DSAC Agenda 03/01/2017DSA C
Meeting
March 1, 2017
3:00 PM
280D N. Horseshoe Drive
Growth Management Department
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AGENDA
March 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
Approval of Agenda
III. Approval of Minutes from January 4, 2017 and February 1, 2017
IV. 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
Note: These items have been continued from the 211/2017 DSAC meeting:
A. School and Parks Impact Fees Indexing [Amy Patterson]
B. Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update Study [Amy Patterson]
VII. Old Business
VIII. Committee Member Comments
IX. Adjourn
Next Meeting Dates:
April 5, 2017
GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm
May 3, 2017
GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm
June 7, 2017
GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm
July 5, 2017
GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm
August 2, 2017
GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm
Page 1 of 1
February 1, 2017
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, February 1, 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
David Dunnavant
James E. Boughton (Absent)
Clay Brooker (Excused)
Brad Schiffer
Chris Mitchell
Robert Mulhere (Excused)
Mario Valle (Excused)
Stan Chrzanowski (Excused)
Norman Gentry
Marco Espinar (Absent)
Ron Waldrop (Excused)
Laura Spurgeon DeJohn (Excused)
Jeremy Sterk
ALSO PRESENT: Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, Staff Liaison
Lorraine Lantz, Transportation Planning
Eric Fey, Sr. Project Manager, Public Utilities
Mike Ossorio, Director, Code Enforcement Division
Matt McLean, Director, Development Review
Rich Long, Plan Review and Inspection Manager
Claudine Auclair, Manager, Business Center
Ken Kovensky, Director, Operations and Regulatory Management
Amy Patterson, Director Impact Fee Administration
February 1, 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 239-252-2400.
I. Call to Order - Chairman
Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3:00pm.
A quorum could not be established so the meeting was held as an informational forum with no formal
actions to be taken by the Committee.
II. Approval of Agenda
None
III. Approval of Minutes from January 4, 2017 Meeting
None
IV. Public Speakers
None
V. Staff Announcements/Updates
A. Code Enforcement Division update — [Mike Ossorio]
Mr. Ossorio provided the report "Code Enforcement Division Monthly Report" for information
purposes. He noted:
Half of the Division Staff has completed the requirements of the Florida Association of Code
Enforcement (F.A.C.E.) Phase IV training.
A "door knocker card" program has been established whereby officers will be leaving thank
you notifications for complying with County Codes.
The Division Staff will be donning new uniform shirts.
B. Public Utilities Division update — [Tom Chmelik or designee]
Mr. Fey reported Staff met on January 19, 2017 to initiate changes to the Division's conveyance and
acceptance process for small projects. The Ordinances under review include 134-58 (Construction
approval and document submissions); 134-59 (Construction observation and inspection) and 134-60
(Utilities conveyance policies and procedures). The Amendments are anticipated to be completed
within a year.
C. Growth Management Department/Transportation Engineering and/or Planning — [Jay Ahmad
or designee]
Ms. Lantz provided an update on transportation projects noting an intersection and corridor study
for Pine Ridge Road from I75 to Livingston Road is underway.
The Committee requested Staff review the timing of the traffic lights on 1111 Ave to determine
any changes that may be made to improve traffic flow in tine area during the work associated with
the Vanderbilt Drive bridge replacement project.
D. County Fire Review update — [Shar Hingson and/or Shawn Hanson]
Ms. Hingson reported:
0 Plan reviews are at a 4 day turn around and inspections are at a 3 day turnaround.
February 1, 2017
• Educational classes will be held by the International Firestop Council in Estero on February
21, 2017.
• The Lee County Fire Department will be holding a poker run fund raiser.
• On February 4th and 5th education classes on fire codes will be held by the Department at
Harley Davidson and designed for general contractors, fire alarm contractors, etc.
E. North Naples Fire Review update — [Dale Fey]
Mr. Fey reported building plan reviews at a 7 day turn around, Site Development Plan reviews are at
a 4 day turn around and Inspections are at a 1 — 2 day turn around.
F. Operations & Regulatory Mgmt. Division update [Ken Kovensky]
Mr. Kovensky submitted the "Collier County January 2017 Monthly Statistics" which outlined the
building plan and land development review activities. The following was noted during his report:
• Permit applications are up 9 percent year over year in January 2017.
• Permits issued in January decreased year over year, however issuance of commercial permits
tripled.
• 17,000 inspections were completed in January 2017, an increase of 11 percent year over year.
Fee Study
Mr. Kovensky reported:
• The consultant was on site from January 31 thru February 2 and reviewed the length of time
for specific tasks and Staff provided the costs, including the "overhead" associated with the
endeavors.
• The data may be input to a model which analyzes the costs of the process.
• The first draft of the report is anticipated to be delivered over the next several weeks and will
be presented to the DSAC prior to it being heard by the BCC.
Conflict of Interest Forms for Applicants
Mr. Kovensky reported:
• The County Attorney's Office is considering requiring applicants to submit a "conflict of
interest" form identifying any relationships they may have with a Staff Member,
Committee/Board Member, etc.
• The requirement would apply to building and land use applications and is in the "discussion"
stages with no time frame for implementation.
The Committee noted the procedure may not be necessary given Committee Members and Staff
are currently subject to County ethics standards.
G. Development Review Division update [Matt McLean]
Mr. McLean reported
• Plats recorded in January 2017 numbered 700 with only 2,000 in total being filed in 2016.
• Staff is reviewing the requirement of mylar sheets being provided at a fee of $17 each given
technological advances allow the information to be accessed online through the Collier
County Clerk's office.
VI. New Business
February 1, 2017
A. Permitting Processes [Claudine Auclair]
Ms. Auclair provided an overview of the process for applicants who file for permits via walking
into the lobby at the Growth Management Department building. She noted:
• Applicants are required to check in at the information desk where a cursory review of their
application is completed and they are given a number and requested to "sit and wait" while
the application is processed.
• The process time is generally 10 to 15 minutes until the "payment slip" is executed for the
applicant.
• The goal is for the process to take less than 15 minutes and data analysis indicates within the
last 6 months, of 15,000 applications, the average wait time is 12 minutes 53 seconds.
Eighty percent of the applications were processed within the 15 minute time frame.
• In order to ensure all processes (walk in, electronic, etc.) is as efficient as possible, Staff is:
• Reviewing the process to determine any changes that may be made to improve the
process including training of Staff, identifying any areas where the required access to
CityView is impeded, etc.
• Reviewing changes which may be made to the electronic filing of applications such
as the reviewers' ability to access certain documents.
• Meeting with the major users of electronic plan filing platform at their place of
business to provide training on the use of the system.
• Scheduling educational classes for those professionals interested in electronic plan
filing. They will notify Mr. Schiffer on the schedule so he may notify any interested
members of the local AIA.
The Committee recommended a `ticket number" display screen be installed so those waiting in the
lobby are aware of where they are in queue.
B. School and Parks Impact Fees Indexing [Amy Patterson]
Ms. Patterson presented the documents "Parks and Schools Impact Fee Indexing and Water
Wastewater Impact Fee Study Update " and "Collier County 2016 Indexing Calculations for Parks
and Recreation Facilities and School Impact Fees Draft Report" for information purposes.
Continued —See Item C.
C. Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update Study [Amy Patterson]
Ms. Patterson presented the documents "Appendix B Existing Water and Waste Water Impact Fee
Ordinance" for information purposes.
Chairman Varian reported no quorum was present for a recommendation.
Ms. Patterson reported she would present the items at the next meeting as she needs a
recommendation from the Committee. Continuation of the items will not disrupt the schedule for the
items.
VII. Old Business
None
VIII. Committee Member Comments
None
19
February 1, 2017
IX. Adjourn
Next Meeting 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
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order
of the Chair at 4:45PM.
COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Chairman, William Varian
These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on as presented or as
amended
Code Enforcement Division Monthly Report
January 22 — February 21, 2017 Highlights
• Cases opened: 660
0 Cases closed due to voluntary compliance: 403
• Property inspections: 2478
0 Lien searches requested: 995
Trends
Cases Opened Per Month
1200_-
1000
M-
400
200
0
y6 y6 ti� ti6 y� tiCO
0
0
This report reflects monthly data from: January 22 — February 21, 2017
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Total Code Cases Opened Annually
2015 2016 2017
This report reflects monthly data from: January 22 — February 21, 2017
Code Inspections per Month
3500
3000
N
ry N
N
w m u N
a
2500
M
N N
�
N
2000
a
1500
1000
500
0
ti� ti�
tie tib tib ti(0 ti� tib tib
ti�
ti^
ti^
�0
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Total Code Cases Opened Annually
2015 2016 2017
This report reflects monthly data from: January 22 — February 21, 2017
December 2016 Code Cases by Category
Snipe signs omitted
Vehicles
20% Arreccnrvllse
mguu Right ot'M-V....�............. rarrcmg ouuIceniem
3% 5% 9% 2%
Abatement
26%
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 IePC) 1,1 r`ef6>ri, monthly da:a'froin: January 22 — Fe 1)t uary 21, 2017
Vehicl
30%
Temporar
January 1-21, 2017 Code Cases by Category
Snipe signs omitted
Vegetation
Requirements, Animals Arressory Use
117
Signs Right of Way Property Maintenance
1% 9% 7%
ise
jisance
atement
19%
_icensing
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 front: January 22 — February 21, 2017
January 22 - February 21 Code Cases by Category
Snipe signs omitted
Accessory Use
Vegetation Vehicles 1%
Requirements 19%
3%
Vehicle for Hire
0%
Temporary
Land
Use I
0%
Site Development
14%
Signs
8% Right of Way
4%
Commercial
Animals 0%
2% Land Use
I ,-' 12%
Noise
4%
_Nuisance
Abatement
21%
occupational Licensing
Parking Enforcement 1%
4%
Property Maintenance
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 vehicle parking
etc.
This report reflects monthly data from: January 22 — February 21, 2017
February 22, 2017
GMD Public Portal - E -Permitting Training Classes
The Growth Management Department is pleased to announce the spring schedule for E -Permitting training
classes. This year we are offering training for both permit applicants ready to begin using our E-
PermittinglElectronic Plan Review process and applicants who need a refresher on some or all E -Permitting
features of the GMD Public Portal.
Training modules have been updated and cover specific topics such as portal registration, uploading documents,
and resubmittalslcorrections. This modular approach will give us more flexibility in tailoring training sessions to
meet customer needs. We expect to have sessions for Building Permit applicants new to E -Permitting, Planning
Permit applicants new to E -Permitting, and refresher training for both. Every effort will be made to group
attendees by the type of training requested. Because the training classes are hands-on, we are limited to 20
participants per session. The presentations will generally last 45 minutes, but staff will be available for assistance
from 9:00-12:00 for the morning sessions and 1:00-4:00 in the afternoon.
The training classes will be held:
March 20, 22, 24, 28, 29 & 30, 2017
Morning Sessions will begin at 9:00 am
Afternoon Sessions will begin at 1:00 pm
Collier County Growth Management Division
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
Conference Room 610
Please RSVP by Wednesday, March 10, 2017
To RSVP, please contact our Training Coordinator, Danny Condomina, at DannvCondomina(a)colliergov.net or
239-252-6866. Please provide the type of training you are requesting and preferred dates along with a call
back number.
We are excited and look forward to seeing you at the training, but if you are unable to join us for a hands-on
session we will also be posting the training documents and videos on the Colliergov.net website.
ROAD, PARKS, JAIL AND SCHOOLS IMPACT FEE INDEXING
AND
WATER -WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED MULTI -FAMILY
2,000 Sq. Ft. Living Area
IMPACT FEE
CURRENT
PROPOSED
DIFFERENCE
CURRENT
PROPOSED
DIFFERENCE
Parks - Community (6.5%)
$876.84
$933.83
$56.99
$427.42
$455.20
$27.78
Parks - Regional (10.6%)
$2,436.09
$2,694.31
$258.22
$1,112.33
$1,230.23
$117.90
Library*
$336.05
$336.05
$159.78
$159.78
School (3.2%)
$7,470.66
$7,709.72
$239.06
$2,394.66
$2,471.29
$76.63
Road (2.3%)
$7,276.63
$7,443.99
$167.36
$5,417.29
$5,441.89
$24.60
EMS`
$142.07
$142.07
$67.50
$67.50
Jail (2.6%)
$486.54
$499.19
$12.65
$223.11
$228.91
$5.80
Fire (North Collier)
$598.26
$598.26
$304.38
$304.38
Government Buildings*
$934.44
$934.44
$443.94
$443.94
Law Enforcement*
$586.95
$586.95
$296.56
$296.56
Water -3/4" Meter
$2,600.00
$2,562.00
-$38.00
$2,600.00
$2,562.00
-$38.00
Sewer - 3/4" Meter
$2,515.00
$2,701.00
$186.00
$2,515.00$2,701.00$186.00
TOTAL
$26,259.53
$27,141.81
$882.28
$15,961.97
$16,362.68
$400.71
Change
3.36%
2.51%
OFFICE
RETAIL
GENERAL INDUSTRIAL
10,000 Sq. FT.
10,000 Sq. FT,
10,000 Sq. FT.
IMPACT FEE
CURRENT
PROPOSED
DIFFERENCE
CURRENT
PROPOSED
DIFFERENCE
CURRENT
PROPOSED DIFFERENCE
Road
$100,184.60
$102,488.80
$2,304.20
$104,363.70
$106,764.00
$2,400.30
$55,718.00
$56,999.50
$1,281.50
EMS*
$934.00
$934.00
$1,923.00
$1,923.00
$541.60
$541.60
Jail
$3,198.90
$3,282.00
$83.10
$6,585.80
$6,757.10
$171.30
$1,854.80
$1,903.00
$48.20
Fire (North Collier)
$4,171.00
$4,171.00
$8,622.30
$8,622.30
$2,418.50
$2,418.50
Government Buildings*
$6,195.10
$6,195.10
$12,754.70
$12,754.70
$3,592.10
$3,592.10
Law Enforcement*
$3,715.70
$3,715.70
$7,649.90
$7,649.90
$2,154.50
$2,154.50
Water -1"Meter
$4,340.00
$4,278.00
-$62.00
$4,340.00
$4,278.00
-$62.00
$4,340.00
$4,278.00
-$62.00
Sewer -1 " Meter
$4,200.00
4 510.003$
10.00
$4,200.00$4,510.00$310.00
$4,200.00
$4,510.00
$310.00
TOTAL
$126,939.30
$129,574.60
$2,635.30
$150,439.40
$153,259.00
$2,819.60
$74,819.50
$76,397.20
$1,577.70
Change
2.08%
1.87%
2.11%
"Previously reviewed by DSAC -to be presented to BCC February 28, 2017.
Recommendation was to accept studies but to not increase rates.
2/2/2017
Collier County
2017 Indexing Calculations for
Parks and Recreation, Schools, Correctional Facilities,
and Transportation Impact Fees
DRAFT Report
Prepared for:
Collier County
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Ph. (239) 252-8192
January 25, 2017
Tindale Oliver
1000 Ashley Drive, Suite 400
Tampa, FL 33602
Ph. (813) 224-8862, fax (813) 226-2106
E-mail: nkamp@tindaleoliver.com
DRAFT
COLLIER COUNTY
2017 INDEXING CALCULATIONS
Table of Contents
I. Introduction................................................................................................ 1
II. Calculation of Indices.................................................................................. 2
III. Application.................................................................................................. 3
Tindale Oliver Collier County
January 2017 Indexing Update
DRAFT
I. Introduction
Collier County retained Tindale Oliver to calculate the updated indices for the following impact
fee program areas:
• Community Parks;
• Regional Parks;
• Schools;
• Correctional Facilities; and
• Transportation.
The County recently completed the technical studies for government buildings, emergency
medical services facilities, law enforcement facilities, and library facilities and is the process of
adopting the updated studies. 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 five service areas listed above.
Tindale Oliver Collier County
January 2017 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, vehicles, and highway construction
separately);
• Engineering News Record (ENR) Building Cost Index;
• Turner Building Cost Index;
• RS Means Building Cost Index; and
• Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Average Roadway Construction Cost, based
on data from District 7.
Table 1 presents the updated individual indices that will be used in the calculation of the overall
indices for each program area. Indices were calculated based on the most recent two years of
data available, 2015 and 2016. 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. The land index is based on
data from the Collier County Property Appraiser. Finally, the roadway construction index utilizes
a combination of PPI Highways and FOOT District 7 data for 2015 and 2016. In the case of
roadway construction index, while the Florida data indicates an increase, the national data
suggests a decrease in cost over the past two years. Combining these two indices results in a
conservative index. Table 1 also provides a comparison to 2016 indices calculated in March 2016.
Table 1
Index Calculations
1) Calculated based on the data from 2015 and 2016
2) Calculated using 2014 and 2015 data, as available
3) Difference between the 2017 index (Item 1) and the 2016 index (Item 2)
Tindale Oliver Collier County
January 2017 2 Indexing Update
DRAFT
III. Application
Updated individual indices from Table 1 are used to calculate the combined indices for the five
service areas, which are shown in Tables 2 and 3. The total applicable index represents the
adjustment factor that should be applied to the related impact fee schedules.
Table 2
Combined Indices (Community and Regional Parks and School Facilities)
InventoryComponent
Community Parks
Distribution of
Percent of
[7017
(3)
Combined
Land
$53,857,380
40.2%
12.1%
4.9%
Site Improvements
$5,033,400
3.8%
2.6%
0.1%
Facilities/Equipment
$75,162,659
56.0%
2.6%
1.5%
Total Cost
$134,053,439
100.0.0
Total Applicable Index(s)
6.59%
Regional Parks
Land
$341,739,000
84.3%1
12.1%
10.2%
Site Improvements
$30,376,800
7.5%
2.6%
0.2%
Facilities/Equipment
$33,136,514
8.2%
2.6%
0.2%
Total Cost 1
$405,252,314
100.0.0
Total Applicable Index(s)
10.6%
School Facilities
Land
$105,394,124
5.7%
12.1%
0.7%
Buildings
$1,536,147,228
82.7%
2.6%
2.2%
Buses/Vehicles/Equipment
$215,804,974
11.6%
2.2%
0.3%
Total Cost
$1,857,346,326
100.0.0
Total Applicable Index(s)
3:2f
1) Source: Impact Fee Technical Studies
2) Distribution of each inventory component is calculated by dividing each component by the total
inventoryvalue
3) Source: Table 1
4) Percent of the total cost (Item 2) multiplied by the 2017 index (Item 3)
5) Sum of indices of each component
Tindale Oliver Collier County
January 2017 3 Indexing Update
DRAFT
Table 3
Combined Indices (Correctional Facilities and Transportation)
Inventorl component
Correctional Facilities
a
•
Land
$319,000
0.3%
12.1%1
0.0%
Buildings
$90,542,188
92.7%
2.69/6
2.4%
Equipment/Vehicles6835427
7.0%
2.2%
0.2%
Total Cost
$97,696,615
100.0%
Total Applicable Index(s)
2.65.1
Transportation
Construction, Design, CEI,
Mitigation, Urban Overpass
$3,704,000
81.1%
0.7%
0.6%
ROW (Land)
$647,250
14.2%
12.1%
1.796
ROW (Administrative)
5215,750
4.7%
0.7%
0.0%
Total Cost
$4,567,000
100.0.0
Total Applicable Index(s)
2.3%
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 total cost (Item 2) multiplied by the 2017 index (Item 3)
5) Sum of indices of each component
Tindale Oliver Collier County
January 2017 4 Indexing Update.
DRAFT
Fiscal Year 2017
WATER AND WASTEWATER
IMPACT FEE STUDY
For
COLLIER COUNTY
WATER -SEWER DISTRICT
December 21, 2016
Public Resources Management Group, Inc.
Utility, Rate, Financia[, and Management Consultants
DRAFT
Public Resources Management Group, Inc.
Utility, Rate, Financial, and Maavagement 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 001125-43ut AW&W W Impact Fee Smdy
341 NORTH MAITLAND AVENUE — SUITE 300 — MAITLAND, FL :-32751
Tel: 407-628-2600 • Fax: 407-628-2610 • Email: PRMG a PRMGinc.com • Website: www.PRMGine.com
DRAFT
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Board of County Commissioners
Collier County
December 21, 2016
Page 2
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 k $1,693
AFPI fees = $9,032). The proposed combined water and wastewater impact fees of $5,263 are
$3,769 Iower 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.
Robert J. Ori
President
Bryan A. Mantz, CMC, CGFM
Supervising Consultant
RJO/dlc
Attachments
Ki CA1125-43Vt AW&WW hipact Fa SNdy
Line
No.
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
DRAFT
Table ES -1
Collier County Water -Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Summary of Existine and Proposed Water and Wastewater System Impact Fees
Level of Service
(gallons per day
Description per ERC) Amount Cost Per Gallon
IMPACT FEES
Water Impact Fee
Existing Per ERC
Treatment Component
Transmission Component
Total
Proposed Per ERC
Calculated
Treatment Component
Transmission Component
Total
Rounded
Treatment Component
Transmission Component
Total
Change (Total)
Amount
Percent
Wastewater Impact Fee
Existing Per ERC
Treatment Component
Transmission Component
Total
Proposed Per ERC
Calculated
Treatment Component
Transmission Component
Total
Rounded
Treatment Component
Transmission Component
Total
Change (Total)
Amount
Percent
Combined Impact Fee
Existing Per ERC
Treatment Component
Transmission Component
Total
Proposed Per ERC (Rounded)
Treatment Component
Transmission Component
Total
Change (Total)
Amount
Percent
325
$2,045.00
$6,29
325
555.00
1.71
325
$2,600.00
$8.00
325
$2,056.70
$6.33
325
505.50
1,56
325
$2,562.20
$7.88
325
$2,057.00
$6.33
325
505.00
t.55
325
$2,562.00
$7.88
($38.00) ($0.12)
-1.5% -1.5%
225
$2,120.00
$9.42
225
395.00
1.76
225
$2,515.00
$11.18
225
$2,341.69
$10.41
225
359.81
1.60
225
$2,701.50
$12.01
225
$2,341.00
$10.40
225
360.00
1.60
225
$2,701.00
$12.00
$186.00 $0.83
7.4% 7.4%
$4,165.00
950.00
$5,115.00
$4,398.00
865.00
$5,263.00
$148.00
2.9%
COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT
WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title
DRAFT
Page No.
Letter of Transmittal
Table ES -1: Summary of Existing and Proposed Water and Wastewater System Impact Fees
Tableof Contents................................................................................................................... i
List of Tables, Figures, and Appendices................................................................................ ii
Introduction...........................................................
Purpose of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees ...
Existing Impact Fees .............................................
Level of Service Requirements .............................
Existing Plant -in -Service ......................................
Additional Capital Investment ..............................
Design of Water Impact Fee .................................
Design of Wastewater Impact Fee ........................
Impact Fee Comparisons .......................................
Conclusions and Recommendations .....................
KADCV 125-43Rp1\W&W W ❑npact Fee Sndy -i-
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
F] Table ES -1 follows
the letter of transmittal.
KMC\1125-43 tpt\Wa WImpad Pee Smdy —11—
DRAFT
COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT
WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE STUDY
INTRODUCTION
In 2003, the Legislature of the State of Florida pursuant to Section 189.429, Florida Statutes,
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 finance 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
TC$C\112543 pM&WW Impact Pee SNdy —I—
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:
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
KWAI85-43\RpM&ffi Impact Fee SNdy —2—
i c:
account, and separate accounting must be made for those funds to ensure that they are used
only for the lawful purposes described above.
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 ill
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.
IC 01125.43apV&a VImpact Fee Swdy —3—
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 [11
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 [2
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)
Kd C\1125-43Vpt\W&WW 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 141 101
Per the 2000 US Census, the persons pet 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 overtime.
[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
Retards (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.
K9DCU I2543TPAW&W W ]"pact Fee Srvdy —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 Alant-
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 MC\1125-43 ftM&W WTupact Fee Study —6—
DRAFT
plant would be assets commonly referred to as "general plant" and would include vehicles,
equipment, furniture, and other related assets.
The County provided PRMG with reported utility plant asset information through September 30,
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
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
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
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% 267,181,658 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% 172,735,503 263% 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 [2] 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%
[1] Amounts shown derived from utility asset records as of September 30, 2016 that were provided by the District as shown in Appendix A.
[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 ill 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 train to 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.
K. Co 125-4vRpt\W&WW Impact Fc Sndy -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:
Total Permitted Design Capacity (M?VDD / MMADF - MGD)
Peaking Factor [3]
Plant Capacity Expressed on Average Daily Demand / Flow Basis
Less Existing Plant Utilization (ADF)
Net Available to Meet Future Service Area Needs
Estimated Percent of Total System Capacity
MMDD = Maximum Month Daily Demand
MMADF =Maximum Month Average Daily Flow
MGD — Million Gallons Per Day
ADF = Average Daily Flow
Plant Capacity (MGD)
Water
Wastewater
Plant [1]
Plant [2]
52.000
40.100
1.200
1.200
43.333
33.417
26.776
17.818
16.557
15.599
38.21%
46.68%
[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
K\DCu 12543\ pt\W&WW 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
Project Description: Design and construct expanded distribution of IQ water given the additional
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:
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
K[ C\1125-43ftt\W&WW Impact Fee Smdy —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 Plan (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
K.MC\112543\ p[\W@WWL poet Pee SNdy —10—
FOX.
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)
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%
[i] 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:
rcaucn 125-43vcprWweww rmpaarr�e study -11-
DRAFT
1. 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.
K:\ C\112543\Rpt\W&WW Impact Fee Smdy —12—
DRAFT
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;
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
KADOI 12543%pt\W&W W Impact Fee Study —13-
of Constructed Utilitt
Plant Costs Allocated to New Development - Wastewater S
DRAFT
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
Net Amount Allocated to Existing Customers:
Percent
Amount
Net Amount Allocated to Future Customers
Percent of Total Constructed Assets [4]
Percent of Net Constructed Assets [5]
$375,071,466
51.98%
$194,980,694
$180,090,772
28.94%
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:1DGi1125- tm1,9w&ww In eadFee 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:
$4,000
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$600
$0
dFoocgmo✓~
oJ00mUk UJ{�oO �'fk
��oS�oQ� 0A JULa�Qe
UAa Uom°'oU
ve No
o�oUg�Oo`o
yco�oa �
ca
S,
Figure 1: Comparison of Water System Impact Fees per ERC
Reflects rates effective in November 2016
iWater —Other Utilities' Average ($2,004)
52,562 52,600
I
I
I I
I I
I
—
1111
� _U
il
U `ro O U 3o UU UY` U� r'$+ 111
am oa ��Q v U
OOP
4
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
KM0112543\RpM&WW1m dPee SNdy -15-
$6,000
$4,600 -
$4,000
$3,600 -
$3,000
$2,600
$2,000
$1,600
$1,000
$600 -
$0
DRAFT
Figure 2: Comparison of Wastewater System Impact Fees per ERC
ReIIects rates effective in November 1016
O Wastewater —Other Utilities' Average (S2,659)
52,701
S2,515
-------------------
Vo ,�oJ mH Jc'd .mm Q°F 8m o`' Jd Jd• A' dp Jc'8 U°� u c\ o c\ Ja
J o V° of OmC '; L° of of (7° v ci
_' Q„m m v v m Qm 8 d v s u
SOH 4
0 kir Jiim `oy`m �c� oti �F os'� d� QJJ �F mm �°�` ti m" JA yo
m ° A ° Q� 'e 4 d gO ..'d im '. yO Q o J m at
omOm V'`'� Oy8 ti 4C Ci JOYS G 9m .ted bVs v �P�¢ oL �m4yQ`JR° O 4 °
4 4 i
m m
°° JP �J of
41
e
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
IC:MC\112543LLt AW&W W input Fee SNdy -16-
DRAFT
Figure 3: Comparison of Water and Wastewater System Impact Fees per ERC
$9,000
$8,000
$7,000
$6,000
$6,000
$4,000
$7,000
$2,000
$1,000
Reflects rates effective in November 2016
m
\`
4P Doc
Ct
=wastewater ®Nater —Other Utilities' Average ($4,663)
Jp
Q�
551115
$5,263
$0
ldty
pd
m
\`
4P Doc
Ct
le o or je mmm
m
°0 ,a oo\F �i
orm O 4 m4
&'f p O\F4
o m` o i\°4m p
Cie ooa aim 44 4 cl
\m3 v O ti
�o
Q
v� yQC V
m
\`
4P Doc
Ct
Jp
Q�
Cie ooa aim 44 4 cl
\m3 v O ti
�o
Q
v� yQC V
m
\`
4P Doc
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:\ 0112543\ pt\W&WW Tmp=FeeS dy —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) govermnental 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 W\112543\R,,M&W W Impact Fee Sfidy —18-
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF EXISTING
UTILITY SYSTEM ASSETS
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 (NMIDD-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 = Maximmn Month Daily Demand
ADD = Average Daily Demand
Footnotes on page 20.
19
Footnotes:
(1)
L%_ A
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 Growtb
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 maximmn month daily demand
to annual average daily demand peaking factor of 1.20 was utilized as supported by finished water flaw data contained in the Monthly Operating
Reports filed with the Florida Department ofEnviromnental Protection (FDEP) as shown below:
Fifteen -Year Maximum 1,24
Fifteen -Year Average 1.16
Factor Utilized By PRMG For Impact Fee Determination Purposes 1.20
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 District's 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
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
Fiscal Year 2005
25.83
28.57
1.11
Fiscal Year 2006
26.00
31.71
122
Fiscal Year 2007
2678
32.34
1.21
Fiscal Year 2008
23.1 I
26A4
1.13
Fiscal Year 2009
22.72
28.17
1.24
Fiscal Year 2010
2134
23.12
1.08
Fiscal Year 2011
22.58
26.20
1.16
Fiscal Year 2012
2235
26.15
1.17
Fiscal Year 2013
22.14
26.76
1,21
Fiscal Year 2014
23.86
27.35
1.15
Fiscal Year 2015
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 Purposes 1.20
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 District's 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 10]
69,329
MGD = Million Gallons Per Day
MMADF = Ma immn Month Average Daily Flow
ADA = Annual Average Daily Flow
Footnotes on page 22.
21
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
Footnotes:
DRAFT
(1) Amounts reflect permitted MMADF wastewater treatment plant capacity of facilities. The pencilled 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).
(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.
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 District's 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 dairy 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
Annual
Maximum Month
Average Daily
Average Daily
Flow (MGD)
Flow (MGD)
Peaking Factor
Fiscal Year 2002
15.528
20-160
1.30
Fiscal Year 2003
15.600
17.279
1.11
Fiscal Year 2004
15.921
18.899
1.19
Fiscal Year 2005
16.323
19.306
1.18
Fiscal Year 2006
17.372
19.890
1.14
Fiscal Year 2007
15.633
18.391
1.18
Fiscal Year 2008
15.601
18.290
1.17
Fiscal Year 2009
13.837
15.920
L15
Fiscal Year 2010
14291
15.747
ll0
Fiscal Year 2011
14.728
16.791
1.14
Fiscal Year 2012
15.834
18.122
1.14
Fiscal Year 2013
16.952
18.669
1.10
Fiscal Year2014
16.200
19.464
1.20
Fiscal Year 2015
17.231
19.537
1.13
Fiscal Year2016
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 District's 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 dairy 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
DRAFT
Table 3
Collier County Water -Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Development of Water System Impact Fee
6 Percent Available to Serve New Growth [3]
7 Costs of Installed Assets Allocable to Serve New Growth
8 Estimated New Growth ERCs Available to be Served from Installed Assets [5]
9 Estimated Cost Per ERC
Water System Capital Improvement Program
10 Potable Water Storage Tank (Online 2027)
11 Percent Available to Serve New Growth [3]
12 Costs of Additional Capital Improvement Projects Allocable to New Growth
13 Estimated New Growth ERCs [4]
14 Estimated Cost Per ERC
15 Total Impact Fee Per ERC - Calculated [Line 9 +Line 141
16 Total Impact Fee Per ERC - Rounded
17 Treatment Component (Rounded)
18 Transmission Component(Rouaded)
19 Total
38.21%
38.21%
38.21%
38.21%
Water System
70,366,240 $
23,451,989
S 128,229,151
50,944
50,944
50,944
50,944
Distribution /
1,381.24 $
460.35
$ 2,517.04
50,944
50,944
Fire Hydrants /
$ - $
Line
45
$
45
Transmission/
Meters/
505.50
No.
Description
Supply
Treatment
Storage
General / Oth
TOTAL
Installed Water System Assets with Capacity Available to Serve New Growth
I
Total Installed Costs- Allocated Water Assets [1]
$ 90,226,735 $
185,125,663
S 78,607590
$ 179,427,450 $
533,387,438
2
Less Amounts Classified as Contributed Capital [I]
(169,361)
(969,055)
(2,381,741
(87,118,870)
(90,639,027)
3
Less Estimated Assets Funded from Transportation Impact Fees [2]
-
-
(14,849,276)
-
(14,849,276)
4
Less Plant Not Recognized In Fee Determination
-
(92,308580)
(92,308,580)
5
Adjusted Installed Cost of Water Assets
$ 90,057,374 $
184 156 608
$ 61 376 574
$ $
335 590 556
6 Percent Available to Serve New Growth [3]
7 Costs of Installed Assets Allocable to Serve New Growth
8 Estimated New Growth ERCs Available to be Served from Installed Assets [5]
9 Estimated Cost Per ERC
Water System Capital Improvement Program
10 Potable Water Storage Tank (Online 2027)
11 Percent Available to Serve New Growth [3]
12 Costs of Additional Capital Improvement Projects Allocable to New Growth
13 Estimated New Growth ERCs [4]
14 Estimated Cost Per ERC
15 Total Impact Fee Per ERC - Calculated [Line 9 +Line 141
16 Total Impact Fee Per ERC - Rounded
17 Treatment Component (Rounded)
18 Transmission Component(Rouaded)
19 Total
38.21%
38.21%
38.21%
38.21%
$ 34,410,923 $
70,366,240 $
23,451,989
S 128,229,151
50,944
50,944
50,944
50,944
$ 675.46 $
1,381.24 $
460.35
$ 2,517.04
$ - $
- $
6,020,000
$
6,020,000
38.21%
38.21%
38.21%
38.21%
$ - $
- $
2,300,242
$
2,300,242
50,944
50,944
50,944
50,944
$ - $
- $
45
$
45
$ 675.46 $
1,38L24 $
505.50
$
2,562.20
S 2,562.00
$ 2,057.00
505.00
$ 2,562.00
Footnotes:
[1] Amounts derived from Appendix A.
[2] Amount based on information provided by the County regarding transportation impact fees used for funding utility line relocations.
[3] Amounts derived from Table 1, Line 7.
[4] Amount's derived from Table 1, Line 11.
23
Line
Table 4
Collier County Water -Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Development of Wastewater System Impact Fee
Installed Wastewater System Assets with Capacity Available to Serve New Growth
1 Total Installed Costs- Allocated Wastewater Assets [11
2 Less Amounts Classified as Contributed Capital [1]
3 Less Estimated Assets Funded from Transportation Impact Fees [2]
4 Less Plant Not Recognized In Fee Determination
5 Adjusted Installed Cost of Wastewater Assets
6 Percent Available to Serve New Growth [3]
7 Costs of Installed Assets Available to Serve New Growth
8 Estimated New Growth ERCs Available to be Served from Installed Assets [4]
9 Estimated Cost Per ERC
Wastewater System Capital Improvement Program
10 IQ Expansion / Business Plan
11 Percent Available to Serve New Growth [3]
12 Costs of Additional Capital Improvement Projects Allocable to New Growth
13 Estimated New Growth ERCs [4]
14 Estimated Cost Per ERC
15 Total Impact Pee Per ERC- Calculated [Line 9+Line 14]
16 Total Impact Fee Per ERC - Rounded
17 Treatment Component (Rounded)
18 Transmission Component (Rounded)
19 Total
EfFluent/
Treatment
DRAFT
Collection / Direct
Reclaimed /
Transmission General/Other TOTAL
$ 267,181,658 $ 59,376,428 $ 63,860,903 S 231,777,380 $ 622,196,369
(462,578) (2,977,640) (67957546) (112,191,053) (122,588,817)
- - (4,949,759) - (4,949,759)
(119,586,327) (119,586,327)
$ 266,719,080 $ 56,398,788 $ 51,953,598 $ - $ 375,071,466
48.02% 48.02% 48.02% 48.02%
$ 128,065,314 $
27,079,909 $
24,945,549
$ 180,090,772
69,329
69,329
69,329
69,329
$ 1,847.20 $
390.60 S
359.81
$ 2,597.61
$ -
$ 15,000,000 $
-
$
15,000,000
48.02%
48.02%
48.02%
48.02%
$ -
$ 7,202,258 $
-
$7,202,258
69,329
69,329
69,329
69,329
$ -
$ 103.88 $
-
$
103.88
$1,847.20
$494.48
$359.81
$
2,701.50
$
2,701.00
$
2,341.00
360.00
$
2,701.00
Footnotes:
[ 1] Amounts derived from Appendix A.
[2] Amount based on information provided by the County regarding transportation impact fees used for funding utility line relocations.
[3] Amounts derived from Table 2, Line 7.
[4] Amounts derived from Table 2, Line 11.
24
Table 5
Collier County Water -Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Comparison of Water and Wastewater System Impact Fees Per ERC f Il
Line
No. Description
Collier County Water -Sewer District
1 Existing Impact Fees
2 Proposed Impact Fees
Surveyed Florida Utilities:
3 Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc.
4 City of Bradenton
5 Charlotte County
6 DeSoto County
7 Englewood Water District
8 FGUA - Golden Gate (Collier County)
9 FGUA - Lehigh Acres System (Lee County)
10 City of Fort Myers
11 Hillsborough County
12 Lee County
13 Manatee County
14 City of Marco Island
15 City of Naples
16 City of North Port
17 Pasco County
18 Pinellas County
19 City of Punta Gorda
20 City of Sarasota
21 Sarasota County
22 Other Florida Utilities' Average
Footnotes:
DRAFT
Residential 5/8" x 3/4" Meter
Water Wastewater Combined
$2,600 $2,515 $5,115
2,562 2,701 5,263
$2,600
$3,925
$6,525
1,183
1,545
2,728
2,407
2,251
4,658
1,910
4,140
6,050
2,074
2,850
4,924
1,950
1,525
3,475
2,696
2,839
5,535
2,023
1,966
3,989
1,750
1,800
3,550
2,440
2,660
5,100
1,970
3,027
4,997
3,740
4,610
8,350
1,416
2,324
3,740
1,735
2,388
4,123
1,561
2,730
4,291
352
2,060
2,412
2,646
2,677
5,323
900
2,577
3,477
2,720
2,627
5,347
$2,004
$2,659
$4,663
[1] Unless otherwise noted, amounts shown reflect fees chargedto 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
DRAFT
Appendix A
Collier County Water -Sewer District
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study
Summary of Esistine Utility System Assets 111
11 Total Combined Utility System Assets
Summary of Contributed Capital
Summary of Reported Gross Plant-ILi-Service as of September 30 2016
Line
Water
Water System
Wastewater System
System
No.
Description
Amount Percent
Amount Percent
Contributed Capital for
Included Assets
12
Water Supply
1
Water Supply
$90,226,735
16.08%
---
---
2
Treatment
185,125,663
33.00%
$267,181,658
40.69%
3
Transmission
78,607,590
14.0100/
63,860,903
9.73%
4
Effluent/Reclaimed
---
---
59,376,428
9.04%
87,070,870
Excluded Assets
16
Meters/Services/Hydrants
48,000
---
5
Distribution/Collection
118,986,279
21.21%
172,735,503
26.31%
6
Meters/Services/Hydrams
7,909,452
1.41%
---
---
7
General Plant [21
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
$561.049545
]QQ,QQ°/
65MS6.457
JQQQQ°/
11 Total Combined Utility System Assets
87217 636.002
Footnotes:
[1] 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] Consti action work -in -progress was not recognized since the projects have not yet been completed and
placed into service.
26
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
L326 128
1,553.096
18
Total
$91965.155
$124141914
19
Total Combined Utility System Assets
$2] 6.107.069
87217 636.002
Footnotes:
[1] 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] Consti action 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
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 TIIE 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 AVD/OR SEWER IMPACT FEE SECTION, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE STUDY AND PRESCRIBED METHODOLOGY;
PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION
IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE OF FEBRUARY 17, 2015 FOR ALL FEE DECREASES, ANDA
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
Underlined text is added; Sct+.teN-s6reaglt 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 2011-4 1, 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 Fees 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
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, PRMG 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{ &F elt i400gh ICU 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.
1n' dint uet is added; gi�aek-'.h.-sugh ten is deleted
Page 3 of 24
29
DRAFT
(1) Tronsporialion facilities: "Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update
Study," prepared by Tindale -Oliver and Associates, Incorporated (February 19-,
2009) and Gollief County Trip 0-haraeteristies Study Mine Land Use (Septembe
2 2009) as ended by the "Collier Ce ., y Transportation Impact Cee Gest and
Credit Update Study" (Septembe_ 9 201_ ,...d the Tfansportatioa linpast Fee
Uses" (Mareeh 223 2011 January 13,201j5;
U te„ . .ed H. Camp, Dre.,e. P. McKee 1..e (dated April 10 2006). TI.
Water and wastewater facilities: "CollierGeenE), Water and fhe Wastewater
Impact Fee Study for Collier County Water -Sewer District (dated June 6, 2006
September 15, 2014) prepared,by Public Resources Management Group, Inc.";
(7) Correctional facilities: `_Collier County Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Update
Study," prepared by Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. (April 21 2009 January
13, 20151;
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
the context clearly indicates otherwise. Terms contained in article III or the rate schedules
supercede these general definitions to the extent of any conflict(s).
Undgdincd text is added; Strtxkitlraegh test 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 u 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
ffftlE3 qtiffteFS,
hot T arsittt iar sH adg' .
Public utilities administrator shall mean the individual appointed by the board
or the comity 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 server .sysiems shall mean the wastewater or sewer utility system directly
connected to treatment facilities operated by the Collier County Water -Sewer District, or
Undttl_ned tez[ is added, & u&L, 4fa text is deleted
Page 5 of 24
31
DRAFT
the county, or both, For the purposes of this chapter the term sewer and wastewater are
interchangeable and have the same meaning.
Restaurant (rluaU y lots -turnover) shall mean a land use consisting of eating
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
serve dinner. Often the restaurants in this land use are not a chain and reservations are
required.
SECTION THREE. Article 11, Impact Fees, Section 74-201, Imposition o%impact fees, of the
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows:
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
applicable water or sewer trust fund(s) within 30 days of the deferral or waiver
agreement being signed on behalf of the county, except for deferrals of less than seven
ten years for multi -family affordable housing rental units. However, deferrals of less
than ses,ea 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
growth -necessitated capital improvements and additions to such water and/or sewer
systems. Such an adverse impact may be determined by the public utilities division
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
J ndc, ined tcxt is added; 8"ek-threngh Icsl is deletcd
Page 6 of 24
32
DRAFT
administrator makes such a "funds in jeopardy" determination) for deferrals (i.e., for
les, -s, -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 111, 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
J:ndedined tact is added; gh ;en is deleted
Page 7 of 24
33
DRAFT
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. ExelusiaH of the K • nr,ree r,,......,...•,.
Development Distriet reeagnizes that this Brea -is aatside-'-the-f6tnity
„eir seawtria�-not planned to be served by treatment capabilities
of the regional water and/or revional sewers std.
(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
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
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 land(s).
Undcrlined test is added', St.alk tseB;. Em is deleted
Page 8 of 24
34
DRAFT
Underlmed teat is added; &twlk4hhwgh text k deleted
Page 9 of 24
35
11 41r
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 shalt 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.
SECTION SEVEN. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall be considered adopted upon the date written below; however, the
effective date of the Phase I 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 11, 201`5.
rlincd text is added, StaaekaFaaagb text is deleted
Page 10 of 24
36
DRAFT
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
k r-uo
County, Florida this lo�clay of , 201
ATTEST BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DwighcE, Broc15�Cleek OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Deputy Clerk
Jeffrey
lity:
County Attorney
TIM NANCE, Chairman
U.dgr1mcd ten is added; &wakiH ,gk Ica is deleted
Page I I of 24
37
This ordinance
Sacmtcry of'e.
1�&y
cnd acknowled-'r—'M i`
u
fill glcaivea ��
of
i,.ar1�-a4t C,Zv.,.o
rVir, way
APPENDIX -SCHEDULE ONE
ROAD IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE
Phase I -Effective Deeeex4er-3Bs-30}i-February 17, 2015
Impact Fee Land Use Category
Rate
Residential
Assisted Living Facility (ALF)
$844-g?
$759.00
Per Dwelling Unit
Condo/Townhouse (1-2 Stories)
$4,255.70
Per Dwelling Unit
High -Rise Condominium (3+ 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
Multi -Family (Apartments) >10 Stories
$2,741.77
Per Dwelling Unit
Retirement Community
$2,125.50
Per Dwelling Unit
Singe Family Detached House
Less than 1,500 sq. ft.
$4,230.38
Per Dwelling Unit
1,500 to 2,499 sq. ft.
55,752.75
Per Dwelling Unit
2,500 sq. ft. or larger
$6,504.09
Per Dwelling Unit
Non -Residential
Auto Sales - Luxury
$8,323.81
Per 1,000 sq. R
Auto Sales-New/Used
$13,555.03
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Bank/Savings: Drive -In
521,953,89
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Bank/Savings: Walk-In"'-�,�`0
99
$20.774.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Business Park
$7,801.34
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Car Wash -Automatic
$21,257.89
Per 1,000 sq. ft,
Car Wash - Self -Service
91�,-722.322.389
7$ . 99,00
Per Scrvice Bay
Church
$317.98
Per Sent
College/University (Private)
Q,501 Students
$1,325.39
Per Student
>7,500 Students
$1,000.84
Per Student
Convenience Store (24 hours)
$52,648.06
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Uadcri.ned text is added; BHaokAavugh tent is deleted
Page 12 of 24
Impact Fee Land Use Category
No -Residential (Cont'd)
Convenience Store w/Gas Pumps
4 or less Fuel Positions
$20,198.89
5 - 6 Fuel Positions
$16,375.60
7 - 8 Fuel Positions
$13,964.00
9 - 10 Fuel Positions
$11,879.77
11 - 12 Fuel Positions
$10,795,44
13 or more Fuel Positions
$9,822,73
Dance Studios/Gymnastics
$6,295.85
Day Care
$802.92
Furniture Store
52,053.28
Gasol ine/Service Station
54,376.70
General Light Industrial
$4,332.62
Golf Course
s4z"2'."
Golf Course - Bundled
Home Improvement Store
55,486 36
Hospital
391394,07
Hotel
31;672-2-7
I lotel - All Suites
52,204.30
Manufacturing
52,394.71
Marina
$1,967.92
Mine/Commercial Excavation
$5.62
Mini -Warehouse
$882.65
Mord
S2,347.81
Movie Theater
$25,202.18
Nursing Home
$692.24
Office 6 000 fi or less
Office 6 001-50,000 sq. ft. es4ess
$9,290.89
0Mce 50,001-100,000 sq. ft.
57,919,53
Office 100,001200,000 sq, ft.
$6,758.29
Office 200,001-400,000 sq. ft.
$5,761.19
Office Greater than 400,000 sq. 11
$5,249.04
Office- Medical Greater than 10,000sq, ft.
$22,301,88
Office - Medical 10,000 sq, ftor less
$14,78096
Rate
$193,492.0
$58.054.00
1212200
$3,54400
Vnder' a text is added; 89uek-threugh text is deleted
Page 13 of 24
39
4 00
Per Fuel Position
Per Fuel Position
Per Fuel Position
Per Fuel Position
Per Fuel Position
Per Fuel Position
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Per Student
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Per Fuel Position
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Per 18 Holes
Per Is Holes
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Per Room
Per Room
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Per Berth (DryRVet)
Per 1,000 cubic yards
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Per Room
Per Screen
Per Bed
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Per 1000 sq. ft.
Per 1000 sq. ft.
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Per 1,000 sq, ft.
Per 1,000 sq. ft,
DRAFT
DRAFT
Impact Fee Land Use Category Rate
Non -Residential (Cont'd)
Pharmacy/Drug Store
$7,678,46
Per 1,000 sq. A.
Quick Lube
$7,920.47
Per Servuce Bay
Restaurant - Drive4r,
$74,793.30
Per 1,000 sq, R.
Restaurant - High Turnover
$1,346.03
Per Seat
Restaurant - Quality Low Turnover
$847.95
Per Seat
Retail 6,000 so ti, or less5$
.370.00 Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Rchul 6.001-25 000 se, 0.
$t0,06Per 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 200,001400,000 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 >1,000,000 Sq. Ft.
510,595.64
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail - Specialty
$14,752,86
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
RV Park
e'er -278,49
U-1 50'00 Per Site
School - Elementary (Private)
$58437
Per Student
School- Middle (Private)
$816.06
Per Student
School - High School (Private)
$862.96
Per Student
Supermarket
$14,507,10
Per 1,000 sq. fL
Tire Store
56,056.66
Per Service Bay
Warehouse
$2,206.17
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Underlined text is added; Straek-dr�jgh text is deleted
Page 14 of 24
EEO
DRAFT
APPENDIX A -SCHEDULE ONE
ROAD IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE
Phase 42 - Effective-€ebraery--4-7 - 045 May 11, 2015
Impact Fee Land Use Category
Rate
Residential
Assisted Living Facility (ALF)
$759.00
Per Dwelling Unit
Condo/Townhouse (1-2 Stories)
£4233;79
$4.567.00
Per Dwelling Unit
High -Rise Condominium (3+ Stories)
&3,087-49$3,309.00
Per Dwelling Unit
Mobile Home
$2,394.71
52.966.00
Per Dwelling Unit
Multi-Family(Apartments) 1-10 Stories
9i'3E3.958,224.00
Per Dwelling Unit
Multi -Family (Apartments)>10 Stories
$274-1.7-7
$3J29.00
Per Dwelling Unit
Retirement Community
Pj2j.5265,28.00
Per Dwelling Unit
Single Family Detached House
Less than 4,490 -sq: 4,000 sq, ft.
$4,23938
$7,017.00 017.00
Per Dwelling Unit
-1y" to 2'999 sq r��oc�oc
o�,-o... ^Ijng-lini
— 2,500sq. A, O,arger 4,000 sq, fl. or larger
$600409
$8,445.00
Per Dwelling Unit
Non -Residential
Auto Sales - Luxury
u;393-8+
$10.319.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Auto Sales - New/Used
$15,910.00
Per 1,000 sq. A.
BarddSavings: Drive -In
&21,933:89
$27 300 DO
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Bank/Savings: Walk -In
$20,774.00
Per 1,000 sq. fl,
Business Park
.S ,&GI -34
X16_00
Per 1,000 sq. fl.
Car Wash -Automatic
$2] 2, 49
131 482_00
Per 1,000 sq. it.
Car Wash - Self -Service
$9,799,00
Per Service Bay
Church
$347,48
$328.0
Per Seat
Collegerllniversity (Private)
X7,501 Students
$1;323,39
$1,648.00
Per Student
>7,500 Students
&1 ,000.81
$1236_00
Per Student
Convenience Store (24 hours)
&R, 486
$65,7000
Per 1,000 sq. fl.
1�pderlined tcxt is added; Struck ihrsegkh text is delctcd
Page 15 of 24
41
DRAFT
Impact Fee Land Use Category
Rate
Non -Residential (Cont'd)
Convenience Store w/Gas Pumps
4 or less Fuel Positions
$20-1198:99
$24,428.00
Per Fuel Position
5 - 6 Fuel Positions
$16;375:68
15 9.809.00
Per Fuel Position
7 - 8 Fuel Positions
S13,961.00$16,826,0
0
Per Fuel Position
9 - 10 Fuel Positions
$11,$79.77
$14,379.00
Per Fuel Position
I I - 12 Fuel Positions
$40;79544
$11054.00
Per Fuel Position
13 or more Fuel Positions
$9,822.73$11,891.0o
Per Fuel Position
Dance Studios/Gymnastics
96;295-"
- 7 733.00
Per 1,000 sq. R.
Day Care
$802.92
5967.00
Per Student
Furniture Store
$2,033.28
$2,551.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Gasoline/Service Station
$4,376.-70
$5,12LOO
Per Fuel Position
General Light Industrial
$4332.62
$5,373.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Golf Course
.8193,492.00
Per IS Holes
Golf Course - Bundled
$58,054.00
Per 18 Holes
Home Improvement Store
$$,48636
$7,054.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
I lospital
$9,322.00
Per 1,000 sq, ft.
Hotel
$3,544.00
Per Room
Hotel -All Suites
$ZW4-30
11234.00
Per Room
Manufacturing
$27394.71
$2.943.00
Per 1,000 sq. it.
Marina
$1,967.92
$2,444.00
Per Berth (Dry/Wet)
Mine/Commercial Excavation
$3..62
$8.00
Per 1,000 cubic yards
Mini -Warehouse
SR82-.65
$942.00
Per 1,000 sq. t
Motel
S2,34?.81
S2,909.0
Per Room
ff, ic,Th r
$33 42-17
$31.3€3.,00
Per Serten
Nursing Home
S692-.24$972.00
Per Bed
Office 6,000 sq. R. or less
$8,114.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office 6,001-30;000100_000 sq. ft
$9;290,89
$7 919-13
59.661.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Pur i,000
Office 39,001-100 000sq--13-
Office 100,001-200,000 sq. ft
$6,75&2
$8,191.00
sq.
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office 200,001-400,000 sq. ft.
P°,gii1-1'6$
,923.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office Greater than 400,000 sq. ft.
$3,249.04
$6,283,00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office - Medical Greater than 10,000 sq. ft.
$22,301.48
$26,689.00
Per 1,000 sq. ti
Office - Medical 10,000 sq. ft, or less
$-1-4;99&.06
$18,328.00
Per 1,000 sq. fl.
Underlined text is added; Slruek Ihrengh text is deleted
Page 16 of 24
42
DRAFT
Impact Fee Land Use Category Rate
Non -Residential (Cont'd)
Pharmacy/Drug Store
$7,1 446
$9,582.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Quick Lube
x7,920.47
$10.083.00
Per Servuce Bay
Restaurant - Fast Food w/Drive-[n
574;793.30
591,028.00
Per 1,000 sq, ft.
Restaurant - High Turnover
&4,346:03
$1,657.00
Per Seat
Restaurant - Low Tumover
$8471}5
�,06�00
Per Seat
Retail 6,000 sq. ft, or less
$5,370.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 6,001-25,000 sq. ft.
$10,064.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft,
Retail 25,001-50,000 Sq. Ft.
£40;83$-59
$13,496.00
Per 1,000 sq, ft.
Retail 50,001-100,000 Sq. Ft.
$}&984-22
D4_540.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 100,001-150,000 Sq. Ft.
$3&,-246;7-1
$13,531.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 150,001-200,000 Sq. Ft.
$9,8!6A7
$12,955.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 200,001-400,000 Sq, Ft.
&9;29464
312.244_00
Per 1,000 sq, ft.
Retail 400,001-600,000 Sq. Ft.
$4382;44
$12.068.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 600,001-1,000,000 Sq, Ft.
530;0444-2
X12586.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft,
Retail >1,000,000 Sq. Ft.
$10395:64
$12.818.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail - Specialty
$}4,732;86
118,131_00
Per 1,000 sq, ft.
RV Park
$1,156.00
Per Site
School- Elementary(Private)
&594,37
$687.00
Per Student
School - Middle (Private)
$816.06$969,00
Per Student
School - High School (Private)
$862:96
. I 0 23.00
Per Student
Supermarket
514,507.0
318.064,00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Tire Store
$6;056-66
$_1709.0
Per Service Day
Warehouse
32-206.17
52.73700
Per 1,000 sq. R.
Underlined text is added; Fmjok-through text is deleted
Page 17 of 24
43
DRAFT
APPENDix
co IAnnrn_�o IE4D
W 4TER-Ai�7
PFFECTWE 14 NIT♦RV 1 gnna
yl(�. X "M } ?^(t
111 /IAIA�tYI�R`G/\
✓` 14F i
,.. y''�fj$'�:t t i
;, i { 'YfY' 1
- } / N' �r,,,IIt}€.i
Y'%
JA7RA�FF�S
-
ea
a
x t iib
1
314
$3;614:48
$g,722.3
e.
Rest
047
RAF I In
$2;423-14
$:483.85
AA6-I-359
({ilia-ValUoERG/1/
$37-22.39
88;'
1
sL4-B3
$3,G16:48
b3:722.38
mac...
(founded t
F€&
€9R
$3,44649
falAlmem-valae
F/
ERGysic
(iAlA-Value
.-86ltai s
leafy(min
1"MyAll-le
(rounded
a
yl(�. X "M } ?^(t
111 /IAIA�tYI�R`G/\
✓` 14F i
,.. y''�fj$'�:t t i
;, i { 'YfY' 1
- } / N' �r,,,IIt}€.i
Y'%
)W K;�
-
ea
x t iib
4:33
RAF t lflit
$-1a-91',3@
$1,22994
Rest
047
RAF I In
$2;423-14
$:483.85
88;'
1
ReFb'ai1
$3,G16:48
b3:722.38
y'1
(iAlA-Value
car Ilnm..
$3`74
(rounded
a
to4he
9oCl✓ LUEx
_NGnaearesl
5
tan
$3;72v'�78
(min mum value
ABF-- .. Aver'age-BaiiY-FlawsfieFgwyesed-uveas-grevided-lay-€OR• .: .,.
ESR— €a9inaar-e�Racad#ar-{�rajest
ERG--
Undtdip text added; Stfu* }.;aa-,fi text is deleted.
Page 18 of24
DRAFT
Nt}A}-R6-S}96A3'FFA-6
WATE
MA TER
SIZE
9R
9GW3B
EQ4J -ALENT
ERG
RANGE
1N4
R9 E^,F69.
.
M4PF
1�111X
A41P}
A4A�
$3,sisnn
-14
24
3 5 08
8338:08
34&7-N
8178&100
26
6
8;$74,09
i�87-8:000-139:DA-755
3
&.}
8A
X7.00
W-132040'�,-
G
3 0n 99
3
&.4tl
&4.9
27,662.00
447-484,00
28 47.2 n9
442,974
4
55
4284
18-8250n
nnn�o�on0
3-43,33_5:00
4-&3,-044-.N
6
42-9
35,7.9
440,535.00
' "' "n.90
453,439.00
47239,414:99
8
338
68022
��n,N
2,049,0090
n,'54 7)4W
21-0440
Underllne text added; 3uack;k.ceygp text Is deleted.
Page 19 of 24
45
DRAFT
APPENDIX A
SCHEDULE TWO - EFFECTIVE February 17, 2015
WATER & WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE
ERC=_E,quivalenl Res ttnllat Connection
ADP = Averaae Daly Flow
MULTI=EAWLI. MAg7ER
-INDIVI ..OA�LY.AAETEREO ;' yry 5
-".RESIDENTIAL
Basis of Fae
ERG Factor
,�";'- „s'wt
WaatevTatar
17m ae-fe".
All Non -Residential
Impact fees a re delermined
expansionsor replacements
;Feer 4
0 TO 750
Livm'p Space lSO.FT)
ERG Factor'Bass
of Fae:
030 '..
751 TO 1 500
�0
Pye7
TO 4.999
1Per
ERC $2800
$2515
L
fAND NO MORE THAN 4 T IQ fM
(fixed at 1 ERC)
Mete, si,, dt,to,mire�l by the total fixture no
[he cugent eoltlpn of the Florida PlumUlng Code R fgrgnce the Meter 61-I FOm
5.000 OR MORE
Varies Im'nlmum
Per ERC 2 6001
15.00
Vanes (Reference
value f t I
ittmd on ADF (minimum value
Meter Size Notal
IQR MORE TR 4 TM=_ial
$2.515
6 inch
66.87
FOrm la)2 600
$167,675
8 Inch
M"eter57za
Meta, size determiny [h 1 f re value n ed f me eter an a I n a II able r vl n
ur _
e iti of h I nda PI mbin e. Ref r he Meer n
Neta;
ERC wtlh ADF dr'ihUla -
When ADF Is 10 Gallonsr P n use the fpmfpmvla fA a /3 t
MULTI=EAWLI. MAg7ER
METERED5 "
Llvfno Spade (Sq:FT I(Sq:FTP
Basis of Fae
ERG Factor
W4t' hr pkat
WaatevTatar
17m ae-fe".
All Non -Residential
Impact fees a re delermined
expansionsor replacements
;Feer 4
0 TO 750
Per un i
0 3
$@6.Q
030 '..
751 TO 1 500
EgrU i
Pye7
$1.740
805
1 501 OR MORS
Pet U '
jS
$2.600
..;in
Mete, si,, dt,to,mire�l by the total fixture no
[he cugent eoltlpn of the Florida PlumUlng Code R fgrgnce the Meter 61-I FOm
w
15.00
derlined le,l s added; &nro AWvgb texl is deleted
♦ u.,, 70 Of 74
46
NON-RESIOEIVTPAL . r; ,
.,
easla prF�
for
All Non -Residential
Impact fees a re delermined
expansionsor replacements
by meter size Waterand/orwasl 1 r impact fees alterations
are imposed only Ifjhg meter size Is Increased as a res II of the it l'o
expansion, or ne lacern M.
`Meter. Vie`. ;"'-"
.ERC Factor, f.',]
°-Wat`e'r•!m act F66p!", 4 4 ; �.".
Wasfewter lm`xet F66.'Y�`
3/4 Inch
1.00
$2,600
$2.515
1 inch
1.87
$4,340
$4,200
t-tainch
133o-eff
W. 37�'
2 inch
5.33
$13,860
13 405
3 inch
15.00
$39.000
$37,725
4 inch
33.33
86.660
$83.825
6 inch
66.87
173.340
$167,675
8 Inch
116,67
303 340
$293,425
Meter Size Note
Meier size determined
in the curtenteditionf
ey the total nKtv,e value cenrected to the netor
thp Fjoddo Plumbing Code. 8Dfitrono
and avolying anpik�ablglr vl
tbe_Mql2r aizirg F nn.
w
15.00
derlined le,l s added; &nro AWvgb texl is deleted
♦ u.,, 70 Of 74
46
DRAFT
APPENDIX A -SCHEDULE FOUR
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES (JAIL) IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE
Phase I - Effective Peeeosbee-20,4014 February 17, 2015
Impact Fee Land Use Category
Rate
Residential
Assisted Living Facility
$209.03
Per Dwelling Unit
Condo/Townhouee (1.2 S;pn9ll
32453
Por Dwelling Unit
Wgh-R' C d 1Bium(3+St0ried
$245,32
Per Dw1 ne Unit
Mobile H.mORV tie -down
$372.18
Per Dwelling Unit/Site
Muili-Family
x528
21661
Per Dwelling Unit
Multi -Family- More thanlO tit ores2$
I6.6I
ELL wdlin Unit
Single Family
Less than 1,500 sq, A,
$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-Realdenthd
Aum Sales fLuxurvl2S
68 81
Per 1,000 sq. R
Auto Sales (New/Used)
$43546
$383.64
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Bmk/Sevings: Drive -In
$694.}3
$595,Q3
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
BanklSavings: Walk -In
9635.13
S551199
Per 1,000 sq. ft
Business Park
5232.37
250.54
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Cer Wash - Sclf-Servic.
5155.50
Per Service Bay
Car Wash - Automated
$410.42
Per 1,000 sq. R.
Church
$145.30
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Coll egNUniversily (Private)
4,501
525.49
Per Student
>7,500
117.84
Per Student
Co .vet e€ Slur- (24.he el
V,19243
Pca 1,160 sq. ft.
Convenience Storc ed6as Pumps
g},4-86.29
PeFFual-Pesitien
4 or less Fuel Positions
$1,13526
Per Fuel Position
.5-6 Fuel P.sdtiooa
$96563
Per Fjiej egsilto
7 - 8 Fuel Position}
5953.62
Em Fud .,ilio^
9 - 10 Fuel Portions7S
67.28
Per Fuel Position
I I - 12 Fuel Positions
121770
Per Fuef Emilio
13 or more Fuel Po tion3
675.94
Pcr Fuel P is n
12¢nce Stucho/Girm
S57938
Per 10W s. R
Day Care
SI2.75
Per Student
Furniture Store
$61.17
Per 1,000 sq. R
OasolineScmce Station
$304.75
149847
Per Fuel Position
UnrlincQtcxl is added; Stwek through text is deleted
Page21 of24
47
DRAFT
Impact Fee Land Use Category Rate
Non-Resldenfial(ConPd)
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
542042
$357,54
Per 1,000 sq, ft,
Hotel
5201.39
Per Roam
Industrial- General Light
$175.90
Per 1,000 sq, ft.
6eaaq-huteSeks
$282:96
Per 1,000 sq,
.MgridfafluLng
$1324Q
Per 1,000 sq. ft
Marina
$48.43
Per Berth
Mini -Warehouse
$1.7-84
jn�g
Per 1,000 sq. ft,
Muni
$191,19
Per Room
Movie Theater
$1,524.44
Per Screen
Nursing Home
$183.54
Per Bed
Office 6,000 30;008 sq. ft. or less
5361,98
$240 98
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office 6 001 50rWt -100,000 sq. ft.
$358-85
310:57
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office 100,001-200,000 sq. ft,
5280-31
$263.59
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Otlice 200,001400,000 sq, ft.
523463
$221,83
Per 1,000 sq, ft.
Office Greater than 400.000 sq, ft.
&243-94$200,95
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office - Medical greater then 10 000 so, Ft
$439,46
$433 22
Per 1,000 sq" ft.
Office -Medial 10 000 soft or les 8
$297.52
Per 1,000 so. ft.
Pharmacy0rug Store
$492.00
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Quick Lube
$295,71
Per Service Bay
RV Park
$137-65
$131-42
Per Site
Restaurant Fact Food w/Drive-In
$2,296.85
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Restaurant - High Turnover
$68"82
Per seat
Restaurant -Que ly Low Tumover
$56,08
Per seat
Retail 50,000 Sq. Ft. or Less
$624.55
Per 1,000 sq. ft"
Retail 50,001-100,000 Sq. Ft,
5670.44
$642 01
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Reil 10,0-01-I90SID45q Ft.
$596.51
CSF`W21-
Per t,BBQ S*It
Retwl 150,001-200,000 Sq" FL
572632
5,717,70
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Rcuul 200,001-400,000 Sq. Ft.
%637-30
5610.69
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 400,001-600,000 Sq. FL
5650853$
3 7,Q
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 600,001-1,000,000 Sq. Ft.
$63685
5431 57
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail >1,000,000 Sq. Ft.
$S32.781545.45
Per 1,000 sq, ft
Retail -Specialty
$430,82
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
School- Elementary(Private)
$15.29
Per Student
School- Middle (Private)
$17.84
Per Student
School- High School (Private)
520.39
Per Student
Supermarket
$522,59
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
'Fire Store
$341.59
Per Service Bay
Warehouse
73.07
Per 1000 sq, ft
( nd t I ineAlaxt is added; &ruek4reugh text is deleted
Page 22 of 24
ER
i�M
APPENDIX A - SCHEDULE FOUR
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES (JAIL) IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE
Phase 2.. Effective Feb s� May Il, 2015
Impact Fee Land Use Category
Rate
Residential
Assisted Living Facility
;26443
$219.22
Per Dvcllmg Unit
Condom.,,ahouse (1-2 Stones)
$245 32
Per Dwelling Unit
High -Rise Condominium(3+Stories)
$245.32
Per Dwelling Unit
Mobile Hom,/RV tie -down
;332-.}g
$375.81
Per Dtvvllmg Unit/Siic
Multi -Family
$216,61
Per Dwelling Unit
Multi -Family - More than 10 Stories
$216.61
Per Dwc '-A—un-11
Retirement Community
,229.66
Per Dwelling Unit
Single Family
Less than 4,5C04,000 sq. ft,
$443.23
47237
Per Dwelling Unit
—F,5&'3Fe-b,494xt-R.
54&3-30
Per Dw Rmll-umo
-2;500 4,000 sq. ft or larger
$535,189
54023
Per Dwelling Unit
Non -Residential
Auto Sales (Luxury)
$268,81
Per 1,000 sq. a.
Auto Sales (New/Uscd)
$383.64
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Bank/Saviags', Drive -In
$595.03
Per 1,000 sq. 0,
Bank/Savings; Walk -In
$581.99
Per 1,000 sq, ft,
Business Park
$25054
Per 1,000 sq, A.
Car Wash -Self-Service
&ISS -5O
227.05
Per Service Bay
Car Wash - Automated
$419.42
$459.32
Per ],GOO sq. ft.
Church
$1-45.3
7.83
Per 4 -,s}00 -,q -R: Lest
College/University (Private)
<7,501
$25.49$26.10
Per Student
,7,500
SP441$
827
Per Student
Convenience Stare (24 hours)
SI- ,394,43
11.4275
Per 1,000 sq, ft.
Convenience Store _'Guopumpir
.�v
Per Fu3-Position-
4 or less Fuel Positions
$1,135.26
Per Fuel Position
5-6 Fuel Positions
5965.63
Per Fuel Position
7 - 9 Fuel Positions
5858.62
Per Fucl Position
9 - 10 Fuel Positions
$76728
Per Fuel Position
I I - 12 Fuel Positions
$717.70
Per Fucl Position
13 or more Fucl Positions
5675.94
Per Fuel Position
Dame Studio/Gyms
$579.38
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Day Care
S43.7-5$130.5
Per Student
Furniture Store
5f447
$62.64
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Gasoline smice Station
5498.47
Per Fuel Position
r derima, text is added, gtrm,e ough text is deleted
Page 23 or 24
DRAFT
Impact Fee Land Use Category Rate
Noo.Realdeatial (Cont'd)
Golf Course
$4;933.70
$5 073.45
Per I& Holes
GulfCourse- Bundled
$1,521.51
Per lB Holes
Home Improvement Store
£43176
$472.37
Per 1,000 sq.1
Hospital
5357.54
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Hotel
$201,39
$20.77
Per Room
industrial - General Light
$17590
$180.08
Per 1,000 sq. ft,
Manufacturing
$130.49
Per 1,000 sq, R.
Marina
W..434S
M
Per Barth
Mini -Warehouse
$15.66
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Motcl
5191:19
,51213.24
Per Room
Movie Theater
$ 524.-04
$i_„5,6AM
Per Scrcen
Nursing Home
$+83:54
$2L4.L8
Per Bed
Office 6,000 sq. ft. or Ins
5260.98
Per 1,000 sq, R.
Office 6,001 -100,000 sq. ft.
$310.57
Per 1,000 sq. A.
Office 100,001-200,000 sq. ft.
$263.59
Per 1,000 sq, ft,
Office 200,001-400,000 sq, ft.
$221.83
Per 1,000 sq. A,
Office Greater than 400,000 sq. ft.
$200.95
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
OtFce- 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, ft.
PharmacyfDrug Stare
$492.0
$.511 52
Per 1,000 sq. A.
Quick Lube
9295:71
$302.74
Per Service Bay
RV Park
$130.49
Per Site
Restaurant- Fast Food w(Drivc-in
$2,296:65
L2.322.7
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Restaurant - High Turnover
$68$2
120A
Par seal
Restaurant - Low Turnover
$56.08
$67,_,42
Per scat
Retail 50;000 6 000 Sq. Ft. or Less
$621.53
$§39.40
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 6.001-25 000 Sq, Ft.
$629,4
Per 1,000q Fl
Retail 25.00 1-50QQ
$639.40
Per 1,000 so. A.
Retail 50,00 6100,000 Sq. Ft.
$642.01
Per 1,000 sq. A.
Retail 100-,,001-t50,000 Sq. Ft.
$587.21
Per 1,000 sq. ft
Retail 150,001-200,000 Sq. Ft.
$717.70
Per 1,000 sq. ft
Retail 200,001400,000 Sq. Ft.
$610.69
Per 1,000 sq. A.
Retail 400,001-600,000 Sq. Ft,
$636.79
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail 600,001-1,000,000 Sq. F4
$63157
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Rcmd >1,000,000 Sq. Ft
$545,45
Par 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail - Specialty
$430,825441.06
Per 1,000 sq. A.
School- Elementary(Private)
34329
$1566
Per Student
School- Middle (Private)
W.84$1827
Per Student
School- High School (Private)
$2439
$20.88
Per Student
Supermarket
$52139
5525 01
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Tire Store
$341,39
$349,71
Per Scrvica Bay
Warchooc
73.07
Per 1,000 sq, ft.
Undr` lined tcm is added; &ruck-Ehteu3h text is delated
Page 24 of 24
DRAFT
APPENDIX C
EXISTING AND PROPOSED
WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT
FEE SCHEDULE IN COUNTY FORMAT
DRAFT
Appendix C
Cugies Cmmtywnlerscecz District
Water mawesteeater Tmpacc Fee study
d PrammedW l WastewaterS' S a Connote Farmnt
RESIDENTIAL
INDIVIDUALLY METERED
IJNNGSPACE(SO.FTJ
ERCFador lawman
BASIS OFFEE
METER SIZE
WATERIMPACTFEE
WATERIMPACTFEE
WASTEWATER
WASTEWATER
30
Selweuacoos.rnsa
ALLOCATION
50
1.6]
1-112"
IMPACTFEE
IMPACTFEE
21
EpSTING
PROPOSED
EMITTING
PROPOSED
OT04,9"
1,W
For ERG tneetlet l ERCT
3I<"
ser.
5?56]
Y¢S15
S27m
turanO.mr and Tacerl
116.67
50000RMORE
Per ERC(Lasedan POF
Vabee(flelererie Meter
ERC-V41LEai3,¢W�
ERG VALUE Z S;552
so L,
52]ot
1Ruonemerveml.r
Vann minlmumvelued lj
Pormula)
gee Noes)
(mRdwnrYaai2404)
partlmum value 63, 562)
Meter also demented by ureteral term. value connected b me meter and sodium, app11mbla provision in me cement edition of the Flenda Norman, Code. Referenne the Meter
Merer Six No.
swi ng Form.
ERC eiIh ADF Formula
Man AOF b in Gallons Per Minute (GPM) Men uae Ne formula ((AUF8010N+1
RESIDENTIAL
MASTER METERED
LIVING SPACE(SO.FTJ
ERC Cmrvr�hnr
RC
BASIS OF FEE
METER SIZE
WATERIMPACTFEE
WASTEWATERIMPACTFEE
R een W
ALLOCATION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
EXISTING
PROPOSED
OTO]W
0.33
PER UNIT
Per GPMor Englnaervf
egg
$645
iMN
5691
Rewrd
TSi TO LWO
Set
PER UNIT
Per GPMor Enynaeror
Wyg
$1,716
IN M.
51,609
Record
1,5010R MORE
1.W
PER UNIT
Fer GPMorrdalnaerd
ypppg
$ZMM
52515
$2701
Retard
Mera d.d.tarmmoul by the Wal brute valu mmuclad to Me meter e@tl applying applicahle pmvialon in to. rumem edit.nol Me Fl0nd0 Plumbing Code. Reference the Meter
M"Nustze Na(e
Ginn, Fern.
NON-RESIDENTIAL
CUSTOMER TYPE
ERC ISwx.ImRea'eemA
RASISOFFEE
MEIERSIZE(1f
WATERIMPACTFEE
WASTEVIATER IMPACT FEE
cse ed.N.01
ALLOCATION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
EXISTING
PROPOSED
NcnRnidentlel
1.0o
PER METUN.MU
1.
-a.
$2,563
52,515
S?701
NemRexidential
1.6]
PER METER D-
1"
"Isl
IN.Va
51.2W
St510
Mov, 'Mntii
333
PHt METHi&ZE
t-1iC
5MA5G
58.531'.
IiIWL
SOM",
Ne, Reald.mal
5.33
PERMETER.].
T
W,B89
$13,655
5W.406
$14,396
NonRealdentiel
Is'.
PERMEUR51ZE
3"
53B,Nan
536,430
557,,
Saudis
Nor-Rsedenfial
13.33
PER MENER SIZE
4,
i56.CG0
$65,391
551,525
5900N
Non-Raltlarmal
N&S,
PERMETERSIZE
T
5151544
$17OSO6
5167&15
5180,075
Non-Rmltlential
11667
PERM...[ZE
B'
I'mI0
E2ma..
asul e5
$315,125
Meteraae determined by Me total picture value compred to Me melerentl epplYing@PPbaeble provlelon In the mmm( edition el Me Florida Plumbing Cede. Rebrum eMe Meter
Merer Slza NON
STsm, Form.
Im
[t] Based on the rated capacities per technical e,vorkaeons of meters used by Me County.
[2] Reflects rated hydraulic capsdty of meta, deoldad by 30 gallons per minute based on Me mted capadty ofsurallest meter also.
ERC Factors by Meter Size for Non Residential Customers
Rated Capedty
ERC
Meter Slze
(gallons Per minurl IF
Facto, 121
314"
30
1.00
1"
50
1.6]
1-112"
100
3.33
21
160
5,33
3"
450
15.00
4"
1,000
33.33
6"
2,000
66.67
6"
3,500
116.67
[t] Based on the rated capacities per technical e,vorkaeons of meters used by Me County.
[2] Reflects rated hydraulic capsdty of meta, deoldad by 30 gallons per minute based on Me mted capadty ofsurallest meter also.