The URL can be used to link to this page

DSAC Agenda 02/01/2017 DSAC Meeting February 1, 2017 3:00 PM 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Growth Management Department DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA 1 February 1, 2017 3:00 p.m. Conference Room 610 NOTICE: Persons wishing to speak on any Agenda item will receive up to three (3) minutes unless the Chairman adjusts the time. Speakers are required to fill out a "Speaker Request Form," list the topic they wish to address, and hand it to the Staff member seated at the table before the meeting begins. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman, and speak into a microphone. State your name and affiliation before commenting. During discussion, Committee Members may direct questions to the speaker. Please silence cell phones and digital devices. There may not be a break in this meeting. Please leave the room to conduct any personal business. All parties participating in the public meeting are to observe Roberts Rules of Order,and wait to be recognized by the Chairman. Please speak one at a time and into the microphone so the Hearing Reporter can record all statements being made. (. Call to Order—Chairman II. Approval of Agenda [II. Approval of Minutes from January 4,2017 [V. Public Speakers V. Staff Announcements/Updates A. Code Enforcement Division update—[Mike Ossorio] B. Public Utilities Department update—[Tom Chmelik or designee] C. Growth Management Department Transportation Engineering Division &Planning Division updates—[Jay Ahmad or designee] D. Collier County Fire Review update—[Shawn Hanson and/or Shar Hingson] E. North Collier Fire Review update—[Dale Fey] F. Operations & Regulatory Mgmt. Division update—[Ken Kovensky] G. Development Review Division update—[Matt McLean] VI. New Business A. Permitting Processes [Claudine Auclair] B. School and Parks Impact Fees Indexing [Amy Patterson] C. Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update Study[Amy Patterson] VII. Old Business VIII. Committee Member Comments IX. Adjourn Next Meetinq Dates: March 1, 2017 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm April 5, 2017 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm May 3, 2017 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm Page 1 of 1 January 4,2017 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, January 4, 2017 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Department Building, Conference Room#609/610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: William J. Varian Vice Chairman: Blair Foley (Excused) David Dunnavant James E. Boughton (Excused) Clay Brooker Brad Schiffer Chris Mitchell Robert Mulhere Mario Valle Stan Chrzanowski Norman Gentry Marco Espinar (Absent) Ron Waldrop Laura Spurgeon DeJohn Jeremy Sterk ALSO PRESENT: Jamie French, Deputy Department Head Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, Staff Liaison Eric Fey, Sr. Project Manager, Public Utilities Caroline Cilek, LDC Manager Mike Ossorio, Director, Code Enforcement Division Jay Ahmad, Director, Transportation Engineering Matt McLean, Director, Development Review Rich Long, Plans Review and Inspections Manager Ken Kovensky, Director, Operations and Regulatory Management 1 January 4, 2017 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio recording from the Collier County Growth Management Department—Contact Mr.Evy Ybaceta at 239-252-2900. I. Call to Order- Chairman Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3:00pm. IL Welcome New Member Brad Schiffer Mr. Schiffer was welcomed to the Committee. III. Approval of Agenda Mr. Chrzanowski moved to approve the Agenda subject to continuing item VILE. Second by Mr. Schiffer. Carried unanimously 9-0. IV. Approval of Minutes from December 7,2016 Meeting Mr. Brooker moved to approve the minutes of the December 7,2016 meeting subject to the following change: • Page 4,paragraph 2, line 4—from"They is ..."to "There is..." Second by Mr. Mitchell. Carried unanimously 9-0. V. Selection of Chair and Vice Chair Mr. Brooker moved to nominate William Varian as Chairman of the Development Services Advisory Committee. Second by Mr. Gentry. Carried unanimously 8—0. Chairman Varian abstained Mr. Dunnavant moved to nominate Blair Foley as Vice Chairman of the Development Services Advisory Committee. Second by Mr. Gentry. Carried unanimously 9—0. VI. Public Speakers None Ms. Spurgeon Dejohn arrived at 3:05pm Mr. Mulhere arrived at 3:05pm VII. Staff Announcements/Updates A. Code Enforcement Division update— [Mike Ossorio] Mr. Ossorio provided the report"Collier County Code Enforcement Division Blight Prevention Program - Cumulative Code Enforcement statistics- 7/2009—11/6/2016" for information purposes. B. Public Utilities Division update— [Tom Chmelik or designeel Mr. Fey reported Staff will be initiating review of the"conveyance process"with a January 13, 2017 Staff meeting. C. Growth Management Department/Transportation Engineering and/or Planning— [Jay Ahmad or designee] Mr.Ahmad reported: • Logan Blvd. Extension—Notice to Proceed to be issued in January 2017 for extension North to Bonita Beach Road. 2 3 January 4, 2017 1 • Collier Blvd.—Green to Golden Gate Blvd.—project completion date spring of 2017. • White Blvd. Bridge—Project initiated. D. County Fire Review update— [Shar Hingson and/or Shawn Hanson] I None 1 E. North Naples Fire Review update— [Dale Fey] Mr. Fey reported plan review turn around time is at 8 days and inspections are at 2 days as the Division continues to meet client demand. $ F. Operations &Regulatory Mgmt.Division update [Ken Kovensky] 1 Mr. Kovensky submitted the"Collier County December 2016 Monthly Statistics"which outlined $ the building plan and land development review activities. The following was noted during his A report: • Permit activity is decreasing over recent months. • Inspections are up 14 percent year over year with 45 inspectors assigned to the activity. $ • Continuing Education will be offered to existing and new customers on the electronic application platform. • Credit card transactions have increased 35 percent and Staff is investigating integrating the $ payment service with CityView given the current process requires manual entry into the system. The costs for the service may be borne by the user. • The"Fee Study"is ongoing. 1 Y. 1 2 The Committee requested Staff to review the procedures for processing applications at the "walk x in"desks to ensure they are as efficient as possible. i I G. Development Review Division update [Matt McLean] Mr.McLean reported on the number of plat recordings as follows: 2013 —220 pages and 1,812 lots $ 2014—326 pages and 4,163 lots 2015—236 pages and 2,190 lots 2016— 174 pages and 2,037 lots 1 i The data is monitored to determine if the trends warrant changes to the customer service provided by k� the Division. a Mr. Valle arrived at 3:30pm VIII. New Business A. LDC Amendments [Caroline Cilek] i Mr. Cilek presented the final amendments for the 2016 Cycle: ' LDC Section 2.03.09 Open Space Districts f Change: Expand the list of Conditional and Permitted Uses within LDC Section 2.03.09 i i I 1 3 January 4,2017 Mr.Brooker(Subcommittee Chairman)reported the proposed amendment allows additional compatible uses in the District to address the potential conversion of golf courses to other uses. The Subcommittee reviewed the proposed amendment and unanimously recommended it be approved. Mr. Brooker moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed amendment as presented. Second by Mr. Mulhere. Carried unanimously 12—0. LDC Section: 3.05.07—Preservation Standards Change: To modify the requirements for off-site native vegetation retention and the monetary payment and land donation process. Ms. Cilek reported: • The item was previously heard for the monetary payment and land donation process with a recommendation entered previously by the DSAC. • That recommendation will remain unchanged and the current Section under review involves the standards for off site preservation due to issues raised by the Planning Commission to "disincentive"off site mitigation, especially for those properties developed in the urban area. • The proposed amendment was reviewed at a Subcommittee meeting as an informational item. • No quorum was present at the Subcommittee meeting however Staff made changes based on input from those present including the public. • The proposed amendment clarifies the land donation process including those for deviations. • There are two recommendations going forth on the monetary payment and land donation process,this Committee's and one developed by the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee. • She recommended the Subcommittee formulate a recommendation as well as the main Committee. Land Development Review Subcommittee (Mr. Brooker, Mr. Mulhere, Mr. Chrzanowski and Mr. Sterk were present constituting a quorum). Mr. Brooker moved for the Development Services Advisory Committee recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed amendment as presented by Staff. Second by Mr. Mulhere. Carried unanimously 4—0. Development Services Advisory Committee Mr. Mulhere moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed amendment as presented by Staff Second by Mr. Valle. Carried unanimously 12—0. LDC Section 10.03.06—Public Notice and Required Hearings for Land Use Petitions Change—To compliment the LDCA 5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Courses Mr.Brooker(Chairman of the Land Development Review Subcommittee)reported the item was not reviewed by the Subcommittee and posed a motion for the Subcommittee. It was determined only two members of the Subcommittee were present(Mr. Mulhere and Mr. Brooker)and Mr. Mulhere is abstaining from the item. 4 I I January 4, 2017 1 He withdrew the motion and recommend the full Committee develop a recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners. The Committee noted: • The proposal is related to the previous item(Section 5.05.15)heard by the Committee at the last meeting. 1 • The Committee expressed several concerns on the proposed amendment and recommended it not be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. • Additionally,the Fiscal and Operational Impacts provided in the Executive Summary are1. determined as related to the County;however the original intent of this language was to also provide data on the impacts to landowners. Even if it is difficult to quantify the cost at times, , any potential impacts should be documented in the Executive Summaries. Ms. Cilek reported a statement will be added to the Executive Summary to address the Committee's t concern on the impact of costs. Mr.Brooker moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners not approve the proposed amendment(10.03.06) as presented by Staff as it overly restricts an owner's use of private property, it impedes his fundamental property rights and there are already criteria established for r rezoning in the Land Development Code which address the issue;however if the proposed 1 amendment(10.03.06) is to be approved, the Board of County Commissioners considers addressing the concerns raised by the Committee at the previous meeting. Second by Mr. Mitchell. Carried unanimously 11--O. Mr.Mulhere abstained due to a conflict of interest. 1 i B. School and Parks Impact Fee Indexing[Amy Patterson] Continued i IX. Old Business 1 None 1 1 X. Committee Member Comments None i XI. Adjourn Next Meeting Dates 1 February 1,2017 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm 1 March 1,2017 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm 4 April 5,2017 GMD Conference Room 610--3:00 pm s : . 1 There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 4:00PM. i 1 i 5 January 4,2017 COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Chairman,William Varian These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on , as presented , or as amended 6 Code Enforcement Division Monthly Report , January 1-21, 2017 Highlights I' • Cases opened: 396 • Cases closed due to voluntary compliance: 145 • Property inspections: 1486 • Lien searches requested: 547 f, Trends Cases Opened Per Month 1200 __..._ co 0 0 1000 _ y co co 800 i t0 600 iniiiii 0,„, 01M 400 1 1 1 1 1 — _ 200 0 sap, ti� ti� ti� ti� ti� ti� ti� tiG tiC tiC tiA cer �a; P��, 4aa >�� .J\ PJ, „e9 O,- �o� Oe? �a; This report reflects monthly data from:January 1 thru 21, 2017. Code Inspections per Month a, 3500 m o tip m eo _ 3000 N N N V1 co m u1 N r. 2500 N N N I N 2000 ,... I I I i 1500 1000 I I III . II 500 tiCo ,Co ,yCo tiCo ,yco ,yco ti� tiCo N. �0 Co ,yA Total Code Cases Opened Annually 9000 - -.. 8000 8960 7000 8705 6000 - 5000 4000 396-- 3000 -- 2000 1000 ---_ __. 111111111 2015 2016 2017 This report reflects monthly data from:January 1 thru 21,2017. 5000 4500 f Case 4000 ... Origin o Code Div. Initiated 3500 Cases Complaint Initiated 3000 - Cases 2500 2000 / 1500 .. 1000 500 0 2016 2017 This report reflects monthly data from: January 1 thru 21,2017. Total Code Cases by Category for 2016 Snipe signs omitted Vehicles Animals 20% Accessory Use 2% 1% Land Use Vehicle for Hire / 12% 0% r Noise 3 / , 2% Vegetation Requirements = / 4% i i .__�. Temporary'Land Use --- / 0% ,./---------- \ lik1 i Site Development li mi. 12% Nuisance Abatement Occupational Licensing 26% 2% I Signs Property Maintenance Parking Enforcement 3/° Right of Way 5% 9% 2% Case Type Common issues associated with Case Type Accessory Use —Fence permits,fence maintenance,canopies, shades,guesthouse renting etc. Animals —Prohibited animals,too many animals,etc. Commercial -Shopping carts Land Use —Prohibited land use, roadside stands,outdoor storage,synthetic drugs,zoning issues, etc. Noise -Construction,early morning landscaping, bar or club,outdoor bands,etc. Nuisance Abatement —Litter, grass overgrowth,waste container pits,exotics, etc. Occupational Licensing—Home occupation violations, no business tax receipts, kenneling.etc. Parking Enforcement - Parking within public right-of-way, handicap parking,etc. Property Maintenance - Unsanitary conditions, no running water, green pools,structure in disrepair, etc. Protected Species -Gopher Tortoise, sea turtles lighting, bald eagles, etc. Right of Way -Construction in the public right-of-way,damaged culverts, obstruction to public right-of-way, etc. Signs - No sign permits, illegal banners, illegal signs on private property, etc. Site Development -Building permits, building alterations, land alterations, etc. Temporary Land Use -Special events,garage sales,promotional events, sidewalk sales, etc. Vegetation Requirements—Tree maintenance,sight distance triangle,tree pruning, land clearing, landfill, preserves, etc. Vehicles -License plates invalid, inoperable vehicles,grass parking, RV parking, other vehicle parking etc. This report reflects monthly data from:January 1 thru 21,2017. i ' November 2016 Code Cases by Category Snipe signs omitted Animals , Land Use Accessory Use 1% /// Commercial 9%Vehicles 1%_ l 0% /-27% Noise 3% Vehicle for Hire i Vegetatio Requiremen „E,,,,,,44,-------------- ,. :-- a”-"_e 1`Yoqk--,�0 Temporary 1 Nuisance Land Abatement Use 9'0 0% Occupational Licensing Site Development 1% 12% Parking Enforcement 1% Signs Property Maintenance 4% Right of Way 7% 8% Case Type Common issues associated with Case Type Accessory Use —Fence permits,fence maintenance,canopies,shades,guesthouse renting etc. Animals —Prohibited animals,too many animals,etc. Commercial -Shopping carts Land Use —Prohibited land use, roadside stands,outdoor storage,synthetic drugs,zoning issues,etc. Noise -Construction,early morning landscaping,bar or club,outdoor bands,etc. Nuisance Abatement —Litter,grass overgrowth,waste container pits,exotics,etc. Occupational Licensing—Home occupation violations,no business tax receipts, kenneling.etc. Parking Enforcement -Parking within public right-of-way, handicap parking,etc. Property Maintenance -Unsanitary conditions, no running water,green pools,structure In disrepair,etc. Protected Species -Gopher Tortoise,sea turtles lighting, bald eagles,etc. Right of Way -Construction in the public right-of-way,damaged culverts,obstruction to public right-of-way, etc. Signs - No sign permits,illegal banners, illegal signs on private property,etc. Site Development -Building permits,building alterations, land alterations,etc. Temporary Land Use -Special events, garage sales, promotional events,sidewalk sales,etc. Vegetation Requirements—Tree maintenance,sight distance triangle,tree pruning, land clearing, landfill, preserves,etc. Vehicles -License plates invalid,inoperable vehicles,grass parking,RV parking,other vehicle parking etc. This report reflects monthly data from:January 1 thru 21, 2017. December 2016 Code Cases by Category Snipe signs omitted Vehicles 20% AccessoryM ,als Vehicle for Hire 2% o Land Use 0% I \1/0 P 12% I \ i Noise I 2% Vegetation f Requirements 4% 11 4 Tempora — • n 0' Site Development IIIIIIIIINIOI 12% i 1 Nuisance Abatement 26% Occupational Licensing 1 2% Signs Right ofreY y Maintenance Parking Enforcement 3% 5% 9/0 2% Case Type Common issues associated with Case Type Accessory Use —Fence permits,fence maintenance,canopies, shades,guesthouse renting etc. Animals — Prohibited animals,too many animals,etc. Commercial -Shopping carts Land Use —Prohibited land use, roadside stands,outdoor storage,synthetic drugs,zoning issues,etc. Noise -Construction,early morning landscaping, bar or club, outdoor bands, etc. Nuisance Abatement —Litter, grass overgrowth,waste container pits,exotics,etc. Occupational Licensing—Home occupation violations, no business tax receipts, kenneling.etc. Parking Enforcement - Parking within public right-of-way, handicap parking,etc. Property Maintenance -Unsanitary conditions, no running water,green pools, structure in disrepair, etc. Protected Species -Gopher Tortoise,sea turtles lighting, bald eagles, etc. Right of Way -Construction in the public right-of-way,damaged culverts,obstruction to public right-of-way, etc. Signs - No sign permits,illegal banners,illegal signs on private property,etc. Site Development -Building permits, building alterations, land alterations,etc. Temporary Land Use -Special events,garage sales, promotional events,sidewalk sales,etc. Vegetation Requirements—Tree maintenance,sight distance triangle,tree pruning, land clearing, landfill, preserves, etc. Vehicles - License plates invalid, inoperable vehicles,grass parking, RV parking,other vehicle parking etc. This report reflects monthly data from:January 1 thru 21, 2017. January 2017 Code Cases by Category Snipe signs omitted Vegetation Requirements,.. Animals Accessory Use 3% I 1% / 1% Vehicle for Hire,._ I i Land Use 0% -�� I 11% Vehicles ' / `� Noise 30%_ 2% \ -, Nuisance Abatement /_19% I Temporary Land Use Occupational Licensing 0% 2% Parking Enforcement 3% Site Development I 11% Signs Right of Way Property Maintenance 1% 9% 7% Case Type Common issues associated with Case Type Accessory Use —Fence permits,fence maintenance,canopies,shades,guesthouse renting etc. Animals —Prohibited animals,too many animals,etc. Commercial -Shopping carts Land Use —Prohibited land use, roadside stands, outdoor storage,synthetic drugs,zoning issues,etc. Noise -Construction, early morning landscaping, bar or club,outdoor bands,etc. Nuisance Abatement — Litter,grass overgrowth,waste container pits,exotics,etc. Occupational Licensing—Home occupation violations, no business tax receipts, kenneling.etc. Parking Enforcement - Parking within public right-of-way, handicap parking,etc. Property Maintenance -Unsanitary conditions, no running water,green pools,structure in disrepair,etc. Protected Species -Gopher Tortoise, sea turtles lighting, bald eagles,etc. Right of Way -Construction in the public right-of-way,damaged culverts,obstruction to public right-of-way, etc. Signs - No sign permits, illegal banners, illegal signs on private property, etc. Site Development -Building permits, building alterations, land alterations, etc. Temporary Land Use -Special events,garage sales,promotional events, sidewalk sales,etc. Vegetation Requirements—Tree maintenance,sight distance triangle,tree pruning, land clearing, landfill, preserves,etc. Vehicles - License plates invalid, inoperable vehicles,grass parking, RV parking,other vehide parking etc. This report reflects monthly data from:January 1 thru 21, 2017. N w p .o M esi co in a `° a o IN 69 rl J 6 I Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O CD CO U) 1C O On Q O r 01.:.E;N 0 O t0 W ti etQ) , O N 69 9} Wr Z OOH 496N9696696943N. O o n. W o t Z W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O CO CO OD r 1f) O 0 N E- TZi. a cD 0)) et OO W nLOCO.vM rr N 00 10 696943 6434 69 19 i 1 1 M 0 0 000 o W O O.I O CD i COCO z 0 pla •e- >- 166 �. CO) CD N W 69 C) N 0 $ 69 to W f91 K Z 1,—.„ W it R 6 w z 0 ❑ V N. Ch co 00)0 r COCDv CD 0010 O O p o o p 000 ~ › Q nNh a N 1O r CY) O) '0000 nO aD C) n0) OOa Z Q J r O O6 CC hC- MaM CO ei r CN CI C)N CO N CA N- On It ss W 6 U 10 CD CO N O st co CD O N J W MCV tOD fNO_ It N )rO CO W n 4 a (/�$N �a a H96N969696N P. C7 a CD aD N h O CO 1 W LL w [L J NMS H W r1.19 d CD 696469r 696969 0 O 1-1- uu.. a o a. < U 2 - CD N el co CO CO Or CO It CO 0Oh 0000000 0 g Q a M h CaD N 1n r C) CO 0 0 0) n o Co m tv nO} ern} oa {.yr 0) Q - (n lZ N !'i OD OI n CD N CO a CD 0 tp 00) ~ CDN 100 COD i i M N 'V� a r CO a69 CV O e+79 CV to 4,69 CV N N a r CO cD N t O y O U N N 69 N 49 O f9 69 H! 69 r 69 ' 1 = Q 69- ~ • W i 0 f— Q < 1 Y 1 4 a p I a fw V � � = o U po c 0 ¢g Q z 100 100 N C) CO N W S N O 3 IX w W O W L' ut LL_ _ co 0 V aF Q N r 0 n C) n V-N 1O O O t.0) O O O O O O O O O W p 0 0) M O n 6 0 CO N 0) O O O1 F' CO O 0 h O O CI C N a CO a CO N CD a0 CO N e• N L.L a et co. r u) U) W O h i O j M 0) co m h a CO 0)It CC) CO O a W W 0) N- W h N U7 C §# co CO CO CO N r st CO CO CC) CD h 0) C� t7' a�{ ee}} N 0 J ..• .1 L1~��43 64C 69 W N N LL p O 69 6096 N9 co.N N s Q Ci' 00 0. " M d U. CO LL 6 c j O a O) 1C) CD co p. CO et U7OOM 000000000 iy a CI O co O 0 CD CO O 67 N d_ 0) 0 O CCI CO O Ch O r N. 00 M V ¢�+ Z N H CD CD CO 0 O N t0 co CO O Ul co r- a 'd' O r u) tin c) O co U L7 Z t. 09 Cl A n a O CO CC) CO O e- 10 2! OD CO CD t. CnraOM CO c N W co a co a N e- 7,r U) CO U) co UI N 2! r CO r r r h CO N CA C 49 N i n 69 6969 69 N N CO IY O C7 a CD C)a aa co 9 i IY M W to N N NNre CR CC!O 69 69 69 69 r UU69 NrnA m 'O 2 2 $ 0 0y /aD to i* . Q a co C) p to co. m L a a.+ L l W E E o o m' °' f o m d g W17o U N U 5 U-V M V E O M 09 r E wo t, J C H o ?E J A ~ zEu] ® Q . co fa 02 CI o 2 ' 1060 N I 6 0. J N 4'W �Ll.{? J tl)7O o � �W � ILU` J e [L K i 3 Collier County 2016 Indexing Calculations for Parks and Recreation Facilities and School Impact Fees DRAFT Report Co kr Grunt Prepared for: Collier County 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Ph. (239)252-8192 December 14,2016 Tindale Oliver 1000 Ashley Drive, Suite 400 Tampa, FL 33602 Ph. (813)224-8862,fax(813)226-2106 E-mail: nkamp@tindaleoliver.com 073127-07.16 DRAFT COLLIER COUNTY 2016 INDEXING CALCULATIONS FOR PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES AND SCHOOL IMPACT FEES Table of Contents I. Introduction 1 II. Calculation of Indices 2 III. Application 3 Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2016 i Indexing Update DRAFT I. Introduction Collier County retained Tindale Oliver to calculate the updated indices for the following program areas: • Community Parks • Regional Parks • Schools In March 2016, Tindale Oliver conducted an indexing study for the correctional facilities and transportation impact fee program areas. Additionally, the County is currently updating the technical studies for government buildings, emergency medical services facilities, law enforcement facilities, and library facilities. As such, indices for these program areas are not included in this report. This technical report provides a summary of the updated indices and the calculations of combined indices for the community and regional parks and school impact fee program areas. Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2016 1 Indexing Update DRAFT II. Calculation of Indices As part of the calculations,the following indices were updated: • Collier County Property Values; • Consumer Price Index(CPI); • Producer Price Index(PPI) (for equipment and vehicles); • Engineering Building News (ENR) Record Building Cost Index; • Turner Building Cost Index; and • RS Means Building Cost Index Table 1 presents the updated individual indices that will be used in the calculation of the overall indices for each program area. The table also provides a comparison to 2015 indices calculated in the March 2016 update conducted by Tindale Oliver. It should be noted that the indices were calculated based on the most recent two years of data available, 2015 and 2016 (through the latest month/quarter available). Consistent with the adopted indexing methodology, the building cost index utilized ENR, RS Means, and Turner Building Cost indices. In the case of the equipment/vehicle cost index, CPI and PPI for equipment were used. Finally, the land index is based on data from the Collier County Property Appraiser. Table 1 Index Calculations Buildings 2.5% 3.1% -0.6% Land 12.1% 10.8% 1.3% Equipment/Vehicles 1.3% 1.4% -0.1% 1) Calculated based on the data from the latest two years,as available 2) Calculated using the 2015 and 2.014 data,as available 3) Difference between the 2016 index(Item 1) and the 2015 index (Item 2) Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2016 2 Indexing Update DRAFT III. Application Updated individual indices from Table 1 are used to calculate the combined indices for the three program areas, which are shown in Table 2. Total applicable indices represent the adjustment factor that should be applied to each fee schedule. Table 2 Combined Indices y J bistribuno percent 0 .F Combined3 nvbntory omponent 016 index (Qi - �.., Invento algia Index Community Parks Land $53,857,380 40.2% 12.1% 4.9% Site Improvements $5,033,400 3.8% 2.5% 0.1% Facilities/Equipment $75,162,659 56.0% 2.5% 1.4% Total Cost $134,053,439 100.0% Total Applicable Index(5) 6.4% Regional Parks Land $341,739,000 84.3% 12.1% 10.2% Site Improvements $30,376,800 7.5% 2.5% 0.2% Facilities/Equipment $33,136,514 8.2% 2.5% 0.2% Total Cost $405,252,314 100.0% Total Applicable Index(5) 10.6% School Facilities Land $105,394,124 5.7% 12,1% 0.7% Buildings $1,536,147,228 82.7% 2.5% 2.1% Buses/Vehicles/Equipment $215,804,974 11.6% 1.3% 0.2% Total Cost $1,857,346,326 100.0% Total Applicable Index(5) 3.0% 1) Source: Impact Fee Technical Studies 2) Distribution of each inventory component is calculated by dividing each component by the total inventory value 3) Source:Table 1 4) Percent of the inventory(Item 2)multiplied by the 2015 index(Item 3) 5) Sum of indices of each component Tindale Oliver Collier County December 2016 3 Indexing Update DRAFT Co er_County Fiscal Year 2017 WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE STUDY For COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT December 21, 2016 PRPublic Resources Management Group, Inc. AIGUtility, Rate, Financial, and Management Consultants' DRAFT PIE Public Resources Management Group, Inc. '„'i Utility, Rate, Financial, and Management Consultants December 21,2016 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Board of County Commissioners Collier County 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112-5746 Subject: Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Public Resources Management Group, Inc. ("PRMG") has completed our review of the water and wastewater impact fees for the Collier County (the "County") Water-Sewer District (the "District") water and wastewater system (the "System"), and has summarized the results of our analyses, assumptions, and conclusions in this report,which is submitted for your consideration. The purpose of our analysis was to review the existing impact fees and make recommendations as to the level of charges that should reasonably be in effect consistent with: i)the utility assets installed by the District; ii)the capital expenditure requirements identified in the District's multi- year capital improvement program ("CIP"); iii) industry guidelines and Florida Statutes; and iv)County management objectives. The methodology for the determination of the capital costs to be included in proposed impact fees (i.e., available to be recovered) was also reviewed by the County's outside legal counsel and the fees as documented in this report reflect all of the recommendations from said counsel. Based on our review, PRMG is recommending that the water system impact fee be decreased from $2,600 to $2,562 per Equivalent Residential Connection ("ERC"). For the wastewater system,we are recommending an increase in the impact fee from$2,515 to$2,701 per ERC. The combined water and wastewater fees with the proposed rate adjustments would be $5,263, an increase of $148 or 2.9% when compared with the existing combined fees of $5,115. The proposed impact fees, based on the analyses and assumptions as documented in this report, are summarized on Table ES-1 following this letter and in the County's format to be included in the amended Impact Fee Ordinance presented in Appendix C. The proposed Impact Fees were based on the recovery: i)of capital-related costs that have been incurred for utility plant that has been placed into service and financed by the District which are estimated to have available capacity to serve new development; as well as ii)certain capital costs anticipated to be incurred by the District during the projection period that are considered necessary to serve new development. Based on the information provided by the District and the assumptions and considerations outlined in this report, which should be read in its entirety, PRMG considers the proposed impact fees to be cost-based,reasonable,and based on local costs in accordance with the provisions of Florida Statutes, 163.31801 (referred to as the "Florida Impact Fee Act"). K\DCU 125-43\Rpt\W&W W Impact Fee Study 341 NORTH MAITLAND AVENUE—SUITE 300—MAITLAND,FL 32751 Tel:407-628-2600• Fax: 407-628-2610• Email:PRMG a,PRMGinc.com • Website:www.PRMGinc.com a DRAFT Honorable Chairman and Members of the Board of County Commissioners Collier County December 21,2016 Page 2 ff In 2006, consistent with the practices of other utilities within the State of Florida, the County adopted Allowance for Funds Prudently invested("AFPI") fees per ERC (pursuant to Ordinance No.2006-27) to recover the carrying cost incurred by the County for "holding" capacity until it is reserved by development; these costs are not included as in the development of the proposed impact fees. The collection of the AFPI fees had a sunset provision effective in 2012 and, consistent with County management direction, the AFPI fees were not reinstated after 2012. During the Fiscal Year 2008,the combined water and wastewater impact fees totaled$7,339 per ERC, while the maximum accrual on the combined AFPI fees totaled $1,693. Collectively, the water and wastewater impact fees and AFPI fees totaled $9,032 ($7,339 impact fees + $1,693 AFPI fees = $9,032). The proposed combined water and wastewater impact fees of$5,263 are $3,769 lower per ERC when compared with the Fiscal Year 2008 combined impact fee and AFPI fee levels. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the County and would like to thank the County staff for their assistance and cooperation during the course of this study. Very truly yours, Public Resources Management Group,Inc. iP Robert J. Ori President Bryan A.Mantz, CMC, CGFM Supervising Consultant RJO/d1c Attachments K:\DC11125-43\Rpt\W&W W Impact Fee Study DRAFT Table ES-I. Collier County Water-Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Summary of Existing and Proposed Water and Wastewater System Impact Feel Level of Service Line (gallons per day No. Description per ERC) Amount Cost Per Gallon IMPACT FEES Water Impact Fee Existing Per ERC 1 Treatment Component 325 $2,045.00 $6.29 2 Transmission Component 325 555.00 1.71 3 Total 325 12,600.00 $8.00 Proposed Per ERC Calculated 4 Treatment Component 325 $2,056.70 $6.33 5 Transmission Component 325 505.50 1.56 6 Total 325 $2,562.20 $7.88 Rounded 7 Treatment Component 325 $2,057.00 $6.33 8 Transmission Component 325 505.00 1.55 9 Total 325 $2,562.00 $7.88 Change(Total) 10 Amount ($38.00) ($0.12) 11 Percent -1.5% -1.5% Wastewater Impact Fee Existing Per ERC 12 Treatment Component 225 $2,120.00 $9.42 13 Transmission Component 225 395.00 1.76 14 Total 225 $2,515.00 $11.18 Proposed Per ERC Calculated 15 Treatment Component 225 $2,341.69 $10.41 16 Transmission Component 225 359.81 1.60 17 Total 225 $2,701.50 $12.01 Rounded 18 Treatment Component 225 $2,341.00 $10.40 19 Transmission Component 225 360.00 1.60 20 Total 225 $2,701.00 $12.00 Change(Total) 21 Amount $186.00 $0.83 22 Percent 7.4% 7.4% Combined Impact Fee 23 Existing Per ERC 24 Treatment Component $4,165.00 25 Transmission Component 950.00 Total $5,115.00 Proposed Per ERC(Rounded) 26 Treatment Component $4,398.00 27 Transmission Component 865.00 28 Total $5,263.00 Change(Total) 29 Amount $148.00 30 Percent 2.9% • DRAFT COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE STUDY 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page No. Letter of Transmittal Table ES-1: Summary of Existing and Proposed Water and Wastewater System Impact Fees Table of Contents I List of Tables,Figures, and Appendices ii Introduction 1 Purpose of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 1 Existing Impact Fees 3 Level of Service Requirements 3 Existing Plant-in-Service 6 Additional Capital Investment 8 Design of Water Impact Fee 9 Design of Wastewater Impact Fee 11 Impact Fee Comparisons 14 Conclusions and Recommendations 18 K4DC11125-43\Rpt\W&W W'mpndFee Study -1' DRAFT COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE STUDY LIST OF TABLES,FIGURES,AND APPENDICES Table No. Description Page No. ES-1 Summary of Existing and Proposed Water and Wastewater System {*] Impact Fees 1 Development of Existing Water Production/Treatment Facility 19 Capacity Available to Serve System Growth 2 Development of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity 21 Available to Serve System Growth 3 Development of Water System Impact Fee 23 4 Development of Wastewater System Impact Fee 24 5 Comparison of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Per ERC 25 Figure No. Description Page No. 1 Comparison of Water Impact Fees per ERC 15 2 Comparison of Wastewater Impact Fees per ERC 16 3 Comparison of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees per ERC 17 Appendix No. Description Page No. A Summary of Existing Utility System Assets 26 B Existing Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Ordinance 27 C Existing and Proposed Water and Wastewater System Impact Fee 51 Schedule in County Format [*] Table ES-1 follows the letter of transmittal. K:1D01125-431Rpt1W&W W Impact Fee Study 'n' DRAFT COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE STUDY +. INTRODUCTION Legislature of the State of Florida pursuant to Section 189.429, Florida Statutes, In 2003, the adopted the Collier County Water-Sewer District Special Act (formally known as "House Bill 849") (the "Act")to create the Collier County Water-Sewer District (the "District") on behalf of Collier County (the "County"). The District is an independent special district and public corporation of the State with the Board of County Commissioners being the governing board of the District. The purpose of creating the District was to provide the District with the overall responsibility for the provision of water and wastewater services to a specified geographic service area of the County as defined in the Act due primarily to the extensive growth that was occurring and anticipated within the County and to meet the public health and water supply issues affecting such service area. The District owns and operates a water and wastewater utility system (the "System"), which during the Fiscal Year 2016, provided service to an estimated 59,739 water retail accounts (annual average) and 62,251 wastewater retail accounts. The District has constructed or plans to construct utility infrastructure to accommodate the future developments identified for the County that are expected to be served by the System. Historically, the District has utilized water and wastewater impact fees, which are referred to as "system development fees" in the District's authorizing bond resolution, to fund a portion of constructing the infrastructure requirements associated with new growth or increased development. For the purpose of this report, the terms "impact fees" and "system development fees" shall be used interchangeably. PURPOSE OF WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES The purpose of impact fees is to recover the pro-rata share of allocated capital costs that are considered as growth-related from new customers connecting to the System or from existing customers that are requesting an increase in the reserved water and / or wastewater capacity associated with increased development on their property. To the extent that new population growth and associated development impose identifiable added capital costs to municipal services, capital funding practices to include the assignment of such costs to those residents or system users responsible for those costs rather than to the existing population base is reasonable and provides for the property match of initial capital investment to reserve capacity. Generally, this practice has been labeled as "growth paying its own way"without existing user cost burdens. The application of impact fees to fmance capital infrastructure allocated to such new capacity requests is very common in Florida and the country and has been used as a source of contributed capital by the District for a number of years. On June 14,2006, additional impact fee legislation became effective as Chapter 2006-218,Laws of Florida, and was later incorporated in Section 163.31801 of the Florida Statutes. The impact fee legislation, which has been designated as the "Florida Impact Fee Act," recognized that impact fees are an important source of revenue for a local government to use in funding the K:1DC11125-431RpflW&W W Impact Fee Study —1— DRAFT infrastructure necessitated by new growth. The act further states that an impact fee adopted by ordinance of a county or municipality,or by resolution of a special district,must at minimum: • Require that the calculation of the impact fee be based on the most recent and localized data; • Provide for accounting and reporting of impact fee collections and expenditures in a separate accounting fund; • Limit administrative charges for the collection of impact fees to actual costs; and • Require that notice be provided no less than 90 days before the effective date of an ordinance or resolution imposing a new or amended impact fee. However, a county or municipality is not required to wait 90 days to decrease, suspend, or eliminate an impact fee. On May 21, 2009, Florida House Bill 227 became law, and this legislation added the following language to the Florida Impact Fee Act: "In any action challenging an impact fee, the government has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the imposition or amount of the fee meets the requirements of state legal precedent or this section. The court may not use a deferential standard." Based on Section 163.31801 of the Florida Statutes and existing Florida case law, certain conditions are required to develop a valid impact fee. Generally, it is our understanding that these conditions involve the following issues: 1. The impact fee must meet the "dual rational nexus"test. First, impact fees are valid when a reasonable impact or rationale exists between the anticipated need for the capital facilities and the growth in population. Second, impact fees are valid when a reasonable association, or rational nexus, exists between the expenditure of the impact fee proceeds and the benefits accruing to the growth from the use of the proceeds. 2. The system of fees and charges should be set up so that there is not an intentional windfall to existing users. 3. The impact fee should only cover the capital cost of construction and related costs thereto (engineering, legal, financing, administrative, etc.) for capital expansions or other system- related capital requirements that have been or are anticipated to be constructed which are required or available to serve growth. Therefore, expenses due to rehabilitation or replacement of a facility that has been constructed (e.g.,replacement of a capital asset) or an increase in the level of service should be borne by all users of the facility (i.e., existing and future users) to the extent that capacity in such facilities is available to serve the needs of new development. 4. The County should adopt an impact fee resolution or ordinance that explicitly restricts the use of impact fees collected. Therefore, impact fee revenue should be set aside in a separate K:1DCU 125-43\Rpt\W&W W Impact Fee Study -2- + f DRAFT account, and separate accounting must be made for those funds to ensure that they are used only for the lawful purposes described above. 5. The County should provide advanced notice of not less than ninety (90) days before the effective date of a resolution or ordinance amending the existing impact fees, unless the impact fees are decreasing. EXISTING IMPACT FEES Ordinance No.2015-17, which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County("BOCC") on February 10, 2015 (the "Impact Fee Ordinance"), established the District's current water and wastewater impact fees. The current impact fees for an equivalent single family residential connection ("ERC") served by the District System became effective on February 17,2015 and are summarized as follows: Existing Rate per ERC 11] Water System Impact Fee $2,600 Wastewater System Impact Fee 2,515 Combined $5,115 [1] Reflects fee for standard individually-metered residential unit (generally served through a 3/4-inch meter service and is considered to equate to 1 ERC). A copy of the Impact Fee Ordinance is included as Appendix B to this report. LEVEL OF SERVICE REQUIREMENTS In the evaluation of the capital facility needs for providing water and wastewater utility services, it is important that a level of service ("LOS") standard be developed. Pursuant to Section 163.3164, Florida Statutes, the "level of service" means an indicator of the extent or degree of service provided by, or proposed to be provided by, a facility based on and related to the operational characteristics of the facility and shall indicate the capacity per unit of demand for each public facility or service. Essentially, the level of service standards are established in order to ensure that adequate capacity will be provided for future development and for purposes of issuing development orders or permits, pursuant to Section 163.3202(2)(g) of the Florida Statutes. As further stated in the Statutes, each local government shall establish a LOS standard for each public facility located within the boundary for which such local government has authority to issue development orders or permits. Such LOS standards are set for each individual facility or facility type or class and not on a system-wide basis. For water and wastewater service, the level of service that is commonly used in the industry is the amount of capacity (service)allocable to an ERC expressed as the amount of usage (gallons) allocated on an average daily basis. This allocation of capacity would generally represent the amount of daily dependable capacity allocable to an ERC, whether or not such capacity is actually used (commonly referred to as "readiness to serve"). As previously mentioned, an ERC is representative of the average capacity required to service a typical individually-metered or single-family residential account. This class of users represents the largest amount of customers served by a public utility such as the District and generally the lowest(and most common) level of usage requirements for a specifically metered account. K:\DC\1125-43\Rpt\W&WW Impact Fee Study -3- DRAFT In the development of the level of service standards for the impact fee update, the following references were considered and reviewed: • 2016 Water and Wastewater Master Plan Updates (the "2016 Master Plan Updates") prepared by AECOM,the District's consulting engineers(the "Consulting Engineers"); • Collier County Growth Management Plan adopted on October 28, 1997, as amended and supplemented; • Florida Department of Environmental Protection("FDEP")general design standards; • Florida Public Service Commission("FPSC")capacity relationships for private utilities; • Actual water sales and billed wastewater flow data reported by the District for the residential and commercial customer classes over the past several years;and • Actual water production and wastewater flow data reported by the District over the past several years. The following table shows the level of service standards contained in some of the reference sources: Comparison of Water and Wastewater Level of Service(LOS) Standards Per Equivalent Residential Connection(ERC) Water ERC Wastewater ERC Description (gpd) (gpd) Level of Service Utilized for Impact Fee Calculations 325 225 Collier County Growth Management Plan Ill 2.40 persons per household 339 241 2.50 persons per household 353 251 2.64 persons per household 373 261 2016 Master Plan Updates 121 2.40 persons per household 299 201 2.50 persons per household 311 209 2.64 persons per household 329 221 Level of Service Standards Recognized By State Government of Florida: Florida Public Service Commission("FPSC")Capacity Relationships for Private Utilities[3] 350 280 Florida Department of Health Design Standards for Sewer Systems[4] N/A Single or Multiple Family per Dwelling Unit[5] 300 Other per Occupant[6] 132 Footnotes on following page. (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) 1C\DC11125.431Rpt1W&W W Impact Fee Study -4- DRAFT Footnotes: [1] LOS standards reflect gallons per capita per day(gpcd)in Collier County Growth Management Plan multiplied by number of persons per household.Gallons per capita per day derived as follows: Water Wastewater Total gpcd 170 120 Adjustment for Commercial Component per County Billing Records (29) (19) Estimated Residential-only gpcd I41 101 Per the 2000 US Census,the persons per household in Collier County was 2.39,while the persons per household per the 2010 Census was 2.64.Changing customer dynamics may adjust this number over time. [2] LOS standards reflect gallons per capita per day(gpcd)in 2016 Master Plan Updates multiplied by number of persons per household Gallons per capita per day derived as follows: Water Wastewater Total gpcd 150 100 Adjustment for Commercial Component per County Billing Records (25) (16) Estimated Residential-only gpcd 125 84 Per the 2000 US Census,the persons per household in Collier County was 2.39,while the persons per household per the 2010 Census was 2.64.Changing customer dynamics may adjust this number over time. [3] Rule 25-30.515(8),Florida Administrative Code.A wastewater ERC level of service is assumed to be 80%of the water ERC level of service(350 gpd x 80%=280 gpd). [4] Amounts derived based on information as published in the Florida Administrative Code(FAC),Rule 64E-6.008 [5] As stated in FAC Rule 64E-6.008,design standard(estimated sewage flows expressed on a gallons per day basis)for 3-bedroom house with 1,201-2,250 square feet of building area and was assumed to be representative of a typical or standard residence. [6] As stated in FAC Rule 64E-6.008,design standard(estimated sewage flows expressed on a gallons per day basis)expressed on a"per occupant"basis of 50 gallons per day multiplied by an average household size of 2.64 based on reported 2010 US Census statistics for Collier County. Estimated flows for residential systems assumes a maximum occupancy of two persons per bedroom.Where residential care facilities will house more than two persons in any bedroom,estimated flows shall be increased by 50 gallons per each additional occupant. It is our understanding that this additional capacity value would generally be added to the standard residential unit based on occupancy but this was presented to illustrate the minimum capacity based on average occupancy that may result(although the residential dwelling unit could demand a higher capacity requirement due to seasonality and higher occupancy characteristics). Recognizing: i)the current trends in water use per single family residential ERC; ii)the current capacity planning ERC service levels assumed in the most recent utility Master Plan Updates used in the evaluation of and planning for water and wastewater treatment capacity needs; iii)single family residential and commercial water use relationships based on detailed utility billing information as provided by the District; iv)the most recent U.S. Census data regarding persons per household for the County; and v)discussions with the District staff, the LOS standards recognized for the evaluation of the fees as expressed on a "gallons per day("gpd")per ERC" basis are recommended to remain at the current service levels which are: i) 325 gpd for a water system ERC and ii)225 gpd for a wastewater system ERC. The primary differences in the LOS standards between the two utilities are considered to be: i)the recognition of outdoor irrigation demands for potable water service which reflect water usage not returned to the wastewater system; ii)differences in unaccounted for water (finished water leaving the water treatment plant compared with water metered at the customer premise) and wastewater inflow and infiltration (groundwater and stormwater entering the wastewater collection system which are treated at the wastewater treatment plants)relationships;and iii)other factors. As previously mentioned,these LOS standards are consistent with those utilized in the last water and wastewater impact fee study completed in early 2015. K:\DC\1125-43\Rpt\WaW W Impact Fee Study -5- DRAFT EXISTING PLANT-IN-SERVICE In the determination of the impact fee associated with the servicing of future customers, any constructed capacity in the existing treatment and transmission utility system that is available to serve such growth was considered. Since this capacity was constructed and is available to serve the near-term incremental growth of the utility system, it is appropriate to recognize the capacity availability of such facilities. In order to evaluate the availability of the existing utility plant-in- service to meet or provide for near-term future capacity needs, it was necessary to functionalize the existing utility plant by specific function or purpose (treatment, conveyance, etc.). The "functionalization" of the existing utility plant is necessary to: i)identify those assets that should be considered or included in the determination of the impact fees; and ii)match existing plant type to the capital improvements to meet future service needs. The functional cost categories are based on the purpose of the assets and the service that such assets served. The following is a summary of the functional cost categories for the utility plant- in-service identified in this report. Functional Plant Categories Water Service Wastewater Service Other Plant Supply Treatment General Plant(Equipment,Vehicles,etc.) Treatment Effluent/Irrigation Quality Water Transmission Transmission Distribution Collection(Includes Local Lift Stations,Manholes,and Laterals) Fire Hydrants Meters and Services It was necessary to functionalize the utility plant into these cost categories so that system improvement costs can be identified such that a proper fee could be developed. System improvement costs relate to those costs incurred to provide capacity needed to serve new growth and development and do not include site improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service for a particular development project and that are necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of the project or routine and periodic maintenance expenditures, personnel training, and other operating costs. Therefore, the costs of on-site facilities which serve a specific development or customer are not considered as a "System" cost which is proportionately allocable to all users and include onsite (fronting the premise) water distribution and wastewater collection lines, meters and services, local lift stations, and fire hydrants are usually: i) donated by a developer as part of the District's utility extension program (a contribution of the plant); ii)recovered from the individual properties through an assessment program based on those properties which receive special benefit from such facilities or from the application of a main line extension fee to recover the specific cost of such facilities; or iii)funded from the customer directly (e.g.,by a "front-foot" charge where the on-site lines were initially financed by the utility and then paid by the customer or an installation charge to recover the cost of a new service line and/or the potable water meter). Such utility plant should not be a capital cost included in the impact fee calculation. Additionally, assets or utility plant with short service lives that are replaced on a recurring basis should also not be included since these assets are considered attributable to the existing customers of the System. An example of this utility K:\DC11125-431RpAW&W W Impact Fee Study -6- 1 i DRAFT 1 plant would be assets commonly referred to as "general plant" and would include vehicles, equipment,furniture, and other related assets. I The County provided PRMG with reported utility plant asset information through September 30, 1. 2016 (the most recently completed fiscal year at the time of this analysis)that served as the basis of the functionalization of the existing utility plant-in-service. Appendix A at the end of this report provides a summary of the functionalization analysis of the existing utility plant-in-service 1 for the System. The functionalized existing utility plant-in-service as shown in Appendix A # represents the original installed cost of such assets (gross book value) when placed into service I and represents all assets in service as of September 30, 2016 that were provided by the County and detailed in the utility asset records. This information represents the most current information available relative to the plant-in-service to serve the existing and near-term future customer base F of each utility system. The assets represent "installed costs" and have not been restated to account for any fair market value adjustments which would reflect current costs (would essentially assume that assets were replaced with identical materials). If an asset had been replaced by the County as of September 30, 2016 and is now in service, such assets were considered since they are physically in-service and represent the capital cost actually being incurred by the County to provide service to future development (this also recognized that the asset that was replaced is retired and no longer in service and was assumed to not be included in the fixed asset register provided to PRMG). A summary of the functionalization of the existing utility plant-in-service in Appendix A is shown as follows: Summary of Water and Wastewater Utility System Existing Assets(Gross Utility Plant) Water System[1] Wastewater System[1] Totals Function Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent_ Supply $90,226,735 16.1% $0 0.0% $90,226,735 7.4% Treatment 185,125,663 33.0% 267,18I,658 40.7% 452,307,321 37,1% Transmission/Storage/Master Pumping 78,607,590 14.0% 63,860,903 9.7% 142,468,493 11.7% Distribution/Collection 118,986,279 21.2% 172,735,503 26.3% 291,721,782 24.0% Effluent/Reclaimed 0 0.0% 59,376,428 9.0% 59,376,428 4.9% Meters/Services/Hydrants 7,909,452 1.4% 0 0.0% 7,909,452 0.6% General Plant[21 10,835,651 1.9% 12,690,180 1.9% 23,525,831 1.9% Other[3] 41,696,068 7.4% 46,351,697 7.1% 88,047,765 7.2% Construction Work-in-Progress[4] 27,662,107 4.9% 34,390,088 5.2% 62,052,194 5.1% • Total Gross Utility Plant In Service $561,049,545 100.0% $656,586,457 100.0% $1,217,636,002 100.0% i [1] Amounts shown derived from utility asset records as of September 30,2016 that were provided by the District as shown in Appendix A. I [23 General Plant represents equipment,vehicles,and assets with short service lives,and was allocated to the water and wastewater system in I proportion to all other functionalized utility plant. [3] Reflects reported assets that i)represent capitalized costs(e.g.,studies)that did not directly link to an existing constructed asset;and ii)certain • asset costs considered to benefit only existing users;such amounts were not included as a capital cost for the determination of the impact fees. [4] Construction work-in-progress was not recognized since the projects have not yet been completed and placed into service by the District and the corresponding existing assets,if any,that would be retired or improved were not removed from the fixed asset register. In order to determine the amount of existing water supply/treatment and wastewater treatment/ disposal plant assets available to meet future growth, it is necessary to identify the amount of unused capacity in such facilities. Table 1 at the end of this report provides an estimate of the unused capacity and the allocated water supply and treatment plant costs available to meet future needs.A similar analysis is shown on Table 2 at the end of this report for the wastewater system. K1DC\1 125-431Rpt\W&W W impact Fee Study -7- DRAFT This estimate for water and wastewater capacity and the allocation of existing plant to future growth was based on: i)the permitted design capacity of the respective utility plant facilities; ii)the recognition of adjustments to present the facility capacity on an average daily demand/ flow basis to be consistent with the assumed level of service requirements (dependable daily capacity); and iii)actual use of such facilities as experienced by the System service area through the Fiscal Year 2016. Based on this analysis, it was estimated that the existing water supply and treatment, wastewater treatment, and effluent disposal plant facilities had the following remaining and available capacity to meet future needs: Plant Capacity(MGD) Water Wastewater Plant[1] Plant[2] Total Permitted Design Capacity(MMDD/MMADF-MGD) 52.000 40.100 Peaking Factor[3] 1.200 1.200 Plant Capacity Expressed on Average Daily Demand/Flow Basis 43.333 33.417 Less Existing Plant Utilization(ADF) 26.776 17.818 Net Available to Meet Future Service Area Needs 16.557 15.599 Estimated Percent of Total System Capacity 38.21% 46.68% MMDD=Maximum Month Daily Demand MMADF=Maximum Month Average Daily Flow MGD=Million Gallons Per Day ADF=Average Daily Flow [I] Amounts derived from Table I [2] Amounts derived from Table 2. [3] The utilized peaking factors are based on a review of historical peaking relationships experienced by the System. As shown above, it has been estimated that approximately 38.21% in existing water production and treatment utility assets is allocable to serve future development. With respect to the wastewater system, it is estimated that approximately 46.68% of the combined treatment and disposal utility assets is allocable to serve new customer growth. Recognizing the amount of the availability of the existing installed capacity to serve new development or growth, no future capacity additions have been recognized in the analysis; the water production/ treatment and wastewater treatment/ disposal capacity costs in the impact fee calculations represent the average installed costs of such capacity("buy-in"). ADDITIONAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT The District staff and its Consulting Engineers recently prepared a capital improvement program ("CIP") which outlines a number of capital improvements for the water and wastewater system over the next ten years. The ten-year planning period was considered by the County to adequately address the immediate needs of the District service area demand requirements and represents projects that will be initiated in the next few years to meet and provide the necessary capacity to meet the respective demands in such planning horizon. This is also supported by the fact that the County currently has available capacity in its existing assets to serve growth,at least through the ten-year planning period. The improvements in the CIP are primarily for: i)upgrades to existing assets which benefit both current and future users of the System (e.g.,replacement and upgrade of water and wastewater transmission mains);and ii)replacement of assets or conducting capital programs which generally only benefit current users of the System KAM r 25-471RpAW&W W Impact Fee Study -8- DRAFT (e.g., existing plant renewal and replacement, certain reliability projects). For the purposes of developing the impact fees to be charged to new growth,PRMG recognized the following capital projects in the impact fee calculations: Water System Project:Potable Water Storage Tank Cost Over Next Ten Years: $6,020,000 Project Description: Provide additional 3 million gallons of storage to accommodate increased potable water demand and fire flow need for the increasing population (assumed to be served from the existing constructed plant capacity) to be online in 2027, based on the Ten States Standards and/or FDEP Standards. Irrigation Quality("IQ")Water System Project: IQ Expansion/Business Plan Cost Over Next Ten Years: $15,000,000 Design and construct expanded distribution of IQ water given the additional Project Description. D gn p capacity afforded by the Aquifer Storage Recovery facility being fully online and additional supplemental well capacity to accommodate demand to utilize IQ water that is produced and will be available from the existing wastewater treatment facilities during the 10-year planning period. The County does not currently have enough IQ water to meet demand. DESIGN OF WATER IMPACT FEE As shown on Table 3 at the end of this report, the calculated impact fee for the water system is $2,562 per ERC. This represents a decrease of$38 or 1.5%when compared with the current fee of$2,600 per ERC. In the development of the proposed water impact fees, several assumptions were utilized or incorporated.The major assumptions utilized in the design of the calculated impact fees are: 1. The existing water supply and treatment facilities have an estimated available capacity margin to serve new growth of approximately 38.21% of the average daily capacity of the facilities based on: i)the firm design capacity of the existing water treatment plant facilities; and ii)actual maximum month daily demand to annual average daily demand relationships recently experienced by the water system, including a review of the actual demand requirements for the fifteen fiscal year period ended 2016.. The analysis is included on Table 1 at the end of this report. No water system capacity additions are projected to come online over the next ten years. 2. Per the directions of the County's outside legal counsel and discussions with County staff, only capital costs pertaining to the Potable Water Storage Tank were recognized in the water impact fee calculations. 3. The level of service for a water ERC was assumed to be 325 gpd expressed on an average daily flow basis. This level of service is consistent with what was assumed in the previous IC;DCI 125.431Rpt\W&W W Impact Fee Study -9- • DRAFT impact fee study. The level of service assumption was predicated on the level of service requirements as contained in the 2016 Master Plan Updates; the County's Growth Management PIan (potable water sub-element); FDEP general design standards for water use analysis; FPSC capacity relationships for private utilities (Florida Administrative Code Rule 25-30.020);and discussions with the District staff. 4. Since the transmission function capacity is difficult to ascertain except at build-out conditions, the total existing (original cost and not on a replacement or current cost basis) costs to serve the total capacity of the water system over the next ten years was recognized, thus calculating a new users per-ERC average "buy-in" cost for this functional utility plant component of the Water System. 5. Because: i)the utility system is operated as an enterprise fund; ii)all financial resources received by the District stay within the fund for the benefit of such system; iii)the costs reflected in the fee are at original cost and not adjusted for any fair market value to reflect current cost conditions; iv)there is no interest-expense carry in the impact fee associated with the financing of the capital investment to serve new development; and v)there are no other revenues received by the District from new development for the capital costs/utility plant reflected in the impact fee (e.g.,ad valorem taxes on the property),no credit for the future payment of debt service allocable to the properties has been recognized. All impact fee funds remain in the enterprise system and the long-term capital financing costs for infrastructure constructed and available to serve new growth are mitigated by using the impact fees for ongoing expansion-related capital project financing or for the direct payment of the annual expansion-related debt service payments. 6. The approach used to determine the estimated impact fee was the "System Buy-in" method which is based on the identification and allocation of the installed cost of the gross plant investment (expressed on an original cost basis — that is when the asset was originally placed into service)that is available (in-service)to serve new growth.Under this approach, the applicant paying the impact fee is essentially reimbursing the system for only the applicant's proportionate share of the constructed facilities that are currently in-service as of September 30, 2016 and that are available to meet the requests for Water System capacity from new development. This method also recognizes that as improvements are made to the Water System, the available capacity to meet the future demands of the new development that would be served from the current constructed gross plant investment is being maintained and therefore the most recent installed cost of the gross plant investment is considered as being reasonable for the determination of the impact fee. As of September 30, 2016, the District has several.capital projects that are underway and considered as construction-work-in-progress ("CWIP"). When the capital projects that are included in the CWIP are completed, the cost of the completed projects will be placed into service with a corresponding adjustment, if any, to the fixed assets records to remove any assets that may subsequently be retired and excluded from the fixed assets for financial reporting purposes. Because these capital projects have not yet been completed as of the end of Fiscal Year 2016 (which served as the Test Year for the asset evaluation) and it is unknown at this time what the total cost for such assets currently under construction may be as well as the amount of any assets that may be removed from service directly related to R:\nC11125-431RptVW&W W Impact Fee Study -1 0— DRAFT the placement of these projects into service, the construction-work-progress capital expenditures incurred as of September 30, 2016 were not recognized in the fee calculations. The following table summarizes the amount of capital investment that has been recognized as being available to serve new growth based on the amount of capacity available to the water system and the amount being used by the existing customers of the water system: Summary of Constructed Utility Plant Costs Allocated to New Development-Water System Description Amount Total Constructed Assets—Gross Plant-in-Service[1] $533,387,438 Less Constructed Assets Directly Assigned to Existing Customers[2] (179,427,450) Less Adjustments for Contributed Assets and Assets Funded from External Sources[3] (18,369,432) fi Net Constructed Assets $335,590,556 Net Amount Allocated to Existing Customers: Percent 61.79% Amount $207,361,405 Net Amount Allocated to Future Customers $128,229,151 Percent of Total Constructed Assets[4] 24.04% Percent of Net Constructed Assets[5] 38.21% [1] Amounts shown derived from Table 3;amounts do not include construction-work-in-progress of$27,662,107. [2] Represents utility plant that is assumed to specifically benefit the property served as opposed to a System cost and includes water distribution facilities,meters,hydrants,services and general utility plant;in most instances these assets were contributed by the developer to the District [3] Includes other assets that would generally be classified as a System improvement cost and represent contributed assets,grant-funded assets,or funded from transportation impact fees. [4] Represents percent of total constructed Gross Plant-in-Service(i.e.,$533,387,438). [5] Represents percent of net constructed assets(i.e.,$335,590,556). As shown on Table 3 at the end of this report,the calculated water impact fee is $2,562 per ERC, which represents a decrease of$38 or 1.5% when compared with the current fee of$2,600 per ERC. This fee would be applied to a standard individually-metered residential customer. Based on the capital facilities associated with the determination of the fee,the functional breakdown of the components of the rate is as follows: Calculated Cost Per ERC Proposed Fee Water Supply/Treatment $2,056.70 $2,057 Water Transmission 505.50 505 Total $2,562.20 $2,562 DESIGN OF WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE As shown on Table 4 at the end of this report, the calculated impact fee for the wastewater system is$2,701 per ERC. This represents an increase of$186 or 7.4%when compared with the current fee of$2,515 per ERC. In the development of the proposed wastewater impact fees, several assumptions were utilized or incorporated in the analysis. The major assumptions utilized in the design of the proposed wastewater impact fees are: I::1DC\1125-431Rpt1W&W W Impact Fee Study —1 1- DRAFT I. The existing wastewater treatment and effluent disposal facilities have an estimated available capacity margin to serve new growth of approximately 46.68% of the average daily capacity of the facilities based on: i)the firm design capacity of the existing wastewater treatment plant facilities; and ii) actual maximum month average daily flow to annual average daily flow relationships recently experienced by the wastewater system, including a review of the actual flow requirements for the fifteen fiscal year period ended 2016. The analysis is included on Table 2 at the end of this report. No wastewater system capacity additions are projected to come online over the next ten years. 2. Based on discussions with the County, the cost of treatment and effluent disposal includes the direct system-related cost of expanding the irrigation quality water system. The IQ water system is considered by the County to be a component of the wastewater system. 3. Per the directions of the County's outside legal counsel and discussions with County staff, only capital costs pertaining to the IQ Expansion/ Business Plan were recognized in the wastewater impact fee calculations. 4. The level of service for a wastewater ERC was assumed to be 225 gpd expressed on an average daily flow basis. This level of service is consistent with what was assumed in the previous impact fee study. The level of service assumption was predicated on information contained in the 2016 Master Plan Updates regarding wastewater capacity; the level of service requirements as contained in the County's Growth Management Plan (sanitary sewer sub-element); FDEP flow standards as reported in FAC Rule 64E-6.008; FPSC capacity relationships for private utilities (FAC Rule 25-30.020); and discussions with District staff. 5. Since the transmission function capacity is difficult to ascertain except at build-out conditions, the total existing (original cost and not on a replacement or current cost basis) costs to serve the total capacity of the wastewater system over the next ten years was recognized, thus calculating a new users per-ERC average "buy-in" cost for this functional utility plant component of the Wastewater System. 6. Because: i)the utility system is operated as an enterprise fund; ii)all financial resources received by the District stay within the fund for the benefit of such system; iii)the costs reflected in the fee are at original cost and not adjusted for any fair market value to reflect current cost conditions; iv)there is no interest-expense carry in the impact fee associated with the financing of the capital investment to serve new development; and v)there are no other revenues received by the District from new development for the capital costs/utility plant reflected in the impact fee (e.g.,ad valorem taxes on the property), no credit for the future payment of debt service allocable to the properties has been recognized. All impact fee funds remain in the enterprise system and the long-term capital financing costs for infrastructure constructed and available to serve new growth are mitigated by using the impact fees for ongoing expansion-related capital project financing or for the direct payment of the annual expansion-related debt service payments. R:\DC11125-431RpdW&WW Impact Fee Study —l 2— DRAFT 1 7. The approach used to determine the estimated impact fee was the "System Buy-in" method which is based on the identification and allocation of the installed cost of the gross plant investment (expressed on an original cost basis — that is when the asset was originally placed into service)that is available(in-service)to serve new growth. Under this approach, the applicant paying the impact fee is essentially reimbursing the system for only the applicant's proportionate share of the constructed facilities that are currently in-service as of September 30, 2016 and that are available to meet the requests for Wastewater System capacity from new development. This method also recognizes that as improvements are made to the Wastewater System, the available capacity to meet the future demands of the new development that would be served from the current constructed gross plant investment is being maintained and therefore the most recent installed cost of the gross plant investment is considered as being reasonable for the determination of the impact fee. As of September 30, 2016, the District has several capital projects that are underway and considered as construction-work-in-progress ("CWIP"). When the capital projects that are included in the CWIP are completed, the cost of the completed projects will be placed into service with a corresponding adjustment, if any,to the fixed assets records to remove any assets that may subsequently be retired and excluded from the fixed assets for financial reporting purposes. Because these capital projects have not yet been completed as of the end of Fiscal Year 2016 (which served as the Test Year for the asset evaluation) and it is unknown at this time what the total cost for such assets currently under construction may be as well as the amount of any assets that may be removed from service directly related to the placement of these projects into service, the construction-work-progress capital expenditures incurred as of September 30, 2016 were not recognized in the fee calculations. The following table summarizes the amount of capital investment that has been recognized as being available to serve new growth based on the amount of capacity available to the wastewater system and the amount being used by the existing customers of the wastewater system: 1 (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) { KtDC1112S43111pt1W&W W Impact Fee Study —13- 3 DRAFT Summary of Constructed Utility Plant Costs Allocated to New Development-Wastewater System Description Amount Total Constructed Assets—Gross Plant-in-Service[1] $622,196,369 Less Constructed Assets Directly Assigned to Existing Customers[2] (231,777,380) Less Adjustments for Contributed Assets and Assets Funded from External Sources[3] (15,347,523) Net Constructed Assets $375,071,466 Net Amount Allocated to Existing Customers: Percent 51.98% Amount $194,980,694 Net Amount Allocated to Future Customers $180,090,772 Percent of Total Constructed Assets[4] 28.94% Percent of Net Constructed Assets[5] 48.02% [1] Amounts shown derived from Table 4;amounts do not include construction-work-in-progress of$34,390,088. [2] Represents utility plant that is assumed to specifically benefit the property served as opposed to a System cost and includes wastewater collection facilities and general utility plant;in most instances these assets were contributed by the developer to the District. [3] Includes other assets that would generally be classified as a System improvement cost and represent contributed assets,grant-funded assets and assets funded from transportation impact fees. [4] Represents percent of total constructed Gross Plant-in-Service(i.e.,$622,196,369). [5] Represents percent of net constructed assets(i.e.,$375,071,466). As shown on Table 4 at the end of this report,the calculated wastewater impact fee is$2,701 per ERC, which represents an increase of $186 or 7.4% when compared with the current fee of $2,515 per ERC. This fee would be applied to a standard individually-metered residential customer. Based on the capital facilities associated with the determination of the fee, the functional breakdown of the components of the rate is as follows: Calculated Cost Per ERC Proposed Fee Wastewater Treatment/Disposal $2,341.69 $2,341 Wastewater Transmission 359.81 360 Total $2,701.50 $2,701 IMPACT FEE COMPARISONS In order to provide additional information to the County regarding the existing and calculated impact fees, a comparison of the existing and calculated fees for the District with other Florida jurisdictions was prepared. This comparison is summarized on Table 5 at the end of this report and provides a comparison of the existing and proposed District impact fees for single-family residential connections (i.e.,one ERC) relative to the impact fees or comparable charges currently imposed by other municipal/ governmental water and wastewater systems located primarily in the southwest Florida region. It is important to note that the reader must view the comparison with caution as no in-depth analysis has been performed to determine the methods used in the development of the water and wastewater impact fees imposed by others, nor has any analysis been made to determine whether 100% of the cost of new facilities is recovered from system capacity charges, or some percentage less than 100%with the balance recovered through the user charges. Additionally, no analysis was conducted as to the rate of capital facilities currently in service or planned for the utility. For example, the costs of wastewater effluent disposal utilizing a deep injection well system generally has a higher capital cost per unit of capacity than percolation ponds. K:1DC11125-431110\W&W W Impact Fee Study -14- DRAFT The following is a summary of the survey results regarding the impact fee comparison of the District's fees with those of the surveyed utilities: Figure 1: Comparison of Water System Impact Fees per ERC $4,000 Reflects rates effective in November 2016 — $3,600 — =Water —Other Utilities'Average($2,004) $3,000 — S2,562 S2,600 $2,600 $2,000 — — — — $1,500 — — — — — $1,000 — — — — — — — — $600 — — — — — — — — $0 ;'.%1 �� °,v° c��Z r ,6 mc. ,63•f,c� � 6ea ,6 zh ,11 mac° a� v° �c �%�• ca y aQccg � g Qk C.? e° a °�r � O 0° v 2Vo 4o� m Q 4. 4p . • • cdo > Q0c o2e 1w \0 z, OO 60 oa , o 6 G � • Gd •g 4s, (a. y O°c OJT' 4, (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) K;'DC11125-43\Rpt1W&W W Impact Fee Study —1.5- DRAFT Figure 2: Comparison of Wastewater System Impact Fees per ERC $5,000 Reflects rates effective in November 2016 $4,500 — =Wastewater —Other Utilities'Average($2,659) _ $4,000 $3,600 — — — S2,701 $3,000 — — — - S2,515 — $2,600 1 — $2,000 — — — — — — $1,500 — — — $1,000 — — — $500 — — $0 Go `°c o dH Jc�� Q Q°� ��h y°�� S. S. Aa �0y ,�.� c� ' Si �c o V° o4 2� � � �D o� o 6° u Vti a0 o . , mac; og �D r l` ` e ° Zo Qm 8? 3 s F ,0 y E . � a° `moo v W d o c� .F ° v a F a o m` �o o� c1 ac ce V c1 O C��c� �" °QO a Q a ice V y y ,� c o '4 Ceo •c• Cr co'� G ya r 1 41'4 (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) K\DCII I25-43\Rpt\W&W W Impact Fee Study -16 DRAFT Figure 3: Comparison of Water and Wastewater System Impact Fees per ERC $9,000 Reflects rates effective in November 2016 $8,000 =Wastewater =water —Other Utilities'Average(54,663) $7,000 $5,000 S5,115 S5,263 — — _ _ — _ $5,000 — $4,000 — — — $3,000 _ _ _ $2,000 — — — — $1,000 — — — —�— — $0 4/ �`� �o� o o .�' cE' Q°� g e `tP tee. ,�c1 key 1 �e ° �� y �a�a Oo �� V CLQ% ° ?mQ ,ES �'° O°� .4 `° `° mZ` ro� `mcy 0° ` `o ooh 4`e `cry °mD `g °g J� `mo °k� ��° Qa0 ° ��` c�� Q Q O Q °Qs `eye �� tea° A 411/ ci Ja k,! Q�°� 4.C.1 47 k, Some reasons why impact fees differ among utilities: • Water quality and proximity to source of supply. • Type of treatment process and disposal requirements (e.g.,brine from reverse osmosis process,effluent from wastewater process). • Availability of grant and other external sources (e.g., other General Fund revenues such as sales taxes)available to finance CIP. • Age of system/level of renewals and replacements. • Utility life cycle(e.g., growth-oriented vs.mature). • Level of service standards. • Administrative decision to maintain fees at a level below what could justifiably be charged. K_\DC\I t25-43\RpPw&W W Impact Fee Study -17- DRAFT As shown on Table 5 at the end of this report, the average water and wastewater system impact fees for the nineteen (19) governmental entities surveyed are $2,004 and $2,659 (Combined = $4,663), respectively, for a standard single-family residence (i.e., one ERC). Of the surveyed utilities, the City of Marco Island had the highest water and wastewater system impact fees of $3,740 and $4,610 respectively ($8,350 combined). Pinellas County had the lowest combined system capacity charges in the group with the water fee being$352 and the wastewater fee being $2,060 (Combined = $2,412). The calculated water system impact fee of $2,562 and the calculated wastewater system impact fee of $2,701 (Combined = $5,263) for the District are higher than the average of the surveyed utilities'impact fees. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our evaluation of the District water and wastewater system impact fees, PRMG offers the following conclusions and recommendations: 1. The proposed impact fees are considered by PRMG to support the rational nexus requirements as determined by case law whereby the benefits received by the applicant (new development) must be reasonably related to the capital cost of providing utility services.PRMG considers the proposed impact fees to be cost-based and reasonable. 2. Based on levels of service per ERC and the capital costs identified, the proposed impact fees for the water and wastewater systems,respectively,are as follows: Existing and Proposed Fiscal Year 2017 Calculated Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Per ERC Difference System LOS(gpd) Existing Proposed Amount Percent Water 325 $2,600.00 $2,562.00 ($38.00) (1.5%) Wastewater 225 $2,515.00 $2,701.00 $186.00 7.4% Total $5,115.00 $5,263.00 $148.00 2.9% ERC=Equivalent Residential Connection Consistent with our scope of services, PRMG only reviewed the water and wastewater impact fee levels and did not review the County's methodology for charging the impact fees as shown in the Impact Fee Ordinance in Appendix B. Appendix C reflects the proposed fees applied to the County's existing methodology. (Remainder of Page Left Blank Intentionally) K:\DC\I125-431Rpt\W&W W Impact Fee Study —1 8- DRAFT APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF EXISTING UTILITY SYSTEM ASSETS PIC DRAFT Table 1 Collier County Water-Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Development of Existing Water Production/Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve System Growth Line Water No. System 1 Existing Permitted Plant Capacity of System(MMDD-MGD)(1) 52.000 Adjustment to Reflect Average Daily Demand 2 of Water Treatment System (MGD)(2) (8.667) 3 Dependable Treatment Plant Capacity(ADD) 43.333 4 Average Daily Demand-Existing System(3) 26.776 5 Remaining Capacity(ADD)at Existing Plant 16.557 6 Percent of Total Capacity Remaining 38.21% 7 Percent of Total Capacity Recognized 38.21% 8 Capacity Available to Service New Growth(ADD) 16.557 9 Capacity Available to Service New Growth(gallons) 16,556,912 10 Level of Service Standard Per ERC(gallons per day)(4) 325 11 Number of ERCs That Could Be Served By Existing Capacity[Line 9/Line 10] 50,944 MGD=Million Gallons Per Day MMDD=Maximum Month Daily Demand ADD=Average Daily Demand Footnotes on page 20. 19 DRAFT 3 Table I Collier County Water-Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Development of Existing Water Production I Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve System Growth Footnotes: (1) Amounts reflect MMDD treatment capacity of facilities as provided by the District. The permitted capacities of the two individual regional facilities are 20.0 MMDD-MGD(North County Regional Water Treatment Plant)and 32.0 MMDD-MGD(South County Regional Water Treatment Plant). (2) With respect to the water facilities,the plant capacity is expressed on a maximum month daily demand basis. To be consistent with the level of service requirements for the water system,the plant capacity was adjusted to reflect an average daily demand basis. A maximum month daily demand i to annual average daily demand peaking factor of 1.20 was utilized as supported by finished water flow data contained in the Monthly Operating i 1 Reports filed with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP)as shown below: Maximum Annual Month Daily Average Daily Demand Demand(MGD) (MGD) Peaking Factor Fiscal Year 2002 22.90 26.45 1.15 Fiscal Year 2003 22.69 26.74 1.18 Fiscal Year 2004 24.40 26.35 1.08 l Fiscal Year 2005 25.83 28.57 1.11 Fiscal Year 2006 26.00 31.71 1.22 Fiscal Year 2007 26.78 32.34 1.21 Fiscal Year 2008 23.11 26.04 I.13 Fiscal Year 2009 22.72 28.17 1.24 Fiscal Year 2010 21.34 23.12 1.08 Fiscal Year 2011 22.58 26.20 1.16 Fiscal Year 2012 22.35 26.15 1.17 Fiscal Year 2013 22.14 • 26.76 1.21 Fiscal Year 2014 23.86 27.35 1.15 Fiscal Year2015 24.14 28.00 1.16 Fiscal Year 2016 24.28 28.61 1.18 Fifteen-Year Maximum 1.24 Fifteen-Year Average 1.16 Factor Utilized By PRMG For Impact Fee Determination Purposes1.20 52.000 MMDD-MGD Capacity/1.20 Peaking Factor=43.333 ADD-MGD Capacity. 52.000 Less 43.333=8,667. (3) Reflects the highest reported average daily demand experienced by the Districts water treatment facilities for the twelve Fiscal Year period ended 2013 as shown below: Water Maximum Period Reported ADD(*) 26.78 (*)Reference is made to Footnote 2 for applicable average daily demand data. (4) The level of service factor for an ERC reflects capacity requirements expressed on an average daily water demand basis. 20 DRAFT Table 2 Collier County Water-Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Development of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve System Growth Line Wastewater No. System 1 Existing Plant Capacity of System(MMADF-MGD)(1) 40.100 2 Adjustment to Reflect Capacity on Average Daily Flow Basis(2) (6.683) 3 Dependable Treatment Plant Capacity(ADF) 33.417 4 Average Daily Flow-Existing System(3) 17.818 5 Remaining Capacity(ADF)at Existing Plant 15.599 6 Percent of Total Capacity Remaining 46.68% 7 Percent of Total Capacity Recognized 46.68% 8 Capacity Available to Service New Growth(ADF) 15.599 9 Capacity Available to Service New Growth(gallons) 15,599,096 10 Level of Service Standard Per ERC(gallons per day) 225 11 Number of ERCs That Could Be Served By Existing Capacity[Line 9/Line 101 69,329 MGD=Million Gallons Per Day MMADF=Maximum Month Average Daily Flow ADF=Annual Average Daily Flow Footnotes on page 22. 21 I. . i DRAFT Table 2 i Collier County Water-Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study 1 Development of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity Available to Serve System Growth I i Footnotes; 4 ir(1) Amounts reflect permitted MMADF wastewater treatment plant capacity of facilities. The permitted capacities of the individual regional facilities are 24.1 MMADF-MGD(North County Water Reclamation Facility)and 16.0 MMADF-MGD(South County Water Reclamation Facility). 11 (2) With respect to the existing wastewater facilities,the plant capacity is expressed on a maximum month average daily flow basis. To be consistent with the level of service requirements for the wastewater system,the plant capacity was adjusted to reflect an average daily flow basis using a peaking factor of 1.20. A summary of the twelve fiscal year actual wastewater flows is summarized below. As can be seen based on the actual reported flow data,the capacity adjustment factor averaged 1.16. 1 Annual Maximum Month Average Daily Average Daily Flow(MGD) Flow(MGD) Peaking Factor 1 Fiscal Year 2002 15.528 20.160 1.30 i Fiscal Year 2003 15.600 17.279 1.11 Fiscal Year 2004 15.921 18.899 1.19 1 Fiscal Year 2005 16.323 19.306 1.18 i Fiscal Year 2006 17.372 19.890 1.14 k Fiscal Year2007 15.633 18.391 1.18 1 Fiscal Year 2008 15.601 18.290 1.17 1 Fiscal Year 2009 13.837 15.920 1.15 Fiscal Year 2010 14.291 15.747 1.10 1 Fiscal Year 2011 14.728 16.791 1.14 I Fiscal Year 2012 15.834 18.122 1.14 1 16.952 18.669 1.10 Fiscal Year 2013 ' Fiscal Year 2014 16.200 19.464 1.20 1 17.231 19.537 1.13 l1 Fiscal Year 2015 Fiscal Year 2016 17.818 21.311 1.20 Fifteen-Year Maximum 1.30 Fifteen-Year Average 1.16 Factor Utilized by PRMG for Impact Fee Determination Purposes 1.20 40.100 MMDD-MGD Capacity/1.20 Peaking Factor=33.417 AADD-MGD Capacity. 40.100 Less 33.417=6.683. ' (3) Reflects the highest reported average daily flow experienced by the Districts wastewater treatment facilities for the twelve Fiscal Year period ended 2013 as shown below: Wastewater Maximum Period Reported AADF(*) 17.818 (`)Reference is made to Footnote 2 for applicable average daily flow data. (4) The level of service factor for an ERC reflects capacity requirements expressed on an average daily wastewater flow basis;the factor was based on the County's capacity planning assumptions and other sources available to PRMG. 22 H` 00 1`so O,O a sl' O e N 4 �V 88 888 .0 W h N ... o N f'S, Q: ci cV tT vl N! a N a Os 00 O oG ON1 O NON o0 O O so so N 0 1O A Q b o0 M h M N O M N" N fV v fV N N o M 8 v N m 00 ,O Nv,,,, .Nr F 49 69 69 49 49 49 h 49 99 99 49 L L 0 co ' h F e�y Q EN O aci co 7 .0 u �L e ▪ G ACs" 69 vt e e., 71 v1 o N 4 'n O V a VI' o 'a N N ' vn1 N O' 0. p .cgs RN o" N M v, 1 4 CC 8 2 L w ti '.. 'O N b N R e tii v 3 E 69 49 99 69 49 69 49 69 b1O h p0p N' N 4 4 N. G� O ' ' `O Cl N �y noG yp o 00 00en O 00' ri rn n ' E v W C w A. 49 69 69 F9 an 49 69 .i v1 " a e 4. 4 e ,so c A W E on ' ' M N °O, a v; N rn E p V ea .. g S C M ON b M 'a o b S Vq3 Q v. M I. d °O. ? M w dJ y L f7 con g 3W N F 3 c+9 al 49 69 69 49 a9 49 C W W g t-; 0 U 0 y .a E L. 6 0 U z z t a- O g 4z I 2 ▪ l 5 m '. E p y r°� a ° :_-_.- E ro b > ^. c Z7 a' ° 3 a + d • 0 1n C'ng z m o v 2 n &.d Z ° H J E a U I °n v c d f. 3 �° _ 6 o 1 Boa a � d • g w a A a e o a o b �... E H U to o c 0• 2 �-8- 3 z - LI a. .� z c� 2, kg E a 8 42.0. ° ,, a W V H U g a: a E f-, a = a 5 M w 75 m C 3 u°� W 4 ° E `o E E o ° W y 4 ° t F $ al E 0 0 En O ` aa)i b 0 b E u A ° °: C7 CG ° E y p, ° Fro ro il c0prx8 N 3 9 rn 4 t c 4 w o" ° . •e 0. o Ez4 1 a' Z 3 m ; 6 Z 0 U o b -8 'E m a u o m 3 a '8 -a E t3'. b .a s. y s e t 8 1 4 a 33 g1� �Wo .S }° a s o 0 w 3 a a cg ;n w F. H 1--. E. A a ¢� ° ..._ 's• ay .-. N M 91 s0 CO U 0 •--, N In nt 91 'O N 00 E u v u Fi R W 1 I FS R c 0 n CO 00 0 0 O g g 8 g 00 N 00 0• 0 0 '0 00 00 f''10 O (06 per M a O 00 N b 0 0 0 .7 M 0 a `fid' ry V b N 0 0 N C` N N F v1 a,to O O N IS4 F. en 0 ' 1 44 44 w K 64 4'1 EA 64 69 V9 a'• i" 000 ,nN A V 0 sco o 6 ` a e a a U Q o �6. v'; 00 N a N 00 N N 00 76. Cp 01'n h ' 'r: 0 v? M a ' 0 ' M ' OZH 4-0 . b h N V a °,O t�'1 V' i0 Z' 00 ch ch ch (T 2 « a m".:—.1.- v 3 2 ,D `-' On N 3 F 00 a 00 N O 000 N 0 N 0 0 N h N 00 .4 b ' ' N c r. 0 Q. Q N CT O a CN. . 'D CNC� 00 00 N (T CO 0 0 f0 O b p• 0 0 O� CR O O n{. • 3 °;� s & � � It .ti.) 'O 11 11 44 44 44 64 44 64 64�r W 00 00 0 \ ^ 01 0 e C' O :g. R h h N i 00 N N N N N N A y 4 'o N ' O 0 M (00 N O i M 1 N A W g y 00 ? O b D 00 ba �° d h ..i A so S p E V N N w i 41 B gl :: N 64 64 64 64 44 44 s4 u N E..ia 3 3 C ~ 00 w g d5 d C p o 1.; 9 u v U3 o z y I g. . d g 4 N v o 5 d 00 13 vy A a o Vs e • ^K B d a q� . 4 u.iio u vl I `6; + ti F � ag Qui 3 0 G. ti Ty N N 9 p u '] q y b � f�i12oy r p -, O�11 1111 3 ao Vs, • U U 4 � = 3 " Um m .., 3 a w w o U � � ea yy o 0 0 e g 4▪ gF° ,-/ a d P. U W W 3g Pte. U W W F F F F :! Q d d Q Yoe e al 0 .-. N M V 'n 'O .N 00 00 SO *N,u u C O .--i N f+1 t Vi `O h o0 01 0 1 DRAFT Table 5 Collier County Water-Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Comparison of Water and Wastewater System Impact Fees Per ERC 111 Line Residential 5/8"x 3/4"Meter No. Description Water Wastewater Combined Collier County Water-Sewer District I Existing Impact Fees $2,600 $2,515 $5,115 2 Proposed Impact Fees 2,562 2,701 5,263 Surveyed Florida Utilities: 3 Bonita Springs Utilities,Inc. $2,600 $3,925 $6,525 4 City of Bradenton 1,183 1,545 2,728 5 Charlotte County 2,407 2,251 4,658 6 DeSoto County 1,910 4,140 6,050 7 Englewood Water District 2,074 2,850 4,924 8 FGUA-Golden Gate(Collier County) 1,950 1,525 3,475 9 FGUA-Lehigh Acres System(Lee County) 2,696 2,839 5,535 10 City of Fort Myers 2,023 1,966 3,989 11 Hillsborough County 1,750 1,800 3,550 12 Lee County 2,440 2,660 5,100 13 Manatee County 1,970 3,027 4,997 14 City of Marco Island 3,740 4,610 8,350 15 City of Naples 1,416 2,324 3,740 16 City of North Port 1,735 2,388 4,123 17 Pasco County 1,561 2,730 4,291 18 Pinellas County 352. 2,060 2,412 19 City of Punta Gorda 2,646 2,677 5,323 20 City of Sarasota 900 2,577 3,477 21 Sarasota County 2,720 2,627 5,347 22 Other Florida Utilities'Average $2,004 $2,659 $4,663 Footnotes: [1] Unless otherwise noted,amounts shown reflect fees charged to a standard residential connection(one ERC)in effect November 2016 and are exclusive of taxes or franchise fees,if any,and reflect rates charged for inside the city service. All rates are as reported by the respective utility. This comparison is intended to show comparable charges for similar service for comparison purposes only and is not intended to be a complete listing of all rates and charges offered by each listed utility. 25 DRAFT APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF EXISTING UTILITY SYSTEM ASSETS 1'E M1: DRAFT Appendix A Collier County Water-Sewer District Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Summary of Existing Utility System Assets Ill Summary of Reported Gross Plant-In-Service as of September 30,2016 Line Water System Wastewater System No. Description Amount Percent Amount Percent Included Assets I Water Supply $90,226,735 16.08% --- 2 Treatment 185,125,663 33.00% $267,181,658 40.69% 3 Transmission 78,607,590 14.01% 63,860,903 9.73% 4 Effluent/Reclaimed --- --- 59,376,428 9.04% Excluded Assets 5 Distribution/Collection 118,986,279 21.21% 172,735,503 26,31% 6 Meters/Services/Hydrants 7,909,452 1.41% --- --- 7 General Plant[2] 10,835,651 1.93% 12,690,180 1.93% 8 Other[3] 41,696,068 7.43% 46,351,697 7.06% 9 Construction Work-in-Progress[4] 27,662.107 4,93% 34,390.088 5,24% 10 Totals 61049.545 100.00°/Q ,+656886.457 100.00°/Q 11 Total Combined Utility System Assets $1.217.636.002 Summary of Contributed Capital Water Wastewater Description System System Contributed Capital for Included Assets 12 Water Supply $169,361 --- 13 Treatment 969,055 $462,578 14 Transmission 2,381,741 6,957,546 Effluent/Reclaimed -- 2,977,640 Contributed Capital for Excluded Assets 15 Distribution/Collection 87,070,870 112,191,053 16 Meters/Services/Hydrants 48,000 --- 17 General Plant 1,326,128 1,553,096 18 Total $91,965.155 $124.141.914 19 Total Combined Utility System Assets $216.107.069 Footnotes: [I] Amounts shown based on the functionalization of approximately 6,500 utility assets. [2] General Plant represents equipment,vehicles and assets with short service lives,and was allocated to the water and wastewater system in proportion to all other functionalized utility plant. [3] Reflects reported assets that:i)represent capitalized costs(e.g.,studies)that did not directly link to an existing constructed asset;and ii)certain asset costs considered to benefit only existing users;such amounts were not included as a capital cost for the determination of the impact fees. [4] Construction work-in-progress was not recognized since the projects have not yet been completed and placed into service. 26 DRAFT APPENDIX B EXISTING WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE MG DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 2015- 17 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, THAT ORDINANCE BEING THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE,NO.2001-13,AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FOR THE INCORPORATION, BY REFERENCE,OF THE IMPACT FEE STUDY ENTITLED "COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY," THE IMPACT FEE STUDY ENTITLED "WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE STUDY FOR COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT" AND THE IMPACT FEE STUDY ENTITLED "COLLIER COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY"; AMENDING THE ROAD IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE,WHICH IS SCHEDULE ONE OF APPENDIX A, AS SET FORTH IN THE IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY; AMENDING THE WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE, WHICH IS SCHEDULE TWO OF APPENDIX A,AS SET FORTH IN THE IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY; AMENDING THE CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE, WHICH IS SCHEDULE FOUR OF APPENDIX A, AS SET FORTH IN THE IMPACT FEE STUDY; UPDATING THE GENERAL DEFINITIONS SECTION; PROVIDING THAT IMPACT FEES ARE ASSESSED USING THE RATES IN EFFECT (1) WHEN THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED,OR(2) AT THE TIME OF THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, WHICHEVER IS LESS; PROVIDING FOR A CORRECTION IN THE DATE USED FOR TERMS OF DEFERRALS; PROVIDING FOR UPDATES TO THE SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER IMPACT FEE AND/OR SEWER IMPACT FEE SECTION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STUDY AND PRESCRIBED METHODOLOGY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERAIBLITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF FEBRUARY 17, 2015 FOR ALL FEE DECREASES, AND A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE OF MAY 11, 2015 FOR ALL FEE INCREASES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 163.31801(3)(d),FLORIDA STATUTES. WHEREAS, Collier County has used impact fees as a funding source for growth-related capital improvements for transportation since 1985; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopted Ordinance No, 2001-13, the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, repealing and superseding all of the County's then existing impact fee regulations,and consolidating all of the County's impact fee regulations into that one Ordinance, codified in Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances(the"Code"); and Uisicrline4 text is added;Strktelt-threugh text is deleted 27 DRAFT WHEREAS, on May 12, 2009, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 2009-24, thereby amending Schedule Four of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Code, and establishing the County's then current Correctional Facilities Impact Fee rates; and WHEREAS, on February 22, 2011, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 2011-05, thereby amending Schedule One of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Code, and establishing the County's then current Road Impact Fee rates;and WHEREAS,on February 22, 2011 the Board also adopted Resolution 2011-41, thereby amending Schedule Two of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Code, and establishing the County's current Water and Wastewater Impact Fee rates; and WHEREAS, on December 13,2011, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 2011-44 through which Road Impact Fees and Correctional Facilities Impact Fces were indexed in accordance with the prescribed methodology,thereby establishing the rates that are currently in effect;and WHEREAS, as Section 74-502 of the Code states that impact fee studies should be reviewed at least every three years, the County retained Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Incorporated (TOA) and Public Resources Management Group, Inc. (PRMG) ( collectively the "Consultants"), to review the existing Road, Correctional Facilities, Water and Wastewater 5 Impact Fees and recommend changes to the fees where appropriate;and WHEREAS, TOA has prepared impact fee studies entitled the "Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study," dated January 13, 2015 and the "Collier County Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Update Study,"dated January 13,2015;and WHEREAS, PRvIG has prepared an impact fee study entitled the "Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study for Collier County Water-Sewer District," dated September 15, 2014;and WHEREAS, Collier County uses impact fees to supplement the funding of necessary capital improvements required to provide public facilities to serve new population and related development that is necessitated by growth in Collier County;and WHEREAS, the studies recommend changes to the Road Impact Fee rate schedule, as set forth in Schedule One of Appendix "A," changes to the Water and Wastewater Impact Fee rate schedule, as set forth in Schedule Two of Appendix "A," and changes to the Correctional Facilities Impact Fee rate schedule, as set forth in Schedule Four of Appendix"A"of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances; and Underlined text is added;S4111eE-4 aeagh ton is deleted Page 2 of 24 28 DRAFT WHEREAS, the studies also recommend establishing the proposed impact fee rates in order to equitably distribute the costs of acquiring and constructing public facilities based upon a rational nexus relating costs incurred by fee payers to infrastructure impacts created by commercial and residential land uses;and WHEREAS, this Ordinance also updates the general definitions provided for in Section 74-108 of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances for consistency with the updated studies and rate schedules; provides that impact fees are assessed using the rates in effect(1) when the building permit application is submitted, or(2) at the time of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion for the development, whichever is less, corrects a date used for terms of deferrals and amends provisions related to the imposition of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees to comply with the study and methodology updates;and WHEREAS, the Consultants have reviewed and updated the fee calculation methodologies that will be imposed in an equitable and non-discriminatory manner;and WHEREAS, Section 163.31801, Florida Statutes, which is the Florida Impact Fee Act, requires the most recent and localized data be used in impact fee calculations and these studies comply with that requirement;and WHEREAS, the study methodologies have been reviewed and approved by Collier County's outside legal counsel,Nabors,Giblin and Nickerson,P.A.; and WHEREAS, staff has thoroughly reviewed the calculations and findings, concurs with the recommended changes to the Road,Correctional Facilities and Water and Wastewater Impact Fee rate schedules, and recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt this Ordinance to implement the recommended-changes-in accordance with the notice requirements of Section 163.31801(3)(d),Florida Statutes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE. Article 1, General, Section 74-106, Adoption of impact fee studies, of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 74-106. Adoption of impact fee studies. Underlined teat is added;e•-�ervi c thr gn text is deleted Page 3 of 24 29 DRAFT (I) Transportation facilities: "Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study," prepared by Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Incorporated , _.I• . _•_ _ : - " - - - .. _ - : -: . . - _- -• :. _ -•--"(Mar-eh-237-20-4 January 13,2015); (2) - • -• . . • .! dated rhpril- 4.0, 2006; "The 2001 Facilities Plan Update" prepared by Camp, Water and wastewater facilities: "Collier County Water and the Wastewater Impact Fee Studyfor Collier CountyWater-Sewer District (dated p September 15,2014)prepared by Public Resources Management Group, Inc."; *** 1 (7) Correctional facilities:`_Collier County Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Update Study," prepared by Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. (April 21, 2004 January 13,2015); SECTION TWO. Article I, General, Section 74-108, General definitions, of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 74-108. General definitions. When used in this chapter,the following terms shall have the following meanings, unless 1 the context clearly indicates otherwise. Terms contained in article 111 or the rate schedules supersede these general definitions to the extent of any conflict(s). i Undcd incQ tact is added;Stoselfiivattgli iext is deleted Page 4 of 24 30 DRAFT Bundled Golf shall mean golf courses built as part of a residential development where the membership to and use of the golf course is open only to the residents. Guests can use the golf course only when playing with a member,who is a resident. Impact fee rate shall mean the formula or calculation that when applied to the respective development determines the applicable impact fee that results because of the impacts deemed by this chapter to be applicable to the respective public facility caused by particular development. Impact fees are assessed using the rates in effect when the building permit application is submitted, or(2)at the time of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion for the development,whichever is less. *** a .. .. hotels,motels,or sinal:. - -- - . - •_ - • - - - .. -- . •-- *** Public utilities administrator shall mean the individual appointed by the board or the county manager to supervise the administration, operations and/or acquisitions of the county's regional sewer system and/or regional water system, the former Goodland Water System, the Collier County Water-Sewer District, and/or any other similar utility system owned by the county and which now or in the future assesses any utility impact fee. *** Regional sewer systems shall mean the wastewater or sewer utility system directly connected to treatment facilities operated by the Collier County Water-Sewer District,or Underlined text is added,Struelf-dicei*glt text is deleted Page S of24 31 DRAFT 1 1 t ri i the county, or both. For the purposes of this chapter the term sewer and wastewater are interchangeable and have the same meaning. i 1 *** t Restaurant (q-ucill ' low-turnover) shall mean a land use consisting of eating I establishments of high quality and with turnover rates usually of at least one hour or longer. Generally,quality restaurants do not serve breakfast; some do not serve lunch; all 5 serve dinner. Often the restaurants in this land use are not a chain and reservations are required. i ( Ik. SECTION THREE. Article 11,Impact Fees, Section 74-201,Imposition of impact fees, of the A Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: 1 Section 74-201. Imposition of impact fees. (f) Fund reimbursement. Every county approved deferral of a water or sewer impact fee requires complete reimbursement and deposit of the entire amount deferred into the 1 applicable water or sewer trust fund(s) within 30 days of the deferral or waiver h agreement being signed on behalf of the county, except for deferrals ofles- v i ten years for multi-family affordable housing rental units. However, deferrals of less n seven ten years for multi-family affordable housing rental units must not adversely impact the cash flow or liquidity of the water and/or sewer impact fee trust fund accounts and thereby frustrate or.interfere with the then planned or then ongoing 1 u growth-necessitated capital improvements and additions to such water and/or sewer 1 1 systems. Such an adverse impact may be determined by the public utilities division i administrator whenever either of the two trust fund's individual reserve balances is in jeopardy of approaching (or actually has reached) less than a total of$600,000.00 of unappropriated and unencumbered funds. If the public utilities division administrator determines that the unappropriated and unencumbered funds in either of these accounts is then in jeopardy of approaching a level of less than $600,000.00, then the total number of such multi-family affordable housing rental units that may be approved in any such fiscal year (including the fiscal year when the public utilities division Jnderlincd text is added;&trek-tlxaagh text is delcicd i Page 6of24 $, 32 s 3 DRAFT administrator makes such a "funds in jeopardy" determination) for deferrals (i,e., for loss-than seven ten years) shall not exceed 225 units. This unit number limitation will continue so long as a determination of"jeopardy" exists, except that any of the 225 units not approved by an agreement in any fiscal year where funds are in "jeopardy" may be accumulated and rolled-over from one fiscal year to the next fiscal year until such time as the "jeopardy" determination ends. The number of multi-family rental deferrals granted in a fiscal year where funds are in "jeopardy" may exceed 225 units, but only if an alternate funding source for the deferral is secured. SECTION FOUR. Article Ill, Special requirements for specific types of impact fees, Section 74-303, Special requirements for water impact fee and/or sewer impact fee, of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 74-303, Special requirements for water impact fee and/or sewer impact fee. (c) Limitation on Applicability. Notwithstanding the general applicability provisions set forth in this chapter,water and sewer impact fees shall be limited as follows: (1) The imposition of water and sewer impact fees shall include only development on lands within the county water sewer district. The imposition and collection of water and sewer impact fees on geographic areas within the county water sewer district shall not take place until such time when connection to the regional water and/or sewer system is made. Lands required to connect or request connection to the regional water and/or sewer system, or which otherwise create a growth necessitated demand upon the regional water and/or sewer system shall be subject to the imposition of impact fees in accordance with this chapter. The following areas are provided exclusion from water and/or sewer impact fees since they are not served by the existing treatment capabilities of the regional water and/or regional sewer system: a. Those areas lying within the boundaries of the former Goodland Water District. Exclusion of those areas within the boundaries of the former Goodland Water District recognizes that this area is not underlined teal is added;St^- '�.,�..T-� gh text is deleted Page 7of24 33 DRAFT i' presently planned to be served by the treatment capabilities of the regional water and/or regional sewer systems. b. Those areas lying within the Macro Shores, Unit 1, Sections 26 . and 27, Township 52 South,Range 26 East, and recorded in Plat Book 14, Page 34 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Exclusion of the Marco Shores, Unit I, recognizes that this area is not presently planned to be served by treatment capabilities of the regional water and/or regional sewer systems. : c. Those areas lying within the Key Marco Community Development District. Exclusion of the Key Marco Community watev-sewer--flistfiet--not planned to be served by treatment capabilities of the regional water and/or regional sewer systems. (d) Payment. (3) Subject to availability of funds,the county may enter into agreements to extend payment (offer installment payments) of water and/or sewer systems impact fees and associated costs over a period not to exceed seven years with owners of then existing buildings, structures or l applicable improvements which are mandated to connect to the regional water and/or regional sewer systems. Prior to the county entering into any agreements to extend payments, and from time-to-time thereafter, the board shall identify a specific source of funds to be used relative to providing extended payment and the cost of such funds, including all 1 expenses and costs incidental to obtaining or providing same, including interest at the interest rate that the board or the public utilities administrator will employ in offering extended payment with interest, and a reasonable estimation of the administrative costs of expenses associated with administering the extended payment alternative to the respective Iand(s). Underlined text is added;Stwe4-t#ireugh tett is deleted Page B of 24 3t 34 z DRAFT • ... III square feetago but having—five--Of—alum toilets, shall be .. a. , - - a. - t • the the ..a edit: .. • :•" .. - : - ..• t. • - . . - --- - . rasidenti-a .. . : - o -. - . -- •.. . •. • have-Tffael-•v 2ateutati-ons: Underlined text Is added;&fuel:-4iwcwgh text is deleted Page 9 of 24 35 1 DRAFT SECTION FIVE. CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY. In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other Ordinance of Collier County or other . applicable law,the more restrictive shall apply. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction,such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct,and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. SECTION SIX. INCLUSION IN CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES. The provisions of this Ordinance shall be made a part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinance may be renumbered or re- lettered and internal cross-references amended throughout to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance"may be changed to"section,""article,"or any other appropriate word. hy 1 SECTION SEVEN. EFFECTIVE DATE. I This Ordinance shall be considered adopted upon the date written below; however, the effective date of the Phase 1 Road Impact Fee rate Schedule, the Phase 1 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee rate schedule, and the Water and Wastewater Impact Fee rate schedule (decreases) shall become effective February 17, 2015, subject to filing with the Florida Department of State, and the Phase 2 Road Impact Fee rate schedule and the Phase 2 Correctional Facilities Impact Fee rate schedule shall be delayed to May I I,2015. q5 3 undoing tai is added;Stfuok-Off-titiglit text is deleted Page 10 of 24 36 1 DRAFT • PASSED AND DULY 4_10(11PTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier e.ver-ta County,Florida this 103r\e,day of ,2015. ATTEST'''' .'••••1 ' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Dwight'E.•BiOn Clark OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA .; . • • ,Deputy Clerk TIM NANCE,Chairman Approv.it i ,rrrratadregality: Jeffrey A. la km-,County Attorney This ordinance fid wi Secretary of;1,-,-.12's i*V"cloy of and ackno,Niedgernerit,2d fill g receivea iHs 12.M kevt....cuc...4._ II-1.1-0.4) ?Lk - owur,ciGric Underlined text is added;Strsrek-timettgli text is deleted Page I I of 24 37 I 1 DRAFT 1 1 APPENDIX A -SCHEDULE ONE £ ROAD IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE k Phase 1-Effective February 17,2015 '1 F I Impact Fee Land Use Category Rate 1 i.7 Residentialii s Assisted Living Facility(ALF) $;84942 $759.00 Per Dwelling Unit 1 Condoffownhouse(1-2 Stories) $4,255.70 Per Dwelling Unit High-Rise Condominium(31-Stories) $3,087.89 Per Dwelling Unit Mobile Home $2,394.71 Per Dwelling Unit Multi-Family(Apartments)1-10 Stories $4,313.86 Per Dwelling Unit 1 it Multi-Family(Apartments)>10 Stories $2,741.77 Per Dwelling Unit a Retirement Community $2,125.50 Per Dwelling Unit ' Single Family Detached House 1 Less than 1,500 sq.ft. $4,230.38 Per Dwelling Unit 1,500 to 2,499 sq.ft, $5,752.75 Per Dwelling Unit It 2,500 sq.ft.or larger $6,504.09 Per Dwelling Unit 1 i Non-Residential Auto Sales-Luxury $8,323.81 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Auto Sales-New/Used $13,555.03 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Bank/Savings:Drive-in $21,953.89 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Bank/Savings:Walk-1n 521,558.99 520.774.00 Per 1,000 sq.ft. 3 Business Park $7,801.34 Per 1,000 sq.R. Car Wash-Automatic $21,257.89 Per 1,000 sq,ft. Car Wash-Self-Service $49,722.38 59.799.00 Per Service Bay Church 5317.98 Per Seat College/University(Private) <7,501 Students $1,325.39 Per Student >7,500 Students $1,000.84 Per Student Convenience Store (24 hours) 552,648.06 Per 1,000 sq.ft. 1 s s I Underlined text is added;Strcwk-tivough text is deleted Page 12 of 24 1 4 's i 38 7 1 1 DRAFT Impact Fce Land Use Category Rate Non-Residential(Cont'd) Convenience Store w/Gas Pumps 4 or less Fuel Positions $20,198.89 Per Fuel Position 5-6 Fuel Positions $16,375.60 Per Fuel Position 7-8 Fuel Positions $13,964.00 Per Fuel Position 9-10 Fuel Positions $11,879.77 Per Fuel Position I I-12 Fuel Positions 510,795.44 Per Fuel Position 13 or more Fuel Positions $9,822.73 Per Fuel Position Dance Studios/Gymnastics 56,295.85 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Day Care 5802.92 Per Student Furniture Store $2,053.28 Per 1,000 sq.ft. GrsolinejService Station $4,376.70 Per Fuel Position General Light Industrial 54,332.62 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Golf Course $128,222.32 $191492.00 Per 18 Holes Gulf Course-Bundled $58.054.00 Per 18 Holes Home Improvement Store $5,486.36 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Hospital 5.9,394.01 $9,322.00 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Hotel $3,632.27 53.544.00 Per Room Hotel-All Suites $2,204.30 Per Room Manufacturing $2,394.71 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Marina $1,967.92 Per Berth(Dry/Wet) Mine/Commercial Excavation $5.62 Per 1,000 cubic yards Mini-Warehouse 5882.65 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Motel 52,347.81 Per Room Movie Theater $25,202.18 Per Screen Nursing Home $692.24 Per Bed Offit t 000 sa CL or less $8.114.09 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Office 6,001-50,000 sq.ft.ee-less $9,290.89 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Office 50,001-100,000 sq.ft, $7,919.53 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Office 100,001-200,000 sq.ft. 56,758.29 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Office 200,001.400,000 sq.ft. $5,761.19 Pcr 1,000 sq.ft. Office Greater than 400,000 sq.ft $5,249.04 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Office-Medical Greater than 10,000 sq.ft 522,301.88 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Office-Medical 10,000 sq.ft.or less $14,780.06 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Underlined text is added;gauek.titr sigh text is deleted Page 13 of 24 39 • DRAFT 1 Impact Fee Land Use Category Rate Non-Residential(Cont'd) Pharmacy/Drug Store 57,678.46 Per 1,000 sq.ft Quick Lube 57,920.47 Pcr Scrvuce Bay Restaurant-Drive-In $74,793.30 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Restaurant-High Turnover $1,346.03 Per Seat Restaurant-Quality Low Turnover 5847.95 Per Seat e Retail sq.ft.ctrs $5,370.00 Per 1,000 sq.ft i Retail 6.001-25.000 sq.ft, $10,064.00 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Retail 25.001-50,000 Sq.Ft.or Less $10,838.59 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Retail 50,001-100,000 Sq.Ft. $10,980.22 Per 1,000 sq.ft, Retail 100,001-150,000 Sq.Ft. $10,246.71 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Retail 150,001-200,000 Sq.Ft. $9,816.17 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Retail 200,001-400,000 Sq.Ft. $9,294,64 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Retail 400,001-600,000 Sq.Ft. $9,282.44 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Retail 600,001-1,000,000 Sq.Ft. $10,074.12 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Retail ›),000,000 Sq.Ft. $10,595.64 Pcr 1,000 sq.ft. Retail•Specialty 514,752.86 Per 1,000 sq.ft. RV Park $1,278.49 SIJ56.09 Per Site School-Elementary(Private) $584.37 Per Student School-Middle(Private) 5816.06 Per Student School-High School(Private) 5862.96 Per Student Supermarket $14,507.10 Per 1,000 sq,ft. Tire Store $6,056.66 Per Service Bay Warehouse $2,206.17 Per 1,000 sq.ft. ( 1. gi E 1 1 i 1 Underlined text is added;State! *lxosgh text is deleted Page 14 of 24 I 3 9 • t 40 i DRAFT APPENDIX A -SCHEDULE ONE ROAD IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE Phase 14.2-Effective-F: .O4-5 May 11,2015 Impact Fee Land Use Category Rate Residential Assisted Living Facility(ALF) $759.00 Per Dwelling Unit Condo/townhouse(I-2 Stories) 1+255,70 $4.567.00 Per Dwelling Unit High-Rise Condominium(3+Stories) $37689:89 53.309,00 Per Dwelling Unit Mobile Home $2,391.71 $2.966.00 Per Dwelling Unit Multi-Family(Apartments)1-10 Stories $1,313.86 $5,224QQ Per Dwelling Unit Multi-Family(Apartments)>10 Stories $2741.77 $3,329.00 Per Dwelling Unit Retirement Community $2-1-.340 $2.62$.00 Per Dwelling Unit Single Family Detached House Less than 1,500 sq.-I:6 4,000 sq,ft. $4,230.38 $7,017.00 Pcr Dwelling Unit 1,5600 2,199 sq.ft $5:752.75 rtg-144* 4,000 sq.R.or larger $6330409 £-445Q0 Per Dwelling Unit Non-Residential Auto Sales-Luxury $473-2-3,84 510319.00 Per 1,000 sq,ft. Auto Sales•New/Used $4-3,555.03 S15,910.00 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Bank/Savings:Drive-In 521,953.89 $27,300,0Q Per 1,000 sq.ft. Bank/Savings:Walk-In $20,774,00 Per 1,000 sq,ft. Business Park $7,301.31 $9.416.00 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Car Wash-Automatic $21,257.89 $31,482,00 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Car Wash-Self-Service $9,799.00 Per Service Bay Church $347;98 1328.00 Per Scat College/University(Private) <7,501 Students $1;32$.39 $1,648.00 Per Student >7,500 Students $1790044 $1,236.00 Per Student Convenience Store (24 hours) $27648,06 $65.709.00 Pcr 1,000 sq.ft. Underlined text is added:Struck through text is deleted Page 15 of 24 41 DRAFT 1 Impact Fee Land Use Category Rate I Non-Residential(Coned) Convenience Store w/Gas Pumps i- 4 or less Fuel Positions $30,19849 $24,428,0Q Per Fuel Position i r 5-6 Fuel Positions $1 ,375.660 $19,809.00 Per Fuel Position 1 7-8 Fuel Positions $13;964:00 $16.896,00 Per Fuel Position 9-10 Fuel Positions $11,879.77 $14.379.0Q Per Fuel Position 11-12 Fuel Positions $1.0;795.14 513.054,00 Per Fuel Position 13 or more Fuel Positions 59,822,73 531.891,00 Per Fuel Position Dance Studios/Gymnastics 5629--585 $7,733.00 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Day Care $802.92 S967.00 Per Student Furniture Store $2,053.28 $2.551,0Q Per 1,000 sq.ft. Gasoline/Service Station $1,376.70 $5.121.0Q Per Fuel Position General Light Industrial $4,332.62 $5.373.00 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Golf Course $193,492.00 Per 18 Holes h Golf Course-Bundled $58,054.00 Per 18 Holes Home Improvement Store $ $ 6 57.054,00 Per 1,000 sq.ft. 1 Hospital $9,322.00 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Hotel $3,544,00 Per Room Hotel-All Suites $420440 $2.734,00 Per Room Manufacturing $27391 71 $2.943.00 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Marina $k967-,91 $2.444.00 Per Berth(Dry/Wet) Mine/Commercial Excavation $3:63 $8,00 Per 1,000 cubic yards Mini-Warehouse $8825 $942.00 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Motel $2,347.81 S2.909.OQ Per Room MovierThcater $441n.1.8. $31,363.00 Per Screen Nursing Home $692.24 $972.00 Per Bed Office 6,000 sq.ft,or less 58,114.00 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Office 6,001407000 100.000 sq.ft. $97290,89 59.661.00 Pcr 1,000 sq.ft. $7,919.53 Pcr 1,000 sq.ft. Office 100,001-200,000 sq.ft. $6,758.29 $8,191.0Q Per 1,000 sq.ft. 1 Office 200,001-400,000 sq.ft. $4;-7649 $6,923.00 Per 1,000 sq.A. Office Greater than 400,000 sq.ft. 55,249:04 $6.283.00 Per 1,000 sq,ft. Office-Medical Greater than 10,000 sq,ft. $22,301-:88 526.689,00 Per 1,000 sq.ft Office.Medical 10,000 sq.ft,or less $147780.06 518,328,00 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Underlined text is added;Stwek-threaglt text is deleted Page 16 of 24 42 DRAFT Impact Fee Land Use Category Rate Non-Residential(Cont'd) Pharmacy/Drug Store $7,678.16 $9,582.00 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Quick Lube £7,920.17 $10,083.00 Per Servuce Bay Restaurant-Fast Food w/Drive-in $71,793.30 591.028.00 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Restaurant-High Turnover $1,316.03 $1,657.00 Per Seat Restaurant-Low Turnover $84-795 $1.065.00 Per Scat Retail 6,000 sq.ft.or less $5,370.00 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Retail 6,001-25,000 sq.13. $10,064.00 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Retail 25,001.50,000 Sq.Ft, $40;838.59 $13,49&,Q0 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Retail 50,001.100,000 Sq.Ft. $-1$980:24 $14.540.00 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Retail 100,001.150,000 Sq.Ft S-1-0;244-71 $13.531.012 Per 1,000 sq. • ft. Retail 150,001-200,000 Sq.Ft. $9,816.17 $12.955.00 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Retail 200,001.400,000 Sq.Ft. $4;2941 $12,244.00 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Retail 400,001-600,000 Sq.Ft. 59;2$244 512.068.00 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Retail 600,001-1,000,000 Sq.Ft. C103 112,586.00 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Retail >1,000,000 Sq,Ft. $10,59564 $12.818.00 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Retail-Specialty $17,'52:86 $18,131.00 Per 1,000 sq.ft. RV Park $1,156.00 Per Site School-Elementary(Private) $581.37 $687.00 Per Student School-Middle(Private) S841-6:06 $969.00 Per Student School-High School(Private) $862;96 $1,023.00 Per Student Supermarket 8-14,507.10 $18.064,00 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Tire Store $67056,66 $,709,00 Per Service Bay Warehouse S272.0674-7 $2,737.00 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Underlined text is added;Struok-through text is deleted Pagc 17 of 24 43 1 1 DRAFT ,41211E-P4D4X,4 SC-14F,DULE-P40 0 8FfrE,G-T-IVEJANVAR-V-1.1008 !, 1 wr,,,tryr ::,,,,e':•!*,IT:4!•11;ttft*...., VOOV..1!4;t7irtfiltr",f.,',1,;•eieelt''XIMrt:','..f.':•°'`r, -:11F-ti'XIF:4r1 ttr:4/itra.-4r ?.3'.":1nii'T.f4ii;',..;;;P.;..,c:, ,-re!,...-'-..:-...+:.1a-- -,e:V.e '.": ••••'...,.. i''':-,.••••...A« ' "•••• ' ''''' ''''. t•ty1.7.1.,...'rk s 41.ii .0...--•etr:•%•••42...e..;k,..,.:c.r... ',A•,:.'t1. .)-.4.:'..•:..:i.."77-,r:::f;•••'''•-7-r':'!'-'..Y'; cl*'-'''•:'''•••• , '. ' ' • '. • . :'' - -4'' ::t.'"ig,7;4.1.V '4?"1'11.:&!".V"'';',7.1.;4''r..:::,:.':{.4'1'..4 4...4 'AIZ11 .0::::.•Li-'.-1'''...,-;Ak:;;•'-'1;$....,z11:4 ,___,, •. ,...,': . ___Li.'.,::,“i.t.,. Au...-.:, .111.,..?:.,..:.r;::,1'41 A I ,c:.*7.)..,i±.i.... A.ii Z-'-'-..:-..,'%.....XV'"..;-F.4§4?:iltr...4.:i ,...... ':11:::''err64.;;.'.1":7;;;11 , i n''..t.ititi.C.:.VPIZPV51 vt ...,,,,......,.,: , ..„.1.111,..,::: .hv.„ ......,.„...,..,:.:i!.: J!..•;.'S r:"4*I.'..:••.11311;"12'1 VN"A t 2,.•;.7 tli..;'....IT':i l'V:.;;:t.'•.7......‘: V ;ti. ;IC;47'''',1:k• t1 M. 7.'•. 1• ', .;• ••• 4:•'.4 •7.6.41i.;:;:r.4..."...."...; ';.; .;•• iS.4 ...;......4.2 • "...;.It 4,'. tireill. r .7•-',•,:1'..44; , 4 •,F•-•`;9,1 _ • 44.-,,P.1,1 otri44tr4fifteisgo*,;„.,...--,.t. ,:, ,, •, 1 _,,,•_.•,.••, •,,• ?:..i)-•,,,, bur \'d....Y t.tl'i • • •'. ••••••• •-- 1 1.. i• ;•ti''J.:xt' .:.,:"*." ;-.'"- :•t,!7:),,,q,.c , • f, • Ki-; , •"' •:',•",;:'% ••-•ig...:e!-••, imt.::•;• %%3-'4•IS!;,,likk.'i,',' •I.,-vs.::•'s,.••, ."f.e.:t••, --.4. ..!,:".".• ••.•,::.et-s$!..1,.• ...r...,:ti ..4,‘,-.24.4.,.„,.;;•:,;(,,,,,ts• .... . .....-; ,. ..-.7.,.;.,..:.:..k.t.:.,..•-.,i0•:ii,,F.:.e.O.A P,:' ';''... .' ;.:::•StyyAn+..t3::::iirt14, ..:.:-,..-.‘..%- ...4,,,p,‘T., i:-.A,60.1.....:,-,,..w,i.i.!.;••. ..= . ,. , ...5--.,47, 1:. k`i'4•.! rk..•. : .. ..i•Air,112• ..ii-C.A.::4 2i:. . -•;•,•,-tl.f,..1".•,........-a 4,,,,...e..r, 4 ,10.,.r..9, 4.,„;...4,,..,.., .......;:•%k.:::!%-.)1tSI N ..,'-k' s'. `, .-.1,,-.S.f ,IN:1;:!, riFr:•:`1: , r .., 64 $3,722.30 ;:::- ?;.•.- "a.." i 71•••:'''';". • ':... . •.., ,I. 4 3i,g, $3149 ;1,1)•.:.••:,:•.,-,.. '"'..Nr44,-.•5,•,••••'.-•••••••',•:;• 44-.4 i ,.....?•-•:.:,..,11,•‘.1 ,.:424,ic.• •cv. c........1,4,•.... .;.,::„...i. ,::„..:,.:*Si,..';: •::',•z•gio .„;t4 .7.' .; ..... , ,.:,•:'•;', ..4•4 i;'::.,'••• •-: .-. .. : . -;-, -.... ••. ; AF/350 •,s....'•! .,'-"':"' '7' .*:: ., .... .•.;*• :'.f. invalue33,722.30 ERGAIAL-4:1E-m :•''...: l'‘: ;;;'•' ..-.:iT:,;'::'-':-1.•.` ,7•V••••••;.i'r'').•••••' ; of 1.0) '...'.'' ••.':''.;'',..-•':f•;''-‘4;:''.,a,'.!);;;;.:.Ti•;.'-•''..- oetimed 12-ER $3,-6-1-0,-44) ..• •.-,.. ..!'.4•':•.,..,:;,J,, , ., „:,..;... .p..... .. . &OR fiFfintnItHri-volue ERG-VALLIC•44 •' '''':..".i•.-'t ;P. '*p";:t.,,11...s441.f.;••itY4::::•4?] te-the 137616.49) ;•.!4,4 nearee4 $3422,38 • t :: : (minimumvalue.::. • • ',,,,t ••••••.-,:.-.s.,,, F:z.Irx..j..,;i,..., • tenth) 's •.'" • 4 .......1%:hyllk.:',.It Ti7....,1.%Pil $3,722.39) ...;i .,:`..,'.i'....•!7::••+:".st,, • .-t,ii'-' :;),.C il'-`1•,, *;,"1.41r::.}P,-14',''.4f i.z.T',704., •SW..,1'',IK.':sfif,p17''...''.,',',54:,r.•:T71..!•:'. . i '..::i., •‘,.!.;..it':'..., i,, I' T. ;,.7;14-,i4:,..-i'4'ti,..... ::•••••::.,.4 ;• ,.- p.,- : .st„...-,... .-..,... ;•• .....•.1.0..••-..,._ ...,,,-...•., - '• -4-i!:fre its' - .;.:.1.'A.;;ii.:4.4ik.'.4.:1 , ' ..•. ,-,:i..ft. Aii,-,:...::1 .w.41'.;.6.-11: : ••'..,a•• 1,-.rii:.....,m,.,',... ..f.,...:,0.,,..a, v • ;Iv,. ".1 - # . - iii*;•...,r171e.,'-.P-1•44 , -Iirii12TXV'i- J4 .1. .:i'.Y.W,..c.•.W.k•,...4/440.4.p.i. ).;.?.,„f, . ,.......,"'.it,' 3. .•i?.1 AftiT, . ,...;,.....4...,..);•". ti..-,t=r4, It\s• ' • ....14,-..5,...,,,,p,. i.W2,......t.;:.. t', • ',.-•,• :,...-.' .7..,- ,, if:_,,ii.: ,l:' •.e•,-•„1. ,-,11-' ''..-.11.:,1,:,41.V.4 ••••'., : -,'i.,;i4.-•Li 1•T,T7,:?"tt!' '':i '-'1!;^:12.4 [ '-i.s.r•r••• ', '-4 :'-i• - ''''"1--4* ;W.'./7.-.Vii=- ...':-'''',-'StV-i-$'10 eti: -)tuyer ---4 4r-1-4. r'"' .,.. •-,,,..•,• Sts:i. L'ill-,.-......-;:,k,:tt,;707„..P'...p,...:'=.2 4.: '-' -,A4:.o: ' •^-'.4.. • i''''') .,,' '. •,•-- .-. 7'!1:.' '. : .' • ;..0.4' '..:'. • ."""' ' " .t 7•' liZ''" A.:,''',4 L. .... (.t.t.1-2- 4:*; ,,... ....1-',.N.:.•-2•:.....;.,-,:st...,:-,A., .1.; ,.'.'i 01-1c...A.:(4.Laiit , ,,:.:v•,.! ?.:.i •-•.„ : ..-'.;!:: :14,, :••„::•••:'-1,•• •;•.‘ •• •s• •if.• ... ."-..•$::,;;‘. ,.,:,..„4-v,.•.r.- ,,•,:. 7-, /: '•.,•,1:•-,,: '7'''''.'• '-•!:4:...7'4:..cir,,':Liti: ! - • i•,••a:.i.:Ffiani,..:7J4..4.7 :t.::-.7i-,:p...,, :.,•,!.-....;-- elPIAL.,.4. ',,475'. ,rtS••,•i .,..::•....:•, ,I . ,....!, ;.; .....-:- 1.e_j...., .....-1......,.. 1 ..-.'! 1.:'ql? ,,VA04;-15;',. Iffttl,%•4 Z147;..f.4';'-,i •Ci ....:t:;:.•...'.....:'•• ....3r!.".,..... . .'''''•.'..Z...:.'''t•f4 i:r• ':' • . r . . " .',„•,.!..:" 043 Per Unit 51,10148 $1,228.44 - . ..••• •• :....,...r 1,...•;:?.-....-,tp.:.-...:.;:,,-; ' ,-,...-. ,.... ;-.-•,.e.,... ):•;...,........r..,4ii,Q,...,8.,.;,:- • . .'...- .'2.. •...,•;.,•:.7.? ?... ...:•••.;;V.,,';,.•:).'itv:•7,.4.:;:-t., 128F-Ialcdt $2,125,11 $21443-45 „‘ ..,: ..-. •,.•t••-•"i , 1:1• '.••.,"!,,,.i•.•-_,•::.1 . • tielOsatial-1404.4,494;49441#9:' 1- Pcir Unit $376-1640 $3,422,30 ,•,,-,:!;,‘,..'11:,-,' l's't, •.;',::'" ;•?•:.•.:•'l''...!,:•'2.: i '::i•'•,sf'',,,,:77.V i,IST4.•,:-..:7:.'•A' '''.1 .'i' ' :4... ACC-4-3458 1 ?!•:„1.•- 1--.1 k •:'-'4:...".• .;..:";:.:-..''','A'',-: '""'_":-",;,' ' t% (Rain-kiatiie G4A-G-Via.t4g-* $3422,30 :;• ,,.i, ;,:i..;•S•2!i• . .- •. of 1•0) I ;.4 _:.;41:: :•:44 i:',...,•ii,•;1,14.,;.,•14:1;:t•as,,,,f;•••c"•%'.:---t, (mantled $3T64641-9 - • -••••• .:• - 1.--"!:•:•:--._t•--' -4: .'' ' (ththimwn-velee - 1'I.('•?Al'11:::::k4".f!-K;'1".'t"If..,11.:".t:f„,....i','••••lit te-tlae EFtC VALUE)4 -- ':'. ' •-* ,-''.7'..-Y!,'2,-••:,:-1.-1,t,,..44S:,t";-:.,Z;••• $3,6•18,49) Ree4 $3,722.39 I • •:,„. •,•., -,•4 ..''' .•i, tenth) (mthithein-valoe i ' ''-‘•--,c-t•d;f i...Ir:•s::44::.1:,;•.`.•t'1. ". " '.c 7• • :•.'''':;•i'fi,";•%'. ...4‘lY: ;;•:' . $3,722.39) *•S'''.'..1':4'3;;;''..•:,'%t:.'. ,..,`-:. '.•- ,... -: ; '.'' '.' AgR°W44444:1147?I'ilV.': '....1' '.f.•.•' 1.' *.••;$:.:.'•e...; ':: %'•'Z ':.....I.S. ADF- -Aver-age-Da4y-Ffews-tef-pcoposed-use-ae-previded-by-EOR 1 E-GR- Efiginoer-of-Rossarcl-for-project ERG- Ectuivelent-Res3dentia4-Conneetion-(1-646-=•350-gallons-per-day.) 1 I Underline tcxt added;Stftselt-threagls text is deleted. Page l 8 of 24 1 1 41 I 44 • 1. . . ___ ._.. .- ______ I I ; I i DRAFT 146 1-RESsnc r�2 W ERG, 1AI = .: R 6 I M.PAc' - y ^ '' � �pt p �,. • EQ v4L,5N M4•14 MAX M`N 14AX ;4 0 4- $3-,-44-5,04-� $2754-540 -I 14 2:8 2775449 8338.00 3736740 8488:00 444 2,6 6 87879.00 17,075..40 9,13940 47; 3 6,1 8 17,417.00 27,32-0:04 14792-7<00 26,12040 3 84 51.9 27,662.00 187,184:00 28,472.00 192,971 4 i4 128.9 187,825,00 490,199.00 192734540 443494-00 6 4-2.9 357.9 140,535,00 1,222,229,00 453,135.00 1,258,01949 8 358 608 17222757-0,0-0 2,049,000.00 1,258,370.00 2,109.00 Underline text added;S~'•;-teagla text is deleted. Page 19 of 24 45 1 DRAFT " APPENDIX A SCHEDULE TWO-EFFECTIVE Februa 17 2015 1 WATER& WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE 1. ERC=Equivalent gesl4enlial Connection ADF et Average Daily Flow ��( ; •;;;;<�� ,� '.12!'s3t�3ktt�/41�'.=iN�D.ISII A"tL1C'.MI�71=1�t•ra';•, �•• •. r' ,�'':•:' :r.Y 3 ''It..a7 n}„}}t,.'..ee S.: :•o�r r•,f. '''',7'::''',t.!1.'.‘:.:' , .�;:n..., n.t.,,•,;e'r-x.ar ;., ri.;, :x}.wic.:! .itc eM�^ .rf :3. ,:•.c Llvinb Sodce 1SQ"FT E13axf aC�or ria of i sf,,,,",„,„1:' 1 44 1 ` Gro c<Fee n 5„ 13! x ` ... - -Via:"%• -fit._- -. •• •v4IP+!ii._ ,h7.k i -. .,r... „( .u. ,'•i 0 TO 4.999Per ERG 1 52,600 $231$ 1ANO tap Mase THAN 4 TO11.fl5 (fixed at 1 ERC1 Per ERC ERC value x E2,600 5.000 OR MORE Varies(minimum Vanes(Reference (based on ADF /minimum value $2.515 (OR MORE MAN 4 TOILETS% valve Of 11 F�rmUl� S�6f>Ol Meier Size Rotel ` r"''''-",- ''x " iy:,: .'`' -' Meter size determined by the total fixture value connected to the meter and aooMna applicable provision ,,.... .,;.,;.; ; in the current edition of the Florida Plumbing Code, Reference the Meter Sizing Foray ` me 4;fih'.4DE can'iiii,--0 r When ADF Is In Gallons Per Minute IGPM1 then use the formula flADF-3011301+1 MI:ILTT=EAlllfll l'`i_MAttElt WitTEgED>! •.' '.,e;sj1•! 41,'I,L•'far iK of r'•ct ri "=Afar - (,hint;idoia.lSOi1T” Basra of Fes. . ., 0TO75Q per Unit an Effi RN 1 751 TO 1.500 Per Ung DAZ 31-740 $1.685 1.501 OR MORE Per Unit LQ WM 52.515 i .'MetelsBFte MeteMeter size determined by the total fixture value connected m the meter and acoMna applicable Provision in the current edition of the Florida Piumbino Code. Reference the Meter Stzkta Form, J$ • • l tea,.rra�w• .:•... _ • ' ? • -�• ' .. ,i' •Q-�rai,;�v� Y;:k(i1X' .fs-�? "'y��,•:•i.='K�SjT.`Ale% ,(:;+ r ;.z P.4 . i ��1� :: >++.ty.•}: � �yr L t ! - - •.-,,,,it i Y .1 Ii in - -i.".", - - IIL"..t L-a- -n,"J.^ All Non-Residential expansions,or replacements are unposed only if the meter slze is Increased as a result of the alleration. expansion,of reels nt, meat S!ie', ;'"•••. •ERG'Fi ode tit.' .;':rz.._;Watee'1nibleir Ai';-4.i waif eivktirimt9iretFei `, 3/4 Inch 1,00 $2,800 f2,11§ s 1 inch 1,$7 $4,340 $4,20 f=17211ldT • 333 $11:5'66 i .55;3775+. 2 Inch $13,860 $13,405 3 inch 15.40 539,000, 7„725 4 inch 33.33 586,650 3,82$ 8 inch 66.61, 3173,140 1187„571 8 Inch 116,¢7 $303,344 $293,425 Meter Sfia Nple . Meter size determined by the total fixture value connected to the meter and aoolylno applicable Provision in the current edition of the Florida Plumbing Code, Reference the Meter Sizing Form, (1) )~RC Factors by Meter Size for Non-Residential Customers Baled Capacity F.BCe Meter Size (0allons oer minute) Factor i21 3.L4:: 30 .1102 L" 59 I Ida; j,Qg DID r 1Sr4 ,t.11 i 4g 15.00 1 i, 1.000 33.33 $_ 2.240 66.67 E 3,500 116.67 t =Used on tine need tamale.ye,tefhnrcai uerirralbnl of meters used Irx 141 county F t2tBsnects rated pigs)aIle vnolcev of meter divided Fla 30 pations Der middle I Wat¢d on tna raise eayadly limelinf,d+eter size f t i Underlin:d text Is added;StllretanMeugh text is deleted 1 ?liate24 s 1 DRAFT APPENDIX A-SCHEDULE FOUR CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES(JAIL)IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE Phase I-Effective February 17,2015 Impact Fee Land Use Category Rate Residential Assisted Living Facility $209.03 Per Dwelling Unit condo/townhouse(1-2 Stories? $245.32 Per Dwelling Unit High-Rise Condominium t34- lories125 45.32 Per Dwelling Unit Mobile Home/RV tie-down $372.18 Per Dwelling Unit/Site Multi-Family 5252.37 $21661 Per Dwelling Unit Multi-Family-More than 10 Stories $216.61 Per Dwelling.Unit Single Family Less than 1,500 sq.It $443.23 Per Dwelling Unit 1,500 to 2,499 sq.ft. $488.30 Per Dwelling Unit 2,500 sq.ft.or larger $535.89 Per Dwelling Unit Non-Residential Auto Sales(I,uxurvl $268.81 Per 1,000 sq.d. Auto Sales(New/Used) $435.01 suarA Per 1,000 sq.ft. Bank/Savings:Drive-1n 56044; $595.03 Per 1.000 sq.R. Bank/Savings:Walk-in $655.15 $581.99 Per 1,000 sq.ft Business Park $252.37 $250.54 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Car Wash-Self-Service 5155.50 Per Service Bay Car Wash-Automated $410.42 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Church $145.30 Per 1,000 sq.ft. College/University(Private) x7,501 $25.49 Per Student -7,500 S17.84 Per Student Convenience Store(2411ours) 51,394.43 Pes1,000 sq.ft. Convenience Store‘v/Gas Pumps $ 48630 Per-Fuel-Pasitiert 9 o!less Fuel Positions 51.135.26 Per Fuel Position 5.6 Fuel Position 5965.63 Per Fuel P itu tion 7-8 Fuel Position; SUM Per Fuel Position 9-10 Furl Positions 5767.2$ Per Fuel Position I 1•l2 Fuel Positin u $717.70 Per Fuel Position 13 or more Fuel Positions $675.94 per Fuel Position Dance Studio/Gym' $579.3$ Per 1.000 sq,St. Day Cave $12.75 Per Student Furniture Store $61.17 Per 1,000 sq ft. Gesolin&Service Station $524.7$ $498.47 Per Fuel Position Underlined text is added;8truele4thro agh text is deleted Page 21 of24 - . - - 47 DRAFT I Impact Fee Land Use Category Rate 1. Non-Resldenttai(Confd) 3 Golf Course $4,955.70 Per 18 Holes Golf Course-Bundled $1.521 51 Per 18 Holes Home Improvement Store $453.76 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Hospital $428-62 $357,5j Pcr 1,000 sq.ft Hotel $201.39 Per Room Industrial-General Light $175.90 Per 1,000 sq,ft s horrory,4ute-Seies $282-96 Per aq ftz 1 Monufeent0ng $130.49 Per 1.000 so.fj. Marina S48.43 Pcr Berth 1 Mini-Warehouse 54744 $15.66 Per 1,000 sq.ft. t Motel 5191.19 Per Room Movie Theater S1,524.44 Per Screen Nursing Home $183.54 Per Bed Office 4.000 60;996 sq.ft.or less $361.98 $260.95 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Office 6.001$0;991-100,00D sq.ft. $32&83 $310.57 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Office 100,001-200,000 sq.ft. $2410,44 $263.59 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Office 200,001-400,000 sq.ft. $439,63 $221,83 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Office Greater than 400,000 sq,ft. $293:94 $200,95 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Office-Medical greater than 10.000 so.Ft $438:46 $433.23 Per 1,000 sq.ft, Office-Medical 10.000 sq ft.or less $297.57 Per 1.000 sq,ft. Pharmacy/Drug Store $492.00 Per 1,000 sq.ft Quick Lube 5295.71 Per Service Bay RV Park $137.65 5330.49 Per Site Restaurant•Fast Food wfl)rive-In $2,296.85 Per 1,000 sq.ft Restaurant-High Turnover £68.82 Per seat Restaurant-Qeelity Low_rumovice $56.08 Pcr scat Retail 50,000 Sq.Ft.or Less $624.55 Per 1,000 sq.ft. ) Retail 50,001-100,000 Sq.Ft. $67044 5642,01 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Retail 100,001-150,004 Sq,Ft. 5S°$31 5582.2.) Per-..1,000..sq.-f1. Retail 150,001-200,000 Sq.Ft. $726.52 $717.70 Per 1,000 sq.It I Retail 200,001.400,000 Sq.Ft. $63734 5610.69 Per 1,000 sq.ft f Retail 400,001.600,000 Sq.Ft. $65045 5636.79 Per 1,000 sq.ft. 1 Retail 600,001-1,000,000 Sq.Ft. $654:93 5631.57 Per 1.000 sq.ft. 1 Retail >1,000,000 Sq.Ft. $532.78 $545.45 Per 1,000 sq.ft. 1 t Retail•Specialty $430.82 Per 1,000 sq.R i School-Elementary(Private) $1 5.29 Per Student School-Middle(Private) $17.84 Per Student School-High School(Private) 520.39 Per Student Supermarket S522.59 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Tire Store $341.59 Per Service Bay Warehouse 73 07 per 1.000 sq.ft UndcrliD.r text is added;S&nick-through text is deleted Page 22 of 24 48 DRAFT APPENDIX A-SCHEDULE FOUR CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES(JAIL)IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE Phase 2,-Effective Feb-••--,.Ar 177,30115 May 11,2015 Impact Fee Land Use Category Rate Residential Assisted Living Facility $209:03 $219.22 Per Dwelling Unit Condo/Townhouse(t-2 Stories) $245.32 Per Dwelling Unit High-Rise Condominium(3+Stories) $245.32 Per Dwelling Unit Mobile Home/RV tie-down 537248 $375.81 Per DwellingUnitSite Multi-Family $216.61 Per Dwelling Unit Multi-Family-More than 10 Stories $216.61 Per Dw_c)linst Unit RetirementCommuniv $229.66 Per Dwelling Unit Single Family Less than 1-500 4,000 sq.ft. 3413 23 $472 37 Per Dwelling Unit 1,500 to 2;499-eq-11 $48830 Per-Dwelling- nit 2400 4,000 sq.ft.or larger S535.89 £54023 Per Dwelling Unit Non-Resident's] Auto Sales(Luxury) $268.81 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Auto Sales(New/Used) $383.64 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Hank/Savings..Drive-In $595.03 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Bank/Savings:Walk-In $581.99 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Business Park 5250.54 Per 1,000 sq.R Car Wash-Self-Service 51-55:40 $227.05 Pcr Service Bay Car Wash-Automated $44042 $459 32 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Church 84530 $783 Per i 00-sq-Ar mg College/University(Private) <7,501 $23,49 $26 1 Q Per Student >7,500 3-t 84 $18 21 Per Student Convenience Store (24 hours) $4394.43 $1.427.56 Per 1,000 sq.ft Convenience Store wwGas-Pumps $4 1486-24 Pe Peeitierr 4 or less Fuel Positions $1,135.26 Per Fuel Position 5-6 Fuel Positions $965.63 Per Fuel Position 7-8 Fuel Positions $858.62 Per Fuel Position 9-10 Fuel Positions $767.28 Per Fuel Position !1-12 Fuel Positions $717.70 Per Fuel Position 13 or more Fuel Positions $675.94 Per Fuel Position Dance Studio/Gyrus $579.38 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Day Care $12.75 $13 05 Per Student Furniture Store $61-47 $62.64 Per 1,000 sq.ft Gasoline/Service Station S498.47 Per Fuel Position Underlined text is added;S tre4tehroeegh text is deleted Page 23 or 24 49 1 DRAFT 1 i Impact Fee Land Use Category Rate i Non-Residential(Cont'd) Golf Course $4;955.70 $5.073.45 Per 18 Holes Golf Course-Bundled $1,521.51 Per 18 Holes Horne Improvement Store 5433-76 $472.37 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Hospital $357.54 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Hotel $281739 $7.1$1$ Per Room Industrial-General Light $443,98 $180.0@ Per 1,000 sq.fl. Manufacturing $130.49 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Marina $48:43 $49 59 Per Berth Mini-Warehouse $15.66 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Motel $49149 $198.34 Per Room Movie Theater $1,524.44 51.560.64 Per Screen Nursing Home 348354 52,1411 Per Bed Office 6,000 sq.ft.or less 5260.98 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Office 6,001-100,000 sq.ft. $310.57 Per 1,000 sq.fl. Office 100,001-200,000 sq.ft. S263.59 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Office 200,001-400,000 sq.ft. $221.83 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Office Greater than 400,000 sq.ft. 5200.95 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Office-Medical greater than 10,000 sq.ft. $433.23 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Office-Medical 10,000 sq.ft.or less $297.52 Per 1,000 sq.It Pharmacy/Drug Store $492:80 $511.52 Per 1,000 sq.ft Quick Lube $295.71 $302.74 Per Service Bay RV Park $130.49 Per Site Restaurant-Fest Food w/Drive-In $2296:83 52.322.72 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Restaurant-High Turnover 36&82 $70.44 Per seat Restaurant-Low Turnover $56:08 $57.42 Per seat Retail 3000 6.000 Sq.Ft.or Less $624.53 $639.40 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Retail 6.001.25,000 Sq.Ft. $639.40 per 1.000 sq ft Retail 2 .0150.000 $639.4Q Per 1.000 sa ft Retail 50,001.100,000 Sq.Ft. $642.01 Per 1,000 sq.R. Retail 1-00,001-150,000 Sq.Ft. $SgT.21 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Retail 150,001-200,000 Sq.Ft. $717.70 Per 1,000 sq.ft Retail 200,001-400,000 Sq.Ft. $610.69 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Retail 400,001-600,000 Sq.Ft. $636.79 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Retail 600,001-1,000,000 Sq.Ft. $631.57 Per 1,000 sq.ft Retail >1,000,000 Sq.Ft. $545.45 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Retail•Specialty $430-82 $441.04 Per 1,000 sq.ft. School-Elementary(Private) 31349 $15.66 Per Student School-Middle(Private) 37:84 $18.27 Per Student School-High School(Private) $28:39 $20.88 Per Student . Supermarket S-522759 $535.01 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Tire Store $34449 $349.71 Per Service Bay Warehouse 73.07 Per 1,000 sq.ft. Underlined text is added;Bowels-through test is deleted Page 24 of 24 ____. ___ _ _._ 50 -_ ._ DRAFT APPENDIX C EXISTING AND PROPOSED WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE IN COUNTY FORMAT MG DRAFT Appendix C Collie'Count'Water-Sewer District Waltz and Wastewater impact Fee Study RTistint and R'ognsed Water and Wastewater System Tweet Fee Schedule in County Format RESIDENTIAL INDIVIDUALLY METERED LIVING SPACE(SQ.FT) ERC Factor ipwrrmr BASIS OF FEE METER SIZE WATER IMPACT FEE WATER IMPACT FEE WASTEWATER WASTEWATER RoanioalaiConnoonae ALLOCATION IMPACT FEE IMPACT FEE I EXISTING I PROPOSED i EXISTING PROPOSED 1 0 TO 4,999 1.00 Per ERC ifi0ed et l ERC) 1 314' 826600 I 52562 $,346 07,'101 HA okt+0110 MORE TN/Toserm 50000R MORE vases(minimum value or l i Per ERC(based on ADE Varies(Reference Meter DRi-rt.WGu47,d0w1 ERC VALUE x 52,552 52,7X1 nOR MORE THAN 4T01LETa1 commis) Size Notes) immems.alW424004 (minimum value 52.5621 Mein Sin Note Meta etre determined Ny the Wlel fixture value connected to the meter and applying applicable p000151on In the current edition of the Florida Plumbing Code.Reference the Meter Sizing Form. ERC with AOF Formula When ADP is in Gefl,ns Pei Minute IGPM)then use the}ennuis 11ADF40)139)*1 RESIDENTIAL MASTER METERED 1 LIVING SPACE(5051) ERC Isbviranr6r BASIS OF FEE METER SIZE WATER IMPACT FEE WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE 1MarRweraanasaiedn ALLOCATION 1 EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED 0 TO 750 0.33 PER UNIT Per GPM of Enpneer of 6960 $645 6870 5891 Record 751 TO 1,500 0.87 PER UNIT Per GPM or Engineer 01 64,740 51.718 84466 51,809 Record 1,501 OR MORE 1.00 PER UNIT Per GPM or RAwe0r7lneer m +30 5311 52,502 83,546 52,701 Meter Size Nets Meter size deterrnmad by the(mal fixture value connected to the meter and applying applicable provision in the=meal edition elite Fronde Plumbing Code.Reference the Meter Sizing Fenn, NON•RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER TYPE ERC/eN"re"Iam"""r I BASIS OF FEE METER SIZE(I) WATER IMPACT FEE WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE FonaW RFeaanDI I ALLOCATION EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED Non•Residenaai 1.00 PER METER SIZE 3)4" 82+300 52,512 $2.545 $2,701 Non•ResIdnnaal 1.67 PER METER SIZE 1" 84.340 54,278 94,207 54.510 Na Residential 3.33 PER METER SIZE 1117 564160 58.531 1 332,37 8 35.900 Nan-Residential 5.33 PER METER SIZE 2' 612460 $13.655 814,106 914.396 Mon-Realdenael 15.50 PER METER SIZE 3" 830,000 536,430 697,776 540.515 Non•Resldeneel 33.33 PER METER SIZE a" 606460 $85391 86x,138 590.024 Nan-Resldentiai 56.67 PER METER SIZE 5' 64:4340 51764015 5453476 $180,471 Non•Readentlal 116.67 PER METER SIZE 8" 4703,340 5255 908 6293.426 $315,125 Meter Sin Note Meter size determined by the total Setae value connected to the meter and applying applicable provision in the currant edition of the Montle Plumbing Code.Reference the Meter Sizing Form. CO ERC Factors by Meter Sloe for Non-Residential Customers Rated Capacity ERC Near Ste Iee$nns our minute)Ill Pact,...121 314" 30 1.00 r 50 1,67 1_1!2" 100 3.33 2" 160 5.33 3" 450 15.00 4" 1,000 33.33 6^ 2,000 66.67 6" 3,500 116.67 [1]Based on the rated capacities per technical specifications o1 meters used by the County. [2]Reflects rated hydraulic capacity of meter divided by 30 gallons per minute based an the rated capacity of smallest meter size. 51