Agenda 10/12/2010 Item #10E
Agenda Item No. 10E
October 12, 2010
Page 1 of 25
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to grant a one-time exception of policy from the Consolidated
Impact Fee Ordinance, Ordinance Number 2001-13, as amended, to provide a
wastewater impact fee payment option for the applicant of permit number
2010070017.
OBJECTIVE: The public purpose of this action is to offer a fair and equitable
alternative for the payment of the wastewater impact fee and Allowance for Funds
Prudently Invested (AFPI) fee assessed with permit number 2010070017,
CONSIDERATIONS: The applicant for permit number 2010070017 requested, via a
publie petition to the Board of County Commissioners (Board) on September 14,2010,
Item 6E, a partial or complete waiver of the wastewater impact fee associated with permit
number 2010070017, or the creation of a payment plan. (See Attachment A), After
hearing testimony from the applicant and staff, the Board directed staff to bring back
available options, Staff has researched and developed four options for the Board's
review,
--
Options one and two both ensure the cost of the wastewater capacity utilization is paid
for by the applicant (user), rather than having to be absorbed by the entire Collier County
Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) customer base (staff recommends Option One), Options
three and four provide full relief to the applicant of wastewater impact and AFPI fees,
placing the burden of those impacts on the cCWSD customer base,
Option One - Stalf will place a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) Hold on permit number
2010070017, This will allow the building permit to be issued without the payment of the
wastewater impact fee, Staff will waive the alternative impact fee calculation review fee
of $2,500, then engage the alternative impact fee calculation process, At its conclusion,
the property owner will have the option to pay the alternative wastewater impact fee in
full, or enter into a five-year payment plan agreement. If a payment plan is selected, staff
will initiate a lien against the property for the full amount of the alternative wastewater
caleulation, The CO Hold will be removed when a payment is received or when a
payment agreement is in place.
Option Two - Staff will place a CO Hold on permit number 2010070017, This will
allow the building permit to be issued without the payment of the wastewater impact fee,
Staff will prepare a five-year payment plan agreement with the property owner for the
calculated amount of the wastcwater impact fee, $29,707,50, and the AFPI fee of
$4,389,91 (a total of$34,097,4l), The paymcnt plan will be interest free and a lien will
be initiated against the property. The CO Hold will be removed when a payment
agreement is in place,
--
It should be noted that during the review of permit application number 2010070017,
information provided to the Public Utilities Division by the Growth Management
Division (see Attachments B, C, and D) indicates that a wastewater impact fee for the
applicant's existing linen service was not assessed in 2008 for its present location at 4344
Enterprise Avenue (permit number 2008041158), The utilization of wastewater capacity
Executive Summary
Permit 2010070017
Page 2
Agenda Item No.1 OE
October 12,2010
Page 2 of 25
has already occurred and the obligation for the impact runs with the land. Staff
recommends not pursuing the Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance-required wastewater
impact fee and associated AFPI fee, as long as the tenant moves to the new location at
4573 Enterprise Avenue within 90 calendar days of this Board action.
Option Three - Waive all wastewater impact fees through a one-time exception for the
applicant at the previous and proposed locations due to the specific circumstances
associated with permit numbers 2008041158 and 2010070017.
It is the CCWSD's position that the waiver of water and wastewater impact fees will
result in a shortfall in the cost recovery of capital expenditures and will further constrain
the CCWSD's ability to meet debt payments on funds already expended for growth-
related projects. Continuing to transfer the cost to the users will result in user rate
increases. (See Attaclunent E - Collier County Public Utilities Water-Sewer District -
Effect ofImpact Fee waiver for Change of Use)
Option Four - Require the CCWSD to participate III the "Impact Fee Program for
Existing Commercial Redevelopment."
Under the existing "Impact Fee Program for Existing Commercial Redevelopment," the
Board exeluded the CCWSD rate payers from double exposure of waiver of impact fees.
First, the rate payers absorb the cost of the waived water and sewer impact fees in their
user rates. Second, the rate payers, as ad-valorem taxpayers, absorb the cost of all other
waived impact fees in the form of ad valorem taxes.
To determine the financial impact of waiving water and wastewater impact fees in
accordance with the "Impact Fee Program for Existing Commercial Redevelopment,"
staff initiated a review of the last two fiscal years to determine the amount of water and
wastewater impact fees directly attributable to change of use pem1its as defined by Public
Utilities. (See Attachment F - Fiscal Year Impact Fee Revenue - Change of Use)
Staff reports show approximately $490,000 in change of use water and wastewater
impact fees for FY2010 and $1.2 million for FY2009. The combined amount of $1.69
million would have been uncollected revenue if the CCWSD had been included in the
impact fee waiver program for those two years. Having no other means to equalize these
eosts, the customer base of the CCWSD would have had to absorb the burden in user
fees.
For these reasons staff recommends the Board uphold its prior decision to exempt
CCWSD water and wastewater impact fees from unfunded waivers, deferrals, and
exemptions. (See Attachment G Agenda Item No. lOB, February 24, 2009)
FISCAL IMPACT: If the Board approves the applicant's request to waive the
wastewater impact fee, the CCWSD will not collect $29,707.50, plus an estimated AFPI
fee of $4,389.91 for permit 2010070017. The non-collection of these ordinance-required
fees will necessitate the total sum of $34,097.41 to be absorbed by the entire CCWSD
customer base.
Exeeutive Summary
Permit 20 I 00700 17
Page 3
Agenda Item NO.1 OE
October 12, 2010
Page 3 of 25
The staff recommended options, instituting an interest-free payment plan agreement,
assure the properly assessed wastewater impact fee and AFPI fee will be received in full,
albeit over a period of five years. Under that arrangement, the CCWSD customer base
will not have to absorb additional costs for which they receive no direct benefit.
If the Board accepts staffs recommendation to not pursue a wastewater impact fee from
the property owner at 4344 Enterprise Avenue (the linen service's present location), the
CCWSD will not col1ect $22,334.34, plus an AFPI fee of $1,089.72 for permit
2008041158, The non-collection of these ordinance-required fees will necessitate the
total sum of $23,424.06 to be absorbed by thc entire CCWSD customer base.
If the Board does not approve the CCWSD's continued exclusion from the change of use
waiver, based on FY09 and FYIO results, the projected annual financial burden will
exceed $500,000 and will have to be absorbed by the entire CCWSD customer base.
Continuing to transfer the cost to the users will result in user rate increases.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved by the
County Attorney and is legally sufficient for Board action - JAK.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact on the Growth
Management Plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Board of County Commissioners, as Ex-officio the
Governing Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer District, (I) grant a one-time
exception of policy from the Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, Ordinance Number
2001-13, as amended, to provide a wastewater impact fee payment option for the
applicant of permit number 20 I 00700 17 (via the method described herein as "Option
One"); and, (2) direct staff to not col1ect the unpaid wastewater impact fee and AFPI fee
associated with permit 2008041158, as long as, the tenant moves to the new location at
4573 Enterprise A venue within 90 calendar days from this Board action; and, (3) reaffirm
the Collier County Water Sewer District's continued exclusion from Ordinance No.
2009-14, as amcnded, which cstablished the "lmpact Fee Program for Existing
Commereial Redevelopment."
Prepared by: Gilbert Moneivaiz, Impact Fee Coordinator, Public Utilities Division
Item Number:
Item Summary:
Meeting Date:
Agenda Item No. 10E
October 12, 2010
Page 4 of 25
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
10E
Recommendation to grant a one-time exception of policy from the Consolidated Impact Fee
Ordinance, Ordinance Number 2001-13, as amended, to provide a wastewater impact fee
payment option for the applicant of permit number 2010070017. (Jim Delany, Public Utilities
Administrator)
10/12/20109:00:00 AM
Prepared By
Gilbert Moncivaiz
Public Utilities Division
Impact Fee Coordinator
Date
Utilities Finance Operations
9/27/20109:01 :14 AM
Approved By
Margie Hapke
Public Utilities Division
Operations Analyst
Date
Public Utilities Division
10/4/201010:39 AM
Approved By
Thomas Wides
Public Utilities Division
Director - Operations Support - PUD
Date
Utilities Finance Operations
10/4/201010:55 AM
Approved By
Jeff Klatzkow
County Attorney
Date
Approved By
10/4/201011:30 AM
James W. Delany
Public Utilities Division
Public Utilities Division Administrator
Date
Public Utilities Division
10/4/201012:05 PM
Approved By
OMS Coordinator
County Manager's Office
Date
Office of Management & Budget
10/4/201012:49 PM
Approved By
Susan Usher
Office of Management &
Budget
Management/Budget Analyst, Senior
Date
Office of Management & Budget
10/4/20104:28 PM
Approved By
Leo E. Ochs, Jr.
County Managers Office
County Manager
Date
County Managers Office
10/4120104:33 PM
e
Attachment A
4~~ .... .
Itiif'.:';;.I..:.~ Office of the County Manager
\.'~~~:..,;I Leo ~~s, J~" _
'''~ 3301 East Tami.... Trai' Naples ROOda 34112. (239) 252-83B3' FAX: (239) 252-4010
Agenda Item NO.1 OE
October 12, 2010
Page 5 of 25
. .", .~-= .,.,-_.,.....~-..
....."'_....""""...,.._......_-,~~-......-
August 30,2010
Ms. Denise Denard
2271 Harbor Road
Naples Fl 34104
Re: Public Petition Request regarding wastewater impact fees
Dear Ms. Denard,
Please be advised that you are scheduled to appear before the Collier County Board of
Commissioners at the meeting of September 14, 2010, regarding the above referenced subject
.
Your petition to the Board of County Commissioners will be limited to ten minutes. Please be
advised that the Board will take no aclion on your petition at this meeting. However, your
petition may be placed on a future agenda for consideration at the Board's discretion. If the
subject matter is currenliy under litigation or is an on-going Code Enforcement case, the Board
will hear the item but will not discuss the item after it has been presented. Therefore, your
petition to the Board should be to advise them of your concem and the need for action by the
Board at a Mure meeting.
The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. in the Board's Chambers on the Third Floor of the W.
Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") of the government complex. Please arrange to be
present at this meeting and to respond to inquiries by Board members.
If you require any further information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contaclthis office.
Sincer!!!y, .
~,.
.:4 ;1.:
Mike Sheffield
Assistant to the County Manager
.<,/~",./
MJS:mjb
cc: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Jim Delony, Public Utilities Administrator
Agenda Item NO.1 OE
October 12, 2010
Page 6 of 25 .
.
Reauest to Speak under Public Petition
-~ ..."....~... ,-".- "-';"-;",--'"
Please print
Name:Denise Denard
Address 2271 Harbor Rd
Naples, fl. 34104
Phone 239-398- 0900 Cell or 239- 659- 0900 land line
Date of the Board Meetina yoU wish to speak Tuesday September 14th, 2010
Must circle yes or no:
Is this subject matter under litigation at this time? No
Is this subject matter an ongoing Code Enforcement case? No
Note: If either answer is "yes", the Board will hear the item but will have no
discussion regarding the item after it is presented.
Please explain in detail the reason yOU are reouestinolo soeak (attach additional
oaae if necessary):
...,;
To discuss unexpected impact fees of $29,000 being assessed: These
impact fees were not disclosed when applying for permits and asking what
the requirements were to relocate our business. To ask for a variance, so
that we are able to move to a larger facility, grow our business and create
jobs in the community. To recoup our cost for permits, rents, drawings, work
done by the gas company etc. should you not be able to come up with a
solution to make our move possible
On May 25'h, I applied for a plumbing and gas permit so that we could
relocate our existing business into a larger unit Prior to the application I
specifically inquired as to what was expected from the county in order for us
to make this move.
I spoke with Christine Willoughby, showed her our existing business at
4344 enterprise Ave and the site plans for the new location at 4573
Enterprise Avenue. I asked if I needed to show any plumbing work to be
scheduled in the application for insubstantial change or if there is anything
else that I need to be made aware of prior to moving forward to relocate my
'--
C:\Documents and Settings\brock:_m\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\ContentOutlook\JMDOI6DS\FORM Public
Petition Request Form .doc
.
Agenda Item NO.1 OE
October 12, 2010
Page 7 of 25
business. I was told that an application for insubstantial change would be
expensive and -that it cost $500,00 dollars that '.did no! have to sho.w._.
plumbing but would need to apply for a plumbing permit. I was told to
provide 14 copies of architectural plans signed and sealed by an engineer.
Since no plumbing was required on the insubstantial change I went ahead
and filed the necessary paperwork for our gas permit. A permit was issued
for propane installation and the gas company has completed all of the
outside work already, should we not able to move into unit 4573 enterprise
ave we will also have to compensate the gas company for their work at a
cost of at least $2,00- $2,500 dollars
I contracted a plumber and paid him an advance for drawings, permit fees
and materials. Prior to applying for plumbing permit, I spoke with Dick
Noonan to see if anything else would be required of us, the plumber himself
inquired to make sure that what we were providing would be acceptable. We
were told what size pipe to run etc. Never and I repeat never at anytime did a
red flag come up or a mention that we would be subject to impact fees for
the type of business that we are operating
'_n ~.,._ ':__'~_._ ~_ ~ _,'.
.
On July 21st two months after the application we are put to a halt by the
county asking us to pay $29.000 thousand for alternative impact fee before
we can receive our permit. They also mentioned that an additional fee may
follow in the sum of $2,000 dollars,
We have spoken with Gilbert Moncivaiz (Impact Fee Coordinator) and Tom
Wides (operations director of Public Utilities) We have been told that the
method used to come up with this figure is based on the type of business
that we are and the square footage etc .etc. The unspoken part is that our
business is classified under the same guidelines as a hotel or Restaurant of
which we are neither, The capacity of water that we use compared to these
business is non comparable. Both gentleman agreed & apologized that the
county was at fault for placing us in this position but neither accepted
responsibility.
.
C:\Documents and Settings\brock_m\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\Content.OutlookIJMDOI6DS\FORM Public
Petition Request Fonn.doc
~ , . .
.--
~
l
Agenda Item No. 10E
October 12, 2010
Page 8 of 25
Please explain in detail the action vou are askina the Commission to take (attach
additional pace if necessary):
-'__ -, ~ __,_____'. _ _c~,._--- ,.~..__. --.
At this time we ask that the county commissioners review our petition.
Since we are an existing business and our moving would have no actual
impact on the waste water system, since our waste water is already being
processed and has been since May of 2008, we are asking the commission to
consider waiving the impact fees, or at least lower them to a level that would
be affordable for a small business in this tough business climate. Apayment
option would also be appreciated.
Thank You for your time and consideration.
Denise Denard
C:\Documents and Settings\brock:_m\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Conrent.Outlook\JMDOI6DS\FORM Public
Petition Request Form.doc
.
Attachment B
Agenda Item No. 10E
October 12. 2010
Page 9 of 25
NapKing Fact Sheet - 2010070017
Updated September 30,2010 9:00 AM
Created by Gilbert Moncivaiz, Public Utilities Impact Fee Coordinator
SUBJECT:
.
.
Public petition regarding the assessment of sewer impaet fees on permit 2010070017.
1. Purpose:
a. The "Applicant" (the owner of NAP KING Denise Denard and her husband Michael Rhodes) has
filed a public petition to be heard before the Board on September 14, 2010, The Applicant is
seeking an alternative resolution outside the processes allowed within the Consolidated Impact
Fee Ordinance (CIFO) 2001-13 (as amended) for the calculation and payment of the sewer
impact fee.
2.
Background:
a, The Applicant is in a sewer only service area. Water is provided by the City of Naples.
b. PUD Operations received a fixture count worksheet from Plumbing Review for permit
2010070017. A Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Form was submitted by the Applieant's
plumber. The two documents contained a discrepancy regarding the number of washing
machines. For the pUlpose of the sewer impact fee calculation, staff defaulted to the count (4
washing machines) submitted by Plumbing Review.
c. Per Ordinance 2007-52 (amendment to the CIFO 2001-13), staff is required to use the Florida
Administrative Code (FA C) or Florida Plumbing Code (seleeting the greater of the two) as the
basis for ealcuIation of water and/or sewer impact fees. The "best fit" under F AC is the use of
the flow rate for a self service washing machine at 750 gallons per day. Although the reference
is under the Hotel and Motel category, staff is not considering this business as comparable to a
Hotel or Motel, but rather, is only using the specifie reference to a washing machine for the
calculation.
d. Staff ealculated a sewer impact fee of $29,707.50 (based on 4 washing machines minus available
credits) on permit 201 0070017.
e. Gilbert Moncivaiz, Impact Fee Coordinator and Javier Martinez, Operations Analyst met with
the Applicant on July 2], 2010. A general overview of the impact fee process and the alternative
impact fee calculation process were discussed with the Applicant. The Applicant was also
notified that the Allowance for Funds Prudently Invested fee would be assessed after the
payment of the sewer impact fee. Although the Applicant conveyed an understanding of the
procedures, they wanted to know if there was any other method available to immediately present
their concerns to the Board. Staff advised the Applicant to contact their Commissioner for
information regarding their alternatives.
f Staff arranged another meeting for July 30, 2010 for the Applicant to present their coneerns to
the Operations Support Manager (Amia Curry) and Director of Operations Support (Tom
Wides). Mr. Moncivaiz was also present for the meeting. The Applicant voiced concern about
the sewer impaet fee cost estimate and the determination of the fees. The Applicant also voiced
displeasure that staff at Growth Management did not advise them of potential additional
expenses (i.e. the sewer impact fee). Mr. Wides stated that he would further investigate the
circumstances leading up to this point. After the meeting, Mr. Wides contacted Growth
Management for a summary of the circumstanees. The subsequent follow-up with Growth
Management revealed that there were circumstances that precluded staff having full knowledge
of the Applicant build-out intent. (Please see memo dated August 9, 2010 from Growth
Management) The alternative impact fee calculation process was also discussed with the
Applicant during this meeting.
.
\"..,I
<--
Attachment B
Agenda Item No. 10E
October 12, 2010
Page 10 of 25
g. The Applicant requested a public petition to the Board which is scheduled for Septernber 14,
2010.
3.
Options or Considerations:
a. Staff assisted the Applicant through the impaet fee assessment process. Applicant communicated
a clear understanding of the process.
b. The Ordinance provides clear direction for the caleulation and payment of waterlsewer impact
fees, The assessment of the sewer impaet fee is the result of a normal business process.
e, The Applieant has the option to pursue an Alternative Impaet Fee Calculation as outlined in the
Consolidated Impaet Fee Ordinance,
4. Coordination Required:
a. Between Applicant and PUD Operations m the event the Applicant elects to pursue the
alternative impact fee caIeulation proeess.
5.
Recommendation:
a Request that the Board grant a one-time exeeption of policy from the Consolidated Impact Fee
Ordinance (Ordinance Number 2001-13, as amended), to provide a wastewater impact fee
payment option for the applicant and property owner of permit number 2010070017,
b. If the Board does not grant the exeeption above: staff recommends that the Applieant follow the
normal business proeess for permitting and the payment of impact fees, The Ordinance provides
clear direction for the calculation and payment of water/sewer impact fees, The Ordinance also
provides an alternative impact fee caleulation process in the event the Applicant disagrees with
the assessment.
.
.
. .
Attachment C
Agenda Item No. 10E
October 12, 2010
Page 11 of 25
NapKing Fact Sheet - 2008041158
Updated September 30,20109:00 AM
Created by Gilbert Moncivaiz, Publie Utilities Impact Fee Coordinator
SUBJECT:
.
3.
.
Assessment of Sewer Impact Fees and the Allowance for Funds Prudently Invested
Fee (AFPI) for permit 2008041158.
1. Purpose:
a. An unassessed sewer impact fee for permit 2008041158 was brought to the attention of Gilbert
Moncivaiz (Impact Fee Coordinator) by Claudine Auclair (Growth Management Division)
during review of circumstances associated with permit 2010070017 for a tenant moving from
one location to another.
2.
Background:
a. The customer is in a sewer only service area. Water is provided by the City of Naples.
b, July 30, 2010 - A meeting took place regarding permit 2010070017 between PUD Operations
Staff (Tom Wides, Direetor of Operations Support, Amia Curry, Manager of Operations Support,
and Gilbert Moncivaiz, Impact Fee Coordinator) and the "Customer" (the owner of NAP KING;
Denise Denard accompanied by her husband Michael Rhodes). Ms. Denard also invited the
landlord for the new location, Gene. The Customer voiced concern about the sewer impaet fee
cost estimate and the determination of the fees. The customer also voiced displeasure that staff
at Growth Management did not advise them of potential additional expenses (i.e, the sewer
impaet fee). Mr. Wides stated that he would further investigate the circumstances leading up to
this point. After the meeting, Mr. Wides contacted Growth Management for a summary of the
circumstances. The subsequent follow-up with Growth Management revealed that there were
circumstances that precluded staff having full knowledge of the customer build-out intent for
permit 2010070017. It also revealed that sewer impact fees were not assessed on permit
2008041 ]58 for the current location. (Please see memo dated August 9, 2010 from Growth
Management regarding Fine and Dandy Service)
Options or Considerations:
a. The information provided by the Growth Management Division suggests that $22,334.34 is due
for unpaid sewer impact fees on permit 2008041158. A fixture count worksheet prepared by
Plumbing Review and a Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Form are needed to verify the
calculation.
b. Permit 2008041158 is for the address 4344 Enterprise Ave. The customer may no longer be a
tenant in this building if they proceed to move to the new location at 4573 Enterprise Ave.
c. Permit 2008041158 is within the standard 4 year window for corrections. Section 95.11 (3) (p),
Florida Statutes establishes a four year statute of limitations for any "action not specifically
provided for in these statutes." Because impact fees are not specifically provided for in Chapter
95, Florida Statutes, a four-year statute oflimitation should be applied.
d. Per Ordinanee 2006-27, the AFPI fee is based on the date impaet fee payment is received by the
County. If it is concluded that the sewer impact fee was unassessed and therefore unpaid due to
a County error, reeommend assessment of the AFPI fee at rates in effect at the time impact fees
would have been paid (permit issued April 2008).
4. Coordination Required:
a. To establish and confirm the sewer impact fee due, PUD Operations needs a fixture count
worksheet from the Plumbing Review group at Growth Management.
.
-,
)
Attachment C
Agenda Item No. 10E
October 12, 2010
Page 12 of 25
b, To establish and confirm the sewer impact fee due, PUD Operations needs an impaet fee form
the property owner and/or tenant.
e. Communication with the property owner and tenant regarding the assessment and payment of the
sewer impact fee and the Alternative Impact Fee Caleulation process.
5.
Recommendation:
a. Request that the Board direct staff to not collect the unpaid wastewater impact fee and associated
AFPI fee associated with permit 2008041158, as long as, the tenant moves to the new location at
4573 Enterprise Avenue within 90 calendar days from this Board
b. Without Board approval to not collect:
i. To follow the water and sewer impact fee procedure outlined in Ordinanee 2007-52
(amendment to the ClFO 2001-13) whieh requires a ealculation by Florida
Administrative Code or Florida Plumbing Code and seleeting the greater of the two).
ii. To follow the eollection proeedures outlined in the Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance
(CIFO) 2001-13 (as amended),
iii. To communicate with the property owner and tenant regarding the assessment and
payment of the sewer impact fee and the Alternative Impact Fee Calculation process.
iv. To assess AFPI fee at rates in effect at time of permit issuance (April 2008).
.
Date:
To:
From:
Cc:
Subject:
Naples, FL
Attachment D
Agenda Item NO.1 OE
October 12, 2010
Page 13 of 25
cJt,. Cou.J1ty
- ~- -
Gro.NI!l rv1anagement Division
Plaming & Regulation
Building Review
Memorandum
August 9th, 2010
Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, Growth Management Division
Tom Wides, Director, Operations Support, Public Utilities Division
Claudine Auclair, Business Center Manager
James French, Operations Director
Fine and Dandy Service - Ms. Denise Denard - 4573 Enterprise Avenue,
.
I contacted Tom Wides, Director, Operations Support from the Public Utilities Division,
who provided me with a brief summary of events that led to Ms. Denard being very
upset with county procedures and county staff.
The following is a series of steps staff followed to find additional information with regard
to this incident:
First, a look into the telephone log beginning in April 2010 didn't produce any results.
Staff attempted to investigate the history of activities that have taken place with regards
to Ms. Denard's business.
The series of events below will accurately describe Ms. Denard's steps take through the
permit process:
Amerigas Propane, on her behalf, applied for building permit no. 2010041880 on April
27th, 2010, for the installation of three (3) 420 Ibs above ground propane tanks at 4573
Enterprise Avenue, Suite #f3. This is the location where Ms. Denard is proposing to
relocate her business, Fine and Dandy Service. The permit was rejected by the Zoning
Department on April 28th, 2010 by Christine Willoughby because these tanks were not
previously shown on the Site Development Plan or Site Improvement Plan. Christine
explained to Ms. Denard the SIP process in detail. Ms. Denard didn't want to seek the
assistance of an engineering firm to go through this review. She also expressed her
frustration at having to go through this Insubstantial Change process.
. On May 25th, 2010, an application for an SIPI (Site Improvement Plan Insubstantial
Change) from Ms. Denard was processed under project number PL-2010-0958 and the
Agenda Item NO.1 OE
October 12, 2010
Page 14 of 25
assigned planner was Michael Sawyer. Christine Willoughby was not involved in the
reviewoftheSIPf, .
.
On June 18, 2010 a rejection letter was issued and the rejection comments were from
the Addressing Department. The rejection comments were addressed quickly and on
June 23, 2010 an approval letter was created for this business.
During the review period of this project, Ms. Denard actually came to the office and
obtained access to Michael Sawyer's office without a previous appointment. Her visit
was around June 15th or June 16th, but most likely on June 16th, She demanded that
Michael Sawyer review her project 'on the spot" as he was costing her money. Michael
tried to explain the backlog and that he was the only staff member doing this type of
review (that was just after the departure of Ashley Caserta to the CRA). Michael
expressed that he had not seen such anger in a very long time and did what he could to
make her understand the situation, She waited to make sure he physically placed her
project to the top, ahead of all others. Ms. Denard was angry and had an extremely
confrontational attitude toward Michael.
Christine mentioned that she assisted Ms, Denard on one occasion during the SIPI
process and took her back to the commercial building review section to replace
information in her submittal package,
Once the Insubstantial Change was approved, the building permit for the installation of
the three propane tanks was approved by Christine Willoughby and the permit was
issued on July 1St, 2010.
-....I
It appears that the same day the building permit for the propane tanks was approved;
the plumbing contractor submitted the building permit application for the plumbing
repairs and installation to be done.
Amold's Plumbing of Collier County applied on her behalf, for permit No. 2010070017
for plumbing repairs and installation. The permit mentioned the installation of a new
water & drainage line for four (4) commercial washing machines; three (3) compact
sinks and tank less water heater.
The building permit was reviewed by John Kelly for zoning, and approved on 7/7/2010.
This is the last time, the land development services department had anything to do with
this building permit. To this day, several reject comments remain on this building permit
application. Because of the type of permit application, the building permit was sent to
Public Utilities for review. At that time, an informational comment was added to the
permit from Javier Martinez from Public Utilities Finance Operations Support that
additional impact fees were due in the amount of $29,707.50. The Business Center
staff followed proper building review procedures by routing this permit appropriately,
(
In conclusion, I believe Ms. Denard's frustration is a buildup of a series of events that
got much bigger when she discovered the amount of additional impact fees she is
required to pay prior to obtaining her building permit. When Ms. Denard came in to
apply for the LP Gas permit for the new location, she never mentioned the other work
that would be performed. The building permit for the plumbing work to be done was
only submitted the day the LP gas building permit was picked-up.
.
.
.
Agenda Item NO.1 OE
October 12, 2010
Page 15 of 25
The business center has not and will not provide any rate information a$ theyretClte9 to .
Public Utilities, Rather, it is the procedure of this department to refer the customer to
those who are responsible for rate information.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Considering Ms. Denard has been in the same business for quite a long time, I decided
to expand my research to the present location of her business, She is currently
operating the exact same type of business and I wanted to find out what water/sewer
impact fees where paid back in 2008.
I found the exact same process was followed in 2008 when she relocated her business
from Davis Boulevard to 4344 Enterprise Avenue, Suite #0, Naples, Florida,
Basically, two (2) building permit applications were processed, one for the LP gas tanks
and one for the installation of a water line for a commercial washer and gas water
heater. On April 16th, 2008, building permit No. 2008041158 was issued for the
installation of a new commercial washing machine. For unknown reason, the building
permit was not routed to Public Utilities for review even though the attached drawing
indicated one washing machine and two (2) "future" machines.
I sent the building permit information to Gilbert Moncivaiz for his review. On August 6th,
2010, Gilbert confirmed that impact fees in the amount of $22,334.34 plus an AFPI fee
of $1 ,089.72 for a total of $23,424.06, should have been collected with this permit.
Attachment E
Agenda Item NO.1 OE
October 12,2010
Page 16 of 25
Collier County Public Utilities Water-Sewer District - Effect of Impact Fee waiver for
Change of Use
I, The Collier County Water-Sewer District has organized its financial program based on a
five (5) year operating, capital, and debt service funding cycle for user rates and ten (10)
year eapital and debt service for the impact fees. In a revenue centric environment when
a Pay as You Go doctrine is adhered to, an inherent assumption regarding eollection of
rates and fees is made. It simply says: "He Who Benefits Pays". Any deviation to this
principle will have a direet impact on the financial sustainability; setting of rates and fees,
both in fairness and timing,
2, The bond holders of the water-sewer bonds were communieated to at the time of bond
issuance that the District will assess and collect all charges and fees in a timely manner.
Any deviation from this may be construed as a potential impairment to the financial
viability and or the willingness/ability ofthe District to comply with the spirit of the bond
pledge document.
3. All State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans issued by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) require impact fee as a pledge (Section 1.01 of the
agreement)
4. The Special Act Chapter 2003-353:
Provides: "... prohibiting free water and free sewer service; providing for impaet fees..."
(opening paragraph of the Special Act) ,
Provides: ",.. no free water or sewer services shall be rendered by the District and no
discrimination shall exist in the fees, rates, and charges for users of the same class ..." (Section
17 of the Special Act)
Provides: "... the Board, in its discretion, by ordinance may permit the owners of buildings,
structures, or land uses which connect to the District's system to pay the impact fees on an
installment basis with interest. (Seetion 18, item 2 of the Special Act)
Also, in the Official Statement (OS) ofthe 2006 Collier County Water-Sewer Distriet Revenue
Bonds (and all preceding bond issues), the following statement is attested: "... The principle of,
premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be secured by a pledge of and lien upon (i) the
Net Revenues to be derived from the operation of the System, (ii) System development Fees
(hnpaet Fees), (iii) the proceeds from any and all assessments..." (OS, section: SECURITY
FOR THE BONDS, General; page 9 of the doeument).
As a result, ifimpaet fees for change of use are waived for a customer, the amount will have to
be recovered from the existing users thus deviating from the "He Who Benefits Pays" principle,
Attachment E
Agenda Item No. 10E
October 12, 2010
Page 17 of 25
5. Waiving of change of use impact fees now will result in a shortfall in eost recovery of
capital expenditures and further constrain the ability to meet debt payments for growth
projects already expended. Continuing to transfer the cost to the users could result in rate
increases. Alternatively, if the fee is waived it could result in an inerease in impaet fee in
future years or increase the debt to provide funding to offset the shortfalls in impact fee
and or rate revenue, The waiver of impact fees has a double negative effect on the
customers of the CCWSD. First, as noted, the customers are forced to absorb the cost of
the waived water and sewer impact fees in their user rates. Second, as taxpayers, they are
foreed to absorb the cost of the all waived impact fees in the fonn of higher ad valorem
taxes,
6, Financial Impact of waivers: If the Board had waiyed the change of use water and sewer
impact fee in FY 09 and FY 10, it would have resulted in a decrease of approximately
$1.7 million in CCWSD impact fee collection for the fiscal years 2010 and 2010.
Transferring the loss of impaet fee to the users would have resulted in a rate increase of
approximately 1.5%. In addition, it would have reduced the debt service coverage ratio
on an all-in basis by approximately 8%.
The rating ageneies not only monitor the actual debt coverage ratio, but also the trend and the
willingness and the ability of decision makers to change the rates to fully recover the eost. A
downward trend in these benchmark ratios will contribute to downgrading of the utility bond
ratings. Best Management Practices considered by Fitch for a good eredit rating include, but are
not limited to:
]. Long-tenn integrated financial forecasting that considers future growth in demand,
expected rate increases, regulations, and infrastructure renovation and renewal needs.
2. Polieies to ensure appropriate finaneial margins, including debt serviee coverage and
operating liquidity levels.
3, Limited operating exposure to growth-sensitive revenues, such as tap, connection, or
impact fees.
4. Collection polieies that regularly track the rate of timely payment reeeipts and enforce
penalties against late payers or tenninate service for nonpayment.
5. Willingness of political leaders to adjust rates when necessary.
6. Limited exposure to financial operations of the general government, so that system
revenues can be relied on for use to operate and improve the utility. For transfers to the
general fund, policies that specifically limit their scope and growth are favorable.
Agenda Item NO.1 OE
October 12. 2010
Page 18 of25
Attachment F
Fiscal Year Impact Fee Revenue - Change of Use
Fiscal Year 2009
October $367,297,76 $165,931.16 $533,228.92
November $257,199.12 $62,299.82 $319,498,94
December $241,009.43 $81,605,44 $322,614.87
January $231,492.11 $99,659.00 $331,151.11
February $312,638.28 $336,233.50 $648,871.78
March $227,077.76 $39,258.50 $266,336.26
April $548,760.00 $93,324.00 $642,084.00
May $333,226.38 $89,693.58 $422,919.96
June $726,326.68 $58,011.50 $784,338.18
July $384,340.00 $333,418.12 $717,758,12
August $340,435.50 $18,844.50 $359,280.00
September $331,614.50 $23,203,00 $354,817.50
New Meters Existing Meters
Total
Subtotal
$4,301,417.52 $1,401,482.12
-$198,528.00 minus residential payments
$1,202,954.12 IChange of Use Total
Grand Total
$5,702,899.64
Fiscal Year 2010
October $313,747.50 $172,226.00 $485,973.50
November $215,379.50 $6,175.00 $221,554.50
December $519,361.40 $197,309.00 $716,670.40
January $416,183.50 $172,542.50 $588,726.00
February $511,285.50 $145,845.00 $657,130.50
March $488,412.00 $129,099.00 $617,511.00
April $515,317.00 $71,832.00 $587,149.00
May $752,291.00 $191,318.00 $943,609.00
June $504,793.50 $18,886.00 $523,679.50
$506,263.50 $55,571.00 $561,834.50 .
July
August $426,222.00 $14,847.00 $441,069.00
September $470,000.00 $30,000.00 $500,000.00
New Meters Existing Meters
Total
Subtotal
$5,639,256.40 $1,205,650.50
$ (714,222.00) minus residential payments
I $491,428.50 IChange of Use Total
Grand Total
$6,844,906.90
Page 1 of 1
10/4/2010
Agenda Item No.1 OE
October 12, 2010
Agenda9llfffi fIJil.of 00;
February 24, 2009
Page 1 of 7
.
-- Attachment G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provide
direction to the County Attorney and the County Manager, or his designee,
related to the option to change the requirements for the assessment of
impact fees for changes of use in existing buildings
OBJECTIVE: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (Board)
provide direction to tbe County Attorney and the County Manager, or his designee,
related to tbe option to change tbe requirements for the assessment of impact fees for
cbanges of use in existing buildings.
CONSIDERATIONS: On Deeember 3, 2008, during the regular meeting of the Board
of County Commissioners, the Board directed staff tD develDp an optiDn, fDr
consideratiDn by the Board, for a change in the current requirements fDr the assessment of
impact fees for changes of use within existing buildings. The current regulatiDns are set
forth in Section 74-201 (c) Dfthe CDllier County CDde of Laws and Ordinances (Code),
which is the CDllier CDunty CDnsolidated lmpact Fee Ordinance, whicb states:
.
(c)
Change of size or use. Impactfees shall be imposed and calculatedfor net
increase, alteration, expansion, or replacement of a use or a building, or
part of a building (including dwelling unit), and each accessory or non-
accessory building, provided such net increase, alteration, expansion or
replacement of the use, building, or part thereof or therein, by applying
this chapter results in __ (I) a net increase in the number of dwelling units;
(2) a net increase in the size or square footage of a building; (3) a net
increase in the size of the use; or (4) intensification of the use as to
constitute an expansion of the same use category or result in a change to a
higher impact fee land use category; or (5) otherwise create additional
demand or additional impacts on any of the public facilities.
Staff reviews and assesses impact fees for changes Df use via the review of all
applicatiDns for Zoning CertificateslBusiness Tax Receipts and Development Orders
(Building Permits, Site Plans, Site Plan Amendments, etc.) In Drder to assess impact fees
for a change of use, first the lawfully existing land use must be determined. Staff
researches infDrmation provided by applicant, si te plans, building permits, Property
Appraiser's records, etc, in order to make this determination. The impact fees are then
calculated for the existing use based on current rates.
.
The impact fees are then calculated for the proposed new use, If the development
contemplates a land use that is of a higher intensity use and therefore creates additional
impacts on public facilities, impact fees are required tD be assessed fDr the net increase in
demand. Therefore, the impact fees are assessed by applying the impact fees that are
calculated for the existing use against the impact fees that are calculated for the new use.
.
Agenda Item No.1 OE
October 12, 2010
AgendaPf!l~~ riPll<;
February 24,~21j0'9-
Page 2 of 7
The additional impact fees assessed for some of the most common changes of use,
calculated using current rates are as follows below, This amount does not include water
and sewer impact fees, as those assessments are calculated based on information that is
location and demand specific.
General Industrial to General Office
General Industrial to Retail
General Office to Medical Office
Retail to Medical Office
Retail to High Turnover Restaurant
$11. 77 per square foot
$11.18 per square foot
$27.60 per square foot
$29.49 per square foot
$57.52 per square foot
Based on the direction of the Board, the scope of the recommendation is limited to
commercial uses and the requirements for assessment for "intensification of the use" or
changes that "otherwise create additional demand or additional impacts on any of the
public facilities." Staff has reviewed this matter with the County Attorney and has
developed the following for consideration:
Proe:ram:
~
Elie:ibili!\':
Limitations:
Applicable
TV1>es oflmpact
Fees:
Impact Fee Program for Existing Commercial
Redevelopment
Commercial buildings that have had a Certificate of
Occupancy for a minimum of 5 years, The building must
have been permitted and paid the then applicable impact
fees.
Program is limited to changes within existing commercial
buildings, for example tenant build-outs, tenant
improvements, etc. Additions to existing buildings and
demolition/replacement of buildings will not be eligible for
this Program
Applicable to all impact fees (excluding water-sewer)
assessed for commercial changes of use, based on land use.
This typically consists of Transportation, EMS,
Government Buildings, Law Enforcement and Jail. These
provisions will not apply to assessments for Water and
Sewer Impact Fees as those assessments are based on both
the review of available capacity for the existing building as
well as the demand generated by the change of use. The
exemption of the Water and Sewer Impact from this
Program is discussed further in the Fiscal Impact section.
.
Agenda Item NO.1 OE
Agen~~t~~ ?$dg
February24', '2809
Page 3 of 7
.
Lenl!th of Proe:ram: Initial term of Program two (2) years from adoption date,
with a report to the Board on the usage of the Program prior
to the sunset date. The Board could then elect to extend the
Program or allow it to sunset.
The above represents the consensus opinion of staff and the County Attorney for the
development of this Program; however, staff will modify the Program in aecordance with
the Board's direction. Upon such direction being provided, staff will work with the
County Attorney to prepare the necessary amendments to the Code for consideration by
the Board, as an advertised public hearing, at a future, regularly scheduled meeting of the
Board of County Commissioners.
The following is an example of the language that could be added to the Code in order to
facilitate the creation of this Program:
Section 74-20]. Imposition of impact fees.
...
(c) Change of size or use.
...
.
(5) Imoact Fee Prof!ram for Existinp Commercial Redevelooment. Prooosed
develooments which meet the criteria set forth below. shall not be assessed
additional imoact fees related to chanr:es of use within the existinr: buildinr:s,
excelJ/ for water and wastewater imoact fee assessments which are exemot tram
this orOf!ram. This IJrOf!ram will official/v sunset two years trom the date of
adootion unless continued bv a resolution of the Board of County Commissioners
orior to this date.
a. Develooment is orooosed wilhin a lawfully existinr: buildim? which has
had a Certificate of Occuoancy issued for at least 5 vears orior to the
commencement of this oror:ram. Imoact fees for the existinr: buildinr: must
have been oaid the then aoolicable imoact fees at time of construction;
and
b. Prooosed develooment is sole/v wilhin the existinp buildinp and does
not include the addition of any new square footape.
c. Demolition and reconstruction oro/ects are not elipible for this
orOf!ram.
.
FISCAL IMPACT: If the Board of County Commissioners elects to implement this
Program, the fiscal impact to the County would be the loss of this prospective income to
the impact fee trust funds for the change of use where there is a net increase in use, As
described above, this amount ranges from approximately an additional $11-$57 per
square foot, excluding any applicable water and sewer impact fees. This assessment for
the change of use is in addition to the impact fees that were paid when the building was
Agenda Item No. 10E
October 12, 2010
Agenda ~ 1J!l~5
Februar124,2009
Page 4 of 7
.
originally constructed, It should be noted, however, that the majority of the customer
inquiries related to changes of use that have been handled by staff over the past year have
resulted in the prospective tenant seeking out tenant spaces in which the impact fees have
been paid for a use similar to the type they are proposing, and therefore the payment of
additional impact fees is not required, or the tenant has elected not to move forward with
the proposed use, Based on this trend, the fiscal impact for implementing this Program,
except for Water and Sewer Impact Fees, is minima],
Related to Water and Sewer Impact Fees, The County Attorney's Office has previously
opined that Water and Sewer Impact Fees should be precluded from unfunded waivers,
deferrals, exemptions, etc, due to the nature and limitations of the funding sources
available to the Collier County Water and Sewer District (District), In order for the
District to remove the requirement to assess impact fees, the revenue loss must be
covered by the rate payers within the District, as the District does not receive additional
ad valorem funding, This policy creates a disproportionate burden on the rate payers of
the District Based on these circumstances, staff recommends that the Board exempt the
District from participation in the proposed "Impact Fee Program for Existing Commercial
Redevelopment"
....J
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Impact Fees generate funds to be expended
for capital improvements to public facilities necessitated by growth which is consistent
with Policy 2 of the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of the Collier County Growth
Management Plan (GMP), which states: "Future development will bear a proportionate
cost of facility improvements necessitated by growth. "
Although the proposed Program limits the additional impact fees that will be assessed for
changes of use, despite the intensification of use and demand on public facilities, this
type of program for redevelopment is consistent with Policy 3,]2 of the Economic
Element of the GMP which states: "Collier County, in coordination with other
appropriate entities, will supp011 the establishment and retention of small businesses
throughout the County. "
Additionally, this proposal does not in any way negate or waive existing zoning laws,
Any relocation of a new or existing business into an existing facility generates the need
for a Zoning Certificate from the Zoning Department and the subsequent issuing of a
Business Tax Receipt from the Collier County Tax Collector. Staff, through issuing the
Zoning Certificate, verifies that the new business location is properly zoned to allow for
the business to legally operate at a new location, Additionally, prior to issuing a Zoning
Certificate, staff inspects the proposed business location to ensure that the site provides
the required number of parking spaces and meets the minimum landscape code
requirements,
If the new business location is not loeated within a zoning district that permits the
proposed use, the zoning certificate is denied and the business owner is directed to
consider other areas within the County that are appropriately zoned for the proposed use,
.
.
.
~-----._._-'"-_._--~ .,~.__.
Agenda Item NO.1 OE
October 12,2010
Agenda 1~~Q31~El25
February 24, 2009
Page 5 of 7
In the alternative, the applicant is advised of the option to seek to rezone the property to a
zoning district that would allow the proposed commercial use. All rezoning applications
fIrst have to be found consistent with the applicable elements of the Collier County
Growth Management Plan (GMP) as well as found to be compatible with the adjacent
land uses. If deemed inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the applicant would have
to seek an amendment to the GMP.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The County Attorney worked with staff in the design of
this proposal, which is legally sufficient for Board action. This is a regular item requiring
simple majority vote. -JAK
RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
provide direction to the County Attorney and the County Manager, or his designee,
related to the option to change the requirements for the assessment of impact fees for
changes of use in existing buildings and in accordance with that guidance, direct that the
County Attorney and the County Manager, or his designee, prepare the necessary
amendments to Chapter 74 of tbe Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The
Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance) for consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners at a future regular meeting.
Prepared by: Amy Patterson, Impact Fee and Economic Development Manager
Business Management and Budget Office, CDES
.
Item Number:
Item Summary:
Meeting Date:
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF CO~NTY COMMISSIONERS
10B
Age~~~~~~{t'26?16
Agenda f!l!lffiil'n "p~
Februar)i 24,'2009
Page 6 of 7
This Item to be ~leard a110:30 a.m. Recommendahon lhat the Board of County
Commissioners provide directIon 10 [he County Attorney and the County ManF.lger, or his
designee. related to the option to change the requirements for the assessment of Impact fees
for changes of use in existing buildings. (Amy Patterson. Impact Fee and Economic
Development Manager, Business Management and Budget Office. COES)
2/24/20099:00;00 AM
Prepared By
Amy Patterson
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Impact Fee Manager
Date
Approved By
Joseph K. SchmItt
Community Development &
Environmental Services
FinancIal Admin. & Housing
2161200910;53:37 AM
Approved By
Nick Casalanguida
Transportation Services
.....J Approved By
Judy Puig
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Community Development &
Environmental Services Adminstrator
Date
Approved By
Norm E. Feder, AIC?
Transportation Services
Community Development &
Environmental Services Admin.
21612009 1:44 PM
Approved By
Thomas Wides
Public Utilities
MPO Director
Date
Approved By
James W. Delony
Public Utllfties
Transportation Planning
216/20093:06 PM
Approved By
Garrett Mullee
Community Development &
Environmental Sendees
Operations Analyst
Community Development &
Environmental Services Admin.
Date
216120093:45 PM
Approved By
Jeff KlatUow
County Attorney
Transportation Division Administrator
Date
Approved By
Transportation Services Admin.
21912009 9:09 AM
file:I/C:\AgendaTest\Export\124-February%2024, %202009\10. %20COUNTY%20MANAG." 2/18/2009
Operations Director
Public Utilities Operations
Date
2/91200911:49 AM
Public Utilities Administrator
Date
Public Utilities Administration
21912009 12:22 PM
Financial Operations Manager
Date
Financial Admin. & Housing
21912009 3:21 PM
Assistant County Attorney
County Attorney Office
Date
21912009 4:07 PM
.
.
.
OMS Coordinator
Agenda ~?tJ'<fJ f-~
OctobeP~t, ~tJto
Agenda ll!lffeNJ?; "Pl'lS
February 24,"2'(lO'9
Page 7 of7
OM!3 C(:)or.rli';!atoT_.:_
Office of Management & Budget
Date
County Manager's Office
2110/2009 2:32 PM
Approved By
Mark Isackson
Budget Analyst
Office of Management & Budget
Date
County Manager's Office
2111/200910:34 AM
Approved By
James V. Mudd
County Manager
Date
Board of County
Commissioners
County Manager's Office
2117/200912:59 PM
tile://C:\AgendaTest\Exportll 24-February%2024,%20200911 O. %20COUNTY%20MANAO... 2/18/2009