent reports have suggested that several of the bridges and bulkheads are in a condition that warrant replacement (Reference Reports by Bridging Solutions dated 11/1/16 and 2/28/18). The proposed Cedar Hammock project consists of the bridge and bulkhead repairs and replacements outlined in the most recent professional inspection reports. Bulkhead replacement is proposed at Lake 16 (Golf Hole #4) Island, Lake 16 (Golf Hole #4) Road, Lake 11 (Golf Hole #5) Road, Lake 11 (Golf Hole #5) Island, Lake 2 (Golf Hole #16) and Lake 1 (Golf Hole #17). Bridge replacement is proposed at Lake 16 (Golf Hole #4), Lake 11 (Golf Hole #5), Lake 11 (Golf Hole #5) and Lake 3 (Golf Hole #10). Bridge Repairs are proposed at Lake 9 (Golf Hole #7), Conservation Area C-2 (Golf Hole #9) and Conservation Area C-2 (Golf Hole #18). The figure on sheet 6 identifies the location of these works.

Agenda Page 24



8

Figure 1 – Community Map Illustrating Facility Locations

Agenda Page 25



9

4. Status of Project Approvals 4.1 Status of Project Approvals

The following list includes the development approvals required for the project construction. 1. South Florida Water Management District

Environmental resource Permit Modification for repair and replacement of bridges and bulkheads – Pending

2. Collier County Site Development Permits – Pending 3. Collier County Building Permits - Pending

Agenda Page 26



10

Figure 3 – Cost Estimate Chart

Location Work Descrioption Work Cost *Contingency #1

**Contingency #2

Total Estimated Cost

Lake 16 (Golf Hole #4) Island

Bulkhead Replacement, Approximately 550LF, Approximately 112 Piles, Approximately 224 Anchors

Lake 16 (Golf Hole #4) Road


Lake 11 (Golf Hole #5) Road


Lake 2 (Golf Hole #16)




Sub Total Bulkhead Costs: Lake 16 (Golf Hole #4)

Bridge Replacement, Approximately 103LF, Approximately 27 Piles N/A

Lake 11 (Golf Hole #5) (A)


Lake 11 (Golf Hole #5) (B)






Conservation Area C-2 (Golf Hole #9)

Bridge Repairs, Approximately 555LF N/A N/A

Conservation Area C-2 (Golf Hole #18)

Bridge Repairs, Approximately 220LF N/A N/A

Sub Total Bridge Costs: Total Costs:

Notes: * Contingency #1 is for drilling at locations where piles encounter rock. It is estimated at a cost of $1,000 per pile. Based on the geotechnical report it is estimated that all piles will encounter rock. **Contingency #2 is for additional bulkhead wall anchors where pile embedment alone is not sufficient. It is estimated at a cost of $1,000 per anchor.

Agenda Page 27

7Bi.

Agenda Page 28

15863 Secoya Reserve Circle, Naples, FL 34110

Tel. 239-216-1370

www.bridging-solutions.com

We design bridges to fit your site and budget.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

Project: Cedar Hammock Golf Cart Bridge Replacements, Collier County, FL

1. This Request for Proposal (RFP) from the Cedar Hammock CDD includes the replacement of five

(5) golf cart bridges on the Cedar Hammock Golf Course. The attached site map shows the locations

of the bridges and the following table provides a summary of the approximate sizes of the existing

bridges. The last page of this RFP provides a bridge description and a photograph of each bridge.

2. There will be a mandatory pre-bid meeting on ????????? The CDD reserves the right to award

contracts to multiple contractors for one or multiple bridges.

3. Please indicate how many days you estimate you will need to demolish and construct each of

bridges on the bid form.

Bridge No. Length (FT) Width (FT) Area (SF)

4 103 10 1,030

5A 121 10 1,210

5B 124 10 1,240

7 69 10 690

10 120 10 1,200

4. Please use the attached bid form to summarize your bid.

Submit a paper copy of the bid form by 5:00 PM on ????????? to:

Sam Marshall, PE

Banks Engineering

10511 Six Mile Cypress Parkway

Fort Myers, Florida 33966

5. Submit all technical questions related to this Request for Proposal in writing by e-mail to Ralph

Verrastro at Bridging Solutions at [email protected] with a Cc to Justin Faircloth at

[email protected]

6. Contact Todd Legan at 239-825-4599 to schedule a date and time to perform any site visits to

review the field conditions at the bridge sites other than the day of the mandatory pre-bid meeting.

7. The attached engineering plans prepared by Bridging Solutions provides the structural design

details for the new bridges. The bridges have been designed for a 90 PSF pedestrian load and an

H10 (10 TON) live load to facilitate top down construction and future access by service and

emergency vehicles.

8. A copy of a geotechnical report prepared by Forge Engineering is attached. The borings show the

existence of cap rock. However, we believe most of the rock was removed during the original

construction of the golf cart bridges. Therefore, cap rock may or may not be encountered during

the pile driving operations. The contractor has the option to either drill the rock to obtain the

Agenda Page 29

mailto:[email protected]



Tel. 239-216-1370



required embedment for longitudinal stability or drive the piles to refusal on the rock and install

longitudinal cross bracing in every third span to provide for lateral stability.

9. The CDD is receptive to receive bid alternatives. However, if the alternative bid designs are found

to be acceptable to the CDD, the contractor must provide construction drawings signed and sealed

by a Florida PE for review and approval by Bridging Solutions.

10. The contractor shall remove and properly dispose of the materials from the existing bridges at an

offsite location.

11. We need to clarify what you want the contractor to do with the existing utilities.

12. Bid and performance bonds are required for this project. See the draft contract for the requirements.

Provide an itemized cost for each of these bonds that covers all of the bridges on the bid form.

13. The price bid for each bridge shall include the cost of obtaining a building permit from Collier

County based a copy of Bridging Solutions plans.

Agenda Page 30


Tel. 239-216-1370



BID PROPOSAL FORM

Proposal Due Date: ???????, 2019 at 5:00 PM

Bridge No. Demolition &

Disposal

New Bridge w/

Full Width

Wear Deck

New Bridge w/

Partial Width

Wear Deck

Estimated

Duration (Work

Days)

4 $ $ $

5A $ $ $

5B $ $ $

7 $ $ $

10 $ $ $

Alternate Itemized Bid Unit Costs

Cost for Mobilization for 1, 2, 3, 4 or all 5 bridges $_____________

Cost for Bid Bond for all 5 bridges $_____________

Cost of Performance Bond for all 5 bridges $______________

Cost to drill rock for pile installation (each per pile) $_____________

Cost to install longitudinal cross bracing (both sides per span) $_____________

How do you prefer to provide for lateral stability if rock is encountered? Check one option below.

Drill Rock When Encountered______ or Install Cross Bracing in Every Third Span_____

Submitted By: Signature:

(Company Name)

Date: Name (Printed):

Title:

Agenda Page 31


Tel. 239-216-1370



Bridge No. 4 – This golf cart bridge is approximately 10 feet

wide and 103 feet long and it is located near the island green at

hole #4. The superstructure consists of 10 feet (+/-) spans, 3X10

structural deck boards, 5 – 3X10 stringers and 4x6 curbs. The

substructure consists of 2 – 8” diameter butt piles and a pair of

3X10 split cap beams. The piles extend on average 10 feet above

the ground line. The total area is approximately 1030 square feet.

Bridge No. 5A – This golf cart bridge is approximately 10 foot

wide and 121 feet long. It is located near the tees at hole #5. The

superstructure consists of 10 feet (+/-) spans, with 2X6 wear

deck boards, 3X8 structural deck boards, 5 – 3X10 stringers and

4x6 curbs. The substructure consists of 2 – 8” diameter butt piles

and a pair of 3X10 split cap beams. The piles extend on average

12 feet above the ground line. The total area is approximately

1,210 square feet.

Bridge No. 5B – This golf cart bridge is approximately 10 feet

wide and 124 feet long. The superstructure consists of 10 feet

(+/-) spans, with 2X6 wear deck boards, 3X8 structural deck

boards, 5 – 3X10 stringers and 4x6 curbs. The substructure

consists of 2 – 8” diameter butt piles and a pair of 3X10 split cap

beams. The piles extend on average 11 feet above the ground

line. The total area is approximately 1,240 square feet.

Bridge No. 7 – This golf cart bridge is approximately 10 feet

wide and 69 feet long and it is located near the tees at hole #7.

The superstructure consists of 10 feet (+/-) spans, with 2X6 wear

deck boards, 3X8 structural deck boards, 5 – 3X10 stringers and

4x6 curbs. The substructure consists of 2 – 8” diameter butt piles

and a pair of 3X10 split cap beams. The piles extend 6 feet above

the ground line. The total area is approximately 690 square feet.

Bridge No. 10 - This golf cart bridge is approximately 10 feet

wide and 120 feet long and it is located near the tees on hole #10.

The superstructure consists of varied span lengths maximum 10

feet (+/-), with 3x8 deck planks, 5 - 3x10 stringers and 8x6 curbs.

The substructure consists of 2 – 8” diameter butt piles and a pair

of 3X10 split cap beams. The piles extend 8 feet above the

ground line on average. The total area is approximately 1,200

square feet.

Agenda Page 32

7Bii

Agenda Page 33


Bridging Solutions, LLC 15863 Secoya Reserve Circle

Naples, FL 34110

Tel. (239) 216-1370

[email protected]


LIST OF BIDDERS

Project: Cedar Hammock Golf Cart Bridge Replacements, Collier County, FL

Company Contact Information Contact Person Quality Enterprises 3494 Shearwater Street

Naples, FL 34117

239-435-7200

[email protected]

Lou Gaudio

Artistic Structures, Inc. 8415 SW Riverside Drive

Arcadia, FL 34269

941-628-0938 cell

[email protected]

Travis Pritchett

A. U. E. Construction Group 7017 Riverside Drive

Punta Gorda, FL 33982

941-623-2111

[email protected]

[email protected]

Tommy Groves

Gary Stover

JTM Golf PO Box 510491


941-575-6693

[email protected]

[email protected]

Mike Russell

Benton and Sons Construction,

Inc.

1463 Woodwind Ct.

Fort Myers, FL 33919

(239) 265-9592

[email protected]

Roy Benton

TSI Disaster Recovery, LLC 6025 Taylor Road, Unit 101


Mobile: (407) 361-9390

Main Office: (407) 891-8005

[email protected]

Theresa F. Cauthen, P.E.

Honc Marine

1130-2 Pondella Road

Cape Coral, FL 33909

239.772.2378

[email protected]

Golf Coast Construction Inc.

1618 Land O’ Lakes Blvd.

Lutz, FL 33549

813-949-2625

Agenda Page 34


http://www.bridging-solutions.com/


7Biii.

Agenda Page 35

Imagery ©2018 Google, Map data ©2018 Google 200 ft

Agenda Page 36

User

Polygon

User

Rectangle

User

Polygon

User

Rectangle

User

Typewritten Text

HOLE 18

User

Typewritten Text

HOLE 9

User

Typewritten Text

HOLE 10

User

Typewritten Text

HOLE 17

User

Rectangle

User

Typewritten Text

HOLE 4

User

Typewritten Text

HOLE 5A

User

Typewritten Text

HOLE 5B

User

Typewritten Text

HOLE 7

7Biv

Agenda Page 37

Agenda Page 38

Agenda Page 39

Agenda Page 40

Agenda Page 41

Agenda Page 42

Agenda Page 43

Agenda Page 44

Agenda Page 45

7Ci.

Agenda Page 46

Report of Geotechnical Exploration

PROPOSED BULKHEAD WALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT


Naples, Collier County, Florida 34112

Forge Engineering Project Number 2893-003.01

October 30, 2018

Agenda Page 47

ii

Table of Contents

Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... ii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ii Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Information ........................................................................................................................ 2 Site Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 2 Subsurface Conditions .................................................................................................................. 3 Laboratory Testing ........................................................................................................................ 4 Evaluation and Recommendations ............................................................................................... 4

Bulkhead Walls ...................................................................................................................... 5 Bridge Abutments .................................................................................................................. 5 Bridge Timber Piles ............................................................................................................... 7

Additional Services ....................................................................................................................... 7 Closing .......................................................................................................................................... 8

List of Tables Table 1: Generalized Subsurface Profile. ............................................................................................... 3

Table 2: Laboratory Test Results Summary Table. .............................................................................. 4

Table 3: Soil Parameters Summary Table. ............................................................................................ 5

Agenda Page 48

PO Box 113040 ~ Naples, FL 34108 ~ 239.514.4100 ~ Fax 239.514.4161 www.ForgeEng.com

Page 1 of 8

October 30, 2018 CEDAR HAMMOCK CDD 8660 Cedar Hammock Boulevard Naples, FL 34112 Phone: 239.354.1175 C/O: Inframark Mr. Justin Faircloth – District Manager 5911 Country Lakes Drive Fort Myers, FL 33905 Phone: 239.245.7118 ext. 306 Cell: 239.785.0675 Email: [email protected] Subject: Report of Geotechnical Exploration

PROPOSED BULKHEAD WALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT Cedar Hammock Community Development District Naples, Collier County, Florida 34112 Forge Engineering Project No. 2893-003.01

Forge Engineering Inc. (FORGE) is pleased to present this report of geotechnical exploration for

the proposed project. We have completed in general the services outlined in our re-revised

proposal number 2893-003.01PRR dated August 6, 2018 and authorized by Mr. Justin Faircloth

the following day. This report presents the project information provided to us, the findings of our

exploration, together with our geotechnical evaluation and recommendations.

Purpose The purpose of this geotechnical study was to explore the general soil conditions at the subject

site for the Proposed Bulkhead Wall Replacement Project and to provide geotechnical

recommendations for retaining wall design. Environmental assessments or other studies were

beyond the scope of our services.

Agenda Page 49

Report of Geotechnical Exploration FORGE Project No. 2893-003.01 Proposed Bulkhead Wall Replacement Project - Cedar Hammock Development October 30, 2018


Page 2 of 8

This report has been prepared for Cedar Hammock CDD, and their consultants for specific

application to the Proposed Bulkhead Wall Replacement Project at the subject site. FORGE

has endeavored to comply with the generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice

common to the local area. FORGE makes no other warrants, express, or implied.

Project Information Our understanding of your needs for this project is based on information provided by Mr. Justin

Faircloth, our experience in the area, and our experience with similar projects. FORGE

understands that this project will consist of replacing both the existing wood bulkhead walls and

the wood bridges within the Cedar Hammock CDD. Mr. Carl A. Hazenberg, P.E., of Ingenium,

Inc., has requested several specific design parameters that are included later in this report.

During the field exploration portion of our services, we utilized our small boat to complete some

shallow soil sampling on the water side of the existing retaining walls. Due to the encountered

material being gravely in nature, sampling of the material on the water side of the wall was

insignificant. Furthermore, Banks Engineering, the project surveying firm, provided FORGE with

the project’s existing surveying data. The elevations of the borings were interpolated and

included as approximate boring elevations and stationing locations within our report. However

due to no survey data near some of the borings (B-5 through B-9 and B-16) elevations, station

number location, and offset distances could not be provided for this report. Additionally, some

borings do not include the elevation information.

Site Conditions The site is located west of Collier Boulevard (County Road 951), and south of Davis Boulevard

located within the Cedar Hammock Development in Naples, Collier County, Florida. At the time

of our exploration the site was occupied by an existing residential community that included a

golf course, a large club house, several lakes, both single family homes and condominiums,

several flexible asphaltic concrete pavement roadways, and various utilities to support the

development. The borings were completed in several different areas across the existing golf

course portion of the property, where the existing bulkhead wall and bridge structures are

present.

The properties to the south and east of the subject site were also occupied by golf course

communities which included Naples Heritage and Forest Glen, respectively. The property to the

north is occupied by a commercial area. The Site Location Map and the Site Vicinity Aerial

Photograph provided in the Appendix of this report present the site relative to its surroundings.

Agenda Page 50



Page 3 of 8

Subsurface Conditions The subsurface conditions at the site were explored with a total of 17 SPT borings drilled to

depths ranging from 20-to 35-feet below existing grade. The number, depth, and spacing of the

borings were recommended by Mr. Carl A. Hazenberg, P.E. The borings were located in the

field by FORGE personnel by referencing features on an aerial photograph boring location plan

with features found at the site. Some of the boring locations were adjusted in the field, based

on the presence of the existing golf course utilities and slopes.

An engineer from FORGE classified soil samples taken from the borings. The boring logs

summarizing our findings are presented in the Appendix of this report. Below, we present a

generalized profile of the subsurface conditions encountered.

Table 1: Generalized Subsurface Profile.

GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE

DEPTH (FT) SOIL DESCRIPTION USC(1)

FROM TO

0 8(2) Very Loose to Medium Dense SAND to Silty SAND SP,

SP-SM, SM

8 13(3) Hard LIMESTONE (Cap Rock) N/A

13 35 Very Soft to Soft LIMESTONE (Severely Weathered Limestone) N/A

(1) Unified Soil Classification (2) Hard LIMESTONE stratum was encountered in some of the borings as shallow as 6-ft.

below existing grade. (3) Hard LIMESTONE stratum extended to 22-feet below existing grade at some of the boring

locations. The groundwater level was encountered at approximate depths ranging from 3.0-to 6.0-feet

below the existing grade at the time of drilling (Approximately Elev. +7.0-to +9.0-feet NAVD ’88).

We anticipate the groundwater level will fluctuate due to seasonal rainfall variations, surface

water runoff patterns, water levels in the adjacent lakes and canal, construction operations, and

other interrelated factors. The designers should anticipate that the seasonal high ground water

level will rise to about 3-feet below the existing ground surface (approximately elev. +11.0-feet

NAVD ’88).

FORGE representatives also attempted to complete a series of shallow soil sampling within the

lake on the property on August 23, 2018. The shallow sampling consisted of driving a 2-inch

outer diameter metal sampler into the pond bottom with a drop weight. During the water boring

sampling, gravel material greater than the 2-inches in diameter was encountered, thus samples

Agenda Page 51



Page 4 of 8

could not be obtained with the hand sampling method. Several attempts were made to sample

the lake bottom, however the sampler could only be advanced 18-inches before encountering

refusal, both Mr. Justin Faircloth and Mr. Carl A. Hazenberg were notified. Once some

preliminary information was presented to Mr. Carl A. Hazenberg, it was agreed upon that the

water borings were not producing supplemental information for the replacement wall design, so

no additional water borings were attempted.

Laboratory Testing To aid in identification and classification of the soils encountered, laboratory testing was

conducted on representative soil samples retained from the borings. Specifically, in house

testing consisted of visual classification, grain size analyses, -200 sieve washes, and moisture

content. Outside laboratory testing services, consisting of three direct shear test of soils under

consolidated drained conditions, (in general accordance with ASTM D3080 / D3080M – 11) are

still in progress at the time of this report. The results of our laboratory testing are tabulated

below and grain size curves and are included in the Appendix.

Table 2: Laboratory Test Results Summary Table.

TEST PERFORMED

Sample* Moisture Content (%) Fine Content (%)

B-1, 2’ – 4’ 17 5

B-3, 4’ – 6’ 20 6

B-6, 8’ – 10’ 23 18

B-8, 4’ - 6’ 12 10

B-10, 6’ – 8’ 26 13

B-13, 4’ – 6’ 10 7

B-15, 4’ – 6’ 19 3

B-17, 6’ – 8’ 21 9

*Boring number and sample depth

The laboratory testing confirmed that the soil strata encountered in our borings ranged from

SAND to Silty SAND. The soils obtained are generally classified as SAND material that is non-

plastic in nature so Atterberg Limits testing was not conducted.

Evaluation and Recommendations Our evaluation and recommendations are based on the project information provided to us, the

findings of our field exploration program, and our experience in the area. The subsurface

conditions will vary across the site. Should new information become available during design or

the conditions encountered during construction be substantially different from the information

presented in this report, please contact us so we may evaluate the new information.

Agenda Page 52



Page 5 of 8

Bulkhead Walls

Earth retaining walls should be designed to resist pressures exerted by the adjacent soils.

Recommended soil parameters for the near-surface granular soils encountered are presented

below in Table 3:

Table 3: Soil Parameters Summary Table.

Stratum Number

SOIL DESIGN PARAMETERS

Total Unit Wt.

(pcf)

Friction Angle

(ᶲ)

Saturated Soil Unit

Wt. (pcf)

Buoyant Soil Unit Weight

(pcf)

Active Earth

Pressure Coefficient

(ka)

Passive Soil Pressure

Coefficient (kp)

1 105 32 120 58 0.31 3.25

2 120 30 130 68 0.33 3.00

3 125 34 135 73 0.28 3.54

4 135 38(1) 160 98 0.24 4.20

5 120 30 130 58 0.33 3.00

1.) Provided friction angle is based on the LIMESTONE strata being pre-drilled and material being crushed into a gravel matrix.

The above recommended pressures assume that adequate drainage is provided behind the

walls to prevent the build up of excess hydrostatic pressures. This can be achieved by installing

drains, using geotextiles or backfilling with free draining sand in association with adequate weep

holes.

Wall damage due to excessive compaction may be avoided by utilizing hand operated

mechanical tampers to compact the granular materials; heavy compaction equipment should not

be allowed within 10 feet of the walls. The compaction behind these walls should be in the

range of 93-to 96 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557).

Bridge Abutments

It is our opinion that a conventional shallow foundation system may be used to support the

proposed abutment foundation. We estimate maximum settlement of less than 3/4-inch and

differential settlement less than 1/2-inch will occur between the abutment structure and the pile

supported bridge structure due to maximum wall loads of 2-kips per lineal foot, using a

maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 3.0-ksf (kips per square foot) to design the

foundations.

Agenda Page 53



Page 6 of 8

Due to the primarily granular nature of the subsurface soils, the majority of the settlement

should be complete soon after the footing is cast and fill is placed to construct the abutment.

The settlement estimate assumes up to four foot of fill may be placed onto the foundation and

that the foundation soils are compacted to the minimum required density stated below using

conventional compaction equipment.

Foundation Design Recommendations The following list summarizes our foundation recommendations for this project.

All shallow foundations for the structure should be designed using a maximum

allowable bearing pressure of 3.0 ksf. This bearing capacity assumes the foundations are bearing on compacted natural sands, or compacted clean structural fill.

The minimum foundation width should be 16-inches for continuous foundations, 12-

inches at the base of turned down slabs, and 24-inches for individual column footings.

The footing bottoms should bear at least 16 inches below finished grade. The

bottom of turned-down slabs should bear at least 12-inches below finished grade.

The foundations shall be designed in manor to protect them from being undermined.

Site Preparation Recommendations We recommend the foundation and earthwork specifications include site preparation sections

similar to those presented below:

1. Remove all surface vegetation and any other deleterious material for a distance of at

least 10-feet beyond the perimeter of the new construction.

2. The existing ground surface, shall be compacted until a density of at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557) maximum dry density is uniformly obtained.

3. Due the foundation’s proximity to the existing lake, a sump pump may be required to

allow optimal moisture content to be obtained.

4. The bottom of the footings shall be compacted until at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557) maximum dry density is uniformly obtained. The test frequency shall be at least one test for each footing excavation with a minimum test frequency of four tests per lift.

5. Soil backfill shall be sand with a Unified Soil Classification of SP or SP-SM

containing no organics.

Agenda Page 54



Page 7 of 8

6. All soil backfill shall be placed in appropriate lift heights based on the compaction equipment used (e.g. 4- to 6-inches loose lift for a walk behind roller and 3- to 4-inches for a plate compactor). Each lift shall be compacted until a density of at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557) maximum dry density is uniformly obtained. Moisture content during compaction should be maintained within -2 and +2% of optimum.

7. Field density tests shall be made after compaction of all backfill or fill to verify the

specified degree of compaction is obtained. The test frequency shall be a minimum of four per lift.

Bridge Timber Piles

It is our opinion that soils encountered in the borings are suitable to support timber piles with

allowable compressive capacities of at least 10-kips within the top 20 feet of soils. This

assumes that the piles have a minimum butt dimension of 12–inches and have a minimum tip

diameter to 10-inches. We also assume that piles will be driven with a conventional pile

hammer.

Different lengths may be required for piles that are predrilled or jetted. In addition piles installed

within the water way will have similar required embedment depths but overall length will be

greater to achieve pile cutoff height. We understand that the Association is obtaining proposals

for a consultant to design the replacement bridges.

FORGE recommends that the pile contractor consider using metal driving tips for the piles.

Based on our limited water sampling, shallow gravely material is present. The existing material

is likely to contain sporadic boulders with sharp edges that could split driven piles. Additionally,

it is believed that the hard LIMESTONE in the middle of the bridge crossings alignment were

likely removed during the excavation of the lake, however there may still be some hard rock

present near the embankments. Due to this, some of the piles may require pre-drilling of the

hard LIMESTONE stratum to achieve sufficient embedment.

Additional Services FORGE should be engaged to review the project foundation plans and earthwork specifications.

We would then suggest changes in the specifications so our recommendations are properly

interpreted and implemented.

FORGE should also be engaged to monitor the foundation installation program, complete the

construction materials testing on this project, and visit the project during construction and mass

grading to observe the site conditions encountered and the construction techniques used. Our

observations would then be compared with the parameters used in our evaluation.

Agenda Page 55



Page 8 of 8

Closing We appreciate working with you as your geotechnical consultant and look forward to working

with you on the remainder of this project. Please contact us when we may be of further

assistance, or if you have any questions regarding this report.

Sincerely,

Forge Engineering, Inc. Certificate of Authorization No. 7544

Robert J. McGinnis Robert J. McGinnis, E.I. Richard P. Lundberg, P.E. Project Engineer Principal Engineer

Florida Registration No. 42644

Distribution: 1 – Addressee (via e-mail), 1 - Mr. Justin Faircloth (Inframark - via email), 1 – Mr. Carl A. Hazenberg, P.E. (Ingenium, Inc. - via email), 1 - File

Appendix: Figure 1: Site Location Map Figure 2: Site Vicinity Aerial & Soil Boring Location Plan Boring Location Summary Table Report of Soil Borings (Sheets 1 through 4) Boring Logs Key to Boring Logs Classification Laboratory Tests - Grain Size Curve Laboratory Tests – Direct Shear Test Results

Agenda Page 56

APPENDIX

Agenda Page 57

Figure 1: Site Location Map

Image from Google Maps.

PROPOSED BULKHEAD WALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT


Naples, Collier County, Florida 34112

FORGE Project Number 2893-003.01

October 2018

SUBJECT SITE(Approximate location)

Agenda Page 58

Fig

ure

2

The

se d

raw

ings

and

desi

gn

are

the e

xcl

usiv

e pro

pert

y of Forg

e

Engin

eering, In

c. N

o u

se o

r re

pro

duct

ion is

auth

orize

d

with

out th

e e

xpre

ss

writ

ten

auth

oriza

tion fro

m F

org

e

Engin

eering, In

c.

Dra

wn

By: R

JM

Date

08/1

6/1

8R

evis

ed:

OV

ER

ALL S

ITE

VIC

INIT

Y A

ER

IAL P

HO

TO

GR

AP

H &

BO

RIN

G L

OC

AT

ION

FO

RG

E P

RO

JE

CT

NO

. 2

89

3-0

03.0

1

P 2

39

.514

.410

0

F 2

39

.514

.416

1

ww

w.fo

rgee

ng.c

om

FORG

EEN

GIN

EER

ING

INC

INN

OVA

TIVE

ENGI

NEER

ING

SOLU

TIO

NS

P.O

. B

OX

113

040

,

NA

PLE

S, F

LO

RID

A 3

41

08

CE

RT. A

UT

H.:

278

36

PR

OP

OS

ED

BU

LK

HE

AD

WA

LL

RE

PL

AC

EM

EN

T P

RO

JE

CT

CE

DA

R H

AM

MO

CK

DE

VE

LO

PM

EN

TLA

KE

S 1

, 2, 3, 9, 11, &

15

NA

PLE

S, C

OLLIE

R C

OU

NT

Y, F

LOR

IDA

34112

B-1B-2

B-3

B-4

B-1 Number and Approximate Soil Boring Location advanced to 20-feet below existing grade.

B-1 Number and Approximate Soil Boring Location advanced to 35-feet below existing grade.

FIGURE 2: OVERALL SITE VICINITY AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH &

BORING LOCATION PLAN

SITE LOCATION AERIALFROM GOOGLE EARTH PRO

B-5B-6

B-7

B-8

B-14

B-16

B-17

B-15

B-9

B-12

B-11B-10

B-13

Agenda Page 59

Page 1 of 1


BORING LOCATION SUMMARY TABLE CEDAR HAMMOCK BULKHEAD WALL REPLACEMENT

FORGE Project No. 2893-003.01

Boring Number Approximate

Station Number*

Approximate Elevation

(ft. NAVD ’88)

Approximate Distance Offset from Station

location (ft.)

B-1 SL-15 / SL-16 +14.5 7

B-2 SL-21 / SL-22 +13.5 7

B-3 S-1 / SL-2 +13.8 10

B-4 SL-9 / SL-10 +13.5 15

B-5 - - -

B-6 - - -

B-7 - - -

B-8 - - -

B-9 - - -

B-10 SL-56 / SL-57 +14.0 5

B-11 SL-67 / AL-68 +13.5 12

B-12 SL-74 +13.0 10

B-13 SL-44 / SL-45 +13.5 5

B-14 SL-23 / SL-24 +13.0 5

B-15 SL-6 / SL-7 +13.0 5

B-16 - - -

B-17 SL-20 / SL-21 +12.8 5

Note: Station information was previously assigned by Banks Engineering in the provided survey data. Offset distance is the approximate distance away from the existing bulkhead wall. See plan for boring locations.

Agenda Page 60

PR

OP

OS

ED

BU

LK

HE

AD

WA

LL

RE

PL

AC

EM

EN

T P

RO

JE

CT

CE

DA

R H

AM

MO

CK

DE

VE

LO

PM

EN

T

NA

PLE

S, C

OLLIE

R C

OU

NT

Y, F

LOR

IDA

34112

Sh

ee

t 1

of 4

The

se d

raw

ings

and

desi

gn

are

the e

xcl

usiv

e pro

pert

y of Forg

e

Engin

eering, In

c. N

o u

se o

r re

pro

duct

ion is

auth

orize

d

with

out th

e e

xpre

ss

writ

ten

auth

oriza

tion fro

m F

org

e

Engin

eering, In

c.

Dra

wn

By: R

JM

Date

: 8

/30/2

01

8R

evis

ed:

RE

PO

RT O

F S

OIL

BO

RIN

GS

FO

RG

E P

RO

JE

CT N

O.

28

93-0

03.0

1

ww

w.F

org

eE

ng

.co

m

Ph

on

e(2

39

) 5

14

-410

0

Fa

x (

239

) 5

14

-416

1

P.O

. B

ox 1

13

040

Nap

les, F

lorid

a 3

41

08

Cert

. A

uth

.: 7

54

4

INDICATES THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF A 140 POUND,

FREELY FALLING A DISTANCE OF 30 INCHES, REQUIRED

TO DRIVE A 2-INCH DIAMETER SAMPLER 12 INCHES

GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE

SOIL PROFILE

NOTES

BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON AUGUST 22 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 5, 2018 USING A DIEDRICH

DRILL D-25 RIG TOOLED WITH AN MANUAL-HAMMER OR A D-50 RIG TOOLED WITH AN AUTO-

HAMMER.

STRATA BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE AND REPRESENT SOIL STRATA AT EACH TEST HOLE

LOCATION ONLY. SOIL TRANSITIONS MAY BE MORE GRADUAL THAN IMPLIED.

GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THE SUBSURFACE PROFILE REPRESENT

APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER LEVELS AT TIME OF BORINGS. ELEVATIONS WERE

INTERPOLATED FROM THE PROVIDED TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY. GROUNDWATER LEVELS

FLUCTUATIONS SHOULD BE ANTICIPATED THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.

FORG

EIN

NOVA

TIVE

ENG

INEE

RIN

G SO

LUTIO

NS

5

10

0

-5

-10

15

EL

EV

AT

ION

IN

FE

ET

(N

AV

D 8

8)

EL

EV

AT

ION

IN

FE

ET

(N

AV

D 8

8)

5

10

0

-5

-10

15

20

N11

4

15

6

50/3"

20

16

NOTES:N – STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE TEST (SPT) VALUE. NUMBERS

TO THE LEFT OF BORINGS INDICATE SPT VALUE FOR 12—INCHES OF

PENETRATION (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

HA — HAND AUGERED

WOH — BORING INTERVAL ADVANCED UNDER WEIGHT OF HAMMER.

WOR — BORING INTERVAL ADVANCED UNDER WEIGHT OF DRILLING ROD

LFC - LOSS OF DRILLING FLUID CIRCULATION.

GRANULAR MATERIAL =

SPT N – VALUES

BLOW/FOOT REL ATIVE DENSITY

LESS THAN 3 VERY LOOSE

3-8 LOOSE

9-24 MEDIUM DENSE

25-40 DENSE

GREATER THAN 40 VERY DENSE

APPROXIMATE FINES CONTENT

PERCENTAGE MODIFIERS

5% TO 15% SLIGHTLY SILTY OR SLIGHTLY CL AYEY

18% TO 25% SILTY OR CL AYEY

26% TO 49% VERY SILTY OR VERY CL AYEY

SILTS AND CL AYS =

SPT N – VALUES

BLOW/FOOT CONSISTENCY

LESS THAN 1 VERY SOFT

1-3 SOFT

4-6 FIRM

7-12 STIFF

13-24 VERY STIFF

GREATER THAN 24 HARD

APPROXIMATE SAND/GRAVEL CONTENT


5% TO 15% SLIGHTLY SANDY OR SLIGHTLY GRAVELLY

18% TO 25% SANDY OR GRAVELLY

26% TO 49% VERY SANDY OR VERY GRAVELLY

CORRELATION OF N – VALUES WITH HARDNESS OF LIMEROCK =

LIMEROCK –

BLOW/FOOT HARDNESS


20-49 SOFT

50-100 MEDIUM HARD

50 FOR 2 TO 5" MODERATELY HARD

50 FOR 0 TO 2" HARD

APPROXIMATE ROOT CONTENT


5% TO 10% TRACE

11% TO 20% TRACE TO SOME

21% TO 40% SOME

41% TO 50% AND

ENG

INEE

RIN

G

INC

1

` INITIAL GROUNDWATER LEVEL AT TIME OF BORING

N

LIGHT BROWN TO BROWN SAND TO SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND,

OCCASIONAL WITH SHELL FRAGMENTS (SP, SP-SM)1

4

LEGEND

HARD LIMESTONE (LS) (CAPROCK)

5 VERY SOFT LIMESTONE (LS) (WEATHERED LIMESTONE)

REFUSAL

5

N14

14

12

50/3"

50/3"

8

2

5

N6

4

10

39

50/3"

8

1

5

5

N6

7

24

12

50/3"

6

1

4

N9

2

5

4

50/2"

2

1

-15

-20

-15

-20

B-3

B-4

B-1B-2

B-5

B-6

2 BROWN TO GRAY SILTY SAND (SM)

3 BROWN TO GRAY SANDY SILTY GRAVEL (GP - GM)

1

4 4

5

4

54

5

2

4

5

4

B-18/31/18

App. Elev. +14.5Manual HammerRig Diedrich D-25

B-28/31/18


B-38/28/18


B-48/30/18


B-58/30/18

App. Elev. N/AManual HammerRig Diedrich D-25

4

5

3

Golf Course Hole #17Bulkhead

Golf Course Hole #16Bulkhead

Golf Course Hole #10

Bridge No. 10

2

2

1

LFC LFC

LFC

Agenda Page 61

PR

OP

OS

ED

BU

LK

HE

AD

WA

LL

RE

PL

AC

EM

EN

T P

RO

JE

CT

CE

DA

R H

AM

MO

CK

DE

VE

LO

PM

EN

T

NA

PLE

S, C

OLLIE

R C

OU

NT

Y, F

LOR

IDA

34112

Sh

ee

t 2

of 4

The

se d

raw

ings

and

desi

gn

are

the e

xcl

usiv

e pro

pert

y of Forg

e

Engin

eering, In

c. N

o u

se o

r re

pro

duct

ion is

auth

orize

d

with

out th

e e

xpre

ss

writ

ten

auth

oriza

tion fro

m F

org

e

Engin

eering, In

c.

Dra

wn

By: R

JM

Date

: 8

/30/2

01

8R

evis

ed:

RE

PO

RT O

F S

OIL

BO

RIN

GS

FO

RG

E P

RO

JE

CT N

O.

28

93-0

03.0

1

ww

w.F

org

eE

ng

.co

m

Ph

on

e(2

39

) 5

14

-410

0

Fa

x (

239

) 5

14

-416

1

P.O

. B

ox 1

13

040

Nap

les, F

lorid

a 3

41

08

Cert

. A

uth

.: 7

54

4





SOIL PROFILE

NOTES

BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON

AUGUST 22 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 5,

2018 USING A DIEDRICH DRILL D-25

RIG TOOLED WITH AN MANUAL-

HAMMER OR A D-50 RIG TOOLED

WITH AN AUTO-HAMMER.

STRATA BOUNDARIES ARE

APPROXIMATE AND REPRESENT

SOIL STRATA AT EACH TEST HOLE

LOCATION ONLY. SOIL TRANSITIONS

MAY BE MORE GRADUAL THAN

IMPLIED.

GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS

SHOWN ON THE SUBSURFACE

PROFILE REPRESENT APPROXIMATE

GROUNDWATER LEVELS AT TIME OF

BORINGS. ELEVATIONS WERE

INTERPOLATED FROM THE

PROVIDED TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY.

GROUNDWATER LEVELS

FLUCTUATIONS SHOULD BE

ANTICIPATED THROUGHOUT THE

YEAR.

FORG

EIN

NOVA

TIVE

ENG

INEE

RIN

G SO

LUTIO

NS

5

10

0

-5

-10

15

EL

EV

AT

ION

IN

FE

ET

(N

AV

D 8

8)

EL

EV

AT

ION

IN

FE

ET

(N

AV

D 8

8)

5

10

0

-5

-10

15

20

N9

24

21

39

13

20

16




HA — HAND AUGERED




GRANULAR MATERIAL =

SPT N – VALUES



3-8 LOOSE

9-24 MEDIUM DENSE

25-40 DEN SE







SILTS AND CL AYS =

SPT N – VALUES



1-3 SOFT

4-6 FIRM

7-12 STIFF

13-24 VERY STIFF








LIMEROCK –

BLOW/FOOT HARDNESS


20-49 SOFT

50-100 MEDIUM HARD


50 FOR 0 TO 2" HARD



5% TO 10% TRACE


21% TO 40% SOME

41% TO 50% AND

ENG

INEE

RIN

G

INC

1


N

LEGEND

REFUSAL

9

N22

31

23

26

31

50/1"

1

6

N6

15

20

8

50/2"

50/4"

1

3

9

N17

33

49

50/2"

50/4"

10

1

-15

-20

-15

-20

B-5

B-6

B-7

B-8



4 HARD LIMESTONE (LS) (CAPROCK)




B-69/4/18


B-79/5/18


B-89/5/18


B-98/24/18


B-9

82

4

6

4

5

11

4

4

6

7

6

4

Golf Course Hole #5

Bridge No. 5B

Golf Course Hole #10

Bridge No. 10

Golf Course Hole #7

Bridge No. 7

2

4

5

LFC

LFC

LFC

LFC

4

5

2

5

4

2

4

5

Agenda Page 62

PR

OP

OS

ED

BU

LK

HE

AD

WA

LL

RE

PL

AC

EM

EN

T P

RO

JE

CT

CE

DA

R H

AM

MO

CK

DE

VE

LO

PM

EN

T

NA

PLE

S, C

OLLIE

R C

OU

NT

Y, F

LOR

IDA

34112

Sh

ee

t 3

of 4

The

se d

raw

ings

and

desi

gn

are

the e

xcl

usiv

e pro

pert

y of Forg

e

Engin

eering, In

c. N

o u

se o

r re

pro

duct

ion is

auth

orize

d

with

out th

e e

xpre

ss

writ

ten

auth

oriza

tion fro

m F

org

e

Engin

eering, In

c.

Dra

wn

By: R

JM

Date

: 8

/30/2

01

8R

evis

ed:

RE

PO

RT O

F S

OIL

BO

RIN

GS

FO

RG

E P

RO

JE

CT N

O.

28

93-0

03.0

1

ww

w.F

org

eE

ng

.co

m

Ph

on

e(2

39

) 5

14

-410

0

Fa

x (

239

) 5

14

-416

1

P.O

. B

ox 1

13

040

Nap

les, F

lorid

a 3

41

08

Cert

. A

uth

.: 7

54

4





SOIL PROFILE

NOTES












IMPLIED.








GROUNDWATER LEVELS



YEAR.

FORG

EIN

NOVA

TIVE

ENG

INEE

RIN

G SO

LUTIO

NS

5

10

0

-5

-10

15

EL

EV

AT

ION

IN

FE

ET

(N

AV

D 8

8)

EL

EV

AT

ION

IN

FE

ET

(N

AV

D 8

8)

5

10

0

-5

-10

15

20

N9

18

12

13

19

20

9




HA — HAND AUGERED




GRANULAR MATERIAL =

SPT N – VALUES



3-8 LOOSE

9-24 MEDIUM DENSE

25-40 DEN SE







SILTS AND CL AYS =

SPT N – VALUES



1-3 SOFT

4-6 FIRM

7-12 STIFF

13-24 VERY STIFF








LIMEROCK –

BLOW/FOOT HARDNESS


20-49 SOFT

50-100 MEDIUM HARD


50 FOR 0 TO 2" HARD



5% TO 10% TRACE


21% TO 40% SOME

41% TO 50% AND

ENG

INEE

RIN

G

INC

2

1


N

LEGEND

REFUSAL

4

N4

2

5

7

18

23

1

4

N9

6

11

43

25

50/4"

1

N4

90

-15

-20

-15

-20







B-108/27/18


B-118/27/18


B-128/27/18


B-138/29/18


B-9

B-10

4

4

6

6

B-11

B-12

B-13

-25 -25

Golf Course Hole #5

Bridge No. 5

Bridge No. 5B

LFCLFC

1

2

4

5

4

5

4

5 3

4

4

4

4

13

12

13 1

2

4

5

Agenda Page 63

PR

OP

OS

ED

BU

LK

HE

AD

WA

LL

RE

PL

AC

EM

EN

T P

RO

JE

CT

CE

DA

R H

AM

MO

CK

DE

VE

LO

PM

EN

T

NA

PLE

S, C

OLLIE

R C

OU

NT

Y, F

LOR

IDA

34112

Sh

ee

t 4

of 4

The

se d

raw

ings

and

desi

gn

are

the e

xcl

usiv

e pro

pert

y of Forg

e

Engin

eering, In

c. N

o u

se o

r re

pro

duct

ion is

auth

orize

d

with

out th

e e

xpre

ss

writ

ten

auth

oriza

tion fro

m F

org

e

Engin

eering, In

c.

Dra

wn

By: R

JM

Date

: 8

/30/2

01

8R

evis

ed:

RE

PO

RT O

F S

OIL

BO

RIN

GS

FO

RG

E P

RO

JE

CT N

O.

28

93-0

03.0

1

ww

w.F

org

eE

ng

.co

m

Ph

on

e(2

39

) 5

14

-410

0

Fa

x (

239

) 5

14

-416

1

P.O

. B

ox 1

13

040

Nap

les, F

lorid

a 3

41

08

Cert

. A

uth

.: 7

54

4





SOIL PROFILE

NOTES












IMPLIED.








GROUNDWATER LEVELS



YEAR.

FORG

EIN

NOVA

TIVE

ENG

INEE

RIN

G SO

LUTIO

NS

5

10

0

-5

-10

15

EL

EV

AT

ION

IN

FE

ET

(N

AV

D 8

8)

EL

EV

AT

ION

IN

FE

ET

(N

AV

D 8

8)

5

10

0

-5

-10

15

20

NHA

11

12

50/4"

50/3"

20

HA




HA — HAND AUGERED




GRANULAR MATERIAL =

SPT N – VALUES



3-8 LOOSE

9-24 MEDIUM DENSE

25-40 DEN SE







SILTS AND CL AYS =

SPT N – VALUES



1-3 SOFT

4-6 FIRM

7-12 STIFF

13-24 VERY STIFF








LIMEROCK –

BLOW/FOOT HARDNESS


20-49 SOFT

50-100 MEDIUM HARD


50 FOR 0 TO 2" HARD



5% TO 10% TRACE


21% TO 40% SOME

41% TO 50% AND

ENG

INEE

RIN

G

INC

1


N

LEGEND

REFUSAL

4

N4

2

9

24

50/5"

6

1

4

N8

2

59

2

18

1

-15

-20

-15

-20







B-148/29/18


B-158/23/18


B-168/22/18


B-14

2

4

12

5

B-15

B-16

B-17

-25 -25

N12

4

10

50/3"

18

4 1

B-178/23/18


3

4

4

2

Golf Course Hole #4

Bridge No. 4

4

5

LFC LFC

32

4

5

4

5

Agenda Page 64

Laboratory Test Results

Depth

Material Description

Elev. Gro

undw

ate

r

Unifie

d

AA

SH

TO

Sym

bol

N N (blows per foot) Wate

r C

onte

nt,

%

Fin

es C

onte

nt,

%

Org

anic

Conte

nt,

%

Liq

uid

Lim

it,

%

Pla

sticity I

ndex,

%

Tim

e R

ate

of

Drilli

ng

(min

ute

s:s

econds)

(feet) Strength Primary Secondary Tertiary Color Remarks (feet) B/F 0 10 20 30 40 50

>50% >12% >5% +14.5

0.5 TOPSOIL dark brown Trace Small Roots +14. TTTMedium Dense ::: 14 »»»»»»»

:::2.0 SAND light brown Trace Of Small Roots +12.5 SP :::

Medium Dense ::: 14 »»»»»»» 17.3 5.2

:::::::::

Medium Dense TOB ::: 12 »»»»»»

6.0 SAND silt light brown +8.5 SP-SM :::6.5 SAND Silt brown +8. SM :|:

Very Hard ### 50/3" »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»+

###Very Hard ### 50/3" »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»+

############ 8:00

###LOSS ### 12:00

13.0 LIMESTONE gray Cap Rock +1.5 ####|#

Very Soft #|# 8 »»»»

#|##|##|##|##|##|##|#

Very Soft #|# 5 »»

20.0 LIMESTONE Silt gray Severely Weathered Limestone -5.5 #|#

Elevation Interpolated From

Provided Banks Eng. Survey

Boring Terminated at 20.0 ft.

Forge Engineering, Inc. Sheet 1 of 1 Project Name: Cedar Hammock Bulkhead Boring Number: B-1

Naples, Florida Job Number: 2893-003.01 Date Drilled: 8/31/2018

Agenda Page 65


Depth


Elev. Gro

undw

ate

r

Unifie

d

AA

SH

TO

Sym

bol


r C

onte

nt,

%

Fin

es C

onte

nt,

%

Org

anic

Conte

nt,

%

Liq

uid

Lim

it,

%

Pla

sticity I

ndex,

%

Tim

e R

ate

of

Drilli

ng

(min

ute

s:s

econds)


>50% >12% >5% +14.

0.5 TOPSOIL dark brown Trace Small Roots +13.5 TTTLoose ::: 6 »»»

:::2.0 SAND light brown Trace Shell Fragments +12. SP :::

Very Loose ::: 4 »»

:::4.0 SAND silt light brown +10. SP-SM :::

TOB :::Loose ::: 10 »»»»»

6.0 SAND silt tan +8. SP-SM ::::::

Dense ::: 39 »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»

8.5 SAND shell light brown Shell And Limestone Fragments +5.5 SP

Very Hard

8:00

12.0 LIMESTONE gray +2. LOSS

10:00

::::::### 50/3" »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»+

################|##|#


#|##|##|##|##|##|##|#


20.0 LIMESTONE Silt gray Severely Weathered Limestone -6. #|#






Agenda Page 66


Depth


Elev. Gro

undw

ate

r

Unifie

d

AA

SH

TO

Sym

bol


r C

onte

nt,

%

Fin

es C

onte

nt,

%

Org

anic

Conte

nt,

%

Liq

uid

Lim

it,

%

Pla

sticity I

ndex,

%

Tim

e R

ate

of

Drilli

ng

(min

ute

s:s

econds)


>50% >12% >5% +13.8

0.5 TOPSOIL dark brown Trace Small Roots +13.3 TTTMedium Dense ::: 11 »»»»»

::::::

Medium Dense ::: 16 »»»»»»»»

:::4.0 SAND light brown Fine Sand Trace Shell Frags +9.8 SP :::

:::Very Loose TOB ::: 4 »» 20.1 5.9

6.0 SAND silt brown Trace Small Roots +7.8 SP-SM ::::::

Medium Dense ::: 15 »»»»»»»

::::::

Loose ::: 6 »»»

::::::

11.0 SAND light brown Fine Sand +2.8 SP :::###### 10:00

### 15:00

Very Hard ### 50/3" »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»+

######### 10:00

### 5:00

###17.0 LIMESTONE gray Caprock -3.2 LOSS ###

#|# 6:00

#|#Very Soft #|# 4 »»







Agenda Page 67


Depth


Elev. Gro

undw

ate

r

Unifie

d

AA

SH

TO

Sym

bol


r C

onte

nt,

%

Fin

es C

onte

nt,

%

Org

anic

Conte

nt,

%

Liq

uid

Lim

it,

%

Pla

sticity I

ndex,

%

Tim

e R

ate

of

Drilli

ng

(min

ute

s:s

econds)


>50% >12% >5% +13.5

0.5 TOPSOIL dark brown Trace Small Roots +13. TTTLoose ::: 9 »»»»

:::2.0 SAND shell light brown Shell & Limerock Fragments +11.5 SP :::

Very Loose :|: 2 »

:|:4.0 SAND Silt shell light brown +9.5 SM :|:

:::Loose TOB ::: 5 »»

6.0 SAND shell light brown Shell & Limerock Fragments +7.5 SP ::::|:

Very Loose :|: 4 »»

8.5 SAND Silt brown Trace Silt +5. SM

Very Hard

11.0 LIMESTONE gray Caprock +2.5

4:00

:|::|:### 50/2" »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»+

##########|##|##|##|#

Very Soft #|# 2 »

#|##|##|##|##|##|##|#








Agenda Page 68


Depth


Elev. Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Un

ifie

d

AA

SH

TO

Sym

bo

l

N N (blows per foot) Wa

ter

Co

nte

nt,

%

Fin

es C

on

ten

t, %

Org

an

ic C

on

ten

t, %

Liq

uid

L

imit,

%

Pla

sticity I

nd

ex,

%

Tim

e R

ate

of

Drilli

ng

(min

ute

s:s

eco

nd

s)


>50% >12% >5%

0.5 TOPSOIL dark brown Trace Small Roots TTTLoose ::: 6 »»»

TOB :::4.0 Loose SAND light brown SP ::: 7 »»»

:::6.0 Medium Dense SAND brown Trace Concrete Debris SP ::: 24 »»»»»»»»»»»»

*:*Medium Dense *:* 12 »»»»»»

9.0 GRAVEL Sand silt gray GW *:*Very Hard ### 50/3" »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»+

###### 5:00

### 4:00

13.5 LIMESTONE gray ### 2:00

Very Soft ### 6 »»»

############

Very Soft ### 5 »»

###22.0 LIMESTONE sand gray Weathered Limestone ###

#|##|#

Very Soft #|# 2 »

#|##|##|##|#


#|##|##|##|#

35.0 Very Soft LIMESTONE Silt gray Severely Weathered Limestone #|# 5 »»




Agenda Page 69


Depth


Elev. Gro

undw

ate

r

Unifie

d

AA

SH

TO

Sym

bol


r C

onte

nt,

%

Fin

es C

onte

nt,

%

Org

anic

Conte

nt,

%

Liq

uid

Lim

it,

%

Pla

sticity I

ndex,

%

Tim

e R

ate

of

Drilli

ng

(min

ute

s:s

econds)


>50% >12% >5%

0.5 TOPSOIL dark brown Trace Small Roots TTT2.0 Medium Dense SAND light brown SP ::: 22 »»»»»»»»»»»

:::4.0 Dense SAND gravel light brown SP ::: 31 »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»

TOB :::6.0 Medium Dense SAND light brown Trace Small Roots SP ::: 23 »»»»»»»»»»»

:::8.0 Medium Dense SAND silt light brown SP-SM ::: 26 »»»»»»»»»»»»»

:|:9.5 Dense SAND Silt light brown SM :|: 31 »»»»»»»»»»»»»»» 23.1 18

###### 16:00

### 18:00

Very Hard ### 50/1" »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»+

######

17.0 LIMESTONE gray Caprock LOSS ### 15:00

#:# 14:00

#:#Very Soft #:# 9 »»»»

#:#22.0 LIMESTONE Sand light brown Weathered Limestone #:#

#|##|#

Very Soft #|# 2 »

#|##|##|##|#


#|##|##|##|#

35.0 Very Soft LIMESTONE Silt light brown Severely Weathered Limestone #|# 6 »»»






Agenda Page 70


Depth


Elev. Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Un

ifie

d

AA

SH

TO

Sym

bo

l


ter

Co

nte

nt,

%

Fin

es C

on

ten

t, %

Org

an

ic C

on

ten

t, %

Liq

uid

L

imit,

%

Pla

sticity I

nd

ex,

%

Tim

e R

ate

of

Drilli

ng

(min

ute

s:s

eco

nd

s)


>50% >12% >5%

0.5 TOPSOIL dark brown Trace Small Roots TTT2.0 Loose SAND light brown Trace Limerock Fragments SP ::: 6 »»»

:::4.0 Medium Dense SAND silt gray Trace Small Roots SP-SM ::: 15 »»»»»»»

TOB *:*Medium Dense *:* 20 »»»»»»»»»»

*:*8.0 Loose GRAVEL Sand light brown GW *:* 8 »»»»

|:|9.5 Hard SILT Sand gravel light brown Trace Small Roots ML-MH |:| 50/2" »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»+

### 18:00

### 20:00

### 14:00

Very Hard ### 50/4" »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»+

######

17.0 LIMESTONE gray Caprock LOSS ### 15:00

#:# 18:00

#:#Very Soft #:# 6 »»»

#:#22.0 LIMESTONE Sand gray Weathered Limestone #:#

#|##|#


#|##|##|##|#


#|##|##|##|#

35.0 Soft LIMESTONE Silt light gray Severely Weathered Limestone #|# 11 »»»»»






Agenda Page 71


Depth


Elev. Gro

undw

ate

r

Unifie

d

AA

SH

TO

Sym

bol


r C

onte

nt,

%

Fin

es C

onte

nt,

%

Org

anic

Conte

nt,

%

Liq

uid

Lim

it,

%

Pla

sticity I

ndex,

%

Tim

e R

ate

of

Drilli

ng

(min

ute

s:s

econds)


>50% >12% >5%

0.5 TOPSOIL dark brown Trace Small Roots TTT2.0 Loose SAND gravel light brown SP ::: 9 »»»»

:::Medium Dense ::: 16 »»»»»»»»

TOB :::5.6 Medium Dense SAND light brown SP ::: 24 »»»»»»»»»»»»

::: 11.6 10.1

Medium Dense ::: 21 »»»»»»»»»»

:::9.6 Dense SAND silt light brown Limestone Fragments SP-SM ::: 39 »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»

###### 15:00

### 16:00

13.5 LIMESTONE gray Caprock ### 16:00

Soft LOSS #:# 13 »»»»»»

#:##:##:##:#

Very Soft #:# 4 »»


#|##|#


#|##|##|##|#


#|##|##|##|#

35.0 Very Soft LIMESTONE Silt light gray Severely Weathered Limestone #|# 6 »»»






Agenda Page 72


Depth


Elev. Gro

undw

ate

r

Unifie

d

AA

SH

TO

Sym

bol


r C

onte

nt,

%

Fin

es C

onte

nt,

%

Org

anic

Conte

nt,

%

Liq

uid

Lim

it,

%

Pla

sticity I

ndex,

%

Tim

e R

ate

of

Drilli

ng

(min

ute

s:s

econds)


>50% >12% >5%

0.5 TOPSOIL dark brown Trace Small Roots TTTMedium Dense ::: 17 »»»»»»»»

:::4.0 Dense SAND light brown Fine Sand TOB SP ::: 33 »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»

:|:Dense :|: 49 »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»

:|:8.0 Very Dense SAND Silt gray Some Small Roots SM :|: 50/2" »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»+

Very Hard ### 50/4" »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»+ 14:00

### 15:00

### 14:00

### 12:00

### 14:00

13.5 LIMESTONE gray Caprock ### 15:00

Very Soft #:# 10 »»»»»

#:##:##:##:#

Very Soft LOSS #:# 9 »»»»


#|##|#


#|##|##|##|#

Very Soft #|# 7 »»»

#|##|##|##|#

35.0 Very Soft LIMESTONE Silt light gray Severely Weathered Limestone #|# 6 »»»




Agenda Page 73


Depth


Elev. Gro

undw

ate

r

Unifie

d

AA

SH

TO

Sym

bol


r C

onte

nt,

%

Fin

es C

onte

nt,

%

Org

anic

Conte

nt,

%

Liq

uid

Lim

it,

%

Pla

sticity I

ndex,

%

Tim

e R

ate

of

Drilli

ng

(min

ute

s:s

econds)


>50% >12% >5% +14.

0.5 TOPSOIL dark brown Trace Small Roots +13.5 TTTVery Loose ::: 4 »»

::::::

Very Loose ::: 2 »

:::4.0 SAND light brown Fine Sand +10. SP :::

TOB :::Loose ::: 5 »»

6.0 SAND silt light brown +8. SP-SM ::::|:

Loose :|: 7 »»» 25.5 12.5

8.0 SAND Silt gray Trace Small Roots +6. SM :|::::

9.0 SAND light brown +5. SP :::10.0 Soft LIMESTONE Sand gray Weathered Limestone +4. #:# 18 »»»»»»»»»

###### 8:00

###### 8:00

### 12:00

13.5 LIMESTONE gray +.5 ###Soft #:# 23 »»»»»»»»»»»

#:##:##:##:#

17.0 LIMESTONE Sand gray Weathered Limestone -3. #:##|##|#


20.0 LIMESTONE Silt gray Severely Weathered Limestone -6. #|#






Agenda Page 74


Depth


Elev. Gro

undw

ate

r

Unifie

d

AA

SH

TO

Sym

bol


r C

onte

nt,

%

Fin

es C

onte

nt,

%

Org

anic

Conte

nt,

%

Liq

uid

Lim

it,

%

Pla

sticity I

ndex,

%

Tim

e R

ate

of

Drilli

ng

(min

ute

s:s

econds)


>50% >12% >5% +13.5

:::Loose ::: 9 »»»»

::::::

Loose ::: 6 »»»

:::4.0 SAND light brown Trace Limerock Fagments +9.5 SP :::

:::Medium Dense TOB ::: 11 »»»»»

6.0 SAND light brown +7.5 SP ::::::

Dense ::: 43 »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»

::::::

Medium Dense ::: 25 »»»»»»»»»»»»

10.0 SAND light brown Trace Shell And Limerock Fags +3.5 SP :::###### 5:00

###### 5:00

### 10:00

Very Hard ### 50/4" »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»+

###############

17.0 LIMESTONE gray Caprock -3.5 ####|##|#


20.0 LIMESTONE Silt light gray Severely Weathered Limestone -6.5 #|#






Agenda Page 75


Depth


Elev. Gro

undw

ate

r

Unifie

d

AA

SH

TO

Sym

bol


r C

onte

nt,

%

Fin

es C

onte

nt,

%

Org

anic

Conte

nt,

%

Liq

uid

Lim

it,

%

Pla

sticity I

ndex,

%

Tim

e R

ate

of

Drilli

ng

(min

ute

s:s

econds)


>50% >12% >5% +13.

:::Loose ::: 9 »»»»

:::4.0 Loose SAND brown Trace Shell Fragments +9. SP ::: 9 »»»»

:::6.0 Medium Dense SAND gray Fine Sand +7. TOB SP ::: 16 »»»»»»»»

:::Medium Dense ::: 12 »»»»»»

9.0 SAND light brown +4. SP :::10.0 Medium Dense GRAVEL Sand gray Limestone Fragments +3. GW *:* 13 »»»»»»

###### 10:00

### 14:00

13.5 LIMESTONE gray Caprock -.5 ### 15:00

Soft #:# 19 »»»»»»»»»

#:#17.0 LIMESTONE Sand gray Weathered Limestone -4. #:#

#|##|#

Very Soft LOSS #|# 6 »»»

#|##|##|##|#


#|##|##|##|#


#|##|##|##|#

35.0 Very Soft LIMESTONE Silt gray Severely Weathered Limestone -22. #|# 6 »»»






Agenda Page 76


Depth


Elev. Gro

undw

ate

r

Unifie

d

AA

SH

TO

Sym

bol


r C

onte

nt,

%

Fin

es C

onte

nt,

%

Org

anic

Conte

nt,

%

Liq

uid

Lim

it,

%

Pla

sticity I

ndex,

%

Tim

e R

ate

of

Drilli

ng

(min

ute

s:s

econds)


>50% >12% >5% +12.5

0.5 TOPSOIL dark brown Trace Small Roots +12. TTTVery Loose ::: 4 »»

:::4.0 Medium Dense SAND light brown Fine Sand, Trace Shell Fags. +8.5 TOB SP ::: 13 »»»»»»

*:*6.0 Medium Dense GRAVEL Sand silt gray +6.5 GW *:* 12 »»»»»» 9.5 7

:*:Medium Dense :*: 13 »»»»»»

8.5 SAND Gravel light brown Limestone Fragments +4. SW :*:Hard ### 90 »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»+

11.0 LIMESTONE gray Caprock +1.5 ### 5:00

#|# 5:00

#|##|#


#|##|##|##|#

Very Soft LOSS #|# 4 »»

#|##|##|##|#

Very Soft #|# 3 »

#|##|##|##|#


#|##|##|##|#

35.0 Very Soft LIMESTONE Silt light gray Severely Weathered Limestone -22.5 #|# 4 »»






Agenda Page 77


Depth


Elev. Gro

undw

ate

r

Unifie

d

AA

SH

TO

Sym

bol


r C

onte

nt,

%

Fin

es C

onte

nt,

%

Org

anic

Conte

nt,

%

Liq

uid

Lim

it,

%

Pla

sticity I

ndex,

%

Tim

e R

ate

of

Drilli

ng

(min

ute

s:s

econds)


>50% >12% >5% +13.

0.5 TOPSOIL dark brown Trace Small Roots +12.5 TTTVery Loose ::: 4 »»

::::::

Very Loose ::: 2 »

:::4.0 SAND gravel tan Fine Sand Trace Shell Frags. +9. SP :::

TOB :|:Loose :|: 9 »»»»

6.0 SAND Silt brown Trace Small Roots +7. SM :|:*:*

Medium Dense *:* 24 »»»»»»»»»»»»

*:*8.5 GRAVEL Sand gray Limestone Fragments +4.5 GW *:*

Very Hard ### 50/5" »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»+

###############

13.0 LIMESTONE gray Caprock +0. ####|#

Very Soft #|# 6 »»»

#|##|##|##|##|##|##|#


20.0 LIMESTONE Silt light gray Severely Weathered Limestone -7. #|#






Agenda Page 78


Depth


Elev. Gro

undw

ate

r

Unifie

d

AA

SH

TO

Sym

bol


r C

onte

nt,

%

Fin

es C

onte

nt,

%

Org

anic

Conte

nt,

%

Liq

uid

Lim

it,

%

Pla

sticity I

ndex,

%

Tim

e R

ate

of

Drilli

ng

(min

ute

s:s

econds)


>50% >12% >5% +13.

:::Loose ::: 8 »»»»

:::2.0 SAND light brown Fine Sand +11. SP :::

Very Loose ::: 2 »

:::4.0 SAND light brown Trace Small Roots +9. SP :::

:::Loose TOB ::: 5 »» 19.2 3.4

6.0 SAND light brown Trace Limestone Fragments +7. SP ::::::

Loose ::: 9 »»»»

::::::

Very Loose ::: 2 »

::::::

11.0 SAND gray Trace Shell Fragments +2. SP :::#########

13.5 LIMESTONE gray Caprock -.5 ###Soft #:# 18 »»»»»»»»»

#:##:##:##:#

17.0 LIMESTONE Sand gray Weathered Limestone -4. #:##|##|#


20.0 LIMESTONE Silt light gray Severely Weathered Limestone -7. #|#






Agenda Page 79


Depth


Elev. Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Un

ifie

d

AA

SH

TO

Sym

bo

l


ter

Co

nte

nt,

%

Fin

es C

on

ten

t, %

Org

an

ic C

on

ten

t, %

Liq

uid

L

imit,

%

Pla

sticity I

nd

ex,

%

Tim

e R

ate

of

Drilli

ng

(min

ute

s:s

eco

nd

s)


>50% >12% >5%

0.5 TOPSOIL dark brown Trace Samll Roots TTT::::::

4.0 SAND light brown Trace Limestone Fragments SP :::TOB :::

6.0 Medium Dense SAND light brown Trace Samll Roots SP ::: 11 »»»»»

:::8.0 Medium Dense SAND silt gray Trace Shell Fragments SP-SM ::: 12 »»»»»»

8.5 SAND Silt gray SM :|:Hard ### 50/4" »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»+

###### 12:00

### 14:00

Very Hard ### 50/3" »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»+ 17:00

######

17.0 LIMESTONE gray Caprock ####|##|#

Very Soft LOSS #|# 5 »»

#|##|##|##|#

Very Soft #|# 2 »

#|##|##|##|#


#|##|##|##|#

35.0 Soft LIMESTONE Silt light gray Severely Weathered Limeston #|# 12 »»»»»»




Agenda Page 80


Depth


Elev. Gro

undw

ate

r

Unifie

d

AA

SH

TO

Sym

bol


r C

onte

nt,

%

Fin

es C

onte

nt,

%

Org

anic

Conte

nt,

%

Liq

uid

Lim

it,

%

Pla

sticity I

ndex,

%

Tim

e R

ate

of

Drilli

ng

(min

ute

s:s

econds)


>50% >12% >5% +12.8

0.5 TOPSOIL dark brown Trace Small Roots +12.3 TTTMedium Dense ::: 12 »»»»»»

:::4.0 Very Loose SAND light brown Fine Sand +8.8 SP ::: 4 »»

:::6.0 Very Loose SAND light brown Trace Small Roots +6.8 TOB SP ::: 4 »»

:::Loose ::: 10 »»»»» 21.4 6.7

9.0 SAND silt gray +3.8 SP-SM

Very Hard

10:00

11:00

13.5 LIMESTONE gray Caprock -.7

:::### 50/3" »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»+

############ 12:00

Soft #:# 18 »»»»»»»»»

#:#17.0 LIMESTONE Sand light gray Weathered Limestone -4.2 #:#

#|##|#

Very Soft LOSS #|# 2 »

#|##|##|##|#

Very Soft #|# 3 »

#|##|##|##|#


#|##|##|##|#

35.0 Very Soft LIMESTONE Silt light gray Severely Weathered Limestone -22.2 #|# 4 »»






Agenda Page 81


Depth


Elev. Gro

undw

ate

r

Unifie

d

AA

SH

TO

Sym

bol


r C

onte

nt,

%

Fin

es C

onte

nt,

%

Org

anic

Conte

nt,

%

Liq

uid

Lim

it,

%

Pla

sticity I

ndex,

%

Oth

er


>50% >12% >5%

Primary soil type: Over 50% of soil by visual estimation or laboratory test N: Standard Penetration Resistance.

Number of blows to drive a standard split-spoon sampler

Secondary soil type: Between 12% and 50% of soil by visual estimation or laboratory test one foot using a 140 pound hammer dropping 30 inches

Tertiary soil type: Between 5% and 12% of soil by visual estimation or laboratory test woh: Split-spoon penetrated soil

under weight of 140 pound hammer only.

Table of Strength Descriptions wor: Split-spoon penetrated soil

N Sand / Gravel Silt / Clay Limestone / Sandstone under weight of drill rods only.

0 Very Loose Very Soft Very Soft

2 Very Loose Very Soft Very Soft

3 Very Loose Soft Very Soft

4 Very Loose Soft Very Soft Symbol Key

5 Loose Firm Very Soft GRAVEL *

8 Loose Firm Very Soft SAND : Laboratory Test Summary

9 Loose Stiff Very Soft SILT | Water Content: Weight of Water

10 Loose Stiff Very Soft CLAY / Weight of all Dry Soil

11 Medium Dense Stiff Soft LIMESTONE #

15 Medium Dense Stiff Soft DEBRIS D Fines Content: Weight of Dry Soil Finer than No. 200 Sieve

16 Medium Dense Very Stiff Soft FILL F Weight of all Dry Soil

30 Medium Dense Very Stiff Soft PEAT ~

31 Dense Hard Soft ORGANIC ~ Organic Content: Weight of Organics Lost by Ignition

50 Dense Hard Soft LIMEROCK L Weight of all Dry Soil

51 Very Dense Hard Hard PAVEMENT P

60 Very Dense Hard Hard CONCRETE C Liquid Limit: Moisture content of a soil at the transition

100 Very Dense Hard Very Hard WATER W between liquid and plastic states.

100+ Very Dense Hard Very Hard VOID V (ASTM D-4318)

15.0 Depth of soil change. The transition between materials may be gradual. Primary Soil Symbol Plastic Limit: Moisture content of a soil at the transition

Soil conditions will vary between boring locations. :|: between plastic and semisolid states.

Secondary Soil Symbol, primary if no secondary is present - (ASTM D-4318)

All descriptions are based on the visual examination of the retrieved soil samples, AASHTO Soil Classification Symbol

unless laboratory data is indicated. Therefore, estimates of material types Unified Soil Classification Symbol Plasticity Index: Liquid Limit - Plastic Limit

and concentrations should be considered approximate. SP A-3

Representative Material Description Definitions

SAND Material that pass a No. 4 and is retained on a No. 200 sieve.

SILT Low plasticity material that passes a No. 200 sieve. Groundwater Symbols

CLAY Moderate to high plasticity soil that passes a No. 200 sieve. TOB Initial groundwater level at time of boring

LIMESTONE Natural occurring rock with at least 50% calcium carbonate. GWL Groundwater level measured a day or more after drilling

SANDSTONE Natural occurring rock of hardened (not by calcium carbonate) sand-size particles. LOSS Drill fluid circulation loss

LIMEROCK Mined or processed limestone used as a fill or pavement base.

ORGANIC Containing partially decomposed material that can be ignited when dried.

Forge Engineering, Inc. Key To Boring Log Classification Naples, Florida

Agenda Page 82

LABORATORY TEST

RESULTS

Agenda Page 83

Project: Cedar Hammock Bulkhead Wall Sample Location: B-1; 2-to 4-feet

Client: Cedar Hammock CDD Sample Description: Light Brown Slightly Silty Fine SAND, Trace Small Roots (Stratum 1)

FORGE Project No.: 2893-003.01 USCS Soil Classification: SP - SM AASHTO Soil Classification: A-3

Date Run: Moisture Content: 17.3%

Sampled By: Robert J. McGinnis, E.I.

Sieve No. 1 1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" No. 4 No. 10 No. 40 No. 60 No. 100 No. 140 No. 200

Sieve Opening (mm) 37.50 25 19.00 12.5 4.750 2.000 0.43 0.25 0.15 0.106 0.075

Percent Passing 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.3 95.7 93.7 85.4 49.9 13.0 6.5 5.2

FORGE ENGINEERING, INC.FORENSIC, GEOTECHNICAL AND

CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS

P.O. Box 113040, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108, (239) 514-4100, FAX (239) 514-4161

10/1/2018

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.010.101.0010.00100.00

Perc

en

t P

assin

g,

(%)

Particle Size, (mm)

Agenda Page 84







Sieve Opening (mm) 37.50 25 19.00 12.5 4.750 2.000 0.43 0.25 0.15 0.106 0.075

Percent Passing 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.7 96.6 95.1 83.8 48.7 11.7 6.9 5.9




10/1/2018

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.010.101.0010.00100.00

Perc

en

t P

assin

g,

(%)

Particle Size, (mm)

Agenda Page 85


Client: Cedar Hammock CDD Sample Description: Light Brown Gravely Silty Fine SAND, (Stratum 2)

FORGE Project No.: 2893-003.01 USCS Soil Classification: SM AASHTO Soil Classification: A-2-4




Sieve Opening (mm) 37.50 25 19.00 12.5 4.750 2.000 0.43 0.25 0.15 0.106 0.075

Percent Passing 100.0 100.0 91.0 81.1 69.3 64.9 58.3 47.7 26.2 19.7 18.0




10/1/2018

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.010.101.0010.00100.00

Perc

en

t P

assin

g,

(%)

Particle Size, (mm)

Agenda Page 86


Client: Cedar Hammock CDD Sample Description: Light Brown Slightly Silty Fine SAND, (Stratum 1)

FORGE Project No.: 2893-003.01 USCS Soil Classification: SP - SM AASHTO Soil Classification: A-2-4




Sieve Opening (mm) 37.50 25 19.00 12.5 4.750 2.000 0.43 0.25 0.15 0.106 0.075

Percent Passing 100.0 100.0 95.7 90.6 78.9 72.3 61.5 37.4 14.2 11.0 10.1




10/1/2018

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.010.101.0010.00100.00

Perc

en

t P

assin

g,

(%)

Particle Size, (mm)

Agenda Page 87


Client: Cedar Hammock CDD Sample Description: Light Brown Slightly Silty Fine SAND, (Stratum 1)

FORGE Project No.: 2893-003.01 USCS Soil Classification: SP - SM AASHTO Soil Classification: A-2-4




Sieve Opening (mm) 37.50 25 19.00 12.5 4.750 2.000 0.43 0.25 0.15 0.106 0.075

Percent Passing 100.0 100.0 99.1 99.1 96.9 95.0 84.7 57.7 19.2 13.7 12.5




10/1/2018

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.010.101.0010.00100.00

Perc

en

t P

assin

g,

(%)

Particle Size, (mm)

Agenda Page 88


Client: Cedar Hammock CDD Sample Description: Light Brown Slightly Silty Sandy GRAVEL (Stratum 3)

FORGE Project No.: 2893-003.01 USCS Soil Classification: GP - GM AASHTO Soil Classification: A-1-a




Sieve Opening (mm) 37.50 25 19.00 12.5 4.750 2.000 0.43 0.25 0.15 0.106 0.075

Percent Passing 100.0 38.2 38.2 34.7 31.2 28.8 24.4 19.9 10.4 7.8 7.0




10/1/2018

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.010.101.0010.00100.00

Perc

en

t P

assin

g,

(%)

Particle Size, (mm)

Agenda Page 89


Client: Cedar Hammock CDD Sample Description: Lt. Brown Gravely Fine SAND, Trace Silt and Small Roots (Stratum 1)

FORGE Project No.: 2893-003.01 USCS Soil Classification: SP AASHTO Soil Classification: A-3




Sieve Opening (mm) 37.50 25 19.00 12.5 4.750 2.000 0.43 0.25 0.15 0.106 0.075

Percent Passing 100.0 81.6 70.5 68.6 67.6 66.1 59.9 31.1 6.9 4.0 3.4




10/1/2018

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.010.101.0010.00100.00

Perc

en

t P

assin

g,

(%)

Particle Size, (mm)

Agenda Page 90







Sieve Opening (mm) 37.50 25 19.00 12.5 4.750 2.000 0.43 0.25 0.15 0.106 0.075

Percent Passing 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.5 98.8 89.0 64.4 21.7 11.7 9.4




10/1/2018

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.010.101.0010.00100.00

Perc

en

t P

assin

g,

(%)

Particle Size, (mm)

Agenda Page 91

Client: Forge Engineering Inc.Project Name: Cedar HammockProject Location: ---GTX #:Test Date:Tested By: jmChecked By: mcmBoring ID:Sample ID: ---Depth, ft: 6-8Visual Description:

Test No.:Initial Diameter, in:Initial Height, in:Initial Mass, grams:Initial Dry Density, pcf:Initial Moisture Content, %:Initial Bulk Density, pcf:Initial Degree of Saturation:Initial Void Ratio:Final Dry Density, pcf:Final Moisture Content, %:Final Bulk Density, pcf:Normal Stress, psf:Maximum Shear Stress, psf:Shear Rate, in/min:

Sample Type:Estimated Specific Gravity:Liquid Limit:Plastic Limit:Plasticity Index:% Passing #200 sieve:Soil Classification:Group Symbol:

Notes: Material greater than #5 sieve screened out of sample prior to testingMoisture content obtained before shear from sample trimmingsMoisture Content determined by ASTM D2216

"---" indicates testing required to determine these values was not requested.

Target Compaction: (102.0 pcf) at the as received moisture content (19.4%), as specified by client.

19.4

10/11/18

Moist, grayish brown clayey sand

2.51.0 1.0

102.0

Direct Shear Test of Soils Under Consolidated Drained Conditionsby ASTM D3080

reconstituted

1.0

0.002 0.002 0.002

499 999

308939

B-4

---

DS1-1 DS-1-2 DS-1-32.5

156.94 156.99 156.92102.0 102.019.4 19.4121.8

2.5

121.8 121.8

108.2 107.0

124.9

110.916.7 18.1

82.8 82.882.80.62 0.62 0.62

131.0

---

17.8

Values for cohesion and friction angle determined from best-fit straight line to the data for the specific test conditions. Actual strength parameters may vary and should be determined by an engineer for site-specific conditions.

---

---------

2.65

999 1770

127.5

4031999

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

She

ar S

tres

s, p

sf

Normal Stress, psf

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5She

ar S

tres

s, p

sfHorizontal Deformation, in

499 999 1999

0.0000.0050.0100.0150.0200.0250.0300.0350.0400.0450.0500.0550.0600.0650.0700.0750.0800.0850.090

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Vert

ical

Def

orm

atio

n, in

Horizontal Deformation, in

499 999 1999

Cohesion = 18.8 psfFriction Angle = 41.7o

Agenda Page 92

Client: Forge Engineering Inc.Project Name: Cedar HammockProject Location: Eastha---GTX #:Test Date:Tested By: jmChecked By: mcmBoring ID:Sample ID: ---Depth, ft: 4-6Visual Description:






20.9

10/11/18

Moist, grayish brown silty sand

2.51.0 1.0

105.0


reconstituted

1.0

0.002 0.002 0.002

360 720

308939

B-10

---

DS-1 DS-2 DS-32.5

163.56 163.55 163.56105.0 105.020.9 20.9126.9

2.5

126.9 126.9

106.4 106.2

127.1

108.919.7 20.3

96.2 96.293.20.58 0.58 0.58

131.0

---

20.5


---

---------

2.65

684 1120

128.2

3401440

y = 0.7054x + 122.37

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500

She

ar S

tres

s, p

sf

Normal Stress, psf

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5She

ar S

tres

s, p


360 720 1440

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0.0400.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Vert

ical

Def

orm

atio

n, in


360 720 1440

Cohesion = 122 psfFriction Angle = 35.2o

Agenda Page 93

Client: Forge Engineering Inc.Project Name: Cedar HammockProject Location: Eastha---GTX #:Test Date:Tested By: jmChecked By: mcmBoring ID:Sample ID: ---Depth, ft: 8-10 Visual Description:





---

21.3


---

---------

2.65

947 1540

120.9

5332100

120.2 120.3

99.7 101.2

122.6

101.621.1 22.0

87.3 87.086.10.68 0.69 0.69

124.0

308939

B-15

---

DS-1 DS-2 DS-32.5

154.88 154.84 154.8698.4 98.122.1 22.7120.1

2.5


22.6

10/11/18

Moist, grayish brown silty sand

2.51.0 1.0

98.0


reconstituted

1.0

0.002 0.002 0.002

525 1050

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

She

ar S

tres

s, p

sf

Normal Stress, psf

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5She

ar S

tres

s, p


525 1050 2100

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0.0400.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Vert

ical

Def

orm

atio

n, in


525 1050 2100

Cohesion = 240 psfFriction Angle = 32.0o

Agenda Page 94

7Cii.

Agenda Page 95

Agenda Page 96

Agenda Page 97

Agenda Page 98

Agenda Page 99

Agenda Page 100

Agenda Page 101

7Ciii.

Agenda Page 102

Hole #4 (island) Cedar Hammock Golf Course

Vinyl Sheet Pile Wall

Bid TabsWall at Hole #4 (island) - Construction Stage 1 Alternate

Item Unit Cost Quantity Units Extension

Mobilization 10.00$ 1.0 LS 10.00$

Demobilization 10.00$ 1.0 LS 10.00$

Upper Helical Anchor Installation - helix, extensions, all-thread, channel, washer, nut, etc.110.00$ 1.0 each 10.00$

Lower Helical Anchor Installation - helix, extensions, all-thread, channel, washer, nut, etc.110.00$ 1.0 each 10.00$

Addition of 7 ft long SS 125 extension (may be required if anchor capacity not met)110.00$ 10.0 each 100.00$

Permit(s) 10.00$ 1.0 each 10.00$

Other Item #1: 10.00$ 1.0 10.00$

Other Item #2: 10.00$ 1.0 10.00$

Subtotal 170.00$

Tax 10.00$

Total 180.00$

Estimated Start Date: 1/30/19

Estimated Date of Completion: 1/30/19

[see page below for base bid tab]

[unit cost and quantities provided here are "plug" values. Contractor to input their own values]

Initial: ____________

Date:_____________

Agenda Page 103



Bid TabsWall at Hole #4 (island)

Item Unit Cost Quantity Unit Extension






10" dia timber piles 10.00$ 1.0 each 10.00$

12" dia timber piles at bridge 10.00$ 1.0 each 10.00$

Series I - 4x6 FRP Wale - Clay 10.00$ 1.0 LF 10.00$

Series X - 4x7.5 FRP Wale - Clay 10.00$ 1.0 LF 10.00$

ESP 4.1 Vinyl Sheet Pile - Clay 10.00$ 1.0 LF 10.00$

No. 57 Stone - gravel fill 10.00$ 1.0 CY 10.00$

Composite Cap Boards and associated hardware 10.00$ 1.0 LF 10.00$

Placement of geotextile, topsoil, miscellaneous grading, and sod 10.00$ 1.0 LF 10.00$

Remove and Reinstallation of Bridge End Bent 10.00$ 1.0 each 10.00$

4x12 timbers Split Pile Cap and associated hardware 10.00$ 1.0 LF 10.00$

Pipe Penetration Extensions - Concrete, rebar, etc. 10.00$ 1.0 each 10.00$

Permit(s) 10.00$ 1.0 each 10.00$

Other Item #1: 10.00$ 1.0 10.00$

Other Item #2: 10.00$ 1.0 10.00$

Subtotal 280.00$

Tax 10.00$

Total 290.00$




Initial: ____________

Date:_____________

Agenda Page 104

Hole #4 (roadway) Cedar Hammock Golf Course


Bid TabsWall at Hole #4 (roadway) - Construction Stage 1 Alternate







Permit(s) 10.00$ 1.0 each 10.00$

Other Item #1: 10.00$ 1.0 10.00$

Other Item #2: 10.00$ 1.0 10.00$

Subtotal 170.00$

Tax 10.00$

Total 180.00$



[see page below for base bid tab][unit cost and quantities provided here are "plug" values. Contractor to input their own values]

Initial: ____________

Date:_____________

Agenda Page 105



Bid Tabs

Wall at Hole #4 (roadway)


















Permit(s) 10.00$ 1.0 each 10.00$

Other Item #1: 10.00$ 1.0 10.00$

Other Item #2: 10.00$ 1.0 10.00$

Subtotal 280.00$

Tax 10.00$

Total 290.00$




Initial: ____________

Date:_____________

Agenda Page 106



Bid TabsWall at Hole #5 (island) - Construction Stage 1 Alternate







Permit(s) 10.00$ 1.0 each 10.00$

Other Item #1: 10.00$ 1.0 10.00$

Other Item #2: 10.00$ 1.0 10.00$

Subtotal 170.00$

Tax 10.00$

Total 180.00$




Initial: ____________

Date:_____________

Agenda Page 107



Bid TabsWall at Hole #5 (island)


















Permit(s) 10.00$ 1.0 each 10.00$

Other Item #1: 10.00$ 1.0 10.00$

Other Item #2: 10.00$ 1.0 10.00$

Subtotal 280.00$

Tax 10.00$

Total 290.00$




Initial: ____________

Date:_____________

Agenda Page 108



Bid TabsWall at Hole #5 (roadway) - Construction Stage 1 Alternate







Permit(s) 10.00$ 1.0 each 10.00$

Other Item #1: 10.00$ 1.0 10.00$

Other Item #2: 10.00$ 1.0 10.00$

Subtotal 170.00$

Tax 10.00$

Total 180.00$




Initial: ____________

Date:_____________

Agenda Page 109



Bid TabsWall at Hole #5 (roadway)


















Permit(s) 10.00$ 1.0 each 10.00$

Other Item #1: 10.00$ 1.0 10.00$

Other Item #2: 10.00$ 1.0 10.00$

Subtotal 280.00$

Tax 10.00$

Total 290.00$




Initial: ____________

Date:_____________

Agenda Page 110

Hole #16 Cedar Hammock Golf Course


Bid TabsWall at Hole #16 - Construction Stage 1 Alternate







Permit(s) 10.00$ 1.0 each 10.00$

Other Item #1: 10.00$ 1.0 10.00$

Other Item #2: 10.00$ 1.0 10.00$

Subtotal 170.00$

Tax 10.00$

Total 180.00$




Initial: ____________

Date:_____________

Agenda Page 111



Bid Tabs

Wall at Hole #16

















Permit(s) 10.00$ 1.0 each 10.00$

Other Item #1: 10.00$ 1.0 10.00$

Other Item #2: 10.00$ 1.0 10.00$

Subtotal 270.00$

Tax 10.00$

Total 280.00$




Initial: ____________

Date:_____________

Agenda Page 112



Bid TabsWall at Hole #17 - Construction Stage 1 Alternate







Permit(s) 10.00$ 1.0 each 10.00$

Other Item #1: 10.00$ 1.0 10.00$

Other Item #2: 10.00$ 1.0 10.00$

Subtotal 170.00$

Tax 10.00$

Total 180.00$




Initial: ____________

Date:_____________

Agenda Page 113



Bid TabsWall at Hole #17

















Permit(s) 10.00$ 1.0 each 10.00$

Other Item #1: 10.00$ 1.0 10.00$

Other Item #2: 10.00$ 1.0 10.00$

Subtotal 270.00$

Tax 10.00$

Total 280.00$




Initial: ____________

Date:_____________

Agenda Page 114

7Civ.

Agenda Page 115

Request for Proposal (RFP)

Cedar Hammock Golf Course Timber Bulkhead Rehabilitation with Vinyl Sheet Pile Wall

1. This RFP from the Cedar Hammock CDD includes the installation of six (6) vinyl sheet pile walls

in front of existing deteriorating timber walls. These walls are located at Hole #4 (roadway), Hole

#4 (island), Hole #5 (Roadway), Hole #5 (island), Hole #16, and Hole #17. Total quantity of walls

are approximately 2,540 LF.

2. After receiving proposals, the CDD reserves the right to short list contractors and request

interview(s) to review proposals.

3. The CDD reserves the right to award contracts to multiple contractors for one or multiple walls.

Furthermore, CDD reserves the right to award for one or multiple walls for construction stage 1

(helical anchor installation and associated hardware).

4. Please indicate how many days you estimate you will need to complete said scope for each wall.

5. Bid tabs include provision for adding a 7’ long extension to the helical anchors in case capacity is

not met. A “plug” quantity of 10 per wall has been suggested for bidding purposes. Final pay item

will be adjusted based on the number of extensions used and the unit price submitted (and

accepted). Also, if additional anchors are required for same reason, final pay item will be adjusted

based on the number of upper and lower anchor units used.

6. Likewise, if additional timber piles are required, they will be paid at the unit price submitted (and

accepted).

7. Please use the attached bid tab form to summarize your bid. For ease of use, bid tabs have been set

up in Microsoft® Excel spread sheet where plug numbers and quantities have been applied. It is

the contractor’s responsibility to confirm all appropriate formulas and numbers for accuracy of

their proposal. Furthermore, bid tabs include “other” line items to account for anything contractor

feels should be included.

8. CDD may elect to direct purchase major items in order to save on sales tax. In which case, the

contractor shall credit the CDD the amount for the material purchase. However, contractor’s bond

shall still apply for the payment of materials.

Submit a paper copy of the bid form by 5:00 PM on ????????? to:

Sam Marshall, PE

Banks Engineering

10511 Six Mile Cypress Parkway

Fort Myers, Florida 33966

9. Submit all technical questions related to this Request for Proposal in writing by e-mail to Carl

Hazenberg/Ingenium,Inc / [email protected], with a copy to Justin Faircloth at

[email protected]

Agenda Page 116



Vinyl Sheet Pile Wall RFP Page 2

10. Contact Todd Legan at 239-825-4599 to schedule a date and time to perform any site visits to

review the field conditions at the bridge sites other than the day of the mandatory pre-bid meeting.

11. The attached engineering plans prepared by Ingenium, Inc., provides the structural design details

for the new vinyl sheet pile walls. Color of vinyl sheet pile and FRP wale beams shall be clay.

12. Golf cart bridge crossings occur at walls on Hole #4 (island), Hole #4(roadway), Hole #5(island),

and Hole #5(roadway). Construction of the walls will likely commence before construction of new

bridges. Therefore, successful wall contractor will need to familiarize themselves with both bridge

and wall designs to assure successful tie-in. To that end, the contractor shall immediately notify

CDD representative and engineers of any obstacles or conflicts to achieving this goal.

13. Documents available for review includes:

Sheet Pile Specification (with FRP wale beam)

Design drawings by Ingenium, Inc.

Banks Engineering drawings dated 1/27/2017

Forge Engineering, Inc. report of Geotechnical Investigation dated 10/30/2018

Bridge Solutions design of Golf Cart Bridges (separate RFP)

Rock Soundings (hand probe with 5/8” diameter rod)

14. Bid and performance bonds are required for this project. See the draft contract for the requirements.

Provide an itemized cost for each of these bonds that covers all of the walls on the bid form. Also,

contractor shall also provide as part of their proposal insurance limits and coverages.

15. The price bid for each wall shall include the cost of obtaining a building permit from Collier County

based a copy of said plans.

16. Provide project references noting location, owner (with contact information), and engineer. Note

projects similar in scope to the current RFP carry additional merit in the selection process.

17. Contractor in RFP will note number of crews and personnel per crew. Also, provide relevant

experience of each crew member – role, years’ experience, relevant project experience, etc.

18. Contractor should explain their quality control and quality assurance procedure and how they intend

to implement for this project.

19. Contractor to explain equipment to be used for the project – if equipment is leased or owned, age

of equipment, and any equipment the contractor feels will make them most qualified for the project,

etc.

20. There will be a mandatory pre-bid meeting on ?????????

21. CDD and engineer’s selection of the successful contractor will be based on the following:

o Price

o Relevant experience

o Schedule

o Minimizing impact and seasonal down time to the golf course

o Bond and Insurance capacity/capability

o Equipment

o Quality Control Program

Agenda Page 117


o Any other unique benefits that the contractor feels would complement their qualifications

22. Contractor acknowledges that they are aware of the site installation challenges

involving but not limited to the presence of rock (cobbles or cap rock), existing

timber bulkhead (geotextile, gravel, cables, deadmen, etc.), existing irrigation,

existing drainage systems, etc.

Agenda Page 118


Example of similar project in photo below:

Agenda Page 119

Cedar Hammock Sheet Pile Wall Specification Page 1

Cedar Hammock Sheet Pile Wall Specification

1.0 Materials

1.1 ESP 4.1 Vinyl Sheet Piling Sheet pile profile shall be manufactured with an interlocking feature that ensures adjacent

panels maintain alignment. The sheeting shall be co-extruded with a virgin clay color

capstock and high quality regrind substrate. The sheet pile shall be free from visible cracks

and other injurious defects. The manufacturer’s extrusion facility shall have at least 15

years’ experience with the manufacturing of vinyl sheet piling. An acceptable supplier of

the vinyl sheet piling is Everlast Synthetic Products, LLC, 1000 Wyngate Parkway, Suite

100, Woodstock, GA 30189, 800-687-0036.

1.1.1 Properties of Vinyl Sheet Pile Part shall have the following minimum properties

unless otherwise noted:

Color Clay ---------------

Specific Gravity 1.43 ASTM D-792

Cell Class 1-321234-22 ASTM D-4216 A

Tensile Yield 6,300 psi ASTM D-638

Tensile Modulus 380,000 psi ASTM D-638

Creep Stress 5,000 psi (<4.2% strain)

4,000 psi (<3.0% strain)

ASTM D-5262 B

Interface Direct Shear 20° (SM Soil) ASTM D-5321 C

Interlock Flow Rate 1.71x10 -4 (60 psf) D

4.86x10 -4 (360 psf) D

GRI Certified Lab E

Dynamic Modulus 332,136 psi (32°F)

266,144 psi (100°F)

ASTM D-4065 F

Profile Width 20 inches (max. width) Interlock to Interlock

Profile Depth 8 inches (max. depth) Outside to outside

flange

I (moment of inertia) 69.7 in4 /ft ---------------

Z (section modulus) 14.9 in3/ft ---------------

Rg (radius of gyration) 6.1 in (major axis)

3.1 in (minor axis)

---------------

Thickness 0.285 inches ---------------

Weight 3.55 lbs/SF ---------------

A Cell class for entire finished part shall be verified by an independent, A2LA certified 3rd

party laboratory. B Supplier shall provide a minimum of 10,000 hrs. of creep data on finished vinyl sheet

pile part with a sample thickness of 0.25 inches from a 3rd party, Geosynthetics Research

Institute (GRI) certified laboratory. C Supplier shall provide interface direct shear data on a finished sheet pile part from a 3rd

party, GRI certified laboratory. D Units for interlock flow rate are in cubic feet per second / ft. of interlock / LF of wall. E Supplier shall provide interlock flow rate data from a 3rd party, GRI certified laboratory. F Supplier shall provide dynamic modulus data from a 3rd party, ISO certified laboratory.

Agenda Page 120


1.2 Wales for support of vinyl sheet piling shall be Fiber Reinforced Plastic (FRP)

rectangular tubes in clay color, manufactured in a facility with at least 15 years’

experience producing said tube:

1.2.1 Wales shall overlap top and bottom at pile locations when in curved

wall sections. Wale beam shall extend a minimum of 1’ beyond the

timber pile

1.2.2 Wales shall have the following properties:

I-Series X-Series Material Properties Symbol Units

Modulus of Elasticity

Bending About X-X Axis EX-X psi 3.6x106 4.0x106

Bending About Y-Y Axis EY-Y psi 3.5x106 4.4x106

Modulus of Rupture

Bending About X-X Axis MORX-X psi 41,621 42,409

Bending About Y-Y Axis MORY-Y psi 19,119 25,458

Geometric Properties of Wale/Beam

I-Series X-Series

Width W inches 4.0 4.0

Depth h inches 6.0 7.5

Section Modulus (X-X) Zx-x in3 9.3 14.44

Section Modulus (Y-Y) Zy-y in3 7.2 9.82

Moment of Inertia (X-X) Ix-x in4 27.4 54.16

Moment of Inertia (Y-Y) Iy-y in4 14.3 19.64

Agenda Page 121


1.3 Cap – top cap on top of vinyl sheet piling shall be composite deck board (Trex or

equal). Contractor to submit information (including color) for approval prior to

ordering.

1.4 Tie-Back System – anchors used to tieback the seawall shall be helical anchors as

noted on the drawings. Anchoring of existing timber wall was done with cable. It

is believed that two or three of the existing timber piles is anchored to one

deadmen. Contractor shall inspect tie-in of cable into existing pile. The intend

being to gain insight to not conflict with the proposed helical anchor system. Install

upper and lower helical anchors as noted on the plans.

1.5 All-thread, couplers, nuts, washers, and miscellaneous steel hardware - As

noted on the plans

1.6 Backfill - as noted on the plans

1.7 Concrete – Concrete used as headwalls to extend pipes through the wall shall be

of the type and strength noted on the plans. Quality for forming, pouring, and

finishing shall following acceptable procedures established by ACI (American

Concrete Institute)

2.0 Delivery and Storage

Upon delivery of materials to site, contractor shall visually inspect all materials for defects

or damage. If serious defect or damage is detected, contractor shall notify engineer

immediately. Store bundled sheet piling on a relatively level surface with a slight pitch to

allow water to drain. Contractor should not break bundled sheets until ready for

installation.

3.0 Submittals

Contractor is to provide submittals for the following to the engineer:

3.1 Complete descriptions of sheet piling driving equipment including hammers,

extractors, protection caps and other installation appurtenances.

3.2 Material Certification – Prior to shipment, manufacturer shall provide Letter of

Certification from manufacture to engineer assuring that materials meets requirements

set forth in Sections 1.1 and 1.2.

3.3 Mill certs of items in sections 1.4 and 1.5.

3.4 Product submittal in section 1.3.

3.5 Sieve analysis for every truckload of material in section 1.6 per ASTM D-422

3.6 Cylinder breaks (5 minimum) of every concrete (section 1.7) batch demonstrating

minimum 28 day strength has been achieved.

3.7 Sheet pile and timber pile installation logs demonstrating that these items have been

installed to the minimum required penetration.

Agenda Page 122


3.8 Helical Anchor logs demonstrating every earth anchor has the required load capacity.

Every anchor shall have documentation of installation torque at termination of anchor

installation as noted on plans. One of every ten anchors (10%) shall be proof tested to

confirm required load has been met. Contractor may omit torque requirement IF

every anchor is proof loaded.

4.0 General Installation - Contractor shall not drive proposed helical anchors into existing

cable or existing utilities (irrigation, drain pipes, drain basins, etc.). Contractor shall

locate any potential conflict and plan accordingly to avoid any potential conflict.

4.1 Install helical anchors per manufactures recommendations and as noted on the plans to

secure existing timber bulkhead wall. Torque/proof load as noted in section 3.8. The

plans refer to this as Stage 1.

4.2 Install timber piles as shown on the plans by drilling, augering, or driving with

protective pile tip. Care shall be taken not to damage timber piles. If timber piles are

damaged during installation, contractor shall replace at their own expense.

4.3 Install driving guide, temporary template or wale system to aid in driving a straight

and plumb wall. A “two level” template as well as front and rear wale/bracing system

is strongly suggested for tough and/or deep driving situations. The permanent timber

pile and FRP tubes may be installed in lieu of temporary template system.

4.4 Drive sheet piling - Direction of installation should be towards the direction of male

side of the sheet when possible. Steel punch, helmet or drive shoes may be required if

driving through hard soil strata or obstructions. Water jet by displacement of soil shall

not be used unless approved by the engineer in writing. It is very important that the

contractor drives sheets to required embedment depth. Under no circumstances shall

the contractor cut-off or install shorter sheets without written authorization from

engineer. Adequate precautions shall be taken to ensure that piles are driven plumb.

Sheet piling shall not be driven more than 1/8 inch per foot out of plumb in the plane

of the wall, nor more than 1/16 inch per foot “out” of plumb perpendicular to the

plane of the wall, nor more than 1/4 inch per foot “in” of plumb perpendicular to the

plane of the wall.

4.5 Sheet piles driven out of interlock with adjacent piles or otherwise damaged shall be

removed and replaced by new sheet piles at the contractor’s expense.

4.6 Install weep holes.

4.7 Backfill between existing timber wall and new sheet piling in level compacted lifts

(12” max. lift thickness). Compaction of backfill shall be 95% based on ASTM D698.

Maintain heavy equipment at least ten (10) feet from back of sheeting.

4.8 Install composite deck board cap to top of sheet piling.

4.9 Regrade and sod as necessary in transition areas between new and old wall, or where

sod has been damaged during construction of the walls.

Contractor acknowledges that they are aware of the site installation challenges

involving but not limited to the presence of rock (cobbles or cap rock), existing

timber bulkhead (geotextile, gravel, cables, deadmen, etc.), existing irrigation,

existing drainage systems, etc.

Agenda Page 123


5.0 Payment

Payment for vinyl sheet pile wall shall be based on bid tabs as part of the RFP package.

Agenda Page 124

7Cv

Agenda Page 125

Agenda Page 126

Agenda Page 127

Agenda Page 128

Agenda Page 129

Agenda Page 130

Agenda Page 131

Agenda Page 132

Agenda Page 133

7Cvi

Agenda Page 134

Agenda Page 135

Agenda Page 136

Agenda Page 137

7Cvii

Agenda Page 138

Agenda Page 139

Agenda Page 140

Agenda Page 141

Agenda Page 142

Agenda Page 143

Agenda Page 144

Agenda Page 145

Agenda Page 146

7Cviii

Agenda Page 147

Agenda Page 148

Agenda Page 149

Agenda Page 150

Agenda Page 151

Agenda Page 152

7Cix.

Agenda Page 153

From: Steve Kulp

Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 1:28 PM To: Carl Hazenberg; Nathan Touchstone

Cc: Brad Lund Subject: Contractor Bid List for Cedar Hammock

Here are 5 quality contractors, bonded, insured, honest and experienced that expressed positive interest in bidding the Cedar Hammock project. Please forward to Norman and the board. Florida Marine Construction Charlie Garcia [email protected] 239-850-6707 Cell 5271 Doug Taylor Circle St. James City, FL 33956 Naples Marine Construction Marc Lerndon [email protected] and [email protected] 239-434-0249 3557 Prospect Ave. Naples, FL 34104 Kelly Brothers Marine Construction Dane Kelly [email protected] and [email protected] 239-482-7300 15775 Pine Ridge Rd. Ft. Meyers, FL 33908 Marine Contracting Group Brian Midolo and Ryan Midolo 941-505-0221 [email protected] and [email protected] 2511 Vasco St. Unit 112 Punta Gorda, FL 33950 Infinite Construction Paul Kirilinas 239-826-1268 [email protected] 6749 Idelwild St. Ft. Meyers, FL 33966 Steve Kulp EVERLAST SYNTHETIC PRODUCTS 800-687-0036 941-306-5172 770-241-6195 Cell

Agenda Page 154









7D.

Agenda Page 155

Agenda Page 156

Eighth Order of Business

Agenda Page 157

8A.

Agenda Page 158

Unapproved 1

MINUTES OF MEETING 1 CEDAR HAMMOCK 2

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 3 4 The meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Cedar Hammock Community Development 5

District held on Monday, November 12, 2018 at 1:00 p.m. was reconvened on Monday, January 7, 6

2019 at 3:00 p.m. Cedar Hammock Clubhouse, 8660 Cedar Hammock Boulevard, Naples, Florida. 7

8 Present and constituting a quorum were: 9 10 Norman Day Chairman 11 Quentin Greeley Vice Chairman 12 Gene Bolton Assistant Secretary 13 John Martino Assistant Secretary 14 Jack Rupe Assistant Secretary 15 16 Also present were: 17 18 Justin Faircloth District Manager 19 Dan Cox District Counsel 20 Tom Read Cedar Hammock Golf & Country Club 21 Todd Legan Cedar Hammock Golf & Country Club 22 Wendell Gaertner (via telephone) PRAG 23 Residents 24 25 The following is a summary of the discussions and actions taken at the January 7, 2019 26

Cedar Hammock Board of Supervisors continued meeting. 27

28

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call 29 Mr. Faircloth called the meeting to order and called the roll. 30

31 SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of Agenda 32

o Mr. Day requested Items A and B under Old Business be moved to New Business. 33

34

On MOTION by Mr. Greeley seconded by Mr. Day with all in favor 35 the agenda was approved as amended. 36

37

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Audience Comments 38 There not being any, the next item followed. 39 40

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Organizational Matters 41 A. Oath of Office 42

Agenda Page 159

January 7, 2019 Cedar Hammock CDD

Continued Meeting

Unapproved 2

o Mr. Faircloth, being a Notary Public of the State of Florida, administered the oaths of office 43

to Mr. Bolton and Mr. Martino. 44

45 B. Election of Officers – Resolution 2019-02 46

o Mr. Greeley nominated Mr. Day as Chairman. There were no objections. 47

o Mr. Rupe nominated Mr. Greeley as Vice Chairman. There were no objections. 48

49

On MOTION by Mr. Greeley seconded by Mr. Day with all in favor 50 Resolution 2019-02 designating officers of Cedar Hammock CDD as 51 follows: Norman Day as Chairman, Quentin Greeley as Vice 52 Chairman, Justin Faircloth as Secretary, Stephen Bloom as Treasurer, 53 Alan Baldwin, Assistant Treasurer, Jack Rupe as Assistant Secretary, 54 Gene Bolton as Assistant Secretary and John Martino as Assistant 55 Secretary, was adopted. 56

57

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Old Business 58 A. Golf Cart Bridge Repairs 59 B. Artistic Structures Proposal to Repair Bulkheads #4 and #5 60

o These items were tabled to later in the meeting. 61

62 SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS New Business 63

A. Supervisor Cook Proposed Bridges and Bulkheads Base Plan 64 i. Ingenium, Inc. 50% Design Drawings 65

o Mr. Faircloth received design drawings today from Bridging Solutions. 66

o Mr. Carl Hazenberg of Ingenium and Mr. Ralph Verrastro of Bridging Solutions will be 67

attending the January 14, 2019 Board Meeting. 68

o Mr. Day noted when we hired Mr. Verrastro to do this work, we asked him about doing the 69

bulkhead wall along hole #5/Lake 11. He said it should not be a problem. 70

o Mr. Day noted we should have that added so we can put the bid out at the same time. 71

o Mr. Day will follow up with Mr. Verrastro. 72

o Mr. Faircloth noted this will be more than $195,000 for repairs; it will definitely be a public 73

bid. We will need Mr. Cox’s input to develop the RFP’s for both this and the bridge proposal 74

as well. This will be discussed at the next meeting. 75

o Mr. Day noted Bridging Solutions will have input next week, but one consideration is 76

whether we replace the entire top of the deck and leave the pilings in place. We have not 77

received information that they are rotten out. 78

Agenda Page 160


Continued Meeting

Unapproved 3

o Mr. Day noted that is the reason why he wants a pre-bid meeting on-site so every contractor 79

looks at the situation and can work things out between each other. 80

o Mr. Greeley suggested going on the Internet and look up IPE, wood decking, Brazilian 81

product. It does not crack the way Southern Yellow Pine does. 82

o Mr. Day asked the Board if they had seen the Request for Proposals from Bridging Solutions. 83

o Mr. Faircloth noted it was only sent to Mr. Day. The rest of the Board will receive it in the 84

January 14th agenda package. 85

o Mr. Day noted you cannot put the bridge in until the bulkhead is in. You cannot get the 86

bulkheads in anywhere near the timeframe we are talking about. There will be some overlap. 87

Maybe we can get bridge 5A in this year; 5B cannot go in until next year. 88

o Mr. Marshall noted he and Mr. Verrastro will discuss funding this work. If Mr. Verrastro 89

took another 30 days to get his plans ready and the bid process takes at least two weeks, then 90

if the work is awarded a month after; we can tell the contractor when we want them to start. 91

o Mr. Day noted an ideal situation would be getting the bids out and received back to us by the 92

end of February. Maybe we cannot do the bridges that quick, but we can do the bulkheads 93

that quick. Hopefully, we can start working in March because you are going to need the 94

whole summer to get the bulkheads on #5 in place. 95

o A long discussion ensued on the time frames of putting in the bulkheads and the bridges. 96

97

ii. Financial Advisor Discussion – PRAG Information 98 o Mr. Faircloth noted PRAG information is in the agenda package. 99

o The Board discussed several times hiring a Financial Advisor to help through the process of 100

finding the funding for this whether it is a short term loan or through a bank or other options 101

you may have. He gave Mr. Day a number of names of Financial Advisors that he knows of. 102

o We received information from PRAG. Mr. Wendell Gaertner, of PRAG, is available by 103

telephone today to answer questions on their proposal. 104

o Mr. Bolton wanted to know if there is a limit on what we can borrow short term. 105

o Mr. Cox noted if the commitment is less than five years, you do not have to go through the 106

validation process. 107

o Validation is you go before a judge and we say this is a community development district 108

established under Statute 190 and we have powers laid out in the State Charter. One of those 109

Agenda Page 161


Continued Meeting

Unapproved 4

is to borrow money and issue debt and secure repayment with non-ad-valorem special 110

assessments and levied against all benefitted properties. 111

o He explained you describe all the methodologies you used to levy the assessments. You 112

showed called all the appropriate public hearings and advertisements ran in specific 113

timeframes. The judge issues an order stating, “Everything looks good, you did everything 114

you were supposed to do, you have the power to issue the bonds, you have the power to levy 115

the special assessments.” 116

o Mr. Cox spoke about his Amended Engagement Letter with the rates he will be charging, 117

including the charge of $10,000 to prepare and prosecute the required validation. 118

o He noted he does not understand why we need to do this bonding this year. He also noted if 119

you work with your depository bank, they may even give you a better rate and may figure out 120

a way that makes sense to you. The Board agreed. 121

o Mr. Day noted if we can get these bids going out roughly in the timeframe we just talked 122

about, we can then put spreadsheets together that will put all of the bids on a timetable so we 123

have a better idea of what money we need. We are guessing at too much right now. 124

o The Board decided to call Mr. Gaertner, of PRAG, Financial Advisor, however, he was 125

unavailable. 126

o Mr. Faircloth noted the Board was interested in getting an initial review from PRAG, which 127

would cost $5,000. He told the Board they could commit to only the $5,000 and if we 128

proceed further with PRAG, it would be an additional amount. 129

o Mr. Gaertner called in to the meeting. He reviewed his financial plan. 130

131

B. Bridging Solutions Change Order #1 132 o If we were going to change the location of the bridges, there was going to be a fee. 133

o We decided at the last meeting, we would not. 134

135

C. Triploid Grass Carp Proposal 136 o Mr. Faircloth noted we moved at the last meeting to go forward. 137

o Mr. Marshall has been in the process of reviewing the requirements and contacted Fish & 138

Wildlife Conservation (FWC) and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). 139

o He noted SFWMD did not want anything to do with carp permitting. FWC sent us an 140

application to fill out. Maybe the contractor can provide us with a sketch of what they want 141

to build, which will allow the water to flow through. 142

Agenda Page 162


Continued Meeting

Unapproved 5

o Mr. Marshall will provide information for the necessary grates to install carp in the desired 143

lakes. 144

o Mr. Faircloth asked Mr. Marshall for a new map to include road drainage and pipes. Hole #s 145

should also be included. 146

147

D. Golf & Country Club Proposal for Littoral Installation 148 o Mr. Faircloth received a proposal from the vendor yesterday. He responded to the vendor 149

yesterday and asked is this just for the homeowners’ side or is it for the entire community? 150

The Board will only approve the homeowners’ side. Once he receives confirmation, we can 151

proceed. 152

o He noted this is not the time to plant littorals. You should wait until at least March. 153

154

E. Rear Gate Camera System Proposal 155 o Mr. Faircloth noted we signed a contract and submitted a payment. The cost is over $11,000. 156

157

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Manager’s Report 158 A. FEMA Public Assistance Eligibility Determination 159

o Mr. Faircloth noted we received responses from FEMA on two projects. The gate system was 160

the first project they responded to. FEMA denied coverage to us stating they did not believe 161

the CDD is not the primary responsible party. The CDD is not charged with the 162

responsibility of overseeing the maintenance. Your maintenance agreement is with the 163

Master Association. 164

o Mr. Faircloth does not agree with that assessment. Your attorney does not agree with that 165

assessment, which is why Mr. Cox is here today. 166

o FEMA also denied coverage for the lake bank work. FEMA stated this is a private 167

community. 168

o Mr. Read noted FEMA normally would come in after a storm like Hurricane Irma and clean 169

up the roads, but because we are not public roads, they consider us private. They do 170

hospitals, they do schools, all those parking lots and all those public roads first. They think 171

the CDD will probably get tired of waiting, which is what a lot of places do. Its six to eight 172

months that they would not get to us and we could not let all the debris out there. We are 173

forced into picking it up. That is where these negotiations come in. 174

o Mr. Faircloth noted we are talking about $25,000. 175

Agenda Page 163


Continued Meeting

Unapproved 6

o Mr. Cox noted we need to show the lake bank erosion is directly due to Hurricane Irma. 176

o Mr. Cox noted in Chapter 190 you are authorized to own, operate and maintain these public 177

facilities, which includes roads, bridges, culverts, lakes, security facilities. You have an 178

argument on the lake and the gatehouse. 179

180

On MOTION by Mr. Greeley seconded by Mr. Bolton with all in 181 favor appealing the decision by FEMA regarding the grant 182 application for the damages that occurred as a result of Hurricane 183 Irma to the entrance/exit gates was approved. 184

185

o Mr. Faircloth noted next is the removal of debris. It is $6,260.50 for the first removal of 186

debris. 187

o Mr. Cox noted if we can show them that it was in your right-of-way, they’ll cover it. 188

o Mr. Faircloth noted it is hard to fight this battle because they just wear you down. 189

o Mr. Faircloth noted my only concern is if they accept this and we move forward with the 190

$6,000 and we get it funded by the State, does that mean the challenge for any other debris is 191

gone because we accepted it? Mr. Cox responded no. 192

o Mr. Faircloth asked Mr. Cox to provide a memo on what to do with this agreement. 193

194

B. Follow Up Items 195 i. 8670 Cedar Hammock Circle Roadway Damage 196

o Mr. Cox noted another letter was sent to them this time by certified mail. Still have not 197

received a response from them. 198

o The Board requested that PMI be contacted to provide an estimate to repair the damaged 199

roadway. 200

o Phoenix Roofing will also be contacted. 201

202

On MOTION by Mr. Greeley seconded by Mr. Bolton with all in 203 favor the Board voted to have the District Attorney develop a letter to 204 send to the Master Association requesting that a requirement be 205 instituted in which the District be named as an additional insured on 206 the vendors’ insurance for any work that will be performed requiring 207 staging on the District’s roadways. 208

209

Agenda Page 164


Continued Meeting

Unapproved 7

o This will help to ensure the District is better protected from additional damages that may 210

occur in the future. 211

212

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Attorney’s Report 213 o Mr. Faircloth discussed Mr. Cox’s letter dated January 6, 2019 with his Amended 214

Engagement Letter. 215

216

On MOTION by Mr. Greeley seconded by Mr. Day with all in favor 217 the Amendment Engagement Letter was approved. 218

219 220 EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Engineer’s Report 221

o Mr. Marshall will develop a new map. It will include the outfalls, interconnects, preserves, 222

lake numbers, hole numbers on the map. 223

224

NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Communication to Master Board 225 There being no report, the next item followed. 226

227 TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors Request 228

o There not being any, the next item followed. 229

230 ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment 231 There being no further business, 232

233

On MOTION by Mr. Rupe seconded by Mr. Martino with all in favor 234 the meeting was adjourned. 235

236

237

238

239 Justin Faircloth Norman Day 240 Secretary Chairman 241

Agenda Page 165

8B.

Agenda Page 166

Unapproved 1

MINUTES OF MEETING 1 CEDAR HAMMOCK 2

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 3 4 The meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Cedar Hammock Community Development 5

District was held on Monday, January 14, 2019 at 3:00 p.m. at Cedar Hammock Clubhouse, 8660 6

Cedar Hammock Boulevard, Naples, Florida. 7

8 Present and constituting a quorum were: 9 10 Norman Day Chairman 11 Quentin Greeley Vice Chairman 12 Gene Bolton Assistant Secretary 13 John Martino Assistant Secretary 14 Jack Rupe Assistant Secretary 15 16 Also present were: 17 18 Justin Faircloth District Manager 19 Sam Marshall District Engineer 20 Tom Read Cedar Hammock Golf & Country Club 21 Ralph Verrastro Bridging Solutions 22 Carl Hazenberg Ingenium, Inc. 23 Residents 24 25 The following is a summary of the discussions and actions taken at the January 14, 2019 26

Cedar Hammock Board of Supervisors continued meeting. 27

28

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call 29 Mr. Faircloth called the meeting to order and called the roll. 30

31 SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of Agenda 32 33

On MOTION by Mr. Greeley seconded by Mr. Bolton with all in favor 34 the agenda was approved as presented. 35

36

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Audience Comments 37 o Resident inquired about the meeting schedule and making comments at the end of the 38

meeting. 39

40

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Old Business 41 A. Bulkheads 42

Agenda Page 167


Unapproved 2

i. Ingenium, Inc. 50% Design Drawings 43 o Mr. Faircloth noted Mr. Hazenberg of Ingenium is here today to answer any questions. 44

o We need to look at any changes you may want to make in the RFP. That information will be 45

compiled along with the District Attorney to develop a Scope of Services before it is sent out 46

for bid. 47

o Mr. Carl Hazenberg, Engineer from Ingenium, explained the bulkhead project. 48

o The plan is to replace all bulkheads over a period of approximately four years. 49

o An opportunity was given for residents to ask questions. 50

o Mr. Day noted we have some rough budget costs, but will not have real numbers until we go 51

out for bid, which we hope will be within the next month and a half. 52

o He noted this project could go on for three years and nobody will give you a price today for 53

something they will do in three years. 54

o Discussion ensued on budget, taxes, the lifespan of bulkheads. 55

56

Mr. Rupe MOVED to authorize District Manager to go out for bid 57 subject to review by District Counsel and District Engineer and Mr. 58 Bolton seconded the motion. 59

60

o General Bid Specifications and Requirements, was included in the agenda package. 61

o Requirements include: 62

Bidders must submit their company’s bridge construction experience and a list 63

of recommendations from past projects. 64

Bidders must submit a list of equipment available for this project. 65

Contractors will be required to have an experienced foreman on-site at all 66

times with a minimum crew of four men. 67

Contractors required to clean up all work debris and dispose of in their 68

dumpster or off-site daily. 69

All work areas must be fenced off or condoned off with barricades to prevent 70

public access. 71

The selected contractor shall carry a $1,000,000 general liability policy with 72

Cedar Hammock and Cedar Hammock CDD listed as additional insurance. 73

Agenda Page 168


Unapproved 3

The contractor shall submit copies of their automobile policies. The 74

contractor shall be responsible for all materials and equipment left or stored 75

on site by means of insurance or personal responsibility. 76

Also USL&H insurance, which is an insurance for contractors that work on 77

barges. Also, the Jones Act Insurance which is a specialty type of workers’ 78

compensation for people who work on bridges. 79

All bidders will be required to submit a bid and performance bond. 80

Contractor will be responsible for any and all damages done to the property. 81

He will also restore all turf areas to the satisfaction of the Golf Course 82

Superintendents. 83

Contractor will be encouraged to submit alternate bids for materials and 84

construction methods and reviewed by the District Engineer and Board, who 85

will accept or reject at their discretion. 86

o Discussion ensued on changes and additional information that should be provided in the bids. 87

o Mr. Day wanted to add to the motion above, “subject to Board review of bid documents”. 88

89

Mr. Rupe MOVED to amend the prior motion to authorize District 90 Manager to go out for bid subject to review and approval by District 91 Counsel and District Engineer and subject to Board review of bid 92 documents and Mr. Bolton seconded the motion. 93

94 95

On VOICE vote with all in favor the prior motion was approved as 96 amended. 97

98 99 FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS New Business 100 A. Bridging Solutions Bridge Replacement Design Documents 101 i. Bridge Designs 102

Mr. Verrastro discussed bridge materials and IPE wood as the best 103

material for the bridges. 104

Board discussed bridge measurements. 105

106

ii. RFP Bid Form 107

Board discussed bid and work expectations, particularly contractor drilling 108

rock and relocation of utilities. 109

Agenda Page 169


Unapproved 4

The Board discussed the bid schedule. 110

iii. Bridge Location Map 111

Bridge location map included in the agenda package. 112

113 iv. List of Bidders 114

Board discussed the list of bidders that was included in the agenda 115

package. 116

117

On MOTION by Mr. Martino seconded by Mr. Rupe with all in favor to 118 proceed with the RFP for the bridges subject to the District Attorney’s 119 review and the District Engineer’s and subject to Board’s approval. 120

121 122 B. Cedar Hammock Golf & Country Invoice – January 2, 2019 123

o Mr. Faircloth noted this is the invoice from Cedar Hammock Golf & Country Club for 124

repairs in the amount of $1,378.13. 125

126

On MOTION by Mr. Greeley seconded by Mr. Bolton with all in favor 127 authorizing payment of invoice dated January 2, 2019 to Cedar Hammock 128 Golf & Country for repairs was approved. 129

130 131 SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Manager’s Report 132

A. Approval of the Minutes of the November 12, 2018 Meeting 133 134 135

On MOTION by Mr. Greeley seconded by Mr. Martino with all in favor 136 the minutes of the November 12, 2018 meeting were approved as 137 presented. 138

139

B. Financial Report 140 o Mr. Faircloth reported that finances look good. 141

142

C. Motion to Reassign Budget Amount 143 o Mr. Faircloth noted we have a motion to reassign budget amount. 144

o Overall, the budget does not change, we just changed the amount from Miscellaneous 145

Contingency. 146

147

Agenda Page 170


Unapproved 5

On MOTION by Mr. Rupe seconded by Mr. Bolton with all in favor the 148 Motion to Reassign Budget Amount was approved. 149

150 o The Board discussed the budget for the upcoming projects. 151

152

Mr. Rupe MOVED to accept the Financial Report and Mr. Martino 153 seconded the motion. 154

155 o Mr. Day had a question in the financials regarding the amount of 72% collected by the 156

Collier County Tax Collector. 157

158

On VOICE vote with all in favor the prior motion passed. 159

160 o Mr. Faircloth noted going forward invoices will not be included in agenda packages. 161

162

D. Follow-Up Items 163 o Mr. Faircloth updated the Board on the following items: 164

The website has been updated. 165

Documents have been sent to FEMA. 166

New IQ, LLC have received our payment. They are ordering equipment and it should 167

be installed soon. 168

Reached out to PMI regarding the repairs needed on Cedar Hammock Circle. He 169

should have an update by the February 11, 2019 meeting. 170

District Engineer is working on a new District map. 171

Working on the audit. 172

Have received proposal from irrigation company and the signed addendum. 173

Received insurance on gatehouse through the Master Association. 174

175 SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Attorney’s Report 176


178 EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Engineer’s Report 179

o Mr. Marshall is working on the exhibit for the community for the piping and the outfalls. By 180

the next meeting, he should have those documents finalized for the Board. 181

Agenda Page 171


Unapproved 6

o Mr. Marshall noted the second item in progress is the Engineer’s Report for the bulkheads 182

and the bridge work. Once the Board decides on which job to finance and in what manner, 183

he will put pricing in here, discuss it and then the Engineer’s Report will be completed. 184

185 NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Communication to Master Board 186


188 189 TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors Request 190


192 ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment 193

o There being no further business, 194

195

On MOTION by Mr. Martino seconded by Mr. Day with all in favor 196 the meeting was adjourned. 197

198

199

200

201 Justin Faircloth Norman Day 202 Secretary Chairman 203

Agenda Page 172

8C.

Agenda Page 173

CEDAR HAMMOCK

Prepared by:

Community Development District

Financial Report

December 31, 2018

Agenda Page 174

CEDAR HAMMOCK


FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Balance Sheet …………………………………………………. Page 1

Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances

General Fund …………………………………………………. Pages 2 - 3

SUPPORTING SCHEDULES

Non-Ad Valorem Special Assessments …………………………………………………. Page 4

Cash and Investment Report …………………………………………………. Page 5

Suntrust Bank Reconciliation …………………………………………………. Page 6

Valley National Bank Reconciliation Page 7

…………………………………………………. Page 8

Table of Contents

Check Register

Agenda Page 175

December 31, 2018

CEDAR HAMMOCKS


(Unaudited)

Financial Statements

Agenda Page 176

CEDAR HAMMOCK


Balance SheetDecember 31, 2018

General Fund

ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION TOTAL

ASSETS

Cash - Checking Account 385,344$

Accounts Receivable 5,913

Investments:

Certificates of Deposit - 12 Months 206,435

Certificates of Deposit - 18 Months 103,130

Money Market Account 335,340

Deposits 1,359

TOTAL ASSETS 1,037,521$

LIABILITIES

Accounts Payable 6,620$

Accrued Expenses 600

TOTAL LIABILITIES 7,220

FUND BALANCES

Nonspendable:

Deposits 1,359

Assigned to:

Operating Reserves 43,617

Reserves - Bridges 120,190

Reserves - Bulkheads 135,928

Reserves - Lakes 32,153

Reserves - Roadways 157,725

Unassigned: 539,329

TOTAL FUND BALANCES 1,030,301$

TOTAL LIABILITIES & FUND BALANCES 1,037,521$

Page 1

Agenda Page 177

CEDAR HAMMOCK

Community Development DistrictGeneral Fund

ANNUAL

ADOPTED YEAR TO DATE YEAR TO DATE VARIANCE ($)

ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL FAV(UNFAV)

REVENUES

Interest - Investments 2,017$ 504$ 3,562$ 3,058$

Special Assmnts- Tax Collector 379,523 345,265 330,240 (15,025)

Special Assmnts- Discounts (15,181) (13,812) (13,202) 610

Other Miscellaneous Revenues - - 1,100 1,100

TOTAL REVENUES 366,359 331,957 321,700 (10,257)

EXPENDITURES

Administration

ProfServ-Engineering 30,000 7,500 1,174 6,326

ProfServ-Legal Services 2,000 500 1,684 (1,184)

ProfServ-Mgmt Consulting Serv 38,404 9,601 9,601 -

ProfServ-Property Appraiser 5,693 5,693 5,693 -

ProfServ-Special Assessment 2,941 2,941 2,941 -

ProfServ-Web Site Maintenance 656 164 164 -

Auditing Services 5,000 - - -

Postage and Freight 765 191 86 105

Insurance - General Liability 7,959 7,959 7,000 959

Printing and Binding 2,246 561 454 107

Legal Advertising 2,394 599 245 354

Misc-Bank Charges 700 175 144 31

Misc-Assessmnt Collection Cost 7,590 6,904 6,341 563

Misc-Web Hosting 239 239 239 -

Office Supplies 400 100 - 100

Annual District Filing Fee 175 175 175 -

Total Administration 107,162 43,302 35,941 7,361


For the Period Ending December 31, 2018

Page 2

Agenda Page 178

CEDAR HAMMOCK

Community Development DistrictGeneral Fund

ANNUAL

ADOPTED YEAR TO DATE YEAR TO DATE VARIANCE ($)

ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL FAV(UNFAV)


For the Period Ending December 31, 2018

Field

ProfServ-Field Management 1,539 385 385 -

Contracts-Water Mgmt Services 7,200 1,800 1,800 -

Utility - Cameras 1,320 330 317 13

Electricity - Wells 3,000 750 312 438

Electricity - Aerator 2,000 500 411 89

R&M-Lake 3,000 750 - 750

R&M-Plant Replacement 3,015 754 - 754

R&M Bulkheads 8,000 2,000 - 2,000

R&M - Bridges & Cart Paths 8,000 2,000 - 2,000

Misc-Contingency 20,289 5,072 4,547 525

Capital Outlay 9,944 6,008 6,008 -

Reserve - Bridges 20,910 20,910 - 20,910

Reserve - Bulkheads 83,980 83,980 26,820 57,160

Reserve - Lakes 15,000 15,000 - 15,000

Reserve - Roadways 72,000 72,000 - 72,000

Total Field 259,197 212,239 40,600 171,639

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 366,359 255,541 76,541 179,000

Excess (deficiency) of revenues

Over (under) expenditures - 76,416 245,159 168,743

Net change in fund balance -$ 76,416$ 245,159$ 168,743$

FUND BALANCE, BEGINNING (OCT 1, 2018) 784,682 784,682 784,682

FUND BALANCE, ENDING 784,682$ 861,098$ 1,029,841$

Page 3

Agenda Page 179

December 31, 2018

CEDAR HAMMOCKS


Supporting Schedules

Agenda Page 180

CEDAR HAMMOCKCommunity Development District

ALLOCATIONDiscount / County Gross

Date Net Amount (Penalties) Expense Amount General FundReceived Received Amount Amount Received Assessments

Assessments Levied For FY 2019 $379,523 379,523$Allocation % 100% 100%

11/01/18 42,900 1,824 876 45,600 45,600

11/08/18 3,422 194 70 3,686 3,686

11/19/18 130,936 5,567 2,672 139,175 139,175

11/26/18 78,204 3,325 1,596 83,125 83,125

12/24/18 55,235 2,292 1,127 58,654 58,654

TOTAL 310,697$ 13,202$ 6,341$ 330,240$ 330,240$

% COLLECTED 87% 87%

TOTAL OUTSTANDING 49,284$ 49,284$

Non-Ad Valorem Special Assessments(Collier County Tax Collector - Monthly Collection Distributions)

For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2019

Report Date: 1/15/2019 Page 4

Agenda Page 181

CEDAR HAMMOCK

Community Development District All Funds

General Fund

Account Name Bank Name Investment Type Maturity Yield Balance

Checking Account - Operating SunTrust Bank Public Funds NOW n/a 0.00% 100,579$

Checking Account - Operating Valley National Bank Gov't Interest Checking n/a 0.00% $284,765

Certificate of Deposit - 8030 BankUnited 12 month CD 2/13/19 1.55% 206,435

Certificate of Deposit - 6089 BankUnited 18 month CD 9/9/19 1.80% 103,130

Money Market Account BankUnited Public Funds MMA n/a 1.75% 335,340

Total 1,030,249$

Cash and Investment Report

December 31, 2018

Report Date: 1/15/2019 Page 5

Agenda Page 182

PostingDate

DocumentType

DocumentNo. Description Amount

ClearedAmount Difference

Outstanding Checks

12/26/2018 Payment 001975 BANKS ENGINEERING INC 1,153.60 0.00 1,153.60

12/26/2018 Payment 001976 INFRAMARK, LLC 6,572.04 0.00 6,572.04

Total Outstanding Checks...................................................................................................................... 7,725.64 7,725.64

G/L Balance 100,578.94

Bank Account No. 9995

Statement No. 12-18

Statement Date 12/31/2018

Statement Balance 108,304.58G/L Balance (LCY) 100,578.94

Difference 0.00

Ending G/L Balance 100,578.94

Subtotal 100,578.94

Outstanding Deposits 0.00

Negative Adjustments 0.00

Positive Adjustments 0.00

Subtotal 108,304.58

Outstanding Checks 7,725.64

Ending Balance 100,578.94

Differences 0.00

SunTrust - GF

Bank Reconciliation

Cedar Hammock CDD

Page 6

Agenda Page 183

PostingDate

DocumentType

DocumentNo. Description Amount

ClearedAmount Difference

G/L Balance 284,764.91

Bank Account No. 2555

Statement No. 12-18

Statement Date 12/31/2018

Statement Balance 284,764.91G/L Balance (LCY) 284,764.91

Difference 0.00

Ending G/L Balance 284,764.91

Subtotal 284,764.91

Outstanding Deposits 0.00

Negative Adjustments 0.00

Positive Adjustments 0.00

Subtotal 284,764.91

Outstanding Checks 0.00

Ending Balance 284,764.91

Differences 0.00

Valley National Bank - GF

Bank Reconciliation

Cedar Hammock CDD

Page 7

Agenda Page 184

Fund

No.

Check /

ACH No.Date Payee Invoice No. Payment Description Invoice / GL Description G/L Account #

Amount

Paid

GENERAL FUND - 001

001 001971 12/10/18 CEDAR HAMMOCK GOLF & 101618 CUT,REMOVE DOWNED TREES Misc-Contingency 549900-53901 $4,348.00

001 001972 12/10/18 FEDEX 6-381-99867 SERVICE FOR 11/15/18 Postage and Freight 541006-51301 $11.79

001 001973 12/12/18 DANIEL H. COX, P.A. 10765 LEGAL SERVICE 11/18 ProfServ-Legal Services 531023-51401 $525.00

001 001974 12/14/18 COMCAST BUSINESS 84299-120618 8535 10 023 1084299 12/19-1/18 Utility - Cameras 543029-53901 $105.75

001 001975 12/26/18 BANKS ENGINEERING INC 1263CDD-75 ENGINEERING SERVICE 11/18 ProfServ-Engineering 531013-51301 $1,153.60

001 001976 12/26/18 INFRAMARK, LLC 36691 12/18 MANAGEMENT FEES ProfServ-Mgmt Consulting Serv 531027-51201 $3,200.33

001 001976 12/26/18 INFRAMARK, LLC 36691 12/18 MANAGEMENT FEES ProfServ-Field Management 531016-53901 $128.25

001 001976 12/26/18 INFRAMARK, LLC 36691 12/18 MANAGEMENT FEES Postage and Freight 541006-51301 $3.29

001 001976 12/26/18 INFRAMARK, LLC 36691 12/18 MANAGEMENT FEES Printing and Binding 547001-51301 $244.50

001 001976 12/26/18 INFRAMARK, LLC 36691 12/18 MANAGEMENT FEES ProfServ-Web Site Maintenance 531094-51301 $54.67

001 001976 12/26/18 INFRAMARK, LLC 36691 12/18 MANAGEMENT FEES ProfServ-Special Assessment 531038-51301 $2,941.00

001 DD0042 12/14/18 FPL - ACH 120318-ACH 11/2-12/3/18 ELEC ACH Electricity - Wells 543050-53901 $40.52

001 DD0043 12/22/18 FPL - ACH 12/3/19-ACH-B 24773-52583 11/2-12/3/18 Electricity - Aerator 543051-53901 $170.58

Fund Total $12,927.28

Total Checks Paid $12,927.28

(Sorted by Check / ACH No.)

Payment Register by Fund

For the Period from 12/1/2018 to 12/31/2018


CEDAR HAMMOCK

Page 8

Agenda Page 185